The most contentious application was for a property on Barcliff Avenue. The proposal involved demolishing an existing detached garage, installing a new foundation, and constructing additions to enlarge a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot. The property owner, represented by Jamie Norcross, aimed to maintain the historical integrity of the structure while accommodating modern needs. The proposed addition was located 23.8 feet from Mousehole Lane, where a 40-foot setback is required, and the current building coverage was noted to be 2,500 square feet, with the proposed coverage being 2,469 square feet, staying within the maximum allowed of 3,000 square feet.

Norcross highlighted the importance of maintaining the existing historical structure. The board previously raised concerns over the gross floor area, which would increase to 6,100 square feet from the current size, with 1,700 square feet designated to the basement. Norcross argued that the structure’s size is proportionate to the property and consistent with neighboring homes, noting that the proposed building height would be 24 feet, lower than several neighboring properties.

However, the proposal faced significant opposition from residents, particularly those on Mousehole Lane. Diane Rowlings, a year-round resident, raised concerns about the project’s scale, stating that the proposed building seemed excessively large for the area and would disrupt the charming character of the neighborhood. She also highlighted safety issues with the use of Mousehole Lane, which is only 10 feet wide, for vehicular access, arguing that it would create hazards, especially with multiple vehicles needing to back out. Charlene Gigley echoed these concerns, emphasizing that the increased number of vehicles would create unsafe conditions and suggesting relocating the driveway to alleviate the safety concerns.

Attorney Bill Lichfield, representing another concerned party, criticized the lack of changes made to the proposed plans since earlier meetings. He argued that the design did not meet the criteria for a special permit, emphasizing that the mass of the house would substantially impact the streetscape and neighborhood character.

In response, the applicant’s attorney asserted that the access from Mousehole Lane was an existing condition, stating that the garage had been in place since 1981. The board members engaged with the applicant’s attorney, exploring whether the design could be adjusted to alleviate some of the concerns raised. Ultimately, the applicant requested to withdraw the application without prejudice. The board allowed the withdrawal, enabling the applicant to return with a more responsive proposal in the future.

The board also discussed an application for a project on Trout Pond Lane, where Robert Pitris presented plans to change and expand a non-conforming dwelling. Despite the existing non-conformities, the proposed additions would comply with the bulk and dimensional requirements stipulated in local bylaws. The proposed additions included an 18 by 20-foot family room and a second-floor area consisting of a bedroom, a full bath, and an office space. The board received no objections from the public, and the application was unanimously approved.

Another approved application involved a property on Ponnut Road, where attorney Bill Lichfield represented the applicants, Sarah and Spencer Driscoll, in their plan to alter and expand a non-conforming dwelling. The proposed addition of a larger first-floor bedroom would comply with all necessary bulk and dimensional requirements. The board expressed minimal concerns, and the application received unanimous approval.

The board also deliberated on a controversial project on Marsh View Road, which involved the demolition and reconstruction of a dwelling on a non-conforming lot. The existing dwelling’s coverage was noted to be 7.5%, while the proposed coverage is 14%, just under the maximum allowable. The representative addressed concerns about the adequacy of the site, particularly in relation to the elevation of the lot above street level. Despite some opposition, the board members ultimately supported the project, noting its compatibility with the neighborhood.

Additionally, the board considered an application for a special permit to construct an elevated stairway and landings on an access easement on Shore Road. The project aimed to address safety concerns due to significant erosion, providing safe access for pedestrians while considering environmental impacts. However, attorney Bill Lichfield raised concerns about the application’s compliance with zoning bylaws. The board decided to postpone the application to a later date for further examination by the building department.