Zoning Board of Appeals Votes on the "Miss Patsy's" case

The Zoning Board of Appeals met this evening at 5:30. The main item on the agenda was "old business", namely, the Parslow/Bennet appeal of the decision by Zoning Enforcement Officer Bruce Driska to allow the continued operation of Miss Patsy's hotdog stand at 980 South Main Street despite the Appellate Court's decision to uphold the Superior Court's decision in favor of Parslow/Bennet.

It's a complicated case. For earlier coverage and commentary in the Eye, click here and scroll down a bit.

To open discussion, Officer Driska gave a brief recap of the case, a main point of which was to observe that the public hearing was closed as of the last meeting. At the beginning of discussion a mini-crisis emerged in the form of a letter from ZBA member Judy Pehota who could not be in attendance due to a conflict. The letter was sent to Chairwoman Annabel Resninsky and was written to express an opinion on the appeal. Mr. Driska advised against reading the letter aloud to any of the members or to the public, since it would constitute a form of public testimony. Attorney John Bennet, representing Christopher Parslow, rose on a point of order to concur with Officer Driska's opinion, and added that reading the letter could put in jeopardy any action the Board takes in the case. Chairwoman Resninsky noted her disagreement with the opinion of Officer Driska, but the letter was not read aloud. Instead Chairwoman Resninsky began discussion by stating in detail her changed opinion of the case after having reviewed the copious documentary evidence and public testimony. (The files in the case are well over an inch thick and, in answer to a later question, took many hours to review.) In her view the Parslow/Bennet appeal had merit, she concurred that there was no evidence that a hotdog stand had been on the corner in question, and she agreed with the courts' decisions on the matter.

ZBA member Chris Beauchemin then spoke at length, also in favor of the appeal. He addressed the question of the previous existence of the stand, of which there was no evidence of any sort beyond activity in the form of an occasional church stand. He noted Planning, Conservation, and Development Director William Warner's early testimony concerning the original application of Mylchreest Construction Services, the owner of the site in question, for a continuation of the non-conforming use of the lot, in which no mention was made of anything beyond the original construction equipment storage garage on the footprint of the original building. He also pointed out that the current use by Miss Patsy's was not at all comparable to past use, or even to claims of past use. And he concluded by stating that because the current use of the lot violates the zoning code, he was supporting the appeal.

ZBA member Martin Reardon agreed with both Chairwoman Resninsky and Mr. Beauchemin. The fourth member present was Robert Stefurak. The motion to support the appeal was read, and the vote was taken. Four in favor of the appeal, zero opposed, zero abstentions.

Attorney Bennet thanked the members of the Board for their "extended attention" to the case. [Update @ 9:15 p.m. Christopher Parslow sent the following statement via email: "We're grateful for this positive outcome to our appeal, which has been a long time coming."]

The only other item on the agenda was new business, an application for a variance in an R-30 zone at 144 Saddle Hill Drive. This issue actually preceded the Parslow/Bennet appeal. The applicant, Jodi Lapham, requested that she be able to build her shed closer to the back of her lot than is allowed due to poor grading and moisture issues in the center of the site. Ms. Lapham made a brief statement. The required set back is 30 feet; the back of the shed would be 18 feet from the line. The builder did a bad job grading the lot, which causes water to pool and drain across the middle of the lot. After discussion about the nature of the problem, and a review of the zoning code guidelines concerning imposed hardships, a vote was taken. It was unanimous in favor of the applicant.

After adjournment, Officer Driska informed the Board members that Ms. Pehota's letter offered the same opinion on the Parslow/Bennet appeal as had been expressed by Mr. Beauchemin and Chairwoman Resninsky.