NAHANT— The Nahant Zoning Board of Appeals met Tuesday for a public hearing to discuss three petitions that were presented, including one filed by Steven Cleary for a shed on his property at 75R Bass Point Road.

Cleary is appealing the Town of Nahant’s Inspectional Services Department’s order to remove a 10×20 shed on 75R Bass Point Road or to move it to a “dimensionally compliant location,” stated Chair Jocelyn J. Campbell

The shed currently exceeds Nahant’s 80 square-foot limit, and if not removed or made compliant, it will result in a $300 fine per day. On September 18, Cleary had applied for a building permit to place a temporary shed on the property, but on October 28, the Building Department sent a letter denying the building permit because the temporary shed was proposed in a location that was not compliant with required zoning dimensions, according to the application.

On December 8, the Building Department then received a complaint for enforcement from a neighbor, and on December 22, they issued the order in response to the complaint. Cleary brought up that before 2018, the limit in Nahant was 200 square feet. “I’m looking to maintain the character of the property and place the shed in a similar position as the structures that are already here,” he told the Board.

Campbell was the first to ask if Cleary knew the size requirement when he applied for the permit, followed by Board member David Walsh, who then asked if the plan was to have the shed permanently installed on the property line. Cleary clarified that the plan calls for it to be six feet from the property line between himself and the Goods.

During the deliberation portion of the meeting, the Board went back and forth on the matter and discussed the original complaint, which was made by a resident on Rollins Ave.

“I was being proactive,” he told the board of the complaint. “And then when I got to the Town and found out that he had wanted a permit, and then the town denied it, and then he put it there anyway as well, then I was even more concerned. So, that’s why this whole thing was brought about.”

He then brought up that another neighbor, who was unable to attend the public hearing, “would want to speak as well, because  I know that they definitely do not want it where it is or even close to where it is right now.”

That then led the Board to contemplate its decision on how to move forward. “We really can’t come to a decision quite now,” Campbell said. “We’re missing some neighbors here that the one of the complainants said that, you know, really should be here, and the members agree. You can either withdraw your matter without prejudice and bring it back again, but that would require you to reapply and pay again, or we can continue the matter.”

The Board ultimately voted on a continuance at their next hearing in two weeks, on March 31.