Minutes of the Meeting and Public Hearing

Monday, July 9, 2001 7:30 PM

Members Present: James McLaughlin, Barbara Annis, John Wallace, Cynthia Dabrowski,

Derek Pershouse

Members Absent: Andrew Serell (arrived late), John Brayshaw

Alternates Present: Russ St.Pierre, Pam Mulsow

Alternates Absent: Mark Lennon

Presiding: James McLaughlin

Recording: Sissy Brown

Presentation and detail of site plan, orientation of building to Waterloo Street and the Warner River. Mr. Carley stated that a large portion of the property slopes up very gently from the street, then levels off, then slopes down fairly dramatically on the southern side down to the river. The proposed placement of the building is as far back from the street as is possible, but still allowing for traffic circulation on the site to avoid the steep area. The building is 6,500 square feet and has two levels, rectangular in shape. The largest portion is the printing plant area, with an office area and parking and loading areas (south side). Plan is to leave as much existing vegetation in front of the building as possible.

*Question: Is there residential property on either side of the site? Is this a separate property from the existing Brayshaw property?

*Answer: This is a separate property.

Explanation of traffic flow on the property, 36 parking spaces (6 for customers, 30 for employees), and management of water drainage on the site, septic system, well, and lighting for outside parking areas.

*Question: What time will the lights be on?

*Answer: They will come on at dusk with a timer and are low impact lights.

*Question: How many employees?

*Answer: Less than twice the size of the current location. The sewage system has been approved for 24 employees.

*Question: Regarding traffic complaints from neighbors, what accommodations have been made at this location?

*Answer: The times of some deliveries can’t be controlled, and could be up to 7:00 p.m.

*Question: What type of signage will be at the new building?

*Answer: A small sign to the right or left of the driveway.

Mr. Brayshaw assured the Board of his sensitivity to the concerns of the neighbors and the impact of the proposed building on the neighborhood. Mr. Sweet stated that the site plan is in compliance with the Shoreline Protection Act, and that the required 250’ extends beyond the old railroad tracks.

The Board stated that the building plan should be attached to the site plan copies for the Board, and also requested larger copies of the site plan maps, including lighting, traffic flow information and parking shown separately to increase readability.

Mr. McLaughlin called for discussion among Board members regarding acceptance of the plan.

Mr. McLaughlin asked the Board if they wanted to accept the plan at this point with the additions identified and added, then proceed to the Public Hearing.

Ms. Annis moved to accept the proposed site plan, with an enlarged version of the site plan and buildings showing more detail. The motion was seconded and a unanimous vote approved the plan.

The Board requested that three copies of the new versions of the plans be delivered to the Planning Board as soon as possible so that members can refer to them while on the site visit.

Mr. McLaughlin closed the Board Meeting and opened the Public Hearing, asking for questions and/or comments from any Abutters.

Fay Vadnais, who lives across the street from the proposed business, had the following questions:

1. What type of lighting would there be? Answer: Motion sensor halogen lights in the back parking lot. Two lights will be somewhat obscured by the vegetation.

2. How many trucks will be make deliveries?

3. Impact of employees entrance and exit and the number of trucks? Answer: Low exposure to traffic because of the location of the exit and delivery area for trucks.

4. When will the ground breaking be? Answer: Within the next year.

Mike and Shirley Dorrngton asked if the property in question was recently rezoned, and Mr. McLaughlin stated that it has been zoned commercial since around 1970. Mr. Dorrington discussed the historic talk concerning expansion plans of the Brayshaws’ business, and said that this proposed expansion of the existing business would appear to be a non-conforming use of commercial development in a residential area. He was also concerned that the Town of Warner would pick up liability with commercial traffic in a residential area with increased traffic on Waterloo Road. He also asked what the existing business location will be used for after the business moves to the proposed new location.

Ms. Annis stated that the Board doesn’t have the authority to address any other property but the one before the Board at this time.

Jackie Moody had the following questions:

1. What is the distance between the building and the property line? Answer: 40’

2. What is the "squiggly line" along the edge of the road, a fence? Answer: trees

3. Will the tall lights on the polls go off at night, and if so, at what time? Answer: Yes. They will stay on until the last person leaves. Working hours are usually between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. or later, depending on the season. They are on motion detectors, not timers as previously stated. The lights will go on if someone drives by in the parking lot.

Mrs. Dorrington wanted to know if the plan is in compliance with the Shoreline Protection Act, in regards to the Warner River? Answer: Yes.

Mr. McLaughlin asked if the Board had any further questions, and hearing none the Site Visit of the property was scheduled for Tuesday, 7/17/01, at 6:00 at the property. The public was invited to attend to make sure that everyone is comfortable with the development of Warner’s limited commercial property. Mr. McLaughlin recessed discussion on this topic until the August meeting.

Mr. Blakeman gave a description of the site plan for the self storage facility located at Exit 7 of highway 89. The property is 7.6 acres and is wooded. Old Warner Lane, in front of the buildings, will be upgraded to a Class V road, upon approval by the Selectmen at their meeting of 7/10/01. There will be gravel between the buildings.

There will be 2 phases of the project. The first phase will be approximately 94 (40 plus 54) storage units in two buildings measuring 25’ wide x 215’ long. The second phase will be two buildings measuring 25’ wide x 270’ long. The distance between the buildings is 25’. The distance around the buildings, the gravel access will be 20’ with the exception of the lower area which is 30’ to accommodate the entrance and exit of vehicles. There is one entrance only, no septic. The buildings will be on concrete slabs and have good drainage. Natural vegetation will be left as much as possible. Descriptions were given of the slope of the site. The lighting will be on the corners of the buildings and roughly one-third down the side of the buildings, with no plans for pole lighting. Fencing will be constructed across the front of the property and approximately 100’ the sides of the property. A fence exists along highway 89.

Question: How far up the front of the property will the road be upgraded as a Class V road?

Answer: Paved up to the entrance, then 200’ of gravel. This will be discussed further at the Selectmen’s meeting, but it was stated that they were in agreement that there wasn’t no need to continue the pavement further because it deadends.

Question: Would another access be needed later if the project is expanded?

Answer: No, probably not because it would be too expensive. The entrance might be widened at a later date. It will be a minimum of 24’.

Discussion over concerns of fire equipment and service vehicles being able to get to the areas if necessary. It was stated that a second gate could be added with the second phase.

Question: What type of soils are there, and are there any wetlands?

Answer: No wetlands, the area is dry and the soil has good drainage.

The property/project has been treated as residential property and a 25’ buffer has been left. New fencing will be put in, but not all around the property/project. Vandalism and break-ins are not anticipated to be a problem. The setbacks on the last two units will be from the corner and the edge of the gravel. Fire stops have been considered because of two recent fires in self storage areas. Mr. Brown said that fire walls are normally used, and that there will be no electricity in the units. The lights will be directed toward the ground, will not be visible by neighbors, and could be on timers or motion detectors. A small sign would be placed by the entrance gate.

Discussion on the hours of operation. Mr. Brown would prefer 24 hour access, and some board members preferred 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. There was discussion on how to reach a compromise on the hours.

Mr. McLaughlin asked if the plan was complete, and if the Board had any further questions. Mr. Blakeman presented photos to the Board showing the proposed buildings. There was concern regarding restriction or issues on the I-89 side. Mr. Blakeman stated that at this time there are no State setback requirements with the exception of the Shoreland protection and urban areas, like airports. Mr. Morris said that the State acquires a wide corridor when placing their fences adjacent to highways to avoid the possibility of cars going off, etc. The State creates a much wider margin than they actually need.

Ms. Annis moved that the Board accept the plan as complete as presented. The motion was seconded. The question was raised regarding the issue of the road upgrade being accepted by the Selectmen at their 7/10/01 meeting. The motion was amended to accept the plan subject to approval by the Selectmen of the upgrade of the road to Class V. The Board accepted the plan as complete by a unanimous vote.

Mr. McLaughlin closed the Board meeting and opened the Public Hearing.

Reta Deinhardt, an Abutter and owner of the railroad track property, stated that if this project is like the other project that Mr. Brown has built, she approves of this plan.

Mr. McLaughlin closed the Public Hearing and reopened the Board Meeting.

Ms. Annis made a motion that the Board approve the site plan pending the Board of Selectmen accepting the road as a Class V road of at least 200’ at their 7/10/01 meeting. There was a second to the motion.

There was a question whether the abutters had any comments regarding the 24 hour access to the storage units, and there were no complaints.

The Board approved the site plan by a unanimous vote.

Mr. McLaughlin called for any discussion. There was discussion concerning the 24 hour access, and the fact that if this were approved and future use caused too much traffic in the neighborhood, it would not be fair to the owner to reverse the decision. Mr. Pershouse asked if there could be a condition put on the hours of operation.

Mr. McLaughlin polled the voting members of the Board to approve the 24 hour access to the storage units. It was approved.

 

IV. Hastings Rigolet, Richard Colfer and Dwight Graves - Lot Line Adjustment: Lot Line Adjustment between properties located at 6 and 7 Red Chimney Road, Warner, NH 03278, Map 6, Lots 54-2, 54, and 54-1, and Map 7, Lots 16 and 17, R3 District.

Hastings Rigolet, property owner

Mr. Rigolet presented a letter to the Board from Mr. Colfer and Mr. Graves authorizing him to represent them and their interests because they are both out of the country.

Mr. Rigolet is before the Board seeking preliminary consultation of three Lot Line Adjustments prior to having a survey done of the properties in question. Adjoining properties are owned by Mr. Rigolet, Mr. Colfer and Mr. Graves. Mr. Graves is selling some of his property, and it is being bought by Mr. Rigolet and Mr. Colfer and the existing property lines will be adjusted accordingly. It was determined by the Board that the resulting parcels of land meet the size and access requirements.

Ms. Annis advised Mr. Rigolet to inform Mr. Graves that the adjustments might affect the Current Use status (if it exists) of certain property because the proposed adjustments would decrease the size of the parcel.

Mr. McLaughlin asked if the Board had any problems with the proposed Lot Line Adjustments, other than the concern of a possible Current Use issue. Mr. Rigolet will come before the Board again after the surveys have been completed.

The two properties are 38.6 acres (Cutter) and 4.7 acre (Hebert). Basically, the new lot line configurations will make the property lines more even. The end result will be a land swap and result in 39.3 acres (Cutter) and 4.0 acres (Hebert), with better access to certain areas of the properties.

A motion was made to accept the application for a Lot Line Adjustment.

Mr. McLaughlin confirmed that the Abutters had been notified. Mr. McLaughlin asked for discussion, and there was none. Ms. Annis suggested that a spelling error on the site plan be corrected, from Pleasent to Pleasant. Mr. McLaughlin called for a motion.

Mr. Serell moved that the Lot Line Adjustment be approved, with the spelling correction made and the zoning added to the plans. There was a second to the motion. A unanimous vote approved the Lot Line Adjustment.

After discussing previous discussions and letters between Mr. Wentzel, his engineer, and the Board, Mr. McLaughlin clarified the situation and stated that he, Mr. Pershouse and Mr. Virgin had met and that Mr. Virgin is not comfortable with the bond fee and he needs to see the plans before he can verify the cost of restoring the four lots and the retaining wall on lot number 4. Mr. Virgin’s position is that until he can see the plans and can verify the costs, he does not approve of Mr. Mock’s plans and cost figures.

Mr. Pershouse stated that the engineer for Mr. Mock needs to produce a stamped set of prints reflecting the work on the initial application and that, in turn, reflects on the bonding amount. Until that is produced, nothing else can be done.

Mr. Wentzel will be added to the agenda for the August 6th Planning Board meeting,

VII. Communications and Miscellaneous

· Sissy Brown was introduced as the new Board Secretary.

· The next meeting of the Planning Board will be held on Monday, August 6, 2001.

· Mr. McLaughlin introduced a letter he received from the Conservation Commission regarding a previous discussion concerning Mr. Chase’s plans to build a house on one of his lots on the Class VI portion of Joppa East and putting in a driveway across an abutter’s piece of property on the existing Class V portion of Joppa Road. Mr. Chase had asked the Selectmen to address the upgrading of the Class VI section to Class V at their July 17th meeting. [ The letter was read and is attached as part of the meeting’s minutes. ]

· Mr. St.Pierre handed out copies of the updated Building Code Ordinance. Pam Mulsow had a copy of, and the Board discussed, the Town’s Camping Facilities Ordinance, and whether it has ever been approved by the Town.

· Mr. Pershouse inquired as to the restrictions and issues regarding work around Willow Brook, and if the shoreline along the brook is protected. Mr. McLaughlin said that in Section J, Page 5, General Provisions of the Warner Zoning Ordinance, it states, "Warner River, bodies of water and waterways: Any lot bordering the Warner River shall have a minimum frontage of 100 feet. All buildings, including storage tanks, shall be set back a minimum of 75 feet from the Warner River, ponds greater than 10 acres and all other perennial waterways and streams as shown on standard 7 1/2 minute USG quadrangle maps. In addition a maximum of 50% of the existing natural vegetation shall remain as a buffer." Mr. Pershouse has concerns that a resident of Warner is doing some type of construction directly on the banks of the brook. It was suggested that he discuss the situation with the Selectmen.

· Mr. McLaughlin stated that the Zoning Ordinance passed in March, 2001, governs the commercial development and guides developers in what they should be doing. He suggested that a sub-committee or working group should be formed to review and address Architectural control. It was suggested that these meetings be open to the public and that business associations and other organizations be notified and that there be public postings of these sub-committees meetings (TV, website, Town Clerk’s office, Post Office, Transfer Station, Market Basket). Barbara Annis, Cynthia Dabrowski, Pam Mulsow and Russ St.Pierre volunteered, and a meeting was set for 7:00 p.m. on August 13, 2001.

· Ms. Annis discussed Impact Fees. The Master Plan allows these fees, but there is no schedule of fees or guidelines.

· A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the May 7, 2001 Planning Board meeting at the August 6th meeting.