Minutes of the Meeting and Public Hearing
Members Present:
James McLaughlin, Derek Pershouse, Barbara Annis, John Wallace,
Andrew
Serell, John Brayshaw (late)
Members Absent:
Cynthia Dabrowski
Alternates Present:
Pam Mulsow, Russ St.Pierre,
Alternates Absent:
Mark Lennon
Presiding:
James McLaughlin
Recording:
Sissy Brown
Voting
members for this meeting:
James McLaughlin, Derek Pershouse, Barbara Annis, John Wallace,
Pam Mulsow, Russ St.Pierre
I.
Open
Meeting
II.
Roll
Call
III.
Approval
of the Minutes of the
A motion was made and seconded to approve
the minutes as submitted. The
minutes were approved by a unanimous vote.
IV.
Property
location: 6 & 7 Red Chimney
Road, Warner, NH, Map 6, Lots 54-2, 54 & 54-1, and Map 7, Lots 16 &
17, R3 Zoning
Mr.
Rigollet described the changes made after the preliminary consultation.
The change was made on the plan so that Mr. Graves could retain the
current use status of a section of his property.
The Board discussed the changes, resulting in 4 lots from the original
5 lots. Frontage on lots was
discussed, and clarification was given by Mr. Rigollet as to the existing
frontage.
Mr. Serell made a motion to accept the
V.
Mr.
Rogers described the lot line adjustment, referencing the drawings presented
to the Board. Mrs. Rogers told the
Board the history of the property and the previous adjustments made to the
property.
Ms. Mulsow made a motion to approve the
VI.
Preliminary
Site Plan Review – American Tower
Company, Carrie Fitzsimons, Project
Manager
Property
location: 805 Rt. 103, Warner, NH, Map 3,
Ms.
Fitzsimons clarified that the height of the monopole was changed at the Zoning
Board of Adjustment hearing in November to 109’, from the original height of
110’.
Ms.
Annis asked for clarification that the proposed property is in a commercial
district. The line between open
conservation zoning and commercial zoning was shown on a map.
Ms.
Fitzsimons gave a brief presentation of the proposal.
ATC is the nation’s leading owner of wireless telecommunications
sites. The company serves
communities by building one wireless tower to satisfy the needs of several
carriers. The proposed site has
worked out very well for the company. Since
the last hearing with the Warner ZBA, the company has three carriers committed
to this tower: Sprint, AT&T
Wireless and Verizon Wireless.
Question:
Mr.
Brayshaw asked if the company works with Cingular.
Answer:
Cingular is a big client of ATC, but they are not looking in this area
at this time.
Question:
Mr. Pershouse asked if Cingular has coverage from the tower on Mr.
Kearsarge.
Answer:
Ms. Fitzsimons said she’s not sure, but thinks they have a roaming
agreement with US Cellular.
Question:
Mr. Wallace asked if they are at 109’, but 21’ over the tree
canopy.
Answer:
Ms. Fitzsimons said that the height of the tower had been
modified/amended at the ZBA meeting to 109’, from the originally requested
height of 110’. The amended
height was approved by the ZBA.
There
will be a compound of 100’ x 100’ on the property, and each carrier will
have their own equipment shelter. Verizon
and AT&T Wireless use a shelter that you can walk inside of – ranging in
size from 12’ x 20’ to 12’ x 30’.
Sprint uses equipment cabinets – several cabinets on concrete pads as
opposed to building one enclosed shelter.
The three carriers on board at this time are all that can be
accommodated. Verizon will be
right at the tree line, and the signal would have to propagate over the tree
line in order to afford any reliable coverage, so they don’t anticipate
getting a carrier at 79’.
Question:
Mr. Pershouse asked if each carrier will have an emergency power
source, or would they share one generator.
Answer:
ATC does both. Verizon
likes to have their own backup generator, but ATC will do whatever the
Planning Board would like to see happen at the location.
Question:
Mr. McLaughlin asked if ATC had a copy of Warner’s Site Plan Review
Regulations, because that is basically what the Board would be looking at as
far as information to be incorporated into the submitted plan.
Answer:
Yes. Ms. Fitzsimons said
that the plan submitted to the Zoning Board has a statement of compliance with
the regulations, and what she is looking for at this meeting is anything
outside of that that would help them to go through the process.
For example, equipment specifications from the carriers, where on the
compound their equipment would be located, the cut sheets for their
prefabricated shelters, etc.
Mr.
Serell asked the Board where the height restrictions are located within the
Zoning Ordinance.
Mr.
McLaughlin said it is located in the Wireless Telecommunications portion.
Mr. Serell asked for clarification that the ordinance says that the
tower can’t be more than 20’ above the tree canopy.
Mr. McLaughlin confirmed that statement.
Mr. Pershouse stated that the height is determined by the tree canopy.
Ms.
Fitzsimons said that the average tree canopy at the site is 89’.
Question:
Mr. Pershouse said that one of his key concerns that he has is the
number of carriers that can physically or technically be at the exposed 20’.
He asked if ATC is now working on a 10’ separation between arrays,
and asked if that would change with technology and the frequencies or mode
that different carriers have, and if more carriers might be able to be added
in the future.
Answer:
Ms. Fitzsimons said that it was possible.
One of the things that the RF engineers are working now is shared
technology. It has been beta
tested in some markets and needs more work.
But the hope is to have one set of antennas up on the tower and have
each carrier have one set of coaxial cables running down from those antennas
going to different equipment shelters. One
set of antennas could have up to 6 different carriers using the signal,
receiving and propagating from those antennas.
That would reduce the number of antenna arrays necessary on towers and
subsequently reduce the need for height, because a lot of the height
requirements are strictly for co-location.
Question:
Mr. Pershouse asked if all of the carriers on this tower will be
digital.
Answer:
Ms. Fitzsimons said that AT&T and Sprint have PCS licenses in this
area, and Verizon is licensed in both the cellular and PCS frequency but is
looking to operate their cellular antennas at this location.
This will give them better propagation coverage because of the shorter
band width.
Question:
Mr. Brayshaw asked how close the pad (100 sq. ft.) is to I-89.
Answer:
Mr. Wallace said that he went to the balloon test, and that he couldn’t
see the proposed site from I-89.
Ms.
Fitzsimons stated that a balloon was flown at 130’ to show the possibility
of an expansion in the future. The
tower will be built at 109’ but have the capability of extending the tower
to 130’ if the Town decided it wanted to add another 10’ section as
opposed to building another tower. The
extension could be ordered from the manufacturer.
Mr.
Wallace asked about the superimposed photo, showing the 130’ extension.
Ms. Fitzsimons said that the photos showed the 109’ height and the
possible extension to 130’. She
said that there were only a couple of spots in town where the balloons could
be seen – from the field on the property itself, and on 103, looking into
the cemetery. Mr. Wallace said
that view is only for a few seconds as one drives down the road.
Ms. Fitzsimons said driving north and looking back, the balloons were
visible.
Question:
Mr. Brayshaw asked if there will be lights on the towers.
Answer:
Some towers have lights, and they are regulated by the FAA.
The tower has been approved at 180’, so 109’ shouldn’t be a
problem. There won’t be lights.
The FAA ceiling is set at 200’.
Question:
Mr. McLaughlin asked about the tree coverage in the immediate vicinity
of the proposed pad area.
Answer:
Ms. Fitzsimons said that the area is in a little valley and that there
is some small brush, but no tall trees that would have to be removed.
She said that she didn’t believe that any clearing would affect
natural screening.
Mr.
McLaughlin asked what kind of control exists between ATC and the landowner to
preserve the cover that is there – like the possibility of clear cutting the
area and the possibility that the Town would lose the coverage/screening from
existing trees. He said that might
be a good idea to have an agreement with the property owner to leave the trees
as they are within a radius of 500’ of the pad.
Question:
Mr. Pershouse asked about the procedures regarding dealing with the
landowner and the Town. He asked
if the company has a specific contract with the landowner.
Answer:
Ms. Fitzsimons said that ATC already has a signed contract with the
landowner because ATC makes sure that they have the authority to go before a
Board as the representative of a landowner.
She said that an addendum could be added to the contract.
In the past, written and recorded agreements between ATC and the
landowner would be in place and would run with the land so that future
possible owners would be bound by the agreement.
Question:
Mr. Pershouse asked if the Board will be able to view and review the
contract between ATC and the landowner. He
said that to protect the Town’s interests, it is important to know whatever
aspects of the contract are germane to the physical relationship between the
tower and the land. He said that
he believes it is important to know these things up front.
Answer:
Ms. Fitzsimons said that she could arrange to have a copy of the
contract made available, without the financial information being revealed.
There
was discussion regarding the maintenance of the existing road through the
property to the site, and that ATC will use the existing road and disturb as
little vegetation as possible.
Question:
Mr. Brayshaw asked, as a representative of the Selectmen, if ATC could
provide references.
Answer:
Ms. Fitzsimons said she could provide a copy of the company’s annual
report and a list of towns where they have built towers.
Question:
Mr. Brayshaw asked if the company has built any of the camouflaged tree
type of towers. He said that the
past two tower companies that have come in with proposals have been proposing
the camouflaged designs.
Answer:
Ms. Fitzsimons said that they have done them in the past, but that they
haven’t been terribly successful. She
said that the signal is compromised. She
also said that the internal mount/flag pole mount towers aren’t able to be
used by some carriers because of their technology (Verizon and Nextel).
Mr.
Pershouse said that the Board should have that discussion at some point to see
if there are strong feelings among the Board members, as well as the
community, on this topic. Ms.
Fitzsimons said she could bring photos of these types of towers.
She said that they tend to work best in areas that are more urban
because some signal is sacrificed by the actual presence of the branches.
Question:
Will microwave dishes be on the tower?
Answer:
ATC tends to use microwave if they can’t get a telco line to the
tower, but in this case there shouldn’t be a problem.
She stated that she wouldn’t have a problem with a restriction to
using microwave dishes on the tower.
Question:
Mr. Pershouse asked about the possibility or probability in the future
of alternative forms of communications, such as emergency or government forms
of communications. He asked if it
were an accurate assumption that ATC would not get an application from the
state or federal government to locate a specific non-cellular array on the
tower.
Answer:
Ms. Fitzsimons said that contrary to that assumption, the federal
government is one of their largest customers -- Secret Service,
Mr.
Pershouse asked if it would be possible, then, that ATC might get an
application where someone might want a link from [the tower on] Kearsarge
[Mountain] to this tower which would require a microwave dish.
Ms. Fitzsimons said that if that were to happen, a flag would come up
on the computer program saying that this is not allowed.
She would be contacted, as the representative for the field office, and
she would come to the Board and say that the application has been received and
ask if the Town of Warner is going to allow it or not.
Question:
Mr. Brayshaw asked if there are any concerns regarding these proposed
buildings and the Open Conservation/Commercial zoning.
Answer:
There could be a designated “no building” area in the fall zone.
Question:
Mr. Pershouse asked how close the nearest neighbor is.
Answer:
Mr. McLaughlin said that it is probably the residence across the road,
where a used car business is located. Ms.
Annis said that the owners of the property where the former golf course was
would be the closest.
Mr.
Pershouse said that he was asking about neighbors because of possible future
problems with noise from generators. Ms.
Fitzsimons said that any noise emitted by the equipment on site would be
minimal and would be virtually eliminated once outside of the compound.
She said that she had just completed a noise study for another town and
could bring a copy of the study to the Board.
That particular site had six carriers.
She said that she would ask the carriers what type of generators they
plan to use. Mr. Pershouse asked
if the Board should be keeping a list of conditions as it goes through this
process. Ms. Fitzsimons said that
her purpose in being at the meeting is to answer any questions the Board might
have and to see if there are any things they should put on the plans.
She said she already has some suggestions, like moving the equipment
shelter further away from the property line, putting exact dimensions of
proposed future shelters, etc.
Question:
Ms. Annis said that it appears that the 100 sq. ft. compound is more
than 400’ from the abutting property line, but that it requires 500’.
She said that she is concerned about tree removal.
Answer:
Ms. Fitzsimons said that there will be no significant tree removal.
She said that to do the construction within the 100’ x 100’
compound, it will be graveled inside and she said that if there is a limit of
three carriers, they could probably get by with a 75’ x 75’ compound
because Sprint is one of the carriers and they only use cabinets.
Generally, they like to take out a lease for the 100’ x 100’ area
because of possible future expansion. They
would have to clear out anything within the compound and a small staging area
is necessary. They are flexible as
to where this staging area is located. The
smaller brush will be cleared, but no significant tree removal.
Ms.
Annis said that she is concerned about this because of another site that has
been cleared and has had lights put up, and it looks like Times Square there
now at night, with the trees removed. She
said that she would have looked at the plans a lot differently if she had
known what it was going to be. Ms.
Fitzsimons said that the condition of no tree removal could be part of the
agreement. She said that some
contractors remove trees even when they’ve been told not to, but that ATC
can come in and restore anything that is taken out if that happens.
Question:
Mr. McLaughlin asked if the utilities would be underground or above
ground, and where would they be.
Answer:
Ms. Fitzsimons said that the plans show proposed overhead utilities,
running along the access road. She
said that ATC generally take the easement for the access road and the utility
easement at the same place.
Question:
Mr. Pershouse asked if ATC would be putting poles in.
Answer:
Ms. Fitzsimons said that it is up to the utility company to come in and
tell ATC what they are going to do. She
said that the only thing they can do is to tell the utility company if they
have a zoning restriction and have to bury the lines.
Mr.
Pershouse asked what that would add to the expense, and Ms. Fitzsimons said
that she has been told that it is five times more expensive to bury the
utilities instead of having them overhead.
Mr. Pershouse asked if they are utility company owned lines.
She said that it depends on the local companies.
Sometimes, ATC has to buy the poles and drop them and the utility will
run them. Other times, the
companies will say that they want to maintain ownership.
Question:
Mr. Pershouse asked about the future; i.e., after the tower has been
built there is ongoing protocol with ATC re: management of the site, technical
issues, potential zoning issues in the future, etc.
How is that handled and what is is the service arrangement?
Answer:
Ms. Fitzsimons said that ATC has Site Supervisors from their Operations
Department that are responsible for the existing towers in the area.
Phil Knight is the Site Supervisor in the
Question:
Mr. Pershouse asked about the scheduled maintenance.
Answer:
Ms. Fitzsimons said that usually the scheduled maintenance is once a
month. The Site Supervisors check
to make sure that all sites are working properly.
Question:
Mr. Pershouse said that there are business issues between the Selectmen
and the management of the Town and the management of ATC and that this is done
on an as needed basis, and clarified that there is no scheduled communication
about adding carriers, etc. and that if a carrier were added, ATC would come
before the Planning Board first.
Answer:
Ms. Fitzsimons said that ATC maintains open communication with the
towns where towers are built and come back if contacted regarding the
possibility of adding a carrier to an existing tower instead of building
another tower. She said that any
scheduled reviews are up to the individual towns.
Question:
Mr. Brayshaw asked if ATC has considered any other sites for towers in
Warner.
Answer:
Ms. Fitzsimons said that in an unprecedented move, the carriers
approached ATC and said that they love the site and that they need another
tower further north. She said that
carriers have asked ATC to find another site and that she would love to work
with the Town of
Mr.
McLaughlin said that the Evans gas station has a significant sign pole
already, and knows that other towns have been able to incorporate existing
sign poles for use as telecommunications towers.
Ms. Fitzsimons said that it is done, but that one caveat is that a sign
placement is only one carrier.
Mr.
Pershouse said that there are a number of potential sites that have been
identified by other companies and individuals.
One is on
Ms.
Fitzsimons said that Warner has one of the best websites she’s seen, and
that it is very user friendly. Ms.
Annis said that a volunteer, Richard Cutting, is responsible for the site.
Mr.
Pershouse asked if it would be possible for the Town to get a cohesive
identification of the ATC site and other sites, as well as sites in the Sutton
and Hopkinton areas. He said it
would be helpful to have the towers designated as “Warner 1” and the next
one farther north “Warner 2”. He
asked if there were those two towers, couldn’t the Town of
Mr.
McLaughlin said that the Town would appreciate ATC doing a propagation survey.
Ms. Fitzsimons said that she would do the next town South and the next
town North, showing the existing towers. She
can contact the owners of the towers and ask if they have the capacity for
additional carriers. She said that
there is a finite number, currently, of carriers who will locate broad band
equipment – the large arrays shown on the simulation photographs -- but
there seems to be an infinite number of narrow band carriers because that is
an unlicensed spectrum. These are
used by paging companies, for example. They
can contact a company like ATC and asked if they can use 5 feet of a tower.
The possibilities are endless, with the 3G technology and wireless
internet, etc.
Question:
Mr. Brayshaw asked if ATC will be getting into digital 3 band in this
region.
Answer:
The FCC keeps hedging their licensing, and they haven’t actually
officially licensed off all of the spectrum yet.
She said that one of the reasons Verizon asked for such a large
equipment shelter is because they are planning for the 3G and can accommodate
it without rebuilding.
Mr.
Pershouse said that the Town doesn’t have any current information on the
Mr.
Brayshaw said that Mary [Selectmen’s secretary] can furnish a copy of the
carriers on the
Ms.
Fitzsimons said that from the perspective of the industry, if Warner asked the
companies how many available slots are available, they will give the
information because it is more revenue for the company.
As a tower company, they want the towns to point co-location in their
direction as opposed to building another tower.
The trend is changing. In
the beginning, all the carriers wanted their own towers because they wanted to
keep other carriers out. But now,
the towns can’t discriminate among carriers and if you give one to US
Cellular, you’re going to have to give one to Verizon, etc. or you put
yourself in the position of possibly being sued by one of these companies.
That’s why companies like ATC were founded – they saw that need.
They can act as the middleman. They
own the structure and work with carriers that want to lease space on the
towers. The carriers don’t have
to worry about negotiating with each other.
Now with the trend in the economy and the huge increase in land prices
since this has all come about, the companies actually need the co-location
revenue in order to sustain the profitability for their own sites.
It has become an economic necessity.
Mr.
Brayshaw said that those are issues for ATC, not necessarily issues for the
Town of
Question:
Ms. Annis stated that the property owners themselves should be the ones
making application. She asked that
because ATC is only leasing the land, doesn’t the application have to be in
the name of the owner of the land.
Answer:
It was stated that Mr. Nickerson was at the Zoning Board meeting.
Ms. Fitzsimons said that in the lease agreement with Mr. Nickerson,
there is a paragraph stating that ATC has the ability to go forward and act as
applicant on behalf of the property owner.
She said that ATC also has the property owner sign a separate
authorization allowing ATC to act as applicant.
She said she will bring those documents to the next meeting.
Question:
Mr. Pershouse asked if Ms. Fitzsimons could send a boiler plate of an
agreement before the next meeting so that the Board can look it over and
figure out what questions they might have.
Answer:
Ms. Fitzsimons said that she could have a copy before the end of the
week, and would include an agreement to keep all of the existing trees within
500’, she will show a sketch of what their construction manager thinks will
be needed for a staging area, and she will also put into the agreement that no
structures will not be built within the fall zone.
Question:
Mr. Pershouse asked what the Town should do about the trees that are
beyond the owner’s property. Should
the Board try to get an agreement with an abutter regarding this?
If there is an abutter between the site and I-89 and they have trees
that provide screening, what should be done?
Answer:
Ms. Fitzsimons said that she didn’t think there would be any problem
with the cemetery. She said that
from her observations at the site and from the plans, it seems that most of
the significant tree canopy is contained within Mr. Nickerson’s property.
They don’t have control over what an abutter might do.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that a Site Visit should be done before the next Planning
Board meeting. One was set for
Saturday, December 8th, at
Sissy
stated that the deadline for having a Site Plan Review application in for the
There
was discussion regarding the interpretation of the required tree coverage.
Mr. McLaughlin asked if there were any other questions at this time.
Ms. Fitzsimons asked if the acceptance of the Site Plan Review would be
done at the same meeting as the Public Hearing.
Mr. McLaughlin said that in this case, the Board would like to accept
the Site Plan at the January 7th meeting, and then hold the Public
Hearing at the February 4th meeting.
Mr.
Pershouse asked if they were in agreement regarding the propagation study.
Ms. Fitzsimons ask if that would be for this application in particular,
or if it would be more a general thing. Mr.
Pershouse said it would be more of a general thing, because it wouldn’t
restrict this application but it could enhance it.
Ms. Fitzsimons said that she has found that generally that December is
not a good time to ask a company to do a project like that because they are
all trying to meet their year-end deadlines and taking off for the holidays.
She said that she can have the study by the February meeting.
Mr.
Pershouse clarified that they were talking about “Site 2” and that he
would feel comforted by the fact that they it can be more or less determined,
at least on a casual basis, that they are talking about no more than a total
of two sites on the I-89 corridor. Ms.
Fitzsimons said never say never, because you never know when a carrier might
come in and say, “We can’t locate on that tower because it’s only 109’
tall and there’s no more room on it.”
She said that she doesn’t want to represent to the Town that this
will be the coverage needed in the town and that is all that the Town will
ever have to deal with. Mr.
Pershouse said that, assuming that a sufficient number of carriers can be
located on each location, this would be all that will be necessary.
Ms. Fitzsimons agreed.
VII.
Public
Hearing: Proposed
changes to the Warner Master Plan necessitated by the adoption of new
non-residential zoning regulations at Town Meeting on
Mr.
McLaughlin said that a Public Hearing needs to be held on these proposed
changes and if there is no public input, the Board can move to adopt these
amendments to the Master Plan. The
purpose of these amendments is to provide a basis for the zoning change that
was made last March [Town Meeting] which requires a Site Plan Review to
consider architectural, landscaping, signage and other design characteristics
of non-residential buildings in the commercial districts of the town.
Mr.
McLaughlin read the proposed changes into the record:
Proposed
additions to the Warner Master Plan
Goal
3
Encourage growth and diversity in commercial development, while
protecting the residential and rural character of the Town.
Add a new Objective 7:
Encourage retail, service and other non-residential enterprises which
do not have the standardized architecture, décor, signage and other service
characteristics associated with formula businesses.
Add a new Objective 8:
Require new and substantially altered non-residential uses to follow
design principles which make these areas attractive and integral parts of the
community, particularly in terms of building size and site location,
architecture, landscaping, outdoor lighting, signage and vehicular and
pedestrian movement.
Under Chapter X,
Future non-residential development should be placed and designed to
fit with the traditional rural, small town land use patterns and building
styles of Warner. Size, height
and location of buildings should be in keeping with the scale of the
community and with nearby structures. Architectural
styles should be compatible with traditional
Mr.
McLaughlin asked if there were any comments, additions or corrections.
Question:
Mr. Serell asked where the sections of the Zoning Ordinance that relate
to these changes.
Answer:
Mr. McLaughlin said that they are under Article XI: Commercial
District, C-1, numbers (f), (g), (h), and (i).
He said that these paragraphs discuss fast food restaurants and talks
about the design for formula business and formula restaurants.
In order to provide logical support for this, the Master Plan needs to
be consistent.
Question:
Mr. Brayshaw asked how these changes were derived and what preceded
this.
Answer:
Mr. McLaughlin said that a subcommittee of the Planning Board that met
and put together some recommendations.
Question:
Mr. Brayshaw said that because of one of the things that came out of
the Selectmen’s Office, and because he needs to get some answers back to
some other people: Were the
minutes of the subcommittee meeting properly noted and were there minutes
taken? Was there proper
notification given for these subcommittee meetings?
Answer:
Mr. Pershouse said that the committee was formed by Planning Board
because the Board felt that it needed to be done.
That was the genesis of the process.
The meetings were posted because the Board was concerned about the
public and because the Board wanted to get people to come and work on the
project. Mr. McLaughlin said that,
with regard to these specific things, there really wasn’t much in the way of
committee work and it really was a Board activity.
The discussion took place for the most part at these Board meetings.
The discussions were started last summer and Mr. McLaughlin said that
he wrote most of it.
Mr.
Brayshaw said that he needed to find out if there were minutes taken and if
proper notice was given. He said
he didn’t know when it started, at what point.
Mr.
Pershouse said that he didn’t believe that there were formal minutes, but
that it was an editorial process and work groups.
Mr. Brayshaw said that some of the ordinances have caused some
controversy and are being questioned. He
said it is something that came up at the Selectmen’s meeting and that he
needs to get the information.
Ms.
Annis said that the first meeting was on
Mr.
Brayshaw said he was reflecting back on the original discussions that Mr.
St.Pierre had worked on with Nancy and other folks, and asked if Mr. St.Pierre
had minutes of those meetings. Mr.
St.Pierre said that he didn’t think so.
Mr. Brayshaw asked if there was any public notice given of those early
meetings, i.e., posted in three places in the town.
Mr. St.Pierre said no, not to those specific meetings.
Mr. Pershouse said that it was largely an editorial process.
Mr.
Brayshaw said that it is the law that any committee or subcommittee or any
group formed within any subcommittee needs to have proper notice given in
three public places as well as official minutes taken, either written or
verbal form.
Mr.
Pershouse said that it is important to note that there were Public Hearings
and that no action was taken without Public Notice and Public Hearings with
the Planning Board. Mr. Pershouse
said that part of the issue is whether or not this is a Planning Board
activity or is it a stand-alone splinter group that is creating ordinances.
He said that there is fairly good support for the argument that this is
committee appointed by the Planning Board.
As far as the minutes, they weren’t documented nor was there a
secretarial role because they were just working with the material itself.
Mr.
Brayshaw said that from here on out, because people have been talking about
it, any work session needs to have minutes taken.
Ms.
Mulsow said that generally if a subcommittee is formed and you have a meeting,
it is announced at the meeting where it is formed.
That announcement serves as notification.
Mr. Pershouse said that the meetings were posted initially, but not
consistently, and that they definitely went public.
Mr.
Brayshaw said that is was brought up at the Selectmen’s meeting, and that is
why he is checking on it. Ms.
Mulsow said procedurally, the Board needs some work because there have been a
lot of changes and member shifting. Mr.
McLaughlin said that keeping minutes of a subcommittee who’s whole purpose
is to end up with a draft of a regulation or changes that are going to be
decided on by the Planning Board after a Public Hearing – you could say that
we have the minutes because the minutes are really only as good as the
resulting document, because that is the whole point.
Mr.
Serell said that it is in the requirements that minutes be kept.
Ms. Mulsow said that they don’t have to be word for word, and that in
the past, when the Board had a lot of work to do, a second meeting was set as
a work session with the secretary in attendance.
She said that instead of having splinter groups and the secretary not
knowing if she should be there, and having the meetings in different locations
– the public is used to the Planning Board meeting in the lower meeting room
in Town Hall rather than someplace else.
Mr.
Brayshaw said that the Board needs to be consistent with whatever they do,
because if it is the law the Board is leaving itself open.
Mr.
Pershouse said that he feels that one key component that has been left out is
that in both cases, the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission has
been a real focus; in other words, they have provided the initial material to
work on and that the subcommittee has edited and worked through.
If the committee had to document what they did and when they did it,
the committee has all of the draft copies as well as the original materials as
well as the presentation which Central New Hampshire Regional Planning
Commission did for the committee initially.
The CNHRPC has added real ballast to the process.
Outside help has been used and paid for.
Mr.
Serell said that future subcommittee meetings can be noticed and minutes
taken.
Mr.
McLaughlin said he would like to now get back to the draft of the proposed
changes to the Master Plan. If
there were no issues that any member of the Board has with the drafted
changes, he would like to close the Board Meeting and open the Public Hearing.
The
Public Hearing was opened. Hearing
no comments from the public, the Public Hearing was closed and the Board
Meeting re-opened by Mr. McLaughlin.
Mr.
Brayshaw said that he feels that it is too bad that no members of the public
came to the meeting tonight to comment, after all of the complaints and
different things that the Selectmen receive.
There are complaints received regarding questions on how changes in
ordinances are made without the public being told.
He would like for the public to realize that every effort has been made
to notify them and receive input on changes.
Mr.
Serell said that both of the changes to the Zoning Ordinance were noticed for
public hearing and that there were opportunities for the public to comment on
all changes. If a comment was made
contrary to that, it is inaccurate.
Mr.
McLaughlin asked for a motion.
Mr. Serell moved to adopt the amendments
to the Master Plan by including Objectives 7 and 8 to Goal 3 and adding a new
paragraph to Chapter 10 under Commercial Development.
The motion was seconded. The motion passed by a unanimous vote.
Mr.
Pershouse asked how this amendment is incorporated into the Master Plan.
Is it going to be a one page addendum?
Mr. McLaughlin asked Sissy to see if the pages could be changed and
inserted into the existing copies. The
pages would be identified as amended on a certain date.
VIII.
Communications
and Miscellaneous
Resignation of Ms. Dabrowski
Mr.
McLaughlin said that he had received a letter of resignation from Board member
Cynthia Dabrowski, effective immediately.
He asked if the Selectmen had received a copy of the letter.
Mr. Brayshaw said that they had. Mr.
McLaughlin said that it is up to the Selectmen to appoint a replacement.
Mr. McLaughlin said that his suggestion would be to elevate one of the
alternate members to full membership status and that it be done on the basis
of seniority. Mr. Lennon and Mr.
St.Pierre came on the Board at the same time, but because of participation and
attendance Mr. McLaughlin suggested to the Selectmen that Russ St.Pierre be
selected to fill out Ms. Dabrowski’s term (at Ms. Annis’ suggestion, so as
to retain the staggered terms).
Mr.
Brayshaw said that it would be nice if a member of the Warner Business
Association might offer to sit on the Board.
The Board has a lot of people from different facets of town, and with
the Business Association’s concerns in the past regarding the ordinances, it
would be nice if one of them would step up to the plate and fill that
alternate seat.
Ms.
Mulsow said that she thought it was a good idea because the Board is often
considering business and because so much of the zoning is business related.
Floodplain Ordinance Amendments for
Mr.
McLaughlin said that a series of housekeeping corrections need to be made to
bring the ordinance, as it stands, into line with the FIRM maps.
There were a lot of references to Flood Zones on the previous maps that
no longer exist, and that set of changes were set to be voted on at the last
Town Meeting, but weren’t voted on because proper notification was not
given.
Mr.
Brayshaw said that he had received a call from Emergency Management and that
the amendments need to be made by mid-January in order to be in compliance for
floodplain insurance. Mr.
McLaughlin said that he didn’t think that would be possible unless a Special
Town Meeting is held. Mr. Brayshaw
said that the ordinance has to be brought up to compliance with the Federal
Government in order to receive floodplain insurance in town.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that Clare Dodge, who worked in his office as the Floodplain
Coordinator, was the person who recommended the changes to Warner’s
ordinance about a year and a half ago. These
changes would bring the town into compliance.
These changes were, for the most part, definitional or references to
various flood zones which no longer exist on the map.
Mr. Brayshaw said that maybe the changes don’t need to be approved
and voted upon, but just need to be in place to be in compliance.
Mr. McLaughlin said that he thinks that what the Town has is copies of
the ordinance with various sections stricken and that is what has been shown
to people if they’ve inquired about the floodplain ordinance in the past
year. Mr. Brayshaw said that he
was just asked to bring it up at this meeting.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that a letter was received recently from OEM that talked about
making sure that if there was any type of reconstruction or new construction
within the flood zone, the Building Inspector had to be involved in it.
He said that it seems to him that many towns have these ordinances in
place, but they don’t enforce them. That
is always the big issue. Things
fall into the cracks and buildings get constructed where they shouldn’t be,
and the issue of flood insurance rears its head and there are problems
Mr.
Brayshaw said that the Emergency Management Director had contacted him.
Ms. Annis asked Mr. Brayshaw to clarify her understanding that Dennis
Labrecque [Building Inspector] had told the Selectmen that a building permit
is required for any construction in the floodplain.
Mr. Brayshaw said that a building permit is required for any permanent
construction, period Ms.
Annis said that she understood Mr. Labrecque to say that included interior
construction, and that people living above the floodplain could still obtain
floodplain insurance and, therefore, we are going to now start requiring
building permits for interior construction as well as exterior construction.
Mr.
Pershouse asked why the Board couldn’t edit this into the existing ordinance
and post a Public Hearing in time to get onto the March Town Meeting ballot.
Mr. Serell said that it could be on the ballot, but wouldn’t be
enacted until the Town Meeting. Mr.
Pershouse said that he thought that as long as we were going in the right
direction, we’re probably OK – that technically, it hasn’t been adopted
but the Board needs to get the process moving so that it is on the ballot and
will come up for a vote.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that he would follow up with Emergency Management on this
matter. He said that a Public
Hearing should be scheduled at the Board’s January meeting for the proposed
changes that he is aware of, and that he will check to see if there is
anything beyond that that needs to be added.
Zoning changes re:
Definition of Minimum Buildable
Mr.
McLaughlin said that some members of the Planning Board met with the Zoning
Board at their November meeting to discuss this issue, and the result was that
the ZBA didn’t want to take a position on the matter because the ZBA is the
appeal process. If an applicant
were denied something by the Planning Board based on the Board’s
interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance and the decision were appealed to the
Zoning Board, the ZBA would have to then make a decision at that point.
Mr.
McLaughlin asked the Board how they felt about revising the definition of “minimum
buildable area” that was put before the voters in March of 2001, and taking
it before the voters again at the next Town Meeting.
He said that the majority of the Board agrees that the minimum
buildable lot size in a given zoning district shall be one continuous piece of
land. If it’s 3-acre zoning, it
would have to be 3 acres not impacted or bisected by any of the 5other
constraints (a through e, page 4 of the Zoning Ordinances)
listed in the ordinance – those being floodplains, aquifers, steep
slope or ledge, wetlands, and so forth. It
seems that when the first case to test the ordinance [Begin Construction Co.’s
proposed subdivision], the Board has seen the difficulties that can be posed
by having a stream or wetlands area have an severe impact on a landowner’s
ability to subdivide. He said that
the Board has gone to the extreme to prevent the recurrence of the Rt. 103
incident, where a landowner’s lot extended across the
Mr.
Serell said that a simple way to accomplish this would be to amend the
ordinance to have it read:
“For
purposes of subdivision, none of the following shall be counted toward the
minimum buildable lot area”
and
strike the rest of it. He
said that the question is, does the Board want to maintain something specific
to the Warner
River?
Mr. McLaughlin said that probably wasn’t the issue.
Mr.
St.Pierre said that the
Mr.
Serell asked if, as a practical matter, could someone build on those areas
that are defined as not counting towards the minimum buildable areas.
The answer from several members of the Board was that just about any
land is buildable, given enough money and if permits could be received.
Ms.
Annis said that her problem with the current wording is that in an R1 zoning
district, Warner allows building on 40,000 sq.ft. with a well and septic –
and in an R3 zoning district where someone has three acres of land, they can’t
build on 40,000 sq.ft. of land on the whole parcel.
She said that she believes that if there are 40,000 sq.ft. of
continuous land on a 3 acre parcel, building should be allowed.
Ms.
Mulsow said that she thinks it is absurd to be so particular in telling people
what they can do with their property. The
zoning is already in place to restrict the size of the parcel of land.
She said that she believes the [ordinance] is so restrictive for the
wrong reasons, because the town has zoning and acreage requirements and state
permits and building permits.
Mr.
Serell suggested that the Board revise the wording per his previous suggestion
and schedule the Public Hearing for discussion.
Essentially, his suggestion is as follows:
The
second sentence would read: “For
purposes of subdivision”, INSERT
THE WORDS “none of the following”
AND STRIKE THE ENTIRE NEXT PHRASE,
“shall be counted toward the minimum buildable lot area”.
There
won’t be any “continuous lot area” phrase included.
Mr.
Pershouse said that Mr. Begin had brought up the fact that a lot of towns use
a percentage basis to determine the amount of required buildable land.
This method would be more arbitrary, but would be more pleasing to
developers.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that a model for defining a minimum buildable lot size based
on natural features, like soils and other conditions, minimum sizes (depending
on soil types) are around ¾ to 1 acre when there are on-site septic and wells
accommodated.
Mr.
Brayshaw said that some towns have adopted increased minimum acreage
requirements. He said that
Dunbarton had recently changed to a minimum of 5 acre lots.
Mr. McLaughlin said that would only create sprawl.
Ms.
Mulsow said that amending the definitions would allow the Board to explain
itself and its decisions better, and the Board could require an environmental
impact study if necessary.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that the wording would be put together and a Public Hearing
will be held at the January Board meeting.
Definition of Home Occupation (page
3 of the Zoning Ordinance)
Ms.
Mulsow said that one of the positive things about Warner is that a home
business is allowed. She asked
when the limitation of 500 sq.ft. came about.
She said that with the current economic conditions, people need to be
able to work out of their homes, and she didn’t understand why there wasn’t
a huge uproar over the limitation by voters two years ago.
Mr.
Wallace said that he didn’t believe that people fully read what they vote
on.
Mr.
Pershouse said that he agrees that the ordinance is restrictive, but asked
what the alternative would be.
Mr.
Serell said that there wasn’t anything specific about the 500 sq.ft., but
that it was part of the whole decision to require some oversight of the home
occupation. Mr. McLaughlin said
that it was a general reaction to a growing number of home businesses that
seemed to be excessive, and the desire to somehow have them pass through
another level of scrutiny.
Ms.
Mulsow said that she thinks it is very restrictive.
Mr. St.Pierre said that it is still talking about a home business as
opposed to a commercial establishment, so it is supposed to be still in the
home and the question becomes at what point does it become commercial and not
a home anymore.
Mr.
Pershouse said that it depends on how large the home is, and suggested the
possibility of using percentages. Mr.
Serell said to keep in mind that all of this is subject to obtaining a
variance.
There
was discussion about two current cases of home business and home offices.
Mr.
Brayshaw said what the Town is seeing now is that the general public is out
there coming to the Selectmen’s office and saying how they’re being
affected by the ordinances. Mr.
St.Pierre said that they should be coming to the Planning Board to tell the
Board what they don’t like. Ms.
Mulsow said that when she was on the Board previously, the Board would try to
sell themselves to the community, to advertise and promote involvement.
She said that attendance at the meetings really depends on the issue
before the Board.
Ms.
Annis said that on paragraph (h) of the definition, where it states “25%
of the total floor area of the dwelling, including any functional basement” --
most houses have at least 500
sq.ft. if you include the basement and the first floor.
She said that she thinks 25% is too high of a percentage, because it
could include an entire first floor.
Mr.
Pershouse suggested sticking with a percentage of the size of the house.
Mr. Serell said that the wording can be presented and discussed as a
proposed change at the January meeting, and that the Board would have to vote
on a change at the Public Hearing.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that 25% is a good starting place for discussion.
Mr.
Brayshaw said that all of the work that Mr. St.Pierre and any other members
of the subcommittee put into the drafting of the ordinance changes is very
much appreciated.
Non Residential Design Review
Subcommittee meetings
Mr.
Pershouse announced that these meetings will be held on the next two Mondays
in December, at
Discussion
of a bill received in the amount of $879 for services provided by Steve
Virgin, the engineer working on the Wentzel project.
Sissy will check with Wendy on the payment, which should be from an
escrow account that has been set up for this purpose.
Mr.
McLaughlin said that a directive has been received from the Selectmen’s
office to cease all spending for the remainder of the year, unless
specifically approved. Mr.
Pershouse asked Mr. Brayshaw to interpret what is considered to be a
significant expenditure. Mr.
Brayshaw said that anything over $250 is considered significant, but at this
point ALL spending is to cease for the rest of the year 2001.
Ms.
Annis asked on what the Board had spent $680 for legal expenses in the month
of October. Mr. McLaughlin said it
was $500 that the Board agreed to pay to the Central New Hampshire Regional
Planning Commission for their assistance in the design process, and the rest
is to the Town’s attorney.
Mr.
St.Pierre said that the minutes will show that the last meeting of the
subcommittee on non-residential design review has been amending information
received from CNHRPC. There still
need to be revisions made. If
there are any comments, please bring them to the Monday subcommittee meeting.
He handed out copies of the work done to date.
Mr. Pershouse said that the February meeting is the goal for
presentation at the Planning Board meeting.
IX.
Adjourn
A motion was made and seconded to adjourn
the meeting. The meeting was
adjourned at
Minutes approved
on January 7, 2001.