Ms. Annis asked everyone in the room to turn off their cell phones. Ed Mical will be voting for Andrew Serell.

Chair Annis: Would like to take a minute to clarify comments made to her. It was suggested that a board member recuse himself due to a conflict of interest as an owner of a parcel of land in the commercial district. After conferring with Central NH Regional Planning Commission, the Local Government Center and town counsel, all agreed ownership of less than 1% of the commercial district is negligible and unreasonable cause to ask a board member to recuse themselves. It is ultimately the Planning Board’s decision if there is a conflict of interest. Mr. Eigabroadt added, according to the RSAs, the Planning Board’s decision of a conflict of interest is nonbinding, it is still up to the individual to remove themselves upon recommendation of the Board. Board agreed no action is necessary.

Regarding a board member residing out of town, according to RSA 654:1 and 2, if a board member temporarily resides out of town, there is no cause for question. Board member was asked and confirmed temporarily residing out of town. Board agreed no action is necessary.

Chair Annis opened the public hearing on the proposed zoning changes.

Christine Perkins: I would like a clarification on the commercial district, Article XI, maximum floor area for shops, restaurants, and other retail and service establishments shall be 20,000 square feet. Where more gross floor area is required multiple buildings may be grouped on the same lot up to a maximum of 40,000 square feet. The proposed language is using the word footprint, my question is does footprint mean one level? Mr. Eigabroadt responded, the footprint is length times width, what would be in place if it left an impression in the sand. No matter how the buildings are put on the lot, you cannot exceed the 40,000 square foot. Ms. Perkins asked, why is it being changed? Mr. Eigabroadt responded that in discussions for example about the hotel, there was some confusion about the difference between the total square footage and the footprint. It was discussed and decided that when this ordinance was enacted the intent behind it was to not have a "big box" structure. The use of the language "footprint" is intended to clarify so there is no confusion as to exactly the dimensions of the building.

Ms. Perkins: My concern is, it seems like this is geared toward killing the hotel or any other reasonable building. Mr. Lennon responded, the way the language reads now, the maximum gross floor area, the sum of the floor areas of all floors would preclude a hotel because the maximum gross floor area is 20,000 square feet – if you had 3 levels of 10,000, you’d be at 30K, over. Under the proposed language you could have a footprint of 20,000 square feet with three levels for a total of 60,000 square feet.

Mr. Eigabroadt: One of the things stated in the explanation from the Zoning Board referencing Article XI was, the way it currently reads is not working, footprint is a more commonly used term, the reason for the ordinance being Warner did not want "big box" buildings, the ones with one floor of at least 100,000 sq. ft. Changing the wording to a more commonly used term does not affect the purpose or scope of the ordinance.

Ms. Perkins: As an appointed official of the Warner Water District, the district is very concerned about the tax/revenue impact if businesses such as the hotel are not permitted. The financial impact on the few citizens, as replacement and upgrade projects are needed, can be greatly diminished as projects like the hotel are reasonably allowed to develop.

Ms. Perkins and Mr. Lennon continued to discuss for clarification.

Mr. Pershouse: Because of the confusion, does it make sense to add the word footprint again in the last sentence. Mr. Lennon suggested, "…multiple buildings may be built on the same lot up to a maximum footprint of 40,000 square feet, with no one building to have a footprint exceeding 20,000 square feet."

The board does not feel it is a significant change – just a clarification.

George Pellettieri: For the record, I don’t have a problem with the wording change, additional clarification is always helpful. 20,000 sq. ft. footprint does not necessarily mean it has to be a box; buildings also have to meet other requirements such as height, parking; special exceptions are available through the Zoning Board provided it meets the criteria. As chair of the Warner Citizens for Smart Growth, we do not oppose the hotel; the question has always been one of scale. Scale should be taken into account on all of the properties within the commercial district. The cumulative effect, 200x100’ building, two of them together on each of the lots available, assuming they meet all other requirements, that level of development in a concentrated area could be overwhelming in scale.

Mr. Eigabroadt: The scope of the ordinance is not being changed, only clarified, evidenced by the fact that the maximum is still 40,000 sq. ft.

Mr. Pellettieri: As proposed the language could conceivably allow no more than 20,000 sq. ft. footprint, and then because 35’ height is allowed, you could conceivably have two buildings of 60,000 sq. ft. for a total of 120,000.

Dan Watts: With the existing ordinance you could still build a 20,000 sq. ft., 35’H box, a structure perhaps out of scale. The new wording you can still build a box. From the outside shell of the building, the ordinance has not changed. As stated earlier, other zoning ordinances such as parking will restrict the size of a building.

Discussion continued, reiterating points as described above.

Mary Watts: In comparison to towns nearby with similar character to Warner, this is far more stringent – this clarifies the intent and keeps the character.

Mr. Pellettieri pointed out a typo in Article III, Home Occupation Section h.

Under the definition of structure, that which is built or constructed... Mr. Lennon clarified a structure could be constructed within the setbacks. In an explanation provided by the ZBA as to why they requested a clarification, an example provided was a three-sided equipment shed does not meet the definition of a building and therefore could be built on the property line.

A number of emails, letters were received which will be on file with the minutes. In summary: Clark Lindley supports changing the current zoning to 20,000 sq. ft., multiple buildings, in favor of light industry. Phil Lord commented about the precinct supporting reasonable development. JD Colcord supports the 20,000 sq. ft. footprint. Alison Mock in favor of 20,000 sq. footprint in the commercial district.

Mr. Mical: Because there was a question of clarification of one of the items, the explanation letter from ZBA should be read. Chair agreed and summarized it as follows: Article XVII, Board of Adjustment, Section E. part 2, the Zoning Board asked that this be removed from the ordinances because it was agreed that it belongs in the Zoning Board procedures not in the ordinance. It was put on the ballot in error and this action would correct that mistake. The ZBA supports the home occupation language changes. They did not request a change in the definition of a building.

Mr. Lennon made a MOTION to send Article III Definition of a building and structure to the voters, proposed language of building: "Any combination of materials, whether permanent or temporary, having a roof or other overhead covering and used for the shelter covering, or enclosure of any persons, animals or property." Proposed language of structure: "That which is built or constructed". Seconded. MOTION passed unanimously.

Mr. Lennon made a MOTION to send Article XI, gross floor area as discussed and amended tonight be sent to the voters. Seconded. Proposed amended language: "Where more footprint area is required, multiple buildings may be grouped o the same lot up to a maximum footprint of 40,000 square feet, with no one buildings footprint to exceed 20,000 sq. ft." Seconded. MOTION passed unanimously.

Chair Annis: For comparison, Market Basket is 60,700 sq. ft., we are talking about 1/3 the footprint of Market Basket. Warner Power, one lot, two buildings is a total of 54,000 sq. ft. Tory Hill properties list 4 buildings on one lot totaling 49,921 sq. ft. Milton Warner has a lot of accessory buildings, has a total of 43,525 sq. ft. The Indian Museum is 10, 512 sq. ft.

Mr. Lennon: Article XVII Board of Adjustment, I make a MOTION that we recommend eliminating the language. Seconded - MOTION passed unanimously.

Mr. Mical: Building Code Article II, Section A.1. MOTION made to send to voters. Mr. Eigabroadt seconded. Mr. Patsfield pointed out that because the proposed language stipulates regulations it will have to be revisited as regulations change. Mr. Mical pointed out this is what the state has adopted. MOTION passed (Mr. Lennon abstained).

Ginger Marsh representing the bank, presented the banks proposed addition on the existing building to add a community room, more office space and a safe deposit area. To do this we will need to extend the building out 12’. Ms. Marsh demonstrated what is proposed on the inside and outside of the building (3 sheet site plan of proposed improvements – dated 1/9/07 by Lauer Architects P.A.).

After brief discussion the board did not see anything of concern. The Bank does need to submit a request to be heard by the ZBA before they come back to the Planning Board for a site plan review.

Mark Feenstra representing RAW. Mark stated according to FEMA it is the town’s responsibility to maintain the wall if the property is sold – one solution he is considering is removing the wall and putting stone in there. With no wall, there is no requirement for a maintenance agreement. Mr. Eigabroadt inquired why was the wall built in the first place. Mr. Feenstra responded it was put in to separate the lots, separating the lots is no longer necessary.

Chair Annis: FEMA’s questions about the wall came about when RAW filed an MT-1 Form, a letter of map revision based on fill. In discussion Mr. Eigabroadt stated the Town of Warner is not interested in taking on liability of maintaining the wall. Mr. Lennon questioned whether the board can relate the wall on lot 3 to the approval of the site plan for lots 1 and 2. Second, the best solution may be the removal of the wall.

Mr. Feenstra states he was told by FEMA what he needs to do is a Lowest Adjacent Grade with an MT-1 for each lot as it is developed. What that will do is take each lot out of the floodplain after I show the lowest adjacent break with another MT-1 form after the building slabs go in. I did present to FEMA all three lots – as told to do so by my engineer.

Chair Annis: At the last meeting you were given a copy of suggested changes in the landscape plan, are any of the recommendations on the site plan?

Mr. Feenstra: Bigger trees in the entrance to the property. What changes would the board like to see? It is not clear to me what changes the board would like to see. Some of the landscape recommendations conflicted with snow removal.

Chair Annis: At one time you suggested you would come up with an amount for the bond – do you have one?

Mr. Feenstra: I am waiting for Provan & Lorber to let me know what they suggest we should bond for.

It is not clear what the bond should be issued for – appears P&L have not been given the mandated to detail the bond.

Chair Annis: Conditional approvals were handout out last week, I emailed a copy of proposed conditions, Mr. Serell submitted suggestions. Central NH suggests bonding the entire project and as project is complete the bond is decreased. Local Government Center says only bond for the public’s interest. Commercial building inspector estimated commercial buildings usually run around $200 sq. ft., this project @ 1,800 sq. ft.

Mr. Feenstra offered that he reviewed Provan & Lorber’s agreement and it seems reasonable. Project will probably be $2.5M complete.

P&L and our commercial building inspector will be overseeing the drainage. Mr. Pershouse suggested the Board ask P&L to recommend the amount and conditions of the bond. Mr. Pershouse agreed to approach P&L with this request.

Mr. Feenstra and Chair Annis: The letter of map revision from FEMA for lots 1 and 2 will come after the building permit, after the pad, after the survey engineer determines it is above plain. The disconnect seems to be FEMA’s review including lot 3 as included in the submission by Mr. Feenstra. The process outlined above was recommended by FEMA so as not to restart the whole process excluding lot 3.

Mr. Lennon suggested the Board walk through the conditions. Site plan approval needed before pads are poured, pads need to be poured before the map revision. There is a disjoint between site plan approval and the final letter from FEMA for ok slabs. As long as we make it clear to the Selectmen the sequence for enforcement.

Mr. Eigabroadt: Three building inspections are part of the process, foundation, rough and then the finish. If the foundation does not meet all the requirements the building cannot continue.

Mr. Mical: Back in Oct 16, 2000, decision for subdivision, Mr. Feenstra has not complied with the decision of the subdivision; it says that the LOMA will be provided. We should request the FEMA recommendations in writing. Mr. Feenstra agreed to ask FEMA to obtain documentation.

In reviewing the conditions outlined by Mr. Serell, Mr. Lennon reminded the board the rationale behind including everything - once we approve the site plan, the board is essentially removed from the process.

Reviewing "Proposed Conditions for Conditional Approval of RAW Application": [refer to attachment A] #1 and #3 Provan & Lorber have given us one cost. #1 suggest we write in the sum of $3930 for drainage plan review, plus 2% plus mileage, $4,100 for drainage review. #2 Confirmation from P&L that the drainage plans remains adequate. #3, regarding overseeing, after discussion, $2,200. Performance bond, #4, suggest we wait on that number from P&L; Placing a condition on the condition that we receive from P&L and agree on a number. #5, completion of site plan within 2 years, aligns with building permit expires in 2 years - Agreed to go with that. Regarding #6, Mr. Lennon stated the letter of map revisions from FEMA is not a condition of approval, but an instruction to the selectmen to assure that requirement is fulfilled before moving construction beyond foundation. We could stipulate within 1 year of site plan of approval, this condition will be fulfilled otherwise we could call in the bond. Subdivision should never have been signed and recorded without that condition being approved. Discussed the conditions of the building permit application and the issue with FEMA. Clear conditions of compliance need to be outlined. Mr. Eigabroadt agreed to find out if proof that it is out of the floodplain is required before the building permit is signed. Also remaining is the bond estimate and exaction fees to be determined. #7 was agreed on; #8 is clear; #9 straightforward; #10, ok; #11 Chair felt the price high at $7,500 for landscaping. Mr. Feenstra, most landscapers do guarantee their work for a year. Suggested price $4,000. Escrow needs to be established to guarantee landscaping. #12, traffic study, State does not require turning lanes, corridor study does for access management and fire department - single center turning lane suggested, basically repainting the existing road with permission from the State. #13 put on back burner until after we get a response from Mr. Eigabroadt about building permit application.

Exaction fee: Spreadsheet (Mr. Reeder’s) was distributed attempt to identify a formula that would be fair and equitable to cover the cost of a traffic light. The formula in part was avg. weekday trip generation based on types of businesses. The board agreed to take time to review and consider formulas. Chair proposes answers to exaction fees by the board work session on February 19^th. Mr. Eigabroadt suggested Attorney Gartrell attend the work session on Feb 19th. Additional board work session scheduled for Wed., January 31^st at 7:00 pm to discuss exaction fees.

Mr. Feenstra agreed to a 30 day extension. He will come back to the board with written documentation/recommendation from FEMA and landscape plan.

December 18, 2006 minutes of public hearing and work session, Mr. Lennon made a MOTION to approve with corrections, Mr. Brown is Mr. Goodwin, pg. 9 "Evans" is "Nevins", pg 1 add the word "at" before "each place in the zoning regulations". Mr. Eigabroadt seconded, MOTION carried unanimously.

January 8, 2007 minutes, Mr. Lennon made a MOTION to approve, Mr. Eigabroadt seconded, MOTION carried unanimously.

Chair Annis received an email from Dominique Civarro who did the Corridor Study; he provided names of engineers as potential for designing the traffic light. I forwarded this to Mr. Reeder and Mr. Pershouse. Mr. Pershouse did provide the Town Administrator with a contractor and web page to explore how to cost out the project to put together a request for proposal.

Chair Annis received a call from Alan Brown, Alison Rees (Provan & Lorber) is refiguring the roadway going up into the Wagner subdivision – Alan Brown, Alison Rees and Stefan Toth are scheduled to meet Wednesday (1/24/07 at 10:00 am at the Highway Department), the Planning Board is invited to attend. Chair stated she did not know any further studying was going to be done, who authorized it and who was paying for it. Alison did send an email stating this meeting with the highway department was not calculated into their scope of services and did the board want her to attend this meeting instead of attending a planning board meeting. Ms. Annis encouraged Ms. Rees to attend the scheduled meeting with Alan Brown and Stefan Toth. It was unclear what Mr. Toth revised or submitted; we do have a review of roadway, a memorandum and stormwater management plan.

Mr. Eigabroadt made a MOTION to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Mical, MOTION unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.