DUNBARTON PLANNING BOARD

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 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

Alison Vallieres, Secretary

Brian Nordle

Carter Higginbotham

Kenneth Swayze, Admin., Planning and Zoning Department

Steve Kennedy, Selectman

David Breault, Alternate

Michael Poirier, Alternate

Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, December 17, 2003:

A motion was made, seconded and passed unanimously to accept the meeting minutes of Wednesday, December 17, 2003 as written.

Workshop Minutes, Wednesday, January 7, 2004:

It was decided by the Board to approve the minutes of the previous Workshop Meeting of January 7, 2004 at the next meeting to be held on Monday, February 2, 2004.

The Chairman verified with the Secretary that the meeting notice had been posted in a timely fashion according to State Law in three public places throughout the Town and published in the Concord Monitor for one day.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

7:00 p.m. – MARTHA HAMMOND (E3-1-2, 3, & 5) PROPOSED FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON MANSION ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH

Kenneth Swayze, Administrator, Planning and Zoning Department, reported that Martha Hammond had called him that afternoon and asked that the agenda item be postponed until the next meeting. It was determined that an extension was not necessary because the “clock started” at the last meeting, December 17, 2003.

SITE PLAN REVIEW, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND SUBDIVISON:

REDML DEVELOPMENT, LLC (ROBERT AND DOROTHY PERRY) (D6-3-11) PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS CONSISTING OF FOUR BUILDINGS OF FOUR UNITS EACH FOR SENIOR HOUSING AT HIS PROPERTY LOCATED ON MORSE ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH

Kenneth Swayze, Admin., presented a Status Sheet of the Perry Proposal. (attached)

Eric Mitchell, of Eric C. Mitchell & Associates, Inc., appeared before the Board on behalf of his clients, Robert and Dorothy Perry (REDML Development, LLC). He stated there were no new plans available at this time but he did present a small scale plan showing a new layout of the proposed multi-family project (attached). He stated the new plans would be available by the first of next week.

The new plan consists of incorporating the adjacent 5.13 acre Perry lot with the Duplex on it, tearing down the existing Duplex and rerouting the entrance road, and instead of rebuilding the existing Duplex, building three additional units within the multi-family complex, making a total of 19 units with five buildings. Eric Mitchell stated this would do away with the problems of the road by the retention wall and other problems with the entrance. He stated the applicants had approached the abutter and tried to obtain slope easements but were unsuccessful. Therefore, they decided to move the entranceway above from the neighbor’s property. By tearing down the existing Duplex adds an additional five acres to the overall merged lot combination. This will allow them to build an additional 3 units than the original 16 requested.

Eric Mitchell stated they were trying to recoup the cost for the Duplex they are tearing down. Need 53 acres for the 16 units. Drainage will work and there is no impact to adjacent properties or runoff.

E. Mitchell stated they have provided for 2 ½ parking spaces per unit as was discussed at the last meeting. The orientation of the buildings have changed Three buildings are facing northeast and will have good views. Also have twisted the other units to increase the views.

Eric Mitchell stated there will be no development in the front of the lot. Will remove the septic system from the front. Improvements are not as close to the lot line as previously. Have moved the area for the overflow parking area. All in all, what we have done in the last month is working out the engineering concerns and drainage, etc. We have eliminated the retaining wall and made sure where the units are located is 95-98% complete. Will present them to your staff next week. I do know that we need an extension of time. Want to make sure notice is adequate also, because we are adding more units than the original plan noticed. Notice should be amended to clearly note the increase in units.

Eric Mitchell stated the duplex lot area will be merged into the common space. Will be part of condos project . Will be putting a covenant on it also to restrict future development.

It was noted that 19 unit owners could get together and change things. Attorney stated they will agree that that will not happen.

Kenneth Swayze stated that tonight’s meeting will be considered basically a Conceptual Discussion with no deliberation or agreement by the Board. They will have a minimum of two meetings left before a decision.

Eric Mitchell stated the entrance will be at the same location. In sacrificing the Duplex, we have actually added only one more unit. There will be one less house on the traveled way.

James Marcou asked if on the access to Morse Road, does this clean up the line of sight problem?

Eric Mitchell stated yes it did.

David Breault asked how far the road had been moved.

Eric Mitchell stated 40’-45’ in the former turn and at the mouth 10’ from where it was originally laid out.

Kenneth Swayze asked if the wells and septic system were the same as previously.

Eric Mitchell stated there will be three wells instead of two. Have to do the septic system over. Don’t believe there were actual designs for each bed. Septic was to be approved at the same time as State Subdivision approval.

George Holt stated it would be considered a “Community Water Supply”, especially with more units. Even though there are three separate wells, the State would consider this a Community Well because they are under the same ownership. There is one entity owning it. The Association is still responsible for the maintenance of the system. It allows them to drill a well for a set of buildings. Board noted they will need a letter from the State re the status of the proposed “community wells”.

David Breault asked if there was any way they could straighten out the road.

Eric Mitchell stated that because of steep grades and the fact they need to keep the grade no greater than 8%, the road could not be any straighter than presently is.

The Board stated they need to look at the plans and the applicants need to request an extension tonight.

For the record, the applicants requested an extension of 90 days.

The Board again noted this was a non-binding discussion this evening because this was an amended plan. It also noted no purpose would be served by forcing a new application.

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

Josephine Dailey – Not Present

Paul Belyea – Not Present

David Wheeler – Not Present

David/Justyn Constant – Not Present

Daniel/Kathleen Labonville – Present. Asked where all the drainage comes out?

Eric Mitchell stated the drainage would be separated into treatment swales and drainage off the road and at the bottom have a culvert and the rest will go to the other culvert. Being separated to different areas. If you straighten the road, you would increase the grade and we have to maintain the grade at 8%. We would shorten it up if we could but in order to maintain 8% grade it must stay where it is.

D. Labonville asked the Board how long they are going to let this go on?

James Marcou stated it appears that they are working in a timely fashion. It seems they are on a realistic track now, and I would say that this would be a legitimate extension.

Carter Higginbotham – Stated that if we did not grant an extension, there is nothing to prevent them from coming back in three months and start the whole process again.

Labonville – Stated that it appears they can’t meet the requirements.

Brian Nordle – Asked what the money balance for Don Mayo’s Engineering was.

Applicant will check on balance in escrow account and make sure it is sufficient.

Nathan Narus – Present. No comment.

Richard/Catherine Racca – Not Present

David/Theresa Glannon – Not Present

Steven/Karen Elsasser – Present. Stated he really didn’t have anything to say at this time.

Rudolf/Elizabeth Vallauri – Not Present

Robert/Denise Perry II – Present. (Applicant)

Michael Petito – Not Present

David/Beth Sedita – Not Present

Eric Mitchell and Associates – Present representing applicants

Schauer Environmental Consultants – Not Present

Charles E. Cote – Not Present

Michie Corporation – Not Present

REDML Development LLC – Present (Applicants)

The Board asked if Michie Corporation could be taken off the list to be notified. The applicant agreed they should be taken off the certified mail list.

The public hearing was closed.

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, Admin., Planning and Zoning Department, presented a status sheet on the Michel Belanger/Dipietro Homes Proposed Subdivision. (attached)

Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, presented a plan. He stated this was the same plan they presented at the November meeting. Several corrections have been made. Stated they will be combining three tracts into one for a total of 107 acres and then subdividing into 26 lots. One lot has an existing home on it (Marino Property). The main road into the subdivision is 4,400 feet long with culdesacs off from that.

Noted the drainage basins located on the plan. In addition, the location of the proposed cistern.

Noted that 6.5 acres will be dedicated to the Town. The existing home has a well and a septic system which was too close to delineated wetlands or the roadway so will be taken care of in a relocation.

Have reactivated all State Permits. Contacted all the agencies. Site Specific Plans have been submitted.

Kenneth Swayze asked how do you submit to Wetlands, etc. Need to keep the Planning Board in the loop somehow.

J. Belanger stated this was submitted to the Conservation Commission with maps, etc.

K. Swayze asked if the abutters had changed?

J. Belanger noted that James White had been added to the list of abutters.

J. Belanger stated that George Holt had brought his attention to lot areas and acreages. This has been corrected.

George Holt stated there was concerns about who owns the trailhead easement. Will it be included in the right of way?

J. Belanger stated they have talked to Dredge and Fill. Several abutters have shown concerns; Bowman and James White. Will be meeting with them next week to walk the site. Outstanding items will be State subdivision approval and State permits.

Have defined driveways for existing houses and no impact to wetlands,

J. Belanger noted they have got to do easements for the road. Ed Klement’s problems need to be followed up concerning variations in stone wall, etc.

J. Belanger stated that Peter Schauer, Schauer Environmental Consultants, was here to answer any questions about the wetlands.

Robert Rook’s assistant will answer general concerns about the engineering plans.

The Board noted the applicants need to talk to Mr. White. We need to see how his property looks on cross sections. Don Mayo wants a complete set of prints when they are changed.

Site Walk:

The Board noted that the following members went on the Site Walk:

James Marcou

Carter Higginbotham

Kenneth Swayze

David Breault

George Holt

George Holt reported that they walked through the site past the stream up to where the connection was with the former culdasac. Walked it after a fairly wet period of time. Easy to note where there were wetlands areas. Stream crossing itself. Applicant has amended it from four culverts to open bottom drainage system.

George reported that he feels the biggest issue is the impact to the White’s. This road is going to be in their face. I would be off the wall. We should consider that. If you had a road put in right next to your house, you would be upset. I think the White’s just bought into a built out area. There is no way they would even think that a road would be going by their house. They have no buffer and there will be 400 trips a day. I wouldn’t want to live here any more. I think that is a big issue. In the other application, it seems unlikely that they would have a concept that this would happen. This is a core issue. Is this inappropriate and a nuisance to these folks? Let’s not talk about engineering until we get this taken care of. Where the proposed road is right now there are no trees and no screening. There is 19’ between the right of way and their property line and another 13’ to the edge of pavement. There will be 25 lots not counting this one. They are already gaining two more lots.

George Holt stated he would like to poll the Board at this time to see what their thoughts were, etc.

J. Belanger stated the issue is sight distance. We have to meet the State requirements.

Carter Higginbotham – Stated he concurred with what George has said. We said we can have a natural berm, or build a berm between the line, etc. There will be 8-9 car trips per day per house. 200 car trips per day. This is not a little nuisance. This is a serious impact to the property.

David Breault stated he agreed with them both. This is more than an insignificant problem. Can’t even imagine saying yes to this subdivision. I am really concerned about safety. Not a good design.

Brian Nordle – No Comment

Steve Kennedy – Stated that when they first presented this, I asked about the Marino’s House. There is litigation pending and still in play about the previous subdivision. If the decision the Board will make would stand the test of court, the applicant has the right to develop his property if there is a legal basis for developing, etc.

David Breault – I don’t think we can go ahead and approve this subdivision.

It was noted there have been expenses in acquiring the property for this subdivision, etc.

David Breault – Stated they buy land to develop it. It doesn’t mean that they can just buy land and we have to approve it.

Kenneth Swayze – Stated he agreed with everyone and there are, in fact, rights and privileges to be enjoyed by both parties. The applicants and the White’s need to get together and determine what can be done. The applicants need to look at what the White’s are enduring. Would agree with George that this new property owner never had the vision. Applicants should get together and see what they can work out. That would be the predominant issue. The first 500 feet into the road and the area that affects the White’s is the most concern. The Board should encourage the applicants to work out a program with the White’s to understand their predicament and mitigate the physical presence of the new road.. Was any effort made to do that within the last 30 days?

J. Belanger stated it would have to be up to Dipietro Homes.

The Board asked again if any effort had been made to talk to Mr. White. The Board indicated they did not know how much further you can go. You should take the time to work out everyone’s concerns.

Carter Higginbotham – Stated he heard what K. Swayze is saying when he is asking that parties get together. I really have some strong feelings about this. We have a developer who comes in to make money and destroys the existing property. Dunbarton is about five acre zoning. If that lot was vacant a new homeowner would not come and put a home in that location.

George Holt stated that Ken Swayze’s idea is a good option and would like to try to work it out. At the least it would give the situation a chance. We should encourage them to get together to try to get the issues worked out. Should negotiate.

Brian Nordle – There are different ways to work this out, and it is well within the Board’s power to require adequate buffers. There will be big beautiful homes going to be there, and they are going to have the same amount of buffers and adversities impacting them

Brian also stated the Planning Board is well within their bounds to demand and require the proper buffer along that roadway. My personal preference would be for the Planning Board to require a certain buffer as has been done in the past. They are going to be putting in homes close, and they too will have cars going by. New homes will have the same amount of traffic. Before denying, the Planning Board could require a buffer between the roadway and the home. The applicant and the abutter need to get together.

Kenneth Swayze also stated that at a minimum, he believed a buffer is required.

George Holt – So they build an earthern dyke 12’ tall, etc. This might not appeal to the White’s. If we decide that they need to work this out, we should just vote next meeting. Could tear the house down and move the right of way 50’. This road, by moving it, will impact people on the other side of the house. Would like to have this cleared up. The Board needs to have a Straw Poll this evening.

James Marcou stated he would like to see if the Board would like to table this to see if the applicant and the White’s could work out something that is okay with the applicants and the abutter and if not, the Planning Board will work it out.

Kenneth Swayze stated that Don Mayo is aware of this problem. Would like to recommend that Don Mayo be involved in this process.

George Holt suggested that maybe Central Regional Planning Commission should be involved.

Straw Vote as follows:

Brian Nordle – Stated he was for implementing a buffer zone.

Kenneth Swayze – Stated he was for talking this out if they can.

David Breault – Asked if we were still going to move forward with this application?

Alison Vallieres – Stated she should like to see the applicants and the abutter try to work something out.

Carter Higginbotham – Stated he felt we would be putting the abutter under duress in asking him to come to a resolution. Not in favor of making them do that.

Michael Poirier – Stated we should allow them a chance to come to an agreement.

James Marcou stated the poll was accepted and the applicants and the abutter should try to work out something. Board will continue discussion.

At this point in the meeting, Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, stated they had brought Wetlands Experts to address the concerns of the Cook letter re the proposed subdivision. The two experts were Peter Schauer of Schauer Environmental Consultants, who did the Wetlands mapping and Jiri Hajek, Professional Site Design and Engineering.

James Marcou asked if the Board had received a copy of the letter from Mr. Cook. Kenneth Swayze stated he had seen it. Other members were not aware of its letter or contents.

Jiri Hajek – Stated he would address the issues raised by the Dunbarton Conservation Commission. (letter attached)

Jiri Hajek explained how the concept of the detention and retention ponds would work. Basically will remain the same as previously. The detention basin has been relocated to another spot.

Site Specific will review all our drainage. We cannot reduce the wetlands. There are drainage areas in small pieces all over the hill and by draining would maintain the problem. This is why we have two major detention areas. There are two culdesacs and detention areas are based on 25-50 storm events. Water will slow down and come into existing wetlands. Not trying to concentrate to a final point. Deal only with small portions. The rest of system is broken down into small pieces like the previous plan.

James Marcou asked if the detention ponds were mandated by the State. It was determined, yes they were to give the desired result.

Mr. Hajek stated the local area requires “zero” drainage impact at the property line. Do treatment in the grass and swales along the road, runoff steep grades with rip rap ditches and build detention basins. Will be a 24 hour sitting time. This becomes a large detention. When water comes in, it will take 24 hours to come out.

James Marcou stated that none of the Board members are familiar with what the Conservation Commission wants.

Mr. Hajek stated the Conservation Commission request would introduce additional cuts on slopes and they will have to put pipes in.

George Holt stated his concern was large maintenance issues and would end up being Town maintenance problems.

Mr. Hajek stated the overall area will be 18,000 – 25,000 square feet, but slopes are 4-1 and the bottom is ½% or less. Maintenance will be done only at the discharge point. Simple pipes now. There is lot of hydraulic design to minimize the impact to stream bed. Alteration of the stream is limited. Will be corrugated pipe between which will slow down the flow. Came to the conclusion that this is part of the natural bottom.

George Holt – How does that detention basin not fill in over time?

Mr. Hajek stated it was a growing wetland.

George Holt – Potentially this will fill up over time. Could have some sediment.

James Marcou – We cannot just have this stream come down and go out the other side.

Mr. Hajek stated this was a good location for a mitigation area and DES should do their job of proper review.

George Holt – Stated it is part of our (Conservation Commission’s) jurisdiction to review it. Would like to point out for the record that concerns the Conservation Commission has raised were not to make it a worse case scenario and channellingthe drainage off in small sections might avoid impact we are seeing here.

The Board noted they would defer to the experts, consultants and DES.

Carter Higginbotham – Stated when they talk about sediments, what about the contaminants, what happens long term? Is that looked at?

Kenneth Swayze indicated that properly designed drainage features do double treatment: detention/retention areas hold back water to allow precipitation of solids, and developed wetland plant species provide for a certain amount of biological treatment of contaminants.

Peter Schauer stated that Ken Swayze is correct that certain plant species in those basins do provide an environmental function. Maintenance is to be determined. It could be letting the plant life become established and take care of it. The Town has to recognize what is going on upstream. If there is a heavy runoff upstream, the Town should be aware.

George Holt raised the question of the drainages are being considered a dam.

At this point in the meeting, Mr. Hajek passed out a paper stating the definition of a dam according to State Regulations (attached). He stated this is not a dam as inferred in the letter.

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

William Baril – Not Present.

Dennis Forcier – Not Present.

Scott/Deborah Aubrey – Not Present

Roger/Pamela Bergeron – Present. No comment.

Sylvia Bowman – Not Present

Robert/Janice Boynton – Not Present

James/Sandra White – Present. First of all he wanted to express his appreciation to all who took the time to discuss the problems on the right of way with him. Stated he didn’t have any presentations and haven’t spent time one on one since last November. May be discussing things off line as well and appreciate the consideration the Board has shown this evening re the encroachment on my property. Have sent a letter to Jeff Blecharczyk, DBS Wetlands and ask that our property be included in the Site Walk and the work that is to be done. Hope to hear back shortly. Also would like to request the applicants to add sections of our property to plan. Would like to have wetlands and the location of our driveway, well and outbuildings and home put on the plan. We would give them access to my property to do this. The only request that I have is that the decision and the minutes reflect that it is clear what the start and stop dates are. What is the time frame for these decisions and resolutions?

Louis and Debra Ann Marcou – Not Present

Ellie Stein – Present. Read a statement regarding the proposed subdivision. (attached)

Barbara/Paul Kilmister – Not Present

David/Jennifer Allen – Present. I would concur with Ellie that we should submit this to Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission for review. I would hope that you would do this.

Edward/Vicki Klements – Present. As Jacques Belanger mentioned earlier, he and I agreed to get together to go over my bounds, etc. This is not the Board’s concern to get into a discussion. I have a question about the lot line. Can’t digest it at this meeting. When I compare all those numbers, there is a large discrepancy. Potentially we are talking about a large area of my lot. Jacques Belanger also confirms that he has a copy of the 1993 survey to see if we can resolve the source of the discrepancies.

J. Belanger stated unfortunately he had missed both meetings set up with Klements. He did have a copy of the old survey which was done by Richard Bartlett and Associates. He stated he was still open to meet with Klements.

SPNHF – Not Present

Schauer Environmental Consultants – Present

Dunbarton Town Forest – John Swindlehurst representing the Town Forest Committee was present. He stated the Town Forest Committee has nothing to do with subdivision. No comments.

Orvis and Doris Cunningham Trust – Not Present

Robert G. Rook, Consulting Engineer – Representative present, Jiri Hayek

J. E. Belanger Land Surveying – Present representing the applicants.

Other Members of the Public:

Ron Slocum stated that some of the comments were interesting. I agree with Ellie Stein. Everyone has the right to develop their land but that doesn’t mean that everyone has the right to subdivide it into many lots. Also just because they have already spent money, the Board has to hear their proposal. The applicant bought this property on their own so it is not the Town’s responsibility.

Donna Dunn – Stated she was in support of Ellie Stein. I don’t see why we don’t take advantage of New Hampshire Central Regional Planning Commission.

K. Swayze stated the subdivision proposal was on its way to them. (Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission)

Peggy Senter – Stated she was a resident of Mansion Road. Between the approved subdivisions already of Tucker Hill, the Marcou subdivision and the Hammond proposed subdivision, there is a potential of 51 new houses on Mansion Road. This road has been used for walking and bicycling. Where my driveway comes out I have seen serious bicyclers going 60 mph. This will change the character of this road with 400 car trips per day. With the short amount of time we have potentially, we should be sure to get a serious review by the Central Regional Planning Commission. This will greatly impact the Town and I agree with Ellie Stein.

Peggy Senter presented a letter from Katie McDonald and Rene Ouellet stating their opposition to the project. (attached)

Margaret Watkins – Read a statement to the Board with her concerns about the proposed subdivision. (attached)

Ron Slocum asked for clarification on the recommendations of the Board with regard to Mr. White and the applicants meeting. Was the basis of the motion that Mr. White and the applicants are to arrive at a decision within 30 days?

James Marcou stated that we are to first let them try to figure out a way to get everything they need. It would fall back into the hands of the Planning Board if they can’t work it out. He stated he felt that both will come out further ahead. This is an opportunity for them to get together.

Ron Slocum stated he was just thinking back to what Carter Higginbotham had said that Mr. White might think he has to agree, etc.

James Marcou stated again that the Board realizes this is a process that needs to occur and gives both Mr. White and the applicants an opportunity to work it out and the Planning Board to arbitrate if necessary, or require further design by the applicant. .

Peter Schauer stated that in all his 32 years of being a Wetlands Scientist, he had never been involved with an applicant having to map Wetlands on an abutter’s property.

Kenneth Swayze stated he felt it was a good idea to forward this entire proposed subdivision to the Central Regional Planning Commission for their review and comments.

George Holt – Stated that he didn’t feel we would get this far at this meeting. Concerns about the interior lot lines. Also 6 acre Conservation area really doesn’t serve any benefit around a wetland area. Talked about an access stipulation. Would highly recommend you put a 20 foot easement or right of way to the SPNHF property as a trail. Could be mitigated by changing the 20 foot side strip, and I feel it would be valuable to the property. Would be just an easement.

Kenneth Swayze – Asked if an easement would be agreeable or would it be outright deeded ownership to the Town? As long as the people buying into the subdivision were aware of this, it might work, as far as passing through someone’s back yard.

George Holt stated it would be nice if it were dedicated to the Town Forest.

Carter Higginbotham – When you are designing the trail, you have to determine if this is just a walking trail or will it include motorized equipment. Will it include mountain bikes or foot and walking trail only?

George Holt – Stated that our subdivision regulations state that each subdivision will set aside 5%. Instead of the 6 acres, this would be more useful. Very large public parcel owned by SPNHF bring over to the highway and gets you into it. This would be future planning.

Peter Schauer asked how much detail of White’s property does the Board want.

Board noted it would like to see the house, well and topography coming through those road stations parallel to the property. The cross sections show no ditch lines, etc. Need to see significant structures. Wetlands within 50-100 feet of the road. Because of the grading, show topography on White’s property.

Mr. White – The first thing I heard from DES and three Wetlands experts is that there can be no impact to the wetlands on our property and the only way I will know is that I need a baseline to go from. Need hydrology of the project. Have to establish a baseline, and they will certainly need to know.

The Board asked if a 100’ wide strip would be reasonable along the road side. Mr. White stated he needed to talk with DES.

Peter Schauer stated that they have all the information they need. DES has to make a determination. Never have gone on another person property in 30 years.

Attorney Howard Dunn – Let us talk with Mr. White. We are hopeful we can find a position between us that works for everyone. Let us try to work it out.

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

MASTER PLAN UPDATE:

Brian Nordle reported that the Master Plan Visioning Session is scheduled for Saturday, January 31, 2004 at the Dunbarton School from 8:30 am. To 12:00 noon. Hopefully, all members of the Planning Board can be there. The Pages Corner Convenience Store is providing refreshments.

DISCUSSION RE PROPOSED NEW ZONING ORDINANCE ARTICLES:

The Secretary noted a Final Public Hearing would be held Monday, February 2, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.

The following new ordinance provisions are up for public hearing and Board vote as to final draft language status and/or bringing proposals to Town vote:

1) Cell Tower Proposed Ordinance

2) Multi-Family Zoning Proposed Ordinance

3) Large Lot Zoning (with reduced frontage)

4) IRD (International Residential Code, 2003) adoption.

The Chairman directed the Secretary to make sure to incorporate changes deliberated by the Board at the January 7, 2004 Public Hearing, and provide full amended text for public review.

Changes from January 7, 2004 meeting:

a) Cell Tower Ordinance: 90 feet maximum height; check draft ordinance for inapplicable material, lines; fill in any “blanks”.

b) Multi-Family Zoning: Provision to allow for two family (duplex) connected structures to continue in all districts (excluding “tract” duplexes).

c) Large Lot Zoning: Minimum lot width (“pinch point”) not to be less than 75 feet.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Alison R. Vallieres

Secretary