The meeting began with discussions on application EBA 25-10, which involved a property at 7171A Caba Street owned by McDonald Lawrence. The applicant sought relief from zoning bylaws to reduce the front lot line setback from 50 feet to 37 feet and the side lot line setback from 10 feet to 5 feet. This application had been revised following prior recommendations from the board. Board members stressed the necessity of obtaining four affirmative votes for the application to pass. Acknowledging the applicant’s adherence to suggested changes, the board unanimously approved the variance based on the revised plans.

Following this, the board addressed application ZBA 25-13, which sought a variance for constructing a 30×32 unattached steel garage. The applicant initially intended to build with wood but opted for steel due to practical reasons. The proposed garage would sit 10 feet from the side lot line and 50 feet from the road. However, the structure’s size exceeded the maximum ground floor area allowed by local zoning regulations. The garage was intended for personal use, specifically to store an RV and for additional storage.

This proposal drew public attention, particularly from a nearby resident who opposed the garage’s location. The resident voiced concerns about the garage’s proximity to their home, stating it would be just 20 feet from their house and obstruct their view. They also raised issues regarding water runoff, which could worsen existing drainage problems during heavy rain. The resident mentioned prior expectations that the garage would be farther back on the property, which they believed would be more appropriate.

The board and public engaged in a thorough debate about the garage’s implications, with a focus on its impact on surrounding properties. Board members inquired about the structure’s features, including the height of the doors to accommodate the RV and the possibility of adding electricity for lighting. Aesthetic considerations were also discussed, as some board members preferred a wooden frame to blend with the neighborhood.

In a separate but related discussion, concerns arose about the proximity of a different building to neighboring structures and potential contamination of a well. Participants discussed adjusting the building’s placement. It was agreed that pushing the building back another ten feet and shifting it five feet to the side could create more space and improve the situation for all involved.

To ensure clarity on the proposed adjustments, the board planned an on-site visit. This visit, scheduled for December 6th, would allow members to visualize the changes firsthand. The participant responsible for the property was asked to stake out the location according to the adjustments for the board’s review.

The meeting concluded with the approval of previous meeting minutes and other administrative tasks, including signing bills and paperwork. There was a brief mention of notarization, with one participant noting their status as a notary. The meeting adjourned with plans for the upcoming site visit and further discussions in December.