Minutes of the Meeting and Public Hearing

Monday, July 7, 2003  7:00 PM

Warner Town Hall , Lower Meeting Room

 

                Members Present:              Barbara Annis, Derek Pershouse, John Wallace, Andrew Serell,

                                                                Philip Reeder, Russ St.Pierre, John Brayshaw

                Members Absent:                None

                Alternates Present:            Ron Orbacz, Mark Lennon

                Alternates Absent:              None

                Presiding:                             Barbara Annis

                Recording:                            Sissy Brown

 

I.                     Open Meeting at 7:05 PM

II.                   Roll Call

III.                 Approval of the Minutes of the June 2, 2003 Planning Board Meeting

A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes as corrected.  The motion passed by a unanimous vote.

IV.                PUBLIC HEARING:  Minor Subdivision – continued from June 3, 2003 meeting

Jane L. LaBelle & Stephen R. Beckwith, 355 Kearsarge Mt. Road , Warner, NH 03278.  Map 18, Lot 19, R2, R3, OC-1 and C-1 Zoning.  To create 1 new lot of 17.6 acres, with the remaining parcel and existing house equaling 20.0 acres. 

Mr. Pershouse recused himself, and Ms. Annis asked Mr. Orbacz to vote in his place.

Ms. Brown, the Board’s secretary, recused herself.

Ms. Annis opened up the meeting to the public for any further comments, and encouraged the public that unless they had something new to add to prior comments, please refrain from speaking. 

Ms. Brown:  I have one thing that I would like to point out.  I went back to the Registry of Deeds.  This pertains to the question about the decision about the first subdivision.  Even thought it wasn’t on the plan itself, when the Moyer’s sold the 4 lots that front on North Road , he did put deed restrictions on those four lots.  I know that doesn’t have anything to do with the top one, but it goes to his intent – that he put the same restriction of “no more than one single family residence shall be erected or maintained on the land.”  My point is that it does go to his intent, when he stated in the letter that there would be no further subdivision.

Mr. St.Pierre:  Wasn’t one of those lots further subdivided?

Mr. Brayshaw:  Yes, I think it was.

Ms. Annis:  I’m not aware that any of those lots on North Road had been subdivided.

Mr. Brayshaw:  I thought that there was.

Ms. Annis:  We can check that out.

Hearing no further comments from abutters, Ms. Annis called on the property owner.

Ms. LaBelle gave handouts to the Board members.

Ms. LaBelle:  Ms. LaBelle said that she would like to see the restrictive covenant of the 6.32 acres remain, and there would be further restrictions.  One of those restrictions would be that there would be no further subdivision of either lot except for boundary line adjustments and annexations.  So this minor subdivision would be the end.  There was a letter referred to before that Peter Moyer faxed on May 28^th  which is clearly in contrast to the enclosed subdivision plans for 4 additional lots to be subdivided on the back land.  Mr. Moyer had these plans drawn up earlier in 1986.  These plans were drawn up by DCA and are enclosed in your packet today.  We’ve been in touch with the Conservation Commission and the Ausbon Sargent Land Preservation Trust.  They are interested, and if this conservation easement did go through, it would include all of the section of the land zoned C-1 on both pieces of property, so that would eliminate any concerns regarding commercial development of the property.  I’ve enclosed copies of my correspondence with the abutters in 2001, at which time an effort was made to work with the neighbors before making any plans for subdivision.  There were some questions about the building site itself, and it has been very carefully chosen not to be visible from any of the neighbor’s houses, and the driveway is long out of consideration for the neighbors and to maintain their view.  There is nothing about the subdivision that is against Town requirements.  We are proposing conservation land in perpetuity that will be beneficial to the wildlife and we are making every effort to build a family home that will have minimal impact.  I believe that there is precedent for this type of subdivision, that Mr. Sweet has some information on.  My feeling is that the type of subdivision that was done on Runaway Farm will be more visible and will have more of an impact on Kearsarge Mountain Road than this will, because none of it will be seen.  On the invisible line [separating the two properties], I’d like to put a restriction that no trees or fence could be built on that line so that the field will stay as it is.  I have a map here that shows what we are proposing for a conservation easement.  It is a total of 19.6 acres that will go into conservation. 

Mr. Sweet:  I have some comments and responses to some of the concerns made by members of the Planning Board and some of the abutters.

1. Deed Restriction. This has been covered rather well, and is enclosed with the packet from Jane as well as a letter from her lawyer, Bracket Sheffy.

2. We can find no mention in the minutes of no further subdivision from 1979, and on the recorded plan it is not so stated.  I can point out that one of the four lots off of North Road was further subdivided into 2 lots in 1987, which was 8 years after the Moyer subdivision.  It may be true that subsequent to that time the Moyer’s put some prohibition against further subdividing in the other three lots, but they certainly didn’t in Lot A because we were involved with that project and it did get subdivided into 2 lots, and that plan is noted on the subdivision plan.  I’d like to point out that the owner of the subject lot – Jane’s lot now – at that time in 1987 was Mr. and Mrs. Moyer, and they were noticed abutters.  When the Moyer’s sold their 37 acre lot, they did not put into their deed that their lot could not be further subdivided.

3. Length of the driveway:  I’ve spoken with Allan Brown, the Road Agent, who told me that there is no length or width construction standard at this time.  I’ve talked with the Fire Chief, Richard Brown, who said the same thing.  Both of those department heads would certainly advise any homeowner to build their driveway such as you can get construction to the sight and safety services to the sight.

4. Lot shape or configuration:  Someone mentioned that it was a flag lot, which is a lot with a narrow neck.  That is certainly true, that is what the lot is.  I’d like to point out that the Planning Board recently approved a subdivision of Lot 34 – Lisa Violette – in November of 2002.  There is a subdivision lot with a rather long driveway, of 800 feet long.  
   If you look at attachment B, a subdivision at the base of Kearsarge Mountain Road that’s got a long, narrow neck of land to provide a road and the access.  There was concern about the angle of the lot line coming off of the road, not being at a right angle.  I again refer the Planning Board to the Violette subdivision, Attachment A.  You can see that is a very sharp angle off of Iron Kettle Road and if you look at Attachment A-1, that is the angle off of Iron Kettle Road which is in the opposite direction, so I reversed the image and put them back to back to that it looks a little like it is mirrored.  You can see that the LaBelle subdivision, which I outlined in green, makes an angle with Kearsarge Mountain Road.  The Violette subdivision makes a much sharper angle with Iron Kettle Road.  That one was approved in November of 2002.

5. Wildlife Corridor:  It is really the southerly tip of a long finger coming down off of Kearsarge Mountain Road.  It is shown as Attachment C.  It doesn’t appear to be a corridor going anyplace, because it is truncated by Main Street and the Interstate.

6. How wide it is:  We observed the houses down on the North Road and from the plans, we’ve got the houses located on Kearsarge Mountain Road , and we estimate that this is between those homes.  From the North Road and the site that Jane has picked out, it would be about 1300 feet. 

7. How far from the closest house:  We determined on the Site Walk that it was Mr. O’Neal’s house that it would be about 500 feet.  After getting the maps together, it is 540 feet from the proposed house and Mr. O’Neal’s house.  One of the questions was how much lower the proposed house site was, and we looked at the maps that we had with us that day and determined 50 feet.  From the maps, it is actually 58.5 feet.

Ms. Annis asked if there were any further questions from the public.  Hearing none, she closed the Public Hearing and reopened the Board Meeting.

Ms. Annis:  The Chair has received word, through Mr. Pershouse, from the New Hampshire Municipal Association.  We called them and received legal advice that the minutes of the prior Planning Board were not binding because it is unclear, which is also stated in Brackett Sheffy’s letter. 

Mr. Serell:  That is also what I said.

Ms. Annis:  I took it upon myself to contact Dick Brown, the Fire Chief, in regards to our next person that is going to be heard tonight.  I also contacted him regarding Jane LaBelle’s subdivision.  [ Reading from a letter to Dick Brown:  “They are creating frontage on one lot in order to comply our current zoning.  My questions to you are: 

o        The driveway on the lot being created will be over 1,000 feet. 

o        Do you want any turnouts along this driveway in order to have possible staging areas for trucks if there is a fire?

o        Do you want this driveway to be x-number of feet wide for safety vehicular traffic:  fire trucks/ambulance? 

o        Do you want us to require a circular driveway at the house end so that the safety traffic would not become bogged down?”

The subdivision was on file for his review.  He brought this in to me this evening, and he is recommending that the driveway be at least 12 feet wide, there is an area that is large enough to turn a truck around, and this area should be maintained summer and winter.  He also recognized the fact that he had spoken with you, Doug [Sweet].  But this is in writing. 

Mr. Brayshaw:  One of my main concerns, on whether this is a lot that is conforming as far as setbacks and frontages and such – My main concern with the subdivision is with the shape of the lot, as far as how it reflects the tax maps in he Selectmen’s office and the assessing process.   I think that the example that Mr. Sweet had given to us as far as another one that we had done for Mrs. Violette and I don’t that one was as extreme.  I’m not against the subdivision as far as it being a subdivision.  I have some reservations about the shape of the lot.  It just doesn’t conform with the lots up and down Kearsarge Mountain Road or Pumpkin Hill, or any of them.  I just wish that I could see something a little more rectangular or squared off.  I know that looking at the plans that have been submitted here, it is almost impossible to do so without running some type of easement.

Mr. Reeder:  You’re looking at lot shapes and how it doesn’t look nice on a tax map, but walking up and down a street, how do you know what shape a lot is, if it is 30 acres?  You might see stone walls, but it’s not necessarily the shape of the lot.  It has to do with house placements, if you can see the house, and driveway – what that looks like.  Personally, I think that having weird shaped lots is only picturesque on maps and it doesn’t really make any difference because it is contiguous land with maybe some borders and some different areas where there may or may not be grass. 

Mr. Brayshaw:  As I mentioned, that’s my opinion.  You can go out of uniformity, I supposed, but to bring something in to make it conform – I think that there is a limit to the scope within which you can do that.  We could have circular lots or things worse than this, but I think there has to be a cut off to what you can accept.  Aesthetically – I’ve been driving around this town my whole life, and I couldn’t tell you shape of every lot in this town.  But I work with Martha in the assessing office and I’ve looked at these things, and if you look at the whole mountain area, this would stick out like a sore thumb. 

Mr. Reeder:  On the map, it sticks out like a sore thumb. 

Mr. Orbacz:  I think it will stick out, also, driving by, because you’ll have a break in the stone wall at the road, a driveway that will bisect that pasture, you’ll break the stone wall again down below before it turns to go down to the house site.  So three times, you’re going to break the stone wall.  As I walked the property, that’s what I saw.  So I think that’s a major impact, as well – just bisecting the field with the driveway would be an impact that will be noticed. 

Mr. Reeder:  Sixty years from now, when there are 50-year old trees on the property, are you going to see the stone wall?

Mr. Serell:  It’s not just a matter of personal opinion, too.  Our ordinance has a provision in it that, as far as is practical, lot lines should be perpendicular to the streets.  They’re not all going to be exactly perpendicular and, obviously, there have been some exceptions to that.  But it is a guideline that is set forth in our ordinance that, in essence, is what the voters in the Town of Warner have said.  It doesn’t have to be a matter of personal opinion that we don’t like flag-shaped lots.  They’re really disfavored by our zoning ordinance.  That’s not to say that we’ve never approved them.  But I think that you can look at the ones that we have for comparison purposes, none are as extreme as this proposed one that we have before us today.  And I think that the one that comes closest to it, Attachment B – if you look at that, you could put a house on the front portion of that lot and still fit within the setbacks.  The difference with the current proposal is that they absolutely can’t put a house on the front section of the lot that they’re trying to create.  It is prohibited by their deed restriction and it just could not be put on the front section.  So we’re creating a lot where the residence has to be put on the back section of the lot and it has to be more than 500 feet from the road, which is also disfavored by language in our Master Plan, which we discussed at the last meeting.  So in all of the attachments that we have for comparison, the residence doesn’t have to be on the back portion of the lot, it doesn’t have to be more than 500 feet from the road – this particular one, it absolutely has to be.  

Ms. Annis:  The one that you’re talking about, Drew, went before the ZBA and got a variance on the frontage.  So we had no choice but [to approve it] because they had gotten a variance.  I don’t think that we can be blamed for creating a lot like that.  If we’d had our druthers, I don’t think that we would have accepted it. 

Mr. Orbacz:  We also have to remember that there is an existing driveway to their house now that could be used to get to that back land.  Did you, the owners, address that at all?  We talked about that during the Site Visit.

Ms. LaBelle:  Well, we did.  But I think you have a misconception about where the driveway is going to be.  If you remember from the Site Visit, there is an existing driveway where it would probably go in, especially if there is concern about breaking the stone walls.  There is a break in the stone wall that you can see on the map. 

Mr. Orbacz:  So that you break before the abutter’s house, or after it?  Which is another concern, for those of us who did the Site Visit.  If you cut in, if you use that break in the stone wall as you say, how close to the abutter’s house would you be?  40 or 50 feet, maybe?

Mr. Sweet:  The abutter’s house is about 40 feet to the property line.  It would be about 75 or 80 feet to the house. 

Mr. Orbacz:  I think that the way you have the driveway proposed severely impacts the value and aesthetics of the abutter’s property, when you do have an alternative – which is to use your existing driveway to get back to that site area. 

Mr. Brayshaw:  You could square it off and give yourself an easement off of that driveway and cut off that front section and gain access from a driveway to the back section of the property without disturbing that front section that is near your abutters.

Mr. Lennon:  I don’t have any big problems with this.  I missed the Planning Board’s Site Visit, but I did spend a good hour mucking around back there – I hope that was ok.  But I really think that the section on the south end of the frontage, where there is a little passage between the two existing stone walls, I would have no problem seeing a driveway go in there.  I really have no problems putting a house as far back from the road as this is going to be.  From what I can see, there would be no abutter that would have any inkling that the house was back there.  I think from sitting in on our growth management meetings, it is entirely consistent with where the town is going, to try to keep development off of the visible portions of the road and have it back on a large lot, which this is proposed to be.  I’d like to see the driveway coming back through that existing corridor between the two stone walls and I think it could easily be screened from the existing houses.  We have a lot of open space preserved back there for the sake of one house and if we could, everywhere in town, have a house put on 30 acres for perpetuity, I think we would be pretty happy with the development pattern of the town.  All in all, I really don’t have a problem with it.

Ms. Annis: If the Board is inclined to agree with this subdivision, I wish the Board would consider a couple of things.  I’m not concerned about a conservation easement.  I think the fact that putting a restriction on it that there will be no further subdivision of this property – either parcel – that would suffice.  I would also like to see, for the protection of the abutters, that there be a vegetative barrier of at least 25-feet wide from the abutter’s property to the driveway. 

Mr. Reeder:  So if they use the existing driveway that would scope out a little bit?

Ms. Annis:  Maybe you’d want to say 50-feet vegetative barrier.  I’m talking about the new driveway.

Mr. Orbacz:  I think that the existing driveway is the way to go. 

Mr. Reeder:  Jane, what is the objection of using the existing driveway of the other house to get to the back of the property?

Ms. LaBelle:  It would be longer so it would be more expensive.  I think that most importantly, there is a drop-off and it would make a much steeper section of driveway in order to get back there.  The way the yard is set up, there are actually two ridges, and then there is another drop off behind the rock wall.  And it is extremely wet.  There is a stream back there, which we did show you on the Site Visit. 

Mr. Sweet:  I can’t speak to that portion of the lot because I wasn’t back down there.  But from the plan, it is quite a bit steeper down there. 

Mr. Orbacz:  There is a tennis court there, that you had mentioned – wasn’t it back there? 

Ms. LaBelle:  It is on the second drop-off, so there is a significant place that you would have to go down.  It would make a longer driveway.

Mr. Orbacz:  West of the stone wall, behind your house? 

Ms. LaBelle:  It would be west, yes.  As for the vegetation between, I certainly have that ….

Mr. Annis:  I was just saying that it should be on the plan so that there wouldn’t be any question about it.  Is anyone ready to make a motion?

Mr. Reeder:  It certainly looks like using the existing driveway, on paper, would be terrific.  But in reality, it doesn’t look like it would be a good way of going.  Which just leaves us going through this odd-shaped lot to get to the building in the back.  We’ve looked at this for a couple of months and it really hasn’t changed much from the beginning, and I suppose it is time to say yea or nea. 

Mr. St.Pierre:  The plan that you have – has it changed since the last meeting?  Has it changed to reflect the conservation easement or any of those things? 

Ms. LaBelle:  In terms of shape?

Mr. St.Pierre:  No.  The plan that you have tonight – does it note on the plan that part of the land will be given over to a conservation easement, or is it the same plan you had the last time.

Ms. LaBelle:  No, there are definitely additions to this.

Mr. Sweet:  No.

Mr. St.Pierre:  This proposal that you gave to us tonight – it’s not reflected on the plan? 

Mr. Sweet:  No, we haven’t changed the plan.

Ms. Annis:  Russ, the reason that I proposed the “no further subdivision” rather than the conservation easement is because Richard Cook is saying that they are at the point now that they have to get outside help because they [Conservation Commission] have to walk all of the conservation easement property every single year.  So I thought that this way we would be helping them out, but yet there would still be no further development.

Mr. Reeder:  The areas that we were looking for were, 1:  No further subdivision on the two properties, is that correct?

Ms. Annis:  Yes.

Mr. Reeder:  And the vegetation – 25’ on either side of the driveway?

Ms. Annis:  No, I didn’t say on either side.  I don’t care what happens on the current house side.  It would be sold that way.  I’m saying where Ms. Brown lives now – on their abutting line, there should be 25 feet going out, or more. 

Mr. Orbacz:  Why not say that that existing rock wall not be broken, and that the driveway not pass on the abutter’s side of that rock wall?  It runs straight down.  That way there would be a buffer.

Mr. Brayshaw:  Are you saying between that rock wall and the basketball court?

Mr. Orbacz:  Yes.  That at least leaves the rock walls the way they are and the vegetation stays. 

Mr. Reeder:  The only thing I’m worried about is that it is getting pretty sharp down there at the bottom of the wall  -- when they decide to put a wall down there, is there going to be a setback requirement?

Mr. Sweet:  It would be better for the driveway if you could get down to the basketball court area and then angle over in between the walls.  I think that you would still have 40 or 50 feet of buffer, and it would fit the terrain.

Ms. Brown:  Would you show on the plan what you all are talking about?  Because this affects me greatly, and it is hard to tell.

Mr. Sweet:  We’re not all talking about the same thing, so I think that would be a good idea.  I took a gradient directly up through here, and I got about 15%, and then I took it on an angle and I got about 13%.  Then I came out on the north side of this east/west wall and I got about 16%.  The driveway would fit in a lot better on the land if it could come down, keeping to a member’s wishes, on this side of the wall and then if it could angle down like this, it would fit on the terrain better.  First, we won’t be able to get down and not break through the wall here because we’re getting close to the proposed property line.  That is 16-16.5% right there.  If we could angle through here, I think we could still keep the 40 feet off the corner and it is fairly well wooded there.  By this time, you’re well down below Mrs. Brown’s house.

Mr. Brayshaw:  What concerns me is that when you get down there, are you going to have room for a setback for the driveway?

Mr. Sweet:  What is the setback?

Ms. Annis:  We don’t have a setback for a driveway.

Mr. Sweet:  It would simply be too crowded to come down here, and it is too steep.

Mr. Brayshaw:  It seems to me that we had a buffer for the Farmers, as far as from the property line to the driveway, going up the left hand side by the Donahue’s side.

Ms. Annis:  I hate to put a push on this, but we have another hearing and we’re supposed to be on a third on at 8:00 .  You can either continue this so that you can think about it for another month, or you can either accept it or reject it. 

Mr. Reeder:  Ok – we have no further subdivision, and the driveway to maintain at least 40 feet from the abutters’ property, and the vegetation buffer. 

Ms. Annis:  You’d like to accept the plan as presented with these following exceptions:

Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the plan with the following exceptions:  

1.  Maintain at least a 40 foot vegetative buffer from the closest point of the abutters’ property – the Brown property – and the driveway

2.  A minimal disturbance of existing stone walls

3.  No further subdivision of either lot

4.  No commercial development on the C-1 zoned portion of the properties

Mr. Sweet:  Ms. LaBelle is certainly agreeable to no further subdivision, but does that mean that no lot line adjustments or annexations would be allowed?  For example, if an abutter wanted to purchase a part of Lot 1 or Lot 2 in the future?  No new lots would be created.

Ms. Annis:  The Lot Line Adjustment/Annexations are in our Subdivision Regulations.

Ms. Sweet:  So Lot Line Adjustments or Annexations would be allowed?  We just can’t subdivide and create more lots.

Mr. Reeder:  That is how I would hope that it would be.

Mr. Sweet:  We can maintain the 40 feet off the edge of the road, but we will have to go through some of the wall here to make that swing.

Mr. Reeder:  I understand that, but it would have to be minimal.  I think that previously, it looked like you were going to be knocking a lot of the wall out. 

Ms. LaBelle:  If I could make a point, too.  It is a pretty minimal wall.  It is already pretty well tumbled down.  It is kind of like a pile of rocks.

Mr. St.Pierre seconded the motion.

Ms. Annis:  Do you want to discuss this before we take a vote, or do you understand them?

Mr. Serell:  I would like to discuss this before a vote is taken.  I’m not in favor of this for the reasons that I gave earlier.  But I’m talking about the motion -- do you folks want to put the restriction of the driveway width, as suggested by the Fire Chief, as part of the motion.

Mr. Reeder:  Yes.

The motion was amended to include the following additional condition: 

5.   The driveway must be at least 12 feet wide and have a turnaround at the new dwelling large enough for a truck, and must be maintained all year round. 

Mr. Davies:  Could I ask a point of order, please?  You’ve proposed some new things – is there any way that the public can talk about these things?

Ms. Annis:  Not at this point.  Am I out of order?

Mr. Brayshaw:  I think that as a courtesy, it would be wise to extend…

Ms. Annis:  Is it something new that is going to be…?

Ms. Brown:  Where they’re proposing to put the driveway – is it already a legal driveway, on the state road?

Ms. Annis:  They’ll have to get a driveway permit.

Mr. Davies:  You were talking about the odd shape of the lot, and then it went right in to, "How are we going to make this odd shape work?"  Which is, obviously, the vote at hand here.  What is the definition of this vegetation?  I would hope that it would be year-round.  There were a lot of things that have been thrown out here quickly, and it is not known where some of these driveways are going to be headed.  To not give us any more than 5 minutes’ notice is a little strange.  That’s my final point.

Ms. Annis:  Are you ready to vote on the motion on the floor, to approve? 

The Board voted on the motion, and the motion failed by a majority vote.

Mr. Serell made a motion to disapprove the subdivision plan for the following reasons:

1.  The shape of the lot.

2.  The deed restriction on the current lot would necessitate having the house more than 500 feet from the roadway. 

The motion was seconded.

Ms. Annis called for a hand vote, and the vote was 4 votes to 2 votes, in favor of the motion to disapprove the subdivision.

Mr. Sweet:  What is the next step?

Ms. Annis:  You could go before the ZBA and have them give you a variance. 

Mr. Serell:  No.

Ms. Annis:  They could, for the frontage.

Mr. Serell:  They need the frontage.

Ms. Annis:  Ok, then who do they appeal their decision to?

Mr. Brayshaw:  They could come back with another plan. 

Mr. Wallace:  They could appeal it back to this Board to rehear it.

Ms. Annis:  I’ve never heard one before, so I don’t know.  Could we research this and get back to you?

V.                  PUBLIC HEARING:  Site Plan Review – continued from March 3, 2003 meeting

Aubuchon Hardware, Gregory Moran, VP Real Estate, 95 Aubuchon Drive , Westminster , MA 01473 .  Property located at 30 Rt. 103 West [Market Basket building], Warner, NH.  Map 14, Lot 7, 22.74 acres,

C1 Zoning.  Installation of Propane Filling Station. Demoulas Super Markets, Inc., Owner

Continued until the August 4, 2003 Planning Board meeting.

VI.                PUBLIC HEARING:  Site Plan Review

Bridget LeRoy, owner of property located at 9 West Main Street , Warner, NH 03278 (Map 31, Lot 11). Conversion of existing barn into spiritual weekend retreat for women, Tend and Befriend. Addition of 5 guest rooms and bathroom.

Overview:

Ø       Weekend retreat for women

Ø       No more than 10 sleepover women

Ø       Never more than 20 weekends per year

Ø       Possibly only one weekend per month

Ø       Friday and Saturday nights only

Ø       Parking in area behind the barn, entering on Mill Street

Ø       Very quiet, spiritual, relaxing, not bother any neighbors, spend money in town

Ø       Fits into the community

Ø       Yoga class on Saturday morning

Ø       A couple of workshops:  journaling through poetry, nice quiet stuff

Ø       All meals are included

Ø       Opportunity for a massage therapist to come in

Ø       Evening ceremony on Friday and Saturday evenings

Ø       Workshop on Sunday morning

Ø       Departure around 1:00 on Sunday

 

Mr. Pershouse:  Have you made any changes to the plan since you were here previously?

Ms. LeRoy:  Only what the Fire Chief suggested, putting a fire escape out the back. 

Mr. Pershouse:  Your program is going to be the same?

Ms. LeRoy:  Yes.

Mr. Wallace:  You’ve already gotten approval for 5 guests, right?

Ms. LeRoy:  10 guests, 5 bedrooms.

Ms. Annis:  That was my question – you were here before the ZBA for a Special Exception, correct?

Ms. LeRoy:  Yes, I was.  And received approval for 10 sleepover guests.

Ms. Brown:  The Notice of Decision states that the Special Exceptions were for Table I, Retail & Services #8:  Lodging House or Bed and Breakfast, and #9:  Personal and Consumer Service Establishment.  The only condition on the approval was that the maximum number of overnight guests in the barn would be 10. 

 

Mr. Reeder:  How much parking do you have in the back?  When I drove by, you have a common driveway with the property next door. 

Ms. LeRoy:  No, it is a separate driveway right next to them, isn’t it?

Mr. Reeder:  It looks like it is one and then it splits off. 

Ms. LeRoy:  No, it is a completely different driveway. 

Mr. Reeder:  Well, it may be yours, but it appears that they are using it.

Ms. LeRoy:  No, I’m pretty sure that there is a fence or trees between mine and the little green house.

Mr. Reeder:  I was just wondering about the abutters towards the Walker Power side. 

Ms. LeRoy:  Their driveway is totally separate.

Mr. Reeder:  Where is their driveway?

Ms. LeRoy:  It is right next to my driveway.

Mr. Reeder:  So there are two driveways coming out onto the street next to each other?

Ms. LeRoy:  There is one driveway that leads to their house that doesn’t go anywhere through…

Mr. Reeder:  Coming through the curb cut on the street?

Ms. LeRoy:  There are two driveways.

Mr. Reeder:  So there is roughly a 20 foot…

Ms. LeRoy:  It has nothing to do with me – it’s not my property. 

Mr. Reeder:  Well, it sort of does.

Ms. LeRoy:  No, it doesn’t.  It’s not my property.  There’s their house and there’s my house and my driveway…

Mr. Reeder:  When I looked at it, there were just two tire tracks.  There weren’t four.

Ms. LeRoy:  I don’t understand.

Mr. Reeder:  When a car goes over grass, you have two tire tracks. 

Ms. LeRoy:  And that is totally my property.  They don’t use it.

Mr. Reeder:  I was just wondering about this, because they might need to put in some other form to get to their garage. That is the way I saw it when I was driving by.

Ms. LeRoy:  I’d like to walk that with you, because there is no way that they could use my driveway to get to anywhere.

Mr. Reeder:  OK, but the parking is going to be in the back? 

Ms. LeRoy:  Yes.

Mr. Reeder:  That was my point, and I’m glad that the parking is going to be in the back.   I think that is important for this type of business and for the town.

 

Ms. Annis:  I would like to do a Site Visit on this.  I would like to see the parking and I want to see the driveway in.  Bridget has commented that there are going to be 10 guests, maximum.  But she also makes an opening statement [in the application] that there will be up to 16 women AND10 day guests.

Ms. LeRoy:  That document is old.  Once it was said that there were only to be 10 sleepover guests, that is it.  I’m not trying to pull a fast one on you.

Ms. Annis:  So we’re not going to have the possibility of 26 women coming for a day seminar.

Ms. LeRoy:  Yes, you might have that possibility but they won’t be sleeping over.  They might be coming on Saturday for an hour and a half or so.  Some can park there, and some can park down at the Park and Ride and we’ll go get them.

Ms. LeRoy:  My parking will probably accommodate about 15 or 20 cars, but you guys come and take a look and you tell me. 

Ms. Annis:  I would also like to see how they will be coming up from the parking area up to your barn area.  How they’re going to enter – are they going to be coming up around the barn to the front to enter?  If so, are there stairs there or is it just a slope there, or what the story is.  The other thing that I find lacking is that there is no description of the sign.

Ms. LeRoy:  The sign is just going to be on my barn.  It’s not going to be roadside. 

Ms. Annis:  Is it going to be written on the barn, or is it going to be a sign hanging on the barn?

Ms. LeRoy:  Whatever you want, Barbara.  You tell me, and I’ll do it.  I don’t care.  Whatever you want.

Ms. Annis:  No, but we have Site Plan Regulations and in the regulations is a section on signs.  When Aubuchon came in, we questioned the color of the sign and the size of the sign.

 

Mr. Brayshaw:  I have a question about the structural integrity of the barn.  I know that it came before the Selectmen a couple of years ago – in an assessment issue that the assessment shouldn’t have been as high on the barn because of the structural integrity. 

Ms. LeRoy:  Tom Wallace and Rick DuShane (sp?) came in and I had someone come in and lolly column it, and I had a structural engineer come in from Gary Blue, who is doing the work.  I could call Blue and see if it’s been done yet.

Mr. Pershouse made a motion to continue the hearing until the August meeting after conducting a Site Visit in the near future and the Board should make up a list of concerns to address at that visit.  Parking access should be addressed as well as the requirement for a sign proposal from the applicant.  The motion was seconded.  The motion passed by a unanimous vote.

The Site Visit was set for 8:00 a.m. , July 12^th.

Mr. St.Pierre:  In the application, on the checklist, the applicant is asking for some waivers.  Can we address those now?

Ms. Annis:  She is asking for a waiver on checklist #9, Location, width, curbing and type of access ways and egress ways, plus streets and sidewalks within and around the site.

Ms. LeRoy:  Because they’d be coming from the back, I didn’t think those would apply.

Ms. Annis:  She does say that they’ll be coming in from Mill Street ; she does say that it is 11 feet wide.  Do you want to grant a waiver on #9?

Mr. Pershouse made a motion to consider the waivers after the Site Visit is conducted.  Mr. Wallace seconded the motion, and the motion passed by a unanimous vote. 

VII.              Public Hearing:  Site Plan Review

Bob Carpenter, T.F. Bernier, Inc. and Mark Feenstra for R.A.W. Investments, P.O. Box 596 , Newport , NH 03773 . Construction of 2 office buildings, one on Lot 4-1 (1.484 acres) and 1 on Lot 4-2 (1.647 acres), Map 35.  Property located on Route 103, West Main Street, Exit 9 off of I-89.

Ray Wentzel, R.A.W. Investments

Ms. Annis asked for clarification on the following:

Ø       Mr. Serell’s request at the June Board Meeting for a copy of the existing recorded deed showing that RAW owns the property.  Has that been done?

Mr. Wentzel:  No, I didn’t bring the deed.  It hasn’t been transferred.  It’s the same as when I bought it 3 years ago.  The town would be notified one way or another, because of taxes.

Ø       Request at the June meeting for a letter stating who Warner Development is.  Mr. Serell said that was an issue when the conservation easement was being given to Warner by Warner Development.  The new version that the Board has is being granted by RAW.  Ms. Annis stated that the new easement was received and would be given to the Selectmen for their review and signature on Tuesday, July 8^th.  Mr. Serell asked if it was a newly created document from RAW to the Town of Warner and dated within the last few days.  Mr. Brayshaw asked if it was the original text from Jim McLaughlin, and it was confirmed that it was the corrected deed text.  A copy was given to Mr. Serell for his review. 

Ø       Correspondence on letterhead from True North Mortgage company referring to RAW and Warner Development.  Ms. Annis said that the water is getting very muddy. 

Ø       Request from June 11^th letter, coming originally from Jim McLaughlin text, for a document from a title abstractor or attorney stating that good and clear title is being conveyed by the easement.  It hasn’t been received.  Mr. Wentzel stated that they weren’t giving a piece of the land but only an easement.  We’re not deeding out a piece.  Ms. Annis said that it was no longer necessary.

Ø       Letter received from Mark Feenstra on True North Mortgage letterhead stating that the mortgage company has nothing to do with RAW Investments.  Mr. Wentzel said that he could clarify that:  When Mr. Feenstra sits in his office at the mortgage company, which he owns, he writes a letter and uses that stationary not thinking that the paper says True North Mortgage. 

Mr. Carpenter presented three sets of supplemental information to the Board.  He stated that the abutter list had been submitted and that they are also listed on the plan, fees had been paid, applicants and owner and designer are shown.  He also submitted a landscaping plan and covered the checklist item by item with the Board.  He asked if there were any items on the new checklist because he didn’t have a copy of that checklist.  One was provided to him and he went over any items not shown on the older version of the checklist.  He asked that the Board accept the application as complete.

Mr. Serell made the suggestion that the plan be referred to the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission for their review prior the Board accepting the plan as complete.   

Ms. Annis said that she had spoken with CNHRPC and that they also suggested that an engineering firm look at the structural plan and give their recommendations, especially since this is in the floodplain, because of the volume of permits required.

Mr. Brayshaw:  We’d talked about FEMA, right?  Wouldn’t that permit work have been done at the beginning when they were doing all of that fill work?

Mr. Carpenter:  The permits that we’ve identified as being required here were from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services and also a driveway permit from DOT.  In the supplemental package that I handed in tonight, we have received both of those approvals.  That isn’t part of the checklist, but I was going to address that.  That is pretty much all of the outside approvals that are required.

Mr. St.Pierre:  I haven’t had time to review all of the supplemental information that has been given to us tonight, but I’m not ready to vote on the completeness of this application without reviewing the information that has been given to us.

Mr. Carpenter:  The only information that you haven’t seen before are sheets L2 and L3, which are the landscape detail aspects of it.  Everything you have already had, and there have been very minor changes to those consistent with the supplemental information that has been provided.  You’ve had the site design plans, the sanitary sewer plans.

Mr. Pershouse:  Have the sanitary sewer plans changed from the original?

Mr. Carpenter:  No change from the original.  We made some additions on one of the detail sheets.  We’ve made some minor revisions to that in terms of things that are construction oriented, things that should be done construction-wise.  The layout is the same that was presented to you.  In that package are really only two new sheets and those are addressing things that you pointed out last time that were not in the package, and that was the planting schedule and details on the landscaping.  Also we have information on the lighting.  It’s not a part of the package, but I also have a photo metric layout that was done by the folks that did the lighting.  It is kind of a worksheet that they gave me, and I would be happy to share that. 

Mr. Reeder:  Do we have cut sheets of the actual liminares?

Mr. Carpenter:  Yes.  The basic is on sheet D2, and is in the supplemental package.

Mr. Reeder:  I think that is something that we need to investigate because of the sensitivity of lighting in this town.

Mr. Carpenter:  We went to the lighting experts, who were familiar with your regulations because they are copied from others that are copied, etc.  They are very familiar with those in Vermont .

Ms. Annis:  One of the things that I followed through on is the Water District.  I spoke with one of the Water Commissioners and you have not gone to speak with the Commissioners directly.  Somebody spoke with Jim Bailey, who is the superintendent of the water works, and somebody has gotten elevations, but nobody has made a formal approach to the Commissioners.  At least, they hadn’t 2 days ago.  This is all stuff that has to be done.

Mr. Carpenter:  That’s not outlined anywhere.  I have spoken with Jim Bailey on several occasions, so that they are aware of it.  All of this is what comes where in the process.  The water is there and it is available and there is no question about being able to connect, but have we formally requested a connection?  No.  We don’t even have a site plan that has been accepted by you folks yet. 

Mr. Pershouse:  I think that we are in a bit of a catch-22 on the landscaping.  Barbara, I’m wondering if we accept the landscaping plan tonight or in the future, without having it be reviewed for completeness by a landscape architect or professional, how do we get to the point where we have enough data on your plan that we know that it is complete – or are you saying that it is complete?

Mr. Carpenter:  The question here is that you have a checklist of what’s required for a complete submission and I’ve presented that tonight.  Everything that is on your checklist is here.  If there is information there that is not complete for some reason, in an individual review of that sheet, that is something that will come out in the review process.  The fact of the matter is that the information is presented to you this evening.  It is there in front of you.  It is available for your review – you call it a catch-22, but at some point we have to move on here.  At some point you are going to have to accept an application so that we can start talking about this.

Mr. Brayshaw:  I would tend to agree.  I understand CNHRPC and such, but I know that Mark had brought up some questions on the trees.  Certainly there are a million and one aspects to this project and we could get specific right down to the light bulbs if you wanted to get that specific.  Someone had mentioned 6 foot vs. 8 foot sidewalks.  I don’t hear any of those questions being brought up, but certainly those questions will come up at a future meeting.  Why don’t we cover what’s been outstanding up to this point?  This thing is just going to drag on for another year if we don’t.

Ms. Annis:  Not as far as I’m concerned, it won’t.  But I do think that this Board needs expert advice.  There’s not a person on this Board that is an expert in landscape design; there’s not a person on this Board that is an engineer for buildings; Mark is involved in planning and zoning in his profession…

Mr. Brayshaw:  Are we going to say that we need an expert on lighting, that we need an expert on water, we need an expert on electricity, we need an expert on foundations, we need an expert on vinyl vs. wood siding?  We could go on and on with this expert stuff.

Mr. Pershouse:  I think that there are three or four general categories that Barbara is alluding to.

Mr. Brayshaw:  Then we should mention them, get them out, so that these people can cost effectively deal with the project.

Mr. Pershouse:  They’re saying that they’ve given us sufficient information up to this point so that we can determine whether we need outside advice.

Mr. Brayshaw:  Speaking for myself, I just think that this thing is dragging out. 

Ms. Annis:  Dragging out for one month?

Mr. Carpenter:  If I could speak to that, we came in in May and had a conceptual discussion as to what we were thinking and to get some input from you folks as far as are we going in the right direction.  Also, to ask what we would need to come in with for an application.  We were looking for guidance on that.  The response was, “Here are the regulations, come back with a Site Plan.”  Well, we’ve come back with a full Site Plan here that covers the items in your checklist.  I don’t dispute that at some point we need to discuss with the Water Commissioners actually connecting with the water, but that wasn’t brought up at that time that we needed to go talk to them first.  We weren’t told that we needed to go and talk with the Sewer Commissioners or whoever they are before we come here.  If that’s what you’re telling me that we need to do now, than I think that we’ve been misled.  We have been here and we’ve talked about this project for the last two months, and I’m just saying that we need to start looking at the plans that have been submitted.

Mr. Brayshaw:  We’ve talked about this project with you for two months, but we talked with your partner in here two months before that.  My frustration in this whole project is that I’m losing heads or tails about what’s going on.  I hear something different being brought up every meeting that continues it to another month.  Let’s get it all out – this is what we want, the checklist has been made – I don’t want to sit here for five hours for the next five or six months going over these plans.  Let’s get experts if we need them, but let’s get this thing looked and let’s go by what we have set forth in our guidelines and our checklist.

Mr. Serell:  This particular plan has been in front of us for two months, which is not an extraordinarily long time.  I think that you are trying to paint a picture that we’ve been sitting on this for a long time.  This is only the second month that we’ve considered this project, which I would indicate is a project of significant magnitude in this town.  So I don’t think that we are dragging our feet in any way, shape or form.  I do think, as I mentioned earlier, that we should get input from Central New Hampshire Regional Planning in terms of the completeness of the application, we should get their recommendations in terms of what other expert reviews they think we should have.  We can consider it; we can accept it or reject it.  But I personally would like to get their input regarding the completeness of the plan on a project of this magnitude in our town.

Mr. Brayshaw:  Well, I would just like to rebut that.  I don’t think that I’m trying to paint a picture here.  I think that what I’m trying to say is that we have a checklist – certainly, none of us on this Board are experts – we’ve had more than two months to look at these plans.

Ms. Annis:  No, we haven’t.

Mr. Brayshaw:  Or a portion of them.

Ms. Annis:  No, we haven’t. 

Mr. Brayshaw:  Who was the gentleman that was in before this gentleman?

Ms. Annis:  That was Mark Feenstra.

Mr. Brayshaw:  No, no.  I’m talking about his counterpart.

Mr. Carpenter:  Tim Bernier.

Mr. Brayshaw:  Tim Bernier.  I’m just saying; let’s get all of our apples and ducks in a row.  Let’s not look at different experts each and every time.    

Ms. Annis:  OK -- We had a meeting.  You weren’t able to come to that meeting, but it’s not that the Board hasn’t been doing something.  Am I correct that the consensus at that meeting was that CNHRPC will review these plans?

Mr. Wallace:  Yes. 

Mr. Serell:  We talked about that, but it still needs to be a motion, and a vote taken.

Mr. St.Pierre:  Not to delay the process, but tonight is the first night that we’ve had to view what you consider to be a complete submission, and I’m not ready to say after ten minutes of review that this is a complete submission.  I’m just not.

Mr. Brayshaw:  I don’t think that’s what he’s saying or what I’m saying.  I’m just saying…

Mr. St.Pierre:  But that is the point.  I can’t vote to say that yes, this is a complete submission based on ten minutes of review of a few pages.

Mr. Brayshaw:  I’m not saying that we need to vote.  I’m just saying that if we’re sending it to CNHRPC, and we need other experts involved, let’s get it all done in one fell swoop.  Let’s get all of our apples in a row, ducks in a row, whatever you want to call it, and move forward with it.  We’re talking about Water Precinct people, we’re talking about deeds, we’re talking about a bunch of different stuff.  I know that it is a pertinent to this project, but it all needs to come together smoothly.

Mr. Wentzel:  Can I say something to the Board?  My engineer, Bob, here has done all the maps and gone over the checklist that you people actually require to get a subdivision accepted or not accepted.  He’s gone through the checklist item by item.  It’s done. So if all of the items on the checklist are here, it should be approved.  If somebody can show him something that is not there, according to your checklist – not adding on other features and other things that you may want.  Next month, you bring up some more issues.  It should be voted on. Yes, we accept your plan.  Everything is on the checklist. What he’s trying to do is show you that.  He’s an engineer, we have a landscape engineer doing the plans, we have an architect engineer doing the plans – we’ve got like five people on the payroll trying to make this Board happy.  We’re only in here now to have you accept it or not accept it.  If it’s not accepted, I’d like to have an explanation why it’s not accepted.  That’s the first step.  Then we can go into what type of shrubs or whatever else you’d like to talk about.  Everything is on there according to your checklist.  You don’t have to ask Southwest Community or another landscape person if everything is on there.  You have the checklist.  He’s demonstrated that everything is on those plans.  That’s the only criteria that I think we need for the first step.

Mr. Brayshaw:  That’s, I guess, he’s summed it up, I mean, in my own words, is that we need to accept it.  I mean, we’re not approving anything. We need to accept it as a complete plan.  We’re not approving the plan, you know, for the subdivision.  Am I incorrect there, myself?

Ms. Annis:  If you accept the plan, the clock starts running, and you have x number of days to say approval or disapproval. 

Mr. St.Pierre:  It’s not even that.  I don’t disagree that everything is there – it probably is.  But I don’t know, and I’m not going to vote to say that it is without knowing that.

Mr. Wentzel:  It’s basically two new pages.

Mr. St.Pierre:  OK – but that’s two new pages and how they fit into the overall scheme.  That’s two pages of details.  There’s a lot of information that we just did not have until tonight. 

 Mr. Wentzel:  But the point is that when the engineer goes down through it, going through 1 – showing you where it is on the map, 2, 3…  I mean, if someone can’t find something on there that is on your checklist, let’s bring it up so the engineer can take care of it.  I’m quite sure, by him going down through the list, that everything is on there.

Mr. St.Pierre:  I’m not quite sure that everything is.  So that’s where we are.  It’s not to delay this; it is just to check it.  People come in here all the time with a Site Plan, and you look at it and they’ll swear that everything is there and it’s not.  And not that this is the case. It’s just that we haven’t had time to look at it. So I don’t think that you can reasonably expect us to say that yes, it is all there. 

Mr. Wentzel:  Would it help if Bob went down through it, one by one, and showed you on the map?

Ms. Annis:  Number 19 on the checklist:  Other required exhibits or data.  We don’t know until we’ve had someone review them. 

Mr. Carpenter:  That’s fine, but how in the world will you ever accept an application then?

Ms. Annis:  By having an expert review them.

Mr. Carpenter:  Then your procedure should outline that submittal comes in and it will go immediately to a review agency to determine completeness, and your regs don’t say that.  You have to determine completeness.

Ms. Annis:  I’m sorry.

Mr. Serell:  We don’t have to do that.  We don’t have to refer every Site Plan to a review agency.  But this happens to be a fairly large project in this town and one that the town is going to be very concerned with.  On projects of this magnitude, the Board, at its discretion, may decide to refer to the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission.

Mr. Carpenter:  Why weren’t we told in May that we were going to have to do that?

Mr. Serell:  Because it’s not for you to do – it’s for us to do.

Mr. Carpenter:  We came here in May to talk to you about a concept, to find out what are your procedures and what do we have to do to satisfy this Board.

Ms. Annis:  It is up to the Board.  I’m with you.  We will lay it out as to what we are going to require.  We have met, we have discussed it.  Do I hear a motion that this plan – as presented to us tonight – will be forwarded to CNHRPC for their review?

Mr. Brayshaw:  I’ll make that motion.

The motion was made and seconded to send the plan as presented to the Central Regional Planning Commission for their review.  The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

Ms. Annis:  Do you want an outside engineer – per our Site Plan regs, we can have an outside engineer review it.  Do you want an engineer to review the plans as presented to us, and all of the other documents tonight?

Mr. Brayshaw:  Are you talking about Provan & Lorber?   

Ms. Annis:  That would be negotiable between the applicant and us.  We have used Provan & Lorber in the past, for the subdivision.  I don’t know how you got along with them.

Mr. Wentzel:  We got along fine with them.

Ms. Annis:  Then Provan & Lorber would be acceptable to you again?

Mr. Carpenter:  That was discussed in May, and Mark has said at that time that that would be an acceptable firm.

Ms. Annis:  So what is the Board’s opinion on having Provan & Lorber review these plans for completeness?

Mr. Pershouse:  For completeness?

Mr. St.Pierre:  I don’t think that we need to have Provan & Lorber review them for completeness.

Mr. Pershouse:  CNHRPC would recommend that if they felt it were necessary. 

Mr. Serell:  I think that what we are looking for with CNHRPC is their view on the plan’s completeness as well as their view on whether the scope of the project would be suitable for review by an engineer.

Ms. Annis:  One other thing that we discussed at the meeting that we had was the possibility of the impact that this project was going to have on the area down there.  If you remember, the Fire Chief had some concerns and Emergency Management had some concerns.  We were talking about a traffic study.  Do you feel that that is still necessary?

Mr. Brayshaw:  Wouldn’t a traffic survey have been done, as far as us approving the actual division of the property itself?

Ms. Annis:  No, not the subdivision.

Mr. Brayshaw:  We had talked about it.

Mr. Pershouse:  There are a number of variables, things that we may not be able to pin down like the type of businesses going in there and the amount of traffic that a particular type of business would generate.  My understanding is that when two of the other commercial business went in down there, there was a traffic survey done.  Basically, it’s really essential for us to know for the future of that area what the impact of any major development or anything of this size will be.

Mr. Wallace:  We should have some type of a traffic study done.

Mr. St.Pierre:  You’ve included a copy of the driveway permit from DOT?

Mr. Carpenter:  Yes.

Mr. St.Pierre:  Did you also include the information that you gave to DOT for their consideration for the driveway permit?

Mr. Carpenter:  No.

Mr. St.Pierre:  Could you share that with the Board?

Mr. Carpenter:  Sure.  Essentially, I can basically address that because typically in a traffic study that is done in terms of roadway improvements and driveway permitting and what level of improvement is required for the driveway, and that’s typically done under the purview of DOT.  The traffic study that was done in 1994 for Market Basket is probably still a valid document.  I have talked with the engineer who prepared that, and it was his sense that it was probably still a valid document from that perspective.  The other aspect that is alluded to is what the end use of the property is, and at this point that is still pretty much up in the air.  You deal with things in generic terms. 

Mr. Pershouse:  You can use the worse case scenario – you can find a range…

Mr. Carpenter:  Absolutely, and as Russ pointed out, in preparing the application for DOT that was one of the things that they had ask for; some projections of what was and also some looks at what was going on out there today.  So we didn’t do a formal traffic study for them.  We did, rather, an informal traffic study for them.  We did some limited counts in order to deal with that.  We did some projections based on ITE numbers in terms of what the traffic generation of this site would be.  That was submitted to them for their review prior to them issuing a driveway permit.  That is how we got to where we are.  Basically, the driveway as it was originally presented to you and as it has been fine tuned over the last couple of months was accepted by DOT.

Mr. Pershouse:  That addresses your development, your site access and egress.  But from the Town’s point of view and what we are looking for, I believe, is the impact of any development down there on the general area.  The DOT isn’t going to determine, I assume, that the Town of Warner needs a traffic light if we put in another commercial development down there.  So I think that it is really whose issues we’re looking out for.  That is now our major commercial district and there is still a lot of space down there to be developed.  So what you determine to be your development is a significant component of the traffic study.  But we’re looking a much more global point of view.

Ms. Annis:  Two businesses vs. eight is a significant amount of traffic.

Mr. Carpenter:  To deal with a regional study is a little bit beyond a site of this size.  But, again, as I mentioned to you, I spoke with the engineer that did the study for McDonalds and Market Basket way back when, and his statement was that those studies would still be valid.  As you are referring to the traffic studies, understand that a traffic study looks at the surrounding properties as well and the potential development of those properties to their highest and best use.  I haven’t looked at those studies in detail, but I dare say the Market Basket study would have had to have looked at this sight with its highest and best development use and this might be a simpler process from the perspective of, “Is the proposed use here consistent with what was anticipated in the 1994 study?”, as opposed to instigating a new study.

Ms. Annis:  Phil, do you have that book that shows the increase in traffic down there?  We brought this up at the work meeting. 

State of New Hampshire , Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Planning: 

Southbound south of New Hampshire Exit 8/9:  1994 – 15,000        2001 – 18,000

You’re saying that the 1994 projected for Market Basket, you thought you could use that and it wouldn’t be a significant change.  We’re looking at a change of 3,000?

Mr. Carpenter:  I’m not saying that it wouldn’t be a significant change.  I’m saying that when they did that study, they would have projected out what the models would be.  While that may look like a significant number, it might actually be lower than what was projected for the increased traffic in that area.  I didn’t look at that report in detail, but the engineer that prepared it said that it would still be a valid study.

Mr. Reeder:  [giving another document to Ms. Annis] They put a traffic counter right at the bridge over the little stream along at Exit 9.

Ms. Annis:  By Stevens Brook, the stream that is there by the Mobil station?

Mr. Reeder:  Yes.

Ms. Annis:  1994 – 4,700  2001 – 6,800.   That is a considerable increase in traffic in that area in that length of time.

What is the Board’s opinion on having a traffic study done?

Mr. Lennon:  I think that it is an intelligent study, and I don’t think that it needs to be expensive or time consuming.  The traffic folks will use these data to the maximum extent possible.

Mr. Serell stated that it is consistent with the Site Plan Review regulations, Section VIII (K), and that there are court decisions stating that towns may legitimately consider the impact of increased traffic when considering the safety of existing or proposed accesses. 

Mr. Serell:  I think that this is something that the Town should have done.  The Town should hire someone to do the traffic study for the town as opposed to having the applicant do the study.  If the applicant submitted it, I think that we should hire somebody to look it over, so we’d be having two experts instead of one.

Mr. Lennon:  I disagree with that.  Those people live and die by the accuracy of their studies.  If they did something that was slanted, they’d be out of business.

Mr. Serell:  Would the study address both numerical counts and also give proposed modifications to the area? 

Mr. Lennon:  Their goal would be to say, “Here’s what is now.  Here’s what one could anticipate with the addition of up to 8 businesses, and here’s the impact on traffic in terms of level of service or delays.”

Mr. Serell:  And would it go further to say, “And here’s what we should have” in terms of street crossings and those types of things?

Mr. Lennon:  In my limited experience, the answer is yes if the existing infrastructure is not great enough to handle, in their opinion, what is going to come in and out of this site – they would say, “Here are mitigating features that you might want to consider.”  But we could specify that. 

The Board discussed the scope of a study – whether from North Road to the interstate or from the downtown area to the interstate. 

Ms. Annis stated that the Fire Chief was very concerned about the traffic coming through Town, down the hill trying to get to the new business and could envision the traffic backing up the hill toward town.

Mr. Brayshaw:  With Okemo opening Mt. Sunapee off of Exit 9, an article in the newspaper stated that there would be a 41% increase in traffic off of Exit 9.  In addition to the traffic coming through town, the traffic coming off of Exit 9, either going toward Sunapee or to Evans, it is going to be major.  Wouldn’t the State do part of that, since it is a State highway?

Mr. Pershouse:  Why don’t we go to CNHRPC and ask them what they would recommend based on the scope of this project and based on Warner’s needs, and get them to recommend the scope of the traffic study.

Mr. Lennon:  My objection to that is that we hear back from them in a month and we tell these folks to go get a traffic study done, which could be done in a month but of necessity it will at least throw another month in – whereas if we could tell them what we would like for a traffic study now.  Or at least commit to get information back from CNHRPC in three or four days, and then we don’t have to hold them up.  But I think that it would be unfair to hold them up 2 months just so we can find out the scope of the traffic study we’re asking for.  If I can, I would like to see a traffic study that shows volumes and turns between Main Street east of North Road to Main Street/Route 103 on the far side of the interstate interchange.  I would assume development of 8 successful businesses in this location. 

Ms. Annis:  There is that third lot that is going to be developed at some point and it is in a commercial area, and that lot is above North Road .  So should we have it from Split Rock, which is above North Road ?

Mr. Lennon:  I think that the driveway will come in more or less across from North Road , so if we cover North Road we’ve covered that.

Mr. St.Pierre:  It sounds like the consensus of the Board is to request a traffic study, but my question is what will we gain from it?  Not that the DOT is the almighty, but is their road and their intersection and they’ve already reviewed the application submitted by the applicant and they’ve determined that there are not improvements necessary or required.  I guess I just don’t want to have another study done that says the same thing that they’ve already said.  And the other part is that a traffic study is going to be based on the same information given as far as what kind of businesses are going to be in there.  I guess what I would hope is that they’re going to develop this land and it is going to fill up over time, traffic is going to change in that area accordingly.  I would suggest that, since there is a third lot to be developed, we maybe wait and see what traffic is like and request a traffic study if we think it is necessary when the third lot comes up for development.  I don’t know what we would get out of a traffic study but a bunch of number.

Mr. Pershouse:  What about a left hand turn?  That doesn’t bother you?

Mr. St.Pierre:  It’s been reviewed.

Ms. Annis:  But what did they present to DOT?  Did it take into consideration traffic coming through town down to there?

Mr. Carpenter:  I can answer that. Before we did anything with this, we had a discussion with District V.  They’re very familiar with this site and with the region.  The same people have been there for a number of years and they have seen all of the development going on and there are no surprises here.  So I asked them what they were going to want to see.  They said they wanted to see some counts as far as what’s going on in front of the site and they wanted to see our traffic projection based on ITE numbers or, if you know something better, give us that.  So we did some limited numbers of the site, based on afternoon peak hour, dealing with eastbound/westbound traffic past the site, and took based out analysis on that.  We went from there and looked at ITE numbers for what we anticipated being the development on the site.  DOT has at their disposal traffic studies that were done for McDonalds and Market Basket, as well.  Although I don’t know that they did so, it would be a rational assumption on my part to assume that they looked at those studies. 

Mr. Serell:  So you gave them a count and projections, but I was wondering how you do projections if you’re not sure what is going into those retail spaces.  Is it commonly assumed that retail spaces x the number of feet you have yields a certain number of cars, or do the projections depend to a certain extent on what’s going into those buildings?

Mr. Carpenter:  There’s a publication called the Traffic Generation Manual that’s put out by transportation engineers, and it is based on nationwide experience.  They have categorized a variety of uses for sites.  Some they narrow it down and some are generic.  They might look at a McDonald’s type of restaurant vs. a sit down type of restaurant.  They’ll look at specialty retail stores vs. an Express Mart, things of that nature.  They have models that have been developed based on actual counts that have been done. 

Mr. Serell:  For your particular project, what pattern did you use? 

Mr. Carpenter:  I think I ended up with one category because we weren’t sure what would be use was going to be in there.  There is kind of general retail category.

Mr. Serell:  In that general retail category, are there more specific categories?  If you’re projecting Business A in the general retail category and Business B goes in there, that has a more specific retail projection, are you going to need to revisit the issue?

Mr. St.Pierre:  You can ask DOT to look at that.

Mr. Carpenter:  Essentially, that is a part of the DOT process.  They say that if you have a use that comes in here that is a high use, they will want to see what those numbers are.  Provided that you’re dealing with uses that are consistent with what was outlined, then their study is ok.  If you have a Burger King that wants to come in and take over a building, they’ll want to know what’s going on because now you’ve changed the picture and you have a much higher volume.

Mr. Serell:  Once you’ve built this project, do you anticipate having to go back to DOT every time you sign up a tenant?  Don’t you have to?

Mr. Carpenter:  No.

Mr. Serell:  Why not?

Mr. Carpenter:  As long as you’re consistent with what’s proposed, then you don’t need to.  But they’re throwing it back on you and saying that if you’re changing what the use is…  These buildings are designed for a specific kind of retail in the global sense.  There are going to be some that are low and some that are higher, and it balances out.  You’re looking at a change of use of one of these buildings that is generating higher traffic numbers.

Mr. Serell:  I guess that we could speak about this more intelligently after we see what you have submitted to DOT, which you indicated that you were willing to do.

Mr. Wallace:  I would suggest that you bring in to Sissy the information that you submitted to DOT, and she could send it out to the Board members with the information she sends out each month.  That way we could review it before we come in next month and then decide if we want to accept what they submitted to DOT or ask for a traffic study, which would then put them off for 30 days.  I think that we should at least look at what they have and determine if it is acceptable. 

Mr. Carpenter:  I think that Russ was on the right track in terms of, “What is your end goal here?”  Are you looking to say that DOT blew it and you want a left hand turn out there?

Ms. Annis:  It’s possible.

Mr. Carpenter:  It’s their highway – they control it.  If they felt that the numbers were such that it required it, they would have asked us for it.  If they felt that a traffic study was required, they would have asked us for it.

Mr. Pershouse:  Are you prepared to make a left hand turn…

[From the audience] What about the impact on Capital Improvements for the Town?

Mr. Lennon:  I think your statement is not necessarily correct.  The DOT’s concerns are, in fact, different than ours.

Mr. Carpenter:  I don’t dispute that.

Mr. Lennon:  My experience, and it is my perception that is that of other folks in town, is that one traffic issue in town is the unfortunate layout of existing driveways in that area.  What you’re proposing –and I hope you fill it up – but to the extent that you are successful, you are going to exacerbate what is perceived and what is, in fact, the worse traffic situation in town.  So I think that we are entirely justified in suggesting that you get an estimate of turning movements in and out of those intersections and an estimate from an engineer of what that implies in terms of waiting times.  Again, I don’t think that it needs to delay the process and I don’t think that it needs to cost an arm and a leg.  But I do think that we are serving the interests of the town by requesting that.  I agree with Russ that I don’t think that it will turn up any earth shaking numbers in terms of 20 minute delays getting out of Market Basket of 40 traffic accidents a year coming down the hill.  But I do think that it is in the scope of our responsibilities to the town to request the study.

There was discussion about where the traffic would be coming from – from the interstate vs. from the town.  They discussed the need to know what information was presented to DOT for the driveway permit, and the impact that Market Basket has had and continues to have on traffic. 

Mr. Serell made a motion to wait until the applicant submits to the Board the information that they presented to DOT for their driveway permit to determine if a traffic study will be required by the Board.  As an alternative, the applicant can do a traffic study now.  The motion was seconded.

Mr. Pershouse:  If they opt to do a traffic study now, how do we give them the scope of the traffic study?

Mr. Serell:  It would be based on traffic counts associated with their proposed use, comparing them with known traffic and known counts that we have currently, and coming up with either suggestions for improvements or a statement that no further improvements beyond what are submitted in the plan are necessary.

Mr. Lennon:  I’d add, and I don’t think that it would cost them any more, that they throw in the projections for an Aubuchon Hardware going in by Market Basket.

Mr. Carpenter:  I guess I’d ask the question – if you’re looking for a traffic study from us, are you going to ask Aubuchon to do a traffic study?

Mr. Lennon:  I think that you could use your ITE studies to come up with a number of in and out turning movements from an Aubuchon without adding to your cost.

Ms. Annis:  I would say that Aubuchon was already done, because Market Basket knew that they were going to have a retail store there when they went in.  At one time, it was going to be a drug store.

Ms. Annis called for a vote on the motion, and the motion passed by a unanimous vote.

Ms. Annis asked if anyone else had anything to add.

Mr. Lennon:  The two things that I didn’t see here are the erosion controls during construction and colored elevations.

Mr. Carpenter:  You’ll have to point out to me where the regulations call for colored elevations.  I understand that you’re concerned about the colored elevations, and I have a colored plan here tonight. 

Ms. Annis:  While he’s looking at that, EPA now has a new requirement – a Notice of Intent.  Is this something that has been done?

Mr. Carpenter:  No.  If I understand what you’re referring to, it is basically a notice that goes to them in terms of construction taking place on the site, and who the responsible parties are.  That’s all it is.  We don’t even have an approved plan yet, so we can’t go out and say who is going to build it.

Mr. Pershouse:  Isn’t there an element of the scope of disruption of the site and vegetation, a threshold?

Mr. Carpenter:  There’s a threshold, but basically it comes down to knowing who is on site and who is responsible for it in case they come by and see that there’s an issue, who’s responsible.

Ms. Annis:  Did you find it, Mark?

Mr. Lennon:  No – I thought I’d seen it, but I can’t find it.

Ms. Annis:  I would like just one more thing.  I would like to have one contact from RAW – either Ray or Bob or Mark.  I’ll give you an example.  When [Ray] came in to sign the Conservation Easement, in case Mark didn’t send the copy that he had, I asked you, “What is your position with RAW Investments?”  You said, “I’m President.”  I said, “Wait a minute – Mark said that he is President.”

Mr. Wentzel:  It changes.  It could change tonight.  Here’s [indicating his wife] the Secretary.  We have meetings, you know, and she’s a Director, I’m a Director, Mark’s a Director.   It could change because of a vote.  Here’s a lawyer here – how many meetings could you have in a week, if you want to have them?  Seven?  You could change it everyday if you wanted to.  So that’s not a very valuable point you’re raising. 

Ms. Annis:  So we want one person to contact a person here, and we’re asking the Board of Selectmen to get voicemail into the Planning Board office.  We will get back to you when that is in place, so that we won’t have confusion going on.

Mr. Wentzel:  All that we’ve been trying to do is ask different people on the Board, “Is there anything else that you need?  What else would you like?  I don’t see what that is for a problem, if I ask anybody on the Board “Is there anything else that you’re worried about or concerned about?”  We like to ask.  Mark asked, Bob asked, Nancy might call some day and ask.  We’re just trying to get everything on the plate, and if we ask just one person, we’re going to get just your idea.  If we ask two or three members, they’re going to tell us some of the other things that they’re worried about.  That’s all we’re trying to do. 

Ms. Annis:  We’re getting conflicting information, and we’ll discuss it and having it open, but one person, please.

Mr. Carpenter:  I mentioned that I have a worksheet on the photo metrics, and is that something you’d like to have?

Mr. Reeder:  Yes.  I’m more concerned about the glare coming off, not so much the placement of lighting on the ground.            

Mr. Carpenter:  This was put together by the people when they looked at the lighting layout, and they looked at the selection of the light and they looked at the pole.  So this diagram reflects the fact that this is the luminare that is going to be used, and it is going to be on a 15 foot pole.  This is how many lights you need and this is what you’ll end up with 

Ms. Annis:  Ray, you’ll need to have an escrow account to cover the cost of the CNHRPC review.

Mr. Wentzel:  I would like to see an accounting of the funds that were put into escrow previously.

Ms. Annis:  I will get you that.

Mr. Carpenter:  Will we have a response prior to the next meeting so that if CNHRPC finds something, we will have an opportunity to respond?

It was stated that the information would be compiled and delivered to CNHRPC within the week, and that Ms. Annis would they would contact them to find out the turnaround time for the review.  That information will be relayed to Mr. Carpenter.

VIII.            Preliminary Consultation:  Change of Use

Warner Power, Dennis Deegan.  Purchase and Sales Agreement on property currently owned by Donald & Jane Johnsen, 19 Mill Street (Map 32, Lot 21).  Abuts Warner Power. Upgrade exterior appearance of property by replacing roof and siding and move a portion of current manufacturing operations into the building.  C-1 zoning, served by municipal water and sewer.  Seeking an indication from the Planning Board that its planned usage for the property would cause the Planning Board to grant a waiver of compliance to Site Plan Regulations. 

Mr. Deegan:  We are here tonight to get the Board’s thoughts on using the building.  The Johnsens are moving their operation to Bradford .  Changes/uses to the building:

Ø       Vinyl siding, probably white, on the exterior

Ø       Dark, probably green, metal roof

Ø       Change the set of barn doors on southwest corner to be replaced with an overhead door that will be 2 feet wider – currently 6 feet, and would be 8 feet wide.

Ø       No parking in front of the building

Ø       Landscape the front of the building

Ø       Maintain propane tank access

Ø       On south side, put in a 20 foot wide drive to the new overhead door for loading and offloading

Ø       Intent to move a portion of transformer systems manufacturing into the building

Ø       Will enable a better flow of the operation at our existing building on Depot Street

Ø       Approximately 6 employees in the building, with no new employees anticipated

Ø       Will use existing parking, which is adequate

Ø       Zoned C-1, and light manufacturing is permitted

Ø       Asking for change of use from Max Recognition Embroidery to our operation

Ø       Building is on Town water and sewer

Ø       No hazardous materials in the building

Ø       Hours of operation will be consistent with those of other facilities

Ø       No smell

Ø       Paint booth and blue smoke machine will stay at the current location

Ø       Lighting consistent with current property.  Probably replace the spot lights on front of the building with something consistent with other building, and will add something on the end facing the parking lot.  No significant increase in lighting, and will do away with the light on the pole.

Ms. St.Pierre:  Will the delivery entrance be paved?  What type of truck will use the delivery entrance?

Mr. Deegan:  Yes, it will be paved.  It would probably be a state truck or some type of a box truck – 20 to 24 feet.  Basically, we’re going be moving sub-assemblies across the street.

Ms. Annis:  Where will the pad be?

Mr. Deegan:  It will be lined up with the door, so that the truck can line up with the door.  I think that the distance from the road is about 20 feet to the building.

Mr. Pershouse:  Is the access to the propane tank essentially so that the truck can park in that driveway to fill it?

Mr. Deegan:  That is our intent.  We’ll ask our employees not to park there.

Ms. Annis:  How will your employees get from the present parking area to that building?

Mr. Deegan:  I will have to put in a walkway on the side, which will meet up with the pavement.

Mr. Serell:  There is a statement in the summary that was submitted that this lot doesn’t currently conform to the Town of Warner ’s Site Plan regulations.  Is that because it is substandard in size?

Mr. Deegan:  Yes.  It is .14 of an acre.  That’s all.

Mr. Serell:  So, technically, it doesn’t conform to the zoning.  I just wanted to make sure that there wasn’t anything else.

Mr. Deegan.  No. 

Mr. Serell:  Technically, it is a Change of Use and so requires a Site Plan Review.  We could waive the Site Plan Review, but I would like to see an application for Site Plan Review submitted and waivers requested for specific requirements that don’t apply. 

Mr. Reeder:  I don’t see any problems, and I like to see that it is a known entity going into that building.

Ms. Annis:  A formal application should be submitted for the next meeting. 

Mr. Deegan:  This is enough information to move forward with our Purchase and Sale Agreement.

 

                  Mr. Lennon left at 10:00 p.m.