The Crocos’ application, which required a use variance due to zoning regulations prohibiting the conversion of non-dwelling structures into living spaces, plans to transform an existing garage into a one-bedroom apartment. The intent was to accommodate Charles Croco’s brother, who, while self-sufficient, experiences difficulties with boundaries and social interactions. The Crocos emphasized their commitment to maintaining the property as a family home, with Charles Croco asserting, “we’re never moving, we’re never selling,” to alleviate concerns about future rental use.

Despite these assurances, board members expressed reservations. One member articulated a history of applicants failing to adhere to initial agreements, stating, “We’ve been burned so many times in my 10 plus years here,” reflecting skepticism about verbal commitments without enforceable conditions. The board discussed the possibility of imposing restrictions to prevent future rental use but acknowledged the legal and practical challenges of enforcing such conditions. The debate underscored a tension between respecting property rights and safeguarding community zoning standards.

The Crocos presented a comprehensive application packet, including photographs and descriptions of the intended modifications, which would not alter the exterior structure but convert the interior of the garage into an apartment. The structure’s existing variances, such as height and lot coverage, were noted, with the architect explaining that while the garage’s height exceeded allowable limits, no changes were proposed to worsen the situation. The building’s proximity to the rear property line also presented a non-conformity issue.

In light of these complexities, the board grappled with ensuring future compliance while addressing the Crocos’ immediate needs. Discussions touched upon legal constraints and the board’s responsibilities in assessing variances, ultimately concluding without a clear resolution on handling potential future use of the property.

Another topic concerned a property on Main Street, where renovations and potential expansions were proposed. The meeting included a motion to delay the application’s review, allowing time for new plans to be submitted. This application delved into square footage calculations and the implications of adding a second floor to an existing structure. Board members scrutinized the architectural plans. The proposal included relocating a curb cut to create additional parking spaces, though concerns were raised about the non-conforming nature of these spots due to their front yard placement.

The board emphasized the importance of accurate calculations and compliance with zoning ordinances, prompting a request for post-construction certification to confirm adherence to approved plans. Public comments were solicited, and the board reiterated the necessity of precise documentation moving forward.

A separate discussion involved significant modifications to a residential property, including converting a one-bedroom house into a two-bedroom residence. The applicant plans to add a second floor while maintaining the existing footprint. The proposal also included relocating a curb cut to enhance parking availability, though this led to a debate over the non-conforming status of the proposed parking spots.

The board scrutinized the plans, particularly in relation to zoning compliance, and highlighted the need for an engineering study to assess the foundation’s capacity to support the new structure. The meeting ended with a call for the applicant to return with clarified plans, ensuring that all concerns, especially regarding parking and architectural alignment, were addressed.

Finally, the board addressed a clerical error in the lot size calculation for another application, necessitating a postponement and re-notification due to significant discrepancies.