The board’s most significant deliberation centered on a petition concerning the property at 10 and 10A Ruby Street. The owner sought to modify a previous decision from 2006 to increase the total number of bedrooms from four to five. The petition also requested a waiver from the requirement for a certified site or plot plan. The owner explained personal circumstances, including the need for more space due to family visits, stating, “I have a three-month-old baby,” and emphasized that both his and his wife’s parents required accommodation when visiting.

Board members expressed concerns about the potential increase in occupancy and its impact on the neighborhood. A neighbor, Titar Ibanov, submitted a letter voicing no objection to the additional bedroom but highlighted frequent noise disturbances from tenants, particularly J1 students during the summer. The letter detailed loud gatherings, including one incident with over 20 people, resulting in police involvement due to noise complaints.

The board echoed these concerns, with members referencing previous issues with noise and property management. The property’s status as a two-family house on a small lot in a single-family neighborhood raised questions about its current legal setup, particularly since the second dwelling was originally permitted for a handicapped owner and not intended for continued use after the property changed ownership.

During the discussion, the board also raised concerns about the septic system’s capacity, designed for four bedrooms, and compliance with health regulations if an additional bedroom were approved. One board member emphasized, “I can’t imagine the board of health being too happy about this becoming a five-bedroom,” underscoring the potential issues with increased occupancy.

Members delved into the historical context of the property’s legal status, noting that previous board decisions allowed leniency due to circumstances beyond the current owner’s control. However, they cautioned that due diligence should have been exercised before purchasing the property, particularly regarding its zoning history.

The conversation revealed a consensus against approving the fifth bedroom, citing the cumulative issues of lot size, existing noise complaints, and the legal status of the dwelling. A member firmly stated, “Five bedrooms is a big no no,” indicating the proposed change’s incompatibility with the neighborhood’s character. They also noted that previous renovations might not align with conditions set in earlier approvals, which limited the number of bedrooms.

The board chair suggested the owner could either proceed with a likely unfavorable vote or withdraw the petition without prejudice, allowing for a potential appeal in the future. The owner expressed confusion about the necessity of removing basement renovations completed with permits and emphasized compliance with town regulations. The board reiterated that legal issues regarding the property would fall under the building department’s purview and advised consulting an attorney.

In a related matter, the board addressed a petition from a limited liability company concerning a garage construction at a different property. The LLC owners, Ana Bulgaro and Constantine Carcelli, alleged that the construction violated condominium bylaws and Massachusetts General Law. They claimed the garage encroached upon exclusive use areas and caused property damage.

The board examined whether the garage complied with zoning setbacks and noted that exclusive use lines in condominium bylaws did not constitute property boundaries for zoning purposes.

Despite the LLC’s arguments, the board concluded that unless there was a clear violation of zoning laws, they could not revoke the permit based solely on alleged breaches of condo bylaws. A motion to deny the request to reverse the building commissioner’s decision was made, seconded, and passed unanimously.