| Board Members | Chairman Neil Faiman; members, Carol Roberts (left early), Joe Poisson (left early), Bill Carnduff, Andy Hoar, and alternate Joanna Eckstrom. |
|---|---|
| Agenda |
|
Chairman Faiman opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m.
Minutes
A MOTION was made by Ms. Eckstrom and SECONDED by Mr. Hoar to approve the minutes of July 12, 2011 with the following amendment:
- Change "Will Sullivan" to "Wil Sullivan" throughout
Voting: 4 ayes; motion carried with Ms. Roberts and Mr. Carnduff abstaining.
Mr. Faiman explained that Jared Brown has applied for a rehearing based primarily on negating the testimony that was given at the last hearing. He explained that he felt that the new testimony from an abutter is not relevant as they Board did not make their decision based on the previous abutter comments.
Ms. Roberts noted that the decision was based on the relevant ordinance.
Ms. Eckstrom stated that there is nothing new included in the rehearing application as applicant had the opportunity to give or say everything which was stated in the rehearing application. She suggested that the entire case was started due to a personal dispute.
Mr. Famain proposed a response that explained that the original decision was based on considerations unrelated to the oral and written testimony of the abutters and therefore Mr. Brown's attempt to impeach the testimony is irrelevant.
In response to a question from Ms. Eckstrom as to whether the Board would have made the same decision if the woodstove was not present, the Board stated that their decision was based on the shed being on the lot line not the wood stove.
A MOTION was made by Ms. Roberts and SECONDED by Mr. Hoar that the Board deny the request for the rehearing using the language Mr. Faiman proposed.
Voting: 5 ayes; motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Faiman stated that he would inform the applicant of their right to appeal to superior court if he does not include such language in the decision.
Mr. Faiman explained that Abby MacFarland has applied for an Equitable Dimensional Waiver under RSA 674:33-a for an already erected steel hoop structure that is within the 35 foot front set back from the property line on lot F-166, 572 Gibbons Hwy. He also noted that she has additionally requested a variance to 8.2.8 of the Wilton Zoning ordinance, to allow a second curb onto NH Route 101, locally known as Gibbons Highway.
Robert Todd, Land Use Consultant, appeared for the applicant and explained that he has been informed that there might be a conflict of interest on the Board as Mr. Poisson has a business that is in competition with the applicant and has a stake in the outcome of the decision.
Mr. Poisson stated that if the applicant fulfills the necessary requirements then his application should be approved. He stated that he would like to poll the Board.
In response to a question from Mr. Carnduff, Mr. Todd explained that Mr. Poisson has a towing business which is direct competition with the business of the applicant.
The Board was polled and Mr. Faiman stated that he saw no conflict while Ms. Roberts and Ms. Eckstrom observed that there was no mention of a towing business in the application.
In response to a question from Mr. Cardnduff, Mr. LaFluer, business owner and son of the applicant, explained that he has two tow trucks.
Mr. Carnduff stated that if there is a question one should err on the side of caution and therefore he thinks Mr. Poison should step down.
Mr. Poisson stepped down from the Board as a voting member and Ms. Eckstrom was put in his place.
Mr. Todd reviewed the proposed plan for the Board noting that the site is 1.2 acres in area, has 288 feet of frontage and is at an average depth of 175?. He further explained that there is a pending application for a driveway permit onto Route 101. He stated that there are 32.5? x 30? hoop structures covered by translucent covers and used as greenhouses both on the subject lot and on the abutting lot which is owned by the parent's of Abby MacFarland. Mr. Todd noted that there is a 100? front setback from the Route 101 right of way line and 35? side and rear setbacks and that almost all the buildings on the lot are within the setbacks. He explained that there were no markers on the back line and because of this Mr. LaFluer measured the placement of his building off of Route 101 but the building was mistakenly placed 2.5? into the setback even though it would be able to fit in the approved area if placed correctly.
Mr. LaFluer explained that after the building was put up in April a complaint was filed regarding the running of a business out of his home. He stated that he hired Mr. Todd immediately and then he was able to recover the boundaries in July.
In response to a question from Ms. Roberts, Mr. Todd explained that Mr. LaFluer thought he did not need a permit because he considered the structure to be temporary as it is similar to an agricultural structure. He noted that in this case it is higher and wider than the greenhouses but it has no permanent concrete, wood, or nails. Mr. LaFluer explained that the concrete is in the form of 7? x 10? slabs with eye hooks so that they can be moved.
In response to a question from Mr. Eckstrom, Mr. LaFluer stated that the structure is 17? high at the peak.
Mr. Todd then reviewed his arguments for approving the variance noting that the error was not discovered until the surveyor was engaged in July. He also noted that since the rear lot is not visibly marked Mr. LaFluer tried to place the structure by using Route 101 as a starting point and no malfeasance was intended. He stated that 2.5 feet of setback encroachment will not affect the value of the abutting properties and no one will be able to see or feel the effects of the encroachment and if this structure is allowed to remain it will max out the space on this property. Mr. Todd also stated that the cost to dismantle and move the structure would be significant and with no public benefit.
In response to a question from Mr. Carnduff, Mr. Lafluer explained that the building sits parallel to Route 101 while the hoops are perpendicular to Route 101.
In response to a question from Mr. Hoar, Mr. Todd stated that the structure is temporary as a permanent structure would have cement tubes and would not be able to be moved without damaging it.
Mr. Faiman read the definition of a building and stated that he feels clear that this is a building according to the definition.
In response to a concern expressed by David Glines, a diagonal abutter, the applicant confirmed that a structure that was used for agricultural use has been removed and replaced with a structure that looks similar but is for a different use.
In response to a question from Ms. Eckstrom, Mr. LaFleur stated that currently inside the building is a car, with no engine in it, and tools.
Mr. Mahar of the Wilton Conservation Commission, expressed concern regarding any impact on the aquifer, wetlands, or Blood Brook that run behind the property and Mr. Faiman noted that the wetlands issue will require review by the Planning Board.
Mr. Faiman read a letter submitted by the Building Inspector as he is on medical leave.
Mrs. MacFarland explained that she received a cease and desist order requiring that she remove the structure within 45 days and she has since met with the Board of Selectmen and has applied to both the Zoning and Planning Boards.
In response to a question from Mr. Carnduff, Mr. LaFleur stated that it would cost $7,500 to move the structure three feet and the cost to put it up will be $11,000 when it is done. He also noted that there is no water and the electricity remains from the previous greenhouse.
In response to a question from Ms. Eckstrom, Mrs. MacFarland stated that the old structure would also have been over the setback and that the greenhouses were installed from 1992-1998. She also explained that there is crushed stone at the bottom of the greenhouses as they are agricultural temporary buildings.
Mr. Faiman summarized the arguments the Board had heard.
A MOTION was made by Mr. Hoar and SECONDED by Mr. Carnduff to close the public hearing for deliberation.
Voting: 5 ayes; motion carried unanimously.
After discussion, a MOTION was made by Ms. Eckstrom and SECONDED by Mr. Carnduff to grant an equitable waiver to allow the 2.5? of encroachment and noted that said waiver affects the structure currently existing and is not a judgment on the use of the structure.
Voting: 5 ayes; motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Roberts left the Board as a voting member at 9:00 p.m. and the applicant decided to continue the hearing with a four person Board.
The Board then heard the second part of this application.
Mr. Todd explained that the existing house is long and narrow and takes up most the lot, and due to the topography of the land one has to get to the just approved structure on foot. He stated that ideally the applicant would like to put a curb cut in the middle of the lot and have it branch out but this lot will not allow for that so they are looking to put in an additional curb cut to allow a drive to the structure. He noted that there is a very thick landscape buffer on both sides of this lot. He noted that that Mr. LaFluer and Mrs. MacFarland and their families live in the residence and the structure will have no septic system or running water of any kind only a portable toilet.
In response to a question from Ms. Eckstrom, Mrs. MacFarland explained that the trail on the abutting property, which they have permission to use, is gated and goes all the way to Route 31.
Mr. Todd explained that the applicant is looking for a waiver from section 8.2.8 which states that any lot with access on Route 101 needs to take access from some place other than Route 101.
In response to a question from Ms. Eckstrom, Mr. Todd stated that the proposed drive would be 190? from the existing drive and 300? to 400? from the self storage driveway.
Mr. Todd reviewed his arguments in favor of approval noting that the subject lot is a substandard lot that historically has been used as a residence, allowing the proposed access would not decrease any value, and that commercial use in an industrial zone is a permitted use. He also noted the safety concerns for both the children and septic system that this drive would allow the applicant to avoid.
In response to a question from Mr. Hoar, Mr. Todd stated that there is a line of site for 400? in each direction.
In response to a question from Ms. Eckstrom, Mr. Todd stated that one needs 20? for the curb cut.
A MOTION was made by Mr. Hoar and SECONDED by Mr. Cardnuff to close the public hearing for deliberation.
Voting: 4 ayes, motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Eckstrom stated that she appreciates the safety issue of children playing near commercial activity.
After discussion, a MOTION was made by Ms. Eckstrom and SECONDED by Mr. Carnduff to re-open the public hearing.
Voting: 4 ayes; motion carried unanimously.
The Board and Mr. Todd discussed the tree line on Route 101 and Mr. Faiman noted that the sight obstruction from the tree line stops before it gets to the pavement.
Tim Roderick noted that the current curb cut at the end of the trail on the abutting property is very close to the crops and agricultural tools which could cost thousands of dollars to fix.
A MOTION was made by Mr. Carnduff and SECONDED by Ms. Eckstrom to re-close the public hearing.
Voting: 4 ayes; motion carried unanimously.
Discussion ensued and Board Members stated that they do not feel that the additional curb cut will change the current situation and noted that it would not be a problem to restrict the usage of the Route 31 entrance to agricultural use.
A MOTION was made by Ms. Eckstrom and SECONDED by Mr. Carnduff to grant the curb cut where indicated on the plan presented noting that the curb cut is to be limited to the commercial activity that is located on that parcel.
Voting: 4 ayes; motion carried unanimously.
A MOTION was made by Ms. Eckstrom and SECONDED by Mr. Hoar that the Board found the reasons stated in the application to be persuasive.
Voting: 4 ayes; motion carried unanimously.
Adjournment
A MOTION was made by Mr. Carnduff and SECONDED by Ms. Eckstrom to adjourn the meeting.
Voting: 4 ayes: motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Faiman declared the meeting to be adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Heather Loewy Nichols
Clerk
Page 2 of 4
Wilton ZBA
08/09/11 Final
Final Draft Approved 9/13/11