Okay. Good evening everyone. I'm calling to order the meeting of the zoning board of appeals uh committee. We are meeting Thursday, May 21st at the Lakeville Public Library. It is 7:05. Um,
just for the record, uh, we do have town council with us, uh, new town council, Jay Tolman. Welcome. Thank you for joining us this evening. >> Thank you. Glad to be here. >> Uh, we have four out of five members. Uh, so we can still, uh, conduct business and we will jump right into the
agenda item number one, which is the, uh, turn of hearing. continued appeal from the decision of the building inspector zoning enforcement officer relative to a business activity at the residential district of 11 school street. So um kind of to recap where we
are in this process uh this has been a number of months long um hearing and we continued it again last time. Uh the board sense was let's let's see what's going on at the site. See if there's anything uh significantly that has
changed since we last met. And we at this point I think had kind of we're leaning towards making a decision one way or the other either to overturn the building uh commissioner's decision or to uphold it. So uh what I will do uh
first is um I will I'll make I'll comment that I did check in with the building commissioner. Uh he has not received any any uh complaints uh since our our last meeting in regards to this. Uh that was a couple days ago. So, unless something changed in the past few
days. Um, I myself have driven by the property and I haven't seen activity. Again, that's just driving by randomly, so it's not like I was out there monitoring it all the time. Does the board have any questions or any comments that they want to make? And then I'm
going to open it up to uh the audience. The only comment I I'll make is that I do think the board should make a decision tonight on whether we um enforce the building inspector's decision or not. >> Okay.
>> I I think I think we're all at that point. So, unless something new and crazy comes up that we don't know about or expect, I think it's time we make a decision. >> Any I mean, I >> I've brought uh council up to date as much as I I can on on this subject. Uh do you have any comments or anything you
want to add at this point or do you want to weigh? Oh, I mean, and Nathan, the building um commissioner has been in touch with me too and given me some some information. Um I'm happy to just kind of participate in the discussion. I
think the issue, just to distill it to its essence, is is there a commercial activity on that site? Everyone in this room has the right to clear their site completely and even have someone pick up the logs or whatever and take them away.
There's no bylaw to the contrary in Lakeville except for wetlands issues. So the question comes down to is there business being done on that site in terms of the processing of wood? And I've heard from Nate as well as you have
John and uh but it's >> point of clarification in just to make sure I'm on the right page here that your your comment was if there's any commercial business being conducted on this site. Are we talking currently or historically? How does that >> enforcement is kind of
unique because it can be temporal? And I I have looked at the cases by Mr. Turner. None of them are particularly directly on point here. So, one of the the problems with enforcement is if people clean up their act, we don't
normally enforce against something when they've fixed it. That said, if if you just hypothetically if you determine that at some point there was processing for as part of a business operation on that site and they
have since ceased that and it's just a matter of just getting whatever wood that they cut down off of the site, there's nothing wrong with stating in your decision that no further business
may be conducted on that site. You can't operate, you know, wood processing business on on that site. You sit in the shoes of the building commissioner. So, you have the with these appeals. So, you have the authority to do everything that the building commissioner can do. So, if
you are issuing an order saying, well, we don't agree that there's a business being conducted on the site, although there may have been at one time. So, we are overturning the original. I think his original order was that there was something going on and I think he is now
comfortable with what's going on now isn't a violation. There's nothing wrong with just kind of explaining your reasoning there and then stating that we declined to take enforcement here because there's no business activity being conducted and all and and uh
furthermore no business activity may be conducted in terms of the processing of wood or other materials. That way there's a marker in the ground and that also saves us and the public from having to do another enforcement request because if they violate your finding on
that then we could go straight to court to kind of stop it. So that's the kind of nuance to it. So just to clarify, so if and and that has to do with if the business was going
on when the appeal um so the question is we had an appeal, correct? And uh there was excuse me, we had a cease and desist order in place, right? And Nate did what he did to
mitigate or stop it or whatnot. Uh and when he felt it had stopped, he lifted the cease and desist. >> Right. And then there Yeah. The appeal comes with, okay, you shouldn't have lifted the cease and desist at this point. So we're looking at that point in time. Did it stop at that point in time?
If it was going on before, we already had a cease and desist in place as a town. >> Yeah. There's nothing in terms of the case law or the statute regarding appeals where you have to relate back to and make your decision only on the basis
of what existed at the time that the appeal reached your desk. If during the hearing the activity ceased and there's no indisha of it happening now, then you are free to say to uphold
Nate's second order the lifting of the the cease and desist with the admonition to that's out there that if it can if it restarted that enforcement would be in order.
So as soon as it starts again, you don't even kind of need to go through the process, >> right? Where we're um kind of short circuiting. I The analogy I like to give in this instance is with respect to noise bylaws that are really difficult to enforce and most towns have a noise
bylaw. Someone complains that someone is operating a chainsaw at 6:00 in the morning or whatever that's against your and then the enforcing agent, whether it's police or the building commissioner, stops by and there's nothing there. even if what are they supposed to do at
that point aside from don't do it again. So here there's no requirement that you issue a decision that solely relates back to the time. You certainly can have stronger language like if if there was
clear indisha of a business being operated at the time that Nate lifted his order then you have within your authority to call that out and to even use fairly strong language. If however they've cleaned up their act then then
maybe you just uphold what Nate did. I like to think of these decisions as a little bit of storytelling. So when we're going through the facts and working with, you know, you and Colleen on on the right decision, we'll say this is how it started, this is how it ended, this is the board's decision. So we give
a full snapshot of it and that helps an appellant as well and it also helps the property owner where the vi alleged violation has taken place because everyone now has a road map of what could happen in the future. Okay. >> So, it's nothing is so rigid here that
you are confined to making a decision based upon when this hit your desk. >> It's not just yes or no. It could be no, but >> no, but don't we're going to recognize that this was going on. So, don't do >> or at least may have been going on and
at no point in the future may it continue um or restart. And and then that order because it takes on the effect of an order of the building commissioner is a marker in the ground that I can use as council and Nate can use as for further enforcement.
>> Excellent. >> Well, the good news is we're not in charge of the noise by large. That's right. That goes to our board of health. So >> Jared, >> yeah. So I have a question and I'm sorry I don't know. Ji, sorry you got that. You should have shown up when they did. You would have known. You would have got the full introduction.
>> I didn't get the memo about >> Yeah. Jay Tererman. >> Hi Jay. Nice to meet you. uh jury level. So um my question Jay, by what conditions should we uh set forth for indicators or indications that there is
commercial activity going on within the property of of recorder. >> So there's no hard and fast requirements there. It's a reasonleness standard. >> Okay? So if if the board determines that there is adequate facts to support,
let's just think of it by preponderance of the evidence. So 51% that someone is processing wood as part of a business on that site. >> Uhhuh. >> If you reasonably determine that based on the facts before you, then that's a
reasonable determination. It's a reasonable person standard. There's no magic to that. And there can be gray area and ultimately if there's facts to support that you're going to get difference on that whichever way you go whether there's not enough facts to
support a business or there's enough facts. The courts don't second guessess that. >> Okay. Do we have to define the standards by which we we set those conditions tonight or within subsequent meeting? I I think the way to approach it and then
we could back into the written decision. Obviously, the way to approach it would be to just kind of talk it through like what do we have on the site? What did we have on the site? What's going on there? Does it seem like a business to you
that's happening now at at the time you're ready to make your decision? If it does, let's lay out the facts to support that. So, we got business on this side, no business on this side. What are the facts that support that there's a commercial wood processing
business on the site over here? What are the facts supporting that there isn't on on this side? And then we kind of just put it into just kind of a discussion. I I I'd like to say when I'm training zoning boards of appeals or working with them
that there's no magic facts here that are going to support it one way or the other. You'd be shocked at how what higher percentage of cases there is that are just decided on. Well, that seemed like a reasonable conclusion to me. So, if you just kind of focus on
getting it right without regard for what is the magic loophole, what is the magic definition? There are areas of the law with respect to zoning where there are hard and fast requirements that we have to adhere to. This isn't one of them. >> This is like, do we think there's a
business going on there? Right. Or do we think this is someone who's clearing their land, someone comes and picks up the wood or even if they remove it from the site, it's the activity on the site. Is there a business going on there right now?
>> Anybody have any questions? >> Just a quick question. What what is the benefit of having a nuanced decision versus this just black and white cease and desist? >> You there's
well because there could be appeals and we want to do that and it used to be the standard used to be under these cases that you didn't have to say much. But now the the way the cases have happened over the last 15 to 20 years,
the standard is that you have to provide some meat on that bone. So you you have to provide some facts to support how you got there. Not a ton. Doesn't have to be a lengthy decision. We're not writing a book here, but you have to put something
there. Now, choosing to then have this extra stuff on, but don't do it again if that happened, that's extra. I'm not suggesting you have to do that, but to the extent you're grappling with the fact that there's been changes on the site and at one time it may have veered
closer to business than right now, I think that's helpful. It also helps Nate when he has to go out and force again. It provides a road map of things for the neighbors to look for in terms of the indisha of business going on in case we
they we have to restart enforcement at some point. helps me if I have to defend your decision in any way, shape, or form. Um, so I think there's benefits to it and that's where the case law has gone over the last few years. Anyway,
>> I have one more question. Um so alternatively if we decide to reinstate the cease and desist right order okay I'm just >> sure >> hypothetically here you talked about temporal bounding I
think right is there a temporal bound we should apply to the cease and desist or is that something that is like in perpetuity where the cease and assist is >> well activity >> until such time as kind of that industrial use is allowed on this site.
I think it would it would apply if in fact that kind of use isn't allowed on this site, which it isn't. >> Y >> then that is a cease and desist that that exists and there's the beginning and the end of that cease and desist, you know, within 30 days remove all
business activities from the site and cease and desist. I don't think we can't have them cease and desist wood cutting on the site. we can only have them cease and desist a wood cutting business on the site. >> It sounds like the issue there is that there probably was something going on. I
think everybody realizes I mean I'm just talking for the facts there seems to indicate that >> we can't use the cease and desist as a tool to say you were doing it before but we're putting this in place to make sure you never do it again. You I mean can you because what's
>> Yeah. I mean, and I I don't want to get too glib with this, but you can be kind of a little pregnant here. You can say um with respect to it, we overturn in part Nate's lifting of the cease and
desist because we do find that there was business at that at that time or not. You don't have to. While and while facts indicate also that there's been no business activity in the recent months,
we still order the property owner to not resume any business activities. So, we can kind of have it both ways here. >> So, when do you lift that? >> To Jerry's point, does it just stay there in perpetuity? because you could go around and start saying I'm going to
put them all but my guess is the property owner if they're satisfied with the second part of that like we understand that there's no business happening now then they can just live with that it just sits in the background it's in the files they could
choose to appeal it if they wanted or someone else could choose to appeal it but if they're like yeah all right I was doing a business there for a while not now it doesn't seem like that decision would hurt them if they're following the rules.
So I I don't I don't see a quarrel with having a kind of a nuanced where reversing in part because you violated then we find no business activity there. Now you must cease and
desist from resuming the business activity. I I'm comfortable with that. That is still that's the kind of order that a building commissioner could order too. Like, hey, there was all this stuff on your site.
You cleaned it up. Don't put that stuff back there. >> That kind of stuff happen. >> Are the two options equally enforcable? >> Sure. Yeah. Well, I mean, obviously, if you're not enforcing,
then you're not enforcing. If you're enforcing then that is is the baseline now in terms of what's going on on that site. So if tomorrow or next week or the week after they
start processing on site for sale or for use in whatever business, then that would be a violation and they would have violated and I wouldn't even have to go we wouldn't have to go through this all over again because I could go straight to court.
Do we have to define what processing is? >> I I think it's helpful for you to have in your mind, assuming it's it's not quite defined in your zoning bylaw. I think it's helpful for you to have an understanding. Again, as lay persons,
you're not required to have any kind of heightened knowledge on this and to just seems like a business to me. here's why I think there was a business going on or here's why I think a business wasn't going on on the site and I think you're largely going to get credit as kind of
reasonable people. It's kind of a jury of our peers in a way. And as long as that is based on enough facts, like they had the equipment there that is typical of processing on site as part of a business rather than just cutting things
down in a in a way to just get them off site by using a vendor or something else like that. >> So, and I think there's so much that is a you know it when you see it >> kind of analysis. Again, I don't I think
people think that us lawyers work with some kind of secret code out there as to what all these things mean or don't. Normally, I'm just patching enough facts together to support the conclusion. So, if you find a certain way and someone challenges it, I'll piece together
enough to defend your decision. >> If it were that simple and easy, we wouldn't need attorneys, right? >> That's right. >> Anybody else have uh any questions at this point? obviously can ask at any point later too. Okay, for now. All right. Do we have any comments from the
public? Come on up, Paul. So, what I would ask Paul is obviously we're talking about we we we all know what's transpired in the past. If you can kind of tell us where we are at this point, what's going on in the neighborhood? Um, as Jay said, he's been brought up to date. He has all of your material. We've all seen the material.
Um, I can't restrict you from talking about what happened last spring, last summer, last fall. Um, but I would just ask you to keep in mind that everybody knows what was happening at that point. So, where are we at this point?
Paul, turn on one leg drive. I think I want to read my presentation just so it's on the record. >> So, let me ask council this. And I'm all in favor of letting anybody talk, but at some point, you know, I don't we this meeting's been going on for this
hearing's been going on for a while. um at what point do we have the ability to say we have enough information to make a decision or is is is that proper um to to say if it's after 20 minutes after half an hour or whatever
>> it's the board's call it's again I think when things get repetitive or or stray you're you're free to kind of say I think we've heard enough I think if and I'm I'm not suggesting in any way shape or form that Paul doesn't have something
important to offer you. If you can impose time limits, if I think you all have heard a lot about this. I've seen the minutes. It's been a lengthy process. If I think Paul has a right to make some kind of presentation to you.
If you wanted to say, hey, you know, can you keep it to five to 10 minutes? I think that'd be within your rights as the chair. It's your control of the meeting. >> Yeah. No, I I I'm don't think five or 10 minutes is is that's actually what I'm looking at. I just if you hit them you
hit it in the head. I think I you've clarified. If it's repetitive, it's information we've already heard before. Um I'll defer to the board if they want to continue to hear more. Um so just >> unless it's materially new, I object. So if unless you have something new to add today that I haven't heard before, this
board has heard before. >> I respect what you say, but also >> but I would also I'm not done yet. I would ask that you enter your presentation into the record and not read the presentation. Okay? I think we can all kind of read what your presentation says, but just introduce
anything new today. That's my position. >> Mr. Turner, >> uh, I respect what you the board says, but if you look back at the past two meetings, I have never been able to finish my presentation. >> Go ahead. Oh, you're you're on.
>> No, I don't want to. >> I get it. I'll I'll do what Mr. Noble suggested. I I'll submit it. But the past two meetings, I have not been able to finish. Been cut off. Last meeting, I was not allowed to talk about it. So, if you want to move forward, maybe
we could talk about the findings. Could we discuss those? >> We'll discuss those at some point, but >> could you discuss them with me? I mean, I propose findings for for discussion. Could we look at those >> council? Who drafts findings?
>> Well, ultimately the board does. I think it's not entirely uncommon for applicants or appellants to suggest them, but >> but I I've seen the the findings. I would probably recommend kind of a different >> type of finding.
>> So, why don't we do this? If you don't want to make the presentation, why don't you tell us what you suggest the findings are? >> Okay. Just have a conversation with the board back and forth. >> I would like you to suggest it. I guess my point is suggested. If we have questions, we'll we'll ask them. I mean, it's it's not a matter of, you know,
we're not going to talk to you, but I just this is this is a decision of a zoning board. It's not a collaborative effort to have more parties than necessary drafting a decision. Findings for adoption. Finding number
one, commercial use of the property. Board finds that the ongoing physical operations on 11th school street, including the repeated processing, staging, loading, and removal of substantial quantities of firewood constitute a commercial use within a residential district. Zoning regulates
the use of the land as evidenced by observable activity, not by the location of sales or business arrangements. I'll continue. Finding number two, loading of commercial vehicles. The board finds that repeated loading of
a commercial-grade vehicles, including dump trucks s such as a Ford F550 or similar with large quantities of processed firewood, constitutes commercial use. The scale and frequency of such activity exceed what is customary or incidental to residential
use and indicate off-site distribution. Finding number three, equipment as evidence of commercial activity. The board finds that the use of mechan mechanicalized equipment including but not limited to conveyor systems and skid steer loaders in conjunction with the
repeated processing, staging and loading of large quantities of firewood constitutes evidence of commercial scale activity. While such equipment may be used in residential contexts, its use here combined with the volume of material handled and frequency
of operations support a finding of commercial use rather than incidental residential activity. Finding number four, off-site removal of firewood. The board finds that the repeated removal and off-site transport of processed firewood from the property
constitutes commercial use. This determination is based on the observable pattern of activity and does not require documentation of each individual transaction. Finding number five. The board finds that the scale, duration, and intensity
of firewood processing activities, including splitting, staging, stacking, and loading exceed what is customary or incidental to residential use. The combination of sustained activity, equipment used, vehicle loading, and material volume constitutes a commercial
operation. Finding six, limits of the incidental residential use. The board finds that limited occasional transport of small quantities of firewood for personal use may constitute an an accessory residential activity. However, the
repeated handling and transport of substantial quantities, particularly with involving commercial type vehicles or equipment, exceeds in incidental use and constitutes commercial activity. Finding seven, enforcability.
The board finds that the above described activities constitute commercial use in violation of the zoning bylaw and are subject to enforcement by the building commissioner pursuant to Mass General Laws chapter 48. These findings establish clear objectable standards for
determining when residential accessory use has been exceeded. Thank you. >> Thanks, Paul. Does anybody have any questions or any clarification? Mr. Turner. >> Any additional comments, questions, or
information you'd like to share with us? Just want to make it clear that this activity started March of 25 and was active almost daily for nine months
and it only has retreated in December as when I filed the appeal it's been inactive. It's been observed that Mr. Walsh is still working. He leaves the house every morning, comes back late every night with the red dump
truck. He's processing wood, not at this site. He's processing somewhere. Mr. Walch hasn't attended any of the meetings, the four meetings that we had. So I I don't know if the board would ask
him if he was processing somewhere else, but that's his business. Yes, there's been no activity for 5 months at the site. But the
storage crates are still there. The log lengths are there on the site, plenty of them, far more than he could ever use for his own use. The conveyor belt is up and uh in position to accept wood.
The backyard is graveled ready that for the working platform for the skid steer to run on, the dump truck to run on. That operation could start up tomorrow morning. That's all I have to say. >> So question I have for you, Paul, if you
don't mind. So up until the appeal in December of the building commissioners >> um um lifting the cease and desist. >> Mhm. >> There was still activity going on with the cease and desist in order.
>> It never when the cease and desist went on in April, the activity uh accelerated. It it did not stop. There was no decrease. It it actually increased. It was right on School Street.
And then the month that the cease and desist was lifted the neighborhood is finally to get able to get documentation of the 13 truckloads that left that month. That's roughly 40
cords of wood. But it I have one month of documentation, but it went on for the nine months prior to that. So, hundreds of cords of wood left that property. I'm just very concerned if he is working elsewhere.
Say he rented a place at a a commercial shop, who knows, and that person that that rented it to him says, "You know, you're use it's too loud. My other tenants are complaining. The neighbors are complaining. I'm and I'm in a different town that the bill
inspector says we got issues so please move on. He could easily again start up tomorrow morning. I just want something in place. I've asked this from the beginning cease and desist with parameters with the findings so that Nate can enforce it so
we don't get in this circular back and forth personal use, commercial use, personal use. it'll go back and forth. That's what I'm concerned with. We need a cement synth assist with teeth in it
so that you can go down. If you're loading a Ford F550 with 3/4 wood, what residential accessory use is that? How there's only one reason that truck's
being loaded to be exported. And to be exported is commercial. So that that would be one of the parameters that I said that in in the findings. What uh accessory use do you need a conveyor belt for?
The storage cages. There's probably 30 maybe 40 of them on site. They're 4x4. They're they're made to hold the wood. A half a cord. He has a bobcat. He puts a set of fox on. He can pick these up. Put three in into the dump truck. Off. He delivers
it. When he doesn't have any deliveries, I've said this before, he fills them and stacks them for storage. They're all still on site. >> Okay. >> Again, he's not working, but it could be
reestablished immediately. >> Thank you. Does anyone else have any comments they want to make? So, our head's nodding up and down or sideways or not sure. So, come on up.
just state your name and address for the record in the mic. And >> uh Ken Ken Pinter, nine school street. I I just wanted to make sure I understand that you can you have the latitude to be able to say let's continue to have the
um cease to assist with certain parameters. I'm sort of piggybacking what Paul is saying that you can then define what things need to happen. Let's for example the conveyor belt which is only
>> let me answer your question. Yes, we can we can condition it. Um but it I'm council will advise us on on how specific we can or cannot do that. I mean we we can't we we can't go hog wild. I mean, we tried I wouldn't say we tried it before, but we we presented
before you can't use a certain piece of equipment on your property. We can't go that far because there there is no bylaw, and correct me if I'm wrong, Jay. There is no bylaw that says you can't use it, period, type of a deal. It's >> okay. >> It's quite the art to try to thread the needle. I I guess what I'm I'm trying to
understand here is that do you have can you have because I I'm understanding that there's a lot of latitude here about creating some guidelines you know with within reason of course reasonable person is a reasonable
um position to to say um the jump truck has to be gone because that's there's no other reason for it to be used other than visit or the conveyor belt which is sitting there and as far as I can tell and I I don't know much about this, but a conveyor belt is for commercial use.
It wouldn't be for that. Is that do you have that latitude to be able to say, well, we think within a you reasonable way that this and this and that um should be removed from the property and then >> I'll I'll
believe we can, but you can correct me. I don't think we can actually have people remove equipment from their property. Correct. >> Right. I mean, I think that it it brings to mind if if for some reason this turned into something else like a contractor's yard, then obviously
we're in a different situation. But the mere fact that someone who might be in the business of processing wood might have their keep their some of their equipment on the contract yard and all of a sudden you have a half a dozen dump trucks there, >> right? That's >> that's a different animal and that isn't
the subject of the original um cease and desist. We're talking about a business here. >> Quick quick question. If you can't condition um having a certain type of equipment on the property, can you
condition the use of it? >> I think so. I think we have to choose our words carefully. So let's take the conveyor for I think use of a truck is probably not something that's just too generic, >> right? >> If it was use of the conveyor
for the purpose of again it's for the purpose of a profitm venture on that site. That's what we can prohibit. I tomorrow if I had a 10acre site on School Street in Lakeville, I could hire someone
tomorrow to remove all that wood and I wouldn't have to get a permit from anyone unless I had wetlands. And they might bring a conveyor on site because part of their thing to load it onto their trucks is they might use a conveyor to do that.
There's nothing wrong about that. It's >> the issue is there is business. >> You brought wood on and now you're processing it. Right. That's the real >> or if you're conducting sales from that site with the processing that you're doing there. You know, that's a
different question. And you know, one thing I wanted to mention too is that I want to and no disrespect at all to to Mr. Turner. I I think the the findings in some part are grounded in some logical
um construction of of the of the zoning act and your zoning bylaws. This isn't a question of accessory use. This is a question of an illegal use on that site, period. An accessory use is something that goes
on and on. At some point the the timber resources on this site or the my hypothetical site that I mentioned to you might take a while for me to take them off, but that's finite. >> If I'm hiring someone to do landscaping,
there's not an accessory landscaping business on my site. If I'm hiring someone, a vendor, to take down three acres of wood, it might take them four months to do it. chip it, take it down, chip it, get it off my property, maybe spread the wood chips around or
whatever. That's not an accessory use. I think what we should be focused on is was he conducting business on that site. That's that's the question. So all this stuff on abandonment of use or whatever,
that's not the question. Is it objectively conducting a commercial business on that site using that as a site? I'm opening I'm open for a business. You want to buy some wood chips from me, some board lengths, some firewood, come see me at
11 school street. That's conducting a business. Gotcha. >> Noel, I knew you were coming up. You're next in line. Come on. >> I just I defer to the people who Noel I I defer the people who live in that neighborhood. From what the attorney is
saying, welcome to Lakeville. He he sounds very spot on. from what he seems to be saying, it is at the discretion of the board to decide whether it's business use or not. And I just I've been following this case and what really
stood out to me was the woman who stood up who said, "I'm a nurse and I work with dying people all day long and I come home to a business operation and I can't get any peace." And when when I heard her say that, I thought, "Oh my
gosh, this certainly surely they will remedy this." And so I feel for these people that have to live with this. But because it is at the discretion of this board to decide whether it's business
operations or not, keep in mind that there's human beings that are living with this. And uh although it sounds like it has for for the time being desist, I'm sure that they're very stressed out with the conveyor belt,
which I thought was going to go away. Apparently, it hasn't. Um, you know, I I hope that from what the attorney says, you can cobble together some reasonable parameters and some reasonable um admonitions
so that um they can get the piece that they need. So, thank you. >> That's our goal. Noel, >> I'll catch you in a second. Paul, anyone else gonna want to speak or I'll give Paul the last shot. Anybody else?
>> Can I ask one question? There a couple here. >> Yes. Yes. You. Yes. I imagine you're together. >> Sorry if I'm assuming you're right. >> And >> what is your proximity to the address? >> Right next door. Next door. >> They're right next door. I'm only saying that because they're probably not
picking them up on the mic. >> Fine. Thank you. >> But it's not just next door. This property goes across cuts across. >> Pie shape. So it's a pie shape. So it's right directly in front of us. And that conveyor bel sits here and we can see
it. It's a It's a P. Yeah. So, we can see it go straight back. >> Yep. >> And that's once he moved to the back, it became our visual, >> right? If you've and you've seen that in use from >> and heard and heard and he also >> I'm ask more about the visually. I don't need to know the hearing, but you saw
that in >> also told me one day when he was out there with his wood Yeah. that this was wood being brought into him >> because I said to him, "Boy, you took down a lot of trees." And then he said,
"Oh, no, no, no. I the wood comes in and I've seen the trucks bringing wood." >> Could Okay. >> Could I ask real quick? >> Could you say that on record? I think that's important. I mean, I know this she's not she's saying that out loud, but I think that's >> may not be loud enough.
>> Okay. >> Meaningful enough for the record. want me to repeat myself, >> please? >> Well, one day when I was walking by, he was cutting the wood. He was out there and I I had no idea what he was doing, but just cutting wood and I said, "Do
you take down all those trees thinking from his property and he said, "Oh, no, no, no. The wood comes into me." And I have seen and I I did see a truck at least once being brought in and he pro
there was a huge stack of big logs >> and that's what he was cutting up but it wasn't his property. It wasn't from his property. >> He and his is Mr. Walsh. Correct. >> Was that >> he and his as you're referring to Walsh? >> Yes.
Yes. And he told me that. >> Okay. Okay. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. I'm sorry. Name for the record. I know you told us over there, but just so she can get it. >> Oh, uh, Sher Pinter, Nine School Street. >> Thank you, Sher. >> Thank you. >> I think we have someone else. Come on up. Name, address for the record.
>> Uh, Bentagano for Ledgewood Drive. Um, I'm at the kind of the tip of the pie shape of Mr. Walsh's property. And, you know, everything is is still the way it was at the time that the season was removed. The, you know, the conveyor belt is up there. The pile of wood is
underneath the conveyor belt. All the equipment is still lined up. Nothing has moved. It's the equivalent of a retail shop having an open sign and just flipping it to closed. You know, Mr. Turner said tomorrow morning it could start back up. It could start back up in 5 minutes. If this board says there's no cease and desist necessary, it starts up
immediately or could start up immediately. I think putting it back on with some of the the boundaries that um town council has suggested or uh said was the possibility. I think that allows the property owner to do what they need to do if they have discretionary use. Um
but still, you know, provides some relief for us that we're not going to have to listen to it again. We're not going to have to come back here for another four or five months, you know, every month. You guys aren't going to have to revisit this just to kind of put an end to it. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
Come on up, Paul. >> I just wanted to clarify to the attorney, please. He He's not clearing his lot. He trucks this in in a big grapple truck. These logs are cuts elsewhere.
They're brought in these log lengths 20 ft long. And then from that point, the business he cuts them into 16, 18 in, 16inch lengths, splits them, puts them in the truck, and delivers them to
someone's property or who knows where he delivers them. There's no business at point of sale on the property. That's why I said it's exceeding the residential use of the land. That's all. Um,
we all know it's commercial. You can't His argument was that he was producing all this wood for personal use. >> Paul, can I bring you back to the board? We're the ones who were going to make the decision ultimately. So, >> okay. >> And and for the record, I'm pretty sure the good news is I think all of us realize that he was bringing it on from
someplace else. So, >> very good. And I think it's I mean if you're looking for indisha of a business going on I I don't think money has to change hands that's clearly indisha of a business going on if that was happening >> right
>> at the time which is why that that nexus is is important. So anybody have any questions or comments? I have a question. Um,
you know, in my personal estimation, and I'm sounds like most everyone realizes there was something going on. What we want to do is if we if we could all take a snapshot of what's going on right now, which is nothing, and leave it that way, I think that makes everybody happy,
right? So, the go so so the trick here is what can we do to make sure it doesn't happen again? And if it does quickly, it can be ceased and and stopped again. >> Yes. So, uh I will say this is my
personal opinion and personal opinion only. I I I completely understand where the um you know where where where the residents or the neighbors are coming from and and I want to make sure we do something to uh protect them. If someone hasn't been doing something
for five, six months, and I have no doubt that he probably can set it up based on what the last gentleman said tomorrow, next week, next month, or whatever, but I'm not so sure saying, listen, he was doing this all up until, you
know, the cease and desist was lifted. Now, whether it was timing because it was us or whether it was because Nate had finally got through to him that he can't do it anymore, I can't get into somebody's head and figure that out. But it did stop once the cease and desist had stopped in this appeal uh period
started. So if we were to say, you know what, we're not going to overturn the Nate's decision because it had stopped at that point in time, but create some findings or commentary, however you want to put it into that
decision that basically says as soon as, and I know you'd like to have everything in there, but I don't think we're going to get everything in there, but we have a couple of real key points. you know, the conveyor starts again where, you know, the wood pile is at a point where
it's obvious it's not just for himself anymore type of a deal. Cease and desist starts that day. You don't have to go through the process of filling out paperwork or or whatnot. Is is there a way to thread that needle? >> I think there is. And again, you know, although those decisions could be
subject to further challenge, but I've been thinking here on how I might, assuming we close and start the deliberation period, how I might structure something where, okay, as of right now, you're good, but here's what you can't do going forward. and how I
would structure that in a way that would not only mention the things that we know that were clearly happening there like bringing on wood is a clear no no and processing for the purposes of his business but I want to be uh broad
enough to include other uh potential findings you know if the building commissioner determines that there's further indish of business whatever it may be then the cease and desist just drops on again. >> Yeah.
>> And I think there's a way to do that. Is it perfect that we can patch every hole there? >> I don't think it's not. But >> no one's that perfect. But if we can say, listen, here are the >> the four bullet points that clarify. >> There's no argument, right? There's no gray area. It's not like, well, it was
for this, it was for that. You know, if you do this, that's it. It kicks in automatically. >> You're you're still going to have gray area. I don't think you're going to be able to capture. We're trying to capture as much of it as we can, but >> that still leaves gray area, >> right? >> In my opinion,
>> there's always going to be, like I said, nothing's perfect. So >> to me, if you want to have a more binary black white decision, we reinstate the cease and desist and then there's no >> I I just >> I walked in here of a different mindset
>> and now I'm I've changed my mindset. So that's my opinion. I just again I I I'm struggling only because if you've we're trying to if you've stopped doing something we're still going to put it back on you. >> That's that's because I don't know the
individual and I I just I'm looking at it trying like I try to do with everything. I'm looking at it with blinders. If if you've cleaned up your act the six months, sorry, but still going to penalize you. >> I think John I think this is where you balance you try to balance and I and I appreciate your your approach here. I think you balance between both sides
without taking a position and I think this the position this board should take is that we should reinstate the cease and assist and then there's no other comment. There's no other opportunity for revisiting this.
>> Again, my the struggle there is for me is when does the cease and desist stop? But that's it. you get cease and decision until you're >> so but let's not think about it as it durational and I and I get where you're >> where you're coming from on that. The
the thing I I think you have to then wrestle with which is still fine. I still think you're going to get to his bullet points in some way. So I don't think there's much daylight actually between your two positions. I think you're kind of both saying the same
thing. But if you reissue the the cease and desist, you have to then say what has to cease and desist. Because if we are then just in an argument, well, what's what's a business over there? Then we're going to be in this endless loop where we're going to
be back here over and over again. If we go with more of a binary cease and desist, we have to we should be clear with a set of findings what we're telling you. You have to cease and desist. Certainly, we're not telling him he can't cut wood on his property,
>> right? >> Certainly. >> Certainly, we're telling him he can't bring on wood on the property >> or drive a 550 onto the property. >> Well, I don't know. Does does that is that a necessary indicator of it? I don't I mean, if you're bringing on material, if you're
preparing, >> if the activities are integral for his commercial operation that might happen elsewhere, then that that's all fine. And I think that that's cease and disistable so to so to speak. But I think that either way you go
whether it's the nothing going on now but don't do this or there will be something going on or you have to cease and desist doing this. You still are going to have to say what he has to cease and desist doing. And I don't think it's a super difficult and we can
and I'm okay actually with some gray area here in the cease and desist because we will never come up with every single possible indication and fact that supports a business is going on. But I do think that if if we know some hard and fast don'ts and I think the clearest
one that we've heard and continue to hear is bringing on material because that's clear, right? I think we all agree. I think everyone in this room agrees >> the two of the bringing on the material and the conveyor belt. Those those are the two that are like the obvious. You're bringing >> my my only thing there is that if I I
don't know because I'm not in the business. If I was hiring someone as opposed to being a a lumber person myself, would they be bringing a conveyor belt on to to help get things moving off my site? I don't know the answer to that. I don't mind too much if
you say activity regarding uh processing using the conveyor belt is could be a factor supporting um that. But I can't sit here and tell you that if I had a big lot and there are some
big wooded lots on school street that if I hired someone they wouldn't be bringing on a conveyor belt. >> That's but that's a little different. You're talking about harvesting pre-existing material by hiring somebody >> as a decision specific to this.
>> No, I I get it. But I don't think we can treat him differently. The fact that he's in the business than a homeowner who would hire someone to do that. I still think it comes down to finding a line >> between him using his own skill set
to take wood off of his own property versus using his own skill set to processing wood on that site in preparation for sale. >> But that but that has a finite um
there's an end to it if you're harvesting material. >> Y Oh, I I agree. I have no quarrel with each crossing as his own property. >> Yeah, there's a finite limit to that >> then it's over.
>> That's 100%. Any bringing on of material to me is like if there's not a lot of black and whites that I've seen here, but that's really black and white. >> So, so Jay, that's I guess I I get a little push back there because do you say just one piece of wood is like
importing? I mean, what is the threshold for saying it's an import of material for processing? >> Well, I mean, if he's in the business of processing wood and he's importing wood to process,
then I think that that's concerning. >> Is that >> like I don't even know if this is Don't get don't get upset by me saying this. I don't know if this is his wood, right? >> I don't either. >> Right. All I'm saying is But is that an indication of importing of wood? >> Yeah.
>> The the photo itself. No. >> No. >> Okay. >> I mean, it isn't. If I had someone on the witness stand and I was asking them where the wood came from, I might know. >> Are you talking about the amount of wood versus >> Yeah. But what's what in what if if you
were to in instate reinstate the cease assist and he imports material by what threshold is it violating the cease to assist of importing the material? Do you understand? >> Yeah. I think to your point is what if he brings in three big logs? He's imported this. Does that mean he's violating it? I mean you can bring in three big logs. The people do that all
the time in lake. They'll bring in bring in wood on their yard to cut it to use it for themselves. Not nailing the amount he was using. So >> yeah, but that that's to bring in for my own firewood use. I think what we would say more is that if you're bringing in wood for processing and then removing it
again, >> yes that's brought into process to to remove. >> I remember when my dad used to bring in all kinds of wood and say we'll split all that wood now because I just bought a wood stove and I don't want to do that. >> But so that's different. But if you're we would go further and say if you're
bringing it on to process it and then get it then back off your site. That's clearly a business activity isn't telling us a material enforcement difference between either route we go because we already had a cease assist and that didn't do anything right. So we've already had a cease. So whether we
put parameters on John's route or put parameters on a new cement assist or enforce the the old I think end up kind of in the same place. And I think these findings have some general language that kind of gets us to some of the things we might want to prohibit. Right? These might not be exact, but I think this
does have kind of a framework as to what we'd be looking for >> as parameters, right? >> Where are the other seven findings? >> I mean, there's a lot of general language in there that we would probably >> two. Yeah. But I get more specific than >> so from a process standpoint, um,
>> do we close the hearing then make a decision? >> Yes. I was going to ask and and if anyone knows >> don't worry I'm going to call on you before we close it. Don't worry. >> When did we when was the applic I want to know where we stand on the timeline. >> December. >> So we're and has there there's been
extensions I'm assuming >> continuences. Yes. >> Yeah. So when we close because we're at that kind of 100 day kind of we're at the end there then technically you would only have 14 days to file a decision.
And what I think because I'd like to work with you, I'm new to this and I think this is weighty enough. I think I'd probably have the board ask Paul if we could have a little extra time than 14 days so I could take what the board's
consensus is here, draft a decision, probably have some back and forth with with you, John, on some of the facts that I'm not a aware of and then bring it back to you and we could discuss it. I think that might be in outside of a
public hearing just like going through a decision. a much better option than us making a thumbs up or thumbs down decision tonight. I would assume everybody would prefer that cuz depending on which way we go, you may not be happy, right? Because it seems to me that >> I'd rather make a decision on this. But that's my
>> Yeah. I mean, and we can and I don't mind doing that and then 14 days. If you're concise in your decision that you make tonight, I'll just write it up and have John sign it. That's fine, too. But we have to do the work and I need I'll need some guidance to get it right. And
and I think every all four of you I think are in the same place more or less. >> We want we want to say this and this shouldn't happen and if it does there's a trigger and you know whether it's >> okay so let's >> so what what are the what are the all
right Paul come what come on up and then we're going to close the hearing then we'll discuss I said this before, if you control the exporting the wood processing on site, the the will regulate itself. If you if the if
he can't export, that is the key. So if he wants to keep trucking wood in like you as much as he wants and he wants to keep cutting it and making a pile, he can. But eventually he's going to stop because he's not going to be able to get any revenue from it. The whole key is to
no exporting. There's no reason for residential use to export off the property. None. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, I need a vote to close the hearing.
>> Just you have a motion to close. >> I'll make a motion to close the hearing. >> We have to do this to get to the next point. >> I second. >> Who made the motion? I you you make a motion. I asked for a motion. I need a motion. I said
>> I'll make a motion to close the >> You have a second. Second. >> Any further discussion? All in favor? I. >> Motion carries. All right. Let's discuss. >> Our next Yeah. >> Is there a way to keep this clean and simple?
>> I think so. >> Um cease and desist. No exploitation of wood. >> Well, I want to I want to go to the exportation thing. I'm not sure that that's the tool
>> because I I don't think exportation has anything to do with it. I I think it may provide leverage, but I'm not sure that that's an indisha of business. I don't think that's >> the purpose of the commercial activity.
It it could be. But again, using I I could this same guy, Mr. Walsh, I could hire him to take wood off my site. I have every right to dnude my property of every single
tree on it. >> I I don't think it's a >> I think I think I think we're getting caught up in I think everyone's assuming there's no more trees for this guy to take down on his property. So, if that's the case, which I'm not so sure there there aren't more trees to take down on
this property. I I don't know how much property he owns or whatnot, but I think your point is if he still has a half an acre to take down and he decides he wants to take him down, we can't restrict him from taking that off the property. >> Yeah. And I don't think that's in play. >> I don't know. I have no much I have no
If he has one tree left on his property, how does he remove that or he's in violation? >> Correct. No, I I don't I don't think harvesting a tree from your own property. >> You're saying tie it to you cannot remove any any wood that was brought
onto your property. You can remove anything that you have on the property you want. But if it's stuck if if you have wood that was imported >> and then you take it back off, that's a restriction. That means you're >> we're saying you're using >> I think we would go further to the
extent that there's any wood that was imported on the site. It can either be removed or remain on the site, but it cannot be processed for sale. >> Okay. Well, that that's a nuance that could be added. >> Um >> Yeah. >> But
I I don't know. I think we're getting a little lost in trying to um like shut down equipment. And then what if he wants to not move one of his own personal logs by hand and use the
machine? Like it it seems I don't know. It seems hard to regulate. But >> it is hard to regulate. I think that's why we're struggling. >> It gets boiled down to the essence of what he's doing, which is
bringing material in and shipping it out. I think that >> if you cut it off at the shipping it out, you have in effect shut down the commercial activity. >> Well, if he brought in log lengths
and and one result here is that he's removing them as log lengths again. Go process that elsewhere, Mr. Walsh. You're not processing it here. That's offensive to the neighborhood. So he the no no no no
was bringing it onto the site if he can either let them rot there or process it and use it for his own use but he can't then export it as a salailable product. I don't if we if he
removed stuff that he brought on just getting rid of it in the same lengths that he brought it on. I don't think I don't know why anyone would object to that. >> So, let's play devil's advocate to that. Right. So, he brings it on, he keeps it on, he says, you know what, I'm not
going to use it for accessory use, right? And then he puts it back onto the truck and he ships it off to the truck. Is that a violation of the export? >> Well, he brought it on illicitly. We're having him correct the problem by getting rid of it in the same condition that he brought it on. Right.
>> We're talking We're talking about the one that's already there. >> The one the stuff that he brought on from offsite that's already there >> that's already sitting there right now. Yeah. >> If it was wrong for him to bring it on and he corrects that he's bringing it on to process. have it on will allow you to
remove that, but you can't bring anything else on >> and you can't leave it on there, chip it, do it in cut it into a firewood for the purposes of sale. >> Yeah, >> you you have options. If you want to use that, burn it in your own smoker in the
backyard or whatever, fine. But you can't that can't be part of your business venture. Get rid of it in its current form. no processing of it, >> but get rid of it in its current form immediately, >> right?
>> I mean, it's not a it's not a >> we can we could put a time frame on that. We can say 30 days or we can >> Yeah, I know. It's really difficult because the the option if we had him leave it on site, then it becomes just rotting wood on his sight. >> Scenario that might happen. And what what is
>> sorry my opinion is we just put the cease and desist in and leave and that is in place with the conditions of you can't use uh you can't import wood you can't export wood you can't use the
conveyor belt and that's it to me the bobcat whatever he can rip a chainsaw if he wants but to me like that's all these other things are just we're trying to condition this thing like
you know need threading the needle here. So to me you just put the cease and desist in and then you can put conditions around that and then we move forward. That's how I do that. >> So >> what's the conditions you want?
>> No conveyor, no import, no export. >> Can we can we restrict someone from using a conveyor? >> I think you I think it's a close question. And I think you could >> look let him let him appeal it. I mean I the conveyor question is a closer one for me. The export one is the one that's
trickier for me if he's exporting in log lengths because again anyone can do that. >> Yeah. >> All he wants. >> But if All right then. I mean, I'm happy to kind of
tailor this just to the import and the conveyor like, but I think we have to make a decision. Put it forward, right? And be I don't no offense to the people. I don't want to see them. I don't want
to have to revisit this argument. >> Nor do I. >> Every month. >> So, >> I think they're nice people. I don't mind. >> No, I I think they're great people. I don't think they want to see us anymore to be honest with you. >> So I would rather just like I said I think it's cleaner to put the cease and desist in put the
conditions on the import and the conveyor and be done with it. export on well I think the import is difficult because if I want to bring a log in I can do it
>> but if it's on conditioned on the export no one in their right mind is going to bring in log after log after log knowing it can never leave the property >> absolutely >> well dear were you saying we didn't have
to necessarily narrow down these details but you had a certain number of days We could call over all the information again. You could come up with like the 10 bullet points that you think should be applied to either a cease and desist or the other way John was going or you have to go through these items tonight. >> You're you're you all are in the same
ballpark, but there's kind of I I'd like to see you all kind of get to some place that that you have in common. Let's assuming this is kind of like a ven diagram with each of you being that I want to get to
that center part where we have some critical mass and I get that import a single log but >> not three logs like if you import three logs that's a violation is Jay is >> but then the exporting of stuff you
bring in in a processed state is concerning or using it at using the site as a way station as a for storage of logs for sale is obviously a no no as well. That's a business as well. So
there are things that I think that are business around that and and I guarantee for every single one of them we can come out with a but this isn't right. But I I think we we >> I think in general we want anything you bring on the land you cannot remove
after it's been processed. That's really what's going to stop it. You want to bring big logs on, >> go ahead, bring them on there. They may be I saw to the neighbors, but unfortunately they can't control which people, you know, neighbors put on their property. So >> they can't it can't be used for sale at
all. I mean, if if he wanted to remove what he put on and store it elsewhere, I think we want to my guess is we want to give him that opportunity. maybe a one-time opportunity. To the extent there's anything there now that he brought on that he shouldn't have
>> that we want him to get off there or if he wants to get it off there, we'll give him a one time get out of jail free card on that provided he's not >> processing it. If you want to just clean up the site by getting off in an un
time frame because if we turn around and say listen you just can't rem you can bring anything you want. You just can't remove anything that's been processed. He could remove those six months from now. We don't care. They the neighbors don't care. >> I guess my only thing there is I don't
want this site and I don't think you all want this site to be a place where he stores wood for sale cuz he doesn't have enough space. >> Yeah. I mean, I don't think that's something we want to see, >> right? So, I I think we want to now put a halt on importation as part of a
business >> okay >> activity. So importation for personal use on your property. Okay. Importation as part of a business for either resale in lengths or reset re resale
as a in a process state. That's not okay. >> How do you make a determination on what is imported for personal use? Like how do you >> Well, it's not set a limit. You're asking like how do you set a limit of
like what's in personal. >> It's it's subjective like how like who >> who's forced into that? >> I think that we we do have the benefit or Nate will have the benefit of like we heard great eyewitness testimony which
is always the best kind of testimony. >> Yeah. And if we if Nate hears or we hear or whatever that well, we saw him on Monday delivering a bunch of stuff to the site and on Friday trucks picking up
a bunch of stuff from the site, that's obviously a no no. If he delivers a bunch of stuff to the site and then there's no there's no evidence presented, eyewitness written photos, video, whatever, of him removing it just
because He likes having all the wood on the site. He builds furniture. He's a smoker. He's doing something there. I mean, I think there are ways to get to where you want to be.
>> So, I I'd say the import the storage, >> right, is the two conditions >> and no so no import, no storage and no export. There you go.
>> That constitutes processing. >> No import, no >> uh no storage and no export. >> Export's the key >> except if he wanted to assuming he had a half acre left or whatever he had there, >> right? Of
>> and he wanted to cut it down and just get it off the site cuz he wanted to build a pickle ball court or something on that back half acre. So the export has to ex >> that would be more of a clarification because he has the right to do that anyways. Right. >> So the export has to exclude anything
that is existing on the property. >> Correct. >> Good. >> Yeah. >> What about the conveyor? >> I you want to bar the use of it on this thing? >> Yes. I personally >> I do too. >> There's no reason to have a conveyor.
>> Okay. We got it. If you think that we can borrow the use of a piece of equipment on someone's >> I mean I'll use the the the the appropriate language >> borrowing the use for what he's doing is probably I'm just again I don't know why you need a conveyor other than to do
that but you know >> exactly. >> Yeah. I mean it there's a whole other story to be written as to whether or not he ends up violating another zoning bylaw by storing equipment. But if he's using a conveyor on site, if you want, >> if we're not violating our bylaws by
restricting him to use it, I'm good with it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I think there's a reasonable basis there. >> Definitely. >> I mean, I grew up in the city, so I've don't know what a conveyor belt is used for other than >> Well, you know what used,
>> right? I I mean, I think I've I think I can get and I don't even think it'll be a lengthy decision. Um, I think that I can get these pieces together. >> Yep. >> Get it. What What I can't do is then
have outside of another meeting a discussion amongst the group. If you all trust John or another of you to get it right, then I'll >> I'm going to take whatever you give me and that's it. But I want it to be because I mean I think Jerry feels
strongly and both Chris's have slightly nuanced versions, but I I think we're all together now. I think we've kind of gotten it together. I just want to given the time that we have we closed the hearing. We're on a 14-day clock. Everyone's busy. We have a holiday
weekend. I want to get this drafted correctly. I want to get it to John. I want to get him to sign it. Get it in to the town clerk within 14 days. The other option is to have everybody see it if we want to tweak it at the next meeting
>> or we could get we could get a Zoom meeting together of 48 hours notice and go over a draft too if you want to do that. >> But you're saying within 14 days you have to have something draft. >> It has to be filed in 14 days from
today. So I think the open and I haven't heard your business yet on this thing but I think also the open item for us is are we reinstating the cease and assist or not and then keeping that open but these conditions we're going to apply to
it like we had just outlined. So it's the import the storage the export and the conveyor. So the that's my question to all each of you is are we reinstating cynicist or not? >> Yes. So I think and >> folks, can I say something? We don't
need people and telling us what to do. Please, >> to Jerry's point here, I think if we >> regardless of the way we structured, if we did it as John had originally suggested of we're going to keep Nate's last decision in place, but say these
are the things you can't do or make it a cease and desist. But then also state that >> this is the only stuff that's spoken >> that also state that in the facts because there's going to be a fact section. >> Yeah. >> That for months there hasn't been any activity but there is a legitimate
concern to Paul's point and to the other gentleman who I didn't get his name that it could resume. So it's going to >> no matter what it is it's going to say the same thing. And so I'm fine it from different >> I'm fine structuring it as kind of
either a full or partial kind of reversal of Nate's last position while still noting that that the property owner has been behaving lately, but there's enough continuing concern regarding what remains on the site that it could resume again.
>> So we can play with that language a little bit, but I'm comfortable with doing it either way. It's going to say the same thing. It's gonna have the same legal effect. >> Great. Okay. Thank you, John. >> So, if we're going to do it the same way, is there a question then should we uphold Nate's decision to have
stopped the cease and desist because at the time he had no evidence of it. >> That's your decision. That's what we have to come to as >> if the results doesn't matter. I'm saying if we say that we're agreeing that they should do should have done what he did. >> I I'm of the opinion rein you reinstate
the cease and desist. That's my opinion. If you have a different opinion, want to go from the other side, I can support that as well, provided we put the conditions that we just kind of outlined. So, I'm open for discussion on either. >> My my opinion, honestly, my opinion was
the whole the condition stuff is is is was built into what I said originally. I need to say, listen, don't do these three things or else that's it. It's over. You're you're in violation. I just the whole thing about overturning Nate's decision was I think it was the right decision at the time based on what it
was and it had ceased at that point. So that's kind of why I'm saying all right you you followed along at this point but almost like trust and verify. All right, you haven't done it good but just so you know these three things are on the table. So we're going to make sure more than just trust that you're going to do
them. You're going to have to do them. >> I think I would go with that as long as we have the teeth in there as it would be in this. >> Yeah, that's the key. We just need to make sure we have >> change the timeline at all. It's like if it's season desist tonight, >> does the 14 days change whichever way we
go? I don't think so. It's a decision. >> It's a decision one way or the other. >> Do we Sorry. >> As far as enforcement, is there any difference? >> No, it's it's I mean, it's it's going to be enforcable for as long as there's
potential activity over there. Jake, what about exist? So, if he has existing inventory, should we give him some um some leeway to process what he or what he has in its current for in the log length
form? >> Yes. >> Yeah. I would say 30 days is probably we're in the the appropriate season for it. So, it doesn't have a weather barrier there. >> So, is that like do we have to do that? So,
if it's been operating as a commercial enterprise, which it shouldn't have, but why? >> Yeah, I know you're >> Why is there another month of processing? >> No, no, not processing. Processing off
>> getting rid of it. No, no. This is not 30 days to continue doing business. This is 30 days >> to remove what's there >> to remove what's there in its current form. >> So I'm not honestly I don't even know if we need to do that cuz if it's big long
logs and it's there for 20 days or it's there for 20 months that's not the issue with the neighbors. The neighbors is the processing of it. So >> So you're not saying 30 days to >> process it >> chop it into firewood. No, no, no. >> We're saying, >> but I think one of the conditions we were talking about is import inventory
export conveyor in inventory was the one thing. >> Yeah. I mean, I guess you could do two things. You could condition to say, listen, it's got to be off in 30 days or what you have there, >> you know, >> stays if 30 days expires.
>> But no, >> yeah. And yeah, it can't be process. I don't think it really matters when it leaves. I mean it's it's logs whether it's leave in 30 days or whether it's the key is you just you can't process it you can take it off tomorrow you >> but if we gave him the option to remove it >> that's the only stuff you can remove
basically right in the condition it's in whether you remove it now or next year that's the only stuff you're allowed to remove >> no remove not process but removal has to happen within 30 days otherwise it stays
yeah if you wanted to the I just I the thing I have to play weeds. But what's the difference if he removes it in 30 days versus 90 days in the current condition? It's >> because then it it it violates the condition of export, >> right? >> But but you could condition the existing stuff is not subject to that export
provision. >> Again, you're not >> I I don't I don't think we have to be generous in >> I don't care. I'm just been advocate. >> You're muddying the waters in my opinion. It's 30 days. He's got 30 days to take what's on his property and move
it. Good. Wherever he wants to go with it, it doesn't matter. >> All right. So, to get rid of it, >> would we all be okay with upholding each decision on moving the inventory within 30 days? No import, no storage, no export, no conveyor. >> Yes. >> No import, no export.
>> So, no inventory and no conveyor belt operation. >> Well, I want to say I want to say no sales, no use of it as storage or for sale. I want to use some >> Yeah, you can add some You can add to that. >> Yeah. Um, >> to me that's the minimum.
>> The the part I I'm caught up on a little bit and I'm and I think I have enough here to kind of do this and if you're typing up something then you know please get it over because I'm making notes but it's helpful to see what someone else is doing too.
>> If he has remaining wood on his property that he wants to cut down and get rid of. >> Yeah. So if it's existing, he has the right to process the existing wood on the property. Correct. >> But not for sale. He has the right to
cut it down and get it off the site. >> Right. >> How do we know it out? >> Well, he can. >> So if it's anyone can ship, >> you have to give him the opportunity to clear his lot if he wants to clear the lot. >> Oh, you're talking about harvesting trees
>> on that's in rooted in his >> Okay. Okay. All right. I thought you was >> in the property. That's in your property line. >> Okay. Gotcha. >> Yes. >> So, I mean that he can still do provided that he's not >> Yes. >> storing it there for sale or processing it for sale. He wants to cut it down and
get rid of some wood because he's again building the pickle ball court or whatever, then he can do that. >> That pickle ball court could be worse than the conveyor belt. >> Trust me. Yeah. I might come over. Yeah. The pickle ball court.
We good? I think we are. Um why don't we make that Why don't we make it and someone could do it. So moved. Um why don't we move to direct town council to draft up the
conditions of cease and desist or the the the conditions of the order. >> Yeah. um for the chair's review and execution. If we stumble, if John and I think that there's a gap,
then I think we can all get a 48 hour Zoom call together and hammer it out because I think I know where we're going and I think it's going to be faithful to what we have all said. But if I feel like I'm in a loop again, because I
think we've all been in a little bit of a loop, then I think we want to reserve the right >> because if not, they'll want to hang us, Jay. So, >> Right. >> And I'm not ready to quite leave yet. >> Does that Does that sound like a plan? I I think I can get it right. >> Yeah. I mean, that work. So, we have to
make a motion to if council draft a motion that >> reflecting the board's um >> positions on discuss tonight >> and and and authorize John to sign it. I will make a motion to allow council to
draft a motion including the discussion points the board made tonight with John's chairperson's >> executing the order >> review and approval of the town council's motion uh draft order
>> draft order and if there's any remaining ambiguity we'll get back together again >> if we have so and include what town council is added. Yes. >> Yeah. >> Do we have a second to that? >> I will second motion. >> Okay. Any further discussion? All in
favor? >> I >> opposed. Motion carries. That was easy. All right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> No problem. Okay. Uh Andrew.
>> Yes. >> So, what do you think? You still interested? Our next agenda, our next agenda item, uh, discuss possible vote to recommend Andrew We did. >> Gay. Okay. >> To the bottom,
>> uh, to the zoning board of appeals as an associate member to meet you all. Thanks, Jay. >> Um, so even after this long prolonged hearing, Andrew stuck around is interested in being on the zoning board
of appeals. So, um, welcome and Do you have any questions for us? Basically what happens is the zoning board of appeals uh these positions are appointed uh by the select board I think as you're aware. So they normally come to us if we have a recommendation one way or the other or have any comments. So
historically, long before me, we've always invited anyone who's interested to come have a little conversation more so for equally for us to find out what we think of you, but also to see let me talk to these guys and see if I really
want to get involved. So good news is you stuck around after that. So uh why don't you tell us a little bit about yourself, then if you have questions and then we can turn the table. So >> first, Mr. Chair and members, sorry I'm not good at public speaking. I love to talk. I really love to talk, but public speaking is not my
>> It gets easier. Yeah, you're up there. Have to get used to it. Yeah. >> Um would just like to thank you for considering me for a uh position as a associate member. Uh wife and I have been in town since 91. We've seen growth
throughout the town. Um I have recently retired. I was a union cop for 40 some years. I carry a unrestricted uh mass uh builder's license. I'm familiar with the building process, but not just the
building process. Through my years of being a foreman on some large projects in Boston, um I've worked with other trades. We've worked things through uh work with other parties. Um so
it's it's interesting to me. And now that I have time to dedicate, which I didn't have when I was working in Boston, um I would like to be able to give back to the town and I feel like this is a good fit for me
and I hope it's a good fit for you also. Um I'm able to look at things objectively, um able to work with with people. Um I would I think it would serve well for
me. So, I like I said, I don't >> um know what else to say. >> There's nothing else to say. Perfect. I I think based on your experience, uh you you'd be a really good fit. I mean, you obviously understand, uh the process, uh at least from a professional standpoint,
uh as far as all the technicalities and legalities, that's why we have counsel to refer to. Um and, uh we don't have counsel at every meeting. We only have it when we need there. And honestly, I think he said it earlier, one of the biggest things about being on this board is we're a group of the town's peers. I
mean, we're not here to be experts on everything. All of us are in different industries. Um, so we bring different perspectives and hopefully at the end of the day, we get the answers right that are best for the town as a whole. Ultimately, that's what it comes down
to. when it comes to whether we how we draft a decision. Um, some of them are pretty simple and easy and straightforward, but if they're not, like I said, we have professional help to do that. So, uh, it's it's the heavy lifting is if the meeting goes along on a, you know, Monday night or Thursday
night. But, uh, uh, no, I appreciate you you coming down talking to us. Uh, before I ask these guys, do they have any questions? Do you have any questions from us or of us in regards to what's involved? not so much what's involved so much as
like um a go-to person, somebody that I can ask questions to uh whether it's through the chair or other people. Um really um like to take >> it's probably I mean we're pretty collaborative. You can ask anybody
anything. I mean you can ask the chair, I can get the answer for you. I mean, we talk, you know, uh, not about specific, you know, petitions and whatnot, but we bounce ideas off each other and talk about stuff. Um, >> you just the only thing you really need to be careful of is you don't want to have, you know, let me get three of them
together and start talking. >> You want to avoid that at all costs. >> I I have already read the um open meeting. >> You don't want you don't want to you don't want to you got to be careful with that. Um, >> yeah, for gatherings and stuff like Uh you can always reach out to Colleen uh who uh although new in this position has
a ton of municipal experience and can find the answers for you as well. Uh so it's it's it's pretty pretty low-key and everyone's really really pretty helpful. So >> the one of the questions I guess I could ask is I live on Holland Road so there's
going to be two projects coming up. Y >> um it's it's clearly spelt out by law in most cases how things are handled. >> I just want to make sure that um there's nobody would see it as a conflict of
interest. either. >> So, I mean, and I'm not going to be I'm not professing to be an expert on this, but the conflict of interest has more to do >> more so financially. Like, if if you're going to really >> benefit, >> huh? >> Personally benefit.
>> I'm not in a butter to any of the properties. >> No. If if you're going to butter to it, um you probably have a have an issue with it. But, you know, let's face it, everybody has a position one way or another on most of these projects. So, if you think you're going to get somebody who doesn't care either way on any of these boards in town and anything
that's a small town, it's not going to happen. But, as long as you're not personally benefiting and and you know, financial is usually what ends up coming into play. I mean, we have we've had board members um in the past who have you know, you just recuse yourself if if you're going to have a personal benefit. It it happens. Again, it's a small town.
It it doesn't happen a lot. Uh not as small as it used to be, but there's there's there's no issue just because you happen to live in one area of town. Okay. So >> that's all you got? That's good. That's all. You don't need any more. You guys have any questions or words of wisdom or
>> talk him off the ledge. >> You miss the commute to Boston? >> Yes, >> you do. >> No, I do not. I um >> I was a union carpenter in Boston for longer than I was married. Uh longer than I've been married. Um 40 I did that
trip about >> 35 years. 35 years I did the the travel into Boston. >> Yeah, that's rough. >> It Yeah. And now that I have retired, I have adult children. It it is I feel it
it's good to give back to the community. We love our town. We truly love Lakeville >> and we want to see the best for Lakeville and we want to be involved in Lakeville. >> What is the best for Lakeville? >> I don't know. Um, it's a fine mix between
>> I don't know what is it. What's your idealic >> ideic? You know, there's a lot of people that say they want to keep the rural character of Lakeville and keep it small, but that's >> I'm asking your opinion. My opinion is we we need a mix in the community
between industrial and residential and um how do I explain myself with this? Um, I would I would like to see Lakeville. Um, I I really I'm at a loss right now
for I would like to say um that I would like to see Lakeville be um I like the small town character of Lakeville. I think we need more growth to offset the residential. Um, I think that, you
know, um, some developments got I think developers need, um, a different option to be able to have open space developments. I would like to see Lakeville
uh, meet their um, housing, affordable housing, so that we're not forced to take these large developments on. And I don't know how that can be done, but I would like to like to see that. I would like to see us
get to the point where we're not being forced because that's I think we I would like to see the town have more say in these properties, but when we're not at our um housing goals,
it it opens us up quite a bit to have large scale developments that we really don't have much control over as much as people want us to have. not a 10% we're restricted as to what we can say no to and we're very limited >> and I think people have a hard time understanding
>> that you the board's position is >> you don't have to tell us that a lot of time understanding that so >> so I'd like to see Lake you know stay the small time uh small community but knowing that we need other forms of
income to come in in other other than just residential. Residential can't support the town. >> I think that's a really good answer, Andrew. So, thank you for sharing that. I mean, I my position is is the town could use inventory, right? We came into a situation where we have, you know, tax revenues and we're bedroom community,
right? So, it's really, you know, we don't have a lot of income from other sources like industrial or commercial, right? So, >> commercial, >> you know, we're struggling to meet budgets, right? And inventory creates additional revenue, right? my opin but again that's why you joined
the board is to have that alternative opinions and debates that we we all have right yeah and be able to kind of >> walk in with different perspectives so >> keep that okay >> yeah
we moved in in ' 91 in Hion Palms >> when the old farm was there and that the neighborhood went ballistic because the farm was gone the beloved farm is gone the beloved farm is gone. And I'm very fortunate that I was able to raise my family in Lakeville. And I'd like to see
that for future generations to be able to come and experience what we've had in the town. >> You don't want to close the door behind you, right? >> No. >> No, I don't. >> Well, if we all closed the door behind us, there wouldn't be half the people in
Lakeville. So, you got to keep that in mind. I try to tell people that all the time. Everybody wants to close the door behind him, but you wouldn't have got in at the guy before you close the door, right? >> True. Very true. >> Anybody else? >> Camp, you got anything to add? Any words of wisdom over there or? >> No, I think I'm good as long as you're
available third Thursday of most months. >> I'm available third day of the month. Although, >> unless we have a big 40B project, then we have to get extra meetings in. uh >> unless somebody unless they schedule a lot town annual town meeting the same day as
>> well had our meeting scheduled for us for the record they they they took care of that for us but no thank you very much I appreciate you coming in and uh sorry for the bit of lengthy but >> meeting ahead of time but it gives you a taste of what sometimes happens sometimes we're done in a half an hour sometimes it's
>> yeah I clicked on the Zoom meeting when you were signing off >> this would be a good kind of role play what would you have done with this prior hearing? >> I just SAID YOU ALREADY HAD I want to hear give me your 60-second answer.
>> Andrew, remember Andrew, remember when I said you can have those one-off conversations just this is one of those times you and Jerry can have that one conversation. >> I So I read the agenda for for tonight. I read through I read through it all.
>> Yep. Um, he should not be allowed to do any commercial >> any any any sale of firewood. >> Do you think he's doing something commercial there? >> He is definitely doing commercial in a lot of the common sense responses in the
case studies were really to the point. You know, he's processing firewood. If he's going he's processing firewood. if he's going through upwards of 200 cord, 100 cord, it's not for personal use anymore. The problem with the storage piece of it in my opinion is
if he doesn't process it and he takes it in as log and then exports it as log land. Even though he's not processing it, he's still selling it because there's nobody that is going to give away firewood. I burn firewood. I process my own firewood. I know the work
that goes into it. You don't give it away. So if you're taking it in as log length and storing it there, it could be exported at a profit. And so are you going to just say no to processing the firewood and cutting it
up and then shipping it off or is the commercial use still be him importing log land and exporting log land? Because I don't think just proc there's money not just in processing of it. There's also money >> in lot. >> Yeah.
>> So, >> you know, which is why our conditions are going to be you can't do either one of those types of deals. >> You know, giving them a reasonable amount of time to remove it on this property because, you know, realistically you say, "Okay, it's going to be out in 30 days. That's it. Done. It's stuck there." Now, you got
neighbors that are going to sit and look at wood piles until they rot until somebody does something stupid with it. So, I would it would be nice for him to to get it off the property. >> No, >> but I don't know if 30 days is the
correct amount of time. I don't know if it's 60 days, but it it should come off the property. That would cease it as far as, you know, I can have a skid on my property. I can have a conveyor belt on my property. I can have dump trucks on my property, but when it's starting to
be used for the business, then it needs to end because it just What is so my question is what is >> I like this >> you GET PRETTY COMFORTABLE TALKING
I TOLD you I don't like talking about um >> asking us I like this >> so what happens with this other than what I read I I really don't know much about this case so was a cease and distor put in place >> and then it was taken off
>> correct the building the commissioner said he satisfied everything you stop doing what you're doing so lifting the ceis and what I also read was just because you stop for 6 months, 2 months, 3 months doesn't stop the violation. There's still a violation there. So by
leaving the cease and disorder on it, does it make it any easier to enforce it or will the conditions set forth by the board? >> Obviously saw that's what we were going back and forth with. But according to what council said, which I have every faith he's correct, the conditions are going to have the teeth either way. if
if you violate the condition because what he what was interesting if you recognize what he said at the beginning was that we're acting as the zoning enforcement officer now. So even if we're saying we're going to uphold Nate's decision because at that point in time it was fine and we you know we
thought he did the right thing. >> Our conditions are basically saying you can't do this anymore. You can't turn around and say, "Oh, well, we don't need to pay attention to that cuz that was just something you guys put in a decision. We're going to start." And it literally starts the process all over for the neighbors to go in. We're acting
as a zoning enforcement and we're saying these three things, don't do them. If not, you're in violation right then and there. >> What What are the fines for said violations? What would happen? >> Uh, unfortunately, I don't think they're very >> significant. I mean, we're off TV, right?
>> No, we're still on. um you're on the agenda. So, >> okay, >> maybe $100. Don't quote me on that. It's not like it's $5,000 or anything like that. And those can be appealed and it's it's that's not very ownorous. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> I think it's more so to say, listen, we know nothing's happening now. Something could happen. There's still stuff there, but we're watching you, so don't do it. >> Okay. >> Yeah. as opposed to just saying we're going to enfor we're going to uphold Nate's decision and it's like, "Oh,
everything's all done. Oh, good. We're all finished now." No, we're going to trust and verify by putting some conditions in place that's basically say first time you do it, you're going to be in violation. It's not like you got to go down and go to Nate and Jill something out again. And
>> who's uh responsible for monitoring that the operation? Do you rely on neighbors? >> Pretty much. >> Yeah. the low man on the totem pole. >> I I driven by I drove by the property this week. So, um first >> I mean honestly if if you know normally
it's neighbors who will initial ones and I mean if it if it becomes very problematic and and repetitive uh you know the building commissioner will engage but keep in mind I mean the building commissioner can't sit there all day long and watch what's going on or show up at 10 o'clock at night to see
what's going on. So, um, >> okay. >> Yeah, it really like like like council said, it's going to rely on the neighbors saying witness testimony. You know, I have a picture of it going on and you know that that type of stuff. So, >> okay. >> Yeah. Enforcements I I will say
enforcement's always one of the toughest things when it comes to to zoning, especially on individual parcels and things like that. You know, we used to years ago. We haven't had as many lately, but oh, you can't have you don't want three bedrooms, so take a door off of that when you turn around and build
the house. And I always used to think, okay, what's going to stop the person putting the the door back on? We don't have someone going around and checking doors. My point always is it's very tough. Enforcement's the toughest thing. Yeah. Yeah. So, >> because I've seen some projects that have gone through the zone board where
you've questioned sizes of rooms and saying, "Well, you got a living room and you got a dining room. What's this large room for? >> Yeah. >> To study. So, okay. >> Why do you need an accessory structure bigger than your house? >> Like, >> yeah.
>> You know. >> Yeah. So, those are the things. >> Or an ad. Yeah. Or an ADU with an accessory unit that's twice the size as the ADU. But that's how it is in the laws. Like I said, you guys have guidelines, stuff
you follow. So a lot of the stuff I might not say is clearcut but there is >> oh this guidines everything you do >> but then it comes to us to say once you get you know it's almost like here's the guidelines now let the community make the decision and the people on this
board the community at that point >> um one question though uh is there anything I should concentrate on reading um I know I'll get a packet I've read through some material already but in just the general bylaws. Should I?
>> Yeah. So, um, and again, we're in transition right now, but twofold. One, becoming familiar with the bylaws are very are very helpful. Um, okay. You're going to learn a lot just by coming to the meetings. I mean, you're going to know more the second year than you knew the the first year, etc. Uh, but we also there are also, um, and we can check
with Kathy on this. There are classes and things like that that that come out periodically that um uh you know we get emails every so often with uh different seminars and whatnot that you can you can attend and some of them are online. Most of them are online now. A lot of them used to be in person. So there is
some education components to this that uh that that'll that get disseminated throughout the course of the year. So >> very good. >> I have no more questions. >> We good? >> Good. >> Okay. Well, thank you again for coming and uh thank you for having me.
>> We will we will pass our uh well, we'll take a vote in a second, but we'll pass I'm sure we'll pass our recommendation on to the select board. So >> Oh. Oh, I do have one question though. >> I thought you said you had one question. Two questions. You know how to count? Come on. Let's go. That's one thing you need to know how to do here.
>> This is You can never get rid of me. Um, will the nomination carry through the next year or because we're in May, I don't know. >> So, I'm not sure how they'll do it. I mean, they may turn around and do it for the next June meeting, which means then
I believe you'd have to get reappointed for July, but it's it's >> usually it's it's pretty routine in in the sense that if you know, unless there's some issue that everybody has with you, not you, but anyone in general, um, they kind of just roll forward. Um they just roll. >> Yeah. Unfortunately, it's not like we
have a line of people lining up for committees. Uh but uh >> I think we have a pretty strong committee here. So and you would be you would be a welcome addition to it. So >> thank you. >> I appreciate that. >> Maybe we condition if we go forward,
right, that he joins the board in July once the new fiscal year starts with that. >> Yeah. I honestly the select board will >> Yeah, >> they'll that'll be their decision. We just want to make sure he's he's he sticks around. we can point it as quick as we can. So, >> all right. Thank you very much. >> Thank you.
>> We have meeting minutes. >> That's our next agenda item. Um, well, before we get to that, >> I'll entertain a motion to recommend Andrew Gay as a appointee for the associate member spot on the zoning
board. Somebody want to make that motion? >> I'll make that motion. >> Someone want to second that motion? Second. >> All in favor? >> I I unanimous recommendation. If we can get that over to the select one, that would be wonderful.
>> June. >> Thank you. Under licenses. >> Excellent. Um, next, uh, approval of minutes. We have some meeting minutes from March 26 that were distributed. I'll entertain a motion to approve them unless somebody
wants to tell me that they need some changes to them. I'll make that motion to approve March minutes. Do we have a second? >> I second. >> All in favor? I >> I. >> Motion carries. Um so our next meeting was scheduled for June 8th uh which is
was supposed to be here. It was the Simmons Hill continuation uh for Rocky Woods. Uh due to a scheduling conflict and what I mean by that is that is also town meeting night. uh we will be reaching out to the petitioner to see if
they'll be okay with continuing it and tentatively uh but public notice will go out uh we we hopefully we can get them to agree to push it off to June uh June 9th which probably shouldn't be a problem. So that all being said uh will
be the meeting for Simmons Hill. We will still have to do some type of a remote meeting to accept their continuence if they're amendable to that. Um so we still will have the meeting on the 8th. It'll just be a quick uh remote one to uh reschedu it uh for the for the night
>> for the next day. So uh and we should probably once I get confirmation, we should probably post that only >> only because it's going to be so close that we want people to know ahead of time and they'll have enough notice. >> That would be fantastic. >> Uh and then subsequently we have a
meeting on June 18th back here. All right. Anything else to come before this board tonight? If not, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Second. All in favor? >> I >> opposed. Motion carries unanimously. We
are adjourned at 8:55. Five.