Town of Warner – Planning Board

Minutes of Meeting  

Monday, May 5, 2008   7:00 PM

Warner Town Hall, Lower Level

 

Members Present:      Barbara Annis, Paul Violette, Hank Duhamel, David Hartman, George Pellettieri

Members Excused:      Ed Mical

Members Absent:       Wayne Eigabroadt

Members Late:            None

Alternates Present:    Dan Watts, Rick Davies (both present but not voting)

Alternates Excused:   Stacey Cooper

Alternates Absent:     None

Alternate Late:           None

Presiding:                    Paul Violette/Barbara Annis

Recording:                   Jean Lightfoot

Open Meeting at 7:00 PM

Roll Call

 

Mr. Violette opened the meeting at 7:03 p.m.  The roll call was taken.   

1.  ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN 

Mr. Duhamel MOVED that the current Chairman, Barbara Annis, and Vice Chairman, Paul Violette, be continued.  Mr. Pellettieri seconded.  Mr. Violette asked if there was discussion.  Mr. Davies asked if both of them wanted to accept the positions.  Mr. Violette said they had not objected.  Mr. Violette asked if there were any other nominations.  There were none.  The vote was taken and the motion was PASSED unanimously.   

Ms. Annis presided over the rest of the meeting.   

2.  CONCEPTUAL CONSULTATION

Property Owner:  Norman E. Carlson, 93 Lake Road, Webster, NH  03303

Agent:  N/A

Property Location:  Madgetech, 201 Route 103 West

Map/lot:  37-1, OC-1 zoning

Description:  Additional work space.  Question whether site plan review is necessary. 

Mr. Watts recused himself and sat in the audience for this agenda item. 

Ms. Annis recognized Norman Carlson of Madgetech to explain what is being proposed.  Mr. Carlson explained that he owns Madgetech which is located on Route 103 West across from the Transfer Station.  It was started in 1996 and has grown every year since then.  He said there are currently 30 employees and he has just bought 19 acres on Warner Road where he intends to construct a new building beginning this fall.  He said that the company needs to expand a little to accommodate some new large orders.  The addition would expand what was the garage on the property by 16 feet and will be used to house a new machine which will be used to construct the parts that have been ordered.  He explained that a great deal of their orders come from overseas for products made here in Warner.  He said they have offices in Canada, China and England, but all manufacturing is done here.  He said that 40% of their business is to Europe and Asia. Ms. Annis said that it appears that the addition will be on to the garage and asked how many people will be working there.  Mr. Carlson responded that one person will be working inside, and that person will not be a new employee.  This person currently operates 3 machines, which are essentially like robots, and that person will be able to operate this fourth machine, too, when it is added.  Mr. Violette asked if there are currently machines in what was the garage.  Mr. Carlson said yes.  Mr. Violette asked if that building is heated and Mr. Carlson said yes.  Ms. Annis asked if the bathroom facilities were in the main house and Mr. Carlson said yes.   

Ms. Annis asked if it was planned to correct the parking problem.  Mr. Carlson said that the plan was to put more spaces at the side and around the back of the building at the same time the addition is being constructed.  Mr. Carlson said the cars would be to the right of the annex.  An assistant with Mr. Carlson said there would be about 2 feet of fill over 5,000 or 6,000 square feet.  He explained that the driveway would be put in around the trees to the side and part of the 132 feet between the neighbor and the addition would be used.  He said there should be room for about 14 cars and will get them behind the building.  Ms. Annis asked if it was going to be tarred or hard packed.  Mr. Carlson said, no, because it is his intention to move out of the building as soon as possible and not have to put too much more money into it.  He said the company has grown no less than 20% each year since its inception and does need to move.  He said they will be putting in some landscaping without taking out the round circle.  He invited anyone to come and walk through the building.   

Mr. Duhamel noted that in the 132 feet at the side, there is a drop of 4-6 feet.  An assistant with Mr. Carlson said it will be graded.  Mr. Pellettieri asked about drainage of the parking area and would any be directed down to the neighbors.  Mr. Carlson’s assistant said the drainage will not change because it all currently drains towards the neighbor.  Mr. Pellettieri noted that if you make a flat parking area, water moves more rapidly and can cause erosion.  He said there are a lot of things that can be done to prevent that and, although he supports the plan, asked that they provide protection for the neighbors.  Mr. Carlson said yes. 

Mr. Davies asked if this would be built based on the Town’s building regulations.  Mr. Carlson said yes. 

There were no further questions.   

Mr. Violette MOVED not to require a full scale site plan review.  Mr. Duhamel seconded.  Mr. Violette said that he thought it falls into the category of being substantial vs. not substantial expansion.  He said he thinks it is not substantial.   

Mr. Davies asked about the planned move to Warner Road.  Mr. Carlson said that Madgetech owns the property on Warner Road and he plans to put a new building on that property, but it will probably be a year before it can be completed.  Mr. Davies asked if it would be appropriate to recommend reclaiming the current property in the future, specifically the additionally gravel parking below the building.  Mr. Duhamel said that the history of the land goes back to the mid-1950’s when Main Street was Waterloo, before Route 103 went through.  He said the State actually moved that old business, the general store and filling station, up to Route 103.  It is a long time commercial use.  Mr. Violette said it was commercial, changed to residential and then went back to being commercial again.  Ms. Annis said the Zoning Board had approved the business going into the building as it is.  She added that it had not been made clear by the Zoning Board to Mr. Carlson that he needed to have a site plan review by the Planning Board, so the Planning Board knew nothing about it until the business moved in.  Mr. Carlson said they had received a Special Exception from the Zoning Board to revert back to commercial from residential.  He said that he does not plan to sell the building, but will convert it to something that he believes will fit nicely in the community.   

Ms. Annis said that she thought the proposed changes do not create a substantial change to the property or to its use.  If it did, then the Planning Board would require a full site plan review.  Mr. Pellettieri said he thought it is a good plan and it is good that this would create some added space for parking.  Mr. Carlson described the scope of the business worldwide, handed out two of the instruments that they manufacture and said things are going well.   There was a lengthy discussion about the nature of the business.  There was no further discussion. 

Ms. Annis called the roll call and the motion was PASSED unanimously.   

3.  COMMERCIAL MAJOR SUBDIVISION

Property Owners:   Alan & Lee Ann Wagner, Jr., 33 Newmarket Road, Warner, NH 03278

Agent:  Stefan Toth, P.E., Toth Engineering, PLLC, 5 Bernards Rd, Suite 37, Merrimack, NH  03054

Property Location:  Intersection of Route 103 and I-89 southbound off-ramp

Map/lot: 14-10 10, C-1 zoning

Description:    Subdivision of existing 13.03 ac. lot into 4 commercial lots: 2.90 acres, 3.44 acres, 2.75 acres & 2.56 acres.

a. Application Accepted 2/5/07

b. Public Hearing held in March 2007

c. Action Taken – Approve/Disapprove/Continue 

Mr. Violette explained that it was voted to extend the 65-day deadline to June 2.  A letter has been received by the Planning Board from Stefan Toth saying that it is anticipated that the final permit from the State DOT should be received by May 9.  Therefore, he has requested that the meeting on the Wagner subdivision be postponed to the June 2 meeting.  Mr. Pellettieri asked where Mr. Wagner stands with all the items that have been required.  Ms. Annis said that he has the DES permit which is in the file.  She said that there is a list of questions from March 28, 2007, which were raised with Mr. Toth when he was here the last time.  She said his response was that the questions would be answered that night, but they were not all answered.  She said she will continue to raise the unanswered questions.  Mr. Violette said it appears that it is the DOT permit related to drainage which is lacking right now.  Ms. Annis agreed.  She said that he had to change the drainage retention pond so he would not be increasing the outflow downstream.  And, she added, that he has done that by increasing the size of the retention pond.  But, she said, there are certain pipes that have to be added to decrease the flow.  Mr. Violette said it may be that the pipes are helping to increase the holding area, and, he added, that the plan still has not been approved and we are still waiting for all the details of the plan to be submitted.  Ms. Annis said it also included a question on the pipe that was coming off the hillside because there was a difference in the height from the drainage that is already on Route 103.  She said that she does not think that the Planning Board can supersede what the State has already installed for drainage.   

4.  MINUTES 

Ms. Annis asked if there were any additions or corrections to the April 7, 2008 minutes.  There were none.  Mr. Violette MOVED to accept the April 7, 2008 minutes as printed and distributed.  Mr. Duhamel seconded.  There was no discussion.  The motion was PASSED unanimously.   

Ms. Annis asked if there were any additions or corrections to the April 21, 2008 work session minutes.  There were none.  Mr. Violette MOVED to accept the April 21, 2008 work session minutes.  Mr. Pellettieri seconded.  There was no discussion.  The motion was PASSED unanimously.   

5.  CORRIDOR STUDY 

Mr. Duhamel asked if there was any word on the grant application.  Ms. Annis said she had heard nothing further from Sharon Wason.  She said they did not award the grant when they said they were going to.  She said there were 19 who applied for the grant and there is not enough money for all 19 to get funded.  Some of the 19 are only asking for part of the money.   

Ms. Annis said that there was discussion about why the Town Meeting denied funding for the traffic control study at Exit 9.  She said that there were feelings by some people that it the study had already been done, so why should it be done again?  She said she went back to the Corridor Study to see exactly what it covered.  She said that one of the things that they recommended which is still being considered is that the piece of property across from the southbound entrance to I-89 should not be developed unless something is done about the island there.  And, she said that that is being taken care of with the Wagner subdivision by DOT shortening the island.   

Ms. Annis indicated on a map from the corridor study the driveways out of the Evans Expressmart and Demoulas and said that the westerly driveway into Evans should be moved so it is directly opposite the Demoulas driveway.  She said the recommendation was that there would not be a left turn allowed from the driveways out of Evans.  She indicated the Park and Ride exit and said the recommendation was that this exit be closed so it would be an in and out only.  She said that when RAW was given permission to proceed, it was conditional on the driveway lining up with the opposite driveway, as was recommended by the Corridor Study.  She continued to say that there is nothing in the Study that says what is going to happen in regard to specific traffic control.  Mr. Violette said that was why the money was requested for the study.   

Mr. Violette said that, in addition to the lack of specific traffic control recommendations in the Corridor Study, we were also trying to get across that this is a requirement of the State DOT before they will even consider a light.  The study may or may not be feasible to them today.   

Mr. Davies said that he thought it was a problem of getting their minds off the traffic light as such and trying to convince them that it was just a study to figure out what to do.  He said he thought they were interpreting it as funding for a traffic light, not just for a study.  Mr. Violette agreed.  Mr. Davies said that, with that philosophy, then the feeling was that the developers should pay for it.  Ms. Annis added that the feeling also was that if the State wants it, then the State should pay for it.  She said that the State doesn’t care about it.  There was a discussion about the amount of traffic and the traffic flow now and how it may be projected. 

Mr. Duhamel suggested that the public hearings that will be held for the new Master Plan might be a great opportunity to communicate the idea and try to convince the people who go to those meetings.  Ms. Annis asked if contacting our local State Senator and representatives might help.  Mr. Duhamel said he thought it might help to get them to speak up for us at the State level.  Mr. Violette asked if we should continue to pursue this or just wait awhile.  Mr. Duhamel said he thought we should continue.  Mr. Davies agreed that since it will probably be in a warrant article next year, it’s a good idea to start now to convince people on the necessity of the study.   

Ms. Annis asked Mr. Davies if it is possible for the Men’s Club to allow a member to present the issue to them at a meeting in the future.  Mr. Davies said yes, that the Corridor Study could be considered to be a topic, say, in January or February.  Mr. Violette suggested preparing something in writing to be distributed.  Ms. Annis suggested that something could be put in the Town Newsletter about the issue.   

Ms. Annis reiterated that the Planning Board is trying to address the issue before it becomes a serious problem, as the Selectmen have requested.  Mr. Violette said that as things are developed there, the need will become even more apparent.  Ms. Annis said that she thought we could ask our state representatives to support us in our attempts to do this planning and control the traffic when the plan is completed. Mr. Watts said that the State has no money and whatever money is available is needed for bridges that are in disrepair and other more urgent things than a traffic light.  Ms. Annis responded that she didn’t know that a traffic light was the answer.  Mr. Duhamel said that’s why a study is needed. 

 

6.  REPORT FROM SUBCOMMITTEES 

Ms. Annis asked if there was anything more to add to the work session from the Master Plan Committee.  Mr. Violette said he believes that the survey was approved and should be set up for printing.  He said the grant application has been filed, but we haven’t been notified that it has been awarded yet.  He said that Ms. Wason will be billing us for the first phase soon.  Mr. Hartman asked if one part of the writing of the Master Plan will deal with interpreting what has taken place in the last 10 years since the last Master Plan.  He specifically asked whether it will consider where buildings have been built and did it actually promote the Master Plan goals.  Ms. Annis said she thought it will report where it has happened and then ask how we want to do it in the future.  She said she thought it would consider whether to continue building everywhere or to try to build closer to town, and where to encourage building.  Mr. Violette said there will be consideration of where things have been built in the last 10 years.  Mr. Hartman said that he is struck that with every Master Plan, people say that the rural quality of life and the character of the town are the reasons they moved here.  He added that he thought that there isn’t a lot of “punch” in the Master Plan that gets translated into the Zoning Ordinance that says, “We will develop in closer proximity to the already built-up areas.”  He said that the only way the Town will be able to maintain the rural quality of life is to dedicate land very positively through open space protection.  Ms. Annis asked if anyone watched the PBS program which was sent around by Derek Pershouse on “Something of Consequence.”  She said it was a good program and recommended that people see it.  Mr. Duhamel said he agreed with most of what Mr. Hartman said.  He said that, as a Selectman, he thought Mr. Hartman would know better than others the impact on the infrastructure.  He said he thought this was all part of the Master Plan.  For example, when there is talk of a new fire station, it has to be determined where most of the calls might come from before you can actually decide where the station should be sited.  He said that he hopes with a Master Plan, you can help to direct things, with the understanding that no community is ever going to be able to stand idle.  He said with our proximity to Concord and New London and Lebanon, we cannot avoid the impact of the expansion of those areas.  He said we also need to make things affordable so young people can stay in town.  He said that right now the maintenance of the infrastructure, the bridges, the roads, etc., is all on the real estate tax.  Mr. Violette said that things that can’t be controlled by the town have always impacted it, starting with the river, then the railroad, then the interstate.  He said he was on the Planning Board when the maps were drawn for the Zoning.  He said they considered all types of things, including the Master Plan at the time.  He said they considered size of lots, soil conditions, and all kinds of other things.  He added that he thinks with the Zoning as it stands, he does not see things becoming too crowded.  He said there is already a lot of open space land up in the Mink Hills, between the State Forest and the Town Forest, along with other easements.  He said that maybe there needs to be more, but, compared to other towns in the State, he said he doesn’t see a serious growth problem.   

Ms. Annis asked Mr. Davies what he thought of the PBS program.  Mr. Davies said he thought it was excellent, in that it discussed both the needs and some answers that some communities are using and what some communities are not responding to.  Ms. Annis said that part of the point was not to put all your land into conservation because conservation is consuming what the young people need.  And, she said, you want young people in your town because it’s the young people who are going to run the fire department, the sports center and other facilities.  Mr. Davies said it was talking about a balance of the age groups in town.  He said the point was to not get top heavy with any age group, so you will have someone to provide these services.  Ms. Annis added that you don’t want to say we don’t want any children in the community so school taxes will drop, but with no young people with children and the jobs in your town to keep the young people there, the old people who are left cannot do the things that need to be done.  Mr. Davies said it is a balancing act between the age groups to have a successfully operating community. 

7.  COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS 

Ms. Annis asked the members who had been to the OEP meeting what sessions they attended and how they liked it.  Mr. Hartman discussed the right to know law session that he attended.  The question is one that the Selectmen are dealing with, and, in response to the warrant article, have implemented digital recordings of their meetings which will be available very quickly after each meeting.  He said that the written record is still the only official record of a meeting.  Ms. Annis said she had attended “Planning Boards Behaving Badly,” which was done as a role-playing and then critiquing of how each person did.  One of the points was that at the simulated meeting, there was no discussion.  It turned out that the discussion had all been done by e-mail before, which was not appropriate.  She said this reminded her to remind the Board members to watch their e-mails, because they can be used in court.  Mr. Hartman said that home computers that are used for town business can be subpoenaed and seized for an investigation.  He suggested having a separate computer for town business, if possible.  Mr. Duhamel said he had attended sessions about environmental changes, where there was discussion about the expected increase of rainfall in the next few years.  He said they said that the culverts that we have will not be able to handle the amount of water that is projected.  He said the second session was on windmills.  He said that by August, the State will be issuing guidelines on windmills.  Ms. Annis said she had gone to the Legal Update session.  She said there was talk about the moving sign and electronic sign issue in Concord.  She said she had also been the Shorelands Protection session where they said not to do anything because new regulations are coming out.  Mr. Davies noted that at the Legal Update session, there was discussion of the Churchill v. Dover case which was an issue with the Zoning Board, where one town has the usage of a lot and another has the access.  He said he’d gone to the Protecting Historic Resources through Demolition review.  He said that some towns have a 50-year setback where any building that is 50 years or older has to go through a review process to see if it were a historical building that the town would like to preserve.

8.  PUBLIC COMMENTS 

Ms. Annis asked if there were any public comments or questions.  Carolyn Stoddard said she had come for the Wagner subdivision discussion, which she did not know had been postponed.   

Mr. Davies asked if public comment was always going to be on the agenda.  Ms. Annis said yes.  

There were no further comments. 

Mr. Hartman MOVED to adjourn.  Mr. Pellettieri seconded.  The motion was PASSED unanimously.   

The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.