2024-04-25-ZBA-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4 A Straw Poll was taken on the reactivation of the nonconforming use, with no Board Members indicating intent to vote no. Mr. Clifford stated he may suggest the applicant request a continuance so they may figure out the easement and parking situation prior to the Board voting. Ms. Krakauer Moore described how the Town just voted to change the sign Bylaw which would make the proposed signs allowed by right if the Attorney General approves the new Bylaw. She suggested the Board still vote on the matter. Mr. Chiudina requested that the Board add a condition regarding the rear parking situation rather than a doing a continuance. He stated his desire for the building permit to be released to allow interior renovations to begin while understanding that parts of the proposal would be under risk without Board approval. Building Commissioner, James Kelly, stated there is a mechanism to allow for the building permit to be released which can be discussed in depth at another time. He questioned if the Board’s decision would have to be contingent on the exterior work. He mentioned if the decision is not contingent on the exterior work, the Board could approve the request without recognizing the changes in landscaping and parking that would be allowed by right. Mr. Clifford stated, that what they are proposing cannot be done as a right since they want to reinstate a non-conforming use and therefore, they need approval on the project, including this exterior work that relates to the use. He stated that this request relates to both the non- conforming use and the non-conforming structure that would be removed. Mr. Barnert questioned if the Board approved the second version of the plot plan if the applicant could return for a minor modification for any parking changes. Mr. Clifford stated the type of modification required depends on the nature of the changes and requests. He clarified that if the applicant proposed changes that encroached greater into setbacks than it would not be a minor modification. Ms. Krakauer Moore quoted the Zoning Bylaw stating “minor modifications shall be limited to changes that do not have a material impact on the project… and do not grant any zoning relief not originally requested or approved.” Mr. Chiudina stated the goal would be add additional parking eventually and that if the easement is altered additional parking could comply with dimensional regulations and therefore, no additional relief would be needed. Mr. Clifford asked to clarify that the applicant wanted the Board to vote on each issue rather than to do a continuance. Mr. Chiudina he would like the Board to vote assuming the landscaping plan is requested and that if in the future the Board deems it necessary for them to complete the whole process and not just a minor modification then they will oblige. Mr. Chiudina summarized that the nearly 100-year-old building is in dire need of rehabilitation inside and out after being deprived for so long. Santander is making a substantial investment in the property and hopes to stay here for years to come. Hearing was closed at 7:42 PM (a roll call vote was taken: Ralph D. Clifford– Yes, Norman P. Cohen– Yes, Martha C. Wood – Yes, James A. Osten – Yes and Nyles N. Barnert – Yes)