PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
FEBRUARY 15, 2005
Members present: Terry Silverman, Chairman, Suzanne Gray, Paul Grasewicz, Robin Haynes, Macreay Landy, Carlotta Lilback Pini and Andrew Clukey, Selectmen’s representative.
Others present: Members of the public.
Call to Order: Chairman Silverman called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
Preliminary consultation with Mike Robie regarding his plan to open a studio and gallery at the Crossroads. Silverman invited Mr. Robie to tell the Board his plans. Mr. Robie plans to create, display and sell his own artwork, primarily pen and ink line drawings, pastels and watercolors. He will have an interior sign and will be listed, along with others, on the outdoor signs as “Other Artisans.” He plans to put up picture mounts and three tracks of lighting inside the space. Pini noted that the space is in the General Business District. Silverman said the studio is an allowed use under Section 127-11N and that Mr. Robie was ‘all set.’
Public Hearing continued on Subdivision application, Map 10, Lot 83 and Map 11, Lot 16 located between RT 119 and 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 Tom Hanna, an attorney, joined the Board at the table.
Silverman told the public that the Board had conducted two site walks and asked the members who did the first site walk to present what they found. Grasewicz said they saw Lot 16-1, an 8.7 acre parcel and walked down the proposed driveway and found a moderately sloped ridge with a flat top and wetlands on both sides. Returning to the road, they proceeded west to the proposed common driveway for lots 10-83-2 and 10-83-1 on RT 119, noting that the first 50 feet or so would be excavated to produce a regulation sight distance for the driveway. They got a ‘good feel’ for the two proposed lots. Grasewicz said his personal opinion was that the first lot they saw was limited, but with an adequate building site if there are actually 40,000 sq ft of contiguous land with slopes of 20% or less. The
other two lots felt like there was more room.
Landy asked about soil types for septic and Grasewicz said all the lots were 5 acres or more and a septic system could go almost anywhere with modern technology. Landy supposed that the developer would have to do testing.
The Board reviewed the plans again. Gray asked if the common drive enters near wetlands. Grasewicz said yes, and there appears to be two separate wetlands, one on each side of the driveway, that drain in separate directions. Mr. Spicer noted that there has always been a roadway there connecting with the railhead. Gray asked if excavation would impact the wetlands. Spicer said no, he intends to remove all the excavated dirt to build the other driveways. Drew presented the sight line profiles for the driveways and Grasewicz said the grading stops about 50 feet from the wetlands. Pini asked if the flow
of water would be changed in any way and Spicer said no. Drew noted that there would be no increase in the water amount in either wetland.
Silverman joined others in walking the properties fronting on Richmond Road. They started at the Richmond end, lot 10-83-5, and viewed the proposed house sites and driveways. An intermittent stream was identified that had not been flagged. Drew presented a letter to David Spicer from Carl Hagstrom, a wetlands scientist, regarding the intermittent stream.
The complete letter is attached to the minutes. A relevant section reads “The discharge from a Road culvert located on the East side of your property on Richmond Road, in Fitzwilliam, NH is from an intermittent Seasonal Run-off. This discharge does not meet the NHDES definition for a Jurisdictional Wetland.”
Silverman read a memo from Gene Cuomo, Town Road Agent, commenting on the subdivision. The complete memo is attached to the minutes. Relevant sections read “1) Ref. Driveways – Permits call for safe sight distance and drainage issues. These issues appear to be within the town regulations. 2) Road Width – Richmond Road is approximately 16 feet wide – some places more, some less – during winter months the travelable road width is much less – sometimes as little as 10 feet wide. 3) Road Condition – Richmond Road (from RT 119 west to Rhododendron RD) is a narrow road with curves, a steep drop-off on one side and steep slope upwards on the other. The road base is very poor, mostly rocks with gravel and pavement on top. The road ‘moves’ a lot during winter and spring. Sink holes and frost heaves are common. The road has very bad drainage, and is prone to potholing. 4) Road Improvements – In the Highway Department’s Road Plan there are no major projects for this section of
Richmond Road. Regular patching and drainage (ditching) work are done routinely. Sometime within the next five to ten years the road should be resurfaced. No widening or major changes are planned. 5) Traffic – Richmond Road is used by many people as a “shortcut” from RT 119 to the Village area. I have never done a traffic study, and I defer this information to the Police Department. I can say based on my experience working and traveling on Richmond Road, that most of the traffic is not residents living on Richmond Road. It is a difficult road to work on due to the road width and traffic. 6) Driveway Locations and Numbers – as Road Agent I would prefer if there were less driveways, i.e. limited access – perhaps shared driveways – some of the driveway locations – though met the regulations ‘per se’ are in poor locations. If the subdivision is approved as per the plan I saw, I
would like to see the driveways moved as so they do not come out directly from a large ledge outcrop or drainage ditch. I believe some trees may also have to be removed.”
Mr. Spicer offered a letter to the Board from the Chief of Police, Bruce Newton. The complete letter is attached to the minutes. Relevant sections read “About two years ago, there were complaints received from residents along Richmond Road, west section regarding the operation of vehicles, speeding, and disregard for the stop sign as the road
intersected RT 119. There were numerous complaints and at times the residents would report the speed of vehicles to be 40 or 50 mph. This was exaggerated and in fact, there were no vehicles traveling that fast, and if you have ever been on this portion of the road, you should know that it would be nearly impossible to drive that fast and maintain control of the car. As a result the police focused attention to this particular section and monitored the traffic for violations. In addition, other things were proposed to help correct the problem such as lowering the speed limit from 30 to 25 mph, posting the electronic speed display board to make drivers aware, and to eventually alter the intersection off of RT 119 to slow vehicles entering.
As a result, the remedies seem to have worked to curtail the number of complaints received and the residents along Richmond Road west now report that the traffic violations have decreased……I polled the officers, and asked if they remember issuing speeding citations while on Richmond Road west and most everyone could not recall handing any tickets out, but did give warnings…..Accidents on this section of Richmond Road are also few and far between, with perhaps a total of five over the past two years or so. These accidents were mostly single car, and all were either due to driver impairment or road conditions….I don’t feel that there is a legitimate safety concern for this area where the sub-division is proposed.”
Mr. Spicer responded to the Road Agent’s comments. The driveway locations are flexible and can be relocated to any safer location. All the driveways meet the regulations for drainage and sight distances, and those few trees can be taken down to increase sight distance. He expressed his willingness to work with the Board to get the subdivision approved. He does want to protect the stand of old maple trees that have been tapped for syrup for more than a hundred years. There are two barways that have been used for 150 years. One is grandfathered and the other can be moved if necessary. He’d be glad to work with the Road Agent to select other sites.
He noted that there is a posted speed limit of 25 mph with no through trucks allowed. The driveways are laid out with 250 foot sight lines, which meet a 30-35 mph stopping distance. There is a 200 foot sight distance line if one of the existing barways was used but that could be moved, however, it would disturb the stone wall and the maple trees. He said it would be hard to do 20 mph on that road.
Silverman asked that this discussion be postponed for a few minutes while the Board meets with another applicant scheduled at this time.
Preliminary consultation with Amy Roy regarding her plan to open a beauty salon at the Crossroads. Silverman asked Ms. Roy to tell the Board about her plans. Ms. Roy plans to offer a variety of services including hair cutting, hair coloring, permanents and perhaps a tanning bed. She has no plans to expand or hire employees. Her signage will be interior. Landy noted that the shop will be in the General Business District and
that under Section 127-11L it is an allowed use. He wondered if the septic system was approved for accepting hair dye and permanent solutions. Grasewicz said that no septic plans had been seen yet and that Mr. Rettig would need to provide the assurance that the septic was acceptable before building permits could be issued. He wondered if it would conform to state regulations as each new business comes in.
Silverman reminded the Board that they noted several conditions on the Site Review Plan they approved, including the septic issue. He told Ms. Roy she needs to let the Board know if/how the septic needed to be modified for hair dye and permanent solutions. Otherwise she was all set.
Discussion about the Spicer subdivision continued. Mr. Spicer relayed a conversation with the police chief where the Chief identified the heaviest traffic time as being in the morning when people were taking their children to school. Both Pini and Haynes had walked or run on the road in the early morning and confirmed that the road was very busy and even dangerous in their estimation. Mr. Hanna remarked that the issue was not speed but safe stopping distance. Silverman said everyone says the road is in bad shape and that he thought five accidents was not a small number.
The Board examined a new map Drew presented with the 40,000 sq ft contiguous area hatched for each lot. Drew stated that each of these areas meets or exceeds the slope requirement of 20% and contains no wetlands.
Grasewicz asked if the driveways could accommodate emergency vehicles and Drew stated they could be constructed to do so. Landy pointed out that two driveways have a very steep drop from the roadway. Mr. Spicer agreed but noted that every driveway will have the regulation 20 foot landing pad with less than 2% slope at the entryway.
Haynes and Gray noted that one driveway enters on a curve and that it is very hard to see. Spicer said that from the landing pad you can see the required sight distance and Drew said there are no earthen obstructions to the line of sight.
Pini wondered what impact the five new houses would have on Richmond Road. Mr. Hanna responded that according to statistics five houses could generate up to 50 trips per day. Pini said that as a member of the CIP committee, she was concerned about how the plan will be changed by that impact. Silverman said that the Planning Board deals with conditions as they are now. Some discussion about how to improve the road followed.
Silverman moved to continue the public hearing to the next meeting. Haynes seconded. Grasewicz would like to see the intermittent stream questions addressed and he wants the Conservation Commission to look at it. Drew asked if it was appropriate for Carl Hagstrom to accompany the Conservation Commission on the site walk. The Board agreed that was OK.
Silverman reminded the Board that they had asked, in the past, to see actual driveway designs when very sensitive areas were involved. Grasewicz was comfortable that the driveways could be built and Hanna pointed out that the driveways meet all regulations. Silverman noted that he was not sure it was a good idea even if it met the specs. Hanna noted that this subdivision met all the regulations. Landy said he felt there were too many lots on Richmond Road. Pini said she’d like to see four lots there. Hanna reminded them that all the lots have the required frontage. Landy said that despite the Police Chief’s notes, he still thinks it is unsafe. Pini said especially the corner lot on the east end. Mr. Spicer asked if he reduced the number of lots would the
Board approve the subdivision. Pini and Landy said they’d feel more comfortable. An abutter, Betty Boucher, said her primary concern was that the stand of maple trees and the stone wall not be disturbed. Another abutter, Andy Walters, thought that the condition of the road controlled the amount of traffic and if upgraded the traffic would increase. He said he liked the road the way it was. Gray noted that at the same time, the Board had to insure the safety of the residents and that emergency equipment had access.
Spicer asked again if the Board would like to see a new layout and Silverman said the Board can’t bargain. Mr. Hanna said he thought it was problematic if Mr. Spicer had to pay for a new layout without a consensus of the Board. Grasewicz said he was OK with it if the wetlands issues are resolved. Drew noted that with only four lots on Richmond Road there would be plenty of room. Haynes said she didn’t think any of the lots were great and Silverman said the field lot was OK. Addressing Mr. Spicer, Haynes said anything you can do to reduce the number of lots is better. Silverman noted that from the beginning he thought the property looked like a 5 lot subdivision, not 8. Spicer said he thought 7 was a compromise.
The Board agreed to continue the public hearing on March 1, 2005.
Preliminary consultation with Josephine Plaszewski on her plans to relocate her antiques business to the former Starrett house at the intersection of RT 12 and RT 119, Map 34, Lot 29. There was some discussion of the history of the Starrett property. Haynes noted that the shop would be located in the General Business District and was allowed under Section 127-11A. Silverman reminded Ms. Plaszewski that she would need to adhere strictly to signage regulations and she agreed. She said there would be an externally lighted sign at the apex of the property. Silverman said the Board would need to see a picture of the signage and its location, with sightlines and setbacks noted.
Ms. Plaszewski told the Board she plans to acquire the property in the next few days and plans to open in 90 days. Landy reminded her that her location is a gateway to the Town. She said the architectural pieces might now be displayed inside the building once they complete the interior renovations. She noted there was a fenced area outside and they could go there too. Silverman asked if the Board wanted to see a site plan and the
consensus was no. He told Ms. Plaszewski her plans were OK but the Board wanted to see plans for the signage.
Public Hearing on the proposed Growth Management Ordinance (GMO): Pini distributed a draft newsletter article for the March Fitzwilliam newsletter and all agreed that it was good, well written and the graph made it interesting and clear. Pini noted that the building permit calculations had been reworked because the Rindge building permit number for 2004 was revised. The result indicated the number of building permits that could be issued in Fitzwilliam in 2005 if the GMO passes would be 21. However, the plan also states that the number of permits is capped at either the average number issued in Fitzwilliam or the average number issued in the four abutting towns in the last five years, whichever was smaller. If the GMO passes that number is 17 and in 2005, permits for 17 new residential
dwelling units can be issued, with 9 reserved for new subdivision builders and 8 for individual owner/occupants. She reminded everyone that subdivisions approved prior to posting the GMO on January 20, 2005 are exempt from the GMO and can receive the building permits they need.
The Board discussed the vesting issue and agreed that exempting approved subdivisions was the only way to go. Silverman noted that the State wants to grow and the RSAs are written to support that vision. Pini said we’ll go with it for a year and evaluate what happens. Clukey said he thought it was a good place to start, and we had to start somewhere. Silverman noted that the GMO allows for orderly growth and is not punitive.
Public Hearing continued on Subdivision Regulations: At the January 18, 2005 public hearing the Board approved changing Section 221-24A, land slope requirements, from the proposed 15% to 20%. At the February 1, 2005 public hearing the Board voted to change it back to 15%, after Silverman expressed his belief that the discussion at the January meeting was about 15 or 20 degrees, not 15 or 20 percent. They also voted to add the words “non-wetland” to modify ‘contiguous area.’ Mr. Filipi asked for clarification and Silverman explained the 15% vs 15 degree issue and further noted that a builder is not required to build on the 40,000 sq ft parcel with 15% slope, but that that amount of land so defined must be part of the lot.
Administrative: Pini told the Board she was finishing the CIP. The Committee analyzed expenditures and revenues for the last five years and projected capital expenses for the next six. The CIP Committee wants to even out the annual peaks and valleys of expenditures and, at the same time, provide for the capital improvement needs of the town in the long run.
It was noted that a CIP does not need to be adopted every year. The Fitzwilliam CIP was first authorized in 1986 by Town Meeting and the first plan was adopted in 1989. Since that time the Planning Board and in 2004 the CIP Committee have revised and updated it. The purpose of a CIP is to aid various local entities planning the annual budget.
Silverman read an email from Eric Twarog, senior planner at Southwest Regional Planning Commission (SWRPC), who reviewed the GMO. He applauded the Board’s efforts to produce the document. He said the GMO was well written and covers all the topic areas recommended by land use attorneys. The Findings of Fact are more detailed than many he has seen. He suggested the Findings of Fact be posted with the GMO. Copies of both documents are available at the Town offices.
Silverman announced that Twarog will be leaving his post to become a city planner for Pittsfield, MA. Haynes is the Board’s representative to SWRPC and will attend future meetings. Twarog has worked with the Town on the Master Plan project and it will be completed by another staff member of SWRPC, who will be briefed by Twarog.
Silverman read two Notices of Decision from the ZBA. The Board was reminded that Section 127-9 was unclear regarding whether an individual who wanted to keep a horse to ride on their property actually needed five acres to do so. The Board said anyone with a question could come in for a preliminary consultation and discuss it.
Minutes: The Board reviewed the minutes of the February 1, 2005 meeting. Silverman moved, Haynes seconded and the Board voted to approve the minutes written.
Silverman moved, Pini seconded and the Board voted to adjourn at 9:15 PM
| 
