DUNBARTON ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT
MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2003
TOWN OFFICES – 7:00 PM
The regular monthly meeting of the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment was held at the above time, date and place with Chairman John Trottier presiding. The following members were present:
John Trottier, Chairman
John Herlihy, Vice Chairman
Alison Vallieres, Secretary
David Nault
Gertrude Dulude
Ron Slocum, Alternate
John Van, Alternate
The
Chairman verified with the Secretary that the meeting public notice had been
posted in a timely fashion according to State Law in three public places
throughout the Town and published in the Concord Monitor for one day only.
David
Nault noted there was a spelling error on Page 1, next to the last paragraph
and the word from should be changed to for in the sentence as
follows: “David Nault – Thanked US
Cellular for running the three balloon test on August 25 and 26,
2003.”
John Herlihy made a motion that the minutes be approved as amended. David Nault seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
John Trottier stated the
following members would be voting members this evening:
John Trottier
John Herlihy
Alison Vallieres
David Nault
Gertrude Dulude
7:00
PM – REQUEST FROM STEVEN COHEN, 115 LONG POND ROAD, DUNBARTON, NH AND FIVE
RIVERS CONSERVATION TRUST, 54 PORTSMOUTH STREET, CONCORD, NH FOR A REHEARING
REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 4, SECTION G. 1 OF THE WETLANDS
CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO ALLOW GARY KING TO PUT A STRUCTURE CLOSER THAN 125
FEET FROM THE WETLANDS DISTRICT ON HIS PROPERTY LOCATED ON 1175 BLACK BROOK
ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
BOARD
DISCUSSION:
The Board noted they had reviewed the Wetlands Conservation District requirements and felt that Section G. Item 4 specifically stated that additions and/or extensions to single family dwellings may be permitted within the Wetland Conservation District provided that the dwelling lawfully existed prior to the effective date of this Ordinance and all other local, state, and federal requirements are met. A motion was made to that effect.
The Board noted that Mr. King’s home had been built in 1978 and the Wetlands Ordinance was enacted in 1990.
Because
of this, the Board had voted that Gary King did not need a Variance to the
Wetlands Conservation District and voted accordingly.
Mr.
Cohen and Five Rivers Conservation are stating that the Ordinance referred to
in Article 4. relates to the entire Zoning Ordinance which was passed in 1970
and not specifically the Wetlands Conservation Districts which was passed in
1990.
The
Board agreed there was a difference of opinion on the interpretation of the
existing Ordinance.
David
Nault stated the Wetlands Section was not within the Ordinance in 1970.
John
Herlihy stated the way he understood it, the Zoning Ordinance was passed on
March 10, 1970. There have been 13
administrative updates and the Wetlands Section came in 1990. The structure was built in 1978 and does not
comply with the Wetlands Ordinance. He
stated he felt that was a reasonable use of the land to allow Mr. King to put
on an addition. The Wetlands District
was inserted after his house was built.
Alison
Vallieres stated that the house would not have been allowed to have been built
if it fell under the Wetlands Ordinance.
There are lots of other areas within the Town that fall within the
Wetlands Conservation District, the largest being Gorham Pond. There are many, many houses within that
District also and Variances for additions and changes are made to these
properties.
John
Van – Stated you have to move forward.
Ron
Slocum – Playing the “Devil’s Advocate”.
If a house which was built prior to Zoning in 1970 is closer than the
allowed setback, they still have to seek a Variance to put an addition on the
property. Just because the house was
there prior to Zoning, does not give them the right to put an addition on which
is closer than the present required setback.
These people have to seek a Variance from the Zoning Board.
David
Nault – Stated it seems almost like Article 4. was written because of these
type of issues.
John
Trottier – Stated there is a difference of opinion on the interpretation of the
Ordinance. This is a request for a
rehearing.
Margaret
Watkins asked if the Board had received the communication from Larry Cook,
Conservation Commission. Alison
Vallieres stated they had and she had distributed it to the members. (attached)
Steve
Duggan, Town Counsel, stated that the Ordinance can be interpreted either
way. With the rehearing, it is up to the
applicant to prove to the Board what the correct interpretation is.
MOTION:
John
Trottier made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment grant
Steven Cohen and Five Rivers a rehearing regarding the request for a Variance
to Article 5, Section G. 1 of the Wetlands Conservation District to allow Gary
King to put a structure closer than 125 feet from the Wetlands District on his
property located on 1175 Black Brook Road in the Low Density District in
Dunbarton, NH. Alison Vallieres seconded
the motion. The motion passed by a
majority with the following vote:
Yes – John Trottier
Yes – Gertrude Dulude
Yes – Alison Vallieres
No – John Herlihy
The Gary King Request will be scheduled for a rehearing on November 10, 2003.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR A VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 4, SECTION B. OF THE DUNBARTON ZONING ORDINANCE FROM US CELLULAR ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERS, RICHARD AND NICOLETTE HECK (C3-5-7) TO ALLOW THEM TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 180 FOOT FREE STANDING TOWER WITH 12 PANEL ANTENNA AND A 12’ X 20’ GROUND EQUIPMENT BUILDING AT THEIR PROPERTY ON 12 POWELL LANE IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
Attorney Steve Grill appeared before the Board. He noted that Kenneth Kozyra would not be able to attend this hearing. Attorney Grill presented the Board with the following documents in response to requests from the Board at the previous meeting:
1.
Artificial Tree Study
2.
Other Sites Search including town properties
3.
Sales Analysis regarding Property Values
4.
Study of the Impact of Telecommunication Towers on Real Estate Values
of Surrounding Properties
5.
Study Showing Coverage from Surrounding Sites and Proposed Site,
etc.
(The above documents are on file at the Dunbarton Town Office for public review as an appendix to these minutes)
Dan Goulet, U. S. Cellular, explained the coverage
maps to the Board.
He stated that using
the church would not give the coverage they need. In addition, SBA Tower would not provide
coverage required to connect to existing sites to the south.
D. Nault stated he thought the coverage looked
pretty good at 120 feet. Evidently, the
goal is to provide complete coverage.
Ron Slocum asked the applicants to explain several
issues of the coverage maps in that different colors were over-laid over each
other making it confusing to read. Dan
Goulet explained how the system worked and apologized for the confusion. Stated he will redo maps to make them more
user friendly.
Alison Vallieres asked if US Cellular could provide
maps of “Coverage from Surrounding Sites and Proposed Hecker Property at 100
feet, 120 feet, 150 feet and 180 feet” with a percentage of coverage. This is really what we need to know. What will the difference be between these
heights as to coverage?
Dan Goulet, U. S. Cellular, explained how the
calibrations were done in response to a request from a member of the public at
the previous meeting.
At this point in the public hearing, John Trottier
asked Attorney Grill to respond to the letter from Kenneth Kozyra stating they
were declining to pay for the ad which was run in the Bow Times to advertise
the flying of the balloons on August 25 and 26.
Attorney Grill stated he will discuss it with K. Kozyra and work it
out.
MOTION:
John Trottier made a motion that the Dunbarton
Zoning Board of Adjustment continue the public hearing for a Request for a
Variance to Article 4, Section B. of the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance from US
Cellular on behalf of the owners, Richard and Nicolette Hecker (C3-5-7) to
allow them to construct and operate a 180 foot free standing tower with 12
panel antenna and a 12’ x 20’ ground equipment building at their property on 12
Powell Lane in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH until November 10,
2003. The motion was seconded by John
Herlihy. The motion passed unanimously.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL
ESCEPTION FOR A PLOANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) ARTICLE 6 OF THE
DUNBARTON ZONING ORDINANCE FROM LOUIS AND ANNA CHAN (H5-1-1) TO ALLOW THEM TO
SUBDIVIDE A LOT INTO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CREATING 9 NEW HOUSE LOTS, ONE
EXISTING HOUSE LOT AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT FOR A TOTAL OF ELEVEN (11) LOTS AT
THEIR PROPERTY LOCATED ON GILE HILL ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN
DUNBARTON, NH
At this point, John Van stepped down from the Board
because of a conflict of interest.
Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, and the Chans appeared
before the Board with a plan showing the proposed PRD. The proposed lot sizes were all over 2.5
acres and frontages were 250 feet or more.
There will be 7.7 acres remaining with the existing Chan house.
John Trottier asked for a plan showing a
conventional subdivision and that the same number of lots could be put on the
property as requested for the PRD.
At this point, Jacques Belanger stated he did not
have the map with him but would provide it later in the evening. The total acreage of the property is 76.29
acres with 60.29 acres as developable land, with 1.62 acres used for the
roadway.
Jacques noted that the Chan’s have agreed to set
aside the old granite foundation in a separate area and give it to the Town.
John Trottier asked what improvements will be made
to Gile Hill Road as required by the Selectmen.
Jacques Belanger stated he had spoken with the Selectmen and they had
done a site walk. He understood they
felt the road should only be 14 to 18 feet wide traveled way with improvements,
but not paved. Margaret Watkins had gone
on the site walk and wanted the road to only be 14-16 feet wide. He stated there was no mention of this
discussion in the Selectmen’s minutes.
Chuck Graybill had stated that he did not feel it was time for the
Selectmen to make a decision on the road improvements until the Zoning Board
approved the PRD.
The Zoning Board asked how can they approve a PRD on
a Class VI road.
Jacques Belanger stated the Chan’s are ready to
“step up to the plate” and improve the road as needed.
K. Swayze stated a subdivision needs to be on a
Class V Road and they can’t get any building permits until it is. The Planning Board will be asking for as
formable upgrade as possible. He noted
the road is a two rod road, being 33 feet wide to work within. He stated that a 14’ wide road was not going
to work in this case. Stated he knew the
Planning Board would be doing some sort of consensus but this is a Planning
Board issue.
The public hearing was continued until later in the
meeting to allow Jacques Belanger to provide a conventional subdivision map to
the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR A REQUEST FROM MICHEL BELANGER FOR TWO VARIANCES (ONE FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT) TO ARTICLE 4, SECTION B. TO COMMIT TWO TRACTS (J1-2-5) AND (I1-3-1) TO BE INDIVIDUAL BUILDING LOTS, NOT TO BE SUBDIVIDED FURTHER, WITH LESS THAN 300 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON A CLASS V ROAD AT HIS PROPERTY LOCATED ON SOUTH HOPKINTON ROAD AND NEW ROAD IN THE MANUFACTURED HOUSING DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
At this point in the meeting, John Van stepped back
to the Board.
Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, presented a plan to the
Board showing the two proposed lots with proposed house locations and septic
systems.
Jacques Belanger stated that he and his partner are
considering purchasing the 42.46 acre lot and would be cleaning up the
property. Will be only one house on the
property. Will work the gravel pit and
reclaim the pit once finished.
John Herlihy asked if he would be willing to commit to giving Mrs. Palys a right of way over the property to hers.
Jacques stated he would be willing to do this. He stated he would be removing all the
vehicles from the property.
Ron Slocum noted that the driveway would have to be
able to support haulers of gravel, etc. because it will be an active gravel
pit.
Kenneth Swayze cautioned the Board that the
applicant (Michel Belanger) has a poor track record with the Town and there are
many issues associated with this property.
Stated there were also environmental issues to be dealt with. Would suggest that before any action is taken,
the Board check with the Selectmen and Town Counsel. He would suggest the Board table the request
until such time as he was able to get together with Town Counsel and work out
conditions that must be addressed.
The Board agreed with this and requested that all legal costs for this be paid for by Michel Belanger prior to having the plan approved, etc.
The Board agreed that they would like to act on both
requests at the same time as an entire package.
The Board noted they would like to go on a site walk
with the Building Inspector prior to acting on this request. No date or time was set.
Abutters:
No abutters were present with the exception of
Barbara Palys. She had no comments at
this time.
Other members of the public:
Margaret Watkins – Stated she thought this was
probably a good idea. The question is
could someone with a large lot in the future get two lot with only 200 foot frontage as long as you permit
this. How much land do you have to have
to get a Variance for frontage? The Town
needs to get something out of this. I
would ask Ken to talk to Town Counsel as to whether a deed restriction is
sufficient to protect the lot from being further subdivided. Who administers it? What authority do we have over the deed
restriction? The Town should look at a
Conservation Easement on the property.
K. Swayze stated he was sure the Deed Restriction
would be binding. He was told just this
week that the land could not be further developed with the deed
restriction.
Margaret Watkins – Stated she would like to see the
land have public access.
John Trottier asked Margaret Watkins that as a
member of the Conservation Commission, do you want to access this
property.
MOTION:
John Herlihy made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning
Board continue the Public Hearing for a request from Michel Belanger for two
Variances (one for each individual lot) to Article 4, Section B. to commit two
tracts (J1-2-5) and I1-3-1) to be individual building lots, not to be
subdivided further, with less than 300 feet of frontage on a Class V Road at
his property located on South Hopkinton Road and New Road in the Manufactured
Housing District in Dunbarton, NH until the next meeting to be held on Monday,
November 10, 2003. The motion was
seconded by John Trottier. The motion
passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR A REQUEST FROM REDML DEVELOPMENT,
LLC (ROBERT AND DOROTHY PERRY) FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ARTICLE 4 AND 6 OF
THE DUNBARTON ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THEM TO CONSTRUCT FOUR BUILDINGS
CONSISTING OF 16 CONDOMINIUM UNITS OF A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR
ADULT HOUSING AT THEIR PROPERTY ON MORSE ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN
DUNBARTON, NH
At this point in the meeting, John Herlihy stepped
down because of a conflict of interest.
Carol Willoughby of McNichols and Willoughy appeared
before the Board on behalf of the proposal.
She introduced Casey Hayes from Eric Mitchell who was the
surveyor/engineer on the proposal.
Mr. Hayes presented a sketch showing the proposed
building and what it would look like. It
was a two story.
She stated they were proposing four buildings of
four units in each building to be condominiums for adults over 55 years of
age. The property consists of 51+ acres
of land located on Morse Road.
She stated this proposal has been before the
Planning Board for several months as a Site Plan Review. She stated that the engineering companies had
changed and the new company agreed that the proposal should be before the
Zoning Board of Adjustment as a Special Exception for a PRD. She stated she would address the questions
necessary for the granting of a Special Exception as follows:
a.
No detriment to property values in the vicinity of the proposed
development will result on account of: the location or scale of buildings,
structures, parking areas or other accessways; the emission of odors, smoke,
gas, dust, noise, glare, heat, vibration, or other pollutants; or the unsightly
outdoor storage of equipment, vehicles or other materials.
Answer:
Stated the proposal gives you a good impression. It is a nice design, colonial in character
which would fit in with the rural historic nature of the Town. This type of project would not be a detriment
to property values in the neighborhood. In some instances, they are a benefit. Owners tend to be a “empty nester”. Will be well kept, condo documents provide
for that. Closest abutter is 1500 feet
from any of the improvements. Condo
documents address outdoor storage, parking and residential use. This has no more impact than any other
residential use.
b. No hazard will be caused to
the public or adjacent property on account of potential fire, explosion or
release of toxic materials.
Answer: This
is a residential use. There is a large
area between the structures and the abutters.
It meets all fire and building codes.
The condo documents explain what type of uses you can and can’t have
within the condos, etc.
c.
No creation of a traffic safety hazard or substantial traffic
congestion in the vicinity of the proposed development.
Answer: 55
and older residents have fewer vehicles per household than regular
residential. Chief Nelson had no public
safety concerns to this use.
d. No excessive demand on
municipal services and facilities, including, but not limited to waste disposal,
police and fire protection and schools.
Answer:
Police Chief Nelson reviewed the project and found there would be no
significant impact on his department.
Would be “empty nesters” with no children in school. There would be no greater impact on the Town
then any other residential use.
e.
The proposed use will not result in the degradation of existing surface
and groundwater water quality standards, nor will it have adverse effects on
the natural functions of wetlands on the site which would result in the loss of
significant habitat or flood control protection.
Answer: The
improvements are located so as to not impact any wetlands. There are fewer wells and septic systems than
conventional housing. There will be less
impact on the aquifer.
f.
In addition to the standards specified above, special exceptions may be
subject to appropriate conditions including the following:
(1) Front, side, or rear yards
in excess of the minimum requirements of the Ordinance;
Applicants stated they have gone through two regular
meetings of the Planning Board for Site Plan Review and have addressed these
issues as well. The Planning Board has
been looking at the proposal.
(2) Screening of the premises
from the street or adjacent property by walls, fences, or other devices:
Answer: This
is a heavily wooded area.
(3) Limitations on the size of
buildings and other structures more stringent than minimum or maximum
requirements of this Ordinance;
Answer:
Proposing a Lot Line Adjustment which is presently before the Planning
Board.
(4) Limitations on the number of
occupants and methods and times of operation;
Ron Slocum asked if they would be presenting a real
estate study showing there would be no impact of property values caused by the
development.
The applicants stated they had presented this to the
Planning Board.
The Board noted that it was up to the applicants to
present condo documents and real estate studies to the Zoning Board also.
Carol Willoughby stated that the estimate for
vehicles per unit was 1.3 which is considerably less than conventional housing
developments.
John Trottier asked what flood control measures
would be in place. How is the drainage
going to be handled?
The applicants stated that drainage is being worked
on by Site Plan Review Process. They are
awaiting a Site Specific Approval with regard to drainage issues, etc.
David Nault – Asked if there was any open space land
proposed. Will the land be in Current
Use? Not in Current Use at this
time. Stated the Board needs to have
signed authorization that you are authorized to act on their behalf.
The applicants stated there would be a common area
for the residents of the development but not opened to the public as such.
Ron Slocum asked he had a general question. How could this have happened in that the
Zoning Board did not hear the appeal for a Special Exception until now? How come?
Who made the decision?
Abutters were read as follows and noted that all had
been notified by certified mail:
Josephine Dailey – Not Present
Paul Belyear – Not Present
David/Justyn Constant – Present. I ask myself,
Why am I here? This kind of
impact to our road is a pretty large increase.
The road has no shoulders. People
are flying down that road now. This is
an impact to this area. It is a
hazard. Don’t think the conditions are
acceptable. This is not part of the
community. 55 or older to me is a family
of four. You have limits on cars. Can that neighborhood handle the
proposal. This great ledge/wall they are
proposing. Our Town will have to
maintain that. Fire Department and
Police Department will have to be there more often. This is a Low Density District. There is nothing low about this. What is the sense of having a Planning
Board. Laws are made to be broken. You allow this, you allow everything. You are not going to be able to stop it. You can’t stop one without the other. That lot is too small. This is “bullshit”. Looking at that 50 acres, that was an
undevelopable lot. It is out of control
and you guys can’t keep up with it.
Daniel/Kathleen Labonville – Present. Stated his property is going to be the most
effected by this development. My house
is 800 feet from the development. Every
car that comes down that hill, I will see their headlights. When I purchased my property, I was told
there was an unbuildable lot behind me.
I would never have purchased my property if I knew this was going to
happen. I learned in the Planning Board
requirements there is no protection to my property. 55 years old and older will require more Fire
Department calls and will cause an impact on the emergency services of this
Town. Just not right for the area. Already have two multi-family units in close
proximity. This is a bad idea. Would rather see a couple of single family
homes there.
Nathan J. Narus – Not Present
Richard/Catherine Racca - Not Present
David/Theresa Glannon – Not Present
Steven/Karen Elsasser –Present. Said the other two fellows have said
everything that he would have said.
These people said 1.3 cars per unit, then how come there are three
parking spots per unit. If there is
going to be no traffic how come 3 spaces per unit. No way you can keep kids from moving in
there. There are no shoulders on that
road. Can’t see how this can go in
there.
Rudolf/Elizabeth Vallauri – Present. Stated the proposed complex is right behind
his house. 150 feet from his property
line. The four unit across from my house
has had water problems. With 16 units
behind me, what about my water? What is
the Town going to do if I run out of water?
This doesn’t seem to fit in with the area. Too far from the Fire House. Maybe I should turn my house into a Drug
Store. We are living in the
country. We don’t have 16 units in the
center of Town. Why don’t they put them
in Town across from the Fire House.
Robert/Denise Perry, II – Present (applicants)
Michael Petito – Not Present
David/Beth Sedita – Not Present
David Wheeler – Not Present
Eric Mitchell & Associates – (Engineering firm
for the applicant)
Schauer Environmental Consultants – (Wetlands
Engineering for the applicant)
Charles Cote – (Electrical Engineers for the
applicant)
Michie Corporation – (Contractor for the applicant)
Other Members of the Public:
Paul Bruzga – Stated
he was close to being an abutter to the property. These are a few of the issues that I went to
the Planning Board with. In 1977 or
1978, Robert Perry came to the Planning Board and subdivided out 8 lots of
land. He stated the remaining lot would
not be further developed. I personally
asked that can this be in writing. I
understand that this was a deal or contract.
The minutes are available and that is what they show. He owns a parcel of land right next to
this. These lots could be merged because
they are both substandard lots. If an
owner owns two pieces of property and one is substandard, why can’t they be
merged into one piece of property. I
understand you have the power to grant the Special Exception. Am concerned about what is being applied
for. I agree that it is a Low Density
Area. Sixteen units going up in a very
tight area and next someone else will want to put 16 more units in. Water is flowing over the Perry property
running over unto the Labonville property.
Most of the time you (Perrys) have a problem with septic systems. I know of no system that has not failed that
Mr. Perry put in. Mr. Vallauri’s
failed. The four unit apartment system
failed twice and had to be put back in twice.
The neighbors don’t want this to happen any further. You have the power to increase the front and
side set backs. Should be four times the
frontage and move it away from Labonville Property. He is concerned about the water supply and
septic. In summary, I am totally opposed
to it. I don’t believe it has any place
in Town.
David Constant – If anyone has worked around there,
the wetlands change there. In the
spring, it is unbelievably wet up there.
Water from there contributes to waterfalls in the area. You should get someone from Wetlands there to
look. If you go up in the fall, things
look different than in the spring. In
the spring there is standing water all over.
Lots of water coming off that hill.
Daniel Labonville – Stated he circulated a petition
consisting of 50 signatures opposing this development. He presented it to the Planning Board. It is part of their record. The people in the area don’t want this kind
of development. Submitted a letter
stating that the development would have a negative affect on the marketability
and value to their property. (attached)
John Trottier noted the Board would like to know the
impact of the development on Morse Road.
Has a traffic study been done. We
need you to assure us there is no creation of a safety hazard.
The applicants stated they had done several site
visits with the Planning Board and the Road Agent. The majority of the development is in the
back lot. Morse Road is a Class V Town
maintained road. The Road agent didn’t
have any issues with this.
Ron Slocum – Asked about the Lot Line Adjustment and
where it stood. How will you be
addressing Mr. Labonville’s concerns about lights coming down the hill to his
property. What about a Gentlemen’s
agreement to plant trees, etc. What
about Mr. Vallauri’s well?
Applicants stated the Lot Line Adjustment is in
process and they are working on it with the neighbor.
Paul Bruzga – Stated this is a substandard lot. That was my understanding when he (Perry) subdivided the lot. The Planning Board made a big mistake by
allowing that lot to exist because it was a lot without 300 feet of
frontage. You have in the Zoning
Ordinance, a clause relative to substandard lots. The two lots should be merged to make one
lot. I can’t think why this would not be required. That is a substandard lot. He said it would be a back lot and not
developed in the future. There was no
mention of coming in the future for 16 additional units.
John Trottier
- He has got to go back and show us what he can physically put on that
lot. He needs 44 acres of land for four
units, 11 acres for each unit. He is
going to have some slopes greater than 33%.
Not just a rubber stamp. He has
got to prove it.
Paul Bruzga – You are saying he needs to have 44
acres of buildable land. Who has the
enforcement power to say no? The Town
can apply the Zoning regulations on the books and they can be modified. Who has the right to go to court to enforce
the condo rules. The individual condo
owners could vote and change the rules if they wanted to or someone could buy
it and own all the units. It sounds good
to have 55 and older but the owners can change their bylaws.
Carol Willoughby stated it wasn’t that easy to change the
bylaws. You have to have 2/3 or ¾ of the
vote to change. The condo documents state
that 66 2/3 votes of the units to change bylaws. Any changes to the condo document has to be
finalized with the Planning Board. The
owners association has standing. As far
as changing has to also go through 66 2/3 of any mortgage holders.
Paul Bruzga asked what limits as to the number of people
living in the units. It is up to the
Town to address this accordingly.
David Nault – Asked if there has been any
consideration in providing an easement to the Town so the Town people can
access this property.
Answer: There
presently is no public access point but would consider liability, etc. before
granting easement.
MOTION:
John Trottier made a motion that the Dunbarton
Zoning Board of Adjustment continue the Public Hearing until the November 10
meeting for the Request from REDML Development, LLC (Robert and Dorothy Perry)
for a Special Exception to Article 4 and 6 of the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance to
allow them to construct four buildings consisting of 16 condominium units of a
Planned Residential Development for Adult Housing at their property on Morse
Road in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH. John Van seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT FROM LOUIS AND ANNA CHAN
At this point in the meeting, John Herlihy came back
to the Board.
At this point in the meeting, John Van stepped down
from the Board because of a conflict of interest.
Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, presented a conceptual
plan showing a conventional subdivision of the Chan property and that twelve
lots was possible on the lot. The length
of the proposed road would be 2,700 feet which would be 1,000 feet more than
the proposed PRD. The proposed culdasac
was in conformance with the Town Standard and consistent with what the Planning
Board has been asking for.
David Nault stated he had much rather see the open
space.
Abutters:
Steve Brennan – Stated that Gile Hill Road is a
“shit” road. It is not going to get any
better. Town has been doing the
“Dunbarton Dance” regarding Gile Hill Road.
Members of the Board were reluctant to consider a
PRD which accessed onto a road which would not have sufficient
improvements.
MOTION:
John Trottier made a motion that the Dunbarton
Zoning Board of Adjustment continue the Public Hearing until the November
meeting for the Request for a Special Exception for a Planned Residential
Development (PRD), Article 6 of the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance from Louis and
Anna Chan (H5-1-1) to allow them to subdivide a lot into a Planned Unit
Development creating 9 new house lots, one existing house lot and one open
space lot for a total of eleven (11) lots at their property located on Gile
Hill Road in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH. The motion was seconded and passed
unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS:
John Trottier read a letter he had received from a
party who was requesting information re in-law accessory apartments. He was advised by the members to send the
party a copy of the Zoning Ordinance.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned
at 11:20 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Alison
R. Vallieres, Secretary