The meeting commenced with continued deliberations on a special permit request for a self-storage facility on Mill Street. John Christopher, the applicant, sought modifications to an existing Zoning Board of Appeals decision under the Aquifer Protection District bylaw. This was the third hearing on the project, following previous sessions in May and July. The applicant, represented by George Richards of South Natick Law, presented updated plans addressing board concerns. Key modifications included the installation of a controlled access gate with two points of entry, the elimination of seven drive-up bays from Building D, and the addition of dormers to Building E.

The board scrutinized these plans, particularly focusing on security and access. John Whitney, a resident, voiced concerns about the effectiveness of the proposed gate system. In response, the applicant detailed a system designed to default to a closed position, akin to a drawbridge, opening only for authorized users. The board reiterated the necessity of controlled access while ensuring compliance with fire department regulations.

Further, the board reviewed the proposed operational hours, set from 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM, and clarified that parking on the premises would be limited to transient use, prohibiting long-term storage of vehicles. The applicant agreed to these conditions, aligning with the board’s focus on security and operational management.

The board also addressed a proposed single-family dwelling on Oak Street, represented by a substitute for the applicant. The house was downsized from 5,423 square feet to 3,481 square feet, with a three-foot reduction in height. However, neighbors expressed concerns about its scale, privacy, and tree coverage. The board noted the height calculations adhered to zoning requirements, yet some members questioned the significance of the changes, emphasizing the importance of clarity in the proposal’s implications.

In another discussion, ongoing concerns about the bulk and footprint of a proposed house were raised, highlighting community apprehensions about transitioning from smaller homes to larger structures. Neighbors like Joy Shine expressed dissatisfaction with the perceived lack of substantial changes despite a reduction in square footage, pointing to the unchanged overall footprint and potential visibility issues.

The board’s session included a review of a special permit request for a property on LaGrange Street. Ruth Fox sought to renew an expired zoning decision for a property with undersized dimensions and nonconforming setbacks. The board quickly confirmed the unchanged nature of the project from its prior approval and expressed readiness to proceed with the renewal, citing consistency with previous findings.

Attention then turned to a variance request for 9 Stonebridge Circle, where homeowner David Johnson proposed an addition constrained by a utility easement and cul-de-sac. The board debated the justification for a variance, with some members describing the situation as a “self-inflicted hardship” due to the subdivision’s original design.

A proposed garage project on a uniquely shaped lot sparked discussion about maximizing space while adhering to zoning laws. The board acknowledged the challenges posed by the lot’s shape, easements, and cul-de-sac constraints, yet ultimately voted against the proposal, with only two members in favor.

The meeting concluded with a dialogue on adopting hybrid meetings, allowing for in-person and remote participation. While some members argued for maintaining in-person meetings for efficiency and focus, others advocated hybrid options to accommodate those unable to attend physically. Despite differing opinions, the board agreed to consider the discussion’s input in future deliberations.