DUNBARTON ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT
MONDAY, APRIL 12, 2004
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 Vallieres, Secretary
David Nault
Gertrude Dulude
Ron Slocum, Alternate
Dan DelPra, Alternate
Kenneth Swayze, Admin., Planning
and Zoning Department
Mert Mann, Selectman, was also in the audience.
At
this point in the meeting, the Chairman verified with the Secretary that the
meeting notice had been posted in three public places throughout the Town and
published in the Concord Monitor for one day.
Election
of Officers:
John Herlihy made a motion that John Trottier be elected Chairman for the coming year. Alison Vallieres seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
John
Trottier made a motion that John Herlihy be elected Vice Chairman for
the coming year. David Nault seconded
the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
John Trottier made a motion that Alison Vallieres
be elected Secretary for the coming year.
Gertrude Dulude seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
John Trottier amended the minutes as follows: Page 7, fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraph from the bottom of the page should read as follows:
“John Trottier – If we decide to rehear this, are
you willing to pay for the cost of Hutchins services regarding
the rehearing?
Attorney Grill stated, “Yes, they would pay the cost
for Hutchin’s services regarding 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
if granted.”
MOTION:
John Herlihy made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board approve the minutes of the Monday, March 8, 2004 meeting as amended above by John Trottier. The motion was seconded by John Trottier. The motion passed unanimously.
CONTINUED
PUBLIC HEARING FOR A REQUEST FROM MICHEL BELANGER FOR A VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 4,
SECTION B. TO COMMIT ONE TRACT (J1-2-5) TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL BUILDING LOT,
NOT TO BE SUBDIVIDED FURTHER, WITH LESS THAN 300 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON A CLASS
V ROAD AT HIS PROPERTY LOCATED ON SOUTH
HOPKINTON ROAD AND NEW ROAD IN THE MANUFACTURED HOUSING DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON,
NH THIS TRACT HAS 300 FEET OF FRONTAGE
ON A CLASS VI ROAD.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR A REQUEST FROM JACQUES BELANGER AND ANTHONY COSTELLO FOR A VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 4, SECTION B. TO COMMIT ONE TRACT (I 1-3-1) TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL BUILDING LOT, NOT TO BE SUBDIVIDED FURTHER, WITH LESS THAN 300 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON A CLASS V ROAD AT THEIR PROPERTY LOCATED ON SOUTH HOPKINTON ROAD AND NEW ROAD IN THE MANUFACTURED HOUSING DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH THIS TRACT HAS 300 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON A CLASS VI ROAD.
Jacques
Belanger, Surveyor, presented a plan showing the two lots, one being 42.46
acres which he had purchased with Anthony Costello and the other lot of 23.89
which Michel Belanger still owned. He
stated there was a Purchase and Sales Agreement, pending approval of the
Variance, on the 23.89 acre lot with a party who wants to build one house on
the lot. He stated both lots had been
created with a 50 foot access strip. The
intention was to further subdivide them at some point. This plan did not go forward. We want to commit both the lots to two
individual homes with less than the required 300 foot frontage on a Class V Road.
J.
Belanger stated the last time they were before the Board, the new owners of
Paul Belanger’s parcel, the Palys did not have an access. Since then, this has been settled by a court
order. J. Belanger stated that his
brother, Paul and friends collected a lot of cars, boats, building debris, etc.
on the property. An order has come from
DES to clean up the property. (attached)
J.
Belanger stated that he has hauled away all of the abandoned vehicles with the
exception of two large pieces of equipment (excavator and dump truck ) which he
will be taking care of. In addition,
there is a skidder behind the Palys house which he will take care of. He will be taking care of the hydraulic oil
which DES referred to in their letter.
He stated that he and his partner, Anthony Costello have purchased one
of the lots. ( I 1-3-1) J. Belanger stated he will be writing an
easement to the Palys, and has paid the Town of Dunbarton all tax liens.
Jacques
stated that once the Variance has been granted, and the new owners of Parcel
J1-2-5 own it, they will grant an easement to the Jore’s but this cannot be
done until such time as they own the parcel.
Michel Belanger has refused to grant the easement to the Jore’s.
J.
Belanger stated there is a legal existing permit on the property to extract
gravel. They plan on reclaiming the pit
after the gravel is removed. Michie has
been contacted regarding the gravel. He
stated there is a pile of gravel which has already been crushed on the property
which is Les Hammond’s.
John
Herlihy stated the Conservation Commission expressed an interest for an
easement on the property. Has any
thought been given to giving land to them?
J.
Belanger stated they were considering possibly selling a portion of the land to
the Town for a Ball Field. Would annex
the land to the Transfer Station Town Property.
Dan
DalPra asked how long do you plan to mine the gravel?
Jacques
Belanger stated probably two years. Are
in the process of getting the contract signed.
Michie will be responsible for the reclaiming of the pit. This will be included in the contract.
John
Herlihy stated he wanted to make sure the pit will be reclaimed properly.
At
this point in the public hearing, John Trottier asked Ken Swayze, Admin.,
Planning and Zoning Department to speak regarding proposed conditions to be put
on the granting of a Variance as follows:
1.
That there be
no further subdivison of the subject properties, unless and until, there is
approval by both the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment and the Dunbarton
Planning Board with regard to any additional subdivision, re-configuration, or
expanded use(s).
2.
That there be a
basic visual and limited physical inspection of the premises to determine the
satisfactory removal of previously deposited vehicles, equipment, machinery,
junk and associated parts, materials or components. Said inspection is to be conducted by an
agency or firm acceptable to the Town, and qualified to perform such
inspections.
A
satisfactory written conclusion to such inspection(s) shall indicate that the
premises are acceptable for residential
use(s).
3.
That a draft
deed instrument be prepared to provide for perpetual rights and conditions of
passage to abutting parcel (I 1-3-6, and any other abutting parcels with access
provisions currently in place; such draft copy shall be made available for
review by the Town and/or Town Counsel.
A
final document shall be prepared for filing at the Merrimack County Registry of
Deeds, and shall be in a form and content acceptable to the Town and such
affected abutting property owners.
Ron
Slocum stated you plan on setting up these lots as single family home
lots? Asked what the status of New Road
was.
It
was determined that New Road is a Class VI road. It exits in Hopkinton.
Jacques
Belanger stated he plans on single family homes but would like to leave the
option open for an in-law apartment because of parents, etc.
Abutters
were read as follow and noted all had been notified by certified mail:
Larry
and Brigette Cook – Present. Stated he
does support this request. It benefits
the Town and there will be fewer demands on services. I do want to make sure the land is not
further subdivided or future houses put on there. I am concerned that without a deed restriction
this might not happen. Planning and
Zoning Board members change and wonder what can be done to assure that it will
not get subdivided. How can we be
assured that these lots will not be further subdivided?
Ken
Swayze stated that any change would have to go before both the Planning Board
and the Zoning Board. In addition, the
decision would be recorded on the plan which is filed at the Registry of
Deeds.
L.
Cook stated that my vision is that these lots would become just like my
lot. Is there anything that could be
done on these lots that I can’t do?
John
Trottier indicated these will be single family homes as opposed to
multi-family. Anyone in this Town can
have a duplex if they have seven acres.
Dean
and Deborah Jore – Not Present
Howard/Barbara
Palys – Present. Stated she understood
the process. She stated she does have a
court order for an easement.
Gary/Donna
Duchesneau – Not Present
Hull
Family Revocable Trust – Not Present
John/Michelle
Murphy - Not Present
John/Laili
McCarter – Not Present
Laura/Patrick
Schultz – Not Present
Patrick/Bonnie
Payette – Not Present
Timothy
Prescott, James/Thomas Sherwood – Not Present
Richard
Rochford – Not Present
Audubon
Society of New Hampshire – Not Present
Town
of Hopkinton – Not Present
Robert/June
Weyersberg – Not Present
Donald/Mary
Atchison – Present. Mrs. Atchison asked
what if he decides not to build on this property and this Board is no longer
here. How long does that stand so they
could not put multiple buildings in.
The
Board noted the Building Inspector pulls the plan out and sees that there can
be no further buildings on the parcel.
Mrs
Atchison stated that she has lived in other Towns and changes happen two years
later.
John
Trottier stated the “flavor” of this Town is they don’t want to see that. It is going to take a big swing be fore they
can do something like that. It would
have to go back to Town Meeting.
With
regard to the gravel operation, they would have to post a bond.
Charles/Jane
Pietras – Present. Stated they were
satisfied. Asked if they would be having
the same covenants on the property that Michel Belanger made them sign. (She stated they were that there be no
abandoned vehicles, tires, junk, etc. left on the property.)
Jacques
Belanger stated the house would be about 700 feet off South Hopkinton
Road. Definitely would not be abandoned
vehicles and junk as in the past.
Meadowsend
Sawmill, Robert French – Not Present
Town
of Dunbarton – Present.
The
applicant addressed the necessary criteria for the granting of a Variance as
follows:
a.
No diminution
in values of surrounding properties would be suffered;
Answer: The requested variance would commit the two
properties to be developed as single building lots committing 60 + acres for
two homes. This use will keep a
substantial area open, with far fewer homes that could be brought to the
neighborhood.
b. Granting the variance would be of benefit to the
public interest;
Answer: By granting the variance, fewer homes are
built, the cost of maintenance and providing services for additional families
is avoided.
c.
Denial of the
variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner seeking it;
Answer: These pieces of property are difficult to
develop, and are currently in poor condition due to mining and logging
operations. The variance would allow the
owners to build in a private setting, and encourage the cleaning up of the
properties.
d. Granting the variance would do substantial justice;
Answer: Substantial justice will be done by granting
the variance to both the town and the owners.
Large tracts of land that provide privacy are becoming difficult to find
and afford. This variance will
accommodate both these items. The town
will be better served by limiting the lots to just two house sites.
e.
The use would
be contrary to the spirit of the Ordinance.
Answer: The intent of the ordinance is to develop the
town in a rural character. Large lots
with open space will do this.
Members of the Board:
John
Trottier indicated he would like to see a “signoff” from DES.
David
Nault stated the Board should have a copy of the gravel permit.
K.
Swayze stated that on the plan when Mr. Belanger first subdivided was to allow
for the further subdivision of these two tracts by right of way’s. This is the way it is until such time as this
goes away.
Ron
Slocum asked because this was already on the plans, does this mean that the
Planning Board also need to see it.
K.
Swayze indicated the intent of the Planning Board was to allow further
residential development of these lots.
There is no conflict with the Planning Board.
The
Public Hearing was closed at 8:10 p.m.
It
was the consensus of the Board Members that they should be voting on these
Variances this evening so we can move
on. The cleanup and easements are the
biggest issues.
At
this point in the meeting, Chairman John Trottier indicated the following
members would be voting on the Belanger request for a Variance:
John Trottier
John Herlihy
Alison Vallieres
Gertrude Dulude
David Nault
MOTION:
JOHN TROTTIER MADE A MOTION THAT THE DUNBARTON
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT THE
REQUEST FROM MICHEL BELANGER FOR A VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 4, SECTION
B. TO COMMIT ONE TRACT (J1-2-5)
23.87 ACRES, TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL BUILDING LOT, NOT TO BE SUBDIVIDED
FURTHER, WITH LESS THAN 300 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON A CLASS V ROAD AT HIS PROPERTY LOCATED ON SOUTH
HOPKINTON ROAD AND NEW ROAD IN THE MANUFACTURED HOUSING DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON,
NH SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
1. That there be no further subdivison of the subject property, unless and until, there is approval by both the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment and the Dunbarton Planning Board with regard to any additional subdivision, re-configuration, or expanded use(s).
2. That there be a basic visual and limited physical inspection of the premises to determine the satisfactory removal of previously deposited vehicles, equipment, machinery, junk and associated parts, materials or components. Said inspection is to be conducted by an agency or firm acceptable to the Town, and qualified to perform such inspections.
A satisfactory written conclusion to such inspection(s) shall indicate that the premises are acceptable for residential use(s).
3. That a draft deed instrument be prepared to provide for perpetual rights and conditions of passage to abutting parcel (J1-2-4), and any other abutting parcels with access provisions currently in place; such draft copy shall be made available for review by the Town and/or Town Counsel.
A final document shall be prepared for filing at the Merrimack County Registry of Deeds, and shall be in a form and content acceptable to the Town and such affected abutting property owners.
4. There will be a clean up signoff from the Department of Environmental Services.
5. All gravel removal to be in accordance with the Town of Dunbarton and State of New Hampshire requirements and standards.
6. All Variance conditions will be listed on the final plan to be recorded at the Merrimack County Registry.
7. All costs associated with the restoration of the property will be borne by the applicants.
John Herlihy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION:
JOHN TROTTIER MADE A SECOND MOTON THAT THE DUNBARTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT THE REQUEST FROM JACQUES BELANGER AND ANTHONY COSTELLO FOR A VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 4, SECTION B. TO COMMIT ONE TRACT (I1-3-1) 42.46 ACRES, TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL BUILDING LOT, NOT TO BE SUBDIVIDED FURTHER, WITH LESS THAN 300 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON A CLASS V ROAD AT THEIR PROPERTY LOCATED ON SOUTH HOPKINTON ROAD AND NEW ROAD IN THE MANUFACTURED HOUSING DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITONS:
1. That there be no further subdivison of the subject property unless and until, there is approval by both the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment and the Dunbarton Planning Board with regard to any additional subdivision, re-configuration, or expanded use(s).
2. That there be a basic visual and limited physical inspection of the premises to determine the satisfactory removal of previously deposited vehicles, equipment, machinery, junk and associated parts, materials or components. Said inspection is to be conducted by an agency or firm acceptable to the Town, and qualified to perform such inspections.
A satisfactory written conclusion to such inspection(s) shall indicate that the premises are
acceptable for residential use(s).
3. That a draft deed instrument be prepared to provide for perpetual rights and conditions of
passage to abutting parcel (I 1-3-6), and any other abutting parcels with access provisions
currently in place; such draft copy shall be made available for review by the Town and/or Town
Counsel.
A final document shall be prepared for filing at the Merrimack County Registry of Deeds, and shall be in a form and content acceptable to the Town and such affected abutting property owners.
4. There will be a clean up signoff from the Department of Environmental Services.
5. All gravel removal to be in accordance with the Town of Dunbarton and State of New Hampshire requirements and standards.
6. All Variance conditions will be listed on the final plan to be recorded at the Merrimack County Registry.
7. All costs associated with the restoration of the property will be borne by the applicants.
John Herlihy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ZONING REQUESTS TO ALLOW WATCH HILL DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, REPRESENTING COUNTRYSIDE GOLF CLUB, INC. LOCATED ON ROUTE 13 (STARK HIGHWAY SOUTH) IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH AS FOLLOWS:
1.
A special exception under Article 4,
Table of Uses and Article 6 of the ordinance to permit a planned residential
development on Lots B3-2-1, B4-1-11, A4-1-15 and A3-1-4 (the “Property”).
2.
A variance to Article 6, Section C(3) of
the ordinance to permit eighty eight (88) dwelling units in a planned
residential development on the Property, consisting of fifty two (52) single
family units, six (6) two-unit buildings (for a total of twelve (12) dwelling
units) and six (6) 4-unit buildings (for a total of twenty four (24) dwelling
units) on 248.44 acres of “developable land area”, where the ordinance would
require 368 acres of “developable land area”.[DRL1]
3.
A variance to Article 9, Section E(3) of the ordinance to permit
no setback where the Ordinance would
require one hundred (100) feet as a sideyard buffer setback for multi-family
housing.[DRL2]
4.
The following:
a.
An administrative appeal/determination under Article 6, Section
D of the ordinance that the pre-existing golf course and golf course related
facilities on the Property are a permitted form of open space in planned
residential developments under the ordinance, or
b.
An administrative appeal/determination under Article 6, Section
D and Article 9, Section D of the ordinance that that the pre-existing golf
course and golf course related facilities on the Property are a permitted
accessory use under the [DRL3]ordinance. If this and the previous appeal are denied,
then one or more of the following:
c.
A special exception under Article 4, Table of Uses of the
ordinance to maintain a pre-existing golf course and golf course related
facilities as a commercial use on the Property, which Property also shall house
a planned residential development; and/or[DRL4]
d.
A variance under Article 6 of the ordinance to permit a
pre-existing golf course and golf course related facilities within a planned
residential development on the Property, where the ordinance does not expressly
permit commercial uses within a planned residential development.[DRL5]
5.
One of the following:
a.
An administrative appeal/determination under Article 1,
Definition of “Lot Coverage” of the ordinance that the fairways, tees, rough
and greens of a golf course are not “buildings or structures” for purposes of
calculating lot coverage; or (if this appeal is denied)[DRL6]
b.
A variance under Article 4, Section B – Table of Dimensional
Regulations of the ordinance to permit a lot coverage of thirty percent (30%)
for the buildings and structures in a proposed planned residential development
plus the pre-existing golf course and golf course related facilities (including
tees, greens, fairways and rough) where the ordinance permits a maximum of
fifteen percent (15%) lot coverage.
Attorney Richard Uchida appeared before the Board on behalf of his clients, Watch Hill Development Company to explain the request that was before the Board.
John Trottier, Chairman, stated that he felt the Board understood the first three items on the public notice request i.e. Special Exception to permit a Planned Residential Development, a Variance to permit 88 units (density), and a Variance to permit no setback where the Ordinance presently requires a 100 foot side yard buffer for multi-family housing. He stated that as far as the rest of the public notice was concerned, he would ask that Attorney Uchida explain it to the Board.
Attorney Uchida stated that the request for a Variance to the 100 foot no cut buffer was necessary because of a new part of the ordinance which was passed at the March 2004 Dunbarton Town Meeting. He stated the Variance was necessary because of the slopes and road. If we allow for the 100 foot buffer, we will swing through the golf course and have a huge wetlands crossing. This is a good place to put a road. Lyle will be showing you on the plan.
Attorney
Uchida stated he had met with Ken Swayze to determine how to proceed. Ken Swayze had instructed him that he
the (Building Inspector) could not make
the decision about whether or not the golf course should be considered “open
space”. This is the reason this request
is before the Board, for them to make the determination as to whether the golf
course should be considered open space.
Ken Swayze stated that they had concluded there was
a lot of nebulous material within the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance. There are houses and businesses on five acre lots throughout Dunbarton. No determination on the golf course was
made. Co-mingled uses are confusing
therefore this is why Attorney Uchida is here. For the Board to make the determination
about the golf course and open space, etc.
Attorney Uchida stated that the golf course meets all the requirements of open space as defined in State Statute 79:C. It must be a public golf course for it to qualify for open space.
Attorney Uchida stated that the Board should make a determination on one of the items under 4. Either a., b., c., or d. It was noted the golf course covers approximately 48 acres which includes the tees, green, fairways and rough.
4. a. An administrative appeal/determination
under Article 6, Section D of the ordinance that the pre-existing golf course
and golf course related facilities on the Property are a permitted form of open
space in planned residential developments under the ordinance, or
Attorney Uchida stated they were looking for direction from the Board as to how to handle the pre-existing golf course.
-
One of the options is to do nothing and let us build around it without
subtracting it out.
-
The Board should determine under Article 6 that the golf course is open
space. Under your ordinance there are a
number of factors that have to be met under the PRD.
-
Have developed an agreement with the residents of Meadow Lane that the
golf course will be permanently set aside as open space. It also says it can’t be further developed or
subdivided again.
-
Have been able to hold #1 and #2 holes as they presently are. Would
like to leave the option
open to
be able to approach the Board if they get more land to develop the golf course
into 18
holes,
subject to approval of this Board and the Planning Board and the residents of
the
Association.
-
Will develop documents for agreement with the neighbors. Ownership will be by non-profit ownership.
-
Watch Hill will create a golf course easement area and will see that
the public can get on and off the golf course.
It is non-profit in that the Association is the controlling partner of
the property and but it can make money.
It is under the purview of the condo association. We feel we meet all the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance. If you decide the golf
course counts as open space under 79:C and if it meets the other tests for
public benefit. The general public has
the general use of the property. We are
setting aside open space for pedestrian access and the land has value for
conservation. Under these same kinds of
test, the Board could consider it as open space.
Alison Vallieres stated that golf courses can be
under Current Use and are considered open space.
David Nault asked what you do with the club house
space. The Board discussed the club
house space and reached a consensus that it should not be included as open
space.
Attorney Uchida stated that if the Board did not
agree with 4.a, you can consider 4.b.. c., or d.
Attorney Uchida stated that 4. c. is the traditional
Special Exception in Dunbarton. This is
a commercial use being attached to the residential use. We can go through the classifications and see
if this is what we should have. I can
take you through these elements if you like.
This is the true classification of a Special Exception.
Alison Vallieres stated that the clubhouse was
actually an existing non-conforming commercial use.
Attorney Uchida agreed.
Attorney Uchida stated that 4.d is the catch all. You go for a Variance. The PRD does not create any illusions that
there should not be or should be any Commercial Uses, therefore you need a
Variance for a PRD and in this instance this would be a Variance for a
Commercial Use.
Attorney Uchida noted that under 5. was an
Administrative Appeal/determination and a Request for a Variance re lot
coverage.
Dan DalPra asked if the Clubhouse would be available
to be rented.
Attorney Uchida stated that the neighbors had objected
to the rental of the facilities because of late nights, etc.
David Nault asked if the Board chose A, would the
tax benefit to the Town be better.
The Board noted that there is no commercial property
in Dunbarton taxed as Commercial.
Kenneth Swayze noted that if the golf course if
considered open space by the Board, then Item 5. should be withdrawn because it
would not apply.
Ron Slocum asked that they do the technical
calculations to prove that it is well over the 15% coverage required under the
Ordinance.
John Herlihy stated the Association is going to run
the golf course and everything else is going to be separate. What happens when the golf course is not
profitable? What happens if it needs to
be terminated?
Attorney Uchida stated the golf course cannot be
further developed or subdivided and it remains as open space. Association will be responsible for mowing
the meadows and if the golf course wants to start up again, it will be able to. The Association can close it if it is not
profitable, etc. The club house will
stay as a club house. It provides a
physical place to hold meetings and for other uses for the residents of the
association.
John Herlihy asked if it becomes available for
public use of the Town of Dunbarton.
Attorney Uchida stated it will be open to the
public. Probably wouldn’t do
snowmobiling or horseback riding because of liability issues, but it will be
open to the public.
John Herlihy asked that they would be mowing it once
a year.
Attorney Uchida stated they are negotiating a
development agreement between the neighbors and would condition approval on
agreement. It will continue to be open
space and will continue to remain open space and undevelopable forever.
The Board asked if all the neighbors are included in
the agreement.
At this point in the public hearing, John Trottier, Chairman, asked to hear from Attorney Peter Imse, Attorney for the neighbors. Attorney Imse stated they were very close to an agreement. Probably would be done within the next week.
Jack Kantor reported that the developer had been
very successful in working with the neighbors in developing something that was
acceptable to all.
At this point in the meeting, the developers wanted
to explain the changes in the plan from the last meeting as follows:
Lyle Folkestad presented the following changes:
1.
The housing mix has changed.
Have added six duplexes and reduced the number of single family and
quads.
2.
Have moved the units from the upper level to the lower.
3.
Have completed a traffic analysis.
Presented to the Board.
(attached)
4.
Presented the Board with a copy of the Mazalewski decision. (attached)
5.
Stated they have decided not to expand the Club House. Will keep the original footprint for the Club
House and parking lot.
6.
Have reduced the number of quads by one. There will be six Quads facing on the Common
Area. Have eliminated four units on the
upper side.
Peter Howard
addressed certain engineering on the updated plan as follows:
1.
Units will be between 30’ – 35’
apart. Units will be 28’ wide, with a
22’ road with a grass boulevard. There
will be a white picket fence and will allow for porches, bay windows or stoops. Cottages will have a 12’ x 12’ roof pitch and
10’ x 12’ pitch on others with more stone at the base on the upper part of the
development.
2.
Entry road is a 24’ wide road.
Has two 12’ wide lanes with 4’ shoulders.
3.
Intersection not going to have a round about. Will have a 12’ lane in each direction with a
5 foot shoulder. Also gives a place for
bicycles or for people pulling over.
4.
Common Area will be a 24’ wide roadway.
It has been determined that people drive slower on narrower roads. This adds to the residential flavor of the
neighborhood.
John Trottier asked if the roads would be private
roads or public roads.
Answer: They
will all be private roads.
David Nault asked how we can prevent the residents
from petitioning the Town at a later time to take over the road.
Howard – Don’t want the Town to control the
roads. I don’t know how you could ever
do that. This way you can put up street
lighting, etc.
Ron Slocum asked if the roads would be able to
accommodate large truck trailers, etc.
P. Howard indicated the roads would all be sized for
tractor trailer trucks, etc.
David Nault – About off season recreational
uses. Need parking for the public so
they will not be uncomfortable using this.
There is no public parking provided.
If there is no public parking, there is no one going to be able to use
the property. It needs to be provided
for.
John Trottier asked if the access to the beaver pond
had gone away.
P. Howard stated no the access was still there. They are considering building an observation
dock on the beaver pond for people to watch wildlife, etc.
Ron Slocum asked because we are treating this as a
private road and not a public road, doesn’t this get treated as frontage. Asked how much frontage there was on Route
13.
The Board pointed out there are no lot lines,
therefore no frontage issues. They are
not separate lots. It would be left up
to the Board to decide what are reasonable distances between the buildings and
the roads. It was noted there was well
over 400 feet of frontage on Route 13.
David Nault asked if they could give him an idea of
the drop in elevation between the airport and the units in the Common
Area.
P. Howard indicated the units were about 50 feet
lower than the runway. He also stated it
was all underground power.
The Board asked if these were to be condos and never
to be apartments.
Attorney Uchida stated yes they were to be condos but this would not preclude him from purchasing a unit and renting it to his father who would qualify under the age requirements.
Abutters and Members of the Public:
Attorney Peter Imse – Stated he represented nearly all the neighbors especially those on Meadow Lane. Asked that the Board make the agreement a part of the Permanent File.
Mr. Whittaker – Stated we have got great
negotiations going on and they are responding to our questions. They are addressing our concerns. The neighbors are here and are
supportive.
John Trottier – Asked if they had any idea when you
would be finalizing the agreements.
Answer:
Probably within a week.
Attorney Uchida asked if the Board felt they were
ready to make some of the decisions. We
would support the Board in moving forward.
John Trottier stated he would like to see the final
agreement and how it impacts the Town and us.
David Nault – Asked if the agreement was going to
carry forward with the future landowners of the property.
Answer: It
was stated the next owner would have the benefit of the agreement.
The Board asked if all the abutters’ concerns have
been addressed.
Jack Kantor – Stated he believed most of all the
abutters have been invited up. We want
the best thing for the area. If we
hadn’t worked this out, something would have gone in there that we didn’t like. They have gone out of they way to work this
out. Everybody has to give a
little. They will be putting in private
roads. I think it is the best we can do.
Mr. Whittaker – I do want to commend Jack on all the
work they have done. On our property,
there are a couple of issues that I have stated before. The golf patrons exit
onto our property, so Don is acceptable to cleaning this up in a deed
amendment. Wants to make sure that the
road is available for Mr. Horne and for emergency access. Don will re-grant the easement that makes it clean that it is
to be used as an emergence access and not a regular access. I would ask that if you are going to make a
Conditional Approval on this agreement,
that you reference conditions on the cleanup of those two easements that
affect our property. I would not need
your approval but just a condition that it will happen.
John Trottier stated he would like to make sure this
is included within the conditions.
Henry and Jo Burnham – Mrs. Burnham stated she had
just heard about the agreement today and would like to see the agreement.
Kevin McCarthy – Present. Stated he was all set.
Mr. Caron – Really glad to see they were able to
work this out.
John and Kathleen Mazalewski – Present. Mrs. Mazalewski stated she had two concerns
as follows: The first concern is their
view with the homes just west of the landing strip. She stated she was concerned about the height
and was happy to hear they were going to cut in the new road, but based on an
earlier easement from Donahue. When I
hear about the new road being developed,, they would be coming up the existing
road. I have concerns about the
continued desire to use the current road.
Construction vehicles and water testing equipment etc. and would prefer
that the road be dead-ended because I don’t know why it would be needed. Would like the Watch Hill Club to not use
it. Who is responsible for maintaining
the road?
Mr. Horne – Don did meet with me several times and
at that time I was not planning on using the access road and would just as soon
have this road terminated. Also had
concerns about flying and the houses on the far side of the runway. Don has assured me that these people will be
assured when they sign on, there is an active runway. They should be aware. Don’t have as much of a problem as
before. It is a “Buyer Beware”. No way to stop development. The only thing they can do is notify
everybody up front.
Paul Nelson – Re the agreement, as to what that
consists of, and I am fully in favor and my neighbors have put it
together.
Mr. Caron – You talk about access in winter for people
in their 60’s. These are old people
trying to find a place to park, no one uses it now, you are going to defeat
everything we tried to do for the sake of a few people that want to cross
county ski. They have certainly plenty
of public parking in the parking lot by the club house. I think this adds another area of concern and
will screw up the agreement, etc.
David Nault – Stated he can assure you this is a
problem in several other PRD’s because no one know what they are doing. There are no areas for parking and the
public can’t get to the land.
Discussion:
Don Lane stated the timing as to the new road being
built is crucial. Will be checking on
bringing water flow, etc. There will be
certain things going on. Not going to be
major construction effort. Going to want
to build that road starting in the fall.
Any houses built on that hill will be single story. None of the roofs will be high enough to
bother the view. I don’t mean they are
never going to see a roof line though.
Mrs. Mazalewski – Stated there will be well trucks
and this king of things going on. There
will be major construction vehicles going up the road.
The Board indicated they want to see the documents
before making any decisions.
David Nault – See density as a big issue. Looking at other parcels around Town. How are we going to tell other people they
cannot go this route in the future.
Gertrude Dulude – Stated this was a huge concept for
us to accept. I would like it to be a
lot smaller, but because of cost it can’t be.
That is their problem and not the Board’s.
Ron Slocum – Concerned about the precident setting
on this size parcel. Concerned about the
draw on natural resources. How about the
draw on hydralics. Concerned about that
many residences off a single access road.
Alison Vallieres stated she had a strong concern
about the blocking of the second access road.
The access road should remain open, only closed by a chain, to emergency
vehicles. If something happens and
blocks the main road, and a resident of the complex has a heart attack and
can’t get out, it is the Town’s problem.
This should not happen. It is
very important to keep the second access road open.
John Herlihy stated the Board needs to see the
documents before hand.
David Nault – Stated you need signing telling what the use is.
John Trottier asked if DOT has been asked about the
new access driveway.
The applicants stated they will do whatever DOT
require them to do.
John Trottier asked about the use of the existing
club house. The parking lot appears
much larger.
Mr. Horne asked about the possible numbers of school
aged children from the development. You
are saying only about 4-6 is what usually happens. What if there is more?
Alison Vallieres stated there is a new Federal Law
that states that Senior Housing can be 100% over 55 instead of only
80%-90%. Would the applicants consider
100% Over 55. This would assure there
would be no children to go to the Dunbarton School system.
Mr. Whittaker stated this proposal is preserving a
public golf course and is worth giving consideration.
At this point in the public hearing, a motion was
made, seconded and passed unanimously to continue the Public Hearing until next
month.
The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Alison
Vallieres, Secretary