Chair: Reviewing the reports received from Provan & Lorber (P&L), 4 reports were received between July 25, 2006 and February 8^th, 2007. Many of the items in the 2006 reports were not in the 2007 reports - new issues appeared. The board reviewed with Mr. Toth the complete list at the January 2007 meeting. On January 2^nd report came out with new issues, which was when Mr. Toth asked that the board meet with him, Provan & Lorber and Alan Brown – this meeting took place on January 24^th, 2007. The February 6^th, 2007 report we requested to show what items remained. Unfortunately it contained items that were previously determined as no longer needed. Two days later we received another revision, because two engineers at P&L did not communicate to each other. Pershouse suggested a core of board members sit down with P&L and sort this out, this doesn’t seem to be something that we can/should do at this public meeting. Chair reminded the board every time they meet with Provan & Lorber it costs the applicant. Mr. Toth commented, all parties did meet on January 24^th", the meeting concluded with the understanding that we would receive a revised letter back based on everything we agreed to, including formatting the letter so that it was easy to read and understand what issues are linked to permits that we are receiving from the state or issues that no longer exists. That revised letter should have been reflective of the January 24^th meeting – it was not accurate to what was agreed on at the meeting. I (Mr. Toth) then sent an email to Alison at P&L stating it was inaccurate – I went through the letter outlining the points that should have been changed based on our discussion. Alison seemed unwilling to revise the letter, which concerns me because it has items that have been addressed or are not relevant.

Eigabroadt: Reviewing the reports, Mr. Toth is correct.

Chair suggested a roundtable work session to finalize, review the reports line item by line item. Mr. Wagner and Mr. Toth agreed to participate in a work session.

Mr. Toth provided a brief summary of the proposed commercial subdivision - Proposing to build a public road and four commercial lots. At the planning boards request we extended the public roadway closer to the property line. We have met with the board to address their comments. The application was accepted last month; we have applied for and gone through our first revision of permits from the State of NH. Also, from the NHDOT we will need a driveway permit; NHDOT asked to extend the island for safety. We are working on comments from NHDOT. To obtain a subdivision permit we are working with the town on street lighting and safety signs.

Chair closed the planning board meeting and opened the public hearing.

Jim McLaughlin: What is status of the DOT highway permit? Mr. Toth responded currently we are addressing comments from them. Mr. McLaughlin stated that this is creating a dangerous intersection, close to, changing access to the current onramp to I-89. A subdivision of four lots creates more traffic, more potential problems. The physical layout of the access road, a 10% grade coming down to a steep canyon, creates some potential seasonal danger. Expanding the road to access additional lots creates even more potential traffic on this very difficult piece of geography.

Eigabroadt: We should address Jim’s question about what transpired on the entrance. That is classified limited access roadway by the State because there are on ramps and off ramps there. There is pretty good site distance in both directions, the State did take this into consideration during discussions of access. Mr. Toth stated, Mr. Eigabroadt is correct, when they took the right of way back in early 1975, the State gave a letter to the current owner at that time, that there was a right to have access and they provided a location for access. We worked with the State to try to push the entrance as far as possible to get away from the ramp. The ramp configuration, extending the island would help keep traffic separate. The plan started with 6 lots, the project was reduced to 4 lots. Addressing the concern with winter conditions, the roadway design provides a large ditch, plenty of room for highway department to put the snow – we worked with the Warner Highway department. As far as continuing the road for possible future expansion, the Planning Board asked to continue the driveway.

Richard Cook: For clarification, the Selectmen have not adopted this road. It is still in the planning stages. It is a private road, shouldn’t be planning on becoming a public road until the Selectmen vote.

Rich Davies: Earlier you talked about revisions from Provan & Lorber; it is not unusual to have revisions on revisions. The board accepted the application with a couple waivers, one being overhead utility lines, for appearance putting utilities underground, I recommend reconsideration. I know this is a subdivision but at some point there needs to be landscaping along the roads - who would landscape? What would or would not be a public roadway? Mr. Toth responded landscaping will not be done on the island, as much as possible existing trees will remain, town or board does not require landscaping; the erosion plan does include seeding.

Davies: What is setback from edge of road to properties? Mr. Toth: Individual lots will need to come to the board for a site review which may include landscaping. Mr. Wagner: Selective cutting will be done, as many midsize trees as possible will remain, I do not plan to clear cut the lot. Eigabroadt stated these issues are part of the site plan review.

Eigabroadt: The Conservation Commission submitted comments, a solicited response, talking about the unusual characteristics of this parcel. (Eigabroadt read a portion of the comments into the record as follows:

Unusual characteristics of this parcel – This parcel with its location on the western edge of the Exit 9 Intervale represents a significant part of the view of this "gateway" to Warner. Its high elevation relative to the rest of the Intervale and the mature forest that covers the parcel make it a prominent feature in the Intervale landscape. The intensive development of this parcel proposed in the plan would most likely remove a good portion of the tree cover and result in a significant loss in the visual quality that it now affords the public. We urge that consideration be given to the retention of the wooded buffer along the eastern side of the property sufficient to maintain a forested screen as it now exists.

Mr. Davies expressed concern regarding the volume of land that is going to be disturbed to put in the roadway. What and who is going to be responsible for future landscaping in this 40’ setback area and around the cul de sac?

Eigabroadt: What now becomes of the area, the edge of the developed road in toward the buildings, those setbacks of either side of that roadway that have to be disturbed to build the road, is it sloped and seeded or is it something that is the responsibility of future property owners?

Mr. Toth: The roadway, the ditch, both the ledge face and on top, we have the interface between the ledge face and the slope that we are going to cut back a little bit, that will be loamed and seeded. We will not be going beyond the boundaries needed to build the roadway, the ditch and the slope. Eigabroadt: So the answer to the question is individual property owners are responsible once the parcels are sold? Mr. Wagner responded, yes. Mr. Toth stated a landscaping plan sufficient to meet regulations will be prepared when the site plan moves forward for further development.

Victor Kumin: If I understand you correctly, these are preliminary, not construction drawings. Is there any intent, any restriction on excavation on the individual parcels that go with the sale of the land? Once subdivided is there any restriction on the severity of the excavation to take place along this roadway? Appears to be a conceptual at the moment versus a detail for a subdivision, details should be provided to the public for a complete understanding of what is going to be done. There is no clearness or surety that the land area will not be totally destroyed by this process. Chair Annis responded that this is a subdivision, not a site plan. When they come in to develop, that is when the site plan is required and details on individual property development will be available. Eigabroadt reiterated this is a subdivision as raw lot, only cutting the necessary trees to access and put in the roadway. As the subdivided parcels are sold a site plan will be presented.

Lennon: On a lot like this one, one has to think of site plan considerations at this point because it is a difficult set of lots to build on. It is appropriate to consider what needs to become of the land in order to put structures and parking lots on it, relatively limited possibilities on all four of those lots and all of those possibilities involve a great deal of movement of earth and possibly ledge, so I think it is relevant to consider what the land ultimately will look like. Mr. Kumin: That is essentially my point. In the proposed sale of the lots, is there any constraint regarding the excavation? At this stage is it possible to put sufficient constraints on the excavation in any of those areas so that the public has an understanding that this land area won’t be totally ravaged one by one by individual purchasers?

Chair Annis: Are you suggesting conditions of approval with restrictions on those lots? Eigabroadt: Such as no cut zones? Mr. Kumin: The Planning Board would consider that as a possibility in their deliberations. Chair Annis responded that the board can put conditional approval.

Mr. Kumin: Is this a construction drawing? If so, are elevations shown on the drawing? Mr. Toth responded yes, fully engineered plans have been submitted.

Mr. Cook: Planning Board, please consider the Conservation Commissions request to retain a view along the eastern section as a condition of subdivision so that future development will not be visible from southbound on 89 or the Intervale exit. A question for Mr. Wagner, who owns the island in the cul de sac and who owns the road if the town does not accept it? Mr. Toth responded, the roadway is privately owned until owned by the town. Mr. Cook, so the roadway and cul de sac are essentially a fifth lot. Being privately owned, the condition that it is left will be up to the owner? Mr. Toth: Bonding is set for construction. Mr. Cook: They could put requirements that the cul de sac is landscaped so it is not left, it is hard to predict how the trees that are there will survive construction. My concern is that the cul de sac is privately owned and what condition it will be left in. Mr. Toth: Again, the bond is in place to ensure that the plans are executed. Mr. Cook: So if the Planning Board set conditions on how it should be left, that is covered by the bond? Mr. Toth: That will be part of the approval process, noted on the plans. Whatever is on the plan set is what the bond is set for, protecting the town against unfinished projects. Eigabroadt: To answer your question Richard, yes. The Planning Board can put landscape stipulations on the cul de sac.

Nancy Martin: As a member of the Conservation Commission, I would like to request that you enter the other stipulations in that letter from the Conservation Commission. I am particularly concerned with runoff, the water flowing down into what is the swale along Route 103, the potential to have to create a large culvert to address the additional water running off that road. It is all addressed in that letter and I am wondering what the Planning Board plans on doing about it? I have a concern based on living here for years and seeing what happened to the cut that went under 89, up North Village Road. How once you cut into that granite wall, it opens up springs that for years spread ice and water down onto the road going up that steep curve and caused hazardous road conditions every winter and eventually needed to be blown back by the State.

Mr. Eigabroadt read the remainder of the Conservation Commissions written response into the record:

The Warner Conservation Commission offers the following comments regarding the Wagner commercial subdivision proposal (map 14, lot 10) that is currently before the Planning Board. As a Conservation Commission, we have attempted to confine our remarks to issues that relate to the proper utilization and protection of natural resources and to the protection of watershed resources, as directed in RSA 36-A:2.

Unusual characteristics of this parcel {a continuation, the first paragraph read into the record earlier in the meeting}

Another significant characteristic of the parcel is the granite rock cliff along its frontage on Route 103. While not unique in the Granite State, this feature is certainly unusual in Warner, especially because of its close proximity to the State highway. This rocky cliff would be significantly altered by the construction of a road through it. We urge the Planning Board to investigate with the applicant a less destructive alternative access into this property.

In addition to the special nature of the rocky frontage the Commission is concerned about the impacts that the extensive blasting needed to create a road through it will have on the underlying aquifer. Several homes across Route 103 rely on wells for their drinking water and we are concerned about the effect that this blasting would have on them. There are reported cases where pollutants have been introduced into groundwater as a direct result of blasting operations. In view of its potential adverse effects, we urge the Planning Board to require the applicant to perform a pre-blast survey. We also question whether the State has taken into account the effects of this blasting work on the State highway that is so close to it.

Drainage and erosion control In its letter to Mr. Toth, the Department of Transportation statement appears to require that the drainage design show no increase in drainage runoff to the State right-of-way. This is confusing, since the plan clearly shows increasing the size of downstream storm drains and storm water being directed into the Route 103 drainage system. There will definitely be an increase if this commercial subdivision is allowed to go forward. We ask that the board clarify how the plan meets this DOT requirement.

We are concerned about the quality of the storm runoff that would result from the intensive development of this rather difficult site. Both Central NH Regional Planning Commission and Provan and Lorber have questioned the use of the 25 year storm event in sizing drainage facilities. In view of the sever storm events experienced in the past year, it would seem prudent to require that a 50 or 100 year storm event be used in the design.

As the Intervale continues to be developed and more impervious surfaces created, there is a concern about the cumulative effects of losses in storm water infiltration in this area, particularly on increasing flooding of Stevens Brook and the Warner River. The plan appears to offer little in the way of retaining and treating storm water on this site, and nothing is known about the type of materials that could be stored here. We are concerned that contaminants from the road and parking lots on the developed parcel would pass directly into the river and aquifer, particularly as this area is upstream of the Warner Village’s well field on Chemical Road.

We are also concerned about control of erosion during construction, which may be lengthy, if the applicant intends to carry out the site development work, along with the road construction, by himself. The Board should inquire how long the applicant anticipates this work to take and require specific details as to how storm water runoff during construction will be handled.

Wetands on the parcel There is an identified wetland on lot 10-3 which appears to be very close to the designated septic leach field. This wetland is not delimited on Sheet 3 of the plan.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments and recommendations on this plan to develop a difficult and important parcel of land. Some members would be anxious to participate in a site walk on this property. Please let us know when one is to be scheduled.

Finally, we offer our continued advice and assistance on this and on other proposals that come before the Board.

Chair: I believe this is being addressed by the DOT, I believe increasing the size of the retention area at the top, to accommodate more, the runoff at the top to go into that retention area.

Mr. Toth: We are increasing the size to allow future uses of the parcels to be able to utilize it. Increase pipe sizes through the state right away. We have a water quality unit toward the bottom of the roadway, basically a large catch basin with oil and water separators – approved by DES used to treat runoff.

Mr. Davies: When these lots get to the development stage, if it doesn’t pass the requirements for Planning Board is there a requirement that you approve it because the subdivision is ok’d? Eigabroadt responded that approvals are done in stages, just because we approve a subdivision doesn’t mean that any future development of the individual lot is automatically approved. They still have to come in for the site specific planning.

Mr. Davies: What is the procedure for the town to accept the road? Chair: Applicant submits a request to the Selectmen, they have a public hearing and decide. This cannot be accepted as a road before it is built. Eigabroadt: No guarantee that the Board of Selectmen will accept the road. It would make sense to build a road to the town specifications, so that if the town decides to adopt it as a road, they don’t have to dig it up and redo it.

Mr. Toth: In other towns the Selectmen make recommendation and town adopts on the town ballot.

Eigabroadt: RSA674:40.a The road does not need to be approved a the town meeting, the only time you need to do it at a town meeting is if the legislative body, the taxpayers, have not given the selectman the authority to accept streets.

Board Member: The cul de sac, I understand is a little bit different than town specifications. Chair: That was at the recommendation of the Warner Highway Department. This is part of our subdivision regulations that we have not had a chance to go back and work on – I believe that is one of the designs that is going to be replaced.

Stacy Cooper: Can you clarify whether or not the potential buildable area or lots have been considered in the drainage calculations? Mr. Toth: Two mechanisms are proposed, an infiltration system that is going to be increased beyond what we need for the roadway; also on the site specific permit, on the recorded plan; the DES, if you alter more than 100,000 sq. ft. of contiguous area outside of your ….. each parcel will need to obtain a site specific permit.

Jim McLaughlin: Relative to the blasting, is a pre blast survey required? Mr. Toth: This is something that needs to be done as part of what is done via the State of NH law.

Close public hearing and reopen meeting.

Chair read James and Faye Vadnais’ letter of July 7, 2006 into the record {excerpts italicized}:

Chair Annis: At one of our meetings the possibility of extending the water and sewer lines was discussed. Mr. Wagner responded that there are no plans to do this at this time.

A major concern is the possibility of damage to our house, foundation, septic, trees, water supply and source. Who will provide liability coverage and proof of insurance? What is the documentation requirement for any damage or loss? Mr. Wagner responded, that is where the pre blast surveys come in, they will actually go around and get permission to enter the house, take photos of existing damage, sometimes using vibration monitors; blasters are insured.

How long do the Wagner’s anticipate it will take to construct the road? Will he be doing this himself or will it be contracted to a large corporation? What can we anticipate for a realistic time frame for drilling, blasting and road closure? When will construction commence? Warner does not appear to have an ordinance specific to construction that would limit the hours and days of work. We would like to see some guidelines agreed upon that would permit the elderly abutter to maintain some quality of life. For example, Monday thru Friday, 7 AM to 5 PM. Mr. Wagner responded certainly not at night, working on Saturday would be helpful, it is a short season.

Addressing the Vadnais’ letter of January 29^th, 2007 {Vadnais’ italicized} Will construction for the entrance begin at route 103? Mr. Wagner responded, yes, most likely.

Where is the Site Office going to be located; equipment, materials and vehicles stored/parked? Mr. Toth: Part of that will be identified on the Notice of Intent required by EPA, Storm water Pollution Protection Plan, has those types of items in there. That takes the plan from, this is a finish construction plan,… inaudible.

Is a rock crusher going to be used and if so where is it to be located? Yes, a rock crusher will be used in the ledge cut.

What are the plans for managing traffic disruptions and will there be any detours. If so, where? Mr. Wagner responded there will probably not be any detours necessary, possibly some flag or police at different times. Mr. Toth: DOT dictates and surety bond stipulates these items.

Mr. Pershouse how is the Board going to respond to the Vadnais’ written questions? Chair Annis suggested a copy of the minutes of the meeting should answer the questions. Also a copy of the minutes should go to the Conservation Commission. Conferring with the board all responded to send the minutes in response to the written requests with a cover letter.

Chair Annis: As a board there is still a lot of discussion to take place. Can we schedule a work session, a roundtable discussion in regards to Provan & Lorber, compare the 4 reports and decide how to move forward. This meeting to include Mr. Toth, Mr. Wagner and of course open to the public, but we will not be taking any input from the public at that time. A meeting time scheduled for Tue March 27^th 7:00 pm [NOTE: on 3/19 Chair Annis rescheduled the meeting to Wed, March 28^th, 7:00 pm at the town office.] Mr. Toth volunteered that plans should be updated between now and the 28^th.

Begin Site Plan Review:

Mr. Begin distributed an updated Traffic Study.

Chair Annis: Application was accepted on Jan 8^th. Tonight is a public hearing.

Mr. Begin: Drainage is not finalized. I would like to request a 30 day extension. Lou Caron reviewed the property before the snowstorm and hopes to have the drainage calculations early next week. Peter Blakeman is not here tonight, he will attend the next meeting when the site plan is finalized. The current plan was posted on the easel for review.

Mr. Begin received a copy of questions submitted by Mr. Davies to the board.

Mr. Mical: The driveway permit from the State, did we get copies of the drawing submitted to the State? Mr. Begin responded that Peter Blakeman can provide this for you when we meet in April.

Mical: I would like to see grade stakes showing where the new driveway is going to be, before the April 2^nd meeting if possible.

Close meeting and open public hearing.

Rick Davies: In the Intervale area, looking at some of the other buildings being planned, based on the preliminary drawings, enhancement of the building facing the road, might be consistent with say the RAW project, …e.g. faux stone on the foundation facing the road.

Begin: Model home will be built reflecting as it is to be built as a model home.

Davies: The end profile of the commercial building is very plain. Mr. Begin addressed Mr. Davies {inaudible}.

Davies: Board received a letter (email) with respect to non-vehicular traffic, with respect to the overlay district, it states "shall" have non-vehicular access between lots in the overlay district. I outlined 5 or 6 different scenarios, I understand the board has not had the opportunity to respond but I would like to quickly review them for the public. If the State doesn’t want us to have a sidewalk along the road we could have sidewalks inside the lots themselves; a sidewalk along the access road going into the site; loop road coming down behind the RAW site interconnecting those; stairways or whatever needs to be done with respect to topography down into the RAW lot 3; and I talked to Mark Feenstra on an informal basis and thought maybe something where they are going to dig up the sewer line maybe put hard pack in there as a preliminary path and making it more formal in the future, this would allow interconnection of this lot all the way down through the RAW lots and Citgo station and whatever access across the highway.

Jim McLaughlin, Conservation Commission: We did send Mr. Begin a letter reminding him that a portion of RAW’s lot 3 is a conservation easement which abuts his property. Mr. Begin responded, two areas where storm water will be addressed in storm water and drainage lines.

Nancy Martin: Is that going to be paved - paving will alter the runoff? Mr. Begin responded that drainage will help as there is nothing stopping the water now.

Mr. McLaughlin: Have you decided where the sewer line extension will go? Begin: That will be presented at the next meeting.

Hearing no additional public comments, the Chair closed the public hearing and reopened the meeting.

Lennon: The Board will reopen public hearing as additional information is provided.

Chair: Spoke with Mr. Caron; he is willing to oversee this project. Board may want to start to consider, what you want to be overseen on behalf of the Town.

Pershouse: Initially we were going to use Provan & Lorber (P&L); they provided a quote on the overview of the site work. In terms of oversight of construction, of site engineering and draining, will Caron provide that service?

Mr. Begin: Yes, they do that work. Now that he is involved in the project it makes sense to have Caron roll right into that phase. Pershouse inquired, how do we all make sure that is part of the contractual arrangement with him? Chair responded that the Board needs to come up with what we want Caron to oversee. Mr. Pershouse suggested using the same criteria as quoted by P&L, so as not to recreate the wheel. Chair responded that the Board could put it together at the work session scheduled for the 27^th (since rescheduled to Wednesday, March 28^th). Mr. Begin agreed to attend.

Mical: Maybe we will have some of this engineering review by that point, are they going to be at the next meeting? Chair responded that is part of the contract. Mical: That would give us the opportunity to hear from this firm. Chair quoted "prepare a report for the client and present report at a public meeting". Mr. Begin offered that Mr. Blakeman expects to be available to present at the next meeting. Chair and Mical suggested this be presented at the April work session to give the board an opportunity to go through it. Chair agreed that the Board will just do Wagner on the 27^th.

Chair addressing Mr. Begin: Did you get a copy of the minutes and the comments that the Fire Chief made? Mr. Begin did get a copy of the Chief’s questions. Mr. Begin agreed to meet again with the Fire Chief and address his concerns – We did meet in my office and went over the plans.

McChesney Conceptual

Mr. Eigabroadt recused himself.

Michael McChesney and Jeff Evans presented a conceptual to convert a residence in B-1 zoning into a business / retail space; No big conversion in square footage; Accessory buildings to be replaced; one additional building approx 1,000 sq. ft. McChesney’s concept is "Sturbridge Village" flavor, a grouping of buildings; older character and park-like setting with picnic benches and a gazebo if allowed; 3 current outbuildings to be replaced. McChesney: I picked up a post and beam 1840 school house from Pembroke, NH, disassembled, we are hoping to replace that building in place of the two sheds that are in the back and falling in. We would like to combine the footprint of the two sheds and reuse that footprint a little closer to the main house. There is a smaller building, snapped up against the pine tree, that we would like remodel and slide over to keep the two trees. The existing house would be divided up into office spaces, two per floor, professional or retail space and then the back section of the house would be a 1 bedroom, @ 1,000 sq ft apartment, the back buildings to be retail/professional/studio.

Chair: Did you approach the Department of Transportation about the driveway permit? Mr. Evans responded that is on our list of "to dos".

Lennon: Is this a new concrete wall with a stone facing? McChesney: Yes, it is a ready block, a facing that looks like stone. There are a lot of trees and growth to disguise it, not just a raw open concrete wall back there. We have tried to design to keep it from having any view from the road. The front retaining wall that you can see from the street is from old granite on the site currently and some that I have acquired.

Mr. Pershouse inquired, what is the approximate pitch or change in elevation across the frontage on the lot? Mr. Evans responded it is about 8’ over the entire 200’ on the frontage. In the back there is a steep drop off that goes down into some jurisdictional wetlands.

Chair: To fill in for the parking, because of the proximity to ... Hill is that going to require any special permits to do a retaining wall in the flood area? Mr. Evans responded we are not going into the flood area; we are going down into about less than 1/3 of the bank to get the face of our retaining wall in there. We are going to check on whether we need any permits, but I don’t think we are getting into enough square footage to get into site specific and that is not going to come under the terminology of jurisdictional wetland by DES because of the nature of the stream – there is some flood plane and wetland but we have no intention of encroaching into that area. Chair commented I understand you have the wall already there and you are going to reinforce it, but you are still going to be working in it. Mr. McChesney responded the retaining wall height is @ 6’ tall, the excavator can work from the top and reach down, there is a 25’ sloping bank. Chair suggested it would be helpful to have something in writing stating a permit is not required. Board and Evans referenced the Flood Plain map.

Mr. McChesney: regarding signage, they are small, on the outside of individual buildings, square feet currently under 32 sq ft.

Lennon: Any issues about putting four buildings on one lot? Mical suggested a site plan review is required for details. Evans: Tonight we are looking for some input from the Board to see if this approach is acceptable. Chair: This is very attractive, in keeping with community; multiple buildings are not an issue as long as all setbacks are met. A driveway permit will be needed. Board will need to know what the hours are going to be, lighting, whether the parking lot is going to be paved. McChesney responded no, blue stone will be in the driveway. Chair commented that we can wipe out the 70% business, don’t have to worry about that.

Mr. McChesney: Regarding the lighting etc., I am a designer with a high sense of aesthetics; I’m looking to give the property a historical flavor.

McChesney responding to a question about the "L", the offices and retail space is in the front, the small ‘L’ with two floors is the apartment. Pershouse: What do you estimate the largest retail space in the house will be? McChesney responded, it is a center colonial so it has a grand central hallway which we are keeping with a main staircase which divides the house in half with 2 big rooms on the left and 2 on the right, 1^st floor is about 1,300 sq feet, including some common space. The schoolhouse is about 24’ x 26’ schoolhouse about 20’ high – this is a close approximation as it was disassembled by someone else. Mr. McChesney: We are hoping to attract a mix, artists, retail, professional space; the main house will be upper scale in character to attract a professionals. The main building will be more refined and the out buildings will be more rustic, in keeping with a historical look. The apartment allows someone to be on site as well as a financial asset.

Chair: With two stories in the front, is ADA an issue? McChesney responded accessibility is not obtainable in the main house without destroying the character of the house, the inside doorways are just too narrow. In the outbuildings we have a chance to address ADA access. Chair suggested and Board members concurred, for an existing building ADA accessibility is optional, new structures need to comply.

Jim McLaughlin, Conservation Commission: The zoning regulation setbacks are 75’ from any stream shown on the USDA map. Evans responded that the gazebo may require ZBA variance. McLauglin added, you may want to meet with the Village District Water & Sewer (meet 2^nd & 4^th Mon).

Mr. McChesney requested to be on the agenda next month for a site plan review (the application has been received).

McChesney inquired is there anything on the checklist that is not in front of the board? Chair responded written comments from the Fire Chief will be needed.

Brayshaw: Request for reduced survey for a subdivision was received from Fran Brown on behalf of Richard Brayshaw. He has a 60 acre parcel, map 8 lot 23, Does he have to survey the whole 60 acres in order to subdivide the 13? Lennon responded, I believe our typical answer is no. Mical added, the portion that is being subdivided does need to be surveyed. Chair added it appears there is a line already on that map/lot 8/23 lot and then they would start part way down so there would be an actual boundary. This is a class V road. Board members in attendance agreed that the full acreage does not need to be surveyed, just the portion being subdivided, specifying, the lot does need to be clearly delineated.

Minutes of February 19, 2007: Pershouse made a correction to what should be "Ciavarro".

Pershouse made a MOTION to approve, MOTION seconded and APPROVED unanimously.

RAW: The LOMA was received from FEMA. Mical explained lots 1 and 2 are, based on the information received, removed based on the fill. This is the letter of amendment we have been waiting for on lots 1 and 2. Chair asked Mr. Eigabroadt to please mark lot 1 and 2 on the pictures he took so we can forward them to FEMA. Mical: One of the things mentioned in this letter is that they are looking at doing a review of the Warner River; things may change at some point in the future.

Also referencing RAW, regarding the bond I (Chair Annis) did talk with Kearsarge Insurance who bonds – they agreed to talk to us about a bond. Mr. Feenstra’s bonding agent reports they don’t do a bond on the building, the contractor does. The Chairs response was a contractors bond does not protect the town’s interest. Mr. Pershouse suggested it would be helpful to know who the contractor will be.

Other: Freeman requested the board take action on Begin’s earlier request for an extension. Lennon MOVED to grant Begin a 60 day extension, Mical Seconded, PASSED unanimously. We will put this in writing to Mr. Begin.

Zoning Ordinance: Handouts for the public are ready. Reeder suggested providing the information as early as possible before voting day. Board members volunteered to hand the information out in advance of town meeting day at candidate’s night, the transfer station, voting, Chair selected times to distribute.

Correspondence: Office of Energy & Planning conference information distributed.