DRAFT
Town of Fitzwilliam
Planning Board Meeting
December 15, 2009
Members present: Terry Silverman, Suzanne Gray, Robin Haynes, Mac Landy, Jason Hill and Carmen Yon, Selectmen’s representative.
Others present: Tom Parker, Selectman, Nancy Carney, Deputy Fire Chief, Carlotta Pini, alternate, Paul Kotila and Barbara Green, Conservation Commission
Call to Order: 7:05 PM.
7:00 pm Appointment: Lisa Murphy and Tara Germond from SWRPC to discuss the grant funded project to design a local waterways protection ordinance.
Silverman welcomed guests, explaining they were here to discuss a local ordinance that will, in some ways, mirror the state comprehensive shoreland protection act (CSPA). He said his fantasy is that the town has a local ordinance that is less complex than the CSPA and is enforceable with minimum expense to the town. The CSPA is complex and hard for the town to enforce. He said we need this because violations sometimes need immediate action.
Ms. Germond said the grant was funded through DES with funds available from the federal government. She wants to hear what the Board’s goals are for this ordinance. She has reviewed current town ordinances, noting that 48 towns in the state have local shoreland protection ordinances, including Swanzey, Jaffrey, Peterborough and Antrim. She added that the state condones this local process. They will present a draft to the Board, make any changes, and present the final draft for a public hearing.
Gray said we have a lot of water in town and want to protect all the shorelines from pollutants. Germond said the CSPA restrictions apply but a local ordinance could be less restrictive for 3rd order streams or lower and for surface water bodies less than 10 acres. She suggested the 75 foot buffer could be expanded, or the CSPA could be expanded to cover lesser streams and ponds but in an easier, less complex manner.
Pini noted that the town has lots of smaller first order streams, which are headwaters for regional rivers. Germond suggested preservation and maintenance of vegetative buffers will be important.
Yon said one option might be to tighten the existing wetlands ordinance. We have a process for wetlands hearings already.
Murphy asked if the town had problems with surface water. Silverman asked Green to speak to this, adding the Laurel Lake is less clear as time goes by and he wants to hold that back. He wondered if the town had the authority to preserve vegetative buffers outside of subdivision and site plan regulations.
Pini noted that in Rindge they send out a forester to evaluate land before the timber harvest operation begins. Murphy suggested taking base line photos of proposed large forestry operations before they begin.
Germond asked the Board what extent of the surface water they wanted to protect; streams and great ponds, or just ponds? Silverman said he’d like to protect as much as they reasonably could.
Germond said the calculations of impervious surfaces have a role in creating requirements for a stormwater management plan. She said Jaffrey’s ordinance is less restrictive than the model and focuses on building density and septic systems.
Pini said she would like a chart that compares the protections that exist already so the Board can see what remains to be protected. Gray agreed, adding that it would help to see the ramifications for already developed areas, what the impact would be of various options.
Parker urged caution as the Board proceeds. He said it is very difficult and expensive to prove the source of pollution in the great ponds. It creates legal problems. He noted two instances in which DES approved septic systems too close to the lake. He feels this is a slippery slope.
Barbara Green said it seems like there are two issues challenging Laurel Lake; cottages built before 1967, close to the water with inadequate septic systems, and contamination in the soil that leaches into the water. She said she doesn’t know how much impact we can have on the old cottages, but can try to prevent future contamination with control over building and vegetation. Murphy said an ordinance on the books will support enforcement but prevention is primary concern. Parker said unfortunately, some people don’t obey the law. He said it is hard to get compliance, and the town leaves it to the state.
Germond said she has a map of the waterways in Fitzwilliam and can do a comparison chart. Also, she can make maps based on different scenarios, different protection standards. Silverman said the Board isn’t trying to make it so restrictive that no building is possible, just wants to prevent problems with local guidelines.
Paul Kotila said he’d reinforce Silverman’s emphasis on simplicity – simplicity for town volunteers and simple to explain to others. He said the WPOD works; it’s educational and preventative because wetlands have to be delineated prior to obtaining a building permit. He suggested a gap analysis, to see what we don’t currently protect with the WPOD and the CSPA and use that as a basis for going forward.
He added that guidance documents would be needed for residents and developers for new construction and modifications. Laurel Lake is most problematic because of the density of existing development. We need to make it easier for people to understand what they can and can’t do. Germond said there are lots of models in surrounding towns to use.
Silverman thanked them for coming.
7:30 pm Public hearing continued: Mulcahey Land and Timber, LLC application for a boundary line adjustment and a four lot subdivision of property located between West Lake Road and Webb Hill Road, Map 11, Lot 5-1 and Map 27, Lot 13, Rural District.
Wes Whitham, abutter, was present.
Kevin Horgan, with Graz Engineering, represented the Mulcahey Timber Company. The Board had a copy of an email sent by Paul Grasewicz saying Mr. Mulcahey wished to engage the wetlands expert with the least expensive estimate.
The Board reviewed three bids. Following some discussion Yon moved, Gray seconded and the Board voted that all three proposals met the requirements of the RFP. Silverman said the applicant can choose the proposal he wants. Kevin suggested that time was a factor and they would like it done ASAP. Staff will ask each bidder when they can begin and relay that information to Grasewicz.
Silverman moved, Landy seconded and the Board voted to continue the hearing to February 2, 2010 at 7 PM.
Ogilvie proposal. The Board reviewed the proposal from Carol Ogilvie to provide planning assistance to the Board for preparing the future land use chapter of the 2010 master plan update. The Board agreed the proposal was reasonable. Silverman noted her familiarity with the town and its need is compelling.
Silverman moved, Haynes seconded and the Board approved the Ogilvie proposal as presented.
Minutes. The Board reviewed minutes of the December 1, 2009 meeting. Haynes pointed out a correction. Silverman moved, Landy seconded and the Board approved the minutes as amended.
Ordinance review.
Paul Grasewicz emailed proposed changes to the WPOD, as requested:
127-16.1B.- Add a new last sentences to the definition of “WETLANDS” :
The term “wetlands” does not apply to isolated wet areas smaller than 1,000 square feet in area for the purpose of setbacks and the procedural requirements of this by-law. Nothing herein shall be construed as providing relief from the applicable state and/or federal requirements relative to these isolated wetlands.
Note to Planning Board- The purpose of this revision is to provide relief for small isolated wet areas in consideration of the new 75 foot “no-build” radius which must surround them. The Rindge Wetland Ordinance similarly exempts areas smaller than 3,000 square feet (and also exempts man-made ditches, swales & ponds)
127-16.1D.(6) (a)- Rewrite:
- No septic tank, pump chamber or effluent disposal area shall be located within 75 feet of wetlands for new construction. The expansion of an existing system to accommodate additional design sewage loading shall be considered as new construction.
127-16.1D.(7) (a)- Add the following:
…lawfully located structure, septic/effluent disposal system or component or public utility…….
Silverman said he wasn’t thrilled with the definition changes and Haynes and Landy agreed. Landy asked about vernal pools, Silverman asked about properties with lots of small pockets of wetlands, suggesting this definition could exempt many properties from the ordinance.
Pini said that the Rindge ordinance referred to in the email allowed a very large project to go forward even though a small wetlands was involved. She suggested exploring how many of these small wetlands we have or address vernal pools separately. She wondered about state regulations of small wetlands. Silverman said state regulations won’t apply to our issuing building permits. The WPOD process, he added, gives the town and Board more flexibility.
The Board considered the rewrite of 127-16.1 D.(6)(a). Pini thought this may help with issue of old cottages on Laurel Lake expanding, adding bedrooms. Parker thought it might address some of the septic issues raised by a seasonal conversion to year around use. Landy noted there are new technologies that utilize smaller spaces for septic disposal. Pini said the Board could waive the 75 foot requirement under WPOD regulations if necessary.
The Board considered the amendment to 127-16.1 D.(7)(a). Silverman said this speaks to repairs of failed systems; that a wetlands hearing wouldn’t be necessary for replacement systems and therefore speeds the process. He asked if the goals of the WPOD would be served by not holding wetlands hearings for replacement of failed systems within the WPOD. Yon said he had seen cases where a system was placed in the WPOD when it could have been placed outside, because it was easier or less expensive. Parker feels replacement systems don’t get checked very often anyway. He said the town only gets involved when a building permit is necessary. Gray noted that there was a danger in just ignoring the problems.
Silverman said if the Board allows it as an exemption, DES still has to review it. Yon didn’t feel DES would pay attention. Gray asked if septic designers look at our ordinances. Silverman thinks they check DES regulations but not local ones. Yon said he favored leaving it alone, making no exemption for repairs or replacement. Gray feels the rewrite of 127-16.1 D.(6)(a) clarifies the current situation. Landy moved, Yon seconded and the Board agreed to include it as an amendment for 2010.
Growth Management Ordinance. There was some discussion about repealing the ordinance, with caution being expressed that the town might grow faster than it was prepared for. Pini feels the town cannot in good conscious continue the ordinance, but that it could be brought back if circumstances warrant. Right now the predicted growth rate is small and more importantly the town does not have a plan to accommodate more growth, which is a requirement under the new state legislation. The Planning Board recommends repealing the ordinance by voting yes. This language will be added to the warrant.
Variances. Silverman described this as a housekeeping change that is mandated by state law. Yon noted it does away with the distinction between a Use variance and an Area variance. Both variances are now decided using the same criteria.
Fixed Wireless Transmitter Antenna Array. Pini noted a discrepancy in the language and it will be changed. This amendment will allow deployment of repeater equipment in all districts with a building permit when a tower is not required.
Livestock. Haynes noted that water wells have been eliminated from the ordinance. The Board agreed to eliminate domesticated animals and pets from the ordinance as well. Yon suggested changing the code enforcement officer to a more generic term so any officer designated by the Selectmen could do the enforcement. Language was changed so livestock and fowl kept as pets are included.
Silverman asked that the Board receive all the proposed ordinances, including the ones from 2009, in their next packet. Public hearings are scheduled for January 5th and 19th.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 PM.
| 
