DUNBARTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2003

TOWN OFFICES – 7:00 P.M.

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 R. Vallieres, Secretary

Gertrude Dulude

David Nault

John Van, Alternate

Ron Slocum, Alternate

The Chairman verified with the Secretary that the meeting 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.

Approval of Previous Month’s Meeting Minutes: August 11, 2003

A motion was made by Gertrude Dulude, seconded by John Herlihy to approve the previous month’s minutes of August 11, 2003 as written. The motion passed unanimously.

7:00 P.M. – CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR A VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 4, SECTION B. OF THE DUNBARTON ZONING ORDINANCE FROM U. S. 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

Kenneth Kozyra, Agent for US Cellular and Attorney Steven Grill, of Devine Millimet & Branch of Manchester NH appeared before the Board on behalf of US Cellular.

The Board asked the applicant how many other carriers could be on the proposed tower.

Answer: Up to six other carriers including US Cellular.

At this point in the public hearing, Chairman John Trottier stated he was going to allow comments from the public first in keeping with public comments from the last meeting that the public only gets to speak after US Cellular etc. and it is very late in the evening. Some public had even left the meeting prior to the public comment session last month.

General Public:

Mike Shearin – Stated he had read the minutes of the previous meeting from the Web Page and was up to date on the progress of the application. Was here on behalf of the Dunbarton Congregational Church.

David Nault – Thanked US Cellular from running the three balloon test on August 25 and 26, 2003.

Ken Alton – Stated that part of the things that US Cellular has said is that you need cell service in this town. There are over 2000 acres of Town owned land that the tower could be put on with revenue going to the town. There is no need for cell service. See a want for it but no need. Presented a map of Dunbarton showing town owned land in the Kimball Pond area. (attached) In addition, there are other Conservation properties throughout the town. There are many other large landowners in the area also, Hank Burnham 300 acres, Swindlehurst over 200 acres, K. Alton 100 acres, etc. The Town presently has 18,000 acres of coverage. My deer and turkeys weren’t asking for cell towers. They are going to start adding “ears” all over the cell tower. Just look at the tower on Route 114. Presented picture of tower on Route 114 which he took. (attached) You say you can’t stop the tower because of the view, etc. You can.

K. Kozyra asked that all comments and questions be directed through the Chair.

K. Alton presented a Map Quest map (attached) of the Grand Canyon Area out west and stated that in National Park Areas, there are no cell towers impeding the view i.e. Grand Canyon, etc. .Yellowstone is the same way. 5 million people visit there. There is no need for a cell tower in this town. Also presented a list of cell towers showing their heights in the National Park Area. (attached)

K. Alton also stated he was not sure what will happen to property values in the area of the tower.

Margaret Watkins – Stated she had a number of concerns. Don’t believe they have established this is necessary. There is coverage there now but not to the maximum at my house. My sense is that this is more about providing leasing in the future. 60% coverage is not worth it. When they start adding “ears” on to it, it will look quite different. This is a poor precedent to be setting in this town. I don’t know what the laws are but we will have said it is okay to build a 180 foot tower anywhere in this Town. I think there are other places where you could get coverage in this town. There is a flag pole and a church in the Center of town. In Italy, cell towers are put in flag poles and churches. May not be able to share with other people. That is the purpose, to provide service. The way it is now, we get nothing from this. The Police Service is not ready for this. We need to look closely at the precedent we will be setting.

John Swindlehurst – Stated he was in opposition. Said US Cellular wanted to put it in back of his property but he did not want it. Stated his land borders the proposed facility on two sides and once they clear out and build a fence, etc. it will look different. There are about three trees 10” DBH on the north and five trees on the east side remaining. The remaining forest will be small growth etc. My timber will be taken down. The day you flew the balloons, the wind was blowing. I don’t think we were getting all the height. I don’t have a cell phone. Never could find a carrier that worked. Don’t really see the need for this. 180 feet is not necessary. Could be 20 feet above the surrounding trees. I would rather see more towers at a lower height than 180 feet. Since we don’t have an ordinance, so consequently we would have to give equal height for other towers. That means they can put a 180 foot tower in someone’s else’s back yard but might not be the same company. I think you are going to have problems refusing others if you grant this one. They want to make this a commercial area by subletting to other carriers after putting the tower up.

Mike Shearin – I would hope the applicant would address other areas in Town. Here on behalf of the Dunbarton Congregational Church. They would be interested in having the cell tower in the steeple of the church. Have spoken with Verizon in the past. Don’t understand the technologies but Verizon never got back to the church. US Cellular is like most companies. Would like to know what the projected revenue is for that tower site and lease income versus output. What is income to US Cellular for this site? How does this site compare to other sites in other towns as opposed to the Town of Dunbarton?

K. Kozyra – Stated that revenue is proprietary information and could not be divulged. Any revenue generation is private information. Stated the law says you have to let us close the gap in coverage.

M. Shearin – Stated he was interested in how this was going to benefit Dunbarton residents.

Attorney Steven Grill – Stated that Federal Law states that once a carrier indicates a significant gap in coverage, then that area has an obligation to reasonable closure of the gap. Reasonable people can disagree about what is reasonable, etc. Works sort of both ways. Don’t think we have to say we are going to close the entire gap. Not really sure what the point is. We get some service from other sites. Most of the Town has no coverage. This facility covers 44% of the Town.

Ken Alton – Asked when the original SBA Tower was put up.

John Herlihy stated it was there in 1985 when he moved in Town. Was originally a microwave tower. Things have changed. Was given a permit by a previous Building Inspector to increase the height. How about changing the use to a cell tower? Now everyone wants to have two carriers on towers.

Margaret Watkins – Asked about what is significant coverage? Would like definition of how much the 180 foot tower will cover. They say 42%, that is not even half of the town. How do you define coverage? This is just a foot in the door, there will be more and higher towers.

Swindlehurst – Stated the SBA Tower was originally put there because of a Presidential Election Coverage etc.

Applicant’s Presentation:

K. Kozyra stated he would refer to Attorney Grill about the Variance criteria. Presented paperwork from Federal Aviation Administration stating the proposed tower was no hazard to Air Navigation, etc. (attached)

K. Kozyra presented an updated copy of the Site Information package with corrections as requested by the Board at the previous meeting. (attached)

Corrections as noted below:

1. Description of lease area. Ties in with an iron pipe on the corner of Hecker’s property. Removed comments about Powell Lane having a paved surface.

2. D-2 – Contractor will address standards for erosion and sedimentation control measures for the roadway, etc. This note is included on the plan.

3. D-7 shows existing grade. Runoff will start on the Hecker’s property. No drainage that would come down to the roadway. Presented an Erosion and Sediment Control Narrative from Burns & McDonnell (attached)

4. Detail on the SBA Tower. Presented a picture taken of the SBA Tower along with specs. (attached) It is 75 feet tall. Has several other smaller antennas on it. It is a wooden tower. Bell Atlantic is on the tower already. Where are the top of the trees in relation to the top of the tower? There are presently 25’ – 84 foot trees surrounding the present site. The tower is just about at the tree line. Spoke with Russ Putnam and the highest available location would be 62 feet. We have presented a map showing coverage from the tower at 62 feet, and we rejected the facility. Our coverage was north of the facility. Our needs are so our users can use their cell phones as their only phone. In the past, we used to have to haul water from the well but now we have running water in our homes, etc. Also in the past had to go to the pay phone at the corner store. Times have changed. People want and need cell phone coverage. If we used the SBA Tower, it would add 14% of the Town coverage. The proposed 180 foot tower would add 44% to the Town coverage. With the Tower going into the SBA Tower would give us an additional 14% but still does not close our original gap. It does not meet our industry standard. Only 62’ is available so could be less than 10% coverage.

K. Kozyra – Stated he wanted to talk about what the acceptable level of coverage is. In a perfect world, the entire map is green. It is our objective to cover as much of the area as possible, and the reason we picked the site at the Hecker’s property is it meets our coverage and construction goals, and it would not send us “over budget”. It is also in an area that is permissible and would provide the minimal impact to the Town. A 180 foot tower in the center of Dunbarton would have significantly greater impact. All of these things are addressed in the propagation study.

The Board asked if they had done a search elsewhere in Town.

K. Kozyra indicated they had checked where the optimal location would be. Worked with a computer program and used it to lay out existing coverage and where within the Town it would be best place to fill in the gap. The Computer Program is run before it gets to me. That would be proprietary information and not available to the public. The RF Engineers run the Planning Tool that establishes locations, etc.

John Trottier – You are saying this is the best location and that you have looked at the SBA Tower and other Town facilities.

K.Kozray – This is the result of propagation study. Have looked at the Public Safety Town Tower in the Center, and it is only 50 feet and cannot hold anything more than what is already on it. Have looked at the Church Steeple which is 64’ tall. This is located in the Town Center area and would cover a small area. Would not be able to locate there because of Historic Center in the Village. We have to stay ½ mile radius from Town Centers and Historic Properties, etc. Would not fill a significant gap in coverage. Have reviewed privately owned properties such as Swindlehurst, Ken Alton’s property. Have looked at six other properties in the area. We have also received multiple e-mails from other property owners in Dunbarton looking to be our landlord. This is 101 shot, we could spend a year of looking and never find a good site. Stated he had a representative of AT&T Wireless to speak to the Board and the public about their need. They would like to locate on our facility. We frequently have discussion with other carriers. US Cellular is not a real estate company and are here to provide coverage. The reason is to provide additional required testimony.

Ron Slocum – Asked what you are talking about specifically in meeting your coverage targets? What specific area coverage are you looking for?

K. Kozyra – Specifically we are trying to close the gap on Route 13. Trying to design a network to cover as much of the area as possible. Noted there is a tower presently being proposed between the south Town line of Dunbarton and the northerly line of Goffstown. This would fill in the gap between Goffstown and northern part of Dunbarton.

Ron Slocum – Basically you are trying to cover Route 13.

John Trottier – Asked if they have looked at the use of a tower looking like a tree as suggested by the Board at the last meeting.

Attorney Grill stated that with other towns we like to have this discussion in generality. We don’t like to have two Boards deciding what type of towers we should have. Planning Board is more specific within the Site Plan Review process.

John Trottier – Asked how we get to this point. When can we strike a deal?

Attorney Grill stated that the law doesn’t let us do that. We use whatever we can to define what the methods will be. Have stayed away from the Center of Town. The Board can make any conditions they want, can be a guy wire tower, etc. Can have both Boards meet together. Planning Board could say “build us a mono pole”.

John Trottier – You have to fulfill the five criteria of the ordinance.

Attorney Grill stated they would build whatever structure the Town decided. Is hard for me to say. We would build a tree or a mono pole, steel cylinder, etc. We will go with any structure that you want. This could be a condition of approval. Not something that we can propose.

John Herlihy – The Board can make conditions that say what kind of tower it will be.

James Burgess, Tower Resource Manager, AT&T Wireless - Stated he was in support of this Tower. AT&T Wireless is building out this area of New Hampshire in Merrimack County. We have recently attached to the SBA Tower. We are at 70’. Within the last 6 months – year, have explored other areas throughout the Town. What happened six months ago and 6-8 months prior to that, we wanted to fill in the gap in Dunbarton. AT&T Wireless is on a different frequency than US Cellular. It doesn’t travel the same way US Cellular. Weren’t able to find a site that was acceptable. We are presently having a big buildout in Weare. Got in touch with Ken, and he turned it over to the engineer and they were able to determine that Ken could give us coverage. This is a pretty good site. Works well for us. We will be at the 170’ level. There is a 10’ separation between carriers.

John Herlihy – Asked what if the Tower is only 140’.

Answer: Would require a 150 foot tower to fill coverage on Route 13. Would get Route 13 but holes get bigger with lower tower. Should be no lower than 140 feet not 110 feet.

John Herlihy – You are up on the Tower on Route 13 now. Why can’t you get down Route 13 on that. Why is there a gap there?

Answer: Not a direct line of service. Different services fall in and out of sight. Not a direct line of sight. Required to keep them at a certain angle. If we could have one tower to cover area, we would.

John Herlihy – Do you plan to have your location continue on the SBA Tower?

Answer: Yes. Verizon is also on the SBA Tower. They were attached there first. We evaluated that as well. Already had located on the SBA Tower.

John Herlihy asked if the tower were 150 feet, would that be sufficient for your company?

Answer: We would attach to this tower if we could. We would attach at 110 feet. The proposed Goffstown Tower is 130 feet. Will be National Tower and AT&T at the top. Will be located at the intersection of Paige Hill Road and Route 13 intersection. Still in the approval process. SBA asked us about extending the AT&T with sole cost to SBA. Never looked into this. Nobody wanted to pay for it. Never going to be the only facility.

John Van – Asked about roaming. How does that work? Please educate me.

Answer: Presently US Cellular does not roam onto AT&T. Explained GSM and CDMA new facilities. There is no inter-operability between carriers.

David Nault – Stated at the last meeting, the Board told you what we were looking for. We are looking for a tree like structure. Someone submitted a couple of pictures from different companies. Some trees are fiberglass construction and a lot are hollow like. You said you wouldn’t be adverse to these. Don’t know if you were going to submit a structure which was tree like or what. This is a kind of open and closed case. I have seen nothing brought forward by you yet.

Attorney Grill – Stated they did describe the better looking tree. On the other, there would be wind load and ice load. The more there is, the less on the antennas. Again we are used to having dialogue with this Board. Don’t know what you want. Mono pole or bottle brush, etc. We certainly can do that. You can defer to the Planning Board if you want. We proposed what we thought made sense. We know we had to stay away from the Center of the Town. Tried to stay ½ mile away from any historic building.

Board – Noted they wanted a tree with tapered branches, etc. We are asking you to come back to this Board with different options. The Board noted they were hoping to see some items from the applicant regarding tree like towers, etc.

John Trottier noted that on page 10 of the August 11 minutes, Alison Vallieres made the following comment: “Alison Vallieres stated that she would like the applicants to consider shorter towers which looked like trees versus the 180 foot tower. She stated she thought it would be better for the Town if we even had more towers but 100 foot and like a tree versus the 180 foot proposed tower. Several towers in strategic locations might give better coverage for the Town.”

The applicant was asked if they had reviewed the minutes from the previous meeting, and they responded they had not. It was noted the minutes are available on the Dunbarton Web Page.

Attorney Grill – With regard to sites owned by the Town, we have a lease with this landowner. Selectmen cannot just say “come talk with us and we will have a meeting”. There are Town issues, they will be asking other hypothetical questions and there will be perhaps more following. At what point do we stop looking? We will have explored six antennae sites and each will present their own problems. We do our best to pick our site that will balance everything and meet our needs.

John Trottier – There are 5 steps for a Variance. I want to know how far you brought it out. What about impact on the property values. There was no evidence brought forward.

K. Kozyra – Stated that in Goffstown and Bedford there has been no impact on property values.

John Trottier – You need to prove that.

Attorney Grill – Stated that there is a 400’ tower in Windham and for the past ten years, every acre within 7-8 miles has been developed. I hate to get into logistics about this but in the case of Manchester and Hopkinton where a number of tower are located, they don’t seem to be affecting selling trends. I don’t know who has the burden of proof. I suppose we could get a property value study, etc.

Gertrude Dulude – It seems that we keep hearing, it suits their need. We have heard from many people that there is Town owned land that would be useful for this development. This does not make sense to me. Have you considered other Town owned properties?

Answer: Regarding Town owned property, we would clearly reject because the State would not let us. Even if we built a flagpole, it would be well over 180 feet.

Attorney Grill –. Normally the way we do this to come around to Town owned land is the Selectmen are allowed to discuss Town owned land. Not 100% sure about this.

The Board asked the applicants what was the minimum height and panels they could live with.

The applicants stated no less than 150 feet high with 12 panels.

Comments from the General Public:

Ken Alton – Asked how many cell tower companies are there? How many can come into a town?

Answer: There are six carriers licensed in Merrimack County. Six carriers can come into a town.

George Holt – Noticed the engineer relied on studies they put together. What kind of data do they have to back up this study. We are looking at lots of fancy pictures. There is no calibration of what is in the field. He says he has to check with the RFA Engineer. How do you validate that? We did a dry test where we attached a large crane through structures and fine turned, etc. Dry test data is the way to test.

Answer - Done by radio frequency engineers. No reason for us to go beyond. Enough is enough. Where do you stop. They are the experts.

George Holt – What is the industry standard? Was there a study done? What are the theoreticals and what was observed? You need to validate the data. There are models but they are only as good as the validation of the data. I am skeptical of that.

Attorney Grill – We are not here for you to just take “pot shots” because you are against the project. This is getting a bit ridiculous. You are trying my patience.

George Holt – Asked if the Swindlehurst property was the only property looked into beside the Hecker property. What about backup in case of a power failure?

Applicant: Stated there would be a backup generator which would be powered from a propane source. Probably wouldn’t work if we had a nuclear bomb. Let’s be serious!

MOTION:

John Trottier made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment continue the Public Hearing for the request for a Variance to Article 4, Section B. of the Dunbarton Zoning Ordinance from U. S. 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 the next meeting which will be held on October 20, 2003. John Herlihy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING FOR A REQUEST 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

At this point in the meeting, John Van stepped down from the Board for the Chan property request because of a “conflict of interest”.

Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, representing Louis and Anna Chan, appeared before the Board. He stated this property consisted of 85 acres and was the former MacMillan property off Gile Road. He stated they had spoken with the Selectmen last year about necessary improvements to Gile Hill Road in the event of a development on the Chan property.

The proposal is to build a culdasac to Town specifications and break off house lots greater than the required 2.5 acre size for a PRD. There will be 7.68 acres for the home and leaving back common land of 34 acres of open space. There presently is no wetlands delineation. There are two pockets of wetlands on the property, one in the area of the culdasac.

The property borders on the Bow Town Line. Will adhere to the State guidelines for non-buildable land. There are 50 foot setbacks with layout of frontage of 200 feet. One lot has 168 foot frontage. The open common area will have a 40 foot swath to get back in the area. Less than 50 feet is recommended, because 50 feet would allow building access at a future time, and this is not the intent of the common land.

David Nault – Asked what type of parking area is proposed for the common area access? Noted that Old Fort Estates access was very limited. Would want to see designated area for parking cars, etc. for access. Who will the common area be deeded to?

J. Belanger – Stated that could be deeded to the Town or to the Audubon Society, etc. Could be public land owned by the Town or a Society. Would be open space for the community. Noted that Old Fort Estate only has a 10 foot wide access to common land. This is not enough.

John Herlihy – Stated that upgrading Gile Hill Road would be necessary. What was the Selectmen’s discussion? Jacques stated that his impression was that the Chans’ could bring the road up to Town Standards with gravel with widening on the Chan’s property. Road would be 24’ traveled way with 4’ shoulders.

John Trottier stated he would like to see what the Selectmen required in writing.

Jacques Belanger noted there was a 50 foot buffer around the entire property as required in the ordinance.

John Herlihy stated he would like to see everything in writing regarding the project, including the common land. Once wetlands are delineated, they will be subtracted from the developable property. J. Belanger indicated they may possibly be able to gain several lots after wetlands delineation.

John Trottier noted that as with a conventional subdivision, they need to remove the slopes and the wetlands from the developable property.

David Nault asked about the culdasac and if it adhered to the Town’s standard. Asked about whether it should be a hammerhead or a culdasac. It was noted that the Selectmen had passed a regulation that all Town Roads must be at least 600 feet long.

J. Belanger noted the culdasac is 850 feet from the beginning and the total length of road will be 1700 feet.

John Herlihy stated he would like to see all lots with at least 250 feet of frontage.

David Nault asked if the land was presently in Current Use.

It was noted it is presently in Current Use and that the back Common land will remain in Current Use.

Alison Vallieres stated she felt Gile Hill Road should be improved and paved. Need to be able to access the development with emergency vehicles in both summer and winter.

Ron Slocum presented the Board with a copy of the Town Road policy and stated that Gile Hill Road would have to meet these standards.

The Board asked for at least four or five parking spots for the Common Land area.

There will be no sharing of utilities such as septic systems, wells, etc. It was not known at this time if utilities would be underground.

Members of the Public:

Perry McKinnon – Stated they were told that the existing road, namely Gile Hill Road, was a Class VI Road. Would it be widened? It is barely wide enough for two cars to pass now.

The Board noted that Gile Hill Road is considered a Class V road to the Brennan’s. It then becomes Class VI.

J. Belanger stated Gile Hill Road is a two rod road.

Mr. McKinnon stated his concern is that you are increasing the cars going up Gile Hill Road. During the wintertime, you can barely get one car up Gile Hill Road. Asked what Class V standards are for a roadway. Need to have a discussion with the Selectmen stating there is a need to improve this to Class V Standards. The road was supposed to be worked on previously. Work was not done. In addition this is a Scenic Road.

Steve Brennan – Why not upgrade the road all the way to the Bow line since it is only about 500 feet to Tonga Drive.

J. Belanger stated they were trying not to have to deal with the Town of Bow. Had not even approached them, and it is close to the intersection of Brown Hill Road.

Steve Brennan stated there is an old cellar hole on one of the proposed lots. It is an old granite foundation. Would like to be able to set that aside for historic values. Could be set aside as an old foundation, etc. It is very impressive and should be preserved somehow.

Margaret Watkins – We are gradually losing all our Scenic Roada because the Planning Board and the Selectmen want upgrades on all Town Road which are being developed, etc. The only Scenic Road left in Town will be Tenney Hill Road. We will not be abiding by what the Town wanted in 1970 when the Scenic Roads in Town were created. Would like the Conservation Commission to be included in decisions.

David Nault – Asked if the Conservation Commission is looking for any of this land and have there been any discussions with them.

It was noted the Common Land can be given to anyone as long as it is Common Land to everyone, etc. Would rather see this kind of approval for this type of proposal

MOTION:

John Herlihy made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment continue the Public Hearing 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 eleven (11) lots at their property located on Gile Hill Road in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH until the regularly scheduled meeting on October 20, 2003. John Trottier seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

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 (I1-2-1) 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.

Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, acting on behalf of Michel Belanger, explained the reasoning for the requested Variances. Michel Belanger, applicant, was also present at the meeting.

Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, presented a plan showing the proposed Variances and the layout of the other lots.

J. Belanger, Surveyor, explained there was an issue with access to I1-3-6 which is the Palys Lot.

J. Belanger explained the situation with the Palys lot and that the access was now blocked by the Fire Pond which was put in after 1993. At that time, Paul Belanger, previous owner of the Palys Lot, was accessing through his father’s property with no deeded right of way.

J. Belanger stated they had met with the Selectmen regarding the proposal. He presented a copy of the minutes of the Selectmen’s meeting of July 31, 2003 regarding the proposal. (attached) The Selectmen had requested that the matters be cleaned up.

J. Belanger noted that New Road is a Class VI Road subject to gates and bars. Old Hopkinton Road is now a Town Road which was paved by the Town. The lots were created in 1993.

John Herlihy stated the two lots are presently non-conforming lots.

This was agreed by the applicant.

John Herlihy asked how the Palys Lot access their property.

Michel Belanger explained how the situation came to be. Stated he was asked by the Police and the Selectmen to remove the vehicles which were blocking the access. Stated that the Palys bought the land at auction, etc. The Board indicated that how it was purchased, etc. had no relevance, the property needed access.

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

Robert Davidson and Donna Howard – Not Present.

Larry and Bridgette Cook – Not Present

Dean and Deborah Jore – Stated that from what he has seen in the past, this is the better of two evils. Asked where do they propose to put the structures?

J. Belanger – Stated there would be one single family home on each site. That would definitely have to be a condition of approval.

Dean Jore stated that at some time he would like to see what you have for the design of the road.

It was noted it would be a driveway. A Town Road would be 24’ wide with 4’ shoulders.

Howard/Barbara Palys – Present. Stated their property should be accessed by the yellow line and would be a shared driveway with one of the proposed lots. (yellow outlined) Stated that Mr. Belanger presently is in Contempt of Court for not adhering to Court request, etc. Would like to see this resolved so they can get into their property.

Gary/Donna Duchesneau – Not Present

Hull Family Revocable Trust – Present. Stated they would like to see the Palys be able to access their property.

John/Michelle Murphy – Present. Came to listen. Those issues should be cleared up before any further development is allowed for these lots. There are also issues with dump, vehicles and garbage on the property.

John/Laile McCarte – Not Present

Laura and Patrick Schultz – Present. Stated that we have heard things in the past, and it has been discussed by Mr. Belanger and it has changed since those plans were approved. There was supposed to be only seven lots. Things can change. Lawyers and politicians change. My concern is just where it abuts the property would be behind mine. Maybe in the future 10-15 years from now, they could get another Variance and build another house back there.

Patrick /Bonnie Payette – Present. Have no problem as long as they are single family homes. What kind of homes will they be? Larger ones than there now? Is there any way to prohibit commercial development such as an ATV Racetrack or Shooting Range out back?

The Board noted that whomever bought the house lots would be building the homes. The Board indicated that any Commercial Development would have to come before the Zoning Board for a Special Exception.

Timothy Prescott, James & Thomas Sherwood – Not Present

Richard Rochford – Not Present

Audubon Society of NH – Not Present

Meadowsend Sawmill, Robert French – Not Present

Town of Hopkinton – Not Present

Town of Dunbarton –

J. E. Belanger Surveying – Present, representing the applicant

Other Members of the Public:

Margaret Watkins – The landowner created this problem himself. I think if this Variance is granted, he should continue the frontage on New Road. 300 feet of frontage is needed on a viable road. However, it connects up with the Chase Sanctuary. There is a way of making sure these lots remain only one house. A Conservation Easement could be held by the Town or could be held by another non-profit agency. This prohibits any commercial development. We definitely need to be pursuing a Conservation Easement otherwise you have no control over what happens down the road. It is a real change from our zoning but if this Variance is granted, it should be along with a Conservation Easement with an easement over the rest of the property also. There should be access to the Conservation Easement property and adequate public easement We need some kind of assurances on the 42 acre lot also. The easement could be written to allow extraction of gravel. Would be able to harvest crops and timber but could not have a racetrack. Probably would add value to the property.

Dean Jore – Stated he was interested in the protection a Conservation Easement would give. The parcel is already used for a lot of outdoor activities. Would be a community space and large areas of land. We should start looking at that use as well. Will look more into that. Not trying to take away from what the Belanger’s are doing.

Margaret Watkins – Stated that most Conservation Easements don’t talk about motorized recreational vehicles.

Patrick Payette – Stated he really appreciates this plan but don’t want to have them come back in eight years with a new plan.

MOTION:

John Herlihy made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment 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 House District in Dunbarton, NH until the next meeting to be held on Monday, October 20, 2003. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

OTHER BUSINESS:

Ron Slocum, Tenney Hill Road

Ron Slocum appeared before the Board with a draft plan showing a proposed change to his existing home on Tenney Hill Road. He will be changing the entrance by putting the entrance onto an existing small deck on the side of the house. He was seeking Zoning Board advice as to whether nor he would need a Variance.

After discussion, the Board determined that a Variance is not necessary because he will not be extending any more into the setback than already is for the “stoop”. Further, the Town allows for an entrance “stoop” into the house without seeking a Variance.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Alison R. Vallieres

Secretary