DUNBARTON PLANNING BOARD

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2004

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

Kenneth Swayze, Admin., Planning and Zoning Department

Alison Vallieres, Secretary

Merton Mann, Selectman

Brian Nordle

Michael Poirier

David Breault, Alternate

The Chairman verified with the Secretary that the meeting notice had been posted in three public places throughout the Town and published in the Concord Monitor for one day. In addition, the public notice appeared on the Dunbarton Web Site.

Approval of Previous Month’s Minutes – Wednesday, March 17, 2004

Brian Nordle made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board approve the minutes of the March 17, 2004 regular meeting of the Dunbarton Planning Board as written. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

OTHER BUSINESS: (ROAD ISSUES)

GREGORY/HOPE ARCE (E3-2-47) DRIVEWAY MODIFICATION, TUCKER HILL ROAD IN DUNBARTON, NH

Kenneth Swayze presented a copy of the Proposal from the Gregory Arce which include a map of Lot #47 within the Stillwater Subdivision, Tucker Hill Road (attached). He stated it was a Minor Modification for an existing lot previously approved within the Stillwater Subdivision. The letter from the applicants stated they had decreased the south grade to a 3:1 slope and would like to install large rocks along the south edge of the driveway extending approximately 175 feet from Tucker Hill Road. This would be in place of the proposed guardrails which were on the original plan as approved by the Planning Board. This is before the Board because it is a change from the approved plan.

Brian Nordle stated the bollards as presented should work to protect the electrical transformer.

George Holt asked if the applicant was present. At this point in the meeting the applicant appeared before the Board.

Kenneth Swayze stated the driveway is not finished at this point. The Building Department will not give him a Building Permit until this is approved by the Planning Board, and the work is completed.

Brian Nordle stated that if you put rocks in, you should have a 30 foot safe zone. We want to make sure that the rocks are extended. The guardrails are designed to flex whereas the rocks don’t.

Michael Poirer stated he can’t see how the guardrails would have protected because of this. They want to put rocks instead of guardrails and will change the slope from 2:1 to 3:1.

Kenneth Swayze stated that there is no driveway in Town that has guardrails. This is the first.

James Marcou stated the core issue is that they are adequately addressing the reasonable safety issue.

Kenneth Swayze stated the rocks should be 5-6 feet apart.

George Holt stated this was a condition of the subdivision set forth and there was a design for this driveway, and this is the way it should be. No changes.

Brian Nordle stated he went down there. Don’t really know if your driveway got moved over. The driveway has been there. Just want to make sure the rocks are back 30 feet from the road and guard rail.

George Holt – Are we changing this? How can changes in the field be made? We set this up as a condition of approval and now we are back pedaling. Would like to see it on a plan. I am not being too demanding on these guys.

Kenneth Swayze stated we discussed this lot prior to this man owning it. The developers asked for some relief on this. We have many driveways equal or worse than this.

James Marcou stated they have increased the slope so it is less. Are we asking for a revised plan of this “as built”? Should they certify there is a 3:1 slope and certify that the changes are consistent with the approval.

George Holt stated the owner knew about this when they bought the lot.

James Marcou, Chairman, noted the following would be voting members on this particular issue:

James Marcou, Chairman

George Holt

Michael Poirier

Alison Vallieres

Brian Nordle

Kenneth Swayze

Merton Mann

MOTION:

Kenneth Swayze made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board approve the request to replace the guardrails with safety rocks and bollards at the utility pedestals, and require that the Owner provide an “as-built” plan on the finished work. Michael Poirier seconded the motion.

Board Discussion:

George Holt stated when they provide the plan, are we going to review this. (Kenneth Swayze, Brian Nordle and George Holt have all been out there)

The Board noted that since it leaves the Town property, it would be up to the discretion of the Building Department or the Road Agent.

George Holt stated he just wanted to make sure they don’t go ahead and build something, and it actually will not be a good driveway.

Kenneth Swayze stated there has to be a driveway in place prior to any CO being issued. He will ask the Road Agent to do an inspection of the driveway prior to the issuance of the CO.

George Holt asked if there was any encroachment on wetlands. Is that something the Building Department looks at?

Kenneth Swayze stated the culvert has already been put in, and the Conservation Commission or NHDES should look at it if they wish.

It was determined that encroachment on wetlands is not an issue.

The motion passed unanimously after the discussion.

RICHARD KEEFE (I 1-1-11) – DETERMINE BONDING REQUIREMENTS FOR THEIR PROPOSED ROAD COMPLETION. (PLANNING BOARD TO REFER A REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE TO THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN) LOCATED OFF CONCORD STAGE ROAD (ROUTE 77) IN DUNBARTON, NH

James Marcou, Chairman, noted the following would be voting members on this particular issue:

James Marcou, Chairman

George Holt

Michael Poirier

Alison Vallieres

Brian Nordle

Kenneth Swayze

Merton Mann

Kenneth Swayze, Admin., presented a letter from Richard Keefe, applicant, presenting a “Schedule of Values” for “North Woods Road” with a total value for the Bond of $24,267. (attached) In addition, two letters from Don Mayo, Town Engineer, were presented regarding the request. One letter listed the work to be completed. (attached)

Kenneth Swayze stated that he and Don Mayo had discussed value for the road being completed for the Bond and they had both determined that $33,000 - $35,000 would be the value that the Town should require bonding for so the Town would be protected. Once the Bond is issued to the Town, it would allow Building Permits to be issued and the sale of lots.

In addition, Don Mayo, Town Engineer, has included a letter stating that the granite curb which is shown on the final plan should be eliminated. He has stated that the roadway without curbing is preferable due to ease of plowing snow and reduced slope erosion caused by roadway drainage concentrated at the end of curbing.

Michael Poirer asked if we have changed where the road was supposed to go. When they did the plans they knew this. Should we have a letter from the abutter stating he is agreeable with this?

Richard Keefe stated that Don Mayo said he preferred he not put in the curbing. This is why we are not doing it.

Michael Poirer, Brian Nordle and Kenneth Swayze agreed to let the matter stand as presented.

Michael Poirer asked how many lineal feet of road is involved.

Keefe stated 2400 feet of road.

Kenneth Swayze noted that their estimates for the road completion were between $8,000 and $10,000 higher than Keefe’s.

Richard Keefe agreed to post the appropriate bond in the amount that the Town would require.

MOTION:

Kenneth Swayze made a motion that the Town of Dunbarton require a Bond in the amount of $33,000 per the remaining work outlined in Don Mayo’s letter. Brian Nordle seconded the motion.

Board Discussion:

George Holt stated he would like to add something. Would like to see signs in place before the first bit of work gets done.

The Board noted the Selectmen will handle this.

Richard Keefe stated that the State suggests a minimum 30 mph sign on the road. He feels this is too fast for the road. Would suggest that it be no more than 25 mph.

It was noted there are statutory speed limits throughout the State. Keefe should talk to the Police Department.

Richard Keefe asked when he could get the approval. Kenneth Swayze responded when the Town receives the Bond, we would finish the plan review, get a final mylar signed, and file the plan.

George Holt – When do we look at the conservation easement?

Kenneth Swayze noted that when the easement is correct. The plan and deed work all goes to the Registry for recording. The Conservation Commission can review it prior to it going to the Registry.

The motion passed unanimously after the discussion.

At this point in the meeting, James Marcou, Chairman, announced that the Dunbarton Planning Board had received two petitions from the Public with regard to the updating of the Subdivision Regulations on April 7, 2004. He stated he was directing the Secretary to schedule this item for discussion at the next appropriate meeting. He stated the Board would not be dealing with these petitions this evening.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

DENA L. BROWN (D3-4-6) AND JOHN C. BROWN (C3-5-2) PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF LOTS LOCATED ON FLINTLOCK FARM ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH

James Marcou, Chairman, noted the following would be voting members on this particular issue:

James Marcou, Chairman

George Holt

Michael Poirier

Alison Vallieres

Brian Nordle

Kenneth Swayze

Merton Mann

Kenneth Swayze presented a Status Report on the proposed Brown Lot Line Adjustment. (attached)

John Brown was present for the public hearing. He stated that Dena Brown was out of the State. In addition, his surveyor was not present.

The Board noted they required amendments as follows on the plan:

1. Signature/acknowledgement lines by both parties (all owners)

2. Confirmation that all monumentation is complete.

There was no discussion from Board members.

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

Gerald/Lillian Williams – Not Present

Marion McNeill – Not Present

Lewis Revocable Living Trust – Not Present

James Thomas Campbell – Not Present

Eleanor Swindlehurst Revocable Trust – Not Present

John Swindlehurst Revocable Trust – Not Present

Sara Zorn Revocable Trust – Not Present

Carl J. Metzger/Heather Pharo-Metzger – Not Present

William/Delanie Brenhan – Not Present

Michael G./Deborah Auger – Not Present

Dahlberg Land Services Inc. – (applicant’s surveyor) Not Present

MOTION:

George Holt made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board accept the Dena L. Brown ((D3-4-6) and John C. Brown (C3-5-2) proposed Lot Line Adjustment of lots located on Flintlock Farm Road in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH as presented this evening with noted requirements. Brian Nordle seconded the motion.

Mr. Brown stated that he will provide a corrected plan with the required changes to the Planning Board as soon as his surveyor is available.

After discussion by the Board, the motion passed unanimously.

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - SITE PLAN REVIEW AND SUBDIVISION:

REDML DEVELOPMENT, LLC (ROBERT AND DOROTHY PERRY) (D6-3-11) PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS CONSISTING OF FOUR BUILDINGS OF FOUR UNITS AND ONE WITH THREE UNITS FOR A TOTAL FIVE BUILDINGS WITH A TOTAL OF NINETEEN (19) UNITS FOR SENIOR HOUSING AT HIS PROPERTY LOCATED ON MORSE ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH AND SUBDIVISION (ROADWAY AND CONDOMINIUM UNITS) AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT

James Marcou, Chairman, noted the following would be voting members on this particular issue:

James Marcou, Chairman

George Holt

Michael Poirer

Alison Vallieres

Brian Nordle

Kenneth Swayze

Merton Mann

Kenneth Swayze, Admin., presented a Status Report on the REDML Development, LLC (Robert and Dorothy Perry)(attached). He stated that new plans have been received and the condo documents have been received by Town Counsel. The only item outstanding is the Planning Board’s granting of a Waiver for length of road. (request from Eric Mitchell, Engineer, attached)

WAIVER/VARIANCE REQUEST:

At this point in the meeting, James Marcou, Chairman, read the requirements of the Variance/ Waiver from the Subdivision regulations as follows:

Variances

“Where strict conformity to the Subdivision Regulations would cause undue hardship or injustice to the owner of the land, a subdivision plan substantially in conformity with the Subdivision Regulations may be approved by the Board provided that the spirit of the Subdivision Regulations and public convenience and welfare will not be adversely affected.”

MOTION:

Brian Nordle made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board approve the request for a Waiver/Variance for road length as submitted by Eric Mitchell, Engineer, on behalf of REDML DEVELOPMENT, LLC. Kenneth Swayze seconded the motion. After discussion by the Board, the motion was passed by a majority with the following vote:

A. Vallieres - Yes

B. Nordle – Yes

K. Swayze – Yes

J. Marcou – Yes

M. Poirier – Yes

M. Mann – Abstained

George Holt – Abstained

James Marcou, Chairman, noted that the Perry Application was now considered complete with the appropriate granted Variance/Waiver.

Eric Mitchell, Engineer, presented the final plan and stated that it had been reviewed by Don Mayo, Town Engineer. Plans are also at the State for review.

Eric Mitchell stated that because they have gone from 16 units to 19 units, the Water Supply process has undergone a change. The project will be subject to Water Supply approval. This is not an approval we have talked about in the past. There were previously three proposed wells. With the three wells, it did not require a state permit.

Eric Mitchell stated the State feels they had much rather have a permit for 15 or more service connections. With over 25 people, with two wells on this property, you would not need a State approval. They believe that by having three wells divided between the occupants is skirting the issue. Have worked out with Water Supply to submit a Water Supply application. One well will have a 150 feet protective well site radius. The requirement for the Water Supply approval is to be tested for water quantity before issued of a Water Supply approval. The other two permits will follow. Where we have already met the Town Engineer’s comments, would ask the Board for conditional approval pending State approval for Water Supply. The State approval is something that is just a stamp. The States makes sure there is an adequate supply and good quality water prior to issuing the permit. The plans would not be signed and no houses would be built until this approval is received. I also have the documents regarding the age requirements, but don’t know if you have time to review at this time.

Board Questions/Comments/Discussion:

The Board asked how close to the existing culverts on Morse Road were the Drainage Swale #1 and #2.

Eric Mitchell located them on the map.

Brian Nordle – Asked about the culvert to the east; there is already a little ponding there. Would try to prevent ponding next to the slope. Would like to be sure that it is forced away from the slope. Capacity of culverts are sized? Existing roadway was never fine tuned.

Eric Mitchell replied they will have to do some site improvements and can be corrected.

George Holt – Stated he saw the plan dated 4/6 and it still had your old well radii.

Eric Mitchell stated this was the one well. Three wells were sited before. The well with the 150 well radius is the primary well. This has been submitted to the State for the water supply line.

David Breault – Regarding Morse Road and the corner, has safety concerns. Even the police chief has said he has safety concerns. Asked if there were plans to put signs up.

K. Swayze indicated the applicant will have signs put up in the development. The Town will coordinate signs for Morse Road and the applicant will have to put street intersection signs up.

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

Josephine Dailey – Not Present

Paul Belyea – Not Present

David/Justyn Constant – Present. Stated he was upset about everything that is going on. Just want to make sure the Planning Board has figured everything out. Have they checked on all the engineering? This is a huge impact on the road. Have they covered all the angles when they approve this? I just don’t think it is an appropriate location on Morse Road. The road is very narrow. The driveway has a “heck” of an incline. Don’t feel the road can handle that kind of volume. Don’t feel it is appropriate for the area.

Rudolf/Elizabeth Vallauri – Present. Stated he was here last in September. Back then there were 4 buildings with 16 proposed units, now we have 5 buildings with 19 units. Why is this? Who do we send the water bill to when our wells fail? What if we run out of water?

George Holt – Stated that part of the permit , is that there will be no adverse affect on the wells. If there is, they need to come up with a different plan. A big part of the decision is that they can provide quality and quantity. It is a fairly involved process.

Ken Swayze stated the applicants are going to tear down the existing duplex to accommodate the requirements of the Planning Board and that entitles them to additional units on the site. They have merged that lot with the larger one.

R. Vallauri stated this is an awful impact on the area.

Robert/Denise Perry II – Present. (applicant)

Michael Petito – Not Present

David/Beth Sedita – Not Present

Daniel/Kathleen Labonville – Present. Asked what the Board was granting a Waiver for. What requirement were they not going to meet?

The Board explained they needed a Waiver for the length of the road, which is 2,400 feet.

Nathan J. Narus – Present. No comment.

Richard/Catherine Racca – Not Present

David/Theresa Glannon – Present. Asked what the classification for these units was now? Are they 55 and older or what?

Attorney McNicholas stated the condo documents have changed. When the project started, they were to be 80% over 55 years of age. Now they are to be 100% over 55 years of age. This means that 100% of the units must be occupied by a person 55 years or older. The residents of the condos must report to the Town of Dunbarton on an annual basis with documentation as to proof of age.

David Wheeler – Not Present.

Steven/Karen Elsasser – Present. Mr. Elsasser stated his big concern is the water coming down on his property. What guarantee do I have? I don’t have a looking glass. What guarantee do I have that my water will remain safe?

Eric Mitchell explained that when they apply for State permits, it requires us to do sediment and erosion control. Adjacent properties do not get any additional water on them. We have treatment swales. We can’t have additional runoff going on your property. We also have detention basins wherein the water is split. We can’t have water from our property go on to yours. The drainage calculations have been reviewed by the State and the Town Engineering Consultant so that we have reduced the amount of water.

Mr. Elsasser stated, you are saying there will be no additional water going on my property.

Eric Mitchell stated there should not be an impact on your property.

Karen Elsasser – Stated that the group of neighbors got together and hired a Consulting Law Firm. Presented a letter from Scott F. Hogan of Baldwin, Callen & Hogan which she read into the record. (attached) She stated they have all spoken their piece. Would like to get the matter resolved and move on. Want to make sure the Planning Board does the following before voting:

1. Look at the big picture. Truly, if you are looking at it from my house, it will have an impact. One extra car will have an impact and that is all I am asking.

2. The fact that the Zoning changed this last Town Meeting, does that have any impact on this?

J. Marcou stated that the Board had held meetings and Public Hearings on the Perry Proposal prior to the consideration of the restricting multi-family developments to Routes 13 and 77, therefore the Perry Project was exempted from that Zoning Change.

K. Elsasser stated that this would be forcing her out of her home. I understand that these big landowners have the right to do what they want with their own land. All the same, you have a responsibility to your neighbors and to your community.

Mr. Constant – There will be 19 units coming in. What is the buildable acreage they need?

K. Swayze stated the need 2.75 acres per unit. They have the required amount of acreage.

General Public Questions/Comments/Discussion:

Lee Richards – Stated that he would direct his question back to George Holt. Will the members be aware when the well test was done? Is that going to be one big test? Should that be a pumping test? Is it the responsibility of the Planning Board to look at this?

George Holt – We should be able to have some testimony

Lee Richards – Should set some sort of condition that such a test would be done.

James Marcou stated they have to have the well test done. I would certainly think that part of this process would include the Planning Board be involved in the results.

Kenneth Swayze stated they will transfer the result of the test to the Building Department. Part of the test should include information that there is no impact on the neighbor’s wells. Depends on how they define those wells. Do you have a backup? Two wells may not be required for this type of flow.

Michael Poirier – How many gallons per minutes is required?

Eric Mitchell stated you have to have a certain amount of flow.

Mert Mann – Stated that there will have to be State Permits, septic system permits, and sub-surface permits. There will have to be no adverse effects on surrounding landowners.

Kenneth Swayze – said the State tends to be pretty thorough. You would have to call the State.

George Holt – No adverse impact on surrounding properties and to demonstrate there will be no adverse effect.

K. Swayze noted there will be two layers, the Planning Board and the Building Department.

Labonville – Asked if it was reasonable to put this many houses on this amount of property. This could not be built out traditionally. The only way you can do it is a PRD. Would rather see single family houses. This is part of the reason I bought my house. We lived in a Town House once. I don’t like the idea there is going to be a road in my back yard now.

Tom Gendron – Asked how big are the units?.

The applicants stated the units are two bedroom maximum.

Tom Gendron stated some people put ten people in a bedroom, etc. There could be kids in one unit. Going to be a significant impact. I just moved to the area. It is a big impact. Who is going to govern how many people will live in the units?

Jim Marcou – They will have to report to the Town.

Gendron stated building individual homes would be better.

Lee Richards – Would like to make a comment in favor of the cluster arrangement. It does preserve a lot of open space. This is what the Land Use Sub-Committee of the Master Plan talked about last night. Preserving open space.

The public hearing was closed at 8:30 pm.

MOTION:

Kenneth Swayze made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board approve the proposed merger, lot-line adjustment, subdivision, and site plan application of ROBERT AND DOROTHY PERRY (REDML DEVELOPMENT LLC), Tax Lot Nos. D6-03-11 and D6-03-15: consisting of a 19 units, 5 buildings, adult community multi-family clustered project on approximately 57 total acres, including approximately 2,400 lin. Ft. of new roadway to be dedicated to the Town. Located on Morse Road in the Low Density (5 acres) District; to be known as “Grandview Estates”.

Subject to the following conditions:

1) Submittal of a final, technically accurate and graphically correct plan-set representing presentations to the Board, 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: NHDES subsurface (septic system) approval, NH DES Water Supply test and approval, and NH DES Site Specific. There shall be no change(s) to the base plan(s) without re-consultation with the Planning 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) The satisfactory excavation, blasting, grading and construction of the roadway system rough base for the entire length, including cul-de-sac termination, of the proposed road. This work is to be within 2 ft. of finished grade and shall include all preliminary and “underlying” work such as drainage structures, piping, and associated requirements. (This requirement, in lieu of allowing the posting of a bond, is due to the unpredictable cost assessment of the project roadway through extensive cut, fill, and ledge areas.)

5) The posting of a $5,000 renovation/reclamation bond to account for any unmitigated environmental site damage.

6) Upon the satisfactory completion of constructing the rough road-base (No. 4, above), the posting of a surety in the amount of $250,000, plus a 10% escalation factor, for the remaining construction of said roadway, and related improvements; provided an appraisal value of such remaining work does not exceed the base surety amount of $250,000. Any required increase, or requested decrease in surety amount shall be established by the Dunbarton Planning Board.

7) The execution of an agreement and schedule outlining required inspections and construction procedures for all work covered by the approved Site Plan, including an identification of those associated costs to be paid by the applicant, for such inspections and/or consultant review, and establishment of an escrow account.

8) The review and approval of the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office with regard to adult community/subdivision/condominium documents as submitted by the applicant.

9) 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.

The motion was seconded by Brian Nordle.

Board Discussion:

Kenneth Swayze stated this project does have some concerns. There are some defects and the abutters have spoken well to that. Last night we spoke of Cluster Development at the Land Use Committee Meeting of the Master Plan. It does keep the Wetlands intact. It is not directly on the main road. There will be an impact. The engineering will amount to an improvement to the road area. There is an undercurrent as to the status of prior Perry work in that area in the past. There are questions about the integrity of the work which was done. The Town will watch this project. James Marcou – Stated we have a responsibility to satisfy ourselves that we have substantially met the Subdivisoin regulations and make sure it is within the spirit of the Town of Dunbarton.

Brian Nordle – Now the multi-family zoning change requires that they be located on Routes 13 and 77. I kind of resisted and felt it put a damper on any cluster development. NIMBY syndrome and it works for me too. Every Saturday morning, I choose to walk there. Twenty years ago I remember coming up Morse Road and also Montalona Road. You see single family homes there now. I agree, some of the abutting properties have been clear cut. The applicants have chosen to. Now the developers have to put in berms. Don’t rule out cluster and/or multi family units. I don’t believe the value will go down in this neighborhood. The new generation will do an awesome job on this development. You will not stop growth. Most folks will drive by and not even know it is there set back where it is. It will be closed in. This is just my opinion.

George Holt – This project is a concentration of houses in a single area. With regard to a PRD, I don’t see why it doesn’t require a Special Exception. This is something I don’t understand.

Ken. Swayze stated that Legal Counsels on both sides have agreed to this, and the developers do not refer to it as a PRD. The multi-family density allows this density. You can put 40 units if you have the acreage.

George Holt – Stated he has forgotten how we got here. There is one single road with multiple units on it.

James Marcou – Legal Counsel agreed that this met the multi-family unit requirement at the time.

George Holt – It would be different if they want to put a couple of houses in. In addition the Water Supply permitting process is pretty rigorous. Would like to see that we are involved. However, I would not like to see this voted on conditionally this evening. Stated his opinion is they have a fair amount of risk, and their whole situation could change. I am not going to vote for this conditional approval.

James Marcou stated we have sat here for 13 months discussing this piece of property and my opinion is that it is a well thought out project. The applicant has been very cooperative with the Board. This project does meet the requirements of the Zoning and the need for this type of use and it will serve the Town of Dunbarton.

Alison Vallieres stated she sat at the last night’s meeting of the Land Use Committee when Cluster Zoning was discussed. Most members encourage Cluster Development. She agrees with Lee Richards. This type of development does preserve open space like the Master Plan questionnaire tells us the people want. In addition, I am glad it is a 55 and Older Senior Housing Project. The Town needs Senior Housing. The applicants have done a good job.

Michael Poirier stated he feels for the abutters. This is a large piece of land, and there will still be a lot of open land. 55 and older is a good thing for the Town.

David Breault – Stated he is concerned about the wildlife in Town. You will see a moose, deer. Would prefer seeing single family houses Single family is the kind of project that would preserve wildlife more. I would like to hear the Attorney’s opinion on why this didn’t have to go to the ZBA. I missed it and as far as the water goes, it is a paramount issue throughout the Town. This is too bad for everyone. I would like to be copied on the water testing. So I too feel for the abutters.

MOTION: (First Amendment)

Brian Nordle made an amendment to the original motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board would receive a copy of the Water Testing of the REDML (Perry) Project (to be attached at Item #2, above). Kenneth Swayze seconded the motion. The amendment to the motion passed by a majority vote as follows:

James Marcou – Yes

Michael Poirier – Yes

Alison Vallieres – Yes

Kenneth Swayze – Yes

Brian Nordle – Yes

George Holt – Yes

Merton Mann – Abstained

MOTION: (Second Amendment)

George Holt made an amendment that as a condition of the pumping test conducted by the applicant, that water supply wells on abutting property (inclusive of those properties across Morse Road) be monitored for adverse impact at the discretion of abutting owners. Michael Poirier seconded the motion.

Board Discussion:

George Holt stated that abutting properties will include property across the street. There will be different levels of testing.

The Board asked what would constitutes “adverse”?

Brian Nordle stated that prior to doing this typically it would be fair to the Town and to any and all Subdivisions to determine how many are we making it required for. Would it be 19 units, 12 units, 4 units or 20 units? We should then be changing our regulations etc. to provide for this type of requirement prior to doing it. This is something we should talk about in the future. You can’t start manufacturing rules. Let’s talk about it first and then enact something.

Kenneth Swayze stated there is less gallons per unit than for single family homes. This would be treating them differently.

George Holt stated we are not specially treating them. This is part of the community permitting process.

Brian Nordle asked again what “adverse impact” would be? Let’s get a subdivision regulation in place before we start requiring this.

George Holt stated all he was asking that we look at what was the impact on the wells that they check.

The amendment failed with the following vote.

James Marcou – No

Alison Vallieres – No

Brian Nordle – No

Kenneth Swayze – No

Michael Poirier – Yes

George Holt – Yes

Merton Mann – Abstained

The original motion including the First Amendment passed by a majority vote as follows:

James Marcou – Yes

Alison Vallieres – Yes

Brian Nordle – Yes

Kenneth Swayze – Yes

Michael Poirier – Yes

George Holt – No

Merton Mann – Abstained

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - MICHEL BELANGER (G3-5-1 AND G2-7-5) /DIPIETRO HOMES (G2-5-15) PROPOSED 25 LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON MANSION ROAD IN THE MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH

Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, appeared before the Board with the updated plan. The revised plan showed 25 proposed lots instead of 26 as previously presented.

James Marcou, Chairman, noted the following would be voting members on this particular issue:

James Marcou, Chairman

George Holt

Michael Poirer

Alison Vallieres

Brian Nordle

Kenneth Swayze

Merton Mann

Kenneth Swayze presented a status report noting that this is the sixth public hearing the Planning Board has held on the second application. (attached) He also included copies of a letter from Don Mayo with regard to his engineering review of the revised plans stating the plan is satisfactory as submitted. (attached) Also included was a letter from Robert Rook, PE., stating that they had addressed Don Mayo’s comments as presented in his March 15, 2004 letter. (attached) Included also was a State of New Hampshire DOT Driveway Permit, (attached) along with a copy of the “Agreement” between Mansion Heights and the Town of Dunbarton, NH (attached).

WAIVER/VARIANCE REQUEST:

Ken Swayze reported that the applicants had requested separate Variances/Waivers within the Belanger-Mansion Heights proposed subdivision. (attached)

1. Waiver to the maximum allowed length of road as called for in the Dunbarton Subdivision Regulations, Section V., Item F, for Stinson Drive.

Justification for the granting of the Waiver: Given that the current zoning is medium density with a minimum frontage of 250 feet and lot size of three (3) acres, it would be impossible to develop the rear portion of the combined land. It should be noted that no subdivision in town has been held to the maximum length requirements and that this waiver in the past has been granted.

2. Waiver to the maximum allowed length of road as called for in the Dunbarton Subdivision Regulations, Section V., Item F., for Samuels Drive.

3. Waiver to the maximum allowed length of road as called for in the Dunbarton Subdivision Regulations, Section V., Item F., for Williams Court.

4. Waiver to the fire suppression requirement of 25,000 gallons per dwelling unit, with a minimum of 125,000 gallons to a maximum of 500,000 gallons, as found in the subdivision requirements for a fire suppression water source.

Justification for the granting of the Waiver: The applicant’s representative has met with the Fire Chief, Jon Wiggins to site a 30,000 gallon cistern near the intersection of Stinson Drive and Samuels Drive and feel that the subdivision and Town will be better served by this proposal.

5. Waiver to the required 5% of the land being developed, be set aside for parks and playgrounds as called for in the Dunbarton Subdivision Regulations, Section V., Item N and acceptance in lieu thereof, a 15 foot wide trail system leading from the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, through the proposed subdivision, to the Winslow Town Forest, as shown on the subdivision plans, and easement plan.

Justification for the granting of the Waiver: The original configuration did set aside a separate lot shown on the previous plans as Lot 2, which would have been deeded to the Dunbarton Town Forest. There seemed to be a consensus of the Board that the Town would be better served by having a trail system connecting the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests to the Winslow Town Forest.

At this point in the meeting, James Marcou, Chairman, read the requirements of the Variance/ Waiver from the Subdivision regulations as follows:

Variances

MOTION: (Stinson Drive)

Brian Nordle made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board grant the requested Waiver for Length of Road of Stinson Drive which will be 4,000 feet. The motion was seconded by Kenneth Swayze.

Discussion:

The Board noted that other Waivers have been granted by the Dunbarton Planning Board for length of road. There are many subdivisions throughout the Town with roads greater than 600 feet. Over the past five meetings, they have been encouraged and directed to proceed to this point. Given that the zoning is medium density with a minimum frontage of 250 feet and lot size of three (3) acres, it would be impossible to develop the rear portion of the combined land. It was noted that no subdivision in town has been held to the maximum length requirements and that this waiver in the past has been granted. Strict conformity to the Subdivision Regulations would cause undue hardship and injustice to the owner of the land. The subdivision plan is otherwise substantially in conformity with the Subdivision Regulations. Granting this Variance/Waiver will not adversely affected the spirit of the Subdivision Regulations, nor will the public convenience and welfare be adversely affected.

The motion passed by a majority with a vote as follows:

James Marcou - Yes

George Holt - Yes

Michael Poirer - Yes

Alison Vallieres - Yes

Brian Nordle - Yes

Kenneth Swayze - Yes

Merton Mann – Abstained

MOTION: (Samuels Drive)

Brian Nordle made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board grant the requested Waiver for Length of Road of Samuels Drive which will be 1,031 feet. The motion was seconded by Kenneth Swayze.

Discussion:

The motion passed by a majority with a vote as follows:

James Marcou - Yes

George Holt - Yes

Michael Poirer - Yes

Alison Vallieres - Yes

Brian Nordle - Yes

Kenneth Swayze - Yes

Merton Mann – Abstained

MOTION: (Williams Court)

Brian Nordle made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board grant the requested Waiver for Length of Road of Williams Court which will be 1,142 feet. The motion was seconded by Kenneth Swayze.

Discussion:

The motion passed by a majority with a vote as follows:

James Marcou - Yes

George Holt - Yes

Michael Poirer - Yes

Alison Vallieres - Yes

Brian Nordle - Yes

Kenneth Swayze - Yes

Merton Mann – Abstained

MOTION: (Fire Suppression)

Brian Nordle made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board grant the requested Waiver to the fire suppression requirement of 25,000 gallons per dwelling unit, with a minimum of 125,000 gallons to a maximum of 500,000 gallons, as found in the subdivision requirements for a fire suppression water source. The motion was seconded by Kenneth Swayze.

Discussion:

The Board noted that the Fire Chief had been present at three prior Planning Board meetings. The cistern location was moved at his direction. He did not want it to be down the road. Would rather have it located in an open area. At our last meeting he stated what is proposed would suffice his needs. He okayed the location and size and felt that fire protection of the new development would be best served by requiring a cistern be located at this central location. The applicant’s representative has met with the Fire Chief, Jon Wiggins to site a 30,000 gallon cistern near the intersection of Stinson Drive and Samuels Drive and feel that the subdivision and Town will be better served by this proposal. The subdivision plan is otherwise substantially in conformity with the Subdivision Regulations. Granting this Variance/Waiver will not adversely affected the spirit of the Subdivision Regulations, nor will the public convenience and welfare be adversely affected.

.Strict conformity to the Subdivision Regulations would cause undue hardship and injustice to the owner of the land.

The motion passed by a majority with a vote as follows:

James Marcou - Yes

George Holt - Yes

Michael Poirer - Yes

Alison Vallieres - Yes

Brian Nordle - Yes

Kenneth Swayze - Yes

Merton Mann – Abstained

MOTION: (Recreation Land Set Aside)

Brian Nordle made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board grant the requested Waiver to the required 5% of the land being developed, be set aside for parks and playground as called for in the Dunbarton Subdivision Regulations, Section V., Item N and acceptance in lieu thereof, a 15 foot wide trail system leading from the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, through the proposed subdivision, to the Winslow Town Forest, as shown on the subdivision plans, and easement plan. Kenneth Swayze seconded the motion.

Discussion:

The Board noted that land had been set aside in a mitigation area but the Board felt that the Town would be better served with a trail system connecting the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests to the Winslow Town Forest land. The original configuration did set aside a separate lot shown on the previous plans as Lot 2, which would have been deeded to the Dunbarton Town Forest. There seemed to be a consensus of the Board that the Town would be better served by having a trail system connecting the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests to the Winslow Town Forest. The subdivision plan is otherwise substantially in conformity with the Subdivision Regulations. Granting this Variance/Waiver will not adversely affected the spirit of the Subdivision Regulations, nor will the public convenience and welfare be adversely affected. Strict conformity to the Subdivision Regulations would cause undue hardship and injustice to the owner of the land.

The motion passed by a majority with a vote as follows:

James Marcou - Yes

George Holt - Yes

Michael Poirer - Yes

Alison Vallieres - Yes

Brian Nordle - Yes

Kenneth Swayze - Yes

Merton Mann – Abstained

James Marcou, Chairman, noted for the record that with the granting of the appropriate Waivers the application for the Belanger/DiPietro Subdivision was now complete.

Questions/Comments/Discussion:

At this point in the public hearing, James Marcou, Chairman, noted for the record that Dunbarton Planning Board had established at the last meeting that we have had testimony on the engineering on the plan.

The culvert on Mansion Road and a trail system to gain access to Winslow Town Forest were outstanding items.

George Holt stated that he felt there were still a lot of issues. One of which is the James White issue.

At this point in the meeting, Attorney Lisa A. Wellman-Ally presented an agreement signed by James and Sandra White and the applicants that they have entered into a written and binding agreement which includes that the applicants will provide an evergreen buffer between the new subdivision and the Whites’ house in a location approved by the Whites, and that the Whites accordingly have no objection to the said subdivision (attached). (This has already been depicted on the new engineering plans.)

Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, indicated that Don Mayo has signed off on the culverts. Bob Rook stated there was a concern but this has been taken care of.

J. Belanger stated that with regard to the Trail System, it will be a 15 foot strip from the SPNHF land to the Winslow State Forest. 15 feet is wide enough for foot traffic and it will be monumented and marked. No other major changes. Stated they have changed one lot line to accommodate the trail system.

Brian Nordle stated he did look at the plan. You had larger lots to accommodate the trail system which is a good thing. The culverts in the first plan were minimal dirt coverage. This has been addressed. In the beginning 400 feet of road there is mucking referred to. It is up to the contractor to do it right. Mucking is a tough thing. Sand and gravel material will have to be used. Don Mayo, Town Engineer, will be checking. It will be addressed by the contractor. They have to be built correctly or it will crack and break. If you do not do it right, you are going to have the road heaving, etc. Because you are going to have to cross this through your whole development, you have to pay attention when the contractor is there. Your Engineer Rook will confirm this. Don Mayo will be out there and will be looking at it. Don Mayo also made a note for sub-drains. Some of the areas can’t take them. I would hate to see the roads cracking. We have been requesting underdrains in the field.

George Holt – No questions.

Alison Vallieres – No questions

David Breault – Confused about the trail. I thought it was going on the top of the development.

J. Belanger – Stated he has added two more sheets to the plans. There is a whole sheet for easements. There are also phasing sheets. Also shows Town Ownership. Lots 19 and 16 Owners will have easements on them. The trail will be for foot use only. After all discussions, we ended up with easements. Draft written deed and easement language has been submitted to the Town.

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

Edward/Vicki Klements – Present. No comments.

Roger/Pamela Bergeron – Not Present

Dennis Forcier – Not Present

Scott/Deborah Aubrey – Not Present

Sylvia Bowman – Not Present

Louis/Debra Ann Marcou – Not Present

James/Sandra White – Not Present (Signed agreement in place)

Robert/Janice Boynton – Not Present

Ellie Stein – Present. Stated she would like to focus on the first waivers/variances that were approved this evening. Would like to make comments. First, in order to grant a waiver, there needs to be undue hardship or injustice to the owner. Who is the owner of the land? Is it Michel Belanger or DiPietro? What is the undue hardship? I have spoken to an Attorney at the NH Municipal Association. This has come before the Supreme Court. It is very interesting information. One thing that is very clear. If they say they can’t get my money out of this land, and I am not going to be able to make cash enough on this land, this is not undue hardship. What is the hardship to Mr. Belanger or Mr. DiPietro if you don’t allow the road length to be greater than 600 feet?

Brian Nordle stated he thought there were several issues cited. The already approved uses of 20 plus single-access roads in Town is one issue. It has never been required in the past. Other people with other subdivisions, this development requirement has not been on them. This has been the intent of the Town over the last two decades. It is about treating everyone the same and equally and fairly.

Ellie Stein asked for Town Counsel’s opinion.

Charles Bauer, Attorney, stated that with regard to undue hardship and injustice, they paid out a certain amount of dollars, and I would suggest to the Board to the extent that the Board feels not only what happened in the past, but also with regard to this application in front of you.

James Marcou stated this policy is consistent with what we have done in the past in situations similar to this. The Waiver was a necessity to design a reasonable sub-division.

Ellie Stein – Stated she would like to object. Just because this Planning Board may have made some errors in the past, doesn’t mean they should continue. Does this mean we have to continue to do it wrong? I would like to go on record as opposed to this sub-division

Willaim Baril – Present. Asked about the trail system and the culvert that was on Mansion Road. Has that been resolved? With regard to the foot trail, does this mean foot or horses?

Robert Rook, Engineer – Stated that they are replacing the standard culvert on Mansion Road with a larger culver and the work is actually under the control of the State. The new culvert will be longer and lower.

The Board noted that it states no motorized vehicles.

Baril stated he used to have horses but it was impossible to ride because of ATV use, etc. so he sold the horses. With the proposed trail across the street from his home, people horseback riding there will just keep on going through his property to the Flood Control area, etc.

David/Jennifer Allen – Present. No Comments.

Orvis/Doris Cunningham Trust – Not Present

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

SPNHF – Not Present.

Dunbarton Town Forest – Not Present

Schauer Environmental Consultants – Not Present (representing the applicants)

Robert G. Rook, Consulting Engineer – Present (representing the applicants)

J. E. Belanger Surveying – Present (representing the applicants)

Members of the Public - Questions/Comments/Discussion:

Margaret Watkins stated she is surprised that the Dunbarton Planning Board puts developer’s interests above other people in this Town. She stated she could not believe that the Board would not approve such a simple thing as the Water Tests for abutters, etc. on the Perry Proposal. I am also stunned that votes and Waivers were granted when people have spoken to concerns. There has never been any response from the Planning Board to issues brought up by people. A certain member of the Planning Board who serves on the Zoning Board also has expressed concern about a one entrance access to the Golf Course Project which is the same type of issue.

On new issues, with regard to water management, the original plan called for three ponds. The current plan calls for one pond. Not a whole lot bigger. We were told that one pond would actually do what the three ponds are supposed to do.

Kenneth Swayze stated that the drainage report was submitted to Don Mayo for review. Also George Holt looked at it.

M. Watkins stated that three ponds will have maintenance requirements. This is not a basis to only have one pond. M. Watkins submitted Maintenance Requirements for Level Spreader and Maintenance for Rock Riprapped Channels from the Watershedshed Management Bureau. (attached)

Kenneth Swayze stated this subdivision has more storm water drainage engineering than the entire length of Route 13 in Dunbarton.

Margaret Watkins stated that “lollipops” are a real headache from a plowing standpoint. Asked if our Highway Department has looked at the plan.

The Board noted the Road Agent has stated he has no preference, but requested the largest radius possible.

M. Watkins stated you say we are trying to treat all developers equally. I do not feel this plan is good for Dunbarton. The designer has stated the length of these dead end roads. The lengths are as follows and not as he said. 3,500 feet, 3,700 feet, and 4,050 feet. I have spoken with Bill Klubben and from discussions with him , dead end roads could average 600 – 1200 feet, and up to 2,000 feet is okay. Karen Robertson says anything beyond 1,000 is questionable.

M. Watkins stated that with regard to the cistern location, it is 2,175 feet into the development. Along this area there are guardrails. 75% is guard rails. It is not going to be easy for a fire truck. I don’t think this is good planning. Expressed concern about the culdasac. These encourage faster speeds. What kind of response did the Police Department and Fire Department give the Board?

The Board indicated both had reviewed the plans

M. Watkins stated we should get a “sign off” from the Police Department. This is new information. The trail system is not going to be year round, it will be a three season trail.

M. Watkins stated she felt the White’s were put in a terrible situation. Don’t think it was very good planning.

James Marcou asked Robert Rook, Engineer for the subdivision, what the consequences would be if the Waivers for road length were not granted.

Robert Rook stated it would certainly decrease the available use of the land. If it came to a 1,000 foot road, they would probably only be able to put in one or two lots.

Jim Cotter – With regard to the trail, is it a three season because it is going out on the road. I would like the Board to take trail bicycles into consideration. They are non-motorized.

Rene Ouelette – Stated he lives on Mansion Road. Stated the Planning Board should not have made the important decision on the granting of the Waivers before hearing from the public. Wish you had decided on the Variances after hearing from the public. Just because something hasn’t been done right for a long time, doesn’t mean you continue to do it wrong. We have a regulation and should hold to it.

Katie McDonald – Asked how the foot trail will be crossing the wetland area?

J. Belanger stated they cannot get across the wetlands. Will have to lay it out carefully. Lot #19 will be aware of this.

Katie McDonald – Pretty concerned about that. The trail needs to be clearly defined. The Town Forest connects onto Clough property. Really concerned about this whole “darn” thing. My house is right there. What is going to happen to the water draining on to my property?

Robert Rook, Engineer – Stated there will actually be a reduction of excess storm water coming down there towards her property line.

K. McDonald – Stated this is a three season water flow. You say the rate of flow will be less than it is now? I am looking for assurance that our pond will not be reduced. The water will still flow down with the same flow then. We use the ponding on our property as an ice skating rink in the winter. There better be a pond there. We are going to be very upset if there isn’t.

Robert Rook stated the water will still follow the same flow as previously.

Ellie Stein – Stated that she just wanted to continue on with my concerns about the first Variances. I am interested that the Town Attorney invited you to respond. You have gone outside of the subdivision regulations for a certain number of approvals. Have spoken with a Land Use Attorney. Talked with him specifically about the Variance Section. I told him I think the Board is going to vote on a number of Variances. We are talking about over 4,000 feet. He said maybe 630 feet would be a waiver, possibly 700 feet. He said if your Board votes tonight to grant a waiver, this is a “slam dunk” vote. I just want the Town Attorney to know this. Would like the Town Attorney to just give us his perspective. We don’t think it is right, and it is going to go where it is going to go. I can’t think that you can say this is all right. Call me crazy if you want.

At this point in the public hearing, the public hearing was closed.

Board Deliberations:

James Marcou, Chairman, stated this subdivision application has been reviewed by Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission. And diligently reviewed by the Town Engineer. Various changes have been made to the road paths. This subdivision is definitely consistent with the Dunbarton Planning Board practices. They have done a good job.

MOTION:

Brian Nordle made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board approve the proposed merger, lot-line adjustment, and subdivision of Michel Belanger, Owner, and Rocko Dipietro, purchase and sale contract holder, of Tax Lot No. G2-5-7, G3-1-5; and Dipietro Homes, Inc., Owner, Tax Lot G2-5-15; consisting of a 25 lot subdivision on 107 acres, including approximately 6,600 feet of new town roadway. Located on Mansion Road and Stark Lane in the Medium Density (three acre) District; to be known as “Stinson Heights”.

Subject to the following conditions:

1. Submittal of a final, technically accurate and graphically correct plan-set representing presentations to the Board, 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: NHDES Wetlands, NHDES Subdivision approval, and NSDES 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 amount of $1,060,000, plus a 10% escalation factor, for a total combined requirement of $1,166,000, for the construction of roadways (and related improvements), for the entire project. Or: at the option of the applicant, post separate and successive sureties representing distinct road construction and building-lot phases, in an aggregate total amount of $1,200,000, after consultation and approval by the Planning Board as to the identified value of each phase. All schedules of value and inspection schedules are to be approved by the Town Engineer.

Or:

5. The signing of an agreement with the Dunbarton Board of Selectmen providing for the formal acceptance of the roadway system prior to the sale of any lots, issuance of any building permits, or issuance of any certificates of occupancy within the described subdivision; and the posting of a $10,000 renovation/reclamation bond to account for any unmitigated site damage. (see copy of agreement as presented.)

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.

Michael Poirier seconded the motion.

Planning Board Members Comments/Discussion:

Kenneth Swayze stated that the applicant has tried to do a good job. People move to this Town for the privacy this Town provides. I love privacy also. This subdivision provides privacy. This is the way some people want it. I agree with some of these people here about growth and impact, but that’s another issue. The developers had proposed another entrance, but that proposal was fought. Ken stated that there are already 24 dead-end roads in this Town right now. At the direction of the Planning Board, the developer was told to do better; the drainage engineering is “state-of-the-art”. According to these people, we can’t do anything right. The applicant’s surveyor and engineer have done a good job. People will sue because we approve this?

David Breault – Stated this is not what he would like to see. Feels the 3 acre zone is bogus. I would like to see it be 10 – 20 acres. This kind of subdivision is a tax bomb, and we should be talking about a Capital Improvements Plan. As a Planning Board, the length of the road is concerning, but we talked about it. We have more space per lots. I think this is extreme. I do like dead ends and culdasacs and know there are others. We just have to place ourselves in their shoes. I don’t know how we can get developers to come in with Cluster Development, but we should be encouraging it. I just wish I could vote on this project.

Michael Poirier – Stated it would have been nice if they had done a Cluster Development, but it doesn’t work for this particular piece of land. There would have been less road to maintain, but there would have been slightly longer driveways. Don’t see a Cluster working on this piece of land. The developers have worked hard to do a good job. This is a good plan overall.

Alison Vallieres – Stated the comments Margaret Watkins made about the member of the Planning Board who also serves on the Zoning Board were directed at her. She stated that the Golf Course is a Senior Housing Project of 88 units, clubhouse, and golf course and also includes members of the public, etc. and this is larger and much different that a 25 single family residential development as far as she was concerned. The Town already has many residential developments with dead end roads including Flintlock Farms and Old Fort Estates. Previously the Planning Board requested a through road for the Stillwater Property where it was possible to make the connection, and the Town was sued for requiring a through road. The people of this Town did not want a through road. This Planning Board does a good job, despite what you people think.

James Marcou – Stated this area is modified zoning, it was originally five acres, but voted by the Town to be three acre zoning. Maybe it could be a different layout for the piece of land. Possibly could have been a cluster, but it wasn’t. We are in the process of working on the new Master Plan and Site Plan Review process. I am hoping we could really put an emphasis on subdivision. Hoping everyone gets involved in the process. If we hadn’t done what we did in 1990, we wouldn’t even be at this point. The applicants have presented a good plan and done a good job.

George Holt – I know you say I am a harsh critic. There is nothing personal in it (directing comment to Jacques Belanger). This is how my opinion is on this. I am going to be critical of this subdivision and the main concern is the impact to the abutting landowners at the entranceway. Really concerned that the agreement was forced on the White’s because they felt their comments were falling on deaf ears. I also have concern on the mitigation and runoff which should be kept on site. The White’s have had 25 feet of their property taken away from them to plant trees. They should not lose any. The impact should be on the owner’s property and not the abutters. The Planning Board really dropped the ball and put the White’s in a position they were stuck with so they took the “gold ring” that was available to them so I am opposed to this subdivision.

Brian Nordle – Stated I am the newest member on the Planning Board, but I sit in on Planning Boards all the time because of my job.. No one has mentioned there is a hammer head at the end of the property line which someday would be a thru-way. Just because this or that, just because we have done this in the past is not the Board’s criteria. This is a medium density district, three acres, and not all the houses will be on one road. The road splits and homes will be on the other roads. One road is the main artery. The main road is a good State Road and hopefully someday the road will be even upgraded. We have heard requests for sidewalks, etc. Don’t you want them in the Village District? A CIP is imminent. Need to get this in place soon. You are going to be sued anyway by these folks no matter what the Board does. Regarding the length of roads; looked at stats, and pedestrian accidents occur very seldom on dead end roads. With regard to emergency vehicles, they will get through. Our Departments are “awesome”. Everybody thinks I am pro-development. I am not. I am pro good planning. Phasing is a requirement also. We don’t have a growth management plan; but this subdivision does.. We talk about open land. The Town has one ball field for 2500 residents. We should apply impact fees to expand our ball field. With regard to the length of road and the waiver, I looked into the safety issues. There is no limiting criteria. I believe this will be a through road sooner than you think. With regard to the White’s situation, I bought land around me to keep people away but everyone is offended because growth is coming to this Town. Even if things can be changed next month, it will still happen. I am voting for this. I appreciate the fact that it is being growth phased. The SPNHF are nice neighbors. Let’s get a CIP in place so we can get impact fees and that we have a legal basis to pursue them. This is a good job.

The motion passed by a majority with the vote as follows:

James Marcou – Yes

Kenneth Swayze – Yes

Brian Nordle – Yes

Michael Poirier – Yes

Alison Vallieres – Yes

George Holt – No

Merton Mann – Abstained

NEW BUSINESS:

NONE

OTHER BUSINESS:

Chairman James Marcou announced that the Planning Board would be reviewing the Site Plan Review Regulations at their Wednesday, May 5, 2004 Workshop Meeting.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Alison R. Vallieres, Secretary