Washington ZBA unanimously denies McLaughlins' requests for well and septic variances

The Town of Washington Zoning Board of Adjustment unanimously denied three variance requests from Jeff and Martha McLaughlin for a property on Island Pond Road following an on-site inspection and a hearing on June 16, 2026.

Board members found multiple discrepancies between measurements taken at the site and the sketch plan submitted with the application. The ZBA recorded, among other measures, 26 feet from the waterline to the proposed well, 10 feet 8 inches from the front corner to the proposed well, and 42 feet from the edge of the proposed holding tank to the proposed well—distances the board said fall short of the 75-foot setback required for wells and septic systems.

Chair Andrew Hatch noted that the McLaughlins had submitted a new ISDS approval in May and that the board had sought legal guidance in the interim; he reminded the applicants that state approval did not ‘supersede any equivalent or more stringent local ordinance.’ Hatch also read the legal opinion that “the burden of proof was on the property owners to prove that it had not been in a period of disuse for more than 2 years.”

Applicant Jeff McLaughlin told the board the existing tank dated to the 1960s and said the family had used the camp, adding that the site was last used on Dec. 3, 2025. The McLaughlins produced a surveyor’s pin and, as Jeff McLaughlin put it, the substitute surveyor “did their best” after the original surveyor was unavailable. Board members said there was no documentary proof the tank had been pumped or maintained and questioned whether it could be grandfathered as a pre-existing holding tank.

Conservation Commission member Jed Schwartz, who attended the site visit, told the board that an on-site disposal system must be 75 feet from surface water measured horizontally and described the variance requested as unusually large for a lakeside property. Septic designer Tim Ferwerda questioned discussing the holding tank before any well approval, saying there was “no point in talking about the holding tank since the well hasn’t been approved yet.”

In deliberations the board focused on three issues: (1) LUO §312 well setbacks; (2) LUO §402.2 rules on nonconforming uses and changes of use for holding tanks; and (3) LUO §303.1 septic setbacks requiring 75 feet from water or wells. The board concluded the McLaughlins had not met the burden to prove an existing holding tank had been in continuous use and that the measured setbacks did not meet the local requirements.

The board then voted on three motions. Paul Leischner moved to deny the well variances, Joe Shea seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Andrew Hatch moved to deny the septic setback variances, Paul Leischner seconded, and that motion passed unanimously. Joe Shea moved to deny replacement of the existing system with a holding tank on the grounds that it would constitute a change of use from a grey-water system; Gary Carney seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The board scheduled its next meeting for June 22, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. at Town Hall. The hearing record shows the board relied on its own site measurements, relevant sections of the town’s Land Use Ordinance and guidance from counsel in reaching its decisions.

What happens next: The McLaughlins may choose to provide the board with more definitive survey evidence, documented proof of continuous holding-tank use, or revise plans to meet the town’s setback requirements before the next filing or appeal.