to the chair. You're live on HCAM. Excellent. Thank you very much, Ham. That's 659. We're We're here early. I just have to wait another minute to make it all legal and proper. Good evening everyone. Thanks for
coming. John, John, Dan, James, uh, Adena, thank you as always. One, two, three, four, five. Oh, we get five to open. Vice chair is not going to make it today.
Sean with his tie on and everything. out bad. I just came from work. I figured I'd leave it on. What? I'll do an exit button. Yeah. on TV. You guys
remember that used to be a big thing being on TV? Remember being on Rick's trailer? Anyway, all right. Let me open this board of appeals meeting. I'd like to call this meeting to order. This is the board of appeals. I'm John
Cino uh senior as chairman. Permit me to confirm that all members and persons anticipated on the agenda are present and can hear me. Um, Mr. Burton here.
Um, Mr. Moer. Yes. Yes. Uh, Mr. Heaton. Mr. Hunt. Here. And Mr. M. Here. Here.
Okay. All right. Somebody um members of staff, Adena here. Excellent. Okay. This open meeting of the board of appeals is conducted remotely. Please
note that this meeting is being recorded. Accordingly, please be aware that others may be able to see you. Take care not to screen share your computer. Anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. All supporting materials have been provided to members of this party and available on the town's
website via the web meeting calendar unless otherwise noted. Each vote taken this meeting will be conducted by a roll call vote. Let's let's proceed to the first agenda item. The Hopton Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, July 9,
2025 at 7 p.m. to hear all persons interested in the application for a special per petition or variance filed by Custom Nest Builders Incorporated 12 LX Drive, Franklin, Mass to demolish an existing dwelling destroyed and rendered inhabitable by fire in 2023 and replace
it by a new single family home on a non-conforming property located at 69 Haywood Street, Hopton, Mass. The substeps map L36158-0. The property lacks the required 5,000 square feet in area and proposed does not meet the minimum minimum setback requirement
uh lock coverage percentage requirements. The property is owned by Katherine Piper PR for the estate of Judith and McNeel 22 East Bacon Street Apartment Planeville, Mass. The hearing will be held remotely using the Zoom meeting service. For additional
information, please email zba@ hopmma.gov. Call the department land use planning and permitting at 508497975 or check the online meeting calendar agenda for this meeting at optmma.gov. This legal notice is also posted in Massachusetts newspapers publish association mna website at masspublic
notices.org. John Cino, chair and clerk regarding 26001. All right, we're in the new we're in the new season. 26. Yes, sir. It's July. All right. Oh, this is the first one. Oh, Arnold, you're here. Excellent. I am. Yes. In the FL. Almost in the
Yeah, you do the you sort of do that. Kilroy was here. We see your eyes. Yes, sir. There you are. All right. There's there's the there's full Arnold. All right. Um, so who's here represent? Oh, and John, you're here, too. Great. Thank you. John Gilch from the from the
um from town hall. All right. So, who's going to be um uh explain is Eric from Custom Homes there? Who's who's going to present from?
Please uh enter and sign in. Yes, Mr. Chairman, Rick Goodrell with United Consultants. How are you this evening? Excellent. Thank you for coming. Thank you for having us. So, uh, we, um, have worked with custom nest builders
and prepared a plot plan indicating, um, the existing property in question and the, uh, proposed house that they are seeking relief, uh, to be allowed to construct. Um, we have filed a
application which included a variance request dated May 21st, 2025 indicating uh the history of the property um ownership dates and the combination of the various lots in question um which
are four lots. Um if it would be possible, Mr. Chairman, may I share my screen? Absolutely. could be all set now. Okay, John. All righty. T screen.
Uh, are you able to see my screen? Not yet. All right. All right. Let me try that again. I apologize. Entire screen share is not allowing.
How about now? Not yet. Window. Go def file. How about now? No, not yet. Share. There you go.
Okay. So, this is the uh memo that I mentioned uh requesting a variance for custom nest builders for the property located at 69 Haywood Street. Uh we provided a copy of the deed uh recorded at the appropriate
registry of deeds. The property consists of two parcels with uh two lots uh for each parcel lot 62 and 63. Uh parcel two is uh lots 133 and 134 uh
which is where the uh proposed house would be located. Um, I'm going to scroll down here. Copy of the deed. Exhibit B. So, this is a exhibit B indicates the four lots that
I just mentioned, uh, 133 and 134 having frontage on Hayward Street and, uh, lots, um, 62 and 63 having frontage on a unimproved,
uh, town road. Um and uh moving on um we've indicated the hardship being the shape of the lots. Um the lots come together at a point where
the uh lot 62 and and I believe it uh hold on just a second better here. uh lot 62 and 133 come together at this point here. Uh but for the sake of this application,
um we've proposed development on the 133 and 134 lots which do have the required 50 ft of frontage on Haywood Street but lack the 5,000 square ft of area. Um
with a with a area of about 4550 square feet. Um, we feel that the lots are unique to the neighborhood as indicated in the tax assessor map we provided here in that it's two diagonal
pieces of property uh connected together at one common point. Looking at the surrounding neighborhood, um, we don't see any other configuration of lots combined that would in fact uh have that type of a shape to it. As the chair had
mentioned, uh this house uh this lot previously had a house located on it that we understand was destroyed by a fire. And what the applicant is proposing to do is basically redevelop that house, purchase it from the family
that uh was subject to uh losing the house via fire and that tragedy and uh recognizing a financial gain by selling the property and um also it's our understanding that as part of this
transaction some tax liabilities will also be addressed to the town of Hopkin. Washington. Um if in fact these lots were combined, we feel that it would then meet the four lots were combined, it would then meet
the requirement of the 5,000 square ft of frontage. So the unique shape of the lots uh as I mentioned coming together at Thank you. at uh at that common point uh creates the unique shape of the lots which we feel is unique to the
neighborhood. Um, we feel that the applicant's proposal to construct a house is consistent with other houses in the neighborhood. That the required uh that the requested setback relief and lot coverage is also consistent with
other houses in the neighborhood being previously developed on subsized lots and that the proposal would in fact be consistent uh with the existing neighborhood. So um I'll stop sharing now
and that uh that is a summary an overview of the proposed project. We'd be happy to discuss any questions the board or the public may have. Thank you. Okay. Now that um Mike game and Arnold
is here. So there's four of us that are permanent members. Um Sean got in one last weekend and you got one. John, will you take this one since you haven't been here in a couple
weeks? And um be be number five. Thank you very much. Um okay. So um uh anybody have any uh questions uh for Rick? Yeah, I do. Thanks, Arnold.
All right. So, I'm looking at this um plan that uh you talked about, and it looks like there's two lots. This it looks like number 136 and
158. Those those are the two lots that you you want to build on and combine them as one lot. Uh, I believe they're actually 133 and 134 on the on the recorded plan of
record. I'm not sure if you're referring to the text. I printed it out. So, I'm trying to um Yeah. And then it's what's it 62 and 63 or something or 63? Correct. If I if I could share again,
Mr. Chairman, I I can pull up that map if you'd like, if you feel it would be helpful. Can you see that? No. No, not yet. John will release it in a second.
Here it comes. You got it now. Yes. So, the the two lots in this is a this is a photo copy of the section. Can you can you zoom in a little bit on those with your computer? I'm trying. Yes.
Yeah. I mean, I can I can see them. So there's 1334 and then there's 62 163. Correct. So 133 they only connect with each other at a at a corner.
Uh and what what's the total square footage of those four lots? The total square footage is approximately 9100 square feet. And and they're all owned by the same
owner. Correct. And and who owns 131 132 and 6160? That's somebody else. Yes. And and which slot had the house that burned down?
The 1334 where the house was situated. want to combine these four lots together to get above the 5,000 square foot. Well, we've requested a variance because of the fact that they're just together
there, but absolutely the plan would be for the four lots to be combined and no proposal would be coming forward for lot 62 and 63. So, yes, to answer your question, yes, the idea would be to have the four lots combined. Isn't there, you know, and I
and maybe Sean knows this, uh, but if a if a you have a non-conforming lot and the house burns down, don't you have a right as a right to uh rebuild the house? Uh, it's sort of like
grandfathered or am I I I don't see why there would be an issue, but it looks like they want to change the foundation. They're not building on the same foundation. If I'm if I'm correct, you want to like have a
new foundation for the new house. Is that correct? That is correct. Yes. I think that's the issue, Alan. If if it were on the same foundation, um then I think they'd be okay. You know, the issue if if you combined
the four these four lots, right, you'd have the appropriate lot square footage. Correct. Well, we would have the uh lot square footage for the for the requirements of chapter
4. Uh pre-existing non-conforming lots, which is 50 ft of frontage, which as you can see, the two lots combined is 50 feet here. Yeah. And then the four lots combined would be 9,100 uh square feet. Um so we're
approaching it that this is you know, one piece of this, if you will. The intent is that all four of these lots are in fact combined. Um,
and development will only happen on, you know, on the one one house is all that's being proposed to be built. All right. I This is a question for Mr. I don't know how you can combine those
lots the way they they're not really a body the same owner I I I knew Don um and you know they always own those those two lots whether or not he just
didn't he didn't combine the the the four of them he just built they you know they had an old house 134 133 and 134 um which For me, it's just sad driving by the burnt house every every time up
on that hill. I would just love to see a new house built on there. Just wow. It's just sad sight. Um so, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I was just able This is a copy of the deed and this was a conveyance into
the McNeels and parcel one in this deed is listing 62 and 63. uh per the Rosen Lat plan and then parcel 2 is listed the 1334
as uh also as referenced on that plan. Mhm. So in essence they've been deeded as one if you will and that's how we would propose to continue that forward. Yeah Mr. And you could you could have a
deed that on one deed convey two parts of land that don't even about each other. They could be uh right. No, you know, I know. I totally understand. I always thought that it was weird that he had
those four, but that whole that whole area of town is is very strange from the way that they broke it up a couple hundred years ago. Yeah. You know, come on. We have we have one of these. At least we have one of these at least once a month.
Yeah, Mr. Chair, I I think if these if these lots were adjacent, they would merge. Doctrine a merger would mean they become one lot. So the question is whether th this touching
point in the corner, you know, could we consider that adjacent? And if we consider it adjacent by the doctrine of merger, it's now one lot. Well, it is adjacent then you know by by
you know by definition it's it is adjacent. It's like it's you know it's like it's it's like a neighbor. It's an adjacent neighbor. Mike, you get your hand up. Yeah. Yeah. We had we had this issue before where somebody owned two parcels of land
like this and this was years ago. Um and we had asked the oh the attorney about it and uh to look into it and they said that oh what is it the merger they were
not required to merge because they were not considered adjacent parcels. Okay. So, so my question to to um John Gilch, if he's still here, is um do they need to merge these the these
two lots in order to rebuild that building? Can could we just change the setbacks and everything if they're going to build on 133, 134, whatever is that? Um you know, and if there Yeah, there's no there's no need for them to merge them. um merging them
would not them meet the 5,000 square foot criteria right now. The way that the application is submitted, it looks like they are and I sent you the suggested motions which lists out the deficiencies. Believe it's lot area coverage set back from the road and then set back from the
sideyards. So, um, right now the way that it would work since it's under the 5,000 square ft because those are two separate parcels and they're not considered adjoining. So, they're not held in common ownership as adjoining parcels.
Um, it wouldn't meet that 5,000 minimum to get a special permit to have the dwelling. Um, so it would need a variance, but it needs variance for the other things as well. Uh, and then the the I know the board was talking about it earlier about the uh catastrophic loss of a structure
that is only good for a year and it's got to be and the new structure has to be the same volume and um height of the previous structure. Yeah. So, they would have to get a variance if they're doing a different sized house anyway.
Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I at the time the the time period in this one I don't think would be necessarily relevant because this was held up in probate court. So, they didn't have the the ability to do it within the year. But when you're talking the size, you're going beyond
the size. So, it it you got to have both, right? So, if you if the size increases, they don't, right? That's for a special permit. But, but if with the variance, I think we could still work with the size, couldn't we?
Yeah. The fact that it's a variance means you you kind of have blank check to do whatever relief. Mike, yes. Yeah. But wouldn't wouldn't this be a self-created nonconformity with regard to lot area
coverage? Um I I I I I you know I I guess um but has has anybody you know if if we want to go with precedent has anybody on
the lake area ever rebuilt on the exact same uh uh foundation. you know, we've done, you know, I since in the in the five years I've been on the board, everybody's changed. So, there's a there
there is a there's a precedent for for for for this this size lot for people putting up stuff. Luckily, this isn't on Downey Street where there's no parking and and and there's a thousand people coming up and saying, "Oh my god, nobody can build a house that's as big as mine.
Nobody else can build one mine." No, but on those other on those other applications, we've never I don't I can't recall anyone that um Oh, was exceeding the allowable coverage.
Oh, I don't know. I don't know. We did. I'm just thinking of one Oh, there was because we haven't granted We haven't granted anybody uh that I'm aware of um a variance for the lot size. They've
always had the 5,000 square feet. So 25% that's a footprint of 12, 1250 square feet. We had a lot of tall building, but
um I don't think we've ever granted one for lot coverage. Okay. Um Yes. Uh Mr. Chairman. Yes. You know, to to grant a variance to do
it legally, you know, it has to be something about the topography or unusual shape of the lot. And uh you know, just be and the fact that the lot is undersized is not considered ground for giving a variance. Otherwise,
everybody could get a variance if they had a lot that was too small. I think the law is pretty clear about that. So uh um you know it's unfortunate and maybe uh like Sean said that there's some kind of a extension of the time if
they wanted to build on the same uh foundation or the same spot uh that uh uh you know that you wouldn't count the time when they're trying to go through probate. Um but
um you know it it it does seem to me that they should be able to build if there was a house before but you know then they have the the law that says that if you don't do it within a year.
Uh so uh but you know to get a to to have a v if if the standard is if it's not by right to get a variance just because it's a small lot that doesn't that's not a uh that's not a valid reason to grant a
variance and I you know I think we have to apply the law and not be uh sometimes and uh uh but then again I I think that this, you know, as as as humans and and to to
Sean's, you know, what what he was saying is, you know, because stuff got caught up in probate and everything else, there is there is uh there, you know, we're we're a board that does show some compassion. You know, this family lost lost. Why can't he build it? They build it on
the same the same spot. Um that's what they'd have to do with say if they did it within the year. That's my understanding. Yeah. But but but but I don't know if we also take in consideration that three that two people and a dog were killed in that that exact same spot.
You know you know I I I you know as as Yeah. Sorry, Mike. Yeah. I know I'm getting a little too emotional about it. Yeah. I have a question. the one year. Where is that? Is that zoning or
building through the chair? It's in the zoning bylaw. It's in the zoning bylaw. Is Is there anything in the state law about that? Uh I believe there is. I'd have to look it up to find the reference though because the zoning could just be following the state law, but I I don't
I'd have to look it up, too. Um, so is it possible is it possible we could give them a variance for the um time limit based on
you know conditions associated with probate and um the unusual circumstances of this uh associated with this property. So through the chair, I think if the only issue was the timing, the zoning
enforcement officer could probably make a determination that the time didn't start until or it was, you know, unreasonably hampered due to probate, something like that. Um, but if you grant a variance for that, that would be
tricky because you're just going to be doing you could do a variance for all of the other uh setback requirements that would essentially make it fit in the same footprint and kind of achieve the same thing. Um,
I don't know if it's I don't know if it makes sense to do a variance for for the time limit is what I'm saying. Yeah. and and and you know and and considering that you know that when we're talking about the the odd topography and the size of the lots and all of that stuff that was you know it
was self-imposed you know it's something that was always there and and I think that that the the imposition happened when they made 25 foot wide lots you know a long time ago and you know the the other thing is you know the if if
somebody wanted to take one of these 25 foot lots and build on it. You can build lineto line and there's there's no restrictions on it. If somebody has one 25 foot lot wide, you can build line to line edge to
edge and there's by right in that area. How how can you do that without without meeting setback requirements? Um that those lots those lots have a weird grandfathering.
I don't Yeah, that's I I I thought it was very strange myself when I heard that. We've granted multiple um setback relief on but that's because people come not not with just a one not with just a 125 footer.
If you have a 125 foot lot and you didn't merge it with another one, once you merge it with a second lot, you lose that you lose all that all that grandfather. But if you have one 25 foot wide lot, you can do anything you want
with it. and and that that's uh um so you know and so that you know that's why you know we're we're we're getting into um you know that's what that that's why we exist is is to is to
throw some u uh you know h some human interaction into into our bylaws and our setbacks and all of that kind of stuff. And um uh you know if there's a if there's a yeah as
to to to Mike's point, no, but maybe we haven't done one that's under 5,000 square feet. I just don't know because I just think that every single one of those lots are so gosh darn small. It's I don't know how anybody could put up a house all along Downey and all that stuff and Haywood and everything else.
It's just uh Downey Place. It's just amazing what what uh people can construct on that uh on that lakeside. But um uh you know I in in in my opinion that just the size of those goshown lots
is is is enough um enough to to handle the the shape of the of the land. Um, you know, it doesn't I don't think it has to be a triangle shape or a or a uh panhandle or any of that other kind of
stuff to to just just to be it. I think that just being so gosh darn small because the other thing that happens is happens downtown which then we've got to change that that bylaw downtown to from from 15,000 square feet where 80% of
them are are under 8,000 square feet. But I'm digressing. Um so Mr. Chair, yes. If if this was a legal lot uh
when uh when it was created um what I'm just you know it's a legal question but whether uh why wouldn't it be um just grandfathered you know all the lots are buildable because they were
legal or Is it because that uh if you had if you had a if you you owned a lot, you never built on it and they changed the zoning even though it was a legal lot when they uh when the lot was created. Um if you want to build on it
after the zoning changes and it becomes non-conforming, uh does it then subject to the the the new zoning? Anyway, this our uh our it's my understanding that the single lot the single that a single 25 foot by
what are these 25 by 100 or something very strange? Yeah, I think the 25 by 100 um that um that there there is that that special exemption and um but they but the way I the way
I'm seeing this is that that was it 62 and 63 were combined to build that build that one house was built between them. So that that kills that that way. Yeah. I mean I would like to
have a clearer idea of what the uh what the law is, you know, here. Uh because on the other hand, you know, you do have those situations where you have a house that uh burns down and uh or get
torn down for whatever reason and then there's a time limit that that they can uh build build on it where where it's a non-conforming lie, you know, that comes up. There's there's cases about that, you know, where uh uh that's an issue. So, uh be nice to know what the law is.
Um, but I I don't think legally I don't think it legally uh um qualifies for a variance. Uh so, well, the way that John just said it, you know, if going for a variance, it's
a it's a it's a it's a open sheet for what we want to what we can do as a board. But what I'd like to do if with with the bishop of the rest of the members, let's open up the public and see if there's any if there are any
neighbors and such that um that might be objecting to to rebuilding or building a a house on on this lot and see what anybody else might think. Are there are there any of Butters
that might want to speak up? if you could just give me your name and your address and then I will um call on calling you individually and you can each have a couple minutes to to speak. Yeah, right here. Eric Seome, 61 Haywood Street.
Hey, thanks for coming. Thank you for having me. Um I'm two houses down. Um, Donnie was a best friend of mine. So, I know something about his house lots.
He's got the same kind of configuration that I have, which is uh four and four. They're 25 by 50. So, I got a 100 foot frontage and it goes back 200 ft. They originated back in I think there
was the 30s or the 20s by a lawyer out of Boston name of Shapiro. And what he did was if anybody did him little favors, he owned all this land up here and it say here's a couple of house lots for you and do what you want. And
um that's how I understand the story. But getting back to your question, uh John, um I would like to see a house on there. I've talked to my neighbors across the street. Um they they both was saying
that they would like to see a house there no matter what because right now it's all overgrown. That house is on ledge. There's no seller in it. The only little cellar he has is probably 10 by 10. if that which
housed just underneath the bedroom which is just a hot water tank, a furnace and that's it. And the rest of that whole lot is just
nothing but ledge. But as far as uh the question is, yeah, I'd like to see a house on there. I just can't understand why you why she can't buy out the other four lots
if that's possible. Mhm. That's my piece. Thank you. I just Great. Is there are there any other butters? Okay. All right. I have a question. Uh, John. Uh, so what's on the other So, there's kind
of like four lots and they're all, if you look at all the other lots here, they're all bigger than these four lots. What's on the What's on the um is there any houses on on any of these four lots at the present time other than
the one that uh got destroyed? No. So, it ought to be it could be combined into one lot, you know, when uh just like what I did. I bought the two lot I bought six lots and then I bought
the other two to make it an even uh 100 um or 200 by 50. Probably the other lots aren't buildable because they're too small too, you know. So, and I just, you know, if if if you
bought those other lots or or I Donnie always said that he lived there for so long he took it what do you call a common law that they were his adverse possession. He thought what was that adverse possession?
Yeah. And I mean he kept it up and everything and um but he never filed for it so it doesn't count. Okay. if you if you had filed for it yet and may have been able to do that through the chair. One of the lots that's by Hwood Street um is owned by
the town. So you could petition to uh go to the town meeting and try to purchase it and add it to the property so someone will pay taxes on it versus nobody's paying taxes now and then the other one's privately owned the ones right behind it. Yeah.
But that that you know everybody the people I've talked to when we got the letter of appeal you know they all said yeah let's put a lot on there. Uh I'm not a lot put put a house on there because it's it's all overgrown now. My god if you tear down that house there's
going to be all kinds of creatures coming out of that thing. Okay. I mean it's been two years. He died April 9th. I know I got the phone call. All right. Um, thank you very much. Okay.
All right. Um, Mr. Moa, you haven't said anything. I'm just looking at the pre-existing u structure and haven't done the math. I'm curious
if there's an actual difference in the total footprint between the pre-existing structure and the proposed structure. I understand the layout's different, but I don't know if uh the proponent has that information.
Yeah. Does the Yeah. Um Rick or or or Eric, can you guys uh tell us um the cell footprint or the foundation footprint? How much difference is that? Um
if you give me just a minute, I'll try and run the math. Rick, again, Mr. Chair, um I I would like to add a couple things while I take a quick look at that. Um um number one, if we if we were to take
the proposed impervious surface, new house and asphalt driveway, which is um considered here for the lot coverage um and we were to spread that over the four lots, we would actually be in the realm
of just over 13% lot coverage. Um if we were to eliminate the existing as or the proposed asphalt driveway, we would fall under the 25% as well. So um you know, there are a few options
if that's a concern. Um the proposed house has a footprint of about uh 1,112 square ft. Um I don't have the existing house off the
cuff here. Um it is 20.5%. So uh doing the math here 2.205 times 4550 it's about 933 square ft.
So we're going from 933 which is inclusive of the house and a garage that that existed um up to about 1,112. So about just about 80 square feet of increase for the for the structure
footprint. Existing again being the house and the garage out building and compared to the new house is about 90 one one two one one two minus 933. Moa that was a that was a really good
question. I'm glad you uh held it back. Um well through through the chair just look looking at this looking at the proposed project. I mean the problem is the lot right and so we can make a bad problem worse by trying to by trying to conform
to the uh existing zoning. The zoning is there for the benefit of the neighborhood. I mean clearly in this case the zoning is not serving the betterment of the neighborhood or the property owner. I think putting a a more contemporary
structure and maximizing the value of that lot makes a lot of sense both for the property or in the neighborhood. And merging those lots I don't think really does anything but um you know I I I
you know I have to I'd like to check with Mr. culture again. But, um, you know, is is it and and I know Mike said we haven't done it under under 5,000 square feet, but you know, it's it's it
is one of the one of the ways that they drew those lines that it's just under that 5,000. Yeah, John. John. Yeah. The actual wording for a variance indicates that we cannot grant it based
but not on size owing to circumstances related to soil conditions, shape or topography but not on size of such land or structure. That's why we've um to my knowledge
never been in a size variance um in the past. I think I've been on the board for 20 years plus at this point. Yeah. Well, I I know we did we did one in my ne my neighborhood based on based
on size. The a person on one side of the street purposely bought the bought the lot on the on the back side and then took 20 ft of the backyard of it so it could never be buildable. They sold the house person that bought it, bought both lots
and then came to this board and said, "Hey, my lot's undersized. Can I put I was on it was before I was on it. Actually, you were on it back then through the through the chair. Yeah. May I ask a question? Absolutely. Thank you.
Uh so to the applicant, um one of the abutters said that there was a significant amount of ledge on the property. Is that something that went into the design or location of the proposed house? Um we did not consider the ledge. No, we
have not done any test pits out there. We uh have as I mentioned you know proposed to position the house I think closer in conformity. Obviously we've met the rare setback uh but we've
but because of the ledge you might have to put it in you had to put it in a different place. I mean ledge is considered soil condition. So if the ledge is somehow impacting the house, the proposed house, that could be something that take into account.
Yes, obviously the ledge is a consideration in in trying to construct a new house. I mean, it's certainly the more center of the lot that we could be will make it more beneficial in the construction process to the to the
ledge. Okay. So there's a condition. There is a soil condition then lack thereof actually. Um uh okay.
So anybody else from the uh from from the public? So so this if I could just add something. I'm Eric from Custom Nest Builders. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, first I'd like to give
my condolences to the neighbor um for your friend who was lost in this tragic accident. Um, I don't know if any of the members of the board have been by the site, but there is a lot that has been encroached onto the adjacent lot which
is owned by the town. Our intentions is to clean all that up um and to grass it and to make it look a lot nicer than what's existing now. Um so I believe there's a oversized shed structure on the back portion of the
property. Our intentions is to clean all that up and and to make it nice um to for people to use at their leisure or whatever the town intends it to be used for. Um, but there is quite a bit of a mess
over there. Thank you. How about that huge fine? Okay. So, so I'm sorry. Uh, uh, this is um, you can't just jump right in and Okay. I'm sorry, John.
Thank you. No problem. All right. Um, Eric, thank you very much. Okay. So, uh uh to to my to my sitting board members, do we have enough to go on? Yeah. Yeah. Because I what I'd like to
do is close the public hearing and and and make a motion. Okay. All right. Would somebody like to make a motion to close the public hearing? Motion to close the public hearing. I have a second. Second. Second. Thank you, Arnold.
Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none. James, yes. John, yes. Mike, yes. Arnold, yes. And I'll vote in the affirmative also. Thank you. Okay, we close the public
hearing. Okay. So, I'm just gonna read a read a motion that I've got here. 69 Haywood Street. The property previously had a single family dwelling located on it. However,
it structure was destroyed by a fire in April of 2023. Structures destroyed by fire of other cat catastrophic catast catastrophe may be reconstructed in the same volume's original structure within 12
months of the structure being destroyed. Composed structure will have a different volume and area than the original structure and more than 12 months has passed since the structure the original structure. Therefore, a variance is required. Findings.
I move that the board of appeals find the following as it relates to proposed development of 69 Haywood Street owing to the circumstances related to the soil conditions or lack thereof shape or topography of the land structures but not affecting the generally zoning
district which is located. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the bylaw would involve substantial hardship financial or otherwise specifically this list of circumstances. The desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and that desirable relief may be granted
without nullifying or substantially dergating from the intent of purpose of the ordinance of bylaw through the chair. Yes. The um specifically the the sentence after specifically you need to list the actual consideration. So that would be
the soil conditions are whatever the applicant described it as. soil conditions. Okay, thank you. Um that's the findings and then um do we
vote on the findings and and the decision separately on this one? It's up to the board. You can vote on them separately. You can vote on them together. All right, we'll do it together. I move that the board grant a variance to allow a single family dwelling at 69 Haywood Street as depicted on the plans entitled
69 Haywood Street Hawk Mass prepared by United Consultants dated April 1st 2025 which would vary the applicable zoning requirements as follows lot area 4550 square ft closed 45,000 ft required lot
coverage now okay lock coverage uh uh this is where I I I need some input from the board or John. Um, is it cleaner to do it as just the two
lots or to or to do the four with the with the uh oddity of the adjacency or the you know would it be the 32 33.2 two proposed uh you know
um so the plans only show that one set of the two parcels it doesn't show then that's thank you very much okay lot coverage at 33.2 two proposed and 25% maximum allowed. Loud frontage 50 ft
proposed, 150 ft required. Set back from the street 26 ft proposed, 30 ft required. And sideyard 10 ft proposed, 25 ft required. Do I have a second as amended? Second.
All right, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on that motion? any any additions or Yeah, I mean, Mr. Chair, I mean, I I just don't think it qualifies for variance. It's an undersized lot. Um
uh you know, the topography I mean, we is it is the topography different than the topography in the neighborhood. That's one of the qualifications. I don't think that uh we can uh grant a variance when it's not legally uh you know
doesn't have to be the topography of the whole neighborhood. Somebody could just have a giant rock in the middle of their of their um their one their their their one lot and then that that that qualifies, you know. Well, that you just read it that the topography is different
than uh the topograph that's the standard different than the topography throughout the the neighborhood I think is but even aside from that though uh it's just an undersized lot. They it's not a matter of the topography. It's just they want to get a variance for an
undersized lot. I mean I think they um should uh the other lots aren't buildable. I mean to if somebody wants to build on it, they got to kind of try to combine them. They got to come to us too. They come to us also. And then, you know, you know, when I I'm just stating my
opinion, that's all. And you know, legally, it just I just don't uh see it's you know that to to give um uh you know, that the zoning laws and the in the state zoning laws have to have some meaning.
I know. and and if you know and if somebody objects to what we're doing, there's there's there's land court. Um but I just I I just look at this as um as a board that at some point we have
to show some compassion and that but when we do broadstroke, you know, zoning and stuff that that's that's what it's for. Well, we have this we have this all we have this all over the all over the lake and we have it all over downtown. Downtown
is even is is just as bad as the lake lake area and especially lake with that topography. There is so much gosh dang ledge there um that you can't Yeah, Mike, I see your hand up. Yeah, one issue I have is we haven't had any testimony that there's ledge on the
site. We have no information that that's an issue on this site. Well, we just we just got from the from the neighbor that that there's no cell because it's a different lot. No, no, but he's talking about that lot
that he wasn't able to put a basement in because of the ledge. And I know he's dying to speak, but you're not allowed to. I know, but that's hearsay. I know. But if that's all we've got to go on, but that's not all we have to go on. we
can ask that we we be provided. If we're going to base the variance on there being ledged there, then we need to have some information that that's an issue. Yeah. But ledges, Mr. Chairman, ledge is an issue. If it's a matter of, you know,
setbacks, it's not it's separate thing from the size of the lot. Uh no, that that that is that is the lot was that's soil conditions. No. Yes. One of the requirements. That's one of
the reasons we can grant a variance. Yeah. But you could have um if you have a lot that's too small just because you wouldn't be able to build on it because it's too small. The fact that
there's ledge on it doesn't change the fact that it's too small. That it's it's not related. So, uh right. You just can't conflate the two. You're you're you're right that the two can't be conflated but but it did meet it did meet that that that condition.
Um you know and yes okay my second comment is the one the comment I had first is is that um the lot coverage is a self-imposed hardship
but they have a solution for that. So, I don't I don't have an issue there. All right. I do I do have a question. Um, and I'm not sure. Can we still ask questions of the building official?
Well, yeah, we can. We can. Yeah, we can do anything. We just can't go back out to the public. We feel better about it than we did before. Okay. Um, would they have to rebuild this foundation anyway if it doesn't meet current uh
yeah current code? Yes, you would. Especially Especially now that we've got the uh extended stretch code in town and adds a whole bunch of stuff. I don't build I don't build in anymore. Mr. hunt
does and stuff and and uh I don't Yeah. So you would have to put a a new a new foundation anyway because that's the foundation there is was a uh uh stone
stone. Thank you. So, but anyway, okay, I believe we're ready for a vote. Mr. Burton, yes. Mr. Moer, yes.
Mr. Cohen, no. No. Mr. Deasio, no. And I vote yes. We got We got a 32. Um Yeah.
Uh John, does that does it have to be four? Does that is a three majority? It has to be 41. Okay. Five member board. Okay. All right. It fails. All right.
Uh have to come back with another another proposal. Um, all right. That takes care wraps this one up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Um, all right. What else do we have in the on the agenda? I didn't send the minutes out. I hadn't finished them yet. Oh, okay. All right. So, so now we have uh we we we we have we have nothing coming up in two weeks. We have Wait, didn't we say we're going to take that
one off? Yep. We have nothing but we and but we have one on August 13th as of now. Okay. All righty. All right. Well, everybody, you know, thanks for coming. Let's take Can I get a motion to adjurnn?
Motion to adjurnn. Have a second. Second. Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none. Jim, yes. John, yes. John, yes. Dan. Dan. Yes. Mike. Mike.
Yes. Arnold. Yes. And I vote in the affirmative. We're adjourned. Thank you everyone. Thanks for coming. Thank you very much. There it