I'm John Cino's chair. Permit me to confirm that all members and persons anticipated on the agenda are present and can hear me. Members, when I call your name, please respond in the affirmative. Uh Mr. Riley >> here, >> Mr. Burton >> here,
>> Mr. Hunt >> here, >> Mr. Cohen >> here, >> and Mr. Damasio >> here. >> Excellent. And uh and we have uh Dena here
>> and uh Mike. >> Yes, sir. Mike Shepard. >> Excellent. See, we got you back. We got you back. >> Only temporarily, I'm >> Oh, sure. Hey, that was that was you said your first 25 years. >> Yeah.
>> Great. Hey, welcome everyone. Um, this open meeting of the board of appeals is being conducted remotely. Please note that this meeting is being recorded accordingly. Please be aware that others may be able to see you and take care not to screen share your computer. Anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. All supporting materials
that have been provided to members of this body are available on the town's website via the the web meeting calendar unless otherwise noted. Each vote taken in this meeting will be conducted by a roll call vote. Now, let me go to the first agenda item
right here. Move this one over a little bit. Let's see. A Hopton Board of Appeals on Wednesday, December 10th, 2025 at 7 p.m. will reopen the public hearing on the petition for variance filed by Ronald and Bob Leoy, 25 Chamberlain Street,
Hopton, Mass to construct a detached accessory dwelling unit in excess of 900 square feet at Chamberlain Street 25 Chamberlain Street, Hopton, Mass. Assesses Map R24, block 20, lot zero. This public hearing is held pursuant of an order of remand issued by the Massachusetts land court for the limited
process of making requirements variance findings under the zoning laws uh under zoning bylaws in MGL chapter 48 section 10. At the close of the public hearing the board will vote its findings and issue a written remand decision as supported by the evidence. The hearing
will be held remotely using the Zoom meeting service. For additional information, please email zba@ hocingtonmass.gov CV call the department of land use and planning permitting at 5084979745 or check the online meeting calendar and agenda for this meeting at hopmma.gov. This legal notice is also posted in
Massachusetts newspapers public association mpa website at masspublic notices.org John chair and cook regarding 255017 this guy. So, as um some of you know, some of you may not know that um I'll read what came
back. Um the that um the board will reopen the hearing for a limited purpose of making required variance find. It shall take not take any testimony, not hear any new evidence on the application. The board
shall deliberate for the sole purpose of making the required findings under bylaw GLC 48. At the close of the public hearing, the board will vote its findings issue written written decision and the board shall issue the remaining decision with
the Hopkins town clerk within 21 days. Okay. So, um, so we've got Michael, Dan, Jim, me. One, two.
Um, who else was on here? One, two, three, four. Dina, who else? >> The the the four of you that voted was yourself, Mike Riley, James, Dan Hunt, and Sean. And Sean won't be there tonight.
>> Sean won't be here. So, it's just four of us for today then. Okay. >> All right. So, um what what it came down to is when we um did our findings, uh we just did the uh
boiler plate that we normally do. And um I think that they wanted us to believe that they wanted us to get into some more detail. So, um I I I can kick off stuff with what what I came up with and you guys can deliberate it or you we can we can
vote on it. Um what I what I came up with is that we find that the literal literal enforcement of provisions would uh um involve substantial hard hardship, noting the proponents um wanting to age
in place and needing room for um inevitable health issues for walkers and um wheelchairs. I understand that. My sister just had a stroke and I need that and I know that a lot. And uh and then
also place the placement of the um unit itself meets all the setbacks even on the odd property line that goes along the front. So so you know enable in order for them to make it so that they
didn't um in impinge upon anybody else's uh um property lines. They I I believe that where they had to that the place that they had to put it is um uh you
know covers us covers it on the um on the on the placement >> the topography you mean >> topography thank you that's good word wasn't coming ahead um so those are that you know that that's you know that's that's all I came
up with um I don't So if uh you know I think that we should also put in a condition that um that they have a natural natural barriers between uh um you know each of the uh any of the abutters
>> through the chair. >> Yes. >> You cannot condition variances. >> Ah >> you can't condition variances. >> Okay. Because usually that's what we ask for that kind of stuff. >> Variances run with the land. So that would be a condition that every owner moving forward would need to adhere to.
>> Okay. Thank you, John. Okay. Um Mr. Riley, uh you want to uh you any comments, Mr. H? Yeah, I think the the a ability to based on the size lot, which is also the topography, I'm going to use
it the other way. um is gives them an opportunity to where it ties into the financial hardship uh in the ability to have their children live on the premises in the other house where they can now
age in place. have relatives close by and uh use u the land as such to not to disturb and not to impinge upon any of the setbacks uh as they build this thing uh and get the chance to live there. So
I think that's why it complies with the the topography and I think in just the opposite way we're always looking why it has to be there. where they're positioning it. It allows them to have a thing that is larger than the the um the
900 ft² or the 750 ft that they're entitled to. Uh but their hardship to me allows them to build something of more size where they can live comfortably, finish their working things and have having two elderly people with me now. I
can tell you occasionally you need walkers. Occasionally you need wheelchairs. Occasionally you need to have a bathroom that doesn't have a lip on the things and it they've just demonstrated a financial hardship to try to convert their home into something that was accessible for them well as
they're older. This is a commonplace things with elder and as as we face this I think it's important that we look at making this possible for elderly people to stay in place with their families on their land when it so allows it to be
so. And I think this is a prime example of that. And so I further that motion and and um I think that's how it meets the requirements John for it when it gets remanded back to the court. They remanded it back to us. The other
thing I'm going to make it really clear and I hope this is in there. The person who opposed this has moved. There is no standing. So the petition that brought forth this complaint that brought it to court, they have moved. So that the o
this would not have been opposed. This was not court. And I shame on him. And he knew he was moving when he opposed it. uh he's afraid to not get enough money for his property or something or thought it was going to interfere with the sale of property. It didn't. So,
shame on him for knowing and spending money to oppose somebody wants to live in their place when he knew he was selling the property. He never made that clear when he when he brought forth the complaint when he sat in front of us. Um so, I I owe I feel we owe him nothing
and I don't think the court owes him anything either. He has no further standing to oppose this. >> Well, it's funny I the way I look at it and um Mr. Shepu could probably uh come in on this. you know, uh, you know, the
the Voices could have put up a a a uh what a 30 by 40 garage, a three car, a large threec car garage that's, uh, that's that's a thousand square feet and done it by right, you know, and, you know, all they just had to do is make sure that they meet all the setbacks.
And it just it's if for me, you know, we we've we've got to take care of of people that want to stay in our town and age in place. You know, I'm not too far behind. And um you know and and as you
know as you know when we're younger you know we could live in you know five or 600 or 700 900 square ft but um as we get older you know just because we're old doesn't mean that we only need one bedroom and a small in a small living room. Uh I'm not ready to go into a
assisted living yet. Um, but anyway, >> I also think that our our town council needs to go to this hearing and ask it be dismissed for lack of standing and nothing further be said. >> They they they shouldn't even get into the meats and bound the meats of this
case. It should be just dismissed. You have to you have to have a harm. There's no harm if he doesn't live there anymore. >> Mr. Burton, from real estate point of view, you have anything? Um, I'd like to add that uh the additional square footage will allow it to be ADA
compliant. Um, uh, beyond that, all the other comments, uh, no standing and and John, your comments are all excellent. And that's pretty much what I'd like to say, >> Mr. Hunt. >> No, I would agree. It's nice they can
age in place and I agree with the rest of the comments. >> Okay. So, um, >> make a motion, John. >> Yes. Okay. So, I'd like to motion make a motion. >> Do we need to do findings first? >> Let's do findings. Yes. Let's I'll let him do findings first.
>> Okay. So, I'll start I'll start over again. I like as I >> pardon me, >> one item. >> Oh, yes. >> Just so we don't, you know, I know this has gone to court and so it doesn't affect it in the future. ADA does not
apply to single family residences. >> Oh, I totally understand that. I totally >> We can indicate that it's going to make the the build, you know, the dwelling more accessible or something, you know, for people with
>> um limited mobility or something like that. But don't don't base it on it being ADA comp. >> Well, no, no. Well, ADA Yeah. So, so it's accessibility is the is the other is the other term that that would actually we should be using that we're
making it accessible because that's I just had to do >> that's fine. I just wanted >> that's why I just had to do it at my at my sister's house. I actually had to knock down a wall um just so that um I could uh just redo her redo her bathroom just so she could get get in there
because 30 years ago when she built she didn't think that she was going to have to go through this. So um anyway uh so uh I'll do the findings. So we find that that the literal enforcement of the provisions would involve substantial
hardship. Not noting the age the need to age in place, need room for walkers, wheelchairs, and uh inevitable health issues >> in the financial hardship because they would they cannot afford to do those
improvements to their current home. It's easier to build and then that way they can also have their family move in there who can kind of be there with them. So that's that's also part of it. >> Okay. And then I and then for the for the placement that they it meets all the
suspect all the setbacks even on the odd that odd property line line in the front. Um and uh the size um well does not uh
like that. Um, oh good. That's without sub. Yeah. Relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and the desirable relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of
the ordinance or bylaw. Yeah. And I really believe that that you know I'm not going to I can't do anything else. It's in the middle of my thing. Um is is I I I believe that that's sufficient. I believe we we covered all the points
that we >> do we vote on the findings. >> So we have I need a second. >> Second. >> Okay. Now we vote on the findings and we already discuss the findings if you want to disc any discussion on the motion.
Hearing none. How do you vote? Mr. Riley? >> Yes. >> Mr. Hunt? >> Yes. >> Mr. Burton? >> Yes. >> And I vote in the affirmative also. Okay. And now the second part.
Um, >> John, what's it? I did the findings. Where's my motion? >> Motion to find for the variance. Is that >> That should be it. That should be it because you already made the decision. The court just remanded back to get on the findings. So now that you voted on
the findings in more detail, I I believe that should be it and you can close the hearing. >> Okay. Motion to close. >> Second. >> Any discussion on the motion to close? Hearing none. Mr. >> Mr. The chair can make a motion.
>> Okay. >> Motion to close the hearing. >> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. All right. Any discussion on the motion to close? hearing none. Mr. Riley, >> yes. >> Mr. Hunt,
>> yes. >> Mr. Burton, >> yes. >> And I vote in the affirmative also. Okay. Mo, it is closed. Okay. All right. So, now we can move on to Maple Street.
All right, guys. A second. Back up to top where Dina just sent them to me. Okay. So, um, Adena, so, so we're reopening.
So, we Well, we never closed 12 people Street. We kept it open, so I don't have to reopen it. >> Correct. >> All right. So, um under uh the usual verbiage you sent me, I have
the um the note from uh George Connors. So, uh maybe I'll turn it over. Is Mr. Is Mr. Connor here? >> I am. Yes. >> Okay. You see me? Um >> yes. Would you uh tell us to tell us
what's going on? >> Sure. May I share screen? >> Can you hear me? >> Should be all set. George. >> Okay. Uh this is a revised uh plan that shows the property and its um
applicability to the uh historic building uh bylaw. And the last time we had discussed this, we had found that this parcel down here had been transferred to this parcel. Uh thus the
um location of the house and the use of the driveway there. uh but that had not um taken place through the various chains of title all the way up to present. So we've revised this lot a little bit down to a smaller size and it
is running along this particular property line right here the existing property line that ran along for the whole totality of the parcel. As you know, we're cutting this out for a new building under that
bylaw. And under the historic uh bylaw, we don't have to deal with area, nor do we have to deal with setbacks. So, of course, we have these various violations as you can see. But now, the lot really
has no frontage. It um is about 80 feet to the house from the end of Ma Maple A Extension which is the layout of the road and then we will then pursue this through the uh courts to get uh title
brought up to this at the appropriate time. Notwithstanding that presently we have the um use of this uh in since 19 since 183 1888 when the house was built
and for certainly before that 1838. So I think that corrects the issues that we had um identified during our last hearing. Happy to answer any questions, respond to any comments or um offer any changes that you may see fit.
>> Okay. Before we started, excuse me, Dina, could you tell us uh who is on this one? >> Yeah, it's um yourself, Mike, Riley, James, Arnold, and Dan. >> Okay, beautiful.
All right. Anybody uh anybody have any questions for Mr. Connors? So I I guess since we're changing what you presented, did you have to re John I'm talking to John G. since he since
the petitioner changed what they do they have to redo or amend their original >> I mean that's up to the board if the board thinks that it's a substantial change that requires um renotification of a butters and an opening of a new
hearing then they would but um we've had it in the past where the the relief requested is effectively the same relief just different dimensions. >> Okay. Yeah. I don't want I don't want to make him go through a lot of lot of
problems if if if >> what he applied for before is just simply amended and he still and we still have the authority to grant them that. That's all I'm concerned about. >> Yeah. We um when we notice uh these types of hearings, these even with
special permits and variances, the the numbers can change. So, we don't advertise the exact amount that they're requesting because we know that might change. really just poor variance for this. Um and so there's some flexibility on the board's side to make those small changes when needed.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. And I I I see it as dimminimous. It it's uh again it's we're still doing the same thing frontage just a different number. Um, but now I'm just glad see and and considering that I was, as I
said before, part of writing this bylaw, it's I know the spirit of the bylaw and and this is another perfect example of just why we did it. So, we can still keep the a a a historical structure in here. And um you know, as Mr. Masterson
pointed out, you know, it's you know, this the distance from the from the lines, all that makes no difference. It could be a zero. It can be down to zero. But as long as they they keep that house and and still make it usable, I'm fine. I just what before
Mr. Connor, that's what I was worried about was was granting granted frontage on land that the that the um uh proponent still didn't uh have control of. And so now that you said that you're going to pursue it later on and just do
this with zero for I'm I'm I'm good with it. Um, Mr. Chairman, >> yes. >> I have a couple questions. Uh, uh, George, has the, uh, has it been determined by the historical commission
that the existing building is a a historical building? >> It is by definition because of its age. It was constructed in 1888, so it's well over the uh, required number. I don't know what that number is
off the top of my head. 50 years maybe. >> 50. It's 50 years for the for which is which is sounds probably kind of funny now, huh? >> Yes. Yeah. That was a college. >> So you don't really need a determination by the historical commission because
per se it's a historical building >> per se. Correct. and documented on the assessor's cards >> and and the um bylaw 210-117.2 talks about a lot may be created which
does not meet the size and setback requirements but it doesn't say anything about the frontage requirements. >> It does not and that's the reason we're here >> and that's what Mr. Masterson was was
talking about last uh at our last meeting, Arnold, was that um I think um the one we voted on just before this, all they had was a driveway for their frontage and um and we called
it uh we said it was okay because that that's what the spirit of the law was that in some cases you might have to create a a strange pork chop lot just in order to make it work. And rather than have people create very strange shaped lots and to try and make this make it
work, um we we came up with this bylaw because otherwise people would knock down that that old house and put up two or three other houses and and we'd lose the uh our historical um connection here in Hopington.
>> All right. Is is lot one going to be a conforming lot? >> It is. Yes. >> All right. It has more than 100 ft of frontage and more than 22,000 square ft of area. >> Yeah. So, I'm not sure that the the
argument that the frontage doesn't apply. Uh uh but uh I I understand the argument. So, I'm not and it's the spirit of the law. So, uh I I not going to oppose it. I'm going to, you know, I'll vote in
favor it. I'm not sure that uh uh that and just want to say for the record that we're not making a precedent on that issue, at least as far as I'm concerned. And uh
>> Arnold, if if I could clear that up. So the the ZBA doesn't have the authority to wave frontage requirements or the planning board, I should say, doesn't have the authority to wave frontage requirements for this. uh the plan board does have the authority to grant the special permit to allow for the size and
setback requirements to be waved or to be reduced. That's why they're coming for a variance for the frontage. So the the only thing that the board is doing right now is contemplating the variance for the frontage on this. The historic nature of the building and all
the other details are something that's under the jurisdiction of the planning board. Does that make sense? All right. So, so, so what is it about the uh topography or the shape of the lot that
uh we we would grant a variance uh on the frontage? >> The issues um with respect to how this lot is different than others in the neighborhood uh include
um its shape. Its shape is um one that has uh literally no frontage for the existing um dwelling, which therefore then would um argue against any kind of
a uh historic structure bylaw being operable. The the land also is very low and flat. It is surrounded by and this is in the document um drainage ditches from past agricultural activities that
have become clogged and now the uh groundwater elevations are fairly high. the wetlands have um basically encircled this entire lot somewhat along the boundary lines of it and where the uh
current wetland regulations in the town have a uh 50 foot no touch. If you put a a little buffer on this plan with 50 feet, you'll end up with very little land um that's able to be used
and therefore it constrained the location of the proposed dwelling and um also had limits on the ability of um the uh property to be again subdivided under
this 117 210 117.2 too. Um, in terms of uh the shape of it, the shape really is uh something that is relative to frontage where the bylaw does not even ask about frontage. It gives waiverss
uh or it gives relief for um standing relief for setbacks and area but does not talk about frontage. So, we don't even know if frontage is a uh numerical requirement.
Um and then finally um the uh the uh hardship with the land is also that we have to extend some kind of access for the property from the
existing paved way for fire apparatus to be able to um access the property and really egress the property a lot more quickly than it presently. certainly could as you can see that there's a proposed fire lane easement on the plan
which the applicant has dealt with the fire department on for this to go through. Um all that having been said if this um and the regulations of the wetlands uh protection act in Hopington,
their own regulations weren't um in place. this would be a simple subdivision going down extending the road or um coming in with a much bigger house. So I think that um between soils
um being impacted by groundwater, topography being very flat and impacted again by the lack of the maintainance of drainage structures in there and of course the shape of the fact of the wetlands and the property with the
buffer zone. Unlike others in the neighborhood, we can um meet the requirement for the u the requirement for a variance on those three. >> Okay. So, >> so is there any Well, I had another
question. Is there any reason where where there's that street extension seems to stop before the uh end of the uh border of light one? But >> well, I don't know.
>> Can that area be paved? >> Well, I don't know. That was that was the issue that that's why they came back to us because there was the remember if you recall there was there was the ownership of that that lot that they couldn't um confirm to us. And so that's
why they're coming back and saying instead of looking for I think they were looking for 75 feet before of of relief, now they now they're asking for a full 100 feet of relief until they prove that they
that they uh indeed control that part of the land. Well, that's that's that you know that rectang you know beside the >> beside the where it says street extension there's like a rectangle there and that's the one that you found a deed
that showed that uh it was part of this lot too >> see a little parcel below it >> but to answer your previous question we are going to pave well well past that street extension and into the uh
proposed fire lane easement as shown on a site plan which we have to go before. >> So So you'd have you'd have some frontage if you did that >> physical. Yes. Physical on a pave way. Yes.
>> All right. John, can I ask for Mr. Shepard's opinion? >> Sure. >> Michael, do you have an opin Shephard? Do you have an opinion on this? Can you hear me now? >> Yep. Hi. >> I finally figured it out. Too many
>> too. >> The uh I agree with John. You know, in terms of the bylaw to preserve a historic structure, we could almost do anything. We have way too many new structures in town and uh they don't make old ones anymore. Uh but I I think
that what Mr. Connor's done uh answers the question from the previous meeting where it was that that long strip in front was a question as to who owns it. And I'm sure they're going to work on getting that rectified. But uh it it really doesn't matter at this point
because they use it. They drive on it. They park on it. They're going to pave it. Um so I suspect that'll all be fine. But I I hardly endorse the the the bylaw for this purpose to protect the old house. The the second part of this um is
u as a parent as all you folks are um I think it's important to to you know to keep your kids close and uh um the wife of of Mr. D'Angelo is an elder Kathleen
Elder. You all know Paul Elder and uh PJ Elder lives on uh Nebraska Street which is like 200 feet from this house. Paul lives on Pleasant Street 200 feet the other direction and his younger son lives now at the end of Pleasant Street.
So Paul has effectively got most of his family all together here which which is great from a parents perspective. Um but and I know you can't use that in your decision making but u all of us dream of that kind of scenario where where that
happens. Also all these kids went to Hopkin public schools. The Dangelo's kids which are two of them uh currently go to Hopkin public schools and if they get this and they can build this house they can uh continue to live in town and
and we got another great family that just stays in town. I I guess that's my two cents and uh you know take it for what it's worth. Thank you Jets. You guys are doing a great job by the way. >> I love our love.
>> This is great. Yeah, you know and that that's you know you know um previously you know people probably would have put that in the findings. Great family want to keep them as as part of the facts but I don't think I don't think Mr. Gelich will allow us to put that in the fight for the
>> and I agree completely. >> That was my two cents and you asked for it. So >> I absolutely asked for it and I appreciate it. >> Yeah. >> Excellent. Okay. So, um James, do you have anything anything for this one?
>> No. >> Okay. And Dan, I think you're on this one, too. Yeah. >> Yep. I agree. I think it's I think it's wonderful as well. >> Excellent. Thanks, Dad. All right. So, um >> no want to Oh, Mr.
>> Still here. >> Oh, right. Sorry. I I only It's only showing me five boxes on top of the thing. Uh, I agree wholeheartedly with Mike, but I think before we issue a variance on this, we should have
something to the fact that that piece of property is owned by, you know, this the main piece of property. And the second thing is is that if they're applying for a variance, one of the requirements is that we have
a certificate of appropriateness issued by the historic commission that we don't. >> But anything over 50, anything over 50 years, >> anything over 50 years is considered, you know, something at 50 I I think that
we could we would have to go. But 1838, Mike, I think that that's >> No, I I agree with that. But the fact is is that it says for a variance you should be having a certificate of appropriateness from the historic commission and we don't have it. It's an
easy enough thing to do and you know we're basing it you know we can't you know as said before we can't condition a variance on that piece of property being attached to the main
piece of property. So I think they just like I said I agree wholeheartedly that we should be granting this to save the historic structure to let them all live together in the same area but I think we
should do it uh appropriately. >> May I comment? >> Sure. >> Mr. Chairman, I wonder why >> George One second. George is George is going to say something. Oh, I see.
>> Oh, okay. Um, uh, 210172, uh, does not carry the requirement of some kind of an appropriateness certificate from the historic commission. I think that it's actually if it is a 1888 uh structure that it
exceeds the 50 years. Um, in terms of that parcel, um, we're not, uh, suggesting that has anything to do with the request for the variance whatsoever. Um, the variance is simply for a
frontage, um, to a street that is 80 ft distance. And whether we use parcel one or not, it is not part of the petition. Um, and if it does become that in the future, it
would never have um any impact on the uh document that grants the variance. >> Okay. Well, I'm reading right from your application submission requirements uniform application for special permit petition for variance. Oh,
>> in your application that you submitted and one of the items is copy of any political decision or permit issued by a town of Hopington entity not included above such as the certificate of appropriateness issued by the historic district commission.
>> That's for the special permit um from the planning board. That's not you folks. We're only we're only doing the as as John stated at the beginning, we're only doing a variance for the 100 ft. >> Planning board takes care of the rest.
>> Correct. So, it's a two-step process. We have to go to planning board. As you can see, I included that information that you may um know that we're going there. Oh, our next stop is planning board.
Assuming we get a uh a variance. Okay. Okay. >> All right. Uh Dan, let's see who else do. Uh Dan, Arnold, James, Mike, and me. James, anything? >> No.
>> Okay. Uh any members of the uh public wish to speak to this? Anyone? Anyone? Hearing none. Okay.
>> Make a motion to close the public hearing. >> We have a second. >> Second. >> Okay. Jim, thank you for the second. Okay. Any discussion of the motion to close? Hearing none. Um, uh, Mr. Riley,
>> yes. >> Burton, >> yes. >> Mr. Cohen, >> yes. >> And Mr. Hunt, >> yes. >> Okay. And I vote in the affirmative also. Okay. So, public hearing is closed. Um,
so we've got uh so my my findings from be my findings from before uh don't reflect the the 75 ft change >> it's 100 ft now I believe >> that now we're looking for the 400 I
think before we just 75. So if I say something wrong please correct me. Um, I move that the board of appeals find the following as relates to proposed development 12 Maple Street Extension. The applicant is has stated that the
intent to sub subdivide the current lot into two lots to process of lots of historic structures set forth in 210 117.2. The proposed lot one would meet dimensional requirements with the exception of front setback which will provide 30 feet instead of the 40. Is
that is that still correct Mr. Connor? Um, >> could you change? I think that one I think that one meets it completely now. >> That's fine. >> Um, >> fine. Gosh, look. >> Yeah, because because if you said you
moved it a little bit, I think that now you have >> We didn't move house. We didn't move the house. >> Oh, no, but you moved the the the frontage. The front set back. Oh, no. Okay. So the front sub act same. Thank you. Okay, it's right. 30 instead of 40. So so it's 10 ft. Thank you. Request for
a variance of grant would reduce the required setback from the street line or front set back from 40 ft to 30 ft for lot one. Proposed lot two would be def would be deficient with respect to the required frontage to also require variance reducers requirement. Um
uh oh it has to be 100 ft that owing to the circumstances relating to the soil conditions um wetland shape topography and land structures but not affected generally the zoning district which is located a little enforcement of the provisions of
the B involve substantial hardship or financial otherwise. This includes the wetlands drainage, the um buffer zone required for the wetlands. Um and uh there was one other thing that I
didn't write down, but um I'll leave it for that. That desirable relief may be granted without substantial judgment to the public good. And that desirable relief may be granted without nullifying of substantially dergating from the intent or purpose of
the ordinance of the or bylaw. >> Would would somebody like to make that motion? >> Second. >> I would like to make Yeah, this is on the findings. I like to make a motion that what John has just read is our is our findings.
>> And now we need a second. second. >> Okay. Uh any dis any discussion on that? Um do you have enough on that, Adena? >> I know that I I did a lot of talking in the middle of it. Just want to make sure
that that I was clear enough. >> I have the the the um >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. Excellent. Okay. I hearing not nothing on the discussion, Mr. Riley. Yes, >> Mr. Cohen. >> Yes.
>> Um, uh, James, where are you? Uh, >> yes. >> Okay, Dan. >> Yes. >> And I'll vote in the affirmative also. Okay. Okay. Now, just move my decision. I move the board approved the variance for 12 Maple Street extension to reduce
the setback from the street requirement for lot one from 40 feet to 30 feet and to reduce the frontage requirement for lot two. um for the zero feet on the 100 feet and allow for the subdivision of
the light under section 210 117.2 of the zoning bylaws. Would somebody like to make that motion? >> I make a motion to um >> would you like to move my motion? >> What's that? >> Would you like to move my motion? >> Well, you're not supposed to make a
motion. So, I like to move >> No, no, I can make it but just you have to be moving it. I move the motion forward. >> Yes, that's right. We do a town meeting. We move the motion as written in the at the town articles. Yes. And then we got a second. Okay.
>> All right. >> Any discussion on the decision? Hearing none. Uh Mr. Hunt, >> yes. >> Cohen, >> yes. >> Mr. Burton, >> yes. >> Mr. Riley, >> yes.
>> And I vote in the affirmative also. Okay. Um, thank you. Thank you very much for coming in. Thank you for for the clarification and and all that. >> Thank you. >> And uh, you know, I'm I'm I'm glad that uh, you know, that that we can keep some
historical structures and and it's just it's nice that we have a piece of history with us, Mr. Sheepard, that uh, that can tell us the lineage of every home that's here. Not that I'm going to say that he inspected that one that was built there because he's going to he still has to come inspect some of my
property. So, I'm going to be very, very good. Thanks. Don's not saying a word. >> Have a good night, Mr. Connor. >> Mr. Connor, everyone. Be safe. Um, okay. So, we had uh we had three three sets of
minutes. Um, I looked them over and they they looked they looked good to me. Uh, would somebody like to make a motion? Uh uh would somebody does anybody have any changes or would somebody like to make a motion to accept them as drafted? >> Uh do we have to do them individually I
believe >> or can we do them as a collective? >> If nobody has any changes to any then we can do them as a collective. make a motion to accept the minutes for it was
>> was it like 911 or was it uh 920 923 >> 924 910 and uh 1112 >> 112 I make a motion to accept those minutes as written >> second thank you Mr. Burton any
discussion on the motion hearing none Mr. Riley >> yes >> Mr. Mr. Damasio. >> Yes. >> Mr. Hunt. >> Yes. >> Mr. Cohen. >> Yes. >> Mr. Moer. >> Sorry. Yes. >> Mr. Burton.
>> Yes. >> And I vote in the affirmative also. Excellent. Thank you. Okay. So, we got that through. Okay. Adena, what do we have coming up? >> Our next hearing, our next meeting is next week, but we don't have anything on
it. So, I don't think I'm like 90% sure there's nothing for next week's meeting. >> I didn't see anything for next week. That's why I thought we'd >> I think that the next one we have something for would be January 14th. >> Okay.
>> Just to check my Sorry. Yeah, January 14th would be the next one. And there's I think just one that's zero Lumber Street. >> Oh, yeah. That that's the that that's a change of uh change of use or something, isn't it?
>> Yeah, it's the more than 2500 square ft of imperous surface in the WRPOD district. >> Okay. I haven't read through the whole thing, but that's what I have on for a new commercial building. >> Oh, excellent. All right. Uh I, you
know, while we're still in session, uh John, thank you very much for your help on this one. Really >> very much. Thank you so much, John. >> Really, we we we couldn't have done it without you, Mr. Sheepard. Thank you very much. If you're still here, um Adena, always
thanks for letting me come in and and bother you all the time, too. Um all right. I guess I guess that's it. Thank you everybody for coming. Could I get a motion to uh to adjurnn? >> Motion. >> Second. >> Okay, that's great. Any discussion on
the motion? Hearing none, Mr. Riley? >> Happy holidays. Yes. >> Mr. Burton. >> Yes. >> Mr. Cohen. >> Arnold. >> Yes. Yes. I was muted. >> Mr. Hunt. >> Yes. Mr. Damasio,
>> yes. >> Mr. Moer, >> yes. >> And I vote in the affirmative also. Excellent. Thank you everyone. Really, thank you for for for for hanging in with this one. This, you know, these were these these were just great ones. Uh, you know, great examples of of uh
you know, aging in place. And then uh uh and then the historical structures. I I'm just really happy about the historicals. It's great we can keep the old buildings. I just want to keep the old people. Okay. Hey, God bless everyone. Have a great holiday everyone and thank you so much. I will see you in
2026. >> Thanks, John. Same to you. >> God bless. >> Goodbye.