Eileen Welsh, the homeowner on Northshore Drive, approached the board seeking relief for side yard setback variances for her already constructed deck. Welsh explained the reconstruction of the wobbly existing deck, emphasizing that it was built to the same size and location as the original. The contractor, she stated, was responsible for securing all approvals, but confusion arose due to discrepancies with the existing survey and permits. Welsh defended the need for variances by citing the unique topography of her property and the lack of impact on neighboring properties, as the deck was not visible from the street and sat above a floor with an entrance above the garage.

While some members sympathized with Welsh’s situation, others raised concerns about the importance of regulation compliance and the possible implications of granting variances post-construction. No public questions or comments were noted following Welsh’s presentation.

In a related matter, the board also deliberated on an application from Mr. Pac for a floor area ratio variance on Hancock Avenue. The variance was required to construct an addition to accommodate a first-floor bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen with handicap access due to Mr. Pac’s wife’s medical condition. Mr. Pac detailed steps taken to alleviate drainage issues in his backyard, including the installation of catch basins and a drainage pipe which successfully channeled stormwater into the storm sewer without affecting neighboring properties. The board engaged in inquiries about the placement of these structures and the applicant’s intention to secure a lot grading permit, as noted in the provided engineering and planning memo.

Further complexities were addressed by Mr. Eric Trepal, a licensed architect, who represented another homeowner seeking to construct a one-story accessible addition for a spouse with a degenerative disease. The proposed addition was designed with accessibility in mind, featuring a ramp, deck, and larger kitchen suitable for wheelchair use. Despite meeting setbacks and lot coverage requirements, the undersized lot necessitated a variance for floor area ratio. Trepal, along with Ms. M McManis, a licensed planner, discussed the technical and planning justifications for the variance. The board accepted McManis’s expert testimony on land use planning, which included an analysis of the aerial photograph exhibit. The board also considered the inclusion of unfinished basement space in the floor area ratio calculation and suggested the need for ordinance clarification.

During the meeting, the board acknowledged the challenges of including unfinished spaces in floor area ratio calculations and the potential for future finishing, which could affect the home’s compliance. Discussions touched on minor details such as stormwater management, the potential removal of trees, and adherence to construction mitigation measures.