Okay, there it being roughly 6:30 December 17th, I'm going to start the zoning vote of appeals off with the pledge of allegiance. I >> pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the stand
with justice for all. >> To start the meeting off, we had um two months ago, one of our members passed away, Ray Elias. uh he had been with us for several years and he was a very valuable member of our team. Spent a lot of time researching things. So if you
don't mind, I'd like to have just a moment of silence just to sort of remember Ray. Okay. Thank you. uh George Seljus has taken over Ray's position and I think as as a regular member and I know Ry would have liked that because George and Ray were good
friends and I think he even had mentioned that you know when during his illness that that he would like you to uh to take over his position. So George uh welcome to the rank of the members of of the zoning board that that
leaves Janice now our only alternate. So uh uh I we will be in full strength though in January we will have a new member coming in but I'll talk about that later. >> Uh just a little bit about Ray though if
anybody had gone to his um his wake and funeral I mean he Ray was very well known in in the town. I mean he was very very uh active in youth athlet athletics for forever. He was a Vietnam uh vet. He
served on this board for several years. So, I mean, in order to get to the I mean, they actually had to have police uh directing traffic outside of Potter. He was he he had that many people knew him in the town. So it was it was good
to see that uh uh the uh how many people came to see him and and what I found interesting when I when I talked to the family is uh they were very very well well aware of of his work with the zoning board because they talked to him quite a bit about it because he was I
mean you know he really got into it. I mean he you know he researched things so uh you know it was good to see that you know that that was a big part of his life. So anyway, moving on. Our first hearing tonight is 15 Bob Street. It's
an application of Francisco Reposa and Kerry Reposa for variance from the front yard requirement of 25 ft as mandated by zoning bylaw article 7 section 7.7 to a setback of 18 feet caused by an
engineering contracting error. Subject property is located at 15 Bob Street, Westport, Mass and shown on Mass uh assessor's map 24 lot 18V. The way we're going to do this, I'm going to have the petitioner or petition representative come up, provide whatever information is
pertinent. Um the the board will then ask questions and once the board has finished asking question, I'll open it up to the public. Voting on this will be Jerry Ricatino, myself, Roger Manard, Constance G, uh,
George Selius, and Cynthia Kazakitz. Um, since this is a variance, it requires um a vote of four of the five members in order to pass. Uh, I'm going to start off by reading what sort of prompted this. It's a
letter from the zoning enforcement officer. Uh, dear Mr. Uh Eert, I have received an asbuilt for the garage expansion at 15 Bob Street on 23 on June 23, 2025.
An inspection of the foundation was done and copy of the asbuilt was as requested. I only just received the asbuilt on October 20th, 2025. The rough frame of of the structure was not signed off since no electric was installed and windows doors were not installed. There
is a setback violation with regard to the front setback where 25 ft is required. The asbuilt indicates an 18 ft setback. Letter has been sent to the owner to apply for a variance on the front yard setback. If you have any questions,
please call me. So anyway, that is what prompted this. So, uh, the petitioners. >> Yes. >> Just name and address and then you you know whatever 15 Bob Street. >> Uh, what's the name?
>> Eric Reposo. >> We uh had the foundation put in in June. contractor started framing the thing like uh over a month later and it was October when I had fired him
because he did the he didn't go by the plans so regardless the foundation was put in the building was put up and then on October and it was it September was October >> October >> he a guy comes to my house and says I
have to survey your And I'm like, "What are you talking about?" And he says, "Oh, we Paul Heert, which he was already I had already got rid of him." >> He was the contractor. Okay. >> And no one told me about this >> when originally was put in. I have 26 ft
from the edge of the foundation to the street. >> Say that's not enough. >> Okay. But >> because it's not the edge of the street, it's the >> I understand that, but I It's the building's up. It was never done. It's the contractor. How can I go say, you
know, it was all I applied for a permit. It was all done. I had no idea about you applied to the permit to Ralph. >> No, Paul did. >> Oh, okay. >> The contractor. >> The contractor. >> Yes.
>> We had plans all drawn up. >> We had plans drawn up. Everything was supposed to go. I had no idea. >> Mhm. And then it's I'm being told it's not far back enough, >> right? >> But the building's up, >> right? >> It's like it's it's I'm I'm I'm saying
it's his fault because it should have been done immediately, not 3 4 months later. >> Okay. Um Ralph Ralph is the zoning enforcement officer and and the building inspector. He's >> Can you fill us in on this? >> Yeah. the the permit application we
applied for for the garage is a 20 foot 5 in garage by 36 foot garage attached um the s the um proposed site plan uh indicated that it was going to be 26 ft from the to the front property line >> from the property line okay
>> property line when I did the inspection on the foundation >> so when he when he put the application in it met the zoning >> it met the side setback maps the front set back maps was okay and there's no reason to send it here. >> Right. Okay.
>> So, when I went did the foundation inspection, it just didn't work right to me. So, I called it up and I told him I said, "I want an asbuilt plan done on that foundation." I called him up two or three times for it in my notes three times. >> You called up the contractor.
>> Contractor. Okay. Because he's >> he contractor of record. So he's responsible to get the building done, build the building code, and get any information I man. They didn't take a homeowner's exemption out. They weren't the contract. He was the contractor. He
was working for them. >> So I end up come to find out he's the foundation is 18 ft rather than the 26. >> It's 18 ft from the property line. >> Property line. >> It's probably 20 something feet to the street line. >> Right. Well, on the as building the
engineer put to the property line in >> he put the property line in. Okay. >> The the original guy put 26 feet to the property line measured it for the property line. So I wanted as confirmed to me when I went looking for >> I finally got it as built but I also got
a letter of I'm not I'm no longer associated with the project from the contract. >> Oh. >> So that left them holding a bag. >> Mhm. So, at this point, the building is built. I can't I couldn't do an official rough frame inspection on it because the
wiring wasn't in at the time. So, I left it and advised them they have to come here. >> Mhm. >> True to Paul. I sent them a letter. I said, "Paul, what to come here for a variance for this front yard setback." >> So, what I'm what I'm sort of getting
out of this is the homeowners believed that everything >> believed it was right. >> That it was right. They believed it was right. >> In other words, they hired the contractor. That's why they hired the contractor. They don't want to take on the responsibility. >> The people that don't want to take on responsibility. So, they hire contract,
>> right? And the contractor applied for the permit. applied for the permit, supplied the supply was done by an engineers, you know, and they said 26 property and send it here. At that point, when
the foundation gets put in, I go there, I look at it, it's doesn't look right. So I asked him for an asbel. It took a few times and if he falls by me to get him to get me an asbel got me the asbuilt that's when as true two true two position building 18 ft from the
property. >> That's when probably the new surveyor came out. That's when the sea came off. >> So we named that said. >> Are there any other issues with this new garage? >> Not to my knowledge. I mean I once this
is set and it's set and it it gives the green light to go then I'll go back and look at it >> for final inspection installations roughly final installations they installed ination. >> So this has like a concrete foundation. >> It's got a concrete foundation.
>> Okay. Right. This something can't be moved >> right >> now. You mentioned that there was um uh that he had submitted plans. We had plans drawn up. >> You have those plans. >> They should be with We submitted all the
plans already. >> I have plans here from Glen Mark. >> That's the That's not who did the plan. >> That would be right. >> It's here. It's this one. Um Jerry, this is where it says this one here. Right.
>> The one this one. Yeah, that's where it says it's >> Yeah, but I don't see He on there >> is not the engineer on on the application. >> Yeah, on the application. Yeah, >> his license, >> but not
>> that you're referring to that he >> that we had the plans drawn up on our own. >> I gave him those Ralph, would you know if if there are other houses in the vicinity that also
have structures that are closer to property? >> It appears to be a couple and then structures closer than >> than what's allowed by zoning. I mean, it looks like it on the uh >> on the uh >> but not but not close enough to for you
to automatically >> not Well, it's not. I mean, they've been I don't know when they've been built. Some of them they've been built in the past. >> Yeah. >> But there's not something that would like I'm going there for something else and and it would draw my attention.
Got you. >> Right. Right. generally um for a variance we require a hardship and and I guess we could say the hardship and this is contractor error but I mean it's I mean generally
according to right bylaws in order to get a variance you need a hardship based on the something to do with the property like there was a rock ledge somewhere or the stream running through it or something to do with the property that says that you can't put your garage where you would normally put it because
of u you know because of something to do with the property. >> I originally submitted plans for the garage to be wider and made it narrower because of the setback >> because of the the 10 foot set back from the side. I originally wanted to make it
24 ft wide. >> So you can have two-car garage. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Right. >> So now I had to make it smaller because of the side. >> Because the side set back >> and then I was told it was fine on the front. >> Right. Yes. I mean it's you know this is >> it's Yeah. I mean >> I mean it's not your fault. You know we
have to figure out and that's what we're here for. What do we do about it? >> Well there would have been plenty of room to push it back. It's not like they >> Right. >> Right. They got >> Well, I was out there today. Okay. >> And
yes, it's in violation. However, there's plenty of room to park a car in front. It has no impact on anybody around them. You could put two cars in in front.
>> The three cars, we line them up. >> I only saw one. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um, and there's I mean it's it's like 95% done. >> So that would be a hardship. They'd have
to come in, rip all that out. And right now your your power goes to a pole that's >> been like that since June. >> Sticking up in the the front of their yard. >> Mhm. >> Um, so I don't think they're hurting
anybody. It just it is in violation. >> Right. Right. >> I I agree with George. Uh uh there's uh I I don't think there's any real harm done here. It was not intentional. Um and um I believe the original reason for
having 25 foot on a corner lot is line of sight for traffic. And I don't think there's a a huge amount of traffic there or anything like that. Uh >> if the corner lot then it's 25 the side too. >> I'm sorry. What? It's if it's a corner lot, is it a corner lot?
>> Yes. >> Then it's 25 from the sides, too, isn't it? >> Yes. Both sides. >> But they don't have that. >> And that's what I'm saying to you that that it's primarily for traffic safety. So, you know, it's not blocking people's view as they get into an intersection.
But, uh, I don't think that's appropriate here in this case anyway. >> Right. But they're now the side this the the the means they have they need two variances because one side oh that's the 24 this >> yeah that's the opposite >> which the 24 one is the street side
>> from the opposite street yeah that we got most >> okay so this is this this is the street here >> it should be Francis is the other street >> I don't know from >> yes >> we got figur >> I'm sorry Francis the other
>> so That's on the other side. >> It's on the garage side. >> It's only 24 ft. >> It's a corner lot. So that's supposed to be 25. >> It's on the other but it's on the other side. It's not on the corner side. >> Yeah.
>> Right. It's on the the new the new building is >> right here. >> That's it, right? Is that it? >> And this is the street. So it's not >> But that's existing building. Oh, >> this one.
So it's this sort of >> but that's still this is only 24 ft though according to this here >> this is existing this is the new one >> right but oh so the existing is the guy never mind hello
it's it's cold out >> y >> I think part of the problem too is the street they say it's 40t is 22t >> 22t >> of asphalt >> that's right >> not 40 so you know measure like we have over 25 ft.
>> Right. Right. You know, on all streets, the town owns >> land beyond the the actual pavement. >> So, when you're mowing your front lawn, a lot of that >> stand. I never thought it was 8t 8 n >> 6 8 10. I mean, it's normally something
like at least six feet. >> Six feet. Well, it it gets more complicated because the paved asphalt on on many streets is not in the center, right? >> It's not like 10 feet on one side, 10 ft on the other. It could be two feet, >> right?
>> Or one foot. Uh so can't go by that. That's why that's why I'm saying it's an unintentional error on on your side. From your viewpoint, I don't see a problem. Well, again, you know, we have to we have to
wrestle with the variance and the hardship part of this. >> Correct. And I think >> and to me, the hardship here is that >> is based is based on >> an error by the contractor, >> right? >> It's already built.
>> It's not >> and it would be unreasonably uncostly >> to correct that, >> right? It's already been touchation. Don't. That's why I say I don't I don't think it's an issue. >> Yeah. You'd have to rip the whole front of the garage up.
>> Well, you got the foot, you know, foundation have to go. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's true. >> We haven't heard from the public yet. So, I don't know if there's any opposition, right, >> to this. >> So, Roger and Jerry, so since the street side is actually in not it's it's
existing building, but it's not in conformance. So, it's 24 ft instead of 25. >> Mhm. So, isn't this just a we're just making it more non-conforming and could we maybe whizzle it under a special permit?
>> Um, >> good question. >> Which is easier to >> Good question >> to to justify without making president here of a variance. I have my out. >> That's a good question.
>> I think so. You know, it also does not block any vision for driving because I took a picture >> because we live on that street. The only person pretty because there's only those few houses that would come down the street is usually the person that lives at the end across from like we don't
really have >> You're coming that way. >> It doesn't Yeah. It doesn't block you. doesn't either way because you go >> Bob to Bill >> and there's no interference. >> And if you do the reverse >> reverse,
>> there's no interference figuro. Again, I'm I'm I guess I'm still I I think I'm I would stay with keeping as a variance and just keeping the hardship as a as a as a mistake from the from the
uh from the contractor that was unavoidable. That's, you know, that the that the homeowners didn't know. But I'm I'm will be talked into making it into actually a finding would be more appropriate, right? in accordance with the Mass General laws pre-existing non-conforming structures their house
that that no such extension or alteration shall be permitted unless there's a finding by the board that such change extension or alteration shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming use of the neighborhood. I think that hits it right that hits it right on the >> Yeah, you're right. You're right. Uh uh
being a corner lot, you're supposed to have 25 feet on both corners. >> Yeah, >> you've only have 24 feet on one side. Correct. according to your >> right. >> So, so your house is a non-conforming that your you have a non-conforming lot. >> Well, actually, this makes it easier,
>> believe it or not. >> Uh because as as Cynthia noted, uh all you would need then instead of a variance is a finding that your modification is not more detrimental to the neighborhood.
that doesn't require then a uh the stricter guidelines of a variance which are that you have to have a you know >> relating a reason to do this. >> Yeah. Relating to soil condition, shape, typography of such land or structures but not affecting the general zoning district. Right. So I mean that's that's
a harder the variance is a harder one to filter. Varian are the hardest one and uh normally variance is the hardest thing to pass for the zoning board because because it has stricter rules. If you apply for variance, we can downgrade it to a
finding because it's a it's a less strict uh uh guideline. We can't go the other way because then we would have to then go to all your neighbors again with another uh with another letter. But um a a less strict uh guideline is something
that we can that we can do. And I mean uh how's how's the board feel about that? >> I think the finding I think it hits it on the head. >> I think it's better than us giving a variance with really isn't variance but then then we have them as president like we did for them >> right. Yes. >> You know
>> we've had a couple come in with you know not really contractor oopsies but they're like >> I I would like to hear from the public and and then we go from there. Yep. >> Yeah. >> Uh before we do that, any other questions? >> None. Then I'll open it up to the public.
>> And there's nobody here from the public, so >> we're good. >> I assume you're off for the next hearing. Okay. >> Then we're good. >> Are you okay with with >> either way >> changing it to both? >> Well, I mean, it's you know, I I really
do think that the ship is there. uh well when you got to tear it down and all that but if we can do it with a finding >> right yes I would rather you know you know having you know her Cynthia's arguments I I would rather personally change it to a to a finding because then
we don't have to stretch the meaning of the variance >> right and then once you stretch it once then it's a slippery slope >> yeah because we really would have to stretch it because there really is no physical reason to other than the contractor's mistake but that's not our problem that's your problematic
problem, right? >> You know, that's we don't like to work that way. That's, you know, um >> it sounds like other problems, too. So, like trying to go back and sue them to actually come and do it again. You don't even want them on your property. >> Oh, god. It's >> right. >> I could we could list go on and on and
it's already been done twice because the whole room everything was done wrong. So, I mean, >> and a finding >> this should have been done way back and look at where we are. >> And we still don't have a finished garage because now we can't get the permits for the um >> this you started this like in September. >> June. >> June.
>> June. >> Oh, you started in June. >> June. >> 6 months to build a garage. >> Exactly. >> Problem. >> Wow. I >> Wow. I'd like to move to close the hearing. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor say I. >> I.
>> I. All oppose. No, all that means is now we'll discuss it and render a decision. Uh, by the way, the a finding only requires a majority vote. Uh, comments uh comments about changing it from a
variance to a finding. Is everybody okay with changing this from a variance to a finding? >> Good idea. >> Uh, I'll take a vote on that. All agree to change this to a finding. >> I Yeah. >> I That's unanimous. Okay. I think that's that's appropriate. and and and Cynthia,
that's I'm I'm glad you picked that out because that makes our job a whole lot easier in order for us to approve a finding. All we need to know is how does that that that is not adversely affects the neighborhood. And from that standpoint, it's not an aesthetic thing.
It's not like I don't like the style. It has to do with safety. It has to do with with uh you know, with traffic flow. It has to do with things that would affect the neighborhood. And as George, you know, pointed out, um, it doesn't appear that this is >> car driveway is going to stick out or
anything. >> No, it doesn't stick out. It's not gonna Right. Yeah. I mean, it's not going to really affect traffic flow. Um, so I don't have any issues with this from a finding standpoint. >> Anybody else? Uh, >> no.
>> Any there? >> Okay. Uh, I'll entertain a motion then. a motion that we accept the finding. And >> yeah, I uh we should I'm not sure exactly how to word that. >> Yeah, you got to word it uh for and and
uh Cynthia has the the wording for a finding. So, why don't why don't you make >> Oh, that's okay. >> And then you can read the uh where did it go? Here we go. Good thing I kept this in my >> I have a
I forgot I had it actually until I was coming over. Um All right. I make a motion to change the request by the applicants uh Mr. or Mr. Reposa for a variance uh to change that to a finding as the uh
existing lot is is currently a non-conforming lot. So, it's a pre-existing non-conforming structure or uses may be extended or altered provided that no such extension or alteration shall be permitted unless there's a finding by the board that not no such change, extension or alteration shall
not be substantially detrimental and the existing non-conforming use of the neighborhood and I would say the board feels that it >> second. >> Yes, we have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. All oppose, no. Okay,
>> that's uh your finding is is granted. Uh it's a 20-day appeal process. So >> So now can permits be pulled like for the installation? >> No, that goes to Ralph and then Ralph will now know what to do. >> You can get the alert.
>> I'm saying now pull 20 days after it's recorded. >> I'll send you an I'll send you an email. So 20 days after >> nothing's getting done in the next 15 days. >> You can do whatever you want. It's the fact that that if somebody appeals it,
>> you got to tear down. >> All right. Great. >> Hey, thanks. >> Nice to have you back. >> See you later. >> Okay. The second hearing is uh
>> once in a while that happens. >> 1180 American Legion Highway application uh of MKI LLC for a special permit to allow indoor vehicle storage within the third building a site located at the aquifer protection district as mandated by zoning bylaw 6.2.4
C. Subject properties located at 1180 American Legion Highway, Westport Mass and shown on assessor's map 28, lots 33J, 33F, and 32H. Once again, it's the same process. We'll have the petitioner's representative come up and provide what information. Um, Ralph, do
we have a letter on this one to see? >> Oh, okay. Um, >> voting on this will be Jerry Coutino, myself, Raja Manard, Constitinski, >> George Delgus, and Cynthia Kazawitz. And um this will this is an act for protection. So it is it does require a
vote of uh four affirmative votes in order to grant the petition. >> Good to see you again. It's been >> I'm walking now. >> Yes. Right. >> Yes.
>> We already have. >> Good evening to the board. Attorney Mlong here on behalf of the applicant Mckati LLC. Um before I begin, just given what Chair Roger had brought up at the beginning, I'd like to acknowledge
Ry. Um his absence is felt. You know, I've known Ry the better part of my life and grew up playing town sports and I think that Ry was an embodiment of uh of the town. So, he will truly be missed. Rest his soul.
>> Thank you. All right. So, as most of you are aware, we were before you um earlier in the year, the beginning of the year, regarding the same special permit. Um and when we were here, we had briefly discussed doing indoor car storage in
the third building, um which has not yet been constructed. That's the last building. And we had came to the conclusion that we would need to um come back with formal plans showing the drainage for inside car storage just given what the board had required um
from a few of the abutters I'm sorry uh other properties in the aquifer. So it took the engineers a little while to get us those plans. We've since begun construction and things are moving along on the other two buildings, but wanted to get this one in and uh we were
fortunate enough to make it this year before the uh holidays. So, the only change from the original special permit is showing on the northwest corner of the building. You can see the um
tight tank. That's a 1500gallon monolithic tank. H20 rated, so you can drive over it. And that is designed to capture in the event that anything were to leak, anything were to um spill out inside the building, the drains inside
the building will feed into that tight tank and prevent any spills from going outside into the aquifer or into any of the drainage system um on the property. There's alarms that will be set in that tank. uh and their details to the tank
are on the outside over here. It shows the construction and and how the uh has two different chambers inside of it. The only other thing that's worth noting because I'm talking about the differences between this plan and the other really doesn't have any bearing on us tonight is we just show a vehicle
vehicle access ramp for the existing storage. we're adding an access ramp, but given you know, I wanted to be thorough and make sure we showed that that's over here um west of the proposed third building. So, just pointing that out that that those are
>> that's not on here. It's not on ours. >> No, no, that >> it should have been in the N. >> So, two handicap spaces. They stayed. Those are the >> And then the six foot roof drain right next to it.
>> Still there. That's exist. >> There's nothing next to it. >> There's Yeah, there's nothing there. The handy. >> No, >> we don't have that. Great. >> No, I I I don't I I did not print the plans that were provided. When we submitted, I believe the PDF that was
submitted did show this and that's all I >> you know, was able to confirm. This was my copy. So, >> email the email copy. >> No, because they have to be filed with >> Well, no, I did bring I dropped those off when you weren't here that day. So,
yeah. >> Well, >> this is a different plan than that anyway. Right. Because >> I think the only thing that it's >> Well, see this swooping thing here that shows uh where >> No, that's the buffer line. Yeah, I have that on here, too. That's
>> okay. But it's not like this. It's not grayed out. That whole the whole back area >> that proposed alcohol drive right >> where that dock line is on there >> is all grayed out. >> Is this here and this is all grayed out. >> It is the same plan. I don't know why he
grayed that out. I I must be a different copy. I just got this. >> Okay. >> That swoop is you're talking about the ramp. >> Yeah. >> No, the the ramp is over here on the existing building >> that we don't have. >> Yeah, that might not have been shown. I don't know why he didn't >> where you're showing it there
>> is like >> there's two handicap spaces right here. >> Yeah, those those handicap spaces are here >> that just shifted down about >> but they aren't on this point. >> I I can I know that now. >> So, we'll need a copy of that. >> Have you been down there? Have you seen some point?
>> You can you can keep this one after tonight. I don't need it. >> I need a couple of them. >> Yeah, I can I can get No problem. >> I I didn't print them. I do apologize. >> If we were to approve this, we would do it with >> with the real plans, you know.
>> Yeah, I know. I I I totally understand. >> So, this was this is the plan and I will be sure that I get Maria any copies >> by tomorrow. >> Okay. >> So, could you could you uh just clarify a little bit more? Uh you said that's going to be an access ramp to drive into
the building from there. >> So, this is the this is the car storage building. Same as you guys have. Same dimensions, same plans. The only difference on your plan is this is grade for some reason. I don't know why we grade that, but it is that that is the only change is the gray.
>> This is the existing gymnasium building >> where there is storage and that's a two-tiered storage that is so that you can back a car up to here and load onto the second floor without an elevator. That's the whole
purpose of that ramp. It's just so that you can unload. >> You don't mean load the car. >> No, no, no, no. Load loading for like, you know, so typical back a truck up and you can load onto the second floor. Um, that's the purpose of that, but I again
I wanted to be thorough. I I did ask to have that put on there. I do apologize that the copies. >> So, so the vehicles that you want to store in there are in here >> are at ground level and they use the same kind of a door as all the rest of >> Exactly. Well, the two buildings in the
front, and I brought this just for illustrative purposes. This is the existing plan that you all received when we got the special permit. >> These two buildings are at grade. This building will also be at grade, but these have lock doors. You can't drive a car into either of these
>> because it's >> because the doors, it's like a regular 48 in. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> This will be a garage door, like a roll up garage door. So the the ones that are facing 177, those are only uh 48 in doors.
>> So those doors that you see along 177 are fake. >> They're phony. >> They're phony doors. >> Okay. All right. >> The record. Now everybody knows our secrets. >> Well, that there there are only two access doors on those on outside. >> I thought it was going to look >> that's the purpose is they look like
regular doors, but they are not. Those are not functioning doors. Those are just >> Let's get back to the the big one. Uh okay. So you they're going to drive into that. How? >> Right through the front. >> Okay. On on that end. >> Yep. Right on the end. >> And it's going to be one big wide open.
>> One wide open space. >> One big wide open space >> on the inside. Yep. One wide wide open space building. >> What stops What stops anything from getting out >> in the sense of like liquids? Well, around the perimeter, what stops
anything from leaking out to the to the >> the flooring? When the building is when the floor is poured, it will pitch to the center. >> So that the drain everything goes into the drain and then the drain feeds to this exterior. So everything the second
you cross the threshold of the door, if you were to drop a marble on the ground, it would roll in and nothing will roll out. >> This this plan doesn't seem to show it that way. Yeah. >> So, so then >> well that that plan shows the elevation at the door
>> that which is ground ground level >> but it doesn't show any sloping and it doesn't show typically does it does it does it drain to this tank? >> Yes. >> Okay. So >> yeah the entire building will drain to that tank. >> Okay. >> There'll be the and when Sean designed
this and from Northeast we didn't put any of the other buildings we didn't show pitch or anything on the floor. Well, this one is particularly >> I mean we can put that as a condition to the special permit in the list item. I mean that's but that is the intent and the design of the building is that
everything will drain into the tight tank. >> Now has the fire department had any in input to this? >> They are aware of everything. They and we we've met with them on site. >> I'm thinking of the electric cars and all the >> Well, it's funny you bring it up. You
mentioned electric cars and personally I we have zero intention of storing electric cars inside. I think it's far too much of a liability at this point given the battery fires and everything else. So realistically the focus here is classic car storage. >> Okay. Would you >> or high be happy with a
>> stipulation that we won't >> I'm fine with that. >> I don't think we need to have I mean that's up to the board to decide but I would not object to a stipulation that we can't have electric cars. I just have a couple I mean questions because we're getting you're getting ahead of where I am. Yeah, >> your statement about what we said last
time is inaccurate based upon my review of the video from October 24 >> 4 24 and uh the decision in here where it says that you and Sean
state I mean so from your mouth not from our mouths that no automobiles will be allowed inside the building the entrance entrance and exit doors will not be rollup doors and not wide enough to drive vehicles into the building. So
your summary of before of saying that we said you'd have to come back if you wanted to do cars really isn't what we said. >> We had a conver you and I both had a conversation. You asked me about parking your own I know. I know. And >> that was what pro that was at the end
after we came back. >> No, when you came back it still said no and there will be no sprinklers in the building. There's no sprinklers because we're not required because it's under 10,000 square feet. So, there's no requirement of sprinklers in Massachusetts. Ralph can attest to that. >> I talked about the cars at the beginning
of the first hearing cuz I have a car problem >> and the cars are only in this third building. >> And in the video, you said if you needed to have more car storage, you would move them to your other 101 177. >> I I think we're crisscrossing because that was the exterior. So, right now, the special permit that we have
specifies that we can have no automobiles parked outside. Mhm. Right. >> On that property, which we've been here, >> you stated in October that there would be no automobiles allowed inside the building and that's why we were the two. >> Well, I do remember I do remember though that we said
>> I'm sure we said if you want to do that, you have to come back >> which is which is what prompted >> what's changed. >> It was addressed >> that we want to put inside car. That's what I mean. You said, but you said the first time you came ac the first time you came, you said, "We're not going to do car storage." You know, if we have to
take what out and inside and if you had to take the outside storage, we'll move them to the property. If we want to do if we have to swap out and do more storage over here with with dry goods, we could move the cars over to the other ones at 177 >> that I >> um >> and I listen, I haven't watched the
video. That was >> 14 months ago. But the intention and conversation and my understanding leaving that meeting was that if we wanted to put cars in the third building, >> we had to come back and that's what prompted us to do. >> And that's what I recall also.
>> Yeah. >> You also say that there would be no maintenance of any vehicle allowed uh on the property. And both times that I have been there, I haven't been back since November 7th. I have photographs. Uh there was maintenance going on uh on the
RVs and on a boat. >> What's the stop? >> Well, what I I can't I mean >> and and there was supposed to be somebody uh uh at the site to help people and oversee. I saw no one there except for the people working on their
>> Well, at this one at this point, we're still under construction. So, we had we did have an existing use which was the parking and there were vehicles there. We took all of the cars and moved them out of there. The attendant being on the premises is in the works right now. We are actually interviewing people to
bring them on. We haven't put the gate in yet because we're still under construction. We haven't >> But you've got the whole parking lot is filled with RVs and >> which is totally >> and also on the other side um next to the wetlands you had uh an an old boat
sitting there and a trailer. I have to say the property I was astounded when I went drove back there. Um I was originally um my attention was um arrested by when I was driving by and I saw that there were stakes in the ground
where the uh where your third building is going to be built and I was to surprise how big it was and how close it was to the water. And I know that we looked at the plans and stuff, but that really wasn't our call since Concom seemed to have not flagged that.
And um and so then when I drove back a couple weeks or 3 weeks later and then I saw, you know, what was going on and I saw people working uh on their cars and RVs or whatever and um and then I saw where everything had been cleared and I
was really >> cleared. >> The ground had all been >> nothing was cleared that wasn't already existing grass. No trees were taken down. >> Yeah. But I mean the >> now that was all clean I think you said. Are >> you saying great like where they graded? Yeah.
>> That's for the retention fund >> which was qu No, that was for the that's the footprint of the building. I mean it's huge. It's that whole area. >> You talking about close to 177? >> I'm talking right here >> if you Yeah, I'd be happy to look at it because there are no stakes for that
building yet on the premises. >> Uh that's part of it. Yeah. So this this this right here. >> Why don't you take a look at this? You This is no longer on site. So I don't know how long how early that was. >> November 7th. It says >> the se the 7th
>> November 7th >> that that has been moved on. >> Well whatever you know >> but you said that you wouldn't have anybody working. So >> no and I know they are not working to our understanding they're not work. I I can't I'm not a police officer. I can't stand there every day and be like what are you doing? It's not permitted in the
contract. So >> well maybe you shouldn't just have vehicles there at all because you can't see but police it. But um >> that is not the building site. >> That is not the building. >> That is not the building site. >> What is that? >> That is the retention line. >> That's where all of the drainage goes. >> The building site is to the north over
here where at at that point when you drove by there's probably a big pile of dirt. >> You can see that right here. >> Right >> behind that excav uh that dozer over here is the building site. Over here is the drainage pond. And that's why it's within proximity of the wetlands because
it will be classified as a wetland. That's where all the water goes from the site and then bleeds off from there. >> That's a lot of scraping out right about down by the river. >> That's what wanted. So, >> um, so anyway, that's what >> those are all pictures she
>> that's what drew me to because I >> totally got Wait. So, that's why I was on the property because I was like, "Oh my gosh, that's really big." And that's there's the river and they're doing all this work. So, I just went back there and when I went back there, I was really
surprised to see just, you know, um debris, trash, everything all around. It was the property is not wellmaintained. >> I mean, it is an active construction site right now. So, >> it's not wellmaintained. There's stuff all over the place. And uh and
>> stuff that was there before you started clearing. I mean, you find all >> you're in the process of cleaning up. >> You find all sort of stuff. >> I I would invite you to go back again now and take another look tomorrow or the next. It's progressively being cleaned actively. >> Well, regardless, both times I were
there, uh, there were people working on boats and RVs. >> Okay. Could I clarify something here? Because, uh, you're saying it's a site under construction, but yet you've got a lot of stuff rental there. Just wanted to ask does there have to be a
certificate of occupancy for something like this? >> There there is I'm part of that part of it. Not the new stuff. The new stuff has got no certificate of >> the existing buildings have a co and and so anybody on there
>> co for your business not not the school. >> Yes. For Yes. From when Yeah. Before we ever came for a special permit or anything like that, the first thing we did was build units inside the existing school and that was when it turned to a storage and then from there we had a CEO for the storage
>> and then a year and a half ago we came here. >> Uh as far as Ralph is concerned uh the CEO um makes the outside RV storage and all legal >> pretty much. >> Okay. >> And we approve that.
>> Yeah. And again, we did move and listen, I I completely understand your concerns and we are really doing as much as we can. And once we put the gate up, it's even even more, you know, on us to be able to police that, but we have stringent policies with the people that are there that they are not to be
working on anything. And and listen, if somebody and I don't know what you saw or it may have appeared that way, I do know of a gentleman that has an RV in the back and he tends to go inside of his RV and do stuff. There were two people underneath an RV with tools all over the place.
>> I I I if you if if I had known that you had seen that and you had called me, I would have drove down there and told them that they would have needed to leave the >> Well, I mean, I shouldn't have to be >> No, I understand. But again, like I can't we can't sit here every moment of every day and and when do you propose to put the fence up so that the gate so
that >> we're in we just paved. So, we're in the process now of adding the gate in the next, you know, >> in the next couple months. I I would say within well given the ground with the temperatures it if you know >> frozen >> hopefully if it's not frozen we can put
it in sooner than later >> but we do have the gate up there that's actually part of something that may appear to be trash on the site it's in the back right now the gate is there >> wouldn't that avoid what >> I think it would help definitely >> okay >> and given the concerns I will be sure to relay that back to the contractors and
everybody absolutely >> and again even though I think we maybe have different recollection question of what was said before. I do commend you for coming back and actually getting the special asking for the special permit rather than just putting cars in there and >> Oh, and I think a lot of people would do
that. You know, I and we try to be we're trying to do everything above board and be on top and and be transparent and I completely hear your concerns and understand and I'm going to take those and go back and and make it. >> It's very junky looking and there's stuff all over the place and people
working on vehicles. just doesn't it I was really surprised >> um to see >> that's being rectified >> the quality of of >> and I I do think I understand what you're talking about and I think it's in your photo here where they're where the
um let me see if you have it here. Yes, this blue trailer and whatnot that that is housing some of the construction stuff for the site and it's overgrown in grass, but there's nothing in there that would leech into the aquifer or anything like that. It's
>> and the boat >> the Yeah, the boat I don't I believe that boat doesn't even have a motor on it and we are permitted to have boats on the property. There's no active work going on on that. And again, I I truly hear what you are saying and I will be
going back with that and and making more of an effort to be sure that people are not working on that. Even if that means that we're going to put more signage up and and make that crystal clear that no work can be done on the site. >> What you need to do is find one person and kick them out. Everybody else will then know. >> Yes. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. No. And that and again that's I mean >> did approve their your training. So they're okay with car stores there. >> Concom approved the building in in this conservation has no as far as I'm
understanding com has nothing to do with this because the building's already been approved. This does not add to any of the drainage calculations. This is purely within the building itself and we're here because of the fact that we're in the aquifer. If we weren't in
the aquafer, we would just have pulled the permit with Ralph. Yeah. And put a tight tank because it's considered car storage >> and he would and that's just a reg that's just a typical regulation for car storageages to have a tight tank. >> Yeah. If you if you put a garage up in in Westport, you need to have a tight tank for water separation to in case
anything leeches. But because we're in the aquifer, we required a special permit, which prompted us to come back here. That's again, that's also why the plans don't show pitch on the floor and all that. Those are things that are handled when Ralph does his inspections throughout.
>> So, shouldn't Kon at least look at the because it is in the aquifer district or is that not that's >> the aquifer is you is your authority. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> They always throw the tough stuff. >> They throw it to you guys. So, >> but again, it isn't anything going out
of the building. >> Well, it is going out of the building into that tight tank. >> Okay. >> Right. Fair enough. Yes. >> But not what I meant is it's not leeching out anywhere. It's staying contained. >> Is is that tank going to be u uh pumped
>> if if it were to fill up? Yes. But under normal circumstances, there really shouldn't be anything getting in it. Like I said, there would be float alarms in there. You know, a half full and a full alarm. So if for some reason >> anything going in that tank is anything that might rain inside the building.
Exactly. Anything from the walls out is handled as per the plans that have already been approved all the way through by conservation, you guys, everything. >> Yeah. So Concom knew that you'd be putting a tank outside. >> I I can't I don't know that answer.
I mean, if it we could put the tank inside, but that, you know, it'd be under the floor. We could do it. It is it's H20. It is rated um >> to be driven on. If you if that would >> appease the board, but then now we're amending plans and everything else. I just
>> for ease of being able to access it and pump it out, we put it on the outside so if something happens, you can get at it and you're not moving a car or what have you. Couple things here make me really uneasy. Um,
one is not knowing the design of of uh of this building. Uh, you're saying that it's going to be sloped downward. Well, >> doesn't doesn't cut anything with me because uh until you actually do it, it's just
your word. >> Well, it has to be though is what I'm saying. When Ralph comes and does his final inspection as per >> Yes. But we don't we what we do is we approve a drawing that says you're going to build it this way. There's nothing in this drawing that says how you're going
to manage this. When I mentioned that earlier, he said that he has no problem with putting us putting it in as a >> Yeah. I mean, you can put that as a as a condition of the special permit to ensure it >> the slope. >> And and again, I I would see it on it
plan >> because then I have to know is the slope adequate? Is it, you know, what kind of protections do we have? Ralph, >> the plumbing inspector is going to be inspecting that tight tank. So, he's going to have to make sure that the drains there. that do inspections on the floor
>> before we pour the floor. >> What I'm worried about is you got this 8,000 square foot slab of concrete. >> Mhm. >> Yep. >> Right. >> And if if if there's not enough slope in the
concrete, then the then whatever drainage you get from those cars can go out into the environment which is sitting right in the aquifer. >> And I understand that. Speaking from experience, we've have I I don't know 60,000 square ft of concrete slabs that we've done over the years.
All of our buildings are slabs. And when they are poured, they are poured to within a quarter of an inch all the way across. So when we do that, number one, the drain will be set and inspected by the plumbing inspector at set to the
specific pitch. We will know the height of the outside of the building at that point and be able to pitch. I'm not an engineer, so I'm not gonna speculate. >> You don't know the pitch. >> I I can't I'm don't know the pitch off off hand, but you know, a typical pitch in that instance would probably be about
a 1 in pitch from the outside to the inside. You don't need much just to keep the water. I mean, you don't want to have a valley. >> It's water, but I'm talking about, let's say a a car blows its oil, so you only got a couple quarts. It's not going to make it to the drain. It's going to sit it's just going to get a >> Yeah. At that point, I I feel like
that's a better case scenario because then we're able to get to it and clean it up and it's only on the floor. You know what I mean? It's not we're not really worrying about it leeching. >> But, you know, the the whole design here is in case something comes in with and it's dripping or coolant or fuel or
anything that could leak out of a vehicle >> is captured and is not possible to go outside of >> require that that the concrete to be sealed. It would be, but >> I mean, not I meant like the epoxy type sealant so nothing can get through into
the concrete. >> I don't see why not. We do seal them all, but Yeah. A little I know what you're talking about. Like Yeah. Yeah. >> Like what you would actually put in a if you had your own garage, any closet's cars, you know, what you put >> No, I Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I get what you're saying. Like a like a thick epoxy.
>> Um what stops um water from getting in >> into the building? >> Into the building. I mean, no plans here to show me anything about the design of this building. I have no idea that you're not going to get water into it. >> So, the the plans for the building are in accordance with the plans that were submitted when we got the special
permit, which shows all of the roof drains go everything and that drainage plan has been reviewed by the planning board. All of that is handled where everything around the building pitches away from the building and into the drainage basins and whatnot that >> we approved the building of that size.
>> And then we went approved the the use of the >> and we went from here to planning SW Cole, the um third party consultant reviewed those plans and ensured that our hydraulic calculations were correct and that the um drainage pond was
adequate. As Constants can attest to, it's rather large. It is designed to capture all of the water on the site and and hold it there before it bleeds into the surrounding area. And that's all and and again that's designed at a stricter
standard because of the fact that we're in the aquifer. So I you know in terms of everything from the building out the reason there are not detailed plans is because they're we're not changing the building the building itself the footprint. Put it this way. If I if I rescended my application right now and
walked out the door, we could build units inside. Yes. And go about our day. >> We just are here because we want to do the car storage. So everything from exterior outside is remaining exactly the same. The only change is a wider door to allow for cars to come in and
changing the tight tank addition here to be able to capture any liquids that could spill inside the building. So that's the vast majority of what we're dealing with. >> And this would still be like your storage, but it's >> these are going to look exactly the same. >> No, it's seasonal. So yeah, you go in and
>> Yeah, typically in November, December, and you come out in the spring, you don't >> we will. I mean, if we're we're going to if if the board approves it and we do car storage. It's not like we're going to say you can't keep your car here in the summer, but the vast majority >> I just meant that it wasn't like um you can't come in and out every day with
your car. >> Yeah. No, the intention >> you're packing the >> Yeah, exactly. >> It would be more of like a if you're leaving your car for an extended period of time. >> And is there going to be uh outlets for trickle chargers for the cars?
>> Yeah, we did that on >> if there's going to be enough of there's going to be outlets enough of them and permitted appropriately for trickle chargers to keep the batteries charged. >> So, all we need is a lithium battery battery fire. And so, >> yeah. Yeah. No,
>> there's no lithium battery. No, they're talking about the car battery, not the electric car batteries. The the the >> Yeah, electric cars are >> Yes, it does AC on the inside. I'll say that. So, >> how many cars will you be storing in there?
>> It's tough to say. It depends who's like what type of vehicles. I mean, if we're talking Lincoln Continentals, it's going to be a lot less than VW Beetles. Um, I believe the typical spot is 12 by 24. Just quick math. Um,
let's do this. 12 by 24. It's 288. So, 8,000ID by 288. 25 to 30 cars depending if you know larger cars would warrant
less, smaller cars a few more. My biggest concern uh was uh the u volatility of of electric vehicles. If if we can avoid that,
that's a big plus. >> Any other comments before I open it up to the public? >> What about hybrids? >> I mean, again, yeah, need EV chargers. >> Okay. >> Well, wouldn't that include hybrids? >> Does Yeah. Does hybrid I don't know. I
mean, I have a I like my old gasoline. Okay. So, does the hybrids have the lithium batteries in them? >> Yes. Well, yeah, they would have >> Well, then I guess basically no lithium batteries, which is what we want to say. >> We have to make that pretty clear. >> Yeah. Now you're scaring me cuz we have a hybrid. >> I have a hybrid.
>> I know. >> And we It's not plugin and we just put it in the >> hybrid, right? >> Yeah. I've also seen gasoline cars, but boom. So, it's you're fine. >> Yeah. Um I'll open up to the public if you wanted to make comment. Come up to
the mic. Name and address. Good evening everyone. My name is Kimberly Chika. I reside at 44 Union Avenue along with my father John Maderas. Uh we are directly behind the
property that we're discussing. >> Would you speak up just a little bit? >> Can you I'm sorry. >> Would you speak up? I'm sorry. >> Speak up. Okay. Sure. Can you hear me? Okay. >> Not so great. Yeah. >> Okay. Would you like me to start over? >> No. I I got most of it, but it's just >> okay. Um, so I thank you for the
opportunity to be able to voice concerns. Um, the biggest concern being fire hazard that we've all brought up. Um, my concern of electric vehicles, um, flammable liquids, um, the charging of
the vehicles, those are the major fire hazard concerns. Um, in addition to that, what we've discussed was no requirement for sprinklers. That I added on to my notes today because that kind of surprised me. Um,
I wanted to know what things were be put in place to mitigate those fire risks because that's huge. Um, with all the um vegetation, the the trees around there um with wind that could spread. it could
take us all out behind you. Um, so the other concerns were safety measures and privacy. Um, and then environmental contamination concerns with oil breakdown, fuel leaks, uh,
toxic gas fumes, CO buildup, um, the battery fire, emission controls, we need to know what kind of plans for that. um that there'd be no running of the vehicles inside the facility or maintenance of the vehicles inside the
structure. Um as far as security measures and privacy, I didn't get to see what was being indicated because this was facing we were back there and this was facing you folks. So I didn't know where the entrance pardon for the
vehicles would be. Is there going to be a lot of foot traffic behind? I mean basically if I may where this is our yard so are people going to be entering with these vehicles back there. May I
>> the entrance is here >> on the west side for >> these are emergency exits and this is a fire access so the fire truck can >> Okay, >> we're entering on that side and then the asphalt drive over here is so fire truck if they had to can get here and get a
hose all the way around. That was from the original plan. The fire department required us to have that um asphalt drive so that way they can. So in terms of privacy for you guys, nothing is changing or shifting or anything like that. >> Okay. We also were thinking about the
statement that was made last time we met regarding the landscaping and um native landscaping, meaning the vegetation being planned for privacy that was brought up. So we want to make sure that there's something that's still going to be play because this is going this is
huge and it's really close to not the water and the abuing property. We want to make sure that that's still going to happen. The native >> landscaping I believe the the size of the building was over 8,000 8,000 square feet
>> 8250 >> 8250 >> 500 in feet. What is it? Oh, like width and uh I don't know if we show it on here. >> Um Oh, yeah. 50 by 165. >> What is it?
>> 50 50 ft wide by 165. >> I think it didn't hit us. >> It's It's longer, but square footage wise is comparable. The other ones are actually a little bit more square foot. >> That's going to be >> The building hasn't changed. That's going to be the same size as
>> Looking at my back window from the kitchen, all I'm going to see is this huge. That's why we were concerned kind of >> that's going to devalue my property. >> That's going to devalue my property considerably. >> That's already been approved. There's nothing we can do about that.
>> It wasn't going to be that size. >> That size. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> Yep. We were just making sure that >> Yeah. have a safety concern, too. So, >> yeah. >> So, you're going to be parking cars this way and then this way >> or I mean you can park them with facing
east to west and stack them. You know what I mean? Drive in, park, park, park, and then kind of come in here. >> If you come in, you park one here. >> Exactly. Exactly. >> Yeah. You're not going to be able to do that this way cuz it's only 50 feet. >> Exactly. 48.
>> You'd never be able to get >> We stack them as >> That's why you can't just like say, "Oh, I want my caret." >> Exactly. >> Okay. >> Yeah. You got to move all again. >> Yeah. We just wanted to be assured that the landscaping and privacy was still
going to be maintained and put in. >> We have to follow that. That's already been stipulated by the plan board and by >> because that will help to afford privacy if he sticks to his word on that. >> Um the other things regarding security
measures and privacy um were regarding the the lighting. We still need to make sure lighting, security, hours of operation, all of that is going to be, you know, stick to your word on all of that. Um, and if there are people
utilizing the storage buildings now, the first two and the existing ones, and then my understanding, and I could be wrong, but that there was supposed to be already the attendant monitoring regardless of the construction ongoing
for the third building. Um, that should already be something that would be addressed. Um, and then of course cameras with sound and recording I think would help because we did have the problem with people
going in there trespassing with fireworks this summer, large fireworks um, this summer and you know we can't always stop them from entering even with a front gate. However, being knowledgeable and knowing and doing something about it is something else.
you can't be there policing 24/7, you stated. However, there's some responsibility there um to maintain the security and to know what's going on on your property at all times. I think in my opinion um and then you know I think
some of these concerns were already voiced by some of you folks. So I don't want to be too redundant, but I just want to have the reassurance. Um and this tank I think um Mr. Cotinho you brought up the maintenance. I also was
concerned about maintenance and monitoring of this tank to make sure if there is anything going in it that there's some kind of inspection and maintenance to make sure that it is structurally sound and it's doing the job that it's intended to do. Um again the fire going back that
briefly. We just need to make sure that every measure is taken to prevent a catastrophe and I was very shocked to see that there was no sprinklers required um in the presentation today.
I believe I've hit upon all my points. Thank you for your patience and your time. Anyone else? >> My name is Caitlyn Oliver. I live on the opposite corner at 64 Union A. So, um,
her property is here and then my property is over here. Um, my property is also the one that is adjacent to the back gate that, um, at the previous hearing we talked about securing. Um, that has not been completed. it is in the works. Um there's a panel that's
kind of covering it right now. I expect that once everything is done that would be more finalized. Um however, it is very open. So a lot of the items that Constance was mentioning are pretty much dead on from my property. Um
particularly the gentleman who was doing frequent repairs on his RV. He may or may not be living in it. Um one of the RVs is covered just with a tarp cuz it's not in good condition. And there's a few others like that. Um I did not have reservations about them
coming in. I've actually spoken when we had the um permit with the other department that they were following the things. Um we've tried to work with them. They've been talking to us. They've been keeping us update and I think Kim would agree with me once we had a little feedback. We've all been
able to find our way through. Um I'm a little frustrated that this is happening and this was not discussed with us. Mac and Jim did not contact us about the change in this property. Uh my recollection and Kim's recollection when we spoke was exactly what Cynthia previously said, which is that they made
very loud statements that they were not putting vehicles in here. The doors were not big enough, there was no sprinklers, this was never going to happen. Um there was a throwaway comment at the other hearing back in March that, you know, if that was ever to change, they'd have to come back, but that was the extent of our understanding as well.
um I can get on board, but I think that I need a lot more clarity and reassurances, particularly in the form of conditions on the special permit. Um I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that we don't know how many cars are
going to be in there, that there no plan for where they're going to be, there's no cap. um you know, yeah, a big car versus a little car, but you could pack those in really tight and have no clearance between those vehicles and one vehicle could have a problem. There is
nothing in that building to stop it. So, unless I see it or Kim sees it or the neighbors at no choke across the street see a blaze that's gone up, there's no sprinkler to stop it. So, maybe the fire department gets there, but we could have 20 cars on fire before that happens. That's my house. that's that's their
home and it's the back of the property. You know, I'm super frustrated because there are two very large buildings on the front street side. It is a very visible location and those buildings got rushed through before the frost last December and I respect it. He put a lot
of money out on the property. He needs to make that back. I'm not here to judge. I respect that. But if we had been having this conversation about those front buildings being vehicle buildings where there's a lot of accessibility, a lot of visibility, and it's not in my backyard, I don't know that I would have these objections
today. And we're not because those buildings are already in place. I'm sure it's a ton of money to try and change them over to be this. Those foundations are already poured. They're not going to be pitched with the tank and all the nice things that you guys have been discussing. But now they're trying to put it through on this back building
that is massive with no details and no restrictions. And that's really where I I just feel like we need you guys to intercede. We either need to have a better conversation so that we can talk with Jim and Mac and come up with what these restrictions are going to be or
you guys have to put them in. There needs to be a cap on the number of vehicles. We need to know maximum how many cars are in there. There needs to be a minimum distance that the cars are parked from each other so that we know if one was to light up what the risk to the next couple of cars is going to be.
We need to know if these are getting stored by the people who own them or if only the attendant is allowed to drive it. Is this, you know, Joe Schmo who's just driving his car up and into a garage and hopefully he's fine or is this someone who has insurance and is
being monitored and maybe it's their attendant? I'm not sure. Um so that if there is an accident, it's reported at the time and we don't have a vehicle that's get bumped into and somebody doesn't want to report that because it's an insurance claim and now oh there's a little fender bender and there's something leaking and we don't know and
then the trickle charger sparks because it's very cold and now this spark ignites not enough liquid that would have flown into the tank but maybe it's enough to catch on the floor. I don't know. I don't know. I just know that all of those things open a door to a problem
that could be too big to stop before we realize we need to call the fire department. I'd like to know for certain that there's absolutely never going to be an electric vehicle. I might even go down the well with Cynthia on the hybrid vehicles cuz those batteries are very, very scary and we've
all seen that on the news. You know, some of those old cars have really big gas tanks, a lot of gas sitting there, a lot of antifreeze, a lot of oil. Old cars are are built differently. I respect them. I love them. But they are more oily, for
lack of a better way to put it. You don't have nice clean engines. You have old ones that people have been working on for their whole life and they love it. without sprinklers, without a building that has water hookups, which is something that we talked about. There was no reason for any of them to ever be working or providing maintenance because they would never be able to wash
anything because there's no water hookups. Um, that was our discussion. How do we deal with safety? There's no water there if anything does happen. Um, I really appreciated that Cynthia raised the access because people coming and going is still a problem. Um, I hear Mac
saying that because it's a construction site, they haven't put the gentleman at the gate yet. Um, that was something that the special permit was conditioned on. There have been a lot of people in the back of that property. It's off the road. It just begs for kids. It begs for people doing stuff. And that was why
they were going to do the attendant. That's why it was supposed to be locked out. I get that it's in the works, but we had fireworks. We've had other kids. We have people doing something they're not supposed to do. So, this activity is still going on. And if it takes another year for this building to get finished
or more, what happens to people not following the rules in that building? How do we know that they're not doing maintenance now that they're inside a building? How do we know that the stuff that Mack is adamant is in the contract that they won't do, which I believe him and I I also would do myself. That
doesn't stop people. I mean, a contract's a piece of paper and if nobody sees him with a wrench in the oil until there's a fire, it doesn't matter. it. Those types of things get swept under the rug and it's not their backyard, it's ours. It's our home that's at risk and it's our home that
hears the noise. It's my backyard that's overlooking and watching RV after RV after RV lined up covered in tarps and all of the other stuff because the last thing on the agenda is the privacy landscaping. I mean, we talked about that at length. We talked about moving lights. We talked about making sure that
there was a good wall of green so that none of our properties were looking at what Constants described as a work in progress I believe which I think was a very kind way of putting it. It's a mess and if it stays like that now we have a
dangerous mess because we have teen 25 potentially cars that are shoved in there unmonitored. Um, I also agree that if this is going to be happening that there needs to be active 24-hour fire camera maintenance. We need to know
that there are people when they're not supposed to be. That needs to be clear enough so that we can track down who it is and not just a fire alarm that's inside that's going to go off, you know, in in case something happens. We need something more proactive than that. Um, I also would echo Kim's concerns about
the the tank maintenance. Um, you know, again, I'm sure that this is how it needed to be because of the map, but even looking at that, this tank is literally on the one corner that's adjacent to both our properties. You got all that land. You got all this stuff. And here it is. A tank of how many
gallons, Mac? >> 1500. >> 1500 gallons of god knows what that's too contaminated and too dangerous to stay in that building. Is going to sit in a tank on the corner next to my house and next to her house. >> It's not going to sit in there. Well, it could because if the tank isn't marked as fill and the the float alarm doesn't
go off, it's going to sit there. So, you could have 1490 gallons waiting underneath the threshold. >> It kicks at 250. There's >> Do you want 250 gallons of gas sitting outside your house that could potentially blow up if there was an accidental fire? >> Is that going to make you feel good and
comfortable? >> I understand that you guys are doing your best and I'm not saying that we can't do it. All I'm asking is that if you're going to do it, we do it in a way that is safe for my property, that is safe for Kim's property, and it's safe for everybody down the line. And right
now, I I don't know that those concerns are in place. >> Safe for everybody who has their cars and their possessions and in in those buildings. I mean, you're right that >> there's no way if that goes up, it's going up. It's not, you're not, >> right? I mean, and like I said,
>> that's gonna hit the storage buildings where people have maybe family heirlooms in them. I mean, it is I I guess for me, it's not really can't you really can't use sprinklers in the car, the garage. You need a fire suppression system because of the hazardous materials. Right. You can't
>> you can't put water on them. Right. >> Right. Right. So, therefore, there's two issues, right? I mean, the water you can't put water on. So, you have to worry about the water getting into the aquifer. I'd be worried about I'd like to talk to the fire department about what sort of chemicals are going to be needed to in the event of a fire,
what chemicals would have to be used to suppress that fire and what that effect on the aquifer would be. >> And I want to be clear when we've raised concerns with Jim and Mack in the past, they have done an excellent job of trying to hear us and trying to work
with us. And I don't want to seem anything less because I believe that they will do that now. I'm just concerned that that has not happened yet. So my request would not be to decline. My request would say, can we talk about these conditions? Can we work
out these things? Can we get to a point where everyone's concerns are addressed in a way that still makes Jim able to use the property in the way that he envisions, that still makes the town happy, and we can all move forward. Um, we could have done that if there was a
conversation first. So, eyeballs call. >> We would have talked. We would have done that. This is a little rushed. Um I don't know what you guys' procedure is for those types of delays or conversations. Um if it does have to be a decision today, I would ask that you
implement the laundry list of special conditions onto your special permit. Um or I would ask that you kick us down the road to address some of these. Maybe come back with answers, a more detailed plan on the topics that you guys were talking about. And hopefully we will have nothing to say because it'll all
have been worked out. Um, but those are my concerns. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> Can Can some Can somebody remind me how many parking spaces we allowed for vehicle storage versus parking spaces
for people coming and using the facility to, you know, >> you're saying from the last time? >> Yeah. We determined that there was nothing in the bylaws that stated that we needed to specify what was what and as long as we had enough spaces
met the requirement of the spaces for the square footage, it didn't matter. But we do have I I want to say there's something like 12 or 15 spaces for people coming and going. But as we discussed at that meeting, when you come and go, you're going to go to the door. Yeah.
>> Nearest your unit. You're going to unload your things and you're going to leave. >> Yeah, ma'am. Ma'am, I'm just see the 42 parking spaces, >> but didn't the planning cover that site plan approval? >> Yeah, the spaces and everything. Yeah. Yeah. And then we came and we talked about the parking and then you guys had
a finding that there was no requirement that we specified between whether they were for access or for vehicle storage. >> Right. We said anybody could park sort of any place. Yeah, exactly. >> Yeah, I remember that. Yeah. Yeah. The planning dealt with that that sent us here. Then we
>> the planning board does have an approved site plan for you, don't you? >> Yeah. And we're finalizing this to then go back to them with and finalize everything. >> So, you're going to go back. >> So, we Yeah, we have to go back >> at the end after this. >> Cynthia, did you have another question? Because I do have.
>> No. >> Okay. I have a question. Um, is there any reason that that uh tank has to be on that side? I I don't I mean I didn't even think about it until Caitlin pointed it out to be honest with you. I mean no >> it looks to me like like it could be
>> it. >> No, it could I obviously we wouldn't want to put it on the east side of the building. Obviously that's closer to the aquifer and I mean we're in the aquifer but closer to the wetlands. Um I would say if we were going to move it, it would either get moved into the building or to the southern corner. Um I'm I'm
trying to figure out on this plan which I I'm looking at the site uh the little locust plan >> and uh and I'm trying to figure out where R >> 177 is. >> Seven is where you are >> here, isn't it? >> Yep. Yep. Right here where you're
sitting. >> Yeah. So it seems to me that if you were to put that tank say in this corner >> No, I would and move it down. Yeah, I I think if you're going to move it, it would be too south because if we put it
on that south southeast corner that you're talking about, we're we're in the >> we're in the buffer zone. >> You really want to be on the southwest. >> So that was Yeah, we would want to go southwest. >> I'm thinking more of accessibility and >> Yeah, exactly. No, I accessibilitywise if if I may. Yeah.
>> When we drive So the way that this is designed right now is this is the gymnasium. >> You want to do it in there so we can >> Yeah, that's fine. Make sure you can see it. Um, I'll show you guys in a second. So, right now, this is where this is is the existing
building. The other two buildings are down here. >> We did a one-way flow of traffic. So, 177 is over here. >> Mhm. >> You come in and you go around the building and then when you come over here, you're going around. So, this is directly accessible, which is why it's
there. And again, you know, the concern being if it's over here, we're in the buffer zone. Yep. So if we were to move the tank, I would suggest Roger. It would be just do south because you continue out, you go around the other buildings and then out back out. >> What I basically were just saying is if
you move the tank here, it's fine because you're coming around this way, >> looping around, and you'd still have access to >> Nobody's ever going on the back side, right? >> Over here. No, you can't. This is >> drop off. I mean, you could like climb and walk over there, but you can never
drive a car or anything. This is this will >> strip that the fire department. >> This is the fire department strip and then this is another fire department's access strip. So it only goes here. You can't get to that back side in the grass and over by that. >> So where on there is the drainage the
huge drainage >> right here. So this this is the beginning portion of it. I should have done this when I this is the drainage pond. These are the two existing buildings, >> right? >> And then this is the newest building.
The septic system is going in here. >> So that's the only that was I think that was why Sean put it to the north, but it I think that we would have enough room to tuck it in on the southern corner southwest. So go ahead.
>> Um so in the in the March 5th U decision and recorded it. So I maybe somebody can clarify this for me. In the first paragraph or going down in the fifth, fourth or fifth sentence, it says in a
variance to reduce the number of parking spaces from 41 to 20 spaces as mandated by zoning bylaw section 8.3. Well, that was when we originally so planning said we had to come to zoning because we
didn't have we didn't meet the parking space requirement because they were classifying the vehicle storage or outside storage as not parking spaces. We came, we discussed it and the board found that there was nothing in the
bylaw that stated that those didn't qualify or meet the requirement of 42 spaces. We also had a lengthy discussion about the, you know, uh, there's no need for 42 spaces at a storage facility. There's never that many people there and what have you. That was what prompted
that portion of it. So, the finding would likely be at the end of that where we found that or you found that the spaces we did meet that and so therefore we didn't need a variance or anything to that. >> Okay. And so the v the RVs that are out
there are in some of those >> what we're qualifying as space. >> So there's 20 other spaces other than that >> shown on the I I don't want to speculate as to exactly how many there are because I I don't think the plan that I have even here shows how many parking plan.
Um, my question is is that you have these cars being stored and people go to pick their car up to go for a week somewhere and are they leaving their cars there? >> Are you saying Oh, like on the site? No,
because we're not allowed to leave cars overnight. That's that was part of the stipulation from the special permit originally. Um, something that we talked about that actually Caitlyn brought up was a good point is parking the vehicles inside. We have small, we have, I don't know, 12
spaces right now in one of our other buildings up at 519 and those cars are only parked by an attendant to be honest with you. It's typically me, but obviously we all get busy and don't have time, but it's an attendant. It is somebody that is knowledgeable and, you
know, knows how the building is, knows how we're parking the vehicles, and, you know, we're making sure that nobody is just driving their vehicle in willy-nilly and goes plowing into somebody else. >> I'm not sure I understand what the difference is of having RVs parking
parked all over uh the property uh and having cars parked outside. Well, when we discussed >> what is it >> stored rather not just parked but stored what the >> we well when we had this discussion the last time we talked about the fact that
RVs you know most of them are you know typically wellmaintained there are some that are there that are not. >> There are a few that are not. I totally understand that. Um but in terms of parking it's primarily trailers. There are a handful of class A RVs, but the
majority of the vehic items stored there are camper trailers. >> We were worried about leakage in to the concrete without any sort of mitigation system if it if we had if you had cars there. We were worried about leakage of things. >> Yes. >> But the RVs have more gasoline and stuff
in them and oils than a car. >> Not if they're only a most of them are trailers. >> Most of them are there a lot. I mean, there are some that are class A's, but we didn't we didn't limit that when we did that the last time. That wasn't >> Well, maybe we >> Oops.
>> Yeah, we're not Unfortunately, we're not here to deal with that one today. >> What is the height the interior >> of the building? >> This is a one-story building. >> Yes. >> What's the height of >> I believe roughly
>> not to exceed 20 ft. 20 >> in that's the exterior. So interior maybe 14 15 depending. These buildings are steel though so there's really not there's no roof trusses or anything like that >> that which also something I should have mentioned is they are steel buildings so
it does help in terms of fire. Um well, we're not talking about putting a fire suppression system that that we can talk about that, but there is a the entire building is or entire property is um has a call box that calls to the fire department. If any alarm goes off for
any reason, immediately calls to the fire department. Um so there is monitoring. The >> reason I'm asking about height is cuz um I I just don't think it's reasonable to uh leave it open for you to stack
>> right vehicles. >> Yeah. No, I get you know >> uh I think we should actually say that because that's not your intent. >> No, I mean I I won't tell you that we didn't plan on putting some lifts in there, but at this point I don't think it's cost effective. Um so I mean there
was discussions what what is it >> the mantra is like more more more >> I mean I I don't think it it is a business you know we're >> we're in business to be successful and bring tax revenue to the town of Westport and you know contribute and I
I'd like to think that we run a pretty tight ship. You've been to our other properties and seen those and I'd like to think we have addressed most of your concerns. You know, had you called me or my father after going down there, I'm sure we either one of us would have met you down there and had a discussion. You know, we we do our best to to be
upstanding members of this town. And I mean, Caitlyn can attest to the fact that we are typically very transparent. I do apologize that we didn't call you guys ahead of time. You know, we've been pretty good about that. I just in the entrance of everything going on, you get caught up and you kind of forget things. So, I do apologize that we didn't call
ahead of time, but you know, we're very transparent. We try to do everything above board. As Cynthia mentioned, other people may have just done this and >> rolled rolled the dice, you know, and and it is we're trying to do everything by the book and follow every rule possible um and address the concerns of
not only the town but also the board and and kind of keep everything as as possible. But >> well, at the very beginning of this journey, you were cited for doing uh work um that was unpermitted. >> There was that was ground clearing and there was not any permit required. That
was the finding at that time was that it was just sight prep. >> No, that there was because it's uh because it's in the aquifer. >> Well, again, we were not aware that it was within the aquifer at that time because under typical circumstances in the town of Westport where it's not an aquifer, that wouldn't trigger anything.
But upon learning, and Ralph can attest to this, upon learning of the fact that we were in the aquifer, we im immediately halted everything and came to the board with a full comprehensive plan. I actually came to the board first before going to planning and the board recommended that we go to planning which
we did. So again, you know, this this project has been ongoing for three plus years and we've followed every rule and every question and and addressed every concern as best we can as we go through. Yeah, I mean it's we are doing the best
that we can and I do understand your concerns and as I mentioned to you before. The intention is to go back and and work harder to make sure that there are not people working on things where they're not supposed to. But again, I I can't you know stand at the the door with a cop every day and make sure that
things are not happening. But as as we >> we should >> but your attendance >> your attendant >> the attendant the attendants are you know I'm not aware that they're there during the time but again the attendant when we get our co for the existing front buildings plan is to bring an
attendant that will be on site during business hours and we are limited in our business hours. That was a stipulation in the special permit the last time. >> Right. So, I mean, at this point, given the concerns of everybody and the board, I do think that we're like, we got to come
come back here with a different plan. We have addressed concerns. >> To me, there's one of two things. Um, when I first look at this, I said, "No, I don't think there's any way we can do this." you we're we're putting we're putting
this right in the aquifer >> and I don't care how well you manage there's a there's always a there's there's a a good potential for leakage of things that we don't want to get into the aquifer and and then obviously the
issues of storing a bunch of cars right next to everybody's houses we all know what you know one one car lights off forget it that whole property gone and probably their houses are gone too >> so >> and And then and then the fire suppression that they're going to use to do the gas. >> Well, there isn't any now. So, I'm
saying they have the fire department fire department coming in with foam or whatever. >> And then that's going to script the acryer even more. >> Yeah, that's that's my biggest concern. And that's why I'd like to see some >> like some consultant. >> I said I can see two ways of going here. Uh,
first of all, I don't think we can make a decision today and and I don't like continuing things, but I don't not knowing enough about how this thing is built really bothers me and how we're going to management really bothers me and I don't want to put it off and say building will, you know, Ralph will take
care of it later. >> U, I said I don't like continuing, but on the other hand, I don't see that we're managing the aquifer, which is exactly what this is all about, >> right? And that that really bothers me. Um the other thing I can just say is we
could vote on it today and vote it down and because that would be my I'll do you one better. How about this? I'll do you one better. We're send the application without prejudice. If we want to come back, we'll come back. But right now, we're just going to go forward as we had originally anticipated and originally
been approved for inside storage. Well, >> I don't want to pressure you. This is >> by It's not you. It's a collection of the last hour of conversation and hearing everybody's feedback. And listen, I we appreciate it. The that's what this is about. We have these meetings to have these discussions and get input.
>> There are rules in place for a reason. There are a lot of concerns, some of which I share and and and totally understand where everybody's coming from. So, at this time, I would respectfully request that we resend our application without prejudice so that we may come back at some point if we decide to do so. But at this time, we're going
to proceed with the plan that we had approved >> prior. If you do come back for car storage, would I like to like you said that you don't require a fire suppression system because of the size and you don't requ I'd like some you know
>> I not that I don't take it work. >> No, no, I totally understand. I'm not a fire professional. I'm not going to know myself what the Massachusetts regulations are for car storage of this type. >> Yep. Absolutely. uh which would make >> yeah we have to we're going to go back to the drawing board and and that may
very well mean we scrap the idea alto together and to do it elsewhere >> structure you know yes >> no totally understand so >> I I would like to say that if you uh if if the board does allow you to withdraw without prejudice excuse me I would hope that um it
wouldn't be required because you withdrawn but I would hope that you will meet with these neighbors again >> and we have and I I We've made every effort to to do that. >> If you were to come back again, my
>> we're here because it's the aquifer. Yes. If this was anywhere else, that wouldn't be an issue. >> Agreed. >> But because you're in the aquifer protection area, >> we have to understand how the aquifer is being protected. And I don't see anything in here other than that you're going to have a tank.
>> Totally. That convinces me that we're that we're we're actually protecting ourselves. >> Yes. So but anyway detail the the the petitioner has requested to withdraw without prejudice. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh >> can I
>> I would if you come back I would really like to see the tank move >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And Roger said the same thing to the south if Yeah. There's a there would be a a quite a bit of amendments if we do end up coming back with that. I mean, you might want to actually go to the
classic car vault in Newport to see what they've done. >> Yes. Down. Yeah. The large Yes. They're also not in an aquifer as far as >> Yeah, but they're not. But at least they they know what to do. Like they're still protecting the environment, so you might get a little bit of clues of what you might need to do. >> Absolutely.
>> So, we have a request. Did you make a motion? >> Do we have a request? >> We have a request from the petitioner to >> It need to be written, >> but I haven't seen it in writing. Don't you usually require >> Oh, okay.
>> Why would you want to come back? >> I just But I don't want to I don't want to tie myself to anything. So, as an attorney, I'm I'm with I I I also am not the owner. You have to talk to my father. >> As much as he's my client, he is also my dad. I I have to talk to him. So, >> you make a normal
>> I would withdraw. No, >> we've always done that >> without prejudice. If we come back if if there was a desire, we can. What >> why would we want to um to grant you uh to come back without prejudice when
storing cars like that in a building right next to the river in the aquifer just seems like such a bad idea. Why would we want to grant >> we could in in theory >> come back and tell us how they're going to mitigate it. >> We could come back with an even more
detailed plan and >> or what >> and I'm not saying that we will. We might not. I I'm I'm running all we have to go through this. There's a lot that goes to it, but I'm not going to sit here and say that. >> Let me let me just ask the board um what
is the um what is the logic to granting this request so that he can come back and ask us again to put cars in a building right on the river's edge and the aquifer? What why would we do that?
I think because >> seems like a waste of time >> because he it's anything other than his original use he'd have to come back for. And if I think if we n if we dig him on car storage with prejudice, I think we dig him for him coming back completely
for anything else. >> No. >> Do we? >> No. >> No, I don't I don't think so. >> Anything that's that is not significantly different. >> Yeah, of course. >> But and I still don't know. I mean, if he wants to come back much, you know, six months from now
>> with a plan that actually shows how he is going to mitigate the uh act of her protection, >> then that's something we can then look at. But if >> doesn't mean we're still going to, >> but that doesn't mean we're going to approve it either. >> Yeah. >> No. and that and I I understand where you're going with it, but if we were to
come back, which >> in my personal opinion, I'm leaning on no, >> but again, I we I am not the decision maker in this. >> So, we have to go back to the drawing board. And if the decision is made to go back to the drawing board, we would come back with far more in-depth plans
demonstrating how we would protect the aquifer. At this point, the board is not satisfied that we're showing enough to do that. So, I'm respectfully requesting that we resend the application without prejudice so that if we were to make that decision, we could come back and you could still say no. >> I don't think you're protecting the
aquifer as it stands with these RV all of the RVs lined up there. A lot of them in bad shape and and people working on them and everything. I don't think you're being true to your word for what we agreed on from the very beginning. >> Currently, in what way, shape, or form?
>> We're not supposed to be working on them. >> And and I understand that and and I I have now been made aware of that. I again >> you >> should have been aware of that. They're out there all the time. >> Okay. I I I'm not aware of it. I I I don't know
>> why we've got RVs that are in not great shape uh with tarps all over them and and no leaking probably underneath. I mean, you know, I mean, I just don't think that's a really good idea either. But hey, we didn't do it. You know, I'm just
saying I you know, why why would we allow more of it? >> We didn't specify that maybe perhaps the RVs needed to be within 15 years old or whatever. Like a lot of places do. They don't take old. >> Yeah. 10 years is what? >> Yeah. So,
>> well, that's over the >> right. But I'm just saying that what's happening now does not make me feel good about allowing more. Right. So your thought uh Constance is that um if this were not the aquifer zone and sitting but right by the river if it was just in
any other place maybe it would be okay. >> Maybe it would be okay to allow them to come back and have a better plan. But I just don't see where this would fly at all what they're proposing and why, you know, why come back with another plan?
Well, I think that's but I think this information is good to them because I've I totally agree with you. I'm >> I'm not at all convinced that that parking all these cars is is good for the aquifer. >> Yeah. >> Unless they can convince me that they
are in fact spending a lot of money. So, >> right. >> Yeah. My thought is letting them come back if they want to because I don't think they're going to come back. >> Right. Right. >> Well, personally, >> I share the same sentiment. I do not intend on coming back. But yet again, I say this. I am not the decision
attorney. >> Okay. So, I will I will make I will make a motion to grant the uh withdrawal without prejudice. >> You make a motion. >> I make a motion. I have a second. >> Second. >> Second. All in favor say I. >> I. All oppose.
>> Nay. >> No. It's four to one. >> Jerry didn't vote. >> Yes, I did. Right. I vot I. >> Okay. >> Right. So, uh, um, you want to write that down? Yes. Requesting >> I borrow a pen.
>> You say that a request to withdraw without prejudice with name and date and all that good stuff. >> Okay. And that that drainage um acreage that you've got there is
um it's just humongous to see what was done to that natural area. It was a playground beforehand with metal and other things in there and we've now built basically a dam around
that to control all of the water, you know, and are filtering it before it goes into what is the river. I mean, >> yeah. and just for the record is a 20-day appeal process
>> of the withdrawal. >> We always it's always a 20-day appeal of the of our decision. >> Yes. >> So they could appeal and say they shouldn't have granted the spread without prejudice. Is that
>> okay? Thank you. >> Thank you. Happy holidays. >> Thank you. >> Happy New Year. We'll see you all next year. >> Maybe not for inside car storage. >> Okay. Uh couple of orders of business. Thank you, Ralph.
>> Yep. Uh, we have meeting minutes for December 4th, 2025. Uh, Maria has written the meeting minutes. I know we've all looked at them and updated them. That's the wrong one. There we go. Uh,
October 15, 2025. Uh, um, I make a motion to to approve the meeting minutes submitted by Maria for October 15, 2025. We have a second. >> Second. >> Second. All in favor? I I >> I all post. No, that's unanimous. So,
let me sign this. Last order of business is let me time this first. All right. There you go. Is election of officers with um with Ray
no longer with us. Uh we have a vacancy for a uh vice chair. Um I want to nominate Cynthia as vice chair for two reasons. Uh one, Jerry and I are both getting older and we need to to have
you know new people coming in and taking uh leadership roles. The other thing and I've talked to Jerry about this and I know I know Jerry's been here forever >> and What >> what I think is important is that Jerry
is like our mentor. He like knows more about zoning than anybody else than all of us combined. >> And he has the experience >> and I think he is most useful sitting where he is
telling us about about zoning, what the rules are, what the you know uh and the history of this rather than worrying about running a meeting. And I I think Jerry, you're much more beneficial to us as a mentor than than running a meeting.
So again, I would like to nominate uh Cynthia. Uh is anybody else? >> Any other nominations? >> Hell no. >> And thank you. >> All in favor of Cynthia being vice chair.
>> Discriminating guessing because I'm the youngest here. >> You are. Except for Maria. That's unanimous. So, Cynthia, as of uh next uh big >> next one is January uh >> 21st when you will be you will be a vice
chair. You can sell right over here. >> Okay. >> And and I sit next to Jerry. >> Excuse me. >> Only kidding. >> And then uh so and oh, one other thing. Um, and and I got this from from Maria about someone else wanting to to be um
uh to take over the the vacated alternate position. Um because Oh, because George now is a a regular member, we have one alternate position open. We have uh uh a couple of months ago I think when Ray
when he just passed away we got I get a note from Kevin Mikov about being a member and I told him well the way this has to work is we don't have an opening for an alternate because
>> Ray passed away and he was a regular member. But what we needed to do first was, and I know I know George wanted to to take over Ray's position. So the stepping order was to have Ry assume to have George assume Ray's position, which
I which I guess only goes till next year. And then you >> till June or >> till till July. Yeah. The fiscal year. And then you're going to reapply for the for a fiveyear, >> you know, your your >> at that point then, which was only a few weeks ago. Then the alternate position
became open because now George is a regular member. So uh and I know that uh uh Kevin McGoff has sent his paperwork already in to um uh to become a an alternate and they're supposed to vote
on that at the next board of selectment meeting. It should have been this last meeting, but there was a uh I had talked to Paul about anyway. It u it it never got on the agenda. It didn't get on agenda fast enough to uh
uh to be posted. >> We'd be for them. >> I think we qualify Ripley's Believe It or Not too have two patent attorneys. I don't zoning board anywhere in the world that has two patent attorneys on it. >> So if uh so the board of selectment will
uh will meet on this uh at their next meeting which is January 5th I think something like that whatever this the next one is. So potentially by the next meeting on the 21st we may have again a full a full se seven member crew. I would like to say that um
um I u I watched uh I'll call him attorney Moff u uh when he came here to present uh in opposition to a uh u proposal that was
before us and I personally thought he was extremely good >> uh in his presentation. uh covered all the bases, didn't get excited. Uh seemed to be fair in in his
presentation and I was very happy if I remember right. I think I don't know if I actually did it or not, but I remember wanting to uh when the hearing was over to go out into the hall because they were still down there and just make a
quick suggestion to him that he ought to consider this board. And uh and I'm pretty sure I did that, but I'm not even positive. Uh and uh so I I was very pleased to see that he did did that. And
now I don't know with another applicant. I I am not sure now with the time frame and uh I don't know what's going on with that. So >> because there was another applicant. >> That's what he just mentioned. >> Someone emailed >> somebody emailed and I won't get into that right now, but yeah. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. >> Um >> Oh, I make a motion to adjourn the meeting. >> I second. All in favor? Bye. >> We're going to have to train if I