TranscriptNovember 17, 2020 ~ Appeals Board Meeting

room and I believe I can go ahead and admit them. So I'm going to do that. Yes. All right. So what I'm going to ask is that um that the members of the public um let's let's let's do this. Let's let everybody other than board members for the moment be muted.

meeting to order. It appears that we have um one, two, three, five members of the board. Members of the board um and two alternates here this evening. So, um I will call the meeting to order because we have a flag. So, we're going to dispense with the pledge of allegiance tonight. Um, I do want to um we have two items on the agenda. The first um is I have to acknowledge I don't have a printed out version of the agenda, but I'm going to ask that we consider the appeal from the denial of the condition use permit in the riverbend landscape first

of the application. I did submit to everyone today a um a notice that I would recuse myself from the second matter. It is based on subunitary history between the land owner and my family. And in the interest of following our ordinance, I'm going to recuse myself. the board can in effect challenge that and require a vote. So, um that's what our says that you may vote on alleged

conflict. Usually, that's used in the opposite way when the board member chooses not to recuse, but the board member secretly should. Uh so, if that is the case, we would need to appoint one of our alternate or we may appoint one of our two alternates to hear that matter and I think that would be a good idea. Um I'd suggest that we appoint Paul

a chance to kind of get into the swing of how we look at our ordinances further further question other than you're the newer member. If if if I could just suggest that everyone who's not talking please mute. So we won't have this echo that's making it very hard to hear. So if people could all mute if they're not talking, that would really help this echo. Um, if I could just interject for a moment. Ruth Ruth and Dean, I'm wondering if we have feedback going on in town hall because we have both uh we have two people in the same facility on two different computers. If you could just check that, that might dispense of that echo.

Right. Now that Dean is mute, the echo is gone. so but but it is good practice to stay mute if you're not speaking. Um so I guess I have the authority under our ordinance to appoint um an alternate to serve in mystead. So, I'm I'm going to go and I' go ahead and appoint Paul. I'd like to welcome Heather. This is really the first time since I've been on this planning this board of appeals that we've actually had the second alternate and and I believe that's a good thing. So, every everybody welcome Heather who was so intrigued by our processes that she decided to join us. Um all right. Um

so I I don't um I know um in also on this meeting I'm seeing Mr. Lee um who um as I would representing the appellant in the first matter. Um Mr. Wland I I'm take it that you're here in that first matter as well. That's correct. I'm a I'm an abuing neighbor.

Okay. And I know you did appear before um the planning board. Um so so I No, no, I did not. I I just attended the last meeting online back in June, May or June. That that's an appearance. Oh, there you go. You spoke, you you weighed in. You appeared. So that's that's all it means. Okay.

And then I'm seeing a PHONE NUMBER THAT I don't know. So I'm hoping that that person who is calling in um 2073532552 know which matter you are here with respect to let's give them a second to take themselves off mute Mr. Kend Kettle. Is it Kettle? Do I have that pronounced right? In in which matter are you here to observe? I'm just second matter. Okay. All right. Um so

is is um um Adam um is is your client here with you? Got it. Um so unless anyone has an objection, let's um this is an let me set the the kind of framework for the first matter and and it is the consideration of the appeal by

Riverbend um represented by in effect by by its owner Mr. hurling um from a denial of a conditional use application. Um as the members of the board may remember um we have fairly specific um um guidelines under our ordinance on

how uh we must consider these sorts of appeals and what our powers are. Um, and in this case, we are acting purely in an appellet capacity pursuant to our ordinance. It's in section, it's in a couple of places really, but I'm looking at section 17.32,

from um planning board actions, but we hear them in denov in a den um in a appellet capacity only. Gary, do you need to weigh in on something? And I was going to ask you to give us the pertinent board of appeals sections from the ordinance and our authority because I I personally find it hard to go from my phone to this screen and try to keep track of the ordinance. I don't have a hard copy uh here in here with me. Um

so 17.3 I got and then the other one the other location where um it it sets forth our duties and powers with this in this respect is section 7.6 right and that is appeals of conditional use decisions within the conditional use section of the ordinance. Thank you.

Okay. So, in this case, we have um received um the written documentation that was before the planning board and we have a copy of the final findings. Um and the application was denied. Um and the planning board did an excellent job of setting forth its findings relative to each of the provision of our statute. Does anyone I'm going to ask

Bob to explain the to be honest when I got this appeal the first thing I looked at was if the decision of the planning board was issued on August 19th and the appeal was not filed until October. Why is it a live appeal? And I'm going to ask Bob to explain that for us.

last meeting and then I sent Mr. Hurling an email asking him what his intentions were because his appeals had expired and he referred to the ordinance that says that he had to be notified in writing. So I then dropped the letter in his mailbox on the 21st of September I believe. So that was the start date because he was not notified in writing.

about that, Barbara? Um what what I'm concerned with is um Bob how you're sure he wasn't notified by the the town of the planning board's decision and I have no idea what the town's normal process is. Does the planning board not normally issue a a written decision and then mail that or email it uh to

No, there there's there's a loophole because it does say that the planning board has to do this. Um and I was unaware that they had not been doing it. So, okay. So that answers that they haven't been doing that and you're going to make sure with your whip and torch that they they do it in future.

From this day forward, we'll send out the final findings as soon as I get them. Thank you. If I if you want to just have a little walk through the ordinances, I can explain that to you. There's I don't think it's necessary, Adam. I think we're gonna not um consider we're going to consider this a live appeal.

Yep. Okay. So, we can move on to the um merits. Sure. We do need to enter the date of on the record clearly, Barbara, of the written decision. What day it was issued? I don't I don't have access to that with September 21st. What

What was the date again? September 21st. Thank you. the actual final final findings were the date on that August 19th, but again, it wasn't sent to Mr. Hurling, right? Until September 21st, I believe. Okay. So, we're all in agreement on that. Good. Yeah. And the appeal date that that this was filed, Barbara, I'm sorry that I couldn't uh

October 20. regarding the jurisdictional uh posture? I just thought I wanted to get that out there because I was a little confused and had a and to be honest did a little bit of trying to dig myself to figure out what this situation was. Okay. Um

yeah, I'm going to move I'm going to move Barbara that we find that the appeal is timely. Okay. Um let's have a second on that. Second. Thank you, Terry. call on that. I should. I guess you'll have to. Okay. Um Mr. Simon.

U Mr. Wood. Yes. Mr. Kirk. Yes. And Mr. Clark. Yes. And I vote in favor as well. Okay. All right. So, um unless anyone has any other um thoughts, I'd like to turn this over to the uh appellant for his presentation on the decision.

Sure. Thank you, Barbara. Um, you have, I believe, in front of you the appeal, uh, which provides our our written argument and representation as to why we believe that this matter should be overturned. Um, Hurling's LLC is the property owner. They operate at 14 Mil Pond Road, uh, landscaping business. Um, when Mr. Hurling opened up that business. He discussed with several um code enforcement officers who were prior to Bob uh whether he would need a conditional use permit and he was repeatedly told no that he wouldn't need a conditional use permit to operate his landscaping business there. As part of the business, he has uh as you would imagine a lot of lom and mulch and other types of materials that uh will sit oftentimes in large piles on the property. Um, noticing that this was an issue, perhaps an environmental issue as well as an aesthetic issue uh for his neighbors and and frankly an

organizational issue for the business, he decided that it would be best to contain those uh piles in some sort of uh uh bin. And so, uh, reviewing his options, he decided to, uh, place several concrete blocks that basically make a concrete wall that contains the materials, uh, so that they can be out of sight and also uh, more organized on the property and won't run off uh, as

uh, those types of materials are want to do if they're uncontained. Um at that time evidently there was a complaint by a neighbor uh as to to the concrete. Um and Mr. Hurling was informed that he would need to come to the planning board for a conditional use permit uh in order to have the concrete storage bins there. He filed an application uh for that permit detailing in the application that his ultimate plan was to have the concrete storage bins established uh at the property. Um and then have a fence built as well as plantings built uh uh placed in there so as to obstruct the concrete wall and to make it aesthetically pleasing to the eye for those who drive by as well as for neighbors. essentially to one contain the materials and then two uh hide the f

hide the concrete uh so that you have a a buffer there. Um the plannings planning board uh denied the permit application and the basis for the denial of the permit application so far as I can tell from reading the findings is that it it defined uh the concrete storage bins as a structure. Um and we

believe that's erroneous and an erroneous interpretation in in two respects. First, they're they're not a structure either. They're a wall, which is explicitly accepted in the definition that you have in your ordinance, uh, from being called a structure, or it's simply not a structure at all because it's a movable bin. Uh, it's concrete blocks that are easily movable. um any definition of structure requires that it be fixed and that the intent be such that it's not something that is at all movable. Here these are um the planning board seemed somewhat interested in the fact that they needed to be moved by heavy equipment. Uh frankly we don't believe that that's uh relevant. The question isn't whether something can be moved by hand or can be moved by heavy equipment or if you could do it with a team of oxen. Uh it doesn't matter how you move it. It's the question as to whether or not it is a movable item. Uh

the second uh mistake that they seem to make in their decision was not to contemplate the the application in full. uh it seemed to concentrate on the visibility of the concrete barriers um and not contemplate that they would not be visible if there was a fence and plantings which is certainly not the present circumstance uh because all work had to stop at the point that uh Mr. Hurling was told he had to apply for the conditional use permit. Um, but these won't be visible at the point that he's able to complete what he's asked for in his conditional use permit, which is to place the fence there and to put the plantings there as well. Um, ultimately, Mr. Hurling was attempting to improve the aesthetic appearance and to remedy any environmental issues that might be caused by these uncontained materials. Um, frankly, the problem that will happen if he's not able to contain them is that you'll just have piles. And

I don't believe that that's going to be too aesthetically pleasurable um for the neighbors as well. Um, it's unfortunate that you try to do good things and and this is ultimately what happens. But we're respectfully asking you to reverse their definition, their their misinterpretation of the word structure. Uh, I cited some case law for you in my written submission. Um, and it it sort of sets the baseline for you here. We don't think that the the ordinance is ambiguous. We think that this is most definitely not a structure. But even if there is an ambiguity and an ambiguity uh is defined as two potential interpretations. If there are two potential interpretations that say a structure is the concrete blocks are a structure or you could reasonably find that they're not a structure. If there's that ambiguity, if you think that there's a possibility of interpreting it both ways, then you have to resolve that

issue in favor of Mr. Hurling because in Maine land use laws are interrogation of of people's property rights. And when there's an ambiguity, when there's vagueness, you resolve those in favor of the land owner. And so we respectfully submit that either it's not ambiguous and it's not a structure or it's ambiguous and you have to find that it in this instance is not a structure. Um so we'll certainly take any questions you have and uh try to answer them.

but I'm going to let other members of the board start. So, um Gary, why don't you kick off the questions? All right. Um Mr. Lee, are you contesting uh that in any way that Mr. Hurling needs a conditional use permit or not?

I So, obviously there was an issue below at the planning board. We don't believe it is. We think still think it's an issue for appeal. We don't believe he needs to obtain a conditional use permit because on what what basis are you disagreeing with the code officer about that?

Because it's not an expansion of the business. He's simply containing items that are already existent within the business. Uh and so he does not need a conditional use permit for the purposes of expansion. Okay. In in relation to that, could you explain to me then why such a detailed engineering uh plan was submitted in in relation to his business which shows a lot of uses on the 1acre parcel in different locations. Uh so it he

received a letter from from Bob Forest, the code enforcement officer, saying, "Look, we think you're in violation because of these storage bins. You will need to come apply for a conditional use permit to have the storage bins." So killing two birds with one stone, he has future desire to expand the business. He filed the conditional use permit with the storage bins, but also other things he would like to do in the future. Okay. And and I don't know if you agree with me or Barbara or the rest of the board, but it looked like that plan's approved, but for these existing storage uh structures or whatever you want to call them. I won't I won't cons, you know, I'm not saying they're a structure, but the ones that are there, everything else, as I understand it, the planning board approved, so he can go ahead. Um but for

so I'm sort of I'm somewhat behind the eightball on that Gary because I did not represent Mr. Hurling at the planning board and so I don't know precisely what their finding was with respect to the remainder of that but I would assume that the question about I would assume that this grants him the ability to do everything else that is in that engineering report without more information. disagree with you on that one and to the and I'm going to take a look at their finding with respect to number five in in the decision that they rendered their motion was that since the expansion in

2020 including the addition of the concrete bins the property has generated significant complaints from neighbors. The first complaints were in April of 20. I'm skipping. Additionally, the property generates significantly more traffic than a residential use, approximately five times that of a typical residential property, which makes it incompatible with neighboring uses. Finally, this is an undersized lot with a very intensive use that does not fit with the character of the neighborhood and structures are very close to neighboring properties, including the storage bins. as I read it and again to the extent that there were complaints regarding the existing um operation of the business and this is a was a conditional use application that talked about um adding other proposed bins potentially a garage other things

on the site plan. One question is does the denial stand without e even considering the storage bins to be structures? I would I would obviously argue no. Um and the reason that I would say that is because I don't think you can separate that later language from what's at the top which is particularly the storage bins. And so I'd agree that those findings are made. I' I'd obviously disagree with those findings. Um but it it is impossible to untether the particularly the storage bins from the remainder of those findings. It's very clear. Let me just if I if I could, Barbara, I um in relation to your analysis, Barbara, what what I'm a little puzzled by is the fact that the planning board went through, as I understood their decision, each and every item necessary to grant approval to the conditional use permit application except the one that we're here tonight trying to figure out what we're going to do with which is that

that is that not correct? The reason I ask is because if you don't think they did that, what I'd suggest is let's deal with what we all know is the problem here tonight. And if we have to, we'll just send it back to the board for clarification um on that issue. Did you approve it or you know or not? Um so

because I don't know that we can tell from what they put in theirh findings, at least the ones I saw, I may not have seen the whole thing. I think the word additionally the property generates significantly more traffic than a than a residential use. I mean the board finds

particularly it's not compatible. Additionally the property generates significantly more traffic than res I I I read it as here's one reason here's another. Yes. And and in fact I have to tell you I listen Yeah. Having having considered at a disadvantage. I'm at a disadvantage because I didn't I you know I couldn't print these but um so is that additionally language in that the number five is that where they deny the conditional use permit application. Okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. I understand your position.

They took a line vote. Yeah. They took a bottom line vote. It's at the very end of the finding and it says motion to deny conditional use approval based on the findings above. Um and uh it's 40. So they they voted. Okay.

All right. That helps. I'm sorry. I I'm at a disadvantage. From what I'm seeing it it's noted in in in two spots. says there's number five which is um the the title is scale and intensity of use and then a number nine which the heading is compliance with ordinance requirement. So they they denied it in two locations.

So under under five, they're saying that that the board finds that that it's not compatible with existing nurses in the neighborhood, particularly with the addition of the concrete bins. And then under nine, it's saying the motion is that the conditional use does not meet structure setbacks with respect to the storage bins erected.

that even if we don't consider them as structures but have to meet a setback requirement, IF THEY'RE NONSTRUCTURES, THAT'S WHY they're calling them in number five and to be honest, I listen to the hearing and it's very clear that this is a alternative finding. In other words, WHETHER YOU CALL them or bins, even if they're bins, they're inable with existing use. Um, is that what you

were trying to say, Milies? One is based on defining the bins as structure, one is not right. What what uh under nine they're they're questioning the the the structure and under five they're it's the it's really that they're addressing the the the permit itself.

though and Mil can I ask you you use your mic because I'm hearing myself. Thank you. Um, so the issue that you run into there with that interpretation is that it still assumes that they're going to be visible based on the plan. And so the storage bins being unsightly, that's a problematic interpretation of what the conditional use permit is asking for because what the conditional use permit is asking for is a fence that will obstruct the visibility of those storage bins. And so central to the finding in five is the visibility of those storage bins. And that's an error as it comes to the interpretation of what the conditional use permit's asking for.

information. I notice that there are proposed additional storage bins on the plan. Right. Correct. And so if there's more storage bins on the plan, doesn't that mean more business, more traffic, more loading, more unloading, more trucks, more more of the things that the existing neighbors complained about apart from storage bins? No, it means that there's more there's more contained materials. It doesn't change the operation of the business at all.

It it just means the business place is more organized. It it how do we know that there's not going to be an increased use of those of the other bin? I mean if there's there's addition as I understand there's other things that are going to be happening based on this conditional use permit application and those things in effect I

think the planning board is is as I read it is finding that an increase in business activity in and of itself is incompatible. I think it's I think it's tough from what you see in the findings though to un again as I said untether that from the storage bins right and so certainly there'd be this would be a different consideration if they were saying the increased activity that you have planned we think will be uh problematic and that it'll increase the number of people there and that's the basis for denying the appeal or the the conditional use permit request whereas Whereas for us, that would be an easier answer to receive from the planning board because it means you can have the storage bins, you just can't increase the the scope of the business anymore. But here, they're saying no, you can't have the storage bins that you're attempting to erect, which is uh storage bins that have been there for a

while and containing materials that have been there a while at the current volume of the operation. And so I I agree with you that that would be um that would probably be a harder finding for us to appeal. But here when it is based on the existence of existing storage and the current volume of operation of the business that's that that seems untenable to us as a it means it means you have to answer the question as to whether or not these are a structure and whether they can be

they can be so h how do you you know what's still kind of complicating this is under motion is it's mentioning more than just the the bins. It's all, you know, it's mentioning that the property generates significantly more traffic. It's saying that it's incompatible with neighboring uses. Um, and and then it says, "Finally, this is an undersized lot with a very intensive uses. It's not fit with the character of the neighborhood." So, it's more than just the bins that seems to be to be of that was a concern to the planning board.

It it it does melt. I I would agree with that. The issue that you run into though is you're trying to determine which straw is the one that broke the camel's back. And from our perspective, if you remove the structure straw, is that enough for them to say that it wouldn't meet that exception to the conditional use application?

standard that you'd have to show us, Adam, that they made clearly erroneous findings or findings that weren't based on the record evidence. Well, I I don't think that's the case because if there's a legal error in that one, the assumption that the the bins are a structure, then that is a legal question for you all to answer. That's only relevant though in finding number in the finding about structures. Number five doesn't mention the word structure at all.

Well, it's talking about the bins and and it later makes the assumption that those bins are a structure. Right. But but BY CALLING THEM SIMPLY BINS, they're telling us that they've decided number five without reference them to them being structures. A neighbor can find them unsightly whether they're structures or not.

A neighbors lot line. Hold on. They can be too close to the lot line whether or not they're structures or not. I'm sorry. We We're better at interrupting each other when we're in person. I the issue that you run into there uh Barbara is that you have to come back to that question of then they were in error because they assumed that they would be visible to neighbors and not based on the conditional permit application as it was with a fence that buffers them from visibility and plantings that buffer them from visibility.

the roadway in the plan. fully obstruct it there. It didn't seem to make sense to put those plantings there. I think from just the way that it was constructed in the plan. Certainly, we would put plantings there if you asked us to or if the planning board asked us to. Paul, I know you're not voting on this one, but you you often have very good analysis. I'm wondering um if you might want to weigh in. Uh well I think you've pointed out some important points both Barbara and Milt and that was actually where I was coming down also that the number five is really

independent of whether or not the bins are structures. Um what they're talking about here is the intensity and scale of use rather than you know and that's independent of whether the bin is a structure or not a structure. um with regard to screening, you know, and I I see here looking at the site plan that there is a section of fence along the front of the bin, but I also see that other than that, the front of the property is open. And I did read, I believe, one comment from an anabotter with regard to being across from the that facility and being able to look over at it. I can't recall the exact comments, but and then of course you have travel on the road that could look, you know, into that area um from either side. So, you know, the bin is is fairly close to the road. And, you know, screening is always one of those things that is kind of in the eyes of the beholder and is subject to some interpretation

with regard to both the board, neighbors, and the applicant. Um, so that's pretty much all I can say. you know, you know, it depends on whether you in my opinion, well, you know, it's did did the board have enough information to reach their conclusion.

I guess I would have to say they did and I found that their conclusion was fairly well supported. Um, you know, you get into this kind of sticky situation where, you know, how did it come to be? And what do you do when you have something that I don't know if this was previously a home occupation or exactly how this started on this site, but it's grown to this point where they've needed to come for this conditional use permit. And so the question becomes what's next?

relevant that the triggering act for the request for a conditional use permit, which we deny we have a responsibility to file anyway, was the storage bins. And so that's why that's the central question that needs to be answered, I think, for for anyone to go forward from here. Um,

I understand that, but there's certainly more to Milt and Barbara's port point to intensity of use than just the storage bins. And the board specifically cited traffic generated and and you know whether that be trucks or you know I don't know the specifics of what type of traffic there is but and exactly how that was supported but um they did specifically site traffic and other things other than just the storage bins.

point also if I were to think about this let's assume that they put up I don't know a tent a porta if there was a porta potty right there we'd all maybe agree the porta potty isn't a structure a neighbor could still complain about that might then trigger hey there's no conditional use permit on this property folks you've got to get one. That's how land use works. So, the fact that it was these bins that triggered a complaint that led everyone to realize there was no conditional use permit issued. It it doesn't matter what someone complained about, they complained, which caused the quotes enforcement officer to take a closer look at the land use history and to say, "Hey, there's no conditional use permit here. It's in rural residential. it can. It needs to have one. Boom. You know, that triggers getting one. So, I'm not all that persuaded by an argument that the structures are the cause of

this whole thing. It's it's the it's the bins we could easily say are the cause of the whole thing. Can I um I know that that's this there. So, there's the bin question versus the structure question. Put those to the side for the moment. There's been some concerns about the volume of the business. I think it's relevant uh to

the findings that were made by the planning board on number two when it came to traffic safety impacts. It says the proposed use will not create unsafe vehicular pedestrian traffic conditions when added to existing and foreseeable traffic in this vicinity. And then there was a motion to find that the proposed use will not create unsafe vehicular pedestrian traffic conditions. The traffic is not anticipated to regularly exceed 50 trips per day with significantly fewer in the winter months. And so obviously we'd be bound on any conditional permit conditional use finding to not exceed that number of trips. So with respect to the volume issue, I think you can say that the planning board answered that question and has established what the limit is for the granting of the conditional use permit. But I see traffic safety as being different than intensity or scale in a neighborhood.

Well, the intensity and scale is determined by the number of trips that they're limiting it to in the conditional use finding. That's for public safety and traffic. That's a I see those as two separate consideration. One is from the impact of the town and its police power. The other is from the impact on the neighbors and the surrounding community. So, they're two different um considerations. You you could have a very safe traffic and it's still too much for what the neighbors are used to. And that's what number five is getting at. Well, but that would be that would make sense if you didn't look at the sentence in two that says this is not an unreasonable addition to the traffic on the road, which I think is a pretty clear finding as to the absence of an additional traffic impact and an additional obstruction for the neighbors when it comes to to traffic passage. I think you have to take that though Adam in the

context of the approval criteria which was number two which related to uh safety things like uh things like intensity of use and how that's perceived by neighbors whether it's compatible whether it's compatible with a residential neighborhood it might not it as Barbara said it may not be doesn't have to be a safety issue, but it could be in some ways just not a compatible use. You know, that they don't feel it's compatible.

I I I guess to make that assumption that that's what they were saying here because I don't think they're drawing that distinction. They're making a clear interpretation as to what the volume of traffic is going to be in the neighborhood and that there isn't going to be an increase in the volume of traffic. In fact, saying essentially don't increase the traffic volume any so that you don't come out of what we're used to in the neighborhood. And so I I guess we're now sort of in three sets of findings here. One, there's the structure question. There's two which is the volume question. I think the volume question is answered by that. And then there's three which is the visibility of the storage bins but our conditional use application is directly created to to fence in those

bins and to obstruct them with plantings and so that they won't be visible any further. Can I ask a question about the hearing? Yeah. During the hearing and I I guess I asked this question of uh Adam or Barbara. So during the hearing, was there discussion of the fence and the screening in front of the bin in front of that one particular bin?

There was in fact I recall Mr. Wland um um talking about what he could see and it being 6 feet. They didn't make findings with respect to the height that the fence had to be, but there was some discussion that it was proposed as a six-foot fence,

a six and I'm I'm assuming that that Mr. Hurling will correct me on that, but that's what I heard that he would was proposing. He would he would for visibility purposes and and you'll be accustomed to hearing me say this be willing to make a larger fence if needs be.

be uh let in. I'm going to mute and voting? Okay, thank you. Um, how tall are the blocks? Six feet. Uh, but it could serve its purpose if the blocks were lowered. He could take off a couple of blocks to lower it. Okay. And I I also watched the um

planning board meeting and I feel like I remember I watched it in real time when it was happening and I feel like I remember the proposed blocks that were on the plan were an option to move what's there because they were concerned about how close to the property line they were and that he could, if I remember correctly, it wasn't to put more up. It was a proposal to move those if they found that they were too close to the property line or too close to the road. I could be wrong, but I I feel like that that's what I recall.

you. Um, Barbara, I want to follow up on that and ask Bob where the wall is on this bin and if that is it within the rightway of of the old mill road and if the wall was taken out, would the pile still be within the rightway of the old mill road? It's a similar question to what Heather was just sort of getting at. I think

I believe they're 10 ft off the road and they to be a commercial entity you have to meet 100 foot setback and I discussed that with James and he said there's no way I can do that because he doesn't have enough room. Um so either way he doesn't meet even

the 50-foot setback. So, so the setback is a 50 foot setback from the center of the traveled way or from the edge of the line. The edge of the rightway 50 ft from the edge of the rightway and that's for residential use. That's for residential use

which is why the structure question becomes right. Is that because it's a there is that for a structure or is that just for anything? Anything except a fence? So, as I look at the setback requirements, the front lot line is residential

without a separate requirement for commercial. So, it's 50 feet. 50 feet. The front lot line not residential is 100 feet. So this is not residential. Correct. Um all of you find it to be a structure. You you have the parking lot that doesn't meet the setbacks. Um you have the garage that's there. The side doesn't meet the setbacks.

All original. Well, I I would have to also ch I'd have to chime in here. You can't you can't pile sand and other stuff within the town a certain distance of the town's rightaway. It doesn't matter if it's a structure if it's in the rightway.

It's of the town. And that's why I was asking Bob if it's in the town rightaway, not the front lot line. I'm just curious about the town rightaway. Is this a three- rod road, a two rod road? What what's the dimension of Old Mill Road? It

It's a 50- foot wide rightway. It's a 50- foot wide rightway. And so how close are these piles, regardless of whether they've got a wall around them to that uh to the 50ft rightway? Where are they in relation to the outside line of the rightway?

It's very hard. Are they within? They could be. They they are not, but it's it's very hard to to see it on a survey. Um, okay. So, it's not clear. It's not clear. Okay. Well, no. According to the the plan, they look to be 10 ft off the rightway

and I'm just roughing that. Thank you. Yeah. Terry, you've been Terry, you've been Heather, do you have other questions? Okay. Terry, you have not weighed in at all. Um, do you have questions or anything you'd like to share with the rest of us? And then I'll ask Dean next.

My My question is, is this commercial or residential? The conditional use would be commercial. Is what is it now? property is residential. It only needs a conditional use. I mean, this is this is the issue we're running into is that there are interpretations here being made by the code enforcement officer that are not findings of the planning board. And so,

that's not what I'm asking. That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking is this property residential or is it commercial? It's commercial because he's he has a business there. It seems to me that unless it's a homebased business, whether there's a residence there or not, it's considered number 23 in our

land use ordinance. personal service, retail, wholesale, business service, financial service, and all other commercial services not otherwise listed regardless of how it started. Exactly. There's a residence. We we agree. We we know that the there is a tenant there that is in um a structure a real struct a structure on the property but that doesn't mean there's not also a commercial operation that doesn't fit the definition of a homebased business.

That is an issue you are raising suante and is not one that was answered by the planning board and is not in front of the zoning board of appeals at the moment. Right. But but but your but Terry's question is is what what is triggering the request for the conditional use permit now?

Establishment of storage bins. There's a letter from Bob that establishes that the existence of the storage bins was the reason that he is asking for a conditional use permit be gained. Otherwise, there would be a code enforcement violation. um

in the if I understand it right, you get a conditional use permit for commercial business, a residential business or a homebased business, you don't need a conditional use permit. Correct. I I have to disagree with you, Adam, on your interpretation of Bob's letter. He says, "You are required to remove the blocks from within the public right of way within one week of receiving this notice. The owner of this property must submit a conditional use permit application by April 20th, 2020.

Remove concrete blocks from the property within one week of receiving this letter if you choose not to submit a conditional use permit application." So yeah, I guess I mean I I see what I I understand your argument. I've boy, you know, it says I mean he's also saying this ordinance can be found on our website. In this ordinance, all existing homebased businesses were grandfathered and are allowed to continue as is without a conditional permit. If there is any expansion of the business, a conditional use permit must be approved by the planning board. So there was lots of different expansions.

The only expan so this was this was found to be a home use business. He asked several code enforcement officers from the town of Durham. So we might have a neto stoppple claim later on if we have to deal with that. But he asked them whether or not he would need a conditional use permit. The only moment, as you can read from this letter, the thing that triggered the need for a conditional use permit, according to the town, was what was alleged to be a code uh code violation of having this the storage bins, the concrete blocks. Read the letter. It's the one from March 24th, 2020. It says that the only reason and it doesn't say the only reason. It says that the code enforcement violation is the storage blocks.

of the business, right? The storage blocks being the extension of the business. No, the no the packing in the equipment. And none of that is mentioned in this letter, but it's on the conditional use permit application. So, it's there. We've got that as part of the record. That's part of what he's asking to do.

So, if he if he resubmits a conditional use permit application with only the storage bins, then we'll go back to the planning board and the planning board will once again deny that conditional use permit and we'll be back here to answer the question of the storage bins. Well, I think we'll answer that, Adam, but I do think you're actually starting down the right line for your client here, which is, and I think that was also in Bob's letter, suggesting that you file the conditional use uh permit application. I I think it what bothers me here, and I'm sure it bothers the rest of the board, is that one way or the other, if this requires a conditional use permit, which the planning board concluded that it did, as did the code officer. They they sustained his conclusion about that. um

he's going to be put out of business, I think, if if there's not some way that you can work with him and modify his conditional use application such that it addresses the nonbin issues like number of traffic trips, the impact on the neighborhoods, can it be uh mitigated with fences and screenings? I I I just come from the perspective that Barbara started with which is that unless there were you know the planning board decides the facts in these cases and they've decided the facts and we have no we have

no basis factual basis upon which we could ever change their decision. Um, and you're asking us to rule that they were wrong as a matter of law in deciding that the bins were a structure. But I think before we're done, I I'm going to move to sustain the the planning board's decision because from what I'm hearing from several people who have got quite a bit of knowledge, which I I know you're at somewhat of a disadvantage because you didn't get to participate in the planning board process, but there were other grounds of equal or more importance in the minds of the planning board for not approving the uh plan that was was put before them. Um, and that's why, you know, I

would hope that when we're done with this that if if we sustain the planning board uh decision that there may still be some potential for Mr. Hurling to stay in business by modifying his plan in such a way that he he can mitigate at least those those concerns that the neighbors have about traffic and intensity of use. Uh because we don't like putting people out of business, but and I don't think the planning board does either. Um but in this one I I feel like our hands have been pretty clearly tied by the planning board's decision um on those non BIN issues.

I I think obviously our concern is if you read the letters from abuing neighbors the concern isn't the concern is the existence of a business there and that is problematic obviously for Mr. are hurling. And so if if the the decisions of the planning board and the board of appeals are um based on those neighbor complaints, that's going to be problematic. But

but it for us, it's not based on the neighbor complaints as much as it is based on the record of those complaints that the board the planning board took in. I mean, they waited they waited the evidence and it it and we can't say that there wasn't evidence in the record that it wasn't compatible.

that that the bins as as constructed are in fact a structure. explain that please. What pro what prompted Yeah. To me to me the concept of a structure is something built to contain something else quite frankly. And it's unfortunate we don't have a definition apparently in the ordinance of what a structure is. But this is this is clearly built to contain the um the

piles that were there. It can't, you know, it can be moved, but it doesn't look to me like it's easily movable. It's going to take heavy equipment. And and so where are we going to uh be able to come down saying something that takes heavy equipment to move that is designed to stay where it is and never go anywhere? How are we going to conclude rashly that that's not a structure? So, that's that's where I'm coming in. I'm also quite frankly concerned about how close the concrete blocks are to the edge of the rightway. I know they're they're back at least 10 feet and I that meets from what I heard Bob say that that meets the law. They're 10 feet away from the uh rightway. I'm talking about the rightway now, not the setback requirement. Um, but to me

that's a pretty serious hazard uh to have a a set of concrete blocks right pretty much up against the the town's rightway. Um, if the town wants to expand that road at some point in time, they're going to be even closer than 10 ft. Um, and I know it's not something the planning board necessarily look at that uh if if there is another application for a conditional use permit. So, I just I I can't really get myself to a common sense conclusion that that is anything but a structure.

it's hard not to think of it as a structure because the blocks are made of concrete. Let's say he had used uh 3-in styrofoam boards to to hold in the material. Would you still be thinking of this as a structure? That's another case for another day note. But I you would have me thinking if it were true.

Dean, you had a question. Just going back to the book here. We're still talking about the structure and according to our ordinance. I read it says the definition definition of a structure in the ordinance is as reads quote any constructed or erected

with a fixed location on or in the ground or attached to something having a fixed location on the ground including driveways, walkways and so on so on. So the definition is anything constructed, erected with a fixed location on or in the ground or attached to something. That's what the town ordinance says. To me, that's a very clear definition of what a structure is in the town of Durham.

you? Does that make you think this is a structure, Dean? Yes. Okay. It can't be anything else according to our ordinance. to read, it does specifically exclude fences, stone or brick walls used for area separation and not part of a building. I think you have to read the end of that definition and consider that as well. That is included in the structure definition.

An area separation. So is this is this area se is there a difference between area separation and material separation? pathways from lawns. Um uh rock walls separate um one paddic from the next. Um, you know, I I I read that that sentence

talks about defining um two-dimensional sort of areas rather than containing material. That to me is different. Um, I agree with Gary and Dean on that one. But unlike Gary, I wouldn't reach the structure issue. Frankly, I I would in I'm in in thinking I would sustain the

decision of the um planning board based on number five alone without reaching the other issue because I like narrow decisions. But yeah, my only concern with that, Barbara, is if he goes up on appeal and the court says no, the plan the board of appeals really has to decide the legal issue as to whether what is the legal meaning of this term in this case. Does it not get sent back for us to do that or I don't want to delay it. I'd like that I'd like it to be packaged so that you know Mr. for a hurling at least knows, okay, there's no sense in going up just on that issue and getting sent back. He's going to have to go up on two issues now. The board's decision, planning board's decision in general and what it was based on, as well as on if he wants to argue with the law court that about our interpretation, legal interpretation of what a structure is, he he can do that too at the same time. Um, that's that's the only reason I I

pressed that. That's fair. Um, it it seems to me it's less an issue of being a structure as it is to how close it is to the road. Well, as I understood what Bob said, it is outside the rightway. Did I get that right, Bob?

No, it is outside of the rightway, but anything needs to meet the setbacks. Right. Right. Except a fence. Exactly. If it's a structure. I'm back. By the way, we dropped off for a while. I don't know if you were aware of that.

Yep. I'm let you back in. Thanks. we sustain uh that we that we interpret the word structure to not include the walled bins that in uh close construction or landscaping material that are relevant to this case. Wait, I'm sorry. Say that again. that we do interpret structure or we don't

that we interpret uh the bins containing the landscaping material to be structures within the meaning and language of the Durham ordinance. I'll second that. Okay, let's do a voice vote on that. Um, well, do we want to have any further discussion on this point?

what you what you were saying about structure, whether this definition holds or was it it does not hold. Um, no. I I I read the definition and interpret it as I believe uh Barbara does as well and the other members of the board that when something is built to contain something else opposed to simply separating one use

from another use that it is in fact a structure. So that these bins containing these landscaping um materials are structures. Oh, thank you. Okay, any further discussion? We had a second of this motion by Terry. Is there any further discussion?

yes. Yes. Yes. Um, I'd like Now I'll move that we sustain the decision of the planning board to deny the uh conditional use application. Gary, I'd actually before we get to that ultimate motion, I would I'd like to make a motion that um w with specifically with respect to that section five to say that the planning board did not air by by um finding that

the conditional use permit did not satisfy um parag that that paragraph of five of the of our ordinance or um I but doesn't that get doesn't that get into their factual uh um right determination and we don't vote on their factual determination

but no unless they made unless they they unless they made a decision contrary contrary to the record and I I I think it is perfectly appropriate to today to make a motion so that I can include in a written opinion that um that that the that the planning bo board did not heir in finding that the use was incompatible. I I want to I want to reach that as well and I think I'd like to have a motion.

Yeah. All right. I'll move that. Okay. You want to phrase it better than I did? No, that was fine. you you wanted us to move to sustain I think the planning board's decision in hold and in particular their uh conclusion in paragraph five of their decision regarding compatibility uh with a residential use or incompatibility with a residential use of the uh application

and then the third motion would be that we we move to deny the appeal. Okay. And so I move that we deny the appeal. Do you want to vote on that motion, your motion? The one I just tried to phrase it. Yeah. Well, yes. So that's WHAT WE'LL DO. THE SEC THE THIRD MOTION. So the second motion is the board of appeals um did not finding in section five was based on um the evidence in the record.

Okay. I'll second it. Okay, Terry. Thank you. And we'll go through and vote. Uh discussion on that one. Do you guys understand that? I I I want to I want the planning board to know that and and I want the record to show that that it's it's almost an in the alternative that that basis of making that finding was based on evidence in the record that was not contrary to the record. That's the point of doing that. So, um Dean,

yes. Hey, Milt. Yes. Um Terry, yes. Gary, yes. And I am also Yes. And then the la the third motion would be to deny the appeal. Second. Yes. Milt. Okay. Um Terry, yes. Gary, yes. And I also vote yes. Um we know that this is always tough and it is a difficult for us to do to do this.

Um, and we know it it it creates hassles for businesses to have to try to figure out what do they have to do, you know, to to to create a business that can exist within a a residential community. And, you know, I I think that between the decision of the board of the planning board and ours, there there's some indication that of what options there might be going forward. Anyone else have anything else to say? Okay.

So, for the reasons that I stated earlier, I am going to sign off of of this matter now because I feel compelled to recuse myself. And unless anyone, you know, I I think that um um Before you do that, Barbara, can I ask you a question?

Yep. Um, should we anticipate a written decision? Yep. Okay. And how soon should we anticipate that written decision? As I understand it, I've got 30 days, but it'll be quicker than that. I always run into the appelllet question that might have come up earlier whether or not we have to take that appeal from this vote or from the written decision. Well, I tell you, I think based on um a case um from the town of Clifton, you might want to base it on the vote.

Well, and that's the problem is you have that, but you also have the Androskagan County Gorum case, which says almost the exact opposite. So I know but yeah that and and I can't you know I don't know if at all possible adise you on that one but

as a matter of courtesy uh if at all possible if you could do it before the 30 days we'd be appreciative I'll do my best thank you and you have you have 45 right? Yeah. Uh no it's now 30 on the ADB. Oh is it okay? Is it is it

okay? Thank you, Adam. No, I didn't. I for some reason I'm not sure I knew that. So, I will definitely do it faster than 30 days. Unless I'm wrong, but unless I'm I I always calendar in my head 30 days. So, Okay. Thank you.

All right. Um, you're welcome. And I'm going to sign off now, folks. Okay. Well, who who is the who's the co who's the chair? You are. You are. Okay. I I just want to make sure. And yes, thank you. If you could serve as the chair.

One, two, three, four. Okay. And so, and then Paul will sit. Yes, Paul. Um, I I'll pro Did we did we did we vote on that? And you know, your appointment of him as an acting uh participant in this, I will do it. I mean, I can do it. It doesn't matter,

right? I Yeah. If you c I in fact I don't think you have to vote. I get the right to appoint but if you okay but vote but that's vote if you want but thank you and I will as per our practice I will draft something um and and and circulate it get everyone's feedback and then have it circulated as the final decision.

Thank you Barbara. Okay thanks Gary. Thank you everybody. Have a great evening. Thanks, Barbara. Can I move that we take a five minute break? Yes, you may. And I was going to suggest eight minutes. Eight minutes. So, we're gonna we're going to take at least an eight minute break, but five minimum, eight maximum. And we'll be back. So, nobody turn off their TVs here. Computers.

Paul, got Paul. I've got Dean. All right. I've got Dean, I've got Milt, I've got Paul, I've got Bob, I've got Charlie. All right, let me Is everybody uh Can everybody hear me? Raise your hand. Can you hear me? Okay, Dean.

Okay, here's Charlie's back. Um, and Bob's with us. Good. All right. Um I'm going to call the uh on November 17th, 2020, which is the appeal of Kenneth Carl uh of the code enforcement officer's decision regarding the use of the property and the requirements related to that use as a junkyard on is it on uh I

I believe it's on the rabbit road or is that the is that have another name? I'll let Bob address that as he presents the case to us. Thank you. And oh, excuse me, Bob. Before you start, Bob, before you start, I'm sorry. I'm going to uh appoint um alternate Paul first to sit as an active and voting member on this appeal in the absence of the chair. Thank you, Bob. You set?

Yes. All right. So, it's on Royalsboro. Um, it's near the corner of Rabbit Road. Um, it's a large parcel. Ken has leased a 300 by 300 foot parcel off of I believe it's his mother to run the junkyard. Over the last couple years, the whole property has basically turned into a junkyard. So, I I cited him for

fencing because it's it's a junkyard. Um, so it's more or less he's the the junkyard has expanded to go outside the 300 by 300 foot area. He has the 300 foot area screened with a natural burm and trees, but now the the farmhouse down below is just covered with stuff and it needs to

be screened. requirement, Bob? It's, um, a six-foot fence or a natural buffer to screen from all public view. Um, any considered to be a junkyard. from view from the road. From the road. Yeah. From the road. Yes. Okay. with us? I'm not sure.

I'm right here. Can you hear me? Um Oh. Oh. Can Yes, I can. Um, go ahead. Well, as as Bob said, my 300 by 300t area is well screened. Um what's happened is uh my uh stepfather Andrew Higgins has in excess of a dozen vehicles registered because he plows snow, hauls tractor, trailer, um all

sorts all sorts of things. And um Bob mentioned that he was considering the entire property as uh in in his decision. And I have I have no control over other properties other than that 300 by 300 ft area which is the designated area. Um

so my I don't know how familiar you are with the uh junkyard uh regulations, but I have to uh specifically designate an area for the for the junkyard. I don't really operate a junkyard. I'm just an avid hobbyist with lots of cars. I'm not hauling and crushing and doing any of that. I just uh like driving a lot of cars. And the reason I appealed that is because like I said, my 300, you know, I every year I have to uh uh fill out the paperwork, draw a picture of where my junkyard is. uh the fact that there are

other cars down behind uh my mother, that would be uh uh Priscilla Higgins and uh her husband Andrew Higgins. Uh the fact that there are other vehicles down in that area is uh uh to me that that's a separate issue because but involved in interpreting the whole thing with the board of select men and everything decided that the the whole area was was under consideration and see

that area down there is not screened. Mhm. So that's not part of my my junkyard, the the 300 foot square um that I lease off of my mother. So the fact that that is viewed as being out of compliance is is not a uh is is not a situation that's part of my junkyard.

And uh Okay. Thank you, Mr. Carl. Do you own uh any of the other land outside the 300 by 300 ft leased par? Uh yes, I have I have an abuing house lot. And does that lot uh have any of the uh junk on it that uh the code actually the 300 kind of spills over right to the edge of edge of my area. The uh the major concern was the area that's at the bottom of the hill

that's uh not screened. Is the spill over onto your lot within the sixft fence or outside it? Uh there is spill over onto my house lot, but it's shielded with a burm. You can't see it from the road. Okay. And but if uh if if that's an issue, I could

No, that's okay. Drag them into the 300. Right. I'm trying to get the facts straight and the other board members will have questions too. And so, who owns the uh land outside the 300 by 300 foot um lot that you've leased for a long time.

Uh that would be my my mother D. Priscilla Higgins owns that. It looks like us? Who who who did you site? Was it uh the land owners, the Higgins, or um Mr. Carl for the junkyard issues? It was Mr. Kyle, right? Do you agree? Do you do you agree the 300 by 300 foot leased area is is uh

meets the requirement of being screened from view from uh the road? Yes. Okay. And can you can you explain why then you decided you should include the entire area owned apparently by the Higgins uh Priscilla and Andrew Higgins in in

Mr. Carl's application to continue the junkyard within the 300 foot. Well, I I can asking what what made you decide to go outside the area? because Andy, who's um Ken's stepfather, also uses Ken's junkyard to store stuff

and to put stuff. So, in my eyes, it was it was an expansion of the junkyard. And I did I did not site Priscilla because the permit is in Ken's name. Um well, when Andy um has Ken store some of his junk, does he put it inside the 300, you know, foot area that's fenced?

Yeah. Or leave it outside? No, he he uses the 300 by 300 also. So they they basically What I'm struggling Yeah. Yeah. I understand, Bob. What I'm struggling with is why the pro the appropriate parties for you to site for maintaining essentially an illegal junkyard aren't the Higgins family instead of Mr. Carl.

He's not operating their what's on their property as I understand it. Yeah. I uh that was a big question in my mind when I did this and I went back and forth with which one to site. Um, can it's not it's not easy. We know that. And you do a wonderful job, by the way.

Big parcel. And um, yeah, I probably should have cited for an illegal junkyard. Okay. That's kind of where that's based on what I've heard, that's kind of where I am, too. quite frankly, if he's had this lease and operated that facility within

the the restrictions of state law, at least, you know, regarding screening and whatever else applies. I really think the appropriate parties that need to be cited by the town are Priscilla and Andrew and hope I know you and you're going to give them at least some time to try to get rid of stuff and consolidate it and hopefully Ken will help them and uh because it didn't look like they had a lot of money uh you know to to build a really big fence around all this but that's That's I guess for you to try to work out with them as to what they might need. If the rest of the board agrees with the way I'm approaching this, so let me just ask them to chime in.

Could I could I interject something here at this moment? To uh Um here here's the thing. Um Andy's got his fingers into a lot of different things. You know, he Well, well, for example, one of the things that uh Bob had an issue with, and rightly so, it wasn't really part of my junkyard, but Andy had a uh a wood operation ro uh h

setup at the end of my driveway. And Bob came by. Yeah. Mr. Carl, Mr. Carl, Mr. Carl, I'm going to stop you there. You are going to have to work out whatever differences you have with Andy and and uh you know his wife somewhere else. Not here tonight because we're just taking a look. What I what I wanted to say was

junkyard and we we moved a ton of stuff that although it wasn't in the junkyard, it was too close to the road, you know, cuz Bob Bob explained about how the the 100 foot setback works and cuz that kind of visually improved because because it was a bunch of uh trailer and stuff like that. So we we work together. I mean, I work work together with them and if if there is an issue, but like I said, Andy's got like a dozen vehicles currently registered that he runs between plow trucks, personal trucks, and everything.

Mhm. We can definitely put up some some fencing and any of the overspillage, we can uh rain that back into uh my 300 by 300t area to work through this. Yeah. I I don't have any Yeah. Good. It's not that I have a conflict with them. It's things have happened, you know.

Yeah. I understand. We understand. But we encourage that uh past conduct and your willingness and ability to work with them and Bob, you know, to get the place cleaned up at least visually uh to the requirements of the law. So, but let me ask the rest of the board if they have a different approach or add more questions. Uh um Heather,

speaking, he was saying that he owns an abuing lot and that some of the junk um was spilling over onto his lot. What What is your lot number, Mr. Carl? Not a clue. It's in It's behind the It's behind the junkyard, so it wouldn't be seen from the road anyways. Um, but I I've never been to his house. I know it's there somewhere in the woods, but I've never been over to it, so I don't know what what is over there.

Okay. But regardless, that would meet the screening requirements because you can't see any of that from the road. Yep. Okay. And then my other question, maybe Bob, this is for you. I was looking at the land use ordinance table and it says that um junkyards are permitted in a rural residential and agricultural district or limited residential shoreland zoning through conditional use and select board. Is that correct?

No, it's the selectman that um sign the junkad permit. I just do the inspections for the select. They don't have they don't have to go through the conditional use process. No. No. Okay. Thank you. Those are the questions I had.

Thank you. Um, how long my understanding is, Bob and and maybe Mr. Carl, this has been where it is for a long time. Correct me if I'm wrong. Um, how how long? Um, Ken would know that. Yeah. How long can um Jeez, probably uh there's there's there's there's stuff my father packed there back in the 70s

and that's when they originally got the permit, too. I remember looking back. So, okay. It has been permitted for a while. Yeah. You know, Heather's raised an interesting issue that's not before us tonight, but that is is this is this a permitted use where it's located? If not, is it grandfathered? I don't think we've got information or the issue before us tonight, but you may have to look at that, Bob, with Mr. Carl just to make sure, you know, he's not actually in a situation where he does have to apply. I would think not 50 years of use. I'm guessing, it's just a guess. his grandfathered. Um,

they have to apply they he has to apply every year for junkad permit and I go do my checklist and the selectmen have said that if they're not in 100% compliance then we're not going to allow them anymore. Okay. All right. Anybody else on the board have any questions or concerns?

Gary, see who who's that? Terry? Yes. Go ahead. Uh the the spillover that was mentioned from the 300 by 300 onto the other lot. Is there a setback issue there, Bob? the road and it's a very large parcel. So I would say no to that.

So So this they do he does meet the setbacks even from his property. From his property. The the law says it can't be 500 ft from a dwelling. So that probably is too close. So, so would that be one one of the things that would have to be addressed?

I don't know how you could address it. Um, I don't know when Ken built his house. whether that includes the owner of the junkyard or not. It may include the owner of the It may not include the owner of the junkyard. couldn't include the owner of the junkyard because other junkyards um on Hallowell, their house is right there and they've been approved every year. So, I suspect it's 500 ft from a neighboring house.

Is is in fact uh Kenny's house a neighboring house on its own property? He he owns the property, but he also is licensed to run the junkyard. Hello. Is the Is Miss Higgins house closer than 500 feet to the 300 by 300 area?

rule because No, I think it's it's I think it's farther than 500 ft. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Is Mr. Carl's property one of the house lots that's along Rabbit Road? No, it's in it's in the back of the junkyard. So, it sits back in the woods probably. I'm I'm gonna guess 500 feet from the road

on Miss Higgins site on Miss Higgins lot. No, he bought a parcel from his mother. Oh, the tax map. So, I'm looking at the tax map. It just doesn't show that on the tax map. Is that correct? It does. Yeah, that it doesn't show it on the tax map. That's correct.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I understand now. Thank you. Any other questions? Uh, I'm going to move that I'm sorry. Did somebody say something? Yes. Terry, is that you? It's Paul. Gary can't hear. What's that? It's Paul. Oh, okay.

So, I just have a a brief comment. Uh, I I like Gary's approach. Uh, I think it's a good idea with regard to citing the other land owner and that hopefully that'll help Bob get this teased apart with regard to the land ownership and who owns what. Um, and because I also I know that Bob will see this through to help get it cleaned up. And thank you, Bob. And also, thank you. Thank you, uh, Ken, for working with Bob.

Yeah. Yeah. We very much appreciate it. Uh, it helps when other people help themselves. And our code officer is very good at getting people to work together if if they're willing. Gary. Yes. Uh, go ahead. If we uh approve the appeal.

Yeah. Does this in fact have to go back to the selectman for them to approve it or they can they still deny it? Um, let's ask Bob. Have they already uh approved it or did you not bring it to them for their approval this year?

He has no uh permit presently. So, okay. It'll have I would have to speak with the selectman to see if he would start have to start all over or whether they could just extend it. Okay. Yeah. To answer I think that as I understand it Terry that it will have to go back to the selectman. They they can probably turn it down but he can appeal that back to us if if if the selectman uh turn it down.

I'm good. Okay. Thanks. I'm going to move that the appeal be sustained and that the code enforcement officer be authorized to issue the junkyard permit to Mr. Carl subject to the approval of the board of selecting. Second. All right, I'll call the roll. I'm going to go across my screen. So, Milt, you're up first. Yes.

Yes. I can't hear. Oh, sorry. Yes. On mute. There we are. Yes. Yes. Okay. Paul. Yes. I also uh vote in favor making it five to zero. Congratulations, Mr. Carl. We encourage you to continue to work with your in-laws. And thank you, Heather, for joining us. Very well prepared. We have a a great member in waiting and some of us like Mr. Kirk and I are getting on in years. So, I think you'll be there.

Yeah. All right. I'm g I'm going to end uh the uh meeting of the dorm board of appeals. It is uh 8:50 is 7:50 uh Eastern Standard Time. Thank you all for your attendance and participation and good night. Good night. Thank you. And

good night.