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 #11/8/00–1 — Request for Reconsideration
| RE: | Case # 11/8/00-1 |
| William and Kelly Hoff, Lot #H-93 | |
| Equitable Waiver |
Dear Chairman Faiman,
Please regard this letter as a request for reconsideration or for re-hearing of the above matter.
Mr. and Mrs. Hoff applied for a variance or equitable wavier regarding an existing structure built in violation of the sideline setback and for a special exception to allow the building to be used for a commercial machine shop, A hearing was held November 8. 2000 and I represented abutters Ellen O'Shea and Joanne Dufour. Ultimately the Board deferred ruling on the special exception to allow a clarified application to be filed, but it granted the equitable waiver, I ask that the equitable waiver be reconsidered or reheard for the following reasons.
Mr. Hoff testified that he constructed the garage only after conferring with Frank Millward and being told by Frank that the applicable setback was 20 feet. He later discovered. the setback was in fact 35 feet and through a measurement error, the foundation had been placed at 16 feet from the property line, Ile Board granted an equitable waiver under RSA 674:33-a (b) based on the alleged error by Mr, Millward. Mr. Millward was not present and no one spoke in opposition.
Having personal knowledge of Mr. Millward's customary thoroughness and familiarity with the requirements of Wilton zoning, I met with him on November 17, 2000. He informed me that he never had any conversation with Mr. or Mrs. Hoff in advance of a permit application and never told them the setback is 20 feet. Moreover, when the application was filed, the foundation had already been poured (Mr. Millward does concede that the application does refer to a 20 foot setback which he missed).
Under the circumstances, if the Board should determine that the representations made by Mr. Hoff are not in accordance with the facts, the equitable waiver cannot legally be granted because the applicant could not demonstrate what is required under subsection (b).
It strikes me that these facts merit reconsideration or rehearing and Mr. Millward's report might be appropriate. Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
(Daniel E. Donovan III)