Multi Family Housing off Sandown Road

General Forum for Danville Topics

Multi Family Housing off Sandown Road

Postby curt » Wed Sep 07, 2011 12:26 am

The planning board minutes of 8/11/11 wrote:III. Discussion with Norman Lee
Mr. Lee asked the Board about the procedure for combining his lot with his abutter’s and
constructing multi-family housing. He explained that there is about 600’ of frontage on
Sandown Road and the two parcels total 143 acres. The amount of wetlands is unknown.
There is an existing deeded right of way to the back lot, but it is unknown to whom it is
deeded. It ends at wetlands and he showed on a map the approximate location of the wet
Various items were briefly discussed, including the need for applying for lot consolidation
and site plan review rather than subdivision. There may not be a need for lot consolidation

as long as both property owners are in agreement of the plans. The right of way placement
was discussed and the need for a condo association. Mr. Lee said he wants to leave a large
area in its natural state. He was also told senior housing allows for some commercial
development. He’ll need to keep access available to the other back lots. It was suggested
that he schedule a preliminary discussion when he has more formal plans.

This is on the south side of Sandown Road across from Janie Sigilman's old house, about a mile in from Main Street.
Curt Springer
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:19 am
Location: 228 Sandown Road, North Danville

Re: Multi Family Housing off Sandown Road

Postby curt » Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:03 am

The Planning Board minutes of 1/12/12 wrote:Preliminary Discussion with Norman Lee

Norman Lee explained his idea of joining his properties with those belonging to the Elizabeth Roger’s Trust, thus forming a parcel totaling approximately 137 acres. He also owns abutting property in Sandown totaling about five acres. The parcels are located along the south side of Sandown Road, near Mr. Lee’s residence. He presented a conceptual open space plan which described the project in more detail. The preliminary idea is to combine the four parcels into one parcel, eliminating lot lines. Mr. Lee’s residence will have a two acre parcel “carved” out of one portion.

The entrance to the area is just west of an existing logging road. The entrance is located here to allow better visibility and safety of traffic flow.

With the total acreage, he figured the allowed density would be about 64 units. He proposed constructing rental condominiums, grouped as four units per building, spaced along a private road in an area totaling 12 acres; the remaining acreage can be used as conserved open space.

He introduced Karl Dubay as the engineer for the project. Mr. Dubay and Mr. Lee explained the project location was decided by reviewing the various zoning and building regulations for Danville. It has been planned through the auspices of the multifamily cluster ordinance. The site is outside all buffer zones, is located outside all prioritized open space areas and located on the lowest ranked habitat area. The open space to be preserved was prioritized per the town’s and RPC’s study.

The proposal is named Monarch Village. There is an existing structure on one of the parcels. This is an older home (circa 1760) which may be renovated to house two or three units. From Sandown Road, this will be the only structure visible. They have talked about building a barn next to it to be used for storage or some other use for the residents of the townhouses.

Impact to wetlands is estimated to be less than 3k square feet. It is the desire of Mr. Lee to consolidate the buildings into one area, leaving the entrance to the village as visually appealing as possible. The road is proposed to be less than 1500’ in length. It will be built to current road standards with a cul de sac at the end and peninsulas along the road for traffic calming. There are more than the required two per unit parking spaces planned. Each town house is proposed to have more than two bedrooms. There will be underground utilities.

Mr. Lee said he would like to work with the board to discuss the architecture and is desirous to build something that maintains Danville’s rural character.

There was a discussion of the spacing between the units as some appear to be as close as 20’ wall to wall. It was suggested he look at the senior housing section of the ordinance as this will allow a small amount of commercial development within the site.

Test pits showed the soil to be adequate. He submitted a test pit lot dated November 29, 2011.

Mr. Lee said he will work with the fire department in designing and implementing the requirements for fire suppression. There will be fire walls extending from the ground to the roof between each unit. It is undecided at this time whether there will be oil or propane heat; each unit will be responsible for its own utility payment.

He said he can consider a conservation easement on the undeveloped portion. He is amenable to others traversing the open areas and is aware that the PSNH corridor bisects the western portion of the site. He is also amenable to working with the Zoning Board for any special exception that may be necessary.

It was suggested to Mr. Lee that he come in February 9th for a stage 2 discussion. This will require notification of abutters.

The Planning Board minutes of 1/26/12 wrote:Agenda for February 9, 2012:

7:30pm correspondence and minutes

7:40pm Preliminary discussion for properties owned by Elizabeth A. Rogers Revocable Trust of 1994, 97 Sandown Road, Tax Map 1, Lot 32, and Norman and Lisa Lee, 185 Sandown Road, Tax Map 1, Lots 26, 41, and 42. This is to discuss a multi-family site plan on approximately 15 acres, with approximately 120 acres of covenanted open space.
Curt Springer
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:19 am
Location: 228 Sandown Road, North Danville

Re: Multi Family Housing off Sandown Road

Postby russh » Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:05 pm

Mr Lee came before the Conservation Commission on Feb 2nd as well.
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” – Mark Twain

My email, for any town related business:
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:58 pm
Location: Coburn Hill Rd, Danville

Re: Multi Family Housing off Sandown Road

Postby curt » Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:18 pm

Information sent to abutters

The two plans were the size of 2 8.5 x 11 sheets so I centered them on my scanner and I don't think I missed anything of significance.
Curt Springer
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:19 am
Location: 228 Sandown Road, North Danville

Re: Multi Family Housing off Sandown Road

Postby curt » Wed May 09, 2012 11:57 pm

The Conservation Commission minutes of 2/2/12 wrote:III. Dubay Group/Karl Dubay/Conceptual Review/Monarch Village
Karl Dubay of Dubay Group, Norman Lee (owner of the property) and Luke Hurley from Gove Environmental Services were present. They presented information about Monarch Village, a 135 acre open concept/cluster development on Sandown Road. Norman lee lives on the property and wants to put in the open space area a development under the cluster ordinance.
Various maps were reviewed. The open space area is in the upper west side along Sandown Road. The preserved open space is just over 100 acres which will be in a deeded protected document which Conservation will have input on. There is about 10 acres of actual development and the rest is open space. They planned it to meet with the Master Plan Regulations. There will be a private drive to the main entrance, which will be 24 feet wide. There will be a pond in front, and wetland 75 foot buffers. There will be four rental units in each building which will be town house style with two bedrooms, they will be small and efficient. There are no garages, with 2.5 parking spaces. Norman Lee will have the property managed by a company. The renters will not be allowed to use the land.
Russ asked if there is a plan for a second point of egress, i.e. if trees fall and block the road. This still needs to be worked out.
There are some threads of wetlands on the property. The wetlands were flagged in order to do testing. Carsten suggested referencing photographs to the plan for clarity. They will be filing a wetland impact package. Luke Hurley handed out photographs of the wetlands area as well as a document from the Natural Heritage Bureau with their results for rare species and exemplary natural communities, and they found nothing.
There was a concern about Sandown Road and a traffic study will be done, as it is required.
The group will meet with the Planning Board next week and submit a design review. Per Judy, if the Planning Board wishes to schedule a site walk, they will inform Conservation.
What was presented tonight is not a final set of plans.
Jason asked if there will be sidewalks and they are working on it. Luke is to put together construction and other impacts such as wetlands for review.
Sheila asked where any children would play, as the intent is not for the renters to use the land. No definitive answer was given.
Judy will email Karl Dubay with her email address. Copies of the photographs and maps are being kept by Conservation. Note they will be updated

The Planning Board minutes of 2/9/12 wrote:Preliminary Discussion for Monarch Village
Karl Dubay introduced himself and the Lee family. He explained their application is for a
development named Monarch Village. This will be a situated on approximately 137 acres with
10-12 acres being developed; the rest being covenanted open space. The Lee family residence
is on the property. Four lots, one owned by the Roger’s Family Trust, will be made into two
lots: one for Monarch Village, one for the Lee family. The submitted application is essentially
a minor lot line adjustment. The Lee’s lot currently has less than 200’ of road frontage. The lot
adjustment will not reduce the frontage.

The proposal is for four-unit rental buildings on a private road. Mr. Dubay explained this plan
fits with the Master Plan. This will have a community water source. Test pits have been done,
but they are having more tests witnessed. The developed area will be outside the well radii. A
preliminary traffic study has been done also.
The plan calls for 62 units with an existing home being converted into a three-unit building.
CAD files have been sent to the town engineer. The applicants have met with the fire chief and
reviewed preliminary plans. Mr. Dubay said the chief is adamant that the units have sprinkler
systems. This is in the plans, also that the sprinkler system will be tied into the community
water system and that the fire department will have a connection for their own apparatus.
The existing building on the Roger’s Trust property is planned to be the only structure seen
from the road. The building is in poor shape and was almost used by the fire department for a
training burn. They have also proposed what they call a carriage house to be built next to the
house. This will store landscaping equipment and possibly have a small meeting room for the
Mr. Dubay talked about phase one of the project. This will be four four-unit buildings and
reconstructing the existing home around what is to be known as Damion Way. There will be a
pond in the middle. Barry said they may build in steps, but the application is being submitted
as one project to be approved as a whole.
Chris pointed out they may need more handicapped parking for the entire development. Mr.
Dubay said each unit will be made to be easily adaptable for equal access. This includes easily
adjustable shelving and countertops. There are presently 2.7 parking spaces per unit. There
was some discussion about the number of spaces required. It was concluded that three spaces
per unit will be required under the cluster ordinance. Barry pointed out they may need to ask
for relief for converting the home to a multi-family home, as this is a change of use.
The applicants also met with the Conservation Commission for their initial input. They invited
the CC to walk the property and review any wetland concerns. As the application is being
reviewed by the Planning Board, the Board will conduct a site walk to which they will ask
permission to have the public invited, but this will be at the discretion of the land owners.
Barry explained the existing road will have to be shown on the plans. The road the applicant
proposes will be built to town standards. There was some discussion about the parking spaces
along the road and how this would affect the town adopting this as a town road in the future.
Barry pointed out that the town may amend the zoning and regulations at any time. They will
discuss this with their attorney to write the deeds and covenants as tightly as they can that this
will remain a private road. It was suggested that a note on the plan state the road will remain
Chris asked about the cul-de-sac being shaped like the number 9. Mr. Dubay said they decided
on the teardrop shape as this fits better with the setbacks. This is something that my need a
There are no dumpster pads or Post Office pads shown on the plans yet. The road will have
speed bumps.

The space between the buildings was discussed. Some are drawn 20’ apart from each other
while the regulations state there needs to be at least 30’ of separation. This is something else
that may need to be discussed with the ZBA. The applicant was advised that they will need to
show a hardship in order for the ZBA to grant any request.
It was noted that a conditional use permit is granted through the Board of Selectmen.
At the next meeting, the application will be reviewed and if accepted, the waivers will be
discussed. The applicant was advised to have a list of possible items to which they would seek
an audience with the ZBA.
It was noted that the first floor of each unit is 500’ square which is different than the required
700’. Building height was discussed briefly.
Mr. Lee stated that efficiency is not synonymous with cheap. He is hopeful of building
something visually appealing, in line with all town regulations, and something that residents can
be proud to call home. He stated his other projects are designed and built well and he is proud
of all of his projects.
There was a short discussion of impact fees and the number of children this project may bring
to Danville.
The applicant was reminded to have something in writing from the Trust owners that Mr. Lee
has permission to act as their agent.

The Planning Board minutes of 2/23/12 wrote:Monarch Village
Stage 2 Site Plan review for properties owned by Elizabeth A. Rogers Revocable
Trust of 1994, 97 Sandown Road, Tax Map 1, Lot 32, and Norman and Lisa Lee,
185 Sandown Road, Tax Map 1, Lots 26, 41, and 42. This is to discuss a multifamily
site plan on approximately 15 acres, with approximately 120 acres of
covenanted open space.
Karl Dubay introduced himself and the Lee family. He explained their application is for a
development they have named Monarch Village. This will be situated on approximately 137
acres with 12-15 acres being developed; the rest being covenanted open space. The proposal is
for four-unit rental buildings on a private road with private septic.

The proposal has been discussed with other town officials including the Conservation
Commission and the Fire Department. Ideas from those meetings are being incorporated into
the plans.
There were no questions from the public at this time.
Application Review:
The plan was reviewed to ensure all abutters were properly notified. The application is for a
subdivision and site plan review. Although the plan calls for a lot line adjustment, the
subdivision application form is being used. Chris made and Bill seconded a motion to accept
the application as submitted. The motion passed unanimously.
During the discussion Barry made a checklist of action items. This list will be added to the
minutes and distributed to Board members. The list may be added to during future discussions.
Mr. Dubay displayed drawings of the proposed development and explained how this follows the
open space plan. He approximates about 62 units can be placed on the site in a cul-de-sac. He
said they will meet state requirements and have had test pits witnessed by the town and all show
good soil. They are actively working with other town departments for their input. The area to
be preserved will be under a covenanted deed recorded at the Rockingham County Registry.
Barry said the common space will need to be delineated on the plans.
Norman Lee introduced himself to the Board and audience members. He purchased property in
Danville 14 years ago. He explained that in this difficult economy many people are losing their
homes when not able to pay their mortgage. He is proposing to build homes that are affordable
but a source of pride to the residents. He said these will not be low-income housing, but will be
approximately 1800 square feet affordable and efficient homes with professional landscaping.
The town will not be required to maintain the infrastructure.
The density of 62 units was derived by using the formula in the Zoning Ordinance (ZO).
Several ideas were considered to come up with that number. The calculation included
approximately 50% wetland and 50% upland. The town engineer has received a copy of the
plans thus far.
Open/Common Space:
It is proposed that 119 acres will be open space and 18 acres will be common space. Barry
reminded the applicant that these terms are defined in the ZO and will need to be clearly
defined in the plans. Mr. Lee said he is working with his attorney about the wording that will
be in the deed delineating what is common and what is open space. Mr. Dubay said the land
will remain privately owned by the Lee family. There is currently a purchase agreement
between the Roger’s Family Trust and Norman Lee.

There was a short discussion of the property which currently houses the Lee’s primary
residence. This is an existing lot of record which has less than 200’ of frontage. The lot lines
will be adjusted to give additional acreage to the proposed development, taking away acreage
from the Lee family lot, but the lot will not be made less conforming.
Road Entrance and Right of Way:
Barry said they need at least 100’ of frontage along Sandown Road for the entrance. Mr. Dubay
said there is at least 600’ of frontage where the road entrance will be located. This road will be
built to town standards. The entrance location as proposed was chosen because it seemed to be
the safest and most appropriate site for a driveway entrance. This will be reviewed by the Road
There was a discussion of having a 50’ right of way (ROW) along each side of the road. Mr.
Dubay said the entrance as planned meets DOT standards and asked about the cluster ordinance
allowing for a private road. Barry explained this will still need to meet the ordinance standards
of the 50’ plus a 25’vegetative buffer on each side. Also the primary access road has to have
the first 150’ built per the ordinance, even if it remains privately owned. Chris reminded the
board that the town has been advised to increase the ROW to accommodate sidewalks.
Mr. Dubay said they will build the ROW and design the road per the ordinance for the
minimum length required.
Setbacks and Buffers:
Mr. Dubay showed on sheet 13 that the existing home on M&L 1-32 is within the 150’ setback.
They are exploring options for the older building and have proposed converting this home to a
two unit apartment. Barry pointed out this will require a variance from the Zoning Board of
Adjustment (ZBA) as this constitutes a change of use to a cluster, even if the home is on the
same foundation. Mr. Dubay said they think the right thing to do is renovate the house as it
adds character and will hide some things that they have a right to build outside the 150’ setback.
They have hoped to rebuild it keeping the character of an older home, as it is now.
The question was asked if the house is worth saving or if it will be torn down to make way for
another structure on its footprint. Mr. Dubay said it probably isn’t worth saving. A carriage
house, which had been proposed to be built next to the existing home, has been moved out of
the 150’ setback as well as some parking which has been moved outside the setback.
Mr. Dubay explained that all proposed structures and parking are not within 100’ from abutting
properties and 30’ from the road. Mr. Dubay called the entry way a site drive, Barry
maintained that this is a road and will need to show that no structures are within 30’ of it. Chris
suggested looking at section 6 of the Subdivision Regulations, section B and Article IV of the

The design as presented has some structures as close as 20’ apart. This will be modified to be
30’ apart as per the ZO. There is a 25’ landscape buffer around the proposed structures. One
area within the buffer will be graded and replanted and this will be shown on the plans.
The plans have been modified to show three parking spaces per unit. Barry said that if they
want to design for three spaces per unit but only build 2.7 spaces, they will need to see ZBA for
a variance.
Building Height:
The recent letter from James Tierney sent via email and dated February 22 was discussed.
Chris said he was offended that the applicant felt the need to bring in someone else to interpret
the town ZO when members of the current Board helped author it.
There was a discussion of building height. Barry pointed out that it may be difficult to have a
walk-out basement while maintaining a 30’ building height. Mr. Dubay said the walk-out
basement will be built much like other homes: much of the concrete structure will not be
showing and the landscape will be graded around it. Height measurement is to the average of
the height structure.
Mr. Lee explained that as a business owner, when he comes to a point that he does not
understand, he asks someone more knowledgeable to explain and this is how Mr. Tierney’s
letter came before the Board.
Mr. Tierney explained he hasn’t reviewed the complete plans, but he has researched the
definition of building height. Barry said they will not look at each building individually, but
will look at a basic building design. If they really want walk-out basements, they will need to
see ZBA for a variance; otherwise they will have a short basement or a basement without a
There was a discussion of what is meant by “average” roof height as stated in Article
IV.A.1.d.2 in the ZO. Mr. Lee asked for some clarification of what the Board thinks is the
average. It was discussed that it is averaging the peak of the roof and the lowest point.
Barry maintained that, while there are homes that may have surpassed the 30’ height restriction,
these may have been built either before the restriction was put into place or the restriction was
ignored. Chief Woitkun explained that his fire department does not have the equipment to get
fire fighters onto a roof of this height. Access to the roof is important in order to vent the home
if there is a fire.
Barry said that as the town does not have a definition, he would take the state definition. Chief
Woitkun said he’s comfortable with the average meaning between the soffit and peak. Mr.
Dubay said that if this has been decided tonight, they will not see the ZBA for a variance on
building height.

Clarifying the ZO regarding building height will be discussed by the Board during a future
Dwelling House:
There was a lengthy discussion of the meaning of “dwelling house” as stated in Article VII.G in
the ZO. Clarifying this portion of the Ordinance will also be on a future agenda. The Board
talked about the intention of the wording versus what is actually written.
Mr. Tierney said that a four-unit building is one dwelling building. There was a discussion of
this being in the ordinance in order to discourage small cottages or shanties. The building as a
whole does not violate this point in the ordinance when measuring the entirety of the bottom
floor. Mr. Lee explained that these will not be shanty units. However, the Board has to abide
by what is written in the ordinance and this portion is open to different interpretations.
Town counsel will be asked for guidance and the wording will be researched in older editions
of the ZO and town warrants. The general consensus of the Board was that unless there are 750
square feet on the first floor of each unit, the plan is not in compliance with the ordinance. A
formal vote was not taken. The applicant was told that ultimately, if there is any decision by
the Planning Board which is disagreeable to the applicant, they can approach the ZBA.
At 9:30 a short break was taken.
Public Input:
The hearing was open to the public
Chief Woitkun asked about impact fees. It was explained that there is a fee structure found in
appendix A of the ZO, relative to the school. He said he’d like to work with the Board in
developing an impact fee relative to the emergency departments.
Sue Murdock expressed her opinion that Mr. Lee is the only one who will benefit from this
development. She said she is concerned about the increase in traffic this will bring.
Barry said the reason for the development is irrelevant. A traffic study will be conducted and
the road agent will review all pertinent aspects of the application.
Chuck Wright said he’s concerned about the fact that these will be rental properties. He said
this will take down the standard of what exists in that area of town. Mr. Wright also said the
drive will become a road hazard and this isn’t doing the town any favors.
Barry said that some rental properties, just like conventional subdivisions, can be well
maintained and some are not. The regulations put in place ensure that whatever is being
proposed does not impact wetlands, increase run-off onto roads, impact wells, etc.
It was mentioned that the Planning Board has nothing to do with how a property is taxed. It
was also mentioned that the units in the proposed rebuilding of the Roger’s Trust home is
calculated into the unit density.

Mary Simchik asked if site distance is considered when deciding where to put the entrance. It
was explained that the road agent reviews this and other factors. The town engineer also
reviews this information and everything else provided in the traffic study.
At 9:45 the public hearing was closed for tonight’s meeting.
Barry reviewed the action list compiled so far. The Board will meet again in March 8th at 7:35
to continue the stage 2 review.
The applicant was reminded to have something in writing from the Trust owners that Mr. Lee
has permission to act as their agent.

The Planning Board minutes of 3/8/12 wrote:Monarch Village
Stage 2 Site Plan review for properties owned by Elizabeth A. Rogers Revocable
Trust of 1994, 97 Sandown Road, Tax Map 1, Lot 32, and Norman and Lisa Lee,
185 Sandown Road, Tax Map 1, Lots 26, 41, and 42. This is to discuss a multifamily
site plan on approximately 15 acres, with approximately 120 acres of
covenanted open space.
This is a continued discussion of the above referenced application.
Dwelling House
Barry read an excerpt from Peter Loughlin’s letter giving his interpretation of a dwelling house
as cited in the Zoning Ordinance (ZO):
“Admittedly, the wording of this section could be clearer, however, I am not convinced
that the awkward wording is fatal. I think it is very clear that the intent is to establish a
720 s.f. minimum building footprint size for all conventionally built structures and a 320
s.f. minimum building size for mobile homes. I think the intent is clear that a dwelling
house means a single living unit and that it does not include four units.”

There was a discussion of the meaning of the term “dwelling house.” Mr. Tierney asked if units
can be stacked on top of each other. Barry maintained that the ground level of the unit must be
at least 720 sq. ft. and a unit that begins on the second floor does not have any footage on the
ground floor.
Karl Dubay asked if the Board would approve a decision made by the Zoning Board of
Adjustment (ZBA). It was stated the ZBA can overrule decisions by the Planning Board (PB)
and the criteria for granting a variance is very specific: the ZBA does not care what the PB’s
opinion is on issues.
Mr. Dubay pointed out that while the plan does not meet the 720 sq. ft. requirement, it does meet
the 150 sq. ft. per occupant criterion.
Barry asked the Board members whether the submitted plan, showing a multi-unit dwelling
having 500 sq. ft. of ground floor area per unit, and total ground floor area depending on the
building, while it appears to meet the 150 sq. ft. requirement of VII.G of the Zoning Ordinance,
does it meet the 720 sq. ft. requirement? The Board members each voted no, 500 sq. ft. on the
ground floor of each unit does not meet Article VII.G.
Itemized Check List
Mr. Dubay reviewed the items on the list derived from the previous meeting. His review
reiterated the email dated March 1, 2012. He stated they will show the following on their plans:
compliance with building height, three parking spaces per unit, landscape buffer markers, 30’
distance between buildings, no structures within 30’ of the right-of way (ROW), roads built to
town standards, 100’ frontage on class 1-5 highway, and common space will be delineated and
labeled. He also said Adelphia will be changed to Comcast. Adelphia was notified as this was in
compliance with the application instructions although they are not servicing Danville anymore.
Other issues to be addressed further are: updating tables on sheets 25 and 27, 50’ ROW with 25’
buffer, compliance with first floor building size, road agent review of plans, structures within 30’
of ROW, and any need for a waiver from ZBA.
Mr. Dubay explained that they meet the side setback criteria. They will meet the front setback
criteria by eliminating their plans for the existing building.
30’ ROW Setback
A packet of information, noted as pages A through Q, was handed out to the Board members and
discussed. This included excerpts from the ZO, Subdivision Regulations, and RSAs. Points
brought out in the discussion included the purpose of the cluster ordinance and the primary
access road through a development.
Mr. Dubay pointed out that private roadways are allowed in town and must meet town standards,
including having 100’ frontage. He called attention to the definitions for a street and lot line. He
pointed out that the definition for a street per our ordinance means public and that setback

measurements in the cluster/open space development are identical to the standard subdivision
setbacks. This is despite the definition for cluster/open space which states setbacks are reduced
from conventional sizes.
Mr. Dubay said requiring a 30’ setback on a private roadway gives no further reduction in
setbacks than the standard. He said this does not meet the spirit and intent of a cluster
development. He further said their planned private roadway, if required to meet the 30’ setback,
effects whether or not they can really do a cluster space development.
Mr. Dubay said that even if the intention was good to do an open space, but the definitions are
circuitous, a waiver can be granted by the PB. Barry pointed out the PB can grant waivers to
subdivision and site plan regulations, but the ZBA has authority over the ZO. Mr. Dubay
pointed out in the subdivision regulations the waiver criteria. He said the issue of a ROW is a
practical difficulty and a waiver may be requested of the Board because the 30’ setback
requirement is inherent in the Subdivision Regulations.
Chip said they’ve just granted conditional approval for a site plan which includes roadways
going into driveways with parking along the driveway. He explained there are definitions for
roadways and driveways and perhaps their question should be: where does the ROW end? The
intention of the ordinance is clear that no buildings are allowed within 30’ of a ROW. Chip
asked if the ROW ends in the parking space. Additionally, he said it’s not out of the question to
ask the applicant to find space in the 100+ acres to put the buildings outside the 30’ setback.
Mr. Dubay said they have a lot of land which they are trying to protect. If they act on the 30’
setback, it blows up the design and negates the open space idea. The opinion was expressed that
protecting the land is appreciated.
Barry said at some point they need to determine where the road ends and where the driveway
starts. However, this has other side effects, as a driveway can’t service more than two multifamily
units. The road will need to separate to do that or another configuration will need to be
drawn. And, where the road ends, a cul-de-sac is required to be built to town standards. Parking
along a roadway also doesn’t count toward three spaces, but a driveway does. Per the ordinance,
parking is allowed on a road which allows for access to a mailbox, pool, visitor spaces, etc. A
road needs 50’ ROW, 24’ wide pavement with a 6’ grass strip on each side, etc.
Mr. Dubay said he will put together a few sketches. They want to have an efficient layout. If
they start to expand using the 30’ setback, it may start looking like a standard subdivision. The
Board said they do not need a full set of plans to discuss waivers.
Mr. Dubay requested a waiver of the 30’ setback criteria in the Subdivision Regulations as
pertaining to the open space layout. Barry said he will need to get something in writing to the
Board before the next meeting. This will be on the agenda for the next meeting because the
request was made during a noticed public hearing.
Wetland Crossing

There was a short discussion about the wet area near the entrance of the development. Barry
asked for a redesign of the front area and pointed out there are wetland setbacks. Mr. Dubay said
there is an existing road into the property which has already disturbed the wet area. They will
need a variance on this and they plan to upgrade the previously disturbed areas. They have
already spoken with the Conservation Commission about this proposal. Mr. Dubay said this
water has little function and value from the state’s point of view, but it is a wetland. After the
first area in the front is passed, there is only one other wetland crossing. Throughout the rest of
the property the wetland setbacks are met. They plan to speak to the Board of Selectmen for a
conditional use permit and will obtain the dredge and fill permit.
Public Discussion
Mary Simchik asked the Board to use conservatism in granting waivers. She commented that
proposing rental properties is a huge change from what is currently in that section of town.
Barry pointed out that rental properties are a permitted use in that area of town.
Chip commented to the Board members that parking will need to be tightened up as the Site Plan
and Zoning are not in agreement.
Barbara Sergeant asked for the agendas to be posted on the website.
It was agreed this discussion will continue March 22nd at 7:35pm.

The Planning Board minutes of 3/22/12 wrote:Monarch Village
The applicant was not in the audience. In light of the request to continue the hearing, it was
decided that the hearing will continue at 7:35 on April 12th. Barry mentioned that the waiver
request has not been received. The applicant will be informed that if the waiver request is not
received by tomorrow, it will not be discussed at the next meeting. It was mentioned that the
applicant has also requested disclosure of the letter from Peter Loughlin. The applicant may

make a 91-A request and let the Selectmen decide whether or not to release the letter. The
minutes of the last meeting will be forwarded to the applicant.
Curt Springer
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:19 am
Location: 228 Sandown Road, North Danville

Re: Multi Family Housing off Sandown Road

Postby curt » Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:13 pm

This summer the ZBA granted Norman Lee a variance to build garden apartments because of what everyone agreed was an unintended consequence of conflicting clauses in the zoning ordinance.

The plan is/was for Norman to buy the adjacent property owned by the heirs of Fred Rogers, and that is where most of the actual buildings would be located.

This weekend, driving by, I saw "for sale by owner" signs on the Rogers property. Does anybody know what is going on?
Curt Springer
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:19 am
Location: 228 Sandown Road, North Danville

Return to Danville General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests