OLD BUSINESS: The Planning Board discussed the business at One Atkinson Depot in Plaistow. The owner wants to build another building on the site. The issue is complicated because the building is in Plaistow, but is accessed by a right-of-way easement from Atkinson. The owner has met with the Plaistow Planning Board, and they are in the conceptual stage. The Planning Board asks what degree the Town wants to be involved because the Town will be affected. It was discussed that the Planning Board should find out when the next hearing is regarding this issue and perhaps Tim Dziechowski could attend.

Brooks Properties has not removed the pile of loam from the property, and therefore cannot get the conditions signed. Ted Stewart said the pile is about 300 cubic yards and would take about 15 hours to remove. The Planning Board felt a $2,000 bond would be adequate. Glenn Greenwood thought that placing a bond on Brooks Properties was not making a substantive change from the condition placed on Brooks Properties at the public hearing. The condition was to remove the pile of loam. Mr. Greenwood felt that you would not be creating an aggrieved party by placing the bond on Brooks Properties. Paul DiMaggio agreed, but asked how the State or the courts would view the placement of the bond, and can the condition be changed from removing the loam pile to placing a bond to remove the loam pile. Tim Dziechowski would like to see Brooks Properties come back before the Planning Board. Joe Guischard, Jack Sapia, Sue Miner and Mike Fletcher all agree that Brooks Properties should come back before the Planning Board. Sue Killam felt a heavy bond should be placed on Brooks Properties and make them adhere to the condition. Brooks Properties should be told to come back before the Planning Board in the middle of March and remove the loam pile.

Harold Morse recused himself.

Attendees: Bill Rollins and Andre Betit of Vollmer; Glenn Greenwood and Eric Steltzer of Rockingham Planning Commission; Laurie Rauseo, traffic consultant; Chris Frye, Robert Levine and Peter Lewis of Lewis Builders Development, Inc.; Ross Moldoff and Jim Keller of Salem Planning Board.

Sue Killam read the abutters list.

Sue Killam reads the correspondence.

On January 19, 2007, Chief Consentino wrote a letter to Chris Frye regarding placing communications on the roof of the Country Club. There have been discussions between the Chief and Christine Lewis-Morse regarding this issue. Ms. Lewis-Morse has offered space for a repeater/communications equipment on the roof of the Country Club, but believes the taxes that the Country Club pays should cover the expenses. Jack Sapia feels this issue should be going to the Board of Selectmen. Paul DiMaggio asks how high off the roof will the communications equipment reach before it disturbs the aesthetics. The equipment will be placed inside the cupola on the roof. What is being placed on the roof is not a tower or primary communication equipment, it will be a repeater in an enclosed area on top of the building. Paul DiMaggio feels that if this is not being brought on by this specific project, it should not be Mr. Lewis’ financial obligation. The Planning Board will respond to the Chief that this discussion has taken place.

Chris Frye presented the revised plans to the Planning Board for their review. Mr. Frye will discuss the traffic report and have Laurie Rauseo present her report. Andre Betit presented his comments on the traffic study to the Planning Board: (1) the Sawyer Avenue intersection is of interest to the Planning Board and is included in the traffic report; (2) Shannon Road and Providence Hill Road at Clubhouse Drive still need traffic plans, and Andre recommends these plans be made; (3) suggests seasonal adjustment for the AM peak hours; (4) requesting more information on the left turn lanes of the by-pass lanes; (5) documents should be submitted to the Town that the Salem roads have been addressed to the Town’s satisfaction; (6) there has been no computation of queue lengths; and (7) documentation that the recommendations have been addressed to the Town of Salem.

Laurie Rauseo: Ms. Rauseo informs the Planning Board that she did not receive the letter of Andre Betit’s comments to her traffic study prior to tonight’s meeting and asks that she be copied on all future correspondence. Ms. Rauseo prepared a letter regarding Sawyer Avenue/North Broadway/Route 121 and inserted it in the report giving an analysis and discussion of the intersection.

Traffic Report Discussion: (1) If the traffic flow at Salem Road is working fine, then any intersection beyond that point would have less traffic, and have a lesser impact; (2) the site layout was removed because she could not provide a clear copy at that level; (3) the site distance plans were provided to Vollmer; (4) with regard to the seasonal adjustments, none of the initial conclusions in her report would change; (5) auxiliary turn lane analysis – this was done at a District 5 level, which is different than Concord. The District 5 level includes Atkinson and is what the methodology was based on; (6) queue lengths are included in the initial report, and she did not see any issues with any particular queue lengths.

The Planning Board discussed the roads in the surrounding area. Providence Hill Road is an Atkinson road. Shannon Road is a Salem Road. North Broadway, Routes 97 and 121 are State roads. Shannon Road/Clubhouse Drive are Salem roads. Peter Lewis owns the land for the turnout lanes, and he can have the turnout lane coming from the Country Club. The Planning Board discussed Peter Lewis’ February 21, 2007 letter to the Planning Board offering his commitment to perform offsite improvements, which include (1) Intersection of Salem Road/Sawyer Avenue – straightening the road and reducing the curve radius; (2) Salem Road culvert west of Jericho Road intersection – installing a guard rail between culvert invert and edge of pavement; (3) Sawyer Avenue prior to Route 121 intersection – super-elevate the road at the entrance of the curve. The Planning Board discussed Robert Levine, Esquire’s February 21, 2007 letter to Ross Moldoff regarding Agreement in Principle for Off-Site Improvements which include: (1) lowering the elevation of the corner of Haverhill Road and Providence Hill Road, Mr. Lewis will do 100% of this scope of work; (2) provide a detailed plan that meets Town specifications for the deceleration lane on Shannon Road at the entry of Clubhouse Drive, Mr. Lewis will do 100% of this scope of work; (3) the Town will replace the missing street sign at Hooker Farm Road and Shannon Road; (4) expand the corner radius and/or put in right turn lane at southeast corner of Shannon Road and Hooker Farm Road, Mr. Lewis will do 100% of this scope of work; (5) install flashing light at Shannon Road and Liberty/Town Farm Road intersection; Mr. Lewis will do 100% of scope of work; (6) move Clubhouse Drive sign from utility pole to galvanized steel pole; (7) put up temporary sign on Shannon Road and Hooker Farm Road during the hours of 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Saturdays to detour event traffic to Hooker Farm Road; (8) no improvements to the Route 97 intersection at Shannon Road; (9) the work shall be a condition of approval of the site plans currently before the Atkinson Planning Board, and Salem will not require site plan review; (10) Mr. Lewis will be responsible for his proportionate share of the offsite improvements.

Ross Moldoff: Mr. Moldoff informed the Planning Board that the traffic report was reviewed by Salem on February 13, 2007 with Ms. Rauseo. The developer will adhere to Salem’s construction guidelines and pay their proportionate share of the offsite improvements. Mr. Moldoff met with Mr. Lewis and Mr. Frye and reviewed the recommendations of what is possible and what is not possible and the right-of-way. They discussed the work to be performed at the Salem intersections and agreed on many points, but no permanent agreement has been reached. The proposal needs to be reviewed by the Salem Planning Board and the Salem Board of Selectmen. Mr. Moldoff requests of the Atkinson Planning Board that any action taken at tonight’s meeting be conditioned upon approval or final approval from the Town of Salem on the road improvements. The Town of Salem would like the road improvements finished prior to occupancy. With regard to site plan approval by the Town of Salem, Mr. Moldoff had Town Counsel review this issue, and her opinion was that Salem needs to approve the site plan. Mr. Moldoff said that the Salem Planning Board can waive their having to approve it, but the Planning Board needs to discuss this first. Mr. Moldoff will have an answer to the Atkinson Planning Board after the Salem Planning Board meets in a couple of weeks. According to RSA 674:53, the Salem Planning Director will still have to sign the Mylars. The Salem Planning Board wants the opportunity to make sure that all issues are covered and that they have the opportunity to review. The Salem Planning Board has reviewed the traffic study and found it focused on percentage increases and improvements.

Planning Board Discussion: Sue Miner questions the temporary signs on Shannon Road and Hooker Farm Road. There are events going on now, what is the difference. There is a surge of traffic on Saturdays because of the Salem dump. The Country Club has traffic concerns if a wedding party cannot get through because of the back-up to the dump. The detour would be by Hooker Farm Road to bypass the traffic on Shannon Road. Sue Miner is concerned this will add more traffic to Providence Hill Road/Sawyer Avenue and could present a queuing problem. The way the road curves, you cannot see someone turning. Mr. Lewis responded this is why he wants to take out the curve. Mr. Lewis feels if you keep the cars farther from the left, you can better see the cars. The line of sight turning left onto Salem Road from Sawyer Avenue is not safe. The intersection works in terms of timing. Sue Miner’s question was a site distance question. Everything on the road meets the criteria, it is more of a speed enforcement issue. The vegetation in the area has been cleared to provide a better site distance. Laurie Rauseo explained to the Planning Board that the intersection is crude with a wide radius. If you cut the corner and make it sharper, this will pull the turning vehicle to the center line of the road. Center line striping and a stop bar will force the vehicle to pull up 20 ft closer and make the site distance adequate for turning onto Salem Road. With regard to the issue of traffic flow not increasing at Salem Road which means that the North Broadway intersection would not be affected, Sue Miner disagrees. Ms. Miner feels that North Broadway is an access road to Route 495. Sue Killam also feels that this intersection will be impacted and will be a concern for the same reason. Mr. Lewis feels that North Broadway has a good deceleration lane, but Sue Killam said you need to take into effect traffic from both directions. Mr. Lewis does not think the new development will affect the intersection, but Sue Miner feels the new residents from the development will use that intersection. According to Laurie Rauseo’s traffic analysis, there will only be an increase of 10-13 cars an hour due to the development. With regard to the Salem Road/Providence Hill road intersection, it would make sense to move the lane north on Salem Road to get a better line of sight. Ted Stewart said the road will be moved to the left to improve the line of sight.

Laurie Rauseo, Andre Betit and Ted Stewart step out of the meeting to meet. Bob Levine is concerned with the time lag of tonight’s meeting and agreement from Salem. Mr. Levine is asking for conditional approval tonight.

Laurie Rauseo, Andre Betit and Ted Stewart return to the meeting, and there are no further traffic issues.

Chris Frye: Mr. Frye discussed with the Planning Board the raised tables in the access road in front of the buildings located on Sheet 10, Note 20. If travel speeds become an issue, raised tables will be placed in front of the buildings, and the developer will take care of this problem. Paul DiMaggio asks who decides when it gets done if it needs to be done. Mr. Frye suspects that the residents will self-police the speeding issues, but does not feel this will be an issue. A homeowners association will be created once the buildings are occupied. Paul DiMaggio and Jack Sapia would like to see the raised tables installed at the outset. Ted Stewart, Tim Dziechowski, Joe Guischard, Sue Miner, Mike Fletcher and Sue Killam are comfortable with the footnotes as written. With regard to the sewer treatment facility, the wetlands are sufficient to handle the facility. The sewage flow will be handled by the septic system and the wetland sewerage facility. Mr. Frye showed the plan to the Planning Board of the sewer treatment facility as required by DES. Sue Killam feels the septic plan should be included in the site plan, and the plan that Mr. Frye is presenting tonight is not recorded, but only filed with the DES. Mr. Frye informs the Planning Board that there is a recorded sewerage easement plan that he can make reference to by adding a note to the site plans. The Planning Board agrees that the sewerage treatment facility should be added to the site plan. Peter Lewis suggests adding it to page 2 of the site plans and adding a note on Sheet 10 referencing the recorded sewerage easement. Mr. Frye presented a letter from Darrell Hawkins regarding the wetlands and that the wetlands do not need to be expanded, but another lagoon needs to be constructed. Sheets 5 and 6 of the site plan show the location of the irrigation pond, which is s 6.5 million gallon irrigation pond. Mr. Frye can add the location of the irrigation pond to Sheet 2 as well. Glenn Greenwood asks whether there has been any discussion phase with DES. DES feels the development has 1 million more than what the development needs, but cannot get subdivision approval until the wastewater treatment facility is approved. Sheet 10, Note 8 indicates that site specific is pending, but not received yet. The subdivision plans from DES have yet to be applied for. Mr. Frye has State approvals pending at this point. Glenn Greenwood notes that the water is to be provided by Hampstead Area Water Company ("HAWC"). Does the Planning Board typically tie the water and sewerage to certificate of occupancy? The notes do not show when the sewer/water will be in place. Mr. Frye cannot get a building permit until all of these approvals are in place. Vollmer is requesting from Mr. Frye site distance profiles for their review. Mr. Frye feels this is very obvious, but will provide the profiles to Vollmer. Ted Stewart feels the site distances are more than adequate, but understands the engineers’ point of view. Vollmer explains that typically profiles are provided, and what they have has no validity without the site distance profiles. Sue Killam agrees for future liability questions. The only issue Vollmer has is the bumpouts for slowing traffic. They would not work for fire apparatus. The speed tables will work in this instance and can be made to look attractive.

Motion Discussion: Joe Guischard asks whether Salem needs to be mentioned in the site plan. Sue Killam feels they should. Ted Stewart asks if we have conditional approval, how does it open up for Salem to approve or deny. Paul DiMaggio responds that if Salem turns down the approval, the whole thing will die and will have to go to court. The Town has no control over what Salem decides. Salem met with the developers regarding the issues that need to be approved by Salem’s Planning Board and/or Salem’s Board of Selectmen. The Atkinson Planning Board is confident that Salem will sign the Mylar. There is no time limit on the conditional approval. Glenn Greenwood suggests that one be implemented, and that it is not unusual for approvals to be for one year.

The meeting was closed at 10:10 PM.

Next scheduled workshop meeting is March 7, 2007.

APPROVED________________________

Respectfully submitted,

Raelene McBride