Open Meeting at 7:00 PM

Roll Call

Ms. Annis asked Mr. Patsfield to sit in for Mr. Serell and Mr. Mical to sit in for Mr. Lennon. She stated that only another Selectman could sit in for Selectman Eigabroadt.

Approval of the Minutes: December 5, 2005 Planning Board meeting

A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the December 5, 2005 Planning Board meeting as amended. The motion passed by a unanimous vote.

Public Hearing: Proposed Changes to Subdivision Regulations

Ms. Annis said that the proposed changes are the result of the changes to the Zoning Ordinance voted on at last year’s Town Meeting regarding the deletion of the Cluster Development ordinance and addition of the Open Space Development ordinance. She said that the Board would proceed by telling the audience what the changes are that were made to the document. More changes will be added, including requiring color coded subdivision maps – showing how the land looks now and how it will look after it is subdivided. There will also be more information added regarding streets. Ms. Annis went through the document and read the changes to the Subdivision Regulations. [The entire text was available and posted for the public. Copies available at meeting for anyone who wished to read the proposed changes.]

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

Joanne Hinnendael asked where the number [School Impact Analysis (SIA)] came from that is used to calculate the number of students generated by a subdivision, and how it is figured out. Did CNHRPC assist in that number?

Ms. Annis: I don’t remember.

Mr. Serell: I don’t know where the 25 comes from, but I think that the way we figure it out is that if it is conventional housing, there are resources out there that will tell you the average number of students per household. So if it were 25 single family houses, we would go to the table and see that it is, for example, 1.3 students per household and multiply it by the 25 houses in the subdivision.

Ms. Hinnendael said that knows that 25 kids would be a huge impact on the school district; even 10 kids in some of the schools in the district would be a huge impact. She stated that she is on the school budget committee and it has been studied. She also stated that F on page 18 should be #6. She also asked about the definition of "abutter" because the ZBA had requested a revised definition. Ms. Annis pointed out that Abutter on Page 1 under Definitions was changed to include anyone who’s property is located in New Hampshire and adjoins or is directly across a street or stream from, or has a boundary which is within 200 feet of any boundary of the land under consideration by the Board, or has frontage on a pond on which the land under consideration by the Board also has frontage.

Mr. Pershouse said that the change wouldn’t change who could testify at a hearing, but would define who would be notified. Ms. Hinnendael thanked the Board for their work on this project.

John Dabuliewicz made the following suggestions:

Public Hearing [page 6] – he suggested removing the word "exception.

Page 7 -- He asked why the RSA is quoted in some places and not in others. If the statute changes, the text will be wrong.

Page 9, #10 – Town Sewer/Water. He doesn’t believe that the example is part of the regulation. Write this formula to say "distance to water and sewer is less than the number of lots in subdivision x 100" instead of writing it as an example. Also, the sentence before the example should include "at its point of closest approach" as stated in the example.

Asked for a clarification of "at its closest approach" – Does that mean that part of the lot being subdivided that is closest to water and sewer? Ms. Annis said that she believed it did, and Mr. Serell agreed. Mr. St.Pierre said that it should be the lots created by the subdivision, not the original land being subdivided. There would be the space that is subdivided into lots and then there would be the open space.

Clarification Page 11 and 12, Additional Information Required for Lot Line Adjustment or Annexation, B2 – it says, "… and any abutters may be heard on the application upon request to the Board and may request a public hearing." He asked how this is done – when the notice is received. At the meeting? Ms. Annis said that her interpretation is that the abutters get a notice of the meeting hearing the application and at that meeting the abutter would request a public hearing. Everyone would then be re-noticed of the date of the meeting, which would have to be noticed as all public hearings are. Mr. Serell said that all lot line adjustments could be noticed as public hearings with a question mark. The Secretary said that it should be at the next meeting because of the time necessary to notice a public hearing. Ms. Annis said that the Board would discuss this matter further for clarification.

Page 14, #10 == Erosion Control and water quality. The State RSA should be added.

Page 18, #2 – Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA). What are the fiscal impacts upon the town? There should be clarification and qualification of what is to be shown by the applicant.

Page 26, E2 – Open Space Ordinance. "All common open space areas shall be part of a larger continuous and integrated open space system within the parcel being developed." Does that mean that it needs to be unbroken open space? Is it contiguous? Mr. St. Pierre said that it refers to two things: that the open space should be in one piece, and connected to the open space of another parcel that has already been developed and has open space.

Page 26, #3 -- Should a sketch be added to the regulation? Ms. Annis answered that a sketch would be added.

Mr. Eubank: Stated that #7 through #10 clarifies part of what Russ was saying regarding the connected open space areas.

Mr. Dabuliewicz: What is a ridge top? If I’m a developer and want to develop land and I’m told that I can’t do what I want to do because it is a ridge top, I want to know what that is.

Mr. Pershouse: We’re still working on that.

Mr. Patsfield: Fiscal and community impact assessment – explanation of what was in the regulations and what was deleted.

Ms. Annis closed the Public Hearing and reopened the Board meeting. The Board was in agreement that this matter would be continued at a work session or a later Board meeting for further discussion and a possible Public Hearing in the future. Mr. Patsfield asked if it had to be voted on by the Town, and Ms. Annis said no, it is just the Planning Board.

Public Hearing – Site Plan Review – continued from November, 2005 meeting

Property Owner: R.A.W. Investments, Ray Wentzell

Property Location: South side of NH Rt. 103 West, West Main Street, Warner, NH Map 35, Lots 4-1 & 4-2, C-1 Zoning

Purpose: Each lot to have a 10,080 sq.ft. building with multiple rental units for commercial use in accordance with Use Table 1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Anticipated uses fall under the "Retail and Services" category and include:

Retail establishments, eating and drinking places, personal and consumer service, professional and business offices; and under "Accessory", any accessory structures in connection with those uses. The lots will share an access driveway from NH Route 103 as approved by the New Hampshire Department of Transportation and will share driveways, loading area, parking, drainage and utility services through cross easements on the lots.

Attorney for R.A.W., Peter McGrath and Tim Bernier, Engineer, represented R.A.W. Investments at the meeting. Mr. Wentzell was in attendance. Mr. McGrath said that he had mailed the completed traffic study to the Board on January 5^th. The Secretary and Ms. Annis stated that nothing had been received in the mail as of the date of the meeting. Mr. McGrath handed his original copy of the traffic study to Ms. Annis and asked that it be handed around to the Board members. He said that it could be discussed later.

Mr. McGrath stated that Tim Bernier had the application for the FEMA letter completed and that it needs the Town’s signature before it can be submitted to FEMA.

Ms. Annis: The FEMA application – they haven’t accepted it yet.

Mr. Bernier: We just submit it. We don’t get a letter back of approval or anything.

Ms. Annis: I have an email from Jennifer DeLong, Water Resources Planner, NH Office of Energy and Planning, Concord, NH. She talks about the links that you can go on and states that "there appears to be no pending or existing letter of map changes for Warner as indicated in my files and the following web sites." It is a Status of Map Changes Request.

Mr. Bernier: Right. This is it. This requires the Town’s signature, which we haven’t gotten yet. So it wouldn’t appear at FEMA.

Ms. Annis: So that has not been done. There is no change on the map for the town of Warner.

Mr. Bernier: There’s one copy for the town and one copy to be sent to FEMA.

Mr. Serell: Who would sign that?

Mr. Bernier: The Emergency Management Person or the Selectmen.

Ms. Annis said that it was stated at a previous meeting that in order for the application to be completed, it had to include a traffic study and that she wasn’t sure if actual approval had to be received from FEMA or if the application had to have been submitted.

Mr. McGrath: May I speak to that? My understanding is that, just like with any other state or federal requirements, it is just a procedure that needs to be submitted. To the question of whether or not the application is complete because the FEMA form has been completed that is adequate. As I’ve stated before, my understanding is that it is just a procedure that needs to be completed in terms of the form being filed. Otherwise, we would be waiting for FEMA to approve it before the application could be considered complete.

Ms. Annis read from the minutes of the November 2005 Planning Board meeting: "Mr. McGrath said that they would come back next time with a response to FEMA and the traffic study questions. Ms. Annis said that they wanted the application to FEMA accepted and approved by FEMA and the Board wants a traffic study done before the next meeting. Mr. Eigabroadt said that Mr. McGrath knows what the Board is requesting and how they deal with it on their end is up to them. She stated that the applicant will be put on the Agenda for December 5^th and the Board will wait to hear from them."

Ms. Annis: The letter that went to Mr. McGrath dated October 19, 2005, signed by myself: "After reviewing my notes from the October Planning Board meeting, I have concluded that the application for RAW is incomplete. With an incomplete application, the Board is unable to determine if there is substantial difference between this site plan and the original that the Board rejected. As time is a valuable commodity for all of us, I would like to suggest that the applicant refrain from appearing before the Board until all of the following is completed: 1. A copy of the application on behalf of RAW Investments to FEMA removing the site from the flood plain and a copy of the approval from FEMA; 2., Written documentation of all of the alternative designs developing the site; and 3. A detailed traffic study."

Mr. Reeder asked if it was possible that, somewhere along the line, FEMA would disapprove this application. He said that he hadn’t read any of the information, but was that a possibility?

Ms Annis: I don’t know, but I would assume that there is going to be information from an engineer in here bringing it above the floodplain level, and so on.

Mr. Bernier: This is a LOMA – a Letter of Map amendment for fill. If a site is shown on a map as being in the floodplain and you build a building on it, you need a LOMA which has all of the elevations showing that that building is not in the floodplain. You are then exempt from having to pay flood insurance. I went to a two-day seminar on FEMA where we talked about these new letters of map amendment, and no one could come up with a reason do to a letter of map amendment for fill. So this is the only one that requires a fee, too, to FEMA. There is no benefit for it because the property doesn’t have a building on it to need flood insurance. So there’s no advantage to doing this LOMA. In my experience, when we go and do buildings the mortgage company – which usually drives the LOMA, because under the law any time you get a mortgage on a building the mortgage agency is required to apply to this agency in Texas to find out if the building is in the floodplain. Then they come back and say we got a report back saying it is in the floodplain and you need a LOMA letter or not. My guess is when we submit this, it will be interesting to see what happens. My guess is that we’ll err on the side of caution and we pay a fee and we do all of this, when we put buildings on this site and the mortgage is drawn, we’re going to be doing another one for the buildings. So that is why there’s really not a reason to do this. But basically, we do this and we submit it and it gets put on file and the map doesn’t get amended. This is kind of the weird thing that I thought was rather inappropriate – essentially what FEMA is trying to do is save money, obviously – it’s a federal agency – and they don’t want to change a map every 10 years. So what you do is submit these LOMA letters and they get made a part of the map, but the only way to find out if there are any is to get on the web and list all of the letters of map amendment and get copies of all of them and see if they affect your property. It’s not as easy as just going to the town and pulling out the map and looking at it. If the last time that your map was revised was 10 years ago and you go down to the Town Hall to see if your building is in the floodplain, you really can’t just look at the map anymore. You’re going to have to get online and see if there are any letters of map amendment to FEMA and go through the list and see if any apply to you – until they get around to revising the maps.

Mr. Reeder: So the real deal on this is that the elevation is as stated on the plan, and thus it would be your license that is on the line because your signature is on here certifying that this is 421.5 feet and that if for some reason FEMA comes back and says, no it isn’t, you’re the one that is on the hook.

Mr. Bernier: Yes, and that is a good way of putting it. It can’t get denied because all that FEMA is approving is what we’re telling them.

Mr. Reeder: And it is your signature and license that is the bottom line.

Mr. Mical: There will be a letter coming back from FEMA to the Town, because I’ve seen them. They’ll get a preliminary and they’ll get a final letter. FEMA will review it and will send a letter back to the Town, and you should get a letter, too.

Mr. Bernier: I’ve never seen one.

Mr. Mical: I know of another parcel in town that has a temporary one, because they haven’t completed it.

Ms. Annis: The reason that this comes up, Phil, is that this was one of the conditions of the subdivision that they complete this. [Ms. Annis read the condition from the Notice of Decision for the Subdivision]. They never did it.

Mr. Bernier: In fairness to the applicant, that was the original approval of the 4-lot subdivision. We came back to the Planning Board for approval of a 3-lot subdivision and that approval was granted and a special hearing was done solely for the purpose to make sure that we’d completed all of the conditions of approval. At that hearing, we discussed this and that there were no buildings and that we were going to have to do this when we put the buildings up. The LOMA came up and the Board was comfortable at that time because we were going to have to do it when the buildings went up anyway and it didn’t mean anything – it was just a temporary fix in between and the condition was met. So we did have a public hearing on that condition; it was discussed by the Board and it was deemed to have been met when we changed the application to a 3-lot subdivision.

Ms. Annis asked what the Board’s desire was.

Mr. Serell said that he feels that the Board needs time to review the Traffic Study before the Board votes on whether or not the application is complete. He said that the FEMA letter approval shouldn’t be something that holds up the application process, since the application has now been submitted. The vote should be put off until the next month’s meeting.

Mr. St.Pierre: Have notices been sent out to abutters saying that we were going to discuss this application?

Ms. Annis: Yes, they were notified in the beginning. This has been a continuation of the same hearing.

Mr. Serell: Legally, they don’t get notified again.

Mr. Reeder: I agree with Drew on the FEMA application. I think that we can let that go with the signature of the Selectmen. I think that since they have provided us with a traffic study – good, bad or indifferent; I don’t know – they have complied with the terms in providing us with a traffic study. I think that they have complied with the two qualifications that you said that they needed to fulfill.

Mr. Serell: But the criteria in general for a complete application is that the Board has to determine that there is sufficient information for the Board to now act on the application, and I’ve seen the traffic study but until we’ve actually looked at it, how do we know that there is enough information in the traffic study for us to act on the traffic study?

Mr. Reeder: They could do a perfect traffic study and we could still say that it is incomplete.

Ms. Annis said that she would like to have a chance to read the traffic study and ask if the Board would like to postpone the decision on the completeness of the application until the Board has had a chance to read the traffic study. After reading our access management plan, I would like to see how it compares with that.

Mr. Pershouse: Should we review our decision regarding the submission of the information to CNHRPC before it is determined to be a complete application?

Ms. Annis said that in a letter received from Town Counsel, Don Gartrell, had suggested that it be accepted before it is sent to CNHRPC. Mr. Pershouse said that he remembered Lucy St.John saying that normally it is done the other way around.

Mr. Serell: In the past, we’ve sent applications to CNHRPC for review before we’ve accepted them as complete, whether or not is was the right or wrong way to do it. Ms. Annis was looking for the letter from Don Gartrell, and Mr. McGrath said that it was the Planning Board’s job to determine if the application is complete, not that of CNHRPC. He said that the October request from the Planning Board to his office stated what the conditions were for the application to be accepted. He said that he thought those conditions had been satisfied.

Mr. Eubank read from the Site Plan Review Regulations stating that nothing should be placed on the agenda if the elements of the application are not received by the deadline for the meeting, which was stated as 15 days before the meeting. He stated that the traffic study and FEMA application were not received by the Planning Board 15 days prior to the meeting and that this is not the time to review them for completion. The Board needs time to at least look at the materials. Mr. McGrath stated that he agreed that the traffic study and the FEMA application had not been received by the Board before this meeting, and apologized for that.

Ms. Annis asked who is supposed to sign the FEMA application, and it was determined that the Chairman of the Selectmen is the one who should sign the application. Mr. Bernier said that he could send the application by certified mail, return receipt, to FEMA along with the check in the amount of $800, which was at his office.

Mr. St.Pierre said that he would like proof of some kind that FEMA had received the application. Mr. Reeder asked if the Board should send the application to FEMA at the applicant’s expense and in that way would have a return receipt when FEMA signs for the application as being received.

Mr. St.Pierre: With all due respect, this was a condition that we put on the applicant and I don’t want to take over that condition.

Mr. Bernier: We could mail it certified, return receipt and we would have the receipt.

Mr. St.Pierre read from RSA 676:4 regarding when an application is complete and questioned whether it needs to be re-noticed. Mr. Serell and Mr. McGrath said that the abutters don’t need to be re-noticed and that the continuation of the meetings is sufficient. Mr. St.Pierre also stated that Ms. Hinnendael had asked at a previous meeting if the Board would be giving notice on when the Board would be accepting a completed application, and the Board had answered that yes, they would. He said that he was bringing this matter up because the last time the Board went through the Site Plan Review, there was a question on the notice of the intended use and it had to be re-noticed because of the description of use. He didn’t want someone to raise an objection regarding notification. Mr. McGrath said that legally, the first meeting when he came before the Board was noticed to the abutters by certified mail by Sissy, which I saw a record of. That meeting was noticed for approval, or completion – the same items that are on the agenda tonight. But that was continued and continued and continued. So they’ve been noticed and these are merely continuations of that noticed meeting.

Mr. St.Pierre: I don’t want to belabor the point; I’m just saying that the application wasn’t complete so the notice of us receiving a complete application wasn’t true. Hopefully, it will be at the next meeting.

Mr. McGrath: But notice was satisfied by that notification. Just like with any other application that gets continued. I’ve had other applications continued that weren’t complete; at least I have in other towns.

Mr. St.Pierre: But I don’t know if that’s right, based on what I just read in the RSA.

Mr. Serell: I think it is. Whether, because of the importance of this application and the fact that there has been such a length of time between when it was submitted and when we’re not going to act on it whether we should as a matter of caution – maybe there’s a good reason to do it. But in terms of whether we’re legally required to do it, I don’t think we are. It was noticed as an acceptance of an application when it first came in and it’s been continued since then. If you’re right, at any time that we ever continue an application, we would always have to re-notify the abutters whenever we were going to – in the next month – vote on whether to accept an application. We’ve never done that and I don’t think the law requires that. But a different issue is whether or not it might be a good idea just because so much time has passed. Maybe that is a good reason to do it, but I don’t think we’re legally required to do it.

Ms. Annis: Mr. McGrath has asked if there is anything else that this Board can think of that is lacking in the application packet, so that at the next months’ meeting we can go forward. The only thing I can think of is the changing of the verbiage in the letter of October where it says, "And a copy of the approval from FEMA". That is the only thing that I can see that is lacking for a complete application.

Mr. Reeder: Maybe by the time we accept the application it will be back.

Ms. Annis: I doubt it very much, but tonight I think that it is only fair if this Board says that this is sufficient that we will waive "receiving approval" – maybe you want to reverse that and say "receiving documentation that it has been sent to FEMA" or "received by FEMA."

Mr. Mical: Usually I think that they do send something back saying that they have received it for review.

Ms. Annis asked if there was anything else the Board would like to see that they feel might be lacking.

Mr. Mical: In the presentation that was made on why the building could only be one way – I would like to see some more on that. It was a brief presentation showing why the building could only be faced the way it was.

Ms. Annis: They have submitted drawings supporting their presentation. They’re in the file. They were 11 x 17 pages.

Mr. Reeder made a motion to amend the letter of October 18, 2005 from Ms. Annis to Mr. McGrath and re-word it stating the condition of "Copy of the application on behalf of RAW Investments to FEMA removing the site from the floodplain". The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

Mr. McGrath said that it wasn’t necessary to re-send the letter; that he understands the motion and condition.

Mr. Dabuliewicz asked if the Board would post a notice of the public hearing on this application. He said that he was confused on how the Board could conduct a public hearing on the same night as an application is accepted unless the original notice that went out said the date of the public hearing.

Ms. Annis: No, our way we do it is to either accept, reject or continue it – it was never accepted.

Mr. Dabuliewicz: I understand that. Say that you had accepted it. Would you have had a public hearing tonight?

Ms. Annis: We could have. "Close meeting and open public hearing" is what the agenda says.

Mr. Dabuliewicz: The notice that went out in October said that there was going to be a public hearing when – at that first meeting?

Ms. Annis: No, it doesn’t say.

Mr. Dabuliewicz: I’m not talking about the agenda. I’m talking about the notice that went to the abutters. Did they know when the public hearing was set for?

Ms. Annis: I don’t know how they would have known when we didn’t know.

Mr. Dabuliewicz: Don’t you have to tell them?

Ms. Annis: No, not to my knowledge. We never have. I understand where you’re coming from, John.

Mr. Dabuliewicz: I certainly hope that you’re going to give a public notice in a publication, given the interest that the Town has in this application.

Ms. Annis: We may very well accept it, but then discuss it more before we open it up to a public hearing. We may have a lot more questions after we accept it.

Ms. Hinnendael: I know that in Boscawen, when they accept an application they schedule a public hearing at the next meeting.

Ms. Annis: That is strongly recommended – it allows the Board to have more time to think about it.

It was stated that the Secretary would copy the first section of the traffic study report and send them to the Board member for their review.

Change of Use

Applicant: David and Stephanie Hertzog, 754 Pumpkin Hill Rd., Warner, NH 03278

Property Owner: Lynn Perkins, 104 West Main St., Warner, NH 03278

Property Location: 25 Main Street, Warner, NH (formerly the Perkins Hardware building

Purpose: Change use from hardware store to retail space with a family-style restaurant and 2 apartments on 2^nd floor

Mr. and Mrs. Hertzog presented their application and explained his plan for the property:

 2,000 s.f. of retail space on the first floor

 They’ve lived in Warner for 6 years and have always loved the Perkins Hardware Store

 Have been in food service for 25 years

 The availability to purchase the building would allow her dream of having a restaurant to come true

 Retail space divided into small units

 Restaurant in the remaining retail space

 The restaurant would be American fare with daily specials

 Business hours: 11:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., 6 days a week.

 Approximately 50 to 55 seats in the restaurant

 This will provide retail space that the Town needs, as well as parking for the village

 We have talked with the Fire Chief and are planning on hardwiring the fire system into the fire station and anything else he requires to bring the building up to code.

 Have talked with the Police Chief about the traffic flow and the parking situation and he was very supportive of the effort.

 Planning on putting off-street parking in the back of the building where tenants can park and employees can park, which will relieve some of the stress of parking on the streets

 Delivery door on the side of the building between the building and the Fire Station which will be for deliveries only.

 Other than the deliveries, the alley will be kept open.

 Exterior of the building will remain as true as it can be – plan to keep the character of the building

 Will be adding a handicapped entrance so that anyone can enter the retail areas as well as the restaurant.

 Will add a window to the addition to the left, as you’re facing the building, which will match those already there.

 Railings up for safety

 Any lights that are added will match those that are already there.

 Emergency doors added

 Sign no larger than the Perkins Hardware sign that is there

 Access to parking in the back of building – land will be leveled and parking added

 Building has been used for retail since 1830 and we feel that our plans will keep it as an integral part of the village and offer the opportunity for new and different stores for the town.

Mr. Pershouse: Can you repeat your plans for parking?

Ms. Hertzog: You would be able to go up the alleyway and in back, there is quite a bit of land and we’re going to level it out and put parking in there.

Mr. Pershouse: The alleyway being the area between the Fire Station and your building?

Ms. Hertzog: Yes.

Mr. Mical: What are you going to do with the snow runoff – the snow coming off the roof going up through there?

Mr. Hertzog: I’ve looked at the roof and it is a fairly low pitch. I don’t think that we are in any danger of having falling ice, and the snow would definitely be taken care of. The snow on the ground would definitely have to be removed. I don’t know if I’d hire someone with a pickup truck and front end loader or not.

 

Mr. Mical: Where is the property line?

Mr. Hertzog: It is the drip line of the Fire Station.

Mr. Mical: You’re talking about parking out back – there’s quite a bit of water that comes off of that hill back there.

Mr. Hertzog: Anything that we do back there will have to be in accordance with what’s necessary. I don’t know how many spaces we can get back there – it was proposed to be 6 to 8, or 5 to 7. If we can get more in there, fine. If we can’t get that many in there, we recognize that parking is a premium and we’ll provide any off street parking that we can. We’ll have to provide for drainage and I’ll have to get somebody in there that’s qualified to do that work.

Mr. Mical: Are you looking at paving it?

Mr. Hertzog: Most likely. The driveway is paved, and from a maintenance point of view, it would be better to pave it.

Ms. Annis: The addition that Lynn put on several years ago is wider than it looked.

Ms. Hertzog: The dining room area is approximately 900 to 950 square feet, and the kitchen area will be approximately 700 feet.

Ms. Annis read a letter received from the Fire Chief stating that the following fire safety items had been agreed on for the building:

A building sprinkler system will be installed

Means of egress remote of each other for the first and second floor

Fire alarm system with detectors, pull stations, horns and lights in the entire building

A fire suppression system over the cooking area in the kitchen

Emergency lights for exits, both up and down

Lighted exit signs where needed throughout the building

As long as the above items are met, I would approve the project to make a restaurant with an apartment for rent on the second floor -- signed Dick Brown.

Mr. Mical: Single apartment?

Ms. Annis: He says single, but the plan shows…

Ms. Hertzog: There was going to be a studio apartment in the back, but at the moment the front is an apartment and the back is storage now. We were going to put a studio apartment in that area.

Mr. Pershouse: Is the Fire Department aware of that plan?

Ms. Annis: That’s what I thought.

Ms. Annis: I’m looking at the diagram of the upstairs and the diagram of the store.

Mr. Hertzog: Yes, the second floor doesn’t cover the entire footprint of the first floor.

Ms. Annis: Correct. The egress in the very back – where does that go to?

Mr. Hertzog: Yes, that is ground level.

Mr. Patsfield: Will that still be ground level when you put the parking out there?

Mr. Hertzog: Yes, I propose to leave at lest 25 feet between the building and any parking we put back there.

Mr. St.Pierre: On your handicapped ramp, the first section up from the street, it appears that it blocks the sidewalk?

Mr. Hertzog: I don’t have the sidewalk drawn in there.

Mr. St.Pierre: I know. In the picture, it looks like the stairs come to the edge of the sidewalk and the ramp extends considerably past the stairs.

Mr. Hertzog: We’ll position the ramp any way that it needs to be to provide for public safety.

Mr. Serell: It looks like the sidewalk right in front of the store is wider than the regular sidewalk.

Mr. Hertzog: It is. The regular pedestrian sidewalk is only 8 feet or so further than the base of the stairs. But we’ll certainly get an approval for the exact layout of that before we go ahead and build it.

Mr. St.Pierre: Are you going to put in a window?

Mr. Hertzog: As I understand it, it is already framed for one. There will be a bay or bow window placed on the addition, and additional windows up high would be put in to add more light to that part of the building. Additional lighting would be installed as needed, as would any additional emergency doors.

Ms. Annis: Does the Board feel that this change of use requires a complete site plan?

Mr. Serell asked if the previous application for the building was required to have a site plan review, and Ms. Annis said that they didn’t require a site plan of them. Mr. Serell said that he didn’t see why this would be treated any differently than the previous application.

Mr. St.Pierre made a motion to approve the change of use without a site plan review. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

Mr. Jim McLaughlin, from the audience: Will this building require a building permit from the town?

Ms. Annis: I don’t think so. Why?

Mr. McLaughlin: From the standpoint of the Village Water District.

Ms. Annis: I would check with the Selectmen’s office to see if a Building Permit is required.

Home Occupation

Property Owner/Applicant: Annamaria Colburn, 884 Kearsarge Mt. Road, Warner, NH 03278

Property Location: same as above

Purpose: Tax Accountant – Tax preparation and bookkeeping for individuals, small business, non-profit and small corporations

The Board read over the application for Home Occupation received from the Selectmen’s office. The Board needs to determine if a site plan review is required.

Ms. Annis asked if anyone on the Board had any questions about hours or area.

Mr. Mical: Just to confirm – the abutting properties were contacted?

Ms. Colburn: Yes.

Mr. Serell: This seems to be the most homey of home businesses that there could be.

Mr. St.Pierre made a motion to waive Site plan Review for the Home Occupation Application. The motion was seconded and approved by a unanimous vote.

 

Conceptual Consultation

Luke DeStefano and Jim Feltman, Bohler Engineering, 352 Turnpike Rd., Southborough, MA 01772 for Irving Oil Corporation, 190 Commerce Way, Portsmouth, MA 03801

Property Location: 32 West Main Street, Map 14, Lot 8 – currently Mobil "On the Run" convenience store/gasoline facility containing a Dunkin’ Donuts, 4 multi-product gasoline dispensers, 2 diesel dispensers and 4 underground storage tanks (UST’s)

Purpose: To continue to operate as the same use. The only change will be changing the existing Mobil "On the Run" signs to new Irving signs equal in quantity and square footage to existing signs.

Mr. Feltman presented his application.

Irving Corporation is taking over the Mobil "On the Run" station

Exit 9 off of I-89

Seeking recommendations from the Planning Board before taking over ownership of the site

Only the signs will be changed on the site, and will be the same size and square footage as the existing signs.

All illumination will remain the same.

Hours of operation will remain the same.

Dunkin’ Donuts will remain the same.

On the Run signs will be taken down and replaced in the same size and quantity in the future – they don’t know exactly what they want to do

Mr. Pershouse said that he’d noticed that on other Irving stations, there is a neon tube complimenting the canopy. Mr. Feltman said that at this time, only the existing Mobil signs will be replaced with Irving signs. Mr. Pershouse asked if in the future, the Board would be asked about a change to add the neon lighting. Mr. Feltman said that he didn’t know, and that he wasn’t sure. This is only going to be a change of ownership. There are two canopies.

Mr. Eubank asked if the internally illuminated signs that are there now would be allowed because the ordinance had changed and doesn’t now allow internally illuminated signs. Ms. Annis said that the sign is grandfathered. Mr. Eubank stated that the Mobil sign was grandfathered, but would a change made now also be grandfathered. Mr. Pershouse said that he’d asked the question because the new Irving stations have a traveling neon light on the canopy that runs around the perimeter. He said that he was only bringing it up in case it comes up in the future. Mr. Feltman said that their main concern is getting the name up and taking over ownership.

Mr. St.Pierre asked if they’re only changing out the name, and Mr. Feltman said that the Mobil names portion of the signs pops off and it will replaced with the same type of sign with the Irving name. That will be the only change. He also said that they have a meeting with the Selectmen the next morning for their sign permit.

Mr. Pershouse: If we approve the new ownership of the building, by implication are we approving conditional signage at some later date?

Mr. Serell: We went through a similar issue with the station across the street – with the huge, giant sign that is way up in the air that wouldn’t be approved today. That thing’s gone through two or three changes in ownership and I think we determined that the sign is grandfathered. I think that the same rule would apply here.

Mr. St.Pierre: Can I ask a question of Ms. Hinnendael, who is representing the Zoning Board here? She might be able to enlighten us on the status of the grandfathering of the signs.

Ms. Annis: Yes.

Ms. Hinnendael: I know that I ask a question about the Citgo, because it changed from a long, square blue sign to a square white sign. They said that it was the same square footage. I asked about that at the training – if that was a grandfathered sign – and he said no. They might have approval for a sign, but it still has to go through the approval process. Since the Irvin sign is so different – and I think that’s what Derek was talking about – the Mobil sign is blue and not so bright, where the Irving sign is white and brighter.

Mr. Serell: So you’re saying that when that property changed hands, we could have made them take down that sign?

Mr. Reeder: One thing is that the square footage was the same, but the dimensions were different. When you change the dimensions, you are changing the sign. On something like this, they’re not even changing the structure of the sign. They’re just taking a lense out and putting a lense in. I don’t consider that a sign. I would consider it a change if they wanted to add another 2 feet to it and shorten it by several inches.

Ms. Hinnendael: I’m just saying that the Citgo sign was definitely not grandfathered according to the Office of State Planning. I asked that question at the training.

Mr. Feltman: If I could just add one note. We’ve done work for Mobil, and Mobil wanted to add a big canopy upgrade. That’s what you see at that location is a complete canopy upgrade on that site. That’s their new image. That panel where it says Mobil – that’s a complete panel that is attached by pop rivets. It just pops out, and that all they’re doing. The colors are pretty similar to Irving’s. Mobil has a light blue where Irving has a dark blue.

Mr. Reeder made a motion to accept the sign change as described here; when they decide to add signage or put the signs on the building, they need to come back to the Planning Board.

Mr. Feltman: I know that Irving is going to ask this question of me tomorrow. When they take down the "On the Run" signage on the building, will they still be allowed that same quantity and square footage – let’s say 6 months from now they want to put up Irving signs of that same quantity and dimension?

Ms. Annis: I would think so.

Mr. Serell: They would have to go through the process. I don’t think that would be grandfathered. If it’s in our current regulations, then yes. If it’s not in the current regulations, then it would raise questions.

Mr. Eubank: I think that we ought to ask that question even of this, because my image of grandfathering something is that you’re not changing it at all. As soon as you change even the face plate of it, then it’s no longer grandfathered.

Mr. Serell: So I think the answer to your question is that if it is in our current regulations, then you can do it. If it’s not in the current regulations, then we would probably seek the advice of Town Counsel.

Mr. Feltman: Yes, the building signs are a totally different issue at a later date.

Ms. Annis: Some of that would be difficult, because now in our site plan we don’t want a sign above the eave line, and they’ve got that peak and they have "On the Run" up in that peak.

Mr. Pershouse: Isn’t the answer that it would be decided when they want to put the sign up?

Mr. Serell: No, because he asked the question of…

Mr. Pershouse: He’s trying to anticipate. But I don’t think it would be just a swap out because of lighting.

Mr. Feltman: I just wanted to ask the Board’s opinion about the building signage.

Ms. Annis: We’re looking at the aesthetics.

Mr. Feltman: With that type of a building, I don’t think they’d be looking for back lighting – I think they would be looking at a light shining on the sign itself.

Ms. Annis: Thank you. It is a nice looking building; don’t destroy it. So it is agreed that the change of signs is permissible?

Mr. Reeder said that there was a motion.

The motion made earlier was seconded and approved by a unanimous vote.

Conceptual Consultation

Fran Brown for Kathy Ratcliffe, 190 Waldron Hill Road, Warner, NH – Map 10, Lot 26

Purpose: Subdivision of two lots out of 29 acres

Fran Brown passed out copies of the property in question showing the location of the existing house and land. The property previously belonged to Ms. Whitaker, and now belongs to Kathy Ratcliffe and Bob Humphrey. They purchased the property so that it wouldn’t be subdivided into ribbons – they live right across the street. They have no use for the house and would like to recoup some of the money through the sale of the house and one lot. Jeff Evans surveyed it a long time ago, and he wants $10,000 to resurvey the entire parcel. Since it’s already been done, could they just survey these two lots on Waldron Hill Road without having the whole thing done? It cuts the cost in half.

The Board said that it was only adding two lines and is going from bounds and going from stone walls to stone walls. They agreed that the entire parcel would not have to be surveyed; only the part being subdivided would need to be surveyed.

Communications and Miscellaneous

Josh Moulton Subdivision

Ms. Annis: The Board approved a 3-lot subdivision with one driveway curb cut and three houses off of one driveway. The subdivision shows three separate driveways; one mutual and three driveways from that one driveway. At the time, Ed Mical brought up the fact that we were ignoring the recommendation of the Fire Chief of not doing three lots off of one driveway. The Board went ahead even thought Ed reminded the Board that 911 doesn’t like it. The Board still said yes. It is my understanding – and Josh, correct me if I’m wrong because I wasn’t there – that the Board of Selectmen told you now that if we do the new driveway regulations and you do not have your driveways in place prior to us working on it, it will be denied and you will not be able to use your third driveway. Is that basically what they’re saying?

Mr. Moulton: They said that there is the potential that if the regulations were changed, they may not give me a permit to put a house on the third lot, based on failure to comply with emergency and access and that type of thing. So I guess the answer is yes.

Ms. Annis: So needless to say, Josh is a little concerned and I don’t blame him.

Mr. Reeder: When we did that, we did the site walk and looking at three driveways along that section going down the hill…

It was stated that this was a different subdivision.

Mr. Reeder: Oh, I don’t know anything about that one. Never mind. Where are you?

Ms. Annis: On 103, just beyond Parade Ground Cemetery Road. They’ve gone in and made a roadway and they’re starting to build a house on the right hand side.

Mr. Serell: What’s on the agenda for us to do or not to? Isn’t this a Selectmen’s decision at this time?

Ms. Annis: Well, no. They’re saying he can’t have that third driveway and the third lot.

Mr. Pershouse: It’s not a firm no at this point.

Ms. Annis: If we go ahead with the driveway regulations.

Mr. Serell: But isn’t it the situation that if he gets them in before the regulations changes, he’s all set. If he gets to the point where the regulations change and he can’t put it in, isn’t his option to come back with an amended subdivision with a different driveway configuration and we can act on it?

Ms. Annis: The thing is that he told us up front that he wasn’t going to buy this property if he couldn’t subdivide it into three lots because he couldn’t afford it.

Mr. Serell: But what does anybody want us to do?

Ms. Annis: He’s looking for some support.

Mr. Serell: But what support can we give him? We can’t override the Selectmen?

Mr. St.Pierre: What decision are the Selectmen making?

Ms. Annis: Josh, what were their comments?

Mr. Moulton: They were discussing the changes in regulations and ordinances, and that they would be changed at the next meeting? And that the ordinance would then have to go before Town Meeting?

Ms. Annis: Correct.

Mr. Moulton: They were saying that they may wait until Town Meeting to change the ordinance, or somebody said that they may hurry up and change it before that. I think the issue tonight is whether or not a current subdivision that has been approved and regulations of any sort are changed, would the subdivision that has been approved be grandfathered?

Mr. Patsfield said that he’s been working on the Driveway Regulations and working to incorporate the Fire Chief’s input into the regulations. If he has his three driveway permits prior to the Board adopting the driveway regulations, he’s got it.

Ms. Annis said that we don’t have any driveway regulations at this time. Mr. Patsfield agreed – if he gets his permits before the regulations are adopted, then he has them.

Mr. Mical: He’s only going to get one driveway permit from the State. But the access into the individual parcels comes through the building permit process.

Mr. Patsfield: Right, And the difference between what the Fire Chief said the other day and what I’ve been working on is that the Fire Chief wanted it from the Town road – only one access to two lots. The way I’ve been looking at it and the way other towns have been doing it is that if it’s a private road, as long as it’s up to town standards, then it could have three lots off of it. It can’t be a driveway off of it.

Ms. Annis: But we granted it.

Mr. Patsfield: And I was the one that was pushing it, quite honestly. It had been going on for quite a while and we were limiting the discussion to 30 minutes, and they needed a decision because the people said that they only had one more month before the owners put the property back on the market, correct?

Mr. Moulton: Correct.

Mr. Patsfield: So we said we don’t now if you even plan to build all three houses, because you were planning on building one house at this time and sell that house an take the proceeds to build the second house, and possibly selling that house to build the third house. It was stated that who knows what the regulations would be when you build the third house, because you might never build it.

Mr. Moulton: No, I was always going to build the third house.

Mr. Patsfield: But it’s always subject to change. Your health could change or something. But I’d always said that you could take some of the money from the sale of the first two houses and make it a private road instead of a driveway up to that third house.

Ms. Annis: We don’t have private roads.

Mr. Patsfield: Plus the length of that road now – the Fire Chief was saying last month 1,600 feet. How long was that driveway going to be?

Mr. Moulton: From the state highway, way over that.

Mr. Patsfield: So he couldn’t have it anyway.

Mr. Serell: I still don’t see what the immediate situation is. Right now, the Selectmen haven’t denied anything and the regulations haven’t changed. It seems to me that he has two options: If he wants absolute guarantees, he can build the three lots; he can come back and amend the subdivision plan right now and we can act on it if he wants to; or he can do nothing and if the Selectmen deny something he can come in and amend the plans at that time.

Mr. Patsfield: But if the regulation is adopted, he couldn’t build that third house up there anyway.

Ms. Annis: We have waivers in the regulations.

Mr. Patsfield: But he could get a waiver for the whole thing.

Mr. Serell said that it’s not the Planning Board’s job to guarantee that an applicant can do something in the future.

Mr. St.Pierre and Ms. Annis asked how he would amend the plan.

Mr. Serell: He would make a new subdivision plan showing other driveway access.

Mr. Patsfield: Or he could get his three building permits issued by the town and then he’d have his three building permits.

Mr. St.Pierre: There’s no protection against changing ordinances.

Ms. Annis: I agree with that, as far as that goes. But what I’m saying is that we approved it.

Mr. Serell: But we didn’t approve everything under the sun. We approved a subdivision plan.

Ms. Annis: We approved his subdivision with three lots on it. And we can’t do a land-locked lot.

Mr. Patsfield stated that he could access the lot on the left with another driveway. Ms. Annis showed the Board the plan and pointed out the three driveways shown on the plan as approved. Mr. Pershouse pointed out that it is a considerable expense to get the building permits. Ms. Annis stated that he needs a septic design for each lot, a well for each lot, an energy compliance to do for each one.

Mr. Serell: What are you suggesting? I’ve told you what he can do.

Mr. Moulton: So what you’re saying is that there’s no such thing as an approved subdivision being grandfathered – you can’t give a special exception or whatever you call it?

Mr. Serell: The Selectmen could waive a requirement.

Mr. Moulton asked when the driveway permit would come before the Board. Ms. Annis said that she won’t bring anything else before the Board before it has been reviewed by Don Gartrell. Mr. Serell and the Board said that it would probably be at least 6 months.

 

Emails to Board Members

Ms. Annis asked that emails sent out among Board members regarding regulation changes and ordinance changes be copied to the Planning Board office so that the Secretary is aware of what is being discussed.

 

Work Sessions

 

Ms. Annis reported on a document called What is a Meeting? by attorney Bernie Waugh. In the document, it states that a work session is a meeting and that the public doesn’t participate unless they are invited to do so, and that "open to the public" does not mean that the public has a right to speak. She asked Don Gartrell about it, and he responded in writing with his opinion.

In response to your memo today, it is my understanding that you have received correspondence from the Applicant or Attorney McGrath regarding the material differences between the present application and the earlier one rejected by the Board. Also, we understand that you have indicated the missing elements which must be supplied to complete the application.

If the Board intends to elicit further information from the Applicant regarding the material differences between the prior application and the current one, I would recommend that that be indicated in a meeting Notice or Agenda and that it be done in a public meeting. Although a public hearing on that question is recommended by Attorney Waugh, I do not believe that it is required – particularly if the Board feels that it has been fully informed on that issue by this time. Nothing, however, precludes the Board from holding a hearing on the material difference issue. On that issue, the parties are the applicant and the Board – and it is a judgment call to be made by the Board.

If you feel that it is likely or possible that the Applicant will supply the missing elements of the application at the next meeting, it may be prudent to schedule a public hearing on the application so that if both threshold issues are resolved favorably to the Applicant, you can proceed to hear the application on the merits.

Ms. Annis: In order to comply with this, we need to change what we’re doing. The notices should say work session/meeting, but I don’t know if agendas need to be posted.

Mr. Mical: Whenever there is a quorum present, it is considered to be a meeting.

It was discussed that unless the Chair recognizes the members of the public, they can only witness the meeting. This is basically so that the public doesn’t come up and consume the meeting by just joining in. Ms. Annis said that a notice will be put up stating that a work session/meeting will be held at a certain regular time. Mr. Pershouse asked how formal the process can be made under the circumstances when at times people are invited to meeting and work sessions for their input. Ms. Annis said that some sources state that agendas should be posted and some say they don’t have to be. Ms. Annis said that it should be formal enough so that it’s not a round table discussion with constant input from the individual or individuals. Mr. Pershouse said that is the exception and the rule is that it is a tightly run ship as opposed to what is happening now. Ms. Annis agreed, saying that the way they are doing it now is not the way they should be doing it according to the document she was reading from. She stated that the Secretary had more copies of the document if anyone wanted one.

Ms. Annis said that the meetings will continue to be noticed as work session/meeting, agendas won’t be posted, and minutes will continue to be kept as they are now.

 

Proposed Ordinances

Zoning Ordinance changes affecting the ZBA were approved by the ZBA and will be put on the Public Hearing. In the cross easement ordinance, Ms. Annis asked if the words, "if feasible" should be added to the wording. Mr. Reeder said that there could be cases where it doesn’t make sense to connect them. Mr. St.Pierre said that it is already in the Site Plan; if you’re going to require it, it should be in the ordinance. Mr. Serell said that he didn’t think that the words, "if feasible", are necessary. The way it is written now doesn’t mean that they have to be connected. Mr. Serell read from the Site Plan regulations where this requirement is stated. The Board discussed the need of having it in the ordinance also.

Mr. Reeder made a motion to not put the cross easement section into the Zoning Ordinance. The motion was seconded and approved by a unanimous vote.

The Board discussed the Public Right of Way (Front Structure) Setback section and agreed to keep this section as part of the proposed ordinance changes.

The Board discussed the Maximum Impermeable Coverage section and why it was suggested. Runoff was discussed as it is affected by the impermeable cover. The Board agreed to go forward with the Maximum Impermeable Cover section.

Mr. St.Pierre suggested that if someone bought a large piece of land with timber on it and wanted to subdivide it as well as remove logs, would it be possible to offer them an extra lot in the subdivision if they subdivide the land before it is logged? They would come to the Board before the land is logged. The intent of the Open Space ordinance it to preserve land. Mr. Patsfield argued that an extra lot would add school taxes.

Ms. Annis asked that in the future, the Board sit back a little bit and not push so fast when it comes to hurried changes to regulations and ordinances. She wants Don Gartrell to review all of the text before it is discussed and posted for public hearings.

Ms. Annis handed out text for the proposed Driveway Regulation. She asked them to read over this information. The Board discussed what might be discussed at the next work session on January 16^th. Ms. Annis said that at the next work session they could go over the gravel pit regulations because Don has reviewed them. Mark and Dan were supposed to go over the incorporation of the access management study into the Master Plan, but that the last time she spoke with Dan they’d not yet gotten together. Mr. Pershouse said that Mark had said that no public hearing was required to adopt the changes to the Master Plan, and Ms Annis said that a public hearing was required to adopt changes to the Master Plan.

Adjourn

A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was Adjourned at 10:15 PM.

Minutes approved: February 6, 2006