In the most notable discussion of the meeting, the board reviewed a variance application submitted by Charles Ellis, represented by Mr. Ringwall, seeking to modify lot dimensions for properties identified as lots 55 and on Elizabeth Street. The aim was to construct a storage garage on lot 55, while lot 56 contained a septic system serving a nearby residence on Elizabeth. A significant concern was the presence of wetlands on lot 56, making part of it unbuildable. The board discussed the implications of combining these lots, noting that even after the proposed combination, the resultant lot would not meet the 40,000 square feet zoning requirement.

The petitioner explained that the appeal was necessary because the zoning bylaw prohibited making a nonconforming lot more nonconforming. The board examined the definition of nonconformity, especially since 32 Lock Slayer Road had recently upgraded its septic system, complicating ownership and conformity issues. The historical context of Elizabeth Street, a cul-de-sac used by the public but not formally recorded, was also discussed. The Ellis’s proposed deeding portions of this street to the town, which would involve creating a right of way encompassing the entire pavement extent.

The proposal included dividing zero Elizabeth into lots 55 and 56, with the goal of providing upland space for the garage construction. Questions arose about whether the garage could be built on lot 55 since the septic system was on lot 56. Public comments added perspectives, and the chair requested confirmation that the proposal would result in two buildable lots. The applicant was directed to file an “81P plan” with the planning board to confirm the lot configuration. There were requests to clarify language within the minutes to ensure the board’s intent was accurately documented, particularly regarding the applicant’s options for the property.

Further refinements were proposed for the minutes, including clarifying the variance application’s goal and the existing nonconformity for lot 32. The dialogue concluded with a consensus that the proposed actions would not exacerbate the nonconforming status. The board decided to grant the variance, allowing the lot combination while stipulating that no further subdivision would be permitted, thus maintaining zoning regulation integrity.

In another significant matter, case number 25978 concerning a property on Birch Road was discussed. Petitioner Craig Daniels sought a variance for a proposed porch addition. The proposed porch would replace existing nonconforming steps encroaching on the front setback, with the new porch improving the situation slightly by being situated at 27.5 feet from the front lot line.

Seth Dono, representing Craig and Suzanne Daniels, presented the case, highlighting that the existing steps were open to the elements, and a covered porch would provide safer, all-weather access to the home. The topography of the lot, which rises from the road, was noted as a contributing factor to the request. Board members asked clarifying questions, and there were no objections from the board regarding the request’s simplicity.

Several abutters expressed support for the project, including Gail McCrosski and Scott Nutting, who confirmed their approval. Richard Axeman and John Marshall, abutters from nearby properties, submitted letters indicating their support and stated that they believed the proposed work would not negatively impact their properties or the neighborhood. The board noted strong support from neighboring properties, although abutter support from both sides was not secured.

After hearing from the neighbors, the board moved towards deliberation. The topographical considerations and the slope leading up to the house were noted as reasons for granting the variance. Discussions highlighted that a covered porch would enhance safety concerning the steps. A motion was made to grant the variance for the porch addition.