We got to do public input here. >> Yeah. No, there's no public. Okay. Uh being 7:30, we're going to start the meeting of the zoning board of appeals. All set. Um first thing on the agenda is public input. Public input shall be
limited to statements from the public related to any issues with the jurisdiction of the chumps zoning board of appeals that are not currently the subject of a pending public hearing before the zoning board of appeals. Public input, public comment on any
pending public hearing shall only be heard during such public hearings and may be limited to three minutes. Okay. Seeing none, we'll move on to administrative review. None. Public hearings continued. 243 Rivck Road 243
Rivck Road LLC and its manager Patel are reapplying for a comprehensive permit pursuant to Mass General Laws Chapter 40B. The proposal consists of seven single family dwellings for sale and 16
town houses for rent. Of the total of 23 housing units, six units will be designated in affordable housing consisting of two single family and four town houses. This property is located in the residential RB district,
map 74, block 275, lot 9, and consists of approximately 67 acres. Um, I need a motion to continue on this. Okay. Um, the ZBA
asserted safe harbor on November 6, 2025 on the basis that the town had achieved the 10% statutory minimum for affordable housing units. The applicant challenged the safe harbor status and the executive
office of housing and livable communities determined the town had not achieved safe harbor. The town filed an appeal of the safe harbor determination on January 12, 2026.
And as a result, the hearing of 243 Rivck Road LLC's application is stayed pending the outcome of that appeal. >> Chairman, I make that motion to continue the public hearing for uh 243 River.
>> A roen motion to continue. >> Second. All those in favor? Unanimous. Okay. For our new public hearing, we have Ledge Road administrative appeal
application under zoning by bylaw 195-102B subsection 3 submitted by the owners of Ledge Road Reality Holdings in Newport aggregates regarding a second cease and
desist order issued by the building commissioner, zoning enforcing officer relative to the use of Wedge Road for commercial vehicles. Ledge Road is located in residential RB zoning district. Do we have the lawyer here to explain
what he's doing? >> And we need your name and address for the record. >> Of course. Good evening, folks. My name is Dave McKay. I'm from the Myri Law Firm and I have the privilege of representing Ledger Realy and Newport Aggregates in in this appeal. So, it's
good to see you all again. Thank you for having us back. Thank you. >> We're ready to begin. >> I believe we are. >> Okay. So, um the board is fairly well acquainted with this matter already. Um
Mr. Can you put up Yep. Uh next page, please. Thank you. So, the board is fairly familiar with this uh property already. I know uh that you have because we've been before you.
This is the original cease and desist order uh that was at issue in the prior appeal. Next slide, please. The next um document here. Oh, I think we've jumped ahead a bit. So the the the prior document was the um
uh was the more recent the amended cease and desist order or the second cease and desist order. Um if we can go to the next slide, please. >> Uh excuse me. Point of order, sir. Um could we move that a little so the board could see it?
>> No, I We can't see those. >> Members cannot see that. >> Um I can't see those. >> Is there a way to Is there a way toward that presentation? Okay, >> perfect. Thank you. >> Okay,
>> page four, please. [clears throat] >> Okay, good. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> All right, so little bit difficult to see on um this slide. Hopefully the board members have this in front of them. So the
There you go. So, this is the main property here. Um, that is the site of the granite quarry. This property here, uh, including this rectangle or almost a rectangular shaped
property is the Graves Granite property. Little difficult to see just given the lighting in here. Um the access driveway goes through here underneath Route three. There's a private portion of Ledge Road that is mentioned in the
enforcement order. Uh and then there's of course the private section of Ledge Road. So hopefully that helps to just kind of reorient folks about um where we are and and what we're dealing with. At the outset, I want to note that it's the town that bears the burden of proof. So,
it's a little unusual in a proceeding like this that the applicant uh appealing an enforcement order is going first because the town bears the burden of proof. Typically, in this kind of situation, the town would put forth its evidence, the evidence upon which it
relies and why it feels that uh either through the building commissioner or through uh another agent of the town, why that is a uh a zoning violation in one form or another. We haven't had that here. We didn't have it at the prior hearings. We didn't have it at uh and
doesn't appear that we're going to have it at this hearing. I have a number of questions that um I think are important to this appeal and I would put to the town and hopefully the building inspector will answer those uh if not right away, at least at some point during this proceeding. One of them is
why the town issued a new enforcement order uh as opposed to the original enforcement order while the appeal was pending. The second is why Newport. >> Would you like we could >> we can ask town council to explain all this to you.
>> Take one at a time. >> Uh so not at this juncture. We're not going to answer that right now. >> Okay. >> So pretty important point as to why we're here and we're not getting that answer. Next question is why Newport is
again being treated differently than all of the other commercial users of Ledge Road, including Graves. Um, are we going to get an answer to that or should Alex should I just go through all these? >> I mean, they're in your papers. You put
them in the record. >> So, next question is uh that the T we're asking the town to admit that all of the traffic data that it has is aggregate traffic data. So, they're aggregate numbers. Uh, and that none of the numbers are specific to Newport. These weren't Newport vehicles that were being
counted. These were all of the vehicles being counted. And the truck counts are for all of the commercial trucks uh that were operating on Ledge Road. The next question is uh that the town confirm that the 2017 traffic data upon which it
is relying has no count uh during any of the periods during which they measured that showed 43 trucks which is the number that the board or excuse me that the building commissioner relied upon in issuing the amended order. And then
third, the question is what is the reason, the legal justification for using 2017 as a benchmark in all of the law dealing with pre-existing non-conforming uses? That is not the benchmark when a party just happened to purchase the property.
>> Excuse me. Would you like um Mr. Negro to explain that to you? >> I'd be happy to have anyone from the town explain those questions and answers for us. >> Well, so Mr. Chairman, if I could, the the pre-existing non-conforming use,
the date of 2017 is the measurement date because that's when Newport took over the property. So, assuming that Newport took over a lawful pre-existing non-conforming use, then they were
entitled to maintain a level of that non-conforming use based on the date of when they purchased it. The issue as referenced in the enforcement order is the expansion of that use since 2017. >> So again, uh our position and I think
the law states pretty clearly that it's not when a party buys the property that the becomes the benchmark for a pre-existing non-conforming use. I'll get more into that later, but that's just not the law. Um what is happening
here with this the original enforcement order and now the amended enforcement order is that again the building commissioner is making Newport the scapegoat for the conditions in the area generally and also on Ledge Road and
we'll show you that you're being misled in that regard. um that you're being told that this is Newport's problem, that Newport created this problem. And the evidence that you already have demonstrates that that's not the case, but we'll come to that more. In exhibit
20, which is the exhibit to our memorandum, um we provided you with documentation from the original complaintant that asks for that asked for the zoning enforcement uh in this matter. And at that time, the complainant stated, quote, "Graves is
operating a recycling plant and directing heavy 18-wheel truck traffic down Ledge Road in addition to Newport." That's exhibit 20. After the enforcement order, the original enforcement order was issued to Newport. In exhibit 22, um
the same residents asks, "Was the this letter referring to the enforcement order sent to WJ Graves as well?" I believe they are based in Templeton, Massachusetts. They have nearly as much truck traffic on Ledge Road as Newport. >> That is that that's the statement.
That's the evidence, the statement that was made by the original complainant to the building inspector. Um so the the building inspector had that information uh and took enforcement action only on Newport, not with respect to Graves. Um,
in the original, excuse me, in the amended enforcement order, this is exhibit one to our memorandum, the building commissioner states, quote, "It is my understanding that the commercial vehicles using Ledge Road to access the property are associated with your gravel
pit operation on the property." That is just plainly false. We know that's false. We know that Newport is not the only commercial user of Ledge Road. There are uh several other users graves
lamey granite and the Gilmet operation and the businesses that operate on the Gilmet property as well. That is the very definition of arbitrary enforcement which is exactly what has happened here. And I asked the board how is that fair? How is it fair for the building
commissioner, for the town to take enforcement action to try and shut down one business and leave other businesses completely untouched, including one of which which does the exact same activities, the exact same business, and
is also running commercial trucks on Ledge Road. I would submit to the board that that is a constitutional violation, that it's a due process violation, that it's an equal protection violation, and that it's also a regulatory taking. The order
purports to limit Newport, but it doesn't uh limit our uh closest neighbor. If you uh go to slides 14, 15, and 16, we'll start at 14. I had submitted this to the board once
before. This is a print out from the Graves uh website showing the materials that they sell out of this location. It's the very same materials that Newport supplies. The very same again, the same operations, the same kind of
business. And the board understood this fundamental fairness issue. At the first hearing that we had on the first enforcement order 13 months ago in January of 2025, Chairman Rei stated, quote, "The idea of putting these guys feet to the fire," referring to Newport,
"So, um, so to speak, is not right. I don't think they are alone." He goes on to say, "I feel maybe the cease and desist was misdirected." Later in the same hearing, he says, "I still feel very strongly that if you're going to say that to Newport, you should say it
to Graves." The board knew it the first time that this was unfair and arbitrary, and we're here again under the same exact scenario. Again, we ask that the board overturn the enforcement order. The recent submissions uh that this
board has received further show that the picture that's being painted that Newport is solely responsible for the conditions in this area um are not accurate. I'm going to show you
another example of this. So among the submissions may I approach? >> Sure. So, this first photograph is a picture that was submitted by one of the residents to the board. It's in
the materials that you received and um it is submitted as evidence of the trucks that are traveling Ledge Road and uh it's in that same submission that the resident is asking that the enforcement
order against Newport, Newport alone be upheld. Um the truck of course it's difficult to tell the markings but what you can see on the truck on the right hand side on the top right hand side on the driver's side is is the marking 119.
If you go to the next picture it is the same trailer. You can see the 119 marking on the top right hand side. This time it's very clear this photograph by the way was not among the submissions that were given to you. This photograph shows very clearly that this
is a Graves truck. It's not a Newport truck. In the next photograph is a picture of not the trailer, but the truck that's shown in the very first picture. Again, clearly showing that
it's a W uh J. Graves truck. And of course, in the photograph that was submitted to you, you can't see any of these markings. So you have to kind of sleuth it out to find out what it trailer 119 is and who it belongs to. My point is this is a Graves truck. It's
not a Newport truck. And I think the residents will tell you and we have certainly observed that this is one of the vehicles that's going in and out up and down Ledge Road many times a day because Graves is making deliveries
out of its facility is true. um uh regularly and that this is an example of the board just not being given the truth about the full details of what's happening here. And I want to be clear, we are not suggesting that Graves should
receive an enforcement order either. We have no problem with the Graves operation. We have no problem with them being allowed to conduct their business. That's not what this is about. PowerPoint bec and the reason that I say that is because Graves isn't violating
the zoning either for the same reasons that Newport is not violating Chelmsford zoning. Graves is not either. The private portion you you're also being told that the private portion of Ledge Road is residential. We know that's not true either. The Gilmet businesses have
been operating there for years and years and years. That is part of their what was their quarry operation. They conduct all kinds of activities. They have other businesses that are operating on that site too. And that is the very site on which this private portion of Ledge Road
is located. So to suggest that this is a residential property is just not accurate. It's a commercial property. It's been commercial for decades and it was uh previously zoned as limited industrial based on the town zoning maps
back from the 1950s and the 1960s. So, I want to turn more squarely to the pre-existing non-conforming use issue because I know that's one of the main legal issues that that um we're here for tonight. Newport's use is a byright use. It is
not a non-conforming use. Newport's use is governed by Westford zoning, not Chelmsford zoning. We've talked about the Lepinus case in the past. I'm going to talk about that a little more, but under the lepinus case and the cases that follow from that, the statute of
repose, which we've talked about before, the land court settlement agreement and the judgment, Chumsford zoning doesn't apply with respect to this private portion of the ledge road um for use to access to these quarry properties, which of course, as the board knows, have been
around for decades, over a hundred years. But even if this were a pre-existing non-conforming use, and we don't believe that it is, but even if it were, Newport has not unlawfully expanded the use, an increase in traffic
alone, and the case law supports this. An increase in traffic alone is not an extension of a pre-existing non-conforming use. To extend a pre-existing non-conforming use, what you need is an unreasonable expansion of the geographic area of the operation.
There can be other things that get considered along with that, but again, traffic alone does not create a uh an illegal expansion of a non pre-existing non-conforming use. And Ledge Road, the private portion of Ledge Road that's at
issue in this appeal is the same area, the same road. It's a two-lane dirt road. It's been a two-lane dirt road. Again, the private portion of it um for as long as it has been in use. Well, well, sir, I have to disagree with you right there. Um, on the Oak Sand and
Gravel, their increase in traffic led to led them to [clears throat] have to shut down their operation. They increased it, they said, 30 times. And I know your traffic's increased over 11 times. So, I think that's a extremely good reason to
shut you guys down. So, you're 43 [applause] 43 trucks per day rather than 500. I'm I'm happy to talk to you about that. >> First, Okam Sand and Gravel, I'm very familiar with that case, has zero
application in this case. Okam Sand and Gravel, the gravel pit operation itself was a pre-existing non-conforming use. And so the court looked at the expansion of the gravel pit operation itself along with many other things, one of which was
the traffic, the new customers, the volume, all kinds of things that they looked at in that case and determined that that was an expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming use. I should say an extension of a pre-existing non-conforming use. This is
very different. The the quarry operation for Newport itself is of course in Westford. It is a byright allowed use. What we're talking about here and what the pre-existing non-conforming use analysis would apply to, again, if it
applies at all, and we don't think that it does, what the pre-existing non-conforming use analysis applies to, is the road, the private portion of Ledge Road. And that is essentially the same. It's the same dirt two-lane road
that it's been for decades. I want to turn to the traffic data that you uh just referred to. I've not seen any traffic data that talks about Newport that counts the Newport trucks that says in 2017 or any relevant time
period and 2017 isn't one of them that says they had x amount of trucks at that time period and they've grown 11fold. I haven't seen any data that suggests that. I what I would suggest to you is that the data that you've been given is
unreliable, arbitrary, it's junk. And I'll tell you why. First, all of the data is in the aggregate. They're not counting Newport trucks. They're counting all of the vehicles on Ledge Road. And they're counting the number of trucks on Ledge Road. They're not
measuring Newport. And they've made no attempt in any of that data to differentiate the Newport traffic from any of the other commercial and industrial users of Ledge Road. And we all know that there are a number of them. Second, the data pegged to 2017 as
a benchmark makes um is not representative of what Newport's operations were in 2017. So in it in 2017 you have data from three sets of
dates in May, October and in December of 2017. The May data is a traffic count of 350 and that was counted over three days in May of 2017. the data and this is right
in the 2023 um report from the Northern Middle Sex Council of Governments and the same data is produced in our memorandum in the table on page 13. 350 vehicles
13.7% of them were trucks in May. Um and that gives you a truck count of 48 trucks, not 43 trucks, 48 trucks. What we also know is that 27 that May of 2017,
Newport wasn't even its operations weren't even open at that point. They had just bought the property two po two months before. They weren't even operational. So you can't use the May data as representative of anything that Newport was doing because Newport wasn't
operational until the summer. So then that takes you to the October data, three days in October. So in total in 2017 upon which the town bases all of this, it's nine days of data. It's like 2% of the year that they purport
apparently to extrapolate over the whole year. But in any event, the October data is 390 vehicles. 26.8% uh were trucks, which is a truck count of 105. Again, not 43, 105.
And then you go to December. Um the December data was 19.4% trucks, which is 66 trucks. Again, not 43. And of course, by the time you get to December, the construction season is
largely over. The same level of activity um is not happening. Not because the use is any more or any less, but just because of the seasonal variation of the use. I mentioned before that 2017 is not relevant to the zoning analysis.
Pre-existing non-conforming uses are not pegged to the year that someone purchases the property. It's pegged to when the zoning bylaw went into effect. And so if the town wants to limit the use to either when Roma Stone was
operating there or some other entity was there, it's incumbent upon the town to provide some form of a data that suggests that and accurate data and they don't have that here. I want to go back to the Leanas case. So the Leanas case
says that a bylaw is arbitrary and invalid if it restricts access to land for any lawful use. I won't spend a lot of time on these legal issues, but I think they are important to touch upon because they go to the issues that we raised in the first appeal and the issues that we've raised in our
memorandum in the second appeal. I've detailed them in in the memorandum. The board is certainly welcome to look at any of those cases. But what leanis requires is that Chelmsford respect the byright use of Westford and of Newport on the Westford property notwithstanding
the fact that a portion of the access is in the town of Chelmsford. And this amended enforcement order does exactly what Leanis prohibits. It limits and attempts to restrict the use of the Westford property which is a byight use.
We cite two cases in the brief that I think further show this standard and the application of this standard in different contexts. One of which is the Foster Foster Masonry case and the second and I know I'm going to butcher this name. I believe it's Civoterase,
but in the in the Foster case, this was a sand and gravel pit case uh that got the benefit the court found both of being a pre-existing non-conforming use and of the lepence doctrine. And the court determined that the owner not only
could use the access for commercial industrial purposes, but could also change the nature of the commercial and industrial uh use that it had. It had been a sand and gravel pit and now it was being used for uh concrete manufacturing concrete forms and things
was what I gathered from the case. Similarly, in the civotes case um the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to relief from the bylaw in so far as it restricts access to the property. And here again this is what the building inspector is trying to do. Similarly,
the statute of repose also bars the enforcement order in this context. 4A section 17 says that an enforcement order cannot be brought more than six years after the building permit for the use. And in here and in this instance, we have at least two building permits. I
think if records were better both in Westford and Chelmsford, we'd find more because we know there are multiple buildings uh that were built on these properties, but we know of at least two in this instance. One is for the 1965 office for the quarry on the Newport
parcel. It's 4822. And the second is the uh uh storage and equipment building for the quarry equipment for the Roma Stone property back in 1988. Also, the Gilmet property,
which used um uh used Ledge Road for access to uh the Gilmet Quarry, what is now the Graves Quarry, um got building permits for at least two buildings back in 1952 on its property. And again, the
record is replete. We include these uh uh documents uh in our papers. They're both in the slides um and in the papers that are attached to our appeal memorandum of multiple permits in
various and different forms for quarantine activities on the Gilmet property. Again, using Ledge Road as the access. The prior litigation related to the asphalt plant which included a settlement agreement and an agreement
for judgment that touched upon the alleged road access issues um also prohibits this zoning enforcement. Um in that case the uh settlement agreement and by extension the uh uh the
agreement for judgment recognized the lame quarry uses recognized and reserved the use of ledge road for the lame quarry and that's what we bought. we bought the lame quarry. Um, and also had a specific reference that if the Newport
uh companies bought the lame quarry that they would be able to use that access. Chelmsford took issue, you may recall, with that settlement agreement and attempted to invalidate the judgment and the court held that they couldn't. Um
and so the judgment entered and uh that agreement for judgment stands and uh so does the settlement and the town of Chumsford cannot now relitigate an issue that was decided in the prior litigation and settled as part of that litigation.
There are some other legal doctrines estoppel and latches and things like that that we go to in the brief. Um you have those all in the memorandum. I'll submit those on uh the memorandum. The last thing I'll say with respect to some of these legal issues is that we do ask
the board, we had asked in the prior hearing um on the the prior enforcement order and we asked the board in this uh decision to articulate specific findings and rulings on each of these legal defenses. We've asserted four or five
different legal defenses and uh I think we're entitled to specific factual findings and factual rulings if the board doesn't agree with us on those as to why the board doesn't agree and we haven't seen that. I want to close with
two um concepts for the board and two things that I asked the board to consider in this appeal. one has to do with the role of a zoning board of appeal which I know you know um but is important to emphasize and the second
has to do with the remedy how these issues can get addressed and how they can get fixed. First, a zoning board of appeals is not a rubber stamp. It's not a rubber stamp for the building commissioner. It's not a rubber stamp for the board of selectmen or the select
board. It's not a rubber stamp for the town manager or for town council or for what the majority of certain residents want. That is not the function of a zoning board of appeals. A zoning board of appeals is not a representative body.
It's not an elected body. Uh certainly not in most communities. Its role in addition to the 40B things which I know you're familiar with, but its role is to act as an independent arbiter. You sit essentially as administrative law judges
looking at an appeal and determining whether the appeal was whether the appeal is proper, whether the enforcement order is legal, and whether it ought to be sustained. Um, I understand the pressure that board
members are under. I understand the political pressure. I understand the personal pressure because all of the folks standing behind me are your neighbors. I represent zoning boards of appeals, too. I get it. On the other hand, it's a zoning case. It's a zoning
issue. It's not a popularity contest. And when you sit as essentially administrative law judges hearing an administrative appeal, your role is to decide that fairly and impartially. Um,
and to decide it based on the law. And here what the law says is that this is a byight use. It's not a pre-existing non-conforming use. It's not limited as a pre-existing non-conforming use. And even if it were, there has been no
illegal expansion or extension of a pre-existing non-conforming use. I'll close with this. I understand the issues. I understand the growth in a lot of places. I'm sure town council can tell you this as well.
We see issues like this coming up all the time because h there's a shortage of housing and so housing is being built closer and closer to commercial and industrial activities all the time. So these kinds of conflicts including traffic issues are happening all over
the Commonwealth. But barring or limiting Newport in this instance isn't going to make any difference. The other businesses will continue. all these companies who service the folks that live in
Chelmsford and the surrounding communities that need gravel and construction material and so forth. If they're Newport customers, they're going to drive up Ledge Road. They bear to the left at the fork at the top of the hill to go to Newport. If Newport is
shut down, they're going to drive up Ledge Road and they're going to make a right-hand turn and they're going to go right into Graves. Braves does the exact same thing uh and sells the exact same products that we do.
This will end up being wasted time, litigation, and cost, not only for my client, but for the town for achieving no real purpose other than to make the trucks turn right instead of left at the end of Ledge Road.
[clears throat] In January of 2023, the town had a feasibility study that was done by the again by the Northern Middle Sex Council of Governments. That study outlined a number of potential alternatives. I wouldn't suggest that those are the only exclusive
alternatives, but when you have over a dozen different businesses in the area, you have over a half dozen different quarry, concrete, and granite related businesses in the area, both contiguous
with uh the Newport property um and in very close proximity. You've got other businesses with lots of trucks right over the Kingsboro line. You've got a lot of activity in this area. You're going to have these kinds of issues and
they require a different kind of approach because this isn't a zoning violation. This is a traffic problem and a congestion problem. And my client is not sees that. We we understand what the issues are. We've had discussions with
the town on ways to potentially address that and the town cut off those discussions. We didn't cut off those discussions. The town terminated those discussions. But there are ways to address this issue outside of zoning because this isn't a zoning problem. I'm
not saying that they're easy. I'm just saying that they're legal as opposed to this zoning enforcement matter. This is a policy and a traffic problem. the town working with Westford, working with other stakeholders and the state is really the only way that this can get
addressed. And the town admits as much. In the same 2023 feasibility study, it states, quote, "It is beyond the town of Chser's right to restrict truck traffic without offering an alternate route." This is not just Newport's problem. This
is a community problem. We're willing to work with the town to uh help do that, but we shouldn't be doing it under the rubric of an invalid and illegal enforcement order. So, we ask you to overturn the enforcement order because
this is not a illegal extension of a pre-existing non-conforming use and would welcome any further discussions with the town and with the other stakeholders on a constructive way to actually address this. Thank you very much. Happy to answer any questions from
the board. >> Okay, the board. Rodney, would you like to start? >> I don't have any questions at this time. >> Okay, Glenn. >> Um, you seem to be very adamant that the
traffic studies were improper. >> Hold on. >> That better. >> Uh, you seem to be adamant that the traffic studies were improperly done. Is it just because they didn't identify
which trucks went where or just for some other reason you didn't accept it? >> I I think there's a multitude of reasons, some of which I touched on that the traffic data is not reliable. It only counts a handful of days in 2017. 2017 isn't the right benchmark to begin
with. Um, and yes, you're certainly your point as well that it doesn't count Newport trucks. it just counts all the trucks and then the town assumes that all the trucks are all Newport trucks and we know that that's not the case. I have one other thing that I would like to submit but I want to finish your your
uh make sure I answer your question as well. >> Well, it would seem that most studies that are done are done not from uh an infinite amount of days. This was done on three separate occasions and it
picked at random numbers. Why do you feel that they're totally improperly used that way? >> Because because of the dates of when the the the counts were made. The first count was in May. Newport wasn't even operating in May. And as far as I can tell, the May data is the only one
that's anywhere close to 43 trucks. So, if Newport was not operational in May of 2017, how can that be an appropriate limitation and an appro an appropriate truck count for Newport? They weren't
even Newport's trucks because Newport wasn't really operating. Well, if if you were to say [snorts] that none of those trucks were uh belong to uh your client and all those trucks belong to someone
else, it would seem that the increase the tremendous increase in truck traffic which occurs there now is all your responsibility except the five. [applause] >> I'm glad you asked that question. I'd like to approach one more time.
If the town had done its diligence, if the building inspector had done his diligence, he would have discovered the same thing that we discovered. This is a Facebook post from Graves in on November 9th of 2016. It's coming around to each of you. and
Grave states, "We have extended our customers the opportunity to get the products they need by opening a location off Ledge Road in North Chelmsford. Hours Monday to Friday 7 to 3:30, Saturday 7 to 11. For more information
and prices, call the office at and it goes on." >> Now, was this on uh WBZ? Where was this published? >> This was on Facebook. Is that for is that the sole authority of uh advertising? Well, I I'm assuming that when Graves posts on Facebook that
it's offering a new service and that it's opened a new site in Chelmsford allowing customers my my what I gather from this is that prior to this they delivered material to customers and and and as of the as of November of 2016
they started allowing customers to come to their site and pick up material. They installed a weigh station and things of that nature to allow that to happen. My point is I don't know what the true truck counts are between Graves,
Newport, and the other businesses that uh use Ledge Road. What I do know is that it's not all Newport. And I know that the data that the town relies upon is not all Newport. And the inference that you're suggesting that you can just
assume that the increase from 2017 forward is all uh Newport is false because we see the trucks. We you saw photographs of the Graves trucks and and you now have evidence that Graves was offering a new
service opening up its business to customers at the same time period, the very end of 2016. So again, I don't think and I don't think that Graves is violating the zoning bylaw either, but but the suggestion that this is all
Newport is not supported by the evidence. It wasn't supported by the evidence from the original complaintant. We looked at those. It's exhibits 20 and 22 from the very beginning when enforcement was first requested. It's it's and it's not supported by this
document and it's not supported by any observation. Folks may want to tell you that because they want to make Newport the scapegoat for all of these problems, but we just know it's not the case. And so the town has the duty to make sure that the data
upon which it's relying is reliable, fair, impartial, and does not impose an arbitrary and capricious limitation on one commercial user over another. And so it's just unfair to be singling out
Newport when we know there's there are other commercial users. This board has known that from the beginning. Chairman Rei said that in the very beginning. So yes, there are problems with the data. Yes, the data is inherently unreliable and it shouldn't be used for this purpose.
>> If I don't this maybe this is an unfair question, but if the uh cease and dis desist order was filed against uh your counterparts in the quarry area, would you be here now? I think we'd all
be here now and we'd all be making the same legal arguments that that you've heard with respect to Leanus, the pre-existing non-conforming use, all of those things. This private portion of Ledge Road, and let me mention one other thing, the private
portion of Ledge Road is at issue because it's the legal question here. It's not the practical question. The vast majority I'm sure lots of these folks are going to um provide uh commentary after I'm done. What I have
heard over and over and over again is not the traffic conditions on the private portion of Ledge Road. The private portion of Ledge Road is largely commercial. It's the public portion of Ledge Road which everyone is entitled to use. Newport's entitled to use. Other businesses are entitled to use it. I'm
sure there's all kinds of uh commercial vehicles going in and out of Ledge Road like any other public road. That's not the issue. So, the answer to your question is yes, we I'm sure we would still be here if the other um commercial
users uh were here as well. we'd be making the same arguments, but at least you wouldn't be taking illegal, arbitrary, and capricious action against one business. Um, blaming all the problems on them and not addressing the problem with any of the other businesses. >> Well, I just see that they'd all be
fighting against each other, saying, "Not mine. They're not my trucks." And trying to produce some sort of data suggesting that they weren't their trucks. You know, it clearly seems that, you know, you weren't in you weren't in operation. So whatever traffic study was
done applied to the other people and that the traffic only went up exponentially after you started your operation. So that you own most of it if not all of it. >> No. Completely false because Graves
started offering a new service as well. Graves started having customer trucks come to the site. >> Successful in their efforts in bringing in new business. >> I don't know that. I'm assuming that cuz what what what I do know is that Newport
is not having 500 trucks a day coming up Ledge Road. That much I know. >> It's not our burden to provide evidence to the town. It's the town's burden to build its case, to make its case, and to
provide its evidence. And so far, all you have is one-sided evidence from the building commissioner, from a traffic study that doesn't count Newport trucks. It counts all the traffic. And that's inherently unfair. And it's inherently
unfair to make the inference that you're making, which is to jump to the conclusion that just because Newport bought in 2017, that all of the increase in the traffic since 2017 is the result of Newport. You don't know that. And yet you've
taken zoning enforcement action against not you, but the the town has taken zoning enforcement action against only one of the the users. Totally unfair. Can't be can't be justified in in any fair sense, especially based on this evidence. And
so I do submit that the that the enforcement order should be overturned because in addition to having bad data, it's just illegal. It's an illegal enforcement order. Thank you.
>> Happy to answer any other questions. [clears throat] >> So you had question of how the 43 number came about. Uh I propose a hypothesis. If you take the last two numbers that
were determined in the study in 2017, add them together, divide by two, and take that number and divide by two, that would equally divide the average of the truck totals for those two studies and split that between the two major
companies operating um quaries out of and using Ledge Road. And that's probably where you got the 43 rounding the numbers. So, I'm I'm I'm speculating, but I would I think that might be where the 43 came from to evenly distribute the average amount of
trucks that were counted, heavy trucks that were counted on Ledge Road for those two studies. Uh not incorporating the study that u you assert that uh Newport wasn't uh operating. Um just a
idea um not not that I know firsthand for sure but maybe um the building commissioner could speak of that. >> The other question I have is um you bought a pre-existing business. Correct. >> Yes.
>> So >> stone was operating as well as the majories. >> Correct. So something was still operating when the study was initially done in 2017. Correct. I I I don't believe so. I think that Roma Stone had
um slowed its operations shortly before the sale. >> Okay. >> My understanding is that the owner was seriously ill at the time, which is probably part of the reason why they slowed down and why they sold the business. >> Okay. >> That's my understanding. >> Okay. Okay.
>> Um to your first point, I I I don't know how they got to 43. Again, I'm just proposing a hypothesis of how that number to be. >> You know, again, I think it's the building commissioner's burden >> to provide that for us. And so, it's not
left to speculation. Again, I think shows the arbitrary nature of this that there is a very specific number that's being that that the building commissioner at least was attempting to impose upon Newport. And here we are at
an appeal and we don't know how that was calculated. My my hypothesis is it was based on the May data. That's my hypothesis because it's the only data that's at all close to 43. >> Okay.
My other question would be if you assert that the business or the increase the heavy increase in usage from 2017 to 23 um is not attributed to just Newport,
would you be willing to open up your P&L and balance sheets for the years accordingly so that we could compare operational increase in percentage increases between the two companies to determine the amount of profit increase revenue and see if operational increase was
actually correlated to traffic increase on that road. >> Uh I have not talked to my client about that so I'm not authorized to do that. >> Okay. >> I would say it's the town's burden to establish this from the beginning. >> Okay.
>> And again, you're starting from a 2017 benchmark. 2017 isn't the benchmark. 2017 has no legal significance in a pre-existing non-conforming use analysis. >> Okay. >> And where do you think the benchmark should be from a pre-existing
non-conforming for this property? Well, >> the day it was built, >> it's not a pre-existing non-conforming use. >> It's by right. >> It's a byite use. I want to be very clear about that. But if it if if it's subject to a pre-existing non-conforming use, it's probably subject to the Roma
Stone operation and the other things that were happening. Also, keep in mind that a pre-existing non-conforming use is not static. It's never been static. Um, now the OakAM stone and gravel is is
sort of the exception that proves the rule and the other cases talk about that as being an extraordinary case. That's not what we're talking about here. That's not the situation at all. >> Yeah. But if we use the Roma Stone as the pre-existing non-conforming, you
already stated that they were a slower they had downsized their operations for a per well before you purchased. Is that correct? Yeah, but that's not how the pre-existing n I I'm just I'm speculating. What I what I understand was that that's part of the reason why Roma Stone sold. Okay.
>> Because the owner got sick and uh he sold the business. But the pre-existing non-conforming use is is not it's not pegged to the last day that the prior business was open. >> Okay. >> It's more general than that. And I would
say over the course of the operations of Roma Stone based on the equipment inventory that I've seen which we previously submitted to the board uh and my sense of that business from speaking with folks is that that was a bi busy
operation. Now I have not seen traffic counts. I have not seen tipping sheets. I I I can't speak to that. And again not not our burden to establish that. That's the talent's burden. >> Okay, >> J.
>> Um, I guess I can put in my two cents with now. Um, I've I've been going up to Roma Stone. I started going to Roma Stone probably 20 30 years ago. And, um, they were they were booming. They were probably doing about as much as Graves
because they were doing, you know, recycling, hot top, they they did everything just like Graves. Um, and I I worked for a lot of landscapers and I was going up there once a week, maybe once a day, twice a day and and
everything everything was really really fine until until Newport put the crushing plant up there. They put the scale up there. Um, the trucks were up there and the complaints to the town
were going crazy. And that's why you're here basically because it just it just went crazy. Um, and like I said, I was going up there for at least 30 years and it you guys went over the
edge. And that's just a comment. It's not a question just why you're here. you you you you're sort of making my point in the sense that Roma Stone was a busy operation up there. And I think our sense and
remember my clients are sitting at the top of the hill, right? They see the trucks, some of them go right, some of them go left. Um the Graves business is a busy operation, too. And anybody that goes up there and
we know their customer trucks are coming out. You saw their trucks, right? They're running loads in and out all the time. I I don't I don't understand how you can look at those two operations doing exactly the same identical thing.
You Newport doesn't really run trucks for that purpose. It doesn't run trucks from the aggregates facility out to to different locations. The trucks that come in from Newport are customer trucks. Graves also has customer trucks.
In addition to that, Graves is also trucking material in and out of the site on its own. Those are the first photographs that I showed you. >> When can I ask when when you say customer trucks, are they marked with your Newport markings? >> No, these are these are third-party trucks. I'll give you an example.
>> No, no. I'm I just I'm I'm sure we all I just wanted to make that point clear when you say customers. So >> you wouldn't know and to your point as well, but >> when that increase of traffic occurs from customers, whether it be for Graves or for you, we wouldn't know who it's
for. But that increase seemed to consequent, you know, coincidentally occur after Newport arrives and substantially grows. It also coincidentally occurred when Graves started having customer direct sales to
come to their site. And I I I don't know why the board would overlook that. >> This increase seemed to Well, this was in November of 2016. And what that first big count was in May of 2017. Am I am I remembering that correct? That was almost 12 months. So,
>> no. No, it was six months. And you're talking about winter months when there's not likely to be much activity for that kind of business. >> The first count was in May of 2017. That posting is from November of 2016.
>> Okay. Seven months. Okay. >> Okay. Okay. >> Um, in terms of the nonconformity question, so the >> the nonconformity question, the use is
by right in Westford, but so I'm I'm having trouble understanding what is the argument on the nonconformity. What is the argument here regarding the non-conformity? The use of the private portion of Ledge Road in Chumps is it's residentially
zoned there. So, it's prohibited in Chumps. It's allowed as of right in Westford. So, to the extent that the private portion of Ledge Road historically has been used to access Westford, it's a pre-existing
non-conforming use of that portion of Ledge Road. Okay. Um, in terms of the traffic study, so was that traffic study stamped by a traffic engineer? >> I I can't answer that question.
>> Um, okay. Because >> I mean, I I I have a couple of the reports. I can't I just don't recall whether they're stamped or not. What I do know is what I articulated to the board in terms of the data that they collected it and how they collected it
and the relevance of that data to the different time periods of Newport's operation. And so in May of 2017, [clears throat] you're saying that at that point you had not been in business as Newport yet. You guys had bought the the property, but you hadn't gone into
May and October. >> Correct. So this the number of the 43 where is that coming from? It >> came from a summary memorandum that Northern Middle Sex Council of Governments prepared
>> based off of which numbers >> based off their traffic data from 2017 through 20 23. >> So that's taking into account the May number. I mean that they were talking about that they weren't in use at that
point. >> I don't know when they first started being in use. >> So I'm putting this together from multiple a handful of reports that the Northern Middle Sex Council of Governments provided. The most recent
one is the one that Mr. Weiss just just referred to um a moment ago, which is the 20 July 2025 report. it it does state 43. It doesn't tell you how they got to 43. It also doesn't include the
traffic counts sort of behind the 43 number. So, if you're just looking at the 2025 report, you you can't tell how they arrived at that calculation. If you go back and look at their 2023 report,
they actually do include some of the underlying traffic count data, a part of which we reproduced in our memorandum, um, showing the counts that they did in May and then in October and then in
December. So I I I have to assume because it's the only way the data sort of makes sense that they looked at the tw the May 2017 data that it was the lowest number because the objective was
to try and restrict Newport as much as possible and that's the number that they picked. Now, if I I am willing to be corrected upon, you know, actual information from the folks that did the traffic study upon
which the building inspector or excuse me, your building commissioner relied. >> Okay. Um, at this time, I think I'll read the record, the the letters into record. >> Oh, sorry, Glenn. >> I have another question. you just um a million know used the word
assume and you've used it more than once and so I want to make an assume and that is that for years and years people who are in this room lived on ledge road and tolerated heavy duty trucks coming up
and down but apparently it wasn't really a nuisance they were trying to be good neighbors they allowed that operation to go on there were no uh outcries to town government. There were no outcries to the newspapers uh that this was a burden. Only when it
became a burden did they have an outcry. So they were being good neighbors for many years. And I think it's fair to assume that the increase came about through really one major change and that is your
client's purchase. >> [applause] >> May I respond to that? >> It's 100% clear to me that the town of Chelmsford has made Newport the scapegoat for all this. I think that was one of the first things that I said. I don't doubt I don't doubt that there is
a firmly held belief among many folks in Chelmsford that Newport is the problem. I made an assumption based on incomplete data provided by the town which has the burden of proof. I made the only
assumption and the only interpretation that I could make because the town provided incomplete data. That's completely different than the inference that you're making which I think is completely unsupported by the facts. It's unsupported by the traffic study. It's unsupported by any of the traffic
studies and it's unsupported by the data and the photographic evidence and the facts that we know which is Newport has customers coming in. Graves has customers coming in. We know Graves expanded its business at the same time that Newport bought its business four
months apart. Four months apart. And yet we just assume that it's all it's all Newport. And we know that's not the case. The traffic data doesn't support that. The photographs don't support that. And uh the observation of being at
the top of that hill and seeing a lot of the trucks go right and some of the trucks go left. Um also supports that. If there was an independent group uh that you were uh felt were legitimate
and the town felt legitimate and they stationed themselves where the trucks veer off and they did an actual count of how many trucks went to your operation and how many trucks went to everybody else and they were overwhelmingly going to your location. Would that prove
anything to you? >> I'd have to see all the data. I'd have to see the data. You're you're >> saying if the data said that the overwhelming majority of the vehicles went to you? >> I don't think the data is going to show that. >> You don't think so?
>> I don't think so. Nope. >> But what if it did? >> Well, what if the sun didn't rise tomorrow morning? I I mean, all kinds of you can make all sorts of speculations and conjectures and so forth. I'm appealing and my client is appealing
a an order from the building inspector. My client has zero burden to prove anything. We are like the defendant in a criminal case. We don't have to put on evidence. We don't have to put on witnesses. We don't have to conduct studies. We don't have to do any of
those things. It's the town that has the burden. And the town has no I've been arguing this with Mr. my site for 13 months now, 15 months, however long it's been, we've been having these discussions. This is no secret that this
is our position. And now the town comes in the middle of the litigation, suddenly without any warning, issues a new enforcement order, forces my client to pause the litigation to we've spent I
think I don't know what the total fees were to bring this appeal. It was, you know, hundreds of dollars to bring the appeal, all the attorney time, all the costs, all the town council time, and it's the town that bears the burden of proof to come forward with data that
actually makes sense with a traffic report that you can read and you can say, "Okay, I know how they got to 43." We don't have that. And then we're being criticized because we're doing the best we can to in interpret the incomplete and inaccurate data that the town relies
upon. It can't be 43. There's nothing in the reports except for the conclusory statement in the 2025 report that supports 43. And yet that seems to be the number that the town has landed on. And when you actually look at the data,
the data doesn't show 43. The best approximation of the data in 2017 is 103 trucks. I think that's what I said is those those October numbers. That's probably the best and the fairest representation of what was happening in
2017 for these businesses. But again, you're looking at a tiny little snapshot. >> How many are you admitting to? >> I'm not admitting to anything. What I'm saying is that what the data suggests
based on the inferences that we can make is that October is probably the most realistic number if you're trying to get a gauge on what was happening in 2017 on average. And the reason I say that is
because by that point, Graves had expanded its operation to allow customer trucks to come to its site. and Newport was in operation by that point on the aggregate side. They were actually up and running and doing their thing.
And the other piece of this is that part of what you're seeing is just what's happening in Massachusetts generally and certainly in any of the communities that are remotely nearby Boston, which would include
Chelmsford. This is true up and down the 495 belt. All of these construction related businesses have gotten busier. They've gotten busier because people are building more houses. We're building more roads. We're resurfacing roads. All
of this septic systems, driveways, all of it requires gravel and that's what these businesses provide. That doesn't mean it's a zoning violation. It just means that things are busy. If you went and looked at the traffic, I mean, Route Three has over a 100,000 vehicles a day
driving driving up and down. It's because it's busy. Chelmsford was at the time that Route the takings for Route Three were done. When when Route 3 was built, Chumsford had 15,000 people. It's got what 33,000 people now, something
like that. Massachusetts, similar growth. I mean, it it it's just part of the reality. And I I understand because I've heard their testimony before. I know exactly what the neighbors are going to say when they come up and and I understand those
issues and I my client is not unsympathetic to them. Um however, that doesn't mean that it's a zoning violation. It means that it's a planning and a policy problem that all of the stakeholders, the surrounding communities, the commonwealth, the
neighbors, and the businesses all need to tackle together because you you can't you can't change the use. The quaries are there. They've been there for a hundred years. Um you can't change the demand. This stuff needs to come from somewhere because you have local contractors that need all this stuff.
One of our customers for years was the town of Chumsford. The DPW bought gravel from from graves. So this is material that folks need, the businesses need, the community needs. And that's why
because there has been so much growth overall. That's why you're seeing the growth in the traffic counts. That doesn't mean this is an unsolvable problem, but it does mean that it's not a zoning problem. It's not a zoning violation. It's a policy and it's a planning problem. You had mentioned that
you had mentioned Newport had upgraded and increased their uh product and services. When when did they do that? After they started operations. >> I I I believe I was speaking to Graves that >> you said Newport added scales a grinder
editor. No, >> you said that about Newport after they started operations that they added to their operations as well. So I'm asking what time frame? >> I I don't think I said that. I think someone suggested
>> may may I please so Mr. Chairman I'd ask for the respect to be able to answer questions without heckling from the community >> audience will have a chance to speak soon as we're done. >> So I I I don't I I didn't I don't believe that's what I said and if I did
I I believe what I was I might have misspoken. I was referring to the growth of the of the Graves business when they added the the private sales where customers could come to the site. Um, it is true that when Newport bought the
site in March of 2017, they didn't have the equipment there. They hadn't installed the scales. They didn't I don't believe there were crushers there at that time. I don't I don't know precisely. Um but certainly when they bought the property it was not like
full seam ahead the day that they um that they purchased it. That happened later. I think realistically that was the summer of 2017. By the time that they had the equipment in installed and they were actually, you know, running operations.
>> Have they have they expanded their product uh offerings or services since they've assumed business? >> I don't believe so. I think they're doing the same thing that Roma did. It's that Roma did. It was it was um material crushing material and it was recycling
material. I don't think that that has changed. >> Okay. >> And of course there's the large quarry as well which is which provides you know base material when it's not recycled material. >> Okay.
>> Can we can we jump ahead to the audience for a while? I'd I'd like to have the um have Mr. Olsson start from the public. >> Okay. Thank you very much folks. I appreciate the time and thank you for giving me the time to answer the questions.
>> For the record, we just need your name and address. >> Good evening. Uh my name is Ever V. Olsen Jr. I live at 140 Grten Road, which is a half a mile up the road, right at the intersection of Graten
Road, Main Street, and Swain Road. Uh, I have lived at that location for 76 of my 77 years. So, I along with all the people here tonight can give you all the traffic data that you need to understand what
has been going on years ago. When the graves and Gilmat and the Majery operations were in operation, I never even knew that there was
quarrying or aggregate activity on that site. We very infrequently saw large 12 to 22 vehicle trucks. It wasn't until about six or seven years ago
when Newport began its operations in earnest that we saw hundreds of trucks every single day starting at well the people in Ledge Road can tell you 4:00 4:30 in the morning going past our house
at 5:00 in the morning slamming truck bodies slamming tailgates diesel fumes dust, noise, screeching brakes, upshifting, downshifting. It has been miserable since Newport
began its operations. This is a company keeping in mind when they talk about inaccuracy um of traffic data. I want to point out a report from the town back from December 2023.
says, "I want to note, this is the author, that the town of Chumps conducted an aerial traffic surveillance of truck traffic in the summer of 20 2023 during which the author of the report and a town official observed what they believed to be intentional
aerial obstruction of surveillance, leading to the conclusion that the volume of truck traffic on Ledge Road is considerably more than the average and daily total. totals we have visualized
above a company engaged in intentional obstruction of aerial surveillance doesn't sound very ethical. Doesn't sound very honest.
And here we are talking about unreliable traffic data. that unreliable traffic data was created by this company. You know, there have been cases across this country that have some of which have gone to the
Supreme Court that have allowed local regulatory boards and authorities to exercise that authority to limit or change or stop operations.
You have that authority. Apparently, attorney McCay thinks you don't. I think you do. Those cases have been argued on and presented on whether or not an operation impacts the health, safety, and
well-being of a community. There is a letter that you have from the Chumsson Police Department and I want to briefly read. I'm not going to take up much time. Briefly read what is in that letter. The town has experienced numerous
incidents involving spilled aggregate on local roadways creating serious and ongoing safety hazards for motorists partic particularly excuse me motorcyclists. These spills have resulted in vehicle damage and deterioration of roadway surfaces. In one especially significant incident,
aggregate was deposited over several miles of roadway extending from Ledge Road to Route 3 that went right up past our house on Route 40. Try walking on these streets now. And for the last several years, if you're a
child walking to a bus stop, if you're a senior citizen or if you're a young family trying to push a baby carriage across aggregate that has been spilled on these streets. As I've mentioned before, the street sweeper has visited our neighborhoods, Graten Road, Swain
Road, Dunville, and Ledge more times in the last two years than in the last 20 years. because of the mess that this company has created. At least one instance, and continuing to quote from the police report, May 1st,
2023, a heavy commercial truck left the roadway surface and crashed into the woods while fully loaded on Ledge Road. This again tied up chumps of police resources for an extended period of time. This is also an alarming incident and highlights the serious risks associated with heavy truck traffic in
the area. Not only does this demonstrate the inherent risk of large vehicles navigating narrow residential streets, but it also highlights the potential danger of pedestrians to pedestrians or residents who could have been in the
vicinity. Finally, uh, from the Board of Health, the Chelsea Board of Health formally requests the board of appeals not approve the appeal by Newport due to the fact that approving this appeal could cause a threat to the public health and
safety and would continue to cause residents the nuisance of dust, odor, air quality, and noise in this residential area. this company. I can tell you unequivocally because my wife and I see and hear these trucks
every single day. This was never an issue in North Chelson, in this part of North Shelford until Newport began its operations. And I don't agree that the expansion of operations beyond the original permit is geographically based.
There are hundreds and thousands of tons of aggregate being taken to that operation and taken out of it on trucks every day. That has manifested the truck problem. So the scale of operations has become exponentially greater than it
ever was in this area of town. Exponentially greater. You know u keep in mind also that Vincy I may be pronouncing it incorrectly. It's either Vincy or Vinci has purchased Newport.
Vinci is a international conglomerate. 280,000 employees working in 120 countries and their intent in the purchase of Newport is to bolster its public operations, public works operations in the northeast sector of the United
States. So what does that mean? Does that mean they bring in millions of dollars of capitalization to now increase the truck traffic even greater? Taking more thousands of tons of aggregate into that area and out of that area every day.
Once again, and I will stop because I don't want to uh tie you up. It's getting late at night. There was never never a problem with heavy truck traffic in all of the years. And I still live there that I've lived
there never whether it was Graves, whether it was Gilmet or whether it was lame. I can tell you unequivocally there are hundreds of trucks every day passing by our house every two to three
minutes. And that is the same and even worse for the people on Ledge Road. It's they're coming off Route Three, coming down Rotten Road, taking a left at our house
onto Swain Road, then on to Dunville and Lynch, and then coming back out non-stop. Nonstop. We've been at this now with you for four or five years. You know, I've been here with others talking to you about this,
and I implore you, please deny this appeal for the sake of allowing us to live in a residential neighborhood and not have that transformed into a heavy industrial zone, which it has
become with these trucks and this operation. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. [applause] Um, if anyone else would like to speak, um, Everett did a pretty good job there. If you have something different to say or a question, but, uh, I'm going to
limit you to a couple minutes. >> Good evening, members of the board. My name is Melissa Lauren and I um, reside at 44 and 75 Ledge Road and I have for over the last 30 years. I want to take a few minutes and share my thoughts once again on the situation facing the
residents of Ledge Road and many of the neighborhoods of North Chumpsford. There is only one word to describe the motivation behind what has happened to these North Chumpsford neighborhoods over the past nine years. The word is greed. Newport is increasing their profits by taking our neighborhoods as
theirs to do what they want and how however they please. We are all here tonight to ask that you all put the this to an end. Mr. Mr. McKay has told you that it's Newport's right to move as many heavy commercial trucks through these neighborhoods as they so choose.
He is wrong. Mr. McCay has also stated that he does not agree with the town's data. Don't accept this questioning of the data until he brings forward his own data in the form of tear sheets to counter that town's data. Mr. McCay has tried to describe our efforts as nimbism.
Don't believe it. We all lived for many many years a good number of many generations together with the Lisery and the Gilmat family quaries. The difference as we've stated was that they respected their neighbors. Newport does not and can only be described as completely dismissive to the residents
of North Jumpsford. Mr. McCay has also told you that the meetings that were held to try to find a resolution have been productive. Don't believe it. All Mr. Mr. McKay and his clients wanted to was to further delay knowing that all along they had zero interest in any compromise or addressing the root cause
of of the problem which is the traffic which the volume of traffic. Mr. McCay has also shared operation hours of 7 to 3 weekly and 7 to 11 on Saturdays on the Facebook post that he's claiming. They operate starting at 4:30 in the morning
and go some nights until 11:00 p.m. dumping aggregates outside the business at Newport. This is all after commercial hours in of the business operations. Living on the private dirtway, I can attest that the road has is a single lane roadway. I can't walk down the
street to get the mail without a truck stopping to let me walk in the road that's partially mine. As the global corporation Vinty takes over, their desire is to grow the business. This community and traffic will continue to grow and violate the zoning that's before us today. The time is for a vote
is tonight. The time is now. You must act in the interest of the Westford located multinational corporation, but act to uphold our zoning laws and protect North Chumpsford neighborhoods for families that live in them. I agree with Mr. McKay in Newport on one thing.
Your choice is simple. Do not allow the distractions of Mr. McKay that's flooding you with all that he has truly nothing to do with with anything about this. It's all Newport's greed. Vote to support the cease and desist and tell Newport that they can no longer grind
these new chumps neighborhoods under the tires of their trucks. Thank you so much for your time. [applause] >> Good evening. Uh Lawrence Sweeney. I live on Linab down the street. Um I have just one com, you know, a comment and
then a question for the um company's appealing. First of all, uh councel mentioned that it's his up here is like being a defendant where they don't have to testify. They don't have to say anything. Um if that's true, I mean
defendants are convicted all the time on circumstantial evidence. If it snows out and you see footsteps in your snow and you see mail in your mailbox, you can assume that the mailman came and that would not only be a reasonable assumption, it's actually evidence.
Okay. So, in that regard, um the fact that since Newport has come here, all of these increases in traffic have occurred. So, it's the same type of analogy. There's a little bit of common sense that can be applied here and not
just statistical pictures and evidence. Uh common sense and assumptions and reasonable inferences that that can carry the day. You can make a reasonable inference that it uh is their trucks. One question I would have for them if
they're willing to sign the the company's representatives sign an affidavit that they are not contracting or subcontracting or using any other company's trucks for their purposes. So I'm wondering if some of those trucks
that they're claiming aren't theirs are perhaps doing business for them and in that regard. So that's just uh one thing I thought about. So that's pretty much all I have to say. Thank you. >> Thank you. [applause]
>> Hi, good evening. Alana Pope, 36 Ledge Road. Um, I appreciate your time tonight. I have a lot of things, but I will not say them all because I know you've heard a lot of the residential complaints. One thing I wanted to raise um maybe for my own clarification or maybe for yours as well, but uh Mr.
McCay keeps saying they have by use of ledge road. My understanding is the state of Massachusetts does not give by use of roads. It is for the land parcel and yes they have byight use of the operations in Westford. Their land is byight usage. The road is not that is up
to Chelmsford. That is a private road. They use it as an access point as in incidental access point. It is not a byite usage and I think he is causing confusion saying that and someone please correct me legally if I'm wrong but everything I have read is that Massachusetts does not give by usage to
roads. So I think that is just a point of confusion that everyone is hearing and I want to be clear that I don't think that is true. I think that is a false statement. I think they use Ledge Road as an access point incidentally to their byite usage in Westford for their Westford operations.
Um per Massachusetts general law, zoning exists to protect public health, safety, and general welfare. All three of those are currently at risk with this misuse of the private portion of Ledge Road which is in your control. This is a zoning issue for that private portion of Ledger Road. I'm grateful to
Commissioner Negron for recognizing this misuse and issuing the cease and desist. Um, all of these health, safety, and just general welfare of our community. This is what I will not go through because I know you've heard it all from us over the last 18 months. We had over
40 letters submitted on the last time the cease and desist was heard. We filled this room. We filled the police station. The residents have had many poor experiences. one I want to raise just a recent issue um because I want to just kind of push that time is of the essence here as everyone mentioned um
they have now been acquired by a French conglomerate you know 120 countries worldwide hundreds of thousand employees they will continue to scale this issue will get greater I understand it is not all of the they Mr. Mr. McKay has said in past meetings that the traffic is nothing he can control. He can only
control the business, the trucks, what they do, how they operate, how fast they drive, all of that not in his control. However, he is in control of the access point of telling the drivers to use ledge road of sending them exclusively down road of not looking at other ways going back to Westford. Westford has
approved their expansion of the business. This is an infrastructure problem for Westford to deal with, not for Chsford. That is not for us to solve or absorb. that is for Westford to deal with. Um, the incident I want to say is that I have two small children, three
and five. Um, I'm sure you all know that they can't play outside. It's not safe. Dust, fumes, toxic, everything, the speeding, all of that. But more recently, um, my 5-year-old takes the bus every day to school. Kindergartener, sweet little girl this high. We're waiting at the end of the driveway for
the bus. The bus is coming down. His lights begin to flash, meaning that his stop sign is going to come out. A truck leaving for there um sorry from the quaries comes down does not stop even though the lights are flashing. The bus driver bravely swerved his bus to stop
the car the truck coming down from hitting my 5-year-old and myself as we waited to cross and get on the bus. Time is of the essence for the safety of our community. I I absolutely beg you to uphold this as you did last time. The foundational issue remains. They are misusing Ledge Road. It is a private
portion. They need you need to uphold the cease and descess for the safety and health and welfare of our community and our children. Thank you. [applause] [applause] >> Hi, my name is Glenn Thorne. I'm from precinct 7 in South Chumsford. Uh, I'm
here tonight to let the people in the room who are likely from North Chamsford because this problem is in their backyard to let you know that the rest of the town understands what you're going through. I've received six phone calls from people in South Chelmsford
asking me what the heck is going on. And since I was here at the last large meeting, I explained what I heard then. I'll probably have more to explain after I leave here tonight. But the people that call me wanted the people in North Chumpsford to know that this isn't a
North Chumpsford problem. This is a Chumsford problem. This is a problem of concern to the entire town because similar things could happen in other parts of the town, excuse me, in other parts of the town. And we've had to deal with potentially very large projects in
other parts of the town that would make a giant change to our town. So people that don't live in North Chelmsford are equally concerned about what you decide regarding this problem in North Chelmsford. I've gone up and down the ledge roads. I've seen I've seen gravel
in the roads. I understand how narrow they are. I understand how wide the trucks are. A and if they wanted you to know that there is a minimum number of trucks going through the property through North Chelmsford, they would bring every truck that goes in and out of these quaries uh pays money. They're
either paying money to have something done or they're getting gravel to take out. Somebody's got a complete record of the number of trucks from 2017 up to today. Every time a truck comes in and goes out, they know exactly how many there are. Have you seen those numbers?
Why? I mean, that would that would answer a lot of questions for me. For example, if you knew exactly how many trucks were going in and out of Newport, you could tell whether there were so many in 2017. Maybe there were more in 18, maybe more in 19 and so forth and so on. I mean, if
if it were my company and I was having this problem, I would tell you what those numbers were so that you would know that it's not me. That's not my problem. I'm not increasing the number of trucks going through the neighborhood, but you probably don't need that. >> The observations here are sufficient. >> I think to answer your question, I think
the police did measure it a few weeks, but I I don't know where that information is, >> but I'm making the assumption Oh, there's that word again. I'm making the assumption somebody keeps track of every truck that goes into every business because that is their business,
>> you know, and so they know that number and should have offered it to you. But my my only point is that this isn't an issue that should be strictly for consideration for the neighbors in North Chford. And I know a lot of you don't live here either, but the people in other parts of the town are equally
concerned about your decision tonight because similar things could happen in other parts of the town. So, you're going to set an example of when something this egregious happens in one part of the town, what do you do? Thank you very much. [applause] >> I sat all through this, so I might as
well speak. >> We need your name and address. >> Gloria Morris. I live at 163 Groten Road. That is six houses up from Swain Road. So the trucks come out of Swain Road and they just start gearing up to
my house very very loud. Now I don't know if they're Newport. I've never seen a Newport truck with the lettering on it, but I see every every other name in the book of trucks. I don't know where they're coming from, but gravel
constantly in the road. I've had to call I had to go down to the highway department and have the sweeper come up one day. There were such rocks I didn't want to drive over them with my tires. It's not It's not It's frequent rocks all over the place. And when they come
back after they unload and they come back, the truck is empty and you hear boom boom boom boom. And there happens to be a little dip just past my house going toward the triangle and you hear those tailgates going over. Boom boom.
It's It's awful. I've lived there 55 years. How would I sell my house in the middle of the day if someone came and they heard all these trucks going by? Who the hell would want to buy my house? And the poor people on Ledge Road.
I don't know what those people deserve. I don't know how they can stand it. And to have children there and everything, it's a sin. So, I just want to say I think another traffic study has to be done. >> Don't you? Sure.
>> We're talking 2017. Who cares about that? We care about the last three years. It's been really gone way up. Way up. And it's one after another. They come out and it's one just six or seven of them at a time. Thank you for your time. >> Thanks.
>> I'm going home. Go to bed. >> Mr. McCay, do you want to um address some of these issues? >> I'm happy to. Thank you, sir. So, um, just a a couple of comments. Uh, the first is just to respond to some of the
attempts that I think have been made to smear my client, which I think are unfair. The fact that the company is an international company, doesn't have any bearing on this. It doesn't make them by their nature any more trustworthy or
less trustworthy than anyone else. They just happen to be a comp a larger company. that doesn't mean that they're bad folks or that they violated the zoning bylaw. There was a suggestion uh and a comment made with respect to the
drone study. Um I am aware of no evidence at all whatsoever >> that Newport attempted to disrupt or what was the word? Obstruct the the drone study. What I do know is that we
have been at this for almost a year and a half and we still don't know who actually authored the drone study and where that evidence comes from. What I do know is that more recently in the most recent proceedings, the town has not been referring to the drone study as
a source of evidence. That was not something that they relied upon in several hearings that we had with the land court on the original order. So, and the drone study was not done by a traffic engineer. That's something that we talked about before. So, I don't think the drone study is evidence of
anything because we don't know who it was done by. It wasn't done by a traffic engineer. Um, and none of it has been substantiated in any meaningful way. Um there was a suggestion about um in
different terms again being used just assuming that the conditions that the residents are experiencing are all Newport. And again apart for the fact that Newport purchased the property in 2017. Again we know that a lot of things
changed in 2017. We know that things have grown generally since 2017. We know that uh that Graves added a new line of business uh and opened its operation to the public up there as well. So, we know
that there were a number of factors that uh changed. Uh there was an a suggestion made or a question made about whether that there aren't Newport trucks that you don't see trucks with Newport. You do see trucks that are have the Graves
name on them. Uh but you don't see the Newport trucks. That's because Newport doesn't truck material. I'm sure there are exceptions to this, but it's general business is not to load material at the quarry and truck it to a customer's
location. Its customers come to it. That's just the nature of the business. I'm not sure that one I'm not suggesting that one line of business is any better or different than the other, but if you're wondering why you don't see trucks with Newport, the Newport name
emblazed on them, it's not because of anything nefarious. It's just the nature of the business that Newport runs. Um, [cough] I guess the last thing I'll say, and I'll close with this. The suggestion was made that Newport doesn't respect the
community and it doesn't respect the neighbors. I don't think that's true. I've sat through a number of the meetings that the Newport representatives had um with the community a shortly after the first
appeal was filed. Obviously, I've talked with these clients uh a lot about these issues and uh the businesses. We instituted a code of conduct for all of our drivers. And we have told the residents, and I would repeat to the
residents again, if there's a problem with a particular driver or a particular truck, tell us if it's our truck, we will prohibit them from being a customer any longer at the Newport facility. We
are serious about that. We understand that uh the the that the roads that get traveled by these customers, they're outside third-party customers. We police that as best we can and if there's an issue, whether it's a confrontation with
one of the residents, which most certainly shouldn't be happening, whether it's an issue with a school bus, um anything like that, dropped material, gravel in the road, if they see a truck having an issue like that,
try to get the license plate number, try to get the the vendor number. if it's um if it's a Newport customer, we will address it. My client's been very clear about that. Um and I think there's there's no doubt and um you know, there
is volume in this area with all of these businesses, but my client does respect the neighborhood. We do respect the neighbors. We want to know when these issues happen. Um, and then the last thing I'll say is again, none of this
changes the merits of the zoning issue. I appreciate and understand the concerns. Um, we are happy to have those discussions to try and address those issues as best we can. We are not the only player in town that's running trucks in North Chelmsford. Um, and just
because the volume has gone up doesn't mean that there's a zoning violation, and there simply is not in this case. So, we do renew our requests. We ask that you um overturn the enforcement order. Uh and thank you very much for your time and thank you for the opportunity to address those couple of issues.
>> I think we have one more question. Didn't you have a question? Danny. Danny. Oh, you're all set. >> Okay. Anyone else? >> Uh okay. Someone from the public? >> No more questions for me. >> Um we'd like to talk to our rapper.
>> Thank you, sir. Uh good evening uh Mr. Chair and members of the board. Uh my name is Rodney Elliott. I live at 15 Crest Drive in Lowel. I'm a state representative uh for the 16th Middle Sex District that
represents this very area. One of my first acts um as a as a newly elected state representative was to file the bill uh home petition that passed uh town meeting right here 117
uh 117 to 12. Uh that bill made it through the legislature, made it all the way to the House floor and uh was passed uh believe it or not, until action was taken to uh to delay and no further
action was taken. Um you know, I come before you to to support the residents, to support the people that contact me consistently. I certainly have spent an inordinate amount of time over on Ledge Road, Swain Road, uh, Main Street. Uh,
and one of the speakers mentioned common sense. It's common sense. Um, I believe Mr. W just mentioned the the increase of traffic, uh, you know, since since 2017. It's just common sense. It's rather
insulting to the to the neighbors to say that as a result of uh one new business uh that you know let's find a remedy. The remedy is the volume. The volume is creating the the heartache on the neighbors. The the the volume is the
impact of the quality of life. The volume is creating public safety. You know, mass general laws, the very laws that we create. Chapter 40 delegates to municipalities the ability to adopt zoning laws and zoning laws are put in place so there can be compatibility.
This is not compatible with the neighborhood and it's a change in the use. So I support and I you know I applaud the town and and the building commissioner um you know for uh for taking this action. Um you know the
remedy is go to the town of Westford. This is where the property are. The properties are that's when that's where the operations are. That's where the product is. The town of Chumsford um is is just, you know, they're using they're just
going through the back door. And the remedy is to go to the town of Westford to allow more trucks to go out the entrance um for the property that uh where they where they're doing their business. So, I'm here to support the the the residents. Um you know, this
this is just wrong. There are zoning or zoning laws chapter 48 put in place delegating as I mentioned specifically to municipalities the b the ability to adopt their zones their bylaws and that should be abided uh abided by. So thank
you for your time. Thank you for allowing me to say a few words and please um you know I I I hope that you you do uphold the order for the benefit of the neighborhood, the town and the people that live there. Thank you so much >> Mr. Elliott. Mr. Elliott. Mr. Elliot,
can can I can I as as a state rep that you're present and we really appreciate you being here to support our town and be here. I do have a question. Would you be willing to get involved as a state rep and help uh you know moderate or assist in any deliberation that might
occur between the two towns and maybe the department of transportation to help kind of develop some sort of alternate solution so that we both towns, the Department of Transportation, the state could get involved because this is obviously a persistent ongoing problem
that maybe needs more than just this five board zoning uh to help try and resolve. >> I am willing to get involved at any level with anyone that is to to bring some peace, the peace, the tranquility, and
the quality of life back to this neighborhood. You call me, I'll be there. Whatever it takes, I'm 100% that that is my job. And I would I would love to participate and help in any way that I can. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> [applause] >> At this time, I could take a motion from someone to uh >> um anyone anyone else from the public would like to speak or question or comment. >> I'll take a motion to close the public hearing.
>> One motion to close the public hearing. >> Second. Okay. Any discussion? >> All in favor? I. The public hearing is closed. Um, we'll do some deliberations and then
make another motion. I hope so. >> I I um I believe uh my assessment is Can everyone hear me? Using my drills voice here. So uh
I I do believe that there may be a um misplaced view on this order and I think that the other elements should be involved. Um I think the assessment that um the coincidence of one element there
are too many other economic factors in my opinion um that have occurred across this country in in the relation to growth overall from an economic standpoint to just assume that the increase in traffic is associated just
because one company bought another company. I think honestly that would be an unrealistic assumption. Um, I do believe that it is a definitely an increase in use and I think there is a hazard and a concern over there for sure. It's not a North Chsford problem.
I don't live in North Chsford. I live in Chumsford and I'm here to represent everybody in Chumsford. That is what I choose to serve to do. Um, but I would I would propose we amend the order to include the other um quaries
and to do a better study of flow or to request that they open their truck log counts for their scales or their P&L and balance sheets to do an analysis of profit increase and ratio return to determine their revenue increase over
the time period of traffic increase and percentage comparison. But I do believe there is an issue and I don't think it can be singled out just to Newport based broadly on just economic growth factors across this country and in in the state alone. But
that is my opinion. >> Um I also agree with you. Um there's it's kind of hard to make the assumption that only Newport is the increase in the traffic. I do agree that there is a traffic issue with the trucks. There
definitely is an associated increase in traffic from Newport, but to only um point it towards Newport is uh is a disservice to to our board. Um I
think we need to also see the impacts of what the other companies because there are other companies down there. The enforcement order should also be on the other companies and a traffic study should be done to actually account for what trucks are going down into the
Newport site versus Graves and the other sites. That's how we'll actually be able to make a full determination on what the impacts are and who's associated with those impacts. >> And I am true to what I say to Mr. Elliott. this issue, the deal and the
arrangement that was made with the quaries and Westford without um input or consideration of Chumsford and the fact that Chumsford is now dealing with this burden. That's not a Newport fault. This is a legislation problem and this has
got to be dealt at a higher level. We are not going to be able to fix this here tonight. We need DOT. We need state legislation. We need state integration to come in and look at the deal that was done with Westford and these companies
and the fact that they can get taxed. They get the revenue. We get to deal with the problem. There is definitely a disservice and Humpsford is carrying the burden. So I truly agree we need to move this somewhere. [applause]
>> Glenn, you want to say something? >> I think it's all said. >> I think I have to agree with what said, >> "Well, I disagree a little bit and because um we have to we have to start, we have to do something and we have to
get the ball rolling and I think this order to limit commercial vehicles on Ledge Road is a damn good start. >> But we can amend that order. Can we not council? Can we not amend the order to include both companies?"
Uh I you can amend the order as applied to Newport. I don't think you can order enforcement against the other companies. >> Okay. >> That would fall under the building commissioner's authority in my opinion. >> Okay. >> So can we request that >> you can request that the building
commissioner pursue certain enforcement? >> Okay. >> Yes. I mean, I think uh attorney McKay did bring up that one of the initial complaints that started this and obviously there were more, but the
biggest one that um the building commissioner acted on was regarding Graves, but it was directed towards Newport. So, that's why I think Graves does need to be also included as one.
John. >> Okay. Yes. >> Yeah. I I think we should have uh comment by I think we should have comment by town council so that everyone here understands the process. If the board uh decides to support uh the building commissioner, then certain
things are put in motion and I think you deserve to hear where the ultimate authority lies in making the decision. Maybe uh he could comment a little bit about the process. um >> where the appeal goes to. They make an appeal where it goes to.
>> Okay. Sure. The the appeal would go to land court. There's already a pending appeal of the original uh enforcement order that's been stayed pending this process playing out. Um the parties agreed that Judge Resnik at the
land court would retain jurisdiction over any appeals of the board's uh decision this evening. So, um, depending on what the board decides that, um, if Newport were to appeal, it would likely
be back before Judge Resnik. >> Could we continue this hearing and wait till that appeal is concluded? >> Well, you already closed the hearing. >> No, we already closed it. >> This question, >> so we have to make a decision >> or reopen it.
>> We reopen public hearing before. >> That's true. We could public hearing and continue, could we not? >> You could. What What would you What would the basis? >> Correct me if I'm wrong. I would I would like to continue with this and try to take a vote and see if it passes.
>> That's Anyone can make a motion. Mr. Chairman, >> anyone would like to make a motion? I move to uphold the building commissioners. Uh >> one motion to uphold the order to limit commercial vehicles on Ledge Road.
>> Right. >> Okay. Do I have a second on that? >> Second by Glenn. Okay. Any other discussion? All those in favor of the motion. >> I I
motion passes. >> Motion passes. Four >> three to two. >> Oh, four. Do you >> Well, you asked for the opposed, Mr. Chairman. >> Who? Anybody opposed? >> Four to one.
Okay, so we're all set here. We uh we passed a motion to uphold commercial truck usage. I would like to say again to the to the residents here and anyone watching, we
need to come together and take this to the state. This is not going to stop here. They are going to appeal. We need to continue to come together and take this to the state because this needs to change at legislation. Otherwise, we're going to continue to carry this burden
and we are going to continue to suffer what's going to happen. >> Keep that in mind. Thank you all for coming. >> Thank you everyone for coming. By the way, >> we still have many. >> Okay. Um we're not quite done to
meeting. We have meeting minutes. January 8th, 2026. I started to read them, but I didn't finish. >> I think we're gonna postpone that. I I write I I make a motion to postpone the
meeting minutes till next month. >> I'll second that. >> Second. >> All in. >> All in favor? I >> I make a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Next month >> to not vote on them today.
>> I I only have >> What did you say about next month? just >> what' you say she wants to push that read them. >> Good luck. >> I didn't read them either. >> All right
minutes till next month. >> Yes. >> Why don't we Why don't we just adjourn and we're talking? >> Yeah, we're we're actually still in a meeting. I'm sorry. >> We got to finish. >> Yeah, we'll finish. Okay. >> All right. >> Good night.
>> All right. >> Finish chairman. >> Okay. Um motion to adjourn. >> Can we get We still have the meeting is still open. >> We're still in the We're still in the meeting right now. >> Our meeting is still open. We do need to close officially close the meeting. So just give us ahead >> three minutes of administrative process
here to close the meeting. Happy to >> All those in favor to adjourn. >> Yep. >> We're done. >> That's it. Didn't take three minutes.