I. Open Meeting at 7:12 PM

II. Roll Call

III. Approval of the Minutes of the July 7, 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: Site Plan Review – continued from July 7, 2003 meeting

Bob Carpenter, T.F. Bernier, Inc. and Ray Wentzel 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 2 1 and 2, 103, West Main Street, Exit 9 off of I-89.

Lucy St.John, Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission

George Pelletier, Landscape Architect

Ms. Annis announced that Ms. St. John and Mr. Pelletier have reviewed the plans submitted by R.A.W. Investments, and will each give a review to the Board. Mr. Serell asked the applicants if they would like to make a response after hearing the reports of Mr. Pelletier and Ms. St.John at this meeting, or if they would like to prepare a response for the next meeting. Mr. Carpenter stated that he didn’t see the justification of not accepting the plan as submitted.

Ms. Annis said that she would like this meeting to be focused on the findings/reviews of the plans and have a discussion of the various parts of the plan.

Mr. Wallace: After a short review of Ms. St.John’s review, I think she has done a very good job, but I would like to hear the details of the report.

Ms. St. John gave an overview of her report:

Report based on the following Town Regulations and other applicable regulations, which may apply:

§ Town of Warner Zoning Ordinance, last amended March 12, 2002 per Town website July 2003

§ Town of Warner 1999 Master Plan

§ Site Plan Review Regulations and Design Review Standards for the Town of Warner, NH, revised 5/5/03

§ Town of Warner Floodplain Development Ordinance, amended March 12, 2003

"This review is based solely on the information listed or discussed within. Should additional information be submitted, the context of this review could change. CNHRPC recommends that the site plan application not be accepted at this time. The site was designed with a majority of the parking in the front of the building and per the Site Plan regulations, the parking lots should be located to the side and rear of proposed structures. The proposed parking design affects many other aspects of the site plan and does not comply with many of the requirements of the Site Plan regulations. Two separate parcels are presented; however, cross easement documents were not submitted with the application. Information regarding future tenants and potential traffic impacts regarding traffic generation data and impacts on the surrounding road network are not included. Some information is provided on water service, sewer, and erosion details. A drainage swale is shown on the plan but no drainage details and calculations for the site are included. Existing and proposed contour lines are not labeled as such on the plan. CNHRPC recommends that the Town’s consulting engineer review all engineering aspects of the plan for completion and compliance with the regulations. A landscaping plan was submitted; however, many of the details do not conform to the requirements of the Site Plan regulations – particularly plant size and spacing.

…The Planning Board is advised to confirm with the applicant if the abutters list is correct. Without proper and complete notification, the Planning Board cannot entertain this application."

The Board held a discussion about the property in question, and Mr. Carpenter stated that by state statute, the property directly across the street is what is considered an abutter. Ms. Annis stated that that any property within 200 feet should be noticed. The property in question is the Town of Warner Police Station.

The question of notification of Contoocook Electric Light Company, who holds an easement across the properties being discussed, was addressed, and Ms. St.John read from the Land Use Regulations regarding notification of abutters. She stated that it doesn’t specifically address "easements", but that she was bringing this to the Board’s attention because many communities do send notifications to easement holders as if they were abutters.

Details of report:

Parking:

Ø 100-year flood elevation is shown to be 422 feet

Ø In proposed location, buildings would have basement elevation at 423 feet, only 1 foot above 100-year flood elevation

Ø Potential impacts to structures from flooding could be lessened if parking were located in rear of building, where elevation is lower

Ø Site Plan regulations state a maximum of 8 continuous parking spaces permitted. Nine are shown on lot 4-2, and 12 are shown to rear of lot 4-1.

Ø No calculation shown to demonstrate specific requirement regarding percentage of landscaped area

Flood Hazard Areas:

Ø See first two bullets above

Roadway and Traffic Issues:

Ø NHDOT Driveway Permit should be included in plan

Ø Were there any conditions imposed on the permit?

Ø If there are conditions, they should be clearly stated on the plan

Ø Will all loading and unloading areas be restricted to rear of the building?

Ø If so, a note should be included on the plan – otherwise, this can interfere with on-site traffic flow and create safety hazards to pedestrians and motorists

Ø Signage directing all delivery vehicles to rear?

Ø Information on proposed traffic volumes is needed

Ø Proximity to I-89 and other business may warrant a traffic study

Ø Will each building have four or eight tenants?

Ø What is the nature of each business?

Ø How many employees?

Ø Information necessary to determine parking requirements for patrons and employees, as well as trip generation

Ø Entry and access driveway to the rear of property is unequally bisected by property line and labeled as a "Siamese connection" – What provisions will be taken should the property be sold, and the possibility that both lots won’t be owned by the same person?

Ø No cross easement or other documents have been submitted. The Planning Board is advised to have Town Counsel review such documents.

Ø Location, width and pavement treatment of all driveways and access points within 200 feet of the site shall be shown on the plan per Section IX (C) of Site Plan regulations.

Ø North Road should be shown and labeled on the existing conditions plan.

Ø Details regarding sidewalks and pedestrian access to the site are not included on the plan.

Existing Conditions Plan, Sheet 1:

Ø Incorrect reference re: Zoning Ordinance requirements

Ø Clarification needed re: 6-foot wide area to the rear of lot 35-4-1. Is it an access path or easement?

Wetlands:

Ø Plan is not stamped or signed by a certified wetland scientist.

Ø Note should be included on the plan stating there will or won’t be any wetlands impacts.

Ø What engineer or wetlands scientist has made this determination?

Ø Will there be any impacts from utility line placement?

Signs:

Ø Details regarding all signage on the plan are not included

Ø Actual sign dimensions should be shown on plan

Ø Illuminated tenant’s sign are shown on plan – additional information regarding these signs is needed

Utilities:

Ø Per notation on plan, "existing electric line to be raised or relocated", when is this scheduled to occur?

Ø Any impacts to the wetlands in the area?

Ø Water and sewer line details as well as all engineering aspects of the plan, including drainage and storm water should be reviewed by Town’s engineer – per Site Plan regulations.

Ø Per Site Plan regulations, XVII, Utilities, all distances from existing water and sewage facilities and on abutting properties to a distance of 200 feet are to be shown on the plan – this has not been provided.

Ø Letter certifying to the developer’s concurrence to the employment of said engineer filed with the Board?

Ø Permits in place – from Town, NH Dept. of Transportation and NH Dept. of Environmental Services?

Ø Safety issues/precautions concerning location of two propane tanks

Ø Utilities available and installed at no cost to the Town?

Ø Has Fire Department reviewed the plan?

Ø Drainage – how addressed? Calculations? Will well and brook be affected by drainage?

Ø Town’s Floodplain Development regulations should be reviewed – constructions standards, location of water and sewer facilities and other permits which may be required.

Landscaping Plan:

Ø Landscaping Plan will likely need to be changed to comply with the overall parking arrangements per Site Plan regulations

Ø No "maintenance surety to ensure that any planted materials will be replaced in the event they are damaged or die within one year" provided, per Site Plan regulations

Ø Maturation of vegetation might limit sign visibility and sight distance on the property

Ø Minimum width requirements of front yard landscape area not met

Ø Minimum height requirements of shrubs, evergreens and trees not met

Ø Side and Rear Yard Landscaping Standards in Site Plan regulations not complete on plan

Ø Building Perimeter Landscaping Standards in Site Plan regulations not complete on plan

Ø

Dumpster:

Ø Type of screening material not shown on plan

Ø Gate or door to completely enclose the dumpster and keep animals out and contain refuse?

Lighting Plan:

Ø Plan not signed by any company

Ø Sensors or automatic shutoffs control any lighting?

Ø Values on plan should be explained to Board, including foot candle requirements stated in regulations

Ø 15 foot height limit of lamp, pole and base is exceeded

Ø Note indicating the five foot-candle maximum illumination at edge of property has not been exceeded needed on plan

Snow Storage:

Ø No area shown on plan – where will it be stored?

Ø Any wetland impacts?

Ø Where will snow storage area drain into?

Easements:

Ø No cross easement agreement submitted.

Ø Site Plan regulations, Section IX, Item C, 1-4: All agreements will be recorded with the deed, including but not limited to maintenance agreements and shall be approved by the Town Attorney

Building Elevation Detail:

Ø Colored drawings have not been provided.

Ø Will any mechanical equipment such as air conditioners or other external devices be located on the outside of the buildings?

Ø All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view with either building walls or roof forms.

Performance Guarantee:

Ø Refer to Site Plan regulations Section XIX, Performance Guarantees.

Ø The Planning Board may require the posting of improvement guarantees.

Ø The Board may wish to entertain performance guarantees for site improvements including but not limited to paving, utilities and landscaping.

George Pelletier stated that he found nothing beyond what Ms. St.John found, and that he concurs with her observations.

Mr. Reeder reported on a traffic count he had recently done, and his findings:

Ø In one hour, 454 cars – westbound and eastbound combined. He said that the traffic study done 10 years ago, for MacDonald’s, showed that if traffic counts even approached these numbers, a traffic signal would be warranted.

Mr. Pershouse: Do we need to address Lot 3 as part of the anticipation of the cross easement issues?

Ms. St.John: If they wanted to develop that lot, they’d need to come in with a Site Plan at that time.

Ms. Annis: Language on the Driveway Permit states that this is the second of three allowable driveways. Does this mean that another driveway could be put into the second building in the future?

Mr. Reeder: Lot 1 only has a small part of the driveway on the plan, so it would be the lot that might require another driveway.

Ms. Annis: I don’t know all of the permits that are required, but how do we know when they’ve been done and when are they due? I’ve heard from2w Mr. Carpenter that certain permits aren’t due at this time – but when are certain ones required and due? I recall Mr. Carpenter stating that a permit for the directional bore under the road isn’t required at this time, but will be during the construction phase. So I don’t know where we are for permits.

Ms. St.John: The engineer knows when certain permits – for example, sewer and water – are required. Typically, if a Board approves a plan where permits are needed – for example, a federal permit needed if a certain number of acres are disturbed – because that issues has been raised, they should make a notation if that permit isn’t required. If it is required, and the Board approves the plan, they should say that the plan is being approved contingent on these permits being received, the permit number should be shown on the actual Site Plan, and once those things are in order, then the Planning Board can sign off on that. For sewer and water construction, is there somebody in-house that reviews those permits?

Ms. Annis: The Precinct would be involved in that – the Water District.

Ms. St.John: As a Board, I would ask the applicant to provide that information the Board during this review process, because you probably need to review some of those details on behalf of the town. And if there is something on a permit that would drastically alter the design of the plan, the applicant may need to come back before the Board. It doesn’t happen very often, but it can. For example, on a Wetlands permit, they recommend that a lot not be conformed in a certain way, or a road may need to be moved or not be permitted. That would have to go back to the Board.

Mr. Carpenter: There seems to be an issue here between acceptance of the plan and approval of the plan.

Mr. Carpenter: There seems to be an issue here between acceptance of the plan and approval of the plan. For acceptance, there is a checklist. At the last meeting, we went over that we have submitted all information as required by the checklist. I stand by that. I submit that the plan should be accepted and then we can deal with all of the other issues that Ms. St.John has raised. Does your checklist not mean anything?

Mr. Serell: I would like to make two comments here. For example, if the Site Plan regulations state that parking should be A, and you submit an application where parking is B, and you want us to act on that, shouldn’t you submit a formal written request for a waiver that we can act on before the plan is accepted? The second issue is the cross easement question. According to our Site Plan regulations, the document is required. You don’t have the document. Shouldn’t it be submitted with the application or a written request for a waiver if you think that you don’t need it? Those are just two examples of things that I think need to be addressed before the application is accepted.

Ms. Annis: Item number 19, or 16, that states "any other required exhibits or data" is a catch-all. We don’t know until we see the plan that something might be needed. We got into the traffic study issue at the last meeting. I also brought up at the last meeting that I thought an engineering firm ought to look at it. Your comment was no, not at this point – that it would be done during the construction phase.

Mr. Carpenter: No, I didn’t say that. What I might have said is, "How are you going to have an engineering firm look at the plan if you haven’t accepted it yet?"

Ms. St.John: Typically what is done is what has been done here – there are sewer and water and wetlands and these are red flags that cause the plan to be sent out for review. The Board can say, based on these comments that were raised, there is enough concern that these details reflect what needs to be shown to meet the Site Plan regulations. I concur with what was said by Mr. Serell – in the matter of these cross easements, unless they’ve submitted a waiver stating that they’re not going to comply with that, essentially they’re not meeting the regulations. It’s the same with the Zoning Ordinance – if someone submits a subdivision plan that doesn’t comply with the ordinance, the Planning Board calls a time out and sends the applicant back to the ZBA. A checklist is to be used as just that – a checklist. It’s meant for a quick reference; however, it is the obligation of the engineering firm or whoever is preparing the application and plan to be knowledgeable of the regulations and prepare the plan and application in accordance with what the regulations say.

Mr. Serell: It is not just a matter of going through a checklist – it s a matter of convincing us that your application meets the requirements of the regulations.

Mr. Carpenter read from the regulations regarding the parking area placement, and stated that the regulations say "should be", not "shall be" – and that it is only a recommendation. They are suggested guidelines, not hard and fast rules. He said that he didn’t see that regulation as requiring a waiver. He said that he felt that he has been mislead because the Board didn’t say that the parking was unacceptable back in May.

Mr. Serell: There was some concern expressed by the Board regarding the orientation of the parking. We haven’t gotten to the point yet of whether the Board will accept the parking as it is on the plan. At some point, the Board is going to have to decide if it is going to allow a parking lot that somewhat deviates from our Site Plan regulations.

Mr. Carpenter: That’s fine, but when we came in here for guidance and you don’t say that our plan has something on it that is a blatant violation of the Site Plan regulations, don’t bother to come in with a plan like that because we won’t accept it – it should be discussed. Until this application is accepted, everything is an informal discussion. I can’t rely on anything you say until the plan is accepted. Applicants are going to just walk away – and maybe that’s what you want. We’d like to move forward.

Mr. Pershouse: I’m wondering how we can all collaboratively work on an issue like a traffic study to complete your application.

Ms. St.John: Obviously there is give and take on some issues. There are items that can be discussed in more detail if you accept the plan. The question of "shall" v. "should" might be a question for Town Counsel. But there are some basic things, like the matter of the cross easement document, that are very critical and this is one reason why I think that you shouldn’t accept the application at this time, unless he submits a waiver. If he doesn’t submit a waiver for that specific requirement stating that he wants to have it in the front – if he did it the way the requirements are supposed to be done, the way the plan is supposed to be done – he may not need those cross easement documents. But because he’s not submitting a waiver request because he doesn’t meet the overall design of the site plan regulations, he would need those cross easement documents. Without those he doesn’t have a complete application. A lot of these comments are based on the fact that he hasn’t designed the plan according to what the regulations say. If he’s not going to design it that way, he needs to submit a waiver stating why he is not going to do that. So he can submit a waiver saying that the reason I didn’t submit my cross easement documents is because of whatever reasons he has. The cross easement documents are very critical to a plan where you’re going to have shared driveways. We don’t comment on the engineering aspects of the plan – yes, there are sewer and drainage details on the plan, but I don’t know if those details meet your regulations. That’s why towns receive plans and they send it to Regional Planning or they have their own staff or they send it to Public Works for review. Let’s say you accept the plan and a lot of the details on the sewer and water aren’t there. Yes, you can ask for it later, but you haven’t had the opportunity to review the whole context of everything that you should during the process. There are a lot of things here, and I believe that. But I don’t believe that he has submitted everything to make this a complete application.

 

Mr. Carpenter: So you’re saying that when I come in here with an application, it needs to be perfect?

Ms. St.John: I don’t know of any plan that ever comes in perfect. But typically they come in and at least they conform to the rules.

Mr. Pelletier: I just wanted to comment that once the Board accepts an application, the clock starts ticking. And that puts the Board under very tight constraints in terms of the evaluation process, public input, and other things. So it is in the Board’s best interest to have an application package that is as complete as possible so that there aren’t many adjustments that need to be made. Landscaping matters can be worked out, but a matter like the legality of an easement is something more substantial. The question that the Board has as far as use of the buildings is one of critical importance to the Board in terms of Capital Improvements, services the Town is going to have to provide for fire and safety, traffic control, and so on. There are a host of things that are much larger issues. Ms. St.John has identified several issues, and many times the Board doesn’t know the questions to ask – that’s why the Regional Planning Commission is helpful in discerning what some of the questions might be. I offer this only in terms of past history – when I was Chairman of the Warner Planning Board and MacDonald’s came in, the review process from start to finish was about a year and a half. Some of that was the clock ticking period, but some of that was up-front discussion and we went back and forth. There are projects across the State of New Hampshire that are significant to communities and I think that we have an obligation to be as comprehensive as possible.

Ms. Annis: I have a question for you – I saw all of your notes on the plan. Would those be before the acceptance phase, or after?

Mr. Pelletier: Most of those are on the landscaping plan, and I feel that they could very easily be worked out after the plan has been accepted.

Mr. St.Pierre: Outside of the parking and landscaping issues, are there any others?

Mr. Serell: Some general comments – the Board needs to make a decision on whether we have an application that is in compliance with our regulations and that has all of the ingredients that we need to sit down and start making decisions on the project.

1. Engineer’s review of plan: Ms. St.John raised the point about whether we should have the Town’s consulting engineer review the plan for completion and compliance, and that CNHRPC didn’t review that aspect. We don’t want to be in the position of accepting a plan and then finding out that we need additional information.

2. Parking: Does this require a formal waiver or not? Is the Board inclined to approve a project with the parking in the front of the building? This is a seminal question because it affects every aspect of the plan. I think that we should vote on this and make a decision early in the process. I think that we should do this at the point where we’re deciding whether or not to accept the application.

3. Traffic: Who are the tenants? The nature of the tenants has an impact on the number of parking spaces and the amount of traffic. I noticed in the DOT permit that they are assuming, from your application, that these are all going to be "specialty retail" businesses. What is considered to be a "specialty retail" business? It specifically states on the DOT permit that if it something other than that, you have to go back to them. If you have a tenant that is something other than specialty retail, we’re not going to approve it. You need to make a decision up front on whether what you submit to the DOT is acceptable for the worse case scenario. If you plan to have something in there that generates more trips per day, I think you need to do that up front as well. From my perspective, if we approve this, it is going to be conditional on your coming back before us with each tenant to make sure that they are consistent with what you’ve presented to us and with what you’ve presented to DOT.

Mr. Reeder: Is there a definition for specialty retail?

Ms. St.John: It is in a large book, and based on studies. It is different than a pharmacy, and different from a hardware store. We have the book and can make copies of some of the pages for you.

Mr. Reeder: I think that is something that we should have because these questions will come up again in the future. What is we do have something like a liquor store at that location?

There was discussion about the meaning of the word "conservative" in relation to the traffic generation. Mr. Carpenter stated that he used the worst case scenario. Mr. Reeder pointed out to Mr. Carpenter that if a liquor store were to go into the space, there would be a very large increase in traffic because it would pull traffic heading north that would normally stop at the Hooksett State Liquor store because this location would be more convenient. He said that he didn’t that these numbers would normally be calculated.

Ms. Annis: Our Fire Chief was very concerned about one thing – because you’re going to be making a left-hand turn into the parking area, coming from in town, he can foresee traffic backing up the hill. He verbalized that he thinks that could be possibly be a dangerous situation.

Ms. St.John: That is why I recommend to the Board that they not accept this at this point and that it be sent out for an engineering review and get the formal comments from the fire department and the police department. Or, if the Board decides to accept this application as complete at this time, have the applicant submit a waiver specifically because the parking affects everything – it is so critical to everything. That is why I think it is so important to get those review comments before formally accepting the plan.

Mr. Serell: What engineering aspects are you talking about?

Ms. St.John: Drainage, erosion, sedimentation, treatment swale, sewer and water line – do they show everything they need to show: the right site, the right pipe. Water trench detail. I’m not saying that what he has submitted is not correct. But the town needs to protect the interests of the town. Traffic would be a part of that as well.

Mr. Pershouse: So I’m asking whether the applicant’s expectation was that they would supply that data in the review process, post acceptance. And I’m hearing, No No No.

Ms. St.John: Not typically. From my experience, it comes in as part of the application package.

Mr. Carpenter: I can appreciate Drew’s point about whether or not this Board will accept the basic design of parking in front. If not, and you send it out for an engineering review, what’s the point? What’s the point of having Lucy review this plan if it is basically unacceptable? In May, June and July you didn’t tell me that.

Ms. Annis: I think that we’re at the point of deciding, as a Board, if we are willing to accept this application as presented.

Ms. St.John: When you accept it, you’re acknowledging it as a completed application; basically stating that it meets all of the requirements and all the details as listed in the regulations. It doesn’t mean that you can’t ask for some additional information, which you could. I want to make that perfectly clear. But by accepting it, you’re saying that it meets the basic rules and criteria of your zoning, your site plan and your other regulations that would pertain to this plan.

 

Mr. Pershouse: We’re hearing from you that in your judgment that the engineering data that is presented on the plan is not up to a standard that you’re comfortable with, is that correct?

Ms. St.John: I’m saying that we don’t review the engineering – but I’m saying that you should send it out to an engineering firm to get those comments to make sure that information is there. Many of the details that they’ve provided are not consistent with the regulations.

Mr. Serell: I think that the applicant needs to address these issues. I think the bigger issue is the basic layout of the parking. I think you need to make a full presentation and tell us why you think that it needs or doesn’t need a waiver and why we should vote to allow you to deviate from the site plan regulations. Then the Board should vote on that aspect of it.

Mr. St.Pierre made a motion to accept the application as complete. There was no second to the motion.

 

 

Mr. St.Pierre: Can’t that be a part of the deliberative process that we go through? Say we do have it reviewed by an engineer, and say that the calculations aren’t complete. We go back to the applicant and say that the engineer says that the calculations aren’t complete, and that it is the best interest of the Town to go along with the engineering report. That is a point that will deny the application. We have a lot of issues that can and will be discussed in the process.

Mr. Serell: I see information in the plan on water and sewer, I see information on drainage – it’s not like it’s not there. The question is, is it all there? Could an engineer look at the plans and say, "The regulations require you to submit x, y and z in addition to what you’ve submitted."

Ms. St.John: If you vote to accept it, based on Russ’ comments -- and you can certainly approach it that way – but once you accept it, the 65-day clock starts.

Mr. Carpenter: I’m tired of hearing about the 65-day clock.

Ms. St.John: I just want to make the Board aware that tat is the official 65-day clock. The applicant can request that the Board extend that –

Mr. Pershouse: That is a great variable.

Ms. Annis: Question: If we accept it, how long does it take an engineering firm to review? Are we talking a month? 6 weeks?

Mr. St.Pierre: You tell them how long you have for them to do it, and they’ll tell you if they can do it in that time.

Ms. Annis: OK -- If we decide that we need a traffic study, how long does it take to do that?

Mr. St.Pierre: Same thing.

Ms. St.John: You would tell the applicant what you wanted to be included in a traffic study, and they would have it done and it could, realistically, take 2 to 3 months.

Mr. Wentzel: I’ll work with you guys, just like we did with the subdivision. 60 to 90 days – if we need an extension, I’ll sign an extension. We’ve got to start somewhere.

Mr. Serell: Let me just try to focus on what Lucy has identified as potentially making the plan not subject to being complete at this time: 1) parking, 2) cross easements, 3) traffic impacts – is that really something that can be addressed during the approval process?

Ms. St.John: That could be addressed later, but it comes back to the premise of, "Does the plan demonstrate and show what the required parking will be? If you don’t know what the clients are going to be, you’re not going to know if you meet the parking requirements will be for clients and employees.

Mr. Serell: I understand that. The next thing you identify is drainage swale – do you think that the drainage plan that they’ve submitted doesn’t comply with our requirements?

Mr. Carpenter: The state as looked it over and they didn’t think that additional information was needed.

Mr. Serell: The next thing in your letter is contour lines not being on the plan.

Mr. Carpenter: We followed convention and have the contour lines in dash lines, and the legend is in the upper right hand corner.

Mr. Serell: You could put something in the legend just to clarify the grade. You could submit the drainage information that you submitted to the state. Parking orientation, cross easements and traffic -- Personally, I’m prepared to deal with the traffic impacts during the approval process.

Mr. Serell made a motion that the Board not accept the application as complete based on the fact that the parking orientation is not consistent with the Site Plan regulations, and that the cross easement provisions of the regulations have not been met. The applicant should come in next month and address those two specific questions, and then we can make a decision at that time if the application is complete, based on the presentation of the applicant. The applicant also needs to revise the legend information on the plan to show the existing and proposed contours and submits the drainage report. Mr. Orbacz seconded the motion.

Mr. Reeder: On the parking orientation, would that require a waiver?

Mr. Serell: I think that would be up to the applicant. They could say that they don’t think a waiver is needed because the application is consistent with the regulations, and here is why we think it is consistent.

Mr. Wallace: Should an engineer review the plan?

Mr. Serell: Not at this time – it can be dealt with in the approval process.

Mr. Orbacz: What about all of the other potential permits? Wetland scientist’s signature, engineer?

Mr. Serell: I think that any permits can be part of the approval process. I think that the two main issues that we need to deal with up front are the parking orientation and the cross easements that are required.

Mr. St.Pierre: I think that when an applicant comes in, they have to rely on the language of the ordinance. The ordinance says should. I helped to write these regulations, and I know that we started out with "shall" and we changed it to "should". We can’t expect an applicant to know that, or to put meaning into words that isn’t there. Parking, although it is preferred – it isn’t labeled as required. On the second question of the cross easement. It needs to be included in the discussion before you require someone to draw up an easement. It’s like drawing up the conservation easement on a subdivision. You have to at least decide on the lots before you can draw up the easement. At the last meeting, I probably brought up the issue more than anyone of whether the application was complete – because it was just presented. I don’t agree with everything and I think they’re missing some things.

Mr. Serell: Don’t you agree that you need to address the parking orientation with a separate vote up front?

Mr. St.Pierre: I look at it as this – if the regulations said that parking shall be, or parking will be – and if an applicant proposed something that was contrary to the ordinance…

Mr. Serell: I guess I’m asking something different. Even assuming that we accept your analysis that it is just a recommendation and nothing more than that, the Board could on that basis alone say that we’re not going to approve that type of parking – doesn’t that vote need to take place up front before we get to the point of accepting the application and sending it out for engineering review?

Mr. St.Pierre: What you’re talking about is denying an application because you don’t like the orientation of the parking.

Mr. Pelletier: I think that a simpler answer to that is whether or not the applicant is willing to be open to the possibility that, because it says "should" that the Board might, after traffic studies and after public input and other things, require the parking to be moved to the back and for them to submit a separate plan for that. Or the Board might require additional landscaping in order to leave it out front.

The vote was called for the motion to deny acceptance of the application. 1 Yes vote, 2 No votes.

Mr. St.Pierre made a motion to accept the application as complete. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder. The motion passed by a unanimous vote.

Mr. Serell suggested that they add the contour lines to the legend and submit the drainage information.

 

A recess was called, and the Board agreed to hear the Warner Power Public Hearing. After the Warner Power hearing, the Board will hear the R.A.W. presentation.

 

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., property owner

Continued until the September 2003 Planning Board meeting, at applicant’s request.

VI. PUBLIC HEARING: Site Plan Review, Change of Use

40 Depot Street, LLC (Warner Power), Dennis Deegan, 40 Depot Street, Warner, NH 03278. Property location: 19 Mill Street (Map 32, Lot 21), Warner, NH 03278. Upgrade exterior appearance of property by replacing roof and siding and move a portion of current manufacturing operations into the building. C-1 zoning, municipal water/sewer.

Mr. Deegan stated that the property had been purchased since the conceptual consultation at the July meeting.

Changes to/uses of 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 9 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 25 foot wide drive to the new overhead door for loading and offloading (increased by 5 feet from the plan due to a catch basin)

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.

Ø Remove wood floor

Ø Install sprinkler system inside of building for fire safety

Mr. Wallace made a motion to accept the plan as complete. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

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

Mr. Mical: I would hope that the Board approves the application. Warner Power has been a long time business in the town and they are utilizing an existing building and making improvements to that building.

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

Mr. Wallace made a motion to approve the plan. Mr. Pershouse seconded the motion. The motion passed by a unanimous vote.

 

The Board reopened the Public Hearing on R.A.W. Investments

Mr. Mical asked if the abutters had been re-noticed before tonight’s Public Hearing. The secretary said that they’d been noticed prior to the first Public Hearing, and that tonight’s agenda had stated that this was a continuation of that Public Hearing. Mr. Pershouse asked if any new material being presented needed to be posted, and Mr. Serell said that the public would have an opportunity to ask questions after the presentation.

Ms. Annis asked if anyone from the public wished to speak at this time.

Mr. Mical: This lot, in the eyes of FEMA, is still in the flood plain. When we go through this process and you give the approval for this building, there has to be a certification on the building elevation and it has to be above base flood elevation. This has to be approved in the plan. We need to make sure that we’re in compliance.

Mr. Reeder: What if it isn’t in compliance?

Mr. Mical: The town of Warner can be held liable if it gets flooded.

Ms. St.John: Basically, it comes back to the Code enforcement Officer making sure that he gets the floor elevation and a list of other things listed in the ordinance. [She read the ordinance concerning the requirements for the applicant to prove that they have all required permits as well as building requirements].

Ms. Annis: The EC is a FEMA form that must be completed by a registered surveyor/engineer for all new or substantially improved structures located in the SFHA. It is used to identify the elevation of the lowest floor in relation to the BFE [base flood elevation]. This is a document that we don’t have. I called DES and spoke with Andrew O’Sullivan, and he looked it up and said that based on the information submitted that there were no flood plains within the limits of the construction.

Mr. Carpenter: This is something that will be done in this process. In the discussion of this previously, it was premature. FEMA is basically a flood insurance program, and if an owner decided that he didn’t want to take it out of the flood plain, he might not be able to get flood insurance.

Mr. Mical: By the town’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program, we state that we will comply with the federal regulations relating to the flood program. If we don’t and the federal government decides that they want to come in, they can suspend you from that program. I’m not saying that they will, but it puts those things in perspective. If you raise the flood elevation above and it affects somebody further down and that information isn’t forwarded to FEMA as part of their study – it has happened in other areas. I have spoken with the man down in Boston, and he says that he has no record of any of this going on. I’m just trying to make you aware of this.

Mr. Pelletier: I think that all of the questions that have been raised by the Board are the types of questions that have either already been expressed by members of the public or would be expressed and are important in terms of the development of the town. The regulations are essentially geared towards seeing that the town develops in the manner that is consistent with our Master Plan, which has been accepted and adopted by our community. There are certain criteria in that, such as trying to preserve the rural character of the community, being able to make it accessible to the people and pedestrians, making it a safe community for pedestrians and vehicular activity – those kinds of things. I think it is important that the Board, in its review of this package, to consider all of those concerns, and then having it reviewed by a traffic engineer that would ask more specific questions – traffic flow and pedestrian safety. As this project is successful, and I hope that it will be, and it does generate pedestrian and traffic flow, we already have a problem in that area with these issues. The additional retail establishments will only increase these problems. Whether the Board decides if you want the applicant to address these issues or if the Town should address them is open for discussion. These pedestrian issues aren’t always looked at from a town’s standpoint, but from DOT’s standpoint. I think that a traffic engineer needs to look at it from the community’s standpoint. I think that the "should" v. "shall" issue – you can certainly understand the applicant’s desire to have the parking out in front of the buildings. But that is counter to the intent of the regulation, which is the desire to keep our town aesthetically pleasing and to maintain a certain character. If you desire to accept the parking as presented, there should be some other ways of addressing visual characteristics: berms or plantings. Vegetation enhances this and other developments. The growth of existing large trees on the corner of the development need to be preserved under any circumstances. I think that there should be more opportunities for public input concerning lighting, etc. This development will set the tone for development and how the people of the town will be able to get around. I think that the Board should address additional areas of concern that CNHRPC addressed, as well as other areas of concern addressed.

Hearing no further public comment, the Public Hearing was closed and the Board meeting reopened.

Mr. Pershouse: I would make the recommendation that we should hear the presentation first, and then we prioritize what our issues need to be in terms of addressing the elements of the presentation.

Mr. Carpenter: I’ll be brief, and we’ve been through this before.

· Two lots

· Have gone through the subdivision process and been approved

· One building on each lot, 10,000 sq.ft. each

· Full Basement

· Front of site raised to elevation of 103

· Shared access – three points of access in original subdivision plan, but one was given away and now serves as Will Begin’s driveway [abutting property]

· One access for Lot 3, which is planned across from North Road

· DOT comfortable with what was presented. Will work with the Town if something else is required.

· Because lot drops off in back, the design of parking in front was chosen

· Realize parking orientation isn’t the preferred design, and other designs were looked at. Others would require major filling on the site, which would result in loss of parking in rear, storage for clients, and loading areas in back.

· For those reasons and the necessity of a shared access drive, this design is the best for the site.

· Waiver not requested because applicant thought the Planning Board could understand the nature of the plan and the reasons for the design

· Impacts, coming down Main Street, are minimized by the current layout design

· Grove of trees is partly in state’s right of way and partly on applicant’s land. No plans to disturb the trees.

· Trunk lines for the sewer and water from pump station

· Not familiar with Water Precinct procedures, but will plan to make a formal presentation to them

· Description of underground power with transformers on the back of the buildings

· Equipment for utilities will be down in the back and out of sight

· Will provide whatever fire safety connections as required by the Town of Warner Fire Department

· Drainage description using plan to illustrate flow/plan, sheet flow and swale locations

· State said they didn’t need to deal with detention, but would need to deal with treatment of drainage water

· Treatment swale meets state’s requirements

· DES approval received and given to the Board

· Wetland impact question: addressed in subdivision plan and could have been better noted on plan

· No wetlands impact, so are not looking for any wetlands permits

· Erosion control measures – silt fences

· Will take another look at landscape plan to make sure that it meets the regulations, and will provide an explanation of why they used what they used

· Landscaping in back was kept to a minimum because of conservation area and the mature vegetation that already exists

· Landscaping in the drainage areas kept to a minimum because drainage was so important

 

He asked the Board to address any concerns at this time and he would try to answer them.

Ms. St.John asked about the state’s right of way and where the filling would take place.

Mr. Carpenter: Filling the front part of the lot so that it is up to grade. The lot drops away sharply. Evans and Mobil are basically the same – they’re sitting on fill. The state is fine with providing continuation of drainage, but no swales in the right of way.

Ms. St.John: It seems like a lot of fill, and that it is quite a difference in grade.

Mr. Carpenter: It is.

Mr. Pershouse: In the event that 103 had to be widened, how does that impact what you’re talking about now? I’m concerned about the right of way, fill and grade.

Mr. Carpenter: Essentially, it would shorten the driveway. It would move the drainage swale closer in. It would change the grade of the swale.

Mr. Pershouse: If sidewalks had to be incorporated, where might they be and what would be the plus or minuses?

Mr. Carpenter: It would be the state’s call as to where and what is done. It’s their land.

Mr. Reeder: Lighting – you’re using 15 foot poles. Would you consider lowering the height of poles and using high pressure sodium lighting?

Mr. Carpenter: If you lower the poles, you have to increase the number because of the height. The type of lighting could be discussed

 

 

 

 

Mr. Reeder: The glare would be reduced, and the high pressure sodium lights give off more light than the metal arcs.

Mr. Carpenter: This plan was designed based on the regulations as well as what was required for the plan. The Shaw’s parking lot in Concord was discussed.

There was discussion about heights of poles and the various types of lighting that could be used to achieve the best mix of lighting and glare reduction because of the concerns of the townspeople about increasing light levels in the town.

Mr. Pershouse: Re: the view from I-89. Do you think that there is anything that can be addressed to enhance that view? I haven’t looked critically at it. Coming northbound from I-89, there seems to be the potential for looking at the backside of the buildings. I’m wondering if we should, at some point, about what that view is going to be. That is a primary view of the Town of Warner. Up to a point when you get to Exit 9, you see things like church steeples – not too many adverse elements.

Mr. Carpenter: I’ve looked it myself and looked at it from the highway. I couldn’t see anything until I was almost on it. There is a large amount of land between here and the river – protection from I-89 by a natural buffer that will continue to grow and provide an even better buffer than is there now.

Mr. Pershouse: Was that in summer or winter?

Mr. Carpenter: I think it was in May – so late spring or summer. I was surprised because I thought you would be able to see it, but you can’t.

Ms. Annis: Because a traffic study takes a while, and because an engineering study takes a while, we need to decide if they are required and how to proceed. The details on Lucy’s review that we can discuss are: parking, landscaping, lighting and drainage. If everyone has looked at the plan and has their questions, we can go from there. We can address one item at a time, then go on to another issue.

Mr. Pershouse: Could we combine parking and traffic study so that we can move on each one simultaneously?

Ms. Annis: Sure.

Mr. Serell: I think this site is important enough and I think the provision in our regulations is important enough that I think we should vote on whether we will accept the parking orientation as it is on the plan. Considering the hour, I would like address that issue first thing at the next meeting, and that will give us all time to think about it. Maybe there will be folks here from the public that will care to voice their opinions about it. Then we can talk about a traffic study and engineering.

Mr. Pershouse: It is a priority.

Mr. Carpenter: As you all know, the parking orientation is a focal point of the whole plan. If the majority of the Board is comfortable with the parking as we now have it, why don’t we get it out of the way right now. Unless the Board is totally undecided, then we could take it up next month.

Mr. Pershouse: One issue is that we don’t really have the public here. I’m not sure if that is good or bad.

Ms. St.John: You’ve sent notices out and you’ve advertised.

Mr. Pershouse: I don’t mean in a technical sense. I meant from the standpoint of getting as much input as possible.

Mr. Reeder: I feel comfortable resolving this tonight because we’ve sat through this since its inception and we’ve heard all of the pros and cons. I don’t think that another month would add to it.

Mr. Serell: I feel that we need to settle the matter of the orientation of the parking, but not the adequacy of the number of spaces, etc. Those are more technical questions. I’d like to hold those details for another discussion.

Ms. Annis asked if anyone from the public had comments.

Mr. Pelletier: I would address this to the applicant. There is a significant difference in the activity at the Mobil station and the activity at Citgo. One of the primary factors in the difference in traffic flow is the orientation of the buildings. The Mobil station has all of the activity on the south side – it is much lighter and warmer, and in a northern climate, that has a significant impact. The Citgo is the shaded, cold side. Even though it is more accessible, more goes into Mobil. I think that having the orientation of the buildings as you have it, as well as having it covered will make the entrances to those retail shops very dark and unappealing. For that reason alone, I think that the applicant – if they choose to do so – should consider alternatives. From a public standpoint, I would say that I don’t think that there is any question that because the Board hasn’t voiced any serious objection, they’re still open to this idea and this layout. If they type of use and activity were such that we as a community were more concerned about not seeing the amount of traffic and type of traffic out front, then you might be inclined to ask that the traffic be put to the rear. An alternative solution would be to ask the applicant to consider other means of screening that parking out front. I don’t think that you necessarily need to make that decision tonight. I think that just by getting here, the Board indicated that they are open to that. It does say "should" and not "shall" and we are open to it and they’ve done a nice job. But there are some other things – lighting, screening, landscaping – that you might be open to receiving prior to approval.

Ms. Annis asked the Board if they were ready to make a decision on the orientation of the buildings and the parking – that one matter alone.

Mr. Serell: I really don’t want to get too specific about the exact location of the buildings and the parking – I think that we should only discuss it as the orientation of the buildings. I don’t want to make a motion to do this tonight, and would really rather wait until next month to discuss this.

Mr. Pershouse: I think that Mr. Pelletier’s comments about the functional orientation of the site, optimizing the whole process, is a significant comment. I’m also hearing from the applicant that they did consider many other alternatives. Discounting the concept because we are where we are – essentially, we’ve accepted the orientation to date. I’m tempted by George’s commentary to once again look at the possibility of a southern exposure – I don’t know how we would do that, but I think that we should take his comments seriously. I think that it could be a win-win situation. I’m not ready to commit to this tonight.

Ms. Annis stated that the Board would postpone discussion of the orientation of the building until the first item on the Agenda for the September 8^th meeting.

Mr. Serell: I think that the next issues that we should discuss are the traffic review and the engineering review.

Mr. Serell made a motion to continue this Public Hearing until the next meeting of the Planning Board, which will be Monday, September 8, 2003, and that the first item on the agenda will be the orientation of the building. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

Mr. St.Pierre: Do you plan to do any specific work on the landscaping plan before the next meeting?

Mr. Carpenter: Yes, I wanted to ask the designer if she had some specific reasons for deviating from the regulations.

Mr. St.Pierre: Based on the comments, I would suggest that you come back with some screening elements added. Also, because it is all sheet flow run-off and I’m sure that there will be salt applied, some of the plants identified on the plan have a low tolerance for salt in winter.

Ms. Annis stated that the Water District – for water and sewer – is a separate entity and that they would need to be dealt with directly.

Mr. Carpenter asked for the Board’s blessing to contact Lucy St.John directly if he had any questions regarding her comments in the review. Ms. St.John said that most town’s ask that the questions go through the Planning Board, but that it was up to each individual Board. Ms. Annis stated that she had no problem with Mr. Carpenter and Ms. St.John talking directly, but that she would like to know about the conversations and would like to have them documented.

VII. Communications & Miscellaneous

Capital Improvements Program

The next meeting of the CIP will be held on Thursday, August 14^th at 7:00 at Warner Town Hall.

Will Begin, Begin Construction

The Secretary reported that she had received a letter from Mr. Begin stating that he had been unable to get the site assessment, surveyors, etc. ready for the August meeting, but that he should be ready with an application for Site Plan Review for the September 8^th meeting. She said that she had also received a phone message from Mr. Begin stating the same thing.

Correspondence from Allan Brown, Road Agent

Ms. Annis read a letter received from Mr. Brown stating that the subdivision on Couchtown Road that was allowed on L. Earl Nichols’ lot has only one known point located in the town’s right of way. No corner pins were set. He said that these points are extremely important in establishing the town’s right of way and public land meet. He suggested that before the Board accepts any subdivision surveys, the Board needs to make sure that these points are in place. Physical evidence on the ground is necessary to determine if the correct amount of frontage is there.

New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources

Letter received nominating Waterloo Historic District in Warner, NH to the National Register of Historic Places.

Ms. Annis stated that she didn’t know how that would affect building permits, etc. – how it changes what you can and can’t do if a property is designated as being on the National Register of Historic Places.

Inquiry from Selectmen

 

Ms. Annis received a phone call asking that the Board establish the following description as a "building":

4 posts, a roof, and lattice work on three sides. It is approximately 10 – 12 feet long by 3 feet deep. It is used for the storage of wood. Is wood considered "personal property"?

Comment from the public: Wood is considered fuel.

Definition of "building" – any combination of materials having a roof and enclosed exterior walls, fixed to the land and for the shelter of persons, animals or property.

Mr. Reeder: Maybe we should ask whoever brought this up whether they would rather have lattice work or a blue tarp.

Mr. Serell: If the posts are in the ground, it is fixed to the ground. If it is sitting on concrete blocks, it is not fixed.

Mr. Serell: If someone really wanted an answer, I think that they should go to Town Counsel.

Ms. Annis asked Mr. Mical to relay that information on to the Selectmen’s office.

Zoning Ordinance books

The Secretary asked if the Board would like for her to have some more books printed, because the supply has been depleted. It was decided that 4 double-sided copies be made in-house. It was also stated that the document is on-line, but that some people don’t want to download the document.

Alternate to the Planning Board

Mr. St.Pierre asked if an alternate could be appointed and designated to fill in for the Selectman on the Board in his absence.

Ms. Annis asked if Mr. Mical, who comes to most of the Planning Board meetings, could be appointed as Mr. Brayshaw’s alternate. Nobody else can have an alternate, but an ex-officio from the Selectmen’s office can have an alternate.

Mr. Serell said that an ex-officio member has all of the powers of the other full Board members. Ms. Annis said that the only restriction is that he can’t be Chairman.

Gamil Azmy

Mr. Mical said that they need to get a letter out to Mr. Azmy. He said that the Town of Webster had sent a letter to him, and that the Selectmen in Warner had wanted to get together with Webster and work on it together. The Town of Webster said that they wanted to do their own thing and not work with Warner. He didn’t know if Mr. Azmy had responded to their letter. Does the Planning Board want him to come back before them to discuss potential non-compliance with the approved Site Plan? The driveway has changed, and there are some other issues.

Mr. Pershouse: Does Webster have any other issues?

Mr. Mical: I think that basically it is the same issue – the addition to the building is a concern to them.

Mr. Reeder: Is the building that has been added onto in Webster or Warner?

Mr. Mical: It depends on who you talk to. Mr. Azmy told the Selectmen that a certified survey had been done and had been given to the Town of Webster and the Town of Warner. He said that the town lost the survey. I told him that we have no record of that survey. The Site Plan submitted shows the outbuilding, proposed for use now as an ice cream stand, as being in Warner. It was to be a vegetable stand originally.

New Business on Main Street

Ms. Annis: We have a new business on Main Street, and I don’t recall them coming in and doing a Site Plan with us. I thought when somebody had a change of use in a business, they had to come in to see us.

Mr. St.Pierre: It was Cottage Furniture before.

Ms. Annis: I think a letter to the owners of the property should be sent, stating that when a lease expires or there is a change in tenant – before another business comes in someone needs to come in to the Planning Board. There could be another restaurant in that building, and that could mean more parking on Main Street.

VIII. Adjourn

A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting, which passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.

 

Minutes approved: September 8, 2003