The board first dealt with a case involving a shed located on Alder Way. Jill M. Schaer, representing the applicant, appealed a decision by the building commissioner, asserting that the shed violated zoning bylaws. The applicant sought a continuance until October 23, 2024, prompting George Bur, a resident of 39 Courtland Circle, to voice strong objections. Bur criticized the application as “very abusive” and took issue with the notification process, arguing it should include all homeowners with deeded access to the common land where the shed stood, not just those within a 300-foot radius. He accused the homeowners’ association (HOA) of a double standard in enforcing rules and expressed frustration over being fined $20,000 for what he claimed were baseless violations.

Despite Bur’s concerns, the board confirmed that required notifications had been issued based on data from the assessor’s office and unanimously voted to continue the case to the requested October date.

Attention then shifted to a more complex and heated topic: a special permit application by Web Motors Corp to operate an auto repair and used auto sales business on Summer Street. The proposal included 17 cars for repair, 53 cars for sale, and six employee vehicles. The board’s discussion revealed unease about the volume of cars, especially given the applicant’s history. One board member remarked that the request seemed premature, citing previous violations at the site. Assurances from the applicant’s representatives, including Giani Miranda and Glao, emphasized minimal impact on the neighborhood and a commitment to compliance and community engagement.

Board members were divided, with some skeptical about granting the full request and others advocating for giving the new team a chance to prove their commitment to lawful operations. One member succinctly stated, “Let’s crawl before we run,” advocating for a cautious approach to the number of cars allowed on the premises.

Further complicating the matter, the board examined applications concerning two lots, 36 and Summer Street. Concerns were raised about the proposed development for Lot 36, with one board member describing the lot as “too congested for 70 cars,” highlighting issues with emergency vehicle access and overall density. The applicant was advised to demonstrate compliance with the previously approved Lot 40 before seeking approval for Lot 36.

Confusion emerged regarding the ownership and operational responsibilities between Lots 36 and 40. It was clarified that the applicants had formed a new partnership for Lot 40 under the name Web Model Inc., while maintaining a presence at Lot 36. One board member expressed skepticism about the applicants’ capabilities, given the negative associations with the previous business name. Another member suggested the applicants withdraw their petition for Lot 36 and focus on Lot 40, which allowed for 30 cars, to establish a track record before reapplying.

The relationship between the two lots was scrutinized, with the potential for transferring the business license from Lot 40 to the new ownership structure discussed. Emphasis was placed on reapplying for the license under the new business name and addressing access and operational plans with local police and fire departments.

Public comment highlighted past interactions with the applicants, with one attendee mentioning unresolved issues from previous dealings. This underscored the need for accountability in the applicants’ future operations.

Ultimately, the board passed a motion unanimously to allow the applicants to withdraw their petition for Lot 36 without prejudice. This decision enables the applicants to pursue necessary steps for Lot 40 and return to the board later with more comprehensive plans for Lot 36.