DUNBARTON ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT
TOWN OFFICES –
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
Gertrude Dulude
David Nault
Ron Slocum, Alternate
Leo Martel, Alternate
Dan DalPra, Alternate
Kenneth Swayze, Admin., Planning
and Zoning Department
The
Chairman verified with the Secretary that the Public Meeting Notice had been
posted in three public places throughout the Town and published in the Concord
Monitor for one day.
John Trottier amended the minutes as follows:
Page 10, “Jack” Kantor should be
“Jeff” Kantor in all places throughout the minutes.
Page 10, Peter “Howard” should
be Peter “Holden” in all places throughout the minutes.
Page 10, Paragraph addressing
certain engineering by Peter Holden, Item 1 should read as follows:
1.
……………Cottages will have a 12’ x 12’ pitch and 10’ x 12’ pitch on
others….should read as follows: Cottages will have a 12:12 roof pitch
and 10:12 pitch on others……..
David Nault amended the minutes
on page 13, second paragraph, Mrs. Mazalewski as follows:
Mrs. Mazalewski – Stated there will be well trucks
and this “king” (should read kind) of things going on…..
The
minutes of Monday, April 12, 2004 were approved as amended above by a unanimous
vote of the Board.
US
Cellular Rehearing:
John
Trottier reported on the US Cellular Rehearing that had been granted
previously. He stated that US Cellular did not come up with any information for
the Board at their last meeting in April.
John Trottier contacted Town Counsel and information arrived from US
Cellular shortly after but no report from Consultant Hutchins
, therefore the item was not put on the agenda for the May Meeting. The rehearing will be held in June and
Hutchins will give the Board a report on the US Cellular Report.
7:00
P.M. – PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A REQUEST FROM MICHAEL FORTIER ON BEHALF OF
JANET LYNN REVOCABLE TRUST 2003 (K1-01-04) FOR A VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 4,
SECTION B. OF THE DUNBARTON ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THEM TO BUILD WITHIN THE
EXISTING FOOTPRINT TO REPLACE AN EXISTING ONE STORY HOME WITH A TWO STORY 2
BEDROOM HOME WITH FULL BASEMENT AND A SECOND VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 5,
SECTION G. (WETLANDS DISTRICT ORDINANCE) OF THE DUNBARTON ZONING ORDINANCE TO
ALLOW THEM
TO BUILD WITHIN THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT TO REPLACE AN EXISTING ONE STORY HOME
WITH A TWO STORY 2 BEDROOM HOME WITH FULL BASEMENT AT THEIR PROPERTY ON 15 KAREN ROAD IN
THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
Kenneth Swayze reported that Town Counsel had
presented the Board with a letter with his legal opinion on this issue. (attached) In addition, Kenneth Swayze presented the
Board with information on the existing building and lot. The lot has been in the same ownership since
the 50’s and this is only the second owner of property. (attached)
Michael Fortier appeared before the Board on behalf
of his client, Janet Lynn. He stated the
address on the public notice was incorrect.
The property was located on
The Board decided that the Public Notice would be
considered inaccurate to people who read it because it listed the wrong address
for the request. Because of this, the
Public Hearing would be moved to the next month with a revised Public Notice,
etc.
At this point, Mr. Fortier asked if he could speak
with the Board and ask if there would be any additional information they would
require for the next meeting. The Board
agreed to hear him informally and make any recommendations for additional
information.
Mr. Fortier stated they would be tearing down the existing building and replacing it with a 20’ x 40’ two story two bedroom home with a garage underneath, staying within the existing footprint. The building presently is one story and will become two story.
Mr. Fortier stated that they have two letters from
septic designers stating the existing system is adequate and working. One was from Elkins Environmental Systems in
Dan DalPra asked if there would be three stories
showing. Mr. Fortier stated yes.
The Board indicated they would need the following
information for the next meeting in June.
1. Need to show where the
driveway is.
2. Copies of letters from
septic designers stating that the existing system is working, etc.
3. Location for a septic system
in case of failure of the existing system.
4. Board agreed they will do a
Site Walk of the Property
5. In addition, the Board noted
they should seek approval from the NH Shoreline Protection Board prior to
coming back to the Board. (This was
decided by a consensus of the Board further in the meeting)
6. Site Specific Approval
David Nault asked how high the foundation will
be. Mr. Fortier stated it will be four
feet out of the ground.
Gertrude Dulude – Stated the addition is larger than
the original footprint.
Mr. Fortier stated, “No, we have stayed within the
original footprint”.
David Nault – Asked if they have dug any test pits
or done perk tests.
Answer – No, not yet.
Dan DalPra – Asked if this request means that he
needs a Variance because of setbacks or what.
It was pointed out that this is an existing
non-conforming use. He needs a Variance
because of this, plus setbacks and he wants to add more square footage to the
house. He is expanding a non-conforming
use.
Ron Slocum stated this is a total
reconstruction. He is tearing down the
existing building and replacing it with a two story.
In addition, the Board noted he needs a Variance
from the Wetlands Conservation District.
The Wetlands Conservation District needs to be shown on the plan by a
Soils Scientist.
Kenneth Swayze stated there will be major
disturbance to the soil and it will have to be replaced. He would recommend the Board require Site
Specific Approval because of the close proximity to Gorham Pond.
Mr. Pacik asked if they could leave one wall
standing, would that be acceptable to the Board.
The Board stated that would not be acceptable.
The Board stated that our Town Counsel has stated
you are increasing the volume of the building.
John Herlihy stated that he knows
Alison Vallieres stated that the existing home is a
three season home. They are presently on
the Community Well System at Gorham Pond.
What happens when the Community Well is shut off for the winter? Where will the well be put? The Board needs all the information on the
plan before acting on it. It would make
sense to request a Variance for a well at the same time as the others.
Janet Lynn stated that they go to
The Board noted that may be true but they would
still need a Variance to locate the well closer to the boundary than
allowed.
David Nault asked how far away the present dry well
or septic tank was from the foundation. How
are you going to prevent seepage into the cellar from the existing septic
system?
Mr. Fortier stated the existing septic tank was
about 20” from the proposed foundation.
It was facing away from the foundation.
In addition, the foundation is treated with asphalt sealant.
Members of the Public:
Abutters were not read because this was not a public
hearing.
Anita Melendy – Stated she was a neighbor and they had received a Variance for a Sunroom this past year. She said all the old homes are falling apart. You find someone that buys one to fix up and every cottage fixed up is more tax money for the Town. We have nice people down there. I find it is nice to find someone who will take it down and make it better.
Tony Migneault – Stated the people that are
rebuilding are going it right and hope that we can get this moving along and
fixed up. Gorham Pond is getting to be a
nice area if the Town would work with the people at Gorham Pond.
Kenneth Swayze suggested the Board consider requiring the New Hampshire Shoreline Protection be involved because Gorham Pond is considered a Great Pond and this lot is right on the pond. They will make sure that the building, proposed septic system and well can all work on this small lot. The Shoreline Protection Act comes into play with any building within 250 feet from a Great Pond. They have been inclined to grant approvals in the past.
Mike Fortier stated he had no problem in going to
the State for the approval.
Consensus of the Board:
At this point in the meeting, the Chairman asked for
a consensus of the Board as to whether or not they should require the applicant
to get
The consensus of the Board was they should apply to
the
Alison
Vallieres – Yes
John
Trottier – Yes
Gertrude
Dulude – Yes
Ron
Slocum – Yes
David
Nault – No
Dan
DalPra – No
Leo
Martel – No
The consensus by a majority of the Board was they
should apply to the
MOTION:
John Trottier made a motion that the request from Michael Forier on behalf of Janet Lynn Revocable Trust 2003 (K1-01-04) for a Variance to Article 4, Section B. of the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance to allow them to build within the existing footprint to replace an existing one story home with a two story two bedroom home with full basement and a Second Variance to Article 5, Section G. (Wetlands District Ordinance) of the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance to allow them to build within the existing footprint to replace an existing one story home with a two story two bedroom home with full basement at their property on 28 Holiday Shore Drive in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH be put on the agenda as a Public Hearing in June 2004 and the applicant come back to the Board with new plans. The motion was seconded by Alison Vallieres. 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 (
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”.
3.
A variance to Article 9, Section E(3) of the ordinance to permit no
setback along certain areas of the Property where the Ordinance would require
one hundred (100) feet as a sideyard buffer setback for multi-family housing.
4.
An administrative appeal/determination under Article 6, Section D of
the ordinance that the pre-existing golf course (including fairways, greens,
tees and rough, but not the clubhouse, clubhouse parking and related buildings
and structures appurtenant to the golf course) is a permitted form of open
space in planned residential developments under the ordinance.
5.
A special exception under Article 4, Table of Uses of the ordinance to
maintain a pre-existing golf course clubhouse, clubhouse parking and related
buildings and structures appurtenant to the golf course use as a commercial use
on the Property, which Property also shall house a planned residential
development.
Attorney Richard Uchida appeared before the Board and stated that they had only made several minor changes since the previous plan as follows:
1.
Have completed negotiations with the abutters on
2.
With regard to the Preservation Area, we have set aside an are for a parking lot off Route 13 for people to enjoy
the Conservation Area.
3.
The golf course will be treated as an open space area.
4.
Have reached an agreement with Burnham and Whittaker regarding use of
the road, etc. (attached)
5.
Also reached an agreement with Burnham regarding the fence between the
two properties. (attached, Exhibit D)
6.
Fiscal Impact, Real Estate, Elevation Site Plans. Will answer any questions regarding these reports.
Minor
Physical Changes:
1.
Addition of Parking Lot
2.
Addition of Parking Lot for the Common Area.
3.
Private road will be closed with a gate for emergency use only.
David Nault asked about the agreement regarding the 5’ stockade fence which will be put up between the Burnham’s and the applicant. Can this be changed at a later date, etc.?
Attorney
Uchida stated he had added a provision that the trail system cannot go through
there without the Association and a third party consent. There is a trail that abuts the Burnham
property. It is down about a half
mile. We will have this sealed off.
Gertrude
Dulude expressed concerns about the road.
Attorney
Uchida stated that people cannot go the old way to the Golf Course. You can’t get through there. It is only for emergency use.
John
Trottier asked what the last time the golf course property had been
surveyed. The Board would like a copy of
the survey.
Attorney
Uchida stated that Peter Holden had done it in 1988.
David
Nault stated they have said there are three types of recreational areas. Can you point them out for the Board.
Attorney
Uchida stated as follows:
1.
The first one will be given to either the Conservation Commission or
the Town. People will have an
opportunity to explore nature. Will be a
Conservation Easement.
2.
The area behind it would be the hiking/cross country ski trail,
etc. General passive walking trails.
3.
Golf course.
Dan
DalPra – What about future expansion of the golf course to 18 holes?
Attorney
Uchida stated they have built that into the documents, but they would have to
get the approval of the Town to do so.
It would require a new Special Exception.
Attorney
Uchida stated that in addition, any changes in the condo documents would have
to go through the Town.
John Trottier stated he would like to see what the final condo documents say.
Attorney
Uchida stated the documents are in order.
Would suggest sending the condo documents to Town
Counsel for his review. He stated
he could help with that by directing a letter to Town Counsel.
John Trottier asked about the requested Variance for the 100 foot setback. He stated he didn’t want to give a 100 setback variance for anywhere on the property.
Attorney
Uchida explained as follows:
1. There is a small area at the
Whittaker property at the entrance where it is needed.
2. Around the southern tip of
the air strip. We would have to move the
road out into the 9th fairway and this would double the wetlands
impact.
Attorney
Uchida stated that they need the Variance because they do not want to
compromise the tee. We need to maintain
the integrity of the distance because of safety reasons, etc.
John
Herlihy asked if they plan to use any of the existing access road in the
preliminary construction process.
Attorney
Uchida stated yes they would and they have agreed with the Burnham’s and
Whittaker on the use of the road. The
developers have agreed to repair any damage to the road. The first construction would be cutting the
road in. Trying to do
this calendar year.
Curtis
Whittaker stated that as long as they repair the road, he is in agreement. The agreement terminates in June of
2006.
Attorney
Uchida stated he had provided the following documents:
1. Development agreement
2. Whittaker/Burnham Agreement
3. Condo Declaration. Also have a set of by-laws that go along with
the agreement.
Attorney Uchida stated he had put together a proposed list of conditions for the Board. (attached) The Board should make sure certain points are covered in the documents. This would be up to Town Counsel.
John Herlihy asked if the Majalewski’s were made any offer from the developer, etc.
John Herlihy – I am of the understanding that the existing golf course road is only for passenger cars. Is that right?
The road is being used for the existing house. You would be able to get equipment on and off the road. There is no reference that restricts the use to only passenger cars.
Dan DalPra – What enforcement conditions are in place for the abutter’s agreement.
It was noted that the Association has to enforce the conditions for the benefit of the abutters.
Dan PalPra – Regarding street lights or noise, what about physical attributes to property that have to be maintained. Are you obligated to maintain? Is the agreement with the condo association or the developer in the first instance.
Upgrades are passed on to the Association and worded in the development agreement. What about lighting. In the first instance, it is the Association’s responsibility. The developer is putting in all the lights and the berms, do they have recourse?
Attorney Uchida – Of course. We have put it in the development agreement. The Association/Developer can’t get out of it.
Structures and roads will be substantially in the same location as on these plans.
Abutters were read as follows and noted all had been notified by certified mail:
Office of Selectmen, Town of
Kenneth/Jennifer Proulx – Present. Stated he is an abutter in the Town of
J & J Trust – Not Present
Theresa Naser – Not Present
David Maceacran – Not Present
Charles Graybill – Not Present
Thomas/Melissa Maille – Not Present
Robert Thomas – Not Present
Julia/Arthur Thomas – Not Present
Arvid Rain – Present. Would like to see more detail on the south end. What about the parking lot? What about trash?
Attorney Uchida explained that there would be parking
spaces so the land could be “open space” to the Town of
John Trottier asked about the number of spaces provided.
Laurent/Kathryn Azotea – Not Present
Duane
Glen/Wendy Flaherty – Not Present
Henry and Joan Burnham – Present. Stated they were all set.
Benjamin/Mary Horne – Present. Presented aerial pictures of the golf course to the Board for their record.
John/Katherine Mazalewski – Present. Mrs. Mazalewski. Stated they had questions about the current
road and its use. The
old road off Route 13. Stated the
Court only ruled on the first phase of the Law Suit. There is still the Second Phase to be
determined by the Court. This involves
who can use the road coming off Route 13.
That has yet to be decided. What about whether or not it is even legal to offer. These have not yet been decided.
Mr. Mazalewski – There is an agreement of a fence between the property of the Burnhams. Could they access their property for development? What if they decide to go to the Burnhams and make an agreement for future development? That is a great potential.
Attorney Uchida stated the current development indicates
there can be no inter-access road. In
terms of emergencies, this is for the Town of
Mazalewski stated they don’t believe they have legal authority to use this road.
C. Whittaker – Present. Stated I think they have done a good job with the exception of the Mazalewski’s concerning the old road coming off Route 13. To the extent, we have any rights, on the conditions that you repair the road and that you resurface the road and that temporary conditions ends after a two year period. Stated that the Burnham’s and he own ½ of the road.
Mrs. Mazalewski stated that Mr. Whittaker doesn’t live there. There will be two years of construction taking place. It directly impacts our home. You don’t live there. It is a big concern.
Mr. Whittaker stated they (the Burnham’s and he) gave the developer’s a quitclaim for the use of the road for two years.
Bill Burnham – Where he wants to bring his construction equipment does not go directly by their house.
Mrs. Mazalewski stated it does go by their house.
Dan DalPra asked if there was a realistic schedule on this road.
Curtis Whittaker stated that when this thing is said and done, most of the trucks will be going on the new road and will end up with a paved road. I am going to be looking over a new road. It really comes down to whether this is a good thing in the end. Most of us agree it is.
Mrs. Mazalewski stated she did not feel it is fair for you to make decisions for me, etc.
Joseph and Nichole French – Not Present
Phil and Robin Nelson – Not Present
Rene/Ruth Norbert – Present. Stated they were all set.
Jeffrey/Evelyn Kantor – Present. Stated the developers have done a great job of getting together with the concerned abutters.
Kevin/Marie McCarty – Present. Stated he has been looking at the potential developers of this parcel for 18 years. Our main concern was what was behind our houses. These people addressed all my concerns. They will build berms, etc. I was dead set against this in the beginning. We have looked at it, and I am in agreement. We have had some concerns and they have addressed them. It is inevitable that this is going to be developed. This gets the number of houses they need. This preserves the land and puts in a quality development for 100% of us older people.
Caron Revocable Trust – Not Present.
Walter/Evelyn Smith – Not Present
George/Carolyn Cushman – Not Present
Robert/Claire Drolet – Not Present
Story Heirs, C/O Rodney Doucet – Not Present
Glenn Doten and Linn Kurkjean – Not Present
Keith/Jennifer Lavoie – Not Present
Story Heirs, C/O William Doucet – Not Present
Other Members of the Public:
Thomas Murphy (not an abutter) - Stated he is the only guy on
Attorney Uchida stated that from a procedural purpose, I understand assuming that you have comments or questions, how can we handle these? Have been under considerable pressure for a decision. You can only keep the “horses at bay” for so long. Would suggest that Town Counsel look at these documents.
John Trottier stated that this is the first night that things have finally solidified.
Dan DalPra stated it would be helpful to the Board if we could bring questions to the applicant.
David Nault stated he would like time to go over the latest documents which have been submitted this evening before making a decision.
Leo Martel – Stated that the scope of the project warrants waiting. We will want some answers.
Attorney Uchida asked that Board members communicate in writing to him regarding any questions.
It was decided by the Board that members will contact Alison Vallieres via e-mail or otherwise, and she will contact Attorney Uchida.
Attorney Uchida stated that he would be more than happy to respond to any questions asked by the Board members.
Kevin McCarthy asked if the Board after going over the documents could have a Special Meeting to make their decision.
John Trottier, Chairman, indicated the Board meets once a month. In addition, he stated he would like one more set of final complete plans.
MOTION:
John Trottier made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning
Board of Adjustment continue the Public Hearing on the
Watch Hill Proposal for the Golf Course until the meeting in June. The motion was seconded by Alison
Vallieres. The motion passed
unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at
Respectfully submitted,
Alison R. Vallieres, Secretary