The meeting’s primary focus was a petition concerning construction on New Ocean Street, where the board grappled with ensuring that the building inspector received all necessary documentation before approving the permit. The concern was that any discrepancies in the plans might exacerbate existing nonconformities. The board resolved to include a reference to the Hancock plan, which outlines key dimensions related to the property. A motion was introduced to affirm the existing nonconformity. This motion was aligned with the Balta case, establishing a precedent for handling such matters. The motion also stipulated that the petitioner submit any needed plans or drawings to meet the building code and zoning bylaw. After a seconding of the motion, it was unanimously approved, contingent upon the building inspector’s requirements.

Attention then shifted to Petition 253, presented by Arthur Sims, who sought to add an addition to his property. The addition would encroach upon the 7.5-foot setback, a situation complicated by the irregular shape of his lot. Sims explained that his existing garage was 5.9 feet from the property line and that he intended to maintain this distance for the new addition. The board discussed whether this situation required a variance, considering the potential increase in nonconformity due to the addition’s bulk. Citing similar past cases, the board noted that expansions within existing nonconforming structures had previously been allowed without requiring a variance.

Sims defended his proposal, arguing that maintaining the existing setback would be more beneficial for the neighborhood than extending further into the buildable zone. He assured the board that the addition would not disrupt neighbors’ sight lines and that existing vegetation would remain undisturbed. The board acknowledged that the existing structure’s configuration warranted careful consideration, as it was not a straightforward extension. After deliberations, the board agreed that the proposed work would not increase the nonconforming nature of the existing 5.9-foot setback. This decision was documented as a finding rather than a special permit, with procedural steps outlined to ensure compliance before proceeding to the building department.

Earlier in the meeting, the board reviewed Petition 25001, which involved construction that had raised concerns from neighboring property owner Steve Gadman. Gadman expressed that the proximity of the construction to his property led to unexpected modifications, creating a sense of confinement in his backyard. He described the situation as akin to “looking up at a wall.” The board discussed the legal implications of the construction, emphasizing that it fell under the category of “continuing a pre-existing non-conformity.” A board member articulated that the work should not increase this non-conformity beyond its current state. The discussion included concerns about the construction proceeding without proper plans, with recognition of the building inspector’s cease-and-desist order. However, the board felt limited in its authority to impose further restrictions.

The board considered whether the petitioner should submit plans for review. This proposal aimed to balance adherence to procedural norms with addressing the concerns of impacted residents.