Skip navigation.

Minutes posted at this web site have not been checked for consistency with the printed minutes that are available in the Wilton Town Offices. If you need the definitive minutes of a ZBA meeting, please obtain the printed minutes from the town offices.

July 16, 2002

Voting Board Chairperson Neil Faiman; members Joanna Eckstrom, Carol Roberts, Bob Spear & Jim Tuttle. Alternate Eric Fowler voted on the Blagbrough case only.
Clerk Diane Nilsson
Agenda
  • Household of Faith – special exception
  • J. Brent & Laura Manning – special exception
  • Grayson & Natalie Parker – special exception
  • Tatro/Talisman – variance
  • Drew/Ducharme – special exception
  • Corinne Blagbrough – appeal of administrative decision

Mr. Faiman called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. and explained to the audience that the process for hearing an application is 1) to ask the applicant to explain what it is that he or she wants to do 2) why he needs permission from the zoning board to do it and 3) why he thinks the zoning board should give that permission. Once the board has a description from the applicant, members of the zoning board will be able to ask questions and get additional information that they may feel is missing in order to clarify what is being proposed. Once the zoning board is satisfied that they know what is going on, then any members of the public or abutters who may be present will have the opportunity to ask questions, provide additional information or offer opinions. Once all the information is in, the zoning board will then consider the case and, under normal circumstances, reach a decision the same evening.

Case #4/9/02-3 — HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH (continued from June 11, 2002)

Household of Faith has applied for special exceptions under the terms of sections 5.3.2, 5.3.3, and 5.3.5 of the Wilton Zoning Ordinance, to provide transitional housing for women, to house church staff and hold various church functions, to provide space for programs held by the Boys and Girls Club and other organizations, and to hold educational and recreational meetings, on Lot J–38, 16 Maple Street (“The Abbott Home”).

Mr. Faiman explained that Household of Faith has already been granted a special exception for transitional housing and was now asking for a special exception to be allowed to rent space for youth recreational programs. Mr. Faiman read a memo called “Suggestions about Household of Faith,” dated June 20, 2002, that he had sent to board members. (See file) He then read parts of a letter sent to the board from Pastor Manha, dated July 5, 2002. (See file)

Ms. Eckstrom asked the applicant if he had a signed contract with the Boys & Girls Club. Pastor Manha said that he did not.

Abutter Pam Griffin asked, if granted, would the request allow the church to rent to any youth recreational group. Mr. Faiman said that unless the board applied restrictions, it would.

Mr. Faiman & Ms. Roberts felt that although youth recreational use on the property is a good idea and might fit with the neighborhood, they could not see how this commercial use in a residential neighborhood is a permitted use. They did not feel that it was a civic or a church use. Mr. Faiman further stated that he was not comfortable with the idea that any building can become a church and that then any use magically becomes permitted because it is a church.

Mr. Tuttle felt that a daily recreational program such as a Boys & Girls Club would be an acceptable accessory use of a church.

Motion

Mr. Spear moved to grant a special exception to section 5.3.3 to allow youth recreational activities as an accessory use of a church with the following restrictions: no more than 20 children properly supervised; hours of operation limited to 9 a.m. – 9 p.m.; all related parking must be off street; appropriate handicapped facilities in accordance with state requirements.

Mr. Tuttle seconded the motion. Motion failed 2 – 3.

Motion Ms. Roberts moved to deny the motion on the grounds that the use is not permitted under the terms of sections 5.3.2, 5.3.3 or 5.3.5. Mr. Faiman seconded the motion. Three were in favor, Mr. Tuttle voted no and Mr. Spear abstained.

Mr. Faiman stated that the application had been denied. 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 a rehearing must be filed in writing with the Zoning Board of Adjustment on or before Thursday, August 15, 2002, and must fully specify all grounds on which the rehearing is requested. (N.H. RSA 677:2)

Case #5/14/02—1 — J. BRENT & LAURA MANNING (continued from June 11)

J. Brent & Laura Manning have applied for a special exception under the terms of section 17.3 of the Wilton Zoning Ordinance, to permit an addition to their house on Lot E—12, 21 Russell Hill Road, which will be closer to a lot line than would otherwise be permitted.

The Mannings were not present for the second month in a row and the board determined that they had abandoned their application.

Motion Ms. Eckstrom moved to deem the Manning application abandoned without prejudice. Mr. Tuttle seconded and all were in favor.

Mr. Faiman stated that the application has been abandoned but the Mannings may come back for the same request although they will need to reapply.

Case #6/11/02—1 — GRAYSON L. & NATALIE C. PARKER (continued from June 11)

Grayson L. & Natalie C, Parker have applied for a special exception under the terms of Section 11.4(a) of the Wilton Zoning Ordinance, to permit construction of a driveway that will cross a wetland area on Lot B—36, Curtis Farm Road.

Mr. Faiman stated that all board members have visited the site and saw the proposed wetland crossing area.

Mr. Parker presented NHDES wetlands approval permit.

Motion Mr. Spear moved to grant the special exception under the terms of section 11.4(a) in accordance with the plan submitted with the application. Ms. Eckstrom seconded the motion and all were in favor.

Mr. Faiman said that the request had been granted and the applicant will receive notice of such in the mail. He further stated, 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 a rehearing must be filed in writing with the Zoning Board of Adjustment on or before Thursday, August 15, 2002, and must fully specify all grounds on which the rehearing is requested. (N.H. RSA 677:2) This decision shall expire on Friday, July 16, 2004 if construction of the driveway has not begun by that date (Wilton Zoning Ordinance section 17.4)

Case #6/11/02—2 — PHILIP TATRO & TALISMAN PROPERTIES, LLC (continued from June 11)

Philip Tatro (applicant, as managing member of Tatro Investments) and Talisman Properties, LLC (owner) have applied for a variance to the terms of Section 8.2.8 of the Wilton Zoning Ordinance, to permit an ingress-only entrance from NH Route 101 to a proposed service station and car wash on Lot F—12—6, NH Route 101, where the ordinance would require that all access to the lot be taken from Industrial Drive.

Atty Donald Gartrell represented the applicant and made three points: (a) According to RSA 236, access to town roads is the purview of the town, but access to state highways is controlled by the state. Wilton appears to be asserting jurisdiction over a state highway. (b) DOT and town planning boards are the jurisdictional bodies that deal with roads, not the zoning board of adjustment. (c) According to the Wilton Master Plan, the primary goal of implementing access management policies is to prevent the loss of roadway capacity due to development along arterioles by reducing turning movements that conflict with thru traffic. He argued that the proposal for the ingress-only curb cut will greatly help the flow of thru traffic traveling west. He then read the five criteria needed to grant the variance. (See file)

It was noted that the property in question is 5 acres in size, the property has 565 feet of frontage on Route 101 and the proposed entrance is 240 feet from West Intervale Road.

Atty Andrew Sorrell, representing abutter Monadnock Spring Water, believes that a significant portion of the property is in the Aquifer Protection District and that according to the performance standards of that district, the greater pavement we create, the less consistent it is with those performance standards. He further stated that there is not a hardship that prevents the applicant from use of property without this driveway.

Mr. Faiman stated that although he understood Atty Gartrell’s need to restate the jurisdictional issue, it is not up to the board to decide whether the ordinance is correct, but to decide whether a variance applies.

Spencer Brooks, Wilton Conservation Commission, expressed his belief that this parcel is in the Aquifer Protection District, and his concern that this paved drive will require salt in the winter which may not be beneficial for the aquifer.

Bruce Johnson said that 8.2.8 is pretty clear when it states that… if no other access is available, entrance and exit shall be limited to one curb cut on NH Route 101 for each lot-of-record existing as of March 8, 1988.

Mr. Faiman stated that he was not persuaded that this lot is unique as compared to other industrial lots on Route 101. With regard to a fair and substantial relationship between the general purposes of the ordinance and the specific restrictions on the property, he feels that the underlying principle on which the ordinance is written is to reduce the number of points by which vehicles enter and/or leave Route 101. Based on the position that this ordinance will improve traffic generally, it was created to achieve a particular purpose.

Sam Proctor, one of the owners of the property, presented a tax map of the industrial district on Route 101.

He stated that this lot is unique in that it is part of a 68 acre parcel that will be developed. It is the only large parcel with long frontage on Route 101 in Wilton.

Mr. Faiman stated that because of the high traffic levels associated with this commercial use, there is a high level of concern. The ordinance allows commercial use in an industrial district, but not at the expense of the industrial safety net.

Motion Ms. Eckstrom moved to grant the variance to allow a curb cut on Route 101, for egress only to the property, as per the plan. Mr. Tuttle seconded the motion.

Mr. Spear stated that he doesn’t feel there is a hardship. Mr. Tuttle stated that he also doesn’t see a hardship but feels that the proposal will benefit the traffic flow on Route 101 and so he supports it.

Vote Three against and Ms. Eckstrom and Mr. Tuttle in favor.
Motion Mr. Spear moved to deny the variance request on the grounds that there is no hardship and it is inconsistent with the spirit of the ordinance. Ms. Roberts seconded the motion. Three were in favor and Ms. Eckstrom and Mr. Tuttle voted no.

Mr. Faiman stated that the application had been denied. 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 a rehearing must be filed in writing with the Zoning Board of Adjustment on or before Thursday, August 15, 2002, and must fully specify all grounds on which the rehearing is requested. (N.H. RSA 677:2)

Case #7/16/02—1 — RICHARD P. DREW/GERTRUDE & FRANCIS DUCHARME

Richard P. Drew (applicant) and Gertrude & Francis Ducharme (owners) have applied for a special exception under the terms of section 6.2.1(e) of the Wilton Zoning Ordinance, to permit the subdivision of Lot C—13, Ring Road, into four lots, two of which would be located in an old gravel pit.

Richard Drew represented the owners and presented a site specific soil study & lot size recommendation report along with a high intensity soil survey, prepared by Bruce A. Gilday, Certified Soil Scientist with Bag Land Consultants, Concord, NH. which is one of the requirements of the ordinance. He said that

Lot C—13 is 10.23 acres and the Ducharme’s would like to subdivide this into four lots.

Abutter Earl Watts, Marden Road read a letter, that he submitted to the board, in which he states that the owners, the Ducharme’s, have repeatedly trespassed on his property and destroyed his property. Mr. Faiman explained that the ZBA can only make the determination as to whether granting this special exception will create a hazard to the occupants of the land, the abutters, the groundwater or the health & welfare of the residents of the Town of Wilton with relation to the soils on the property. Mr. Brooks with the Wilton Conservation Commission said he would be happy to meet with Mr. Watts and try to help.

The board felt that the applicant had met the requirements of sections 6.2.1(e) and 4.4.

Motion Ms. Eckstrom moved to approve the special exception as presented. Mr. Spear seconded the motion and all were in favor.

Mr. Faiman stated that the request had been granted and the applicant will receive notice of such in the mail. He further stated, 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 a rehearing must be filed in writing with the Zoning Board of Adjustment on or before Thursday, August 15, 2002, and must fully specify all grounds on which the rehearing is requested. (N.H. RSA 677:2) This decision shall expire on Friday, July 16, 2004 if application to the Planning Board for subdivision approval has not been submitted by that date (Wilton Zoning Ordinance section 17.4)

Case #7/16/02—2 — CORINNE BLAGBROUGH

Corinne Blagbrough has appealed the decision of the Wilton Planning Board to approve the application of A&T Forest Products to subdivide Lot A—21, Burton Highway, into two lots. The appeal asserts that the Planning Board decision is inconsistent with or based upon an incorrect interpretation of Sections 3.1.18(b), 3.1.31, 4.2.1(b), 4.6.6, 14.0, 14.1, 14.3.2, 14.3.3, 14.3.4, and/or 23.0 of the Wilton Zoning Ordinance; various provisions of the Wilton Planning Board’s Subdivision Regulations, Site Plan Review Regulations, Road Design Standards and Specifications, and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Standards; various New Hampshire statutes; and/or various New Hampshire DES rules.

Mr. Faiman recused himself and alternate Eric Fowler took his place.

Atty Andy Sullivan represented Ms. Blagbrough and went over a list of 13 reasons why the applicant feels that the Planning Board approval should be overturned. (See file) Among the reasons, 1b claims that Lot A—21—1 does not have the required 300’ of frontage on a class V or better road. Atty Bill Keefe, representing subdivision owner A&T Forest Products, pointed out that the Town purchased 350’ of frontage on Burton Highway directly abutting the A&T Forest Products land in order to realign Burton Highway and build a new bridge. So this 350’ is actually a right-of-way and can be added to the 200’ of frontage on the map making a total of 560’ of frontage on Lot A—21—1. The complaint stems from the fact that the Planning Board approved the subdivision based on the old map that does not reflect this change.

Motion Mr. Spear moved to make a determination that the statement by Ms. Blagbrough that Lot A—21—1 does not have 300’ of frontage on a class V or better road is inaccurate based on the fact that the land that the Town bought is a right-of-way and is therefore frontage. Therefore, the Planning Board was not in error. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fowler and all were in favor.

The board then discussed point 1g… that A&T Forest Products built roads within a subdivision prior to first obtaining subdivision approval. Owner of A&T Forest Products, Mr. Stevens, said that he built a logging road to be able to log. The board seemed satisfied that this was the case and that no permit was required.

Motion Mr. Spear moved to make a determination that the roads that were constructed on the property were constructed as part of a logging operation and that A&T Forest Products had a logging permit. Therefore the Planning Board was not in error. The motion was seconded by Ms. Eckstrom and all were in favor.

The board then discussed point 3… The driveway and culvert is a structure that is encroaching into the 150’ wetland setback and the 200’ open water (Mill Brook) setback. Section 14.3.3.

Atty Keefe noted several places in the ordinance where definitions of structure are located: 10.1.27, 10.1.5, 3.1.4, 2.0.14 & 9A.5.3. Both Neil Faiman and Spencer Brooks received calls from a person at NHDES who walked the land and responded to the concerns that the conservation commission brought to the Planning Board hearing. She reported that after walking the land she had no concerns. Mr. Brooks said that if she signed off on the project, then the Conservation Commission felt comfortable with it as well.

Motion Mr. Spear moved to determine that a culvert is a structure and therefore the Planning Board did make an error. Mr. Fowler seconded the motion. Three were in favor and Mr. Tuttle and Ms. Eckstrom voted no.
Motion Ms. Roberts moved to reconsider the motion and the entirety of point 3 at the August meeting. Mr. Spear seconded the motion and all were in favor.

Mr. Tuttle stated that the Blagbrough case would be continued to next months meeting and it would be the first case heard.

OTHER BUSINESS

Minutes — June 11, 2002

Motion Mr. Spear moved to accept the 6/11/02 minutes as written, seconded by Mr. Tuttle with all in favor.

Motion to adjourn – all in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Diane Nilsson, Clerk
Posted: 7/22/02