The meeting’s most significant outcome was the approval of a special permit application filed by Jennifer and Tim Woodford for a property on Commonwealth Avenue. The Woodfords sought relief from zoning bylaws to add a two-car garage and bonus room to their pre-existing non-conforming home. The new structure would be built close to the property line, mirroring the footprint of the previous detached garage.

Technical difficulties initially hampered the applicants’ ability to share their plans via screen-sharing, but they eventually succeeded. They explained their need for the addition, citing that their renovated home had become too small for their growing family. Their proposal included maintaining the existing footprint, not extending further towards the property line than the previous garage. The Woodfords mentioned that their adjacent neighbor had signed a consent form, provided certain conditions were met during construction.

These conditions included repairing any damage to the neighbor’s property, managing drainage away from their foundation, and grading and reseeding the yards post-construction. The chair of the board acknowledged the tight nature of the area and the significance of these conditions, reflecting on past experiences with similar property constraints.

Board members expressed concerns about the proximity of the new structure to the lot line. One member highlighted the importance of incorporating the neighbor’s conditions into the board’s decision, while another referenced the building inspector’s past acceptance of similar conditions. The board aimed to scrutinize the proposal thoroughly while maintaining transparency and openness to public commentary. After discussing these concerns and the building inspector’s input, the board unanimously accepted the Woodfords’ request for relief.

Another notable topic was the proposal for a property on Calth Avenue, located within the RA Zone district. The applicant sought relief from two sections of the zoning ordinance concerning side yards and changes to existing lot uses and structures. The building inspector noted that the property had only 78 feet of road frontage, while the zoning requirement was 100 feet. This lack of adequate frontage constrained the applicant, who wished to expand the dwelling while adhering to setback regulations.

One board member suggested incorporating conditions from an abutter’s letter, which included managing drainage and grading to maintain the current state of the property. However, another member argued that such conditions should be addressed during the building permit phase, not as part of the zoning relief approval. This member emphasized that including these conditions could set a concerning precedent of the board appearing to approve private agreements.

The proximity of the proposed structure to neighboring properties was a recurring issue. Concerns were raised about the new addition’s closeness to the property line, with measurements indicating only a 2.3-foot distance at one corner of the house. The applicant responded that they had adjusted the plans, moving the structure 4 feet away from the line to address these concerns. Despite the neighbors not attending the meeting, their issues were articulated in a letter, prompting a discussion about the implications of such close quarters with neighbors.

The board ultimately agreed to close the public hearing, recognizing that the conditions raised in the abutter’s letter were adequately addressed by existing regulations and the building inspector’s oversight during the permit process. The board also considered whether to mandate any additional planting or landscaping as a condition of approval, but consensus leaned towards handling these matters during the building permit process.

Drainage regulations and new building codes were another focal point of the meeting. A board member highlighted the absence of specific drainage regulations in the building code, emphasizing that water cannot be diverted onto another’s property. Personal anecdotes and references to past issues on Grove Street illustrated the importance of proper drainage management. The board discussed the necessity for water mitigation systems as a new requirement for all additions.