The board’s deliberation on Buffy’s Ice Cream’s request was intense. The variance was sought due to the unique shape of the property, which imposed substantial hardship on the business’s operations. The proposed outdoor freezer was necessary to replace and increase refrigeration capacity for the growing business, which included the Chatham Ice Cream Bars brand. The applicant, Mitch Rogers, and his attorney, Eliza Cox, argued that alternative locations for the freezer, such as inside the building or in the outdoor seating area, would require Hardscape reconstruction and detract from the business’s effective operation. The board considered support from neighboring businesses and correspondence from town officials, including the Health Department and the Historical Business District Commission, which expressed no objections to the proposed changes.

The discussion also touched on concerns about noise levels from the new equipment. The petitioner assured the board that modern compressors would run quietly and efficiently, as had been the case with a recent replacement. Despite the detailed questions from the board about the necessity of the freezer and potential alternatives, the petitioner made a case for the hardship this variance would address.

In addition to the freezer, the proposal included the construction of a deck and an 8-foot tall fence. The deck was particularly contentious as the board and the building commissioner discussed whether it had been constructed without a permit and if it could support the freezer. The applicant contended that a poured concrete pad would be less functional and more hazardous in winter conditions, whereas a board member was concerned about the visual impact of the deck and freezer on the area. Despite these reservations, the board ultimately voted unanimously to approve the application for the freezer and the deck, setting conditions for the deck’s construction.

Another focal point of the meeting was the application for a special permit and dimensional variance for a property aiming to demolish an existing structure and build a new dwelling. This case highlighted the challenges of updating properties within older, established neighborhoods while adhering to modern zoning requirements. The applicant’s representative, a professional engineer, stressed the need for one-level living and the property’s unique shape and topography, which complicated adherence to the 15% building coverage requirement in the R20 zoning district. The proposal exceeded this by 3.3%, prompting the board to question the accuracy of the lot size and the proposed building footprint, and the feasibility of renovating the property given the existing foundation and framing.

Despite the applicant’s assertion that the variance would not harm the public good, board members were hesitant to approve the variance. They considered whether the hardship was self-generated and the potential implications for future requests. After deliberation, the applicant chose to withdraw the special permit request without prejudice, a decision granted by the board.

The board also entertained a proposal from William F. Riley Esquire for the enlargement of a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot on Scattery Road. The property had been in the family for over 200 years, and the proposed construction intended to respect and improve upon existing setbacks while addressing stormwater runoff. Despite the historical significance of the property and the modest size of the structure relative to neighboring properties, concerns were raised about the increase in non-conformity and the project’s suitability.

The meeting concluded with the board addressing a request to withdraw an application for another residential building that had been opposed due to its size and the impact on the neighborhood’s character. The board voted unanimously to allow the withdrawal without prejudice.