Wilton Planning Board

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

 

 

Members: Chairman Matt Fish, Co-chairman Brian Sullivan,  Andrew Fairbank, Selectmen’s Rep. Dan Donovan, Alec MacMartin, NRPC Rep. Steve Wagner and Alt. Bill Condra.

 

Richard R. Tuttle Sr., Trustee & C. Wilton Sullivan, Trustee

Subdivision

Brain Adams asked for a continuance until next month. 

 

VOTE: Mr. MacMartin made a motion to continue until next month.  Mr. Sullivan seconded the motion.  Motion passed unanimously.

 

John & Jessie Garabrant – Lot F-32

Change of use from single family to a two family unit

The site plan for conversion in a two family home in village district is not complete. 

 

The building permit application is still in the Building Inspector Bill Condra’s desk and the applicant has not come back with a plan to comply with the square footage.

 

VOTE: Mr. MacMartin made a motion to rescind the conditional approval for failure to meet the conditions and to deny the application for lack of prosecution.    Mr. Donovan seconded the motion.  Motion passed unanimously.

 

The secretary will forward a notice of decision and a denial letter and copy of the minutes to the applicant.

 

Household of Faith – Lot J-38

Change of use from single family to four dwellings

Alec MacMartin is off the Board.  Alt. Bill Condra will replace him.

Peter Manha was present.

 

See file for following items:

Letter from the Fire Chief Ray Dick.  (letter was read at meeting)

Letter from Jim Tuttle, Water Dept., dated Jan 2, 2006

 

Mr. Tuttle’s letter addressed if there were adequate water and there are some fire code issues.  Discussed if the fire code concerns would be an issue for the site plan or CO.  Mr. Condra explained the site plan and the fire codes are standards and informed the Board the applicant needs a one hour fire wall between the units.

 

The current water line is adequate for two dwellings.  The applicant questioned if the building can start as two units if satisfied the sewer dept. 

 

Mr. Condra explained the applicant needs five permits; one for each unit and one for the common space such as the parking.  The applicant will receive four residential units CO and a fifth one for the common area as code compliance.

 

It was noted that half the propane tank is on the setback.  Discussed if the surveyor did an on-site survey or via the tax maps.  It was determined the lot lines came from the deeds.

 

VOTE: Mr. Sullivan made a motion to accept the application.  Mr. Condra seconded the motion.  Motion passed unanimously.

 

VOTE: Mr. Sullivan made a motion to approve the plan.  Mr. Donovan seconded the plan.   Motion passed unanimously.

 

The plans were signed.  The Board kept five copies and gave one to the applicant.  The applicant was informed if they need more to bring copies to the town hall for signatures.

 

NRPC will call in the fees into the office.

Mr. MacMartin is back on the Board and Mr. Condra left the meeting. 

 

Sign Application

The Woolery – Lot F-17

Deb Degan was present

The applicant wishes to install a two sided sign 4” x 3” rectangle.

The area is 28 square feet.  The height above grade is 5 ft.

 

She questioned if the existing side is on the gable then it can stay.  Mr. MacMartin read the ordinance and since the building is in the Industrial Zone it was determined the existing sign must be removed from the building.  “Can have a 4 square foot sign for the purpose of identifying the location of the business”.

 

Ms. Degan does not feel she has excessive signage by looking at the other businesses in the area.  She was informed that House by the Side of the Road/Convenience 101 should be down to one sign.  Dan Donovan is encouraging people to file petition warrant article since he feels the ordinance is overly restrictive.  Also some of her neighbors are grandfathered or agricultural.

 

VOTE: Mr. MacMartin made a motion to accept the sign application subject to bring the signage into compliance.  Mr. Sullivan seconded the motion.  Mr. Donovan abstained.  Motion passed.

 

NEW APPLICATIONS

New Spartan Properties, LLC – Lot F-122

Revised reclamation plan

Thomas & James Quinn were present.

 

Mr. Quinn went over the new plans for reclamation and discussed a conservation easement, which would allow green space in the back.  They will stay 50 feet away from public service poles. 

 

Tom Quinn pointed out the project has been problem free since they purchased the property from Sam Proctor in 1998. 

 

Mr. Fish visited the property recently and said it looked fine but he would like to see an outside review of the plan since it is in close proximity to the Souhegan River and for the 2:1 slopes. 

 

Flood lines, direction of drainage and setback, 100 year flood plan and shoreline line protection drainage will be added to the plan. 

The plan will have an abutter list on the cover sheets

 

VOTE:  Mr. MacMartin made a motion to continue.   Mr. Sullivan seconded the motion.  Motion passed unanimously.

 

New Spartan Properties, LLC – Lots F-122, F-121-3 and M-59

15 lot cluster subdivision

Thomas & James Quinn were present.

 

The applicant has been to the ZBA for variance for 500 ft. of frontage since the project has the 500 foot frontage but it is not contiguous.  Each owner will own their lot.

 

Tom Quinn noted the cluster regulations state if the houses are on town sewer and water it can have a density of underline unit of 12.6 but if the applicant can meet five of the criterias then they can have 25%.  He felt they met five.

 

Criteria

1. Minimum of access points of existing roads

2.  Provide for more green space than required.  Have 15 acres and needed 12

3.  Attractive design

4.  Absence of development along existing road.

Tom didn’t mention his fifth criteria – see file

 

 

Mr. MacMartin felt that the one house on Abbot Hill Road is really a lot on its own (lot F-122-15). The Board questioned if the applicant is using the frontage on that lot to equal the 500 ft. contiguous frontage and then to have it standalone is a problem.  Discussed a smaller envelope on this lot.

 

Don King, Jr. (lot F-121-4) wondered what the problem with lot F-122-15.  Felt that lot should be more upscale and bigger since he is one of the most impacted abutter.  His property is two 2-acre lots and he has an interest to tie into the sewer line so his other two acres would be useable.

 

An abutter wondered about the size limitations.  T. Quinn said min of 2,000 sq ft.

 

Abutter John Jowders wondered if check valves are on the sewer line so the abutters on that road can tie into it.  There are two or three homes on that road.  Tom Quinn answered that it will be a pressured line and that they can raise that issue with the sewer department.

 

Setbacks were a concern for abutter Robert MacIntosh on lot F-122-1.  The provision of green space was read.  50-70 feet from the lot line was his answer.

 

The applicant has submitted a rough draft with the Conservation Commission regarding the easement.  Each house will own 1/15 of the common area.  They will give the Conservation Commission an easement from Richfield Road down to the river.  The path’s use will be limited to walking, hiking, cross country skiing or access for fishing by foot and no motorized vehicles allowed.  A sign with limitations is requested.  It was discussed that vehicle access may be needed for emergency access and maintenance and this topic will be discussed further.  The issue of a parking area was discussed.

 

Mr. MacIntosh was informed that Richfield Road would be town road.

 

New Spartan asked George Bower to come before the board to discuss the road intersection and traffic.  He liked the “T” intersection.  The east section and the west section have a straight section coming into Richfield Road. 

 

Bower determined that there could be 9.57 trips per day and that includes UPS, mail and fuel delivery estimates.  He explained that a trip is one vehicle going out then another trip is one vehicle coming in.  See file for hand out on trip distribution.  (see file dated Jan 18, 2006 from C. George Bower, Ph.D. Subject New Spartan Properties Proposed Subdivision)

 

The level of services was discussed.  Bower didn’t compare it to the existing traffic there now and his figures looked at the amount of delay at the intersection.  He explained “when you go out to Rt. 101 you don’t wait much but if you make a left turn you can wait a long time, which is characteristic of that whole route.  If a car waits less than a minute that is acceptable.  Adding 15-20 vehicles does not increase that much.  Roughly a vehicle every 7-8 minute does not add much.  You would have to add 25-30 houses before it can measure much significant delay then only see that on a left hand turn.  Right turns, which will see predominantly won’t cause a delay.  Have that left turn lane to go back into the area”.

 

Mr. MacIntosh wondered what the level of service is on Abbot Hill with two schools on that road and he feels it is a bad sight line.  Bower explained that 4-6 cars may be a level of service B.  Left turn may have only one car but it could take 2-3 minutes to get out.  It is your average level of delay.  Also the level of service is due to the road.

 

DOT has data available from a study done when the intersection was redesigned

and they looked at the level of service for that area for future use.  Mr.  Wagner added there is a Rt. 101 corridor study. 

 

There were concerns if Proctor Road can handle the traffic increase.  Bower said that NRPC does counts and suggested the town may want to ask the road agent to talk to Bruce Berry of the public works in Amherst at 673-2317.

 

Mr. Wagner’s main comment was if they could utilize the time with the board to see if this is a cluster.  He wondered if they look at the regulations if this is more of a compact condo area.  Mr. MacMartin is concerned that the units go in the right place and suggested a building envelope

 

Discussed driveway location and if they need to be moved.  He was told to make it a stipulation that they would need to come back to the board for an amended site plan to relocate a driveway.   Abutters would not have to be noticed.  That note will be added.

 

The Board would like to see a parking detail for each unit and to look at drainage issues.

 

Spencer Brookes suggested talking with other landowners who may come in with a cluster subdivision.  He wants to be fully aware of the definition of cluster.  Discussed Orchard Views cluster division.

 

VOTE: Mr. MacMartin made a motion to continue to next month.  Mr. Donovan seconded the motion.  Motion passed unanimously.

 

VOTE: Mr. Sullivan moved to end meeting.  Mr. MacMartin seconded it.  Meeting adjourned at 10:27 PM

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Kathleen Humphreys

Secretary

 

<Back to Planning Board Home Page>