Foremost on the agenda was the appeal by John Frederick Tally, a resident who has been selling lobsters from his home for 40 years. Tally sought to overturn a decision by the Building Commissioner that classified his lobster sales as a prohibited use in a residential zone. Despite Tally’s assertion that his business had been a community staple and operated with proper licenses, the board maintained that residential zoning regulations did not permit retail sales without a variance. Tally argued, “everyone in this town… bought them off me from police officers to town hall employees.” However, the board emphasized zoning compliance over past practices, with one member noting, “I just don’t think this should be occurring in a residential area.” The board voted unanimously to uphold the building inspector’s decision, denying Tally’s variance request. The board advised Tally to consider appealing the decision or exploring alternative business arrangements, such as a farmers market setup, which might align with residential zoning laws.

Another decision involved Joseph M. Phillips, who petitioned for a special permit to add a 27 by 10-foot addition to his home on Lindale Road. The addition, initially featuring a rooftop deck, was modified to exclude the deck following privacy concerns from board members and neighbors. Phillips had previously received a favorable ruling from the Conservation Commission, clearing environmental hurdles. With the addition maintaining compliance with zoning setbacks, the board unanimously approved the petition, contingent upon a condition prohibiting future use of the roof as a deck. The board also allowed Phillips to withdraw his variance request without prejudice, as it was deemed unnecessary after the special permit approval.

The meeting also covered a variance petition for an in-ground pool installation on Grant Road, requiring relief from side and rear setbacks due to existing infrastructure. Acknowledging the unique site constraints, the board found sufficient grounds for hardship and approved the variance unanimously, facilitating the pool construction.

Additional discussions addressed zoning compliance issues with other accessory structures and redevelopment plans. One topic of debate was a proposed multifamily development along Route 28, involving shared driveway access with a commercial property. Concerns about the safety implications of shared driveway use, especially with possible commercial truck traffic, sparked extensive dialogue. Board members questioned the driveway’s impact on residential safety, with one voicing, “What happens if a single mother rents one of those units with her three-year-old kid?” The board deferred final decisions on this proposal, scheduling further deliberation to address unresolved questions about the shared driveway’s logistics and safety.