Town of Warner – Planning Board

Minutes of Meeting

Monday, December 3, 2007     7:00 PM

Warner Town Hall , Lower Level

Members Present:              Barbara Annis, Paul Violette, Wayne Eigabroadt, Ed Mical, George Pellettieri, Hank Duhamel

Members Late:                   Drew Serell

Alternates Present:            Dan Watts

Alternates Absent:              Stacey Cooper

Presiding:                             Barbara Annis

Recording:                           Jean Lightfoot

Open Meeting at 7:00 PM

Roll Call  

Ms. Annis asked Dan Watts to sit in for Drew Serell.   

1. COMMERCIAL MAJOR SUBDIVISION

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

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

Property Location: Intersection of Route 103 and I-89 Southbound off-ramp, Map 14 Lot 10, C1 District

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

She announced that, even though it was a very snowy night, it was necessary to meet because the Board had voted to grant an extension for the Wagner subdivision only until December 3^rd.  She said she thought that if the Board did not meet tonight and grant another extension, then it would result in an automatic approval for the subdivision.  And, that is not the intent of the Board to give an automatic approval to anyone for anything.  She said that that would be the only thing on the agenda for tonight.   

It was noted that there is no public in attendance.  There was discussion about the very bad driving.  Mr. Mical asked if the applicants had actually requested a continuance.  Ms. Annis said that she had received a letter from Mr. Toth requesting the continuance.  She read:  

            “The above referenced project is scheduled for a public hearing on December 3, 2007 .  After a brief discussion with my client regarding the weather conditions expected this evening, my client may not be able to attend the meeting this evening due to the commercial and residential accounts they have for plowing services.  In addition, the travel distance from my office, recently relocated to Worcester , Mass. , to your meeting may cause some potentially traveling safety issues and I am not confident I would be able to make the meeting in time in any event.  

            “The applicant kindly requests the Board allow the applicant to continue the public hearing to January 7, 2008 .”  

The letter is dated today, December 3, 2007 .  Mr. Eigabroadt commented that it wasn’t technically a public hearing that was scheduled, but just a meeting.  Mr. Duhamel suggested that we continue the meeting.  Mr. Mical suggested that we extend it out 65 days so we have time, noting that we still haven’t heard from DOT on the proposed subdivision.  Mr. Eigabroadt asked if that meant to just extend it out to the February meeting.  Mr. Mical said yes, he meant to schedule it for the February meeting.  Mr. Pellettieri asked what the purpose setting a limit – he said he thought it was to put an end to an ongoing application that continues to clutter up the agenda, using space that other people could be using.  Ms. Annis said we could continue until the 65 days but require him to be at the next meeting.  Mr. Eigabroadt suggested that we continue this meeting until January 7^th and give him a continuance until January 7^th, and then it would be as if it were happening tonight, only it would be a month from now because of the weather.  Ms. Annis asked what would happen if it was then another bad night.  Mr. Duhamel agreed that it is possible there will be bad weather again.  Mr. Eigabroadt asked if that if it’s inclement weather again, is this more important than plowing his driveways.  He noted that his experience is that if someone who plows driveways needs to do something else, they ask someone else to do the driveways for them while they do the other thing.  Mr. Mical said there is the other issue that we’re still waiting for the information from DOT and DES.  It was noted that he said he expected to get the DOT and DES responses within 30 days.   

Mr. Mical MOVED that we continue it for 65 days.  Mr. Duhamel seconded.  

There was discussion about on which date the 65^th day would land on.  Mr. Serell a question about whether we can continue it beyond what they requested.  Mr. Eigabroadt said he thought if it were extended to February, but continue in January, then if there’s bad weather again in January, then we would not have to come in to just extend to February.  If they’re here and ready in January, then we can consider it then.  Mr. Serell said we would continue it until February, contingent on getting the consent of the applicant, then we can just call and reschedule if necessary.  Then, we could say, alternatively, if they don’t consent, then we would go to January.  

Mr. Serell suggested that the motion be AMENDED to read “to continue the period of the application until February, assuming we get the consent of the applicant thereto, and if we do not get said consent, then it will be continued to January.”  Mr. Duhamel seconded.  

Mr. Eigabroadt said that the dates we are speaking of are January 7^th and/or February 4^th.  

Ms. Annis asked for any other discussion.  Mr. Pellettieri asked why we could keep this going on our agenda for another two months when we’ve got other things to consider.  Mr. Duhamel said that eventually, if it isn’t approved by February 4^th, then they would have to re-apply.  Mr. Eigabroadt asked if it’s DOT that’s causing the delay.  He suggested that perhaps at the February 4^th meeting we could ask them to come in and show cause as to why we should extend it any further.  Mr. Duhamel said he believed that they could not go beyond that date based on our prior discussions – that after that date, they would have to re-submit the application.  Ms. Annis said we were going to discuss with them that we were not going to just keep continuing it.  She said she thought the Planning Board had accepted the application prematurely – we never should have accepted it when it wasn’t complete.  Mr. Eigabroadt asked if we have any information about how long they waited to submit to DES and DOT.  Ms. Annis said we don’t have that.  Mr. Pellettieri asked if we have any proof that they are, in fact, pursuing this.  Mr. Mical said that when he, Ms. Annis and Mr. Violette met with the DOT representatives, we talked about the corridor study, I specifically asked Rick Radwanski, who now is the assistant to Pam, if they have stuff.  He said they do and they are looking at it.  He said that there has been some correspondence back and forth and it’s ongoing.  Mr. Eigabroadt said that one of the things that have been considered from the beginning, including the engineering people, was that the State said that they need to prove or show that there’s not going to be an increase in drainage going into that pipe, which they neglected to do all along.  We kept telling them that they needed to do that and, if that is, in fact, what’s hanging them up, then shame on them.  Mr. Mical said that is part of it.  Mr. Eigabroadt noted that at some point they had changed their plans to not increase the flow by adding a detention pond up above and, he said he didn’t know how timely they were in getting those new plans back to DOT for review.  It would be nice to have that information, with the response dates.  Mr. Violette said that DOT has had a number of personnel changes which could explain some of the delay.  

Mr. Pellettieri said that his concern was with our obligation to all the other applicants who come before the Board and to fulfill all our other duties.  He said we’ve got a lot of work to do on the Master Plan alone.  Ms. Annis said that she thought we may extend this until February; however, it would not be completed in one night with Mr. Toth.  She thinks there will be a lot to digest and there will not be an approval all in the same night as the next meeting.  She said she would still like them to come whenever we adjourn this meeting to – on that date.  She wanted them to respond to the checklist from March 2007.  Then, she wanted them to return with the DOT and DES to discuss that.  Mr. Serell asked why not just continue to January and make it clear that they have until February to complete everything.  Mr. Duhamel said that he would really like to talk with the State to see if that drainage really will work.  Ms. Annis said we don’t usually talk with the State on these issues.  It was pointed out that we can ask our engineer to review the data.  Ms. Annis said if we’re going to do the rest of the agenda next Monday night, she’d like to have them here next Monday to review the checklist from March 2007.  Then, in January, if they have the DOT and DES information, then that would be covered at that time.  Mr. Duhamel said he would like to keep the motion to extend to January and extend to February, if the applicants give consent.   

There being no further discussion, it was VOTED.  Mr. Violette – Yes; Mr. Mical – Yes; Mr. Pellettieri – No; Mr. Duhamel – Yes; Mr. Serell – Yes; Mr. Eigabroadt – Yes.   

Ms. Annis announced that the motion is carried.  

2. MOTION TO CONTINUE TO ANOTHER NIGHT  

Ms. Annis asked for a motion to continue this meeting to address the balance of the agenda on what night.  She suggested that we meet on the 10^th and then, again, on the 17^th.  Mr. Violette MOVED that the meeting be continued until next Monday night, December 10^th, at 7:00 pm .  Mr. Eigabroadt seconded.  The motion was PASSED unanimously.  The meeting stopped at 7:18 pm and was continued to Monday, December 10^th at 7:00 pm .