Ms. Killam called the televised meeting to order at 7:49 p.m.

Ms. Killam began by explaining that the guest speaker would review the programs they have to offer in assisting the Master Plan process; and the overview would be given by UNH representative, Charley French.

Mr. French explained that he has worked in all Towns surrounding Atkinson. At UNH he coordinates the Community & Economics Development Office, teaches in the Department of Resources and Economic Development, and has a planning background as a Town Planner for several years. He continued in that UNH Cooperative Extension is essentially the outreach arm of the University of New Hampshire and it provides researched based education and information to the citizens of NH. Instead of teaching in the classroom, they teach in the communities by providing workshops and training, and technical assistance at the community level. The areas in which they provide technical assistance, training and workshops are: agriculture, forestry, youth and family development, consumer resources, marine and coastal resources, and community economic development. This last being his forte.

Mr. French noted that at UNH the Community Economic Development Program has been divided into three components. 1) Community decision making; that is working with the communities to help engage the public, the residents, in decision making processes whether it is around economic development, tourism development, the Master Plan, or any public policies. 2) Economic and Tourism development; specifically focused on assessment and planning. 3) Land & Water Conservation.

There are several programs that UNH offers that might pertain to what Atkinson could use. Community Profiles: essentially a community vision program where they work with the communities to plan an event. It can take up to six months to plan. It is essentially a facilitating process to help identify certain issues the community is facing, identify a vision for the community around those issues, how to address those issues, and ultimately this culminates in the formation of action committees from this forum type environment. A forum is only one and a half days which generally begins on Friday evening and carries over into Saturday. Actually the planning stages in which the Steering Committee of the Community coordinates and drives the process takes about six months to plan. His group would provide guidance and advice along the way. They would also attend our meetings to be sure we are on track, and provide resources; but it is a community driven process. They serve as neutral facilitators who come in with no vested interest in what is happening/no bias. Communities they have assisted are Hampstead and Sandown; and Danville is possibly going with them as well.

Many towns in Rockingham County have used the process and have used it as their public input mechanism for the Master Plan. Lots of the information that comes from this forum is the Community Profile. It is much broader than just a Master Plan. It is about engaging the citizenry of the town in addressing local issues or local visions and activating them, working with existing town boards and committees. Communities who have done this find it very rewarding. Many great things have been accomplished as a result, like achieving grants to preserve land (up to $100,000 ), and another one obtained funding to build the Community Center.

They have discovered that a lot of communities considering updating the Master Plan, or the economic or tourism plans, are not ready to commit to such a long process. UNH has developed a variety of other processes, facilitated forums or public input mechanisms to work with other communities that may have a specific targeted issue/including the Master Plan. He has received calls from a lot of area communities to help work with the community and the Planning Board and the Master Plan Committee to engage the public in the process of reviving or actually doing a Master Plan. He has worked with three communities in NH (former planner in Illinois). He does not provide technical subdivision regulation or zoning type assistance; his focus is mostly Master Plan documenting or policy statement on how the town envisions itself growing in the future and development. In order to engage the public, they use a number of mechanisms: a) focus groups/helpful in sniffing(?) out what issues various stake-holder groups in the community feel are important to the Community; b) they assist with community surveys that are focused on a specific topic pertaining to the Master Plan or the Master Plan in general/determining what are the priorities of the town; and c) they assist communities to conduct a visioning forum. Usually because the Master Plan is such a broad document with a broad sweep (vision statement, capital improvements plan, facilities, and services plan), they divide it up into two or three forums.

Mr. French has access to some grad students who can assist; he has worked with Planning Boards to help devise the structure for the public input process which is typically multi-phased, starting with focus groups to start to define the process which may then go to a Community forum. When he conducts a community forum he usually works with the Planning Board to closely define what outcomes of the forum are desired. For example, the Planning Board has to decide if they want to talk about the Master Plan in general, or a mission statement, or it could be focused on a particular section of the Master Plan.

(At this point the Fire Dept. members were beeped for an emergency/8:00/Ms. Sullivan, Mr. Earley and Mr. Stewart.)

Mr. French pointed out that it is not just himself that helps with the forums and focus groups, etc. as there is more staff and technical assistance at the Cooperative Ext. He added that the cost is a flat fee structure which does not pay for the representative’s time nor is it for profit. The fee covers basic certain expenses incurred when working in a community ( travel for several Extension staff, easels, supplies, audio-visual equipment, etc.) $500 is the typical fee. Mr. French summarized that his office helps facilitate forums, focus groups, assists in developing surveys and can possibly even help to analyze the survey results depending on grad student availability at the time; and a final report that would be a detailed document of findings.

Ms. Killam asked what Mr. French’s current availability was and he answered calmer in the summer, currently very hectic with several facilitations, better after mid May or in the fall. Ms. Killam pointed out that a lot of people were missing this evening, and the group needs to get together to decide who wants to stay on this process from beginning to end, and set up a schedule. We need to give it a couple of weeks.

Mr. Dziechowski asked if the survey process culminates with a forum or does the Coop come in to town with the survey; and Mr. French answered that his group can help devise the survey, but it is the Planning Board generally, or the Master Plan Committee that delivers the survey instrument. Mr. French continued in that he had mixed feelings as to when the survey should occur. He feels the public input process is best when you start out with focus groups to bring the issues, use the divisionary forum to help refine the issues and get some priorities and then use the survey to identify preferred options or key issues based on input/actually validate the input. Mr. French gave an example of the Town of No. Hampton that chose to do the survey first and used that to frame the divisionary forum.

Ms. Killam asked how large a focus group is typically; and Mr. French answered that they work best with eight to twelve people.

Ms. Killam asked how a community should go about identifying who would participate in a focus group; and Mr. French answered that it depends on the issue. If, for example, it is economic development or master plan, you get as much diversity as possible involved. This can be done several ways: get a diverse group to sit in one focus group, or go to targeted audiences/invite the people.

Denise L. asked if he had a grad student available for this summer and Mr. French couldn’t really answer at this time.

Pat Goodrich pointed out that she had read in a local paper regarding the town of Greenland doing the process with UNH which prompted Atkinson’s committee to seek out UNH as well. She added that her main ambition with the process is to get as much input from the Townspeople as possible. The last meeting they had attracted a lot of people to come with interests; and they found that diversity builds conversation very rapidly; and they don’t all agree on how things should go. She continued that she understood in the Greenland process, they had a supper for everyone the night before and the next day they came and broke down into groups. Mr. French noted that that was a Community Profile and added that Hampstead did the same thing a year ago. Usually the Community Profile Forum process begins with a potluck dinner on Friday evening at about 5:00-6:00p.m. The residents of the Town are responsible for bringing the food as a certain celebration of the Town and it tends to attract a lot of people of the community to come to these events. Mr. French feels without the potluck dinner the rate of participation would be much less. He continued that on Friday evening the UNH representatives would introduce the process; then have someone from the Town give a historic presentation about where you have been in the past; and then have the first breakout groups begin to discuss specific issues/topics facing them. Saturday is when the bulk of the decision and prioritization of what issues and actions to address those issues comes out.

Ms. Goodrich asked if the focus groups on Saturday should be diverse or not; should they be people looking for specific interests; and Mr. French responded that basically what comes out from the first night, the community identifies some key critical issues facing the town. You then take a look at 50 or more issues and separate them into themes for the focus groups; usually 4 to 5 themes that have a cohesive nature to them and that’s what the teams focus working on on Saturday morning. Groups self-select which particular theme they want to work on the most; and if the theme is one they are very passionate about it seems to work well from an action standpoint.

Ms. Goodrich noted that at the committee’s last meeting some people mentioned thinking outside of the box, to think regionally. For example we could have regional trash recycling and library facilities as well, rather than trying to all do it individually. She noted that these group members were kind of dismissive of the survey; and she agreed she might be as well upfront. After looking at Hampstead’s survey, in the end it would serve a good service because it would be filed with the Master Plan and it indicates things that the Townspeople really don’t want. (For example x-rated facilities) Now we would have a tool to protect this.

Ms. Goodrich asked Mr. French his thoughts on surveys in general; and he answered that he likes to call it triangulation of data because a survey is not going to tell all the answers of the Town preferences or particular issues. He continued that what he tries to do with towns for the public process is do multiple methods. Do focus groups and a survey; take all the data from forum sources, compile it and you will start to see common themes pop up. The community seems to coalesce on certain themes in some areas that seem important to the community. In other areas there will be no consensus; those are the difficult issues and pose a challenge for the Planning Board because sometimes you cannot get a consensus on everything. Mr. French felt the survey is important as one of the mechanisms but it should not be the be all and end all of the planning process. Ms. Goodrich noted that the point the committee was trying to make is that there were bigger problems that had to be addressed; they had not decided on anything or made an outline or the vision part of the master plan. Ms. Killam noted that Mr. French had some suggestions about organizing a format and getting to a working size vision.

Mr. Dziechowski asked if in fact the vision and survey process was a method of letting the squeaky wheels making themselves known, whether they are pro or con on issues. Mr. French agreed; and Mr. Dziechowski added that that is how you find out what the townspeople who are interested in the Town are passionate about and address those issues. If people don’t speak up, they are not to be heard. Mr. French continued that he is asked at town groups if the right people are there, and his answer is if you are here, you are the right people.

Ms. Goodrich noted that when there was an Office of State Planning plans could be reviewed and in so doing Master Plans seemed all the same but different. She felt it would be helpful to look at other peoples’ master plans to see how they are laid out. Some towns have a Capital Improvement Committee for example, and our Town doesn’t/ everyone seems to do their own thing. Ms. Killam interjected that certainly we do not have a committee with that title and it is the Planning Board’s job to see to it that everything pulls together no matter how many processes are involved to come up with the final document. She added that the town has a building needs committee that worries about that same aspect; and a recreation commission that has ideas about what they want to see long term. We should pool all these resources to make sure we gather all their input into one document. Ms. Goodrich explained that she was trying to say that she has been involved in the master plan and a lot of planning on both the local and state levels and she still can’t get herself around what the master plan really should be. Ms. Killam answered that she felt it can look like whatever the group that gets together to produce it wants it to be and we are waiting for the group to gel. We have had people who come and cannot come; no one is sure who the group is yet. It is really hard to move forward till we know who wants to be involved. It is going to be a long haul and a lot of hard work once you get into it. The law requires a vision statement, a section on existing land use, a section on future land use, and everything else the town wants to address.

Ms. Goodrich asked where the Planning Board will go first; and Ms. Killam answered that it is the Planning Board’s responsibility to see that this happens. It is a very useful tool for a lot of people. Mr. French indicated in order to have a cohesive vision statement, the town needs to have used some of the public input mechanisms to get what the town’s priorities are. The committee is going to have a lot of input. Creating the vision statement after all the public input mechanisms have been implemented, should be one of the first things that comes out. View of the vision statement is as a sort of guide/a metric for measuring of every section of the master plan to make sure that it meets the standards and criteria as set out by the vision statement. It can be a few simple paragraphs that set the tone.

Ms. Killam reiterated the suggestion made earlier regarding samples and felt that there should be a full compilation of updated master plans and updated vision statements and how they are constructed at the Rockingham Planning Dept. in Exeter. Mr. Dziechowski noted many vision plans are listed on the internet. He has looked at some, for example, Candia and Chester; and he found it interesting and felt it really is vision because there are questions in their questionnaire that he feels we would not have thought of it.

8:20p.m. Mr. DiMaggio arrived and the Fire Dept. members returned.

Mr. French noted that he had connected with the Rockingham Planning Commission and he works closely with several circuit riders(?) and believes Atkinson doesn’t have any circuit rider. Ms. Killam agreed this was correct, but added that we are members of this Commission. If Atkinson chooses to work with Mr. French on the public input process, the Rockingham Planning Comm. Can be used for assistance and guidance.

Mr. Morse asked what was the best time to start and Mr. French answered that the spring and summer would be good; there is a lot of work with the public input mechanisms, summer focus groups and fall in terms of getting the most people available. Mr. Morse felt it sounded like a great process for the community and the potential potluck supper. Ms. Killam concluded that once Atkinson knows where they want to go from here, they would likely engage his services, size and shape to be determined. She added that the last time something such as this was done, the surveys were just mailed and there was no public contact. She agreed that the supper sounded like a nice approach to bring people in and pick the Boards’ brains.

Mr. Stewart apologized for missing the presentation and asked if any groups of Towns have tried to work on this process regionally instead of individually. Mr. French answered that it had been done in the north country(Goffstown); they did a regional forum and a regional community profile for input sessions. They found that municipal master plans are difficult to incorporate, visions in the broader regional with multiple communities to come together. Mr. French felt it would be possible to combine local forums and regional forums to make sure everyone is sharing information and things are meshed together. Mr. Stewart added that it would be common sense for southern NH towns to come together but they all go it alone. It seems so hard to structure the questions for the community, to do well and to get a feeling the people would be comfortable with regionally and vision-wise. Mr. French said regional collaboration is very important but the question is how to do it effectively. It has been a stumbling block for him as he has not been able to figure out a good way because it is a matter of timing, geography, getting a region together to interact and collaborate. Mr. Stewart ended that Atkinson does do waste removal and the schools regionally but that is getting harder to deal with now. Continuing on the regional issue, Ms. Goodrich noted that Atkinson owns a share of the shoreline of Big Island Pond and felt there should absolutely be a watershed management plan. She thought maybe Atkinson doesn’t have to do the master plan regionally; but as an outgrowth of it, that would be a goal for a committee. (People on the lake are from three towns, but have a cohesiveness because of the lake.)

Mr. Dziechowski noted that in northern New Hampshire there are unincorporated places that go with the county. The Atkinson purchase has twelve people as a unit. These units probably should be more worried about growth than us. Mr. French agreed that there are many such areas with no master plan or growth protection. (Ex. Pulp and paper land has already been sold off/things happening that are now out of their control.) They have no decision at all in what happens. There is a Regional & Economic Development Council that covers a wide area and wide scope.

Ms. Killam relayed a scenario of several years ago where the town of Tamworth about 90 miles north, had posted road side signs vote ‘NO’ on Zoning/not wanting any form of regulation about growth. Mr. French added another example of a different town where the consequence of such was when they had enough momentum in the town to strike down the town zoning ordinances on the ballot/Free Staters/Libertarian Party.

Mr. Morse asked if the State has a master plan or vision statement; and Mr. French answered that the Regional Planning Commission has done some collections and outlines of specific goals for the region. There are statutes. Mr. Dziechowski pointed out that there is a state organization/association of municipal planners; so there is some kind of state cooperation; but it may just be a focus group. Mr. Morse felt they always seem to push tourism; and Mr. French continued that there is a rift between the tourism community and the planning community. It seems that they have marketed tourism without considering the consequences, or looking at the planning process. Ms. Goodrich pointed out the existence of the 21^st Century Heritage Committee as a visionary group.

This agenda item started to wrap up at 8:35 with a decision for the next meeting for the Master Plan Committee, tentative as part of the public hearing night, pending hearings, April 19^th. An email list will be prepared for the Planning secretary to notify everyone.

Mr. Dziechowski offered to set up a new email list for the Master Plan Update Committee. He noted there is a program called Yahoo Groups with a function as a group and an area where one can store files so the current master plan can be posted, as well as the work-in-progress. He advised that you have the option for it to be public or private: and everyone would have to decide to opt in. Mr. Guischard asked if the master plan on the web site could be manipulated; and Mr. Dziechsowksi answered that it was available in both PDF and doc formats. PDF would allow everyone to get in and doc allows for administrative permission only. Ms. Killam noted that everyone could view but not everyone would have access/viewer rights only. There should be one gate keeper and it should be Shirley Galvin.

Tentative next Master Plan Committee meeting on April 19^th.

Workshop

#2-NH Scenic & Cultural Byway discussion-Carol Grant.

Mrs. Grant has been working on the application which is basically a list of what is needed to be included in the submission; all the pictures of homes, the mapped area. She wanted the Planning Board to review the written part and handed members a copy to follow along as she reiterated what she has done to date. Mrs. Grant noted the table of contents, pg.2, item #5, the current map, requires her to fill in all the locations on the map identifying all the different sites. Regarding the pictures, there is a sample page of one of the byways/byway site 1,2,&3, the state office wants a little narrative for every picture, explaining what it is so when the inspection committee drives down the street they can ID these properties. She passed around the first seven sites. It was noted that the first photo was a colonial roadway marker; and Mrs. Grant explained since the removal of the disqualified commercial area south of this marker, the marker has become in her eyes the beginning of the clear qualified area which also happens to be near Ruth McPherson’s house and is also part of the old stage route. She asked if the Planning Board agreed with this idea. It is very weathered, hardly legible, but a tracing can be done. Actual location of the marker is south of Ruth McPherson’s windmill, across the street, first telephone pole on the Conservation land; another will be seen on Maple Avenue and several in Hampstead, Chester, and Auburn.

Mrs. Grant continued that the Historical Society has been finding old pictures that go with the new ones. Ms. Killam asked if Mrs. Grant was still working on assembling this application and Mrs. Grant answered that all the pictures were basically done except for one because the resident had started to paint the house and so wanted a new picture taken from the front instead. Another concern is #117 Main Street, where the owner of this 1860 home is thinking of tearing it down; it has been suggested as a historical fixer upper (adj. to Page’s Ln.).

Interesting point was that the Historical Society’s pictures and Mrs. Grant’s new ones in many instances were taken from the same angle. Mrs. Grant reported the pictures are 99% done, narratives are all done; now she must mount the pictures on the narrative pages.

Mrs. Grant went on to # 7 in the table of contents, and said she had spoken with Mrs. Barlow who advised she check with the RSA’s and include in the application copies of the minutes of the public hearing that we are holding. Conclusion, Atkinson needs to hold a public hearing.

Mrs. Grant continued on #8 of the table of contents, the more letters of endorsement to show that it’s a community supported activity, the better. Public groups already aware are the Historical Society, Conservation Commission, and the Planning Board; she listed other organizations on this line item and hopes that someone can approach them and copy the letter that went out.

Ms. Killam asked about the letter getting out to residents involved; and Mrs. Grant answered that all but two had not been delivered. Ms. Killam asked what comments or reaction she had received to the letter; and Mrs. Grant said all felt it was a great idea. Mrs. Grant showed the Then and Now pictures; there was some concern for raising property values but she assured them that was not the purpose; the purpose was to show community pride. All in all, everyone was most enthusiastic.

The state contact had suggested including all old maps showing how the road has developed over the years; and Mrs. Grant included one from1805 and one from 1892.

Another question she had for the Planning Board was regarding the Atkinson cemetery/ it counts as a historical part of the road because the old cemetery has old settlers in there. In taking pictures of the cemetery, and of the two hearse houses, one is in need of paint. Ms. Killam suggested asking the Trustees to do it when the weather permits painting.

Mrs. Grant asked if the Historical Society owns the hearse houses and was told that the Historical Society accepted them on behalf of the town. Mr. Dziechowski noted there might be a complication with one of the abutters as one of the hearse houses encroached on the Dickey land; but Ms. Killam pointed out that this has been taken care of.

Mrs. Grant asked who she needs to address to request a touch up of paint; and Ms. Killam still felt it was the Trustees of the Cemetery. Mr. Stewart said it would be Dale Childs and Mr. Murphy. Here Mrs. Grant noted that the picture of Mr. Stewart’s House (Stephen Dole an original petitioner 1763) was missing; and Mr. Dziechowski interjected that he had it and needed to make a better copy.

Last item on the application/ a historical overview of the town has no closing paragraph and the overview needs some editing as well (pg. 3). Mrs. Grant said she had stopped at World War I and it needs to be brought up to date.

Ms. Killam commented that she was impressed by the incredible amount of work that has gone into this.

Mr. DiMaggio felt that what seemed to be missing from the document is where Mrs. Grant asks the state to declare it and what you are asking. Mrs. Grant answered that it was on the first page and last sentence in the overview. She agreed though that the only technically formal request was on the title page. Mr. DiMaggio suggested several paragraphs like the information presented to the Board at the last meeting. Mrs. Grant replied that the application overview statement talks about the whole importance of Main Street, and what Mr. DiMaggio was referring to was the RSA information that dictated the disqualified areas. Mr. DiMaggio continued to Mrs. Grant that he felt when one was asking someone for something one could restate the request a number of times throughout the document. Ms. Killam pointed out that it was on the cover sheet, the bottom of opening page overview, and could be added to the summary. All of this illustrates why >>>>>>>>

Mrs. Grant asked again if the hearse house could be painted before the public hearing and before the application gets mailed. Mr. Dziechowski felt that if they can’t be seen from Main Street, he doubted how germane it was; and Mrs. Killam felt it was not up to the Planning Board to promise.

Mr. Dziechowski suggested all board members prepare letters of endorsement; and someone needs to address the other organizations in town: Lions’ Club, Garden Club, Selectmen, and Civic Club, etc.

Ms. Killam summarized the need to get letters of endorsement and determine who will have the public hearing. Mr. DiMaggio thought maybe the RSA’s would answer the question, but Mrs. Grant felt they didn’t cover this point. Mr. DiMaggio asked when Mrs. Grant thought she would be finished and the answer was determined to be a couple of weeks. Ms. Killam suggested arranging to have someone hold a public hearing the third week of May. Mrs. Grant reminded all members to edit their copies of the application and advise her of such.

Mr. Dziechowski suggested Mrs. Grant run this by Steve Lewis, a history major and ask for his help in editing/which wrapped up this agenda item at 9:10p.m.

Workshop

#3-Discussion. Brooks Properties IV, LLC, Rte. 111 re: Permitted Uses.

Ms. Killam noted that this segment of the agenda was at the request of Mr. Dziechowski for the Planning Board to discuss the Brooks property side adjacent to Sea Tree (formerly Johnson & Johnson) on the left and indicated by lot # 21-4 using the same driveway to access. She explained that last summer Conservation had submitted a complaint to the state about a wetlands crossing that had been installed without permitting and the state never really officially responded to that report. A few weeks ago a plan was submitted in an engineering type booklet entitled; " An After the Fact Wetlands Permit Application". That was submitted to DES to permit a wetlands crossing that was already built. As time has passed, Mr. Dziechowski has been concerned with what has gone on up there and he has photos to show. Ms. Killam would like the Board to consider in terms of site plans which covers non-residential uses; should we be pressing the property owner to be coming to the Board with some kind of a site plan to document what he is doing, and why he installed underground utilities onto this other lot?? She continued that the statement in the engineering booklet had to explain to the state why they needed access to this lot over the wetlands crossing and they basically said it was to extend the use of the existing building on the outer lot as if they were all merged into one onto one site plan. They never came to the Board for a site plan on this other lot; yet they explain to the state that they need to get to it to park their trucks, etc. She continued that they have had different reasons over time; early in the process they implied it was just to cut trees and then to park trucks. There has never been a really good answer.

Mr. Stewart felt that a decision for this type of an infraction should fall under Kirschner/the Code Enforcement Office’s lap; and Ms. Killam added that that is what she wants this Board to decide/if there is enough of an infraction to warrant this.

Mr. Stewart commented that in commercial sites once they go from raw land to developed land, it is a business. Property developed to do business on without a site plan, he feels is an obvious infraction. When it comes to the Planning Board he added that he hates to deal with enforcement; and Mr. Earley added especially when we have no enforcement capabilities. Mr. Earley noted that Kirsch has taken a lot of pictures; and Mr. Dziechowski has taken his own pictures as well (last July). Mr. Earley noted that Kirsch, Conservation, and the Selectmen are all involved.

Ms. Killam suggested the Selectmen be asked to issue a ‘cease and desist’; these people be asked to come in and do a site plan; purpose and hours of operation; prepare a statement of intent.

Mr. Dziechowski reported that there is something that the Planning Board can do because at DES there are two files open on this one lot now/the one Mr. Dziechowski filed last summer; and the second one created by New England Soil Consultants doing this after the fact permit. The issue is that what they did violated our zoning and because of that the penalties they will get hit with, because of doing it without permits will be higher than if the Planning Boards states it. This maybe should discourage them from not playing by the rules in the future. Mr. Earley added that he doesn’t feel anything will discourage them or make them cease and desist but felt that maybe a letter from the Planning Board to the Selectmen, notifying them that these people have violated the town of Atkinson zoning. Ms. Killam felt this a more appropriate step to take.

Mr. Dziechowski noted he had the copy of the Wetlands Bureau file number and the DES file number if necessary. Ms. Killam wanted to insure before they initiated something like this without the whole Board agreeing on the approach; and Mr. Earley continued that he agree this is the only approach as this matter was out of the Planning Board’s league when it comes to telling them what they have got to do. Mr. Earley questioned doing a site walk; but this should not be done until invited.

Mr. Dziechowski noted in the application it states that by virtue of filing the application, there is an implied indication to inspect the premises/by the Conservation Commission not the Planning Board.

Mr. Stewart pointed out that when Steve Keach approves a road as completed then it has to go to the town meeting vote after the Selectmen move it forward to the town meeting vote. By utilizing this deregulation authorization, the Selectmen can take Steve Keach’s final approval of the road and accept the road when it is completed. Ms. Killam added that the landowner has the option to merge them, landowner initiated. She now asked for a consensus to send something to the Selectmen. Me. Dziechowski added that the timer is running on these files now because the second one has been accepted by wetlands as administratively complete. This means that the Planning Board has twenty days to send a letter to DSA stating that we want it put to decision making. He offered to send a letter to Conservation. He noted when Conservation intervenes the Planning Board should have something in writing stating this violates the statutes. Ms. Killam agreed it should say the Board thinks they omitted the part of the process that would have brought a site plan into the Planning Board; and we should send that to the Selectmen. Agreed to send a letter to the Selectmen.

Other Business:

Mr. Earley stated he wished Ex Officio Selectmen member, Jack Sapia was present but since he was not Mr. Earley directed this issue to Ms. Killam because he was disappointed in Ms. Killam’s reaction to the law suit and Mr. Sapia’s reaction. Mr. Earley continued that it seemed to him that Ms. Killam would have been more supportive of the Board itself, especially when four of the people named in the suit were on the Board. Secondly, if she didn’t feel fit to support it, he suggested she should have been neutral. Ms. Killam asked what caused him to feel this way and Mr. Earley answered that his opinion was that Ms. Killam and Mr. Sapia went out of their way to support the suit.

Ms. Killam noted that she couldn’t imagine how Mr. Earley had gotten this impression as he was out of state; but Mr. Earley said he was aware of it before he had left and from observations.

Ms. Killam admitted that she didn’t agree with the Planning Board decision and everyone knew that; and she did not have anything to do with the launching of the lawsuit. Mr. Earley added that he felt personally Ms. Killam assisted in developing it and getting Mr. Polito information. If Ms. Killam didn’t do that, he apologized for his incorrect impression.

Ms. Killam pointed out that Mr. Polito was a bright man; and added in terms of how to know about going about putting something like that together for a lawsuit was not her forte. Ms. Killam admitted that she provided an affidavit that was a statement of fact of a conversation she and Mr. Polito had prior to October. She felt if that is interpreted as being party to a lawsuit, then that is Mr. Earley’s interpretation.

Ms. Killam asked to explain the way she conducts herself; and noted that she rarely tells the members what side of the question she sits on; she systematically asks each member for the input to any public hearing; she generally doesn’t state her opinion until it comes around to the point where the Board has to put it to a vote; and if it is clear it is going to be unanimous, she stated she often doesn’t give her opinion. This particular topic was one of the rare occasions where she went out of her way to say what she thought and now feels like she’s being chastised for having voiced an opinion. Ms. Killam questioned giving her opinion more often or not at all since then; and members stated they felt she should certainly do more.

Ms. Killam stated further that she tries to run an equitable process where everybody gets to say what they think and feel; and she views the chairman’s role is not to drive the opinion but to drive the process. Again, this case was one time that she stepped out of those bounds that she has established.

To conclude, Mr. DiMaggio questioned his understanding that the lawsuit was over and the plaintiff lost; and Ms. Killam corrected Mr. DiMaggio in that the plaintiff didn’t lose the lawsuit, he was not granted standing by a court. Lack of standing because the RSA that he went in under is very specific about how a party can object to a Planning Board decision. You have to have a standing by virtue of being a party to the action or be an abutter, or the like. He was neither; but a Planning Board member could. Virtually it is over.

Ms. Killam adjourned the meetings at 9:30p.m.

Next scheduled meeting is Wednesday, April 19, 2006 at 7:30p.m.

APPROVED: May 17, 2006_________________

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Joanne Carbone

Joanne Carbone, Recording Secretary