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.

August 13, 2002

TOWN OF WILTON

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

August 13, 2002

Voting Board Chairperson Neil Faiman; members Joanna Eckstrom, Carol Roberts, Bob Spear & Jim Tuttle. Alternate Eric Fowler was present but voted on the Blagbrough case only. Alternate Ron Hanisch was present but did not vote.
Clerk Diane Nilsson
Agenda
  • Corinne Blagbrough – appeal of administrative decision
  • Corinne Blagbrough – request for rehearing
  • Eva Popek – request for rehearing
  • Tatro/Talisman – request for rehearing
  • Galley/Hanisch – variance
  • Greeley – special exception

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.

He then stated the board’s policy of not beginning a new case after 10:30 p.m. and not allowing the meeting to go beyond 11 p.m. He then recused himself from the Blagbrough case and said that alternate Eric Fowler would vote in his place and Vice Chair Jim Tuttle would act as Chairperson.

Case #7/16/02—2 — CORINNE BLAGBROUGH (continued)

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.

The board took up the issue of #3 in the letter from Ms. Blagbrough dated 7/16/02, that “ the driveway and culvert are structures encroaching into the 150’ wetland setback and the 200’ open water (Mill Brook) setback. Section 14.3.3.

Atty Andy Sullivan represented Ms. Blagbrough and reiterated what he said at the last meeting: that the Wilton Zoning Ordinance definition of structure (3.1.31) implies that a culvert is a structure; that the NH

DES Code of Administrative Rules (Wt 101.78) defines structure as…”something installed, erected or constructed. Structures include the following: fence, dock, breakwater, post, pile, building, bridge, culvert and wall.” He also brought a dictionary definition of structure as “something that is constructed, as a building or a work of civil engineering.”

Selectman David Glines stated that he has been a member of the Planning Board for nearly 20 years and that when that board wrote the language in 3.1.31 they did not intend for any part of a driveway to be considered a structure. They intended it generally to apply to structures of 100 sq. ft. or more. He agreed with Atty Sullivan in that a culvert can be considered a structure in civil engineering terms, but the Wilton Planning Board never has considered a culvert a structure.

A letter dated 8/2/02 from the Wilton Board of Selectmen was read. In it the board stated its concern re the potential of labeling a driveway culvert as a structure and urged the ZBA to reject this definition. (See file)

Mr. Faiman presented photos that he had taken of things that were within 200’ of open water in the watershed district and asked if they were considered structures. They were mailboxes, posts, culverts and a bridge.

Atty William Keefe represented A & T Forest Products and presented a two-page memorandum. (see file)

In it he pointed out that… “if the Wilton Planning Board has been wrong for 30 years, almost every lot it has approved would thereby become a non-conforming lot since most new driveways have at lease one culvert.”

He also stated that it doesn’t matter how the State of NH, the DES, a dictionary or any other source defines a structure, what matters is how Wilton defines a structure, and the Wilton Planning Board does not consider culverts to be structures.

Motion Mr. Fowler motioned that according to the spirit and intent of the Wilton Zoning Ordinance, neither a driveway nor a culvert is considered a structure. This was seconded by Mr. Spear and the vote was unanimous in favor.
Motion Mr. Spear motioned that based on the previous motion and vote that states that neither a driveway nor a culvert is a structure, the driveway and culvert located on Lot A-21 cannot be considered a structure that encroaches in a wetland or open water setback, and that the Planning Board was not in error on that point when it granted the subdivision. Ms. Eckstrom seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in the affirmative.

Atty Sullivan asked the board to respond to #1a of Ms. Blagbrough’s 7/16/02 letter which states that the Planning Board did not have a letter from the Fire Chief when it approved the A & T Forest Products sub- division. The board declined to make a decision on this point because they have no jurisdiction over sub- division regulation requirements.

Kenton Blagbrough referred to section 23.0 of the Ordinance and said he felt that this paragraph allowed the ZBA to have jurisdiction. The board disagreed and declined to act on this request.

Case #7/16/02—2 — CORINNE BLAGBROUGH – Request for rehearing.

Corinne Blagbrough has requested that the Wilton Zoning Board reconsider its decision of 7/16/02 that the Wilton Planning Board was not in error in determining that Lot A-21-1, Burton Highway, has adequate frontage on a Class V or better road.

In the request for a rehearing, Ms. Blagbrough, through a letter from Atty Sullivan, claimed that the reconfigured right-of-way, or parcel of land that was sold to the Town for the purpose of roadway realignment and bridge relocation, had not been dedicated to the Town at the time subdivision was approved, and therefore Lot A-21-1 did not have enough frontage at the time the subdivision was approved.

After looking at the notes on the plan dated 8/20/98 that was used for the lot line adjustment by the Town, and reviewing two warrant articles, in 1997 and 2000, that dealt with the purchase of a portion of Lot A-21, the board was comfortable that it had made the correct decision last month.

Motion Mr. Spear motioned to deny the request for a rehearing on the grounds that there was no error in its original determination that Lot A-21-1 had enough frontage on a Class V road or better at the time the subdivision was granted. Ms. Eckstrom seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in the affirmative.

Mr. Faiman rejoined the board and Mr. Fowler did not vote on any other cases during the evening.

Case #4/9/02-3 — HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH – Request for rehearing.

Eva Kopek of Highfields Road has requested that the Wilton Zoning Board reconsider its denial on 7/16/02 of a special exception under the terms of sections 5.3.2, 5.3.3, or 5.3.5 of the Wilton Zoning Ordinance to permit youth recreational activities on Lot J-38, 16 Maple Street (The Abbot Home).

Mr. Faiman said that his understanding, after speaking with Town Counsel when the Wilton Main Street Association applied for a rehearing a while ago, is that Ms. Kopek is neither a party to the action or proceedings nor a directly affected party. He would entertain a motion to deny on these grounds.

Motion Ms. Eckstrom motioned to deny on grounds that Ms. Kopek is neither a party to the action or proceedings nor is she a directly affected party. The motion was seconded by Ms. Roberts and the vote was four in the affirmative with Mr. Tuttle abstaining.

Case #6/11/02—2 — PHILIP TATRO & TALISMAN PROPERTIES, LLC – Request for a rehearing

Philip Tatro and Talisman Properties, LLC have requested that the Wilton Zoning Board reconsider its denial of a requested 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.

Mr. Faiman stated that he would be in favor of allowing a rehearing to at least write a more detailed explanation of the reasons for denial.

Motion Ms. Eckstrom moved to grant the request for rehearing with the caveat that the applicants be limited to arguing only the points raised in their request for rehearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tuttle. The vote was four in the affirmative and Ms. Roberts voting no.

Case #8/13/02—1 — GALLEY/HANISCH

Kenneth C. and Aushra Galley (applicants) and Ronald A. and Susan M. Hanisch (owners) have applied for a variance to section 6.2.4 of the Wilton Zoning Ordinance, to permit the installation of a septic system on Lot

H—121—2, Potter Road, closer to a lot line than would otherwise be permitted by the Ordinance.

Alternate board member Ron Hanisch stepped down from the board.

Atty David Forrest represented the Galleys as did Tom Carr, a soils and wetlands scientist with Meridian Land Services, Inc. Atty Forrest explained that no matter where the Galleys place their house on the lot, the septic system will encroach on a setback in order to keep the septic system out of wetlands soil. He presented a septic design plan by Meridian Land Services, Inc dated 6/2/98 and a subdivision map dated 11/21/86 which shows where the wetlands soils are on the map. The proposed septic design is toward the rear of the lot and is 15’ from the side lot line. Atty Forrest explained that they could locate the house and septic system toward the front of the lot and encroach less into the side setback, but their house would be directly across the street from the home of Steven Ruse, giving them each less privacy.

Abutter Steven Ruse said that he is in favor of the design that keeps the house toward the back of the lot so that it is more secluded.

No one else spoke against or in favor of the project.

Motion Ms. Eckstrom motioned to grant the variance to allow placement of the septic system in the setback as shown on the plans submitted with the application, and to conform to all State septic system regulations. The motion was seconded by Mr. Tuttle and the vote was unanimous in the affirmative.

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, September 12, 2002, and must fully specify all grounds on which the rehearing is requested. (N.H. RSA 677:2) This decision shall expire on Friday, August 13, 2004 if construction of the septic system has not begun by that date (Wilton Zoning Ordinance section 17.4)

Case #8/13/02—2 — GREELEY

Richard D. and Marilyn R. Greeley, Trustees, 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 which would cross a wetland area on proposed new lot C—24—1, to be subdivided from Lot C—24, Goldsmith Road.

Dawn Tuomala, of Monadnock Survey, represented the Greeleys and explained that C—24 will be subdivided into two lots, one 5 acres and the other 6.5 acres. There are so many wetland areas on the property that there needs to be a shared driveway. The driveway will be 18’ wide with 2’ shoulders most of the length except at the second wetland crossing, with Planning Board approval, she would like to reduce the width to 12’. The proposed wetland impact at the first crossing is 1,250 sq. ft. The impact at the second and third crossings total is 1,650 sq. ft. Ms. Tuomala gave the board a plat showing the proposed wetland crossings and a topogreaphic & soils data sheet.

Mr. Faiman asked why the road couldn’t be more to the east, which would eliminate the third wetland crossing. Ms. Tuomala replied that the land was so steep there that a lot of fill would have to be brought in.

Spencer Brooks, the Conservation Commission chairperson, said that the State sends all logging permits to the Conservation Commission, and a logging permit from the Greeleys said that the logging was not connected to any subdivision project. He also said that he has received many of these permits lately that say that the logging is not related to a subdivision project, when in reality, subdivision requests are made shortly after the logging is complete.

Motion Ms. Eckstrom motioned to continue the hearing to the September meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Spear and the vote was unanimous in the affirmative. The board will meet at 6:30 p.m. on 9/10/02 at the property to walk the site.

OTHER BUSINESS

Minutes — July 16, 2002

Ms. Eckstrom wanted to include an amendment that she made to Mr. Spear’s motion at the bottom of page 1.

After Mr. Tuttle seconds Mr. Spear’s motion, Ms. Eckstrom made an amendment to the motion which read:

“Properly supervised means supervised by someone other than the supervisor for the transitional housing.”

There was no second to her amendment.

Motion Mr. Tuttle moved to approve the minutes as amended. Ms. Roberts seconded the motion and all were in favor.

There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Diane Nilsson, Clerk
Posted: 8/19/02