DUNBARTON PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OFFICES –
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 R. Vallieres, Secretary
Carter Higginbotham
Brian Nordle
Steve Kennedy, Selectman
Kenneth Swayze, Admin., Planning
and Zoning Department
Michael Poirier, Alternate
The
Chairman verified with the Secretary that the Public Meeting Notice had been
posted in three places throughout the Town in a timely fashion according to
State Law and published in the Concord Monitor for one day.
Approval
of Previous Meeting Minutes:
Brian
Nordle made a motion to amend the minutes of the previous meeting of
A
motion was made to approve the minutes of the
CONTINUED
PUBLIC HEARING – MARTHA HAMMOND (E3-1-2, 3 & 5) PROPOSED FIVE LOT
SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON MANSION ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN
Kenneth Swayze, Admin., Planning and Zoning
Department, presented the Planning Board with a Status Sheet regarding the
proposed Hammond Subdivision. (attached)
At this point in the Public Hearing Attorney Donald
Gartrell appeared before the Board on behalf of Martha Hammond. He stated he had reviewed Ms. Hammond’s
request and the minutes and would like to address several issues previously
discussed as follows:
1.
The proposed subdivision includes two common driveways, and the Board
had requested driveways for each lot.
2.
Suggestions that a parcel be deeded to the Town to augment the ROW of
Mansion Road.
Stated they feel there is a question of pre-emption
of State of
Attorney Gartrell read a Memorandum of Law regarding
the Town requesting the applicant signing a Warranty Deed, and the Town’s
requirements for driveways. etc.
(attached)
James Marcou – Stated that it has been the Board’s
policy along with the Selectmen to provide for future improvements of the
road. For over 20 years, it has been a
very treacherous area. The frontage
would not be affected by an easement. We
are concerned that the State may give the road to the Town of
Kenneth Swayze – The Board was looking at a voluntary
cooperative effort. We have actually
gotten a letter from the State complimenting us on a parcel just down the
road. Regarding the driveway issues, I
thought we were pretty well settled on that.
Members of the Board on the 12/20 site walk were most likely leaning
towards acceptance of three driveways with slightly modified locations.
James Marcou – Stated the Board looked at the
driveways, and the Town and the Planning Board have been cautious not to
promote joint driveways. The State
didn’t want to issue separate driveway permits but thought they might be
challenged. We felt it was in the best
interest of the Town of Dunbarton to try to get separate driveways.
Kenneth Swayze stated that D. Mullen has widened the
driveways and addressed the potential need to improve the corner during the
12/20 site walk.
Steve Kennedy stated that the Planning Board has not
been an adversary Board and have tried to exercise prudent judgment and tried
to have equal access by all five lots.
The suggestion was to examine land with the only thought was to improve
access to these lots. I think the Board
has not been an adversary Board to this project. The real issue has been to try to improve the
value of these five lots.
James Marcou stated that when they left the Site
Walk, he thought we were on good ground and hopeful we had already worked out
something. We didn’t know there was a
gray area. We are trying to protect the
Town of Dunbarton. There is a 50’ deep
crevice.
Attorney Gartrell stated he respected the way the
Board has tried to address this. We have
gotten a better situation because of the widening of the driveways. Legally there is a problem that if an
easement or deed is created to the Town, you are creating an island of
land which has no public use. Frankly, we are somewhat concerned it will be
an economic problem to the Town of Dunbarton.
Pointed out that while you may not agree with the State policy, the land
should be conveyed to the State and not the Town of Dunbarton.
James Marcou – Stated we have already been commended
by the State. All we want to do is be able to have someone
fix the road in the future. That was our
method and certainly was no intent to deprive Ms. Hammond of a piece of
property.
Attorney Gartrell asked if an alternative could be
to show on this plan an area reserved
for future widening of the highway and it would be recorded with the plan,
etc.
Kenneth Swayze – State at least we may now be going
in a positive direction, but with this “memorandum” and associated claims, the
Board needs to review this on our own.
We need to review this matter with Town Counsel since we specifically
referred this matter to them before.
James Marcou stated this is a simple non-issue. We are just looking to establish a construction
area. It would have been nice to have it
for everyone’s benefit.
Attorney Gartrell stated that the Board could vote
this evening on the condition that the plan be altered to include the area for
possible construction in the future, etc.
Dan Mullen – Explained the revised plan showing the
widening of the two common driveways. He
stated they did get the State to amend the permit and move the driveway
down. Stated they received a form to
fill out for a Warranty Deed. The note
stated that when the deed gets signed, you are all set. This is why we are here now. Would like to get a conditional approval
now. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of
other issues. You could consider this a
condition of the subdivision.
Kenneth Swayze – Asked about the ponded area near
one of the test pits.
Mullen stated it could have been just seasonal high
water. Will have to revisit the test pit
and re-design as needed.
James Marcou asked if they have the driveway permits
in hand. Covering letter states there is
an amended submitted. (K. Swayze indicated a new permit was received
1/5/04.)
George Holt – Stated he had asked sever times that
they consider speaking with the abutter re changes in the lot configuration
about how better to utilize the property.
There were questions about the “wrap-around” at P. Senter’s lot,
Tarsa’s, etc.
M. Hammond stated she had conversations with Peggy
Senter but not the Tarsa’s. Stated her
inclination was to go ahead with it as is because it would require much more
work in the way of surveying. The doors
are still open and we could pursue it at a later date.
Attorney Gartrell stated that one of the problems
was that if the Warranty Deed were written to the Town for road improvements,
the lot would not have frontage on Mansion Road.
The Board noted that the wording of the deed would
not be to deprive the landowner of frontage and with regard to the deed, the
Board has always understood this to be a joint-jurisdiction road, who the deed
goes to is not the matter. .
Steve Kennedy stated that he is making an assumption
that the State is the most honorable to deal with. We were trying to make it clear to the State
that we bear some responsibility for subdivisions on this road, and to make the
lots more safe.
James Marcou stated we need to find some middle
ground and will take your suggestion under advisement. Our Town Counsel is the one who advised us to
get a Warranty Deed.
Michael Poirier stated we were not trying to take
her frontage.
Abutters were read as follows and noted all had been
notified by certified mail:
At this point in the public hearing, Peggy Senter
asked Dan Mullen to point out the driveway entrances. She stated the shared driveway goes really
close to her lot line. Looks like
30’. This really changes the value of my
property.
Dan Mullen stated that the driveway is greater than
100 feet from her house. It is 50’ away
from her property line.
George Holt noted it went right to the rear property
line (not 50’).
Peggy Senter asked how would she know about the
headlight shinning issue at this time.
D. Mullen explained nothing would be directly behind
her building. The proposed driveway runs
with the contour lines of the property.
Mike Tarsa – Not Present
Margaret Senter – Present. Stated she hated to see wrap around driveway
but I see why you have to do it.
James Marcou noted that this is where the State
mandated to put the driveways.
Steven Labbe – Not Present
Kathleen/Arthur Lafrenieres – Not Present
Randy/Annie Bullis – Not Present
Perry Hunter Stone – Not Present
Randolph/Lisa Bauer – Not Present
Jon/Doraine Mooar – Not Present
Michael/Carolyn Kelsey – Not Present
Guy/Marie Sherman – Not Present
Town of Dunbarton – Selectman Steve Kennedy,
present: See comments above.
Daniel J. Mullen – Present. Representing the applicant.
There being no other public comment, the public
hearing was closed.
Board Discussion:
James Marcou stated he would like to see the
driveway easement into the property less than 50 feet wide. Would like to see it at 30 feet. Would like a consensus from the Board as to
whether the Board should act on the plan this evening.
Kenneth Swayze stated he believes the Board should
table the proposed subdivision until next meeting.
Michael Poirier – Would also like to see the
driveway easement brought down to 30 feet wide.
Feels we should table the request until another month to give us time to
work out the details.
James Marcou stated the Board needs to have
clarification and have the right wording before acting on the subdivison.
Alison Vallieres stated she would like to be able to
act on the proposed subdivision at the next meeting.
Carter Higginbotham – Stated we have tried to do
everything possible to assist the applicant in getting the plan approved but
need to work out details before making a decision.
Steve Kennedy – Stated there was a near fatality at
that corner last year. We need to take a
good look at this whole thing.
Brian Nordle – Asked if the orange area was the area
needed for road improvements? D. Mullen
stated yes.
There is a major culvert right there. Don’t know how much land they will need if
they redo the culvert, etc. Possibly 25
feet wide.
Attorney Gartrell stated they were objecting to a
deed to the Town of Dunbarton. If we
were to note that area was reserved for future improvements, the problem would
be eliminated.
James Marcou stated the area was yet to be
determined. How do we get the end
result? There is a lot of activity on
Mansion Road and there is another subdivision down the road. They will have to move on doing something
down there. Just trying to “set the
table” so there is no problem in the future.
Attorney Gartrell stated the applicant is concerned
that is going to open up issues that the landowner will have to deal with. The landowner has rights based on specific
rights and of having to give them a blank check as to what they might want to
do someday. Would like to say we ought
to try to resolve this by the next meeting.
Don’t want to suggest that we want to give an easement unless it goes to
the State of New Hampshire. The Town
doesn’t get to do anything with it. The
idea of putting a line on a plan that says reserved for future road
improvements, we might agree to. That
way it would always be set aside for highway purposes.
Michael Poirier – Stated that we are asking for so
little, if the State were to come in, they could take anything they want.
James Marcou stated they will run this through Town
Counsel.
The Board reached a consensus that they should wait until next meeting in March to vote until they have the opportunity to review with Town Counsel. The Hammond Subdivision was tabled until the March Meeting.
The applicant agreed with the Board that they would
need an extension. The Planning Board
will request a 90 day extension from the Selectmen.
SITE PLAN REVIEW AND SUBDIVISION:
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – 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 OF FIVE
BUILDINGS WITGH 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.
Kenneth Swayze presented a Status Sheet regarding the REDML, LLC proposal. (attached)
Eric Mitchell appeared before the Board on behalf of REDML, LLC. He stated that at the last meeting they had discussed a conceptual plan only. Attorney Patrick McNicholas also appeared on behalf of the applicants.
Eric Mitchell supplied the Board members with a small plan showing the proposed development. (attached)
He noted that the purpose of the new plan was to consolidate both lots, (#15 which used to be the duplex, 5 acres and #11 which is 52 acres for a total of 57 acres). Once the ROW area is taken out, there is 54 acres remaining which allows for 19 units. By recalculating and including the five acres from the duplex lot, it allows us to have three more units than previously. The duplex that is existing will be taken down and all the land around the duplex will be added to the total.
We have provided for 2 ½ paved parking spaces for each unit. There is a graveled area for overflow parking for RV’s, storage of boats and others. The layout of the property is different than on the prior plans. We have opened up the layout of the units so the units will have better views and will not be within the circled culdasac.
Eric Mitchell stated they had received a letter from Don Mayo and are in concurrence and agree to make Don Mayo’s changes. They will be done by this Friday. The outlets to culverts will be changed according to Don Mayo’s comments.
Eric Mitchell stated that because of the changes they do not need a retaining wall. Will get plans back to Don Mayo after hearing comments from the Board this evening.
The Board asked again about parking. Eric Mitchell stated each unit has 2 ½ parking spaces not including the overflow. The area designated for overflow is a gravel parking lot 80’ x 60’ for storage of boats, RV’s. Will be governed by the Association as to what can be left there. Not meant strictly for overflow parking, it is for overflow storage of vehicles also.
George Holt – Stated that a Community Water System will be required if you have more than 25 people per well.
Eric Mitchell stated there will be no Community Water System because of this. There will be three wells.
George Holt – Stated the Board will require a letter from the State re the Community Water System.
James Marcou – Noted that both the Fire Chief and Police Chief should submit comments.
Eric Mitchell stated they had tried to address the Police Chief’s previous comments. There may be concerns from the Fire Department because of additional units. The diameter of the culdasac was increased and no parking is permitted along the culdasac.
James Marcou requested they get a set of plans to the Fire Chief and other departments for comments.
Brian Nordle – Who will maintain the brush at the entrance area?
Eric Mitchell stated this would be no different than what the Town does in other places throughout Town.
There will be no project signs. Lighting will be in the parking lots themselves.
Attorney McNicholas stated that this is to be an over 55 housing project. Houses for older persons. This is definitely the intent of the project.
The Board noted they need to get legal bylaws and association regulations for Town Counsel review.
The Town will have an annual census to determine ages of residents in project.
Eric Mitchell stated that Site Specific is pending. Will submit amended permits back to the State. They will be treating it as an amendment.
The Board noted that Don Mayo is anticipating ledge in the entrance and halfway up the hill. Eric Mitchell stated he was aware of this.
James Marcou asked how the bonding will proceed on this. The road needs to be built first. Bond will have to be worked out prior to final meeting. In addition, new plans will have to be in the Town Offices 15 days prior to the next meeting for review.
Attorney McNicholas stated he will provide legal documents to the Town immediately.
James Marcou asked if there was need for another Site Walk.
George Holt stated that he had been unable to attend the first Site Walk and would like to do it.
James Marcou stated the rest of the Board is welcomed to go on another Site Walk.
Eric Mitchell was asked if the center of the new roadway alignment was flagged. Stated he did not know but would try to have it done prior to Site Walk, etc.
Abutters were read as follows and noted that all had been notified by certified mail:
Josephine Dailey – Not Present
Paul Belyear – Not Present
David/Justyn Constant – Present. Asked if they could explain how that road goes in.
(Eric Mitchell explained on the plan how the road was proposed.)
D. Constant stated this is going to be an elder complex for 55 and older. That does not mean they cannot have kids, so that means there will be kids. There will be 2 ½ parking spots for every unit on a road that is very shallow, very dangerous road. The line of sight “sucks” on the whole road. The shoulders are not very wide. An increase on this kind of road is not acceptable and doesn’t fit in with this area. Are you approving the increase of inherent risk on this road? What happens if my wife gets hit by a car on that road? That is a question to the Board!
James Marcou stated that if you approve one house on that road and they drive dangerously, it is the same thing.
Mr. Constant asked again if the Board was approving the inherent risk on that road. I am looking for an answer!
James Marcou stated how do you determine how much risk do you have to increase before, etc….. Who is accountable for it? I would like to say the person who created the accident would be responsible for the accident.
D. Constant stated that one house is different than 19, so when you increase the risk to my family, I am therefore going to hold you guys responsible!
Carter Higginbotham stated that on the average from what I hear, 60,000 people are moving to New Hampshire each year. We can’t stop growth. On many of the roads in New Hampshire, there is certainly an increase. One out of ten people are impaired. The dangers on the roads are inherent. The risk is increasing just by the fact you have growth.
D. Constant – 55 is a family today. Kids are going to be in these condos. This is going to increase our taxes. We are taking over a road that is relatively large. How do we handle this? Do we just approve this? You try hard but there has got to be some way to slow it down.
James Marcou – Stated the Board was in the process of developing new rules and regulations, etc.
D. Constant – Are there any studies done showing we can handle this amount of houses in this Town? Can we handle the taxes? We will end up like Bow. Mr. Vallauri has a concern about water. What about sewage?
Rudolf/Elizabeth Vallauri – Not Present
Daniel/Kathleen Labonville – Present. You say there are going to be three wells. There are only two shown on the plan. (Eric Mitchell pointed out where the third well would be located.)
Eric Mitchell stated the units would be two bedroom units and they will require less water than three or four bedroom homes.
Robert/Denise Perry II – Present. (Applicants)
Nathan J. Narus – Not Present
Richard/Catherine Racca – Not Present
David/Beth Sedita – Present. Stated this was the first meeting he has come to. Tried to find out where my land is on the plan. (Eric Mitchell located the land and pointed it out to Sedita.)
David Wheeler – Not Present
David/Theresa Glannon – Not Present
Michael Petito – Not Present
Steven/Karen Elsasser – Present. Stated he agrees with everything the others have said except that there are no shoulders on this road. I have been there for three years. There will be 40+ more cars on the road.
Town of Bow – Not Present
Eric Mitchell & Associates – Representing the applicants.
Schauer Environmental Consultants – Not Present
Charles E. Cote – Not Present
Other Members of the Public:
David Labonville – Stated he went on the site. I would encourage you to do it this time of year. There will be between 150-170 car trips per day on this road. The trees will be pretty much cut out and ask yourselves if you would want it behind your house before voting on this.
James Marcou – Asked about the earthen berm and how it would protect Labonville, etc.
Labonville stated it will not do much for headlights coming up the hill.
Jennifer Allen – Stated you say this is over 55, but they can have kids.
Attorney McNicholas stated they cannot absolutely prohibit against children. There are now more than 100 over-55 housing projects in the State, all over the State, because it is the fastest area of growth in the population. The vast majority have no children. Federal and State laws require that you cannot restrict more than 80%. There must be at least 80% of the residents over 55 years of age. As many as three units could have non-qualifying occupants. One of the occupants doesn’t have to be over 55 years of age in the non-qualifying, etc. We can’t say there will be no children. Not going to encourage people with children to live there. These will be two bedroom units with four occupant limits. Would be less than if we developed as single family lots. Nine lots with 2.3 children per house.
J. Allen asked who will be maintaining the driveway.
Answer: The Town of Dunbarton.
Margaret Watkins – Stated that we hear these concerns at every meeting. Is the Planning Board looking at Growth Management?
It was stated that this would be part of the Master Plan process. Once the new Master Plan is in place, then the Capital Improvements Program is completed. Once the Town has the Capital Improvements Program, then the Town may want to charge impact fees, etc. to developers. You can also seek growth ordinances if the findings show there is a critical area. It is by design that you have to show how you will remove the growth ordinance once the Master Plan and CIP are in place. You need a separate committee but you have to have a final Master Plan and CIP in place.
D. Labonville – Asked if they did a risk assessment on that road and what its impact is?
The Board stated that Ron Slocum would put Mr. Labonville on a Committee to get involved with the Master Plan issues, etc.
D. Labonville stated the State was doing a traffic count of the area. Where are these?
K. Swayze stated he could get the traffic counts from the CNHRPC for him.
Brian Pike stated that Rudy Vallauri has a big concern about water. There will be three wells in the project. Noted the Town will be taking this road over also.
Eric Mitchell explained that the wells will have 125’ minimum well radius. There will be a separation of about 250’ between them.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - MICHEL
BELANGER/DIPIETRO HOMES (G3-5-1 AND G2-7-5) PROPOSED 26 LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED
ON MANSION ROAD IN THE MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
Kenneth Swayze presented a Status Report (attached) on the Michel Belanger/Dipietro Homes Proposed Subdivision along with a copy of the letter from Central Regional Planning Commission regarding the subdivision. (attached)
Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, appeared before the Board on behalf of the applicants. Attorney Howard Dunn was also present.
Jacques Belanger stated that were no significant issues raised by the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission.
J. Belanger stated they have met with the White’s and the Wetlands Board. They are working on a deal with the White’s, and we are waiting for The Wetland’s Board concerns re the Wetlands impact. We are taking out the “basin”. It was originally there for mitigation purposes and Bob Rook is designing a new basin. Will be crossing a much smaller area in the redesign. Will be slightly relocating the road. Will be reducing the impact on wetlands. Are proposing culverts crossing in this location.
Attorney Howard Dunn stated there were a couple of questions we had on the Central Regional letter:
1. Concern re slope easements. Do we deed the slope easements to the Town or the Owners?
K. Swayze stated they could put a footnote on the plan re deeded slope easements, and they would be in favor of the Town .
2. Will be realigning the road to avoid wetlands. The regulations say that an access road can be no longer than 600 feet. The Selectmen have made a ruling that only roads over 600 feet be allowed. This is a direct conflict.
3. J. Belanger stated that Ed Klement’s question re the bounds had been resolved.
James Marcou asked if Don Mayo has a revised set of plan. J. Belanger noted that Robert Rook is presently doing a realignment of the road. Will be finalized within the next couple of weeks.
Brian Nordle commented that regarding the Recreational Use of the land, in the future they should be looked at as usable land for a recreation field, ball field, etc. Everyone takes the worst land and dumps it off to the Town. At some point, rather than accept something you are never going to use, we ought to keep it on the tax base and level out a ball field somewhere else. There are no community facilities. This is just a suggestion for the future.
George Holt stated that he wanted to be sure they addressed the impact to the Whites.
Abutters were read as follows and noted all had been notified by certified mail:
William Baril – Present. Stated he wasn’t here for the last hearing. Are the culvert pipes going to be changed at Stark Lane?
Answer – No.
Dennis Forcier – Not Present
Scott/Deborah Aubrey – Not Present
Roger/Pamela Bergeron – Not Present
Sylvia Bowman – Not Present
Robert/Janice Boynton – Not Present
James/Sandra White – Present. Stated they were asked to engage in a discussion with the applicants and also to give permission to add certain features of our property on the map. Peter Schauer has mapped the wetlands as requested. Have had several conversations with the applicants both on the phone and in person. We are in the process of working towards an agreement. Believe we have a basis for an agreement. May engage a Landscape Architect to design a buffer between the properties and driveway redesign. We will continue to work with the applicant.
Louis/Debra Ann Marcou – Not Present
Ellie Stein – Not Present
Barbara/Paul Kilmister/Roger/Mary Gourley – Not Present.
David/Jennifer Allen – Present. Concerned about the additional number of cars this will generate. Even without this, the numbers of cars coming off Barnard Hill has increased. What about the Fire Department and Police Department impact? I know they are working on the Master Plan.
Dunbarton Town Forest – Not Present
SPNHF – Not Present
Orvis/Doris Cunningham Trust – Not Present
Edward/Vicki Klements – Present. Stated he has resolved any questions regarding the lot line with Jacques Belanger. No other comments.
Robert Rook, Consulting Engineer – Not Present
J. E. Belanger Surveying – Present. (Representing the applicant).
Other Members of the Public:
Margaret Watkins – When this project was presented previously, there was talk about a trail system. I take it that this is off the table at this point.
J. Belanger stated they would look at that. There are liability issues on having people on private property.
M. Watkins – Stated a trail system would be much better than a piece of water property because no one is going to go there and it does nothing for Dunbarton. Am still concerned about the drainage. Don’t understand the drainage. At one point, it was necessary to have three ponds, now we are down to two ponds and possibly a smaller area. We don’t want to be sold a bill of goods.
Board noted they will get feedback from Robert Rook, the engineer.
J. Belanger stated the larger pond was more for mitigation area. Looks like they are doing away with that one. Rook will be at the next meeting. Will have more information next month.
At this point in the public hearing, Jacques Belanger requested an Extension of 90 days for the Michel Belanger/Dipietro Proposed Subdivison. (attached)
There being no other comments from the public, the public hearing was closed.
OTHER BUSINESS:
MASTER
PLAN
1. Master Plan Update – Ron Slocum and Brian Nordle stated that the Master Plan Public Visioning Session held on January 31, 2004 was very successful. There were over 50 residents participating.
Sub-committees are starting to meet. The Transportation Committee has already had several meetings, and the Land Use Committee has had one meeting. The next scheduled Land Use Committee meeting will be held on April 16, 2004.
The next Steering Committee Meeting will be held on March 1, 2004.
MICHAEL
POIRIER
Asked what regulatory power does the Planning Board really have? Do we have the power to just “kill” a subdivision, even when it meets the regulations? Expressed concerns about the public and their expectations, and the Board’s job to be fair.
Asked what power does the Planning Board have. Do we have the power to “kill” a subdivision? Expressed concerns about the public and their expectations.
K. Swayze stated that he had included a copy of the law relating to Obligation of the Planning Board to Work with Applicants. (attached)
JACQUES
BELANGER – INFORMAL
Requested advice from the Planning Board as to what a reasonable number of lots would be for the Louis/Anna Chan lot which is off Gile Hill Road. The Board made no recommendations at this time. Gile Hill Road is a Scenic Road and very steep.
PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO SUB-DIVISION REGULATIONS:
James Marcou, Chairman, stated there were certain changes he felt were necessary within the Subdivision Regulations as follows:
1. No subdivison road will align directly on a home driveway.
2. All driveways will be shown on the plan and location be approved.
3. Show new culdasac info.
4. Where applicable, deeded right of ways to be provided to connect open spaces and recreation land.
5. Change SEC IX C-5 to 2’ x 1’ pavement
6. See IX C-F re sidewalks?
7. Clearly list fire suppression types allowed
8. Bonding – One type or two?
9. Add “Permit to begin road construction” requirement
10. Change VF dead end streets shall not exceed 600 feet, should be no less than
Change VI length of blocks?
11. Plan must include “sight distance plan”
12. No shared driveways
13. A written “Authorization for Construction” form will be required by the Planning Board or its agent prior to any construction of roadways or site work on any new subdivisions. An on site pre-construction meeting will be required at the time of receipt of this form.
There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alison R. Vallieres, Secretary