Pg. 7-Old Busin. Cont’d, 1^st para., Change: They are having tractor/trailer loads of stuff

delivered, dump trucks running in and out, all probably standard for a golf course, To: Approval of the Minutes from the March 15, 2006 Meeting-Corrections/Amendments made:

Agenda: Carol Grant/Scenic Vista Update/Not in attendance. Postpone. Ms. Killam reported that Mrs. Grant needed three letters of recommendation for this project. She read the Garden Club’s earlier; the Selectmen have one and the Conservation Commission needs to do one.

Mr. Jordan explained that he had received a letter in April from Brooks Properties to prepare a site plan for their property on Rte. 111 on the Hampstead line, which is an 8 ½ acre piece of vacant land, triangular shaped and adjacent to what was the Johnson & Johnston building and is currently the Seed Tree Flooring building. Last year at some point in time, they accessed the vacant parcel by crossing the wetlands and taking down some trees and are currently storing some heavy equipment there.

Mr. Jordan reported that his company was contacted by Jim Kirsch (Atkinson Code Enforcement) regarding this development. Now they plan to go out and do a formal survey and submit a proper application to the Planning Board. Since their April ideas about a warehouse type building with access from Rte. 111, they will instead now do a site plan to permit what is there now/which is just outside storage with access of the adjacent property which already has a curb cut on Rte. 111. Reasons being: 1) They are not sure they want to move forward with a warehouse type building; and 2) They want to get back to the Planning Board quicker to look at what has been done.

Mr. Jordan’s understanding of the reason he was present at this meeting was to let the Board know they have been contracted to move forward with the site plan and to agree to a time table to accomplish it.

Mr. Early questioned the position of the lot line and what was owned by Brooks. Mr. Jordan answered that Brooks owns Seed Tree, the next building and the vacant lot. The lot line is a zigzag. Mr. Jordan indicated that a gravel access was brought in to cross the wetlands from the parking lot. One building is in Atkinson and one building is in Hampstead. Ms. Killam noted that only the 8 ½ acres is up for discussion.

Mr. Earley asked what date Mr. Jordan’s firm was contacted to do some work; and he answered that it was early April, 2006 by Jim Kirsch. He had done some work previously on the property; the owner had the wetlands done by NH Soils and he did some wetlands location in 2005.

Mr. Earley asked why Mr. Kirsch contacted him and not Brooks Properties? Mr. Jordan understood that there was some work done out there that had not been brought before the Planning Board as it should have been. Mr. Kirsch went to the owner who sent him to the engineering firm because they do all Brook’s work.

Mr. Dziechowski noted the mention of a curb cut earlier and that the only access he knows of on Rte. 111 is at Seed Tree. Mr. Jordan answered that in his letter submitted in April that part of the site plan suggested including application for a new curb cut on 111; but now they are not doing that, but instead access to the storage area will be thru an easement on the adjacent parcel using the existing curb cut on Rte. 111. Mr. Dziechowski summarized that the access will be over the existing parking lot access where the pipes have been laid; and continued that in terms of bringing something before the Board, there is a wetlands permit and complaint pending about all of this. While it is extremely unlikely, one possible outcome of this could be litigation or restoration. The wetlands permit is a standard application not a minor amendment because work was done without any permits. He suggested that they probably not move forward until State DES has done whatever they are going to do because it could change what’s on this plan.

Mr. Jordan noted this has gone before the Atkinson Conservation Commission via Tracy Carr, Wetlands Science, working directly for Brooks.

Ms. Killam noted this has gotten complicated with two separate groups working on two different issues for (1) 8 ½ acre parcel; but the wetlands crossing is on both sites. Mr. Dziechowski added that that was why DES expanded the permit application to have two lots because work involved both lots, thus the survey for both lots. Mr. Jordan said he had planned on this.

Ms. Killam asked what the nature of the material is that is being stored there; and Mr. Jordan answered heavy equipment, concrete pipe, jersey barriers. Ms. Killam asked about the loam piles; and Mr. Dziechowski noted that he was there when they first cleared the area and it was bare ground and equipment. There were no piles when he was there. He added that any piles of material now are not indigenous; but looks like material to work on a golf course. Not sure.

Ms. Killam asked Mr. Kirsch the status of his communications with Brooks Properties regarding the utilization of the site prior to it being a site plan; and Mr. Kirsch answered that he didn’t get into that at all. As a result of himself, Ms. Killam and Mr. Dziechowski meeting with the Selectmen, he was asked to contact Brad Richards and he ended up with Mr. Jordan instead.

Ms. Killam summarized that as a Town we have not ‘incentivized’ them to hurry. She asked what their plans were in terms of timing to get this in front of the Planning Board; and Mr. Jordan answered they were scheduling to have the survey of the parcel done next week; needed a couple of weeks to put the plans together; and he would like to confer with Steve Keach on a number of issues.

Members reiterated that the crossing was there and no one seems to know who engineered, or designed the work.

Mr. Earley asked if there was any meeting planned to get the wetlands on this plan, or is the Board to review two separate plans?? Ms. Killam interjected that it needs to be one plan. Mr. Jordan noted they were coordinating working with NH Soils using wetlands and working in tandem with NH Soils.

Mr. Morse asked what the purpose was for Mr. Jordan to be in this evening; and Mr. Jordan answered again as earlier that he felt he was here basically to let this board know that they have come on Board with the owner and want to come in with an application and determine a time frame. Mr. Morse suggested ASAP as a time frame.

Mr. Earley asked if they were working with trucks up there on a daily basis and Mr. Jordan didn’t believe so.

Ms. Killam asked if they could conceivably meet a June 6^th cut-off date for application for the June 20^th meeting; answer, yes.

Ms. Killam asked at what point does the Town decide to issue a cease and desist because these things have been first observed as taking place as inappropriate (via Mr. Dziechowski) over ten months ago (7/8/05). Mr. Earley asked if a cease and desist did not affect what Mr. Jordan was doing, then why not issue it?? It was felt they were not actively using the site anyway, so it wouldn’t bother them.

Ms. Killam noted it was not up to the Planning Board to issue this. Mr. Kirsch reminded everyone that when he initially got involved in this was because of the fact that they had done work without a site plan; and so the town was calling them to task for this. Now they are stepping forward (however it took place ).

Mr. Sapia noted that we have brought it to their attention; they are here before us now; it will progress and we’ll see how rapidly they do what we request.

Mr. Fletcher felt by virtue of letting them continue, we are setting a precedent for someone else to try the same thing.

Mr. Sapia commented that they are not continuing with anything except storing a couple of pieces of equipment on the site. They are not doing a whole lot of work; but the town is not happy that it started without going thru the proper processes. This is not correct, but they are making a good faith effort to amend. Ms. Killam continued that the Board should attempt to get a discussion going on what constitutes a good faith effort since ten months have gone by on this one. We have a June date to get this before the board. The Board meetings in the summer have been reduced to once a month, so the opportunities become fewer.

Ms. Killam continued that what was more important to her than skipping the Town portion of the process was their skipping the State portion of the process. She was appalled that someone with that much experience in developing in the region could build a wetlands crossing and skip the entire State process. Mr. Dziechowski added that it was done with a timber crossings of wetlands.

Ms. Killam asked Mr. Kirsch to keep an eye on the activity level out there. Mr. Earley added to pass the word along that the Board is assuming that nothing is happening. Mr. Dziechowski wanted to reiterate in terms of what this Board is making a ruling on , and the plan that they are taking under jurisdiction, is that what there is in the history/presupposes a wetlands crossing and the legality of which the State has the last word. They could say take it out; and they have done this before in Plaistow. They don’t want to seem to do that kind of thing anymore. Mr. Dziechowski thought fines were more adequate, but it was something that the Board has to consider. The Board could come across a plan that it can’t say yes to/here Ms. Killam interjected that till the State is done with their thing it could be a futile effort to proceed.

Mr. Morse asked again when this issue first came in; and Mr. Dziechowski answered two months ago and added that DES now has an inspection due on this. Mr. Morse insisted that it has been worked on for a couple of months.

Mr. Dziechowski noted that Brooks hired consultants to file this application and have action on two state permits out there. The complaint that the Conservation Commission called on last August to the State and the NH Soils application have been merged by the DES enforcement so they are looking at both files. It was actually Brooks Properties decision to try to straighten this out without going on to the state (which is understaffed and underpaid). Mr. Guischard asked if after all this time and effort the State would act to override it all? Ms. Killam noted that it could happen concurrently and the worse that can happen if they bring an application is the 65 days would run out. An extension could be granted if requested and hold it open as long as extensions are created. The worst is waiting for the State. If the State make them rip it out, then they will have gone to some expense and will likely capitalize on it in the future as they will figure out how to do it to the State’s satisfaction or they won’t be able to access this parcel.

Mr. Guischard continued that that would bring it back to square one; and felt Atkinson should let the State act on it and then the town can make a decision. Ms. Killam noted that the problem is the town doesn’t know what has been done up there. Another thing that has happened but not mentioned at this table were the photos taken of lots of electrical conduit and utilities that have been installed across the wetlands. Mr. Dziechaowski indicated that it was more than just parking trucks. Power was brought to the site and the town still knows nothing about it.

Mr. Earley felt when a big company buries cable and crosses wetlands, the Board needs to see them. Mr. Fletcher agreed and felt it was time for a cease and desist. Mr. Morse, Ms. Killam, Mr. Dziechowski and Mr. Guischard felt much had been done with the plan and Mr. Sapia noted of the ten months a lot of it was winter/the ball was moving in the right direction now.

Ms. Killam concluded that they aim for a hearing the third week of June; if that doesn’t happen then follow with a cease and desist.

Mr. DiMaggio, Vice-Chairman took over and read the first proposed amendment to Subdivision Regulation Section 380:1. Add new section (b) to read as follows: The developer must provide appropriate escrow monies to compensate the Town Engineer for anticipated inspection and testing services to be rendered during execution of the work.

As this was proposed by Steve Keach, the Board decided to move discussion of this and #2 to the end. Mr. Earley had proposed #3 and was prepared to discuss it. Mr. DiMaggio read #3

Mr. Earley noted for the record all these items have been on the books and if necessary enforced since 1977 when they were first brought forward, except section 750 which was voted on in 1997. each has come before the board any number of time. This is just a spring update. Updated revisions.

Mr. DiMaggio noted that Mr. Earley has done this before and given the Board an honest synopsis. Mr. Earley added that they are not used much except for #31 & #211 that are very active operations because all the new houses have oil burners and all new additions incorporate the items in 211. He was asked to high light the changes in the book.

Mr. Fletcher asked regarding carbon monoxide detectors and alarms, when the town adopt this; Mr. Earley answered that the town does not enforce this reg but do recommend it highly. Mr. Fletcher commented that once it is adopted, it could easily be part of the new code. Concern that people would now be forced to install them. The 2000 Edition already in force includes carbon monoxide detectors; but Mr. Earley corrected that the book doesn’t say it has to be done. Prudent people would have them, especially if they have a gas unit (can’t smell gas as you can oil). Rules, Reg’s and Manufactures recommendations discussed.

Mr. DiMaggio asked if Mr. Earley had any additional important concerns or controversies with this group of codes; and he didn’t but commented regarding #418 for example, heliports. This has been in since 1977 with little activity but there is still enough land around that if someone wanted to do one, they would have to go by the reg’s. He gave an additional example of a chemical plant that the town had reg’s for as well.

Mr. Dziechowski moved to amend the Building Codes to adopt NFPA code revisions on this list; Mr. Guischard seconded. Further discussion: none. Vote: In favor:DiMaggio, Guischard, Morse, Dziechowski, Sapia. Opposed: Fletcher. Abstained: Killam, Miner. Motion passed and these are adopted and in force.

Ms. Killam returned to continue chairing the meeting and the Public Hearings. She reread proposal #1 and explained the reason she put this on was because we had the same wording in site plan regulations where it refers to commercial and multi-family but never had this wording in the regular subdivision regulations. Board members reviewed the book to check this consideration. Ms. Killam added that it has been part of the process but not documented. If this is done properly it will eliminate the need for Mr. Keach to present the town with bill balances as has happened recently with several developments.

Mr. Fletcher left the meeting here(8:50p.m.)

Ms. Killam read proposal #2.

Ms. Killam noted that the way it is written now, it is kind of left up to the Board to stipulate whether an off-site improvement needs to be finished or not. Off-site improvement has been part of the plan but the Board hasn’t been stipulating when it has to be completed. This was a suggestion of Mr. Stewart. If we are to require an off-site improvement, it ought to be done prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy.

Mr. Dziechowski asked if there was a reason to have the word ‘off-site’ in the paragraph as it is similar to all improvements. Need to be specific about off-site. Mr. Morse pointed out this was done as prompted by safety issues.

Mr. Sapia suggested amending this amendment to include the term ‘safety’, to include all safety related off-site improvements; Mr. Morse added that the wording was there to give the Board the authority while approving a plan. Mr. DiMaggio agreed that adding safety simplified the reading; and Ms. Killam pointed out that it makes it tighter than leaving it up to the Board to remember to stipulate a date and time.

Mr. Dziechowski asked if the Board amends this as it is, would the Board be opening the door to off-site improvements that might not be safety related but overlooked prior to CO’s being issued. Mr. Morse pointed out that outside improvements were covered by the bond. Mr. Morse read the current regulation 380:4-a, & 4-b relative to on-site and it was agreed that 4-c nails down safety for off-site. Mr. DiMaggio suggested adding both off-site and on-site safety related items to 380:4-c/agreed.

Mr. DiMaggio made a motion to change the amendment wording as discussed; Mr. Earley seconded; All on-site and off-site safety related improvements required by the Planning Board or applicable State Agencies with competent jurisdiction must be completed to the Building Codes prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy.

Ms. Killam reminded all present that Master Plan meetings would still be taking place on the other open Wednesdays and invited all to join in attendance.

Members each received a new copy of the State Handbook.

Mr. Jim Kirsch (Town Code Enforcement) noted he was under the impression the Board was going to get into a discussion on the Industrial Way site plan and revocation or not. He and Ms. Killam had reviewed the issue prior; and Ms. Killam had indicated she wanted other members opinions.

Mr. Kirsch explained that this issue was presented to him by Mr. Keach and it relates to Eastern Seaboard, Salco, and Loren Realty Trust to avoid the same issues from happening with the Gagnon property. This group has had site plans since 1997-1998 and they haven’t finished; yet are all using the property. Mr. Keach gave him the RSA’s whereby the Planning Board can revoke site plans and use the 4yr. Exemption (which it is way beyond now). Everyone had seen what a mess it is up there when the site walk was done for Gagnon. RSA 676:4-a and 674:39. If the Board doesn’t put a time frame on the site plan for completion, you can use the 4yr. Exemption which is a reasonable period.

Ms. Killam agreed that the Board has not been good about giving time periods. Earlier in the correspondence segment she had indicated that she had inserted this clause into Mr. Gagnon’s letter, so he had had a fore warning/not the 4 years, but a reasonable time.

The RSA’s were reviewed by both Mr. DiMaggio and Mr. Kirsch; and Ms. Killam noted all these plans fall within this category; and they all have subtly different issues. Mr. Kirsch pointed out that Loren’s a landscaping issue. The developer did come in today (original site plan was Beaver Brook); he also looked at the plan on record; had some loam delivered; asphalt for road at quote; reviewed the plan for shrubbery numbers and location, etc. He does have a building and occupancy permit. The others do not.

Mr. Earley thought that Salco had an occupancy permit; but Mr. Kirsch corrected that the Eastern Seaboard property only had a building permit and added that the site was loaded with junk (storage trailers). Ms. Killam noted that during the Gagnon site-walk it was very evident that Eastern Seaboard has some junk/and we have regulation against storing junk.

Mr. Earley pointed out that the owner uses this stuff in his construction business; and Ms. Killam agreed but added there is some obvious neglect (ex. Lathe). Mr. Earley asked how the group decides what constitutes junk; and Ms. Killam suggested site visits and then decide about initiating revocations. The threat of a revocation will get some action.

Decision was made to send a letter denoting the age of the site plan; invite the developer in to update and allude to the likelihood of a revocation process. To be sent to Salco and Eastern Seaboard but not Loren Realty Trust. Mr. Kirsch agreed because of Loren Realty’s recent actions and accessibility (He has $40,000 tied up). Eastern Seaboard has $19,000 and $12,000 tied up. Loren Realty (Bill Dickey) has $40,000 and earning interest close to $42,000.

Mr. Dziechowski noted there was some tricky stuff with the development of Industrial Way, where the town was taken to court (original owner/Gg. Godette/ bankruptcy) and suggested the Board review the court decision because it affected the building permits on Industrial Way and is probably still binding.

Approval of the minutes from the April 5, 2006 Meeting-Corrections/Amendments made:

Pg. 1-Master Plan Comm. Member: Denise L. is Denise Legault.

Pg. 5-Next to last para., last sent., after questionnaire—correct to: that he feels we would not have thought of it.

Pg. 9-Last para., change: CES to DES.

Approval of the minutes from the April 19, 2006 Meeting-Corrections/Amendments made: None.

Approval of the minutes from the May 3, 2006 Meeting-Corrections/Amendments made:

APPROVED : June 7, 2006______________________________

RESPECTUFLLY SUBMITTED : JOANNE CARBONE