Town of Fitzwilliam, NH - Planning Board Minutes 02/06/07

Amendment to Article II, Section 127-6 Interpretation of Boundaries. Amend by adding a new paragraph to redefine the Light Industrial District along lot lines per Town tax maps, in keeping with definition of General Industrial District.

The amendment proposes that the Light Industrial District be redefined in the following way: Using the Town Tax Maps and following lot lines, the northern border of the Light Industrial District begins at the Troy town line on Map 41, including Lot 2 on the west side of NH Route 12 and Lot 5 on Map 18 on the east side of NH Route 12. It includes each lot immediately adjacent to Route 12 in a southerly direction up to and including Map 15, Lot 29 on the west side of NH Route 12 and up to and including Map 15, Lot 36 on the east side of NH Route 12. Access for Light Industrial Use on lots in the Light Industrial District shall be from NH Route 12.

Silverman introduced the amendment and asked for discussion. Several abutters were present. Mr. Pastor, owner of Lot 38, Map 15, asked if his property would remain residential. Silverman said yes, as long as the residential use continues. Mr. Pastor expressed his strong feelings that he is being deprived of his residential rights, that he and other lot owners will be stripped of options if the Light Industrial District is expanded to follow lot lines. Silverman noted the residence can still be expanded and the owner could also petition the town to rezone his parcel to residential.

Mr. Pastor said he feels that if the LID is expanded further than the existing 500 feet from Route 12, the rural character of Gap Mountain Road will be compromised, noting that the Monadnock Products building on Route 12 can be seen from Gap Mountain Road, and he’d hate to see that for the rest of Gap Mountain Road. He said he was totally opposed to the amendment, and wondered who would benefit.

Silverman said that, for instance, Concord Industries is now in three zoning districts and decisions about expansion would be difficult in three districts. The LDI does not allow retail uses, it is very limited. He added he understood Mr. Pastor’s concerns, noting that the amendment limits light industrial use access from Route 12 only.

Mrs. Brown echoed Mr. Pastor’s feeling that the land is in jeopardy and wants it to stay the same as it is. They have no problem with the LDI being a 500 foot strip along Route 12.

Mr. Mattson agreed, noting that the only business affected is Concord Industries. Mr. Tommila disagreed. He said his business is not a light industrial use but his properties are in both the residential and LI districts. He said there is no reason a residence owner can’t maintain the parcel in residential use. Silverman noted that the Tommila business is a grandfathered, nonconforming business and this amendment will not change Mr. Tommila’s situation. Pini added that an expansion of a nonconforming business would need relief from the Board of Adjustment.

Tom Parker said he understood both sides of the issue. However, he is in favor of the rezoning to follow lot lines so all of a parcel is in one district. He suggested that Mr. Pastor has a different issue because his property fronts on two roads, Route 12 and Gap Mountain Road. He wondered if any thought had been given to excluding certain lots form the ordinance, or if the zone needed to be contiguous.

Mr. Tommila asked about the General Industrial District (GID). Silverman replied that at the time the GID was created the Board tried to reflect the kinds of businesses that already existed along the road. The district was redefined in 1989 to follow lot lines.

Mrs. Brown, an abutter, stated that she had been on her land since 1953 and represented ‘old Americans’ – their values are why immigrants came to this country - because there are individual rights to own and use property. She is in Fitzwilliam every month and loves it dearly. She will fight for Fitzwilliam. She lives part of the time in an urban area and knows how humans can ruin the land with more cars, more people, more infrastructure. Silverman noted he was a refugee from Detroit in 1973 and it is not his intent to over-develop Fitzwilliam.

Mac Landy noted that in any community it is better to create zones where businesses can locate rather than spot them all over town. If there is no district where business can locate and they are denied opportunity to locate anywhere, the town may be in a precarious legal position.

Pini said this amendment is not about any one particular lot or business. She noted that with the LID defined as a strip, a lot may be divided into two or more use districts. The Board then has a dilemma about which district regulations apply. This ordinance change would simplify and clarify that situation regarding the LID and surrounding use districts. Silverman added that the suggestion to clarify the district has been on the table for years.

He also noted that the town has lived with the LID as defined for twenty years. The Board was only trying to further protect the rural character of the town. [The LID has more strict dimensional requirements and larger lot sizes.] A site plan review would have to be conducted for any new light industrial use, further the Board’s ability to protect the land.

Mr. Pastor asked if Mr. Parker’s suggestion was feasible and Silverman said yes, however, that would be a substantial change to the proposed ordinance and would require additional public hearings. There isn’t time and it could not come before the town for a vote this year.

Silverman moved, Gray seconded and the Board approved a motion to remove from consideration the proposed amendment to redefine the light industrial district along lot lines. Pini noted that when the Board considers the Master Plan revision, they should consider zoning in this part of town.

added new(3)(i) Setback from boundary of development - Structures in the cluster development shall be sited to minimize the impact on abutting property; no structure within a cluster may come closer to the boundary of the development than 100 feet.

Added new (4) Streets. Streets serving the cluster development must be laid out and constructed to meet standards outlined in the Fitzwilliam Subdivision Regulations. (See Sections 221-25 and 221-26.

The Board decided to remove from consideration Article IV, Section 127-16, C. regarding open space and common land. Schott raised the issue of conservancy ownership and thought that none would be interested in owning, monitoring or maintaining common land in a subdivision. The Board agreed that the current ordinance language is sufficient to achieve intention of preserving open space and giving landowners responsibility for liability and taxes.

Pini moved, Gray seconded and the Board approved a motion to forward to the ballot the proposed amendment to the Cluster Development Overlay District with changes noted above.

Public hearing: PSNH Site Plan Review to construct a new electrical substation on property located on Route 12 N, Map 18, Lot 29, Light Industrial and Rural Districts.

Chuck Young and Ken Pyzocha represented Ambient Engineering in tonight’s presentation and Eric Frazer represented PSNH. Mr. Young presented the plans, noting that information was added and refinements were made since the December 5, 2006 preliminary consultation. However, it is the same project that was presented to the Board in December. The Board reviewed the Stormwater Management Report and the Plans.

Plans included a survey, a plat of existing conditions/topography, a site plan in various iterations, substation access plan, grading plan, erosion control plan, and construction details plans.

The Board questioned whether PSNH actually has frontage on Route 12. There is some question of who owns or holds the right of way for old Route 12, which is proposed as access to the substation via the driveway used by the VFW. Silverman asked PSNH to get clarification on the status of old Route 12 to establish frontage, saying they need to specifically resolve this issue. Mr. Frazer said PSNH has frontage on Gap Mountain Road, which at that point is a Class VI road. They are working with the state to resolve the Route 12 issue.

Pini noted that the parcel is in two zoning districts, since the light industrial district will not be realigned along lot lines this year, and a use variance will be necessary to use the property in the way they propose for the portion of the parcel in the rural district.

PSNH proposes to avoid construction in the wetlands, however, two pole structures are proposed to be built in the WPOD. At the proposed southernmost pole structure in the existing PSNH right-of-way, they estimate about 8,000 square feet of wetlands buffer will be disturbed temporarily during construction, of which 600 square feet (representing the structural foundation) will be permanently disturbed. At the proposed northernmost pole structure in the PSNH right-of-way, about 5,000 square feet of buffer area will be disturbed during construction, of which 600 square feet will be permanently disturbed. Neither the temporary nor the permanent disturbance will encroach on wetlands, and they propose an erosion control fence to limit the impact.

Preliminary consultation: Kathleen Ferrachamo to discuss providing child daycare at her home located at 97 Lower Troy Road, Map 15, Lot 9-1, Residential and Historic District.

Ms. Ferrachamo said she has been doing day care for ten years in MA and would like to continue here in NH. They purchased a duplex and plan to use one apartment for the daycare center. She is pursuing a day care license with the state. She plans to provide care for no more than six children, including her son.

There are stone fences on the property but she plans to extend fencing around the perimeter behind the stone walls for more security. She will not have employees, or a sign.

Mr. Young introduced the Stormwater Management plan saying their intention was to insure that peak runoff post-construction is no higher than peak runoff under current, pre-construction conditions. They have engineered a lower peak runoff post construction, using a detention pond, spillway and culvert, swales, grading and retention walls. Mr. Frazer said the detention pond is designed to slow runoff and collect any sediment. Silverman noted there is no silt fencing proposed around the pole structures. Mr. Young said they will remedy that oversight. Mr. Frazer said construction details for the pole structures come after details for the substation have been finalized, so alignment of poles will not have to be changed. He added that they have tried to site the station in several different locations to avoid wetlands and this is the best so far.

Mr. Young asked if the Board had questions and the Board suggested they would like to review on the plans and perhaps have an engineer review them, since they call for a certain level of expertise. Mr. Frazer will attempt to involve National Grid in the process, since they will have lines coming into the substation and may need permits as well. Mr. Young suggested that Ambient be involved in any discussions with an outside engineer.

Public hearing continued: William Gordon and John Heikkinen propose a two lot subdivision of property located on Templeton Turnpike, Map 3, Lot 02, Rural District.

Silverman moved, Landy seconded and the Board approved a motion to grant the waiver of the 65 day deadline requested by Mr. Heikkenen and Mr.Gordon. He noted that this vote nullifies the vote to deny the subdivision, based on time and lack of materials requested, taken at the last meeting.

Mr. Heikkenen said they have Carl Hagstrom working on delineating the wetlands and needed clarification on how much of the parcel should be delineated. Silverman asked for a sense of the Board, adding it was the frontage that was the most problematic - an issue discovered on the sitewalk, as the original plans did not note wetlands on any portion of the property.

Landy moved, Gray seconded and the Board voted to request a wetlands delineation of the whole parcel. Silverman moved, Pini seconded and the Board voted to continue this hearing to February 20, 2007 at 8:45 PM.

Public hearing continued: Steve Filipi proposes a seven lot subdivision of property located on Upper Troy Road, Map 15, Lot 6, Residential, Rural and Historic Districts.

Silverman reported that the hydrologist’s report had been received and a copy was given to Mr. Filipi. He said the Board and Mr. Filipi needed time to review the report and make plans to accommodate the recommendations. Silverman moved, Pini seconded and the Board voted to continue the hearing to February 20, 2007 at 8 PM.

Silverman noted that at the last public hearing on this amendment the Board had decided not to delete the entire section, but to add language restricting hammerhead lots as follows:

Any minor subdivision approved after November 1, 1989 may not be further subdivided using hammerhead lot. Any major subdivision approved after March 13, 2007 may not include a hammerhead lot. In all districts, the Planning Board, in its sole discretion, when exercising its subdivision regulation authority, may permit the creation of not more than one (1) hammerhead lot per subdivision.

Parker stated that he wanted to retain the option of creating hammerhead lots so some development can occur off the road frontage. He asked the purpose of the building square. Silverman said the building square insured that a dwelling unit constructed in the back would not have an impact on the dwelling in the front or on abutters.

Schott and Pini agreed this was a good compromise, giving lots of flexibility to the Board. Carl Hagstrom said he believed hammerhead lots offset sprawl, so there isn’t a house every 300 feet. Silverman noted that hammerhead lots increase density; a house every 300 feet of road frontage limits density and protects backland for habitat and animal passage.

Landy explained that in rewriting sections he had added definitions for clarification, clarified the intent of the ordinance, added a section on administrative procedures and clarified the role of the Historic District Commission within the Historic District.

Silverman read from the Local Government Center attorney stating that a sunset clause is not necessary in the ordinance if the findings of fact continue to support the need for growth management. Pini said that the GMO wouldn’t have to be reinstated if found necessary after it had expired once the sunset clause is removed.

Building Permits and the Report on Capital Improvements. Pini will review the report and make comments, prior to its being forwarded to the Selectmen. She noted that the CIP Committee, which she chairs, is trying to get a sense of how to anticipated growth may affect the town’s need for services so they can report that “based on our analysis of growth, this is what the town needs to provide…” She suggested looking into a cost of services analysis, and including a section in the master plan.