The primary focus of the meeting was the application by Interstate Property Management on behalf of Presa Abru LLC to place two storage containers for over 180 days on Andover Street. Originally, the application included a request for a contractor storage yard, but this was retracted before the meeting. Anthony Cogiano, representing the applicant, noted that the containers were for a landscaping contractor tenant and assured the board of improvements in property maintenance and relations with neighbors.

However, several issues were raised during the discussions, particularly regarding the property’s management and compliance with zoning regulations. The board questioned the visibility and placement of the storage containers. Concerns were also voiced about trailers and vehicles on the property. Cogiano clarified that tenants were allowed to park these due to their office leases.

A point of contention was the fence bordering the property, with ongoing communication needed with Lowe’s, a neighboring business responsible for its installation. The board emphasized the necessity of coordinating with the planning department to repair or replace the damaged fence, aligning with a broader fencing plan involving other significant tenants, including an office building and a restaurant.

The board members were particularly attentive to compliance with local regulations, especially after a past incident involving an unregistered box truck. The truck had been returned after being towed, and a commitment was made to remove it by December 1st, along with an unregistered boat. To prevent ambiguity with the storage containers, their precise dimensions were specified: one measuring 45 by 8 feet and the other 30 by 8 feet.

Despite a general consensus in favor of the proposal with stipulated conditions, one board member dissented, adhering to a strict interpretation of the bylaw that limits the duration of storage containers on a property to 180 days. Nonetheless, the special permit was granted, with conditions mandating the removal of the containers within 30 days of tenant departure, and the establishment of tenant-specific identification for the containers.

Another topic was the discussion of an EFLA proposal, which garnered debate over the interpretation of shared spaces within the proposed design. The EFLA was intended for the son of the homeowners to reside with them temporarily. Concerns were raised about a second door connecting the two units, which some board members felt undermined the concept of communal space.

The debate centered on ensuring compliance with zoning regulations that prevent the formation of secondary apartments for non-relatives. A shared laundry room was proposed as a potential solution, but the board’s interpretation of “shared habitable space” was inconsistent with the design. Members suggested that removing the second door could align the proposal with zoning intentions. A letter of support from neighbors, who had reviewed the plans, was read into the record, favoring the proposal despite the board’s concerns.

The proposal for a special permit was ultimately approved, contingent on adjustments to the design, including the removal of the second door and compliance with size limitations. The necessity for a stormwater permit was also noted as part of the procedural requirements following the board’s decision.

The meeting also addressed a case for a property on Burley Farm Road, where a special permit was requested to build an oversized living area on a non-conforming lot. Bill Nolan, representing the applicant, presented renovation plans, including a slight increase in square footage for the living area without exacerbating existing non-conformities. The board expressed a willingness to consider the request while acknowledging the non-conforming nature of the lot.