Minutes of the Meeting and Public Hearing

Monday, November 3, 2003 7:00 PM

Warner Town Hall, Lower Meeting Room

 

 

Members Present: Barbara Annis, Derek Pershouse, Andrew Serell, Philip Reeder, Russ St.Pierre

Members Absent: John Brayshaw

Alternates Present: Mark Lennon (7:45)

Alternates Absent: Ron Orbacz

Presiding: Barbara Annis

Recording: Sissy Brown

 

  1. Open Meeting at 7:00 PM
  2. Roll Call
  3. Approval of the Minutes:
  4. Motions were made and seconded to approve the minutes of the September 8, 2003, September 23, 2003 & October 6, 2003 meetings. All of the minutes were approved as submitted by unanimous votes.

  5. Announcement by Ms. Annis
  6. Legal opinion from Town Counsel regarding a moratorium on commercial development at Exit 9 as well as meeting schedules for the Board because of the workload. Asked the Board to review the opinion as received from Mr. Gartrell to discuss later in the meeting.

    Question to Mr. Gartrell: If R.A.W. Investments submitted a revised/new application, could the Board deny the application until such time as they have paid their financial obligations to the Town of Warner. Mr. Gartrell said that the Board could do that.

  7. PUBLIC HEARING: Major Subdivision

J.D. & Carol F. Colcord, 109 Brown Road, Warner, NH 03278. Property location: Map 15, Lot 37, R3 and OC-1 Zoning, Corner of Mason Hill Road & Brown Road. 6 new lots: 4.82 ac., 4.82 ac., 4.66 ac., 3.15 ac., 3.17 ac. & 3.15 ac., remaining land in Lot 37: 18.63 ac.

Jeff Evans, Surveyor

Mr. Colcord stated that the site visit was held, and that the total acreage is now on the plans, as requested by the Board at the last meeting.

Ms. Annis stated concerns from the Site Visit:

Mr. Pershouse: Can we conclude from Mr. Brown’s letter that it is feasible to have a driveway for every lot along Mason Hill Road?

Ms. Annis: I would assume so. I do know that in talking to him, blind driveway signs be put up -- one on the side where the subdivision is, and one on the opposite side of the road.

Mr. Pershouse: Some mention was made at the site visit about the possibility of changing the elevation of the peak in the road?

Ms. Annis: That's been in the works for 10 years or more.

Mr. Pershouse: Is our acceptance of this plan -- is that a contingency that we need to note as a condition?

Ms. Annis: I wouldn't. My personal opinion is that it has been in the works for so many years -- the budget keeps getting cut and it doesn't get done. So it could be another 10 or 15 years before it gets done. If we put that as a contingency, it would hold up the possible sale of any of these lots.

Mr. Evans: Before we had the vandalism up there, all of the driveways were marked and we actually measured the sight distance from those stakes to ensure that they met all of the requirements. Allan Brown actually saw them at that time and said that they were all OK.

Mr. St. Pierre: What were using as a distance?

Mr. Evans: 200 ft. Or 250 ft. -- I can't remember.

Ms. Annis: Allan says that it varies for each lot -- it depends on the site.

Mr. St. Pierre: Isn't there a minimum?

Ms. Annis: No, he doesn't say that there is a minimum.

Mr. St. Pierre: Do you know what the minimum is that you measured?

Mr. Evans: I believe it was 250 ft.

Ms. Annis: The minutes of the last meeting state that after the Site Walk we will reopen the Public Hearing.

Ms. Annis closed the Board meeting and reopened the Public Hearing. There was no input from the public. The Public Hearing was closed, and the Board meeting reopened.

Mr. Serell made a motion to approve the subdivision. There was a second to the motion, and the motion passed by a unanimous vote.

  1. PUBLIC HEARING: Site Plan Review
  2. 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 presented the Board with the revised plans. Ms. Annis asked if he had the checklist, and he replied that he did not, and that he thought he was only to follow the checklist in preparing the plan.

    Mr. Pershouse: Was the parking space issue settled?

    Ms. Annis: Yes, the bounds were found. Main Street comes in onto the property, doesn't it Bob?

    Mr. Egan: Yes -- the majority of the spaces belong to Cricenti. I guess the Town paints the lines.

    Mr. Pershouse: The Road Agent is happy?

    Mr. Egan: Yes. He used a metal detector, and found all of the boundaries, marked them all and verified that they were all Cricenti's.

    Ms. Annis: We have the hours of operation, the layout of the building, layout of the inside of the building, and we'd asked for the plan to be encompassed on one plan.

    Mr. Reeder: There will now be a family clinic going in instead of the video store?

    Mr. Egan: Yes.

    Mr. Reeder: What sort of traffic you anticipate the Family Clinic will generate?

    Mr. Egan: There will be one physician, one nurse practitioner, and a receptionist. They need for parking spaces. They anticipate patients being scheduled every hour.

    Mr. Reeder: For Curves -- what sort of traffic you anticipate with that?

    Mr. Egan: Their goal is 200 people per week, and each person will be in there approximately 45 minutes to one hour. The hours of operation will be six or seven in the morning until 7:00 p.m.

    Curves owner: We anticipate early in the morning and after work hours will be the busiest. There could be one person or five people at a time -- the maximum number will be 10 at a time. That is a hopeful projection.

    Mr. Pershouse: I would like to suggest to the Chair that we get a business plan from each of the tenants through Bob, so that we have on record what the issues might be in terms of parking. Otherwise, we are really at the mercy of the individual tenants on an ongoing basis, whether they be the ones you have now or ones in the future. I think that it is really important at this particular location. There are a number of mornings every week where there are really no parking spaces available in front of the Town Hall. We are starting to provide some back pressure just for that reason. For instance, if you had your five spaces in front of the building -- the spaces in front of the Town Hall as well as those five spaces are full every morning, and it is an inconvenience for people wanting to stop into Town Hall to do some business and then move on. The Planning Board would like to work with you and your tenants to alleviate the congestion at peak periods.

    Mr. Egan: I agree -- but if we say that we're going to have 15 cars, and we have 20 cars, are we going to be in violation?

    Mr. Pershouse: I don't think that we're talking in those tight terms. It is really a matter of intent and a good will. If it becomes a problem, we will have to address it.

    Mr. Egan: I had initially thought that I would put up a sign saying, "Cricenti Parking Only". But now feel that I will not do that, because the people in town are accustomed to parking in the spaces, and I don't have a problem with sharing that lot. A lot of the staff at Town Hall park in those spaces on a regular basis.

    Mr. Serell: He has 32 spaces that belong to the property. Unless we have a concern that those 32 spaces will not be enough for the businesses at that property, what authority does the Planning Board have to do more to satisfy us on parking? 32 spaces seem to be way more than those businesses will need.

    Mr. Reeder: I think that we need that information as a matter of record, because I think for every applicant that comes before us from now on, we will need to know what they expect their parking requirements will be.

    Mr. Egan: I will get a plan with the parking and the hours from each tenant.

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

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

    Joanne Hinnendael: You have 32 parking spaces. Will the pizza place be a sit-down restaurant?

    Mr. Egan: Yes.

    Ms. Hinnendael: How many customers will you have seats for, and how many staff people?

    Mr. Egan: 20 - 25 seats, and three staff people. The clinic will have four staff people. The employees will park in the rear of the building. We're thinking of increasing the number of spaces for parking in the rear.

    Ms. Hinnendael: I have concerns regarding the number of people that will be coming and going in that area.

    Hearing no further discussion, Ms. Annis closed the Public Hearing and reopened the Board Meeting.

    Mr. Pershouse: I would like to ask the applicant what his schedule is, and if it would be an inconvenience to continue this process until the next meeting based on the input from the applicant that we have talked about, or is time of the essence?

    Mr. Egan: Time is of the essence. Curves needs to get the renovations done, the staff trained, and the equipment installed for a January 1st opening. The clinic is bursting at the seams and anxious to get moved to this location.

    Mr. Pershouse: Could you get the business plans that we have requested to the board in writing within a week to 10 days? If we do approve your plan tonight, I would be a little more comfortable having that.

    Mr. Egan: Yes.

    Mr. Serell made a motion to approve the application on the condition that the applicant submit to the Board a brief business plan for each of the tenants with the approximate parking requirements and the hours of operation. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

    Ms. Annis: You have a maximum of 10 days.

  3. PUBLIC HEARING: Site Plan Review
  4. 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

    Ms. Annis stated that a Site Visit had been conducted.

    Mr. Kozyra: One of the members of the Board had asked us to go back and see if rather than doing 14-foot T-frames on the tower, we could do something that would involve 4-feet of horizontal separation. [He handed out photo simulations of the revised tower proposal]. We went back to the RF engineering folks and ask them, "What would be the minimum that we can get by with?" If the Board so chooses, we do have the ability to do what is called a T-arm. They come off of each quarter, and we still have two antennas on each face, but it is a little bit smaller than the original proposal. This would minimize the visual impact somewhat.

    Mr. Pershouse: Would this allow for more expansion if you needed it in the future?

    Mr. Kozyra: No. The original proposal would allow that, but with these we would have to take them down and put up something new.

    Mr. Pershouse: Can you give us a ballpark possibility, based on the activity you anticipate, of that being necessary?

    Mr. Kozyra: Every single year, we go to our sites and upgrade the antennas. This year, we upgraded 90% of our sites in New Hampshire, adding new antennas. So there is actually a distinct chance, but it could be six months, one year, or it could be two years.

    Mr. Reeder: It would be possible to put more of these T-arms lower on the tower?

    Mr. Kozyra: We would have to remove some of the TDS equipment. They would have to be 10-feet of separation, and we would be charged more for renting the space, which would not be economically feasible to us.

    Mr. Reeder: The "tree" down in Davisville did at one time have those huge 14-foot arms on there, by mistake, and it was pretty ugly. I don't want to see that at all on any tower around here.

    Mr. Kozyra: Unfortunately, you weren't at the site walk, but in the scale of the existing antennas, what we are proposing is relatively similar, or smaller. The largest antenna on there now is 17 1/2 feet by 17 1/2 feet, where these are 14.

    Mr. Reeder: But these are panels, not yagis. And it could be that in the future, those antennas will be coming down entirely, as the cable systems grows and expands into a digital system and they won't need those antennas. But these might be there for a lifetime and be seen from the mountain tops for a lifetime. Having a crown on the top of a tower like that is not aesthetically pleasing at all. Having two bays, painted and not white, will blend in as much as possible.

    Mr. Kozyra: We will leave that to the Board's pleasure.

    Mr. Pershouse: If we were to approve this plan with the understanding that at some point in the future you would be upgrading your equipment, then we are by definition approving the larger arrays -- I think that we need to understand that.

    Mr. Reeder: But that is their problem. We can simply not allow 4 bays.

    Mr. Pershouse: I understand that we have the right to not allow it. I'm simply saying that it would be an exercise in futility if they need in three or four years to go to the larger set. Then we're back to saying that they have to go and build a tower someplace else because you can't co-locate here. I'm just presenting it as a dilemma.

    Ms. Annis: One of the other questions that was brought up on the Site Visit was the amount of RF emissions. You did submit to us that information in your application.

    Mr. Kozyra: The FCC provides strict limits for the amount of radio frequency emissions that U.S. Cellular and all other licensed carriers can admit per facility. This facility with U.S. Cellular's equipment would have a cumulative density of approximately 1.84% of the general public limit. What that means is that the FCC allows you to generate up to 100% of the allowable emissions, and this facility will generate 1.84% of that 100%. So the emissions coming from the facility are significantly less than what the FCC would allow for a site of this size.

    Ms. Annis: Also brought up at the Site Walk -- do you have any kind of proof that you can rule out a co-location on top of the mountain instead of at this site? Why did you rule that out?

    Mr. Kozyra: I do have Dan Goulet, one of our RF engineers, here tonight.

    Mr. Goulet: We do have a facility on Kearsarge Mountain today. Kearsarge is higher than the town. [Showed a picture showing the towers in the area, including the one on Kearsarge Mountain]. We tested this -- we turned a sector to see if we aimed one down here, could we cover Warner from Kearsarge. It overshoots Warner because of ridge. This causes interference or scatter down into Concord. We don't get a signal for the Town of Warner that we need.

    Mr. Pershouse: What is the principal area that is benefited by this tower? It is to the north on I-89? The Kearsarge tower -- in other words, if you orient the sector so that it covers the south or the southeast, then you get the conflict with the other towers all the way to Concord. I'm wondering what the situation is to the north or northwest, and whether that will change as the network builds out.

    Mr. Goulet: You've hit the nail on the head. Concord is a larger population density and has significantly more sites than what we have northwest of Warner, so that we don't have the scatter effect with Kearsarge aimed to the north and west.

    Mr. Kozyra: The tower at Exit 7 is relatively close to our Webster tower, and would essentially duplicate the coverage. The tower is on Dustin Road.

    Mr. Pershouse: There seems to be a difference between the direction of the sectors on the map and the plan submitted.

    Mr. Goulet: The azimuths are always correct.

    Ms. Annis: In my mind, what we are addressing and what is being asked of us is a co-location on a tower. The tower is there, and we're not being asked to reinvent the wheel. We have nothing to do with the ground -- we will address that later, and I have already talked with Mark and we would like a good neighbor policy. But my opinion is that we address the tower and the co-location, not ground cover.

    Mr. Pershouse: One concern that I have is that this is the first time that we have dealt with a co-location. All other applications and the process to date has been that the applicant has been the proposed tower builder or tower owner. As far as I can see on this application, TDS is not on as a co-applicant.

    Mr. Pershouse: That is important for us to address if we are going to require any bonding, any no-cut easement which may be a consideration in terms of tree height, and other elements that we have dealt with with prior applicants and towers -- I think that it is important to address this with TDS and somehow incorporate TDS as a co-applicant or TDS being the primary applicant with the cellular provider being secondary. Any contractual agreements I will defer to our attorney that is on the Board. It seems to me that all of the agreements between the town and the tower owner needs to be that, and not with the provider.

    Mr. Serell: So right now, U.S. Cellular is the sole applicant?

    Ms. Annis: Correct.

    Mr. Serell: I agree with Derek that TDS should be involved as an applicant and that we make that one of the conditions should we approve the plan.

    Ms. Annis: What I would like to see TDS do, in terms of a Good Neighbor Policy, is... We did the Site Visit, and I stood there at the compound, where the dishes are and where the white building is, and I could not see Mr. Varnum's house. I could just barely see Mr. McNeal's house -- the end of the driveway, but that's all. But then we got invited to go over to Mr. Varnum's backyard. It was an entirely different view from his backyard. The trees are getting taller, and I do appreciate the fact that TDS is lopping the tops of the trees, that they're not removing the trees but removing the tops. However, in the process of that the lower branches are now dying and you have big tree trunks. I have to admit that this white shows up like night and day from his backyard. My Good Neighbor Policy -- and I can't make you do it but I would like to see -- is to put some sort of either evergreens to possibly break it where the tree trunks are, or a fence. Phil, did you mention something about a fence?

    Mr. Reeder: Slats in a chain link fence. Green slats that hide everything.

    Ms. Annis: I think it would relieve some of the tension in the neighborhood.

    Mr. Pershouse: One other option that came up during the Site Visit was painting some or all of the dishes. I am assuming that it can be done -- that the paint could be put on the dishes without any interference in their performance. The other part of the question is if this is something that you decide that you might like to do, would that be a significant expense or would it be equal to planting?

    Mr. Violette: I did speak with Barbara. As far as the building goes, we can paint that whatever color the consensus is. It probably wouldn't be done until next spring. The dishes can be painted, and that is something that we can do. As far as the planting -- in front, where our property borders Mr. Varnum's property, that's not a problem at all. I'm not a tree expert, and I'm not sure if topping the trees caused the branches to fall off. We have a serious problem up there. At the Site Visit, you probably wouldn't have seen this. But the biggest dish that we have looks out to the southwest to a very low satellite. When we put the tower and the dishes up there, back in 1983 or 1984, those trees were a lot smaller. It was probably not the best spot in the world to put a tower and dishes because the trees are going to grow. For about four years now or longer we have had a problem with the degradation of some of the signals that we get for some of our channels. Some of the reception is not very good and that is because the trees have grown. One of the trees that we need to cut the top of isn't on the property owner's property, and I haven't gone back to speak with Mr. Varnum about that. But planting more trees is a real concern with satellite reception. But we would be willing to do some screening between our property and Mr. Varnum's property. I know there has been some concern about safety, and to fence off the entire property would be a significant cost. I can tell you that it wouldn't happen this year, and it may not happen next year -- we may be able to put it in the budget for 2005. The property owner, Diane Violette, would be impacted, too, because it would have to go down her de facto property line and then cut back in.

    Mr. Pershouse: I'm wondering if we're assuming that the fencing needs to be around the entire site in order to make the liability issue go away, or whether it would be just for the tower itself.

    Mr. Violette: So you're thinking maybe around the dirt, just as you drive in the driveway -- are you thinking about maybe putting another gate there and then going around the dirt perimeter?

    Mr. Pershouse: I'm thinking about what ever it would take to keep people from climbing the tower, which in my opinion is the primary risk. If they climbed up on one of your dishes and put a dent in it, you'd fix it.

    Mr. Violette: As I've stated before, nothing has ever happened up there. You're going to have to have something that is 8 ft. tall with barbed wire around it to keep people out. I don't know if that is the answer.

    Mr. Pershouse: I don't know either, but it is something that we need to explore. I understand your need for a low tree height because of the dishes that are on the ground, so that doesn't give any of us the ability to accomplish tree screening beyond the minimal level. To me, that enhances the issue of painting the dishes. My sense in standing in Steve Varnum's backyard on Saturday morning when we did the site visit is that when we first got there and looked over toward the woods, it looks like a large white building with all the dishes. In other words, a big area of white. I think if they were painted a neutral color, something to blend in, that would really go a long way to make that go way as a neighborhood issue.

    Mr. Violette: We're willing to do that. Until three weeks ago, I didn’t realize that it was a problem. We've heard the Planning Board's comments, and we've heard the public input, and we all live in the same town. We need to get along, so we will take care of those things.

    Mr. Pershouse: I'm wondering about, again, these are issues that because of the nature of the ordinance -- they are not necessarily enforceable and may not even be desirable. We have required bonding on all of the new towers. I'm not saying that we should or should not, but I think that we should address the issue of financial liability in the event that the tower is abandoned at some point in the future. To date, we have certainly had less than an arm's length relationship with the owner of the tower being a member of the community, now that ownership of the company has changed hands perhaps we should be addressing it more objectively in terms of what the town's needs would be if the tower should be abandoned by the current owner. That is one concern. A no-cut easement -- I guess we have basically walked through that. It isn't really an option right now. To the cell tower yes, but because the dishes are on the ground and the fundamental aspects of that tower, I don't think that we're in a no-cut issue at all, other than an understanding. Perhaps that understanding should be written into the approval.

    Diane Violette: To address your question about when and if the tower should be abandoned -- they can't just walk away from it. They have to put that entire lot back the way it was.

    Mr. Pershouse: You're saying that that is then your contract with them?

    Ms. Violette: Yes.

    Mr. Pershouse: When we were at the site visit, that is why I asked if we could have a redacted copy of your contract or something to give us that information, and I appreciate your volunteering that tonight.

    Ms. Violette: That was my concern, too.

    Mr. Serell: Do you have a problem sharing that agreement?

    Ms. Violette: The whole agreement? Yes, I do.

    Mr. Serell: What about that portion [regarding the abandonment of the tower]?

    Ms. Violette: I could certainly show that to you.

    Mr. Pershouse: I am just trying to account for the fact that this is the first time that we a been through the process where we have an existing tower that is not a cell tower, and by putting a co-location of a cellular provider is now, in fact, changing to a cell facility. I am just trying to think about all the various concerns that we, as a town, might have. I think I have addressed most of them that come to my mind.

    Mr. Violette: We can't lose sight of the fact this is still a cable-TV facility. The tower still houses more cable-TV equipment than it does cellular equipment. What you saw on that tower is staying on the tower, for the near future, as far as our equipment goes.

    Mr. Pershouse: But U.S. Cellular is contacting with TDS?

    Mr. Kozyra: Right.

    Mr. Pershouse: So any concerns of control or whatever in the future would have to be within that contract. In other words, the town is outside of that. We've expressed our concerns, but worst case -- if for some reason the cellular provider starts interfering with something else on the tower, you'll have to say, "Sorry, you can't stay here any longer." The town has no jurisdiction over that, based on this process. It would have to be in your contract.

    Mr. Violette: When we get to that point, it will be in the contract.

    Mr. St. Pierre: [to Ms. Annis] Because this is a co-location, is it your contention that we can't put any conditions on an approval -- as we would if it were a new facility?

    Ms. Annis: That is my position.

    Mr. St.Pierre: [reading from the zoning ordinance pertaining to co-location] This ordinance shall not apply to preexisting towers... of which this is one that is listed. However, any change to either of these facilities by present or future owners must conform to height, aesthetics, and lighting Site Plan Review standards in effect at the time. It's not like they're given a blanket exemption from Site Plan.

    Mr. Reeder: The area of the Site Plan, for aesthetics and lighting, is four sentences.

    Mr. St.Pierre: I realize that. I have a little trouble with the language that they use because height doesn't show up in the Site Plan Review regulations.

    Mr. Pershouse: That was because the tower was existing at a given height.

    Mr. St.Pierre: I know -- I'm just wondering why height was listed as a Site Plan Review regulation when it's not there.

    Mr. Reeder: My guess is that it might be there in case it were to be added onto.

    Mr. Serell: They could have proposed to increase the size.

    Mr. St.Pierre: But height isn't an issue for Site Plan Review -- it is a zoning issue.

    Mr. Pershouse: For aesthetics, it seems to me that we are talking about that because 90% of the issues are visual.

    Mr. St.Pierre: Right, and I guess my question again is rather than having it resolved by them saying they will do it sometime, why not make it a condition of the approval?

    Mr. Serell: I think we can. I understand your point. There is a question on whether we can condition aspects of approval on things that apply to the project generally as opposed to change in use. However, If I hear the applicant agree to do certain things, my proposal would be that when we make a motion for approval that it include those things as conditions because if the applicant agrees it's not really an issue. The gray area comes in if we wanted to include something as a condition and the applicant is not agreeing to, then I think we could be getting into potentially hot water. But if it is something that the applicant agrees to, then I don't see why we couldn't and shouldn't make that part of the conditions as part of our approval.

    Mr. Pershouse: What about the issue that we began with in terms of the number of arrays?

    Mr. Serell: Yes, that is definitely something that we can address. That has to do with change, and I feel that if the applicant can get by with something smaller, then that is what we should approve.

    Mr. Serell made a motion to approve the application with the following conditions:

    1. Paint the building and existing dishes a neutral color by June 30, 2004

    2. Plant additional screening along the border of the abutter's property (Varnum)

    3. The antenna itself will be the smaller arrays that was presented on the last page of the application

    4. The application shall be amended so that TDS and U.S. Cellular are co-applicants

    5. The Board will receive the portion of the agreement between the property owner and TDS relating to the abandonment of the tower

    The motion was seconded.

    Mr. Pershouse: Now that we all agree that this will be a co-application between TDS and the provider, I wonder if we should be consistent with the process and state whether TDS should be the primary applicant and the cellular provider is just that -- the provider.

    Mr. Serell: Personally, I think there are aspects of my motion that apply to both of them, so I think that we want them to be co-applicants so that we could enforce them. I don't think that there is anything in our regulations that require one to be higher than the other.

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

  5. Gamil Azmy
  6. Consultation for amendments to Site Plan approved May 6, 2002 by the Planning Board

    Mr. Azmy stated that he had met with John [Brayshaw] once and was to meet again on Saturday, but that John couldn't make it. For that reason, he didn't have the final paperwork to present to the Board at this meeting. He stated that his concern is that the Board is only concerned with the 6 parking spaces that are facing in the wrong position.

    Mr. Azmy showed the Board the approved plan from 2002, and stated that a line on the plan is incorrect. There is a line on the plan that is 20 feet too short -- it shows 17 feet and is actually 35 feet from the fence to the State right-of-way. The surveyor mismeasured the lines. He said that John had measured the area himself.

    Mr. Reeder: I have a problem with making a decision on this because this plan is what a licensed surveyor did. John might have looked this and said that it is all right, but I haven't seen it. If we are going to need to approve this, I think that we need a site visit on this one.

    Ms. Annis: There are a couple of things that are involved.

    Mr. Azmy: it seems to me that this is an issue with the Board. What are the other issues?

    Ms. Annis: This is the town line that comes across here.

    Mr. Pershouse: Could we start out -- so that we all have a clear view -- of the issues?

    Mr. Azmy: I never heard what the issues are -- and I'd like to hear.

    Issues for the Board:

    1. Change in configuration of the eating area. There are now outdoor tables for eating, and they are located in Warner. No permission to have a restaurant in Warner. The restaurant is in Webster.

    2. Parking -- the plan shows parking in the area where the outdoor tables are now located. There are no parking spaces there now.

    3. Parking -- parking lot parallel to 103. Mr. Azmy says that the area is incorrectly shown on the plan. He said that once that is resolved, the cars should be able to park in a vertical manner, as they are now.

    Mr. Serell: This has come up because the Board wants to get a revised plan.

    Mr. Azmy: We are going to take the plan to Kinko's and get a copy to mark up for the corrections.

    Mr. St.Pierre said that if Mr. Azmy is amending the plan, he needs to block out all of the surveyor's information that is on the original plan, because the plan will no longer be what the surveyor has stamped.

    Mr. Azmy said that he hoped to have the final plan completed prior to the next meeting, and that John had suggested that it be available for review by the Board prior to the next meeting.

    Ms. Annis suggested that the Board conduct a Site Visit after the revised plan has been received.

  7. PUBLIC HEARING: Site Plan Review – continued from March 3, 2003 meeting
  8. Aubuchon Hardware, Gregory Moran, VP Real Estate, 95 Aubuchon Drive, Westminster, MA 01473. Property located at 30 Rt. 103 West [Market Basket building], Warner, NH. Map 14, Lot 7, 22.74 acres,

    C1 Zoning. Installation of Propane Filling Station. Demoulas Super Markets, Inc., property owner

    Mr. Pershouse asked for a brief synopsis of the project so that the Board will be up to speed on the status of the application.

    Since the March, 2002 Notice of Decision to open Aubuchon Hardware next to the Market Basket, the one pending item was the propane filling station.

    Mr. Pershouse: The plan shows a vertical tank. Would you be willing to do a vertical tank?

    Mr. Moran: Yes. I showed the plan for a vertical tank to the Fire Chief, and he had no problems with it. The footprint doesn't change for a horizontal tank. The vertical position is our preference because it is more clear to customers that it is a propane filling station.

    Mr. Pershouse: Would you have a problem with a color other than bright white?

    Mr. Moran: They come from the supplier in that color, but I can check with the supplier.

    Mr. Pershouse: Another color would be preferable. Of the 45 that you've done, how many are vertical?

    Mr. Moran: Ten are vertical.

    Proposed filling station:

    1. Gated

    2. Locked cabinet

    3. Contained

    3. Identified as belonging to Aubuchon Hardware

    4. No inventory of filled tanks.

    5. Aubuchon sells only empty tanks.

    6. No exchange of tanks

    7. Inventory of never-been-charged tanks -- contain no gas -- can be inventoried indoors

    8. Customers do not bring their tanks into the store

    9. Location of the station will be across the parking lot from the store -- this is the Fire Chief's preferred location

    10. Bollards are located 7-feet apart on the exterior of the station, which meets regulations. Can make them as close together as is necessary.

    11. The bollards are 6-inch, and are concrete filled

    12. For the Board's safety concerns, can move the entire filling station back from the parking area 6 feet, and place a few extra bollards in front

    13. Any solid screening around the base of the filling station isn't possible because the area needs to be open for ventilation. Some planting would be ok.

    14. Snow won't be a problem because Aubuchon will be maintaining the area

    15. Signs for Propane Filling Station will be facing the building, not the road

    16. 6-foot high chain link fence will surround the entire filling station, which can be coated or made with slats

    Mr. Pershouse: Has the screening of the dumpster been addressed?

    Mr. Moran and Ms. Annis: That was discussed and decided in the last meeting as part of the Site Plan Review and approval.

    Mr. Serell: Does the Fire Chief have any general concerns about the propane filling station?

    Mr. Moran: No. I attempted to get that in writing, but was unable to do so.

    Ms. Annis: He said that the location was ok.

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

    Joanne Hinnendael asked where the location would be, and Ms. Annis stated that it would be located on the edge of the parking area across from the side entrance.

    Question: What is the proximity to the existing tank farm [belonging to Market Basket]?

    Mr. Moran: 150+ feet

    Question: How is the propane filling station personnel qualified?

    Mr. Moran: In 44 of them, the vendor comes in and trains the manager and employees, and they are certified every year.

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

    Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the propane filling station with the following conditions:

    1. Planting in between the bollards on 4 sides

    2. The platform will be 6 feet from the parking area

    3. The fence will be coated

    4. The tank will be in a horizontal position

    5. One additional bollard will be placed on the parking lot side to prevent someone from driving through

    The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

    Mr. Pershouse asked the Board to consider another issue regarding the area. The handicapped parking space currently projects out into the droveway area, and Mr. Pershouse asked if it would be possible to move that facility into the main parking area, so that the current bottleneck that it creates could be alleviated. His concern is that this bottleneck problem would be exacerbated when the new store opens because the doors are right across the lot from the handicapped parking space.

    Mr. Moran stated that in a letter received from the owners of the property, Demoulas Supermarket, they agree to relocate the existing handicapped space to the other side of the open area/ramp area -- the area left open next to the existing handicapped space. The Board agreed with this decision.

  9. PUBLIC HEARING: Minor Subdivision
  10. Kevin and Peggy Mock, 56 Couchtown Rd, Warner, NH 03278 Property Location: 56 Couchtown Road, Map 11, Lot 42-2, R3 and OC-1 zoning

    Purpose: To create 2 lots from one 15.03 acre lot: 10 acres and 5.03 acres

    Chris Bofinger, Surveyor

    Mr. Bofinger said that the frontage for the two lots is 250.0 and 250.04 feet. The lots meet State approvals, and it is a reestablishment of an existing lot, the lot line of which was erased earlier when Mr. Mock and Mr. Eric Windhurst, and abutter, completed a lot line adjustment when Mr. Windhurst sold land to Mr. Mock last year.

    Both lots meet minimum frontage and size requirements, according to Mr. Bofinger. The wetlands and slope have been accounted for in the sizes.

    Mr. Serell said that he comes up with 249.75 feet when adding up the numbers that make up the frontage of one of the lots. Mr. Bofinger and Mr. Mock said that the original lot, on an old subdivision plan, shows 250.01 feet. Mr. Mock said that the lot in question was a separate lot prior to the recent lot line adjustment.

    Mr. Pershouse asked Ms. Annis how she felt about a discrepancy of 3 inches. She said that she is torn, because of the precedent that it would be setting. Mr. Serell stated that he didn't feel that the Board could make an exception, and that the applicant needs to go to the Zoning Board for a Variance before the subdivision can be granted by the Planning Board.

    The Secretary retrieved the approved subdivision plan when the Prescott's originally subdivided the land, which shows 250.01 feet of frontage. She also retrieved the Lot Line Adjustment plan between Windhurst and Mock, which shows 259.75 feet. Mr. Serell said that the Lot Line Adjustment survey created a larger lot, and did not create a separate lot. The survey to look at is the original subdivision plan. But now, they are creating a new lot and the plan shows a frontage of 249.75 feet.

    Mr. Pershouse: I don't feel that we are setting a dangerous precedent if we're doing in terms of an increment of 3 inches. But getting a Variance from the ZBA would, basically, serve to get the record right and have the process confirmed.

    Ms. Annis suggested that the Planning Board and the ZBA have a joint meeting on December 1st, the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting, for this one issue. Ms. Annis said that the Planning Board would ask the ZBA if they would be willing to meet on December 1st.

    Mr. Serell asked if the Board could set any decision aside until a decision was made by the ZBA, so that the applicant wouldn't have to reapply. Because Mr. Bofinger said that it is his belief that the application must be officially denied before they can go to the ZBA, Mr. Serell made a motion to deny the application. The motion was seconded, and passed by a unanimous vote.

    Mr. Serell said that if the Board has any discretion, they should waive the reapplication fee. The Secretary said that the applicant would have to pay the abutter notification fees and legal notice fee, which could be done as a joint meeting if the ZBA agrees to hold a joint meeting.

  11. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
  12. Paul and Linda Milisci, 61 North Village Road, Warner, NH 03278 Property location: 61 North Village Road, Warner, NH, Map 10, Lot 32, R2 zoning [17.5 acres] Purpose: 11.59 acres to be annexed from Lot 32 to Peter & Rhonda St.James [Map 10, Lot 3]

    Original Lot 32 [Milisci] = 17.5 ac -- New Lot 32 [Milisci] = 6.0 ac -- Original Lot 3 [St. James] = 1.09 ac -- New Lot 3 [St.James] = 12.59 ac

    Jeff Evans, Surveyor

    Mr. Evans: Mr. Milisci owns two tracts of land under one deed, and is selling the entire Tract 2 to Mr. and Mrs. St. James. The parcel is in current use, and will remain in current use. There is no frontage for this tract of land, and it is simply a change in ownership of the land.

    Mr. Reeder made the motion to approve the Lot Line Adjustment plan. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

  13. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW
  14. Begin Construction, Will Begin, P.O. Box 273, Contoocook, NH 03229

    Property location: 183 West Main Street, Warner, NH, Tax Map 35, Lot 3, C-1 zoning Purpose: Conversion of a residential building to an office for Begin Construction

    Mr. Begin: We bought a piece of property that is zoned Commercial. The property had a building on that was built with a Special exception for a residence in a commercial zone. The building is now being used for office space only -- the public does not come to the office. It is used for computer work, phone work, etc. We are not adding onto it. It is exactly as it was when we bought it.

    Mr. Pershouse: You did some clearing when you bought it originally.

    Mr. Begin: Yes, we took the trees out because my attention is to eventually do something else with the property. We don't plan to store anything on the property, and I have one construction truck that comes in and out in addition to me.

    Mr. Begin said that he is on an existing leach field and well. If and when he does do something else with the property, he will connect to the town water.

    Mr. St.Pierre asked if Mr. Begin planned to do any grading of the area where the numerous trees have been removed. Mr. Begin said that he plans to stump it and seed it in the spring.

    Mr. Begin said that his employees are out of the building by 3:00 p.m. in the afternoon. If he has a closing, it might be open until 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. at the latest. No deliveries are made to the property -- they are made to the house sites. No construction is done at the site.

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

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

    Question: Where is the property? Answer: Directly across from the Police Station.

    Question: Is there any equipment there and will there be any noise there? Answer: Other than grading and seeding the land in the spring, no. I do construction, but nothing is done there. Carpentry is not done there. We are not an excavation company. I buy land and put houses on the land.

    Question: It is currently a residential area? Answer: No, it is zoned commercial. The building being discussed was formerly a residence.

    Chris Ross, abutter: When the surveyor came to talk to us about the actual property lines, there seemed to be some question about where the property line actually was. He couldn't come up with an actual breakdown of where the lines are.

    Mr. Begin: The state had not sent him a plan that he was looking for, and he submitted a plan last month along with a letter explaining that he had not received a plan needed. He later got the plan, which verified his boundary settings.

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

    Mr. Serell made a motion to approve the plan. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

  15. Conceptual Consultation
  16. 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

    Mr. Gross: I was unable to attend the last meeting, but representative from my company did attend and took very good notes. It is my understanding that the Board wished for us to look into some additional things:

    The topography runs from North Road down to the park and ride. With that in mind, the design of this building was such that we wanted to create or place the building on the property so that the elevation is facing 103 and I-89. That portion of the building is four stories, and the portion facing North Road is three stories. What this creates is called a walkout, and the walkout portion of the building is where the entrance would be. As you can see on the floor plan, all of the services for the hotel are located on this lower level. The pool and some of the other services are located on this level, which is actually a basement. This is a New England style design that was modeled after a Hampton Inn that was built in St. Johnsbury, Vermont -- a lot of brick, architectural style windows. Particularly with the entrance being open, there is a carport where cars drive underneath, and a lot of windows to give the New England style. The roof is asphalt shingle, hip style, gable ends. The cupolas give a New England type of architecture. EIFS is used for the exterior. The variance in height from the back to the front is 13 ft.

    Mr. Gross handed out photos to the Board of various Hampton Inn designs to illustrate different architectural designs that have been used. He stated that the design proposed for the Warner location is a new prototype which they thought would be appropriate for the area.

    Mr. Reeder asked about the similarities of the Hampton Inn in St. Johnsbury, and Mr. Gross stated that it is a little different and doesn't have as much detail -- there is no brick, and it is all clapboard. Mr. Reeder asked if there were one within 100 miles that is similar, and Mr. Gross said no.

    Mr. Pershouse: What is the material used on the exterior besides the brick?

    Mr. Gross: It is EFIS, which is a stucco-type material. It comes in various forms and shapes.

    Mr. Pershouse: If we wanted something similar to this design, would we be able to do some of the fine-tuning as to what the complementary materials and colors might be?

    Mr. Gross: Absolutely. We don't have any predetermined colors.

    All we ask is that it not be a green shingle roof, or a blue shingle roof, or anything that is sort of odd or out of the ordinary. We would want to use an architectural style shingle -- black, gray or something very traditional. As far as the brick, there are variations in the color and, again, we would like to keep it in the style of New England traditional. This particular design has been used with clapboard, but without brick. All clapboard without brick tends to be very boring, and you wouldn't want to use it with EIFS. Brick and EIFS are both masonry materials. We can provide you with a color mockup of this, and give you some options on the colors. I think that this is a very attractive building with a lot of architectural details.

    Mr. Lennon: If your St. Johnsbury building is clapboard, why did you like brick and EIFS better?

    Mr. Gross: If we took the EIFS out of this design and put in clapboard, it just doesn't work.

    Mr. Lennon: What does EIFS stand for?

    Rick Davies: It is "Exterior Insulation Finish System."

    Mr. Pershouse: I'm hearing that if we get to the point of being serious about the design, you and your architects would work with the committee and the community to get what we want?

    Mr. Gross: Is there anything that you don't like about this style of building?

    Ms. Annis: I'm looking at the contrast, and it is going to make it look so much larger. To me, you're going to have four stories showing and the lines will stand out at you because of the change [in materials].

    Mr. Gross: I think that this drawing looks like that, but if you could see the drawing with the EIFS in a sand color, for instance -- you need some change to break up the horizontal length of the building. If the materials are all the same color, you will see relief -- which you want -- but they won't stand out as much as they do in this drawing.

    Mr. Serell: The height obviously exceeds our regulations, so you would have to go to the Zoning Board for a variance or special exception for that. But even with that, I think that some of the Board would have problems with the desire for a building the size of that.

    Mr. Gross: Just keep in mind that a 3 story building would be much larger. Simply because of the number of rooms, the footprint has to get bigger.

    Mr. Pershouse: So you're saying that the current site probably would not accommodate a three story building?

    Mr. Gross: We had looked at a three story building. The site will accommodate it with some obvious grading issues. But what I'm saying is that a three story building would be much deeper and longer.

    Mr. Lennon: You're looking at a deeper and longer building to get the same number of rooms -- but your implication is that you need X-number of rooms to be economically viable. That is not necessarily true; you could have fewer rooms and still have a hotel that makes plenty of money, I assume.

    Mr. Gross: That's not necessarily the case. In some areas, the number of rooms depends on locale and what they determine based on market studies. 88 rooms is obviously one of the things that we have to look at...

    Mr. Lennon: Understood. But there are obviously hotels that are more than economically viable that have fewer than 88 rooms.

    Mr. Gross: And they are probably in a more heavily populated area.

    Mr. Serell: Why would you want more rooms in a less populated area?

    Mr. Gross: This is more for the traveling public verses vacation spot. We can find out what all of the economics are, but based on this highway location they are pretty much set on 88 rooms.

    Mr. Lennon: First, I personally would have a problem being on the Planning Board that introduces this to central Merrimack County -- I don't know of any EIFS within 40 miles of here. Second, I wouldn't go any further with this without seeing what I suspect is a fairly simple computer exercise to place this building in the landscape so that one could get a visual impression -- to see what kind of visual presentation it is going to be as you come off the Exit and come east on Route 103, because clearly it is going to be, even if it is three story, a massive building which is going to be pretty much out of scale with anything that exists now. So I think that would be a good thing to bring before the Board.

    Mr. Gross: A 3-D rendering?

    Mr. Lennon: That would be fantastic.

    Ms. Annis: I can't see that 2 colors would blend into the landscape.

    Mr. Gross: We will look at different color combinations and see what you like. Putting this into a 3-D rendering requires a lot of time and effort and money, and I don't mind doing that. But ultimately if we come back and you say, is too big...

    Ms. Annis: My vision of something like this is The Balsams. I mean, it is big, but it is homey.

    Mr. Gross: We can certainly do this all in white with black asphalt shingles, and maybe create a band of brick at the bottom.

    Mr. Reeder: And the one in St. Johnsbury is also 4 stories?

    Mr. Gross: Yes. The only difference is that the roof extends down to this level. The roof will look larger.

    Mr. Pershouse: Would you be able to send us a picture?

    Mr. Gross: Yes, I think I can.

    Mr. Gross: My understanding in reading your ordinance is that the ZBA will have to grant us a special exception for the building height if we provide the additional setbacks that are required in this district. Based on the current Site Plan, I believe we meet all of the additional setbacks for the additional height. My only question is, when we calculate the height we calculate to the top of the roof. We do not calculate the height counting the additional structures on top, which are architectural features more than anything else. I don't know if that is an interpretation that you can make or one that the ZBA has to make. Based on the average grade, in the front it is 15 ft. 2 inches, and in the back it is about 33 feet.

    Mr. Serell: The height is defined as the difference between the average finished grade and the highest point of the building. So I think that the highest point is the highest point.

    Mr. Gross: You're talking about an additional 8 feet. We'll have to see how that works out.

    Mr. Lennon: I suspect that at some point either with us or the ZBA, you're going to have to discuss the subject of fire egress for such a tall building because I don't know of a fire truck that we have that will get up to a four story building.

    Mr. Gross: The fourth story windows are at 35 ft., and the building will be fully sprinklered, and will have fire and smoke alarms. We will talk to the Fire Department before we go before the ZBA. If it is obvious that they will have a problem with a four story building, then there is no point for us to go before the ZBA.

    Mr. Gross: As I understand it, access was one of the large issues regarding this plan. We are currently showing access on Route 103. We have a preliminary grade plan. What we found is that based on this plan and the surrounding properties, we will end up with a fairly sizable retaining wall in the back along North Road. It will be approximately 16 ft. in height -- and not for the full length. Based on this grading, we did look at access off of North Road. There are a couple of things that are somewhat difficult for the North Road location: First, from a marketing point of view, the access point is coming from the back of the building. It would be tough to access any business from the rear. The second issue is that North Road in that section is at about a 7% grade. That is not undoable, but definitely not optimal. Thirdly, this site access with the grading we currently have on the plan, it would be graded as driveway from North Road down to the site at 15%. That is not acceptable at all in terms of access. We also need to keep in mind that we have a drainage channel that is considered wetlands, and we are trying to keep to the north of that wetlands area. So there are a lot of factors in trying to gain access from North Road. Some of the wetlands are located in the town's right-of-way, some are located on our property, and some are in the State right-of-way. I don't know how you feel about that, but my understanding was that the Board had said, "No access on Route 103", despite our discussions with District V.

    Mr. Reeder: I don't think that it was no access, but the discussion was to use the park and ride access -- share it with that. One of our concerns here is that we're trying to line up the driveways from both sides of the highway so that we don't have all of these staggered ins and outs. Putting it where you are proposing seems like a good idea from your viewpoint, but now we have three accesses on that side of the road. We have development potential on the other side of the road. We really need to address the corridor and the drivability through there along with the driveways. If your driveway is aligned with what is proposed on the other side, it would make it not only better for us but also for your customers turning into that driveway without having other things to contend with.

    Mr. Gross: We did have a discussion with DOT about using this driveway [Park & Ride]. They didn't say in no, but they were not keen on it for a couple of reasons. They think that because the park and ride was built with federal dollars, there would be a process that we would have to go through in terms of joining it with an access for private business. That is something that we can look at -- I don't know if that makes it more acceptable to the Board for access off of 103.

    Mr. Reeder: In talking with DOT, we were under the impression that was one of the solutions that they gave us. We asked them what would be the ideal traffic flow in that area, and they said to cut off the lower exit to the park and ride, and align the driveway with the one across the street. Some way to get the driveways lined up. It would enhance the area for everyone concerned.

    Mr. Lennon said that he thinks that they would get the Board's support if they went to DOT to use the park and ride entrance. He also said that they might need to look into a second emergency access there. Mr. Gross said that they had hoped to be able to share the emergency access that is located by Market Basket. Mr. Lennon also discussed the pedestrian passages that would allow people to get to McDonald's and to the other retail areas. Mr. Gross agreed, and said that the hotel had already addressed pedestrian access.

    Ms. Annis mentioned the future need for a traffic light(s) in Warner, and that is one of the needs for the driveways to line up. Mr. Reeder said that the Park & Ride is used for picking up people more than for a real Park & Ride.

    Mr. Pershouse said that it is a fairly good probability that a corridor study will happen, and that there is also a possibility that commercial development will be put on hold until the plan is completed. He said that this would buy everybody some time to come up with the best possible solution for this site and the abutting sites. DOT is obviously a significant player, but they were very clear with us when we had an informal meeting with them about specifics of the opposing driveways of the commercial site across the road from this one that they are not in the business of designing optimum locations -- that it was our responsibility. They stated that their position is as a reactive body -- if it meets their criteria, then it is fine. But that has very little to do with the design for the entire area; that is our responsibility.

    Mr. Gross: We will take a serious look at that.

    Ms. Annis: Anything further?

    Mr. Gross: Parking and landscaping. We have a lot of backup calculations on parking requirements for this type of building or use. On landscaping requirements, there may be some cases with this particular layout on the ends of the building where we may not be able to meet the 10 ft. from a grading point of view or access point of view, where we might ask for some relief -- since it is in your Site Plan Review regulations. We will look at all of the other landscaping regulations.

    Ms. Annis: Have you figured out your lot coverage?

    Mr. Gross: Yes, we are at 64%.

    Mr. St.Pierre: Are you planning on keeping the existing landscaping?

    Mr. Gross: Unfortunately, with the site topography, we'll end up with leaving some of the wooded area here and here, and maybe along North Road. The tree line is pretty much along the right-of-way line, and the way the development is set up we would grade up to that property line but we would increase the landscaping in front. The other thing is water and sewer, and we understand that we need to go to the Precinct. We need to determine whether not it is the three story or the four story design, which will determine the amount of water usage.

    Mr. Pershouse: I would like to explore what might be termed an enhanced process for the next few meetings. I think that it is very hard to fit design concepts, aesthetics, and subjective case issues into the normal sequence of Planning Board meetings. I would like to suggest that we give some consideration to perhaps work sessions to get through phase one, which is making a building choice, scale, and the general impact on the area and that we do this in a work session format with public hearings and hopefully some volunteers from the community -- interested parties that are here tonight and others -- and work on the design and aesthetics issues first. Hopefully, we could get through that with some resolutions of the general tone and structure of the building. I would also like to suggest that we should consider hiring some professional help -- the Town hiring or the Board hiring -- an architect/engineer/design consultant or third-party as we go through this. I personally feel very strongly that the Planning Board should not be the sole determining body in terms of aesthetics, design, and compatibility with the community. I think if nothing else it would be very good insurance if we went that route and we would get something which was generally not acceptable but optimal for the community. Having said that, that entails lot of work and structuring. But that is what I would like to consider and I would like some input on that.

    Mr. Serell: I agree with a lot of what you said, but one concern that I have and I think a big concern is the scale before we get into talking about what the architecture should be, etc. I think that there is a seminal issue of whether a building of that size fits in Warner. I don't know that we need professional help on those issues. I think that Mark's idea about getting a representation of what it is going to look like would be very helpful.

    Mr. Gross: I agree with everything that has been said. I think that the first step is a work session to look at the size and scale. We may get to a size, architectural style and color where you say, "That is what we're looking for." I think that it is a progressive state, where we need to come back to you with a little bit more information about what this looks like on the lot and give you an idea of the size and scale. We could also show you what a three story building looks like on this lot.

    Mr. Serell: You also need to decide whether something smaller in terms of rooms is feasible or not. If you decide that you absolutely need 88 rooms, then we'll look at 4 stories vs. 3 stories. But if it is a possibility, I would like to see what something with 66 rooms looks like.

    Mr. Gross: Just remember that the entire infrastructure for a hotel -- the pool, fitness room, laundry room, and all that -- is the same for 66 rooms as it is for 88 rooms.

    Mr. Pershouse: Have you built, in the last 5 years, one of your hotels in a community of the scale and size and nature of Warner?

    Mr. Gross: I'll have to get back to you on that, because I just represent them and I don't know everything about what they have built. I'm not sure what size St. Johnsbury is as far as the community.

    Mr. Serell: It is a whole lot bigger.

    Mr. Pershouse: It is just a process of reinventing the wheel. If this process has happened recently in a similar setting, I think it would be very helpful to both the applicant and the Town of Warner.

    Mr. Gross: What is the population of Warner?

    Mr. Pershouse: Approximately 3000.

    Mr. Gross: I just wanted to point out that this project will create 24 jobs, and local preference is given.

    Mr. Pershouse: So basically, no work session between now and our next scheduled meeting?

    Ms. Annis: Actually, I have a note here from Mark that we're going to be meeting every single Monday to get the growth business done, and that has to be done in order to get it on the ballot.

    Mr. Pershouse: But we have only one more meeting this year, in December.

    The Board discussed the next meeting and the presentation of the CAD drawings at that time. Then the details of scale, etc., could be discussed in January. Mr. Gross said that he would try to get the computer generated drawings to the Board in advance.

    A member of the public stated that he had concerns regarding the scale of the building, and that every conversation he has had with other members of the community were about the scale.

  17. CONCEPTUAL CONSULTATION
  18. Wendy Benedict, Manager, Mobil Station on 103 in Warner, NH. Purpose: Construction of a 10 ft. x 12 ft. storage shed

    Ms. Benedict: I work for Johnson & Dix, and this is the Mobil Station. Dunkin Donuts is in our building, and we have no back-room. It was very poorly designed. We want to put in a 10 ft. by 12 ft. storage building, back by the dumpster area. It is a prefab building, and it will be the color of the existing building -- a sand color. It will have no windows. It will be well lit outside -- we are going to have security floods.

    Mr. Pershouse: We might have a concern about lighting.

    Ms. Benedict: We have a concern about the lighting. We have an electrician coming in because that is our darkest area.

    Mr. Pershouse: I'm just commenting that we will be concerned that it is not over lit.

    Ms. Annis: I thought she said that there will be no lighting out there.

    Ms. Benedict: There will be no electricity to this building. Our dumpster area is our darkest area, and it is our main traffic flow area, where large trucks come through. If you want to talk to the Police Department, that is where any problem has happened in the past. Not that we're having a problem now -- we've eliminated a lot of it. All we want to do is put a flood on the corner by Dunkin Donuts -- not even a major one -- just in the direction of the dumpster.

    Mr. Reeder: We are definitely going to have a problem with having lights on that. If you put a light up here, shining that way, it broadcasts. Basically in our Lighting plan, light cannot be broadcasted out. Maybe a post or something like that. That is a huge concern in this community.

    Ms. Benedict: There is already an existing post there.

    Mr. Reeder: It can't be anything like a regular floodlight that you just screw in. It is going to have to be more of a side shielded light, or down lighting. We would probably have to see the fixture that you are proposing.

    Ms. Benedict: OK.

    Mr. Pershouse: I'm sure that this is something that we can work out to meet both your needs and the needs of the town.

    Ms. Benedict: It is for safety, which is our concern.

    Ms. Annis said that she will meet with Ms. Benedict on Wednesday morning to go over the application requirements including set backs, property line, proximity of the existing dumpster, etc.

    Ms. Benedict: Do I have to wait another month for this to be approved? Because we want to get it in place before the snow.

    Ms. Annis asked the Board for their opinion, and the consensus was that the Board needs everything in writing up front -- no approvals can be given without a formal application for the Site Plan Review process.

  19. Communications and Miscellaneous

A trucking company is located across the street, Poverty Plains Road, from the Allens. Ms. Annis said that the Selectmen said that they will take care of the problem, but Ms. Annis wanted the Planning Board to be aware of the issue.

Ms. Annis read a letter that was sent to the Board of Selectmen and copied to the Planning and Zoning Boards, received from John Wallace. Mr. Wallace was a full member of the Zoning Board and acted as a liaison to the Planning Board, where he was also a full member. He has resigned from both Boards. Ms. Annis said that the Selectmen will need to make an appointment for a replacement for Mr. Wallace.

Mr. Pershouse asked if the Board could make a recommendation to the Selectmen that Mr. Lennon be moved up from alternate member of the Planning Board to a full member. Ms. Annis said that in this case, Mr. Wallace was a ZBA member that was appointed by the Selectmen to serve on both Boards. Mr. Serell said that it was not the Planning Board’s place to suggest a replacement. Mr. Pershouse said that he still wanted to make the recommendation that Mr. Lennon be moved up to a full member.

Ms. Annis announced that the Growth work sessions would be held every Monday at 7:00 at Town Hall from now through December. The meetings need to be noticed to the public.

Mr. Reeder noted that the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission is having a meeting on Monday, November 10th for the towns of Sutton, Bradford, New London, Salisbury and Warner to discuss "where we are and where we’re going". The meeting is for Planning and Zoning Board members.

Moratoriums:

Mr. Gartrell said that the Planning Board can’t impose a moratorium, that it has to be voted on by the Town. A special Town Meeting can be held. The basis for a moratorium would have to be a comprehensive traffic and corridor study done and in place, and reflected in the Master Plan before such an ordinance can be passed.

Mr. Serell stated that the reasoning behind it is that before the Town can say "Stop", you have to have something that says that the town’s infrastructure is not enough.

Mr. Pershouse: Which is what we are trying to prove, which is why we need a moratorium. It is a Catch 22.

Mr. Reeder: What have other towns done in our situation?

Mr. Pershouse, to Mr. Serell: Didn’t the Town of Andover have a moratorium on building permits? And didn’t they impose a moratorium until they got all of the information in about the rate of growth and the number of permits, etc., in order not to have a whole lot of building going on in that time. I may have that wrong.

Mr. Serell: I don’t know.

Mr. Pershouse: I keep having this feeling that it is possible to have a moratorium for a finite length of time to get the information you need to then affect a process.

Mr. Serell: This issue is important enough that rather than having the Board kicking this around, why don’t we ask Don to meet with us for an hour or a half-hour or so to ask questions back and forth.

Ms. Annis: I did meet with Lucy St. John [with CNHRPC] and she asked about what was going on in Warner. I mentioned a moratorium, and said to be careful and to go slow.

Mr. Serell: Maybe we should have her attend the meeting, too. It would be great, because she probably has perspective on what a lot of other towns have done.

It was decided to check with Don Gartrell and Lucy St. John to see if they could come in an hour before (6:00 p.m.) the Growth meeting on either November 17th or November 24th. Ms. Annis said that she would try to somebody to come and talk to the Board on one of those dates.

  1. Adjourn

A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting, which passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 pm.

Minutes approved: December 1, 2003