The most debated topic at the meeting was the proposal for a 30 by 32-foot garage on Love Avenue. This property development drew attention from both board members and local residents. The garage’s substantial size, intended to house an RV and agricultural equipment, sparked concerns about its potential impact on the tightly packed neighborhood. A resident expressed worries that the garage could be as large as neighboring houses, which might disrupt the community’s aesthetic and affect rainwater drainage. This concern was echoed by another nearby resident who voiced fears that the garage could inadvertently lead to business use, given the past presence of Bridgewater pumping trucks at the location.

He assured the board that any vehicles parked within would be personal and not commercial. The board considered imposing conditions on the garage’s approval to prevent any future business use, a suggestion that the owner agreed to, reiterating that the structure would enhance rather than detract from the neighborhood.

In addition to the size and usage of the garage, concerns about water runoff and its effect on nearby properties were brought up. The owner proposed installing gutters and landscaping to manage rainwater and improve the garage’s visual impact on the neighborhood. The board discussed requiring a fence or additional landscaping as a condition for approval to further mitigate visual concerns.

The proposal for a new single-family home on Lake Street was another focal point of the meeting. The plan suggested relocating the house to a more standard size and orientation while considering the property’s proximity to wetlands. The board stressed the importance of contacting the conservation department for guidance due to potential environmental implications. The resident acknowledged the need to follow conservation protocols, though they had not yet initiated contact with conservation authorities.

The meeting also delved into the complexities of a property with historical ownership issues. The owner had cleared significant tax debts related to the property, which had been abandoned for over a decade. The board highlighted the need for a notice of intent and plans outlining the property’s distance from conservation areas, emphasizing that construction could not proceed without conservation commission approval. The owner expressed frustration over the regulatory hurdles. However, the board clarified that adherence to conservation rules was mandatory.

As discussions about the single-family home unfolded, board members noted the property’s non-conforming status and the challenges posed by its lack of frontage. The owner was advised to submit plans and consult Massachusetts regulatory websites for the necessary documentation before moving forward with the project.

The meeting concluded with the board deciding to continue the discussion on both property matters at their next meeting, set for January 12th. In administrative matters, a motion was made to recommend David Fry as a new board member, which was unanimously approved. The session ended with a consensus that no immediate financial obligations needed addressing, leading to a motion for adjournment.