• Speakers will be limited to 2-3 minutes each time they speak
• Members of the public were encouraged to write to the Board if they don’t wish to stand and speak at the meeting
• Positive comments were encouraged
• Hope to be finished with the meeting by 9:00 p.m.

John Howe: Has this been approved? Where are we now?

Mr. Pershouse stated that this meeting was posted as a Public Hearing. The explanation for the meeting is that there was an error in the previous public notifications, which stated that the buildings would be office buildings and they have now been renoticed to abutters and the public as "retail/point of service". The application does not require the applicant to say what the use will be for the buildings, but the applicant has stated that the type of businesses would be "specialty retail".

Mr. Serell: Nothing has been approved. The Board has accepted the application, but no approvals to this point.

Mr. Lennon: The fact that we’ve accepted it means only that it is complete. Until the application has been accepted, there can be no Public Hearing.

Mr. Pershouse stated that:

• Preliminary hearing held to find out what applicant needs and to find out what is going on
• Application filed
• 3 to 4 meetings held before application accepted
• Once deemed a complete application, then the particular elements are studied
• Engineering study has been done
• Traffic study issue is pending
• Board is right in the middle of the process to date.

Neal Nevins: Would like an overview of the application.

Steve Lindblom: Could we see pictures of the buildings?

Bob Carpenter:

• Ray Wentzell and Mark Feenstra, builders of the property
• Subdivision approved in January 2003
• 3 lots formed out of a larger parcel
• large area of conservation easement in the back of property, by Warner River
• 10,800 square feet per building
• 2 primarily retail oriented buildings
• commercial area, and many uses permitted in this area and for this site
• 9,200 square feet of leasable area
• both lots require a common driveway, so appropriate to address both lots at the same time
• structure of buildings is such that they can be subdivided, with a maximum of 8 tenants per building
• each building is configured so that half of each building will have one tenant, with the remainder subdivided into storefronts of approximately 1,100 square feet each
• driveway is 20 feet wide, with 2 lanes in and 2 lanes out
• parking in front of the building
• rear of building is at basement level, and basements will be used for tenant storage and loading area
• additional parking in rear
• gravity sewer line into municipal system to pump station located by McDonald’s
• 88 total parking spaces, includes handicapped parking spaces
• vinyl clapboard siding, false gables, cupola, asphalt shingle roofing
• covered walkway in front of buildings, entire length
• drainage – filled up to road grade in front
• grading creates two drainage sources draining across parking area, across the slope and will meet the existing slope at the roadway. Shallow ditch will flow to channelized ditch along property line and into a treatment swale and then discharges into the wetland area. Other lot sheet flows across parking area, into existing brook and into wetlands area.
• Department of Environmental Services issued a Site Specific Approval – drainage, storm water treatment and detention has been studied by DES
• Snow removal: plow off to edges and rear of site. Might utilize some of rear parking area
• Extreme winter snow will likely be removed from the site by a compactor and put somewhere else

Mr. Pershouse asked Mr. Carpenter to comment on the proximity and existence of Lot 3, to point out that it is part of the original subdivision and will by definition factor into some of the decisions made on Lots 1 and 2.

Mr. Carpenter:

• Existing driveway to site
• Concrete retaining wall put in
• Goes down to Warner River, and majority of site is in conservation easement
• The lot will ultimately be developed

Ms. Annis asked Mr. Carpenter to discuss landscaping on Lots 1 and 2:

Mr. Carpenter:

• Done in concert with the Site Plan Review Regulations approved in May 2003
• Tree screening: shade and ornamental trees in front
• Mixture of evergreen and deciduous shrubs
• Lower ground cover, shrubs and perennials
• Natural tree growth in back – the growth gets very dense

Lighting:

• Done in concert with Site Plan Review regulations
• 15-foot high poles – 3 along the front, 3 along front edge of building – based on the amount of light limits in the regulations
• all lighting is directed toward the site
• At the rear, light fixtures located as shown on plan

Signage:

• Single canopied sign to serve both lots
• Canopy sign will match detail on the buildings
• Individual sign boards beneath large sign will identify the tenants
• 11-feet high, meets zoning requirements for signage
• 2 low signs when you drive in with names of tenants and which building they are in
• the 2 low signs will be 5-feet high x 5-feet wide
• landscaping around signs

Debra Cook: What is the impact on the existing sewer and water systems?

Mr. Carpenter:

• Spoke with Jim McLaughlin
• No problem with the water supply, pressure
• Same with the sewer
• Pump station is now at 15% capacity
• Has not met with the Water Precinct yet – final determination of who tenants will be and their water needs will be necessary before a final determination

Debra Cook: Questioned the adequate amount of water when the precinct was asked, in a summer when there was a large amount of rain, to be conservative with the water and not was cars, etc.

Roy Morrison:

• Won’t drainage, oils and spills be washed in the town’s water supply and won’t the water supply be contaminated?

Ms. Annis: Letter from DES stating that the plans were approved and that water quality degradation will not occur as a result of this project. They must be notified in writing of any change in ownership, prior to construction. Everything is approved.

Mr. Morrison: Were they aware that the town well is back there?

Ms. Annis: When I talked with Andrew O’Sullivan – I called him because of the same concern as you have and also concerns because this property is in the flood plain – he had no problems with the project.

Alan Lord: Are we asking for a traffic study? Derek had mentioned one

Ms. Annis: No, we’re not.

Mr. Pershouse: We haven’t asked for one, but the opportunity is there to do so if we find it necessary.

Mr. Serell: The applicant did some type of a traffic study in conjunction with the driveway permit application. What they submitted it to the DOT has been provided to the Board, but the Board has not yet voted on whether to require an additional traffic study.

Larry Pletcher:

• Do I understand that this has been designed primarily for retail space?
• I don’t know what all that includes, under our ordinance.
• How do you do you make a logical decision without knowing what uses there will be on the lots?
• How do you determine the impact on our sewage treatment plant without specific use data?
• Retail office space would have different impact on the treatment plant than a restaurant.
• I urge the Board to do a traffic study, water supply and treatment plant impact
• I remember when other projects proposed in that area – testimony of the state was that those projects would cause insufficiently treated sewage to flow into the Warner River
• The Town hasn’t shrunk since then

Joanne Hinnendael:

• Concerned by the process being taken. Are you going to have more Public Hearings and each issue is studied by the Planning Board?
• Usually the whole application is reviewed and then the Public Hearing is held
• The Board needs to know the occupants of the buildings
• The sign on the property states "huge traffic count" – as part of the advertisement for selling – for that reason, we need to have a traffic study done
• Concerned with the parking placement
• The buildings could be prettier – don’t fit into the character of the town

Dick Mitchell:

• Traffic concerns – live in the west part of town
• Have to go through this area to get to the center part of town

Dick Donovan:

• Concern with the fill – how will the fill be brought in to bring it up to grade?
• A couple of years ago, the long process used to fill the land to the level is currently is turned a nice hillside into a horrible hole in the ground 4.5 miles west of this site on 103.
• Is there a reclamation plan as part of this project?

Sarah McNeal:

• 27-year Warner resident
• Looks like two tractor trailers put together
• Will Mr. Wentzell manage the property himself? For the first few years?
• What is he going to do with the trash that is there?
• What are his plans?

Mr. Carpenter:

• Owners plan to own and manage the buildings for the foreseeable future

George Pellettieri:

• Doesn’t think that the meeting will be over at 9:00 p.m.
• It took over 1.5 years for McDonalds approval process
• Traffic: Exit 20 is similar to Warner’s Exit 9
• McDonald’s and Market Basket were required to do a traffic study
• Can only have queue up 5 – 6 cars before the exit begins to be blocked for traffic exiting from 103.
• Traffic study – shows what the current traffic is as well as the projected traffic once the project is in place
• Projections of future traffic flows
• Would be interesting to see how close the projections done for Market Basket and McDonalds are
• According to our Master Plan and State mandates and RSA’s, we have a right and a responsibility to identify what we would like our communities to be and that’s the real question here – what is this going to be and what impact will it have on our communities?

Melanie Bucher:

• Resident of Bradford
• Read a 1.5-page letter
• Referenced Mr. Wentzell’s comments in an article in the Concord Monitor
• "The town doesn’t have much to offer people" – quote from the article
• He shouldn’t be allowed to come in and change the character of the town
• Historical Main Street
• Referenced approach to Newport – strip malls
• Is that what you want to happen to Warner?
• Warner offers shops, restaurants, small businesses, galleries, community programs, school, Farmer’s Market, Fall Foliage Festival, Indian Museum, Mt. Kearsarge, evolving Riverside Park
• Friendliness not found in malls
• Developer needs to look again if he can’t see much to offer in Warner
• He should see what is special in Warner and do something to make it even better
• Should consider a new proposal

Ken Hazen:

• Grew up in Tilton – it is a total mess, right off of Exit 20 on I-93
• We have a building in the commercial area that doesn’t have enough staples in the roofing and the shingles are coming off
• Gas station and Market Basket – area is not taken care of by the owners – trash
• Should ask what is going into the buildings

George Packard:

• Concerned re: pedestrian traffic.
• Used to walk into town, 25-years ago. Now doesn’t even ride his bike – too much traffic, dangerous
• Pedestrians have been pushed out – if we lose the ability for pedestrians to walk around, we’ve lost ˝ of what Warner is.
• Are there any plans for pedestrian traffic?

Ms. Annis: Nothing is planned to date.

Mr. Packard: Could the Planning Board use this plan as an opportunity to study pedestrian traffic?

Mr. Pershouse: Serious consideration has been given for a corridor study – more globally focused than just the impact of that particular area where this development will occur. It will have to do with traffic going west as well – toward Bradford – and would include all of the issues you’re addressing. How does it all fit together? Do we need sidewalks or don’t we? The public should certainly pursue that approach – ask the Board to move on it.

Nancy Martin:

• Former member of the Planning Board and 33-year resident of Warner
• Subcommittee formed 2 years ago to plan design for the Exit 9 area
• Human element – something the Town could be proud of
• Collected designs from communities around the state, and put together a plan
• Smaller buildings, sidewalks, walking elements, safety for pedestrians
• Designs that don’t have the mall feel or the sprawl feel.
• Encouraged the Board to look at that plan and not accept this plan

Alice Chamberlin:

• How tall are the buildings?

Mr. Carpenter:

• 5/12 pitch roof
• from center of the building, 30-feet high
• 8-foot wide pedestrian walkway
• divided glass panes in front

Ms. Chamberlin:

• Would each tenant have their own sign?
• Do the signs all have to be alike?
• Snow removal, how would landscaping affect this?
• Appreciate Ms. Annis’ suggestion to come forward with positive comments. It’s hard to have positive comments when the public are all experts in the different areas, but it is an amazing opportunity for the Town. We can all benefit from improving this design and hope that the applicant will work with the Board – after hearing the comments tonight – it is a 2-way street that we can all benefit from

Mr. Carpenter:

• Sign ordinance will dictate the signs – we haven’t discussed that
• Board has discussed this. No specific concern about that.

Mr. Pershouse: The ordinance requires that all signs meet the size requirements, but could be different designs.

Ms. Annis: Something that might alleviate some concerns – In our Site Plan, whenever there is a change of use, they must come to the Planning Board to see if a Site Plan is required. We will be having hearings and meetings as it changes from nothing to something. All tenants will have to come before the Board for potential site plans.

Steve Lindblom:

• Doesn’t alleviate my fears, but do appreciate the Board looking into that.
• Buildings are unattractive.
• Tenants could be in the basement, effectively doubling the occupancy?
• Asked for a colored photo showing a street-level view of the landscaping
• Visual impact is bad – should have the buildings angled
• Traffic problems
• Overload of services in the Town
• Thinks that some people are speaking because they are stunned – but feels it is important to let the Board know that this is bad for the Town

Andy Bodnarik:

• Has the Planning Board requested the applications or the permits from the DOT and DES?
• Are these the only drawings provided to the DOT and DES re: traffic patterns?

Ms. Annis: We met with DOT.

Mr. Bodnarik:

• Fire access not shown on diagram – from back of Park & Ride and extends to the back of Market Basket
• 2 driveways besides the one to Lot 3
• Access to private residence
• North Road entrance
• Elevation drawings shown to DOT? Steep hill going into area.
• Entrance to Police Department
• Is there adequate turning radius for tractor trailers?
• What is the ratio of parking to business?
• What is the degree of drop into the business area?
• What is the impervious cover amount?
• Drainage to brook to river? Worry environmental impact of drainage from brook to river.
• Public access to comments – when is the next meeting?

Ms. Annis: Next meeting is October 6^th.

Jesse McNeal:

• Good to hear comments from people in the town
• Sounds like R.A.W. Investments is going to be driven out

Dick Elliott:

• Lived in Brattleboro, VT and it has changed – strip malls, not the same as it was 25 years ago
• Echo the comments from Ms. Chamberlin
• Once whatever happens at Exit 9, it is gone.
• Mr. Wentzell has left an eyesore on 103, Schoodac Road, and this could be, also.
• Hope people will rally together and take control of the wonderful place that Warner is

Mary Lorenzo:

• Remember conversation about traffic lights – can’t see this project happening without traffic lights
• This will change the character of the town

Renee Cantwell:

• Drive 1 hour to work every day
• Don’t mind having to drive 20 minutes to see a movie
• Moved here 4 years ago, and loves Warner because it is a community. Can drive into town, park the car and spend the afternoon downtown: the Farmers’ Market, Main Street Bookends, Foothills Restaurant
• Worried about the direction the town is going

Richard Cook:

• Support Nancy Martin’s comments and suggestions
• Don’t think the buildings are terribly ugly, but they are Anywhere, USA
• The Planning Board can do better than this design

Sandy Bull:

• Would it be possible to get an architectural scale model of this plan?
• Important to be able to see a 3-dimensional plan

Judy Bender:

• Comments from the Fire and Police departments?

Ms. Annis: The Police Department hasn’t offered anything to the Planning Board. Fire Department has made comments and we have turned them over to the DOT .

Ms. Bender:

• Concerns about hiring more police?

Mr. Pershouse: No formal response from the Police. As part of preliminary discussions with the Budget Committee and the Capital Improvements Program subcommittee, there was considerable discussion that because of the growth in that area, the police department is anticipating an increase in both equipment and personnel.

Ms. Bender: Would that mean that taxes would be raised?

Christine Daniels:

• Hope the Board realizes the gravity of the situation
• Many are passionate about the growth in Warner
• Encountered a traffic situation by Market Basket entrance – near miss, and this will be compounded with the development.
• Does the State of New Hampshire have a threshold for traffic identified which would initiate the need for a turning lane or traffic signal?

Ms. Annis: That was addressed, and the traffic engineers said that the level of traffic there was no where near the level that would require that.

Jim Mitchell:

• Thanked the Board for their work
• 4-story Hampton Inn hotel to be proposed at the next Planning Board meeting – concerns re: traffic lights, pedestrian traffic, driveways, sewage and water
• We need a Master Plan for the Exit 9 area to determine what is going where and if the town services can handle the development
• Inferred that the newspaper article that the developer is considering 2 restaurants, a video store, a walk-in medical center, and a pharmacy – I’d like to ask the applicant if that is true?

Mr. Carpenter: Right now, those are parties that have expressed an interest in leasing space.

Mr. Mitchell: Are you prepared to identify what chain restaurants? What video chain? Walk-in medical center or pharmacy?

Mr. Carpenter: It is a non-disclosure type of thing, so it wouldn’t be within our power to do that. This project has been going on for a while now and some of the tenants have walked away from the project because of delays. We really can’t be definite because we don’t know where we are and it is difficult to lease space when we don’t know. Those are the types of businesses that have shown an interest.

Mr. Mitchell: It would be important for the Board to determine who these businesses are to determine their eventual impact on town services, pedestrian walkways, lighting, traffic, public safety, landscaping, parking, water and sewer use, fire and police protection.

Lucy McQueen:

• A project like this is more of an assault on a small town like Warner than on a town like Tilton because it is the entry way to the town
• No division between this and the center of town
• If this goes wrong, the whole town will go wrong and that would be terrible.

Neal Nevins:

• Not excited about this project
• Can do a better job
• We have obligations as a community to define what goes in at Exit 9 and address this in a holistic manner
• Master Plan to address this and other projects at Exit 9 is a good idea

Roy Morrison:

• Think back 20 years ago – saw mill and a gas station at this location
• Can’t stand any more traffic
• If restaurants sell alcohol – people will die in this town
• Need pedestrian plan and a traffic light
• We’re asking for self destruction
• We have to decide what type of town we want to live in.
• This is the last chance we have – the vultures are circling
• I don’t want to sacrifice my kid to this man can make big bucks
• Developer said when he proposed the subdivision – let me make it in several small sections so that we don’t have to meet state requirements for a big subdivision
• Don’t worry – when it comes time to build the buildings, then you can ask the big questions
• Now we hear: Let us build it, and you can ask each tenant the questions

Joanne Hinnendael:

• Where is the plan that Nancy Martin’s Planning Board came up with?
• Would Mr. Wentzell look at it?
• It was a plan for all three lots.
• Would like to have the Police Chief and Fire Chief at the a meeting – there is a lot going on in this town – not all traffic – that we don’t know about and it is coming off of the highway
• We can require a traffic study
• Water – how does the DES know how much water is going to be used if the stores are unknown? It could be a photo development company dumping chemicals out that could end up in the Warner River.
• Do we have an accident report since McDonalds and Market Basket went in?
• Let’s give Nancy Martin’s plan to Mr. Wentzell and I’m sure he would use it.

Neal Nevins:

• We’re not ready for this at this time.
• Need a Master Plan for the area

George Packard:

• Does the Planning Board have the authority to delay a decision until all of the information is gathered?

Ms. Annis: We’ve accepted the plan, and the initial period is 65 days to ask for another delay from the applicant. The 65 day period will be up 2 days after the October 6^th meeting.

Sarah McNeal:

• The process has been going on for a long time
• People have become complacent
• A developer wanted to put spaghetti lots up on Mt. Kearsarge, past the toll booth – about 1/3 of the way up that road is private land. They have the right to sell, and they were going to sell it.
• Petitions gathered, but it happened.
• It came down to police and fire departments, they wanted seasonal homes and nobody has the right to say that they can’t build a house up there and snowmobile up there in the winter.
• The man left town quickly.
• Offended by comments in the paper made by Mr. Wentzell
• We deserve better and we can do better

Alice Chamberlin:

• Based on the comments, and based on the timeline for this application, and based on the comments here tonight about the suitability of this development for the community, based on what I believe is substantially the completeness and based on a variety of concerns of the people here, I would ask that the Board to deny the application when the time runs out because there may not be another opportunity to request that.
• Continue to work with the developer to create a development that would honor the town, grows with the town, and is a benefit for the future of the town.

John Howe:

• Impressed with the passion, concern and wisdom of the people here tonight
• This town is supported by people like these – people give freely of their time on Boards
• To Mr. Wentzell: Come to us with something that we need.
• The last thing that we need in this town is a video store to throw out our little video store
• These things need to be carefully weighed by the people on the Board
• The town will expand, but a Master Plan would be a good idea

Steve Lindblom:

• This plan is fixable
• Scale it down – maybe 3 buildings instead of 2
• Angle the buildings
• Hope the Board will have the guts to see that they do something

George Pellettieri:

• Echo comments made about the special character of Warner
• Need to be positive, but need to be sure we get what we want
• From what I’ve seen of the development so far, it is not a responsible approach
• DES was down there – erosion control not properly installed
• Went through the winter without proper maintenance of erosion control
• Highway required maintenance to clean the highway after truck traffic many times
• Parking is in front of buildings, and the Site Plan Regulations call for parking behind the buildings
• Setbacks are not met

Sue Hemingway:

• Ask the developer is this is something that the town needs
• Ask the Board to consider Nancy Martin’s plan

Mr. Serell suggested that after the comments tonight, the developer can have the opportunity to make comments if he wishes to.

Joan Saunders:

• Ask the applicant about some of the businesses that currently reside in buildings he owns in other town, specifically a video store in Sunapee

Mr. Wentzell: I don’t know. I have nothing to do with a video store. Never owned one, never been part of one.

Joanne Hinnendael:

• Will we have time to comment at the October 6^th meeting?
• There is new information, and we would like to make comments.

Ms. Annis: The Board can go in one of two directions, according to Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission. The Board has not heard this and the Board has not voted on it, so I don’t know what is going to happen. We can close the Public Hearing and you’re done. We would listen, we would take action and we would decide what is going to happen. Or we can take up a particular subject, listen, open it back up to the Public for only that one subject, close the Public Hearing, and go back to the Board to make a decision. I will take written comments after tonight, but I didn’t say I would take verbal comments after tonight. The deadline for comments is 7:00 p.m. on Monday, October 6^th.

Materials associated with the application available at the Planning Board office – open Wednesdays from 10 – 12. Minutes up until what has been approved are on the internet. Plans and minutes will also be available at the Library.

Richard Senor: Are there any Site Plan regulations in effect that can stop the design?

Mr. Serell: There are Site Plan regulations you have access to and can form your own opinion, then you can give the Board your opinion. The Board will be discussing it.

Mr. Senor: In your opinion, do you see anything in that plan that comes under the regulations?

Mr. Serell: We will be discussing our opinions among ourselves after the Public Hearing aspect closes. It will be open to the public and they can come and hear us discuss it, but it will be after you have had your chance to talk.

George Pellettieri: For clarification, when you close the Public Hearing tonight, will there be another Public Hearing later on?

Ms. Annis: The Board needs to decide.

Mr. Serell: I would say yes.

Mr. Pellettieri:

• Would encourage the Board to have another Public Hearing
• Most important factor is public safety
• Have some sense of development of Lot 3
• With the hotel, will have 10 buildings of substance at Exit 9

Steve Lindblom: Is this building currently built in a location where we could go and see it?

Mr. Carpenter: No, it is a new design.

Ms. Annis closed the Public Hearing

Mr. Wentzell:

• There has been a misunderstanding – was not trying to degrade or knock Warner down in any way
• Said to reporter many times that we have worked with the Board for a long time
• Not involved in any video store – don’t know where that story came from, but it is untrue
• Thinks the town would love to have a medical center closer than Concord
• A pharmacy would be nice
• If the designs spoken of by Ms. Martin have been in existence for 2 years, why hasn’t anyone shown them to him?
• When Board asked for a change, we have made a change
• All of a sudden, everyone wants to discuss it
• No deceit to the Board on use of the buildings
• Everyone has different ideas and concepts of what buildings should look like
• No one has ever said anything to him re: the design of the buildings.
• Can’t give the exact names of tenants – but we have a medical center, video center and a pharmacy, and a couple restaurants have been interested
• Terry Lorber, the engineer, made a comment that after driving by the site he could see why the design was like it is. It has good visibility.
• Mall in New London has an 8-foot sidewalk in front, I believe
• Layout fits the site and has good exposure
• Has more tenants interested in renting than space available
• Parking is laid out handy for the people in town
• It is level with the road so that everyone has good visibility of what is there

Jim Mitchell:

• Would you change your design?

Mr. Wentzell:

• The way it is laid out, it fits the site.
• Drainage won’t create a problem
• Visibility for stores is the most important thing so that they can stay in business
• Store need exposure

Richard Senor:

• Can you guarantee that it is going to be walk-in medical center or a restaurant or something nice for the town?

Mr. Wentzell:

• Medical center is ready to go in when we start building, but they’re not going to wait forever
• Pharmacy is ready to go in
• Medical center is a big medical center

Mr. Senor:

• Can see businesses that face the highway
• If I want to go there, I’ll go there

David Keith: Don’t see the need for a medical center

Renee Cantwell: Did you say you wouldn’t change your design? Is your answer no?

Mr. Wentzell: It’s not no, but it’s been laid out for drainage, for water – the engineers have been working on that. It’s not a simple matter. This plan has been around for quite a while.

George Pellettieri: It’s very hard to believe that you couldn’t come up with a plan for all three lots that would provide accessibility and visibility and that would be desirable for tenants.

Mr. Wentzell: Lot 3 has its own driveway. We came up with a design that would be easy to rent. Devoted time and energy with an engineer and an architect and a lighting engineer to try to come up with something that the town wants to do.

Ms. Bucher: Mr. Wentzell is not listening to the people

Ms. Hinnendael: You say that this is for the people in Warner. People here will know what is there. If you need the exposure forward, you’ll be pulling people off the highway. Then there will be more traffic. Why does he need exposure?

Mr. Bodnarik: Why do you have to develop this with waivers? Why can’t you develop this without them?

Mr. Carpenter: There have been no waivers requested.

Mr. Pellettieri: You’re not following the Site Plan regulations. Therefore, I would expect that waivers will be requested.

Mr. Serell: That’s not a fair question – the regulations make recommendations. It was the decision of the Board that a waiver wasn’t necessary because the word shall is used – it is a permissive requirement.

Mr. Bodnarik: When you say that the application is complete, does that mean that all of the components are there, or that all of your questions have been answered.

Mr. Serell: The former.

Mr. Bodnarik: Was the traffic count done since the development of Market Basket and McDonalds?

Ms. Annis: Yes.

Mr. Bodnarik: Has that information been made available?

Ms. Annis: Yes, it has. Thursday, May 15, 2003. It was a one day count.

Ms. Bodnarik: How could the DOT grant a driveway permit with that traffic count? If the DOT is going to do that kind of job for us, it is incumbent for us to do a better one.

Steve Lindblom:

• The idea that the same visibility is needed for all store fronts is 1960’s strip mall mentality
• There are different needs for visibility
• Full exposure makes it easy to rent to – more for the developer than the community
• Towns that take an active role in this type of thing – you put the ones that want to bring in business off the highway in the front, and maybe a medical center in the back or a quiet area
• Have you considered these types of things?
• May enhance the investment

Mr. Wentzell: Looked at several designs, and most people in business want the exposure.

David Elliott: Do you have any other developments that we could see – others with stores?

Mr. Wentzell: No, I’m a general contractor. None of my other work would pertain to what I’m doing in Warner. I’ve been involved in many other types of work.

Alice Chamberlin: You’ve heard a lot tonight, and much of it has focused on the design and the character of Warner. There are other projects with village appeal. Based on the comments, would you go back to the architect and try to come forward with a plan that meets your requirements for visibility and still try to match the character that has been brought up tonight?

Mr. Wentzell: We’ve been trying to do that, and have been working on this for several months. The Board hasn’t approved this plan yet. They’re listening to you and I’m listening to you. It’s not a simple matter to change the plan. I have $40,000 to $50,000 already invested in this plan. We’re still listening and trying to do what the Board wants us to do.

Ms. Annis closed the Public Hearing. She asked what the Board wanted to do.

Mr. Serell made a motion to continue consideration of the application on October 6 and take up the discussion on how to proceed. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote of the Board.

A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting, which passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.

 

Minutes approved: November 3, 2003