The primary topic of the meeting was an application by Maria and Stephen to keep a gazebo that had been built on their property. Michael Marshall, representing the applicants, challenged the town planner’s report, which stated that the structure did not meet the definition of a customary yard accessory and could not encroach into the setback. Marshall contended that the town code does not specifically regulate the locational requirements for a gazebo, arguing that the structure should be considered an accessory structure, subject to the locational criteria outlined in the code. He pointed out that the gazebo was situated four feet from the rear property line and was not adjacent to any other properties, emphasizing that the code allows for yard structures to be located in the yard.

Marshall also addressed the initial mislabeling of the structure as a “pergola” in the application, highlighting the absence of a definition for “pergola” in the town code and asserting that the structure meets the code’s definition of a gazebo. He argued that the setback requirements should be subject to a plan review rather than being limited to the same setbacks as the main structure on the property.

The town planner, adhering to the staff’s interpretation, stated that the structure, measuring 231.50 square feet with a height of 10 feet, did not conform to the town code’s provisions for yard accessories, which typically include fences, walls, vegetation, or poles. The planner insisted that there was no provision allowing the structure to encroach into the setback and emphasized the importance of complying with setback requirements.

During the debate, one individual argued that the lack of explicit regulations for gazebos in the town’s code should not be interpreted as a prohibition. They stated that the government’s responsibility is to have clear language regulating land use. The discussion also touched on whether electricity had been permitted for the structure and the applicant’s intention to have a summer kitchen outside.

Public comments included expressions of support from neighbors for the structure. However, the board members faced a struggle with the discrepancy between the town planner’s interpretation and the perspectives of the applicant and their supporters. The debate also delved into legislative history, the potential harm to the community, and the broader implications of the code’s language.

Ultimately, the board voted to deny the appeal, with one member voting in favor of the appeal. The decision was not unanimous. The building official had earlier emphasized that the pergola should comply with existing setback regulations and that exceptions could set a precedent for other non-conforming structures.