DUNBARTON PLANNING BOARD

WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2003

TOWN OFFICES – 7:00 PM

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

Kenneth Swayze, Co-Chairman and Planning and Zoning Department

Alison Vallieres, Secretary

Brian Nordle

Carter Higginbotham

George Holt

Steve Kennedy, Selectman

Michael Poirier, Alternate

The Chairman verified with the Secretary that the meeting notice had been posted in a timely fashion according to State Law in three public places throughout the Town and published in the Concord Monitor for one day.

Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes: Wednesday, April 16, 2003

A motion was made by Kenneth Swayze, seconded by Michael Poirier to accept the minutes as written of the previous meeting of April 16, 2003. The motion passed unanimously.

The Chairman stated that the Election of Officers would be moved to the Workshop Meeting in the interest of time because tonight’s meeting agenda was so long. The Board agreed.

7:00 PM – CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - ZABADEE DEVELOPMENT, LLC (JOSEPH ALBERTELLI, MANAGING MEMBER) PROPOSED NINE LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON GRAPEVINE ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH

James Marcou, Chairman, stated that the following would be voting members on this proposed subdivision:

James Marcou

Kenneth Swayze

Carter Higginbotham

Brian Nordle

Alison Vallieres

Michael Poirier

Steve Kennedy (will sit in on deliberations, but cannot vote because he was not present at all meetings)

Kenneth Swayze, Planning and Zoning Department presented the Board with a Status Report (attached).

He stated that Brian Nordle, Michael Poirier, Jim Marcou and he went on the Site Walk on April 28, 2003. Attendees all stated that the land was a good piece of land and there were no problems with the property at this time.

Tim Bernier, Surveyor, appeared before the Board with an updated plan which reflected changes made after

comments from the Board and Don Mayo. Letter from Don Mayo received May 21, 2003. (attached)

T. Bernier stated the stone wall will be taken down and reconstructed plus they will be planting six evergreen shrubs in front of the driveway across from the proposed new road entrance. This cost was added to the bond. All other changes to the plans are the result of Don Mayo’s comments. All State applications have been submitted for approval. Have spoken with the Wesselhoeft’s and explained where the fire pond would be. Their main concern was mosquitoes, black flies, etc. They were satisfied the pond was far enough away from their house.

Have complete application ready for Fire Pond. Need letter from the Fire Chief because it is in the Town’s name. Also George Holt’s signature needs to be on it.

J. Marcou asked Fire Chief Wiggin about this and Wiggin stated he had already spoken with Tim Bernier and this would give the Fire Department what they need.

BONDING CONSIDERATION:

Kenneth Swayze stated the applicant needs to havea separate meeting with the

Town regarding the bonding. The figure submitted is rather low and needs to be increased. Steve Kennedy and Kenneth Swayze will talk with Bernier regarding the bonding requirement before the next meeting.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:

1. Brian Nordle stated he had a concern the detention pond was going to catch quite a bit of water. Have a concern of discharge going north on the first or second driveway. Will cause a problem in heavy downpour. This ditch line will be gone in heavy runoff. Would like to see this corrected.

Bernier agreed to put in riprap to correct this problem. Will also take a look at the slope. Size of the stones is based on the velocity of the water.

2. K. Swayze asked if Bernier had called Site Specific regarding this specific drainage structure.

Bernier stated he had spoke with them. Stated it was pretty flat on the other side of the gravel. It is possible, but not really feasible to meet all the criteria. Pond is what they tell us to do.

K. Swayze stated that cleanout and freezing in the winter is a concern of the Town. Also, would like to see you up-size the culvert and improve ditch line. Driveway is on the Town ROW.

J. Marcou stated it would be fair to at least consider repairing or replacing the ditch line prior to the acceptance of the road. Culvert was already half full of dirt prior to Mr. Bernier’s proposal. Board will be taking a look.

3. Project should be tentative for a vote at the next meeting if all engineering and final plans are in the

Town Office 15 days prior to the next meeting.

Abutters were read as follows and noted all had been notified by certified mail:

Marjolaine J. Hebert – Not Present

Lahajji Development LLC – Not Present

Steve/Angela Amesden – Not Present

Conrad/Karen Wesselhoeft – Not Present

Douglas/Tommy Garcia – Not Present

Steve Brennan – Not Present

Richard Burchell – Not Present

Craig/Lucia Williamson – Not Present

Ravi Vig Revocable Trust – Not Present

Joan Segal – Not Present

Timothy/Tara Edes – Not Present

John/April Fay – Not Present

Joanne Heapes – Not Present

Richard/Karen Geary – Not Present

Timothy/Deborah Dugal – Not Present

Ignatius/Eleanor MacLellan – Not Present

Thomas Dickey, Jr. – Not Present

Paul/Nany Zahenski – Not Present

Charles/Caroline Pellock – Not Present

Lee Richmond – Present. Stated a concern about the sight distance coming down the hill. Although the Board was satisfied with the sight line. Asked if the developer was gong to be developing the lot or will he be building the houses. Asked if the owner was Mark Desmarais. He asked if Lahajji Development etc. were all the same owner.

Bernier stated that the owner was Joseph Albertelli, Managing Member of all the different companies. He did not know at this time whether the owner would be selling the subdivision or building the houses himself.

Town of Bow – Not Present

Timothy Bernier – Present (Surveyor for the project)

Robert Rook – Present. (Engineer for the project)

Other Members of the Public:

Ron Slocum – Asked the Board when they talk about the line of sight, has anyone physically gone out and measured the line of sight. Coming down that road, it looks less than 400 feet. If something happens in the future i.e. an accident at the intersection and the State Police measure and find sight distance is less than 400 feet, the Town will be liable for granting a subdivision with sight distance less than 400 feet. It would behoove someone to measure this on the ground.

Bernier stated this was taken from a map and it would be difficult to see until the stone wall is moved, etc.

Ken Swayze stated that he will have the Town Engineer, Don Mayo, once again look at the sight distance prior to the next meeting.

At this point in the meeting, Lee Richmond asked Bernier to explain how the calculations are done regarding the line of sight. Tim Bernier explained the process to Lee Richmond. Stated the sight distance is just over 400 feet.

Kenneth Swayze stated the Town will require Robert Rook, Engineer, to certify on the plan that the Sight Line is 400 feet and illustrate by detail on the plan.

Nicholas Holmes – Stated that it looked to him like the sight line cut across the shoulder. Assuming a three foot snowbank, would there still be a 400 foot sight distance? Asked about the snowbank south of the intersection.

Bernier – Stated that snowbanks would have to be “winged” back. They were not this past winter. If the snowbanks are not plowed back throughout the Town, no one is going to see over them.

George Holt – Asked if the 400 foot sight line stayed on the Town ROW.

Bernier stated it did. At about 175’, we start to reshape the curve in the road.

The public hearing was closed at 7:30 p.m. A final vote is tentative for the next meeting providing all plans, etc. are submitted to the Town Office 15 days prior to the next meeting.

7:30 PM – CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - ROCKO DIPETRO (MICHEL BELANGER) PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND SUBSEQUENT PROPOSED 22 LOT SUBDIVISION OFF STARK LANE IN THE MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH

Kenneth Swayze, Town Planning and Zoning Department, presented the Board with a Status Report of the

Proposed Lot Line Adjustment and Subdivision. (attached)

Kenneth Swayze stated the Board had asked for a Legal Opinion from Town Counsel regarding the Town Forest Committee’s authority to enter into an agreement for removal of trees and moving the stone wall. Town Counsel’s recent written legal opinion is somewhat favorable to the applicant. Stated he had spoken with Town Counsel again this morning and he remains firm in his opinion that the Town Forest Committee had the authority to grant a license. He stated the Board does not take direction from Town Counsel in voting matters, and each member should clearly vote according to their own mind. Town Counsel is an advisory source only.

Steve Kennedy stated that the document that was brought forth to the Planning Board was done in good faith. The issue goes back to the Town Forest Committee. Issue could be developed from that. This does not impede the Planning Board process.

J. Marcou stated that at this point, when we deliberate for a vote, we can take the agreement in good faith and will deliberate the merits of the plan.

K. Swayze noted the Selectmen, particularly Chuck Graybill, have been very good about seeking legal counsel and providing information to all parties.

J. Marcou stated this matter has not been taken lightly by the Board.

George Holt – Stated he had looked at the letter presented by a group of concerned citizens. (attached) It seems to me that we are being presented with a whole lot of new evidence. This is contrary to what we have been led to believe regarding the agreement between the Town Forest Committee and the owners. Do they have the authority to make this agreement? This was the foundation of the Board going forward on this project. Does this prevent us from making a decision?

Kenneth Swayze – Stated that the applicants were told they could not move forward until the driveway permit from DOT came. DOT issued the driveway permit in April. This permit was granted based on the agreement from the Town Forest Committee. The Planning Board has got to act on things that are valid and presented in good faith.

George Holt – Referred to Drobat case. If we go ahead and approve now, what happens if the agreement is flawed, etc.

Kenneth Swayze stated the subdivision would not be valid if the agreement was ruled flawed, etc. because this would be part of the conditions if granted.

J. Marcou stated the Planning Board has the recommendation from Town Counsel to go ahead and vote on this project as the Board sees fit. Town Counsel does not tell anyone on this Board how to vote.

Steve Kennedy – Stated there is an issue of being prudent. What is in the best interest of the Town, the developer and the Planning Board? They are good for another month. Can you stop the wheels of motion. If there is a flaw, the only remedy is in court.

SITE WALK:

Kenneth Swayze reported that Brian Nordle, Jim Marcou, Attorney Dunn and Jacques Belanger went on the site walk on 4/29/2003. Brian Nordle stated several concerns were addressed. At the corner of one of the wetlands, looked at the grading of culdasac and it was less wet than anticipated. One area had a skidder tire track on it and water had pooled there but felt this was the result of spring runoff. Other than that, saw no major concerns. Took a lot of extra time to look at the wetland area. The mitigation area is clearly defined. Everything else is clearly delineated.

J. Belanger stated that he had brought Peter Schauer to the project and he had verified that the areas near the culdasac were not wetlands. They did not meet the criteria of wetlands. Stated they were going with a cistern of 30,000 gallons. Have spoken with Fire Chief Wiggin. Will be incorporated within the ROW as Town land Comes out of part of Lot #2.

J. Belanger stated that another issue is the phase line for building the road. Developer is planning on doing 11 lots first and construct the last remaining 11 as Phase II. This will be part of State approval. Already have the driveway permit for main road access; all other permits have been submitted. The Conservation Commission has asked for an extension to review the wetlands application. We haven’t changed the alignment of the road since the last meeting. The walking trail is around the boundary. Don’t want to commit to people walking in back of houses which have narrow lots.

J.Marcou asked about the easement and the question of whether we have a pedestrian foot path without the State superceding us with the right to use. This is a fee simple easement across the owner’s lot?

Attorney Dunn stated he had an easement drawn up re foot traffic.

Kenneth Swayze – Question regarding mitigating to the State of New Hampshire (Wetland) and then you give the Town the same area. We can’t do this again.

Brian Nordle asked if the footpath was separate from the mitigation area. Is the foot path a separate deed from the mitigation area?

J. Belanger stated the foot path goes to the mitigation area but not through it.

J.Marcou stated the purpose of the footpath was to get the people into the former Brown property and not get people into the back yards of the landowners.

Brian Nordle – Only concern is pedestrians on roadways on walks, etc. When you do put in such a footpath, the Town does get some liability. If you are going to be putting a footpath on your Town property you are putting a liability on the Town. 20 years down the road, there will be a lot of trails. Just food for thought. Maybe we ought to look into sidewalks and extra widening, etc.

George Holt – Asked that on all easements there should be bounds set. Will there be bounds at the corners?

K. Swayze noted there will be pins set at all easements and the condition of all wetland mitigation areas is required to be photographed in advance. When the developer finishes his first phase, all easements should be set in the field. All Jacques will be doing is coming in after with the plan for the second phase, as the road will be constructed in two phases.

BONDING ISSUE:

Kenneth Swayze noted that the amount of the bonding for the road has been tentatively established at nearly one million dollars. $590,000 plus 10% for inflation for the first phase. ( State may require a separate bond for the tree removal etc. ) $400,000 for the second phase of the road.

Kenneth Swayze stated the developer will give all the deeds and easements to the Board up front.

George Holt – Asked again about pinning the pathway.

K.Swayze stated this does not have to be done until the end of the first phase.

DRAINAGE:

1. Robert Rook, Engineer, provided the Board with the original copy of the DOT Driveway Permit.

2. Letter from Don Mayo stating the revised plan is satisfactory as submitted, etc. (attached)

3. George Holt questioned the criteria used in the Drainage calculations. At this point, Robert

Rook, Engineer, presented a written response to the Chairman regarding the computation

Of the Drainage calculations. He stated the methodology used is proper and correct and

he has been doing this for thirty years and knows what he is doing. (attached) Stated he had spoken with Ridgely Mauck of the Site Specific NH DES and he is okay with the methodology used.

J.Marcou stated that if there is a dispute about methodology used, when it goes to DES, if there is a problem with it, we will know.

At this point in the discussion, George Holt stated he had made several comments but has decided to retract some of them. Stated he found that the cumulative numbers were correct but two. Two issues comes to mind. George stated his concerns to Robert Rook. Rook stated he had spoken with Don Mayo regarding this concern.

J. Marcou stated we were not in a position to hold up the Planning Board on this issue at this late date.

G. Holt stated he would like to see that we don’t have offsite drainage impacts. We are going to approve something and then it will be up to the State and they will rubber stamp it. Stated Stillwater could have been better but we let Wetlands decide, etc.

At this point in the discussion, Kenneth Swayze stated that Ridgely Mauck is very competent.

Mike Poirier stated that the Board has to rely on professionals. I don’t know that we can continue to question their methodology. We can’t continue to beat this up.

George Holt – Stated that if we are gong to defer to Site Specific, we need to put it to a vote.

Steve Kennedy asked if George Holt could do a “Minority Letter” that he doesn’t agree with the vote, etc. The Board stated that George will probably do this with DES.

George Holt noted his second area of concern was the area of the model. Change from woodland to development, etc.

R. Rook noted there was only a .6 percent change from the woodland area in runoff.

J. Marcou asked that in the area of Williams Court, once we make that cut, will that make water runoff into someone else’s property. Stated he was concerned when we made the cut and looked at it in the field. R. Rook stated it would not affect other property.

At this point in the discussion, Fire Chief Jon Wiggin stated he would like to see the cistern located more centered within the subdivision. He stated the Fire Department only has 2500 feet of hose and would like to be able to reach all homes within the development.

The developers agreed to work with Fire Chief Wiggin to determine the best possible location for the cistern.

At this point, George Holt noted that the regulations call for a fire pond after 8 lots. This is 22 lots. Why shouldn’t they be required to have two cisterns within the subdivision.

Ken Swayze indicated the rationale is that only one house usually burns at a time. The question is proximity.

Jon Wiggin stated that Old Fort Estates has 24 lots and only has one fire pond. As long as the Fire Department can get to the house with the hose it will work. Flintlock Farm Estates have more than one fire pond. We are not able to lay hose more than 2500 feet.

Steve Kennedy asked about the possibility of the developer purchasing 500 feet of hose.

Fire Chief stated that it is not as easy to pump water through 3000 feet of hose as opposed to 2500. Said they could fit a second cistern within the subdivision, but it’s not required. The developer will work with Jon Wiggin.

At this point in the public hearing, Carter Higginbotham stated that the Board had an indepth discussion with the Fire Chief regarding fire pond versus cisterns. At that time, cisterns were not the better way to go. They preferred fire ponds. Now cisterns are okay. What is the correct answer?

Jon Wiggin, Fire Chief, stated that there are still sections of Town that need water. The Town is responsible for maintaining either fire ponds or cisterns. There are pros and cons on both. Cisterns do not dry up. They are year round guaranteed water. Other towns have dozens of cisterns. They have not had problems with cisterns. There is a safety issue with fire ponds. Children can drown. The Fire Department maintains both. Cisterns hold up over time. I don’t have a problem with cisterns. We run disinfectant through them once a year. They can be concrete or fiberglass. The majority are concrete. Some are made in Weare, NH. The Fire Department will accept any of the three methods i.e. fire ponds, cisterns or in-house fire suppression depending on the applicant and the Town’s needs.

Brian Nordle asked who oversees the installation of the cistern or fire pond.

Fire Chief oversees this.

J. Marcou asked if there is an issue of placement of fire pond or cistern within Phase II, c there also be in-house fire suppression or a second cistern?

At this pojnt, the applicant stated they would consider in-house fire suppression for the second phase of the development if there was a problem. .

Robert Rook, Engineer, stated they can most likely put in a cistern within the development at any location the Fire Chief wants it.

At this point in the public hearing, the abutters were read as follows and noted all had been notified by certified mail:

William Baril – Present. Stated his concern was about erosion and wetlands. The lots being three acres, there is not three acres of usable land. Seems like there is going to be a stream running either side of my house. Stated that all three streams run together at the edge of my property. Stated that presently on this road, the school bus is going so fast that it cannot stop in front of my house to pick up my children. What about the future. Where will the school bus be stopping to pick up the children, at the intersection? They have moved the centerline of the road. All these issues I will bring up to the State. Erosion is the biggest thing. The bus not being able to stop in front of my house is another.

J. Belanger explained the drainage.

J. Marcou stated that any erosion caused by this subdivision should not be allowed and should not happen.. You will have issues. As far as where the school bus stops, don’t feel the Planning Board can determine this.

Edward/Vicki Klements – Not Present

Dennis Forcier – Not Present

Scott/Deborah Aubrey – Not Present

Roger/Pamela Bergeron – Present. Roger Bergeron stated that when they put the culvert in, there are 2 pipes that are gong to have to have something done because water runs into a blank wall. Stated the brook is next to me on Lot #1.

Robert Rook – Stated that there is a construction easement and we can install new culverts under the Town Forest Agreement. He and Jacques Belanger explained the water issues.

Robert Cowan – Ellie Stein Present. Ellie Stein stated she questioned the validity of the agreement between the Town Forest Committee and the developer. Said she had spoke with the Town Attorney previously. She stated she, Margaret Watkins, Rene Ouellet had contacted another attorney (Caroline Baldwin) and received a written response. (attached) However, those of us who have taken a look at the actual deed for the Winslow Town Forest have concerns. Attorney Steve Duggan had not even seen the deed before he wrote the opinion so apparently the Selectmen decided to have him take a second look at it. This is a foundation piece of the development of this property. At this point, Ellie Stein stated she would like to read a letter to the Board. (attached)

Anthony/Anette Marino – Not Present

David/Jennifer Allen – David Allen Present. Stated that he agreed with Ellie Stein. “Prudence” was a good word to us. We should use prudence before going forward with this.

Barbara/Paul Kilmister and Robert/Mary Gourley – Not Present

SPNHF – Not Present

Orvis/Doris Cunningham Trust – Not Present

Dunbarton Town Forest Committee – Fred Mullen was present but made no comment.

Robert Rook, Engineer for the Project – Present

Schauer Environmental Consultants – Not Present

J. E. Belanger Surveying, Surveyor for the Project – Present

Other Members of the Public:

Katie MacDonald – Stated that Jim Marcou said the school bus issue was up to the School Board. The Planning Board should be measuring all this and has that been taken into consideration?

J. Marcou stated that the impact of 22 new residences has been considered. This is the Planning Board job. I was referring to the school bus picking up children.

Ken Swayze stated the Board requires phasing building permits to drag out the impact, and noted the recent typical developments don’t necessarily bring in a lot of children.

Margaret Watkins – With regard to the public trail system, this is really an important part of this subdivision. Should have wider shoulders and get walkers on the road. The Hammer head should not be a place for trailhead parking. Idea for trails through the subdivision is a great idea. If we are going to have this on this plan, it needs to be spelled out. The fire suppression issue needs to be worked out. Final authority of the Town Forest Committee needs to be known. The deed did not get to Town Counsel. He did not understand the situation. They agree the Town owns the land that they will be working on. Not within the limits of the State highway department. Town Counsel argument is not valid. I think it would be a mistake for the Planning Board to issue the approval without the understanding that the license is a valid document. I do want to say that the Selectmen were responsive to the concerns of the residents and I acknowledge this.

Attorney Dunn – Stated that he had been practicing law for 30 years. When the Board says the Town Forest Committee has acted in good faith, he agrees. The developer was told to obtain access and he began with DOT. The application for the driveway permit had to have an agreement with the Town Forest Committee, and we put together the agreement. No one is going to argue with that. What is the Town Forest. How do you control what the Town Forest Committee has done. The Planning Board wanted a driveway permit and we obtained the DOT permit along with the authorization of the Town Forest Committee. The RSA that governs Town Forest Committees is RSA 31.110. It states Town Forest shall be managed by the Forest Committee and authorizes them to convey interest in land. Can harvest timber on the Town Forest. Developer is going to cut trees in this very tiny part of the Town Forest and move a stone wall. Trees can be cut and wall can be moved by the Town Forest Committee anyway. Even the Selectmen don’t have that kind of power. It has the specific power to convey interests in land. The Town Forest Committee is designated to manage the whole thing. It includes everything done in these agreements. We have a legal binding agreement. They are entitled to appeal the Town Forest Committee’s action.

John Trottier – Stated that two wrongs don’t make a right. I would refute this action. Needs to be looked at. Is the permit valid. Question Mr. Rook’s point of analysis. This does impact abutting properties. Disagree with Mr. Rook. Sometimes detention ponds hurt. He says there will be no increase in the rate of runoff. How much water is ponding on the lot. It is no hardship to move the location of the cistern.

James White, Mansion Road – Agree with Ellie Stein. No matter how tiny a thing, we should be very careful about the future.

At this point, the public hearing was closed.

At this point in the meeting, Steve Kennedy stated that he had spoken with the Board of Selectmen but he is only one individual. He is very concerned about the correspondence regarding the agreement between the Town Forest Committee and the developer. Want to know about the conduct and what was the Winslow Trust. Very serious issues. It would have to have been the consensus of the Town Forest Committee. Minutes of the Committee are minimal.

COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS:

Carter Higginbotham stated that the discussion points are firm in our minds. We should defer and wait 30 days to get this matter resolved.

Michael Poirier stated that he felt when he came here we should vote on this project, but after hearing testimony from the public, etc., he felt that by waiting another 30 days would not make a difference, and we could possibly resolve the problems. Would not want to risk losing the Town Forest by approving this.

Alison Vallieres stated she felt the item had been on the Planning Board agenda for almost a year and 30 days would not make that much difference if we could get the agreement validity resolved.

Brian Nordle stated he felt the application should be acted upon this evening. Everyone has read the deed. Can’t even imagine they would put the Town Forest in jeopardy. There are 100 different opinions. Every issue is very important. I do believe the issue has been raised and I don’t believe the Planning Board is the proper arena to resolve it. I believe so far everything is in order. I would like to see a vote in the scope of our powers, and the Town Forest is not the issue. Would like a vote on the merits of the Planning Board issues.

Kenneth Swayze stated he agreed with Brian. This has gone on long enough. However, if the applicant wants another 30 days, we can do that, or if they want us to vote, we can do that.

George Holt – Stated he was not comfortable with the proof of ownership. Not comfortable making a decision right now.

James Marcou – With regard to the Town Forest Committee agreement, I don’t feel this is the arena where this can be resolved. 30 days will not resolve this issue. If the applicant thinks it is in their best interest to go ahead, we can put it to a vote on its merits.

J. Marcou noted the voting members on this project would be as follows:

James Marcou

Kenneth Swayze

Alison Vallieres

Carter Higginbotham

Brian Nordle

George Holt

Michael Poirier

MOTION:

Brian Nordle made a motion that the proposed subdivision and lot line adjustment of Michel Belanger, Owner and Rocko Dipetro, purchase and sale contract holder, of Tax Lot No. G2-5-7 and G3-1-5 consisting of a 22 lot subdivison of 90 acres, including approximately 5,500 feet of new town roadway, and an additional 700 feet of reconstructed State Highway (Stark Lane) located on Stark Lane in the Medium Density (3 acres) District; to be known as Stinson Heights be approved subject to the following conditions:

1) Submittal of a final, technically accurate and graphically correct plan-set in full compliance with all current subdivision regulations and incorporating any and all additional requirements established during deliberations with the Board (per minutes).

2) Approval and receipt of all other required local, State, or Federal permits, including, but not limited to New Hampshire Wetlands, New Hampshire subdivision approval, and New Hampshire DES Site Specific. There shall be no change(s) to the base plan(s) without re-consultation with the Board, as a result of such other permit approvals.

3) Payment of all fees and costs associated with the Dunbarton Planning Board application process.

4) A valid and otherwise legal agreement allowing the applicant and the Dunbarton Town Forest Committee, together with the New Hampshire Department of Transportation, and the oversight of the State Forester, to carry out the Stark Lane roadway improvements and safety modifications as required by New Hampshire DOT and shown on the approved plans referenced above (1 and 2).

5) Posting of a surety in the aggregate amount of $940,350, plus 10% escalation factor (=$1,034,383), for the construction of roadways(s), for the entire project. Or: at the option of the applicant, post separate and successive sureties representing Phases I and II as shown on “Stinson Heights Phase Plan” submitted May 20, 2003, to the Dunbarton Planning Department. Phase I (including Stark Lane) to be in the amount of $589,650 + 10%, Phase II to be in the amount of $350,700+10%.

(See: “Bond Proposal” as submitted.) (Detailed, itemized “Activity” categories are not to be recognized as a precise surety-reduction mechanism, but rather as a guideline to value of completed work.)

6) Preparation, submittal, and filing of all Deeds, legal instruments, and/or other documents required or intended to be filed at the Merrimack County Registry of Deeds; in such content and form acceptable to the Town.

7) Requirements of the Town of Dunbarton Fire Department with regard to the design of a fire suppression cistern system and final location thereof.

The motion was seconded by Kenneth Swayze.

Jim Marcou noted to all parties that any approval is subject to the appeal process.

DISCUSSION:

George Holt stated he still cannot vote for this knowing there is a disagreement. Refer back to the Drobat case. I would not vote for this.

The motion passed by a majority with six voting affirmative and George Holt voting against the motion.

PUBLIC HEARING - NH TRADITIONAL HOMES (MICHAEL POIRIER) PROPOSED THREE LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON GUINEA ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH

At this point in the meeting, Kenneth Swayze and Michael Poirier stepped down from the Board.

Kenneth Swayze presented a Status Sheet of the proposed subdivision. (attached)

It was noted that the Wetlands Permits have not been filed to date.

K. Swayze reported that Brian Nordle and Jim Marcou had gone on the Site Walk on 4/28/03. They stated it was a nice piece of property. Homes will fit well there. Found only a trace of an old spring, a few stones in the corner. We were asked to look for this by an abutter.

Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, stated he had changed the well radius on the plan because they were previously too small. Stated he redid the boundary survey on the property. Biggest problem is that he didn’t get to submit the Wetlands Permits. There are 3200 square feet of wetlands impact. Building sites are remote from each other.

Lot 1 – 3 acres of upland

Lot 2 – 2.5 acres of upland

Lot 3 – 3 acres of upland

All lots are over seven acres.

George Holt asked if J. Belanger had taken care of the contours on the plan.

J. Belanger stated yes he had.

George Holt stated he would like to see where the driveway is to the building site. Also should update the Dig-Safe number.

Steve Kennedy asked if they had taken into consideration the public input at the last meeting i.e. runoff from roofs, etc.

It was noted that runoff from roofs was discussed in conjunction with duplexes with extended roofs, etc.

James Marcou stated that the wet acres were well defined in that they were stream type wetlands. The existing culverts are brand new and well kept (30”). Regarding the lot size and the impact, if they are done tastefully and not clear cut, I can’t imagine how they would be disturbing or disruptive.

Chuck Frost had expressed a concern about the Grapevine Road driveway. This should be inspected by the Building Inspector.

George Holt asked about potential upgrades to Guinea Road. It was noted that Guinea Road was just improved by the Town last year and it was well done. It is probably the best road in Town. Ditch lines are well defined.

George Holt asked that aggregate frontage be put on the plan.

Abutters were read as follows and noted all had been notified by certified mail:

George/Catherine Farley – Not Present

Sumner/Joann Marshall – Present. Asked if the houses were going to be single family homes or duplexes. Mr. Marshall stated there was one Christmas Tree on the property that he would like to see saved.

Poirier stated it was up in the air right now as to duplexes. It would depend how they were sold. M. Poirier agreed to save the Christmas tree plus he stated there would be a 50 foot no cut zone on the boundary.

James Stone – Not Present

Kenneth Swayze – Present. No Comment.

Schauer Environmental Engineering – Not Present

NH Traditional Homes, Mike Poirier – Present

J. E. Belanger Surveying – Present

Other Members of the Public:

John Trottier – Asked about whether the width of the driveway would accommodate duplexes. Maybe you should consider widening driveways on plan at this point before approved. He stated that Jim Marcou had said the drainage was well defined as to where the water was flowing. There are two ways of looking at it. There is much more storage area in large wetlands. There is no storage area in the streams, and streams will flow over with heavy rains,etc.

J. Marcou stated that he only stated that there was a well defined channel, etc. and not a large muck area.

It was noted that a 12 foot driveway is sufficient for a duplex.

George Holt stated he had a “professional beef” regarding not seeing the water courses shown on the plan. Would help in stream locations, etc. Would also help with what is going on with the plan.

The public hearing was continued until the next meeting. A final vote is tentative pending receipt of all outstanding information.

RECEIPT AND ACCEPTANCE OF NEW APPLICATIONS BY THE DUNBARTON PLANNING BOARD AND START OF PROCEEDINGS:

SITE PLAN REVIEW:

ROBERT PERRY PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY CONSISTING OF FOUR BUILDINGS OF FOUR UNITS EACH AT HIS PROPERTY LOCATED ON MORSE ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH

AND PREVIOUSLY ACCEPTED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO BE INCLUDED WITH THE ABOVE PERRY SITE PLAN REVIEW PROPOSAL):

ROBERT/DOROTHY PERRY LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON MORSE ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH

At this point in the meeting, Kenneth Swayze and Michael Poirier stepped back to the Board.

Kenneth Swayze submitted a status report sheet on the Perry Proposal. (attached)

MOTION:

Kenneth Swayze made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board accept the application for Site Plan Review for the Robert Perry Proposed Multi-family consisting of four buildings of four units each at his property located on Morse Road in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH with no deliberations by the Board this evening, but allowing the applicant’s presentation to the public. The motion was seconded by George Holt and passed unanimously.

Trevor Towne, W. G. Howard Associates, presented a plan showing the four multi-family buildings. He stated there was no impact on wetlands. There will be 2400 feet of road to go into the culdasac. Two of the buildings will have their own septic system and two buildings will share a larger septic system. There will be 18 parking spaces provided for the buildings along with parking along the culdasac. The protective well radius was shown on the plan. There will be less than 25 well connections, thereby not being a community well system. There will be an area for snow removal and dumpsters in the rear of the buildings. He stated they will not look like a “box”. He stated this will be an adult community for 55 and older. The road design plan is completed and has been submitted. Plans will be submitted to Don Mayo for review.

Abutters were read as follows and noted all had been notified by certified mail:

Josephine Dailey – Not Present

Paul Belyear – Not Present

David/Justyn Constant – Present. Stated he was 100% against this project. It doesn’t meet Dunbarton’s feelings at all. My wife and I choose Dunbarton area because of its Low Density feeling. Traffic on Morse Road will increase dramatically for me and my future family that I will be having.

Steven/Karen Elsasser – Present. Stated that he wanted to thank the Board for doing this again. He agrees with Mr. Constant. You are coming to a hill and then there is going to be a driveway. You have got to have 400 foot sight distance. Cars are “hauling” down that road. Dump trucks are trucking at 55 plus. I understand that 55 and older can still have children, etc. and the children will still be there. How are you going to handle this?

Nathan J. Narus - Not Present

Daniel/Kathleen LaBonville – Present. Stated that his property was going to be the most affected by this. The road going into this project is by my property. There is nothing Low Density about this project. It has no business being here.

Richard/Catherine Racca – Not Present.

Rudolf/Elizabeth Vallauri – Present. Concerned about the water situation. 16 units here and four units across from my house already. We are supposed to be in the Low Density District. This is not Low Density.

Robert/Denise Perry II – Present. No Comment.

David/Beth Sedita – Not Present

David Wheeler – Not Present

Michael Petito - Not Present

David/Theresa Glannon – Not Present

W. G. Howard & Associates – Present

Schaurer Environmental Consultants – Not Present

Other Members of the Public:

John Trottier – Stated that this would create 2400 feet of Town Roadway. This is mind boggling. Parking on a culdasac is not a good thing to allow. Trevor said there will be 8 units per well. Is this a community well? Sight distance is a problem. Trees need to be pruned back from the road. (At this point, it was noted that Mr. Racca has agreed to cut trees along his property plus they will be cutting others.) Stated that in an adult community 55 and older there are many benefits to the developer and the development that should be looked onto. The Board should make sure the documents are looked at very closely.

Dave Breault – Present. Hear concerns about Low Density. The land is undeveloped except for the buildings, leaving open space for abutters to enjoy. Wildlife is so much better and wildlife is not likely to be seen when there are a lot of houses spread out throughout the entire parcel.

Paul Bruzga – Stated that this is two non-conforming lots and according to the regulations was required to be merged, etc. Stated this was a situation that was created by the landowner. The landowner stated in the past that this was always going to be backland, etc. This lot was originally a larger lot. The applicant is bound by his prior representation when he said that this is going to be a back lot, a statement which he is bound by. He is bound by those representations which he made in the past. I submit that it is the Planning Board and the Zoning Board responsibility to find out what his representations were previously. If those were made, he is bound by those.

The public hearing was continued until the next month.

OLD BUSINESS:

Stillwater Bond Issue:

Kenneth Swayze reported that Stillwater had requested a reduction of surety based on work completed to date. They resubmitted this request from last month and are asking for less ($38,500 based on 100% complete). Ken stated he would suggested modifying the amount to $40,000 in the interest of keeping things simple. A letter was submitted by Don Mayo stating Summary of Work completed through May 20, 2003. (attached) It was noted a lot of work had been completed but not many “phases” were substantially complete in accordance with subdivision regulations for reducing sureties, hence only the $40,000 allowance.

MOTION:

Alison Vallieres made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board authorize the return of $40,000 to Stillwater for the bond from Stillwater for road work completed. The motion was seconded by Michael Poirier and passed by a majority with Brian Nordle voting in the negative.

Pages Corner Convenience Store – Request from Contractor to Approve Color and Material of Siding:

Kenneth Swayze presented samples of colors of vinyl siding for the Pages Corner Store for the Planning Board to review and decide on an acceptable color. In addition, it was discussed whether or not vinyl siding would be acceptable.

After discussion and reading of the Dunbarton Zoning Board Minutes of December 14, 1992, the Dunbarton Planning Board reached a general consensus that either vinyl siding or wood siding would be appropriate for the Pages Corner Convenience Store in a certain range of colors which were presented to the Board.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Alison R. Vallieres

Secretary