| Voting Board | Chairperson, Neil Faiman; Members Bob Spear, Jim Tuttle; Alternate Members Joanna Eckstrom & Ron Hanisch. |
|---|---|
| Clerk | Kathleen Humphreys |
| Agenda | Monadnock Mountain Spring Water, Paul & Lisa Sweeney and Susan Bradley |
Meeting called to order by Chairperson Neil Faiman at 7:34pm
The applicant is seeking a special exception under the terms of section 17.3 of the Wilton Zoning Ordinance. They wish to construct an addition to the existing building on Lot F–142 on Mansur Road, 8.2.4B, which is closer to the street than permitted by the Ordinance, as shown on a plan submitted with the application.
Kevin McGonigle and Andrew Serell addressed the Board. Mr. MacGonigle discussed how the proposed building would violate the setback by 23 feet. Mr. Serell proposed the changes would be more efficient. The addition and the purchase of new equipment will decrease the current work shift from 4 to 2. It will allow the product to go directly from the production area to storage vehicles, which diminishes the needs for additional outdoors production steps. Mr. Serell thinks the exception should be granted because 17.3 is allowed if “no reasonable location allows for expansion”. The property is “land locked. He felt it is important to expand away from the river. The expansion towards Manson Road is in the direction of another lot owned by the applicant and in the industrial district. He noted that other properties on Isaac Frye are less than their proposed setback.
Mr. Serell argued that 17.3 should be allowed because the dimensions of the lot are reasonable for placement of the structure. He made the following points:
Ms. Eckstrom questioned the location of driveways that are being discontinued and the future use trailer parking. Mr. McGongile answered that they want to lease property from Quinn’s on Rt. 31 to park their trailers and Monadnock Spring Water will be before the Planning Board on July 18, 2001 with that request. Their future plans are to park trailers in the back lot and bury the trailer parking on the other side of the river. They are currently allowed 26 trailers, which they have more than allowed on the site.
Mr. Hanisch questioned the configuration of the structure. Mr. Spear addressed the minimum square footage required for expansion. The response was 5,500 sq. feet and the layout of the proposed structure would be away from the river.
Abutter Jane Glines commented the company does not staying within the guidelines and do not always meet the rules and regulations. She is concerned that if they do comply with the conditions how long are they going to continue to follow the rules. She noted that a year ago they took care of the noise, dust and the trailers but for only about a month then the problem became worse than before. She is also concerned about the amount of employee parking. She has no problem with their proposal, just their ability to comply as demonstrated by the company’s past actions. She was informed that violations are addressed by the Selectmen’s Office.
Mr. Tuttle noted the town just redid this road and now Monadnock wants to move the truck traffic further up. Is the road wide enough for the trucks to turn? The company believes it is.
It takes 1 hr. 40 minutes with 10 men to fill one truck but with the new machinery it will be 18 minutes with 4 men. The completion date should be November 2001 and the company will hire a Landscape Architect and hope to complete landscaping by Spring 2002. The proposed building will be one story and on a slab foundation.
Mr. Hanisch questioned with the restraints why they don’t you have alternate plans. McGongile replied if they turn the building around then the loading docks would be located in the front, which would be an eye sore. Without the additional 23 feet he won’t be able to fit the new equipment into the building. He discussed the number of necessary loading docks.
Mr. Tuttle wanted to know if they are going to lose “green” space. Mr. McGonigle replied maybe 25–30 feet.
The Board addressed traffic issue regarding their trucks driving down Rt. 31 every 18 minutes. The Board discussed if they have authority to protect that road from traffic deterioration? Discussion followed. They also addressed building options.
Mr. Faiman is trouble if this request is really is in the spirit of 17.3.a and is not happy how 17.3 is being used as a wild card for people who want to deal with setback regulations. This problem existed from building from an existing building. The existing structure is post-zoning.
Ms. Eckstrom made a motion to grant the special exception no more than 52 feet as state on his plan. No Board Member seconded the motion.
Betty Backerberg questioned if the vote has been rescinded. In the absence of a second the motion lapsed.
Mr. Hanisch made a motion to deny the special exception because it appears to be other locations with the square footage that can accommodate the building. No Board Member seconded the motion.
Lisa Sweeney questioned where their production levels would be in five years.
| Motion | Ms. Eckstrom made a motion to approve the proposal as shown on the plan authorizing the Planning Board to impose any restriction on any landscaping, building appearance or buffering restrictions that they may find necessary to mitigate the reduced setbacks. Mr. Spear seconded the motion. All voted in favor except Mr. Hanisch who voted no. The motion passed by a 4-1 margin. |
|---|
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 are hearing must be filed in writing with the Zoning Board of Adjustment on or before Tuesday, August 17, 2001, and must fully specify all grounds on which the rehearing is requested. (N.H. RSA 677:2)
The applicant is applying for a special exception that will permit the construction of garage on Lot D–123 at 200 Burns Hill Road, which is closer to the street than permitted by the Ordinance, as shown on a plan submitted with the application.
Mr. Sweeney mentioned that the special exception relates only to the front of the garage because the back is still within the laws. The front of the garage would be 28 feet from the lot line.
| Motion | Mr. Tuttle made a motion to grant the special exception under 17.3 and allow a garage of 28 x 24 feet on the West side of the house to be built as show in the plan. Ms. Eckstrom seconded the motion. All voted in favor. |
|---|
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 are hearing must be filed in writing with the Zoning Board of Adjustment on or before Tuesday, August 17, 2001, and must fully specify all grounds on which the rehearing is requested. (N.H. RSA 677:2)
The applicant is requesting a 6.3.1 and 6.3.5a variance to permit a subdivision off Stiles Farm Road into 3 lots. One lot will be access from Stiles Farm Road, which is NOT a Class V Road. Five lots would be accessed by a private way instead of four, which is allowed by the town. The lots are 31–4, 31 and 31–3.
6.3.1 ASSOCIATED LOT REQUIREMENTS
6.3.5 PRIVATVE WAYS
The status of Stiles Farm Rd. is unknown. The Association of LandOwners who maintain Stiles Farm Road were present. See file for details of a letter from Roydan Sanders.
Mr. Tuttle asked about the number of lots coming off Stiles Farm Rd. and questioned where the fifth lot is. Currently, there is not a subdivision proposal before any Board.
Abutter Mr. Grenvilleclark’s driveway comes north wood from Stiles Farm Rd. and it is not a driveway that is regularly used and appears as a grass path and has a farm gate across it. The main access to the house is off Tighe Farm Road Seven South side lots are members of the Association and pitch in and maintain the road without town assistance, which is expensive. “Bylaws of Old Country Rd. Association”. If there is more traffic it would be more expensive. They are not sure how to include Mrs. Bradley into the covenants and restrictions. It is a Class VI road at best and is not maintained to town standards. Tighe Farm Road is a better-maintained road and easier for emergency vehicles to access. They are not sure if Mrs. Bradley can show a hardship to subdivide into 2 or 3 lots.
The Board discussed the issue of “hardship” and Mr. Faiman read the new definition of “Unnecessary Hardship” Simplex v. Newington.
Mrs. Bradley stated that when Mr. Sanders owned the lot the Fire Dept. demanded we maintain the road. (Owned since 1989)
Mike Pasquarella (Lot 17) has been a residence for 13 years 4 months. He has seen Mrs. Bradley drive in and out on Tighe Farm Road but never on Stiles Farm Road, which he is trying establishing that the road was not continually used as a driveway. He commented that the Associate does not want Stiles Farm Road to be used by people who don’t live there. To ensure future use of the Road the Association will have to invest major money into the road because of washout and other problems.
Mr. Tuttle asked if the covenants are still in effect and he was told they were on the south side. It is clear Mrs. Bradley has to go before all the parties of lot 11–17 and it speaks nothing of the upper lots maintaining it.
Alan Preston (Lot A 29) has been watching this Sanders subdivision. Last Planning Board meeting the Town Council responded that “they have to prove it”.
Bill Murphy (Lot 16) commented the hardship is only because how those 3 lots have been subdivided. It has not been zoned for 3 lots. There is no problem with existing driveway or the house.
Ms. Eckstrom asked Mrs. Bradley if she had the land surveyed to determine what the best solution would be. Mrs. Bradley said she did but the drawings were useless.
674:41 was read from the Planning and Land Use Regulations regarding additional access from private ways. To build a house you have to have frontage and access from a Class V or better road but Stiles Farm Rd. is a Class VI road.
Mr. Faiman read 674:40 Ic that someone must petition the town to allow building permits for structures off of a Class VI roads and must be made part of town ordinances.
Mr. Faiman mentioned that the last time an applicant came before the ZBA it was assumed Stiles Farm Road was a Class VI. He also said if someone wants to claim ownership that the issue might be resolved.
It was discussed who could grant permission to Mrs. Bradley to access via wetlands. 11.4a, was read which is a special exception for putting a driveway across wetlands because it is the only way to get to the other side.
Ms. Eckstrom asked if the ZBA denies the request how could Mrs. Bradley come back to the board. Also questioned if further review of State Laws were warranted before closing the case.
Mr. Faiman said they could vote to deny the application on two grounds.
It was stated by Mr. Faiman that the Association does not have the right to grant access. The policy is the town will not accept new roads if they are not up to standards.
Discussed building a culvert to go over wetlands and other subdivision options.
| Motion | Mrs. Eckstrom made a motion to withdraw the application. Mr. Tuttle seconded the motion. All members voted Yes. |
|---|
| Motion | Mr. Tuttle made a motion to approve the June minutes as posted. Mrs. Eckstrom seconded the motion. All members voted Yes. |
|---|
A motion was made, seconded, and all were in favor, to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.