bumped into a beehive that I wasn't supposed to bump into and aggravated them to the point that they uh stung me a half a dozen times. I'm really not in a very good mood. My leg is swollen. My arms are swollen. But uh I'm here. I'm
going to I I am going to really try and hand this off to to Michael to actually run it because my sense of humor is is strange right now. So, I just I'm laughing, but it's I'm in incredible pain. Um,
can you do the opening? Can you do the opening and stuff, John? Like reading. John, can you do the opening and and get us started? I don't know. I don't have that opening with me. Yeah, I'll take care of all that. I'll take care of all those reading things. Okay. Um, I'd like to call the meeting to
order. This John Cino, chair of the board of appeals. Permit me to confirm that all members and members anticipate on the agenda are present and can hear me. Okay, who do we have today? Okay, Mr. Riley here. Mr. Burton here.
Masterson here. Mr. Cohen here. And do we have anybody else? One, one, two, three, four, five, and Okay. Um, nobody else in the board
is here. Okay. Uh, okay. Okay. And we have um uh Adena, Miss Dalo here. And is John? Yes, John. Thank you so much. And John's here too. Okay. Um
this uh this open meeting 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 and 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 body and are available on the town's website via the web meeting calendar unless otherwise noted. Each vote taken this at this meeting will be conducted by a roll call vote. Let's go to the first
item on the agenda. [Music] The Hopton Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, August 13, 2025 at 7 p.m. to hear all persons interested in the uniform application for a special permit petition for variance filed by Marcelo Trolio 22
Belleview Heights Ash. The ask the applicant sinks relief from the zoning bylaws to convert an existing single family home in the downtown business district at threeclafwood street, Hopkin, Massachusetts. assesses map U16139-0
into a 4unit multif family dwelling. The hearing will be held remotely using the Zoom meeting service. For additional information, please email ZBA hopinmma ma.gov. Call the Department of Grandpate at 5084979755 or check the online meeting calendar and agenda for the meeting at at
hopinmma.gov. This legal notice is also posted in the Massachusetts Newspapers Publishers Association MNPA website at masspublic notices.org. John Cino, chair of clerk regarding 26002. All right, we're already in the first one, the last meeting. Now we're already
on number two. Boy, this town is moving along. Moving along. Okay, Michael, would you please uh take over? Okay, so the meeting is open. Um, let me u does the applicant wish to say
anything? Yes, please. Uh, good evening. My name is Craig Hartwell. Uh I'm joined here tonight by Mr. Marchel Trolio, the owner of three Claplin Street. And we are seeking two special permits uh to extend the residential use of the dwelling there
from a single family to a multif family use on a pre-existing non-conforming lot. Uh Mr. Chair, if you would would like if you if I could share my screen, I could pull the plans up for you. Might be that'd be great.
Send your requests. Okay. Can everyone see that? Okay. Yeah. Excellent. To give you some background on the property, excuse me. Three Claplin Street is located just off Walcott Street, one block from Main Street in the downtown business
district. There is currently a single family historical dwelling on the property that according to town records has been there since approximately 1900. Uh the pre-existing and non-conforming lot area is 10,390 square ft which is below the currently required 15,000
square feet for a residential structure in the downtown business district. The pre-existing structure is also non-conforming dimensionally as it is only 6.4 4 ft from the westerly side property line that abuts one Claflin Street. Uh the current front yard
setback is only 10.2 feet but does comply with section 210 118 as it is greater than the average of the distances of the principal buildings on each of the adjoining sides. The current driveway, as you is, excuse
me, is approximately three cars wide and made of gravel, uh, which we intend to replace with three garage spaces and seven paved outdoor parking spaces. As you can see, there's also a porch on the eastern side of the existing structure that the historical commission has
previously authorized us to remove. In addition to raising the porch on the eastern side of the structure, we are proposing to extend off the existing structure to the north and the east to allow for three additional residential units for a total of four residential units. Uh the proposed addition will be
at least 25 ft from the front property line, 10.9 ft from the easterly property line abuing five street and 25.7 feet from the rear property line. All of which is in conformity with the current dimensional requirements. The existing non-conforming condition of
the westerly sideyard setback will not be increased or extended by the proposed changes. Uh there are current there are three garage parking spaces and seven as I mentioned seven surface parking spaces proposed with this project. In
accordance with section 210-20.4 we are seeking a special permit from the planning board for the seven parking spaces located between the building and the street. Uh we have met with them last week and have a site uh walk scheduled for this Saturday at 9:00 a.m.
The proposed parking between the street and the building uh just to give you some background is designed to accommodate the residents and their guests. Uh while the landscaping along the right side should help provide a better buffer for the neighbor on that side. As I mentioned, we are seeking two
special permits from this board in accordance with sections 210 128 because it's a non-conforming pre-existing non-conforming and 210-20.3A2 because we're proposing for a residential multif family in the downtown business district.
Uh we feel that the proposed use is not substantially more judgmental to the neighborhood than the current use as there's sufficient parking for the additional units that we're proposing. The addition has been designed to match the historical in-house style uh that is that already that the existing house
already has and similar houses on Claflin Street present and the impacts from the additional impervious surface uh we believe are sufficiently mitigated by the proposed drainage plan to divert that additional storm water to the rear of the property. Um thank you for the opportunity to
speak tonight. Um looking forward to getting your feedback and working with you guys on this project. All right. Any anybody on the board have any questions? Um, so I have a question. So um this
putting a table of dimensional relief um where these additional structures to the ex I'm not going to increase any um nonconformities with um the setbacks
and the other um block coverage. you know, all the other criteria. Is that is that what your uh Yes, sir. that this plan shows. Yes, sir. And the um nonconforming part is the
existing existing single family house that is grandfathered. Correct, sir. So, a residential any residential structure would require a special permit in the downtown business district. It's pre-existing non-conforming because it's
already been a residential structure. We're we're looking to expand on it. And and and are you saying that by by putting four additional residential units on this lot,
it conforms with zoning? The but you have to get a special permit, right, sir? But there's nothing in the zoning that pro prohibits you u assuming you got a special permit. There's nothing that prohibits you from
uh having basically five units on this part. Just to clarify, it's only four total units. We're only adding three to the side. So I can show you. Great. Fair enough. Here's, if you can still see, we've got the one unit on the left and then the the three
additional units are broken up in the middle there to the right. All right, that's my question. Anybody else have any questions? hearing. None. I'll open it up to the
public if So, we'll allow for two minutes. Well, the way we want to do it is you'll say your name um and your lo your address and then you're allowed to have two minutes to bring your point or questions out. Is
anybody there from the public who has a question? I can't I see because my screen um is a little bit blocked. I can only see I see one. I see Sarah. Is there
got my I see Bernie. Okay. I see Bernie. Okay. So, um Michael, if I may, why don't we why don't we stop the screen share right now so we can see the people and then just put it up when we need it. Yep. if you could knock the screen share off.
There it is. Yep. Sorry, I hit the wrong button. That's okay. All right. So, I see Sarah and Bernie. Um, why don't we start off with Sarah? Sure. Thank you. I actually don't mind the screen share because I think it
actually speaks to the volume of that house that we're talking about. And and let me let me take a step back. I'm Sarah Brophy. I'm at nine Claflin Street. So, I'm a couple doors down from this proposal. Um, I'd really like to talk about the order of the numbers that's in this proposal. Um, if you were
part of last week's conversation, this is going to be a very similar uh message. We're talking about adding in four units into a very small unit, you very small property, adding in 10 cars in totality. So, we are looking at changing the facade of our entire street
by adding in this massive house that is not less detrimental than, you know, I would say it actually is more detrimental to the neighborhood than it than it currently exists. So, we're talking 10 cars. We're talking eight trash bins. We're talking a complete
density of that space and turning it almost all into hardscape between asphalt and concrete in terms of, you know, building that foundation for that house. I think we're talking that this is a very narrow street on a good day.
Uh I've seen cars up and down my street today just turning around in my driveway, turning around on my front lawn because there's not enough radius to turn. Again, you're talking about adding 10 more cars to this to this street. Curious where are the guests going to park for this? You know,
there's there's a proposal saying that there's enough space, but you're really talking about one car and one, you know, one car for for each house plus a garage space. Where are guests going to park? They're going to park in front of my house, in front of my neighbor's house. Where are they going to turn around? We already have narrow lanes in terms of
this space. Also, that there's a letter within last meet, you know, last meetings conversation between the fire department saying that there's not enough clearance. You know, happy that the cars are off the street. That's great. However, we don't have the capacity to take in all this. Um, I also
question about snow removal and garbage removal. There's no place where are the bins going to go? Where's the where's the snow going to go? Um, you've now made the entire front frontage of that unit to be hardcape. So, is the snow going to go in the street? Is the snow
going to go in either neighbor's yard on either side or across the street? um like technical things here just the math of these things the order of numbers here doesn't really math for me and again where we talk about the variance as being um not more detrimental than
existing I would you know couch to you guys that this actually is very detrimental and sets a very bad precedent for the for this neighborhood again the pure volume of house that we're talking about here is just extraordinary in comparison to the other houses you've got single family houses
that have a lawn in front you've got a driveway on the side. We're talking about dropping seven cars that we now have to look at every single day, which is not what happens on this street in a day-to-day basis. We have elderly folks on this street. We have, you know, we go from 93 to 5 months on either side of my
house. So, there's a lot of uh other considerations that need to be factored into this other than the fact that I can drop in as big of a house as I possibly can on this small property. Okay. All right.
Do you want to address any of the questions that um she brought forth or do you want me to hold off until you you can you can let everyone go? Okay. All right. All right. So, I there was a Bernie. Bernie was I had next. Bernie,
uh you got you can hear me? Yep. Great. Um Sarah did a great job of hitting almost every point. Can you introduce yourself and your address, please? Absolutely. Bernie Mitchell, 5 Claflin. I am on a butter. Uh that's Claflin
Street. Uh Sarah has hit all the highlights. I'll just try and drill down on a couple of things so I don't become repetitive. Uh firstly, uh the email from John Porer of the fire department says um they're concerned about how
narrow the road is. and they have a picture out there of the chief's wagon. Um, it's 9 ft and they need 98 for emergency vehicles. I would just make this other point with that. You think
about snow. We lose easily a foot and a half either side due to banks and we have telephone poles that keep the snow plows from really maneuvering off the road. So, I'd like to highlight that. If I go back to
uh permeable surfaces across the street uh in the springtime, it's water, water, water coming off Main Street. It comes down Claflin Street, flows into our yards. We're now going to put on seven
hard surface parking spots. Plus, the roof um u material is going to force the water off. So, none of that's going to be absorbed into the uh earth and it's going to end up in the backyard and we have some pretty close neighbors right
back there that this will definitely impact especially with the concern of the water levels we have. Okay. Uh thank you very much. Thank you. Uh I see Alyssa Hopkins and Lauri I can't it stops on the things. So
Alyssa Yep. It's Alyssa Hopkins one Claplin Street. I'm also in a butter. I'm joined by my recent graduate of Hopkinington High School, Laura Develin, who's very interested in this public hearing. Um, I
do want to say my neighbors have again, as as Bernie mentioned, hit upon all of the topics that I would raise. I think one of the questions I have for the board is based on my uneducated review of the zoning bylaws, it would appear
that this parcel of land is inadequate um in size to accommodate a multifamily um house. So that is is mildly confusing to me. Um, so I'm not truly clear on how that fits in this whole conversation,
but this road is truly almost a de facto. It is a dead end. Um, practically a one-way street where cars can't comfortably pass each other. Um, drainage is only at the very end of Claplin where on Walcart Street. So, as
Bernie mentioned, um the water that then flows from the, you know, the parking lot behind Bills and Town Hall just flows onto our street and floods. I did not in the review of of the materials didn't see an adequate plan for
addressing the increase in imperous services and just sending it out the back of this parcel of land into the properties of the houses behind it did not seem to adequately address the real the real time experience that we have on
this road in terms of flooding uh seasonally whether it's in the springtime or whether it's the melting of know. Um and then of course just the safety issues in terms of the actual um increase in terms of the number of residents and cars, specifically
vehicles that would be permitted to travel up and down our street. Um I appreciate your attention to our comment today. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else from the public? Ser, do you have another comment or
could you put your hand down? I do have another comment actually and then I'll pass it over to Pam. I'm curious if there's going to be a requirement for an environmental analysis or a traffic impact analysis for this. I would also like to address the fact that the the size and scale of this
house and what that's going to do to the light and space around everything, the people behind, the people to the left and the right, any kind of natural light that they may have coming into their house will now also be blocked. just again as a point of consideration. But I think mainly the environmental analysis
of changing the majority of that you know property into hard service is something that should be addressed along with the impact of the street and then obviously the traffic impact of having 10 cars. Okay. So thank you. All right. Yeah. Perfect. And there were somebody else you said there was I can't
see them on my screen. Is there anyone else? Yeah Pam had raised her hand as well. Hi Pam Mitchell. Can you hear me? Hi Pam. Welcome. Hi. So, Pam Mitchell, uh, Five Claflin Street. Um, I just, um, I thank
you so much for letting us have this time to, um, to to talk about the situation. Uh, ever since I found out about the possibility I've sort of been trying to drive around, local towns, I've been trying to find a similar style
building. Um, you know, I really don't I I appreciate the the fact that they're trying to make it fit in with the with the type of the um the same kind of buildings that we have down here in Walcott and the ABC streets. Um, but the
fact that it's going to be so large and be so close to two single dwelling family homes. Um, the fact that this whole neighborhood really only has um I think there are two two families. I know I know there's a potential. I know it's, you know, it's downtown um type zoning,
but um for the most part A, B, and C, Claflin, Walcott are mostly single family homes. Um and so I'm just um I'm concerned about about it being detrimental to the neighborhood um because it's just going to be a whole lot of building and and any I saw
similar structures like in Upton. I saw one in South Burough and Framingham, but they're on main roads. Um and they had more setback too. So um um I think that I think um I will leave it at that. I thank you for listening but um I'm very
concerned about it and oh no I have one more thing to say. We have new neighbors that recently bought into the into the street and also a a home just sold on on Sea Street. Um, for the last several years, our our housing has been going up. The prices have been going up and
we've been doing really well to to to keep prices up and keep a nice a nice place to live because it is sort of a unique neighborhood to Hopkin. It is, you know, somewhat more affordable than than many of the neighborhoods in Hopkin. And that's also a concern of
mine, especially whereas I've been in my house for 30 years and I was hoping to stay about another 10 or so. and I really don't want to see my my values go down. So, okay. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Thank you, Pam. Do I see James and Alexa?
Hi, James Natvski, 12 Claflin Street. Hi, James. Hi. So, we actually just bought this house uh two months ago. Um, I do feel that it would be detrimental to the neighborhood, uh, personally because I probably would not have bought this
house had I known this development was a possibility. Um, so property values potentially decreasing. Uh, the investment I just made two months ago, that seems problematic. Uh, also as our other neighbors have spoke about the traffic,
uh, we do live at the end of the street and we have a 5-month old daughter. Uh we have noticed a problem with uh cars turning around directly in our driveway. Um I don't want my five-month old daughter to grow up and not be able to play in the driveway because we added 10
more parking spaces and 10 more cars to turn around in my driveway. Even today, um Eversource was out and I think they had a landscapecaping company here just to get rid of the weeds and stuff that was in front of the property. Uh it was really hard to get down the
street. we had to kind of pull off to the side and wait for them to go over and some of those cars just parked on the directly on the side of the street which just made it really problematic to get to the end of the street. So if you have all of these people moving into
this for family dwelling um there's going to be visitors. They're going to park on the side of the street. They're going to turn around in our driveways. It's just doesn't doesn't make sense. So, okay. All right. Well, thank you.
Thanks. Anybody else want to chime in who hasn't already spoken? Okay. So, I'm going to ask to go back to Mr. Hartwell. Uh, you said to hold off on any of these questions until everybody finish. So, I
don't know if you wrote some of them down. I certainly did. if you want some of the review of that. Um, you want to speak up and address? I'm I'm happy to follow your lead if you want to go question by question just to make sure we hit them all. Um, yeah. So, let's start off with, you
know, uh, first one, one of the things that Sarah brought up, but uh, I also have because of the way my lot is configured, I have a difficulty snow. I can't even plow. I tried to plow. I can't. I have to snowb blow it out because I'm limited because I have walls
on each side. But we have a very narrow street. We have a very So I guess the snow and also the uh permeable surface areas would kind of go hand in hand. But uh if we're going to put in this tiny lot because you're asked because there's not a lot of room
there. Three car spaces and seven additional hard surface spaces that are non-permeable. Uh what's what have you come up with a plan for snow removal? Are you removing the snow from the the property? It doesn't seem like there's a lot of room
to put the snow if there's some decent snow there. I think that's the heart of Sarah's question. Um that's certainly something we we can put on the plan for the next hearing. We can we can designate a snow removal area
or a snow depositing area. If I may, Michael, as as sitting chair, um I think these are some of these are some of the questions that the planning board is actually dealing with in in in
their meetings. You know, I think that that some of these things that we're discussing are outside of some of this stuff. You know, when they were talking about the environmental and and and those I know they're they're an elected board. We we're just an appointed board. Um
so so how about John? How about a question regarding the width of the place and the recommendation from the fire department? Do they have a plan for that? Well, I don't know if they can move this. that can change the width of the street.
You know that we have that we we've had we had that on AB and C street earlier. Um and and some of the other well if you want to just talk about where I live up on on um uh West Elm Street and Pawn Street, some of them they're even
narrower and those are those are main cutthroughs for the town. But no, actually, no, you know, the the the the the main things that that I believe that we're supposed to be looking at is is, you know, will the will the structure fit in fit
in with the neighborhood? Does it um uh is it uh and it further um are any of the are any of the numbers more detrimental or or um
uh you know based what I'm getting at how much permeable surface will be left on the lot Mr. Hartwell [Music] it would be 65.1%.
So we we're right up against the maximum lot coverage. Okay. So 65% of the lot will be permeable for water, for places of snow. Okay. and and we've and we've designed and we've
submitted with the plan with the board to have all the drains collect all the water off the off the structure itself and direct it to the back and in and on both sides. So, it should allow for enough spread of the water that's created off the top of the building itself. We can't address the water
across the street. We can't address the water down the street. We could it's an awful situation. That's that's why we're trying to contain as much as we can on the site itself. Same thing goes for parking. That's why there's only four units. We're not adding four unit. So
it's four units, three garage spaces, and seven surface spaces off the road, you know. So the So here's here's here's my thoughts. So one of the reasons we want downtown, we want people to walk downtown. We want to
have people that it's close enough that they can do the shopping. They can go and enjoy the downtown. But and I think what's the minimum parking that you need for four family? I think it's eight spots. Is it eight spots? Two per?
I believe it's two per. John could probably confirm that, but I believe that's the case. So, you're planning on putting three additional for potential guests, correct, sir? So they don't have to park on the street. Correct.
Okay. Anybody else have any questions from the board or from the public before? Yeah, I um hi. I didn't know you're here. Good to see you.
Yes, sir. Mike, you said you have three additional spaces, but I thought you had seven spaces plus the three garage spaces. They're two different. So, he has two additional. So, he's going to have a total of 10 where he's required to have
eight. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Yeah. So, he'll have two guest spaces. Two. Yep. Okay. I'm sorry. And this is an existing non-conforming law.
Correct. Yes, sir. Um, and the fact that there's a house on it, that that's why it's ex I think existing non-conforming. But if this were if the house weren't there,
we wouldn't even be having this discussion because it wouldn't meet the size requirements. Correct. And the only reason that that it's um allowed to remain is that it has a house on it and that's therefore it's
existing non-conforming. So, I don't even know why we're talking about putting additional units on this property on an existing non-conforming lot that they couldn't they couldn't put take the house away and they couldn't
even put these units there unless we gave them a size variance. Correct? No. No. No. I John, but you have to remember that. I mean, Mike, you have to remember
that um I think it's like 76 or 78% of the properties in the downtown district do not conform to the 15,000 square feet. The average the average lot in that downtown area is less than 8,000
square feet if if I remember correctly from 15 years ago when we tried to tried to res I realize that but I'm saying if this were a vacant lot they couldn't build on correct well that that would probably be true
with any yeah any of the lots downtown. Well, without getting without without without coming to us. Yeah. And asking for size asking for a size variance. Correct. Right.
No, we're not asking for a size variance. No, I'm saying you would have I'm saying if the House wasn't there, you'd have to ask for a size Vance. I I'm trying to see where you're going with this. Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Um, can I
I'm saying that the only reason that I'd say we're even considering this is because it's a there's a house there already if this Yeah, but it's and that makes it an
existing non-conforming law. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Mr. Riley, I you know, I want to add something to what uh Mike is saying. You know, my my understanding is where it's grandfathered and there's a
single family house, it means that if the um say the house burned down, you could um you know, you can put another house on there, you can replace it, but I I don't know that it means you can put four units
uh on this uh on this lot. You know, I don't know if you can convert the fact that it's a grandfather lot to to put four units on it. Okay. Same thing. You'd have to go through the board if you're rebuilding it and you chose to do that.
I mean, that's the whole idea of having the boards, you know, make these decisions. Yeah. I mean, it's a legal question and I, you know, I don't I really wanted to answer it or I'd have to research it. I think any lawy lawyer didn't know
exactly the answer, but it it seems to me that Mike is I hadn't thought of it, but I think Mike Damasio was making a valid point. And I'd like to I'd like to make one other comment u about the narrowness of
the street. You know, all these other streets we're talking about are not deadend streets. And dead-end streets are a particular problem for fire apparatus. You know, if there's no turnaround, they
have no option but to back down the street if they have to, you know, move the apparatus. So, isn't that isn't that exist right now? Excuse me. Isn't that exist right now? I know, but
you're not talking about a four-story structure. I mean, a a fourunit structure, but we but we could be talking about a four bedroomedroom, four bath house and it would be the same thing.
Um, these are this is these are one-bedroom apartments. So you know that's what I'm Yeah. So that's what I'm trying to wondering about what what we're So the the only the only difference that I'm really seeing is the is the additional parking
in the front which comes down to the which comes down to the planning board. But uh you know and when it comes to the street you know it's already there. And one of the things we could condition is that they that they um have a sprinkle
system. We could do something like that. uh that was already raised by the fire department and we and we'll be part of the permitting process when we go for the building permit. Yeah, they brought that up. They brought that up when we met with them uh back in January that they would want it fully sprinklered. Uh they'd need a fire
department connection. They would run a hydrant flow test and uh they would also need a they would also have a third party review of the fire system. And if I'm not mistaken, they they don't even get trash pickup anymore if they're over three units. Correct. We'd have to use private trash
pickup. uh they would have to use private uh private refuge removal. Public hearing is still open. Is there anybody else that has wants to ask a question to
the chair or comment? Bernie, I saw it your hand up. Um, hello. This is Josh. I'm neighbor. I'm not sure if I can speak now. I didn't I didn't see your hand up, but I I can't see everybody. So, Josh,
you're one hasn't spoken yet. So, introduce yourself with first, last name, and address, please. Sure. Yeah, this is uh Josh Drew. I'm a laborer on the line walk street. I'm just wondering is there like any age
restriction for those three additional units because I know our levelhood already have a lot of uh family and with school age kids. I'm just wondering would be like a two pack for our school
system. There's there's no intention to have it be age restricted at this time. It's a one-bedroom apartment. Each one is a one-bedroom apartment though. Okay. Thank you. If I can speak, I'd like to clarify a
few things. Looking at the plans that we've seen, these are two-bedroom apartments or units. These are not single These are not singlebedroom uh you know, places. Again, the m the drawings that we've seen to date are two-bedroom places. Um, they also look like the parking is in front of each
unit. So, if I was buying that place or renting, I would not expect that there to be a guest from someone else's house parking in front of my house. Um, so that's going to be a conflict in that sense. So, I think that there's just a couple things to clarify in that space. These Absolutely. I I I was
if I if I one more one more point I'd like to clear up also is something that Mr. Cino had mentioned prior is that the planning board is covering our concerns and that's where our concerns should be addressed. When we were at the planning board meeting and and mentioned these concerns, they were told that no, our
concerns need need to be addressed over here. So, I'd like to understand where do our concerns actually get taken in consideration into the decisions that are being made because we're hearing conflicting messages as the people that are most impacted by this. So John will address John John can
address what each board because he's he served on each board. What each board is to look at in their decision making and how they do it. So he can he can clarify that. John, yes, there is there is no site plan review because it is residential. If it
was if it was a commercial, there would be a site plan review. But the but the planning board does take care of all the parking part of this. Um we don't you know I could actually I I'll defer actually to to John um
in in in this one just to make sure that that he could say you know what the four corners because we we do have to be be careful here on board of appeals because we can't go outside of what we can uh discuss. you know, we can we can we
can put um restrictions on things and we can we can ask for certain stuff in order to in order to grant uh grant a variance or a special permit, but there are certain things that that that are out of our purview. There are other there are other departments and and and
groups that handle those things. When you were talking about, you know, could we demand an environmental study? Um we um we no that's not that's not our end. Basically, when it comes down to, you know, it's it's the findings, you know, it's it's one of those does the does the
U criteria meet uh chapter 210 has been has has that been satisfied? It's it's those additions to the pre-existing non-conforming lot structure will not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming use of the neighborhood. Our applicant standards
set forth in 210 have been satisfied. Um, uh, no, it it's it's it's really straightforward for us whether or not this this meets it. And the only real
um soft spot is is the the look and feel for us. Substantially more non-conforming that the rest of the neighborhood. And it is substantially but but but every
four unit place and again I want to I want to get clear here like when we're on the when we're on the planning board meeting they're only talking about the putting how you know putting the variance of allowing cars to park in front of the house and we were told to come here to talk about all of the other
issues that we had that that board is only concerned with putting cars in front of the house. Now you're saying that you're not concerned about all the rest of our concerns. So, where do those get addressed? Where do those get input into this plan? Because there's some significant concerns that myself and my
neighbors have have raised here. And so, where which which board is going to address those and take those into consideration into the plans that Mr. Hartwell and Mr. uh and and Marcelo here want to uh to implement? Well, again, no, some some of these some
of these things may may Mike Mike can actually speak to them. Some of these things may not be um part of our our decision or the playing boards. You know, you know, some of these things are beyond uh beyond us. Some of these things are board of health. Some of
these things are other are other boards. Um can you provide us a list of who we should go to to talk to about all these concerns? As someone who's not familiar with this process, I need some guidance here because we have Sarah, what what I can say is um I'm
absolutely listening to the concerns that I have heard uh from people on the street. I always try to imagine myself in their shoes. Whoever's in front of me, I try to say, okay, I live on Claflin. This is what's proposed. This
is what's And I try to balance that with we have a need for housing. we have a need for having you know things. So I that part of our job is of the balance right because the whole idea of the board of appeals is they only come to us
because something doesn't work right legally. So they're asking us our opinion that that the people present their cases on what they were trying to do whatever variance or special permit they want to do and then we have to weigh that against the good for the law
that's defined more detrimental in this case and the good for the neighborhood and we try to have a balance of that and we still try to be I try to be so I like having smaller unit places but I don't necessarily think of smaller unit places
fits everywhere in town. Some places it because that's not a small place. Not everything fits into that plan. Would this be better served someplace else? Maybe. But that's what us as a board do. So, we are listening to your concerns
and we take that into account when we look at the more detrimental because it's all a judgment. How Mike or Arnold or Shawn looks at this is in our individual brain. when we compare it to that standard of what we're required to
do in order to permit this. So I I I hope you understand that we do listen to you uh and are listening to you. Okay. Thank you. And one of the things I appreciate that and so one of the other things you have to take into consideration is the really only the only two places that we really
do most of our uh most of the the appeals come from is downtown business district and the Lake District. And the reason is tiny lots. And and so we've run into just about every one of these concerns from from neighbors in all
along the lake and and and in the downtown only because you know um you know it you you you want to change your your deck any and most all of you that that that live on Glaflin or AB or Walcott if you want to move your deck or
change a door or change anything you're going to be at this you're going to be here because you know most of the people don't have 15,000 square foot lots and and it's a it's a pain in the neck. It's one of the things we probably should take care of at at town meeting one year to try and make everybody uh try and
bring them bring bring it down from 15,000 to seven or 8,000. So most people are conforming and you don't have to spend time to come here. But in the Lake District it's going to be impossible because those lots are 25 feet by 50 feet and you can build lineto line which
is very strange. But John, John, if you if if you would please uh come in and and and try and give a little more clarification if if we missed anything or if there's anything you might be able to add. Um I'm assuming you mean me, John.
Yes. Yes. Sorry. Um so the the boards have very specific jurisdictions and that's all set in the bylaw. So, we're really just looking at the bylaw and saying, "Okay, this is what they need from this board and this is what they need from that board." Um,
it's a residential use. So, like you pointed out, John, it doesn't require site plan review. So, some of these things would be discussed in site plan review, but the town a while ago, long before I was here, decided to put in their bylaws that residential uses were something that they wanted to almost
incentivize and not really restrict from development. And so, therefore, Massachusetts as a whole as well. and therefore the zoning doesn't require those certain things, reviews, requirements, all that kind of stuff for residential uses. So there's we can't
apply standards or requirements that the bylaws don't allow the boards to apply. Um so in this case, the planning board can only look at this project with respect to the parking between the
uh main structure and the street. They can't look at storm water. They can't look at anything else because they don't have the jurisdiction to review this type of project with that lens. Similarly, the the zoning board of appeals. You have two decisions really
to make here. One of them is a special permit for the use because the bylaw specifically states multif family is an allowed use in the downtown business district if allowed by a special permit by the board of appeals.
And the only real um caveat with that is that it has to comply with the setback standards from the residents a district. Um so that's one decision that the board has to make is is this use allowed and
do we grant uh it doesn't h it needs waiverss from the setbacks which is the other special permit that I'll get to in a second. Um and should we grant the use based on whatever the determination of the next special permit is? Second special permit is for a non-conforming use. So, it is an existing
non-conforming use. Uh, it's a residence in the downtown. The lot is non-conforming. When lots are non-conforming and they have a use on them, they are a pre-existing non-conforming lot. Um, to change the use of a non-conforming lot requires a special permit. To get a multif family
development in the downtown business district requires a special permit. Um, in the zoning bylaw, it specifically states that non-conforming lots um can have uh let me pull it up. I had it up a second ago.
Uh so construction of a single or two family dwelling or other lawful building. So if this received a special permit for use, it would technically be considered a lawful building. uh on such lots where the proposed dwelling or building will not comply with the applicable regulations of this chapter
is permitted only upon the issuance of a special permit by the board of appeals aftering a fi after finding that the proposed change is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. So the board is empowered to grant both of those special permits and that's really what you have to look at. So, I
understand storm water is an issue and um you know the street width is an issue and emergency access is an issue and the board can discuss that. Uh and you can look into um these types of things if you want more information. But the bottom line is the board has to
determine if those changes proposed meet what the standards are in the bylaw. And that's for the use which is an allowed use by special permit with certain requirements and then to allow for uh an extension of a pre-existing
non-conforming use which is also provided for in the bylaw um through the non-conforming use section. So to John's point, it is kind of like really kind of um cut the work is cut out for you. you kind of have these two jurisdictions,
but I don't want to have the residents feel like their their concerns are not being heard because they are as Mike pointed out, but the boards can't have requirements that aren't provided for in the bylaw. And if there's no requirement
for an environmental analysis or a storm water analysis or there's no provisions saying, "Hey, you need to have this type of standard for storm water or whatever, the board can't just kind of go far a field and decide, oh, we're going to require all of these studies and all of
these requirements because on appeal you'd lose immediately." The board's not empowered to do that. Um, so I that's really all I have to add uh to what was said by John and Mike already. Mike from Damasio. Thank you very much. Yeah,
thank you, John. I disagree that the board doesn't have that authority because we learned that on the Golden Pond project where the planning board um had all of these conditions
on that project and they came in uh and excuse me and they appealed that. So they came to us as the board of appeals. Um, and that means that we um
um had to look at each one of those items and uh it was determined that the planning board didn't have the authority to ask for some of those conditions and that those conditions should have been made
as part of the zoning board's approval of the uh project. And since they weren't um there wasn't anything that could be done about because that um the approval
had already been passed. Um and therefore things like uh lighting that spilled over into the neighbors uh yards. Um oh a sidewalk
um that was oh requested um not not requested but conditioned um heading up toward um where Dunkin Donuts is. Um I can't remember there were two or three more
that were conditions that the planning board have had as approval for the project. And um it was determined both through the attorney that was representing Golden
Pond and our own attorney that those conditions should have been part of our approval. So, like I was I was on the pling I was on the planning board then and one of the the main the main thing that we did wrong on the planning board,
we were forcing them to put to to put a sidewalk on a neighbor's property property that that that that uh we we were requiring Golden Pond to put sidewalks on on property that that
that the town didn't own and Golden Pond didn't own and that was one of the main things that they pushed back on and then some of the other things came up and and it was found that uh but I was on the planning board for that one that was but again that was
that that's that's that's not a residential use. There was a commercial use. No, but I'm just I'm just saying we still we have the authority to put conditions on whatever approval we give.
I have been on boards in my time that I agree with Mike that I have I don't know what restrictions we are allowed to or not allowed to but I've been on a board one of my first times on a board that u it was required that x amount of trees
were put up and we we we you know like for buffers and different things. So we we did have requirements that were that were accepted. Maybe maybe the difference is if it's not accepted, do we have a right to enforce that is what I think John was talking about. If if
the if the builder or whatever accepts that, then they go forward with it. But if they don't accept that um or if they challenge that, do we have what's the enforcability of it? So I that's where I'm unclear, Mike. I remember think
through the chair. I I was not saying the board can't put conditions on this decision. That's not what I was saying. I was saying the board has has a very cut out scope of jurisdiction that you have to make these decisions on. I didn't say you couldn't put conditions on the
decision. Yeah. Yeah, we put we put conditions on before, Mike. No, I know we have. But you were saying that we couldn't um ask for a um water um
uh excuse me ground not groundwater but um infiltration. No, not even in storm water. Just storm water runoff. Yeah. But I don't see any reason why we
couldn't ask for that to see that it's not going to cause problems. So when that could be detrimental to the neighborhood, but when you ask for stuff like that without proof or evidence that the use is going to significantly when it's not
required, right? and it's not required as part of the filing. It's not required part of the application and you require a storm water report for something that has not been uh perceived to basically be a detriment in storm water. I mean, there's a storm water issue already, but
there's no evidence to show that this development is going to significantly change the storm water generation or management of the neighborhood because it's really only and that wouldn't even be something that they would investigate. They would just look at the
storm water management on the site. And so they would have to under any regulation that would be enforceable by anybody, the stormwater regulations that are enforceable by the planning board basically require that a development treats the storm water on site that it generates. So this would really do
nothing to prove that it's not good. I mean, I guess you could prove that it's treating all the storm water on site, but you'd have to have evidence that it wouldn't be doing that.
So, you're saying that would be that would be addressed um to you as the code? I'm saying I guess if you want to if you want to use the argument that something could be a detriment but we
don't know yet that could be used pretty broadly if somebody's being about it right if there is a genuine concern about the storm water generated from this site you can absolutely ask for something proving that I don't know if you'd require an entire storm water report
maybe a memo with some calculations that you absolutely can ask for it's really the scale of what you'd be asking for because you were saying an investigation of storm water and that that might be maybe I misunderstood what you were asking for a analysis of the storm water
impact proving that they're going to treat all storm water generated from their site on site I think would be what you'd be looking for. But that's not going to change the issue with the storm water elsewhere in the neighborhood. It's not going to impact it one way or another.
No, I understand. But no, that was just an example anyway here is that I'm saying we can ask for things as is a condition. Oh, absolutely. So, Mike, what are some of the things
you might think we should ask for? Um, I hadn't thought of it. I haven't I hadn't thought I hadn't thought of them at at this at this point in time. as far as you know uh because we do do we do do conditions and one of the conditions that we always say
is that that it's going to be built with the drawings that were that were supplied to us that it's going to be built by you know to to um you know the um uh you know the current standards that it's going to you know we we we ask
those things some of our standard ones all the time to the point where we used to say to a lang and put the standard put the standard um conditions on there. So, can can I ask um Mr. Hartwell a question or two?
Sir, just just because it's I'm having a hard time having the pictures up on my computer and the same thing. So, in a nutshell, what's the square footage of the building presently on site? Uh the footprint is about 400 is 445
square feet. I believe is what is that? And then and you're and you're proposing three units that are a little over 900 square feet each for footprint. So the total square footage the total of the of the addition
is about 2750. And what was the original? The original is let me do something. Mike, you asking for total square footage or the 640 is the is the footprint right now of the of the structure that's
640 square feet is the footprint. Yeah. and you're going to make it total. [Music] Then we're going to add approximately 2750 to it.
So you're going to go from 650 to 3,300 approximately. 34 3,400. So all right. So, it's going to increase in size by significant amount.
Okay. So, have you considered doing either less apartments or one-bedroom apartments? Uh, if the board is is more amendable to three total units, we could certainly come back with revised plans demonstrating that. Uh, we we would ask,
but is it the scaling that's the issue? I mean, you could build a single I build a single family side to side, right? Up to 10 feet from the side setback. So, I mean, if we can keep the the general footprint of the addition, but reduce it to only
two additional units, that would that would help address the parking issue. Um certainly it's just I'm just trying to you know my my by my nature as a mediator I'm always trying to figure out a way that we can
make two parties win and you know two sides win. I don't know if that's going to be the case. It cannot always be the case. But u I I do see I got to be honest with you going forward like is it more more detrimental
or is it in in in har to me? Is it in harmony with the what's already there? I don't feel that it is is my personal opinion. I I haven't been exposed to everything. So I don't know. I'm not ready to vote on it yet. I'm I'm really trying to open my mind up to different
things. Uh but I in order, you know, so I I don't know if there's anything that the neighbors could live with or be, you know, could go with as opposed to this is a big big big change in their
neighborhood. And they're already suffering through, you know, driveway and parking issues just when I imagine if somebody right now has a party. So Pam has a party cuz she's a partyier and she has a bunch of guests over celebrating her 35th
birthday and a bunch of people come over. I imagine Cathlyn is a tough place to put the cars. So when we're adding significant because people not just have, you know, two cars, they have people over, they have a party, they
whatever. So I I don't know if they're I want to make sure that the residents are heard that this is a concern. uh because it is your neighborhood. It's a small neighborhood. It's a small street. So, any change is going to have a big impact, but this will I think have a
very big impact. And I'm not sure it's going to be for the positive. I like adding housing downtown. So, I'm perplexed myself. So, I'm not sure I don't know if Sean has any thoughts or anybody else has any thoughts about
where I'm going. John Moes has has had his hand up for a long time. I can't see John. I can't even know John was here. Oh, you're muted, John. You're muted.
Thanks, Mr. My hand fell asleep there. Um, I got to go way back here a couple minutes. I think I think the board does have pretty pretty broad discretion uh under the bylaws. Um, provided that it's appropriate, right? inappropriate
is probably where it gets a little gray. And I think for the residents, the current residents, probably the best change for them would be no change would be the most wonderful thing. And for the proponent to get everything that he's looking for would be uh the best thing. I think really the best thing would
probably be working out some kind of compromise or maybe ways to mitigate the volume of the facade that's going to be street side or through the number of dwellings um to offset parking and um I
think you know probably getting some more feedback for the project proponent from the residents would be helpful in doing that. And then I think from a residential standpoint, you have to accept that there's going to be some level of change in town. U
particularly on properties that belong to somebody else. I think anybody that's been in Hopkins for some time has seen a dramatic amount of change and that's because this is a great town. But can we guide it to make it appropriate? I think we absolutely can. Um, my feeling is
that probably some work should be done between the residents and the proponent to to get to some sort of compromise. No, Michael, I just saw that through the chair. Sorry. Um, you know, I've been hearing parking, parking, parking, parking, cars, cars,
cars in the front, in the front, and that's all the uh, you know, that's the planning board's going to be talking about the the parking between the street and the and the and the property. But if if what Mr. Hartwell was talking about is they could go to two two-bedroom
units or something like that and it reduces those cars to basically what fits in the garage and and you know maybe one or two spaces in the front you know that that's that's that's that solves that solves a lot. Um, you know, but even even when we were just talking
about, you know, Pam and Bernie throwing a big party, even now, anybody on that street throws a party, this people parking on the street and and and the fire truck would still have to go up if if there was there was an issue. So, we
have to we have to we have to apply the law, you know, same to to everybody that that's that's there. But but but with this is, you know, if if they can change the number of units and and that's what the issue is then and that kills the
number of cars, we're get I think we're getting closer. Anyway, I I'll I'll shut up that one. But Arnold has Arnold has his hand up. Uh Michael, thank you. And Sean does. Sean's actually had it up
for the longest. All right. Go ahead, Sean. All right. Uh so so um a question for Mr. Hartwell. What's the status of the property now? It's it's not occupied. Correct. Correct.
And the the the structure itself is pretty run down. So it it's going to be it'll benefit from having some work done. Right. Because I'm I'm looking at the picture, the Google image from August of
22. three years ago and it looks like at that point it's abandoned. So I I'm concerned too as a matter of law if it's not being occupied and hasn't been occupied for two more years
then potentially loses its status right and so we're asking to change the use from single family to multif family which I have an issue with um so that that was one of my concern I
I still think there's an issue with um the detriment to the neighborhood if it's a four family, right? So, if I if I look at this, you know, if it's an existing single
family and you desire to build an ADU on the lot, I think you have a a right to do that. Um, and so now you you essentially have a two-unit building, right, with with an ADU.
going to a four family though creates a a change in the environment. So I think it's a detriment to potentially detriment to the neighborhood, but it's a substantial change and I don't know if it's necessarily in harmony with um the
zoning. Um, but also I I'd like to hear your response to the fact that it hasn't been occupied and hasn't had a use as a single family for more than two years. I guess the fact that the structure exists I don't
think an existing structure if it's not occupied and it hasn't been occupied does it in fact in in correct me if I'm wrong I believe it loses um loses its right to have um loses its
right to have a change from single to multif family. It may also lose its ability to have a non-conforming use. I disagree, but John can speak to that himself because he's the one that accepted the application.
Well, the fact that he accepts the application doesn't necessarily mean I mean it gives you the right to come before the board to ask for the permit and then we would have to apply the law to whether we grant the permit or not. uh my concern
um in addition to you know the the how it impacts the neighborhood right because I think there are valid concerns and we've all had valid concerns today um is as a matter of law do we have the right to do something and are we making a decision
um that's consistent with the law the law gives us certain rights right or or abilities I should say to grant these special permits But if it hasn't been occupied for a period of years and hasn't been
used as a single family residence, it it may not. And that puts you in a quandry of okay, what do you do with the property at this point? If you're coming be if you if you're going to renovate it and use a single family, maybe it never becomes an issue. Um because you wouldn't be asking us for anything.
You'd just be renovating the property. Uh, but when you go from single family to multif family, I think that's a concern. And and I don't I I don't know I don't know maybe if one of the other attorneys on the board has dealt with this issue or could speak to it, but um
I I think that's maybe something, Mr. Chair, that we need to get advice from council to the board. Well, Sean, we we actually did one of those a couple months ago. Um the one that was there was going to be a six unit and then it went to like a four
then a three. That's that that's been empty for like five years or so. It's but we never brought up the legal issue that Sean's raising now. Oh, okay. Do you know? And and that one wasn't non-conforming,
was it? I don't know. I believe it was. I don't think the law I don't think the lot on that was non-conforming. Yeah, because it went that I believe went single family to multif family, but I I don't know if that was a
nonconforming lot. I don't know about the lot size. Um, but I I think it's tough, Sean, to determine when the last occupant lives there. Um, unless you
Yes, of course. I'm sorry. When I bought the property, that was in August of last year, and there was uh the owner was living there. So, okay. I would say no, he was not living there. He was actually in a retirement home at that point in time. I'm I'm Sarah. Sarah, you can't go back
and forth. Yeah. So, anything any comments are through the chair? Uh there's no direct to No. So I party. Yeah, I had my hand up here. Uh Harold.
Um so is there any standard for this granting a special permit? You might ask. It's outlined in the bylaw. Other than under the bylaw, other than
whether it's whether or not it's more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing building. Is that the only standard? I I believe the standard is has to be sub not substantially more detrimental to the
not just a little. Okay. Substantially. Okay. So, that's that's a that's a significant difference. Yeah. It's um very subjective standard. Um, and I'm not saying what I think, you
know, just just asking the question, but John, if if this was a say there was no nobody ever built a house on it and the lot was created 100 years ago and now it's before zoning went into
effect, but now it's uh non-conforming because it's too tomorrow. Would would they be able to uh am I correct that they would? I'm actually going to stop this Arnold. I'm going to stop this conversation. Uh
as an old law professor once told me whatifs. Let's not go into whatifs. Let's just deal with the facts that we have in the laws that we have because that's what we're going to need to do to make a decision. Not what if this happened and what if that didn't happen
and whe there was a house or there wasn't a house. We do have a house. We have a structure. Sean brings up an interesting point about the use of it. But we have a structure. They've asked for special permit. Two of them. We need to deal with that.
Right. So, so the answer is that they they have they have a go and the board would make a decision they could based on because there's an existing house on it. they can turn it
into a four unit lot based on a special permit and the only issue is whether it's more detrimental to the neighborhood and then whether uh we can put any conditions on it. Um you know we haven't had any
expert uh uh just um you know just kind of opinions that you know really uh you know like the value the property values going down you know that's it's not really evidence and really no evidence
about any it's it's a real concern about the drainage. Um, so all right. You know, I mean that I hear what you're saying that uh it just it just seems a little anomalous that uh
you know that it's grandfathered so they they they can have one house there and say they wanted to expand it, you know, build an extra room on it. Um but not only that, but they could build three more units on it when it's when it's an undersized lot even for a single family
house. And that's what the board's decision is based going to be based on whether we feel that the majority of us feel that a special permits called for or not. So that's so I'm going to ask if there's any other public Bernie I see your hand up. We're going to go through because
it's getting kind of we're getting on their time but I I want to pay attention to everybody's hand and then um we're going to see if there's any more public. So Bernie you're you're up next. Thanks very much. I really appreciate it. Bernie Mitchell, five Claflin. I I want to make sure there's no confusion.
Two bedrooms, not singles. Okay, got it. Got it. That was my mistake. I apologize. And I would also like to say, well, it isn't just parking. It is not that. It is certainly a change in the scope of the neighborhood. What are we going to
do about lighting? There was a handful of things that have been brought up and I will not go through them all but I would like you to make sure that it is not solely about parking. Thank you. Got it. Thank you Ann and then Mike
and Matina I see a hand up. Are you there? All right we'll come back to Ann if she's there. U Mike you had your hand up here. I'm here. Can you hear? Okay. Ann, I'm sorry. I apologize. I can't get my camera to come on. Could you hear me?
All right. Um I just couple Can you introduce yourself, Ann? Yes. Ann Matina, 40 East View Road, previous resident of One Claflin Street. Um I just want to make an observation in general um about the idea that somehow
it's already bad there. So, what difference does it make if we add four more units? I mean, people are going to have to park on the side of the road regardless, so we may as well put a house in there and a four fourunit condos in there. But in fact, uh it is
going to work to the detriment of this tiny historic little street in the center of town. it. As someone who unfortunately had to call
for an ambulance twice in the seven years we lived there, um, and we were on the corner. I can tell you Hopkin doesn't fool around. You get a fire truck, you get police cars, you get the ambulance, and, you know, nobody could
go up or down the street while this was going on. Um, and it's I I just think that the idea that just throwing up four three additional units onto this lot is
not going to be detrimental in and of itself is is ludicrous. It's going to make a huge difference. The other thing I want to mention is about the water, the drainage, all of that stuff.
In the past when there was a study done, not by the town, I don't believe it was done by the town from the owners when the owners of Bill's Pizza were build going to build their new pizza place.
Um, originally their plan was to go all the way back in the lot. They own the uh uh that strip of woods across the street from the houses on Claflin and Bill's Pizza. There's the
parking lot, there's a strip of woods, and then there's the parking lot. They were they couldn't build without it costing them, I guess, an enormous amount of money back there because of the drainage, because of the water
problems. And I know uh the attorney said earlier that you know they can't control the water anywhere else except on their own on their own lot that they're concerned about. But that lot is part of a larger
neighborhood. It is going to impact everyone and not for the better. the only person I mean if the other thing is I want downtown housing too but I don't see anybody talking about this housing
being you know um affordable housing which we desperately need housing for seniors which we desperately need this is going to be marketric condos which you know are are going to upend the
whole neighborhood so that's my thing that I want to say about all of this thanks Thank you. Sorry about my technical difficulties. That's okay, Ann. Thank you very much for your comments. Uh Mike, yeah, I have one question and maybe Mr.
Hardwell can answer this is he's pointed out 210 128A2 but 210 128A deals with uh alteration reconstruction extension or structural
changes to single and two family residential dwellings. It doesn't address um changing one and two family dwellings to multiple family dwellings. So
I'm not sure that um that we even have the ability to say they can change it. Well, maybe with the variance um they can change a single or two family dwelling to a multif family
dwelling in um in existing lots. uses and structures. Mr. Gilchic, you're going to have to step in on this one. So, is the question that they wouldn't meet the standards under 210 128A? Is
that what I heard? That's right. Yes. Um so under 220 or so 210128 C which deals with non-conforming lots it says construction of a single or two family dwelling or other lawful building on such lots with the proposed dwelling
or building will not comply with the applicable regulations permitted only upon the issuance of special permit. So what they would have to do is they'd have to get a special permit to allow for that the the structure to be on that lot.
The special permit for use which is required in the BD district would be the special permit that would then make the multif family use a um lawful building and then um the one 210 128B
non-conforming structures would deal with the non-conformance of the structure as it relates to the setbacks. So they would they would get potentially a special permit um
for C only allows you to to build a one a single or a two family dwelling or legal or other lawful building says construction of a single or two
family dwelling or other lawful building the special permit Michael would give them the right as a lawful building to build them the four family. We would have to grant that part of it. That would That's why we're doing two now.
Yeah, that's what John's saying. If we give it a special permit to build a four family, then it becomes a lawful building. If I'm if I'm interpretating what you're saying, John. Correct. And this section, same section just to
there was an earlier conversation. Um this same section 128C also uh allows for development of single family houses on lots that are smaller. So they have to be at least 50 or 5,000 ft or have and have 50 ft of frontage.
So, in that situation, th this lot, if it had no building on it and was vacant, but had not been held in common ownership and was created before zoning came into play, um, still would be legal to build on because it would have more than 5,000 square feet and 50 ft of
frontage. Mr. Just It could be a two family as well by right, correct? Um, yes, just to clarify. Yeah, I have to look. Yeah. I mean, yes, because it says
single and two family in all the Yeah. So, I mean, as of right, we can build a two family right now, right? I'm not the zoning enforcement officer, so I can give you an interpretation, but you can't bring that to court.
Yeah. and and and you know, one of the things that that that I wanted to that I was thinking about is if he was just coming to us to put on a 25 or 2600 square foot edition, would be just still saying the same thing, you know, is is,
you know, can he have his college kids are all moving back, they're bring they're bringing families and he just wants to make his house. Hey, 145 Ash Street is a 3,000 foot edition.
The house was 1,800 foot. He put a 3,000 foot addition on it. Um, he didn't have to come to the board of appeals. But, you know, that's, you know, it's one of these things. So, I I guess I I would just kind of disagree with that being I I don't think
u that's comparable when you're talking about having a multif family and compared to a a single family expanding their own house. I do think it's different. The size may be the same, but I think I think the effect u in is
completely different. Well, my opinion Oh, no. No. My point being when we're talking about the um storm storm water infiltration and and and 65% of the of the lot being being open for infiltration
and some of those other issues that people are talking about if this was just being built a lot that's what we were looking at. Sure. Sure. You know and just like I'm just building you know or or I'm just exchanging it to a two family. we they'd still have to come to us not
for the not for the the two family park, but they'd be coming to us just to put the addition, like I said to everybody else, you want to put a you want to put a deck on the back of your house, you've got a you've got a 5,000 square foot lot. So, anything that's less than 15,000 square feet, you're coming to this board.
So, I'm going to I'm going to try to summarize and see if we can move on a little bit because I think we're doing a little bit of circling. Um, so what I have is somebody wants to put a four family. have the neighborhoods saying they don't want a four family. That's not in congruence with what's in the
neighborhood. We know that hey, I have a right to at least a two family. So by by right. So um do you see any compromise in a lessening of this project to
satisfy all parties? I'm not sure if we are or not, but I do think our our job as a board isn't just to say no or yes to everybody. It's to try to listen and see what's best for the town. We represent the town in this. Um, so I
know Sarah brought up the thing I saw a little thing. I depending on what time it is I on Saturday to do a walk through the neighborhood and welcome the boards to do that to see. But in the meantime, I I think I I would open it up one more time to the public to see if there's any
more questions. And a certain point, I want to move this meeting along so we can kind of get some determination or kick it out to the next meeting. Um, and maybe have come back, Mr. Mr. Hartwell come back with some other proposal
that's maybe the footprint isn't as big. Maybe there isn't four apartments, maybe there's three. um and kind of go from there. Does anybody else feel I know John Moer and I kind of were approaching this as
the same way going, you know, it is unfortunate that we can't always control what's in our neighborhood. Uh but we can make sure that it's at least within what's under the bylaws. Mike's got his hand up again. Michael. Mike. Oh, excuse me. I meant to lower my
hand. Okay. Anybody anybody else in the public have want to speak on the the conversation that I just brought up about a compromise? Okay. I Mr. Cohen, you have your hand up.
Okay, Arnold, you muted, Arnold. So, does anybody else in the public have anything else to say? I don't want to close the public hearing because I want to ask or Mr. Hartwell to come back with some revisions and have a
further plan. Uh, and so I don't want to limit the public to not be able to speak on those further plans. So I don't I'm not I don't I'm not of the query to say let's close the public hearing yet. Uh, Mr. Harwell, do you are you open to coming back with some revisions in your
plan to make it more user friendly? Of course, Mr. here and I've been on my own zoning board for 19 years. So, I'm I'm I feel your pain. I heard your concerns.
Um we we understand my understanding from the feedback we've gotten is that the the the primary concern is parking. So if if the easy not the primary but I mean the size of
the place as well as the amount of people the amount of traffic it's going to bring because it's not just parking the cars it's driving up and down the street. It's you know so the the the total number of cars doing that has also an impact on on a very narrow street. I
got I got a young little kid at the corner at the other end I got to watch out for to make sure that No, no, no, no. But but you we don't have to look out for because we're not going down there. They're they're at the end of the street. We're at three. So we're we're only there's only one
house before you get to the main road. So we're not asking for we're not asking for 10 cars a day to go in front of five or seven or nine or anywhere beyond that street. It's really just addressing it. I would recommend you look at making that a smaller building with less
residents. Okay. That that would affect the parking as well. It's up to you to choose to do that or not. Or we could just go forward on how you propose. Now, I'm not sure how that No, no, no, no. I think it I think we would I just wanted to get some guidance from the town on terms of like how if
you how much sizing are are you talking about? I mean, well, realistically, if I may, if I may, through the chair, you know, why don't we just I I don't we just give everybody another 30 seconds. Bernie, Pam, Sarah, and and James and
Alexa. I and and you know, you know, bring up the your your one or two points so we can just try and make this a a a win-win or not a lose-lose. Yep. Can we do it like he said and not repeat each other? And if you do, do do
like Bernie did before. If if it is a repeat just say I want to add to you know so go ahead James. I was just wondering are all four of these units going to be connected to town water? Yes.
Okay. Yes. Um is there any plan to remedy the low water pressure and supply coming into the houses on the street because if we have that that's outside the scope of the builders. Yeah. Okay.
Pam, did you have anything? You're on mute. I'll get to Bernie. Okay, I'm here. I I don't do Zoom very much. Um, the thing that I'd like to mention, I don't think anyone has brought up before that has to do with um renters and turnover. Um, and I really
think um, and we've had we've had some issues in the past where we've had a certain house that has had turnover ventures constantly and it it gets a like I had teen a teenage daughter at the time and it was a little concerning um, who was living in that house and things like that. And I just feel like
if there's four units is a lot of turnover because that's what it is. They're they're just going to be young professionals just using the tea and then buying their house somewhere else. Whereas if you had a two family, you could have two like very happy families that could stay for years. We have that
other renters in the neighborhood have stayed for years and single family homes. And it's just it it is a neighborhood and it would be nice to have neighbors and not just renters. So I'll lead at that. Thank you, Sarah. Thank you, Sarah. Can I just address that real
quick because that's a there's no intention to rent these out. These are these are going to be condo. That wasn't that wasn't okay. I I don't I have not represented these are going to be apartments. I I apologize if somebody mentioned that. I didn't Thank you for clarifying, Mr. Hartwell.
No, the intention is this is, you know, workforce housing. This is, you know, it's not affordable by law. It's not, you know, deed restricted, but these aren't, you know, mega houses that are going in. They're supposed to be reasonable houses in the downtown area
that are market rate. So, it should help the local the houses also on the street, but they're not so market rate that they're out of touch for the regular folks. They need to, you know, live and work in the town, you know, live in the town that they work in. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that
input, Sarah. Sure. Thank you again, Sarah Broofphy, nineclaflin street. Um, I do want to say that yes, parking is a concern there. Even though this is the second house on the street, everyone comes down to the dead end because they can't find the house and turn around. So, that's never
going to be a thing. That's never not going to be a thing with this with this unit, whether it's the second, first, or or third house. I think the other thing that we really haven't talked a ton about is landscape. We're talking about that whole frontage of that house becoming hardcape and not having any or very minimal, you know, green space to
any of this anymore. Um, so that's one thing I'd like to I'd like to address as well, too. Um I think holistically I don't think any of us on the street are uh object to that property being developed and being you know refurbished back to some sort of you know quality that matches the rest of the
neighborhood. I think that what is being proposed is just too large and too massive for this street. Um, and to address the note that I put in the chat, there is a sitewalk here on Saturday morning at nine o'clock um, from the uh, from the planning board. And I would
encourage you all to be part of that and see what it's like in this space. See what it's like. You've got the you've got the renderings of the proposal, but you're missing the context of what that would look like in this environment. So, I would encourage you to attend that and see what that's going to look like. And
then you'll also see what happens when you've got a ton of cars that are going to park down the street to attend that meeting. So, I appreciate it. I cannot make it, but I will be there at a different time, but I cannot make that time. Bernie, you had your hand up. Yep. Uh, thank you. Uh, thank you very
much for clarifying that these are not rentals. Uh, we were under the impression that these were rentals. I'm not sure how we got off on a wrong track there. Um, we also have been in this town for quite a long time and have seen many changes.
We're not opposed to change. I think what scale and it would impact the neighborhood is what we are opposed to or have a problem with. Thanks very much. I appreciate your time. Yep. Anybody else before we All right.
So, the other thing I Mr. Harwell, I like green, too. I like to see more green on um on it. It helps how it it presents to the neighborhood. It helps how as John would be interested in how they sell as so is uh James. You know,
the nice landscaping always adds for the sale value, plus it makes it a nicer appearance in the neighborhood. So, I think those are the two things. I think you have your marching orders. Go through the chair. Go ahead. Um, I was down in 12 Kathlin when that
house was for sale. There was an open house. It was uh chaos and I parked in the woods probably legally. Um, so I can confirm that yes, it is a tight street and it's hard to park and it's hard to turn around. Um, and that the bylaws are there to help the community express
their concerns and bring it to a forum like this. And uh so it's it's a bit of an overlap and we're here to help you know in the gray areas and and help everybody come to a consensus where at least more people are happy than unhappy.
Thank the chair. I'd like to make a motion to continue this public hearing to an open date that um Adena and Mr. Hartwell would find uh immutable.
So we have hearings on our next one is in two weeks on the 27th. We have one hearing already that night and then after that is September 10th and September 24th. So Mr. Hartwell, when do you think you would be able to um
come up with plans? I think we I think we should be able to get um updated plans for the 27th. Obviously, we're going to wait till after the sidewalk so we can get some feedback from, you know, the abuters that you know we meet with there. Um, worst case scenario, I I could send you
can I send you a letter the day of just to continue till the September meeting if if we don't have plans available just to waste your time. Would that work for you, Adena? That's fine with me. Okay. I just don't I don't know how
complicated uh I didn't look at the 27th yet. Um, I will not be here. Um, then let's make it that 27th is a Wednesday. I I'll be here. Okay, good. I'll be here. I'm here. I'm here, too.
Do we Do we need to get an extension? Yeah. From the uh applicant. Yeah, I will send him a form tomorrow. No problem. Excellent. Okay. So, do do we need to do
we need to vote on on on on the continuation? Yes. You've got you got you have a motion, Mr. Riley. We need I have a motion. I need a second. Second. Second. Any discussion on the motion? All right. So, I'm not sure who's
sitting on this because I had my screen the view thing and I had no idea that uh John Moer was here and Mike was here. So um do we have so on this so on this Michael I guess the the five the five members.
Yeah. So it would be you me Jim Arnold Mike James and Yeah. Oh Mike and Ar Mike and and and um Arnold. Mike and Arnold. Yeah. Okay. Everybody was here at the beginning of the meeting. Okay.
All right. So, I'll I'll ask uh John, yes. James, yes. Arnold, yes. Mike, yes. And I also vote in the affirmative.
Okay, we have continuation. All right. Um, Michael, do you want to go over the uh the the minutes as drafted? I make a motion to accept the minutes as drafted, but the Oh, shoot. I don't have them in front of me.
It was July 9th, I think. Was it? Yeah, [Music] there was there was July 9th and there was one before that too. One after that. Dina, do you know the date on the
second? Was June 25th. June 25th. Do we have to vote them individually? You usually do. You have voted them together, but you usually do except I don't know if there's a difference. I didn't see any I didn't see any issues
on on either of them. They were they were pretty length. They were pretty pretty accurate. I mean, just Yeah, especially the the one the ninth. So, there's a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. So, any discussion? All right. So,
John, yes. James, yes. Arnold, yes. Mike, yes. John Moer. John, you're muted.
Okay. Well, we have five votes. And James M. James Yes. Okay. So that Oh, the minutes are accepted. So at this point, make anybody have a motion to close the hearing? Anything else on the agenda?
Yeah, there's one more thing on the agenda for um if you guys are going to reorganize for the new fiscal year and a Zach representative. All right, let's do that. Let's do that um on the 10th because we're going to be too busy on
the next one. So, let's let's push all that stuff off to the 10th. Okay. I want to thank everybody for their time and their professionalism throughout this hearing. I know sometimes it's gets very it's a very emotional type of thing
and and can be, but everybody was very professional and spoke very well for themselves. So, thank you. And you guys are a great street. You really do. I may have to Yeah, I I got to say that too. And I again I apologize. I I got I'm really a bad mood and under a lot of pain. I can't believe I got so
many obese things. But Mike, thanks for running. Michael, thank you for running the meeting for me. Yeah, John, your bad mood is a good mood for somebody else. So, all right. Well, have a great night. And um so, need a motion to close the hearing?
No. No, we don't close this hearing. We don't That's right. I mean meaning Yes. So we we are we are not at the hearing. Yeah. Okay. Yes. We are All right. We're all done, folks. Everyone don't we need a motion to adjourn?
We did. We did. No, you didn't. Oh, we didn't vote. No. Okay. Motion to adjourn. Do I hear a second? Any discussion? John? Yes. James?
Yes. Mike, yes. John Sean, yes. Arnold, yes. And I'm not sure if John Moer is still here. I Yeah, I made the original motion to adjourn and Jim seconded it and we were
then we just started talking in the middle of it. Yeah, he didn't vote. We didn't vote. Oh, we didn't vote. Okay. I thought we did that. I said yes. Well, we voted now. So, farewell. Yes. Now we are now. We are adjourned. John John, thank you so much for your
help with this. Yeah, really appreciate it.