Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Zoning board to pursue minor modification for veterinary clinic, allow ADU at 25R Carlisle Road as rental
Loading...
Summary
The listing agent for 25 and 25R Carlisle Road asked the zoning board to confirm sole commercial use of the primary building as a veterinary clinic and to allow the accessory dwelling (25R) to remain a standalone rental without an owner-occupancy requirement; the board directed staff to draft minor-modification language for town council review.
Doug Walters, the listing agent for 25 and 25R Carlisle Road, told the zoning board he represents seller Lori Stewart and prospective buyers Dr. Alexander Shailor and Dr. Steven Warrie and asked the board to confirm that the principal building may be used solely as a veterinary clinic while the accessory dwelling at 25R continue as a standalone one-bedroom, one-bathroom rental unit.
Walters said the requested relief would “confirm the sole commercial veterinary use of 25 Carlisle Road and authorize the continued residential use of 25R as a stand alone rental unit without an owner occupancy condition.” He added the applicants are not seeking any enlargement of the accessory dwelling and that the ADU was built in 2021.
A board member (Chair) and other members reviewed the property’s land-use history, noting prior special permits that allowed an ADU tied to an owner-occupied primary residence. The Chair said the board could modify the existing special permit and recommended a stipulation prohibiting conversion of the ADU garage into a second ADU. The Chair characterized recent changes to ADU law and prior board decisions as complicating factors for applying the old owner-occupancy condition.
A planning staff member told the board there are two procedural paths: treat the request as a major modification requiring a full public hearing, or treat it as a minor modification handled via correspondence, with staff preparing draft language and sending it to town council and the applicant for review. The staff member said they would draft language for the board to review and work with town council to capture any required findings or conditions.
Board members broadly favored handling the matter as a minor modification. The Chair and others instructed staff to prepare draft wording and circulate it to the applicant and town council, with the goal of bringing a final modification back to the board at the next meeting if the language is acceptable.
Walters said the buyers had extended their purchase-and-sale agreement to accommodate the board’s timeline and that he had reviewed permit records and met with staff in advance. When asked about the appeal process, the Chair said there is no appeal period once the board’s recording action is completed.
The board did not take a final vote on the modification at this meeting; instead it directed staff to draft the modification language, seek town council review, circulate the draft to the applicant for comment, and return to the board for a decision at a subsequent meeting. The meeting adjourned after routine closing motions.
