Property location: Map 18, Lot 21, 372 Kearsarge Mt. Road, Warner, NH R3 Zoning

Purpose: Change from residential/rental property to Bed & Breakfast and farm store retail establishment

Mr. Garcia presented information about the proposed B&B and farm store:

• 1 bedroom B&B
• Spinning and weaving taught in small classes, probably done in the barn
• Farm and alpaca products for sale
• No change to the house, barn or garage
• Adequate parking is available, no changes proposed
• Small sign, in compliance with ordinance
• No new lighting
• Request that Site Plan Review be waived because no changes are being planned for the property except for a sign
• Property was formerly owned by Steve Stevens
• 350 feet of retail space on first floor of house
• B&B will be in the daylight basement portion of the house
• Applicant given a Special Exception by the Zoning Board of Adjustment

Mr. Serell requested a copy of the Notice of Decision from the ZBA. The secretary produced the Notice.

Ms. Annis: Is the barn going to be used for anything?

Mr. Garcia: The barn that is a part of this property is an equipment barn. It is going to remain that.

Mr. Reeder: So you won’t be living in this house?

Mr. Garcia: No, we live in the property that is adjacent to this house.

Mr. Reeder: So if someone were staying in this property as a B&B, they would be staying there alone?

Mr. Garcia: That is correct. We would be going over there to fix them breakfast. It’s a short walk.

Mr. Lennon: It is my suspicion that it doesn’t require a Site Plan Review, but I think that it is worth doing a Site Visit to make sure that there isn’t something that is going to jump out to us that don’t know the property well.

Mr. Serell: Normally, we accept an application before soliciting public input, but in the case where we’re determining whether or not to require a Site Plan Review, I think we should hear the public input.

Ms. Annis asked if anyone was present that would like to address the application.

Rick Davies: I was at the ZBA hearing on this case, and there was very positive response from the people that were there. The abutters (Trostorff) were positive about the small cottage aspect of the application. I think that it was the intention of the ZBA that it was to be left as it is, and that any major expansion beyond that would be contrary to what the ZBA was talking about.

Mr. Lennon made a motion to have a Site Visit, following the previous Site Visit on April 17^th, before making any decision on the application. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

Mr. Garcia stated that they wouldn’t be there that date, but that if the Board needed to see the interior of the house at the Site Visit, he could give the Board the key. Ms. Annis stated that she didn’t think it would be necessary to see the interior of the house.

Mr. Garcia: Just for my information, because I’m not familiar with this procedure: What are the objectives of the Site Walk, and assuming that those are satisfied, when would there be a disposition on this – either favorably or unfavorably?

Ms. Annis: At the next Planning Board meeting. Depends on what we’re looking for – we could look at the topography, we could look at the exterior, traffic, site lines – as much as anything else, it is to be consistent in all that we do.

The Site Visit was set for Saturday, April 17^th, following the previously scheduled Site Visit, which begins at 8:30 a.m.

7. Site Plan Review: Co-location on TDS Tower

Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, LLC, dba Cingular Wireless, Jonathan McNeal, 580 Main Street, Bolton, MA 01740

Property location: Map 14, Lot 36-1, 296 Kearsarge Mt. Rd., Warner, NH 03278, R2 Zoning

Property Owner: Diane Violette, 302 Kearsarge Mt. Rd., Warner, NH 03278

Purpose: Installation of 2 ten-foot "whip" antennas on top of existing TDS tower & construction of an 8-ft x 8-ft equipment shelter

Jonathan McNeal, real estate consultant for Cingular Wireless. The application is for 2 10-ft. whip antennas on the TDS tower on Kearsarge Mt. Road. Cingular was to be located on 2 monopole antennas formerly approved in Warner, but which haven’t materialized. Because the tower can’t accommodate any further equipment, the whip antennas are being proposed. The 8 x 8 foot equipment shelter will be located behind the existing TDS shelter – looking from the driveway, it won’t be visible. The antennas will cover parts of I-89, and will be 3-4 inches in diameter, and are circular. They will be 5 feet lower than the existing antennas that are on the tower. It is a fairly simple installation.

Mr. Reeder: Do you know the gain of the antennas?

Mr. McNeal: I don’t know the gain, but the frequency is 1800 to 1900. They are PCS antennas.

Mr. Reeder: What is the RP off of the antennas?

Mr. McNeal: It shouldn’t be more than 200 watts.

Mr. Reeder: How many channels are they running on that?

Mr. McNeal: That’s one of the problems with whip antennas, that you don’t get as many channels. I would estimate 5 – 10 channels.

Ms. Annis: Do you need electricity at the site?

Mr. McNeal: We can tap into the existing transformer that US Cellular is using, so we don’t need to dig up the site again. That is my understanding. We’re not proposing an emergency generator, so if any of the existing generators has any existing capacity, we could use that.

Ms. Annis: Does that mean that you’ll come back to us if you’re not able to use an existing generator?

Mr. McNeal: We’ve not been instructed to come back to ask for any additional equipment. I can’t tell you that they wouldn’t like something like that at some point, but if that should happen, we would most likely upgrade an existing generator that is there. It could potentially be a much quieter generator because of the technology.

Mr. Reeder: Does that mean that there will be 1 generator on site, or 2? Do you know?

Mark Violette (TDS representative): US Cellular doesn’t have a generator up there. They’re using battery backup. We have a generator up there. US Cellular used a temporary generator, but it has long since been removed.

Mr. Reeder: If you had a generator up there and a back-up generator, and the power went out…

Mr. Violette: But we don’t have 2 generators up there. What we would try to do, Phil, is take the existing MCT generator that has been there, if Cingular couldn’t do battery backup. We can’t do battery backup because of the nature of our business. But if Cingular couldn’t do battery backup and needed to tie into our generator – I’m not sure if it would work for them or not, but if it didn’t and we needed to put in, we would put it out behind the building and would put one of those noise reduced generators in. But we haven’t talked about those things. So the answer to your question is that there will not be an additional generator out there. I’ll make it work with one.

Mr. McNeal: We can use a battery backup, but they only work for so long and then it has to be turned back on or needs to be recharged on. So I think it’s helpful to customers, certainly, to have that backup if you need it. It’s not something we’re pursuing right now if there’s capacity that MCT/TDS has that we can tap into.

Mr. Reeder: Are the antennas white?

Mr. McNeal: Yes. They are DABA Model #9000\90100 and can be painted any color, but we wouldn’t recommend it. You can look on our website to get the information on the antennas.

Mr. Reeder, to Mr. Violette: Are the 2 existing antennas that are there stacked yagi?

Mr. Violette: Yes.

Mr. Reeder: And what is the other one?

Mr. Violette: It is a radio antenna that is used for vehicle communication – base to mobile or mobile to mobile. I believe it is a 188 foot pole mount antenna with a whip on it, but don’t quote me on that.

Ms. Annis asked Mr. Lennon if he thought a Site Visit should be conducted, and he said that they’d just had a Site Visit when US Cellular was in for their application to collocate on the tower, and he didn’t think it would be necessary.

Mr. Serell: What is the size of the shelter?

Mr. McNeal: It is 8 x 8 feet, shingle roof and aluminum siding.

Mr. Serell: It is a good idea to show the landscaping plans because the abutters have had concerns in the past regarding seeing the structures and shelters. I know that we had a plan from the last project which showed landscaping. Because this is a new plan with a new building, I’m wondering if this should show landscaping. Also, whether the plan of the building on the checklist, you show N/A. But I think that should be shown on the plan.

Mr. St.Pierre: I would like to talk about the "not applicables" on the checklist, before there is an approval of the plan. I see a lot of them on the plan, but I don’t think that anybody asked us to waive any requirements. I think we need to review those things to see if we want them or not, if we’re talking about exempting requirements.

Ms. Annis: There seem to be two parts that seem to be bothering some members of the Board. 1. Where the building is going to be located, but you don’t have the size of it.

There was discussion that the size of the building is there, but not the height of the building. Mr. Serell said that the height of the shelter should be on the plan.

Ms. Annis: 2. The proposed landscaping should be stated, or is that going to be covered under the other one [the previous application for collocation on the TDS tower]. On the previous Site Plan for the TDS tower, they have until June of this year to put in any fencing and landscaping.

Mr. Serell: Did that plan show proposed landscaping?

Ms. Annis: It was agreed upon.

Mr. Violette: It was agreed upon, and I walked the property with two of the abutters – primarily the abutters that can see it. We had a tentative agreement, but I have not done anything yet – obviously, we can’t do anything this time of year. Just to follow up on your question – Drew, this site -- this 8 x 8 building is going to go behind our building. You’re not going to see it from the road. You can barely see it from the driveway because the dishes and the building are blocking it. I’m not really sure what you can do with the landscaping, if anything, other than we want grass to grow up there.

Mr. Serell: I’m not really suggesting that we do anything special because of that building, but thinking out loud – if you already have anything in mind about what you want to do about the landscaping, it would be nice to have a plan that shows it and we could show on this plan what the plan is for tress and shrubs, etc.

Mr. Violette: We really aren’t required to have a plan, other than to do some landscaping that would shade as much of the facility from the abutters. The tentative plan is to – this is the driveway, and this is the Varnum property right here. We were going to put shrubs so that you couldn’t see this building and this big dish. The other idea that we came up with is at the front of the driveway – if you’re standing on the O’Neal property, you can see our building and a little bit of one of these dishes. So we’re going to put some shrubs in there. As far as the plan goes, you know, we’re going to try to cover as much as we can so that the Varnums’ and the O’Neals don’t see it from the street. But I don’t have an actual written plan.

Mr. Serell: Did the Site Plan that we approved for the last application show existing trees and bushes, etc.?

Mr. St.Pierre: It showed the existing tree line.

Mr. Serell: This one does also?

Mr. St.Pierre: It does on the first page.

Mr. McNeal: And again, our proposed shelter is behind an existing shelter. Given the fact that you’re not going to see it, we didn’t propose any additional landscaping beyond what Mr. Violette had agreed to with the abutters. I can’t tell you what that is or what US Cellular’s plans are.

Mr. Serell: So, other than the existing tree line, there is no landscaping plan shown?

Mr. St.Pierre: No.

Mr. Serell: In thinking about it, they’re showing the existing tree line and there is no other landscaping to show, so the only other thing that we could require would be to show the additional landscaping that was talked about. But I don’t know if it’s fair to impose that on this application. I’m having second thoughts about requiring the additional landscaping for the acceptance of the application. I guess we wouldn’t require any more than what is shown [the existing tree line] to accept the application, then once we’ve accepted the application, we could talk about whether we would require additional landscaping for this plan. I guess it goes back to, is there anything else on the list that they think that is not applicable that we would like to see?

Mr. Serell made a motion to accept the application as complete with the addition of the height of the shelter shown on the plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Orbacz and passed.

Ms. Annis closed the Board Meeting and opened the Public Hearing.

Steve Varnum (abutter – 288 Kearsarge Mt. Road): Ours is the property directly between the compound and the road. You might remember that I was here back in November and was flashing the Red Socks’ scores while you were trying to conduct business. It didn’t end up so well for the Red Socks, and it didn’t end up so well for us, and it didn’t end up so well for you guys, either, because you had the wool pulled over your eyes. You were told by the previous plan that there wasn’t going to be a generator running on the site – if there was, it was just going to be an emergency generator. After that, and after you made your approval, there was a generator running there for 2 months and it didn’t stop running until you all got a letter and we contacted the Selectmen. John Brayshaw isn’t here tonight, but he and I had several lively phone calls about the project, and you were lied to. When I was here in October, I described to you the kind of ill will that had been created by the people on that property over the years. Your approval and what happened after the approval, I hoped illustrated to you exactly the type of thing that has been going on. They tell you there isn’t going to be a generator – there is a generator running 24/7 for 2 months. One Saturday night there is backhoe working not 100 yards from my house and finally at 10:00 p.m., one of the neighbors goes out and asks them to shut it down, and he says, "Oh, I was planning on working here through the night until it was done." So at 10:00 on a Saturday night, he shut it down. He came back at 6:00 a.m. on a Sunday morning and started it up again. This is the kind of people we’re dealing with, and I guess I want to know from you guys – what is your policy about people that come here and lie to your face coming back here with more requests? Is that something that you look favorably upon? Is this getting into a good neighbor policy that I’ve heard talked about? Because they’re not good neighbors, and they’ve not been good neighbors, and you gave them the benefit of the doubt the last time around and, if anything, they showed you that they’re not good neighbors. I hope that you’ll take that into account this time – I seriously do. Because you guys pack up your meeting and go home. I go home to a communications compound. One thing that we asked about last time was the 1984 Special Exception that was granted by the Zoning Board which allowed MCT to place cable television receivers up there. At the time, we asked what that Special Exception included. Did it include one building, or two, or three, or a half dozen? Don’t you think you ought to know that before you approve anything else on this site? We hoped you’d have known that before you approved the last building on the site. We still haven’t received an answer. And if you do know that the Exception entails, I would hope that you would comment on that tonight. What we would really like is a moratorium on anything on this site until some of these questions are answered. There is a town ordinance that says that towers aren’t supposed to rise 20 feet above the average tree canopy in the area. Some of you were at the Site Walk, some of you weren’t. I’d sure like for somebody to take a look at that – an independent professional to take a look at that and take a measurement and tell me that after they’ve taken the tops off of the trees around the compound if that is still true. It is your job to protect us. And when something that started out as a cable TV tower starts having telephone equipment added to it the emits radiation – to my mind, the use of that tower has changed and to my mind, the Planning Board ought to be looking into that and looking very seriously at protecting the health interests of the people of the town. So I hope that you will look a little more closely at this request than you did at the last request – and at hearing that shrubbery that was supposed to be planted referred to as a "tentative plan" now makes me a little bit nervous, because things that are supposed to be "firm" plans don’t get done. So I’m kind of wondering about this "tentative" plan. Thanks.

Ms. Annis asked if there was anyone else in the neighborhood that wished to speak.

Rick Davies: (291 Kearsarge Mt. Road). We live across the street. There are a couple of things that I wanted to make sure were thought about in this whole process. I agree with the idea of having something on paper relative to the landscaping situation and shielding the building, and seeing how tall it is. It seems that a little building with a pitched roof sounds like it is going to be higher than 8-feet, which is what the gentleman told us. I’m not really sure where this is going to go in the future. I’m not sure that we’re not going to be back here in 6 months with another proposal, and at that time changing from a TV tower to a full time cell tower – we’ve come all the way around from a tower that would be approved through the normal processes and would probably be disguised as one of those pine trees that you see up on I-89, which are had to pick out unless you’re really looking at it. The people across the valley in the Mink Hills spoke last time about their view of the tower. So I’m a little concerned about where the future is going to be going. So we would like to have a moratorium. One question that I have – what’s wrong with having the one antenna system that you have right now? This new one has 5 to 10 more channels, apparently. It’s pretty good power out there now – why do you need more antennas? Why can’t you piggyback onto the US Cellular people instead of putting another antenna up?

Mr. Violette: I don’t know the answer to that. I’m not sure why. I just wanted to kind of respond to Steve’s comments. The first one is the tentative term – Steve, that is a figure of speech, and it’s not tentative. We’re going to get the shrubs up there. You know that I’ve communicated with you and your wife, and we’re going to make it right up there and we’re going to hide that building. I think you know me good enough by now to know that that is going to happen by June 30^th. It hasn’t happened yet because on November 17^th I met with Lois Shea and Tina (Schirmer) and went over a preliminary plan. Again, we couldn’t plant shrubs in November, and now it is April 5^th and we still can’t plant shrubs. Plus the place is a mess from the driveway being dug up and a bunch of other things, about which I met with the US Cellular folks and that is going to get cleaned up. We have some ownership in this thing and it is going to be taken care of. So that is the tentative plan – when I refer to it as tentative, it will be done when it is supposed to be done, so you can rest assured. Also, just to let you know, I’m literally the middle guy in this. I’ve had conversations with Rick and Tina and Steve and Lois – I agree that some things didn’t go as planned, but I did everything in my power, which in some cases was pretty defenseless – but I did everything in my power to ensure that the previous relationship between the provider and the neighborhood went as smoothly as possible. I think that if I hadn’t been in the position that I was in and living where I do, it probably would have been a little bit more messy. As I said before, they know where I live and they can contact me if they have any more questions. And they’ve done that, so it’s been a two-way street. And to answer Steve, I think that back in 1984 – if you look back in the records, I think that the Special Variance was for one tower and one tower only. It didn’t address buildings, but it addressed the tower. I’m not familiar with the height of the tower and the height that the trees were. Probably about the way they are now, or maybe a little bit shorter.

Tina Schirmer (291 Kearsarge Mt. Road): We are very concerned about the growth at this site. We left the October meeting [of the Planning Board] with the thought, from some comments that were made, that once the last application was approved, which took place in November, that there would be nothing else going on this tower. And that was in the minutes.

Mr. Violette: Tina, I made those comments and that was before I knew that you could put whip antennas on the tower.

Ms. Schirmer: But that is what you said.

Mr. Violette: Yes, but that was before I knew – I didn’t make any promises or anything like that.

Ms. Schirmer: It was a promise in October.

Kyle Whitehead: Could we get Rick’s questions answered? I’m curious as to why we need so many antennas in the area. We already have this ugly eyesore on Kearsarge Mountain – why can’t they get together with US Cellular to provide service?

Mr. McNeal: We’re licensed at a different frequency than US Cellular. We are a competitor. It is highly unlikely that they would allow us to put antennas in their space even if we could. We actually would like to be up on Kearsarge Mountain. Most communities prefer smaller towers as opposed to one large tower, but the reason for the number of towers is capacity. One site cannot handle all of the capacity for a given area. Your cellular phone can only reach so far. Again, we’re not affiliated with US Cellular – we’re competitors. We’d much prefer to have an array like US Cellular has on this structure, but the structural engineers indicate that nothing else can go on there but what we’re putting on there.

Mr. Serell: Putting aside the legalities about whether US Cellular would go along with it or not, technically, could you use their antennas to service the area that you’re trying to serve with the whip antennas?

Mr. McNeal: Not with the antennas they have, no. They’re at the 800-900 frequency, and we are PCS (1800-1900). We’re also trying to put whip antennas on Mt. Kearsarge. We need both locations. We would like to have sectors, because you have more capacity with the arrays that US Cellular has up there. When you have whip antennas, they blast out and you have no control over how far they go. With a sector, you can tilt it down.

Mr. Serell: What is the status of putting whip antennas on Mt. Kearsarge?

Mr. McNeal: They have to inventory what is up there. The State’s not even sure what’s up there and what’s available. They’re waiting for the spring to get up there and inventory what they have.

Ms. Annis: If you should get up on Mt. Kearsarge, would you disband this one down here?

Mr. McNeal: No, we still need both locations. The terrain is so hilly around here that there are shadows. And we would need Parade Ground Cemetery Road to cover I-89.

Mr. Serell: I remember having this same discussion with US Cellular, that Kearsarge alone wouldn’t be enough to cover the area. They showed us some coverage maps.

Ms. Annis: We got the same answer from two different people, so that’s kind of nice.

Mr. Serell: Could you provide us with coverage maps?

Mr. McNeal: Yes – I have a couple of maps with me that show coverage with and without the TDS tower site. [He showed maps to the Board]. The MCT/TDS tower is omni instead of directional antennas on the site.

Mr. Orbacz: I have a question for Mark -- could you comment on Mr. Varnum’s comments about the generator? Could you just explain that?

Mr. Violette: Not speaking for US Cellular, but speaking as a business person. US Cellular had some problems with PSNH getting power to that site. The power that we had there wasn’t sufficient. We didn’t know that at the time of the application; at least, I didn’t know that. My assumption was that they could use the existing entrance and then bring in a transformer. When I found out that the power wasn’t going to be sufficient and that they were going to have to branch in new power, my comment to US Cellular was, "You’re not going to dig up the driveway. We have conduit and you can pull in a new entance." I believe that US Cellular was under the gun from corporate to get that cell site up and running by the end of the year. I think that they were approved on November 3^rd or 4^th – they got their building in around the 17^th. There were some delays from PSNH, and US Cellular put a generator in there, which I didn’t know that they were going to put a generator in. Steve will testify that I had conversations with him and his wife about that. It was a state of the art generator that wasn’t supposed to put out a lot of noise, but it did. Around Thanksgiving – actually, the day before Thanksgiving, Steve’s wife called me and said, "I can hear it. I can hear the hum." I went up and I could hear the hum from the road. So I had US Cellular go back and put temporary barricades up – I did everything I could to keep that thing from setting off the neighbors. But obviously, if you are in Steve’s backyard, you’re going to hear it to a degree. So the power company put in the power about the 9^th of January? Is that correct?

Mr. Varnum: It was the second week in January.

Mr. Violette: The digging that was going on – that happened the first week in December. I was in Vermont on a business trip. When I found out they were digging up the driveway, it was stopped because I didn’t want anyone digging up the driveway – I didn’t understand why they needed to. When I came back and found out that they couldn’t use the existing conduit system, much to my chagrin – that is why they had to dig up the driveway. So I actually delayed the digging for a day and a half, then we had a snow storm that was supposed to happen on December 6^th, which was a Saturday. On Friday night they were still out there digging and that’s when Rick called my house about 10:15 p.m. to find out what was going on. I didn’t know that they were still up there digging, but they had a pile of dirt in the driveway and the driveway was a mess. So things didn’t go as well as they could have, that’s for sure. It was also during the holiday season, which delayed PSNH. But the generator is gone.

Don Gartrell: References have been made to towers that have been approved but not yet constructed. In terms or proliferation of towers or antennas on towers, are there other towers that this Board has approved in the area? I know that Larry Pletcher has one that is approved, but are there others?

Ms. Annis: Yes, Pletcher (North Road) and Kirchner (Parade Ground Cemetery Road).

Mr. Gartrell: So there are other towers that could still be built and other antennas that could go up in the general area?

Ms. Annis: If you mean by general area the town, yes.

Mr. Gartrell: I thought that Larry Pletcher’s tower site was further toward North Road and more distant from residences than this one?

Ms. Annis: Correct.
Mr. Gartrell: I don’t know about the Parade Ground Cemetery one.

Ms. Annis: It is, again, up Kelly Hill Road and is away from residences.

Mr. Gartrell: I thought it was a matter of policy that towers should be located in areas that had less impact and were away from the public. If there are other sites that are suitable for the coverage needs of these providers, then I think that they should be encourage to go there rather than proliferate and keep adding on to existing site that have more impact on residential properties.

Mr. Lennon made a motion to delay a decision pending the fulfillment of the conditions to the existing Site Plan approved for that site, because we would be unwise to approve anything else going up there until the co-applicant has demonstrated that they will live up to the conditions that they have committed to previously, particularly given the sense of ill will that exists at least among some of the abutters. There was no second to the motion.

Mr. Serell: Have you looked into the possibility of what coverage you would get at the other two approved sites?

Mr. McNeal: We actually are approved at both of those sites. Those sites were approved under IWO/Sprint, and we’ve been working with Mr. Kirchner and IWO to get those sites built. IWO has been having some financial issues. Finally, the offer that we made a couple of weeks ago was that we would pay for the construction of one of the towers, but we haven’t heard back from them.

Mr. Reeder: Would you say that this is a stop gap measure until the other tower is built?

Mr. McNeal: Potentially, I can’t say that for sure, but the other location would certainly help. But the problem is getting these things built.

Mr. Reeder: Could these whip antennas come down if the Pletcher tower was built?

Mr. McNeal: Potentially, but I don’t know what IWO’s plans are.

Mr. Reeder: Would you agree to take these down if Pletcher’s tower is built?

Mr. Violette: We’d still have a contract, and it wouldn’t be an open-ended contract. It is usually a 10-year commitment.

Mr. Serell: Who was the applicant for the Pletcher tower?

Secretary: IWO/Sprint.

Mr. Serell: They’re not a provider, correct?

Mr. McNeal: They’re affiliated with Sprint. They’re a competitor, but they’ve run into some hard financial times and they’ve stopped doing a lot of their building. So that put us in the position of having permit approval for a site that they’re not building. So we’re coming back to you for a second site in the same area.

Mr. Serell: [to the Board] Did the Planning Board ask IWO about the MCT/TDS tower when the Pletcher tower was approved?

Mr. Reeder: Typically, cell towers have the bigger directional arrays going on, and we even knocked this one down from 6 to 3. Typically, you don’t see a lot of omni antennas for cellular, and I wasn’t aware that typically they would do that, and put them on top of a tower. It really surprised me when they were doing this. It gives them some local coverage, but in terms of capacity it is very minimal.

Mr. Serell: I am somewhat troubled. We do have this site that is closer to a residential area and I understand their concern about not making this a larger compound than it already is. And then we weigh that against the concern about not wanting to have more towers spring up than we need to have and, therefore, we want to encourage collocation. But if these other towers are going to be built, and if it can provide the coverage that they’re seeking at this location – there may be a timing issue, but it seems that if those two facts are true I’d rather see this go up on the other tower than go up here.

Ms. Annis: He didn’t say on Pletcher; he said on Parade Ground.

Mr. Serell: No, he’s already putting one on Parade Ground – that was my understanding of what he said.

Mr. McNeal: It’s not a done deal yet. There are two different sites: Parade Ground and North Road. We’ve made an offer to IWO to build the site on Parade Ground Cemetery, but we can’t do that on the North Road site, too. I don’t know if they have the financial means to build that site and we have been waiting for about a year and a half to get attached to both of these already approved tower sites.

Mr. Serell: You say you can’t build both of them, you mean financially.

Mr. McNeal: Yes. We can’t build two towers for them.

Mr. Reeder: But these antennas aren’t going to do what the Parade Ground… They don’t have the capacity, and this is not all that far from Pletcher’s. What is it, about a quarter to a half mile from Pletcher’s?

Mr. McNeal: Something like that.

Mr. Reeder: Talking about Parade Ground Road is really irrelevant to this, other than that it will connect to this, but your coverage…

Mr. McNeal: Right. For coverage, it would be for the North Road site. But Mr. Violette is right – once we sign a lease, we’d probably be unwilling to build another tower.

Mr. Lennon: We’re you the only tenant for Pletcher’s?

Mr. McNeal: Yes, other than IWO, which is Sprint.

It was discussed that Sprint is located on the tower in Davisville, at Exit 7. Mr. Reeder said that they get a lot of shadowing there.

Mr. Lennon: I really don’t have any problem with the use of this tower or the antennas as proposed. I do share concerns expressed by the neighbors that there have been conditions in previous interactions with the owners of the site which haven’t been fulfilled so I would be hesitant to allow more development up there until the conditions of previous commitments have been met.

Mr. Serell: We did not impose conditions on the last application – things like generators, the timing of the backhoe, etc. Can you tell us what, if anything, you are going to need in terms of power and construction associated with putting up the building and the antennas?

Mr. McNeal: My construction manager has been up there, and the transformer that was put in for US Cellular is adequate for our use also, so a temporary generator wouldn’t be necessary. We could agree to that in any approval – that there would be no temporary emergency generator up there. It isn’t going to take long to put two whip antennas up on the tower, and the building can be delivered in a day and set on a concrete foundation in a day. We could stipulate that work would be done from 8 to 5 Monday through Friday.

Mr. Serell: Any excavation of any kind?

Mr. Reeder: For your power?

Mr. McNeal: From the transformer to the radio cabinets.

Mr. Serell: Where is the transformer located?

Mr. Violette: By the big dish.

Mr. Serell: So you would have to dig a trench from there to the building?

Mr. McNeal: Yes.

Mr. Lennon: I think that there are two conditions of our previous approval that are quite relevant to this application, and they are the painting and the screening. I would like the concerns of the neighbors addressed from our previous approval before we continue with this approval at this site.

Ms. Annis: The only problem is that they have until June to complete the conditions, and you can’t plant shrubs in January or February. And now we’re getting into the planting season. If they don’t fulfill the conditions, they will be in violation and there is a fine for every day that they are in violation. We can go that route, and they are very well aware of that.

Mr. Reeder: I really don’t see any indication that TDS hasn’t tried to accommodate in that there is any evidence that they will not put in the shrubbery.

Ms. Annis: I think that they are two different issues.

Mr. Serell: What is the time frame in which you could plant and shrubs and paint? Within the next 30 days?

Mr. Violette: To answer Mark’s concerns, it’s April 4^th, and you can’t plant now. I have a quote from a landscaper. US Cellular is paying for the landscaping and now we have to coordinate getting the landscaper out there. It is somebody local. My intent is to get this thing done as soon as possible. As far as painting the building, it is a vinyl sided building and it can’t be painted. I have to change the vinyl, so it’s not as simple as it sounds. The other stipulation is the dishes, which Derek [Pershouse] was concerned about. We’ve been working on that, and it is going to happen. It’s just a matter of good weather getting here.

Mr. Serell: You don’t want to commit to a time?

Mr. Violette: The intent is to get it done. If for some reason we can’t get it done by June 30^th, then I need to come in and talk to you guys about it. But the intent is to get it done by June 30^th. And to meet with Steve, so that Steve can go over there and I’ve included him in this process, which I didn’t need to do but I’ve included him and I’m going to continue to include him in the process.

Mr. Lennon made the motion to delay the approval pending fulfillment of the conditions put on the previous application on the TDS tower site. There was no second.

Mr. Lennon made the motion to approve the application with conditions:

The motion was seconded, and passed by a majority vote. Mr. Lennon was opposed.

8. Home Occupation Use Permit

Kyle M. Whitehead, 285 Davis Road, Warner, NH 03278

Property location: same as above

Purpose: Timber Framing – Restoration, Repair and New Timber Framing

Mr. Whitehead gave an overview of his application:

• Has done timber framing at the site since 1994
• Located at the end of Davis Road
• Four houses on that section of road
• Property in question is at the end of the road, and the road turns into a Class VI road at that point
• Quiet area backed up into the Mink Hills
• Not there all of the time – also do restoration work at other sites
• Some cutting done at the shop
• Since 1994, has probably spent less time at the shop than elsewhere (job sites)
• Some power tools – equivalent to a builder who also builds cabinets

Mr. Serell: What is a timber frame home?

Mr. Whitehead: Any house in Warner that was built in the 18^th century and after was timber frame construction – posts and timbers. If you go into any old barn, that is the attraction. People want their houses to look like an old barn.

Ms. Annis: Where do you find the old wood?

Mr. Whitehead: We use new wood, and it isn’t cut in Warner. It is from Vermont and Western New Hampshire, and processed in Alstead. They are sawed there and put through a planer so that they are perfectly square 8-in. pieces. They are then sent to our shop where we do the joinery work. We’re embracing the old ways of joinery that was done.

Mr. Orbacz: Would you anticipate any changes to your place of business becoming an annoyance to the neighbors?

Mr. Whitehead: I would like to establish my business because that is what I’ve been doing there since 1994. I’d be willing to stop there. I’ve thought about moving my shop, because it is literally 50-feet from my house. I’d prefer to abandon that and build a new shop further back from the road and the house. We’re up on a hill, so when you are down on the road, you only see the peak of the house. It would then be less intrusive. My closest neighbors are seasonal residents.

Mr. Reeder: Do you plan on having more full time employees, or employees at this location?

Mr. Whitehead: No, I have one and that is all.

Mr. Serell: I have no problem with this, and I think it is a great thing. But obviously, you store the timbers outside.

Mr. Whitehead: There are two things: One is that the timbers are stored outside. It looks like cord wood to me, because I stack them very neatly. It’s not junk, and they’re back out of sight.

Mr. Serell: Technically, because they’re stored outside, the Home Occupation ordinance states, "…Is capable of being unobtrusively pursued." This is out in the woods, but for example, if someone in the village wanted to have a huge storage of timber – I guess that I would argue that in that situation, proposing the same thing in a residential zoning area, I would think that in that situation it wouldn’t meet those criteria. In my view, I think that in this case, that criterion is met because it isn’t in a residential area.

Mr. Whitehouse: I think that we’re in OC-1 district.

Mr. Serell: My point is that I think that if we approve this, I think that the outside storage of materials in connection with a Home Business isn’t always acceptable, and that we’re not setting a precedence by approving this application. It would be dependent on the nature of the business and where it is located.

The Selectmen have already approved this application?

Secretary: No, they send it to the Planning Board for a decision on whether a Site Plan Review is required. Then it goes back to the Selectmen.

Mr. Serell: So the Planning Board isn’t actually approving the application, correct?

Secretary: Correct. The Selectmen receive the application and put a cover sheet on it, send it to the Planning Board for a signature and indication on the cover sheet whether or not a Site Plan Review is required for the application.

Mr. Serell made a motion that a Site Plan Review is not required for this Home Occupation Use Permit. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

9. Conceptual Consultation: Minor Subdivision – Jim Hanna

Mr. Hanna has lived on Couchtown Road for a little over 20 years, and has a house and 20 acres. He is retiring, and hopes to sell the house with 15 acres and keep 4 to 4.5 acres for future use or sale. Mr. Hanna explained the land configuration to the Board and presented a plan of the property. Mr. Serell noticed some wetlands on the property, and Mr. Hanna pointed out where the house would be. Mr. Serell stated that there would have to be at least 3 acres remaining after the wetlands were taken into consideration. Mr. Hanna said that there was a good area for a driveway, and that it wouldn’t affect drainage. Ms. Annis asked if he felt that the 4.5 acres would be sufficient after the wetlands were removed. Mr. Hanna said that if there were a problem after the survey, he would still have plenty of land remaining to add to the subdivided parcel to have 3 "good" acres. The Board made suggestions to Mr. Hanna of items that would have to be added or corrected on the final plan for the subdivision.

10. Conceptual Consultation: Lot Line Adjustment – Allan Brown

Mr. Brown was not present at the meeting.

11. Audubon Society of New Hampshire

Carol Foss

Ms. Foss is the Director of Conservation Science for the Audubon Society of New Hampshire and is also a member of the Concord Planning Board. She was asked by Mr. Lennon to give a presentation on "A Three Infrastructures Approach to Land Use Planning in New Hampshire". [from the handout on the topic, a quote from President Richard Moore on the program: "The solution to New Hampshire’s encroaching sprawl is to protect – and build – an environment that is good for both wildlife and people. We can guide growth that minimizes the fragmentation of habitat and of human communities. Unless we approach both together, we will get fragmentation of both."

• Built Infrastructure: the many constructed elements that transport and shelter people, goods and information.
• Green Infrastructure: the natural life support system of interconnected lands and waters upon which human life and economic activity, as well as all other forms of life, depend.
• Social Infrastructure: the opportunities within a community for organized and informal social interaction.

The Audubon Society will be working with several pilot communities to explore the application of three infrastructure ideas in their master planning processes. Every community’s master plan is unique and participating local citizens will determine if or how the three infrastructure concept can be useful to them. Planning Board members, Conversation Commission members and/or citizens interested in the future of their towns are urged to consider these ideas, discuss them with neighbors and colleagues, and be actively involved in your town’s planning process.

Mr. Lennon: On what criteria do you base what you need [for a town’s participation]; what areas, etc.?

Ms. Foss:

• The more local input the better
• 3 public meetings held with the town
• develop areas of opportunity and constraint
• Haven’t done abutting towns in a clump before
• Resources: looking for grant funding. Would work with Warner to find the money. Could be matching funds or might find funding for the whole project
• Could take a vote of desire for the project, with the knowledge that the money will be found.
• Cost: approximately $5,000 to $10,000
• Could go forward with time and money and information gathering from the townspeople
• Progress of the process – staging of the public process is time consuming and depends on individual towns. Could be 2 to 8 months.

Jim McLaughlin: Conservation Commission member – The current Master Plan is 5 years old. The Mink Hills report will be ready in June, so the GIS portion of such a program is mostly completed. Monetary grant would have to have a Public Hearing and come before the Selectmen. It could be that grant funds could go to the Audubon Society so the Town wouldn’t have to deal with the money.

The Board said that they would like to go forward with a study.

12. Communications & Miscellaneous

Aubuchon Hardware:

Ms. Annis: Aubuchon Hardware is in violation of some of the things that they said that they were going to do regarding the Site Plan, and she asked if the Board wanted anything done about it at this time.

• According to the February 3, 2004 meeting, there would be no sign on the side door
• Detail on the door itself but no sign on the building

Mr. Serell: We need to be very careful about differentiating between what was said at a meeting and what was imposed as a condition of their application. Just because they say something at a meeting doesn’t mean that they are in violation of anything. We approved a plan, and you are either in violation of the plan or any conditions we imposed, so we need to look at the plan.

Ms. Annis: We did not put any conditions on the plan because the gentleman said, "I’m not going to do this and I’m not going to do that." I thought if it was in the minutes of the meeting, we could go by that.

Mr. Reeder: But I think we could go to them and say, "At the meeting, you said this or that."

Mr. Serell: I’m not saying that we can’t approach them.

Ms. Annis: I talked it over with Derek, and we’d decided that we wouldn’t even send a letter, but would instead go and talk to them about it. They also said that they would be putting stuff out under the canopy for people to observe, but they said that February and March but that they would be in the dead space in the back. They are now beside the building and out into the street. He also made the comment that sometimes things can find their way around the corner. Now there are about 8 stacks of things and there are ladders stacked next to the building.

Mr. St.Pierre: I think they did agree on moving the handicapped parking space.

Ms. Annis: That was between Derek and the owner of Demoulas supermarket. That is being done. We didn’t give a deadline, but they said that they would put striping by the side of the building for pedestrians

Mr. Reeder: There is striping there, but it is being covered up by the pallets and there is no space for the pedestrians.

Mr. Perkins: Having been in that position, I would find it difficult to go and talk to them about it because I understand what they’re trying to do. I didn’t realize that there was supposed to be a pedestrian area next to the bushes, but my opinion is that if they want to park pallets in their parking spaces, that is their decision. It cuts into their customers being able to park there. I can’t imagine trying to run an operation where you are involved with pallets of seasonal goods – you’re not going to put them out there if no one is able to see it. Market Basket did the same thing with the plants, etc. They’re looking for the impulse buyer.

Ms. Annis: I was just going by what they said, and the fact that they’re not doing what they said they’d do.

Mr. Perkins: Then I think you should go and talk to them about it from that point of view – let them know that you’re watching them. I see a bigger concern down where the old store was. I’m surprised that the state hasn’t made them move those pallets sitting out by the street, and they’re perfect targets for people that cut across from School Street.

Clarification of how to consider properties in more than one zoning district:

Ms. Annis: I’m concerned because someone in Town Hall is telling the public that if there is a piece of land that is in more than one zoning district, the zoning district that has the road frontage predominates over the other zones. That is one of the reasons that some people were so upset about some of the things that were going on in the Mink Hills and so on. So I called Lucy St.John [CNHRPC] to find out where in the RSA’s it says this, so that we could bring it to the attention of the officials in the Town Hall. She said that there is nothing in the RSA’s that says one way or the other. She said that normally it is in the zoning ordinance, and it isn’t in our zoning ordinance. I asked Russ to put together something that we can bring before the town at Town Meeting next year that will clarify this matter.

Mr. Serell: I think that it should be considered based on the zone that the street frontage is in. That is typically how it has been done. I don’t know how many lots there are with more than one zone, but most of those would be, for example, R-1 zoning on the street and the back portion would be OC-1 or something. I don’t know of any lots where the zoning district would be different from the street frontage back on the same lot. That is the common sense decision process.

Mr. St.Pierre: In looking it up, there are different treatments in different towns. Some say that whatever zoning district land happens to be in, those zoning regulations apply. I’ve seen others where – and even in here there is some blending – and some I don’t know what they’re doing. [he read from different towns’ ordinances]

Ms. Annis asked Mr. Serell to look at Russ’ report of what the other towns do in this situation and come back next month with an interpretation.

RSA 155 vs. RSA 72: Excavation/gravel pit

The Tax Collector informed Ms. Annis that there was a possibility of another gravel pit coming into town, and Ms. Annis stated that she didn’t want another thing like the land on 103, where the land was left unstable and unsightly after gravel and dirt was removed.

Ms. Annis: RSA 155 refers to coming before the Planning Board for a permit to have a gravel permit in the Town of Warner. RSA 72 is an excavation tax. Martha Mical is looking at that and saying that they don’t have to come to us. I’m saying that they have to come to us before they come to the Tax Assessing Clerk. She said that if someone comes to her, like in the 103 example, and says that they’re just enlarging their back yard, they don’t have to go and have a Site Plan Review done by the Planning Board. I’d like to have a reclamation plan, etc.

Mr. Reeder: Looking at the terminology, if you dig out something – excavate it and keep it on the same property, that’s one thing. But if you dig it out and sell it or move it off of the property, that’s something else. If you’re doing it on your own property, and you’re not moving it off of your property you don’t need a permit to do that.

Mr. Serell: That makes sense. I don’t know what the statute says, but that makes sense.

Mr. Reeder and Ms. Annis: I think that is what it says.

There will be a meeting on April 20^th at 6:45 p.m., at a Selectmen’s Meeting, with Mary Pinkham-Langer, CNHA, Gravel Tax Appraiser. She is willing to come and talk to the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen, and whoever else wants to attend to clarify this question.

The night before this meeting is the scheduled Growth Meeting. It was decided to have the Growth Meeting held on Tuesday, April 20^th, to coincide with the earlier meeting with the Selectmen.

Communication from Contoocook Village Precinct re: Bear Pond:

Derek received information from the Contoocook Village Precinct, and she didn’t know if he’d done anything about it. She passed on the information to Mr. McLaughlin of the Conservation Commission, who said that he would review it and take it to the Commission’s meeting that week.

Corridor Study:

Mr. Reeder said that there have been very few accidents over the past 5 years that weren’t the result of someone backing into another person in a parking lot. He also said that the number of emergency vehicles going through the Exit 9 area of town seems to be large compared with the number of accidents. There are only about 4 accidents per month at Exit 9. This information has been sent to CNHRPC, along with a note stating that the emergency vehicles may be heading to other accidents in surrounding towns or along I-89.

Plan New Hampshire Charette:

Mr. McLaughlin reported that a group has been formed to work on the charette, and the group met last Wednesday. They are making sure that all prep work for the charette gets done. George Pellitierri will be producing the maps and data for the charette. He is working with Jeff Taylor. There are also some aerial photos from upstairs that can be used. A publicity handout of 1 to 2 pages will be distributed for informational purposes. There will be refreshments arranged for the charette, and the group will be meeting on a regular basis. They are just drawing more bodies into the pot for the charette in addition to the Planning Board meetings.

Tor Bjorn, a resident of Warner and a reporter for the Intertown Record publication, said that he would like to attend the meetings and could put something in the paper about the charette.

Miscellaneous:

The Planning Board received an email from Dan Watts, President of the Warner Business Association. He requested information on the Business Website regarding the charette, and also wanted someone to come and speak to the Men’s Club about Growth and the Charette. The meeting is on April 16^th at 4:00 p.m. It was stated that Derek will be in attendance at the meeting.

Ms. Annis reminded the members of the annual spring Planning and Zoning conference in case anyone wanted to attend.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

 

Minutes Approved: May 3, 2004