Minutes of the Meeting and Public
Hearing
Members
Present: James McLaughlin,
Derek Pershouse, Andrew Serell, John Wallace, Philip Reeder
Members
Late: John Brayshaw (
Members
Absent: Barbara Annis
Alternates
Present: Russ St.Pierre, Ron
Orbach
Alternates
Absent: Mark Lennon
I.
Open Meeting at
II.
Roll Call
Mr. McLaughlin welcomed Mr. Orbach as a new Alternate
Member of the Planning Board, and announced that Ms. Pam Mulsow has resigned
her position as an Alternate Member of the
Planning Board.
Mr. McLaughlin said that Mr. Orbach and Mr. St.Pierre
would be voting at this meeting, in place of Ms. Annis and Mr. Brayshaw.
III.
Approval of the Minutes of the
A motion was made to approve the minutes as
submitted. The motion passed by a
unanimous vote.
IV.
SITE PLAN REVIEW:
ATC Realty, Inc. for Independent
Wireless
Adam Brooks, representative for Independent Wireless
One, stated that ATC Realty is the exclusive representative for Independent
Wireless One – the Sprint PCS affiliate. He stated that the other
applicant for locating on this proposed tower is Cingular Wireless. Mr. Brooks said that IWO/Sprint has
successfully established a good network along the I-89 corridor, but that there
is hole in their coverage that this application would fill.
The facility is almost identical to the previously
approved
A balloon test was conducted, where three 3-foot
diameter weather balloons were floated:
one at tree canopy height, one at the proposed tower height, and one 10
feet above the proposed tower height.
Mr. Brooks provided photo simulations of the tower and balloon test to
the Board members. He said that the
balloons could not be seen from
Mr. Brooks said that this will be the last facility in
Warner that his company will be proposing.
It will close a significant gap in coverage in a fairly benign way.
Mr. McLaughlin said that the Board needed to accept
the plan as complete.
Question: Mr.
McLaughlin: On the first plate of the
Site Plan, could you talk about the note that
Answer: Mr.
Brooks: No upgrade is planned. I will ask the engineers about this note on
the plan.
Question: Mr.
Pershouse: Could you give us a
definitive statement on the height of the top of the tower from the crest of
the hill.
Answer: Mr.
Brooks handed out maps of the tree canopy study done, showing the relative
heights. The top of the tower would be
significantly lower than the crest, or ridge, of the hill.
Question: Mr.
Pershouse: How many carriers will there
be?
Answer: Mr.
Brooks: The facility will be constructed
for three carriers. I can’t fully
represent that the tower will work for three carriers. It is the same type of tower as the approved
Mr. Brooks stated that the average tree canopy was
established at 65 feet, and the proposed tower is 80-feet.
Question: Mr.
Pershouse: How many of those trees are
going to be cut down?
Answer: Mr.
Brooks: We will be clearing
approximately 60 square feet.
Question: Mr.
McLaughlin: Are you planning any
landscaping?
Answer: Mr.
Brooks: We asked for a Waiver of the
landscaping requirement in writing. [Mr.
Serell said that it is Page 5 of their application].
Answer: Mr.
Brooks: No, it is unimproved.
Question: Mr.
McLaughlin: This is an entire lot
– or are you taking a lease on a portion of a lot?
Answer: Mr.
Brooks: We’re leasing 10,000
sq.ft. on a 20-acre lot.
Question: Mr.
McLaughlin: Have you surveyed that?
Answer: Mr.
Brooks: I know that a survey was tied
into old property bounds.
Question: Mr.
McLaughlin: But it’s not a
subdivision?
Answer: Mr.
Brooks: No, it a lease of a portion of
the property.
Question: Mr.
Pershouse: I have a question regarding a
proposed tower on
Answer: Mr.
Brooks: I can’t comment on the
other tower, but the balance that the Town of
Question: Mr.
Pershouse: I know that these are
“what ifs”, but say for the sake of discussion that there is a need
for three additional carrier sites in this neighborhood. If your application were amended – and
it is pure speculation – if it were found that we could get three more
carriers and locate them on one site, in this case your site, without exceeding
the height requirements – this would be optimal from the town’s point
of view.
Answer: Mr.
Brooks: I would say from the perspective
of our application, the only amendment that we could make – and
I’ll have to defer to our attorney on whether the addition of 5 feet
would require us to go back before the ZBA – the question is, would an
additional 5 feet be enough to accommodate this other carrier?
Question: Mr.
Serell: Has that application been filed?
Answer: Secretary: Yes, it has been filed and will be going
before the ZBA at their November 13th meeting.
Mr. Wallace made a motion to accept
the application as complete. The
motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.
Mr. McLaughlin asked if the Board would like to make a
Site Visit to this tower location. A
Site Visit was set for Saturday, November 9th, at
V.
Eric Windhurst,
This had been noticed as a Public Hearing. Mr. Serell said that he didn’t think
that Lot Line Adjustment required a Public Hearing. The Secretary said that she thought that it
was required because although a Public Notice wasn’t required, the
abutter notifications were. Mr.
McLaughlin said that a Public Hearing wasn’t required, but that since it
had been noticed as such, one would be held.
Chris Bofinger, surveyor, presented the application
for Mr. Windhurst and Mr. and Mrs. Mock.
He asked the Secretary if she had received the written request for a
Waiver of the requirement for Topography, because of the size of the lots.
Mr. Windhurst’s property will be 14.5 acres
after the subdivision, and the Mock’s lot will be 15.03 acres. Mr. Windhurst had previously received a
Variance from the ZBA for frontage on
Mr. McLaughlin read the written request for a Waiver
from showing topography.
There was a discussion about Mr. Bofinger’s
question about and interpretation of the required wording on the Plan for a Lot
Line Adjustment. He said that he thought
the Board was saying that they didn’t want the parcel of land [being sold
to the Mocks by Mr. Windhurst] to be considered its own lot. He put a note on the plan that states,
“We hereby certify that Parcel A, as shown on this
plat, does not constitute a subdivision and will remain a part of Tax Map 11,
Lot 42-3, until it is merged into Tax Map 11, Lot 42-2.” He stated that there were places
for Mr. Windhurst and Mr. and Mrs. Mock to sign the plan.
Mr. McLaughlin said that the wording sounded
fine.
Question: Mr.
Reeder: Is the merger intended to gain
more road frontage on
Answer: Mr.
Bofinger: No, I believe that the Mocks
just want more land.
Question: Mr.
McLaughlin: What is the road frontage
requirement in R3 Zoning?
Answer: 250
feet.
The question was raised about a subdivision in the
future, and Mr. Bofinger said that there would be sufficient frontage after the
Lot Line Adjustment [500 feet] for that possibility.
Mr. Serell made a motion to waive the
topography requirement. The
motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.
Mr. McLaughlin asked if there were any people in the
audience that wished to make any comments or that had any questions. Hearing none, he asked for a motion to
approve the Lot Line Adjustment.
Mr. Serell made a motion to accept
the
VI.
PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION: AMENDMENT TO APPROVED SUBDIVISION
Subdivision conditionally approved
--- AND ---
VII.
COMPLETION STATUS REVIEW: Ray Wentzel
RAW Investments, Exit 9
Subdivision, Warner, NH
Because both VI and VII deal with the same
subdivision, the Board agreed to combine them.
Tim Bernier for RAW Investments. In 2000, the Planning Board conditionally
approved the 4-lot subdivision. Each lot
had to be a minimum of 40,000 sq.ft., which is the zoning ordinance for minimum
lot size. He said that it was discussed
numerous times during the process that lots 3 and 4 would be very close to
making that minimum size requirement.
Another factor in asking for an amendment to the original application to
combine the two lots was the requirement to eliminate one of the originally
proposed 3 driveways to the four lots.
The amendment would make the subdivision a 3-lot
subdivision.
Question: Mr.
McLaughlin: There’s no other
change, other than removing the internal line between those 2 lots?
Answer: Mr.
Bernier: Well, this plan reflects
– as a condition of approval – we now have only 2 driveways. Their locations are opposite
Mr. McLaughlin suggested that the Board deal with the
consolidation of the two lots as the first order of business.
Mr. Brayshaw stated that it was a split vote when the
Board voted in 2000 to approve the subdivision for 4 lots. He said that he thinks that a 3 lot
subdivision is better for the community.
Question: Mr.
Serell: I have a procedural
question. Is this subdivision recorded?
Answer: Mr.
McLaughlin: It is not recorded. It is still in the process, and this would
seem to eliminate some of the difficulties that people had with what was a
marginal lot.
Question: Mr.
Reeder: Where are you proposing the
driveways?
Answer: Mr.
Bernier: As a condition of approval, the
driveway that will access what is now
Mr. McLaughlin said that he remembered that it
wasn’t the Planning Board’s issue about the location, but it was
rather that the volume of use by whatever [business] went on the property that
would determine the location. He said
that he recalled that the Department of Transportation had an issue regarding
traffic volume and whether they wanted the driveway to be opposite the Park and
Ride.
Mr. Bernier: It
is sort of a catch-22 when you’re doing a commercial subdivision, because
their [DOT’s] whole design
criteria depends on the use of the lot, and we don’t have the use of the
lot.
Mr. Pershouse:
My recollection on the use of the driveway is that we started with one
between lots 1 and 2, and DOT wanted to get that as far as they could from the
I-89 exit. It was an issue of traffic
backing up.
Mr. Bernier: It
is really a safety issue for them.
Question: Mr.
Pershouse: How does DOT sign off on the
driveway design? Or don’t they?
Answer: Mr.
Bernier: Essentially, they’ve
agreed that the lot needs to have it put there.
They don’t have a rule that they have any policy on that
determines when a lot is entitled to a driveway on a State highway. They have agreed that this is an appropriate
location. Your regulations require that
we come back to you for a Site Plan approval before anything can go on these
lots. At that time, the design of the
driveways will be determined based on proposed use.
Mr. McLaughlin:
Procedurally, we can proceed to a vote to amend or approve the amended
plan for a reduction of the planned subdivision.
Mr. Serell made a motion to approve
the amendment as requested, with the same restrictions as were on the original
subdivision plan. The motion
was seconded.
Mr. McLaughlin asked is there was any discussion.
Mr. Brayshaw said that for the conservation easement,
Mr. Wentzel is requesting a 100 foot buffer zone between the property line and
the foundations – whether it is a 3 or a 4-lot subdivision.
Mr. McLaughin:
I think that is still one of the conditions that still part and
parcel… Would the easement be now
attached to lot 3 instead of lot 4?
Mr. Brayshaw:
I’m not sure – it would run across the whole back of the
property.
Mr. McLaughin:
I think that the easement for the balance of that property – 11.2
acres – was actually a part of lot 4.
Mr. Bernier:
The easement line drawn on the plan runs along the back of what is now
Question: Mr.
McLaughlin: Does that mean that that
little indention is not in the easement?
Answer: Mr.
Bernier: [unintelligible on the
tape] We picked this line because it
made sense.
There was discussion concerning the addition of a
50-foot buffer area and the affect it would have on the plan as a whole and the
wetlands area, and inability to get a permit to fill any of that area. Mr. Bernier said that they were mainly
concerned with the indented area shown on the plan.
Mr. McLaughlin:
I think that the action of this Board – particularly now –
as I understood it was to be just to deal with the removal of the line and
creating one single lot where lots 3 and 4 had been, and not having anything to
do with the easement. That is a
different question. The bottom line is
that we still haven’t approved the subdivision.
Mr. Brayshaw: I
just wanted to bring it out there, because it was being proposed.
Mr. McLaughlin said that there was a motion before the
Board to amend the subdivision plans to consolidate lots 3 and 4, as shown on
the plan.
Mr. Pershouse:
I think when we have a formal motion that it should be stated that it is
solely the removal of a lot line and the merger of the two lots, and that any
impact on the original subdivision that the Board hasn’t anticipated at
this point…
Mr. McLaughlin:
That is the only thing that we are voting on at this point.
Mr. McLaughlin called for a vote – the motion passed by a unanimous vote.
Mr. McLaughlin stated that the plan has been accepted
with three lots.
----------------------------------------
Mike Duffy of Provan & Lorber reviewed the items
on the list that he had given to the Board at the previous meeting.
#1 deals with the mulching and the re-establishment of
drainage, etc. He said that he had
reviewed the new plan and that this has been completed.
#2 deals with demolition, removal of house and septic,
and has been completed.
#3 deals with the 100 year floodplain. Mr. Pershouse said that there is an issue
with the FEMA maps and the necessary changes.
He said that this site and another application [construction of a
residence in the floodplain]. He said
that the understanding is that both applications would require applications
from the town for amendments to the FEMA map.
Mr. Bernier said that is called a LOMA – a
letter of map amendment. He stated that
they had spoken with FEMA to see what they needed to do and what permits they
needed to get. They said that what was
appropriate was the LOMA. What that form
discusses is the map. When the applicant
proposes a building on the lot, the state now requires that anyone applying for
a mortgage has to submit a request from FEMA that states that the building is
not in the floodplain. If the request
comes back stating that a building is in a floodplain, the LOMA will have to be
filed. He said that the big questions on
the LOMA is that they want to know the lowest level of construction. Because there are no buildings at this time,
the LOMA can’t be filled out.
Question: Mr.
Brayshaw: Would that be the same as the
Town’s compliance with federal regulations as part of the ordinance?
Answer: Mr.
Bernier: No, because we’re in
compliance with the town for insurance purposes. If you look at the regulations for the
floodplain, it is all about buildings.
To get your building permits, you have to show that that structure is
not going to be constructed in the floodplain.
Mr. Brayshaw:
But you still have to have the documentation.
#4. Site specific permit,
issued by the State. Completed.
#5 deals with the bond for the subdivision. Question regarding the extension
and dates on bond.
Mr. Bernier said that the culvert that is there now
has been there for quite some time. They
went back in their records and located it – although the surveys had been
done by another surveying company. When
they went out to locate the wetlands flags, they located the culvert. It doesn’t show on the survey because
the prior survey was a topographic survey and it didn’t show the
culvert. But he said that at the very
initial stages of the project, there was a culvert there, and it wasn’t
put in as a part of this project.
Mr. Pershouse:
There is a discrepancy in the copy of the bond that we have and the
renewal. The original bond [#69206679]
ran from
Mark Feenstra,
representative for RAW Investments said that they would check the matter out with
the insurance company so that the two documents agree.
#6 deals with the conservation easement, and that
issue is still open. Mr. McLaughlin said
that the Conservation Commission would review the matter and get back to Mr.
Duffy.
#7 deals with New Hampshire DOT. The Site Plan needs to be reviewed, and the
decision is somewhat discretionary.
#8 deals with the cost of the Town’s attorney,
and seems to be completed.
#9 deals with the change in scope. It was stated by Mr. Duffy that he had sent a
Change of Scope letter.
#10 deals with Town attorney’s fee and review of
plans by Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission.
Mr. Duffy said that items that are not fully completed
deal with conservation easement, the surety bond, and DOT.
Question: Mr.
Pershouse: You said that Item 8 was an
issue with the cost of the Town’s attorney. There are two different items – one for
Provan & Lorber and one for the Town’s attorney. Where is the Provan & Lorber issue -- has
that money gone into escrow?
Answer: Mr.
Duffy: I submitted a change of scope to
the Town.
Answer: Mr.
Pershouse: I believe that the Selectmen,
based on the last meeting, wrote a letter requesting that x-number of dollars
go into your escrow account in order to cover the additional time of Provan
& Lorber and perhaps that’s also the town’s attorney.
Secretary: The
only letter that I’m aware of is one that we asked the Selectmen to send
requesting a change of scope, but I don’t think that it said anything
about the amount…
Mr. Pershouse said that there needs to be an agreement
on what a nominal amount is that should be put into escrow for Provan &
Lorber as well as the Town’s attorney.
Mr. Pershouse suggested that they agree to agree that
the amount stated in the Change of Scope letter would be the amount put into
escrow by RAW Investments. Mr.
McLaughlin said that the amount should be received from the Town’s
attorney.
Mr. Brayshaw said that he thinks that they are getting
close to bringing the project together.
There was a question about the manner in which the
escrow amount would be handled – whether administratively or do they have
to come back to the Board. Mr.
McLaughlin said that they need to come back before the Board.
Mr. Brayshaw said that a catch basin between lots 2
and 3 will need to be addressed. The
State approached Mr. Wentzel about reconstructing it. Mr. Brayshaw said that he thought it was in
the State right of way. Mr. McLaughlin
said that type of thing would come up during a Site Plan Review. Mr. Brayshaw said that he would research it
some more.
Mr. Pershouse asked if the issue of the capping of the
drain was ever resolved with Evans. It
was stated that Evans never responded, and that it is in the State right of
way.
Mr. McLaughlin said that RAW would be put on the next
agenda, and that the conservation easement might take longer to resolve because
the Conservation Commission need to look at it and they may have some
revisions, and then the attorney will have to look at it. He said that the Conservation Commission
meets the coming Wednesday. The deadline
for an application submission for the easement change would be November 13th
for the December 2nd meeting.
VIII.
PUBLIC HEARING:
MINOR SUBDIVISION:
Joseph and Paul Eriksen,
ญญญญญญญญญญญญญJ.E.
Belanger Land Surveying, surveyor. He stated that
they had been hired to survey the entire property, which originally consisted
of this parcel and the land across the road with a house on it. That property has been sold, and the property
in question was left as an inheritance to the Eriksen brothers, who wish to
divide the property equally between themselves.
Question: Mr.
Serell: What is the frontage for the two
lots?
Answer: 362.64
and 367.5 feet.
Question: Mr.
McLaughlin: What is the zoning?
Answer: R3
and OC1.
The secretary retrieved the zoning district map, and
it shows that the frontage for 500’ on either side of the road is R3,
which would determine the zoning for the lots.
Mr. Serell said that the frontage meets the
requirements for both zoning districts.
The secretary said that some abutters had asked about
some discrepancies in the plan as proposed and presented, and that they had
some questions about notification.
Mr. McLaughlin stated that the Board was not in a
Public Hearing, but called on an abutter, Nick Mitchell, to speak about his
concerns regarding the meeting.
It was stated that the address was incorrect, and that
an abutter, the Deluca’s, had not been notified. He said that they were asked about the
meeting and they had stated that they had not been notified. The secretary said that they were not on the
abutter list submitted by the applicant.
Mr. Serell asked if the original property had been
subdivided. The answer was that it was
one ownership of two separate parcels that were divided by the road.
The secretary brought the tax maps and it was decided
that it would be necessary to re-notice the abutters prior to the next meeting.
Mr. Serell asked if the abutters present could be
heard. Mr. McLaughlin said that could be
done. There was discussion concerning
the number of building permits in recent months, and that the number of homes
on the road had doubled. It was also
stated that because the Town had begun having meetings to discuss growth control,
it was felt that it had opened up the doors to people getting their property
subdivided and/or built on before any controls go into effect.
Mr. Pershouse said that he had received a phone call
from Mrs. Stone, an abutter on Bible Hill.
She couldn’t make it to the meeting, but wanted to express her
concerns and that she opposed subdivision and growth.
Joe Eriksen said that the parcel of land across the
road that contained the house belonging to his Aunt was over 50 acres. He said that he could have subdivided that
property, but didn’t. It was sold
intact to the current owners. The money
was used to pay off bills of the deceased owner. He stated that the property had been in the
family for many years, and that he had been coming to Warner since he was a
child. He said that he and his brother
wanted to divide the property so that they could each have a small house to
come to and to keep the land in the family.
He said that he lives in
Mr. Serell made a motion to continue
the item to the next meeting after receiving a corrected abutter list,
corrected plan and a correct notification of all abutters. The motion was seconded and passed by a
unanimous vote.
IX.
APPLICATIONS RECEIVED: WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES: CO-LOCATION
Cingular Wireless Roadrunner
Operating, LLC,
Purpose:
Attachment of PCS antennae and related equipment to previously approved
wireless communication facilities:
1.
North Road, Warner, NH – Map 18, Lot 11-3, R3 Zoning Carol Pletcher, P.O. Box 204, Warner, NH 03278
(Property Owner)
2.
Parade Ground Cemetery Road, Warner, NH – Map 10, Lot 66, R3
Zoning Howard Kirchner, 78 East Main Street, Warner, NH 03278
(Property Owner)
Mr. Serell said that because the Board had not
approved a tower on
Mr. McNeal said that there was some discussion prior
to this meeting as to whether a Site Plan Review would be required for a
co-location application.
Mr. Pershouse said that on the tower approved at Exit
7, both carriers on the tower were brought to the Board by the applicant who is
constructing the tower,
Mr. McNeal said that the ordinance states that any
applicants as well as co-location applicants shall conform to the site plan
regulations, which doesn’t necessarily mean that they have to apply for a
Site Plan Review, which is what they did.
Mr. Pershouse:
The intent of that was not to have the co-locator or whoever the
applicant is be in violation of the basic Site Plan Review process. My suggestion is that we take it as far as we
can with the information that has been provided and then make a decision as to
whether Sprint should be the applicant….
Does that create a problem or make it more complex for you?
Mr. McNeal: If
you wanted
It was discussed that this co-location and addition of
another carrier would, in this case, be non-invasive because of the type of
tower being built and that the equipment would be internal. Mr. Serell said that the Board did approve a
specific Site Plan with specific equipment on the site, and now there is going
to be additional equipment on the site.
Mr. McNeal said that Cingular and AT&T Wireless
are working together and sharing the cost of antennas and equipment –
they use the same antennas – to build out the I-89 corridor. The antennas will be used by both, and will
be placed in the interior of the tower.
The cabinets will be on an elevated platform of steel mesh and will
measure 2.5 feet x 2.5 feet x 6 feet and the antennas will be attached to the
cabinets. The cabinets are elevated so
that the technicians don’t have to be working in the snow.
Mr. McNeal:
There are 2 antennas that are on the inside. There is a land line attached to these antennas
that is attached to a switch that routes them where they are supposed to
go. That will be a Cingular switch, but
it will also send the AT&T messages.
Basically, they’ll be roaming on our service without having to pay
roaming.
Mr. Pershouse:
You’re not taking up all three spaces – you’re only
taking up one space for two carriers, basically.
There was discussion as to the location of the GPS
equipment.
Mr. Serell stepped down because of a conflict with
AT&T Wireless.
Mr. McNeal said that on the Exit 7 tower, AT&T was
already a carrier on that tower. Because
they are already a carrier on that tower, Cingular will be on there with
them.
Question: Mr.
McLaughlin: Will that be a problem with
capacity?
Answer: Mr.
McNeal: Probably not in this location,
whereas it might be if it were in an area like
Mr. McLaughlin:
That could solve some of the problems of the proliferation of towers, if
companies could come together and cooperate with each other.
Mr. McNeal: It
has to do with technologies. Cingular
and AT&T’s are the same now and will be in the future, just as
VoiceStream – there has been talk of Cingular merging with VoiceStream,
which would basically give you three for the price of one on some of these
sites.
Mr. McNeal stated that Cingular was building out the
I-89 corridor and wasn’t building out some other areas. Mr. Pershouse said that it brings it back to
the question of who should be the applicant.
Mr. McNeal said that in most cases they get authorization from
IWO/Sprint to act as their agent.
It was decided that the Cingular Site Plan Review
would be noticed as a Public Hearing for the next meeting, and that a letter of
authorization from IWO/Sprint should be in the file. There was discussion about the
Question: Mr.
Brayshaw: Is there a limit on the number
of towers we can have in town? Or are we
going to turn into another Goffstown?
Answer: Mr.
McLaughlin: The market is going to limit
it to some extent. We don’t have a
Mr. Serell said that there is a requirement for the
companies to consider co-location, and Mr. Pershouse said that, as seen
tonight, the companies are beginning to come together. Mr. McLaughlin said that there are the
companies that provide the service, and there are the companies that are in the
real estate business and build the towers.
X.
PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION: MINOR SUBDIVISION
Matt Matice for
Mr. Matice asked if a surveyor would be required to
survey the whole parcel of land, or if they could survey the portion to be
subdivided. The total number of acres is
25.9. The piece to be divided off is
approximately 3 acres. The road is a
Class V road. The land was surveyed in
the past.
Mr. McLaughlin said that in the past, it has been the
practice not to require a subdivision of an entire large parcel of land, if the
land had not been previously surveyed.
The portion being divided off would have to be surveyed. In this case, a survey already exists so it
wouldn’t be necessary to resurvey the land.
XI.
COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS
A.
Town’s applications for FEMA to change maps for Exit 9
Subdivision and
It was discussed that this issue had already been
decided. Mr. McLaughlin said that in
addition to the LOMA mentioned earlier in the meeting, the Town is required to
submit a separate letter stating that they are aware of what is going on in the
two situations.
Mr. Mical had given a letter to Mr. McLaughlin that he
had written regarding the Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Town of
“I would like to thank you
and Stephanie Alexander for taking time out of your busy schedules back in
October to discuss Hazard Mitigation Planning.
I realize the importance of having this plan for our community, and it
is my understanding that your office will assist the Town of
Mr. McLaughlin said that Mr. Mical wanted the Planning
Board to be aware that this process will be happening next year and we will be
provided information.
B.
Site Plan Review Regulations Update
The Site Plan Review Regulations are almost complete,
with the help of Russ St.Pierre and the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning
Commission. CNHRPC has sent an invoice
for $500, and their work is completed.
The committee has been working hard.
The next step is to send the document to the Town’s attorney for
his review and approval. A letter of
transmittal will be sent to Mr. Gartrell along with the draft document.
This document will give the Board the ability to
impact what happens at Exit 9, and that subdivision is getting nearer to
becoming a reality. The next step is to
begin the Public Hearing process, and if Mr. Gartrell is able to complete his
review, the Board would like to start the process in December.
Mr. Pershouse suggested that a date be chosen for the
Public Hearing on the Site Plan Review Regulations separate from a regularly
scheduled Planning Board meeting so that the Board can focus on the topic. December 16th was chosen and it
will be sent to Mr. Gartrell as a target date for the Public Hearing.
Mr. Serell suggested that Mr. Gartrell be asked if he
could complete his review and comments prior to the December 2nd
Board meeting, so that any changes/comments/concerns can be discussed at that
meeting.
Mr. McLaughlin thanked Mr. St.Pierre for his hard work
on the project.
The letter to Mr. Gartrell will be to ask him for his
opinions on the legality of the document as well as any comments he might have
regarding any conflicts he might see.
C.
Letter from Mr. Gartrell to the Selectmen regarding the Farmer’s
Mr. McLaughlin said that the Farmer’s have
enlarged their operation closer to 103 and that they have moved them closer to
the neighbors’ house. Mr. Brayshaw
said that the number of animals hasn’t really increased. The issue is if there is a nuisance law that
they might be in violation of, and that the stench from the animals is causing
problems for the Donahue’s, who live next door. The fence has been moved closer to 103, and
the State has asked them to move the fence back. He said that he has checked on the herd
often, and that half of the herd is kept in
Because the Planning Board didn’t put the
Farmer’s through the Site Plan Review process when they started the
buffalo farm, the Selectmen can’t do much to enforce anything because
there weren’t any guidelines given in the first place. The town wanted to know what to do, and asked
Mr. Gartrell. Mr. Brayshaw said that it
is an issue between neighbors and in an area that has been designated as an
agricultural area.
Mr. McLaughlin said that he doesn’t think it is
a type of land use that should require Site Plan Review. He said that he understands the
Donahue’s concerns and that they were there before the Farmer’s
moved in. Usually it is a farm that has
been in place and someone moves in and then is bothered by the animals, noise
and smell.
Mr. Brayshaw referred to the second page of the
letter, referring to the Planning Board as being “ …able to conduct
an after-the-fact Site Plan Review of the Farmer’s buffalo farming
operation to determine whether and upon what limitations or conditions it may
be continued in light of the record of the proceedings before the Planning
Board in 1999. Moreover, if the Planning
Board should determine in the process that the existing operation requires the
Board’s interpretation and a Special Exception from the Board of
Adjustment, the matter may also be referred to that Board for action.”
Mr. McLaughlin said that the Farmer’s did make a
presentation of what they were going to do and that the Conservation Commission
met with them and brought in the Merrimack Conservation District. They did volunteer to stay away from the
Donahue’s. There was a discussion
about the placement of the fence and if there were any requirements to set it back
from the property line. The fact that
the fence is very substantial and electric was also discussed.
Mr. Brayshaw said that a group of people have come at
the Farmer’s from many angles -- from water contamination to home
occupation zoning of their house. He
said that he has been up to talk with the Farmer’s after every complaint,
and that they have always been ready to talk.
He said that he has some concerns about it, but that if he lived next
door [to the buffalo farm/electric fence] he would teach his kids to stay away
from the fence. The latest complaint has
been about the amount of flies and the stench.
He also said that Warner is an agricultural town and it is free
enterprise. He said that the
Farmer’s have stretched out their hand and that the neighbors
haven’t responded.
Mr. Serell said that the other issue is whether there
is some action that is in violation to some town ordinance that justifies
enforcement action. He said that the
neighbors could file a nuisance action themselves in court.
XII.
Adjourn
A motion was made and seconded to adjourn at
Minutes approved: December 2, 2002