Town of Wilton, NH

Zoning Board Minutes

November 14, 2006

Voting BoardChairperson Neil Faiman; members Joanna Eckstrom, Carol Roberts, Bob Spear & Jim Tuttle; alternate member Andy Hoar.
  • Matthew R. Harwood – variances (continued)
  • Dion Owens/Paul Kerouac - variances
  • Martin Armstrong/Christine Kopycinski/Pike Industries, Inc.

Faiman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

Minutes — October 10, 2006

MotionRoberts/Eckstrom to approve 10/10/06 minutes as written. All in favor.

Budget – 2007

Eckstrom prepared a proposed budget for 2007 and board members looked it over.

MotionSpear/Tuttle to accept 2007 budget as proposed and submit to Budget Committee. All in favor. Board members thanked Ms. Eckstrom for preparing the budget.

Faiman introduced the Board members and explained the rules for presenting and hearing cases.

Case #9/12/06–2 — Harwood (continued)

Matthew R. Harwood has applied for a variance to sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of the Wilton Zoning Ordinance, to permit the subdivision of Lot L-28, 235 Gibbons Highway, into two lots, one of which would have less area and frontage than required by the ordinance.

Dawn Tuomala, with Monadnock Survey, represented the applicant and presented a revised plan. On the plan are three soil test pit valuations on proposed lot L-28-2. She moved the location of the proposed house on the same lot to the front setback line; she drew the 250’ shoreland protection buffer; the 150’ natural wooded buffer restriction; the 50’ building setback line; the 100 year flood hazard and the aquifer protection district. Ms. Tuomala noted that these were drawn from the tax map because the survey of the property has not been completed. She also showed a line denoting the property split into two lots, both on the tax map and the deed, however it has not been subdivided.

As a result of the test pit data and the organic material and lack of original soil that was found in test pit 2, Ms. Tuomala felt it would be better to build the house as close to the front of the property as possible. Prior to construction, she recommends soil borings be performed to determine the depth of the fill, depth of ledge, water table and to determine the bearing capacity of the existing soil. Once this has been established then a stable foundation for the building can be designed.

Faiman asked if any future building were built on the property, would they need the same preparation. Ms. Tuomala said they would.

Faiman summarized the case: There is an existing lot which comprises two separately deeded parcels. The existing lot, L-28 is approximately 1.9 acres and has approximately 186’ of frontage and contains an existing house. It is located in the Residential District and has access to town sewer and water and therefore the ordinance requires _ of an acre per dwelling unit and 100’ of frontage per lot. The proposal is to subdivide the lot into two lots, there is a plan showing the details of that, leaving the existing house on one lot and building a new house on the other resulting lot, the intention being that each house would contain two dwelling units for a total of four dwelling units on the property.

MotionEckstrom/Spear to close the hearing. All in favor.

Eckstrom was concerned about any future building that might take place on that lot and wanted all owners to come back to the ZBA before proceeding. Faiman suggested that any construction on the property could be conducted in accordance with the recommendations by Dawn Tuomala in her letter of November 13, 2006. Eckstrom agreed.

Roberts asked what is the hardship that would allow for 4 dwelling units on less than 2 acres and less than 200’ of frontage. Faiman said that the applicant could legally add on to the existing house and have a triplex on his 1.9 acre lot without needing a variance, but he wants the extra income from the fourth unit or the privacy of having two duplexes. Faiman felt that it was within the spirit of the ordinance to grant the variances because the lot was so close to the requirements: 1.9 acres is missing only a 10th of an acre and 186 ‘ of frontage is missing only 14’, or 7’ for each lot if it could be distributed evenly, but because of the existing house it can’t be.

Hoar said he was concerned about increased traffic going onto and off of Route 101 from the proposed site. Faiman said he was concerned about two separate driveways for two separate homes with only 186’ of frontage. Spear said that Tuomala proposed using only one curb cut for both lots and having a shared parking area in the back of the property. Faiman said that if the board chose to grant the variances it could condition that on a single point of access for the two homes.

Roberts and Hoar asked what the hardship would be if the board granted the variances. Faiman said that if you agree with the premise that 1.9 acres is almost 2 acres and that the area is sufficient and that variance should be granted, it’s also slightly short on the frontage because of the shape of the lot. Therefore the special conditions of the lot are that it is a) almost big enough to support 4 dwelling units and b) that if you accept that 4 dwelling units is a reasonable thing to do, then it’s almost but not quite wide enough because of the depth and the spread of the lot in the back.

MotionSpear/Tuttle to grant the variances to 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 to permit the subdivision of Lot L-28 into two lots; permit the construction of a new two-family dwelling on one of them and the use of the existing residence as a two-family dwelling on the other. Subject to the following restrictions:

• The two lots are to be accessed by a single shared driveway access to Gibbons Highway (NH Route 101).

• Any new construction on either of the lots is to be conducted in accordance with the recommendations of the letter dated November 13, 2006 from Monadnock Survey to the Zoning Board, signed by Dawn Tuomala.

• These restrictions must be filed with the deeds to the two subdivided lots in the Registry of Deeds.

VoteAll were in favor.

Case #10/10/06–1 — Owens/Kerouac

Dion Owens (owner) and Paul E. Kerouac (applicant) have applied for variances to sections 9B.1, 9B.2, 6.1 and 6.2 of the Wilton Zoning Ordinance to operate a Garden Center and Landscape Materials operation on Lot F – 21, 417 Gibbons Highway, and also for a special exception under the terms of section 8.2 of the Ordinance to permit a reduction of the setback from NH Route 101 from 100’ to 25’.

Faiman explained that the applicant contacted him and said that he wished to withdraw his application because he would be out of the country until sometime in the spring. Faiman said that at the last meeting the applicant had been told that he could resubmit his application and only pay for re-noticing abutters. Board members felt that if he has now withdrawn his application until the spring, he should pay all application fees because it will be a new application.

MotionSpear/Eckstrom to accept the withdrawal of the application with the understanding that a new application may be resubmitted in the future, without prejudice, but will require the payment of full application and abutter fees at that time. All in favor.

Case #11/14/06–1 — Armstrong/Kopycinski/Pike Industries, Inc.

Martin J. Armstrong and Christine C. Kopycinski (owners) and Pike Industries, Inc. (applicant) have applied for a variance to section 16.1(h) of the Wilton Zoning Ordinance, to permit the placement of an off-premises sign for Pike Industries at the corner of Isaac Frye Highway and Forest Road on Lot B – 147, 462 Forest Road.

Mark Nelson represented Pike Industries and explained that the Pike Industries property, located at 50 Quinn Drive, does not abut Route 31. He said that the best location for their sign would be near the corner of Stoney Brook Drive and Route 31, on the Pep Direct property, but he said that Pike was unwilling to meet the conditions that Pep Direct set to allow a sign on their property.

At the proposed location, Mr. Nelson said the sign would be 13’ in from the white line at the edge of the road. He said if you are on Isaac Frye Highway, what blocks your line of sight is a hill and a tree. He said the sign will not obstruct the view any more than what’s presently there. He said the hardship is that his business is not located on Route 31 but all of his customers come up 31 and have a hard time seeing Stoney Brook Drive. He said the sign would be 4’ x 4’, would be on granite posts, would be 6’6” to the top, would be wooden with non-reflective paint and there would be no lights.

Faiman pointed out that the applicant would also need to receive a variance for the size of the sign because the proposed location is in the General Residence and Agricultural District which allows signs up to 2’ x 2’.

Abutter Carlton Johnson said he had nothing against Pike Industries putting up a sign, but he was concerned about safety and sight distance at the intersection. He requested that the police chief measure 13’ from the line to where the sign will be placed, and if he feels that location will have no effect on the sight distance, then Mr. Johnson would feel fine about it.

Abutter Carol Handy also expressed concern about the sight distance problem at the intersection.

Spencer Brookes suggested talking to the State of NH Highway Dept. about their blue “business ahead” signs.

MotionSpear/Tuttle that the applicant investigate with the State Highway Department the possibility of having a state highway sign erected that would satisfy their requirements. If the applicant is not able to obtain satisfaction from the state, then he should bring the response from the state to the next hearing, as well as a letter from the Wilton Police Department addressing the effect of the proposed sign on visibility for traffic turning from Isaac Frye Highway onto Forest Road. All in favor.
MotionEckstrom/Spear to adjourn. All in favor.

The meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m.

Submitted by Diane Nilsson

Posted November 21, 2006