The proposal for a property on Seist Lane involved elevating and renovating an existing home to improve accessibility and create a visually appealing structure. The design aimed to raise the house to street level, providing legal parking for two cars off the roadway and facilitating the construction of a basement. The architect emphasized that the new design would present as a one-and-a-half-story home from the street, despite the elevation changes. However, the current structure’s non-conformance, particularly its 14-foot setback where 15 feet is required, posed challenges. Despite suggestions to relocate the building, the trustees preferred its existing location, meaning the non-conformity would remain.

This proposal sparked significant objections from residents concerned about the project’s impact on their views and the neighborhood’s character. Ronald Marino, a resident of Seist Lane, voiced strong opposition, describing the proposed structure as “monumental” and likening it to a “giant water tower.” He noted that the elevation would obstruct views of Nantucket Sound and expressed concern about the potential for the house to be flipped for profit, which he feared could undermine community cohesion.

Ross Marino, another resident, echoed these sentiments, citing the potential loss of afternoon sunlight and outdoor enjoyment due to the proposed height. He pointed out that existing homes had not been raised to the proposed grade and questioned the need for such elevation changes, particularly given the neighborhood’s flooding issues. The residents emphasized their long-standing ties to the area.

In response, a representative of the project acknowledged residents’ concerns but maintained that the proposed changes were reasonable, noting that the foundation would only be raised by two feet. The representative referenced a Supreme Court case, arguing that neighborhood views were protected under local bylaws, not individual property owners’ views.

The board’s discussion centered on the proposed structure’s height, with members questioning the difference between the current and designed ridge heights. Concerns about the design’s visual bulk and its impact on neighborhood aesthetics were prominent, with board members considering the use of vegetative screening to mitigate visual impacts.

The debate shifted to a letter from the condominium trustees, which highlighted procedural issues that could affect the project’s approval. The zoning board emphasized that their decisions would not interfere with condominium association rights, asserting that construction would not proceed without the trustees’ approval.

The Seist Lane proposal underscored broader community tensions related to development and preservation, with the board balancing practical needs like parking with maintaining aesthetic harmony. The board ultimately decided to continue the discussion to allow for further consideration of these issues.

In addition to the Seist Lane proposal, the meeting addressed several other applications, including a project on Old Mail Road. This application involved replacing a “dilapidated” house with a larger structure, sparking mixed reactions among residents. The proposed home, designed with traditional elements like cedar shingle siding, aimed to fit the neighborhood despite its increased size.

Supporters, including neighbors Ann and Sean Rosi, praised the design’s responsiveness to previous feedback and its potential to enhance the area. However, critics like Jacqueline Crims argued that the new dwelling would be “detrimental” and incompatible with the neighborhood’s character, citing its substantial increase in floor area and height.

Board members raised technical concerns about the proposal, including discrepancies in area calculations and the visual impact of the structure’s design. The design team explained that the current proposal was their third attempt, following rejections of previous iterations due to steep driveways and retaining walls.

The board’s deliberations highlighted the importance of community feedback in shaping development outcomes, with a focus on integrating new structures into existing streetscapes. While the Old Mail Road proposal garnered significant support, board members emphasized the need for further refinement to address technical and aesthetic concerns.