DUNBARTON ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT
TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2004
TOWN OFFICES – 7:00 PM
The regular monthly meeting of the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on the above date, time and place with Chairman John Trottier presiding. The following members were present:
John Trottier, Chairman
John Herlihy, Vice Chairman
Alison Vallieres, Secretary
Gertrude Dulude
David Nault
John Van, Alternate
Ron Slocum, Alternate
The
Chairman verified with the Secretary that the Revised Meeting Public Notice had
been posted in three public places throughout the Town and published in the
Concord Monitor for one day. J. Trottier
also verified with Ken Swayze, Building Department, that the Revised Public
Notice had been posted in the Concord Monitor for one day along with three
public places throughout the Town.
Approval
of Previous Meeting Minutes – Monday, December 8, 2003:
A
motion was made, seconded and passed unanimously to accept the minutes as
written of the Monday, December 8, 2003 meeting of the Dunbarton Zoning Board
of Adjustment.
7:00
p.m. – Public Hearing regarding a request for a Variance to Article 4, Secton
B. from Edward J. Colburn representing Clara M. Shelton Revocable Trust
(K1-3-5) to allow him to repair a septic system closer than the required 50
feet from the boundary and a second Variance to Article 5, Section D. to allow
him to repair a septic system within the wetlands and conservation district at
property on 8 Holiday Shore Drive at Gorham Pond in the Low Density District in
Dunbarton, NH
Ed Colburn appeared before the Board with an updated plan showing the proposed location of the septic system. The Group I soil line was noted on the revised plan.
The Board asked who had made the determination of
the Soil Line. The applicant stated that
he had. The Board brought the
applicant’s attention to Article F. 1. which states that a HISS map must be
prepared by a Certified Soil Scientist.
Mr. Colburn acknowledged that he was not a Certified Soil Scientist.
Mr. Colburn stated he had used the USGS Soils Map to
determine the line.
MOTION:
John Trottier made a motion that the Dunbarton
Zoning Board of Adjustment continue the Public Hearing regarding a Request for
a Variance to Article 4, Section B. from Edward J. Colburn representing Clara
M. Shelton Revocable Trust (K1-3-5) to allow him to repair a septic system
closer than the required 50 feet from the boundary and a second Variance to
Article 5, Section D. to allow him to repair a septic system within the
wetlands and conservation district at property on 8 Holiday Shore Drive at
Gorham Pond in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH until such time as a
HISS map prepared by a Certified Soil
Scientist is provided to the Zoning Board as required within the
Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
John Herlihy. The motion passed
unanimously.
7:15
pm – Continued Public Hearing for a Variance to Article 4, Section B. of the
Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance from U. S. Cellular on behalf of the owners, Richard
and Nicolette Hecker (C3-5-7) to allow them to construct and operate a 180 foot
free standing tower with 12 panel antenna and a 12’ x 20’ ground equipment
building at their property on 12 Powell Lane in the Low Density District in
Dunbarton, NH
John Trottier opened the Public Hearing by stating
that Attorney Grill would be addressing the five criteria necessary for the
granting of a Variance.
Attorney Grill stated that before we address the
five criteria as required by State Law, he would like to note the
following: These type of facilities are
unique because they have some protection under federal law. The federal law says you cannot prohibit
service, and it is up to the Zoning Board to decide how it should be done. Have cited cases from Massachusetts to the
Board. This is the first tower in
Dunbarton other than the SBA tower. This
will have minor visual impact. We tried
to find a place where there is minimal viual impact. We have agreed on a somewhat lower height
than the original 180 feet. You may end
up in a situation where there will be others coming back for more towers. We submitted a “Findings of Fact”.
Attorney Grill addressed the five criteria for the
Granting of a Variance as follows:
a.
No diminution in values of surrounding properties would be suffered;
Answer: We
have seen concerns from the members and the general public but no one has
submitted anything in writing. We have
submitted market studies that say it doesn’t affect market values. Cited the example of a swimming pool on a
property. The cell tower will not affect
property values. You would have to come
up with some references in the record.
People within the Town do not qualify as legitimate references, etc.
b. Granting the Variance would
be of benefit to the public interest;
Answer: Today
everyone has a cell phone. In the
process of E11 system. Safety Services
can locate you within a very small perimeter.
They can find you and this is a
boom to public safety and to businesses.
It is a benefit to public interest.
There presently is no US Cellular facilities in Dunbarton.
John Trottier indicated that US Cellular does
presently have some coverage in Dunbarton.
Attorney Grill acknowledged that yes they did but
there was a significant gap in Dunbarton.
c.
Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the
owner seeking it;
Answer: They
will be using 100’ x 100’ foot section of the property which they propose to
lease. The homeowner is not going to be
building another house on that lot. We
have to put it somewhere. We need the
Variance. This is a reasonable use of a
very small portion of a parcel tucked away off the road that would cover the gap.
d. Granting the variance would
do substantial justice;
Answer: We
are trying to find a spot that meets our engineering needs. We are willing to work with the Town on the
height. There is Federal Law while at
the same time having a facility that does the trick for us and the Town. It is hard to say this is more just than any
other lot, etc.
e.
The use would not be contrary to the spirit of the Ordinance.
Answer: This
is consistent with the purpose of the Ordinance. During 9/11, the only phone
that were working were cell phones in the disaster area. Cell towers will work. The system will work. This system will help
in instances of fires, police, public safety.
We want this system. We encourage
the most appropriate use of the land.
At this point in the public hearing, John Trottier
asked for comments from the public and asked that it be limited to new material
only.
Norman Caron – Stated he lives in Dunbarton. Asked about the 180 foot tower having to have
a light or beacon on top for aircraft, etc.
The Board noted that only towers of 200 feet and
over required lights on top.
Arvard Rain – Asked if there would be any effort to
camouflage this. Some look like
trees.
At this point John Trottier closed the Public
Hearing.
Deliberations/Board Discussions:
John Trottier, Chairman, noted the following members
would be voting on the issue:
John
Trottier
John
Herlihy
Alison
Vallieres
Gertrude
Dulude
David
Nault
John Trottier made the following statement regarding
the proposed US Cellular Tower application:
.John Trottier
stated there had been numerous meetings held to discuss the application
since July 2003. The Applicant has been
patient with the Zoning Board of Adjustment and the Board appreciates
that. This was the first case heard in
Town regarding the construction of a cell tower.
The Zoning Board retained the professional services
of an independent consultant, Mark Hutchins, to review evidence presented
during the numerous hearings. The
applicant concurred and cooperated with retaining Hutchins. Hutchins substantiated the evidence presented
ZBA recognizes that a cell tower is coming and the
Town of Dunbarton welcomes a cell
tower. From evidence presented, ZBA
acknowledges the need for a tower to improve US Cellular’s existing coverage of
the Town of Dunbarton.
The Telecommunication Act of 1996 requires the Town
of Dunbarton to allow US Cellular to close the gap of their cell phone
communication. The Act prohibits a ban
of wireless services facilities, it does not mandate or necessarily require a
permanent alteration of the Town of Dunbarton landscape.
US Cell stated numerous times that their goal was to
improve cellular coverage of the Route 13 corridor. Evidence has been presented, and
substantiated by Hutchins, that the proposed location will improve coverage of
the Route 13 corridor. Evidence
presented shows an increase to Town wide coverage from 34% to 83%.
The Town of Dunbarton is an old rural community with historic, natural, and scenic places and view sheds. There is a need to preserve this natural, scenic and historic beauty of the Town of Dunbarton. Placement of limitations on the tower will preserve this natural and historic beauty of the Town of Dunbarton.
Substantial evidence has been presented by the
Applicant, and confirmed by Hutchins, that a reduced height, from the 180-foot
request, would increase coverage within the Town of Dunbarton and meet the
applicant’s goal of improving the coverage of the Route 13 corridor.
The ZBA acknowledges, from evidence submitted, that
a reduced height will result in requiring a greater number of towers within the
Town.
While limiting the height will require more towers,
the tower should be made to blend in with the surroundings and be disguised as
a tree.
The ZBA feels that limiting the height and type of
tower is reasonable under this application.
Applicant has not proposed a “fall zone”. The proposed 180-foot tower would not be
contained entirely on the subject parcel and the ZBA is concerned and feels
that an appropriate “fall zone” should be provided under this application.
No evidence has been presented that indicates it
would be financially detrimental to the Applicant to limit the height of the
tower.
Review
of the December ’03 report by Mark F. Hutchins, consultant retained by ZBA,
noted the following:
David Nault – Stated that according to the Hutchins
report one antennae at a lower height than requested, 110 feet could cover the
gap in Dunbarton. Increasing it to 150
feet would allow co-locations of four other vendors.
J. Trottier stated the Board doesn’t have to allow
any number of co-locators.
John Trottier noted re the five criteria for the
granting of a Variance as follows:
Ron
Slocum asked if the Board should be looking at issues such as abandonment, etc.
or are these Planning Board Site Plan Review issues.
The
Zoning Board indicated that the Planning Board will be doing a thorough review
of issues regarding Site Plan Review.
Ron
Slocum asked what the time frame was if the tower is not used for a certain
length of time. Should there be a
Dismantling plan by the applicant including bonding. How does it get taken down? After 12 month period will the tower be
dismantled? How do we know how much it
will cost to take it down. How should it
be taken down? Should the applicant
provide estimates as to how much it would cost to take the tower down?
The
applicant stated they don’t know how much because they have never taken a tower
down.
It
was noted that the applicant had agreed to post a $10,000 bond for dismantling,
etc.
Ron
Slocum asked about the fall zone and would the fall zone be within the
setbacks. The physical building is
within the 50 foot setback of the property lines but what if the tower falls
onto an abutter’s property. What about
things that might be falling off the tower in an ice storm with high winds,
etc. Also what about signage?
J.
Trottier asked how the Town would know if they were not using the Tower
anymore.
K.
Kosyra stated that there would no longer be able to generate a signal. Town would be sending a letter to US Cellular
to please provide evidence that this is no longer working tower. We have never abandoned a tower so this is a
gray area.
The
Board indicated the applicants should provide an abandonment/dismantling plan
to the Planning Board.
Ron
Slocum asked what about the fall
zone. US Cellular should provide some
safety zone.
The
Board noted that if lower towers are approved, then there will be more towers
in order to get adequate coverage, etc.
This is a decision the Board has to make.
R. Slocum indicated that in some of the studies he had looked at, some towers do not allow for future expansion. They can’t come back for another higher length. If we make a decision on what the applicant present, could we restrict the growth of that particular tower. The tower is costly to replace. Are we going to be the ones to propose what type tower? Is this under our jurisdiction? What about conditions? We have not spent a lot of time hearing any testimony about particular types of towers that look like trees.
David Nault – The applicant has shown in the photos that the tower can be seen in at least eleven locations. There is a lot of field views in this area. I can see that the 180 foot tower provides some serious detriment to the value of property and I am in agreement with John. 110 feet will close the gap in Dunbarton. The Town would want to be on the Tower. Is it okay for the Town to be at 100 feet? At 120 feet will be 77% coverage of the Town. What about the other co-location on the tower. Want to make sure the Town would be happy at 100 feet. Agree that it needs to be a tree like structure. I like the tree like bark structures. They have light, medium and heavy density branches. What about upgrading of the road, Powell Lane. Will have to go to the Town Selectmen to determine what the Selectmen and the Planning Board will need, etc. Setback distances should be at least the height of the Tower. Tower could come down and hit a house on the adjacent property. We should consider that setbacks to be at least the height of the Tower.
MOTION:
John
Trottier made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment conditionally
approve the request for a Variance to Article 4, Section B. of the Dunbarton
Zoning Ordinance from U. S. Cellular on behalf of the owners, Richard and
Nicolette Hecker (C3-5-7) to allow them to construct and operate a 110 foot
free standing tower with antenna and a 12’ x 20’ ground equipment building at
their property on 12 Powell Lane in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH
subject to the following conditions:
Alison Vallieres seconded the motion.
At this point in the meeting, David Nault stated
that he felt that 120 feet would allow for one additional tenant on the
Tower. US Cellular is the first one in
the Town. AT&T is already on SBA
Tower. What about co-location for the
Town?
The motion passed by a majority vote as follows:
John
Trottier – Yes
Alison
Vallieres – Yes
John
Herlihy – Yes
Gertrude
Dulude – Yes
David
Nault – Abstained
Public Hearing regarding a Request for a Variance to
Article 4, Section B. from Better Living Sunrooms representing Forest and Anita
Melendy (K1-09-01) to allow them to construct a 12” x 14” studio sunroom on an
existing deck with upgrades at their property on 9 Karen Road in the Low
Density District in Dunbarton, NH
Forest
Melendy and Ryan Nolette, Better Living, appeared before the Board.
John Trottier, Chairman, immediately informed the
applicants there was a problem with the Public Notice because it stated 12”
(Inches) x 14” (Inches) instead of feet.
In addition, the applicants did not request an Equitable Waiver as
requested at the previous meeting.
Because the existing deck was put on without a Building Permit, an
Equitable Waiver is required. Mr. Melendy did not inform Better Living
Sunrooms that the Board had requested the Equitable Waiver.
MOTION:
John Trottier made a motion that the Dunbarton
Zoning Board of Adjustment continue the Public Hearing regarding a request for
a Variance to Article 4, Section B. from Better Living Sunrooms representing
Forest and Anita Melendy (K1-09-01) to allow them to construct a 12” x 14”
studio sunroom on an existing deck with upgrades at their property on 9 Karen
Road in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH because of incomplete public
notice.
The motion was seconded by John Herlihy. The motion passed unanimously.
Public
Hearing regarding a Request for a Variance to Article 6, Section C(3) and
Special Exception to Article 4, from Watch Hill Development Group, LLC
representing Countryside Golf Club, Inc. (B3-2-1, B4-1-11, A4-1-5 and A3-1-4) to
allow them to develop a planned residential development on the above-described
lots with a Variance to permit 104 dwelling units within nine (9) 4 unit
buildings and sixty eight (68) single family units, where the ordinance would
permit a maximum of ninety-five (95) dwelling units in all 4-unit
buildings. The applicant proposes to
develop a PRD without lot lines, although the total number of acres in the
development, when added together, would theoretically meet the total minimum
lot areas needed for the proposed dwelling units if lots were created at their
property on 28 Country Club Drive in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH
John Trottier, Chairman,
asked the applicants to explain the request for a Special Exception and a
Variance.
Attorney Richard Uchida representing the Watch Hill Development Group, explained they were seeking a Special Exception for a PRD under Article 4 of the Ordinance along with a Variance for Density under Article 6, Section C(3). He explained there was 270 acres with 250-255 buildable acres without surface water. There is an existing golf course, a significant amount of wetlands, recreational trail system and cross country ski trails along with wildlife. In 1990 in the Master Plan of Dunbarton, this is one of the areas cited for recreational opportunities along with scenic beauty of the Town. Town was trying to preserve open space. We will try to help to preserve the value of this parcel. There are no development restrictions on this parcel at this time. We propose development restrictions on this parcel. The PRD will be a restricted project. One person 55 years or older must live within 80% of the project. Introduced the applicants as follows:
Don Lane, Managing member
Peter Holden
Lyle Folkestad
Jerry Coogan, (Has done a Fiscal Impact Statement on the aspects of the Town.
Attorney Uchida stated he will provide the legal arguments for the Variance and Special Exception. They are seeking input from the Board. Will talk about how we will address the age restrictions
Don Lane, Managing Member – Stated that Countryside Golf Course is his home golf course and it has been for sale for two years. There have been various plans. In 1988 there was an approved project to develop but banks tightened up, etc. and it never came to be. Are looking to develop a village type surrounded by open space. This is a Bill Mitchell Golf Course. It is worth preserving. There are Moose, Black Bear, Northern Water Snake, Scenic Vistas, etc. When driving by on Route 13, we want you not to even know there is a development there. Will be putting houses back. 70% of the property will not be touched.
Peter Holden – Stated the elevation at the top is 800 feet at Meadow Lane and goes to about 640 feet. The existing parking lot is at 760’ elevation. Does not affect negatively. The airstrip is not on the golf course property. We looked at what had been presented in the 1988 plan. Was over 300 acres and had a connecting road to the back. 169 units on 343 acres. Everything done in the past is invalid. We don’t want to do it like that. A five acre subdivision would allow 40 lots and would be major land consumption. We weren’t interested in doing this. We want to create classic villages with a classic New England Green back up with cottages and a Convenience Store, Restaurant, etc. Passed out a map showing proposal. (attached) The single homes will be 28’ x 40’ with a 22’ x 24’ garage. Will be a 4’ walkway and an 18’ roadway, about 30 feet apart, so will be every 80 feet.
20 Units - The Commons (Four Units)
26 Cottages on flats
34 Hillside - Detached Single Units
16 Units @ Town Square (Four Units)
There will be 68 Single Family Homes and 36 units of Four Unit Buildings for a total of 104 units. All units will be two bedroom homes.
We will take all the area to reach our density formula. The golf course stays open to the public as an open green space. We will provide the roadway system with the community responsible for it and their water. There will be community sewer and wells. Each unit will have it’s own septic tank and will go into a common line and go into a community septic system in a remote part of the property. We will construct two leach beds/systems. Each septic tank will be pumped each year thereby avoiding problems. If repairs need to be done, they will be done in the back area. Water system will be drilled wells for a Community Water System. There will be residential fire suppression. We will not do what was done in 1988 with houses scattered all over the place. The area needs to be acceptable to the public. The Homeowners would maintain the Golf Course.
Ron Slocum – Asked if this were to be a private road. The applicants stated it was to be a private road. Maintenance will be paid for by the residents. This takes the responsibility off the Town. Applicants stated there is about 6,000 feet of road.
Jerry Coogan, Planning Consultant – Stated he had completed a Fiscal Impact Statement. Stated there will be 68 Single Family Homes and 36 units (part of four unit building) with two bedrooms each. Will generate approximately $355,000/year to the Town in tax revenue. Will be approximately 243 persons with a cost to the Town of about $470/person for services. Will amount to about $118,00 for new residents. Will generate 1 ½ X $150 for motor vehicle taxes for a total of $23,400. Will be a total of $378,000 coming to the Town. This is a private development, road and solid waste will be taken care of by the Home Owners. Regarding School Costs and the number of units and number of children. People with children don’t want to live in a community with no children. Generally, there are very few children in these communities. Cited other developments which had age restrictions and there were no school children in the developments. I am projecting that there could be only six school age children at any one time. Also realize you have school capacity issues. Full build out would generate $l97,000 positive and with $211,000 with State Aid Assistance. Local responders such as fire, police calls are about 10-15 per year with 5-7 for fire and 10-12 for EMS calls. In summary, this will be a positive cash flow to the Town.
The Board requested that Mr. Coogan present his findings in a written report.
Comments from the Board:
Ron Slocum asked about solid waste. Applicants stated the Homeowners Association will manage it. Would hire some one like Waste Management, etc. The applicants stated these people are really going to be taking care of everything with no cost to the Town.
R. Slocum stated that Dunbarton has two private haulers and if they are hired the waste still is handled by the Town of Dunbarton.
John Trottier stated that the Board is going to want to know how they will be handling solid waste, etc.
David Nault – What type of golf course is this? It was noted it was a Bill Mitchell Golf Course. Will it still keep that design if you realign three holes? Applicants stated they were going to try to keep to the vision of the Bill Mitchell course, etc. Will go back to the original design of the 18 hole golf course if necessary. Would like to make some storm water improvements. Need to get some stream improvements along with treatment swales.
D. Nault – You can change how the trash is collected, how is the Town going to be guaranteed public access.
Applicants stated there will be a mini-convenience store so people won’t have to go to Goffstown to get a quart of milk, etc.
The Board asked if the road system would be developed all the way to the property lines so through ways could be established at a later time. Applicants stated would have to be discussed at the Planning Board level. The neighbors, the Burnhams, have indicated they would not have interest in that.
Ron Slocum – Asked if in their calculations, did you include the surface of the fairways of the golf course? How can you include this if it is Commercial property?
John Trottier indicated the applicants need to explain how they calculated the density, etc. including the golf course, and other commercial uses of the property for the next presentation.
According to the calculations, the proposed housing would require 439 acres under Dunbarton’s present zoning. The roadway needs to be taken out of the calculation also. In addition, they will have to work around the restrictions of the golf course.
Other questions raised by the Board as follows:
1. Air Strip is still active and needs to be addressed by the applicant.
2. Phasing the Development over a four year period. (applicants stated at a Neighborhood Meeting they would not encourage phasing.)
3. Calculations re density and including golf course and commercial uses within the buildable area.
At this point in the meeting, Attorney Uchida presented an Executive Summary on Age Restrictions. (attached) Explained this had worked well in other communities. The Town is allowed to enforce the age restrictions and it has the power that if a violation occurs it violates zoning and is enforceable. Want to make sure the Town has the power to enforce along with the Association. The covenants get recorded at the Registry of Deeds.
Abutters were read as follows and noted all had been notified by certified mail:
Kenneth and Jennifer Proulx – Not Present
J & J Trust – Not Present
Theresa G. Naser – Not Present
David Maceacran – Not Present
Charles Graybill – Not Present
Thomas & Melissa Maille – Not Present
Robert Thomas – Not Present
Julia and Arthur Thomas – Not Present
Henry & Joan Burnham – Not Present
Benjamin & Mary Horne – Present. Stated he was the owner of the airport. They don’t show on the plan that this is a bonafide airport. My concern is having this number of residents within the landing plot. This airport is registered as a private airport.
Curtis Whittaker – Present. Asked if the electrical system would be under ground or would he be looking at poles, etc. His biggest thing that concerns him is how many units are we talking about and are we including the acreage of the fairways in the formula? Don’t want to discuss the maintenance of a golf course. Can’t penalize the golf course. You won’t be able to build as many units. I am worried that you will be sending the wrong incentives. The last thing we want is to lose the golf course. I am able to walk right out of my house onto the fairway. I am sure my house would be sitting between two roads. The existing road has been a problem for a while. My final point, is these folks have good intentions and could improve the value of the abutters homes. What about a bond? If the development gets started, then stopped, we have a shabby development on a piece of property.
Kathy Mathaluski – Stated that Old Poor Farm Road is a discontinued road and not developed. They are planning to use clear access for residents.
Joseph and Nichole French – Present. Concerned about roads and the new road with the current property. What would the setback be for the current property owners.
P. Holden – Established that the road would be approximately 125 feet away from the house at the narrowest point, and 200 feet away from the roadway.
Paul and Robin Nelson – Not Present
Rene & Ruth Norbert – Present. Ruth Norbert stated she had concerns about the development and the community which would be behind her house. Presently is a quiet area, this will create more noise and more people and not be the same. Stated there will be a lot of cars going down the road. Would be a concern to us.
P. Holden – Stated they tried to not have any development in that area. Tried to still be able to use the property. There will be no buildings from your house to the buildings and they will be 500 feet or more away and into the trees. Tried hard not to impact others.
Rene Norbert - Present. Stated he bought his piece of property because it abutted a golf course. This is going to depreciate my property because I am no longer on the golf course. 55 and older and you mentioned kids, more grandparents are taking care of the grandkids. You cannot turn them away. Other developments like this have people who live in them with school aged children.
Peter Holden – The impact would be the same if the golf course was not there. To preserve the value that you have been getting from your neighbor’s property will not be there.
Jeffrey & Evelyn Kantor – Present. I think it is going to devaluate my property as well. You are talking about a grocery store and two restaurants. We are talking about when someone comes to buy a quart of milk from Goffstown, etc. I am no longer on the golf course. Certainly depreciates my property. We are going to have a lot of noise. We probably won’t be able to see the stars. There will be a restaurant. This is a small road. What happens when they decide they want the Town to take it over. The Town has bent and said okay in the past. The school population will increase. I spent weeks and months rebuilding the school. There is a problem with the airport. He does his approach over these houses. What will be his new approach. I will be awaiting the utralight landing. Water tests should be done at the end of the summer. I run low on water sometimes. How much money the Town can make when this thing goes through. I didn’t know the Town was here to make money.
Kevin and Marie McCarthy – Present. Referred to his Attorney, Peter Imse. Attorney Imse stated as follows:
1. Stated he would like a copy of the Fiscal Impact Study and a copy of the plans.
2. Stated there was a multiple of uses including non-residential uses. How much in excess of the number of units are we talking about? All the land is encompassed by the golf course. The numbers change dramatically, up to requires 440 acres.
3. Hardship – This is a residential area. Why do they think they have a hardship?
4. PRD Analysis – With a single entrance for traffic. 1200 feet in on road which will create unsafe traffic situations.
5. Volume of traffic. There will be residents, golf course, convenience store traffic on site. Well over 1500 trips per day using the State Traffic Management Trip calculations.
6. PRD is limited to residential uses. Don’t see how this even works. I don’t see how a public recreational golf course can exist with this PRD. Seems additional permits would be needed for this project i.e.Convenience Store needs a Special Exception, Not on a Main Road so it also needs a Variance. A Fitness Center needs a Special Exception, etc.
7. There is the School Issue. Enough has been said. Over 55 doesn’t mean anything any more. Person over 55 have children. In addition, 20% can have children. This means 20 – 21 units. It is not true to say that only 6-8 children will be in the development. This is a huge project.
8. PRD – Applicant must tell you how the Open Space will be handled. What are the documents going to look like? This is information we should have prior to next meeting.
John Trottier stated there are mixed uses on the property. We need to know how you came up with what you are proposing.
Norman and Mary Caron, Caron Revocable Trust – This project destroys the spirit of the rural development of this community. This will have lights and ruin my view. The mountain view is destroyed. Would decrease my property value significantly.
Walter and Evelyn Smith – Not Present
Story Heirs – Not Present
Hammond Revocable Trust – Not Present
Glenn Doten & Linn Lurkjean – Not Present
Kim and Jennifer Lavoie – Not Present
Norman Caron stated that George Cushman had been present but had to leave because it was late, but he wanted to go on record as being against the project.
Other Members of the Public:
Michael Poirier – Stated we want them to look for 11 acres per four unit plus five acres for each single unit and talk out the golf course, etc. Let’s send them in the right direction. It is not even worth coming back to the next meeting otherwise you are wasting all these people’s time. It is part of the issue. No one is going to put 40 houses on this lot. 104 will never get to the tee by the end of the day.
John Herlihy mentioned school issues and capacity of the existing school. There are presently 215 students in it now.
Bruce Michaud – How many more children can the school handle? Because this influx of people and the potential of having to build a new school. What kind of septic system are you going to have?. I have a leaching system. This is a lot bigger. We need to consider how this is going to affect your plan.
Arvid Rain – Stated he was an abutter and was not notified. Had to read about it in the paper.
At this point in the meeting, Don Lane checked his list of abutters and stated that it had been their mistake.
John Trottier stated the notice would have to be
re-advertised at the applicants expense and the proceeding started over in
February.
Debbie Foster – Asked if there was any effort going to be made for runoff from lawns, etc. nice green lawns with lots of fertilizer and will run off into the wetlands area.
Don Lane stated they will follow good development practices. Will be low impact. We are planning a Low Impact Design.
Tom Murphy – Who owns this parcel now?
Don Lane stated that Countryside Golf Course is the present owners. The developers have a Purchase and Sales Agreement.
Kevin McCarthy – Stated that down by the clubhouse they are storing gasoline and fertilizer. You may have a pollution problem. This is the ground water we drink.
John Trottier – Indicated they are at their own risk if they purchase property with environmental problems. Don’t know how to address this problem.
Ron Slocum – Since they are requesting a Variance to the Density, do we need to look into the water issues. This is a centralized water system plus it will draw for the golf course. The golf course is already drawing water, etc. Would not this be a criteria we would use BEFORE allowing this development? Water usages are a big issue.
The Board noted this was an issue for the Planning Board to discuss.
Don Lane will address water issues at the next meeting. Currect golf course irrigation comes from the existing on-site pond.
At this point in the public hearing, the following motion was made:
MOTION:
John Trottier made a motion to continue the
Public Hearing regarding a Request for a Variance to Article 6, Section C(3)
and Special Exception to Article 4, from Watch Hill Development Group, LLC
representing Countryside Golf Club, Inc. (B3-2-1, B4-1-11, A4-1-5 and A3-1-4)
to allow them to develop a planned residential development on the
above-described lots with a Variance to permit 104 dwelling units within nine
(9) 4 unit buildings and sixty eight (68) single family units, where the
ordinance would permit a maximum of ninety-five (95) dwelling units in all
4-unit buildings. John Herlihy seconded
the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
Other Business:
Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, appeared before the Board on the following issues:
1. Stated that Michel Belanger’s Request for Variances for two lots on Old Hopkinton Road would not be ready until at least March. The Zoning Board stated they did not need to ask for an Extension.
2. Gerry Gelineas, Gorham Pond Road, - Possibility of requesting a Variance for a Lot with less than required 300 foot frontage. Was advised there is the possibility of a Zoning Change at the next Town Meeting which would address large lot subdivisions such as this.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alison R. Vallieres, Secretary