The pool proposal on Windswept Path drew intense scrutiny from both board members and the community. The petitioner sought a variance to construct a 14×26 foot pool closer to the property line than permitted by local zoning regulations. Concerns were raised about the pool’s proximity to neighboring properties, with Thomas Manning, a resident of Shell Drive, voicing strong opposition. Manning argued that the proposed pool, located only 14.5 feet from the property line, would exacerbate existing issues related to crowding and privacy. He highlighted the removal of trees that once provided a buffer and expressed concerns about potential flooding and environmental impacts, stating that the lot was too small to support a pool.

Further opposition was documented in letters from Thomas and Gail Care, and Judith Bowski, both of whom criticized the variance request. They highlighted potential violations of setback requirements and noted the environmental sensitivity of the area, particularly due to its proximity to conservation land and the Chase Garden Creek salt marsh. Concerns about noise, lighting, and potential effects on the fragile water table were also emphasized. Bowski’s letter questioned whether board members had visited the site to assess the situation firsthand.

In response to the opposition, the petitioner expressed surprise at the community’s reaction, noting that they had received positive feedback during recent house renovations. However, the board remained focused on the pool issue, expressing concerns about its proximity to lot lines and the potential nuisance it could create for neighbors. The board also discussed the necessity of a four-foot fence around the pool, acknowledging that the backyard was already fenced, but maintained that the proposed distance from the property line was insufficient.

Ultimately, the petitioner chose to withdraw the variance request without prejudice, allowing for the possibility of reapplying in the future. This decision was met with a unanimous motion to acknowledge the withdrawal, effectively removing the controversial proposal from the board’s agenda for the time being.

Another topic at the meeting was the proposal for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on Town Brook Road. The proposal, presented by Don Bracken on behalf of Christopher and Linda Roberts, sought a special permit to create a 630 square foot apartment above a proposed garage. The board raised several concerns, including the need for a modification to an existing special permit issued in 2021 and the absence of a landscape plan. The board emphasized the importance of compliance with zoning bylaws, particularly regarding the occupancy of the ADU. Despite these issues, the Roberts expressed their intent to make the property their primary residence and rent the ADU to individuals working at a nearby assisted living facility. The board suggested that the petitioners withdraw their application without prejudice to refine the proposal, acknowledging the challenges faced in navigating zoning regulations.

The meeting also addressed a request by Michael and Helen Cassels to modify a previous decision to increase the number of guest rooms at their property. The Cassels emphasized the need for additional rooms to compete with short-term rentals and maintain business viability. The board reviewed the property’s history and expressed support for the request, contingent on obtaining necessary approvals from the health and building departments. The motion to modify the special permit was unanimously approved, with the board acknowledging the Cassels’ commitment to the property’s restoration and its significance to the community.

Lastly, the board deliberated on a variance request for an ice vending machine at Luke’s Liquor. The proposal aimed to place the machine more than six feet from the principal building, which required a variance due to zoning bylaw stipulations. The board discussed the potential traffic and safety implications, as well as landscaping improvements to enhance the site’s appearance. Concerns were raised about the practicality of the proposed location and its impact on parking and emergency access. Ultimately, the board allowed a continuance to February 27, giving the petitioner time to explore alternative solutions and address the board’s concerns.