Planning Board - Regular Meeting

All right. Recording in progress. In accordance with the provisions of Mass General Law, Chapter 30A, Section 20, notice is hereby given that the Zoning Board of Appeals is meeting tonight on Wednesday, September 17th, 2025 at 700 p.m. in the town hall meeting room number 124. Members of the public are welcome to attend this in person or at one Liberty Lane Northwork Mass or by the remote Zoom connection provided. Please note that the in-person meeting will not be suspended or terminated if we have technical problems interrupting the remote connections. With that said, we have our meeting is open. Uh oh.

Continuence. Yeah. Uh if you want to use the microphone that's on the uh podium. You might want to just note for that. We have one board member on. We have uh one Pine Street is going to be our first um hearing. Uh they have a special permit and variance which is continued from 82025. And we also have a board member Christopher Metaf who's online with us also. [Music]

Uh good evening Mr. Chair, members of the board. For the record, my name is Hal Chuba. I'm a consulting engineer with offices at 112 State Road and I'm here representing the applicant um Claude Elias on this application. Um, back in July, I believe we had our first meeting with the zoning board of appeal. It was via Zoom and uh I went through the project. I might do a quick uh uh rerun just to refresh your memory. Uh so basically we're here to uh uh make some modification to the existing site and the uh as you can see from the uh from the board that this the site is in the C1 commercial district currently uh the site is about 1.972 acres but u most of the site is covered with wetlands in to the rear. Um, so the portion of the site that is currently developed is about 0.8 acres. Currently, there's a 3600 ft² building on site. You're all familiar with the site. Uh, access to the site is via two existing driveways. one from Denim Street and one from uh uh the uh uh apologize the uh fine um I believe it's fine. Yes, fine. And then so they're both full access driveways. Um currently there's some landscape on the site. uh the the site was used for a landscape business. Uh the owner uh would like to make modification to add uh three pumps and underground fuel storage tanks to support a gasoline filling station. The use is allowed by a

special permit from the zoning board of appeal uh in the C1 zone and uh also we applied for a setback relief on the canopy setbacks and uh I can go if you can zoom out a little bit uh Richard if you don't mind on the site so I can go through um basically we're going through the site plan review with the planning board and also conservation because of the uh wetland to the rear of the property. So, we applied for an orders of intent and a site plan review and site plan special permits. We need a couple special permits also from the planning board. Uh so, this is in concurrence with your application. Uh unfortunately, last month we had the continue hearing. There was no quum so we couldn't have the hearing. But tonight is the hearing and I would like to what we're here tonight basically for two and two two items the special permit which is the use and also the relief on the setback and I know at the last meeting you had some questions and I I have the answers and uh Richard you might I mean there's a question whether this existing pump is this well was active is not active. uh you wanted a distance. I believe the distance was 150 ft from the tanks to the uh to the pump house and about 200 ft from the pump house to the closest pump. Uh the uh the use had some questions about the use and I think Richard for the one

not the use the uh the setback I believe whether the uh there was a variance granted for another gas station or something like that and I don't so the u where was it the well there was a question but it wasn't varian so the one that's on denim street was set at the uh is correct is correct is correct the one the center of town actually over here was interesting it was actually apply for a special permit to expand the non-conforming structure. So was interesting. Mhm. Which not to get into the weeds of the merits of that, but that's that's what was granted. When Dies was built, when was Dy's built? Long time ago. Over 20 years ago.

When it was remodeled over 20 years ago. That's not a long time ago in Yankee Land. That was the That was the remodel. Okay. But they've had pumps there for Oh, they've had pumps there since as as far as I can ever remember. 50 something years. So they're predate like canopy requirements and anything like that. Okay. Which are required for fire. Yeah. Then they went to a brand they brand there was a time when they had to put the canopy on, right? They have the canopy for fire suppression. The reason for the canopies canopies are for fire suppression. They have to have a canopy nowadays. Yeah.

To have self didn't have fire suppression that they put in the can. No, they didn't. Sorry about that. Mhm. But that doesn't that's No, right.

That's relevant. Uh anyway, so also you had some question, some concerns about the sidewalks and some some of the site items and we said we're going through the site plan review and those items were actually brought up at the site plan review and they engaged a peer engineer to to review the projects and we're working with them on resolving also all the issues. So basically all the site uh components would be addressed with the peer review engineer. I as far as the the the the variance I just wanted to point out that also the existing building that's on site is an existing non-conforming as far as setback uh the if you look at the shape of the lot and again I think I pointed that at the last meeting so if you calculate all the frontage because of the shape of the lot it's it's a it's a corner lot with with the curve along along the the intersection of denim and pine we have 480 ft of frontage. If you multiply that by by uh uh by 70 ft I get almost an acre. So if you take that the setback the front setback required is almost half a day lot. take so if you take actually the 200 foot top of bank which is this line here uh and if you take the the zone two line which zone two is in the back so we're trying to keep everything outside zone two we're trying to keep everything outside the 200 ft river bank you would only and apply the setback you would have this sliver piece of land that you can that's would meet the the setback half of is on top of the existing building. It encompasses about 3100 ft²

which is 3 12% of the total lot. So as you can see here, this is really a lot that meets the the if we go through the state statutory requirement for for a variance. You got the soil, you got the wellness in the back, you got the shape, the topography of the lot. So it's really all there. It's not something that you set a precedent for. This is this is a typical case that we can hang your hat and say you know this this this qualifies for beings. Uh as far as the use also I'd like to say this this is Denim Street. It's a pretty it's a kind of state highway. It's all developed with businesses all around. It's not kind of you know uh uh unusual for for this setting. this gas station down the street, not too far. So, there's similar businesses in the area. Um, so I believe this is this is what we have and I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. But you know, we would really would like to get us a clear uh uh uh direction here because if we can't get the variance or we can't get the the special use uh permit, we can't really continue with this project. But we are going full speed with the site plan review and and conservation at the same time. But uh we kindly ask for your support of this project.

What's the existing building setback? Uh the existing uh I I can I can tell you what the existing 73 uh the building is right here. 73.8 and 70.7. 70 Yeah. 70.7 correct. 73.8 for street. So the so the building conforms to the setbacks. Uh not not from Denim Street because uh uh because because this is on a curve, you don't you don't apply the setback on a straight line. You follow the the layout of the lane. So pretty close. So this is Yeah, it is pretty close. It's probably within

10 10 ft. Yeah. Yeah. But but again I I've done I mean I've I've been doing this for 30 years. I've been over uh all the any boards you can imagine of in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It's true a canopy is considered a structure under the state uh definition. But if you look at it a canopy is not a building. It doesn't have a closed uh walls. It doesn't have mass though. It's still a structure. It is a truck. I said I said it's a structure. I'm not saying it's not a structure. It is a structure, but it's an accessory structure most of the time when we go for

any variances. If you apply 70 ft for the canopy and then you need to space the building between, you will never be able to do this unless you know we knock the building down, which I believe at the first meeting, I might when I first met my client and I looked at this project before I came to the town, I Googled the area, you know, I Googled, you know, you go on GIS and you look at this and you see the and I said, "We need to take the building down." I I agree. and and he goes, "No, we're not touching the building." He said, "This building is a landmark in the town, has not hasn't been here that long. Hasn't been here long at all."

But to the point though, that bu it may not be long, but to the Palmville neighborhood, that is a building of significance to them. So that's not the grain. No, we're not suggesting might there might be people who reference for the New England barn vernacular that the existing building presents. It's a it's a steel structure. Tim, you have a question? Yes, a couple questions. Um, there was a question brought up last time from from Mr. Broen, I think. I don't know if it was answered or not. It might not be pertinent, but it might be helpful. Um, was the was there ever a variance request for that site? No. I know we talked about Okay. No,

that was one question. The the other thing is I understand the the special permit request and I think I understand the variance request and you had two prongs to it. You had the shape. I'm not really I don't think it's such a unique shape and that's fine. That's just my personal view of it right at the moment. Um but it really comes down to soil conditions I think and and I think just I just want to clarify your argument on soil conditions. um that it's really it's a condition. It it it's it's the wetlands protection act and things like that that create the soil conditions I believe. Is that is that fair to say? Yeah. And and and zone two the aquifer too, you know. So this is something that we can

Okay. the water protection district. So you you can't really I mean we don't we can't go beyond this line and we try to push everything out of there as as as practical you know as possible. All wetland soils would be a soil condition. The aquafer itself is not particular.

So you're you're telling us that you cannot put the pumps behind the building because of the zone two. Absolutely. And and the 200t river bank, the river fronts back there. Yeah. Put it there because of the river. Yeah. And to meet setback, that canopy has to go 75 ft back. Correct. Right. So you're not looking at that. You You're not looking for a 10ft variance. You're looking for 50. You're looking for the whole thing. I mean, you got 25. Yeah. You're looking for 50 foot varian 50 foot variance. He has 25 ft of frontage that needs 75 ft requirement.

Yeah. because of the because of the zone it's in. Well, I mean, if it was my house, it would only needs to be 50. You get it? So, it's it's a difference because of the lot, right? Yeah. But, I mean, in a in a residential area, it's a 50ft frontage. In a commercial area, it's a 75 ft. Well, in this district, for that district for that district, some other district may be 15 or 20. I I haven't looked at. No, you're correct. Right. in that district because of the traffic because it's got two highways because it's so the so the other thing that we take into consideration is the the the neighborhood

a little more built into that setback though cuz originally when they then when they reszone that area to the whole commercial district they were planning for frontage roads I I know all about the you know all that I do frontage roads right by right by San Autobody right by the radio station all Pulli Laruso's land all frontage road and then that was stripped out. I get it on that side of the whole thing. Right. Right. So I get it.

What I'm what I'm getting at is in the we take into consideration the neighborhood. Are there other buildings or structures that are similar to this that are have already passed variants are already 25 ft from the road or 30 ft from the road? Would this would this look totally out of place in the neighborhood? And in from what I've driven down and buy, everything seems to be in the proper setback. And there's no there's nothing that's not set back properly in that whole area down there all the way up to the Rem line and all the way to Walpole. Um, and Foxboro if you go down into the residential areas. And I'm I'm I'm having a hard time saying that I'd like to see a structure within 75 ft of this the roadway. But

so Ch back to Rich's comment on the frontage roads, which are not required, but if if they were required, and they're not, if you put a frontage road in there, you still wouldn't have room for these canopies. So the where the frontage road issue is moot. The comment about the zoning change is is really moot because if you put the frontage road there, there'd be no room for the canopy there. Mhm. No, you need you need vehicular movement and so forth. Correct.

So we I understand you know your comment about 75 ft because they were anticipating frontage roads, but it wouldn't be a front if there was a frontage road there. You still wouldn't fit it. Yeah, I I I can't think you couldn't fit it no matter what the was. Yeah, I can't think of any structure down there that has I mean obviously this has a variance to get within 5 ft a setback. Somebody gave a variance for this bond to be built as a variance 5T already. Either that or they came in because and you know you want to drive by that it looks normal, right? It does. The building's in the middle of the lot. The driveways come in both sides.

I even thought now put a big structure in front of it. I even thought North Glass might be too closer, but it doesn't. It's that's a that's a old I know it is, but it's still set back quite a ways. But that's that doesn't comply though. I I I agree. It doesn't comply with the 75, but it's pre-existing non-conforming. No, I know. They were just talking about where buildings were set back, not No, I get it. Right. from the streetscape side just and which is on the opposite corner on the small of the building that correct not as noticeable on the setback. I don't know. I just Can I ask the applicant? Sure.

If if there weren't aquifers if if none of that existed wetlands and aquifers, what would the plan look like? Uh it would probably look different. Yeah, it would look different. Oh yeah,

because you can you can move back. he can have options, you know, but right now really year for some reason I think wherever this building was developed and they had to go through conservation for the north of intent and they were able to build within a 200 foot um riverbank. Oops, I might have done that. Yeah. So uh so this is the footprint of the what was developed previously and it it it's it accounts for 0.8 eight acres out of the two acres basically and and you know and again you know the the argument here was in all along when we first met you know we've been with this back and forth prior prior to filing with your boards we had three or four informal meetings with with planning and we tweaked the design few times but always the

well so let's clarify was I want to add them to this. So, it was not just the planner, it was the it was the building commission, it was the fire chief, everybody. And they wanted that canopy further away from the building. So, I I agree for fire protection, too, because we need to have this. Yeah. I think it's important for them as a board to know. I get it. Okay. Tear the building down. Yeah. But I don't know where you put the building back up. Not as big. Yeah. You're going to have to do a smaller building and you're going to have to move everything backwards. So, what's our money maker with this gas station? What's inside the building? Is it convenience or service? It It's a convenience store. I

How far is our curb cut to four kicks where all the kids hang out? Uh, it's not very far. No, it's not. It's not very far at all. Business after class. Yeah. Right. glass thing for kicks. You talking about walking distance to it or Yeah. Yeah. I'm talking about running across the street distance. Yeah. Well, yeah. The pizza shop across the street, too. So, they can kind of cross the streets before they get to this smaller value item. So, I know. But the crossing was still the same though. I think same crossing area. There was no sidewalk there. There's a sidewalk on that side. Yeah. on the

there's a there's on the four kicks side there's a No on the other side. So you'd have to there's no access from four kicks by sidewalk to the crosswalk. No. Okay. Okay. I I have yet to see somebody walking over at Forks. I'm just asking just because I've seen them cross the street to go pizza. I have no idea.

I I'm just asking simply because there's also the special permit for the use and I'm looking at kind of characteristics of the use and who uses the property and how the property is accessed with vehicular circulation is looking okay. Your pedestrian buffers look a little funky, but they are where they're existing. Well, only but but as a use and what it attracts, I mean the things that you look at with the gas station are always trip generation because this is a more intense use than the um landscaping place was landscape place probably generated a couple trucks a day maybe in a couple of customers. hydro hydro

hydro not a very I'm just saying there's a difference in intensity of use in you know trip generation because a gas station attracts vehicular trips and so but that's more of a planning I mean a lot of that's more planning but I think that's probably their only option is to take the building down but what do you answer but well I think the issue here is that it's not a binary choice taking the building down or

that's not it having to be a gas station. Well, the use is in play and the variance is in play. Another business could occupy the building should the building be absolutely critical. It is the use itself that is driving the variance and the need for the pumps. Correct. And so I mean I there's a gas station a few doors over so it's not exactly like I would hang my hat on saying I mean it's kind of it's it's kind of like but as a corner I don't know I don't know how we're what it's by special permit through us for a gas station. Yep.

What are our criterias for a special permit? What do we have to look at the neighborhood character of the neighborhood? Right. An impact. So, usually health, safety, and welfare and many more. So, so I'm sitting here going, we have one light in Northfor. We have two gas stations. I'm not thinking I mean, we have one gas station more than we have a light. We're not a metropolis. We I mean, I don't understand why we need three gas stations. That's not your criteria. I understand. and you can have 50 gas stations, but I think it does it fit from the site from the special permit. Does it fit within the character and the other questions? And a lot of the planning board is going to get a lot of those issues.

And is the trip generation related to the use problematic whether it's like vehicle turning sequences or, you know, the intensity of four kicks that's adjacent to it or there's, you know, a few things happen. The the structure being that close to the road to the intersection I I'm having an issue with. It's not necessarily the use.

Yeah, I I I agree. I think I personally I think it's a great location for a gas station up. Now, that's just me and and I and I that's why I was asking the applicant to help me out on on the variance and um on sale conditions and and he's and he's presented what he has on. I mean, I I that to me it comes down to the v the variance in particular. Um and do we feel that it meets the criteria? And he's argued two points on that. I think the shape and the soil conditions and I was focused more on the soil conditions rather than the shape. What's the official address? As I have one Pine Street, what's what's the zoning?

C1. Do you have C1 C2? Okay. C1 C1. We have guests tonight. Do you think anybody in the audience has questions or Chris maybe? Chris, do you have any questions for them? You're muted. You're muted. You're muted. You're muted. You have to I like it when you yell, though. Yell more. Yeah. Anybody else have any questions? Any Anybody in the audience or anything?

No. What's currently at the site now? just a trans hydro seating building that I don't know if it's being used. It might be being used for storage or something at this point. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Unmuted. Hey, oh, I see. It's right at the corner. It's right at the corner.

Can I have it? you know that that corner we we were talking last time uh this presentation you they they were going to put in some shrubbery and stuff and I see that as obstructing the vision around this corner. It's a busy intersection particularly when full when the uh sports facility is in full operation. It's very busy. You're correct. So I mean that that that building is not going to like you know is that is they're going to they want to leave the building that's there and put the canopy between the road and it the setback in the setback which the building's non-conforming already to the setback

to the setback. What type of vegetation is being proposed on the corner and what's its general height? [Music] Do you know what the Yeah, we have we have Chris is asking about sight lines. I thought trees and there's some existing trees to existing trees there now. That would be more. Yeah, there's more trees. I don't think there's a little more playing board, but there are existing trees there. Yeah, I'm I'm more concerned with the with the the setbacks and everything than the actual use of the property, but

I I I'm still a little concerned about I I know we heard just a few minutes ago about the the well is not used anymore, but what other water what other water uses in that aquifer that that that provides the water to the aquifer, doesn't it? Correct. Yes. And the Charles River. Correct. Yes. Yes. that goes up. Not just the well, correct? And the well, I'm sure is still open and not sealed, but I'm sure it's not active. So, it doesn't have a pump in it, but it still has a open I'm sure it's not been sealed. And I think that would go more to the applicant's argument that he's trying to keep everything away from that. Yeah, that would that goes to his argument. I believe

the fact that it's a gas station kind of swings right back in the other direction on that argument, though. Like it's there's a reason that there's buffers around aquafer and water supply. No, I think that's what the thing that's what he's talking about. That's why that's what he's sensitive to. That's why he's asking for the US. Yeah. Okay. Not speaking for him, but I'm sorry. They're not necessarily best buddy adjacent uses, but not illegal either. Right. Right. Uh a question I have the gas station which is a little further down what is it? Route 1A

did it have any did it have to have special tanks you like we're having like uh this this design would have do you know if it has all all gas stations have to have the special tank. So that's the same design. them all have the same Yep. fiberglass wall tank and the leak and the leak detection and all the Oh, yeah. All that. Yep. You can't put a gas station in without it nowadays. No. God, I don't think anybody would want them to. No. No.

Um, I don't have any more questions. If anybody else has any more questions, well, thank you very much for coming. We'll have a we'll deliberate over it. And I'm I'm having a hard time with the variance on the setbacks, the usage. I'm I I could kind of care less one way or the other as long as it's all designed safely for the water and everything else and all that kind of stuff. But um questions close with you. Yeah, I think I think

before we close the I just want to ask Rich one question if we if we before we close the hearing I know you're dealing with multiple boards conservation planning board is there and this is this is a big part of it um would you recommend Rich we keep this hearing we continue this hearing because there might be new information coming from one of the other boards so the uh in this particular for this project. The canopy, it's a gas station. So, if there isn't, they need a decision. If there's no decision, if there's if there's an unfavorable decision on the canopy, the rest of it

unless they discover a different soil condition and then unless he gets a hill in the in the next couple of weeks, I don't think that that's the factors for their variance argument are likely to change significantly with new evidence to another board. That's all we have. I just didn't want though. I'm not going to bar a new hill forming, right? Could happen. Could I hope not. And that would be man man-made. I you know I hope not. So that means it could be removed also. You never know. I I'm not going to I'm not going to bar circumstances unforeseen. Um so essentially if you you know we can close the hearing and

deliberate. Well, we can deliberate then. Y. Yep. Or you I I somebody should make a motion to close the hearing. Is this a purchase? I'm just curious. Is is this is this a purchase or some sort of 100red-year lease or something like that? Cuz you're No. No. The applicant owns this site. So he owns Yeah.

I mean, if I may add before you close, I mean, we're looking at this, right? So if you look at you're concerned about the canopy, but if you look at the shape of the lot because because of the curve and that what really throws everything uh out of whack if you if you say but you are at 39 to the property line but actually you for for the actual road or the curb you you add another 15 ft here at least. So 40, you're 55 here on here. You are close on on DeadM street. I would say probably another five. You're 30. But if I get a distance from this here to the to this, I mean this is uh I have a scale over there I can take a look at, but uh this is 25 ft.

Maybe this is 75 ft from the edge of the way. So your plan shows the lot line, but then you're talking about the pavement area. I'm talking about the actual curve along the street line which not that's not how we measure setbacks. I'm not checking because you have concerns about how close to the road. But from a practical standpoint, you're you're 75 ft from this corner to the can from the from the pave the area the right I understand with the right away. Yeah. Well, it's the pave area. It's not necessarily the rightway. He knows that. We know that. He's not he's not even suggesting that. I'm just saying one day we could decide to add a turn lane. Correct. You could Yeah, that could be add another turn. Well, the state would have to do that. Yeah, the state will have to all state rules. Yeah.

Uh, not I'm not saying it can't happen. Not 115. 115 probably 50 years from now or so. You know, that could happen. I'm not saying it can't happen. Right. Right. Well, I would hope that this business is so successful that it would drive the need for a new turn. Sure. For your clients. Any other questions? Anything? Let's uh somebody make a motion to close the hearing. Nothing else. I I'll make a motion that we close the hearing. I'll second it. All in favor? We have to take a roll call vote. Joseph I. David Axburg. I

Tim Martin. I Josephine Kodaki. I Chris Chris Manav I. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. and uh we'll we'll deliberate and let you know. Okay, Mr. Chair, if I may. Oh, we have two cases. So, I don't know if you advertised for a variance and special permit or you did both of them at the same time. So, there's two advertised. They're both They're advertised as both. Okay. So, you closed both cases? We just closed both. Y just want to make sure. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you.

You're welcome. Thank you. [Music] All right. Next 14 Stop River Road appeal the decision of Northfor zoning enforcement officer. This has been continued since August and has requested to continue till October 15th and we'd just I think like to know why if if we could if you if you're here I'm here. Sure. You have the floor. Thank you. Thanks very much for your time. Um, you have to get a microphone.

Excellent. Um, so I guess um to level set for a second and to I guess frame this for the zoning board again. um at where we live at 14 stop river road we're a butters to the Lakeland Hills project as a butters to that project we've had water in our basement we've had a backyard that's destroyed full of moss uh which was not the case when we bought the house we've had a property covered in dust cars covered in dust to the um it that was in the situation was so bad that the Norfolk Health Department had to come onto the scene and ultimately send a letter to the developer setting out a number of changes that supposedly were to take place. Now, after um after this happened, uh after the onset of the dust, one of my sons was brought down to Boston Children's Hospital and was diagnosed with asthma. In connection with tests that were done during that visit, the results were anomalous. And the doctor at Boston Children's Hospital conveyed to my wife that the results were not the usual pattern for a straight asthmatic which indicated that environmental factors were causing or a an environmental factor was causing his problem. Um so I have a son.

Do you mind telling us why you're continuing? This is new evidence and you're asking to continue your your case tonight and so that's what I was wondering. So instead of the summary which we've had and new evidence which if we continue you don't want to tell us tonight. Could you just tell us why you've asked to continue? I it's my understanding from an email that you've hired counsel that I haven't Oh you were you needed a survey in council. Was that our continuation? Well that was the is that what I saw on email? That's what I saw on an email. Okay. Is that correct? Is that the re is that why you're why you were asking for continuation was for more time for that?

Um that was one of the reasons that I was considering whether or not I needed to hire counsel. That's correct. Okay. Um, but I I the reason and look I I can um if you're saying you you you'd rather I not get into the explanation because this ultimate we we you've already explained all this. We the the hearing is still open. So we've we've heard all this. We have all this in documentation form. We already know what you've already presented. What we're asking is why are you continuing it?

Why you here tonight so we can move forward if you don't that's fine. Yeah. I'm confused to move forward tonight cuz we had asked for more sufficient evidence like a presentation. You're not prepared for the presentation of everything. Is that correct? You need more time. Is that why you're asking for a continuence? I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm kind of baiting it, but I'm

also asking that that generally is why I'm asking for a continuence. I think the the the broader issue here, and this is what I was trying to get to, is that, as you can tell in the zoning enforcement um request that was made to the town on November 26th and the subsequent one that was made in December, there's a lot going on there. And there's a lot going on there because we have withstood a lot and we have had significant damage and in effect deprivation of our property because we are living next to this project. This is not something where I've heard a couple of backup horns and I'm perturbed and I'm going to make, you know, a public spectacle out of it in front of the zoning board of appeals. Anybody who knows me knows that I'm an incredibly collaborative, collegial individual. So to get me to the point where I'm repeatedly having to come in front of a town board, things have gotten very, very serious and we all need to take stock of as a community what happened here because this should not happen to anybody else. And there was a fundamental breakdown in town government for this to happen. There should have been a full-time monitor up at that project and there wasn't. If there had been a full-time monitor, this never would have happened. So what you forced me to do as an abuter and trust me I don't have the time but I've had to go through this comprehensive permit extensively and try to understand was the developer in compliance with X Y and Z because if they're not in compliance with X Y and Z it's reflective of why I've had all these problems. So my effort when I filed that zoning enforcement request was to flesh out my concerns about the fact that the developer has not been in conformance with the comprehensive permit which has caused me who has two young children and a wife tremendous problems. I heard earlier somebody correctly saying that one of probably the biggest

responsibility a town has is to protect public health, public safety and public welfare. that was not done here. And and I'm collateral damage. I didn't issue this comprehensive permit. I didn't break ground on this project. I'm not going to make a dime off this project, but I've basically been taxed and had my land taken and h and my children are now sick. So we so so that was that's all a way of saying um yeah I need some more time or we need to have a meeting of the mind about how we are going to go through this zoning enforcement request which is very extensive and get to a place where it's resolved and I would just say one other thing because we started this conversation back in June and it got it devolved and it ultimately didn't get fully explored but somebody asked me you know what in the zoning enforcement officer's uh decision is wrong. Well, couple of things. The first thing is he says that to his knowledge, no one else has complained. Well, I had two people, two neighbors here with me back in June of 2024 in front of the zoning board of appeals who both spoke to significant problems that they had. Now, I I think they know that I did. I don't have the heart to ask them to come back because I'm not going to ask them to waste their time, but they were here and they spoke. I'm also aware

the building inspector wasn't a hearing wasn't here. Correct. Is that correct, Mr. Carrian? The question was, does the relative This is an appeal and help me if I'm wrong. This is an appeal from the building commission's decision and you're saying he knew about these other complaints from that night. yet he wasn't here that evening and the only way he would know about complaints from other neighbors was if they came down and filed a complaint with him or they sent him an email. But for them to come in here and sit at a meeting, he doesn't sit home and watch us. I can tell you that

and that's okay. But I think the new one is right now though. I think the public has an expectation and correct me and and maybe I'm wrong and maybe I'm maybe I'm wrong, but I would expect that the left hand in Norfol town government should be talking to the right hand. And if in June 2024, you have a number of people sitting here telling you that there's a problem, I would think somebody who works for the town of Norfol says to the zoning enforcement officer, "Hey, we got a problem." But those two instances are not the only two. So, I have emails from um a town of Norfol resident because it there's there's a separate litigation going on there there in J I think it was June of 2022. A Norfol resident emailed the town and said the developer is starting work before 7:00. Okay. So, that went to the town of Norfol. I mean, if it didn't go to Bob Bulock, it's not my problem. The the town of Norfol was on notice. He is for all intents and purposes on knows that another person also emailed the town and said, "Hey, there's an erosion control problem. You got to fix it." So there's two other things and and I I don't I mean I haven't done a foyer request on this.

All right. All right. But let's talk let's take a breath for just a moment because again we're just sticking to the specific appeal and the specific decision of the building commissioner that you are appealing. This is a multi-permit development. This is, as I said, a many year long project. There have been various impacts to you, potentially other neighbors. It's neither here nor there, whether or not there are more because we're only here to hear your appeal relevant to the building commissioner's actions. We need you to stay specific to the building commissioner's actions instead of just your opinions about what has happened.

This is no what what I'm saying is part of the rationale for his decision is that nobody else has complained. You're the only one and what I'm saying is he has no rational basis. So so if you have you know you have to look at this and say okay what is the rational basis for his decision and how much credibility do I assign to him? And what I'm saying is there's no rational basis. And part of his rationale for what for his decision is that you're the only squeaky wheel. Nobody else has raised any issues with this development. And what I'm saying is that's actually not true.

But didn't you appeal the issuance of specific building permits? Cuz the development has a master decision that is long filed. The opportunity to appeal that decision has long since passed. We're not here to hear about this total development. We're here to hear about the specific building permits for the specific houses that they're associated with and why he was wrong to issue those specific building permits. Unless there is something about those plans for those houses that are at issue, we are not the appropriate or competent jurisdiction to deal with your problem. Do you understand? So, just to clarify that you already decided that last year those permits

like this is not our first appeals with you. This is already killed and occupied. I think it's not the first rodeo to hear this out. You've been denied before. So if there's going to be new evidence and you want time to present it, I would suggest we continue and hear that later or we can if we if the board feels that we have heard enough, I think we can render a decision as to whether or not we think the commissioner acted appropriately.

I just like to ask Mr. Carrian and thank you for coming. the um to the point I think you asked for recision of those building permits. I think those you know your neighbors out there you maybe you don't but I think those two houses are built occupied occupying per and they're privately owned. They're not nothing they're not being built. Okay there right or wrong I'm going by the address. I will but I'm just I'm not sure what you're looking at because I'm looking at your your question about what the relief you're looking for. We respectfully request that you grant our appeal um relative to the permits the those two pull the permit

for for it has it right here for uh 11 Thomas man. Is that the only one? I thought there were two. Yeah, I'm sorry. Number nine and number 10 11 Thomas Man. I think those houses are they're already occupied occupied. There's no there's no open building permit to Can I Can I look at what you're looking at just so I'm looking at what you just your your your letter. I appreciate Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right here. Right in your opening letter, sir. You're asking that that was part of the not all of the relief, but that was part of the relief you were seeking.

Sir, this is not this is not the subject of the zoning enforcement request and this is not the subject of what Mr. Bullock responded to. That that that is something that I filed in June of 2024. Right. you we have. So what do you want us to compel the building commissioner to do specifically just like you know what I it's not I'm not being physicious. I I really want to know what what's the request is attached to your submitt. That's why I went an exhibit in the submitt but it's included so that if this goes further so that relief's not being asked there's context. Yes.

What is the appealable event? The commissioner issued a letter saying I'm not I'm not doing anything with your complaints there. So, are you asking us what is the instruction that you want us to give the building commissioner that you're requesting? I just don't understand. I guess we're here to ask what what relief are you asking for this board against the building commissioner because you're here against the building commissioner which we need to make a decision and the appealable events from the commissioner as far as the ZBA are concerned are the issuance of building permits which is those two which have already been completed

and so if there it like there's the legal process that like backs up what we're doing here is we're trying to understand where what it is that you are trying to do with respect to that process. We're not making a judgment on on dust control and storm water management and blasting and time. We're not making a judgment call on that. You've appealed the building commissioner's decision. He's he's appealing what he appealing. What is the event? Tell us. Lack of enforcement on the comprehensive permit. from the building commissioner. from the building commission. Right.

The building commissioner said that building commissioner is to enforce it. So, but so it just as to enforce alleged violations that the building commissioner did not find. Are we supposed to find that the building commissioner erroneously did not find violations? So, I No, the building Well, the building commissioner found there was no violation. So when he was there and he and he's filed an appeal to that to say that there was a there are issues and has so we are to instruct the building commissioner to look harder like what is the instruction? So, so I structure

I would I would venture to say what we're doing what we're looking if you're going to appeal a building commissioner's findings that there's no nothing wrong. You need to have proof that there are violations there so that we can go before our commissioner and say there are violations here. You need to go and enforce them. and I do have proof and that's what I'm asking for. That's what we're looking for is what's your proof and what are the violations

that you believe are in and to my earlier point. There's this is there's an extensive array of problems. Let's just focus in for one second on the start times and the stop times. So, at some point I got so ticked off I'd go out there early in the morning, stand in my backyard and videotape as they were working before 7:00 in the morning and I would videotape if they would work after 5:00 or 7:00 at night, depending on what the month was. Did you call the police so that there's a record of this? I did. Okay.

Now, I didn't You know what? I I I finally got to the point where I was so disgusted. I I I dragged my feet because personally I think it's wrong that I'm in a position where I'm calling public safety who have a very serious job to do and having them go up there and deal with the fact that a contractor is working outside of their normal business hours. Okay? But it is their responsibility to be the one that you call. So that is their job. That's literally what they do. That is 100% their job. If somebody has a complaint against me at my farm, they call the police station, police come down, investigate it, write a report, and put it back. All right? I mean,

and they encourage it rather than peer-to-peer dealings. I have very look at that is their job. And and I'm a builder, all right? And let me tell you, if we start before 7 and it's in a neighborhood, somebody's calling and the police are usually here. You need to

I've done it. I've done it a couple times, but I've got the video evidence, so we don't need to worry about that. But I'm just telling you on principle, I think it's wrong that butter is being put in a position of calling public safety. But setting that aside now, if if Mr. Bulock reasonably had followed up with me when I submitted these requests in December of 2024 and December of 2024, I could have come into town hall, privately, showed him the video. Now, I'm being put in a situation where in order to prove my case, I'm having to come into a public forum that's videotaped and air um video, which is going to include audio as proof of what's going on up there now. Oh, no. I I I'll tell you what. No, you could bring that to the new building inspector and he could watch it and we don't have to and we could hear from the new building inspector his opinions of that because we don't need to see that as a

it was um all right and he would be the one to go up and investigate this anyway. But I'm going to tell you as a building official um I you know Bob's not going to come in before 7 a.m. to go up there and sit and watch for guys coming in that subdivision. All right. Nobody's going to do that. The police will right the police will you have got traffic detail while they're there.

That's right. And they can sit at the end of the road and radar. But look at if they if they have a complaint that you know if you're calling every day, I'm going to tell you the chief is going to get pretty upset and he's going to get a hold of somebody and say enough is enough. We're going to sit a car there. All right. You've got to make a case for it, though. You you you can't have well this guy showed up 10 minutes early and started taking the tools out of the truck. That's not running the compressors, running the generators, running. I'm down. I'm down at my house and this is happening up there. So, this is not, you know,

I get it. And it's up over you and the noise travels up over the top. I I do I I know exactly where you're at. Um I live right around the corner and I hear all the noise. I'm in a butter also.

Yeah. I I mean we hear it all, you know, we hear all the blast car if I could ask you. I I I've just gone through the submittal again. Maybe it's maybe I shouldn't be, but that's what's in front of me. And I I and I came up with four major issues that you raised previously. I'll just categorize them generically. Blasting, corrosion control, hours of operation, and dust control. Those were the four major ones that I came up with. there's there's details within that. Is that fair to say that those are the four major issues?

Uh those are those are big ones I would say. Um I would say I don't know if you mentioned noise. If you didn't, I would add noise and I would add vibration hours of operation and blasting. So you know just to like I guess my question is today a lot of these are is this like I don't think there's any blasting going on there recently. I think it was blasting's done. done. I know there was an issue I think there was an issue with with the storm water management plan. You pointed that out and I think that's been filed and resolved

and I think there was a drainage near you and all that. I don't know all history as well as you do and then and then the hours of operation you documented a lot of that. Um and then you had the dust control issues. I'm just trying to find out is there anything recent on on this? By recent, I mean this year, this in 2025.

I can just go a couple days ago. So, they were still hydraulic hammering last week after 5:00 p.m. So, they this shouldn't be hydraulic in my view, that should not be happening. Setting that aside, they were hydraulic hammering after 5:00 p.m. one day last week. And I got so ticked off I did call the police who responded and the gentleman, you know, indicated that he was going to put in the log that he heard it. But that Okay, that's a good example. But what he again comes back now with those four items and those particular issues. What is it you're asking this board to do? I I I don't I've read this. I understand it. I'm sympathetic. I'm telling your son could be sick, which I appreciate and I can tell and I'm very grateful and

I I think look the these are like so being in a house, let's just focus on the vibrating for one second. being in a house. So, they they should have had constraints on what kind of vibrations were coming off of that project and being in a house that's vibrating all day long. It it's actually something tantamount to torture. And then you layer in on top of that um the the the um extreme outrageous noise of uh an excavator breaking up rocks. And you're you're basically you're you're out of your house. So I have gone vast amounts of time where I can't be in my house and where I where I own a house. I should be able to live in it and I'm forced to leave my house during the week and go into Boston. Now it takes me round trip.

I understand all that. I'm simp but I don't know what as this board what we do on this what you're asking. Indulge me then. Can we pause just for one moment to read the question please? You've asked for a continuence and I would think that we should grant you the continuence and the new building inspector has asked that you go and see him and speak to him about this. Go and do that. Come back to us in a month and let's let's let's hear what happens after that. Okay? if you if you if you if you're okay with that. I'm okay with that.

We don't we don't need to go back and forth anymore because in reality, we don't know what we're supposed to be doing. And it sounds like you have issues that need to be enforced by an enforcement agent and or the police department. And so I think you need to go talk to him. He's he's asking he's online and he just sent us a note and he's asking you to go in. Um, so I I I think that might be the next step that we need to do and and let's go that route. Okay. Sounds reasonable to me. We'll we'll continue this until further notice. Okay. I'll make a motion that we continue this hearing. Second. All in favor? Roll call.

I, Joseiano. David Axburg. I Tim Martin. I October 15th. Smith. Yeah. October 15th. October 15th. Okay. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you. Well, honestly, we we we really don't like a butters to to to have to go through what you're going through. So, I want to get to the bottom of it. I You're welcome. Just need to get in the right vehicle to get there. Yes. I really appreciate it very much. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good night, everybody. Yep. Thank you.

Um 57 Everett Street. special permit to allow for an addition uh at 19.8 ft instead of 25 ft setback. Hey, Tim's going to read it.

Tim's going to read that. Notice is hereby given in accordance with chapter 48 of the Massachusetts General Laws in any and all amendments there too that a public hearing will be held by the zoning board of appeals on Wednesday September 17, 2025 at 7:05 p.m. room 124 at the Northfor Town Hall when Liberty Lane North Mass. The applicant Matt Palmer MMP Construction Inc. requests a special permit to allow for an addition to the home at to the home at 19.8 ft instead of the 20 foot side yard setback. 25 foot 25

25 ft sideyard setback pursuant to Mass General Law Chapter 48 section 9 as amended in the Northfor zoning bylaw section 310-6.4- A sub 2 non-conforming structure. The property is located at 57 Everett Street, assesses map 25, block 87, lot three in the R3 zoning district. Thank you. Do I hear a second? Second. All in favor say I. I. I. I. We're open. 57 Ever Street. I believe we have a Matt Palmer or somebody else on. You do. Matt Palmer.

Yes, sir. All right. The floor is yours, sir.

Uh good evening, uh Mr. Chair, members of the board. My name is Matt Palmer, MMP Construction, uh reside at 27 Henry Taylor Street, Salem, New Hampshire. We're here tonight to request relief from the sideyard setback for special permit where 25 is required and we would like a setback of 19.8. uh uh to allow for a mud room in a garage edition with uh family room above and a paint studio um with an additional bathroom. The construction um fits in with the neighborhood. It's a typical ranch. Um it's in harmony with all the other houses around. Um the other side is not an alternative uh just due to septic tank leech field and obviously the sideyard set back on that side is a lot closer.

I'm free to I'm open to ask any questions if anybody has any.

There any neighbors here? So, this is this is a proposal for a a two Okay. two twocar garage with a a living area over it. Two stories. Yes. Yes, sir. Okay. We got a plan of the house. It was It was up there a second ago. There's There's no garage there now, correct? No, there's no garage there now. It's driveway. The driveway is already in that location. So, For all obvious reasons, the right side having more stringent setbacks and the driveway already being in place on the left side, it it makes it the least impactful to the client.

Yep. And there's setbacks. So, so you're adding a two-car garage plus you're adding a mud room, a hallway, the closet. So the only thing that exists is from here over. You're adding the garage plus plus this. Yep. Yes. Okay. Okay. That make that's a little bit different. Mhm. What's the What's the actual proposed addition diameter? So the the the actual how long is it? Is it

22 ft by 20? Yeah, the garage is 22 ft wide. We get an extra three four and then we're missing a dimension. Probably about another five. What's that big What's the big one in the back? This is 22 all the way to the But this says 22 here to here. It does. You're right. So this number's wrong. Yeah, that number is totally wrong. 26 here, 22 here cuz that's 8 ft door. So stair was the minimum width on a stair and half and 3 and 12 ft. 7 ft 29. So the mudroom area is 7 ft. Yeah, roughly. Yes, the mud room 7 ft. And then the garage is 22. Yes.

Yes, sir. Okay. The site plan shows it going out 35 total of 35 ft. See? 35. It does. Yeah. could slide playing back up on the front corner. It would be Yeah, right there. that the drawing. See that? Yeah, that shows a 35 ft addition. On the back corner. Yeah. Why? And then 3 and five. Pretty close to just a That doesn't match. I think your front corner might actually be conforming if the site plan is wrong, but the plan is correct. I'm texting the architect to verify that measurement. Okay. Because

Well, it's 25 ft. If they're if it's what it measures on the plan, that's 37. Yeah. If it were actually But how's it square? That's 30. Yeah. But if it ended up actually only being 29 ft, wouldn't it be wouldn't it probably really be like here? And that's why it's designed to hear and then it because of the angle of the No, the total the total monomer if you look at the foundation plan is uh it comes off 11 ft. Okay. 3 in. So it is it is 35. Yep. Yeah. 35.1. So what's the hardship? So there is no hardship. There is no hardship because it's a special permit. It's a special permit. Okay. This is one of our non-conformity. So because the addition and the nonconformity

want to build a bigger addition than our lot allows allows. We we're here for a special permit. Okay. So where's our current spot that So is this the nonconformity right here of the existing structure? What makes it nonconforming a lot? It's 55,000 square ft. Oh, it's under sized. Okay. So it's already nonconforming. Yeah, right. I didn't know that. So take it in 5 1/2 ft and we don't have to have a decision. That is correct. Right. Take it in 5 1/2 ft cuz I don't see

I don't I'd like to build my house 30 ft longer, too. But well, he's only asking for us he's asking for a special permit, not a hearing. So, you know, I get it. But is are there any abusers here? Yes, right here. Yeah, I'm near. Okay. Are you the butter? What side? I'm on name, address for the record. Use the microphone. at 55. Okay. Sorry. Got to help out our adoring public. I'm Rick Smith at 55. Who is on this side? I'm over here. Okay.

Um is way over there. Now, this this is a like a the big pines. Yes. And then my septic is here and my wells back here. I believe his wells in the back. Pretty sure his septic his septic it shows in the front. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. His septic's in front. Do you have any concern? So mine my septic is over here. Yeah. As long as you know the only thing I think he's going to be taking out like three of those big trees. Mhm. To do this. Do you know I mean along along the lot line?

Yeah. Um they actually they run in between our house and then it branch some of them branch off onto my property here and a bunch of them go into the back of his property here. That's the real old growth. Um the problem we're having in the neighborhood is there was a bunch of them over here. Yeah. And one over here. And in the storms they've been getting snapped up. Yeah. Yeah. Um and that's because they're losing the cluster and they've lost the cluster or the windbreak way down at the corner over in Valley Street.

So the whole topography of the neighborhoods changing with the wind and my only fear is with these here and taking those out. Should I take mine out too? Otherwise they might come down on his addition. How far away are you okay with the the encroachment? Well, yeah. It's You're talking what? 5 ft. Yeah. I don't think it's all wooded. It's a little more than 5 ft. I don't know. But, you know, it's all kind of wooded in between the two of us. Anyway, you have Do you have a G? Those trees go screen shot. Yeah. Right now, 57. [Music]

So, would you like to see those trees stay without this? That's maybe I've been I've been in that house 30 years now. So no garages. Those trees are old. He's wooded. Yep. Yeah, they're pretty big. That's ex wooded. It looks like they're all Scott spines and they're pretty big. Yeah, they're like I I'd say I used to tree climb so I'd say about 120 to 140. Oh yeah, they're tall. They're like mine. Yeah, they're big. So, but yeah, I mean, I know what he wants and they're good neighbors. I like I mean, I'm looking at the street view of the house right now.

If they put that addition on I don't think you'll it'll be any more visible to you than what's already existing there. Unless they take down a lot of the trees. Two story. Yeah, it's going to be two story. So, you'll But those trees, like you said, they're they're like a Yeah. They really they're they're up there. If you're a crow, you're getting nose beds. The only thing obvious foundation a path that size I don't know it does tree roots. So, but I think they go pretty deep on I think they do. But other than that, yeah. Well, thank you very much for speaking

for speaking. Um, this is a special permit. What do we have? I'm going to bounce back to you for our criteria for a special permit. Oh, it's not in there, Mike. So, if you want to Yeah. Special permit. You want to look at that first? That's his house over there. That's this the subject property. His is the one to the left.

Yep. Yep. To the left. And then Yeah. Right. What does he pan around with? Gives you a little better perspective, right? Yeah. Those are large. This is for the applicant. If if those if you if the intention is to take those trees down, is there any plan to do any plantings there? I don't know how much. I think there's a bunch of There's one tree that's that's in the way. um and a couple of road dendrums and the tree that's there is already leaning towards the the house that's existing

like in this area. Anyone leaning in that picture? Yeah. Yeah, I see it. Yeah. Um Okay. I don't have an issue right there. I don't really have an issue with it either. And the butter doesn't have an issue. That way. Yeah, it does. Yeah. This way. in taken down without us. I appreciate that the applicant took the time to speak with their neighbor beforehand. No, I I mean they are they're great. All right. All right. Close. Um you have anything else to add, Matt or anybody? I don't. I appreciate your time this evening. Okay, great.

Thank you. Thank you. Also hasn't a butter coming. Absolutely. Appreciate that. I'll make a motion that we close the public hearing for 57 Ever Street. Second that. All in favor say I. Roll call it. I. Joseph Fastiano. David Axburg. I Tim Martin. I. President. I. Josephine. Josephine Kjah. I. Thank you. Do we have a decision for them or No, I didn't prepare one. No. Sorry. Do you guys want to have an appointment? We could. We don't have any other appointments. We deliberate this one first. This is the only deliberations tonight. Just one. This is the only deliberation tonight.

Tonight. Do we have any other business you want to clean? Clean up before we or do we continue pine or do we close it? We continue that one, too. I was just like I was just like I could swear there's more than one. So, let's you put these sweaters on the other business. Let's go to the new old business. Um, before we deliberate um only because only because we have individuals that are here. I think Dave, you want to introduce yourself? David Colinkowski. Kulakowski Kakowski. Oh, there he is now in person. Oh, well, you can see him.

Hey guys. Uh so first off, my apologies uh for not being able to be present tonight. Uh was looking forward to coming in and meeting the board and um you know, just kind of getting to know you all. Um, I was listening to the gentleman for the development and um, I'm happy to meet with him and as soon as he comes in, I'll connect with Rich uh, or any one of you guys and I will get the information regarding what what the project trans what everything is going on with that project and the development and I will see what I can do as far as uh, acting as a zoning enforcement officer on that project and get that taken care of. Thank you. We appreciate that. Um, welcome.

Welcome to Northfor. Welcome to Northfor. He'll have plenty of opportunity to meet us. A new face. A new face. That's right. Um, does anybody have any questions for David? No. No. Yes. Is this your first building inspector position or have you been a building inspector elsewhere? Just curious.

Uh, no. I I Great question. Um, I was uh I started off in the building official community in 2022 uh as a local inspector in Rockland and Norton. Um, I took a position in Kingston where I've been posted as the commissioner up until uh just last month when I I departed Kingston and I came over here to Norfolk. Well, thank you for coming. Appreciate you guys having me. We appreciate it. Were you uh in Rackland during the you the Dra Hall era? I

I I was not I was not actually in Rockland during all of the uh political fiascos. I I came in just after that. Ah, that was some fun MUN mayhem. It really was. Yeah. Well, David, we welcome you to the team. Thank you. I look forward to working with you guys. We we don't have to do a lot in Northwork, but there is some and when it is happening in Northwork, then you know it's usually something unusual and you have to get involved.

Yeah, I've already uh I've already solved a couple of uh complaints that we've had come in. Fencing uh fence complaints and then uh noise complaints. So, um, taking and using the knowledge that I gained down in Norolk, excuse me, in Kingston here in Norolk and, uh, trying to solve them one one day at a time. Well, good. Thank you. What's your general philosophy about, uh, reasonleness and interpretations? Oh my gosh. Yeah, but we need to know how flexible he is.

Baby steps. Baby steps. Baby steps. David, what are your feelings on Red Sox tickets? David, thank you very much for coming. Looking forward to working with you all. You're good to go. You're good to go. You're good to go. You're off the hook. Um, everybody good night. I'm sure those were the questions he prepared for. Discuss proposed zoning bylaw amendments for November 12th fall town meeting. Yeah. So, uh, council has comments about the non-conforming structure.

Oh, good. Planning board looked at it and had some pretty normal comments. Yeah. The comments relative the town council was concerned that it would create issues in terms of conflicting with the statute. So, okay, that's something we're serious to look at. What does he think? So, um, so the plan board decided not to move forward on it so we can revisit. So just kind of an update on that one. Um what about the mobile home that move forward? So that's move home. Okay. Our real goals here. If you look at we wanted standards but we'll take mobile homes. Yeah. If you look at the so his comments are in the right hand column on non-coforming. So you can read through those. Okay. So you want to

I'm sorry guys. I went on vacation. I haven't looked at this. No worries. I'm volunteer. So I you know volunteer volunteer volunteer I understand you know I'm not sending a bill so I'm not so now you go back to uh we're now going into deliberations let's let's do let's do 57 Everett street first just because we have the abuter still here you might want to go back and tell them yay or nay okay um 57 ever street we're going some kind of echo. I think that's yours. Mike.

Um, there we go. Yeah. No, it's gone. He It was I think it was I'll put it back. Oh, close it. It was rich. Yeah, I think it was rich. Of course. Wow. Um, so 57 Ever Street, that's the the house that won. Yep. Voila. There's your There's our criteria. There's your criteria. How's that? Oh, thank you. Oh, I would say the use is in harmony. The use is an appropriate location. The approp detrimental the neighbors here confirming adequate and appropriate facilities for the operation of the proposed use I guess and where parking is good. Then we don't look at the cars. Yeah, it has nothing to do with the master plan.

Not cause undue traffic congestion. Site plan has been filed that happened. usees appropriate and purposes consistent with the current master plan as most recently I would think that this so anybody have anything to add to it or not just just for the record would I'd like to add that we had in the butter who spoke and and he seemed to speak in favor of the project and he was kind enough to note that there that there's some trees out there that may be lost and it might be a safety issue but that's that's just a matter of fact but um I think he spoke in favor of Right. And he's direct a butter and he and it and it sounded like they were going to try to get by with just taking one tree down and some roodendrrons. So they were talking three, right?

Yep. But I think he he saw the wisdom in that. Yep. Well, good. Saw the price. Saw the price of tree removal. That where there's many types of wisdom. So in ter with Oh, sorry. Yeah. I was going to say conditions recording the special permit registry. registry deeds as bill plan. Uh make sure the site is cleaned up within prior to Yep. I think you got to put that all in. I'm putting it to the application. Yep. Okay. Um are we Does somebody want to make a motion to We We don't have a decision to sign tonight, right? So

I'm taking I'm taking your I'm just asking what conditions we'd like. So would would motion be to make the um motion to excuse the motion to approve? Yeah. A motion to approve the special permit. Y and then we'll approve a decision once it's drafted. Yeah. Authorize. Well, we'll authorize the the signature for the decision, right? But we'll approve this subject to the standard boilerplate conditions as will be drafted in the decision. The motion will make a motion.

Yeah, I'll make a motion that we um approve the applicant's um application for a special permit for 57 Ever Street um and authorize it. Let it be decision be drafted and we'll review it and sign it. I second that. And roll call. All in favor with a roll call, please. I Joseph Fastiano. David Axburg. I Tim Martin I. Joseph Pinker. Chris Chris make that I thank you. Great decision board. Thank you. He can he can build his thing there. There will be an official if we sign a decision he'll get decision that gets notified to him. Y

he's approved. But he's approved. It's a it's Yeah. Well, then you'll get notif Yeah, he will. He'll find out that now he now he's on the hook to possibly pay some money and some money. Yeah. Um the rates are coming down. That's right. A quarter of a percent. What we always did though the right way. They did go the right way. Pine Street.

One Pine Street has a special permit and a variance. I think we should take this as two separate because they are two separate. Um, first off, let's let's go with the special permit. Um, because that's we pull up our criteria. The criteria that we just used for that. Um, I don't think it back before. I think we should go the other way. It's not a bad location. You think we should go the other way because we start with the variance. If we started with the variance, we don't have to make a special permit. Possibly. You're probably right. But we're not against the We're not against the gas being in there.

The use they need to take bill the use and harmony of the general purpose of the intent of I I think they can all of the the appropriate location everything I think for a gas station meets the criteria. I don't know if the lot meets the criteria, but in reality, the special permit side of life, you could you could put a gas station there if it if the lot would allow it. I don't have an issue with a gas station there if the law allowed it. I don't know if the lot allows it because I don't believe the variance.

I think the lot allows it, just the building gets in the way. Yeah, I think the whole I think the lot would allow it if the building wasn't there. They probably should have requested withdraw the special permit before they walked out the door cuz now you're going to have to make a decision. Yep. Oh, we will. No, I know. Well, I mean, just saying like they could, you know, there's people who put the door in the middle, canopy on either side, and have it attached. I understand fire separation and why like why the request is there but like at this but you're trying to put 10 pounds of stuff in a five pound bag. Well, it just I think you're trying to put 15 lbs in a 5.

You you don't have the pocking building to deal with the convenience stuff. It's too big for nine parking spaces. If they if they tweak it 11 maybe 11 they're too handicapped. That's right. They just have a miss a building imbalance where they have more store than they kind of need and it's eating up the square footage of the site pushing the pump. That would be a very busy gas station. The one down the block cuz they're busy already. Sometimes no pumps available. I always I always wondered that. I'm like where do all these people come from? I'm here at a weird time and I can't even get into the pump.

It has three entrances as well. It does. Two off of uh one and one off the police station road. Yep. I mean, I always go in through the police station to go the diesel. Yeah. Very busy. Very busy. The grade coming off of one is really steep. It is. It is steep coming off of 1A. Yeah. It just I'm I'm sorry, but between that storefront and the corner of the road, there isn't a lot of room there. Now you're talking about what is testament. No, we we we can't we have to deliberate and so the hearing is closed. We're not supposed to be. That's okay. Thank you though. But

you can gallery with one of the gentlemen. Not more than one. That's for you can talk to them after about hearing a future board member. Yeah, I do. They think the potential board remember 55 priority and so the retention of the building is driving the rest of the site design but this board does not seem to share the sentiment that the retention of the building is the highest priority and so does it have any historic uh No it's not it's not a historic building it's nothing it's not that old just to clarify just No but I mean I'd be willing I'd be willing to buy that the neighborhood is attached to like the bar vernacular kind of thing, but that's not a

a nice building. Well, that's true. That's what it is. But they could they could build back something that's similar in kind of look and feel. It's a posted. I'm not sure what meeting that they went to where they were told that it was important because I wasn't there, but that doesn't mean it wasn't this. So, I think in the last the last zoning board meeting, I said, "Oh, is that the barn? is that the red barn site. And at that point, he kind of took that as, oh yeah, see it's a landmark. This seemed to be a preconceived notion though that they came in with prior I wasn't sure if they saw the board like 5 years ago and was just no. No, this is this is a recent owner.

Okay. You just bought Yeah. No, this is a recent owner. Okay. Well, I again I just wasn't sure if the like who because they said the board had conveyed it and I was just like is it this board? Was it the planning board? I don't know. They they've had some other is my tenure not long enough to know. Um so let's let's do the variance first. Do do we believe that the lot and soils are bad enough that this is the only place that they can build on the lot. Okay. So, we're looking for a condition that is unique to the lot in the zoning district that is related to the soil condition that is causing a hardship.

Correct.

Cuz we're not convinced by the shape of the lot. I have to definitely follow on that because every single lot on this corner actually has that shape in a commercial use and they are muddling through yet. I um so I don't think that there's a shape issue that is unique to the zoning district. There's obviously not a topography issue. So, we're really looking at soil condition. The soil condition that they're presenting as wetland soils, and we have a couple of buffers that they're subject to. There's the river bank. Uh there's the river uh buffer. You could argue that that's technically a wetland soil given that it's water. Um they have wetlands themselves. I believe they have Yeah, they have wetlands, too. That is a legitimate soil condition. Um, but I don't know that that constrains like a back portion of their site, but they still have like vehicular circulation in that area. So, it's not like it I wouldn't say it's a total constraint on the site because

because they're still using they're still using it for the building. Well, I mean there's not going to put the gas pumps and so I um I mean I could it seems like we're saying is a self-created hardship cuz the building's there, right? I have a The lot was a great site for a gas station. That's my personal opinion. Are they allowed to building build a building in zone 2? Allowed to build what? Uh maybe a single family home with a permit. So if they tear if they tear their building down the edge of the corner that's in the buffer.

Yeah. Put it on that that corn on that spot. They have to shrink the building to the size. Yeah. But the the the the 200 foot buffer or whatever it is or zone two for the aquafer. Can you build in that? They did. The red the red building is in it. Yeah. Obviously. But if they tear it down increased. I don't think they can go back up. Build it there. That buff has been there forever. That that place has been wet. I'm not I'm not arguing that. What I'm saying is going forward if they tear it down. Yeah. Is they have to come back for variance in order to build in a zone two, right?

If they're going to put it in the wetland. No, you're talking about the zone. Let me the aquifer zone two. I don't I believe they had to they had to get something special in order to be in zone 2. They can't put the pumps in zone 2. No, he was automatic about that, right? Yeah. And I don't think you can even build in zone 2. Well, you can, but it's limited. It is very limited. Uh we can pull So, one, let me do this first. So, I'll just put the zone two and show you just so you can see. It's past your bedtime, isn't it, Mike? That's like past mine.

It's over here by you, Courtney. It's on the Well, if you want It's on there. It's over here. It's not. I can't even remember what I was looking for now. Oh, the zone, too. Yeah, I'm showing on the screen, though. Oh, you have it over here. Yeah. So, I I was just hoping it would be on the plan, you know. All right. Well, just, you know, he did have matches your shirt though, boys. He's gone. Yeah, that's most the site. Yeah. I mean, zone two exists for a reason. So then we go back to drinking water supply like we're not supposed to be, you know, running off a bunch of trash on there. I think it has a good use as it is. But doesn't that make his argument though? Help his argument?

No, because the the buffer is because it's a detrimental use to public water supply. That's a different issue. Detrimental like the idea though is that any structure is a detrime like basically any structure any intensity. But if he's impacted to such a great degree by soil condition R2 is is doesn't that support his argument?

Well, I think the issue though is that when you look at the actual location of zone 2, the site is not a terribly buildable site. That's not the standard of hardship isn't that, you know, maximum economic value. We're not looking for a taking or anything like that here. The only standard is the buffer exists for public safety with respect to drinking water. It's none of our interest to have to clean a bunch of pollution out of it. It's expensive. And so if the idea is this zone exists because it's supposed to dictate low inensity use, a gas station does not fit that bill.

And I would say that it's not it's the actual hardship itself. Well, what was your argument not to support a special permit? I mean, in some ways I like in some ways I don't think I mean our special permit criteria is what it is where I think the thing we could most hang our hat on is traffic and I don't think that's a great No. No. But I think the I think the use I do think that there you know it's a fairly high intensity use that has contaminants that yes are you know the tanks are tight but you're still going to get runoff when you know there's dribble. It's not, you know, there's still going to be issues. The hose connection still can, you know, there can be problems. The point though is what will it run off?

We never would get a used variance, but he's asking for a variance from setback. Whether it's a whether it's a pump or something else happens to be a a pump. Yes. Well, it's a canopy. It's a canopy actually. I don't think the pump's actually canopy or anything, but so it's not he's not asking obviously he's not going to get use relief, but he's asking for a setback relief. He's he's just saying it's because of the soil conditions that that's that's limiting where he that that's the argument. Yeah. But I think what we would say is that soil it's the most convenient to put it in the front because you don't have to remove the building,

right? No, I I agree. If you move it back and you put it where you move the building. Okay. So, right. I mean, I think the presence of the soil conditions. I do believe that it limits the site, but I don't think that it limits it in the way that creates a taking a zoning hardship. It's a way that, you know, it's just like it's the one thing that we do public. You need to think of it this way. There's a business there that runs. So what is the hardship? There's already an existing business that runs. Something you make a decision, you want to test it the right way.

Yeah. I I don't see a variance acceptance there because it doesn't seem to be a hardship at all. It's it might be a a new way of economic money stream for them, but that's it. It's not it's not it's not it's not a binary reuse option. It's not this or nothing.

I know most of us agree it's a great site for a gas station, but the lot just doesn't just support it with well it doesn't with that building on it. He did ask too when they closed the hearing that you know include that the special permit and the variance meaning we can still say we agree with being a gas station but we can't agree on the variance and the canopy going where proposed. Oh yeah. But is that that's where that's where I was headed. Yeah. That's where I was headed. I I would I you know I don't have a problem if you put a gas station there. You set it back and you make it look nice and okay building and rented or something. Is it what?

No, it looks like it's just being used for storage. He stores I think he's justing stuff down, right? But we can give him we can say yes to the special permit for the use. That's that's what it's that's the inclination relative to that plan. Correct. Right. Right. We could look at the use independent just as a gas station use and say conceptually we see that the grounds for a special permit for the use of

we're not approving the planet. However, we don't feel that the grounds for the variance for the structure. Yeah. So your decision can say we would use an issue with the proper site plan of the building. It still kind of would be strong with drawing this. It would have been nice if they had they have a $500,000 building that they could use as is or tear down use in the plan another million. So take a half a million building without proving the modify it. Okay.

Oh, I mean that's that's where it's going. I mean it will be The building looks like it's they would know. We would approve a gas station for it to come back. It's only a sheet metal build. One conversation. I'm sorry. We're going to get in trouble. You are in trouble. Yes. Thank you. All right. Let's get back to where Here's what I suggest. Take care of the variance tonight and then we'll work on the special permit just so I can give you a little bit more. Do you do you think it's possible that they Well, because you are okay with the special permit, but it kind of ties back to the plan. You know, you you know, you How do you

So, so is it applied for on one application or two? Two different permits, two different applications. Well, we put them on one application, but you can Yeah, I think it's two is a it's two separate things though because the use application it's one application, one set of plans. We deny the plans but approve the use the special permit for the use that gives them the ability to go back and design a gas station. They have the the ability to build a gas station, just not this plan for the gas station because I mean my my concern is the canopy. So,

so if you were to propose to if you were approved the special permit without a plan cuz that's not the plan you would want to approve it. Just the use the special permit is just use. We'll approve the use that they can put a gas station in but it can't be this cuz we're not giving them a variance because the actual site characteristics that go with the use are part of site plan and that's in the planning board's domain anyway. So, we can kind of only look at the use exclusively cuz unless they're going to do I mean I don't I can't think of they're not proposing different curb cuts or anything, they can't really move them. So,

my suggestion would be that we approve the the gas station the use but deny the van variance and if they want to come back for another variance for a different application with a different plan they can come back. But I would say uh agreed deny this plan without prejudice. Yeah. That give them the opportunity to redesign it without it being considered a repetitive. And that way they're they can still come back. They can do whatever they want.

I agree with that plan. So I think we deny the plan, deny the variance because we don't feel that the grounds for the variance itself for the structure are met. Even though the structure is required because of the use, it's not really use related. If there's another way that they can do it, I that works for everybody. I personally don't like the use on the site, but I'm willing to not die on that. I I would agree with I agree with you, but I'm not a big fan. I'm not a big fan of having a gas station on that site, prefer, but I don't want aquifer aquifer, right?

And I I I I mean, I watch this all the time in a gas station, right? So, there's the cement pad that we put the grooves in to capture the fuel and here comes the kid with the pressure washer and he pressure washes the concrete out right across the asphalt and it goes into the aquifer. All right? Goes right in the storm drain. I get it that it has gas oil separators. I get that. But it's still gas station next to our aquifer. I hear you a and that well is open. Okay. It is open. It is open. It's a freeway to whatever is there. If if they have a suit, it's the heroin.

Now you're going Now you're not in favor of the special permit then. But but in but in reality I'm like I don't want to get sued over the special permit. But in reality the special permit side of life that Our job is to determine whether that use is okay for that lot and is that use okay for that lot for the neighborhood for everything else. A gas station on that lot would be fine as long as it meets all the criteria for the setbacks for for for the the wetlands for the the aquifers and everything else. Right. The plenty but but the actual use of a gas station

the other boards are looking at to they might deny it. Yeah. We're okay with the use of a gas station if they can get it far enough away from our aquifer if if all things are put into place to to put in a safe gas station on that lot. Sure. But not with a variance. That's not what we're looking for. No variance at this point. No. So to be in terms of timing, right, the the variance, I think you should act tonight. Why don't you just table the special permit? Can we do that? Can we separate them? Yeah, we can buy. Okay. Two separate permits. All right. And you don't have the time constraint on the special permit.

Okay. You don't want to do that? If we don't decide on the That's not a fan of a gas station. I'm not a fan of a gas station there. I'm not. Well, then you don't want to don't deny the special permit then, right? Let's deny them both. If that's the Yeah. All right. I I agree with you. That land has been there forever. My my and never been to That's why I asked what a special what we need to follow for a special permit.

The We're not the conservation commission. We're not the planning board. We're not them. Can a gas station be built here by a special permit by the criteria we're supposed to hold it to? Let's look at our criteria again. Let's do our point by point analysis cuz we're going to need to for a decision. Okay. So, if they want to put one at the corner of Stonybrook, are we good? Well, you can't do it there. You can't do it there. The waterfall. All right. All right. Well, if we if if this is something that we're even going to entertain denying, we have to

So the special special permit criteria is unless otherwise specifically provided contrary all permit grant special permits. One, the use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw. We feel iffy about this because the general purpose and intent is health, safety, and welfare. We think this might be a little iffy in terms of health and safety. Correct. Two, the use is in appropriate location and is not detrimental to the neighborhood and does not significantly alter the character of the zoning district.

I I would say appropriate location is not detrimental to the neighborhood. I think it might be detrimental to the neighborhood because it's a gas station in wetlands on at the I would posit that the damage is too larger than the neighborhood level, but the town level. What's interesting too, he's proposing three pumps. There's four pumps down the road and they're always very busy. This is a crazy It'll be a busy crazy busy gas station. All right, number three. Let's talk about the character, too, because the pumps this will f this will factor in also with the location of the pumps and the fact that everything else has a conforming front yard setback, but this use is not but this is this is special permit. Yep. This is I'm I'm just saying that

number three the adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed juice. They got to do that. Yeah, they they have to. Four, the proposed use would not be detrimental or offensive to the adjoining adjoining zoning districts and neighboring properties due to the effects of the lighting, odors, smoke, noise, sewer, refuge materials, visual or other nuisances. It's not an issue. I don't think that's an issue either. five that the proposed use would not cause undue traffic congestion in the immediate area.

I think that I think that might but it might but we don't have a traffic site to hang our hat on. Six that a proper site plan has been filed for approval of the planning board and is required a proper number. Yes, I believe that's been met. Seven. and the use and/or purpose is consistent with the current master plan as most recently updated. I just have a question on two. It says that the use is in an appropriate location. Does is location refer to the lot or the use within the lot. So is it talking about I think it's talking about the lot. I think it's talking about the lot like I said with Stony Brook obviously generally

that would be in the sense that the board may think that that lot is not appropriate for a gas station with that red building or not that's that's my question is it No you're talking about is it the location if the if the red building wasn't there and you could put the pumps where you can put the pumps and you can put the pumps where you can put the pumps without a var without the setback and outside the R2. Yeah. Could you find that the location is okay for a gas station? I think it's comes back to safety, right?

Us is an appropriate location and is not detrimental and does not significantly alter lot ever in our view appropriate for a gas station. I'm not saying what that the pumps the canopy there. I I this looks to be the triang like the the rectangle of unencumbered, right? But I will note that the pump house on the well is right here. So while it's a de well a not active use well, not going to say decommission to I would say if the building if the building disappeared and all you were going to put out there was a guy in a shack with you know four pumps. Is that an appropriate and you can put it in that slot? But is that is that an appropriate

use of that use of that property? No, the question is appropriate location doesn't you don't have to you don't have to to get to the value of the use. It's the appropriate location. I would say that there is a very small appropriate location on the site. Yeah, like that. But I still think I don't that's where they have to go. I So the question then is is isn't that related to the lot though not the house sited on the property I mean realistically is it appropriate location for the neighborhood is what I think number two is asking

because it says is it or is it not detrimental to the neighborhood it's the location and how it relates to the neighborhood correct and I I think I think a gas station on that lot is okay for that neighborhood. I I don't have a problem with that. Is the gas station down the street? Are you talking um car washes? The gas stations are Everybody gas stations on an intersection, right? Uh where Dunkin Donuts is in the gas station. Subway. Subway. Oh yeah. Yeah. Across from car Carfax or whatever it is. Carvana. What is that like half a mile away or less? Not not even a half.

So we go back to one. It's not it's not within the intent of the bylaw because it doesn't it needs a variance, right? [Music] What is the use? I'm sorry. It's a special permit. Well, it's No, it's a special permit. Okay. Just trying to go through them one by one and check them off one way the other. I mean the bylaw that's tricky, right? Cuz the bylaw does allow for that use, right? Yeah. And I think in that district, right, in that was conditional in that district, in every in that neighborhood, I think a gas station's appropriate use. Were it not for the environmental factors and the fact that there's an aquifer next door to it, it's like what's on top of the ground, what's below the ground, it does not.

How is that our job? It's people's safety because if if gas gets into the aquifer, it's it's I do think that this is a factor as to whether or not the site is an appropriate location for a gas station. If it were just right, I mean, if the if we if we can use that as part of the criteria, then I would say no, that's not an appropriate spot to put a gas station. If say for example we approve them which we're just talking about it could they subsequently go on to the conservation committee and discuss the aquifer issue or that does that get settled here that's here that get settled I think you kind of answer your question right so the location isn't appropriate because it's in the zone two

I think because of the underground conditions as opposed to the s the surface conditions it renders the site inappropriate reset because it's in zone two it's not yeah I don't think it's appropriate be because of the aquifer. Pull zone two out of there for put gas station. Yep. Now we still have talk about the canopy, but you can make gas station. My understanding is I can the rooftops who does the walls or anything question who does it. We hired that outside consultant.

The applicant does a traffic study and we peer at the planning. I don't know. But I I go in and out of a lot of gas stations. I travel a lot. Corner gas stations have a very unique traffic pattern. Mhm. Particularly for the traffic lights. Mhm. We've got a very heavy uh usage road of 115 and people are going to try and turn into this location which is going to jam up the traffic lights. Oh yeah. can guarantee it. Oh, make left turns into the station. Well, people cut through that same on the route. You got the same trouble on Route 1. People are going to be coming out of Wallpole on that side of the road and wants

and they're going to block up the traffic light. Yeah. Well, unfortunately, he has already. Who's that study? Who Who does that study? It's not our respons. No. No. No. The applicant does a traffic study if the planning board requests it as part of site plan review and then the planning board's engineer peer reviews it. So if we can deny a special permit because of the aquifer and this is not a proper use because of the aquifer. That's our finding. I would say that's good and right. Well, you also have traffic too though.

Traffic is a is something that we can factor in. And I mean, if you go to any if you go to any town that has corners, there's gas stations on those corners. So, I mean, a corner gas station is not unreasonable, but they're also now blown up and they're big, right? They they, you know, they get away from the traffic light. They get their entrances and exits further back. I hear you. I hear what you're saying, but it's but I I I have a deal. I would I would stick I think you ground the solid in the aquifer cuz I could show you a corner gas station that Oh, I we all know you can. Yeah, but the but the zone two is definitely but the the thing I have issue with is the aquifer.

Yeah. Well, and I think the zone two is actually the same rationale for both the variance and the special permit. The reason that we don't find the grounds for variance being met are because of the presence of the aquifer as well. It that you know some we don't think that the hardship is on the part of the developer. We think that the or the applicant the applicant would be creating a hardship for the town if we did not apply a literal enforcement of the bylaw. Well, I don't I don't believe they met the criteria for hardship. No. And so I don't believe a variance is needed or granted. Mhm. because they didn't. It's not it's not a hardship. Right.

David, is there is there anything in our zoning laws that say anything about locations of chemical plants close to aquifers or or gas stations close to aquifer? What do we have? Our friend Rich is going to look that up right now. I know. I didn't get a chance to look through and that's he that's what we're really talking about. He believes he believes he has something. So, he's looking he's diligent. He's he's typing. He's wiggling the mouse. He's got the He's got the AI activity over there. Oh, yeah.

I think the underground liquid chemical storage is a problem in a zone too, but here's the that's going to be a different regulation. So aquifer water supplies to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the residents, institutions and business of the town of Northwork from contamination existence public groundwater and surface water resources to protect, preserve, maintain aquifers, recharge areas and groundwater. We're to conserve the natural resources of the town to prevent temporary permanent to comply with federal laws. I I think the aquifer denial is 100% okay. You're in zone 2. No, no gas station. Yeah. Okay. I agree. Okay.

No. And I think that's the basis right there. That's the that's the basis for the denial of the the special permit. Um the basis for the denial of the um variance is that they didn't meet the hardship criteria from our standpoint there. It's not a soil issue. It's not it just doesn't meet it. So if you want to vote that then I'll just prepare a decision and for you then All right. Somebody want to make a motion to take them separate. Um make a motion to deny the special permit due to the aquifer and then deny the variance separately separately and the plans associated with the variance.

Yep. Somebody want to take a stab at a motion? Tim, I'll make a motion that we deny the applicant's um application for a special permit um primarily due to the location of the site being in the R2 zone. And I'm seconding that. I'll second. All in favor say I. I. Roll call. Josephino I. David Axburg. I Tim Martin I. Joseph I. Chris Chris I. Okay. And now the variance line item.

I'll try that. I'll I'll make a motion that we deny the applicants application for a variance because they did not meet the the criteria for granting a variance. I can leave that open. Y applicant did not pro applicant did not present evidence of meeting sufficient grounds under the establish or the criteria established under 4A. Is that too vague? Basically soil condition as established under MG you know MDAC in particular the shape is not unique.

Yeah they didn't have owing to circumstances related to soil conditions shape or topography of such land or structures especially affecting such land or structures none of that none of that did not find that a hardship owing to any of the statutory conditions was met for that structure. Okay. And then I'll second Tim's uh You second that. I'll second it. Okay. Let's take a roll call vote. Josephino I. David Axburg. I Tim Martin I Joseph and I Chris Chris I. All right. So moved. Thank you. All right. Um we have to approve some minutes. Did Yes, I read through them. I thought they look great. Yeah. Everything spectacular. June, July, and of course August was a no quorum. Yep.

Our our meetings aren't minutes. their hours and every time she puts out bangers. So I I appre I make a motion uh we approve the June Yeah. make a motion we approve the June I don't have anything for June 18th 2025 as written as written. All right second it. I'll second that. All in favor roll calls say I. Joseph. David Axburg guy. tomorrow night. Joseph, Chris M. Chris M. Thank you. Good job, Chris. I make a motion that we approve the uh minutes for the July 16th, 2025 meeting as written. As written, and I'll second that motion. All in favor?

Joe Spiano. I David Aber. Tim Martin. I think Chris. Very good. And I saw the August ones which we didn't have quum. I but they're written as written. I approve them. I make a motion to approve them for the August 20th meeting. I approve. So second. Uh do you need to make a motion to do that? I don't mean there wasn't a meeting. Do you don't have any minutes? Not approving minutes. Okay. Well, okay. N file it anyway. Just any other we can file it as no meeting. No quum. No matter how

people will see a conspiracy where there isn't one otherwise. Do we have any other unanticipated? I would be looking for no Mike. You got anything you want bring before the board? I think we're doing a great job though, guys. All right. Make a motion to close the hearing for tonight, Wednesday December 17th at uh 9:05 9:04 p.m. Somebody want to make a second. Second that. All in favor? Roll call. David Axburg. I Josephine.

All right. All All in favor to adjourn. Thank you very much for all attending. Good night. So long. Alvida.