The application for the property on Norcross Circle, presented by attorney Bill Lichfield on behalf of the Hillard family, sought a special permit to construct a garage addition to the existing house. The proposal aimed to increase the building coverage from 17.1% to 20.8%, exceeding the 15% maximum allowed in the R20 zoning district. The Hillard family justified the addition as essential for their living needs, given the absence of a garage in the current structure. Lichfield highlighted the lot’s non-conformity due to its size of 9,960 square feet, which is less than the required 20,000 square feet, thus necessitating a special permit under Massachusetts law.

The board received mixed feedback from neighbors. Letters of support came from several residents, including Joshua Baker and the Fera family, who praised the Hillards as responsible neighbors and endorsed the garage addition. However, concerns were raised by Christopher and Elizabeth Goram about the increased lot coverage and the potential shadowing effect from the proposed structure. They recommended maintaining a lower roof height to ensure neighborhood consistency and suggested replicating the existing permeable driveway to address potential water runoff issues.

During the meeting, board members expressed varying opinions on the proposed addition. Concerns centered on the height and massing of the new structure, with some members advocating for a design that would harmonize with the existing neighborhood aesthetic. It was noted that the design had undergone several revisions in response to neighbor concerns, with the latest proposal featuring a reduced roof height.

The board engaged in thorough deliberations, balancing the benefits of the additional living space against the potential impact on neighborhood character and aesthetics. They considered the applicant’s willingness to adjust the design, including lowering the ridge height and potentially incorporating dormers. Ultimately, the board approved the proposal based on a revised design with a specific roof pitch change.

Another topic during the meeting was the application for a property on Barcliff Avenue. The proposal involved demolishing an existing non-conforming dwelling and constructing a new one. The new structure aimed to adhere to dimensional requirements, although it was classified as a substantial alteration under local bylaws. The attorney representing the property highlighted the historical non-conforming status of the lot due to a lack of street frontage. They argued that the new construction would be compatible with neighboring properties and emphasized the plan to maintain a substantial vegetative buffer to mitigate visual impact.

Public comments on this application included support from a local resident and concerns from neighbors Pamela and John King II, who raised issues regarding access to the property via a narrow, poorly maintained road. They questioned the adequacy of access for construction vehicles and sought assurances that proper drainage and stormwater management would be addressed post-construction.

In response to these concerns, the applicant’s representative committed to planting additional vegetation as needed and ensuring construction vehicles would be parked on-site to minimize disruption to neighboring properties. The board acknowledged the challenges posed by the narrow access road and debated the project’s compatibility with neighborhood aesthetics. Ultimately, the board allowed the applicant to withdraw the proposal without prejudice, providing an opportunity to address the raised concerns and potentially resubmit the application.

The meeting also covered other applications, including a proposal for a property on Fox Hill Road that involved adding a deck and addressing setback requirements. The board emphasized the importance of adhering to setback rules and suggested the applicants consider revising their plans to include a patio instead of a deck to mitigate privacy concerns and reduce opposition.