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 John Trottier presiding. The following members were present:
John Trottier, Chairman
John Herlihy, Vice Chairman
Alison Vallieres, Secretary
Gertrude Dulude
David Nault
Ron Slocum, Alternate
John Van, Alternate
Kenneth Swayze, Admin., Planning
and Zoning
John
Trottier, Chairman, called the meeting to order and verified with the Secretary
that the Public Meeting Notice had been posted in three public places
throughout the Town and published in the Concord Monitor for one day according
to State Law.
John
Trottier stated that John Van, Alternate, had submitted his resignation from
the Board effective the end of the month.
Approval
of Previous Meeting Minutes,
A
motion was made, seconded and passed unanimously to approve the previous
meeting minutes of
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING AND REGARDING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 4, SECTION B. FROM BETTER LIVING SUNROOMS REPRESENTING FOREST AND ANITA MELENDY (K1-09-01) TO ALLOW THEM TO CONSTRUCT A 12’ X 14’ STUDIO SUNROOM ON AN EXISTING DECK WITH UPGRADES AT THEIR PROPERTY CLOSER THAN THE REQUIRED 50 FEET FROM THE BOUNDARY AND A NEW PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AN EQUITABLE WAIVER TO ALLOW THE EXISTING DECK WHICH IS 12’ X 14’ WITH EXTENSIONS ON THEIR PROPERTY ON 9 KAREN ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
A Representive of Better Living, Ryan Nolette, and Forest Melendy appeared before the
Board. There was not a copy of the
certified plot plan available to the Board and the applicants did not bring
copies with them. Kenneth Swayze,
Building Department, produced a copy which the Building Department had in their
records. (attached)
The Board discussed whether the plot plan would be
acceptable because it was not stamped by a Registered Surveyor, it was stamped
by a Professional Licensed Engineer.
After discussion, the Board reached a consensus that the Plot Plan as
presented would be accepted by the Board.
Mr. Nolette of Better Living and Mr. Melendy
presented an ad book showing what the proposed sunroom would look like.
John Trottier, Chairman, stated that the Board would
first address the requirements for the Equitable Waiver before acting on the
request for the Variance. He read the
statute for the granting of the Equitable Waiver. Requirements for the Equitable Waiver were
addressed by the applicants as follows:
I.
When a lot or
other division of land, or structure thereupon, is discovered to be in
violation of a physical layout or dimensional requirement imposed by a zoning
ordinance enacted pursuant to RSA 674:16, the zoning board of adjustment shall,
upon application by and with the burden of proof on the property owner, grant
an equitable waiver from the requirement, if and only if the board makes all of
the following findings:
a.
That the violation was not noticed or discovered by any owner, former owner,
owner’s agent or representative, or municipal official, until after a structure
in violation had been substantially completed, or until after a lot or other
division of land in violation had been subdivided by conveyance to a bona fide
purchaser for value;
Answer: The violation was only discovered once
transferred. Purchased in September
2003.
b. That the violation was not an outcome of
ignorance of the law or ordinance, failure to inquire, obfuscation, misrepresentation, or bad faith
on the part of any owner, owner’s agent or representative, but was instead
caused by either a good faith error I measurement or calculation made by an
owner or owner’s agent, or by an error in ordinance interpretation or
applicability made by a municipal official in the process of issuing a permit
over which that official had authority;
Answer: There is no permit on record. Melendy is the new owner.
c. That the physical or dimensional violation
does not constitute a public or private nuisance, nor diminish the value of
other property in the area, nor interfere with or adversely affect any present
or permissible future uses of any such property; and
Answer: The existing conditions are within the
existing setbacks.
d. That due to the degree of past construction or
investment made in ignorance of the facts constituting the violation, the cost
of correction so far outweighs any public benefit to be gained, that it would
be inequitable to require the violation to be corrected.
Answer: Mr. Melendy purchased in good faith with the
existing deck. The removal would
diminish the value of the home.
Abutters
were read as follows and noted that all were notified by certified mail:
Lori
Desmarais – Not Present
Peter
Pacik – Present. Stated they have living
there for seven years and the deck has been there since we have lived
there.
Mary
Ann Robinson – Not Present
Greta
Coderre – Not Present
Rex/Barbara
LaRhette – Not Present
Amy
St. Amand – Not Present
David/Denise
Kremidas – Present. Stated he had been
there for 21 years and find it very hard that you are putting Mr. Melendy
through this. Two selectmen have lived
in that house.
Beryl
Leggett – Not Present
Robert
Masys – Professional Engineer who did the Plot Plan.
At
this point in the meeting, the Board addressed the request for a Variance. Criteria for the granting of a Variance were
addressed by the applicant and his representative as follows:
a.
No diminution
in values of surrounding properties would be suffered;
Answer: Absolutely not. Actually would improve the house and will not
infringe on the setbacks any more than it is presently.
b.
Granting the variance would be of benefit to the public interest;
Answer: Would not be a negative impact. The only person it will affect is the
homeowner himself.
c. Denial of the variance would result in
unnecessary hardship to the owner seeking it;
Answer: We are looking to increase the amount of
space and it is just going to improve the home.
Homeowners have inherent rights.
d. Granting the variance would do substantial
justice; and
Answer: Would
do substantial justice because it would not affect anyone else but the
homeowner.
e.
The use would
not be contrary to the spirit of the Ordinance.
Answer: The Ordinance is set up for a guide. This will not have any affect on others.
Abutters
were read as follows and noted all had been notified by certified mail:
Lori
Desmarias – Not Present
Peter
Pacik – Present. Stated the desk is
within the boundaries of the house. I
think it would enhance the Melendy property and would not have any negative
impact on the community and would enhance the neighborhood.
Mary
Ann Robinson – Not Present
Greta
Coderre – Not Present
Rex/Barbara
LaRhette – Not Present
Amy
St. Amand – Not Present
David/Denise
Kremidas – Present. Stated he believed
the same as Mr. Pacik that it would be a benefit for Mr. Melendy and his wife
and have no problem with him building it.
Discussion:
John
Trottier, Chairman, stated the following members would be voting on the Melendy
Request this evening:
John Trottier
Gertrude Dulude
Alison Vallieres
John Herlihy
David Nault
Ron
Slocum stated the Board has heard several things from the Gorham Pond Area. Supposedly, everything is built as a two or
three season living. Is this right?
Mr.
Melendy stated that his home is a year round home and there are many other that
are year round homes.
Kenneth
Swayze stated that some lots have notes in the file from DES that a particular
home is only a nine month home, etc. Mr.
Melendy’s does not have this note in the file.
It is a year-round home. In
addition Mr. Melendy’s home is not directly on the beach. (Notes usually are referring to homes
directly on the beach.)
John
Herlihy stated they were just putting a structure on top of the existing
deck. It isn’t going to be heated or
cooled. The only thing I would like to
see is that it never be used as a bedroom and that it never be heated nor
cooled and no water every be brought to the porch.
John
Trottier stated he had no problem with the Equitable Waiver but would like to
see an actual survey of the property.
MOTION:
John Herlihy made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment grant the request for an Equitable Waiver Better Living Sunrooms representing Forest and Anita Melendy (K1-09-01) to allow the existing deck which is 12’ x 17’ on their property on 9 Karen Road in the Low Density District in Dunbarton. The motion was seconded by John Trottier. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION:
John Herlihy made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment grant the request for a Variance to Article 4, Section B. from Better Living Sunrooms representing Forest and Anita Melendy (K1-09-01) to allow them to construct a 12’ x 17’ sunroom on an existing deck with upgrades at their property on 9 Karen Road in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH with the following conditions:
1. No closer than 34.5’ to the property line on the south side.
2. No closer than 49.5’ to the property line on the north side.
3. The additon is not to be used for a bedroom.
4. No heating elements nor cooling to be installed.
5. No plumbing be allowed within the porch.
David Nault seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 4, SECTION B. FROM MICHAEL AND KATHY LEIGHTON TO ALLOW THEM TO TAKE DOWN THE EXISTING GARAGE AND REBUILD WITH A SECOND FLOOR TO ALLOW FOR A MASTER SUITE CLOSER THAN THE REQUIRED 50 FEET FROM THE BOUNDARY AT THEIR PROPERTY ON 23 TWIST HILL ROAD IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH
Jacques Belanger, Surveyor, and the applicant, Kathy
Leighton appeared before the Board with a Certified Plot Plan (attached)
showing the proposed replacement garage.
Jacques Belanger stated that the existing garage was having structural
problems because the frost wall was not stable.
The existing garage is presently 24’ from the lot line. The proposed replacement garage will be 20
feet from the property line. The ridge
line of the new garage will be in the opposite direction of the house. Kathy Leighton presented a plan showing the
proposed layout of the upstairs of the new garage. (attached)
John
Trottier noted they would be adding a bathroom.
Jacques
Belanger stated they would be losing a bedroom upstairs in the existing home,
thus the home would still be a three bedroom home. The home has a three bedroom septic system
presently.
The
applicant addressed the criteria for the granting of a Variance as follows:
a.
No diminution
in values of surrounding properties would be suffered;
Answer: The proposed addition is for residential
use. The existing garage is 24’ from the
lot line abutting a vacant lot. The
development of this lot is 300 ‘ back from the street line per subdivision
agreement, putting any development well behind the proposed addition.
b. Granting the variance would be of benefit to the
public interest;
Answer: Any improvement to a home, increases its
value as well as the value of abutting properties.
c.
Denial of the
variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner seeking it.
Answer: The reason for the addition is to increase
the living and storage space in the home.
The current garage has a floor that is buckling and is not structurally
sound enough for the upstairs addition of a master bedroom. The additional 10’ to the west will allow for
storage.
d. Granting the variance would do substantial justice;
and
Answer: The proposed work is to first correct a
problem with the original construction and secondly, let the owners increase
their living space. There will not be an
additional bedroom. The bedroom gained
will be accessed through an existing bedroom which will become a sitting-office
area.
e.
The use would
not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.
Answer: This lot is zoned low density
residential. The use applied for is
residential use only and will be less than 4’ closer to the lot line than what
it currently is.
Abutters
were read as follows and noted that all had been notified by certified mail:
David/Beth
Sedita – Present. Mr. Sedita looked at
the plan and noted that it was going to be closer to his lot than anyone
else. Asked how much closer? K. Leighton explained that the proposed new
garage would be only 4’ closer than the existing garage. After the explanation, Mr. Sedita stated he
did not have a problem with the request.
Rudolph/Elizabeth
Vallauri – Not Present
Ronald/Barbara
Wanner – Not Present
William/Jeanne
Link – Not Present
Gloria
Atencid – Not Present
Catherine
Bolieiro – Not Present
Leslie/Debra
Richardson – Not Present
Jacob
Poole – Not Present
J.
E. Belanger Land Surveying – Present.
Representing the applicants.
Other Members of the Public:
John
Trottier, Chairman, stated the following would be voting members on the
Leighton Request:
John Trottier
Alison Vallieres
Gertrude Dulude
David Nault
John Van
A
question was asked from the audience as to how much the garage would be
infringing on the lot line. The Board
stated that the proposed garage would be infringing on the present footprint by
10 feet. This is why they have to come
to the Board for a Variance for setback.
John
Trottier stated they were only encroaching 4’ into what already exists
there.
David
Nault stated this is going to be on the back side of the house.
John
Herlihy asked where the present septic system is located. J. Belanger, Surveyor, pointed it out on the
map.
John
Herlihy asked about the status of the Cyrus Wheeler Easement as noted on the
plan. J. Belanger stated he had been
unable to locate where the easement is on the property.
MOTION:
David Nault made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment grant the request for a Variance to Article 4, Section B. from Michael and Kathy Leighton to allow them to take down the existing garage and rebuild with a second floor to allow for a master suite closer than the required setback of 50 feet from the boundary at their property on 23 Twist Hill Road in the Low Density District in Dunbarton, NH subject to the following conditions:
1. That the distance on the northwest rear cannot be any closer than 20 feet from the lot line
2. That the front northeast of the building be no closer than 24 feet from the lot line
3. That the home continue to be a three bedroom home and no more bedrooms be added to the existing home.
John Van seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ARTICLE 6, SECTION C(3) AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ARTICLE 4. TO ALLOW WATCH HILL DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, REPREENTING COUNTRYSIDE GOLF CLUB, INC. (B3-2-1, B4-1-11, A4-1-5, AND A3-1-4) TO ALLOW THEM TO DEVELOP A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LOTS WITH A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A DENSITY OF 104 DWELLING UNITS CONSISTING OF NINE (9) 4-UNIT BUILDINGS AND SIXTY-EIGHT (68) SINGLE FAMILY UNITS, WHERE THE ORDINACNE WOULD PERMIT A MAXIMUM OF NINETY-FIVE (95) DWLLING UNITS IN ALL 4-UNIT BUILDINGS IF THE ENTIRETY OF THE ACREAGE ON THE LOTS (EXCEPTING SURFACE WATER AND SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 20%) WERE DEVOTED TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT PROPOSED TO DEVELOP A PRD WITHOUT LOT LINES. (THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON STARK HIGHWAY SOUTH, ROUTE 13 AND COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE IN THE LOW DENSITY DISTRICT IN DUNBARTON, NH)
IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE SIZE AND DEGREE OF THE DENSITY VARIANCE, THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION OF THE ACREAGE AVAILABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AFTER SUBTRACTION OF THAT ACREAGE DEVOTED TO GOLF COURSE USE AND OTHER PROPOSED COMMERCIAL USES FOR THE LOTS. THE APPLICANT ACKNOWLEDGTES THAT FURTHER ZBA APPROVALS ARE REQUIRED FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OR MODIFICATION OF COMMERCIAL USES ON THE LOTS, BUT IS NOT SEEKING THOSE APPROVALS AT THIS TIME.
Attorney
Richard Uchida appeared before the Board on behalf of his clients, Watch Tower
Development Group, LLC. Representing
Countryside Golf Club. He stated that
because there was an abutter missing from the notification process at the last
meeting, they were going to start again and the record would be clean.
Attorney
Uchida stated they were planning a mix of four units and single family
dwellings on the property. There is a
total of 270 acres of which not all is buildable. There is a large area of water which needs to
be subtracted from the developable land.
There are no steep slopes greater than 20% to subtract. The total acreage is 270 acres and after
subtracting the pond area, there is 252 acres remaining. He stated they were seeking to develop 104
dwelling units. They were proposing nine
(9) 4 units and 68 single family units for a total of 104 units. He stated that tonight they would be focusing
on the PRD. At least we want to get into
the clustering before we go home. We are
seeking direction from the ZBA.
The
Board had noted that this would require 439 acres of developable land area to
do this.
Attorney
Uchida stated that the ZBA had asked for a layout of the project showing what
could be put on the land in a standard grid subdivision. At this point in the public hearing, a grid
was shown that took the entire parcel of 270 acres and cut it into 22 eleven
acre lots with a 4-unit multi-family dwelling on each 11 acre parcel for a
total of 88 units. Attorney Uchida
stated that this is not the type of development they would like to
propose. In addition, the golf course
would be gone. Also, the development
would not be restricted to Senior Housing (over 55 years of age). This type of grid subdivision is allowed
within the present Zoning Ordinance without seeking Zoning Board of Adjustment
approval. It would be a standard
subdivision.
Attorney
Uchida stated that this would be a possibility based on financial. He noted the impact on the vistas and along
Meadow Lane. No one has view
easements. Under this proposal, we could
indeed create 88 residential buildings but this is a doable option.
Attorney
Uchida stated that under the first proposal for the PRD, we have done some work
to try to preserve the views, the golf course and tried to address the concerns
of the neighbors. Stated they would
need a Special Exception to create the Clubhouse. If we don’t get your approval on the
clustering and the density, we would probably be pursuing the 22 units,
etc. We understand we need Special Exceptions for the commercial
uses but don’t want to cloud the issue at this time. That is why we are not asking for them at
this time.
Attorney
Uchida stated the ZBA had asked him about subtracting the golf course from the
calculations. He presented a flyer
showing calculations for the Density both in 4-units and as single family
units. (attached) He stated the golf course would be treated as
Open Space Land. David Nault – Asked if
they had included the “white” areas in
the calculation of developable land.
Attorney
Uchida stated it was not open water and therefore according to the ordinance
does not qualify as undevelopable land.
He also stated that the golf course woulc qualify as open space because
it would be open to the public. He cited
a RSA which gives a definition of Golf Course as it relates to Open Space Land
and Discretionary Easements.
(attached)
Rodney
Doucet asked if the road system presented was to be a Town Road System.
Applicants
noted that as previously presented as a cluster development, it would be a
private road system. If the four unit 22
lots complex were used, it would be a Town Road System and built to Town
Standards, etc. ( It was noted that the road area had been deducted from the
formula for determining lots, etc.) In
addition, the 22 lot 4-units would not be a restricted development to 80%
seniors, etc.
Attorney
Uchida stated that with regard to the cluster development, the over 55 years of age was enforceable as
long as they subscribe to the Federal numbers and you don’t “cheat” and let
people in under 55 over the 20% figure.
Would require an annual census to determine figures, etc. We would add these into the restrictions and
covenants. Have not found a case where a
person younger could stay.
John
Trottier stated that personally, he had no problem with the cluster just the
density.
John
Herlihy also stated he did not have a problem with the cluster but he was
having a problem with the density.
David
Nault asked if there was any way of showing what the frontage and amount of
acreages were per unit. How far apart
are the buildings? What are the setbacks
going to be?
John
Trottier asked if they had determined the status of the air strip and how it
related to the proposed development.
Don
Lane read a statement from the Division of Aeronautics (DOT) regarding the
airstrip, (non-commercial) etc.
(attached). He stated there is an
“inverted cone” of air space which is protected above the air strip. He stated the proposed cluster development is
far enough away from this air space so it is not a problem.
John
Van asked about the distance of the cluster housing from the air strip and
noted there is a 125 feet protected area each side of the centerline of the air
strip. The applicants noted they were
far enough away to not be a problem.
Attorney
Uchida stated that under less dense development, they would not be able to
afford to keep all of the factors of the project as it has been presented.
Don
Lane stated they would like to get a variety of housing. Would be a more dynamic community. If we were not able to do this, we would have
to go with the four units. This is not
what we want to do though. We have to
come to an agreement. What about the
amenities? If you allow a large
commercial club house, it would allow for more dynamics, etc.
Abutters
were read as follows and noted all had been notified by certified mail:
Kenneth/Jennifer
Proulx – Not Present
David
Maceacran – Not Present
Robert
Thomas – Not Present
Henry/Joan
Burnham – Present. Stated they would be
terribly impacted by the whole situation to the right. There would be people coming over with
snowmobiles, etc. I just don’t see that
density in that area. This is a little overwhelming. The cluster could be pushed over on the left
hand side of the property. (south) That would be a better place for some of the
development. People would be trespassing
onto our property. They are 100 feet
away from the property line. Where are
they going to end up? On our land.
Curtis
Whittaker – Present. Stated he likes
things the way they are. Would rather
have them change for the better than the worse.
The property is great. If seniors
are the kind of neighbors you are talking about, maybe the trespassing wouldn’t
be. It would seem to be they are cutting
back from 104 units to 88 units.
Stated that his biggest worry is that fact about the road. I wish we could figure out something so that
we don’t get bracketed by asphalt.
Rene/Ruth
Norbert – Present. You would be letting
them put in cluster over in by the wetland areas. Questions about the golf course and whether
it will be there. Would just as soon
see the four units instead of the cluster, etc.
Then I would just sell my house and leave.
Caron
Revocable Trust – Attorney Peter Imse, representing a group of abutters: Kevin McCarthy, Jeff Kantor, Norman Caron, etc. Stating he had understood that the meeting
this evening would be starting over. He
understood the Board would probably not be making a decision this evening. Had some other witnesses to appear but
decided not at this meeting because of this.
1.
Questions
relating to general issues of review of the plans. Wanted to express concerns from his clients’
perspective. There has been insufficient
plans for abutters to review. There is
nothing by the way of detailed plans for the development. No way to prepare for this hearing. How are the buildings going to be
constructed, etc.? There is nothing to
review.
John
Trottier stated that Attorney Uchida will be taking notes and will prepare
additional plans to review. Will all be
better off if these plans are presented.
2.
Who is going to
review the plan for the Town? Would
encourage you to consider hiring a professional. This plan cries out for the Board to hire an
outside consultant to review the plans.
The Statutes says you can also charge the applicant.
3.
The Town
already has an existing arrangement with an engineer to review. What about a joint meeting with the Planning
Board.
4.
Are these
calculations correct? This might be the
kind of situation that you would want to evaluate. Is there going to be a detriment to previous
values of property? Someone can look at
those materials. There could be fires,
chemicals, relating to the golf course.
What are the current standards for golf courses?
5.
There are
traffic issues and surface water issues.
The Town should be able to get some help on this application from
professionals. You should look at these
issues.
6.
Moving from
that, we don’t have anything to react to.
I represent these folks who are against this. Most of these are good ideas used in the
proper ways. They are taking a good idea
and pursuing it too far. The applicant
has recognized the commercial use has to be recognized. A PRD is a residential use, and commercial
uses don’t belong there. Now we want to
talk about the club house and the restaurant.
You really ought to look at the whole thing together. Attorney Uchida was getting close. I want to see a picture. They are proposing 2/3 single family homes and
1/3 multi-family.
7.
With single
family housing you would be getting a number just under 50. Your ordinance says for a PRD, you can’t put
anything more than you would otherwise.
This is probably what I would have done.
Would it meeting approval? 22 – 4
units buildings? 50 units is the number
we are talking about. Putting some on
the south side of the property is a option.
These people are living in the Low Density District and suddenly they
are living in the middle of a large development. This is very inconsistent. Green space idea is a good idea. Is the green space a positive for the community? Is it hidden in back? They say the golf course will not be in the
22 units 4-unit development.
8.
The applicants
have spent a lot of time talking about Village Clusters and New England
character. The Planning Board is
currently proposing a Zoning Change regarding multi-family housing. This will apply. This project has direct access on Route
13. The new proposed ordinance states
you must provide for a 100 foot “no-build, no-cut” buffer zone and set-back at
side and rear-yard property lines and provide for a minimum 150 foot set-back
at the front and/or access portion of the project per Planning Board Site Plan
Review. This proposed ordinance will be
applied to this project because of the timing of the application.
Hammond
Revocable Trust – Not Present.
Arvid
Rain – Not Present.
J&J
Trust – Not Present
Charles
Graybill – Not Present
Julia/Arthur
Thomas – Not Present
Benjamin/Mary
Horne – Present. Stated they have
concerns about the airport. Having
houses so close to the air strip. There
will be dangerous equipment close to the homes.
There will be a number of children.
Their estimates of numbers of children are extremely low from what my
thoughts were. Last time, they were
saying they were going to use Country Club Drive for the initial steps of
development. How is that going to come
into play? What is the Board flavor
regards to Cluster development?
Joseph/Nichole
French – Present. Mr. French has no
comments at this time.
Jeffrey/Evelyn
Kantor – Present. Stated the applicants
are saying they want to keep the southern corridor as open land for
wildlife. Stated they have got the wrong
section. The area where the cluster
development will occur is where the wildlife presently is. It will be private property unless you open
it up and say it is for Town uses. One
of the biggest things is, I was at the Dunbarton Master Plan Visioning Session
and they received a 47% response rate to the questionnaire. 85% of the Town did not want multi-family
housing. 91% did not want apartment
buildings with 4+ units. 57% were
against cluster developments. People
want to keep Dunbarton a small town.
Walter/Evelyn
Smith – Not Present.
Story
Heirs, C/O George Doucet – Not Present.
Story
Heirs, C/O Rodney Doucet – Presnt.
Stated he just had to say what others are saying, the density is
overwhelming. The high density district
for years has been the Village District.
Can the water and soil handle such density. What about fertilizers for the golf
course? Water quality is an issue. Also is there enough water for these
homes? I think it would be unwise. Would need a large sum of money set aside if
1/3 of the project fell apart, etc.
Would not be private roads if it fell through. Need more thought about this
development.
Office of Selectmen, Town of Goffstown – Not Present.
Theresa Naser – Not Present.
Thomas/Melissa Maille – Not Present
Keith/Jennifer Lavoie – Not Present.
Glenn Doten/Linn Kurkjean – Not Present.
Phil/Robin
Nelson – Not Present
Kevin/Marie
McCarthy – Present. Represented by Attorney Peter Imse
George/Carolyn
Cushman – Not Present.
Other Members of the Public:
Michael
Poirier stated he would doubt that 88 units would work. Even though 88 units is much more acceptable
than 104, he still didn’t believe it would work. It would become a Town Road. You would have to provide parking spaces for
each unit, etc. Cost will be double.
John
Mazalewski – Stated that he was an abutter who had not been notified. (It was established that Mr. Mazalewski was
not an abutter.) He stated that he lives
on 12 Town Farm Lane. When they
originally showed us this picture, the stated they will use the existing road
for the first two or three years. There
will be a whole cluster of homes there.
This is the prime land where all the animals are living. There will be 350 cars. Would ruin the wildlife. Don’t know how wide this road would be. Would be a private road. I look to get how onto Route 13 every
morning. This is a very dangerous
section. The first and second hld will
be taken out. Why don’t they put the
houses around the golf course. This
other plan is being forced on us.
Don
DalPra – Asked if the four units would going to be apartments or condos.
Attorney
Uchida stated they would be condos.
Curtis
Whittaker – Stated that a couple of years ago, he bought property in
Florida. By having a corporate area for
meeting, it upgraded the golf course.
Abutting properties have quadrupled in value. A development done right, it can enhance the
value of homes nearby. These fellow have
thought about preserving some of the views.
If we let it go to Chuck Irwin’s creditors, they won’t care. We should try to work with these people a
little bit and maybe we can come up with a density we can live with.
Attorney
Uchida – In response the comments, he would be willing to ask for a Joint
Meeting of the Planning Board and the Zoning Board . This might help bring some thoughts to the
Board and assist them. He would be happy
to make this request. He stated it was
the Zoning Board’s responsibility to respond and act upon the request for the
Variance and Special Exception.
John
Trottier stated he did not see the need for a Joint Meeting of the two Boards
at this time.
Attorney
Uchida stated maybe they can do this development without the commercial
uses. We are not trying to creep
in. There were comments made about the
open space. We are just going to give
people out of the immediate area around the golf course access to the
property. We will open it to
cross-country skiing. That is our
proposal. We will have a traffic
engineer come in and talk with you about traffic and safey issues and convince
you in detail that the entrance can be safe, etc. We can deal with protection of the road. Please don’t let that be an issue. We have heard your issues with regard to
densities. You need plans with
information for the public file for review.
This is a brief answer to some of the questions we have heard this
evening.
David
Nault – Asked if the property was currently in Current Use. What about a copy of the easement showing the
egress and ingress? The Board will need
this. Stated he did like the idea of
the wildlife corridor as he was a hunter, etc.
I would hope that you would still provide access to the public if you
move houses to the southern area.
Attorney
Uchida stated the property is not in Current Use.
The
Board agreed that need a copy of all plans so they have a record of the plans
and how they get to a certain stage.
In addition, the abutters need to be able to see the plans.
John
Herlihy asked that all abutters be given all the information we get.
Ron
Slocum asked how they are going to satisfy the public access requirement. Is it your view that the golf course will
provide public access. Are we going to
continue access to the course?
Attorney
Uchida stated the golf course will be set up under the homeowners association. They will own the golf course and it will be
a non-profit entity.
Attorney
Uchida will address the following issues:
1.
Density Issue
2.
Detail Plans
MOTION:
John Herlihy made a motion that the Dunbarton Zoning Board of Adjustment continue the Public Hearing until March 2004 for the Request for a Variance to Article 6, Section C(3) and Special Exception to Article 4., to allow Watch Hill Development Group, LLC, representing Countryside Golf Club, Inc. (B3-2-1, B4-1-11, A4-1-5, and A3-1-4) to allow them to develop a Planned Residential Development on the above described lots with a Variance to permit a density of 104 Dwelling Units consisting of nine (9) 4-unit buildings and sixty-eight (68) single family units, where the Ordinance would permit a maximum of ninety-five (95) dwelling units in all 4-unit buildings if the entirety of the acreage on the lots (Excepting surface water and slopes in excess of 20%) were devoted to residential development. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
There
being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Alison
R. Vallieres, Secretary