A special permit request to tear down an existing home and reconstruct a new one at brought out confusion, scoffs and Webster’s dictionary at Thursday’s Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.

The reason for all of this: the word “reconstruct.”

The Board approved Greta Fox’s application to demolish an existing cottage and former garage foundation—which all have only a few inches from abutters—to make way for a 2,000-square-foot structure [An earlier version of this story incorrectly had the size at 7,500 square feet. This number is the size of the lot] at a different spot on the property. The new setbacks from the rear and the road would also be improved.

Some abutters, however, had an issue with the zoning bylaw allowing “any alteration of a nonconforming structure” to be done.  Attorney Ralph Copeland, representing abutter Kerry O’Brien, said tearing down one building and erecting a totally new one “wasn’t an alteration.”

Abutter Charles Peck said the reconstruction and a larger size also cancelled out the bylaw.

Building Inspector Andy Bobola told Peck and Copeland the entire bylaw allows any alteration of a nonconforming structure “amounting to reconstruction, demolition of an old dwelling and construction of a new one.”

Bobola additionally presented Board of Appeals Case #1137, in which abutter O’Brien was approved to do practically the same work that Fox had applied for: Demolish an existing structure to rebuild it, but larger. That approval was made January 21, 2009.

Board Member Mary Anne Brogan, who opposed the motion to approve, questioned if the work was really a rebuild.

“They’re not altering it,” she said. “But what’s the definition of reconstruction? They’re not reconstructing the same building.”

Cue the dictionary, which defines it as “constructing, establishing or assembling again.”

“We’re doing what O’Brien essentially did three years ago,” Fox said. “And now they’re complaining about it.”

The Board approved the request 4-1.