Minutes of the Meeting and Public Hearing
Monday, May 3, 2004 7:00 PM
Warner Town Hall, Lower Meeting Room
Members Present: Barbara Annis, Derek Pershouse, Phil Reeder, Russ St.Pierre, Mark Lennon, John Brayshaw
Members Late: Andrew Serell (7:15)
Members Absent: None
Alternates Present: None
Alternates Absent: Ron Orbacz, Lynn Perkins
Presiding: Barbara Annis
Recording: Sissy Brown
A motion was made to approve the minutes of the March 1, 2004 Planning Board meeting. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.
A motion was made to approve the minutes of the April 5, 2004 Planning Board meeting as corrected. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.
Mr. Reeder nominated Ms. Annis as Chairman of the Planning Board. The nomination was seconded and, hearing no further nominations, a vote was taken and Ms. Annis was elected Chairman by a unanimous vote.
Mr. Lennon nominated Mr. Pershouse as Vice Chairman of the Planning Board. Mr. Brayshaw nominated Mr. Lennon as Vice Chairman of the Planning Board. Mr. Lennon declined the nomination. Hearing no further nominations, a vote was taken and Mr. Pershouse was elected Vice Chairman by a unanimous vote.
* HEARING MOVED TO 5/3/2004 BECAUSE ABUTTER LIST WAS INCOMPLETE AND NOT ALL WERE NOTIFIED
Property location: Map 3, Lot 23, Pleasant Pond Road, Warner, NH R2 Zoning
Purpose: After the sale of Lot 23, Lot 22 would be land-locked. Lot Line Adjustment will alleviate that condition.
Ms. Annis asked Mr. Brayshaw to explain the application because he had been involved with the negotiations for the Town to purchase a gravel pit on land owned by Mr. and Mrs. Cutter located on Pleasant Pond Road. This purchase was voted on by the Town at the 2004 Town Meeting in March.
Mr. Brayshaw stated that as a condition of the sale, Mr. Cutter asked that this portion of land be annexed to alleviate the condition of Lot 22 being landlocked after the sale of Lot 23 aka the gravel pit. He said that this Lot Line Adjustment/Annexation wouldn’t affect the Town of Warner. The Town has been purchasing gravel from Mr. Cutter from this piece of land. After this Lot Line Adjustment has been voted on by the Planning Board, the Town and Mr. and Mrs. Cutter will complete the purchase of the gravel pit.
Mr. Brayshaw made a motion to accept the plan as presented. The motion was seconded and passed.
Ms. Annis stated that there is no Public Hearing required for a Lot Line Adjustment and that normally public input is not taken. She did, however, grant a request for an abutter, Betty Hebert, to speak.
Ms. Hebert: I understood that Mr. Cutter had originally been contemplating building a home on the property, either for himself or for his son. Then suddenly I read in the paper that the Town was considering purchasing the land for a gravel pit. That was the first that I realized it. This gravel pit is almost in my back yard, at 90 Pleasant Pond Road. I do want to express my feelings about it now that I know that it is a gravel pit and not where the Cutters are going to live. I recently retired and, with the nice weather, I’ve been outdoors and it is disturbing: the noise, especially when that grinder is in operation. The trucks beeping when they’re backing up. I like to take a walk at least 3 times a week on Pleasant Pond Road and you don’t feel safe anymore. The road is very narrow and dust is blowing in your face. You’re not going to be able to ride a bike or a horse. Even with my windows closed – you may not believe this – but I feel the vibrations of the trucks going by. It’s almost like I feel like I live on the interstate. The reason that I bought that place is because of the tranquility, the pristine natural beauty, and suddenly I feel like I’m in the middle of a commercial site. That’s my expression of how I feel.
Ms. Annis: I can appreciate how you feel, but at this point the Planning Board cannot be involved in that. It is up to the Board of Selectmen. They meet on Tuesday nights and you can contact them and get on their agenda. Our concern here tonight is merely with adjusting the lot line so that Mr. Cutter can get to that back property. You have our sympathy, believe me, but our hands are tied.
Ms. Hebert: I understand.
Hearing no further comments, Mr. Lennon made a motion to approve the Lot Line Adjustment. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.
Mr. Cutter was asked to bring in a Mylar of the plan so that the secretary can record the plan with the Merrimack County Registry of Deeds.
Michael & Dorothy Martin, 22 Stumpfield Rd., Hopkinton, NH 03229
Property location: Map 3, Lot 95, Poverty Plains Road, Warner, NH R2 and R3 Zoning
Purpose: To create 5 lots from 1 14.3 acre lot: 2.58, 4.05, 3.44, 2.10 & 2.10 acres
Ms. Annis said that a Site Visit was held on Saturday, April 17th at 8:30 a.m. The Planning Board walked the site. The application for the subdivision was accepted as complete at the April 5th meeting. Mr. Lennon stated that he thought it was an appropriate subdivision. Ms. Annis wanted it in the minutes that the Planning Board had voted to waive the necessity for Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission to review the application. She said that in this case, she didn’t think it was necessary. She wanted to state in the minutes that after reviewing the application and the Site Visit, it certainly wasn’t necessary because of the topography, the road condition – everything was positive.
Mr. Lennon made a motion to approve the subdivision. The motion was seconded and the application was approved by a unanimous vote.
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
Ms. Annis stated that a Site Visit had been held on Saturday, April 17th and that Ms. Garcia had been very cordial and showed the Board around the property. Mr. Lennon stated that he thought that this was an excellent use of the property and that it would be a very nice place to spend the weekend.
Ms. Annis said that the Board had observed that there was a safe fire exit in the house. There are 2 exits. She wanted it stated for the minutes that Janet Garcia asked about moving some plants outdoors. The Board had answered that as long as the items moved outside were portable, they saw no reason why she couldn’t have plants for sale outside as long as it wasn’t something stationary. Another thing that was discussed was that if the current parking lot overflowed, the driveway that is adjacent to this property goes up to their private home. They could then come into the parking from the private home, from the back area. Many of the concerns were addressed.
Mr. Brayshaw spoke with Mr. Garcia as well as visiting the property, and said that they had far exceeded expectations of keeping the property aesthetically pleasing. He said that this is the perfect spot for this type of business and that it is the type of business that the Town is looking for. It is agricultural, tasteful, and he thought it was a great plan.
Ms. Annis said that Mr. Garcia had asked to amend his application to make the adjacent garage usable for retail space.
Mr. Rick Davies [from the audience] was addressed. He said that he had a comment even though Ms. Annis hadn’t opened the meeting to discussion from the public. She said that a public hearing had been held at the previous meeting. Mr. Davies stated that this [the conversion of the garage] was a new topic. Ms. Annis agreed to hear Mr. Davies.
Mr. Davies: During the Zoning Board hearing, Mr. Garcia was asked what would be used for the gift shop or store. At that point, it was said that 2 rooms would be used for the gift shop, another room would be a workshop or for classes. There was no mention of the garage being used. In fact, it was stated that the garage would be used for storage.
Ms. Annis: That’s what he’s asking for.
Mr. Garcia: No, that was in the barn.
Ms. Annis: Oh, yes. I’m sorry.
Mr. Davies: My point is that from the ZBA’s point of view, the approval was given just for the house. To expand it to the garage – I’m concerned that it would be making a small operation larger.
Ms. Annis: We’ll have to get Sissy to get the minutes of the ZBA meeting.
Mr. Davies: These things go hand in hand. If the ZBA didn’t approve that area to be an alpaca farm store, then we wouldn’t be considering how much of the area would be used. The considerations made were based on the smaller area.
Mr. Garcia: Just to give you an idea of the area we’re talking about, this is a 10 x 15 foot garage. So we’re not looking at tripling or quadrupling what we’ve already requested; it is a trivial addition that would be a convenience and would synergize what we’re trying to do.
Ms. Annis: Sissy, what was the request of Henry of the ZBA and what was their decision?
Secretary: I’ll go and get the file.
Ms. Hinnendael [member of the ZBA]: As I remember it, there was only one room that was to be used as the Bed and Breakfast, and another room for the store. I don’t remember the garage being mentioned.
Mr. Davies: I’m not opposed to the area being used as Mr. Brayshaw has pointed out, as well as the other members. My point is that it is a residential area and if it was approved by the Zoning Board in one light, I just want to make sure that it is carried through consistently.
Ms. Annis: The ZBA decision for Mr. Garcia was from the Town of Warner Use Table I, Retail and Services: (1) Retail Establishment selling general merchandise including but not limited to dry goods, apparel and accessories, furniture and home furnishings, home equipment, small wares and hardware including discount and limited price variety stores. (2) Lodging House and Bed and Breakfast
The application stated that it was to convert from residential use to Bed and Breakfast with a farm store offering farm merchandise for sale. The store to be open no more than 5 days a week for no more than 8 hours per day.
Mr. Lennon: I think Mr. Davies point is well taken, but I don’t think that it needs to slow us down. For me, it wouldn’t make any difference whether the farm store included the garage. But the fact is that the ZBA didn’t give a Special Exception for that little building as well.
Mr. Lennon made a motion that Mr. Garcia should go back to the ZBA for a confirmation that the Special Exception applies to the garage as well as the house. If he gets the Special Exception for the garage, he doesn’t need to come back before the Planning Board. There was no second to the motion.
Mr. Pershouse: Procedurally, if we approve it, how would that approval be worded – subject to consent from the ZBA?
Mr. Lennon: I believe that what’s in front of us is whether or not a Site Plan Review is required. What I moved is that no Site Plan is required, whether or not the garage is used.
Mr. Brayshaw: I can see Mr. Davies’ point that consistency be used when granting Special Exceptions. I think that the way I would take that is that the overview of that was approved, as far as the house and the two different lots. I can’t see how a 10 x 15 foot spot is going to dramatically increase any form of business.
Mr. Serell: I agree with Mark that the question before this board is whether or not we would require a Site Plan Review. I agree that we shouldn’t require a Site Plan Review, but the applicant needs a Special Exception to run his business. He applied for a Special Exception and he got it only as to the house, not the garage.
Mr. Serell made a motion that a Site Plan Review is not required, but the advice of the Planning Board is that if the applicant wants to expand his business into the garage, he needs to go back to the Zoning Board to get the Special Exception extended. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.
Doug and Michelle Smith, 153 North Village Road, Warner, NH 03278.
Property location: Map 10, Lot 10-1 (brook parcel only, previously went with Lot 12) R-2 Zoning, above address
Purpose: Previously annexed to wrong parcel (Lot 10-1) and recorded. Request to annex to Lot 11 (house site)
Mr. Smith: We were given a Lot Line Adjustment last summer to annex Lot 12 to Lot 10-1. We want to sell our house and our Realtor said that Lot 12 should have been annexed to Lot 11, the lot with the house on it. We just recorded the previous Lot Line Adjustment recently and now we would like to change it to annex Lot 12 to lot 11.
Mr. Serell: It’s not a problem, but you’re going to have to come in here with a whole new plan for us to review it.
Ms. Annis: Yes.
Mr. Brayshaw: Yes, it needs to be recorded properly.
Ms. Annis: This [drawing] can’t be recorded.
Mr. Brayshaw: As I remember it, you did what you intended to do.
Ms. Annis asked the Board what they wanted to do. It was stated that they would need to bring in a plan and a Mylar with the application.
Mr. Pershouse: He would be starting from square one.
Mr. Smith: Yes, I need to redo it. So what do I need to do?
Mr. Pershouse: The same thing you did last time.
Secretary: Does he need a Mylar? Does he have to come back here – so the Board can see the plan and sign it, etc.?
Mr. St.Pierre: Yes.
Mr. Brayshaw made a motion to give Mr. Smith permission to seek to get the proper paperwork to get the Lot Line Adjustment approved. Mr. Pershouse seconded the motion. The motion passed by a unanimous vote.
Ms. Annis: Ok. Bring in the paperwork.
Mr. Smith: Ok.
Reason: Exchange of 15 existing campsites for 5 permanent manufactured house lots
Mr. Wyman: In looking through paperwork of the previous owner of the park, there was correspondence between him and the Town suggesting that the Town was in favor of the owner swapping campsites for mobile home sites. He didn’t do anything with it. I currently have 15 lots that are empty and it is a good time to do the swap. There are 10 campground sites across the pond on Casino Circle and two on Pleasant Lane. I could relocate those 10 people onto sites that are currently available. There are a few that are tent sites only and that these people wouldn’t fit on. I wouldn’t relocate them until next year. The dimensions of the lots are approximately – I haven’t had them surveyed at this point until I find out what the Board’s thoughts are – The 10 campsites that are presently there all go to one septic tank and one leach field. I pump that yearly. It doesn’t seem to be an issue now, but it could be sooner or later. Putting in a new leach field is expensive. I would like to do something ahead of the time when it might fail, but I probably won’t unless I can do something such as this. Financially, it doesn’t matter to me. The 15 campsites bring in the same amount of money as the 5 mobile home sites, so there’s no financial gain for me. It would be strictly to improve the front of the park. Right now, the camp ground has multiple entrances. I’d close two of them off to get it down to maybe 3. Unfortunately, the other two are not easy to close off, but if we made these into permanent sites those would become easier to close off and there would just be one because I could structure it differently.
Mr. Brayshaw: Would the mobile homes that go on those sites be new?
Mr. Wyman: They would be new Skyline homes. I’m an authorized Skyline dealer, so I’m going to put Skyline homes on there. Size and shape would range anywhere from a 14 x 70 foot to a 28 x 60 foot.
Mr. Brayshaw: The reason I’m asking that in the Town’s COD’s, the trailer park has always been the signal for the reval for assessing purposes. It has always been the mark that throws the Town off.
Mr. Wyman: We have no intentions of having any older homes on any of the lots. I have to be careful because by law, I can’t prevent people from doing that totally.
Mr. Reeder: On a campground or mobile home park like that, what is the minimum allowable site? In zoning district R-1, which is the smallest building site available in town, the minimum is 20,000 square feet. This is considerably less than that.
Mr. Wyman: The requirements for a mobile home lot are 100 x 150 feet. That’s why I’m approaching this now. A couple of them are sizably smaller, and the other three are marginally smaller. But they all far exceed what I presently have. Right now, there are about 30 feet between homes in the mobile home park. Here, there would be a minimum of 52 feet and, if there were singles in there there would be a minimum of 69 feet between homes. So it would over double the distance. Also, the depth of the present lots is roughly 75 feet, where these lots would be 150 feet deep. Larger than what we have; not as large as what is required.
Mr. Serell: So would he need a Variance from the Zoning Board?
Mr. Brayshaw: Are these lots of record?
Mr. Wyman: No, they are camp sites. To answer your question, I would probably need a Variance. I started with the Selectmen, I was sent here. I could go to the ZBA, but unless you guys are going to approve it, it does me no good to go to the ZBA.
Mr. Serell: I think that it is a Zoning Board decision. If the ZBA would grant a Variance, I don’t think that we would have any basis… Would he even need to come back here after a Variance?
Mr. St.Pierre: Yes, because it would be a re-subdivision.
Mr. Serell: Ok. I guess he would come back here. But, in my opinion, if the ZBA granted a Variance I don’t see that we’d have any basis not to approve it.
Mr. Wyman: Would it be a subdivision? I’m not selling off those pieces of land. I’d come back with a plot plan showing the septic and leach field.
Mr. Brayshaw: You would seek a Building Permit.
Mr. Wyman: Yes, but I wouldn’t be subdividing. In essence, I own all the land. It would be an imaginary line in the sand.
Mr. Serell: In that case, you’d need a Site Plan Review.
Mr. St.Pierre: The Site Plan requirements require that you show manufactured housing plans, water, sewer, all that.
Mr. Wyman: Right.
Mr. Brayshaw: I think Drew is correct in that you should go to the Zoning Board because of the size of the lots.
Mr. Serell: I don’t want to speak for the Zoning Board, but I think that they might have problems with it.
Mr. St.Pierre: Probably the biggest concern would be the septic.
Mr. Wyman: That would be the easiest to address, because the entire field – where the campsites are, there’s a 2-acre field back there – it is all sand. It is prime. Again, currently there are 10 campsites including one permanent home that all go to the same leach field. I would be putting in 5 additional tanks and 2 additional leach fields to bring it up to current state standards. They are grandfathered in and can continue to operate that way, this would be an improvement of the system.
There was discussion about where this area is located within the park.
Mr. Reeder: In reading the regulations, the minimum required size for a mobile home site is 15,000 square feet, and each of these is less than 15,000 square feet.
Mr. Wyman: That is correct.
Mr. Reeder: Why would we allow this to happen?
Mr. Wyman: It would be a mutual agreement between us and the Town to reduce the size of the campground – in reading letters between the Town and the previous owner, I got the feeling that was what the Town wanted to do. I was trying to make it so that financially, at the end of each month, it would be viable.
Mr. Reeder: You could really only do 3 lots instead of 5.
Mr. Wyman: I couldn’t even to that, according to the regulations, because of the setbacks. I’d be back in the field, and I don’t want to do that because that is an area where the kids play.
Mr. Reeder: So you would need some kind of Variance.
Mr. Wyman: Again, my suggestion is based on previous letters between the Town and the previous owner; improving environmental issues as well as increasing lot size over what we have. It is all better, not worse.
Mr. Reeder: And I realize that it is all going to be permanent housing.
Mr. Wyman: Yes. And a 75 x 150 foot lot in a mobile home community is large when compared with mobile home communities in other towns.
Ms. Annis: I believe it is the opinion of the Board that we’ve got to refer you to the Zoning Board.
Property Owner: Gerald Courser
Property location: Map 11, Lot 34, R-3 zoning -- 91 acres. Subdivide 12 acres to form a new lot for his daughter
Driveway would be on a Class V road, and would have 237 feet on one side and more around the corner. Ms. Annis asked about any swamp area, and mentioned that if there is a high water table or swamp area, that needs to be taken into consideration. Ms. Annis stated that he needed a survey only of the area being subdivided out because the rest of the land has been surveyed.
The requirements for a minor subdivision were discussed, as well as what would be needed for the application, fees, etc.
Mr. Brayshaw stated that the fees would be abated. The Secretary asked if he was referring to the application fee, or to all of the additional fees (abutters at $5 each; legal notice; administrative fee of $25 for recording; $26 for Merrimack County Registry of Deeds) which the Town has to pay.
Mr. Brayshaw: For pretty much everything, because of Mr. Courser’s involvement with the cemeteries and for being a volunteer for the Town. That’s the way we take care of that.
Elaine Fournier, 91 Red Chimney Road, Warner, N
Property location: same as above, Lot 20- 5, Map 7, 10 acres R-3 zoning
Reason: Subdivide property into 2 lots
Ms. Annis stated that for each lot, 250 feet of frontage is required. The lot in question has 257 feet of total frontage. The minimum lot size is 3 acres. The lot is 10 acres. Ms. Fornier would like to put a lot behind the current house.
Mr. Serell: We can’t create a lot with substandard frontage. You’d have to go to the ZBA to get a Variance. We can’t say yes or no – it is totally their call.
Mr. Fornier: But you’re not saying yes or no?
Mr. Serell: It is up to the ZBA.
Ms. Fornier was referred to the Zoning Board for a conceptual consultation at their next meeting.
Property Owner: Allan Jones, dba Knoxland Equipment, Inc., 132 Cross Rd., Weare, NH 03281
Property Location: I-89, Exit 7 North: So. Side off Rt. 103, East of I-89 6 acres Map 3, Lots 31, 32, 34, 45, 42
Purpose: Display & Sales of Terex Construction Equipment
Overview of plan:
Ms. Annis asked if he wanted to apply for the entire project all at once.
Mr. St.Pierre said that he would like to see the project presented in two phases.
Mr. Jones: I would like to get the land cleared and grass planted this year. At a later date, the white house would probably be removed and a facility put in.
What the Board needs from Mr. Jones for the application:
Mr. Pershouse had a question about the location of a display area along I-89. Mr. Jones said that the state won’t let you clear anything on the exit ramp side of the fence. Mr. Pershouse asked if the state expressed any concerns. Mr. Jones said that as long as he was on the other side of the fence, they don’t care what he does. Mr. Pershouse asked about the state’s concerns about marketing along the highway, and the state told Mr. Jones that it was up to the Town. He discussed proposed signage.
Mr. Serell: I’m concerned about having huge pieces of equipment right along Route 103.
Mr. Jones: Well, you can’t have it within the state’s right-of-way, which is 75 feet from the center of the road, I believe.
Mr. Serell: How far is it from the center of the road? What are the regulations on the display of equipment and what are the requirements of the buffer? The caterpillar company down the road doesn’t have many on display.
Ms. Annis: Yes they do. They’ve moved a considerable amount down there.
Mr. Brayshaw had concerns about lighting. He asked if the drive going into the lot is a Class V road, and he was told that it was. Mr. Jones said that there would be minimal excavation, even for Phase 2. The excavation part would be on the back part of the land. He pointed out the demo area on the map. Mr. Brayshaw said that the demo area would need to be screened. Mr. Jones said that the demo area is a flat area where customers can dig holes, and that they also have to smooth out the gravel after playing with it. When no equipment is next to it, it won’t be seen.
Mr. Brayshaw: How much gravel will be brought in?
Mr. Jones: A minimal amount. It’s mostly sand now.
Mr. Brayshaw: Over 1000 yards?
Mr. Jones: I don’t think so, for Phase 1. Maybe for Phase 2 for the building.
Mr. Brayshaw: Do you have any plans for expanding onto the area across Route 103?
Mr. Jones: No – I’ve discussed it with the owners of the land, but they want too much for it.
Joanne Hinnendael [in audience]: Point of order. I just wanted to remind Mr. Jones of the sign regulations, too, because he’s talking about 2 signs. I notice on this little map that he exceeds the sign ordinance.
Mr. Jones: I was wondering about that. There’s one illuminated sign that I plan on. There would be a directional sign on Kearsarge Avenue.
Ms. Annis: I believe that directional signs are allowed.
Mr. Jones: What about a sign on the building – one large enough to be seen from the exit ramp.
Ms. Annis: He’s looking for three different sign – directional, one on the building, and a business sign.
Mr. Reeder: You’re limited on the total number of square feet of the signs.
Mr. Jones: You won’t be able to see 2 signs at one time. One will be on the exit ramp and one will be on 103.
Mr. Reeder: That won’t matter.
Ms. Annis: You can go to the ZBA if you need to for a Variance or Special Exception if you need to. But we do have a sign ordinance that we have to go by.
Don Gartrell contacted because RSK still has not paid their bill for legal fees of the Town associated with their application. Mr. Gartrell said that he would contact their attorney to discuss payment. In checking with Mr. Gartrell, he still didn’t have an answer from the attorney. Ms. Annis asked if the Board wanted to put a lien on the property, since it is for sale and could be sold at any time.
Secretary: Don said that before doing anything first, he would talk to their attorney. He said that he had been in touch with the attorney and that they were attempting to work out payment. He said that he thought it was best to hold off and he would rather try to work it out with the attorney. It is a legal fee owed to Don Gartrell by RSK.
Mr. Serell: If Don’s ok with that, I think we should be.
Mr. St.Pierre: So their plan hasn’t been recorded?
Secretary: No, they haven’t brought in a final plan.
Mr. Pershouse: Are they being sold as condos?
Secretary: I think that they’re being marketed as 4 rental units.
Mr. Brayshaw: Do we even know if they own the property? Maybe they’ve been doing all of this as speculation.
Secretary: The deed should be up in the Tax office.
Jim McLaughlin reported on the progress of the Plan NH Charrette program.
Mr. Brayshaw: On these three subcommittees, are we posting proper notices and taking proper minutes.
Mr. Lennon: The answer is no. We’ve asked anything that happens through the charrette to be noted to at least 2 Planning Board members, and as long as it’s not a policy making thing, the Planning Board has already decided to go ahead with the charrette. As long as the people working directly on the charrette go through the Planning Board, we’ve made the decision that that is adequate. So not every meeting of every group is being noticed.
Mr. Brayshaw: We’ve had some complaints come to the Selectmen’s Office and we’ve talked about it that last couple of meetings. Under the Right to Know Law is how these complaints came in – whether or not they were being properly noticed and minutes taken.
Mr. McLaughlin: There have been meetings of citizens interested in this whole process, many of whom are not members of the Planning Board. They’ve been gatherings because there is so much interest in the charrette. They weren’t formal Planning Board meetings or subcommittee meetings. Since the Growth meeting, we’ve had one meeting of one subcommittee meeting and we have minutes for that meeting. We’re planning on having another meeting next Monday night at 7:00, but I’m not aware of any other meetings.
Mr. Brayshaw: I was asked to address it tonight. If it is a subcommittee of any board in Town, it needs to be properly noticed under the Right to Know law.
- Refreshments: limit the food served to the design team and members of the Planning Board and others that are directly involved in putting on the event and will be there for most of the time. We figure that there might be 20 total.
- Neal Nevins in charge of getting donations for the meals.
- Ms. Annis suggested Madonna as a caterer
- Set up and clean up has been taken care of
- At Growth meeting, a mailing will go out in the tax bills
- Ms. Annis had objections to some items in the letter, and the letter was revised to address those concerns. Ms. Annis said she discussed her concerns with some other Planning Board members and it was felt that it didn’t represent the Planning Board.
- Charrette is a way to get advice from people who are experts in their fields and which will result in recommendations. Tool to provide to developers detailing the Town’s vision is for this area; how does your project fit into that vision? It could be sidewalks, building location or architectural design – many things that don’t require zoning changes. There are a lot of things that can be done in a persuasive way.
- Rooms: upstairs room for the listening sessions; more people are expected to attend
- Saturday: work experts do could be either upstairs or downstairs
- Presentation: should be held upstairs
Mr. Brayshaw: From the Selectmen’s Office again – The "orange" room that you folks have been using. There was a complaint put in that there were maps being left out and that the room was locked. No notice is going out from the Selectmen’s Office, and no one can be more trusted than you – and you’re working with a great team of people. But as far as maps and any archived records, if anyone uses them they need to be put back.
Ms. Annis: Didn’t you also make a decision that there was only one person that would be allowed to issue keys?
Ms. Brayshaw: The Board of Selectmen’s secretary will be issuing keys.
Ms. Annis: No other person in the Town Hall can issue keys. You can’t loan a key to someone else; everybody’s key has to go through the Selectmen’s office.
Mr. Brayshaw: Any copies that need to be made – any bigger copies that need to be made can be made by Mary or Sissy. They just had some concerns about archived maps and stuff like that. Someone went to use the room and there were maps left out.
Mr. McLaughlin: Friday, the kick-off event will be meeting with the design team and we would like to have as many of the Selectmen present as possible, and stay for lunch. It will start at 11:00 a.m.
Mr. Pershouse: John, do you have any thoughts at the present about the Selectmen’s role in generating this process? It seems to me that it is very important that the management of the Town speak to this issue and help promote it. It is a Planning Board sponsored issue, but it is certainly a major event for the Town and I’m hoping that one or more Selectmen will be active in the process.
Mr. Brayshaw: I know that the Selectmen would like to be involved in this – being short one Selectman now; basically two of us trying to make it to all of the meetings is virtually impossible. But we’ll find a way to support you guys on it, for sure.
Mr. Pershouse: I think that it might be most important, either implicitly or explicitly, that the Selectmen are really behind the whole process and backing the Board to the hilt.
Mr. Brayshaw: We supported it going before the Town, and we’ll certainly support it to its end result. We’ll try to digest as much as we can and stay with it, for sure. We’re fortunate to have the voluntarism and expertise in the Town.
Ms. Annis: Gamil is on the Agenda because we knew that his Driveway Permit expires on April 29th. With that in mind, I was at the Selectmen’s meeting last Tuesday night when Gamil came in and spoke about his driveway and how he had put the rocks in place and that the state had come along and asked him to remove the rocks. I got in touch with Allen Piroso to find out what was going on, and he said that Gamil had placed the rocks in the state’s right-of-way.
Sent a list around to get email addresses for the Board members.
Mr. Pershouse: Concerned with the use of email that someone gets left on the periphery. So along with using email addresses, we need to set up some type of protocol. We have applicants that are sent to the office and there is interface with those applicants. I think that we need to structure the plan. For instance, if there is a notice going out to each Board member, should it go through the office?
Secretary: Do you mean if Barbara wants to send out notices to all of the Board members? She could send one to the office email address also.
Mr. Pershouse: Yes, as a file copy. What if an individual Planning Board member wants to get in touch with all of the other members, or three or four, and someone gets left out, we might have problems.
Ms. Annis: What is the Planning Board’s email address?
Mr. Pershouse: planning@warner.nh.us
Mr. Brayshaw: No matter what department you work in, the Administrative Assistant – as we term it – could really alleviate those types of problems as far as her knowing and has the responsibility of contacting everybody, or making a fair attempt to contact everybody.
Mr. Pershouse: Except that doesn’t work in our case because Sissy is only on Board, formally, one day a week. It’s not as if we have the office open every day.
Mr. Brayshaw: But through email you could do that very efficiently to everybody. Just copying everyone so that everyone knows what the intentions were or what was happening.
Mr. Pershouse: So you’re saying that the person that is generating the email should…
Mr. Brayshaw: Say I was going to meet with Provan & Lorber, with Steve Virgin, I would tell Sissy that I’m going to meet with Steve Virgin this week to discuss whatever. She could copy everybody saying that I’m meeting with whomever to discuss whatever.
Mr. Pershouse: But with the office only open one day a week, that doesn’t cover situations like Barbara just had – wanting to get people involved with the meeting re: Gamil.
Sissy: Couldn’t she send the email to everyone on the Board as well as to me at my personal email address and to the office email? That way I would get it and it would be on the office email, too.
Mr. Brayshaw: When we had the three Selectmen, Mary would email all of us about what the others were doing or where we were meeting so that everyone would know about it and no one could say that they weren’t told about something. I think that it is just like carbon copying everyone to keep all members informed.
Mr. Pershouse: What do we do about the incoming email?
Ms. Annis: That’s hers.
Mr. Pershouse: Barbara, you’ve had a lot of correspondence with CNHRPC, and you’ve copied me on some of the items. So I’m saying, how do we as a Board or a group get that information?
Sissy: I could forward it to all on the Board whenever I get anything.
Mr. Pershouse: If you get information that comes out of a discussion with CNHRPC, that comes directly to you and maybe some of it to me, but not all of it to the members, correct?
Ms. Annis: Except through the monthly Board meetings.
Mr. Pershouse: Could you, and the rest of us, when you get email regarding a current issue automatically forward that to the office so that Sissy has a record copy?
Ms. Annis: Sure.
Mr. Pershouse: I’m just trying to establish a protocol.
Ms. Annis: Sounds good.
Ms. Annis: We had talked about Aubuchon Hardware and determined that they were not in violation of their Site Plan, but that they were negligent in telling us what they were planning to do. Mr. Pershouse went and talked with them, and he had results. The handicapped parking space was also supposed to be moved. We sent a letter to those individuals to remind them, and they thanked us for reminding them and they’re supposed have that painting done shortly.
Mr. Brayshaw: The Selectmen would like to see the dumpsters screened to keep the trash from blowing out – as we ask any commercial entity. The Selectmen ask that the Planning Board revisit the issue of screening the dumpsters.
Ms. Annis: Would somebody like to put that into a motion, that we send them a letter that we’d appreciate it if the dumpsters were screened, after reviewing it?
Mr. Reeder: Do we need a motion to do that?
Ms. Annis: No, we don’t need a motion. OK – I’ll do it.
Mr. Reeder said that he will know more after talks in early June.
Mr. Pershouse: Are we in limbo on this?
Mr. Reeder: It has been submitted, and DOT is taking care of it. We see if they come through with their 100% record of winning.
Ms. Annis: Didn’t they say something about a meeting of CNHRPC and DOT, and wouldn’t it be advisable to have several people from the Planning Board present at the meeting?
Mr. Reeder: I’ll check with Mike on that.
Ms. Annis: We did not require the Farmer’s to have a Site Plan because it was considered a home business. There was a recent ad in the SooNipi magazine. We had given them permission to sell buffalo meat. The ad lists many other types of meats and products for sale. Is this beyond a home business now?
Mr. Brayshaw: I visited with the Farmers and asked them what was going on. The barn is going up. As far as the ostrich and elk and other exotic meats, they’ve been selling all along, back when they originally bought the property. And they were selling buffalo as well. And then when they originally started the company. They were selling buffalo as well, and then they decided to bring the buffalo into Warner and package that. They’re going to have basically a 2 x 4’ refrigerator with ostrich meat and buffalo. The hours are still the same. They put in for a building permit for the barn.
Mr. Reeder: Is the square footage for the business the same?
Mr. Brayshaw: It is about the same, or a little smaller. I think the barn is approximately 30 x 15 square feet.
Ms. Annis: So we can respond to the fact that it has been visited and reviewed, and that the Board felt that because the hours are the same it is not an expansion of a Home Business.
Mr. Serell: Send out something to whom, the person that complained?
Ms. Annis: Yes. The Board will send out something.
Ms. Annis: Phil and I went down today to Gamil’s property this morning because you can see that we did have a Site Visit but we also postponed making any decision on accepting the amendment to his plan based on the fact that unless he did what the state ordered, his Driveway Permit would be expiring on April 29th. When we went down this morning, DOT was also there. DOT talked to us and explained some things to us. As far as DOT is concerned, Gamil is in compliance with the driveway. Phil also questioned continuing down further on the roadway with the island area, and the state said not at this point was it necessary. We also found out that there is still a problem with the property lines. One survey says one thing and another says something else. There is going to be a court hearing – a trial management conference in Superior Court – on July 26th and a court trial the week of August 9th. This will hopefully decide the boundary between the two properties. Talking to Gamil and the state highway department, this leaves us in limbo and we would be willing to continue the way it is presently until the court case has been decided.
Mr. Serell: What is before the Board?
Ms. Annis: Basically we said no [to amending the Site Plan] because of the driveway.
Mr. Serell: You mean compliance with the Driveway Permit?
Ms. Annis: Correct. The Driveway Permit does say "the full length of the property" – isn’t that the way it is worded?
Mr. Reeder: Yes.
Ms. Annis: The state is saying that what they’ve done now is acceptable to the state because of the boundary dispute between the two property owners. Phil and I probably incorrectly made the comment and said, "Basically probably what we should do is keep it as-is until the boundary…"
Mr. Reeder: Just do a continuance of the status quo, where we are not, until there is a determination by the courts. At that time, when the courts have determined where the boundary is, then Gamil can go in and try to get the third Driveway Permit which will probably be granted at that time. Right now, Gamil does have a barrier put up with a 50-foot driveway entrance into his business, an island to the telephone pole, and from the telephone pole to the questionable end of the property there is nothing. At the meeting this morning, I expressed a concern of that area still being used as customer parking and that it shouldn’t be used as customer parking because there were no barriers there. Allen Piroso also agreed that there should be no traffic going across that area, but he didn’t think that a barrier was necessarily needed at that point because of the dispute of how long of a barrier to put in there. So I can see a need for a continuance of where we are right now until we have a decision from the court. There is partial compliance, but in effect compliance with what was requested.
Mr. Serell: At least in terms of timing, if there’s a court trial in August we might get a decision in September, October or November. If someone appeals, that decision won’t become final until the appeal has been decided. So it could be a year before it is decided.
Ms. Annis: Could we put on our agenda to revisit this August 9th to see if it did go to court, and to remind us?
Mr. Serell: In the meantime, I don’t want our delay to hold up any reasonable request he’s making for modification.
Mr. Brayshaw: That’s only one part of the puzzle. The Selectmen decided not to pursue the surveying of the road that runs in between both properties and to let that go out as a civil issue between the two parties. The Selectmen did decide to go ahead and justify where the Town line cuts through the house to determine if Mr. Azmy is in compliance with the addition that was put onto the house.
Mr. Serell: Don’t we either have to get his concurrence to continue it or act on it?
Ms. Annis: It was just a conceptual. It was going to be an amendment to the original Site Plan, but he never left any plan with us and it never went further than that.
Ms. Annis stated that a complaint had been received regarding the parking in front of R.C. Brayshaw. She asked if John would like to recuse himself, and he said that he would recuse himself from any voting. The Board discussed previous decisions and the court case that the Brayshaws eventually won. Paul Proulx complained that when you pull up in front of the building on Newmarket Road, there shouldn’t be any parking there because the tractor trailer trucks don’t have anyplace to pull up to the storage area and are blocking the covered bridge.
Mr. Reeder: So if they can’t pull up to the storage area, they are having to carry things a long way? Or is it temporary blockage as they maneuver to get to the storage area?
Ms. Annis: Yes.
Mr. Reeder: So it would be like having to slow down for a truck to pull into someone’s driveway? So what’s the problem?
The Board looked at the Site Plan that was approved for Brayshaw’s. Mr. Brayshaw said that the parking that is causing the problem is that people, not his employees, are parking around the covered bridge. The plan show parking in front of the building. A letter will be sent to Mr. Proulx stating that the parking is approved in front of the building.
Jim McLaughlin and Rick Davies were appointed by the Planning Board to represent the Town of Warner. The job is to govern the commission through decision making and policy setting and also foster regular communications between the Commission and the region’s municipalities which creates better awareness of the Commission’s activities and helps the Commission stay abreast of local issues and concern.
The form will be sent to the Selectmen for their signature.
Ms. Annis said that a geologist living in Warner has volunteered to help in writing an ordinance for gravel pits. Ms. Hinnendael asked if that would cover situations like that on Route 103 where the hillside was left in rubbles after removing stones and gravel. Ms. Annis said that a permit is needed at this time, but that is all.
Minutes Approved: June 7, 2004