Central to the board’s deliberations was the challenge of balancing the bylaws with the applicant’s request. Anderson’s proposal sought to exceed the allowed 25% maximum lot coverage by approximately 80 square feet, a 1.5% increase for his 5,388-square-foot lot. He argued that the deck was essential for family gatherings, emphasizing the limited space in his current home. Despite having support from a direct neighbor, Anderson was the sole voice in favor of his project during the meeting, with other neighbors notably absent.

The board’s examination focused on the definition of the property’s front and rear lines, considering its location on a corner lot. Determining Hancock Street as the front led to questions regarding setbacks and additional variances. The primary concern remained the lot coverage issue rather than setbacks from neighboring properties. Anderson countered, arguing that the small lot size should be a consideration, although this position was not universally accepted by the board.

Attention also turned to an existing shed on the property, contributing to the lot coverage. A suggestion was made to remove the shed to accommodate the deck within the coverage limits.

The board also addressed the procedural aspects of the variance request, including the consequences of a potential denial. A denial would prevent Anderson from reapplying for two years, prompting the board to suggest alternatives. Options included withdrawing the application without prejudice or requesting a continuance to explore compliant designs. Anderson expressed confusion about these options, seeking clarification on how to proceed without limiting future possibilities. A continuance could allow him to collaborate with his contractor for a revised proposal to be presented in January, without the need for new advertisements.

In addition to the deck variance, the meeting included other business matters such as a confirmation letter from a member named Brett about a pool project meeting setback requirements. Future meeting schedules were also confirmed, adhering to the usual pattern of convening on the first Tuesday of each month unless scheduling conflicts emerged. The board approved the minutes from the previous meeting without objections and briefly discussed upcoming applications.