Ms. Killam opened the regular meeting to Public Television at 7:50p.m.

1. SFC Engineering Partnership, Inc for Brooks Properties IV, LLC submission of an Application for Commercial Site Plan to permit approximately 35,000 square feet of cleared land to be used for Vehicle/Equipment and Materials Storage (outside) on property owned by Brooks Properties IV, LLC, located on 130 Rte. 111, Map 21, Lot 4, CI Zone.

Ms. Killam read the notice and added that the Board had also received several pertinent documents, including a fax from Keach/Nordstrum to SFC Engineering.

Abutters list read: Present: No abutters; and Mr. David Jordan, representing SFC Engineering for Brooks Properties IV, LLC.

Mr. Dziechowski felt a few abutters may be missing from the list on land (10). (Christine Cornelius/not really an abutter/across the street). Reviewed and seems in order. Abutters list was prepared for both lots.

Ms. Killam noted that the notice was prepared for only one lot; and is the same on the application. She thought that the Board was dealing with the wetlands property, yet what was before the Board was only dealing with usage. Mr. Jordan explained that the crossing straddled Map 21, Lot 4 and Map 21, Lot 4-1.

Mr. Jordan reiterated his last meeting with this Board to discuss this vacant parcel of land, 8.6 acres on the north side of Rte. 111 and east of West Road. He reviewed that the owner, Brooks, had gone in and removed trees, etc. and is storing construction materials and equipment there. He has filed with the application, two plans: (1) a site layout plan to propose an access easement to the abutting property which now is the property of Seed Tree Flooring; and (2) a topography plan showing an outline of the area to be cleared, and utility information regarding the culvert. With regard to the wetlands crossing itself, an after the fact permit had been submitted to the state for review.

8:00p.m. Mr. Stewart and DiMaggio arrived; designation of voting members took place: Mr. Fletcher, Mr. DiMaggio, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Earley, Mr. Sapia, and Sr. Alternate, Mr. Dziechwoski.

Discussion Continued: Mr. Jordan noted that the NH Soils Consultants prepared this last application and he was not familiar with where they are in that process. The owner of the property, Brooks Properties, currently owns and occupies land on the Hampstead side/a smaller building there (all in Hampstead); Powers Bldrs., an arm of Brooks Properties, construction division, occupies that building. It is their equipment and materials that are being stored on this parcel. Brooks Properties IV, LLC owns all the parcels. It is their understanding that storage of their equipment there is accessory to their office use/ which just happens to be all in Hampstead.

Mr. Jordan was before this Board to figure out how to get this resolved and come to an understanding with the Town of Atkinson. Ms. Killam noted that the Board needs to consider the question of jurisdiction; and suggested here that Mr. Dziechowski review his information. Mr. Dziechowski reiterated that the wetlands crossing was done without a permit from the state or from anyone; it is possible that the state could request litigation. It hasn’t been done in years, but there was a case affected in Plaistow on a larger project; so if it happens, the procedure at this level is mute. As of close of business today at the Wetlands Bureau, the status of the two permits which they are applying for (because the wetlands crossing is on both lots) there is still more information being requested. So until there is a decision from the state on whether to grant this or not grant this, Mr. Dziechowski didn’t feel the Board could say for sure that this can be done. Mr. Jordan concluded that the NH Soils Environmental Consultants were handling that issue.

Ms. Killam then read Mr. Keach’s letter that added another new consideration. There was a copy of June 6^th storm water management report. Read: (1)the following state project permits will be required: a) an amended NH DOT driveway permit for abutting lot 4-1 permitting the drive to also be used for access to subject lot 4; (Ms. Killam asked if this had been applied for and Mr. Jordan said it has not); b) NH-DES wetlands permit for a driveway crossing the wetlands (Mr. Dziechowski just addressed).

We, as always, recommend that each required state project permit be received by the applicant prior to or as a condition of any approval. Second, as depicted on the plans, the north westerly boundary of the subject parcel is coincidental with the Atkinson/Hampstead town boundary, and as such this application is subject to the conditions of RSA 674:53. The Atkinson Planning Board must make the appropriate written inquiry to the appropriate administrative officials in the town of Hampstead as is required by this RSA.

Then Mr. Keach addresses zoning matters which is the most important part of his letter. Note #1 as indicated on sheet 1 of 2, owner proposes to maintain equipment and a materials storage area on subject lot 4 which is otherwise vacant. Based on our review of section 510:1 of the zoning ordinances, this does not appear to be listed as a permitted use in the prevailing CI district. Further, since there are no other existing or proposed uses of said parcel, it does not appear logical that the proposed equipment and material storage area can be properly construed to be an incidental or accessory permitted use. In our opinion, the owner’s planned use of lot 4 will require a variance. Ms. Killam noted in a nut shell, because there is nothing on that property other than stored stuff, there is nothing to be accessory to on this lot. Mr. Jordan countered with the fact that the stored stuff is an accessory to the building on the next lot, which is in Hampstead. Conclusion: this has to be hashed out and jurisdiction decided.

Mr. Earley questioned the Powers Co. getting to their building and parking lot through Hampstead; answer the building has always been there. Mr. Dziechowski noted RSA 674:53, para. 3 addresses this. He read: an owner of contiguous land in more than one municipality, may treat such contiguous land as a single lot or tract of land for the purpose of this title not withstanding the municipal boundary line provided that…conditions… Ms. Killam explained that RSA refers to when the municipal boundary cuts through a lot; but we actually have two lots of record; and the town boundary is not the boundary between these two lots.

Ms. Killam continued with Mr. Keach’s letter regarding planning and design matters, a statement of intent, applicable minimum yard dimensions, boundary monumentation, etc.

Mr. Stewart felt the biggest question on the table was: does the Planning Board feel that equipment and material storage is an appropriate use in the CI district. He would like to get this question off the table as he believes this happens in the CI district and it is not a bad use. Ms. Killam noted that Mr. Keach felt it was an accessory use to a primary use; and Mr. Earley added it would be all right if they had a building out there.

Mr. Stewart commented regarding the RSA, if he owned all five parcels, it would seem to him that this 8 acre parcel next to his industrial site which is zoned commercial, should be allowed to be used as an accessory use to the land beside it. He feels this is how the RSA’s allow it to be treated/as one contiguous parcel. Mr. Dziechowski noted that there were one and half pages of conditions in these RSA’s Ms. Killam suggested, in order to meet the Town ordinances, a variance would be required to solve this issue (As suggested a merge of the two lots, but they have chosen not to do this). If is is an accessory to the other building, then merge the two lots; if not really, then…..

Mr. Stewart followed the concerns presented, but pointed out that the area was already created; and Ms. Killam returned to the Zoning Ordinance Book 510:1 and read the chart of allowed uses. Mr. Stewart gleaned from this list two things: (1) parking for fees and (2) storage ( manufacturing and storage). He felt the intention was such a benign use and they were trying to make it legitimate; he disagreed with Mr. Keach’s letter. Mr. Stewart pointed out that Zoning is there to protect people around it from adverse uses.

Mr. Sapia said he didn’t have a problem with the use; his concern is that there are a lot of uses that are permitted but procedures need to be followed properly. Mr. DiMaggio basically agreed with Mr. Sapia and added that there were two additional issues the Board had to go according to the book. (1) If we think it is a good use of the land and the book doesn’t let us do it; then we have to decided it and change the book and then bring the issue back in. (2) It is aggravating to have people break every regulation that there is.

Mr. DiMaggio noted if the Board and the State planned right; he suggested staying by the book, looking at Mr. Keach’s recommendations, and checking with Town Counsel regarding ancillary uses. Also Mr. Keach and Town Counsel likely have had some similar experiences regarding town boundary issues. Then too, each town may have different regulations.

Ms. Killam noted if Sumner interpreted it the way the land owner wants it to be interpreted, then they wouldn’t need a variance. Mr. DiMaggio agreed but felt they would still need a site plan from the Board. He continued that he didn’t understand Mr. Keach’s suggestion of a variance if the town doesn’t allow it. Ms. Killam explained that Keach is going from the angle that it is an accessory use to a building; but there is no building to be accessory to. Mr. DiMaggio continued that unless 674:53 overrides it; or as Ms. Killam pointed out per Mr. Stewart’s impression on section "b" that manufacturing and storage can be interpreted to include outside storage.

Mr. DiMaggio noted that it did because the Board had separated inside storage as a less intrusive use and allowed it in the Commercial/Professional district and retail area of Rte. 111. Ms. Killam noted if it is allowed, then the Board wouldn’t have to worry about the town boundaries. Ms. Killam asked if the developer was using this for manufacturing and storage as a unit; because in this case the Board has to deal with the question of 674:53.

Mr. Early reminded the members not to forget the underground cable as the developer must have some future plans; and Mr. DiMaggio noted it was addressed in the ordinance regarding subsequent use of the lot. There are a full 2 ½ pages the Board needs to read.

Mr. Earley also reminded the Board that the state may not approve; and he questioned how far the Board should proceed. Ms. Killam noted that the reason the developer came in is to attempt to come into compliance with the town of Atkinson and the same with the state. Mr. Earley felt the town should see what the state does. Mr. Sapia asked Mr. Dziechowski if it was possible to call the state and get a time frame (as the state is generally slow); and Mr. Dziechowski answered that the head of the enforcement office is approachable but they have asked for more information and it is not up to this Board to pursue/more important for NH soils Consultants to do. Mr, Jordan said he works side by side with that group.

Mr. Dziechowski continued with the question as to whether the town of Hampstead has any jurisdiction in this (Sumner question). Mr. Earley questioned the timing of a letter to be sent to Hampstead; and Mr. Stewart noted Atkinson receives similar notices from surrounding towns and they usually come during the process as a forewarning, a courtesy, a heads up that something is in the works. There should be a common courtesy between the Boards regardless of Town Counsel.

Ms. Killam summarized that the Board is still dealing with the question of jurisdiction; and Mr. Stewart’s position that it is not a bad use for this parcel; but Ms. Killam had trouble fitting it into section ‘b’/permitted use chart as does Steve Keach. Mr. Sapia explained that they are not manufacturing anything; and Ms. Killam added that the Board needs to decide if it meets our zoning. If it doesn’t, then the Board can’t take it under jurisdiction.

Mr. Stewart gave an example of the Busby property on Rte. 111, where the Board allowed outside storage of materials and outside parking. Ms. Killam and Mr. DiMaggio noted the Busby, Salco and all Industrial Way have buildings on them. Mr. Stewart pointed out that most of them are not manufacturing either (ex. Busby has a garage to maintain his equipment). It is similar to what Brooks wants to do; and not a far stretch from a permitted use.

Ms. Killam asked Mr. Stewart to show an instance where the Board acted on a site that had not building or no building planned and permitted this use; and Mr. Stewart answered the Busby lot has not building and has not for six years. Mr. DiMaggio suggested looking at this for revocation consideration, but it also has a cell tower on it. Mr. Stewart continued regarding ancillary use, the storage is needed due to the manufacturing process and the tower is not manufacturing anything. Ms. Killam noted that no one has ever challenged this issue until now. Mr. Earley added that the site plan that was approved for Busby had a building on the plan. If this new developer came in and explained what the cables were for and had that on the plan, it could be dealt with/

Mr. Stewart reviewed that if storage is allowed, parking is allowed, they are trying to meet the letter of our laws, and it is not a bad use that is hurting or adversely affecting the surrounding properties, then it seems like a good thing to encourage them to pursue. He is not suggesting approval now; but the developer is asking for a direction and this could fit. Ms. Killam noted the history is that the developer put themselves in this position because they made a fairly serious wetlands crossing without asking anyone for permission and that’s what called attention to the site.

Mr. DiMaggio felt it was a stretch of regulations to consider parking heavy duty trucks, as the original intent was for transportation parking. He also suggested reading 674:53-3b which was very confusing/regarding restriction on the uses of the land and two municipalities. Owner proposes to fulfill the requirements of one municipality and wants to include land or improvements on another lot in another municipality. Very difficult to interpret and much discussion ensued regarding changing the use and protection should the current company move. If Atkinson allowed it to be an accessory use to the Hampstead property, it would always have to remain that way to satisfy Atkinson.

Mr. DiMaggio felt a lot of time and money had been invested but a lot more is going on that is not being presented. Mr. Dziechowski pointed out that the conduit was empty/there are no wires; and the cost is about $40,000 not the $200,000 mentioned earlier. The conduit is for the future.

Mr. Stewart felt enforcement is the job of the DES and Mr. Kirsch; and the Planning Board should be looking to see if the plan meets the zoning ordinances. Mr. DiMaggio felt if Town Counsel reviews this and feels it is an ancillary use and our books allow ancillary uses/done deal.

Ms. Killam noted that application before the Board was for one lot (on the left), a site plan; but the wetlands crossing is on both lots and that also would require an additional plan showing the other lot, and other abutters to be notified. None of this can come before the Board until the state results are received/DES permit and the extension of the driveway by DOT regulations.

Ms. Miner noted she had a concern with the Atkinson Zoning regarding permitted uses; and felt this matter involved three lots (2 in Atkinson and 1 in Hampstead). The lot in Hampstead being used as justification as an accessory to a building. The Board needs to see that lot also.

There was much discussion as to what the developer really planned; but Mr. Jordan corrected that first they were seeking a permit for what they have currently. Mr. Stewart noted that there was a lot of missing information and he wouldn’t feel comfortable taking this under jurisdiction now with the town of Hampstead being involved. He threw out the possibility of creating a whole new plan with all Atkinson property only.

Discussion: Mr. Earley reiterated the need to see the whole picture; and Mr. Jordan questioned taking Mr. Keach’s recommendation to the Zoning Board for a stand alone storage area an easier than all these other efforts. Mr. DiMaggio commented that even with that, there is no guarantee a variance would be granted; and if Town Counsel says it is legitimate for ancillary use, they would probably be better off. All in all, it is going to be a long drawn out process.

A site walk was suggested.

Mr. Jordan said they will follow whatever direction is given to them. Ms. Killam explained that if the Board feels this issue doesn’t meet town zoning, then that is a reason to decide no jurisdiction and that would send the developer to the ZBA; or the Board could consider the municipal boundary jurisdiction requiring legal opinion and require a no jurisdiction decision.

Discussion Continued: Mr. DiMaggio suggested if the Planning Board gets a ‘no’ from Town Counsel for a separate and distinct use, to immediately notify the developer so they can decide how to continue to proceed or go to the ZBA. Agreed. Mr. Dziechowski questioned if they did something similar to Mr. Busby, would this be another option to pursue; and Ms. Killam answered yes, but it would still require a site plan.

9:00p.m. Fire Emergency Call/Mr. Stewart and Mr. Earley left.

Regarding arranging a meeting with Sumner, Mr. DiMaggio suggested getting the questions to him prior to the Board meeting with him to allow him time to prepare. Tentative meeting date set for Thursday, June 29^th; attendees will be: Mr. DiMaggio, Ms. Miner, Mr. Sapia, possibly Mr. Stewart and Ms. Killam.

Mr. Jordan asked if there was anything the Board needed from him; and Ms. Killam suggested he prompt the NH Soils and DES because if the Board gets a decision to take it under jurisdiction, he will not get approval without those permits.

Mr. Sapia noted the huge expense and exercise to go through for five pieces of equipment and a trailer; and Mr. Dziechowski questioned the amount of parking area in Hampstead could eliminate the need to address Atkinson at all.

Proposed Amendment to Subdivision Regulation Section 380:1. Add new section (b) to read as follows:

Ms. Killam reported on her research and found in Section 380:3 as it exists refers to a point in time when an applicant elects to commence construction of the roadway, etc….instead of posting the whole bond can post only 10%. So section 380:3 addresses just the 10% option. This is the only time escrow monies are mentioned in association with the 10% option para. 4. Ms. Killam’s suggestion was to add this phrase to 380:1 so that the same wording would apply to any plans not just one where the developer pursues the 10% option.

Mr. Sapia suggested adding the word maintain before appropriate in case there is a change occurring during the development adding to the engineering costs, thus allowing the town engineer to increase the maintained amount.

Mr. Dziechowski noted there is no section ‘a’ and suggested changing the proposed ‘b’ to an ‘a’.

Mr. Sapia questioned adding after the word appropriate: as designated by the town engineer who is qualified to determine what is reasonable and appropriate. After the word monies: ‘in an amount determined by the town engineer in order’.

Ms. Killam brought forth for discussion Lavelle and Associates drawing for Deer Run/Austin Realty Trust. She and her husband bought a 50ft. strip of land from them as a lot line adjustment; apparently, he did not put the correct acreage on the plan that conveyed the land to the Killams. She read a letter from Lavelle requesting a hearing regarding the property of Austin Realty Trust for a revised lot line; and this does not but should include the Killams. Ms. Killam pointed out that it is only to change the acreage figure, there are no points to be moved, or lines to be changed. She asked if this required a public hearing; and Mr. DiMaggio suggested a hearing be held to ensure all was done correctly. Ms. Killam noted it was only a minor change but relates to acreage and density. Relative to notification, even minor changes require notification, but not necessarily a hearing. According to SD 18-Minor Changes: Give notice to abutters of any change; hold a hearing if requested by any abutter or the applicant.

Mr. DiMaggio recommended doing it all at once rather than delaying the process by a month between notice and hearing. Ms. Killam agreed as the Deer Run plan still had not been signed off and the developer is nearing completion of their road. The corrected plan needs to be signed. Schedule a public hearing for this on July 19^th.

9:30p.m. Ms. Killam closed the meeting to the television public; and Mr. Earley returned.

Ms. Killam reminded everyone of the next Master Plan meeting to be held next Wed., June 28^th (not televised) and everyone is welcomed to attend for input.

Pg. 5-para. 2-after Mr. Ashford change ‘and’ to ‘an’

Pg. 5-para 5-end of second sentence add a ‘d’ to combine.

Pg. 8-para 4-Ms. Miner asked why World War II and Vietnam, change Vietnam to Korea.

Pg. 9-para 4-change schrubs to shrubs

Pg. 9-last para-change Mrs. Barnes to Barbara Brown, Realtor.

Mr. Sapia reported at the last Selectmen’s meeting, the Board agreed to write a letter of recommendation supporting the Scenic Vista project.

Secondly, he reported regarding the Flood Plain issue, the Board is making arrangements for a speaker from the Rockingham Planning Commission and the Planning Board will be notified and invited to attend.

Mr. Dziechowski reported that he has set up a Yahoo group as a message board. A number of municipalities have them. He will send out a reminder. The old Master Plan is posted there now for reading only. Members then updated the new contact list further with changed email addresses.

Mr. Early reported that he had met with two gentlemen this past Monday evening in his office who are considering leasing the Seed Tree facility for a Pump Em Up birthday parties business for 35-40 kids for an hour a party. They were looking for potentially additional parking. There was some discussion regarding parking and safety issues up there. Mr. Earley noted where they were not too far along in the planning of this, it might be an appropriate time to consider requiring a site plan be prepared in light of what is going on with the Brooks people situation. Both Mr. Earley and Ms. Miner were concerned with the access and trucking for Brooks property. This will affect whatever business is there and concerns for safety. No decision rendered.

APPROVED: Wed. Aug. 16, 2006 as submitted.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: JOANNE CARBONE, RECORDING SECRETARY