Town of Fitzwilliam, NH - Planning Board Minutes 03/20/07

Mr. Van Blarcom plans to subdivide his 12.86 acre property into two lots; one with 6.589 acres and 287.9' frontage, and the other with 6.246 acres and 275.81' frontage. Lots qualify for reduced frontage under Land Use Article V, Section 127-19(C)(1). Wetlands were delineated, test pits were dug and house sites were proposed approximately 300' from the road. The lot has been timbered, with a buffer left on the boundaries. Lots were designed to incorporate existing stone walls as external boundary lines, and on one lot, the stone wall was left inside the internal boundary between the two lots to preclude a boundary dispute or ownership of stone wall.

Chris Silverman, an abutter, noted that she was not opposed to the subdivision, but wondered about drainage. Her property was flooded in 2005 and she is afraid the subdivided property, without trees and with buildings may drain onto her property. Mr. Van Blarcom assured her his lots slope away from the road and her property, saying any drainage would be only from the front of his lots. She indicated there were wetlands behind her home.

Haynes moved, Gray seconded and the Board voted to approve the subdivision of Map 6, Lot 31-1 into two lots (Map 6, Lot 31-5 and Lot 31-6) as presented, with the wooded buffer to be preserved.

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 Eric Frazer were present. Mr. Young noted that he and Mr. Frazer met with the Conservation Commission on February 28, 2007 and introduced the plan to them. The Conservation Commission reports that perhaps two of the pole foundations will be in the WPOD, affecting the wetlands minimally. They referred the case to the Planning Board.

An application for a driveway permit was submitted to NHDOT Region 4 and they requested a design for collecting drainage at the point the proposed PSNH access drive connects to Route 12 and the existing VFW driveway. The state gave PSNH permission to work in the state right-of-way as necessary. Drainage will be collected through the existing culvert to an existing swale, which will be improved if necessary.

NHDOT also requested a letter from the VFW authorizing PSNH to connect to the VFW driveway as access from Route 12 for the substation. VFW has maintained the entrance to their driveway even though it is in the state ROW; PSNH will have a ‘gentlemen’s agreement about the maintenance of the access point.

Mr. Young reported that an Alteration of Terrain application was submitted to NHDES, and that the paperwork for the use variance has been submitted to the ZBA. The PSNH appeal will be heard at the March 27, 2007 meeting of the ZBA.

Silverman asked if the frontage issue was resolved. Pini asked if the status of old Route 12 was established. Apparently PSNH touches Route 12 at one point but otherwise PSNH does not have any frontage on Route 12. The frontage is on Gap Mountain Road. Mr. Frazer noted that PSNH does not want to enter the property from Gap Mt, Road. Gap Mt. Road cannot support the weight of the equipment necessary to complete the project.

Pini noted that the frontage on Gap Mountain Road could be used to satisfy frontage requirements and believes that the road is a Class 5 road at that point. She felt the Board could waive the functional frontage requirement since it is part of the subdivision regulations. Silverman noted this is a site plan review and the requirement may not apply. Silverman wondered if a variance for diminished frontage on Route 12 was needed from the ZBA. Pini noted the property is not land locked, but wondered if the Selectmen would issue a building permit without functional frontage. Staff will research the issue. [Gap Mountain Road is a Class VI road along the PSNH property line – added 4/4/07]

Silverman asked how much of the logging remains to be done. Mr. Frazer said the logging was complete but clearing still remains to be done. He plans to leave a vegetative buffer along the boundary near Route 12 and around the remaining boundaries to hide the substation from view. He said he will leave as much vegetation as possible, but must keep the power lines and equipment clear and enough will be removed to complete the road. Mr. Frazer noted that one pole foundation is very near the WPOD boundary and another is just inside the WPOD. Neither is in wetlands, but construction will occur very near wetlands. He added that the National Grid plans are not firm yet and they will seek permits for their project.

Silverman asked that PSNH document in writing that no salt will be used to treat the driveway and that no herbicides, pesticides or fungicides will be use on the vegetation. Mr. Frazer pointed out that by state law a utility can use these treatments and that typically they would use them within the fence line and only outside the containment area where necessary. Mr. Frazer will consult with the decision makers at PSNH regarding the pesticide issue.

Silverman added the Board also wanted the tree cutting limited to insuring the safety of the equipment and under the power lines. Mr. Frazer said in his experience it is hard to salvage small stands of trees and there are only a few of these left. They will re-vegetate outside the fence, and will only cut to clear the power lines. The remainder of the property will not be touched. Silverman said he wanted assurances about the limited tree cutting, and the use of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides as notes on the plan.

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.

Mr. Filipi and Gary Sheldon were present. Mr. Sheldon represents Mr. Filipi. Mr. Sheldon indicated that while he has not been present for any of the hearings on this case, he has read all the minutes. He said he understood the town wanted a hydrologist to review the plans, which was done by Mr. Covel. Mr. Covel recommended protecting a fracture zone and Mr. Filipi complied with a new plan plotted over the fracture zone. The new plan calls for a 9 lot subdivision, all of which are outside the fracture zone. He said he’d read the letter from Mr. Covel with the recommendation to access lots 8 and 9 by tying into the driveway accessing the cluster.

He noted that his research indicates that the town does not have an aquifer protection ordinance, nor does NH prohibit building over aquifers. He said there are no state prohibitions or restrictions on building in an aquifer zone, except for major industrial uses.

Mr. Sheldon said Mr. Filipi’s original subdivision plan is legal; however, the revised plan is a compromise to accommodate the fracture zone. He noted the proposed road will be very expensive and the two additional lots were proposed to offset that cost. They will request a waiver for the length of the road accessing the cluster lots.

Mr. Sheldon said they agreed to Mr. Covel’s suggestion that no salt be used to treat the road except in extreme conditions. He added that since the road will be built to town and state specs, Mr. Filipi does not intend to keep it as a private road. He will ask the town to take it over.

Silverman noted that Mr. Covel recommended a gravel road, which would reduce the cost of the road. Mr. Filipi said that only 15% of the cost of the road is paving, adding that a private gravel road is not as marketable as a paved road. Owners aren’t going to want to deal with the maintenance every spring, and this will be a long road. He added he thought Mr. Covel had recommended a gravel road to insure that salt wasn’t used to treat the road.

Mr. Sheldon pointed out that initially Mr. Filipi did not want a road at all, and his original plan was drawn to avoid building a road. Silverman said the original plan is untenable because of what’s on the ground. He wondered how this plan comported with the cluster regulations on a private road. Mr. Sheldon said it didn’t, adding that the Planning Board can lay out a class five road; it doesn’t need to be a private road. Mr. Sheldon also said that Mr. Filipi could have brought in a legal subdivision plan with 15 lots laid out. He could hire his own hydrologist to say there is no impact on the aquifer by building homes on it, but Mr. Filipi does not want to jam lots into the space. Board members noted that although the Planning Board could layout a Class V road, they felt the town would not, in all likelihood, accept it.

Pini asked Mr. Filipi how he felt about Mr. Covel’s recommendation that lots 8 and 9 be accessed from the new road, rather than a separate road coming in from Upper Troy Road. He answered that it was better for him, in that the access road would be shorter than the original proposed driveway. He said that if and when the town decides to put a town well on the property, an access road will have to be engineered.

Mr. and Mrs. LaFond reviewed the plans, and expressed their opinion that they felt threatened by Mr. Sheldon’s remarks. Mrs. LaFond said that if contamination of the aquifer is discovered in the future, they may face a lawsuit. She asked if they were threatening to bring in 15 lots if they didn’t get their own way. Mr. Sheldon said they disagreed that building on the aquifer would result in any contamination of the aquifer.

Silverman asked if the road accessing lots 8 and 9 would need an easement to cross over to the lots, and Mr. Filipi agreed it probably would. He said he planned to pave all driveway aprons, but not the driveways. In discussing the main entrance to the cluster road, he said locating it further south might compromise the line of sight, noting that the cross road will now be completely out of the WPOD.He assured the Board that the plan won’t be further expanded and covenants will be made to protect the fracture zone in the future.

Mr. Sheldon asked if the Board needed a new application and Silverman said no, but the new plan does come in after the new ordinance regarding hammerheads was passed. Mr. Sheldon said they would agree to another 65 day extension of time, since the deadline for the first extension is coming up. Silverman agreed, saying the Board will want the new plan, the road engineering plans, and a bonding agreement for the road.

Silverman moved, Pini seconded and the Board voted to approve an extension of 65 days after the first extension expires. (The first extension expires on April 1, 2007; the second will expire on June 3, 2007.)