The first case that drew discussion was the variance application by Richard Audi for a two-car garage on Forest Street. Audi sought a variance due to the property’s non-conforming lot size and unique shape, requesting to reduce the side yard setback from 15 feet to 9.9 feet. Audi outlined the challenges posed by the existing lot dimensions, arguing that the proposed garage would not negatively impact the surrounding area, as the total lot coverage would remain below the maximum allowed. He stated, “the age geometry of the lot renders the proposed left-side location the only viable location for the addition.” Audi addressed board inquiries regarding potential adjustments to the garage’s size and placement, explaining that even a smaller garage would necessitate a variance.

The board engaged in a discussion about the potential precedent set by granting such a variance. One member expressed concern about the difficulty in achieving variances, emphasizing the need to adhere to existing bylaws. Another member argued that Audi’s case was strong due to the lot’s distinctiveness compared to others in the neighborhood, noting, “this is one of the best cases I’ve ever seen just in terms of the uniqueness of the lot.” The board also considered the absence of objections from neighbors, which suggested minimal community impact. Ultimately, the board recognized the need to carefully weigh the unique circumstances of the property against zoning criteria and the potential implications for future variance requests.

In a related matter, the board addressed another significant case involving Edward D. Simone’s application for a special permit on Lincoln Way. Simone proposed demolishing an existing single-story garage to construct a new two-story garage with living space above, citing the current garage’s dilapidated state and unsuitability for use. He explained the necessity of the project due to his growing family and the need for additional functional space.

Despite the challenges posed by the property’s current layout, the board acknowledged Simone’s efforts to maintain the colonial-style home’s unique character. A board member, who was familiar with the property and its condition, noted the substantial work required to preserve its historic nature.

Public comments were invited, but no audience members came forward to speak. After closing public comments, a board member motioned to grant Simone the special permit under specific zoning bylaw sections, which was seconded and unanimously approved.

In another case, Elizabeth Alston presented an application for a special permit for her property on Morgan Park. Alston sought to remove an existing non-conforming porch and construct a new one that would align more closely with zoning requirements. The board clarified that the project would not be more detrimental to the neighborhood, and Alston detailed the dimensions and plans for the new porch. With no public comments received, the board discussed the application and approved the special permit with conditions regarding plan submissions to the building inspector.