Good evening everyone and welcome to the board of appeals meeting on here we are on September 10th 2025. I'd like to call this meeting to order. Permit me to confirm that all members present and persons anticipated on the agenda are present. You can hear
me. Members when I call your name please respond in the affirmative. Mr. Riley. Yes. Let's see who's next on my Mr. Hunt. Yes. Mr. Masterson. Yes. Mr. Burton. Yes.
And that will take care of that. And um Miss Dalo? Yes. Excellent. And John not joining us? Hello, I'm here. What was Oh, you There you are. You hide in the You hide under the Okay.
No, that's fine. You're the seal. Okay. The great seal of Hopkin. Okay. Uh this open meeting of the board of uh board of pills is is being conducted remotely. Please note that this meeting is being recorded accordingly. Please be aware that others may be able to see you
and take care not to screen share your computer. Anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording and by HCAM. And again, thank you HCAM. All supporting materials that have been provided to members of this body are available on the town's website via the web meeting calendar on unless otherwise
noted. Each vote taken at this meeting will be conducted by a roll call vote. I'd like to proceed to the first agenda item which is uh the Oh, Mr. Let the minute show that Mr. Cohen has has arrived.
Okay. And um let me just open up my agenda which I just closed by accident. Okay. Um, there it is right there. One second. Sorry. Okay. Um,
let's see. Let's just go by the order that that we have here. Um, zoning advisory committee representative. Um, Arnold, while you when you missed the last meeting, you were voted in as our Zach representative. And, uh, if But we
did say if you decided you didn't want to do it, we wouldn't force you to it. But you weren't here. Would you mind doing it again for another year? Oh, you're you're you're on mute, Arnold. Yes, that's what I get for not not being at the meeting. Um,
no, I'll do it unless somebody if somebody else would like to do it like the opportunity to do it, I'm fine. But uh if not, I will uh maintain the present status. Well, we appreciate it. Thank you so much.
Yeah, I can I can only do two rolls, I think. recording in progress. I'll um pass. Okay. And I vote in the affirmative. Okay. It's it's uh almost unanimous.
All right. Second on our agenda today is review and Okay. Did has anybody looked as everyone looked over the draft minutes that Adena sent over? And if there are no objections, I'd like to make a motion to accept them as drafted.
Second. Excellent. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none. Mr. Masterson? Yes. Mr. Hunt? Yes. Mr. Riley, yes. Mr. Burton, yes. And Mr. Cohen,
yes. And the vote in the affirmative also. That one is unanimous. Okay. And next up is future meeting dates. Um, again, do we have anything coming up
for 24th or the 8th? We have nothing on the schedule at all for any any nothing is right now. So the next next meeting in two weeks there won't be anything else scheduled unless you continue um this one tonight till that date.
Yeah. Well, we can see what what Mr. Hartwell needs and and we can just work with him accordingly. That's great news. Okay. And uh now we'd like to commence the public hearing continuation of three Claflin Street
uh number 26002. Uh Mr. Hartwell, would you uh uh enlighten us on what's going on? Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. So Craig Harwell for the applicant. Uh we met with the historical commission last night. Well, to back up, last month we met with this board. Uh we gathered a
lot of feedback from the board members uh from the Abutters. Uh we've had the sitewalk at this point. um we we've decided we're obviously going to reduce the number of units to three from four because that was that was the biggest um
point of resistance. Uh in order to do that, we were trying to come up with a plan that would better address the setbacks uh specifically the the setback to the west. So we went to the historical commission and asked for permission to knock down the existing structure and replace it uh with something a little bit more central to
the lot. uh they uh have determined that it is preferably preserved. So they would like us to keep the existing structure that's there um absent the the porch which they've already allowed um approved us to take off. So at this point we're looking to revise our plans
to address keeping the existing structure and in increasing the total number of units to only three. So excellent. All right. So um uh how much time do you think you'd need and then we'll speak as you saw that our slate's
completely open and correct and and I wouldn't and I would ask to continue to that hearing u just as a if as a placeholder if in the event that we don't have plans um properly prepared in time we would obviously ask to continue it you know far enough in advance so that we wouldn't
inconvenience you guys with you know having to hold the meeting at 7 o'clock just for No well we will if we if we do continue it to to the 24th. We do still have to hold a meeting if there's an agenda put up. So if you think that you want do you
want to just go to the to October 8th or do you want to just you want to try for the 24th? No, I I think we should we should be able to have plans back by the 24th. Great. And then any any plans even if this board approves them, we'd have to go back before the historical commission
again. I believe on the 7th. So it'd be best to have that that in place. All right. Great. All right. That's that. All right. So, um um so you'd like to continue this until September 24th.
Correct. And I before we before you um act on that motion, I we just have I have one question. It there was some talk at the last meeting about the the site layout. And so as we're revising the plans, I I I would just ask for a little bit of feedback from this board
um to their appetite if we were to split the the building into two. So essentially keep the existing structure as a standalone single family and then have the additional two units be a standalone or be be a two-unit structure
with a driveway in between to help address some of the the flow issues that are there. Because the the issue with the existing house is obviously doesn't have a garage. We're proposing with the two new new units that they will both have twocar garages. So we should have plenty of parking off the street out of
the way there, but where the existing structure doesn't have a garage, we want to account for that as well. So if just kind of gauging the board's appetite for whether they'd prefer to be a singular structure or or a split structure. Now that's something I might have to ask
Mr. Gelich. Um, John, I was wondering if you could weigh in. Would that be considered an accessory dwelling unit? It has to be or but I know the garden apartments are allowed there and and some of them are multiple buildings, but I just want to
make sure that we're not going to send him down a Sorry, what was Can you just repeat the question, sir? Uh sure John. So we're we're asking so we're looking to reduce the number of units to three total and keep the existing structure where it is. So the
qu so it's been brought up at some of the past meetings with the neighbors about a driveway in between the units. So basically if we had keep the existing structure and the additional two units would be a standalone structure to the east with a driveway splitting them.
And the question is would that be an ADU? Would that be Well, no, no, that was that was question from me. Can Can one have two two housing units on one lot? Two structures. Two structures.
So, I'm going to weigh in. And so, I think what he's proposing is a a three unit condominium. Um, and the the the condominium would have separate buildings. Correct. one would have two and one
would have one. So it is instead of a three attached condominiums, he's he's looking at a like we have in town, some of them are detached condominiums. He's saying he's his question is would the
board look favorably to allowing a split condominium as opposed to a single building condominium with the restraints that historical put on them? If I said that correct, Mr. Well, well, so the reason why I asked was it's not
would we look favorably? Are we allowed to right are we allowed to even look at that because it may not be allowed in in some type of in some zoning areas, but I know that garden requirements are allowed, but I don't know if multiple structure garden
Yeah, it's it's a good question. Uh, multiple structures are allowed. um in certain places in the zoning it's it's how would it be allowed because it's not currently two
structures, right? It's currently one structure. So, you'd be putting two structures on. So, we'd have to figure out um if any permitting would be needed and what that permitting would look like. So, I'd have to take I'd have to take a read through of the zoning bylaw to really answer that question. Could could I also suggest that he may have to
resubmit his request because it's going to change and it may change his request for setbacks? No, that wouldn't it wouldn't be our intent to go into the setbacks anymore than we we already are. Okay. Act in actuality we've been trying to
make the project more conforming. So the the only encroachment would be that that west side set back to one claflin which is only like six feet but that's the existing structure that's there already that the new structure would still would conform to the
setbacks as they are John when do you John G when do you think you would be able to answer the question about whether because I I don't know the answer at the so yes so I mean I can take a look at the at the zoning bylaw and and give you
my interpretation, but it's not going to be the official determination because I'm not the CEO. So, um, you know, I can I can look at that tomorrow and try and get an answer. Um, yeah, I would just want to I think it would still need that same special
permit for the multif family in the downtown business district because you are doing multif family, right? So, like it would still be that same relief. We're still asking for the relief. I'm just asking if we can do it as a Yeah. And I don't think there's any I don't think there's any provision in the
zoning bylaw that I can that comes to the top of my head that would prohibit that. I know there's a provision that says no two single family dwelling units can be on the same lot, but these wouldn't be single family. They'd be multif family. Correct. Um well, I guess maybe one building
would be single family and then another one would be a duplex, but that is technically not a single family. Technically, yeah. So, I'd have to take a look because it might not need anything. And is that but more importantly, is that something that the board would like
us to entertain if that is a possibility? I mean, if the the other board members say they don't they want it to be one structure, we can do one structure. But if if they would prefer that it be a split structure and it's determined to be permitted by the ZO, then we'll obviously revise our plans
accordingly for you for to meet the requirement. John Cina. Well, yeah, absolutely. If it if it's going to um I if if it's if it's allowed in the zoning as as as John G said, and
and it makes the project neater, cleaner, and easier for for everybody to uh absorb, um then yes. And if it takes care of the the historical society that they want the the main building to stay the same and and you could do something
behind, you know that you know that's the stuff that they do in Boston all the time. They keep a facade. They keep the front the the front three feet of a of a five or six story building and then put up a contemporary building behind it. Um, so you know that's it's not that
it's unprecedented, right? But sure. Yeah. If it if it can work um and it makes it better for everybody, it let's go for win-wins. That's what we always try to do here. No, that that and that's what I I mentioned the historical commission, you know, we're not this isn't an adversarial process. We want to come up
with something that's good for the town, you know, so and good for the neighborhood. Excellent. Beautiful. All right. All right. So, we have a we have a motion. Oh, no. Well, I'll make he put the request in. I'll
make a motion to continue this public hearing to the 24th of September. A second. Any discussion on the motion? Do we have to make sure that the appropriate um deadlines are extended? Right? Because
we have to issue a decision within a certain time period from the application submission. Don't we? But is is it from the application submission or from or from when we finish the hearings? If they're because if they're asking for continuance, I
believe we continue to have the 30 days. It's happened to us before on set. A special permit is you don't count it till the it's 100 days from the close of a public hearing. A variances from when it's filed, but the he'll have he's been filling out continuation forms and
signing them. So, it's f it has a blur at the bottom. I just want to make sure he doesn't get caught. Yeah. No, no, we we've we've had stuff that have gone on for months here. No, that's a good one, Sean. I' I've been on boards where it's gone through
where I've been present when the 100 days laps and it's nothing but a headache. Okay. Uh we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on that motion to continue to the 24 24th hearing? None. Mr. Mastersonson. Yes.
Mr. Hunt. Yes, Mr. Riley. Yes, Mr. Burton. Yes, Mr. Cohen. Yes. And I am in the affirmative also. Excellent. Mr. Arwell, thank you very much for coming. That's uh you you know it's I'm really glad that we're all working
together here. I appreciate it, Mr. Chair. Absolutely. Thank you so much. Thank you everyone. Okay. All right. Hey guys, we already took care of um all the housekeeping tonight and um Anything else?
Um, no, that's it. But I will be, just so you know, the 18th I'll be out of the office for probably six weeks, six to eight weeks. So, um, I probably will miss maybe the first meeting. I'll be doing work from home after a couple weeks, but so I may miss one or two
meetings, but um, John will be there. Excellent. Okay. Well, thank you very much. All right. Um All right. So, a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjourn. Second. Excellent. Any discussion on that motion
hearing? None. Mr. Riley. Yes. Mr. Hunt. Yes. Mr. Burton. Yes. Mr. Masterson. Yes. And Mr. Cohen? Yes. And I am in the affirmative to adjourn this meeting. Good night everybody. We
are adjourned. Yes. John G, can you stay on for a quick second? Excellent. All right. I'm gonna I'm gonna get off so it's not so we are not in a real meeting. Good night H Cam. Thank you very much everybody for coming. Yes, John. I think that I just asked John Gelchic this question. I think that some
of that was testimony. So I think we have to consider that um part of you know what goes on the record. So at the next meeting there's only four of you um full members that were here. Mike Damasio wasn't and he was at the last one. So, we'll have to have him sign that form and watch the tape just to be
on the safe side if we want him to vote. I mean, you still have um um Sean was also at the first one, so he could be the fifth voting member if there's an issue with Mike Damasio not, you know, being able to watch it.
Sean, would you be okay with that? You're okay. Okay, good. All right, great. That this is this is why we have uh we have additional members. Thank you very much. Okay, so um are we adjourned? Yes. Yeah. Okay, good. Uh good night everyone.
Thank you very much for coming each camp. Thank you very much. Okay. Recording stopped. Mike, do you me here too or you just No, just bye. Good luck. I don't know why you're going but good luck with everything. How it