Town of Fitzwilliam, NH - Planning Board Minutes 01/03/06

Wetlands hearing: John Lawless plans to modify and relocate his mobile home, and build an addition, screen porch and deck within the wetlands protection overlay district, property located on Pine Road in Woodbrook, NH Route 12 South, Map 42, Lot 1-72, Rural District.

Mr. Lawless distributed photos of his property and explained how he proposed to reposition the mobile home and add a screen porch and deck. He did not have documentation of distances from the wetlands, but Mr. Hagstrom had looked at the site and his plans and had said he was ‘in good shape.’

The Board reviewed the plans and tried to determine whether or not the project would be in the wetlands overlay protection district. Mr. Lawless estimated the structure is about 100 feet from the pond edge. He wants to change the angle of the mobile home to one that gives a better view of the pond, adjusting it about 10 degrees, which will bring it more into conformity regarding setbacks. It is on blocks now, and he would like to pour a cement pad with footings, surrounded with an open lattice grill.

Pini wondered if the lot and structure were conforming. Grasewicz said the Woodbrook development was built long before town zoning and therefore the lots are grandfathered. He wondered if the exemption section, 127-16.1 D. 7.a., applied in this case and added that the intent of 127-16.1 D.7.e(2) was to insure that erosion controls were in place during construction. Pini noted the plans call for changing the footprint and adding on to the existing structure. Silverman asked if any state permits were needed and Mr. Lawless said not that he knew of.

Landy said he’d be more comfortable if the wetlands were delineated, but thinks the project does fit under 127-16.1 D.7.a. and e. Pini disagreed, saying she didn’t think it was exempt and thought it should go through the conditional use permitting process.

Haynes suggested the Conservation Commission do a site walk and make recommendations. Landy asked that the wetlands be delineated and a diagram of the current and proposed structures be provided, with dimensions and setbacks indicated.

Appointment with Dorothy Zug regarding Town Forum. Ms. Zug gave the Board an update on progress of the Forum Steering Committee planning the Vision to Action Forum planned for May 5 and 6, 2006 at the Emerson School. They have a committee of 12 or so people who meet once a month and have formed subcommittees to produce the Forum in conjunction with Jack Calhoun, program director at Antioch New England Institute, sponsor of the Forum. The subcommittees are inviting new members to join them and the Steering Committee continues to add to the list of stakeholders to build a representative and diverse list of people who are interested in participating in the Forum.

It is hoped that funding for the Forum will come from a town warrant article with the fundraising subcommittee reviewing additional options. A total of $6,000 is needed to reimburse expenses and pay the Antioch fee.

On another note, Ms. Zug offered to have reproductions of the Natural Resources and Conservation Lands map, developed by the Conservation Commission, made for the Land Use Department. The Board thanked her and the Conservation Commission. Ms. Zug said the map could be used as a reference tool and to answer questions.

Grasewicz, representing the parties, said that the new buyer of the Parker property is willing to make the lot line adjustment but is still waiting for his mortgage bank to release the property. He asked for a continuance to February 7, 2006 at 7:30 PM.

Public hearing continued: Raman Patel Site Plan Review application to open a retail convenience store in an existing building located at 646 NH Route 12 South, Map 8, Lot 13, Rural District.

JR Davis, attorney for Mr. Patel, and Paul Grasewicz, site plan engineer, presented the site plan. Mr. Davis said he had affidavits from Ms. Doyle and Mr. Helie regarding the apartment in the existing building, and the traffic report of the fatal accident that occurred near the site, but asked that Grasewicz present the technical aspects of the site plan first. Silverman reviewed the application and said it contained all the proper documentation. He moved, Landy seconded and the Board accepted the application as complete.

Grasewicz distributed copies of the site plan to the Board and displayed a copy to present the site plan to the audience. He noted the locus for the site and structures as they currently exist. The lot is approximately 4 acres and building is 4400 square feet. The client proposes no changes to the footprint, exterior, accessory structures, tree line, topography or drainage patterns. The driveway entrances are allowed by DOT but DOT asked them to submit plans for reevaluation, which they have done. The entrances may be changed if so required by DOT. The secondary access point, the more southerly, is shared with the abutting lot owner.

There was some discussion by abutters Mr. Dwinell and Mrs. Coburn about the actual distances and the right of way as drawn. Grasewicz pointed out the state right of way on the plan, indicating that a 25 foot jog, carved out by the state for the Gauthier residence when the road was built, has been subsumed in the 75 foot right of way as drawn on the plan.

He noted the location of the septic tank and leach field, indicating that following a rebuild of the leach field in 2002 when pine trees encroached on the field, the system has been supporting activities at this location for years. A new septic system has been designed in preparation for possible system failure in the future.

Grasewicz pointed out the number of parking spaces required by Fitzwilliam regulation (Article VI, Section 127-22 (C)) is twenty-two and distributed a diagram detailing the proposed parking area, including the area for proposed future space if needed, which utilize parking areas used by the current owner. No parking is planned in the state right of way for Route 12. The proposed future parking area does not need to be paved; it is gravel now and can remain so. Landy pointed out that in 1993, the Planning Board approved the use of the north side of the building as a parking area and hard pack was put in the space for that purpose. Mr. Davis indicated that his client did not propose to use that area for parking.

The plan shows Route 12 at the property locus as having two lanes northbound, one a travel lane, one a passing lane, and an average ten foot break down lane; and one lane southbound with an average ten foot breakdown lane. The line of sight at the primary access point at 3 ½ feet was more than 500 feet, meeting state requirements for vehicles traveling at 55mph or below. Grasewicz said Route 12 was specifically designed to accommodate high speed traffic. There was some discussion about realistic speeds on the highway and what required lines of sight are for various speeds. Mr. Davis entered a police report of the fatal traffic accident that occurred on September 4, 1996, which happened under near perfect road, weather and traffic conditions. The accident was apparently caused by a tractor trailer parked on the northbound side of the road with the rear wheels extending approximately three feet into the travel lane.

parking off road for these trucks and the entrances were wide enough to accommodate turns into the property from either access point. Mr. Dwinell disputed the number of deliveries and size of trucks, saying the store will have the same deliveries as his store. He added that there are considerably more than six cars parked in his lot on weekends.

Grasewicz distributed photos of the existing signage and noted the text on the sign will change but the sign itself won’t change. The client does plan to upgrade the sign lighting by adding a spotlight located on the ground to illuminate the sign and continuing to use some of the low watt lighting currently in use. Other existing lighting around entrances will remain.

Grasewicz estimated the closest building to be approximately 500 feet from the parking area and is screened by the line of pine trees. Mr. and Mrs. McLaughlin disputed that distance, thinking it was much shorter. Mr. McLaughlin also raised the issue of drainage. He says water from the Bloomin’ Antiques store site runs right across his property. Grasewicz said no changes to the current situation were proposed; no changes to the surface were planned. He indicated an existing catch basin and culvert on the plans.

Mr. McLaughlin said he thought there would be a different type of traffic frequenting the proposed convenience store than came to the antiques store, and that pollution from these cars would be worse. Mr. Niemala said that in his experience the traffic goes much faster than 55 mph, and that traffic would have to swing out into oncoming traffic to turn. He said he thought the lighting would increase too, and added that red water flows from the property across his property.

Mrs. McLaughlin agreed, saying lighting will affect their home and she feels there is a big safety issue in that the clientele of the proposed convenience store will be different that the antique store clientele. She feels her children may be at risk of abduction in this environment.

Mr. Dwinell submitted photos of parking during the Tuesday antiques and flea market events, indicating a Volvo parked on state property. Mr. Taylor pointed out that he had hired a police officer to do traffic control during these events and the driver of the Volvo ignored his direction.

Mr. Davis summarized the presentation, saying his client proposes no changes to the exterior, some modest changes to the interior, no changes to exits or entrances. He distributed affidavits from Therese Doyle and David Helie, former owners of the property. These documents are part of the minutes. Each attest to the fact that there was an apartment in use during the years they owned the property. Mr. Davis said these were sufficient evidence of continuity of use for zoning purposes, adding that while the Board of Selectmen knew of the apartment in 1991, they never took action on it, nor did they dispute the apartment during their deliberation of the Patel request for an administrative

Mr. Dwinell indicted a letter from Mr. Cynewski, a contractor who worked on the property when it was owned by Mrs. Doyle, indicating that to his knowledge there was no apartment on the premises. Mr. Dwinell said Mr. Taylor rents the apartment and a letter from Mrs. Helie indicated she and her husband used it as a private residence.

Mr. Davis questioned which documents were of greater veracity, the sworn affidavits or the letters. He said there was no difference, from a zoning standpoint, between whether the apartment was used by the owner or was rented. However used, it was a grandfathered use.

Mr. Niemala asked if the Planning Board was going to consider the effect on the neighborhood of the proposed changes. Silverman responded that the Board was trying to make this project as compatible with the neighborhood as possible, but the Board has criteria that guide its decision-making and the neighbors may have to go to a higher authority to seek redress if they are not satisfied.

Mrs. Coburn asked about hours of operation. The former Strawberry Acres operated from 10AM to 5 PM; Bloomin’ Antiques operates from 10AM to 6 PM seven days a week. Mr. Davis said his client plans to operate from 7AM to 11PM. He said his client would put up stockade fencing to shield the neighbors from car lights after dark if necessary. Silverman asked Mr. Dwinell what his hours were for his store Bottoms Up, across Route 12 from the proposed convenience store. He said he was open from 7AM to 7PM weekdays and until 9PM in the summer and on weekends.

Following a brief discussion of the value of what was being said and taxpayer money, several abutters wondered if the Board had made up its mind to let the convenience store open, indicating they didn’t think the Board was listening to them. Silverman responded that he was trying to let all the people speak who wanted to, allowing everyone to speak on every point. He and Haynes both added that the Board is accepting data now from everyone, is in fact-finding mode and no decisions have been reached because the Board hasn’t yet begun to deliberate on the information they have received.

Mrs. Coburn asked if the Board would limit the number of people who could live in the apartment and Silverman said it’s limited by the number of bedrooms. When Mr. Dwinell asked again about the apartment, Pini responded that the Board has sworn testimony that the apartment has been there and in use before and since zoning was enacted and the grandfathered status is maintained.

Silverman proposed the Board do a site walk to assess the traffic situation and lines of sight and see the interior if the owner agrees. Mr. Taylor agreed and the Board will walk the site on Friday, January 6, 2006 at 4PM.

They propose a three-lot subdivision, with lot 79-1 siting the existing store and dwelling, lot 79-2 is the lot Ms. Gilbert will build on, and lot 79-3 is a vacant lot. The existing highway access point will be used for all three lots, with individual driveways branching off to serve lots two and three. Lot three uses a right-of-way across lot two.

Ms. Gilbert lives in a mobile home now on the property which will be her house lot. The plat indicates that the existing dwelling will be removed. The Board conditioned approval on its removal as a condition of occupancy of the future dwelling.

Each lot is five or more acres, with 250 feet of frontage, and meets the slope and contiguous upland requirements of the subdivision regulations. Wetlands are indicated in the southwest corner of lot two and the back of lot three. A new well and septic system will be installed on the Gilbert lot and perc tests show a rate of two minutes per inch. The land is forested for the most part, and there are traces of some gravel mining done by the state during construction of Route 12.

Pini moved, Haynes seconded and the Board approved a three-lot subdivision of Map 4, Lot 79, on condition that the mobile home must be removed prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy for the new dwelling.

1. Amendment to Land Use Ordinance Article III, Section 127-8A, General Uses, allowing livestock to be kept for non-commercial purposes on parcels of one or more acres in Rural District.

The Board reviewed the amendment and decided to incorporate it in a new paragraph E. in Section 127-8, entitled Livestock Keeping. This category will also appear in the Table of Principal Uses as allowed in the Rural District and Special Exception in other districts.

3. Amendment to Land Use Ordinance Article III, Section 127- 16.2, Wireless Communication Facility Ordinance and Overlay District, clarifying the definition of “wireless communications facilities” by adding ‘licensed transmission or reception of radio or television signals’ to the definition.

5. Amendment to Land Use Ordinance Article IX, Section 127-42 E. Variances, Mandatory Findings to substitute new Mandatory Findings for Variances that differentiate between Use and Area Variances, as determined by case law.

New proposed amendments: The following will be considered at the January 17, 2006 meeting and will be posted for public hearing. A special meeting for a second public hearing will be scheduled for January 24^th if necessary.