Members Present: Nancy Martin, Linda Conners, James McLaughlin, Barbara Annis, Theodore Young,

Members Absent: John Brayshaw, Andrew Serell

Alternates Present: Derek Pershouse, Mark Lennon, Russ St.Pierre

Alternates Absent: Cynthia Dabrowski

Presiding: Nancy Martin

Recording: Virginia Brayshaw

Roll Call -- 5 members, 3 alternates (a quorum) present

Additions: under Other: (after II)

II A: Tower Ordinance

II B: Architectural Design Subcommittee

II C: Zoning Ordinance Amendments and sequence, also Site Plan Review

II D: Procedural Matters

Mr. Doug Sweet, of Bristol & Sweet, for Richard and Alice Rolfe at 349 Rte. 103 East. Proposing the creation of a 2-Lot Subdivision -- Lot 1 with 35+/- acres; Lot 2 with 17.4+/- acres.

Mr. Sweet presented maps and a synopsis of the preliminary hearing (August 7, 2000, meeting). The maps presented at this (December 4, 2000) meeting differ from the maps submitted with the application in that in procuring a driveway permit from the State of New Hampshire Highway Department a requirement to flatten the side slopes of the driveway (or a choice of guardrails) to a 4:1 slope necessitated moving the driveway northwest about 20 feet. This is accomplished by adding more fill along the sides of the driveway. The second sheet of the map set includes the percolation information, topography and the soils information. Some of the upland soils on the northerly end are steep and were not counted in the area to make up the required 2 acres for the subdivision. Lot 1 has 2.3 acres, and Lot 2 has 4 acres, of uplands soils. No recorded species of sensitive plants or animals in the database of Natural Heritage Inventory.

Discussion followed including concern about the percentage and location of vegetation (trees in particular) that would be need to be cut in order to make building possible and the requirements of both Warner Zoning requirements and the Shoreline Protection Act. Also the question of whether the land required for a buildable lot is required to be contiguous was discussed. It was pointed out that Warner Zoning requirements can allow for a buildable lot of 40,000 square feet in both Districts R1 and R2 where a septic system is approved for the lot in question. The State Subdivision approval implies that the lot has characteristics indicating that it will sustain an approved septic system. The square footage of the new lot was calculated, and question was raised as to whether there is in fact 40,000 square feet of buildable area. Pg 10 Subdivision Regulations under A. General Requirements states:

1. Land of such character that it cannot be safely used for building purposes because of danger to health or peril from fire, flood, impermeable soil, or other hazard shall not be platted for residential occupancy, nor for other use which would tend to increase the danger to health, life or property or aggravate the flood or sewage hazard. Land with unsuitable soil or inadequate capacity for individual sanitary sewage disposal systems shall not be subdivided unless connected to a common sewer system. No land described above, nor any land described as follows, shall be counted toward the required minimum buildable lot area:

Meeting Closed/Public Hearing Opened

Rona Carr, abutter (north of Rolfe property), asked for a brief explanation of the plans of the Rolfes. Ms. Carr looked at a copy of the plan maps. The cutting of vegetation done to date was discussed, as well as notification of property owners of the rules and regulations governing such cutting.

John Dabuliewicz questioned whether the setback requirements for a septic system were met in the plan presented.

Mr. Sweet assured Mr. Dabuliewicz that those requirements were more than met.

Alice Chamberlain questioned whether the requirements of each zoning district were really being considered in concert rather than concentrating on the requirements centered around the ability of the lot to sustain a septic system.

The proximity of the floodplain was also questioned. There is not floodplain area included in the land used to make up the “buildable lot.”

Upon hearing no further discussion, the Chair Closed the Public Hearing and
Re-opened the Meeting.

The question of the zone location of the more distant portion of the property, whether it is in OC-1 or not, was raised.

Concern was expressed as to whether allowing this subdivision was going to set a precedent that would prevent a denial in any future similar cases.

It was decided that a legal opinion should be sought as to whether the buildable lot area needs to be continuous or made up of contiguous pieces.

The plan for the Rolfe Subdivision submitted by Mr. Sweet was voted on and accepted by the Board.

Mr. Young made a motion to approve the 2-lot Subdivision based upon 40,000 s.f. out of the floodplain of useable land for the purpose of building and constructing an approved septic system. Seconded by Mr. Pershouse.

After brief discussion Mr. Young withdrew his motion in favor of a Site Walk on December 16, 2000, to reassure the board of the adequacy of the lot plan.

It was decided that the Board will continue this case at their January 2001 meeting after conducting a Site Walk on December 16, 2000.

The Chair addressed Mr. Sweet explaining that preliminary proposals are not binding. They are simply to give some direction to the prospective applicant. The Chair explained that The Board does not act lightly, and that there were concerns in regard to the potential precedent that might be set. A Site Walk is warranted to assure an educated decision on the part of The Board.

Mr. Sweet asked if it might be necessary or preferential to have someone from his office or to have the Rolfes present for the Site Walk. He was subsequently cordially invited to accompany The Board at 8:30 am on Saturday December 18, 2000, for the Site Walk.

Mr. Derek Pershouse:

* Height is now linked much less closely to technology and more closely to monetary gain. The 180’ tower height is related to the FAA requirement of towers (structures) of 200’ or more to be lighted and to be Federally approved.

* Multiple low power towers and antenna arrays mounted on other existing structures seems to be the direction of telecommunications technology.

* The issue of the number of carriers a town or municipality is required to provide access to will be important.

* We need to amend our ordinance to reflect the technology and current buildout approach that is being used in the industry.

Mr. Pershouse presented a draft revision of the Wireless and Telecommunications Ordinance compiled by Warner residents and members of the Planning Board. The intent of the amendment is to effectively reduce allowed tower height by requiring a close relationship between the height of a tower and a required surrounding tree canopy within a given distance. This would effect a reduction in the visibility of towers in Warner.

Proposed Revision:

1003.00 SITING STANDARDS

1003.01 GENERAL PROVISIONS

a. A Site Plan Application and Site Plan Review approval are required for any wireless communication facility construction. Co-location of facilities must meet all current Site Plan Review regulations.

b. The uses in this section are deemed to be permitted uses in the designated district in accordance with all other applicable ordinances and regulations of the Town including Site Plan Review and approval by the Warner Planning Board.

c. Antennas and towers may be considered either principal or secondary uses. A different existing use or an existing structure on the same lot shall not preclude the installation of an antenna or tower on such lot.

d. For purposes of determining whether the installation of a tower or antenna complies with district development standards, the dimensions of the entire lot shall control, even though the antennas and towers may be located on leased parcels within such lots.

e. Towers that are constructed and antennas that are installed in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance on a non-conforming lot or in conjunction with a non-conforming use, shall not be deemed to constitute the expansion of a non-conforming use or structure.

f. No wireless telecommunication facility shall be permitted in any location unless there is an existing tree canopy within a radius of 100 feet from the proposed location. No wireless telecommunication facility shall be permitted that protrudes more than 20 feet above the average canopy height within a radius of 500 feet from the proposed location. Tree clearing within the radius, beyond the absolute minimum required for construction, shall be prohibited Nothing in this section is intended to prohibit proposals to mount antenna arrays on existing structures.

g. All free-standing towers, except in pre-existing sites, must be set back a distance equal to 125% of the height of the tower from any off-site residential structure. Towers and accessory facilities must satisfy the minimum zoning district setback requirements.

1003.02 DISTRICTS PERMITTED

a. Pre-existing Towers and Co-location. Two communication tower sites exist within the town limits of Warner as of January 1, 1998.

1. Summit of Mount Kearsarge (a State Facility)

2. MCT Communication Inc. site on Tory Hill

b. New Towers. New tower construction and co-location of wireless telecommunication facilities shall be permitted in the following districts subject to all applicable local, state and federal regulations and Site Plan Review and approval by the Planning Board. New tower construction is permitted by special exception in the following areas:

R1 Not Permitted

R2 Special Exception

R3 Special Exception

B1 Not Permitted

C1 Special Exception

OC1 Not Permitted

OR1 Special Exception

In all cases, new tower construction must be able to be accomplished in such a manner that the top of the tower is at an elevation of no less than one hundred (100) feet below the elevation of the summit, and its extended ridge line, of the nearest peak, up slope from the tower site.

c. Before approving an application for a special exception for a wireless telecommunication facility, the Zoning Board of Adjustment shall find that the following prerequisites have been met, in addition to the special exception standards of Article XVII.C.1. of the Zoning Ordinance:

1. The legitimate requirements of the applicant cannot reasonably be met by an alternative tower structure(s) or use of other available alternative technologies; and

2. The applicant has presented written information which addresses to the Board’s satisfaction how the proposal is consistent with the provisions of paragraphs b, c, d, e and f of Section 1000.01 of this ordinance

The Board was given the opportunity to ask questions of Mr. Pershouse; there were no questions.

Opened to Alice Chamberlain

* There are in fact two industries involved in the Wireless Telecommunications field: service providers and tower companies.

* Awareness of a need to accommodate Wireless Telecommunications as a necessary service is important.

* The fact that the industry will continue to apply for antenna space in our area, on towers or otherwise, is indisputable. We can control the visual effect by lowering the tower height and connecting it with the surrounding tree canopy. This will lessen the visual impact and still provide the capacity for service in the area.

* All towns and Planning and Zoning Boards will be faced with looking at this ordinance on a continuous basis because of the dynamic nature of the changing technology of this industry.

Discussion followed focusing first on the idea that telecommunications towers and antenna arrays are going to be a fact of life. The objective should be to make them as unobtrusive as possible. Continued discussion included attention to allowing the use of existing structures, and also to promoting camouflage of telecommunications towers.

It was decided that these proposed amendments to the Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance should be discussed and otherwise addressed at the Joint Meeting of the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Adjustment on December 11, 2000.

Committee has met three times to discuss possible amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that will address keeping a cohesive character of the town particularly in the C1 and B1 Zoning Districts. The timing is important to in that getting these rudimentary amendments into the Ordinance will allow the Board, and the town, to build upon them in attempt to keep a pleasing and attractive atmosphere and appearance to the town.

New definitions have been formulated including a “Minimum Buildable Lot.”

A provision has been made to limit the proximity of Fast Food or Drive-In Restaurants to one another.

Also a provision for modification of the “standard package” of formula restaurants to suite the character of the town.

The draft of these proposed changes should be made available to the public via the Town Web Site, copies in the Town Clerk’s Office and in the Office of the Board of Selectmen.

These proposed changes will be presented at a Public Hearing at the January 8 Meeting.

The Ordinance needs to be reviewed to check for inconsistencies in the Table of Contents.

The Tower Ordinance needs to be included in the Zoning Ordinance.

Should the Site Plan component of the Tower Ordinance be included in the Zoning Ordinance; should it be included in the Site Plan Review.

Russ St. Pierre to write-up proposed changes to Zoning Ordinance.

Minutes: It was suggested that getting the minutes to the members by Wednesday before the upcoming meeting instead of Friday or Saturday would be most helpful in allowing time for members to review the minutes. It was suggested that a verbatim transcription of the minutes is not necessary, and that it might be better to capture the substance of the discussion and be sure to accurately record motions, seconds and decisions.

Maps and Agendas need to be properly posted before the meetings.

Notice of Joint Meeting must be posted and published.