The board meeting focused on the application submitted by the Hillbilly Trust, represented by John Potter, who sought a special permit to reduce the side setback from the required 15 feet to 4.2 feet. The requested variance was driven by the property’s constraints, particularly a 50-foot no-build zone due to nearby wetlands, which had been previously approved by the Conservation Commission.

During the public hearing, Potter assured the board that the garage would not include water or sewer utilities, only electricity for lighting. He emphasized that the structure would blend aesthetically with the existing home, stating, “the addition will blend in with the home and will have an appearance common to attached garages.” The board inquired about the garage’s height and its relation to the house’s roofline. While Potter did not initially have architectural drawings on hand, they were available remotely and could be reviewed if necessary. The board expressed a desire to examine these plans to assess the garage’s visual impact.

Further discussion addressed the proximity of the garage to neighboring properties, with the nearest house situated at least 20 feet away. Questions arose about the necessity of height relief given the garage’s closeness to the property line. The building inspector, having reviewed the plans, recommended fire-rated sheetrock for the interior due to proximity to neighboring structures, which the applicant’s contractor had already discussed with the inspector.

The board noted that there were no public objections to the plans, as evidenced by the absence of comments in the open government portal where the application was filed. The architect’s efforts to design a low-profile roofline were appreciated, and discussions considered whether landscaping would be needed to soften the garage’s visual impact on the neighboring property. Ultimately, the board decided that such measures were unnecessary as no concerns had been raised.

A motion was made to approve the special permit, which included provisions for the dimensional variation. The motion passed unanimously. The chairperson reiterated the necessary findings for the special permit, confirming that it would not adversely affect the public good or contradict local bylaws. The site was deemed suitable, with the garage’s design aligning with neighborhood aesthetics and maintaining compliance with zoning regulations.

After approval, procedural details were discussed, including the timeline for filing the decision with the town clerk and the potential for appeals to the Superior Court. The applicant was advised to prepare for the building permit application following the required waiting period.