Planning Board Meeting Minutes

September 11, 2006

7:00 p.m.

Warner Town Hall, Lower Level

III.   Minor Subdivision – continued from the August 7^th meeting

Property Owner: George and Deborah Brown, 351 Collins Road, Warner, NH 03278

Agent: Jeffrey A. Evans, Land Consultant, P.O. Box 522, South Sutton, NH 03273

Property Location: Collins Road, Map 8 Lot 14 OR-1 Zoning

Description: Subdivide 18.0+/- acres into tow lots: 13 acres & 5.16 acres

Mr. Evans presented a revised plan. Ms. Annis recalled what was missing on the Brown sub-division; the location of the existing well, septic and the proposed septic. Mr. Evans also added that two abutters were corrected. Now showing is the existing well, which was on the other subdivision as over across the road, and the septic system which is behind the house. A test pit was completed, the results were very good. There is a 4,000 sq. ft. area suitable for septic and he added the well. Also, submitted is a waiver on the stone bound as set.

Ms. Annis asked Brian Patsfield to sit in for Phil Reeder.

Mr. Evans was asked if the existing well is across the street from the house that it is serving.

Mr. Evans: yes

Ms. Annis: The first decision to be made is if the Planning Board will grant the request for a waiver in order to accept the application.

Mr. Evans was asked if he has any information pertaining to the size of the stone.

Mr. Evans: We can’t move it with a bar, can’t even budge it. I feel if I can’t move it with a bar, we are better off with a drill hole than trying to perhaps mortar a stubby……

Board Member: Below the frost line perhaps…

Mr. Evans: Even most of the bounds that we set are not below the frost line, they are subject to some heave, and they do move. Mr. Evans prefers a drill hole in a boulder. Stone bounds are subject to shear.

Motion was made to approve the waiver. The motion was seconded. No further discussion.

Ms. Annis called for a vote:

Mr. Serell – yes; Mr. Mical – yes; Mr. Lennon – yes; Mr. Eigabroadt – yes; Mr. Pershouse – yes; Mr. Patsfield – yes. Request approved.

Motion was made to accept the minor sub-division application. The motion was seconded. No further discussion.

Ms. Annis called for a vote:

Mr. Serell – yes; Mr. Mical – yes; Mr. Lennon – yes; Mr. Eigabroadt – yes; Mr. Pershouse – yes; Mr. Patsfield – yes. Application accepted.

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

Hearing no further comments, Ms. Annis closed the Public Hearing and reopened the Board meeting.

Motion was made to approve the minor subdivision. The motion was seconded.

Mr. Evans was thanked for addressing all the issues that the Planning Board asked and returning in a timely manner.

Ms. Annis called for a vote:

Mr. Serell – yes; Mr. Mical – yes; Mr. Lennon – yes; Mr. Eigabroadt – yes; Mr. Pershouse – yes; Mr. Patsfield – yes. Minor sub-division accepted.

IV.   Minor Subdivision – continued from the August 7^th meeting

Applicant: Robert H. Sammis, Adm., 107 Margherita Lane, Stratford, CT 06615

Owner: Wilson F. Sammis Estate, see above

Agent: Jeffrey A Evans, Land Consultant, P.O. Box 522, South Sutton, NH 03273

Property Location: 112 Parade Ground Cemetery Rd. Map 10 Lot56 R-3 Zoning

Ms. Annis explained that the Planning Board required a letter from the Administrator saying that he had been appointed. December 5, 2005, Robert Sammis was appointed to administer the estate of Wilson F. Sammis, and has accepted this responsibility. This appointment remains in effect per the records of the court as stated (State of New Hampshire, Merrimack County Court).

Perc test has been added, there is basically a 4,000 sq. ft. area and a proposed well in an area that is satisfactory.

No further comments or questions.

Motion was made to accept the minor sub-division application. Motion was accept. No further discussion.

Ms. Annis called for a vote:

Mr. Serell – yes; Mr. Mical – yes; Mr. Lennon – yes; Mr. Eigabroadt – yes; Mr. Pershouse – yes; Mr. Patsfield – yes. Application accepted.

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

A prospective buyer of the property asked when the plate would be recorded. Ms Annis replied that she intends to record the plate tomorrow or Thursday, definitely by the end of the week.

Hearing no further comments, Ms. Annis closed the Public Hearing and reopened the Board meeting.

Motion was made to approve the minor subdivision. The motion was seconded.

Ms. Annis called for a vote:

Mr. Serell – yes; Mr. Mical – yes; Mr. Lennon – yes; Mr. Eigabroadt – yes; Mr. Pershouse – yes; Mr. Patsfield – yes. Minor sub-division accepted.

V.   Commercial Major Subdivision – continued from the August 7^th meeting

Property Owners: Alan & Lee Wagner, Jr., 33 Newmarket Road, Warner, NH 03278

Agent: Stefan Toth, P.E., Toth Engineering, PLLC, 5 Bernards Rd., Suite 37, Merrimack, NH 03054

Property Location: Intersection of Route 103 and I-89 southbound off-ramp, Map 14 Lot 10

C-1 Zoning District

Ms. Annis explained that some of the Planning Board members met on Thursday, September 7^th with Mr. Wagner, Mr. Toth and Lawrence Dwire of JGI. JGI will be doing the geotechnical study and they were asking for the change of the contract, which the Planning Board reviewed and approved. Dwire, is 25 years president of JGI Eastern, it was his opinion, because they are going to be doing pre-split ledge, that it would not be necessary to do borings, just merely do test pits. Ms. Annis asked those who attended the September 7^th meeting to add there comments.

Board Member: Some of the difference being, when you went up there to do his site walk a very large portion of the ledge is actually exposed to where he can ….. a lot of the information he needs from these borings from what he can already see. So instead of doing actual borings of small little areas in three-dimensional spaces if you will and only knowing what’s directly there. They are going to do the larger and of course less expensive actual test pits with and excavator and digging down to the ledge and having the soil engineer on hand as well to determine the types of soil and exact amount of overburden on the ledge. According to their experts that would also allow them to see more of what they need to see as opposed to the little test borings that are only so many inches in diameter of scope. So, they showed us a plan of where they would do those test pits and they are all in the areas that we are requesting and that Provan and Lorber where recommending and Central NH was recommending. So it is going to be, according to them and their experts, more information gained by a different approach.

Ms. Annis asked if the other attendees had anything to offer. No further comments.

Ms. Annis: Everyone went along with it; we did not go out and take a look at it. We were given the invitation to go up and see what was going on and the four of us felt that it would be much more beneficial to go up some Saturday after they’ve done the test pits and the results are back to us, then we can look at the land and see what the test pits show and where they were.

Ms. Annis explained that she had asked Mr. Toth during the September 7^th meeting that until he has everything finalized, until he knows where he is at, until after he completes all of what Provan and Lorber and Central NH has asked Ms. Annis would appreciate not coming before the Planning Board until all is complete.

VI.   Major Subdivision

Applicant/Property Owner: Gerald & Gretchen E. Leone, P.O. Box 607, Cataumet, MA, 02534

Property Location: Pumpkin Hill Rd. & Old Pumpkin Hill Rd., consisting of 13.246 acres, Map 15 Lot 15, R-3 Zoning District

Purpose: Subdivide a 13.246 acre parcel creating one lot with 3.647 acres fronting on Old Pumpkin Hill Rd., leaving a remainder parcel with 9.599 acres fronting on Pumpkin Hill Rd.

Ms. Annis turned this portion over to Mark Lennon to Chair, Mark completed most of the work on the Open Space Regulations.

Bob Carpenter, surveyor, is here this evening on behalf of Gerald & Gretchen Leone for their property on Pumpkin Hill and Old Pumpkin Hill Road. Gerald and Gretchen are present tonight along with their attorney (name not audible).

Mr. Carpenter: There’s a pretty good understanding on where we are and where we’ve gotten to. About a year ago, representatives spoke to you about a conceptual discussion about sub dividing the land. Earlier this year a minor sub division application was presented, with a request for a waiver to allow that, since it would be acceptable under sub division, which was back in April. Which put us into a situation to come back to you for review under the major sub division application regulation. That’s where we are tonight. We re-worked the plan and added some information from the previous …… pretty much relative to what was on the remainder of the property. Put that together with the application as best we could see it, I gave the Board a cover letter that kind of outlines how we approached it and what we thought and why we gave up ……. application. In a nut shell I will start out by saying this other issue involving 13.246 acres parcel and what we are proposing right now is the 3.647 acre parcel that would have frontage on Old Pumpkin Hill Road. The zone requirement for a 3-acre lot with 250 feet frontage, we exceed both of those. The remaining parcel which includes Pumpkin Hill Farm would be 9.6 acres. In going through the application, we went down through what was required, I think we need to go item by item; obviously we need to keep it basic, general information for all sub divisions. The only thing that is not being submitted at this point would be the milar because it would be premature to do that. Everything else there is, is shown on the plan and I would be happy to work down through that.

Mr. Lennon: When you came before the Planning Board you were asking for a waiver for the minor sub division.

Mr. Carpenter: Correct

Mr. Lennon: And the Board made a determination that as a re-sub division you were subject to the major sub division which were recently rewritten in both the Zoning and the Sub-Division Regulations, such that, any major sub division is subject to our open space regulations. Your letter basically says you don’t believe that open space can be applied in this case and therefore you have come back to the Planning Board with essentially the same proposal as if it were a minor sub division. I guess I wish you had persevered in your attempts to reach me (Mr. Lennon) were I could have been successful in getting back to you and you could have had this conversation earlier. I would say the intent of the major sub division regulations is to conserve open space. The intent of limiting and restricting re-sub division on minor sub divisions is basically to prevent chopping up fairly large chunks of property in successive sub-divisions into smaller chunks of property. I would suggest that you would have reached me for some of the history that went into the discussion of the open space regulations. You would, I hope, agree with what I believe to be the intent of the Board that a proposal like yours does very much fall under our open space major sub division regulations. In particular I would suggest that there are three sections applicable, one is that any new lot be set back from an existing road way by 75 feet with a permanent buffer restricted from future subdivision. Second, lots down to a minimum of 1 acre if not 3 acres within this case cap of the total area permanently productive from future sub divisions. And third, ridgelines and agricultural areas of which this property has both, or areas important to the community, which if possible, should not be included in lots sub dividable for development. If you would like to consider this a conceptual and carry on that conversation, please remain, I won’t speak for other members of the Board, but on all of those 3 grounds I don’t think we can carry forward with the proposal that you have presented the Planning Board tonight. If you would like to discuss in more detail how this land should be sub-divided in conformance with the major sub division regulations. Again I think that you are basically proposing a minor sub division which a. is prohibited in this case and b. you came in front of the Planning Board once asking for a waiver, you have been refused that and you are coming back with the same proposal.

Question: What was the lot that was sub divided out?

Ms. Annis: The one on the corner.

Question: That was the only action that was taken more than five years of sub dividing ….. I know you already voted on the waiver request, I’m looking at the language… as I understand, in 2004, if they had done a three lot sub division it would have been treated as a minor, right?

Board Member: That’s correct.

Question: So, they are treating it as a major, the regulations say if you do any multiple sub divisions in the five year period it should be treated as a major.

Board Member: That’s correct.

Question: It seems a little in …….. to me that if you do something over a 2 year period or a 4 year period, 5 year period it’s treated differently than if you done it all at once. The intent of it was, if we do a 2 lot sub division and then do another….it would have been treated as a major if we did it all at once, so the fact we are doing it over 5 years we are still going to be treated as a major sub division.

Mr. Lennon: If you look at the history of conversations during the development of the open space regs and subsequent to that and up to the adoption within the last 2 or 3 meetings of language that addresses whether the resale division requirement goes with the land or the owner, you will find it consistent expression of opinion from the Board that it is in fact this kind of sequential sub division that is meant to be addressed. It’s not simply the possibility of a 3 + 2, it’s more explicitly 1 + 1+ 1 +1.

Ms. Annis: We also received a ruling from Town Counsel that it goes with the land not the owner.

Board Member: I think that intent is clear in the last sentence in that paragraph were it says that this requirement shall run with the land. I think that tends to show the intent to the answer to your question.

Mr. Lennon: So again, in the interest of saving your time and ours, I would suggest that if you want to discuss how this plan can be configured in conformance with the major sub division regs. which would be two lots of 1 or more acres, a buffer from the existing roads and permanent protection of ….. land, I think that’s the direction in which the Board’s interpretation of the rules as well again, the waiver request, which you are basically asking us to do. To waive the denial of the waiver for the plan that you are showing us now, I think we would be happy to move forward on that basis. But again, I haven’t heard from the rest of the Board. But, for me this is not within the spirit of either of the ordinances.

Comment: I read through the meeting minutes and read through ……. and I did not get that clear intent that the purpose of that minor sub division within a five year period was a situation of one lot after the next after the next. My reading of that, at the time and my understanding pretty much based on the discussion of the issue was to circumventing major sub division if you will by ending up with more than x number of lots in any given 5 year period. That’s how I understood it from reading through the minutes.

Mr. Lennon: You have requested and gotten an answer to that point in coming before the Board and asking for a waiver and being denied.

Comment: I feel it was fair that you presented your position, I could present my understanding after reading through the minutes of my perception of what you folks were saying.

Board Member: I do understand what you are saying about the perception, but if memory serves me correct, I believe we came right out and said as an example, the one after the other after the other as well as what you were touching on.

Comment: I think the final analysis is that we paid for that…………..In terms of going for the major we did additional work, obviously your going to look at a major, your going to look at how we did not maximize the use of that if you are going to go through that effort with regard to the open space, the reason this lot is the way it is, largely because of the physical condition of the site and an interpretation of what your ultimate goal is there, which is not to cut out ……………..from a perspective of conservation this is about as good as you are going to get.

(The above section was difficult to understand, the speaker was speaking very low)

Mr. Lennon: I think that there are alternatives ways to divide this property which are more in alignment with the stated requirements, the intent of the zoning ordinance and sub division regs. If you would like to sit with us and put some of those thoughts down, take a blank sheet showing the outline of the property and discuss how some of those various divisions might be made, I think we would be happy to do that as a conceptual or design review phase which you have asked us not to go through. I can’t say that I necessarily agree with you that what you are proposing is the sub division which is most nearly in line with the intent of the regs. or which best preserves open space or which is best usable land.

Attorney: After speaking with Mr. Leone, I just want to address a couple of questions. Is your concern for additional sub division and development in other words, if this were left and this was, does that meet your of spirit of open space or, and I read your regulations I’m familiar with what they terminally called for. You can convey a conservation easement with the Town of where you convey your conservation easements or and appropriate agency, you could create a form of open space covenant. You got a flexible; it seems flexible standard that we have been trying to approach. I guess the first question is that Mr. Leone is prepared to say to the Board that this would be, I want to make that clear, if we could carve off an acre of land I suppose, tie it into the ….. and create a kind of pork chop arrangement still frontage I suppose on this road, we could certainly create your 75’ set back ,I expect, and then place the covenant on the large portion. Having said that, I can understand the Town’s concern, they may wish to as much as possible restrict future development, and create open space. We are prepared to put a no build, sub division restriction on these lots. That could create an instantaneous form of permanent open space that would go with the land. If you want to manage this as a conservation area, that’s again what you’re looking…….

Mr. Lennon: The intent is not necessary to manage……

Attorney: We are prepared to do that as well, I want to make that clear, I have done many of these over the years. If you want this restricted so it is just for typical statutory conservation principals laid out by the New Hampshire Statute, no problem, we’re happy to carve out a large portion of that and reserve it. I’m little reluctant to engage in pork chop zoning. I mean again, this house is already here; I suppose I could draw some lines, carve this out and create a lot. It’s going to be difficult to maintain an acre here. Other than that you’re leaving open space down in this corner, you like make a larger….. and you want to make open space, you want to make that narrowly connected, you want connectivity so that wildlife…… Yes, we are interested in hearing how you think this should be laid out. Because we don’t have a problem, from discussions with Mr. Leone, creating a situation that only allows for 2 lots. I am interested and willing to listen to the Board; I am willing to consider what the true desire of the Board.

Board Member: I think at this point the Board made it very clear when it denied the waiver to go in under the minor sub division and we’ve asked that you come back if you so desire under the major sub division regulations, this evening we do have the letter that came ahead of you basically saying OK it’s a major sub division and we are going to present that way however we don’t feel it meets this requirement, this requirement and this requirement of your major sub division regulations. The Board was very clear, I think it was unanimous; it’s a major sub division at this point because of the dates that were involved when it was done before. It would probably behoove you to go to the drawing board and then present to the Planning Board maybe some different configurations and ideas that you think will work.

Attorney: Do you want to manage open space; I would like to know that, because it makes a difference on how we might approach this.

Mr. Lennon: You basically laid out two alternatives, one is we just want two lots, restrict further subdivision or do we want a plan that basically is an intelligent way to manage open space in Warner. Correct if me if I’m wrong, but we were pretty clear that it is the latter. We don’t want to divide and stop further development; we want sub divisions that are consistent with open space and not potential management. There is no requirement in the regulations that the land be managed. The three things which I would suggest that you keep in mind specifically, a buffer from an existing road. I’m not sure in this space it is easy to do to maintain contiguous open space, I think you will see in the regs there is attention paid to the fact that we want the open space to be sensible and contiguous. Second is preservation of the ridgeline and third is preservation of agricultural space.

Attorney: Are you that fixed on the one acre issue?

Mr. Lennon: It’s a minimum of one acre, not a maximum.

Attorney: Is it possible to schedule in one meeting acceptance and approval.

Mr. Lennon: I would say no, in that if we schedule a public hearing there are folks in the public who would want to attend.

Ms. Annis explained that after approval a public hearing is scheduled for the following meeting.

 

VII.   Home Occupation

Applicant/Property Owner: Donald & Barbara Lassonde, 402 Route 103 East, Warner, NH 03278

Property Location: Same as above, Map 7 Lot 36, R-2 Zoning District

Purpose: Maple syrup production in proposed sugar shack

Motion was made not requiring a site-plan. Motion was seconded.

Ms. Annis called for a vote:

Mr. Serell – yes; Mr. Mical – yes; Mr. Lennon – yes; Mr. Eigabroadt – yes; Mr. Pershouse – yes; Mr. Patsfield – yes.

Approval of meeting minutes was deferred.

Ms. Annis noted that Mr. Pershouse recused himself from the Leone sub division.

Ms. Annis asked Mr. Mical to report on the Capital Improvements Program:

Mr. Mical explained that the sub committee met for their final meeting last week. Initial review by the Planning Board will be ready for September 18^th.

Ms. Annis asked Mr. Serell and Mr. Eigabroadt the status of the Planning Board Policy. Mr. Eigabroadt explained that the policy is complete. Mr. Eigabroadt explained that the policy will be sent to all members for their review before the October 2nd meeting.

Ms. Annis spoke about the Wagner sub division. Central NH suggested that the Conservation Commission review the application because of the location next to a State Forest.

Board Member: Conservation Commission can comment on any application.

Jim McLaughlin (Conservation Commission): We would like to be a resource to the Planning Board in the review of site plans, sub division proposals. There is a lot of experience to tap. Like Leone, if that sub division is approved and results in some kind of a conservation easement then it is given to the Town the Conservation Commission needs to be involved. Regarding the Wagner proposal, the Conservation Commission has some expertise to offer, for example the Con Con would like to be involved in the site walk.

Board Member: Maybe the Board should consider having a designated representative from the Conservation Commission.

Jim McLaughlin: That has been the Commissions intent; maybe applications could be put in the Conservation file.

Barbara Annis: I was just thinking of doing a memo to Fire Department, Police Department, Conservation Commission and Highway Department for any input.

Ms Annis asked Mr. Lennon about a check list for a sub division, someone requested comment, a difference was found between the check list for the new open space and the old sub division checklist. Mr. Lennon will review the lists.

Ms. Annis asked if all the Board members received a copy of the 2006 Sub Division Regulations. Ms. Annis will forward a copy to those members who have not received a copy.

VIII.  Site Plan Review

Applicant/Property Owner: Will Begin, Begin Homes, LLC, P.O. Box 473, Warner, NH 03278

Property Location: 183 West Main Street, Warner, N H

Map 35 Lot 3, Interval Overlay District of C-1 Zoning

Purpose: Model home and office for Begin Homes, LLC plus 5 units for professional offices or retail business.

Mr. Begin presented the site plan.

Mr. Begin: There is an old access that’s being used now; we are going to change that to a driveway that accesses almost directly across from the Police Station. I have not received the permit back from the State.

Ms. Annis: Did you have to do a traffic study?

Mr. Begin: Not that I am aware of. I’m honestly not sure; all the paperwork for the new drive has been submitted to the State. You will see on the plan there is a ready rock retaining system that will be installed along with railings. There is obviously fill that will sink onto the next person’s property, we are actually trying to fill that, so we actually got this ready rock system already in there, which has been engineered by Peter Blakeman.

Board Member: Does that pretty much run with the swale that’s there now.

Mr. Begin: No, what happens is when you first come off the road it’s not an issue so much, it’s when you start to get down into the property, what happens is in order to be able to keep our road on our property we need to build this ready rock retaining wall system or the slope would end up on the neighbors property.

Board Member: So the swale is further to the ……..

Mr. Begin: The existing swale right now? I think that’s south of our property. The driveway we are accessing right now is on Wentzel’s property. So, what were doing when we bring that into course now, were coming in just as when we had come to you guy’s ……. conceptual plans where we plan to put the model of the first building and that’s a smaller building than you have on the plans. There is parking behind the back; there is a walk out, a garage since we do a lot of those with our houses. There will be a walk that will access people up around to the front and then as you come down further you come to the five unit building which has plenty of parking space and we also have handicap parking down at the end and we are setting these up with garages ……..there will also be a handicap ramp that goes all the way around the front of the building. The building itself if you saw the details is ramped with a one foot drop unit to unit so even on the covered porch access there will be handicap accessibility. Plenty of parking, I’m sure Peter Blakeman met the Town requirements. Then you have a landscape plan which we submitted that’s been done by George Pellettieri and that what I’ve seen makes it really, really nice. The buildings are setup not to be boxy, we have stepped elevations on the roofs, we stepped the units back and forth. There will be no big side walls, no big roof lines and the model home is obviously a different style than the units in the back so you do not have a redundancy.

Board Member: So the model home is going to be a permanent structure or how would we deal with that……that’s going to stay that way?

Mr. Begin: Yes, we are building a model home. We already decided that type of house was being built in this area; I would assume we would have to come in and ask for it to be removed and put up a different style house, at this point, that’s a house that we sell quite a bit of.

Board Member: So that will not be inhabitable use for office space. It will be a model home.

Mr. Begin: It will be our office, we are not renting it out for people to live in or anything like that, and it’s just going to be strictly commercial use.

Board Member: Five buildings are on the uphill side, right?

Mr. Begin: Yes

Board Member: What’s the total square footage?

Mr. Begin: 24 x 28 x 2, around 1300 square feet.

Board Member: Single story

Board Member: No, its two stories

Mr. Begin: They are two stories, what we are doing is just showing them and we are going to allow each person that leases a space to finish the interior.

Board Member: One occupant per unit?

Mr. Begin: Yes, one business per unit

Board Member: …………………

Mr. Begin: Yes, there would be stairs allowing access from the garage up and then the main entrance in allows them to get to the door to the second floor and then however they decide to set it up from there will be up to them. The only thing we set up is allowing that door for handicap access on the front entrance and a bathroom set up for handicap. After that, everything else will be up to them.

Board Member: Are you going to require them to use you for the build out?

Mr. Begin: Yes, we are only going to be leashing these out, so we will have control of the property. We are not setting them up under condominium.

Board Member: So what you’re saying is this is going to be … you’re going to come in here, this is going to be the parking; the garage is going to be here. So they are going to look up into nothing, they are going to be looking up into a hillside; they are not going to be looking out into the valley.

Mr. Begin: Right. Well there will be windows up there from the second and first floor. Right, the front entrance is set up here, and the reason why we did that of course is you have a slope here to work with so whenever I have slopes when I build a lot of my stuff you always do the garage under access from the back. With this ramp set up all the way along here people will easily be able to access up into the units and move around through the front of the units. But the look of them, if you take a look at the elevation we actually still dressed up what is considered the back side of that unit. We did a little coverage over the door and stepped the units……

Board Member: So customers coming in, this is….. they’re going to be parking down here and then walking up the walkway to come in from this end, so this will be ground level.

Mr. Begin: Again, and that’s going to up to each individual how they want to use it. They’re certainly welcomed to let people come up this door to access, but if they’re handicapped and they need access with a ramp that’s the whole purpose of setting it up for that other direction. There will be stairs that will access from either side, so everybody is going to do their business the way they want.

Board Member: You’re coming to a business in the building, wouldn’t you say intuitively you would expect to walk in the rear level, in other words not knowing what was on the other side.

Mr. Begin: That’s really up to them to set up, if it says employees only and an arrow goes to the walkway I assume that’s the way it will go. It depends obviously on what type of business.

Board Member: What’s the roofing material?

Mr. Begin: It will be all asphalt, but it will be the architectural style. What we do on all our houses, very nice look., gives the staggered look.

Board Member: Is this all frame?

Mr. Begin: Yes, it will be all wood framed and obviously the party walls will be fireproof along with the attics.

Board Member: Sprinklers?

Mr. Begin: No, we are not doing the sprinklers there unless they decide to do them on their own. We are not requiring it. I have talked to the Fire Chief because it is a two story occupant he had no problem with that. But again, each individual person may decide to put them in.

Board Member: So it will be a tenant option.

Mr. Begin: Right, tenant option. I think the thing we noted on there is I talked with the Fire Chief he definitely wanted a centralized key lock box so he could access all the units, same with the Police Department, we noted that on there, and they also requested that the alarms be set up on all the units.

Board Member: The results of the conversations that you had with the Fire Department, is this documented somewhere?

Mr. Begin: It’s on the plan, plan elevation; it shows the fire alarm pull handles location.

Board Member: Barbara shouldn’t we have some written record, not questioning….

Board Member: Yes, we’ve seen this, and then we will let the Fire Chief review the plans and get a memo from him. A memo will be going to him …….

Board Member: So Dick will respond in writing as to his requirements as such…..

Board Member: Correct

Board Member: You show two handicap spots, you have six buildings; does that meet current ADA requirements?

Mr. Begin: I’m going by the engineer; again, I’m not sure, I would assume that’s what is required.

Board Member: I think it does, depending on how you look at, if you look at it as this is one building….

Board Member: Its two….

Board Member: OK two units

Board Member: No, two buildings

Board Member: I call them units; you call them buildings, my point being there are two ways of looking at it. You could look at it as total number of spaces per unit, how many of those need to be handicap. But if you were to look at it as each individual unit, now how many of them need to be handicap. I’m not sure what the answers to those questions are, but I think that’s how they look at it.

Board Member: This will be Town water?

Mr. Begin: Yes

Board Member: Any hydrants?

Mr. Begin: I don’t believe he has them listed on the property. According to when I spoke with the Fire Chief he said he wasn’t interested in anything there because he has 6,000 gallons of water in the fire trucks and he doesn’t need anymore water. That’s exactly what he told me. I did ask that question.

Board Member: Have you been in touch with the Warner Village Water District?

Mr. Begin: No, I have left numerous messages and never got a return phone call. I have talked to the Fire Chief, Police Department and the Highway Department. I assumed he would be at this meeting.

Board Member: If you would address the mechanicals.

Mr. Begin: Again, that’s going to be by individual choice.

Board Member: When you say you’re shelling them, that’s exactly what you mean.

Mr. Begin: Well, because everybody is going to want something different, some may want oil some may want gas.

Board Member: That’s going to be a hog pog, propane tanks versus oil tanks. Wouldn’t it be a lot simpler to make a decision?

Mr. Begin: Then some people may not like it, it’s like when I build houses, some people like oil, some people like gas.

Board Member: That being the case, the size of the tanks seems to me to be important issues in terms of drawing a plan that we would approve. I don’t think we would be comfortable with just a nominal plan.

Mr. Begin: Well anytime you bury tanks for houses they are 500 gallons, there is a minimum distance. We would obviously put them in far enough away where they would be out of sight. We could certainly indicate the location on the plan if that is an option the buyer took.

Board Member: Couldn’t you also require the tanks be below ground.

Mr. Begin: They would be below ground. I have never done a propane tank above ground.

Board Member: The air conditioning based on where they are going….

Mr. Begin: They would only be central they would not be window units.

Board Member: Planning Board’s point of view, we would probably want to have a schedule of all the options and your intent or your requirements before we approve.

Mr. Begin: The list could be endless, if there are specific things you don’t want to see…..

Board Member: If you made it solar we would have made a decision on the panels. You would like us to spell this out according to site plan review.

Mr. Begin: Yes

Board Member: Because there has been so much background noise, who ever is going to do the minutes is going to have a difficult time. I want to emphasize, that you’re not planning to heat the building, the tenant will decide which kind of heat they want, and they will be responsible for installing the heat.

Mr. Begin: No, I do not plan on telling them what they have to put in whether its gas or oil.

Board Member: Right

Mr. Begin: What I’m saying, if there is certain things you don’t want to see, tell me what it is like he discussed window AC units, which I don’t want to see window AC units either, someone’s going to do AC they would have to do central air. He doesn’t want to see gas tanks above the ground.

Board Member: Right

Mr. Begin: Which we wouldn’t want either, we would want those buried in a location, so if there is anything else like solar panels on the roof which you don’t want to see.

Board Member: But again, what I’m saying is that when you build the building you’re not going to put the heat in, its going to be up to the client what kind of heat they want in there and are you going to put the heat in for them.

Mr. Begin: Yes

Board Member: This plan here, as far, you missed a jog…..

Mr. Begin: Yes you’re right, there is suppose to be a jog for the ground height.

Board Member: Are you above, so you are not involved in a pumping station or anything like that. Where are you as far as that goes because are you on this side of the street or are you on that side of the street, where do you connect in. What I’m getting at, this additional… you may need a pumping station because of your elevation.

Mr. Begin: OK

Board Member: On the plan, it’s talking about a proposed pump.

Board Member: The checklist is missing, with a site plan there is a check list

Board Member: Isn’t this is a conceptual?

Board Member: No, he’s paid

Mr. Begin: I turned the check list in

Board Member: Shouldn’t we do a conceptual before we do a ……

Board Member: No, we’re not required.

Board Member: So we have an application.

Board Member: You can submit the checklist again, along with a driveway permit, plans and comments from the Warner Village Water District, lighting plan (look at site plan regs), and location of the buried tanks.

Board Member: Power lines, what is the nature of the easement.

Mr. Begin: Just to be able to carry the power lines overhead and have access to repair them. PSNH does not want them moved.

Board Member: Are there going to be poles close to the building?

Mr. Begin: No

Board Member: A plan that would show where the Police driveway is and where North Road is would be helpful.

Mr. Begin: OK

Board Member: Where is the floodplain?

Mr. Begin: All I know where my property ends its down in the back, it’s not near.

Board Member: We required RAW because of new businesses coming into the area to do a traffic study, what is your desire on that. According to DOT, they’re doing a study for the sub division on the other side. When each individual property becomes developed then it’s going to be a different story and they are going to have to do a traffic study. If and when the hotel comes in are you going to require them to do a traffic study?

Board Member: That depends on when they come in because there was a substantial one done down there with the access management right?

Board Member: That did not specify for the businesses.

Board Member: A traffic study is required for the Wagner sub division.

Board Member: Is this the time to bring up the possibility of cross easements?

Board Member: Yes, what they’re looking at Will is part of the access management plan, a connection between your property and the next for internal rotation so that not everyone is going out on the main road.

Mr. Begin: We were actually showing where we could onto RAW’s property, I can have the engineer put that on the plan again.

Board Member: Now that you are doing the new driveway is there any possibility that you would consider that to be a Town road.

Mr. Begin: No

Board Member: You can only develop 70% of the land, what is the percentage?

Mr. Begin: I will have that stated on the plan. Are you talking just the buildings?

Board Member: Everything that is impermeable.

Mr. Begin: Anything that is not grass, trees, paved.

Board Member: Do you have erosion control for the landscape plan.

Mr. Pellettieri: We don’t

Board Member: Do you have an area or at least a designation for the parking area as to how it will be paved and what the paving is?

Mr. Begin: That will all be paved.

Board Member: Is that spelled out somewhere, is it part of the landscaping?

Mr. Pellettieri: That will be added.

Ms. Annis: Does anybody else have anything to add. I am to gather then if the State requires a traffic study, then we will not require one? To clarify if the State does not require one the Planning Board will.

Board Member: Land disturbance. If you disturb more then 1 acre Department of Environmental Services has standards to be met.

Ms. Annis: Paperwork would then be required from DES regarding the land disturbance. We would prefer not to see you until you have everything complete. We will put you on the agenda, and if you are not ready please call.

Mr. Begin: Who will send me the list of everything specifically, I wasn’t sure if the Planning Board sent something out.

Board Member: Compare with Mark.

Ms. Annis asked who would volunteer to do the meeting minutes. It was discussed and agreed that the Selectmen’s Secretary will prepare the meeting minutes.

Motion to adjourn 9:10 p.m.