Board approves variances for Cornfield Point home rebuild, requires plan table update

The State Board of Appeals approved application 25/26‑24C on June 10, 2026, allowing an owner to remove an existing single‑story house and replace it with a two‑story, approximately 1,700‑square‑foot home on a roughly 4,300‑square‑foot corner lot in Cornfield Point.

Attorney Ed Castella, representing applicant Judith Levi, described the proposal as reducing nonconformities by shifting street setbacks (reported in the presentation as about 10.9 feet and 11.2 feet) and increasing a side yard from roughly 2.9 feet to 5.9 feet. Castella said overall lot coverage would drop from about 36.2% to 30.3% while the proposed structure would remain modest in height (about 26 feet) and include an attached one‑car garage. He noted the lot is outside the flood zone and that a Coastal Area Management (CAM) application accompanies the variance request.

Levi told the board she has owned the property since 2002 and cited safety and accessibility reasons for rebuilding, including an existing basement hatchway entrance and winter hazards. Castella read several letters of neighborhood support into the record, including notes from residents stating the new house would fit the neighborhood and enhance property values.

A board member asked staff and counsel to correct discrepancies between the setback dimensions shown on the plan and the application table; Castella agreed the proposed table should be updated on the site plan as a condition of approval. During deliberation, one member questioned whether a small yard alone constituted a hardship, while other members said the project significantly reduces nonconformities and is consistent with the regulations’ purpose.

A motion to approve 25/26‑24C, including the CAM application and requiring that the proposed dimensions table on the plan be corrected, was moved, seconded and adopted. The vote was taken by oral assent; no roll‑call tally was provided in the record.

Procedural notes and related actions The board also addressed an extension request for appeal 23/24‑30C (see below), approved recent meeting minutes and adjourned. The meeting record shows the board intends to require a written statement of reasons for future extension requests, though members approved the one‑year extension requested in the May 14, 2026 letter for appeal 23/24‑30C.

What happens next The applicant must submit an updated site plan with corrected dimension tables as a condition of the board’s approval. No further public testimony was recorded during the meeting, and the board closed the hearing after voting.