HomeMy Public PortalAbout20150610 - Board of Appeals - Meeting MinutesTOWN OF HOPKINTON
MARK. HYMAN, Chairman
G. MICHAEL PEIRCE, Vice Chairman
OFFICE OF
BOARD OF APPEALS I6 APR -7
TowN HALL
18 MAIN STREET —THIRD FLOOR
HOPKINTON, MASSACHUSETTS 01748-3209
(508) 497-0012
Minutes of the
Board of Appeals
r 'I 9: 20
WW W.HOPKINTON.ORG
ZBA@Hopkintomna.gov
Minutes: June 10, 2015 Called to Order: 7:10 PM
Town Hall, 2nd Floor Adjourned: 7:45 PM
Members Present: Rory Warren, Chairman; Michael Peirce, Vice Chairman; Mark Hyman, Clerk;
Michael DiMascio; June Clark; John Savignano; Peggy Shaw
Members Absent: Jim Meyer
Others Present: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use, Planning and Permitting
7:10 PM Administrative Session of the Board of Appeals
Mr. Warren stated he would like to schedule a site walk at 36 Fruit Street before the scheduled hearing.
The Board discussed possible dates. Mr. Warren requested a site walk be held July 16, 2015 at 7am as a
first choice and July 14, 2015 at 7am as an alternative. Ms. Wright stated she would contact the property
owner to verify the dates.
Stagecoach Heights
Mr. Warren stated Stagecoach Heights is requesting to have their bond released. He stated he would like
to have Fay, Spofford and Thomdike review the project to see if the work has been done.
Mr. Peirce moved to request as much as needed up to $5,000 to pay for peer review. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Savignano and passed unanimously.
Mr. Peirce moved to request Fay, Spofford and Thomdike review the project so the Board can release the
bond. The motion was seconded by Mr. Savignano and passed unanimously.
Documents Used:
May 29, 2015 Letter from Benchmark Engineering Corp.
7:20 PM Application for Public Hearing
112 Hayden Rowe - Siegel
Douglas Resnick — Attomey for the Applicant
Henry Siegel — Applicant
Nancy Siegel — Applicant
Members Sitting: Mr. Warren, Mr. Peirce, Ms. Clark, Mr. Savignano, Ms. Shaw
Members in Attendance: Mr. Hyman
Atty. Resnick stated they are looking for 3 forms of relief.
1) 210-126 for an accessory family dwelling. He stated they meet all requirements except it will
be a little larger than 800 square feet.
2) 210-119 for side setback relief. He stated they have 2 fronts and 2 sides. He stated they need
relief of .2 feet on the side.
3) He stated they need a variance for the accessory family dwelling being over 800 square feet.
He stated the addition was designed to really fit in with the existing house. He stated they are
asking for 56 extra feet which is 7%.
Atty. Resnick reviewed the plans with the Board. He stated the proposed would not be substantially more
detrimental to the neighborhood and would not derogate from the bylaw. Ms. Shaw asked if there would
be parking and Atty. Resnick stated there is plenty of space. Mr. Peirce asked if there would be any
additional impervious surface. Atty. Resnick stated the existing driveway is very wide and there would
be not changes. Mr. Peirce asked if the garage was changing and Atty. Resnick stated no. Mr. Peirce
asked if they have gotten any input from anyone in the area. Atty. Resnick stated there has been no
opposition.
Mr. Warren asked if there were any public comments and there were none.
Mr. Peirce moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Savignano and passed
unanimously.
Mr. Peirce moved to find hardship because the applicants did not create this non -conformity and the
proposed would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and grant a special permit
under 210-119 for 2 feet of relief on the westerly side to be built consistent with the plans. The motion
was seconded by Ms. Clark and passed unanimously.
Mr. Peirce moved to grant a special permit under 210-126 for an accessory family dwelling with the
standard conditions and the condition that there be no change in impervious surface for the driveway.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Savignano and passed unanimously.
Mr. Peirce moved to grant a variance under 210-126G for relief of an additional 56 square feet over the
allowed 800 square feet because of the design of the existing house and garage it makes sense to have
them match and it will not derogate from the intent of the bylaw. The motion was seconded by Ms. Clark
and passed unanimously.
Documents Used:
Uniform Applications for Special Penn /Petition for Variance with supporting documents
Mr. Peirce moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Meeting Adjourned: 7:45 PM
Adina Wright, Administrative Assistant
Approved: March 23, 2016
Board of Appeals
June 10, 2015
Page 2 of 2