BOARD MEMBERS: Chairperson Neil Faiman; members Carol Roberts, Bob Spear and Jim Tuttle; alternate member Andy Hoar.
Faiman called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m.
|Motion||(Tuttle/Spear) To approve the 6/10/08 minutes as written. (All were in favor)|
Faiman announced that the OSP fall Planning and Zoning Conference will be held Saturday, October 25th at Loon Mountain. He then introduced the four board members and alternate member that would be hearing the two cases.
Lisa Ann Edenfield (applicant) and Steven Moheban (owner) have applied for a special exception under the terms of section 6.6.1 of the Wilton Zoning Ordinance, to allow Ms. Edenfield to provide in-home day care for up to twelve children at Lot F–98–1, 195 Isaac Frye Highway. This would be an amendment to the special exception granted in case 11/13/07–1, which allowed day care for no more than nine children.
Donald Sienkiewicz represented the applicant and explained that the Wilton fire chief inspected the facility and approved it for 12 children between the ages of 3 and 12 years. He gave the report to the board. He also said that Ms. Edenfield doesn’t know why she asked for a special exception for only 9 children instead of 12 in November, 2007.
Faiman pointed out that the ordinance that governs this special exception is 5.3.6(b). He also read the Notice of Decision from the 11/13/07 – 1 case.
There were no abutters present.
|Motion||(Roberts/Hoar) To close the public hearing in order to deliberate. (All were in favor)|
|Motion||(Spear/Tuttle) To approve the requested special exception which will permit child care as a home occupation at Lot F-98-1, 195 Isaac Frye Highway, for no more than 12 children, with hours of operation 7am – 7pm, and no more than two non-resident employees. (All were in favor)|
The Louise K. Greene Revocable Trust has applied for variances to sections 17.1(e), 8.0.1(a), 8.1, and/or 8.5 of the Wilton Zoning Ordinance, to allow the replacement of an existing manufactured home with a new house on Lot B–103, 373 Forest Road, in the Industrial District, where residential uses are not permitted.
Jerry Greene represented the applicant and showed the board members the zoning map of the area near Lot B-103. He said that unless the abutting businesses there purchase these small lots, the lots are impractical for industrial uses because they are small and the industrial setbacks use up a lot of the land. He said these lots were zoned residential until 1995. He said that this zoning change is presenting hardships to the other five or six similar properties in that the owners cannot replace trailers or manufactured homes or they cannot add on to their homes without a variance from the zoning board.
Mr. Greene said that he and his wife would like to build a modest ranch house, approximately 28’ x 48’, or 1,344 SF, to replace a 14’ x 66’ manufactured home and a 12’ x 24’ added room, or 1,212 SF. He said the proposed home would be nicer to look at and more energy efficient. He said the lot is 1.25 acres and the setbacks will be met.
Faiman listed the ordinances involved in this decision:
8.1 permitted uses in the Industrial District.
17.1(d) a non-conforming building or structure may be rebuilt as long as it is on the same footprint and has the same dimensions.
17.1(e) a non-conforming building or structure may not be extended or enlarged.
Faiman reminded board members of a case from 2003 in which the applicant wanted to replace a 10’ x 50’ mobile home + a 12’ x 14’ porch and an 8’ x 10’ shed with a 14’ x 76’ mobile home. The board granted the request finding it was a natural expansion of non-conforming use.
In answer to a question from the board, Mr. Greene said that the manufactured home was put on the property in 1975, when the property was zoned residential.
|Motion||(Tuttle/Spear) To grant the variances which will permit the replacement of an existing manufactured home on Lot B – 103, with a single story house, approximately 28’x48’ with an attached 24’x24’ garage, satisfying the Industrial District setback requirements, and reusing as much of the footprint of the existing manufactured home as reasonably possible. (All were in favor)|
|Motion||(Spear/Tuttle) To adjourn the meeting. All were in favor.|
The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Submitted by Diane Nilsson
Posted August 26, 2008