The time is 700 p.m. and I am calling this session of the legislative and legal affairs committee to order. The date is December 11th, 2025 and we are meeting with one item order number
25-1000 9415 proposed change to city charter relative to section 59A for filling vacancies in the office of mayor and city council. And we had met one time
previously about this and then we have now continued to tonight because there were some some pieces of language that the committee and um other counselors wanted to discuss further. And so I'm going to
read an email from council president Oing dated Thursday, November 13, 2025. counselors based on on feedback from the 1113205 LNL meeting attached is dropped language
to fill the vacant ward council seat. And so it breaks it down to the change would be if the vacancy occurs in the first 12 months, it would lead to an election. If the vacancy occurs in the last 12 months of the term, the
remaining counselors would appoint. And that is signed Mike Oing and the proposed change. So the amended version would be
vacancies in the ward counselor position. If a vacancy occurs before the last 12 months of the term in the office of a counselor elected by and from the voters of award, the city council shall forth with order an election to fill
such vacancy for the remainder of the unexpired term. If a vacancy occurs at any time in the last 12 months of the term in the office of a counselor elected by and from the voters of a ward, such vacancy shall be filled forth
with by a majority vote of all remaining members of the city council for the remainder of the unexpired term. So with that, I will open this up to any committee members who have comments or
councelor Roby. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I thank Councelor Oing for sending this. I think it's a good compromise. I still am not all that thrilled about having to vote for a elected official, but um it it
hopefully doesn't happen, but if it does, and while I'm a counselor, it's at least it makes it easier and we know what we're doing. We don't have to keep going for the legislature to try to get a a change done. It's I we I know we have
to ask them for a home roll petition to make this permanent, but once it's permanent, then I think this will solve our problem. So, I would support this and I don't know if you want a motion to approve the uh Well, I you're not on the
committee, so I can >> you can but I can move to approve first and then you can comment. Um, I move to approve the um suggested changes as to get us to the language that you just read.
>> Okay. A motion has been made and seconded and I'll open it up to further discussion. Councelor Ducet. >> Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Um, so in 2015, Bob Paige passed away in October
and because I remember because uh Bob Gregoire told me the day after that he was buried that you know Bob Paige died and was buried yesterday which was the same day my wife my mother was buried. So um my concern in the wording is
saying close to the election. Okay. The decision will impact the election, right? How the how the council votes. If someone dies in September, October during election season, okay, then that
vote can undo the balance of the voters because a lot of voters will say, "Oh, he was, you know, he was voted in by the council, so I'm going to cover him. Okay. So, I'm concerned about that that wording or that coverage here, which is why I was flagging it so early, you
know, because I think that's an important part of this. We should, you know, we shouldn't be weighing the scales with this type of decision. And I'm not necessarily sure how to solve it, but I do think something of the
order of, you know, if uh as an example with the W seven counselor, whoever wins wins the election in November can at least finish the rest of that term. Okay? Or the person who is nominated if you know uh can't run
for the you know for the follow on term. Okay? So that way it's a cover and it keeps the politics out. So that's all I have to say. >> Thank you, councelor. Des I know everybody hasn't spoken, but can I just
respond because I I think it's important to remember >> absolutely >> the language that we sent off to the legislature for the current vacancy. I don't remember the date, but I think we did it back in May or June. It took them up until
what? They finally send it in November, >> November 12th, >> which is basically what we wanted to do was to appoint whoever won the election because at that point we felt it had been. But if a counselor passes away in January of a year that there's going to be an election, you don't even know who
might want to run for office. You need to have somebody in that seat. I I don't want to have a repeat of nobody being a counselor for over a year, longer than a year when there is a vacancy. I think
the sooner we can fill it, the better. And yes, there might be a um influence because they are sitting as a counselor if they decide to then run for office. But people could say, "Hey,
you know, that person's not doing the greatest job, so I'm not going to elect them. It'll be up to the board to decide who then continues." So, I don't personally see a problem with this. And I I don't I don't especially if someone
passes away in October or November, they're only they're only going to be replacing them for a couple of months. Then would the best choice be to elect I mean if it's November elect who or appoint who was elected to do it? Yeah probably it would make it easier
but the further out from that you go you don't know who's going to run for office. So that's >> thank you councelor Roi president >> to help maybe alleviate uh council ducet. Um, so we all voted for a
replacement school committee member a little while ago. So that's given that individual uh a leg up on if if you if you consider that. But I think councelor Roy's correct. If your performance is good or bad, I think that would play into it. And the current charter for at
large counselors, we would you whether they die January 2nd of the first year or November 1st of the second year, this body gets to appoint one. So that that the pol. So I
I I I understand where you I definitely understand the concern from a ward race perspective, but I I I don't think it's is is challenging be because what we're trying to do is fill the seat quickly because the way the current charter reads is the first 18 months we hold an
election, the last six months, you know, you know, so try to try to fix that. I think this is a good compromise that councilor Roby came up with to just make it, hey, first first 12 months, you know, we'll hold that election. It gives
the clerk's office plenty of time to run the show and get everything ready. The last 12 months, you know, we'll do it similar to what we do for at large and let the council make that decision. So, just just food for thought. >> Thank you, President Ning. Councelor Fchello.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, you know, I happen to agree with with counselors Oing and Roby here. I think that um in the same breath with the school committee appointment, I had gotten an opportunity to speak to some of the candidates before they had come before us, right? And so I I would like to think that a future council would ask
that question. Do you plan to seek a full term on this seat? Right? And obviously that person can change their mind and they could, you know, tell us no and then run for that seat, right? That's that's a possibility. But I'd like to think that that that would be a part of kind of the council going through that process of figuring out who they're going to appoint. I know um uh
in the past the council's been deliberate in you know choosing the spouse of a a counselor who's deceased or something along those lines um to ensure that we try to stay away from giving somebody an unfair incumbency advantage but um I'd like to think it'd be a very unique situation if that were to happen um and for those reasons I do
support um the way that the the language is worded now. Thank you madam chair. >> Thank you councelor Fchillo. Um any further discussion? >> Councelor Ducet. >> Thank you. Um, so I think there's a difference between at large and ward because at large it's a
collection, you know, four seats out of a collection. So having that get appointed seems to be reasonable. But in the ward in a ward seat, what I would do in in this case is I would just say whoever gets appointed can't run for the next term, next election. If they they
get appointed by the council, they can't run. They're a steward. They cover the rest of the term and then it's over. Okay, that's the change I would have preferred to see. Okay, that whoever gets appointed can't run for the next term for award C.
>> Thank you, Councelor Ducet. Um I actually So in in my failing in opinion, um having not pulled papers for um for my seat for the next term, um I didn't
really see much interest in people filling this seat. Um but also the the voting numbers are so dismal in the number of people who voted
to elect me to this seat based on the number of people who were in the ward. I personally feel comfortable that in the last 12 months that this body would be able to appoint somebody and um I would
really hope that it wouldn't give someone an unfair advantage because like councelor Roby had stated I feel like somebody could unimpress people just as much as they could impress people. So, um I do cons
continue to support this and um did you have any other comments? >> I can't make any motion on this floor, >> so I can't make any changes at this point. >> Oh, just for any further comment. >> Yeah, I I I stated my claim, right? I
don't think that we should be making decisions that can impact a ward campaign and the best way to do it is whoever gets appointed. This this what happened twice in 10 years. I mean Bob Paige and Don Landrew, right?
Twice in 10 years. Don Land Don died in January. Bob died in October. Okay. But so it's not a common occurrence, but it does happen. And I can't make any motions at this,
but I do feel that, you know, the only way to make sure that the decisions on the council do not affect the ward uh voting is to basically say whoever gets appointed can't run for reelection, can't run for another, you know, they're
they're elected to complete the term and not run in the following term. Two years later, they can run. So my concern about that is what if that person is the only one who even wants the seat? Now we've
basically said that they may not run. >> So regardless of Ward campaigns, what you're saying is, you know, sooner or later someone has to run. Okay? And trust me, I've seen what happened when
if no one's good's running, then yeah, you know, some people can get in that maybe shouldn't have gotten in. I'm not saying names or anything, right? But, you know, that is about making sure that people do get involved in politics,
okay? And but I still think uh any you know for in a ward election if the council appoints someone for a ward seat that's going to influence the election the next election.
>> So thank you >> and I I said my piece and I'm done. >> Okay, councelor Roby. Um I appreciate your input. I I I guess I would just if you're adamantly if you're that strongly uh thinking you could always amend on
the floor when this comes back to the council. But for me and I know looking at the tapes when this was discussed I think the last time around the the members of the council were conflicted. Do we make them not run? Do we let them
run? And I don't remember maybe counciling does. I thought legal had said you can't tell them that they can't run. That's >> correct. >> You can't put that kind of a punishment on someone who is stepping forward to fill a vacancy. If they want
to run, let them run and let them take their chances, then once the vacancy is over and they start fresh again. So, if you want to bring your motion in, fine. But I know I will personally be opposed to making that request. Thank
you, >> Councelor Pella. >> Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And you know, I agree, Councelor Roby. I would worry that even the kind of disenfranchisement of a single voter, right, you know, that person who would take that seat and ultimately be running for re-election, not running for re-election, you know, at the end of the
day as a voter as well. And I think to to bar them from running for office would be a slippery slope legally, especially for us as a city. Um, on that same note, I would just encourage I know we we there's a motion to approve the charter change, um, but to make sure it gets sent to the solicitor to be put in home rule petition form, um, and then to
carry it over to the next legislative session. I figure we won't be able to suspend and and report this out at the next meeting, but >> yeah, that's what I figured she that was the steps that had to be taken. >> Thank you. >> I guess if you need that language added into it. >> All good. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
>> Sure. That that's in your report. Yes, >> Council Rosing. No, I'm all set. Councelor Pillo did a fine job. >> Okay. So, if there is no further discussion, a motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor?
Three in favor? The motion carries. And I will entertain another motion. >> Madam Chair, >> Council Pella, >> really quickly, thank you. I seeing that it's the end of December. This might be your last committee that you get to chair with us. So, thank you for your leadership on LNL. And with that move to
adjurnn. >> A motion has been made and seconded to adjurnn. And I thank councelor Fchillo for his kind words. All those in favor? Three. Motion carries. 300. The meeting is adjourned at 7:16.
Good evening everyone. I'm going to call the city council urban affairs and housing committee meeting to order. It's December 11th, 7:30. We have one item on our agenda. Order number 251009540. A special permit application from attorney Jim Mashman on behalf of JC
Residential and Light Commercial LLC for outdoor storage is an accessory use for the warehouse located at 1000 Nickerson Road. I believe attorney Kashman is here. If you want to come into the well and if you have other people that you want to come with you, they're certainly
welcome. If you would introduce them, please. and if you have any opening remarks. Otherwise, I thank you for letting this go through to next year and for your patience as we've worked
through all of this with the attorneys or the solicitor's office and then trying to get this scheduled with people's schedules. So, thank you Thank you. Gemma Cashman from Dave Pittney uh appearing on behalf of the applicant JC
Residential and Light Commercial LLC. Uh with me tonight, um I have two uh people from Lincoln Property Companies, Dante and Andeluchcci and Connie. >> Weakula. We struggle with that. Thank you. Um, so I just want to make a few remarks
tonight just in light of all of the information that has developed. Um, and just to remind the counselors of the project since it's been quite a bit of time since we've appeared before you. Sure. >> Um, so we're seeking consideration to grant a special permit pursuant to section 65017 uh specifically for outdoor storage for
purposes of an accessory use to support the applicant's adjacent use of the property. Um, so first I just want to remind the counselors that this is truly a non-nuisance use that will be screened from view. The project does not include expanding the existing building in any way. The outdoor storage area will
merely just occupy a portion of the existing parking lot and there will still be adequate parking on site. There's no changes to the vehicular traffic flow. Existing lighting will remain the same. There's be no new increase in noise or air pollution or changes to water sewer. So really this outdoor storage is truly a light
non-nuisance use. Um the outdoor storage will be screened from the street as we showed on the sighteline views that we've previously provided. Uh there will be a fence. Storage areas will not be visible from the street. Uh this is truly an ancillary use and it's completely necessary for the applicant's business and it can't be fully
operational without it. Their occupancy will result um in increased tax revenue for the city. So it's truly a benefit. Um and just to reiterate, we continue to agree with the current building commissioner's interpretation that our proposal meets the intent of section 65018A note 26. Um, and on that note, I
just want to emphasize our reliance on the building department signoff here. Both JC Residential and the Lincoln teams met with both the prior building commissioner as well as the current building commissioner on multiple and separate occasions uh confirming that the outdoor storage is permitted with a
special permit and it's not only for manufacturing and assembly of vehicles. We had two meetings with them with uh the current commissioner, Bill Payton. He signed our application without taking issue with this language. Uh we've also received a building permit and TCO sign off in August. Uh and as you've seen,
it's in your packet. There's an email from Commissioner Payton supporting his previous determination. And just to briefly touch on Massachusetts statutory law, case law, and the current Marorrow zoning ordinance. The building inspector's role here is truly the zoning enforcement agent. Uh Mass
General Laws, Chapter 143, Section 3 uses this language. Massachusetts General Laws 48, section 7. it really truly charges the building commissioner with the enforcement of the zoning ordinance and they are the primary enforcement authority. That language is also mirrored in the zoning ordinance.
Um there's also case law that talks about how the building inspectors truly have the inherent authority to make the zoning compliance determinations as part of their enforcement duties including the power to determine whether a particular land use complies with the zoning requirements. So here J I just
want to emphasize that JC residential undoubtedly exercised appropriate due diligence and engaged in good faith reliance on a government officials representations and actions in our meetings in signing on the application and issuing the the building permit. Um
here we have a strong argument for equitable estoppel and detrimental reliance as Mr. Angeluchcci will talk about in a minute. You know, here we truly had good faith and relied upon the building commissioner's actions and we incurred extensive obligations and expenses that would be truly highly
inequitable and unjust if you know we our rights are taken away here. So the developer incurred permanent and substantial obligations that render enforcing the ordinance highly inequitable. Um so lastly I just want to emphasize on why we disagree uh based on
the interpretation of the city solicitor. So listening to the 2005 meetings and really looking into the true intent of the language here was to deter outdoor storage to protect the sound surrounding areas. I understand that there was um comments from
abutterss and there was true concern about you know they don't want to litter the whole area with lots of outdoor storage and vehicles piling up and lighting and all these other nuisance obligations. Um, so really I think we just need to focus on that the purpose of the zon zoning ordinance here is to promote and conserve the health and
general welfare of the inhabitants of the city and you know the intent here is not to spread outdoor storage throughout the city. It's that's not the intent. It's it's the idea was to restrict it and I do think that there can be a reading where light non-nuisance manufacturing is in and of itself a
separate phrase and if you look at the current zoning ordinance that is light manufacturing is a separate use and when you look at automobile related uses throughout the town and in the zing zoning ordinance I mean those uses aren't really allowed in the LA district now when you look at the language so it
just that deduction just doesn't make sense as the zoning ordinance reads today. Um, so just to wrap it up and turn it over to Mr. Angeluchcci, I just want to emphasize that the true intent here behind the footnote was to protect the the neighbors and the abutters from noise, 24-hour operation disturbances,
and they discuss, yes, the car manufacturing in light of MHQ's use, and I understand that history, but the true intent here is to protect the neighbors from nuisance. And here we have a nonuisance light manufacturing use. So respectfully, we're of the opinion that
a full-scale use analysis is really not appropriate at this time. We went through that process with the building commissioner. He made it a determination and issued a building permit. It was not appealed. So, we're here before city council and you know whether or not we meet the test for granting a special
permit and I think I think we do. So, turn over to Dante. >> Uh my name is Dante Angeluchi, Lincoln Property Company. I'm here representing our tenant. Um, Madame Chairwoman, members of the committee, um, prior to us even executing a lease with the
tenant, we went and met with the building commissioner to ask about this use and at that time he felt that the use was appropriate under this the existing zoning, made that determination as chief zoning official. Um, from that we then went back and we additionally we
we talked to him at that first meeting about the outdoor storage and the need of that for the specific tenant. the tenant made it very clear that that was something that they needed to have happen. Um to you know again I think you know at this point it's really you know we it was detrimental reliance uh on what the building commissioner told us
we could do and we spent a million and a half dollars building out of space for a tenant who's probably going to leave and frankly we the building was vacant for two years. It took us two years to find a tenant. We bring in a multinational tenant which is a great thing for business in Malboro and for taxes in
Malber. And we had the second, you know, affirmation from the building commissioner who's currently in the position again as a chief zoning official making that determination yet again that it's an appropriate use for this for this site. Um, and coming to the the council to try and get this
outdoor permit, which again was the premise by which we secure the tenant, that they believe that this was something that was allowed, the building commissioners told us was allowed. And now we're in a position where we have a, you know, still a a very significant portion of this building vacant. And we're telling the business world that,
you know what, the city officials can tell us something. We can go forward, sign a lease, come in and try and get the space to utilize it in the way that we told the building commissioner we're going to do it. And then the city's going to come back 6 months later and say, "Nah, you know what? That's we're not going to do that." And that's just not good business. And you know,
frankly, if we lose the tenant, uh, the big building's going to be vacant for more than two years. And frankly, we're going to come back for tax abatements because the bu building's vacant. We can't use it. And we're not going to pay a tax base. It's going to, you know, be detrimental to us in terms of our existence as well. So again, I'm not
being that as a threat. I'm just telling you that's a reality for fiduciary responsibility to our investors. Uh we're going to have to our partners. We're going to have to come back. Uh because again, we've, you know, we've paid the taxes for two years in good faith. We came forward with a tenant. We did the process the way we felt we were supposed to do the process. Got that
affirmation. had that conversation, secured a lease, and now our tenants is frustrated and upset about the fact that we're get struggling to try and get the outdoor storage that they told us from day one we needed. And we received that, you know, indication from the building commissioner who actually said that they would actually come and speak in favor
of that as well at these meetings. So, uh, that's essentially all I wanted to say. If there's any questions, we're happy to answer them. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate both of you for your comments. I know this has been um a lot of people looking at
the tapes, a lot looking at the um the minutes. I had sent the information to all of the city council so they had the opportunity. I don't know how many of them actually reviewed. I know I have a a differing opinion. Um it's 2025. This
zoning change was done in 2005. I have no idea if up until now there have been applications that were denied from prior building commissioners. But to me, if this goes through, that means the
potential for other manufacturers in Liy to do outdoor storage is opened up. And that was not the intent of the council in 2005 to allow manufacturers to have outdoor storage. They made it very clear. Um, so I guess I'm going to start
off by not in reading it entirely, but to read part of the letter we got from the solicitor. Um, at issue is a matter of statutory construction. how to interpret the word and and the underlined sentence above which was outdoor storage is allowed as
an accessory use in a limited industrial district only for light nuisance manufacturing and assembly of specialized vehicles for use by municipal state and other public officials. Um, one reading of the sentence is that
in the LI outdoor storage is allowed as an accessory use only to a use that is both light non-nuisance manufacturing and assembly of specialized vehicles for use by municipal state and other public agencies. Alternatively,
and can be used in a descriptive sense where the word and implicit implicitly repeats as the preceding word to each phrase. So in the LI outdoor storage is allowed as an accessory use only to a use that is light non-nuisance
manufacturing and only to a use that is assembly of specialized vehicles for use by municipal state and other public agencies. In my opinion both readings are possible and it is necessary to consider the context and intent. When the intent is ambiguous
from the words of a statute, a court looks to external sources such as legislative history and interprets the statue according to the intent from all its words considered in connection with the cause of the enactment so as to render the statute effective. He's
citing city of Worester versus Cole. The underlined sentence in section 65018A26 was adopted as part of a zoning amendment in 2005. Section 65018A26 limits outdoor storage in Alli in
contrast to the BCA and I districts by not allowing it to be an accessory to any permitted use but rather to only a very specific use. In reviewing the 2005 discussion by the urban affairs committee, including seeking opinions
from city officials at the time, I find the intent was to create an ordinance that would narrowly limit outdoor storage to be accessory to a specific use and type of user that would manufacture vehicles for municipal, state, and public agencies. I understand
the building department has provided its determination that outdoor storage is allowed by special permit in this case as a principal use qualifies as light non-nuisance manufacturing and has a different interpretation of the section section where ambiguities
exist in the language of a zoning ordinance. A court is likely to give deference to a local board's reasonable interpretation of its own zoning ordinance because the local board is deemed to have special knowledge about the history and purpose of its zoning so
long as there is a rational basis. Again, he cites Petrillo versus the zoning board of appeals. Accordingly, the city council and its urban affairs committee may consider how to apply section 65018A26 to the pending application consistent
with the rules of statutory construction noted above. I also provided counselors with the comments that I had received when I requested information from three people who still reside in Malboro who
served on the city council and were on the uh two of them on the actual urban affairs committee. Um their comments from Mr. Clancy. I have had a chance to review the material and videos of the urban affairs meeting in 2005. The request to the council was for the
relocation of a local business MHQ to a larger facility within the city. The facility was to be located in an already leased building on Elm Street, zoned LI. Outdoor storage of vehicles processed and unprocessed was needed. A request to
allow for storage would require a change in the zoning code. An amendment to allow it was introduced by attorney David Gabboy to the city to the council. The Urban Affairs Committee reviewed the request and approved the proposed language. It approved outdoor
storage is allowed as an accessory use in a limited industrial district only for light non-nuisance manufacturing and assembly of specialized vehicles for use by municipal, state, and other agencies. There should be no separation of the word manufacturing and assembly. It all
ties together. Only a business similar to MHQ would qualify or fit into this portion of the ordinance. They would have to be in the business of assembling vehicles similar to police or municipal vehicles. If any other clarification is needed, I'm always available to assist.
And from Trish Pope, I had a chance to review everything last evening. I believe the permit was written as written was for an MHQ type business only. The and in my opinion indicates that both uses are tied together. Outdoor storage is allowed. I won't
repeat, we keep doing repeating. Hindsight is 2020 and although I asked at the meeting, this could be considered spot zoning. The language was written specially for an MHQ type business only to give the ward counselors peace of mind reszoning all the LI.
It was stated by attorney Gadboy that this was not spot zoning. However, it was also stated that only an MHQ type of business is the only business that would meet the requirements of this resoning and to their knowledge at the time there were no other types of business. There in lies the problem. I believe if you
were not present in 2005 and could be considered as tying two different statements together. And from Mora Naven Webster, thanks for reaching out and for sharing your notes in the minutes. As I recall, because of the concern that this change applied to all LII zones and not
just the one in question, we were diligent in finding a solution that would not open the city up to an abundance of outdoor storage. That solution was a very narrow definition of the allowed storage and use. The word and is used to define one very narrow
use inclusive of both characteristics rather than or or andor which would seemingly allow for either use. I hope that helps. And then I put in the uh comments that I got from Bill Payton, the building commissioner.
After considerable consideration and review of the urban affairs tapes of 2005 as well as the information provided from JC residential and light commercial LLC, I am standing behind my zoning determination le letter that they can apply for a special permit for outdoor
storage as the business meets the requirement for light non-nuisance manufacturing. as I read the footnote 26 in chapter 65018 that the light non-nuisance manufacturing and the assembly of specialized vehicles for use by municipal state and public agencies
are two separate and distinct items. I understand that urban affairs in 2005 was trying to limit as much as possible outdoor storage in the LI and I districts and my interpretation of the zoning code still aligns with that limit as there would be few instances that the
light non-nuisance manufacturing would potentially require outdoor storage and I will disagree with him because I will read the definition of light non-nuisance manufacturing as was pointed out by the petitioner
um light non-nuisance as defined in section 655 of the zoning ordinance as fabrication, assembly, processing, finishing work or packaging in such a manner that noise, dust, vibration or similar objectionable features are confined to the premises
which opens up to any manufacturer in my opinion. Um, I I didn't read it, but councelor Oing in replying to several emails that only went to myself and I think the solicitor had commented I was
present in 2005 and reviewed the tapes. I believe they are independent. They can be light non-nuisance manufacturing without being an MHQ. If the council believes there's an ambiguity in the wording, recommend a zoning amendment to clarify, which I would certainly agree
with. Um, we do have the uh opinion the we do have the draft which was sent to us late. I do apologize for that too. I noticed in the packet that we didn't have any uh draft special permit. I will quickly just go through the comments that we did receive
from the um department heads this evening as they were kind enough to get that to us. Uh from the Marbor Fire Department, the police department and the board of health. They actually had no comments. Uh neither did engineering.
Priscilla Ryder from conservation had suggested amending number five in the conditions which is fencing to add at this end of the this fencing shall comply with the requirements of all applicable city ordinance and then adding the words and will require a
fence permit from the building department. And the building department had replied that they agree with that addition. So, I'm going to open it up if anybody has any beginning questions, comments, and if not, then I'm going to
go through the special permit and then we can open it up for discussion. Councelor Ducet. >> Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Um, so I I see there's two issues here. Um, first is I hope Malro is business friendly enough you don't scare off
businesses trying to get into Boston. Sorry, Malro. Put that on the table. Now, if we need to change the zoning to reflect reality of 2025, you know, um, you know, the the nuisance assembly, you know, manufacturing,
what typically would end up happening, very similar to what they they're probably going to do is if it's being worked on, it's brought in the shop and when it's done worked on, they put it outside. Okay? They don't necessarily bring the tools out to that. They bring it inside to do the work. So I don't I
what we should be doing is taking what was in 2005 and cleaning it up so that if someone wants to do light manufactur light industry and they want to do some outdoor storage let them get a special permit have it come to us you know
whichever way it needs to be and then we figure it out from there and we make we call the shots you know um what this is showing is we got to do something like that to clean it up okay but I don't want to scare these guys out of town. So that's all I need to say. >> Any other comment? Councelor Fillo.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um completely agree with councelor Ducet there. I think if there's something to be cleaned up, right, it it shouldn't be at the expense of this in particular case, right? That's something we have to do outside of this. I agree with um the interpretation that and is distributive. Um the fact that it is it is not um you
know, these are not a joint case, right? Um a light non-nance manufacturing in this case is is what we're looking at. And so I think um you know we can look at this project on its own merits um go through the special permit and I would be in favor of this. So with that I turn it back to you. Thank you madam chair.
>> Any further comments questions? All right I'm quickly going to go through the decision of the special permit. Um it is a uh city council of the city of Marboro grants the application for a special permit to JC Residential and Light
Commercial LLC having a usual place of business at 2443 Ash Street, PaloAlto, California as provided in the decision and subject to the following findings of facts. The applicant JC Residential and Light Commercial LLC is a limited liability company organized under the
laws of the state of Delaware. Registered as a foreign limited liability company in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts having a usual place of business at 243 Ash Street, PaloAlto. The applicants the current tent the building located at 1000 Nickerson Road
Marble Massachusetts as shown on the Marble Assessors map 88 parcel 36 the site on August 14th 2025 the applicant filed with the city clerk of the city of Malber and application to city council for issuance of the special permit here
and after referred to applicant. I will note that the the packet indicates that this was date stamped on the 15th. The letters dated the 14th. So, I'll let the solicitor decide which date should be in here. But, uh, under article 5, section
6517 of the city of Malboro zoning ordinance. The applicant proposes outdoor storage as an accessory use to one of the permitted uses in the zoning district in which the main building and lot is located where housing and light non-nuisance manufacturing sites located
in the LI zoning district as shown on the plans referenced in paragraph 7. The use will consist of an outdoor storage area that will occupy a portion of the existing parking lot at the site which will be secured with a 12-oot chain link
fence with mesh. the project in connection with the applicant. The applicant submitted an application to the city council for issuance by special permit, the filing fee, special permit, uh I missed the abuter's list, the special permit application, certification, tax payment and
authorization letter from the owner and the site plan dated August 7th, 2025. The applicant was certified as complete by the building commissioner of the city. site has an area of 12 plus or minus acres as shown on the plans and pursuant to the rules and regulations of
the city of Malboro. The city council established October 6th as a date for a public hearing and the city clerk caused to be advertised notice of said hearing. City council opened the public hearing on October 6th and closed the public
hearing. The applicant through its representatives presented testimony at the public hearing detailing the use describing its impact upon municipal services, the neighborhood and traffic at the public hearing. No members of the public spoke in favor or opposition.
Based on the following, the city council makes the following findings and takes the following actions. The applicant has complied with all the rules and regulations promulgated by the city council as they pertain to special permit applications. City Council finds that the proposed use at the sites in
appropriate use and in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance when subject to the appropriate terms and conditions as provided herein. The city council makes these findings subject to the completion and adherence by the applicant at successors and or assigns to the conditions and were fully set forth
herein. City Council, pursuant to its authority under MGL chapter 4A, grants the applicant a special permit for outdoor subject outdoor storage as an accessory use subject to the
following conditions. Number one, construction in accordance with applicable law. Construction of all structures on the site shall be in accordance with all applicable building codes and zoning regulations in effect in the city of Marble in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and shall be built
according to the plans. Two, modification of plans. The city council may approve engineering plan changes to the plans so long as said changes do not change the use as approved herein or materially increase the impervious use of the area, reduce the green area,
alter traffic flow or increase the size of the building. All as shown on the plans. Any modification of the conditions of the special permit or the uses approved herein shall first require modification of the special permit. Number three, compliance with applicable
laws. The applicant shall comply with all applicable municipal, state, and federal rules, regulations, and ordinances they may apply to the construction, maintenance, and operation of the project and the use at the site, including without limitation compliance with local conservation commission
orders. the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act and the State Building Code. Number four, incorporation of submissions, all plans, photo rendering, site evaluations, briefs and other documentation provided by the applicant as part of the application and as amended or revised during the
application hearing process before the city council andor the city council's urban affairs committee are here and incorporated into and become a part of this special permit and become conditions and requirements of the same unless otherwise altered by the city council. Number five, fencing. In accordance with
section 61518A48 of the zoning ordinance, the applicant shall install solid fencing to screen areas of the site used for the storage of equipment and materials from the street and adjacent properties and shall maintain the fencing in good repair. The
fencing shall comply with the requirements of all applicable city ordinances. Does anybody have an objection to adding in the um and will require a fence permit from the building department?
>> So move >> commissioner is okay. Yeah. >> Adding in that. All right. So I will make sure that that is noted. Number six is sign. Signage at the site shall comply with the city's sign ordinance. Number seven, noise and air quality. The applicant shall comply with the city's
noise ordinance and shall comply with all state and federal requirements governing air quality and emissions. Number eight, water supply protection district. Applicants shall comply with all requirements of the city's water supply protection district. And this decision does not authorize any
exception to the prohibitions on uses and requirements of said ordinance. And number nine is our typical recording of decision. So with that, I will >> motion to approve as amended.
>> All right, it's been moved and seconded to approve. I will open it up for comments uh for committee members for anybody else. Councelor Oing. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I I do appreciate your efforts, Madam Chair, on
the the the the subtleties of the wording. Um, but I think it's pretty clear we've got two building commissioners that have stated it's acceptable. The solicitor in my, you know, he put his opinion down, but basically said it's going to
fall on the determination of the building uh commissioner who is the zoning enforcement officer. Um, I was on the committee or I was in the council in 2005. I was not on the committee and I know attorney Gadboy said it wasn't
spot zoning but they worked very hard to craft it such that you could have light non-nuisance indust manufacturing and the MHQ and I think the testament has been no one's actually asked for this at
least in since 2005 from my standpoint I don't remember any special permit coming before us asking to uh fence and store anything outside and it's a good company. It's filling a vacant building. We just set the tax
rate. We need tax revenue. Um to hold this up because of some, you know, discussions or interpretations of the word and I I don't think would be appropriate. I think what would be appropriate is move this thing through on its merits. And if we think the word is in and we think there's going to be a
rush to store stuff outside, let's submit a zoning change and just clarify it. I mean, but don't I I wouldn't hold this one up. I mean, this one, if you've been up to the 10,000 Nickersonson, you can't see it. It's up on a hill. There's 40 to 50 foot pine trees all around. So,
you can't see it from Route 20, Hayes Memorial, or Nickerson. And then we're going to have them put a fence around it because the rules say we have to, which I get, but you just can't see it. And it's a good company that personally I want in Marro to be here. Um, so for
that, um, Madam Chair, I hope the council looks fa f urban looks favorably on the the zoning change and and I would encourage if if we're really concerned about that wording, let's put a zoning change in. We we we've got that power to do that and we'll just fix it. we'll
just cross it out or fix it whatever way we want. I think that would be appropriate. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Thank you, Councelor Oing. And I do appreciate your comments. I also appreciate the fact that we need funds, but I think as soon as we approve this, um, we don't need to change the zoning
because the current building commissioner has already said they're two separate things. So, any other light manufacturing permit that comes in, he's going to approve and he's going to move it forward. And I believe you are wrong. I think the solicitor's letter says it's
the local board's reasonable interpretation of its own zoning ordinances. So to me a reasonable interpretation is what the 2005 urban affairs and city council approved
and three members from that council have stated that it was very clear that the and combined the two but did not separate them into two separate things. Um so I'm sticking with my opinion. I
had a conversation with councelor Presiato. He apologized for not being able to come. He also supports no on this. It's not clear. I did have a conversation with councelor Naven, but I don't want to put words in his mouth because he didn't give me a yes or no.
He just seemed like he was leaning toward a no. But um I am hoping that the council votes no. And if we want to go and change this, I would almost prefer that we change it back to no storage in
LI, even if it creates a pre-existing non-conforming use because rumors are that use is going to go away. Um, rather than allowing outdoor storage in LI because I don't want to see outdoor
storage. Neither did the 2005 council. So, I'm adamantly opposed to that. Um, but with that, I will uh allow Councelor Brown, I think she's the one who hasn't spoken yet, and then I'll go back to you, Council Offing. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Madame Chair. Um, when I look at this um this request for me, I'm I'm just looking at this request from this body in front of us here. And this is this is in my neck of the woods. I I
live down on that end of town and very very familiar with the area and um I really appreciate that, you know, there's a tenant that wants to come in and utilize the space and I feel like this for me makes sense for that area.
And so for this particular um for this particular ask, I would vote in favor of it. And as President Oing had stated um that if you know if the council or committee feels strongly about the wording to then pursue um a zoning
change in the future. Thank you. >> All right. Councilor Austin, did you have further comments? >> Yeah, but I I want to give everyone else I'm sorry looking this direction. >> Council Fello was going to speak. Let him go for >> Council Fill. >> Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you guys. Um just real quick that you
know I I I appreciate kind of the perspective we've been given and gone back and watched the video from 2005 but um even looking there I feel like in 2005 there was real ab butter concern about that particular project right um you know I maybe they were looking you
know beyond that too citywide sure but I think the the main concern was to limit the use to protect the neighbors at the time and I really think we're far from that in this case right that that we're just not seeing that this is a non nuisance use um you know it's screened from the neighbors like like President
Austin said there's no light trespass there's no additional building being created in any way um it's going to be fenced but also has that natural barrier of the trees um you know so again kind of like council brown had you you had mentioned just looking at this based on its merits I think this is a really
strong project and you know I stand in in in in the affirmative to approve this tonight thank you madam chair >> councelor ducet >> thank you very much madam chair um so the The outdoor storage immediately got me to thinking about the airport because there's a whole bunch of outdoor
storage. It's called contractor yards, but still, you know, in its light ind industry area. I I think that, you know, they these guys should be allowed to enter our city and provide jobs. Okay. I think that what they brought up is
something that we need to address and we need to fix, but it shouldn't impede them. we need to go back and get do our homework as far as fixing the wording to be either andor or something and make it drive to a special permit versus um just letting the building inspector approve
it because in the case of you know Nickerson Road where it's an industrial area there's no neighbors right so it doesn't matter much you know the airport has a handful of neighbors no one cares you know but if they're going to put it someplace
you know off of conquered street or one of the other streets, different conversation to have, right? But, you know, like some other part of light industry zone that does have some neighbor neighborhoods adjacent to it. Not necessarily that one, but you know,
just making sure that we can supervise it and either accept it or deny it. Okay? And in this case, I think there's no reason why we should not accept it. It's it's in the middle of like the industry. It's surrounded by other businesses. You know, let them do what they want.
let them bring the jobs into the city. >> Any any further comments? >> Councelor Austin. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. So So again, I know you got comments from some of my peers in 2005. Doesn't mean I have to agree with their perspective. Again,
you've all looked at the tape and you've all drawn your own opinions. Um there's no rush of applicants looking to do outdoor storage. So, if we want to change the zoning, this is where I'll disagree with you, change the zoning,
put a zoning change in the beginning of January to say no outdoor storage. The ones that are approved are grandfathered in and then there'll be no more outsource storage and limited industrial. I mean, if that if if you feel that strongly about it, but there is no rush on people to ask the city
council for permission to do outdoor storage and limited industrial. There just isn't. We've got a good company that's following the rules that the zoning enforcement officer said is okay to do. I just I think we're getting hung up on
some wording issues that I I don't believe are there because I still go back to I disagree. There was a big discussion on spot zoning and those words were put in there to help eliminate the fact that we weren't doing it just for MHQ. and you
you we'll all have our own interpretations of that tape, but I was there and I I just disagree, but that's okay. Um, but I would encourage urban affairs and the council to support this special permit. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Thank you. So, I guess we can all agree
to disagree and have our own opinions and uh see where this goes as it comes back through. Um, my plan is to report this out on Monday once the vote is taken. Um there are two committee members missing.
So it will be a vote of the three of us that are here. Um but report it out, carry it over to next um year, re suspend the rules on Monday so it can be referred to the solicitor to be put in proper form so he may make some changes.
And then at the second meeting in January, the date to be determined by whoever is president and when the C calendar is set, uh, the council would then vote on this. So that's kind of the procedure of where we are at this point.
So further comments. All right. Hearing none. All those in favor of approving as amended, recommending approval. So two and I will vote opposed. And as I said, I will um get a report written up and
this will be on the agenda for Monday. You're certainly welcome to come, but you don't have to. And then we'll let you know when that calendar is set for when this will be back on the agenda. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> It's been moved and seconded to adjurnn. All those in favor? All right, we are
adjourned at 8:10. Thank you.