Ms. Killam called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.

Correspondence

Incoming

Selectmen’s Minutes of October 4 & 18, 2004

Lavelle Associates re: Revised Lot Sizing information for Lots 14/140&141.

City of Haverhill Legal Notice for meeting of 11/10/04

Keach-Nordstrom Associates letter dated 10/27/04 re: Providence Hill Farms/Stadley final review letter.

FEMA letter dated 10/22/04 to Brian Boyle re: Adoption of Flood Insurance Study and Rate Maps.

Outgoing

Providence Hill Farms dated 10/29/04 re: Lot Line Adjustment approval.

Steven Lewis Inc., dated 10/29/04 re: Amended Plan for Commercial Addition, 11 Main Street, Map 5, Lot 5-14.

Engineering Alliance dated 11/1/04 re: Little River Cluster Development approval.

Legal Notice for hearing of 11/17/04.

Continued to the next meeting.

Mr. Morse stepped off the Board

Mr. Peter Lewis, Attorney Levine and Chris Frye were present. Attorney Levine submitted a revised Proposed Zoning Amendment. The Board at the last meeting suggested these revisions. A footnote was added to Section 620:5 - no buildings shall be more than 55 feet in height. Changes were also made to Section 600:7 regarding the density. Changes were also made with the permanent buffer.

Mr. Earley reported on the meeting he attended with the applicants, the Fire Department, the Police Department and Board Member John Miller. One of the

issues discussed was traffic and the consensus was that traffic would not be an issue. The 55' building height was not a problem with the Fire Department. Mr. Miller was concerned with construction time and construction phasing. The applicant assured Mr. Miller that this would not be an issue. The major issue was what the impact would be on the Fire Department and rescue units and when the Fire Department will have full time staffing. This may happen in the next two years anyway. It was felt that the tax benefit from the project should pay for this. There is a study presently in process. A comparison will be made with the surrounding towns. Access to all the buildings was discussed and they seem adequate. BOCA regulations will be followed. Off site improvements were also discussed along with the possibility of a sub-station.

Mr. Earley noted that there would be $500. per unit in impact fees and there was discussion that, since residents are over 55, could the impact fees be applied to off site improvements. Ms. Killam noted that the Board is not authorized to require off site improvements. Ms. Killam stated that a percentage of these residents will be people that already live in Atkinson. Mr. Lewis noted that some of these residents would be moving to other towns. This will be researched. Mr. DiMaggio noted that impact fees are just for schools and the implementation of impact fees in other areas is not in place. Ms. Killam stated that we can implement other impact fees but they are for infrastructure. If, from a planning perspective, we decide this is appropriate it would have to be preceded by an updated Master Plan, CIP Plan and must go to the voters to establish an impact fee for something other than schools. This would be a year long process and Ms. Killam suggested discussing this issue at another workshop meeting.

Ms. Cheney discussed the 400' setback to the property line and noted that we are not requiring a natural buffer. She asked if any other property in the area would be affected. Ms. Killam stated that it would still be a cluster in RR2 - an automatic buffer is added in Section 600:11. SP3 - Section 645:1 - Screening and Buffering was reviewed. Section 620:7 was also discussed. Section 620:1 Rural Residential Cluster and Section 600:11 -Buffering Requirements was read. Mr. DiMaggio referred to Section 620:5 - the first sentence needs to be reworked. He asked that any building with a single bedroom be considered a two-bedroom unit. His thought is to cut the density from 1600 units to 800.

Mr. Morse noted that the last day of petitions is December 8^th. Mr. Morse asked if the Board was going to continue to work on this or if the applicant should bring this Zoning Amendment forward as a citizen petition. Mr. DiMaggio was comfortable with the revisions and that all the changes the Board had suggested were completed. Discussion followed on how long it would take to work on the Master Plan and allow Impact Fees to apply to this plan. Phil Consentino reported that the Police Department did not see any impact on the roads or that this would be a burden to the Police Department. It was suggested that Town Counsel be contacted for his input on how we can appropriately apply impact fees.

A meeting will be scheduled with Attorney Kalman and the discussion will be continued to the next meeting. Ms. Killam reminded the Board that they are working on a Proposed Zoning Amendment and not a plan.

The discussion was closed at 8:20 P.M.

Mr. Morse returned to the Board.

The next Public Hearing was opened at 8:22 P.M.

Ms. Killam explained this process to the public and Mr. Kukshtel, chairman of the Conservation Commission displayed photos of Ecologically Significant Wetlands. Mr. Kukshtel also handed out copies of explanatory material for this proposed ordinance and copies of this material and the photos will be available in the planning office. This information will most likely be made into an informative brochure when the ordinance goes to ballot. The public can also go to 'atkinsonconservation.org' to view both documents. The following questions are discussed in the document:

Why do we need a new Wetland's Zoning Ordinance?

What is a wetland and why is it treated differently than other types of land?

Why change our definition of "wetland"?

What is a "wetland buffer"?

Why change the size of our wetland buffers?

What activities are currently allowed in a wetland buffer?

How does the proposed ordinance control activities in the wetland buffer?

What is a "wetland Variance" and how is it obtained?

How does the proposed ordinance provide variance relief?

Mr. Kukshtel read this document and the document was reviewed by the Board.

Mr. Earley and Ms. Sullivan left the meeting at this time to answer a fire call.

Mr. Kukshtel made some minor corrections to the proposed ordinance since the last meeting. The Board again reviewed all the sections in the proposed ordinance and had some questions on "Accessory Structures" and changes were made in the allowed size of the structure and the language. 410:7 Conditional Uses in the Wetlands Conservation District - a. Conditional Wetland Use and/or Alteration - needs to be reworked. b. Wetland Buffer Reduction by Special Exception - discussion continued on the five criteria needed to be granted a Special Exception and it was determined that Mr. Kukshtel would need to expand on the criteria and to consider adding an extra criteria. Other minor corrections and deletions were made. There was also discussion on fire ponds and if they can become a wetland if not maintained.

Changes were made to Section 300: Definitions of a Wetland and 410:8 Lot Size Determinations a. 2). This was discussed at length. In reviewing this section Mr. Morse noted that this could be a significant change because at this time 2 acres high and dry are needed to construct a dwelling and in most sections of our zoning it is an exception. Ms. Killam asked how we could make sure we are not doing something that will affect other sections in our zoning. Section 410:7 is the section it would affect. The language will be reworked to correct this. The table in Section 420:1 Subdivision Section - Minimum Lot Size was read.

A resident who lives in an ecologically significant wetland asked what the procedure is for determining an Ecological Significant Wetland and who determines where an Ecological Significant Wetland ends and a regular wetland begins. Mr. Kukshtel referred to 'Delineation Requirements' and added that it would have to be reviewed by the Conservation Commission and if they feel it is needed a Certified Wetland Scientist would make the determination. Ms. Killam noted that this resident never had an opportunity to arbitrate this line. Mr. Kukshtel stated that these lines are not set in stone and that the lines and conditions change. If a line is drawn now it may be different in ten years. Ms. Killam asked if it is possible to arbitrate his question. Mr. Kukshtel stated that it is not possible to arbitrate it because no one can predict what will happen in the future. A Special Exception is possible if he wants to expand his home. Ms. Cheney offered some suggestions should he want to put a road through his property.

After further discussion it was determined that a second Public Hearing would be necessary.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M.

Next scheduled Planning Board Public Hearing meeting November 17, 2004.

APROVED________________________Respectfully submitted,

Carol Kater