12:34The case revolved around a request to convert a basement space into a living area for Richard Dela Solola’s elderly parents. Scott Adet, acting as the general contractor, presented the proposal to the board. The renovation required a special permit under section 9.2, as the proposed area exceeded the 750 square feet limit, reaching approximately 980 square feet. The board’s approval hinged on several factors, including the family’s long-term residency plans and the need to accommodate Richard’s aging parents.

15:44A significant portion of the discussion focused on the layout of the proposed living area. Board members were particularly concerned about the absence of shared spaces, which is typically required for extended family living areas. Although the garage entrance and other exits could potentially serve as shared spaces, the board ultimately determined that these did not fulfill the zoning bylaw’s requirements. However, the board was persuaded by the family-oriented nature of the arrangement and the practical considerations involved.

24:24The applicants initially misstated the renovation’s size, listing it as 1,152 square feet. Upon reevaluation, non-livable spaces such as the utility room and stairwell were excluded, resulting in a recalculated living area of 978 square feet. This figure still surpassed the zoning limit, but the board members were amenable to amending the application to reflect this revised measurement.

31:00Further deliberations addressed the implications of allowing such a project. Board members expressed varying opinions about whether the entrance to the living area could be classified as a common area. While it did not meet the traditional definition of shared space, members eventually agreed that it could be considered informally as one, which contributed to their decision to approve the application.

Concerns about setting a precedent for non-compliance with space limits were mitigated by the family’s circumstances and the historical context of the property. The board also discussed the potential for misunderstandings if the space were later rented to non-family members. The applicant assured that the intent was to maintain a family-oriented arrangement, alleviating these concerns.

The meeting culminated in a motion to grant the special permit, with stipulations ensuring the living area would not exceed 980 square feet and would not adversely affect neighboring properties. The board emphasized that the decision was made in consideration of the public good and the specific needs of the applicant’s family.