Town of Fitzwilliam, NH - Planning Board Minutes 06/15/04

7:05 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING for a Wetlands Application filed by Amy Calandra for work to be done in conjunction with constructing a mini warehouse within the 75’ buffer zone on property located on Rt. 12 South, Tax Map 12; Lot 7-2 in the General Industrial District. – Chairman Silverman opened this public hearing at 7:05 p.m. and read the case title aloud. Paul Grasewicz recused himself from the Board. Amy Calandra was also present.

Paul provided the Board with another revised plan to review. Chairman Silverman sought clarification on the distance between the driveway and the wetlands, as well as between the building and the wetlands. Paul explained that they have made some alterations to the plans again since they last met with the Board, and the building size has been reduced again. The building was proposed to be 120’ x 30’ and it has been reduced to 100’ x 30’. The driveway is still in the same footprint but the distance to the wetlands has been increased and the driveway around the building has been changed from being paved to being a screened gravel surface, however the portion of the driveway in the State right of way has to be paved. The roof run off would be piped to two dry wells, so essentially the impervious area on the proposed site to be developed would be put back into the ground away from the wetlands. The wetlands setbacks have increased due to the reduced building size. The setback to the driveway is now about 25’, where it used to be much less, and the setback to the other wetland is about 20’. These measurements are from two different spots on the edge of the wrap around driveway to the wet areas, and there is 25’ to the bog.

Robin Haynes asked if the number of units had changed and Amy said that there would be twenty five units. Amy let the Board review the layout of the building that she had. There is one 10’x30’ unit at the end, and there are units in various sizes; 10’x20’, 10’x15’, 10’x10’ and 10’x5’. Chairman Silverman confirmed the door size which is 8’ wide and 7’ high.

Chairman Silverman asked Carmen Yon if he had any input on behalf of the Conservation Commission. Mr. Yon stated that the changes are certainly better but they would not be able to replace all of the vegetation that is there, and this is an improvement over what they were first looking at. Chairman Silverman asked if there is enough improvement to satisfy the Commission’s concerns. Mr. Yon said that the Commission felt that this would make an impact on the wetlands even with the changes, and noted that they are talking about a half-acre of building and crushed stone, and that would impact a pretty good sized area very close to wetlands, and he feels that their recommendation would probably be the same.

Paul addressed the Board stating that from a wetlands application point of view, one needs to realize that the 75’ distance was not intended to be a “no build zone”, and it is simply an area that if you are within that, you should apply for that through Conservation. Paul added that the theory behind the regulation was that Conservation look at erosion controls and make sure that there was protection in place to protect the wetlands. Paul stated that it is not a no build zone, no alteration zone, it never was and it is simply an area in a zone that the town should be made aware of. Paul noted that someone could fill in wetlands under a conditional use permit and said that this application is not asking to do that; they have provided a reasonable buffer, they are proposing erosion and siltation control all the way around the proposed area of work, which with proper installation and maintenance, will protect the wetlands during construction and once the area is stabilized, the wetlands would not be affected.

Selectman Clukey questioned this with regards to issuing building permits within 75’ of wetlands. Paul explained that if you have a reasonable place and instead of putting something 25’ within wetlands where you could do something 75’ away then you should, but if you cannot then you go to the Conservation Commission with your proposal. Paul explained that if the Conservation Commission is not comfortable signing off on it then the proposal comes to the Planning Board, however, when the bylaw was written the Conservation Commission could sign off on it. Selectman Clukey said that there have been issues with this in the past and Paul said again that it is not a no build zone and that was never the intent of the bylaw, and if that is the intent then it should be rewritten and state “no building within 75’, period. Paul said that it is the way that this has been misinterpreted ever since it went into effect. Paul wrote most of the bylaw and worked on the first draft of it and said that it was simply supposed to be an area that needed to be looked at by the town before any work was done. Robin Haynes added that she was on the Conservation Commission when it was written and their intent was that there would be no building, but it was not written that way, and they thought that they would be protecting the land with it. Paul said that if it is utilized this way it would take a lot of land to be able to do something on it. Mac added that he recalls that the intent was not so much not building, but the issue of potentially polluting the area; septic systems, etc., which is part of the reason for the buffer; for protection.

Chairman Silverman noted that one of the things he sees with this application is that this is a way to protect the entirety of this lot from anything more harmful. Chairman Silverman added that what concerns him the most about this is the fact that they have very little restriction on what would be stored in the units and if something were to leak it could end up in the wetlands. There was discussion about a way to construct this with some sort of protective barrier to keep any spills within the building and Chairman Silverman asked Paul if from an engineering standpoint, there is a way to construct this so that anything spilled would remain in the building. Paul said no, but a trench drain could be put outside of the doors so that anything that flowed out of the building would go into the drain. This drain is basically a channel with a grate on it, about 6” wide, and it would be routed to a catch basin. Chairman Silverman said that he is not assuming that there would be anything much, and clarified that Amy could not legally tell people what they can store in there. Amy said that they can legally say that no hazardous materials can be stored in there. Amy then said that typically people store books, Christmas decorations, etc. Chairman Silverman said that he understands that and explained that they need to see the worst case scenario. Amy told the Board that the doors are going to have a rubber seal along the bottom, even the small doors. Robin stated that she liked the idea of the perimeter trench.

Robin asked if they would be using silt fence rather than hay bales and Paul said that he has proposed silt fence. Carlotta asked how many trees would come down, and noted that it appears that the sign would go behind the big rock. Paul said that the sign cannot be in the right of way, so some trees behind the rock where the sign would go would have to come out, but there are not too many trees to be cut, and there is some shrub layer that has to be cut for visibility. Amy told the Board that she met with PSNH last week about getting electricity to the site. It stops at Desmond’s property and it doesn’t pick up again until the other side of the Scott Brook Bridge, so PSNH will come in and clear some trees in the front to run electricity to the property. Paul said that they would probably do this in right about the same place as the area to be cleared for the sign, noting that it would be the shortest distance to run the wiring into the building. Chairman Silverman suggested to Amy that she might try to locate the sign in the area that has to be cleared for the pole. Amy said that she would try to work with that as she in not clear yet on what exactly would be cleared.

(a) The activity is a productive and reasonable use of the land and is in compliance with the purpose of this section – Carlotta Lilback Pini moved that the proposed activity is a productive and reasonable use of the land and is in compliance with the purpose of this section. Macreay Landy seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.

(b) Design, construction and maintenance methods are established to minimize detrimental impacts to the wetlands and restoration is provided for – Carlotta moved that design, construction and maintenance methods have been established to minimize detrimental impacts to the wetlands and restoration has been provided for. Chairman Silverman added that a channel and catch basin would be put in around the building for any possible leaking of materials within the building and this is to be noted on the plan. Discussion points: Suzanne questioned where any leaks would drain into and Chairman Silverman explained that it would drain into the catch basin until it could be retrieved. Mac expressed concern about a dozer going in near small wetlands and asked how they could minimize the effect of this. Paul explained that once the initial clearing is done, the silt fence would be put up which would create a visual and physical barrier around the wetlands areas. Mac and Paul briefly discussed the amount of material that would be moved around and Paul explained that he could not be exactly sure about the amount of material that may be needed and if it would need to be moved around. Robin asked if they needed to specify that hay bales are not to be used and Paul said that his plan calls for silt fence. Suzanne then asked about plowing the driveway, noting that it is close to wetlands, and questioned the use of salt on the driveway that could go into the wetlands. Paul said that salt would not be needed on the gravel drive and that there would be paving to the right of way line, about 50’ or so from the edge of the existing pavement. Macreay Landy seconded the motion. The Board voted 6-0 in favor of the motion with there being one abstention.

Chairman Silverman reviewed that they have the catch basin that would go in and at the last public hearing they discussed the hours of illumination for the sign which would be from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. with the lighting being external. Additionally, the Board has asked that screening be as effective and complete as possible with pertinent plantings encouraged. Lastly, the lighting on the exterior of the building is to be motion sensor lights rather than continual lights and Chairman Silverman noted that from a security standpoint it would be better. Lastly, the removal of trees is to be kept at the minimum needed. Amy asked the Board if they were all in agreement that the sign needs to be visible. The Board agreed and Suzanne asked if the sign would still be as originally proposed. Amy said that it has not changed and she will need to have it as big as the town regulations allow due to it being set back so far because of the right of way. Amy added that she would like to do some nice landscaping around it. The sign would be lit externally with white lights. Chairman Silverman noted that the sign needs to comply with all of the town regulations.

Chairman Silverman asked the Board if anyone had any other questions. Mac asked Amy if she had decided whether she would have a gate or fencing. Amy said that she thinks that she would rather have the security gate rather than fencing, and noted that the large boulders and trees would act as a natural border. The fence would have a keypad and people would be given an access code to enter. Mac asked where this would be located and Paul said that he thought it should be in the area of the bend or the curve noting that eventually the other lot would be utilizing the shared access. Robin asked if it would be visible from the road or the beginning of the driveway noting that kids may be riding around in the area, and she questioned if they would be able to see it. Robin noted that it may be something to consider. Mac asked about the access being utilized by someone else and Amy explained that it is a 25’ wide shared driveway. Paul noted that there is only one access for these two driveways; the other driveway would come in eventually when something happens with the other lot. Paul is going to put the security gate on the plan. Mac asked about a driveway permit from the State and Amy said that she has to apply for a new permit and that should not be a problem. Mac asked that a copy of the approved driveway permit be filed with the Board. Lastly, Paul added that he had to change the pipe size for the culvert to 15” as this would cover the State’s standard policy.

Chairman Silverman moved to approve the Minor Site Plan Review for Amy Calandra with the following conditions: Illumination of the business sign is allowed from 7:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. and is to be lit externally with white lights; vegetative screening is to be planted as soon as possible; removal of existing trees and shrubs is to be kept to the minimum necessary; lighting on the building is to be in the form of motion sensor lights; a security gate will be installed and is to be shown on the plan; the plan must reflect that the culvert pipe size will be 15”, and a copy of the driveway permit issued by the State of New Hampshire Department of Transportation needs to be filed with the Planning Board upon receipt. Robin Haynes seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion.

7:45 p.m. Preliminary Consultation with John Holman to discuss sheds for sale at his property located on Rt. 12 South, Tax Map 8; Lot 14 in the General Industrial District. – Chairman Silverman read aloud the letter that the Board of Selectmen sent to Mr. Holman. Chairman Silverman told John that the Board had some concerns that what he has on the property is different than what he told them he would have. Chairman Silverman then read aloud the meeting minutes from January 6, 2004 when John initially met with the Board regarding this. Chairman Silverman noted that this operation was going to be set back 30’ – 40’ from Rt. 12 and would not be seen because of the buffer that was there. John stated that this is set back 100’ and Chairman Silverman noted that the buffer is gone. John said that he is working on that and has planted some shrubbery but it has to grow, and he left the best trees that he could. John said that he assumed that the sheds would fall under the other materials he has there and asked what he could do to make this okay.

The Board discussed the other shed business that they approved last year. That business obtained a Special Exception for retail sales, however, retail sales is not an allowed use in the General Industrial District. Robin asked John if the sheds would be there year round if they do not sell and John said that they would probably go back to the main yard where they came from and maybe one or two would stay. John added that this is seasonal for him as well.

John asked if perhaps this should have been put under Section 127-11 A. for gardening and retail. Robin asked if that was what he intended when he first came and John said that it was and Chairman Silverman put him under lumberyard which John thought was fine. Chairman Silverman said that John was put under lumberyard because of the construction material. John said that is why he went ahead with the sheds because he thought it would be okay. Chairman Silverman said that they went with that determination because John had told them that this would be a pick up point for these materials, not for retail sales, and what he described to them was that people would go to his home and pay for the materials, and then go to this location to get the material. Chairman Silverman said that this has changed because he now has a retail business there and it is not just a storage site, it is a site conducting retail sales, and this fact puts this business in a different category. John explained that he was trying to eventually move this operation of transferring the gravel, etc., from point A to point B from being conducted at his home in a residential district. Chairman Silverman explained that if they knew this in the beginning they would have referred him under 127-11 A for a retail site, and they would have sent him to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a Variance. John asked about the other lumberyards, etc., and Chairman Silverman said that they are all pre-existing, non-conforming businesses. John said that he just wanted to correct this.

Mac noted the mixed use on this property; the retail sales of buildings and retail sales of lumber yards materials which is an allowed use. The retail sale of the construction material is allowed, but it is different for the sheds. John said that the sheds are an added attraction when people are buying bark mulch. John said that he only makes $50.00 on the sale of a shed which he is doing through Cheshire Sheds. He simply has a few there for people to look at and he does not want to get into setting them up, etc. John added that they worked under a tent for the first month and then they were approached about having the sheds there which he really did not think was going to be a problem as he thought they would fall under the lumber/construction classification. John added that he has received a lot of compliments about how the place looks and neighbors are also working to make their properties more attractive.

Carlotta Lilback Pini moved that under Section 127-11 A. retail sales, the sheds are not an allowed use in the General Industrial District and John Holman needs to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a Variance. Suzanne Gray seconded. Chairman Silverman asked if there was any further discussion. Paul said that he really did not think that the definition of retail store fits this proposal because John is not actually selling goods from within a building but the actual building itself, however, this is the closest definition that they have in the ordinance. Chairman Silverman and Margo checked the ordinance to see if this could qualify as an accessory use but it does not. The Board voted unanimously in favor of this motion. Chairman Silverman told John that he could come in and see Margo during open hours to get the application he needs and thanked him for coming in.