Key discussions centered around the necessity of the variance, with board members highlighting the substantial hardships faced by the Leoy family due to mobility issues. The proponents’ need for a living space that facilitates accessibility for walkers and wheelchairs was emphasized. The board recognized the potential benefits of enabling elderly residents to remain in their community, with family support enhancing their quality of life. The discourse included potential legal challenges, with consensus on advocating for the dismissal of opposition based on lack of standing, as the original complainant had withdrawn.

Further deliberation addressed the placement of the proposed unit. Discussions highlighted that variances could not be conditioned, clarifying that any imposed conditions would not alter the variance’s legal standing as it runs with the land. The board reached a consensus on key findings, acknowledging the financial and practical hardships of modifying the existing home versus constructing a new, accessible structure. A motion to affirm these findings received unanimous support, leading to the closure of the public hearing.

Another agenda item involved a property on Maple Street, where George Connors presented a revised plan concerning the historic building bylaw. The parcel, having undergone an undocumented transfer affecting its dimensions, required adjustments to align with historical regulations. The discussion affirmed the property’s historic status, constructed in 1888, and emphasized the need to adhere to regulations without reopening the hearing or re-notifying abutters, as the changes were deemed minor.

The board examined the implications of the historic status and frontage requirements, noting that while the planning board cannot waive frontage requirements, special permits can address size and setback issues. Connors highlighted the lot’s topographical challenges, including flatness and proximity to wetlands, justifying the variance for frontage based on these hardships. Concerns about setting precedents for frontage interpretation were addressed, focusing solely on the variance needed for the specific circumstances.

The meeting also included a debate about a variance on Maple Street Extension. Paul Elder advocated for the variance, emphasizing the familial connection and the importance of keeping families together within the community. The board discussed the necessity of obtaining a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Commission due to the structure’s age, dating back to 1838. The variance sought was to reduce the required front setback and frontage requirements, emphasizing the unique challenges posed by soil conditions, wetlands, and topography.