Hi everyone, this is H Cam and we're recording and we're live right now. So feel free to start whenever you're ready. Well, Mr. Sheepard, it's a pleasure to see you. >> You're on mute. >> Yeah, it it has been a long time.
>> Good to see you, sir. >> Thank you. But uh I'm I'm I'm I'm not in an official capacity tonight, but uh I'm back working kind of helping out up the office till I find somebody to fill up the holes. But
>> perfect. >> Yeah, it's good for me. Keeps me off the street if you know what I mean. >> Take care. >> Thank you, Michael. Mr. Sure. My meeting started. >> What?
>> My meeting is started. I just spoke to John, so he should be on any second. And uh Mike Heaton said he won't be able to make it tonight. So, >> okay. Uh, thank you everyone. Sorry I I was I
couldn't find the my invitation. Okay, let's get started with this. Read us in Oh, shoot. I I have the old script. >> It should be the same. You just got to change it to 20 2025.
>> Um, give me one second. Let me just uh have my hearing notice. I apologize. I picked up [Music] I'd like to call this meeting of the board of appeals to order.
Um, this being uh November 12th, 2025, permit me to confirm that all members and and persons anticipating the agenda of president can hear me. Members, when I call your name, please respond in the affirmative. See who do we have today. Uh, Mr. Burton
>> here. >> Mr. Cohen. Okay, mute. >> Okay, >> there you go. >> Mr. Hunt here. Mr. Riley >> here.
>> And uh, I think that's all we've got. No, Sean is here. I'm here. >> Oh, Sean, there you are. Oh, okay. >> I'm here. >> You're in the corner. Thank you, Sean. Okay, so we got one, two, three, four, five, six. Good. We got six of us.
Excellent. Okay, staff, when I call your name, please respond in the affirmative. Adena, you here? Okay, I can see you. Okay, good. and uh John >> present. >> Thank you so much. This open meeting of the board of
appeals is be 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 you broadcast may be captured by the recording. All supporting materials have been provided to the members of this body are available on the town's website via the
web meeting calendar unless otherwise noted. Each vote taken in this meeting will be conducted on roll call vote. Mr. Shepard, welcome. I haven't seen you in a while. Good to see you. >> Yes, sir. Good to see you as well, as well as the other folks.
>> You know, we could use you back in inspections. Just just putting it out there. Just Just putting it out there. >> Just put it out there. >> As a local builder, I could say we could really use you right now. But anyway, all right. Let I I digress. Um,
and I have Adena, you just sent the the um notices over to me. I'm just got to move this a second and open up the notices that you just sent me. There notices
Okay, we'll start with um Oh, wait a minute. I wanted to make sure I I have to make sure that everyone that the people for 82 do we have people from 82 Clinton Street? >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yep. and and uh Maple Street or Maple Street Extension. >> Yes, George Connor from Maple Street. >> Excellent. Thank you, George. Okay, great. All right, now let me get back to reading the u
notice. The Hopton Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, November 12th, 2025 at 7 p.m. to hear all persons interested in the uniform application for a special permit petition or for variance filed by Aaron Stone, 23A Salem and Lane, Framingham, Mass. for variance
for the minimum frontage requirements on the zoning bylaws to create an additional building lot at 82 Clemson Street, Hopton, Mass. The property is showed in assesses map power 1916-0 is owned by home formation properties
LLC23A Salem and Lane Framed MS. The hearing will be held remotely using the Zoom meeting service. For additional information, please email ZBA at hopmma.gov. Call the Department of Land use of land use and planning and permitting at 584979745 or check the online meeting calendar
agenda for this meeting at hopinmma.gov. This legal notice is also posted on the Massachusetts Newspapers Public Association MNPA website at masspublic notices.org. John Coutino, chair and clerk regarding 26004. Okay, let me just open this back up
again. Okay. Um, so who who's here for um 82 Clinton and who'd like to open us up and tell us tell us what what you'd like to do? >> Yeah, I'm here. Can you hear me? Absolutely.
>> Okay. So, um Aaron Stone here. I'm the owner. Um just applying for the variance. As you just uh stated, this is the first initial step that we've done. I've got Jay on here as well who's supported me along the process. He's our civil civil engineering support. Um
basically what we're trying to do is get some initial approvals for this lot uh to ultimately be subdivided. uh the the initial structure that's currently on the property at the front uh has been
uh deemed or preferably uh historic from the historic commission. I've been in front of them and they would uh were asking me if I could, you know, preserve this property and I agreed to this point and said, "Okay, no problem. I'm I'm happy to do that and you know follow the
rules and regulations of how that uh follows if I can still build a house on the lot. And so that's where we are right now. Um the lot is uh there's there's been a little few challenges uh
to date with the with the civil work. Uh but we're trying to you know work around everything we got going on to meet all parameters. Um and just asking right now for some some relief on uh the approach to have a shared driveway and to
subdivide the lot knowing that the front lot would be smaller with everything we're working around the um wetlands and stuff like that. We're trying to stay out of all the buffer zones. So that's the the big picture plan here what we've got going on.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. Yeah, we have a we have we have a lot of pages from you on this on this one. Yeah. >> Um yeah, I remember. Yeah. If if I because both of these um that are coming in front of us today have historical structures and back um
>> I guess 20 years ago when I was on Zack and then uh then and then the planning board, I remember when we um we were stressing when big tracks of land were brought up with an historical structure. One of the things that the tom wanted to do was to
encourage the um preservation of these uh older structures when uh when builders or developers wanted to put in um you know new uh new housing units behind it and because many times they would just come in knock down the knock
down the historical structure making everything a lot easier for them. And when that and and we we we did that uh purposely to try and uh have the developer uh save the old house and then try and work around it to put
the new ones in. I think it was done at Davenport and a few other places that that that we ended up uh kind of doing trying to make that happen. Um, and then the other thing that we did was to increase the the demolition time, I believe, from uh from three months to
six months to try and uh discourage people from from tearing down these structures because the town does have a lot of history and some and some of these are are really worth saving even though, you know, some of some of them are only 50 years old. That's I'm a heck
of a lot older than that. But, uh, but the ones that that that are getting very old are really important to save. >> Um, >> but anyway, uh, I I just wanted to bring that up because this why it just reminded me of why we did this when we're when I was on the planning board.
Um, but anyway, um, uh, where's John? Uh, Mr. Gelage, do do you, uh, what's the the the town for your use? I was about to turn to Mr. shepherd because that's what I did for for the first five years on the board here. He was like, "Mike, how do we how
do we look at this?" But uh you're just here as a as a uh town person. So guys, I will not pick on you. >> So Mike is actually working part-time in the inspections office, so he could weigh in if you wanted to. >> Oh, okay. Thank you, Mike. Okay. Yes.
So, Mike, may I lean on you for this one to give us some background because you were you were here when we when I was on the planning board changing all that stuff anyway. So, yeah, you were here well before me. >> Yeah. The the only thing I recall I recall the voter town meeting and I recall the reason we voted for it
because obviously we wanted to save these older structures rather than just knock them down and build a whole bunch of new ones. Um that's that's about it. the um um again, you know, we haven't had a lot of it come before the board,
but we've been able to save a lot of old structures um because of this um part of the planning board and zoning board of appeals and their bylaws. Um from from a
personal perspective, I I think it's a great idea. Um, and you know, it's just um, you know, if we can we can save the old stuff. And of course, I'm getting to be just about as old as the old stuff we're trying to save. So, we're we're
uh, I think it's a good thing. But that's that's my two cents, John. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Uh, okay. So, any questions from the board to the uh, proponent? >> Yeah. Um, M Mr. Chairman.
>> Yes, Arnold. I have a question. Uh, is there some special uh, zoning bylaw that covers the situation where there's this historical building there and >> Yes. >> a developer wants to uh, not tear it
down but then build a second house on a non-conforming lot? >> Yeah. Yes, sir. It's um um a historic structure by law. It's section 210-17.2 two. There is a special section just for
this. >> And what what does it say? >> It says pretty much what we just went over. Um >> go ahead. Go ahead, John. >> Yeah, I was just trying I was just trying to find find it. Um
>> Oh, shoot. Oh, man. >> John, I have it in front of me if you want me to read it. Oh, awesome. Thank you. >> All right. A lot may be created which does not meet the size and setback requirements of this chapter upon the issuance of a special permit by the
planning board if the following criteria are met. One, the lot has to be created within well contained in a historic structure. Two, the historic structure will be located on the lot is either a presently situated on a lot for which
the application has been submitted to the town for approval of any single family or multif family residential development and approve not required plan pursuant to um MGL4181P or construction project article subject
to article 20 site plan review and historic structure maintenance present condition or be planned to be moved from a lot or within a lot for which the application is submitted to the town for approval of any single multifamily residential development and approved
non-required plan presumed to MGL41 81P or a construction project subject to article 20 site plan review and three is the planning board finds that the proposed lot is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter
and that's pretty much I guess it it just puts a little more lease into what Mike and I both said. >> So So this is a um the bylaw says it's a special permit, but this is an application for a
variance. Uh is there is there a reason for that? >> That I can't answer. >> Can you help? >> Yeah. I can try to explain a little bit but John maybe you can help me a little bit more too. Um basically I think this was
kind of like the first step in the whole process. There will be another permit application after this. This was our initial approach to come to the board uh with what we currently have for civil drawings and kind of lay out what we what we are proposing in terms of location of the the proposed lot and and
and shared driveway. So th this is just basically to get approval to to do what we're asking um to get approval on the shared driveway. Uh and then the next step would be another special permits uh submission with a full set of civil engineering drawings, architect plans
and all the all the works. But the the the kind of phase one approach was to just get this in front of you guys to to see what we're you know what we want to do and and make sure that everyone's on the same page and then proceed with phase with phase two. The other the other part of it was the um the the the
current lot uh that it's on is uh non-conforming because of the frontage. I think the minimum uh frontage has to be 200 ft. This is 170 or 169 ft. So part of the approach is just to get that information out there too to let
everybody know that the front lot which would be considered smaller than the minimum lot size also we're going for relief for for non-conforming frontage essentially does that make sense
>> I was going to excuse me I'll jump in this is Jay I'm Jay Thrasher good evening everyone I'm helping Aaron here with the civil engineering I think what's worth mentioning on top of what Aaron said is we understand that what's in front of you right now is not um not
complete in the way of having a full pls professional lancer stamp drawing with the subdivision plan. This is us uh putting lines on paper um that show our proposed lots based on
um some of the restrictions on a lot mainly being the wetlands. Um, and to Aaron's point that the front lot is currently not non-conforming. Um, so this is I just want to re
reiterate what Aaron said and say we understand that there's another step after this. But before we go ahead and uh really dig our heels in and and pay for um a lot more engineering the subdivision plan, if we can get some sort of conditional approval that where
we're showing this proposed subdivision and lot line um meet your criteria, that would be very helpful on our end. Yeah, the way I the way I saw it was that they need to come to the board of appeals so that we can allow them to um
continue to build on something that doesn't have 200 200 feet of frontage and and a couple other things. But the planning board would then uh give them another special permit in order to um actually construct the subdivision and
and and continue to utilize that bylaw that um that both Mike and I opened with and that uh uh Jim um detailed. So, so that's why there's more there's more steps and then they still got to go
do more conccomob stuff because I know that that that that lot has some has some issues with the with some some waterway way in the back and and you know there there's some topography issues that you're going to bump into also. So, this is definitely just the first step because if we if we say that
they don't have enough frontage and we're not going to give them frontage, well then then that that just kills the whole thing right here. So the we can't get uh conditional approval for the frontage that >> well no that's what that's what we would do. So, so, so there's there's certain
things that we can do >> that we do here that that uh you know if and and and I look at the the frontish part of it as as more dimminimous >> um that that you still have they still have to go in front of the pling board because pling board does does
subdivisions we don't do subdivisions so um so the stuff there so we are just the the first step and you know and it's both both the both the ones we're doing today with historical structures that we're still
just one step but but knowing the knowing the planning board and the reason as as Mike and I opened up with the reason why we did this um was to uh was to preserve structures and to encourage um builders and developers to
do exactly what you're doing to to to um have to work really hard in order to fit in you know another uh another building and still keep the um the uh historical structure and and you know in
in a in a nicel looking environment. So so you know this is what we try to what what we tried to encourage on the pling board is exactly what you guys are doing. It it puts more more work on on you guys to do but uh in in the long run it makes the town a better place.
there's a an a a new structure behind behind or beside or next to the uh the antiques the antique structure but it but it it keeps the u keeps the antique structure uh available for everybody to enjoy. >> John, would it be helpful if I shared my
screen and just kind of walked through what we're proposing? >> It's it's always helpful. That's a thousand words right there if you show a nice picture. >> Yes, let's do that. So, um >> keeps me from talking. This is the doc. >> Smiley smiley.
>> This is the document we had submitted um to the board. So, let me pull that up. All right. Can everyone see this PDF here? [Music] >> Yep. >> So, >> zoom a little bit.
>> Yep. We'll zoom right in. >> Beautiful. So, right off the bat, um, scroll out, give the 30,000 foot view here at first, which is this. This is the entirety of the lot. It stretches,
um, 650 ft back off of Clinton Street. Um, we had the wetlands delineated uh, by wetland scientist. So, we're um, feeling very confident in these locations. Um, this isn't coming right off of MassGis or anything. Um this is
flagged um and picked up by the surveyor. Um so it's a long lot um skinny um in comparison um to its length. And uh you'll see right here um on this I think
that p yeah that's south. So the south side of the lot we have a wetland um that comes up the 100 foot buffer comes up quite close to the existing and on the rear we have this other wetland um coming up. So really the only
buildable space to kind of steer clear of concom is in this let me see if I can just mark this up real quick is this kind of area in here. Um there's an existing let's focus on
what's existing there right now. Um coming off of Clinton Street is uh let me see if I can just draw this in. Let's do this with red is uh this driveway entrance right here. Um and
that path I'm not sure you can see it because of the line type. Oop. Sorry. Hope you don't seizure from my There we go. That entrance, if you can follow my cursor, comes right here.
There's a gravel driveway uh that comes right to here where it says stone driveway. And that's the existing entrance um to this house right here, 82 Clinton. What we're proposing
um is this lot line that is a 30-foot um this is the 30-foot offset from our proposed lot line. Um we have the 60 foot front setback. Um clearly the house on its current
location doesn't meet the 30- foot side setback again making it non-conforming. Um yeah, the math here in the front is 162 and a half feet. Um so that doesn't meet the minimum frontage. And our rear lot
here, what we're proposing is a 30-foot setback from the uh this property line. Um and we're going to maintain those side offsets of 30 ft. Um we would ex move that driveway slightly down here to f follow the contours staying outside of
the wetland buffer zone. Um providing access to the rear site um as well as the front. Um we came out I think it was maybe a month ago now or three weeks ago um with
Bord of Health and we've done um quite a bit of soil digging um some deep hole test pits with Bord of Health so it's all been witnessed. We filed the mass EP form 11 and 12s um perked both the front and rear lot. Um so there's
some confidence there that we'll be able to fit in uh a septic system for both of these lots. The front lot currently has one, but it's in the place of this proposed lot sign line. So we'd have to move that.
[Music] >> Yeah, that really helps. So yeah, again, um what you're not seeing here is is the the the area for the proposed septic systems, but we've moved through with some preliminary engineering to make sure that that all
fits. Um >> that that wouldn't be us anyway. >> No, I understand. >> There are other people that'll that'll that'll ping you on that kind of >> that'll pick us apart on that, right? I think concern though that that might be
a challenge. >> Okay. >> What's the size of the What's the Jay? What's the size of the existing structure >> square footage? >> Yeah. >> Um let me see. I've got it here in AutoCAD.
It is uh just under 900 square feet. >> And what's the size of the proposed second building? 2,250. >> So, I believe this front lot's a threebedroom
uh currently septic wise and we're proposing a four bedroomedroom in the back. >> That's that's the footprint. That's not going to be the it's going to be more than >> is it a single floor? It'll be it'll be
uh the footprint will be between 2,00 and 2200. It' probably be around 35 to 4,000 total square foot condition space. That would that would be probably four to five bed septic from your five bed I'm assuming.
>> Okay. >> Yes. So, Mr. Chairman, I I have some questions. Um, now I see from your submission that you bought the property uh I think on July
25th, you know, maybe about 3 three and a half months ago. Uh when you bought it, were you aware that uh you would be coming before us with this, you know, this request? >> No, sir.
your your original intention was to do a tear down and and >> that was my original intent. Yes, that was it was going to be just a you know new construction home and then you know we've run into all of the these hurdles and so again like I'm I understand the
the town's uh desire to keep it and uh I'm happy to do that. So you know that this is kind of where we're at. There's just a lot of nuances to this and I just, you know, a lot of hurdles, a lot of work as you
said to get getting to the to the finish line, which we're willing to do. We're willing to put in the the effort, the work, the time, the money. It's just we, you know, we're trying to we're trying to figure out phase one if it's if it's viable option to proceed to phase two. That's that's how that's, you know, that's what we're kind of trying to get
out of this meeting essentially. Did is the existing house uh occupied? >> No, it hasn't been occupied in a while. >> So, what would the would the plan be to uh renovate it or something and try to
sell that one too? >> Um either sell it or move into it or rent it. I'm not really sure to be honest. I haven't really thought of the uh endgame. It's just kind of kind of trying to figure out what's doable,
what's not. Uh if if I was allowed to, you know, subdivide with my plans here, I would obviously have to go through the historic commission on what they would allow me if if if an addition could be put on or if they just want to keep it the same, you know, footprint and however that works. I've worked with
different towns before and and done some renovations and you know they have their regulations of what they want the house to look like and materials we want to use which which is fine. So that process would be kind of coming up with the architect and the t the building
department you know working together and the historic commission on what they would require. >> Excuse me. And I know it's not relevant to what we're deciding, but can I just have an interest? How old is that existing structure?
>> 19 15 I think it was. >> Okay. >> Uh there was an addition on it. So there's a there's a portion of it that was 1915. I believe that the second half was probably the 60s, but based on the look of it, but there's nothing on
record. So um >> Okay. And I know it's nothing to do with us historical. That's historic. Just curiosity. >> It's it's definitely been added on. U I just there's no record of it. U so it's it's deeed as 1915 I think.
>> Thank you. is so I wanted to ask is there uh I haven't seen this uh is there a uh you know sort of coming for a like an advisory or
conditional approval. I I mean I there isn't anything in the zoning bylaw that provides for that is there I know I know with subdivisions there's something that uh >> No, we don't have we're not doing an advisory or anything like that. just a sense of the board sort of thing. >> No, no. We we we would we would grant
them relief on the um what they're asking for the the um >> frontage. >> The frontage basically comes down to the frontage. >> Yeah. >> Um Yeah. And then all these questions that we're asking them, that's what planning board will be asking them.
>> Yeah. And I I I knew that when I asked that. I just it was my own curiosity. Is nothing to do with my decision or my thought process. >> Okay. Sorry. Sorry. >> So, so we're so we're actually going to make like a a final decision. That's that's what's before us tonight.
>> Yeah. So, so basically we they're asking us this uh uh they're asking us for uh the frontage. They've got 162 and a half whether we need 200 and um and also
it uh the lot requirement size is 60,000 square feet. >> Yeah. Yeah, cuz I thought when he made presentation he was talking about just like a conditional or was it
>> No, they I think he might just mean again because they they don't they they don't know may not know how how we work we work. >> All we can all we can all we can grant is what we are allowed to grant. We can't we can't uh step over it and give
them the the special permit to build a a um subdivision that that goes to the planning board. But even then for them to do anything um they're the the the entire lot the the lot might be forever long but it's still only 162 feet wide.
So we'd have to do something on that anyway. you had mentioned the the lot sizes too is where we need that variance request. So lot one we're proposing here at uh 34,610 square ft. Um and then lot two just
because we have all these wetlands back here is 1.888 excuse me 1.82 acres. So simply change. So, those are the two those are the two things that you're looking for. What we're that's that's what we have down here is the is to to that you're allowed
to make one one lot 34,000 square plus 30,000 square feet instead of the 60 and uh and you're basically looking for 40t of of relief on the frontage. >> Question also regarding frontage for the
rear lot. Um, how is that are you guys able to approve essentially the the proposed the rear lot would have no frontage to Clinton Street at all? How does that get handled in terms of relief on that lot? >> I've got three of those in my
neighborhood. >> Well, um, >> yeah, in the table of dimensional relief, he's asking that that it's one and a half acre is lots. That's the minimum size, 60,000
square feet. >> And uh then it says the proposed is going to be 34,610 is is uh what's the total square footage of the the whole lot right now?
>> Right. 113901. >> Oh, okay. All right. I I see that. All right. So through the chair, >> yes, >> just to clarify what relief would be needed and and anyone correct me if I'm wrong, the proposed
uh existing lot, so lot one that would be smaller and that would include the historic house because if they go for the special permit for the planning board, the planning board through that special permit can reduce the size and dimensional requirements.
So for that lot, the only thing that would be needed would be a variance for the frontage because it doesn't meet the frontage. Doesn't meet 200 feet. Then for the second lot, it meets all of the setbacks in the lot size, but it does
also does not have frontage. So it would need relief for 200 feet of frontage. Um and then >> so we don't so we don't have to do the the size of the lot. the planning board would take care of that to 34, which is exactly the reason why we wrote that's
exactly the reason why we we we updated that bylaw was to, you know, was to allow for something just like this so that the that we could um save the uh the antique house. >> Correct. Yeah.
>> So, yeah, the request would be for a variance >> um for the relief uh for the frontage for both of those >> parcels. >> Can I ask is that
been done on a semi-regular irregular basis? Has that been granted in the past where there's zero frontage um allowed? I mean, I'm sure it's been done in the past because I know that there are lots with no frontage, but I don't know when
the last time it's been done. Um, the town generally tried to get away from the pork chop lots, which is what these are called. Uh, because you got like a very small driveway leading to the road and then the lot is behind another lot. >> A lot of towns get rid of that just because it's tough for fire and
emergency services and stuff like that. But um you know in this situation they've got the historic structure on the front part of the lot. So they really can't move that to the back part of the lot. >> I have one I have I have a pork chop on either side of my house.
>> Yeah. >> I can I can show everybody the way that uh that um mine was mine was created. And there and there are there's there's another one down on uh on Andrea. So there they're three within 100 yards of
me. M >> Mr. Chair, I have a question. >> Yes. >> Right. Because I'm I'm a little confused because 210 117.2 essentially grants the right for that front lot to be created.
Okay. Now that that as it stands now is non-conforming because it does not have the 200 feet, >> right? >> Okay. So, if they were to come to us for some other type of uh change, we would say, "Well, it's a it's a pre-existing non-conforming lot, and they would it
would probably be granted relief." Um, I'm I'm trying to understand how 21017.2 two is created because the situation where you have to put the new lot, if you will, on the back side of the
property has to have been contemplated, but yet there doesn't seem to be a mechanism um for for easy relief. Meaning, this situation where there's zero frontage would have had to have been contemplated
at the time that that 210 117.2 was created. Um because the only way that you can accomplish what is desired and what is allowed for is to have zero frontage. I mean, I think we're in a in a a quagmire where I I don't think I
don't think we can deny relief because the I think the the the bylaws provide for the creation of lot one. Therefore, by default, we have to grant zero footage for lot. >> Exactly. And that's exactly why we
created the -2 was because you know many times you had to knock down the the antique house in order to do anything. And so, uh, so if you read it, you know, continue to read in there that, you know, it it talks about the
set side setbacks and everything else that that we were we were trying to bend over backwards to preserve Hopington's history and um because there there was people would just come come in, especially when
it was only three months um delay. It was just like, okay, hey, we'll just wait three months and we'll tear the house down and we can have whatever we want. And um uh you know we we were trying to bend over backwards to to to keep the history. Uh and I'm just really you know
when when we were when we were proposing this I I never thought that that I'd be in a position to actually see it happen. It's it sounds weird, but it's actually exciting for me to see a bylaw that we wrote and um actually working
um >> because we were actually chasing we were actually chasing it at the time. You know, things were happening and it's just like how can we save these houses? Um and it's actually just just to see a bylaw actually work. It's pretty cool. >> Yeah, it is. But I I don't see a way
that we can if the bylaws restrict the owner's economic rights by virtue of not being able to knock down that house and build something larger, then there has to be an equal balancing to allow zero footage to enable him to build lot too.
I I'm assuming, you know, Concom and all that other stuff >> works out. >> Yep. Yeah, but I don't think there's anybody on the planning board now that was around when we had the uh the intent of the uh of the bylaw, which is which is
sad. >> John, can we look to see if there's a public interest? >> Yes. Okay. Are there any members of the public that would like to uh chime in? Please, if there multiple, please give give your name and address and then
we'll call on you individually. You have you'll have two minutes to uh give your input. Wow. Okay. This was uh about the way people are interested in this one. Okay. Um anybody else? Uh Mr. Hunt, do you have anything?
Mr. Mr. Burton, do you have anything? If not, >> I'm on I'm on the historic mission, so I remember when this came across our desk and uh I'm fine with it. >> Oh, that's great. I forgot that you were on there. That's awesome. Okay, we got a little flavor of everything. Okay, three
lawyers. I >> had a uh I had an just an additional element of the the layout here I wanted to point out. >> It's the existing uh structure is also within uh the 30foot side setback.
Um I'm not sure if you can see that this dashed line here is our 30-foot setback from the property line. So, similar to that frontage where we don't have the full 200 f feet, we also in this non-conforming lot can't meet the 30
foot setback. >> What is the What's the number that's there? Is that an eight? I can't see. >> Let me I've actually got it here in AutoCAD. >> 9.6. >> Yeah, 9.6 to that corner.
>> Nine. So, you need 20 feet there. Okay. All right. >> And my my last question here is in terms of the setback uh from the the front of the lot being 60 ft, we achieve that
that in the existing lot. Um but if we're considering this zero frontage here, we're proposing a 30 foot set back from that property line. >> And I don't know if that's something >> No, that that's good. Well, no, because if you if you Well, what's what is this
front set back? Is it is it 60 >> that pulled from the tables? That's correct. >> Okay, there's 60. Okay. So, so >> so this rear lot again, we're not considering this frontage. Um it's just
it's a lot line. So, I'd kind of like to hear you guys comments if there's anything specific here. >> Yeah. Um John or or uh uh Mr. Shepherd, would that be considered front or side or Mr. Masterson since you were the one
that points out the side? >> I'm going to go with you, Sean, too. >> The side facing the road is a front surf. >> Okay. So, >> there would need a variance for 30 ft of relief from the front setback. >> Okay.
And that is and that is definitely due to uh topography being uh >> wetlands all around it. >> Yeah, wetlands all around it. Okay, exus. Excellent. All right. Um Okay, so
we've got uh we need um 30 feet of front, 20 feet of side, and 40 feet of uh frontage. >> 20.4 feet on the side. Yeah. for lot one, >> right? But we we we we round up just in
case you you miss it by six inches and and Mr. Sheepard is is the inspector and he comes over there with his uh laser. >> Great. >> And he will uh Yeah. Yeah. So, we try and give we try and give the extra six inches or or or 12 inches just so that
uh is as a as a builder myself when they're putting the forms down and digging the hole, not everybody is as accurate as they should be >> through the chair. >> Yes. >> Just a point of clarification and and Mike Shepard could weigh in on this. The way that the regulations are written,
it's a minimum setback from the street line, not a front yard. So, is it from the property line or is it from the actual street line? >> I I think you'd have to go with street line. >> So, it definitely is 60 feet from the
street line. >> I say street. >> Okay. And Mr. Sheepard's smiling. So, so we are so we do not need we do not need that setback. Oh my goodness. I am so glad we got an easy one now. We've had a
few hard ones recently. >> This is um >> Yes. >> I I don't really understand it. you know, maybe because I, you know, I would have preferred to have uh been able to
sit down and read that bylaw, but I I don't understand uh the the the planning board under this bylaw gives the special permit, >> right? So, the planning board,
>> right? the the that bylaw really doesn't affect anything that we're doing in reality other than the fact that I know what the planning board is is what their thoughts thought process is and
also for us to keep in mind um that that the new structure or actually the the both old and new structure um uh subject to the to the -2 mo most especially the old one doesn't
have to have all these setbacks but but they are giving it enough room for the new one away from the old one and uh and all that. So, so really the that that bylaw is for a special permit that only the planning board will give out.
>> And the special permit, what what relief is a special permit giving? >> It's it's actually allowing them to build the second house and creating the first lot, which is smaller than than than than 60,000 square feet.
So, that's what the planning board will do. What we're going to do is is say that that it's that is a non-conforming a non-conforming um lot already and give it some width and then uh and then 20 ft
of side setback. That's all we're doing. So I I actually made it more complicated by opening with what I did and bringing up the >> I'm not sure about it, you I'm not uh uh >> I may have ma made this more complicated by bringing up that dialogue, but it was
really great that that what what Mr. Masterson did was actually say, you know, that it absolutely has no frontage. >> So maybe my suggestion is since I don't, you know, uh maybe the um
I I can be not not be one of the five who's voting on this. >> Okay. because I don't >> we've got we've got six today. So, it works. I understand why you know you know that that it's entitled to a variance for a um you know how the bylaw
let's say uh uh um permits it to have a a variance uh when it's an undersized law unless so maybe you know but >> yeah so yeah so basically it's it's the planning board that's going to that's going to going to allow them to have the
undersized lot. All we're saying is that um that the we find that the width is going to be okay and that the side setback is going to be okay. >> All right. >> And then the planning board takes care of the rest of it. >> My suggestion is that maybe uh I be the
one not >> Mr. Hunt, are you com comfortable voting on this one? >> Okay. >> I suggest you uh Oh, Mr. Shepard has hand up. I I I I they could go to the planning board first, but the planning board can't give
a variance for the type you're looking. You're the only guys who can do it. So, what it is is a two party thing. They come to you first. So, when the planning board votes on it, they know you got a variance for the frontage and the special permit for the side effect. Otherwise, the planning board can't give
them anything because they don't they can't do those things. So, that's why it's like this. So, it is kind of confusing, but there are two separate bodies in town pretty much talking about the same thing. You do one thing, they do the other. That's all it is. Pretty simple.
>> I'm sorry. I'll stay out of it. >> Yeah. Tend to think better to go to the planning board because we're voting on a lot doesn't even exist to give it a variance. >> No, no, no, no. We're not We're not giving a variance to No, the the planning board will create that lot.
We're just saying yes. >> We're just saying that the current lot >> at 16 at 162 is okay to build on. That's all we're really saying. And then the planning board will create the 34,000 foot lot. We're not we're not creating
that. We're not creating the back lot. We're not doing any of that. We're just saying that that at 162 feet of frontage, it's okay with us. and then the planning board will take care of all the that take care of that whole that whole dash two.
>> All right. Well, >> but that's I >> can we try and stay on task and and at this point if there's anything more for the public to ask otherwise I'm going to ask to close the public. >> Is there anybody from the public?
Hearing none >> motion to close the public here. >> We have a second. >> Second. >> Second. >> Second. Any discussion on the motion to close? >> Hearing none. Mr. Burton? >> Yes. >> Mr. Hunt? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Masterson? >> Yes. >> Mr. Riley? >> Yes. >> And uh Mast Riley. Is it just me? >> Yep. >> Okay. And uh and I vote in the affirmative also. Okay. Public hearing
is closed. Um if uh is anybody ready with a motion? If not, >> I think we can do the findings. I think John prefers when we do the findings first. >> Okay. He's he's nodding his head. Okay.
Okay. I find that the board of appeals find the following as it relates to the proposed development at 82 Clinton Street. The applicant has stated their intent to subdivide the the current current lot into two lots through the process of lots with historic structures
set forth in section 210 1117-2. However, the proposed new lot will be located at the rear of the existing lot will not have frontage along Clinton Street. The historic dwelling unit is located the front of the existing lot. The request for a variance, if granted,
would wave the requirement for frontage along Clinton Street for the proposed new rear lot. The applicant will file an application with the planning board to address the dimensional non-compliance of the front lot through the process outlined in section 21017-2 of the zoning bylaws. The applicant has
stated that the rear lot would gain access to Clinton Street virus shared driveway through the front lot. that owing to the circumstances related to the soil conditions, shape or topography of the land structures but not affecting generally the zoning district which it is located. A literal
enforcement of the provisions of the bylaw would involve substantial hardship financial and or otherwise. Specifically, this this includes the wetlands and the shape of the lot
that descri the the describable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and that the desire desirable relief may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogate dergating from the intent and purpose of
the ordinance or bylaw. vote on the findings. >> John usually likes two votes. He's going to nod his head. >> Okay. So, could I have a second on the findings? >> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. Any discussion on the on the
findings? Hearing none. Mr. Burton? >> Yes. >> Uh Mr. Hunt? >> Yes. >> Mr. Masterson? >> Yes. >> Mr. Riley? >> Yes. And I vote in the affirmative also. So we have the findings. Okay.
Um uh I move that the board approve the variance for 82 Clinton Street to wave the frontage requirement for the proposed rear lot and to allow for the subdivision of lot under section 210 117.2 two of the zoning bylaws and to allow
and to grant them 40 feet of relief from the 2000 2,000 200 square it's 200 feet of frontage and to allow them 20 ft of side setback for the
existing structure. Do I have a second >> second from my >> second? Okay, I have a second. Any any any discussion on the decision hearing? None. Mr. Masterson, >> yes. >> Mr. Burton,
>> yes. >> Mr. Hunt, >> yes. >> Mr. Riley, >> yes. >> And I vote in the affirmative also. Okay. Do you want me to read in any of the facts, John? Just nod your head. Any any
the additional facts? >> Um, you can if you want to. they can be included in the decision without reading them. The findings in the decision are the only things that need to be voted on. >> Great. Excellent. Thank you very much. Okay, Aaron, you're you're uh way to go. Thank you very much for for for taking
on this extra work of trying to uh save Hopkins history. That that that whole Clinton Street area is is is really important to the town. It's it goes way back. And so, yeah, thank you very much. And Mr. Thasa, thanks for coming. >> Thank you.
>> Yeah. Thank you guys for your time and your help getting through this one. So, we'll see you on the next We'll see you on the next one. >> Hey, God bless. Be safe. >> Okay. Thanks, man. >> Okay. Now, let's uh read in read in the next one. [Music]
All right. 12 Maple Street. The Hopington Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, November 12th, 2025 to 7 p.m. to hear all persons interested in the uniform application for a special perm petition for variance filed by Nicholas D'Angelo 12 Maple
Street Extension Hop Master Variances for the minimum frontage and front setback requirements in connection with the proposed creation of additional building on construction of a new single foam new single family home at 12 Maple Street Extension HP Mass. the property
zone and assesses map1941-0. The hearing will be held remotely using the Zoom meeting service. For additional information, please email ZBANMA.gov. Call the Department of Land Use Planning and Permanent at 4979745 or check with the online meeting calendar agenda for this meeting at
hopinmma.gov. This legal notice is also posted in Massachusetts newspapers public association MNPA website at masspublic notices.org. John Patino chair and cl regarding 26005. Okay. Bring you up over here.
Okay. Um who is uh who's going to speak to uh Maple Street? >> My name is George Connors. I'm representing the D'Angelos on this particular property. May I share screen?
>> Absolutely. Thanks for coming. Is that up now? >> Coming. >> You see my diagram for Maple Street Extension? >> Oh, I'm familiar with that. The Bucklands. >> Okay.
So, um, what we have here is Maple Street Extension is a little bit of a road that comes in and turns the corner and comes down a short way. And this lot here is the subject lot. Now, the assessor's
maps from time immemorial shows this as a strip going all the way down here, but that's not really the case, and I'll get into that in just a minute. But you can see we have the area of um Maple Street Extension coming in passing three
houses. And then in the back corner here is the historic structure on this lot. And it sits um what would be uh previously thought of as a road right ofway line. And in back is a little shed. And of course they're right up
against uh property boundaries. As we go to the next uh drawing, you can see uh the edge or the end of the paved section of roadway. You can see his uh vehicles parked here. There
is the house. Again, it looks like it's in the road. Again, it's not. Uh there's a little shed back in behind here. This area up here is all open grass area. It's surrounded by wetlands and we'll be seeing that in just a few minutes.
Uh this is what we are proposing. We now know that this uh section of the street uh was transferred to this lot back in n in 1838. Uh the house was built in 1888. This is
the historic structure and we're intending to keep that and divide the property along this line here which will be more clear on a later drawing. But this is the plan that would go to the uh planning board for an ANR endorsement and ultimately recording at the registry
deeds. You can see Maple Street Extension comes down and that's actually the pavement that serves for this house here that people park. You saw those vehicles parked in that area a minute ago. Uh this lot is going to be larger
than required. This lot is going to be larger than is required for that um uh zoning district and it will have uh 24 ft of frontage. This lot here will have a little over 100 ft. 100 feet required.
And then we have these little dashed lines coming along like this which are important to the um devising of this property in terms of vital access which we'll get to with the planning board at some point in time. But because Maple
Street is very narrow and uh very hard to travel, there is going to be a turnaround uh configuration in here which we'll show you in a little more detail in a second that Mr. D'Angelo has dealt with the fire department
extensively on this. We will designate that a fire lane which will ensure that there will be um adequate vital access for the uh emergency vehicles to get in and turn around. This is actually our site plan. The
house that exists is over here. Um, and we are going to extend the pavement down a little bit and along these lines here, this easement line coming in. And that will be not only the driveway, but the
area for the fire truck to come in, pull in, and back around and make a quicker exit than it could at this present time. The site as I said is surrounded by wetlands and they've worked uh for about a year with the conservation commission
to been able to be able to build this particular house in this open lawn area which has been lawn area for um back in time in memorial when the house was built. It was all farms. The land around it has been ditched um for the farms to
uh be able to uh grow crops and whatever. Uh but those ditches have filled in and they have created a much higher water table in this area. The property is very very flat. Um and it's just as flat as the road coming in here
and the drainage really doesn't make its way out in a very efficient matter. We have a high groundwater table. So we have some uh issues with the uh soils and the topography being flat and the groundwater table which also um impact
the existing uh dwelling. It's got a uh field stone foundation with uh water intrusion in that area. Um it's a hardship with a structure and as you know under zoning we can have hardships with structures that uh uh owe to um the
uh grant of a variance. um our variance is really engendered by this particular um historic structure bylaw. And in this particular case, the bylaw really doesn't talk about frontage. It talks
about size. We had occasion to deal with uh this bylaw unsuccessfully a couple of years earlier and it was pointed out that they did not the planning board did not understand that size could be the
frontage. That's probably true. I could argue one way and another. That's a very esoteric argument, but nevertheless, it leads us in a position in which we need to be able to in order to be able to um uh avail ourselves of the historic
structures bylaw and save the house get some relief relative to frontage. And that's particularly the case here. I would suggest that um for the reasons previously discussed relative to hardships on soils and topography uh
shape is also another big one and that's because the uh wetlands bylaw in Hopkin is much more ownorous than the state bylaw and indeed we had to pull everything at least 50 feet away from
wetlands for our work. the um the uh work that the D'Angelos did with their wetlands consultant was extensive and we also would note that the bylaw says that it has to be natural uh ground and
indeed this area here where we're building is not natural ground but rather than fight that they worked um and were able to work this building into this site without any issues with wetlands and They were able to get an
order of conditions to be able to build this and improve this road. The site will be serviced by a pump sewer out to the street um on Maple. Uh and it'll have its own individual well. The existing uh house will ultimately have a
E1 pump as well. And at some point in time, uh that house will be uh sold for a different use. Uh the well for the new house will be over in this location and then um the uh lot will be able to be be
developed fairly simply and in concert with the uh requirements for a variance which include um in enhancing public safety and uh and vital access. We do need to go to the planning
board at some particular point in time for not only the special permit but for them to decide that uh we have the rights to use the uh Maple A because at one point in time when a lot was cut out around the corner there was a notation
on an ANR plan that there would be no more lots. But we think that because we are providing for emergency access and improving the way that um we'll be able to overcome that particular uh
prohibition and um get a uh a waiver for frontage which the planning board also has in their rules and regulations of point 5 I think it's either 5.7 or 8.7 uh section for a waiver on frontage. As you know, uh, planning boards have
jurisdiction over vital access of the ways, and I think they'd be able to decide that this particular way is being improved in a manner that would allow for this to enhance the public safety. I'm happy to respond any questions or comments at this stage rather than
continue to discuss this. You know, I I have one more point to make. Um, if I could, for a long time, we had a uh we had a uh belief that Maple Extension
went all the way down to this location. Indeed, Mr. Mish, a land surveyor, who sold the property to the D'Angelos, created a plan and labeled this as owner's unknown. Now they indicated in
19 in 1838 this parcel transferred this piece to this lot. So um in our research recently we were able to determine that uh this lot the D'Angelo lot actually comes down
here and that's why we have our 24 foot of frontage along that line there. I hope that's um helpful. When you said it was determined, who determined that >> uh title exam,
my title examiner, >> which is who? >> Uh Andrew Blake. And what we have done in our plan, this is the cornerstone plan. I'm an engineer at cornerstone. We are showing that as
the part of the lot. So, let me get this straight. Based on a title examiner's interpretation, you're assuming ownership of a previously unknown ownership piece of
land. Did >> it was only unknown to the surveyor when he did that survey in whatever date it was because surveyors only need to go back uh 50 years. So that was a 1995
survey. And in uh as I said in 1838 there was a deed where this strip was taken off of this lot. And just oddly enough it just was in
line with Maple Street at the time. I've included in the uh application several historic um maps going back uh hundreds of years showing um the area as Maple
Extension, Maple Street being extended down through there. And granted, they're only graphical, but they are indicative of what um one would come up with without going into a title search back beyond 50 years.
Yeah, but if you I because I do residential real estate as well and and I know that if if they find a piece of land that is undetermined, they're going to keep going back until they find it. Um certainly not land court making a decision on ownership. It's a title
examiner's opinion, which you're relying on. >> Yeah, we have the deed. >> Okay. Yeah, we pulled the date. Look at the whole title report. >> I can assure you that we own that. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. M uh Mr. um chairman, I have a question. Uh George uh the deed who who owns the lot now Angelo >> D'Angelo >> does his deed
uh describe the >> No, it does not. >> No, it does not. So, how how could he own something that's uh not in his deed? Because the title going back from n from
1838 carried forward that particular parcel as a conveyance to the then owner of that parcel. But no survey was done until such time as
this mish plan for an adjacent lot was created. A bank would be a bank would be happy with that. Uh >> well, they will after we get our plan um recorded
>> and do a corrective deed. >> So when when when did uh that when did that lot disappear off the deeds? it. >> Well, because you said it was conveyed in you said it was conveyed in the 1830s
and then but it isn't on your current deed. So, as you went backwards, when did it >> disappear? >> Well, it was a sing it was a small parcel that was deed to them. So, it never appeared as part of that lot.
>> So, that lot continued to be conveyed without that parcel. Correct. Okay. I think maybe parole evidence would help if you were to look at the location of
that house being partially in the street. Remember was built in 1888 and you can see that line there. Part of it's in the street. Certainly the people who built it in
1888, which was what um 38 58 foot um 50 years later would have known that. Okay. What's your concern about that, Michael? >> Oh, well, and I apologize. I put on my
conveyancer hat if I'm looking at if I my guy is going to buy that in the future and I do a deep dive, but that's his his seller's concern. Uh, not the town's. Uh but he is relying on that to make what his request is. So you know
like until you know the land court determines who actually owns that based on it and it sounds like based on what he said uh they would determine that uh you're going to have a little bit of a interesting you know potential title
search if somebody does a good title search as they go to convey that land. Um but but more importantly his variance would change based on because he needs less based on him owning that land where
there's no actual deed into him directly or that you know he says indirectly but there was no deed to them. It got that parcel was never merged as a single parcel. And when when they did acquire
it, when they whoever acquired it then passed it on didn't pass it on with that parcel of land, you know, parcel one, parcel two. It was just parcel one was passed on. So, uh, a couple things. One, he's relying on that for his variance.
And two is to me it's, you know, until someone determines actual land, title examiners don't determine ownership. They can give opinions. That's my concern, Sean. Right. And he would have taken that by adverse possession, though, because he's used
that portion as his driveway. >> Yeah. But adverse possession again is through the courts. It's not >> right. >> It's it's it's not, you know, oh, you you own it now because you've adversely possessed it for 20 years, you know, do the old thing, but the court determines
if you have done met the criteria and then it's granted to them. >> Correct. >> Right. >> So, it goes back to the same thing. If I mean, it's it's his future owners and whoever is going to sell it. I don't know if they're building there and going to sell
it, whatever. But um I if I'm a conveyancing attorney going to buy it, I certainly have some concerns. But he wants the town to assume that it's right and he is probably correct. But his variance is going to be based on that
assumption. >> Well, the house has been on it for 200 years also. >> So I was just concerned that it I was concerned there was municipal land because there's no adverse possession on municipal land. >> Correct. you know, but if it if it was, you know,
it's if it's not municipal land and the house has been on it for 200 years, I'm sure I'm sure the land court would say, "Yeah, okay. You definitely have adverse possession." It it it was never municipal land as indicated by right the
end of Maple uh lane extension being about 100 ft into um this U19 410. >> Mhm. >> So there's there's no part of that parcel that isn't house. It's all house.
Or is some of it not house? >> Say that again. Is it all is that parcel that you're talking about that wasn't conveyed is that all of that is now part of what the house is on top of
>> part of the part of the house is on part of that strip. Yes. >> Okay. And then the driveway ends someplace about there existing has pavement, but the actual line is more in in this
location here back maybe 15 or so feet. And then from this point down is that parcel which has been used as parking access and whatever to this particular house.
John G, my question is do we we we're asked to talk about on a presumption of ownership that isn't shown. Can we grant variances based on ownership of property that probably would be shown through land court to be owned by that but
currently isn't? >> Um, that's a great question. I would I mean I would think if that parcel was submitted as part of the application, the owner would need to sign, right? And then you would need to
establish ownership for that. >> If the application is just for the U19410 lot, >> that's different. Um I don't know what the timeline is. the
board could always continue this hearing and try and get some more information or some some feedback from town council or or Mr. Connors can provide some legal uh information to help justify that. If if
that's what the board would want if the board wouldn't even take that then that's an exercise >> I would feel I would feel more comfortable because you know again this is this being just like the last one with Mr. crashes and saying, "Look, if we if you know, if they're trying to keep the building and then there's going to be no access to it and everything
else and and all of that, um, you know, I' I'd feel more comfortable if Mr. Connors could uh, you know, could take it. We could continue the meeting to whatever date that he needs to to to show us that. Um, because I'm
comfortable with the with how it works except for this one one little glitch is this. It's exactly like the last one where, you know, we're saving the structure and I and I appreciate the Dangelos, you know, keeping up keeping an antique structure where they could just tear it down and not need us at
all. Um, but if but if they could just show that that uh um that if we give that that 24 ft of frontage that it actually is frontage that uh that that they that the Angelos own, that would make it a lot easier and it'll be a slam
dunk next time he comes. I I agree. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Mr. Connor, you think you might is is are you immenable to that? >> Yeah, I think we are. >> That'd be great. Yeah, because it's you know other than that it's you know
because because you know the shape of the land and the and the uh the wetlands and the you know and giving the the access to the fire department that doesn't exist now. you know, I I I see that as a as an improvement to to the um
a Maple Street extension to have that hammerhead for for the fire trucks. So So I see it see, you know, this new house is as really improving the area. So So if you could just show that, I think the next meeting will go really quickly.
>> Okay. >> Um could I have uh uh Oh, so how much time do you think you'll need? uh a week. I can have the answer to you in a couple of days. Um but uh >> you're going to be able to show ownership of that parcel within a couple
of days. >> Yeah, I've got the title. >> The title is an opinion. >> I understand that. >> Yeah. If you could Yeah, if you could just have something showing that that more Yeah. more than that that title
because Mr. Riley and Mr. seem to not be as comfortable with that. If there's anything else that you can find um you know because we we'll give you as much time as you want and and because this is the only thing that's holding it up >> and so whatever time you need to to just
to make it as as official as possible because basically we're we're basing the our retire decision on that 24 ft. >> Understood. >> When's your next meeting? Um uh I think December
first week of December. >> Okay. I would like to be on that then. >> Our next meetings are in December. December 10th and December 17th. >> Yeah. So we December 10th. Okay. Mr. Connors, >> please. >> Beautiful. >> Yes. And that's okay with the answers.
Okay. So I can I get a motion to continue this till December 10th? >> May I ask one question? Is there any other issues that you have with respect to the proposal, >> Mr.?
>> Yeah, consider what works out well in what works in your favor is that we just went over all of this in the previous one, which works out really well that you guys it's that they're very similar and with M the way M. Masterson describe made described the last one. this one uh
it it fits in the same thing, the wetlands and everything else and the way that that that you did the hammerhead for the fire department is is is is above and beyond. I like that. So I so I really see this as if you can just prove that that that that the 24T of frontage
that we're giving you is actually um the actually um their land, I think it'll it'll go through fine. >> Okay. I just >> That's just my opinion. That's just my opinion. would say board,
>> but uh but the uh you know, I've I've seen a lot of these and I'm just really glad that that I get to see a bylaw that that I reworked uh 15 20 years ago really working well right now. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you, the chair. John, do do you think that we need to have town council weigh in on whether we would be able to vote if it's solely based on the title exam and the title report?
>> Well, I'm ask I'm asking for more than just a title exam. >> Okay. There has to be proof of ownership. You can't somehow you have to have proof of ownership in order to rely on
um those markings at that that those specific spots for the you know for the special permit. >> You have to show that that that you own it. And if it's undetermined who owns it, then
I I mean, how can the board come up with a decision that it grants it from those spots? And and they absolutely sounds like they'd have a claim of adverse possession. It it absolutely seems like that, but without, you know, without
something official. >> Yeah. If if you're buying the property, um you're going to have a wonder and your title company's going to have a wonder and go, "What's this, you know, and where did you get this?" And they're going to probably make you want to go to land court.
>> I think he understands that. >> Which is not a quick process. >> Nope. >> And he can always extend it. >> Yeah. Well, well, during the holiday season, I don't know. >> During any prime, John,
>> I got three cases going on there. Just it it's like it's a wasteland. >> Hey, just try and get a building permit through right now. Sorry. Sorry, Mr. Sheepard. Um,
now I just screwed myself. Uh, all right. So, so Mr. Connor, so if you if you do need more time, just feel free to contact uh the the prim uh and uh and we can we'll res we can reschedule to any time that you need.
>> Thank you. >> My pleasure. Okay, so let's uh let's let's have a motion to uh continue the hearing to December 10th unless we hear anything anything else. >> Second.
>> Any discussion on the motion? Uh, hearing none. Mr. Masterson, >> yes. >> Mr. Riley, >> yes. >> Mr. Cohen, >> yes. >> Mr. Hunt, >> yes. >> Uh, anybody else? Who else? >> Mr. Burton.
>> Oh, Mr. Burton. Sorry. Your pictures. Yeah, your picture's not up. You weren't talking, so your picture never showed up. >> Okay. And I vote the affirmative also. Excellent. Thank you very much, Mr. Connor. Thank you very much, Dave. I really appreciate it. Was really great presentation. Thank you. Good night.
>> Good night, guys. Okay. Um, Dana, do we have anything else? So, now we have a meeting on the 10th. >> Yeah, we have a meeting scheduled for next week, but I'm going to cancel that because we have nothing. So, our next one will be the 10th. Um, it'll be that
one and then that remand for um that inlaw that accessory dwelling unit. >> Okay. So, we can we can think about that. see if we think we can squeeze that. I just want to I actually want to meet with uh with John and town council before that also.
>> Yeah, we have to get that in in a certain amount of days. We did get a little bit of an extension, but we have to do it on that December 10th meeting. >> Okay. >> Which property was that? >> 25 Chamberlain. >> That was the the uh accessory dwelling unit.
>> Oh, yeah. Because because he he sold that property, the the Challenger, right? Oh, I have no idea. >> Yeah, >> I didn't think that was >> on the corner of uh >> No, I think the court wanted more information on your findings like why
you're for the um thousand square feet over the 900. >> Yeah, but but he sold that property the the challenger. >> Oh, I don't heard that at all. So, >> wow. >> Oh, that's interesting. >> That I know.
>> Okay. All right. So, we can't be discussing this right now anyway. Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. Um All right. So, um if there's nothing else, let's just do the minutes later. >> I didn't even put them on there yet because I'd been out so I have them. I'll get them sent to you.
>> Okay. Then we'll get those on. >> I wanted to say welcome back. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. Um excellent. All right. So, if there's nothing else, H Cam, thank you very much for covering us. This was a it was really a a fun meeting. I hope everybody got to see that the uh
preservation of antique structures does work with that bylaw does work and I want to say thank you to Mr. Sheepard for coming also. All right, if there's if then without further ado, a motion to to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Second.
>> Okay, any discussion on the motion? Hearing none. Mr. Cohen, >> yes. Mr. Burton, >> yes. >> Mr. Masterson, >> yes. >> Mr. Hunt, >> yes. >> Mr. Riley. >> Yes. >> And I vote in the affirmative. Also, Adena, thank you. John, thank you very
much. And again, thank you, Ham. Have a great night, everybody. God bless. Be safe. Have a great week. >> All right, everyone. Good night.