DUNBARTON PLANNING BOARD
WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2002
TOWN OFFICES - 7:00 P.M.
The regular monthly meeting of the Dunbarton Planning Board was held at the above time, date and place with Co-Chairman Kenneth Swayze presiding. The following members were present:
Kenneth Swayze, Chairman
Alison Vallieres, Secretary
George Holt
Carter Higginbotham
Brian Nordle
Charles Graybill, Selectman
Michael Poirier, Alternate
The
Acting Chairman verified with the Secretary that the meeting public notice had
been posted in three public places throughout the Town according to law, and
published in the Concord Monitor for one day.
MOTION:
The minutes of the previous meeting of Wednesday, June 19, 2002 were accepted as written by a motion from Michael Poirier, seconded by George Holt. Motion passed unanimously.
The
Acting Chairman noted that Michael Poirier will be a voting member this evening
on all issues.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS:
7:00
p.m. – ANDREW AND DONNA DUNN AND VERA L. FOGG PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND
ANNEXATION LOCATED ON GORHAM POND ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN
DUNBARTON, NH
Donna Dunn and Vera Fogg were both present at the
public hearing. Jacques Belanger,
Surveyor, made the presentation. He
stated this was a subdivision and subsequent annexation of 12.3 acres from the
Fogg Lot to the 5.13 acre Dunn lot, thereby making the Dunn lot 16.8
acres. The remaining Fogg Lot after the
annexation will be 15.11 acres.
The Board noted they had waived the site walk and
test pits.
Abutters were read as follows and noted all had been
notified by certified mail:
Murray McKay – Not Present
Alicia Brady Revocable Trust – Not Present
James Starr – Not Present
Robert/Gerald Bourassa and J. Urella – Not Present
Frederic Greenhalge – Not Present
Gary Attalla
- Not Present
J. E. Belanger Surveying – Present
Town of Dunbarton – Present (Selectman)
The public hearing was adjourned.
MOTION:
A motion was made by Carter Higginbotham that the Dunbarton Planning Board approve the proposed subdivision and annexation of Lots C3-2-8 and C3-2-11 (Dunn and Fogg Lots) located on Gorham Pond Road in the Low Density District in the Town of Dunbarton, NH. The motion was seconded by Michael Poirier. The motion passed unanimously.
STILLWATER PROPOSED 14 LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED OFF EVERETT ROAD AND MANSION ROAD IN THE MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
At this point in
the public hearing, Kenneth Swayze stepped down from the Board because of
abutter status.
George Holt was
Acting Chairman on the Stillwater Public Hearing.
George indicated
the Board and the applicants would be addressing the “punch” list as prepared
at the last meeting as follows:
1. Receipt of all State and any other, applicable
permits including, but not limited to, State of NH Subdivision approval, Site
Specific approval and Wetlands permits.
All of the above
must be in place before the Board signs the mylar.
2. With regard to the salt agreement, the applicants
have met with the Selectmen and there will be no agreement between the
applicants and the Town with regard to the salt issue. The applicants will proceed at their own
risk. Therefore this item is a moot
issue.
3. An acceptable deed of transfer on the Conservation
property dedication with agreement of the Selectmen, Planning Board and any other
involved Boards. This is to be
negotiated.
Applicants
presented a copy of an added paragraph in the proposed deed to the Town re
restrictions, etc. (attached) The applicants stated that instead of the
original 17 acres which had been originally planned to be donated to the Town,
the applicants had cut it back to 11.4 acres.
The acreage had been added to the lots instead of negotiating a view
easement with the Town, etc. It was noted that the land to be given to the
Town would include a statement to limit it to passive recreation purposes,
etc. No ball fields, football fields,
etc. Stillwater noted this was because
the Board had indicated a concern that the lot will forever remain as
non-buildable and therefore explained what non-buildable means.
It was noted that
the new language/deed would still have to be reviewed by Town Counsel before
acceptance.
At this point in
the discussion, it was noted by Charles Graybill, Selectman, that the Town had
determined that the land should go to the Town Forest Committee and not the
Dunbarton Conservation Commission.
4. A building permit phasing (release) schedule not to
exceed ___________commencing upon approval of plan. (This requirement to appear on filed plan.)
The applicant presented a letter stating their phasing plan
as follows: (Attached)
4 permits between
August 2002 and December 31, 2002
7 permits between
January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2003
3 permits between
January 1, 2004 and August 31, 2004
The applicants
requested that they be allowed to carry over a permit from one year to the next
in the event they did not use it within the year it was allotted for. The Planning Board agreed to this.
5. Modified engineering requirements on Everett
Road. Board noted they would like to add
“Subject to and approved by the Town Road Agent”.
Don Mayo provided a
letter stating that he had gotten together with Stillwater’s Engineer and had
reviewed the revised Everett Road plan dated June 25, 2002 and that it was
satisfactory to him as submitted. (attached)
Also Town presented
a signed copy of Selectmen Specifications for Improvements to Everett
Road. (attached)
6. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $330,000
(subject to renewal) for required improvements.
The applicants
submitted a revised Letter of Credit from Sugar River Savings Bank in the
amount of $330,000. (attached)
7. Easements for all drainage maintenance.
Jacques Belanger
stated they have addressed this on the plan with culverts, etc. including stone
aprons.
8. Drainage assessment for Everett Road and culvert
realignment.
This has been
accomplished, therefore is now a moot issue.
Salt Issues
Charles Graybill,
Selectmen, stated the Selectmen have instituted a new policy whereby the
Thursday evening prior to either a Planning Board or Zoning Board Meeting, the
Boards will meet with the Selectmen at their regular meeting to go over any
issues or potential problems. They will
try to resolve the problems prior to the meetings. Even though the salt issue did not come to an
agreement, the Selectmen feel it would be a good plan.
C. Graybill noted
that Stillwater has agreed to put the base coat on the extension of Everett
Road instead of the salt agreement.
Personally, he is disappointed that they could not come to some sort of
agreement about the salt issue. The
Selectmen would like to see all wells that are put in be grouted so to prevent
any future potential problems. Secondly,
if the developer runs into a problem that they would be putting in a
desaltification system to reduce salt.
This is based on good business practices.
It was noted that
Stillwater is willing to adhere to the grouting of all wells. Stillwater
submitted a letter agreeing to this.
(attached) This will be included
within the covenants. It was noted that
a CO cannot be issued until the water is right.
At this point in
the discussion Attorney Susan Hankin-Birke stated that she had written a letter
which should be included in the record regarding the salt issue. (attached)
George Holt asked
that Stillwater provide a buffer zone around the Town Shed. Stating we were mixing residential with
commercial uses and this would only lead to problems if we didn’t provide some
sort of buffer. Knows that the Town shed
was there prior to this subdivision but there could be a noise issue. Would hate to see an owner of a $300,000 home
pounding on the Selectmen’s door to do something. A buffer separating the uses could be shown
on the plan. Would like to see a 100
foot no build buffer zone on the southern border of the Town shed.
Brian Nordle
indicated he felt this buffer would not be compromising the views. You say there is 200 feet of trees there
now. Would like to see a 100 foot buffer
along the shed. Stated there should be a
buffer between the lot and the Town shed.
Stated it means a lot to the Town to have a buffer.
Stillwater stated
they would agree to a 50 foot no cut buffer from the Town’s line.
It was noted that
whenever an appraisal is done of a property within a certain distance of a
commercial operation, it is mentioned.
The Board accepted
Stillwater’s offer of 50 foot buffer zone.
George Holt noted
that the Dunbarton Conservation Commission had sent a letter responding to
Wetlands with only minor recommendations.
Stillwater noted they had met with DES and they have asked for more
information.
Abutters were read
as follows and noted all had been notified by certified mail:
David/Deborah
Foster – Not Present
Martha Hammond –
Not Present
Randolph/Lisa Bauer
– Not Present
Janet Zeller Revocable
Trust – Not Present
Albert Statuto –
Not Present
Nancie Stone –
Representative present. No comments.
Jeff/Bronda Crosby
– Not Present
Mark/Gretchen
Andrews – Not Present
Mark Tarsa – Not
Present
Jacqueline Kennedy
– Not Present
Kathleen McDonald –
Not Present
J. E. Belanger
Surveying – Present
Schauer
Environmental Consultants – Not Present
W. G. Howard and
Associates – Not Present
Town of Dunbarton –
Present, Selectman
Other Members of
the Public
Margaret Watkins,
Dunbarton Conservation Commission – Stated that she felt the easement was too
restrictive to the Town with regard to uses.
There would be no timber harvesting or management, no horse back riding
trails, nor bike trails, no habitat improvement. Felt this was way too restrictive. She stated that there are “right to farm
laws” that come into play. People build
large expensive houses in farming communities and then complain about farms to
the Selectmen. The salt issue with the
Selectmen has not been resolved yet. I
am sure this issue will come back to haunt the Town. I feel uncomfortable in approving lots that
will not be providing potable water.
Carter Higginbotham
asked if there was anything that would prevent putting in one well for two or
three homes.
The Board noted
this would be considered a Community Well and many regulations will be
involved, etc. This would not be an
alternative.
George Holt – Asked
if the extension of the lot lines into the former Conservation area land was
solely for the cutting for the view. Is
there any intent of building on that property.
The Board indicated
the View Easements were not a Planning Board issue.
MOTION:
Carter Higginbotham made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board approve the proposed 14 lot Stillwater Property (Weston Property) (E3-2-5 & 19) subdivision located off Everett Road and Mansion Road in the Medium Density District in Dunbarton, as presented with the following conditions:
1. Receipt of all State, and any other, applicable permits including, but not limited to, State of New Hampshire Subdivision approval, Site Specific approval, and Wetlands permits.
2. An acceptable deed of transfer on the Town property dedication with agreement of the Selectmen, Planning Board and any other involved Boards to be negotiated.
3. A building permit phasing (release) schedule as follows:
4 permits between August 2002 and December 31, 2002
7 permits between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2003
3 permits between January 1, 2004 and August 31, 2004
(If less permits are requested than allowed for during any segment of the phasing, then the allowance for those non-requested permits will be included in the following phasing segment)
This requirement as submitted to be recorded on the plan.
4. Modified engineering requirements on Everett Road subject to the approval by the Road Agent.
5. Grouting of all drilled wells to the new Water Bureau Standards.
6. There will be a 50 foot buffer zone with a no cut, no build zone adjacent to the salt shed on adjacent lot 19.
7. View easement lines and easement language to be recorded with the plan and included within the covenants.
Michael Poirier seconded the motion. The motion passed by a majority of the Board. Charles Graybill voted no. The rest of the Board voted yes.
At this point in
the meeting, Charles Graybill noted that he was very disappointed with the
negotiations between the Town and the developer re the salt issue. There was the potential for a workable
agreement between the Town and the developer.
But it concerns me more with the last minute decision of the developer
to take away over four acres of property that had been part of the viewing
rights. I for one was kind of
disappointed on the salt issue and the last minute change.
Michael Poirier
stated he agreed with the second issue also.
Taking away land was sort of a “slap on the wrist” more than anything
else.
At this point,
Kenneth Swayze stepped back on the Board.
ANDREW DROBAT
George Holt stepped
down from the Board on this issue.
Kenneth Swayze
noted that on Wednesday, February 21, 2001, the Dunbarton Planning Board agreed
to sign the proposed Drobat Lot Line Adjustment when the Department of
Environmental Services states in writing that Drobat is in conformance with the
Settlement Agreement dated 5/14/02 paragraph 4, all work has been completed.
Based on this
information, after discussion the Board agreed they would sign the plan because
there was a written letter from the Department of Environmental Services, with
a copy of a signed settlement agreement between DES and Andrew Drobat. Based on the minutes at the February 21, 2001
meeting, the Dunbarton Planning Board had agreed to sign the mylar when the
issue was settled with DES.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - DANIEL TERRELL PROPOSED THREE LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON BARNARD HILL ROAD IN THE MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
George Holt stepped back on the Board.
Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, and Daniel Terrell appeared before the
Board with the plan. Jacques stated the
test pit data was now included on the plan.
The only outstanding item is State subdivision approval (because lots
size is under five acres) and the wetlands impact statement.
Abutters were read as follows and noted all had been notified by
certified mail:
Scott and Kathleen Murray – Not Present
Barbara/Paul Kilmister and Robert/Mary Gourley – Not
Present
George/Susan Chase – Not Present
David/Jennifer Allen – Not Present
Jeffrey/Marcia Trexler and Robert/Laurie Waldron –
Not Present
James/Ann Marie Kalinski – Not Present
David/Diane Corcoran – Not Present
Schauer Environmental Consultants – Not Present
J. E. Belanger Surveying – Present
MOTION:
George Holt made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board approve the proposed three lot subdivision of the Daniel Terrell & Marilyn Bullock Lot (F3-1-11) located on Barnard Hill Road subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of all necessary permits included State Subdivision Approval and any wetlands permits needed.
2. Change to the plan re clarification of line.
Charles Graybill seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING – GEORGE E. NICOLAOU PROPOSED TWO LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON MANSION ROAD IN THE MEDIUM DENSITY AND VILLAGE DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
Arthur Siciliano, Surveyor, appeared before the Board on behalf of Mr.
Nicolaou.
The Board noted they had met with the Department of Transportation with
regard to the hazardous corner and making improvements.
Arthur Siciliano, Surveyor, indicated a 200’ foot curve on the plan
showing an area that could be taken for improvements. After this taking, there will still be
sufficient land for two acres which is the Village District acreage
requirement. The Board indicated there
will be a “taking of land” with no easements.
The Board indicated they would need to do a site walk on the
property. The Board also will require
test pit info on the plan.
The Board also instructed Mr. Siciliano to make sure the driveway
permits are in order.
Abutters were read as follows and noted all had been notified by certified
mail:
Kathleen McDonald –
Not Present
Pamela A. Gooick –
Not Present
Mitchell/Nancy
Rosen – Present, Asked about the location of the lot. Does this put him in the three acre zone and
not the Village District. The Board
indicated the land that is within the Village District can be subdivided into a
two acre lot.
Thomas Englund
Trust – Not Present
Robert/Jane
Lewellen – Not Present
Roger St. Onge –
Not Present
Kristine/Brett St.
Clair – Not Present
Jan/Dorainne T. Mooar – Not Present
Arthur Siciliano – Present, Surveyor
George Holt asked if there were wetlands on the property. It was noted the Board would look at this on
the site walk which will be scheduled for Tuesday, July 23, 2002.
OLD BUSINESS:
The Acting Chairman noted the Board would move the Old Business to the
end of the meeting.
NEW BUSINESS:
RECEIPT AND ACCEPTANCE OF
NEW APPLICATIONS BY THE DUNBARTON PLANNING BOARD AND START OF PROCEEDINGS:
THOMAS H. LORDEN (RICK MARTIN) PROPOSED FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON TENNEY HILL ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
MOTION:
Charles Graybill made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board waive the additional fee for the applicant. The applicant has already paid one fee for the first application. George Holt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. (The applicant’s surveyor, Robert Todd, stated there were no changes from the previous plan as submitted)
MOTION:
George Holt made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board accept the application for the Thomas H. Lorden (Rick Martin) proposed four lot subdivision located on Tenney Hill Road in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH and start proceedings this evening. Carter Higginbotham seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
DISCUSSION:
Robert Todd, Surveyor, stated the property has been conveyed to Right
Way Builders (Rick Martin) since the previous meeting.
Mr. Todd stated the total acreage is 80 acres and the lots will be
large lot with only one lot being five acres.
Stated there was a parcel in the rear corner which is of uncertain
ownership so it was not included in the subdivision. Stated the owner wants to build a house on
the 40 acre lot. The house will be
properly built on the slope and carefully done.
Another lot will be 11.7 acres.
The applicant stated he had been in contact with the Selectmen and/or
Road Agent and would like to incorporate the construction of the driveway along
with the road repairs.
The Planning Board noted that they were not included on the Site Walk
of the property. The Selectmen, the Road
Agent, and the applicant participated in the site walk.
Charles Graybill, Selectmen, stated the Selectmen were concerned about
the curve in the road and would like to obtain sufficient land from the applicant
to straighten it in the future. The
Selectmen have asked the applicant to purchase three culverts and the Town will
do the installation. There are two 15”
and one 48” galvanized culvert. As far
as any trees being cut, only in the area of the widening of the road at the
curve. Only about 20 trees will be cut
of varying sizes.
The Board asked if the trees were marked and C. Graybill stated they
were not marked at this time. He said
there were also three old dead pines that will be cut in the area where the
large culvert will be installed.
Abutters were read as follows and noted all had been notified by
certified mail:
Ray/Carol Ann Johnson – Not Present
Patricia A. Foss – Not Present
Edward/Deborah Wootten – Not Present
Wayne B. Mills –
Present. Stated he had met with Mr. Todd
regarding the property line which is in question. His parcel is landlocked.
The Board indicated
they take no stand on boundary disputes.
Mr. Todd has set aside this parcel which is in question from the total
acreage, etc. so this is a non issue.
Juneau Development
– Not Present
Leland Mills – Not
Present
Gail/Leo Martel –
Present. Have a question as to where the
new culvert will be going. How is this
going to impact the wetlands. This wetland
flows directly into my pond. Don’t want
to end up with problems down the road.
Rick Martin stated
the driveway does not cross the brook.
Leo Martel stated
that drainage feeds into the brook which feeds into his pond. I see no reason to change the road for only
four homes. We have lived there for many
years and now because there are going to be four homes, we have to widen the
road?
C. Graybill – All
we are really talking about is replacing three culverts and getting rid of the
curve. In icy conditions it becomes a
problem when plowing the road, etc. The
Selectmen see this as an opportunity to address this curve.
Leo Martel – Stated
they did not feel this is necessary. If
you had a traffic study done on this road…..As far as going off the road, have
guard rails which could be put in place.
Don’t see any need for cutting trees along the road. The trees are not a hazard.
C. Graybill again
stated that this is a case of straightening at the curve area and taking out
three large jack pines. There are about
20 trees at the curve area which will be taken down.
Leo Martel again
stated that the Town should use guard rails instead of taking out the
curve. Asked how close the test pit was
to the wetlands area.
R. Todd stated it
was at least 75’ away from the wetlands.
The Board stated
that Robert Todd is a Certified Wetlands Scientist and would trust his
judgment.
Rick Martin stated
he was planning on living there for a long time. Stated he would do what it takes to avoid any
problems. Does not want problems with
neighbors.
Kenneth Swayze
stated that road issues are the responsibility of the Selectmen. Lots are under the jurisdiction of the
Planning Board. The Selectmen make
recommendations on road issues, and the Planning Board can provide input but it
is non-binding.
Joseph Kane – Not
Present
Ernest/Eileen
Corrado – Not Present
Robert/Karen Camp –
Present. Would like to go on record
that all of the residents are very protective of Tenney Hill Road. Tenney Hill Road is a Scenic Road and we have
honored that. We join Leo with regard to
any amendments or changes to the road.
Tenney Hill Road has become a thoroughfare. The curve has been a deterrent in the speed
on the road. To the best of our
knowledge, there is no accident that has happened there. I have concerns regarding the
straightening. Will cause more problems
instead of reducing them. The curve is a
deterrent as well as with regard to inclement weather conditions. Concern
regarding the jurisdiction of the road and any amendments or changes to the
road. What part does the Conservation
Commission play in the Scenic Road issue.
Why do we need a widening for two way traffic in one place. Why allow for that in one specific
place. Because I am an abutter to the
road that has the two house lots on it, I am concerned about the configuration
of that so-called driveway. Why is it
going there versus happening at the front of this lot. What assurance do I have that this will not
affect my property.
The Board noted
that the applicant has tried to avoid wetlands and steep slopes in locating the
driveways.
Dennis J. Card –
Present. Stated he would like to defer
his comments on the subject until he looks at the plan, etc. Would like to comment on the March 1975 Town
Meeting where Article 13 created a Scenic Highway on Tenney Hill Road under the
Conservation Commission. I would hope
that this Board and the Town would protect this road and not make any changes
to the road.
C. Graybill – I
think that you will find the current Board of Selectmen and the Planning Board
are very cognizant of scenic roads. The
last time was on Robert Rogers Road, and we had a major discussion on what
trees would be cut, and I am sure the same approach will be taken in this
case.
Dennis Card stated
as far as snowplow operators, would feel it is more pragmatic to find a snow
plow operator that is able to drive, etc.
Other Members of
the Public:
Margaret Watkins –
We are talking about Scenic Roads, and I would like to make comments about the
handling of Scenic Roads. Selectmen must
have a Public Hearing in order to cut trees along a Scenic Road. The Selectmen have been requiring abutters to
cut down trees so they don’t have to have a public hearing. I am really
discouraged with the way that scenic roads have been handled and hope this will
go back to the Selectmen.
Ron Slocum – Stated
he lives on Tenney Hill Road. Stated he
shares Karen Camp’s concerns. Asked if
in the future, someone could come in and ask for a Variance for the 40 foot road
as an entrance to a PUD, etc. Also have
concerns about the slopes and easements.
Noted that Scenic Road RSA is specific.
There should be a public hearing specifically scheduled to discuss the
removal of trees. I agree with
Margaret. The owner can do anything they
want to. Does the owner own the property
between the property line and the center line of the road. What authority do the Selectmen have to ask
the applicant to do something that they can’t do. Can only be instituted by the Conservation
Commission.
Leo Martel – Maybe
if he would like to be a good neighbor, maybe he won’t cut the trees.
Kenneth Swayze –
Selectmen will be asking him to cut the trees at no cost to the Town. Can be an effective way.
Ron Slocum – I have
talked to Jan VanDeBogart and have talked to John Colter. I asked both of them what problems have you
had plowing Tenney Hill Road. Have you
ever gone off the road. Neither one has
had problems on Tenney Hill Road. Mr.
Hammond is the only one who has driven off the road two times. Chief Nelson said there has been one accident
in front of Karen Camp’s house. People
are going to come down the road.
Karen Camp – Stated
she was situated the most closely to Tenney Hill Road and I on more than one
occasion have seen the Town Plow travel at excessive speeds. Those of us who live on that road travel very
cautiously, because we have faced other
challenges on Tenney Hill Road with Arbutus Farm, etc. Those people who are unfamiliar with Tenney
Hill Road will go faster. If any
modifications are made to Tenney Hill Road we will have a less safe road.
Maureen McCanty –
Only comment I have is that the Scenic designation also applies to the stone
walls. Would ask that the owners would
maintain the stone walls the way they are.
Arlene Little –
Stated she lives on Tenney Hill Road and she supports the concerns that have
been expressed about the Scenic Roads.
Kenneth Swayze –
Would advise the residents to get on the Selectmen’s agenda and maybe then
others can hear you. Planning Board have
tried to act as a middle man. The work
doesn’t have to be done now.
Carter Higginbotham
– Stated the RSA’s with regard to Scenic Roads were very specific.
Planning Board
noted that with regard to a possible PUD in the future, the Planning Board requires
a 50 foot ROW for any road into a PUD.
This would not be an issue.
George Holt –
Stated the Board could ask that a clause be on the plan, that there would be no
further development on the property.
The Board asked Mr.
Todd if he could flag the wetlands in the area where they would be crossed
prior to the site walk.
Mr. Todd will
delineate the wetlands and then the Board will schedule the site walk.
The item will be on
the agenda at the next meeting as a public hearing.
NEW BUSINESS:
Conceptual
Proposal – Nine Lots – Lahajji Development
Tim Bernier
appeared before the Board with a Conceptual Design on behalf of Lahajji
Development off Grapevine Road. The lot
abuts the Town of Bow and Burchell Property.
The total acreage is 50.88 acres and they are proposing nine lots. All lots are five acres or more.
At this point in the meeting, the Board stated that all discussions with the Board at this time are NON-BINDING.
The Board explained
that there must be fire suppression, either fire pond or sprinklers. The applicant needs to talk with the Fire
Department.
The Board stated
that the maximum slope must be no greater than 8% grade.
Conceptual
Proposal – Nine Lots – Richard and Judy Keefe
Jacques Belanger,
Surveyor, presented a conceptual proposal showing a nine lot subdivision off
Route 77 and Ray Road with a culdasac.
The Board noted
there was a considerable scattering of wetlands on the lot.
The total acreage
of the lot is 70 acres. The smallest lot
is 5.2 acres with the largest being 15 acres.
OLD BUSINESS:
George Holt
presented a letter that the Conservation Commission had written to the
Department of Environmental Services stating dissatisfaction with the DROBAT
Administrative Decision. The letter will
be signed by the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board. (attached)
Margaret Watkins
stated that this is the only method the Town has to require Drobat to comply
and take care of the thermally treated materials on the property. If the Planning Board signs this mylar, the
property will be sold and Mr. Drobat will be “off the hook”. It will become a Town problem. There is the possibility of contamination
into Kimball Pond from this material.
There being no
further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Alison
R. Vallieres
Secretary