Town of Fitzwilliam, NH - Planning Board Minutes 05/17/05

Members present: Terry Silverman, Chairman, Robin Haynes, Macreay Landy, Carlotta Lilback Pini, Suzanne Gray, and Carole Beckwith, alternate.

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 offered some background, saying this proposed regulation reflects town policy in terms of granting building permits and that it should be in the subdivision regulations to prevent misunderstandings.

Paul Grasewicz, speaking as a concerned citizen, said he had a problem with this proposed regulation. He noted there are about six miles on Route 119 and six on Route 12 where the state limits driveway access points. This regulation would further limit access. People with large parcels of land have a right to subdivide and this might force them to build roads, which is not in the town’s best interest.

Landy asked why not and Grasewicz responded that the town doesn’t need more roads to maintain. He suggested that as land value appreciates, more roads will result. Alternatively, common driveways accomplish the same ends and must be maintained by the land owner. He said he understands the wetlands protection issues but this regulation is a little too absolute.

Silverman interjected that the purpose tonight is to modify the proposed regulation to clarify intention, which is to ameliorate conditions where geography may cause problems. He noted this regulation does not prohibit common driveways.

Pini suggested a number of different situations that could prevent frontage from being used as access; Class VI roads, corner lots with not enough frontage on a Class V road, frontage on wetlands or ledge or where no curb cuts are permitted. She thought that each situation should be addressed specifically. Citing RSA 674:41, she said the intent was not to make it so a lot had to be accessed from the frontage. Her research couldn’t find any other towns that had this prohibition, in fact most encourage common drives.

Sharon Monahan, a state wetlands scientist, said the state allows waivers to cross wetlands to access buildable land. She thought the proposed regulation said that wetlands are inaccessible. Silverman replied they are, in places where they are extensive.

Tom Hanna, attorney representing Arnie and Steve Filipi, pointed out the regulation says nothing about the extensiveness of wetlands. Silverman asked where the regulation mentioned wetlands at all, clarifying that the regulation could protect extensive wetlands. He wondered if DES would allow access across extensive wetlands and Monahan responded yes, if there was buildable land to be accessed. Landy noted that the DES permitting process is itself extensive and could be denied at any step in the process. Grasewicz noted that federal regulations allow ¼ acre to be filled before permit is necessary.

Landy said he was looking for a way to compromise but is not happy with doing extensive damage to reach back land. Pini said if the applicant can prove they have frontage, she’d prefer common drives. Grasewicz said the state is tightly regulating curb cuts now on Route 119 and Landy said Route 12 is essentially a limited access road now.

Pini said her understanding is that the Selectmen can issue a building permit for a lot as long as the road accessing it is on an approved plan. Grasewicz agreed that Selectmen can grant permits for roads on plats even if the road is not yet built.

Haynes didn’t recall that the Board had refused a lot of wetlands waiver requests; we’ve permitted access around and through wetlands. Grasewicz noted many lots have been created around wetlands and to say that you can’t touch wetlands….Haynes responded she didn’t think the Board was saying that.

Mr. Hanna re-submitted the letter he had prepared for the Filipi preliminary consultation on May 3, 2005 and Silverman asked that it become a part of the minutes. It is attached. He feels the regulation is an ordinance and therefore townspeople should have the opportunity to vote on it. Grasewicz said he has no problem with the proposed regulation being in the subdivision regulations, but wonders how many townspeople would object if they knew about it.

Silverman said it seems to be a way to further the goals of the Master Plan by protecting wetlands and open space in a way that’s not overly restrictive. He doesn’t agree the regulation is as bad as it is being portrayed.

Mr. Hanna suggested that the rule, if passed, would generate multiple waivers. Landy responded that it puts the Board in control of reviewing each property. Mr. Hanna said it might be more authority than the Board should have. Haynes responded the Board of Adjustment might become involved as well, and Mr. Hanna said no, it is a subdivision regulation and can’t be appealed to ZBA.

Pini thought the regulation was the equivalent of increasing the lot size requirement and would like the town to vote on it. Silverman asked for the sense of the Board. Gray said she’d heard many points raised and wondered if the Board should look into specific

situations. Pini agreed. Haynes asked if the Board wanted to continue the hearing or consider a new approach altogether, adding she thought the regulation should be in the subdivision regulations. Gray thought they needed a new approach; the proposed regulation seems to read as absolute.

Landy suggested tabling the regulation, saying it needed further consideration. Pini suggested considering an amended version for the next Town Meeting. Landy responded he didn’t feel it should be a zoning ordinance.

Silverman asked if the consensus was to do nothing at this time. Landy said yes. Mr. Hanna raised the issue of its being a posted amendment which has an impact on landowners and he would consider it a bad faith action by the Board to hold it and adopt it later.

Landy moved, Haynes seconded and the Board voted unanimously to table consideration of the regulation for further study. Mr. Hanna protested the action as grossly unfair, given the lack of consensus on the Board, saying people would be stuck with the regulation. At that point Pini moved, Landy seconded and the Board voted to reject the proposed amendment at this time so applicants know where they stand, adding the Board can take it up at a later time. The Board voted with 4 ayes and 2 abstentions.

Public hearing: Arnie Filipi proposes a nine lot subdivision of property located on the north side on NH Route 119W, east of Kemp Brook, Map 10, Lot 68, Rural District. Mr. Drew presented the plans noting the property is a 66 acre parcel they propose to divide into 9 lots, ranging in size from 2.76 acres to 23.98 acres. The lots would be accessed by three common driveways, ranging in length from 300 feet to 800 feet. There are two wetlands crossings totaling 1900 feet.

The Conservation Commission has seen the application and refused to sign an expedited wetlands permit because the Planning Board had not yet approved the subdivision. The Board and members of the public reviewed the plans.

Charles Brutto, an abutter, urged the Board to consider the safety of access points. It is his experience that the area in question has a high accident rate and adding nine more lots would increase the traffic and therefore the risk. Mr. Drew noted the state assigned the two access points on the west side of the property and they meet the line of sight regulations of the town. The one driveway on the east side of the property can be moved, however, it was selected to cross the narrowest section of wetlands possible.

David Spicer and Laddie Russell raised boundary encroachment issues, which will be addressed by the surveyor and property owner. Silverman noted the Board cannot act to subdivide without knowing the boundaries.

Site walks were scheduled as follows: Friday, May 20, 2005 - 3:30 PM, lots 7/8/9; Tuesday, May 24, 2005 – 5 PM, lots 1/2/3; Tuesday, May 31, 2005 – 5 PM, lots 4/5/6.

Silverman asked the property owner if it was all right with him if others of the public and Conservation Commission joined the Board for the site walks and he agreed.

Haynes moved, Pini seconded and the Board voted unanimously to continue the Filipi subdivision public hearing to June 7, 2005, 7:30 PM.

Minor Site Plan Review: Jack Bussiere regarding plans to broker automobiles bought at auction; Map 4, Lot 55-09 on Fullam Hill Road, Rural District.

Mr. Bussiere stated that he wanted to obtain a license to broker automobiles sold at auction. His intention was not to open a used car business or have cars in his front yard. He wants a license so he can buy, test and sell automobiles, primarily for customers who engage him to provide that service. He said if the business grew he would rent a property somewhere else.

Gray clarified the process, saying you go to the auction, buy a car and sell it to a person who wants to buy it, and use your dealer plate to drive it home, to the new owner or back to auction. Mr. Bussiere said he’d like permission to have up to three cars, because he sees perfectly good cars go through the auction for $100 and he’d like to be able to buy them and find a buyer for them. Landy asked where he would store these cars and he said behind his garage. Neither the garage nor the home can be seen from the road.

Several abutters were present and asked if there would be a guarantee that there would not be used cars for sale on the lot. Mr. Bussiere responded that he does not plan to keep an inventory, there might be a car in transition or if he gets ‘stuck’ with a car he needs to sell or return to auction. He offered to put that in writing.

Haynes noted regulations allow no more than two unregistered vehicles in a yard. Silverman pointed out a vehicle with a dealer’s license is not considered unregistered, so Mr. Bussiere could have two unregistered cars and one with dealer’s plates on his property at any one time.

Pini asked if this fell under a home business. Checking the Principal Uses Table, the Board agreed it fell under Section 127-11 G ‘combined business and dwelling.’ Since his property is in the Rural District, it is not an allowed use without a special exception. Silverman said the Board would need to deny his application until he gets a special exception. The Board recommended Mr. Bussiere seek relief from the Board of Adjustment.

Mr. Bussiere asked if the exception is granted, what is next. Silverman said Mr. Bussiere would come back to the Planning Board to work out the details and complete the site plan review. Mr. Bussiere said when he first moved to Fitzwilliam a fellow had cars for sale in his front yard, and wondered if this person had a license. An abutter said no, he never got a license.

Silverman told Mr. Bussiere to get an application for a Board of Adjustment hearing. Mr. Bussiere wondered if there would be abutter notification fees for that too. There are.

Preliminary consultation Kenneth Terry: regarding plans for opening a clock business in the Bateman building, Route 12 South, Map 34, Lot 28, General Business District.

Silverman asked Mr. Terry to describe his plans. Mr. Terry said he plans a clock sales, service and repair business in the Bateman building. His apartment is in the back. He told the Board he has talked with John Fitzwilliam, owner of another clock business in town and John supports Mr. Terry’s effort.

Citing the Table of Principal Uses Section 127-11 G, Haynes clarified that a combined dwelling and business was allowed in the General Business District with a special exception. Landy recommended that Mr. Terry seek relief from the Board of Adjustment.

Preliminary consultation Sean McGarry: regarding response to letter from the Town re: motor vehicle repair business operating on his property on East Lake Road, Map 7, Lot 18, Rural District.

Mr. McGarry had received a letter from the Board of Selectmen referring him to the Planning Board to discuss a motor vehicle repair business that was operating on his property. Mr. McGarry told the tenant that he could not operate this business on the property. Mr. McGarry had all but one of the unregistered vehicles on the site removed. Haynes clarified that Mr. McGarry had no intention of operating a business on the site and he said no. Landy suggested Mr. McGarry get that in writing from the tenant. Mr. McGarry was comfortable with the verbal agreement but Landy and Gray both emphasized that to protect himself he should get it in writing.

Minutes: The Board reviewed the minutes of the May 3, 2005 meeting. Gray moved, Landy seconded and the Board approved the minutes as amended.

Administrative: The Board has not yet received a letter of resignation from Donna Hill. Carol Beckwith, an alternate, was asked to consider taking the position when the letter is received and she agreed. Silverman noted the Board liked to have alternates attend Board meetings to stay current so if they are called on to serve they are prepared.

Regarding planning for growth during the three year period the Growth Management Ordinance is in effect, both Landy and Gray volunteered to work on the project. Pini said the CIP committee has, in analyzing spending over the last ten years, tried to determine how much growth has cost the town. A sub committee of the Board was formed with Landy and Gray serving as members.

Haynes noted there were two people in the audience taking pictures of the Board and she wondered if the Board had to allow that. There was general agreement that it was allowed.

Haynes asked if other members had seen an article in the Ledger about growth as it relates to the cost of education. She offered to obtain copies.