DUNBARTON ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT
TOWN OFFICES – 7:00 PM
The regular monthly meeting of the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment was held at the above time, date and place with Chairman John Trottier presiding. The following members were present:
John Trottier, Chairman
John Herlihy, Vice Chairman
Alison R. Vallieres, Secretary
Gertrude Dulude
David Nault
Ron Slocum, Alternate
Leo Martel, Alternate
Dan DalPra, Alternate
The Chairman stated that the two new alternates, Leo Martel and Dan DalPra had not yet been sworn in so they would sit in the audience this evening.
The Chairman verified with the Secretary that the public notice had been posted in three public places throughout the Town and published in the Concord Monitor for one day.
John
Trottier asked that the minutes be amended as follows:
Page
5, fourth paragraph from the bottom, second sentence should read as
follows: “The Board stated that the
proposed garage would be extending to the west by 10 feet and infringing on the
present setback by 4 feet.”
John
Herlihy made a motion that the meeting minutes be approved as amended. The motion was seconded and passed
unanimously.
John
Trottier, Chairman, stated that the Michel Belanger Public Hearing
scheduled for this evening at 7:30 p.m. was postponed to another meeting
because of technical problems of notification of abutters.
7:00
P.M. - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ARTICLE
4, SECTION B. FROM EDWARD J. COLBURN REPRESENTING CLARA M. SHELTON REVOCABLE
TRUST 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 CONSERVATION DISTRICT AT PROPERTY
ON 8 HOLIDAY SHORE DRIVE AT GORHAM POND IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN
DUNBARTON, NH
Edward
Colburn appeared before the Board with the same plan as previously presented
showing the Wetlands District as 94 feet from the shoreline of Gorham Pond
which had been stamped by a Wetlands Scientist, Harry R. Murray, No. 141.
John Trottier, Chairman, stated the following members would be voting on this request:
John Trottier
John Herlihy
Alison Vallieres
David Nault
Gertrude Dulude
The Board noted that the questions regarding the granting of a Variance should be addressed. The applicant answered the questions as follows:
a.
No diminution in values of surrounding
properties would be suffered;
Answer: No.
b.
Granting the variance would be of benefit to the
public interest;
Answer: Yes.
c.
Denial of the variance would result in
unnecessary hardship to the owner seeking it;
Answer: It certainly would.
d.
Granting the variance would do substantial
justice; and
Answer: Yes it will.
e.
The use would not be contrary to the spirit of
the ordinance.
Answer: Not at all.
Abutters were read as follows and noted all were notified by certified mail:
James Bartlett – Not Present
Shane Larry Phelps – Not Present
James C. & Clara Kerr – Not Present
Kim M. Solman – Not Present
The public hearing was closed at 7:15 p.m.
MOTION:
John Herlihy made a motion
that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment grant the request for a Variance
to Article 4, Section B. from Edward J. Colburn representing Clara M. Shelton
Revocable Trust to allow him to repair a septic system closer than the required
50 feet from the boundary at property on 8 Holiday Shore Drive at Gorham Pond
in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH subject to the following
conditions:
1. The
proposed septic system will be no closer than 10 feet to the easterly boundary
2. The proposed septic system will be no closer
than 12 feet to the southerly boundary
3. The proposed septic system will be no closer
than 40 feet to the northerly boundary
Alison
Vallieres seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously.
MOTION:
David Nault made a motion
that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment grant the request for a Variance
to Article 5, Section D. to allow him to repair a septic system within the
Wetlands Conservation District at property on 8 Holiday Shore Drive at Gorham
Pond in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH and that the setback to the
Wetland will be 94 feet in a westerly direction. Gertrude Dulude seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
7:15
P.M. – REQUEST FOR A REHEARING FROM U.
S. CELLULAR ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERS,
RICHARD AND NICOLETTE HECKER (C3-5-7)
REGARDING 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, Chairman, stated that the Board would be addressing the MOTION FOR REHEARING (attached) from the applicants one item at a time. The items were read by the Chairman and addressed by the Board as follows:
Applicant’s statement:
1. US
Cellular submitted an application to the ZBA for the variances needed to
construct a 180-foot telecommunications
tower and related equipment and utilities on a wooded portion of a six-acre
parcel located in the Town’s Low Density Residential Zone. The proposed facility would be visible from
only a few locations within the Town.
Board Discussion:
Alison Vallieres and Ron Slocum stated they had a problem with the last statement, “The proposed facility would be visible from only a few locations within the Town”. They both felt the tower could be seen from many locations within the Town.
David Nault – Stated that he also had a problem with the statement “would be visible from only a few locations within the Town”. Could see the balloons which were flown from a lot of different places.
2. During
the public hearing process, US Cellular presented undisputed evidence that it
has a significant gap in its wireless network coverage in Dunbarton, including
several miles along Route 13 and also including many other parts of the Town
where U Cellular’s customers live and work.
Studies show that approximately 65% of the Town is not covered. The Town’s independent expert confirmed the
accuracy of U Cellular’s evidence in this regard.
Board Discussion:
The Board agreed that Item 2 was a correct statement.
3. The
evidence also was undisputed that at a height of at least 150 feet, US
Cellular’s proposed single site would allow US Cellular to close most of this
gap in its network coverage; would allow links to other US Cellular sites in
neighboring communities; and, would allow other carriers to utilize the same
site for their network coverage purposes.
Board Discussion:
Ron Slocum stated he had a real problem with this statement. The applicant supplied a chart with the various tower heights showing how much of the town would be provided cell service for each tower height. The following are the numbers from their chart that they supplied at one of the many meetings:
180 foot Tower would provide coverage for 83.1% of the Town
150 foot Tower would provide coverage for 80.5% of the Town
120 foot Tower would provide coverage for 77.2% of the Town
100 foot Tower would provide coverage for 74.3% of the Town
Ron Slocum stated that he doesn’t understand why 150 feet is okay and 110 feet is no good. I am disputing that 150’ was their best. I disagree with that. They can only have one carrier at 110 feet.
John Herlihy stated that 110 feet would not allow them four carriers, only one carrier. We are not here to market the tower. We are here for the coverage.
John Trottier agreed with the above statements.
4. At
a height of at least 150 feet, the proposed tower would be designed and
engineered to allow for additional co-locators.
US Cellular’s leasehold area is large enough to accommodate the
ground-level equipment shelters of US Cellular’s competitors.
Board Discussion:
The Board agreed Item #4 was a true statement.
5. Representatives
of AT&T Wireless testified in support of US Cellular’s application and
presented uncontroverted evidence (also confirmed by the Town’s expert) that
AT&T needs a facility of at least 140 feet in height in the vicinity of
Powell Lane in order to close a significant gap in its wireless network.
Board Discussion:
The Board agreed Item 5 was a correct statement but noted the following:
John Herlihy noted that AT&T was only supporting US Cellular. All they were looking for was co-locating to close a gap that they never proved they had. Plus they already have a tower at the top of the hill which they are located on.
Ron Slocum stated he agreed with John Herlihy. He stated he doesn’t see their name on the application.
David Nault stated that AT&T would have coverage at 100 feet.
Ron Slocum stated AT&T doesn’t play a part in our decision.
John Herlihy stated that AT&T was still going to stay on the tower at the top of the hill.
6. The
record also was uncontroverted that there is no existing structure in Dunbarton
upon which US Cellular or AT&T could deploy their antennas and close the
gaps in their networks in this area.
Board Discussion:
John Herlihy stated that is their opinion. There were other places throughout the Town. They are not only looking for themselves, they are looking to co-locate other carriers and were not interested in pursuing other avenues. There is an existing tower down the road which was cost prohibitive to upgrade they said.
Gertrude Dulude – Stated they were not interested in any other spot.
7. Finally,
the record was uncontroverted that there is no location in Dunbarton at which
wireless antenna towers are allowed; thus, both a height variance and a use
variance are required, without which it is not possible for US Cellular (or any
other carrier) to provide coverage in Dunbarton.
Board Discussion:
The Board agreed that Item 7 was a correct statement.
8. Under
Federal Law, US Cellular is entitled to such variances because, without the
same, it will have no reasonable opportunity to provide service. See, e.g., Nextel Communications v. Town of
Wayland, 231 F.Supp.2d 396, 406 (D.Mass.2002).
Board Discussion:
The Board agreed that Item #8 was a correct statement.
9. Although
the ZBA agreed that US Cellular was entitled to variances, it imposed
conditions which US Cellular respectfully submits are not reasonable and not
supported by the evidence, including not only US Cellular’s evidence but also
the report of the Town’s own expert.
Board Discussion:
David Nault – Stated that is not true.
John Herlihy stated that the Board’s expert said that a 110 foot tower would suffice and would cover a significant gap. A 9% loss is not very significant.
Ron Slocum stated he did not feel any of the conditions were unreasonable. They are all consistent with other surrounding towns. We did nothing less that what had already been done.
10. Without
limiting the foregoing, US Cellular submits that the following issues warrant a
rehearing:
a.
There were no propogation studies submitted by
US Cellular for a facility of 100 feet in height. The Board nevertheless limited the height of
US Cellular’s facility to 100 feet even thought its own expert’s report
confirmed that at their height “holes begin to open” along Route 13 and even
thought the uncontroverted evidence showed that other parts of US Cellular’s
gap in Dunbarton would not be closed at all with antennas deployed at 120 feet
(let alone at 110 feet.)
Board Discussion:
Ron Slocum stated this creates a gray area. They stated early on that even a 180 foot tower would not cover all the gaps. There are gaps at all heights. There were gaps along the 180 foot corridor. No matter what height, there were gaps. What gaps are acceptable and what isn’t? The object was to cover the Route 13 corridor. There will be gaps on Route 13 no matter what height the tower is.
John Herlihy stated this is the first that someone has challenged the putting of conditions on an approval.
b.
The Board appeared to conclude that a reduction
from the requested height to 110 feet would result in the loss of “only” 9% of
the proposed coverage area. A 9% loss is
equivalent to a loss of nearly three square miles of territory, i.e., a very
significant gap in coverage would still exist.
Board Discussion:
John Herlihy stated that if you go back to what our expert said, 110 feet significantly closes these gaps in this Town. The applicant never disputed anything he said. We can only rely on people that we hire to work for us. Within three square miles, there are ponds and places where people don’t live. I don’t feel that 3 square miles without cellular phones is a reason to be going to a 180 foot tower.
Ron Slocum stated that 2.5% coverage gap to 9% gap is unacceptable now to the applicants. If you have gaps in the Route 13 corridor or not, you really have gained nothing.
c.
AT&T produced uncontroverted evidence that
it needs a height of at least 140 feet as well as evidence which showed that
with its antennas deployed at 110 feet, its network would still have
significant coverage gaps, including Dunbarton Center, areas along Robert
Rogers Road, areas near Gorham Pond, and other populated and well-traveled
areas.
Board Discussion:
John Herlihy stated that he doesn’t feel AT&T has any standing in this at all. The evidence from AT&T was small.
d.
The Board imposed a requirement that US Cellular
disguise its facility as an “artificial tree.”
While US Cellular had agreed to consider this option, such willingness
was based on a facility of at least the minimum height specified by US
Cellular, i.e., 150 feet. At lower
heights, the facility is not economically viable and certainly would be even
less viable with the added cost of camouflaging technology.
Board Discussion:
The Board noted there were discussions about artificial trees. Economic viability is not our concern. Financially what is best for the Town. We did not chose the location.
John Herlihy stated that it is not our concern.
Alison Vallieres stated that she did not feel the Board grants Variances based on economics.
e.
The Board imposed a requirement that US Cellular
build the facility to accommodate the antennas and ground equipment of the
Town’s safety services at no charge. US
Cellular had offered to make this accommodation, but did so with the
understanding that the tower would be built so that it would be economically
viable, i.e., at least 150 feet tall. US
Cellular cannot agree to allow the Town to use the tower free of charge if the
tower is limited to 110 feet in height and therefore this condition is not
agreeable and is unlawful.
Board Discussion:
Ron Slocum stated the applicant approached the Fire Chief and Chief of Police. There were no conversations about the height of the tower. They could withdraw their offer.
John Herlihy stated that he doesn’t believe the applicant ever put conditions on the granting of the Town’s use based on the height of the tower.
David Nault - If they were concerned about the height., they could have taken the Town off the tower.
John Herlihy stated the letter from the Chief of Police and Fire Chief stated there was no need to have it now, and there also was no burning desire to have it there “tomorrow morning”.
f.
The Board imposed a setback requirement (equal
to the height of the tower) which had not been discussed during the public
hearings, and as to which US Cellular had no opportunity to provide
evidence. The setback requirement is not
in fact supported by the evidence, in that the tower cannot and will not fall
over from its foundation, and there are no nearby residencies or other occupied
structures. What is more, the setback would require moving the tower which
could result in greater visibility and/or a need for greater height, depending
on the final location. US Cellular would
be willing to work with Town officials to select a final location within the
lease area described in its application, and could thus increase the setbacks
to some extent, but cannot accept a setback equal to the height of the tower.
Board Discussion:
John Herlihy stated the Board had a great many discussion on this. Attorney Grill stated that the tower would come down a certain way. Well in Florida a tower came down not the way they thought. There was public comment about it falling on other people’s lands.
Ron Slocum stated that when we got to this point, I brought in for the public record other ordinances where other towns recommend setbacks as follows:
Amherst – Setback equals the height of the tower
Ashland – Setback equals 110% of the height of the tower
Canterbury – Setback equals 125% height of tower
Cornish – Setback equals 125% height of tower
Durham – Setback equals heights of tower
Danbury – Setback equals two times the height of the tower
East Kingston – Setback equals 125% height of the tower
Francestown – Setback equals 150% height of tower
Grantham – Setback equals 125% height of tower
Hampton – Setback equals 125% height of tower
Hanover – Setback equals 125% height of tower
Madison – Setback equals height of tower
Meredith – Setback equals 2/3 height of tower
Webster – 125% of the tower height
Ron Slocum stated this should not have been an issue. If you look back at the maps, the tower will be located 102 feet from the east and 100 feet from the west. There is an area 100’ x 100’ plotted. They would have to move the tower 10 feet to the west and 10 feet to the south. I don’t see why this is such a problem. We are also talking about debris falling off the tower and they don’t fall “straight down”.
John Trottier, Chairman, asked Attorney Grill what specifically did they have in mind that the Zoning Board of Adjustment should have done, etc.
Attorney Grill stated that they interpreted certain items within the Hutchins report differently than the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Stated they have tried hard to get it right. That was our principal concern. There appears to be disagreement as to the conclusions that are drawn from the report.
John Trottier – If we decide
to rehear this, are you willing to pay for the cost of Hutchins appearing at
the rehearing?
Attorney Grill stated, “Yes,
they would pay the cost for Hutchins’s appearance at the rehearing if granted”.
John Trottier, Chairman,
noted for the record that the applicant has agreed to pay the costs for the
services of Hutchin’s to testify at the rehearing, if granted.
Attorney Grill noted that the only other point of misunderstanding was that they never said less that 150 feet would work for them. When we said we would do things for the Town it was understood that it was for a tower of 150 feet minimum. We were always thinking 150 feet.
David Nault – Stated that each one of the items was discussed at many meetings, and we looked at it and made a decision. All of these don’t change this. There has been no new evidence presented this evening. My decision is that we don’t grant the rehearing. They are closing a significant gap on Route 13. Cellular service is changing everyday. There is analog/digital services available not only for their company. I know the phone service I get has doubled. Our expert stated this but in here there is nothing spoken to it. Service is not going to get worse.
Ron Slocum - I agree with Dave. I have gone over this and yes, there are a lot of questions. Economic considerations are not the Zoning Board of Adjustment’s problem. Towns can decide whether they want fewer taller towers or more shorter towers. This is their option. If they want to come back in, they can apply for a lower tower in another location. I don’t want to see our engineer arguing with their engineer. Why is it now that 77% is no long acceptable? You would still have gaps at 180 feet. You would still have to put in another tower. Our approach is to go with more smaller towers. They want a 150 foot tower to make more money. They are providing a service at 110 feet. That is the facts of life. They stated this early on. Now they will have to be more strategic.
Gertrude Dulude stated the Board gave the applicant a lot of attention. Don’t feel we didn’t listen to them..
Ron Slocum stated that if the
Board does grant a rehearing, he would like to know what the other towns have
and any other restrictions in other towns.
Everything we have done is consistent with surrounding towns.
John Herlihy stated that how we interpret your word “significant” and what our expert figures “significant” is the point. I read the document from Mr. Hutchins for us and 9% is not a lot. What is 3 square miles? On the other hand, I think they have a right to come back to dispute the evidence of our expert. Really don’t want to see a lawsuit coming down from this. The Board could listen to one more meeting. I know that this is important. Could afford the applicant a rehearing before going to Court.
John Trottier – Stated he agreed that we need to know what “significant” means.
US Cellular Representative Ken Kosyka stated they would like to schedule the rehearing in May to allow them time.
MOTION:
John Herlihy made a motion
that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment grant a rehearing to US Cellular
pursuant to RSA 677P2 with respect to the ZBA’s January 20, 2004 decision to
deny US Cellular the variances needed to build a 180 foot tall lattice-style
wireless telecommunications antenna tower at 12 Powell Lane, Tax Map/Lot
#C3-5-7, property of Richard and Nicolette Hecker, and instead to allow only a
110 foot tall facility, with additional conditions. John Trottier seconded the motion. The motion passed by a majority vote as
follows:
John Trottier – Yes
John Herlihy – Yes
Alison Vallieres – Yes
Gertrude Dulude – Yes
David Nault – Abstained
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 6, SECTION C(3) AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ARTICLE 4.,TO ALLOW 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 PLANNING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LOTS WITH A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A DENSITY OF 104 DWELLING UNITS CONSISTING OF 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 IF THE ENTIRETY OF THE ACREAGE ON THE LOTS (EXCEPTING SURFACE WATER AND SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 20%) WERE DEVOTED TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEVELOP A PRD WITHOUT LOT LINES. (THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON STARK HIGHWAY SOUTH, ROUTE 13 AND COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH)
IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE SIZE AND DEGREE OF THE DENSITY VARIANCE, THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION OF THE ACREAGE AVAILABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AFTER SUBTRACTION OF THAT ACREAGE DEVOTED TO GOLF COURSE USE AND OTHER PROPOSED COMMERCIAL USES FOR THE LOTS. THE APPLICANT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT FURTHER ZBA APPROVALS ARE REQUIRED FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OR MODIFICATION OF COMMERCIAL USES ON THE LOTS, BUT IS NOT SEEKING THOSE APROVALS AT THIS TIME.
Attorney
Richard Uchida, Don Lane, Lyle Folkestad,
and Peter Howard were present to discuss the proposal.
Attorney
Uchida the project which was being presented this evening had undergone
substantial changes from the previous meeting.
He stated they did determine that the Board approved of the Cluster
Development but had concerns about the number of units even though they were
clustered. Stated they have lowered the
density from 104 to 88 units. Presented
a statement showing the density and how it was reached. (attached)
The proposal was for 60 single family units and 7 four unit buildings
for a total of 88. Stated they like the
“mix” of houses.
Attorney
Uchida state that in order to meet the density requirements of the ordinance,
we would need to do all in four unit buildings for a total of 88 quads which
also would not be senior housing. We
would not have to seek a Variance for this.
Attorney
Uchida stated the Board asked us to try to work with a number of abutter’s
concerns about the impact upon their properties which we have done. Over the last couple of days, there have been
many discussions with abutters. We did
not have time to make some of the changes on the plans prior to this
evening. We are looking towards a
project that meets a lot of the concerns of the abutters. We will have to come back in another month
with our new project. Copies will be
left at the Town Offices for public viewing.
Also the Zoning Board would like these in advance of their meeting.
Lyle
F. – Stated they have eliminated all the proposed commercial services,
Executive swimming pool and 16 of the great house quads which were in the Town
Square area. Total units have been
reduced to 88. Holes 1, 2 and 3 would
remain the same as neighbors want to reside on a golf course. We will protect the existing gravel
road. Will be a secondary road to the
property for emergency use. Have moved
the Watch Hill Village down the hill and therefore it will not impact any of
the views from the roadway. Villages are
still around a green. Have created
alleys. Will be a 24’ wide road coming
in. We have created a 100 foot buffer
zone all around the property. Have a mix
of cottages and quads which creates a more dynamic community. This is the third largest parcel in
Dunbarton. What we have proposed will be
70% under Conservation Easement or Recreational easement tied to the Golf
Course. 70% will never be
developed. There is a movement to get
away from single family housing.
Don
Lane – We are actually close to reaching an agreement with the abutters. The upper quads were clearly visible from the
residences on Meadow Lane. We agreed to
relocate the four units and locate them somewhere else on the project.
Stated
the following with regard to the project:
1. With regard to the trail and pathway
system, there will be 2 ½ miles of trails on site.
2.
All utilities
will be underground.
3.
If we can assist the abutters to get their
utilities underground, we will.
4.
Working on a Special Class of Membership for
the Association for the abutters.
5.
Working toward actually having the residents
of Meadow Lane maintain their existing views.
6.
With regard to
the common water system and septic system, the residents of Meadow Lane will be
able to tie into the wells. We would
expect them to pay for hookups, etc.
Would be annual fees involved.
7.
If the golf course is closed, the existing
fairways would be mowed at least once a year.
We would be asking for waivers for the 100 foot buffers for the mowing,
etc.
8.
ATV,
snowmobiles and vehicles will be prohibited from the property. There will be no commercial uses.
9.
Will
incorporate outdoor lighting standards for this project. Will be minimum light standards. We will work with them and they will be
written standards.
10. Concern about the closeness of the access road. We are planning to relocate and bring this
away from the houses.
11. Would like
the capability of holding small one day corporation events.
12. Golf Course will be open to the public.
13. Will be an easement to the Conservation Commission
and Recreation Commission. Would like to
keep our options open if we ever decide to have an 18 hole golf course. Our intent is to make this available for
public usage.
14. Neighbors would like to see a new name. Open to suggestions.
15. Are presently in the process of developing a
document to cover homeowners should our development fail. Restrictions will be tied to the
developer.
16. The existing gravel road would be maintained for
emergency purposes.
17. Burnham’s have expressed concerns about trespassers,
and we have agreed to put a stockade fence along their entire boundary to
prevent this.
18. Will be a limited common area pocket around each
building. Setback from building to
building is now 35’. National BOCA Code
states 20’. Will be 30 feet back from
the curb. Private areas around
buildings will be 85’ x 110’-130’ (10,000 – 11,000 square feet, ¼ acre lots)
Members of the Board, Public and Abutters:
John
Mazalewski – Said it was stated that when the cars are coming out, no one would
see the lights. When people come out of
the golf course now, I see their lights.
Also had a question about the private road.
The
applicants stated they will move the entrance road to the west.
Ron
Slocum noted close proximity to wetlands is a priority.
David
Nault asked if there would be public access areas throughout the project.
Attorney Uchida presented a statement from Realtor concerning surrounding property values. (attached)
In addition, a fiscal impact statement was presented. (attached)
The
applicants stated they were looking for direction from the Board as to the
number of units and the kind of housing mix they have presented.
Alison
Vallieres asked if they have considered duplexes in place of some of the single
family cottages, etc.
The
applicants stated this was a good idea.
David
Nault asked that the applicants give the Board members a copy of the
International Building Code Section where it shows setbacks. Concerned about the 100’ around the
property.
Jeff
Kantor – They are trying to keep all the abutters happy. We don’t all like the lighting, etc. Ben doesn’t like golf balls on his
property. Might have to get rid of #1
hole. They are working with the
abutters.
Norman
Caron – If the roadway as you see were moved more closer to Ben’s house, with
what Jeff has said, it would provide us with a larger fairway and a better
hole. We went through a lot of
negotiation and a lot of meetings and what we are bringing to you is a better
solution for us on the ridge and makes it viable to us.
John
Trottier stated they are going to have to rework their plan, and they will have
to figure out what changes they will need to make.
Paul
Nelson – What is history for cluster development in Dunbarton?
Board
noted the only one was Old Fort Estates and there was separate lots within that
development. It consists of 24
lots.
Kathy
Green – Asked if this development was proposed to be for over 55.
Applicants
stated this is still an over 55 years of age development. 80% of all houses have to have someone over
55 living in them. Not encouraging
children but they are allowed in 20% of the houses. They are all two bedrooms with the Master
Bedroom on the first floor so this discourages larger families, etc.
Ben
Horne – Stated he owns the airport and received a copy of the letter DOT wrote
to Don Lane and what they had to say about that. (attached)
He stated he had major concerns about having houses there. Said he has received verbal complaints from
the Burnhams about flying his ultra-light over their house. This is not a public runway but is an active
FAA Airport.
At
this point in the meeting, Mrs. Burnham stated she did not complain about his
flying over her house, just asked him not to fly over their house and
barn.
Rodney
Doucet – You are saying 80% will be 55 and over. What is the duration of that clause? Can it be changed?
Attorney
Uchida stated the way the documents will be written, the Town would have to
agree with any changes. Has to be 2/3 of
the Association plus the Town consent.
David
Nault – Can you tell us where the different villages will be on the map.
The
applicants pointed them out on the large map.
Applicants stated they don’t want this to be a gated
community. Would like the Club House to
be made available for Town use. Would
like to add a small extension on the end
between 400 – 600 square feet.
Jeff
Kantor – Stated the way it is laid out and with the reduction in units, we feel
it the best we can have. It is a
compromise for us. It is a major change
on the good side.
Caron
– Asked how close can you shave the density and maintain what you have?
Don
Lane stated it has some issues. In order
to support those activities, we have tried to put together a good plan. 104 units was based on recreational area that
the whole town could use. We scaled back
and tried. 88 is a very real
number.
Dan
DalPra – Asked about the 33% reduction for density requirements. Asked if this is the norm for the Board to
consider. There are levels of precident
which would be set. I think it is great
that abutters have had some input into the plan.
The
Board replied they had never had a request such as this before the Board.
Attorney
Uchida stated this was a very unique property and if we develop this the way
the Town Ordinance tells us, would ask you to look at the uniqueness that we
have tried to preserve.
Ben
Horne – Stated he was concerned about the size of the road. Should be a proper Town Road.
John
Trottier, Chairman, indicated that he would like to see the plan revised and do
it on 24’ x 36’ so the Board could all have copies to review, with them
addressing the abutters’ concerns. Also
concerned about the commercial use which is to be expanded.
Attorney
Uchida stated they would be enlarging the existing Special Exception because
eating and drinking establishments are permitted by Special Exceptions. It was there before. Does that require a Variance or just a
Special Exception?
MOTION:
JOHN TROTTIER MADE A MOTION THAT THE DUNBARTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 6, SECTION C(3) AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ARTICLE 4.,TO ALLOW 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 PLANNING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LOTS WITH A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A DENSITY OF 104 DWELLING UNITS CONSISTING OF 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 IF THE ENTIRETY OF THE ACREAGE ON THE LOTS (EXCEPTING SURFACE WATER AND SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 20%) WERE DEVOTED TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. JOHN HERLIHY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
There
being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 pm.
Respectfully
submitted,
Alison
R. Vallieres
Secretary