Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Use Determination topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board pauses decision on Skygeek use at 29 Styles Way; sends applicants toward planning board
Summary
After extended testimony and a review of a building-department determination, the Union Vale ZBA held but did not decide a use-interpretation for Skygeek at 29 Styles Way, advising the applicants to seek site-plan review from the planning board and return with clearer documentation if needed.
The Zoning Board of Appeals opened a public hearing about whether operations at 29 Styles Way — the Skygeek aircraft-parts operation — fit permitted uses within the town’s airport zoning district. The issue centers on whether the building’s principal use is airplane salvage/repair/testing with accessory retail (which the applicant says it is) or retail/storage in a way that requires different approvals.
Skygeek representatives told the board they seek a ZBA determination that current operations fall under specific airport-district uses so they can proceed to the planning board for site-plan approval and, ultimately, a certificate of occupancy. Skygeek said the business has operated in the airport area for decades and has evolved from onsite repair and salvage to a mix of storage and e-commerce retail fulfilment. Owner Janelle Styles summarized the history: "the underlying use of what is happening there has not changed since the late60s," and urged the board to view the current operation as an evolution rather than a new use.
The board reviewed a building-department notice (dated Aug. 25, 2025) that denied an application to legalize a warehouse occupancy and noted provisions in the zoning code that allow limited retail shops and storage/testing in the airport district. The building-department memo said, in part, that Skygeek “sells related aircraft supplies for the retail market via internet sale” and cited the code sections that govern retail and storage uses.
Board members debated process and jurisdiction: several members suggested the planning board and the building inspector might be the appropriate venues to resolve certain technical aspects (parking, water/sewer, and specific site-plan conditions), while others stressed that when a use is not clearly listed the ZBA is the determining body. Members also asked the applicants for clearer evidence about the relative scale of activities (what percentage of the building is dedicated to salvage/repair vs. storage and e-commerce fulfillment), and for business records or floor plans that show how space is used.
After extended discussion the ZBA agreed to hold the application in abeyance and to adjourn the public hearing to a future notice so the applicants can consult with the planning board and the code-enforcement office, gather the requested documentation, and return with a clarified plan or pursue planning-board site-plan review. The ZBA indicated it would consider reconvening with planning-board staff or reviewing the planning-board outcome if the parties prefer a coordinated review.
