Town of Fitzwilliam, NH - Planning Board Minutes 03/15/05

Members present: Carlotta Lilback Pini, Acting Chairman, Paul Grasewicz, Alternate, Suzanne Gray, Robin Haynes, Donna Hill and Andrew Clukey, Selectmen’s representative

Preliminary consultation with John Tommila regarding a lot line adjustment that will result in decreasing the acreage of a conforming lot from 3.2 acres to 1.317 acres, Tax Map 41, Lot 13, Light Industrial District.

Mrs. Hill was recused for this presentation. Mr. Tommila told the Board he wants to continue to use the property just as it has always been used, with a lumber storage section on the back half of Lot 13 and a residence on the front half. The lot belonged to Mr. Tommila’s mother and now it belongs to him. It fronts on Bowkerville Road. He emphasized that he doesn’t want to change anything except the dimension of Lot 13, which becomes 1.3 acres, a nonconforming lot. He would like to sell the house and lot to an abutter, Ms. Yerrili. The Board noted that if Ms. Yerrilli was to purchase Lot 13 she would not be able to merge it with her property, because her lot has a house on it too. Two houses on one lot are not allowed.

Mr. Tommila again stated his wish to have a site walk so the Board could see exactly what he plans. There is a stand of trees on the property he plans to keep if possible; it acts as a buffer for the residence.

Pini said she was not sure the Board could allow such a small lot as would be created with this lot line adjustment. Haynes suggested Mr. Tommila needed to go to the Zoning Board for relief from a negative decision. Pini said the Board needed to schedule a public hearing for the lot line adjustment on April 5, 2005.

Public Hearing on a Site Plan Review. Site plan application from Steve Wendell to construct three AM radio towers, access road and transmitter building on property on the east side of Route 12, south of Scott Brook, Tax Map 12, Lot 7-1, General Industrial District.

Grasewicz recused himself from the Board as engineer for the Wendell project and presented revised plans, packets of information, and a CD with FAA regulation regarding lighting in response to concerns raised at the last meeting.

Grasewicz told the Board they had met with Mr. Bourassa, one of the abutters, to discuss his concerns about his view shed. Grasewicz surveyed the possible view of the towers in their current proposed location from 18 feet in front of the Bourassa camp. From that

meeting came the revised plans, which shift the towers nearly two hundred feet to the southwest, lessening the impact on Bourassa’s view and on wetlands. Mr. Bourassa’s camp is 2300 feet from the closest tower and Mr. Wendell has offered to move the camp if Mr. Bourassa wished. Grasewicz said Mr. Bourassa was satisfied with their efforts and no longer had any complaints.

The plans were also revised to take into consideration wetlands concerns. They have eliminated the two temporary wetlands crossings and converted the proposed permanent wetlands crossing to a temporary one. They plan to use a temporary road for construction and then remove it. Guy wires are now located outside the wetlands district.

Grasewicz contacted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Audubon Society regarding the impact of tall towers on birds. They have been assured that these towers are not within flyways for game birds. Songbirds travel in board migrations along ridge tops and the towers are not located on a ridge. Mr. Wendell has proposed installing electronic avian detection and dispersal equipment to deter bird flight at the towers. He noted that the impact on birds is generally greater at much taller towers.

Tower lighting has been added to the plans. There will be a flashing white beacon on top and red obstruction lights lower down. Grasewicz said they tried to choose lighting that would balance visible impact, bird deterrence and FAA requirements. Some birds are attracted to a steady light and so they have requested permission to use a flashing light with the fewest possible flashes per minute that meets FAA standards.

One tower will be designed for co-location of emergency service for the Town and other uses as appropriate. These towers are less than 3.5 miles from the Roy Brothers tower and Mr. Wendell has offered to co-locate their antenna on his tower. The AM radio antennae could not be co-located on the Roy Bros. tower because of height requirements.

Grasewicz noted that it is more than 3000 feet to the nearest residence, excluding the Bourassa camp. There are several large tracts of land around the tower property that may be developed in the future, but in his opinion careful siting of housing would minimize the impact of towers. Gray asked about tree heights and Grasewicz responded that trees are approximately 80 feet tall near the towers, but individual views are affected more by their own tree lines.

Haynes asked about a balloon test. Grasewicz said the practical limit for a balloon test is 150 feet. There was some discussion about Rt.12 views of the towers, going south and north. Grasewicz noted that going north, once you reach the plateau where you can see Mt. Monadnock, you will be able to see the towers, but that the towers won’t affect the view of the mountain from Rt. 12.

Haynes asked if there had been any discussion of a site walk. Pini said she would like to see a balloon test, even if it is at 150 feet, just to see where that mark is. The Board agreed that they would like to combine a site walk with a balloon test and Mr. Wendell agreed to arrange it. In deciding where to view the balloon test, Grasewicz said the towers vary in elevation by about 30 feet. Trees follow the land elevation line as well.

Pini asked if Mr. Wendell had anything in writing that explains why it is necessary to have towers 295 feet tall. Mr. Wendell responded that he had a construction permit from the FCC for that height. Haynes wondered why they had to be 295 feet tall. Mr. Wendell offered to write up the engineering basis for the 295 feet height. He reiterated that the lower the AM frequency broadcast the higher the tower needed to be, and the tower is an integral part of the antenna for AM broadcasts. Further, the reason three towers are necessary is to protect other AM frequencies already on the air in the region.

Pini asked if there had been any analysis of other possible sites. Mr. Wendell said he had looked at other sites, but the angle at which the towers had to be placed in relation to one another limited the options. He said he can’t change that angle and the angle matches he angle of the property he is proposing to use.

Haynes wondered how far the signal will reach. Mr. Wendell said it would be heard in Keene, perhaps Nashua, towns on the MA border, and north about 20-30 miles. He characterized the area as South Central NH.

Pini, referring to the wireless district ordinance, asked if an environmental assessment had been conducted, and if there was written proof. Mr. Wendell said the FAA had determined that an environmental assessment was not needed. Pini asked who made that assessment and Wendell responded the FAA so stated it on the construction permit. Pini noted that there was another tower, in addition to the Roy Brothers’ tower, the Bard tower. Grasewicz said that the Bard tower was 2.5 miles from the proposed towers.

Returning to the balloon test, Pini asked when the test and site walk could be scheduled. The Board and Mr. Wendell agreed to schedule both for April 2, 2005 at 9AM. They will meet at the property on Route 12.

Haynes asked about radiation from the towers. Mr. Wendell noted that at 2 – 5 feet there was no radiation, but that closer to the tower and under it there was radiation exposure. Haynes said kids play in the woods and without fencing children could get close to the towers. She said that any information on radiation they could provide would be helpful.

Mr. Wendell clarified that the Board wanted documentation that the height of 295 feet is required; proof that an environmental impact assessment is not necessary and a copy of the FCC construction permit. The Board agreed.

Preliminary consultation with Russ Kelcourse regarding a proposed 3-lot subdivision of a parcel, Map 2, Lot 27, Rural District, bordering Royalston, MA, with access from Derby Road in Massachusetts.

Grasewicz rejoined the Board as an alternate. Mr. Kelcourse told the Board that he and a business partner, the majority owner, purchased a 117 acre parcel near Sportsman Pond and a 5 acre parcel in MA adjoining it. They propose to access the property from MA, using a road maintained by the Town of Royalston, MA. There is a 10-15 foot access from NH, but they don’t want to bother the neighbor by trying to use it.

Mr. Kelcourse proposed to run a private road through the 5 acre parcel and subdivide the 117 acres into 3-4 large parcels. The parcel has 500 feet of frontage in MA. Haynes clarified that technically there is no frontage in NH. Pini noted that Fitzwilliam does not allow subdivisions on private roads. Grasewicz said Mr. Kelcourse could build a road to Town specifications and see if the Town would take it over. Clukey said it would have to go before Town Meeting for acceptance. Mr. Kelcourse asked if the Board would seek a legal opinion. Grasewicz asked if Mr. Kelcourse had approached Royalston yet and he said no. Haynes suggested that he meet with Royalston before the Board seeks a legal opinion on the matter.

Haynes and Pini discussed the possibility of putting in one lot or two, using driveways fronting on the Class V in Royalston. Haynes suggested it might be easier than building a road. Pini told Mr. Kelcourse that if he were to build just one house, he would be good to go, but if he proposed two or more he would have to come before the Planning Board for a subdivision and go before the Selectmen to assess the possibility of the Town taking over a road.

Mr. Kelcourse asked Grasewicz about Town specifications for roads and said he would talk with his partner to see if dividing into two lots was feasible. Grasewicz suggested he contact the Royalston road agent. Mr. Kelcourse said they would try to be back for the April 19, 2005 Board meeting.

Preliminary consultation with Robin Monette regarding her plans to open an antiques business in the building that houses Casey J’s, Map 34, Lot 1, at 10 Rte 12 South, General Business District. Ms. Monette told the Board she was planning an antiques business and country store in the end space in the Casey J’s building. Pini noted that it

was located in the Business District and was an allowed use. She also asked about signage. The owners have met with the Historic District Commission and had been approved for the proposed sign and exterior changes they planned. Pini asked if the antiques would be inside the building and Ms. Monette said yes, but that she may put some things outside, tastefully, in the summer. When asked about the country store, Ms. Monette said she makes flower arrangements and wreaths and she plans to sell them. Gray asked about selling food, and Ms. Monette said she might sell penny candy. Gray said OK, but that getting into the restaurant business would be a different issue for the Board. Haynes suggested that if she wanted to have another sign she should get a sign permit.

Preliminary consultation with Ed Favart regarding his plan to demolish an existing structure and build a gazebo on same footprint, Map 26, Lot 7 on Sip Pond, Rural District. No septic or well exists or is planned.

Mr. Favart plans to demolish an existing shack and build a screen house on the same footprint. He showed plans for the screen house and a map of the property. He owns a large lot nearby and is trying to clean up the whole area. When asked about his access to the property, he said he has a right of way over a neighboring property. Mr. Favart said he had purchased this shack and small lot and is trying to purchase other small lots in the area as they come on the market.

Pini asked if he had a house on the large lot and Mr. Favart said he and his family just use the property for beach recreation right now. Someday he may build on the lot, but he would like a screened area for now on the smaller lot. Pini read the wetlands application and noted that the Conservation Commission had suggested a site visit. Mr. Favart said the lot was very small and the shack was 50 feet away from the water. Grasewicz cited the Shoreline Protection Act, saying if one rebuilds a structure on the same footprint as an existing nonconforming structure it is exempt from wetlands zoning ordinances enacted after the structure was built.

Mr. Yon indicated he would like to walk the site in the spring. Mr. Favart offered to plow if the Board wanted to visit now. Mr. Yon said he thought it would need a wetlands hearing and that two people at least should walk it. Haynes said she would walk it before any hearing, and asked Mr. Favart what his time line was. He indicated he would like to demolish the shack while there was still ice on the pond so any debris would be easy to clean up. Grasewicz said he would still need erosion controls. Haynes suggested he could demolish the shack now. Mr. Favart said he didn’t want to demolish until he knew it was OK to rebuild, so it remains grandfathered.

Pini noted that under the Fitzwilliam Land Use Ordinance, Wetlands Protection Overlay District, Chapter 127-16.1 D (7) (a) “maintaining, repairing or replacing an existing and lawfully located structure…is exempt.” Mr. Favart said there would be no excavation, it is ledge in the front and in the back he will drill into ledge and pour a concrete pier. Grasewicz and Haynes suggested straw bales for erosion control, since a silt fence would have to be dug in and that might not be possible.

Haynes suggested Mr. Favart obtain a demolition permit and a building permit and follow the recommendations the Board suggested. Haynes moved, Gray seconded and the Board voted that the structure/property was exempt under Fitzwilliam LUO Chapter 127-16.1 D (7) (a). The Board recommended using staked straw bales as erosion control during demolition and building. They referred Mr. Favart to the Board of Selectmen for the permits.

Preliminary consultation with Andrew Walters regarding preliminary plans to construct an equipment storage building on property owned by Gap Mt. Drilling, Map 12, Lot 13 on Route 12 S just before Scott Brook in the General Industrial District.

He said he just had a few questions tonight and then would complete plans and come before the Board again for a Site Plan Review. The survey is partially completed and Carl Hagstrom will flag any wetlands. A rough sketch showed a building 40 0r 50 feet by 80 feet for Gap Mt. Drilling to house equipment for repair and maintenance. Because they plan to drive the well drilling apparatus into the building, they would need to exceed the maximum height allowed in the district. His purpose tonight was to clarify the regulations, referring to the Land Use Ordinances, Chapter 127-19 (E) (1). Mr. Walters noted the mean height would be about 46 feet, the peak would top 53 feet. The Board agreed he needed to go before the Zoning Board for a variance, since the structure exceeds dimensional height requirements, before proceeding with the plans.

Mr. Walters asked if there were any other issues he should address. Pini asked if the building would be visible from the road and he said no, there are lots of trees that buffer the property. Pini expressed a preference for the building drawing that showed a peaked roof and Walters concurred, but a comparison of construction costs hasn’t been done yet.

When asked if the company planned to wash trucks there he said he had talked with DES about that. DES wasn’t worried about well drilling equipment and suggested they could wash outside as long as there was no pressure wash and no hot wash. DES said there may be detergent restrictions. Asked about septic plans, Mr. Walters responded that this would be a two man operation and septic system would be the minimum necessary.

The driveway already has a paved entryway. They haven’t addressed exterior lighting yet. Haynes pointed out that the Board preferred shaded lighting that doesn’t illuminate the sky. Grasewicz asked about parking and expressed his hope that none of the vegetation in the front would be cut. He wondered where the right of way for Rt. 12 met the property.

Saga Communications forwarded a message to the Board that they had no luck soliciting interest from a cellular carrier. They contacted Unicell, Verizon, Sprint, Nextel, US Cellular and T Mobile. Saga has space for 2 or 3 carriers. Grasewicz responded that Verizon has to get coverage in this area and to do it they have to co-locate.

Addressing a complaint both the Selectmen’s office and Land Use office had received from Mrs. Bill regarding a recreational vehicle parked on East Lake Road, the Board agreed that there was no prohibition on parking a recreational vehicle on your property. Clukey said he would find out if it was registered.