Members present: Terry Silverman, Chairman, Suzanne Gray, Robin Haynes, Mac Landy, Carlotta Pini, Diane Schott, and Tom Parker, Selectmen’s representative.
Others present: Paul Grasewicz, alternate
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Preliminary consultation: Tom Decatur to discuss possible 4-lot subdivision on 77 acres on East Lake Road, Map 11, Lot 29, Rural District.
Silverman recused himself as an abutter to the property. Pini chaired this session.
Grasewicz presented the preliminary plans for the proposed 4-lot subdivision. One 12 acre lot has an existing dwelling on it. Two of the lots are larger than 120,000 sq.ft. and the other is 55 acres, with many wetlands. They propose to designate the large lot as non-buildable, or divide it further into one more buildable lot, not to be further subdivided, with the remaining acreage as a non-buildable lot, which could be used for forestry activities. The lot was once accessed for lumbering from the railroad bed.
Pini clarified that there would only be a net increase of three dwelling units.
Schott asked about putting the unbuildable lot into a conservation easement to better protect it from development.
Preliminary consultation: Steve Filipi to discuss subdivision of property located on Upper Troy Road, Map 15, Lot 6.
Mr. Filipi presented sketch of the property, proposing a 7-lot subdivision. His surveyor believes there could be 12-15 lots. Two of the proposed lots on the south end of the property have town wells on them, but these are old dug wells that are no longer in service. All the property was logged in the past, but a large stand of white pine was left to buffer the road, and he does not propose to cut that.
The property appears to be dry, except for a few spots. Shared driveways were suggested to keep curb cuts to a minimum. All lots will be accessed from Upper Troy Road and he estimates that a minimum of 3 new curb cuts will be necessary. He has no plans to create a buildable lot on the pinnacle.
Pini asked about town policy regarding shared driveways, referring to maintenance issues that may involve the town in the future. She said lenders now require a maintenance agreement between neighbors. Schott favors shared driveways because the alternative is two driveways side by side. Mr. Filipi said that maintenance agreements would be recorded for new lots with shared driveways.
Silverman said he felt this subdivision would change the rural character of the neighborhood. He would like to see larger lots, in keeping with the spirit of the area. A 3 or 4 lot subdivision is a better idea in terms of how the town seems to be developing, by tending to limit the expansion of the village district. Gray noted that this area is in the historic district.
Pini asked if the homes would be seen from the road and Mr. Filipi said they would be as far back as possible, but wetlands on one may push it toward the street.
Grasewicz suggested the front lots may have to be larger in order to get state approval for septic systems. These lots are in the residential district and are proposed to be one acre, which would involve the state in septic approval, and soils may not meet specifications.
Mr. Filipi said they are exploring the possibility of a common water system with the town water commissioners, but uranium is a contaminant in the area.
There is some question about application of district lines. Several lots could cross the boundary line between districts and clarification is need about which setbacks apply.
Minutes: The Board reviewed minutes of the July 18, 2006 meeting. Haynes moved, Pini seconded and the Board approved the minutes as written.
Public hearing continued: Connie Austin four-lot subdivision of a 36 acre property located on Collins Pond Road and Webber Lane, Map 11, Lot 30, Rural District.
The Board conducted a site walk on July 24, 2006 and Landy reported his recommendation that the driveways for lots 2 and 3 become a shared driveway. They noted that the line of sight for lots 2 and 3 are obscured by a massive granite outcropping that will need to be leveled some.
Gray asked about the lot 4 driveway which is in a steeper area of the subdivision. Grasewicz presented a topo of that section indicating grading plans for the driveway to meet specifications. He presented a waiver request of Subdivision Regulation 221-24A to have less than 40,000 square feet of contiguous areas with slope of less than 15% on this lot. He said he would be able to put together this square footage by taking some land from other lots but it would produce a tortured lot plan. He believes there are only two suitable building sites on lot 4; one on top of the hill with a view of Collins Pond and another at the bottom of the lot. The lot is located in the residential district and needs only 40,000 square feet to meet requirements; the lot, as proposed, has more than 5 acres and could
be made larger, creating an oddly shaped lot.
The property owner wants access to Collins Pond and the lot with the existing dwelling is an oddly shaped one to accommodate that request.
Landy moved, Pini seconded and the Board approved a waiver of the requirement of 40,000 sq.ft. contiguous area with slope less than 15%.
Pini asked about the old quarry on lot 3, as a piece of the town’s heritage. Grasewicz assured her that no one will alter it; it is not a deep hole and is stepped. Gray noted it would cost a lot to alter the quarry.
Grasewicz pointed out the note on the plan regarding the comprehensive shoreline protection act (CSPA) boundaries in this subdivision. Various activities are prohibited within 250 feet of shoreline. Pini asked if the home on lot 4 would be seen from the water and Grasewicz said yes, however, too few trees can be cut to impact the panorama, per the CSPA.
Pini moved, Landy seconded and the Board approved the four-lot subdivision of a 36 acre property located on Collins Pond Road and Webber Lane, Map 11, Lot 30, with the revisions as noted on the plan and waiver.
Public hearing continued: Richard Rettig proposes a three-lot subdivision of property located on East Lake Road and Howeville Road, Map 21, Lot 36, Rural District.
Grasewicz presented the plan and noted a condition added to the plan in the approval box regarding the possible need to relocate the cabin or obtain a variance prior to any expansion of the existing cabin.
Silverman read information from Paul Sanderson, legal counsel at the Local Government Center, regarding the non-conforming hammerhead lot.
“Mr. Sanderson says
1. Take the message from the Seacoast - Get rid of hammerhead legislation, it will become the bane of your existence.
2. The situation as described doesn’t meet the current hammerhead ordinance and is really a traditional dimensional variance situation that should go to the ZBA (Boccia). ZBA can condition approval on the lot not being further subdivided in the future, if that’s a concern.
3. In the end, the developer wants three lots that can accommodate three units. What is best way to get there? Two lots are not problematic, but third one is.
4. The PB could approve the lots as configured, creating the nonconforming hammerhead lot with a nonconforming structure on it. From enforcement perspective, post subdivision, the cabin becomes a pre-existing nonconforming structure (on a non-traditional hammerhead lot) that meets current use (residential use in rural district, > 3 acres, meets setbacks currently, could probably meet water and septic requirements). Would Selectmen issue a building permit for expansion of cabin? Would need ZBA variances for expansion? Ask them to move the cabin to the building square to become more conforming?
5. Creating a hammerhead lot that not only doesn’t look like a hammerhead, and has a nonconforming structure on it raises red flags.
6. Subdivision can be approved conditioned on getting dimensional variance for third lot, and it will become a regular lot, not a hammerhead, and the cabin can stay or go, be expanded or moved. He suggested a joint meeting with ZBA…
7. Suggested bringing building square concepts in land use ordinance and in sub regs into alignment.”
Schott asked if the cabin was removed would the lot be conforming. Silverman said no, the lot still doesn’t conform to town regulations. He added that he has problems with this lot for other reasons; the lot is steep, the area is congested and dense; driveway runoff ends up in the lake.
Grasewicz noted the lot meets town requirements, with ‘at least’ 50 feet of frontage. Schott asked who located the building square on the lot. The developer does, the regulation merely states that a ‘building location square’ must be located in the hammerhead lot. Silverman said the Planning Board may permit a hammerhead, but is not required to do so. Grasewicz noted that the uniqueness of this situation is that there is an existing building on the hammerhead, and so it makes more sense to ask for a variance to move the building square than to ask for a dimensional variance to change the status of the lot from a hammerhead. He feels it makes more sense for the land to use it this way rather than create a 4 or 5 lot cluster development on this property.
Mr. Dwinell, abutter, asked about the amount of frontage on East Lake Road. It is 225 feet. He asked if the cabin could be expanded. It can, as a preexisting structure, be expanded if it meets setback, well, and septic requirements.
Pini suggested thinking about the issue as if the cabin did not exist. The regulation says ‘any building erected on the lot shall be located within the building location square.’ But currently there is a nonconforming structure on site, no new building is proposed to be built. To expand a nonconforming structure, one must go to the ZBA. She said she’s OK with this plan – it is a subdivision with a hammerhead lot that technically meets subdivision requirements. It is just not a traditional hammerhead lot.
Mrs. May, abutter, asked why a hammerhead lot was proposed. Silverman said the lot does not have enough frontage to be a conventional lot; it has extra acreage in the back. He added that the Planning Board does not have authority to do a site plan review for this lot, but would like to add to the notice of decision that the Planning Board encourages the use of best practices in constructing the driveway to minimize runoff drainage of water across East Lake Road, in consideration of wells in the area and the lake.
There was some discussion about possible scenarios for future development, and Pini pointed out that the plan calls this a hammerhead lot and the building location square is located on the plan.
Silverman moved, Pini seconded and the Board approved the subdivision with all the conditions noted on the plan. Landy opposed.
Schott suggested the ordinance be changed to specifically state the purpose of a hammerhead lot is to develop back land.
Public hearing: Revocation of subdivision approval for Fitzwilliam Conservation Corporation subdivision, effecting property now known as Map 15, Lots 3, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, located off Rhododendron and Richmond Roads in the Rural District.
Silverman made the following motion, seconded by Pini:
I move to revoke a portion of the subdivision approval, pursuant to RSA 676:4-a. (c) and (d), for the subdivision of Fitzwilliam Conservation Corporation approved by the Planning Board on November 3, 1975, recorded at the Cheshire County Registry of Deeds in Plan Book 34, Page 75.
The partial revocation of the subdivision approval is detailed as follows:
1. Subdivision lots.
a.) Approval of Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 as shown and numbered on the subdivision plat is revoked, with the intended effect that those lots cannot be sold as separate lots pursuant to the subdivision plat.
A voluntary merger of lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 as shown and numbered on the subdivision plat was approved on August 14, 2001, creating one parcel now known as Map 15, Lot 3. The revocation of subdivision approval of each of these individual lots is NOT intended to affect the status of Map 15, Lot 3 as a single legal lot of record. The voluntary mergers are recorded at the Cheshire County Registry of Deeds in Book 1832, Page 0511.
It should be noted that on August 25, 2001, a conservation easement was granted, in perpetuity, to The Monadnock Conservancy for the property, Map 15, Lot 3. The easement was recorded in the Cheshire County Registry of Deeds. See Volume 1830, Page 258, and Cabinet 12, Drawer 6, Number 163, and Book 1707, Page 751.
b.) Lots B, C, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 as shown and numbered on the subdivision plat, are now known as Map 15, Lot 3-1, Lot 3-2, Lot 3-3, Lot 3-4, Lot 3-5, Lot 3-6, Lot 3-7. These lots are NOT affected by this partial revocation of subdivision approval.
2. Subdivision Roads
a.) This motion is intended to revoke any approval or legal status conferred by the subdivision approval on the following roads within the subdivision: that portion of road proposed on the subdivision plat, which would have serviced subdivision lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, that runs from the Northeast corner of Lot 3-05 to the proposed subdivision cul-de-sac is revoked by this action.
b.) This motion is NOT intended to revoke any approval or legal status conferred by the subdivision approval on the following roads within the subdivision:
1.) An existing roadway that runs from the Southeast corner of Lot 3-05 to the Northeast corner of Lot 3-05.
2.) The Class VI road on which Lots 3-4 and 3-5 have frontage and the discontinued road on which Lots 3-6 and 3-7 have frontage.
This motion is not intended to create or confer additional rights relative to these roads; this motion only confirms that the partial revocation of subdivision approval is not intended to apply to those roads.
Mr. Stark, abutter and owner of two of the former subdivision lots, asked for clarification. A map of the subdivision with areas under discussion colored for identification was presented.
Parker noted that in 1975 the Selectmen approved the subdivision lots that had frontage on the Class VI road so those lots could be sold, to finance the rest of the development, stating that the road must be brought up to Class V standards. The corporation was not able to finance that operation, the roads were never improved and the corporation went out of business. However, this subdivision would remain on record until the approval is rescinded and this partial revocation will hopefully remove any future legal issues.
Silverman asked for a vote on the motion and it carried.
Other Business: Nancy Carney, Deputy Fire Chief, asked for a meeting with the Board. The Fire Department would like to discuss driveway access and safety. The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, September 5, 2006 at 7:00 PM.
Parker reported that the Selectmen will take a formal vote tomorrow, August 2, 2006, regarding moving forward with the purchase of the Hancock property. They have indicated their interest in the property and will be petitioning the court to hold a special town meeting to see if the residents will vote to finance the purchase. A purchase price has been agreed.
Parker would like to discuss the hammerhead issue further. Grasewicz suggested making a minimum acreage for hammerheads, like 10 acres. Pini noted that town zoning calls for lot minimum acreages to be less than ten acres in any district. Schott said that hammerhead lots don’t change the number of curb cuts needed to develop back land. Pini suggested the issue comes back to the master plan and where exactly the town wants development to occur. Silverman said that Fitzwilliam doesn’t have the centralized services that smart growth requires. There is no sewer system and only a limited water system in the village.
The discussion about development and centralized services continued for awhile and will continue to be on the agenda for the town.
Silverman moved, Haynes seconded and the Board voted to adjourn at 9:20 PM.
| 
