01:22:41Attorney Kevin Clower, representing the applicants, underscored the necessity of the renovation due to the building’s age and compliance requirements with FEMA’s flood regulations. The existing setbacks, with a front yard of 1.1 feet and a side yard of 6.1 feet, fail to meet zoning requirements of 25 and 10 feet, respectively. The proposed design would enhance these to 25.6 feet for the front and 11 feet for the side, effectively addressing the non-conformities. Clower articulated that the renovations, including the elimination of a roof deck and reducing the proposed building’s height, were responsive to community input. Despite these adjustments, resistance from some neighbors persists, emphasizing the challenge of balancing development with neighborhood character.

19:45The board engaged in a discussion regarding whether the proposal required a special permit or could be exempted under zoning bylaw 240.2b1D, which allows alterations to non-conforming structures without a special permit if certain conditions, like not increasing habitable space, are met. This debate revealed a split among board members, with some advocating for the permit due to precedent and others suggesting the changes warranted an exemption.

46:18In a related matter, Attorney Duffy’s argument against the necessity of a special permit sparked further procedural scrutiny. Concerns were raised about potential litigation if the board proceeded without proper notice or a clear determination from the building commissioner. The board agreed to continue the hearing to a later date, emphasizing the need for legal counsel to navigate the complexities of the case.

01:06:19Another notable application involved Kevin P. and Mary Beth Duffy’s request to modify existing special permits for their property on Davisville Road to convert a portion of a workshop into an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The proposal adheres to zoning requirements, with the lot size exceeding the minimum standard and maintaining coverage limits well below the maximum allowed. Despite the state’s Affordable Homes Act of 2024 facilitating ADU creation, existing special permit conditions required board modification to proceed. The board debated the implications of the state’s new law on local zoning but ultimately seemed favorable towards the proposal, acknowledging compliance with municipal regulations.

The board also reviewed an amendment for a special permit concerning an ADU at another property, which met zoning bylaw requirements and received no opposition from the public. The Planning Board’s review highlighted a minimum rental period aligning with state law, and the Zoning Board of Appeals previously determined no adverse impact on the neighborhood. Construction conditions and lighting compliance were stipulated.

01:18:35A separate discussion focused on William F. and Elizabeth A. Scanel’s application for a special permit to construct a pool, cabana, and sports court on Quiset Avenue. Situated in a historically significant area within a floodplain overlay district, the proposal involved alterations to the landform for stormwater management improvements. The board considered the project’s compliance with zoning requirements and the historical context, ultimately leaning towards approval while ensuring adherence to procedural and regulatory obligations.