The Alton Zoning Board of Adjustment on May 1 denied a special exception application to formalize a contractor yard and equipment parking area at 208 Main Street, an application tied to Robert Flannery and his agent.

The board ruled the site inappropriate for a contractor yard after public testimony from nearby residents about sight-line problems, equipment parking and prior on-site stockpiles, and after members said the application left key details unresolved. "I don't think it's the best place for it," a board member said during the worksheet discussion, citing the narrow site and safety concerns for vehicles and pedestrians.

Why it matters: The denial stops the applicant from obtaining the zoning permission that would have allowed routine parking and storage of trucks and heavy equipment at the property. Opponents said the proposed use already had altered conditions on the street and posed risks for neighbors; supporters argued the use was less intensive than other allowed commercial options on Route 11.

What the applicant proposed: Attorneys and representatives described the requested approval as limited parking for a local contractor’s trucks and equipment, not a stockpiling or materials yard. The applicant’s agent told the board the intent was to limit parking to a combination of trucks and equipment "not more than 10 units," and to require a DOT driveway permit before final approval. The applicant said materials and stockpiles seen in earlier photographs resulted from nearby septic work and would not continue.

Abutter concerns: Several neighbors and abutters testified that trucks had been parked close to sidewalks and driveways, blocking sight lines and, in at least one instance, sidewalk access after snow removal. Andrew Murray, a neighbor who said he lives adjacent to the multifamily building on the parcel, described repeated incidents and presented photographs, saying parked vehicles already limited sight lines and pedestrian safety.

Applicant response and conditions offered: The applicant said he was willing to add screening, limit the number and arrangement of parking spaces, and condition final approval on an approved DOT driveway location. Counsel said a new driveway to the far right of the property, suggested by a DOT representative, would improve sight distance. The applicant also offered a lease condition to try to make any compliance enforceable.

Board’s concerns and ruling: Board members repeatedly cited lack of a site plan showing numbered parking spaces, unresolved driveway/access solutions with DOT, and uncertainty about buffering from abutters. One member said the evidence submitted did not demonstrate the site was an appropriate location for the contractor use. After working through the zoning worksheet criteria, the board voted to deny the special exception.

Formal actions recorded: The board moved to deny the special exception Z24-47 at the May 1 hearing; the motion to deny was seconded and carried. The board also accepted the applicant’s decision to withdraw, without prejudice, a related administrative appeal for a separate docket number tied to the same property.

Looking ahead: Counsel for the applicant asked whether a materially different submittal (for example, the addition of a DOT approval and a detailed parking plan) would be considered new for the board; a board member said historically the board had allowed applicants to return with new or substantially different materials for reconsideration. The denial fixes the zoning status unless the applicant reapplies with revised materials or obtains different permits.