Ms. Killam suggested moving approval of the minutes to the end of the meeting. Agreed.

Ms. Killam opened the regular meeting to the televised public at 7:56p.m.

Continued from February 15, 2006.

Discussion: Ms. Killam read a letter received from Lavelle Associates, Surveyors asking the Board to accept this letter as a formal request to withdraw the above mentioned subdivision application without prejudice or bias. Further, they do not wish to proceed at this time, however, may wish to apply at a future date. Ms. Killam pointed out that the Board had never taken this plan under jurisdiction. It had been seen once and sent on to the Zoning Bd.

Discussion: Ms. Killam presented notes from this file. 1) From Keach-Nordstrom with an estimate of review fees in the amount of $400. 2) A letter from a legal firm of Winer & Bennett representing the Schneiders of 5 Whipporwill Ln. The attorney noted that Gary Barnes, owner of lot 7 still under construction had filed early in January 2006 an application with the Planning Bd. for approval of a lot line adjustment. The first hearing was scheduled for Feb. 15^th and continued to Mar. 15^th. He continued that the Schneiders never joined in the application for approval of the lot line plan, they had not signed the application nor had they signed the plan. They were not advised by their neighbor, Barnes of the application filing. The Schneiders found out when notified of the first hearing. The Schneiders were not parties to the application or the plan and respectfully request the hearing scheduled for the 15^th be continued. .

Ms. Killam noted that Mr. Schneider came to the Planning Board prior to the open meeting earlier this evening to insure the Board understood he had not signed the application. Ms. Continued that it has been several months and felt that the best thing the Board can do is to deny the application. This application involving two properties came in with only one signature.

Discussion: One member asked what was the reason for denial? Ms. Killam answered that the application does not meet our minimum requirements which is signatures of the applicants.

Ms. Killam pointed out that Mrs. Grant, co-organizer of this project was ill and unable to attend tonight’s meeting. The plan was to send a letter to people along Main Street who have historic properties which would be represented in our application. Mr. DiMaggio had reworked the letter and Ms. Killam now read her pared down version. (Mr. Stewart arrived). The second page has the additional historic information. Both pages were read and will be copied on Planning Board letterhead.

All agreed it was good to use as read; but Mr. Guischard suggested amending where the Planning Board is soliciting their approval rather than they (residents) have to come to the Board. Agreed to fix. Mr. Stewart will still plan to hand deliver the letters.

Mr. Dziechowski reported that he was a guest speaker at the Monday night monthly Historical Society meeting where he briefed members on the project and they all seem to be on board with it. He is also doing some research on the old stage route for this summer.

Mr. Dziechowski noted he had some issues with roads that he needed to discuss with Mr. Stewart separately.

Mr. Dziechowski reported that he has been researching the situation on Industrial Way. There is a right of way there. The Board has been talking about the road process. Mr. Dziechowski has been talking with Sumner about all of this and he is concerned that the Planning Board should be seeking a deed to the road as part of the subdivision approval. The attorney feels the Town might get away without having it, but it sure is a nice thing to have. He continued that some roads are deeded, some are questionable, and some accepted in bunches at Town Meetings. As far as our Master Plan update, he suggested looking into this and changing the regulations so that someone doesn’t get subdivision approval unless a deed to the way is made a part of it. Mr. Dziechowski would also like to see that also regarding trail easements or any kind of easement. Ms. Killam noted the Town does get easement documents on trails, not deeded ownership. The term easement prescribes certain rights for an area. You can’t deed the parcel separately, zoning would have to be rewritten.

Mr. Dziechowski noted an example of Jameson Ridge, we have an easement deed, which conveyed an easement on everything that we approved. There are other places where we have not done that. Ms. Killam knew of one, and Mr. Dziechowski knows of two. Oak Ridge Extension there is no type of easement, deed or access trail. Ms. Killam reported that we are not through with the process on that one yet and it should be a condition before the plan is signed. She gave the example again of the developer using the bond 10% option and the plan sits idle. Only when the bonding is fully met either by completion or posting the money, that’s when we sign the plan.

Mr. Stewart felt there was some type of time slot where the plan can expire; and Ms. Killam added that if there is not substantial completion in a number of years. Mr. Dziechowski pointed out that they have 5 years to get a plan recorded after approval. Ms. Killam continued that they have conditional approval and bonding is one of those conditions and it has not been met. The only way for it to be met is for them to decide to post all the money, which they do not want to do; or to complete the road which was interrupted by the winter.

The other area that Mr. Dziechowski was aware of regarding easements was Settler’s Ridge. It is possible that there is some kind of easement out there. Ms. Killam noted that there are lots of documents and it is very complicated. The Board should speak to this at another time.

Mr. Dziechowski would like to see something done regarding deeds for roadways. Ms. Killam noted that deeds for roads have not been required. There are two schools of thought on that. Mr. Stewart doesn’t see any downside to this. It is only one more step. The plans are already made, and the points are already on the plan. It just goes to an attorney to record.

Ms. Killam felt that before the Planning Board mandates this idea, she would like to hear the pros and cons, and check with Town Counsel. She added that Mr. Keach would say we don’t have to worry about it because we have dedication and a plot plan. At the time the plan is signed we have a dedicated roadway, whether or not we get a deed for it.

Mr. Stewart would like to have a deed that the Selectmen can understand and hold; one more layer that makes going to court easier. There is no downside or expense to the Town to get this done. Our attorney says it’s a good thing. It has been an issue for a long time and he would like to see it happen. Ms. Killam added there is nothing holding us back other than just asking for it.

Mr. Stewart noted there are things that were brought to the table months ago. One: 500’ cull de sac limitations brought to the Board’s attention by Frank Polito to consider. Mr. Stewart felt only two roads in Atkinson might need this-Stewart Farm Road and Whipporwill Lane. All the other subdivisions have been approved by us, and previous Planning Boards back to 1965. There are very good people who built cul-de-sacs much longer than 500’. He felt it would be hypocritical to say that all those cul-de-sacs are unsafe and that we need to revert to a 500’ standard. So when it comes to things being presented to this board that might be a good idea, he felt the Board needs to be pooled to see if it is a good idea or not. Then the Board either adopts it or gets it off the table. The Board always uses common sense to make decisions. He would like to get a decision on this suggestion done.

Ms. Killam continued that some Towns do have those kinds of regulations but she was unsure of the specific numbers used. She added that historically there is wording in our subdivision section that talks about not length of cul-de-sacs but creating thru situations, like laying out roads so that one can potentially lead into another area of undeveloped land. Mr. Stewart did not want to change section regulations; but clarified that if a developer is doing 250 acres and he can connect from one side of his property to another and create thru traffic, this is one thing the Board ought to strive for.

Ms. Killam pointed out that the regulations are softly worded as: ‘ should try’. Mr. Stewart indicated that if the Board goes beyond putting it softly worded, he sees that 90% of the land that comes under this would determine that only properties within 500’ are going to be developed, or being limited to a 500’ cul-de-sacs, or people have the opportunity to connect one thru street to another. There are only 3 to 6 areas where the land has the possibility of making thru streets in the Town of Atkinson, because there are lots of swamps and disconnected parcels.

Mr. Stewart felt that when something is used against this Board as to the way the Board ought to think, he wanted to get it off of the table. He feels the way the current zoning is worded is ideal. Mr. Polito has the right to make the recommendation and the Board owes him the courtesy of acting on it or not leaving it in limbo. He feels it is a bad idea and doesn’t want it used against this Board or himself just because he said it out loud.

Mr. Morse noted it was just a piece of correspondence without a name being read. Mr. Stewart added that he sat through court hearings where it was brought up and felt the piece of correspondence has had a lot of influence on his free time. He questioned that if the Board was polled today he doubted anyone could see the logic in limiting future roads in Atkinson to 500’ lengths unless it is a thru street.

Mr. Morse had checked into where the information had come from and he found an intense web site that has suggestions about roads, side lots, compact developed areas within cities and towns.

Ms. Killam suggested honoring Mr. Stewart’s request and take people’s thoughts. Mr. Morse suggested putting it on the agenda as this issue has come up on several occasions. Mr. Morse felt personally if you can have a thru road then you should. He added that at meetings for Whipporwill and Winslow, the Planning Board felt strongly about a thru road and should have insisted on it. The way it is in our zoning, we can require it and we have in the past.

Mr. Stewart felt as long as the developer can do a thru street without using an abutter’s land, it is proper. Especially now with the eminent domain voted on at Town Meeting, he felt it was a political impossibility for the Town to take an abutter’s land by eminent domain to help a developer. Could have gone to court but that is not a practical solution.

Ms. Killam asked if this should be enforced. It is a Planning Board issue because it is a subdivision issue but there are no teeth in the Board’s regulations to cause it to be enforced. The words are: ‘ought to and should’. Mr. Dziechowski agreed that it can’t be enforced but this gives the Board the opportunity to change it. Mr. Stewart added that in the subdivision regulations there are no teeth in there for a hydrant to happen, or a thru street to happen, or public drive to happen or a private drive as on Winslow. It was required by the Board as a condition, and the developer could have legally said no to the condition, but it is not usually a prudent course of action for a land developer. We have the right to require it the way it is in our book. He didn’t want to see the adverse effect take place and say people can’t develop land in Atkinson unless they can designate a thru street. The way it is now gives the Board the flexibility to strong arm our position when it is practical and it can be accommodated. It also gives a person with a 4 lot subdivision the right to build it without having to tear down homes to make thru streets where they are not absolutely necessary or prudent. It worked well in the past. He only questioned when the memo was received that it suggested the Board might be doing something wrong in its planning. He doesn’t feel the need to change the book, but wants to insure what Mr. Polito sent is not perceived as fact or how we ought to proceed in the future.

Mr. Dziechowski pointed out that if it’s not in the pink book, it’s not a fact of how we need to proceed in the future. We need to have intent to change this. Ms. Killam continued that if it becomes a topic in a Workshop or the Master Plan causes it to be addressed. Mr. Dziechowski noted that Mr. Stewart’s question was on right of ways and creating land locked parcels which the Board is not allowed to do. He suggested having a workshop on rights of ways and review State Law and Zoning.

Ms. Killam agreed that this would be a good workshop and added that there are land locked parcels, but we are not allowed to create new ones. It was decided to have a workshop on road issues and specifically have Mr. DiMaggio present. Mr. Dziechowski suggested buying the book: "The Hard Road Traveled" which is the lore and law, the legality of what it takes to be a road in New Hampshire/cost about $23.00.

Mr. Stewart indicated there was another part to the above issue. He appreciated the Judge finding in favor of the Town; but there were innuendos and accusations about how things happen in the Town of Atkinson. He wants to make sure that when the Planning Board sends plans to department heads that it should be understood that the people that develop those plans might want to talk to those department heads. If that’s how the Board wants this to proceed, so that when the Board sends a plan to the department heads, if the department heads have any problem with the plan they will not be criticized for calling the developer and saying they have a problem with the plan and suggesting the options and how they could proceed.

Ms. Killam asked if it was going to be tolerated at this table for any other point of view to be presented because Mr. Stewart was presenting an issue with a narrow focus. None of the members would disagree with what he was saying, but what was being said was not exactly the focus that was the subject of the suit. We should not rehash the lawsuit. Mr. Fletcher noted that this meeting was not the place to discuss it.

Mr. Stewart continued that when it comes to how this Board wants to work with its department heads, and asked if the Board was going to send plans to the department heads and ask for their input back. He thought it was only fair to make them aware that the Board doesn’t want them to speak to the developers. Ms. Killam felt Mr. Stewart was way over sensitive and that was not the inference.

Mr. Stewart questioned if the Board wants to continue receiving plans in, reviewing , and allow the developer to speak to department heads without it being implied that there are backroom deals going on them. This should not change. We want a free flow of information between all so the Board can make a decision with the cameras rolling, no name calling, or innuendos generated and a way to eliminate humiliating people. If there is a perception, then it needs to be removed. Ms. Killam invited Mr. Stewart to take this discussion off line, one on one, to where the files are kept. She shares a different point of view with him and needs the files to explain. The Board all agrees with Mr. Stewart’s concept regarding department heads and their right to speak and we expect them to speak. This issue is totally true in a narrow focus; there are extenuating circumstances that need to be explained. There have been times that the Board has not been fully aware of all concepts and conditions and pieces of information. Mr. Fletcher pointed out that the Board should be fully aware because that is the mission of the Board and the Board members are the shepherds and look our for the best interests of the Town, in the open.

Mr. Dziechowski/Brooks property/Rte. 111. He drove by to check on the wetlands violation. He couldn’t find any. Chains have been installed there and no trespassing signs posted everywhere. There are huge piles of material, and processing grading material there. They are storing topsoil in piles the size of the town hall. They keep having tractor/trailer loads of stuff delivered, dump trucks running in and out. Ms. Killam asked if the State had completed their investigation; Mr. Dziechowski will call and check. These people never even filed any kind of intent with the Town. Ms. Killam doubted the Town ever enforced people not to stock pile dirt on their lots. It is something that could be looked into as there have been 3 or 4 occasions where there has been no enforcement against it.

Mr. Dziechowski reported that in the whole development process on Industrial Way over the winter the last lot has had a lot of dumping of stone dust or crushing stone there. The lot belongs to a corporation in MA. Mr. Stewart noted in the same vein, the lot across the street is all done, no site plan from the Board (Gil Gagnon). Mr. Dziechowki added a nice job was done with the plan on the lot; they just never finished up with the Planning Board. Ms. Killam concluded this issue was left with Lavelle and the Board denied their application because they never attended the meeting.

Mr. Dziechowski continued regarding piles, that the Conservation Commission had received a complaint regarding piles of mulch. The site happened to turn out to be located in Hampstead. Again, if we don’t regulate, it is a tough thing. It’s not dredge and fill; it’s above ground, no processing going on as yet. It’s actually a question of material/dye-next to a brook; getting specs from the manufacturer of what is in the dye.

Mr. Morse asked about the stockpiles at Brooks property; and Mr. Dziechowski noted it was more a question of what they are doing. Mr. Morse asked if anyone had complained and Mr. Dziechowski answered just re: the wetlands. Selectmen ex-officio, Jack Sapia (8:45). Ms. Killam continued that it was reported to the State and it was six months before they answered. There are only two State inspectors. The area is between Sea Tree and the other lot.

Mr. Fletcher asked the status of a new road off Maple Ave.—Little River Lane. The bonds are released. There was a lot of ledge there, blasting and fill. Mr. Dziechowski felt that they had done a good job on these four lots.

Ms. Killam advised the next televised meeting will be the first Wed. in April 5 and at 8:50p.m. close the televised portion of this meeting.

Further Discussion: Ms. Killam announced a meeting next Wednesday evening (3/22) hoping to have representatives from U.N.H. at the workshop speaking about Community Profiling. Different ways to go about it. To get the community involved in the planning process. Preferably a mini version. Get students involved, have a core group of more people involved. We will have Virginia Busby, Pat Goodrich, George Barcelos; should be lots of people attending. The questionnaire is out there seeing what people desire their town to be. It was agreed that a development committee is needed to address the Town center project..

Ms. Killam, Goodrich, Erica and David Sikes are getting together to discuss producing some channel 20 spots to get people interested and feel welcomed. Mr. Dziechowski suggested approaching a professional planner.

The meeting closed at 8:55p.m.

The next Master Plan meeting will be March 22, 2006 at 7:30p.m.

The next Workshop meeting will be April 5, 2006 at 7:30p.m.

APPROVED:_May 17, 2006____________________________

JOANNE CARBONE, RECORDING SECRETARY