PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 3, 2005
Members present: Terry Silverman, Chairman, Robin Haynes, Macreay Landy, Carlotta Lilback Pini, Suzanne Gray, Carole Beckwith, alternate, and Margo Best, Selectmen’s representative.
Others present: Carmen Yon
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
Public Hearing Site Plan Review: Nancy and Daniel Lively propose to open a retail quilt shop and conduct quilting classes in their home, 12 Old Troy Road, Map 9, Lot 6, Rural District.
Ms. Lively distributed a summary statement and photos illustrating her plan to convert her basement into a full service retail quilt shop and offer quilting classes. The summary statement is attached as part of these minutes. Ms. Lively is replacing her retail pet shop with a quilt shop. Silverman noted that this was only a change of items being retailed, and questioned if any new construction was planned. Ms. Lively said no changes were anticipated to the exterior at all. Landy asked about the number of parking spaces and Ms. Lively estimated at least 12 off road. Haynes asked about her sign and Ms. Lively described a minor change adding the word ’quilt’ to her existing sign. The name of the shop is “The Pink Poodle Quilt Shop.”
Referring to the photo, Gray asked about a machine. Ms. Lively explained the machine does the actual quilting, replacing hand stitching. She said the machine is quieter than a regular sewing machine. Ms. Lively expects to hold no more than three classes a week.
Pini asked the Board if this had been considered a home business at the preliminary consultation, and they agreed it was. Pini asked how many employees would be on the premises. Ms. Lively said teachers would be the only paid staff on the premises, and that they collected their fees directly from students. She said there would only be one teacher on site at a time. Landy asked the size of the basement. It is 24 X 60 feet, same footprint as house. The section with the furnace would not be used. Pini asked if available parking could accommodate 8-10 students and a teacher, and Ms. Lively confirmed there was ‘plenty of room.’
Landy moved, Gray seconded and the Board unanimously approved the site plan application for the Pink Poodle Quilt Shop.
Preliminary consultation Bob and Charlene Dooley: regarding a retail shop located in Casey J’s building, which is in the General Business and Historic Districts.
Mr. and Mrs. Dooley explained they are leasing the end space for a retail shop selling high end gifts, soaps, pottery, glass, artwork, and some furniture and furnishings, both antique and consignment. Landy confirmed that the name they have chosen is free to be
used. They do not plan to have furniture outside, but may have flower barrels. Mr. Dooley said the building owner planned to repave the parking lot, increasing the number of parking spaces available. The owner has done extensive cleaning and renovation inside. Dooley’s plan to display items in the new bay window.
Landy asked about open hours. The shop will be open six days a week from 9AM – 5 PM. They expect to run the shop themselves but eventually may hire part time help.
Pini asked if there was any need for a site plan and the Board agreed there was not. Silverman recommended they go to the Historic District and Selectmen for their sign, which will be located on the common sign for the complex. Mr. Dooley said they may ask for a temporary, moveable sign to solicit consignment articles and they’d like to have a flag to announce open times. Silverman suggested they check the town sign ordinance and told them they were ‘all set.’
Public Hearing: to receive and consider public comment on the following proposed amendment to the Town of Fitzwilliam Subdivision Regulations, amending section 221-22 by adding the following paragraph: “The Planning Board shall create no lot for which frontage cannot be used for access.”
Silverman announced that this evening would be discussion only and the public hearing would be held on May 17th. It had not been noticed in a timely fashion for May 3rd and has been re-noticed for the 17th.
Silverman noted that several properties had come before the Board where the lot had frontage that couldn’t be used for access. The Hill and Pagano properties were two. The Selectmen’s policy is not to issue a building permit if the lot cannot be accessed from Class V frontage but there is nothing in the subdivision regulations.
Pini asked why put it in the subdivision regulations rather than the zoning regulations, since it will impact an owner’s ability to subdivide. Silverman – that’s why it belongs in the subdivision regulations. Pini suggested it would be equivalent to reducing the lot size. Silverman - that is something the town already does in terms of management. Pini – I see a number of scenarios where this might be applied – what if a person wanted to subdivide where frontage is wet or rock/ledge. Silverman - it is the wetlands that concern me the most. Pini - what if a subdivider preferred to build a common drive rather than blast ledge? Silverman – it’s a choice the subdivider makes. Pini - maybe the language should be more specific, and who decides if
the lot can’t be accessed from frontage? Silverman - the geography decides. Landy wondered who makes the decision about the geography – wetlands go through a permitting process and it costs money to blast through ledge. Gray clarified that enough frontage is there to create a lot, but it is problematic in terms of access. Silverman – for instance it’s all swamp…yes.
Silverman said the Board is at a point now where we need to decide if we’re going to have reasonable lots in town. There is great pressure to subdivide now due to the housing bubble we’re in. Pini reiterated her concern that if this amendment, which may eliminate a good percentage of lots in town, is in the subdivision regulations the town’s people won’t have a chance to vote on it. Silverman noted that the amendment does not eliminate the use of the land, it just affects the ability to subdivide. Gray asked if the Board didn’t do that now when there are wetlands on the property. Haynes said no, that now we give exceptions for wetlands, adding that ‘we’ve given an exception to everyone who has come before us.’
Landy noted the land could still be used, perhaps clustering with common drives, using a common drive to bypass wetlands. Pini said she’d like to do some more research on it, to discuss it further.
Silverman took public comment. Charles Carroll asked about subdividing land when you access the land by a legal right of way, when there are houses in front on the road. Silverman said the land can’t be subdivided under those conditions; current regulations call for frontage on a Class V road or better in order to subdivide. A right of way does not make property subdividable. A subdivision is an economic entity and the town doesn’t need to provide additional economic advantage; you have the use of the land already.
It is questionable whether the lots we are talking about could get building permits under current town policy. This amendment just clarifies that in the subdivision regulations.
Arnie Filipi presented a letter from Tom Hanna, attorney. Silverman read the letter, which raised issues challenging the proposed subdivision regulation amendment. The letter is attached as part of these minutes.
Silverman noted that the Board had addressed these concerns with the New Hampshire Municipal Association and was assured that this amendment was within the Board’s purview and authority. Further, this issue is one the Board has discussed in the past and in reference to several properties.
Steve Filipi asked if the Board planned to do away with common driveways. Silverman said the proposed regulation had nothing to do with common driveways, but with road frontage. However, to use common driveways to circumvent inaccessible road frontage is not a proper use of common driveways.
Steve Filipi suggested using more specific language, to define what is and what is not frontage that is accessible, noting that the proposed language could be construed differently than what is actually meant.
Silverman reminded everyone that the public hearing will be held on May 17th, that this evening was a preliminary discussion and the proposed wording can be changed.
Preliminary consultation Jody Droniak: to discuss remodeling an existing attached building into a long term rental unit at the Unique Yankee B&B, 354 Upper Troy Road, Map 39, Lot 03-02, Rural District.
Ms. Droniak explained she was merely looking at options at this time. She is exploring the possibility of remodeling one of the B & B suites into an efficiency or studio apartment for a year-round, long-term rental. Haynes noted it had been used in the past as a rental. It is attached to the garage, which acts as a boundary between guest space and the primary residence, but it is not a separate dwelling. Landy noted all three buildings on the property are attached. Referring to the Land Use Ordinance, Section 127-9 B, Haynes asked the square footage of the space. It is 20 X 24 feet, totaling approximately 480 square feet. Pini asked if this was a dwelling conversion and Silverman said no. Gray said B & B rooms are not considered dwelling units. Pini confirmed the
proposed apartment would be less than 800 square feet and Silverman confirmed that no other rooms had or would have kitchens.
The Board agreed that Section 127-9 B applied as a single family home with an apartment, and they recommended Ms. Droniak seek a special exception from the Board of Adjustment.
Conservation Commission Briefing: Carmen Yon, chair of the Conservation Committee briefed the Board on the Commission’s priorities for the upcoming year. They reviewed their ten year plan and decided to focus on the following issues:
Ø Increase conservation easements on public and private land and the town forest
Ø Insure forest management plan is in place
Ø Conduct mapping of conservation and forest land
Ø Survey prime wetlands
Ø Develop a well head and aquifer protection plan
Mr. Yon noted that the town master plan called for protecting aquifers but it was not yet in the land use ordinance. He suggested the groundwater protection plan be referenced in the updated master plan while an aquifer protection plan is being developed. The Board concurred and Silverman asked Mr. Yon to give the Board a formal way to reference the groundwater protection plan in the Master Plan. He agreed.
Fifty-two NH towns, primarily in SE New Hampshire, have ordinances protecting aquifers. Mr.Yon suggested aquifer protection should be part of the planning for growth that will follow passage of the Growth Management Ordinance, and looked at in light of the use to which land is put. Haynes remarked that in Rindge you absolutely can’t build within 75 feet of wetlands but in Fitzwilliam all you need is a waiver to violate that setback. She asked Mr. Yon if he could help develop language to clarify the wetlands ordinance. He agreed and said they were willing to work with the Board to protect aquifers.
Site Plan Review Gap Mountain Drilling: regarding constructing an equipment storage/maintenance 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.
Alfred Sawyer and Andrew Walters presented the plans for review. Pini noted it was the plan the Board liked best and Mr. Walters said it was the plan everyone liked, but he couldn’t guarantee he wouldn’t be back for an amended plan once the cost was firm. Silverman reviewed the application and moved that it was complete. Haynes seconded and the Board accepted the application as complete.
The Board reviewed the plans, which call for a 60 X 80 foot building, a commercial septic system, water well and two fuel storage tanks. Silverman asked about the two trailers on the property currently. The trailers will probably remain on site and be used for storage. The office will move inside the new building and have two employees. Silverman confirmed that diesel oil was disposed of according to regulations.
The building will have cement floors with no drains. There will be a four-foot concrete foundation wall, which may have a brick façade. Mr. Sawyer said their maintenance was primarily wrench-turning, ‘pretty small.’
Pini confirmed setback to wetlands was 75 feet or more and it is nearly 90 feet. The propane tank is for heating purposes. Mr. Walters said they do not have septic system approval from the state yet. They plan the minimum commercial system serving 8 employees, which handles 300 gallons per day. They will have two employees.
Landy asked about the fuel storage tanks and containment plans for spills. Mr. Walters and Mr. Parker agreed that should be in the plans, and that a retaining wall around the two tanks will be incorporated. They use two kinds of fuel; ‘off road’ diesel which is not taxed and runs equipment on-site, and ‘on road’ diesel which is taxed and fuels the trucks. Pini confirmed the fuel is stored above ground. The tanks are like tanks at a gas station for filling the on road trucks.
Silverman asked about lighting and Mr. Parker said they’d like one at the gate, perhaps on a timer and some ground lights, also on timers or motion sensors. He noted they were already approved for motion sensor lights. They’d like one light at the entrance door and maybe motion sensor lights around the tanks.
Silverman moved, Pini seconded and the Board approved the site plan review application with the following conditions:
1. A containment pad and structure for the fuel tanks for the legal and proper storage of hazardous material is built
2. A state approved septic system is installed
3. Continued use of motion sensors and a small entrance light over door
A Notice of Decision will be sent to the applicant and all relevant parties.
Pini wondered about the final height of the building and Walters said they couldn’t tell at this time, but they did get a variance from the Board of Adjustment for a maximum height of 50 feet. Mr. Parker said the building will be brick and tan.
Preliminary consultation Les and Deb Black, Four Columns Reality: Mr. Black requests the help of the Board as he attempts to value land for a client. The question involves a 28 acre lot, 20 acres of which is in a conservation easement with the Monadnock Conservancy. He wonders if easement frontage and acreage can be used to fulfill zoning requirements if the owner decides to subdivide one acre from the eight acre parcel.
Haynes wondered if creating a substandard lot was in keeping with the intent of a conservation easement. She said it was her personal opinion that it was not. Pini noted that an easement does not subdivide property and so the easement property may be used as frontage. Haynes suggested the Blacks ask the Monadnock Conservancy about it. Creating a hammerhead lot was suggested as a way to avoid having to use easement frontage.
Another question involved a client who wants to build a new house with an attached accessory apartment. The Board agreed it was necessary to seek a special exception to do that, referring to Section 129-9 C of the Land Use Ordinance.
Minutes: The Board reviewed the minutes of the April 19, 2005 meeting. Beckwith questioned a sentence referring to remarks she made and it will be clarified. Silverman suggested re-organizing the way the radio tower waivers vote was reported to make it clearer. Silverman moved, Landy seconded and the Board approved the minutes as amended.
Haynes, Best and Gray will review the final draft of the master plan from SWRPC and report corrections to Gillis by May 13th.
Silverman moved, Haynes seconded and the Board adjourned at 9:00 PM.
| 
