--------- We're going to open the public meeting. Our first uh order of business is public input. Public input shall be limited to statements from the public relating to issues with the jurisdiction of the Can I have a quiet, please? Public input shall be limited to statements from the public relating to
issues with the jurisdiction of the Chelton Zoning Board of Appeals that are not currently the subject of a pending public hearing before the zoning board of appeals. Public comment on any pending public hearings shall be only be heard during such public hearings and may be limited to three minutes time. Is
there anyone that would like to speak tonight? Yes, I would. regarding Riverneck Road. That's on the agenda. So, we will not be hearing that. I thought this was the only outside of the agenda. We have a new public
hearing. 243 Riverneck Road, 243 Riverneck Road, LLC, and its manager, Ashok Patel, are requesting a comprehensive permit pursuant to Mass General Law Chapter 40B for property located at 243 Riverneck Road. The property consists of seven single family
dwellings for sale and 16 town houses for rent. Of the total 23 housing units, six units will be designated as affordable housing, consisting of two single family and four town houses. This property is located in the residential RB district.
At this time, I'd like to make a statement that the town is going to invoke safe harbor having the uh required amount of uh low-income housing for the town. And I'm going to turn it over to uh Carolyn Murray to our attorney to speak on that so we can
understand it better. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh for the record, Carolyn Murray from KP Law, your town council. Um just a little over a month ago, I was meeting with this board, but not necessarily all of the same members when another 40B application was before you. And that
night, uh, you had, as you do this evening, um, a memorandum from the director of community development explaining where the town stood in terms of, um, achieving one of the safe harbors under 40B and in particular the
10% threshold. Uh you have again uh in your packets this evening a memorandum from the director of community development explaining that the um subsidized housing inventory that's maintained by the executive office of
housing and livable communities is the number of affordable dwelling units um that the town has uh registered with the state. If you look online, uh the SHI is updated as of March of 20 uh March 26 of
2025 and that shows us just below 10% at 9.94%. However, subsequent uh to the posting of that SHI, there were two more projects that came online. One was the Marose
Avenue or the Cobblestone Place comprehensive permit that this board approved and that in added five additional units to the SHI. And the other project involved 255 Princeton Street which is not a comprehensive
permit. It was done um through other zoning means, but as part of the agreement for that development, there were six what are called local action units um that the town applied to the executive office of housing livable
communities to have the SHI updated. Um, all of that paperwork was submitted to the executive office of housing livable communities well before when the present application from Riverneck Road was filed with the town. Um, in fact, we
have received uh a an updated SHI from the state uh dated May 22nd, which I recognize is 4 days after Riverneck Road filed their 40B application. But again, all of our paperwork to the state was in
prior to this application and the updated SHI reflects that we are now at 10.02%. So we have just squeaked past the 10% threshold. So the board is in a position that if you should choose, you can
invoke safe harbor. Um, and for those who didn't hear my, uh, explanation at the the last hearing, um, just because you've achieved safe harbor doesn't mean you cannot consider another 40B
application. It simply means that if you choose to invoke safe harbor, you can either deny this application outright by virtue of the fact that you've met the safe harbor or you can go forward and
you can consider the application of Riverneck 243 Riverneck LLC and ultimately reach a decision on its merits. Either way, whether the board ultimately approves it, denies it, or approves it with conditions because you have invoked
safe harbor, the applicant cannot appeal the zoning board's decision. Now, if you decide to invoke safe harbor this evening, it would require a vote of this board to do so. And then that would
trigger a process where we would have to submit notice to the applicant and to the executive office of housing livable communities letting them know that this application has come in and that we feel we've achieved a safe harbor. Um the applicant has the opportunity if they so
choose to challenge whether we have met that safe harbor. Um and if if that is the path that the applicant chooses, then there will be a separate uh hearing before the housing appeals committee at some point um who would or well the
executive office of housing livable communities would first have to decide who they agree with as to the 10% threshold and then whoever is not happy with that determination could um seek a further appeal of the housing appeals committee.
that process, however long that takes to play out, um eventually will result in a decision. And if ultimately the decision is that we've achieved safe harbor, then if the board has similarly chosen
to deny the comprehensive permit on that basis, that process is over. If the board chose to continue this hearing and consider the hearing uh consider the application on its merits,
then following the determination on safe harbor, it would come back to this board for a final for a further hearing to decide the case on its merits. Um, so that's a lot of information right there, but really what the board needs to
determine as a threshold matter is whether you wish to invoke safe harbor. And then depending upon the outcome of that discussion, um, we can discuss whether or not you want to um, deny this outright or whether you want to consider
the application on its merits. Thank you. Thank you. I guess I'm going to turn to the board and say that on uh three Crosby Lane, we made the decision to declare safe harbor. Uh I would ask uh for a motion to determine whether that's still the
the fact with this one. I I don't know it could have changed. Uh so we can we can look at it, but it seems we've already chosen a path to claim the safe harbor. I don't think uh stepping away from it now is the best idea. I agree with that. Yeah, I'm in
agreement with that. Would someone like to make a motion? Make a motion to declare. Chair, before the motion, if I could just be heard briefly. Matt Penture, I represent 24. I'm going to ask Caroline if that's uh the right course. It is your call, Mr. Chair.
U I I I think we're going to go ahead and uh let you speak. Hope you you be brief. Sure. I very much appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Matthew Preventure. I'm here for 243 Riverneck LLC. Um, I'm also aware that the property owner and Mr. Patel are
both here. I believe the property owner wishes to speak. I, of course, it's your choice whether to recognize him, but I just wanted to make it clear before you entertain to vote on the motion. Um, as you indicated, I'm going to keep it very brief. Um, I just wanted to say that it's the position of the developer that in this circumstance, if you're going to
make a decision about whether to invoke the safe harbor position, um, we would be amendable to you doing it immediately. I think that, you know, continuing the hearing, proceeding with a presentation on the full merits of the proposal only to have the safe harbor provision still as an active issue out there, it makes sense to resolve it for
everybody upfront so that we're not spending time, expense, and effort looking at and presenting issues and discussing them at great length when they're ultimately not going to be relevant to the board's decision-making. So, I just wanted to make that clear. If that's going to be the direction the board is going, um, we understand that
we may have some issues and disagree with you as your attorney advised you. Um, but we can agree with we can deal with those at a later date. So, if that's where the board is going, I appreciate it. To whatever degree the board might be inclined to continue this matter. Um, I would just ask that because we don't have the entire project team here tonight to present to you
because of the safe harbor issue, we'd ask that you continue it to another date so that we can make a more full presentation with all of our project consultants at hand. Understood. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. I guess we go back to the motion. Uh, we would like a motion in the affirmative.
Uh just we invoke safe harbor. Can you can you just stretch it a little to 243 neck? Yeah. To 243 Riverneck Road jumpsuit for a comprehensive permit. For a comprehensive permit. We'll get it right. Do I have a second on that? I'll
second it. Second by Peter. All in favor? I. All opposed. And Danny's not voting, so it's unanimous. With that, this will uh end up in in court. If I may, Mr. Chair, then the second the second question would be,
does the board wish to deny this comprehensive permit this evening because we because you've achieved the safe harbor or do you wish to, as Perventure just asked, um continue the hearing to another date certain to hear
the merits? Well, my understanding if we invoke safe harbor, you did not want a continuence. Is that correct? Well, as I said, I think it's open. We could continue this by agreement while you do that if we want to go down the process of challenging and determining whether you validly invoked safe harbor.
But I think this is really up to you. We're going to join issue on that one way or the other. And as your attorney indicated, the eventual end result would be we'd come back before the board. So my my position is just I'm fine with whatever you want to do. Invoke and vote to deny this evening.
Um, if if we invoke safe harbor tonight and and vote to deny, it wouldn't go back to West necessarily. It would go to I think housing court. Is that correct? And then they would make a determination based on did we fairly use safe harbor and uh
would it come back to us at that point? It would come back and we'd certainly, you know, accept a full presentation. Exactly. That's where I'm at. So, I guess I would look for another motion to deny the application at 243 Riverneck Road.
Vote it in the affirmative and then vote no. You would if if we vote to because aren't motions supposed to be in the affirmative in in technically speaking in parliamentary procedure? Yes. But um it's perfectly acceptable to if it's
more clear to everyone to vote to deny this because the town has achieved safe harbor. That's fine. So we won't need this in the affirmative. Someone like to make a motion. Motion. Okay. I'll just Okay, I'll I'll
read whatever has written. Um, I move that the board has determined that the town of Chamster has achieved one of the statute statutory minimums set forth under general laws chapter 40B because the town's substit subsidized housing
inventory as maintained by the executive office of housing and livable communities comprises more than 10% of the town's total housing units as of the date the application for a comprehensive permit was received from 243 Riverneck
Road, LLC for the property located at 243 Riverneck Road. Further, that the board authorized the chair to finalize, execute, and send written notice to the applicant with a copy to EOHLC
to invoke the 10% statutory minimum within 15 days of the opening of June 18, 2025 public hearing on the application. Could I get a second on that? Did you do you
have a question? Second by Glenn. All in favor of denying the application. It's unanimous. Application is denied. To those here, that means that this application at this point is no longer
with the board of appeals. There's going to be a court hearing assumably where they decide uh whether we have fairly invoked safe harbor. At that point, if we have or haven't, it would come back to the board of appeals. At this point, the hearing is going to end.
Make a motion to adjurnn. Second it. This motion motion. Motion to adjurnn. All in favor? Unanimous. Thank you. All are we supposed to take Part: 2
to approach the podium as well. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and good evening, members of the board and all of the residents. My name is Dave McKay. I represent Ledge Road and Newport in this matter. Um, and so I'll be uh giving comments on behalf of the company tonight.
Good. My my request would be that uh because the town bears the burden of proof in supporting its enforcement order that the town present the evidence that it believes supports the enforcement order and uh negates the
appeal and then we'll be happy to respond to that. That would be my request. That is typically how these go and given that the town bears the burden of proof, I think that's appropriate. Are there any questions of the applicant at this time? And then I'll be happy to
comment after that. Well, I I have a question for you. I mean, um, have you come up with a better plan to reduce the truck traffic on Ledge Road? I'm sorry, sir. I'm having trouble hearing you. Have you come up with a solution to
reduce the traffic on Ledge Road? Our position is that there are multiple users on Ledge Road, commercial users, and that it's unfair and prejuditial to allow or to request that one of those
commercial entities reduce its traffic without addressing all of the other commercial entities. We don't think that having just one entity reduce its traffic is fair. We also don't think that um that that is required by law
that Newport uh go to those steps. Having said that, we had multiple discussions with um the town including some of the residents and also with uh some of the other uh businesses and that was the reason that this hearing has
been except for the last continuence that was the reason that this hearing has been continued on multiple occasions. Um, we were certainly happy to continue those discussions, but the town did not want to proceed and so we were asked to be here tonight and we're happy to be here.
Well, I think what we're looking at is uh a large increase since 2017 of road use and truck use uh somewhat attributed to new Newport materials. The uh building inspector has issued a cease and desist letter to you. So, at this
time, we're we're not going to broaden that to include other groups. We we're responding to the uh to your request uh on the cease and desist order. I'll try to speak louder. I'm sorry. So, has there been an increase since
2017 in the truck traffic? I can't from Newport materials. Yeah, I we have explained our position on this and our position remains that there are several legal arguments that we have outlined in both of our briefs. This is
not a the town wants to rush to a pre-existing use analysis suggesting that this is not an allowed use and we simply do not agree with that assessment from a legal standpoint. We've uh outlined that in both of the
briefs and I'm happy to address that. I'd also like to give a little bit of background and again I renew my request that if we're being asked to respond to an enforcement order. We think it's incumbent upon the town as having the burden of proof to put forth its
evidence as to why it believes that this enforcement order is appropriate both factually and and legally because we don't think either one of those um is appropriate and carries the day. We don't think there's sufficient factual reason for it and we think that there is
insufficient uh legal uh we think there is a legally insufficient basis for this order in the first instance. So we have multiple disagreements with the building inspector in terms of the nature of the order. Again, all of which I'm I'm happy to address, but I think it's appropriate
to have the town explain why it believes that the uh enforcement order is correct both factually and legally. and then we'd be happy to respond to that. Okay. Alex, would you like to respond to that? Uh, sure, Mr. Chairman. So, you know, as
you can tell in the agenda, there's a lot of background documents here um that have been submitted to the board. Some of those include um traffic studies and uh videos actually that were taken which show, you know, significant amounts of
truck traffic coming from the Newport site. Um you've heard testimony at prior hearings um from representatives of Newport uh stating that the operations have increased significantly since they took
over. Um, so I think everyone here understands that there has been a pre-existing non-conforming use on the property, but the question is, has that use expanded significantly
since Newport took over? And I think there is substantial evidence in front of this board to suggest that it has. Um, and I'm sure you'll hear testimony from folks in the neighborhood supporting that tonight as well.
I I guess we're we're at a loss to explain how many trucks were using the road through Newport in 2017. Was were the scales constructed at that point onto Ledge Road? The scales that
are weighing trucks in and out, were they constructed in 2017? I can't speak to when the scales were um were put in. What I can speak to is that um that this 2017 was not the beginning of the
quarrying and materials work at that site. Nor was it the beginning of that kind of work at the Gilmet quarry. It was not the beginning of the work when Roma Stone was doing it on our site. I
can't speak to and this is part of the reason why I am requesting and we have been requesting the factual basis for the uh for the uh the enforcement order issued by the building commissioner 2017
in in our view is not uh necessarily an appropriate benchmark for anything. Um, it also fails to take into account all the other commercial uses that are on Ledge Road and on the surrounding roads.
Um, so I I that's that's that's the best answer that I can give you to that particular question as to when the scales were uh there. I'm sure that there were scales for the prior quarry operators as well. I imagine Roma Stone had a scale. I mean, that's typically
how these quarry operations work. Um and I imagine that the Gilmet quarry had a scale for its quarry at the site as well. Um the real you know factual specific information as to when those
prior quarrying entities um lame as well when they installed scales. I just don't know. Um, I guess let me if I can give a little bit of background and some context to the
issues that I think are before the board tonight. Um, and again, I want to thank the board for uh the continuence on the last hearing. Um, we do appreciate that that was necessitated by a family emergency in the defle family. Um, and I
should also uh mention to the board that um both John and Ricky Deliz are here this evening. Um, Rick Senior uh is unable to attend for personal reasons and this has been true for some time. Um, so we do have representatives here
from the company. We understand this is an important issue. Um, we are thankful that the board is giving us an opportunity to address you tonight and to try and answer the questions and we're also thankful for all the residents who came out tonight and are
showing their interest in this issue. Um, we take that kind of feedback to heart. Um, I think you heard at the last hearing that uh there were neighbors uh specifically on Ledge Road who
recognized that when they alert Newport to a problem that uh we do our level best to take care of it and address the issue. I think you heard testimony to that effect with regard to material spills and so forth. So, um I just wanted to say I guess start with a word
of thanks on that. Um, as I mentioned before, our position is that this is not a pre-existing use. This is not a non-conforming use issue. This is a by- use in the town of Westford. And with that by use carries
certain legal obligations for bordering towns, including the town of Chelmsford. I'll get to more on that legal issue in a moment. I think there are uh two overarching issues. First of all, in our view, zoning enforcement and a zoning
enforcement order is the wrong tool for this particular job. Second, in our view, this is an illegal, arbitrary, and capricious enforcement order. I'll talk more about each of those in a moment. The reason that I say this is the wrong
tool for the job is that this is a planning problem. This is a policy problem. It's not a zoning problem. The town controls the infrastructure. The town controls the roadways. The town controls how roadways are configured, where they run. And if the town wants a
different access, it wants uh to uh have Newport and Graves or any of the other commercial businesses on Ledge Road access in a different manner from a different place. As the town's own traffic study indicates, that is a town
that the that is an issue that the town has to resolve. We are happy, have been happy, and continue to be happy to discuss those issues with the town and with neighboring towns. Westford comes to mind, but we don't ourselves control those things.
We also don't have the right people in the room here tonight to solve that problem because you don't have the other commercial users of Ledge Road. Um, and if any resolution to the traffic issues is going to involve um, rrooting some or
all of the traffic to a neighboring community like Westford, you got to have Westford in the room as well. And that's why we feel like this is just not the forum to actually address and really solve the kinds of issues that it appears this zoning enforcement order is
intended to address. I also want to address a number of common misperceptions. Some of which I heard at the first hearing. Uh some of which I've read in the uh public comments, the written public comments that were submitted. One of those misconceptions
is that is that there is another route for Westport or for Newport's uh trucks to travel in order to get to the quaries on the northern property. Um there is no other route. We cannot provide customer
truck access um through the Newport aggregate site for two reasons. One of which is that the road was not is not uh built for those purposes. Uh I hesitate to even call it a road. Um it's really a
path through which um quarrying vehicles can travel to transport materials between the two sites. um it's not for customer vehicles. Second, even if it were appropriate
um for uh customer uh trucks, dump trucks, and uh things of the like, the town of Westford prohibits it. So, even if we wanted to do it, uh we couldn't and we're not allowed to.
The um another misconception that I've heard is that Newport reroutes trucks through the asphalt plant to go in and out of Ledge Road. And that's simply false. We just do not do that. Um the
third common misconception is that um the significant majority of the truck traffic uh in North Chelmsford and in uh on Ledge Road specifically is attributable to Newport. We don't have the traffic data for the other
commercial users in there, but we've seen the aggregate data that the town has relied upon. And we know um that uh that that the suggestion that Newport is the significant majority of that traffic
just is not true. Um, in our view, this order scapegoats Newport and makes Newport the scapegoat for historic traffic problems in North Chelmsford and on Ledge Road. This might ask, this
might prompt you to ask, well, why is there that kind of traffic level? And part of the answer for that is because everything has grown. In 1960, two years after the alternate access to the granite quaries for both Gilmet and
Lameajor, the two quarrying sites up there, um was cut off. Those sites used to have access through Make Peace Road. When Route 3 was uh constructed, um the taking was done in 1958. That cut
off the alternate access. In 1960, Chelmsford had 15,000 people. Today, Chelmsford has 36,000 people. And with all of those 36,000 people come an increase in all kinds of traffic. Traffic related to single occupant
vehicles, regular cars, trucks, everything. Everything has gotten busier. Um when the quaries were established both by Lameasure and by the Gilmets, none of the homes currently on
Ledge Road existed at that time. None of them. Since the takings were done for Route 3 in 1958, um I mentioned 1960 earlier. Uh Chumsford at that time had 15,000
residents. Since that time, uh, the number of homes in since 1960 on Ledge Road has doubled. So, the the the residency, uh, has gotten busier and is more congested now than it ever was
before. North Chelmsford itself, that entire area of town is also gotten busier. Route 3 brings a lot of traffic. There's the Fletcher Quarry to the south. There's Fletcher granite to the south where they cut stone and sell
stone um and transport it out in and out with trucks. There's granite state concrete. There is also a UPS facility down there. Uh site one landscaping mlen concrete. All of these facilities are
adding truck traffic to the roads which includes traffic that's traveling through North Chelmsford. There's also in the other direction towards Kingsboro, there's the Republic Services site. It's a little more than a mile away from uh where Ledge Road comes
out to Dunable Road. It's right on Dunable Road. They have typically around a hundred sometimes more than that trucks just on that site alone. And I'm not talking about the the my point is that there is there are lots
of reasons and lots of trucks and vehicles traveling in those areas and specifically on Ledge Road as I mentioned you've got a multiple number of businesses that are operating off of that off of that road. In addition, at the same time, you've had a huge boom in
infra public infrastructure projects and in private housing development projects as well as other kinds of housing uh as well as other kinds of private projects. Uh just a couple of years ago, the feds passed the bipartisan infrastructure law which put $1.2 trillion into
infrastructure projects. The Commonwealth is looking to add 220,000 new homes. Many of those are already under construction. All of these projects and I mention all of this require stone, granite, gravel and sand in order to make those projects happen.
So the result of all that is that things are busy. Things are busy in that area because it's become more congested and the quaries are also busy because all all of these kinds of projects need the kind of materials that the quaries provide. And the town solution at least
up to this point has been to target Newport and Newport alone. We think that's unfair and we think it's illegal and we also don't think it's going to make a big difference for the residents in that area because we don't believe that we are the significant majority of the traffic. We're asking that this
order be overturned for six separate and independent reasons. First, the order is arbitrary and capricious because it prohibits all Newport traffic. The the uh the the suggestion has been made that this is a pre-existing non-conforming use. I'll
get to that. Um, but the order doesn't say that the order prohibits all traffic and there is no set of circumstances under which that is a legal and enforcement and enforcable order and the town even seems to concede as much. As
much as we appreciate that conception, it shows that this was an illegal order from the beginning in the way that it was drafted. The order is also arbitrary and capricious because it doesn't address the multiple commercial users that are on Ledge Road. It picks one um
and there is simply no basis for picking one of the commercial businesses that use Ledge Road and ignoring all the others. Specifically, let me comment on Graves because the original request from Mr. pager who submitted the request to
the building inspector for the issuance of an enforcement order requested both quaries um receive enforcement orders. And in fact, when the enforcement order to Newport alone issued, Mr. Pager sent a
an email to the building inspector, excuse me, the building commissioner, um requesting that uh asking about why didn't Graves receive one. Now, I don't know what the response to that was, but it shows that there was a request for
enforcement from multiple businesses on Ledge Road, and yet only one received an enforcement order. It is also our belief that the town has not met its burden of supporting this enforcement order. The town records make
clear that Graves is very busy with its quiring operations, as busy or nearly as busy as Newport. And of course there are other users as well. We also find no credibility in the drone studies and I'm happy to address that in more detail.
But these are studies that were not prepared by a uh licensed and certified traffic engineer. They were prepared by a drone operator. This company does things like inspecting roofs and
commercial properties for storm damage and things of the like. They're not traffic engineers. um when uh when you look at the data, it's impossible to tell what it is they're actually counting in in those studies. Sometimes they talk about
vehicles. Sometimes they talk about trucks. They don't define either one in what they're talking about. There's no author's name associated with the report. There's no appendix of the data tables. When you get a traffic study, I'm sure this board has seen it in connection with uh projects that have
come before this board. It's a thick document filled with data tables that show how they got the data, where they got the data, how they tabulated the data, how it was all put together, and who did it. We don't have any of that.
We also have no certification as to the reliability of the data from uh those studies. I've looked at those drone studies several times. I still can't tell what it is they're actually counting, how they're counting it, and where these numbers come from. Um, just
because a truck passes over one of it, it it it suggests that one of the things that they were looking at was um the scales that there's two scales. It's unclear to me whether they realize that there are two scales because there are two quarry operations up there. Um, but
in any event, just because a truck passed over the scale doesn't mean, at least specifically for our operation, that that truck uh came in on Ledge Road or exited on Ledge Road. Um, and in fact, the the reports go over and over
saying each of the three reports suggests their own shortcomings. They say that the data is incomplete. They say um that it is just a limited observation. And we certainly agree with that. We just think that those studies are not reliable. They're too short in
time. We have no idea how that data was put together and they don't show what um that that this is a Newport problem as opposed to a larger problem of congestion and commercial vehicles in the North Chelmsford and Ledge Road
area. Third is the third legal issue for us in this appeal is that the order is illegal and it's barred by Leanus versus the zoning board of appeals of Brockton, Chelmsford versus Burn and at least two
other cases. This goes to the non-conforming use question that town council referred to earlier and I think uh some of the board at least the chairman referred to in his question. This is an allowed by use in the town of Westford. Um, quarrying and mining are
defined in the Westford's own zoning bylaw as the extraction of rock and the processing and finishing of the products thereof. Rock crushing, lime killeds, and lumbering. Those are the kinds of activities that Newport is doing at the site. And those are protected
activities. Um, from a zoning perspective, they're not even special permit activities. They are byight activities under the Westford zoning bylaw and Chelmsford has an obligation to respect that. um that a small portion
of a private road leading to the Westford operations um is used for commercial purposes and has been used for commercial purposes for many decades does not change the fact that this is a byight legal use and
for that reason the enforcement order should be overturned. The um I I want to talk just a little bit about the Leanis case and some of these other cases because what they say is that a bylaw in a neighboring community like Chelmsford is arbitrary
and invalid if it bars access to the land for a lawful use. And that's exactly what this use is. It's a lawful use in the town of Westford. And uh the these cases provide that that cannot be barred by a neighboring community. And
yet this order does exactly what lepinus and those cases prohibit. Fourth reason we think this order should be overturned is the statute of repose. It's general laws chapter 48 section 7 and it provides that a municipality
cannot bring an enforcement action to prohibit or limit a use when um a building permit has issued in connection with that use in the last 6 years. If the town waits more than six years since the building permit has issued, the town
is barred from taking enforcement action. And the reason that that statute exists is precisely for uh situations like this because whether you are a business or a residence um it is
understood that if you undertake an activity and you get permits in connection with that activity that you have a certain right to continue with that activity and if the town or municipality wants to stop you um they have to do that within a certain time
period. Statutes of limitation and statutes of repose are nothing unusual in the law. We have them for almost everything. And this is one of those examples here. And I included these attachments in our uh original brief in October. There are at least three
permits, building permits that protect the use. Um, one of which is a 1965 building permit for an office um in connection with the lame quarry. There is also a 1988 uh building permit
for a building for the storage of the quarrying equipment for that was granted to Roma Stone back in 1988. There are also permits that were issued till the Gilmets for two commercial buildings which also use the same exact access
that Newport uses. So, the town simply cannot issue an enforcement order that attempts to bar or limit a use for which there are existing building permits uh associated with that use. The fifth reason that this enforcement order
should be overturned is the 2016 settlement agreement and the um uh the corresponding agreement for judgment that was entered in the uh uh Newport um
materials asphalt plant litigation. You may recall that there was a substantive challenge to that settlement agreement between Westford and Newport um by the town of Chelmsford. The the town of Chelmsford filed suit to overturn that
settlement agreement. And part of the reason that they filed suit to overturn that settlement agreement is because they were concerned about the implications that the settlement agreement would have with respect to Ledge Road and traffic on Ledge Road because the settlement agreement made
specific reference um to those operations and the quarrying operations at what is now the Newport site north off of Chelmsford Road. There's section 3D6 which states that the 400 vehicle trip
limit that applies to the asphalt plan does not apply to the lame quarry. There's section 3E3 um which requires that there or provides that there is no new special permit that
is required for the lame major quarrying operations. In section 3E5, there are actually two provisions that relate to this. One provision provides that materials quarried at adjacent properties, including the lame majory quarry, but
also the Fletcher quarry um can be used for asphalt manufacturing. So, it is perfectly legal and I would argue helpful to the town of Chelmsford that though that uh deliveries from the uh
quaries north that are otherwise accessed through Ledge Road that they can go directly south to the asphalt plant because that reduces traffic that would otherwise go through Ledge Road. Um that provision also has or that
section also has another provision that says that the 200 motor vehicle limit depends on how you count it, right? It's it's 200 vehicle trips in total, 400 um if you count in and then out with respect to the asphalt plant. The 200
motor vehicle limit shall not apply to vehicles accessing the lame quarry via ledge road. So this settlement agreement and the uh agreement for judgment that made this a binding creature of law
addresses ledge road issues and the town not only challenged that um but it brought suit to overturn that settlement agreement and that uh that agreement for judgment. The town cannot by law then
turn around and try and undo something that was done in that settlement agreement. if the town had concerns that the use of the lame quarry connected to um uh the asphalt plant or just
generally was going to be a problem. The town was required to raise that issue which it did in that litigation and that litigation was dismissed against the town. That is a binding result and it is not fair to my client. It's also not
legal to force us to relitigate issues that were litigated once before and resolved by a a settlement agreement, an agreement for judgment and then later a subsequent judgment um by the court dismissing the uh the Chelmsford appeal.
It's not fair to us to have to relitigate that and the law doesn't require us to do that. And yet that's exactly what this enforcement order attempts to do. It attempts to undo that settlement agreement or at least portions of that settlement agreement. It attempts to undo portions of the um
agreement for judgment that implement that settlement agreement and attempts to undo the judgment that the court entered when Chelmsford challenged the validity of that settlement agreement and agreement for judgment. The last legal argument that I want to point to tonight and I'll refer the
board generally to our briefs but is the issue of a stoppple and latches. These are two equitable legal doctrines. Um, a stoppple is a basic fairness doctrine. It says that a party cannot um, uh,
undertake an action in this case an enforcement order when in essence principles of due fairness and fundamental fairness um, uh, require otherwise. Similarly, latches is another equitable principle that says that a
party can't sit on its rights. It's similar to a statute of limitations in some regard, but what it it it does two things. It says that if a party has a claim, it's got to bring that claim within a reasonable time period. And second, um it bars those claims when the
other party has been prejudiced by the delay. And that's exactly what happened here. Newport came into the site in 2017. Um, eight years now have passed since Newport came to the site and now eight years later, the town is trying to
entirely prohibit the um, uh, uh, access through Ledge Road to that site. That is simply not fair and we don't believe that it's supported under those equitable principles. Um, I touched on this uh briefly, but I want
to revisit the issue of some of the improvements that Newport has made to its operations to try and improve um the situation both for the residents, also for our drivers and also for our
company generally. When I mentioned at the beginning that um uh I was happy to see all the residents here, I'm not giving these folks lip service. I mean what I'm saying and because it helps make us better citizens, better
residents, um and we want to do the best that we can for the communities that we operate in I thank you. Um so um since the last hearing and you
heard testimony at the last hearing that when something goes wrong and we get the call to fix it, we go there and we fix it. This applies to spills on the road, trucks blocking up traffic, whatever the case might be. If we know of the problem, we'll fix it and we'll make it
right. I think we have a good record of doing that and we will continue doing that. We encourage the residents to tell us when those kinds of things happen. And the vast majority of these cases are all thirdparty drivers. They're not Newport drivers. They're not Newport
employees. They're um third-party companies and uh other entities that use our product and that purchase product from us. So, we don't necessarily control them in the same way that we can control an employee, but we do have an a
code of conduct for those drivers that we will enforce and we will bar people from using those drivers from using our facility if they are not being respectful of the neighbors and doing what they're supposed to do to respect the neighbors. We are also willing to
help pay for improvements to the infrastructure on Ledge Road. We've made clear that we've been willing to do that from the very beginning. Um, and we have shown that we are willing to negotiate with all the stakeholders. We are not playing favorites because we think this
requires a global resolution, not a scattershot, one piece arbitrary targeted at only one commercial business enforcement order for zoning purposes. In conclusion, um, I want to point just
to a couple of things. One is at the first hearing in January, the meeting minutes for that hearing indicate um that some of the members of the board leaned toward upholding the order to compel parties to collaborate on solutions even if the order was flawed.
I quoted that beginning with the word others. That was a quote from the meeting minutes. With all respect to the board members, and by the way, I represent zoning boards of appeals and planning boards all the time. I have at least a half a dozen communities that I work in regularly. So, I understand the
role. I respect the role and I appreciate the time and the effort that you folks put in. Having said that, respectfully, it's not the board's role to do that. It's not the board's role to um force parties to collaborate by
enforcing an enforcement order that shouldn't be enforced in the first instance. I've given you several reasons why that order should not be enforced. I said to this board before and I'll say it again, we are happy to continue talking with the parties in interest to
try and find better global resolutions than a oneshot enforcement order. Um, but this is not the forum or the place to do that. Um, we I ask and my client asks only that the board follow the facts and the law and the facts are
clear. Ledge Road is the only access for Newport. It's been the only access to that facility for almost 70 years. And it's also clear that Newport is one of several users. Um there are um there are uh records that have been produced that
indicate that the town knew all along that Graves was a busy commercial operator up on Ledge Road. And yet we are the only ones who are here tonight. The law is also clear and I won't mention all those legal arguments again um except to say that there are at least
six of them separate legal independent reasons that this enforcement order should not be upheld. Um and lastly, I'll just close in saying again we are happy to engage in continued discussions with the town of Chumsford, with the town of Westford, with the neighbors,
with the other commercial businesses. Um unfortunately that can't happen tonight. that just is not this is not the forum for those uh discussions. Those parties aren't in the room, but we are committed uh and will continue to be committed to doing that. So, respectfully, we ask that the board uh overturn the
enforcement order. And I thank you very much for your time and attention. Thank you. And I'm happy to answer any questions that the board has. Does the board have any questions at this time? Yeah, I I do.
Um, I was listening to you. Of course, you speak very well and I'm a man of few words, so I'll get right to the point. You said 10 mouthfuls when you said Westford won't let us go out Route 40. Well, Chsford doesn't want to let you go
out Ledge Road. I'm sorry I didn't catch the last part of your statement, sir. We don't want you on Ledge Road because you've destroyed all these people's lives. Why do you think there's so many people here? You think they're here just for fun? No, I don't think they're here for fun, but that doesn't mean that this is
an enforcable enforcement order. That this is a legal enforcement order. The town of Westford required Newport to go through a permitting process and they went through the permitting process with respect to this particular quarry again.
And that's why I say for I I appreciate the sentiment and I understand the concerns and I'm not deaf to them nor is my client. If we had another road, we would take it. But this is the only road for that quarry in and out that can be
used for that purpose that is and that is is available to us and that has been the case for 70 years. It's not like this is something new. So I I I appreciate and I recognize the policy concern. I recognize the planning
concern. I recognize the issue. I'm not deaf to it. I understand that. But at the same time, that is a that policy question is a different question from the zoning question that this board is being asked. And I can I can also appreciate the impulse of the board to
do something to try and do something to make this better. We're willing to try and do something to make this better as well, but that doesn't mean that this is a legitimate legal enforcement order. And that's the that's the real crux of the issue. And that's what we respectfully ask the board to focus on
tonight. No, ma'am. I've got the board's questions in place and then we'll take public comments. So, I just have a question for town council. Um the why is there only one enforcement order on this company and
not on the other commercial companies that have been stated that are also using that road? So, initially the uh traffic data that we reviewed
um it was the building commissioner's interpretation uh that it looked like the majority of that traffic was coming from Newport. But the does the traffic study actually state that? Because I traffic the videos
show the direction of where the vehicles are coming. Mr. Chairman, through you. May I respond to that? Uh, you can. Danny's finished up there first. Uh, anyone else can Well, I think one of the things that's been glossed
over. I think one of the things that's been glossed over a little bit is the increases that we faced over the years and uh you said you know you quoted 1960 1990 19 88 microphone my apologies I I
think we're talking about present time how many trucks are using the road today and I think the enforcement order as it was written is what you appealed and that's what we have to work with we can't go outside our purview and say well there's other people there and that what we're doing here tonight is you're
asking for an appeal of his enforcement order which is directed at you. It's not directed at Graves and not at ley. If that's a mistake, maybe it needs to be rectified. But what we're doing tonight is dealing with that enforcement order, right? But the the
that's what we have to work with and that's our purview. The framework, Mr. chairman is that it cannot be arbitrary and capricious and there is nothing more arbitrary than knowing that there are multiple commercial users on Ledge Road
and not and and just selectively taking enforcement against one and not the others. You're asking Newport the order prohibits all traffic from all Newport traffic from Ledge Road. It doesn't prohibit traffic at all for any of the
other commercial users of Ledge Road. How can that be anything other than arbitrary and unfair when we know that the Graves Quarry, just as an example, is very busy? That's a very busy operation. One of the letters that came
to the town um from the original complainant requesting this enforcement order asked about Graves. There's also another email from that same person um indicating that uh the the large trucks are coming from graves that they are the
ones that are bringing in the 18wheelers that you know are pulling the trailers. Um, so there is plenty of evidence before the town, before the building commissioner, and before this board that shows that it's not just Newport, and it
can't be anything other than arbitrary and unfair to ask Newport to bear the entire burden of traffic on Ledge Road to be pro entirely prohibited or even partially prohibited from using its
vehicles on that road when there is no other access. and no other commercial user is being asked to modify their use of the road in any way. And and and you know to the growth question, I don't have any reason to believe that Newport
has grown its operations in any significant different way than Graves. Both of those are busy quaries up on uh uh up up there. There are two busy busy
places that serve the same kind of customers and that um that provide the same kind of materials. I should also mention that one of the town one of the customers for Newport from that quarry is the town of Chelmsford. The DPW has
been a customer at that quarry using that quarry virtually every year since 2018. In just the p just this year so far, 2025 to date, there have been 65 at
least 65 truck trips from the DPW bringing material up to uh that site and purchasing material from that site. So on the one hand, we're being told that we can't use this for the quarry at all,
but it's fine for the town to be one of the customers that uses Ledge Road for the precise purpose for which the quaries have been there for almost a hundred years. So I to your question, you know, that's why this is such a
problem because it's arbitrary. It was arbitrary from the beginning. You're right. those other parties have not received enforcement orders and that's the whole problem. You're asking us to bear all the burden and that's just not fair. How how many acres are you in control of up there? Newport Materials.
Oh, that's a good question. I I I don't know that off the top of my head. I'd have to pull the I I'm just curious. I I can't imagine the the having seen and the drones. I cannot imagine that there's not a way to accommodate more truck traffic that does not end up on
Ledge Road. I I I just find that really hard to understand. I I they can't go south. The customer trucks we're talking about, it's the third parties you were referring to, aren't Yeah, these are these are third parties,
contractors, DPWs, things of that nature. And and I'm sure Chumsford needs its amount of stone, too, and is certainly uh bringing material in to be recycled into a usable product, right? If we could get to Route 3, we would. If we
could get to Dunstable Road directly, we would. If we could if there was another way, we would do that. But Ledge Road is the only route in and out of this particular port. This is determined by cost, convenience.
This is determined by where the town has put roads. But you we we don't we don't have eminent domain authority to just take property and build roads wherever we want to. We're using the same road that has been used for these operations
for many decades. Since 1958, this has been the only way to get in and out of the quarry. The other road that was available was Matepiece Road, but that's Route 3 now. And I understand that was Yeah. Right. So, I I I I am entirely 100% sympathetic and I think my client
is 100% sympathetic to the point you're making, but that's again why we feel that this is not the forum for this kind of a conversation. It's not a zoning. It's not a zoning violation. This is where we find ourselves talk about by your appeal, sir. So, we we're here
because you appealed. So, must be the forum for something. We're here because we received an arbitrary, capricious, and illegal enforcement order. That's why we're here. Okay. Uh just a question about the plant and
ledge road and the um quarry the two pieces of property but each other is there and there's been a lot of talk about why isn't there a road internal into that between the two other than
cost. Is there a reason why? There are multiple reasons why. Cost is probably just one of them and the least important of them. One is permitting. Another is um wetlands protection and the
environmental considerations associated with the wetlands and traveling through the wetlands that are in between the two properties. And a third reason is that the town of Westford is prohibiting us from do doing that. The board should un should know that we explored the
possibility of trying to get to Ward Way. Ward Way is uh a road in Chelmsford that dead ends off of Route 40 um near the um the the Newport asphalt plant. We
don't own that road. It's a private road. Um the town looked into trying to get access for it for um that purpose. It is now a um uh it is now a uh a UPS
facility. It's been rented out to UPS. Um and so my understanding is that the landlord wasn't interested in exploring that. Um there's an example of the kind of alternate access that wouldn't be easy. Um and there are a lot of hurdles
to be able to do that. It illustrates that this is a policy problem, not a zoning problem. But that was that's an option that's just not available to us because we don't own that property. There are there would be environmental considerations associated with that as well. And there would also be um town of
Westford implications for that as well and would probably require a new permit from the town of Westford. Um again, all of those things are conversations that we're willing to have. Um but but they can't happen in this forum because the only thing that we're dealing with in
this forum um is the enforcement order. You have a followup. Do you run rock trucks between the asphalt plant and the quarry now? Yes. Okay. The asphalt plant purchases materials. I referenced this before and I'm happy to clarify. The
asphalt plant purchases materials from the quarry to the north that's um set out in the settlement agreement um also incorporated by reference into the agreement for judgment. Um and candidly that takes trucks off a ledge road. those trucks would otherwise be
accessing off ledge road. I want to make clear again, those are not third-party customer trucks. They are quarrying equipment vehicles that are specifically designed for that purpose to be able to move materials around within a quarry.
I have a followup sir. I have a followup to that. In 2017 when this whole issue came up, I was a member of the Chumsford uh board of selectmen and as I remember the primary concerns that Chumsford had
at that time that was brought about by the residents uh was about air quality contaminants and not so much about Ledge Road. now, but it seems that after the fact, Ledge
Road became the deacto uh concern of Schelms, which would tend to suggest that the traffic on that road increased incre tremendously after the asphalt plant began its operation. And I would think that if you did a poll of everyone
who's here, they would tell you that the traffic on the road was always there. But once the asphalt plant got into operation, the traffic on that road increased exponentially. And so should we believe that everybody in this room is telling a lie? Is that
is that reasonable? I I'm not suggesting that anyone was telling a lie. I'm suggesting that the increase any increase in traffic is not a zoning violation for multiple reasons. I'm also suggesting that those are perfectly legitimate concerns. And again, we're
happy to talk about those, but this is not the place for those kinds of policy discussions because the two main parties in this room, um, the town of Chelmsford and, uh, Newport don't alone have the
ability to implement the kinds of mitigation that that you're referring to, sir. I also think it's important to uh recognize that the ledge road issues, as I understand it, and there's documentation to support that, the ledge
road issues were among the concerns that the board had um in seeking to invalidate that settlement agreement. In fact, and and I'd like to approach the the the board for a moment. So, this is an email um from October
2016 um to the town manager quoting below and the the highlight in the email down at the bottom with respect to the 200 motor vehicle limit shall not apply to vehicles and it's a little cut off here
because that's the way it came to us from the town um shall not apply to vehicles accessing the lame quarry via ledge road. So this issue was squarely in front of the town and if you'll see in the email up above that quotes that portion of the settlement agreement um
it states please see below part of the agreement between Westford and Newport Materials. Is there a way for Challenford to step in excuse me and check the permits for lamey? Is there a restriction on traffic to from that quarry? I am wondering also how to make
the planning board aware of this potential issue. Not sure who Lameery is owned by and what they might attempt in Chelmsford to help the asphalt plant. These issues were known to the known to the board, known to the town and contemplated explicitly in the
settlement agreement. So, um the the question is a is a fair one and to your the precise answer to your question is no. I'm not suggesting that anyone in the room is lying. What I'm suggesting is that there are a lot of reasons for
um increase in truck traffic in North Chelmsford. Many of those is some of those reasons are the huge growth in the area generally. also the huge growth in infrastructure projects and construction projects that require these kind of quiring materials and the fact that
there are multiple businesses on Ledge Road alone that are doing business there and I suspect all of those businesses have grown in the same kind of a way and that's why you're seeing a lot of traffic up there. You've indicated numerous times that you don't accept uh
the Chumsford study on traffic pertaining to the the drone study. Absolutely. I do not accept that study. Is it possible that a new study could be done that you would be part of that you would accept as responsible? Correct. Or
is it just you don't like this particular study? Well, I'm not sure I'm not sure what you're asking in the context of this particular one in this particular one of your main defenses is that the study is wrong.
that there's no way that uh it can point definitively that you produce more traffic than anybody else. Is that correct? That is not a reliable study. I can't read it and tell what it's saying. It it it's not precise. It doesn't have the
data tables. So, I can't accept that as a legitimate traffic study because it's not a traffic study. It's not it was not done by a traffic engineer. And so it's it's hard for me to um accept anything that comes out of that when I know that
it wasn't prepared by a competent professional. So and it and it doesn't specify precisely what it's measuring and and and how and how it worked and and what it shows. What it it if if you
if you sort of believe it, it shows that there's a lot of traffic going to the um uh to the Graves Granite site, which is consistent with our observations and is consistent with the observations of the neighbors and it's consistent generally with the observations of the town and
yet somehow we're the only ones sitting here. Um, so to your other question with respect to, you know, a new traffic study, um, if the town wants to rescend its own enforcement order, we're all in favor of that. Um, and if the town wants
to engage in a process that brings in all of the interested parties and all of the stakeholders to try and address these problems, we're all in and we have been in on that from the very beginning. And that was the purpose for which the
continuences were jointly requested by Mr. Weiss and I to try and explore those conversations. Those conversations ended not because we wanted them to end. Um, and we were asked to show up and explain ourselves and that's what we're trying to do. So, a traffic study can certainly
be a piece of that exercise, but it's a it's a much larger undertaking, I think, as well. Excuse me. You have you andor the residents on Ledge Road ever had a conversation about
uh repairs or cleanups or you you did indicate you you were willing to help out with any problems. Have any discussions taken place about that? Yes. And I I want to respect those discussions. some of those were with town council and in the context of um
what I think were settlement negotiations. So, I don't I don't want to be flippant, but yes, we've had those conversations and yes, we're willing to continue having those conversations. I would also add that if there's a problem with a particular pothole that uh the residents think we have caused, um if
there's a scenario where one of the one of our customer trucks drove up on the uh edge of the road into somebody's yard, any of those things, we want to know about it and we want to try and fix it. And you said a large amount of the
traffic is from contractors. So, how if I were standing on the edge of Ledge Road, how would I know who owns what truck if I don't see a Newport sign on the side of the truck? I don't think almost any of the trucks have a Newport
sign on the side of the truck. Okay. So, so I I think the vast majority of them are contractor vehicles. So, it makes it very difficult to do an accurate study one way or the other. Well, no. I'm sure a competent traffic engineer could
figure out how to identify where the trucks are coming from and where they're going. Well, do you do you have figures for Newport? I don't I don't have figures with me tonight. And more importantly, I don't have figures I don't have reliable aggregate figures. I
also don't have figures from all of the other businesses, which is again what make what makes this so difficult to do with a oneshot one party enforcement order. Okay. And my last question would be, does Newport or actually if you know of any of the other people uh pay any
excise or use tax to Chumsford? I I don't know the answer to that. Yeah. you know, I I I do want to address the the tax point because I did see that in some of the public comments as well. And I think that has been an issue that
has kind of flowed through um some of these proceedings and some of the issues that we've um seen with respect to Ledge Road. Please understand, we don't decide where the taxes are payable to. the main part of
the facility is located in Westward. So that's where most of the tax revenue goes. This is this is true for um businesses and municipalities across the Commonwealth. There are hundreds of
examples of businesses that are located near a town border and where a lot of the traffic comes from a neighboring community. I'll give you one example which is close to where I live. The NICT mall, probably 90% of the traffic from
the NIT mall comes through the town of Framingham. That was an issue when the NIC Mall and Shoppers World got permitted. And it's just sort of part of the reality. It's also part of the reason why on projects like that that
need special permits or some kind of permitting relief, notice goes to the neighboring communities as well so that the permitting authority in the home community, the host community, if I can call it that, um, uh, can at least take impact or take input from the
neighboring um, uh, communities. I think that's why the process works that way. I'm not suggesting the process is perfect. Um, but it's just part of the reality of how these things go for better or worse. Okay. A comment to that, and I'm just going to use your
example, so I I'm not picking on you. Most of the traffic going to the NIC Mall area, I'm pretty sure, is uh private vehicle going on, you know, uh, state roads. You're putting large trucks who have a
habit of tearing up the road into a residential neighborhood. Sir, my point was the the answer to your question, the reason I referenced the NIC and Framingham example was to respond to your tax question. I remember when those concerns were brought up. Yeah. I'm not suggesting that a granite
quarry is like a shopping center. That's not what I'm suggesting. Um, and I recognize and I appreciate that they're two different kinds of operations and and their patrons tend to drive different kinds of vehicles. You're you're absolutely right about that. Um,
it doesn't change the arbitrary nature of the of the enforcement order in the first instance and it doesn't change all the legal reasons why this is not a um legal enforcable enforcement order.
You stated earlier that uh the town conceded that in the way that the enforcement order was written that any commercial uh vehicles are not allowed. you stated that the town conceded that that wasn't correctly written. My take from the first evening, and I'll
be corrected by the record, but my take from the first evening of the public hearing was that there was a recognition that uh at least the town's position was that this was a pre-existing non-conforming use and that the use should be limited to whatever the
pre-existing um level of use was. I don't believe that that is the appropriate legal analysis for it, but that was the the that was the what I was referring to when I um spoke to the concession. I did
not hear anything from uh the the building inspector or town council suggesting that at least the way the order is written, barring all traffic, that that's enforceable. Uh question, but I I'll be corrected the town I'm not speaking for the town obviously, so the town can speak for
itself in that regard. Question for town council. So if we were to uphold the enforcement on this, wouldn't that be considered a taking because then there's no out for the company to be able to bring out any vehicles. That would be an option. We we also have
the uh ability to modify that. Yeah. My ability to modify speak to that a little. Yes. So um you you do have the ability to modify the order. So it's not just a question of does it stand as is or or not. Um you
also have the ability to modify it. Any further questions from the board at this time? Seeing none, I think I'm going to open it up to public comment. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Speak at the podium and ask for your name and address.
Yes. Good evening. Uh my name is Everett Olsen. I live at 140 Grten Road. Uh to put that in perspective, that's about a quarter of a mile up the street. Our house is right at the intersection of Route 40 Grten Road and Swain Road. So
that every single truck that comes off Route Three going towards Newport, passes by our house, turns on a swain road with slamming truck bodies, slamming tailgates, spilled stone. We've seen the street sweeper more in the last 6 months
than we have in the last six years in North Choo. I've lived at that location when I was 7 years old and I still live there at 77 years old. And when attorney McCay asks for a
factual basis for singling out Newport, I will tell you in my 77 years of living in that same location, there was no heavy truck issue from either Graves or Lisery when that was in
operation, but there has been since Newport has been in operation. We've talked a lot about, you know, environmental factors. I'd like you to please consider the quality of life of everyone here tonight and beyond
everyone here tonight. Our neighborhoods have been ruined by the heavy truck traffic. Yes, independent contractors, but they are all going to Newport. I ask you, please don't fall for any more stonewalling in terms, well, we can have
conversations. We can we can look at that. No, those days those times that dialogue is over. It's meaningless. It has meant nothing. You have never seen as many people in this senior citizen center over an
issue in North Chumpset as you see tonight because we're damn angry over the fact that our residential neighborhoods have been destroyed and continue to be destroyed by the truck traffic associated with this company.
You know, one of the concerns is that a multinational conglomerate, Veny Corporation, has purchased Newport. If you look at their cut sheets, their information, their interest is in expanding their
operations in North America. What does that mean? That means even a larger increase in truck traffic. Truck started earlier. There's the most important man in the
room. Uh, Mr. Digs, you made a good point that in all my years in this community, in fact, this used to be the site of the North School where I started my formal education back 72 years ago.
The population in town at that point in time was around 12,000 people. It's now approaching 40. But as you pointed out, not everybody's driving a 14 to 22 wheel truck and that's the problem. All right.
You talk about a traffic study in 2023 aerial surveillance of the truck traffic associated with Newport. Town official observed that what they believed to be intentional aerial obstruction of surveillance
leading to the conclusion that the volume of truck traffic on Ledge Road and therefore Swain Road, Dunable Road, and Route 40 is considerably more than the average and daily totals that have
been previously visualized and reported. you know, the NICT mall. I Hey, I sympathize with those people in the NICT mall, Burlington Mall, wherever. But once again, those are residential vehicles for the most part. What we're talking about here are trucks that are
completely inconsistent with residential neighborhoods. We've had stone spilled, as I said, excessive noise, diesel fumes, dust. None of you want to live with that.
And I'm asking you to please uphold the enforcement of the cease and desist order. We didn't come here tonight to hear more and more and more stonewalling, more reasons why you
shouldn't take action. We're all here tonight to tell you, please take action and support the enforcement of the cease and desist order. It's the only way our neighborhoods are going to be restored to residential neighborhoods. I've shown you on January
2nd, I presented you with information on pictures, truck after truck after truck, every 3 to 5 minutes or more frequently, oftentimes numerous trucks at one time starting at 5:30 in the morning. I'm sure they're on Ledge Road even earlier than that. Ending at 5:00 at night, six
days a week. joggers, kids going to bus stops, parents with young children pushing baby carriages are now avoiding rocks and stones spilled all over the street, weaving in and out of trucks. Talk about the
environmental concerns in Westford and others. The environmental concerns are with us on Swain Road, Dunville Road, Groten Road, and certainly Ledge Road. Uh I will not keep going on. I do want
to cite to you again a case that was tried in 1962. The case of Goldblat versus the town of Hemstead. Goldblat was a operation that was somewhat similar to Newport.
The town of Hemstead imposed regulations on them. Essentially, Goldblat argued that the intent of Hemstead was to shut them down, which was unconstitutional. The case went to the US Supreme Court
and the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the town of Hemstead stating that if the operation of an entity negatively impacted the health, the welfare, and the safety of residents, then the town of Hemstead had the legal authority to
regulate that business. Same principle could apply here. This company This company through its operations is impacting the health, the safety and the welfare of all of us. And there are
many people here uh many people who are not here tonight. And as I said, I can tell you unequivocally, my eyes don't lie. I'm not blind, but I can tell you never never never in this community has there been the
truck traffic that has existed since Newport started his its operations. You know, I'm pleading with you as a person with my wife and kids and grandchildren who are ground zero along with everybody else here.
Please represent us and stop this nonsense and stop the destruction of our quality of life and the health, welfare, and safety of all of us. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Laura Ammonson to Swain
Road. Mr. Olsen is my neighbor. Um, I am not going to stand up here and give all the emotional reasons as to why this has been a disruptive force within Swain Road. I've said that all before. I'd like to use my time now to substantiate
um my thoughts on this. So, first I'd actually like to open with a quote. And this quote is actually from Newport Materials President Richard D. Phelis himself. He's not here. Um, this was in Eagle Independent. Alexander Silver
wrote this on November 29th, 2016. And it says, "Defelissiz described 540 Groten Road as a quote perfect spot for an asphalt manufacturing plant due to its proximity to a major highway and
quote unquote fairly isolated location next to an operating quarry." quote, "You're 1,800 feet from the on andoff ramps of Route 3," unquote. He said, quote, "You're in the middle of a quarry. You'll never be seen. You'll
never be heard." Right? Let's all let that sink in. All right. So, Mr. Okay, we've heard several times from you tonight some of these different words like
fairness and no other access and take responsibility. The January 2nd appeals meeting, I looked at that video again today and I wrote it down verbatim. You said it is beyond the rights of
Chelmsford to restrict commercial truck traffic without offering an alternative route. That is what you wrote. That is what you said. To that I answer the alternate route is not necessary because the alternate route is out the front of
Newport's entrance which is on a state highway which is Route 40. Now the question here is can a town you've said our town can't restrict access to ledge road towns restriction of access to state highways in
Massachusetts towns generally cannot restrict business's use of a state highway directly but they can exert influence through land use regulations in collaboration with mass department of transportation. So towns can regulate land use and
development. They can implement zoning bylaws that address concerns like traffic impacts to business. The onus should be on Westford to prove that additional trucks would impact traffic through those 1,800 square feet 1,800 ft
to get to Route 3. the settlement agreement limitation of 200 vehicles per day for all operations at 540 Grten Road. So I pulled this I know that we've heard this many a times. I pulled this from the town of
Westford's website. This was director of land of use management limitation of 200 vehicles per day for all operations at 540 Grten Road. It says nothing within this that you can
just have the overflow go through Chumsford and Ledge Road. I don't know if that was an afterthought, if it was because Westford just can't mandate something through Chsford. You've used words like take
responsibility and fairness and that the town of Chumsford is not being fair to you. In my line of business, when I am given a directive, I don't say,
"I'm sorry, boss. That's not fair. Everybody else is doing it. I take responsibility. I live up to my promise. I respond to fairness." The efficient use of Newport's time should be going after the validity of that Westford
agreement and those 200 trucks. Mr. McCay, you state that this is the wrong tool for the job. That is my point. Exactly. We should uphold what we're doing here tonight. We should
uphold this. Take chumps out of it. We have every right. Every right. We are not a state highway. Okay. This is Ledge Road and by default that affects Dunstable Road and Swain Road.
Nowhere does it state that the alternate route for the additional trucks go through the back entrance of Chelmsford's ledge road. Was ledge road seen as a path of least resistance? Well, we are the resistance. Thank you for your time. Thank you.
Good evening. Uh Melissa Lauren, I have two houses. One at 44 Ledge Road that was built in 1930 and I also have 75 Ledge Road which was built in 1967. So the the brunt of this cease and
desist is really built on a zoning which is highlighted in your letter right here. Right. It's a residential RV zone which frankly a commercial industrial operation is that's sold out to a global conglomerate is taking over the
neighborhood. Um I mean we've we have been working really hard to tolerate the the volume for some time and it's to the point where clearly we're all here today. Um we've been
giving to Newport for many years now. We had to in um we had to create a bus turnaround for the children to to come to go to go and come from school. We had to, you know, work with walking up and down the streets. You
can't live on a a residential road. You can't have two trucks pass. 12 minutes to exit your driveway every single day is not only a nuisance, but it also is unsafe. If there's an emergency vehicle
that needs to come in, you they won't have access because the the the trucks line up the street you 10 to 12 at a time and there's one way in, one way out. So, in order for the trucks to come up the road, they need to stop to let
the trucks go down the road. If there's a fire, the there's one access way in, one access way out. By preventing in reducing the volume of the trucks and if we go back to the study that was done in 2017 when prior
to Newport taking over, there's ample data. These trucks get weighed in and weighed out every day. A truck comes in, they weigh them, they weigh them going out. I've seen it with my own eyes. I've gone up there to talk to them about issues.
There's truck I have I wait my turn and I let the trucks do what they need to do so that they can get in and out. But for saying that they don't have an ample amount of data and truck data that Newport can supply that as well. They
have a logs that they keep track of every single day. We need our neighborhood back. The data has shown that increase in truck traffic is really coming from the Newport acreage that is up on the quarry. This
is a residential RB zone, but the utilization is industrial and commercial. I'm here today just to ask for your um denial on the continuence for um Newport and to uphold the cease
and desist. Thank you. Hopefully I'm close enough. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. My name is Valentine Pager and my wife and I have lived at 38 Ledge Road for 34 years. And yes, I'm the Mr. pager that was referenced earlier who sent
some emails. I want to take a few moments and share my thoughts on the situation facing the residents of Ledge Road and many of the neighborhoods of North Chumpsford. There is only one word needed to describe the motivation behind what has happened to these North Chumpsford neighborhoods
over the past eight years. The word is greed. Newport is increasing their profit by taking our neighborhoods as theirs to do with what they please. We are all here tonight, all of us, to end this taking of North Chumpsford. Mr. McCay has told you it is Newport's right
to move as many heavy commercial trucks through these neighborhoods as they so choose. He's wrong. They have no right to these residential neighborhoods. He has claimed that the neighborhood allowing a handful of trucks through the neighborhood for these past many years
gives them unlimited access to these roads. Don't buy it. Mr. Negron didn't buy it. You must not. Mr. McCay has stated that he does not agree with the town's data. The town has traffic counts gathered by professionals. The town has
conducted drone surveys, again, professionally done. They clearly show the volume increases due to Newport. Don't accept his questioning of the data until he brings forward his own data. And don't buy it. He has it. It's in the form of tear sheets to counter the
town's data. One might wonder why this has not been done already. Is it possible to view some of the drone footage at this meeting here tonight? Mr. McCay has tried to describe our efforts as Nimism. Don't believe it. We all lived for many
years, a good number, for many generations together with the Lazery and Gilmat family quaries. The difference was they respected their neighbors. Newport does not and can only be described as completely dismissive to the residents of North Chelmsford. Mr. Mr. McCay has
told you that the meetings that were held to try and find a resolution have been productive. Don't believe it. All Mr. McCay and his clients wanted to discuss was physical improvements to the road surface and items like curbing. This issue is about commercial truck
volume. Newport and Mr. McKay have stated numerous times in the same meetings that they described as productive that they will not under any circumstances discuss the volume of trucks. Mr. McCay has also expounded on the
training he did it tonight with Newport has done with for with their drivers to insist they adhere to the speed limits, cover their loads, minimize their use of Jake brakes, and not drive on our property. Think about that just for a moment.
They would like accolades for insisting that the laws of the road are followed. My sense is this should have been done in 2017 when they bought the quarry as the previous owners all adhereed to these basic rules and courtesy.
The time for a vote is tonight. The time is now. You must act not in the interest of this Westfordlo multinational corporation, but act to uphold our zoning laws and protect the North Chelmsford neighborhoods for the families that live in them. I agree with
Mr. McCay and Newport on one thing. Your choice is simple. Do not allow the distractions Mr. McCay is flooding you with that truly has nothing to do with what this is about. It is about Newport's greed. vote to support the cease and desist
order and tell Newport they can no longer grind these North Chumpsford neighborhoods under the tires of their trucks. Thank you. Good evening. Thank you for letting me speak. Um, my name is Dorene Dashler and I am a precinct 9 uh town meeting rep.
Um, first off, I want to I know everybody knows it, but I want to say it again that the private portion of Ledge Road in Chumsford is located in RB single residential zoning district. Um, under the Chumsford zoning bylaw,
earth removal, including associated of commercial vehicles is prohibited in a residential zoning district. So already they're against our bylaws, against our laws. They're, you know, it's it's against our bylaws. So it they shouldn't
be there. That's number one. Um also, they were given an order to cease and detest and they have not done that yet. They have not complied with the order. That's why we're here. We're here to make sure that that order is put through and that that order is finally adhered
by. They need to cease and to test on that road because it is a residential zoning and I know they were saying that the other companies and all that, but right now we're dealing with one company. We're dealing with Newport. That's the company we're dealing with right now. If after that company stops,
if he gets they get their cease to test and they stop and there is still too much traffic on that road, then we will deal with the other companies just the same way we dealt with this company. But they don't have a right to tell us that we have to have the other companies here. We have to have Westford here. For
one thing, we do not have the authority to demand that the town of Westford come to one of our ZBA meetings to talk about Newport's, you know, problems with having to get get out. They pay Westford tax money. They should be dealing with Westford. They should be going after
Westford for ways to get out of there because they're giving taxes to Westford. They don't give taxes to Chsford. So, they're not paying for our road repair. They're not paying for what they're doing to the roads in Chsford. They're paying what they they're not even paying what they're doing. They're paying to Westford and they're not even
using their roads. They should be dealing with Westford. They are not a Chumsford problem. They are a Westford problem. Westford should be dealing with them, not Chumsford. Why does Westford hold more authority than Chumsford? Westford told them they can't have more than 200. So they obey
Westford's laws and obe Westford's zoning laws, but they say the hell with you to Chumsford. Why? Why does Westford have more authority than us? This is Chumsford. We're Chumsford. Chumsford. Remember Chumsford, Massachusetts? It's time for us to make sure that our laws
are now held up. Okay? And our laws say no commercial vehicles down that road. That's it. Period. Cease and detest. I ask that you please, please make that go through. make the season to Tesco through today. Thank you.
Hi, thank you. Uh my name is Carrie Pager. I recently moved to Nshawa, but I grew up on Ledge Road and my parents still live there. Um you've heard a lot of information tonight. We all have. Um but I wanted to take a moment to switch gears um and talk about the human
impact. Um, I'm here tonight to talk about Ledge Road more than just the the details of everything you've heard, but the street, the community, and the place where my childhood memories were made. I want to share what it was like to grow
up there and what it's become. Picture this, children walking down the road, backpacks and breakfast in hand, quite frankly, because we were always running late and our parents were screaming at us. Um, we'd call out to each other on our way to the bus stop. that big rock down the end of the road. Um many of
those parent those children's parents still live there like my own. The Laurens, the Woods, the Rigs, just to name a few. Uh they're in this room. Um if a truck came by while we were walking down, they would move over. They were going slow enough. They were part of our
community. We knew their names. We would wave. We would talk. We would chat. We probably had a good conversation, knew their babies, etc. After school, like most kids, we'd get off the bus at the rock at the end of the road. We'd
walk up, we'd drop our bags at our house, and then we would end up at the house with the best snacks. Sorry, Erlene. It was usually yours. Um, and quite honestly, we would go out and we would ride our bikes. We would um rollerblade. We had a horseshoe club.
Uh, it was super secret. I can't tell you about it because, like I said, the parents are in the room. Um, but quite honestly, it wasn't uncommon to find the parents walking down the street. It wasn't uncommon to hear music. It wasn't uncommon for laughter and balls being
thrown across the street at different houses. We were a community. We were a neighborhood. All the parents knew the children. All the children knew the parents. We could go to any of the parents if we were in trouble and we couldn't find our own parents. We even would visit Charlie, which is
our neighborhood horse. Um, who's still there, by the way. Um, we all knew each other. We all looked out for each other. It was a community. Today, Ledge Road is unrecognizable. I visit my parents often. Um, like I
said, I live very close. All five of their children uh live within a half an hour, so we spend a lot of time there. um they have 13 grandchildren. Um and we all come um now picture this. You go down Ledge Road
and there's no children out. There's no laughter. There's no music. There is no riding of bikes. No. There is no walkers. There are no longer kids at the big rock. You might want to you might ask
why. Well, that's because it's no longer a bus stop. Instead, the telephone pole is actually smashed into and broken. Um, and the rock is overgrown. And why? Because it's no longer safe as a bus
stop. And the solution to that was to take someone's driveway and pave it over for a turnaround in a new bus stop to which not only the kids can't walk there, parents have to drive them and drop them off because it's not safe because of the trucks. Because they
don't pay attention, they drive too fast. They drive too fast. What are we going to do about it? We ask for help and support. But what do we get? We get speed bumps in a residential neighborhood. Speed bumps. That does
really well on a bike. Let me tell you, this isn't a neighborhood anymore. Instead, residents, some of whom have lived here for over three decades, are inconvenienced. Parents are scared for their children who no longer come
out. Children play in the backyard and parents are scared to let them run anywhere in the front of the house. The only community that remains is focused on ensuring children's safety and as you see here, trying to reclaim
their neighborhood. This isn't just about the traffic. It's about the erosion of a way of life, the theft of childhoods, and the constant fear that now defines road. It's all because of the greed. Give us
back our neighborhood. Give us back our community. Thank you for your time. Michelle Coopo, Stark Weather, 19 Dunshshire Drive. So, I'm indirectly um affected by this traffic because Donire
Drive only has one ent one entrance and exit because we're a circle and we come out onto Dunstable across from Swain. I haven't come out of my street in a long time without 99% of the time
large trucks, a lot of them on Dunstable on Swain. I truthfully don't go down Swain very often because there's big trucks coming at me and there's big trucks on both sides and it's just really dangerous. Truthfully, if I could get out of my neighborhood without
driving on Dunstable, I would do that, but I can't. I would like to make a comment just because it raised my hackles about the from the gentleman who went on and on about all the bigger businesses on Route 3A. It's a state
highway. You're allowed to have those businesses there. We're talking about residential roads. That's what the concern is. Not the ones on 3A, not the ones on Grten. We're concerned about the residential roads. Now, it may be that I
misunderstood what the agreement was, but my understanding was the Westford permitting or whatever it was, the expansion allowed for 400 vehicles or two 200 vehicles roundtrip, however that's counted. Obviously, you know how
many come in and out of your business if you're required by your permit to only hit that number and no more. It was also agreed that you could use your internal roads to access the other
parts of your business, which would be the gravel company. But I didn't get the impression I got the impression that you weren't allowed to weasle out the back rather than and you can weasle out the back anytime you want to get over the 200. My understanding was if you're doing
business 200 vehicles a day, period. So, I don't understand how a you don't know how many come in, how many are using the roads, and b why you can't just go through your business like you're supposed to. And I'm going to say
that probably 99% of your gravel business vehicles are dump trucks, which are the same stupid trucks that are coming all over the place. Just saying. Um, and finally, my last point is it is not unfair that you specifically are
being pointed to because you agreed to that. Oh, 200 vehicles. The other ones have been doing business for a long time. They haven't asked for a change. They haven't asked for an exemption.
They haven't agreed to a limit. So the limit that you agree to is the limit you should be abiding by. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Hi uh Laura Merrill 7 Dunshshire Drive.
Um, I was uh on the select board at the time that the asphalt plant was voted as well as on the town meeting uh representative. And I do remember the um issues that were going on about the the 400 the 200 for uh Westford. And it
seemed to me at the time that basically Westford got to the front of the line and Chelmsford got the uh bad end of the stick. And that was what happened at that point. Since that time, eight this the gentleman here to my right had said
that we waited 8 years. Well, seven years ago, there were more traffic than than the year before. And then six years ago, there were more there was more traffic than the year before that. I to the point where I live
two doors two two houses down from the the stop sign at the end of Swain Road. Um the first gentleman that spoke lives on one end of of Swain Road. I'm at the other end. I work from home and I listen
all day long to that from six o'clock in the morning till dinnertime of those trucks coming down the street. Not every 30 to a minute like we were originally told. But one after another after
another after another using their Jake brakes. The other day, one of them actually locked up his brakes and went past Swain Road. I could I thought I was going to hear a load flip. They are going faster and faster and
they're when I came down Swain Road a couple weeks ago, there were five dump trucks coming up and two cars coming the other way. I passed five dump trucks and two cars. That kind of ratio is really
not appropriate for Swain Road or Dunstable Road or Rotten Road all until you get to the highway. Not to mention these guys are all going so fast and there's a that is a school bus stop and
we have been putting up with more and more traffic. The reason we're here tonight is because it we're at the breaking point. We can't have any more traffic. Someone is going to get hurt. We can't wait to put another speed bump
in. We can't wait to repair another pothole. Someone is going to get hurt. And in the last couple of weeks since this meetings has been heating up, I've been hearing the trucks coming down from North Chelmsford Center now coming a million miles an hour down Dunville
Road. So, I think they're trying to avoid your traffic study. So, please please uphold this order tonight and um support your residents. Thank you and have a good evening. Good evening. My name is Virginia
Timonss. I've been a resident of North Chelmsford for over 28 years and I'm the current chair of the vinyl square committee. I'm also a precinct 3 representative. Um since the quar the Newport quarry opened this issue has by far been the
number one issue in North Chelmsford over and over and over again and I agree with the statements that were made earlier that I respect the board's desire to encourage collaboration. I think that you have a lot of data in
your packet that shows that there were attempts and different solutions looked at over the course of many years and they are complex and I also agree with the statement that it involves complexities relative to the town of
Westford, the existing asphalt plant permit and changes that would have to be made that quite frankly none of the other parties are willing to entertain. The issue tonight is volume and
change of use. And I think when you look at the data, you have the data for the traffic counts correlated to years taken by professionals, the the drone videos to look at those
are just indisputable as to where the volume of trucks is coming from. And I believe that looking at the years's worth of work that has gone into this, as shown on the attachments on
your agenda and the other efforts that have gone in that have been cited during these hearings, that the town has done their due diligence and did their due diligence prior to that cease and desist order ever being issued. I trust in
that. I trust that it was a responsible use of our tax dollars before this ever became before this board. And I am also asking you to trust in that due diligence and uphold the cease and desist order. Thank you. Good evening, uh, Mr. Chairman and
members of the zoning board of appeals. My name is Rodney Elliot. I am a state representative for the 16th Middle Sex District and I represent Ledge Road and all of North Chumpsford. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak
again. and I have been before you before, but I speak in support of the residents of Ledge Road, of Swain Road, of Dunstable Road, of Main Street, and many other streets that have endured the hundreds of trucks that travel in and
out of North Chsford Road each and every day. As a state representative, I came before the town meeting two years ago. I filed legislation that supported that was supported by town meeting by 117
to 15 that would restrict trucks over 26,000 gross vehicle weight to travel down Ledge Road. That bill made it out of committee favorably. It was adopted by the House, but no further action was
was taken. But we are a nation of laws and Massachusetts state laws relative to zoning grants municipalities the ability to adopt bylaws and
ordinances according to the needs the geographic and the desires of the people that live there. We have zoning laws that we want to ensure that we don't create
land uses that are incompatible like factories or large scale quaries in residential neighborhoods. We have zoning laws that are put in place to manage growth, noise level, noise levels, traffic,
public health and safety. And I I commend the building commissioner for enforcing the very laws that are on the books that are adopted by the very people that live here.
We are here tonight because the use of these prop of these properties have changed and it's changed significantly. And look no further than the data that has been collected. It's non-conforming and this change use requires permission to continue to
operate at the level that it currently does. I hope the board votes to support the cease and desist and require the o the owner and operator to abide by the zoning laws approved by the very people in this community.
And if Newport is committed, they are committed. it come right very back to this very board for a special permit because that is the tool attorney Mccay because that is the law. Thank you very
much [Music] [Applause] right now. Yeah, I think you should. You want to close the public hearing or what do you want to do? I think we should
close the public hearing. Um, you want to give a chance? Let's I want to make a motion to close the public hearing. So, so that we can vote. Second. I have a motion to close the
public hearing. M M Mr. Chairman and a second by Peter. Mr. Chairman, may I be on the testimony that was just given. I think you had a good opportunity to speak tonight. I I Do you offer something of relief to the to the complaints you heard? Was there a I I
I'd like to respond to a couple of a raised you're the chair. If you'd like to make a a quick rebuttal. I I I appreciate that. Thank you. I don't know what's going to change with your rebuttal. I don't I don't know what you're going to offer. I'll be very
brief, Mr. Chairman, and I I appreciate uh the latitude that that you've given us. I I just wanted to uh address a couple of things. Um you you heard statements. Could I have quiet, please? Quiet. Mr. Chairman, you you heard that um all
the trucks are going through Newport. I think that was a quote from one of the early commenters. We know that that's not the case. We just we know that that is false. Quiet, please. Mr. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to be quiet,
please. I I think everybody wants to get home tonight and I appreciate you drowning him out, but he has three minutes to give a rebuttal and that's what we'll go with. All right, Mr. Chairman, very quickly,
you also heard multiple references to the fact that Newport has been purchased by Vincy. Um, and I'm just not sure that that's relevant to any of the issues. And I think it goes it it I'm certain there are concerns to the ownership and
how it's going to affect these people's lives. You've heard very clearly that I mean, they're past upset. This is this is a way of life that has changed dramatically and in part due to Newport's growth and whether they sell to another company or not. They're
they're not going to stop growing. I don't think I mean I would imagine that is not the goal when purchased. I think it goes to the issue that uh through this enforcement order that's been only directed to Newport that we are being
made the scapegoat and it's not fair to Newport relative to the other businesses that were there. Just two more comments. One is the suggestion was made that that that Newport is weasling out the back and that the 200 vehicle limit in the
Westford permit prohibits the vehicles on Ledge Road and that's just that's just simply not the case. Um Mr. Chairman that that limit does not apply to the lame quarry. that's
straightforward and set forth uh in the agreement. Lastly, I want to I want to refer the board to just two documents that we've already submitted to the board. One of which uh is an email. It's exhibit B to our letter that indicates
this is especially true with the fact that Graves is operating a recycling plant and directing heavy 18-wheel traffic down Ledge Road in addition to Newport. And then in exhibit D, the statement was made in an email to
the building inspector that uh they referring to Graves have nearly as much truck traffic on Ledge Road as Newport. So I suggest to the board that you don't have the kind of evidence that supports this that supports this enforcement
order and specifically supports an enforcement order directed only to Newport. I appreciate your time and I thank the members of the public for their comment and I thank the board for its consideration. Thank you. Thank you. I have a motion by Charlie to close the
public hearing, second by Peter. All in favor? Yes. Board will take this up without further comment from either party. The board will take this up without further comment from either party.
Okay. I'd like to make a motion to uphold the building commissioner's cease and desist to Newport Aggregates LLC um taking effect today and that every truck going down the road is fined $500 that comes from Newport or goes to
Newport. So, I added on a couple additions. Yes, you did. I did. Is that legal? Uh, no. I don't think you have the ability to order fines.
Good plan though, Joe. We'll just leave it at Jose. Yeah. The building commissioner has the ability to issue fines. Okay. Um, my original motion holds. I want to uphold the building commissioner cynic
this order to Newport Aggregates LLC. A second by Peter. All in favor? I have a question. Discussion. I'm going to hold the vote for a moment. Danny, this brings up the question I brought up
earlier. If we uphold it as it's written, isn't it considered a taking? No, I don't think it's a taking unless there has no they have no other option of leaving the unless they work with Westford. [Music]
Make them find another way. So, the finding would not be considered a taking. Not in my opinion. No. I have a motion on the floor to uh get it right. To uphold the cease and disorder to
Newport Materials LLC. That's it. We have a second by Peter. A second by Peter. All in favor? I. It's unanimous. We have a motion to adjurnn. Discussion.
[Music] All in favor of adjournment. [Music] All those opposed. Seeing none, it's unanimous. We're going to lose that
possibly. No.