Ms. Annis stated that both she and Mark Lennon would be voting at this meeting.

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

An attorney for Mr. Azmy’s neighbor and abutting property owner, Mr. Richards, stated that a Public Hearing should be held because of a change to the Site Plan.

Mr. Lennon stated that the Board should address only the issues that are changed on the previously approved plan.

Mr. Reeder asked if it would help to have the end parking space eliminated. The Board discussed whether this is a change of use or an expansion of use. Mr. Pershouse said that the question is if this is an Amendment of the Site Plan, and that if the Board feels that a Public Hearing is needed, one should be scheduled.

Ms. Annis said that she would like to have a Site Visit of Mr. Azmy’s property.

Mr. Reeder said that if the changes to the approved plan, that are being presented to the Board, weren’t done by a licensed surveyor, the Board should go and verify the changes with a Site Visit to protect themselves. If the changes are minor, there is no need to go back to ground zero. In his opinion, the road issue is separate.

Mr. Lennon said that there are some implementation problems, but that Mr. Azmy is working with the Board.

Mr. Lennon made a motion to hold a Site Visit. The motion was seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.

The Site Visit was scheduled for Saturday, December 13, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. at Mr. Azmy’s property.

As requested by the Planning Board, a business plan was submitted by Kullikki Kay Steen and Sandy Bartholomew, owner of Wingdoodle. After review of the plan, the Board determined that there was no need for a Site Plan Review.

It was also noted that Ms. Steen is purchasing the abutting property, the home currently owned by Lynn and Chris Perkins.

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

Chris Bofinger, Surveyor, presented a corrected plan for the Board’s review and explained how the error was made in the measurement of the frontage on the plan presented at the November 3^rd Planning Board meeting. He showed the equipment used and described how the prism had been set incorrectly for that portion of the survey.

Mr. Bofinger said that the frontage for the two lots is 250.01 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. The Secretary stated that the abutters had been notified that the corrected application would be heard at this meeting.

The motion was made 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.

George Pellettieri asked if an amended plan would be submitted, and the answer was yes.

Hearing no further discussion from the public, the Public Hearing was closed and the Board meeting was reopened.

David J. Quinn, Dunkin Donuts, P.O. Box 2125, Hillsborough, NH 03244. Property Location: Mobil Station, #32 Rt. 103 West, Warner, NH. Map 14, Lot 8, C-1 Zoning Purpose: Construction of a 10 ft. x 12 ft. storage shed Property Owner: Johnson & Dix Fuel Corporation (Breed Properties Ltd.), 240 Mechanic Street, Lebanon, NH 03766

Mr. Quinn presented the application and plan to the Board, describing the location of the storage building by the existing dumpsters. The Board asked if there had been a checklist presented with the application. Mr. Quinn had been given a checklist in the Planning Board office, and was told by the Secretary and Ms. Annis at that time that certain portions of the checklist wouldn’t apply to this application. After reviewing the checklist with the Board, Mr. Lennon stated that he was of the opinion that the pertinent portions of the checklist that pertained to this application had been met.

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

Mr. Pellettieri and Joanne Hinnendael asked to see a picture of the proposed storage building. The picture was shown to them.

Selectman Mical asked if there would be electricity to the building. The answer was no.

Mr. Pellettieri asked if the Fire Chief had been asked about the storage building and if it would be considered an accessory building. Mr. Quinn said that he hadn’t notified the Fire Department.

Mr. Pershouse said that possibly the BOCA code should be checked and/or any State regulations checked to see if there were any regulations regarding a wooden building.

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

Mr. Lennon made a motion to approve the application with two conditions:

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

Joe Wichert, Surveyor, made the presentation to the Board. An application had been submitted on September 8^th for the conversion of a 4-unit apartment complex into 4 condo units of 400 square feet each. He went over the history of the application and the correspondence between Steve Murdoch, the attorney for the condo project and Don Gartrell, the Town’s attorney, concerning the application and condo documents. The tax accessing clerk had forwarded information from an RSA related to assessment of taxes of a condominium project, which was forwarded to Mr. Murdoch. It was his opinion that the tax issue was not longer an issue, but Mr. Murdoch faxed over further confirmation of his opinions.

He stated that the For Sale sign on the property meant that RSK Management has the property listed as a one block property [4-unit apartment building] because of the length of time between the original application and the current time. They do intend to go forward with the condo project/application.

Mr. Pershouse asked what the impact would be if the applicant had to reduce the number of allowed occupants from 6 per unit, as stated in the condo documents, to a smaller number as suggested by Mr. Gartrell. Mr. Wichert said that it was his understanding the concern was the impact on a septic system, but that the building is serviced by municipal water and sewer.

Mr. Wichert said that the interior walls had been removed so that any owners could place walls where necessary or desired. The bathroom is partitioned off as is a kitchen area. The remaining space is currently a studio design. He said that they would work with the Board for the wording if any changes are deemed necessary.

Mr. Pershouse asked if the Fire Chief had been consulted about the project, and Mr. Wichert said that he had not. He said that a lot of the issues being brought up have been legal issues, and they wanted to be sure that the two attorneys had the time to make any legal decisions before continuing with the application process.

The Secretary asked the applicant to send another copy of the condominium documents because the one copy sent previously had been forwarded to Mr. Gartrell. Mr. Wichert said that he would do so.

Ms. Annis suggested that the plan should be sent to Don Gartrell, Town Attorney, for his review along another copy of the condominium documents. Mr. Gartrell’s letter of October 3^rd stated that the documents had been reviewed but not in "exhaustive detail, which can only be accomplished with the accompanying as-built plans." She asked if the submitted plan is the "as-built" plan, and the answer was yes, that the floor plan hasn’t changed from the original submitted in September.

Mr. Pershouse: Is there any intent to provide drawings that have more detail and elevations, and that are in footprint form?

Mr. Wichert: Typically, we don’t show elevations.

Mr. Wichert asked if the Board had an amount that should be placed in an escrow account to cover the attorney’s fees, and Ms. Annis said that the Board did not at this time.

Mr. Pellettieri asked if the Board was going to have a Public Hearing at this time. Ms. Annis said that it was being continued until January.

Mr. Wichert said that it should be posted as a Subdivision and not a Site Plan Review. He also stated that a waiver request had been submitted with the original application. The Secretary said that it had been sent to the Board members in September with the original application.

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

No one from MHF Design Consultants was in attendance. The Secretary said that the only correspondence received from MHF Design was photos of the St. Johnsbury, VT Hampton Inn building. She distributed them to the Board.

Judith Moyer, Barbara Maki and Rhonda Rood, discussion of commercial development and "over 55" housing on North Road, Warner, NH. Map 14, Lot 15, C-1 Zoning

Ms. Moyer had to leave early, and Ms. Maki said that they would come back to another meeting.

Patty Costa, subdivision of property on Couchtown Road [no written information received]

Ms. Costa was not in attendance.

Mr. Lennon: The committee got into a time squeeze to get information together to put before the public at Town Meeting. There was still a lot of information to gather. He said that his professional schedule precluded his ability to write the changes to the ordinance, etc. Attendance at the meetings had dwindled to very few, and he didn’t think that was the best way to proceed. As Chairman of the group, he made the decision to slow the process and return to meeting once a month, beginning in December, with the goal to build momentum and put things in place for a year from now.

Major initiatives:

1. Redrawing the zoning map to cluster development in certain areas

2. Redrawing some of the zoning definitions for the same purpose

3. Adopt some sort of cluster development ordinance for major subdivisions

When asked about the driveway ordinance, Mr. Lennon said that Ms. Annis would discuss that issue because it had been discussed at a meeting at which he was not present.

Ms. Annis: We had discussed bringing some of the R-3 zoning district in the Mink Hills into the OR-1 zoning district, as well as some of the Joppa East and Joppa West areas. Growth should be directed toward the Poverty Plains area instead. The Conservation Commission agreed to help out with this portion of the growth committee.

Mr. McLaughlin presented a map of the zoning districts, showing the proposed changes. He said that it is strongly expressed in the Master Plan that this should be addressed, and that the public had expressed its opinions repeatedly that these types of changes be put into place.

Mr. Lennon said that this is something that the growth management group would highly recommend.

Mr. Pershouse said that this is a zoning change that would have to be voted on at Town Meeting in March, and that a good plan of action was needed to get the public involved.

Ms. Annis asked Mr. McLaughlin if he could write a Warrant Article for this, and he said that he would. Mr. Pellettieri asked if it had to be in by December 10^th, and Ms. Annis said that was the deadline for submission of a petition.

Mr. Pellettieri called for a Point of Order, stating that it was within the Board’s purview to adopt something like this, if they wanted to, in the form of a Warrant Article and then have a Public Hearing on it. Mr. Pershouse said that it has to be in place by the second Public Hearing date in February and that no changes can be made after that date.

Penalty payments and Recovery of Costs:

Ms. Annis said that Selectman Mical had brought up to the Board that on Page 25 of the Zoning Ordinance [Article XIX Penalty], it states, "Upon conviction thereof, every person, persons, firm, or corporation violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be fined not more than one hundred ($100.00) dollars for each day such violations shall exist." RSA 676:17 (B), states that the penalty is $275 per day. It also states that legal funds can be recovered as well as other.

Mr. Pershouse: [to Mr. Mical] In the past year, have we used this penalty clause?

Mr. Mical: We have gotten to the point of a Cease and Desist Order. The only reason that I brought this up is that the Warner Zoning Ordinance is out of date, as is the Building Ordinance. The change should be made to match the RSA, to be consistent and to incorporate the RSA into the ordinances – including the $275 penalty and recovery of court costs, etc.

Mr. Pershouse: The Warrant Article wouldn’t have to have all of the language of the RSA, would it?

Mr. Mical: No, it can be cited.

Mr. Pershouse: We can have a Voter’s Guide, as we’ve done in the past, to explain the changes.

Ms. Annis: We can get it together and fax it to Don Gartrell, for his approval prior to the January 5^th Board meeting.

Adult Entertainment:

Ms. Annis: There is nothing in our Zoning that states that we can’t have Adult Establishments in the town. Do we want this topic in the Zoning Ordinance use table, or that it needs a Variance?

Definition of what it is should be in the ordinance, and this is needed prior to it going into the Use Table.

Ms. Annis said that she would work on the research for definitions. Mr. Mical said that a moratorium is only good for 120 days – it was changed by the legislature this year. There is also something new that states that anything having a regional impact on the compact has to go to one of the New Hampshire Planning Commissions for approval. Ms. Hinnendael said that she would get some information for the Secretary to copy and send to the Board members. Her examples were of a subdivision going in that would impact the school systems, or the impact of a wireless telecommunications on a neighboring town that in the past might not have had any say in the matter.

Driveways:

Ms. Annis: We’ve heard a lot about the driveways in town – the length of them, the angles, and that they were unsafe. Both the Road Agent and the Fire Chief have received copies of the Driveway Permits, and they were told that feedback was needed prior to tonight’s meeting. I have heard nothing from the Road Agent. I spoke with the Fire Chief, and he hadn’t looked at it yet. His comment was that a regulation could be put in place, and that the property owner would build it, but they wouldn’t maintain it.

Mr. Reeder: Isn’t it up to the Selectmen to follow through and ask them to do their job?

Ms. Annis: Do we have time to get anything done about it now?

Mr. Mical said that he had given the Peterborough copy to them, and asked them to comment on it. He said that he would call them and sit down and talk to them.

Ms. Annis called Peterborough, and wasn’t able to speak with the Road Agent. He never returned her call.

Mr. Reeder said that he feels that someone needs to sit down with the Fire Chief and get some input so that an ordinance can be put into place regarding driveways.

Mr. Lennon said that he would also like to discuss the increase of required frontages on lots along Route 103, between Warner and Bradford area.

Recording of Mylars:

Mr. Reeder: Currently, applicants are given a piece of paper to take to the Merrimack Registry of Deeds in Concord along with the approved Mylars for recording. The paper is to be filled in as to the date of recordation as well as the amount paid and the book and page, etc. and sent back to the Planning Office by the applicant for the file.

Mr. Reeder said that Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission strongly suggests that a Town employee register the Mylars with the county, because there is always the possibility that a plan could be changed after approval but before registration.

Ms. Annis asked if the Mylars have to be recorded within a certain number of days after approval. Mr. Pershouse asked what the form says, and the Secretary said that the form states that proof that the plans have been recorded needs to be received by the Planning Board within 3 weeks of approval.

The Secretary agreed said that she will record at the Registry. The Board discussed setting a fee payable by the applicants for this. The fee would have to be a separate charge in case the application wasn’t approved. The Secretary said that she would find out the schedule of recording fees from the county.

Ms. Annis said that R.A.W. Investments had appealed the Planning Board’s decision disapproving their design for Site Plan Review, and that a 30-minute preliminary hearing has been set for March 8, 2004. This information is per newspaper reports – neither Don Gartrell nor the Town of Warner has received any notification from the courts.

Ms. Annis took the current Subdivision and Site Plan Review applications to CNHRPC, and asked the Board if they would like to see their suggestions before the applications are changed. The Board said that they would like to see them first.

Setting of Time Limits for Meetings:

Ms. Annis asked if the Board felt that time limits should be put on the agendas stating that the meeting will end at a certain time. Mr. Reeder said that he feels that time limits should be in place, but that the Board should have the ability to decide at any meeting if they wish to continue later than the stated limit. He said that he feels that the applicants should be aware of this.

It was stated that the wording of any time limits needs to be on the application as well as the Agenda. The Board decided on a time limit of 10:00 p.m.

Ms. Annis read a letter received from Warner resident Mary Mead:

A letter was received from Bob Egan stating that they would like to have the portion of the Cricenti building on Main Street – where the pizza restaurant will eventually be – used as a campaign headquarters for presidential candidate Dean from December 15, 2003 through January 31, 2004. Hours: 9:00 a.m. – 9:00 p.m. Average number of workers: 4 to 5. Open 7 days per week. Average parking for 5 to 6 cars per day.

The Board decided that Mr. Egan doesn’t have to come back to the Board for this change as long as the use of the building for the campaign headquarters ends on January 31, 2004.

George Pellettieri asked if the Planning Board or Growth Committee, in any of the discussions, thought about limits of the Exit 9 area, or boundaries, are.

Mr. Reeder: We have been looking at it – there is the commercial area there now, and then on the other side of the bridge, there is some commercial property there off of the highway. What we’re looking at now is more or less the town-side of Exit 9.

Mr. Pershouse: This would include the relationship to the Village area of Town. We’ve asked CNHRPC for their guidance as to what the scope of the study should be, and they are supposed to be sending that to the Board. It is still in the formative stages.

Ms. Annis: What was brought out is whether to have this as a built-out analysis or as an access management plan for that area.

Mr. Pershouse: Any input would be helpful.