Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20210922 - 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 JOHN COUTINHO, VICE CHAIR & CLERK ZBA@Hopkintonma.gov Minutes of the Board of Appeals Minutes: September 22, 2021 Called to Order: 7:05 PM Remote Zoom Meeting Adjourned: 9:30 PM Members Present:Mark Hyman,Chairman;John Coutinho Clerk;Michael DiMascio (7:13pm);John Savignano; Jerry Tuite; Walter Garland; Ria McNamara; Kevin Baxter Members Absent: Others Present:Elaine Lazarus,Assistant Town Manager;Michael Shepard,Assistant Building Inspector; Adina DePaolo, Administrative Assistant Mr.Hyman called the name of each Board member,and each responded affirmatively that they were present and could hear him.Mr.Hyman then called the names of each staff member who responded affirmatively that they were present and could hear him.Mr.Hyman also called the names of anticipated speakers on the agenda, Mark Kablack and Stephen Chaplin, who responded affirmatively. Mr.Hyman stated that the meeting is being conducted remotely consistent with Governor Baker ’s Executive Order of March 12,2020 and recently amended and extended,due to the current State of Emergency in the Commonwealth due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 virus.He noted that in order to mitigate the transmission of the virus,the Board is complying with the Executive Order that suspends the requirement of the Open Meeting Law to have all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location.He stated that the Executive Order allows public bodies to meet entirely remotely as long as the public body makes provisions through adequate,alternative means to ensure that interested members of the public are provided reasonable access to the deliberations of the meeting.He noted that for this meeting the Board is convening by video conference via Zoom App as posted on the Town’s web meeting calendar and the Board’s agenda identifying how the public may join.He noted that the meeting is being recorded and attendees are participating by video conference.Mr.Hyman stated that all supporting materials that have been provided to the Board are available on the Town website via the web meeting calendar,unless otherwise noted. 7:10 PM Administrative Session of the Board of Appeals 6 Whisper Way, Lot 8 Mark Kablack - Attorney Atty. Kablack stated the request is for the Board to make a determination for a driveway to be moved that was approved by the Board at a previous meeting. A plan was referenced to allow driveway access to the lot across frontage of an adjoining lot due to ledge. He stated in the process of clearing and grading the driveway they determined it would be better to put the driveway in a slightly different area. He stated they are requesting the Board make a determination that the slight change is substantially where the Board approved it. Mr. DiMascio arrived at 7:13pm. Mr. Hyman stated the new driveway orientation is basically to the side of the approved orientation. Atty. Kablack stated they believe the new location is in conformance with the Town’s driveway standards. Mr. Coutinho asked what Mr. Shepard’s opinion was. Mr. Shepard stated the ledge is very graphic and if they put the driveway where it was originally approved they wouldn’t be able to get a fire truck through it. He stated the new one would be slightly to the left and would be accessible to the fire trucks. He stated it is still across the same adjacent lot. Mr. Hyman stated if they do need an amendment to the variance they would have to do a full public notice. He stated he doesn’t have a problem with the change but the Board needs to determine if it is substantially the same. Mr. Savignano stated that it seems to run parallel to the other one and believes it is substantially the same. Mr. Savignano moved to find this is substantially the same as the driveway approved in the variance dated February 24, 2021. The motion was seconded by Mr. Coutinho and passed unanimously. The votes were: Mr. Hyman: Yes; Mr. Coutinho: Yes; Mr. DiMascio: Yes; Mr. Savignano: Yes; Mr. Tuite: Yes. Mr. Shepard suggested recording the new plan. Documents Used: September 10, 2021 letter and easement plan from M.A. Kablack & Associates, PC 7:25 PM Application for Special Permit 62 Chamberlain Street – Toll Brothers Members Sitting: Mr. Hyman, Mr. Coutinho, Mr. DiMascio, Mr. Savignano, Mr. Baxter Other Members: Mr. Garland, Ms. McNamara Mark Kablack - Attorney Ted Merchant - Toll Brothers John Kucich - Bohler Mr. Tuite recused himself. Atty.Kablack stated 28 of 29 lots have received approval from the Conservation Commission.He stated lot 29 is substantially impacted by the Town’s wetland act and bylaw.He stated the Conservation Commission approved it under the wetland act but they were denied under the bylaw because they wanted to have the whole home outside the 100 foot buffer.He stated if the variance is not issued the lot would Board of Appeals September 22, 2021 Page 2 of 7 become unbuildable.Mr.Kucich reviewed the plot plan.He stated this is an approved subdivision.He stated the Conservation Commission wants them to move the house forward.He stated they would only have about a 10 foot buildable area if they didn’t get relief for front yard setbacks from this Board.He stated they moved the building forward to be outside the 100 foot zone and it would be 30 feet from the street.He stated it would fit in well for this lot.He stated it would be at the end of the cul de sac.Atty. Kablack stated they selected the smallest footprint for this home that they would be putting in this subdivision.Mr.Merchant stated the sense he got from the Conservation Commission was that if the variance was denied that they would not reconsider this.Mr.Hyman asked if there was a shallower footprint.Mr.Merchant stated this is the shallowest and smallest home they offer here.Ms.McNamara asked about the proposed deck or patio that shows impeding on the wetlands.Mr.Kucich stated the Conservation Commission is allowing this deck and landscaping and that they are most concerned about the four corners of the home.Mr.DiMascio asked if this was anticipated when the subdivision was designed.Mr.Kucich stated essentially it was and that is why they reduced from 32 lots to 29 lots.He stated all of the other lots are outside of the 100’buffer zone.He stated they were aware it was within the 100’buffer but were unaware that it wouldn’t be approved by the Conservation Commission.He stated there are homes in Hopkinton that are within that area.Mr.DiMascio asked if they could choose something smaller.Mr.Merchant stated they don’t offer a smaller home.Atty.Kablack stated this is in the array of houses this applicant can build.Ms.McNamara asked if the Board could ask the applicant to use some more materials that are more permeable like the driveway.Atty.Kablack stated they have addressed and offered all of that mitigation to the Conservation Commission.Mr.Kucich stated they were amenable to any changes the Conservation Commission had asked for.He stated it wasn’t a matter of making the driveway impervious.Mr.Hyman asked if they appealed the Conservation Commission’s decision.Mr.Kucich stated they have not appealed the decision.He stated they thought this was the most adviasarial thing to do and it would fit in with the area.Mr.Baxter asked why it was within keeping with the Town bylaws.Mr.Kucich stated it fits in with the area and would not look out of place or be an eyesore or nuisance.He stated it will look similar to all the other homes.Mr.Coutinho asked if there is a plan that shows the homes and how they are staggered.Mr.Kucich stated he does not have that.Atty. Kablack showed an older plan with the homes in the various locations on the lots. Mr. Hyman asked if there were any public comments and there were none. Atty.Kablack stated they understand they are within a rock and a hard place.He stated they are showing uniqueness with the intensity of the wetlands.He stated they have chosen the home that will require the least variance relief.He stated they are asking for the minimal amount.He stated it will not derogate from the intent of the bylaw. Mr.Shepard stated his opinion is that they should request to split the difference with the Conservation Commission.He stated if it does get approved he requested a condition that it never be closer and the porch on the back should be conditioned that there be no increase to the deck.Atty.Kablack stated in the best of all worlds what Mr.Shepard suggested it would be reasonable but he is fearful this will cost them uncertainty and time and the Conservation Commission won’t change their minds.Mr.Merchant stated they wouldn’t say no if the Board offered 15 feet but they don’t think the Conservation Commission would agree to change their decision. Board of Appeals September 22, 2021 Page 3 of 7 Mr.Coutinho moved to close the public hearing.The motion was seconded by Mr.DiMascio and passed unanimously.The votes were:Mr.Hyman:Yes;Mr.Coutinho:Yes;Mr.DiMascio:Yes;Mr.Savignano: Yes; Mr. Baxter: Yes. Mr.Coutinho stated after seeing the relative location of all the homes and the size difference it now seems to him it does fit with the neighborhood.Mr.Hyman stated he feels they meet the variance standards and is inclined to give them the relief they have asked for and not split the difference.Ms.McNamara stated she agrees the Conservation Commission has good reason for not having structures in these areas.Mr. Savignano stated he feels the same way and they meet hardships and this would be within keeping with the neighborhood.Mr.DiMascio asked if the plan with all the setbacks will be submitted with the application.The Board reviewed the lot grading plan again.Mr.Hyman asked Atty.Kablack to submit a copy of that plan. Mr.Coutinho moved to grant a variance under 210-14C for 30 feet of front setback relief on a finding it will not change the look of the neighborhood and the condition the rear deck be moved to the side and there be no roof on the deck and no further encroachment into the otherwise required 60 foot setback and on a finding due to the soil and topography and that it would not detrimental to the public good and not derogating from the bylaw.The motion was seconded by Mr.Savignano and passed 4-1.The votes were: Mr. Hyman: Yes; Mr. Coutinho: Yes; Mr. Savignano: Yes; Mr. Baxter: Yes; Mr. DiMascio: No. Documents Used: Uniform Application for Special Permit/Petition for Variance with supporting documents Master Lot Grading plan dated 3/26/2021 prepared by ESE Consultants, Inc. Mr. Garland left the meeting. 8:35 PM Continuation of Public Hearing 4 Maple Ave – Varnum Members Sitting: Mr. Hyman, Mr. Coutinho, Mr. DiMascio, Mr. Savignano, Ms. McNamara Other Members: Mr. Tuite, Mr. Baxter Sandra Varnum - Appellent Stephen Chaplin - Attorney Atty:Chaplin stated the family in the home will be moving out October 1,2021.He stated the 3 grounds for the appeal are the cease and desist states it is being used as a multi family dwelling.He stated under bylaws 210-6 it permits the owner to rent out rooms.He stated Ms.Varnum sleeps in a home office in the barn to tend to the duties of the barn manager.He stated she rents out rooms to a coworker's family.He stated the 2nd ground is the statute of limitations.He stated it’s been in its current form for 20 years.He stated he submitted an affidavit.He stated the horses arrived in 1998.He stated there has been a barn manager since that time and Ms.Varnum took over that role in 2009.He stated their 3rd basis for appeal is there is an agricultural exemption in zoning.He stated ⅓of the property is a single family home and ⅔ of the property is being used as agricultural.He stated it is customary for a horse farm to have a caretaker be on the property at all times.Mr.Hyman stated he understands the arguments but he is troubled that when the addition was created it was signed by the applicant that it would not be for sleeping purposes. He stated Ms.Varnum is in a very difficult situation and it sounds like it is about to be resolved.He Board of Appeals September 22, 2021 Page 4 of 7 stated he is concerned with the arguments that suggest the barn with an agricultural purpose could become a second home.Atty.Chaplin stated they are asking the Town to find a person qualified to take care of the animals could stay overnight in that barn office.Mr.Hyman stated there is a slippery slope here.He stated from a zoning perspective it being continuously used as an apartment.Mr.DiMascio stated it is a fairly simple question.He stated the Building Inspector stated it is being used as a multi family arrangement and the original approval was signed that there would be no sleeping in this portion of the building and they are.He stated they should have considered this 20 years ago when they made the agreement if they are saying someone needs to sleep there.Mr.Tuite stated he agrees with Mr.DiMascio. He stated the issue is whether the Board is going to affirm the cease and desist.He asked if a fine was levied.Atty.Chaplin stated he didn't think so.Mr.Hyman stated they can uphold the decision of the Building Inspector but make a condition they can have until a certain date to comply.Ms.McNamara stated she agrees with Mr. Hyman. Mr. Savignano stated he agrees also. Mr. Hyman asked if there were any public comments. Jane Moran,70 East Main Street stated she submitted a letter in support of Ms.Varnum being able to stay on the property for the safety of her animals.She stated she appreciates the sensitivity of the Board in giving her time to resolve this issue. Sheila Mangan,40 East Street stated it is important Ms.Varnum stays on the property.She stated it is important she is on this property 24/7. Valerie LePage,Prentiss Ave in Milford,stated she owned a horse farm in Hopkinton for 20 years and now boards a horse with Ms. Varnum and stated it is important for her to stay on the property. Mr.Shepard stated he has no problem with Ms.Varnum living on the property.He stated his problem is the other family living on the property.He stated as far as the statute of limitations it doesn’t apply because the original building permit was signed as saying no one would be sleeping there.He stated on October 1st when the other family moves out Ms.Varnum can move into the house and everything will be fine. Atty.Chaplin stated they appreciate the Board working with them and they have a signed agreement the family will be moving out October 1st.Mr.Hyman asked how confident they are that the other family will be out on October 1st.Atty.Chaplin stated the agreement was signed today and he has pretty high confidence that date will hold. Mr.Savignano moved to close the public hearing.The motion was seconded by Mr.DiMascio and passed unanimously.The votes were:Mr.Hyman:Yes;Mr.Coutinho:Yes;Mr.DiMascio:Yes;Mr.Savignano: Yes; Ms. McNamara: Yes. Mr.Hyman suggested upholding the decision and giving Ms.Varnum until October 1,2021 to resolve the issue without a fine being assessed. Mr. DiMascio agreed. Ms. McNamara agreed. Mr.Hyman moved to uphold the decision of the Building Inspector that the current use of a multi family dwelling is not allowed but Ms.Varnum will have until Oct 1 to resolve this without a fine.The motion Board of Appeals September 22, 2021 Page 5 of 7 was seconded by Ms.McNamara and passed unanimously.The votes were:Mr.Hyman:Yes;Mr. Coutinho: Yes; Mr. DiMascio: Yes; Mr. Savignano: Yes; Ms. McNamara: Yes. Documents Used: Appeal of Administrative Decision with supporting documents 9:10 PM Application for Special Permit - Reopening 41 Parker Point Road – Fairneny Members Sitting: Mr. Hyman, Mr. Coutinho, Mr. DiMascio, Mr. Tuite, Mr. Baxter Other Members: Mr. Savignano, Ms. McNamara Ty Fairneny - Applicant Stephen Chaplin - Attorney Atty. Chaplin stated this request results from a cease and desist for a swim spa that is 6 feet from the lot line. He stated their application for a special permit was denied and they are back for reconsideration. He stated it is in harmony with the intent of the bylaw. He stated the neighbor Mr. Dobinski is now in support of the location of the swim spa and has no objections and he has submitted a declaration from him and two other neighbors. He asked the Board to approve the special permit application. Mr. Hyman asked if the concerns of the neighbor have been flushed out and resolved and Atty. Chaplin stated yes. Mr. Coutinho stated he was one of the members that voted against it because of the neighbors concerns but now that all the neighbors are okay with it he is now okay with it. Mr. Hyman asked if there were any public comments and there were none. Mr.Hyman moved to re-close the public hearing.The motion was seconded by Mr.Baxter and passed unanimously.The votes were:Mr.Hyman:Yes;Mr.Coutinho:Yes;Mr.DiMascio:Yes;Mr.Tuite:Yes; Ms. Baxter: Yes. Mr.Shepard stated if the application is approved he is concerned about the lack of inspections and requests the Board require the applicant to apply for the building permits within 30 days of the date of the decision. Mr.Tuite asked if the Board needs to rescind the original vote taken.Mr.Hyman stated they should note that in the vote. Mr.Hyman moved to grant a special permit under 210-119 for rear setback relief of 15 feet with the condition that in 30 days of the filing the building permits be applied for on a finding of an irregular shaped lot and that the granting would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw and that the Board determined that their vote on July 28,2021 is rescinded.The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.The votes were:Mr.Hyman:Yes;Mr.Coutinho:Yes;Mr.DiMascio:Yes;Mr. Tuite: Yes; Ms. Baxter: Yes. Documents Used: Uniform Application for Special Permit/Petition for Variance with supporting documents Board of Appeals September 22, 2021 Page 6 of 7 9:25 PM Administrative Session of the Board of Appeals Minutes The Board reviewed the minutes of July 28, 2021. Mr. Coutinho moved to adopt the minutes of July 28, 2021. The motion was seconded and passed 7-0. The votes were: Mr. Hyman: Yes; Mr. Coutinho: Yes; Mr. DiMascio: Yes; Mr. Savignano: Yes; Mr. Tuite: Yes; Ms. McNamara: Yes; Mr. Baxter: Yes. The Board reviewed the minutes of August 11, 2021. Mr. Coutinho moved to adopt the minutes of August 11, 2021. The motion was seconded and passed 7-0. The votes were: Mr. Hyman: Yes; Mr. Coutinho: Yes; Mr. DiMascio: Yes; Mr. Savignano: Yes; Mr. Tuite: Yes; Ms. McNamara: Yes; Mr. Baxter: Yes. The Board reviewed the minutes of August 25, 2021. Mr. Coutinho moved to adopt the minutes of August 25, 2021. The motion was seconded and passed 7-0. The votes were: Mr. Hyman: Yes; Mr. Coutinho: Yes; Mr. DiMascio: Yes; Mr. Savignano: Yes; Mr. Tuite: Yes; Ms. McNamara: Yes; Mr. Baxter: Yes. Documents Used: Draft minutes from July 28, 2021 Draft minutes from August 11, 2021 Draft minutes from August 25, 2021 Mr.Tuite moved to adjourn the meeting.The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.The votes were:Mr.Hyman:Yes;Mr.Coutinho:Yes;Mr.DiMascio:Yes;Mr.Savignano:Yes;Mr.Tuite:Yes;Ms. McNamara: Yes; Mr. Baxter: Yes. Meeting Adjourned: 9:30 PM Adina DePaolo, Administrative Assistant Approved: October 13, 2021 Board of Appeals September 22, 2021 Page 7 of 7