want to let him know. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Hey. Uh, good evening everyone and welcome to the, uh, Dan Zoning Board of Appeals. We are now in session. Um, I would like to, uh, ask everyone if they could, uh, either turn off any mobile
devices or set them to silent so we are not interrupted. Uh, I will stop the meeting by uh, introducing our board. And, uh, all the way down to my right is Chris Tempowski. We have Coren Dherty. Our clerk tonight is Ken Scholes. myself, John Bowerer is as the chairman.
Uh to my left is Ken Javvernin. Uh Becky Kilbornne, and our other alternate is Kevin Bri. Do I have that pronunciation right? >> Bar. >> Barriage. Sorry. Thank you. I'm practicing. Um I won't go over the procedure uh because I believe uh the
one applicant tonight is firmly uh familiar with it. Uh however, I will uh introduce our planning director, Mr. Brian Zakelli. And um anybody I I just will remind anyone that if you're going to speak uh we are on uh Danver's cable and to
please go to the microphone. Do not speak from your chairs. Identify yourself and your address. And with that said um I would uh entertain a motion to accept our minutes from the July 28th meeting. >> So moved. >> All members were in uh receipt of that.
Is there any further discussion hearing? >> Second. >> Uh hearing none. I've got a second. All in favor? I. Any oppose? >> Great. Thank you. Uh we've got two cases on tonight. One's a continued and um I think we can get right into it, Mr. Clerk. So, if you could read our
continued case. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our first case is continued. Uh 342 Andover Street, zoned R3, map 39, lot 010A. uh requests a finding to expand an pre- non-consist non-existing non-conforming
use of the property to allow landscaping business that park in the rear of the property to also be able to park in the front of the building. Additionally, an expansion of the use of the main building to allow other businesses to rent professional or general office
space inside the building as the dental lab is no longer operational. Uh the request is made by Guy Castanza, docket 25-5108. Uh Mr. Chairman, we are in receipt of an email from Mr. Castanza. Um he's requesting it continuence for
the next available meeting which would be September 8th. Uh hearing that allows sufficient time for me to acquire the necessary certified plot plan along with any other needed documents that are required for our ex expanded use request for 342 Andover Street. Um as you know
we were originally scheduled for August 25th but we need more time for everything required. Um before I make that motion, uh did I believe he asked for the meeting after that? Is that correct? >> So no, he so that is so it's correct. He
originally asked for that September 8th meeting, but after talking uh with him and his potential, he had um he's in the midst of choosing his engineer. But in the middle of talking that I was like, there's no point in putting 98. Like you don't even have a chance. You might as well go to the next level. So at least
you could either give an update or maybe you'll have something in hand. So, so I believe we're going to move that to September 22nd. >> Correct. Yep. That's 22. So, uh, >> that is the request, >> members. Uh, so move to September 22. >> Thank you. We've got a motion and we got a second to continue this case to
September 22nd. All in favor? >> Any opposed? >> Very good. And um uh we can move on to the next case. >> All right. A regular our first regular item is uh 25 Pope's Lane. This is highway corridor zone. Uh request a
variance for from section 9.3B.2 A and C to allow for four storage containers to be located on the property. Two of which will be located in the rear yard setback. A special permit is also requested uh for the four
storage containers to be located on the property until the new contractor building is constructed. uh the removal of the existing non-conforming building which is 9.1 ft from the side lot line and the reconstruction of a new non-conforming
building 22 ft from the side property line and to allow one storage container adjacent to the existing building until its demolition uh section 3B.2B and 3 C.9.
Additionally, a finding is requested to allow the reconstruction or change of the existing non-conforming structure which improves the setback from 9.1 ft to 22 ft section 3.11. The request is made by MJD Property
Group LLC care of Nancy McCann Esquire docket 25-5110. >> Thank you. Um, attorney McCann, it looks like you've almost checked every box on our application. So >> it it does look that way, but it really is a rather simple application and hopefully it will it will appear that
way once we're >> done. Tell us what you'd like to do. >> Thank you very much. My name is Nancy McCain. I'm here on behalf of the on behalf of the applicant MJS Property Group LLC at 25 Popes Lane. The property is located in the highway corridor
zoning district. With me tonight is Michael Celig, principal uh of the applicant as well as Jay Palakawitz with Hancock Associates who is the project engineer. And uh Mr. Celig acquired the property back in uh 2018.
Um in 2019 um and prior to that as well, the zoning relief was granted both by this board as well as by the planning board to allow the contractor's yard on this property. And since uh 2019 uh contractor's yard
has been operated by Mr. Celig here. Um it is a uh a successful business and uh at this point he would uh like to revise the the property so it works more effectively and more efficiently and
more neatly uh by removing the existing building which was built as a single family home. And since 2018, it's been used as a contractor's yard, but it really wasn't ever designed as a contractor's yard. So, the proposal is to remove that existing
single family style home, which is only about 9 ft from the property line, and construct a new building designed for the contractor's yard business, and that uh will be 22 feet uh from the side setback. So significantly improving the
nonconformity and improving uh the general layout by designing a building that's appropriate for the site. Um this will also allow us to address the storage container issue on the site. Um because once the building is built, no
storage containers will be needed going forward for this business. Um so again we're uh we think this proposal is going to improve the appearance of the site, make it much neater uh and bring it more
into compliance uh with the zoning bylaw. So we're proposing to remove the existing building and construct a new building that is more uh conforming to place uh four storage containers on the site limited in time until the building
is constructed. We anticipate uh it could be as early as six months, but it could be as much as a year. And I've indicated in the application we've requested up to a year of uh of time for those storage containers. Since the application was uh submitted, actually
one of the storage containers is left. So, we really only need approval for three storage containers rather than the requested four. Um we're requesting to have those storage containers within two of them are within the rear setback again for this limited period of time
and that setback area where the storage containers are uh would abut the uh DUI uh storage areas uh where they have uh many uh container type uh vehicles uh
located in that area. Um, it's also behind an existing uh retaining wall that was constructed again back during site plan approval in 2019 uh 2019. And then we're requesting approval to have one of the containers adjacent to
the building. So once the building is constructed, it'll be more conforming to uh to uh the bylaw than what we have now as far as the building is concerned. The containers will all be removed and uh we will have a certainly a neater and more
compliant site. Site plan approval is from the planning board is required. So should this board grant the relief that we're seeking, we will still have to go through full site plan uh approval with the planning board and um I believe you received engineering department comments
where they did not have any objection but noted that we would have to go through the storm water permit process. uh as well. So at this point I would like to turn it over to Jay Palakawitz and he can walk you through the plan. >> Thank you.
>> Good evening. Jay Puckets with Hancock Associates. So as Nancy mentioned, uh the site back in 2018 was a single family home. uh we went through the process of turning it into a contractor's yard but left that single family home uh as it was. We're now
coming back to uh you know modify the site once again to make it more of a normal contractor's storage uh yard and building. Uh so this building the proposed building as you can see is not a rectangle. It has been designed to fit
within those zoning setbacks to the maximum extent practicable. Uh it's going to be a steel building. So, um for the most part, they need to be in whole numbers. Uh which is why we're getting that 22 foot um setback versus the 25.
Um the site is sloping from the north uh to south, so plan right to plan left. Uh we're proposing a retaining wall around the outside of the site to um flatten out the slope that is out there currently so that um materials uh can be
stored in that area. Um we had gone through the zoning board of appeals uh site plan review and engineering storm water permit process back in 2018. Um and we'll be expanding upon um the drainage systems and utilities that we had uh installed and gotten permitted
back then. Um, and I think that's about all that I have. Um, you know, we are going to be developing these plans even further once we get into the planning board stages of the process. And, uh, I can answer any questions that anyone may have on the design.
>> Very good. Thank you. >> That's it, Attorney Mc. Um, all right. Before I turn this over to the board, I have a couple at least one thing I would like to bring up. Uh Brian, can you bring up that um uh fuel uh container picture?
Uh so I did a site visit um over the weekend to this site and um I I have other questions that I'll wait to ask because they may get ferited out by the other board members, but there's a fuel container on this site that is
not registered with the town. Um, and I just think there's kind of a lot going on this site that considering uh you were before us in 2018 and I will uh actually before I go on um the five regular uh members will be voting on
this and we just got the prior decisions from 2000 and 2018 just before we arrived here tonight. So, I'm still kind of reviewing those um a little as well. But are you uh attorney Macan if you could go to the mic. Are you aware of this? Uh I think it's called a fuel
caddy. Is that what I saw? >> Brian's uh I there's some photos he'll bring up if needed, but I am I'm assuming the applicant is aware of it. I'm assuming you're not because it's not permitted with the town and it is required to be permitted with the town.
>> Okay. Mike, do you have any information about that? >> If he's going to speak, have him at the mic and identify himself. Um, >> technical difficulties. Yeah. >> Yes, I have one. I >> If you could just identify yourself, please. >> Michael Celig,
>> owner of uh MJS Property Group. I have a diesel on site. Um, I did not know I had to register. I apologize. I um It's an above ground. >> Yep. I I' I've always fully saw it. So, I I'm just uh >> No. Whatever I need to do, I can. I did
not. And I think um there it is there. >> Yeah, >> the fuel cube. That's what the name I was looking for. Uh and and our planning director did verify with fire pres prevention in town that it is not registered with the town. Um and is subject to be registered, I believe, is
the way he worded it, not us. >> Where do I go to do that? >> Well, I'll I'll let you work that out, I guess, with the planning department. >> Okay. >> Fire department. >> I'll do that tomorrow. But that's that's a you know, Attorney McCann that and I think I just will say it this way
considering this last um request for relief. It's only 7 years old. I find it a little troubling that there's three storage containers on site and a lot of other things going on on
site that I don't believe was part of the 2018 agreement. So, I'll leave it at that. I am going to turn it over to the board for questions and I'll start down there with you Chris. >> Uh the only question I had is
it's got four containers you're looking to have behind the existing. >> Three. >> Three. >> Yes. And is that three from So two would be outside of the property line or the setback, I'm sorry. >> And one within the setback.
>> Uh yes, we would be able to do that. So at the the one closest to the lot line, Yep. >> plan north, if you will, um could be removed and we would >> So right now, the one closest to the house is gone or would be gone.
I think what I'm trying to say is once you demolish that existing house and you start building the new structure, it looks as if one of those storage containers is going to be in the way of the new structure. >> Mhm. >> So, is that still going to be on site and needed as the new structure is being
built? >> Jay, can you respond to whether uh some of these containers will be able to stay? They will certainly not be needed um once the building is constructed, but during the course of construction,
>> it just looks as if the third one, the one would be closest to the ho existing house is going to be in the way of the new structure. >> Right, Jay? Can you speak to that? So back in 2018 when we had uh redesigned this site uh initially we had
uh focused on just the the plan lefthand side um of it and that's developed and we're maintaining what was done previously. Now we're just expanding to that right side. Um you know these storage t uh containers are somewhat mobile um with equipment. Uh so the they
could be shifted over temporarily to just move out of that location during demolition and construction or and move back as needed. Uh it is a very small and and tight site. So uh there's not really many options where you can put these.
>> Okay. >> Does that answer it, Chris? >> And just for clarity, >> there's three on site currently, but you're looking for four or you're going to reduce that request to three. That's correct. >> And and out of the three, one will be in
the setback or two will be in the setback >> if if this is allowed. >> Yeah. Um Jay, can we take only one in the setback? >> Cuz it looks to me uh it to Chris's point, uh maybe you don't want the one
closest to the new structure you're building for the ease of building it, and you still want the two in the setback. So, I just would like clarity. You're going to three, but where are the three? >> Jay, does it make sense to have the two
remain in the setback and then and give us some breathing room on the side of the building? So that >> looking for two in the setback, but only a total of three, >> right? But by doing that, we eliminate one of the requests, which is the request to have the container adjacent to the building.
>> So we can eliminate one of the requests. I believe that a special permit. Yes, I believe that's under the special permit. So, we won't need that. >> Uh, but we would still >> We're here to solve problems. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Uh, Chris, any additional?
>> No, I'm all set. >> Uh, Karine, >> thank you. >> Um, Attorney McCann, could you explain why um this application was kind of written this way and why we have an alternative with regard to either a finding or a special permit? Was this a
situation where you thought it should be one way and maybe the planning department thought it should be another or are you giving us two options because we're not sure which one applies? The bylaw is contradictory. >> Okay. >> And it has special permit in one place
and variance in the other. And I just wanted to cover all the bases. I believe that how this has been interpreted in the past is that if you have more than two, it is a special permit. However,
the by way the bylaw is written, that's not clear. So, I wanted to be sure. I asked for the variance just in case uh I needed it, but I really think it's it's been interpreted as a special permit in the past, but the bylaw this section has
I can point it out to you if you want to know exactly what I'm talking about, but it it um it's not clear whether it should be a variance or a special permit. The design requirements, let me grab >> um actually Brian, could you put it up?
It's It's on page 39 if the website is >> And if I could uh So, attorney McCann, you're talking strictly on storage containers. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, if I if you look page 39, you go up to page
40. So um section two in cases let's say a maximum of two storage containers shall be allowed by right in the district that's under section two. Then it says um
that you can get a special permit for any of the performance standards which is section C. And the number of units is not under the performance standard section. It's
under section 2A which I just wanted to be careful and make sure I covered all the bases. I think it means that I may need a variance for the number of storage containers because it's not under the performance standards.
>> Well, it that might that might be true, but we've never we've never actually given a variance. It's only been special permit. But if you look under the performance standards and go to number 10, it does say storage containers associated with an active construction
site which have a building permit in good standing shall not be considered an accessory structure and may be located on parts of the site where accessory structures would otherwise be prohibited. So, and again, this is the first time we've well, at least I have
dealt with these storage containers being um uh you know, like not not in or actually in the setback. So, that to me means that you don't really need relief as long as you have that active building permit as far as where you're going to
locate them. Now, the number and the the um the length of time that you're going to have them would require a special permit. Um, but I don't really think you need a variance in this case. At least I don't believe so. >> And I would be happy with that determination.
>> And we would be happy. I I think we'd rather not give a variance. >> As I read number 10, that says to me storage containers associated with construction. >> Well, these are because you're storing basically storing the stuff that would ordinarily be in the building, >> right? Because
>> construction >> during construction. And that would also mean that again once the construction is done, you no longer need them because what's being stored in them will now be in the building. >> But but I think Karine, I think I would point it out this way. Does that now put
you under the 180day clock which you don't want it sounds like? >> Well, I've asked for relief on the 180day >> through special permit or through variance. >> Through a special permit, I would say. So, it sounds like we >> through the special
>> I think we have a little more latitude on a special permit, >> right? >> And I think what Karine's saying, if I'm hearing her correctly, is the setback variance isn't required because as long as you're under construction, these containers can go anywhere.
>> Um, that would be if that is >> But I I will also go out to Brian on that to make sure they see it that way. Yeah, because I I interpreted those storage containers associated with an active construction site even though the storage containers are for the business,
not for the construction. >> Right. Got it. >> Um, if that's how you interpret it, >> I I think you've highlighted something uh worthy of I think all of us looking at right. There's a little bit of a contradiction I guess loophole maybe if you want >> some gray area. I think I I thought it
would be safe for two reasons to at least that you could at least put it in there simply because you could put these storage containers technically anywhere. You don't necessarily have to put them in the setback. So you the bylaw would want a process for that.
And if you if you have a choice to put the to put a storage container anywhere else but you have to put it in that setback, it should at least be reviewed by the board. So that's why I thought and also this is you you saw it. It's an extremely oddly shaped lot where it squeezes in multiple ways. So this is
like >> this is actually actually makes sense for for a shape for a shape variance. >> So I I thought it made sense. I thought it made sense that there's no there's no harm in asking for that because I think that's the most conser like that's the
most conservative way to look at it >> is with the bearings >> specifically for breaking of the setback not necessarily for the number not necessarily for the number because that that probably should that that I think that's clearly a special permit. It's
the the question of whether or not in terms of the gray area is what to do when you have a temporary container that's breaking a setback. You probably could make it a special permit, but it probably makes more sense in my opinion for a variance.
>> Okay. Well, we got to try to attempt to get the language right on this if it does go through. >> But uh anyways, Karine, uh more questions. >> Um how long do you anticipate this project to last? Oh, maximum of a year. We're hoping it we can get it done in in
the six months, in the 180 days, but we do have to go through site plan approval and the storm water permit process. So, that can add some time. Once we get those permits in place, it should move along quickly, although we may be in the middle of winter. So, that's why I've
said maximum a one year, but it could be less than that. >> Okay. Um, and would you take as a condition if we were to grant um up to a year that if it's done before the year then the that those storage containers have to leave?
>> Absolutely. Okay. No further questions. >> Thank you, Karine. Uh, Ken, >> thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so I think we're going to keep talking about the storage containers. So, this is my issue with the variance.
If the new building is complete, then the storage containers are supposed to be removed. But really, if he could say, I have a variance for storage containers. I'm going to put one up because the variance stays with the property forever.
>> Not if the condition is that during the during the construction. So, first of all, you're giving it for a year >> potentially. >> The proposal is is for a year. Um, so there's a time limit on that. It can't
run for the prop with the property if it has a time limit on it, right? >> And this is the weird part, I guess, of why maybe it shouldn't be a very So this is kind of the other side of it is that there should be a there should be a process for something like this, meaning you're breaking a setback. You have a
choice to break it. you don't have, you know, should be something that um maybe we just squarely make that a special permit which which could be an option that probably makes sense for this specific very specific performance standard.
>> Temporary trailers in the setback like literally that specific. >> Yeah. >> Um because otherwise it there would be some unintended consequences. >> Precisely. And then I just have a um curiosity question. Um so was this
reszoned this whole street highway Carter? How did they get away with putting a single family home there? >> Oh no. So this you I think we looked it up. It was like 06 05 >> 05 when they 2000s the whole highway quarter >> was res. So yeah
>> because the plans dated 2000. So, >> and if you look over the years, this whole street popes specifically has been changing over because the zoning wants it to be highway corridor. The zoning wants it to be these types of uses. So, people are I mean that's that's what it's calling for. >> Okay.
>> Um because you probably Yeah. Yeah. Just that, >> right? Okay. No further questions. Thank you. >> Thank you, Ken. Uh Ken J. >> Um has the uh scaffold scaffolding and all that um there was some debris on the right side. I think it was scat a pile of scaffolding scaffolding. Is that
gone? >> Is it? >> This is before the last time you just you came here like six months ago or something. >> I thought I Not this site. >> Not this site. >> Yeah, >> maybe a new
>> I think it's a different site >> across. >> Okay, maybe there's been a lot of activity. >> Yeah, on this street. the site, but like on this planning board seen three or four applications here. >> Can you bring up the other photos? The one on the right side. >> So, you have no scaffolding there?
>> Not that I'm aware of, but there is a lot. >> This is this is a contractor's yard and by definition outdoor storage of heavy equipment, materials, all that sort of thing is permitted um under the bylaw.
So there there will be things outside. That's why we think once we get the building built um that will allow some indoor storage. It's going to make it a lot neater. >> Um not not this one, Brian. One >> before
>> uh I had sent two emails today was the second email. >> Got it. >> Uh do you have additional question? >> I don't have any more questions. >> Um Becky, >> thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, could you just confirm the size of the new building?
>> The size of the new building? >> I just I didn't see it quickly when I was see pictures of it. >> Yeah. Let's see. Uh, we have two sections of the building
and it looks like >> without me scaling it, it's hard to >> one is uh you've got that in the in the packet. It gives the dimensions. So 35x 70 and 15 by 30. So it's two sections
that will fit together. So 35 by 70. >> Is this what you were talking about? >> No. Uh it's the next email >> and not that one. >> What did I say? 15 by 30 roughly 3,000 square feet. A little
under. Does that sound right? >> 2900. >> 2900. >> Yes. >> Okay. And the the site, what is the >> um intention? Is it going to be all paved? Is it going to be I'm sure that
you'll go through this with planning board but >> so uh the existing and I'll call it the left side it's the southern side of the site now is paved with a drainage system below it. Uh the new storage area that we're proposing is uh going to be 3/4
inch crush stone um to help with infiltration. >> So the right side is going to be crush stone and the left side is going to be pavement. Yeah. So, you can see that in um the the plan that we have. Um I guess not the storage container plan >> on the site on the site plan that you
have. Um up you'll see kind of a a bubbled section. I won't call it crosshatch, but it's kind of like that in the upper >> I'm looking at the new site plan with the new building on it. >> Look at the other sheet. >> Yeah. Okay. On the other one. So, the other part will be gravel. It'll remain
that way. Yeah. >> So, yeah, right now it's a it's a grally material. Uh we're replacing it with 3/4 inch crush stone. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. And uh
>> I don't have anyone after that, but >> um Mr. Chairman, if I could, could we have the uh storage container portion of the bylaw back up for just a second? I can ask my question more precisely, and I'll >> appreciate that, Brian. Thank you.
So I think I understand the reason for asking for a variance because when I look at this, it appears to me that the purpose of the special permit is to increase the number of days for which the containers are allowed. It does not make mention of a special permit. Uh if
you could just go down to the commercial zone. Thanks. So um in cases where containers are requested to be placed for more than 100 consecutive calendar days on any commercial industrial zoned uh parcel more than once per calendar year indoor cannot meet the performance standards.
Special permits so you're so a special permit is for performance standards number is not a part of the performance standards and number of days and and number of containers are separate issues entirely. So I I think looking at this, my opinion is that a special permit
cannot be granted for a number of containers because it is not something the bylaw gives us the right to grant a special permit for. Understanding that the history of this board may be different, but uh I would say that doing it going beyond the scope of the bylaw
in the past is not a great reason to continue to do it. Um, and so then if we're if we're then at a variance for the number of containers, I guess I can understand soil shape, topography for the building, but the
number of containers seems to just be about the need of the business more than soil shape or topography. Am I looking at that wrong? I think in this case where we have such an irregularly shaped lot and we have uh
really constraints in order to be able to put additions on the building to accommodate that. Remember this uh this is a halfacre lot >> in a zoning district where the minimum lot size is an acre. So, we're already
uh constrained in and and have a hardship, I'll use that term. Um because we're in we have acre size setbacks imposed on a halfacre lot. >> I see. >> And so we're just as uh you could see on
that one plan when you put the setback lines on there, there's very little area here. So in order to where in some cases we could have put a quick addition on the side of the building or something we can't do that here. So we've got to do this overall uh this overall change take
an existing building down and and construct a new more conforming building but a new building. So I would say in this case the the limitations of the lot because of the shape um to some extent the topography but mostly the shape
really uh would support the need for a third um storage container for a very limited period of time. And then again, if it were a variance um in order to not substantially deriggate from the purpose, right? Uh C seems to be really
explicit. Containers shall meet the required zoning setbacks. And setting aside arguments about the meaning of shall uh as an imperative or a future tense verb. Uh I I guess would we substantially deriggate from the from the intent if we if we go the other way
from that shall for the setback? And I think in this case again not because of the hardships with the the shape but also in this case we have got an existing large retaining wall that go right along that lot line behind which
these uh containers will be. They are also in the back of the lot so they're not going to be visible. Uh so I think in this case it won't substantially deriggate from the intent or purpose of the bylaw. Uh and then in the the
decision in the minutes from 2018, it looks like at the time you said there was no intent for outdoor storage even though >> right >> for a contractor's yard it's allowed. It it looks further from the discussion of the board like >> there might have been the intent to actually put that as a condition uh in
the decision but it never really made it into the decision. >> Right. That was an interesting um decision the 2018 because what that decision said is that this lot which is undersized can be used for any purpose for that is
permitted by right or by special permit in the zoning bylaw. And there was discussion in there about not intending to have outdoor storage but that didn't make it in as a condition. But then after that, a special permit for the
contractor's yard was sought by the planning board who is the the special permit granting authority for a contractor's yard and that allowed the outdoor the outdoor storage. So the 2018 decision was kind of this interesting animal that just this board granted a
very general relief to allow be and it was because of the size of the lot. We we have half the required area and that applicant wanted some free reign to un to know that any use that is permitted in the highway corridor by right or by
special permit would be allowed here and there wasn't any real discussion of what that use might be. >> When was the planning board decision? >> The planning board decision was 2019. I have that. Hang on. Uh yeah, that was
a special permit and site plan approval 2019 special permit uh March 28, 2019 which was a grant special permit for a contractor's yard requested by Michael Seel for improvements to the site
include and it included retaining wall, fenced area, new sewer system, second driveway entrance, uh landscaped areas and then coupled with that was a separate decision for site site plan approval. >> Yeah. And I I I think it's very possible that the text of the zoning bylaw, the
the intent of of the text was to allow uh this board to grant uh relief through special permit, you know, temporarily for the number of containers. Um it's very possible that was the intent. I don't uh unfortunately I do not see that in the black letter uh meaning there um
of it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> You got it. Thank you. Uh Attorney Ken, we'll start first with a statement. I'm glad your applicant is uh doing well and the business is thriving. However, I do have uh you know, I really do have an
issue with the fact that um clearly there's three containers on site currently that have been there more than 180 days. Um we have illegal fuel storage on site and now you're here before this board asking for more
things. So, um, what is going to prevent this from happening in the future? Because it didn't prevent it in the 2018 decision by this board or the 2019
decision by the planning board. meaning the applicant and again I'm glad he's being successful but he's done pretty much whatever he wants at this site um and has not come to the town for anything. >> Well, I I I wouldn't agree with you
there. He got site plan approval and >> he didn't get site plan approval for three storage containers. >> No, he got site plan approval for the improvements and he made those improvements to the site. the storage container. I don't know when the storage container bylaw went into effect that uh
was that after may have been after um that but he does need zoning relief. >> 06 >> it was 06 on the storage container. >> Um he needs >> no argument there, right? >> No argument there. And that's why we're here, right? And what we're here for is
not asking for storage containers in perpetuity. >> Understood. But what what my question is what's going to prevent it from happening >> again cuz it's already happening. >> The project the project eliminates the need for storage containers.
>> Would you take a condition to uh have this board review after a year of operation? >> Sure. >> Okay. Uh I do want to ask about storm water drainage. So the 2018 decision I believe put it uh you you were under
storm water control at for that decision and what I guess what's what has to change or what is the need for change on that with this new building demoing the the residential house and putting this new building in >> the uh I'll let Jay speak to this but to
put it in layman's terms uh we have a new storm water bylaw that was not in effect back in 2019. 19. >> Okay. >> And u it is somewhat the position of the town whenever you move dirt you have to uh get a storm
water permit and deal with that process. We will certainly be moving dirt here. So that's going to trigger the >> but I understand that. But so do we anticipate a drastic change in what's already there in place or it's just a
tweaking of it? Uh, do you mind going to the other plan? Thank you. Right, that's good. So, um, as I mentioned before, uh, back in 2018 2019, we had really focused on the left side of the site. Now, we're focusing on the right side. So, we do have a subsurface
storm water chamber that was approved by the engineering department back in 2019. Um, so this building was designed to be mostly outside of that. Uh, the last row will have to be relocated to just uh rather than being 3x4, it's going to be
4x3 essentially. Uh, so we are maintaining that system with minor modifications. Uh, we'll be connecting the roof into there. Um, there are existing catch basins out there. One will remain, one will be relocated again. So, we're trying to maintain that system there. >> Okay. And while you're up there, um, so
on my site visit yesterday, I noticed, uh, quite a bit of trenching going on in what I guess you guys will call lot one and a lot of I guess I I don't even show some type of wood storage container. What What's all that about? What's
happening there? >> Are you familiar with that? So, some of the the wood is an encroachment from the abuter. Um, you can see that in the top right of our plan. Um, >> what are we doing to solve that? >> Uh, we're going to Mike is going to have
to talk to his neighbor about getting that off. Uh, that is within our limit. >> I mean, we're not in litigation or anything to that. Okay. cuz that I get the impression when I looked at it yesterday that that's on your property and what's going on here along with
treging and is that permitted right now? I I guess I don't understand how any work's going on. >> Um Mike, do you want to speak to that? >> Maybe attorney McCann could speak to that. >> Uh Michael Celig again. Uh the right side we had an opportunity with some
fill to be removed close by. Um we were checking on ledge to see where we are or how far we can go down. So we had um material removed on that right side. >> Is there a permit in place? >> Not for digging. There shouldn't be any
permit needed for digging. We're not doing we're not constructing anything. I am going to be asking which I was going to talk to them in regards to possibly putting up the wall before anything's happening anyways to try to beat the year uh before the winter comes in. >> All right. Well, hold on. Let me go out
to our bill planning director. I I don't Is that accurate? He can dig without permitting. I >> mean, it's a I mean, if it's not a specific trench, I think what you're talking about specifically is a trench permit if you're doing utilities, but they're not doing utilities. They're just doing some regrading. It's basically or it would be classified as
regrading. Uh but there's no doubt we do have so we do have a memo from engineering saying that they require storm water and a water and sewer permit. So they're going to make them um well they're certainly going to have to submit a whole bunch of drainage uh drainage calcs regrading all you know
all of that. Um but no is the short answer. They do not need a permit to essentially do some regrading unless it had probably >> jurisdiction. That looks a little more extreme than regrading. >> I I I have not seen >> Well, that was one of the photos I sent
you, but I mean that's It doesn't look like regrading to. >> No, we're bringing down. >> There's a channel. It's probably 8 ft wide. Yes. >> Yeah. It's the It's the right side of the property shown here. Um we're assessing the ledge being able to see how far we're able to come down because
we have some preliminary drawings um st showing uh steep incline where the rear building would be unaccess not accessible. Uh and we're in hopes by doing this for the next meeting we'd be able to bring down the grade to the
lower level. >> So you're just trying to hog that whole hill out. It sounds like >> eventually. Yes. But your neighbor, your butter needs to get their material off a portion of it, I guess, is what you guys are telling us.
>> Uh, no. Um, we I've spoke with I spoke with Chris. He he's he's on the side. >> I thought you just told me he they were encroaching. >> Not Not no longer. >> Okay. So yeah, so what I saw yesterday
uh all that material that is that's on his uh your butter's uh property, not your own. >> Correct. The logs. Yes, >> that that answers that. Okay. Um attorney, um I would also ask I guess a condition that regardless of how we go
and not to wait on if this board approves this uh that that this uh fuel storage situation is addressed within 30 days. >> Yes. Is that something you would >> And by the way, besides the fuel cube, um, you know, there's quite a bit of
other gasoline storage containers there. Again, I get it's a contractor yard, but fuel storage I think we've got to, you know, be a little bit better at. It's just I mean, I I'll take a guess. 30 containers of fuel.
>> Whether they're empty or not, I don't care, right? We we would certainly take a condition that that will be addressed within 30 days and through that process the fire department will come out. Sure. And they will >> and that's what you know obviously that's what we're all looking for. >> Safety on top of everything else. Y
>> um >> I don't believe I have any additional questions. Um I'll go back to the board though. Yeah. Go ahead Karine. Um, Attorney McCann, could you discuss the difference between the finding and the special permit with regard to the
construction of the demolition, I believe, and the construction of the new building? >> Yes. >> Go ahead. >> Sorry, this just for you guys to open.
>> All right. I tried to address this >> in uh it all comes down to a little bit of conflict under the bylaw too and I was trying to cover the bases here. So a finding under section uh 3.11
allows the reconstruction of a building which will red result in a reduction in the nonconformity. Um, in the alternative, there is a special permit permitted under section 313A3 when you're talking about a voluntary
demolition. So, that's a special permit uh for a voluntary demolition or we can do a reconstruction under 311. I think we typically do a a finding for reconstruction under 311 uh because we
are um create taking the building down but replacing it with a building that is more conforming. I think that's typically the way it is, but the bylaw >> gives us some choices. And uh again, that because of some inconsistencies in
the bylaw, the application seems a bit more complicated than it really needs to be. We're taking down a non-conforming building, we're putting up a more conforming building, and we're requesting some leeway to have three storage containers for a very limited period of time. >> Yes. And and I agree. I'd rather the
finding than the special permit. And then I'd rather the special permit than the variance or no special permit at all if possible. But um Okay. All right. Just trying to figure out exactly what you're looking for. And Mr. Chair, could I ask the planning director?
>> Yeah, go ahead. >> Um Brian, which one um which one would you select? >> What's behind? It's >> actually all three and I'll explain it. So um
the finding is needed for the non-conforming structure. You you have one non-conforming structure. It's also going to be non-conforming. That's a finding. So you need a finding for the the non-conforming structure. >> And that's just on the building piece. >> That's the building piece that because
um yes. So I'm it's very clear on that one. >> Okay. The variance is the only thing that that is kind of it's a gray area and I made a call. >> So I'm not going to go that I'm not going to go there yet. The special permit is is needed I believe for the
numbers for the number because it's spec >> Oh no no no I that that's like a completely separate issue. I'm >> what attorney? Right. With regard to the building >> with regard to the building it's um >> I think I think it's a finding it's right here. It's 311. It's the ZBA may
award a finding by a simple majority to reconstruct, extend, alter, or change a non-conforming structure. Full stop. >> Okay. All right. So, you agree too that it's a finding. Yes. Okay. All right. >> That's all I wanted. >> Sorry. Thank you. That's okay. >> I was ready to dive right in there. So, you know,
>> thank you, Karine. Uh, any board members additional questions? Um, and I just want to recap this all for cable people in the audience here. So, we're seeking a finding on the building replacement. We're seeking a special
permit because we're asking for a third container where two is allowed. And uh I I don't want to tie this into site plan review on the length of time. So, I am going to ask you to define
that. And I believe if I heard you correctly, you're asking for one year. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um and >> there's one more thing. Some somebody help me with the variance cuz that's what I'm >> So the the variance I believe is needed because this the storage can at least
one of the storage or is it both >> two storage containers will be in the setback. >> Okay. So the variance is is due to the setback and the location of those storage containers and I will ask this final question and then we will turn it over to the public. Um or can I guess?
Uh hold on, let me just ask. Is there an opportunity to not put these containers in the setback at all during construction? Cuz to me, if we can put them to the left side of the site or somewhere else, I get the site's
limited, >> but then the that they can go away as soon as the construction is complete. >> Um I would ask Jay that question. And I think he located them there so that they would be as out of the way as possible during the construction and to provide
>> the answer is this is the only place we can put them and that's why we've selected in the setback. >> Yes. >> Okay. I would I would yeah I I would say it'd be it'd be pretty hard to circumscribe a new build site to get in there if you had if you had it in, you
know, for instance within the the building and um within the building setbacks you're talking about basically to the left to that to that triangle it would be logistically much more hard to just even build the building. >> Okay. And Ken, I'm going to let you ask a question because I have a couple more.
And on the variance we can put a time constraint. >> Yes. The var the >> Well, I think it's going in the special per. >> Yes. >> Well, no. So, so, so on the variance. >> No, no. The the variance would it still be for the location of it, but for the
for the time it you would Yeah. So, it's a variance for the location, meaning if you're going to allow it in the setback, >> but in terms of the time, that's with the special permit. >> Length of time would be special. >> Length of time is special permit. Can I ask? >> Yeah. Uh uh go ahead.
>> So if we granted a variance with no time limit, >> that's what I said, >> right? So follow me on this. So let's say that we we've now allowed a variance for them to go into the setback. Five years from now, they come back and they say, you know, we would really like to build a permanent structure in the
setback. And now the standard before us is we're deciding on a finding because they already have the variance and they can go into the setback. >> No, right. I mean, I think so because we're telling we're telling them they can only have it for a year. >> It's still tied to a temporary. >> That's what I mean about a Well, they
could do another temporary >> Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. People, finish your thought. >> So, I I guess what I'm afraid of is by, you know, the variant stays with the land forever, right? So, I without some kind of constraint there, I'm worried that anything else that would go into that setback, all that's required then is a finding.
>> No, because it does not become a nonconformity by variance. Yeah, that's so that's true. That's in our bylaw. That's in our bylaw as well as many other bylaws that just because it has a variance, it does not become pre-existing pre-existing. Okay. >> So, it you can't Yeah. But either way,
uh what they're asking for is still a a time. >> Okay. Thank you for waking me up from the the nightmare I conjured in my own mind. >> Um >> attorney, two follow questions. Um, what are the hours of operation on the site currently, and will they change if this
is granted? >> Uh, 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and that will not change. >> Okay. And inevitably, neighbors usually have an issue because work is getting done prior to 7:00 a.m. And we're pretty confident that's not happening right now. >> Yes.
>> Okay. And um the material that will go in these containers, is it material from the business because we need a place to put it or is it construction or is it both asking good questions, aren't I? >> It's it's due to just me uh growing in
size and I'm just exploding off the property. So, I'm trying to >> No, but I understand. So, once this building gets torn down >> Yep. >> What's going in these containers? Is it the contents of the house? >> Oh, no, no, no. the m the the storage. >> So all the things I saw there yesterday,
>> it's going in are going in those containers. >> That's all going into. >> So you're going to work out of these containers or attempt to work out of these containers while construction's going on. >> Or is it just getting locked and keyed until you open up again? >> Yes. >> Got it. >> Correct. >> Okay. Are we good? I think so.
>> All right. I am going to go out to the public on this. We one more thing. I'm still hooked on that. >> Oh, sorry. >> Go ahead. >> Still hooked up on that uh variant. Um so is there going to be a you're going to put a time condition also on the variance?
>> So the there it would um even though there are multiple you know there's multiple things that are being asked for the I would think there would have to be a a time on on all of it. The variance
you're just allowing it to go to go into the setback but the timing is based upon the special permit. So you would put a day amount for the special permit. Um the the variance is is it's for a temporary trail. It's for a tempor
temporary trailer subject to the to the special permit, you know, subject to it as well. >> So So they're not mutually exclusive. They're tied together. >> Yes. Yes. It's whatever it's whatever way you guys feel comfortable. We can we we can do it either way, but there's no
doubt that a time limit needs to be put on the special permit. the variance that they're requesting the is is related to the to where it's located. >> So pretty much if I were to say after the year expired, the variance no longer exists, >> I I would say the temporary trailers are
they're no longer they're no longer temporary and in violation of the of the decision. It was more of a condition. >> Could we >> Attorney McCann, is that how you see this? Are we >> all on the same page here? I think we are all on the same page here, but I
will say that um we have presented uh the idea that these containers will be on site on no more than a year. Um if you wanted to put that condition also in the variance, that's fine. I think we
should that would make you feel more comfortable. >> Put some of our board members at ease. >> That that would be perfectly fine. >> Okay. Thank you. That's all I wanted anyway. >> Oh, we Oh, I think we've made two three members very happy with that uh that uh requirement that you would take as a
condition. All right. Uh I'm going to turn this over uh to our public portion and we are here on 25 Popes Lane. If you'd like to be uh like to speak, please raise your hand, go to the microphone, and identify yourself. >> Okay. There's nobody here uh that would
like to speak public. Uh is there someone online? >> I'll just hold on. Holden. >> No, nobody >> nobody online >> or not. Nobody. No one's wanting to speak. >> Nobody would like to speak. Okay. >> Well, I can say, attorney McCann, this has been interesting theater, I guess,
with a lot of the the dialogue here that has gone on. Um, members, we will I will close the public portion um public comment part. And uh before we deliberate, I just want to point out that we have asked uh that the applicant
has asked for three different things. Finding variance, special permit, and attorney McCann, in case I don't recap this correctly, you help me out. You're going to take a condition that within 30 days, we have um permitting by the town
for the fuel storage and also inspection by the dam's fire department. Uh that you have taken. Uh, help me out. There was a couple other conditions I think I threw at you. Uh, we already agreed that the special permit would be a one-year
and we would also add that into the variance. Did I miss something? >> There was also um 10 or 11 fuel containers. >> Well, I don't know. I think we'll leave that up to the fire department. What >> that going to look around everywhere? >> Yeah, they'll they'll do a site inspection. Was there other conditions
we added? >> Yes. if um if the construction is completed um in in under a year, the storage containers have to leave. So even though it's up to a year, once the construction's done, they have to leave >> and that we would um
uh put >> at a date of your convenience when construction is complete that we'd have a one-year checkin with the ZBA. So those are the conditions I have asked for and you have agreed to
>> one year condition I mean one year time limit on the variance. >> That's right. Those have both been stated. Okay. Uh >> so it's it's a one-year checkin after occupancy permit. Right. >> Right. >> Um >> it's one year on the variance and the
setback for the containers. It's one year on the the on the special permit for the fact that there's three containers, >> right? which is I I would suggest maybe the condition would be worded the earlier of >> uh one year or completion of the
construction. >> Sounds good. Is that all clear to our board members? >> Yeah. Okay. All right. Uh Chris, I started with you. So, uh we will deliberate and uh I ask that we're not interrupted. >> Um even though I am not voting correct
tonight. >> You are voting. >> No, no. Oh, I've asked five reg. You're still sitting regular. >> Um, with all the stipulations that have been set about, I think I would be voting in favor of this at this time. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you, Chris. Uh, Karine. >> Um, I am I am clearly on board uh with the finding and with the special permit. Um, and that's typically how we handle these storage containers. I I don't really
think based on on C10 that you need the variance, but um I'm certainly not going to hold you up if everyone else is going to vote for it. But you know, one of one of the conditions of 10 is that
obviously there needs to be an um a building permit in good standing. And as you even stated, you know, in order to get the certificate um of occupancy, the building inspector would come out and that's when he would make sure that those um storage containers would be
removed because once the building permit is signed off, then they would h they would have to leave. Um, but again, if everyone else is comfortable with the variance, um, I guess I would be too, but
it's it's not the way I would go. Anyway, >> you you are in favor? >> Um, of the first two, I'm still on the fence with the variance because I don't really think we need it. >> Could I ask a question on that? Um, on the item number 10, we have to have a
building permit in good standing. It's going to be a little while before we get that uh because we have to go through site plan approval and then apply and storm water and and we want to be a we want to be legal with our storage
containers now for the period of one year uh or earlier if the building is completed. So, I'm afraid if we don't get the variance and we rely on number 10 and say we don't need it, we don't have that building permit right now and we may not have it. Three months, four
months. So, I don't want to be out of compliance then. >> Well, well, when you're talking about the year, when will the year um commence? >> The year would commence now because that's a building in enough time to get the site plan approval. But this item
number 10 requires the the building permit in hand now and we probably won't have that for three or four months. >> Okay. All right. Again, I I don't really like to give variances when we're talking about storage containers and they seem to be a hot issue now around
town. Um not just on this street but other locations as well. Um, but I guess if if we have a time restraint or constraint on it, I would be a yes. >> And don't forget, we're gonna get a check in as well. >> Okay. >> Uh, Ken,
>> uh, yeah, I will vote for this with the time constraints, especially on the variance. >> Thank you, Ken. Ken J, >> I'll vote for this, too. Um, I hope this doesn't set some sort of precedent. I I don't think it will for the variance because I mean we'll take it case by
case anyways. But I'm just saying it's it's a slippery slope when you start giving out variances for um storage containers. But um with all of the um with all of these stipulations, all the conditions that our chair chairman had
stated, I'll I'll vote for this. >> Thank you, Ken. Uh Becky, >> and I would agree. I think it's time to get this site cleaned up and um I think it's important um I'm also uncomfortable with a time limit on a variance. Um I I
don't it's either it is a variance or it isn't a variance. I'm not real comfortable with a time limit. So >> um >> uh I don't know how we resolve it. Um but that's my comment. >> Thank you, Becky. And uh yeah,
>> uh I am not voting tonight, but uh I'll share my thinking because one day I might uh I I would be in favor of the finding uh the building is less non-conforming, the future building is less non-conforming than uh what's there
now. Uh for the term for the portion of the special permit that essentially mirrors the finding. Uh sure. uh same same thing, just a slightly different section of uh the bylaw. I'm still of the opinion that I think I wish the
bylaw said that the number could be handled by a special permit. I don't think it does. And so for that reason uh if I were voting, I would not support that portion uh of the special permit. As to the variance, I I don't I wish we had given more attention to
Karen's idea that that perhaps no relief is required during the period of construction. I feel like the board could handle that with a finding that that we we find that relief is not required uh during the period of of construction for uh the containers to be in the in the setback and I think that
solves the problem of giving a variance forever. >> Thank you. Um, yeah, Attorney McKin, I think this case has brought up a lot of interesting uh, I guess, topics. I will say and and again, I I I will echo what
I said at the top. I believe, you know, this is great that this business is prospering and doing well and they're to a point where they want to expand their business and I commend them on that. However, uh I don't like the fact that uh you know, we were here seven short
years ago and uh we have illegal fuel storage, we have illegal containers, um and we have a site that although being a contractor yard, um it's very unsightly. So, I hope um I hope this
uh addresses that and I hope uh a year or whatever that date ends up being from now when we're checking in or maybe it's two years I guess um that we're going by for a site visit and it's you know it's it's in much better shape and it's not
you know let's for lack of better words it's an eyes sort right now. So, um I will vote in favor, but I I am only voting in favor with all the conditions that we've uh got uh the applicant to agree to. And um you know, perhaps uh
I'll I'll put this out on Brian. Maybe we need to do some additional tweaking in our bylaws to kind of get these things to be a little tighter and easier for this board to be able to administer. So, with that said, uh, if I could get a
motion, and we'll keep in mind, whoever makes the motion, please add in the conditions that the applicant has agreed to. Anyone, any rockstar amongst us, >> let's write it down first so she doesn't forget. >> Oh. Oh, you think I'm gonna read it?
>> I guess I guess that's I guess we're looking at you, Karina. >> The idea. >> Um, I'm just writing all down all the conditions. Let me I I guess we'll start with the variance. That's the way it's listed. >> Sure. >> Um a motion to grant a temporary
variance for not more than 360 days um from section. >> Can I can I can I not put temporary? >> I would say a variance for a temporary trailer. >> Okay. >> Or temporary storage container. >> And And is it 360 days? It's not
>> You're requesting a year. So until I would say until August 25th to 26. Okay. >> I'd put a date on it. >> Yeah, put the date. >> Let's put a date. >> All right. Uh, restart. >> Okay. >> Motion to grant a v a variance for a
temporary storage unit for not um until August 25th of 2026. Um, from section 9.3 to allow four storage containers to be located on the property. >> Wait, scratch that. It's been adjusted to three. Oh,
>> wait a minute. But the the variance is only for the two that are in the setback >> in the setback. >> Correct. >> So why do we have four to be located on the property? >> This is just how it was it was requested. >> But we resett >> we're resetting that to two.
>> All right, >> then. Oh, wait a minute. I'm checking with Attorney Man. We've asked for three, but only two will go in in the setback. Correct. >> That is correct. Two in the setback. So, we're going to amend this to say two >> two within the setback. >> Two within the setback. Sorry, Karine. >> Okay,
>> you're doing great. Motion to grant a variance for a temporary storage unit um until August 25th of 2026 from section 9.3 to allow for two
storage containers to be located in the setback um on a temporary basis until the proposed structure is complete. in that the proposed extension alteration is not substantially more detrimental than the existing structure to the
neighborhood. Um, adjacent properties will not be adversely impacted. The proposal would not be detrimental to the public good and would not substantially deviate from the intent or purpose of the bylaw. >> Okay, I've got a motion and a second.
Any further discussion on the variance only? >> Hearing none. All in favor? >> I. Any opposed? Okay. And now, >> wait, wait, wait. I think attorney I think she has a right. I would just in that variance throw in the the shape of the lot hardship.
>> Oh. >> Oh, right. Yes. That's uh >> that can be put in the written decision. Motion to reconsider. >> I I don't see that language anywhere. >> Yeah. Um you want to put in
>> You'll have that when it goes to record. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. that that that'll be in the written decision. It'll >> the hardship is the land or structure. >> It's the shape of the lot >> and uh not affect other properties little enforcement of the zoning bylaws. That that's what you're talking about. Okay. >> Yeah. >> You want us to read it? >> No.
>> Okay. Uh I've got a motion and a second. Uh we already passed the variance. Now we move on to the finding, please. >> And I think this one is fine the way it's it's um >> written, >> printed or typed. >> We're about to find out. Motion to grant a finding to tear down the existing
non-conforming house and build a new structure that is more compliant with regards to side setbacks going from 9.1 um feet to 22 feet in that the proposed extension alteration of the structure is not substantially more detrimental than
the existing structure to the neighborhood. >> Second. >> I've got a motion and second on the finding. Any further discussion hearing? None. All in favor? I >> any opposed? >> All right. And on the special permit, we're going to put all the conditions. Correct.
>> Well, but wait a minute. This has the um special permit only for the demolition of the structure because um attorney McCann had in um or so we need a special we need special
permit language for the three store the three containers >> in one year >> um for not more than one year >> of uh inspection >> sheet >> I I think she does, but she
>> I do. No, I do have to. But it it didn't have all of it. >> Unless is this an updated one? >> No, this is the same one I have. >> Okay. >> So, we're putting in in the special permit the one year. We're putting in
the fuel inspection by the town within 30 days. We're putting in the fact that it's three containers >> the checking in one year >> in the checkin one year after occupancy I believe it's those four additional
>> well act no actually five if the construction is done before the year then they have to come down >> so those five conditions if >> okay >> all right let let it rip Karina you can >> I will I will try um I can't read my writing now but that's okay motion to
issue um a special permit under section three to allow for three storage containers to be located on the property for not more um should we keep it consistent um up until
August 25th of 2026 um with the condition that um the three storage containers will be removed once construction is completed. There will be a fuel in inspection
completed on the property within 30 days of today >> of today. >> That there will be that there will be um a check-in within one year >> after occupancy. >> Um no
within one year of today's date. Right. Because >> we want them to be in operation >> and then a year out from there. >> Okay. A year out from when they get the CO. >> Correct. Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, I think we're looking at two years. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> And they agreed to that
>> with the condition that there will be a yearly check-in. >> Not a yearly check-in. A check-in after one year. >> A check-in at one year from the date the um certificate of occupancy is issued. >> Did we get them all? >> Um
>> that's it. >> That's it. >> I think you got them all. >> I'll second. >> Hold on. Finish yet. No, no, no. Sorry, I thought you were dead. >> Adjacent properties would not be adversely impacted. The proposal would not be detrimental to the public good and would not substantially deviate from
the intent or purpose of this bylaw. >> Now, I'll second. >> Now it is. >> I've got a motion and I've got a second. Is there any further discussion? And we have five separate conditions attorney McCann has agreed to. >> Uh, all those in favor? >> I. Any opposed? >> None. Uh, Attorney McCann, thank you
and, uh, good luck with the application. Good luck. Thank you very much. >> Okay. >> Good luck, Mike. >> Uh, and Brian, unless you have anything else, I'll have someone make a motion to adjourn. >> No, our next meeting is the September 8th. >> September 8th. >> Back. We're back on the twice a month schedule now.
>> And is that meeting? Is that meeting here at the two me? >> Yep. Second and fourth Monday of every month. >> Okay. Uh, motion to adjurnn, please. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> And seconded. Second. Second. Second. All in favor? I. Good night.