James Gallagher presented his case for a side setback variance to the board, detailing the necessity of extending his current two-bedroom home to better suit his family’s needs, which include providing separate bedrooms for his eight-year-old son and four-year-old daughter. He emphasized that the constraints of his property, including a portion being undevelopable due to a 35-foot wetland no-build buffer zone and town easements, created a unique hardship. Gallagher argued that without the variance, the addition would be limited to 14 feet, which would be inadequate for his family and economically inefficient, as the cost per square foot would increase compared to a 24-foot addition.

Throughout the presentation, Gallagher referenced two similar projects where variances were granted due to wetland restrictions. He underscored the importance of the proposed addition for the future resale value of his home, a concern tied to the family’s plans for funding their children’s education. Despite his thorough presentation, some board members expressed apprehension, particularly regarding potential future implications of granting the variance. They highlighted concerns about setting a precedent that could allow larger structures closer to property lines, thus increasing density and potentially affecting neighboring properties.

To address these concerns, Gallagher pointed out that the neighboring homes are spaced sufficiently apart, minimizing any adverse community impact. He also noted that his immediate neighbors, although not present, had demonstrated support for the project. The board acknowledged the unique topographical challenges Gallagher faced but remained cautious about the broader implications of approving the variance.

Further complicating the discussion, the board deliberated on a related request concerning a property in a C zoning district, where similar wetland challenges were addressed. The issue of potential runoff into the wetlands was a central concern, with suggestions that a garage could mitigate existing drainage issues. The discourse underscored the balance the board must maintain between accommodating property owners and adhering to zoning regulations to prevent unintended consequences on neighborhood character and future developments.

In another segment of the meeting, the board evaluated a two-story addition proposal on Harbor Street, which involved a side setback issue due to the existing non-conforming structure. Discussions touched on the height and spacing in relation to neighboring properties, with board members weighing the potential impacts of additional height on light and air access for adjacent homes.

The meeting also featured a special permit request by an attorney representing property owners Elanor and Adam Shanov. Their proposal for a two-story addition, intended to replace a failing block foundation, was presented as compliant with most zoning requirements while improving existing setbacks. The board examined the architectural plans and neighbor support, ultimately approving the permit, contingent upon specific conditions and adherence to conservation orders.

While the board approved the Shanovs’ project, they remained undecided on Gallagher’s variance. The board’s discussion highlighted the nuanced considerations inherent in zoning cases, where individual property constraints must be carefully balanced against potential impacts on the community fabric and zoning precedents.