Attorney John Barry, representing the applicant Elmanda Dami, and architect James Bailey presented the case for creating two lots from the current approximately 15,000-square-foot property, each requiring a variance due to lacking the required 75 feet of frontage. The proposal included an easement off Reedsdale Road to facilitate access to a new single-family dwelling on the rear lot. Barry argued that the “pork chop shape” of the lot contributed to the hardship faced by the owners, citing the current structure’s close proximity to the busy road and the underutilization of the expansive rear yard.

Despite receiving letters of support from immediate neighbors, opposition from residents on Center Street, including George and Mary Ellen Giri and the Hines Riley family, highlighted significant flooding concerns. Suzanne Bridges, a resident on Center Street, provided video evidence of existing flooding issues, stressing that the proposed construction would exacerbate the situation. Barry attempted to assuage these concerns by promising that a state-licensed civil engineer would be engaged to address site drainage if the project were approved.

Barry emphasized that the proposed lots would meet the minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet and addressed potential setbacks, expressing willingness to amend plans to comply with required rear setbacks.

Residents remained skeptical. Rachel Shuy of Center Lane shared her experiences with severe flooding, detailing costly measures her family had taken to mitigate water issues. Her testimony, along with Bridges’, underscored the potential impact of the new development on existing drainage problems. The board members echoed these concerns, emphasizing the importance of adhering to zoning bylaws to prevent undesirable outcomes for the neighborhood.

The representative for the applicant noted the proposal’s intent to address the lack of housing and high cost of living in Massachusetts. They acknowledged unique lot characteristics that might make the development viable, proposing a landscaping plan to improve site conditions and mitigate runoff.

Board members expressed skepticism about the variance request, asserting that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial hardship. They noted that granting the variance could undermine zoning laws and set a precedent for other similar requests based on personal hardship without land-related justification.

Despite acknowledging the applicant’s challenges, the board found the proposal lacking in meeting the necessary criteria for a variance. They expressed regret over the planning department’s lack of guidance, which had complicated the process for the applicant.