42 Lot Subdivision Proposed for Alton Bay

[mcdude]

...and running into roadblocks from the zoning board. The subdivision is proposed for the area between 28A and Rt. 28 between the cascades and Swan Lake Trail off of Rt. 28 on the east side of the bay. There has already been some building in this area (Sanctuary Road) clearly visible from the west side of the bay (from Alton Mountain Road) as well as a lot of ridgeline development from the bay up towards Wolfeboro. This area from 28A up to 28 is steeply sloped indicating potential problems with rainwater run-off and sewerage finding it's way down to the BIG LAKE. The link below shows a Google Satellite map clearly indicating Swan Lake Trail, but I am unable to locate Austin Road.

click here for GOOGLE SATELLITE MAP

from the Baysider

Subdivision application declared incomplete
Proposed subdivision seeks to put 42 homes off Route 28A, planners find issues in application
BY BRENDAN BERUBE Staff Writer

ALTON

— Concerns about road access and potential impact on local wetlands led the Alton Planning Board to reject Bayview Forest and Development’s application for a 42-lot subdivision off Route 28-A as incomplete during its Oct. 21 meeting. Representatives from Bayview first approached the board in November requesting input on a design for a subdivision consisting of 42 single-family homes on a 102.5-acre parcel of land located near the intersection of Route 28-A and Austin Road, on the shore of Alton Bay. Town Planner Sharon Penney commented during last week’s meeting that the proposed subdivision would have a “significant impact” on the terrain and character of the surrounding area, and that Bayview’s request for a waiver from the 25-foot vegetated buffer required under the town’s subdivision regulations might impact the acceptability of the application. Responding to board Co- Chair Cindy Balcius’ comments that there were no ledge outcroppings depicted on the site plan submitted by Bayview, despite the presence of numerous ledges at the site, surveyor Dennis Rialland explained that he had chosen to show only the outcroppings relative to the design of the roadway. Stating that he would like to see a more detailed depiction of ledges in order to get a better picture of their potential impact on septic systems and drainage, board member Dave Hussey added that he couldn’t see the board granting a waiver for the vegetated buffer. Asked by Balcius whether he and the applicant had been to a pre-application with the state Wetlands Bureau, Rialland replied that they had attended a meeting on Dec. 14, 2007. Pointing out that the Wetlands Bureau “said ‘no’” to applications similar to the one presented by Bayview in several cases that have come before the board over the past year (including a proposal presented by Prospect Mountain Builders on New Durham Road), Balcius asked if Rialland had kept any notes from the meeting. “I would appreciate notes saying that this is a permittable project,” she said, asking whether the applicant had met with the Alteration of Terrain Bureau (which she said has recently stopped approving treatment swales like those depicted on Bayview’s site plan). Board member Tom Hoopes said he would “have a problem” granting the requested waiver due to concerns about how “flashy” the area becomes during periods of heavy rain. It is the “total responsibility” of the board, he said, to ensure the prevention of wash-outs into Lake Winnipesaukee. Another factor in his reluctance to approve the application, he said, was the question of whether Bayview had legal access onto the property from Swan Lake Trail. “That has to be determined by the board of selectmen, or we can’t even look at the application,” he explained. Rialland presented the board with a letter from Town Attorney James Sessler, which he claimed granted the developer access off of Swan Lake Trail through an easement acquired by the town. Board member Bonnie Dunbar said, however, that she had read Sessler’s letter as simply granting permission for crews to pass back and forth over the town’s right-of-way in order to survey the property. Voicing another of his concerns, Hoopes commented that the state Department of Environmental Services (DES) currently requires setbacks from vernal pools greater than the 25-foot setbacks depicted on the site plan. Adding that the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) looks for 750- foot vegetated buffer zones around vernal pools, of which there were a “cluster” shown on the plan, Balcius suggested that the applicant schedule another meeting with the Wetlands Bureau. On a motion made by Hoopes, the board voted unanimously to reject Bayview’s application as incomplete, meaning that the developer will have to submit an entirely new application, and will not be entitled to any further continuances on their initial proposal. In an effort to provide Bayview with as much input as possible from both the board and abutters as they prepare to re-apply, Balcius suggested, with the agreement of the board, that the public hearing on the original application be converted into a design review. Advising Rialland and the applicant that the board is “not taking this [proposal] lightly,” Balcius suggested that the developer complete a traffic study in accordance with a recommendation from the police department, along with a soil survey and a plan for re-planting in order to preserve the view shed from the other side of the bay. Board member Scott Williams asked whether the town would have to grant Bayview access off of Austin Road. Hoopes replied that all road issues would have to be handled by the selectmen. Dunbar suggested that the developer include impervious surface calculations as part of their new application due to the presence of nearby Cascade Brook,which she said has been an issue with numerous proposed subdivisions in the past. A resident of Swan Lake Trail came forward during public input to state his opposition to opening the road up to public access based on concerns about the “rough terrain” of the area and the potential increase in traffic. The subdivision itself, he said, would place additional requirements on town services, and could lead to erosion issues in an area that already becomes “mucky” during heavy rainstorms. The resident also suggested that if he were in the developer’s position, he would wait until the volatile economy settled down before embarking on such a large project. Selectman Steve McMahon, a resident of Austin Road, voiced his concern that the surrounding roads would not be able to accommodate the additional traffic flow from 42 new homes. Explaining that he purchased his property because of the “quiet, tranquil setting” it offered, McMahon questioned the potential impact of the subdivision, not only on the surrounding neighborhood, but on the entire town, as well. “How many more fire trucks? … How many children are going to be living in 42 new homes? … I just think it’s too much,” he said, adding that the wildlife in the area would also disappear, and urging the board to “think, and look at this very closely.” Addressing McMahon’s comments, Hoopes said that if the developer expressed a willingness to upgrade the roads surrounding the property, “that’s the purview of the selectmen.” “You can’t knock his right to develop his property to a certain degree,” Hoopes added, pointing out that McMahon’s home was built as part of a subdivision itself. Balcius suggested that in order to address concerns about the subdivision’s potential impact on town services,the board exercise its right to request a fiscal impact study. Resident Joe Thomas asked whether the board had considered how the proposed density of the subdivision, with greatly reduced distances between homes compared to the current layout of the area, would affect the nature of the neighborhood. Pointing out that the board’s responsibility is to ensure that new development meets the requirements of the town’s zoning ordinance and regulations, Balcius said the board conducts work sessions every year for the purpose of discussing changes in the existing zoning ordinance (such as increased minimum lot sizing), at which the public is always welcome. Hoopes added that any concerns residents have about existing ordinances or regulations can always be aired during the generic public input sessions at the start of each planning board meeting.

[Argie's Wife]

Well, I'm not sure how that really differs from the 53-unit "elderly" housing project that will go in on Route 140, just above the Irving station, that will be on only 14 acres. The land was clear cut about a year ago and construction hasn't started but it was approved and all the standards for approval were met.

Here you're talking about 42 homes on 102.5 acres - that's a far batter ratio. Plus they're single family homes; that's better than "units". The drainage and runoff issues are certainly a concern. I question if the septic standards can be met and if the houses will receive town water.

That being said...

It is my opinion that Alton is one of the better planned towns around the Lake. I believe the members of the Planning Board are well qualified and they give due diligence to every case that comes before them. Alton is a unique town because of our location, low taxes and standard of living. I believe the Planning Board is aware of this and wants to preserve this but at the same time, allow change to happen.

This will, no doubt, be an interesting case to watch.

At least it's not another cell phone tower case.

[LakeSnake]

Hopefully the town will stick to their guns and keep this from happening. Significant issues appear to come into play based on the concerns of the Board. The "view shed", as they put it, is already significant with what has been done in that area to date. (Being selfish as I own property on the other side of the bay). Regardless - do we really need 42 new homes in the bay? Especially with this economy – how long will they “sit” unoccupied? Do we need them packed into that small of a space with less than 2.5 acres per home? In Alton is there a minimum lot size requirement for a single family home? (I assume that is not an issue here as the Board did not mention it).

[mcdude]

Originally Posted by Argie's Wife

.... and if the houses will receive town water.

Argie's Wife....I was unaware that there was any such thing as town water. What part of town has it? McD

[Argie's Wife]

My part of town has it - going up Route 140, the last house to get it is just before the Doll Museum. The school, town hall, and up to the circle (I think) all receive town water. I do know that Riverside Cemetery is watered with town water.

=======

Lakesnake - As I understand it, the application wasn't complete. The Board doesn't start officially reviewing the details until all the criteria of the application (administrative process) is found to be complete. Things like acreage, set backs, etc. would be reviewed after the application was accepted for review. (Accepting an application and approving an application are two totally different things!)

[LakeSnake]

Thanks Argie's Wife - I am certainly no expert on these things but will keep my ears open on this one.

[RLW]

Originally Posted by mcdude

Argie's Wife....I was unaware that there was any such thing as town water. What part of town has it? McD

I believe going past Sandy Point also has town water

[ghfromaltonbay]

We get town water at Sandy Point; however, since the water lines run above ground at the bridge over the Back Bay, the water is turned off around 10/15 - 10/20. If you live west of the bridge on Rte. 11 you need a well to live there year round.

[Argie's Wife]

From the town's website:

Today the Alton Water Works supplies approximately 700 residential and commercial water services in the Alton, Alton Bay area and also supplies water to and maintains 55 fire hydrants.

As a townie, I'm glad I don't have to have a well. My house is grandfathered in on 0.33 acres, with about a 10' setback from the road and I don't know where we'd put a well!

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by ghfromaltonbay

We get town water at Sandy Point; however, since the water lines run above ground at the bridge over the Back Bay, the water is turned off around 10/15 - 10/20. If you live west of the bridge on Rte. 11 you need a well to live there year round.

We also get town water on the summer plan. I don't know if it runs past us up Rt28A. Our neighbor has a well but that could be by choice.

[upthesaukee]

Town water: The shiny cover just north of Bay Hill Rd & Rte 28 is a storage tank. The water area going out rte 11 westbound goes to Boat Cove, and GH, you're right, west of Back Bay bridge, it is seasonal water. It goes up Rand Hill Rd to the Advent campground, and all the cottages therein, and I believe down Spring street (not sure here.). Out 28A to about abeam Sandy Point (M&M, you could be close to the last of the service area. Uptown and out Rte 140 as Argie's Wife pointed out.

A lot of the pipes are old, and need replacing, keeping the water dept pretty busy.

Pumps are behind Jones Field, Levey Park, and I believe next to the water dept, next to the fire station on 140.

[ghfromaltonbay]

Originally Posted by upthesaukee

Town water: The water area going out rte 11 westbound goes to Boat Cove, and GH, you're right, west of Back Bay bridge, it is seasonal water.
A lot of the pipes are old, and need replacing, keeping the water dept pretty busy.

UPS - You are right about old pipes that need to be REPLACED. I can't believe every spring that the water dept. does patches on the lines near the Back Bay bridge. Instead of putting in 1 length of PVC and being done with it, every spring they dig up the old pipe and do patch work. Last May when I walked down to the post office the water dept. had at least 6 or 7 patches of fresh black top within a 50 feet stretch near the bridge. This is an annual occurence as can be seen by the # of patches along that stretch of the shoulder. For goodness sake, put in 1 50 foot section of new pipe and be done with it!!! (or is this job security???)

[nj2nh]

I am having trouble figuring out exactly where the property under consideration is located. If I read the story correctly (but I confess I couldn't read it all), it is lakefront? As far as I can tell from our trips from Echo Point to the bay, there isn't any lakefront left. The only undeveloped property I can see are the camps (Kabeyunk, etc.)

nj2nh

[beancover]

Originally Posted by LakeSnake

Hopefully the town will stick to their guns and keep this from happening. Significant issues appear to come into play based on the concerns of the Board. The "view shed", as they put it, is already significant with what has been done in that area to date. (Being selfish as I own property on the other side of the bay). Regardless - do we really need 42 new homes in the bay? Especially with this economy – how long will they “sit” unoccupied? Do we need them packed into that small of a space with less than 2.5 acres per home? In Alton is there a minimum lot size requirement for a single family home? (I assume that is not an issue here as the Board did not mention it).

I find it hard to believe that no one else has questioned the validity of speculative development in this economy. Building starts are down, banks aren't lending and mortgages are not being written. It is pretty apparent that this is a non-issue. This economy is the answer to bad zoning, over crowding, water runoff and setbacks.

[upthesaukee]

Originally Posted by nj2nh

I am having trouble figuring out exactly where the property under consideration is located. If I read the story correctly (but I confess I couldn't read it all), it is lakefront? As far as I can tell from our trips from Echo Point to the bay, there isn't any lakefront left. The only undeveloped property I can see are the camps (Kabeyunk, etc.)

nj2nh

This subdivision will a major blight on the hillside over rte28A, north of Dan Kelley Drive and accessible from rte 28. It will be another Lakewood, where there will be much clear cutting.