Town of Fitzwilliam, NH - Planning Board Minutes 10/04/05

Silverman read a letter from the Selectmen to the Bessette’s informing them of violations of the conditions of their site plan review approval. The letter is a part of these minutes.

Mr. Poland, contractor for the Bessettes, noted that only two of the three trees included in the Notice of Decision had been cut. The third, a tree described as diseased, will be cut soon. Mr. and Mrs. Bessette showed photos of the property before and after cutting.

Mr. Bessette said a larger portion of the stone wall had been removed to make room to move in equipment and the modular home, which is 14 feet wide and 68 feet long. He plans to rebuild the stone wall, and will use stone from another stone wall on the property if stones have been stolen from the original. Haynes explained the reason the Board put a condition on the stone wall was for historical reasons, and once removed the history is lost, even if rebuilt.

Mr. Bessette said they had no choice but to remove more of the wall than intended because the modular home they chose was too large to fit in any other place along the frontage, and there was no other place for the large equipment to go in either.

Mr. Bessette asked that he be allowed to move the driveway from the original site for safety reasons. He explained there is an 8 foot wide opening in the stone wall farther down on the property that was used in the past for tractor access. He would like to use this as a site for the driveway, and make the driveway straighter. He had a letter from Police Chief Bruce Newton supporting the proposed driveway change. The letter is a part of these minutes. The Board examined the plat with the original location marked and noted the proposed new location. Mr. Yon, Conservation Commission, noted the new proposed driveway is 8o feet from wetlands.

Several abutters examined the plat as well, including Mr. and Mrs. Walters, and Mr. and Mrs. Boucher. Mr. Walters asked if he could give the Board a sense of the abutters’ perspective. Mr. Walters explained that Mr. Spicer had met with abutters prior to the subdivision and agreed to include protective covenants in the deeds to preserve the historic and rural character of the neighborhood. He said that the abutters approached this problem with that in mind. Referring to the covenants, which was registered at the Cheshire County Registry of Deeds, citing item 2 in particular, he read: “Additionally, the mature maple trees and the stonewall along the property frontage on the Old Richmond Road shall not be disturbed.” (Emphasis added by Mr. Walters.)

Mr. Walters showed photos of the trees, emphasizing that the tree yet to be cut may be saved. Mrs. Boucher, an abutter, had a letter from Marshall Patness, a forester, saying that 100 – 200 year old trees are a part of history and, even if ill, all effort should be made to save them.

Mr. Walters showed photos of the stone wall noting how much of it had been disturbed. Also, photos showed that excavation had removed a lot of vegetation and trees. He referred again to the covenants noting only “minor trimming’ was allowed.

Silverman reminded Mr. Bessette that he had agreed to remove only four feet of stone wall and it was incumbent on him to have a structure and a way to get it on property that met the site plan approval, adding that the town must be notified prior to making changes to the site plan. Silverman recommended that prior to an occupancy permit being issued the stone wall be restored and the restoration approved by the Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Bessette said that any stone wall removed would be replaced and Silverman, agreeing with Haynes, noted that the idea was not to build new stone walls but to retain the original stone walls. He said it was not the same stone wall once it had been removed and rebuilt.

Haynes noted the third tree is not near the house but is a part of the history of the area. Silverman recommended that no more trees should be cut, including the third tree, which is on the road side of the stone wall and in the town’s purview. The tree is in the right of way for the town road and since it is controversial let the town take care of it.

Silverman said the driveway, as originally sited, is directly across from an abutter’s driveway, which has not been a problem in the past. Noting it was safe when the Board approved the site plan and there has been no change in the road since, he recommended the driveway remain where it was originally sited. He thought the new proposed site for the driveway was itself problematic. Haynes noted the Road Agent was on the site walk, as was the Police Chief and both agreed the original location was safe.

Gene Cuomo, Road Agent, said the driveway was so sited to take advantage of an existing opening in the stone wall and if the police chief had differing input it could have been given at the site walk.

Mrs. Bessette asked, regarding the tree that she described as ‘so bad,’ if someone gets hurt on their property, will the town be responsible. Silverman said no, the tree wasn’t on their property, it is in the right of way and is the purview of the town. Mrs. Bessette asked if, for example, children were visiting and playing in their yard and were injured by the tree coming down, would the town be responsible. Silverman recommended keeping them away from the tree, adding that for the time being that tree will remain. Mrs. Bessette asked about the stumps that are twenty feet in the air and dead. Silverman responded that the town will handle that situation the same way the way it handles all other roads and vegetation in town

Mr. Walters added that other trees’ roots have been exposed by excavations and stumping and tree branches have been damaged. Silverman asked if the Bessettes minded covering the roots and trimming the damaged branches to save those trees. Mr. Bessette agreed.

Silverman moved and Landy seconded a motion to impose the following three conditions on the Bessettes: 1) prior to issuance of an occupancy permit the stone wall will be rebuilt and inspected by the Code Enforcement Officer; 2) no more trees will be cut, including the third maple tree as yet uncut; 3) the driveway will remain where it was originally sited.

Gray wondered why the Board had not seen the covenants when deliberating the various site plans for buildings in the subdivision. Silverman and Grasewicz both agreed it was not in the Board’s purview to be concerned with that. Pini suggested it was useful information though, and suggested it be added to the subdivision checklist. The Board agreed.

Wetlands Hearing/public hearing continued: Amy Calandra with a major site plan review application to expand her business, Fitzwilliam Self Storage, located on NH Route 12 South, Map 12, Lot 7-2, General Industrial District.

Ms. Calandra previously submitted a letter to the Board with an update on actions taken regarding issues raised at the last meeting. That letter is part of these minutes.

Grasewicz presented a new plat that reflects changes in response to concerns raised by the Board. The road accessing the storage units has been pulled in by 3 feet increasing the buffer zone around wetlands. He added several notes to the plan regarding silt fencing, drains and gutters. He reported that total project area is 7 acres, total wetland is 32% of the project area and total altered area will be 32% of the project area.

Landy asked who will maintain the silt fencing and Ms. Calandra said she would take full responsibility for it. Grasewicz noted the fencing should stay in place until the area is stabilized by vegetation, but some should stay in place indefinitely. It will need to be maintained and replaced periodically. He said construction will be phased in and silt fences would go up as construction dictated.

Haynes asked that local hay for hay bales be used to prevent introduction of non-native plants. Mr. Sisson suggested using an environmentally friendly wood preservative on the silt fence stakes.

Silverman asked Mr. Sisson to summarize his report. His report is part of these minutes. Mr. Sisson explained he used the Army Corps of Engineers checklist to evaluate the wetlands. Seven distinct wetlands were identified, ranging from small damp areas to a larger, boggy area. Two of the largest areas did have wildlife and flood control value, and all were of value in controlling erosion and sediment. The report notes, “The only impact to any of these wetlands will be sediment leaving the disturbed area and entering the wetlands. Since the principle value of all seven wetlands is ‘erosion and sediment control,’ they should be able to function if some sediment enters the wetlands.”

Pini clarified that if the project is correctly prepared with silt fence the impact will be minimal and Mr. Sisson agreed. She asked if he also recommended trenches within the buildings. He said he didn’t know how the trenches worked, but if there was a spill the organic matter in the wetlands would absorb it and keep it from ground water. He suggested using sensors in the catch basins to alert owners to a possible spill. Ms. Calandra noted she has taken over the storage unit in the first building where the drain is located for the trenches and it is covered with a porous cloth so they can monitor possible spills. She reiterated that the rental agreement specifies that no liquids of any kind can be stored and added that only one spill has been detected in all 2000 or more self storage units in the surrounding area.

Silverman read criteria for a conditional use permit in the wetlands protection Overlay District (Article IV, Section 127-16.1 D(4)) and the Board discussed them and then voted. Conditional use approval may be granted by the Planning Board after a public hearing, providing that the proposed activity complies with all the following:

Discussion: Gray said that the project is an extension of an already approved business but the extent of the disturbance is larger. She was concerned that the erosion control measures need to be monitored and maintained for a long period of time. Silverman thought the project was more invasive than it needed to be, and suggested eliminating outbuildings to contain the buildings in a smaller area, adding that it is too much to expect all the erosion control measures to work.

Grasewicz explained they weren’t proposing any wetlands alteration at all. He suggested that this project should never have come for a wetlands hearing as alteration is happening only in the buffer zone. He said the conditional use ordinance was intended for real wetlands impact not buffer zone impact.

Haynes expressed concern that the town has a Conservation Commission and the Board has asked for their opinion and yet the Board doesn’t go along with their recommendations. She wondered where the Conservation Commission got their opinion. Carmen Yon responded that there is a difference of opinion on the ordinance applicability, but it seems the 75 foot buffer is to protect wetlands. He said he respects the scientist’s evaluation noting the Conservation Commission does not have that expertise. Haynes agreed with Silverman that one building has less of an impact than several.

Pini noted that she had suggested professional evaluation because the Board needed someone to put general concern to rest. The Sisson report does that, and she doesn’t see how the Board can turn the project down given the report.

Landy continued to be concerned that the silt fence will need to be monitored and maintained for a long period of time. He wondered how that could be accomplished and evaluated. Gray said Ms. Calandra seems very diligent but a new owner may not be. Ms. Calandra said she would consider conditioning the deed. Pini said she would like to see notes on the plan about vegetation. Grasewicz asked Mr. Sisson if loaming and seeding the slopes with winter rye would help and he agreed.

Pini moved, Landy seconded a motion stating the design and construction of the proposed use will, to the extent possible, be consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance.

The Board specified several conditions, including spill containment for all buildings; loaming and seeding all slopes; silt fencing maintained in perpetuity; inspection by the code enforcement officer at each phase of construction, using parameters set forth; and use of indigenous seed hay bales but no fertilizer.

Mr. Sisson said that seemed reasonable. He suggested reevaluation after a year to see if there were any concentrations of runoff and if any seeded areas needed to be reseeded.

Haynes asked if the whole area would be silt fenced at once and Grasewicz responded that any area where earth was disturbed would require silt fencing. He said the trees may all be removed at one time, but stumping would occur with phased construction, when silt fence was installed. Carmen Yon noted that more than an acre would be disturbed in total and a permit from EPA would be required. Grasewicz will add that note to the plans.

Silverman moved, Haynes seconded and the Board voted to grant a conditional use permit. Silverman told Ms. Calandra she needed to come back to the Planning Board for the final Site Plan Review with the notes on the plan. The public hearing is continued to October 18, 2005 at 8:30 PM.

Public Hearing: Sanford and Louise May with a subdivision application to create one new residential lot on property located at 35 Brigham Hill Road S, Map 21, Lot 39, Rural District.

Mr. Drew said he had spoken with the Road Agent and was informed that the Class V road ended short of where he thought it did and an appropriate adjustment will be made to the plan so there will be a 50 foot frontage on the Class V road. The remaining frontage is on a Class VI road.

Gray asked if there were wetlands and Mr. Drew said Mr. Hagstrom had walked the land and there were no wetlands. Grasewicz clarified there are no significant slopes and Mr. Drew will so note on the plan. He will also add a note regarding the building square required for a hammerhead lot.

Paul Grasewicz and Mr. Tommila presented a drawing showing a 2.75 acre lot to be subdivided from a 75 acre parcel. The 75 acres are in current use at this time. Mr. Tommila described the land as flat and dry with scrabble soil and no wetlands. Rhododendron Road is paved as it passes in front of the proposed lot.

Preliminary consultation: Mary Ellen Theberge to discuss home business on property she is considering buying, located at 147 West Lake Road, Map 11, Lot 01, Rural District.

Ms. Theberge said she wanted to sell vintage furniture, hats and jewelry and is considering buying this property if she can use the property in that way. The previous owner had a retail antique shop that hasn’t been in operation for some time. This will be her primary residence and the shop would be in the same location as the previous shop. The Board agreed this is probably a home occupation and a permitted use that doesn’t require a site plan review, since there won’t be any other employees.