|Voting Board||Chairperson Neil Faiman; members Bob Spear, Jim Tuttle, Steve Blanchard and alternates Ron Hanisch and Joanna Eckstrom.|
|Clerk||Carol Roberts (substituting for Diane Nilsson)|
Neil Faiman called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
Voting board: Jim Tuttle, Joanna Eckstrom, Bob Spear, Steve Blanchard, and Neil Faiman.
David and Jane Glines have applied for a variance to section 7.2.1 of the Wilton Zoning Ordinance, to permit relocation of south lot line of lot F-163 where it abuts lot F-161. Parcel A would be incorporated into F-163 with this lot line change. Neither lot has standard frontage today and neither would have standard frontage in the future if this variance is granted.
David Glines demonstrated on lot map that with this change he would not be making a new lot but would be making lot 163 larger by including parcel A and reducing F-161 down to 5.2 acres. Use would continue unchanged. Granting of this variance would allow access to parcel A via F-163. Neil stated that he was present at the planning board when this proposal came up. Discussion at the planning board as to whether the ZBA needed to be involved at all. The three options available to the Board are: find that a variance is needed; find that it is not needed; or deny or approve the application.
These lots were residential in the middle of industrial zoning. Due to existing mixed use when zoning ordinances were introduced, the district was zoned commercial as a compromise. Abutter Ken Sullivan at F-165 asked for clarification on whether overall frontage would be changed. Joanna Eckstrom determined how access to F-163 is made.
The Board felt the lots which are fully satisfactory lots at present would not be changed to be unsatisfactory lots. Yet while this change creates two essentially new lots. The non conformity does not change so a variance is not required.
|Motion||Jim Tuttle moved to accept the Glines/Devine proposal to relocate the south lot line of F-163 where it abuts F-161 and that no variance is needed; seconded by Steve Blanchard, with all in favor.|
Mr. Faiman stated that the request has been approved and the Glines' would receive, in the mail, a notice of approval. He further stated that the selectmen, any party to the action or proceedings, or any person affected thereby may apply for a rehearing of this decision. A request for rehearing must be filed in writing with the Zoning Board of Adjustment on or before Tuesday, November 3, 1998, and must fully specify all grounds on which the rehearing is requested. (N.H. RSA 677:2) It was noted by Mr. Faiman that the Board approved the plan as presented at the 10/14 meeting and not any other plan that may happen to show up at any particular time.
Voting board : Jim Tuttle, Bob Spear, Steve Blanchard, Ron Hanisch, and Neil Faiman.
Donna and Paul Poisson have applied for a Special Exception to section 11.4.b of the Wilton Zoning Ordinance, to permit the dredging and filling in of an unnamed wetland in order to construct a convenience store with gasoline pump service islands.
Neil read the ordinance for the record. Due to the presence of wetlands, the ZBA must hear the evidence tonight and then a thirty day waiting period is required before approval can be given. Question whether the parcel is in the aquifer district. Investigation of maps leads us to the conclusion that it is not. Dawn Tuomola, presented the case for the Poissons. Ms. Tuomola distributed photographs of the area in question. The ditch line runs parallel to 101 and needs to be regraded to get proper drainage back through the culvert and on to the current driveway. The photos were intended to provide an idea of the type of drainage present in the area. She explained that filling had already occurred last year and when Mr. Poisson realized he was working in a wetlands area, he stopped the work. The wetlands were not well documented and Ms. Tuomola explained the need to recreate the appearance of the wetlands in order to understand and estimate how drainage would occur. Ms. Tuomola believes the existing ditchline and detention basin will accomplish whatever treatment needs to be done.
Mr Faiman asked whether the proposed dredging and filling is because of the wetland characteristics of the lot or is it for topographical purposes. The answer was it will improve drainage. Andy Roeper of the Wilton Conservation Commission reported on his inspection of the area. Helen Cassels from the Soil Conservation Services accompanied him on the inspection. Mr. Roeper noted that the proposed work is of an after the fact nature and that pending the state’s approval — the method proposed by the applicant is reasonable.
Mr. Faiman noted that the ordinance is clear about when it is acceptable to do dredging and filling in a wetlands and when such activity is in harmony with the conservation district. Hal Melcher questioned the advisability of any such activity in a wetlands area. Abutter Bill Goddard questioned the process for such approvals – noting that the applicant began working the property and then applied for a permit.
Hal Melcher asked three questions : does anyone know the direction of the ground water flow ? is the new soil more pervious? What is the water table? Ms. Tuomola did not have that information.
Neil mentioned that aquifer district requirements take precedence over a ZBA decision. For a special exception to be granted, the ZBA must find that the proposed use will not conflict with the purpose and intent of the section and evidence to that effect must be submitted in writing. Secondly the ZBA must decide how to address the Hillsborough County Conservation district requirement. Sections B & C are irrelevant in this case so the ZBA needs to address A & D. Discussion on whether the catch basins would be sufficient to contain an oil spill. Ms. Tuomola reminded the attendees that the site would be engineered and subject to many inspections.
Ron Hanisch asked whether a site sketch provides sufficient detail for the ZBA to reach a conclusion. Mr. Faiman said it may be enough or we may decide that we can’t come to a conclusion because we don’t know where tanks will be placed.
Mr. Faiman observed that there are two questions about the wetlands : wetlands are good/filling wetlands is bad and the other is protecting the groundwater.
Expected for next month : a report in writing from the Conservation committee chair; a written report on whether the proposed use will conflict with the purpose and intent (from the applicant) such report to include which standard codes will be adhered to.
Mr. Faiman also pointed out that the ordinance requires two hearings before the Board can come to a decision on this matter. Mr. Faiman stated that the hearing is continued until next month.
Voting board : Joanna Eckstrom, Jim Tuttle, Steve Blanchard, Bob Spear, and Neil Faiman.
Mr Rodell, appearing for Chalet Susse, requested variances to subdivide a 33.256 acre tract into two lots: one 18.023 acre lot to contain a house and a barn; and one 15.233 acre lot to contain an existing maintenance building. A variance from the side yard setback is required due to the distance that would be present between the barn and the maintenance building. The lot with 33+ acres is to be sold and the other parcel will be retained and used by Chalet Susse. The required combined setback is 70 feet. The configuration brought before the Board has approximately 52' . There is also a request for another variance which would allow continued use of the maintenance building for the office park district in a res/ag district.
Carol Laurette, abutter, asked where the division would be and upon seeing the map, stated she had no other question.
Neil Faiman indicated that this case was an example of a self created hardship.
After further discussion centering around the driveway, suggestions for lot line changes, plantings, and removing of buildings, Mr Rodell agreed to change the lot line so the noncorformance would be equally split between the lots.
Mr. Tuttle moved to allow a variance to allow reduced setbacks for each lot - with the setbacks to be 26' each. Seconded by Mr. Spear.
Mr. Faiman polled the Board as to whether to address the "permitted use" portion at this point or to address it after the first motion. It was decided to vote on the motion already on the floor : Four members voted "yes" with Mr. Faiman voting "no". The motion carried.
Discussion about the variance 6.1 - permitted use question. After discussion the Board decided to vote on the question.
|Motion||Mr. Blanchard moved that no variance is needed to continue to use the maintenance build in as it is now being used because it is permitted use in the res/ag district. Seconded by Mr. Tuttle with all in favor.|
|Motion||Ron Hanisch moved to approve the 9/9/98 minutes as written, seconded by Carol Roberts with all in favor.|
|Motion||Bob Spear moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded and all were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.|