ZBA denies rehearing
WILTON – On Wednesday, Oct. 27, the Zoning Board of Adjustment voted to deny Robin Maloney’s request for a rehearing of their decision on Sept. 14.
In September, Maloney appealed the decision of Building Inspector Dawson Gay to issue a building permit for the replacement of a bridge on Lot A-47-2 on at 54 Stagecoach Road. The bridge is on an interior roadway.
The board upheld the building permit saying they were not convinced any issue raised by the applicant justified a denial of the permit. Maloney had based much of her arguments on wetlands, aquifer protection, and the use of the easement on which the bridge is located. She said the applicant did not ow n the bridge, only an easement to use it.
In upholding the building permit, the board said the bridge was not in the Aquifer Protection Zone, wetlands would not be disturbed because the original abutments would be used, and the use of the land was not the board’s concern under this request.
A re-hearing can be granted if the applicant presents new information, or information not available at the original hearing, or if the applicant feels the board made an error.
In September, Maloney argued that enlarging the bridge was an expansion of a non-conforming use.
The board said that the “nonconformity’ was not part of the original appeal and that, therefore, they could not rule on it. They did decide that widening the bridge to accommodate larger tractors did not constitute an expansion of use.
On Wednesday, the board voted unanimously to deny a re-hearing because the request “does not raise any claims that were not addressed” at the original hearing, the bridge does not violate any ordinances, and the board did not make a mistake in applying those ordinances.
Chairman Neil Faiman said, “if the bridge were to be built from scratch, it would require a special exception for a wetland crossing, but by using the original abutments, it is not affecting the wetland.”
He added, “We were looking at a bridge, not eventual use of it. If this were presented now, I can’t imagine we would change our opinion.
It was agreed that nothing was presented that hadn’t been presented earlier.
Malone y has 30 days in which to file an appeal of the decision to Superior Court.