DUNBARTON PLANNING BOARD
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 20, 2003
TOWN OFFICES – 7:00 P.M.
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 and Zoning Department
Brian Nordle
Carter Higginbotham
Michael Poirier, Alternate
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, July 16, 2003):
A
motion was made by Steve Kennedy that the Wednesday, July 16, 2003 minutes be
approved as written. The motion was
seconded by Kenneth Swayze. The motion
passed unanimously.
Approval of Workshop Minutes (Wednesday, July 2, 2003):
A
motion was made by Carter Higginbotham that the Wednesday, July 2, 2003 be
approved as written. The motion was
seconded by Steve Kennedy. The motion
passed unanimously.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
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
At this point in the meeting, Kenneth Swayze informed the Board that Casey Hayes, W. G. Howard Inc., had called him and withdrawn from tonight’s agenda. Would like to check on the status of the application and if necessary would request an extension.
MOTION:
A motion was made, seconded and passed unanimously to table the Robert Perry projects for 30 days at the request of their agent and seek an extension if necessary.
OTHER BUSINESS:
MASTER
PLAN:
Ron Slocum appeared before the Board and requested that the Dunbarton Planning Board accept the Master Plan Steering Committee nominees as a whole, effective July 16, 2003. (attached list)
MOTION:
Kenneth
Swayze made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board accept the Master Plan
Steering Committee nominees as presented by Ron Slocum effective July 16,
2003. The motion was seconded and passed
unanimously.
Master
Plan Budget:
Ron Slocum asked about the Master Plan Budget and how he should proceed with expenses.
Steve
Kennedy advised him to come to the Board of Selectmen with a requisition and
let the Selectmen decide how to pay for it.
He stated the Contractor money should be left alone. Planning Board will approve payments to the
Contractor. Miscellaneous expenses can
be taken out of Town Funds as charges against the warrant.
MIKE
BROWN, CIM RAY HOMES – DISCUSSION RE BONDING REQUIREMENTS FOR PHASE II, JAY
DRIVE (FORMER VANDEBOGART SUBDIVISION) LOCATED ON MONTALONA ROAD (TAX LOT
C6-3-2) – DISCUSSION RE RELEASE OF BONDING ON PHASE I PENDING ACCEPTANCE OF
ROAD BY SELECTMEN.
Kenneth
Swayze stepped down from the Board, and has recused himself from deliberations
on this project (as Town employees, he and the Vandebogarts work together on a
daily basis.
James Marcou reported that Mike Brown needs to submit a
list of completed work along with dollars and cents in order to release any
bonding funds. Should be 95% complete
before September 3 which is our next Workshop Meeting. He will have a copy of the deed for the road
bed along with a schedule of fees and at that time, Board can assess any values
remaining and take it up at our Workshop Meeting on September 3. Item taken off this agenda for this
evening per discussion with Mike Brown.
At September 3, 2003 Workshop Meeting will discuss Phase I and Phase II of project.
Kenneth Swayze stepped back on the Board.
STILLWATER
– REQUEST FOR REDUCTION IN SURETY (TUCKER HILL SUBDIVISION)
Steve Kennedy and Kenneth Swayze stepped down from the Board on the Stillwater Issue because of abutter status.
The
Board noted Don Mayo’s letter of Summary of work completed on Tucker Hill Road,
June 18 through August 14, 2003 along with a Schedule of Values submitted
August 4, 2003 showing that 100% would be $77,650. (attached)
The
Board agreed to continue with the past decisions and only release funds for
100% completed work.
MOTION:
Brian
Nordle made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board approve the release of $77,650 to Stillwater Properties,
LLC in accordance with approval from Don Mayo, Town Engineer. The motion was seconded by Michael Poirier. The motion passed unanimously.
Carter Higginbotham asked what happens if there is a lot of erosion after the fact, etc. It was noted that the Selectmen still have $15,000 and the Selectmen will not accept the road until it is loamed and seeded.
Brian
Nordle stated it was interesting that even with all the rain this past summer,
the road held up even with no BMP’s in place.
At
this point in the meeting, Kenneth Swayze and Steve Kennedy stepped back onto
the Board.
NEW BUSINESS:
RECEIPT
AND ACCEPTANCE OF NEW APPLICATIONS BY THE DUNBARTON PLANNING BOARD AND START OF
PROCEEDINGS:
ANITA
M. GARDNER AND RICHARD AND MARLENE KINCAID PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
(GARDNER – B4-5-17) (KINCAID B4-5-11) LOCATED ON 25 AND 35 LONG POND ROAD IN
THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
Kenneth Swayze presented a
Status Report on the Gardner/Kincaid Proposed Lot Line Adjustment. (attached)
MOTION:
Kenneth
Swayze made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board accept the application
for the Anita M. Gardner and Richard and Marlene Kincaid Proposed Lot Line
Adjustment located on 25 and 35 Long Pond Road in the Low Density District in
Dunbarton, NH as presented and start deliberations this evening. The motion was seconded and passed
unanimously.
Richard
Kincaid presented the proposed plan showing the lot line adjustment. He stated that both lots would continue to
meet frontage and acreage requirements if the lot line adjustment was approved
by the Planning Board.
The
Board noted they will need the following on the final plan:
1.
Monumentation along the road frontage needs to be done.
2.
Some tax lot number are wrong and need to be corrected.
3.
The well radii needs to be on the final plan for both lots.
4.
Accurate septic locations need to be on the final plan.
There were no questions from the Board at this time.
Abutters
were read as follows and noted all had been notified by certified mail:
Paul Cudy/Marcy Richmond – Not
Present
Alfred/Wendy Ludvigsen – Not
Present
E. Swindlehurst Revocable Trust
– Not Present
Dupuis Trust – Not Present
William/Cheryl Hull – Not
Present
Norman/Joan Midgely – Not
Present
Alan Rochenbach/Lori Davis – Not
Present
Joe/Nancy Bruno – Not Present
Baseline Engineering and Survey
– (Represents the applicant) Not Present
The
public hearing was closed.
GARY
CHICOINE BUILDERS (AGENT FOR C & T THORNE ENTERPRISES, LLC) – DISCUSSION
AND REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDED SITE LIGHTING PROPOSAL (SITE PLAN
MODIFICATION TO PAGES CORNER STORE, (TAX LOT I3-4-2) – LIMITED TO SITE LIGHTING
ONLY
At this point in the meeting, James Marcou, Chairman, stated that Alison Vallieres was stepping down from the Board for this item, but would continue to take minutes of the meeting as Secretary if there were no objections from the public.
There
were no objections from the public.
Kenneth
Swayze presented a Status Report for the Site Plan Modification. (attached)
MOTION:
Kenneth Swayze made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board accept for Board review, and reconsider for approval a modification to Site Plan exterior lighting for the Pages Corner Store as presented. Steve Kennedy seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
James Marcou noted the following members would be voting on this proposal as follows:
Carter Higginbotham
George Holt
Steve Kennedy
Ken Swayze
Brian Nordle
Michael Poirier, (Alternate for
Alison Vallieres)
James Marcou
Attorney
Gregg Michaels representing the applicant appeared before the Board and stated
that this Special Exception had been approved in 1993. Since then, there have been advances made in
lighting which the applicant would like to institute at the site. This includes putting twelve lights of lesser lumens which are shorter than the six
higher lights as noted on the original plan.
He stated they would be able to control the lumens on the site and cause
less impact to the abutters. Believe the
proposed lighting would give us better lighting and something that will look a
lot nicer than a large light stuck on a pole.
We are therefore requesting a modification from the original lighting
plan.
Carter
Higginbotham stated that in 1993 the Site Plan Review regulations stated three
conditions for Illumination as follows:
1.
Outdoor lighting shall not glare on abutting properties or on public
highways or streets.
2.
Indirect lighting should be used on signs advertising goods or services
offered on the premises. Moving,
fluttering, blinking, or flashing lights or signs are not permitted.
3.
Outdoor lighting is restricted to that which is necessary for
advertising, safety and security of the development.
At
this point in the meeting, Brian
Matthews, BRIHOPE Associates, Inc., Electrical Construction and Lighting
Consultants, was introduced to present the proposed new lighting plan for the
Pages Corner Store. He stated he had
been responsible for the lighting at the Horseshoe Pond Conference Center, the
Marriott, Shopping Plaza at Marshall’s, and other commercial lighting
projects. He stated he was a member of
the Illumination Engineering Society of North America.
He
stated the existing light plan has no definitions as to what lighting items are
allowed. The Site Plan Review criteria
is not specific. If we use the six
approved locations, lighting will have to
be quite high to provide adequate lighting.
Fewer lights mean higher lumens.
To have more uniform lighting we need more poles.
Presented
a sample of the proposed light which will be used. Stated
lighting can be directed in certain directions through the lighting
panels. He stated this fits with the
character of the building. Anything else
would be down right ugly. The owners
want to have this property have a better impact not only at night but during
the day. Not like Rite Aid. He presented a plan showing the proposed
locations along with literature about the proposed light. (attached)
B.
Matthews stated that at the rear of the building the lamps would be shielded so
lights go down. There would be uniform
lighting with the new proposed lighting system.
If the old approved plan is used, we would have to have the lighting
area much higher. (Board needs spec.
sheet on these lights.)
J.
Marcou asked if there was a required lumen.
Matthews
stated that this is a minimum. There are
other areas that are much more. Lumens
should be more than ˝ a foot candle.
There are no limitations. Many
areas see higher levels. Insurance
companies sometimes want one candle at least.
Stated that if all the lighting was done at the building level, a person
could be hiding behind a vehicle in the parking lot, etc.
J.
Marcou – Asked if all the lights are on throughout the evening.
Answer
– No, underneath the canopy will be residential type lights, 4 – 75 watt
bulbs. Police normally would like some
other lighting on the site. This has not
been defined as yet. The majority of the
lighting will be shut off when the store is closed.
J.
Marcou asked if they have spoken with the Police Department yet.
G.
Chicoine stated that the Police would like to see the lights once they are
up. Six lights would have to stay on all
night long. Would be a tremendous amount
of lighting. High heights you would see
from a long distance away. Marshall’s
lights are 40 feet high. That is what
would happen with very high poles.
Carter
Higginbotham noted they would still have to stay within the Site Plan Review
Guidelines of not glaring on abutting properties, etc.
The
Board asked what the definition of “glare” was.
B.
Matthews stated that glare is intense enough that you need to turn away. The lighting that we are proposing is like
driving by a facility with Christmas lights.
The issue with tall poles is visual but you can still see lights from a
distance. The flood lights from
Mariano’s parking lot can be seen in Pembroke.
The lower poles will eliminate this.
We can also block off certain side panels of these lights. If we use the original light poles with the
original configuration, we cannot do this.
With this new lighting plan, we would be able to achieve a safe amount
of lighting without causing glare to the abutters. With the old plan, we would need a very high
output but it would end up going on the other property. We could not light the entrance or the
parking lot. It would not be a safe
area.
Dave
Breault – Asked if they had talked to the Police to have them come to this
meeting.
G.
Chicoine – Stated that the IS of NA (Illumination Society of North
America) would recommend that lighting
be put at the driveway so that cars would be visible from passersby. They need to see where the cars are.
Steve
Kennedy – Stated that he would agree that this is an appropriate lighting plan
for this property. Stated this was a
known requirement in the beginning. We
shouldn’t be waiting until cements and wires are put in. I don’t think this is the way to finish the
construction of the facility. Just
concerned about the way it was done. It
should have been discussed and now will require full details.
G.
Chicoine - Stated that the Building
Inspector (John Turner) wanted a lighting plan, landscaping place, etc. We submitted these. Even got a thank you letter from him for
giving him them. We feel sufficient time
went by and no one told us we couldn’t do it.
We felt we had approval of the Building Department so we planned to put in the poles.
J.
Marcou –The issue is they have to build according to the original plan unless a
modification is given. The original six
lights would glare on the abutter’s property or put up 12 lights that are
lowered. Lighting will be put up here
one way or the other.
Dave
Breault – Asked if they could wait 30 days,
He would like to see a place with similar lighting as proposed.
G.
Chicoine – Stated it would be a strain on the owners. They would like to open on September 1. If this is the case, the owners will go back
to the old plan and the 1993 approval which is hard to deal with.
Brian
Nordle – On the plan submitted, is there emergency lighting?
Answer
– There is emergency lighting within the building in case of power
failure.
George
Holt – Asked if this plan was submitted to the Building Department three months
ago. Asked to explain how lighting is
measured in foot candles.
Answer
– Yes it was submitted.
J.
Marcou – Asked if these lights can be individually controlled from the
building. Can they be staggered. Do you have the ability to control.
Answer
– There will be two currents, one would be ultimately controlled by a
timer. Other would only be one if it was
dark.
K.
Swayze – Need to both encourage
adequate lighting and need to keep the
abutters in the process. More low lights
distributed throughout the site area are better. The philosophy is good.
Abutters
were read as follows and noted all had been notified by certified mail:
Karen
Gincott – Present. Presented a letter
from her Attorney regarding the proposal. (attached) Stated she had two comments as follows:
1.
We are talking about going from six (6) proposed lights to twelve
(12). I want you to know there are
eighteen (18) proposed lights, not twelve.
Want to bring this to the Board’s attention.
2.
We really believe there can’t be a decision tonight. A new Building Permit was issued in March and
it was clear that the original plan should be followed. It was made a part of the Building Permit. Just trying to clear what we were told and it
looked different from the original criteria.
The Zoning Board controls land use and changing the character of the
neighborhood. Site Plan did not come up
for re-review and there was a concern for glare in the neighborhood. The Planning Board has no authorization to
overrule the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
This was a ZBA requirement and it must be complied with.
Antonio/Julie
Rabbia – Not Present
Laraine
Allen – Present. Scott Hogan, Attorney
representing Mrs. Allen. Stated that the
plan which is being considered is an improvement over what was granted ten
years ago. My client’s concerns are
lighting, noise, and road construction that would effect the Allen’s
property. It has been exceedingly
difficult to get information from the Town.
It was two months before I could get the application. We haven’t really been able to see what is
before the Planning Board or the Building Department. Who is it who has jurisdiction? We did bring the appeal to the Zoning Board
of Adjustment and it really ought to have gone back to the Planning Board for
Site Plan Review. Landscaping and
lighting issues. We do believe this
lighting plan is an improvement. Have
spoken with Thomas Thorne about the lighting plan. Allen’s are not in opposition to the lighting
plan. The Board is in an interesting
position. The Zoning Board of Adjustment
granted the approval first. Any change
needs to get approval from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The Zoning Board of Adjustment approval
ranged from hours of operation to how this facility will operate. When the Building Permit was issued, these
conditions were added. From the Allen’s
point of view, when I am talking to a Planning Board about these types of
things, usually the discussion happens along with landscaping issues. Our frustration has been with the Town
process.
James
Marcou – Asked Scott Hogan if they would support the Planning Board’s effort to
make a better product.
Hogan
– Stated there is no question that we would like it to be a better
product.
Jacqueline/Richard
Brough – Not Present
Robert
Michaels – Not Present
Members
of the Public:
Ron
Slocum – Stated they were hoping to receive approval for lighting in the
building permit. Why would they even
bother to come back with 18 lights. This
was approved in 1993 and has been sitting there. Is it a hardship to wait another 30
days? They want to be able to put it up
now.
Priscilla
Reinertson – Stated that David Breault asked if the developer could wait and
the developer stated it would be a financial hardship. It may be some sort of financial burden on
the developer, but there will be a day
by day impact for the immediate abutters at Pages Corner. Why are we rushing to save the developer. We need a little bit of time to have a legal
opinion. Maybe you could postpone to
later and it would be a lot better decision.
Patty
Shearin – Presented Technical Bulletin 16 regarding Outdoor Lighting. (attached)
Stated the Board should table this proposal in order for more research
to be done. These are major changes to
the process. I would also like to submit
a letter regarding the lighting, etc.
(attached)
James
Marcou – Asked if she would support the Planning Board in building a better
lighting plan.
Patty
Shearin – Stated yes, but wanted to know if the developer would consider using
fully shielding light fixtures instead of the ones proposed.
Brian
Matthews - Stated that if these lights
were used they would have to be brighter and even more of them in order to have
enough lighting plus they were three times as expensive.
Tom
Cusano – Asked to use the plan for reference.
Two concerns as follows:
Mike
Pelletier – Stated he was a member of the New Hampshire Citizens for
Responsible Lighting. Stated he was also
on the Zoning Board in Goffstown. Stated
that Dunbarton was lucky to have a contractor here who is interested in looking
at outside lighting. This is a good plan
compared to what you could have. This is
one of the better lighting plans I have seen.
This is a good plan. The foot
candles are extremely low.
Gary
Chicoine – Stated that as far as the statement that there are 18 lights instead
of 12, this is wrong. The lights on the
front of the building are not considered a site light. They are attached to the building. They are building lights. They are like outside lights on residential
houses. You can’t have a house without a
light on the outside. In working with
the Thorne’s they are working with the neighbors. Would hate to have to come back to the
original plan.
At
this point, the public hearing was closed.
Discussion:
Steve Kennedy – Stated
that he did not think we could have a “show and tell” of what the lights will
look like. I do think that the
production from this meeting has brought forward a betterment of the property. So for my vote, I would like to talk it out
tonight and put this ahead or behind us.
George Holt – I would
like to see if we have time to review in more detail. I am also aware that the developer wants to
get going. How about allowing a temporary
lighting plan to put up several lights and then making a decision in a month
and go over details at that time?
Carter Higginbotham – The
original plan had six lights there but within the Site Plan Review, they may be
handling the parking lots but they still can’t exceed what is within the Site
Plan Review conditions. We may come up
with a better plan but I do have an objection if they are going to put up a 30
foot pole. Let’s look and see if you can
have a better plan. We don’t have a lot
of light around Dunbarton. Don’t need
any more light pollution.
Michael Poirier – Stated
he agreed with most issues. Just looking
at the old plan, there is not enough lighting on the old plan. 12 foot poles is giving a better lighting
height. This plan is much better.
Brian Nordle – Stated it
is the duty of the Planning Board to look at the safety of the public. Entrances should always be well
illuminated. This is common sense. Can see that the new proposal covers
that. Police and Fire will always want
more lights. We should use a common
sense approach. This is an
improvement. I question how you got to
the Planning Board. Now that you are
here and it was requested, even with that we should make a decision. You can use the six sona tubes. If they use the original plan, we would be
challenged. The light plan is very
straight forward. What was proposed was
very well done.
Kenneth Swayze – This is
a good proposal and is in the right direction.
We have heard from the public and members of the Planning Board and
should make a decision.
David Breault – Stated
maybe we could use our Workshop Meeting to make a decision. If we don’t make a decision, and do a little
haggling we could end up with a better plan less likely to offend the
neighbors.
James Marcou – It is a
mistake to think that we are going to be able to look at something until we see
it. You take your best shot. I don’t feel the developer wants to go into his
pocket to build 12 lights instead of six.
Are we going to go to Joe Smow’s, etc. or go to Marshall’s to
compare? How do we deliberate beyond
where we already are? I don’t want to
see this become a “tool of delay”. How
do we duplicate the effort? They could
do it tomorrow morning if it doesn’t exceed 35 feet.
George Holt – Asked about
using the full cut lights and if they would have less visual impact.
Brian Matthews - Stated
if the full cut lights (as suggested by Patty Shearin) were used these would
have to be three times the intensity of these proposed lights to produce the
same amount of light. In addition, they
would have to be much larger. The lights
need to be the size they are proposed in order to fit in with the property. The Dunkin Doughnuts in Boscawen has similar
lights to the ones proposed in the new plan.
MOTION:
Brian Nordle made a motion that tonight the Dunbarton Planning Board accept the light plan as presented this evening by Gary Chicoine, Agent, for C. & T Thorne Enterprises LLC, and that the light plan be modified to have the three (3) northernmost lights be shielded off from the back side towards the homes and that the lights on the building in the rear stay in the building and not be shining into the neighbors’ yards. The motion was seconded by Steve Kennedy.
Amendment:
At
this point, Michael Poirier made an amendment that all outdoor permanent
lighting towards the road and other abutters be shielded towards the center of
the property. George Holt seconded
the amendment.
Discussion:
At
this point, Carter Higginbotham questioned that if the Board approves this
motion, then the requirements of the 1989 Site Plan review would still have to
apply to the plan. The Board agreed that
they would apply to the light plan as presented.
K.
Swayze stated the idea behind the Site Plan Review requirements are that you
are not putting glare on another neighbor’s yard.
Brian
Nordle stated he felt that the plan as presented does adhere to those
guidelines outlined in the Site Plan Review requirements of 1989.
Carter
Higginbotham stated that we are approving this without any kind of flexibility
or information from light meters. Do we
want to go there?
Amendment:
George Holt made an amendment to the motion that we ask the developer for a month’s time to review the plan and act on the plan at the next Planning Board Meeting.
At this point, Brian Nordle stated that this motion was not according to rules because his motion specifically stated “approving the light plan this evening” and this amendment was contradictory to the original motion.
Therefore this Amendment could not be a part of any motion. The Chairman concurred. The motion to amend by George Holt would not be allowed.
The original amendment by Michael Poirier was passed
unanimously.
The amended motion passed by a majority with the
following vote:
Yes
– Carter Higginbotham
Yes
– Brian Nordle
Yes
– Steve Kennedy
Yes
– Michael Poirier
No
– George Holt
Abstained – Kenneth Swayze
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alison R. Vallieres
Secretary