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 #11/8/00–2 — Request for Reconsideration
| RE: | Case # 11/8/00-2 |
| William and Kelly Hoff, Lot #H-93 | |
| Special Exception |
Dear Chairman Faiman:
Please consider this a request for rehearing of the above case. I continue to represent Ellen O'Shea and Joanne Dufour, abutters at Lot C, which is south of the Hoff property.
Re-hearing is requested on the following grounds:
1. A machine shop is not a home occupation under New Hampshire law, "Uses which are not traditionally conducted at the home of the proprietor generally do not fall within the category home occupations". Town of Milford v. Botazze, 121 N.H. 636,639 (1981).
2. The Board failed to address the performance standards under section 4.6 as required by section 6.6.1.
Section 4.6.1 requires vibration from the home occupation shall not be perceptible at the property line. The garage in which the proposed use is to be located is 16' from the property line.
Section 4.6.2 requires the board to regulate noise giving due regard to its beat, frequency, shrillness and excessive volume. The board addressed only its volume and unreasonably placed enforcement of that circumscribed limitation on the abutters.
3. Limitation of enforcement only by an abutter is an impermissible delegation of Town authority and an impermissible usurpation of power of the Town. See R.S.A 676:15.
4. Enforcement only upon request of an abutter unconstitutionally deprives nonabutting partes in interest.
5. The same also inappropriately saddles an aggrieved abutter with the cost of scientific measurement and documentation of violation of the noise violation.
Thank you for your courtesy and consideration.
Very truly yours, JORDAN, MAYNARD & PARODI, PLLC
Daniel E. Donovan III