Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Meeting Schedule And Hearings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning Board adopts 2025 meeting schedule, withdraws Elds application and schedules multiple hearings for Feb–Mar
Summary
At its January meeting the New Shoreham Zoning Board of Review adopted its 2025 meeting calendar, accepted withdrawal of the Elds' application without prejudice, and scheduled hearings or continuations for several applications on Feb. 26 and March 26.
The New Shoreham Zoning Board of Review approved its 2025 meeting schedule, accepted the withdrawal without prejudice of an application by Richard and Joyce Eld (Plat 19, Lot 34, Fire No. 925), and scheduled multiple hearings for the boards’ February 26 and March 26 meetings.
Chair Kate Atwater Butcher asked for a motion to withdraw the Elds’ application; the board approved the withdrawal "without prejudice" by voice vote.
The board then voted to adopt the 2025 meeting schedule as presented.
Several applications were set for the February 26 meeting: an extension request from Mark McGuire and Linda Jackson (Plat 11, Lot 10‑2, Mitchell Lane) for relief under Section 306(c) and related special‑use provisions; an extension for a housing board affordable‑housing special‑use permit at Plat 18, Lot 2‑3 (West Side Road) to construct eight duplexes (16 rental units restricted to year‑round residents); a variance application from the Demos Family Trust (Plat 3, Lot 108) for an addition to a single‑family dwelling; and the Gaffett/Martucci special‑use permit (Plat 6‑3‑3), which the board tentatively scheduled for February with the option to continue to March.
Applications set for the March 26 meeting include the Superior Court‑remanded fence permit appeal at Plat 14, Lot 31 and a coastal‑zone variance application by David and Diane Boston (Plat 19, Lot 35, Coast Guard Road) for construction of an addition located in the coastal zone; the board agreed to send the Boston application to the conservation commission for advisory comment before the hearing.
All scheduling motions were approved by voice vote; the transcript records members saying "Aye" but does not provide individual roll‑call tallies. The board also approved minutes from a prior meeting (August) and adjourned.
Why it matters: the schedule and the set of hearing dates determine which applications will be considered early in the building season and set deadlines for applicants to provide missing materials. The board repeatedly asked applicants to submit completed checklists and site materials at least 10 days before the scheduled hearings.
The motions carried by voice vote; transcripts do not record named movers or seconders for each motion or numeric vote counts.
