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
David Nault
Gertrude Dulude
Leo Martel, Alternate
Dan DalPra, Alternate
Ron Slocum, Alternate
Kenneth Swayze, Admin., Planning
and Zoning Department
The
Chairman verified with the Secretary that the meeting notice had been posted in
a timely fashion according to State Law in three public places throughout the
Town and published in the
MOTION:
John Herlihy made a motion that
the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment accept the minutes as written of the
Monday, May 10, 2004 meeting. The motion
was seconded by John Trottier. The
motion passed unanimously.
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 28 HOLIDAY SHORE DRIVE IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
Michael
Fortier, Agent for Janet Lynn Revocable Trust, appeared before the Board. He submitted a plan
showing the proposed location for the future septic
system, well and building which had been done by Jacques Belanger,
Surveyor. (attached) In addition, Jacques Belanger presented a
statement from Peter Schauer, Wetlands Scientist, which certified the location
of the Wetlands Conservation District.
(attached) The Wetlands District
line was shown on the plan.
Michael Fortier stated they needed a variance from
the Town to do any building. He stated
the existing septic system is a tank and a couple of lines coming out of
it. In addition, the entire lot is
within the Wetlands Conservation District.
He stated they will be rebuilding within the same footprint of the
existing building. At this time, they
will do no septic system improvements.
Kenneth Swayze, Admin., Planning and Zoning
Department, stated that they need to present a plan acceptable to the
State. This is required before the
Building Inspector can issue a building permit.
The Board noted they had received materials from Ken
Swayze concerning this issue. (attached)
Michael Fortier stated that the State sent him away
and said he didn’t need it.
In addition, the future location of a well was shown
on the plan. They plan to utilize a one
ninth interest in a well which was deeded with the property to Luti. Janet Lynn presented the Board a copy of the
deed to the Artesian Well Pump No. 6.
(attached) They stated this well
is for year round use.
Michael Poirier stated that the well lines sit right
on top of the ground and in order to use it year round they will need to be
buried, etc.
It was noted that the State will not approve a
septic system until the Building Inspector signs off on it.
Michael Fortier asked that the Board give a
conditional approval to them this evening.
John Trottier asked for a poll of the Board with regard to the granting of a Conditional Approval as follows:
John
Trottier stated that his opinion was that
they should apply to the State for a septic permit approval prior to the Board
acting on the request for a Variance.
Leo
Martel stated Michael Fortier has been
talking with Ken. He should really have
all of the approvals prior to any decision being made by the Board.
Gertrude
Dulude stated she doesn’t like to have a
conditional approval for this.
Ron
Slocum stated he was against conditional
approvals.
Alison
Vallieres stated she did not agree with
conditional approvals.
David
Nault stated he did not mind conditional
approvals. I think this fellow has been
upfront to us. Ken has brought something
to the Board to review. I don’t think
that a conditional approval is going to make any difference. Would not mind giving a conditional approval
as long as Ken is on the other end to oversee it. .
Dan
DalPra stated he didn’t have a problem
with a conditional approval. This is
something that can be monitored. He has
done everything we asked.
Gertrude
Dulude – Stated that her problem was that
Ken is a person and there was a period of time when we didn’t even have a
Building Inspector. I would prefer not
to start granting conditional approvals.
He should make it complete or nothing.
Michael Forter stated again that he wished the Board
would give them a conditional approval.
Janet Lynn presented letters from abutters stating
they had no objection to the fixing up of the property. (attached)
There have been no improvements since 1956. She stated she was living at the property
full time now. Have been doing some
landscaping. Propane gas tanks are a
problem because they need to be brought up to present standards. Water pressure is bad and inadequate. Only can do so much work without the
Variance. Purchased the house in
November 2003.
Abutters were read as follows and noted all had been notified by certified mail:
Roland Laporte, Jr./Marianne Matzo – Not Present
(letter)
Alfred & Lisa Santilli – Not Present (letter)
Beverly McDowell Revocable Trust – Present. (letter) In addition she stated the house is an
eyesore and is very run down. These
people should get the Variance to improve the house.
Elizabeth & Kenneth Chute – Not Present. (letter)
Other
Members of the Public:
Mike Poirier stated they should consider a
“chambered septic system” because it takes 40% less area.
Anthony Migneault – Just a neighbor. Stated that considerable work is needed on
the home. Perhaps the Town should
consider some type of zoning changes for the Gorham Pond area. It is impossible to meet the five acre zoning
requirements. The Board noted this would
have to be done through the Town Meeting and the Town fathers, etc.
Peter Pacick – Stated they would like some clear
guidance on what we need to do. I have
met with Ken and have tried to get guidance.
Wanted to very much get guidance.
We would have liked to have a balcony but decided to stay within the
footprint. Had a lot of anguish because
of Mark Desmarais. We know that the
Board has had a lot of aggravation from Desmarais, and it is for this reason
that we were looking at the time frame for changes and knew things would come
up again tonight. We know that Building
Permits were issued in the past without jumping through the hoops. If we are going to start getting structures
that make sense, we are willing to put in a new septic system. The frustration is that we can’t get to first
base. It is a State issue. Our lives have been on hold. We have asked for guidance. Please give us some guidance that we can hang
our hat on. We can’t keep up with the
new requirements, and we haven’t been able to get very far.
Michael Fortier stated that he gets different
information than Ken Swayze got from the State.
It was finally decided that if the complete plan including septic design, proposed well location and building is presented to the Building Inspector, Ken will sign off on it to send it to the Department of Environmental Services as required. Once this comes back approved from the State, the Zoning Board can act on it. (If the Variance is granted prior to the approval, the State may change certain distances, and the applicants would have to come back to the Zoning Board for approval again.)
Leo Martel stated that the plan to be submitted will
include the proposed well, septic system and building location. This will be the plan that will be before the
Board at the next meeting in July.
The
Board verified with Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, what information was needed to
go to the Shoreland Protection Agency.
Larry Cook, Dunbarton Conservation Commission – Stated that he was Chairman of the Dunbarton Conservation Commission.
1.
He said the
Conservation Commission has received a letter of complaint from the Shoreland
Protection Agency regarding the subject property. Stated the Shoreland Protection Agency protects
the wetlands and the beautiful lake.
Their job is preventing pollution of the water. The Conservation Commission is always willing
to talk with residents.
2.
How far from
the lake is the house?
Answer: About 60 feet.
3.
The reason for
the Wetlands Conservation District is to help protect the lake. It is obvious these people need something in
order to build a modern house. Don’t
want to see mansions and high rises blocking the views. Should keep it to a minimum. There are other two story houses down there.
Michael Fortier stated we did meet with the
State. We had to reseed the area of the
lot. Trees were cleared within the
building pocket.
MOTION:
A motion was made, seconded, and passed unanimously to continue the Janet Lynn Revocable Trust 2003 Public Hearing request 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. 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.
The
Board advised Michael Fortier to complete a new application for a Variance to
include all items which need a Variance, etc.
(well, septic system, building, and Wetlands District) and get it to the
Secretary in time for the next meeting.
(Two weeks prior to the scheduled meeting)
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A REQUEST FROM MARC POWELL (I2-02-05) FOR A VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 4, SECTION B. OF THE DUNBARTON ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THEM TO BUILD A 28’ X 10’ THREE SEASON PORCH ON THE BACK OF EXISTING HOME AT HIS PROPERTY ON 33 CONCORD STAGE ROAD IN THE MANUFACTURED HOUSING DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
Marc Powell appeared before the Board with a
certified plot plan completed by Jacques Belanger. (attached)
He stated they would like to put on a 28’ x 10’ three season porch on
the back of their house on Route 77.
The existing lot is only 100 feet wide therefore a
Variance is required. The lot is a
non-conforming lot. The porch will be
29.7’ from the northwest boundary and 30.8’ from the northeast boundary.
David Nault asked how many bedrooms were in the
existing home.
Marc Powell stated three bedrooms and two bathrooms
with a full basement. He has no
intention of making the porch another bedroom.
Abutters were read as follows and noted all were
notified by certified mail:
Janice VandeBogart/Terry Jelly – Not present. Letter stating they had no objection. (attached)
Priscilla Phillips – Not Present
Crosby Revocable Trust – Not Present
Other Members of the Public:
Peter Montgomery present. No comments.
Marc Powell stated he would like to have sliding
windows all the way around the proposed porch.
Would not be using it for a bedroom at any time. Will be on sona tubes.
Marc Powell answered the questions necessary for the
granting of a Variance as follows:
a. No diminution in values of surrounding properties would be suffered;
Answer: The
porch I will be adding will only be slightly closer to the boundary line, about
4”, and the porch will not change the overall appearance of the house. It will still look very appropriate in the
family district in which we live. It
will be almost invisible from the road.
b. Granting the variance would be of benefit to the public interest;
Answer: The
addition of a porch to the house will increase the value of my house, therefore
more taxes will be paid to the Town.
c. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner seeking it;
Answer: If
the variance is denied, my family will continually be unable to enjoy the
nature that surrounds my house.
d. Granting the variance would do substantial justice;
Answer: By
granting this Variance, I can go ahead and continue making plans to make this
house appropriate for my family.
e. The use would not be contrary to the spirit of the Ordinance.
Answer: The proposed use is residential.
The Chairman noted the following members would be voting on this request and others this evening:
John Trottier
John Herlihy
Alison Vallieres
Gertrude Dulude
David Nault
MOTION:
David Nault made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board grant the request from Marc Powell (I2-02-05) for a Variance to Article 4, Section B. of the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance to allow them to build a 28’ x 10’ three season porch on the back of the existing home at his property on 33 Concord Stage Road in the Manufactured Housing District in Dunbarton, NH with the setback on the northwest to be no closer than 29.7’ and on the northeast point to be no closer than 30.8’. Alison Vallieres seconded the motion.
At this point, John Herlihy amended the motion with the following conditions:
1. That the porch never be used for permanent living.
2. That the porch never have permanent heating.
3. That the porch never have permanent plumbing.
4. That the porch never have a permanent foundation.
5. That the porch never be used as a bedroom.
The amended motion passed unanimously.
The public hearing was closed.
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL FROM ATTORNEY SCOTT HOGAN ON BEHALF OF HIS CLIENTS KAREN AND STEVE ELSASSER AND DAN LABONVILLE REGARDING THE DUNBARTON PLANNING BOARD APRIL 21, 2004 CONDITIONAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR ROBERT AND DOROTHY PERRY (REDML DEVELOPMENT, LLC) (D6-03-11 AND D6-03-15) TO CONSTRUCT A FIVE BUILDING 19 UNIT SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT ON MORSE ROAD ON APPROXIMATELY 57 ACRES IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
Attorney
Scott Hogan appeared before the Board on behalf of his clients, Karen and Steve
Elsasser and Dan Labonville. (attached)
He
stated that the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance does not allow more than one
multi-family building on a lot. In addition, the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance
definition of “Subdivision” includes condominiums, of which these are. For this reason, the request should be
considered a PRD requiring a Special Exception from the Zoning Board of
Adjustment.
Attorney
Scott Hogan stated that developments such as these 55 and older, etc. usually
require buffers, etc. In addition, there
are concerns from neighbors and abutters.
Abutters have some expectations as to what will come around them. Before the property is turned into a cluster
development, the abutters will have an opportunity to show why they may have
diminution in property values, etc.
Once the Zoning Board addresses concerns, the proposal goes back to the
Planning Board for Site Plan Review.
The
Board noted that the Ordinance requires eleven acres for every four unit
multi-family and based on the acreage, the 19 units are allowed on 57
acres. The Table of Uses shows
multi-family as a Permitted Use with no S for Special Exception.
At
this point, Kenneth Swayze stated at the time of the original application, you
could put more than one house on a lot.
In
addition, Attorney Hogan stated that one of the Planning Board’s own members,
George Holt, had questioned at the meeting when the Perry Project was approved
how come this wasn’t considered a PRD requiring a Special Exception. At that time, Ken Swayze had pointed out that
legal counsel had determined that a Special Exception was not required. There was no written legal opinion produced by
Town Counsel to this effect. Attorney
Scott Hogan stated he had asked Town Counsel for their Legal Opinion and was
told there was nothing in writing.
Attorney
Scott Hogan also stated that the Planning Board had granted a Waiver for a
length of road over 600 feet, almost 2400 feet.
Abutters were read as follows and noted all had been notified by certified mail:
Josephine
Dailey – Not Present.
Paul
Belyea – Not Present
David/Justyn
M Constant – Present. Stated he had
given concerns in the past. There are
road issues and water issues.
Rudolph/Elizabeth
Vallauri – Present. Stated he had given
a lot of comments before. If we run out
of water, who do I give my water bill to.
Daniel/Kathleen
Labonville – Present. As far as I know,
they did not deduct the slopes from the total developable acreage.
Robert/Denise
Perry II – Present. No comment. (applicants)
Nathan
Narus – Not Present.
Richard/Catherin
Racca – Not Present
David/Beth
Sedita – Not Present
David
Wheeler – Not Present.
David/Theresa
Glannon – Not Present
Michael
Petito – Not Present.
Steven/Karen
Elsasser – Present. Stated Attorney
Scott Hogan had spoken on their behalf.
Eric
Mitchell and Associates – Not Present
Schauer
Environmental Consultants – Not Present
Charles
Cote, Electrical Engineers – Not Present
Scott
Hogan, Attorney – Present.
Other Members of the Public:
Attorney
McNicholas representing the Perry’s stated that he had several responses to
Attorney Scott Hogan’s remarks as follows:
The
Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance does allow multi-family structures on a single
family lot. There is no problem with a
number of buildings on a single lot.
This is what the ordinance says.
John
Trottier stated that the condominium issue is the item that concerns him.
In
addition, Attorney McNicholas stated the following:
1.
Attorney
McNicholas stated they had gone through twelve months of monthly meetings and
public hearings. We dealt with
everything that you people wanted. On the
last two occasions, we made it clear that we were not required to go to the
Zoning Board and we withdrew the application.
A PRD is an option and is not mandatory.
The Board can chose so we were not required to have a Special
Exception. Your Ordinance allows
multi-family on a lot.
2.
Attorney
McNicholas stated tht is Scott is right that if we should have considered a
PRD, then you have no jurisdiction to hear this appeal. He should file in Superior Court. The Planning Board made a decision and that decision
must be appealed to the Superior Court.
You have got to talk to Town Counsel about this appeal. I don’t think Scott gets it both ways. It is the one decision that has to be taken
up at Superior Court level.
Karen
Elsasser – She stated that the abutters and young families had also been
present at many of the meetings.
Paul
Brusga – Stated he had a discussion with Ken Swayze and he disagrees with
him. You cannot put more than one
multi-family building on a lot. The
Zoning Board should look at the Table of Uses.
I have 400 acres. Does this mean
that I could ask for as many multi-family units as would fit? PRD may be applied. The Zoning Board can just say “no”. The applicant does not have a right to a
PRD. It may not be appropriate for a
PRD. In addition, there is no “S” on
Multi-family dwelling.
David
Nault – Stated it looks like the Ordinance is a little less restrictive than
the State. We allow for multi-family
units. We should be more restrictive
than the State.
The
Board pointed out that this doesn’t mean that our Zoning Ordinance has to be
more restrictive than the State.
Ron
Slocum stated that the request for Appeal states that it must be treated as a
PRD. PRD’s are optional. Nothing that says it has to be treated like PRD.
The
Board determined there was a lot of unclarity and they needed to talk with Town
Counsel to find out more information before acting on the Administrative
Appeal.
MOTION:
John Herlihy made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board continue the request for an Administrative Appeal from Attorney Scott Hogan on behalf of his clients Karen and Steve Elsasser and Dan Labonville regarding the Dunbarton Planning Board April 21, 2004 Conditional Subdivison approval for Robert and Dorothy Perry (REDML Development, LLC) (D6-03-11 and D6-03-15) to construct a five building 19 unit senior housing project on Morse Road on approximately 57 acres in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH in order to give the Board time to consult with Town Counsel. The motion was seconded by John Trottier. The motion passed unanimously.
REHEARING FOR 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
Attorney Stephen Grill, Ken
Kosyra, US Cellular, and Don Goulet, US Cellular, appeared before the Board.
Attorney Grill noted that
exactly one year ago, the Board had the first hearing on US Cellular. Attorney Grill asked that all information
from the previous hearings be brought forward for the record. This would prevent having to resubmit all
information, etc. The Board agreed with
this.
Attorney Grill stated that the
Board had decided to hire an independent consultant, Mark Hutchins, to review the information presented by US
Cellular. Originally, US Cellular had
asked for a 180 foot tower, but had agreed that they could accept a 150 foot
tower instead. The Zoning Board granted
a 110 foot tower.
Attorney Grill stated that US Cellular’s main
concern re the tree tower is cost. The
cost of a tree type tower is ten times as costly as lattice or mono pole. Cost of a lattice tower is $17,000 and cost
of a Tree Tower is $183,000. It is not
just $5,000 or $10,000. It is a larger
number.
With regard to an artificial tree, they are too
expensive. We would consider it at the
150 foot height.
Estimated cost for a lattice tower - $16,000 - $24,000
Estimated cost for a mono tower - $29,012 - $36,320
Estimated cost for artificial tree - $113,262 - $183,200
We would build a tree at 150 feet.
Other concern with the setback is the moving of the
lease area. We start talking about lower
elevations, and more visible and closer to the road.
A 150 foot tower will try to take it as far as the
southwest corner, almost 140 feet and another 50 feet at the other owner’s
property. There is no specific fall zone
within the Ordinance. There are no
existing structures near the proposed tower at this point. This would never be a hazard. It would make it more visible.
John Trottier asked how many co-locators did they
plan to have on a 150 foot tower.
Answer: Would
have US Cellular at 150 feet, AT&T @ 140 feet, other co-locators at 130 feet, 120 feet and
110 feet for a total of five including US Cellular. With the new ordinance, the US Cellular Tower
will start looking good to other carriers.
If we only built the 110 foot tower, it would only be US Cellular. There would be no free space nor any
co-locators.
David Nault asked about why the change in the
in-home use vs. mobile use requirements for coverage. This is all new information.
Ken Kosyra stated that US Cellular had agreed to pay
the costs for having the consultant, Mark Hutchins, present to answer questions
at this meeting.
The Board noted that Attorney Duggan had stated that
Hutchins need not be present to answer questions, etc. This is the reason he is not present.
Ron Slocum –
1. Stated
there were ten or more areas that you looked at. How did you decide to chose this one?
K. Kosyra stated that both he and Dan Goulet worked
on it. Determined by the height, the
amount of people who lived in the area, etc.
Included a busy intersection. We
took all day and limited it down to the ten.
We drove around the Town and looked at where the houses were
clustered. These were the ten most
important. Even at 180 feet, some of
these areas are not covered. North
Dunbarton wasn’t going to be covered.
2. Asked how
is it that some of these areas, such as
North 77, why are they not as important to be covered?
K. Kosyra stated those will have to be covered by
another facility. Since we can’t solve
those issues with this facility, we did not include them. In order to provide full coverage for
Dunbarton, you can’t do it with one tower.
It would be a multiple tower situation.
3. Why is it just one tower and not two towers in
two different locations?
K. Kosyra – When we have numerous factors, providing
optimum coverage is our goal. The “to
build plan” is for 2006. For
Dunbarton, it may require additional
facilities but it may be this is all that Dunbarton needs. We also have to consider putting them in
areas that are acceptable to the Town. Only asking for one Variance. In the future, anyone coming to this Town for
a Cell Tower will be coming to the Zoning Board for a Variance and not the
Planning Board for Site Plan Review.
This is the best feasible solution given what our objectives are.
4.Looking at the maps, I went back and forth between
what is here. Where does the magic
number come from?
K. Kosyra stated that each tower and government
agency has a different standard. There
isn’t one answer as to what is okay. A
gap of one half mile in an uninhabited area is okay whereby along Route 13
would be a significant gap. There isn’t
any particular answer. In a perfect
world, the entire map would be green. In
a Kansas cornfield it would be easier to fill the gaps but Dunbarton is very
hilly, etc. . Unfortunately, we have to
weigh what is acceptable and what is not.
Dan’s job is to weigh what is acceptable and what is not. Some areas are really important. If we can get it down from ˝ mile to 50
yards. it will be good.
5.Asked how as a Board, do we weigh this? I guess I could go through and read Hutchins
report.
K. Kosyra stated that Route 77 is a focus for
another day. Go by the number of people
that need service, traffic. That is just
one composite. Dunbarton is a large municipality.
6.Are you going to be a
co-locator on the Tower on the Goffstown line.
Paige Hill?
K. Kosyra stated no, not at this time, but we may look at it in the future but it won’t cover the problems in Dunbarton. It is not being looked at this point. It is an unknown.
No abutters were present.
Other Members of the Public:
Lee Richmond – Stated he didn’t feel anyone is being
compelled to put up any. As far as
setbacks go, I would hate to be in a situation where I would have to tell my child
that he could not play near the stone wall because of the cell tower.
MOTION:
John Herlihy made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning
Board of Adjustment continue the Public Rehearing for US 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 US 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.
The motion was seconded by John Trottier. 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 on8:00 P.M. – 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, Don Lane, and Lyle Folkstadt appeared before the Board. Attorney Uchida stated that he had given the Board members new documents re condo declaration.
John Trottier, Chairman, stated that he felt the
Board needed to have a new boundary plan showing the accurate acreage. In addition, the Board will need
clarification of the total number of acres.
In addition, he would like to see all details on the new plan including
the parking area off Route 13 for the Conservation Easement property. Asked if this appropriate acreage for the
existing club house, pro shop had been deducted from the total acreage. Asked if the applicants plan to expand any of
the existing commercial uses on the property.
Don Lane stated they don’t propose to expand the
existing Club House. There will be no
expansion of the existing commercial uses.
There presently is a pro shop, snack bar/bar area, rest rooms and dance
floor. There is some kitchen facilities
also. He did state that he would like to
change the roof height of the club house to fit in with the type of housing
proposed. The roof line would be closer
in line with the new houses. There
presently is a walk out in the back. It
is a ranch style building with a full walk out basement.
John Trottier – Asked about condo documents. The road will be privately maintained.
Attorney Uchida stated that roads are within the
common area and will be maintained by the Association. By including the main access road, could be
part of the condo agreements.
Dan DalPra asked about suggestions for wording for
conditions, re lighting, spot lights, what about the club house and parking
area which is not now well lighted.
Dan DalPra asked about ownership for those people 55
or older, at least one person over 55 has to live there. If that person died and they were the only one
over 55 in the unit, and the 20% quota was already met, would they have to move
out or forced to sell? Asked if this
was clearly explained within the documents.
Attorney Uchida stated yes they would.
Dan DalPra asked if the Beaver Pond was part of the
Common Area maintained by the Association.
Who is going to maintain this and the open area?
Attorney Uchida stated the Association will maintain
these areas.
Dan DalPra asked about whether the Condo Board would
control as to what functions can be held at the facilities. Can they override the requirements of an
approval of the Zoning Board?
Attorney Uchida stated that no Condo Board can
supersede any use not allowed by the Zoning Board in its approval, etc.
Dan DalPra stated the Condo board could approve any
modifications they want to be made.
Attorney Uchida stated they would still have to get
a Building Permit for whatever changes are proposed. The Building Department would be responsible
for issuing permits for renovations.
David Nault – Asked if they applicants had provided
a complete list of abutters and whether all abutters had been informed of the
agreements, etc.
David Nault – Asked about seasonal restrictions on
the open space. What is your intent?
Don Lane stated that it would be mostly in the
spring when the ground is wet. Sensitive
to having people on the golf course greens etc.
Would cause damage to greens.
Greens would be taped off for wet greens. Want to keep people off the greens to give
them a chance to dry out.
David Nault asked about setbacks for property
abutters for sewer pipe and water lines.
How do you plan on addressing setback in that area?
Attorney Uchida stated that usually underground
pipes and electrical lines are not considered structures for setback
purposes. You would want to re-vegetate
the road. All would be underground. Would be a vegetative buffer and would be
continued to be preserved. There is a
100 foot bank of trees because of buffer.
He stated that possibly zoning relief may be required.
John Herlihy asked about the easement from Route 13
between Whittaker and Burnham property and would it be a driveway to the golf
course? Do you plan to use that easement
for construction purposes ?
Don Lane stated that they will bring the new road in
and this will be the first construction.
The first thing that would happen would be that we have to have the
ability to supply potable water. There
would be a small excavator to do test pits. The first thing would be the building of a new
access road.
Attorney Craig representing the Mazalewski’s was
present.
Don Lane stated the first thing to be done will be
the road and then we would stop using Town Farm Road. They have a June 1, 2006 deadline to stop
using the road. If, however we can get
base core down early, we would stop using Town Farm Road earlier than the
deadline.
John Herlihy asked about when the people of Meadow
Lane were approached, how high are the roofs going to raise over the
airport?
Folkstadt stated the roofs will be a 10:12
pitch. Just the tops of the roofs will
be visible.
Leo Martel – Asked about the possible expansion of
the golf course in the future.
Don Lane stated there was not enough space to expand
unless more land is purchased. They
didn’t want to restrict that from happening in the future, that is why it is
included, etc. If the Town felt that it
was a valuable asset for the Town, the Conservation Commission, Town and
Recreation Commission could decide. We
are trying to protect this as a nine hole golf course. However, if everyone down the road thinks it
is a good idea to expand, we want the option open. The Town has got to buy into it.
Dan DalPra asked if ATV is a licensed vehicle.
The Board noted that ATV’s need to be registered.
Dan DalPra – Asked if you can explain to me, is
there a possibility that without the Association burning down to the ground, is
there an option for the Condo Association to dissolve but the condos don’t dissolve, can the condo
association go away?
Attorney Uchida stated that this would be almost
impossible because of the need for mortgage companies, etc. to sign off. This doesn’t mean that all the covenants go
away. Possibly things could change. Is it okay to say if the Condo Association
goes away, the regulations still stay.
They would be tenants in common with everyone else. The rules and regulations developed by the
Condo Association would still be in effect.
They would have to create a new regeme.
Dan DalPra – Asked what if the places all burn
down? What if you end up with 65
foundation and a lot of ashes and the place is for sale? The Town now has a big black hole in the
ground. Would it be sold?
Don Lane stated this would not happen because the
entire development had sprinkle systems.
Attorney Uchida stated this would never happen
because the Association has to maintain casualty insurance. It has go to be rebuilt.
Dan DalPra – Asked Don Lane if it was his intention
to run this as a separate business. I
would hate to see the golf courts just shut down because it is an inconvenience
and that benefit to the Town’s people is gone.
I would like to hear you say that it is your intention to run this…..
Don Lane Stated the business model is a nine hole
golf course. It is a viable business if
you are not carrying a lot of debt. A
young pro would always be interested. It
is my intent to operate the golf course on an ongoing basis.
Dan DalPra – What happens to Fairways #5,, 6, 7, 8
and 9 if the golf course closes? You are
only going to mow the fairways for the possible resale. The property should be maintained as open
meadows. Future private membership of
the club.
Gertrude Dulude – No comments.
Ron Slocum – Asked about whether there was a ratio
between own occupied and non-owner occupied.
Alison Vallieres – Stated she had the same concern
as previously. She would like to see the
proposal as 100% Senior Housing.
John Trottier – Stated there were Open Space shown
on the plan. The Board needs to have an
up to day plan including the open space.
David Nault – Stated that Alison should have A, B.,
C and D. of the condo documents for the record.
At this point, Attorney Uchida presented the Board
with a worksheet showing possible conditions of approval for the project. (attached)
John Trottier stated that concerning the Development
Agreement between the abutters and the developer, he felt that the Board should
not be included as a third party to this.
It should not be a part of the conditions.
John Trottier – Asked about the density calculations. Have you removed the area of parking areas and country club from the calculation?
The Board asked that the applicants provide a
revised area calculation to include the removal of acreage for these uses.
David Nault asked if the Library and Work Out
Equipment was owner supported.
Attorney Uchida stated this is a part of the Club
House facility. This fits into Senior
Program requirements. These are required
for all senior projects under State guidelines.
Abutters were all notified by certified mail:
The only abutter to comment was Attorney Jim Craig
on behalf of the Mazalewski’s. Stated
the access road is gated. It is unclear
who will control that gate.
The Board noted the access road is for emergency
access and the Town of Dunbarton, Fire Department/Police Department would
control the gate.
The Board noted that no gate for the access road is shown on the plan. Would like this gate to appear on the plan.
The Board requested that the developers get all
information requested to the Board as soon as possible so they can review it
prior to the meeting.
MOTION:
John Herlihy made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning
Board of Adjustment continue the 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 to permit a
Planned Residential Development, etc. to
the next meeting. The motion was
seconded by John Trottier. The motion
passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting
adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Alison
R. Vallieres, Secretary