The most significant outcome was the unanimous approval of a special permit for P of Construction LLC, which sought to build a two-story, 684 square foot addition on Eaton Street to accommodate the homeowner’s mother. The homeowners, who have lived at the property for 18 years, expressed their gratitude to the board for considering their application. They received support from neighbors at 17 and Eaton Street, who either expressed their approval in person or through letters. The board confirmed that all abutters and relevant town departments had been notified, and there was no public opposition.

Board members clarified that while the addition itself was permissible by right, the accessory apartment required the special permit. Following a brief public comment period, the motion to approve the special permit was seconded and passed unanimously. Special conditions attached to the permit included the submission of a plot plan, final construction plans, and an as-built plan post-completion.

The board then moved on to discuss a variance application for a property on Washington Street submitted by Anna Bazilio on behalf of the property owner. The proposal was to construct a covered porch extending a pre-existing non-conforming structure, thereby creating a new non-conforming front yard setback. This case proved to be more contentious than the previous one. The applicant and her husband, who are expecting their first child, argued that the porch was necessary for safety reasons. However, board members expressed concerns about whether the variance criteria were met, particularly questioning the uniqueness of the property’s soil condition, shape, or topography.

The discussion revealed the complexities involved in granting a variance. One board member noted, “Unfortunately, unlike the previous case, it’s going to be a variance instead of a special permit so it’s a little more difficult to get.” Another member expressed concern about the safety due to the property’s proximity to the street, recalling incidents of near-accidents, and emphasized the need for a structural barrier like a porch. Despite these concerns, the board stressed that the applicant needed to meet four specific criteria mandated by state law, including proving a unique hardship related to the property’s characteristics.

The board did not reach a decision on the variance, opting instead to continue deliberations. They highlighted the possibility of allowing the applicant to withdraw the application to avoid a two-year waiting period before reapplying. The board also mentioned the option to rework the proposal and present it at the next meeting.

In addition to these cases, the board reviewed minutes from a previous meeting concerning a request that had raised substantial public concern. Although the request had been granted, it was later discovered that the board did not have the authority to impose certain conditions, such as restricting hours of operation. This led to a discussion on how to amend the decision to reflect the board’s actual jurisdiction.

Questions arose about the procedural steps required to amend the decision, including whether public notice would be necessary and whether changes would trigger a new appeal period. The board considered issuing an addendum to document the removal of the previously stipulated conditions. One member emphasized the importance of accurately updating the language in the decision to avoid future complications.

This included correcting typos and ensuring the accurate representation of voting members’ names and pronouns in the minutes. A motion to accept the minutes with the discussed corrections was seconded and unanimously approved, followed by a motion to adjourn the meeting.