DUNBARTON PLANNING BOARD

WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 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, Administrator, Planning & Zoning

                Brian Nordle

                Carter Higginbotham

                Dave Breault, Alternate

                Steve Kennedy, Selectman

 

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.  The public notice also appeared on the Dunbarton Web Page.

 

Approval of Previous Month’s Minutes (Wednesday, June 18, 2003):

 

A motion was made by James Marcou that the Wednesday, June 18, 2003 minutes be approved as written.  The motion was seconded by George Holt.  The motion passed unanimously.

 

7:00 PM – CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – SITE PLAN REVIEW – ROBERT 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, Planning Department, presented a Status Report on the Perry Proposal to the Board.  (attached)

 

Present for the applicant, Robert Perry, Sr. were:  Robert Perry II, Denise Perry, Trevor Towne representing W. G. Howard & Associates Inc. and Attorney Patrick McNicholas representing the applicant. 

 

At this point in the public hearing, Trevor Towne, W. G. Howard, addressed the Current Activity/Requirements on the Status Report to the Board as follows:

 

  1. Site Specific has not been reviewed by DES to date.  Still at DES.  Septic Plan has not been approved by DES yet.  Contacted Peter Schauer regarding possible wetlands area around Station 300 on plan where contours drop off.  Peter Schauer double checked the area.  P. Schauer will do a letter stating there are no wetlands on the area and there are no wetlands impact with the proposed construction of the road.   Letter will be submitted to the Board for the next meeting. 

 

  1. Life Safety Issues – Applicant Robert Perry II met with Nicholas Cricenti, Jr. PE of SFC.  Letter in the record from SFC Engineering Partnership re roadway design and structure building code compliance.  (attached)

 

  1. Status of road engineering design per Don Mayo comments.  Trevor received comments from Don Mayo today.  The boulder retaining wall has been removed but needs detail provided for Reddi-Rock by Michie, etc.    Other items will be addressed.   Don Mayo advise of a multitude of “housekeeping” items and the need to submit requested data, and completed plans. 

 

  1. Boundary Survey – Still some minor details to be done.  Have not done a complete survey plan yet. 

 

  1. Septic Design – K. Swayze and Trevor Towne have not had time to meet yet.  K. Swayze would like tandem septic tanks and perhaps other safeguards.  Will file amended plans with the State for town requirements. 

 

  1. Sight Line @ Morse Road – Metes and bounds have not been written up yet.  Hope to have all easements provided for the next meeting.  Will be stamped by a Professional Engineer.  Statement as to attainment of adequate sight line will be included.  The criteria used is the same as DOT uses for sight lines  (400 feet). 

 

  1. Easement filing  (MCRD) for line-of-sight cutting and future maintenance of Morse Road and slope easements on adjacent lots have not yet been drafted.   Should be completed for next meeting.

 

  1. Site Walk Discussion – 6/25/03  (Dave Breault, Ken Swayze, Brian Nordle and Jim Marcou attended Site Walk)  In agreement with the developer that the first 400-600 feet of road will be interesting construction.  Once into the building area, it is a very attractive area.  First section of road will require a lot of engineering and a lot of patience.  Will require blasting, etc.  Board had questions re wetlands and P. Schauer has reinspected; there are no wetlands in the area. ( As a precaution Trevor Towne asked him to double check.)  It was agreed that as you enter on the left side to the west, that the gully should be filled in because it definitely will pocket water.  K. Swayze noted it would be a tough road but it can be built with a lot of blasting.  D. Breault stated he agreed with the above comments regarding the road.  Asked if they plan on clearing trees.  Will need to clear more on Mr. Perry’s other property.  Board noted that all rights of way and slope easements should be cut.  J. Marcou stated it will be a “tough build” for the first 400 feet.  Once first part of road is done, it becomes typical road construction.  K. Swayze noted that Don Mayo has questioned the right-hand lot (Racca) particularly the construction of the retaining wall.  Will it work 5-6-7 years from now?  R. Perry stated the only other way would be to obtain more easements from Mr. Racca.  Board advised Mr. Perry to try to obtain additional easements prior to final decision for the retaining wall.    The proposed retaining wall will be 9 feet high of “Reddi-Rock”. 

 

Board noted that the installation of the Reddi-Rock Retaining wall will require constant engineering overseeing while being installed.  Possibility of Town asking for a bond or guarantee for the Retaining Wall.   Town Engineer will have to be on-site all during construction of retaining wall. 

 

There will be a pre-construction meeting prior to this part of the construction.  Robert Perry will check regarding possible easements instead of the wall. 

 

C. Higginbotham stated that if the Town has to come back 10-15 years from now and repair, the cost for a failure will far exceed the cost of  having a person inspecting this on-site while it is being built.  Ken Swayze noted the retaining wall supports a “dynamic” road and there are hydraulic slippage factors to be considered.   

 

  1. Police Chief’s major concern is sight distances.  Trevor stated he believes they have satisfied his concerns re sight distances.  Police Chief also had a concern re the number of available parking spots.  Have changed parking to provide more spaces.    Will include signage which will be on the road plan in the next submittal.

 

  1. Regional Impact – The Board reach a consensus that this project does not have the potential for  Regional Impact.  However, the Secretary will notify both Goffstown and Bow for the next public meeting.  In addition, Dunbarton is a member of Central NH Regional Planning Commission and they sometimes address large projects at their monthly meetings.  This would not qualify as a large project with Regional Impact for Central NH Regional. 

 

Steve Kennedy stated the Selectmen had received a petition from people in the geographical area objecting to the development.  The Selectmen will turn it over to the Planning Board and enter it into their record.  He was unsure as to where all the signers of the petition lived. 

 

  1. Surety Bond -  The Board noted this would be a “tough construction” .  Need to have something like a reclamation bond in addition to road bond.  Bond would not start until the applicant has completed the basic road cut and the road bed.  It was noted they could build “at risk”, and would have to build the entire road before they can build any housing units.   The Town would need a reclamation bond to clean up the mess if they leave Town, etc. 

 

S. Kennedy asked the applicant if they had sold any of these units or has anyone made a deposit yet?

Answer – No.  (It was noted it was not legal to do so.)

 

K. Swayze stated that this will be a Town Road and they need to get together in a workshop session prior to bonding and final approval to establish a Town surety procedure and method of construction evaluation.   

 

  1. Utilities – Trevor Towne stated that the proposed location for the dumpster will be moved.  There will be a dumpster for each two units located at the ends of the parking areas.  New location to be shown on plan.  Mail Boxes will be up to the discretion of the Post Master. 

 

  1. Off Premises Storage for Recreational Vehicles – There will be an area for off-premise storage of recreational vehicles.  Don’t want it to be a junk yard.  Will be requirements.  Vehicles will have to be  mobile.  Plan to gravel an area north of the second building and it will be screened.  The Board noted they need to keep the parking lots as parking lots.  If someone left for the winter, they would have to park their vehicle in the Off Premises Storage Area. 

 

  1. Trevor Towne noted that 90% of the parking would be off the culdasac.  Possibility of increasing the width of the pavement for additional parking.  Will be wide enough for people to park and will still have access for emergency vehicles.  Who is responsible for plowing of the parking area?   Association would be responsible for building unit parking areas; Town will be responsible for new Town Road.  The culdasac will be one way all the way around November – April.  Police Chief, Fire Chief and Road Agent have reservations about parking along the roadway and they would like to see parking off the circle.  K. Swayze asked if they could put more parking spots  per building.  How many other parking spots other than on the road?  Our regulations say two parking spots per unit but it is easy to have a family with two cars and then where do the visitors park? Emergency vehicles should be able to park on the pavement.  The Fire Department wants the ability to turn around on the road.  Possiblity of paving the entire circle but it would be ugly.

 

      After discussion, the Board reached a consensus that the pavement for the culdasac within the circle

       will  be 32 feet wide to allow for additional parking for emergency vehicles and maintenance. 

 

       If there was only a gravel shoulder, it would eventually become the Town’s responsibility to pave it.  

       Paving 32 feet would be in the best interest of the Town.  The Police Chief does not want to see people

parking in the emergency access areas.   The Town Deptment are requesting a nominal 3 spaces per dwelling unit.

 

The Applicant will have to work out the details.  At least they will have an opportunity for the UPS truck  and service vehicles to park, etc. on the road.

 

  1. Concrete pipe will be used in lieu of plastic at all  road drainage and road construction areas.

 

  1. Advise design concept of “channel” construction in 50’ access way – Done, See Item #8.

 

  1. Discussion re Adult 55+ resident status.  Attorney McNicholas stated that according to Federal guidelines,  has to be at least 80% over 55 years of age.    Perry is proposing 90% over 55.  Attorney McNichols stated you can make it anything you want up to 100%.  A.  Vallieres asked why they did not make it 100%.  Marketing issue.  They have drafted the regulations at 90%.    The 90% is used because of marketing the units.  Want to leave two units open for under 55 years of age for marketing purposes.  The Association can alter the % by a vote but any change that decreases the % must go back to the Planning Board for approval.  The Association can increase the % without Planning Board’s approval but cannot decrease %. 

 

It was noted that the 55 years and older would be within the deeds.  The residents will have to file an annual affidavit with regard to age of residents living there, etc. 

 

The Board noted they were looking for the best deal for the town. 

 

The Board expressed concern about having children in the units which will impact the Town’s school system.  Attorney McNicholas stated there is no guarantee.   A  55 year old man could have a 30 year old wife with 2 or more school-age children.  The units are restricted to two bedrooms, which would be of some benefit.  In addition, with a 90% over 55 requirement, there is the possibility that only two units would have children.  Mr. Perry stated that the units are going to be sold through one realtor who will be encouraging seniors to purchase, etc.  Will not be encouraging families.  Realtor will be trying to steer families to other units in other towns instead of this one.  There is always the chance that some children will be in the units. 

 

Alison Vallieres stated that the less children within the units, the better for the Town School System. Would not want to see this impact the Town School Budget.   There is always the possibility there could be all grandparents over 55 living in the units with two grandchildren each for a total of 32 children in the worst case scenario.   Would really like to see some way of limiting the number of children.  Senior housing in Manchester and Concord is able to “not have children”, so there must be some loopholes. 

 

The Board will continue this discussion at the next meeting.  The applicant will provide additional copies of the rules and regulations which were submitted to the Board so all members can read them. 

 

Members of the Planning Board comments: 

 

George Holt noted that the applicants need to follow all the items outlined within the Site Plan Review application for the next meeting because that is what is going to be checked off.  One of these items is impact to property owners in the area, impact to septic systems and wells within 200 feet of the property, including abutters.  All these need to be on the plan with the septic systems, etc.  Stated that they also need to notify all abutters within 200 feet of the property including properties across the street.  The applicant stated they had notified Elsasser which was across the street.  G. Holt noted it was not shown on the plan. 

 

(At the end of the meeting, Carter Higginbotham brought to the Board’s attention that there was a report from Fairway Real Estate regarding neighborhood values near condominiums.)  (Attached) 

 

K. Swayze suggested that 250 feet from the construction area for location of neighbors’ septic systems and wells might be more reasonable.

 

Based on the above, the applicant requested a waiver to allow them to only locate residents existing septic systems and wells 250 feet within the construction area on the plan instead of 200 feet from the entire boundary as outlined within the Site Plan Review regulations. 

 

Subsequent motion by Ken Swayze:

 

That Dunbarton Planning Board waive the requirement of locating all septic systems and wells within 200 feet of the property line on the plan and instead require them to locate all septic systems and wells within 300 feet of the dwelling unit construction area,  including new septic systems, excluding the road bed.   Carter Higginbotham seconded the motion.  The motion was by a majority with George Holt voting in the negative. 

 

G. Holt asked about a lighting plan.   (Ken Swayze noted lighting plan has been submitted.)   Want to make sure the applicant is aware they have to get their information to the Town 15 days prior to the meeting.  In addition, he noted that well radius’ were not on the plan. 

 

T. Towne noted the Erosion Control Plan is encompassed within the Site Specific application.    Board will also need copy of the Site Specific Proposal.  The Town will also need a copy of the septic plans. 

 

David Breault Comments

 

  1. Noted date of plan.  It was established that the date the plan was done was July 8, 2002 and not 2003 so this was a moot point.

 

  1. Stated that when he walked the site, talked about the possibility of putting a berm in front of Mr. Labonville’s lot line.  Applicant will put it on the plan.  That is the abutter that is the closest to the project.  Could make an earthern berm out of excavation materials which would be vegetated over.  This would be a courtesy to the abutter. 

 

Robert Perry indicated the adjacent lot has been clear cut and they did in fact create their own problem.  This is not a requirement but will try to do the berm. 

 

  1. Elsassner’s driveway not shown on the plan.  This is across the street from the development.  Need to know how the driveways line up or don’t line up.  This has been an issue in the past with other developments. 

 

Steve Kennedy Comments:

 

Stated he wanted to make sure we can defend our position re the budget for the road.  Would like the opportunity to deliberate for a length of time.  R. Perry has general numbers but we need to have a final number before final approval.  Road has not changed since the beginning. 

 

We have talked about “at risk” status for building this road and they would not be granted any building permits until the Town accepts the road if this were the case.  The Town needs to take a more active role in the building of the road.  Want to have this road built like all other Town roads. 

 

Board noted there were two methods of construction, “Bond” and “Not Bonded”.  Don Mayo has to inspect both ways.  Jim Marcou noted this road will be built to Town standards either way.  . 

 

Steve Kennedy stated this needs to be done before the next meeting.  (Ken Swayze, Selectmen Kennedy, and applicant to meet regarding working out process for bonding.)

 

Carter Higginbotham Comments

 

Noted that we are going to be out of time before the next meeting and should be requesting an extension from the Selectmen for this project.  Based on this information the following motion was made:

 

MOTION:

 

Carter Higginbotham made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board request a 90 day extension for the Robert and Dorothy Perry Proposed Multi-Family consisting of four buildings of four units each at property located on Morse Road in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH in order to obtain sufficient information for the development as requested by the Planning Board.  The motion was seconded by Alison Vallieres.  The motion passed unanimously.

 

Alison Vallieres Comments –

 

Alison Vallieres stated she was concerned about the impact on the School System and the Tax Base with regard to an influx of children within the units.  Is there a way to address this?  Would like the applicant to look into somehow restricting the numbers of children allowed, etc. 

 

Abutters were read 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 – Present.  Stated he wanted to know if this was to be apartments, condos or single family units, etc. 

 

R. Perry answered these would be condos. 

 

Mr. Valllauri stated that he wanted to make an amendment that they only build one unit per year.  He is concerned about water.  If my well goes dry, who do I send the bill to.  Concerned about my well. 

 

Daniel/Kathleen LaBonville – Present.  Asked what the grade of the road would be in relation to his property.  Would it be up or down from my property.  With regard to the berm, how much is the grade going to change.  Trevor stated his property would be at maximum 5 feet lower.   Stated his primary concern was headlights.  Stated he did clear cut his property because he thought the Perry lot was unbuildable.  He didn’t leave a buffer at the time he cut his lot.  I am going to be looking at headlights all winter long.  There will be a reasonable flow of traffic out of there.  Have concerns about water.  Could test wells be put in to determine if the water is there.  Assume wells will be drilled like all the other wells in the area.  With regard to the statement about 55 and over, the Board shouldn’t have to even consider the market.  With regard to the Petition, the people that signed it were all in the direct vicinity of the development and were people affected by the traffic.  People in the area don’t want this kind of development based on the other multi-family building in the area. 

 

Robert and Denise Perry II – Present.  (applicant)

Nathan Narus – Not Present

Richard/Catherine Racca – Not Present

David/Theresa Glannon – Not Present

 

Steven/Karen Elsasser – Present.  This is the second time I have come that we have talked about having an impact on the school.  In the beginning, this was going to have no impact on the school system.   I would like to see what is going to be the final decision re who will be living there etc.

 

David/Beth Sedita – Not Present

David Wheeler – Not Present

Michael Petito – Not Present

W. G. Howard Associates – Present (Surveyor) Trevor Towne

Schauer Environmental Consultants – Not Present

 

Other Members of the Public:

 

Paul Bruzga – Stated he was at the Labonville’s and saw a water course flowing over the land.  That is only seen in the spring.  There are four water courses running across this property.  Town has been very particular re

water and wetlands in the past.   You have already decided this is going to happen.  I don’t see how you have a high concern for this area.  This will not lessen the congestion of this area.  In addition, surrounding  Robert Perry properties have had problems with water and sewage and have had septic systems completely replaced.  Vallauri’s system failed, Soriano’s septic flowed out of the ground.   The apartment building septic system failed.  In 1978 the owner stated they had problems with the  septic system.  Water is not unlimited.  It is unfair to Vallauri and Labonville.  Can you guarantee that they will have a supply of water? What about a bond for   problems with water and sewage?   This is an unusual impact in a five acre Low Density District.  Would rather see residential units. They have stated the land was swampy and would not support houses anyway.  Would rather see this Board deal with residential homes instead of 16 units. 

 

There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed.

 

OTHER BUSINESS:

 

Kenneth Swayze and Steve Kennedy recused themselves from deliberations due to abutter status. 

 

Stillwater Request for Reduction in Surety (Tucker Hill Subdivision) – (attached)

 

After discussion amongst the Board, the following motion was made:

 

MOTION:

 

George Holt made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board approve the release of $81,500 to Stillwater Properties, LLC in accordance with approval from Don Mayo, Town Engineer.  The motion was seconded by Carter Higginbotham.  The motion passed unanimously.

 

Ken Swayze and Steve Kennedy returned to the Board.

 

MASTER PLAN:

 

It was noted that the next Workshop Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, August 6, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. at the Town Offices will be for the Master Plan Steering Committee with Planning Board business for the first half hour of the meeting. 

 

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.

 

                                                                                                                        Respectfully submitted,

 

 

                                                                                                                        Alison R. Vallieres

                                                                                                                        Secretary