Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Hang on one sec. Okay, you're live. Welcome. In accordance with the provisions of M in progress. Oh, wait. Welcome. No, that's okay. Sorry.

In accordance with provisions of Mass General Law, chapter 30A, section 20, notice is hereby given that the zoning board of appeals is meeting tonight, Wednesday, July 16th, 2025 at 7:00 p.m. in the town hall meeting room 124, 1 Liberty Lane, Northwork, Mass. Members of the public are welcome to attend this in person at One Liberty Lane or by a remote Zoom connection provided. Please note that the in-person meeting will not be suspended or terminated if technological problems interrupt the remote connection. I'll make a motion that we open the meeting for July 16th, 2025 at uh 7:05 p.m. Do I hear a second?

Second. All in favor? Hi. Hi. 700 p.m. We're a little late. Sorry about that. One Pine Street. Do I still read it in? Yeah, you still need to read it. Okay. So, I'm going to read it in now.

Yep. Okay. Notice hereby given in accordance to chapter 48 section 9 and 10 of the Massachusetts general laws and any all amendments there too that a public hearing will be held by the zoning board of appeals in room 124 at the Northolk town hall 1 Liberty Lane North Mass on Wednesday July 16th 2025 for the following application one Pine Street Ready Trust at 7 p.m. for a special permit from Norolk zoning bylaws uh 3 sections 3104.2 2 and 310 10.7 A2D to allow the installation of a gasoline and diesel fuel fueling station in addition to a variance from section 310-10.4B2A 4B2A to allow a 22 foot by 72 ft canopy over the fueling area to be 25.5 ft from Denims Street where 70 ft is required. Reference assess is map 9 block 81 block 13 in the C1 zoning district. This is just a overview of uh the project and the permitting that's involved with it. The uh conversion of the former transit seeding buildings which we're talking about one Pine Street there opened up a public hearing for site plan approval with the planning board at the July 8th planning board meeting. The um the peer review is ongoing so that's not complete. So, just to let you know that's occurring. Um, the public hearing was continued to the August 12th meeting and at the a the July 9th meeting, the public hearing for the notice of intent was opened up. that was continued as

well to the August meeting uh in order to have the peer review fully underway in terms of both site plan and the wetlands protection act and local bylaw. So for tonight they're here for you for the use. Um I would imagine you would want to be able to get that peer review of some of the comments. So tonight will be more so just to hear the presentation and any butters and then continue to your next meeting. Just question. Do we have to have a separate vote to open the hearing? We we voted to open the meeting. Yeah, you did. Yeah. Yes. Right. So you want to make another formality ahead? Okay.

All right. So I'll make a motion that we open the uh we open the meeting to the public hearing as I just read in second. All in favor say I. Hi. Um, so you just gave us the overview of the application a little out of order. Uh, it sounds like what they're Is this going to be a public filling station or is it going to be a private use filling? No, no, it's for the open to the public. It's a gas station. It's going to be a gas station with the barn still there. They're not removing the barn or they changing the barn. The the barn remains. You'll see. We'll have put up some renderings of it. It's going to be retrofitted into a convenience store. Okay.

Um and then you'll see as well they added a canopy um with a pitch roof to kind of mimic and match the uh the barn. Their their engineer and the applicant are both online and how the engineer is going to make the presentation via Zoom. Hal, can you hear us? Yes, I can. Can you hear me? Yep. I've made you a co-host. Do you want to? Yes. Thank you. Yes. Uh, are you ready? Yes, we are. Go ahead.

Okay. Uh, good evening and thank you for the opportunity. Uh, Mr. Chair and members of the board. For the record, my name is Chuba. I'm a consulting engineer with offices at 112 State Road in Dartmouth, Massachusetts. And I do represent the applicant on this application. As Richard indicated, this is the uh what we have in front of you tonight is this the first hearing of uh the special permit and the variance application. So, uh, the property is located at the intersection of Dam Street, Route 1A and Pine Street and and it's located in the commercial C1 zoning district. And I'm sure you're all familiar with the with the place. I heard that the the app the uh the chairman was concerned about the the barn, whether the barn is still there or not. And I'll tell you that, you know, we did uh design our our gas station around the the uh uh the barn and and and keeping in mind that this is a landmark in the town of Norolk and we want to keep it. Uh just to give you a little background, uh we I've been working with Richard and the various departments in the town for the past 8 n months. So we had at least three or four informal meetings where we changed the plans. It you know we went to the first uh version of the plans. We sat down there was some concerns. We went back to the drawing boards. We changed the plans came back the second third time to make sure that we address all the comments and concerns from the board. Again this is going to go for peer review. So we, you know, but we wanted to tonight it's kind of introduction to the project and we wanted to get some feedback from you. Same thing as we did with the planning board last week. Uh so the as I mentioned the property is located in the S1 district. Uh may I share my uh my

screen Elaine if I can? Um, I did make you a co-host, but um, yeah, you should be able to co Okay, let me try it then because I want to go over what's there now and then what we trying to do. Um, and I'm going to just for continuity, I'm going to follow along what you have in the room because so the board Well, actually, most you could. Well, except for why you can't really see it. You can see it, Courtney, right? Yeah, I can see that better. All right. Okay. Can you see? Yes. Yep. We can see it very well.

Okay. Thank you. So, so this is the property and the property is about uh almost 2 acres 1.98 acres but uh most of 1.2 acres of the property right now which renting uh fine and that is already developed with the 3,600 ft building. You all know the barn uh shaped building in in in this area here. access to the property is uh via two uh existing driveways, one from Pine Street and one from Den Street. They're both full access driveway means in enter and exit. Um to the to the uh south of the property, there's a big portion of wetlands and also to the uh west um of the property is the stock river. So if you apply the 200 ft uh river bank, this is where the river bank is almost going through the middle of the of the of the uh of the building. Um we'll go to the site plan with the site plan. Uh what we wanted to do here and as you see this is the 200T buffer of the river and we wanted to stay outside obviously outside the 200T buffer and if you apply the setbacks you really don't have much room you might have very small area here but it's right against the driveway another very small area here against the driveway so the best place for the canopy would be where we showed on the plan uh as I mentioned before this is a special permit for the use first because the use is only allowed by a special permit from the zoning board area and also we need a relief on the setback for the canopy uh for the front setback. Again, I did submit a memo to the zoning board of appeal explaining that if we apply the

70 foot setback from the front because as you see this lot has almost 600 laner feet of frontage because it's it's a corner lot on the curve and if you apply the 70 ft most of that area here almost 40,000 square ft which is almost an acre half of the lot is within the setback. So really and because of the soil conditions in the back with the wetlands and the shape of the log. So I think we can we can justify the the uh the uh variance for for uh for this project. And again um you know the the the tanks would be located to the north of the existing building. Uh I did submit plans showing the delivery of the fuel. There's no issue with the fuel truck coming in and coming out from the site. Uh the all the um underground fuel storage tanks would be double tanks in compliance with and all the fueling system the fire canopy the fire suppression will be in compliance with local state and federal regulations. This will have to go for another review with the fire marshall. Uh again because of the the the uh the the one in the back we did file with Hong Kong. It's going through a peer review and at this time we're gathering all the com feed and feedback and and concerns from all the different different boards so we can make the changes to the plans at hopefully one time and we don't have to go back and reopen or close here. Uh the uh uh I wanted to show you what the building would look like. This is some of the drainage. I mean storm water would be uh reviewed by the uh by the peer review again and we'll be in compliance with mass DP. Uh this site is already

developed so we do have water on the site. We do have gas and we do have an existing uh uh septic uh and uh infiltration system. We do have some proposed uh landscape in the front and again this will be reviewed through the section review uh the existing building. Um this is the existing building and we're trying to preserve the building to the extent practical because you know I I I I know how much you know first when my when my client came to my office and look you know show me the site I didn't know what the building looked like it kind of and I said you know we need to get rid of this building this is how it's going to work. He said, "No, no, no. You don't understand. We need to keep the building. We need to work around the building because we would like the Tom would like to and I would like to keep the building." So, uh uh this is we do some modification to the building side on uh on this is the parking lot or dead street site where we have a new entrance to the building. the the one facing pine we're we're we we're keeping a bond door you know which which is I think it adds to the character of the building. Uh this is the layout the floor layout is basically a convenience store with some walk-in coolers and you know making it all the bathrooms accessible in compliance with all building codes. Uh this is the canopy elevation and I I think Richard mentioned you know we have an A-frame canopy with the metal roof that would match the existing building. So this way we combine the two together. Uh I do have a rendering of you can see the rendering of what the site would look like with the canopy

and the A-frame roof. And u again like I said we would like to get your feedback and whatever concerns you have. So this way we can we can uh uh uh add to what we heard from the planning board and the obviously the conservation and the peer review and we can make the changes that we need to make. Um I'll be happy to answer any questions you have at this time. Thank you. What I'm trying to see on the plan what the setback is to the canopy uh from the road itself from your property line 25.5

25.5 25 okay one corner is at 39 and the other's at 255 turn question yeah I see that Mr. Ch. Yes. Yeah. I guess the one thing that's going to come to my attention is that we have to consider our variance for this. Right. Right. And you know, one of the things is that you know, think about whether it's going to be soil or topography, whatever. I mean, one of the things is the building. It's the building that's pushing this to the to the front if I'm correct. Right. Yeah. There's no room at the back. So you if we're not moving the building or we're not changing the building,

it that's creating one of the limiting factors for their space on front. I'm not sure how that works into being able to consider the variance building itself. I mean granted it looks very nice for what it is. It's just more of I'm going to be concerned also the number of parking spaces that they get putting in here. That's this. That's my second concern. That has to do with the peer review though. I think but the thing is but going back to the variance side of our uh I'm just wondering will we properly have the ability to give a variance based on either soil topography but yet the building is really a criteria.

They have a wetlands buffer that you can probably hang your hat on is pushing the pumps to the front of the lot if you wanted to. Okay. And I mean that's a soil conditioner. It is a soil condition. And I and I also believe I don't know. You could argue it's a corner lot. Can Can I go ahead, Mike? Okay. What's the existing pump house on the on the left corner of the sheet? Existing pump house. Cuz I I I I believe that's a that's a a well a a water well, right? Yeah, it is.

Yeah. Yeah. And I'm not sure what it's used for, but uh the I mean I can get I mean I can I can What's the aquifer? Yeah. But we're not doing anything to it, but I'll I I can get the dimension. Yeah. And I'd want to know the distance to the if the well is actually in the pump house or the where's the well head in comparison to your lot. I'd want to know uh uh in well it's right on the the bump house is right in between the the two properties which my client owns. I I did the property to the to to the east too.

Mhm. Uh so in relation if you can uh in relation to where the bumps are going I can tell you that this is over 100 ft or 120 ft. Uh okay whose well is it? Yeah. Yeah. I I I want to know what it fed cuz I I believe that's an old aquifer in there and that was an old artisian well for that when it was an uh field. I I believe you're correct. Yeah. So, I just want to know just give me a number there. In the text of the application, there's reference to a zone 2 wellhead area, but I don't see it marked on the plan.

Right. I I don't think this well is necessarily the thing that's generating the zone 2, but I was just wondering what the f I just like to know where the head is. Yeah, there is.

But again, be on piano. I have another I have another question. Did Did you have to come be or did they previous owners have to come before the zoning board to get a variance in order to put the building up? I I didn't see that with the I met with the building inspector few times and I don't believe see because this is in the over also in the mixeduse over um in the mixuse uh overlay district and the mixuse overlay district I believe it was 30 ft for the for the setback but we didn't know which setback to apply so we went with the most uh stringent one figuring if we need to get it you know uh uh variance we'll get the variance from the board, but uh this is something I can check uh because the the obviously if it's a 70 foot setback that uh building is an existing non-conforming building,

correct? So on the screen behind you, there's the the zone two. Okay. Yeah, I know I have the line. The zone two has a different setback than residential. Uh the zone two is a wellhead protection area for public water supply. So that's its own special buffer to protect public water as opposed to private water supply. I'm pretty sure that's So Mr. Chair, if I could Could you do a quick measurement on that? So all the So sir, all the canopies, they all are within the 71. You want to measure the uh just the edge of the Yes, they are.

Oh, the building that's the building itself. So the canopies are right on the other side of the zone 2 wellhead, right? Yeah. Oh yeah, that that's the intention to keep everything out of the 200 foot buffer and the and the uh the uh zone too. And that's another reason why we think you know we can you know we have a unique law with shape and topography and and soil so and structures. Which direction is the water flowing here? the groundwater. I I would I would stop. No, ground water moves to the side. The stop river flows that way.

It's probably the same flowing toward Walpole. I'm just my the question behind it is if the gas tanks leak, is it leaking in the with the ground flow with it's going to affect my cows? Well, I'm just never go through my backyard. I'm just but the flow of the water underground usually moves kind of sideways and so I'm asking which question I'm asking which way the water is moving here like where what are the hydrodnamics because if the oil leaks is it going to push towards the river or is it going in a different direction? No, he's putting double walls full alarm system. So it works and it

they're almost foolproof. Yeah, they have double wall filler pipes as well. What about all the drips on the ground though? That's different on the top. That's totally different on the top. Yeah. Well, I know, but I'm just saying it's the drinking water supply is very close by. I'm just asking which way the water if it when it runs off, is it going to seep into the ground and run towards our drinking water as it seeps further down to the aquifer or is it going to go in the other direction? Well, I think that's what the peer review is for. For our intent of purposes, we're talking zoning. Well, I think it's use related though because what's in front of us is a special permit for the use, but it

is use related. So I'm asking if the use is safe given the other uses the adjacent surrounding land uses such as public water supply to be able to do it. They have to go through the other the other hearings before we can actually finish out our determination. We need to hear what they have to say before we do that. Um but the the question on the table is special permit for the use and a variance for the setbacks. Yeah. Um, now underground some of the questions you're asking actually are good questions and I think some of the peer review will like I said you'll you'reing questions have them from what I

I just didn't know if the engineer on the horn knew it off the From what I understand an underground tank still is a structure. Is that correct? We ex It's exempted in the structure cuz I just read it. Yeah. Not for not for setback. No, not if those were above ground tanks. Yes, that would be a totally different You'd need a variance for that. Set back. But those are underground tank. I mean, we put them at dies, right? They're right on the road. All right. They just have a cover. Yeah. So, I thought that that metal roof was over that at first, but it's not. You can see it on a site plan. It's just too concrete, right? Um it's Yeah. The canopy.

Yeah. Well, in in keeping with town, I think if you if you think about dailies and you think about this in town, yeah, we're within, you know, we're in variance mode on both of them. Yeah. Do both of them have a variance? I don't know. I would hope dailies did, but Dy's not a pre-existing non-conforming. I don't know if they had a canopy back then. No, they had a much smaller can on the street. You have to install a canopy, not the I don't suppression. I I don't remember the canopy coming to our attention. Meaning it it I don't think it was a variance. I don't recall. I don't

Yeah, because obviously the one on Denim Street would be the closest and and that's not 70 ft. I What's going on at the Oh, the one the one at the Gulf station. Yeah. Yeah, that's definitely not 70 ft. So, I guess I'd want to know that if we gave Yeah. I mean, we've already set precedents. We've already set precedents for daily. They both had variances. If they move that canopy back to 71 ft, then they didn't. Right. Yeah. Mr. Chair, let me ask let me ask Rich a question. Rich, on the um with the planning board, do you know in the peer review what the scope of that review is? Are they going to be reviewing some of these things like traffic, sight lines, groundwater, the whole or is it limited to certain things that

No, no. that that's all within the scope of it cuz they got to do a storm water review as well. So, um they've got a and that's done by traffic impact report. I saw that some initial storm water discussion but yeah I was just wondering because I know it's close but not next to it but concern more with is part of it is storm water and the dribbles and how doing a measurement right now. I know what what are you what are you finding for a measurement? So that one looks like it's probably like 80 ft. So yeah, I don't that one. So that one might make it. That's the Gulf station. I'd want to know the answer to that. Y if if one or both.

Well, this one appears to be good as far as 70. I I don't trust that too. Well, I know, but I don't know. I don't remember. You have 10 ft in 80 ft though is within the realm of the Yeah, I don't remember a variance for that canopy at the Gulf station. No, they would have intentionally put that further off the road. I was here for a long time. I I don't remember. I remember the Gulf station coming to us, but not the canopy. So, in terms of Yeah. I wouldn't So, would it just It's general reference for property lines, but in terms of what's on the ground, it's scaling off what? Um, yeah. Yeah. And like I said, 81 ft. Yeah. So,

and I don't remember coming. They came to us. I They We didn't do We didn't do variance for the canopy if I remember correctly. It would have just been the special permit for the use. I believe so. I believe so. Yes. Is there a way to check dies? Dies two Rockwood Road dies. Yeah. Yeah. I can I'll dies in the same zoning district. No, it's in the town center has a different zoning district. So, I thought it had uh zero lot lines in it. Oh, well then it doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. So then that doesn't matter. But is there anything else on D Street recent? uh entirely perturbed about the setback as long as it doesn't have crazy elimination or illuminated signage on it

cuz that's when it's I mean I know that but they're asking for setback relief and I'm just saying ask to set back relief again is don't make it obnoxious to help welfare and that's glare and light and all that crap. They I mean they the building's already in the 70oot setback. Yeah, but I'm only talking about the canopy. No, I agree. Yeah, I'm I mean they're making it worse by putting the canopy, but No, I don't think the building is. It is 73. The building is 73 and 70 ft. Yeah, probably the building was set out of the I'm sure it's a 70 foot setback and they have a building setback line which is dotted and it looks like it goes right through the building. It is. Oh, that's for the for for the um that that's the 200 foot I believe.

No, it goes over it's within the step back. Yeah, I think the corner says 73.8 ft. I see that corner and I see the corner that says 70.7. Yeah, I think maybe your setback is line is off. How's the build this? What sheet has the setback off of the street on it? It said sheet number four. I'm on sheet number four, I believe. 70.7 on one corner and 73.8 on the other. Well, I would say he's good for the setback on the building. This much. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Yeah. By about that. Yeah. The building is set back. I will say as part of the I get

internal discussion just in terms of the placement of the canopy. It was closer or had less of a setback to the street. Yeah. But because of circulation from you got to get fire lanes in there. to move. Yeah. To move emergency vehicles so that the the canopy end up coming closer to um Datam Pine. Mhm. I have never seen a purveyor of gasoline who wants to tuck their pumps behind the building anyway. No. Yeah. True. I agree. Right. He makes Yeah. And he's his sight doesn't allow him anyway because of

Yeah. And we wouldn't want him to. So that and they've got an odd shaped lot. They've got the corner lot issue. They've got the soil issue from the wetlands. You you mentioned Cy mentioned an interesting point about the illumination around this area. Well, I don't know if it's in our guides, but it should be discussed when it gets back to the planning board maybe that this intersection is not lit, meaning there's no street lights at this intersection. All you have the traffic light, the poles that are there, no street lights. So, I don't know if this warrants getting that rectified cuz it's always been an issue in this intersection that we don't have even four kicks doesn't have light number of people that are leaving

if if the local businesses they have the lights on, you have a little bit of light, but otherwise it's the street light only. Oh, interesting. Yeah, some some of that should have been rectified. Can I ask uh Rich to find out answer to a question? Has this ever been proposed to the zoning board before? That's what I was wondering. A previous applic No, they are on the other corner cuz they couldn't do it here.

So I I'm just curious like if this has been it'd be long before the building was even built. Long before the bottom. I mean, it's I'm thinking 30 years ago. Can't remember that one time. So, I can I don't know if I get an answer for you tonight. No, no, no. But I can definitely Yeah. In the next like to know if there was any relief previous. So, two things. I want to know if there was relief asked for for the barn and I want to know if relief has been asked for before for the lot. Okay. All right. Cuz I don't think anyone is on the board that long here. going to have to go to

gonna have to go to the Norfick room in the library and go look at the minutes from 1922. Yeah. Over 15, maybe more. Yeah. Were you here when Bert Russo was it? Which one? Bert Russo. No, not Bert Russo. That was That was insert. I'm forget I'm forgetting some of the names. How long you been a long time ago? The whole time. 57 years. Is that the whole time? Question on the sidewalk. No, it's a to ask. I don't know how the wells are. We're going to watch the in the same spot. All right, we got too many conversations going again. We have another We have another question about sidewalk.

Just just a question to the to the engineer. Um the paved sidewalk. I'm just cur Is that existing? Is the Is the applicant going to add that sidewalk? I'm just curious. What sidewalk you're It says paved sidewalk right in front of the property. Is that existing or is he going It's on 115. Yeah, it's probably on 115. Is it there now? Street also. If you look on the Yeah, when there's above when the state road was right there when they did that state road came through. Yeah, they did that. But there's none on this side obviously. No, there's none. What happens on the plan? Yeah, cuz it's existing. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Is this gas only or are they also thinking uh charging

charging station? Uh no, I was thinking electric charging. the um it's planning it's planned for future for EV. Yeah, the um I think the bylaw only references gas and diesel, but yeah. So, we did at the Mintown meeting, we just added um EV charging, right? Because next door. Yeah, because of next door, right? Parking lot across two doors down. Yeah. Two properties down. It's a business. Charging stations is Oh, absolutely. But I'm sure our local electric vehicle owners wouldn't mind a supercharger, you know,

especially while they're going in and getting their Yahoos. I have seen two odd oddities at gas stations recently and once was one was an Amish guy pulling up the horse and carriage and the other was a Tesla. And I'm like, neither of you have business here at this gas station. Just wanted a drink, huh? Yeah. So it is uh right there you pal the um the well was for the property owner there wasn't um that that well been there 50 years that is a that was a public water supply cuz it came out of that river that that river goes all the way behind Mitches. Yeah.

It's the reason why none of that was able to be developed. That's when the other no comment. And Rich Mitch, one more question. Do you know when the peer review expects to have their report in? Yes, I do. It'll it'll be within the next week or two. Okay. Cuz they're back before the the planning board on the 12th. So, as soon as I get it, I can forward it. The Stop River feeds Highland Lake and then it comes out of the dam there and comes back down out behind my property. And the the sewer treatment plant dumps into it. Where's the outfall relative to your cows? Uh, right out back. Are you up or down? I'm downstream. Bummer.

Is it influent dominant or or do you know? It doesn't actually affect me because I have a tributary stream that goes into it. Yeah, my stream is clean and upstream from it. Well, what you know what they're discharging would be clean anyway. It wouldn't have Yeah. It wouldn't have poooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo in it or anything. Anybody else got anything for this? You have anything else? No. No. No. I think um we should make a motion. Just three things, right? The well, yes, variance for the pro for existing building, variance for the property ever applied for, right? Should we be closing the meeting or continue make a motion to continue?

What date should we continue to? The 20th of August is your next meeting. Okay. I think that makes sense. What time? Yep. Um well, It's going to be Yeah, we already have one at 701. So, the question is, do you want to tackle this a little bit before the continual lake well 14 stop river appeal or do you want to do it after that? I mean, you want you want to put them both at 701? Well, we do want to win 7. Yeah, can we take the case first? This first? You know what I'm saying? Do this at 7. We have one at 7:01. Yeah. Yeah. So, just say if you want to do this first, not stop river.

Yeah, let's do this first. That's what I was thinking, right? Yeah. Okay. That's what I'm saying. That's what I agree. I think this we'll go through that. This I think will be faster, right? Um for continuous purpose, why don't you do it seven that way? That's right. 7:00. Yeah. All right. So, make a motion.

Before we make a motion, I I'd just like to ask the engineer, were you looking for any feedback from us other than the three questions that we really have? Uh, no, not really. I want, you know, I know you had a question about the, uh, sidewalk and this came up during the planning board, too. We're trying to tie the the cross the sidewalk from Denim Street on the northerly side to pine. I think this we're going to take this into consideration but uh no and most of your comments will be answered uh through peer review and but as far as the setbacks and relief if I may I mean really even if you granted this you're not setting a precedent because normally you would look at for variances you need to look at case by case uh I'm hearing so I really believe that this lot could with the constraints in the back with the river and the wetland and and zone two and building on the site and the shape of the lot. I think it really is uh a good candidate for variance and and I just wanted to add I heard something about like the leakage. Yeah, I didn't me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me mention that all the the the the structures on site the drain structures have uh the uh deep sump and they have oil water separators and then after all the the the runoff is collected it's going to a BMP structure like a V centry or or uh 450i for treatment before discharge and again we also have a valve if you look at the grading and range plans we do have a a valve that we can control in case there's a big spillage from on site that you can, you know, shut off that valve and then it won't your water won't be into the infiltration system. But

what's the maintenance plan for the treat for the storm water structures? They only work when they're maintained, especially with oil capture in Yeah. inspection twice a year and cleaning for every uh it's on the normally it's four times a year and cleaning probably twice a year they they pump the water out whatever is needed. So okay the the only other thing that I would like to know is if the Gulf station ever requested a variance for their canopy. Mhm. I'll double check. It doesn't seem it doesn't seem like it, but if they if they did and then set it back because of that,

and I understand his concern is it's individual, but this is not a this is not a use of this lot. So, he's asking for a use. Would you want the um beta to be at the next meeting if you had any questions for them? Um uh I I think I I I think to be honest if I could the third party reviewer if I could see the report more than a day or two before we can see the report then I think we could get some questions maybe to beta via you um but if it's yeah I really I don't I don't think so but not at this point

the if you're anticipating the peer review report is done next week anyway that means that it would ready for distribution 3 weeks before our next meeting too. That gives us time to see the level of concern and whether or not we want to call in beta or just ask questions to see how we got time. We can play it by ears. Yep. Yeah. And before I make the motion, I was going to mention um can Rich can be can we have them review the the lighting at that intersection? Can we ask Yeah. In terms of Yeah. Can I ask someone? Can I ask you to make sure that gets I will ask them in terms of this lighting is there isn't lighting. There is no lighting. I'd like to

too much lighting question. Yeah. Right. So please and the other I just want to mention the drawings I'm looking at like the one that's on the display right now and the rendering are showing us are we are we indicating exact number of trees or whatever that's being shown there. It's not it's not just or they're showing bushes or you know Yeah. I've only the rending doesn't match what I'm seeing on the drawing. But yeah, I think that's planning more, right? That that will structure. Right. Right. So he's asking strictly for variances for Okay. I just want to mention that that I saw a difference between the rendering and that planning board's going to tell them how many trees and what they are and where they go.

No, it's a fair point. So what you represent how on the rendering should match the site plan? It should. I mean what we did on the first No, there's some missing trees. That's not unexisting that's there now because there was an air I guess we superimpose the aerial to to the uh to the canopy, but we'll we'll make sure they're both match. Okay. Yeah, that's good.

The only thing that I would say that if you could ask would be to get the sidewalk around the site and coming down to them. But again, I I think that would be for later. But um they're going to improve the site, make the walk because the person that improves the next site can make it go down. And that agreed. I I I think I think that's part of uh site cost. Correct. Um that and and it doesn't need to be taken in by the town. Yeah. the one we want to ask your thought on the probably would there's nothing next to it that it would if anything it probably would be on the other side of the street. Yeah. Um

okay. Well, there's got to be some type of land shows where it's going to be eventually. Well, no. The only reason why I say is this this is all this this prop. If you look on behind you Mhm. This is the uh that property there is under conservation restriction. Mhm. Stop right over there. And then you come down the valley street. So you're there is some there is businesses on the opposite side. Right. Is that what you're thinking? Or on their side?

On their side. So that anybody can walk cross over and walk down and go in or I I think that sidewalk should be in front of both sides of the gas station. Well, they're showing it on Pine Street, right? That's correct. It's already the Denim Street sidewalk. I just think it should come around though. It'd be nice to have a sidewalk on Denim Street. You know, eventually that's going to get developed. I know you say it has a restriction, but I mean there's always there's always even if there's a even if there's a CR on it, which are actually very difficult to break, but even if there's a CR on it, you can still run a sidewalk in the rightway, of course. Yeah,

that's just a town expense at that rate, which is however, I would argue that the sidewalk on that side of the street is a better gig because there's industrial on the other side, which means heavy trucks. And unless you want to play pancakes with children with each curb cut, I would I would put on the other side of the road where there aren't curb. Yeah, I was only thinking the other side because there are businesses if somebody wanted to walk there. Putting the sidewalk in make the uh it makes the separation between the canopy and the line closer, doesn't it? No, they already No, the setback is not being measured from the street. The setback's being measured from the property, right?

Right. Property line on Denim Street looks like it goes right to the road. There's a pretty good No, there's We're at 73.8 10 ft there. Yeah. Yeah. So, you think there's enough room to get that in? Well, there's enough room down. Yeah. Worst case scenario. So, one of the just on the sidewalk conversation, one of the question was potentially having a a sidewalk from Denim and Pine that necessarily was more direct. to the property as opposed to so that was one of the things that looking at

I I would agree from where the corner is I'd cut one right through to the canopy now you're directing people into traffic flow and you can't do that I know that's a downside I would not go for that so they should plan for some kind of pedestrian access though to the property because little kids will walk here to buy sodas and stuff and there is actually no interior pedestrian This is this is a site plan issue though. We'll defer to the planning board. But if they wanted to think about interior pedestrian circulation, especially if they are thinking about putting chargers in there because those people are sitting around for 20 minutes, which means that they mill about,

right? And the again the master plan calls the additional sidewalks linking it to development where possible. So again, whether where they're putting a sidewalk even they're putting it on Denim Street for us, it'd be great to get a sidewalk out of this. Some sort of increase in sidewalk is always good thing to get. Vehicle protection, too, at a major intersection. All right. Are we good? Yep. Nothing else. Yeah. I'm going to make a motion. We should make a motion. I'm going to make a motion that we continue the hearing to August 20th at 7:00 p.m. A second. All approved. I So moved. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good day, sir. Good night. Good night. Uh Is there any other business?

We have any other business tonight? Yeah, we do. Okay. So you have executive session minutes to approve with no discussion. And then under UN and then under any other unanticipated business we were going to talk about zoning that you had talked about the last meeting which I didn't get on the the agenda but we're going to talk about un unanticipated as far as far as it's drafted isn't it? I I put together some language for you to look at just some some things to spitball for conversation in short conversation. It was in there. I read it cuz it was that information about what you were talking about with the

Well, just to answer the question, it was it's under unanticipated as far as the minutes. I reviewed the minutes. All right. So, I I have no problem approving them if everyone agrees. Yep. I'll approve. Let's make a motion to approve the minutes individually. Do it individually. Remind me the dates then. They're right. They're right on this one. Can we put the approval for all of them in one motion? Can I do one motion as submitted? Because nobody's going to edit. You should do them separately. Okay. All right. I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes for January 15th executive session. Um, do I hear a second? Second. All All in favor? I.

I will to make a motion that we approve the minutes for March 19th executive session. Second. All in favor? I. And I'll make a motion that we approve the executive session minutes for May 21st. Second. All in favor say I. I. So move. Okay. So I can sign those tonight. All right. So with that, we have no correspondence. We have some new business that um new un other anticipated unanticipated business of possibly discussing Yeah. some things. So I I have it recorded provided on the screen to

Oh, there it is. Oh, very good. Yeah. So, can you blow that up a little bit because my eyesight's not quite as good as it used to be? Sure. You can read it. I can but let's go 130. How's it then? I can go a little more. That makes even my right eye happy. The left eye still room. No, you're good. All right, everybody. Mhm. Okay. Am I good? So, what are we here? I'm going to So, this is under non-conforming uses. I'm going to give Courtney the floor. Okay. Okay, tell us what it's

Let me let me tell you which ones are splitting hairs versus not splitting hairs and some of the rationale. Uh the first uh exception for non-conforming single family uses including existing accessory structures. Uh the thing that sticks in my craw is whether or not we're going to see somebody take um like a garage that's sitting in the setback. Like it's better when it's an existing structure. It hurts our feelings a little more when, you know, if they want to do something like extend that garage a little bit. If it's existing, that doesn't bother us as much, I think, as when somebody says, "I'm going to put, you know, like a new structure there cuz my lot is already non-conforming." And so this is just a thought and feel free to reject whether or not we want to um limit our exceptions just for existing as opposed to uh new accessory structures that might benefit from some nonconformities.

So the one thing I was just thinking about Corey was we did the special permit provision. has a job with I uh so there's the special permit provision and so I was having thoughts about this whether or not this creates a conflict or not and I need to think more about it. So that's why I was just like this one is is something I don't have a lot of thoughts on this one right now. The main things I was thinking about are further down which is when we get into the actual structures and you want to go use first or uh I think I don't think I put anything in there. I think it it goes straight to structures. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry, I structures.

Okay. So, this is um a style thing, but um some people prefer to regulate from the point of view of authorizing what you can do and some prefer to regulate from the perspective of what you cannot do. The first sentence here is written from the perspective of what you can do. So, keeping in the tone of what we can do, we change the second one to what you can do as opposed to what you cannot do. But makes it clear that if they're going to ask for the special permit that they're not looking to violate the setback any more than 50% of the required setback for the new portion. So, if the required setback is currently 20 ft, that says we'll wave up to 10 ft. So, it puts kind of some bumpers on it. This is also a stylistic choice. You can say up to 10 feet and just say, you know, 10 feet is our hard limit. You could say um it doesn't have to be 50%. But this is more or less where you would put in that bumper as to how like a hard limit on how far we would be willing to wave. I think the last time we saw something uncomfortable was in the 6 ft range, something like that. And so this would keep us out of, you know, fire hazard, but um would put some

I think we had a I think we just had a swimming pool or something that went into the the sideyard of a and that that ended up I think it was closer than 25 ft even. No, you know what? Just clarify it. It met the setback, but because it was on the corner lot, it was actually 50 ft. Correct. That's what I'm saying. instead of the side goes to the back. So, correct. And I can agree with that because the speech special circumstances for the corner,

but if you want to take it and put a hard number on it, then we might as well just change this up. Well, what I'm saying is if if we put a hard number on that, that wouldn't have been approved because if you actually go to the 50% of the if it's a hard number or 50% of the setback, that pool couldn't have gotten in there because 25 would have been the setback. So, in reality, we wouldn't have been able to approve the pool by zoning rules. We could write in an exemption also for yards with two front or lots with two front yards.

We could also do a uh two for where you do 50% or hard limit whichever is greater or whichever is less. There are two word smithing ways to go about that as well if you want to do a dual standard. But the idea is just kind of we don't need to by any stretch of the imagination decide on a metric this evening. I just kind of wanted to put some language forward of where you tweak and so that we could make so it's a little more tangible of like what the tweaks like what the choices are where when you make the tweaks. This is just one version. Um further I also um this is redundant in some ways to special permit standards but I did put in a clause here at the end that at our discretion we may request additional landscaping fencing or acoustical screening. All three are screening mechanisms when something's close on the setback andor storm water improvements to mitigate uh potential impacts on neighboring properties. Those are the main things I could think of us ever asking for when somebody's close.

I can see those two being like added, right? If we given leniency for I can see us saying you got to put in our bides cuz you know you need we even said that about the pool guy. We did. Yeah. And so this gives us more ability to offset the impacts where it's like the encroachment's minor generally speaking I think as far as most of us are concerned but we want to make sure that we are mitigating potential future impacts that most things are pretty easy but we have seen decks come up that we've been concerned about um you know noise impacts where it's just like all right but they could also put up an acoustical screen that will just channel the noise upward and it looks like a normal fence it's no big deal. Correct.

Yeah. Which, can you just scroll back up a little bit? Just so I can go back over that. Yeah. How's that for me? You see both? That's fine. Oh, the other thing I was thinking about was whether or not we actually wanted to wave coverage or height. Oh, yeah. This is This is merits more discussion. Uh over height buildings tend to annoy people. So, I'm not sure about whether or not we want to do that. 35. I mean, this is already, you know, largely single family homes that we're dealing with. 35 ft is the height limit. That's, you know, three and a half stories. That's a pretty That's reasonable to work with. Well, not here though. Remember, two and a half. Two and a half. Now,

it depends on who I'm like, depends on who you ask, but the Florida floor is. But, um, at the moment, lot coverage also, we have kind of a public purpose as to why we limit lot coverage. And so the thought again there was whether or not um the bylaws currently allow you to expand like if your house burns down and it's all non-conforming you can rebuild plus 500 ft. This would make sure the 500 ft generally go up as opposed to outward

the nonconforming or or conforming lots. Well, this is I'm just saying that maybe we limit what we're waving just as setbacks and not lock coverage or height. Maybe we harness our powers and limit them a little bit and leave height and lot coverage as variance conditions. This is some this is again more theoretical but just something to noodle on. But um we have really broad latitude right now which is great but it's also hard to say no when you have sure [Music] um

part B is demo and reconstruction. Um, if you want to scroll, Rich, I think there's Yeah. Yes. Limited action in here.

And 50%, right? Yep. Right there. Probably 50%. So, that's what it's going to say. So there is this about this like that's why I wanted to ask chat about

this needs refinement because there's you're allowed to be you're allowed to maintain your existing non-conformities. I'm just saying new cuz like again it's the same idea that if you're expanding if you're building 500 square ft that could go somewhere. So, I was just hoping that new space doesn't go into So, does that mean that the the reconstruction is it like an either or? May not exceed by 500 ft or or is it currently it was supposed to be both? They can't do both. Right now, it's just it can't be more than 500 square ft. That's what it's read.

Yeah. And then my the thought was that and this does not currently say it because I'm looking at I was I didn't do this and I went on vacation and then I was like, "Oh crap, I need to do this." So, I did this in about 20 minutes. So, sorry I didn't put all the thoughts in, guys, but I didn't want to run late. Does it, if I would to understand it, should it say more than 500 ft and any new um or encroaching? I'm just talking and it should also say and may not also encroach more than 50%. Yeah, kind of that way. It sounds like it's just confusing to me. It may not create a new non conformity that it needs some words. Do you kind of see where I'm going?

Can't make it more nonconforming by adding the 500. So, but we Arizona reads right now that you can increase by 500 ft nonconforming. Yeah. If it burns. That's if it's a burnt down. Yeah. Not well if you demo it. Only if it burns. No. If you're doing this if you're doing a whole demo. Yeah. If you're doing a total demo. Oh, that was why I was just going back to that. trailer. I was also having a thought about

demolition and whether or not when we're doing alterations where the line is between partial demolition and a project that's partial demolition and alteration cuz that's always kind I don't know what our demolition definition is and whether that's whole structure or just 25% of the structure cuz usually it gets picky with preservation and so I that was what I was noodling So that should that say more than 500 ft in may not encroach more than 50%. Or may So you have you have a choice. You can go 500 ft or you can encroach up to 50%. I was I just wanted that anything that anything that was asking for both. Right. 500's already there.

But if you're rewriting it, she's asking for just the new stuff not may not be more than 50%. Or we could just hard limit that too and just say it may not come more than I just I just want someone to have a choice. Well, I can go 500 or closer, right? I kind of like where you're going with that. People will come in and say, "Well, that's how I'm thinking of like the like the lake cottage properties that are that's where they're going to hit, right? 100%." Right. And if they can get closer to the lot lines, they're probably a little less concerned about the 500 square ft. That might be actually be it gives some flexibility. A different kind of flexibility. That's something to noodle on too.

Yeah, that's where you're going to see it. All right. And the last but not least is our friends in recreational vehicles. Read that one. One line. You said one line. Uh, this actually took slightly more because I had some thoughts about this too because I thought the building the building commissioner might want to on vacation. She she she she wanted to get that.

I uh she doodles. Well, I gave So, my thought here was why not have the building commissioner if they demonstrate that they can handle their heating, cooling, and waste uh for 3 months for a whether they're in a trailer home, including mobile homes, which is how it's written in the definitions, and recreation vehicles, all-encompassing, including our campers, which are also defined in the bylaws already. So, I lengthened the title to include both definitions um and created and I'm calling them a temporary home

and and the only way that is that that's fully permanent as a temporary structure through the building department through the health department. It should be part of the permit. Give I would keep it open for as long as the permit's open not to exceed 12 months or something like that. So, I would just change it if it was me. I would change it from it has to be a burndown. Why does it have to burn down to get temporary housing in North? Well, I don't if you get if your house gets hit by a tree and gets crushed,

you can't have that trail. Well, in today's world, when you have houses built in the 1950s and60s and now people go to renovate to today's lifestyle and you have energy code, they really have to if they'd want apply for a structure, apply for a temporary just like the fire they do for when they burn. They bring in a mobile home. They set it up to the septic. They set it up to the water. The building department makes the inspections. The fire department makes the inspections for the heat and the gas.

So, you're really just I would take the fire thing out and say you can apply for I just don't want to see people living in a popup trailer in their driveway. The process I put in here was that they can ask for it for 3 months from the building commissioner and if they need more than 3 months that requires a permit from us as long as the permit's open not to exceed 12 months or 6 months

because lot a lot of houses take 12 months you know if your house is crushed by a tree you need a place to live for 12 months insurance company's going to pay for your temporary housing and putting a trailer on your house is the cheapest they're going to get out and it's the best for people, for kids, for schools, for buses. Yeah. So, allow it to happen. It's not that costly. And yeah, don't they can't live in a popup or a a truck camp or I mean there's those things have a lot different certification than those mobile homes that have HUD certification. Those are are built to HUD standards. M

I I would say if you want to change the zone, take the word fire out and say if your house I don't care if you want to plan it. If you want to plan on tearing down a house in Northwalk Center and put a house there, you have the area to put it, put it, you have the septic, you have the water. Um I think that would be a better way to go about it then. So we feel good for up to a year instead of 3 months. Yeah. Yeah. But I I think it I think it needs to be tied to the permit and it needs to be

So I would do this because a building permit is is 180 days. So I would do it for 180 days and then you can file for an extension for another 180 days. And if the building inspector goes out and you're just not quite done, he can always give you that last 180 days. The issuance of the building permit though is not necessarily going to be concurrent with the house becoming unlivable. Some people live through like the first No, no. They can come up here and ask for temporary housing permit through the building department. Oh, so you're saying it's its own separate permit. Exactly. Has nothing. I I thought it was going to tie but permit. Yeah. So, so the old um um farm over there on Boardman Street um

Wherelands? Where they've been working on that for years. Is there a reason that they couldn't have put a temporary house? Yeah. AB by law says it, but they're restoring that to uh you know historic. That's going to take them 5 years. Would I be afraid to have had I mean that place is I think 30 acres. Put put a unit out back. It has a septic. It has you know it's more affordable for the person to rebuild that house if they're there.

Well, technically they could be living in the parlor, the the milking parlor because that is they're renting that right now. It's a little cottage. That's right. They They could, but it's a little tiny cottage. No, it is. And you know what? You could get a three-bedroom ranch on two trailers put together. They could be living there. They could be working there a lot more. That's the way I would I agree with it. I think I think we should allow that concept. Yeah. Um cuz actually to your point I was thinking about a couple years ago when there was the uh we had the the the deep freeze in February. There was a house where the pipes burst and they they had it wipes it out. They wiped the house out.

It does. And that's a little stretchy for a natural disaster. It's a you know it's a but it's a good reason to give them a permit. It's a good reason. Their insurance company would way rather pay to put that in there. set it up. I know we we do them all the time. It it there's a good sense that I mean I think that's a better way to attack that um because now it's controlled and now we have a couple of inspections between the board of health and the fire department and so we like the idea that it's a a structure. It's a it's a it's a mobile home structure if you want to call it that. Yeah. It's a it's a HUD approved home.

Yeah, I would do that. Of course. So, we make that tweak. I um Okay, I can You like that tweak? I have one thought though um on all respect to the health department. My one uh thought though is uh if we require them to tie directly to their septic instead of get a pump that's going to limit where they can locate and park the vehicle. So, if you are me, for example, my septic is in my front yard over a stone wall and I can't park anything there. no or nearby. And so if my house burned down, god forbid. Um I'm just saying more flexibility on that. And um I don't know that the health department would approve pumping.

Oh, so those those type So I just say I'd be happy to leave it to the building inspector and call it a day. So those type structures have tanks built in. They're self-contained. So if we did a house down on the lake, you have to have a self-contained unit. and the the Porter party guys come in and they draw that tank out. Yeah, they I'm fine if they want I don't have any say over what they have to get for a permit. But I think we should allow them to file for a permit and then let the building department say you you know the fire department definitely needs the propane permit cuz they can't put a tank out there without. So now they're down there. Yeah. And you know, we got to hook up electricity. So there's going to be a temporary electric service

unless they're running off battery, which most like I I have to self-contain essentially. I I have feelings about how many people were involving in the process as to whether or not it is unhelpful to a homeowner once you have to have the fire department out to inspect a propane tank that you may not be using cuz you might run on electric or have the board of health out to inspect your septic connection that you don't actually have cuz you're getting your tank suctioned. I mean my general thought on this is that we should just stick within you know kind of the stuff that you know we're really at the end of the day here only looking at like occupancy of a temporary structure temporary safe structure.

Yeah. And facilitating that zoning wise you're not right. So those are things that would happen, but this wouldn't be in your right. Yeah, I'm I'm very happy to leave it with building and I'm almost thinking the the only thing you need to take out and maybe add. So you take out the the the fire scenario that that that has to be the Yeah, the fire. Take out the fire out. We don't have to worry about that. And I would actually I I I I don't mind I don't mind the recreational motor home. I just don't mind it if somebody's going to live there for I don't either.

3 months or 4 months. I mean people people live in them year round already. So I mean they but it should get permitted. It I think there needs to be a permit. It has to be it has to be permitted or something because it's it's over a 30-day thing. So, that's a recreational vehicle that's going to be there for more than 30 days. It needs a permit. Mhm. But that's that should be already caught by the building department or whatever, but not necessarily. Who who catches whether I have a trailer that I'm living in?

Your neighbor. You think those two that we dealt with? Those were called in by neighbors. Those weren't the building. One was one he was checking in. I know. I know. I'm sorry. The other the other one was a neighbor that called complain about it. I mean, he's not out looking for

I think we're just trying to facilitate an avenue that is as easy as possible for homeowners to go ahead renovate their house, live in their camper if they want to for a couple of months. Whether we say, "Hey, let's try that for 3 months and you know, revisit it." that it's 6 months. Whether we say, "Hey, do that for six." I I don't really care. I just think the my personal perspective on this is that we also recognize the nature that these are temporary structures. We recognize that this is actually living in campers is a very common thing in the rest of the United States and we're just kind of high flutin here in Massachusetts and people manage to do this without toasting themselves all the time. I think it'll be okay. So, we might want to tweak I'm thinking a little bit if you do the a recreational vehicle cuz this you could end up with a a cousin Eddie.

Yeah, we don't want the property. Yeah, right. The way this is written now, we might want Well, is cousin Eddie doing a significant renovation and rendering the structure uninhabitable? I'm thinking any of that, right? Well, and that's why I'm saying cousin Eddie would not be entitled to this because they're not renovating. You have to still be doing construction. So, you could work you could tie it to a permit that within within 30 days a building permit must be applied for or something. Tie it to a building permit. Yeah, I would I would ain't nobody in this room going to go check, right? Yeah. Yeah.

All right. We should say that that you are only eligible and I'm not afraid to say 180 days cuz that's nobody's doing a major remodel. No, less than 180 days. Sorry, not today. Yeah, absolutely. Um but I think it's So it was 180 days and then it can be extended. I think it can be extended. Yeah. Um in association with the building's extended. Yeah. We permit typically it just needs some word smithing to say that this is only for properties with an active building permit. Correct.

permit. An active building permit is a permit that has been inspected within 180 days. If you don't have an inspection within 180 days, your building permit is null and void unless you ask for an extension. So that that would be tied to the building 100%. I can I can I can word smith this to capture that what but I'll turn some edits around for you guys and that I'm okay with send uh something back for Rich just to email yeah and I'll send it out and then we'll not reply all because we don't reply all on the emails but uh I'll move something quickly while I remember that this happened

right and in terms of the timing So, the warrant opened up last uh Monday. Okay. And then it'll close September 5th. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So, when do you need a placeholder? By September 5th. Okay. Only a placeholder by September 5th, folks. We just need a title, right? But Sam, we be able to even talk about some more at the August 20th meeting. Right. Yeah. We'll put it on the agenda. Yeah. So, just one thing at the top of this cuz again, we've been talking about for a little while. What was the restrictions on the type of mobile home? I mean, cuz again, when you just say just recreation vehicles, I mean, as as Mike had said, we don't want a bunch of pop-ups showing up.

RVs are defined in our zoning bylaws as having a chassis and like three other things. Okay. So, something will tie. Okay. Yeah. So, what I So, this currently only says mobile homes, right? And so, the we don't have a definition for mobile homes. We have a definition for trailer homes including mobile homes which is so and then we also have a separate definition for recreation vehicles. And so since we had kind of lumped some people with RVs into trailer homes because there is ambiguity as to whether or not they're overlapping definitions. By including both it makes it explicit. But the RV definition does not include popup campers,

right? Because it because it has more things going on with it. Yeah. Cuz you got some 400 square feet would be one of those, right? Cuz I'm think about some of those. Oh, well, there I see it now. You know, I'm saying some people have the even on the back of a pickup truck, they have that little one little shell guy. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Very good. So, I didn't I just wanted to confirm that's tied. Okay. Yeah. So that my rationale was to make it clear which definitions we were actually the RV the way it's defined does it say it's motorized? Uh it's it says that it can be towed I believe uh it says a vehicle which is self propelled. So it could be self-propelled. Okay.

So it could be a five wheel or fifth wheel. Not a five wheel. That's a fifth wheel. Right. Right. Fifth wheel. Fifth wheel. Or like an RV of justice like like a Winnebago. I mean, my son's got a 32 ft bumper toe if you do that. It's a nice trailer. I think that says US Code of Federal Regulations. I'm pretty sure that's not going to include a truck camp. Truck cap. Okay. Oh, yeah. I see. All right. Yeah. Okay, Courtney. Thank you. No problem. Definitely. Thank you. Um, with all that, anybody have any other new business? Anything else, Rich?

No, that was it. Do we have any Did we have any meeting minutes from last week? No, not ready yet. All right, they're not ready yet, right, Lane? They are not. I think there were three other sets that had to be created on the double. Bummer, dude. Well, we only have one one set pending at the point, right? Correct. Would anybody like to uh make a motion to adjurnn? Yeah, I'll make a motion we adjourn the meeting for Wednesday, July 16th at 8:20 p.m. Second. All in favor say I. I. I. Thank you. So move. Thank you. Enjoy your night. I got to go find something to eat.