Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
January 6, 2004
Members present: Terry Silverman; Chairman, Joan McLaughlin, Macreay Landy and Paul Grasewicz; Vice-Chairman
Members absent: Carlotta Lilback Pini and Robin Haynes
Carmen Yon from the Conservation Commission was also present.
Chairman Silverman opened the meeting at 7:08 p.m.
Public Hearings
7:05 Public Hearing to receive and consider public testimony for five proposed amendments to the Land Usage Ordinance with regards to the Wetlands Protection Ordinance, the Wireless Communication Ordinance, the Table of Principal Uses, Building Permit Required and references to Building Inspector within the Ordinances and to adopt a Table of Accessory Uses. – Chairman Silverman opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. and read aloud the public notice as advertised in the Keene Sentinel and noticed in the Town Hall and at the Post Office.
Chairman Silverman read aloud the first amendment which adds language to the end of Chapter 127-16.1 Wetlands Protection Overlay District and Ordinance, Section D. Procedural Requirements, (3) Planning Board Review (a); which would allow for an application fee and abutter notification fees to be paid by the applicant and to be established by the Board of Selectmen. Chairman Silverman asked if anyone wished to speak to the amendment. There was no comment. Chairman Silverman moved to adopt the amendment as written. Joan McLaughlin seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.
Chairman Silverman read aloud the second amendment which is to remove language from Chapter 127-16.2 Wireless Communication Facility Ordinance and Overlay District, Section F. Construction Performance Requirements, 4.) Additional Requirements for Wireless Communications Facilities, a. Setbacks and Separations, “Towers must be set back a distance equal to 125% of the height of the tower from any site boundary or District setback, whichever is greater, measured from the edge of the State R-O-W”. The language to be removed is “measured from the edge of the State R-O-W”. Chairman Silverman asked if anyone wished to speak to the amendment. There was no comment. Chairman Silverman moved to adopt the amendment as written. Joan McLaughlin seconded. A
unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.
Chairman Silverman read aloud the third amendment which would make one change on the Table of Principal Uses at the back of the Land Use Regulations; under General Business District, Section 127-9. Residential Uses, Item F. Home Occupation/Business currently reads “N” meaning that it is not an allowed use, and it should read “Y” meaning that it is an allowed use to be consistent with Section 127-11 G., a combined business and dwelling, which is allowable in this district by Special Exception. Chairman Silverman asked if anyone wished to speak to this amendment. There was no comment. Chairman Silverman moved to adopt this amendment as written. Joan McLaughlin seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.
Chairman Silverman read aloud the fourth amendment which is to Section 127-39: Building Permit required. The amendment is to change the words “building permit”, to “construction permit” and “Building Inspector” to “Code Enforcement Officer”. Chairman Silverman asked if anyone wished to speak to the amendment. There was no comment. Chairman Silverman moved to adopt the amendment as written. Joan McLaughlin seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.
Chairman Silverman read aloud the fifth amendment, which through an Editor’s Note at the bottom of the third page of the Land Use Regulations, would change all references of “Building Inspector” to “Code Enforcement Officer”, and all references of “building permit” to “construction permit” within the Code of the Town of Fitzwilliam. Chairman Silverman asked if anyone wished to speak to this amendment. There was no comment. Chairman Silverman moved to adopt this amendment as written. Macreay Landy seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.
Chairman Silverman stated that the last item for this public hearing is to adopt a “Table of Accessory Uses”. Mr. Silverman explained that the table would be added at the back of the Land Use Regulations manual after the Table of Principal Uses, and would merely better define the information contained within the regulations. Chairman Silverman asked if anyone wished to speak to this proposed adoption. There was no comment. Chairman Silverman moved to adopt the “Table of Accessory Uses” as presented. Macreay Landy seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.
Chairman Silverman moved to close this public hearing at 7:16 p.m. Macreay Landy seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.
7:30 Russell Raitto for a Major Site Plan Review to create a 7-unit condominium housing development for senior citizens 55 years of age and older on property known as Tax Map 15; Lot 57-01 in the Residential District. – Chairman Silverman opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. and read the case title aloud. Mr. William Norton and Mr. Joe Harrington from 55 Housing Partnership, LLC and Martin Risley from Clough, Harbour & Associates were present this evening.
Chairman Silverman reviewed the file and moved that the application is complete. Paul Grasewicz seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.
Mr. Norton introduced himself, Mr. Harrington and Mr. Risley. Mr. Norton told the Board that here this evening to present Fitzwilliam Meadows, a small scale, age restricted condominium project on 7.6 acres of land located between Rt. 12 and Rt. 119. Mr. Norton stated that the revised plans shows seven units located on the east side of this parcel with access from Rt. 119, and explained that the conceptual yield plan showed that the developed site could accommodate seven units in cluster format, so they reduced the number of units from the original eight that they were looking at. Mr. Norton noted that removing one unit allows for better placement of the pump house which is now outside of the wetlands buffer zone area.
Mr. Norton spoke of the units next explaining that they would be one and a half story units, each on its own lot, with each owner owning a condominium envelope. The remainder of the property is owned as a limited common area, and then there is a limited area behind the units; a private backyard space. Mr. Norton noted that a porch or deck could be added behind the building as long as it does not get closer than 30’ tip to tip per the Town’s regulations.
Mr. Norton noted that they have reviewed this project with the Board previously and he thinks that some positive notes about this are that it is a good tax base, it is a gateway project for the village, there is a lot of greenspace preservation for the wetlands, there is a community well and they have on record that two well protection radiuses have been recorded with two abutters. Mr. Norton said that they are seeking conditional approval for the Site Plan from the Board subject to the DES Site Specific permit they have applied for. Mr. Norton noted that they did hear from DES today with some minor comments which they will be responding to in the next week or two. Additionally, they have obtained a driveway permit from the State DOT, and State approval on the septic
plans is pending on the Wetlands Permit. Mr. Norton told the Board that they would like to answer any questions that they may have.
Mac questioned what the minor comments from DES were and Mr. Risley looked for the paperwork. Margo provided the Board with a copy that DES faxed to her this afternoon. Chairman Silverman clarified that the orange squares on the display board depicted the house units and asked what the well setback from the property line was, to which Mr. Norton said it was 25’. Chairman Silverman asked about distances between the buildings and Mr. Risley referred the Board to the notes on drawing C-2 of the plans; note #7 indicates that all buildings must be a minimum of 30’ apart, no building shall be located within 6’ from the edge of the proposed driveway and no prohibited construction shall be allowed beyond the setback line. Paul questioned if there were any
dwellings or anything currently in use near by these setbacks and it was noted that there is nothing within 50’ of the boundary line. Paul clarified that no waivers have been asked for and Mr. Risley said that he was not aware of any.
Mac questioned what the minimal disturbance of wetlands was and Mr. Risley explained that the shallow ditch running alongside the existing gravel road is technically a wetland. They are going to have to cross the ditch to put a culvert in that will run along the road that would be built to go into the development. Mac asked if there were any other wetlands to be disturbed. Mr. Risley said that the fill extension for the septic system is in the buffer zone, but the system is not, and then there is also the detention pond and treatment area, but these are also within the buffer zone and are not in the wetlands. Chairman Silverman asked the Board if they felt that the Conservation Commission should review the wetlands. Mr. Risley told the Board that they met with the
Conservation Commission before they met with the Planning Board, and a site visit was done which they thought was going to be reported to the Board. Carmen Yon, a member of the Conservation Commission was present and told the Board that they did do a site visit, but they did not do a report because there was no application filed. Chairman Silverman said that the Conservation Commission should go for an authorized visit now that a formal application has been filed.
In reviewing the third drawing of the plans, C-3 Site Layout Plan, Chairman Silverman questioned if the entrance into this development would be a road or a driveway. Mr. Risley stated that it is a driveway and reviewed the plans noting that erosion control measures would be in place during construction. There is a separate detailed sheet on the paving section and a grading plan. Mr. Risley explained that silt fencing would be in place below any area to be excavated to prevent any sediment runoff into the wetlands. The asphalt pad near the Rt. 12 edge will be removed and fill will be put in there. Mr. Risley added that there are some trees in the area where the driveway would be going that would have to come out. Chairman Silverman questioned if the wooded buffer in this area
was entirely on this property and Mr. Norton said that some of it is on this property but not all of it. Mr. Norton pointed out areas on the drawing noting a stone wall as a boundary and the woods on this property. Mac questioned the trees shown after the last building in the development and asked if they were to be planted to serve as buffers. Mr. Norton said that the trees would be planted to provide shade, but they could serve as buffers as well. Mac questioned what would be visible in terms of buildings, when driving up Rt. 12. Mr. Norton said that the last two units would be visible from Rt. 12, to which Mac asked if there was a way to buffer them more. Mr. Norton seemed to think that they could extend the westerly view over a little bit more. Mac noted that this area is the gateway into a historic town, and he feels that this should be buffered. Mr. Norton explained that the intent of the two visible units would be that they look like single residences, and then added
that perhaps they could add some tree line between the last house and Rt. 12. Joan said that she agrees that additional buffers would improve the site and the view of the area and noted that you do see the fields and would see the houses, and added that additional trees would also provide a noise buffer from the traffic on Rt. 12 for the people that would be living there.
Chairman Silverman asked if there would be water available for fire suppression and Mr. Norton said that these would be designed with a residential sprinkler system made of PVC and there is enough water in the well to handle that. Paul clarified that all of the units are sprinkled to which Mr. Norton said that they are.
Mac confirmed that entry into the development would be from Rt. 119 and asked about the site lines and how much is available for oncoming traffic. Mr. Risley said that site distance is in excess of 400’ in each direction and it is fairly clear to the left side and at least a car length from the edge of Rt. 119 and the tree line. Mr. Risley noted that the engineer he met with regarding this stopped at 400’ because that was the cutoff as it is enough. Mac said that he was more concerned with vision in the summer months. Mr. Risley added that he has a copy of the driveway permit with him. The Board has a copy in the file as Margo had obtained a copy of it.
Paul asked if they have made any provisions for trash pick-up or if they were looking at having a dumpster or something else. Mr. Norton explained that there would be a homeowners association and he would presume that they would contract out for service as dumpsters are typically not wanted. Paul said that in the event there is a common dumpster he would like to see an area set aside for that, but if there is a contract or something within the condominium documents about this then this would not be necessary.
Joan asked about parking and Mr. Norton said that each unit would have a 2-car garage. Joan asked if there would be a common parking area and Mr. Risley explained that the road would be 20’ wide where it is two-way and 16’ wide where it is one-way so it is really as wide as any normal street would be where there is generally room for parking. Additionally, there would be sloped granite curbing throughout. Paul asked if there would be 20’ of driveway in front of the garage and Mr. Risley said that it would be at least that.
Paul asked if there is any lighting proposed for the entrance to which Mr. Risley said that he doesn’t recall what is currently there, but there isn’t anything proposed. Chairman Silverman asked if the utilities would be underground or above ground, to which Mr. Norton said they would be underground.
Chairman Silverman told Mr. Norton that he would like to see the following provided:
· A note on the plans for the common land which needs to correspond to one of the three choices under Section 127-16 C. Common Land.
· An agreement that this is to be a driveway and not a road, and that the association will maintain the driveway in perpetuity.
· Documentation on the fire suppression systems noting responsibility for them being installed correctly. A note on the plan is acceptable; however the Board of Firewards should approve the individual units.
Mr. Risley questioned who he should contact with regards to the last item and Wendy Carney of the Fire Department was present at this meeting and provided Mr. Risley with the names of the Firewards and the telephone number to the station.
Mac questioned if the style of the home presented is the same for all of the units and Mr. Norton explained that there are two possible styles for a one floor unit consisting of 1,150 sq. ft. and a complete second floor unit would go up to 2,900 sq. ft., but from the outside they would all look similar. Mac told the Board that it would be interesting to have the Historic District Commission review the plans for the style of the houses since this is the gateway into town and they may have some suggestions with regards to design.
Paul asked if anything has been submitted to DES for the septic and subdivision approval yet. Mr. Risley said that they have not submitted anything yet but they have done a preliminary design showing that they have plenty of space for it. Paul reviewed the road grades also noting that they are 2% and one short section is 4%, but there is nothing over 4%. Paul then asked if there are any signs proposed and Mr. Norton said nothing other than the address for 911 and a unit number on each building. Mac questioned if they have confirmed that this meets the dimensional requirements and Chairman Silverman said that they have not determined that yet.
Wendy Carney asked if these would be built to be wheelchair accessible to which Mr. Norton said that they would be adaptable and close to grade with one or two steps. Paul questioned if they would have basements or frost walls and slabs and Mr. Norton said that this is to be determined, but basements are preferred for the utilities. Paul noted that it looks like a couple of the units could have walk-outs at the rear of the unit. Paul noted that the pavement is very narrow around the cul-de-sac and asked about the radius for this. Mr. Risley said that the pavement is 16’ and then there is a hardened grass with pavers which would allow grass to grow through. Mr. Risley said that they actually drove a truck around in there with the autocad, and they curved the road to keep the drainage refined. Mr.
Risley noted that there is plenty of room for a fire truck to get in there. The cul-de-sac will be one-way traffic.
In reviewing the colored drawing of the development, Paul questioned the trees and shrubs shown within the interior of the development and Mr. Risley explained that this drawing was done quite some time ago and now it appears that some of these things will not be there. Mr. Norton indicated that there would be a landscaping package for each unit. Joan clarified that there would be a 25’ setback in the rear of the buildings to the property line. Mac asked about the lot width for the building envelopes and Mr. Risley said that they vary, and there is a range of 50’ which is the smallest, to 63’, and a typical size is 40’x56’ but it could get a little smaller or bigger.
Carmen Yon said that he was familiar with detention ponds but not so much with treatment swales and asked if he could obtain a little more information. Mr. Risley explained that a treatment swale is a very shallow depression at a very flat grade and the purpose is to drain storm water through it at a very slow velocity, so that the grasses and other solids will not get through the detention pond and settle in the swale before they reach their discharge point. The treatment swale works to slow water down with the objective being that this be at maximum velocity point per percent for treatment, and in this case they were able to maintain a percentage in a 25 year storm, it is more than the minimum needed. Mr. Yon clarified that this is not an active treatment and asked if it just treats the overflow or
seepage, and asked how this is controlled. Mr. Risley explained that the pond has relatively larger pipes going in, so a higher flow will go into the pond and it will go in at a higher rate than it is released so it has to be stored, but there are no mechanical devices. Mac questioned the calculations done and Mr. Risley said that they were done for 2, 10, 25 and 50 year storms and the post development flow rate where the water leaves the site is lower in all four storms than the pre-developed condition. Mac asked about a 100 year storm and Mr. Risley said that he did not calculate that.
Chairman Silverman moved to continue this public hearing if there were no objections. Macreay Landy seconded. Paul and Mac noted that a Site Walk needs to be scheduled. Mr. Risley asked if he could ask a question which Chairman Silverman allowed. Mr. Risley said that they mentioned something about a site dimensional conformity and said that it sounds like there might be some questions about this. Mac referred Mr. Risley to Section 127-16 B. 3. Dimensional Requirements of the Cluster Development Ordinance. Mr. Risley asked if there was a question about this. Chairman Silverman said that they could discuss this next time. Mr. Risley said that he thought that this issue had been put aside. Chairman Silverman said that they cannot put this aside at a preliminary
hearing and they have to understand that even though the Planning Board is familiar with the project, they are starting from scratch in terms of presentation and official discussion. Chairman Silverman asked if anyone had any comments about the dimensional requirements and whether or not they were going to be a hindrance to this project. Paul said that with the regulations and the way the by-laws are written, his main question was about density and he thinks that they have adequately addressed that, and he is fine with the setbacks and perimeters. Mac said that some of the dimensions seem to fit; front, side and rear yards, and the front lot widths do not, but he does not know how critical that is. Joan said that she agrees with Mac that most of the dimensions seem to fit but the width seems kind of iffy. Chairman Silverman noted that this does not affect the community at large, and what would affect the Board would be the side to side and back yards, to which the Board
agreed and noted that the applicant has made every effort to work with this.
Chairman Silverman moved that under 127-16 B. 3. Dimensional Requirements, this project meets the needs of the community in relation to those requirements. Paul Grasewicz seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.
Chairman Silverman stated that the issue of internal dimensions has been laid to rest and closed the public hearing at 8:27 p.m. Chairman Silverman asked Mr. Norton and Mr. Risley when they thought that they would be ready to come back before the Board and they said that they would be ready for the first Board meeting in February. The Board agreed to conduct a site walk on Saturday, January 24, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. The Conservation Commission is welcome to attend as well.
Chairman Silverman moved again to continue this public hearing to February 3, 2004 with the time to be determined still. Chairman Silverman noted that individual noticing would not be done. Macreay Landy seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.
Appointments
8:15 Meet with John Holman to discuss selling loam and sand on property located on Rt. 12 South, Tax Map 8; Lot 14 in the General Industrial District. – Mr. Holman clarified where this property is; the field across from Bottom’s Up and next to Bloomin’ Antiques on Rt. 12 South. Chairman Silverman asked for a quantity to be sold and Mr. Holman said that the total at one time would not exceed 200 yards. Mr. Holman explained that he is basically looking to service people that go to his home on Saturdays and Sundays looking for materials. The loam, sand, etc., would be brought to this site to be stored and sold from, and there would not be any excavating done at this site. Mr. Holman added that you would not be able to see the piles of dirt, etc. from Rt. 12 because this
operation would be set back off of the road 30’- 40’ and the parcel is buffered.
Chairman Silverman moved that this proposed use be considered a construction yard under Section 127-12 C. which is an allowed use in the General Industrial District. Joan McLaughlin questioned 127-12 D. lumberyard, and the Board discussed that this sounds like it would be mostly storage, and both types of yards are very similar although D. mentions “sale of”. Chairman Silverman agreed and changed his motion to reflect 127-12 D. Macreay Landy seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken
Administrative Work
Ø Review and approve meeting minutes from December 16, 2003 – Joan McLaughlin moved to accept the minutes of December 16, 2003 as written. Macreay Landy seconded. A unanimous vote in favor of the motion was taken.
Ø Review/discuss any changes to Master Plan final text – There were no changes presented by the Board at this time. This will go on the next agenda to give the Board members a little more time to review the plan.
Correspondence
Ø Letter from the Board of Firewards re: CIP - Reviewed
Ø Notices of Decision from the Town of Winchendon - Reviewed
Ø Notices of Public Hearing from the Town of Winchendon - Reviewed
Ø Copies of letters forwarded by the Selectmen’s Office – Reviewed
Ø December 2003 issue of CEI Environmental Edge – The Board will review at their leisure.
Margo told the Board that she received a telephone call from Jennifer Berg-Gill with regards to purchasing a horse for her three daughters. Their home is in the rural district, a few houses down from Turtle Rock Rescue. The Board agreed that this would be classified as recreation for personal use, which is an allowed use in this district. Margo will advise Mrs. Berg-Gill of this.
Margo told the Board that she obtained a copy of the Intent to Cut for the Rockwood Pond Road subdivision that was approved in November. The Intent was filed prior to the subdivision application being filed; however, the subdivision plan was prepared and dated prior to the Intent being applied for. Chairman Silverman asked the Board if they thought that they should respond to this. The Board felt that they should. Chairman Silverman stated that a property owner is well within their rights to cut trees on their property, but if they then decide to subdivide the property, they may have already cut into buffer zones and affected boundaries, which could be problematic for their subdivision plans. The Board asked Margo to prepare a letter and a copy is to be forwarded to the Board of Selectmen.
Joan told the Board about a possible business taking place directly across from the beginning of Royalston Road, on Rt. 119. She stated that a lot of excavating has been done along the edge of the road and there is a lot of logging truck activity taking place. There is a large sign there that reads that they do logging, land clearing, timber cutting and snowplowing and there is an out of town telephone number on it. Joan added that there are wetlands across from the banking that was taken down, which is in the area of where the old Rt. 119 once ran. Chairman Silverman suggested that Joan write a letter to the Board of Selectmen.
Chairman Silverman adjourned the meeting at 8:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Margo M. Best
Administrative Assistant
Land Use Boards
| 
