The most contentious topic revolved around a proposal to modify a residential property by converting a rear cottage into a garage. This plan required discussion due to the property’s nonconforming status, as it currently houses two dwelling units on a lot where zoning regulations permit only one. The proposal aimed to align with zoning requirements by eliminating the second dwelling and replacing it with a garage, a decision that necessitated a variance. The board deliberated on the technicalities, such as the cottage’s proximity to the property line and its impact on the surrounding area. The applicants proposed modifications to the existing structure, which included removing a kitchen and bathroom to ensure it could no longer function as a separate dwelling.

Board members expressed varying levels of concern about the proposal’s implications. Some were hesitant to set a precedent for similar future applications, while others focused on the need to balance property owners’ desires with community standards. The board’s legal advisor highlighted the criteria for use variances, stressing the necessity for applicants to prove that their changes would not harm the public good.

The board’s discussion also included a proposal for a pool installation at a different property on 3rd Avenue. This application sought to legalize a pre-existing non-conforming use of the property due to the presence of two dwelling units. The applicant’s team presented plans to reduce lot coverage to conforming levels by replacing existing pavement with permeable pavers. While board members appreciated these efforts, they insisted on maintaining the focus on the pool and not the legal status of the rear cottage.

Additionally, the meeting featured a proposal by Lisa and John Cronin to add a sunroom to their home on C Street. The sunroom was intended to provide accessible living space for a family member with mobility issues. The application necessitated a rear yard setback variance due to the lot’s unique dimensions. The Cronins’ representatives argued that the addition would not disrupt neighborhood character, as similar conditions exist nearby.

Further discussions touched on the proposal to expand a single-family home on an undersized lot. This application involved extending the second floor and making aesthetic improvements while maintaining the existing footprint. The applicants emphasized the need to create more functional living space without increasing the building’s coverage or altering the neighborhood’s character.

The debate centered on ensuring that any modifications aligned with community aesthetics and zoning regulations. The board members highlighted the importance of accurate calculations and adherence to regulations to avoid setting precedents that might lead to excessive deviations from established zoning laws.