04:06The discussion was initiated by C. Mendes, representing the homeowner, Mr. Ren, who sought the variance due to the lot’s unique shape and existing zoning restrictions. Mendes argued that the proposed garage would protect Mr. Ren’s vehicle from weather elements and provide accommodation for visits from his elderly parents. The constraints of the property, including its configuration and current zoning setbacks, were cited as significant hardships justifying the request. Mendes emphasized that the garage would align with the neighborhood’s pattern, where similar structures exist within setbacks, and would maintain adequate open space and sight lines without detracting from the neighborhood’s aesthetics.

20:12However, board members expressed apprehension over the potential precedent that approving this variance might set. There was concern that allowing this construction could lead other homeowners in the neighborhood to seek similar variances, potentially altering the area’s character by permitting buildings within five feet of property lines. One board member noted the importance of considering the broader implications for the neighborhood, stating that this decision could effectively grant surrounding properties the ability to build closer to property lines, thus encouraging a pattern of development that might not be desirable.

The necessity for community support was highlighted, as one board member remarked on the challenge of securing approval without vocal backing from neighbors. The possibility of a two-year waiting period for reapplication if the variance were denied added further complexity to the decision-making process. This led to a strategic request for a continuance, allowing the applicant time to engage with neighbors and research similar precedents within the district to bolster their case.

During the public comment period, additional concerns were raised about the proximity of the proposed garage to nearby properties and a historic site. The potential issues stemming from encroachments and tree plantings near property lines were discussed.

This pause allows the applicant to gather further support and documentation, providing a more comprehensive case for the variance while considering the potential implications for future zoning decisions.

33:44In another notable agenda item, the board addressed a proposal for a second-story addition to a non-conforming structure on Line Road. The applicant sought a special permit to expand their living space vertically without creating new non-conformities. The proposal was driven by the homeowner’s desire to accommodate a growing family while remaining in the neighborhood. The representative stressed that the expansion would not disrupt the neighborhood, maintaining the existing footprint and only increasing the building’s height.

46:16Technical aspects of the construction were discussed, with the representative suggesting cost-saving measures such as using peers instead of a full frost wall, given the addition’s limited height. The board received no public comments on this matter. The board voted in favor of granting the special permit, contingent upon the submission of certified plot plans and construction documents to the building inspector before permits could be issued.