Minutes of the Meeting and Public Hearing

Monday, July 1, 2002, 7:00 PM

Warner Town Hall, Lower Meeting Room

Members Present:              Derek Pershouse, Barbara Annis, Andrew Serell, John Brayshaw

                Members Late:                     Philip Reeder (7:15 p.m.)

Members Absent:                James McLaughlin, John Wallace

Alternates Present:            Russ St.Pierre, Mark Lennon

Alternates Late:                  None

Alternates Absent:              Pam Mulsow

Presiding:                             Derek Pershouse

Recording:                            Sissy Brown

I.                     Open Meeting

II.                   Roll Call

Mr. Pershouse asked Mr. St.Pierre and Mr. Lennon to be voting members for the meeting, along with the full members present.

III.                 Approval of the Minutes of the June 3, 2002, Planning Board Meeting

A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes as amended.  The minutes were approved by a unanimous vote.

Mr. Brayshaw stated that he would like to the word “cellular” removed from the minutes, if the word appears in the minutes in reference to the telecommunications towers being discussed, and replaced with the word “wireless”.

IV.                Public Hearing:  Site Plan Review:  ATC Realty, Inc. for Independent Wireless One

Site Plan Review for property located on North Road, Warner, NH  Map 18, Lot 11-3, R3 Zoning.  ATC Realty, Inc., 44 Exchange Street, Suite 301, Portland, ME 04101 for IWO, 52 Corporate Circle, Albany, NY 12203.  Construction of a 90-ft. tall monopole-stealth tower within a 10,000 sq.ft. leasehold, and an approximate 2,200-ft. long (+/-), 25-ft. wide access and utility easement off of North Road.  Carol Pletcher (Owner)

Adam Brooks, ATC Realty for IWO/Sprint

Mr. Brooks stated that IWO/Sprint is the Sprint PCS network partner in New Hampshire, and that they are a digital wireless carrier licensed by the federal government to serve the country.  In 1996, the federal government auctioned off the license – and Sprint paid approximately $2.5 billion for the rights to build-out a coast-to-coast wireless network.  The company started in New Hampshire in early 1996 and effectively stopped their initial build-out in early 1998.  Their objective was to construct their network along the major traffic corridors and the population centers that those travel corridors connect.  They stopped in 1998 in large part due to the mass capital that was spent nationwide rolling out this new network.  The objective was to provide a whole host of digital wireless services to a market that was, at the time, only used conventional cellular.  Until the government auctioned off these licenses in 1996, there were only two companies who were allowed by federal law to offer wireless services.  The government’s intent was to create competition and, therefore, benefit the consumer by driving the prices down.  This was accomplished. 

In 1998, a trend was to negotiate partnership agreements with other telephone companies to pick up where Sprint left off, and then sell their services under the Sprint name with adherence to Sprint’s guidelines.  That is what Independent Wireless did.  They negotiated with Sprint, and have an exclusive contract with Sprint, to serve the state of New Hampshire.  Their primary business plan is to take up where Sprint left off and provide the service that, to date, was not in existence.  This involved building out from Concord to Vermont – in New Hampshire, that involves the whole stretch of I-89 from Concord to Lebanon.  The engineers inventoried all existing structures along this corridor and made every attempt possible to incorporate them into their designs – to employ a method by which they could attach their antennas to existing structures without the need to construct new facilities.  This method was more successful in other areas of New Hampshire than on I-89, although the company was able to use a large majority of existing structures along the highway.  The company is now at the end of that build-out.  Antennas have been attached to a few facilities and a few new facilities have been built, and the company has identified the “holes” in the network – the places where a wireless device in the network won’t work.  The attempt is now to close those holes by building new facilities in keeping with a relatively newly accepted statewide ordinance (RSA-12k).  It encourages municipalities throughout the state to enact ordinances that conform to the municipality’s obligation under the telecom act to allow for these facilities, and also to protect the character of the neighborhoods in which these facilities are being placed.  Warner has done that, by passing an ordinance that limits the facility’s height to a certain number of feet above the average tree canopy and, among several other conditions, basically attempts to create balance between the needs of the wireless industry and the concerns of the residents of Warner. 

Sprint, in the town of Warner, has the need for three facilities in order to serve its initial coverage objectives.  The first facility being proposed, and one that has been recently approved, is a tower at Exit 7.  Sprint intends to locate on that facility at the 109-ft. level.  The second facility is the one before the Board this evening, and the third is another proposed brown stick stealth tower off of Kelly Hill – which has not yet been filed with the Zoning Board, but which will be in the next week or so. 

In abutting communities, Sprint is currently located to the immediate south on a facility in Hopkinton (Sugar Hill, 90-ft. tree tower); on the existing MCT telecom tower on Gould Hill in Hopkinton; will be co-locating on a tower that was recently approved in Hopkinton off of Diamond Hill Road (US Cellular’s tower).  In the other direction, Sprint is installed and on air on the existing Crown Castle tower (Eaton Grange Rd. in Sutton); installed and on air on an existing Crown Castle tower (King’s Ridge in Sutton); have received Zoning approval and will be before the Planning Board in Sutton on July 9^th for an 85-ft. brown stick tower (Maston Road in Sutton). 

Propagation maps were presented with the application.  The compound for the tower will be a 70’ x 70’.  The freestanding pole will be approximately 36 inches at the base, tapering to 22 inches at the top, with no external antennae.  The GPS antenna shown on the previous plan was removed – it was never the intent to place this on the antenna.  No antennae are visible.  The compound will be fenced in.  Equipment will sit on a concrete 9-ft. x 12-ft. pad and will consist of three equipment cabinets, each about the size of a small commercial refrigerator (36 inches x 39 inches x 50 inches).  A metal bridge will connect these cabinets to the tower, under which the cables will be run.  The compound will have an 8-ft. fence with three strands of barbed wire on the top, and the gate will be locked at all times.   The facility itself will be accessed through North Road only, both during construction and post construction.  At no point will the access off of Kearsarge Mountain Road be used. 

The facility requires both power and telephone service, both of which will come off of North Road and will be via overhead lines.  There will be no need to light this tower because the FAA does not consider it a hazard to navigable air space.  There will be no lighting at the base.  Once constructed, the facility will be visited approximately once a month by a technician to clean the equipment and/or replace any parts that might need servicing.  In summer months, it is likely that the technician will access the tower by 4x4 vehicle, and during the winter access will probably be via snowmobile.

The parcel of land is currently unimproved and is very heavily wooded, and is approximately 10 acres in size.  Because of this, the company is requesting that the existing buffer is adequate and no additional landscaping be required as a condition of the approval.  On March 2, 2002, a balloon was floated at 90-ft.  Photo simulations have been provided to the Board.  It was visible from the Pletcher’s driveway, and also from the southbound lane of I-89 at mile 22.  The company feels that, in both cases, the visual impact was negligible and is, therefore, in keeping with the sprit and intent of the ordinance.

A letter was received from the New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources, indicating that the facility imposes no adverse impact.  This is determined by floating another balloon and photographing the site from all locations from which it is visible.  It is then determined whether or not it will impact any structure on the National Historical Buildings listing.  The ordinance in Warner requires a NEPA screening to be filed, and the letter from the NH Division of Historical Resources was the only follow-up material that the NEPA screen did not address, because it was not yet received.

Sprint is a licensed carrier, and will be the end-user of this facility.  They are not a tower developer looking to rent out space on the facility, although they will agree, as a condition of approval, to do so in keeping with the ordinance.  Mr. Brooks stated that, given the tree canopy at the property and the limited height, it is not reasonable nor would it be ethical for him to represent that this could be counted as a multiple facility.  It could probably, technically, accommodate one additional company.  It would have to be below Sprint’s set of antennas, and in order to avoid any frequency interference between that company and Sprint, it would have to be 10-feet on center separated.  But it will be built to accommodate that and the company has no objections to that being made a condition of this approval.

The access road is approximately 22 feet in length and follows, in large part, an existing path off of North Road to the facility.  The road needs to be a minimum of 12 ft. in width, and crushed gravel will be put down where needed.  The impact of the site on the property will be minimized.

Mr. Pershouse asked if the Board had any questions or concerns.

Question:       Mr. Lennon:  Have you been approached by any other carriers?

Answer:         No, we have not.

Question:       Mr. Lennon:  It might be in our interest – if you have a sight that propagates well and is practically invisible – it might be nice to put another tower like yours close by – like at the end of the road.

Answer:         Mr. Brooks:  That would be a question for the Zoning Board and, more importantly, for the landowners.  We have an exclusive interest in the lease area, and a non-exclusive interest in the road.  Our agreement with the Pletcher’s would prohibit that from happening anywhere outside of the square [lease area].  We need ten feet, either vertically or horizontally, of separation.  We can be close to somebody with like frequencies, and even closer with companies with different frequencies. 

Question:       Mr. Brayshaw:  Who do you work for?  Do you work, in part, as a broker? 

Answer:         Mr. Brooks:  We are a contracting company that works for Independent Wireless One.  It is our job to acquire, zone and do everything but construction.

Question:       Mr. Brayshaw:  So you would consider yourself a middleman? 

Answer:         Mr. Brooks:  I guess we could be considered a middleman.

Question:       Mr. Brayshaw:  OK.  In your recollection, in any of the projects that you’ve worked on – on a monopole tower – have you ever seen external arrays put on after the fact?  Have you ever seen it happen?

Answer:         Mr. Brooks:  On this type of pole, no I haven’t.  It is technically impossible.  The pole itself is galvanized steel, to a point, and then it is a metal mast that is the last 30 feet of the pole over which goes a very thin material called radone, which is like fiberglass and is painted to look like galvanized steel but which doesn’t have the structural integrity to hold an external mount.

Question:       Mr. Brayshaw:  But it would hold a GPS? 

Answer:         Mr. Brooks:  Our original drawing showed the GPS mounted on the pole, but it was an error. I guess that technically it could hold the GPS, but it would be in the trees and that doesn’t work.

Question:       Mr. Brayshaw:  My only concern, for the record, is that we had another company come in with a monopole and it was changed to a monopine tree, with external antennas. 

Answer:         Mr. Brooks:  I would have no objection, to allay your fears and concerns, to putting a condition prohibiting that very thing from happening.

Mr. Pletcher:  The agreements that we have with the company specify the type of pole, so that would be a variation.  The agreements specify that type of pole.

Question:       Mr. Pershouse:  So you’re suggesting that if we are concerned, we can make that a condition of the approval? 

Answer:         Mr. Brooks:  Absolutely.  It has never been our intention to put an external antenna on this pole. 

Question:       Mr. Pershouse:  It was my understanding from a previous discussion that the need for, or the possibility for putting a microwave dish [on the tower] also applies?  That there is a ground feed, so no need for a microwave dish?

Answer:         Mr. Brooks:  There will be no microwave dishes.  The antennas talk to the handsets, and the handsets talk back to the antennas, but everything has to be routed through the phone lines to various switches.  I think that our switch in this area is in Waterbury.  It is sort of ironic that wireless technology can’t work without landlines.  The introduction of the microwave is an attempt to bypass the landlines. 

Question:       Mr. Pershouse:  While we’re talking about feeds, you’ve indicated that the aboveground feeds from North Road are on poles.  Will that follow the road, or will it take an independent route through the woods?

Answer:         Mr. Brooks:  It will follow the road.  We need to add, I think, about 1500 feet along the access road.  They will be traditional residential utility poles.

Question:       Mr. Pershouse:  There will be no power generators, so no noise issues?

Answer:         Mr. Brooks:  There are no noise issues.  There will be no backup generators.

Question:       Ms. Annis:  I did not go on the Site Walk.  What was the opinion of those that went?

Answer:         Mr. St.Pierre:  The site itself is isolated, and you can hear the traffic from I-89 but you can’t see anything.  I didn’t see the balloon test, but I guess the balloon was visible from 2 places.  But you won’t be able to see the compound itself or the equipment.

Question:       Mr. Pershouse:  Landowners on the opposite side of I-89 might be able to see the tower.  And, if I may add for the record – it was stated that the balloon was only visible from I-89 and from….

Answer:         Mr. Brooks:  We found that the balloon was visible from the Pletcher’s driveway – but we had to walk into the parcel of land to see it.  We could not see it from the road.  And it was visible from the southbound lane of I-89.

Mr. Pershouse:  I believe I commented, as a member of the public at the Zoning Board’s original hearing, that the balloon was visible from an adjoining ridge, which is Pumpkin Hill – albeit from a distance.  I think that should be in the record because it has potential for future issues re: site lines, ridgelines, and skyline.  The balloon was visible from a member of the public from another location in Warner. 

Question:       Mr. Howard Kirchner:  What was the diameter of, and the color of, the balloon?

Answer:         Mr. Brooks:  The balloon was bright red, and the diameter was about 3.5 feet.

Question:       Mr. Kirchner:  So it was almost twice the diameter of the pole, and it is a much more visible color than the pole.  The top of the tower is going to be much less visible than the balloon.

Answer:         Mr. Brooks:  Yes.

Mr. Pershouse:  Thank you for your input.  This was discussed at the ZBA hearing and all of that was factored into the ZBA’s decision.

Question:       Mr. Pershouse:  Were there two balloons?

Answer:         Mr. Brooks:  I believe we were asked to float two balloons, one at the tree line and one at 90 feet. 

Question:       Mr. St.Pierre:  The access road is pretty steep.  Have other facilities been built on similar terrain?

Answer:         Mr. Brooks:  Yes.  A similar facility has been built on Green Mtn. in Claremont, which is far steeper than this one.   There have been no problems accessing the facility.  We anticipate using a 4X4 vehicle in the summer months, and a snowmobile in the winter for access to the site.  It is very common in this industry to have to deal with some pretty interesting grades in order to build.

Mr. Pershouse read a letter from attorney Simon Leeming, representing Stuart and Maryanne Howlett (abutters).  The letter was to the Warner Planning Board and referenced issues on Application of Independent Wireless One/Spring.  The purpose of the letter was stated to be “…to raise the possibility that alternate access might be utilized by the applicant, and/or the Pletchers and to request this Board, as a condition, prohibit such access.”  The letter requested, “that a prohibition or limitation be conditioned, such that the issue pertaining to any such possible use of the right of way does not surface.” 

Mr. Serell questioned why this was an issue, because the Board is being asked to approve a plan with access from North Road, and that this letter refers to an alternate access that isn’t on the plan.

Mr. Pershouse gave a general statement, saying that the concern of the abutter is that there might be a dispute over the use of the right of way that could possibly be generated by the Board’s decision – it’s not relevant in the sense of a decision.  I don’t know whether we could or should condition the approval based on this, but I think that I would ask the opinion of the Town Counsel to put it to rest.

Mr. Brayshaw said that his take on it, from looking at the situation earlier, is that there is an alternative route of accessibility from Kearsarge Mtn. Road that happens to be a right of way that two parties have a vested interest in, and can that right of way be used as an alternate access to the piece of property. 

Mr. Pershouse stated that the abutters’ position, as of this letter, is clearly stated – that it is their wish that the right of way not be used as an access to the proposed tower site. 

Mr. Reeder asked what the Pletcher’s feeling is on this matter.  Would they be willing to state that that is not going to be used whatsoever – that the Board could put into the decision that no other access other than what is provided in the application be used.

Mr. Pletcher:  From day one, I made it perfectly clear that access to this property would only be from North Road and I took that position because I live on Kearsarge Mountain Road and don’t want access from Kearsarge Mountain Road.  The letter says that it has been suggested that access might be from other means, but what it means is that gossip and rumor at Town Hall have suggested that some other access might be used.  Neither my wife nor I have ever suggested that anything other than North Road be used.  I don’t think that there is an issue.  My concern is this:  Carol Pletcher is the owner of the property.  I don’t own the property. I am an abutter – I own the right of way.  My position is that I have nothing to do with this.  I’m the one that owns the lot that is immediately serviced by that right of way, and I think that it would be highly inappropriate for this Board to restrict somehow my property rights as the result of something we have no intent of utilizing anyway.  I think that any approval of a Site Plan – if there is some sort of substantial non-compliance with the plan, some different means of access used – I think that the approval would be if not void, certainly voidable.  So I don’t think that there is any question but that if a plan is submitted and it shows access from North Road and it is specified that the access is from North Road, that’s what you are approving and you’re not approving anything else, particularly where the right of way that is mentioned in this letter isn’t even owned by the applicant.  I’m not trying to do an end run around anything.  My concern is that the Board said something like, “That right of way isn’t appropriate for commercial purposes and, therefore, you can’t….”  That is restricting my rights, as far as I’m concerned.  I agree that it might be a problem if I wanted to build condos in there.  But if I wanted to do a commercial blueberry picking operation in there…  I don’t want to have some sort of implication that I can’t do some sort of category of use of that property because I’m not even here as an applicant.

Mr. Pershouse:  So you’re saying if there were a form of additional restriction or condition that could extend to issues beyond the scope…

Mr. Pletcher:  It would depend on how it were worded, obviously, and what was said.  Just the condition that “access will only be from North Road” is fine with everybody that I know.

Mr. Pershouse:  The tower applicant has stated that that is the case and has been from the beginning.

Ms. Annis:  I’m looking long range, and I certainly know both of you and trust both of you, so don’t get me wrong.  I also like and I’m also a friend of Maryanne’s, too.  I did, at the very beginning, ask if you had exclusive right of way across the land down on North Road and you said “no, that is a right of way” across your land.  They have a lease on the property where he’s going to be putting the tower.  But getting up to it is just leased property and is not exclusively…

Mr. Pletcher:  That is a different issue.  Other people can certainly, potentially, use that access road.  That’s not the question.

Ms. Annis:  My concern is that in a few years from now, if you want to sell that lot, people are going to say that they don’t want people going across their property.  Then they would come in for another access, and I can see where Maryanne is possibly looking in the future.

Mr. Brooks:  If I may, I think that it is important to define the legal terminology here.  We have a non-exclusive right to that access road.  That doesn’t mean that subsequent holders of title can preclude us from using it.  It runs with the chain of title.  Non-exclusive just means that Mr. and Mrs. Pletcher, should they choose, can use it for their own purposed or deed the rights off to someone else to use.  Our rights run with the chain of title.  If some years down the road someone says that they don’t want IWO driving down the road, our rights are protected.  And it has always been our intent, and it will continue to be our intent, that we will only access the site from North Road.

Mr. Serell:  It is a non-issue, but I think that everyone is in agreement that when it gets to that point, the Board should make it a condition of the approval that only North Road be used as the access. 

Mr. Pershouse closed the Board meeting and opened the Public Hearing.

Mr. Pershouse asked if there were any comments from abutters or the public.  Hearing none, the Public Hearing was closed and the Board meeting was reopened.

Mr. Brayshaw asked if the acceptance of the application at the previous Board meeting had a condition.  Mr. Brooks said that there was some discussion about the letter from the State, and that is what was handed out to the Board at this meeting.

Mr. Serell made a motion to approve the application as submitted on the condition that access will be from North Road, as depicted on the plan, and on the condition that access for use by third parties be available as technically available. 

There was discussion about the wording and intent of the motion.  Mr. Brooks said that a requirement of the ordinance is that they submit an agreement with the Town that effectively states that the applicant will allow for co-location of additional antennas at industry standard rates that meet the structural capacity of the facility.  The mechanics of adding antennas involves removing the radone sleeve, installing the antennas, and putting the radone sleeve back on.

Mr. Pershouse:  You stated earlier that that addition would be one, at most?

Mr. Brooks:  It will be specially designed for three, but I don’t want to represent that it will be useful for three carriers because of the type of structure, but it will support three companies.

Mr. Brooks read the co-location portion of the application to the Board.  Mr. Serell said that since that was part of the application, the wording doesn’t need to be in the approval of the application.

Mr. Serell made a motion to approve the application as submitted on the condition that access will be provided from North Road, as depicted on the plan, and on the condition that no exterior antennas or dishes will be placed on the pole.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Brayshaw, and passed by a unanimous vote.

Mr. Brooks stated that the Town’s ordinance requires the posting of a removal bond, and that there is no amount specified.  He asked if the amount of $33,000 would be adequate.  Mr. Pershouse asked if an amount had been set for a previous tower.  Mr. Pershouse suggested that that amount be accepted and approved.

Mr. Brayshaw asked if they also wanted to request an irrevocable letter of credit.  Mr. Pershouse said that wasn’t necessary in this case. 

Mr. Brayshaw made a motion to accept a Surety Bond in the amount of $33,000 for removal purposes.  The motion was seconded by Ms. Annis, and was passed by a unanimous vote.

V.                  Preliminary Consultation:   Minor Subdivision

Wayne Eigabroadt, owner of property on Poverty Plains Road, Map 7, Lots 58-2 and 58-2-1, R2 Zoning.  Two parcels of land totaling 16 acres to be divided into 3 lots.

Mr. Eigabroadt presented a plan of his property and adjoining properties.  He stated that a survey done in 1986 of the subdivision had an error, and that the portion of his land that had been shown as 280 feet is actually 160 feet.  So he has less frontage than he had originally thought.  He said that he wants the lots to be in compliance, but he has 120 feet less than he thought he had.  The required frontage per lot is 200 feet in the R2 zone.  He asked if the Board would recommend getting a Variance from the ZBA for all three lots with less then 200 feet each, or make two of the three lots comply and ask for only one Variance for the third lot.

Mr. Serell said that Lot 1 is already substandard [160 feet of frontage], but it would be grandfathered.  He said that the best chance of approval would be to request a subdivision of Lot 2.  Mr. Eigabroadt said that he had drawn a preliminary plan, dividing Lot 2 into two lots.  Mr. Pershouse said that he would have 353 feet to work with, so would be shy by 47 feet for actual frontage and would need a Variance.  Mr. Eigabroadt said that he could take land from Lot 1 to comply with the minimum acreage required.

Ms. Annis asked him if he’d seen the conditions that are required for a Variance.  Mr. Eigabroadt stated that the subdivision plan as well as the deeds reflect the incorrect measurement, and that steps have been taken to correct the error.  The parties involved in the dispute have agreed to a corrected plan. 

The Secretary stated that the revised plans had been received from Mr. McDonald.  The situation was presented to the town’s attorney, Don Gartrell, for his opinion.  He stated at the time that the Planning Board was not the one to decide on property line disputes, and that the new corrected plans could only be signed and stamped for recording purposes if a signed agreement by the parties involved were presented first.  The agreement was signed and given to the Secretary, and was forwarded to Mr. Gartrell.  It was noticed that the lots had been misidentified, and that the property line in question had been designated incorrectly.  At the time of the meeting, the agreement was being corrected and would be presented once all of the signatures had been obtained. 

Mr. Brayshaw said that what plans are in front of the Board are the ones that they have to go by, unless and until they are proven to be incorrect.  Mr. Eigabroadt showed the Board what area was in dispute.  Mr. Serell said that the Zoning Board is the one that needs to make the determination.  The Secretary gave an application for the Variance to Mr. Eigabroadt and the date of the next ZBA meeting, as well as additional information regarding Variances.

VI.                Communications and Miscellaneous

Mr. Brayshaw, speaking as a Selectman, said that there has been talk of seeking the help of the Planning and Zoning Boards to come up with some type of moratorium on Building Permits.  He said that there has been a very large number of permits issued recently, and the concern is whether or not the tax base will support this.  He said that some hard thinking needs to be done on this issue.

Mr. Pershouse said that managed growth and other alternatives have been discussed, and that Mr. Lennon has gathered opinions from the Planning Board members on this matter.  He said that Barnstead has passed a limit on permits, and other towns are dealing with the same issues.  Lucy St.John of Central Regional New Hampshire Planning has been asked her opinion on this.  Mr. Pershouse said that in terms of school expense and issues which are major, it is a regional issue for the seven towns – for example, a problem in Wilmot has the same impact on the school district as Warner does on them, as well as the other five towns in the district.  It is a huge topic and one that needs to be brought into focus. 

Mr. Brayshaw said that the land prices that are being offered and accepted are ridiculous.   The Secretary asked if the moratorium would apply to building permits for remodeling as well as new construction, and wanted to know what was being considered in Warner.  Mr. Brayshaw said that some of the thoughts coming to the Board of Selectmen is controlled zoning – like 10 acre minimum zoning, etc.  Mr. Pershouse said that some alternatives are also available, like an agricultural overlay district, scenic areas, etc.  One of the key disparities would be that if you’re a resident of Warner and you want to build a house on your lot, you shouldn’t be put into the same pool as others.  And the other issue is one of development.  All of these issues need to be addressed.  Ms. Annis said that Andover’s Growth Ordinance is great, and that they did a lot of research and spent a lot of time and energy on it.  It is flexible – it depends on what the growth was in the prior year and who’s left over from the prior, and it also takes into affect the surrounding towns. 

Mr. Brayshaw said that the Selectmen have been told that Mr. Wentzel has all of his permits in order, but that the Selectmen haven’t seen them to date.  He said that the house is supposed to be moved in the next week or two.  He said that he has heard that a separate Dunkin’ Donuts facility would be opening up across the street from the current one.  Mr. Brayshaw said that in addition to Mr. Wentzel staying in line as far as what he needs to do for the development, it might be the job of the Selectmen to be the gate keepers for the town – to look beyond some of these issues and say, “Do we really want a liquor store in Warner?”  He said that the Planning Board is going to have to determine, “What would a liquor store really bring to the town?”  He wants to know which individual entities the development will be bringing into Warner.  Mr. Serell said that all businesses would have to come before the Planning Board for a Site Plan Review.  Mr. Brayshaw said that the Board needs to be prepared, because it will be coming quickly.

Mr. Pershouse said that some good news is that there is a potential purchaser/buyer for Lot 1 – he couldn’t say who it is, but a general statement for the plan is for a building that would be a principle retail business with four to six small lease spaces available for other business or organizations.  This applicant is a well-established business, nationally.

Mr. St.Pierre asked if Mr. Wentzel’s lots are high enough in elevation.  Mr. Pershouse said that Provan & Lorber hasn’t verified the completion and hasn’t done a site visit.  Mr. Brayshaw said that he thinks he is over the required elevation.  Mr. Pershouse said that topsoil hasn’t been put in yet.  Mr. Brayshaw said that it was his opinion that Provan & Lorber were catering to the CLD engineers [Mr. Wentzel’s new engineering firm].  Mr. Pershouse said that he thinks that Provan & Lorber have been effective.  Mr. Brayshaw said that he agreed, but that some of the attention to detail was lacking.   

Mr. Lennon asked if the concrete blocks at the back of Lots 3 and 4 are anchored in any way, or if they are just piled up.    Mr. Brayshaw said that they are just resting on the ground.  He said that was part of the problems he was alluding to earlier – runoff and erosion control placement, and whether or not the blocks were sitting in the flood plain.  He said that is one of the places where the Town’s engineering firm backed down.  Mr. Pershouse said that they could be made accountable to those issues before the final approval. 

Toby Nickerson was at the meeting.  He said that he had a question related to the American Tower Corporation’s application for building a telecommunications tower on his property on Exit 7.  Part of his arrangement with the company was to put electrical outlets and lights on the poles – on certain ones in regard to, or in conjunction with, the Flea Market.  They would be metered to him, and there would be a switch to turn them on and off at certain times.  Mr. Pershouse asked how this is connected to the tower issue.  Mr. Nickerson said that he had spoken with the Building Manger, and they are still deciding where the telephone poles have to do.  Mr. Pershouse asked if he meant the Construction Manager.  He said yes.  The Construction Manager said that he wasn’t sure if the Town of Warner has a light policy.  Mr. Pershouse asked what the tower company’s implied need was for having power outlets and lighting.  Mr. Nickerson said that they don’t, but in his contract with the tower company he said that he would go along with the building of the tower if they would give him some electrical access out where the Flea Market is in the course of putting in their telephone poles.  He said that they agreed, but that it had been forgotten about.  He said that he was talking with the Construction Manager about it, and that there didn’t seem to be a problem with having plugs on the poles because he was paying for the electricity, but he wasn’t sure about the lighting, which would be regular lights as are on telephone poles seen along the side of the street.  He said he would have a switch to turn them on and off.  Some people come to set up at the Flea Market at 4:00 a.m. in the morning and have asked for lights.  He said that he had read an article stating that there are getting to be so many lights around that the stars can’t be seen. 

Mr. Pershouse said that there might be an abutter issue as well as an enforcement issue.  Mr. Brayshaw said that it almost calls for a Site Plan Review.  Mr. Reeder said that he is the only abutter besides the graveyard, and that he wouldn’t have any problem with it.  Mr. Pershouse said, historically, the caterpillar company has a lot of vapor lighting and it is on late at night.  Mr. Nickerson stated that they have security issues there.  Mr. Pershouse said that it is a commercial area, and Mr. Nickerson said that the first 500 feet of his property is also commercial.  Mr. Pershouse asked how soon they need a decision, and Mr. Nickerson said that the tower company had already applied for their building permit and, assuming that the permit comes through, they see the tower being up by the middle or end of the month [July].  Mr. Brayshaw said that when the company was before the Board [for Site Plan Review], the Board had asked Ms. Fitzsimons if there would be any lighting put up, and she said no.  Mr. Nickerson said that this has nothing to do with their site, other than using the poles and putting some lights on the poles.  Mr. Brayshaw asked who would own the poles.  Mr. Nickerson said that there is a stipulation that the poles have to go in accordance to the right of way, which goes to the rear of the property. 

Mr. Pershouse said that it would be a good idea to have the company sketch where the poles are going to be and what the intensity of the lighting would be – just a basic format – and bring that to the Board.  Mr. Reeder said that it would be a different situation if the lights were gong to be on all night, every night, but that this is a periodic matter.  Mr. Pershouse asked if he were talking about a halogen type of light, and Mr. Nickerson said yes.  Mr. Pershouse said that the intermittent use would be the best argument for having the lights.  Mr. Lennon said that there is no light ordinance of that nature in Warner, but that there is language in the ordinances that talks about putting up halogen lights in the front yard – but it is technical information.  Mr. Serell said that the wording states that, “outdoor lighting should be restricted to that necessary for advertising, safety and security.”  Mr. Pershouse asked if this is possibly change in use, or modification of use, of a commercial property.  Mr. Serell said that the Board can only act on an application, and that maybe this is an “expansion of use”, but that the Board needs an application first before any action can be taken.  He said that there is an existing business here, and the owner wants to put up lights.  The only way the Board could put any restriction on the hours of use would be to put a condition on an application that comes to the Board.  Mr. Pershouse said, on a casual basis, the Board can ask for a reasonable number of specifics and then see what the Board feels about the need for an application.  Mr. Nickerson said that there is an existing light behind his barn now, and it lights up about an acre.  Ideally, he said that there would be two additional lights – one where the parking is, and one by the porta-potties.  Mr. Pershouse asked what the Selectmen feel about it, and Mr. Brayshaw said that knowing the situation and the area, he doesn’t see a problem with it.  He said that his only issue is that if another business wanted to put up lights, they would have to come to the Board.  

Ms. Annis had a question about the April budget report, stating that the report showed the Tax Map amount at $1,100.  She asked if the Board had asked the Selectmen to encumber $500 from last year’s budget, and wondered if that had been done.  The reason was because the Tax Maps weren’t done last year – they chose not to do it, it wasn’t because the funds weren’t available.  Mr. Brayshaw said that he didn’t know, but that he would check into it.   She said that she didn’t want the Board to be over budget.   

Ms. Annis asked about Home Business applications.  She asked Mr. Serell if, when the application is filled out and brought back to the Town, there is a place on the application for the signature of the Selectmen as well as the Planning Board.   He said that he agreed that the Planning Board should sign off on these applications.  Ms. Annis said that the Planning Board isn’t seeing these applications.  Mr. Serell said that it is in the ordinance that the Planning Board sign the applications.  Ms. Annis said that the Selectmen have been giving approval to Home Businesses without the Planning Board seeing the applications.

Mr. Lennon reminded two of the Board members of their assignment to write down what they consider to be the most critical growth issues and how they would address them.  He mentioned that the subject will be coming up at one of the next Work Sessions.

VII.              Adjourn

A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.  The meeting was adjourned at

9:20 PM.

Minutes approved:  August 5, 2002