The controversy surrounding the construction on Juniper Road was the focal point of the meeting. The applicant, John Alves, had begun building a three-season open kitchen and dining area, only for the project to be halted by the building commissioner due to missing permits. This led Alves to seek relief from the zoning board. The revised plan submitted for approval showed an increase in building coverage from the previous 32.6% to a proposed 41.16%, exceeding the R60 zone limit of 16%.

Board members expressed dissatisfaction with the practice of applicants carrying out construction without prior approval, noting that the main residence was already positioned 3.6 feet from the property sideline, with the new construction encroaching closer. Alves presented a letter of support from a neighbor, Devin Galo, which was entered into the record.

The board deliberated over the implications of the existing coverage and potential enforcement actions if the variance was not granted. They recognized that recent attempts to amend by-laws had been rejected, highlighting the need for clearer guidelines. Despite the significant coverage increase, the board prioritized avoiding legal complications and acknowledged the absence of objections from neighboring properties.

In a subsequent motion, the board sought a finding that the proposed construction would not substantially harm the neighborhood in terms of light, noise, or traffic. The motion passed with favorable votes. The board concluded that the hardship presented by the applicant and the lack of opposition justified granting the variance, although they emphasized this should not set a precedent for commencing projects without permits. A decision was to be drafted and posted within two weeks, allowing for an appeal period.

The board then turned to the second agenda item concerning 49 Island Road. The applicant, who had previously requested a continuance, opted to withdraw the application without prejudice for unspecified personal reasons. This allowed the possibility of reapplying in the future without a two-year waiting period. The board approved the withdrawal unanimously.

Discussion then moved to 111 Oak Street, where an application was made to demolish a dilapidated single-family residence and construct a new one. The existing property was a pre-existing non-conforming use due to insufficient frontage, but the proposed new construction would expand the habitable area from 600 to approximately 1,500 square feet. With no objections from the public or board members, a motion for approval was passed, emphasizing that the new construction would not detrimentally impact the neighborhood.

The final agenda item involved a proposal on King Phillip Road, which included a request for a variance due to insufficient frontage and area for the R80 zone. The board reviewed plans for an addition to the existing house, which was 5.9 feet from the property line. Audience members, including Colleen Smith and Mr. Cooney, expressed no opposition but raised concerns about property lines, which were noted to be a private matter between neighbors.

The board closed the public hearing on this item and deliberated on the variance request. They concluded that the proposed addition would not adversely affect the neighborhood, approving the variance unanimously. The board emphasized the challenges posed by the narrow lot and the impracticality of placing the addition elsewhere.