New Regulation Gets a Test Run

Back in April, the Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) voted to open a path to let some existing non-conforming businesses expand. At the time, Attorney Wendell Avery presented the text amendment with his client, Robert Charland, on hand. At last Thursday’s meeting, 99 Cooper Lane, a piece of property owned by Charland, was on the agenda as Larry McKinney, owner of McKinney Construction, sought to determine if his plans for the property were feasible before closing on the purchase. 

Source: Google Maps

According to a memorandum provided by the PZC’s Richard Shuck, “The regulation does not allow for a change of use. Therefore, one of the most critical responsibilities of the Commission in reviewing any application under Section 3.1.4 is to determine whether the proposal represents a legitimate expansion of the existing use, or whether it constitutes a change of use, which is strictly prohibited.” 

The discussion was informal, with no actual request before the commission. Because existing non-conforming businesses are typically in residential areas, when the regulation was changed, the PZC required these kinds of informal pre-application meetings so property owners would know which zoning regulations they would have to conform to. In this case, they decided Industrial was the best fit.  

Here’s the gist of the still very tentative plan for 99 Cooper Lane: McKinney wants to add onto the existing building and some freestanding buildings at the back of the property. The main building would store equipment for his business, while the smaller buildings would be rented to other companies. His preliminary sketch showed three buildings, but he said he would add more if possible.

PZC Chair Dave Palmberg warned McKinney that the property, once used as a gravel pit, had the water table just 18 inches below the surface. He suggested this could lead to potential septic issues that need to be kept in mind during the design and building phase. He also advised that McKinney should stay as far away as possible from a nearby stream and wetlands to avoid triggering an Inland Wetlands review. 

Commissioner Richard Shuck reminded the PZC that while an expansion of the existing use is allowed, an intensification is not. He used the example of a restaurant that wants to expand its parking lot to accommodate more customers as an example of intensification. Among other best practices, his memo described the need to “Condition approvals thoroughly, tying them to specific operational characteristics: hours of operation, square footage, traffic circulation, lighting noise, and delivery schedules.” Shuck also said that if a permit is eventually given, it should list the acceptable uses.

No action was taken, so be sure to stay tuned for the next iteration of this plan.