The focal point of the meeting was the appeal concerning 209 Courier Road, where Ronaldo Andred sought a variance for a structure exceeding the height limit by nearly three feet. The variance request stemmed from modifications made during construction, leading to a finished first floor with a bathroom that deviated from the approved garage and accessory apartment plans. Andred argued that the violation was overlooked during the initial inspections and only identified well after construction, causing financial hardship due to the unit’s unoccupied status.

Andred emphasized that the structure’s additional height did not obstruct views or impact privacy, arguing that the property’s elevation obscures visibility from the street and neighboring areas. He underscored the financial strain caused by the delay in identifying the height violation, which prevented him from generating rental income. Andred contended that forcing compliance would contradict Massachusetts laws promoting accessory dwelling units to address housing shortages. He urged the board to consider the hardship caused by the late identification of the violation and the subsequent inability to use the property as intended.

The board’s discussion highlighted the challenges in granting variances, which typically require demonstration of substantial hardship. Board members expressed reluctance to approve variances for errors, pointing to the lack of an as-built plan that should have certified compliance with height requirements. It was suggested that Andred may have grounds to pursue the framer for not adhering to specified heights, as the framing inspection failed to catch the issue.

Adding to the complexity, Andred detailed miscommunications with the building department and frustrations with the town’s inspection process. The lack of cooperation from the building commissioner and confusion over the height standards were points of contention.

The board noted the absence of documentation proving compliance with the special permit requirements, stressing the need for Andred to provide concrete evidence, including any as-built documentation, to support his variance request. The meeting concluded with an agreement to continue the matter, allowing Andred time to gather the necessary documentation before the next meeting.

In another discussion, the board deliberated on an application for a property on Elizabeth Gan Drive, where a special permit was requested to exceed lot coverage from 20% to 23.45%. The proposal included constructing a garage and other additions while maintaining the existing three-bedroom layout. Concerns involved whether an office space within the home could be classified as a bedroom, which would affect the property’s compliance with zoning bylaws.

The board scrutinized the office’s dimensions, noting that it might qualify as a bedroom. The applicant was advised to modify the office to ensure it did not meet bedroom criteria, such as removing a closet or installing cased openings to reduce privacy. The applicant confirmed that the attic would remain unfinished and not used as a bedroom, aligning with the board’s intent to restrict the number of bedrooms to three.

The board reviewed the septic system status, confirming it had been inspected and closed under a prior permit. The applicant assured the board that the new family room would be constructed on peers to minimize risk to the septic system. The board accepted the applicant’s assurances and expressed willingness to support the project with conditions to ensure compliance.

The board approved the application with conditions, including revising plans to reflect the discussed office modifications and adhering to standard construction hours. A motion to approve the application passed without opposition.