DUNBARTON PLANNING BOARD
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 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
Kenneth Swayze, Admin., Planning
and Zoning
Michael Poirier, Alternate
David Nault, Alternate
Steve Kennedy, Selectmen’s
Representative
The
Chairman verified with the Secretary that the meeting notice had been posted in
three public places throughout the Town in a timely fashion according to State
Law and published in the Concord Monitor for one day.
APPROVAL
OF PREVIOUS MONTH’S MINUTES: Wednesday,
February 18, 2004
Brian
Nordle made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board accept the minutes of
the Wednesday, February 18, 2004 meeting as written. The motion was seconded and passed
unanimously.
7:00 P.M. – CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – 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, presented a Status Report on the Hammond proposed subdivision. (attached)
See outstanding items per letter from D. Mullen:
MOTION:
With
regard to the need for an additional test pit on Lot 2 (due to ponded water)
Kenneth Swayze made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board grant a waiver
to the test pit requirements on Lot #2 because of the exceptional large size of
the lots. Michael Poirier seconded the
motion. The motion passed unanimously.
With
regard to the Planning Board’s request for a fee interest or easement condition
along the frontage of Mansion Road, Attorney Gartrell indicated that they
preferred to offer a “reservation” so as not to encumber or transfer any
property.
George
Holt suggested there be an additional setback to make sure there are no
buildings within the area.
Attorney Gartrell stated that using the word easement is misleading. If you put a line on the plan stating subject to future highway improvements along with a setback, it would work. Stated he has done this in at least a dozen instances on State Highways where they have a proposed widening. This is restricted for future widening of the highway. Use of the word reservation is commonly used.
Kenneth
Swayze asked why he was reluctant to give an easement.
Attorney
Gartrell stated that at the time the Highway Department of the State determines
they need to do something at that spot, they have to come up with a specific
amount of work at the highway location that
everyone seems to believe they will need in the future. May not be the same land in the future. To have the landowner set aside certain
things precludes the issue because the landowner is entitled to compensation if
land is acquired. We ought not to be
forcing the landowner to be putting up
land without compensation.
Steve
Kennedy – Asked about the difference between restriction and reservation. Reservation does not have the “weight” that
restriction does. A restriction is a
hard and fast line. If you were challenged,
you would like to see the word reservation instead of restriction, right?
Michael
Poirier asked why there is such a problem with this. We have been treating all developments the
same. Why do you want to haggle with
this?
Attorney
Gartrell stated he came into this at the time when the Town wanted a Warranty
Deed to the Town for the land. We would
be deeding a piece of land that the Town can’t do anything with. In this situation, those in control (State)
have not indicated the need and the landowner has a piece of land they want to
develop. I think the public interest can
be protected and the private interest can also be protected by a “reservation”.
Michael
Poirier stated he still did not understand why this is a problem. He would give a 100’ easement if the Town
needed it on properties he owned, etc., and he has done just that to be
neighborly.
Attorney
Gartrell stated at this point, what is the Town going to do with it? Why should the landowner give the State an
easement?
James
Marcou stated the problem is the idea of the Town getting that sliver of land
forever and the State doesn’t want it.
Michael
Poirer stated he agreed with the no build zone.
Stated he does not want to put someone in harm’s way.
Attorney
Gartrell stated he had no problem with making a definite setback. We will have gotten the same effect.
Kenneth
Swayze stated the Board is trying to create something that the State could work
with. There is considerable ATV and
State Park traffic on that road. That
makes the road hazardous. Intent of this
Board is justified. I don’t see a
problem.
Steve
Kennedy stated there is a need to improve that road so we are trying.
John
Wiggin, Dunbarton Fire Chief – We should take the opportunity to fix a road
when we can and it definitely is in the best interest of the Town.
Dave
Breault – If it was a Dunbarton Road, it would be one thing, but this is a
State road.
Steve
Kennedy stated this becomes part of the aggregate. Definitely need to have the State
involved. I don’t know that a
restriction or easement is the way we should be going. We would be taking a “dart” and determine how
far is enough, etc.
James
Marcou stated if we can get this wording on the plan, the wording in the deed,
and a note regarding setbacks, we would be satisfied. The State is not willing to step in and
participate with us at this time.
Dan
Mullen stated the area to be set aside for road improvements was about 30 feet wide at the widest point of the
sliver moon.
Steve
Kennedy suggested that we need a minimum of 150 foot setback for the house,
etc. Stated he still would rather see a
restriction instead of a reservation.
James
Marcou stated the 150 foot setback would be from the right of way/property line
and should be out of any future construction area.
The
Board agreed to having a “no build” setback of 150 feet from the right of way
line.
Attorney Gartrell stated they would label the area on the plan for future highway construction. Building setback will be 150 feet from the present property line. This will be a “no build” area reserved for future highway construction. Will be a line parallel to the property line and put a restriction of no building and will be referenced in the deed.
After
discussion, Alison Vallieres suggested that Attorney Gartrell write the
stipulation that should appear on the plan as a note for Lot #5 regarding
providing for future highway construction and improvements.
Abutters
were read as follows and noted all had been notified by certified mail:
Mark
Tarsa- Present. Was surprised to see
that this proposed subdivision is still going on. I am glad to hear that you are working out
the logistics. I live at the outside of
the other curve. Once they cut trees,
the headlights will be coming right into my window. Trees may have to be cut down. Is there any protection that we could have up
on that corner? What about a “no cut”
zone in front of my house, etc.?
James
Marcou noted that when they asked about repositioning the driveway, there were
very few trees to be cut.
Tarsa
stated he would like a no cut zone 50 feet from the stone wall and 75 feet from
the boundary, etc. If those trees come
down, my house will have no protection.
J.
Hammond agreed to leave a 50 foot no cut zone and will work it out with Mark
Tarsa (to be put on plan).
Mark Tarsa accepted the 50 foot no cut zone
and stated he would like to support the Hammonds.
Margaret
Senter – Present. Stated that Mark Tarsa
had given her an idea. You did move the
driveway back from my property where it comes close to my house. How far will it be now?
D.
Mullen stated the driveway will be about 150 feet away from her lot.
M.
Senter stated she would like the same kind of “no cut” zone for her be the
driveway and my stone wall. It wouldn’t
have to be 75 feet, just like to leave the trees.
The
Board asked Martha Hammond what her thoughts were about this issue.
Martha
Hammond stated that she was inclined to think they could work this out on a
“good neighbor” basis (but not tonight).
.
Steven
Labbe – Not Present
Kathleen/Arthur
Lafreniere – Not Present
Randy/Annie
Bullis – Present. No comment.
Randolph/Lisa
Bauer – Not Present
Perry
Hunter Stone – Not Present
Michael/Carolyn
Kelsey – Not Present
John/Doraine
Mooar – Not Present
Guy/Marie
Sherman – Not Present
Town
of Dunbarton – Present. (Selectmen’s
representative)
Daniel
J. Mullen – Applicant’s surveyor and representative
At
this point in the meeting, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Board
Discussion:
Attorney
Gartrell presented a statement for the proposed wording in the future highway
construction area as follows:
Lot #5 – The area within 150 feet of the property
line along Mansion Road and parallel thereto shall be “reserved for future
highway construction” and restricted against construction of buildings or other
appurtenant structures.
The Board agreed with the above wording.
James Marcou, Chairman, noted the following members
would be voting on this issue this evening:
James
Marcou
George
Holt
Brian
Nordle
Kenneth
Swayze
Alison
Vallieres
Steve
Kennedy
Michael
Poirier
MOTION:
Kenneth Swayze made a motion that the Dunbarton
Planning Board approve the proposed subdivision of Martha R. Hammond of Tax
Lots E3-1-2, E3, 1-3, E3-1-5 consisting of a 5 (five) lot subdivision on 171
acres, located on Mansion Road in the Low Density (5 acres) District subject to
the following conditions:
1. Submittal of a final,
technically accurate and graphically correct plan-set in full compliance with
all current subdivision regulations 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 and Federal permits. 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. (There are to be no legal filing costs assessed for
the Board meetings of 9/17/03 and 11/19/03).
4. That all specified work and
improvements at the site, as specified by the Land Subdivison Regulations, be
completed prior to the signing and filing of the mylar (i.e. survey
monumentation and related); or a surety be posted in favor of the Town, in an
amount adequate to complete such work as required.
5. Note as follows be put on
the final plan and mylar regarding future highway construction:
Lot #5 – The area within 150 feet of the property
line along Mansion Road and parallel thereto shall be “Reserved for future
highway construction” and restricted against construction of buildings or other
appurtenant structures.
Steve Kennedy seconded the
motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
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 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.
Kenneth Swayze presented the Board with a Status Report. (attached)
Jon Wiggin, Fire Chief, stated that the buildings must be within a 50 foot setback from the parking/road area.
Attorney
McNicholos stated they have found out they can restrict 100% of the buildings
to over 55 years of age. This is a
fairly recent change in the law. All
residents must be over 55 years of age and 100% of the residents must be over
55. He will change the condominium
documents to reflect this change, and submit new material for review by Board
Attorney.
The Board noted they will need both the Fire Chief and the Police Chief to look at this and give the Board their responses in writing for the record.
Ken Swayze noted that the Board anticipates a final vote on this proposal at the next meeting if all items have been addressed and submitted, etc.
Eric Mitchell, Engineer representing the applicants – Stated that at the last meeting we had made changes according to Don Mayo’s previous letter and had his plans finished and completed. Received the second letter very recently. Don Mayo noted three items as follows:
1.
Recommended that catch basins be installed in
the Dorothy’s Way ditchlines left and right of the roadway at approximate Sta
1+50.
Eric Mitchell stated they had agreed to put these in.
2.
Verification that the existing Morse Road
culverts are adequate for the increased flow from Dorothy’s Way as requested in
our report of February 9, 2004.
Eric Mitchell stated there is no increase in runoff from our site. Today the culvert is able to handle the flow. Each of the culverts will pass the 50 year flood.
3. Provide addendum sheet to be inserted in the drainage summary indicating that the culverts are not included in the final roadway design.
Eric Mitchell stated he considered this to be very straight forward and has been addressed. The State permits are still pending. Pretty much done on our end.
Brian Nordle asked about the two culverts under Morse Road being able to handle a 100 year flood event.
Eric Mitchell stated he can’t verify which culvert
will pass the 100 year flood. One at
least will pass the 100 year flood.
Ken Swayze noted the base State requirement may
actually be for only a 25 or 50 year flood event.
James Marcou noted that the issue regarding fire
suppression will be handled by the Building Department.
Jon Wiggin, Fire Chief, stated they have to have a
Fire Department connection. This will be
handled between the Building Department and the Fire Department.
Dave Breault – Asked if we were going to have the
Fire Equipment to handle emergencies for this complex.
Jon Wiggin, Fire Chief – Stated yes, the Fire
Department can handle this.
George Holt – Asked about the letter from the State
regarding the Water Supply. Noted the
runoff is close to the well radius.
Eric Mitchell stated this is a treatment swale for
runoff. It is at least 100 feet
long.
George Holt stated this is probably not a good idea
to direct water toward the well radius, etc.
Eric Mitchell stated he will look at the plan to see
if we can move anything.
Michael Poirier – Asked if all three wells would be
grouted to prevent contamination. The
treatment swale drain off is headed for the well head. I am trying to protect the residents of the
units.
George Holt – Stated it is getting to be a standard
practice to grout wells.
Abutters were read as follows and noted that all
were notified by certified mail:
Josephine Dailey – Not Present
Paul Belyear – Not Present
David/Justyn Constant – Not Present
Rudolph/Elizabeth Vallauri – Not Present
Daniel/Kathleen Labonville – Present. Asked about the new over 55 arrangement. Does it require a Town Ordinance or can it
just be put into place.
Attorney McNicholos stated it does not require a
Town Ordinance. He stated the Town has
to be notified if the association tries to change the Ordinance. The Town does not need an Ordinance to
enforce the over 55 requirements.
Daniel Labonville asked if the sight line had been
met at the intersection.
Eric Mitchell stated the sight line has been met and
Don Mayo has confirmed this.
Robert and Denise Perry, II – Present. (applicants)
Nathan J. Narus – Not Present
Richard/Catherine Racca – Not Present
David/Beth Sedita – Present. No questions.
David Wheeler – Not Present
David/Theresa Glannon – Not Present
Michael Petito – Not Present
Steven/Karen Elsasser – Present. Karen Elsasser stated that she had been unable
to attend previous public hearings but her husband had. Stated she had three concerns as follows:
1.
In talking about the over 55 ordinance how does this work? Once a year people are going to submit a
letter? How is it going to be enforced?
J. Marcou stated that Trustees of the Association
will submit it to the Town as to the ages of people living there.
Attorney McNicholos – Stated it would be enforced
the same way the Town enforces any other building restrictions.
Michael Poirer – Stated this would be
self-enforcing. The people are not going
to want kids there.
Elsasser – We are just going to go over the people
who live there?
Brian Nordle stated the report will go to the Town
to be sure their report shows they would be at the % they are supposed to be at
and not any younger residents than 55.
K. Elsasser stated she would love to read the
restrictions. It would be an honor
system? There is no one that is going to
be assigned to enforce it?
Steve Kennedy stated the Attorney General’s Office
has a separate section for Condominium Law.
They would possibly handle any enforcement issues.
Attorney McNicholos stated, Yes, it is an Honor System and the
Association has to poll its members once a year. It is a 100% have to be 55 or older. This is self policing. It would be a death knell for the developer
to let in a 30 year old. If there is a
child residing there, it will cause a lot of problems. It is the same as any other violation. The Town has the right to enforce any
conditions put on. Can be a Cease and
Desist by Town Counsel, can be the Attorney General’s Office. We can’t sit here and say that the police
come in and haul someone away.
James Marcou – This is not rental units.
K. Elsasser asked if Dunbarton has anything like
this set up already?
Ken Swayze stated they have had some condo units but
nothing strictly 55 and over.
K. Elsasser stated this would create more work for
the Town.
James Marcou stated he did not believe there is a
great deal of work to the Town of Dunbarton.
2.
Concerned about the impact of cars going up and down Morse Road. There will be 38 extra cars on Morse
Road. 50% of the families have young
children. Kids are out there on the road
on bikes, etc.
James Marcou stated he thinks we have a
responsibility to the laws of the road.
We need a higher presence of the police there now, regardless of an
adult project.
K. Elsasser stated she was asking if there will be a
Policeman there because of higher traffic.
Board indicated if there is a problem with specific
issues, the local area residents would enforce itself, or insist on help.
K. Elsasser stated there will be higher traffic and
incidents. We will need the police a
little bit more than presently.
3.
Concern about drainage. Where
will the water be draining to?. Unfortunately, he was pointing right at my
house. He states culverts will possibly hold a 100 year flood. I am not comfortable with that.
James Marcou stated there will be no more water
runoff from the project than now. The
culverts are certified to handle the runoff.
K. Elsasser stated she was just concerned. We are on the other end of this culvert.
There are a lot of inequities. I was
kind of hoping to come here and hear a lot more positive things from the
Board. I am feeling a little
scared. I certainly hope the Board will
consider not letting this have an impact on our neighbors. I am hearing that you are not sure.
Brian Nordle stated that the three items in Don
Mayo’s letter will be addressed. Don
Mayo is our Town Engineer.
James Marcou stated the Engineers are to make sure
it doesn’t come to be a detriment to you.
It is only as good as the people who drive the road. The road can only handle good traffic, but we
can’t guarantee that.
Steve Kennedy – We have made a lot of changes and
have been coming here for a year. Design
conditions are much better than they were a year ago. They have made the changes suggested by the
public and the Board.
K. Elsasser – They are saying this would be a great
tax incentive for the Town but in regards to that, I don’t know that it
will because it will decrease taxes
because property values to the area will decrease because of it.
The Board noted that will be addressed in the whole
reassessment of the Town.
4.
Is the Fire Department able to handle the 19 units in the case of fire,
etc.?
Jon
Wiggin, Fire Chief – Stated this is one of the reasons they requested
sprinklers. They keep fires small. Many f new residences have them now. 50% of our calls are medical emergency
calls. Yes, we can handle them. Yesterday there were three calls at the same
time. The Fire Department can handle it. They have made the new road wide enough. The biggest thing we wanted was
sprinklers. They are an unbelievably good
system. I am more than confident we
are going to be able to handle this project.
K.Elsasser
– Stated she understands the Board is unbiased.
When reviewing the plans, certain members stated how nice they looked,
etc. I wonder if they would have the
same comments if this was across the street from their home with a young
family.
Michael
Poirier – Stated, yes he would.
Schauer
Environmental Consultants – Not Present.
(Representing the applicants)
Charles
Cote, PE Electrical – Not Present. (Representing
the applicants)
Eric
Mitchell and Associates – Present
(Representing the applicants)
Other Members of the Public:
Ron
Slocum – Asked about the 55 and older.
Interested because we have another application before the Zoning
Board.
Attorney
McNicholos – This is a condo project.
Like any condo, there will be by-laws.
Ron
Slocum stated he got a little nervous earlier when you stated the Management
Association will be taking care of that.
Attorney
McNicholos stated they are. Each purchaser
has to sign an affidavit that they are over 55.
Slocum
- How would it ever get to the point of
the Town having to enforce if the Management Association takes care of it?
Attorney
McNicholos stated it is not who actually enforces the condo by-laws, it is the
conditions that this Board or any Board puts on any project.
R.
Slocum – What happens when something goes wrong? It seems like this Town has not been great at
enforcing on issues such as these. I
want to clarify that even before people get a deed. I was feeling less comfortable with
self-enforcement.
Attorney
McNicholos stated that the Town enforcement would be a rare occurrence.
R.
Slocum – Is there any restrictions that these cannot be rental units. Need the authority to review rental
agreements.
Margaret
Watkins – Regarding runoff, was there a comment that the rate will increase.
Answer: No
Brian
Pike –
1.
Who in the Town would get notified regarding the census of the
facility.
J. Marcou stated it would probably go to the
Selectmen or the Planning Board. Could
be everyone is copied. Would suggest
it go directly to the Selectmen and distributed to the Building Department.
Attorney McNicholos stated that appropriate
officials of the Town will be notified.
2.
Asked about swale and well head protection. Who is going to replace the well if it
becomes contaminated? Is the Town going
to be responsible because they didn’t take the responsibility? If the well is not built properly, being a
secondary road and the amount of salt volume used could cause problems.
George Holt stated that it was his understanding the
applicant was going to look into moving the well location.
Eric Mitchell stated the treatment swales have
runoff and salt is very minimal. Not a
lot of salt.
Brian Pike stated the State replaces wells and it
costs a lot of money.
Kenneth Swayze noted the NH DES Site Specific
drainage plan is available for public review.
The Chairman noted the following were outstanding
and should be ready for the next meeting:
1.
Don Mayo’s comments addressed and changes made on the plan
2.
New Condo Association documents prepared
3.
Condo Association documents ready for Town Counsel review
Kenneth Swayze informed the applicants they would be
paying for two legal reviews of the Condo Documents because of the change.
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 on the
Belanger/Dipietro Proposed 26 lot subdivision.
(attached)
Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, explained changes made
on the plan from the last meeting.
Stated they have redesigned the entranceway. The easements are more clearly defined. Were asked to show wetlands on the White’s
property.
Jiri Hajek, from Robert Rook Engineering, - Explained the Wetlands
issues raised by the Wetland Board.
Stated there is an agreement with James White regarding the entranceway. (attached letter) Mr. White has met with the
developers and has selected the trees which will be used for screening. Will be 18 evergreens between 5 and 6 feet
tall. This information will be included
on the final plan.
Major Changes:
Provided realignment of entry way. Will curve the road south where we wouldn’t
have such a high impact on wetlands.
This relocation allows us to eliminate the mitigation area. There will be 2 - 36” pipes.
Will be treatment between Mr. White’s property and entrance
roadway. Plus crossing prevents a
reduction of flow. Large detention pond
will provide treatment.
Addressed concerns in Don Mayo’s letter as follows:
1.
The culverts listed below have less than the 4’ minimum cover under
pavement recommended by the NH DOT manual on drainage design for highways:
Culvert #1, Station 60 + 55 – This is DOT’s
call. Something will be worked out
relative to DOT that they will accept.
Still pending.
2.
Flared end sections are specified at a number of culvert locations on
the project. Recommend that the flared
end sections specified be revised to standard headwalls.
Jiri Hajek stated that if you put in head walls, you
must put in guard rails. Would want to
check with the road agent, etc. before doing this.
3. Culvert No. 8 on Williams
Court is identified as ADS pipe on plan sheet C-4 and as RCP on the pipe
profile.
Jiri Hajek stated they will change to RCP.
4. The crossed-sections for
locations listed below do not indicate ditchlines. If constructed as shown, roadside drainage will be directed to flow
over the pavement.
Jiri Hajek agreed that this will be corrected.
5. Williams Court –
Cross-sections at Williams Court Stations 58 + 50 to 59 + 50 right of the
roadway are incomplete. There is a 7’ to
8’ vertical gap between the original ground contours and the proposed slope at
the termination of the cross-sections as shown on sheet C-15. Recommend that the topo survey be extended to
show how the proposed slope intersects with the existing ground contours.
Jiri Hajek stated they will provide addition survey
information on the plan.
6. Add the following notes to
the project plans:
Sub-drains shall be installed at locations
designated by the Town of Dunbarton.
Sub-drain materials and installation shall conform to
NH DOT Standard Specifications.
Jiri Hajek stated they will include the above
requested notes to the plans.
7. Stone Fill – Stone fill
shall be placed on slopes or ditches at locations designated by the Town of
Dunbarton. This is in addition to stone fill
or rip rap shown on the project plans.
Jiri Hajek stated this will be included on the
plans.
8. Sheet C – 16 – the typical
roadway cross-section indices 2 ˝” of pavement.
Revise cross-section to indicate 3” of pavement (2” binder course – 1”
wearing course).
The Board stated there is a typographical error in the subdivision regulations and it should read 2” binder and 1” wearing for a total of 3”.
Jiri Hajek indicated they would make the changes as
noted by Mayo.
With regard to permits, DOT will be open for
discussion re the entranceway culvert, etc.
DES will be back.
Sub-Surface – Waiting for final configuration and site walk.
Site Specific – Plan has been supplied to them.
Wetlands – Now is less than 9,000 square feet.
It was noted for the record that the project will be
phased as follows: 8 the first year, 8
the second year and 8 the third year.
Brian Nordle asked about Bonding. Ken Swayze stated the bonding would be in the amount of approximately $1,200,000 for build out. Will be pro-rated. There is 6,600 feet of road. Need assessment for the cistern plus going to have to do something at Mansion Road and the White’s property.
Would like to see the open areas lopped into the two
adjacent lots rather than take it out of the tax base. Just include them on the lots.
George Holt stated he would like to see if you would
add a corridor linking the SPNHF land with the Town Forest/Flood Control
property.
Jacques Belanger stated there is the issue of
privacy for the lots, etc.
David Breault – Stated the Board should be asking
the developer to come up with some walking areas. We are charged with the safety of the
townspeople. A trail or someway to get there
would be nice. Look at all the houses
that have traffic going by. A trail to
connect to the back or allowing for future site walks. We are making a big mistake.
Attorney Dunn – The reconfiguration of the lots
influenced this decision. I have been
discouraging this all along. The
concerns of having an easement behind your property. The privacy issue remains a problem. Is there a precedent for this? The previous subdivision that was proposed,
we had a connecting trail system there.
The Board noted they were taken back that a
provision showing at least some access was not made.
Jim Marcou asked that they provide some sort of
access if possible. Would suggest a 20’
walking path with no motorized vehicles, at least to the public way. Do need to have some access down to Stark
Lane if possible.
Attorney Dunn stated they were also concerned about
vandalism. Abutters need to have some
control.
George Holt stated that if it is within your power
to do so, it would be nice.
Attorney Dunn stated that if they can accommodate
this, they will, but can’t commit to it right now.
Abutters were read as follows and noted that all had
been notified by certified mail:
William Baril – Present. Asked if there were any detention ponds or
are they all removed?
Answer – Three in place. Culverts on Stark Lane will be the same.
Getting back to the walking issue, Range Road is
used by people. There have been
situations where people come walking down my driveway and use my phone. A walking trail directly across from my
property like a driving road.
Dennis Forcier – Not Present
Scott/Deborah Aubrey – Not Present
Roger/Pamela Bergeron – Not Present
Sylvia Bowman – Not Present
SPNHF – Not Present
Barbara/Paul Kilmister and Robert/Mary Gourley – Not
Present
Robert;Janice Boynton – Not Present
Edward Klements – Not Present
Ellie Stein – Present. Stated she was represented by Legal Counsel
this evening and will wait to the end of the reading of the list of abutters.
Dunbarton Town Forest – John R. Swindlehurst
present. No comments.
David/Jennifer Allen – Not Present
Louis/Debra Marcou – Not Present
James/Sandra White – Not Present. (The Board noted
the White’s have submitted a letter on their behalf, attached)
Ovis/Doris Cunningham Trust – Not Present
Robert Rook – Present, Jiri Hajek, - Engineer
representing the applicants
J. E. Belanger Land Surveying - Present, representing the applicants
Schauer Environmental Consultants – Not
Present, representing the applicants
Other Members of the Public:
Ron Slocum stated he seemed to be missing something. The Town is being offered a piece of land but now the Planning Board doesn’t want it. I agree with Dave Breault. Why settle for a piece of land that is no good. Because there is no mitigation area now, it is not needed. It was of no value. It should be reattached. They offered a connection off the land in the rear. It will go through four lots with a 15’ – 20’ corridor.
James Marcou stated we are working it out I
think. I think they are going to do
something.
Scott Leslie – How many lots are on the present Marino’s
lot?
Jacques Belanger – The house and one lot.
Scott Leslie – What about the water rights to the
Marino’s property? Rights to the White’s
property? Deed 646/321 Quitclaim Deed to
water rights which is now owned by White.
Was the well on the White’s property?
Do all the lots have the rights to the well? Are you putting more of a hardship on to the
White’s property for access for well rights?
Applicants replied that every house is going to have
its own well.
Attorney Dunn indicated this was a common issue and
they will be taking care of it.
James Barney, Sulloway and Hollis – Representing
Ellie Stein and 15 abutters and neighbors.
Stated he was hired by the above parties to address
issues regarding the Belanger/Dipietro Proposed 26 lot subdivision.
He addressed the issues with regard to subdivision
regulations, Waiver Requirements, Septic
Setbacks, Increase Traffic, Recreational Land, State Approvals, length of roadway, Fire Department and
various Safety issues: (attached)
Ellie Stein – Asked if our subdivision regulations
limit the length of a subdivision road to 600 feet, how could a development
like this get this far without it being a major point of discussion at the
Planning Board level.
James Marcou stated that the current regulations
were in the process of being updated. In
addition, the Selectmen passed a regulation that No subdivision road could
be shorter than 600 feet.
Because of this, the Planning Board is recommending changes.
James Marcou noted that the design and construction standards for this subdivision were consistent with those established in all other recent Town subdivisions with roads and culdasacs, etc.
K. Swayze noted that one of the possibilities for consideration is that a subdivision road with one entrance have no more than 25 houses on it.
Ken Swayze also noted that the Town has already been sued because they granted a subdivision with a “Through” road and not a dead-end road. The residents of this Town seem to like dead-end roads.
Steve Kennedy stated that the Selectmen of this Town have dealt with the Road issues.
Margaret Watkins stated they have raised a number of questions to be answered before this Board makes a decision.
Margaret Watkins stated that the White’s had come to an understanding but have not had an opportunity to resolve until their Attorney reviews the agreement.
Margaret Watkins stated the Master Plan Survey rated trails very high.
James Marcou stated the Board was in favor of reattaching the previous open space lots to lots within the proposed subdivision.
RECEIPT AND ACCEPTANCE OF NEW APPLICATIONS BY
THE DUNBARTON PLANNING BOARD AND START OF PROCEEDINGS:
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
Kenneth Swayze presented a Status Report on the Brown Proposed Lot Line Adjustment.
MOTION:
Kenneth Swayze made a motion that the Dunbarton
Planning Board accept the application of
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 and begin the discussion this evening. The motion was seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Charles Brown and Dena Brown explained the plan to the Board. He stated that his Surveyor, Dalberg was not able to be present this evening.
Abutters were read as follows and noted all were notified by certified mail:
Gerald /Lillian Williams – Not Present
Marion McNeill – Present. Looked at plan and decided it did not affect her property.
.
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
Michael/Deborah Auger – Not Present
William/Delanie Brenhan – Not Present
Carl J. Metzger – Not Present
Dahlberg Land Services – Not Present. (Representing the applicants)
The item will be on the agenda for the next meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Non-Binding Discussion
County Woods Development
Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, presented a plan showing a proposed four lot subdivision of 24 acres off Grapevine Road of the Ted Johnson Property. There will be 1,100 feet of road.
There being no further business, the Planning Board adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alison R. Vallieres
Secretary