38:17A significant portion of the meeting was devoted to the variance request for properties on Columbia Street and Minor Avenue. The applicant’s representative, Greg Hina, outlined a plan to adjust property lines, resulting in a reduction of 10 Minor Avenue’s lot size from approximately 30,000 square feet to around 14,800 square feet. This change would increase the non-conformity of the property, presenting a substantial challenge to the board. Discussion revealed that the garage on Minor Avenue had historically been accessed through 8 Columbia Street, necessitating the request for a variance.

56:06Board members expressed reservations about granting such a variance due to the significant reduction in lot size. One member remarked on the difficulty of approving a variance that would halve the existing square footage, citing the substantial deviation from zoning requirements. The board explored alternatives, including the possibility of relocating the garage to maintain conformity, though the steep, narrow topography of the area was noted as a complicating factor. The conversation also touched on the potential for applying for a special permit instead, which might offer some relief from the variance process.

Attention was drawn to the town’s zoning bylaws, which dictate that pre-existing non-conforming lots cannot be made more non-conforming unless specific criteria are satisfied. In light of these stipulations, the board appeared cautious about setting precedents that could complicate future applications.

1:33:31Another prominent topic was the introduction of new ADU regulations, which replace the old Local Area Abatement (LAA) bylaws. The board discussed the implications of these changes, highlighting the necessity for clear documentation and adherence to zoning requirements. The new bylaws allow for detached ADUs and stipulate that property owners need not reside in either the primary residence or the ADU, provided that only one ADU is constructed by right. Additional units would require a special permit from the Board of Appeals. The discussion explored potential challenges, including how the new regulations would apply to properties with multiple frontages and non-conforming locations.

1:14:16The board also addressed the request to renew an expired Local Accessory Apartment permit for a property on Crosby Lane. With recent changes to ADU regulations, the board noted that the previous LAA approval did not meet the new standards. A motion to deny the renewal was unanimously supported, given the absence of recent testimony or communication from the applicants and the expiration of the application under the updated regulations.

1:52:42The meeting further included a review of procedural matters, such as adjustments to the board’s schedule to avoid conflicts with other town meetings. The board confirmed a summer recess in August and discussed potential scheduling conflicts in July. An error in previous meeting minutes was identified and corrected.

1:33:31As the meeting concluded, members expressed a commitment to adapting to the new ADU framework while maintaining rigorous standards for variance approvals. The board acknowledged the need for clear communication and thorough documentation to support its decisions, particularly in light of potential appeals and legal scrutiny.