Members Present: James McLaughlin, Derek Pershouse, Barbara Annis, John Brayshaw, John Wallace, Philip Reeder

1. Open Meeting at 7:05 PM
2. Roll Call

Mr. McLaughlin said that Mr. Lennon would be a voting member for the meeting.

3. Approval of the Minutes of the January 6, 2003 Planning Board Meeting

A motion was made to approve the minutes as corrected. The motion passed by a unanimous vote.

4. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW

Aubuchon Hardware, Gregory Moran, VP Real Estate, 95 Aubuchon Drive, Westminster, MA 01473. Property located at 30 Rt. 103 West [Market Basket building], Warner, NH. Map 14, Lot 7, 22.74 acres, C1 Zoning.  Modifications to building: addition of doors and signage. Demoulas Super Markets, Inc., Owner

Mr. Moran stated that the company was started by his grandfather 95 years ago, his mother is an Aubuchon, and his father has been on the payroll for 67 years -- starting as a high-school student when he was 16 years old. His brother, Marcus, is president of the company. Mr. Moran stated that Aubuchon had purchased Perkins Hardware.

Mr. Moran: Our goal for Warner, New Hampshire, looking at the real-estate for Perkins and the building that they were in, we're trying to find a better home for a more upscale hardware operation. We certainly don't want to take away that country flavor, but I'm sure that will be part of the change -- only because it is so quaint the way it stands today. In that respect, I certainly have regrets. But to have that same country store image for the next 20 years, like the Perkins had been able to do, we didn't feel that we would be able to do that as effectively as they have. So tonight I stand before you in an effort to put together a package with the Market Basket organization. That 8140 square foot vacancy that they've had in the plaza was originally destined for a chain drugstore operation, but the way they have become very freestanding and more independent, it has sat vacant all these years. Our hope is to be able to get sign approval and to get store entrance approvals this evening.

I do have one additional request, and I may have to come back before the Board. It was not included in my original application, but it is the concept of adding a propane filling station along the far side of the Market Basket area. Currently there are eight parking spaces alongside the side of the property, and in this transition area we would be proposing to introduce an 11 ft. x 20 ft. concrete pad area, fenced in and protected with bullets, for the purposes of a propane filling station. We operate 42 propane filling stations today and we have 130 hardware operations. We have found that there is a strong demand for the propane filling stations. Traditional providers of propane are not necessarily that interested in Saturday and Sunday propane business, and we found that the demand is high on weekends, and because we are a 7 day a week store, we have been able to fill that gap. So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit these [plans] if I could to the Board for their review. I apologize for the late submission.

Mr. McLaughlin: My feeling would be that because you're changing it, we probably should not hold the Public Hearing this evening. We should delay that until the next meeting so that the public has a chance to review the entire package, but we can certainly talk and have questions back and forth.

Mr. Moran: If I pulled the propane filling station, kept it off the application, I would like to be able to continue because I need to line up my contractors and get everything going for the real aspect, which is the entrances, the service areas, and the signage.

Mr. McLaughlin: How does the Board feel about this?

Mr. Serell: If it's not part of the application, we can go forward and consider the rest of it, but I don't know whether we would have to do a separate application for the propane filling station part of it.

Mr. Brayshaw: It seems like there would be federal regulations to consider also.

Mr. Moran: None of this would proceed if the fire chief or anyone else in authority says no. But I figured I would start here.

Mr. McLaughlin: Why don't we consider just what you have submitted tonight.

Mr. Moran: Should I leave those with you tonight?

Mr. McLaughlin: I guess you can leave them with the Board, but they're not part of this application.

Mr. Moran: With the original application there were two diagrams submitted; one showing the side view and the other showing the front view of the plaza. Looking back at the original minutes of the approval of the shopping center, the balance of the stores in the shopping center were allotted 150 square feet of signage. Speaking with John Matthews, who is the vice president of Market Basket, he was more than comfortable in allocating to us 100 square feet of the remaining 150 square feet. With that, we submitted the diagram requesting the 98 ft. sign.

Mr. McLaughlin: Do we have the documentation?

Secretary: I believe I sent it to you in the packets.

Mr. McLaughlin read the original wording from the Zoning Board of Adjustment decision: "150 square footage total for all of the retail establishments on the property"

Mr. Moran: Utilizing the existing sign background that Market Basket has, we would simply be installing Aubuchon Hardware sign copy of the same nature of the Demoulas individual letter format. The type copy with not be exactly the same as Market Basket, but it will be internally illuminated individual channel letters, and they would be mounted. There is a six-foot white background on the building, and they would be centered on the 7-foot width of the store front.

The customer entrance at the front of the building would be on center, double doors, with glass on each side. On the side of the building, but would have a side customer entrance door of glass, and we would have a service entrance door in the rear for weekly deliveries. We operate our own tractor-trailer fleet, and every tractor-trailer has a tailgate delivery capacity with a lift on it, so there is no material handling equipment that we need outside of the building. Most of our deliveries happen at night. We run two shifts at the warehouse, and the drivers’ favorite time is to pull out at three or four in the afternoon with a fresh load and we usually deliver until 11:00 at night sometimes. This makes for low traffic, and in a shopping center situation is ideal. It is a one-man operation, and our trucks deliver once a week. There are no third-party suppliers, other than possibly a Glidden paint drop once a year, a Scott’s drop once a year, so the majority of the traffic is internally controlled. Deliveries are pretty simple and they're not very often.

Mr. McLaughlin asked that the plans be passed out to the people in the audience.

Question: Mr. Brayshaw: I don't have my book with me -- do you know what the maximum square footage is for signs?

Answer: 150 square feet was the Zoning Board of Adjustment’s decision for the remaining retail space.

Mr. Serell: According to the Zoning Board of Adjustment decision, a 64 ft. sign was the permitted size and the Zoning Board of Adjustment granted a variance for 470 total feet: 320 to be for Market Basket, and 150 for the remaining retail businesses.

Mr. Moran: In a gentlemanly basis, I said to John Matthews that we don't necessarily need 150 square feet. I told him that if he ever added on to the shopping center and asked me to take down my 100 square foot sign put up a 64 square foot sign, I offered to do that for John Matthews. If you're on I-89 and you look at the shopping center at night, like I did this evening, we just want our sign to be somewhat proportional to the Market Basket sign. It will be as strong as the Market Basket sign dimensionally, but proportionally from the highway I think it will be effective. But we would be willing to downsize in the future, if the shopping center expands, to accommodate the needs of other tenants.

Question: Mr. Reeder: Can you tell us where your containers will be?

Answer: Mr. Moran: The trash removal would be -- that's a good question, because it's not designated on the plan. In the back of the building there is a large truck delivery area that Market Basket has that is underutilized. I can't picture whether there are three or four docks, but there's a large buffer area between their loading dock area and the back of this unit, so there would be a dumpster that could be kept behind the property and it would not interfere -- it is really a dead corner behind the center. If the preference would be to have it enclosed for any reason, then I would approach John Matthews to have it enclosed, if that is your request.

Question: Mr. McLaughlin: What about the disposal of materials from trash and that sort of thing?

Answer: Mr. Moran: We usually have a six-yard dumpster for cardboard, and often 2-yard dumpster -- a small two-wheeler -- for trash, which is a very small portion of our refuse disposal. We recycle cardboard.

Question: Mr. Brayshaw: Do you recycle through a private contractor? Or do you rely on the local municipality for trash processing?

Answer: Mr. Moran: We usually contract it out to a waste management or commercial vendor.

Question: Mr. Brayshaw: Is there any outside storage of materials? I know in Concord, they’ll sell different types of things outside of the store.

Answer: Mr. Moran: Within the 8140 a square foot area, that is a large footprint for us. In our lease agreement with Market Basket, we have requested the right to be able to bring outside underneath the canopy area without obstructing pedestrian or free and clear access, an outside display of merchandise. If there were any outside storage, that usually happens around February or March when we may have an influx of preseason goods to get ready for April 1^st. Anytime we do overstock, it happens this time of year. Last year, we finally got computerized inventory. Prior to that, the philosophy was if we don't have it there we won’t be able to sell it. But the computer has helped us to be able to cut our inventory drastically and bring it in just in time. Most of our inventory levels are continuing to come down, but we will have a need in February and March to bring in a lot of bulk seasonal merchandise, and that very well could flow outside and would be, if approved, placed behind the premises in that corner behind the shopping center. There are no doors, access, or any activity on the rear wall of the premises, so that is why I feel that would be the best spot for the dumpsters or any type of seasonal storage needs.

Question: Mr. Pershouse: Could you redefine or qualify which you are determining to be a dead area?

Mr. McLaughlin: We do have a plan that was from the Market Basket facility.

Mr. Moran showed the areas he was describing to the Board, using the Market Basket plan.

Answer: Mr. Moran: Currently, on the side parking area, there are eight parking spaces. There is an 8 ft. buffer, 18 ft. worth of parking, 33 ft. of roadway, and then another 18 ft. of parking on the other side. At the end of 33 ft. of roadway, this is the back wall of my premises that I’m referring to as the dead space. This wall extends a substantial distance. This fire lane is not designed that way -- it comes out. All of Market Basket’s tractor-trailer delivery activity is on this corner.

Question: Mr. Pershouse: This wall has not been considered as a delivery area?

Answer: Mr. Moran: No. Our tractor-trailers would pull alongside that wall. The tailgate delivery is simply going to drop the freight and walk it in the door.

Question: Mr. Pershouse: So you're saying that this wall is not a practical option for tailgate delivery?

Answer: Mr. Moran: No. We don't need to update delivery, because it is really drop and run - it is a 25 minute operation to pull the truck in, drop down 6 or 7 palettes that are coming in, put them through the double doors, and leave. It is really a one-man job.

Question: Mr. Pershouse: So what would that require, if you put the delivery door where you’ve indicated -- what will that require in terms of reworking either parking spaces or the width of the roadway?

Answer: Mr. Moran: Nothing. There is no impact at all. Right now, that is all covered with snow, but there is a tapered angle behind here in the parking layout today. We would simply be coming in from the backside for freight handling. It is pretty unobtrusive. The way I see the store flowing is customers will use these eight spaces out of absolute convenience, and they are going to be coming in the side door. As a secondary source, we're going to have generalized customers from the Market Basket walking in the front door. So it could be a 50/50 split, or it could be a 60/40 split -- I don't even know which door will see the most activity, but in my estimation it will be the side door that will see the activity, only because of the very convenient parking.

Mr. McLaughlin: It will also depend in large part on who is going into Market Basket, because those spaces are now quite heavily used.

Mr. Moran: Yes, I noticed that tonight. But I don't object to that because there is plenty of parking on the other side as well. I think there is a little bit of employee parking the takes place there today. In working with Market Basket, they would probably redesignate the employee parking.

Question: Mr. McLaughlin: Would there be any sign on that side door?

Answer: Mr. Moran: I'm hoping that there would be a paint decal, or some method of understanding… It will be clear glass, so hopefully just the activity in the store would make it obvious.

Question: Mr. Pershouse: Your sign is going to be on the facade of the building -- your main sign?

Answer: Mr. Moran: Yes. I could request a side sign as well, but don't think I will need it because the parking lot situation is so favorable. So the conventional store front sign should anchor the plaza. When they drive into that plaza, they have a good 45 degree placement, so you see them both equally.

Question: Mr. Brayshaw: Has Aubuchon Hardware, in the past, made any concessions on the corporate branding in any communities in New Hampshire?

Question: Mr. Moran: What do you mean by corporate branding?

Answer: Mr. Brayshaw: Your logo.

Answer: Mr. Moran: Orange is important to us, but it can be done in many different ways. A lot of times we have been able to do the letters in dark green. But then we have to introduce the orange in some format. It is the orange that ties it all together, but we don't need a lot of orange. In Concord, on the front of the building, you see an orange awning with green lettering. But we’ve also done it with an orange awning and green lettering, with an underlining orange stripe. Here, because of the white background, I thought it would be conventional to go with a green return and orange letters.

Mr. Brayshaw: I don’t like the purple awning on the Mobil station -- I know that is getting to be a more commercialized area, but I think that my feelings -- as well as a lot of other folks’ feelings -- are that, aesthetically, even pulling into that commercialized area I think of trees and green and mountains. I saw Aubuchon on the Perkins building the other day, and that's the first thing that struck me -- that orange banner up there. And nothing against orange; it's my favorite color -- but speaking for myself, I just don't see orange as the color for Warner in that location.

Mr. Moran: The other consideration, and I was a little concerned because of the lighter green that is above and having two shades of green together, our corporate color of green is like an evergreen. It is a dark green, so you’d have that dark green contrast against a white background. On this diagram, there's a framed area which is really just a bold stripe along the entire length – the 70 ft. width. If we went with the dark green letter and were able to introduce the orange in some linear type or complementary outline, then maybe that would allow us to have our two corporate colors yet have that evergreen affect instead of an orange affect.

Question: Mr. Pershouse: So the orange would be a highlight rather than a basic color?

Answer: Mr. Moran: Correct. We let the evergreen be the primary.

Mr. Brayshaw: You see the beautiful Mount Kearsarge sitting behind Market Basket, and then you'd see the orange Aubuchon. I mean, that's what they used to call Mountain Market, and now it is On the Run. Things change, but certainly now's the time to be conservative.

Question: Mr. Reeder: I have two concerns. You want a backlit sign, correct?

Answer: Mr. Moran: Yes.

Question: Mr. Reeder: I know in our sign ordinance, it doesn't allow backlit signs. I don't know if that would tie in with the previous Market Basket sign. I don't know if a lighted sign would be proper or allowed. Fortunately, there's plenty of lighting from the parking lot lights -- it will certainly be illuminated from the front. The other question that I have is on your front portion here, it looks a bit sterile and I was wondering why you might not consider two large windows with latticework or something like that to give it a different look instead of making it look just like a brick storefront with a small door. It would make it look a little homier and fit in with the area.

Answer: Mr. Moran: We could certainly look into it. Part of it has to do with our interior walls, but if we could come up with an 8 ft. or a 16 ft. section where we could put in, aesthetically, a 6 x 6 colonial window…

Mr. Reeder: Or maybe something like a bay window where it would not take away from your wall display, but it would still offer a display area outside. I think that it would give it a nicer image.

Mr. Moran: I was also thinking about introducing white vinyl clapboard across that store front with dark green shutters on each side of the window, if we introduced your suggestion.

Mr. Reeder: An image like you might see down on Main Street.

Mr. Moran: The difficulty with that is that we're dealing with the side of that building, and the side view of that building is very utilitarian. There is not a lot you can do, and you have to be careful not to introduce too many concepts. That is why, when it came to that side, I would be reluctant to introduce anything because today it is all red, just a neutral red all the way through.

Mr. Reeder: Well there, I can't see you putting in windows or anything along the side. But I think on the front the have a little more ability to make it more attractive.

Question: Mr. McLaughlin: What did you have in mind for the facade, because right now it is simply plywood?

Answer: Mr. Moran: It was going to be of a neutral nature. It was either going to be a continuation of the slated board, introduced in a neutral way to keep the front neutral, or a vinyl…

Question: Mr. Laughlin: What we're looking at now is actually brick on the bottom.

Answer: Mr. Moran: That area today is simply framed inside, so it is a matter of deciding how many openings are wanted and I guess there's always the possibility, if you want that drugstore look, of doing masonry all the way up. But that wasn't our intention. Our intention was to present kind of a neutral façade. They also sell a vertical slat, as well as horizontal. We have that in Cape Cod, with the green shutters, and it comes out very nice.

Mr. Pershouse: I would like to make a suggestion. It sounds to me a little that like "design as we go" here, with a lot of alternatives and options, many of which could conflict in fact in the final design. If you have other stores in areas that have perhaps similar venues or requirements -- we talked about Warner being a village -- a New England village motif or whatever. It seems to me that if you could bring in to the Board some samples of facades for layout, then I think it would be easier for all of us to see what might be a workable combination. The other suggestion that I have, and I hope it is an appropriate one, is that we're talking architectural concepts here and we also are talking Site Plan Review. It seems to me that with the number of options coming forward, and the fact that you have an existing structure, you have to coordinate your needs with the current owner, Market Basket. I would strongly suggest or consider getting a professional design concept, or working with an architect, to come up with perhaps two or three coordinated representations of what you'd like to see there and having the Board critique those suggestions rather than randomly saying, "Well it could be vinyl siding or it could be brick or it could be this or that." I don't mean to criticize your presentation but I think we're dealing with a fairly intricate concept here -- making a new business fit in with an existing building and business plan. It seems to me that it is a job for a professional. Perhaps you have people on your staff…

Mr. Moran: We do. What I submitted to date was an attempt to show that our desire was not to modify what you see. Our desire was to try to work with what you see today to the best of our ability. And in terms of entrances and signage, bring to the Board our thoughts. So I would be capable of producing this image as you see it submitted. It would be very neutral; it would be just as submitted. But I'm very open to listening to your suggestions of more windows, horizontal or vertical siding. I want to hear a reaction to decisions about materials. I would be happy to take this and create options A, B, C, and D. We have an architect that we work with on most of our projects.

Question: Mr. Pershouse: So we're going down the same path.

Answer: Mr. Moran: Yes, but between you and me this is what we had determined that we wanted to do. And I'm ready to do it, and I'd like to make improvements based on what I've heard tonight. If there is a concern about orange lettering, I need some input as to if I switched to green lettering, is there an objection to introducing an orange stripe underneath letters? If I can get that feedback this evening, then I can resubmit the application with three options. I don’t want to introduce so many options that the Board in and of itself has contingencies.

Question: Mr. Pershouse: What can we do to help you? You have a time schedule that you have to meet. You need access?

Answer: Mr. Moran: We need access to the space and I would like to be able to order my signage because there is a lag time in that. If I could get approval on signage and door locations, I would need to come back and resubmit on finish materials.

Question: Mr. Pershouse: So the sign is pretty much critical at this point? And it is three doors you're submitting? So if we were able to get to that point tonight, it would get you where you need to be?

Answer: Mr. Moran: Yes.

Question: Mr. Pershouse: So can we give him conditional approval of the access and egress and signage, and continue it for issues of aesthetics and colors -- we would have to decide on the size of the sign. We could approve that. We need the size and color. Could you wait a month on the sign?

Answer: Mr. Moran: If I could get the size, I can get all ordered and manufactured, they just won't cut the plexi for the cover.

Question: Mr. Pershouse: That’s a backlit sign?

Answer: Mr. Moran: It is a backlit sign, and that has to be reviewed as to whether that is approved as part of the shopping center plan. I'm trying to stay with the same shopping center theme, that is currently in the plastic.

Question: Mr. McLaughlin: Could you describe what you mean by the backlit sign? Exactly what is it?

Answer: Mr. Moran: A backlit sign is basically an individual letter that is internally illuminated.

Question: Mr. McLaughlin: Will they be plastic?

Answer: Mr. Moran: The faces of the letters are all plastic. So you will see the light coming through the plastic.

Question: Mr. Pershouse: The Market Basket sign is solid, isn’t it? It is silhouetted with lights on the back?

Answer: Mr. Moran: The return or, the depth of the letter, is in metal. Today the internal lights are LID lights, like you see in traffic lights. They are very efficient to operate, and environmentally friendly. But the face is plexi, plastic.

Question: Mr. Pershouse: I should know, but I don’t remember – what is the current Market Basket sign? Is it translucent?

Answer: Mr. Moran: Yes. It is plexi with neon lights. But you can’t tell the difference between neon and LID.

Question: Mr. Pershouse: Might it not be a consideration that you’d want to have the same type of illumination and the same type of sign?

Answer: Mr. Moran: It will be, essentially. The only thing that will look different is that it won’t necessarily be the Market Basket script. It will be the Aubuchon Ariel, or whatever.

Question: Mr. Pershouse: Are you saying that the illumination will be the same?

Answer: Mr. Moran: The illumination – if it is an orange letter, it will illuminate orange.

Question: Mr. Pershouse: No, I’m sorry. I meant the type of lighting.

Answer: Mr. Moran: Yes, it will be the same.

Mr. Reeder: I think that another type of non-illuminated sign would look good up there and, I think, better up there, overall.

Mr. Brayshaw: I would agree with that.

Mr. Reeder: And instead of having another bright market basket type sign, being that the area is very wide open and very well illuminated for parking, which does shed light on the building -- it's not like you're hiding it or that people could not see it. I think that one of our goals in this town is to cut down on the amount of light that we're using. As little as it is, I think that it is drawing away from the area that we want to go. I don't have any problem with the size of the sign or whatever color scheme we decide to go with, but I do have a problem with an internally illuminated sign.

Question: Mr. Serell: Do we know why an internally illuminated sign was originally approved for Market Basket? Was the ordinance different?

Answer: Ms. Annis: Yes.

Mr. Moran: As a selfish response, that shopping center is very conventional. It is set a substantial distance off of the road, it has a number of pad locations up front, and one of the things that attracted us to the site is that it has good visibility from 89. Part of that visibility is being able to be a rear tenant in a commercially developed area, yet still be able to have a presence. So for us, selfishly, to be in the back and be in the corner we're not afraid of that for two reasons:

1. There is a good anchor tenant back there, Market Basket, and

2. We're hoping to be able to service the community of Warner 100%, but we also want to be able to reach outside of the community.

For these reasons, I would like to be able to have a conventional presence for that back corner of the shopping center. Even though what has happened in the front; the purple line, etc., are not in the best interest of the town, I would like to come up with the right design with the right colors without giving up what we need to be successful in that shopping center.

Mr. Reeder: I would rather see an orange sign there, not backlit, than a green sign that is backlit. I think that one of things that we need to look at for the future is that there is a lot of acreage there that could eventually be developed. They could come in and say that because Market Basket and Aubuchon have lit signs, they should have them also. I understand the reason to have a lit sign, and the advantages of it, especially along 89. If I were in your position, I would be fighting really hard for it, but from the town's position I'm looking at coming up with another solution.

Question: Mr. Brayshaw: We're looking at two signs, right? On the front and one on the side?

Answer: Mr. Moran: No, there is no sign on the side. The only thing on the side will be that side entrance door. There will be no signage on that side of the building.

Mr. Lennon: I disagree with Phil. I think that given the fact that we have the illuminated letters for Market Basket, it would look sort of dumb to have Market Basket lit that way and another sign in a totally different style 50 ft. down the building. I also think that if they put a sign as you'd like -- just basically painted -- they would have to light that at night because I don't think that there is enough light just from the parking area. I think that they would probably end up adding more light to the night sky if they had to light that sign independently than you would get from a soft green or orange glow coming out of those letters, which I think would add negligibly to the illumination there. If they are going to be lit, I would prefer green rather than orange.

Mr. Brayshaw: I think is important to look at the ordinance that would apply, especially with the development that may be going in across the road. Holding a high standard here so that we can hold standards across the road.

Mr. Moran: As I stated earlier, if the shopping center expands we would be willing to remove our existing approved sign and we would have to resubmit for signage in conjunction with the balance of the tenants in the shopping center. There are only 50 square feet left [for signage] and they are not going to open up development for one tenant. When they start, they're going to start and hopefully that will come economically in five or ten years. When that happens, my sign will have to come down, and I would have to meet whatever the conditions are with the balance of the tenants. That would be the only way that I would attempt to ask for permission to work within the preapproved sign regulations for the shopping center until such time that it doesn't fit any more, because this is a preapproved footprint.

Mr. McLaughlin: It is really the Site Plan Review regulations, although not formally adopted at this point, but which probably will be within another month. Those are the regulations that say that backlit signs are not appropriate.

Mr. Moran: And I'm trying to lean on the history of the shopping center.

Mr. McLaughlin: And the Board is not of one mind on this issue, either. It seems to me that the procedure we need to follow is that we have to have a complete plan in front of us. As Derek indicated, there seem to be a lot of details that are not clear, in terms of the façade and the signage.

Mr. Moran: I think what I would like to do, if I could, is that I would just as soon be rejected tonight as accepted -- meaning that if I could submit these plans with the modifications, changing the letters to green, then I would like to see whether or not they could be internally illuminated by a vote of the Board -- whether or not the sign application and the entrance doors could be approved. Then I would be more than happy to come back for the aesthetic motif of the facade. Otherwise, what will happen is that I will come back in a month and I will have submittals and it will start all over again. I would like it to be in up or down, and then I will know which way to go.

Mr. Reeder: Maybe we should do an up and down each individual item, then you’d have a better idea.

Mr. Lennon: We can't do anything until we have a complete application.

Mr. Serell agreed with Mr. Lennon.

Mr. Lennon: I think you need to come to the Board with your decision. I disagree with Derek, that you can come to us and lay out three options. It is really up to the applicant to say, "Here is what we want to do". What you have tonight could be complete if you said, "This is what we want to do."

Mr. Moran: I think that is what I want to do, with the caveat that I'm going to change the color of the letters because that is what I'm hearing tonight.

Mr. Reeder: When I said up or down, I meant more of a consensus about which way the board was leaning as far as signage, etc.

Ms. Annis: I would like to have it more spelled out in writing -- we are going to have this type of sign and it is going to have green letters, for example. Where is the sign in relationship with the Market Basket sign?

The format for submission was discussed. Mr. Pershouse suggested a mockup or photograph of the facade of the building in its entirety. There was also discussion concerning the size of the proposed sign and its relationship to the building size.

Mr. McLaughlin: I would like to suggest a brick façade. A brick veneer would be more in keeping with the rest of the building, instead of introducing a different style or material.

Mr. Moran: Based on the existing condition, I was trying to work with the way they had trimmed it out. But I can certainly resubmit the application with the veneer.

Mr. McLaughlin: I guess we're not accepting the plan as submitted, and we will ask you to submit for the next meeting.

There was a comment from the public, which was allowed by the Chairman if the comment would help the Board in its deliberations. The question concerned the type of lighting to be used on the building itself. Mr. Moran stated that there are two wall packs there today, and that the only additional lighting that will occur will be over the service door which will be a motion activated spotlight for the driver arriving with deliveries.

Mr. Laughlin: I’d like to ask the board to consider that, in order for something to happen, this gentleman needs a door. He needs some kind of an entrance to the space for construction to occur. My concern in doing that is are we giving permission to this before we have actually gone through all of the steps, which is really not in accordance with the procedure -- although it is pretty clear that this is going to be a retail space of some type. Are we as a Board willing to allow something to happen for the construction to proceed on the interior space?

Mr. Brayshaw: To put in a door or window, you don't need a permit from the Selectmen's office.

Mr. Laughlin: Does anyone feel uncomfortable with allowing a door to be installed for construction of the interior space?

Ms. Annis: Demoulas owns the building, and they could put and a door anytime they want to. And they can allow this person to put in a door. As John said, no building permit is required.

Mr. McLaughlin: I think that we would allow that to proceed.

Mr. Moran: My main concern as a layman -- I am planning to use this as a delivery door for freight entering the site, planning to ask customers to park here and enter the side of the building, and I am asking customers to enter a conventional store front -- I just want to make sure that those three points of access for those three purposes are approved. If it is not going to be approved tonight, then I will hold off.

Mr. Serell: I don’t think we can approve anything until we have a complete plan and have heard public comment.

Question: Mr. Brayshaw: Has Aubuchon ever sublet to others? You don't plan on subletting any of that space?

Answer: Mr. Moran: No. Most shopping centers today will not allow you to sublease space.

Mr. Pershouse: It seems me that it would be helpful, and this would be subject to you being comfortable doing it, if we had a redacted copy of your lease with Demoulas. It might give us a little foresight in terms of integrating your business with theirs -- parking issues, etc.

Mr. Moran: It is a very conventional lease. It is a boilerplate lease -- we pay a rent for so many years and we get to use these areas in common with everybody else who is a tenant in the shopping center.

Mr. Pershouse: In terms of a Site Plan Review, we are going to be looking at possible conflicts in general for the area, including future development. It is not necessarily maybe something which we can require, but it might be helpful.

Question: Mr. Brayshaw: How does something like a shopping cart corral and things like that work with the Site Plan Review dating back to 1994? Certainly Aubuchon would have shopping carts of some kind.

Answer: Mr. Moran: We have the small carrying baskets which are bright orange.

Ms. Annis: One thing that I am concerned about, and I don't know if you are aware of, is that when Demoulas came in there, there is an access road in the back and it was insisted upon that it be plowed and maintained for emergency vehicles year-round.

Mr. Moran: To go around the building?

Ms. Annis: No, this is up further in back. It comes over onto the Park and Ride. If you're thinking of that propane gas being there, I would strongly urge you to have that looked at. It is not being kept open right now, even know it is in the agreement.

Mr. Brayshaw: We ordered that from the Selectmen's office last year – about keeping it plowed -- and they finally got back on it again.

Ms. Annis: This is going to have to be something that is enforced. I would be insistent upon having the gentleman's word that this will be maintained.

Mr. Moran: That is very interesting, I have never seen that. So you mean in addition to the primary access, there is a secondary access required?

Ms. Annis: Yes, emergency vehicles, not for the public.

The Secretary read from the plan: "15 ft. wide gravel emergency access road"

Mr. Moran: We have been in the propane business now for about 12 years, and we have 43 sites. We have a training program and everyone is certified every other year.

Question: Mr. Pershouse: Is there slab poured in there at this time, or is it a dirt floor?

Answer: Mr. Moran: It is still dirt. Everything is roughed to the premises.

Question: Mr. Pershouse: Are they doing the macro, or the large buildout, for you or are you pouring the slab?

Answer: Mr. Moran: John and I are still discussing the slab. But effectively, we're taking the space as is. That is the way the lease is drafted right now.

Question: Mr. Pershouse: They are not responsible for any of the build out to date?

Answer: Mr. Moran: No.

Question: Mr. St. Pierre: Does John Matthews at Demoulas have to approve your design submitted for the exterior of the building?

Answer: Mr. Moran: John has given me carte blanche, and in my lease I have to get everything approved by him. So I am his designated Agent, and he has to approve everything that I submit-- just as he approved the plans that I submitted tonight. Whatever plans I revise will be preapproved by John.

Ms. Annis: We're not against business -- believe me, we're not.

Mr. Moran: It is sad to see that vacancy sit there for all these years. I am trying to put it to work in a conventional manner.

Mr. Laughlin: When you come back at the next meeting, will you include the propane filling portion in the application? I don't know that we are completely in agreement as a Board on the signage, as far as back lit or not. I guess we are looking to you to give us alternatives.

Mr. Moran: I don't really have any alternatives, because anything else I could introduce here is not going to be conventional. I am not an architect, but architecturally speaking it would be the wrong thing to do because that is not how the shopping center has been set up. If we get 3 or 4 or 5 other tenants, pull us all back again and make us conform. But the way the center is today, having only two tenants each with different motifs wouldn’t make any sense.

Mr. Pershouse: We would like to have an elevation of the entire building – of the entire façade.

Question: Mr. Laughlin: If you're going to put any other lighting on the exterior of the building, you should show that also. Will there be any plantings or trees or shrubbery?

Answer: Mr. Moran: No, it is already there.

This item will be continued until the March meeting of the Planning Board.

 

5. HOME OCCUPATION

Jess Johnson, 183 Waterloo Street, Warner, NH 03278. Office for automotive consulting/wholesale purchase and sales of new and used vehicles (paperwork office only). No vehicles except for personally owned vehicles, no employees other than applicant. Nancy Hair, property owner.

Mr. Johnson was not in attendance at the meeting.

Mr. Brayshaw: I am an abutter, and I think that just to put a computer in the house this gentleman has jumped through some hoops. He works off-site and he just wanted to have a desk and computer and his house. He has gotten a letter from the landlord in California and a lot of other things, but I didn't feel that it was…

Mr. McLaughlin: I don't know how the rest of the board members feel, but from reading this application I would say that it meets every definition of a Home Occupation and should not be subject to a Site Plan Review.

Ms. Annis made a motion that this applicant is not required to go through the Site Plan Review process. The motion was seconded and passed with a unanimous vote.

Mr. McLaughlin signed the application, and the Secretary will return it to Mary and the Selectmen's office.

6. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW – continued until March meeting at applicant’s request

Cingular Wireless Roadrunner Operating LLC and Cingular Wireless, Jonathan McNeal, Agent, 580 Main Street, Bolton, MA 01740. Site Plan Review for the attachment of PCS antennae and related equipment to previously approved wireless monopole/stealth communication facility located on North Road, Warner, NH, Map 18, Lot 11-3, R3 Zoning. Carol Pletcher, property owner.

7. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW – continued until March meeting at applicant’s request

Cingular Wireless Roadrunner Operating LLC and Cingular Wireless, Jonathan McNeal, Agent, 580 Main Street, Bolton, MA 01740. Site Plan Review for the attachment of PCS antennae and related equipment to previously approved wireless monopole/stealth communication facility located on Parade Ground Cemetery Road/Kelly Hill Road, Warner, NH, Map 10, Lot 66, R3 Zoning. Howard Kirchner, property owner.

Mr. McLaughlin read the letter received via fax from Jonathan McNeil for Cingular Wireless, requesting the continuance of the above items, VI and VII. The Secretary stated that the letter was received after 5:00 p.m. the night of the meeting.

 

8. PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION

Paul Violette, New Hampshire Telephone Museum

Paul Violette: I came to you a year or so ago for Site Plan Review for the New Hampshire Telephone Museum. Across from Aubuchon Hardware , on Main Street, there is a white frame building formerly owned by MCT -- that is the site that we're talking about. The New Hampshire Telephone Museum is a New Hampshire corporation and is nonprofit. What we intend to do is build a museum there and add another wing to the building, which was approved at the previous meeting, to house a Warner Firefighters Association Museum. As it stands right now, the building has been there since about 1807, has seen many uses and has been added onto from time to time. You approved the Site Plan using the existing building. We're currently in the process of renovating and rehabilitating the main house structure on Main Street, and that is going to be our administrative offices. It is kind of a unique building, in a way -- there are four rooms, two up and two down. We had originally intended to utilize space in the existing structure to the rear of that house for the museum, and gained approval for that in the layout. Since then, we have done a lot of investigation and development, and we have come to the conclusion that we can't use it. To renovate what is there would not be cost-effective at all. There is very little basement space underneath -- I have to duck when I go under there so as not to hit my head on the beams. The foundation is a combination of stone and other things, and the floors are at different levels and go all over the place, so we have concluded that it is just not feasible to go on with the building. I have a draft, and where I have colored in shows proposed new construction. The original footprint is shown underneath with hash marks. What we propose to do will change the footprint of the structures. One thing is to come back further from Depot Street, creating more setback than is there now, helping the current nonconforming lot situation. In the previous Site Plan Review, you had already approved this parking area, drainage, etc. That would not change. What we are proposing to change is to tear down the building. We are proposing turning the existing footprint 90 degrees and adding the Firefighters' Museum underneath, basically at the parking lot level.

Question: Mr. Pershouse: Where does the firefighting and firefighting communications segueway occur here? Alarm systems, telephone?

Answer: Mr. Violette: No, I was a firefighter in this town for 35 years, and my Dad was a firefighter for 25 years, and my grandfather was for 40 years.

Question: Mr. Pershouse: I'm sorry, I was talking about firefighting communications equipment.

Answer: Mr. Violette: We didn't have much of that in this town, but because of our relationship with the fire department over the years -- and my personal knowledge of different artifacts scattered around in people's homes, equipment stored in barns here and there wherever people would let us, we have some very valuable equipment that really needs to be someplace safe and where people can come and see it.

Question: Mr. Pershouse: What is the square footage of the firefighting section?

Answer: Mr. Violette: It is 30 by 50 ft. -- 1500 square feet on one floor. What we are proposing here for the Telephone Museum is a full basement and a first floor. We have about a 9 ft. grade drop in elevation from where the L is there and the parking lot in back. If you came down Depot Street into the parking area, the Firefighters Museum entrance would be at that level.

Mr. Violette discussed the proposed plan with the Board and stated that he does not have elevations on the drawing to date, but is working with an architect. He stated that he has to know what is needed from the Planning Board at this point to get started on the project.

Question: Mr. Pershouse: Is this going to be a separate corporation from MCT?

Answer: Mr. Violette: It is a separate corporation. I have no affiliation with MCT -- we don't have any affiliation with MCT. I'm retired, and that company was merged with another company.

Mr. Serell: I think that because the building is changed, you will just need to submit a revised Site Plan application when your plans are in order.

Mr. Violette: What would the terminology be?

Mr. McLaughlin: It would be an amendment.

Mr. Violette: An amendment to something that has already been approved?

Mr. McLaughlin: Yes -- but we need to see how the building is going to look.

Ms. Annis: And the footages. We've seen them here, but they need to be on a plan.

Mr. Violette: Just to give you the concept, we're trying to make it look like a barn, as much as possible. A little bit like a barn, a little bit like a store front. We have a lot of pictures of that building as it was utilized over the years. It was a drugstore, a hardware store, a lot of things. The architect is trying to make it as colonial as possible, to fit in with the surrounding buildings.

The Secretary asked if this would be treated as a new application, complete with another Public Hearing. Mr. Laughlin said yes. Ms. Annis stated that no hearings were necessary for the removal of existing buildings, and that he could continue with that prior to the Public Hearing.

9. PUBLIC HEARING: WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE

Proposed changes to the Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance

Mr. McLaughlin thanked Alice Chamberlin for her help in drafting the proposed changes to the Telecommunication Ordinance, which will be put before the Town at Town Meeting in March.

Mr. Pershouse: In general terms, the significant changes are that this document, or draft, essentially requires and that tower structures of whatever basic function are camouflaged. We are no longer considering lattice towers or even monopole towers or traditional structures. This is basically keeping up with the industry and with our experience in the approvals that we have given to date. We have gone through and made some changes in the definitions. One of the concerns, as you all know, was the tree canopy concern. The definition for stealth technology is also included.

[The overview as presented is attached.]

The Board discussed the proposed changes before closing the Board Meeting and opening the Public Hearing.

Section 1003.02 addresses the tree canopy issue. The authority to require a no-cut easement is referenced in this ordinance, but it was the opinion of those working on the document that authority to actually create the easement was the Planning Board’s and not the Zoning Board’s. It's not required in this ordinance -- that would be up to the Planning Board, and it would probably be referenced again in the Site Plan Review regulations.

Mr. Brayshaw: I have a question on No. 2, page 4: No tree cutting… shall be allowed within a 200 ft. radius of the perimeter of the fenced facility. What if someone else owns property within that 200 ft. radius? If it is not owned by the same person who is leasing the property?

Mr. Pershouse: That is the situation we have with the tower on Toby Nickerson's property. The tree canopy can run along the edge of the property, but not over the property line.

Ms. Chamberlin: It is addressed in the next section. The applicant shall demonstrate the legal capacity to control tree cutting and removal from the proposed camouflage area. So if they come and with an application that shows a camouflage area of 200 feet, which is reduced from the 500 feet that is on the books today, it actually favors the industry -- it makes it a little bit easier on them. But they have to show legal capacity to control that tree cutting, which is the problem that we all ran into before. They could do it through a lease, or they could do it by buying it. Or it may be handled through an easement.

Mr. Brayshaw: Say that I own property that fell within that 200 ft. camouflage area. How would I know about the ordinance?

Mr. Serell: Under your scenario, if the 200 feet went on to your property, the applicant would have to have an easement, or whatever.

The ridgeline wording was addressed. The top of the tower has to be at least 100 ft. below the ridgeline. If you go from the top of the tower, the top of the tower should be 100 ft. below the ridgeline, and it needs to extend at least a quarter of a mile in all directions. The reason for the quarter mile distance is that it limits the ridgeline to the immediate area. It was defined as an umbrella of measurement. The Board discussed the meaning of the new ridgeline wording.

Larry Pletcher: I have never been a fan of the hundred foot business. I think that the difficulty with this 100 ft. paragraph is how it works in conjunction with the 20 ft. above canopy provision. I think there are consequences reading this strictly when those two provisions are read in conjunction. It seems to me what you do on this is to force towers onto higher ground that is going to be visible throughout the town. I know they disagree, but I can use the tower that is going on my wife's property as an example. If that were not allowed, the way for the company to get coverage would be to go to the highest ridge and then drop down 100 ft. -- and I don't think that is what you want to do. I would encourage you to leave this alone and come back to it and study it more. We don't have nice, smooth ridgelines and slopes in this town. Many times you have trees on the ridgeline, so if you are really trying to keep the tower invisible, your tower can't be any higher than 20 ft. above the canopy. If you go to the ridgeline, in this case you may have trees that are at least 80 ft. above the tower and covering the ridgeline. So you're really saying that this has to be 80 ft. below the top of the trees that cover the ridgeline. So what you're measuring is the tops of trees as compared to bare ground on the ridgeline.

The Board discussed some grammatical errors and corrections in the text.

Larry Pletcher questioned the use of the word structure to define a tower’s appearance. It was stated that the words stealth and camouflage have been used somewhat interchangeably in the ordinance. The intent of this section of the ordinance is that either: 1) use stealth technology – hide the tower in a church steeple or a sign, or 2) camouflage the tower in the woods.

The question was asked why the stipulation in the existing ordinance -- stating that no tower could be built unless there was an existing tree canopy within a radius of at least 100 ft. of the proposed location – had been removed in the revised document. It stated that the tower had to be in a wooded area. Ms. Chamberlin stated that the group working on the revisions to the ordinance wanted to get the specifics of the tree canopy into Site Plan Review and the generalities into this ordinance, which is a zoning ordinance. There is much more flexibility if it is in the Site Plan Review. There are Site Plan Review changes that, even though the current Site Plan is inconsistent, there were definitely improvements that the committee thought should go into additional Site Plan Review regulations that would have to be written and then go to a Public Hearing. Mr. Pershouse stated that they would have to go to a Public Hearing but not a public vote.

Mr. Laughlin closed the Board Meeting and opened the Public Hearing.

Ms. Chamberlin: There were some tough wording issues here, but I think the two most important things that are changed here are what I just mentioned -- stealth and camouflage technology being required, which I think is a benefit to the community. At the same time, the perimeter that needs to be camouflaged has been lessened, which think is an advantage to the industry. So I think that there is a balance here of what you all have experienced in trying to cite these towers. The rest of that was on the wording and tough stuff that you have experienced. The changes that were made here are a balance, and will require some updating of the Site Plan Review to make them effective.

Mr. Pletcher: I think that the changes sound great.

Hearing no further comments, Mr. McLaughlin closed the Public Hearing and reopened the Board Meeting.

Mr. McLaughlin: The one remaining issue here is the ridgeline, and the question of whether we should go with what is written here as proposed or drop back to the previous language.

Mr. St.Pierre: The first reference to a quarter mile really doesn’t get you where you want to go. If you take it out, the intent is met.

Ms. Chamberlin: My interpretation of this is that if the Zoning Board says this is the way that we're measuring it, then nobody is going to challenge it. I might be wrong about that, but it seems to me that there is that direction.

Mr. McLaughin: I’m hearing that we should revert to the original language in this section of the ordinance?

Mr. Reeder: I don’t like the original wording.

Mr. Pershouse: It would be only a change for clarification.

Mr. Lennon: It is my opinion that the first quarter-mile was a typographical error, and that it should be removed.

Mr. Brayshaw made a motion to approve the changes to the Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance and to recommend them to the Town for a vote at Town Meeting. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

10. COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS

Report by Secretary re: Don Gartrell’s answer to questions from the last meeting:

Nichols Estate:

The question that the board had for Don Gartrell was: If a deed is made up of several tracts of land, can one of those tracts of land be sold without going through subdivision? Mr. Gartrell stated that it was his understanding that as long as that tract of land met all of the current zoning requirements, i.e. frontage and size, etc., it could be sold out of the deed without going through the subdivision process even if selling that tract would leave no Class V road frontage for the remaining tracts of land. In order for the remaining land to be developed, whoever wants to develop the land would have to upgrade the Class VI roads to Class V status.

Damon Carter:

Don Gartrell stated that there is no statute of limitations that applies to the Planning Board's decision, made several years ago, pertaining to the approval of a driveway/private road on Mr. Carter's property that was never put in. It is referred to in a letter from Alan Brown as a driveway, and is referred to on the plan as a private road. Mr. Gartrell stated that neither are public roads, so they're basically the same.

Mr. Pershouse: The decision by the Planning Board stated that the road or drive had to be brought up to town standards.

Mr. Pershouse read from a letter written by Alan Brown stating that he would issue a driveway permits for Mr. Carter's subdivision once the road was upgraded to a Class V. The Secretary pointed out that he was referring to Old Pumpkin Hill Road, and that the road has been upgraded by Mr. Karrick. Mr. Brown was not referring to the private driveway in the subdivision.

Mr. McLaughlin: The road has to stay there for access to the lots and the subdivision, whether or not David Karrick ever intends to build on the lot he bought from Damon Carter. If Damon does a lot line adjustment, someone can buy that lot and want to build a house on it and will need to have the driveway for access to the lot.

Ms. Annis: I'm going way back, but I was thinking that that conservation parcel was going to be jointly owned by all of the individuals that purchased lots. Maybe that is not correct, maybe Damon went on his own and put the property into conservation. But what is that conservation easement for? Is it for the whole 39 acres?

Mr. McLaughlin: The easement is on the entire parcel.

Ms. Annis: If it is going to be a private driveway for the lots, and one that he has to maintain then I don’t have a problem with it, just as long as it is not a town road.

There was discussion regarding the easement and the necessity for it to be shown on the lot line adjustment plan by Mr. Carter. Mr. Lennon stated that he could not impose that easement/driveway onto Mr. Karrick, but it was pointed out that 30 ft. of the 60 ft. driveway already belongs to Mr. Karrick. The driveway was on the original subdivision plan and was part of the deal when Mr. Karrick bought the lot from Mr. Carter.

Mr. Laughlin: The lot line adjustment simply adds a new piece of land on to the conservation easement property, but the new piece will not be in conservation -- it will be a buildable portion of the lot.

 

Mr. St. Pierre: If someone can sell-off a tract of land without going through the subdivision process, how does the Town know about it to upgrade the tax maps?

Mr. McLaughlin: I think that the sale is going to trigger a new deed, and they're going to have to survey the new line. I think that the lot would have to be surveyed.
Mr. St. Pierre: Not necessarily, if they can just sell it.

Mr. Laughlin: There will be a new owner of record for that piece of land.
Mr. Brayshaw: You can sink a piece of rebar in a piece of land anywhere you want and sell-off that piece.
Mr. St. Pierre: No, you can't. Not legally, you can't.
Mr. Brayshaw. Yes, you can. I have been through it seven times.
Mr. St. Pierre: You would be subdividing the lot, and you can't do that.
Mr. Brayshaw: You can go out and sink rebar on your property and sell it to somebody --
Mr. St. Pierre: Not legally.

Secretary: These were already separate tracts of land and one deed.

Mr. Brayshaw: If you wanted to sell some land to someone for a cemetery plot on your property, you could go out and post off land the size of this room, go to an attorney for a $99 deed, and write it up.

Mr. St. Pierre: You can't do that legally without getting subdivision approval.
Mr. McLaughlin: In that case, are you reselling the land or are you selling some right?

Mr. Brayshaw: Both. You are selling the right to that land, but you're also conveying the land to the other party.

Mr. Pershouse: The original issue was a tract of land within a deed, land with a legal description and set boundaries.
Mr. Brayshaw: You can sell somebody a rock, a tree, or any part of your property you want to as long as it is deeded up properly. Certainly you are not subdividing it for building purposes that would require a Site Plan Review, but you could sell a person 20 ft. of the border of your property by marking it off and getting the written documentation. I just went through it -- I just went through this whole deal.

Mr. St. Pierre: Then you did it illegally.

Mr. Lennon: In this case, we are going to know about it. But in the future, if somebody looks at our minutes and says, "Oh, yea -- I can slice off a tract and sell it," we don't have to know about it unless we read the property transactions.

11. ADJOURN

A motion was made and seconded to adjourn at 10:35 PM. The motion passed by a unanimous vote.

Minutes approved: March 3, 2003