Town of Fitzwilliam, NH - Planning Board Minutes 02/01/05

Voluntary Merger: Regarding the voluntary merger of two lots owned by Barbara Wallace, Map 15, lot 03-05 and lot 03-09. Grasewicz recused himself. Silverman noted that he brought the issue back up at this meeting to gather any further input from interested parties, since it wasn’t on the agenda last meeting for public discussion. At the January 18, 2005 meeting the Board voted to take no action, based on the Town’s Land Use Ordinance, Article I, 127-3, which defines ‘lot’ as ‘an area of land undivided by a street.’ A voluntary merger of these two lots would incorporate a Class VI road, which has not been discontinued. Pini said she was under the impression that the Board didn’t need to do more. Pini moved, Haynes seconded and the Board voted to deny the merger.

Minutes: The Board reviewed the minutes of the January 18, 2005 meeting. Two changes were made. Haynes moved, Grasewicz seconded and the Board voted to approve the minutes as amended.

Public Hearing on Subdivision application, Map 10, lot 03 and Map 11, lot 16 located between RT 119 and Old Richmond Road. Patricia and David Spicer, dba Eagle Haven, Inc., plan to create eight residential building lots on a 46 acre property. Richard Drew, David Spicer and Patricia Spicer presented the application. Silverman moved, Pini seconded and the Board accepted the application as complete.

Drew presented exhibits that he said addressed issues raised by the Board at the preliminary conceptual consultation. He noted that there will be five lots with driveways on Old Richmond Road and three lots with access to Route 119. Two of the lots fronting RT119 will share a common drive. An application for driveway permits has been filed with the State. To achieve line of sight distances, some excavation will take place. All the driveways comply with line of sight distances at 25 mph on Old Richmond Road. Some discussion ensued about safe stopping distances at various speeds, since Old Richmond Road is posted at 25mph but many drivers exceed that limit. Mr. Spicer noted that all the lots are five acres or more, with contiguous upland areas that meet the new subdivision regulations. While the area is steep in some places, the driveways will be designed to meet the new standards too.

Silverman asked if there were any comments from abutters. Question: Is it going to be apartments or single family homes? Answer: Single family homes. Q: Will the three lots fronting on RT119 be close to wetlands? A: Yes, one will be and the two others will

be on hills overlooking the marsh. Mr. Spicer noted that there may be alternative building sites on several of the lots. Q: Have all the homes been sited? A: We have spent a lot of time identifying buildable lots. Q: Is there a specific home site for each lot - we have a lot of runoff in the area? A: Yes, Drew did notes on septic and wells for the sites.

Mr. Spicer told the Board and abutters that he and his sister had looked carefully at the character of the land and the neighborhood and tried to create a development that would fit right in. He said that according to the regulations they could have put in 16 lots, or 13 if you look at buildable sites and possible roads. They considered other similar subdivisions and tried to be consistent with the ones with larger lot sizes. All distances between the homes will be a “football field” at least. The abutters looked at the plans.

Silverman asked the Board if they wanted to do a site walk and the Board agreed they did. They will do two site walks. The site walks are scheduled for Thursday, February 3 at 3 PM and Monday, February 7 at 1 PM.

Silverman told the audience that the hearing will be continued at the next meeting on February 15, 2005. The hearing will be posted but no further notification will be mailed to abutters.

Public Hearing on the proposed Growth Management Ordinance (GMO): Silverman introduced the ordinance stating that it came about because the Board noticed an incredible amount of building in the surrounding towns and that there were large tracts of land in Fitzwilliam coming on the market. The Board was concerned about the impact on the community infrastructure and services. They felt it was time to bring an ordinance before Town Meeting to keep growth similar to the way it’s been for the last few years, which seems like a lot, but it has been manageable. The proposed ordinance will limit the number of building permits issued in a given year based on a regional growth formula, but it will not effect subdivisions approved by the Planning Board before this ordinance was posted, nor will it effect home improvement projects.

Pini summarized the effect, saying that by applying the formula outlined in the GMO it looks like there will be approximately 12 building permits available for 2005, with 45% of them available to owner/occupants and 55% available for subdivision contractors, which is in line with past experience in Fitzwilliam. Permits will be issued on a first come-first served basis. A waiting list will be maintained. In any one year, no individual could obtain more than five permits. If there is a surplus at the end of the year, permits will be given out in order. She noted that in addition to approved subdivisions not being effected, neither would new affordable or elderly housing projects be effected.

The GMO as written would be in effect for three years, during which time the Planning Board and Town would redo the master plan and work on the Capital Improvement Plan to insure that services and infrastructure can handle increased growth.

She referred to a chart that illustrated that adding new homes does not lower the taxes for existing homes. Additionally, there would be an increased impact on services; for instance, an increase in the number of miles of roads that need maintenance, salt and sand; an increase in the number of staff hours to manage the increased number of cars to be registered, dog permits issued, etc; more people using the library, recreational facilities, etc. The Board wanted to level growth, fearing that large spikes in growth will be detrimental.

Q: What has been the growth rate in the past. A: Referring to backup materials to the GMO, Pini said that the average growth for the last 4 years was 2 times the average growth for the 1990s. Q: Is the Board trying to limit individuals or developers from building homes? Are you trying to force young people from town? A: The Board has looked at the reality of what’s happening in Town and tried to keep the growth level.

Grasewicz reminded everyone that there is no limit on the number of subdivisions that may be approved, only a limit on the number of homes that can be built in any given year, for the next three years. Gray noted that the percentage of building permits will be based on historical evidence. Pini said there is a self-adjusting mechanism to adjust up or down the number of permits for the next year. Growth is considered a regional issue and to institute a GMO, the Town must take into consideration growth in the abutting towns when developing a formula for determining the number of building permits.

There was some discussion about the legality of exempting subdivisions that have been approved in the past and Gray noted that other town’s GMOs have been challenged if approved subdivisions are not excluded.

Q: What about subdivisions that were approved prior to zoning regulations? A: Generally those old subdivisions would not be approved under today’s regulations, but more importantly, the lots would probably have been sold to individuals who could obtain a building permit under the GMO.

A member of the audience commended the Board for taking action on growth. Silverman noted that during the last update of the Master Plan the public participated in a photo contest to document the things they liked, disliked and thought were at-risk in Town. Preserving the rural character of the Town was foremost. If development proceeds in an unregulated way, we’ll lose that character. The Town has no broad tax base, with little industry or commercial business to balance the individual tax. Unregulated residential growth will overwhelm us.

Q: I’m supportive but see a negative trend in that the formula could take us to zero growth, if the numbers drop in the surrounding towns. A: We’re not an unreasonable Board and will make adjustments as circumstances change. Q: If the GMO passes, what’s to stop someone from building inexpensive (affordable) homes? A: Fitzwilliam

Q: If we limit the number of building permits, will it affect property values? A: The formula is based on the average of the last five years of building permits; it is not a moratorium on building. Many people think that if the value of their property increases they will pay higher taxes, but that is not necessarily the case. If the whole town increases in value, the tax is spread over the whole town. It is a good time to consider what we want to do – if we just sit and do nothing and let growth happen, our taxes will go up.

Q: Are we expanding due to individuals or subdivisions? A: We have heard about some very large subdivisions that haven’t yet moved forward with us. We have land available here and builders will be coming. Q: Can’t we assess fees on developers for infrastructure? A: We have researched impact fees and feel it is potentially a very costly program to administer. Q: Could someone tie up the waiting list for years by adding their name every year for the maximum number of permits? Permits will be given out in chronological order from the waiting list. However, the number of permits available under the GMO is determined by historical experience in Fitzwilliam and surrounding towns.

Hearing no more discussion, Pini moved, Gray seconded and the Board approved putting the GMO on the Town Warrant in March 2005 as it appears in the draft copy, subject to modification. Pini noted that the Board will discuss the issue of vesting under the Administration section of the GMO.

Public Hearing continued on Subdivision Regulations and Land Use Ordinance Amendments: Silverman introduced the four Land Use Amendments, noting that 1) the wetlands definition is mandated by the State and 2) the change will necessitate amending the wetlands section. 3) The third proposed amendment would require a preliminary consultation, which will enable the Board to help applicants before they incur costs on a project. 4) The fourth preserves the table of standard dimensional regulations but makes the most commonly requested changes, i.e. porches and additions, be by special exception. These changes have less of an impact on the neighbors and the town.

Hearing no questions regarding the Land Use Ordinances, Silverman moved to the subdivision regulation amendments. Last meeting the Board approved changing Section 221-24A, land slope requirements, from the proposed 15% to 20%. However, after discussion with Grasewicz, Silverman proposes to change it back to 15% and add the words “non-wetland” to modify ‘contiguous area.’ Pini expressed concern that most of

the public had left the meeting. Silverman said it would be noticed for the next meeting for continued discussion. Silverman moved, Haynes seconded and the Board voted to make the change back to 15% and add the words “non-wetland.” One member opposed. The regulation now reads: All proposed lots shall contain a minimum of forty thousand (40,000) square feet of contiguous, non-wetland area with land slopes of fifteen (15) percent or less. Said requirement does not apply to that portion/lot of a subdivision containing an existing dwelling/primary structure. The applicant shall submit plan(s) with five (5) foot contour intervals, or less, to demonstrate conformance with this slope requirement.