Ms. Killam called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M.

Correspondence

Incoming

The first discussion was opened at 7:50 p.m.

Mr. Morse stepped off the Board.

Ms. Killam reminded everyone that this discussion is regarding a zoning ordinance and not a proposed plan and the discussion continued. A revised draft was submitted and part of Section 620:5 was deleted. Ms. Killam wanted to clarify the issue of 'Impact Fees'. She noted that this issue would be discussed at a site plan review and not a proposed zoning ordinance. She referred to our Zoning Book, Pg. Z63, Article 16 enacted in 1998 entitled "Public School Impact Fees". Impact fees are legislated and put on the ballot for the voters. The enabling legislation is RSA 674:21 under 'Innovative Land Use Controls'. Under Section1600:5, entitled 'Imposition of the Impact Fees' it states that an applicant may request a waiver in amounts equal to the value of land, facilities or other contribution instead that they make to the school district. It does not state that it can be given to anyone else for any other purpose. Section 1600:5D states that there are no allowances for projects that are age 62 and over. Section 1600:9 talks about the administration of the impact fees. The money goes into a special revenue fund and cannot be transferred out of that fund. Funds get paid out by written order of the selectmen and that they review the school districts requirements annually. If the money stays there from a particular developer for six years or more, the developer can request a refund. There is nothing in the ordinance that allows us to not collect it or to put it to another use. Carol Hall is checking the language ie: may/shall, with the school business manager.

Ms. Killam stated that the Board could consider amending the Impact Fee ordinance. She noted that this 'impact fee' was enacted in four towns and she wondered what the ramifications would be if it was changed in one town. Ms. Killam again stated that we are worrying about using the money being expended for the wrong reasons when we haven't taken the time or the trouble to analyze what needs to be expended. She had a problem with this proposal being 'rushed' through this process with the intent of putting it on the ballot in March 2005.

There were discrepancies in the draft document referring to what the age restrictions would be of those residing in these units. The Board wanted it to be clear that both husband and wife would have to be 55 to reside there but the wording in the draft stated that only the person signing the deed would have to be 55. The applicant stated that they were in agreement with both residents being 55 and will amend the draft to reflect this. Ms. Cheney had a concern that the state regulations have the deed signer only being 55 and that our restriction of both residents being 55 could be contested. The Board was assured that it would be in the deed as a restriction that all residents would be at least 55.

Ms. Killam felt that there were many issues that should be looked at before this goes any further. She asked if the issues should be addressed as a Board or a Committee. By December 8^th or 9^th the applicant should be told whether or not the Board will recommend putting this on the ballot. She thought a poll of the Board was in order. Ms. Killam did not feel this proposed piece of legislation was ready. Mr. Earley asked if another meeting would be helpful. Ms. Killam asked why there is such a rush on this. Mr. Earley felt this would be good for the town, that the size of the buildings are fine and that everyone knew this development was coming. Mr. Earley felt that this was the way to go and that the Board should move this forward. Ms. Killam did not agree and noted that the Board is cramming into one or two weeks what should take ten months.

Ms. Killam stated that anything that gets built brings taxes to the town. She was aware that the developer could start building the same number of units in the same age category today if they wanted to. We are rushing this to allow them to build 32 unit buildings that are taller, which would allow them to build them much faster before the Board has had a change to discuss the impact of increasing the town's population by at least 25% of over 55 residents. There are ramifications to this and Rockingham Planning has agreed.

Mr. Fletcher noted that the developer is prepared to take this ordinance as written to the voters in March and that it could pass. The Planning Board would not have any input should this happen. Ms. Killam stated that it is not on this Board's shoulders for not having warned the voters what this will cost them in the long run. Mr. Earley noted that the Board has known for ten years that this was coming and we haven't looked at the Master Plan or prepared for this. Ms. Killam argued that she spent a year and a half updating the Master Plan and that no one else on the Board sat on that committee.

Mr. Morse asked Ms. Killam if she was in favor of this project. Ms. Killam stated that there is no project before the Board. If she understood the financial impact to the town she would support the proposed zoning ordinance. Ms. Killam stated that she was very concerned with the phasing issue. Mr. DiMaggio was not happy that requests he had made had not been addressed in the revised draft.

Ms. Killam stated that we have to tell the applicant if we are going to support it or not. It was Ms. Killam's opinion that this document was not ready to be posted for a Public Hearing. Mr. DiMaggio felt that this petition, if put before the voters, would pass and that anything that the Board requested would be voided. He agreed that this is a good thing and that a lot of positive work had been done. He felt this should go to the voters but was torn because he could not get one concession that he wanted. He felt the town should get some benefit and it should be a reduction in density or an assurance that there will be no more than 800 units. The developer has said that he did not feel there would be 800 units there.

It was suggested that the applicant be allowed to bring this petition to the voters and that the Board continues to work on their draft and post it in March. The voters would have a choice and it would give the Board some time to work on the proposal. Mr. Fletcher asked why a person would invest millions of dollars in a golf course and mess up the project.

Ms. Killam asked for a show of hands to see who would like this pushed forward by the Planning Board towards Public Hearing. A committee should be formed to work on this ordinance to get it right. Ms. Killam asked who felt the ordinance was ready to be put to the voters tonight and several Board members raised their hands. Ms. Killam asked that the record reflect that the Planning Board is not able to bring this to voters with any kind of information from any kind of study, only the developer's say so, of what it is going to gain, net or cost this town. Ms. Killam stated that this is not 'planning'. We should be planning and not reacting to a citizen's request. Mr. Morse noted that we are not talking about density changes. Mr. Constentino agreed that the project would be good for the town and would bring in some revenue. He asked if two items could be added to the proposed ordinance; 1) nobody will reside in any of these units under the age of 55, 2) and this will be enforced by the Homeowner's Association. Ms. Killam felt that the newly formed committee should discuss these issues. Mr.Constentino stated that, before the document gets approved as read, he would like these questions answered. It was suggested that town counsel be contacted before this goes to the voters. The police and fire department's response was discussed and they did not feel there would be a large financial impact.

The sub-committee will meet on November 18^th at 6:30 p.m. and the public was invited to attend. The discussion was continued to the next meeting.

The discussion was closed at 9:09 p.m.

Mr. Constentino and Mr. DiMaggio left the meeting.

Mr. Morse returned to the Board.

The next Public Hearing was opened at 9:10 P.M.

The abutter's list was read. Present: James M. Lavelle Associates.

This has been before the Board previously. Mr. Keach has submitted his letter of review dated 11/17/04 and Mr. Lavelle has addressed his issues. This is a storage building for a private automobile collection. There will be no sales or commercial use. A state septic system permit has been received. There are two issues noted in the engineer's letter. 1) It was recommended that the flared end section proposed at the culvert inlet be replaced with a headwall, 2) and more specific detail on the landscape, which has been done. Under Planning/Design Matters #1 the monuments have been set. Mr. Earley asked if the buildings would be sprinkled and Mr. Lavelle stated that if it were a regulation the building would be sprinkled. The plans were sent out to Department Heads on October 14^th but they have not had a response.

The minutes of the last meeting were reviewed. Mr. Earley requested a note be added to the plan stating that the building would conform to all building regulations and he will see that the Fire Chief responds. A drain that was on the previous plan has been removed. Cars will not be washed inside the building.

The Board requested that the following notes be added: No sales or service on the premises, building will be sprinkled, and that it must conform to all building regulations.

The hearing was closed at 9:25 p.m.

The next hearing was opened at 9:27 p.m.

Are you in favor of the adoption of the amendment proposed by the Atkinson Planning Board for the Town Zoning Ordinance, which would repeal the present wetlands ordinance (Section 410. WETLANDS ZONING) and replace it with a new ordinance. The technical revisions are as follows:

to delete Section 410. WETLANDS ZONING in its entirety; and

b) to replace with language that would:

Establish a Wetlands Conservation District as an overlay district encompassing wetlands, surface waters, and variable-width upland buffer areas.

Replace the current definition of "wetlands" with one that is more commonly accepted in the scientific community and that is more consistent with State and Federal regulations.

Replace the current fixed 100 ft. wetland buffer with buffers that vary in width, from 50 ft. to 150 ft., depending on the functional value of the wetland.

More clearly define activities, which are permitted and prohibited in the wetland buffer.

Provide regulatory relief in the form of a special exception from the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) rather than a variance from the ZBA for many of the most common request for relief cases.

Mr. Kukshtel discussed the two changes that were made at the last meeting and discussed how the impact of the new RSA concerning the definition of wetlands would affect this document. The new RSA Chapter 243, of House Bill 1148, Definitions of Wetlands RSA 42-8:2 from the state was read. Mr. Kukshtel did not feel this was a major issue and proposed that whenever the word 'wetlands' is used in this document we substitute 'wetlands resources' and define 'wetland resources' as wetlands, streams, surface waters and exclude swales and drainage ditches from the definition of 'wetland resources'.

The revisions were reviewed. Section 410:7 Section A was discussed and reworded.

The hearing was opened to the public.

The map of the wetlands was discussed. It was agreed that this proposed amendment is better than it was but it was still restrictive. A resident disagreed on some of the significance of the wetlands. A determination of the significance would have to be determined by a wetland soil scientist. Ms. Killam noted that there is still the opportunity for relief with a variance. It was noted that an existing house lot might be grandfathered.

Proposed Amendments to the Building Codes to adopt the latest available revision to previously approved National Fire Protection Codes:

NFPA 32 Dry Cleaning Plants

NFPA 45 Fire Protection for Laboratories Using Chemicals

NFPA 70 National Electrical Code

NFPA 91 Exhaust systems for Air Conveying of Vapors, Gases, Mists and

Non-combustible Particulate Solids.

NFPA 96 Ventilation Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations.

NFPA 241 Safeguarding Construction, Alteration and Demolition Operations.

NFPA 302 Pleasure and Commercial Motor Craft.

NFPA 408 Aircraft Hand Portable Fire Extinguishers.

NFPA 409 Aircraft Hangers.

NFPA 410 Aircraft Maintenance.

NFPA 430 Code for the Storage of Liquid and Solid Oxidizers.

NFPA 701 Flame Propagation of Textiles and Films.

NFPA 1931 Design of and Design Verification Tests for Fire Department Ground Ladders.

NFPA 1932 Use, Maintenance, and Service Testing of Fire Department Ground Ladders.

Mr. Earley presented the amendments.

Ms. Cheney made a motion to accept the Proposed Amendments to the

Building Codes. Mr. Guischard seconded the motion. Motion approved.

1 opposed.

Ms. Cheney made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Earley seconded the motion

Seconded the motion. Motion approved unanimously.

Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

Next scheduled Planning Board Public Hearing meeting December 1, 2004.

APPROVED_____________________Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Carol Kater