DUNBARTON PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OFFICES –
The regular monthly meeting of the Dunbarton Planning Board was held at the above time, date and place with Chairman James Marcou presiding. The following members were present:
James Marcou, Chairman
George Holt, Co-Chairman
Alison Vallieres, Secretary
Brian Nordle
Carter Higginbotham
Ken Swayze, Admin., Planning and
Zoning Department
Steve Kennedy, Selectman
Michael Poirier, Alternate
David Breault, Alternate
The
Chairman verified with the Secretary that the Public Notice for the Meeting had
been posted in a timely fashion in three public places throughout the Town and
published in the Concord Monitor for one day according to State Law.
MOTION:
Kenneth Swayze made a motion
that the Dunbarton Planning Board accept the minutes of
It was agreed by the Board that the Minutes of the Workshop Meeting of Wednesday, December 3, 2003 be acted upon at the next regularly scheduled Workshop Meeting of the Planning Board to be held on January 7, 2004.
7:00 pm – PUBLIC HEARING - MARTHA HAMMOND (E3-1-2,
3, & 5) PROPOSED FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON MANSION ROAD IN THE LOW
DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH -
At this point in the
meeting, Kenneth Swayze presented a status report (attached) and stated that
this application had been “tentatively” accepted at the
MOTION:
In
acknowledgement of a legally noticed, complete list of abutters, I move that
the acceptance of the application for Martha R. Hammond (for a 5-lot subdivision
on
George Holt noted for the record that this
starts the process over again and the need for a minimum of two full meetings
is required.
Dan Mullen appeared before the Board on behalf of the applicant and noted that had been several issues that needed to be addressed from the previous meeting as follows:
1.
Need resolution on the Driveway Issue.
Stated the applicants, the
Town and the State DOT were supposed to meet on site. This did not happen. Kenneth Swayze called the State of NH and
spoke with DOT representatives, and we were not a party to that
discussion. He called the State and they
are sticking by their three driveway permits which they have already
issued. They did not want to set a precedent
for the next person coming down the road.
We are therefore back to square one for the driveways.
Kenneth Swayze affirmed this
was the case. The State wants to hold
the line on the approved driveway permits.
The State says it is for safety reasons. Dan Mullen stated they have to go with what
the State says.
Kenneth Swayze stated he
disagreed with this. The State was not
interested in getting deeds but it has been the Town’s precedent to acquire the
land in the Town’s name under a deed whenever possible. This is a joint jurisdiction road, and we
(the Town) share responsibility with the State.
If it was Route 13, we would possibly not require the deed to the Town
but for this one we should.
Kenneth Swayze asked if
their client was willing to give the Town a deed. There was a case in point (Stillwater) when
this was not done. The Town learned a
lesson from that. Stillwater only had
one lot with frontage on Everett Road and the Hammond lots have 1200 feet of
frontage.
There was discussion from
Dan Mullen as to why the Town would require them to write a deed if the State
does not require it. K. Swayze noted
that the historical easement may not be clearly defined. D. Mullen has done a good job. The existing rock walls are not a clear
definition of property ownership. . K. Swayze stated that deeds work and he did
not think it is a big thing. We should
make sure this is done.
Dan Mullen stated it didn’t
make sense to have small sections along the road deeded and other areas that
are not. We would have a gap, etc.
right of way.
D. Mullen stated that 12 feet is allowed and DOT would allow
flares. Suitable for one car at a time.
M. Poirier stated that it
should be two cars wide. He stated he
has a shared driveway on Route 77 and DOT were ok about allowing him to widen
it, etc.
Steve Kennedy asked what
does the three driveway system do with the future use of the property?
J. Marcou noted the
applicants were leaving themselves to be unable for further subdivision, as
they are being subdivided for single family homes at this time. If they decided to further subdivide at a
later date, they would have to go for a modified driveway permit (for a Town
Road entrance) with the State.
D. Mullen noted this would
be an obstacle they wouild have to deal with at that time.
J. Marcou noted the Planning
Board does not approve shared driveway because of one’s convenience. We have done it in the past under special
circumstances. When it is asked for
convenience sake and to save money, the Planning Board has not allowed it.
D. Mullen stated this is for
safety issues and the State would not grant the five driveway permits.
G. Holt stated that he
looked at it differently. To him, we
have been consistent in not granting any shared driveways. Hardship is not being put on by us, it is by
the State. It seems like they only have
three accesses and therefore only three lots should be allowed. Then they could go to the State and ask them
to waive, etc.
J. Marcou – Already is a
Town Road and a full blown subdivision could be done, etc.
K. Swayze stated the State
is causing the hardship, not the Board.
These are rural lots. Their
permit policy probably does not fit this
Town. The applicant should be appealing
the rule.
G. Holt stated he was
concerned about the easement to the most northerly lot that impinges upon Peggy
Senter’s property. Her house is fairly
close. D. Mullen noted it was at least
100 feet from the easement. G. Holt asked if they could move Senter’s lot line
and shirt it southerly, etc.
D. Mullen stated the whole
idea is not to create any hardship on other landowners. The State is trying to limit the driveways
and lessen congestion on the road.
Brian Nordle – Stated the
Fire Department will have concerns. When
you talk with them you want to make sure you are not blocking access. Would ask that they check with DOT regarding
the width of the driveways. This is 170
acres and right down the road we have a subdivision with 26 lots. I would encourage a five lot subdivision on
that amount of substantial acreage. I
think it is very nice to have the chance to get five lots instead of 20 whether
the three driveways can be changed to five or not.
G. Holt stated that if you
had a willing neighbor you could just open up a lot line for discussion. Should check with Peggy Senter.
Abutters were read as
follows and noted all had been notified by certified mail:
Mike Tarsa – Present. Stated the State’s problem is the sight and
that is the reason for the three driveways instead of five. I would rather have three driveways than a
road and more lots. Not feeling I have
any objection to shared driveways. Some
way maybe we could do some lot line adjustments. Should talk to Mrs. Hammond myself.
Margaret Senter –
Present. I agree with Mark. I would rather have three driveways than
five. The sight line is terrible. People have almost gotten hit.
Steven Labbe – Not Present
Kathleen/Arthur Lafreniere –
Not Present
Randy/Annie Bullis – Not
Present
Randolph/Lisa Bauer – Present.
Stated he concurred with his neighbors.
Five lots is better than twenty.
I trust you people will work out the driveways. How about putting some sort of covenant on
the lots that they would not be further subdivided. There is no possibility that shared driveways
could not be turned into a lot for future subdivision?
J. Marcou stated that
covenants are usually an action from the applicant.
Perry Hunter Stone – Not
Present
Michael/Carolyn Kelsey – Not
Present
John/Doraine Mooar – Not
Present
Town of Dunbarton – Present
(Selectman)
Guy/Marie Sherman – Not
Present
Daniel Mullen – Representing
the applicant
Mark Tarsa – Is there any
protection for us from further subdivision?
If you have 300 feet of frontage and punch in a road.
J. Marcou – Stated the issue
is the practicability of it. A landowner
would have to spend $250,000 or more to
get addition lots. It looks like it
would be impractical. It is a voluntary
action on the part of the applicant to covenent the property with regard to no
further subdivision.
Site Walk – The Board asked
the applicant if they would be prepared to do a Site Walk this coming Saturday,
December 20, 2003. Applicant was not
sure if he could be ready by then. D.
Mullen will call regarding whether or not site walk will be this coming
Saturday. The Board noted they have
another Site Walk scheduled for Saturday on that road.
M. Senter asked if other
people were allowed on Site Walks. The
Board stated that other people do not come.
The Planning Board is acting on behalf of the Town of Dunbarton. Stated she would be welcome to talk with the applicant re Site Walk.
The Public Hearing Closed at
7:30 p.m.
SITE PLAN REVIEW: PUBLIC HEARING
REDML DEVELOPMENT, LLC (ROBERT AND DOROTHY PERRY)
(D6-3-11) PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS CONSISTING OF FOUR BUILDINGS OF FOUR
UNITS EACH FOR SENIOR HOUSING AT PROPERTY LOCATED ON MORSE ROAD IN THE LOW
DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH AND RECEIPT OF APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION
(ROADWAY AND CONDIMENIUM UNITS)
At this point in the public
hearing, Kenneth Swayze stated that the Board presently has three different
applications before them. The new one is
for a subdivision. K. Swayze presented a
status report with attachments.
(attached)
MOTION:
Kenneth Swayze made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board approve the applicant’s request for a 90 day extension (as received October 22, 2003) (attached); and further move to acknowledge and accept the Board of Selectmen’s vote and issuance of a 90 day extension as granted on October 23, 2003.(attached) The motion was seconded. The motion passed by a majority vote with all voting yes except George Holt who voted No.
MOTION:
Kenneth Swayze made a motion
that the Dunbarton Planning Board accept the application as presented for
subdivision for the REDML Development, LLC.
At this point in
the discussion, Kenneth Swayze asked the applicant to more thoroughly discribe
to the Board what they were subdividing.
The Attorney for the applicant stated that everything is the same as
they have previously been doing all along.
Technically, according to the Ordinance condominiums, it also becomes a
subdivision, therefore we are applying for the subdivision. Just by putting in a public road and condominiums
is a subdivision. Technically, it is
more than a Site Plan Review and the notices have not been going out that
way. Really should be a subdivision
also. Technically, the Board is still
considering the same plans we have been working on for six months.
The motion was amended by
Kenneth Swayze to include the condominiums portion with this proposal. Michael Poirier seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. None opposed.
Eric Mitchell appeared before the Board on behalf of the applicants. He stated he was a Civil Engineer and had purchased the Howard Office (previous engineer) and was continuing to work on the project with the Perry’s. The decision to come back to the Planning Board was all based on the Code Review. The density requirement is 11 acres for four units for a total of 44 acres. They have 48 acres. The road takes up four acres and is not counted. After reviewing the file and the minutes, would like to clarify the following points:
1.
Retaining Wall – Redi Block Wall was proposed against the abutter’s
property. Have been looking into slope
easement vs. building the wall. If we
could have the wall go away and have only slope easements, would make it easier
and better.
2.
Parking Spaces – There was a request for a 30 foot wide pavement at the
circle. Don’t know if vehicles would be
allowed to park along the way. Is there any parking allowed within the Town’s
right of way.
K. Swayze noted the Town
does not want to allow parking along the right of way at this time. Three spaces per unit were asked for instead
of two because of visitors. If only two
spaces per unit, visitors potentially
would be parking on the right of way.
3.
Regulation of over 55. (Adult
age description) Don’t know if it needs to be any further clarified.
4.
Road Bonding – Bond would be established. Was indicated we would be talking with the
Selectmen. Can work it out prior to the
next meeting. Did ask for slope
easements.
5.
Well Radius went beyond the property line.. Will move the well.
6.
Looked at driveway at bottom of the hill. Will be redone. Long straight away. Will make modifications so that it doesn’t
impact Morse Road.
7. Status of State
Permits: State Subdivision
Approval, State Septic System and Site
Specific Approval
are all still pending. The
Septic System Approval is pending Site Specific. All State approvals have to
come together at once. We will be
addressing the State’s concerns. The
State wants to see condo
documents.
8.
Sight Distances are still being reviewed. Will document to the Town Engineer.
9.
Need criteria on tree cutting etc. to provide sight lines. Trees that are flagged on Morse Road identify
trees to be cut to meet sight distances.
Would benefit the Town if the trees were cut in the right of way.
J. Marcou stated the issue
was who has the right to cut the trees.
Will require a decision based on the sight distances.
Steve Kennedy asked about
new road plans. Eric Mitchell stated
those design plans will be presented to the Town Engineer
10. Will have to move the leach
bed of the existing house due to the location of one corner.
11. George Holt asked about
parking within the setback. Eric
Mitchell stated that he had reviewed the Zoning Ordinance and buildings, septic
systems and wells cannot be within the setback of 50 feet. (Wells cannot be within 75 feet of the
property line), but for improvements,
walkways, driveways, there is no requirement they meet the setbacks.
George Holt asked even if
they don’t have to meet those setbacks, would like some sort of buffer. If you could move it out of the setback
area.
Eric Mitchell stated it is
25 feet from the edge of the right of way presently. It was noted the original idea was to
minimize the impact on the surrounding open space. Will be addressed prior to the next
meeting.
Steve Kennedy stated the abutters were concerned
about the aesthetics of the property. I
hope the new road approach would be sympathetic to the abutters; and noted also
the rock wall would make it difficult to do road maintenance.
Eric Mitchell stated they had decided to do without
the wall if possible, thereby not requiring any maintenance, etc.
George Holt stated that he felt with 16 units
proposed, it should be considered a Community Water Supply. It was noted by the applicant that a
Community Water Supply is over 25 units before becoming a Community Water
Supply.
Brian Nordle asked that there be some consideration
to a berm up on a top lot that abutted Labonville’s lot. Eric Mitchell stated they would be
considering a berm to diffuse the
lighting and put some vegetation in.
K. Swayze asked that the above be put on the
plans.
Michael Poirier asked if this was a subdivision, how
does building permit phasing come into play?
Applicant noted that adult communities are exempted from phasing because
of less impact on schools, etc.
J. Marcou stated phasing is a requirement and we
have to make sure you are exempt from phasing.
Attorney McNichol explained the rules regarding over
55 communities. This will be an 80%
community. This means that 80% of the
condos must have one person in residence over 55 years of age. Federal Laws prohibit exempting all units
from children.
George Holt stated he did not feel qualified to be
relying on the applicant’s attorney for interpretation, etc.
It was noted the documents will ultimately be sent
to the Town Attorney for review of the over 55.
George Holt asked if this covenant ran with the
land. The Attorney stated it can be
changed by the Association but only with the approval of the Town. Could be made more restrictive but not less
restrictive. The Federal Government
won’t let you go below 80%.
D. Breault asked whose job it is to enforce. Attorney stated the State’s Human Rights
Commission requires that the ownership be polled once a year and the
Association is to police, but the Town has the Cease and Desist Authority. The Board of Selectmen would be the enforcing
authority.
Carter Higginbotham asked if the regulations were
strict enough that if I died and willed it to a person less than 55, they would
be forced to sell if the 80% quota was already met.
Attorney stated that yes, the Town would have the
right to enforce at that level.
Eric Mitchell stated this is all part of the Fair
Housing Act.
Abutters were read as follows and noted all had been
notified by certified mail:
Josephine Dailey – Not Present
Paul Belyea – Not Present
David/Justyn Constant – Not Present
Rudolf/Elizabeth Vallauri – Not Present
Daniel/Kathleen Labonville – Present. Don’t think the Town needs any development
like this, and we should wait until the Master Plan is developed. I don’t think the Town needs or wants this
development.
Robert/Denise Perry II – Present (applicants)
Nathan J. Narus – Not Present
Richard/Catherine Racca – Not Present
David/Theresa Glannon – Not Present
David/Beth Sedita – Not Present
Michael Petito – Not Present
Steven/Karen Elsasser – Present. Stated that he was looking at the trees that
are to be cut down in the lines of sight (on Morse Road) and the trees are in
water. Don’t understand how he has 15
feet that shows he can cut trees in water.
Schauer Environmental Consultants – Not Present
Charles E. Cote – Not Present
Michie Corporation – Not Present
Eric Mitchell & Associates – Present. Represents the applicant
Other Members of the Public:
NONE
Kenneth Swayze stated the applicant should be
submitting a re-submittal 15 days prior to the January 21 meeting.
Other Business:
Richard and Judy Keefe - The Keefe’s (or representatives) were not present.
Peter Holden, Don Lane – Informal Discussion for
Development at Golf Course:
James Marcou, Chairman, noted that he had invited John Trottier of the Zoning Board to attend this discussion.
He stated to the parties present that this was an informal and non-binding discussion.
Peter
Holden introduced John Wells, Newburyport, MA, Senior Resource Developer, Lyle
Folkestad, and
Richard
Uchida, Legal Counsel for the proposed development.
Peter
Holden stated they were considering the development of the Countryside Golf
Course into housing for seniors over 55 or age.
Would be trying to develop into a Village type leaving conservation
lands and wetlands undeveloped. Would
concentrate the development in two areas of the parcels (270 acres). Were considering possibility of 104 units of
a combination of single family, and multi-family buildings. Stated they would be placing the units below
the homes on Meadow Drive so they would not be interfering with views from both
the Smith and Cushman properties.
Presented
plans and overlays showing the proposed development. (attached vision statement)
They
presented an overlay showing the development of the parcel into a conventional
subdivision. They would be able to put
in approximately 40 five acre lots, etc.
John Trottier, Zoning Board of Adjustment –
Indicated that when the computations are made for how many units are allowed,
if a single family house is built, five acres must be used in the computation.
Ken Swayze noted the developers appear to be using
the “2.75 acres per unit” for multi-family in multi-dwelling (i.e. 4 units per
structure) buildings for the entire project.
John Trottier commented again that it appeared to be
inappropriate to use the 2.75 acres per unit to build both single family mixed
with multi-family.
In other
words, you cannot use the 2.75 acres per unit and build single family house
mixed with multi-family. The 2.75 figure
is used for multi-family buildings.
Carter Higginbotham stated that the applicants are
stating this is going to be “pristine”.
It is not going to be “pristine” anymore after this development.
The Board advised them they should be in contact
with the Fire Chief as to what fire suppression requirements will be. There is a possibility of requiring in-house
fire suppression (sprinklers).
They stated they will be creating compact villages
that have character. Streets will be
between 18’ – 20’ wide with sidewalks and picket fences. Will be a pedestrian driven community. They don’t want it to be a gated
community. Don’t want to isolate
themselves from the rest of the community.
Will involve 6,000 feet of road.
Steve Kennedy noted that fire trucks must be able to
pass each other on the roads for safety reasons. Need turning radius.
Carter Higginbotham asked what type of lighting will
be used. What about utilities? Will they be underground?
Applicants stated it would be “residential”
lighting. There would be street lighting
but like residential lighting. Would be
cut-off fixtures. Have not figured out
the lighting 100% at this point. Would
be low intensity lighting at the end of driveways. We need some sort of lighting. Would be using “feature” lighting, where you
light up stone walls, trees. Anyone
driving down Route 13 would not even know the community was there. Want people to want to live there. There will be a variety of pricing. Fits what the local people need. There will be community leach beds. Will be large leach beds but septic tanks for
each building and can be maintained regularly.
Will pump effluent to the leach beds.
Will be drilling community wells out in the remote part of the
development.
Steve Kennedy – What about water that you will need
for the golf course? Presently it comes
out of the pond. Will be using the same
pumping site, etc.
Board asked about what chemical treatments will be
used on the golf course. The applicants
stated they would be instituting a policy of Best Management Practices on the
golf course. One of the issues that
occurs is that it has some large storm water areas. We are going to let them grown back into
wetland vegetation. Will be basic
natural treatment and then go into Best Management Practices.
J. Marcou asked how much chemical treatment are the
doing presently?
It was noted that the present owner tries to
minimize chemicals but operates on a calendar system then on a need
system. Starts to do things prior to
need. We will observe Best Management
Practices and try to minimize the impact.
Question about density discussed. Density is going to have to change to be in
conformance with zoning.
It was noted that even though it is private, there
is going to be some thought into the road system. 18’ is not a road when you are looking at a
proposed road. Should be widened.
Beaver Pond Conservation Area will be a recreational
area for the Town. Development rights
will go with the property.
Attorney Uchida stated he would be creating
documentation to pass to Town Counsel for review.
Carter Higginbotham stated that maybe growth is
inevitable but for the Selectmen to say this is an advantage for the Town is
not right. I don’t think this is
consistent with the attitude of the people in this Town. Could be a lot worse but this is not the best
thing. The people that are coming into
this development are going to change the Town a whole lot.
The applicants noted there would be 100 units of
people over 55 years of age who would be interested in Town projects.
The Board noted they will have to address Regional
Impact Issue.
DISCUSSION RE PROPOSED NEW ZONING ORDINANCE ARTICLES:
It was noted for the record that the following will be posted as Zoning Ordinance Changes for the Wednesday, January 7 , 2004 meeting of the Dunbarton Planning Board. This will be the first scheduled Public Hearing for Zoning Board Changes:
1.
Cell Tower Ordinance
2.
Multi-Family Housing
3.
Large Lot Zoning
4.
IBC Adoption for residential
structures (Building Code)
The Planning Board reached a consensus that it would be in the best interest if Town Counsel helped develop the Multi-Family Ordinance. Ken Swayze will check with Selectmen to get approval for Town Counsel to move ahead on Multi-Family Ordinance.
MASTER PLAN UPDATE:
Brian
Nordle announced that the next meeting of the Master Plan Steering Committee
would be held on Monday, December 29, 2003.
The Survey Results are all in and Dunbarton’s response was 42%.
There being no further business, the meeting
adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alison
Vallieres, Secretary