The primary focus of the meeting was a public hearing concerning a special permit application submitted by Russ Greco for constructing a one-car garage on his property on Old Wend Road. Greco sought approval to build the garage within a 25-foot setback on the north side of his property, citing changes in zoning laws as the reason for needing the permit. The applicant argued that his property should have been grandfathered under previous regulations, as his residence was built in 1988. However, current zoning requirements necessitated the permit process. Greco presented photographs and statements to the board, highlighting that he had consulted with neighboring property owners, all of whom, except one living out of town, supported his proposal.

Greco detailed his plan to place the garage close to the original side setback of 15 feet. He emphasized that the decision was largely based on aesthetic considerations and had received positive feedback from nearby residents. During the presentation, Jeff, a board member, conducted a site review to confirm the property line demarcations. Greco assured the board that he had hired a surveyor in 1988 to verify the property corners, though he believed further confirmation was unnecessary for the current proposal.

The board deliberated over the specifics of Greco’s proposal, referencing zoning by-law section 4.2 D2 B2, which addresses non-habitable accessory structures and their proximity to property lines. They discussed whether additional criteria, outlined in section 9.3 D2 for special permits, needed review. Ultimately, the board concluded that the project met the necessary standards and did not present any adverse effects or elicit negative testimony from residents. The potential environmental impact, compatibility with surrounding uses, and consistency with the town’s master plan were also evaluated, with board members agreeing that these concerns were minimal.

The members also discussed rural siting principles and the necessity of ensuring the garage was constructed in substantial conformance with submitted plans. The issue of who should measure setbacks—the building inspector or via some other method—sparked a debate. Some members felt the significant wooded buffer of over 100 yards between properties eliminated the need for precise measurements by an inspector, while others highlighted the importance of verification for maintaining zoning integrity.

The board unanimously approved Greco’s draft permit after minor amendments, initiating a 20-day countdown for any further actions. There was a sense of urgency from the applicant to obtain a certified copy of the decision from the building inspector’s office. The board also discussed practical issues, such as the town clerk’s availability for registering the decision before the end of November.

In another significant agenda item, the board addressed potential amendments to local zoning by-laws in response to new state laws concerning accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The state regulations, effective February 2, allow for a maximum ADU size of 900 square feet or half the size of the principal dwelling, whichever is smaller, and eliminate the owner-occupancy requirement. These changes conflict with Shutesbury’s existing by-laws, which cap ADUs at 800 square feet and mandate owner-occupancy. The board recognized the impending need to amend local by-laws by the town meeting in May to comply with state mandates.

Concerns were raised about implementing these changes, particularly regarding the implications for duplexes and the definition of a principal dwelling. The eligibility of duplexes for ADUs was ambiguous, prompting discussion about how state-level deliberations might resolve these uncertainties. The board agreed to forward questions regarding ADUs to the planning board to ensure all stakeholders remained informed.

In addition to these central topics, the board heard from Peter Geese, a resident requesting a variance for adjustments to electric service infrastructure on his property, which faced challenges due to tree obstructions and zoning constraints. The board explored the procedural steps required for a special permit application as a potentially more straightforward alternative to a variance.