In a split vote, the Wilton Zoning Board of Adjustment denied a height variance for a proposed asphalt plant and storage silo on Quinn Drive.
The application has been contentious with Wilton residents and surrounding communities who objected to the possible effects of the plant, including noise, emissions and visual impacts. Throughout the process, including deliberations on Tuesday, the zoning board continuously stressed it could not make a ruling based on those issues, telling residents those issues are under the purview of the Planning Board, and they could only consider the impacts of allowing the plant at a height taller than allowed by the zoning ordinance.
The batch plant was proposed to be 68-feet tall, and a storage silo 72-feet, where the industrial zone only allows buildings to be 45-feet in height.
The plant was proposed by the owners of the Quinn quarry, and would use materials from the quarry to manufacture and store asphalt.
The zoning board met on Tuesday to receive feedback from a sightline test conducted the previous week, in which a crane and orange bucket were erected at 72 feet to show the impact of the silo.
Several residents said the test was insufficient, as it didn’t include the lighting that would be included with the plant, and that it didn’t give residents a sense of how far noise or emissions would carry.
“Smell and sound are just as important, and they are certainly impacted by the height of the towers,” Lyndeborough resident Chris Balch said.
Residents were also concerned about the impact to Goss Park, a recreational area shared by the towns of Wilton and Lyndeborough. The bucket could be seen from several locations within the park, residents said, including the parking lot and the beach.
“It was very clear from the beach, more than I thought it would be,” Robert Silva of Wilton said.
Zoning board chairman Chair Neil Faiman said he also was surprised by how many spots in the park the bucket could be seen.
“I was expecting that it would not be particularly visible from Goss Park. That was something of an eye-opener for me,” he said.
During deliberations, the board debated whether the application met all five conditions that are required to grant a variance. The majority found it did not.
Faiman said in his view the application fell short of proving the “hardship” requirement since denying the variance didn’t cause undue hardship to the applicant. The land is not particularly unique when compared to surrounding properties, and there’s not a reason why it can only be used to run an asphalt plant.
“When push comes to shove and the fat lady sings, there’s not a hardship,” Faiman said.
Zoning board member Bob Spear said the application didn’t meet the first criteria – that it would be in the public interest. The town had limited the height of buildings in the industrial district for a purpose, he said.
“I say if they want to put it on the town docket to take away the height restriction for the town to vote on, that should be done. Otherwise, I’m going to let it stand,” Spear said.
Zoning board member Jeff Stone agreed, saying it was clear to him from reading news reports in the 1980s that the height restriction was put in place mainly to maintain rural character. The application wasn’t within the spirit of the zoning ordinance, Stone said, which is another criteria for granting a variance.
Remaining zoning board members Paul Levesque and Joanna Eckstrom both voted to grant the variance. Levesque pointed out that the area was specifically zoned for this kind of use.
“This is the industrial zone. If it’s going to go anywhere it’s going to go here,” Levesque said.
The decision of the zoning board can be appealed within 30 days.