Town of Fitzwilliam, NH - Planning Board Minutes 02/05/08

Members present: Terry Silverman, Suzanne Gray, Robin Haynes, Mac Landy, Carlotta Pini, Diane Schott and Tom Parker, Selectmen’s representative.

Preliminary consultation: Paul Grasewicz to discuss a 4-lot subdivision of property located on Fullam Hill Road, Map 8, Lot 30, Rural District.

Mr. Grasewicz explained that a boundary survey of the property was completed for a boundary line adjustment approved by the Board last year. Mr. Van Blarcom has purchased the property and has been logging it. He proposes to subdivide the land into four lots with a common drive. Mr. Grasewicz thinks it may be difficult to get more than one driveway permit and will pursue a common drive.

He anticipates that one wetlands crossing will be necessary with approximately 1500 feet disturbed for the crossing. Wetlands will be reevaluated in the spring. State and local wetlands permits will be required.

House sites will be shielded from the road by woods. Three lots have 300 feet frontage and the largest lot will have reduced frontage.

Seeing the wetlands on lot C as the only possible problem with the land, Mr. Grasewicz will prepare an application for the subdivision.

Minutes: The Board reviewed the minutes of the January 15, 2008 meeting. Haynes moved, Landy seconded and the Board approved the minutes as written.

Growth Management Update: The Board reviewed the report to the Selectmen. In 2008, 13 building permits will be available, with seven reserved for individuals and six reserved for developers of subdivisions with four or more lots.

Parker noted the state legislature is considering HB 1260, which would restrict growth management ordinances. The Local Government Center has suggested amendments that would ease some restrictions for towns. The Selectmen and the Planning Board will write letters to Barbara Richardson and Molly Kelly, Fitzwilliam’s legislative representatives, in support of the amendments.

Preliminary consultation: Tracy Smith to discuss site plan for CSA on her property located on Jaffrey Road, Map 15, Lot 52-1, Rural District.

Ms. Smith described her CSA. The land is prepared and the greenhouses are located. She has a mobile home on site with plans to build a barn immediately and a house in the future. While

there will be some traffic, interns and work-shareholders, the general public does not come to the farm. Produce baskets are delivered weekly to shareholder homes.

Silverman said he sees no difficulty with a CSA since it is an allowed use in the rural district and selling produce is an allowed accessory use on the property (127-14 E (3)).

Chuck Young, Ambient Engineering, Eric Fraser, PSNH, and Steve Norby, contractor from Park Construction, were present. Silverman said he became concerned at what looked like a change in elevation and vegetative cover from the original site plan.

Mr. Young and Mr. Fraser presented the revised plans. The elevation at the south end of the proposed pad location was higher than the north end and had to be leveled for construction. Fill was taken from the south end and distributed on the north end, creating a level pad site at the elevation of the middle of the slope. The pad is at 1228 feet, sloping to 1226.5 feet on the sides. The original elevation at the midpoint of the slope was 1230 feet, rising to 1252 at the south end. Mr. Norby said they added 28 feet of fill from the south end to the north end to level the pad site.

Mr. Fraser said the tree line cut is the same as presented to the Board originally, recalling that the Board agreed on the site walk to eliminate a small triangle of vegetation. PSNH staff flagged the tree line cuts and the plan was given to the contractor for completion. He said the visibility of the site would be shielded by summer foliage, adding that he will work with the Board to soften some of the visible site.

Slopes will be grassed for stability. Mr. Fraser distributed aerial photos of the site taken in the fall before the entrance way was widened. The Route 12 entrance was changed from the original entrance because DOT recommended the original driveway to the VFW be changed. That driveway entrance would not have been approved today and was dangerous for the large and valuable equipment to use as construction proceeded. PSNH improved the drainage from the area at the same time. The entryway has been mulched and seeded. Silverman asked if they could consider tree cover at the entrance and along the driveway to shield the site further. Mr. Fraser agreed.

The front of the site has been shielded with boulders to prevent theft of property. (The site was twice entered illegally and more than $8,000 of equipment was stolen. PSNH incurred unanticipated security costs of $9,000 over the holidays.) Now there are security lights, a gate and security cameras installed. The site will be fenced with barbed wire on top. Mr. Fraser said the final lighting will conform to the site plan when construction is finished.

The retaining wall (east) will be completed when the PSNH and National Grid power lines are completed. The original retaining wall to the south was changed because the plans called for a construction method that would have encroached on the boundary line. It is now a rip rap slope. The proposed wall at the entryway was changed to prevent the need to blast ledge. It now uses the natural ledge.

Mr. Fraser bought up a potential problem. The outflow from the retention basin is predicted to be larger than first thought during heavy rains like Fitzwilliam got in the fall. DES thought increased outflow may erode the natural swale proposed to handle the outflow. A PSNH environmental consultant recommends using rip rap in the swale. This swale is located in the 75 foot wetlands buffer.

Silverman asked the Board if there was consensus for considering the swale changes a modification of the original swale, to better control runoff and still deliver the same amount of runoff to the wetlands. They agreed. There will be no need to proceed with a wetlands permitting process for this change.

Mr. Young provided revised, signed plans for the Board, an updated stormwater management report and will send the DES amendment. Mr. Fraser noted that the swale changes are not on the updated plans.

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.

Silverman asked the Board to consider the covenants and easements with the recommendations made by the town attorney, Joe Hoppock. He added that the Board had received a letter from Nancy and Pat Roehl suggesting items to be included in the covenants. He felt these items are included in the covenants. The Pines sent a letter expressing their concern with the existing water runoff from the Pinnacle. Both letters are a part of the record. Haynes said she hasn’t had a chance to review the Hoppock suggestions. Gray felt that since they just received the Hoppock changes they couldn’t discuss them tonight.

Silverman said he didn’t see any reference to prohibit the commercial taking/sale of water from this aquifer. Mr. Filipi, when asked, said he had no comments and was waiting for the Board to

make their comments. Pini asked who determines the amount to be collected from lot owners to cover the need. She wondered if there was a need to bond maintenance of drainage systems or

other capital expenditures to prevent a crisis or resolve it if one happened. Parker said the town has a number of properties doing this kind of thing and, while the town discourages it, they have had no problems with it since 1975 when he came on. His experience is that most people in a community want to take care of their property.

Mr. Filipi said the critical stage for drainage systems is during construction of drainage ponds. Once stabilized the system works well and maintenance is minimal, primarily clearing brush.

Parker said the Selectmen have asked for an estimate to replace the culverts necessary to redirect and control water flow from the hill down Upper Troy Road to the state culvert and brook across Route 119. This project is independent of the subdivision and is in response to abutters comments about existing runoff. A warrant article is planned for this work. Gray asked if this was to deal with surface water. Mr. Parker said yes. She said there is a great deal of underground water that is flowing into people’s basements. Mr. Parker didn’t feel it was the town’s obligation to control underground water.

Mr. Grasewicz said that at the Board’s request, Southwest Regional Planning Commission reviewed the Filipi yield plan to verify the proposed cluster subdivision and he addressed their comments in a letter to the Board and the plan now contains contours, soils and extensive summary tables. The letter is a part of these minutes. SWRPC has reviewed the revised plans and only one lot is still problematic for them. They questioned the narrow strip of land that connects two upland areas to provide the necessary amount of contiguous upland for lot 12. He said SWRPC wondered if it met the spirit of the regulations. He feels it does.

Mr. Little, attorney for abutters, said there is no calculation for the 4000 square foot areas on the yield plan given their proximity to the roadway. He added that he didn’t read the wetlands crossings the same way as Sharon Monahan, a wetlands scientist. He feels the requirements for two crossings are not satisfied. He said there is a lack of information on the concept plan. He said the drainage was not dealt with and called into question the ability to get the number of lots on the plan.

Pini asked why Mr. Filipi presented a plan for 13 lots rather than one for 9 lots, adding all the Board needs to see is one for 9 lots. Mr. Grasewicz said they wanted to show what could be subdivided so there are alternatives to the cluster if necessary, adding SWRPC is satisfied.

Mr. Grasewicz responded to Mr. Little’s comments. He said all the 4000 sq ft areas on the concept plan meet the setbacks and he discussed each one. Roadway drainage has been fully engineered and addressed in the cluster plan and the concept plan uses the same roadway. Drainage for the second road on the concept plan is conceptual. He said swales are not wetlands and are therefore not part of the setback requirements, adding that conceptual plans don’t need to

go to DES. DES will thoroughly review the cluster subsurface plans during their permitting process when a plan is approved by the Board. Gray wondered if the conceptual plan needed engineered drainage plans. Pini read from the subdivision regulations that the conceptual plan must have evidence enough to satisfy the Board. Grasewicz added that historically only a sketch was needed. Mr. Little said the Board must consider whether the plans would be approved by DES. Grasewicz said lot loading calculations are on the yield plan.

Silverman said the concept plan probably couldn’t be approved by the Board given the hydrology limitations and environmental sensitivity of the site. He said he felt the concept plan, as a subdivision plan, would be scattered and premature. Mr. Filipi said that he feared that if he brought in a nine lot concept plan it would be further cut back, adding the Board should not see the concept plan as an application. Pini said she’d rather see a nine lot ‘no-brainer’ concept plan, something without all these questions.

Abutter, Mrs. LaFond, asked about poorly drained soils. Grasewicz explained that the subdivision regulations require an area of 80,000 square feet of soils that are moderately well drained or better. The yield plan has been adjusted so all lots meet that requirement. Silverman suggested consulting with LGC about requirements for yield plans and wondered if the Board accepts the yield plan was the Board, in effect, accepting it as a potential subdivision.

Pini said she didn’t think the applicant should have to spend money doing engineering for a yield plan. Mr. Filipi conceded he didn’t expect the Board to accept the yield plan as an application for a subdivision. However, he felt the concept plan did strengthen the case for a roadway waiver on the cluster plan because that roadway plan protected the sensitive nature of the property.

Pini suggested asking LGC about hardship on a property with a bedrock aquifer and the need for a road waiver given that situation. Gray reiterated that the hardship must be for the land not for the applicant. Mr. Filipi said he was not asking for personal financial hardship consideration. Mr. Little felt the record indicated otherwise. Pini said personal financial hardship is not something the Board would consider.

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.