The most debated topic of the meeting revolved around a variance request for a property at the intersection of Maple and Chestnut Streets, represented by Brown Meadow LLC. The applicant sought a variance from frontage requirements, as the existing lot only provided 40.17 feet of frontage on Maple Street, far short of the 100-foot requirement. A legal notice detailed Case ZV202501, and the applicant amended its initial request to focus on a single lot with a combined frontage of 215.54 feet on Chestnut Street. The property’s upland area, deemed suitable for building, was primarily on the Maple Street side, where a driveway with an existing curb cut was planned.

Opposition surfaced during the public comment portion of the hearing, with a resident voicing concern over altering a variance unchanged for over 40 years. The individual questioned the applicant’s claim of hardship, arguing they were aware of the unbuildable status at purchase and feared this change could set a precarious precedent. They stated, “Why are we going to change a variance that’s been in place for 40 years?” This sentiment was echoed by others worried about the potential ripple effects of such decisions on neighborhood stability.

Supporters of the variance argued that unique lot conditions, such as surrounding wetlands preventing access via Chestnut Street, justified the request. A council member highlighted the council’s duty to adhere to bylaws and legal standards, explaining, “If someone can demonstrate under our bylaw and under mass general laws that they deserve the relief they’ve requested, then we have to give it to them.”

Further deliberations examined zoning laws and the potential for future variance requests from other property owners. Some council members emphasized that granting a variance required adherence to a rigorous process involving multiple departments. Ultimately, the council approved the variance, citing the lot’s unique characteristics and hardships, with members acknowledging the benefits to the town, including increased tax revenue. A 20-day appeal period was established for potential challenges to the decision.

The meeting also addressed a variance petition for a garage construction on Dwight Road by Thomas Woodop. The request involved relief from side and rear yard setbacks to replace an existing carport. Woodop explained that the garage’s most suitable location was on the property side facing Corning Street, avoiding complications from relocating the driveway to the busier Dwight Road. The council acknowledged the lot’s unique configuration and the challenges it posed, including the necessity for multiple variances given the corner lot’s setback requirements.

Council discussions delved into zoning bylaws and the need for a revised plan to align the proposed garage with existing structures to avoid additional variances. The council approved the variance unanimously, contingent on revised plans ensuring compliance with the agreed conditions. A 20-day appeal period followed, during which Woodop could pursue preparations for a building permit, mindful of potential challenges.