Decision notices posted at this web site have not been checked for consistency with the printed decision notices that are available in the Wilton Town Offices. If you need the definitive text of a decision, please obtain the printed notice from the town offices.
Case 9/8/99–1
You are hereby notified that Russel Kincaid has been granted a special exception under the terms of Section 17.3 of the Wilton Zoning Ordinance. The special exception will permit Mr. Kincaid to place a mobil home, well, and septic system on lot A-18, Burton Highway, without regard for setbacks from the fire pond across Burton Highway from the lot, or from the runoff ditch from that pond.
The mobil home, well, and septic system must be placed at least 200 feet from the brook that runs across the eastern end of the lot. No information was presented regarding the presence or absence of wetland soils on the lot, and the special exception does not waive any setback requirements from any such soils that might exist.
All construction must be in accordance with a permit from the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Division.
The Zoning Board found that Section 17.2 of the Zoning Ordinance exempts the lot from the lot size requirements of Sections 6.2 and 14.3.
This special exception shall expire on September 8, 2001, if the construction permitted by it has not begun by that date. (Wilton Zoning Ordinance section 17.4)
You are hereby notified that the Wilton ZBA has denied the request by Douglas St. Clair for a rehearing of the special exception granted to Russell Kincaid on Lot A-18, Burton Highway (Case #9/8/99-1).
The ZBA finds that the issues raised in paragraph I of the request for rehearing are outside the purview and jurisdiction of the ZBA.
The ZBA finds that the issues raised in paragraphs II(a) and II(b) are not relevant, since the decision did not waive any restrictions or in any other way pertain to surface water or hydric soils on the property, except as specifically stated in the September 8 decision.
With regard to paragraph II(c), the ZBA accepted as a matter of fact in its September 8 decision that a house could not reasonably be placed on the property without infringing on the watershed district setback requirements; and any evidence to the contrary could have and should have been presented at the September 8 hearing.
With regard to paragraph III, the ZBA finds, based on the recollections of its members, that the watershed district requirements were imposed in the early 1980s, while the lot in question apparently existed at least as early as 1976; there is, therefore, no reason to reopen the question of the grandfathered nonconforming status of the property.
Minutes of the meeting to decide on the request for rehearing.