01:40The meeting opened with a focus on the Eps’ application, which sought to demolish an existing single-family dwelling and construct a new, more accessible home. As explained by Mark Kovsky, representing the applicants, the current structure was inadequate for their daughter’s mobility needs, prompting a complete rebuild. The proposed design included connecting a detached garage to the main house, aimed at enhancing accessibility, especially for the installation of an elevator.

15:37The board had previously denied similar variance requests due to concerns about excessive building size relative to lot size. However, the current proposal demonstrated a minimal increase in coverage by structures, from 26.9% to 28.4%, equating to an additional 600 square feet. This increase was deemed necessary for the family’s accessibility requirements. One board member noted that the proposal’s modest increase in coverage, coupled with the unique lot shape, warranted approval.

20:39During the deliberations, board members reviewed the specifics of the application, focusing on the proposed rear setback encroachment and the increase in coverage. It was concluded that these changes would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing conditions. The board unanimously approved the special permit, with conditions to adhere to the proposed plot plan and maintain specified coverage limits. A separate motion for the variance was also approved, acknowledging the substantial hardship that would result from denial, especially given the need for an ADA-compliant residence.

The decision was reached without public opposition, and it was noted that the project would not excessively expand the home’s size beyond necessary modifications for accessibility.

31:47In addition to the Eps’ application, the board addressed several other procedural matters. They discussed the minutes from previous meetings, unable to vote on those from February 26th due to absent members. Changes were proposed for the January minutes, specifically to include an explanation for a previously presented application. Moreover, the board considered an upcoming application for a pickleball court on Smith Point, emphasizing the importance of specifying in the public hearing notice that it was a pickleball court rather than a generic sports facility. There was also a brief consideration of a request for a letter from a neighboring property owner, which might become unnecessary if the owner attended the meeting.

Lastly, the board noted that an applicant for the zoning board of appeals was unavailable for an interview, delaying the process until the next month. The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn, which was unanimously accepted.