DUNBARTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MONDAY, JULY 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

Gertrude Dulude

David Nault

Ron Slocum, Alternate

Leo Martel, Alternate

Kenneth Swayze, Admin., Planning and Zoning Department

Steve Duggan, Town Counsel

The Chairman verified with the Secretary that the Public Meeting Notice had been posted in a timely fashion according to State Law in three public places throughout the Town and published in the Concord Monitor for one day.

Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes: June 14, 2004

A motion was made, seconded and passed unanimously to approve the minutes of the previous meeting of June 14, 2004 as written.

7:00 P.M. – CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A REQUEST FROM MICHAEL FORTIER ON BEHALF OF JANET LYNN REVOCABLE TRUST 2003 (K1-01-04) FOR VARIANCES AS FOLLOWS AT PROPERTY ON 28 HOLIDAY SHORE DRIVE AT GORHAM POND IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH.

1. VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 4, SECTION B. OF THE DUNBARTON ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THEM TO REMOVE AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AND REBUILD WITH A TWO BEDROOM TWO STORY YEAR ROUND HOUSE CLOSER THAN FIFTY FEET OF THE BOUNDARY.

2. SECOND VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 4, SECTION B. OF THE DUNBARTON ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THEM TO BUILD A STATE APPROVED SEPTIC SYSTEM WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE BOUNDARY.

3. THIRD VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 4, SECTION B. OF THE DUNBARTON ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THEM TO PUT A WELL CLOSER THAN 75 FEET FROM THE BOUNDARY.

4. FOURTH VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 5, SECTION G. (WETLANDS DISTRICT ORDINANCE) OF THE DUNBARTON ZONING ORDINANCE TO CONSTRUCT A SEPTIC SYSTEM WITHIN THE 125 FOOT WETLANDS CONSERVATION DISTRICT.

Mike Fortier, representing the applicant and Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, appeared before the Board.

J. Belanger, Surveyor, presented an updated plan showing the proposed location of the septic system, new well and home. (attached) He also presented a copy of the approved septic design which stated the Waiver had been granted. (attached)

Mike Fortier stated they had decided add a covered entrance to the left side which would be 8’ x 16’. In addition, they would like to add a balcony which would be 4’ x 16’ which would be directly over the covered entrance. He stated the proposed home would be a low profile and would not obstruct any neighbors’ view of the lake. The proposed well will be 11’ from the south boundary and 16’ from the west boundary. The proposed house will be 2’ wider than the existing house which will be taken down. There will be a full concrete foundation. The height of the structure will not be increased. The maximum height in Dunbarton is 35 feet. The proposed structure will be 34’ 6” from the base of the concrete to the top of the ridge.

The Board confirmed they were applying for a two bedroom septic and this was the limit to the number of bedrooms in the proposed home.

The abutters were read as follows and noted all had been notified by certified mail:

Elizabeth and Kenneth Chute – Not Present

Roland Laporte/Marianne Mateo – Not Present

McDonnell Revocable Trust – Not Present

Joseph/Jennifer Anzalone – Not Present

Lisa/Alfred Santilli, Jr. – Not Present

Schauer Environment Consultants – Not Present

J. E. Belanger Surveying – Present. (Representing the applicant)

Mike Fortier stated that the applicant had submitted letters of support from all abutters at a previous meeting.

Mike Fortier addressed the questions necessary for the granting of the Variance as follows:

a. No diminution in values of surrounding properties would be suffered;

Answer: Granting the variance would increase value of surrounding homes by upgrading the present dwelling, which is in many ways obsolete, to a modern structure. The new house will improve the appearance of this lot and the value of this property and the neighborhood in general. It is common knowledge that when houses are improved, property values increase. The new house will be compatible in style, size and design with the existing houses in the neighborhood.

b. Granting the variance would be of benefit to the public interest;

Answer: It is generally in the public interest for property owners to be able to improve their properties as they become obsolete. This increases the tax base for the town, the general attractiveness of the town and property values in general.

c. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner seeking it;

Answer: A hardship is when:

1. The zoning restriction as applied to the property interferes with its reasonable use, considering its unique setting. The setting here is unique because the lot was created and the house built many decades ago before zoning. The lot is nonconforming in dimensions and the house is obsolete. The new house will not present any greater degree of nonconformity than the old house because it will sit on the same footprint. Although larger in height, it will be consistent with other older houses in the neighborhood and elsewhere in town on small lots which have been rehabilitated to keep up with economic and other developments over several decades. It is reasonable for property owners to want to modify their houses to make them more livable and up to date.

2. There is no fair and substantial relationship between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on this property. The zoning ordinance is designed to prevent crowding and over development. In this case, because the new house will occupy the same area of the lot as the old house, there will be no increase in crowding and no over development.

3. The variance will not injure the public or private rights of others. By adding an additional story and rebuilding the house on the same footprint, there will be no injury to the public or the private rights of others. In fact, most neighbors are in favor of this request.

4. Everyone has been allowed to develop their property. We want to be treated fairly. We are trying to stay within the spirit of the Ordinance.

d. Granting the variance would do substantial justice; and

Answer: The Town in the past has interpreted its ordinance to permit construction of new or modified buildings on non-conforming lots on the same footprint, both in this neighborhood and others. We ask that the ordinance be uniformly applied so that the applicants receive the same treatment.

e. The use would not be contrary to the spirit of the Ordinance.

Answer: As stated above, the applicants only wish to continue an allowed residential use which would be compatible with other houses in the neighborhood and elsewhere in town which have been improved on old footprints. This does not increase crowding or create any other problems that zoning is designed to prevent. In fact, because so many lots in Dunbarton are undersized, not permitting redevelopment of older homes on these lots would perpetuate the existence of older obsolete housing stock which would become unsightly and depress housing values in general.

Wetlands Ordinance:

Ordinance doesn’t apply or expressly allows this development because the existing building existed before the Wetlands Ordinance was passed.

Reiterate the same arguments for the Wetlands Ordinance as for the bulk and dimensional ordinance; but state that the proposed development will have no discernible effect on wetlands. The house will occupy the same area as before; there will be no effect on wet areas by adding another story and/or building a garage. We have done what the State has asked us to do.

At this point in the meeting, John Trottier, Chairman, stated that the following members would be voting on this request:

John Trottier

John Herlihy

Alison Vallieres

Gertrude Dulude

David Nault

Board Discussion:

John Herlihy stated the applicant has met the requirements of the Board. They will be improving the property and have met all the criteria of the questions for a Variance. I don’t have a problem with it.

Gertrude Dulude stated she did not have a problem with the request.

Alison Vallieres stated she did not have a problem with the request once the State gave its approval. She stated she felt it was important to her to have the State approval prior to making the decision.

David Nault stated that it will be only two bedrooms. We should attach a copy of the plan to the approval for the Building Inspector’s benefit.

John Trottier stated he had a problem with the adding of the 2’ and adding the deck and the porch. This is getting to be a more and more congested area.

John Herlihy stated he could live without all the balconies. Can live with it either way.

Ron Slocum – The decks and balconies appeared overnight. It is a good thing to come back here rather then all of a sudden things start appearing.

David Nault noted that the deck would not be screened in. It is towards the lake side.

M. Fortier and the applicant agreed that the deck would never be screened.

MOTION:

John Herlihy made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment grant the request from Michael Fortier on behalf of Janet Lynn Revocable Trust 2003 (K1-01-04) for variances as follows at property on 28 Holiday Shore Drive at Gorham Pond in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH

1. Variance to Article 4, Section B. of the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance to allow them to remove an existing structure and rebuild with a two bedroom two story year round house (40’ x 22’) no closer than 34.1’ from the covered entrance to the northeast boundary and 38.7’ from the covered entrance to the northwest boundary, and no closer than 29.6’ from the southeast boundary, and no closer than 18.9’ from the covered entrance to the southwest boundary.

Conditions:

a. That there be no more than two bedrooms and cannot ever be converted to more than two bedrooms.

b. That the deck can never be enclosed.

c. That the balcony can never be enclosed

d. That the entry way can never be enclosed.

e. That the distance between the deck and the tie corner of the property lines be no less than 52 feet.

The motion was seconded by David Nault. The motion passed by a majority vote as follows:

Trottier – No

Herlihy – Yes

Vallieres – Yes

Dulude – Yes

Nault – Yes

MOTION:

John Herlihy made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment grant the request for a Variance from Michael Fortier on behalf of Janet Lynn Revocable Trust 2003 (K1-01-04) for a Variance as follows at property on 28 holiday Shore Drive at Gorham Pond in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH:

1. Variance to Article 4, Section B. of the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance to allow them to build a State Approved Septic System no closer than 12 feet from the northeast boundary and no closer than 19 feet from the northwest boundary.

The motion was seconded by David Nault. The motion passed unanimously.

MOTION:

1. Variance to Article 4., Section B. of the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance to allow them to put a well no closer than 11 feet from the northeast boundary and 16 feet from the southwest boundary.

The motion was seconded by Alison Vallieres. The motion passed unanimously.

MOTION:

1. Variance to Article 5., Section G. (Wetlands District Ordinance) of the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance to construct a Septic System no closer than 47 feet from the Wetlands Conservation District.

The motion was seconded by John Trottier. The motion passed unanimously.

REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 4, SECTION B. OF THE DUNBARTON ZONING ORDINANCE FROM GERALD BOURASSA TO ALLOW HIM TO REBUILD AN EXISTING GARAGE AND SHED SLIGHTLY LARGER AND CHANGE THE USE FROM A SHED TO A MUD ROOM CLOSER THAN THE REQUIRED 50 FEET FROM THE BOUNDARY IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH

Jacques Belanger, Surveryor, and Gerald Bourassa, applicant, appeared before the Board with a plan showing the location of the existing house and garage. Jacques Belanger presented a certified plan showing the distances from the road, etc. It was not a complete survey of the entire lot.

At this point, John Herlihy stated that other applicants have been required to have a complete survey done of their property prior to coming to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. He felt that Mr. Bourassa should do this also.

It was the consensus of the Board that because the only boundary lines that the Board was concerned with were shown in detail, Mr. Bourassa did not need to have his entire lot surveyed. The Board agreed that the plan submitted was acceptable and appropriate.

J. Belanger stated that Mr. Bourassa was actually adding 50 square feet which would be within the setback line of 50 feet. The rest of the proposed mud room would be not within the setback and would not require a Variance. In addition, Mr. Bourassa would be converting the use from a garage to a mud room.

Ron Slocum asked the applicant if he could move the proposed mud room back from the road.

Mr. Bourassa stated that the driveway is already 50 feet from the pavement. The entire house is within the 50 foot setback. It would be difficult to add the mud room in any other place.

Abutters were read as follows and noted that all had been notified by certified mail:

Jason/Gail Georgantus – Not Present

Lynda Gagne – Not Present

Gary Attalla – Not Present

Andrew/Donna Dunn – Present. No comments. All set.

James/Linda Tsiatsios – Not Present

Dennis/Tammy Little – Not Present

James Starr – Not Present

Peter/Linda Hecker – Not Present

GPS Properties Inc. – Not Present

Richard J. Lavoie – Not Present

J. E. Belanger Surveying – Present. (Representing the applicant)

Jacques Belanger answered the required questions for the granting of a Variance as follows:

a. No diminution in values of surrounding properties would be suffered;

Answer: Granting the variance would not have a diminution of the surrounding properties. The existing structure is within the 50 foot setbacks along the frontage. The new structure will be built on the existing site, impacting approximately 50 feet of land within the setback and extend westerly beyond the setbacks and conforming, being a more attractive, useful building.

b. Granting the variance would be of benefit to the public interest;

By granting the variance, a more attractive building will replace the existing structure along the main entrance to our town.

c. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner seeking it;

Answer: The existing structure does not meet the needs of the current owner. The new garage and mudroom will enhance and add comfort to the home.

d. Granting the variance would do substantial justice; and

Answer: Any improvement to a property, improves the appearance of the town. This is one of the older homes in town, built close to the road for convenience. A removed conforming structure would detract from its general appearance.

e. The use would not be contrary to the spirit of the Ordinance.

Answer: This variance will be within the spirit of the ordinance. The existing structures have always been within the setbacks. Any additional encroachment will be to the rear of the building and out of sight.

At this point in the meeting, John Trottier, Chairman, stated that the following members would be voting on this request:

John Trottier

John Herlihy

Alison Vallieres

Gertrude Dulude

David Nault

MOTION:

David Nault made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment grant the request for a Variance to Article 4, Section B. of the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance from Gerald Bourassa to allow him to rebuild an existing garage and shed to be approximately 50 square feet of impacted area to the setback to the east boundary line and he be allowed to change the use from a shed to a mud room at his property located on Stark Highway South in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH . The motion was seconded by John Trottier. The motion passed unanimously.

AT THIS POINT IN THE MEETING, THE CHAIRMAN STATED THAT WITH REGARD TO THE REQUEST FROM WATCH HILL (GOLF COURSE) PROJECT, HE DID NOT FEEL THE BOARD COULD MAKE A DECISION THIS EVENING BECAUSE THE INFORMATION (MAPS) WAS ONLY DELIVERED TO THE BOARD ON FRIDAY PRIOR TO THIS MEETING. THIS DID NOT GIVE THE BOARD SUFFICIENT TIME TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS. ATTORNEY UCHIDA ASKED THAT THE BOARD GIVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE CHANGES IN THE DOCUMENTS, ETC. HE STATED THEY WERE VERY MINOR AND WOULD ASK THE BOARD’S DISCRETION TO LISTEN TO HIS PRESENTATION.

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

Alison Vallieres stepped down from the Board because she is a member of the Planning Board.

At this point in the meeting, Attorney Steve Duggan stated he had just received a communication from Scott Hogan, Attorney, that he wanted to share with the Zoning Board of Adjustment. In addition, he said he had a statement from Attorney Patrick McNicolas, who represents the Perry’s. (attached)

MOTION:

A motion was made for the Board to go into attorney-client non-public session. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. A poll was taken of all members as follows:

Trottier – Yes

Herlihy – Yes

Nault – Yes

Dulude – Yes

Slocum – Yes

MOTION:

A motion was made for the Board to adjourn attorney-client non-public session. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. A poll was taken of all members as follows:

Trottier – Yes

Herlihy – Yes

Nault – Yes

Dulude – Yes

Slocum – Yes

Scott Hogan presented his case to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. (attached)

Attorney Patrick McNicolas stated that this is not something that came up a the last Planning Board Meeting. The Perry project had been on the Planning Board agenda for 15 months. These issues were not brought up. We were not told we had to stop and go do something else.

Abutters were read as follows and noted that all had been notified by certified mail:

Josephine Dailey – Not Present

Paul Belyear – Not Present

David/Justyn Constant – Not Present

Rudolf/Elizabeth Vallauri – Not Present

Daniel/Kathleen Labonville – Present. Stated that Scott Hogan had covered what he wanted to say.

Robert/Denise Perry II – Present. No comments.

Nathan Narus – Not Present

Richard/Catherine 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 that Scott Hogan was representing him. Have made his concerns known for the past 15 months.

Eric Mitchell and Associates – Not Present

Charles Cote, Electrical Engineers – Not Present

Schauer Environmental Consultants – Not Present

Scott Hogan, Attorney – Present

Other Members of the Public:

Paul Bruzga stated he agreed with much of what has been said by Attorney Scott Hogan. He also stated that if you go to the Table of Uses, it refers to Multi-family dwelling in the singular sense. This means that there is only allowed one building on one lot. This does not mean there can be multiple buildings on one lot. He stated the Planning Board has made an error. Stated there was an Article 3 at the recent Town Meeting which was approved regarding multi-family dwellings, etc. Stated he wrote a letter on June 24, 2004 which he would like to be part of the record this evening. (attached) He stated the Planning Board approval must be reversed.

Board Discussion:

John Trottier stated he felt that the application was not for a PRD. This is not like PRD’s the Board has looked at in the past. In his opinion, he stated this was not a PRD. There is no subdivision of land, etc.

David Nault asked if two parcels combined into one could be considered a subdivision. The Board agreed that this would be a consolidation of land and not a subdivision.

Ron Slocum stated he knew that there was an existing house lot that was added to the parcel to increase the road frontage. They were consolidating the land and not subdividing it.

John Trottier stated that the Planning Board chose not to consider this a PRD. This is their option.

David Nault stated the Planning Board should have talked with the Zoning Board. The applicants have spent 15 months answering questions and a lot of them were the same questions we would have asked.

Ron Slocum stated that when we talk about PRD’s in the past, they have subdivided off small individual lots and have multiple dwelling units and buildings on separate smaller lots. There is nothing within our Ordinance that prevents more than one building on a lot. We are talking about building on a lot. There is nothing that prevents having multiple buildings on one lot.

At this point in the meeting, John Trottier, Chairman, stated that the following members would be voting on this request:

John Trottier

John Herlihy

Ron Slocum

Gertrude Dulude

David Nault

MOTION:

John Trottier made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment deny the 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 based on the fact that it is the Zoning Board’s opinion that the Planning Board acted reasonably and within its discretion as set forth in the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance. Ron Slocum seconded the motion. 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

Alison Vallieres stepped back onto the Board.

Attorney Steve Grill and Kenneth Kosyra, U. S. Cellular, appeared before the Board.

The Board noted that all abutters had been notified by certified mail as follows:

John/Eleanor Swindlehurst – Not Present

David/Martha Delaney – Not Present

Peter/Linda Hecker – Not Present

Richard/Nicholette Hecker – Not Present

Kenneth/Mary Alton – Not Present

Manchester Planning Board – Not Present

GPS Properties – Not Present

Goffstown Planning Department – Not Present

Weare Planning Department – Not Present

New Boston Planning Department – Not Present

Bow Planning Department – Not Present

Hooksett Planning Department – Not Present

Hopkinton Planning Department – Not Present

Concord Planning Department – Not Present

Federal Aviation Administration – Not Present

Board Discussion:

At this point in the meeting, John Trottier, Chairman, stated that the following members would be voting on this request:

John Trottier

John Herlihy

Alison Vallieres

Gertrude Dulude

David Nault

The Board noted that US Cellular had presented additional information at the Rehearing that stated they were looking for coverage for in-home and also at the Gorham Pond area. This was not on the original application that the Zoning Board made their decision on.

US Cellular’s original application stated there was a significant gap in coverage on Route 13 which they needed to cover. Route 13 was the target area. Originally US Cellular did not provide information about in-home coverage. There is no Federal Law for coverage of in-home according to Town Counsel. Based on Hutchin’s report, a 110 foot tower would cover the in-car and mobile coverage originally requested.

David Nault stated that he did not feel there was any reason for the granting of a rehearing. Technology is changing every day and vehicle coverage is getting better and better. This is not all due to new towers in the area.

The Board noted that their Attorney had informed them that the Telecommunications Act does not require in-house needs be fulfilled.

Ron Slocum stated that naturally a 150 foot tower gives better coverage than a 110 foot tower but the 110 foot tower gives adequate coverage. Even with a 180 foot tower, there will still be gaps along Route 13. There is a need for more than one tower. Even with a 180 foot tower, there will not be 100% coverage. You are going to need more than one tower and not one monster size tower. The Board would rather have more towers of lesser height. According to Hutchins report, the 110 foot tower gives adequate coverage on Route 13.

MOTION:

John Trottier made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment deny the request of US Cellular for a 150 foot tower and include notes as part of the record. The motion was seconded by John Herlihy. The motion passed unanimously.

MOTION:

John Herlihy made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment reaffirm their original vote to approve the US Cellular Tower at 110 feet with the conditions that were put upon it at the time of approval. The motion was seconded by Gertrude Dulude. 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”.

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.

At this point in the public hearing, Ron Slocum stated that Attorney Uchida and I have a business relationship with the company that I own. The Board affirmed that Ron Slocum should step down from the Watch Hill Request.

At this point in the meeting, John Trottier, Chairman, stated that the following members would be voting on this request:

John Trottier

John Herlihy

Alison Vallieres

Gertrude Dulude

David Nault

John Trottier stated that he had not received the new maps and materials until Friday just prior to this meeting. He stated he was away for the weekend and was unable to review the materials.

Attorney Uchida stated the scope of the changes are insignificant and would like the opportunity to present them to the Board this evening. He would hope for a decision from the Board this evening. He stated if he did not get a vote from the Board this evening, he would ask the Board to withdraw the application.

John Trottier stated that Peter Holden signed the plan as a Certified Surveyor and there was incorrect information on the plan. The total acreage should be 246.6 acres. The stated he was a Professional and had a problem with going by a plan which had incorrect information on it. (The plan was taken from the original PAR Four Development which included two other parcels which were not included with Watch Hill.)

Attorney Uchida stated he had given the Secretary an updated Density Calculations which she had distributed to the Board. (attached) They would be seeking an approval for 87 units based on the density calculations.

Attorney Uchida explained the changes as follows:

1. Gate is shown at the parking lot.

2. We were asked to make sure we show the fence along the Burnham Property Line.

3. We were asked to show exactly how the 100 foot setback would be shown.

4. Approximate berm location to protect the abutters’ views.

5. The parking lot on Route 13 properly shown on all plans. We showed it on the 24’ x 36’ plan. They can look right into the site now. There were very minor changes.

6. The easements took precedence over anything the association could do with the area.

Attorney Uchida stated these are truly the extent of the changes.

John Trottier stated he had not looked at all the materials which were presented.

David Nault stated he did look at the changes on the condo documents and could see the highlighted changes.

Lyle Folkstad explained the notes on the plan to the Board.

John Trottier asked about the requested Variance for the Buffer area. Asked if there was any vegetation in the buffer area.

Lyle Forkstad explained four or five items of changes which they had done on the plan.

David Nault asked about when they did the Density Calculations, did you deduct all the wetlands?

Attorney Uchida stated that the way the Dunbarton Ordinance reads, you only deduct wetlands that have surface water. We have met your ordinance requirements for calculating the density.

Gertrude Dulude – Asked if the homes would be built on slabs.

Lyle Forkstad stated they will all be built with concrete foundations.

John Trottier stated he felt the changes were fairly clear. He would like to talk about the Density Calculations and the Request for the Variance for Density. He noted they were 128 acres short. The total project needs 368 acres, minus 240.4 leaves it 128 acres short.

Attorney Uchida presented a “Developer’s Statement of Acknowledgement” to the Board which listed the Unique Features of the Property which should be considered in granting the Variance for Density. (attached) He stated they were asking for a greater density in return for preserving the unique features of the property for the Town of Dunbarton. We are willing to commit in return for the reasonable use of the property. He stated that if you strictly apply the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance to the property, you will come up with a development that no one in the Town will like. We need the density so we can walk away from the “Simplex Test”. You are creating a Variance that is reasonable and based on the reasonable use of this property. If some other developer comes in, you can hold up this document and show them the reasons for the granting of the Variance so it doesn’t set a precedent for another developer to come before the Board. You can throw this in their face and say these are the reasons for the granting of the Density Variance.

Attorney Uchida had presented the Board possible conditions of approval for applications which was distributed to the members on Friday. (attached)

Attorney Uchida apologized for the late arrival of the plans and documents. Stated they need a vote tonight or we need to withdraw the application. Our agreements with the current owner are running out. He stated that his client is not going to pay him to be here any more.

Abutters were read and it was noted that all had been notified by certified mail:

Kenneth/Jennifer Proulx – Present. No comments.

J & J Trust – Not Present

Thesesa 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

Keith/Jennifer Lavoie – Not Present

Henry and Joan Burnham – Present. Stated this is a large amount of new homes that will be going in. Having this over 55 and undeveloped areas is the best thing that they can do. To deny it would be a very bad thing.

John Trottier stated the Board’s intent is not to deny it. It is a big decision. We have been here so many times.

Benjamin/Mary Horne – Present. All set.

Glenn Doten/Linn Kurkjean – Not Present

M. Curtis Whittaker – Present. Two years ago I was involved in a project to preserve an apple orchard in Concord. We had to raise almost two million dollars and that was the value of the land to developers and the hardship. If you are gong to preserve land, you are going to pay for it one way or the other. You are doing it by granting a Variance. The public impact is pretty significant. This is to preserve those view sheds and the rest of the open space. We are very happy and it was worth two million dollars for the orchard. We would have to see this hill chopped up if this doesn’t get approved.

Joseph/Nichole French – Present. Stated he was in support of this development.

Rene/Ruth Norbert – Present. Stated he knows some things take a lot of time. This will benefit everyone in the Town. If it slips away from us tonight, we are all losing something. It happens all the time. They are going to do what they say. Do the best you can and give them the approval tonight.

Jeffrey/Evelyn Kantor – Present. Unfortunately nature being what it is, things happen. We realize what you are going through. We realize their getting the plans to you at the last minute is difficult for the Board. It means so much to the Town and to the neighbors that we would like you to think beyond the rules and have you come up with the decision this evening.

Kevin/Marie McCarthy – Present. Stated he was in favor of this development. Look at this in comparison with the proposed Par Four Development on the property. That was ugly and any other developer who walks in and chews up the property including the golf course. The next developer will charge the Town with exclusionary zoning and would win. Be careful of what you wish for. These people have been more than accommodating and they have done a fine job.

Caron Revocable Trust, Norman Caron – Present. Stated he agreed with all that has been said by the abutters. Could you possibly decide to vote with contingencies. Could you do a tentative approval so that you are able to at least make a movement forward because we are going to lose this developer.

Walter/Evelyn Smith – Not Present

George/Carolyn Cushman – Not Present

Hammond Revocable Trust – Not Preent

Story Heirs, Rodney and William Doucet – Not Present

Arvid Rain – Present. Nothing new to add.

Office of Selectmen, Town of Goffstown – Not Present

Laurent/Kathryn Azotea – Not Present

Duane Coventry – Not Present

Glenn/Wendy Flaherty – Not Present

John/Katherine Mazalewski – Present. No comments.

Robert/Claire Drolet – Not Present

Board Discussion:

At this point in the public hearing, the Board required the applicant to address the questions necessary for the granting of a Variance and Special Exception. Attorney Uchida addressed the questions as follows:

A Special Exception under Article 4, Table of Uses and Article 6 of the ordinance to permit a Planned Residential Development (PRD) on Lots B3-2-1, B44-1-11, A4-1-15 and A3-1-4.

a. No detriment to property values in the vicinity of the proposed development will result on account of: the location or scale of buildings, structures, parking areas or other access ways; the emission of odors, smoke, gas, dust, noise, glare, heat, vibration, or other pollutants; or the unsightly outdoor storage of equipment, vehicles or other materials.

Answer: We believe that we have shown you there will be detriment to property values. We submitted a study showing that this project would have no impact on property values. There will be no emission of odors, smoke, gas, dust, noise, flare, heat, etc. There will be no greater impact than a standard subdivision.

b. No hazard will be caused to the public or adjacent property on account of potential fire, explosion or release of toxic materials.

Answer: All the PRD buildings will have sprinkler systems in them. The road will have a gate which will be installed for the Town. Therefore this doesn’t present any fire hazard. Any herbicides or pesticides used on the golf course will only be applied by a Licensed Applicator. We will conform to all BMP standards.

c. No creation of a traffic safety hazard or substantial traffic congestion in the vicinity of the proposed development.

Answer: There will be no traffic hazards created by this development. We have sufficient sight distance and we would need a State Driveway Permit. There will be a 15 MPH speed limit within the development. Because of the age requirements, there will be less traffic than a standard subdivision. Golf course traffic arrives after peak traffic times.

d. No excessive demand on municipal services and facilities, including, but not limited to waste disposal, police and fire protection and schools.

Answer: Our waste will be taken away by personal carrier and we have submitted a fiscal impact statement. There will be far less demand on schools than a standard grid subdivision. We have minimized any demand on fire services.

e. The proposed use will not result in the degradation of existing surface and groundwater water quality standards, nor will it have adverse effects on the natural functions of wetlands on the site which would result in the loss of significant habitat or flood control protection.

Answer: We have gone to extreme lengths to preserve the wetland areas with minimal wetlands impact. We have offered neighbors the opportunity to enter into our water system if something happens to theirs. We do not believe we will have to.

f. In addition to the standards specified above, special exceptions may be subject to appropriate conditions including the following:

(1) Front, side, or rear yards in excess of the minimum requirements of the Ordinance;

(2) Screening of the premises from the street or adjacent property by walls, fences, or other devices;

(3) Limitations on the size of buildings and other structures more stringent than minimum or maximum requirements of this Ordinance;

(4) Limitations on the number of occupants and methods and times of operation;

(5) Regulation of the design and location of access drives, sidewalks and other traffic features;

(6) Location and amount of parking and loading spaces in excess of existing standards;

(7) Regulations of the number, size and lighting of signs in excess of existing standards.

Answer: In response to the above, Attorney Uchida stated he had submitted a revised set of conditions to the Board. (attached)

6. 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”.

a. No diminution in values of surrounding properties would be suffered;

Answer: We have preserved the open space and the wetlands as well and believe there will be no detriment to property values. We have submitted the Weeden Study previously.

b. Granting the variance would be of benefit to the public interest;

Answer: Attorney Uchida stated he had gone over the Master Plan in this Town. The community is concerned about setbacks, presence of trails, open space and density. We fulfilled all of these things.

c. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner seeking it;

Answer: As you know, the Supreme Court has told us how to do that. We believe the reasonable use of this particular property is to preserve what is best out of it. Give the land size, it encourages the developer to build huge homes on large parcels of land which creates large sprawl. If you literally apply the zoning regulations, it is the lesser result for the Town.

d. Granting the variance would do substantial justice; and

Answer: Granting the variance would do substantial justice as our duty is to make sure we don’t have sprawl. Here we actually create more of a rural-like cluster through the density variance.

e. The use would not be contrary to the spirit of the Ordinance.

Answer: We still preserve all the special aspects of this property. There is no injury to the public and the rights of others. I think if you looked at how we are using this land and by cutting back from 104 units to 88, we have compromised. This is the minimum we can afford to get by with and this is the final number. This is a reasonable variance. We have preserved all the features that are unique to this property. We have done our best.

7. 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.

a. No diminution in values of surrounding properties would be suffered;

Answer: We are requesting two areas for the Variance for the 100 foot buffer zone. One of the areas is because if we provide the 100 foot buffer zone, we will be plowing through the wetlands. We are trying to stay away from the wetlands. We are also trying to keep the area hidden.

b. Granting the variance would be of benefit to the public interest;

Answer: We are avoiding adverse environmental impacts rather than sending it down into the

wetlands.

c. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner seeking it;

Answer: The zoning ordinance is to try to create a buffer. The buffer actually encroaches into

wetlands. We are not bringing units up close. We need to square up the intersection.

d. Granting the variance would do substantial justice; and

Answer: The variance is seeking reasonableness. We don’t feel we are hurting anyone’s rights. The benefits to public safety are greater. This will help us to get to the 90 degree and compromise with what the State is looking for.

e.The use would not be contrary to the spirit of the Ordinance.

Answer: I don’t think the road location as shown on the plan will cause any problems.

8. 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.

Answer: It was noted that the Board had previously established that the golf course, etc. is a permitted form of green space and could be treated as open space. We are making sure it cannot be developed further.

9. 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.

a. No detriment to property values in the vicinity of the proposed development will result on account of: the location or scale of buildings, structures, parking areas or other accessways; the emission of odors, smoke, gas, dust, noise, glare, heat, vibration, or other pollutants; or the unsightly outdoor storage of equipment, vehicles or other materials.

Answer: We are in the process of upgrading the existing clubhouse. We have agreed on lighting with the neighbors. The clubhouse facility and parking lot will be better than what is there now. There is no detriment in having an improve clubhouse.

b. No hazard will be caused to the public or adjacent property on account of potential fire, explosion or release of toxic materials.

Answer: The golf course will be staying there. We will be applying better methods of applying herbicides, etc. Fire protection will be improved. We will have sprinklers in the buildings and the emergency access road will be available for fire protection, etc.

c. No creation of a traffic safety hazard or substantial traffic congestion in the vicinity of the proposed development.

Answer: Peter Holden has already submitted a Traffic Study showing traffic flow both on and off the site. The traffic flow will be during off hours. We don’t think we are going to create any traffic hazard.

d. No excessive demand on municipal services and facilities, including, but not limited to waste disposal, police and fire protection and schools.

Answer: Keep in mind that the golf course is going to be limited to a golf course. Will be used by the elderly residents. There will be no demand on municipal services.

Answer: Certainly the club house and the parking lot will not effect water quality standards. We will be adhering to BMP standards. There is an agreement that people can still join into the group so they can jump onto our water supply, if necessary. We don’t feel it will be necessary, but this is available.

f. In addition to the standards specified above, special exceptions may be subject to appropriate conditions including the following:

(1) Front, side, or rear yards in excess of the minimum requirements of the Ordinance;

(2) Screening of the premises from the street or adjacent property by walls, fences, or other devices;

(3) Limitations on the size of buildings and other structures more stringent than minimum or maximum requirements of this Ordinance;

(4) Limitations on the number of occupants and methods and times of operation;

(5) Regulation of the design and location of access drives, sidewalks and other traffic features;

(6) Location and amount of parking and loading spaces in excess of existing standards;

(7) Regulations of the number, size and lighting of signs in excess of existing standards.

Answer: We have agreed to limit the clubhouse height. Limit the uses strictly with the golf course and a pro shop. We have agreed to restrict operation to what is thee presently. There is very reduced lighting. Will make sure the clubhouse fits in with the neighborhood.

Board Discussion and Deliberations:

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”).

The Board reached a consensus among them that they did not have a problem with the project as proposed.

David Nault stated they have addressed all the concerns of the requirements for a Special Exception.

Gertrude Dulude stated it was a wonderful project but no matter how nice it is, there are a lot of things to consider.

John Trottier stated regarding the open space, they will be giving the authorization to the Town.

Alison Vallieres stated she was in agreement with the proposal. She stated she has attended Master Plan meetings, and this is the type of growth that is encouraged to eliminate sprawl.

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”.

John Herlihy asked if the developers would consider 48 single units, 4 four units and 4 duplexes for a total of 72 units. This is 15 units less than proposed. In addition, he would want them totally 100% senior housing.

The applicants stated they had tried to scale it down but 87-88 units is the limit.

Leo Martel stated that originally he was against the density but now is almost on the fence. When you look at what they are going to preserve, it makes a difference. If another developer comes in, you know they will carve up the property into 5 acres lots, etc. There will be no golf course, etc. They will start by putting one road in. Next thing you know, they will be on Gorham Pond Road. That abuts Tenney Road in Goffstown. Now they can come in from Tenney Road.

Gertrude Dulude stated she has seen problems with all the Associations. Have seen problems with Gorham Pond Association and Old Fort Estates. It is a huge responsibility to take on an Association and carry out their responsibilities.

John Trottier stated that Associations are how they deal with a private entity. They have to create an association. We have seen copies of what the bylaws are and what they will be.

David Nault – Other than the golf course, they have indicated will be allowing uses 360 days a year unless there is an adverse effect. Would like to see it 100% over 55 and older. There are going to be grandparents taking care of kids there. I think there will be some adverse effects if we let 20% be under 55 years of age. Would like to see it all over 55. Have never seen an applicant bend around like they have. I was against the density but there is a benefit to having that golf course in town. It gives Dunbarton some prestige.

Gertrude Dulude – Stated it is a huge project for the Board to consider.

At this point in the discussion, Attorney Uchida stated the developers would agree to 100% of over 55 for the project if they could have the 87-88 units.

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.

John Herlihy stated that he felt we need the buffers. They were put in the Ordinance for a reason. We have not ever had a PRD without setbacks. There have to be setbacks as far as I am concerned.

David Nault stated that the wetlands crossing is huge if we make them have the buffer. I think it is tight to the corner. I am thinking about the impact to the wetlands if we require the buffer.

Gertrude Dulude stated that recently there was an ambulance halted because there was a tree down, etc. and they could not go through. This is a concern.

John Trottier asked about the possibility of putting the buffer on the other side on the Horne property. He asked if they could work out an easement with Horne for the buffer. Also could be worked out with Whittaker if necessary.

Ben Horne expressed some concerns about having tall trees, etc. on his property because of his ultra light flights, etc.

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.

The Board noted they had previously agreed to include the fairways, greens, tees and rough, etc. as a form of open space.

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.

The Board asked the applicants if they had any future plans of building additional structures. Don Lane indicated they would be building a pump house down by the pond for the water system. Would like to put a small barn for storage of equipment, etc. at a later time.

The Board noted that any additional buildings would have to back to the Board for review. Asked that they take “related buildings” out of the request.

General Board Discussion:

John Trottier stated he did not want to be pushed into making a decision this evening because he had not had an opportunity to review the revised plans. There were several errors on the maps which he was concerned with.

John Herlihy stated he could go either way.

Gertrude Dulude stated it was a huge decision to make this evening.

Alison Vallieres stated she would like to see the Board make some sort of conditional approval tonight. She stated the Board could act on the proposal with the condition that John Trottier review the documents prior to finalization/signature of the approval. She stated she felt the development was good for the Town. The developers have made many concessions. She was afraid the property would be sold to another developer who would put in a cookie cutter sprawl with large lots with gates and huge $500,000 homes. This would not be “Dunbarton”.

David Nault stated that the Board could review all the documents and make a decision at the next month’s meeting.

Alison Vallieres stated there will not be a next meeting for this project because the applicants will be withdrawing because of the expiration of their financing/option, etc. There are other developers waiting to purchase this property.

The Board reached a consensus that they did not want to grant a conditional approval.

MOTION:

John Herlihy made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment table the Watch Hill Request for a Planned Residential Development until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by John Trottier. The motion passed by a majority vote as follows:

Trottier – Yes

Herlihy – Yes

Nault – Yes

Dulude – Yes

Vallieres – No

OTHER BUSINESS:

At this point in the meeting, Ron Slocum returned to the Board.

Mike Isabelle, Non-binding Informal Discussion:

Mike Isabelle appeared before the Board with an informal discussion regarding a 61 acre lot off Tenney Hill Road which had no frontage. He stated that he had a right of way through Meadow Road which was a discontinued road.

At this point, Ron Slocum again stepped down because he was an abutter to the property.

The Board explained to him that a discontinued road is split between the two landowners at the time of the discontinuance.

The Board advised him to request a Building Permit to Build and if it is denied by the Building Inspector, then he would have to apply to the Zoning Board for a Variance to build on a lot with no frontage.

The Board indicated they could not make any prior judgments as to whether or not the request for a Variance would be approved.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Alison R. Vallieres

Secretary