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
Alison Vallieres, Secretary
Gertrude Dulude
David Nault
Ron Slocum, Alternate
Dan DalPra, Alternate
Leo Martel, Alternate
Kenneth Swayze, Admin., Planning and Zoning
Department
Jerry Gerdes,
The Chairman verified
with the Secretary that the meeting public notice had been posted in three
public places throughout the Town and published in the Concord Monitor for one
day, all in accordance with State Law. In
addition, the public notice was on the Dunbarton Web Page.
Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes:
John Trottier noted the
following corrections to the minutes:
Page
2 – On the first sentence at the top of the page, omit the word “to” from the
sentence so it reads as follows:
“To
just arbitrarily move it to where he wants is not right.”
Page
5 – In the third paragraph re the Fred Dion Request for an Equitable Waiver,
add the following phrase to the end of the first sentence so the sentence reads
as follows:
“John Herlihy asked the applicant if he wished him to step down from the Board because he had shown his sentiment on the previous request for an Equitable Waiver and expressed dealings with Mr. Dion on the School Board.”
A motion was made, seconded and
passed unanimously to accept the
At
this point in the Public Hearing, Leo Martel stepped down from the Board
because of a conflict of interest.
Guy
Camire, representing the applicants, appeared before the Board. In addition, the applicants were also
present. Presented a copy of the
certified plot plan of the lot and well.
(Attached)
The
Secretary noted that the Johnson’s had signed a letter giving Guy Camire
permission to act in their behalf.
Guy
Camire stated the following:
“I’m
here before the Board because the well on the Johnson’s property was not
grouted as was required as conditional approval in this subdivision.
In
my conversations for the last 1 ½ years with the Johnson’s, the subject of
covenants probably came up but I never saw them and never thought there might
be any requirements such as well grouting in them. The Fire Suppression system was brought to my
attention. (Covenant #9).
The
subdivision plan the Johnson’s were given, and I received had no mention of
well grouting or fire suppression system.
During
the application process – Septic Design review which was approved by the Town,
no note was ever made concerning the well grouting or Fire Suppression System,
two unique requirements of this subdivision.
When I filed for a building permit, I was given a pack. Nothing was ever mentioned concerning well
grouting or fire suppression system.
Again unique to this subdivision and not a code. I wouldn’t know about them unless I was
told. In the process, I did talk with
the Building Inspector, asked that he
would give me my permit, that was approximately two weeks after applying. He asked if he could issue it after he came
back from vacation. I said no
problem. Again nothing mentioned about
Fire Suppression or grouting of the well.
Applied 6-10 and permit granted 7-7.
After
the fact, I found out the other houses with CO’s in this subdivision do not
have grouted wells.
I
always do my best to comply with all code regulations and special unique
requirements of the Towns I ‘m building in.
It’s not cost effective not to, and I don’t like fighting with
anyone. I plead total ignorance to well
grouting situation. In 19 years of the
business of building houses and having wells drilled, I never ran across
it. I’ve heard of wells that were not
property sealed and ground water leaching silt into the well but never grouting
of a well.
I’ve
been dealing with Capital Well Company, Terry Swain, since they started
business, 18-19 years ago. I’ve always
found them very professional and never had a problem with them whatsoever and
my customers also never had a problem with them and most cases call them back
for service. If something is wrong they
fix it, no problem. They could not be
held responsible for not grouting the well unless they were told to do so. They are a Licensed Body governed by the
State Water Well Board and follow State and Town guidelines.
When
I found out about the grouting of the well, I called Capital to find out how we
could comply with the routing. A Jazwell
seal was recommended. I said do it, they
said they’d call me back. The next day
they called back and said they couldn’t do it because we have a geothermal heat
and air conditioning system that requires three pitlesses and there is not
enough room in the 4” PVC used for the Jazwell Seal. This well produces 80+ gallons a
minute. It is a true artesian well.
The
Planning Board Decision for grouting from what I understand, stems from the
salt storage at the Town Shed. Dick
Johnson took a water test and there is no contamination due to salt. If the Town of Dunbarton is managing the salt
properly, hopefully there will never be a problem.
In
summarizing, I made a mistake in not reading the covenants, because I would
have questioned the well grouting, but covenants usually pertain to protecting
neighbors from each other in a development, not Town requirements.
I
feel the Town through the permit process, Septic Approval to the Town of
Dunbarton $50.00, Building Permit $1,170,
I should have been made aware of these special provisions of this
subdivision.
Also,
it would seem prejudicial to deny the Johnson’s a CO based on the grouting of
the well seeing there are other houses in the development with CO and not
grouted wells. Dick and Kristen
Johnson’s own property in this Town and wish to become citizens here without
starting off fighting. “
At
this point in the public hearing, Kenneth Swayze presented the final approved
Subdivision Plan which was recorded at the Merrimack County Registry. The note regarding the requirement for the
grouting of the wells was included on the plan along with the note about Fire
Suppression. Ken presented the Board
members with copies of the covenants for Tucker Hill. (Attached)
In addition, he presented a copy of the deed from Stillwater Properties
to M. Kristen John, Trustee of the M. Kristen Johnson Revocable Trust. (Attached)
Dr.
Johnson stated he received a copy of the covenants before he started
building. He stated he did not know
about the grouting of the well. Spoke
with the Seller but wasn’t aware of the grouting requirement. It was ignorance on my part.
Abutters
were read as follows and noted all had been notified by certified mail:
Bruce/Patricia
Sullivan – Not Present
Carl/Laura
Mitchell – Not Present
Stillwater
Properties – Not Present
Guy
A. Camire – Present. (Representing the applicants)
Johnson
Revocable Trust – Present. (the
applicants)
Other Members of the
Public:
At
this point in the meeting, Terry Swain, Capital Well, asked if he could speak
to the issue. Asked for a clarification
of what an Administrative Appeal was.
John
Trottier explained that an Administrative Appeal is an “appeal of a Town
Representative’s determination” (in this
case, the Building Inspector’s decision not to issue a CO).
Terry
Swain stated he felt the Town made a mistake and did not adequately convey to
the builder that these wells were to be grouted. If it had been noted on the septic plan on
the Building Permit, those wells would have been grouted. I would encourage this appeal be granted and
encourage the Planning Board, Town
Building Inspector, etc. to let builders
know these requirements. It is just not
fair to suggest they are in the covenants and someone should have picked it
up. The Building Department should convey
it to the builder. Yes, an error has
been made. To suggest that we replace
this well is not right. Everything is
coming out of the well. Grouting of this
well will not amount to anything. The
casing is not grouted. To suggest that
by grouting the casing into the bedrock is
going to prevent salt from contaminating this well gives a false sense
of security. Is there a point in time
that the well would not be an artesian well?
I have seen many wells stop being an artesian. There is always a chance the well could dry
up. The flow could dwindle or increase
or decrease.
Mr.
Camire: Would take that one step
further., In your opinion, would the grouting of the well take care of the salt condition we are concerned with?
Terry Swain stated that salt is a “sinker” and
when it hits the water table it will continue to contaminant. Petroleum products float. You do not grout because of a possible salt
problem. In this Town there are 1,000
welsl that are salt contaminated.
Dr.
Johnson stated we were very excited about coming to Dunbarton. What is the purpose of the grouting? Maybe something else would accomplish the
same purpose. As we talked about it, I
wanted a well that was safe. It appears
to me that grouting is not going to change the reality of the well because of
what it is. I am not trying to beg the
question. The purpose of the covenants
is aesthetically pleasing and not how to
build your house. I did not feel it was
a building document. I have asked an
Attorney friend of mine to attend.
Introduced Henry F. Spaloss, Attorney at Law.
Attorney
Henry Spallos – Stated his function tonight is to keep this case out of
court. This is an Administrative
Appeal. The story is on the wrong
argument. This well is not a “soil” well
but a bedrock well. This is what I am
told by my hydro geologist. Well is
drilled in bedrock. You don’t have the
same kind of contaminants because it is not in the soil. If you grout, you are
not going to improve the situation.
. If that is correct, it makes no
difference whether there is grouting or not.
You talked about grouting. What
are you grouting for? We don’t know
what the problem is but we are told if your well is dug in bedrock and you have
what is called an artesian, it makes no difference for the integrity of the
water whether it is grouted or not for a bedrock well.
Steve
Clow, Geologist – Basically the Attorney did a good job in describing a “closed system”. If there was a flood and someone was changing
their oil, we would want to grout the well.
Grouting would serve no point for this well. It is simple.
If you had a surface contamination like a flood, even if you grouted,
there is no guarantee in the country there would not be contamination.
John
Trottier stated that all ground water originates at the surface. Grouting would prevent seepage, etc. The existing well is 40 feet to bedrock. There is overburdened water. The intent of grouting is for
protection.
David
Nault stated that salt will penetrate.
Grouting is just to protect the hole.
You have a closed system.
Grouting will not prevent any kind of contamination from the
surface. Stated that grouting is not for
preventing anything from coming down the hole that you drilled in the
ground. That might prevent your well from
contamination from someone else’s well.
Steve
Clow stated that salt will bypass the grout all together so the grout is not
effective.
Leo
Martel stated that he agreed with Terry Swain that when there are special
conditions, it would make sense to make people aware of them. Maybe they wouldn’t disclose certain things
about the property. If the Town requires
something special that knowledge should be made available.
John
Trottier stated that maybe Ken needs to review how he issues permits.
Leo
Martel stated these people did not know the grouting requirement.
Jerry
Gerdes stated he was hearing two things about grouting. Where is the grout supposed to be located?
Terry
Swain stated that grouting is installed on the outside of the casing to the
inside. It goes to the bottom of the
bedrock.
Fred
Dion stated that he was concerned about the salt and the salt shed. The building has to be on a solid surface
because of salt. Salt is toxic to the
land. The Town does hold up to EPA
Standards so it (salt) will not get into
the water. The Town of Dunbarton is
doing what it is supposed to do. This is
not like back in the old days.
Jeff
Crosby – Stated he remembers going to the Planning Board Meeting as an abutter
and remember Ken bringing up these issues.
I was under the impression it was going to be on a plan.
The
Board noted the final plan which was recorded at the Registry of Deeds did
include the note regarding the grouting of the wells.
Ron
Slocum noted that the plan that Mr. Camire was working with had no reference to
wells but was not the final plan which was filed at the Registry of Deeds. It was a old plan.
Dr.
Johnson stated that as a buyer, he did not receive the information on the
plan. I gave my plan to the
Builder. I would appreciate the fact
that you (the Board) would make a decision on this. My goal is to have a well that is safe and
meets all the criteria for a safe well.
Grouting doesn’t seem to be necessary from the information from the well
drilling people and geologist. No one
else in the neighborhood has done this.
Terry
Swain stated he would like to explain shallow well vs. deep wells. Stated that all water originates at the
ground surface and finds its way into the bedrock. That is where we drill bedrock wells. To suggest that if a well was grouted, it
protects all of the water under it is not accurate. Water migrates down through the soil. When I made the comment that usually welsl
are grouted because of petroleum spills,
that is where grouting becomes very effective.
Dan
DalPra – Asked how deep into the bedrock is this well? How deep is the casing
into bedrock?
Terry
Swain stated the Johnson’s well is 44 feet to bedrock and 16 feet of casing
into bedrock.
Kenneth
Swayze stated he wanted to clarify something Mr. Crosby said. Ken said he was a member of the Planning
Board but he did not sit on the Planning Board on this subdivision because of
abutter status. It was not him who
brought this up.
David
Nault asked when the State re-drills wells, where do they put them?
Terry
Swain stated they try to get as far away from the original source of
contamination as possible. Stated he
can’t tell you a perfect scenario. Last
month you heard a case at Gorham Pond.
We drilled that well three or four years ago. That casing is grouted into the bedrock. That well was in close proximity to the
property lines and close proximity to existing septic systems. This was to comply with the State
Standard.
Mr.
Camire asked Terry Swain what the cost of grouting a well is.
Terry
Swain stated between $600 - $700.
Alison
Vallieres stated that the grouting cannot be done after the fact. It has to be done at the time the well is
being dug.
Mr.
Camire stated that through the whole process of getting my building permit, we
paid $50 for the Town to review our septic design. It seems like it would have been put on the
plan. I have built in different towns
and always tried to find out anything beyond the norm, In this case, it didn’t happen, through that
whole permit process it should have been brought out to me. My permit was in the office a long enough
time. I would have been happy to grout
the well. The cost is not an issue as
you can see.
Jeff
Crosby – Stated that Janet Zeller’s well is close by. If salt was to get into her well, could that
travel from her well to other wells in the area?
Terry
Swain stated that the fractures within the bedrock are like a highway map. It could still get contaminated from another
existing well in the area. The only
thing the Town wants is them to be grouted.
John Trottier noted the following members would be voting on this issue this evening.
John Trottier
Alison Vallieres
Gertrude Dulude
David Nault
Ron Slocum, Alternate
Board Discussion:
Dan
DalPra asked what responsibility does the Town have for notifying applicants of
covenants of a private subdivision. Is
there rules that say we have to let them know?
Kenneth
Swayze stated that legally, the Town has no responsibility to disclosure. It would be difficult. There are instances of people filling in
wetlands, etc. The Fire Suppression
clause was in the covenants. I don’t remember
one question about sprinklers. They are
all in there. There is 12 feet of shelf
material relating to the building codes in the Town Office. They require a certain number of nails in a
sheet of plywood. There is stuff beyond
our control. There is a storm water
requirement now. Most of those houses
are not in compliance with that. I
called Fred Weston and asked him if he was telling people about grouted wells,
and he said all his buyers were properly notified.
Dan
DalPra stated it is on the subdivision plan, and I personally don’t think we
are responsible.
David
Nault – Stated he knew the building permit department is changing and in Ken’s
defense, he has done a lot of things that were never done in the past. I think the Department has come a long
way. Sometime we will be like Manchester
i.e. longer forms and longer lines. In fairness to these people, this well can still become contaminated from
other wells even if it is grouted.. Salt
isn’t as bad as other contaminations.
Terry
Swain asked Dr. Johnson if he had sampled his well and what the results were.
Dr.
Johnson stated he tested his well and there was no salt contamination.
Alison
Vallieres stated that the Board can sit here all night and discuss whose fault
it is. It doesn’t matter whose fault it
is. It was a mistake. This is what this Board is supposed to rule
on. This is why it is an Equitable
Waiver, because of an error/mistake.
The fact remains that it has been established by experts here this
evening, (Terry Swain and Steve Clow) that grouting of the well will not
prevent salt contamination because salt is a “sinker”. Therefore what is the sense of requiring the
well be grouted if it is not going to do anything to prevent salt
contamination. I think we should approve
the Administrative Appeal if the applicant is willing to sign a Waiver
releasing the Town of any liability for salt contamination.
At this point in the Public
Hearing, Alison Vallieres asked Dr. Johnson if he would agree to the signing of
a waiver releasing the Town of any liability with regard to salt contamination
Dr.
Johnson stated he would need to discuss it with his builder and legal
counsel.
Gert
Dulude – Stated she had heard it all.
Ron
Slocum – Stated there has been a lot of discussion. Part of this is not looking at the plan. There have been significant policy breakdowns
between the developers and the builders.
Information is discussed and some information is not in the right
places. Not all the notes are on the
plan the builder was working with. Why
is the developer handing out the outdated old plan? Ken is doing a lot of work. Why the decision was made to grout in the
first place? Don’t know that. I don’t think we need to get into that. What about if the property is sold at a later
date? The waiver is no longer with the
property. What if the well becomes
contaminated when the new owners own it?
I am uncomfortable with this.
There is also the legal side.
Ken
Swayze stated that the developers said if there was contamination, it was not
their fault.
Gert
Dulude – Stated this is a situation of “owner beware”. If it was on that plan and it was not on the
other plan, why should the owner be punished at this date. It was not on the plan they were working
from.
Dr.
Johnson asked that at the minimum, I would ask that the Board be consistent
with the rest of the homeowners on the property. The facts are that you have not required
anyone else to grout their wells. Your
goal and my goal is to meet by the science of well drilling tonight. I accept the responsibility. I was given a year old plan but I am not
blaming anyone. If you don’t have a
problem, and there is no salt, we are meeting all well specifications. We are all okay.
John
Trottier stated that when someone signs a waiver, that goes in the deed. When the waiver is signed, it becomes part of
the deed.
Terry
Swain said the State Release Form allows the property owner to use the well if
the well is closer than 75 feet from the property line and that it clearly
states that if that well becomes contaminated, the abutter cannot be held
responsible. The Release Form becomes
registered at the Registry of Deeds.
That is on a well that doesn’t comply with setbacks.
Alison
Vallieres stated that she owns a well that her father owned which is on State
property. This was during Route 13
relocation. Her father signed a Waiver
fifty years ago relinquishing all liability to the State of New Hampshire and
the well is still producing good water.
You never know, but should take a chance.
David
Nault stated that he knows that if there is an issue now, they are not going to
want to sign a Release.
At this point in the meeting, Dr. Johnson stated that they would be willing to sign a Release to the Town to not hold the Town responsible for salt contamination to the well.
MOTION:
David Nault made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment approve the request for an Administrative Appeal to Article 11., Item C., to allow the Johnson’s to obtain a CO (Certificate of Occupancy) from the Building Inspector without a grouted well which was a Planning Board conditional approval on property located on Tucker Hill Road in the Medium Density District in Dunbarton, NH subject to the conditions (1) that the Johnson’s sign a Release Waiver to the Town of Dunbarton releasing the Town from any liability for salt contamination to the well, and (2) that the CO not be issued until the Release Waiver has been signed by the Johnson’s and presented to the Town.
Alison Vallieres seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
REQUEST FOR A REHEARING – REQUEST FOR AN EQUITABLE WAIVER OF THE DUNBARTON ZONING ORDINANCE FROM GARY CHICOINE BUILDERS ACTING ON BEHALF OF DAVID BARKIE (C6-3-13) TO ALLOW THEM TO CONTINUE TO USE AND MAINTAIN AN ARTESIAN WELL LOCATED CLOSER THAN THE REQUIRED DISTANCE OF 75 FEET FROM THE BOUNDARY AT HIS PROPERTY LOCATED ON 58 JAY DRIVE IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
At this point in the meeting, Leo Martel, Alternate,
stepped back to the Board.
David Nault stepped down from the Board because of a
conflict of interest.
Gary
Chicoine, along with his sub-contractors and David Barkie, present owner, were present at the meeting. The applicant had presented a letter
requesting a rehearing regarding the denial of an Equitable Waiver. (attached)
The
Chairman noted that the following members would be voting on the request for
the re-hearing this evening. He noted
these were the same members who voted at the December 13, 2004 meeting with the
exception of John Herlihy who is absent this evening.
John Trottier
Alison Vallieres
Gertrude Dulude
Ron Slocum, Alternate
John
Trottier, Chairman, stated that the Board will only consider new evidence in
granting the request for a re-hearing.
He stated they will address items in the letter separately as follows:
(1) Gary
Chicoine Construction requests a hearing for the purpose of appealing the
denial of a request for an Equitable Waiver of the zoning ordinance. The denial was determined by a vote of the
ZBA on December 13, 2004 as it pertained to a well not meeting the 75’
protective radius setback requirement from the lot boundary on a recently built
home for Mr. David Barkie at 58 Jay Drive.
The home was built and owned by Gary Chicoine Construction at the time
the violation was originally discovered.
The
Board members reached a consensus that the above statements were true.
(2) It is the belief of Gary Chicoine Construction the ZBA was not fully informed of the circumstances leading to the violation and subsequent request for a waiver.
Leo
Martel asked if Gary Chicoine has the
right to show us what he has so we can make a decision on this.
John Trottier indicated the Board could not hear Gary Chicoine at this time.
Ron
Slocum stated there were all sorts of things floating around. I would be willing to give them an
opportunity to present evidence one more time.
Gert
Dulude – Stated she would be willing to rehear the request if there was new
evidence. I just don’t want to hear it
over and over again.
Alison
Vallieres stated she felt the Board should hear the new evidence. She stated she still does not see any
difference between the granting of the Equitable Waiver for Syversen on North
Woods Road and this case. She said that
all applicants should be treated fairly and that as a Board we are not doing
our job if we don’t. We have already
set a precedent with Syversen.
John
Trottier stated he would have to study the record before making that
determination.
(3) It is also the belief of Gary Chicoine Construction, a member of the ZBA who made inflammatory remarks as documented in the minutes of the meeting was biased against the owner/builder for some unknown reason. This member seemed to be pre-determined entering the meeting with a negative determination before testimony was offered by the involved parties. This member’s remarks were malicious and unprofessional but most importantly not objective which is the highest standard by which a public official should serve.
John
Trottier, Chairman, stated that he felt the Board members are allowed to speak
for themselves and did not feel John Herlihy’s remarks influenced any other
members of the Board in their determination and vote.
Alison
Vallieres stated that she felt the Board should be fair in dealing with
applicants and treat all applicants with respect. This was not the case with Gary
Chicoine. She stated that John Herlihy’s
remarks did not influence her decision because she voted against the motion to
deny anyway.
Gert
Dulude – Stated that John Herlihy’s remarks did not affect her vote.
Ron
Slocum stated that he voted as he felt he should and John Herlihy’s remarks did
not affect his vote.
Gary
Chicoine stated that he heard from people at 10:00 pm that evening who attended
the meeting that John Herlihy’s remarks were inflammatory toward him and his reputation as a
Builder. The statement that he shouldn’t
be allowed to build a “dog house” in Dunbarton was especially upsetting to
him. He felt the remarks were uncalled
for and felt they intimidated members of the Board in their voting. He also stated the remarks were being handled
by the Selectmen’s Office as they should be.
He felt the statements made were detrimental to his character and his
reputation as a Builder. He stated he has
never had any problems in this Town as a Builder and has always tried to do a
good job. These remarks were uncalled
for.
MOTION:
John Trottier made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment grant a Rehearing to Gary Chicoine Construction on behalf of David Barkie (C6-3-13) on the basis of new evidence regarding an Equitable Waiver which was denied on December 13, 2004 to allow them to continue to use and maintain an artesian well located closer than the required distance of 75 feet from the boundary at his property located on 58 Jay Drive in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH.
Gertrude Dulude seconded the motion. The motion passed by a majority vote as follows:
Trotter – No
Vallieres – Yes
Dulude – Yes
Slocum - Yes
At
this point in the meeting, David Nault stated that Gary Chicoine had brought a
lot of people with him this evening and he should be allowed to speak.
John
Trottier, Chairman, stated that Gary Chicoine could make his case at the
re-hearing and did not allow him to present his case at this time.
REQUEST FOR A REHEARING – REQUEST FOR AN EQUITABLE WAIVER OF THE DUNBARTON ZONING ORDINANCE FROM FRED DION (E3-2-51) TO ALLOW HIM TO USE AND MAINTAIN AN EXISTING WELL CLOSER THAN THE REQUIRED DISTANCE OF 75 FEET FROM THE BOUNDARY AT THEIR PROPERTY LOCATED ON TUCKER HILL ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
David Nault stepped back to the Board.
Fred
Dion appeared before the Board. He
stated he did not need a Rehearing because he has drilled a new well but he
felt he had not been treated fairly. He
withdrew his request for a rehearing.
Fred
Dion gave the Board of Adjustment a copy of Chapter 228, Administration of
Transportation Laws which states that wells cannot be located closer than 50
(fifty) feet to highway rights-of-way, etc.
(attached)
Fred
Dion stated he felt that John Herlihy’s remarks did affect people on the Board
in their vote. John Herlihy made all
three of the motions. Fred Dion stated that you are members of a Public
Board, and I am part of Dunbarton. I do
not believe we were treated fairly by making a person move a well 12’. This is consistently something that has to be
done. That is all I am here for.
He
stated all the other houses in Tucker Hill should have grouted wells.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Terry
Swain appeared before the Board with a copy of the ballot article that was
voted on at Town Meeting in 2000 regarding 75’ from boundary for wells.
(attached) He noted that the way the
Town voted this Article allows for acceptance of the State Environmental
Services Administrative Rules WS-1008 to allow for waivers to be granted by the
Building Inspector. He stated that John
Trottier, Chairman, Dunbarton Zoning Board, and he had appeared before the
Board of Selectmen to discuss this issue in 2000 prior to the Town
Meeting.
If
this approved article is interpreted the way it was discussed, there would be
no reason for the Dunbarton Zoning Board to have to act on well issues at
all. This gives the Building Inspector
the same latitude to grant Waivers as the State.
Ken
Swayze stated that the Town Attorney had indicated the word “Generally” was too
ambiguous and should be taken out prior to the Town enacting the State
Environmental Rules, etc.
Ken
Swayze stated he and Alison Vallieres will work on a proposed Zoning Amendment
for this year to include it within the Zoning Ordinance.
Terry
Swain also noted that Chapter 228, Administration of Transportation Laws
relates only to the Highway (Transportation)
Department and does not come into play with Town setbacks for wells,
etc.
There
being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Alison
R. Vallieres, Secretary