Town of Fitzwilliam, NH - Planning Board Minutes 04/05/05

Members present: Terry Silverman, Chairman, Suzanne Gray, Robin Haynes, Donna Hill, Macreay Landy, Carlotta Lilback Pini, and Margo Best, Selectmen’s representative. Paul Grasewicz, Alternate was also present.

Master Plan consultation: Jeff Porter and Laura Weit, Southwest Regional Planning Commission representatives, told the Board editing and content changes had been integrated into the Master Plan. They asked the Board’s wishes in integrating the Land Resources Protection Priorities and the Findings of Fact, on which the Growth Management Ordinance was based, into the Master Plan. At their suggestion, the Board decided to place the Findings of Fact in the Future Land Use section. The Land Resources Protection Priorities will be placed in a new Appendix B, with specific recommendations for protection placed in the Resources section.

Maps in the current Master Plan will be reproduced; except the Zoning Map will be updated. Haynes noted there was no ‘current use’ map in the Master Plan. The Board agreed that Appendix A (demographics) is OK to use as is.

Porter agreed to complete the update and send a draft of the competed work to the Board to proofread within a month. When finished, SWRPC has agreed to send five bound copies to the Planning Board.

The public hearing on the Master Plan, originally scheduled for April 19, 2005, will be postponed until final copies are available for the public to discuss.

Public Hearing Tommila lot line adjustment: John Tommila requests a lot line adjustment that will result in decreasing the acreage of an existing conforming lot, located at 9 Bowkerville Road, from 3.2 acres to 1.317 acres, Tax Map 41, Lots 12 and 13, Light Industrial District.

Hill recused herself. Mr. Tommila presented an enlarged map of the lot in question, illustrating the lot line adjustment he is requesting. He wants to cut lot 13 approximately in half, with the lot fronting Bowkerville Road becoming approximately 200 feet by 290 feet. This lot will be smaller that the 3 acre minimum required. Mr. Tommila told the Board the lot is beautiful and has trees and brush as a buffer. The back half will continue to house his lumber storage yard and his business use of the property will continue unchanged.

Silverman asked what the lumber flow was for the mill and Mr. Tommila pointed it out on the map. He said the neighbors have no objection to the line adjustment. He plans to have it surveyed if the Board thinks there is some chance of the lot line adjustment being

approved. Landy asked how many square feet would be left in Lot 13. Tommila thinks about 60,000, about 1.4 acres. A house already exists on the lot.

Silverman moved, Pini seconded and the Board accept the application as complete. Silverman told Mr. Tommila he needed a variance from the Table of Standard Dimensional Regulations. Silverman moved that a lot line adjustment will create a lot that does not meet the standard dimensional requirements and recommended that Mr. Tommila go to the Zoning Board for a variance. Pini seconded and the Board approved the motion. Silverman moved and Pini seconded a motion that the Board grant conditional approval for a lot line adjustment, based on a variance being granted. The Board approved the motion, Landy abstained.

Silverman noted that the Board would need a Mylar for the boundary line adjustment. Pini confirmed that there would be no change of use for Lot 13 and Mr. Tommila agreed there would be no change.

Public Hearing Eddy Subdivision: John and Laura Eddy propose a three-lot subdivision of land located on Templeton Turnpike, Tax Map 03-Lot 30 in the Rural District.

Mr. and Mrs. Eddy joined the Board at the table. Mrs. Eddy explained that they were still seeking a three-lot subdivision of their property. Mr. Eddy told the Board they had an engineer come in a look at the property to develop a proposal that would meet subdivision requirements. He noted that several houses have been built across the street.

Haynes asked the Eddy’s to reacquaint her with wetlands and slopes on the property. Mrs. Eddy said there were no wetlands to speak of, and the property is basically flat, with some slope toward the back. Landy asked if they had topographical and septic information for the Board. Mrs. Eddy responded that they were just subdividing the land, not building on it. Mr. Eddy noted that the lot on which their home is located has very good drainage and the soil is very sandy, and that another of the proposed lots has a good view of Mt. Monadnock. Pini asked if the property would meet the new slope requirements. Silverman said his recollection was that the land would meet the requirements.

Silverman moved, Pini seconded and the Board vote to accept the application as complete. Landy wondered if it actually was complete. He noted that he was used to seeing wetlands delineated and topographical information on the maps.

Landy expressed his discomfort with the lack of perc data. Silverman asked if the Board wanted the Eddys to do perc tests, and Landy said he’d like that.

Mr. Eddy said he thought the lot owner had to do perc tests. They had to do their own perc tests when they bought their property. Best asked if their intent was to create buildable lots and they agreed that was their intent.

Grasewicz understood the Board’s concern with the lack of topographical data because other applicants have spent money to have that information on their maps. However, he said the state does not need to approve septic systems on lots larger than 5 acres and each of these is larger. He reminded the Board that they don’t usually require perc tests on lots larger than 5 acres.

Haynes said that historically the Board has asked applicants to bring in more information, including topographical and wetlands. Silverman asked the Board if they wanted this information. Pini showed that the lot to be subdivided was not in or near wetlands using the wetlands map. Haynes suggested a site walk rather than engineering data because the applicant said there were no steep slopes on the property. Mr. Eddy asked for clarification on the slope requirement and Silverman told him that every lot must have one acre with slopes of 15% or less.

Preliminary consultation: Julie Skinner to discuss plans for opening a retail business, an upscale consignment shop, in the former post office building in the Historic District, Rt. 119E, Map 34, Lot 46 in the Residential District.

Silverman asked Ms. Skinner to describe her business plans. Ms. Skinner noted that she has leased the old post office building and plans to upgrade the interior. She plans a consignment clothing shop offering infants, children’s and women’s clothing, and new bridal gowns. She has her business license and insurance already. When asked about signage, she responded that a sign maker in Keene is preparing several options for the Historic District Commission to review when she meets with them on April 14^th. Ms. Skinner said she would also ask the Commission about placement.

She plans to be open Wednesday through Sunday from 10 AM to 6 PM, and possibly later on Friday. The hours may change once she is open and can assess store traffic. Landy asked about exterior lighting and she does not plan any additional exterior lighting. Haynes noted that the district is residential and the existing special exception for the previous business had expired because it had not operated as a business in more than a year. Haynes moved, Gray seconded and the Board voted to recommend that Ms. Skinner go before the Zoning Board for a special exception, under Article III, Section 127-11 A, to open a retail store in the residential district.

Public Hearing continued Radio Towers: 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, representing the applicant, asked that the hearing be continued because Mr. Wendell could not be present tonight. He noted that the site walk did take place on April 2, but the balloon test was rescheduled due to weather. The test will be held on Saturday, April 9, 2005 at 9AM. Grasewicz said they looked at the three tower sites and it was decided to move the third site so it would be entirely out of the wetlands setback area.

Pini and her husband attended the site walk and she noted that Mr. Wendell had explained that the guy wires were anchored in 3’ x 3’ concrete blocks, which would have little impact on wetlands. She is not so concerned with what is going on on the ground, but is very concerned about tower visibility. Mr. Pini took GPS readings and graphed the results. She said the graph shows just what the impact will be on the rural character of the town, adding that the towers will be lighted.

Haynes noted that the town has several overlay districts with zoning approved by the town’s people. She wondered if approving the towers would go against what the people want. She’s concerned about the height too. She also wants the Conservation Commission to see the land. Carmen Yon, the Chairman of the Conservation Commission, said they will walk the site on April 9^th.

Silverman expressed his concern that the parameters of this project are so far beyond the Town’s Wireless Overlay District and it would concern him greatly to approve a project of this scope. He noted that having said that, the applicant is free to continue with the application. Landy agreed.

Pini noted that the applicant had appeased one of the abutters, but that unless you have tall trees in front of you the towers will be seen from ‘everywhere’. She remarked that she doesn’t see the public benefit. Haynes pointed out that the broadcast area will only reach 20 – 30 miles from Fitzwilliam.

There was some discussion of cellular towers and Silverman noted that, while this hearing was for AM radio towers, the Board had approved two cellular towers, one which was never built and another that was built at the Bard building. He added that no provider of cellular service is interested in locating in Fitzwilliam.

A member of the audience asked if the tax impact on the Town of the towers had been assessed. Grasewicz thought it wouldn’t be significant. Silverman noted that the Board tries to keep that parameter out of Planning Board considerations. Another member of the audience asked if there was any provision for local use of the radio station and Grasewicz responded yes, there could be co-location of antennae for emergency services as well as community broadcasts on the radio. Silverman pointed out that Town emergency services antenna are already located on the Bard tower.

Appointment of Alternates: Silverman moved, Haynes seconded and the Board voted to appoint Paul Grasewicz as an alternate to the Planning Board. Silverman moved, Landy seconded and the Board voted to appoint Carole Beckwith as an alternate to the Planning Board.

Minutes: The Board considered the minutes of the March 15, 2005 meeting. Haynes made a correction to page 6 of the minutes. It was duly noted. Haynes moved, Landy seconded and the Board voted to approve the minutes as amended.

Public Hearing Parker Subdivision: Tom Parker proposes a three-lot subdivision on 22 acres, Map 11, Lot 2, located between West Lake Road and Webb Road, Rural District.

Tom and June Parker, and Paul Grasewicz presented the application. The subdivision will create three lots, one of which will continue to belong to the Parkers. Their home is located on the parcel. A 12 acre hammerhead lot will be created, with at least 9 acres with slopes of less than 15%. The other two lots are five plus acres. The lot with the house is exempt as existing, and the second 5 acre lot is less than 15% slope over its acreage. Mr. Parker pointed out that he owns a landlocked lot behind the property in question.

He noted that the property has almost no wetlands, with only one corner involved. Silverman pointed out that Parker had received a special exception from the ZBA for nonconformance with the Standard Table of Dimensional Regulations frontage

requirement. Grasewicz noted the exception was for three feet of frontage and that after surveying the property, it was actually two feet. Landy asked for clarification of boundaries, which was given.

Silverman asked for public comment. Hearing none, Silverman moved, Pini seconded and the Board voted to accept the application as complete.

Landy asked about soils. Grasewicz responded the property is pretty well drained; no test holes have been dug except for the ones done when the Parkers built their home. Their house sits on ledge. Grasewicz said that there would be no septic system issues on the other lots. He added he had seen no ground water, therefore ledge is lower and percolation would not be a problem.

Landy asked if house sites had been located yet. Grasewicz said he’d located a house square, primarily to indicate where the required one acre of land with slope of 15% or less was located. Mr. Parker said any house site would depend on the expense of a long driveway and power lines.

Preliminary consultation Wheeler subdivision: Rob Wheeler to discuss creating a hammerhead lot on property located at 626 Royalston Road, Map 2, Lot 08-03, Rural District.

Mr. and Mrs. Wheeler accompanied their son Rob in presenting their concept. They would like to give their son land to build a home. Their lot is 14 ½ acres and they propose to give him acreage on the back portion of their lot.

Silverman noted that the Wheelers have less than the minimum frontage on a Class V road for their own lot, and they would need frontage for the back lot.

Mr. Wheeler wondered if the back lot could be accessed using the driveway that serves their house and an adjacent lot, as the driveway continues the length of their lot line. Grasewicz mentioned the possibility of creating a road that could be accepted by the Town. Mrs. Wheeler asked if all the houses in Town that she has seen with too little frontage were built prior to zoning regulations? Haynes noted that many of them have enough frontage for each lot and they elect to share a driveway.

Silverman said that their proposal would create a land-locked lot with no frontage on a Class V road. Grasewicz suggested that if they had another 50 feet of frontage they could create the lot. Mrs. Wheeler asked if there were any exceptions and Silverman replied ‘not from us.’ Best, referring to the flood plain map, noted that there were wetlands on the property.

Haynes told the Wheelers they needed to come before the Planning Board for a public hearing and then go to the ZBA for a special exception. Landy suggested an accessory apartment. Mr. Wheeler said he could build a barn or a garage and Haynes said he would need a building permit for that.

Administrative work: Wetlands waivers – Silverman wanted to clarify the conditions under which wetlands waivers are granted. Grasewicz noted that technically the Board grants a conditional use approval. Pini wondered how other towns approach wetlands reviews and Grasewicz said some are absolute and some are not; if it’s a residential lot, we have to ask if it’s reasonable to build a house on it; we live in New England and can try to minimize the impact on wetlands. Silverman asked if that meant every driveway over wetlands had to be approved. Gray said that we could ask that driveways be moved, but if it couldn’t be moved…what then.

Grasewicz said the Board could always decide to exclude driveways from wetlands. Landy remarked that he was worried about houses, dredging and filling, and so on. Grasewicz said the state says it’s OK to go right to the edge of wetlands. Gray noted that is was not unusual to have buildings excluded from the 75 foot setback. The suggestion was made to look at other wetlands ordinances, and another noted that the Board had looked at other ordinances before framing the town ordinance. Grasewicz suggested the Board work closely with the Conservation Commission to develop a consensus on intent.