Uh the only item on the agenda this evening is uh council order 05-10713 and this is for to allow for uh zoning change allow uh to allow outdoor storage and business uh commercial automotive limited industrial industrial district
if it is incidental to one of the permitted uses of the zoning district in which the main building lot is located. uh further outdoor storage must be ade adequately fenced and screened by the street and so on. Um I'm just going to go on. We we met on this last week,
attorney uh Gadboy, and uh at the um end of the meeting, we actually had a series of questions that we wanted to relay to the um city solicitor and also to the uh to the U building inspector.
Um the question that we um uh sent to the u I have to work backwards on this here was a um a communication that I sent to the city solicitor concerning the questions
and it was would the ordinance change as proposed constitute spot zoning and what would happen if someone were to challenge the amendment at a future today. Um
the solicitor his response was to uh to number one the proposed change does not constitute spot zoning because it applies to the entire zone and is not specific to one parcel. Then the second question that we had
was in the proposed ordinance change the words incidental and accessory are both used. Would they would he consider them similar or can they be interpreted differently as they are used? Could one be substituted for the other? His
response was to um to that question. Both words in incidental and accessory are interchangeable in this instance. They both refer to a use which is customary to the primary use of the main building. I hope these answer your
concerns. Okay, that was a um those were his responses to that. Then um councelor um Schaefer
addressed a uh a similar question. It says, "If the council to were to approve the zoning change based on the language submitted, is there a possibility that any that at any time in the future arguments could be made that alli zone areas have been open to up outdoor
storage and outdoor storage could be allowed that is more expansive than the current definition. The committee wanted to make sure that it was not opening a can of worms that down the road could result in a kind and all kinds of outdoor storage allowed on LII
properties. His retort was or his answer your question of whether or not this is a possibility that any time in a future arguments could be made is very broad. I'm sure that there is always the possibility that an argument can be made
although it is not probable. The language is proposed as very specific and and in and in and of itself would not lead to more expansive interpretation. An attempt in the future to expand on this you on the uses
allowed would have to be by a proposed zoning change that the council has absolute discretion over. I hope this answers your question. Okay, those are the those are the three questions that were posed and the answers uh of the city solicitor.
Then we also asked the u um the city um the uh building inspector for his uh his uh his thoughts about this. And uh the question was is that you know how does
he feel concerning this? It says the ordinance is is most recently altered clearly indicates the type of outdoor storage allowed and under a special permit and the specific type of user that it would be entitled to apply for a special permit. The extremely limited
language of the ordinance precludes users other than companies that provide vehicles to government to the government. Unless the council alters the language in the future to be more broad in application, I see no pitfalls that could occur in the future. Okay.
So, those were the the questions that we actually had. Um, and you know, we're we're looking at, you know, the u the proposed ordinance as to um what the impact on the future would be.
Other other councils have questions? The only other thing I wanted to add was the letter that we got from >> Okay. Thank you very much. You're >> welcome. Yeah. Um, also we had the letter from the uh the planning board. This was submitted last night and it was
the letter uh dated March 15th. The planning board recommended the denial of the zoning amendment based upon the fact this this would affect the entire LI zone and would allow a use not consistent with the intent of the limit industrial district. That was what their
retort was. My question was is that when you submitted the uh the did you submit the change? >> I uh I submitted the change except for the word um accessory use. >> Okay. >> Um in in the in the language as it
applied to the limit industrial district. Um the ordinance has um if you looked at the original ordinance, you'll note that that there's been some change in the in the rest of the ordinance and I think it cleaned it up somewhat. There
was some question as to how that actually could have been interpreted. >> Yeah. >> Um and in the um in the industrial district, the language was clear that it was an accessory use after the planning board meeting. Uh and before last week's
meeting, it I wanted to further clarify it to make sure everyone understood that it was intended to be an accessory use and not a major use. And that's why I inserted that language, but they they they understood in at the time that that it was that it was to be an accessory use.
>> Mhm. >> I'm not exactly sure what the what their discussion was on it. All we have is >> we obviously I was at the meeting. Uh they their concerns were again that that the same as yours that it would open up
um that it would open up things to um that weren't intended. >> Mhm. >> Uh there was also the original letter that Al Lemur had sent to you. Uh they had that letter and of course that was a very strong
>> um strong letter in opposition to it. Um but that was based on the original language and they took that into consideration. >> Councel, >> thank you. Um this project has kind of been kicking around for a while back when it was going to be out in W 3 and >> to the new location and I don't take
lightly um the recommendation of the planning board. I know that they work very hard >> at making their decisions. I am going to respectfully disagree with them. I understand their concern because we're looking at all the ally land in the city. However, I do think that um the language is tight enough. We have the
opinion of the solicitor as well as the building inspector who feel comfortable and I don't want to lose sight of the fact that I I strongly believe that this is a very good project for that piece of land in that section of town and the neighborhood is endorsing it and it's something that is my responsibility to
bring forward. So, unfortunately, I'm going to um disagree with the planning board this evening and I I believe that this is good use. >> Thank you. Council Webster, this this is proposed for your for your ward. Now, I know that
you had a letter that was submitted. I know you you were unable to attend last uh last meeting. >> Okay. >> Anything else, you know, as to the wording as you have seen? >> Um the current wording, I I do agree with councelor Pope. Um the language is very tight. I don't think that it allows
for any sort of obscure use of the LI land and and I as well would would respectfully disagree with the planning board. Um, and as councelor Pope also said, we met with the neighborhood. The neighbors are, you know, definitely behind this project. Um, they've met with MHQ,
they've seen the photos, they've seen what they do with the shop. Um, and and they they went in, some went in, you know, doubting it, but everybody came out of that meeting with a full understanding of exactly what would go on the property and felt very comfortable with having them move than in the neighborhood. >> Um, the property has been vacant for a
long time. the neighbors would rather see a business in there that's going to be a responsible neighbor and MHQ has done it. They've proven to the city that they are, you know, a responsible neighbor. Um, so I again am definitely in support of the language as it's been revised. >> I I would like to add that one of the
reasons um that council Webster and I um found out that the neighborhood so much endorse this is like in every neighborhood in the city, traffic is a huge concern. when you have um zoning so close to neighborhoods. This is actually a project that will greatly reduce the
amount of cars that go into that neighborhood. And that's one of the one of the big uh factors behind the neighborhood endorsing this and the fact that they met with you and you know such a great guy. >> Council Schaer. Thank you. Uh Mr. was
um does your client at all do any vehicle um do assembly of specialized vehicles related for like Comcast or anything that would not be a municipality? >> I don't believe they do.
>> No, we don't have to presently we do some >> Can you come forward and use the microphone, please? We we presently do a few of them now. And what they are is pretty much for the utilities on the phone side, but there's no need. It's not that we have to by any
means or it's not a uh big part of our business. Our business is the municipal, but when they have special related stuff to utilities um on them, we do do them on occasion, but that doesn't have to be. >> We have other locations. The only thing I'm thinking is, you know, because we we
want to make sure we're clear here on what can be done and what can't be done. So, I wouldn't want to see the compact vehicles sitting out there because then >> it's going to cause an issue there. So, just so so we're clear on that. We'll discuss that this evening. >> Are there specific companies that do uh
prepare vehicles for Comcast or Verizon? >> It pretty much falls under the work that we do, the specialized use, because it's a utility company. >> They've now taken over the utilities. So it kind of falls under the utility end of it more so than we look at it as a
cable vision where they picked up the phone company um and things like that. Now we do specialized stuff for them on the wiring um generators that go in them just like in the trucks and the police vehicles >> but we don't do all the other stuff to
them or their other division which would be like the cable end of it. Just another one. U I every now and then you see these unusual vehicles that uh like command centers. Are you in that type of uh preparation business? No. What we do
in the command, we have a couple there now um that are armored vehicles for state police and thing. We put lights on them, but we do not manufacture the armored end of it or an actual what you would call command post. We may light it and put in their radios. No, I've seen
one for the uh um I think it was the Middle Sex County Sheriff's Office. He added like this command center which was a >> like a mobile home. >> Mobile home. Yeah. No, we >> saw that on the news. >> We did it in Mro. I went through it >> like that vehicle. We did a tractor
trailer for the state police command center, but it came in. We just did the lights. We don't build the vehicles. >> So, it's usually in and out the same day. >> Okay. >> But there aren't again a lot of those. They're specialty. Council, >> just one follow-up question. Um, I know when when we and when we talked about
this project, when it came through for a special permit, the first time it was going to be a consolidation of both your operations on Route 20 and your operations on South Street, is that still the intended purpose of this one? Are you going to be still doing your operations on South Street or you going to move everything there? We have uh
South Street the because of the time and the so forth trying to get the building. We are actually going to Shrewsbury temporarily for that until we get into the other side. Um the lease ran out on South Street. >> Okay. So South Street's over then. >> South Street we have 60 days to get out.
>> Okay. >> Um we'd like to bring and do some of the trucks up there at a later date. That's why we put in for it because we just got a temporary building to bring it back but due to time constraints. >> Wait, wait, say that again. What you just >> It will be consolidated at this at this site. >> Okay.
>> When this site is developed. >> So you don't have any intention to renew a lease down at South Street continue operations. Okay. >> So basically you're bringing everything in there. You know, painting painting of the vehicles won't be done on site. Of >> course, this is the cat before the horse
here, I suppose. you know, asking these questions, >> you know, we don't do um we've actually moved our uh body shop that was called the body shop that did all that. That's already moved. Um we closed that down about month ago and moved that to our Worcester dealership and we just do the
striping there and the um special on the new vehicles, but the actual body work is already gone. >> Okay. >> Yeah. basically where we have to deal with the zoning change first and then after that then you'd have to apply for a special permit.
>> Any other questions? Any other questions? Any comments? Oh, >> I guess you know we had asked the city solicitor >> his opinion regarding the use of accessory and incidental >> and given that he's indicated it is interchangeable.
I think just for clarity sake should we just use pick one of the words say if it is accessory to one of the following uses >> I would probably um suggest that if you want to eliminate one of the words to eliminate um
>> a word that's not defined in the ordinance because >> that's true in find in the ordinance >> and you and that's why I put it in there. Um so I would suggest you use I think it's accessory is accessory use is is in the
definitions >> right so say if it is accessory to one of >> so we're going to delete the word incidental and add the word accessory >> right >> okay so what we're going to do >> that's in the first sentence of the uh >> outdoor storage but not an auto junkyard
may be permitted in the business commercial automotive industrial district district if it is uh accessory to one. >> Right? >> So, we're going to delete the word incidental and add accessory. >> Can I ask you another Can I ask you
another question about the wording? >> Section 200-7 is the table of uses. >> Yes. >> And then we also need to further amend section 200-18 which are conditions for use as noted in the table of uses. Is is it section 17 note 6 or is it
section 18 note six? Do you see what I'm saying? >> It's it's section 17. Uh there's note 26. >> No, I'm sorry. Note 26. I was That's what I'm meaning. You sure it's not section 18? Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> I know we have I have the uh the zoning.
>> Right. Right. All right. I thought I had looked at the zoning book and the table uses a 17 and 18 as the actual wording like this. But >> do you want 17, you know, has the little chart that goes >> what what happens is 17 is the chart lists all the uses then has a column for
for each zone key or whatever it says. But isn't 18 the where >> and then in in 17 it'll show a such as in this one here note 26 outside storage it has a in parentheses 26 which
refers to note 17. Okay. >> And then you go to 1718 1718 has the 26. >> Okay. >> Wait I didn't. >> Okay. Is there 18 users table? >> See that the note 26 is referred to in
section 17. >> No, I agree with you. Right. Section 17 refers to note 26, but is it section 18 that actually has these definitions? >> That was my question. Do you see what I'm saying? >> Definitions are No, the definition is the beginning of the uh >> Okay. >> If you're telling me it's in 17, I will
believe you. I will look at them. But if you're saying it's 17 here tonight, >> section 27 >> like presumably 25 is under section 17 as well. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Well, the interesting thing is under both
>> because it's noted in section 17. It's also listed in 18. I >> I the reason why I'm >> that to section 17 and 19 >> to cover it so that we we continually talk about the same thing. >> So in other words, the table it says use
as noted in the table of uses section 17 and 18. >> I think I think we got to look at it because we're deleting something a previous >> I brought I brought my code book with us. >> Yeah, let's look at I think we need to look at why don't we take a see the code? I mean I've got the code book here. You have >> the code the new one?
>> Yes. Okay. >> Building effect works with the old book. >> This is your table of uses. >> This is section 17 and then 18. >> And then 17 outdoor storage. That refers to 26. >> 26.
>> And then you go to >> 218 >> and then go to 26. That's the definition we're changing, aren't we? >> It's not the definition. It's >> See, that's what we're That's what I'm talking about. So, it's actually section 18, isn't it?
>> 1826 is referred to as 26 and 17. >> Yep. I think I think it' be section 18. >> It is section 18. >> 18 note 26. >> So, I think we're really It's not really section 17, note 26. It's section 18, note 26.
>> Yeah, you're probably right on that. Yeah, it's not I mean it's referred to >> right because I I remember looking at this and thinking and thinking we're not really deleting the old section 26 and 17. We're deleting the old section 26 and 18 if we were to adopt 26. >> Okay. So it's section 18
>> 18. >> So you have to make you have to make a note on >> correct. No, that works. >> So in other words, you're going to amend this. So, it's going to say um going down to last and answer
>> section 18 instead of 17, note 26. >> Okay. Section 18, no 26 by deleting note 26, >> right? >> Okay. >> And at the top, it's still going to be 217 table of uses. >> 217 is the table of use.
>> Yeah, that's the table of use. That's Yeah, that would be correct. That's fine. That is correct. Okay. Anything else? >> No, I mean I I have to say it's given me some comfort to now receive both an opinion from the city solicitor and from the building inspector and our planning
um director regarding um that they feel that this has been narrowly tailored so as not to um make outdoor storage throughout limited industrial districts and such it is limited. I feel a little bit more um
comfortable with that although I I always think it's important to preserve zoning integrity as well. So but I think we've through this long process I think we've been able to somewhat do that. Okay. Anything else? Okay. Entertain a
motion. >> Motion to approve. >> Motion to approve. Motion made in second. All in favor zero. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. >> Yes. Uh motion made and second. All in
favor we are just reminder we have a meeting next Tuesday evening and I will be