A notable discussion centered on the application for property modifications on Depole Road, which included the addition of an outdoor shower and deck. This proposal faced opposition from resident Teresa Redmond, who expressed privacy concerns due to the proposed location of the shower being closer to her front door. Redmond insisted on a privacy fence along the boundary line and requested no construction closer than 11.2 feet from her property. Despite the property owner’s representative assuring that the shower’s location had not changed, Redmond remained unconvinced, highlighting that the proposed shower was larger than the existing one, increasing from approximately 18 square feet to 42 square feet. The board deliberated extensively, considering privacy implications and the potential need for a privacy fence to address these concerns. Ultimately, the proposal was not approved, leading to the option of withdrawing the application without prejudice, allowing for future revisions that could address these issues.

Parallelly, the board evaluated a proposal for constructing stairs and a kayak rack at a property along Oyster River. The applicant, represented by Bill Lichfield of Minglewood Homes, sought to provide environmentally sensitive access to the river while maintaining the neighborhood’s character. The Conservation Commission had suggested modifications, such as making the lowest section of the stairs removable to mitigate erosion risks, a concern echoed by residents through letters opposing the project. The application was approved unanimously.

Additionally, the meeting addressed an application for a property on Strong Island Road, involving the enlargement of a non-conforming dwelling, including the addition of a swimming pool within a coastal Conservancy District. The board scrutinized the proposal’s compliance with floodplain regulations and its potential environmental impact, particularly concerning stormwater runoff. Despite assurances from the applicant regarding the design’s compatibility with the neighborhood and environmental considerations, the board insisted on further input from conservation authorities before making a decision. This led to the withdrawal of the application without prejudice, allowing for a more comprehensive proposal to be submitted later.

Another topic was the consideration of state law changes impacting accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The board discussed modifications to a property on Main Street, where the applicant sought to retain a kitchen and convert the structure into a protected ADU. This prompted discussions about recent state regulations that provide more flexibility in residential zoning, allowing for protected use ADUs without a special permit even in non-conforming structures. Board members expressed interest in understanding these changes and their implications on future applications, noting the need to amend local zoning bylaws accordingly.