DUNBARTON PLANNING BOARD

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 2005

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 Chairman James Marcou presiding. The following members were present:

James Marcou, Chairman

Brian Nordle, Co Chairman

Alison Vallieres, Secretary

Mert Mann, Selectman

Kenneth Swayze, Admin., Planning and Zoning

David Breault

Michael Poirier

Terry Swain, Alternate

Stephanie Alexander, New Hampshire Central Regional Planning Commission (Master Plan)

James Marcou, Chairman, verified with the Secretary that the Public Notice for the Meeting had been posted in three public places throughout the Town and published in the Concord Monitor for one day. In addition, it had been posted on the Dunbarton Web Site.

APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2005 and WORKSHOP MEETING OF MARCH 2, 2005.

MOTION:

A motion was made, seconded and passed unanimously that the Meeting Minutes from Wednesday, March 2, 2005 and Wednesday, March 16, 2005 be approved as written.

ELECTION OF OFFICERS:

MOTION:

A motion was made, seconded and passed unanimously for the Dunbarton Planning Board to place the Election of Officers until the end of the meeting this evening.

7:00 P.M. - PUBLIC HEARING:

PUBLIC HEARING FOR REAFFIRMATION OF THE PREVIOUS VOTE FOR THE DUNBARTON MASTER PLAN.

Brian Nordle, Co-Chairman of the Dunbarton Master Plan Committee, explained the reasons for the Reaffirmation of the previous vote for the Dunbarton Master Plan. He stated there had been considerable statistical and grammatical errors which had been corrected through the proofreading process. Changes were mainly grammatical and not major. The changes have been made available to the public at the Town Office. (attached)

Brian Nordle asked if there was input from the public regarding any of the specific changes.

There was no input from the public.

MOTION:

Brian Nordle made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board accept all the Master Plan Chapters as amended and presented this evening. Ken Swayze seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

ANNA CHAN (H5-02-01) PROPOSED FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED OFF GILE ROAD (Class V and Class VI Road) IN THE LOW DENSITY (5 ACRE) DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH (04-013)

Ken Swayze presented a Status Report of the Anna Chan Proposed Five Lot Subdivision and noted this had been on the Planning Board Agenda for some time. (attached)

Alison Vallieres, Secretary, reported that an Extension for 90 days had been requested on March 17, 2005 and granted by the Selectmen on March 17, 2005.

Terry Swain, Alternate, abstained from the discussion because he had not been a member of the Board during past deliberations.

Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, reported that they had met with the Selectmen two weeks ago and the decision had been made to require 22 feet of traveled way with 2 foot shoulders. This requires another trip to the Conservation Commission because of the change. This change will impact more of the stone walls on the Chan’s side. The road has already been mostly cut along the side. This is a Class V and VI Scenic Road therefore has to be before the Conservation Commission. This road will have a typical 22 foot traveled way. Will provide a centerline profile. He noted the road alignment will have to be shifted to the South. The Road Agent did not want to have a culdesac, just a box turn (like a hammerhead). Have removed the crash gate from the plans. The Town of Bow has been public noticed.

Jacques Belanger noted he had given the Town of Bow a set of plan prior to this meeting. Jacques will inform Bill Klubben of the crash-gate decision.

There were no questions from the Board.

At this point, Ken Swayze made a suggestion in the interest of time, to not read the list of abutters but ask for public input. The Board members agreed.

Public Input:

Stephen Brennan –

1. Asked how do you measure the 300 feet to my driveway to the edge of the lot line? Will it start on the Class VI road?

2. Asked if there is an awareness of the large pool down at the bottom of this hill as you start driving towards the Bow line? Will this be corrected?

3. What is there is a spring and in the winter it gets over 5 feet tall high with ice. I don’t see any of the town trucks getting over this.

4. There is a discrepancy in this end of the lot line at the Bow Line and where my lot line extends into

Bow. Whose rules do I follow? What happens if you put a crash gate? The Tax Collector from the

Town of Bow says I have two acres of land in Bow. Bow had the Town Line reset by Morris Foote.

This is a Class VI road.

5. What about traffic? I was turned down unless I regraded the road from top to bottom and brought it up to Class V standards.

At this point in the Public Hearing, James Marcou stated that improvements were requested. The issue at hand is this proposed subdivision. We are viewing this plan. If you have a plan that conflicts with this one, you should discuss it with Jacques Belanger in private. If there is any further subdivision up there, the road will have to be improved further.

Stephen Brennan stated he knows you are not going to be able to plow. Would not like to have a house up there unless there was a T turnaround.

The Planning Board noted that engineering is being done appropriately. The Board stated that reconstruction of the road will be done to specifications in conjunction with the Town Engineer.

S. Brennan stated there has been tree cutting on his property already.

Terry Swain asked what the situation was with the crash gate.

The Board explained to him that the Town of Bow had wanted a crash gate to enter and restrict traffic to the Bow side. The Planning Board stated it was their position that we did not want a crash gate. No one can restrict the passing on this road.

S. Brennan stated this road is subject to gates and bars.

Jon Wiggin, Fire Chief – Asked if they had agreed to in house fire suppression.

Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, stated yes, it will be included on the plan.

J. Belanger stated he had walked this with Jeff Crosby, Road Agent, and Anthony Costello, Engineer, and did come up with a plan for a 24 inch culvert.

Barry McKinnon – Stated that at the Selectmen’s meeting, it was mentioned improvements to the lower end of the road would be necessary.

Jeff Crosby, Road Agent, stated he went to the Selectmen’s Meeting and was under the impression there might be improvements to the Class V road section. Gave the Selectmen a list of suggested improvements which amounted to about $25,000. Still not sure where that ended up. He stated that when Mr. McKinnon’s lot was created, there were some improvements recommended and set a little bit of a precedent. There were several more parcels of land out there including the Thomas Lordon lot of 90 acres.

Mr. McKinnon stated it was his understanding that 40 plus acres were to be donated to the Town, and I know one of the priorities of the Town is a ballfield. This Class V section of road will not stand up to the traffic. Not 40-50 cars on a weekend.

The Board noted the land will go to the Town of Dunbarton, with decisions made by the Selectmen, but if it costs a million dollars to put a ballfield in, it would not happen on this lot.

There was no further public comment.

MOTION:

Ken Swayze made a motion to continue the Anna Chan Proposed 5 lot Subdivision until the next month. Mert Mann seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

OLD BUSINESS: NONE

NEW BUSINESS:

7:30 P.M. - RECEIPT AND ACCEPTANCE OF NEW APPLICATIONS BY THE DUNBARTON PLANNING BOARD; FOR COMPLETION.

NEW HAMPSHIRE TRADITIONAL HOMES (MICHAEL POIRIER) (G4-3-2) PROPOSED SIX LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON GRAPEVINE ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH (05-003)

At this point in the meeting, Michael Poirier stepped down from the Board.

Ken Swayze presented a Status Report of the New Hampshire Traditional Homes Proposed Six Lot Subdivision. (attached) He noted that Brian Nordle has reviewed the application and found it substantially complete.

After presenting the Status Report, Ken Swayze stepped down from the Board because of abutter status.

MOTION:

Mert Mann made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board accept the application of New Hampshire Traditional Homes (Michael Poirier) (G4-3-1) Proposed six lot subdivision as substantially complete and start deliberations this evening. Brian Nordle seconded the motion. The motion passed by a majority with Terry Swain abstaining.

Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, appeared before the Board on behalf of the applicant. He noted this was basically the same subdivision as previously presented with the exception of the additional lot which they had planned on subdividing at a later date anyway. They decided to do it all at once therefore the six lot subdivision instead of the original five lots.

Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, noted the following:

1. Two lots will be accessed from 75 foot frontage sections off Grapevine. These two lots will take advantage of the newly approved Large Lot regulation.

2. There will be a shared driveway for the larger 26 acre lot and Lot #8.

3. The second common driveway will be mid-way down for Lot #7 and Lot #6. Will be a 15% slope off the pavement.

4. Have delineated the Wetlands along Bela Brook showing the 125 foot Wetlands Conservation District line.

5. There is an approximate ½ acre of land to be dedicated to the Town along the steep land along Lots 7 and 8; and have allowed for a 50 foot slope easement along the 8^th and 7^th lots.

6. All house lots will be up on the top of the hill.

7. Have spoken with Mrs. Oertel and she is concerned because she lives so far away, etc. He noted he explained the subdivision to Mrs. Oertel, and sent her a complete set of plans.

At this point in the discussion, James Marcou stated the priority issues were the line of sight and driveway locations. A typical driveway sight distance is 200 feet. We need to make sure that if the shared driveways become an issue, that they can be split.

Jacques Belanger stated they had allowed about 40 feet for the driveways. If the driveways were split, each would have about 12 feet of traveled way, etc.

James Marcou asked about the slope easement along Grapevine Road and why it wasn’t continued the entire length of Grapevine (towards the blacksmith shop). He noted that Grapevine Road is very steep, and the applicant should provide enough land for future road improvements if necessary.

J. Belanger agreed to look at this and get Jeff Crosby, Road Agent’s, input on the easement all the way down Grapevine Road.

J. Belanger noted they had spoken with Jon Wiggin, Fire Chief, regarding Fire suppression. He is in the process of obtaining information from the Town of Chichester about a new type of cistern/fire pond. Has not yet received the necessary information.

Jon Wiggin stated the new type of system would be a lot less maintenance than a cistern or fire pond.

Board Comments:

Brian Nordle asked about the Wetlands Conservation District bounds and if there was any way they could appear on the final plan. According to regulations, they are to be delineated on the plan.

The Board noted the concept of shared driveways is to give people an opportunity to use their land in extenuating circumstances. The Board noted they needed to have several reasons for the shared driveways. We need to discuss this further, but it is an opportunity if there is a response for public safety. What would be the alternative if you have four separate driveways?

Brian Nordle spoke about shared driveways. This was an issue last time. Noted that the applicant is giving us a pretty generous dedication and easement for future road improvements. The driveway to the top needs wetlands permits.

J. Belanger stated that the applicant felt there was sufficient sight distance on the lower end of Grapevine Road therefore did not need the easement down there.

James Marcou stated he did not believe that is enough of a reason. I think there is a compelling reason for the additional easement because of public safety.

David Breault stated it would be a better situation to do shifting of driveways and shared driveways.

The Board noted they will review the situation at the Site Walk.

Abutters were read as follows and noted all had been notified by Certified Mail:

Robert/Joann Jergensen – Not Present

Earle/Katherine Farley – Not Present

Sue Bye – Tom Manning, husband present. (see below comments)

Kenneth Swayze – Present. No comments.

Nicholas/Bridgette Holmes – Not Present

Kathleen Joan Desmarais – Not Present

Ryan/Marlo Nedwicke – Not Present

Christopher Long/Ann Hargwin – Not Present

Joe/Pam Milioto – Not Present

Bertha Oertel – Not Present

Carlos E. DelCarpio – Not Present

Melissa Rouillard/Gary Auclair – Not Present

SPNHF – Not Present

Jean/Girard Meisner – Not Present

Alma Kingsbury – Not Present

Richard/Sandra Gendron – Present. Would like to bring back the point as to where the driveway is going around my property where the corner is . That road is going to turn right around my property. Maybe you could tell us what the elevation is. This is a serious question about the approach from the top. It will take all the drainage from that lot and run it across over my driveway and runs off onto Tom Manning’s property and drains down straight into his property. Would like to have Jeff Crosby look at this situation.

James Marcou stated that possibly the on-site drainage might improve the situation. This is not designed to be a Town Road. The Road Agent won’t have any input on the private driveway.

At this point in the public hearing, Tom Manning stated he was Sue Bye’s husband. He stated he will take a lot of the drainage because of water off that hill.

James Marcou stated that he would suggest that Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, hook up with both Tom Manning and Richard Gendron. You can both show him what your concerns are.

Jeffery/Katherine Deacon – Not Present

J. E. Belanger Land Surveying – Present (representing the applicant)

Schauer Engineering – Not Present (Representing the applicant)

Site Walk will be scheduled.

Other Members of the Public:

Lee Richmond, 241 Grapevine Road – Stated that people go very fast on Grapevine Road while coming up the road by the “fish hook”. Once when I was coming up there, a pickup truck came down Grapevine exactly at that point at the “fish hook” and we almost collided. You have got to take your eyes off the right, to take a left turn. If you approve this “fish hook” driveway, you are going to have a fatal within four years. Stated you are going to need some kind of signage up there. You are to have about three seconds to get out of the way. I feel it is a bad design.

James Marcou stated that unfortunately, the traffic that the experts are basing the reports on are traveling at a reasonable speed. We are going to look at this.

Lee Richmond stated a couple of extra signs are not going to be a big problem.

George Holt stated he represented the Conservation Commission.

1. Stated that we are looking at the Wetlands Application on the corner and feel there are better places to access the property.

2. Stated regarding the shared driveways, the application shows as 15’ and 12’. If you wanted to expand that, you would have to have an additional permit at a later date.

3. Concern about public safety. We as a Conservation Commission, and as that is a very poor line of sight. We were standing on top of the snow banks and trying to look up the road. What is the road grade? If you are expecting someone to be reacting, even if they are going only 20 mph, it is not going to happen. Personally, I would advocate the Planning Board look into another road access. The only way to access this is through a private road.

James Marcou stated they Board will talk about the situation at the Site Walk.

Steve Brennan stated that where those dual driveways come down, when that road gets any snow on it, it is a “Bob Sled Ride to Hell”. I really think you have to address giving a minimum of 300 feet of sight line.

Judy Stone – Looked at the plan. No comments.

Site Walk – Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, will call the Chairman re date and time.

Terry Swain asked about requirements for driveways, etc.

The Board indicated the sight distance for private driveways is 200 feet. The State requires 400 feet for a State Permit (which usually applies to new roadway entrances).

MOTION:

Mert Mann made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board continue the New Hampshire Traditional Homes Proposed Six Lot Subdivision until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Brian Nordle. The motion passed unanimously.

DUNBARTON 88, LLC (B3-02-01, B4-01-11, A4-01-05, AND A3-01-04) PROPOSED WATCH HILL DEVELOPMENT-MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOCATED OFF ROUTE 13 IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH. FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW. (05-001)

At this point in the meeting, both Michael Poirier and Ken Swayze stepped back to the Board.

Ken Swayze presented the Board with a package of information regarding the proposed Watch Hill Development. (attached)

Ken Swayze noted that the application for Site Plan Review was substantially complete and would recommend the Planning Board accept the application.

At this point in the meeting, Mert Mann stated that he would like to state for the record that his son, Tom, will be working part-time at the Golf Course starting Monday, but he does not feel this would affect any of my decisions with regard to this request.

No members of the Board nor the applicant objected.

Ken Swayze reported that the applicant is requesting four Waivers. The Board should act on these four waivers first, prior to voting to consider acceptance.

The Dunbarton Planning Board acted on the Waivers as follows:

Jennifer McCourt, representing the applicant Robert Pike, Owner of the property, stated as follows:

1. The first Waiver was for the bearings, distances, areas of the open spaces areas, first floor elevations, exact material of the landscaping, survey monumentation, individual roadway cross sections, and roadway curve data.

J. McCourt stated they were looking for this particular waiver on the layout before we go through and engineer this whole thing. We are trying to do it in logical steps at a time. The majority of the general engineering of the project has been done. Eventually we will have another whole set of plans.

2. The second Waiver is for Section VIII. B. which states as follows: “The roadway shall have a width of at least 24 feet, with appropriate shoulders on each side (see Typical Cross Section). “ and Section VIII. C. 6 “A four foot gravel shoulder, equal to the base course depth, shall be constructed to all asphalt surfaces.”

J. McCourt stated they would like the shoulder width to be reduced from the required 4 feet to 2 feet from Route 13 through the fairways. Stated they felt strongly about the 24’. The reason for the request was because of our going through the fairways. We are also putting berms up along the side so we are trying to minimize encroachment to the abutters. We are trying to minimize the impact on the fairway and abutters. We decided that this was practical and the best we could do. There are no houses along here. No driveways coming up here.

3. The third Waiver is to Section V.H. – Grades of all streets shall conform in general to the terrain and shall not exceed 8%. No street shall have a grade less than 1%.

J. McCourt stated they would like to increase the grade of the road in three areas from eight percent (8%) to ten percent (10%). The three areas amount to 475 feet. All three sections are requested to be 10%. The very short lengths of the higher grade are minimal and will not cause accessibility problems, but they do save in environmental impact of clearing more land. These short lengths of 10
% will save in excessive cuts and fills equaling over 17 feet.

4. The fourth Waiver is to Section V. G. – No horizontal curves shall have a centerline radius of less than 150 feet, except turn-around on a dead-end way. For changes in grade exceeding one percent, a vertical curve shall be provided ensuring a minimum sight distance of 150 feet.

J. McCourt stated we have wetlands and the 100 foot property buffer and are trying to avoid culdesacs. Loop roads would be more desirable. The location of the curve is at the end of the project, similar to where a culdesac may be placed since it only serves five units. The reason for the curve is to avoid wetlands and the perimeter buffer area without putting in a culdesac and leaving a loop roadway. We could redesign and put culdesacs in there but felt it was better to ask for a Waiver. Your Engineering Consultant did not have a problem with this.

The Dunbarton Planning Board acted on the requested Waivers as follows:

1. Waiver for the bearings, distances, areas of the open spaces areas, first floor elevations, exact material of the landscaping, survey monumentation, individual roadway cross sections, and roadway curve data.

MOTION:

Ken Swayze made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board approve the request for a Temporary Waiver as requested by the applicant for bearings, distances, areas of the open spaces areas, first floor elevations, exact material of the landscaping, survey monumentation, individual roadway cross sections, and roadway curve data. Michael Poirier seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

2. Waiver is for Section VIII. B. which states as follows: “The roadway shall have a width of at least 24 feet, with appropriate shoulders on each side (see Typical Cross Section). “ and Section VIII. C. 6 “A four foot gravel shoulder, equal to the base course depth, shall be constructed to all asphalt surfaces.”

Board Discussion:

K. Swayze noted that this was mostly an issue of parity. This is a big project. This would be an advantage to the fairways. This is a tough one.

J. Marcou stated that the road standards should be met with regard to width. I am not in favor of granting this waiver.

Michael Poirer stated he agreed with J. Marcou on this. There would be a lot of people coming up through there.

Brian Nordle stated he would dissent from that view. The area going through, in my personal opinion, is an open area and is a golf course and our new Master Plan suggests that we look at different approaches to subdivisions. This road would be a little bit narrower. The sight distance and the approach will have a grade change. I would see this as acceptable in and around the buildings. I would move to accept it. Stated the views of the Board have to change a little bit. I doubt if we will ever sway from the 24’ wide rule. Just my opinion.

Terry Swain stated his main concern is this is the main access road. I wouldn’t be in favor of shrinking this road down. If it were on the back 40, it would be different.

Ken Swayze stated there are a lot of units there, and it is not only rural but it will be having a lot of traffic.

MOTION:

James Marcou made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board deny the request for a Waiver to Section VIII.B. and Section VIII.C.6 for public safety reasons. Michael Poirier seconded the motion. The motion passed by a majority vote with Brian Nordle voting No.

3. Waiver is to Section V.H. – Grades of all streets shall conform in general to the terrain and shall not exceed 8%. No street shall have a grade less than 1%.

Board Discussion:

James Marcou stated he was in favor of granting this Waiver. In this case, it makes sense. There are good lines of sight. The Planning Board has routinely given 10% waivers in the past and this is one way to address steep grades. Both consultants are in favor of this.

MOTION:

Ken Swayze made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board grant the request for a Waiver to Section V. H: Maximum of 10% grade to be allowed as shown. – Grades of all streets shall conform in general to the terrain and shall not exceed 8%. No street shall have a grade less than 1%. The motion was seconded by Brian Nordle. The motion passed unanimously.

3. Waiver to Section V. G. – No horizontal curves shall have a centerline radius of less than 150 feet, except turn-around on a dead-end way. For changes in grade exceeding one percent, a vertical curve shall be provided ensuring a minimum sight distance of 150 feet.

Board Discussion:

The Board noted that the Fire Chief has stated that a 150 foot radius is the minimum he would accept.

Don Mayo, Town Engineer, comment was to construct it to be 150 feet radius because of safety reasons. Concerned about off-street parking.

D. Breault noted that parking on the radius will shrink it down more.

Brian Nordle stated that again with a project with this density you are going to anticipate problems with the wetlands in that area. I guess if it was just that one corner it would be okay. There are concerns to parking. I would accept this over a culdesac.

J. Marcou stated we haven’t seen what the whole project is. How are they going to address the parking issues? I would move to grant pending full disclosure of what is proposed for on street parking.

K. Swayze stated we could call this a Temporary Waiver not to exceed the next two meetings (60 days) Might be able to come to an agreement.

MOTION:

James Marcou made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board approve the request for a Temporary Waiver for a 60-day period to Section V. G – “No horizontal curves shall have a centerline radius of less than 150 feet, except turn-around on a dead-end way. For changes in grade exceeding one percent, a vertical curve shall be provided ensuring a minimum sight distance of 150 feet.” Ken Swayze seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Ken Swayze noted that even with the Waiver which was denied, the application appears to be complete at this time.

MOTION:

Mert Mann made a motion that the Dunbarton Planning Board accept the application of Dunbarton 88, LLC Proposed Watch Hill Development-Multi-family Development located off Route 13 this evening and start deliberations this evening. Michael Poirier seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

At this point in the meeting, Jennifer McCourt, McCourt Engineering, presented the following:

1. Noted that the name of the project has been changed from Watch Hill Development to Summer Hill Development. She stated the applicant has changed the units to 43 single family homes and 20 duplexes. She stated the total units are now 83 as compared to the original 88 approved units. She stated they completely did away with the quad units.

2. The project includes a Community Water System and Community Septic System.

3. The Cross Farm Road and Town Farm Road will be upgraded, and we will put a crash gate. We would like to upgrade it to 18’ wide. We feel 18’ would be sufficient. There is a very gradual slope on both sides of the road. We need to talk to the Fire Chief. The concern is plowing the road in the winter. There will be a permanent crash gate with plastic chain with bollards which can easily be broken.

4. Would like to put in a buffer. Are providing parking for the open space area. It will include the wells and the well radius will be protection from any development.

5. All roads will be 24 feet with 4 foot shoulders where shown as two-way streets.

6. There will be two car garages and two parking spaces for cars for each unit.

The Planning Board indicated they would like to see 2 ½ parking spaces for each unit instead of the two proposed, including some provision for common parking.

7. There will be a central leach field. It will be located 125 feet from any wetlands.

8. Spacing between buildings will be 50 feet.

9. Fire Protection – There will be two 30,000 gallon cisterns on site.

10. Lighting Plan – Will be recessed full cut lights up to a height of 15’. They won’t get the lights to the abutter’s properties. There will be lights at major intersections. Stated that these houses will be built consistently. There will be a light at each house. Other than the individual lights you are talking about, we are certainly going to put lights by the doorways of each unit. We have mandatory lights. We can’t have spot lights. There will be downcast lighting put on sensors, etc.

With regard to the single access roadway, the Planning Board noted that the regulations only allow for 25 single family units for a single access roadway.

11. Town Farm road is a private roadway now, and they (applicants) would be responsible for plowing and maintaining it. This would be the secondary access. Noted that Department of Transportation will not allow you to put in a dual access on Route 13.

The Planning Board indicated they wanted consideration for sufficient off street parking including common parking areas.

12. Noted they were planning on putting signs on one side of the road so parking would only be on one side. A fire truck can still get past. This is a senior development. Seniors do not have large gatherings at their homes. They tend to use the Club House facility for a large gathering. Don’t feel you are going to get that much parking on the street.

The Planning Board indicated the standard road design did NOT include or allow for regular parking.

J. Marcou asked what happens regarding enforcement. It is a private way. Who is going to enforce the parking situation?

At this point in the discussion, Marie Dolder, Attorney for Richard Uchida, stated the Condo Association Documents and By-laws give the Town the right to access for emergency vehicles, etc. It could be enforced by the Town Police. Anyone could enforce it. It will be the Town of Dunbarton and it would be their option. There has been concern that the Town would have no control over it. The covenants are extremely strict. There are extensive agreements with the abutters. In addition, it will be self-policing.

J. Marcou asked if the Town of Dunbarton is going to be indemnified in the case of any injury in case of fire and blocking of the road without emergency vehicles/fire trucks being able to get down the road, etc. You need to help us solve this problem.

J. McCourt stated these roads are made wide enough per Town specifications. They are wide enough to handle a fire truck.

J. Marcou stated they are concerned about things that are not in our control. I don’t know that we want that burden.

Marie Dolder stated it was not their intent to burden the Town in any way.

J. McCourt stated that these are seniors that will be living there. They will be there quite a bit of the time. They are a community within itself. They tend to govern themselves. There will be rules and regulations, and they will notice when one of them gets out of line.

Brian Nordle stated he would like to see them add additional parking spots where they can.

Jon Wiggin, Fire Chief, stated he has not seen any building plans as yet. Will the buildings be fully sprinklered? Have seen no details for the cisterns. The biggest problem for him is the one emergency exit/single access.

Don’t know about the plastic link chain fence or the prohibitive signs. We need an open passway. The people need to get out. How is it going to be? We don’t allow more than 25 units on a single access road.

J. McCourt stated there is an agreement with the abutters to provide a crash gate. We did a traffic study with a minimum amount of traffic going out of there. We are more than willing to upgrade Town Farm Road.

Michael Poirier stated that since the problem seems to be the gate, after the first snow, leave it open all winter.

J. McCourt stated the abutters are not amendable to this. The previous applicants tried to work to get a solution. The abutters feel very strongly about this.

James Marcou stated they were not going to be able to resolve this tonight.

Robert Pike, Owner of the Property stated the chances of anything happening is pretty minimal. There is 18 feet of pavement of road. I don’t see how it will ever get used. We have got to work through this.

James Marcou stated they need to talk with Chief Jon Wiggin and the Police Chief.

13. There will be a fence along the northerly property line. (Burnham) Mrs. Burnham was present and stated it was to be a wire fence to prevent trespassing, etc.

Attorney Marie Dolder stated the following:

1. This is an elderly housing development.

2. This does not have a tremendous impact to the Town.

3. There is a positive side. It will give back $200,000/year in tax revenue to the town.

4. That would change if we were to go with a standard subdivision which would include children, etc.

5. The traffic would change if there were 88 single family house lots. 88 single family houses would produce 410 trips per day. An over 55 development would only generate 78 trips per day for 83 units. That is a significant difference. This will not have such a great impact.

Attorney Marie Dolder reviewed the condo documents basically as follows:

1. This is an over 55 development.

2. The emergency access road is only for emergency access. We will repair any damage to the road.

3. Lighting – There will be no street lights on the new access road. All lights will be hooded or shielded lights. Will be subdued lighting.

4. Will be a private area.

5. There will be all underground utilities.

6. There will be Open Space granted to the Town.

7. There will be Open Space Parking – 8 spaces.

8. Clubhouse cannot exceed more than 8’ additional height.

9. Clubhouse will be only used for food service and Pro Shop.

10. Lighting on Clubhouse will be subdued.

11. No further buildings to be built without review by the Zoning Board of Adjustment and undergo Site Plan Review.

12. All requirements are part of the agreement with the abutters.

Brian Nordle indicated the Board may find they need brighter lights for Police and Fire protection.

The Board asked about whether a Traffic Study was completed. It was noted that a complete traffic study was not done. Possibility of the Planning Board requiring a complete Traffic Study.

The Board asked that there be a provision for a resident inventory to be completed on an annual basis. The verbage would be within the previously granted Perry Senior Housing Project. The Town needs to know that the development is in compliance on at least a yearly basis.

J. McCourt noted that the Board needs to address Regional Impact and notify surrounding Towns accordingly.

John Wiggin stated that the name of Cross Town Road is incorrect. The name of the road is Country Club Lane.

David Breault asked if they would expect people to be accessing the golf course via golf carts on the paved sidewalks.

The applicants stated there will be paved sidewalks along the major roads within the development but golf carts would probably not be permitted on the sidewalks.

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

Hammond Revocable Trust – Not Present

Joseph/Katheryn Azotea – Not Present

Julia/Arthur Thomas – Not Present

George/Carolyn Cushman – Not Present

Kevin/Marie McCarthy – Present. No comments.

Nicole French – Joseph French present. Stated he lives on Meadow Lane. Asked if there was going to be a dumpster down near the development.

The applicant stated there will be individual trash cans. The only dumpster would be the one that is there now at the Clubhouse.

John/Katherine Mazalewski – Present. Stated she was very much in favor of having a permanent gateway on Town Farm Road. If it is open in the winter, that road will become another entrance. There will be people snowshoeing, cross country skiing, etc. We are in favor of a permanent gate.

Charles/Nancy Graybill – Not Present

Theresa Naser – Not Present

Kenneth/Jennifer Proulx – Not Present

Glenn Doten – Not Present

Arvid/Betsy Rain – Present. You say there will be another parking space for access to the open space out on Route 13. That is where I abut. There are 11 spaces already. Is that parking necessary where you have access in the main development? I am a direct abutter. It is not going to be lighted. Trash removal is a problem. It is right off Route 13. Is this necessary?

The applicant noted it was a ZBAdecision and subject to the covenants.

J. McCourt will take a look at this.

Robert Pike, Owner, stated he felt this was a legitimate concern.

Attorney Richard Uchida stated that part of the Zoning Board decision was that it allowed for the parking area and that if it becomes a problem that the Town