0:07The primary discussion revolved around the application for a variance to adjust lot configurations at 11 and Sunset Drive. The existing structure on lot 15 partially extended into lot 11, creating a zoning issue that the owner aimed to resolve by making both lots legally nonconforming. This would allow for the demolition of the current structure and the construction of a new home with a garage. The board had previously continued the hearing multiple times, necessitating the submission of separate variance request letters for each lot. The properties, located in a residential AG zoning district, faced unique challenges due to the existing structure’s encroachment and the surrounding land’s characteristics.

Participants in the discussion debated the interpretation of Chapter 48, Section 10 of the Massachusetts General Laws, which governs variances. The debate centered on whether the hardship claimed by the owner was a result of the land’s conditions or the structure’s placement. One board member argued that the land’s unique shape and topography contributed to the hardship, while another emphasized the statute’s focus on structural conditions. The chair stressed that variances should not be granted based solely on financial loss or self-created issues.

The conversation also touched on the implications of the properties’ configuration, particularly the challenges posed by the unimproved public way, Dartmouth Way. This lack of necessary frontage was seen as a significant barrier for utilizing the property in accordance with zoning laws. The board emphasized the importance of ensuring that any variances granted would not undermine zoning bylaws or set problematic precedents. Clear grounds for hardship needed to be established to justify any deviations from existing regulations.

21:02The board explored potential solutions, including the use of easements to address access issues and the possibility of redrawing property lines to create more balanced lots. The aim was to prevent future conflicts and uphold zoning regulations. The idea of balancing the two lots was proposed, with suggestions to redesign the property line to create equal-sized lots. This approach was intended to avoid giving one property an unfair advantage over the other.

57:24The board also addressed a separate zoning issue concerning a non-conforming lot on Northern Boulevard. The applicant sought a special permit to demolish an existing structure and construct a new one on pilings for flood resilience. The proposal included moving the house closer to the street, adjusting the front setback in response to concerns about the dune’s stability. The applicant assured the board that the project aimed to comply with zoning guidelines while addressing environmental concerns.

They highlighted the importance of environmental safeguards, particularly concerning the dune’s integrity during and after construction. The board members were mindful of the ongoing enforcement process for zoning compliance and emphasized the necessity of adhering to established protocols.

1:15:30Additionally, the meeting addressed a bond requirement for a separate project on Cricket Lane. This involved discussions on the best approach to manage the bond and maintain consistency with standard practices.