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 Terry Swain presiding. The following members were present:
Terry Swain, Chairman
John Trottier, Vice Chairman
Alison Vallieres, Secretary
Gertrude Dulude
John Herlihy
John Van, Alternate
David Nault, Alternate
Scott Ives, Alternate (arrived at
The minutes of the previous meeting of
At
this point in the meeting, Terry Swain laid out the ground rules for the public
hearing. He verified with the Secretary
that the meeting had been posted in a timely fashion according to law in three
public places throughout the Town and published in the Concord Monitor for one
day.
7:00 p.m. – PUBLIC HEARING FOR A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THOMAS THORNE (SALVATORE V. RABBIA LOT) TO ALLOW HIM TO CONSTRUCT A GAS STATION, RETAIL STORE AND AN EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT AT ROUTE 77 AND OLD FORT ROAD IN THE MANUFACTURED HOUSING DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
Attorney Gregg Michaels appeared before the Board on
behalf of his client, Thomas Thorne. He
stated that these three proposed uses aren’t allowed as a matter of right
within the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance because there is no Commercial Zone as
such. These uses are granted by the
Special Exception process. This is why
they are here before this Board.
He stated this was a proposal for a gasoline
station, retail store and eating and drinking establishment to be located on
Lot I3-B4-L2 located at the intersection of Route 13 and 77, 600 feet west of
the intersection.
He stated the convenience store would be serviced by
a well and septic system on the premises.
He stated the proposal complies with all the setback and lot percentage
requirements of the ordinance, in fact it more than meets the setback
requirements.
He stated that the Special Exception requirements
were strikingly similar to the existing Site Plan Regulations which are covered
by the Planning Board with regard to drainage, etc. At this point, he introduced Jay Collins,
Alliance Energy, who will be supplier of the fuel to be sold to the
station.
Jay Collins, Alliance Energy – Stated this was not a
particularly large development but it will be a convenience store and gasoline
station in compliance with Article 9, D which outlines the Special Exception
requirements. The proposal is for a
7,000 square foot building. Drainage
will be addressed on site and off site by the applicant.
The applicant addressed the criteria for the
granting of a Special Exception within their application. (copy attached)
In addition to the above, Attorney Michaels
addressed the criteria for the granting of a Special Exception as follows:
A. No detriment to the property
values in the vicinity of the proposed development will result on account
of: the location or scale of buildings,
structures, parking areas or other access ways; the emission of odors, smoke,
gas, dust, noise, glare, heat, vibration, or other pollutants; or the unsightly
outdoor storage of equipment, vehicles or other materials.
Attorney Michaels stated that this proposed use
would meet the lot coverage, and would exceed the setback requirements. The structure they would plan to build would
be rustic. Not designed to have a flat
roof with a square building. Will not be
a roofed box as other stations.
(Presented a large sketch showing the proposed building) He noted it will have a farmer’s porch on the
front. There are no plans for on-site
storage. There will be a dumpster
located in the rear for trash. There
will be a canopy covering the gas pumps. Landscaping will be done by a
Landscape Architect. They are leaving a
tremendous portion as green space to the rear and east side of the
property. The type of operation is not a
manufacturing facility. There is
nothing particularly unusual about the operation. Will be the standard heat, oil and gasoline being
used in the facility. Will be a small
convenience retail store. This type of
use is well regulated by the State.
Presented a copy of the State regulations relative to gasoline
stations. (copy attached) The State has a substantial amount of safety
requirements for gasoline stations. It is not like the old days of people just
throwing tanks in the ground for gasoline storage. It comes under strict regulations. No person wants to contaminant their own
property. It would be a detriment to
their property values.
On a positive note, many times people are required
to drive miles and miles for gasoline and/or other convenience store
items. Having a small convenience store
in some locations certainly is a positive thing for the community as well. Having necessary services for many
people. We feel the location makes
sense. There presently is no commercial
district in Dunbarton. Route 77 is a
logical place for this type of use.
B. No hazard will be
caused the public or adjacent property
on account of potential fire, explosion or release of toxic materials.
There are no drastic changes planned for the
site. There are many regulations with
fuel tanks. It is not likely that
incidents would occur. Safety
requirements for this use would prevent potential fire, etc. from
happening.
C. No creation of a traffic
safety hazard or substantial traffic congestion in the vicinity of the proposed
development.
Attorney Michaels stated they had done a traffic
study. Stated this was not a huge
development and is fairly limited. These
are services that people in the area would use.
It is unlikely that people would come to this location from another
area. It would service local people in
the local area. This use does not
attract people from other areas such as a Brewery Company which draws people
from other locations.
At this point, Attorney Michaels turned the
discussion over to Matt Peterson to address the safety issues as follows:
Matt Peterson – Stated that safety is the main
concern. The drive through window is
located on the western side of the property.
We have tried to split up the several uses. There is proposed space for six cars in the
drive through line with room for six cars waiting for a stacking of twelve
cars. There is a 36 foot wide entrance
off Route 77 with a 24 foot entrance off Old Fort Lane. This is a five acre site. We have given enough area in front of the
pumps. There is 35 feet between the
pumps to the first parking spaces. Other
stations have left 20 feet. We have
tried to eliminate that issue. The
driveway is 60 feet long by 20 feet wide for deliveries in the rear of the
building. Our intent is to get
deliveries in the back of the building.
We have provided for a right turn pocket and a left turn pocket.
At this point, Attorney Michaels took the floor as
follows:
D. No
excessive demand on municipal services and facilities, including, but not
limited to waste disposal, police and fire protection and schools.
Waste disposal will be taken care of by the owners. There will be no demand on the town for police protection and fire. There is nothing out of the ordinary. There will be no impact on schools.
D. The
proposed use will not result in the degradation of existing surface and
groundwater water quality standards, nor will it have adverse effects on the
natural functions of wetlands on the site, which would result in the loss of
significant habitat or flood control protection.
Attorney Michaels stated that it was his understanding there are no wetlands on the site. We will not increase runoff to any area.
Matt Peterson – Stated that there will be site drainage and treatment for all water prior to running off the site. There is a new federal permit for sites such as this which we will adhere to. Involves treating water runoff by treatment swales and then put into detention basin and having an outlet to possibly bring it to the fire pond. Will be designed with treatment swales, detection basin and runoff being treated prior to leaving the site. Pre and post runoff will be in the same condition. Have already done a test pit on the property. The leach field will be at the east of the property. The on site setback is 250 to the back property line, 51 feet from the front, with 65 feet to Route 77. Gas pumps will be 110 feet from the road. There will be a well on site. The well is uphill from the septic system.
Screening – Area will be nicely landscaped. Setbacks will also create some required screening. Lot coverage is 50 – 50. Hours of operation will be 5 am to 11 p.m. Not a 24 hour operation. Will conform to the existing sign regulation.
At this point, Terry Swain stated the sign regulation is 24 square feet. If sign is any larger, must get a Variance.
Lighting will be on site. Lights will be low intensity, not like the new Shaws in Concord. Not looking to light up the world.
Questions from the Board:
John Van – None at this time.
John Herlihy – None at this time.
David Nault – Looking at site plan. Seeing tractor trailers unloading where gas customers are, etc.
Matt Peterson – Stated tanks would be located east from the main lane and the lane is 24 feet wide leaving 14 feet for a passenger lane. Tractor trailers can make turn easily. Trucks can go under the canopy. There will be painted drive through lanes and not a raised median strip. Will be away from the access on Route 77 and out the front driveway.
Alliance Energy – Stated that the deliveries can be scheduled by the Owner, Mr. Thorne. Can schedule them to be anytime he wishes within a two hour period. This is not the case for stations which are not privately owned.
Matt Peterson – Stated that 1250 square feet of the building would be for a drive through and the other end 1250 square feet would be for an eating establishment such as a Pizza retail spot. At the present time, there is not a user but there will be three business in the building. The size of the parcel is 5.01 acres. The coverage of the lot is 50%. According to your regulations, you have to leave at least 15% undeveloped, etc.
John Trottier – Stated you are proposing a drinking establishment. Are you planning to have a bar?
Matt Peterson – Stated no, it is not their intention to have a bar. The commercial store would sell beer but that is it.
Addressed the issue of noise and stated that they just did some noise studies @ Wendy’s and they create 45 decibels. Stated his speech is 35 decibels @ 35 feet from the building. This is 220 feet and it should be less than 10 decibels. All equipment will be new state of the art which is less noisy than old equipment.
John Trottier – Asked about the loading and unloading area.
Matt Peterson – Would be 70 feet long and would allow an 18 wheeler so there would be plenty of room. The owner has got to talk to his distributors on unloading, etc.
Lighting will be downcast and will sit on the edge of the parking area.
Applicant was asked if they had done an illumination plan.
Attorney Michael stated they would be in compliance with all DES standards and regulations and inspected every six months. Exxon also has requirements and station must meet Federal requirements. Mr. Thorne owns the property. Whichever plant we end up with will have certain requirements. With a private owner we would have more leeway.
John Trottier – Landscaping. Curb cuts on Route 77. Have you gotten in touch with DOT re driveway. We would require that you would have a State DOT driveway permit.
Matt Peterson – Stated that whatever DOT requires, we will adhere to. Have done a traffic study with counts and trips, etc. 3,000 cars go by the site. Will meet sight requirements and curbing for entering site and treatment swales, etc. Will also meet all Site Specific requirements.
John Trottier – Stated that Site Specific requirements does not improve the quality of the ground water.
Scott Ives – Do your treatment areas take into consideration MTB. There is nothing put in place to keep spills in place.
Matt Peterson – Stated they could install a trench drain around the pad with a 1500 septic tank and have the owner pump when it gets to 80% capacity. This could be installed. Haven’t shown trench drainage yet.
Abutters were read as follows and noted all had been notified by certified mail:
Karen Gincott – Attorney David Craig stated he was representing Karen Gincott. Stated he knew there were a lot of abutters present and they all had similar issues as his client did. Stated he had been sitting here listening carefully. I am unclear as to whether or not the applicant is asking the Board to rule on this tonight. Concerned about runoff from the pavement onto Karen’s property as her property is on the back side. They have stated the runoff will cross the land on the natural slope and land in a fire pond. Is this a working session or would they like this approved this evening at the end of this meeting? I am going to ask that you must deny this application as submitted. Presented a letter from a realtor stating that this will definitely be a detriment to property values. In addition, there is another abutter which will be submitting a statement to this effect. I must remind the Board that the burden of proof is on the applicant and he must show that this will not be a detriment to property values. If the applicant does not satisfy each and every one of the criteria, the application must be denied. I don’t know that I am qualified to the Board re the definition of hazardous materials but Karen is certainly concerned. Would ask that the applicant address this issue. Regarding traffic, they state they have done a traffic study. What kind of traffic counts, etc. What about sight distances. Don’t know the area. I do know the intersection is confusing. Some people sail on through and there is a blinking light. At one time there was a strobe light obviously for a reason. In coming here I heard the access would be off Old Fort Road. I would assume the applicant must show how all these things will work out. I would suggest the board keep the record open for 60 – 90 days so we can present our own traffic survey. Again I have heard the engineer talk about lighting. I would state that it is the right of those concerned to have an illumination plan be submitted by the applicant. I get concerned when I hear proposals that are vague. The burden of proof is on the applicant. It is very difficult to respond to a proposal on such short notice. Should be looked at closely as to who the tenants are. What are the particular things that might be different between a pizza place and a Dunkin Doughnuts. These are two totally different uses. Re Eating and drinking establishment, no drinking or no alcohol sales at the pizza place. We have heard a lot of detail. Take a step back and look at it. Is this a use that we want. I would ask the Board to look at the total area. Look at the residential neighborhood. Look at the direct abutters all the way around. Don’t have a set aside common area. You have got to look at the whole area. That area has grown up. Putting this dead smack in the middle of a residential neighborhood. From the time you open the doors you have got to “make the doughnuts” sometime. I am all for commercial development, and I know there are some uses that would be perfectly appropriate for this site. This is too intense. The applicant bears the burden of proof. Dunbarton does not have a commercial zone. You have to apply for a Special Exception. The applicant has not met its burden of proof.
At this point in the meeting, Terry Swain stated that in 1992 a Special Exception was granted to the property owner for a store with a restaurant 100’ x 30’ and they went through this whole process. Once a Special Exception is granted is goes with the property forever.
Antonio and Julia Rabbia – Not Present
Robert Michael, Sr. – Not Present
Laraine Allen – Present, Stated that she was against the proposed convenience store and gas station. In addition, a letter was sent to the Zoning Board (copy attached). She introduced Jeff Woodburn, Historic Properties. He stated this proposal would definitely be a detriment to the property value of the Molly Stark House. Stated there was a multiple of historic properties in the area. I can assure you that in selling historic properties no buyer has ever said, I am not interested because there is no convenience store in the area. This is not a prerequisite to purchasing historic properties. People come to Dunbarton because it hasn’t lost its small town touch. This house has been designated on the Historic Register by the State of New Hampshire. There are less than a dozen or so. The Molly Stark House is in good hands. They have recreated a Fort that Molly Stark fought from and defended over 200 years ago. This is a private museum. Check out the sign and walk around the property. This home was featured in the New Hampshire Home Magazine. There is a picture of the Molly Stark House on the front. This is our history. When they are gone, they are gone forever. This house has stood the test of time.
Sjacqueline/Richard Brough – Presented a letter from Capron Appraisal Services stating that the proposal convenience store would devalue their property. (copy attached) Asked if any consideration had been given to additional police coverage. Don’t feel I have seen the police coverage addressed. This will be open 18 hours a day. I certainly have concerns about it. Any consideration been given to why we are having two entrances, one on Old Fort Road and the other on Route 77.
Members of the public:
Mark Lanham, 42 Old Fort Lane – State he lives ¼ mile from the proposed store. Asked what type of fuels do you plan to sell at this establishment.
Applicant stated Mobil regular and unleaded gasoline with diesel fuel at one end of the pumps.
M. Lanham asked what if you were to have a spillage.
Applicant’s representative stated that there are concrete pads and the pads retain the spillage which evaporates. We will comply to internal drainage. A lot of these issues are Planning Board issues. There is a design scheme for this.
M. Lanham stated that part of the reason he moved here from Bedford was because he was tired of the traffic going by the house. Lived on Back River Road and at the end of the road there was a convenience store and a Dunkin Doughnuts and if this goes in, I will make every effort to move out.
Jeff Crosby – A store and restaurant had already been approved at a previous point in time. Does this null and void the existing granted Special Exception. Was there a Site Plan for the previous one. What about entering and exiting the site.
Matt Yanosich, Old Fort Lane – Asked if the Old Fort Lane Subdivision was done at the time of the previously granted Special Exception. It was noted that the Special Exception was granted in 1992 prior to the Old Fort Subdivision. Stated that re a traffic study, it would be in the best interest of the town for the town to do a study on Route 77 and Jewett Road and Route 13. Stated he believes a lot of traffic will be from Weare, Hopkinton and Henniker because there is no coffee shop there. In addition, homeowners insurance increases within 1,000 feet of a commercial use. Concerned about MBTE In East Derry because of MBTE runoff, they now have to supply water. With regard to hours, you are in a densely populated neighborhood, lot of kids on Old Fort Lane. More safety issues. Makes it worse. Having it close, causes concerns about getting into well, etc.
Patty Shearin – Stark Highway North – Stated she was very much opposed to this plan.
1. Concerned about noise pollution. Suppliers to the store. Nervous about runoff, there is nothing in writing about runoff. Our land is close to Marion Crosby’s and we raise sheep, horses and we have a high water table. Not going to be very hard to get into the water. A convenience store is not an attraction. Can this Town support something this size. This won’t last. Pollution caused by driveway area and is within the residential area. With regard to traffic hazard, elementary children are picked up at their homes. High school students are dropped off at the intersection. This is a hazardous intersection. Would like to hear what Chief Nelson has to say about this. Asked about what if the leach field failed, where would it go.
Attorney Michaels stated if the leach field failed, it would be replaced by professionals and reinstalled and repaired in accordance with State regulations.
Patty Shearin asked the Board to really look at this. Could have a domino effect.
Priscilla Reinertsen – Stated she had lived here 33 ½ years and many of her concerns have been addressed. My adrenalin rushes when I hear proposed changes. Need clarification on several issues. First of all, ATM station. If there is a ATM machine, isn’t this open 24 hours a day. ATM open 24 hour a day will require lighting during darkness period.
Applicant stated lighting will be contained on site. Keeps it on site so at 9:00 p.m. would be the same as 2:00 am.
Priscilla Reinertsen asked about how many gas pumps and number of refueling stations.
Applicant stated there would be four units with 8 fueling positions. (8 cars at a time could be fueled)
Douglas Domin, Old Fort Lane – Against this coming into the area. This is a significant change to our community. Trust is something you want to think about. Often our children ride bikes and people will walk and having an access on our road would have a serious concern. Elementary school children are dropped at their house but high school students would have to walk. Can’t see how this would not have more effect on police services. More remote area and there is the potential for robbery. The Attorney has stated this is something for local people. Is this something we really need? We have all made it so far. Do we need this in our area. There is runoff. Drainage is a concern. I border the fire pond. I trust the Board will weigh all these concerns very carefully.
Brian Naro – Stated they will be selling diesel fuel. Why is there a change. They say pump is at the end of the gas pump at one side. What would prevent an 18 wheeler from coming it, etc. This is the last thing we want here is more traffic. Also is there any other way to pull off, they will be stopping and starting and diesel exhaust coming and going. When I leave, there is a lot of trucks driving by that I think is going to have a bad impact on the area.
George Maskiell, Old Fort Lane – Stated he was vehemently opposed to this project. I am not sure why we were not notified of this proposal. Old Fort Lane Association was not notified. I can’t believe for one second no matter what is said that this will not impact the Molly Stark House property values. No one can convince me of that. The traffic is tremendous now. One of the most screwed up intersections. Drive through is on the wrong side of the street in Goffstown. Going to do the same thing here. Can’t get out now. Got cars pulling in front of us and cars going out and with children standing on the corner. All of these are concerns that have to be really addressed. This is in our backyard.
Scott Harrington – Stated he believes he is the only person present who thinks the community needs something like this. Doesn’t know where else you are going to put this in this community. Not going to impact like people are saying. If anyone wanted to live in the woods, they should live on a back road. I am involved in wildlife and conservation and from what has been said here, the applicant has all the bases covered. There is no potential disaster. That is the end of it for me.
Ron Slocum – Not an abutter but am definitely opposed to this proposal. Lot of misinformation. Getting a different answer. They state there is no toxic or dangerous materials. I must have missed something. What is gasoline and diesel fuel. They say we are not going to draw outside interest. There will be a restaurant and it is going to draw people from other areas unless they plan to serve lousy food and then no one will come. People come down from Weare and Hopkinton. The issue of runoff and pollution must be addressed. You are going to smell gas fumes 24 hours a day. Going to end up in my back yard. We don’t know who the tenants are. Don’t know if we have a mechanism for rules. Traffic is definitely going to be a problem. Board members asked what research have you done on your own. Not just taking someone’s word. Don’t have good information on traffic. Already seeing a conflict. We really don’t know. I came from an area of total development. I moved to Dunbarton because it is a bedroom town. It is only ten minutes to Concord.
Herb Allen – Stated the Molly Stark House is in his wife’s name for estate tax purposes. He was taking pictures of this intersection this morning. This is incredible. Lines of traffic at the intersection. (Presented the Board with copies of pictures, attached) Concerned that our property values will go down. We have done all we can to keep this in a historic fashion. Come all of you and see the home of Molly Stark and where Caleb Stark was born.
Eric Hemphill, Old Fort Lane – Stated there are safety issues to getting off the main road. Children bike up and down this road. We have a lot of accidents at this corner. People come up the hill 50 miles per hour. If one of these tankers comes in and lights up, we will have a problem getting out. I have seen your employees hosing gas off concrete pads at your other station. You talk about a trench drain. What happens in a good rain storm, etc.
Matt Peterson explained the system and stated that this is federally regulated with inspections. There are no hazardous materials which will be in any runoff.
Eric Hemphill stated that employees pour stuff down drains. Could be antifreeze left over could be dumped on the ground. Going to create noise pollution. Can hear squealing of tires, crashes, etc. We are going to smell gas. People who don’t live there don’t care. Going to increase traffic and trucks. People with large trucks are going to say, we don’t have to go to Concord for gas, etc. Will be a nuisance.
Norma Jones, Old Fort Lane – The slope of the land does run down hill and right down to my pond. I belong to the Garden Club and we do the little island in the center of the entrance to Old Fort Lane with flowers, etc. I have civic pride. The little island will have to go if we have an access for trucks from Old Fort Lane.
Richard Schaeffer – Said he moved to Dunbarton three years ago, and I really feel this would be a turn for the worse for us. I work for the Post Office but don’t let that scare you. This is the seed for other commercial development to start.
Judy Desousa – Stated she moved to Dunbarton because there is nothing out here. She said she has friends who have asked her, why did you move way out there. Because there is nothing. Then they come to visit and think it is pretty nice. I live close enough to Concord, etc. We don’t know who could buy this property down the road.
George Holt, Dunbarton Conservation Commission –Stated the Conservation Commission main concerns for this proposal are relative to surface water runoff before any decisions are made.
Tom Cusano – Stated he has listened to a lot of argument pro business but understand the rules and regulations and how the law works. There is a Town Plan. This is not something you can change later. I think it is very clear that the Board can grant a Special Exception. The Board should apply the following standards. No detriment to property values, etc. That value was the house when already built. But the zoning is to protect the rights of the property owners. If it is not allowed by the Ordinance, it could be if it diminishes property values, therefore you cannot legally grant the permit. I see that you have two choices, you can deny it outright tonight because it doesn’t meet the requirements, or you can wait a month when we have had a few days more to gather information.
John Millian – Have enjoyed the peace and quiet out there. We have five or six cars a day and am concerned that if you get a Dunkin Doughnuts, people will circle around our street and throw containers and rubbish out and traffic will be increased. There will be lots of lines of traffic.
Alison Vallieres – Read a statement to the record. Stated she would be stepping down from the Board on this issue and will not vote. (attached)
Sue Majewski, Stark Highway North – Stated that some of these services are needed in this Town. You should at least let the applicants respond and allow the Board to consider the whole picture.
Attorney David Craig – I just looked through previous granted Special Exception and it has 26 parking spaces. The applicant has 55 spaces but the previous plan calls for no on site gas pumps or diesel fuel on site. The previous plan shown at the Planning Board said they would not sell diesel fuel. The Dunbarton Zoning Board would overlap requirements with the Site Plan Review done by the Planning Board. If the plan changes standards, the Board of Adjustment must review its original approval, etc.
Karen Gincott, Old Fort Lane – Stated she had not lived here 55 years but she owns property surrounding the entire property. She owns down to the fire pond on Jewett Road and directly in back of the proposed convenience store and so the runoff has to go across her property in order to get to the fire pond. This community has changed and she has been here 6 or 7 years. I don’t want to have a house next to a gas station. (She pointed out where she had a nice back window) lights are going to be shining into my home across where my TV is from 5 am to 11 pm. The other concern I have is that they will move all this to the back of the building. What are they going to do about the greenery in the back. My trees go up 15 – 18 feet before there is any foliage, they are just sticks. They are very open and I can see the gravel pit. Don’t want to live next to a gas station and that is not what the original Special Exception was. My realtor told me.
Matt Yanosich – Stated that he remembers when a gasoline tanker shut down Route 111. We have one way in and one way out. No safety provisions. Do we widen the road. What happens if something happens. Is our Fire Department going to be able to handle our situation.
Alliance Energy – Stated that he was aware of the shutdown of Route 111. In this case, the tanker can be restricted to the area for trucks, etc.
Mark Lanham – Asked about sound decibels.
Matt Peterson – Stated that it would be no more than 49 decibels @ 35 foot distance. Would be similar to quiet speech which would be 25-35 decibels at 3 – 5 feet away.
Ron Slocum – Asked question about how we address all the process.
The Board explained that the Zoning Board would either grant or deny the Request for a Special Exception. If granted, the request then goes to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review.
Attorney Michaels – Stated that the Planning Board and the Zoning Board have overlapping duties. This is certainly the prerogative of the Town. He stated he would request that this matter be tabled until such time as the applicant comes up with further information.. Stated this is also confusing to the applicant as to which issues he should be addressing with the Zoning Board and which with the Planning Board.
George Maskiell – Stated his concern is that if all the concerns that are raised tonight are addressed, can they build this. I have spent a lot of years and one thing I have learned is don’t try to force people something they don’t want. We don’t need this kind of project in this Town. I resent someone telling me that I need a ATM machine. No one needs this in Town. Had a Mister Mike where previous lived and it caused congestion. There is no one in this room that needs a Dunkin Doughnut.
Brian Naro – Asked about the traffic study. Have you counted the total number of accidents at Pages Corner. What is the number of traffic violations issued. Last year our Fire Department had a record number of calls and I can see this adding to that.
John Van – Stated that Mr. Thorne is not the owner of the property, he is just applying for the Special Exception. The original Special Exception was granted to Mr. Rabbia. It was noted there is a letter in the file giving authorization for Thomas Thorne to apply for the Special Exception on behalf of Mr. Rabbia.(In addition, Mr. Rabbia was present)
Sherry Pill, Old Fort Lane – Stated there would enough of a chance to talk later at the next meeting. Said she would like to request from the applicant, a picture of what this would look like from the road. It will look different when you put gas pumps in front of the building. Would also like to see the elevation shown in the pictures.
Brian Naro – Stated he would like to see what it would look like from Old Fort Lane.
Douglas Domin – Asked how this will proceed. It was explained that it has to be voted on by the Zoning Board and if approved then goes to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review.
Alliance Energy – Stated why the diesel fuel was added to the plan. He stated that certain oil companies have requirements of what has to be sold. Mobil has a requirement that there be three types of gasoline and include diesel fuel.
George Maskiell stated that he was the President of Old Fort Estates Association and wanted to be notified of the next meeting. His address is 61 Old Fort Lane, Dunbarton, NH 03046.
John Trottier – Stated he would like to go over requirements with the Planning Board.
MOTION:
John Herlihy made a motion
that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment continue the Public Hearing for
the request for a Special Exception from Thomas Thorne (Salvatore V. Rabbia
Lot) to allow him to construct a gas station, retail store and an eating and
drinking establishment at Route 77 and Old Fort Road in the Manufactured
Housing District in Dunbarton, NH. The
motion was seconded by John Van. The
motion passed unanimously.
It was noted for the record
that the next meeting will be held on Monday, February 11, 2002 at the
Dunbarton Town Offices.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Allen Gifford, 10 Stark Lane (former Richard Cote house) appeared before the Board and stated he wanted to put in a mother-in-law apartment. He stated he owned two separate lots, one acre each.
The Board informed him he would need a Variance because of insufficient acreage and a Special Exception for a in-law apartment.
They informed him they could not make a judgment as to whether it would be approved or not, but that Variances were very difficult to obtain.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alison R. Vallieres, Secretary