Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Board continues appeal from Nelson Burlingame over whether large garage is a preexisting commercial use
Loading...
Summary
Nelson Burlingame appealed a zoning enforcement opinion that his 40x78 garage is a principal commercial use after lot subdivision; the board continued the matter to May 19 to review historical permits, assessor records and evidence of continuous commercial use before deciding whether the use is preexisting nonconforming.
Nelson Burlingame asked the Town of Charlton Zoning Board of Appeals on April 7 to overturn a zoning enforcement officer’s opinion that a large garage on his former residential parcel should be treated as a principal commercial use after he subdivided the property.
Burlingame told the board the building has housed heavy equipment, dump trucks and excavators for years and provided past determination letters, certificates of compliance and a current business certificate to support his claim that the building is a preexisting nonconforming commercial use dating to before comprehensive zoning in Charlton.
"It's a commercial garage," Burlingame said, arguing that he operated NBC Construction out of the building for years and insured the building as commercial property. He contended the use predated zoning and therefore should be allowed to continue as a nonconforming use.
Building Commissioner and zoning enforcement officer Kurt Damascus said the statutory limits Burlingame cited (6‑ and 10‑year references) apply to structures, not uses, and that once the parcel was sold off the building’s status changed: "Once he sold this parcel off of the house and its subsequent garage, this building became a principal use," Damascus said. He advised the board that to determine continuous commercial use the appellant should present permits, assessor records or evidence that the commercial use existed and continued in or before 1987, the date the town’s comprehensive zoning took effect.
Board members asked whether subdividing the lot extinguishes accessory status, how abandonment is defined and what evidence is sufficient. Damascus told the board a preexisting nonconforming use continues unless abandoned (typically more than two years of absence) and that the appellant will need to show continuous use or permits dating back to the relevant period.
Because the question requires review of town records and documentation, the board voted to continue the appeal to May 19 to allow members time to read the submitted materials and consult assessor records. Chair John Dormant reminded the appellant that overturning a zoning enforcement officer’s determination will require a four‑fifths vote of the board.
What’s next: Burlingame will supply and the board will examine historical permits, certificates and assessor records before the May 19 continuation; no final determination was made on April 7.
