Zoning Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Wanda and excellent full-time board members. So I would enter a motion to have Terry sit as a full member for today's hearing. So is there a second? Second. All in favor? I

All right. I'm going to be sitting as a full board member today. We will have a full board. Great. Uh the case today is a continued hearing for Stacy realy. This is for property at 45 South Road map for lot 13-1. This involves two requested variances. One from article 4 section 4.4.1 C and a second from article 3 section 3.2.2 C2. um review board today. So that's good. Apologies again. This was continued by now. So start out here.

Good evening ladies and gentlemen. For the record, my name is attorney Bernard Campbell from the office of online professional association Salem. I previously on behalf of Mr. Daniel Stacy who's the principal of this business and we first want to begin by expressing our great thanks to the board for their willingness to gather tonight um to deliberate on this important matter to my client given sort of the time constraints that were imposed on him as a result of action by the planning board. uh by getting to this uh point this evening um we are hopefully in compliance or will be in compliance with some planning board conditions for the site approval which we did receive conditionally from the planning board. Um so um thank you again for your willingness to come out this evening and and delivering this matter. So, um just to reiterate, uh we're here tonight asking for two specific variances. Um the first is to allow the uh allow 800 square ft of enclosed inventory storage in two traffic trails. Um this is um the needed or we believe needed uh hunger storage reserve of the products that Stacy's uh business would sell particularly um at the moment hay um bail hay which obviously cannot be left out from the rain. I don't know if people got the rain in Salem yesterday evening but my suit was actually dry. I was caught in the down floor and uh it was pretty heavy around 7:00 at sailable yesterday. We got 1.14 in rain and above Japan. Um

it's necessary to keep hay, straw, certain types of lawn food and chemicals ideally in storage to prevent spoilage and to protect the environment. Um and so Mr. Stacy has proposed using two tractor trailer storage units which you see there on that plan in the dark color to the left um aton. Um and the purpose as noted is for um storage uh of material that really should not be out in the rain. And so one of and and frankly um this was part of the site plan and we viewed it essentially as ancillary to previous relief that this board has granted Mr. Stacy but the planning board did not necessarily read it. um they viewed it more as an expansion beyond what we had asked for in the last time that I was here um a couple years ago for Mr. Stacy. Um, and rather than get into a long staffing pole which is the planning board, we say, "Okay, we will come back soon adjustment and hopefully they will acknowledge that this is really part and parcel of this type of business operation and we're asking tonight your blessing to say that that is acceptable, essentially ancillary to the vineyard business that Mr. CC has begun to establish on the site. The second variance is basically just a setback variance. And if you know where those two trailers are, they are within 3 ft or so of the existing property lie, your

section requires a setback of 25 ft from frontage of a lot. Um, what I'm going to rely on, and I'll address the criteria in a minute, but if you look at that plane, you will see that the right of way that's in front of this business is considerably wider than other sections of South Road. And in fact, you can see the butter to the left. You can see how that butter's band actually pinches in and gets significantly closer to the right of land. Um, and so if you were to measure from where those trailers sit to the point of that um, angle at the front, we're essentially 25 ft from where if that line were actually the frontage line for the B. We would probably be sitting back 25 ft. The fact is is that the there's an extraordinarily wide right of way in that location. We are a long way from the pavement. Um and therefore um as a result a we are within approximately 3 ft of the front property line which happens to be the right of way line and your avoidance requires 25 setback for that type of structure. Uh but we believe that because of the nature of the right of way in that location. Um, and I'm going to get into that when I talk about the criteria, but basically um, the purpose of the setback, what is the purpose of the setback? Why does it exist? And our contention is that this variance would do no damage to that principle mainly because we are so far back from the right start. So those are the two specific variances that we are asking for. what is essentially a use

variance to allow the exh external coverage storage. Um and um if the board would like I have Mr. Stacy talk a little bit more about what those are. Um but uh rather than try to uh construct fixed structures for um coverage storage for the moment the most expeditious and probably the least intrusive way to do this would be to propose the trailer storage which we're proposing tonight. Um, and so I'm going to now turn and address the criteria that you need to consider. And I'll try and address both of the variances at the same time while I do so. So as this employer is well aware, there are five statutory criteria that must be satisfied by an applicant in order to merit the granting of a merit. The first one is that the merit would not be contrary to the public interest. Um and the way that has been interpreted by our own system uh is to say that any variance any variance of any kind is um is a slight variation from what the community has adopted. However, in order to violate this one to be considered contrary to public interest, it must be um a variance to a significant degree. Um and the way that they have defined that is one does the request represent a threat to the health, safety or general welfare of the community and the second way you measure that is whether or not it changes the character of the neighborhood. So addressing those two uh first on the setback again uh we don't believe there's any threat to health, safety or welfare. Um setback variance

from a right of way might be uh for public safety for travelers on the highway if they don't strike an object that's close to the edge of the pavement or edge of the rightway. if a vehicle should stray off of the right place. Given the extraordinary width the rightway in that area and the topography within that area. Um we don't think there's any likelihood um that the trailers would be struck by any vehicle that might wander off Route 107. Um and so we do not believe that the setback variance creates a threat to health, safety or welfare. Um likewise we don't believe that the proposed storage facility um represents a significant impact on the character of the neighborhood. Still significantly growable. Um there are other businesses um along this section of 107 that uh have um equipment parked outside and other items um displayed along 107. And so we don't think that the fact that there's going to be uh covered storage in the parking lot of this particular building uh creates a significant uh impact on the general character of this residential/nural neighborhood. And so we believe that with regard to the first criteria on public interest, we we hope that um you are convinced that we are not that this variance is not contrary to the public interest. The second criteria variance is that the request does not violate the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Now, first of all, the state supreme court has said that this is actually generally judged by the state to standards. In other words, is there a threat to health safety and welfare or does it create a change in the character of enable? But I I've also been an understanding

that I'm doing quite a bit of this variance work both on applicants and fuel municipalities. Um I think we can look at it a little broader. Um otherwise why does the legislature have two different criteria? So I think the public interest is you know what look at what is it that the ordinance is trying to uh attack and how are we responding again with respect to the setback. Uh we believe we are not violating the spirit and intent of that setback requirement given the size of the right of way. As I said I believe the spirit of intent of that setback is to provide space between any structures and the adjoining right of way and in this case because of the size um that land could easily be part of the site. It's not. But in any event, we don't believe that the setback variance violates the spirit of intent of your 25 ft setback, which by the way would push um even the existing structures um probably close to meeting that um 25 step back. And that's also part of the entire view here and that is we have a prior non-conforming uses of the site for a long time. Um in preparation for the original request to change use of the site I spent time moving in your town files. I noted that it's been a restaurant. It's been a gift store um antique type store. Um, in this case, the fact that it's now moving towards something that's probably more in tune with the rural farm agricultural uh area that this occupies. Um, we believe the spirit or intent of the

ordinance uh is not violated. um because that would be an expected um atrin that if you look at other places which are similar in nature to this um they all have some level of closed storage where they actually have buildings constructed uh for the purpose of maintaining certain inventory in a dry environment and this is the doc proposal for maintaining that inventory in a dry environment. Um so um the landscaping provides protection is set back from residential settings creates green space for personal recreation which is not needed for this use. Um and so we feel that we are not violating the spirit of intent the ordinance by either of our requests. The third criteria is that substantial justice will be done. Um and generally what the Supreme Court has said on this criteria is that any harm to the applicant which is not offset by a benefit to the municipality is basically contrary to substantial justice. In other words, what does the community gain by denying? What principle do we validate by denying the request? Um and again Mr. states getting his business feels that there's a need for government based on the material that he's selling there. Um and there simply is nothing in the building itself. Building itself has all the things you would expect to find within the building and there really the building is not big enough for any interior storage of any significant amount whether it's you know 30 bes or whatever it happens to be. um and the business really needs covered storage and this is our proposal and really having granted the request to allow farm and garden center. As I said, our

original contention to the planning board was that it's essentially an use peritted. Um they chose to go in a different direction, but um it really is. So when you evaluate this criteria, what does the community gain by denying Mr. Stacy the right to have the covered storage in his parking lot? And um what do we gain by saying it has to be 25 ft from there? That would impinge on parking. It would impinge on outdoor storage and circulation areas. Um and we feel that it's appropriate to put the units there given the large right of way inside. Um the fourth criteria is that the request will not significantly impact the adjoining property values. Um and the requested variance that we're asking for in this case represents customary activities with farm and guard centers. Um the property obviously fronts on a fairly busy state highway. um is buffering in the theater and the Westley sides. Um obviously there is an abuter across the street. Um but that butter has been across the street from either a retail shop maybe not because they made the new but the ab across the street has been subject to you know an antique store um and a restaurant with 100 seats. Um and so we feel that this this particular use that we're asking for would not be significantly more impactful on land priority and arguably less impactful to that property uh given some of the restrictions that the planning board has put in place. Uh the planning board if you look at the planning board record you're going to see there are fairly significant restrictions on hours of operation.

There are fairly significant restrictions on exterior lighting uh that exist now uh for the protection of hollow butters. And so frankly we think that this um use will be less impactful on some of the values of the surrounding properties. And it fits more with the rural/aggricultural uh feel that parts of 107 you travel um from Seabrook all the way out to to East Kingston um that this area represents. So we do not believe there are significant impacts to the property value beyond things that pre-existed uh this site and the uses at this site. Finally, the third criteria is the hardship criteria. Um, and it has essentially three parts to it. We begin first by looking at whether or not the property itself is unique in its environment. And I think the prior and nonconforming uses of the site, the existing structures that were on the site, the existing parking that was on the site, the existing curb cuts that were on the site. um all of which uh represent features that make this property unique in its own way. Um you as a board and not necessarily you as five members of the board, but the board itself has filed this property to be unique um as a result of its prior variance requests that has been granted for this site. And so I think we can hopefully agree that this is in fact a priority unique environment due to the prior non-conforming uses and the the ability of Mr. Stacy to utilize those exist three pre-existing uses and roll them into what he proposes to operate

and has been operating with planning at Google now for more than four weeks. three weeks over four weeks.

Four weeks and and business is you know starting to roll a little bit and obviously as a brand new business hasn't been a lot of marketing yet. One of the reasons is we do we still kind of condition that the planning board had tagged on. So it's it's very difficult to you know throw the doors open and and and celebrate and to offer a lot to the community until we have these last items tied down. So, but I think it is a unique in its environment. Um, having got past that, the hardship required then talks about why what how the applicable restrictions really aren't relevant to this particular site. And I think in many respects most panelists who look at this uh take that component far then roll back to uh basically spirit of intent or public interest because in fact um the question is does the restriction in this case there are two one is the frontage um setback rather one is the setback you know how does the how does the setback really affect this site how would be enforced the second is having to do with the use. And having already determined that this site is eligible for a farm and garden center, then wouldn't it make sense to have covered storage um to keep lawn and garden items, whether it's hay, which there's some of uh whether it's um sawdust, bales of sawdust, or other kinds of sawdust products, whether it's chemicals in terms of buying art chemicals that really should not be exposed to the weather but in fact kept indoors and in

some respects contained or any kind of environmental activity. If you have fertilizer, you prefer obviously not to have it out in the rain. If there's a bag that has a problem um and it's sitting out in the upside pallet, now all of a sudden you have phosphot potentially phosphorus um going into the environment through a torrenting and you know you long lawn food bag. Um, by keeping some of those types of items in the trailers, you keep them dry and you avoid the possibility of environmental contamination by keeping them under coverage. Um, and so um, in the end, I think the substantial relationship test, uh, is not applicable to either of the two variances we're requesting. Yeah. The final part of the harsh criteria is basically that the use is reasonable and we believe that in the circumstance um this is a reasonable use again given prior history for this site given the prior variances that this award and the board of adjustment have given for this property. We think that these two monitoring requests basically allow us to fully operate the way we envision to operate and we hope that you will agree. So that's my preliminary presentation. I will be very happy to answer questions. My client is here preparing to answer your questions as well and we look forward to your consideration of our requests. Does the board have any questions?

I do. Uh why traffic trailers?

Why travel trailers? Well, the I guess the the alternative would be to build the structures. Um frankly, I think the idea of the trailers is it's more flexible at the end of the day. God forbid if if the Stacy business doesn't quite flourish the way he hopes it would. Um the trailers represent an easier way to clear the site back off as opposed to putting out I mean if you think of it in terms of let's say a lumber yard that has um target storage for the lumber and some um the alternative would have to be to actually construct old buildings. Um, and I think at this stage, um, it might be more reasonable to assume that this type of proposal, um, provides a more flexibility if Mr. Stacy eventually determines that that's not the ideal location. You might be able to go back to the planning board and ask to have those moved. The planning board has said in effect, they're there as long as we have your blessing, we put them. So I don't know if that fully answered your question but I'm trying as best I can.

So are they under definition of structure?

Well I got some of that conversation at planning board. Um there's there's a there's a court case out years and years ago. Um they talked about some trailers that might be structures for the purpose of tax, but as we know one one structure or one item might be considered a structure for one purpose and not for another purpose. Um they might be considered purpose structures for the purpose of the tax assessment but this town in terms of its zoning ordinance or the building inspector may not treat them as structures. They do have wheels. Um they do or do not have current registrations.

They do not have current registrations. Um but they are unfit and able to move um if there was a need to move them or relocate.

So it will be on wheels. uh what's the landscaping will be in front of the front.

So if you don't mind right now the way that the um probably this uh way that the landscape is is actually a hill. So when you come down south road it's on the left hand side it actually comes down. So landscaping right now is all natural. We did have a couple trees that were out in the front there that were dead and uh breaking into the roadway that I have cut down to about six feet high, but all the bushes and shrubs have been kept. Uh in front of the trailers, there's actually a telephone pole with the guide wire comes down. And then we also have the stone um or large rocks that were put in place uh for more of a safety/ security uh reason. The thing is is as of right now uh the setback from the state rightway has been determined that they have no problem with these items because they're outside of their rightway. When I had to go in front of the board of select bin, there used to be a horseshoe shaped driveway at this property for two different exits. On the right side of the of this picture, you can see where they the state had me put in a BM to cut off that driveway and actually rebuild the swale down the side. When we did all that work for the state, they said that they were all they were they accepted those there. um because they're outside their area. So, they have no problem with it at this time. But when it comes to landscaping, as of right now, I don't want to do anything until I get approvals of what I can and can't do because it just seems like when I do something, it's not they

don't like the way it looks or vice versa. So, So, is it probably vegetated? Right now it is terribly vegetated. Uh like I said, you probably have bushes about five, six feet tall uh to a certain point, probably up to a telephone pole and then there's just grass there and uh then flows into the solid rocks and then you have my geese that's in front. So if you were to do something uh what is it that you would like to do as far as vegetation? Leave the natural vegetation.

Oh yes. I I so I've got multiple things that I what's needed to do well with this area. One I can do kind of like a hedge in a sense of planting different hedges in the front there that would grow. Uh the thing is I thought about doing a mural on the side of the um side of the uh trailer as well in a sense of basically painted on mural of cows or horses and stuff like that to kind of spruce it up I guess. Uh it's all you know and everybody's treated different. Um the question I have is I have to talk to town do that because then it comes is it a bureau is it a sign

and then and then then the sign regulations because right now the state took away signing that was in the front of the building. There used to be a uh free freestanding freestanding sign that they took out for visual when they had I I went in and cleaned up all the dead trees, the dead bushes that were there, but then afterwards they asked me to cut out everything for visual on the property. the the the other the other thing I would obviously we're if for example you suggested that we do some kind of plantings that would actually be within the state right away um and so a right now we would not have that permission to do one logical thing would be to plan hard um along the trailers but right now we have no room to do that without state support Um, you could ask us to try and get that state. Um, but that's that's that's the fact is that there's not a location for that. The other option obviously we could put piece of fence. Now, even if we did um a 6ft stockade section uh that would basically scream the bottom of the trailers, it's not going to reach the top and that building inspector would consider that to be a structure of its own. If we had build a wall that we have to engineer and all that would go with it. Um if you in your wisdom felt that a piece of um basically stockgate fence 6 ft tall uh along the 40ft section of the trailer if you actually thought that would the concern

you could do that as a condition. I'm not sure that um given the entire site I'm not sure that really accomplishes much as practically that uh but we're to if that's the concern at the end of the day um whether or not we can do that. So, I question. So, the point uh display sales area that's adjacent to these tractor trailers, is there a reason why you couldn't swap and put the tractor trailers in the in the plant display area and move the plant display area towards the front? Well, the reason is for my personal opinion is they kept the farthest away from the wetland area and the thing is if we have a I'm going to say moderate amount of city fertilizers or chemicals in a sense of uh like I said fertilizers line stuff like that. It's safer to be where the trailers are now than closer further away to the wet. Now my opinion is when it comes to the this business you have a lot of products that are able to be outside with no issue. you have bagged rocks, bagged um say uh bark mulch, uh soils, that stuff that can be outside, it could break, it doesn't it's not harmful in certain because it's natural products. Whereas the minimum amount of products that I have at this time for a specific set of bad time that people use in their gardeners, their yards and stuff. Uh we also have another nitro mix that's also for gardening and farming. Uh our store inside that is dry. If a bag breaks open, you can sweep it up. You clean it

up. Once it gets wet, that's when you start having it spreads out more. Now, for some reason, if it did get wet, say a bag was left outside on the deck or something or there was a leak, it would be cleaned up quicker than it was closer to the woods. And I think the other thing, Dan, if you look at the plan, and Dan didn't mention it, but I think you and I talked about if you think of it in terms of delivering products to get to those, if you were to put the trailers toward the back, um, in terms of a truck when we come to deliver to those, um, right now they're in a fairly good spot because that, let's say it's a sixax, not six, but six wheel, you know, three action truck or straight big truck. Um, right now it could back up to those or let's say it's a a haywet load of hay. Um, right now it's fairly straight maneuver to get to those. If you put it back further, you're now looking at having to turn and really you're not going to get room for a straight delivery. Now you're talking about having to turn the trailers 90 degrees in order to be able to get to the delivery. So we we've talked about that as well. Um this makes we think the best sense from a pedestrian safety standpoint in terms of deliveries of materials that end up in those trailers. So that's also something that was considered.

At the same time, I'd like to just add to like um our thought process as well is that if Mrs. Johnson who comes in and wants um product, she can back up to this trailer. It's on the pavement. It's solid and she can get what she needs for her horses or her fur or lawn or whatever she's doing or they're doing. And it's very simple to knock off the pavement over to a trailer side. um where the parking lot's been, you know, as a pre-existing area. It's uh a little bit cleaner, I think.

Thank you. Storage storage right now.

I'm sorry, Senator George right now. Well, um, so I think the building is 3,800 square ft. Um, the thing will be here since that we didn't have a show on the floor in the back that used to be the um, I would say dining room area/bar because they used to have two different businesses. They'd have the dining room and then they actually have a bar in the back. So, the way that this property used to be is on the right side there was a parking lot where people would come in and out of a different entryway for the bar and you'd have the restaurant. Now, um that lower area at this time has product out there for horses and cows and chickens and goats and all kinds of stuff down there for people to go down and walk around and look at for gardening to tools to stuff with their dogs or were or so. Now on the side here where the kitchen used to be, we do have a small area for um grass seeds, fertilizers, and uh different products that are bad on the shelves. But we also have an area for say rigs and shovels and barrels and stuff like that. Now the thing is when you order these products, you don't order 10 or 12 bags. You order a pallet. uh it could be between 40 or could be up to 60 or 70 bags on the pad. Now the thing would be is when it comes to uh say these trails for storage, it allows us to be able to be more efficient in the sense of other products that people in the area might want or need. Whereas some of those products, it just takes a lot of space. The difference is instead of having stuff just packed on top of each other in the front yard, it's kind

of stored away because then if you go to other places, say like a Tractor Supply, uh, Home Depot, they have pallet stacked on pallets of product out in the area, yard, parking lot, uh, just stacking up each other. You want to have enough product that we have to serve the people but not enough to be overbearing I guess would be the word. Now the thing is is like I said the products that we have all bad none of it is on the ground. Uh we do not want to be having any chemical um or we've talked to the planning board about not having any chemicals like say rock salt for example stored on the ground for loading into a truck with management. Right now we would have bags for people or homeowners for that. The other thing I think I would point out again you know has to do with access. You look at the building and like a good example would be the hay. All right, it's you're not really there's no real location with regard to the existing structure where you can bring in any hay and carry it in store in the building um in any kind of building. And there's not even a location to bring that kind of vehicle or delivery truck uh to back into to get to any space within the building to for certain types of products. H would be a good example. Um I don't know if any of you ever come through sale like we have fairly famous uh garden on uh center really not one center but it's really an agricultural business and that's the Dodge R scenic sale you know they have they have um really extensive buildings um warehouse within it they do

get hay deliveries from Canada they do get h deliveries from um Fernando's farming in in dairy. Uh cuz I've seen their trucks come in. Um there's no place in the existing building where we could take it to it would have to be out there somewhere in the outside. It's just not if you can't bring those rails and h doors in the building and there's no real place to store hay. So is this other traders to also expand your business, expand your inventory to new products? Well, I don't consider it expanding because

we do. But I have this question. So, so the difference I see is instead of having uh say paths on the ground with hay stacked on it with a tarp on it uh which I could do tomorrow. I I think that it's more of a uh a maybe presentable or more of a u an easier way to to store the product or more of a uh I don't know the word right now

in in that sense the planning permission to put them there. Well, that's we're asking now because the planning board cannot determine or did not determine if they are considered structures or nonstructures. So they basically uh passed the football off to you guys to determine this this question because

yeah they they had a planning board were aware and as I maybe I highlighted strong enough um you know we took a position going into the planning board hearing that that was basically just part and parcel of what we were granted as a farming garden center. um the pl the planning board or at least members of the planning board felt that they couldn't determine whether or not what we were asking for storage really was part from the original request. And what they did was they said you can open you can get keep the trailers there. Um and they gave us basically 2 months, 60 days to come back here um and hopefully get your blessing uh to allow us to continue. So they are there now. They are being used now.

How long?

Uh six weeks. Well, I they're being used for like um we were in for the planning board. Um but they the trails have been there for probably over a year. Now, the thing is from my from what I believe, if I move those trailers right now, I can still have them on site. The issue is it's the setback. Well, you'd have to lock them up. As they said, they we would have to the planning board essentially said if we can't get permission to use them for on-site storage, covered storage, then we would have to basically not store anything in effectively lock them there. I think the other thing was if we moved along to the parking lot area because the parking lot was originally but they are off the parking lot as of right now.

So for clarification the planning board indicated that you can have trailers there and not use them as storage. We could use them as storage for the 60 days

from the date of their approval. Yeah. Um, essentially their approval then would collapse or that part of their approval would last if we weren't able to get your blessing within that time frame, which is one of the reasons we pleaded to get you together tonight. Um, because the 60-day clock would probably run out for your next break. kind of similar to how I saw I think it's about what you're saying as I understood it the trailers book surprise that the trailers were there and ultimately said okay um with our options being we got to move the trailers we're not including it or we can use them and go to zone and see if they'll allow them if it's effective to the trying to uh help the applicant not make the applicant go through all the strain of moving them and then maybe moving them back through or the spring emptying them and locking them until approval springs. Does that sound accurate to that? Um but the other thing is less come to terms as to what how the regulations come to these trailers. That was the main issue is structure is a permanent structure in the ground connected to the ground. These are not that was the issue with going side. I agree there's much semantic parsing as the meeting or your structure. Um I will say everyone's mentioned it so I'll say it here. There is a fairly large gap that is most certainly part of it at least for now attached. So but regardless I think we can all well it looks like an application we might not have to reach that

question. So I guess um I do have another question. It was mentioned, I wasn't going to say anything about this, but it was mentioned that you've been operating for the past four weeks, whatever it is. But does the property have any tips about talking to uh right now? The planning board said that I can open up and Gino said that right now he is fine with that determination that he cannot do anything else until this meeting. When it comes to other certificates of uh there was there was there was other things that we had going on in the sense of uh building permits for um we changed out a window and some other things. So as of right now this says it's fine but I still have to finish my paperwork and to finish the paperwork is here. So the planning board has said that they are okay with what's going on up to these trade orders. They pass that back to this board and right now Gino is fine with what's going on um until the determination of this meeting as well. The only thing is we've also gotten um signed off from the fire department uh with no issues from that. So, as of right now, we're kind of in the limbo state, but I'm just trying to get paperwork finished so that everyone is happy. Thank you. Um, I guess my only other question actually is there was uh discussion at board as to whether or not this is technically Spanish use. I see in a letter here uh Mr. safety. He believes that the proposed storage could be considered a quote normal expansion and of the elabor use. So do I

understand that uh the applicant is accepting that this is at least for purposes of this hearing that this is in fact an expansion of a use granted what two years ago by the that's that's a fair that's a fair assumption based on our presence here and the application that we filed the idea that um if in fact Mr. Stacy as approval for a lawn and garden center um whether or not the bringing on of storage trailers um would be considered an expansion under the tests that the state supreme court has set forth sort of the bron matter involving um the expansion of the gaming devices in a different space whether it's just a more intensive use of a space that's been dedicated to that purpose. We set that aside and we're hoping that you will recognize that this really is pretty standard for farm and garden center and allow us to continue. There are no questions from the board for the Thank you. Uh do you have anyone from the public would like to see your application and give your name and address this now 30 is um looking at the site plan. The

only thing that I stand up is obviously the trailers are not pleasing. I think they're small town, but um to me it seems trailers to keep chemicals from the weapons in the first place. So it seems like they could find another location that's not so close for this. That's their job is getting into the wellness but not seeing the issue with fire pushing them back to the different property and it might be more the reason than right next door. Um, I think that's probably the one of the biggest things that I see. Um, and I know a lot of time yeah. Um, and I do, you know, all that, but I know what those road I get. It's tight. but I just don't know if there's another area that's a possibility to get started. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Any other uh residents who'd like to comment?

Sarah 151 South Road. Um I am a member of the S but not speaking how they got them today. It's myself. Um, and I just at least when it comes to the distance from a road, it seems that if the applicant had better ordinances or asked for permission prior to putting those on that we wouldn't be here having to ask for. It's only a three foot difference. Um, and I know there's been a lot of back and forth over the last couple years meetings that I've attended. Um, and this just seems to be kind of what I've seen. And that's really frustrating as a town's person to see the lack of respect for our businesses that the town has voted out. So I just wanted to say that one. Um, so I I understand the need for um storage at at a business like this. I've driven by several um recently with the express purpose of checking out their customer outdoor storage. Um I attended the zoning board adjustment meeting in 2023 that we had about this property. um where the application is specifically Dodge AG. Um Dodge AG does in fact use tractor trailers to store other property. The difference being they're very hard to see from the road. Um you have to keep looking for them. They're not obvious. The tractor trailers of this property hit me in the face every time I walk out my door. liberals. I cannot leave my house without looking at these two white boxes with banners hanging off of them. It looks very temporary. And I think that in the criteria for

changing the character of our neighborhood, I absolutely think that these track trailers change the character of the neighborhood. Um, and it affects the way that people feel when they drive down our section of 107. Um, and to follow up with that, they've mentioned several times keeping the chemicals safe um, from the weapons. And two years ago when we were here, we were assured that this board would be given a list of all chemicals that would be kept on on property. Um, and I wonder if that's happens.

Yes. That's all. Thanks. Thank you. Comments. I'm going to echo some of the things that my wife Katie said. Um, so Mr. T, Mr. Hamilton, thanks for coming out here and explaining to us all these things because there's a lot more to it than what you just pick up, you know, the letters and things like that. So, and thanks to the board for giving us the opportunity to speak. Um, my concerns are similar to some that have already been voiced. And it's that when we were before, we shared concerns about the uh the property in that general area transforming from something that was more rural, commercial, and beginning to feel more like industry. And we have this feeling that those trailers situated where they are looking like they do starts to make this area look more industrial than it is rural and agricultural. And some other folks have mentioned when you come over the hill from the west, you don't see the beautiful stone building that the business is housed in. You see those two trailers and a mural on the side of the trailers. There are other murals in town. Uh a fence along the side of the trailers. There are other fences in town. None of that's going to stop you seeing the back and the tops of those trailers as they come over that pivot. So I like some others have said think that that does have an impact on the character of the neighborhood. And while we acknowledge

that there are other like industrial areas within Kensington, they're not in this little pocket of town. So we would like for there to be consideration that the trailers be approved for use for storage, but not exactly where they are right now. I understand the need for storage in the trailers. As Katie said, everybody's diagnosed sheds and all that other kind of stuff. That makes sense to me. I understand the reasons that they're located where they are. I do think that there are solutions to some of the other issues or that could be created by moving them to some other place. And I think that the idea of adding a row of trees or something in between them and the road, I think that's a great idea. I think the fact that they're so close to the right way that they would have to get permission from the state is a problem that they created for themselves, not something that well that there by putting them up close they created that problem for themselves. So, in closing, our concern is for the character of the neighborhood and what people see when they first come over that hill. And we're not expecting to see that. And you can't drive by the area without seeing something that is beginning to look light industrious. Thank you for speak, but my name is Ivan Casey. I'm 277 here in town. I really have always thought that this would be a great place for a garden center. The only thought that I have in listening to everyone speak is where's why not greenhouse for storage and that would maybe make the character um meet the needs of the neighborhood in the town. Uh the greenhouse is indicative of garden

center and you can certainly store it and also you know maybe begin growing your own plants to sell and so forth like other garden centers do. It's just another option discussion. Thank you.

Anyone else from the public? All right. Do you have anyone on the board like to ask any questions from the public? Seeing none, I will go back to the action. Has anything respond to Adam? Well, one one thing I wanted to say is every everybody's uh thought of how an area should be looking like in a sense of world that's different. Um, if you go up north, you'll see people with uh a lot of tractors and trailers and trucks and stuff that have been broken down over generations of people being out there. other than you guys know.

About half a mile up the road from my property, there's a gentleman that has a 40 by or 7x4 foot storage, a storage unit. It's a steel box right in his front yard on South Road. He doesn't have a store cuz I've done I've done some work for him. I think he stores stuff in there, but it's right in his front yard. That's one. Two, with this being more of a rural area, there's certain things that other people would not find, say, pleasantly to look at, like long grass in the front yard. Some people have grass that are over 4t tall. Some people have nice manicured lawns. Some towns don't allow it. This town, not a problem. This is a rural area. Want to let your grass grow up tall? Not a big deal. If you drive up the road from here, you're going to start getting people with horses and cows and tractors right in the field. And then you go right into John Deere that has equipment right off. Now, I know they've been here for a long time and it's up the road, but it's in the general area. I have two minutes to speak to my client. This problem recess

it's okay heard

well if it is if it isn't I object if it is then follow let me just say um I don't know there was a suggestion of planting some trees but then I also heard that the real issue is the view from over the curb coming dam headed eastbound and the trees if they were planted probably wouldn't really solve that problem. Um I was going to ask Mr. Stacy if in fact there was even two or three additional feet that we could move the trailers even two or three feet to the east or northeast and then give us room on our side to plant some arborites. um that the issue is we still want to if possible be able to get access to them by straight truck back directly to where they are. Um there might be room will get two or three feet and then um plant something in that area right up against the right of way. that if you were to say that that was the condition that we had satisfied in order to get your blessing, I think we could make it work and you'd have to just jock it with two or three feet and then plant something on the inside confronted the traitors if if that really was something they wanted us to do. Wouldn't that also have multi for being within 25 people?

No. I'm saying if we moved it three feet, we'd now be six instead of three.

Oh, no. Six. Yeah. If we were to move them 3 ft further away to give us room to plant a row of trees in front of. But again, that would still allow us to have in the general vicinity to allow a street truck to come in and do the drop delivery as opposed to something else. I mean, at the end of the day, yeah, he can kick me if he wants to. I I think I think in the hierarchy the hierarchy of things that we would like obviously first is to be able to have the storage facility available. um if this board in its wisdom felt they needed to go somewhere else. Um I'm not sure where that is, but obviously I think it is is more inconvenient for the customers and inconvenient for Mr. Stacy. I tried to just provide one option which would be to pick them at two or three more feet and give us room to put four or five or six armor buddies right in front of them. Um eventually they might grow up to be eight or 10 or 12 feet tall and they might provide some screening. I don't know that that's going to cover the the view from the top but it would cover the street view. One last thing was if it's not on this property predates the uh the this property has been for so long that the right away from the state came later and the actual building physical building that's there that actually about 6 ft off the mountain. So the thing is is when I put the trailers in place and you understand that you know you're not supposed to be within a certain amount should move it but the problem isn't the whole property it's

kind of encroaching on that that's part of why we got relief. So I just want to let that question.

So it consists everything that I have. So if I had bee spray in the property is what I'm ask

I don't know 400 and something chemical. I have two binders that I gave to the to the town because when it comes to say propane they have a chemical list with their chemical folders or pages and you have to print them all out to provide to the town. So there was a very long list um and there were six chapters. Now the thing is when it comes to chemicals everything from cleaning agents to uh fertilizers are considered chemicals. So the thing with this is if I have uh 409 I have to put in there sunscreen has to be in there. uh two lime uh the uh lime that I talked about or the fertilizers that I talked about individually or all this in the house of those chemicals when you when it came to the sol they're on shelves.

Yeah. So the line in the building not line but I mean the cleaning agents on there.

Yeah. I just I understand that you're working for the bad fertilizers and that type of product but there's a lot of products that have chemicals in it that are part of um the agricultural um business. So the thing is it's yes we were planning on putting some products and development but it's a growing kind of idea like you said earlier at the time the definition of structured or non structure I didn't think it was an issue having them there at all and then I was determined later that there was

these the ones that you're talking about impact conservation that I'm going bag. You want to put those in the trailers, right? That's why you want

Yeah, because they're large they're larger bags. They're, you know, 25 lbs or 50 lb bags that come on a pallet. And the thing is is um obviously it's nice to have them in the building, but at the same time, you don't want too much of that product inside the floor space. The these trailers, I'm able to open up the doors. They air out every day. They're used. it's it's flowing inside the building. Um there's a certain amount only so much in so that's that's a concern. Um, like I said, technically I could put him outside and put him on a pal tarp and it would still be in my right, but I'm trying to do something to the best of to my ability. So, I'm clear on that. Um, so first when you came to the board, I wasn't board. When you came board two plus years ago, um, there were no trailers on the plans. They weren't confident. That's right. All right. At that time, we were planning on adding the same types of chemicals uh on correct. All right. And then at that time the plan was initially to keep those camps either a sign or on tar on couch or something else and since that time 200 plus years ago since then maybe it's a better in that to bring in the trailer. Is that is that accurate?

Yes.

Acceptance of the non. So you did say that it's Yeah. Right. So mobile yeah

this is literally my so there's there's I guess two aspects um as far as I see it kind based on my strong how I've come to do this one uh given the nature of what these are which is to say all the they're intending to be kept in place. There is a deck that's effectively attached to them and they're not registered. Whatever else given all these things perhaps back structures notwithstanding that it could if you hook them up and grease up the wheels down there. So that's one. two uh kind of broadcasting on the tiring of that concern is the idea that board said you can have you can operate the ad uh use here. It was with the idea that the thing operating there is a 30 800 square foot building that only exists without any additional uh any additional storage etc beyond what's outside. So without any other product, this was certainly a question that came up board was well the thing that was granted was this business that did not have two 800 foot indoor trailer storage attached to business and what is now being asked for is business plus larger version of that business which includes a square unit. So the first question we have to come up with is Branson not necessarily because it's a structure but because it adds effectively 800 mill of use indoor use to the property deciding whether or not that is a whether or not to allow the expansion of the use from 3800 plus outdoor to 3800 plus storage plus

that you're talking in house storage. Is that the determined storage? Yeah, enclosed storage because before it was determined that I didn't they proved for me to store stuff on the property. So it was intended at the time that if pallets of product were outside that is part of the business. So this is more for in close storage. But I I will say I mean understanding I I didn't put this on you that the structure thing I agree it's a point that has been debated and the right thing goes either way.

Uh but I will say in the original minutes from two years ago we have the line dacy explained that he's looking to keep the existing structure and make it more usable and not looking to expand beyond that what is there. You will be cleaning out the building. You will not be changing the physical structure to the building. Again, understand the structure. I'm not bad intent on you, but

to me, this does say, you know, this is a different size. Are there any questions to the applicants before closing public comments? I'm going to close this public comment. Please still answer them. This begins deliberation. Uh I'll say to start out we have two variances that we discussed. Uh the first one that we need to determine is a variance uh allowing the expansion of a non-formmal use. This is under the department of floor section for the floor. Uh what we will have to determine here is whether or not the applicant has demonstrated each of the five requirements for a variance which we have been hopefully walk through by the council. Um those items in very brief are that it's not contrary to public interest that the spirit of the ordinance is observed substantial investments are done values of surrounding properties will not diminish and enforcement of resulting unnecessary hardship. We have any discussion from the board with respect to anything or all of these categories of the application tests that does the neighbors would be too happy. Okay,

as a point of clarification for the restrictions 322 number two, oh sorry, number three parks and parks are specifically prohibited in this. Does that mean as well as monster

and it does not look like our regulations defy. Right. Which leaves me thinking I suppose that that is or us should say you believe that's the case.

If it wasn't thought it could be because mobile hearts are trailers but it's trailer. So just question it came up with any question. It has not come up and um the body workers even close and thought from board very quickly go through the reason why I've heard some of the uh testimony summarizing it this way. you know, kind of what's been said and that you know you're tagging and they all that you think I'm missing and you know so in brief uh refer that the trailers are well set back at least they're well set back not outside 25 ft but uh from where the actual road begins they are that other businesses nearby have some equipment out front and that goes to the car neighborhood that it hasn't passed restaurant other businesses. Um, this is potentially more rural at least than some of those other businesses that other locations on the property may be feasible or uh not as beneficial at the very least because they parking aspects of the property. Uh, we've also heard from that point that this location allows for access for drop offs and pickups of different uh various stores. and that it is farther from the weapons which is potentially impossible in case of leak. We've heard that it has uh community property given that it has existing buildings and parking which for this

area at least it's rather meaning that they already exist. And we've heard that the trailers are less permanent than a actual building being put there if ever need to move or exhausting them from residents. We've heard that the trailers are not particularly pleasing aesthetically, especially given that they're right out front. So very obvious and this impacts to the neighborhood. We prove that the location is rather close to the road although again 23 bin is still on the road side of the property. Uh we've heard that's difficult though maybe not possible to shield this trees depending on it's moving back a little further and heard relative ask about whether other options notwithstanding they may be permanent structures green houses may actually more than stand alone Thank you. Um, when you purchased the property, I'm assuming the two trailers were not there.

Um, these two these two trailers were not there when I purchased the property. Okay. So, the day you get the PNS, the two trailers were not there.

That's correct. And you purchased the property sometime after that. Then you put the two trailers in. Correct. Okay. any other discussion from the board before moving to any specific uh items that we're going to consider both. All right. This seeing none, I'm going to suggest that we need to start by considering uh variance requirement one which is that the applicant has or has not demonstrated that the variance is not contrary to the public interest for testing public interest. Um any thoughts on whether this it's contrary to the public interest? It's contrary to public interest that it is. We've heard testimony from virus that the trailers are visual and negative visual impact. Um and it is a further expansion that was approved two two and a half years ago. We have any other discussion on this? Hearing none, I would suggest a motion that the applicant has or has not demonstrated that the variance is not contrary to the public interest.

Motion. And what will that have to do? Um has not demonstrated. So we have a motion that the applicant has not demonstrated that the variance is not contrary to the public interest. Is there a second on that? All right. All in favor please say I. I. I. All opposed to that motion please say I.

All right. So that is four for has not demonstrated and one more one against. um the applicant does need to fulfill all of the variance requirements. So this will have the impact of denying the invariance. However, I'm going to suggest that we run through each of these standing uh the ultimate goal here just that we make sure that we consider each of them and record Mr. Chair. Are you taking separate votes on each of the variances or the collective application? This is on the initial variance first variance uh for expansion use which focus on each of the specific five variance criteria. The second variance consider okay that answer your question.

Yes it does. All right. Do you have any as to varance criteria that the spirit of the ordinance is or is not served by ransom. Being a motion that the applicant has or has not demonstrated that the spirit of the ordinance is observed by granting a verdict saying it has not demonstrated uh again it's an expansion of what was granted two years ago. It's a top lot and um proposing.

All right. Is there a second? Second. All in favor of the motion that the applicant has not demonstrated that the spirit of the ordinance is observed by grants awareness. I I right the third factor is substantial justice is done by trans has not demonstrated the justice is done. All right.

Yeah. Sounds like a motion. We have a motion that the applicant has not demonstrated the substantion justice is done by granting the variance and second. All in favor of that motion

I fine. Next criteria the applicant has or has not demonstrated that the values of surrounding properties are not diminished by granting variance. I will say we have heard little uh tangible testimony as to values of stranded properties. We haven't heard it one way or the other. There might be lease. That said, my common sense at least says that a neighbor who now is living next to a couple trailers one might be able to deduce that their property based on value. So, but we have not specifically heard any evidence I think in favor of this being neutral. As far as surrounding property that discussions,

we have a motion for not demonstrated. Uh, do you have second? We have a second here. All in favor has not demonstrated that the values surrounding properties are not diminished by granting variance. I

final fact review final sorry requirements um that the has or has not demonstrated that literal enforcement of the ordinance will involve in unnecessary ownership. We have discussion on whether or not this results in unnecessary ownership. you know, the business was set up with the theory that they would not have on the property. So, I can't see how it's been demonstrated impact. So, and not in a way that it's unnecessary to that extent. And the second motion in one way or the other was not demonstrating the liberal enforcement of the ordinance in unnecessary.

Right. Is there all in favor? All right. And this first build a second. Well, throughout this first stop, um, do I have a motion with motion beers that the applicant has not demonstrated that a variance should be granted for this article 4 section 44 once? We have a motion for that. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. All right. All in favor? I I

All right. So this variance is this first variance and it's the nine. We do have a second variance. may or may not let me ask the second variance is still with first variance the also looking for a uh perspective and second variance still

let's go through the processes all right so this second variance uh looks for relief from The ordinance article 3 section 3.2.2C2. This particular variance exceeding relief from the requirement that there should be a minimum depth of 25 ft between the mirror right away and structure. Um we discussed a little bit ago some of the test all testimony to be referred but some of it includes that this is in fact fairly far away from the road not standing as fairly close to the right of way. Um that's he do we have any discussion on uh this setting? But we've also heard from the lady that there

um yes visibility if they're actually allowed there to be put in a parking lot or put somewhere else where they seen which said they could be potentially placed elsewhere on this property. not understanding that that may be may not service uh all of the desires.

Uh any other discussion we want to move on otherwise we move on the first factor. See none. First factor is whether or not the applicant has demonstrated that the variance is not contrary to the public interest. We discuss an important motion with respect to this first. I make a motion that the applicant was not necessary is not to public.

Is there a second? All in favor? Hi. Hi. Father. Uh, second requirement that the applicant has or has not demonstrated that the spirit of the ordinance is observed by granting inverance. We've been discussing or notation with respect to this department. I am happy to answer the applicant has not demonstrated the spirit of the ordinance is uh has not been the spirit of the ordinance observed by inter second. All in favor

I third the pass has or has not demonstrated that substantial is done by granting variance. Uh do we have discussion during the motion second demonstrating the substantial justice is done by the parents? We have a second. All in favor?

I the applicant has or has not demonstrated that the values of surrounded properties are not diminished by grants and impairments. Do we have any discussion in respect of this requirement? All right. To neighbors way. Any other discussion motion? motion that the applicant is not demonstrated that the values of the surrounding property is not by a second. You have second. All in favor? Finally, the applicant has or has not demonstrated that liberal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary appe. uh on this one I'll say we also heard some evidence that if we missed uh it means that they will be forced to place the storage of certain chemicals closer to weapons which I think we can agree at least uh in one respect that adding it having the chemical weapon areas it's probably a benefit and having it stored closer weapons is a hardship to cover all of us. Um on the other hand, we have heard that these could potentially go elsewhere and understanding they might be a little closer to areas or whatever else. Uh we've also heard that the current location is optimal for

loading turns trucks pedestrian etc. really cutting us to unnecessary hardship.

I would just add that these chemicals could also be put on the other side of the building where accessing it by trucks may not be convenient. However, they would be taken by trucks and then moved into the back of the away from the in the back of the building whether they covered and talents or if they open the garbage. I would enterain a motion that the applicant have but has not demonstrated this new make that motion

which way that the applicant has not demonstrated that enforcement of the resultant unnecessary motion.

All right in favor or sorry second all in favor of that motion. All right. Uh finally, I would enter a motion that the applicant has not demonstrated the requirements to grant some varian. We have a motion that the applicant has not demonstrated the requirements for variance. We have a second. We have a second. The following favor.

I All right. Varian number two is also both days. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. American rights. Um, Mary. Um and um maybe we'll end up taking the trailers out and putting stuff under that way. Thanks. That's not a structure any longer. Pilot up under Thank you. And thank you to the public also you was here the last time. Thank you guys for sticking with it. Um, all right. So, we wrote this hearing as new business.

Yes. I would suggest we do the next There's nobody else. Students