The proposal’s complexity stems from its non-conforming status, as the current garage serves as an accessory dwelling without a primary use on an undersized lot, measuring only 3,700 square feet where 7,500 square feet is required for a single-family home. Attorney Kevin Clower, representing the Sullivans, argued that the proposed changes would not be substantially more detrimental than the existing conditions, citing Massachusetts General Law which allows for modifications of non-conforming structures if they do not introduce new detrimental conditions. Clower emphasized that the proposed structure would align with neighborhood standards, covering 20.37% of the lot compared to the average 42.53% for nearby homes.

Board members engaged in a debate regarding the appropriateness of the conversion, with some expressing concerns about setting a precedent that could undermine zoning laws. The assertion was made that the garage had never been a lawful residential structure, thus challenging the claim of its non-conforming status. The board was reminded that the burden of proof lies with the applicant for a special permit, and mere claims without substantial evidence would not suffice. Concerns about potential privacy issues for abutters due to a proposed second-floor deck were raised, with suggestions for solid panels to mitigate the issue.

Public sentiment on the matter was mixed, with some residents, like Mark Harmson, voicing strong opposition due to the risk of increased rental activity and disturbance in the neighborhood. Harmson recalled past disturbances and emphasized the importance of preserving the area’s tranquility. Additionally, resident Aaron Kent highlighted existing drainage issues that could be exacerbated by the proposed development.

The board also considered a remanded case concerning a property on Melrose Avenue, where the Sullivans seek another special permit to reconstruct an existing garage into a single-family dwelling. This application, like the one on Melrose Avenue, involves a non-conforming lot size and seeks to increase the structure’s footprint while remaining within zoning limits. The board noted the need for proper stormwater management, as recommended by the engineering department, and deliberated on conditions such as prohibiting short-term rentals and requiring the enclosure of the deck.

In other business, the board addressed a proposal for a property on Winslow Road, wherein Douglas Clemens sought a special permit to reconstruct a garage exceeding allowable lot coverage. The board found no opposition and determined that the proposed changes would not be detrimental to the neighborhood, approving the application with specific conditions regarding construction and stormwater management.

The meeting also covered the application for a property on Martin Road, where the board discussed allowing a temporary variance for maintaining two dwellings on the lot during construction. The board recognized potential financial hardships for the applicant and concluded that granting a variance would not contradict the zoning bylaw’s intent.