|Voting Board||Chairperson Neil Faiman; members Carol Roberts, Jim Tuttle & Bob Spear; alternate member Eric Fowler.|
Faiman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and read a note from Town Counsel, Silas Little, which stated that in the appeal of the Blagbrough Family Trust of the subdivision approval, the issue involving the culverts, the matter is finally over. The NH Supreme Court has denied the motion of the Blagbrough Family Trust to reconsider the Court’s opinion holding that no issue of preemption was involved in the Town’s definition of culverts and structures and the buffer zone around the wetlands.
|Motion||Tuttle/Spear to approve 3/14/06 minutes as printed. Four in favor, Fowler abstained.|
Faiman introduced the Board members, the case, and the procedures.
John E. Kukulka, Jr. has applied for a variance to section 7.2.4 of the Wilton Zoning Ordinance to permit the subdivision of Lot F – 30, 103 Intervale Road, into two residential lots, both of which would take their access from Intervale Road, even though the frontage of one would be on NH Route 101.
Attorney Wil Sullivan represented Mr. Kukulka and said that this subdivision is similar to the Tuttle and Bragdon subdivisions that have been done in the same neighborhood with the same circumstances: the ordinance requires each parcel to take its access from its frontage, but elsewhere in the ordinance it is stated that if there is any other way for a parcel located on NH Route 101 to be accessed from another point, it should be done. Sullivan said that although the lot on Route 101 is in the Commercial District, the applicant will agree to use the property for residential use only, if it can be accessed from Intervale Road. He presented a subdivision plan which showed a shared driveway beginning Intervale Road on Lot F – 30 – 1 and going all the way up to Lot F – 30 – 2. Lot F – 30 – 1 already uses the driveway to access the house that was built in the 1970s.
Faiman noted that he, Tuttle and Roberts drove by the site before the meeting.
Audience member Brian Adams pointed out that Kukulka will have to deal with the natural swale that runs through F – 30 – 2, as it did through the Bragdon property, when he goes before the Planning Board.
|Motion||Tuttle/Roberts to approve the variance subject to the following restrictions:|
|Vote||All in favor.|
|Motion||Tuttle/Spear to nominate Neil Faiman as Chairperson and Joanna Eckstrom and Carol Roberts as co-Vice Chairpersons. All in favor.|
Faiman said he hadn’t written anything up but suggested this: If an applicant fails to appear for a hearing and makes no notice to the Zoning Board at least 24 hours in advance, then the Board will deem the application to have been withdrawn without prejudice. The applicant will have the right to resubmit the application, repaying the application and abutter notification fees. The Board may, in exceptional circumstances, where justice would be served, return the additional application fees to the applicant. Board members agreed with this language, so Faiman will type it up for the next meeting.
Ms. Tuomala had a question for the Board. She explained that on May 14, 2002, she was granted a variance by the ZBA to construct an addition to her house on Jackson Drive. The decision was to expire 2 years later, on May 14, 2004, if construction had not begun. Then on March 9, 2004, she was granted a two-year extension to the variance originally granted to her on May 14, 2004. The Notice of Decision for this extension should state “this decision shall expire on Sunday, May 14, 2006 if construction of the proposed addition has not taken place by that date.” Instead it states that the decision will expire on March 9, 2006 – two years from the date of the meeting, rather than two years from the date that the variance was granted. She provided the Decision Notices in question.
Faiman said that he has an automated program that plugs in the date two years from the date of the meeting, which is usually the date that is needed there. He read the motion from that meeting and felt that the March date in the notice is simply an error in the language of the notice. The Board agreed that the date for expiration should be May 14, 2006.
|Motion||Spear/Tutttle to correct the Notice of Decision to clarify the clerical error on the expiration of the extension, and to correct it from March 9, 2006 to May 14, 2006. All in favor.|
Bob Spear and Carol Roberts were both reappointed for three-year terms.
|Motion||Tuttle/Spear to adjourn. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.|
Minutes submitted by Diane Nilsson
Posted April 18, 2006