DUNBARTON PLANNING BOARD
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 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
George Holt, Co-Chairman
Alison Vallieres, Secretary
Kenneth Swayze, Adm., Planning
and Zoning
Brian Nordle
Carter Higginbotham
Steve Kennedy, Selectman
Michael Poirier, Alternate
David Breault, Alternate
The
Chairman verified with the Secretary that the Public Meeting Notice had been
posted in a timely fashion in three places throughout the Town according to the
State RSA and published in the Concord Monitor for one day.
Approval
of Previous Month’s Minutes:
MOTION:
A
motion was made, seconded and passed unanimously that the May 21, 2003 Meeting
Minutes be approved as written.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – ZABADEE DEVELOPMENT, LLC (I4-2-4) (JOSEPH ALBERTELLI, MANAGING MEMBER) PROPOSED NINE LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON GRAPEVINE ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
Kenneth Swayze presented
a Status Report of the Zabadee Proposed Subdivision. (attached)
The following members
will be the Voting Members for this application:
James Marcou
Kenneth Swayze
Brian Nordle
Alison Vallieres
George Holt
Carter Higginbotham
Michael Poirier, Alternate
Tim Bernier, Surveyor, appeared before the Board on
behalf of his client. He addressed the
Current Activity/Requirements as follows:
Several suggestions were
made, one of which was the planting should be done as soon as possible and not
wait until such time as the house were sold, etc.
Michael Poirier suggested
that the plan not be signed until such time as the planting was completed.
The consensus of the Board
was that the shrubbery should be planted immediately in order to avoid any
problems in the future.
George
Holt asked where the line for the separation of the phases was. T. Bernier stated it was shown on the
plan. The plan used for the presentation
was the two phases combined, etc. The
road construction phasing will be 5 lots
the first year and four the next year.
Building permits shall be issued per zoning regulations (and shown on
plan).
James
Marcou – Stated that he wanted to make sure the Board was aware that there will
be no Regional Impact. The Town of Bow
has been notified for every meeting. In
addition, Regional Impact has been addressed several times at the previous
meetings.
Tim
Bernier stated that one of the owners in Bow had called the Town Office this
week and stated that he had owned the property for some time, and had not been
notified. T. Bernier stated he called
the new owner. When the subdivision
application was accepted the original
owner was correct. Since that time, the
property had been sold to the new owner.
(Donald Lefevbre, 27 Long View, Bow, NH)
Mr. Bernier stated he had spoken with the new owner and answered any
questions and concerns.
Abutters
were read as follows and it was noted that 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. At this point in the public hearing, the new owners of the property stated they were present. (Donald Lefebvre) Mr. Lefebvre stated they had spoken with Mr. Bernier and he had answered all their questions concerning the proposed subdivision.
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 he had one concern about the proposed fire pond. Stated he walks past there every day and is aware of the ecosystem that is there. I understand the need for a Fire Pond but where can I go if I am not happy with the way things turn out with the Fire Pond, etc.
The Board noted that the Fire Pond has a Wetlands Permit and this can be reviewed at the Town Clerk’s Office. Mr. Richmond stated he was just wondering if there was some kind of eco system that will be destroyed when the pond is built, etc. The Board also noted that the Conservation Commission also looks at these, and Mr. Richmond could talk to George Holt, Conservation Commission. At this point, George Holt stated they went and looked at the area and no mitigation was necessary. He stated there would be a public benefit with the Town having a Fire Pond.
Other Members of the Public:
Ron Slocum, Tenney Hill Road – Stated he has sat in on a lot of Selectmen’s Meetings and he felt that the shrubbery issue should be addressed immediately at the beginning of the project and before such time as there is a new owner of the home, and he doesn’t want to do it, etc. Stated that the Board should have something in writing from the Fire Chief stating that a 14’ pull off width is adequate. In two years, if there is another Fire Chief and there is nothing in writing to fall back on, there could be a problem.
Ken Swayze noted this will be part of the approval process.
T. Bernier stated that the Fire Chief had signed the Wetlands Application for the Fire Pond in addition to writing a letter. The Fire Chief felt there was a need for the Fire Pond. In addition, this plan will be filed at the Registry of Deeds.
MOTION:
Kenneth Swayze made a motion
that the Dunbarton Planning Board approve the proposed subdivisdion of ZABADEE
DEVELOPMENT LLC (Joseph Albertelli, Managing Member) of Tax Lot I4-2-4
consisting of a 9 (nine) lot subdivision on 51 acres, including approximately
3,000 feet of new town roadway located in the Low Density (5 acre) District to
be known as “One Stack Estates” and “Zachary Drive” 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 N. H. Wetlands and N. H. 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. Posting
of a surety in the aggregate amount of $485,250, plus 10% escalation factor
($533,775 total), for the construction of roadway(s) and off-site improvements,
for the entire project. Or: at the option of the applicant, post separate
and successive sureties representing Phases I and II as shown on “One Stack
Estates” Phase Plan dated 5/02/03. Phase
I to be in the amount of $271,500 + 10% ($298,650 total); Phase II to be in the
amount of $213,750 + 10% ($235,125 total).
(There are to be separate
line items in Phase I for miscellaneous off-site improvements @ $9,000 and Fire
Pond Construction @ $22,500)
(See: “Bond Proposal” as submitted) (Detailed,
itemized “Description” categories are not to be recognized as a precise
surety-reduction mechanism, but rather as a guideline to value of completed
work.)
5. 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.
6. Requirements
of the Town of Dunbarton Fire Department with regard to current design and
construction standards of a fire pond in accordance with (both) the subdivision
regulations and per plan submitted by the applicant.
Brian Nordle seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Steve Kennedy asked about the shrubs. He stated the shrubs need to be in place prior to the construction beginning. T. Bernier stated that no building permits could be issued until such time as the shrubs were in place.
Brian Nordle stated he felt the shrubs should be in place prior to construction starting.
James Marcou stated that “time is of the essence” and the shrubs need to be planted immediately.
Ken Swayze stated that there could be a requirement that the shrubs be planted prior to September 1, 2003. He stated that the screening is important.
George Holt stated that we should make this a part of the motion to approve.
Michael Poirier stated the shrubs should be planted prior to the signing of the mylar.
Amendment to the Motion:
Ken Swayze made the following amendment to the Motion:
7. To
require that the shrubs specified on the plan be planted prior to the signing
and filing of the plan.
Michael Poirier seconded the amendment to the motion. The amendment passed by unanimous vote of the
Board.
The entire motion as amended passed unanimously.
The public hearing was closed.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – NH TRADITIONAL HOMES
(MICHAEL POIRIER ) (G4-1-1) PROPOSED THREE LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON GUINEA
ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
At this point in the meeting, Michael Poirier stepped down from the Board.
At this point in the meeting, Kenneth Swayze stepped down from the Board because he was an abutter to the property.
Kenneth Swayze did present a Status Report to the Board on the proposed subdivision. (attached)
The Chairman noted the following members would be voting on the proposed subdivision:
James Marcou
George Holt
Carter Higginbotham
Alison Vallieres
Brian Nordle
Steve Kennedy
Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, presented an updated plan showing the proposed subdivision which included existing road layout and bounds. He stated that this subdivision started out as a multi-family housing project and was revised to be a subdivision.
He noted the Town Planning Department had brought to his attention historical road layout information relative to Guinea and Grapevine Roads, and the need for accurate monumentation along these roadways. Jacques will show this on the final plan accordingly.
J. Belanger noted that the project has submitted a Wetlands Permit. There has been a hold up by the Conservation Commission as they asked for an extension to do a Site Walk of the property.
George Holt stated that the Conservation Commission has scheduled a Site Walk for Thursday, June 19, 2003.
J. Belanger explained the proposed driveway grades to the Board.
Abutters were read as follows and noted all had been notified by certified mail:
George/Catherine Farley
– Not Present
Sumner/Joann Marshall –
Present. Asked about the location of the
first driveway. Jacques stated it was
located at the gateway at a break in the wall.
Pretty much at the crest of the hill.
M. Poirier stated there was a stake where the driveway would be
located.
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
MOTION:
Brian Nordle made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board approve the proposed subdivision of N. H. Traditional Homes (Michael Poirier) of Tax Lot G4-1-1 consisting of a 3 (three) lot subdivision on approximately 21.8 acres located on Grapevine and Guinea Roads in the Low Density (5 acre) District in Dunbarton, NH 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 N. H. Wetlands. 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. That all specified work and improvements at the site, as specified by the Land Subdivision Regulations, be completed prior to the signing and filing of the mylar (i.e.; survey monumentation and related); or a surety be posted in favor of the Town, in an amount adequate to complete such work as required.
5. Driveway design and construction off Grapevine Road to be subject to Road Agent’s and Building Department’s approval.
6. 50’ No Cut Buffer included (shown) on plan (at Marshall’s boundary).
George Holt seconded the motion.
Discussion:
At this point in the
discussion, Steve Kennedy, Selectman, asked how often do members recuse
themselves from the Board to do subdivisions, etc.
James Marcou stated that
he had recused himself when he did a subdivision for his family, etc.
Steve Kennedy stated
that he has a psychological issue with this if it is a regular thing, but this
is a very complex thing.
James Marcou stated that
he would take exception to this statement because any time there is a conflict
Mike Poirier has stepped down from the Board and the Board does need his
expertise on the Board. Everyone has a
right to subdivide their land. If there
is problem, you can call in the Ethics Board.
In addition, Mike Poirier has been kept at the “alternate” level and
automatically does not get to vote on every matter.
Carter Higginbotham
stated this discussion was not appropriate at this time.
Steve Kennedy stated he
felt it was necessary for him to discuss this issue because he would be voting
on this subdivision this evening. It
might affect his vote, etc. He questioned
several times “Is this a repeat thing (with Mr. Poirier?”)
George Holt stated that
he not only sits on the Board but also has ties with parties that are doing
subdivisions, etc. (like
surveyors). His mother also sits on a
Planning Board in her Town and has had to recuse herself from decisions because
she has had these parties employed at that time, etc. We expect anyone to step down when there are
conflicts.
George Holt noted that
this was a Scenic Road and we are not requiring any off site cutting of
trees. This was affirmed.
The motion passed by a majority with all members voting
in the affirmative with the exception of Steve Kennedy who abstained.
The public hearing was
adjourned.
Michael Poirier and
Kenneth Swayze stepped back onto the Board.
OLD BUSINESS:
Stillwater Properties, LLC .
At this point in the
meeting, Steve Kennedy and Kenneth Swayze stepped down from the Board because
of a conflict of interest. (Abutter status).
1. Request for reduction in Surety; Road Construction “Tucker Hill Road” (attached) ($76,000 total)
Ken
Swayze noted that it was Planning Board Policy not to release funds unless work
is completed at 100%.
.
His
letter further states that the drainage
culverts and structures are 100% complete.
DECISION:
James
Marcou asked the Planning Board members if they wanted to give authority for
fund releases to the Selectmen or keep it within the Planning Board
authority. The Board reached a consensus
that the Planning Board should keep the authority.
Based on the above, the Planning Board reached a consensus that they should release $36,000 in surety to Stillwater Properties, LLC for the Drainage and Drainage Structure.
b) Request for minor modification to road engineering design at intersection of Everett Road and Tucker Hill Road: and Town Garage.
It
was noted that Everett Road is a Town Road but this has to be signed by the
Selectmen. They have had a Site Walk of
the property along with Mrs. Zeller, abutter and Mr. Abram which Ken Swayze, Charles
Graybill, Selectman, and Don Mayo, Town Engineer, were all present. All changes and modifications have been
accepted by Mrs. Zeller. Brian Nordle
asked if this change raises the access to the Class VI road. The answer is yes. It was noted that Stillwater would be
putting in a retaining wall to protect the property line all.
Ken
Swayze noted that Stillwater has put in a culvert 4 feet deep and about 100
feet long.
Selectmen
have agreed with this minor modification
The Planning Board reached a consensus that the minor modifications to road engineering design at intersection of Everett Road and Tucker Hill Road and Town Garage as presented were okay with the Planning Board.
Kenneth
Swayze and Steve Kennedy returned to the Board.
2. Subdivision regulations: Official notice and discussion regarding asphalt thickness.
It was noted for the record that there is a typographical error in the regulations that lists asphalt incorrectly. It should read as follows: Require 2” on the base course of asphalt and require 1” on final coat of asphalt.
The Planning Board reached a consensus to reaffirm the DOT Standard for asphalt requirements of 2” base coat with 1” final coat of asphalt.
3. Correspondence: Receipt of Corrected Plan for Jacques Belanger, LLS re: Marie Ange Audet (Simon Audet) Twist Hill Road, Tax Lots B7-1-7, B7-1-8.
The Dunbarton Planning Board noted no action was needed. This is a corrected plan for information only for Town Files.
SITE PLAN REVIEW:
ROBERT/DOROTHY PERRY (D6-3-11) 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
ROBERT/DOROTHY PERRY LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON MORSE ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
Kenneth Swayze presented
a Status Report for the Robert/Dorothy Perry Multi-family proposal
(attached). He stated the applicant has
specified it as “Elderly Housing Multi-Family”.
In addition, he presented a letter written by Don Mayo, Town Engineer,
regarding the project. (attached) Don Mayo is of the opinion that the road will
be a “tough build” and will need to be watched carefully during construction.
Kenneth Swayze also
presented a copy of a report done by the Chief of Police regarding the
project. (attached)
Kenneth Swayze stated
that he had contacted NH Central Regional Planning Commission regarding their
help in reviewing the project. As of
this date, they have declined because they felt it was beyond their scope of
expertise.
It was reported that
there is a petition objecting to the project signed by 51 neighbors. The petition should be given to the
Selectmen.
Trevor Towne presented a
plan showing the proposed project along with the layout of the proposed
buildings.
He addressed the Current
Activity/Requirements as follows:
1. Permits noted as submitted:
Trevor
Towne stated that New Hampshire Site Specific has been applied for. Should get a response by next meeting. Have had to apply for condominium subdivision
through the State of New Hampshire.
State has reviewed the project and given their comments.
It
was noted that the Planning Board will also have comments on the septic
plans. In particular, the Board will
require tandem tanks in series.
Trevor
Towne stated that there is no impact on Wetlands on the site therefore no
Wetlands permits required.
2. Fire Protection and Life-safety requirements and traffic flow. Recommend applicant retain professional engineering consultant acceptable to Board, etc.
The
Board agreed that it would be acceptable to hire only one engineer that is
acceptable to both the applicant and the Board who is experienced in these
issues and would certify that fire protection and other issues are addressed.
At
this point in the discussion, Steve Kennedy stated that the proposal is
supposed to be an “adult community 55 and older”. He believes this has been written in the
condo documents. At this point in the
meeting, Attorney Pat McNicholas stated that he had given the State and Federal
Regulations to the Town and had assumed the Board had seen them. He stated this would be referred to as
“Housing for Older Persons”. This goes
through State and Federal regulations as to how the ownership relates to the
older, etc. According to the State and
Federal regulations, 80% of the buildings must be owned or rented to a family
with at least one person over the age of 55.
There is no other criteria for other people living in the unit. They are proposing 90% “adult/55” ownership
(which will be written in the deed).
Steve
Kennedy noted that there would be services that the Town needs to be prepared
to have available with regard to elderly housing. He stated he did not think the Dunbarton Fire
Department should have to be prepared to meet these needs.
James
Marcou stated that it doesn’t matter who is living there, there will be four
units in one building, and we need to know what we will need for fire
suppression. Do we need outlets
in-house, or sprinkler system inside, etc.
How do you put out a fire in a four unit building? We need to know who is going to live
there. Part of the debate is
requirements for Town Services. Also,
what will the burden be on our school system.
If 90% of the units are rented to families with only one person over the
age of 55, what happens to the rest. It
was noted that it is against the law to discriminate against renting to
families with children, etc. Attorney
McNicholas stated that the law says you have to have at least 80% owned/rented
to families with at least one person over 55 years of age. We have gone a step further and said there
will be at least 90% owned/rented to families with at least one person over 55,
etc. Because of difficulties with
financing, etc., there has to be a minor degree of flex.
The
Board noted there could be up to two of the 16 units with all persons living
there under the age of 55 and the various units could also include school
children.
The
Board also noted that a “grandmother” over age 55 could be living in a unit and
have a daughter with two school age children living with her in any of the
units. This is a possibility and the
guidelines do not prevent this from happening.
The Board noted this is not exactly how this proposal is being presented.
The
Board noted there is a “supposed” maximum (or more) of four people living in a
unit..
Attorney
McNicholas stated that it was not their intent to have this happen.
The
Board stated they needed to know how it would be prevented. The Board noted the other side of the issue
was this could be an 8 or 9 lot subdivision instead of 16 units. The subdivision might have 20 children. The Board needs to distinguish this in
actuality.
The
Board stated the requirements are that 90% be 55 or older but there appears the
possibility that any unit could have a 60 year old adult with three
children. The answer was yes, this is a
possibility but not the intent of the project.
The project cannot say “No Children” in this building.
J.
Marcou asked if they must reserve two units for children.
Brian
Nordle asked if they plan to phase the construction of the units.
Robert
Perry stated that he probably would be building the first one this year, and
then build three units next year according to the way the project was
proceeding. The question was asked if
there was any consideration of giving any land to the Town such as a
Conservation Easement. The applicant
noted the intent is that the remaining land be a part of the development. In addition, it is considerably wet.
3. Status of road engineering design per Don Mayo comments.
Trevor
Towne stated he had addressed most of Don Mayo’s comments within “a
letter”.
The
Board noted that the letter had not even been received by the Planning Board
until June 17, 2003 and didn’t know how all the points could be addressed, etc.
at this point.
4. Require survey plan set showing accurate property and road outline including easements, other dedications, boundary adjustment.
Board
noted this was a high intensity use in this area. They want to make sure there are increased
setback, limited lighting, adequate wells.
These are all requirements of the Site Plan Review process. Need to see relationship of property to other
adjoining properties and where neighbors wells and homes are located, etc. The
Board noted a concerned abutter had mentioned impact on his well. This should be addressed by the
applicant. The Board will be looking for
what the impact will be on adjoining properties. Board needs to know how they will be lighting
the units, etc.
At
this point, Robert Perry stated there would be one outside light for each unit
with a spotlight on a sensor for each carport.
There will be a secondary light between the walkway entrance to the
house.
The
Board stated they will need an Illumination Plan showing all lighting within
the project.
Robert
Perry stated each dwelling has its own access.
The
Board asked if the parking area extends into the setback. The Board asked how far it is from the
closest point of construction.
Robert
Perry stated he had an aerial photo of the area that he would blow it up for
the Board to see which shows adjoining properties, etc.
Kenneth
Swayze stated the Board will need an updated full set of plans.
Trevor
Towne stated drainage calcs have been submitted.
Robert
Perry stated they were planning on putting in sprinkler systems. Have already spoken with Jon Wiggin, Fire
Chief.
Board
stated this has to be presented formally within the plan.
5. Planning Department has design recommendations re Septic Design.
Board
will have recommendations for septic design, 2 tandum tanks instead of single
tank, etc.
6. Need to show development of sight-line at Morse Road, certification required as part of plan.
7. Easement filing (MCRD) required for line-of-sight cutting and future maintenance of Morse Road. (from abutter)
8. Need to schedule Site Walk.
Site
Walk scheduled for Wednesday, June 25, 2003 at 6:00 p.m.
9. Note comments from Police Department Report.
10. Deliberation re regional impact.
K.
Swayze noted that this is fairly close to the Town of Bow.
11. Establishment of surety value (bonding) for road construction.
12. Plan submitted to Central NH Regional Planning Commission.
Central
NH Regional Planning declined to review plans, etc. because of lack of
expertise on this type of project.
13. Board has received a proposed petition by neighborhood area residents opposing multi-family use as proposed by applicant. (Petition details a number of legal and technical concerns)
Other Comments:
Steve Kennedy stated
that condos have association rules. Does
the Planning Board have any input on the rules?
It was established that the Town does not have very much to say with
regard to the condo rules.
James Marcou stated the
Board was going to make sure someone is going to be caring for the place.
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 –
Not Present.
Rudolf/Elizabeth
Vallauri – Not Present
.
Daniel/Kathleen
LaBonville – Present. Stated he had a
petition consisting of 51 signatures who were opposed to the project for a
number of reasons. Stated that the
regulations have a requirement that a dead end road not exceed 600’. This road is over 2400’. This does not meet the requirements of a Low
Density District. The length of the road
is a concern. The proposed road is
pretty close to my property. Every car
that goes to this property will have lights coming to my property.
At this point in the
discussion, Ken Swayze noted that the water draw on this project will be less
than for nine homes. The average per
person is 85 to 150 gallons per day. This
project will have less demand per person overall. Houses have irrigation needs, car washing,
swimming pools, etc.
At this point, it was
stated that the present Robert Perry four unit has gone through two wells and
is on its third well at this time.
What happens if an
abutter’s well goes dry? With regard to
density, there will be 12 structures including garages. There will be four buildings with a car port
for each unit. Also concerned about the
impact on emergency Town services.
Concerned about the line of sight distance.
At this point, the Board
noted that the entire Town is zoned for multi-family at this time. The owner has the right within the ordinance
to put in four 4-unit multi-family dwellings.
Each dwelling units requires 11 acres.
In addition, this is not a subdivision so the dead end road in excess of 600 feet does not apply
either.
The Board noted they
have the right to call in a specialist with regard to specific concerns. None of the Board members have the specific
expertise or time necessary for some of these points. We will call in experts.
Concerned that there
could be 48 kids within this project. I
don’t think this is minimum lighting.
This will affect my peace and quiet and there will be consistent traffic
and noise. I recently cleared the back
area for my horses. Now there will be a
road 50’ from my property if this project goes through. It will affect the value of my property. Noted the Planning Board Minutes of
12/21/1977 in which there was a written request for Mr. Perry to state what his
future plans were with regard to future subdivision. Mr. Perry stated he would be putting his
property into Current Use. He stated he
plans on no further subdivision. Mr.
Perry’s statement was part of the record.
It is about time someone held Mr. Perry accountable.
The Board advised Mr.
Labonville to give the petition to the Selectmen.
At this point, Steve
Kennedy stated that the Selectmen will take the petition, but suggested the
petitioners may wish to assess and modify the content material.
Labonville stated that
when he moved to Dunbarton, he moved because he wanted some privacy. These buildings are going to be up on a hill
behind my house. My quality of life will
be affected. Asked if this lot is a
buildable lot.
Ken Swayze noted that at
this point, it is not a buildable lot in its present state but Mr. Perry is
putting in a Town Road to create frontage.
This is a non-buildable, non-grandfathered lot at this point.
Robert/Denise Perry –
Present (applicant)
.
Nathan J. Narus -
Present. Stated this was a
positive land use for the Town of Dunbarton.
These units are for 55 and older and would be good for the Town. Minimum Town services and I just think it is
a positive venture. As far as the well,
I can think of other Towns with smaller lots.
This is 50 acres with two wells.
Don’t see how that would affect negatively.
Richard/Catherine Racca
– Not Present.
David/Theresa Glannon
– Present. Concerns for wells in the area. Seems like some of the people in the area may
have additional concerns. Concerns about
drainage and runoff. Not sure of how the
road is going to be. What is going to be
the water runoff in the wintertime.
Everything is set up for adult housing.
What is in place to make sure that it remains adult housing? Those are some of the biggest concerns and
also it is not something we expected to have and although the petition may not
be technically correct, everyone in the area is opposed to the project.
Steven/Karen Elsasser –
Present. Concerned about the
school. Now tonight it is changing. Could be an apartment. That is my biggest concern. The reason he is doing elderly housing is
because it is less of a concern, etc.
David/Beth Sedita – Not
Present
David Wheeler – Not
Present
Michael Petito – Not
Present
W. G. Howard &
Associates – Trevor Towne present (for the applicant)
Schauer Environmental
Consultants – Not Present
Other Members of the Public:
Ron Slocum – What
guarantee do we have that this remains a 55 year or older complex since there
are no actual rules. What is there that
you would be able to do to guarantee that it would be 55 or older.
K. Swayze noted it will
be noted on the plan when signed by the Board.
If the rules changes, he has to come back to the Planning Board.
John Trottier – Stated
that the declarations for the condo association should be reviewed by the Town
Attorney before the mylars are filed with the Registry of Deeds. Don Mayo has mentioned concern about the
retaining wall to hold up the roadway.
Again, you approve this with a retaining wall and ultimately it becomes
a Town Road.
J. Marcou stated the
Board will take a hard look at this.
K. Swayze noted that
Central Regional NH Planning is in the process of doing traffic studies
throughout the Town. Will discuss
traffic study with them in this area.
Penny Fortin, 142 Twist
Hill Road. – Asked if the applicants
were bound by this. Can they change
their mind. Can there be further development
off this road. How big are the units?
Robert Perry stated the
units are two floor 20’ x 30’ for a total of 1200 square feet with two bedrooms
each unit.
Carter Higginbotham
stated there was nothing preventing them from putting houses in. Nothing that the Board can guarantee. Could change the configuration. The applicant still has that option.
Paul Brusga – Referred
to the Planning Board record of 1977-78 when Mr. Perry stated there would be no
further subdivision of the property. I
personally asked Mr. Perry to get something in writing. It is binding on him. It was a long time ago. This is a condition that runs on the
property. I did hear the Chairman state
that this will be taken up elsewhere.
J. Marcou stated that he
was not in a position to make this decision.
If we had a filed plan that stated there would be no further subdivision,
that would be different.
Paul Brusga – Stated he
was not trying to be a wise guy but concerned there could be 48 kids
there. Questioned the voluntary Merger
in 1970, etc. References to condos can
change the by-laws and eliminate the 55 and older requirement. Rules are not going to be enforced. This requires other members of the
association to make rules and becomes very problematic.
Nathan Narus – Stated
that about this petition. I believe it
was done in a negative way. Selective because
there were some people who never saw it.
Paul ____________ -
Stated he was addressing a couple of issues.
Perry is building a new public road.
Another one, there are other new roads that are being built in this
Town. Would rather see the 55 years and
older traffic than the young ones with blaring radios, etc. Made reference to the VanderBogart
subdivision. Those homes are going for
$400,000. The people in Perry’s
development will be “blue heads”. Just
flipping the coin the other way.
Pat McNicholas explained
how the condo by-laws can be amended.
Must be a 2/3 vote to change them.
If they are changed from the 55 and older, they must have the approval of the Dunbarton
Planning Board. Noted that this was not
a subdivision.
There being no further
input, the public hearing was continued until next month.
OTHER BUSINESS:
At this point in the
meeting, Carter Higginbotham stated that he felt the discussion with regard to
members recusing themselves from the Board, etc., was a wrong time to give
Steve Kennedy the answers to his questions.
Carter stated that on a regular basis, members recuse themselves from
the Board for one reason or another, or they are abutters, etc. There is a high level of integrity on this
Board. People step down when
necessary. Other members of the Board
concurred with Carter.
MASTER PLAN:
A motion was made,
seconded and passed unanimously to accept the only bid for the Master Plan from
NH Central Regional Planning Commission.
Workshop Meeting will be
held on Wednesday, July 2, 2003. Mike Tardiff will be present to discuss the
Master Plan.
There being no further
business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 pm.
Respectfully
submitted,
Alison
R. Vallieres
Secretary