A Citizens for Easton (CFE) member wrote the following letter, and CFE emailed it to their membership. It concerns the exemption to our zoning granted to the cabinet business next to EMS. The exemption will allow them to build a second structure, a cabinet factory.
Dear Members of Easton Zoning Board of Appeals:
This is an appeal to you, respectfully requesting that Special Permit (SP24-01) for Major Home Business approved by Planning & Zoning on May 28, 2024 for the operation of a major at home business in a new accessory structure to the woodworking cabinet shop located at 450 Sport Hill Road be revoked. This permit simply is not permissible under the Town’s current zoning regulations.
First, Easton’s zoning regulations distinguish between ‘primary’ and ‘accessory’ buildings and uses. Accessory Buildings and Uses are defined as those that are “subordinate and customarily incidental” to the principal building and use. Easton Zoning Regulations § 2220 (Emphasis added). The Regulations provide the following helpful summary:
Parameters For Being “Accessory”
• CUSTOMARY – Something commonly practiced, used, or observed such that it is considered conventional and typical rather than unusual.
• INCIDENTAL ‐ Something likely to ensue as a minor consequence of another activity or something that happens as a minor part or result of something else.
• SUBORDINATE – Something inferior, smaller, fewer, and of less importance or impact or something placed in or occupying a lower class, rank, or position.
Id.
In the present case, years ago a great room of the residence at 450 Sport Hill was permitted as a home-based business. Now the business, Hillsport, LLC, has applied to expand that use to an ‘accessory’ building. In the minutes of the May 7, 2024 meeting, the action is described by P&Z itself as “Applicant relocating existing home-based business from the principal dwelling into detached accessory structure.” Id. (emphasis added)
It is clear, however, that the permit is invalid. This is not a subordinate, incidental, minor and customary consequence of the primary use. The home-based business currently operates out of a single great room in the residence as evidenced by a February, 2009 permit. This new operation is roughly 3000 square feet, an order of magnitude greater than the great room.
There is simply no means to permit this type of non-accessory use (being patently non-customary, non-incidental, and non-ordinary) in compliance with the Town’s regulations. In fact, the regulations go out of their way to make clear that a second primary commercial manufacturing use is not permissible.
The proposed ’accessory’ use allows for up to five (5) employees. The primary use currently houses no more than two (2) adults to my understanding. The use will create carcinogenic dust, and cause the operation of a major business in a Town with no manufacturing. If one is intellectually honest, there is simply no way to describe this major use as a ‘minor consequence of another activity’ as the Regulations require.
Second, Zoning Regulation #7100 provides that “A non‐conforming use may be changed to another non‐conforming use provided that “[t]he Commission shall find that the proposed use is equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than the existing non‐conforming use. Here, clearly the proposed use is not equally or more appropriate than the existing non-conforming use in a Town with no manufacturing or major commercial development (other than grandfathered uses).
Mr. Lisi’s property is a 1.5 acre, non-conforming lot pursuant to Section 7100 of the Easton Zoning Regulations. Section 7100 states that while non-conforming lots are permitted, it is “the purpose and intent of these Regulations that non‐conforming lots, uses and structures shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended.” Section 7130-3 states:
“after the effective date of adoption or amendment of these Regulations or any applicable amendments hereto, a non-conforming use shall not be:
a. enlarged or increased nor extended to occupy a greater floor area or area of land than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or amendment of these Regulations.
b. moved in whole or in part to any portion of the land other than that occupied by such use at the effective date of adoption or amendment of these Regulations.
c. extended or enlarged by the attachment to a building or land of additional signs intended to be seen from off the premises, or by the addition of other uses of a nature which would be prohibited generally in the district involved.”
On its face, the Special Permit violates Section 7100 and 7130-3 by enlarging, moving and extending a non-conforming use.
Finally, I also note as an aside that there is an apparent technical defect in the publishing of the notice of the issuance of the Special Permit. Under Section 1850-f of the Zoning Regulations, among other requirements, any decision to grant a Special Permit shall “[s]tate the name of the owner of record.” The owner of record of this property is, according to the Town Assessor’s field card, Hillsport, LLC. The notice of special permit instead references Mr. Frank Lisi and Greenfield Mill, at least as far as we could locate in the local papers.
This notice defect I believe would be curable if the permit were otherwise valid, but for the reasons stated above the permit itself is irreparably defective. I urge you to rescind this permit immediately, as it will at best invite the unwanted costs of proving its impropriety and at worst, if unchallenged, adversely change the character of the Town forever.
