Ed Mical will be voting tonight for Russ St. Pierre.

Per RSA 91.A.2 requiring 24 hr notice, the meeting tonight is being conducted under the stated RSA statute. Mr. Eigabroadt made a MOTION that just for tonight’s meeting that the Planning Board procedure of 5 day posting be overruled and meeting be conducted per RSA 91.A.2. Mr. Mical second. No discussion. MOTION carried unanimously.

Begin Site Plan Review: Mr. Begin is not in attendance. He did submit a request in writing suggesting two alternate engineering firms to Provan & Lorber.

Dick Brown, Fire Chief reviewed the Begin plans, his concerns are as follows: The plans do not show inside of the building, no electrical, plumbing being shown – therefore a determination cannot be made. I met with Mr. Begin before he submitted the plan; one thing we need to look hard at is Route 103 from Evans to North Road becoming three lanes with a turning lane, especially if the hotel goes in with an entrance off North Road. The center of that section of road is currently being used as a turning lane. I suggest the road be re-striped to include a turning lane. May require the break down be eliminated for that 1000 – 1500’ of that section. The other thing Mr. Begin and I talked about before he submitted his plans, the 5 office building units proposed, is a two-hour fire rating between each unit through the attic – so that the event there is a fire in one unit it can be contained in that unit for two hours before it breaks through in the other parts of the building. Typically a two-hour fire rating is available with 5/8 drywall on walls with no breaks. The other thing I asked Mr. Begin for was a complete fire alarm system throughout the building which would include full station smoke detectors at all levels in each unit all tied together so that no matter which unit had a problem, all units would be alerted to evacuate the building. To include an outside panel at a main location, so we could go to that unit and determine which unit was having a problem. Also in the area of the outside panel a Knox-box with keys to the units, a master key is ideal, but labeled keys to the units will work. I don’t see the entire square footage on the plans to determine sprinkler systems. I would not want to see this turned into an apartment later on. The Chair asked if the Fire Chief would like to see the use of the building limited to business as a restriction. Chief responded that we should do that, because if it becomes a rental unit with people living, sleeping there, then there is another whole separate set of regulations. A change to residential would require a site plan review and changes made to the structure prior to occupancy.

The plans show a garage under the units, per the Fire Chief the garage is automatically a two-hour fire rating – requiring the 5/8 drywall. The plans I (Fire Chief) have don’t have enough detailed information to review with the State Fire Marshall. [Details were provided to the Chief re: square footage.] Electrical information will be taken from the plans submitted at the time a building permit is requested.

There was discussion regarding the spec house should the situation arise where it may be requested convert to a residence.

Planning Board will reschedule the Begin public hearing for the regular March meeting.

Stefan Toth P.E. of Toth Engineering, Alan Wagner and Lee Ann Wagner are present. Stefan provided a brief synopsis: in June 06 met with the Planning Board for a conceptual; in August the subdivision was changed from 6 lots to 4; Board requested Provan & Lorber (P&L) review engineering portion for the roadway; P&L review letter was received; Planning Board provided a list of items that needed to be complete; Geotechnical report was requested, completed and submitted; design was revised according to the geotechnical report; comments from DOT and other state agencies have been received.

We scheduled a meeting (1/24/07) with P&L, Planning Board representative and the Highway Department to go over the 6 page review by P&L (dated 1/2/07). Mr. Toth stated he felt there were comments in the P&L review that were beyond the scope of P&L and the current subdivision.

At the meeting with P&L, the highway department and Planning Board representatives, 3-4 pages of the P&L review went away – This is not a site plan, it is a commercial subdivision. Notes were added to the plans stating that each lot developed will require a site specific permit, an updated driveway permit, additional capacity of the drainage system put down on the plans stating that if there is over a certain amount of impervious area it has to be taken care of on site. As each site plan is brought forward to the Planning Board the review and approval process will require that they meet regulations. After the Jan 24, 2007 meeting, P&L agreed to send us a new review letter.

At Alan Brown’s request Mr. Toth put together the waivers necessary based on the discussions to date. This was provided to Mr. Brown and he signed off in agreement (dated 2/1/07).

Received a letter from the Selectmen’s office stating they approved of the road name "Hudson Lane".

Mr. Toth is requesting the application be accepted – he feels the project is within 60 days of state permits received. After meeting with Provan & Lorber, Mr. Toth feels they are close to a final letter from them.

Chair Annis: Referring to the notes of the meeting on 1/24/07, all items in the 1/2/07 Provan & Lorber letter are outlined. Chair asked the Fire Chief if he has seen the plans, he acknowledged he has. It was determined because of the depth of the cut it would be fairly dark, you are including lighting.

Mr. Toth: The plans do not currently show the lighting. Street lights will be on either side of the entrance, then along the way we plan municipal type wall packs along the face of the ledge to direct light toward the roadway. A lighting engineer will design it so the lumens will be adequate. This will be submitted in a future plan.

There will be a speed limit sign, 30 mph, to stick out from the ledge at the proper height. Alan Brown requested no poles be in the ditch line for plowing.

Chair Annis: Septic systems being built on slopes, you and Mr. Kupper (P&L) had a difference of opinion as to whether it was 25% or 35%, did you look into that?

Mr. Toth: We will be using the state standard, up to 35%.

Chair Annis: Do I understand that some of the items we talked about on the 24^th (1/24/07) have not been done? You agreed a note regarding requirement of offsite preconstruction surveys should be added to the plan – have you added it to the plan?

Mr. Toth: After leaving the meeting on 1/24/07, with comments from P&L and the State, revisions have not been made on the plans awaiting acceptance of the subdivision. Once accepted, we will revise the plans for approval. We have done everything we can to work with the board and agents to get to a plan that we felt addressed the comments and is close enough to be within 60 days of receiving state permits, we would like to see the plan accepted before spending any additional time and money revising the plans. We feel we have submitted enough information, gone through enough revisions and meetings with the Planning Board to ask you to accept the application as complete.

Mr. Mical: Where are you with Department of Transportation (DOT)?

Mr. Toth: We are on our second round of revisions for them. We do not have a driveway permit, no state subdivision permit at this time – we expect them within 60 days. DOT’s issue in part is the drainage. Mr. Toth provided the board with a copy of an informal to do list from Jim Lillis, DOT - Division 5.

Board and Mr. Toth reviewed by item a "List of things that are either missing or need to be clarified" which represents a combination of suggestions by P&L and Central NH (provided to Mr. Toth in August 06).

1. Detail the buildable area in each lot. Refer to sheet 4 of the plans, we have added a table stating lot calculations, says lot number, total area, wetlands, easements, etc. net buildable area. The hatched areas on the plan are slopes less than 25%; proposed easements were shown.

2. Center line horizontal alignment for roadways and driveways. On sheet 5, center line shown and information, the stationing, gauged tire points, etc.

3. Entrance & driveway radii need to be labeled. Labeled on sheet 5.

4. Note for speed should be given. Noted, the design is for 30 mph.

5. Need lighting and landscape plan. Not completed.

6. 4" or 6" diameter underdrain? Sheet 10 – 6".

7. Underdrain should be shown on both sides of the road. Sheet 10.

8. If cul de sac is going to be 8-10% then a guardrail might be needed a 4% is recommended. 8% - Town Highway specifically requested no guardrail.

9. See vertical curve on lot 10-3. Sheet 10.

10. Need geotechnical results Geotech results received.

11. Note – restrict further connections and redirecting sheet and channel flow away from the lot. Part of the 1/24/07 discussion, Sheet 6; upsize system and note "x" amount of pervious area can be added to the system.

12. Pipe sizes are inconsistent between plans, profiles and drainage study. Yes, clarified and additional comments.

13. Any pipe over 8% needs flow dams or rigid dams, make a note of this. Sheet 19.

14. Total area of disturbance should be stated on the Stormwater Management Report. Refer to Stormwater Management Report, listed on page 101.

15. Note – cover over pipes will have a minimum of 3.5 feet. Addressed in application for waiver.

16. Stormwater catch basin is on the detail but not on the plans. Sheet 19.

17. Existing catch basins on 103 and I-89 should be labeled CB A thru CB N on plans as in the drainage study. Sheet 6.

18. Need detail and sizing criteria of the outlet of the 14" pipe (brook) 14" pipe sizes and invert on Sheet 1.

19. Need 50 year storm analysis. Refer to Stormwater report

10. Drainage study – water quality unit between #10 and CB L is not shown on plans Already addressed

21. Drainage study – modified and pipe sizes adjacent (downstream conditions). Already addressed

22. Winter construction erosion control notes need to be added. Sheet 20

Central New Hampshire’s questions:

1. Who has not been notified? An updated list of abutters was provided.

2. Who’s professional name is missing on the application? This relates to multiple notices to Granite State Surveying.

3. Add Lee Ann Wagner as owner. Done.

4. Tax map and numbers listing names should correspond to map. Done.

5. Compare list and names on map. Done.

6. Add Keach-Norstrom Associates to list to be notified. Company referenced in err.

7. Verify Granite State Survey vs David Collier. Relates to #2 listed above – clarified.

8. Test pit individual not identified on application Again, individuals not listed, companies listed.

9. Buildable area more clearly identified. Design a table to show entire lot – what is not buildable and what is. Done.

10. Soil data sheet #1 – source not identified yes, identified.

11. Clarify common driveway design/easement on Sheet 2 and sheet 20 Done.

12. Are all the details of the bounds (iron pipes, stone bounds, etc) in a note on the plan? Sheet 2, added additional detail note.

13. Test pit should be described better Test pit extras on plans. Extra test pits shown on the plan that were not used for information in the log, were removed.

14. Storm drainage report has to be revised Revised.

15. Examples of deed easements to be granted and easements currently in place (PSNH) Copy of proposed easements provided, PSNH provided in August.

16. Legend updated for utilities on the Planning Board Legend on Sheet 3

NH Natural Heritage Inventory Done.

Driveway Permit from State In Process.

Chair Annis: With the exception of the driveway permit, lighting and landscape plans, Mr. Toth and Mr. Wagner appear to have completed everything on the list from Provan & Lorber and Central NH. We are expecting a revised report from Provan & Lorber (Ted Kupper) as a result of the 1/24/07 meeting.

After discussion, the lighting plan is not required at this time. Chair Annis noted the Board has required applicants to plant grass or whatever is necessary for soil control.

WAIVERS (signed off by Alan Brown, Warner Highway Dept.): VI. B. Drainage, 2; Mr.Toth showed where 4’ of cover is not possible on the catch basins. Mr. Serell made a MOTION to approve the waiver of 4’cover. Mr. Eigabroadt second the MOTION. MOTION passed unanimously.

Waiver Section VII. Design Standards b. permanent turnaround: Mr. Toth showed the temporary teardrop turn around cul de sac. Mark asked why temporary, Mr. Toth responded it is temporary per the town regulations. Mr. Serell made a MOTION to approve section 7. B, Ed seconded. MOTION carried (Mark voted no.)

Waiver Section VII. C. Design Standards, General (3) – re: utility boxes need to be located outside the roadway. Derek asked a question about above ground utilities; Mr. Toth responded above ground utilities are in part at the request of the Highway Department. After discussion, board determined waiver for Section 7. C. not necessary.

Waiver Section VII. B. blocks – after discussion board determined the waiver for Section 7. B. is not needed.

Mr. Eigabroadt made a MOTION to accept the Wagner commercial major subdivision as complete. Mr. Serell seconded. After no further discussion and confirmation that the driveway permit and lighting plan is outstanding, the board voted to accept the plan – MOTION carried unanimously.

Mr. Toth inquired when to return to the board. Mr. Serell suggested once the revised letter from Provan & Lorber is received, Mr. Toth either incorporate those changes or provide an explanation as to why not.

The abutters were notified at the onset of this process. Once we confirm with Mr. Toth the plans are finalized and he is ready for the next meeting, the Secretary will send the abutters a courtesy letter informing them of the public hearing.

Russ St. Pierre has submitted his resignation, his new position is taking more time than anticipated. Our current procedures are the Planning Board make recommendations to the Selectmen. Mr. Eigabroadt suggested that when there is a vacancy the Planning Board may select a replacement. Mr. Eigabroadt read RSA673:12 II. Filling Vacancies in membership: Vacancies in the membership of a local land use board occurring other than through the expiration of a term of office shall be filled as follows: For an appointed, ex officio, or alternate member, by the original appointing or designating authority, for the unexpired term. Does the Board have a recommendation? Chair Annis stated other than Phil Reeder’s appointment, alternates have historically be elevated to full members. Mr. Lennon stated the longer serving of the two alternates is Brian Patsfield, I would like to suggest Mr. Patsfield advance to a regular member. Mr. Patsfield suggested he would be willing to serve; stating Ed Mical be elevated to a full member, in part because he has attended more meetings.

Chair Annis asked for a subcommittee review earth excavation permits prior to the meeting to act on the permits. Mr. Lennon and Mr. Serell agreed to review the plans.

Jim McLaughlin made the board aware that the Conservation Commission should receive a copy of the permits. RSA 155.E.3 reads the applicant should provide a copy to the Conservation Commission – this was not requested in the Earth Excavation regulations. Secretary will make copies for the Conservation Commission.

Mr. Eigabroadt shared that Water District Commission is interested in attending the next discussion on exaction fees. Secretary will forward the agenda.