The approved project, which involves the replacement of a problematic house with a new single-family residence and a garage featuring an accessory apartment, raised questions regarding the size and layout of the additional living space. Board members sought clarity on the accessory apartment’s dimensions and the relationship to existing structures on the lot. Particularly, the discussion highlighted the need for the apartment to function as a complete, separate housekeeping unit, equipped with a kitchen, living room, bathroom, and no more than one bedroom, as stipulated by zoning requirements.

A notable concern discussed was the impact of the accessory apartment on the neighborhood’s character and the potential detriment to adjacent properties. The board also addressed the septic system’s adequacy in supporting the new development, referencing an email inquiry to the Board of Health for approval. Furthermore, the board scrutinized the plans for setback dimensions and deliberated over the possibility of the property being further divided in the future, which led to the decision that a deed restriction was necessary to prevent such division.

In addition to the special permit, the board members discussed off-street parking provisions and the need for reasonable deviations from dimensional requirements to accommodate individuals with disabilities. In this context, it was confirmed that office space within the proposed structure would be designed to be handicap accessible.

Another issue brought before the board was a request for a variance to separate two dwellings on a single property into individual lots. Susan Santos, the applicant, sought the variance to allow her grandson to finance improvements to the front dwelling. The board members debated their authority to create new lots and the legal implications of such a subdivision. After a discussion that revealed a lack of clarity regarding legal procedures and the status of the plan’s approval by the planning board, the applicant’s attorney withdrew the application.

Additionally, the meeting touched on the withdrawal of a separate application without prejudice, which the board allowed, giving the petitioner the option to reapply at their discretion. A local resident’s concerns about access to a road obstructed by cars, trees, and a chicken coop were deemed a civil matter and directed to the police or the zoning enforcement officer.

Lastly, the board briefly considered a planning board request about a site plan for a new motorcycle repair and fabrication business and discussed the approach to an upcoming 40B project, which involves a subdivision and could entail a lengthy process. The board discussed the importance of familiarizing themselves with the necessary regulations and the potential need to hire a consultant for guidance.