HomeMy Public PortalAbout20200122 - Board of Appeals - Meeting MinutesTOWN OF HOPKINTON
OFFICE OF
BOARD OF APPEALS
_____________________________
TOWN HALL
18 MAIN STREET – THIRD FLOOR
HOPKINTON, MASSACHUSETTS 01748-3209
(508) 497-0012
MARK J. HYMAN, Chairman WWW.HOPKINTON.GOV
RORY WARREN, Vice Chairman ZBA@Hopkintonma.gov
Minutes of the
Board of Appeals
Minutes: January 22, 2020 Called to Order: 7:00 PM
Town Hall, 2nd Floor Adjourned: 8:28 PM
Members Present: Mark Hyman, Chair; Michael DiMascio; John Savignano; Walter Garland; Jerry
Tuite
Members Absent: Peggy Shaw; Rory Warren; Ria McNamara; Smriti Choudhury
Others Present: Elaine Lazarus, Assistant Town Manager; Michael Shepard, Assistant Building
Inspector
7:00 PM Administrative Session of the Board of Appeals
Ms. Lazarus distributed draft zoning bylaw amendments which have been submitted into the 2020 Annual
Town Meeting warrant by the Planning Board, pertaining to nonconforming lots, uses and structures,
wireless telecommunications facilities, accessory family dwelling units, commercial solar installations,
and Industrial B District housekeeping. It was noted that the Planning Board will likely hold a public
hearing in late February on the proposed changes.
The Board reviewed the draft Minutes of the Dec. 11, 2019 meeting. Mr. Tuite moved to approve the
Minutes of the Dec. 11, 2019 meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Savignano and the vote in favor
was unanimous.
7:10 PM Application for Special Permit
18 Grove Street – Geesey
Members Sitting: Mr. Hyman, Mr. Savignano, Mr. Garland, Mr. DiMascio, Mr. Tuite
Other Members: None
Max Geesey - Applicant
Joseph Marquedant - Surveyor
Tom Nealon - Attorney
Mr. Geesey stated he has the vacant lot under contract and would like to build a single family home there.
He stated the Town would benefit because it would return to its previous use, noting that a house was on
the property at one time. He stated that all the nearby neighbors think it is a good idea, and it is the best
use of the property. He requested a special permit for a single family house pursuant to Section
210-20.3.A(2) of the Zoning Bylaw. He stated that the style of house will fit with the neighborhood and
no relief is needed for setbacks. Mr. Marquedant stated that the land is in the Downtown Business (BD)
District, and in Section 20.3.A(2) it states that single and multifamily residences are allowed by special
permit provided that they comply with the dimensional requirements of the Residence A (RA) District.
He stated that the proposal complies with those requirements.
Mr. Hyman stated that the proposal does not appear to comply with the RA dimensional requirements,
namely the lot frontage and area requirements, and it may also need a variance for setbacks. He stated
that in addition, the lot was held in common ownership with adjacent property for several years, and it
may have merged. Mr. Geesey stated he can’t answer the merger question, and requested approval
because it is the best option for the lot. He stated the lot won’t work for many commercial uses. Mr.
Hyman noted that it seems like a good project, but he needs to see the way forward. He suggested that the
Board discuss the dimensional requirement question first, and that in his opinion, frontage and area are
considered dimensional requirements. He asked for the applicant’s interpretation. Mr. Geesey stated he
agrees that the lot does not comply with the frontage and area requirements. He stated it is larger than
other lots in the area and it has average frontage.
Mr. Shepard stated that the lot was established a long time ago and it hasn’t changed since. He stated it
can’t be made bigger, and someone could put a commercial use there. Mr. Marquedant stated that it has
been commercially zoned since the 1970’s.
Mr. Nealon stated that even though it was in common ownership and existed for a long time, it was
accepted by the Planning Board in 1957 when it signed a plan to create the lot, and it never got absorbed
into the adjacent lot. He stated the Board could issue a special permit and the question is whether it
would be detrimental to the neighborhood. He stated that they think it would enhance the neighborhood.
Mr. Tuite offered an interpretation of Zoning Bylaw Section 210-132, stating that when the lot had a
residential use on it and the zoning became commercial, a special permit was automatically granted under
the bylaw to allow the use so it should be all set now. The issues were discussed, and the consensus was
that the language of 210-132 is intended to state that grandfathering protection does not extend to uses
permitted by the grant of a special permit. It was noted that a special permit must be issued by a special
permit granting authority and it cannot be automatically issued by the zoning bylaw itself.
Mr. Hyman noted that the house was torn down by the owner intentionally and was not rebuilt. Mr. Tuite
suggested that it could be considered not to be a voluntary abandonment, and Mr. Hyman disagreed.
Mr. Garland noted that the Board can grant a variance from the frontage and area requirements if the
standards are met. Mr. DiMascio stated that legally, the lots may have merged. The Board discussed the
merger possibility. Mr. Hyman stated the applicant has not made an argument for grandfathering
protection, and it’s not up to the Board to untangle the problem. Mr. Hyman asked the applicant if there
are shape issues, soil conditions or topography on the lot that create a unique hardship. Mr. Geesey stated
that there are wetlands in the back of the lot and it is narrow.
Board of Appeals
January 22, 2020
Page 2 of 3
Mr. Shepard suggested that the applicant could request a continuance so they can go back and look at the
lot conditions, and return with an argument for a variance.
Dale Danahy, lot owner, stated they kept the lot separate from the others because they thought they could
build a house there. She stated that 14 and 16 Grove St. were merged with 61 Main St.
Mr. Nealon stated that the lot was always kept separate from the adjacent lots that the family owned,
which were in business use.
Mr. Geesey requested a continuance of the public hearing to March 11, 2020. Mr. Hyman moved to
continue the public hearing to March 11, 2020 at 7:00 PM. The motion was seconded by Mr. DiMascio
and the vote in favor was unanimous.
Mr. Hyman moved to adjourn the meeting, Mr. Tuite seconded the motion and the vote in favor was
unanimous.
Meeting Adjourned: 8:28 PM
Approved: April 22, 2020
Submitted by Elaine Lazarus, Assistant Town Manager
Documents used at the meeting:
●Uniform Application for Special Permit/Petition for Variance, 18 Grove St., with supporting
documents, submitted by Max Geesey, 31 Michael Dr., Rindge, NH
●Hopkinton Zoning Bylaw
●Draft Minutes of the 12/17/2019 meeting
●Article - Article XIX, Nonconforming Lots, Uses and Structures, §210-128 Changes to existing lots,
uses and structures.
●Article - Article XVI, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, Sections 210-100, 210-101, and
210-105
●Article - Article XVIII, Supplementary Regulations, Section 210-126, Accessory Family Dwelling
Unit
●Article - Article XXXI, Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Installations, §210-201
●Article - Housekeeping, Industrial B District
Board of Appeals
January 22, 2020
Page 3 of 3