The Lloyd Planning Board recently approved a two-story, 1,240 square foot accessory building at 151 Macks Lane that will be used as a photography studio by Melissa Surprise as a home occupation.  

 

Nearby neighbors hired attorney Sarah E. Ryan, of Van DeWater and Van DeWater, who pointed out to the Planning Board that the Building Department, under Director Dave Barton, had issued Surprise a building permit without her submitting applications for a required Site Plan and Special Use Permit; stating that this was a “clear violation of the explicit provisions of the Town Code.” Ryan noted that Surprise later submitted an application to the Planning Board and an Environmental Assessment Form some twenty days after the Building Permit was issued. She said that this  ‘unlawful issuance’ of the building permit, “robbed Mrs. Surprise’s neighbors of the required notice and opportunity to be heard on the project prior to its construction.” Ryan said by the time the application was scheduled for a Public Hearing before the Planning Board, a significant amount of construction of the studio had already been completed.  

 

In a 9/27/23 letter to Scott McCarthy, Chairman of the Planning Board, Ryan stated that, “The town took no actions to correct its blatant error and allowed the unlawful construction to continue without interruption. This knowing and seemingly intentional violation of the Town Code by both the Building Department and Mrs. Surprise, effectively and frustratingly rendered any meaningful comment or opposition to the size of the structure moot.”

The approval resolution was written by the Planning Board’s Land Use Attorney Paul Van Cott.

 

“The Building Department issued a building permit for the accessory building on the project site without first requiring a Special Use Permit and Site Plan approval of the Class II Home Occupation use as required by the Zoning Code, however, the Building Department has determined that any violation of the Zoning Code that occurred through the premature issuance of a building permit for the accessory building will be resolved, in the furtherance of justice, through the after-the-fact approval of the Project.”Van Cott’s resolution then posits a scenario that was never applicable in this case; writing that, “The Planning Board notes that in the absence of the proposed Class II Home Occupation use, a building permit could have been issued for the accessory building as constructed without any Planning Board review.” Mrs. Surprise’s own submitted documents to the Town, along with Director Barton’s Zoning Determination, shows that the intent of the applicant was always to have a Home Occupation studio in the accessory building.   

 

Planning Board member Sal Cuciti was the sole no vote on the project because, he said,  there was no provision included in the resolution to ensure that the second floor would be closed off from the first floor studio as a way for the studio to meet the proper requirements of the town code.