Members Present: Barbara Annis, Derek Pershouse, Russ St.Pierre, Lynn Perkins, Wayne Eigabroadt

Open Meeting at 7:00 PM

Roll Call

Ms. Annis asked Mr. Mical to vote at this meeting in place of Mr. Serell, and Mr. Patsfield to vote in place of Mr. Lennon.

Approval of the Minutes of the August 1, 2005 Planning Board Meeting

Ms. Annis suggested that due to the length of the agenda, the approval of the minutes be moved to the October meeting. The Board agreed with Ms. Annis’ suggestion.

Ms. Annis stated that she had conferred with CNHRPC and had been advised that with a long agenda, the meeting can be conducted in one of two ways:

Input can not be limited and the agenda can be followed, which means that many people won’t be able to be heard before the 10 p.m. meeting cut-off time.

Each individual can be limited to 30 minutes in which they would present their case, questions would be asked, the Public Hearing would be held and a vote would be taken. If all of these things can’t be accomplished within the 30-minute time limit, the case is continued until the next month’s meeting.

The Board agreed to the second choice, and the meeting was conducted in that manner.

Public Hearing: Minor Subdivision – continued from the August 1^st meeting

Applicant: Josh and Rebekah Moulton, Warner, NH

Property Owner: Elmer and Nancy Story, 14 Trumbel Road, Waterford, CT 06385

Property Location: Route 103 East, past Parade Ground Cemetery Road

Map 10, Lot 74, R-2 Zoning

Purpose: Subdivide property into 3 lots – 43 acres total – for residential use

Jeff Evans, surveyor

William Howard Dunn, Attorney

Joe Burns, Realtor for the Moultons

Mr. Evans: We’ve reconfigured the lots and have that plan tonight. The first plan that was submitted was very similar, but had the property line follow what will be the common driveway. There were issues from the Board about the irregularity of the lot shape. If the shape of the lot is not regulated by a width to depth ratio, the shape of the lot can’t be controlled. Many towns have a width to depth ratio or a paragraph regarding the irregularity of lots subdivision regulations. This lot does conform with the buildability as stated and does maintain the natural character of the land. We much prefer Plan #1 to the second proposed lot configuration. We went to the ZBA at the request of the Planning Board, and were refused on the question of having a lot with no frontage. The ZBA actually liked our plan as presented (Plan #1).

Mr. Dunn: I’m from Newport and I’ve been on that Planning Board for 17 years. I’ve looked at the Zoning Ordinance and both of these plans conform to the Zoning Ordinance. I’ve looked at the Subdivision Regulations and both plans conform to those regulations. The problem one gets into when looking at the Subdivision Regulations is that it seems to give you the same direction that Josh has chosen; this lot has natural topographical features in the way of scenic vistas, streams, rock outcroppings, water bodies – all of these things are mentioned in Section IV A-2 of your subdivision regulations. The lot lines of this lot follow the contours of the land. He would like to have this plan approved (Plan #1) because the driveway stays more on one lot and that lot owner would have more control over his one destiny. Long term, Josh’s ultimate goal is to have a house up here on the top of the hill. But because he wanted to be responsive to your concerns, Josh has submitted the plan that you have before you which has three regular shaped lots (Plan #2). If that is what you require, then Jeff has indicated that he will accept that. But he would prefer that you take a hard look at Plan #1. The only change from the last meeting is that he put the driveway down below. I realize that it puts you in a strange position – deciding which one we want you to approve.

Mr. Eubank: Why doesn’t the driveway (on Plan #2) follow the lot line down into that higher lot?

Mr. Evans: It doesn’t work with the topography of the land. It can’t be done. This follows the main logging road up through the property. That’s the objective.

Mr. Dunn: After spending a day with your Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance, I would just be curious to know where you find support for denying Plan #1.

The Board compared the plans submitted. Ms. Annis asked Mr. Evans why the new version of Plan #1 only shows one driveway when the previously presented plan shows 2 driveways.

Mr. Evans: I’m not sure. It seems to me that this is the same scenario that we presented on Route 103 West – the Violette Kelley property – and that was to decrease the impact on the road.

Mr. Pershouse: I’d like to comment that it’s a very different configuration, both in visibility as well as slope of the roads so we don’t necessarily equate them. Using that as a jumping off point, you’re not saying that you only want one driveway?

Mr. Evans: Yes, I only want one driveway to access this buildable area from up here. This is where the house will be. It’s a perfect location for a little set-in sloping septic system. We’ve already done the test pit. It’s nice gravel.

Mr. Pershouse: How does that differ from the need for driveways from the original plan? In other words, what leads you to one driveway now and two prior to that?

Mr. Moulton: This slopes up from the road. If you come in with a driveway right here, you’re going to be driving into a walkout basement. I thought it would look better and be a better property if you came in up high, into the first floor of the house, and have a walkout basement.

Mr. Pershouse: It’s optimizing.

Mr. Evans: Yes. It’s all nice young growth.

Mr. Moulton: I’m trying to leave the trees here. The biggest reason why I entertained two driveways is that one of the members of the Zoning Board told me that it was going to be a problem; that I was going to have to have two driveways and not have three houses on one driveway. That’s the only reason we ever went with two.

Mr. Evans: But we visited that before, in another situation.

Ms. Annis: It’s just a conflict then.

Mr. Evans: Exactly.

Ms. Annis asked if anyone had any further questions.

Mr. Mical: I have a concern about only having one driveway and emergency services trying to get in to it.

Ms. Annis: We have a letter from the Fire Chief. Each one of you got one. Have you read them?

Board members: Yes.

Mr. Mical: It is my understanding that 911, for a number of reasons, says that there are to be no more than 2 lots served off of one driveway.

Mr. Eigabroadt: That’s their recommendation, correct?

Mr. Mical: Yes.

Ms. Annis: But have you received a driveway permit where you have requested a driveway from the state for this location?

Mr. Moulton: It’s in progress.

Ms. Annis: At this one location?

Mr. Moulton: Yes.

Ms. Annis: But you haven’t received it yet.

Mr. Moulton: I did speak with the Chief and he had no problems with it.

Ms. Annis: Chief what?

Mr. Moulton: Fire Chief.

Ms. Annis: OK, because we got a letter…

Mr. Evans: DOT has been out there and verbally given the OK.

Ms. Annis: We do have a letter from the Fire Chief. Would you like to see it?

Mr. Eigabroadt: With all due respect, the Fire Chief is the one that wrote the letter to us. He talked to you and said he has no problem with it, but he does according to the letter to the Planning Board.

Mr. Eigabroadt read the letter from Fire Chief Brown into the record:

September 8, 2005

This letter is in regards to the number of structures on one driveway. The Bureau of Emergency Communications, which is in charge of 911, recommends that an access to three or more structures be a road and be numbered as a road would. Therefore, it is requested that no more than two structures or homes be allowed on one driveway from this day forward.

Mr. Eigabroadt: Obviously, he’s putting his feelings in writing and his recommendations are based on things that he has to go by.

Mr. Moulton: That’s definitely news to me. We’ve been doing this for six months and now we’re asking for approval and this letter comes up.

Mr. Dunn: The minimizing impact on Route 103 is one of the goals of this one access instead of two.

Ms. Annis asked if there were any more questions.

Mr. Eubank: You say that the reason that Plan #1 is better is that it follows the topography, but the number of easements was the previous reason given for the shape of the lot.

Mr. Evans: That may have been what Josh said, but his intention was to not leave land on the other side of the driveway that might be unmaintained by the owner on the other side. That’s been his reasoning all along; that the driveway became the boundary.

Mr. Dunn: The topography drove the location of the driveway. That choice does happen to fit exactly your subdivision regulations. And from a legal standpoint, it is a little easier – the easement rights work out a little better. One driveway is simpler.

Mr. Patsfield: Correct me if I’m wrong -- You’re asking for three lots but you’re not asking for three building permits at this time.

Ms. Annis: We don’t do the building permits.

Mr. Patsfield: That’s right. We don’t do them. So 911 doesn’t come into play because he’s not asking for permits. Until he goes to the point of asking for the permits, then the 911 thing would come into play, or whatever the Fire Marshal or Chief is saying. He’s only asking for us to give him three lots.

Mr. Dunn: From a technical legal matter, that is an absolutely correct interpretation of the law.

Mr. Eigabroadt: One step at a time.

Mr. Pershouse: But his intent is to build on all three lots.

Mr. Patsfield: His intent is to build on lot one at this time.

Mr. Pershouse: But he wants to create three buildable lots now, and it’s an impediment for whatever reason – a technicality that would restrain him or restrict him from doing that…

Mr. Patsfield: He could make it a road later on. He could build house one, take the profit from that one and build on lot two and then he could take part of that profit and make that a road instead of making that a driveway.

Mr. Evans: To the extent that it satisfies the 911 requirement, it would get there.

Mr. Patsfield: He may never get to the point in his life of building on the third lot.

Mr. St.Pierre: Going back to the first design, you say that the lot is designed to take advantage of the existing topography. Could you explain to me what that is? In looking at this plan, I see that it is a pretty steep slope and it looks to take advantage of the logging road.

Mr. Evans: Yes, and the logging road is the way I would have chosen to get up there. This is the steepest portion of the lot, and there’s a switchback and he kind of traversed the slope. When we do that, the grade isn’t that bad.

Mr. St.Pierre: Again, my question to you is why would you design the shape of the lot to match the switchback?

Mr. Evans: It is because Josh thinks that the easement ought to be on one lot rather than two.

Mr. St.Pierre: It’s on two.

Mr. Evans: Yes, the easement is on two lots and the third will have a driveway off of the easement.

Mr. St.Pierre: It is my understanding that there is supposed to be an easement covering the shared driveway?

Mr. Dunn: Yes.

Mr. St.Pierre: Do you have a description of that easement?

Mr. Evans: Not until we know what we’re doing.

Mr. Dunn: The description of the easement is not yet written, but it will have a share maintenance provision in it.

Mr. St.Pierre: But I mean even as to the location of it.

Mr. Dunn: I’ll have the surveyor locate it by metes and bounds.

Mr. Evans: The first plan meets the requirement of keeping it all on one lot.

Mr. St.Pierre: It needs to be represented on the plan.

Mr. Dunn: And it will be.

Mr. St.Pierre: I have a concern about the irregular shape of the lot because it is all well and good now, but down the road the boundaries could get lost because it doesn’t follow any pattern.

Mr. Evans: This is why we do good surveying these days. Any surveyor, when they’re researching a subdivision, comes from the exterior topography in. Normally, we try to set our markers so that they’re not destroyed; but it does happen. But that’s why we’ve gotten into the licensing of surveyors. It is to let us decide what to set and how to set it. If we had to come in and recreate this subdivision, we would work from the exterior in for the survey.

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

Jim McLaughlin: I was just wondering if you’ve accepted this application?

Ms. Annis: No, we haven’t.

Mr. McLaughlin: If you haven’t accepted the application, how can you have the Public Hearing?

Ms. Annis: That’s what happens when you try to move things along.

Mr. Perkins made a motion to accept Plan #1, the plan with the irregularly shaped lot. The motion was seconded by Mr. Patsfield.

Mr. Pershouse: Once we accept the first plan, that becomes the application and we are no longer considering at the other plan.

Mr. Serell: That’s not necessarily true. We’d only be saying it’s complete. If it’s not approved by the Board, then we could look at another plan.

Mr. Perkins: It is a typical New Hampshire lot. In this state, and in this part of the country, I don’t know how you create perfectly rectangular lots to build on.

Mr. Pershouse: I wasn’t disagreeing with that concept; I just wanted to make sure that we don’t box ourselves out of a reconsideration of another plan.

Ms. Annis: Since we haven’t voted on it, my comment was going to be that I was willing to negotiate. I like this plan better (Plan #2), but I would accept this plan (Plan #1) if it had a second driveway. I like the idea of a second driveway. A second driveway for Lot 1.

Mr. Eigabroadt: Even that’s something that can be taken up at a later time during the process, isn’t that right Drew?

Mr. Serell: Either the Board imposes that as a condition – or if we don’t, then it is out of our hands and it will be up to whoever issues the driveway permits. This Board can’t take it up at a later date.

Mr. Eigabroadt: I meant prior to approval.

Mr. Serell: Oh, yes.

Ms. Annis: That’s what I was saying – that I was willing to accepting the irregular lots if they gave me a second driveway, instead of the regular shaped lots.

Mr. Serell: We’re not to that point yet.

Mr. Eigabroadt: We don’t have much time yet, and the motion is on the floor.

Ms. Annis called for a vote on the motion to accept Plan #1, and the motion passed by a majority vote.

Ms. Annis said that she had 7:35 p.m. as the time, and the discussion started at 7:05 p.m.

Mr. Patsfield made a motion to suspend the time limit so that the discussion on the case could continue, based on the fact that the applicant had already been before the Planning Board more than once.

Ms. Annis stated that if an exception is made for this application and the same is done for all applications, the Board won’t be able to accomplish what it wanted to at this meeting. Mr. Serell said that the Board had discussed the application at length, and that he felt that the Board should vote on it.

Mr. Serell made a motion to accept Plan 1 with the conditions that the easement descriptions be shown on the plan using metes and bounds, and that the description of the easements include the responsibility of maintenance. The motion was seconded and passed by a majority vote.

Mr. Mical: I have a comment. I guess it doesn’t make any difference what our emergency services people say about the driveways.

Mr. Serell: No, I thought that the response to that was that it wasn’t for this board to discuss it but that it was up to those that issue the driveway permits.

Public Hearing – Site Plan Review: Reclamation Plan

Property Owner: Chris Mock

Property Location: East side of Route 103, Map 16, Lot 60, Warner, NH

Purpose: Removal of gravel from property

Mr. Stewart was not at the meeting.

Public Hearing – Site Plan Review

Property Owner: R.A.W. Investments, Ray Wentzell

Property Location: South side of NH Rt. 103 West, West Main Street, Warner, NH Map 35, Lots 4-1 & 4-2, C-1 Zoning

Purpose: Each lot to have a 10,080 sq.ft. building with multiple rental units for commercial use in accordance with Use Table 1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Anticipated uses fall under the "Retail and Services" category and include:

Retail establishments, eating and drinking places, personal and consumer service, professional and business offices; and under "Accessory", any accessory structures in connection with those uses. The lots will share an access driveway from NH Route 103 as approved by the New Hampshire Department of Transportation and will share driveways, loading area, parking, drainage and utility services through cross easements on the lots.

Peter McGrath, attorney, and Bob Carpenter of TF Bernier presented the case. Mr. McGrath handed in the signed authorization for representation of R.A.W. Ms. Annis noted that the time was 7:40 p.m.

Mr. McGrath gave an overview of where they were in the process since the last meeting, and then said that the engineer would go over the application.

 

Overview by Mr. McGrath:

 Exit 9 location

 2 buildings with cupolas

 Presented the Board with a letter stating a number of issues brought up by the Board at the June meeting.

 Board was concerned about the configuration of the buildings at the last meeting.

 People talked about the Charrette and some of the building designs

 Building configured in a way that will satisfy concerns as much as possible in relation to the Charrette

 Given the shape of the lot, the design with the cupolas, facing front, will be explained by Mr. Carpenter as the best design

 Mr. Carpenter has brought with him the other designs that were considered and rejected, and he will explain why wouldn’t work given the health, safety, fire and elevation issues

 Letter given to the Board from Mr. Carpenter explaining the challenges of the site and why the proposed buildings would work best for the site

 Board concerned by the DOT permit. Clients went out to DOT and specifically told them what the proposed uses are.

 Board concerned about the driveway permit and whether or not the driveway permit was appropriate for the businesses proposed

 What are the actual uses? Mr. Feenstra sent a letter to DOT stating that the proposed uses are: liquor store, nail and pedicure shop, video store, pizza parlor and a Chinese restaurant; possibly a pharmacy.

 Footages were calculated and DOT calculated traffic patterns for those uses

 DOT has now issued a formal approval of the plan specifically with those proposed uses reviewed and approved.

 Board was concerned about the driveway, and DOT also indicted that it has approved the driveway permit, which is part of the package.

 Board raised issues about Town water and sewer availability. Applicants have spoken with the Town about these issues and have received specific approval for the proposed uses for water and sewer.

 Board questioned whether or not environmental permits had been received for the site specific permit – for terrain alternation – and whether it had been amended. Last week, DES approved the proposed plan as submitted with the proposed uses.

 Someone at the last meeting had brought up the new EPA one acre rule, and this requirement has been complied with. This notice of intent filing has been satisfied.

 Board asked about the fire department and the police chief, and both have said that they will provide information to the Board directly. He said that he was told that both were in approval of the project. When asked for a letter from them, they said that they would provide letters directly to the Board.

 Question about tenants, and they have been mentioned earlier (see above). If uses are changed, the permits would have to be changed at the State level.

 Charrette not officially approved to date, but they’ve tried to comply with the Charrette.

 Cupolas and eaves and dormers as well as landscaping are in the proposed plan to try to comply with the Charrette.

 Believes that all of the checklist has been completed.

Mr. Pershouse: I’m concerned about a change being made after the driveway permits are given. What do we do if the use changes? It seems to me we’re boxing in the town and you as an applicant. Doesn’t DOT use the extreme or worst case scenario as the model when issuing the driveway permits? Is that what they did?

Mr. McGrath: It would just like any other business; if a hair salon that’s across the street today wanted to change to a pharmacy, it would have to come to the Town for a permit if a beauty changed to another type of business. The town would then have all jurisdictional power to approve or deny the change of use. From the town’s point of view, I would like the comfort level that they are stuck with these uses. I’m trying to reassure the Board that the permits have been issued based on these uses; that they are high uses.

Mr. Pershouse: What I’m saying is that it could, in essence, physically block out the possibility of a more severe case. I guess my personal approach of assessing the best plan for the Town and applicant would be to look at that driveway in relationship to the area as opposed to a driveway for that particular driveway or those particular or specific uses. Thereby, the applicant in two or three years from now would not come up against a stone wall in not being able to make a change, and if these are rental properties he’s basically put himself into what I think is a very poor position if it’s not flexible enough to that he can’t have a number of different types of tenants in the future.

Mr. McGrath: I think that when DOT granted it, they did consider down the road the different traffic counts and all of that. But you make a good point. I have another case in another town where a tenant is changing their use and the sewer usage will increase and that town doesn’t have the capacity for the increase. In that case the Town isn’t going to permit it.

Mr. Pershouse: So in the real world, if in a few years one or more of these uses changed based on what we’re discussing tonight this could impact his business plan and be a threat to profits.

Mr. McGrath: Yes. There’s a lot of permitting for like-kind. If he wanted to change the pizza parlor to an Indian restaurant, the town would probably approve that. But if he wanted to change the pizza parlor to a pharmacy, it would be a whole different business plan.

Ms. Annis: We would like to see what Mr. Serell asked for last time; what different types of scenarios did you look at and why didn’t they work? I think that we’re all very familiar with the lot.

Mr. Carpenter said that they looked at other alternatives initially and listened to the Board. He presented several scenarios to the Board, showing drawings of these to the Board.

Options:

Turn buildings 90 degrees to the road

Tenant visibility suffers

Vehicle circulation – lot of movements to get around the buildings

Emergency access to only one side of the building

83% access – three sided access for proposed plan

Turning radius not good with the buildings facing each other

Loading areas would be in the parking areas

Utilities would be in the parking area and more visible

Visual impact isn’t any better because you’d see the backs of the buildings

More fill on the site to bring it up to a reasonable grade

No access to storage

Mechanicals out in view

Nothing beneficial with that site

Parking in the rear is what the Site Plan regulations suggest:

Buildings facing the street

Great deal of fill on site because of parking location

Mechanicals would be in a visible area

Visibility is poor

No one knows where shops are

Confusion – people aren’t comfortable with that

Decrease in parking – 20 parking spaces lost with this scenario

Employees would be sharing the same parking field with customers

Emergency vehicles can get in

L-shaped building:

Covered access to the back

Loss of 29 parking spaces

Larger parking field in the back of buildings

Tenant visibility

Access 36% of buildings with Emergency vehicles

Mechanicals in a visible area

A second 90 degree example:

Emergency vehicles can’t get in as well

Circulation of traffic isn’t as good

Loading is a problem

Tenant visibility is poor

Mr. St.Pierre: Did you consider looking at an asymmetrical plan?

Mr. McGrath: We did consider making one two story, and we would still be willing to do that.

Mr. Carpenter: Not specifically. But in going through this exercise, it was still there. We had the same issues if we were looking at one lot or at two lots.

Mr. St.Pierre: The problems are that you’re duplicating the services on both lots. You’d have more freedom if you’re not tied into trying to duplicate the services.

Mr. Carpenter: Yes, that was considered from that perspective. It was always intended to develop it as two lots. If developing this as one lot, we didn’t see something that would work or benefit it. We didn’t look at combining the lots into one. I don’t think that is in the best interest of what the Board wants.

Ms. Annis called time and said that the discussion would be continued next month and that it was hoped that the Board would be able to give the applicants more time at the October meeting.

Mr. McGrath: For the record, the varied scenarios are Exhibit 2. All of the other exhibits were handed out to the Board.

Ms. Annis said that she would provide the information to the Secretary and that she would be sure that all Board members received copies of the materials before the next meeting.

Public Hearing – Revised Site Plan Review

Property Owner: Allan P. Jones DBA Knoxland Equipment, Inc., 132 Cross Rd, Weare, NH 03281 (Dimond Flag Station, LLC)

Property Location: I-89, Exit 7 North: So. side off Rt. 103, E. of I-89 / 6 acres, Map 3, Lots 31,32,34,35,42 C-1 Zoning

Purpose: Construction of a 20,000 s.f. steel building for the company’s Sales, Parts, Administration and Service departments (sales of Terex and Massey Ferguson tractors and equipment)

James Bruss, Vice President of Bruss Construction, presented the information for Mr. Jones, who was also in attendance.

Building is in commercial zone

Setbacks are shown on plan

Silt fence all around construction area

35,000 of total construction area

Retention swales for retention of sheet drainage

About the best percolation spot in the State of NH

4.2 inches of rain per hour used to calculate the perc rate

System has been oversized because the perc rate goes out the window in frozen conditions

Stone lined swales have been provided for worst case scenario

Signage not finally determined, but sign from Weare condition was shown

Massey Ferguson from current Weare building will not be on the new building

Signage will meet the Town’s specifications

No free-standing lighting on the site

All lighting will be attached to the building

6 exterior lights shown on the plan

100 watt metal halite

Lights on a time clock, and will go out at 10:00 p.m.; but if there is any action around the building they will come on

Mr. Pershouse asked if there was any allowance for additional shielding of the lights, and Mr. Bruss said no, the fixtures are fixed at 75 feet

Dumpster screening shown on the site plan

Water separator for wash from the building

Paper strip test used for detection of oil presence in the water; if it comes up clean, it is pumped out

Septic location is noted on the plan

Septic permit not received yet

Heavy equipment on property on a regular basis

Plan is to leave existing vegetative buffers in place and not change them

Areas around the building that isn’t used for parking areas will be grassed

10-foot landscaping plan around the building won’t be able to be met

It will be more like the bus barn that was previously approved. Difficult to maintain a garden or other landscaping around the building because of the presence of the heavy equipment

Would listen to suggestions for landscaping

26’8" peak at back of building

18’8" at front of building

Peak height is 34’6"

13,680 s.f. total for building

140 x 100 footprint

Ash gray building with white trim

Precast concrete tank for collection of 110% of tank storage with simple shed roof over tank

No propane -- Propane tank on plan won’t be existing – it is a mistake on the plan

The oil tank will not be buried; it is above ground

Flag pole in front with flowers planted around it

Sign will have flowers planted around it

Ms. Annis asked about dressing up the side of the front portion of the building; it won’t be possible

They will be maxing out the allowable amount of signage possible; some of the existing signs will have to come down

Mr. Perkins asked what type of materials will be draining into the floor, into the 1,000 tank

No oil in the washing bay

If an excavator is washed, the clean water can go into the drainage swales. Other will have to go through the hazardous materials process

Ms. Annis asked about the location for the pit used to test equipment, which is not shown on the plan

Mr. Jones said he could tell the Board the approximate size of the pit and its location: about 100’ x 25’

Mr. Eigabroadt asked who is in charge of determining what can go into the swales. Mr. Bruss said that a test is done by the owner and a log is kept. There is a state requirement for a log to be kept.

Not disturbing more than an acre of land; applicant is well aware of the site specific requirements.

Mr. St.Pierre: I’m still waiting for a plan that has everything on it. We still haven’t seen a plan that has everything on it; you need to request a waiver if you don’t intend to do certain things. It is unreasonable to ask for approval for a plan that is incomplete.

Mr. Eigabroadt: In all fairness, that is the same question that I raised the last time that you were in here. We can’t approve something if it’s not all there.

Mr. Bruss:

 I wasn’t here the last time, and I read through the minutes of the meeting and thought I had addressed everything that was asked for by the Board.

Landscaping – more separation from parking and building is difficult. He’s done a good job of maintaining the quality of site as it is.

Mr. Eigabroadt: Plan has come in in little pieces and it has been difficult to get straight and exact answers. We require applicants to provide specific information on the plan so that we can come back to you and say if something isn’t done as approved. This has already happened in the past on this site with concrete slabs, pavement. I know that, through no fault of your own, the concrete slab ended up being bigger. If it’s not accepted because it isn’t complete, it is no one’s fault but your own. We need all of the information so that we can approve your plan. If the plan keeps getting not accepted because it’s incomplete that’s nobody’s fault but your own. We want this to move forward as much as you do but we have to have all of the information.

Mr. Jones: Unfortunately, I do have a rough drawing with those things in it, but somehow it didn’t get transferred. No excuse, but I’ve had to rely on other people to keep things moving forward. There isn’t anything that you’ve asked for that isn’t already proposed and measured out and put someplace on a plan. But there have been two people involved in it besides me. I had knee surgery last week, and I thought it was ready. I could get the rough dimensions to you before the meeting is over tonight.

Ms. Annis: The compliance officer will want to see footages on the plan. There aren’t any footages on the plan showing how far areas are from each other. The plan is scaled, but the footage isn’t shown.

Ms. Annis showed Mr. Jones where on the plan footage measurements were required, and discussed the location of signs as well as the removal of existing signs. Mr. Jones said that he will make sure that the signage is in compliance.

Mr. Pershouse: Have we conveyed what we need? In this conversation, do you have a laundry list?

Mr. Bruss: Yes.

Mr. Jones: We can get that drawing to you in very short order.

Mr. St.Pierre: I would like a page in writing describing the landscaping.

Ms. Annis: We also need a waiver for the metal building.

It was stated that the waiver for the metal building had been turned in.

Mr. Patsfield said that he noticed a new sign, and Mr. Bruss said that it was a temporary sign per the ordinance, and is for the construction company.

Mr. Pershouse: Could you generate a list of signs and their locations?

Mr. Eigabroadt: Isn’t this why we have a checklist that specifically spells out in our regulations what we require?

Ms. Annis asked if they would like the plan that she had marked up, and they said yes.

Public Hearing – Minor Subdivision

Property Owner: Dina Bock Revocable Trust, c/o Peter and Dina Bock, 16 Neilson Road, Nottingham, NH 03290

Property location: Map 4, Lot 3, Route 114, R3 Zoning

Purpose: To create 3 lots from one 28.3 acre lot: 15 acres, 3.28 acres and 10.1 acres

Ms. Annis asked Ms. Bock to complete the second page of the application, authorizing Mr. Sweet to represent her. Doug Sweet, surveyor, presented the case for Dina Bock

28 acres of land in a large horseshoe shape

Frontage in Bradford, Henniker and Warner

Soils and topography shown on second page of plan

Soil test pit done on each lot

Applied to DES for lot that is less than 5 acres and notes are on the plan

Applied to DOT to upgrade the two driveway entrances and received permits for 2 dual driveways, which are shown on the plan

Easement shown on the plan to gain access to Lot 2

Mr. Pershouse: Are existing drives roughed in or permanent?

Mr. Sweet: The one on the lot where house exists is fairly wide and graveled. The other lot was roughed in when the highway was put in, and has more recently been used as a logging road. We thought that was a good place to keep it.

Mr. Pershouse asked to be shown where the town line is, and it was pointed out on the plan. Mr. Sweet said that they will be on the agenda for the Bradford Planning Board meeting the next night.

Mr. Perkins: Have you addressed the concerns of Mary Hodgman? The Planning Board received a letter from her with concerns about runoff and spring water running under the highway and onto her property.

Mr. Sweet: I haven’t heard anything about a letter.

Ms. Bock: We weren’t sent a copy.

Mr. Serell gave his copy of the letter from Ms. Hodgman to Mr. Sweet.

Mr. Eubank said that a letter had been received from the Bradford Conservation Commission:

The Bradford Conservation Commission met September 1^st to discuss proposed subdivision. Our comments on the Dina Bock subdivision on Route 114 are as follows:

The frontage of the 3 proposed lots is in Warner, but note that all of the runoff is pat of the watershed of Lake Massasecum in Bradford. The inlet area of Massasecum has reported high concentrations of pollutants in the past tests. We recommend a hydrologic study to determine the effects of increased runoff that land developed in lawns, driveways and structures can bring. Can the six existing culverts support additional runoff, and would this runoff be detrimental to the wetlands on the east side of the highway, and thus the lake?

Setbacks from wetlands are not indicated on the map submitted for comment. Building, well and septic areas not shown.

What does the shaded box on lot 2 represent?

Note that driveway to lot 3 may require a dredge and fill wetlands permit.

Ann Eldridge, Chair

Mr. Sweet stated that the 50 foot setback is shown, which is the requirement of Bradford. He stated that a wetlands permit isn’t required. He further stated that the questions posed by Bradford don’t pertain to Warner.

Mr. Eubank had concerns about crossing wetlands. [There was discussion between Mr. Eubank and Mr. Sweet that was not able to be heard by the Secretary nor on the tape].

Ms. Annis asked Mr. Serell about RSA 674:53 re: land located in two towns. She thought that both towns needed to meet jointly to approve the plan.

Mr. Sweet: Both towns must sign the plan, but they don’t have to meet jointly. Both towns must approve and sign the plan before it can be recorded at the Merrimack County Registry of Deeds. We’re meeting with Bradford’s Planning Board tomorrow night.

The Board had a short discussion on joint meetings of the two town Boards. Someone in the audience asked if the public would be able to give input to the Board. Ms. Annis explained to the audience that the Board can accept the plan as complete without approving the plan. She stated that the audience cannot be heard until the Public Hearing is opened.

Mr. Eigabroadt had questions about the necessity of a joint meeting. Mr. Serell said that he doesn’t think that a joint meeting is required. Mr. St.Pierre said that he thought the town had to inquire of Bradford as to their thoughts. Mr. Serell said that he thought the Board could accept the plan as complete, but couldn’t approve it at this time.

Mr. Eigabroadt: We could accept the plan as complete tonight but put off any approval until we’ve had the chance to inquire of Bradford, etc. Ms. Annis agreed. Mr. Serell said that the questions addressing the runoff could be addressed in the approval process, but that he felt that the application was complete.

Mr. Serell made a motion to accept the plan as complete. The motion passed by a unanimous vote.

Mr. Serell made a motion to delay any further action on the plan until the town has notified Bradford in writing per RSA 674:53, including the entire application as well as the letter from the abutter, that the application has been received. The motion was seconded, and the motion was passed by a unanimous vote.

From the audience: Point of order. Could you please notify abutters in their notification that they might not be able to speak at the meeting before they cancel any plans that they might have had?

Mr. Eigabroadt: It’s on every agenda, Ma’am.

Audience member: It didn’t say that on the agenda to us.

Mr. Eigabroadt: How could we have notified you of that? We don’t know ahead of time what will happen at the meeting. You were here. This discussion just came up here now. Had we known that ahead of time, then you probably would have been notified. Our duty is to let you know that the discussion is going to be held; whether you chose to come to the meeting or not is your decision. Hopefully, the next time we meet we will be at the point of receiving public input.

The Secretary said that she would get the package of information together for the Bradford Planning Board the next day and deliver it to Bradford the following day. She said she would call Bradford Town Hall and make sure someone would be available to receive the information and get it to the Planning Board. Mr. Serell asked about the logistics and timing for getting information to and from the Bradford Planning Board. Mr. Serell said that he felt that the intent of the RSA is to make sure that the Planning Board doesn’t act on something or approve something, or give the applicant the impression that the Planning Board has given its approval, to something when the Planning Board in the other town doesn’t know what’s going on. In this case, I think we’re pretty confident that Bradford is aware of the application. Mr. St.Pierre said his concern is that the Bradford Planning Board might do the same thing that the Warner Planning Board is doing tonight.

Excavation Plan – continued from the June 6, 2005 meeting

David and Barbara Barchey, 560 Route 103 East, Warner, NH

Mr. Barchey provided a plan to the Board showing a retaining wall and how far the excavation would go up on the lot. The slope is shown on the plan.

Ms. Annis asked if they had found someone to take the loam away, and Mr. Barchey said that he had, and that they were waiting on the Planning Board’s decision and approval so that they didn’t start something and then have to stop.

Mr. Pershouse asked Ms. Annis to summarize what the Board is looking for tonight.

Ms. Annis: They had no idea of the slope, how far it was going to go up. He is now showing us a retaining wall that wasn’t on the previous drawing. Is the retaining wall going to be on the lower terrace? Are you going to go up?

Mr. Barchey: Yes. There will be rocks placed there for the wall.

Ms. Annis: How do you plan to reclaim this?

Mr. Barchey: It will be loam behind the retaining wall; it won’t be dug out. There will be 3 to 6 inches of loam, and there is some loam there already that won’t be disturbed, and I have purchased Timothy grass seed for the loam.

Mr. Perkins: Will the grass take hold in the fall?

Mr. Barchey: If not, I think the retaining wall will hold it until spring, with all of the rock that I have in place now. I think it will hold until spring when I can reclaim it.

Mr. Patsfield: Do you know how much material is going out?

Mr. Barchey: I think that it will be no more than 2,000 yards removed from the property and 1,500 to 2,000 yards moved around on the lot. I plan to barter for some of the work being done for the materials removed.

Mr. St.Pierre: Does that plan have to be recorded?

Ms. Annis: I don’t think so. We didn’t find anything that stated that it did, and we’ve never required it before. This is a little different than what we’ve done before.

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

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

Ms. Hinnendael: Does the plan show how the ground will be reclaimed, landscaping, etc.?

Ms. Annis: Yes. It shows the loam and grass.

Ms. Hinnendael: This isn’t in my end of town, but we have another situation on Route 103 and I want to be sure that a similar situation doesn’t happen again.

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

Mr. Patsfield made a motion to approve the excavation plan as submitted. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

Conceptual Consultation: Lorrain Swislosky

Property Owner: Lorraine Swislosky, 57 Parade Ground Cemetery Road, Warner, NH

Property Location: same, Map 10, Lot 67-2 R-3 Zoning – 10.7 acres, 267.6’ road frontage

Reason: Subdivide property into 2 lots. (Required frontage per lot is 250’) Possibility of building a road to back of lot for frontage so property can be subdivided into 2 lots.

Ms. Swislosky presented her case to the Board:

 We have everything we need for a subdivision except the frontage

 I have already talked with my abutter about purchasing 233 feet of frontage from them

 The frontage from the abutting property wouldn’t matter to the looks of the subdivision because we would be putting in a joint driveway back to the second lot

 This meets the zoning ordinance to keep the property rural in appearance

 The land to be purchased from the abutter would be 1 foot deep by 233 feet wide

Ms. Annis: Not 1 foot wide.

Ms. Swislosky: There’s nothing in your zoning ordinance saying how many feet back I have to have.

Mr. Serell: Then we’re back to the irregularly shaped lots.

Ms. Swislosky: And if they decide to widen the road, they’d wipe out my frontage and then what would I have to do, tear my house down?

Ms. Annis: You’re road is pretty wide.

Ms. Swislosky: No, it’s not. Every time it rains, half of it gets washed away and they have to come and rebuild it. It’s a nasty, nasty road. Part of this is that my son is going to redo the driveway and improve the drainage. It is going to increase property taxes for the town (to have the second lot).

Mr. Serell: The bottom line is that you need to go to the Zoning Board for a variance.

Ms. Swislosky: I already did. I had no luck. I came here because at least I didn’t hear any rude remarks like I did at the Zoning Board. One gentleman told me to knock my house down and build a two-family house. Seriously.

Mr. Serell: This Board can’t create two lots without the required frontage. Only the ZBA can do that.

Ms. Swislosky: The problem that I found with the Zoning Board is discrimination. If I’m being discriminated against, I’ll never get approved. Someone before me got approved for a 36% variance. They told me max they’d give me 3%.

Mr. Serell: There’s an appeal process with the court.

Ms. Swislosky: I’m not going to spend a lot of money to do this. My son ended up homeless because of a real estate deal gone back in Florida and I’m trying to help him out. It’s not like you’re going to get… You’re only going to have 4 people up there. We talked about building a road up there, but the cost of building a road is astronomical and it would be in better shape than Parade Ground Cemetery Road. As the gentleman from 911 said, two houses off of one driveway is acceptable for that.

Ms. Annis: But 17 feet is not acceptable for the frontage. Parade Ground Cemetery Road is in the R-3 zoning, so you have to have 250 feet of road frontage per lot.

Ms. Swislosky: How much back do I have to own?

Mr. Patsfield: Nothing.

Ms. Swislosky: Nothing. So I can buy a foot here, a foot here, and subdivide. If that isn’t the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen.

Ms. Serell: Not necessarily. We probably wouldn’t approve the lot.

Ms. Swislosky: What do you mean you wouldn’t approve the lot? I meet your requirements and you say you’re not going to approve your lot?

Mr. Serell: There’s language in the regulations regarding the shape of the lots.

Mr. Patsfield: We just approved an irregular lot…

Ms. Swislosky: Yes, you just approved a lot.

Mr. Serell: It’s not a slam dunk – we’d have to vote on it.

Ms. Swislosky: No, it’s not. I’m just saying that one irregular lot is another irregular lot. And go to this extreme for frontage that is never going to be used – I don’t think it’s practical.

Ms. Annis: Personally, I can’t imagine anyone selling 233 feet x 1 foot.

Ms. Swislosky: I’ve already talked to the woman that owns this. She’s a doctor down in Georgia, I think. I’ve sent her my plans and what I want to do. I’ve already sent her my plans and what I want to do. I was trying to avoid having to do this because we have no use for this land here.

Ms. Annis: A couple of other things. You have enough acreage – that’s not a problem. But this is in an R-3 district.

Ms. Swislosky: And the properties are wide enough to build the houses far enough away from each other.

Ms. Annis: But watch here. If you’ve got an existing house there, how many feet is it from here to here?

Ms. Swislosky: Plenty. The house is centered. I know about the frontage, and that’s why I went to the Zoning Board and they told me absolutely not. I could go for a two-family house, and I tried to explain to them about the septic system and how that’s not practical. The answer I got was to knock the house down and start over.

Ms. Annis: We, the Planning Board, cannot accept a plan that has 17 feet. We cannot do that. Only ZBA can make an exception.

Ms. Swislosky: Ok. This will be back again.

Mr. St.Pierre: When you say you went to the ZBA, did you have a Public Hearing or was it conceptual?

Ms. Swislosky: It was one of these.

Mr. St.Pierre: So you haven’t had a hearing.

Ms. Swislosky: No.

Secretary: She came to the ZBA for a conceptual to ask about subdividing, and they told her that she didn’t have enough frontage. They talked about some different scenarios that might be able to be done – if they did a connected second house on there. But that wouldn’t work because of needing the other lot for collateral to build. There were a lot of other things that they talked about.

Mr. Eigabroadt: So it basically boiled down to a financial situation.

Secretary: No, there’s no frontage. That’s what it was.

Mr. Eigabroadt: But what I mean is that they were prohibited financially, and that’s something that can’t be considered as a hardship.

Secretary: Right, and they discussed that with her.

Mr. St.Pierre: My point is that they can’t deny her the right to file an application for a variance.

Mr. Serell: It sounds like they gave her their best judgment as to where it might go.

Ms. Swislosky: They told me no.

Secretary: They told her, I think, that it was very, very unlikely. They didn’t say you can’t.

Ms. Swislosky: The man that was sitting there flat out told me no.

Mr. Patsfield: How many feet short are you in frontage?

Ms. Swislosky: 233.

Mr. Patsfield: You’re missing 17 feet?

Ms. Swislosky: No, I’m missing 233 feet.

Mr. Patsfield: You’re missing 233 feet?

Ms. Swislosky: Right, but with the house being in the back, that’s why I want to go around because the house wouldn’t need it.

Mr. St.Pierre: I guess my point is that the process starts with applying for a variance. If you don’t do that you have no recourse for an appeal.

Ms. Swislosky: Right, but I already did that and they told me no. So what would they want officially?

Mr. St.Pierre: You would have to make your case and there are criteria that you have to meet, and they would have to discuss and address those criteria. Even if they deny it after that, you have an appeals process that you can go through. But if you don’t take the first step, then there is none.

Ms. Swislosky: Ok, but I thought that was the official denial.

Mr. Eigabroadt: No, that was just a conceptual consultation.

Ms. Hinnendael: We tried to give them some alternatives. For instance, a duplex with a driveway to the back, or a road built to town specs and they said that none of the alternatives would work. The hardship criteria were discussed and we told Lorraine that she didn’t have the road frontage to subdivide; not even close to the required road frontage.

Mr. Eigabroadt: That’s what the conceptual is for – to give you an idea of what you need to come in with for your official hearing, if you will, and as the Chairwoman has pointed out to you, this is not the place to discuss it. It is the Zoning Board’s authority. And as Russ has pointed out, even the appeals process cannot start before you go through the first official step, which is to make application, go in; and then if they deny you, then you have something that you can appeal. But based on some case law that I’ve seen in past experience, it’s going to be a tough sell because you’re missing so much frontage. But it’s up to you. We can’t give you legal advice.

Ms. Swislosky: Ok. Thank you.

Change of Use

Property Owner: Jody Linehan, P.O. Box 409, New London, NH 03257

Applicant: Stacy Scott, 11 Main Street, Warner, NH 03278

Property Location: 11 Main Street (Colby Real Estate on first floor)

Reason: Salon business to be located on first floor (rear) of building where another salon was previously located

Mr. Scott gave an overview of the planned salon to be put in the area where an apartment currently exists. In years past, it was a salon. They wish to convert it back to a salon.

 Two rooms exist

 It was a salon owned by Pat Murray, years ago

 It’s in the Colby Real Estate building

 If you go down the driveway, it’s what they call the main entrance

 It was, after Pat left, turned into apartments

 We’re working on turning it back into a salon

 Because we also live in the building, Stacey won’t need a parking spot

 Up until last fall, it was an apartment and they had parking available to them in back

 There will be a maximum of 2 chairs

 I can’t see parking being a problem

 Fire and safety: there is a pull box right outside of the door that will be the entrance to the salon

 Hard-wired smoke detectors are already in place

 It was last used as a salon in the late 1980’s

 Believes that the owner would like to turn the area back into a business and stay away from the private sector, after the last tenants left.

Ms. Annis: So you’re going to have one big room. You’re not going to have the 2 rooms that Pat had.

Ms. Scott: No, there are two rooms there.

Mr. Scott: The door that was there when Pat was there is no longer there.

The Board reviewed the plan submitted to them and the orientation of the building and where the business will be located.

Mr. Perkins: You’re putting a business back that was in there before, correct?

Mr. Scott: Yes. Stacey has discussed it with Pat and there are no hard feelings; she works for Pat now.

Ms. Annis: What about signage?

Mr. Scott: A sign will hang down like the Colby Real Estate sign does. I have the requirements from the town and the sign won’t be anywhere near the size required. I am working on the design now. The question of handicapped accessibility was addressed, and Mr. Scott explained that the business is on the first floor, and that there was a 2-inch lip and that the main door has a low threshold. When asked if that met the requirements, Mr. Scott said that the door has a push bar on it and that to the best of his knowledge, it was a 36 inch door. He said he didn’t know what the requirements are.

Mr. Perkins made the motion to approve the Change of Use and to waive the requirements for a Site Plan Review. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

The Board discussed with the Scotts what would be required to open their business, and they were told that as long as they had the state licensing required, etc., they could open their business.

Citizens for Smart Growth

George Pelletieri presented a document for the Board’s review and stated the following:

A great deal of information was provided by the Charrette

CNHRPC has addressed the tremendous amount of input that the Town has received

As much input was received as for the creation of the Master Plan

Several things talked about as a result of the Charrette

After the Charrette, people have started calling Exit 9 the Intervale district.

Would like the Planning Board to formally adopt the Charrette as an appendage of the 1999 Master Plan

Important because of the difficulties that the town has been facing lately

From a legal standpoint, the Town has a host of things like Site Plan Review, Zoning regulations, etc.

Master Plan has been identified by court decisions as a document along with the CIP as a supporting basis for application requirements, site plan regulations, zoning ordinances, etc.

Concepts of the Charrette are what we would like for you to adopt.

Comparisons have been done and what we feel would be advantageous for the town if it were adopted.

Pedestrian safety is an example

Understanding that adoption of the Charrette does not require a town vote. There would need to be a public hearing, notification, etc. prior to a Planning Board vote.

Would like to develop a cooperative relationship with the Planning Board.

Mr. Pershouse: It would seem to make sense to incorporate the Corridor Study as well as the Charrette, and it should be a joint process.

Mr. Pelletieri said that he agreed, but would like to see it happen as soon as possible. He also said that they would like to develop a Design Review Board composed of professionals in fields related to development, planning and design and can assist the Planning Board in evaluating applications for development and construction.

Chris Connors discussed briefly the purposes of the Charrette.

Ms. Annis: The work sessions are very full with about five different subjects agreed upon last March. I would like to see what you’re proposing in writing so that the Board can see it and digest it.

Mr. Pershouse: I would suggest that we fast track this, if it is what the Board wants to do, and adopt a very broad statement or reference to the Charrette and the Corridor Study so that its in the Master Plan, and then do the detail work afterwards. We could simply refer to it so that it covers us in a legal sense, presumably, so that if we evoke anything from those two functions in a review of an application, at least we have a reference to it in there and it isn’t just out of the ether somewhere. RSA 674:4 briefly discusses that the Planning Board can amend or adopt the Master Plan for any reason.

Mr. Pelletieri: We’re ready to give you information that would allow you to vote on the process without the work sessions. We only offered the work sessions in case there are still members of the Board that are uncertain about the value of this or what we are proposing. We’re prepared to give you information that would allow you to vote on it probably at your next meeting and proceed with the process if you are so willing.

Mr. Serell: I’m concerned with that. I think that if we’re going to do it, we should do it right. I think doing it right means getting specific language from the Charrette and the Corridor Study if we’re going to incorporate it into the Master Plan. Mr. Pelletieri: We’re not proposing that. We’re proposing giving you some specific language that would allow you to do it.

Mr. Serell: But I think that the more specific it is, the more we need to think about it and the more it requires study. I don’t think it is something that we can fast-track.

Mr. Pelletieri: And we’re not looking for that kind of decision. We’re looking for whether you would be open to us providing the wording and information that would help you make that decision.

Mr. Perkins: I have concerns that pushing this through quickly will do something to destroy the downtown area of town. You’ve lost one business that was on Main Street and is down there now. The Post Office will be the next one, and before you know it there won’t be a Main Street anymore.

Mr. Pelletieri: That was one of the findings of the Charrette, and we’re fully supportive of that.

Mr. Perkins: I’m just cautioning the urge to rush forward with this before we know what the whole picture is. Exit 9 is a transient area and I don’t know why we’re putting so much emphasis on that area.

Ms. Annis: Another thing that bothers me – I got stopped the other day; you’re talking about urgent, that it’s necessary to do it. This person down on Cape Cod heard that we were having a Lowe’s coming in on a large piece of property. This person lives in the Town of Warner, and she said, "Is it true that Lowe’s is coming in?" And I said, "How did you hear that?" and she said, "Oh, we heard it down on the Cape." I’m questioning where…

Chris Connors: That’s where the developer lives. That’s where they’re from.

Ms. Annis: No, it was not from the developer. It was from a local person that rumored down to there. And this person was panicked. So I question ‘urgent’. But I would like to see what you have.

Mr. Eigabroadt: I agree that rushing decisions sometimes ends up with problems. We end up missing things and overlooking things. I would like to see what you have in writing.

Mr. Pelletieri: I think you’re misinterpreting what I mean when I say urgent. I mean because of the things that are coming before us.

Communications and Miscellaneous

CIP

Ms. Annis said that the Board couldn’t approve the Capital Improvements at this meeting, but would like for the Board members to read it so that it can be approved at the October meeting.

Corrected Plans

The Secretary had received two plans for recording; one for a Lot Line Adjustment for John Howe that had previously been recorded but that had a missing measurement on it which has now been corrected. The second plan is a Minor Subdivision for James Hanna, and one measurement on the approved plan, which had not been recorded because a Mylar had never been submitted for recording, had been corrected. The Board said that it approved both plans and that the Secretary could sign and stamp them and record them at the Merrimack County Registry of Deeds.

Adjourn

 

A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was Adjourned at 10:26 p.m.