Julie Ann Rimm, 27 Tom Pond Lane, Warner, NH 03278

Property location: JulieAnn’s Floral & Gift Shoppe, 2 East Main Street, Unit 1, Warner, NH 03278, 746-6972

Ms. Rimm stated that she plans to open her shop in the Cricenti building being leased by Bob Egan and subleased to tenants.

• Floral and gift shop
• Inventory will include but not be limited to dried, preserved and fresh flowers, arrangements, floral services and delivery
• Country and primitive décor, candles, gifts, cards, antiques and reproductions
• Hours: Tues – Friday, 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.; Saturday and Sunday: 8:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. (Hours may change due to seasons)
• Employees: 1 to 3

Mr. Pershouse asked if Mr. Egan had offered to come in on her behalf, and Ms. Rimm stated that she was sure that he would be willing to do so. Ms. Annis stated that Ms. Rimm is a tenant in a building that is being rented by Bob Egan, and that Bob is responsible to make sure that she follows the business plan as presented. If the plan isn’t followed, the Planning Board would look to Bob.

Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the Change of Use contingent upon receipt by the Board of a written statement from Bob Egan stating that this is a change from a pizza parlor to a floral shop as stated in the Business Plan submitted by Ms. Rimm. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

6. Conceptual Consultation: Major Subdivision

Michael & Dorothy Martin, 22 Stumpfield Road, Contoocook, NH 03229

Property location: Poverty Plains Road, Map 3, Lot 95

Purpose: 5 lot subdivision

Mr. Martin presented preliminary plans of the subdivision to the Board for its review and comments. It was stated that the lot in question is on the right as you come off of Route 127, and is in the R-2 zoning district. Mr. Martin said that there is a 200 acre parcel across the street that has no buildings on it.

• Test pits have been dug on the proposed new lots.
• Each lot will have the minimum required 200 feet of frontage.
• There are wetlands, approximately 3.1 acres, and the slope has been marked on the plan, and accounts for approximately 3.1 or 3.2 acres of the total 14.3 acre parcel.
• The access point for the lot with the stream would probably be accomplished by granting an easement through the abutting lot. There is a culvert that goes into the road, and Mr. Martin thinks that because of the wetland area behind the property, the stream is relatively active. Mr. Pershouse asked Ms. Annis if access would have to be accounted for in order to have a buildable lot. She said that she thought so.
• Ms. Annis asked if granting a right-of-way across a piece of property to an abutting lot decreases the frontage of that lot (the one with the right-of-way).
• Mr. Reeder suggested a shared driveway to accomplish the same end as the right-of-way. One of the goals of the Board is to decrease the number of driveways in town. Ms. Annis agreed that would be a possibility. Mr. Reeder said that the skidder road on the plan could be used as the driveway with it splitting off from that.
• Mr. Pershouse stated that the driveway locations don’t have to be shown on a plan for a subdivision, but in this case the lot can’t be a buildable lot without a formal access being shown.
• The lots run to the town line dividing the Towns of Warner and Webster – the line is the property line for the back of the lots.
• Mr. Pershouse asked that a plan of the subdivision be left with the Board for reference purposes.

Suggestions from the Board:

1. Include the name of the abutter across the street on the plan

2. Total frontage for each lot needs to be on the individual lots

3. A right-of-way across a lot to provide access to another lot needs to be shown on the plan.

4. Mr. Pershouse suggested that the surveyor, Doug Sweet, contact the Planning Board office prior to the formal application to let the Board know what direction will be taken with the shared driveway v. a right-of-way to access the lot, Lot 2, with the wetlands as road frontage.

5. Have Doug Sweet contact the Director of Public Works/Road Agent to find out the measurement of the easement for Poverty Plains Road – reference Note #3 on the plan.

7. Conceptual Consultation

Henry Garcia and Janet Scigliane Garcia, 402 Kearsarge Mt. Road, Warner, NH 03278

Property location: 372 Kearsarge Mt. Road, Map 18, Lot 21, Warner

Purpose: Conversion of existing residence into a Bed and Breakfast and Retail Shop for alpaca products

Ms. Garcia showed a map to the Board depicting the location of the properties. Ms. Garcia owns property with a house and land on which she raises alpaca. Mr. Garcia owns the abutting property, also containing a house, which has been used most recently as rental property. The properties are zoned R-3, and the Secretary stated that based on the information received from Ms. Garcia, they should probably to go the Zoning Board for a Special Exception for the Bed and Breakfast, Retail shop and also for the commercial use of the land owned by Ms. Garcia now that the herd has grown beyond the size that was classified as for "family use."

Mr. Pershouse: How much land do you need to support a herd?

Ms. Garcia: We have 1.5 to 2.5 acres cleared in front of a barn we built last year, and we are in the process of turning that into a field. There is also a field we own next to it. We have plenty of parking in front of the barn on Henry’s property. The B&B and the shop would be 4 to 5 days a week. The shop would have herbal products, gardening, an occasional antique, etc. The living room would be the room that we’d use, and it is approximately 25% of the house.

Mr. Reeder: How long have you had the alpacas on your property?

Ms. Garcia: Since last November. Prior to that, they’ve been boarded out.

Mr. Reeder: What type of property is next to yours? It is farm property?

Ms. Garcia: There are 14 acres to the north of us which is wooded. I bought my property in 1977.

Mr. St.Pierre: Where is your house located on your property?

Ms. Garcia: My house is about 400 feet back from the road, and the barn is another 200 feet beyond that. Henry’s house is close to the road.

Mr. St.Pierre: I’m asking because of the OC-1 zoning that is on the back of the property.

Ms. Garcia: It is, I think, 1,000 back from the road.

Ms. Annis suggested that they go to the ZBA for a conceptual. If a Special Exception is granted, then they would have to come to the Planning Board for a Site Plan. It is also might be possible that there could be a joint ZBA and Planning Board meeting, if it would help with the time frame necessary. The plan should show measurements, where the driveway is, the size of the house, what percentage is being used for what, etc. Mr. Pershouse suggested a Business Plan of a few paragraphs stating the parameters what the impact would be on the community: parking – a statement that there is adequate parking off the road, neighbors, number of people that might visit on a given day, etc.

The upcoming meetings were stated: March 17^th for the next ZBA meeting, and April 5^th for the Planning Board, if the full application was presented to the ZBA in March, and not a conceptual consultation.

8. Conceptual Consultation

Jody Keeler, purchasing a building lot on 103 from Gamil Azmy

Property location: Map 3, Lot 68

Mr. Keeler and his brother are purchasing a lot from Mr. Azmy, and he has come to the Board to see what they can do with the property. It is zoned for a 2-family residence, and they would like to make a 2-unit condo. Do they get a building permit first, or get condo approval and then get the building permit. The quality would be better if they could build a condo instead of property that would be used for rental purposes. Approval for a 4 bedroom septic design is expected from the state within the next couple of weeks. The plan would be for 1,000 to 1,500 sq.ft. per side, each with a one-car garage. The slope of the terrain was discussed.

Mr. Pershouse: The condominium process is lengthy and expensive and complex.

Mr. Keeler: I have discussed this with an attorney who writes the condo documents, and that’s not an issue. At this point, we would need to know what the Board needs from us. I may be the owner of and living in one side, so I have an interest in knowing that the condo docs are workable. We are currently renting in Henniker. Where do I go from here? What is the process?

Mr. St.Pierre: You would have to have a map of the structure – a plan of exactly what you’re going to build. Someone is buying "to the walls", so they have to be where they’re supposed to be. It has to be exact when it is recorded.

Mr. Keeler: So you’re saying that I need to have the actual condominium plans before the documents are written?

Mr. St.Pierre: I think so.

Mr. Reeder: What would be the reason that the Planning Board could deny a condominium is there were 2 units built there?

Ms. Annis: Nothing, I don’t think, unless we couldn’t agree on the rules in the condo documents. So that the tenant and the town are protected.

Mr. Reeder: Our interest is in protecting the town. It’s not so much the building as it is the condo agreement that concerns a risk for the town.

Mr. Pershouse: He needs to make a commitment initially, in terms of the plan, on whether he wants to build it as a condo and not an apartment.

Mr. Reeder: The concerns might be: common trash pick-up, limited car space, unregistered cars – things that affect the town.

Mr. Pershouse: I’m a little concerned that there is a Catch-22 here because the design of the building may have to incorporate – in order to satisfy our requirements for the condo documents, whatever they are – there may be some variation in the building. It seems that if you have a set of drawings and you may or may not have the condo documents but you have a good idea of what the documents will have in them, you may need to come back to us and show us the building and a rough outline of the condo agreement so that we can make sure that there is no conflict between our concerns with the agreement and what you have designed in the building. Maybe that’s not our role, but…

Mr. Keeler: I understand what you’re saying, but I’m trying to understand the timing of this. If I could get back here in a month with a proposed draft of the documents and a set of drawings, what is the review of the process?

Mr. Pershouse: The Board needs them to then send them to the Town Attorney.

Mr. Keeler: I’m thinking that it would be pretty straight-forward – only a common wall.

Mr. Reeder: And common areas of the property as well as water and septic.

Ms. Annis: Officers and who decides on them, etc.

Mr. Pershouse: That’s a legal issue and the reason for the documents. I would be more comfortable if you could come in with a draft, and only have the drawings in draft form in case there are changes.

Mr. Reeder: We would also need to see the topo maps of the land to see what’s under the snow, the slope of the driveway.

Mr. Keeler: It looks like there might have been some excavation there, and I would have to fill in as part of the construction process. So I would need draft or scale drawing of the building, draft of the condo documents, and the topo map of the land.

Mr. Reeder: You would also need to show where you expect to have the driveway, even though it would be preliminary. But it would be something that would give us an idea. That really doesn’t become solid until you have a complete survey done and a test pit done – to determine where your well is going to be.

Mr. Pershouse: At what point are we talking about an application?

Ms. Annis: It depends on whether he wants to come in for another conceptual, basic approval, or whether he wants to come directly in for a hearing. He has a lot of work to do.

Mr. Keeler: Is the presentation of the application and the hearing in the same month, or is there a month’s lag?

Secretary: For the March 1^st meeting, the deadline is February 11^th. For the April 5^th meeting, the deadline is March 17^th.

9. Communications and Miscellaneous

Letter received from the New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources re: Proposed Telecommunication Co-Location, South Sutton/Tory Hill Road, Warner, New Hampshire

"The NH Division of Historical Resources, State Historic Preservation Office, concurs that the proposed co-location project referred to above will be in compliance with the nationwide programmatic agreement for the co-location of wireless antennae. Therefore, it is exempt from Section 106 review subject to the following stipulations."

It was stated that the applicant is supposed to contact this organization as part of the application process, and that if the tower is changed in such a way that it affects the view of an historic property, the applicant has to submit those changes to the Division of Historical Resources for "review and approval." "Any future additions or expansions of the proposed tower, and any co-locations on it shall be subject to Section 106 screening."

The letter will be placed in the file for the MCT/TDS – US Cellular tower. Mr. Pershouse requested a copy of the letter.

Budget Committee

Ms. Annis said that the Budget Committee went over the $7,500 for the two proposed grants, and do not feel that they can approve them. They have concerns on the Plan NH Charrette will have on the Town of Warner.

 

The Committee has given the Planning Board the option of breaking it down into two warrant articles – the Corridor Study would be supported by the Budget Committee ($5,000), and the Plan NH Charrette ($2,500) would not receive their support

Mr. St.Pierre: What is their concern about the charrette?

Ms. Annis: They have a big concern in regards to the charrette portion, and the effect that a charrette would have on the Town of Warner.

Mr. Pershouse: I don’t think that the Budget Committee understands what a charrette is. I think that they don’t understand the process, and have gone cold on it because they are afraid that something would come out of it that was binding that we as a town couldn’t meet. The suggestion was made to me by a member of the Budget Committee that at least one of us go to the Budget Committee meeting on Thursday and give them an explanation and outline of the process and the impact of the town. I think that even if a Planning Board member doesn’t go to the meeting, the Concerned Citizens for Planned Growth (Main Street Bookends and other concerned citizens) will be going to plead the case because they have endorsed the Plan NH application and they want to see it happen.

Ms. Annis: The deadline for petition warrant articles is tomorrow. I don’t know if Thursday night is the Public Hearing after which no changes can be made. I have no problem with this Board asking the Budget Committee to reconsider.

Mr. Reeder: What we have now is the combined, which they will not endorse?

Ms. Annis: Correct.

Mr. Reeder: Then we have the other option of separating the two, one of which they will endorse?

Ms. Annis: Correct.

Mr. Reeder: The way I see it is if it is combined and they don’t endorse it, it is makes it a tougher sell to the Town. If we have it separated and they only endorse one, we have a better chance of getting one instead of none. It is always possible that they’ll reconsider on Thursday night, and endorse both of them, in which case we would have two items that would be endorsed. I think that having two separate articles is the way to go.

Ms. Annis asked the Board which way they would like it to go, and it was decided that it was a unanimous vote of the Board to have two separate articles.

Mr. St.Pierre: Is this voted on?

Ms. Annis: No, it won’t be on the ballot.

Mr. St.Pierre: So even if they don’t endorse one of them, there will still be discussion on it at Town Meeting?

Ms. Annis: Yes.

Mr. Pershouse said that he would attend the Budget Committee meeting on Thursday, February 5^th, at 7:00 p.m. He encouraged as many members to go as possible.

Conceptual Consultations: Applications and Deadlines

It was discussed and decided that Conceptual Consultations should be included on the Planning Board application, and there should be a deadline of at least 1 week prior to the meeting, by noon on Wednesday. This would give the Secretary the time to send the information to the Board members in advance of the meeting, and for it to be on the Agenda. The information should include, at least, the name, contact information, what is being proposed, brief outline of proposal, etc.

If someone just shows up at a meeting and wishes to speak to the Board about a proposed or future application, they should be given a form to complete at the meeting, copies made, and told that they will be put at the end of the Agenda if there is time prior to the 10:00 p.m. deadline for meetings. If time doesn’t allow them to be heard, they will be put on the Agenda for the next month’s meeting.

Planning Board Applications: Proposed changes/additions to form/fee schedule

Changes to the Application forms for Subdivision, Site Plan Review, Lot Line Adjustment and any other proposal were discussed. The Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission made suggestions to a form that Ms. Annis created, and the Board discussed the forms. Costs will continue to be on the forms, as well as the costs of recording an approved plan. These fees will be a $25 flat fee plus the various fees published by the Merrimack County Registry of Deeds.

Notice of Courtesy

According to CNHRPC, they feel that any conceptual Subdivision or Site Plan, a courtesy notice should be sent out to abutters. Not a certified letter, but a notice that something is going on in their neighborhood. Mr. St.Pierre said that they would have to get the information to the Secretary much earlier, in time for the notices to go out. Ms. Annis said that some conceptual consultations could be significant in their impact on neighbors. Mr. Pershouse said that he thinks that it would complicate the process – he wouldn’t know what he is supposed to do if he received a notice that "something was happening in his neighborhood" and it wasn’t yet a formal application. Ms. Annis suggested that he come to the meeting with questions or have fears alleviated.

Mr. Reeder: There are formal steps now that are taken to notify the abutters and general public when a formal application has been received.

Mr. Pershouse: What if a courtesy notice was sent out and someone didn’t go to that meeting, but did attend the registered mail abutter notice, what happens if they didn’t receive the first notice and a neighbor did?

Mr. Reeder: Also, people have the opportunity to read our minutes. They are present for the residents to be able to read what is happening in the community. Who do you send them to? Where do you start and where do you stop?

Mr. St.Pierre: They can come to the meeting for a conceptual, but they don’t have the right to speak [it’s not a public hearing]. By the time a Public Hearing is noticed, there has sometimes been a lot of give and take that has gone on. It would be beneficial to hear the public’s comments earlier in the process.

Mr. Pershouse: Maybe a general notice could be posted for conceptual consultations.

Secretary: The Agendas are posted now.

Mr. Reeder: Yes, but not too many people read them.

It was decided that Notices of Courtesy wouldn’t be done at this time.

A line will be added to the Site Plan Checklist stating whether or not the applicant has met with the Fire Chief, Chief of Police, Director of Public Works, and Warner Village Water District.

Mr. Pershouse suggested a process of circulating the applications to the various departments. The Secretary read from the minutes of the January meeting, where Mr. Serell suggested that the various department heads be invited to a meeting after the conceptual consultation if the Board feels it is necessary to get their input. Mr. Lennon said that the necessity for this would change from application to application. Putting it on the checklist would remind both the Board and the applicant that of the possible need for this step.

Growth

Mr. Lennon said that he is speaking at Bookends on February 27^th, and at the Warner Men’s Club on February 23^rd.

Mr. Lennon said that the Growth Meetings will be canceled until after the Town Meeting. They will resume on the 3^rd Monday in April (April 19^th).

Miscellaneous

Mr. St.Pierre asked if a parcel of land is made up of several Tracts, so specified in the Deed, is it necessary to go through the Subdivision process to sell off one of the tracts. It was stated that Don Gartrell had reported to the Board at an earlier date that as long as the tract being separated, or subdivided, meets all of the current zoning ordinance regulations, it can be divided without a subdivision application approval.

Ms. Annis said that John Howe will be coming to the March meeting to discuss a Lot Line Adjustment of Mr. Prue’s property. It is a .25 acre parcel. Another neighbor is willing to let him buy additional land to add to the small lot, but it will still be a substandard lot, even though it is a lot of record. Another question is: On a corner lot, do both sides of the corner count toward the total frontage requirements.

Mr. Reeder asked if the fact that the Waterloo District is now designated as historical had any bearing on the discussion.

10. Adjourn

A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting, which passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 pm.

 

Minutes approved: March 1, 2004