Board takes Seider–Beck special‑use permit under advisement after multi‑witness presentation

The New Shoreham Zoning Board of Review closed the public hearing and took under advisement the application by Mitchell Seider and Lisa Beck (Plat 11, Lot 37; Fire No. 787 Snakehole Road) for a special use permit to expand a single‑family dwelling and repurpose an existing cottage as an accessory residential structure.

Why it matters: The application triggers the special‑house thresholds in the zoning ordinance. The applicants presented plans for a new main house and relocation of the existing “burger cottage” into a lower portion of the lot to function as an accessory dwelling unit; the board received testimony on lot coverage, permeable paving, drainage and wall/building plane calculations.

What the record shows: Attorney Joe Priestley represented the applicants. Landscape architect Dennis Staton (founding partner, Design Outside Lib LLC) testified that the proposal uses permeable stone paving and crushed‑stone driveways to limit impervious surface and that the overall lot coverage computed for permitted impermeable surfaces is 7.31%. Staton described a drainage scheme of dry wells intended to capture and infiltrate roof runoff and said the driveway and parking areas are designed as permeable gravel on crushed stone bases.

Architect Gail Goff described the proposed house and accessory structures and confirmed dimensional figures in the application: the main house footprint (exclusive of ground‑level decks) is 2,994 square feet; living area is 4,604 square feet; the main house contains five bedrooms and the relocated cottage will contain two bedrooms for a property total of seven bedrooms. Goff testified the proposed building volume is approximately 50,000 cubic feet, which the application characterizes as exceeding the 45,000‑cubic‑foot threshold but remaining below the 65,000‑cubic‑foot maximum listed in section 514.

Zoning questions and board interpretation: A substantial portion of the hearing addressed the ordinance definitions of building plane and wall plane. Applicant witnesses and board members discussed whether an 86‑foot, 5½‑inch south elevation is interrupted by a 16‑foot setback and by a change in height from a two‑story section (45 feet) to a one‑story section (24 feet). Solicitor Karen Browning advised the board members they may consult appendix figures in the ordinance and exercise interpretation; she suggested the board consider the appendix images when applying the definitions.

Advisories and procedural notes: The applicants reported favorable advisory opinions from the conservation commission and the planning board. Chair Kate Atwater Butcher moved to close the public hearing and take the application under advisement; the motion carried on an aye vote. Board members discussed waiting until a full five‑member panel is present to issue a final decision; the applicants asked the board to consider a two‑year project extension if the board grants approval, noting construction timelines, but the board said it must follow the ordinance time limits unless an extension mechanism is found.

Ending: The board closed the record and will issue a written decision at a later meeting; members said they prefer to have all five voting members present when they deliberate and write the decision.