Amendments to Site Plan approved May 6, 2002 by the Planning Board and report of Site Visit of 12/13/03

Ms. Annis stated that a Site Visit of Mr. Azmy’s property had been conducted. Board members present at the Site Visit were Ms. Annis, Mr. Brayshaw and Mr. Reeder. The location of the bound for the stone wall, in the front, was established. Mr. Reeder measured 50-feet, the width of the driveway established in the driveway permit from the State of New Hampshire, and marked the distance. The distance to the centerline of the road (25-feet) was also measured and marked. The Board members present talked with Mr. Azmy and they observed the site. At that point, Mr. Azmy had other obligations, and he left them. Ms. Annis said that someone present suggested that they take a look at the survey line of Mr. Richards (abutter), which they did. She said that there were some flags hanging from tree branches, and Mr. Reeder took some photos of the various areas observed.

Mr. Pershouse: When you say you looked at the survey line, what line was that?

Ms. Annis: Mr. Richards has had his property surveyed.

Mr. Pershouse: Was it the dividing line?

Ms. Annis: No, it was right up beside the road.

Mr. Pershouse: It is the boundary between two properties then?

Ms. Annis: That is questionable because of the town road. Mr. Richards had his property survey, and this is the end of his property.

Mr. Azmy stated that he had a lot to add.

Mr. Azmy: For the record, I would like to mention to the Board one more time that there is a dispute about the property line between me and Mr. Richards, and that dispute is in the Superior Court. He has a survey, and I have a survey.

Mr. Reeder: Barbara, is what Mr. Azmy is discussing germane to tonight’s discussion?

Mr. Azmy: She mentioned the survey markers, and I want to state for the record that the flag that she saw is not the correct flag. Mr. Richards puts his flags up and takes our flags down. I was not aware that you were going to look at the flags, or I would have gone with you and shown you the correct ones. I understand that he showed you a survey of the Class VI road, and if you look at this survey, he doesn’t even show a Class VI road at all – which is what the Town of Warner still owns. His survey is not correct. The Class VI road is on our survey, and I’ll be happy to show you that. We know where the road is, because our property -- we talked to the two previous owners, and they showed us where the road is – the actual road that was used. It is blocked right now, and the Court will have to decide that. The flags go up and come down and go up and come down, and we are getting tired of walking in the snow and replacing them. So whatever you saw is not correct.

Ms. Annis: OK.

Mr. Azmy: We applied for three driveways from the State. We have over 545 feet of frontage, plus the 66 feet which is the right-of-way of the Town. We’re allowed 3 driveways.

Ms. Annis: But the State only granted you two.

Mr. Azmy: That is because nobody can identify where the beginning or the end – including the Town of Warner – where the 66-feet starts or ends. Because of that, the State left that alone and asked us where we wanted the first driveway – we said right here – where do you want the second one, and we showed them, and asked us where we wanted the third one. We showed them that, too. These are on our Site Plan. They couldn’t give us the third one until the location of the Class VI road is determined. At that point, they will give us the third driveway permit.

Mr. Azmy showed the Board the locations of the driveways on his Site Plan, as well as the Class VI road. He also presented a copy of a survey done by Mr. Richards, and stated that it is the plan that doesn’t show a Class VI road.

Mr. Pershouse: What is the date on that survey?

Mr. Azmy: June 13, 2002. Ours was done – we bought the property and had it surveyed in 1977, and it shows that. Our land abuts with the state, and that is perfect. It abuts with the corner, no problem; across the street there are 5 parcels – no problems. So the 1977 survey is correct.

Mr. St.Pierre: Mr. Richards’ survey does show the road. It shows it here as abandoned in the Town of Webster. This is the property line here.

Mr. Azmy: Because of the third driveway, which we are waiting for, and the location of the Class VI road, which belongs to the Town of Warner – and I understand that the Selectmen are going to assign somebody to show where the beginning and the end of that road is – then we’ll be able to go ahead and show the opening for our entrance.

Mr. Azmy showed the plan and the survey to the Board, and stated that Mr. Richards’ survey showing that the Class VI road goes through the area where the shed/shop is standing is incorrect. He said that the road is actually well before the location of the shop.

Ms. Annis: We didn’t get into that.

Mr. Azmy: Well, there are so many [sets of] minutes here, and every time I come in someone talks about something else. It is taking a very long time. I’m thinking that to solve the problem, and to make it really accurate, maybe we should wait to find out where the Class VI road is and then we’ll be able to mark our driveway. If you’ll look at the minutes, you’ll see that I wanted parking like it was before – straight in, like you parked when you came for the Site Visit.

Ms. Annis: Are you saying that you’re going to withdraw…

Mr. Azmy: I’m saying that you said that you were going to measure where the cars go.

Ms. Annis: Which we did.

Mr. Azmy: No, you only measured the opening of the driveway.

Ms. Annis: We measured to the centerline.

Mr. Reeder: We measured…

Mr. Brayshaw: …the depth of the island.

Mr. Reeder: We measured how big the island was, and it was very obvious that you couldn’t have pull-in parking with that island there because there were only about 4 feet between where the island was and where cars park.

Mr. Azmy: And I know that Mr. Brayshaw said something about maybe I could cancel the third driveway and bring the 50-feet over there and then they could come straight through. But for right now, we don’t know where we’re going to put the third driveway.

Mr. Brayshaw: But the third driveway isn’t the issue here. Measuring the driveway from an imaginary centerline of the Class VI road isn’t going to have any overall effect on the Site Plan Review. We received a letter from the State and I think it involves some liability issues – if we don’t uphold what the State requires, and someone coming in or out of your restaurant out there where the island is supposed to be, the Town is liable. It is the island that is the issue. You need to have that buffer out there.

Mr. Azmy: The last time we talked to Scott [with the State], he is the man in charge of this – and he mentioned you picked the third driveway when you tell me the end of the Class VI road is. It is really strange that the Town doesn’t know where the road is. Because of that, we cannot put in the third driveway.

Ms. Annis: Before us tonight, you wish to revise your Site Plan to have vertical parking here, 5 spaces here, and outdoor eating here. Is that true?

Mr. Azmy: That is part of it. In the minutes also, two times I spoke to you, and you keep saying that the Town of Warner didn’t give me permission to have a restaurant there. Is that true?

Ms. Annis: The Zoning Board of Adjustment did, but your Site Plan didn’t show it.

Mr. Azmy: We have a permit from Warner and Webster to have a restaurant there. Everybody approved it. Can you show me on the plan where the restaurant is? It could be there, or it could be here (pointing to areas on the plan).

Ms. Hinnendael (ZBA member in the audience): To my knowledge, and I sat in on that meeting, the only thing that the ZBA dealt with was the location of the parking lot and the driveway, because the restaurant is in Webster. I was an alternate then.

Ms. Annis: Do you have a copy of what you want in an amended plan with you?

Mr. Azmy: No, I don’t.

Mr. Serell: My understanding is that we are here to try to approve whatever it is that you want, and we can’t approve what you want until you give us a plan that shows us what you want. And you can’t do something until we’ve approved a plan that shows us what you want. It’s pretty simple.

Mr. Azmy: When we sat right here, you asked me for two things, and I did that. You weren’t here at the last meeting. I know exactly what you mean. The last meeting was complete chaos.

Mr. Serell: I was here at the meeting when we asked us to show us where the outside eating area is.

Mr. Azmy: I did.

Mr. Serell: Where? Maybe I’m missing it.

Mr. Azmy: It was a different piece of paper. They decided it wasn’t going to work, that they wanted to do a Site Visit.

Mr. Reeder: We did a Site Visit, and I think that we can all agree that the buffer area required by the state is not there; thus, we cannot – at least the way I see it – I cannot approve your plan because you have not complied with the state requirement.

Mr. Azmy: How do you know I haven’t complied with it?

Mr. Reeder: Because I was there and I have pictures of it. You have until the end of April to comply with it. Until you comply…

Mr. Azmy: This is going around and around and around, and we’re missing a few points. The Town of Warner has to tell me where the Class VI road starts.

Mr. Reeder: It has nothing to do with this. We’re talking about the parking area.

Mr. Azmy: I can’t do that by the state until…

Mr. Reeder: Then you just cannot do this and this cannot be approved until that is resolved.

Mr. Azmy: I still have to go by this, and you cannot shut me down.

Mr. Reeder: We’re not trying to shut you down. But you need that barrier.

Mr. Azmy: I’m not going to put in the barrier until I know where the second driveway is. Don’t you understand what I’m saying?

Mr. Reeder: I’m sorry, but that barrier must go in before anything can be done.

Mr. Azmy: And that barrier cannot go in until I know where the second driveway is.

Mr. Serell: That’s not true – that can go in tomorrow.

Mr. Brayshaw: We had mentioned that you can put some railroad ties there that are completely moveable if the driveway changes. You can make it a temporary barrier. Get the State out there and get their approval for the third driveway.

Mr. Azmy: I have no problem with the state. Why do you say I have a problem with the state?

Mr. Reeder: Because it is a state requirement. You read the permit along with me, we measured it out.

Mr. Azmy: You have no idea what I applied for.

Mr. Reeder: It doesn’t matter what you applied for.

Mr. Azmy: It sure does, sir. I cannot put in the second driveway until I know…

Mr. Serell: You can put in exactly what the state gave you permission to do. If you get permission a year from now to put in a third, you can put in a third.

Mr. Azmy: Anyway, I would like to see if the Board will wait to enforce this until the Class VI road is defined.

Mr. Serell: This Board doesn’t enforce anything. All we can do is approve or disapprove plans. We can’t approve a revision to this plan until you are in compliance with this plan. This plan shows a barrier that is consistent with the permit that was issued by the state. We cannot approve anything until you complete the barrier that is consistent with the permit that was issued by the state. If, down the road, the state approves a third driveway permit – like John said, you can put in a temporary barrier and you can move it and change it if you get a third driveway permit. But in the meantime, we can’t approve anything until you complete a barrier consistent with the permit issued by the state. And in the meantime, if the Selectmen choose to enforce against you because you’re not in compliance with the Site Plan that we approved, that is their decision to make, not this Board’s decision.

Mr. Azmy: That’s great. So this Board here – I don’t have to be here anymore? I can just deal with the Selectmen, correct?

Ms. Annis: I think that at this time, somebody should make a motion that we won’t accept so that it is on the record.

Mr. Azmy: Accept what?

Mr. Serell: Not approve your revision.

Mr. Azmy: I didn’t give you a revision. Did I give you a revision?

Ms. Annis: You presented us with a revision several times. But you’ve not left it with us.

Mr. Azmy: Correct, because it is incomplete. And I cannot give it to you – if I come back in six months and you say I’m not following through with it. You already have everything correct on that plan but the block and whether you are going to park left or right. You think you’re going to let me off the hook if I have to put the parking back 25 feet – thank you very much, but I’ll wait.

Mr. Serell: I need to ask a question here – did you formally submit a revision of the plan, or has it been informal?

Ms. Annis: It has been informal. It was asked if we had to have another Public Hearing, and it was said no – the Board would be willing to accept an amendment without a Public Hearing.

Mr. Serell: Then I guess we should probably vote to approve or not approve an amendment – I guess I agree with Phil. But I think that the minutes should reflect that if we don’t approve an amendment, and to the extent that you’re not in compliance with the plan that we have approved, then you are subject to the Selectmen’s enforcement. You can easily get into compliance by installing a barrier consistent with the approved plan and with the permit issued by the state -- even a temporary barrier – at which time we could approve an amendment to your Site Plan to allow you to have the outside eating, if you want to do that. That is an easy way to come into compliance. If you choose not to install the barrier, then you are in effect not giving us the grounds to approve your amendment and you are choosing to be in non-compliance.

Ms. Brayshaw: I think that the barrier is the issue. I know you don’t want the barrier there because you want to have the parking like it is now, but you have neighbors complaining. I know what your situation is, but what they’re saying is right.

Mr. Azmy: If I put in a temporary barrier there, will that make everybody happy?

Mr. Reeder: A temporary barrier that meets the parameters as stated on the state’s permit. It has to have certain widths and lengths.

Mr. Azmy: So you want me to do the whole thing. I cannot do the second part.

Mr. Reeder: You should have done this stuff when you started the whole thing.

Mr. Azmy: I want to go on record saying that they will not let me do that. You can call Scott – until I know exactly where the second driveway will be. Do you want me to show you again?

Mr. Reeder: No. I’m just going by the state permit, what you are allowed to do. It has nothing to do with the Class VI road, and it has nothing to do with the third driveway. It just has to do with the island there, and that is the major holdup for you being in non-compliance. You have until April 29^th to correct that. After that, the permit becomes invalid.

Mr. Brayshaw: That’s not the Town of Warner, it’s the state.

Mr. Azmy: I’ll just talk to Scott and tell him that I need an amendment to this letter.

Mr. Reeder: I need a piece of paper with a signature on it from the state before I can agree to all of this stuff. I’m working on the documentation that is before us telling us what the state requires. If this is complete, then we can go forward and look at the rest of it. But up until now, you haven’t completed what you’ve said that you were going to complete.

Mr. Brayshaw: All of us sitting here, we’re all from different walks of life. I know that the Board has business men here, people that own businesses here. We know what it takes to go through the process of getting a building permit. We’re not a collective Board that is trying to put you out of business. We’re trying to tell you that these are basic, simple things that you need to do to go on and have a successful business. That’s the bottom line. I just convinced two other Selectmen upstairs to try to appropriate money into the budget next year to get that survey done, and it really isn’t the Town’s…

Mr. Azmy: I have a letter here from the Selectmen to the Planning Board – from someone there calling the state on me and telling them that I’m putting in a septic tank illegally. I’m pretty sure you have a copy of the letter. This is completely untrue. I’m sick of this stuff. I hear what you’re saying, John. If I put in those railroad ties – I can’t see the markings, but I’m sure we can do that again – from there to the pole.

Mr. Reeder: And not have traffic driving over them. That is not one large driveway in there. And, as John said, not have people pulling out in all directions. It is a safety and it is also a state permit issue. You need that island barrier there. Whatever you put in, whether it is cement blocks or jersey barriers or railroad ties, whatever that indicates for people to know that is not a driveway. The driveway is in front of your place, where we measured the 50 feet and which we all agreed was a good amount of driveway opening. Then, by having that in there and it being left in there until you get the other permit saying that you can do other changes according to the state permitting, then we can open up and address this issue. But up until now, that hasn’t been done. I don’t think we need to vote on anything here.

Mr. Brayshaw: From my perspective, I’ve worked with Gamil a lot on this road issue and a lot of the other things on. I just want Gamil to know that we’re not against you; we want to work with you to get the end result. Like we came out and went over the state stuff with you – that’s your job to do that. The state is going to tell you what they want and you need to do that. I had to do it. You can put in for a permit for an extension to a building or apply for another driveway permit – everything doesn’t have to be done at one time. They can be done in sequence. But that’s what’s holding you up – the state. But it’s like Phil is telling you – the Planning Board can’t do anything until you meet the state requirements, then the town can get in and act. It is in your head about setting the boundary for the road, but that is a totally separate issue that we are working on upstairs.

Mr. Azmy: That is what I was told.

Mr. Brayshaw: Maybe you were told wrong. All I can tell you is what is being said here tonight is the way it has to happen.

Mr. Azmy: I already bought the blocks. I bought the railroad ties. I already have 12 of them. But if you put them in without that second driveway, you try it – without that second driveway it is going to be a big mess. The state cannot tell me where exactly to put it. They asked me where I wanted it, and I said from this side on. How do we know the beginning of the end of that road? Because the beginning of that 66 feet is the beginning of my property, so we cannot show where it starts from. I’m hoping that when the town tells me where to start, I can start from that end and go through. Without that little tiny market saying that is the end of the Class VI road and the beginning of the other 50 feet, the cars can’t come and go. They have to stop right there.

Mr. Reeder: I’m afraid that is the way it is going to be until the other end of the property is determined. The state has to see solid evidence, which is a survey, and at that time they can do your third driveway. But until that, we have to deal with what we’ve got.

Mr. Brayshaw: I’ve been doing this for almost 7 years and if you think that the Planning Board is bad, wait until you have the state coming down on you. They’re the final ones giving you your state permit, and if they don’t see that things are in order, then they’re going to be on your tail for the rest of your life.

Mr. Azmy: I hear you, John, but the problem is that we are in contact with Scott on a monthly basis and we have no problem with the state. But they’re not saying you have to do this or we’re going to take it away. You can talk to Scott. The issue is where are we going to put that barrier, because if we are going to park like it is on the plan, you’re going to have to go in and come out the second driveway. If you go in, you’re stuck.

Mr. Brayshaw: There always going to be obstacles for every businessman in trying to achieve the perfect situation. In this case, it is the island. The state wants it badly and you don’t, but there is going to have to be a compromise – especially in the case of a Special Exception, where you have a business in a residential area.

Mr. Azmy: I’ve been coming in here every month, and now you say it has to be done by April?

Mr. Reeder: That’s for the permit.

Mr. Azmy: Does the town have anything else to enforce, besides the island?

Mr. Serell: Yes. The problem is that you want to have outside eating, and right now you can’t have that until your plan showing that has been approved. We can’t approve that plan until you get the barrier up.

Ms. Annis: The original plan doesn’t show it. The original plan shows that you’ve got three parking areas in front of your house, then 2 directly in front of the entrance.

Mr. Azmy: And six spaces in the lot.

Mr. Brayshaw: Eleven years ago, I wanted to put a caboose next to my business. I thought it would be quaint, to have a caboose next to the old station. I got denied by the Town of Warner. I was mad and angry, and wanted to fight it. But I said, No, that’s not what the town wanted or the area wanted. And in the long run, I realized that isn’t really what I wanted. But when I was in the heat of that, when you think about an old railroad station and an original railroad car and wanting to put it there… I just wanted to mention that. Things usually work out in the end – they really do.

Mr. Azmy: Can I take the last remark that the gentleman said, and take it that the Board agrees with him?

Mr. Serell: What I said was that you have to get the barrier up before we can approve your changes. Once you get the barrier up, you will need to come back to the Board with a plan showing your changes and we’ll discuss it. If there’s no problem with it, we’ll approve it.

Mr. Azmy: Sounds good to me.

Mr. Reeder: And make sure that the plans that you bring in don’t have the surveyor’s mark on them. And make sure that they have good detail, showing exactly what you want.

Mr. Azmy: Thank you.

RSK Management & Investments, LLC, 25 Bruce Road, Manchester, NH 03104.

Ms. Annis: We accepted the application as complete at the last meeting. We didn’t have a Public Hearing the last time because we were still lacking some information from Attorney Gartrell’s office, and we have that tonight. We realize that you’re seeing it for the first time tonight [the applicant].

Secretary: The document just came this afternoon.

Mr. Wichert and the Board took a few minutes to read through the document received re: the condominium documents for the proposed project.

Mr. Wichert: With the Board’s permission, I would like to go through the document and address the items in order. I’ll probably address some of the Declarations, but I don’t want to get too in depth in those because they’re attorney Murdoch’s and not mine. But I’ll take this letter to Steve Murdoch and he can resolve the items. In a quick review, I didn’t see anything that is too life threatening.

1. It appears that 1 and 2 seem to address the Limited Common Area and Clarification, and 4 and 5 address the Site Plan. Historically, we would not make overhangs as limited common areas, but I would like to confer with my client and attorney to make sure they’re ok with that. The wooden shed would be limited common area to Unit #4, but we can clarify that. We would either take the designation of limited common area off of the paved area or we’ll annotate on the paved area which parking space is limited to which particular unit.

2. There are 2 typos.

3. The second to the last bullet on Page 2, referencing water and sewer: The original 1985 subdivision plan of this property doesn’t show any kind of easements, so we didn’t show any. If the Board deems it that they want an easement going across it, I will talk to my client. The plan shows the proposed sewer line, a pump station and a water line.

4. Interior walls: Each of these units – Unit 1 is 19.35’ x 19.25’, Units 2,3 and 4 are all 20’ x 20’ – those dimensions are static and don’t change. The tenant could put up an interior wall. That would be the same as someone putting up an interior wall in their existing house.

5. Limitations of junked vehicles, limits on what can be in the yard.

6. Designate an area as a playground area, off to the side and set back.

7. Fire Chief: The building was originally built for elderly housing, and was next door to Dr. Levi’s home. He said that there will be an occupancy limit of 2 persons per unit.

8. Limit the number of parking spaces and number of vehicles per unit.

9. State in the documents the number of people allowed so that someone won’t purchase a unit and then find out that he has too many people for the property.

Ms. Annis closed the Board meeting and opened the Public Hearing.

Mr. Jim McLaughlin, representing the Village Water District, stated that the owner of the property is responsible for the water.

Ms. Annis reopened the Board meeting.

Items the Board deems necessary in the condo documents:

1. Limit the occupancy

2. Only 2 registered vehicles per unit and a total of 2 unregistered vehicles on the property

3. Designate parking spaces assigned to each unit

4. How to address the utilities in the condos

5. Trash removal and recycling requirements

6. Easement for Village Water District – Mr. McLaughlin stated that it is up to each individual property owner

7. Separate utilities for each unit?

8. Agreement

9. General appearance/landscaping and upkeep of the property, stating that it should be neat and tidy

10. Should pets be limited?

11. Boats and campers – limits?

Mr. Pershouse: Do we have the option of suggesting screening from the road? Can we influence the documents in that regard? I’m referring to things like if clutter is a problem in the front yard and we can’t enforce it, this might be a way to deal with it.

Mr. Serell: The zoning ordinance prohibits outside storage, so they’d have to rent a separate storage unit someplace.

Mr. Wichert: I’d have to check with the owners on that.

Mr. Brayshaw: You can demand more for a condo unit – I think we could say no unregistered vehicles there.

Mr. Wichert said that he would put the changes made into a memo so that the Board wouldn’t have to go through the entire document to see what has been added and/or changed. He also said that there would be some changes on the plan itself. The Board said that it wouldn’t be necessary for Attorney Gartrell to review the changes.

Mr. Serell suggested that the Board ask if there is any comment from the public and take the discussion from there.

Ms. Hinnendael agreed with the Driveway article, and asked a question about the proposed change referring to the imposition of penalties.

Mr. McLaughlin said that he had included a revised map that showed the zoning district changes better. Ms. Annis said that it was a good map.

Mr. Brayshaw: Is Adult Establishment the proper term to use, or would it be Adult Entertainment Establishment?

Mr. Serell: There’s no perfect word. This way it incorporates the RSA and makes it clear that we’re talking about theaters, movies, night clubs, etc. We tried to make it as expansive as possible.

Mr. Brayshaw: As far as adult entertainment, I was thinking more of strip joints.

Mr. Serell: That would be considered a night club.

Mr. Lennon: Should we explicitly say things like magazines, studios, movies, DVD’s – which I don’t see in the included items.

Mr. Serell: If you start listing things, what if you don’t list it? Somebody could argue that a magazine or a video isn’t a "good".

Mr. Lennon: I think if you put in one or two examples, you cover yourself.

Mr. Serell: I think if you start putting in examples, then you open yourself up to an argument like, "you didn’t list that" or "what I’m doing isn’t like that". If you list things, you limit yourself to things that are like the things you’ve listed.

Mr. Lennon: That’s my point. You’re limiting yourself to things that are like these that are listed. You don’t have anything that is like written or a video.

Mr. Brayshaw: You can go to the video store or the bookstore now and get an x-rated video or a book on massage.

Mr. Serell: But it isn’t 25% of their business.

Ms. Annis: Would a health spa be a massage parlor? It doesn’t look like the pizza parlor is going to come in, and there has been some suggestion of a health spa, which would go with the medical center and the Curves gym.

Mr. Brayshaw: What about adult campgrounds, like Healing Springs? They had a big problem with that because they brought in nudists. It became entertainment and they were having problems with it.

Mr. Serell: I don’t think that is covered by this.

Mr. St.Pierre: I think that #2 (Adult Establishments) should be included in the Definition section.

Mr. Pershouse: Where did you get the limit of 25%?

Mr. Serell: From someone else’s statute.

Mr. Pershouse: Using your concern about Mark’s issue, if you have the 25% in there couldn’t someone say that they could prove that they only have 23%?

Mr. Serell: Yes, just like they can sell adult videos at the video store. It is arbitrary, but you have to start somewhere.

Ms. Hinnendael: If there were an adult video store in the shopping center down at Exit 9, would that be counted as the 25% of the retail establishments?

Mr. Serell: No, it is referring to the selling of adult entertainment being more than 25% of that one store’s business.

Ms. Annis: As Russ stated, should Adult Establishment be included under Definitions and the others under Provisions?

Mr. Serell: I don’t think it matters.

Ms. Annis: Should it also be included in the Use Table someplace?

Mr. Serell: The only reason I even said it is permitted in those districts is because it is already permitted in those districts. If we add it to the use table, it’s suggesting that we’re adding something that is permitted.

Mr. Brayshaw: Can we say that they’re not permitted anywhere in Warner? Why do we even have to give them a place to set up?

Ms. Annis: By law you have to.

Mr. Brayshaw: Like the FCC and cell towers?

Mr. Pershouse: Yes.

Mr. Serell: I don’t think it needs to be listed in the Definitions or the Use Table.

The Board agreed with Mr. Serell.

Ms. Annis stated that Ed Mical pointed out that the Building Code and the Flood Plain Ordinance also refer to penalties, and that that wasn’t addressed in the proposed change. It should also be added to the Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance so that they are all consistent. The Board agreed, and a Public Hearing will be held on Monday, January 20^th at 7:00 p.m. to hear those changes. The Notice of Public Hearing will be posted and published for the changes.

40 Depot Street, LLC, 40 Depot Street, Warner, NH 03278. Map 32, Lot 001, Recorded in Book 2188, Page 1222 of the Merrimack County Registry of Deeds and Map 32, Lot 021, Recorded in Book 2531, Page 906 of the Merrimack County Registry of Deeds.

The map of the properties was handed out to the Board for identification purposes.

Deadlines for Conceptual Consultations: Notification of Fire Chief, Director of Public Works & Police Chief

Ms. Annis suggested that the Fire Chief, Director of Public Works and Police Chief attend the Planning Board meetings, and that the Conceptual Consultations would be heard first. Because there are not currently any deadlines for Conceptual Consultations, they would have to have a deadline placed on them.

Mr. Serell stated that he didn’t believe it was necessary to have the Fire Chief, Director of Public Works and the Police Chief attend the meetings, that we don’t have Conceptual Consultations at every meeting, and that the Board could identify those applications where their input was needed, and could then go to them and see if they have any concerns.

Mr. Reeder: There are some applications, like the Cricenti building for example, where there might be some fire issues that we’re not aware of and it would be good for the Fire Chief to come in and enlighten us. It would be good for some of the other Town professionals to come to us and discuss their concerns as well. We see the applications, but not from the point of view of the Fire Chief, Road Agent or Police Department. It seems that when we do go to them, it is pretty late in the process.

Mr. Serell: We could invite them to the next meeting after a Conceptual Consultation is heard if we feel that the entire Board should hear their input.

Mr. Pershouse suggested increasing the time between the receipt of the Conceptual Consultation and the meeting so that the Board would have more time to digest the "application" and make a determination if input from the Town officials was necessary.

Mr. Serell felt that it was being made more complicated than necessary. One person from the Board could contact an official if it were deemed necessary, or if it is a large project they could be invited to attend the meeting so that the Board could hear from them directly and they could participate in the discussion with the applicant. He said that on a large project, the applicant doesn’t expect to go from a conceptual to approval in 2 months.

Mr. Reeder: They should all sit down together and discuss those projects because if only one Board member goes to talk with them individually, they might not report back with all of the concerns.

Joanne Hinnendael: Part of their jobs is to give direction to the people of the town and the Board.

Secretary: From my position, we don’t have an application that someone needs to fill out for a Conceptual Consultation, so a lot of time they’ll have a minimal amount of information that they’ll come in and present and get guidance from the Board as to how to complete the application.

Mr. Serell: I think that we as a Board should be more diligent in getting the input from these people up front and, if the project is big enough, we should invite them here.

The majority of the Board was of the same opinion as Mr. Serell.

January 12, 2004 10:00 a.m.

Ms. Annis: An arrangement has been made with NH DOT and the CNHRPC to meet with them and go over a Memorandum of Understanding for Coordinating Highway Access Management. This is a new program and it may be something that will help us out and it will be a good liaison so that we can understand what they’re doing and they can understand where we’re coming from.

Mr. Serell: Is this an initiative that they’re having that they’re approaching a bunch of towns with?

Ms. Annis: Yes. CNHRPC knew that we needed a corridor study or something done at Exit 9, they approached us and asked if we’d be interested in this. Derek and I both said yes. They’re encouraging the more people that can come to the Board, the better.

Mr. Lennon: I can’t be there on the 12^th, but I think that it is a good idea. It seems that in the last 8 months, there have been 5 or 6 times where we’ve had an issue where a state-approved driveway permit which isn’t consistent with what we’d like. What I basically read there is that neither will the State approve driveway permits without consulting with us nor will we approve them without consulting with the State, and we will come up with some sort of plan that basically lays out what we’d like the State to consider.

Ms. Annis: We would also like the Director of Public Works to attend.

Jim McLaughlin has helped with this application and it is in draft form. Ms. Annis said that she had some suggestions and would like for someone else to look at it before she returned it to Jim.

Mr. McLaughlin: Plan New Hampshire is a statewide group of architects, designers and planners that offer their services at almost no charge to three or four towns or communities in the state as a result of a competitive application process. If the town is selected, Plan New Hampshire puts on a charette which takes place on Friday afternoon, Friday evening and most of the day on Saturday. Basically anyone in the community can come and work together on any problem the community wants to have addressed. Generally, it is could be a site development issue, it could be a community plan. Contoocook Village’s commercial district was the subject of a charette not long ago. They came up with a plan for sidewalks and intersection improvements. That is the kind of thing – it allows, with the help of these professionals, for people to get a consensus of what can be done, and the focus of this application was Exit 9 and looking at the various traffic issues of the various development proposals that are either on the plate or are to come to the Board shortly. Things that would be discussed would be aesthetic considerations, pedestrian access, entrances, etc. The commitment on the part of the town, if they are selected, would be around $2,500. We might be able to get one of the organizations in town to offset that cost – the Men’s Club or the Fall Foliage Festival, for instance.

Ms. Annis asked if anyone could come to the office on Wednesday morning to discuss the application. Jim McLaughlin, Derek Pershouse and Barbara Annis will meet at 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday, January 7^th.

Ms. Annis: DOT is possibly interested in helping us to develop an access management for the Exit 9 area. They have some projects that Warner might be eligible for: Access Management Techniques, Safety and Capacity, Impact of Development, Land Use and Economic Development. It is in application form and it is a matching grant. If we gave them $5,000, we would get $25,000 of services. I like it and I don’t like it – and I haven’t had a chance to speak with the Selectmen about it. It appears that the money goes to CNHRPC. This is something that we can discuss on January 12^th, and the application isn’t due for a while.

Mr. Lennon: We’re really close to putting language together. Conceptually we know what we want to do but didn’t get it completed for this Town Meeting. We will meet 2 weeks from now, but after that it is just a matter of putting pen to paper.

Mr. St.Pierre: Do we not know where that old road is?

Mr. Brayshaw: No. Webster discontinued their side of the road and it reverted back to the property owners. There were 60 to 80 feet on our side that was just discontinued.

Mr. St.Pierre: It was never abandoned?

Mr. Brayshaw: It was never abandoned, but discontinued. It wasn’t subject to gates and bars or reverted or anything like that – just discontinued.

Mr. St.Pierre: Does the Town have any interest in keeping it?

Mr. Brayshaw: Some people do. I think that the sensible thing to do would be for Gamil to put a petition together and get signatures and take it to Town Meeting and have it reverted back to him and Willie Richards, each to the center line of the road.

Mr. St.Pierre: Isn’t it in the Town’s interest to put it in the form of a Warrant Article? Does getting his frontage depend on his getting part of that right-of-way?

Mr. Brayshaw: I’ll state for the record that where we want to put the island and part of the parking is part of that right-of-way.

Ms. Annis: It’s very possible.

Mr. St.Pierre: So it is in his interest to get a petition together to have the Town abandon the right-of-way.

Ms. Annis: How far out does it revert?

Mr. St.Pierre: Then it becomes their issue, and then they’d need to agree on a boundary line between their properties. The road is pretty straight, and they could agree to follow that road, and it’s done.

Mr. Brayshaw: The easiest thing would be to get 35 names on a petition article and bring it before the town and lay it out there.

Mr. St.Pierre: Was that gentleman sitting in the audience a reporter?

Ms. Annis: Yes.

Mr. St.Pierre: When we were discussing the condominium, there seemed to be an undercurrent of the conversation from the Board that the people are going to move in there are slobs. Another thing is that I assume that the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance was noticed, but the changes affect a lot of people, and none of them were here tonight. When they read it in the paper, that is probably the first that they’ll know about it. I just wondered if we gave adequate notice. I know that it was typically noticed.

Secretary: It is a legal-sized notice that is posted at Town Hall on 2 windows, Market Basket, Post Office, and it was a very lengthy legal notice in the Concord paper. To my knowledge, we don’t send anything out to individual property owners on that.

Ms. Annis: No.

Mr. McLaughlin: I think there is going to be an article in the New Paper, too.

Ms. Annis: We had talked about it, but never got any further on it.

Mr. St.Pierre: State law says specifically that you don’t have to notify individuals.

Secretary: It was also sent to Channel 3.

Mr. Pershouse: You’re talking about a public relations aspect of it.

Mr. St.Pierre: But it is going to get around town, and no one is going to know.

Secretary: What else could I do?

Mr. St.Pierre: I don’t know.

Mr. Brayshaw: Those changes are made, and they have been over history, at intervals and there are people rush to try to subdivide into as many little lots as they could to have lots of record. I think that we just do our job and if it is posted property… It is being done from the growth standpoint and the preservation of Warner.

Ms. Hinnendael: They could also go online and read the minutes of the meetings.