Call to order: Ms. Killam called the meeting to order at 7:40 PM.

The objectives for zoning as currently written are that the unit be no more than 1 bedroom, strictly accessory and 500 sq. ft. Mr. Stewart felt that an increase was heading in this direction in order to make living areas better for family members. Mr. Fletcher feels the 750 sq. ft. is excessive as an accessory living unit and asks how the Town will be able to police these units not being rented as separate apartments. He feels 500 sq. ft. is reasonable for an elderly apartment. Mr. Stewart does not believe it would be utilized by only an elderly family member, but multi-age members. Plaistow has a range of 400-800 sq. ft. with the discretion of the ZBA as a special exemption. Salem is 800 sq. ft. Mr. Sapia does not believe the units will be abused as rental apartments and only 1-2 are built a year. Mr. Sapia assures the Board that the Board of Selectmen will take appropriate action if an accessory unit is being rented as an apartment.

Frank Polito: Mr. Polito authored the original Ordinance and indicated that he has concerns with an increase of more than 500 sq. ft. Atkinson has very restrictive ordinances on single-family dwellings. He believes this change in the ordinance creates an in-law apartment, which was not the original intent of the accessory living unit. The ordinance was created to provide a relief, but still have very restrictive zoning. The ordinance provides strict physical limitations on the size of the unit and access. It should not be a whole, self-sufficient living unit. The family member should not be living in this space, but must have access to the entire house. There should be no separate entrance through a garage or the outside. He believes the 500 sq. ft. is the same size as a one-bedroom, garden style condominium unit. The ZBA reviewed the new ordinance, and they would recommend increasing it by 100 sq. ft, but not by almost 50%. It is inconsistent with the original intent.

Robert Jones: Mr. Jones has been working with this ordinance for many years. He believes the elderly family member should be able to have enough space in their unit to have a kitchen, bedroom, small sitting area and closets. The elderly want to continue to be independent while having to live with family members. He does not believe that an additional 250 sq. ft. is that much more space, and has received many complaints that the 500 sq. ft. is too small.

After the workshop meeting, two changes were made to the Ordinance: age 62 was changed to 55, and the occupancy maintained through deed restriction of 12 years was stricken and changed to special exemption.

Frank Polito: Mr. Polito’s concern is that a resident who has lived in a single-family home and has paid school impact fees, will now live in the new housing development and be exempt from school impact fees. He is concerned that the resident will go from paying something to paying zero. He asks whether there is some formula that a percentage get assessed. He feels this is an excessive relief, because not all single-family dwellings produce children utilizing the school system, but they are still assessed a school impact fee, and these units will be granted 100% relief. Mr. Polito is supportive of some relief, but believes this is excessive.

Ted Stewart: Mr. Stewart states the units will reduce the tax rate for the entire town which will indirectly impact the schools. The occupants will be paying a lot of money in taxes, which will lower the tax rate because they will have no children impacting the schools. Mr. Stewart believes it will be a win for the Town and for the school system.

Joe Guischard: Mr. Guischard states that without the units, people will move out of town in order to live in this type of development, and the Town will lose the tax revenue. He believes the single-family dwelling the occupant is moving out of will be occupied by a family with children.

Attorney Levine: Attorney Levine questions the wording "special exception" and then "special exemption" in the ordinance as written. Sue Killam said it should be "special exception" in both places. The Board’s intent is to create a special exception.

Harold Morse: Mr. Morse said that the ordinance as written is a substantial change from the wording that was posted and the public hearing on this issue should be continued. The legal notice did not post the actual verbiage and should be continued.

Frank Polito: Mr. Polito has a minor concern with increasing the hours to 80, because of the possible increase in traffic in neighborhoods where Atkinson is a strictly regulated town of single-family dwellings. His concern that changing the wording could open up the possibility of lawsuits with the ZBA as to what an essential service is. His major concern is the exemption of medical/dental/veterinary from transfer. All sales are contingent upon the approval of the ZBA, and the ZBA is not supposed to grant approval on a home business if they do not own the business. He feels this change should be for all home businesses and not just the medical/dental/ veterinary businesses. He does not feel it is fair that other home businesses cannot transfer their businesses. He feels a check and balance is being taken away. Home businesses are not a variance but a special exception. The ZBA grants conditional approvals for a potential buyer who does not own the property yet. He does not feel the medical/dental/veterinary businesses should be singled out, but this change should pertain to all home businesses.

Joe Guischard: Mr. Guischard informed the Board that the ZBA still would have control of the business with regard to parking, square footage, etc. He said it takes at least 3 months for the transfer of a business, and residents would not have that essential service available during that time period. He said the Town needs the continuity of the transfer.

Harold Morse: Mr. Morse states that perhaps this change should be for all home businesses. Not all home businesses are medical/dental/veterinary, and you either meet the criteria or you do not. If the new owner is not changing the business and meets all of the criteria, the transfer should not be denied.

Tim Dziechowski also agrees that the change should be for all home businesses. Sue Killam proposes taking out section (g) and working on the wording. The Board approves the wording in section (c).

Ted Stewart is concerned that the tower cannot be built within a certain amount of feet to a building, and what is being proposed is a tower right behind the salt shed, which is a pre-existing building and presents a conflict. Plaistow’s setback is 125 ft. from the height of the tower from the surrounding buildings to protect the tower from falling on residences. The tower must still be built in accordance with the building codes which is what section (k) regulates. Section (c) allows the Town not to have to follow every element of Article VIII, and sections (j), (k) and (l) will keep the Town up to speed with the building codes. The purpose of the amendment to section (c) is for the Town to be exempt from the requirements of Article VIII. If the Town is exempt, a site plan will be necessary.

Frank Polito stated that by exempting the Town, requires that the tower can only be placed in a commercial zone. The Board obtained their wording from the Rockingham Planning Commission. The Board felt the wording was too broad and wanted the tower placed on land that was 300 ft. above sea level. Lt. Baldwin informed the Board that the Public Safety Communication Committee is trying to suffice the needs of residents and the Town. He believes the Board should move forward with the amendment.

Ted Stewart is comfortable with the wording as written and would move as written. Jack Sapia believes section (k) is part of Article VIII and Article XIII is exempt. Section (c) would exempt the Town of everything in Article VIII. It is proposed the Board change section (b) and produce a site plan. The Board needs to reword section (c) because it is exempt from everything. Ted Stewart feels that if section (c) is left as written, then the Board of Selectmen will have control of the structure of the tower. Sue suggests the following change to the amendment as written:

Amend Zoning Article VIII, Section 800:3, by inserting a new section "b" and recodifying as necessary. New Section 800:3b to read:

"b. Antennas or towers located on property owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the Town are exempt from the siting requirements of Article VIII, Section 800:3c-I, provided the facility will be at least partially available for public purpose. Such Town property must be at least 350 feet about sea level.

And amend Section 800:3 by adding new sections (j), (k), (l) to read:

The meeting was closed at 9:50 pm.

Next scheduled Public Hearing meeting January 3, 2007.

Respectfully submitted,

Raelene McBride