Bob Carpenter, T.F. Bernier, Inc. and Ray Wentzel for R.A.W. Investments, P.O. Box 596, Newport, NH 03773. Construction of 2 Retail/Point of Service buildings, one on Lot 4-1 (1.484 acres) and 1 on Lot 4-2 (1.647 acres), Map 35. Property located on Route 103, West Main Street, Exit 9 off of I-89.

Ms. Annis: There have been comments that the agenda has this item posted as a Public Hearing. It is not the intent of the chair to have a Public Hearing tonight. We closed the Public Hearing at the last meeting two weeks ago. It is posted this way just in case something should happen that we would be taking public input. But I do not perceive public input being taken. Because the 65 days are up on Wednesday, tonight we have to approve, disapprove, or delay the application.

Joanne Hinnendael: Will you be reading any of the public comments received?

Ms. Annis: Yes, we have received some comments.

Ms. Hinnendael: Will you be reading them into the record?

Ms. Annis: I'm not sure how much of them will be read because some of them are very lengthy. However, they will be attached to the minutes.

Ms. Hinnendael: If some of the comments were not received until tonight, maybe the Board should take the time to read them if they're not going to be read aloud.

A vote was taken, and the vote was 4 to 3 to not read aloud the comments received but to attach the comments to the minutes.

A member of the public asked if anyone on the Board was going to be voting that had not been in attendance at the meeting two weeks ago and who, therefore, had not heard all the testimony from the public, or had not read the materials received from the public since that meeting. Ms. Annis stated that everyone has had an opportunity to read materials, but might not have heard testimony at the last meeting. She stated that although some boards follow that procedure, it has not been this board's policy to follow such a procedure. She asked the Board for their input.

Mr. Serell stated that the majority of the Board members were at the last meeting, and that each Board member would have to make a decision about voting if they had not heard testimony.

A member of the public asked for the Board to identify full members and alternates. Ms. Annis stated that there were two Alternates seated it at the table, but that the full Board was present and therefore no Alternates would be voting tonight. She then identified the full members by name.

John Howe: Madame Chairman, the agenda states that there will be a Public Hearing tonight, and you have arbitrarily stated that there will not be a Public Hearing. On what authority do you base that decision?

Ms. Annis: I base it on the fact that it is customary to put that on the agenda, but we do not necessarily hold a Public Hearing.

Mr. Howe: There are a lot of people that came here tonight because we are concerned citizens, because we've been told that we're not concerned citizens; that we have not paid any attention. The man who is doing the development has stated that we should have been involved. There is a sign up on his property stating that it is for sale. We've been told that nothing has been decided. The only people that can communicate with us and tell us what is going on is the Planning Board. I resent reading in the Concord Monitor today that we have not been involved. I resent the fact that the Planning Board did not tell us that Mr. Wentzell has been involved in all of these things, and we have not been informed.

Ms. Annis: When we last met, I think one of the things... We have not had a chance to sit down and talk as a Board since we heard your public input. This is why we're in this state tonight. Hopefully, we’ll get to the point where we can have some discussion. If you sit here, you'll be able to hear and you'll be able to understand where we're coming from and what direction we're going to go. When it comes to the Public Hearing, the Board can go one of two ways. The Board can shut off all Public Hearings and all public comment. We can also take the time to discuss one situation, one topic, one subject, and then allow public comment or input on that particular subject. We have not even had a chance to vote on which way we will go. We have a lot to do as a Planning Board, and we hope you will allow us to proceed.

Mr. Serell: I think that there are a number of issues involving the project that are going to require significant detail that we will have to go over in subsequent meetings. One overriding issue is the orientation of the buildings. Currently they are both facing the street, and that is not preferred according to our Site Plan regulations. We need to decide whether to allow this placement or ask the applicant for a new design. I understand where the developer is coming from. On the other hand, if there's any lot that is subject to our regulations, it is this lot. If we're not going to require a preferred orientation of these two lots, where are we going to require that the buildings not face forward? I think that we should stick to the regulations. The second overriding issue relates to the tenants, and who they may be. My recollection from the first few meetings that we have on this is that the applicant represented that the types of tenants proposed for these two buildings are what they called specialty retail. I guess I have in mind something like a basket shop or a candle shop. I believe that that is how they were identified in their application to the Department of Transportation. At the meeting before last, I think that the applicant suggested that there might be a doctor or dentist office. At the last meeting we had, I heard reference to a restaurant, a possible video store, a possible Medical Center. I could be wrong, but I don't remember those uses being discussed at prior meetings and I don't remember seeing them listed as proposed uses in the application that was filed with the Department of Transportation. The Department of Transportation looked at uses and performed a traffic study of some sort based on those proposed uses. If the Department of Transportation made the decision to issue a driveway permit based on representations that were made about the types of businesses that were going in -- and you have different ideas now -- I think that you need to go back to the DOT and tell them what you have in mind. And then after the DOT makes a decision, we as a Board will have to determine whether or not we need a traffic study. I don't think that we as a Board can even talk about what type of traffic study should or should not be conducted if the DOT has issued a driveway permit based on an application that is inconsistent with what you now have in mind. I think that ties in with the larger issue, which is can we approve a project like this without having more certainty as to the tenants who are going in? Personally, I don't think that we need to know the exact name of a restaurant but I think we need to have an idea that so many square feet are going to be devoted to this type of business, etc.

Ms. Annis: Phil Reeder, Derek Pershouse, Ed Mical, and I went down to Division V and met with Hiram Morrell and Ray Widowski. We asked why they approved the driveway where it is -- because of the mish-mash of entries going into 103 and our concern that nothing lines up opposite each other. Their comment at that time was that it meets their criteria -- it may not meet the town's criteria, and if we don't like the driveway where it is, we don't have to accept it there. We had never heard this before. We were also told that the driveway permits was issued for a specialty retail store. We asked them what a specialty retail store was, and they referred us to a transportation book.

Mr. Reeder: Specialty retail centers are generally small strip shopping centers that contain a variety of retail shops and specialize in quality apparel, hard goods and services such as real estate offices, dance studios, florists, and small restaurants. On the record, Ray indicated that there will be 2 restaurants there, a pharmacy, a medical center, a video store, and I would think possibly two other stores that have not been named because of the size and shape of the buildings and the availability. My question is, what size restaurants are you talking about? How many tables in each restaurant?

Bob Carpenter: The current proposal is that one of the buildings will have what is considered to be a quality restaurant -- it would occupy one half of the building or approximately 5000 sq. ft. The second restaurant that was discussed would be basically a pizza parlor type restaurant and occupy approximately 2500 square feet.

Mr. Reeder: The quality restaurant -- how many patrons would that be -- 125?

Mr. Wentzell: That is determined by the state of New Hampshire. They determine how many you can seat per square-foot.

Mr. Reeder: So you're saying 5000 sq. ft. which would roughly be the size of The Outback Steakhouse? I'm trying to get a rough idea of how many people. Do think that 150 would be too many?

Mr. Carpenter: That is probably too high.

Mr. Reeder: 125? 100?

Mr. Carpenter: Probably 100.

Mr. Reeder: And the other one would be a small pizza place, correct?

Mr. Carpenter: Yes.

Mr. Reeder: A pharmacy does not come under specialty retail. A Medical Center does not come under specialty retail. I suppose that a video store may or may not. Would those five businesses fill up the entire space?

Mr. Carpenter: There are others.

Mr. Reeder: How many?

Mr. Carpenter: On Lot 1, the westerly lot, the present tenant probability is a pizza restaurant at 2500 square feet, a video rental store at about 1200 square feet, a personal grooming salon at 1250 square feet, and a quality restaurant at 5000 sq. ft. On Lot 2, we are discussing the outpatient clinic at 2500 square feet, the pharmacy at 2500 square feet, and one other store which is still undecided. There was a lot of speculation that that was going to be a liquor store, but nothing is set that it would be or wouldn't be, but that would be 5000 sq. ft. This gets into the issue raised last month in terms of the building and the way the building is structured -- with the ability to subdivide the interior of the building. To address your questions about specialty retail, when we looked at this site we were still considering a number of different things, so when preparing the application for DOT what we were looking for was -- says we don't know specific uses at this time, we look for a category that would be somewhat generic. As you read, specialty retail fits most of what we have talked about. The things that aren't there are the pharmacy, the clinic -- what's a small restaurant versus a large restaurant? We would have to look at a separate categorization. In going through that, we considered what the other potential uses might be and asked how they fit in with specialty retail. Most of them fit pretty well. Overall, in terms of determining an average number for trip generation purposes, the specialty retail category fit best. If there is a significant change -- if there is something that has a higher trip generation -- that requires that we go back to DOT and make them aware of it. That may or may not precipitate a change in what they have accepted with regards to the driveway.

Ms. Annis: We wrote a letter to them on September 24th and advise them on what you plan to put into the buildings, and we are awaiting word.

Mr. Carpenter: Is there a reason why we weren't copied on that?

Ms. Annis: Just oversight, as far as I know.

Mr. Reeder: On your parking area, you have 89 parking spaces. You're talking about having two restaurants there that can handle 150 people. If you have 150 people at roughly three people per car, that is 50 parking spaces that will be used up by the restaurants. You would still need parking spaces for the pharmacy, the medical center, the video store, and parking spaces for the as yet unnamed store. Seeing as you've used up spaces for patrons, that leaves 39 parking spaces. You are going to take up approximately 20 parking spaces for employees of all of these businesses -- that still doesn't leave any parking for the pharmacy, Medical Center, video store, or your other two stores. I think that the way you have your plans, your parking area is inadequate and needs to be reconsidered.

Mr. Serell: That goes back to my point. Until we know who the tenants are going to be, and how many square feet that will take as part of the application, I don't see how we can address the adequacy of the parking.

Mr. Reeder: The other thing that also comes up is the stated car trips going in and out for specialty retail. What we’re talking about here is more less a small shopping center, which is land use # 820. This use has a different traffic flow coming in and out of it and can be considerably more. I think this needs to be readdressed, and it brings up a serious matter of how much traffic will be turning into that and out of it. I think that we can basically say that there is not enough parking there and that there is going to be more traffic there. I don't think that we have enough solid information from which to work and the information that has been given to us has changed dramatically. I think there is a need to take a closer look at this and come back with some better and finer numbers. Based on the information given last meeting, I estimated that there would be approximately 15 to 35 employees which would take up 39 parking spaces for employees alone. If there aren't enough parking spaces there, they are going to have to park someplace else, and that might be the Park & Ride, which brings up other problems for this town in terms of safety. This needs to be addressed.

Mr. Pershouse: I would like for the Board to seriously consider getting some commitments and an overview of the proposed use of Lot 3, which is not part of the application but which has a direct bearing on all of the issues that we're talking about. I understand that the applicant indicated in a newspaper article some potential use of Lot 3. I don't see how we can consider getting better numbers for Lots 1 and 2 until we have a much clearer idea of Lot 3. If Lot 3 were to sell this week to another party, it may in fact jeopardize the development of Lots 1 and 2 because by definition if there is going to be parking overflow, it cannot go into the Park & Ride across the street. My sense is that it would need to go onto Lot 3, and there may be many other contingencies in the current plan of 1 and 2 that affect Lot 3. Furthermore, as I think probably most people in this room know, we are about to have a preliminary on a major development across the street. I understand that this is a hotel -- I think it is in the vicinity of 80 or 90 rooms. Once again, we're talking about impact on this area that goes way beyond even the criteria that we are discussing, which are the types of businesses and traffic. So I would like to suggest to the Board that we consider tonight,or in the near future, a corridor study for this area. It is the only way that I think we can get a handle on the traffic flow and the only way that we will be able to make incremental decisions on a particular driveway, whether it be for this application or the one across the street, or the growth of the Market Basket back acreage. I don't think we can make any meaningful decisions until we have the big picture in hand, and get some criteria for the design of that corridor to make traffic safety, pedestrian safety, basically a workability plan for the area.

Mr. Serell: That is a great idea, but what we do with the pending application?

Mr. Pershouse: I believe that in a letter given to us, there was the suggestion of consideration of a moratorium on all development until the study is underway or completed. It is paragraph number four:

Future Projects: There are already major projects which have been identified for this area including two potential hotels; one at Exit 9 and one at the Sunapee traffic circle. The Mount Sunapee Ski Area has also prepared a master plan for substantial, long term future development. Aubuchon Hardware is moving into the space adjacent to Market Basket. Additionally, Market Basket has multiple acres for further development. The primary access to all these will be the north and southbound lanes of Interstate 89, with both entrances and exits at Exit 9. These have the potential for very serious and dramatic impacts on the Town of Warner, both immediately and in the foreseeable future. An unbelievable traffic nightmare threatens to literally bisect our community. All this development will require public services, including water and sewer, fire and police protection, trash removal, sidewalks, etc.

Most importantly, the entire development at Exit 9 is located within the primary watershed above the two wells which Warner residents rely on for public water supply. The potential for pollution, erosion, flooding, vegetation loss, etc. will certainly have impacts which are of major concern to our community.

Action Needed: a moratorium on development is needed at this time, beginning with this application. The impact from the issues referenced above is of such a serious nature that this action must be taken now.

Mr. Serell: I question if we as a Board have the authority to impose a moratorium on building, and secondly if we have that authority whether not we can apply it to an application that has already been filed. If we as a Board are inclined to consider that option, I think that we need an opinion from legal counsel. My gut feeling is that the Town can vote to impose such a moratorium but that the Planning Board cannot, and that it wouldn't apply to an application that is pending.

Mr. Lennon:

• I agree with both of the points that Drew just made about our authority.
• Comments on the application. I agree with those who spoke a couple of weeks ago saying this is a very important development for the Town and what happens at Exit 9 both sets the tone for future development in the Town and certainly sets the tone for what people are going to see when they first arrive coming off the interstate or approaching from 103.
• I am of the opinion that neither of the facts that we have two identical buildings nor the orientation of the buildings on the lot is consistent with good planning or what I should or would like to see as an introduction to Warner.
• Having recently visited the original home of strip malls, South Jersey, the style of the buildings is of great concern to me because it reads like any other strip mall that I've seen happen down the East Coast for the past 20 years, and I don't think it is necessary for Warner to have strip mall type buildings -- I don't think the buildings that look like that are necessary for developers making a profit on this development here.
• Traffic -- I rather suspect that neither of these buildings nor a single driveway is going to create significant tie-ups in that part of town, but I do think from the facts that have been expressed that especially with the traffic coming down the hill, there is a definite possibility of significant danger both to pedestrians there and the fact the driveway does not line up with existing driveways. I would definitely like to see a traffic study with some realistic counts. I definitely entertain working with the developer to come up with an agreement on what kind of tenants we'll assume are going in there so that we can agree on the traffic numbers before the counts start. With the additional traffic that is coming out of McDonald's, Mountain Mart, the Market Basket, and the hideous driveways at Citgo, we really need to know what counts are and what they imply for the safety of all involved.
• I think that is clear that that part of Warner is going to be the locus of commercial development and that it is going to see a lot more residential development in the next few years. I would very much like to see pedestrian access integrated into any development that goes into that part of town so that anyone who parks somewhere at least has the option of reaching other parts of that little cluster of commercial activity by foot or safely by bicycle rather than having to get into his car for another 300 yd drive to his next stop.
• To approve any development down there with no allowance for pedestrians is very unwise, and I think that an assessment of what pedestrian traffic could be would be intelligent to ask for.
• If fill to create that area is going to be taken from the Town of Warner -- from something like a temporary gravel pit -- I would just like to be sure that before the commencement of any further filling down there that we have some sort of guarantee that the excavation is going to be brought back to its more or less original state in accordance with state law to the extent that the developer has control over that gravel pit if it is located in town.

Mr. Reeder: I would like to put Drew's idea is to the test as to whether or not we could do this. As a Planning Board, we must review the traffic impact of today and the future of the commercial zones at Exit 9 along Route 103 to insure good growth management and safety for the community and visitors to the area. As more commercial growth increases and more driveways are developed, the bigger the traffic problem. At some point the entire commercial area of Route 103 must be addressed for traffic pattern and flow and corrections made. It can either be now or in the future. In the future the driveways will be established and in place, and there'll be great costs to rework the entire area for a safe and suitable traffic pattern. We now have the opportunity to review what we have, what will be coming in the future, and redesign and configure the traffic pattern with much less cost to all concerned.

Mr. Reeder made the following motion:

That the Planning Board of Warner put a hold on all approvals for development, construction, and business expansion along the commercially zoned portion of Route 103 at Exit 9 of Interstate 89 until a complete and detailed traffic study is done of the area, a professionally engineered traffic plan to include ideal driveway locations, crosswalks, signals, road width and traffic patterns, for existing and future commercial developments for the area, and a timetable for implementation of roadway and driveway changes.

Mr. Pershouse seconded the motion.

Mr. Serell: I'm opposed to the motion for the reasons that I gave earlier. But I think that it is a subject that warrants discussion, and I would be inclined to put the question to Town Counsel to verify what authority we do have. I think that it would be the Town that would vote on something like that at Town Meeting. I think the questions to Town Counsel should be:

1. Does the Planning Board have the authority to impose a moratorium on building?

2. If it does, does it apply to pending applications?

3. What is the authority of the town to impose a moratorium and what types of considerations or support for that would the town have to have?

Mr. Pershouse: I would like to address this to our Selectmen's representative:

My understanding has been that in the event of an issue such as the one that we're discussing which is impact on the town's growth, that the Selectmen have the authority to implement on the run, without town vote, an emergency ordinance of whatever form to accomplish a purpose if they are convinced that is what is needed.

Mr. Brayshaw: Yes, that would be correct. It's never been done.

Mr. Pershouse: If the Planning Board were to come to the conclusion that this was in everyone's best interest, and the town's best interest, my understanding is that we would then recommend it to the Selectmen based on the facts that we have dealt with and you would have the decision of Yes or No, but that you can implement a temporary ordinance to accomplish such a goal.

Mr. Brayshaw: Not speaking for the Board of Selectmen, I think that the route at that point would be to confer with the Zoning Board of Adjustment as well as the Planning Board to really come up with a concise idea of really where we want to go as far as putting on hold or stop, or an emergency ordinance. I know that there is a power of the Board of Selectmen to enact such an ordinance.

Mr. Serell: I feel very strongly that we should not vote in favor of that motion without getting an opinion from Town Counsel.

Mr. Lennon: I would suggest tabling the motion until we get the opinion from Town Counsel.

Mr. Reeder: I will withdraw my motion.

Mr. Pershouse: I withdraw my second to the motion.

Mr. Serell made a motion to get an opinion from Town Counsel on:

1. Does the Planning Board have the authority to impose a moratorium on building in order to conduct a traffic study and a corridor study?

2. If the Planning Board does have that authority, does it affect pending applications?

3. What is the authority of the town in general to impose a moratorium on such applications; what is the procedure and what findings or basis would there need to be?

4. What authority do the Selectmen have to enact an emergency ordinance, and under what circumstances -- and would that apply to pending applications?

Mr. Brayshaw: We did some research on the moratorium aspect related to road projects -- as far as impact fees and different things that we could do with moratoriums, and I think a recollection is that moratoriums can be done with the proper documentation and the proper history.

Mr. Brayshaw seconded the motion. The motion passed by a unanimous vote.

Mr. Pershouse: Should we consider a motion to move forward with a corridor study funded by the town or possibly by applicants as well in hopes of getting out of the individual traffic study issue per applicant? We now have a very active applicant and I understand that another one is coming in. Individual traffic studies might be required by a corridor study.

Ms. Annis suggested that it be discussed later, under the heading of Communications and Miscellaneous on the agenda. Mr. Pershouse agreed.

Mr. Brayshaw: I would like to just state for the record that we have been sitting here for months -- for over a year now -- and I think that the state of New Hampshire is seriously remiss in their a analysis of that area. Before this subdivision was proposed, we have had traffic problems in that area. I cannot see how they went down there and are saying that there aren't any problems. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Mr. Pershouse: Their answer -- and this is not in defense of the state -- at DOT is that they see their role as having an application on a reactive basis. An application comes in, and they look at it and put it to their various litmus tests, and say either that is good or we don't accept it. They were very clear in our discussion at that meeting that if we want a plan which is comprehensive for that driveway and future driveways and existing conditions that may be changing, it is our responsibility and that is the only way that we're going to get a comprehensive conclusion to all driveway issues down there.

Mr. Brayshaw: It should be a cost not for the taxpayer, and not for the developer, but a cost for the state. It almost sounds like they are running us through so that they don't have to do a corridor study or any further analysis of that area. It doesn't seem practical -- look at West Lebanon, Amherst, and some of these other towns.

Ms. Annis: We all know that there is a conduit down there for a stoplight at some future time. But we did not know until we got down there [DOT] that there is already a bond established that Market Basket is going to have to pay for that stoplight.

Mr. Serell: What I would personally like to see would be:

• More information on proposed tenants and how many square feet for each one
• The applicant should submit a new application to the Department of Transportation specific to proposals that they have in mind
• Planning Board should address the building orientations -- the Board should have enough information to vote on that one aspect of the application

Mr. Pershouse: Public sentiment appears to be very strongly opposed to the design and the orientation of the buildings. The Board should be diligent in hearing public sentiment and trying to find a solution to the design concept, and weigh that very seriously this evening and come to a consensus: Are the buildings incorporated in the application what Warner wants and needs? The tone of the development is under very serious scrutiny, and the Board needs to address all the issues before the application is approved.

Mr. Lennon: If I were making a motion, I would move to reject the application based on the orientation of the buildings, the style of the buildings, the fact that there is no pedestrian access which we feel is very important in that part of town, and the fact that a traffic study is necessary for any development of this magnitude. For the record, I would say that we are very willing to work with the developer to address all those issues as part of a working process so that he is not in a position of guessing what we would like to see and coming forth with another complete application and having to go through this process again.

Mr. Carpenter: I am a little concerned about the direction that things are going here.

Carolyn Baldwin, attorney from Concord representing several concerned citizens: Point of Order -- Madame Chairman, you are in a deliberative process...

Ms. Annis: This is the applicant.

Ms. Baldwin: I know it's the applicant, but you're in a deliberative session, not in an information gathering portion. You should not be taking input from anybody -- neither the applicant nor the public.

Mr. Serell: I disagree. I believe that we are entitled to get input from the applicant any time during the deliberative process, and my question to the applicant is, what do you think about what we just had to say?

Mr. Carpenter: My concerns are that the development of this parcel is nothing new. The developer has been before this Board since back in 2000, with a continual process of development here. The application has been on the table for a long time, and our guide has been the zoning ordinances. We have heard that the Board would like to work with us, but we haven't had the opportunity to do that. All issues brought up in the last meeting by the public were issues that were addressed by this Board and have been raised by us. I'm not sure where we're going here, but in May we presented a concept to you, and we presented an outline to you showing the orientation and explaining why the buildings are oriented like they were, and we asked, Is there anything in the plan that is unapprovable? The answer came back no, not as far as you were concerned. We proceeded and got our state permits, and we proceeded in good faith and have repeatedly asked for input from the Board so that we could address your concerns as representatives of the town. In the last couple of months, that has been truncated so that we could hear input from the public, which I think was a valuable process, but the issue stated earlier is that we have not had the opportunity to hear what the Board's concerns are with the orientation, to discuss whether it is good, bad, or indifferent, and how we could change it. We have not heard any suggestions on ways to change the site layout. At our original presentation of the building, we heard several members of the Board indicate that they liked the building, and that is all a subjective process. I think that is basically it. My concern here is that you're going to move toward some action, and we are left here and we still haven't heard from the Board what they would like to see or what they expect us to do. It's a little bit late in the game to be at that point, but that is where we are.

Mr. Serell: My recollection, from even the preliminary meetings that we had, is that it has always been recognized that what you were proposing in the way of building orientation was not desirable under our Site Plan regulations. I assume that you had the Site Plan regulations at the time you submitted the application. What you proposed specifically fits under "not desirable". You chose to go forward in the deliberative process of the application even though you elected to go with a less than desirable building orientation. That was made known to you very early on. My plan was to have a vote on that issue early. We had a hearing the last time where we had basically nothing but public input, so we're still at that point. But I don't think that we ever as a Board -- at least not formally, and I disagree that even informally -- gave you the idea that we were going to approve that orientation. I don't think that we ever got to the point of discussing it in detail. We simply identified it as an issue. I think we should have that discussion tonight, but other people may think differently.

Ms. Annis: I'm not a voting member, being the Chairman, but I would like to see this delayed. We have a number of outstanding factors that we have not discussed. I was just presented with a letter from the Warner Village Water District. They wrote to Mr. Wentzell in July, asking to meet to discuss what his plans were, to discuss tie-in fees, etc. They asked him to contact them to be put on the agenda. They have not heard from Mr. Wentzell. I think that is one of the reasons why we should delay. Another reason that we heard constantly during the hearing is traffic. I think that we should take the time to determine if we want a traffic study done. I'm not even saying a corridor study like Derek mentioned -- just a traffic study for this project. We also heard a lot about safety. We heard about contamination of drinking water for the Town. I think that we should get some confirmation from DES that this is not a possibility. There are a lot of things out there that we do not have answers to.

Mr. Carpenter: My concern is that you haven't presented any questions. Until you present any questions, it is pretty much shooting at the whole sky.

Ms. Annis: I'm looking for another work session.

Mr. Carpenter: I continually hear the issue about delay, and I understand that. Extensions are certainly a reasonable way to deal with this, provided that we're moving forward. But don't feel that we have been presented with any questions that we can come back to you with or that we have been offered any suggestions that we should do this or that. You've got a couple of items that you have asked us about with respect to the building, and those things were done. They were incorporated into the revised plans. I'm concerned with this willy-nilly delaying action here because delaying action means we're not going anywhere. I agree with where Drew is at -- I was not implying that you'd indicated that you would approve the plan. I recognize that it was a concern, but it was discussed. But you need to identify the issues so that we can respond to you.

Mr. Pershouse: I think that the Chair just identified one -- the issue of the impact on the Precinct and the water system, and if the applicant hasn't responded to that, I don't think that is our problem.

Mr. Carpenter: But that also doesn't preclude this Board from proceeding. The process is multi-faceted. There are a number of issues that need to be addressed, and to some extent as we look at developing any property, one element depends on another and if you haven't got any clear direction on element A, you can't go to element B because you don't know where you're at.

Mr. Pershouse: You've just said it for us. We don't know where we're at for all the reasons you've just stated, and for all the reasons that we have stated previously. That's why we need more time -- we need more information.

Mr. Serell: We need to make some decisions to give the applicant some feedback. The most fundamental issue, I think, is the orientation, and it needs to be determined. If we vote that yes the orientation is OK, and then we can move forward and address issues like water and sewer access and traffic. If we vote no, we don't want this orientation, then the applicant has the decision to make -- does he come back with a revised plan that is consistent with our regulations, at which time we will then address all of these issues. But I am disinclined to delay because we need more time to discuss all these other issues.

Mr. Lennon: I attempted to give four specific points in the motion which I'm not allowed to make -- one was the orientation, two is the building design, three is traffic, and four is pedestrian access. I disagree with Drew that we should address these tonight with the applicant because we would be here until Friday. But I think that we could set up a time between now and the next first Monday, or at the next first Monday when we specifically address those issues with the applicant and have the Board's thoughts clearly on the table. I think that we should deny the application at this point.

Mr. Carpenter: I think that three out of four of those have been a continuing or recurring theme of the Board, and from our perspective we haven't gotten any input from the Board. I appreciate Drew's position saying let's address the concrete issue here and give us some direction. We haven't been able to respond to you because we haven't been given where you folks are at, what your opinions are.

Mr. Pershouse: The position of the buildings has a lot to do with the amount of parking that is available, so we start going back around in the circle again. If we approve the position of the buildings, in doing that we may box ourselves in or out in terms of adequate parking depending on the types of tenants that are there. And that brings up the issue of Lot 3 again. I don't think we can make an effective decision one way or the other on the orientation of the buildings until we know what the parking considerations are. We're told by the applicant that the orientation of the buildings on the plan is to enhance the function of their retail nature. That seems to suggest that that is reason enough to deviate from the ideal in our Site Plan regulations.

Mr. Serell: I think that parking is a separate issue from the orientation of the buildings. I'm not inclined to vote on something that would allow overflow parking into Lot 3. From my perspective, whatever the applicant proposes on this lot, the applicant is going to have to demonstrate to us that there is adequate parking for the proposed uses on these two lots. I think that it is a fair question -- Do you have a plan for Lot 3? But I don't think we can or should require him to commit to something on Lot 3 in the consideration of this project.

Mr. Wentzell requested an opportunity to speak. Ms. Annis suggested Mr. Carpenter should speak for him, and Mr. Wentzell stated that Mr. Carpenter did not know what Mr. Wentzell was going to say. The Board stated that they would like to hear what Mr. Wentzell had to say.

Mr. Wentzell: I know that everyone is concerned about this traffic study. There are rumors that a hotel is coming in which is going to create more traffic. You have Aubuchon coming in, which is going to create more traffic. To make it fair and simple for everybody who is going to have more influx on the traffic, all three parties that are going to change the traffic flow should all donate $3500 to $3700, and that would take care of it. We would be willing to donate a third to have a study, which you need, to analyze everything. The next thing, in talking about the design or how the buildings are laid out on the site -- that they're not friendly or desirable to some people -- I guess I would offer this to the Board. If the Board would accept the way that we have situated the buildings on the lots, the Board could work with townspeople that are architects or designers and say, What do you have that could change the design of those buildings so that they would be more desirable to the people in town? We wouldn't have a problem with that. But the location is set up for water, for drainage, and for visibility. If they want to change the buildings to make them more appealing -- if there are a lot of people in the audience who are bothered by the way we laid it out, we'll take their input and let them change the front of it. Change it a little bit so that the Board would be happy and the audience would be happy. The third thing that we're talking about is the water and sewer. I did get an application on that, and I passed it on to Bob. The reason that Bob didn't get into any more than knowing that the system is only at 14 to 15% of capacity is because we have nothing concrete -- were not positive of the exact restaurant or business. We think that these people are staying with us, but it is real hard for me to go to the water and sewer people until you folks get done with us so we know how we can calculate the water and everything else -- that's the only reason we haven't gone that other step.

Mr. Feenstra: You're going to review each tenant as they come in, right? So if you don't like a tenant, it's a moot point.

Mr. Serell made the motion that the Planning Board deny the application as currently presented based on the fact that the orientation of the buildings is not in line with the preferred orientation as set forth in the design standards in the Site Plan regulations. Mr. St.Pierre seconded the motion.

Mr. Serell stated that the applicant should be encouraged to sit down with us and/or to resubmit a new application that oriented the buildings consistent with our regulations, and at that time we would address the issues of who the tenants are likely to be, the DOT, what we might require in the way of a traffic study, etc.

Mr. Reeder had concerns about requiring the parking to be in the rear of the buildings, as preferred in the Site Plan regulations because that would mean that from 103, the backs of the buildings would be visible. He asked if that would be any more appealing. He said that the Board could end up with something that would be far worse.

Mr. Wentzell: Aubuchon is going in by Market Basket -- does that mean that everyone going into Aubuchon is going to have to park behind Market Basket? Will everyone going into the hotel have to park behind the hotel?

Mr. Serell: If you look at what Aubuchon and Market Basket have, in our regulations they fit into what is described as "better". The front of the building is sideways to the road and the parking is in the front of the building and sideways to the road.

Mr. Brayshaw: I just have one comment. We have heard Mr. Wentzell talking about working with the people and working with the Board, trying to all reach a common goal, whether it's a square structure or a round structure. I think some weight should be given to the fact that if some of the public want to get involved in some of the design process and have some idea is as to what we as a town want to see down in that area of town -- whether it be aesthetics or a quaint New England little town -- we need to put something together and work towards that. I've heard it as clearly as everyone else has, that Mr. Wentzell is willing to work with anybody in this room as far as how things should look down there. Each person is going to think differently, so I don't know how that is going to work. But it might be a unique opportunity.

Steve Lindblom started to speak, and Ms. Annis stated that there was not going to be any public comment. He continued.

Mr. Lindblom: I don't know how you can proceed without having an answer to this question. I heard him to say that the townspeople could change slightly the decor on the building as they are designed. I think that is a very important detail.

Mr. Brayshaw: It might encompass that as well. I just think that if we had the opportunity to have public input as to what the town would like to see down in that area, as well as what we as a Board have to say, I think that is a step in the right direction. .

Ms. Annis: One of the things that we have not faced, and one of the things we have not discussed or decided upon is are we going to open up every facet of the application to public comment, or is the time for public comment behind us? If we are going to initiate discussion on the orientation of the buildings, that is a new facet and if so are we going to open that up for public comment?

Mr. Serell: I disagree that that is a new facet. Every facet of the application, including the orientation of the buildings, was opened up for discussion and was discussed extensively at the last meeting. If we require sufficient additional information from the applicant, I think that should be opened up for public discussion again.

Mr. Brayshaw: I think that it has been at the discretion of the Chairman whether not to allow public comment and I think that throughout the whole process we have allowed public comment.

Mr. St.Pierre: I would like it to be clear to the applicant that the orientation as proposed is not prohibited. It is not desirable, but it is allowed. I think in order for the Board consider an approval, the applicant needs to demonstrate that based on the lay of the land, this is the only option open to them. In this particular situation, I think that the applicant has made some points on why they would like to do that, but they haven't shared with the Board any alternatives that were discussed or considered and rejected by them. But strictly speaking, it is something that can be proposed and still be considered. Having said that, I don't think that you can take the Site Plan design regulations piece by piece. I think that you have to consider the Site Plan regulations as a whole. [He read from the Purpose Section of the regulations. He stated that what the Board had in mind is echoed in that section.] The application doesn't address Warner's character. It is not to prevent development in that area -- that area has been zoned commercial for years. But I think that we expect more. And starting with the orientation of the buildings themselves, I would expect more than just a strip mall.

Ms. Annis called for a vote on the motion on the floor. The motion carried.

Mr. Serell: We're not precluding a revised application that would change the orientation of the buildings. I don't mean to speak for the Board, but what I would personally like to see in addition to their redesign would be more detail on the proposed tenants of the buildings, the idea that a certain amount of square footage be devoted to certain tenants and that that be part of the application because I don't see that we can consider issues like parking and traffic without that. And I think that the applicant needs to consider whether or not it feels it needs to reapply to DOT based on its proposed use of the buildings. My gut sense is that what DOT approved was based on representations of tenancy which may not be totally consistent with what the applicant intends to do right now.

Mr. Wentzell: I have to ask the Board something. We had Provan & Lorber go down there to review the site and everything that we spent months on doing, and they gave you an opinion on the buildings, the sewer, the flowers, the trees, and you accepted the application showing those two buildings like it has always been. Over a year ago, I went to two work sessions with those same plans. So why would I go and hire another engineer to review all the technical things if the Board wouldn't accept or wouldn't like the orientation of the thing that has been in front of you for over a year? The two work studies that I went to personally -- Why would you accept an application and why would you hire an engineer to go down and tweak everything that should be changed or should be added if it wasn't a good concept that would make the Board or the Town happy? It was a total waste of time and a total waste of money.

Mr. Serell: In terms of the timing of issues here, once again it was your decision to propose an orientation that you knew wasn’t desirable under our Site Plan regulations. We identified early in the process that it was going to be an issue that we were going to have to address. You have come in with an application that wasn't consistent with the preferred method, and you had your reasons for what was being proposed and we were willing to listen. But I don't think it's fair to say that we kind of led you along for a year without having raised this issue, because the issue was raised early on. I've been pressing for it to be addressed since early in the process. The work that we had Provan & Lorber do had nothing to do with the aesthetics or the orientation of the buildings. And in terms of accepting the application, that goes back to Russ' point, which is that it was a complete application. That doesn't mean that we were accepting the application, we were simply accepting it as complete. We had to accept the application to get to the point of voting on the merits of your proposed building location. In a sense, what you proposed was approvable, as Russ pointed out. It can be approved -- it just required the Board to make a decision as to whether the reasons you gave for your proposed building orientation were sufficient to overcome what the Site Plan regulations identify as the preferred orientation. We were correct in accepting the application, but in accepting it we did not pass upon that issue because I think we made it clear from the beginning that we were going to have to address that issue.

Mr. Carpenter: My concern is that we spent six months listening to you, and this is the first significant discussion we've had on any significant issue here. Rather than recommending any revisions or alterations and giving us an opportunity to make those revisions are alterations, you deny the application.

Mr. Serell: It was denied with the understanding that you can resubmit the application consistent with the preferred orientation set forth in our Site Plan regulations. Pages 18 and 19 show the orientation that the Board would like to see.

Mr. St.Pierre: Read the entire ordinance and apply it in toto. Drive around town and see what is here. If you do that, I don't see how you could possibly come back with what you proposed.

1. PUBLIC HEARING: Subdivision

RSK Management & Investments, LLC, 25 Bruce Road, Manchester, NH 03104.

Property location: 143 East Main St., Warner, NH, Tax Map 29, Lot 2-2.

Purpose: Conversion of existing 4-family dwelling into 4 condominiums.

Continued until the November meeting at the applicant’s written request.

 

2. Gamil Azmy

Consultation for amendments to Site Plan approved May 6, 2002 by the Planning Board

The Planning Board reviewed the plans previously approved by the Planning Board. Ms. Annis stated that Mr. Azmy is not quite following the approved plans. He has talked with the Selectmen and they asked him to come back to the Planning Board.

Mr. Azmy said that he would like to start the meeting by correcting a few things. He quoted from minutes of the June 6, 2003, August 4, 2003, July 7, 2002, and September 10, 2001 meetings. Ms. Annis said that Mr. Azmy had a preliminary consultation with the Planning Board on September 10, 2001. Items discussed at that meeting were the old town road abutting his property, a nonprofit vegetable stand for local farmers, trash would be picked up by a company out of Hopkinton, discussion of a joint meeting between the Board of Adjustments of both Webster and Warner. Mr. McLaughlin asked if the parking was proposed along the front of the lot -- Mr. Azmy stated that the parking spaces were shown on the drawing because he was told that he needed 48 spaces, but that he has since found out that that information is incorrect and that he is staying with six spaces and possibly two more.

Mr. Serell: Rather than read all the minutes, why don’t we just address the issues.

Ms. Annis: Issues are: 1) The Plan -- the town bound runs through the building; 2) Parking -- diagonal parking beside the building, parallel parking along 103; 3) Landscaping between the parallel parking and Rt. 103 hasn't been done as described. All parking in front of the building was to be for the business, nothing said about private parking there; 4) Dining tables are now in the front of the building so that the restaurant has been expanded into the Town of Warner, which was not addressed at all; 5) Parking spaces 6 - 11 are parallel parking and none is vertical parking as approved on the Site Plan; 6) Personal vertical parking in that area as well as customer vertical parking; 7) Never submitted that he wanted to change 2 parking spaces in front of the restaurant into outdoor dining area.

Mr. Pershouse: Is it our intent to ask Mr. Azmy to come for a new Site Plan Review based on these apparent discrepancies from their original approval, or where are we headed?

Ms. Annis: Those are the areas where the Selectmen told him that he was not being consistent with the approved plan. They suggested that he might want to revise the plan.

Mr. Serell: I think that we should ask the applicant if he agrees that what he's doing is inconsistent with the approved plan. If he does agree, would the applicant be willing to submit a revised plan?

Mr. Azmy: I feel that you have been fed information that is incorrect. One statement that Mr. Mical made to you is that we're opening up an ice cream stand, which is not true. I'm not sure where he gets this information. He also stated that he was sure that Webster had the same issues with me that Warner has, and that is not true. We have no problems with Webster. He's also talking about the sewage. Then there's the opening for the new driveway -- that was there all along. In July 2003 Mr. Mical came to the Planning Board, according to the minutes, and asked that the Planning Board send a letter to me outlining with his problems were with me so that the Selectmen could then enforce it, saying that a new Site Plan is required. We don't need another Site Plan -- we already have a Site Plan which is working. Then there was a cease and desist order from an attorney saying that the Selectmen were going to close the restaurant down -- it's right there in the minutes. There's been nothing but pressure. John Brayshaw came to check out the parking. In the wintertime, we found out that the State Highway Department shoots the ice and snow over 8 ft. into the parking area. This was new to us, and we found out that the parking didn't work the way it was presented on the plan. Also, we had ice-cream when we were here in Warner and we have ice-cream there. In the March 4th minutes, it states that there are no regulations on which way to park and that it could be changed.

Ms. Annis: [reading from the March 4th minutes] "Mr. Azmy said that they had eliminated some of the parking spaces on the previous plan, and now have five by the building and six parallel to the road. There is an island on the roadside of the parking area which will be landscaped."

Mr. Azmy: It is landscaped and last year it got damaged by the snow and the plow. It doesn't say anything about trees -- there is already landscaping. If you pass by the building, you see the entire fence and the landscaping. I would just like to go back to the parking issue which is still an issue now two years later. In the minutes, "Mr. McLaughlin asked if there were any more questions from the Board. Mr. Azmy asked if there is any minimum parking required, and if the current spaces are sufficient. Mr. McLaughlin said that he does not think that Warner had any specific requirements, and that it would depend on the types and size of the business and the nature of the business." It's right there in black and white in the minutes. Also, you're now talking about my sign. I ask right there, in the minutes, if that sign could be painted. You have been resisting me since day one. Not you as a Board, but there is someone somewhere behind the scenes that shows up and says that we cannot paint that sign. So we have no sign from day one. It says right there in the minutes that we're going to paint that sign, and we've never been allowed to do that. We went to the Selectmen twice, and they told us that we could not paint it. I have to pay another $35 and come to another hearing to be told that it has to be 16 in. by 24 in. when originally I was to be allowed to paint the existing sign. Fair is fair -- you going to shut me down because of six parking spaces that instead of parking that way are now parking this way . If I have to, I will do it to end this. If that sign was up, there would be a lot of things changed. There would be fewer trucks parked there saying Gamil's Restaurant.

Ms. Annis: It does say in the Minutes of the meeting of September 10, 2001, that "the existing sign will be painted over with a new name."

Mr. Azmy: And we were supposed to do that. John, you remember we came in and a Mr. Mical said, "No, you cannot do that." And not pointing fingers, but Mrs. Mical told us no. So we had to come up with another application, which was rejected. It also says in the minutes that officials here in this town have paperwork that shows where the road is. Give me a copy of that paperwork and you will see a complete change. Until we know where the road actually is, we cannot follow anything.

Ms. Annis: I think that we're getting a little off track here. That road is not why we're here.

Mr. Azmy: Yes it is. If you show me where the road is, I can design the parking.

Ms. Annis: This plan is what we're going by -- this is what you recorded at the registry of deeds, and you are not doing it.

Mr. Serell: If what you're doing now is different from what was in the plan that we approved, you need to submit a revised plan that shows what you want to have and we will consider it. But it is important that what is approved by the Board and what is registered is what is happening.

Mr. Azmy: If I have to submit a revised plan, are you going to have the abutters coming in?

Ms. Annis: Yes.

Mr. Azmy: Do you know my situation with the abutters? If not, maybe you should read some of the files at the Police Department.

Mr. Serell: We'll listen to what they have to say.

Mr. Azmy: I will not ask for any changes. If I have to park that way, I will do it and I will be in compliance. But at the same time, I cannot stand out there and be the enforcer to make customers park that way.

Ms. Annis: This is your plan.

Mr. Azmy: I will put a sign out there telling them to park this way, behind each other, six 1/2 feet from the road.

Ms. Annis: And the landscaping that is on the plan.

Mr. Azmy: The landscaping is done. We have some grass there that was killed. You cannot put landscaping in there because the State Highway Department shoots the snow about 6 to 8 feet that way.

Ms. Annis: If the landscaping were done, it would eliminate people going in and vertically parking.

Mr. Azmy: What is your problem with the landscaping? What so you see there? Have any of you come and walked on this property?

Mr. Reeder: I think what Barbara is saying is that this landscaping area is supposed to be a barrier to prevent people from doing head-in parking there. That certainly has not been maintained. People are driving over it, and even your big truck is parked there. There should be something there, a pile of dirt or even a pile of gravel that would indicate to people that they need to parallel park and not drive over it. If you think that putting a barrier there is a problem and that in the winter it will get nailed by the state, you can submit a change and we will consider it.

Mr. Azmy: I ask for a sign to be painted over. Are you going to allow me to do that?

Ms. Annis: You have to get a sign permit from the Board of Selectmen.

Mr. Azmy: No, it says right there that I have an existing sign that can be painted over. You already have that in the record.

Ms. Annis: Yes, we do.

Mr. Azmy: So why do I have to ask the Board of Selectmen? I have already come to you.

Ms. Annis: Usually, the sign permits come from the Board of Selectmen.

Mr. Brayshaw: I would like to interject. The essence of everything going on here is that we're looking at an operation under a special exception that Gamil has been allowed to operate a commercial business in a residential area. So guidelines are a little bit stiffer because of the fact you have neighbors, and that residential area needs to be kept intact as far as what it was designed to be before. The problem here is that when the Site Plan Review was done, the state right-of-way was not established, so the vegetative buffer there in the front that is going to put people into the side cannot be achieved unless Gamil moves the parking down over the hill. My suggestion to Gamil would be to amend the plan to remove the vegetative part in the state right-of-way and reestablish the parking like you are talking about now. It is a simple process. Yes, you have to let the abutters know, but I think that the abutters have already stated their case and I don't believe that they're going to come back in. I also don't believe that it is going to have any bearing on what needs to be done here.

Mr. Serell: The whole issue of whether you should or should not have your restaurant -- that is not going to be a subject for debate. We're not going to listen to the abutters discuss that because they have already had their chance to discuss it.

Mr. Azmy: Then why did the Selectmen's office -- and John, you were right there -- write me a letter to shut me down?

Mr. Serell: That is a separate issue.

Mr. Brayshaw: Yes, Gamil -- don't even go off on that.

Mr. Azmy: No, it is important for them to know that.

Mr. Brayshaw: Yes it is, but that it isn't coming from the Planning Board.

Mr. Azmy: It says here that it is enforced by the Planning Department -- go to the Planning Department and if they say no, then we're going to shut you down.

Mr. Brayshaw: But that is a whole other can of worms. Let's concentrate on this -- let's get it done and be done with it. There is not much that you have to do.

Mr. Pershouse: You're saying that the parking issue is primary?

Mr. Brayshaw: Yes. And in defense of Ed Mical, I am the Planning Board representative from the Selectmen's office, and I noticed the inconsistencies, reported to the Selectmen's office and the Selectmen's office took action. Anything that Chairman Mical did was not predatory in any manner. You and I have taken the measurements, and I think that what needs to be done here is that you need to amend the plan to show the parking. Maybe remove the vegetative buffer out front and go with that.

Ms. Annis: But he is also in violation by moving the restaurant outside on the Warner side.

Mr. Azmy: It's not moving the... I don't know why he is saying that. The bookstore [in Warner] has a couple of tables outside and a couple of chairs. Is that in violation of his plan?

Mr. Brayshaw: He came before the Board and requested being able to do outdoor service.

Mr. Azmy: We went to Webster, and they have no problem with our having seating outside. I'll have those tables moved out of the way and I will have all of the seating in Webster.

Ms. Annis: Great.

Mr. Brayshaw: It is important to understand with the sign permits, too, that under a special exception there was granting of a certain amount of signage. I think that it was two signs, and not three.

Mr. Azmy: What three signs?

Mr. Brayshaw: There is the sign that says Open.

Mr. Azmy: That is a flag -- you are considering that a sign. What about the market?

Ms. Annis: We're talking about you.

Mr. Brayshaw: Every sign that pops up is looked at. I think that what you need to do is simple, just amend your plan. I will be glad to sit down with you and help you with that.

Mr. Azmy: I appreciate it.

Ms. Annis: This is something that needs to be taken care of by our next meeting -- the first Monday in November.

Mr. Brayshaw: I will make an appointment with Gamil and we will go over everything.

Ms. Annis: We're not going to say that we'll approve it, but we will talk about it. We're not going to guarantee that.

Mr. Azmy: Thank you. You should stop by sometime.

3. PUBLIC HEARING: Site Plan Review

U.S. Cellular, Ken J. Kozyra, KJK Wireless [agent for U.S. Cellular], 111 Parnell Place, Nashua, NH 03060 Property location: 296 Tory Hill Rd. [Kearsarge Mt. Rd.] Warner, NH 03278, R2 zoning, Map 14, Lot 36-1, 4 acre lot

Purpose: Colocation on existing tower owned by TDS Telecom. Addition of 12 cellular panel antennas at the 89-ft centerline near the top of the tower and relocation of 5 existing antennas to make room for this equipment. Height of the tower will not increase in any way. Installation of 12-ft x 20-ft equipment shelter to the northeast of the tower. No grading or vegetation removal required. Property owner: Diane L. Violette, 302 Kearsarge Mt. Rd., Warner, NH

Ken Kozyra and attorney Steven Grill for U.S. Cellular.

Mark Violette for TDS Telecom

Mr. Kozyra gave an overview of the plan to insert the U.S. Cellular arrays in between the existing equipment. There will be no grading or tree cutting on the site because it is extremely flat in this area. We may have to do the trimming of small branches. We will pour in a concrete slab for the equipment cabinet [12-ft x 20-ft x 10-ft tall], which can be painted any color, and the cabinet can be any material. The antennas can also be painted any color.

The existing driveway will be used to access the tower area. An existing parabolic dish and a quad antenna will be relocated from 94 ft. up 4 ft. to a centerline of 98 ft., just below the tower. There is a yagi antenna on the rear of that that will be relocated at the same time. The quad antenna that is directly below where we plan to put our arrays will be lowered from 80 ft. to 76 ft. It will create a gap there that will allow us to put our antennas in between. Also, there are some small antennas that are on top of the tower where we will slightly extend their mounting hardware.

Mr. Kozyra showed some photos of the existing tower and photo simulations showing how it will look with the new antennas, called t-frames. There are 3 proposed t-frames that extend approximately 4 to 6 feet from the exterior of the tower, and then the panel antennas are mounted on the exterior of them. They are able to be pointed at specific locations.

Mr. Reeder: On the photograph, on the antennas you show two bays on a side and in your application you have four. Which is it?

Mr. Kozyra: We are proposing to put 12, but our immediate installation will only include six. We typically permit to give us the full array in case we ever need to upgrade.

Mr. Pershouse: Is the parabolic antenna that is currently on the tower TDS' antenna?

Mr. Kozyra: Yes, all of the antennas on the tower belong to TDS.

Mr. Pershouse: Is that parabolic antenna transmit or receive-only?

Mr. Kozyra: It only receives through the air TV channels from the Boston area.

Mr. Pershouse: Is that why it has to be higher than the ones that are on the ground?

Mr. Kozyra: I'm not an engineer, but the engineers perform the analysis on where we can locate, and there has to be a certain amount of separation.

Mr. Pershouse: Yes, I am aware of that. Perhaps I should ask the company why that particular antenna has to be up on the tower when the rest are on the ground.

Mark Violette: What we do with that parabolic dish is we get Boston stations off of that dish like the old antennas off of a roof, so it is more like a line of sight. The dishes that we have on the ground are for the satellites.

Mr. Kozyra showed propagation maps of U.S. Cellular's coverage as it currently exists. There is an existing facility on Mount Kearsarge, as well as facilities in Webster and Boscowen. There is a gap in coverage in Warner. This colocation will fill in the gaps. He showed a map of the coverage as it will look with the new antennas on the TDS tower.

Mr. Pershouse: When your facility was put on Mount Kearsarge, I'm assuming that you knew that there would be gaps in coverage?

Mr. Kozyra: When that facility was sited, and lot of the older facilities located on high mountain tops were built when we were in the analog world, and we had the bag phones and it was a much stronger signal. The phone was much more powerful and could pick up the signals much easier on the analog network. When we switched to digital, we found that those high sites are not a perfect world anymore. It is much better for us to actually be in the center of where we want to provide the service, near the center of the population of the town. In some large geographical areas, they also get what is called shadowing and shoot over a lot of our targets, so it is quite possible that Kearsarge is providing coverage in downtown Henniker, shooting right over the majority of Warner. The signal travels out from the antennas, eventually raining down and reaching the ground. Currently the FCC requires that we keep our amp service intact.

Mr. Reeder: I have a question on the antenna placement. The large crowns will make it very visible from long distances. Putting a large crown that is approximately 12 to 15 feet across there will make it very visible. We have tried very hard in this town to hide any more antennas that come into town. Is it possible to just have to base up there, 4 ft. apart -- closer to the tower -- and when it is time, expand to two more bays directly underneath?

Mr. Kozyra: The more distance you get between the antennas, the better receiving qualities you have. Typically with a 2-antenna configuration, one will be receive only and one will be duplex, so it is important to set them as far apart as possible.

Mr. Reeder: I would like to see 2 antennas 4 feet apart and new propagation maps showing the difference between that and what you are currently showing us. If you could achieve 90% of the coverage of what you are achieving here just using 2 bays, it would make it esthetically more pleasing to us and you would still be getting coverage. You would still get the coverage along I- 89.

Mr. Brayshaw: If they went with the four, are there any types of camouflaging devices that can be used?

Mr. Kozyra: In a facility like this, there is no technical way to camouflage the antennas other than to paint them. The antennas come directly from the manufacturer now with a dull gray color. They are fully paintable. To answer the previous question, I will ask the engineer if it is possible to generate a propagation map like that.

Mr. Violette: We can put a cover on the parabolic, or paint it. It has been moved down, and has been there since 1984.

Mr. Reeder: Could you put a couple of yagis up there instead?

Mr. Violette: If we had our way, we would get rid of that parabolic dish very soon. We're doing everything that we can to get rid of some of the things that are on the tower.

Mr. Pershouse: If the parabolic dish were removed from the tower in the future, the additions wouldn't be as visible. My sense is that if this type of antenna is painted, it will not be visually intrusive. The tower structure itself is fairly light duty compared to others.

Mr. Kozyra stated that the tree type camouflage is physically impossible on this type of tower. Welding the tree limbs to a structure such as this tower would not be possible. The conduits are 1 5/8 inch [each cable]. When the cables are all together, they are typically laid flat against the side or double-stacked. They will not create a solid wall inside the tower, they will probably be only 6 to 8 in. wide, and they can be painted.

Mr. Serell made the motion to accept the application. The motion was seconded.

Mr. St.Pierre: Because this is a colocation, some parts of our telecommunications ordinance don't apply. Is the application complete?

Mr. Pershouse: In the applicant's view, it is complete. There are a number of occasions on the application where it is stated, "Does not apply."

Mr. Serell: Does anyone on the Board think that the height of the tree canopy is required for a colocation? I didn't think that it was.

Mr. Grill stated that he had the pertinent section of the ordinance that he would like to call to the Board's attention.

From the Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance:

Notwithstanding anything in this ordinance to the contrary, this ordinance shall not apply to any pre-existing towers and tenants; however, any change to either of these facilities by present or future owners must conform with height, aesthetics, and Site Plan Review Standards in effect at that time.

Mr. St.Pierre said that does not answer his questions. The application needs to state that certain areas of the Site Plan don't apply. The Board looked at the Site Plan Review regulations, and Mr. Serell's opinion is that they apply to new construction of towers.

Mr. Pershouse: Are you going to have a generator?

Mr. Kozyra: We currently have plans for a battery backup, but no generator at this time.

Mr. Pershouse: Will the equipment shelter be climate controlled?

Mr. Kozyra: Yes, it will be heated and cooled.

Mr. Pershouse: Will there be any additional noise?

Mr. Kozyra: No sound will be heard outside of the area where the towers are.

 

Ms. Annis called for a vote. The motion passed by a unanimous vote.

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

Linda Milisci: The view from my house looks directly across and I see the dish on the tower. I live in the Mink Hills. I climb to the top of Kearsarge Mountain every day and I can hear the dishes humming in the parking lot, which is 1/2 mile from the top of the mountain. I'm looking for assurances that these towers won't grow, and that more dishes won’t be added.

Mr. Violette: Our engineers have stated that if the cell phone antennas go onto the tower, there is no more room for any additional antennas in the future. There is no more room for us to add dishes to the tower. We have no plans to add additional dishes because we want things to go up into the sky. Pending the cell site going onto the tower, it will be at capacity.

Mr. Pershouse: It will be at capacity at the current circumstances. But if the telephone company no longer needed the tower at all, should you turn around and sell it to a tower company or a provider; physically there is the possibility for additional cell sites on the tower if you no longer require it?

Mr. Kozyra: Yes, that would be correct. And if the existing antennas were removed from the facility.

Mr. Pershouse: If you were to obtain the tower, and there were no other antennas on there, what is your estimate for the number of cell sites of this nature that might be located on that tower, bare-bones?

Mr. Kozyra: I'm not an engineer, and we have not done any analysis of that situation. U.S. cellular is not in the business of buying towers. We are a carrier and we provide service, so I have no idea.

Mr. Pershouse: As a condition of approval, it is possible that we could require that no other companies could colocate on that tower.

Mr. Grill: You may not want to do that because if a competitor -- Verizon, for example -- comes along and wants to colocate onto this tower and there has been a previous ruling that it would not be allowed, then they would want to build a new tower. That may be a worse solution, and I think that this town wants to maximize its current structures.

Steve Lindblom: Looking at the two pictures [of the current tower and the enhanced photo showing the proposed equipment], the coaxial cables in the center of the structure have a visual impact that is about 3 or 4 times more than the original tower structure. The large antennas at the top draw the eye to the tower. I think that anyone who has to look at this tower should be aware of that, and should make their feelings known.

Steve Varnam: Abutter. We have some very serious concerns.

• Existing towers must conform with Site Plan Review standards in effect at the time they are converted to cell towers, and this one doesn't in three ways:
• Tower must be camouflaged or employ appropriate stealth technologies
• Tower must be screened, with plant materials, from adjacent residential properties
• There must be decay-resistant fencing and equipped, where appropriate, with anti-climbing devices to prevent tower access
• The tower is accessible from all sides and there is no fencing of any kind
• This is a public safety issue
• History is one of bad blood in the neighborhood
• 1984, MCT given a Variance by the ZBA to build in a residential section of Warner
• Unclear if they were held to any specific conditions on the structure
• Clear that MCT representatives promised the abutting neighbors that the cable facility would not be visible from their homes.
• MCT then built a tower with satellite dishes attached that is quite visible
• MCT employees or subcontractors have topped trees at their facility to get better satellite clearance, and have gone onto a neighbor's property to top trees. When questioned about their presence on the land, they had no idea where the property line was and were just taking down trees they were told to remove.
• Recommend that the Board check to see if the trees around the tower are 20 feet below the top of the tower
• MCT has topped off a lot of the trees
• Generator does not run often, but when it does we know it and we hear it. We know when it goes on and when it goes off. If U.S. Cellular is going to share that generator and it is going to be going on more often, that is a noise concern that affects not only my property value, but my quality of life.
• I heard tonight that U.S. Cellular had no plans to add a generator "at this time" -- will they be allowed to add a generator in the future, doubling the noise?

Mr. Grill: I think that there is a misunderstanding, because the way we read the ordinance it is very clear that when the voters approved this ordinance, this particular tower was exempted from each of the items that the gentleman mentioned. The only things that apply as we understand it -- and if we're incorrect, we may need to do a lot more work here -- but in Section 1003.03, subdivision A of the Site Plan Regulations that govern Telecommunications, there are four things that the Board is required to look at:

The MCT tower and one other tower in town are specifically exempt from the ordinance entirely, and the only things that they are subject to are the height, aesthetics and lighting of the site plan regulations. There are no height restrictions in the site plan regulations, and the lighting is a 4-point review in the Site Plan regulations.

Mr. Varnum: I believe that all of my items are covered under aesthetics.

Alice Chamberlin: Point of Order -- Who is the owner of this tower?

Mr. Kozyra: TDS Telecom is the owner of the tower. TDS bought the assets of MCT Telecom.

Rick Davies: I'm at 291 Kearsarge Mt. Road, and I'm across the street from the tower. We have quite a little community up there -- it's not like the downtown area of Warner in that it is spread out. We live 150 feet apart, but we have a neighborhood up there that is just that -- a big neighborhood. Suzanne Bouchard was here, and she's an abutter. Steve and Lois, my wife Tina, Diane Violette, Suzanne Solomon. We have a good core of the abutters here that are very concerned with this project. We are in R2 zoning. While the attorney for the applicant is here and stated that the ordinance doesn't apply to any preexisting towers, I think that if you read those paragraphs that he just pointed out and the intent of the rest of the ordinances and the Site Plan Review, there is an overlap with respect to what is required for preexisting towers. All of these items that are aesthetics and lighting are clearly spelled out, but they allude to other items here. For instance, under Lighting, 1.2.01, Item D -- it alludes to screening. The screening is the fencing and the trees and the safety features. In essence, you have a facility up there in a residential neighborhood that is fully out of compliance, as Steve has pointed out. It is a safety hazard from the owner's point of view. It would be good to know what we are dealing with in terms of the waves that are being given off from that tower. I haven't seen any of that information. A bond is required, per your ordinance. As far as the sound goes, there is a sense of serenity in the area that is interrupted when the power goes out and all we have to listen to is the generator, which is located right across the street. Tree buffers don't restrict the sound at all. The buffer should be maintained so that when the older trees are losing their lower branches and leaves, the younger ones are providing the buffer. Especially in the months when the leaves are off the trees, we see the facility all the way across the road from where we are. With these new antennas coming in, they are changing existing facilities and all of the components of the ordinance and Site Plan regulations should be abided by when reviewing this plan.

Ms. Chamberlin: Coverage map -- When you were talking about it skipping over Warner, why does not skip over all this other coverage area?

Mr. Kozyra: On the coverage maps, what we have shown you on each of them are the physical three sectors on each tower. If you take a look at Kearsarge, it is aimed almost completely away from Warner. It is aimed towards the towns to the north. That is why it skips over Warner.

Ms. Chamberlin: Is there no space left on Kearsarge?

Mr. Kozyra: Any additional antennas on Kearsarge would provide coverage in addition to this facility.

Ms. Chamberlin: Is that amps technology going north?

Ms. Kozyra: It is both amps and TDMA going north.

Ms. Chamberlin: I don't understand why additional antennas located on Kearsarge and aimed toward Warner would not provide coverage. I would suggest to the Board that if you're going to be asking for some additional coverage that you might consult on that issue.

Mr. Grill: We don't have an RF engineer here tonight, but I would assume that if that were a solution we wouldn't be here tonight.

Mr. Pershouse: Could the antennas be rearranged on the Kearsarge tower, or could additional antennas or arrays be installed? We were constantly told that that tower was for the benefit of Warner. Now we're hearing that the arrays are aimed away from Warner and we're being told that we're not benefiting from that tower.

Mr. Kozyra: It is a line of sight technology. Each facility is a planned component to an entire network. I'm not saying that you're not benefiting from the tower. Most likely, the arrays aren’t aimed toward Warner because they wouldn't do any good for downtown Warner even if they were. You need a site in Warner proper to provide that coverage.

Mr. Pershouse: I see an additional need to question the data that we're being presented with.

Mr. Grill: I think that we're getting off base here. This is a permitted use under the ordinance, and the only questions are those set forth in 1.2.01 of the Subdivision Regulations, which is the color, the design of the buildings and related structures as well as some of the other things in subdivision B, Lighting, and we're not proposing any lighting, and no signage. That is what the ordinance says. These use questions would be appropriate if we were coming here to build a new tower, but we're not. We're coming to colocate on a tower that is expressly exempted by your ordinance from all of these types of things. So we don't have the burden of proof that we would if we were proposing a new tower.

Mr. Pershouse: I understand that, but if you are talking about collocation, you might at this moment have the opportunity to colocate on the Kearsarge tower as opposed to the TDS tower.

Mr. Grill: I think that there are questions that can be answered if this is continued beyond tonight. I'm just pointing out that I think they are beyond what we have the burden of showing, just given the ordinance.

Linda Milisci: If this tower is not exempt from esthetics, aesthetics are a major viewpoint of the abutters.

Ms. Annis: You're looking at an ordinance that was adopted in 2003. Anything before, as far as I'm concerned, is not involved.

Linda Milisci: So this tower has no exemptions whatsoever?

 

Martha Mical: According to the zoning ordinance, it does.

Mr. Serell: We're taking comments from the public right now. We will debate how the ordinance applies when we get to that point.

Ms. Chamberlin: Is the Webster tower a U.S. Cellular tower?

Mr. Kozyra: Yes, it is.

Ms. Chamberlin: Was there ever any anticipation that it would cover Warner? Were there ever any representations in the record that it would cover Warner?

Mr. Grill: I was involved with that for an entire summer, and the answer is no.

Suzanne Solomon: I am also an abutter, and I do see this tower from my backyard, especially in the wintertime. We would like to expand our yard, but we won't because we don't want to cut any trees down so that we'd see any more of the tower. The configuration of the tower is going to be completely changed and it is going to be made much larger and more obvious, and the safety aspects of it are a big concern. I have two young boys, and I know that there are other young children in the area. The fact that there is no fencing around it is an issue, and I am concerned about the electricity and what is being sent out from the tower. I don't know -- have there been any health studies done? Does this affect the people that live around them? Can you comment on that?

Mr. Violette: I can comment on the fence portion of it. I'm not familiar with the ordinance -- the only thing that I knew about the ordinance is that that tower was exempt from the ordinance.

Ms. Solomon: And why was that?

Mr. Violette: I don't know. We have a gate up there.

Ms. Solomon: A gate that anyone can walk around.

Mr. Violette: When we built the tower, it was a long time ago. We could have put a chain-link fence all the way around, but hindsight is 20/20. It hasn't been a safety concern, as far as people getting in there.

Ms. Solomon: My concern is that tower is accessible to children who would be able to climb up it.

Kenneth ___________: If I change any plumbing in my house, I have to bring it up to the current code, and I don't see why this is in the different.

Mr. Serell: You'd have to read the ordinance to answer that -- our ordinance is written differently from a plumbing code.

Lois Shea: I believe that is the way the ordinance reads -- if this tower is turned into a cell phone tower, then it needs to be in compliance with the codes there on the books at the time. I can't believe that you're sitting here nitpicking and arguing about building an 8-foot chain-link safety fence around this. I don't know what it would cost you, but I think that it would be worth it for that kind of public safety. I also have a question about the lighting -- you said that there would be no lighting on the tower, but would there be lighting on the equipment shed for safety purposes? Also, does the shed have to meet setbacks from the property line?

Mr. Violette: That's not a separate lot.

Ms. Shea: But it is a new building.

Mr. Violette: Yes it is. I do not believe that the light on the cable-TV building is on a night.

Ms. Shea: No, it's not usually on at night. I'm asking about the new building.

Mr. Kozyra: The new building will have a motion detector, and will have a downcast light at the front door which will not be visible from the edges of the property.

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

Mr. Pershouse made the motion that the Planning Board conduct a Site Visit. The motion was seconded.

Mr. Serell suggested that Mr. Reeder's suggestion of a recalculated propagation map using 2-bay antennas installed 4 ft. apart be made part of Mr. Pershouse's motion for the Site Visit.

The Site Visit was set for Saturday, October 25th at 10:00 a.m. the public is invited to attend, and interested parties should meet at the gate to the tower at 296 Kearsarge Mt. Road.

Mr. Kozyra: I will find out from the engineers if the recalculated propagation maps are possible using the criteria laid out by Mr. Reeder.

Mr. Serell: The other thing that I would like answers to are what are the prospects of colocation on other towers, the Kearsarge tower and any other towers -- I would just like to hear that those options were ruled out for whatever reason.

Mr. Kozyra: I could say that right now. Other than the American Tower location off of Exit 7, where we currently provide coverage from our Webster facility, and the Kearsarge tower, there are no other towers in the Warner vicinity. The American Tower facility would duplicate service already provided by the tower in Webster. While it might provide coverage in some small area, it would do nothing to meet our coverage goal to link the sites. While the Kearsarge site might provide coverage in this area [showing areas on the propagation map], it will not replace this tower and connect those two areas.

Mr. Pershouse: There is another site that has been approved not too far the TDS tower, although it has not been built.

Mr. Kozyra: I did check into that; however, IWO is in bankruptcy and they have no intention of building that tower, at least until they come out of bankruptcy.

1. PUBLIC HEARING: Site Plan Review

Robert Egan, P.O. Box 267, Warner, NH 03278 Property location: 2 East Main St., Warner, NH, Tax Map 31, Lot 4-5-9 Purpose: Change of Use, rental retail space Property Owner: Robert Cricenti, P.O. Box 2400, New London, NH 03257

Mr. Egan stated that he will be renting the building from Mr. Cricenti and will then sub-lease the space, after renovations and remodeling, to: 1) Curves Gym, a gym for women; 2) the video store that is currently located in the building across the street, because this space is more handicapped accessible; and 3) a small pizza place with approximately 25 seats. Bob Bender will be moving his office space to the lower floor of the building, toward the back, because he no longer does any retail business.

The other half of the basement will be for storage.

Mr. Egan has a three-year lease with two 3-year options, and an option to purchase. "We do intend to purchase the building, but we can't buy the building until we come to grips with the environmental issues."

Ms. Annis: You're talking about 11 tables in the Pizza place, and a workspace?

Mr. Egan: Yes. This is a cooler and this is a workspace back here [looking at plans submitted by Mr. Egan]

Signage: One sign with renters listed, connected to the building if permitted. Would like to use two signs.

Curves Gym patrons will have direct access.

Hours of operation:

Pizza -- lunch through 8 or 9:00 p.m., depending on the day and the time of year.

Video store: currently open 11:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

Curves: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., approximately 6 days a week

Mr. Egan said that he has plans for improving the building and landscaping, but can't do anything until he owns the property. There are 35 parking spaces. Ms. Annis had concerns about the parking, and Mr. Egan said that the parking spaces in front of the building belong to Mr. Cricenti and go with the building. Mr. Egan intends to designate one or two for handicapped parking. He hopes to put three windows on the right side of the building. Parking in the rear will be for employees.

Mr. Egan said that it had been brought to his attention that there might be money refunded because he had paid for a Site Plan Review and that it was a Change of Use. Ms. Annis asked the Board how they wished to treat the application. Mr. Serell said that a Change of Use requires a Site Plan Review and approval, unless the Board decides to waive the requirement entirely, or the Board could waive certain aspects of the application requirements. He said that the real question is whether or not to require further detail.

Mr. Serell would like to see a plan of the property being approved, showing the parking. The Board asked that Mr. Egan combine the two plans that he has presented so that all of the information is on one plan, including dimensions. Mr. Egan agreed to do so and to come back to the November meeting. Mr. Lennon said that the application is not complete, and pointed out to Mr. Egan that there is a checklist in the Subdivision Regulations that needs to be completed.

2. Conceptual Consultation

MHF Design Consultants, Inc., Mark Gross, P.E., 103 Stiles Road, Suite One, Salem, NH 03079 Property location: Route 103 at North Road, Map 14, Lot 13, 2.57 acre lot, C1 zoning Purpose: Discussion of proposed development and additional approvals necessary from other Boards for the construction of a Hampton Inn Hotel in Warner

Karl Dubay for MHF Design.

Mr. Dubay stated that he would briefly summarize the project tonight and invited any input from the Board. He also stated that his company has an open door policy and invites comments and input from the public.

The plans presented are conceptual plans for a hotel to be located on land directly behind the Park & Ride at Exit 9. The property contains approximately 2.5 acres and is bounded by the Park & Ride, Main Street and Route 103, and North Road which wraps up the hill and around the property. The property has quite a bit of frontage and also has some typography. It is high in the rear and slopes down in the front. There is a small area of wetlands along the corner of North Road and Main Street, and we do not propose affecting that area at all.

Mr. Dubay: What we are proposing is a Hampton Inn, which is basically a hotel with 88 rooms. The architecture, landscaping, aesthetics, and Site Plan design are all things that we want to work on with the town. The layout design tonight is only a conceptual one. The site is proposed to be served by the water district and sewer district. The pump station is located down by McDonalds that may have some extra capacity for it. It is located in a commercial district and the hotel use is allowed by right in this district. Since the hotel is on a slope, we propose that the hotel would be three levels as viewed from North Road, and four levels as viewed from Route 103. It would exceed the 35 ft. height limit as described in the ordinance. I don't know if we would be applying to ZBA for a variance or special exception, because it would depend on the layout of the lot, the building setbacks, and other things that relate to building setbacks. But we certainly realize that we have to apply for and obtain either a Special Exception or a Variance for that particular issue before we come back to the Board, as I understand it, for a Site Plan Review application.

We will be bringing the architect to the next meeting, but I can tell you that they are proposing a full roof design. We have proposed a brick facade and we would like input on the building materials. We would like to propose a building that faces 103, with parking around the building. We would like to look at the parking regulations -- i.e., how strict you would be on the eight spaces verses 10, etc.

We did speak with the DOT once, informally. Again, I did hear the Board loud and clear tonight that you're considering a master plan for this area, and that you are concerned about traffic in this area. The DOT indicated they would be willing to allow a separate driveway between the Park & Ride driveway and North Road. Again, after listening to the previous application, that is something that I realize the Planning Board would probably like for us to revisit and really get some homework done on that before we come back again.

We will try to save as much vegetation as possible, and the next plan that we bring to you will probably show grading for your consideration. I know that this is a very substantial project for you, and we know that a project like this takes some time. I would like to hear from the Board and from other people who would like to weigh in on this before we go much further.

Mr. Brayshaw: Beyond the Hampton Inn being your logo, do you use your building style as a branding device?

Mr. Dubay: Of course, everyone would say yes. But we realize that in a town that has specific Site Plan regulations and has emphasis on aesthetics and character -- that will be taken into consideration, if that's what you would like.

Mr. Brayshaw: How far have you seen them go, across the country? Certainly this isn't the first time that you have been approached. What is the most extreme application that you have seen?

Mr. Dubay: I don't know, but I will find out. I am substituting tonight for someone who is a Hampton Inn specialist.

Mr. Pershouse: Before you next come before the Board, it would be good if you could bring some elevations and some examples. I think that the public would like to see what some of the options have been in other towns.

Ms. Annis: I don't think we would like to see a Hampton Inn like the one in Bow.

Mr. Dubay: We'll bring in some photos. I was just down doing one in Cape Cod last week, and the photos spoke a thousand words.

Mr. Serell: You will need to go to the ZBA first, before the Site Plan Review.

Mr. Pershouse: The height limit is 35 feet above ground.

Mr. Lennon: There are concerns re: fire access -- and the number of stories. Warner does not have a ladder truck. Concerns re: the sewer and water capacity. Traffic – we would appreciate you working with the Board and becoming involved. The impervious cover is limited to 70%. Concern about traffic coming from McDonalds. Concerns re: landscaping. The exterior surfaces should have a colonial appearance.

Mr. Pershouse: With 88 rooms and 10 employees, parking could be a problem. Would you be looking at abutting properties for additional parking?

Ms. Annis: I would like for you to look at the entrance to the hotel off of North Road.

It was suggested that they have a dialog with the Water District, and that they be aware of growth management issues in town. Mr. Dubay said that this would have a positive tax impact for the Town of Warner. There is no bar, no restaurant, and is considered to be a "clean operation".

3. Communications and Miscellaneous

Ms. Annis said that she would like to postpone the approval of the minutes of the last two meetings due to the late hour.

It was announced that the Growth Management subcommittee would be meeting in 2 weeks.

The Board discussed the length of the meetings. It was discussed that the meetings could be cut off at 10:00 p.m., with those applicants/topics not covered put first on the agenda at the next meeting. Another alternative would be to continue to have the meetings last as long as necessary in fairness to applicants who have applied to the Board within the posted deadlines. A third alternative would be to have extra meetings to handle the high volume of applications to the Planning Board.

4. Adjourn

A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting, which passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 12:25 a.m.

 

Minutes approved: November 3, 2003