Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
August 3, 2004
Members present: Terry Silverman; Chairman, Paul Grasewicz; Vice-Chairman, Robin Haynes, Macreay Landy and Carlotta Lilback Pini
Members absent: Suzanne Gray
Selectmen present: Andrew Clukey
Others present: Carmen Yon; Chairman of the Conservation Commission
Chairman Silverman opened the meeting at 7:05 p.m. and moved to go into Executive Session under RSA 91 A:3 II. E to discuss a legal matter. Carlotta Lilback Pini seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.
Chairman Silverman then moved that these minutes be kept sealed. Carlotta Lilback Pini seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.
Chairman Silverman moved to go out of Executive Session at 7:20 p.m. Carlotta Lilback Pini seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.
Public Hearings
7:05 p.m. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING for Jason and Donna Hill and Lewis Dunton who propose a Boundary Line Adjustment of Tax Map 8; Lots 21 and 24 located on NH RT 12 South and Crane Road; and a two-lot subdivision of land proposed by Jason and Donna Hill for property located at 35 Crane Road, Tax Map 8; Lot 24. Map 8; Lot 21 is located in the General Industrial District and Tax Map 8; Lot 24 is located in the Rural District - Chairman Silverman opened this continued public hearing at 7:20 p.m. and read the case title aloud. Paul Grasewicz recused from the Board.
Chairman Silverman said that they are going to deal with the Lot Line Adjustment first. Chairman Silverman asked Paul and Jason to explain the Lot Line Adjustment and the purpose of it to the Board. Paul said that looking at the lower portion of the plan they will see Parcel A to be conveyed from Dunton to Hill, to be merged with Lot 24-2 for a total area of 30,000 sq. ft., and the purpose of this is to gain legal frontage on Rt. 12 for the proposed lot. Carlotta clarified that Lot 24-2 is the proposed lot and the Lot Line Adjustment doesn’t deal with that lot as it is not a lot as of yet. Paul said that was correct. Chairman Silverman explained that one of the problems is; and he read from the Subdivision Regulations, the definition of Lot Line Adjustment which
reads as follows: “To establish a property line between two or more adjacent and agreeing owners which does not create buildable lots”. Chairman Silverman said that the State statute reads that it not create a lot. Paul said that it is not itself creating a lot, but annexing that to Jason would give him legal frontage to create an additional lot. Chairman Silverman stated that it his understanding that they are not in any way going to use this as access to the lot. Paul stated that the intent would be not to use it. Chairman Silverman asked for a motion on the Lot Line Adjustment.
Carlotta Lilback Pini moved to deny the Lot Line Adjustment for Tax Map 8; Lots 21 and 24 based on Section 221-12 of the Subdivision Regulations as the definition of a Lot Line Adjustment is to establish a property line between two or more adjacent and agreeing owners which does not create buildable lots. Robin Haynes seconded the motion. Chairman Silverman asked for discussion on the motion and noted that he thinks that there are two ways to look at this, but he thinks that the intent is clear to create a buildable lot by the addition of property.
Paul said that if they came in with this Boundary Line Adjustment first and then the subdivision later, it would be the same functionally, and they would essentially be taking the same steps, meaning that the Boundary Line Adjustment could not be denied. Carlotta said that the fact that the other lot is already built on doesn’t mean it is a buildable lot. Paul said exactly, so if they create this parcel and annex to this as a Boundary Line Adjustment on an application of its own; separate from the subdivision, it could not be denied. Carlotta said that she thinks that it could be because it is creating a buildable lot. Paul said that it wouldn’t be because they would have this lot, and then the 100 acres that is already built on. Carlotta noted that it is already
built on and the reason it is built on is because Jason obtained a Special Exception; it wasn’t a buildable lot per say. Carlotta questioned for example, if the house burned down, would the Special Exception allow him to build again within one year in the same footprint. Chairman Silverman said “yes”. Carlotta asked if he wanted to add onto the existing house, if he would have to go back to the Board of Adjustment for another Special Exception. Jason stated that that was not the way that it was explained to him. Chairman Silverman said that he thinks that Jason could add on like anyone else. Paul stated that the addition of land from Rt. 12 does not make this a buildable lot. Mac said that he feels that it does and Chairman Silverman said that it doesn’t. Mac noted that this was not a buildable lot and reviewed the case with the Board of Adjustment noting that this is not the same piece of property that it was when it got the Special Exception. Carlotta said
that she thinks that what Terry is saying is that the intention is to create a buildable lot. Mac continued noting that it still changes Lot 24 by adding this frontage. Chairman Silverman noted only if he can use it as access, and added that if he can’t use it as access because of the wetlands or the lay of the land, then it cannot be used as a buildable lot. Paul added that the DOT would have to approve the access also. Chairman Silverman said that he agrees that just by adding this frontage, it does not make this entire parcel a buildable lot. Paul said that he agrees with that.
Chairman Silverman asked Paul theoretically speaking, how adding frontage to this lot makes it a buildable lot. Paul said that it gives it the potential for a building lot where it has frontage and area, and no existing dwelling on it. Chairman Silverman said that if it doesn’t do the same for the big lot, how it does it for the small lot. Paul said that the big lot is only allowed to have one dwelling on it so it doesn’t create a building lot by putting frontage on one piece, and it’s not 100 acres with some frontage. Paul added that obviously there would be no point in putting the frontage on this if it is never going to be used; he has a dwelling on it and doesn’t need frontage for anything. Mac said that he really doesn’t see the
difference in where the frontage is used, either Lot 24 or Lot 24-2 and he feels that they are creating a buildable lot either way. Chairman Silverman said again that it would only be a buildable lot if the frontage could be used as access. Mac asked what if it could be used as access and Chairman Silverman said that it is not their determination if they can gain access, it is Jason’s determination and DOT’s, and Robin added the Conservation Commission’s also. Mac asked Jason if he had a driveway permit for his house and Jason said that Gene Cuomo; Road Agent, determined that he didn’t need one as it is a discontinued road. Mac asked how he had access and Chairman Silverman said that it is not Gene’s call, it is the State’s determination. Paul said the fact that he added his house didn’t necessitate anything with DOT. Mac clarified that there is legal access that is grandfathered. Jason said yes, and that he has an easement for the
old town road. Mac noted that the road was discontinued and reverted back to the owners and said that he was trying to determine if Jason had legal access to which Jason said that he does. Robin questioned that he didn’t need a driveway permit for his house and Jason said again that Gene said he didn’t need one. Chairman Silverman said that he wouldn’t question this, he has an easement and he has legal access from Rt. 12. Paul added that access was prior to the realignment and rebuilding of Rt.12.
Mac noted that they need to determine if doing the Lot Line Adjustment would create a buildable lot and said that DOT has to determine that because if they do not grant access, then it is not a buildable lot. Paul said that it is only buildable if you can get access from one spot or another and looking at these things separately, the Boundary Line Adjustment doesn’t create a building lot and they are saying that the Boundary Line Adjustment and Subdivision does. Robin reviewed the original intent stated at the first public hearing and read from the July 6, 2004 minutes directly: “they were proposing to gain legal frontage from the Dunton lot and annex that to a piece on the southerly side of Old Crane Road which would create the proposed 7.9 acre new
lot, etc”. Jason said “right”. Paul again stated that the Boundary Line Adjustment itself does not create a buildable lot but the Boundary Line Adjustment in conjunction with the subdivision does create a buildable lot.
Carlotta questioned if she should withdraw her motion until such time that they can determine if this would make this a buildable lot. Chairman Silverman said that he doesn’t think that it will make this a buildable lot; a buildable lot needs access and Jason has said that he cannot get access there because of the wetlands and limitations by DOT. Paul said that he has not gone to DOT and that these are potential obstacles. Mac asked about the wetlands and if they were substantial and Paul said that it is substantial down where you can see the threat of the channel. Chairman Silverman asked if it was in the floodplain, which it is not. Mac asked if a road could be built there and Carlotta said that they do not know that and Paul said that it was possible. Mac
stated that someone has to know, otherwise they are in limbo and it is either potential or not. Paul said that they do not want to apply to the State for access from Rt. 12 if they don’t have to, and they are proposing access from Crane Road.
Carlotta withdrew her motion and recommended that they obtain more information as to whether the Lot Line Adjustment would create a buildable lot. Mac said that he would like to know that answer. Paul said the definition in our regulations for Lot Line Adjustment is faulty. Chairman Silverman said that it is more restrictive then the State. Paul said that it was written as a means to define what the term is; in other words it is not a subdivision, but it is a definition and he doesn’t think that it can be utilized so that anywhere in the future if somebody gives someone frontage that they are restricted from using that if someone were to come back. Chairman Silverman agreed with that.
Chairman Silverman moved to grant the Lot Line Adjustment because in and of itself it does not create a buildable lot. Andrew Clukey seconded. Chairman Silverman said that the advice that he obtained was unclear as to whether or not this was material to the subdivision. Chairman Silverman asked for any further discussion to which there was none. The Board voted 2 in favor, 1 against and 2 abstentions on the motion. Chairman Silverman stated that the motion carries.
Chairman Silverman moved onto the subdivision portion of this application and read the case title aloud again. Chairman Silverman stated that based on the advice that they obtained, the Board could grant the subdivision if they can access the lot over the Rt. 12 frontage. He continued and said barring that, if this is not a possibility, being that the Planning Board cannot create a nonbuildable lot, they would refer Jason back to the Selectmen under RSA 674:41 to determine if this lot created would constitute a buildable lot by using the access that he has through his easement on Crane Road. Jason clarified that they can approve the subdivision coming in from Rt. 12, but if he wants to come in from Crane Road then the Selectmen have to approve that. Jason asked when
that is determined and said for example if he states now that he would come in this away and then after he meets with them and they allow him to go in the other way, would that be a problem to change this. Chairman Silverman explained that they cannot grant this until he comes in with plans, and that he has to go through the Conservation Commission for the wetlands, and DOT has to comply with him having an access down there, he can’t just say that he is going to do this; he has to do this first, and if he indeed can access from Rt. 12 then according to their regulations, this is a buildable lot. If Jason needs to access through Crane Road then he needs to negotiate that with the Board of Selectmen for a building permit or the intent of a building permit if this lot is created.
Paul asked from the application point of view, if they just ask for a continuation until some time in the future, to which Chairman Silverman said until they get a determination from the Selectmen and/or DOT and the requirements for access. Paul requested a continuance to investigate these two options. Chairman Silverman closed this public hearing at 7:50 p.m.
Margo asked if the Lot Line Adjustment was recorded separately and Chairman Silverman said that he believes so. Paul said that they do not want this recorded separately.
Preliminary Consultations
7:30 p.m. Preliminary Consultation with Edward Methe Sr. who proposes to create 1 new lot at property located at 164 Jaffrey Road, Tax Map 15; Lot 54 in the Rural District. – Paul recused himself from the Board. Mr. Methe was not present. Paul told the Board that this is very straightforward and explained that Mr. Methe owns 40 acres on the south side of Jaffrey Road where he has 1200’ of road frontage and would like to create one new lot. This property abuts the power lines. On the far right hand side of property headed towards Fitzwilliam, they are proposing to come up 300+ feet and create a 3 acre lot. The key element on it is going to be wetlands and the lot will be what it has to be to get the 90,000 sq. ft. of contiguous uplands. The land is divided by wetlands, there is an
existing dwelling and there is high land and then it goes low, and there are two brooks that join up. There is some dry land on the right hand side. The house there sets back at least 1000’, but the key thing will be getting the location of all the wetlands and getting the 90,000 contiguous uplands. Paul said this should be straightforward, there is already an opening in the stone wall and there is good sight distance in both directions, etc.
Administrative Work
Ø Review and approve meeting minutes from July 20, 2004- Carlotta noted that on page three the third line it says Carmen and she questioned if it should read “Carlotta said”. So corrected. Mac noted that in the description of Joe Larson’s title on page two, it should read “emeritus professor”. So corrected. Macreay Landy moved to accept the minutes as corrected. Robin Haynes seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.
Ø Review House Bill 1148 regarding the definition of wetlands; discuss any local regulatory changes that need to be made – The Board spent some time reviewing this and Paul said that he doesn’t think that this changes anything. Chairman Silverman said that he thinks that it is near the end, the definition does change our definition and it looks like they need to add poorly drained or very poorly drained soils. Paul referred the Board to the wetlands rules and noted that the State is still going to be using the term wetlands as defined here. Terry noted that the State statutes overrule the Towns regulations. Carlotta referred to the e-mail from Ben Frost
and read aloud his interpretation that talks about towns still being allowed to regulates these things, they just cannot call them wetlands. Chairman Silverman agreed with that. Carmen Yon suggested that they strike the word wetlands from the ordinance and call it something else noting that this may the easiest way to change this. Chairman Silverman said that they need to call it wetlands and poorly drained as well as very poorly drained soils; they just can’t define what wetlands are. Chairman Silverman said that he thinks that they need to add this to their definition. Carlotta asked if they could ask the Southwest Regional Planning Commission for their interpretation and what they are doing about it. Chairman Silverman asked Margo to contact SWRPC. The Board noted that any change made to the ordinance would be done at Town Meeting in March. Chairman Silverman told the Board that when they do redefine their ordinances, he feels that what the ordinance currently says needs to
be there as well as the revision to be voted on.
Ø Review the updated Fitzwilliam Fire Department section for the Master Plan – The Board reviewed this and Robin offered to work on it a little bit and shorten it up.
Correspondence
Ø Notices of Decision from the Town of Winchendon - Reviewed
Ø Letter and CD-Rom received from the Office of Energy and Planning regarding “Preparing a Master Plan for Your Community” - Reviewed
Ø Letter from Chief Paul A. Szoc of the SWNH Fire Mutual Aid re: Saga Communications Tower Site – Chairman Silverman read this letter aloud which states that the SWNH Fire Mutual Aid strongly supports a waiver to the site plan and mentions the benefits of this project. Chairman Silverman told the Board that he has communicated to Saga that if they need to come for a waiver, it needs to be done in a noticed hearing. If the location is to be moved they need to come back before the Board. Margo advised that she spoke with the owner of Concord Industries and explained the process of a Voluntary Merger and referred him to the Selectmen’s Office to obtain information on how this would affect the property valuation, taxes, etc. Margo said that she thought that it would benefit Concord Industries to meet with the Board preliminarily to discuss this and what kind of impact this could have in the future if they decided to do something with the property in the rear. Margo will
contact Glenn Cardinal regarding this.
Ø NHDES Newsletter “The Source”, Summer 2004 edition - Reviewed
Carlotta asked if they could discuss the drafted ordinance that the Conservation Commission has drawn up. Carlotta said that she read Suzanne’s report on the meeting she attended and quite honestly would hate it if her lot was restricted in this way. She added that she doesn’t think that it is right to restrict other property owners in this way and she thinks that it is a great idea that the Conservation Commission wants to protect properties and acquire properties, but purchasing it or development rights and/or easements may be the way, and she just doesn’t see creating this overlay district. Robin questioned if they are encouraging conservancy and suggested looking at other options noting that it is stricter than the Monadnock Conservancy. Selectman Clukey stated that they sent this out to be reviewed
and they have received a letter from the Southwest Region Planning Commission which questions most of it; they feel that it is too restrictive and suggested having legal counsel review it.
Carmen Yon told the Board that he knows that there are some items in there that need to be looked at but they feel that there are some valuable things in it also. Carmen noted that they will have work meetings to work on this and they will strike a lot of it but not the basic concept. Robin asked if they have considered getting some assistance from the Conservancy to obtain land. Carmen said that they have tried to contact people about easements but that has not gone well. Carlotta told Carmen that the Monadnock Conservancy has a staff of professionals who know how to approach people about these things. Robin added that things need to be developed over a period of time, and she suggested having someone in charge of talking with these people, and look for an alternative to
this. Robin said that she likes the basic idea but she doesn’t think it is going to fly. Mac said it will be interesting to see what shapes up out of this. Selectman Clukey said that they are only trying to provide feedback which the Commission asked for and noted that limitations affect property rights.
Carmen told the Board that he disagrees with a lot within this as there are things that are not enforceable; but there are things to conserve property in its current form rather than subdividing and clear cutting and then building. Paul mentioned that with regards to clear cutting, there needs to be a record of what was there before the clear cut and he mentioned 50% of the basal area needs to be left and a certain number of saplings over a certain amount of space need to be left, etc. He added that the intent is good and they need to look at different ways to protect, for example; looking at increasing the minimum lot sizes. Paul said that a lot of areas are prone top clear cutting and the Commission would never get the volume they need through easements.
Carlotta is unable to attend the Conservation Commission work meeting next Monday afternoon, and said that even if she could attend, she would go on her own and not act as a representative for this Board. She asked if there was a consensus from the Board regarding this proposed district. Robin is going to try to attend, on her own. Carmen noted that if the Planning Board was there they could answer questions about what would work or would not work and added that no matter what, this is a target area for attention. Mac noted that this brings these areas to their attention as well.
Mac told the Board that he has noticed a number of new businesses in town in the Newsletter that have not appeared before the Board. Chairman Silverman stated that they are not enforcement.
At 8:47 p.m. Chairman Silverman moved to adjourn. Robin Haynes seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.
| 
