Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nonconforming Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DiLemme operation on Route 300 becomes focal point: board orders site plan, reopens public hearing
Summary
After hours of testimony for and against a longstanding construction business at 2201 Route 300, the ZBA asked the owners to submit a site plan mapping historic permitted activity and current operations. The board re‑opened the public hearing and instructed the applicant to re‑notice the matter for the July meeting.
A lengthy, sometimes heated Zoning Board hearing on June 25 focused on whether parts of DiLemme & Sons’ operations at 2201 Route 300 qualify as a legal nonconforming home occupation and accessory uses established under earlier Town zoning (the applicant cited the 1980 code). The board did not issue a final determination but ordered the applicant to prepare a clearly labeled site plan and re‑notice the public hearing for the July agenda.
Counsel Taylor Palmer said the company’s historical footprint includes a roughly 580‑square‑foot basement office used for job estimates and administration, indoor garaging for three commercial vehicles and limited outdoor storage of one commercial vehicle and a telehandler. “The basement office … consists of about 580 square feet of the finished office space,” Palmer told the board, saying the use predated later zoning restrictions.
Opponents said the operation is now larger and noisier than a home occupation: resident Danielle Corollo, who lives across the street, said she had supplied the board with video evidence of daily heavy‑equipment activity and described safety concerns around material handling. “While people who live on 300 … might not hear the noise, or down the street even, I'm directly across the street. I hear it daily,” Corollo said.
Board counsel David Donovan and several members focused the hearing on a legal threshold: whether the activities were lawful when established (a prerequisite to treating them as a continuing nonconforming use). Donovan reminded the board that if the use is lawful the ZBA still must decide whether any present activity exceeds the historic authorization because the code forbids enlargement of nonconforming uses without proper relief.
After extended testimony from neighbors and more than thirty written supporters, the ZBA voted to re‑open the public hearing, require a site plan that color‑codes what the applicant says was permitted historically versus current operations, and re‑notice the matter for the board’s July meeting. The board said a detailed site plan and clear labeling will allow a more precise, enforceable decision; it also recommended the applicant consider mitigation such as screening and limits on on‑site activities while relocation is pursued.
The applicant said it is actively pursuing relocation and site plan approval for a new facility on New Road but asked for limited, defined relief to allow a reduced operation while the move proceeds. The board gave the applicant direction on what to include on the site plan and emphasized that any future approval should include measurable, enforceable conditions.
