MeetingWatch
Your area Not set — showing everywhere
Meeting report · Board of Appeals
Creating this report cost real money. Help fund coverage →

Board of Appeals — May 19, 2026

The meeting was largely professional, but tension was present regarding the legal complexities of hardship and the financial burden placed on residents by recent zoning changes.

Date Tuesday, May 19, 2026 Duration 0.8h Speakers 11 Public comments 1 Decisions 6 Mildly contentious
▶ Video

Public ⁠impact

Issues from this meeting with documented community impact.
01

Zoning bylaw changes affecting permit costs

Significant per-applicant cost increase (e.g., $4,300 mentioned for a single applicant) for minor structures. Affected: Local homeowners and property owners
fee change

Decisions ⁠logged

Every recorded vote, with timestamps and dissents.
Continue hearing 26-9 for 5 Phyllis Ave to June 19th.
Motion to continue the meeting to June 19th at or after 7:30 p.m.
5-0-0 (Passed)
Approve variance for 1 Elizabeth Ave.
Approval of a side yard setback variance of 6.3 feet as shown on the submitted plot plan.
5-0-0 (Passed)
Withdraw application 12 for 4 Ardmore Ave without prejudice.
The applicant chose to withdraw the request after the chair suggested the criteria for hardship may not have been met.
5-0-0 (Passed)
Approve minutes from May 5th.
One member abstained due to absence.
4-0-1 (Passed)
Approve minutes from April 21st.
Two members abstained due to absence.
3-0-2 (Passed)
Adjourn meeting.
Formal adjournment of the meeting.
5-0-0 (Passed)

Topics ⁠discussed

Click a topic to expand quotes and full context.
▶ 00:16 Continuation of Hearing 26-9 (5 Phyllis Ave)

The board discussed a request from the applicant to continue the hearing for 5 Phyllis Ave to a later date.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 00:52 Variance Hearing 14 (1 Elizabeth Ave)

The applicant requested a variance for a side yard setback to install a detached accessory shed (approximately 11' x 10.7'). The board discussed the costs incurred by the applicant due to recent zoning bylaw changes regarding the definition of a 'structure'.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 08:53 Variance Hearing 12 (4 Ardmore Ave)

The applicant requested a lot split (subdivision) of a 0.54-acre corner lot into two buildable lots. The board debated whether the applicant met the legal criteria for hardship under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 48, Section 10, noting concerns about density and topography.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker
▶ 42:41 Approval of Minutes

The board reviewed and voted on the meeting minutes from April 21st and May 5th.

Speakers: Unidentified speaker

Controversy & ⁠dissent

Where the board, the community, or the agenda diverged.

Potentially controversial issues

01

Lot split application for 4 Ardmore Ave

The application involved a subdivision of a corner lot into two buildable lots, raising concerns regarding neighborhood density and topography. The applicant's attempt to argue personal financial hardship against the legal requirement for land-based hardship created a point of tension.
Board position: The board signaled that the legal criteria for hardship under MGL Chapter 48, Section 10 were not met, leading to the application's withdrawal.
medium concern
02

Zoning bylaw changes regarding 'structure' definition

Recent changes to the definition of a 'structure' in the town's zoning bylaws have increased costs for residents seeking minor permits, such as sheds, turning 'by-right' improvements into expensive variance requests.
Board position: The board expressed frustration with the current bylaws, noting they have 'hurt residents' by imposing unnecessary financial burdens.
medium concern

Split votes

Approval of minutes from May 5th
4-0-1
Approval of minutes from April 21st
3-0-2

Community vs. board tension

Action ⁠items

Who owes what, by when.
Submit a written request to withdraw the application for 4 Ardmore Ave without prejudice.
Assigned: Rajeshwari Mahadevan (Applicant) · Due: After the meeting

Notable ⁠statements

You had to pay $4,300 to get here for something you should have got by right... Now you have hurt residents. — Unidentified speaker · Expressing frustration that a recent change in the definition of 'structure' in the zoning bylaws forced an applicant to pay significant fees for a shed that should have been permitted by right. ▶ 04:26
My hardship, if it's personal, yes, it's financial hardship. But if it's related to the land, yes, the land is also one of the reasons... — Unidentified speaker · Explaining the basis of her hardship request for the lot split at 4 Ardmore Ave. ▶ 13:09
It doesn't sound like we've met the criteria of hardship on this. — Unidentified speaker · Concluding the discussion on the Ardmore Ave application before offering the applicant the option to withdraw. ▶ 41:50

Public ⁠comment

What residents said — verbatim, with timestamps.
1
Total speakers
1
Addressed
0
Partial
0
Not addressed
Steve Bowen
▶ 06:21
Addressed
Mr. Bowen expressed support for the board's perspective regarding the proposed improvement. He noted that while equipment left in yards can look unsightly, spending a significant amount of money on a proper shed is a positive move for the resident. Key concern
Support for the proposed variance/improvement to help residents manage property aesthetics and housing issues.
Board response
The board chair thanked him for his comments.
The board acknowledged the speaker's comment with a thank you before proceeding with the hearing closure.
Support coverage

Creating this report cost ⁠real money.

MeetingWatch attended, transcribed, and analyzed this meeting on its own dime. If this work is valuable to you, chip in to keep covering Burlington.

Report composed by gemma-4-26b, claude-opus-4-7 · analyzed 2026-05-24.