The Keene Sentinel Thursday, January 10, 2008
by Sarah Palermo
Sentinel Staff
Winchester - A proposal to build 32 condominiums in Winchester may be approaching it's second judgment day before the town planning board.
On Monday night, the board granted two out of three waivers requested by the Franklin Mountain project's developer, Robert Van Dyke of Rindge.
In September, the board rejected the proposal; but re-opened the hearing process in November under fear that it acted too hastily, said board member Kenneth Cole in his motion to reopen the hearing in October.
Of the two waivers granted, one allows two detention basins within part of the protected buffer zone between the development and neighboring properties and one allows a cul-de-sac in the development to be 125 feet longer than the town maximum of 400 feet.
The board decided to waive the road length restriction based on the topography of the land in question, Sharra said.
Part of the plans detailed a road with a slope of 11.5 percent, steeper than the town maximum of 8 percent, said Planning Board Chairman Margaret A. Sharra. The board chose not to grant this waiver.
"Part of the waiver request is that they need to justify it and we felt the justification was not there." Sharra said, adding "that safety was also a concern".
Though most issues in the town's reconsideration of the project have been completed, "the board decided to postpone closing the hearing for at least one more month", Sharra said.
"We didn't want to close it just in case we missed something", she said.
Van Dykes proposal, which is also awaiting approvals and permits from state agencies will be before the board again at it's Feb 4 meetings.
During the first round of hearings, neighbors and other resident enthusiastically opposed to the plan, hiring a lawyer to speak on their behalf before the board.
The residents were concerned that the project would draw too heavily on an already limited water supply.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Isn't a buffer zone by definition something that remains untouached and serves as a cushion between the developing property and those abutting? Why on earth would a planning board agree to allow for the destruction of that part of the property. Would appear to most intelligent people to negate the whole concept of requiring a buffer zone in the first instance.
Ditto, the logic for overriding the steep slope ordinance. Why bother to pass laws if one overrides them at will when a developer cries poverty.
Last time I checked various statutes and legal precedents, monetary hardships (e.g. cost of compliance with current laws, or desire to develop a property in such a fashion as to create a bigger profit) do not comprise sufficient reason to grant a variance.
Exactly robin, the buffer is there for several reasons and is to remain in it's natural state. Since day one of this project, there has always been some kind of intrusion into this zone; be it septic systems, wells, retention ponds, etc. and every set of revisions shows the same. The reason for this is simply the plot of land doesn't support the project and the developer is driven to maximize his profits. The Land Use rule on waivers stated that, " no waiver(s) will be granted purely on economic gain alone". Would someone explain to me what other reason was there to grant them, when Van Dyke could have a) moved the project farther up the hillside away from abutters; or b) scaled back the number of units to fit the buildable land and preserve the buffers. He has already cut down trees and removed brush in several sections of these buffer areas and drilled a well in the wetlands buffer thus in violation of the PRD rules and regulations- he has filled in and bulldozed over seasonal brooks; but no fines or citations. Seems he has carte-blanche to do whatever he wants. He did the same thing on another project here in town several years ago and still this board allows him to submit proposals. I am dumbfounded.
In regards to waivers, Van Dyke has applied for and received the following from the ZBA and Planning Board for this project.
Density variance.. granted
Steep Slopes variance .. granted
Completed Application .. waived
Buffer Zone Intrusion .. granted
Road Frontage Requirement .. waived
Driveway length .. granted
Does this appear to be acting in the town's best interest or something else? .. you decide.
Mosquito proliferation in storm water ponds is a major concern, especially when so many wet and dry ponds are already in place and continue to be installed across the state. Many ponds are not properly maintained, particularly in cases where they are installed in subdivisions and other developments, where the entity responsible for long-term maintenance is not clearly defined once the construction is complete; as in this case of a condo association taking over. Yet the planning board didn't even ask as if there were alternative storm water controls for run-off, such as a simple culvert system running along the roadway to the existing system already in place along Route 10; or rain gardens or vegetation swales, which slow down water and help it infiltrate without extended periods of ponding; thus eliminating any cutting of trees or intrusions into the required PRD Buffer areas.
One thing wrong with granting the variences to VanDyke was "does the proposed project benefit the community?" Margaret said "yes it does."
Question: HOW does it benefit the community when the useage of water
causes the wells to go dry of the
abutters?
Post a Comment