Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Evans Road Storage topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Applicant admits deviating from approved plan; commission recommends administrative approval with conditions

Berlin Planning Commission · January 14, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

An applicant acknowledged splitting an approved climate-controlled storage building into two drive-up buildings at 9413 Evans Road; Berlin’s planning commission voted to recommend administrative permitting contingent on engineer certification, permit applications, fees and impact‑fee compliance.

Mark Slaven, representing 9413 Evans Road, LLC, told the Berlin Planning Commission he had built two drive-up storage buildings that differed from an earlier approved site plan and asked the commission to recommend retroactive approval.

Slaven said the originally approved Phase 2 called for a 330‑by‑60‑foot single climate-controlled building but he split that footprint into two mirror, drive‑up buildings (each described in the record as about 120 feet by 20 feet), producing 46 drive-up units instead of the single climate building. He told the commission stormwater, structural and electrical work had been completed and that no plumbing was installed.

Staff told commissioners the applicant had submitted the materials listed in the staff report and recommended approval subject to conditions. Commissioner S12 moved that the commission recommend the planning director issue the required permits on condition of: a stamped engineer report verifying the two structures meet code, submission of building permit applications, payment of double building permit fees allowed under town code, payment of applicable impact fees, and compliance with well/drainage requirements and updated certificates. The motion also stated any future phases must return for site‑plan review.

The motion received a second and passed by voice vote. After the vote Slaven thanked the commission.

The action was a recommendation to the planning director; final permitting and compliance verification remain administrative tasks for staff and the planning director.