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

Joint meeting of the Warner and Webster Planning Boards, as requested by Gamil Azmy, for a Site Plan Review for property located on the town line between Warner and Webster. In Warner: Map 3, Lot 77 (Route 103), Zone R2. In Webster: Map 7, Lot 46. Operation of a bakery, café, gift shop and seasonal vegetable stand.

Gamil Azmy

Mr. Azmy addressed the Boards and handed out a new Site Plan map. Because the Town of Warner has put in the new Town bounds, the new map shows the actual town line as it bisects the property. He showed where the leach field and septic tank are located, as well as the wells on the property. He stated that there are three wells on the property. Only one is being used, and it has been tested. Mr. Azmy said that they had eliminated some of the parking spaces on the previous plan, and now have five by the building and six parallel to the road. There is an island on the road side of the parking area, which will be landscaped. Parking will be angled. He showed where the front door is, as well as the other 3 entrances/exits, for safety purposes.

Question: Will there be any filling necessary in the parking area?

Answer: Mr. Azmy said that there will be a small amount of leveling done, and some landscaping will be done as well as the possibility of a small stone wall.

Question: Ms. Annis asked about the presence of a dumpster.

Answer: The dumpster is existing now, and it is located in Webster.

Mr. McLaughlin read the checklist of requested items presented to Mr. Azmy at the December meeting. The parking areas have been shown but not shaded. The fencing and trees along the highway side of the property aren’t shown, but Mr. Azmy said that he thinks that the island with bushes should serve the same purposes. The written business plan has been submitted. The map presented by Mr. Azmy showing the colored areas of the building provides the information of the portions of the building to be used for the business. It was noted that the zoning district, R2, isn’t shown on the map, and should be shown on the plan. The legend on the plan now contains more explanation, and the name of the town has been corrected.

Ms. Van Loan read the list of requested information presented by Webster to Mr. Azmy. She said that she believes that he has complied with those things, and stated that the Webster Building Inspector will want to inspect the building, for safety purposes. There was a question concerning employee parking. Mr. Azmy said that there will be two parking spaces down below, beside the building. Ms. Van Loan said that if the plan is accepted/approved, it will give Mr. Azmy the right to open a business there. But if the business is opened, the entire 19 acres will have to be designated a commercial zone, for the town of Webster – if a commercial exception is granted. There would be the possibility of a conservation easement on the back section, but it will have to be researched and more defined. Ms. Van Loan said that if the entire 19 acres are commercial, Mr. Azmy would have to present a written plan for future use of the land to the Webster Zoning Board.

There was discussion regarding the separate tracts, and it was stated that the land is on two deeds, but several tracts. Mr. Azmy was told that if a land is under one deed, it can’t be separated and will be taxed as one section.

Mr. McLaughlin said that the Warner and Webster Boards will have to vote on the acceptance of the plan separately. He said that there are minor deficiencies on the plan, but that they don’t appear to be material to the plan itself.

Mr. Brayshaw made a motion to accept the site plan as submitted. There was a second, and the motion was passed by a unanimous vote.

The Webster Board stated that before the Webster Board votes, it was important to note that this is only the Site Plan, and it has to go before the Webster Zoning Board.

Changes to be made are to change the location to "103" and the spelling of the name "AZMI" to "AZMY".

There was a motion to approve site plan. There was a second, and the motion was passed by a unanimous vote.

Mr. McLaughlin closed the meeting and opened the Public Hearing. There were no abutters and no other comments. The Public Hearing was closed and the meeting reopened.

Ms. Annis made a motion to approve the Site Plan. There was a second, and the motion passed by a unanimous vote.

There was a question from Webster on how Warner handles the Class VI road, and whether it is a closed road. It was stated that it is designated as a Class VI discontinued road. Webster doesn’t recognize the road at all.

Ms. Van Loan said that Webster had passed the application as a Site Plan Review, and that it now goes to the Webster Zoning Board.

V. Site Plan Review: American Tower Corporation, Carrie Fitzsimons, Project Manager

Property location: 805 Rt. 103, Warner, NH, Map 3, Lot 58, C1 Zoning

Lease of 100’ x 100’ parcel from Tobias Nickerson. Fenced equipment compound containing a 109’ monopole tower.

[Board members Ms. Annis and Mr. Reeder recused themselves.]

Ms. Fitzsimons presented photo simulations showing (1) a brown stick tower, and (2) camouflaged tree style tower, with the base of the pole painted brown. She said that the antennas will stick out as far as the branches, and that the branches are made from RF friendly material. She had a change to the plan on sheet D-1, changing the description to a stealth tree instead of a 109’ monopole, or galvanized steel pole.

Ms. Fitzsimons said that the stealth tree design will be a pole of 109’, and the crown of 3 to 4 feet.

Question: Mr. McLaughlin asked if he were correct in that once the stealth tree is made, it can’t be modified to increase the height.

Answer: Ms. Fitzsimons said that she had contacted two manufacturers [Stealth and Concealment Concepts] and found that there is one option for a minimal height increase – the order could be placed for a 119’ tree because the difference in 10’ isn’t significant, and they could go ahead and make a crown that would fit if the tree were to be added to for another carrier. If the tree were 190’ feet, the difference in diameter would be too great. She said that American Tower Corp. would be willing to take on the expense of ordering the 119’ tree, applying for an exception from the ZBA for the extra 10’, and stacking on the added section.

Question: Mr. Pershouse asked if Environmental Tower makes their own trees.

Answer: Ms. Fitzsimons said that she doesn’t think so, but that she’s not very familiar with the company.

Mr. McLaughlin said that the Board is now at the choice of what the pole will look like – a monopine or monopole with 6’ arrays instead of the 10’ arrays (low profile mounts). The monopine pine will be 10’ branches, but Ms. Fitzsimons said that it isn’t 10’ from the pole, but is described as a crow’s nest design – a triangle that sits on the tower, and one edge of the triangle is 10’.

Question: Mr. Pershouse asked about exceptions, and what could the Planning Board do to restrict other types of equipment, antennas, providers, etc. – where would these conditions or sub conditions be spelled out in the acceptance of the Site Plan? An example would be: No microwave dishes on the tower.

Answer: Ms. Fitzsimons said that a restriction put on the agreement that no microwave dishes are to be on the tree could be put on.

Question: Mr. Pershouse said, then, that the Board could put conditions/restrictions on the agreement?

Answer: Ms. Fitzsimons said yes, if that’s what the Board wants to do. If the carriers can’t operate with those conditions, they would have to come back and ask the Board that the conditions be lifted. She said that they have applications from the three carriers, and they state exactly what equipment they will be using, how big the panels are, who the manufacturers are, how many lines of coaxial cable – and they haven’t gotten any applications for a microwave dish yet.

Question: Mr. Pershouse: So we would be accepting it as per the application you’ve submitted to date, which don’t include dishes, etc.

Answer: Ms. Fitzsimons: No microwave dishes, that’s fine because I think we only submitted one application with the original submission and I believe that was Verizon.

Question: Mr. Pershouse: If we accept it as drawn, or as submitted on the drawings, per the applications that you have, then would the understanding be that if you had a significant change – a different type of antenna – then you would come before the Board for a Site Plan approval?

Answer: Ms. Fitzsimons: Sure. This is a pretty generic drawing by the engineer. They don’t have the specs from the applicants. This is showing three sides with 4 antennas on each side, so you’d have 12 panels and 12 lines of coax running down the center because it is a monopole. You might get a carrier – Sprint or VoiceStream – that just put two on each one depending on their needs and where their next closest tower is. They might want to swap out 4 for 2, or 2 for 4, but at this point we only have panel antennas, we don’t have any applications for whip antennas or microwave dishes. But to say that it’s approved as drawn – this is just a very generic drawing and doesn’t have specifically what they will be using.

Question: Mr. Pershouse: So can you give us some suggested wording?

Answer: Ms. Fitzsimons: I’m assuming what you’re going for here – and please correct me if I’m wrong – is that you don’t want microwave dishes on there…

Mr. Pershouse: We don’t want anything – microwave dishes specifically – and I would suggest to the Board that any significant changes in antenna types or arrays should come before the Board for approval prior to adding other carriers or different types of service. I would like the Board to be in a position where if we accept the application, it is with the understanding that any significant changes would have to come before the Board before you could take on those carriers with a different type of antenna.

Ms. Fitzsimons: OK. Something to the effect that it is approved – a camouflaged or pine tree – with full panel antenna arrays and any different antenna type would require coming back before the Planning Board for additional Site Plan approval. So if they want to put a whip up – who knows what technology is going to be five years from now.

Mr. Brayshaw said that ATC had given them a packet with some "caution" signs regarding the FCC rules for human exposure. He asked if she had any FCC rules showing what those distances might be. Ms. Fitzsimons said that she could get those, but basically what you can’t do is – for any extended period of time – hug the antenna and stay there. Mr. Brayshaw said that there must be some point beyond which a person shouldn’t go. Ms. Fitzsimons said that the signs are designed to keep people out of the compound. She said that the tower climbers are OSHA regulated and wear monitors for exposure. It is pretty heavily regulated by the FCC and OSHA. The compound will be locked and will have barbed wire on top, so nobody should get into the compound without authorization. Mr. Brayshaw said that he was just going along with Mr. Pershouse’s question in a different way, in that as technology changes and transceivers become powerful to cover a broader area, there might be some levels of radio frequency that might exceed the balance of what this complex is containing. Ms. Fitzsimons said that it is actually going in the opposite direction. She said it is a valid point, but 10 to 15 years ago you could have one tower up on top of a mountain that would cover 30 square miles. But now with more subscribers, the carriers have to use their frequencies over and over again. It’s like when you’re listening to a particular radio station and you start to get the next radio station – they’re trying to avoid that mingling of the frequencies. So they have done shorter distances to cover the greater subscriber area. But the technology might change in the future and they might be able to somehow go back to covering that great distance without having to reuse the frequencies. That’s regulated by the FCC. I think one of the conditions of your bylaw states something to the effect that the carriers have to show that they are in compliance with the FCC standards for emissions and whether that is going to be done on an annual basis for reporting – sometimes it’s done every 5 years or sometimes it’s done whenever the town wants a reading done. That will cover that situation. But whatever equipment is manufactured in the future will still be covered by those FCC regulations for emissions.

Question: Mr. Brayshaw: Does the FCC come out and do random testing or any type of monitoring of these individual towers?

Answer: Ms. Fitzsimons: That’s a very good question, and I don’t know the answer to that. I don’t know if they ever have come out. I think sometimes, somebody will complain – if they say they don’t like the tower there, they’ll make the FCC come out or request that the FCC comes out. I know of a couple of specific requests, but I don’t know if they do a random check or anything of that nature.

Mr. Pershouse said that there are independent engineers that can be hired. He said that in Mansfield, Vermont, there was a serious problem with greater radiation on a particular tower, so that was done as a private venture to get it resolved. Mr. Brayshaw said that he agreed with Mr. Pershouse, that any new apparatus that needed to be installed beyond what is listed at the time of approval would need to be approved by the Planning Board.

Ms. Fitzsimons: I’m fine with that condition, but I just want to make sure we put in there what the original condition is, because otherwise, a year from now we’ll get a phone call saying, "Well, what was originally approved? Was it everything but microwaves?"

Mr. Pershouse: Well, a microwave dish is questionable in terms of its intensity. It is much more focused and it kind of slips in occasionally where it will be on a tower and it is a whole different radiation pattern and intensity. That’s why I think we should state that up front.

Mr. Reeder said that he can see someone being concerned about a microwave dish up on a tower, as far as aesthetics goes, but as far as the power and burning up somebody – it’s highly directional. The power output is minimal and can be monitored by computer. The FCC is very precise in their requirements, and he said he doesn’t see any hazard. He said that he thinks that the technology will be such that you will see more flat plates, getting away from the dish antennas because of their high frequency and if anything, the dishes will be smaller and hidden within the branches. He said that he thinks that additional antennas should come before the Planning Board just so they will know what will be on the towers.

Mr. Pershouse made a motion to accept this design of a monopine with the condition that any changes in carriers or arrays in the future must come before the Planning Board for a Site Plan Review prior to any changes to the tower. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

Mobil sign, canopy and logo changes.

Fred Bocko, Marketing Representative and Tony Vaitkunas, Manager of Mountain Market

Mr. Bocko made a presentation to the Board with Mobil’s change in image. The change involves four areas:

1. the primary ID sign: the height of the sign will be the same as is currently in place, 15’. The pole is 11’, and the sign is 4’. The configuration is the same as the present sign.

2. the gas dispensers: the current dispensers are primarily silver and black with a lit blue-capped fascia on top. The lit fascia will be going away, and there will be a non-lit fascia with gray/silver as opposed to the black. The number of pumps will be the same. The pumps will be 3 feet shorter than they are now.

3. the canopy: the existing fascia is a 36" solid white. What is being proposed is a blue lit band of 2". The tube is lit by fluorescent lights and is for image lighting only, and has no spill over effect at all. It is similar to what the current tops of the gas pumps are, which will be going away.

4. the logo: The "Mountain Market" is going away, and will be replaced by "On the Run". The scale will be about the same as the current logo. They will be mounted on pegs with external lighting.

Question: Mr. Pershouse asked if the new pumps will say "Mobil" and "Exxon"

Answer: Mr. Bocko said that he doesn’t anticipate that, because when the merger took place, the company was very committed to keeping the brands separate, as far as the name goes.

Mr. Brayshaw asked if Mr. Bocko considered the change of name to be more of a commercial look or a tasteful look. The manager of the Mountain Market, Tony Vaitkunas, said that he had helped develop the Mountain Market look and that the Warner store is their prototype store. He said that the new On the Run logo will not be a lighted sign and will be more subdued than some that Mr. Brayshaw has seen farther south. Mr. Brayshaw said that he thinks it is a mistake to change the logo, and wanted to know if it would be possible to bring up minutes from past meetings to bring up things that the Board/Town was looking for when the market was built. Mr. Vaitkunas said that he was at that meeting and could address anything quite easily. The proposal was a colonial look and the building isn’t such that there will be an internally lit sign on it. Mr. Bocko said that the On the Run people have been very generous with Johnson & Dix in the design of their buildings, and that the Warner store has become a prototype for the company and they are building copies of this store in other locations.

Ms. Mulsow said that it is too bad that the changes are being made, because it changes the feel of the store. Mr. Annis said that the Mountain Market is more country in feel, and the On the Run is more city.

Question: Mr. Pershouse asked when the change will happen.

Answer: Mr. Bocko said that if they get the Board’s permission to make the changes, they will go ahead and order the exterior equipment. It should take about 6 weeks for the changes to be complete.

Question: Ms. Mulsow asked if the company would allow them to leave "Mountain Market".

Answer: No.

Question: Ms. Annis asked if the building will remain white.

Answer: Yes.

Question: Mr. St.Pierre said that they have a really nice building, as far as style. He said that the canopy in front of the building hides the building, and said that the addition of the lighted blue strip will detract from the look of the building even more.

Answer: Mr. Bocko said that the company is under a mandate from Mobil to get all of their canopies switched over to the new design by 2004 everywhere. It is every Mobil distributor, not just Johnson & Dix.

Question: Mr. Pershouse asked what Mobil does where there is a building that is clearly designed as a country or colonial look.

Answer: Mr. Bocko said that you would work as hard as possible to get the permits.

Ms. Annis made a motion that Johnson & Dix doesn’t have to have a Site Plan Review for the proposed changes. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

Mr. Brayshaw said that he would like to know more about the lighting and signage.

Question: Mr. Brayshaw: Do you plan on putting up the same amount of recessed lighting on the canopy as is there now?

Answer: Yes, the lighting will remain the same. The fluorescent tubes inside of the actual skirt, made of translucent plastic material, will have 60 watt tubes.

Mr. Pershouse said that the Planning Board is currently working on guidelines for non-residential areas and is concerned with making this decision, especially the lighted blue band addition, without getting any public input. It seems to be in conflict with the direction that the Board is going. This new canopy design could detract from the subdued building appearance and thinks that there is some merit in requiring a Site Plan Review and having the public involved in the decision.

Question: Mr. Brayshaw asked about the canopy in the back, by the diesel pump.

Answer: There will be no change there.

Question: Mr. Brayshaw asked if there was landscaping around the base of the sign that was originally required.

Answer: Ms. Annis and Mr. McLaughlin said that it was suggested but not required.

Answer: Mr. Vaitkunas said that the sign, as it is now, was existing when the old building was razed and rebuilt and that they left it the way it is.

Question: Mr. Pershouse asked if there were any options on the intensity of the lighting on the canopy.

Answer: Mr. Bocko said that is basically one size fits all.

Mr. Serell read from the Site Plan Review regulations regarding the lighting on the canopy, "outdoor lighting is restricted to that which is necessary for advertising, safety and security of the development." Does this lighting meet this standard?

Ms. Mulsow said that the proposed changes fall within the guidelines, but that she hates to see the Mountain Market image go to the slick On the Run image. Mr. Vaitkunas said that he had thought about that, too, but that the exterior image that is seen in Warner won’t change, just the logo. They asked for and received a more subdued sign than what was originally proposed by the company. The colors and the peg mounting vs. a lit sign was agreed to by them for the Warner location.

Mr. Reeder said that he likes the Mountain Market, too, but doesn’t feel that it is the Planning Board’s area to delve into logos and companies and what they do with them. Ms. Mulsow said maybe not the logo, but the concept of it. Mr. Reeder said that the concept, too, because that’s marketing and that’s business and it isn’t Planning Board.

Mr. McLaughlin said that the lit band on the canopy doesn’t fit within the regulations of the Town. Mr. Bocko said that he believes that the first criteria that Mr. Serell read addressed advertising and it is the Mobil image. Mr. Serell said that he would argue "necessary" for advertising, because you could said that brightly lit stores were "necessary" for advertising. Mr. Brayshaw said he doesn’t want to be anti-commercial, but "we can dictate change, not let change dictate to us." The Board needs to decide how they want the town to look, and that there will be more issues coming up in the future. He said that the lighted blue canopy doesn’t seem practical for our town, and companies work with towns to reach a happy medium – example, the smaller MacDonald’s sign in Warner.

Question: Mr. Reeder asked if they would accept putting a blue border around the canopy without the lighting.

Ms. Annis said that when it was first brought up at the work session, she was concerned with the lit blue border on the canopy because the people on North Village Road don’t want to look down and see any more lighting then they are already seeing. She said that the photos show much more than the previous pictures.

Mr. Vaitkunas said that it looks like a lit blue band, as opposed to a bright blue light that shines out.

Ms. Mulsow said that the Site Plan Review regulations specifically say that "to provide for harmonious and aesthetically pleasing development of the municipality and its environs." She said that she thinks that does allow the Board some leeway on aesthetics in the community. She asked where a blue band could be seen -- Are they in Claremont and Bow?

Mr. McLaughlin asked if the Board wanted to go and look at one of these canopies.

Mr. Serell said that this is basically an amendment to the original site plan, but not a new site plan. He said that he doesn’t know how this is noticed, and if any fees should be charged. Mr. McLaughlin said that he’s not sure, but if it is called an amendment to the site plan but not go through the full blown process, but probably there’s a notice to the abutters. Mr. Serell said that it obviously wouldn’t require all of the bells and whistles just because they want to add more light, and that is the only aspect of what is being proposed that anyone would have something to say about.

Mr. Reeder said that to say "to add more light" sounds like their purpose is to illuminate more property, and that’s not what it is. Mr. Vaitkunas said that the elimination of the four blue "hats" on the pumps and the addition of the lit band is not adding more light.

Mr. Brayshaw said that the public needs to have some type of voice, based on the problems and complaints with the small sign at the Police building.

Mr. McLaughlin said that the composition of the Board had changed since the meeting began, and that that before the votes are taken, the regular voting members will now be voting: Jim McLaughlin, Derek Pershouse, Barbara Annis, Andrew Serell, John Brayshaw, John Wallace and Philip Reeder.

Mr. McLaughlin called for a vote on the motion: All those in favor of not requiring any further action on this request: Mr. Pershouse, Ms. Annis, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Reeder

All opposed: Mr. Brayshaw and Mr. Serell

The Home Occupation application was referred to the Planning Board by the Zoning Board, who received the application from the Selectmen. The ZBA stated that they didn’t feel that the application needed any Special Exceptions or Variances, and that it should go to the Planning Board to determine if a Site Plan Review is required. If the Planning Board determines that a Site Plan Review is required, the secretary will notify the applicant of that decision.

The property in located on the Warner and Webster town lines. There are some cement blocks and piles of mulch and compost that are on the Warner side, and the applicant never went through a Site Plan process before starting the business in the first place. Ms. Mical said that they aren’t proposing any changes. Mr. Serell asked if the materials have been in place for a long time, and it was stated that it is growing slowly. Ms. Mical said that the piles have been there not quite two years and was brought to the attention of everyone by a neighbor.

Mr. Brayshaw said he thinks it is a change of use, from fixing chainsaws to a landscaping business. Ms. Mical said that all of the buildings are in Webster. Mr. McLaughlin asked if Webster had made a ruling on this. Mr. Wallace said that he doesn’t know.

Mr. Brayshaw said that the Selectmen had a person come to them and want to do the same thing [have piles of materials on his property] and the Selectmen told that person that he would have to go through the proper channels in order to be able to do so. Mr. Finlayson hasn’t gone through the proper channels. Mr. Reeder asked if the applicant moved all of the materials across the town line, and into Webster, would Warner have anything to say. The answer was no, except that they would have to enter through Warner.

Ms. Annis said that there used to be a building that has since collapsed and was torn down. This situation has evolved and grown since then. Ms. Mical said that this property abuts the discontinued Class VI road between this property and Mr. Azmy’s.

Ms. Annis said that the applicant should come in and tell the Board what’s going on. Mr. St.Pierre asked why they filed a Home Occupation application. Mr. Serell said that it’s not a Home Occupation because no one is living in the residence and the business is all outside. There are no buildings in Warner. The landowner, Willard Richard, is being sublet for the business. Mr. Brayshaw said that there is a business being operated at the location, and there is machinery there. The business is growing and is active.

Mr. Serell said that the Board should require a Site Plan Review.

It was decided that Sissy should write a letter asking Mr. Richard, property owner, to come to the April 1^st meeting for a consultation for a Site Plan Review. A copy of the letter will be sent to Mr. Finlayson, the business owner.

Mr. McLaughlin said that a letter from the Division of Historical Resources had been received, stating that there are no historical resources impacted by the site of the approved American Tower Corporation tower in Davisville, Exit 7, land owned by Tobias Nickerson.

Ms. Mical had a question for the Board. The Town of Warner is facing rapid growth, which is impacting all of the townspeople. She asked if the Board is interested in researching, or having someone research, possible changes in zoning to possibly slow down the growth a little bit. She said her initial concept is to change the acreage or frontage requirements within the current zoning districts, more than trying to remap the town. If the Board is interested in this matter, Ms. Mical said that she would volunteer to run the numbers. She said that she is referring to residential, which is growing fast.

Mr. Reeder said that he’s not sure what the lot area size should be, but if the Board makes larger lot size a requirement, we are placing ourselves as an elitist town. This does make some things, like New London – it lowers the tax rate. He said that people that can afford those larger lots and big houses will have fewer kids. Fewer kids reduce the tax rate in the town. Some will say that Warner doesn’t have affordable housing and no one can afford to live in the town. Ms. Mical said that there needs to be a happy medium. Mr. Reeder said that if the Board decides to put in a housing project, it could impact the town with higher taxes. He said he would like to see more detail on Ms. Mical’s proposal.

Mr. Brayshaw said that impact fees came up had the Selectmen’s meeting, in a discussion of subdivisions. Ms. Mical said that when she spoke to Central Regional when they were looking for a quick fix, she was told that a moratorium to enable regulations to be realigned, the answer was no. She was also told that impact fees are an option, but that they are very hard to create and next to impossible to enforce and that the Town will be in court. She said that Central Regional felt that there were other options available, like increasing fees for major subdivisions. In Vermont – and she said that she’s not sure it is legal in New Hampshire – a person must own land for at least five years before it can be subdivided into a major subdivision.

Ms. Mical said that she is only volunteering to work on the ideas surrounding the changes in zoning, rather than going for the impact fees because of what is required to get to the impact fees.

Mr. McLaughlin said that a suggestion re: zoning might be to look at a couple of town – New London being one – that have designated "rugged" or "hard to get to" areas as those less desirable to see developed and have placed a 25 acre minimum lot size. Ms. Mical said that her idea would be to take Warner’s OR zoning districts and change those areas to 25 acres lot size minimum. That would be the Mink Hills, for the most part.

It was said that there is OR Zoning on the parts of Kearsarge Mountain that is State owned. Ms. Mical said that there are also some "lots of record" on Kearsarge Mountain that are 1 acre lots [the Ordway lots] – if the time comes that building can be done on Kearsarge Mtn. [by obtaining DES permits], those lots could be built on. That designation can’t be taken away.

The only thing that would be changed by designating the OR zoned tracts would be that the huge tracts of land – 200 to 300 acre lots – that wouldn’t be able to be subdivided down to 5 acre lots. They would have to remain at least 25 acres.

Mr. McLaughlin said that a similar situation occurred in Lyme, where they designated 50 acre minimum lots in a Mountain Zone. The decision was upheld in the Supreme Court case.

Ms. Mical said that New London did a whole growth management plan so that they could have impact fees. Mr. McLaughlin said that impact fees aren’t going to stop growth, and simply making a 5 or 7 acre minimum lot size won’t stop growth. All it will do is spread the same number of people out over more land, using more of the land, because they can afford it, and he feels that is the wrong direction to go. Ms. Mical said that making the minimum size 25 acres or beyond would make 300 acres divided into a smaller number of lots. Mr. McLaughlin agreed. Ms. Mulsow said the remote areas, Class VI roads. She said that it does prevent people that bought 100’s of acres of land a long time ago from being able to subdivide the land into many, many lots, which would do the town in. She said that this would have to come before the town for a vote.

Ms. Annis suggested that this be put on the agenda for the next Work Session, to give members of the Board to have some time to think about it. She suggested that Sissy call Don Gartrell to find out if the Vermont law could be used in New Hampshire.

Mr. Pershouse said that it is question of current non-resident subdivision – developers coming in from out of state or out of town – to subdivide, make a financial killing, and move on, with no real interaction with the community prior, during or after, is an issue that needs to be incorporated in this process regardless of the size of lots and primarily because there are people that have the financial means to come in and do just that. This can destroy a neighborhood or a particular district of the town. He said that he’s not sure, legally, about the restrictions on a 5 year ownership but that it is something that should be pursued.

Mr. Brayshaw said a comparative market analysis of an area – the proposed Old Denny Hill subdivision of new modular homes selling for $400,000 to $500,000 – will raise the property values of an entire area. People won’t be able to live there. Mr. Pershouse said it will certainly change the character of the area.

Mr. McLaughlin said that is no different from a man who lived out of town, bought 750 acres and logged it off, and is now going to sell the land. Ms. Mical said that the only difference is that Mother Nature will put the trees back, but a subdivision can’t be put back into one piece of land.

Mr. Pershouse said that the impact fees won’t stop growth. They’ll be built into the cost of the project. The town will make more money off of the fees, but it won’t stop growth. Ms. Mical said that a $5000 fee on a major subdivision, she feels, would slow it down.

Mr. McLaughlin said that this will be put on the agenda for the Work Session on Monday, March 18^th, at 7:00 p.m. at the Pillsbury Free Library.

Mr. McLaughlin asked that the members look at the minutes of the last Work Session and they will be approved at the next Work Session.

A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:26 PM.