PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
JULY 19, 2005
Members present: Terry Silverman, Chairman, Carole Beckwith, Suzanne Gray, Robin Haynes, Macreay Landy, Carlotta Lilback Pini and Margo Best, Selectmen’s rep.
Others present: Raymond Russell and Paul Grasewicz, alternates
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m.
Preliminary consultation: Paul Grasewicz to discuss a three lot subdivision of property located on Route 12 South (Stateline Grocery), Map 4, Lot 79, Rural District.
Grasewicz presented a three lot subdivision concept for the owner, Mr. Kiritsy. The Planning Board met with Grasewicz about a two lot subdivision of the same property in June. Grasewicz distributed a sketch of the revised proposal. Two lots will be 5.5 acres with 250 feet of frontage. The third lot is 7.8 acres with 390 feet of frontage. A common driveway will access the properties from an existing curb cut on NH Route 12 S.
When asked about wetlands, Grasewicz replied there were some on the north boundary and was sure there were more, but he hadn’t walked the property yet. Beckwith wondered what kind of right of way would be required for the old railroad bed and Grasewicz explained the state owns the railroad bed and there the strip is 99 feet wide. He said a private snowmobile trail on the property will be relocated to insure access for the lots.
Hearing no further questions, Silverman asked Grasewicz to return with a complete plan.
Public hearing: Veterans Victory Farm site plan review for farm stand to be located on property belonging to Fitzwilliam Antiques, at the intersection of RT 119 and RT 12, Map 34, Lot 29, General Business District.
Stephen Ledwell presented the site plan. Silverman moved, Beckwith seconded and the Board accepted the site plan application as complete.
Mr. Ledwell explained the purpose of the vegetable stand is to interact with the community, educate the community about organic farming and sell organic produce. The stand itself is free standing and of a simpler design than was originally presented. It is a temporary stand and will be removed at the end of the season. They take the umbrella and boxes down at closing time. Two signs, a banner and sandwich board, are out only during open hours, which they hope will be 12-5 daily.
Pini moved, Gray seconded and the Board approved the site plan unanimously. A Notice of Decision will be mailed to appropriate parties.
Preliminary consultation: Lou DePalma and Raman Patel to discuss a change in use for property located in the Rural District, Map 8, Lot 13, Route 12 south.
Mr. DePalma presented the concept for the prospective owner, Mr. Patel. If they decide to purchase the Bloomin’ Antiques building, they plan to develop a convenience store, selling beer, wine, cigarettes, lottery tickets and groceries.
Haynes asked about selling gasoline and Mr. DePalma said no, they don’t plan to sell gas.
Silverman noted it is currently a nonconforming retail business in the Rural District. The Board agreed that the proposed business is a retail business, but of a different type. Pini quoted the Land Use Ordinance Article VIII, Section 127-35 B - A nonconforming use can be changed to another nonconforming use by Special Exception from the Board of Adjustment, provided they find the nonconforming use is more or equally in harmony with the character of the neighborhood and the applicable requirements of the zoning district than the existing use.
Beckwith clarified that the proposed store would be across from another store, Bottoms Up. Landy asked when they would propose to open and Mr. DePalma estimated 90 – 120 days. He added that lighting and signage changes haven’t been decided yet. Landy noted there is ample parking already.
Landy moved, Beckwith seconded and the Board voted to refer the Patel’s to the Board of Adjustment for a Special Exception under Article VII, Section 127-35 B. Silverman told Mr. DePalma that the Patels should return to the Planning Board for a Site Plan Review after meeting with the Board of Adjustment.
Minutes: The Board reviewed the minutes of the July 5, 2005 meeting. Haynes moved, Landy seconded and the Board approved the minutes as written.
Administrative: Silverman read an invitation to participate in the Fire Department’s Annual Fun Fair in August.
Silverman read three Notices of Decision from the Board of Adjustment.
Public hearing continued: Arnie Filipi proposes a nine lot subdivision of property located on the north side of NH Route 119W, east of Kemp Brook, Map 10, Lot 68, Rural District. Arnie Filipi, owner, and Dick Drew, surveyor, were present.
Mr. Drew distributed new plans for a cluster development subdivision for 8 residential lots of various sizes, all of which meet subdivision requirements for frontage, upland and slopes, and one 25.2 acre lot to be designated as common land. There was some discussion about disposition of the common land as conservation easement, deeded to Town, or as common land owned by a homeowners’ association. Pini wondered if the common land could be used for trials and Drew replied trails could be designed around the wetlands.
Gray asked whether the proposed road was a common driveway or road. Grasewicz said it would have to be proposed as a road with lots having frontage on it. Mr. Drew said it would be built according to Town specifications. Pini thought it would be safe to say the Town would not want another road, but asked if it could be a private road maintained by the homeowners. Grasewicz clarified that the Planning Board approves a subdivision plat that creates lots with frontage on a road, which must be part of an approved subdivision plat or a Class V or better road. A subdivision road may or may not become public, and would only be considered a public road when the Town accepted it as such. Until then, either the developer or the homeowners ‘own’ the road. Pini reiterated that the
Planning Board can approve a subdivision road but the Town does not have to accept the road as a town road. There was some discussion about homeowners associations and maintenance agreements.
Haynes said she would like to walk the property again with the cluster development design in mind and the Board agreed to do a site walk on Thursday morning, July 21, 2005 at 7:30 AM.
Grasewicz believes the concept is a good one but it needs engineering to clarify details. Pini, referring to the Master Plan goals, asked if they had considered putting utilities underground and Mr. Filipi said they could consider that. Landy suggested that it could be done more easily during road construction. Silverman asked about the radius of the road circle and Mr. Drew said the inside radius is 160 feet; it will easily handle the fire truck and accommodate wetlands, which will not be disturbed.
Silverman asked if the house sites could be moved farther away from each other, noting that subdivision regulations requiring contiguous uplands with slopes of 15% or less don’t require the house to be built there. Mr. Drew said he would discuss it with Mr. Filipi, and noted that none of the building sites will be visible from NH Route 119.
Silverman said any land to be conveyed to the Town must be unencumbered. Mr. Drew noted that the plans show the common land without the disputed Spicer property.
Discussion about the fire pond led to a request that the plan be reviewed by the Fire Department. Wendy Carney was present and said the fire pond location is secondary to the amount of water it can supply. Mr. Filipi and Mr. Drew have positioned it on the plan so it could be used by neighbors across the road, but that may require using longer hoses.
Pini asked about access to the common land for all homeowners and Mr. Drew said it could be designed so all the lots can access the common land. Pini also asked about sidewalks and it was generally agreed kids could ride their bicycles on the subdivision road. When asked about restrictive covenants, Mr. Filipi joked this would be country living and that people should be able to have clotheslines!
Silverman moved, Landy seconded and the Board voted to continue the public hearing until the next meeting, August 2, 2005 at 7:30 PM.
Public hearing continued: Subdivision Regulation amendments. Silverman read the proposed subdivision regulation amendment: “Amend Article VI, Section 221-22: Add the following sentence “Frontage provides functional access from the road to the building site without extreme modification of terrain or wetlands.”
He noted that the amendment was approved by the Board at the July 5, 2005 meeting but the Board wanted to give more people the opportunity to comment. He read a letter from Carl Hagstrom with comments and a memo from Tom Hanna with his opinion. Mr. Hanna’s memo was read into the minutes of the May 17, 2005 meeting when it was first submitted. Mr. Hagstrom’s letter is attached to these minutes.
Mr. Black, a resident, commented on procedure at the last meeting, noting the public was not asked for comment before the Board voted to adopt the amendment.
Pini moved, Beckwith seconded and the Board voted unanimously to reopen the process.
Beckwith stated that Mr. Hagstom’s point was well taken, that the amendment as proposed leaves a lot of room for interpretation and wondered why adopt it if it is so vague. Pini noted that people who contemplate using their land can look at our zoning now and have their plans drawn and be reasonably certain of what’s allowed; they may be uncertain how the Planning Board will interpret this regulation.
Beckwith continued that vague zoning regulations should not be adopted; they should be defined, quantified. Silverman responded that hers is the same argument used for having no zoning at all. He explained that he was talking about extreme modifications, not a culvert, which is not a problem, but, for instance, when the entire frontage is extensive wetlands or when extreme amounts of fill would be needed. Grasewicz remarked it would be better to say something about it rather than be silent. This regulation lets people know that there may be a problem that can be discussed at the preliminary consultation – it can prevent problems – every property is unique with many variables. Landy said the regulation will be defined on a case by case basis as necessary.
Mr. Black echoed Beckwith and Pini that definition is needed, however he thought the regulation might be a good idea to prevent some situations. He agreed maybe the Board needed discretionary control, but still would like to see the regulation more completely defined. He thought the amendment was extreme and encouraged the Board to use caution to stay out of court. Silverman said that was magnifying the power of the amendment. Landy explained the amendment is just about functional access – it asks the
question “do you have enough frontage and is there functional access, or are extreme measures needed to access my lot?”
Pini wondered if this regulation was a way of limiting development. Grasewicz referred to the wetlands ordinance and noted that disturbance of more than 2000 square feet of wetland was not permitted, and he thought that was too large a number. Beckwith wondered why the regulation didn’t just specify wetlands and Haynes responded that other kinds of extreme modification were included, like fill and steep slopes. Beckwith asked why details couldn’t be specified. Landy proposed a definition that said ‘including…, but not limited to.” Grasewicz said a definition would need to include all the variables – cuts, fill, retaining walls, long drives, extreme building sites, etc. Haynes suggested the definition comes when plans are presented.
Silverman interjected that the regulation would apply to new lots, not existing lots of record. He continued it was not the will of the town to create convoluted lots where frontage is unusable; the town wanted the Planning Board to regulate subdivisions. Ordinances need to be open to interpretation, adding that it is not about building, it is about new lots that we (the Planning Board) create in this room – when a regulation is too specific it becomes too restrictive.
Grasewicz clarified that in the proposed amendment, ‘extreme modification’ applies to both ‘terrain’ and ‘wetlands.’ It was agreed.
Hearing no further discussion, Silverman moved, Haynes seconded and the Board voted four to two to approve the amendment as written. Silverman asked if the Board wanted to work on a definition that could become part of Board policy or guidelines and the Board agreed.
Rules of Procedure: Silverman noted that the amended Rules of Procedure were read in their entirety at two consecutive meetings and could be voted on tonight. There being no discussion, Landy moved, Haynes seconded and the Board voted to adopt the Rules of Procedure as amended.
Silverman moved, Haynes seconded and the Board adjourned at 9:00 PM.
| 
