DUNBARTON PLANNING BOARD

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 2004

TOWN OFFICES – 7:00 PM

PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAND SUBDIVISION CONTROL REGULATIONS

The Dunbarton Planning Board held the Public Hearing for Proposed Changes to Subdivision Regulations at the above time, date and place with Chairman James Marcou presiding. The following members were present:

James Marcou, Chairman

George Holt, Co-Chairman

Kenneth Swayze, Admin., Planning and Zoning Department

Alison Vallieres, Secretary

Brian Nordle

Michael Poirier

David Breault, Alternate

The Chairman verified with the Secretary that the Public Hearing Notice had been posted in a timely fashion in three public places throughout the Town and published in the Concord Monitor for one day.

James Marou noted David Breault would be a voting member this evening.

James Marcou, Chairman, explained the process that the Planning Board had been going through in developing the proposed changes. He stated the Board had spent several months on the proposed changes. He stated he would go through the proposed changes as listed on the Handout of Scheduled Changes to Land Subdivision Control Regulations, Draft Proposal. (attached)

Change/Add: Section V., C. (Design of Streets, Roads)

J. Marcou stated the only real change on this is that plans would be submitted to the Town Engineer, Fire Department and Police, etc. There is presently a number of dead end roads in Town. Ken Swayze presented a list of existing deadend roads throughout the town. (attached) The Planning Board is asking that plans be submitted to the Town Engineer, and the Town’s Road, Fire and Police Departments for all new street and roadway systems and for new subdivisions on existing single-access roadways.

J. Marcou stated that new subdivision roads are far safer and wider than existing old roads including scenic roads.

George Holt – Stated he would like to add discussion of Regional Impact.

Kenneth Swayze pointed out that Regional Impact is for the entire Town not just dead-end roads, which by definition have minimal impact on a neighboring community. He further indicated that Regional Impact is addressed via a New Hampshire RSA which we need to address on all applications if applicable. He stated that all new streets should go to the Town Engineer.

Michael Poirier stated that this is a simple fix that works.

Change: Section V.l, F (Minimum Length Roadways; maximum number of dwelling units):

K. Swayze stated he had checked with other Towns and the “stub” road causes problems. The minimum length will be 600 feet and will be between 725’ and 900’ including the turn-around, as per prior Selectmen’s policy. .

James Marcou stated we cannot maintain large lot frontages on lots without causing the road to be longer. Flintlock Farm is well over 10,000 feet. It is almost impossible to get it to be a through road. Don’t want a straight line of 6,000 feet with a turnaround at the end. We need to maintain the character of the road.

J. Marcou stated that the maximum number of houses on a dead end road was discussed and we came up with 25. Technical Bulletin #12 on Roads put out by New Hampshire Office of State Planning states that 20-25 lots are generally acceptable on dead-end streets and culdesacs. (attached)

K. Swayze noted that country towns like Dunbarton are very unique. Weare has no maximum road length and no maximum number of houses. The Town of Lyme has a 50 acre lot District. Henniker has also opened up their Class VI roads to a larger lots District, inc. dead-end roads. He also referenced the AASH to Road Design book with reference to Rural Country roads, with less than 400 daily vehicle trips. He stated that in other towns such as Hooksett, a dead-end culdasac allows 40 houses which adds up to 400 average daily trips. 25 lots would be 250 trips.

J. Marcou stated the proposal here is we need to have a concern for the safety of the residents. We have superior roads as compared to other towns. Stated we want good roads with reasonable access.

Kenneth Swayze stated that DOT wants spur road off State Highways. They don’t want all separate driveways onto the road. Other towns have ¾ acre lots on 1,100 feet of road. In Dunbarton, we have three and five acre lots thus making for longer roads. James Marcou noted the Town of Hooksett made a recommendation that road width be reduced from 28’ wide to 24’ wide to reduce speed on a large subdivison.

James Marcou stated that if we maintain large acreage lot subdivisions, we are going to have long roads.

K. Swayze also showed a diagram of a proposed development of 95 lots on a dead-end road which appears on the front cover of a Central NH Regional Planning Commission’s publication. (attached)

K. Swayze stated that on Rangeway Road there is a house at the end which has in-house fire suppression. If a subdivision is over eight lots, they must provide a cistern, fire pond or in-house fire suppression. John Wiggin, Fire Chief, does not want to manage a cash payment “kitty” because it is difficult to manage.

Add: Section V., D (Alignment of new streets on existing houses):

K. Swayze stated he had spoken with John Trottier via telephone, and John indicated he felt it was okay to have a driveway directly across from another house. The Board indicated, however, that a driveway provides a “light corridor.”

James Marcou stated he felt that the developer should provide alternate designs. There have been several cases in the past when the Planning Board has asked the developer to either move the driveway or provide trees, etc. to shield lights.

New Lots on Existing Single-Access Roads

K.Swayze noted there are cases where large landowners can be on the end of a deadend road and request subdivision approval, etc. The Planning Board should require the applicant to retain a professional engineering consultant, acceptable to the Board, to conduct a thorough study relative to the local roadway system and inherent safety concerns.

J. Marcou noted the Planning Board has been handling these on a case by case basis, and we have been consistent at the Planning Board level.

Eliminate: Section V., I

Add-in-place: New Section V., I (Building lot access, driveways).

J. Marcou stated that this makes sure that driveway locations will be shown on the plan. With regard to shared driveways, we need backup evidence that deeds have good language to avoid problems. You have to prove that you can get a driveway in there. We need evidence that each lot will support a separate driveway. We also need documentation as to who owns the driveway. It was noted that shared driveways cause problems with mortgages and financing in addition to disputes about maintenance, etc.

Change: Section V., N (Recreational Uses):

K. Swayze stated noted that in discussion with Town legal counsel, it was recommended that only such land, improvements, and/or off-site improvements that is directly required by, or because of, the subdivision should be imposed by the Planning Board. Excess requirements can sometimes be considered a “taking” and is something the Town should avoid. The Town of Atkinson was taken to task, all the way to the Supreme Court, where the Judges said that requiring a fixed percentage of land was “outright extortion”.

Kenneth Swayze stated that he was all for “requesting” subdivision amenities from large-scale proposals, especially when it made good sense in certain areas.

J. Marcou stated he would like to allow for a 20 foot right of way in cases where there are Town land holdings close by that could be connected via a foot trail, etc. Would like to leave this avenue open.

Alison Vallieres stated she had a problem with putting trails across lots which will become private property. This infringes on the homeowners rights. She stated if the trail could be put along the perimeter of the subdivision and not cross other lots, it would be more acceptable. She stated she would not want the public walking in back of my house all the time. There are ATV, Snowmobiles, trash problems and liability issues to be dealt with.

K. Swayze noted that in Cluster Developments everyone owns a small portion of the recreation area which is set aside. This is not directly considered a “taking”.

George Holt suggested that any reference to “taking” for “gray-area” uses should not be considered at all.

The Board generally agreed with the above suggestions, and recommended word changes to reduce concerns for “takings” and nebulous requirements.

Add: Section V., J (Street Intersections)

James Marcou stated that the Board has been requiring Sight Line Requirements already. This is including it within the subdivision regulations.

Change: Section IX., C.5

James Marcou stated this section was to correct a typographical error which was in the old subdivision regulations. Asphalt base course shall be a minimum of 2 inches thick, compacted and the wearing source shall be a minimum of 1 inch thick, compacted. (for a total of 3”)

Change: Section IX. A (Monuments):

James Marcou stated that this requires that survey monuments be constructed of concrete or stone at least 4 inches on top width, and at least 36 inches long, shall be set at all property corners, and at all geometric changes of direction.

K. Swayze stated that in addition this requires that stone walls that are intermittently broken or scattered shall have full monumentation. There have been cases where stone walls have been stolen or sold and no longer can be used as bounds, etc.

The Board recommended changing the last paragraph to read as follows: “Two bench marks of the same description as the monuments shall be set at approximately opposite ends of the subdivision whose tops are referenced to an accurately determined USGS datum plane, and so identified on the final plan.”

Change: Section V., H (Street grades):

The Board agreed to change the wording of the paragraph to read as follows: “Grades of all streets shall conform in general to the terrain and shall not exceed 8%. No street shall have a grade less than 1%.

James Marcou and Kenneth Swayze noted that waivers can still be granted by the Planning Board in certain cases, based on proper engineering.

It was the Board’s consensus that it needs to be flexible.

Delete/Add: Section IX., D. (Road Construction Permit):

James Marcou stated that he felt the Planning Board should develop an “Authorization for Road Construction” application which would be completed by the Owner and/or Developer prior to any work on any new road intended for conveyance to the Town of Dunbarton. He would like this to become effective on June 1, 2004. This would give us a little time to develop a good permit form. He stated we need something in writing relative to road construction and this would be the solution.

The Board agreed with the development of the Road Construction Permit.

Add: at “Fire Suppression Water Source”

James Marcou stated that this would clean up what we already have been requiring. Will describe the number of gallons required for cisterns along with traditional fire ponds. It will also add in In-House Sprinkler Systems as an option for fire protection.

In addition, this will require that applicants must seek a recommendation, in writing, from the Fire Department and/or a Fire Protection Engineering consultant prior to deliberative discussions with the Planning Board regarding fire suppression requirements.

James Marcou stated that he will have the Fire Chief and Deputy Chief work on design recommendations.

Public Comment:

Jacques Belanger asked if they would be able to ask for waivers on road grades.

James Marcou stated that the Board will be willing to hear evidence that would support the granting of a waiver.

Ron Slocum – Stated that the Planning Board has gone through a lot of thought on these updated regulations. Asked if Minimum Length Roadways would apply to private roads.

Kenneth Swayze stated that the subdivision regulations do not apply to private roads, but can be imposed uinder “Site Plan Review”..

James Marcou did state that private roads would have to be built to certain standards.

George Holt stated that a Dwelling Unit should be defined in the Sub-division regulations.

Ron Slocum stated that according to these regulations, you can’t have a “flat” road. Don’t all roads have a “crown”.

With regard to the Road Construction Permit, would this only be if it would become a Town Road. Wouldn’t you want the same paper process for private roads.

James White – On page 1, Section V.F. Asked how come it took three years from the time the Selectmen made their ruling in 2001 to change the subdivision regulations. Said in his own mind he was trying to understand the difference between subdivision regulations and zoning acreages, etc.

The Board pointed out that any changes like zoning and minimum lot acreages would have to be voted on at Town Meeting whereas subdivision regulations are something that the Planning Board works with to show how a sub-division is “built”, and they can be amended through the Planning Board Public Hearing process such as this.

MOTION:

Brian Nordle made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board accept the proposed changes in the Subdivision Regulations as proposed this evening with amendments as noted. The motion was seconded by Kenneth Swayze. The motion passed unanimously.

At this point in the meeting, Kenneth Swayze stated that we need to have a group work on the Site Plan Review Regulations and bring them up to date. George Holt volunteered to work on the Site Plan Review Regulations.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Alison R. Vallieres

Secretary