A prominent topic of discussion involved PayMe LLC’s request for a dimensional variance for a roof overhang on Commerce Park North. The overhang, which was part of a previously approved construction project, extended only 0.1 feet from the property line, falling short of the required five-foot setback. Representatives from Wickham Building and Remodeling explained that the overhang was intended to complement the building’s aesthetics and functionality, serving a role for equipment storage needed to meet health regulations for the shellfish processing plant operating on the property. The board examined whether the literal enforcement of the bylaw would create a substantial hardship for the petitioner, with representatives arguing that altering the overhang to meet the variance would be costly and negatively impact the building’s appearance.

Board members expressed mixed views on whether the situation constituted a genuine hardship, noting the misalignment during construction. One member questioned the justification of the hardship, asking, “But what’s the hardship for the fact that you made it wrong?” In response, the representatives highlighted the financial and structural implications of modifying the existing overhang. Public input included support from a local resident, Brian Phillips, who advocated for the variance by emphasizing the importance of supporting local businesses. Nonetheless, the board remained cautious about the precedent that might be set by granting a variance stemming from construction errors. Ultimately, the applicant chose to withdraw the application without prejudice, acknowledging the board’s hesitancy to approve under the given circumstances.

Another application involved a proposal for a second-floor addition to an existing non-conforming dwelling. The applicant sought to add two en-suite bathrooms within the existing footprint. The presentation highlighted that the addition would maintain the neighborhood’s aesthetic and not negatively impact adjacent properties. The board, noting the absence of public objections and the health agent’s approval, expressed little concern over the proposal. Deliberations concluded with unanimous approval, recognizing the addition’s alignment with zoning requirements and neighborhood compatibility.

The board also tackled several other applications involving non-conforming dwellings. These included a proposal for a 10 by 15-foot addition that addressed existing setbacks and a request for alterations to a dwelling on Marsh View Road. The latter proposal aimed to expand living space without increasing the number of bedrooms, highlighting the family’s need for additional space within a neighborhood context. Similarly, board members focused on ensuring that such alterations did not exacerbate existing non-conformities or negatively affect neighborhood character.

Members navigated the complexities of maintaining neighborhood standards while considering the practical realities faced by applicants. The board’s careful deliberation on each application demonstrated a thorough approach to decision-making.