Town of Fitzwilliam, NH - Planning Board Minutes 01/15/08

Members present: Terry Silverman, Suzanne Gray, Robin Haynes, Mac Landy, and Tom Parker, Selectmen’s representative. Carlotta Pini joined the Board at 8:30 PM.

Minutes: The Board reviewed the minutes of the January 8, 2008 meeting. Landy moved, Silverman seconded and the Board approved the minutes as written (three typos fixed).

Preliminary consultation: Erin McKenzie and Dick Drew to discuss two-lot subdivision of property located at 154 Gap Mountain Road, Map 15, Lot 44, Rural District.

Dick Drew presented a conceptual plan for a two or three lot subdivision of the property. The records aren’t clear about acreage so a survey will be necessary to determine exactly how many lots could be subdivided. All 776 feet of frontage is on the Class V portion of Gap Mountain Road, which becomes Class VI at the McKenzie property line. It is a gravel road with no culverts or drainage along the property. However, in the spring the road is muddy.

Mr. Drew said there were negligible wetlands on the rolling land that comprises the parcel. An existing house is located centrally on the parcel so the size and shape of the new lots will take that into account. Mr. Drew thought a three lot subdivision might include a hammerhead or three lots with reduced frontage. He said he would like to avoid a hammerhead if possible but it all depends on the survey.

Mr. Parker reminded the Board that years ago the town straightened out a bad curve in Royalston Road, with the approval of the two lot owners involved, the Sportsman’s Club and Mr. Walsh. Mr. Dwinell, who bought the Walsh property, concurred with Mr. Walsh in approving the work. Since straightening the road reduced the frontage on his parcel, an arrangement was made with Mr. Dwinell to insure that the frontage requirements for a future subdivision could be met. The new section of road was not formally laid out at the time, but now that Mr. Dwinell is planning to subdivide the parcel, the surveyor needs to have the road officially laid out so the edge of the road is clear. The Selectmen have followed the RSAs for laying out a road and Mr. Parker wanted to inform the Planning Board of the status.

Public hearing: Craig Chamberlain to discuss a boundary line adjustment between properties owned by Kings Arrow Realty Trust, Map 3, Lot 39 & 40 and Carl Michelson, Map 3, Lot 37, located on Templeton Turnpike at the state line, Rural District.

Mr. DeBernardo, representing Kings Arrow Realty, was present to discuss the plan. He made corrections to the plan; typos were fixed, lot number corrected and an abutter was added. He stated that the mylar reflects the plan.

An abutter questioned him as to the location of abutting properties to ascertain if certain parcels would be affected by the boundary line adjustment. Another abutter asked about the number of lots that could be subdivided from the Kings Arrow parcel, based on frontage. Silverman added that one can’t assume that every acre would make good building lot. Mr. Parker said Priest Brook flows through the property and there are a lot of wetlands on the parcel. There was some discussion of possible roads to serve a future subdivision. There was further speculation but Mr. DeBernardo did not know the owners’ intentions, and said the land is for sale now.

Landy moved, Haynes seconded and the Board approved the boundary line adjustment between properties owned by Kings Arrow Realty Trust, Map 3, Lot 39 & 40 and Carl Michelson, Map 3, Lot 37, located on Templeton Turnpike at the state line, Rural District.

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

At the Board’s request, Southwest Regional Planning Commission reviewed the Filipi yield plan to verify the proposed cluster subdivision and Mr. Grasewicz commented on their review. He pointed out several errors they had made in interpreting the plans and in applying the town zoning ordinances. He explained corrections to the review and the two changes he will make in response to other comments. The plan will be resubmitted, with additional information to help SWRPC understand the plan and town regulations, and that substantiate the changes made. He feels strongly that the yield plan for 13 lots is a legal conventional subdivision.

Mr. Filipi discussed draft covenants with the Board. Silverman asked if they covered the common lot that may become a site for a municipal well. Mr. Filipi said the covenants treat that lot separately from the other common lots, in that provision is made for conveyance of the lot from the developer to another party or reversion of the lot to the homeowners if the Water District does not want to use it for a town well.

Haynes asked if the covenants protected against any one lot owner tapping into the bedrock aquifer. Mr. Filipi said each house lot will have their own well unless the Water District can put them on the new well in a timely fashion. All the house lots indicate well sites that allow home owners to drill into the designated aquifer protection zone for their own water use.

Haynes said it would take her at least two weeks to read and comment on the documents. Mr. Little suggested that the Board have the town attorney review them as well. He added that he will try to get to the town office to review and comment on the yield plan as he stated he would do at the last meeting. Weather and trials kept him from doing it last week.

Public hearing continued: Ramen Patel site plan amendment for proposed exterior lighting of the parking lot at his convenience store located at 646 NH Route 12 S, Map 8, Lot 13, Rur. Dist.

Mr. Rigrod introduced himself and noted that he shared the Board’s pain in trying to develop a groundwater protection ordinance having served on his town’s planning board at one time. He is responsible for the most recent revision to the state model groundwater protection ordinance but noted the ordinance has existed for a long time. He said he wasn’t going to make a formal presentation but would like to discuss issues and questions with the Board.

He had reviewed minutes of the last meeting and discussed questions noted there: the town is primarily served by bedrock wells rather than a stratified drift aquifer and the model is geared toward stratified drift aquifers; RSAs referred to in the model ordinance are primarily to keep towns from trying to regulate things they aren’t allowed to regulate by state law or to refer to administrative rules; and the issue is complex but more than 70 NH towns have ordinances in place and are administering them without problems.

He suggested that towns are taking a variety of approaches to protecting drinking water: some are doing geophysical studies to identify bedrock aquifers (Dublin); some are doing private well testing to set standards prior to issuing a building permit or certificate of occupancy; and some are monitoring the quality of water in town.

He suggested not being overwhelmed with administration of the model ordinance. It may need tweaking to fit the town’s needs. He said the town has some stratified drift aquifers but he doesn’t know the storage capacity. The transmissivity maps are merely materials maps that are compared to existing well data to determine depth, recharge time and flow. He added the maps are pretty general.

Mr. Rigrod asked for questions. Silverman asked how accurate the town had to be and what studies needed to be done to make enforcement doable. Mr. Rigrod said the USGS maps are pretty broad but he has never heard of a town being challenged on the veracity or relevance of USGS maps. It helps to be more accurate and he suggested talking with someone from USGS to discuss the different degrees of accuracy of the maps. He said don’t worry tremendously but leave space in the ordinance to let applicants correct the location.

He said there is no reason to do regular inspections and he has never heard of a town complaining about the expense of regulation or enforcement. Normally if something is spilled or not properly contained, it is cleaned up, noting the administrative rule is 8-10 pages.

Silverman asked how the ordinance is different from the town wetlands ordinance; what additional protection would this give us. Mr. Rigrod said the model ordinance identifies areas in town where it is not OK to have various hazardous materials or activities that may endanger the health of the town and its water supply. He added that 90% of the complaints a town gets are easily fixable. Silverman asked if the ordinance protected against air borne particulate matter. It does not. He asked about funding to assist with well testing. The state does give grants for protecting drinking water supplies and testing may be part of that. He suggested talking with Mr. Wunsch from the NH Geologic Survey about funding also.

Mr. Kotila, chair of the Conservation Commission, asked if Mr. Rigrod was aware of challenges to the ordinance. He said he wasn’t, but there had been some in the past, adding that courts tend to give towns leeway in protecting this resource. The model ordinance was reviewed by attorneys in DES and the Local Government Center and no changes were made.

The Rindge ordinance is being challenged by a home owner using a clause that allows homeowners to prove their property is not in the aquifer protection district. He said stratified drift aquifer boundaries are easy to delineate, much like wetlands. Hydrogeologists check the materials in the ground using borings to determine where stratified drift materials are located and the homeowner can make their case based on the tests. The applicant pays for the tests as it is their burden to prove the town wrong. A sample of this clause is in the model. He suggested using the concept of protecting groundwater in general rather than in a specific place like a stratified drift aquifer.

Mr. Kotila asked if there was any regulation of bedrock aquifers. Mr. Rigrod said no, not in NH. Mr. Kotila asked how it could be protected. Mr. Rigrod referred to the Dublin project to build a database of fractures in town to protect the infiltration area. Chris Covel is working on this

project. Usually this kind of testing is done to maintain the potential for a large public water system. Pini wondered if language could be added to the ordinance to protect bedrock aquifers by saying tests could be required if it was suspected that there was an aquifer on the property. Gray asked if conditions could be stated which would trigger the need for protection. Mr. Rigrod suggested talking with hydrogeologists about conditions and the purpose and implications for protecting bedrock aquifers. What is the goal: to preserve recharge, to protect the quality of the water, protect public health from development?

Barbara Green, co-chair of the Conservation Commission, noted that most of the stratified drift aquifers in town are a distance away from any development in town, and wondered what protecting them would do for the town in the short term. Mr. Rigrod said that if the area wasn’t threatened with development and paved roads and if there are few aquifers, there may not be a need. Communities adopt this ordinance to protect the public water supply for the future, adding that the town knows what the threats are to the supply.

Mrs. Green said most of the town wells are bedrock wells. Mr. Rigrod noted these were generally low yield wells. Ms. Green thought the stratified drift aquifers are too far from town to easily site a community well.

There was some discussion about well testing and the associated costs. Mr. Rigrod said testing costs are a small price to pay for health in the end. He said he would be available for consultation to guide ordinance development and administration.