Members present: Terry Silverman, Chairman, Suzanne Gray, Robin Haynes, Mac Landy, Diane Schott, and Tom Parker, Selectmen’s representative.
Others present: Paul Grasewicz, alternate, Wendy Carney, representing the Fire Wards.
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
Public hearing continued: Lee Holombo site plan review application for a small office park located at 20 Jaffrey Road, Map 34, Lot 9, General Business District.
Mr. Holombo had not received state approvals and asked to continue this hearing to June 6, 2006 at 7 PM. The Board agreed to that continuance.
Appointment: Andrew Walters regarding site plan reviews.
Mr. Walters said he wanted to get information about the Board’s process for site plan reviews, specifically regarding subdivision approvals. He referred to the Spicer subdivision, which was approved on condition that each lot was to come before the Board for a site plan review.
Silverman noted that the Board was not within it’s authority to conduct a site plan review for single family residences. Because the subdivision was on very difficult terrain, and while meeting subdivision specifications, the Board felt it was necessary to review each lot plan before building commenced. However, it seems the Board probably overstepped its bounds. Grasewicz said their intention was to review driveway grading for safety.
Mr. Walters asked if the Board could stipulate as to buffers. Both Silverman and Landy said the Board could have done that for the whole subdivision but not for individual lots. Silverman said they should have addressed those issues at the beginning, rather than with individual lots.
Mr. Walters clarified that these issues should have been spelled out on the subdivision plan. He said the abutters were prepared to raise these issues but did not because the issues would come up during site plan reviews. He asked that the process be clarified so no future abutters would be frustrated in their attempt to make their voices heard.
While Mr. Spicer, the subdivision developer, asked abutters about their concerns and placed restrictions on individual deeds to address those concerns, he was not enforcing those restrictions. Parker noted that deed restrictions are not enforced by the town. The town enforces the Planning Board’s rules and regulations but in this case the Planning Board was not on sound legal ground.
Mr. Walters said he understood that things will be done differently the next time around, but asked what can be done now. Parker suggested making friends with his neighbors.
Landy asked if people who purchased lots in that subdivision were aware of deed restrictions. Mr. Walters said yes, but interpreting them was problematic.
Silverman noted the Board had an agreement with the lot owners, but if they violate that agreement the Board does not have solid legal ground to enforce the agreement. Mr. Walters asked about the appeal period, wondering if after 30 days no appeal of the Planning Board’s decision is made, doesn’t that mean the decision stands. Silverman said yes, but not if the decision was made illegally – hopefully a party will abide by an agreement, but it’s not enforceable. Mr. Walters clarified that because the restrictions were not addressed on the subdivision plan they can’t be enforced. Silverman agreed.
Mr. Walters asked if the Board can address grading during the subdivision process. Silverman said the Board was working on language for the subdivision regulations that will strengthen the Board’s ability to address issues of driveways, grading and buffers, etc. for the entire subdivision. The Board can’t do it for individual lots through a site plan review.
Mr. Walters asked if there were no circumstances under which the Board could make an owner come back to the Board. Grasewicz said wetlands issues would come to the Board. Schott asked if the minutes of those meetings reflected the owner’s agreement with the Board. Silverman said yes, but the remarks were made during the site plan review hearing, which was not appropriate in these circumstances and, therefore, neither was the notice of decision that resulted.
Schott asked if a subdivision is approved as presented, with conditions, is it enforceable. Silverman said once a lot is sold, the owner can do whatever he wants, within the zoning ordinances. The Selectmen enforce setbacks and such. He said in dealing with this subdivision, the Board was on new ground. It was a terrible subdivision but met all the subdivision requirements. Fitzwilliam has no good land left for subdivisions and so the bad land is being developed. Mr. Spicer agreed to conditions on the subdivision but has not enforced them.
Mr. Walters said he appreciated the Board’s trying to protect the land, but it seemed like everyone was cooperating and yet the agreement was broken with no recourse.
Administrative Work:
Filipi subdivision: Silverman and Haynes signed the mylar and three plats for the Filipi subdivision. The Letter of Credit for the performance bond has been finalized and the Selectmen will accept it on May 17, 2006. We have received the state subdivision approval, and all other issues have been addressed (covenants, tax assessment).
Minutes: The Board reviewed the minutes of the May 2, 2006 meeting. Haynes moved, Schott seconded and the Board approved the minutes as written.
Revocation of subdivision approval: The Fitzwilliam Conservation Corporation subdivision was approved in 1975, but no road work or site work was done on the property. Seven lots were created and five were sold. The remaining lots and subdivision land were sold at auction. Two remaining lots of record have been sold recently. Three of the original lots did not have frontage on a Class V or better road, but were part of an approved subdivision plan, which would have upgraded the road on which they do front, and are therefore excepted from this revocation. The remaining property has been put into a conservation easement. The Board was advised by legal counsel to rescind the subdivision to prevent any problems in the future.
Silverman moved, Haynes seconded and the Board voted to approve a motion to revoke the subdivision approval, including any proposed subdivision roads that were laid out on the plat, according to RSA 676:4-a.(c)(d), for the following reasons: 1) the applicant or successor in interest has failed to perform any condition of the approval, 2) the time limit for any vesting of rights has elapsed, and 3) the plan no longer conforms to applicable ordinances or regulations.
Prior to recording this revocation, notice will be mailed to affected parties, including reasons for the decision, and a hearing will be held if requested.
The 55 Housing Partnership LLC is another subdivision, approved in 2004, on which no work has begun. The applicant will be contacted to determine their plans, prior to proceeding with revocation.
Fire Wards: Wendy Carney, representative, noted that one driveway on a lot in the Spicer subdivision is very steep and narrow. It will be difficult to get emergency vehicles to the house. Silverman noted that the Board had input from the police department and road agent. The road agent oversees driveway compliance, while the Planning Board oversees common driveways.
The Fire Wards would like to meet with the Planning Board.
Forum idea: Schott told the Board that during the Forum some had expressed a need for a ‘roadmap’ of steps in the application process for subdivisions and site plans.
Preliminary consultation: Charles Kiritsy to discuss moving Stateline Grocery building and installing gasoline pumps on property located at 1117 Route 12 S, Map 4, Lot 79, Rural District.
Mr. Kiritsy presented a sketch of his property, the Stateline Grocery. He has 6 acres with 250 feet of frontage. He would like to remove the existing building, containing the store and his residence, and build two new buildings, one for the store and one for a residence. He wants to install gasoline pumps. At one time there were gas pumps on the site.
Silverman noted that under Land Use Ordinance 127-11 S a gas station is not an allowed use in the Rural District, and neither is the grocery store. The existing grocery store is a continuing non-conforming use however. Grasewicz asked if adding gas pumps might be an expansion of use and both Landy and Silverman said no, adding gas pumps was a new use, requiring a new application. Haynes said Mr. Kiritsy would need to appeal to the ZBA for a use variance to install the pumps.
Separating the store and residence would create two principal uses on the land, which is prohibited by Land Use Ordinance 127-7 C, and a use variance would be needed. The existing combined business and dwelling is a continuing nonconforming use and is permitted. LUO 127-36 B applies to any reconstruction of the nonconforming structure, but it must meet current dimensional requirements. If the business is extended in area a special exception would be needed. Wetlands issues may require another type of permit.
Silverman moved, Landy seconded and the Board approved a motion to go into nonpublic session at 8:10 PM, under RSA 91-A:3(e) to discuss pending litigation on the radio tower case and convenience store case. Silverman asked that the minutes be sealed. The vote: Silverman – aye, Haynes – aye, Landy – aye, Schott – aye, Parker – aye, Gray – aye.
Silverman moved, Landy seconded and the Board approved a motion to come out of nonpublic session at 8:20 PM. The vote: Silverman – aye, Haynes – aye, Landy – aye, Schott – aye, Parker – aye, Gray – aye.
Following the nonpublic session, Haynes reported on two meetings she attended. The town of Dublin approved an increase in minimum lot size in the rural district (from 2acres to 4acres) and mountain districts (from 2 acres to 8 acres). The Home Depot project was rejected by the town of Rindge, based in part on an excellent traffic study, which supported the town’s position.
Meeting was adjourned at 8:30pm
| 
