DUNBARTON ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT
MONDAY, JULY 9, 2001
TOWN OFFICES – 7:00 P.M.
The regular monthly meeting of the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment was held at the above time, date and place with Chairman Terry Swain presiding. The following members were present:
Terry Swain, Chairman Bruce
Vaal, Building Inspector
John Trottier, Co-Chairman
Alison Vallieres, Secretary
Gertrude Dulude
John Herlihy
John Van, Alternate
Scott Ives, Alternate
David Nault, Alternate
The
Chairman verified with the Secretary that the meeting notice had been posted in
three public places throughout the Town and published in the Concord Monitor
for one day. The Secretary verified
this fact.
The
minutes of the previous meeting of Monday, June 18, 2001 were accepted
as written by a motion from Scott Ives to accept as written with a second from
John Van. The motion passed
unanimously.
7:00 p.m. – CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR REQUEST FROM LOUIS J. PICHETTE FOR A VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 4, SECTION B. OF THE DUNBARTON ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW HIM TO REPLACE AN EXISTING LEACH FIELD AND WAIVE THE 50 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT BECAUSE THE LOT WIDTH OF 100 FEET AT HIS PROPERTY ON 14 GARY ROAD AT GORHAM POND IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
At this point in the meeting, Chairman Terry Swain announced that Louis Pichette had contacted the Secretary of the Board and indicated that he did not have all the information requested by the Board at the previous public hearing, therefore the item would be continued until next month.
MOTION:
A motion was made by John Trottier that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment continue the Public Hearing for the Request from Louis J. Pichette for a Variance to Article 4, Section B. of the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance to allow him to replace an existing leach field and waive the 50 foot setback requirement because the lot width of 100 feet at his property on 14 Gary Road at Gorham Pond in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH. The motion was seconded by John Herlihy.
The motion passed unanimously.
7:15
p.m. –PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ARTICLE 9, SECTION 3
OF THE DUNBARTON ZONING ORDINANCE FROM BRIAN AND CHRISTINE IVINJACK TO ALLOW
THEM TO OPERATE A HOME OFFICE FOR WHOLESALING OF USED CARS AT THEIR PROPERTY AT
23 ARMANDS WAY IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
Mr. And Mrs. Ivinjack appeared before the Board and
stated that they needed to use their home address to obtain a State wholesaling
license to wholesale used cars. They
stated they never have vehicles at their home.
They purchase a “lot” of cars from a dealer. They immediately have them transported to the “auction”. The cars do not come to their
residence. The “auction” sells cars
every Wednesday and Saturday. If the
vehicle does not sell immediately, the auction continues to hold the vehicle
there at that property until such time as it is sold.
Mr. Ivinjack stated that on rare occasions, he would
bring a used car home but it would have dealer plates on it. He stated he has several friends who allow
him to use their dealer plates if needed for this purpose. He does not have dealer plates.
Mr. Ivinjack stated this was only a part-time
business for him. It was not his
full-time job. He stated he works for
the Red Cross Blood Service full-time.
At this point in the discussion, the Board noted that they felt the proposed use qualified as a “Home Occupation” under the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance. They advised the applicant to apply to the Building Inspector to obtain a Home Occupation.
At this point, the Building Inspector stated he had
spoken with the applicants and at the time he spoke with them, they were
considering reconditioning vehicles. At
that point, he was concerned about the number of vehicles that don’t sell and
where are they stored, etc.
The applicant stated that there is a detail shop in
Londonderry which does all detailing.
Most vehicles have already been “detailed” but if not, he uses
them.
Mr. Ivinjack stated that no cars will be on his property
in connection with the wholesaling business.
MOTION:
A motion was made by John Trottier, that the
Dunbarton Zoning Board refer the Request for a Special Exception to Article 9,
Section 3 of the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance from Brian and Christine Ivinjack
to allow them to operate a home office for wholesaling of used cars at their
property at 23 Armands Way in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH back to
the Building Inspector for a Home Occupation Permit. Scott Ives seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
7:30
p.m. – PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ARTICLE 9, SECTION
3. OF THE DUNBARTON ZONING ORDINANCE FROM PHYLLIS S. FRANKENBERGEN (EUGENE AND
DONNA ALFONSO, OWNERS) TO ALLOW THEM TO OPERATE A HAIR SALON ON THEIR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON 77 BARNARD HILL ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
At this point in the meeting, Terry Swain, Chairman, noted the following members would be voting on this request:
Gertrude Dulude
Alison Vallieres
Terry Swain
John Trottier
John Herlihy
There was no representation for the applicant,
therefore the public hearing was not opened.
7:45 p.m. – PUBLIC HEARING – REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 4, SECTION B OF THE DUNBARTON ZONING ORDINANCE FROM BEVERLY J. MCDONNELL TO ALLOW HER TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO HER HOUSE AT 27 HOLIDAY SHORE DRIVE CLOSER THAN THE 50 FOOT SETBACK IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
Mrs. McDonnell appeared before the Board and stated that she wanted to add a 15’ x 16’ bedroom to her existing house at Gorham Pond. She plans to make her existing bedroom a dining area. The proposed addition would be on the west end of the building. It will be approximately 37 feet from Holiday Shore Drive.
The Board asked if she had a drawing indicating the
location of the septic system and the well.
David Nault asked if someone were to purchase the
house in the future, would they be able to use the old bedroom as a third
bedroom.
At this point, the Building Inspector stated that
when he had spoken with her previously, she had indicated that she would be
taking out the full wall and making an archway making it difficult to be used
as another bedroom.
John Trottier – Asked what the existing septic system was.
Mrs. McDonnell – Stated the system was the original one put
in 1956 and probably consists of an oil barrel. She stated that if she gets this new bedroom, she plans on
putting in a new septic system. The new
bedroom would be over the present system.
Mrs. McDonnell stated that she owned four lots which were
put together. Total size was 160’ x
196’.
She stated that her lot borders a “paper road” which
was never constructed.
Mrs. McDonnell stated that the house was built as a camp
and she started to live there full-time in 1978.
At this point in the public hearing, Terry Swain
stated that the Board needed to see a plan showing the location of the existing
building, exact measurements of the building to the boundaries, locations of wells in the area, septic
systems including the immediate abutters systems and wells.
MOTION:
John Herlihy made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning
Board of Adjustment continue the Public Hearing regarding the request for a
Variance to Article 4, Section B. of the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance from Beverly
J. McDonnell to allow her to construct an addition to her house at 27 Holiday
Shore Drive closer than the 50 foot setback in the Low Density District in
Dunbarton, NH because the Board needs to see a detailed plan showing exact
measurements and locations of existing septic systems, wells and existing
home. Gertrude Dulude seconded the
motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
8:00 p.m. – PUBLIC HEARING FOR REQUEST FROM THE INN AT ARBUTUS FARM, LLC FOR AN EXPANDED SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ARTICLE 9, SECTION 3. TO ALLOW THEM TO OPERATE AN EIGHT GUESTROOM BED AND BREAKFAST WITH A FUNCTION FACILITY TO ACCOMMODATE WEDDINGS, BUSINESS MEETINGS, AND SOCIAL GATHERINGS OF VARIOUS TYPES AT THEIR PROPERTY LOCATED ON TENNEY HILL ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
David Craig, Attorney, appeared before the Board on behalf of the applicant. He stated the Arbutus Farm consisted of three separate parcels of land.
He stated they were looking for an “Expanded
Special Exception” from the previously granted Special Exception which had
been granted to the Kruegers in 1995.
Stated the Kruegers ran the Arbutus Farm for several years.
The applicant purchased Arbutus Farm in 1999.
At this point in the public hearing, Terry Swain,
Chairman, asked Attorney Craig if he had a letter of authorization from the
owner to act on his behalf.
After discussion, it was established that because
David Craig was an Attorney, he did not need a letter of authorization. He had been involved in correspondence with
the Town’s Attorney in the past regarding Arbutus Farm thus established his
relationship with the applicant.
David Craig, Attorney, introduced members of his
team as follows:
David
Blake, Present Manager of Arbutus Farm
Gerry
Poulin, The Winthrop Group
Louis
Manias, Capital Appraisal
Stephen
G. Pernaw, Traffic Study Engineer
Attorney Craig stated that the previous Manager of Arbutus
Farm had caused many difficulties and this was part of the problem. He stated that David Blake, present Manager
of Arbutus Farm started his relationship with Arbutus Farm in May of last
year. Commitments had already been made
by the previous Manager. In mid-summer
of last year, Arbutus Farm and the Town of Dunbarton had a series of
discussions between the Town and Attorneys. The relationship deteriorated and ended up in Court with a
Preliminary Injunction being issued by the Superior Court which was based on
the Judge’s interpretation of what the original granted Special Exception (1995)
meant. The Court has interjected.
Attorney Craig stated that we feel one of the best ways is
to put forth good faith between this Board and Arbutus Farm. This is our best opportunity to put forth a
viable plan and take into consideration the Town and the neighborhood and how
we have put in present safeguards. If
anything is granted tonight, we just continue the way things are now.
Stated there are two aspects of the proposal:
1.
Functions
Attorney Craig presented an Expanded Special
Exception Proposal (attached)
He stated there would be no gatherings over 225
people. They would only do medium (25)
annually 151 – 225 people, small (15) annually 76-150 people, and private gatherings (40) annually 1-75 people.
2.
Bed and Breakfast
Attorney Craig stated the Bed and Breakfast would
consist of seven guest rooms to the public with the apartment area over the
existing garage for a staff person.
Stated that a number of those rooms have been
provided to guests in the past.
Would be a functioning Bed and
Breakfast.
Attorney Craig stated he would
address the criteria for the granting of a Special Exception as follows:
a.
No detriment to property values in the vicinity of the proposed
development will result on account of:
the location or scale of buildings, structures, parking areas or other
access ways; the emission of odors, smoke, gas, dust, noise, glare, heat,
vibration, or other pollutants; or the unsightly outdoor storage of equipment,
vehicles or other materials.
Attorney Craig stated that he would have Louis
Manias, Capital Appraisal, testify in this regard.
b. No
hazard will be caused to the public or adjacent property on account of
potential fire,
explosion or release of toxic
materials.
Attorney Craig stated that they don’t store any
toxic materials on the property. Have
been working with the Fire Chief and the State Fire Marshall in this
regard.
b.
No creation of a traffic safety hazard or substantial traffic
congestion in the vicinity of the
proposed development.
Attorney Craig introduced Stephen Pernaw, Traffic
Engineer.
Stephen Pernaw stated he would give a brief summary
and presented the Board with a Memorandum regarding the Traffic Study. (attached)
Stated as follows:
1.
Looked at physical conditions.
2.
Number of trips
3.
How much traffic will the use generate, traffic projections., technical
assessment.
4.
Does it need turn lanes, traffic lights, etc.
Recommendations:
1.
Checked with DOT for traffic data.
Studies used for Grapevine Road over Bela Brook, Dunbarton in May 2000.
2.
How much traffic will Special Exception create:
a.
225 attendees for a wedding (Saturday event) which would occur 25 times per year. The most traffic would be between 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m. when
wedding starts. Estimate 82 trips in a
one hour period. Departure peak hour
would be between 11:00 – 12:00 midnight.
Traffic for departure would not occur all within the one hour because
people leave weddings at different times, not like the arrival. Estimate 45 trips out per hour for
departure. There will be no traffic congestion.
John Trottier asked how many people per vehicle was
people used for the calculation.
Answer: 2.5
people per vehicle.
3.
Safety Issues:
a.
At the main intersection looking to the right there is several hundred feet
sight distance.
b.
At the main intersection looking to the left – signs would be located.
c.
Parking Area looking to the left is good sight distance.
d.
Parking Area looking to the right – Need to trim vegetation. After clearing the vegetation there will not
be a safety problem.
Stated the inn has already been in operation. Have checked the accident records. Nothing over the last four year with the
exception of one mile east of Burnham Lane.
A vehicle drove off the road in icy conditions.
Asked for questions from the Board.
John Trottier – Asked if 154 was the number of parking spaces
which exists today.
Answer: Stated that 134 spaces but want to have
extra spaces, therefore 154. Stated it
was grass parking and not a parking lot with pavement and lines, etc.
Scott Ives – you could
have three over-lapping events at one time.
These figures are for one event with 225 people.
David Blake, Manager – Stated he couldn’t
remember any time when they had two events with the exception of a wedding
rehearsal with 30-40 people at the same time as a small event for a total of
55-60 people total. Can’t remember a
time when we had concurrent events going on at the same time. We have St. Paul School Alumni, New
Hampshire Library Trustees Association, Teachers teaching other teachers, barbecues,
birthday parties. Would like to have
very small gatherings. Smaller events
in the winter.
David Craig, Attorney – Stated if there is a
concern, will agree not to have concurring weddings of 225 people at any
time.
At
this point in the public hearing, David Craig, Attorney, introduced Louis
Manias, Capital Appraisal. (Attached)
Louis Manias, Capital Appraisal, appeared before the Board
and stated that he had appraised over 4,000 homes during his career and over 60
properties in Dunbarton. Stated he grew
up in Concord. Has been through
Dunbarton hundreds of times over the years.
Completed appraisal of Arbutus Inn in the past year. Did examine what the market has done in
Dunbarton. Northern New England Network
used. Figures for 1998 – 2001 and the
average increase of property values in Dunbarton was 13%. There was a shortage of properties on the
market data in Dunbarton.
Stated that property values in the area would
diminish if a junk yard, land fill or other such use would occur that
creates noise or traffic that
negatively impacts the neighborhood.
This use would not negatively affect the neighborhood. The noise that is created from this use is
limited. A band and people dancing
around. The band has been at the front
of the property. Will move the band
behind the building thus cutting down the noise. These are some of the things I have looked at by utilizing the
existing building.
There is no proof of detriment to property values
located in the neighborhood.
Have checked out approximately eleven (11) bed and
breakfast properties and surrounding properties have not been affected by bed
and breakfasts in the neighborhood.
16-22 room bed and breakfasts situated in a residential neighborhood. Examples:
Hancock Inn, Colby Farm Inn, Rosewood Inn in Bradford.
Terry Swain – Asked if the Hancock Inn has an indoor hall.
Answer: Thirty
acre field with weddings under a tent.
Mr. Manias stated that the Rosewood Inn in Bradford has no
other major industries in the area.
Hancock has less than 2,000 residents.
No other businesses, etc. other than small shops and professional
offices.
Scott Ives – Asked if he used comparable sales.
Answer: Yes, three
years back. Use private resale during a
12 month period.
Question was brought up about if any legal suits
pending were considered detrimental to property values.
Mr. Manias stated that a legal law suit that has not been
settled could not be looked at because of legal restrictions. Injucture relief does not affect the value
of surrounding properties. No adverse
affect on properties.
David Craig, Attorney stated that when Manager,
David Blake, took over, he did a valiant effort.
David Blake, Manager, stated parties became shorter in duration. In the absence of any Town Ordinance
restricting noise, we are willing to stop all events on Friday and Saturday at
11:00 p.m. and weeknights at 10:00 p.m.
We feel this is a reasonable standards.
Bands and DJ’s will be set up behind the pool and building area. This past year the bands were wrapping up at
between 10:00 – 10:30 p.m.
David Blake stated the only problem last summer with
septic system was when a caterer truck had run over a pipe to the septic
system. This pipe was replaced and
there were no further problems with the septic.
John Trottier – Asked how big the septic system was.
David Blake stated that when the pipe was repaired, he was told
the septic system was the best septic system.
There are two septic systems, one in the back of the house which serves
two or three bathrooms. Stated when it
was pumped, it was all liquid. Used
porta potties during the time the system was being worked on. Has a holding tank of 2,000 gallons. Since the system was repaired, have had no
further problems with septic.
Bruce Vaal, Building Inspector – Verified the fact that
all the owner did was replace the line to the tank and level off an old herb
garden, etc.
David Nault – Noted there was a For Sale sign on the
property. Can you explain.
David Craig
– Stated
that it is an unfortunate economic problem.
Cannot be run as a viable business under the existing Special
Exception. This business had to cancel
a lot of events because of the court issue.
Management did too little, too late.
We can’t continue to own it and run it.
To have a property like this that is that historic, and have events is a
benefit to all.
It was noted the total acreage of all parcels was 138 acres.
The Board asked what the boundaries were of the exempted area of the Conservation Easement.
David Craig, Attorney – Stated the Conservation
Easement covers all three properties.
In 1995-96, an amendment was written to allow what was permitted in the
granted Special Exception.
It was noted that all but 6.5 acres of the property
was under Current Use.
John Trottier – Noted the parking area is in the area of the
Conservation Easement.
David Craig – Don’t believe these are before the Board.
John Trottier - Asked what the condition of the buildings were.
Bruce Vaal stated he had met with the Fire Marshall, Fire
Chief and Ray Simard, previous Building Inspector and gone over various
items.
David Nault – Stated the septic system has not been tested in
the past year.
Response – There has been no problems with the system for a
year or two.
John Trottier – What about noise levels when the band is
playing.
Response – In the past, there wasn’t management on
site. Now Manager is going to stay
there. There are strict rules. Noise stops, period at 11:00 p.m. at night.
Scott Ives – Asked specifically what are you going to do?
Response – Other than what I have just mentioned to you,
there will be no noise after 11:00 p.m.
Last year noise stopped at 12:00 midnight and that was a problem. There was no management on site.
Scott Ives – Stated they need a plan to assure that noise is
at a minimum.
John Van – Asked what happens if the weather goes bad, do
225 people go inside.
David Blake – Stated that they have heaters designed to heat up
the tent.
John Van – Stated the Fire Department has certain
restrictions on how far away from the tents these heaters can be, etc. right.
John Herlihy – Asked about the standards for occupancy of
building.
Bruce Vaal, Building Inspector – Stated that seven rooms @
2 persons per room plus staff is way below the standard.
Gertrude Dulude – Asked if there would be any restrictions
on noise from guests that are staying overnight,
.Abutters were read as follows and noted all had
been notified by certified mail:
Peter and Elisa Morrison – Not Present
Alma Kingsbury – Not Present
Kenneth Swayze – Present. He
stated he could see the plus side of the request but that he was concerned
about the level of activity but don’t feel traffic is a problem. Stated the Planning Board will have to take
another pass on the technical issues when they come for Site Plan Review if the
Zoning Board approves the use.
William and Jennifer Frost – Not Present
Richard and Kimberly Vaillancourt – Not Present, but a letter was read by Chairman Terry Swain regarding their objection. (attached)
George I. Wiggins Estate, c/o John Wiggin – Not
Present
Jean and Girard L. Meisner – Not Present
Ronald and Margaret Slocum – Present.
Stated that David Craig, Attorney, did an excellent
presentation. His concerns were as
follows:
1.
As
far as the number of functions per year, needs to have specific responses. Can we put an actual cap on the number of
functions per year. How will it be
done, by the Manager and how will we be sure it is adhered to.
2.
Traffic
– Stated not have signage. These are
not in addition to a state sign which is paid for with state
Dollars.
Stated they will be clearing away vegetation. Is this the Town’s job to clean it up. Will there be any restricted verbage about concurrent
events. They have stated traffic is
very light. This is a low density
residential neighborhood. This would be
an increase of 1000% traffic for me.
There is a problem I have with a semi-paved parking lot. Cars start backing up and turn around in Dr.
Card’s driveway. Pitch black at night
and someone is going to get hurt. The
more traffic the more traffic problems there are. There might be a “liquid” problem.
3.
With
regard to property values, we heard a lot of information re a downtown
area. I have 4-5 cars a
Day going through.
Property values two years ago were 10% less. Will take considerably longer to sell because of commercial
activity in a low density residential area.
Stated he lives 3/10 of a mile down the road and he hears noise. Moving the band one way of another will not
correct the situation.
4. Why go
through all of this stuff if they are selling.
The remodeling costs is more than they thought it
was
going to be. We are being asked to
change our ordinance because of financial reasons. This is a
large
commercial enterprise. Dunbarton has no
commercial zone. I am taxed on the same
basis as a
large
commercial business like this. This is
not fair to residents of Dunbarton.
5. If we
do this, what is next. I can see
wanting to pave the parking area in the future because of mud
and
water.
6.
Stated
he had no problem with an eight bedroom bed and breakfast but does have a
problem with the convention use.
Presented two letters on behalf of the Vaillancourts
regarding detriment to property values.
(attached)
Dennis Card – Not Present.
Maurice Hodgman – Not Present
Nancy Frost – Chuck Frost, her
son spoke on her behalf because she was ill.
1. Chuck Frost stated that they were promised the same things from the Kruegers. Said it wouldn’t be a large commercial function. We were lead down a road that we don’t want to go down again.
We were told a two bedroom bed and breakfast in
consideration of the septic system. We
were told Porta Potties would be used, now we are told Porta Potties would not
be used. The Planning Board definitely
has to look at the septic system. I
have worked there since I was ten years old, weeded gardens for Abergs and know
that the design requirements for the septic system do not have the
capacity for this use. We are way out of bounds
.
2. There is to be no parking on the road
right of way. Several times parking
occurred on
the sides of Tenney Hill
Road. Feel this is not an option and
also goes against the
Conservation Easement. The limit of 500 people is too large. Would like to make sure
Limits are set. I would allow that more than one function is
too many. Mr. Slocum has
Submitted letters saying there will be
a 10% property devaluation. We have
heard about
General property values and nothing specific. Even if you lived near the dump, your
Property
value would increase. The Frosts hear
parties all the time, Friday, Saturday and
Sunday. It really gets tiring of hearing noise. I don’t believe it because we heard this
Before. There are ways to measure noise by
decibels. Presented a package re
Environmental
Noise (attached).
3.
Dunbarton has gone a long time without a noise ordinance. I will back a noise
ordinance. Mr. Vaillancourt can
really hear the noise and his property value has
diminished. Presented noise
ordinances from Ogunquit and Burlington.
(attached) plus
information
about a web site re Noise. (attached)
4.
Regarding questions about functions under tents, the weather being what
it is in New
England with severe thunder storms, etc. these could put out the lights
and blow down
the
tents.
5. This
use will create traffic and impairment
by alcohol. These individuals don’t
know
this road. Lot of people approach the
hill and jam on their brakes all the time.
Get
lost
and end up at Kingsbury’s. They don’t
understand about curves in the road.
When I
hear
traffic accelerating up the hill, it doesn’t matter what time of the day it
is. I don’t
feel
the parking lot can be approved because of the Conservation Easement. There is a
police
record for noise problems. The Kruegers
stated “no signs will be erected”. They
specifically said that Arbutus Farm would be only a part-time business
not be a full-time
venture. The limits have to be quantified. Concerned about the apartment over the
garage
because of fumes. Is this legal.
6.
Presented a letter from J. Willcox Brown which was to be read at the
Public Hearing.
Chuck
Frost read the letter for the record.
(attached)
7. Stated
it was within the Board’s right to review the terms of the Conservation
Easement.
Said
it was for the public’s benefit.
(Easement attached) Stated that
the interpretation
of the
Easement by Arbutus Inn can be contested.
The Easement is very strict.
What is
going
on there now cannot occur. It is
clearly only allow for agricultural and forestry, or
home
based business. This is a commercial interest
like a Sheraton Wayfarer. There are
restrictions
on the neighbor’s properties i.e. Card and Slocum.
Presented
a copy of the amendment to the Conservation Easement signed in 1996.
(attached) plus letter from SPNHF re Easement. (attached)
8.
Presented a petition from 42 neighbors which was submitted for the court
case. (attached)
9. Zoning
exists for the public. Board needs to
consider this.
10. Parking
is clearly outside the Conservation Easement.
Board needs to consider this.
11. 80
functions is far too many in the summer.
The Judge ruled one per month is reasonable.
12. There
are all kinds of noises in neighborhoods.
The Town wound up with a big legal
problem that cost the Town a lot of money. 154 parking spaces is way too many.
13. Would
question the traffic study which was done on Grapevine Road by Bela Brook.
To
study traffic on Bella Brook doesn’t make sense to me. Burhnam Lane and Grapevine
is the
intersection where traffic study should be done.
14. Also
heard about septic system problem that occurred last year. There is no indication
that
septic system meets standards for today.
Just because it is working now does not
mean it
will be working later.
15. Porta
Johns should have been used in place of the septic system.
16. How
would you feel if one of your neighbors proposed a use such as this next to
you?
Helen Mills, C/O Ray Mills –
Not Present
Mills Family Trust – Not Present
SPNHF – Ken Sterns, present. Stated he would like time to respond at a
later date because of the lateness of
the hour and heat.
At this point, Terry Swain stated that the Public
Hearing would remain open until the next meeting to
receive further testimony. He stated the Board would not have enough time to process all the
information this evening.
At this point in the public hearing, Terry Swain,
Chairman, asked if members of the public wished to speak.
Judy Peterson, 15 Burnham Lane – Stated she lived at the
top of the hill. Issues about
traffic. Tenney Hill Road is a Class VI
(corrected to note that it is a Class V) road.
Is one lane. I don’t think that
road is good to use in the darkness. I
can verify this by the fact that everyone uses Grapevine Road. I have had to cut a number of my walks short
because of between 20-30 cars coming up from Arbutus. No one can see beyond someone else’s bumper. There are a lot of lost cars. Signage is poor, trash is left over,
balloons, etc. It is the owner’s
responsibility to see that trash is picked up.
There are trash issues, building issues, fire issues involved in this
use. Why does our Fire Chief have to go
down there. Have lost faith in the
owner’s. Now they are renting more
rooms. Up to seven rooms. They are having a bed and breakfast. This involves cooking breakfast. Electrical, gas, etc. where will all these facilities be located. I am concerned about everything including
the functions. Maybe they should
consider only having daytime functions.
There are no street lights.
As far as the new owners, limited liability
concern. They had no clue as to what
they were getting into. Why did they
think they could just go ahead without checking with the Town officials as to
approved use. I really have a serious
concern for their business capabilities.
Stated she was not an immediate abutter. I don’t really believe that I could deal with a seven bedroom bed
and breakfast and functions.
Larry Peterson – 15 Burnham Lane. – Stated he had the same common understanding of the situation as
his wife, Judy, previous. Stated he was
concerned about the value of the properties and how it would affect his
property values. Problem is the things
we want on our property affect the value of Arbutus in the way they want to use
the property.
Ed Mangini, 11 Burnham Lane – Burnham Lane and Tenney
Hill Road are safety issues. This use
affects quality of life. Real estate
property values have come up 13%/year.
Home wise, three houses very small and very minute change. Traffic Engineer has stated one accident has
occurred. I myself responded to an
accident two years ago in the summertime.
Question the facts presented. Agree
with Mrs. Peterson about safety issues.
Nick Holmes, 163 Grapevine Road –
1. The applicant has stated that problems in the past were
related to past managers of the property.
Exceptions should not be based on personalities.
2. If you add up the numbers, there will be between 8,000 –
11,000 visitors to our neighborhood.
The Town has a population of 2,000.
They will come between the end of black fly season until Labor Day. Tenney Hill will receive a high volume of
traffic increase. Residents are used to
low traffic volumes.
3. It is detrimental
when there is a substantial amount of traffic and noise. You are going to increase
my noise. We
had a youngster come up from New York City and stay with us in the summer. She was unable to sleep because of the
bands.
Mrs. Nick Holmes –
Stated that 225 people is a huge crowd. 30 is reasonable. We have to redefine the definitions. Having the owner on site is common sense. If the owner lives there, the quality of
home business changes. I agree
they have made a wonderful presentation but when you
live there and add color, it is different.
Best laid plans get changed. We
moved here to raise a family. The
school is something we live with and we have certain gains.
Robert Becamp – Agreed the applicants have made a very fine
presentation.
1. Tenney Hill Road is not used from people arriving at the
party, it is leaving the party from the parking lot.
2. While these people are here in good faith, the new people
don’t need to come. These people are
not zoned different than me. They are making money at the same rate of tax as a
residential home.
Dana Barker, 151 Grapevine
Road -
1. Stated he live 8/10 of a mile away. Noise has been so loud that we have to close
our windows. We can hear the thumping
of the bass drum within our walls. My
daughter is four and goes to bed at 8:00 p.m.
He said he can hear the DJ like it was next door.
2.
With
regard to property values, am sure that there is no way I would have bought in
the area. The eighty events are going
to use every peaceful summer evening I have this summer.
3.
Mark Desmarais –
Stated that half of the people know him. He stated he hired the Traffic Study done on
Grapevine Road for a subdivision he was doing.
He stated the traffic study was a waste of his money. The biggest problem is Pat Krueger and no
one had the “guts” to complain. All you
people do is …...
If you don’t have any connection to this Town, you
don’t get anything. I built a 2,200
square foot house on Karen Road amongst 500 square foot shacks. How could that devalue property around
it. You folks don’t have to follow rules
like everyone else.
Town is in a transition and certain people don’t
have to follow the rules like everyone else.
Said that Nick Holmes and Migneault were given
Equitable Waivers just because they knew someone, etc.
Said that Boards within the Town of Dunbarton should
all be investigated because they do not treat people all the same.
Said if you wanted to do something about the Arbutus
Farm, should all get together and buy it.
Said the manufactured housing on the corner at the
top of Burnham Lane was more devaluating that anything else. No one did anything about that.
Said the applicant did a good job of presenting the
use.
At
this point in the public hearing, it was noted for the record that the public
hearing will be continued until next month, Monday, August 13, 2001.
Respectfully submitted,