Members Present: Barbara Annis, Russ St.Pierre, Mark Lennon, Lynn Perkins, Wayne Eigabroadt

Open Meeting at 7:00PM

Roll Call – Ms. Annis asked Mr. Patsfield to vote in Mr. Pershouse’s absence.

Approval of the Minutes of the April 4, 2005 Planning Board Meeting

A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the April 4^th Planning Board Meeting as submitted. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.

Public Hearing: Minor Subdivision – continued from the April Planning Board meeting

Property Owner: Wayne H. and Autumn L. Akins, P.O. Box 388, Warner, NH

Property Location: Route 103, Warner, NH

Map 16, Lot 85, R-2/OC-1 Zoning Districts

Purpose: To subdivide Tax Map 16, Lot 85 into 2 single family residential house lots.

Lot 85: 12.18 acres

Lot 85-1: 28.97 acres

Review of Site Visit held on Friday, April 15^th at 5:30 p.m. Lynn Perkins, Ed Mical and Barbara Annis attended.

Those in attendance observed where the culvert is going in.

The driveway is state approved.

A representative from the state DOT called. Pamela Mitchell couldn’t attend but did review; there are 400+/- feet of vision in either direction.

The driveway could be located 15 feet up the hill, but it wouldn’t make much difference.

It was determined that moving the location of the driveway was not necessary.

Mr. Perkins said that there is a sign on the Bradford side of the road that warns drivers of a bus stop.

The school bus stops at Akins’ driveway down the hill.

Mr. Lennon: I couldn’t be there, but I went by and was concerned that there is no shoulder on the road there. It would be good if the state would widen the road along there.

Ms. Annis: No one from the bus company or school showed up or contacted the Board.

Mr. Lennon made a Motion approve the subdivision. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

Lot Line Adjustment

Property Owners: Carol Howard, 164 Mason Hill Rd., Warner, NH 03278

Nathan Brown, 61 Brown Rd., Warner, NH 03278

Property Location: 61 Brown Rd. and 164 Mason Hill Rd., Warner, NH

Map 15, Lots 53-1 and 56-2, R-2 Zoning

Purpose: Making Lot 53-1 bigger by taking land from Lot 56-2

Designated Agent: Allan N. Brown

Mr. Allan Brown explained the lot line adjustment to the Board, using the plan of the properties for explanation. He stated that the properties have been surveyed.

Mr. Patsfield made the motion to accept the lot line adjustment. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote of the Board.

Ms. Annis asked if there were any abutters present that wished to speak on the application.

No abutters wished to speak.

Mr. Perkins made a motion to approve the lot line adjustment. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

Ms. Annis asked Allan Brown to meet with the Planning Board at a work session to be held on May 16^th. The work sessions are held on the 3^rd Monday of the month. Ms. Annis said that the Board would like to discuss Mr. Brown’s recommendation of changes to cul-de-sacs.

Public Hearing: Site Plan Review

Applicant: Reid Thomas Hannula, P.O. Box 452, South Sutton, NH 03273

Property Owner: Lynn and Christine Perkins, P.O. Box 266, Warner, NH 03278

Property Location: 25 East Main St., Warner, NH (former Perkins Hardware building)

Map 30, Lot 1, B-1 Zoning

Purpose: To change the use of the property and change the interior to become a family-style restaurant with a family home upstairs

As owner of the property in question, Mr. Perkins recused himself for this application.

Mr. Hannula said that the new restaurant will be called Hanna LuLu’s Kitchen, a full service distinctive American fare restaurant with approximately 100 seats and a lounge. He is one of the co-owners of the Bellissima restaurant located in Newbury harbor. This will be done on his own and as a family project.

There are approximately 45 parallel parking spaces in Warner

There are 5 spots in front of the building itself

Met with Marc Violette of TDS, who has said that when TDS is not in business, the restaurant could have full use of parking facilities for employees and customers as overflow parking

Parking in the evenings is not a problem, he’s noticed, barring any major event in town

Belissima restaurant used as a gauge – similar size and seating

Do 15% of business in daytime, even in peak summer

85% of business is during the evening

100 seats

Between 7 and 12 cars during the day, based on 3 chairs per parking spot, normally

Library said parking would be available, even though it is mostly public parking

Focusing energy on dinner service because Warner doesn’t have an evening dinner spot

Other small business owners are excited about the project

No means of creating a parking lot

Mr. Eigabroadt: Do you have any ideas to alleviate parking problem?

Mr. Hannula: I told Mark Violette that I would be more than happy to donated funds and time toward a project to address parking issues.

Mr. Eigabroadt: Thanks. I’ll be in touch with you.

Mr. St.Pierre: What about employee parking?

Mr. Hannula: I’ll have 30 employees. My wife and I will both be working at the restaurant.

Mr. Lennon: What is the maximum number of cars that your employees will have?

Mr. Hannula: During the evenings, there will be 10 to 12 on the shift -- probably 4 or 5 cars, using Bellissima as a guide. Sometimes only 3 cars because they carpool. A lot of the employees know each other in the food business.

Mr. Hannula: There will be a painted wooden sign.

Ms. Annis: Not internally illuminated?

Mr. Hannula: No. Indirect lighting. On the right side of the building, there would be some spotlighting for deliveries and dumpster. Outside beyond that, there are two lights on the porch that will be utilized. They will be on only when the business is open. Landscaping: There will be a ramp for handicapped access, incorporated into the porch design as much as possible. Mobile planters will be used and are best because they can be moved and brought in during the winter. I spoke with Rebecca Courser re: maintaining the historical integrity of the exterior of the building. The Historical Society has photos of the building since 1799. I will be updating the interior. I spoke with Allan Brown of the highway department and Chief Brown with the Fire Department, and the fire safety person with state. No sprinkler system is needed, but all guidelines will be followed to get the Permit of Assembly. Police Chief Chandler said there are no issues with having a lounge/bar, as did the restaurant next door previously. I spoke with Phil Lord re: the water district and I will be installing a grease trap which traps anything outflowing from the building that could be dangerous, like grease and other things that are used in a restaurant situation.

Hours of operation for the restaurant:

Food Service:

Friday & Saturday: 11:30 a.m. – 9:00 p.m.

Sunday through Thursday 11:30 a.m. – 8:30 p.m.

Lounge: The lounge will be open an additional half hour to hour after food service. At Bellissima, we close the lounge 30 minutes after the food service stops because it is a relatively rural setting and no one is there after that. In a town setting, it may be an hour after the food service stops. We would close the doors at 9:30 during the week and at 10:00 on the weekends.

Mr. Eigabroadt: I was going to ask about the snow removal issue – but you’ve spoken with Allan Brown so I’m confident that the situation has been discussed and worked out.

Mr. Hannula: I will be depending on the town to clear the road, except for our own areas.

Hearing no further discussion from the Board, Ms. Annis asked for a motion to accept the plan as presented. Mr. Eigabroadt made the motion was made and it was seconded by Mr. Patsfield.

Mr. Serell: Were there any waivers requested?

Ms. Annis: No.

Mr. Hannula explained the interior floor plan to the Board, describing the plan as drawn and showing a door to be put in for deliveries. Fire exits are shown, as well as a window framed-in previously but never installed. There will be a heat sensor fire alarm tied in with the alarm system. A specialty company provides fire suppression equipment for the restaurant.

Mr. Lennon said he wanted to look over the checklist before voting. He asked about the handicapped ramp and if there was enough room to install the ramp.

The motion was made and seconded to accept the plan, and the motion passed by a unanimous vote.

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

Kay Steen: I live next door and am excited to have another restaurant in town. Customers from Wingdoodle will be glad to have another place for lunch, and they can use the parking spaces in front of my house.

Jim McLaughlin: I’m an abutter, and I support the business, but I have one question: When do we eat?

Joanne Hinnendael: I want to thank Lynn and Chris Perkins for bringing this business to town. I appreciate it being in town. I had concerns about parking, but they’ve been answered.

Phil Reeder: I’m in favor of this business.

David Hartman: I would like to point out Warner’s requirement for recycling. Make sure that the trash disposal issue is adequately addressed in what is in the plan that the Planning Board is approving.

Mr. Hannula: I attempted to recycle in Newbury, but they don’t recycle. It is up to the town. If Warner supports recycling, we will support it wholeheartedly.

There were no others that wished to speak, so Ms. Annis closed the Public Hearing and reopened the Board meeting.

Mr. Lennon: I think that this is a great idea, and it doesn’t require big changes to the exterior of the building. I do think that the issues with parking are a town-wide issue.

Mr. Lennon made a motion to approve the application. Mr. Eigabroadt seconded the motion.

Mr. Serell: What type of signage will you have?

Mr. Hannula: It will be a pole mounted carved or painted wooden sign in the same location of the building as the current Perkins sign. I don’t have an exact design yet, but it will be based on and within the guidelines of the sign ordinance.

Mr. Serell: Do we need a condition of the approval that the signage be within the requirements of the sign ordinance?

The motion was amended to say that the sign will be consistent with the sign ordinance.

Mr. Eigabroadt seconded the amended motion to include the signage requirement. The motion for approval of the Site Plan passed by a unanimous vote.

Conceptual Consultation: Minor Subdivision

Property Owner: Josh Moulton

Property Location: Map 10, Lot 74 located off of Route 103, near Parade Ground Cemetery Rd.

Mr. Moulton gave the Board a description of the property and his plans for subdivision. He is working with Jeff Evans to figure out a way to subdivide the property into 3 lots to offset the cost of the land. He asked the Board about the amount of land required

Mr. St.Pierre: You need at least 2 acres of buildable land, which excludes wetlands, excessive slope, wetlands, etc. It doesn’t have to be contiguous land; it can be split up, but one part has to be big enough for a house.

Mr. Moulton: What is the ordinance for having a shared driveway?

Ms. Annis: We like shared driveways.

Mr. Moulton: So one driveway off of the road to the house up top, with a spur for another lot would be ok?

Ms. Annis: Yes.

Mr. Serell had a question regarding the amount of frontage, stating that each lot has to have 200 feet of frontage. Mr. Moulton said he had over 700 feet of frontage.

Mr. Moulton: My other question is that to make it work, do we have to put in a town-spec road to get in here? Someone had told me that you’re not allowed to have a common drive with driveways off of it.

Mr. Serell: With shared driveways off of a road, is there a limit to the number of houses/driveways?

Mr. Moulton: The big deal is the 200 feet of frontage, right?

Ms. Annis: Yes. You only have 550 feet that is usable frontage.

Mr. Serell: There’s no such thing as usable frontage – you either have frontage or you don’t.

Ms. Annis: But there is a piece that is a cliff.

Mr. Serell: Yes, but you don’t "use" frontage.

Mr. Moulton: Do you have any concerns about what I’m proposing here?

Mr. Serell: I have a question in my own mind – If you’re going to have shared driveways off of a road, there is some point at which we limit the number?

Mr. St.Pierre: I guess it’s feasible if all of the other conditions are met, to have a common driveway.

Mr. Lennon: You need 600 feet of frontage for 3 lots.

Mr. Serell: [reading from the Subdivision Regulations] Frontage means the continuous length of a lot bordering on a Class I, II, III or V highway (as defined in RSA 229:5) or an approved subdivision road, or in the case of an existing lot of record, a Class VI highway, provided the provisions of RSA 654:41 are met. This raises the question that at least for one of the lots, it wouldn’t be continuous. You’d have to ask for a variance.

Mr. Moulton: The regulations say that the frontage should be continuous. Is a variance something that has been done before?

Ms. Annis: I couldn’t tell you that.

Mr. Lennon: What is on that piece of land?

Mr. Moulton: Nothing. Part of that is the ledge. I am in the process of talking with that person about possibly purchasing that piece of property.

Ms. Annis: That is a state road, so you’ll also need to get a permit from them for the driveway.

Mr. Moulton: Thank you. That’s good to know.

Ms. Annis: Each lot has to have 200 feet of frontage on the road, so…

Mr. Moulton: It hasn’t been drawn out yet, but you’ve confirmed what I thought. The only way to be get around that would be to make that a town road?

Ms. Annis: You wouldn’t be able to afford it – to make it a town road. You could go to the ZBA for a conceptual to see how they’d feel about granting a variance for the frontage.

Mr. Moulton: A question I have about the wetlands – on the contiguous land, do the wetlands count?

Mr. St.Pierre: There is a whole list of types of land that count as buildable acreage, so when you’re looking at a lot that contains these type of land you need to be sure that you have 2 acres of buildable land.

Conceptual Consultation: Minor Subdivision

Property Owner: Peter and Dina Bock

Property Location: Route 114 on the Bradford – Warner town line

Jeannie Menard, Realtor, spoke for the Bocks: The plan being given to the Board was prepared by Bristol and Sweet. The property is located on Route 114 as you head north towards Bradford, just prior to the town line. The town line bisects the property, which makes for an interesting scenario with the larger remaining lot.

The Bocks’ intend to create 3 lots, retaining one.

Lot 3 is a 10-acre parcel which is currently open field on 114

Lot 1 is the largest parcel, 15 acres, with 360 ft. of frontage on Rt. 114, with views on the upper portion with a modest building area of 3.3 acres

Lots 1 and 2 would be sold, retaining Lot 3 which is currently in current use

Doug Sweet recommended that there be a shared driveway, because of Rt. 114 frontage.

Location would depend on site distance. Driveway access would most likely be off of the larger Lot 1 with access to the other lots coming off of that

Question regarding using the entrance to the property from Day Pond Road to the site for a house on the hill. Could there be frontage on Route 114 in Warner, but with access from Day Pond Road to building site, which would be in Bradford? Would that be a concern? There are great stone walls and it is obviously an old quarry site. There are distant views of the Mink Hills.

Mr. Eigabroadt and Mr. Serell said that would be a question for Bradford.

Mr. Serell: Lot 2 would have to have 3 buildable acres, and the legend says "Bradford, 2 buildable acres: Warner, 3 acres". It is actually 3 buildable acres, and I don’t know if there are any wetlands there or something else.

Ms. Menard: Good point, but I think that lot would be OK.

Mr. St.Pierre: Is Day Pond Road a Class VI road?

Ms. Menard: There is some debate on whether it is a Class VI road, and we are waiting for a decision on that.

Ms. Annis: The road agent in Bradford lived on that road, and he upgraded the road. It is being plowed by the town of Bradford, as far as I know.

Mr. St.Pierre: As long as Warner’s requirements are met, it doesn’t matter where the house is built.

Ms. Annis: Does anyone see any problems with this? I don’t see a problem.

Mr. St.Pierre: Would this require a joint meeting with Bradford?

Ms. Annis and Mr. Serell: I don’t know. Sissy will call CNHRPC.

Communications and Miscellaneous

 

Ladd and Cole Gravel Pit

Dave Herrick purchased the gravel pit in Davisville from Bob Cole and the two Ladd’s. He wants to get the Intent to Excavate switched over from Bob Cole to the new company, Warner Aggregate. The gravel pit has been switched over to his company from previous owners.

Ms. Annis: We don’t have a gravel pit ordinance in Warner, but will be working on that ordinance. We would like something in writing on what your plans are – where you are going to be digging, how much you’ll be digging, how you will reclaim the land, etc. The ordinance won’t be voted on until next March. At that time we will be sending information to owners of pits, and anticipate that letters will be sent out to owners asking for plans once an ordinance is in place.

Ms. Mical: Just for clarification, the intention of the Board is not to hold applications for permits until an ordinance is in place?

Ms. Annis: No, we won’t be holding up his business.

Mr. Lennon: For now, you need to be sure that you are following the state guidelines.

Ms. Annis: You’ll get the permit from Martha, have it signed and filled out and it will be presented to the Selectmen.

Willie Richard, abutter to Gamil Azmy

Results of the court case involving the property line between two properties in the town of Webster – Gamil Azmy’s property and Mr. Richard’s property. There was a debate on where the property line was, and the Planning Board was waiting for the results of the court case to determine the location of Mr. Azmy’s driveway location.

Letter received from Mr. Richard:

April 29, 2005

Warner Planning Board

To Chairperson and Board members:

This letter is to inform the board of the decision made by Judge K.A. McGuire in the case of Willard L. Richard et al vs. Louis & Gamil Azmy, Case #02-E-0282. Court Order dated 4/25/05 states in brief that the bound lines are as indicated by survey.

The survey done by FWS Land Surveying P.L.L.C. is correct and the boundary plat stands as is. Also, no easement to trespass on the Richard side of the bound line was granted.

Also, he advised that a portion of my property for approximately 100 feet bounds the Warner Class VI right of way on the west side of said road.

Any further information needed or required, please feel free to contact: W.L. Richard, 603/746-3830.

Mr. Serell: I would just like to point out that the decision was made on April 25^th, and that there is a 30-day appeal period.

Mr. Richard: There is a 10-day period to appeal only on a point of law.

Mr. Serell: You have 10 days to file a motion for reconsideration and you have 30 days to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Ms. Annis: Does anyone have the survey done by FWS Land Surveying?

Mr. Richard: I’ve given copies to the Board in the past for permits for my tenant. I can bring it in if you want to look at it.

Ms. Annis: I think that it [Gamil Azmy’s driveway location on the Site Plan] is something that we need to look at and discuss. I don’t think that it is something we can decide on immediately because it has been pending for quite a while.

Mr. Serell: I think that we should wait until the decision is final before we have any further discussion.

Ms. Annis: We’re going to hold off and will be discussing this at a later date.

Mr. Richard: I do have a copy of the write up of the highway running from the Concord line, which was the highway between Davisville and Blackwater laid out in 1832. It runs all the way to the country home.

Ms. Annis: I think the only issue is, yes – he has x-number of feet of frontage for a third driveway or no, he does not.

Mr. Richard: He doesn’t have any frontage on Route 103.

Ms. Annis: That’s interesting. Thank you.

Mr. Lennon: Design standards for Open Space Ordinance

Mr. Lennon handed out "Changes to the Warner Subdivision Regulations to Accommodate Open Space Zoning" drafted May 2, 2005. He also handed out a couple of sketches showing the scattered vs. non-scattered lot locations.

Mr. Lennon: This is very close to the final version of the design standards that were passed in March. I believe that most of you have seen these before. The pictures would show what is desirable.

Sissy Brown: I have a question, and I’m not sure that it has to do with this and I don’t know whether it has been brought up before – I know that you all have a setback of 75 feet from the road, but why was it only 15 feet around the edges. I’m thinking about a situation where you would have a subdivision set back 75 feet from the road, there would only be 15 feet from a house and somebody else’s house. So you’re protected visually from the street, but the person that lives there could possibly have a house built 15 feet from the property line.

Mr. Serell: There are currently setback requirements in place.

Ms. Brown: I thought it was only 15 feet in the new Open Space ordinance.

Mr. Serell: For a housing setback?

Mr. Lennon: It was consistent with R-1 – basically 1 acre lots.

Ms. Brown: I just think that 75 feet from the front for a buffer…

Mr. Lennon: The 75 feet is to protect the view shed – the buffer.

Ms. Brown: But it doesn’t protect people that might have it go in behind them.

Mr. Lennon: I hate to put it this way, but you’re about 15 months too late.

[Laughter]

Ms. Brown: I understand that, but I just thought that while you are doing this – things can be amended, can’t they?

Mr. Lennon: That can’t be amended by regulation. That’s an ordinance.

Ms. Brown: I know, but I was thinking about next year. I was just asking a question because it didn’t occur to me at the time and I wasn’t sure if it came up in the discussions.

Mr. Lennon: It did come up because originally the setbacks were retained as they are in the R-3 district at 40-feet. It was pointed out that if you have a 1-acre lot with a 40-foot setback it would just be a postage stamp in the middle. And so the decision was that it was equivalent to 1-acre zoning and to have the setbacks equivalent to 1-acre zoning.

Ms. Brown: It was just a question and it didn’t occur to me earlier.

Mr. Lennon: And that’s the answer. It did come up on our discussion.

Ms. Mical: I don’t know how this fits into the discussion, but 911 is saying that any road/driveway with more than 2 houses must be named roads. We’re beginning to run into problems with this. These are presented as driveways, as you have them?

Mr. St.Pierre: These aren’t presented as driveways; they are presented as roads.

Ms. Mical: So are they to be built to town specifications?

Mr. St.Pierre: Yes, they would be.

Mr. Lennon: The open space ordinance doesn’t affect current requirements for roads in a subdivision, so the presumption is that these are allowable means to get into a subdivision, which in most all cases would be a town-spec road.

Mr. Serell: That was my question before: What is the difference between a road servicing a subdivision and a shared driveway?

Mr. Eigabroadt: I think by definition, if you have three or fewer houses in there, it is minor subdivision, right? Any more than three houses is a major subdivision anyway and would fall into this category, I believe.

Mr. Lennon: What we did this winter is silent on what the access is to lots in a new subdivision.

Mr. Serell: I’m wondering what the current was –

Mr. Eigabroadt: It is the difference between a major and minor subdivision, I believe.

Ms. Mical: Except that minor subdivisions include #3, and that’s where we’re running into a problem. When we hit the third lot – anything over 2 lots – that is where we are having the problem [with 911 emergencies] and they’re beginning to scream.

Mr. Eigabroadt: Well, I think that the fact that they’re screaming about it is that it is their policy and what they would like to see. If it was law, they wouldn’t be screaming. They’d be hitting us with paperwork. So as long as we can get as close to that as possible within our regulations, we should be ok.

Ms. Mical: Except that they demand us to name driveways, and then you’re naming someone’s private driveway.

Mr. Eigabroadt: Right, which is something we can’t do. So the answer to 911 is to call them. They own the property.

Mr. Serell: Whatever they name it is fine with us.

Ms. Mical: No, because then you guys will object to that. That was one of the objections that the Planning Board has had in the past, with people putting their own names on their driveways.

Mr. Eigabroadt: I don’t know what the current number is.

Mr. Serell: I wonder where it is. I’m looking for something that says, "Minor subdivision – you can use a driveway. Major subdivision – you need a town-spec road.

Ms. Annis: We don’t have that.

Mr. Lennon: It is what the applicant proposes and the Planning Board approves. If the Planning Board requires a road, we require a road. If the Planning Board approves a shared driveway, we require a driveway. That’s my recollection in the context of the discussions of this open space ordinance.

Mr. St.Pierre: But you still have to meet frontage requirements, and that’s not satisfied by a driveway.

Mr. Serell: No, but in this particular case where you don’t have frontage on a road, we’re doing this special thing. But the question is, who says it has to be a road?

Mr. St.Pierre: But they do have a frontage requirement. And that’s not satisfied by a driveway.

Mr. Eigabroadt: If it’s a road, then they do have individual frontages on their lots. If it is a driveway, then they don’t have frontages on the main road.

Mr. Serell: Ok.

Mr. Lennon: That’s true.

Mr. Serell: So basically any time someone relies upon this cluster thing to do a subdivision, it has to be a road.

Ms. Annis: Yes.

Mr. Lennon: Since we’re opening up the subdivision regulations to making this one fairly major addition, we’re also talking about doing a lot of cleanup work, and Barbara certainly has her fingers on more of the cleanup work than I do. So I’ll turn this discussion over to her.

Ms. Annis: The first thing was something the Martha brought to my attention. On page 4 of the Subdivision Regulations, Section III Procedures, A. General Information, 2: No subdivision of land shall be made and no land in any subdivision shall be transferred nor any contract for sale, lease or rental executed; no structure shall be erected and no land cleared, no fill placed, no streets constructed, and no alteration of the natural state of the land shall be made; before a plat of the subdivision has been approved by the Board and recorded at the Merrimack County Registry of Deeds… The text refers to RSA 676:16 regarding civil penalties, and states that the penalty is $500. The current RSA says that the fine/penalty is now $1,000. It also refers in here that intent to cut cannot be signed between the time of applying for a subdivision and a subdivision is approved. This is no longer in RSA 676:16. In order to avoid, whenever they change the RSA state statutes, should we just refer to the RSA? It’s similar to when we changed our ordinance referring to penalties. It now just refers to the RSA.

Mr. Serell: You could just strike the $500 and refer to a civil penalty.

Ms. Annis: Will you remember the next time the laws change?

Mr. Serell: You can just strike it and refer to it as a civil penalty and refer to the RSA.

Mr. St.Pierre: Can we start on Page 1? This is the version of the subdivision regulations that is on the web. This says that it was amended November 4, 2000. It was actually November 6, 2000. We amended a section to add language about floodplains that Ed Mical had given to us. This version has it in the wrong place. So I think that we should start at the beginning and go through the regulations.

Ms. Annis: I recommend that the work of going through the Subdivision Regulations should be done in a work session, and then brought to the Board. My personal opinion is that we have one meeting where we change the regulations and have the Public Hearing and not have one tonight and one tonight six weeks down the road and have to have another Public Hearing. I would like to do all of the work up front and then have the Public Hearing.

Mr. Perkins: I thought the last work session we had, we were going to look at this and find the errors and straighten those out at the next work session. That’s what I thought we agreed to.

Ms. Annis: I thought this was the only thing that was going to be in there – I didn’t realize all of the errors or inconsistencies that are in there. We’d ask Drew to be ready for that Monday night, but I think we need to postpone it, so that we can have Allan Brown at the next meeting and then everybody can go through the regulations and make changes to the verbiage, etc. Can we have copies for us or something?

Mr. Perkins: Are we going to submit all of the changes to Mark? We were going to email the changes to someone.

Ms. Annis: The other thing that you should be thinking about, and I don’t know if the ZBA is going to be talking about it next Wednesday night or not, but it says in the state law to notify abutters, but doesn’t say within 200 feet of all bounds nor does it say to eliminate the area of the road and then start he 200 foot measurement. Nothing in our ordinances defines distances. Ms. Mical: In one of your regulations or the ordinance, it does define abutter as the state law defines it, which does not include any footage or whether or not you include the road.

Mr. Eigabroadt: In the Subdivision regulations, it defines abutter as state does, and does not mention the distance.

Ms. Mical: They apparently changed the law because when I asked a lawyer, he instantly said 200 feet. But those 200 feet is nowhere to be found anymore.

Mr. Eigabroadt: By the definition of abutter as stated, an abutter could be almost anybody in town. It says you’re an abutter if you can show that it directly affects your land, you’re an abutter.

Ms. Mical: But you can’t notice everybody in town.

Mr. Serell: There is a definition of abutter in the RSA.

Ms. Mical: Yes, but by that definition, the only abutter is if you’re directly across the street or if you’re touching the bounds. If you have a lot that’s 25 feet wide that touches your bounds, the person owning the lot on the other side of that 25 foot wide lot doesn’t get notified. Right now we are using that 200 feet and we’re kind of up in the air here.

Ms. Annis: I think we need to establish who is notified.

Ms. Mical: You can’t include less than the state law, but you can include more than the state law.

Mr. Serell: You can require more than the state law.

Ms. Annis: You can make it more restrictive than the state law. We’re making on May 16^th. We should work from the most current version, which is the one that is on the website.

Lynn Perkins -- CIP

Mr. Perkins: Members of the CIP committee are David Karrick, Derek Pershouse, Ed Mical and me. That will be 3 departments assigned to each member. They will receive a letter and instructions this week. If we don’t come up with any more people for the committee, it will be ok. But I’m still looking for volunteers. I still need to establish a meeting date for the committee.

Mark Lennon -- Ridge Lines

Mr. Lennon: I spoke with Lucy St.John and haven’t heard back from her. When I do, I’ll bring it up at the next meeting.

Jim McLaughlin – Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission

Jim McLaughlin: Rick Davies and I both attended the April meeting of the CNHRPC. Kerrie Dears has resigned as Director and they are looking for a replacement. The second thing is that the Commission approved the Transportation Improvements Program for this region. Every two years, the list of highway projects is looked at and reviewed. There was basically no change from the last two years for this region because the Department of Transportation said, "Don’t give us any new projects unless they are emergencies. We don’t want to see any new projects because we don’t have the time or money." The next round, it may be that the Corridor Study will have focused on items for expenditures, and the town needs to be involved in that process. One way to be involved is that I think every town can have at least one member from town on the Technical Advisory Committee. I don’t think Warner has ever participated in the process at all; I’m not sure. Concord is very active in their process and they get most of the projects over in Concord. There is one on Route 114; I think that is the closest to Warner. That is something for the Board to be aware of. I have a copy of the TIP and I’ll get it to Sissy for distribution.

Mr. Lennon: Is that on the web?

Mr. McLaughlin: I think that it is.

Mr. Lennon: The TIP wasn’t easy to find.

Mr. St.Pierre: You might find I on the DOT website.

Jim: Go to CNHRPC’s website. It might be there.

Ms. Annis: Nick Alexander, Mike Tardiff, and I met this morning with Hiram Morrill and Richard Redwanski in regards to the Corridor Study. I don’t think they’ll be at the meeting on Thursday night. There is an individual interested in purchasing the old state highway shed. That is where the Charrette had recommended moving the Park and Ride. It has to go through the process of going through the surplus procedure. It won’t be sold overnight.

Mr. St.Pierre: I got assigned that to review today. It was noted by Hiram that the town had an interest in it from the Charrette. So far, there are no objections to disposing of the property. There are two proposals in the house and senate re: disposal of surplus property. They differ.

Mr. McLaughlin: Maybe it would be worth the Planning Board sending a letter to DOT saying that the town has an interest in the property. The town has embraced the idea, and it might be a good idea for the town to express an interest in it.

Ms. Annis asked Mr. Eigabroadt if it should come from the Selectmen’s office, and he stated that he felt it should come from the Planning Board. It was stated that the Secretary would write a letter to Hiram Morrill of DOT.

The meeting was Adjourned at 8:54 p.m.

Minutes approved: June 6, 2005