Members present: Terry Silverman, Suzanne Gray, Robin Haynes, Carlotta Pini, and Tom Parker, Selectmen’s representative.
Others present: Paul Grasewicz, alternate, Nancy Carney, Deputy Fire Chief, abutters and legal counsel.
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
Wetlands hearing continued: Garrett and Shantell Curtis application to build an extension to an existing barn within the wetlands protection overlay district on property located at 62 Westlake Road, Map 11, Lot 13-02, Rural District.
Haynes and Parker recused themselves as abutters to the property. Paul Grasewicz, alternate, was seated on the Board.
The hearing was continued so Mr. Curtis could determine the date the barn was built and/or find a building permit for it, and the wetlands could be delineated by a wetlands scientist.
The barn was built in 1989, according to Mrs. Curtis, but no building permit was sought or issued. Carl Hagstrom visited the site but could not delineate wetlands given the winter conditions.
Silverman read the report of the Conservation Commission. Commissioners felt the wetlands would be impacted by the barn extension. Its construction had begun prior to their site walk and the barn and extension were found to be in the wetlands buffer zone (WPOD) quite close to the wetlands. They recommended having the wetlands delineated. They were concerned that horses and a manure pile were within the WPOD and that the barn extension was to house goats.
Mr. Curtis said that during the Conservation Commission site walk, Mr. Kotila had noted vegetation between the barn and the water that could absorb and filter any runoff. Mr. Curtis said they move the manure pile every spring for use on the gardens.
Silverman felt the manure pile should be moved permanently since it appears to be in the WPOD.
Grasewicz outlined two options the Board had for deciding this case: 1) determine if the barn extension is exempt under 127-16.1 D. (7) (e), or 2) if the proposed construction met criteria for a conditional use permit under 127-16.1 D. (4).
The Board agreed that since a building permit was not issued for the original barn construction, the barn is not a lawful structure and therefore not exempt.
Grasewicz said that Mr. Curtis would have to demonstrate that the four criteria for a conditional use permit were met and suggested controls to minimize detrimental impacts on the wetlands. Mr. Curtis will notify the Board when the wetlands have been delineated and a public hearing will be scheduled and noticed at that time. The Board will waive additional fees for the next public hearing on this matter.
Preliminary consultation: Lynne Brown to discuss the proposed Fitzwilliam Farmers Market site plan to be located on the side yard of the Town Hall.
Haynes and Parker rejoined the Board, Grasewicz stepped down.
The farmers market will be held on Saturday mornings from Mother’s Day to Columbus Day. Mr. and Mrs. Brown discussed a sketch of vendor sites for the proposed farmers market on the south lawn of the Town Hall. They said it was a perfect site, noting there would be plenty of off street parking and a portapotty already on site. Eight vendors have signed up. They will each pay a vendor fee to the town and the market itself has a vendor permit, with all fees going to the town. The market is run by volunteers as a service to farmers and the town.
The Browns met with the Selectmen who, according to Tom Parker, were very supportive and enthusiastic about the venture.
When asked about local participation, Mr. Brown said the veterans were invited to participate but they haven’t responded yet. Tracie Smith, CSA farmer, may participate some weeks but not others since she will be busy with her CSA. Sunflowers Café will participate.
They will have signs around the common and a banner at the market. Each vendor will have their own sign at their 10X10 foot booth.
Mr. Brown said the market is registered with the state and they have the liability insurance necessary to operate. Individual vendors carry their own liability insurance too. This is not a craft show, but will sell primarily NH locally grown food.
Silverman said a formal site plan review would not be necessary. He added the Planning Board will sign off on the vendor permits.
Minutes: The Board reviewed the minutes of the February 5, 2008 meeting. Gray moved, Haynes seconded and the Board approved the minutes as written with a minor phrase removed.
Selectmen’s Report: Tom Parker thanked the Board for writing letters to Representative Barbara Richardson and Senator Molly Kelly about legislation restricting growth management ordinances.
Parker also noted that the Selectmen have some objections to the proposed livestock keeping ordinance amendment. They feel it doesn’t zone livestock keeping. It uses state standards for the care of animals. Parker said the purpose of zoning is to regulate some uses in some districts and this ordinance does not do that. He apologized for not speaking up when it was first proposed. He said the state usually authorizes the town to act on their behalf in enforcing these kinds of issues. He said he’d like to see how it works in Jaffrey, since it was modeled on their ordinance.
Silverman said he had a problem with it too and is skeptical about the state stepping in to correct a problem when it arises. Haynes said she wasn’t certain what steps to take next, since the public hearings are finished and the amendment is on the ballot. She added that the current ordinance was problematic because of the required setback from property lines. In NH stone walls are traditionally both fences and boundary lines. Haynes said if the ordinance passes, the first year will be a test to see how it works. Parker said enforcement may be difficult and he noted several cases in the last several years where neighbors complained about their neighbors’ animals.
Preliminary consultation: David Pollack and Dr. John Pollack to discuss a two-lot subdivision of property located on the west side of Rockwood Pond Road, Map 17, Lot 1, Rural District.
David Pollack pointed out his property on an Audubon map of conservation land in Fitzwilliam. He said the town taxes the property as five parcels. He said he and his son thought they would subdivide the 164 acre property they own to defray costs associated with owning it. He said if Rockwood Pond Road acts to subdivide the property, then they propose subdividing three lots on each side of the road.
An existing house, which they do not want to restore, would be divided out on one lot and sold, and two other building lots would be created. The remaining land/lot in the back would not be developed but may be used as farmland or conservation land. There would be access from the road. Three lots would be created on the southeast parcel and they planned to build their home on one of them. Houses would be sited so they didn’t interfere with the view. Each lot would have 300 feet or more of road frontage and the southeast lots would have water frontage. Mr. Pollack said they’d position houses on these large lots with tree buffers and use existing frontage on Rockwood Pond Road. They are not interested in building a subdivision road to create more frontage.
Rockwood Pond Road is a Class V road that is maintained seasonally, although it has been plowed recently to serve the West property that is rented year around. Gray said that the road is almost impassable in the spring. Haynes pointed out that the largest tree in the state is located on the southern boundary of the Pollack property. They have been thinning out the woods, leaving the hardwoods and taking the pine.
Pini asked if they would consider a conservation restriction on the backland. Mr. Pollack said they would consider donating it to Rhododendron State Park. Haynes noted that a conservation easement offers a tax break but the land remains in the owners’ control but can’t be developed.
Pini asked if this would be two separate subdivision applications and Grasewicz said that it would be a major subdivision of two separate parcels on one application.
Parker asked if it would be considered scattered and premature since Rockwood Pond Road is not the best of roads and there are no plans to upgrade that road on the Road Agent’s plan. Pini said that if the backland was in conservation it might make the subdivision more palatable.
Parker said that to put houses on the road would require upgrading the road, widening it and insuring a decent gravel base with shoulders and ditches. He said town specs call for an 18 foot travel width with a decent roadbed making it an all weather road. He said the road location has good drainage. If the subdivision goes forward the town will ask the developer to upgrade the road.
Parker said that the Selectmen would issue one building permit for a house on the southeast lot as it stands now, since it has frontage on a Class V road. But if the property is subdivided the road must be upgraded. Mr. Pollack clarified that no road upgrade would be necessary if only one house was built on the southeast lot.
Silverman suggested checking the state Shoreline Protection Act for restrictions on land within 250 feet of the shoreline. Grasewicz added that as of April 1, 2008 a permit will be needed for work within 250 feet of the shoreline.
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.
Mr. Filipi distributed a letter requesting a 60-day extension of the deadline for deciding the case. He also submitted a letter stating that his intentions regarding the yield plan are to comply with the requirements of 127-16 D. (2) of the Fitzwilliam Land Use Code. The letters are part of these minutes.
Mr. Sheldon, Mr. Filipi’s attorney, had not had time to review comments on the covenants from the town attorney, Joe Hoppock.
Silverman asked the Board for their comments.
Gray confirmed that a paragraph regarding waivers for keeping horses had been deleted.
Mr. Hoppock sent an email saying Mr. Sheldon would not advise his client to agree to any restrictions relating to the commercial extraction of water. Mr. Hoppock felt it might expose the town to a takings liability. Silverman disagreed, saying the town would not be imposing restrictions, but it would be something the developer agrees to do. He believes there should be no commercial operation in a residential subdivision. He added he was concerned about the common lot designated for the water district, saying even they should not be allowed to sell water commercially.
Pini wondered why, if the association is created to safeguard property, they would go into a commercial operation. Silverman said the covenants were on the land, what could and couldn’t be done on the land. Pini noted that 127-13 D. of the land use ordinance prohibits the development of water resources for private commercial sale. Silverman feels that the covenants should contain language to that effect. Parker agreed, saying a town ordinance can be changed at town meeting, whereas covenants cannot.
Mr. Filipi said he would like to retain the passage about accessory apartments in the covenants (p.11 #5.) even though it is a town ordinance. He wants it retained to call attention to the fact that the town has such an ordinance. He has no plans to build houses with accessory apartments.
He wants to retain the 75% vote of residential lot owners for amending the covenants, instead of the 100% suggested by Mr. Hoppock (p.11 Article IX introduction)
Mr. Filipi noted that Mr. Hoppock had misunderstood the width for the access to common land currently in conservation easement with the Monadnock Conservancy. It is an existing access and is 18 feet wide. It does not need to meet cluster development regulations for access to common land (p.14 M.)
Silverman asked about insuring that the homeowners association take responsibility for ongoing maintenance of the stormwater management structures, so the town wouldn’t find itself in the position of having to do the maintenance or repair of drainage structures. He added this was different from bonding the road.
Grasewicz said the covenants could refer to notes on page 4 of the engineering plans regarding drainage specifications. Silverman wants a legal mechanism in the covenants themselves to insure maintenance. Mr. Little suggested a separate article in the covenants regarding payment of fees and enforcement. Silverman said the Board did not want the town to be in that position. He wants the covenants to spell it out.
Pini suggested Article IV 1. spells it out (p.5) and fees are discussed on p. 6. She said these items spell out the duties of the association to maintain and repair. Silverman asked that Mr. Hoppock review these sections for strength and to insure the town won’t have to do any repair or maintenance.
Parker said in his experience the town has had no problems with homeowners associations doing what they should do.
Mr. Filipi wanted to insure the Board had seen the Grasewicz memo regarding the yield plan specifications. They have.
Silverman moved, Pini seconded and the Board voted to accept the thirteen-lot yield plan dated January 2, 2008 as demonstrating that the nine-lot cluster development plan has no greater than the number of lots that could otherwise be developed in a traditional subdivision, based on review and recommendation by the Southwest Region Planning Commission. Five aye, none opposed.
Mrs. LaFond, abutter, asked about a second wetlands crossing. Silverman responded that that crossing was theoretical and on the yield plan not on the cluster development plan. She asked if animals would be allowed in the development and they will not be allowed. Gray noted that cats and dogs were allowed. She asked about salt on the road and Mr. Filipi said salt use will be limited to emergency situations except for the small amount of salt that is sand to keep it from freezing. He added that covenants are binding into the future and the homeowners association will self enforce.
Mrs. LaFond asked if septic systems will be able to manage accessory apartments. Pini said that in order to get a building permit the septic system must be rated for the total number of bedrooms in the structure. Mrs. LaFond asked if hunting was allowed. It is prohibited by the covenants.
Silverman moved, Haynes seconded and the Board voted to accept the deadline extension. Mr. Filipi agreed to a 65 day extension bringing the deadline to April 11, 2008.
Silverman moved, Pini seconded and the Board voted to continue the public hearing to Tuesday, March 4, 2008 at 8 PM.
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.
Abutters Sandy Coburn and Ralph Niemala were present. Mr. Patel did not attend.
Silverman asked the Selectmen to write a letter to Mr. Patel letting him know he is no longer in compliance with his site plan and in violation of his proposal to amend his site plan. He asked the Selectmen to enforce the penalties for this violation.
Parker said he thought a letter to that effect had been sent to Mr. Patel, and he would confirm that. He believes the letter gives Mr. Patel 30 days to comply before going to Court.
Silverman added that there are new advertising signs on the property that must come down. Mrs. Coburn said the neon signs are still there but they are not on. She added there are now two “Open” flags flying 24 hours every day.
Silverman told abutters the public hearing will be re-noticed if and when Mr. Patel comes back to the Board.
Preliminary consultation: Michael Jenks to discuss site plan for Concord Industries building, Map 15, Lot 29, Residential and Light Industrial Districts.
Mr. Jenks did not attend.
Voluntary Merger: The Board acted on an application for a voluntary merger of two lots, Map 34, Lots 10 and 11. Mr. Mikes is built on these two lots. These lots had been merged for tax purposes in 1999, but the official merger was never pursued. The Chairman and Secretary signed the merger form.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 PM.
| 
