DISCUSSION: Mr. Stewart asked regarding the circuit rider who was paying for it and when will the Planning Board be told what it is about. Ms. Killam answered that the scope is in the contract, not yet digested. Mr. Stewart felt it was peculiar for a small town government to expend funds like this in the middle of the year. Seems out of the normal budgetary sequence; and he asked if the Selectmen were just telling the board it is to be done. Ms. Killam explained that Mr. McAllister is familiar with the scope of the work in the contract and the funding for this is the Planning Board’s: Other Professional Services line item of $10,000. The bulk of it is anticipated to be use and will help with the Master Plan. Ms. Killam took the opportunity here to note the need for more help from more people to participate in the master plan process. Those interested should contact the planning office; the group has started to prepare the survey to go out to the citizens soon.

Mr. Earley questioned posting the town engineer’s position out to bid; and Mr. Sapia explained that it was standardly done every three years. The notice was dated 7/14 and the Selectmen expect all applications to be received by 8/11. Mr. Earley asked for assurance that the Planning Board members be included in the discussions.

Ms. Killam reviewed the voting members for this evening: Mr. Guischard, Mr. Sapia, Mr. DiMaggio, Ms. Killam, Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Earley, and Mr. Stewart; all regular members.

#1 Public Hearing continued from June 21, 2006 (Cancelled). Ms. Killam read public hearing posted as: SFC Engineering Partnership, Inc. for Brooks Properties IV, LLC submission of an application for a commercial site plan/no one involved was present. Ms. Killam reported that since reviewing this plan last month, the Planning Board met with Town Counsel (Ms. Killam and Mr. DiMaggio) to discuss their use of the property and their claim that it was an accessory use to a lot/two lots away in a different town. Town Counsel’s opinion was that an accessory use needs to be accessory to a primary use on the same lot; and given the fact that there are wetlands violations in place and no site plan in place, any use of that property (in his opinion) was a violation, and should be curtailed. This information was passed on to the Selectmen’s office with the suggestion that they get code enforcement to deal with this.

Ms. Killam also reported this to Mr. Jordan, Engineer for SFC, who opted to not attend this meeting as a result. Ms. Killam continued that the Board had voted to not take it under jurisdiction at the last meeting. She suggested Mr. Jordan push on getting the wetlands issue squared away; and she asked Mr. Dziechowski of any news in this area; and Mr. Dziechowski answered that the status is still: more information requested. Ms. Killam added that Mr. Jordan had called New England Soils and felt the impression from them was that it may have moved from enforcement to permitting at the Wetlands Bureau; and Mr. Dziechowski replied that was not true as of today.

Ms. Killam concluded that Mr. Jordan put his efforts into that and come back to the board with a fresh application and fresh notice and everyone will know they are ready. In the meantime, it is in the Selectmen’s court to decide whether it is inappropriate to use the property. She met with Mr. Sapia (selectman), and Russ McAllister (town administrator) notating the meeting.

Mr. Keach asked if a letter had been sent to these people regarding this and Ms. Killam noted that the board had taken a vote on no jurisdiction.

Opened the Public Hearing: 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 Rt #111, Map 21, Lot 4, CI Zone.

Abutters list was read. No one present.

DISCUSSION: Ms. Killam asked for the formulation of a motion to send Brooks Properties a letter telling them why we are not going to accept their application.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION: Mr. Sapia asked if the letter should just give the status; and Ms. Killam agreed just the status and that the Planning Board was not taking action. Mr. Morse concluded that the board was formalizing why the application was turned down verbally.

As a point of order Mr. Keach noted that the way the statute reads: upon determination by the Board that a submitted application is incomplete according to the board’s regulations, the board shall notify the applicant of the determination according to RSA 676:3 (describes the procedures necessary).

#2 Public Hearing continued from June 21, 2006 Read: Proposed Amendment to Subdivision Regulation Section 380:1, and renumber 380:1 to become 380:1a and add new section (b) to read as follows: The developer must provide and maintain appropriate escrow monies in an amount determined by the Town Engineer for anticipated inspection and testing services to be rendered during execution of the work.

DISCUSSION: Ms. Killam reminded all that this had been revised at the last meeting in June. Mr. Stewart asked Mr. Keach if this is not followed does it mean the application is in non-compliance or is that just understood; and Mr. Keach answered that by being part of the regulations it is.

#1-New Applications-Application to the State of New Hampshire for inclusion of a major portion of Main Street into the ‘Scenic and Cultural Byways System’ per requirements of RSA 238:22. Application contains a map, as well as photos of many historic homes and sites with a narrative for each which describes importance to the history of Atkinson.

DISCUSSION: Ms. Killam explained that the contents of this application is available in the binder on the table; and felt she should explain the process and the likely reason why most of the people were in attendance this evening. The intent is for an informal informational hearing. Ms. Killam posed to the Planning Board that at the end of the discussion there would be a question: does the Planning Board want to submit this application to the state? The RSA’s explain it all; it has been six months since the Planning Board first looked into initiating this; and agreed to support this concept. The application doesn’t have to come from the Planning Board; it can come from anyone, or any department. If the Board does decide to send this to the state, there is a Committee established under the RSA’s 238:19 where they have established a Council under the direction of the Office of Energy and Planning. There are nine members appointed by the Governor and include: (1) representing regional planning, (3) representing municipalities, (1) representing tourism and recreational interests, (1) for forests and lands, (1) for utilities, (1) outdoor advertising agency and (1) for Highway construction industry.

This Council takes the byway applications and reviews them. If they think that the byway proposed has merit, they will schedule a site visit to the town. If that happens for us, it should take place in Oct. thru Dec. time frame. Once this is done, the Council will decide whether to recommend the proposal for inclusion in the State Scenic and Cultural By Way System. Ms. Killam asked people to take note that the words historic or vista were not used and have been used incorrectly in conversations. It is an honorary designation for a town to say it is really proud of an area of town that has some cultural, historic and agricultural significance; and the town would like to have others in the state make recognition of this fact.

Ms. Killam reported that the Planning office had received suggestions today that the Board had not noticed this meeting appropriately; and she noted this was not true nor did the Board even have to have this meeting. All individual home owners involved were noticed; a public notice was placed in the newspaper and on the bulletin boards in front of town hall; thus satisfying all requirements.

There had also been some prior discussion regarding imposing infringements on the property owners’ rights. It does not add any more than what is already there in existing zoning. The only requirement that inclusion in the program imposes is no billboards; and Atkinson already has that rule in existing zoning.

Ms. Killam opened the Public Hearing first to the Planning Board members and then to the residents in attendance.

Mr. DiMaggio asked to see the RSA relative to outdoor advertising (238:24 Scenic By Ways which refers to 236:73 on premises signs).

Mr. Stewart noted this topic had had a lot of television exposure; he saw it as a positive thing to do; recognizing a pretty section of road; does not add any woes to the DOT, or have any downside. He would like to see this project move forward.

Ms. Killam added she had printed some more information from the web site of the Office of Energy and Planning (OEP). Go to: State agencies, OEP, OEP programs, select scenic by ways. There is a map of NH and a list of all existing byways accepted into the program. Atkinson would be included in the seacoast area. All are called trails or byways. There is a FAQ tab and links to more sites. Submitting the application has no guarantee of being accepted, but if you are included, your town is then eligible to apply for scenic byway grants available on a yearly basis; there is also a national byway program.

Mrs. Grant noted several new additions had been received: letters from the Board of Selectmen, Garden Club, Historic Society, Conservation Commission and Women’s Civic Club//all in full support of the recognition of this part of town.

Mr. DiMaggio commented that 99% of the effort on this project came from Carol Grant; the Planning Board did very little; she did an unbelievable job, a lot of hard work and the only reason was because it was a good idea. KUDOS TO MRS. GRANT.!!

Mr. Fletcher asked if existing signage is allowed to stay in place; there is no regulatory agency within this act that is going to change it, correct?? Ms. Killam referred to RSA 238:22 which describes the designation. The Council should designate scenic and cultural byways based on criteria which includes: a) possesses a significant visible, natural, or cultural feature along its borders such as agricultural lands, farms, architectural attributes, historic sites, town centers, museums, cottage industries, views, vistas, shorelines, or forests or notable geologic features; b) accessible to natural or cultural features such as cultural facilities, historic sites, town centers, trails, lakes, rivers, streams; c) conforms to and does not detract from the landscape; d) meets safety standards for the particular traffic encouraged; e) free from intensive commercial development and obstructive signage that which would detract from the principal reason for the designation.

The designation of a state or local road or highway as a scenic and cultural byway under the provisions of this subdivision shall not affect the operation, maintenance, or expansion of existing public utility lines or facilities, etc. Under no circumstances have a designation without a public hearing being held by the town/after the Council nominates. This will likely take several months. Nominations shall demonstrate local public and private support; assess traffic or other problems that may occur as a result of this designation; and propose a method to ensure the preservation and maintenance of the qualities of the byway upon which the nomination was based.

Regarding signs: not withstanding any provision of law to the contrary, advertising devices as defined in RSA 236:70-I, Signs shall not be erected on the primary system highway, designated as a scenic byway, provided that Council shall remove any scenic and cultural byway designations’ highway sections that have no significant or cultural value. Advertising devices erected before the effective date of this designation may be maintained on the premises as defined in that RSA or directional, informational, or official signs per RSA 236:73 may be erected and/or maintained.

Ms. Killam noted this designation should not be confused with other different programs available, such as the scenic roads program; it is not the same.

Mr. Morse pointed out that the designation starts in the commercial zone and asked what would happen if the town wanted to extend the commercial zone; and Ms. Killam answered that the area would then have to be de-designated if necessary and by the same Council. Mr. Stewart noted a lot of the area is actually conservation land that can never be developed for commercial use; and Mr. Dziechowski added that the stables were agricultural per a deed restriction. Pieces of the road can be un-designated.

Mr. DiMaggio summarized that the only restriction is if a business wants to put up a billboard; the intent is to keep the town historic looking and not appear modern, productive, commercial as this would take the designation away.

OPEN TO THE AUDIENCE: Philip Consentino, Main St., stated he had several serious reservations. 1) To classify the area as a path, lane or way; Main St. is not any of these, it is a major thoroughfare. Gathered from the lists read earlier; and Ms. Killam countered that they were just names. 2) Mr. Consentino felt all the people who live on Main St. should have been notified not just the owners of historic houses affected; not fair as all the residents of Main St. will be affected. Ms. Killam answered that this hearing was not required and was just informational, to review the application and decide if the Planning Board wants to send it to the State. The hearing that matters is if we get further on in the process, the Selectmen will hold a hearing and the Selectmen can decide who to notify.

Mr. Consentino felt that this meeting was important because a decision was being made as to whether the Board rather than a resident is going to submit this form and input from more people should be had. Ms. Killam disagreed and felt proper notification had been made. 3) Mr. Consentino had called the state regarding billboards and the state considers a billboard any size sign at all. There are many in-home businesses on Main St., anyone of which might wish to put up a sign for example, to sell eggs; but now may possibly be restricted by what signage may be put up. 4) Once the state gets involved in declaring a certain area, something the state has blessed for any number of reasons, there will be restrictions on the properties. Ms. Killam asked Mr. Consentino to define restrictions that are being imposed; and Mr. Consentino referred to the fiasco with the Historic district and house painting issue. Ms. Killam disagreed that the State could dictate what color to paint your house. Mr. Consentino suggested the town do a simple designation itself.

Ms. Killam reminded everyone that the state already controls that section of road and can do whatever it wants. Mr. DiMaggio agreed with Mr. Consentino and noted when someone joins a society they are subjecting themselves to the restrictions of that society. Atkinson is already a very restrictive town and he doesn’t perceive this as losing any rights that we haven’t already lost. Mr. Consentino agreed but felt it was adding more restrictions to the residents of this street.

Mr. DiMaggio noted that the Board will take that as Mr. Consentino’s opinion. Mr. DiMaggio continued that he would not be voting on something that was going to be more restrictive and he personally supports legislation that makes the town less restrictive.

Mr. Robert Leavitt suggested having a citizen submit this and if it gets approved, argue about it then; avoid any lawsuits for the town. Mr. DiMaggio noted that it was such a good and important idea that it should take whatever weight the Planning Board has and use it to try and get it approved. It will come back to the voters eventually. He didn’t feel any Board member was reluctant to support six months of work. Mr. Stewart felt the Board should support volunteer efforts for the good of the town; and once approved it will go to a public hearing.

Mr. Sapia noted that the members support something not because the person volunteered (it is appreciated) but we support it on the merits of the project and what was done and the hard work involved. It is not as simple as posting two signs at each end; there are questions to be answered for the residents and suggested having a state representative speak at the public hearing. He is comfortable with the whole idea. Ms. Killam pointed out that part of the RSA says that the OEP & /Council are charged with promoting the program; surely a speaker will be available.

Mr. Sapia asked if a selective list of residents were invited to attend this evening; and Mrs. Grant answered that there were 35 homes involved. As a point of interest, Mr. Sapia asked how many live on Main St.; and Mr. Stewart noted the lot numbers run from 12 to 170. 25% were notified. Mr. Dziechowski felt if it gets to a public hearing, notice should go out to everyone; amd Mr. DiMaggio noted due to the numbers involved it is normal to disseminate this via a normal public notice.

Mrs. Grant commented that there are two things that make the town special: the people and the spirit or town pride; and doing something special and getting recognition for it. She reiterated when the Planning Board letters were first delivered by her to the home- owners, they were all pleased and proud to participate. Since this began a resident of Hampstead has approached Atkinson for guidance in doing the same for their town.

David Consentino, Main St., had a concern with traffic and safety; there is already a lot of traffic; how much more traffic is this going to bring in; there are only a few spots in town where you can safely pull off the road; Main St. is narrow and the shoulders are uneven; there is no place for people to pull off to view. How many more people is this going to bring into the area? Ms. Killam suspected that this would be a concern of the Council as well.

John Feuer, Main St., asked 1) should this pass and become certified by the state as a scenic byway, does the current Planning Board have any intentions for adopting this wording into its current zoning book or master plan; and Ms. Killam answered that this has not been discussed. Mr. Feuer’s further concern was there may be no restrictions on homes, but asked what about restrictions on businesses such as his that are preexisting on Main St. Ms. Killam noted that the state did not want to include areas with intense commercial use such as the lower part of Main St. The byway starts near Robie Ln.; the concern is for density of commercial use; it is not concerned with incidental businesses.

Mr. Feuer continued that his additional concern was that on the scenic byway, the town pound happens to be adjacent to his business. People already come in daily and park in his business’ parking spots to go up and take pictures. He asked what type of provisions the state is taking into consideration. This is an obvious spot that requires a pull off; Main Street is a very busy road with some obvious site distance issues as well. Ms. Killam noted that she didn’t have the answer to this particular question other than this is where grant money comes in; this would be a good question for a representative of OEP at the final public hearing.

Mr. Feuer asked if the state decides this looks like a great idea, will it come back to a vote on town ballot. Ms. Killam answered that it would be a public hearing by the Selectmen, not on a ballot.

Mr. Morse asked where the application is going now; and Ms. Killam answered to the OEP. Mr. Morse asked if OEP looks at the application as it is or will they accept letters and questions from these people now as well, or do they have to wait for the public hearing. Ms. Killam read from the RSA’s that the Council that is established has certain duties and shall encourage towns to designate scenic and cultural byways, etc.; and then develop the process for nomination, and nomination criteria; advise and consult with municipalities during the process of recommending a municipality’s road for inclusion in the system; encourage and assist in fostering public awareness, understanding and participation and providing municipalities with the tools and ideas for enhancement and protection of the scenic and cultural byways. The Council’s job is not just to nominate and decide inclusion but to provide some advice; and answer questions and promote awareness. They also report to the Governor bi-annually.

Mr. Feuer asked what was meant by protection; answer tools and ideas, zoning, etc.

Mr. Fletcher asked to run this by town counsel as he was concerned about liabilities. The state is never liable; what is the exposure for the town residents. Mr. DiMaggio asked if Mr. Fletcher would be amenable to doing this after if it is adopted and the Planning Board has to go to town meeting and vote. Mr. Fletcher answered that he would prefer that the Board do it now because it may be a situation where the town does have exposure. We don’t have any turnouts for people to stop and park; people park on Mr. Feuer’s land now. What if someone hurts themselves coming back from viewing the pound; is Mr. Feuer liable or is the town liable?? He would like to know.

Mr. Stewart commented regarding safety and highway safety, and the ability for the DOT to maintain Rte. 121 in a safe manner; this cannot and will not compromise their ability to maintain Rte. 121 in a safe manner. It doesn’t stop them from improving it, or developing it. When it comes to liability, the town currently owns property as does the state. If someone gets hurt walking across the town common, or at the ball fields, and at the town pound, the town has some liability. If a sign is erected at each end of the scenic byway, do people believe that the state’s dept. of energy 3would be encouraging the town to take on more liability or the state itself taking on more liability. It is simple logic. Check with town counsel. Both Ms. Killam and Mr. DiMaggio agreed about checking with town counsel but felt that it should not stop the current procedure to submit.

FURTHER DISCUSSION: Mrs. JoAnne Consentino asked for a clarification on some of the suggested listings of trails and byways. Her idea of a trail is for walking or hiking; and she asked if a byway was just a drive-thru where no one should be stopping. She was also concerned with the amount of traffic. Ms. Killam felt there was nothing in the application inviting anyone to stop. It might invite more people to travel up Rte. 121, but it is not an invitation to get out of your car and walk around.

Mr. Sapia asked Mrs. Grant if the state puts together something similar to her application but not as detailed as hers but listed somewhere in the state of NH where someone could go. Mr. Keach answered that the state has a street listing/Tourism.

Mrs. Grant pointed out that Main St. has always had traffic; it was a busy road thirty years ago; and the Garden Club has been maintaining the plantings and beauty at the town pound for twenty years.

Ms. Killam noted that the Board has heard all the questions and concerns and they are valid concerns; she was glad that people were asking them; and it is as Mr. Keach noted a tourism thing that does invite people to the community.

Mr. James Garrity posed several clarifications of Mr. Sapia’s questions. The state will list a tourism map which is done every three years and high light the scenic byways. As to how to get your opinion to the state Council if this application goes to Concord. Because this Council is a public entity, it has to hold a public hearing under 91-a. Anyone can lobby for or against this issue at that public hearing.

FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION: Mr. DiMaggio commented on how impressed he was when Mrs. Grant first brought this in to the board. There were minimal restrictions; no one can predict the future. He read the intent as very clear. The establishment of cultural byways to provide the opportunity for residents and visitors to travel a system of byways which feature the scenic and cultural qualities of the state within the existing highway system. Trying to preserve a little bit of what we travel on with minimal restrictions so it doesn’t become as commercialized as surrounding towns. We have increased residency over thirty years to 6,000 residents and it has increased traffic. He felt it was a good idea, and people were free to vote their choice; there should be no impact on industry or commerce. We have a chance to protect some history.

Mr. Guischard aksed about doing this at the local level rather that at the state level; and Mr. DiMaggio answered that the state has facilitated a method for doing it. Mr. Guischard noted that the state includes rules and regulations; and Mr. DiMaggio agreed and added that Atkinson is a Rule and Regulation Town.

Mr. Morse noted that the Historic District started out exactly as this project is starting; and that is why people who remember the past are so concerned. It starts out as nothing and then the state can add new rules and regulations and then what can the town do about it.

Mr. Sapia stated that in principle this is a good idea; we don’t clearly have or understand all the implications. This is the first step in going out and finding if there are any implications; we will be involved at the state level; there will be a public hearing; and it could be denied. We are proud of Atkinson and Main Street and we don’t want to hurt or take away anyone’s privileges or cause any more traffic problems.

#2 New Application-Cheri Butts & Thomas L’Italien and Robert & Erin Leavitt submission of an Application for Formal Consideration and Approval of a Lot Line Adjustment Plan between Map 6, Lot 21, 61 Providence Hill Road and Map 6, Lot 21-1, 59 Providence Hill Road, TR2 Zone.

Present: Robert Leavitt, Cheri Butts, & Thomas L’Italien (Kevin Cam, surveyor not present).

List of abutters read: Radulski Trust, Butler Estates, George Tombarello, Cheri Butts, Thomas L’Italien, Robert & Erin Leavitt, Kevin Cam.

Ms. Killam pointed out that these two lots were strangely configured several years ago. Mr. Keach submitted his letter of review and recommendations; and offered to represent the applicants in Mr. Cam’s absence. Mr. Leavitt stated that he was the original subdivider; and he did not like the design but at the time it was legal and we had to approve it. Now he and his neighbors, Tom and Cheri, have made the lot the way they wanted it to be from the beginning.

Mr. Keach presented a copy of the original plan on the presentation board as well as the new plan. He explained that the original property had an existing house on #61 Providence Hill Road and subdivision was designed around it like a dog leg leaving a triangular shaped parcel that was connected to the balance of lot #61 by a narrow strip of land behind the new lot. There was concern originally but nothing was done until now with the new proposed application.

The new plan effectively eliminates the odd configuration by running a line perpendicular to Providence Hill in a southerly direction basically cutting the property about in two. The net effect would be to cause the property at #61 Providence Hill Rd. to go from 2.85 acres to 2.309 acres and the property at #59 Providence Hill Rd. to go from 2.32 acres to 2.866 acres. The property at #59 retains the same 200 ft. frontage; and lot #61 will have 240 ft. frontage. Basically creating more normally shaped lots.

Ms. Killam asked if there were any wetlands problems; and Mr. Keach indicated only one small area at the top of the lot on the original plat. There is an appropriate amount of high and dry land as acreage has been added. It is recommended that the wetlands be added to the new plat. (This is in Mr. Keach’s letter.)

Mr. Keach reviewed his letter of recommendations; and noted that there are no state permits required; this is a simple lot line adjustment and is eligible for expedited review per provisions of 530:4 of the subdivision regulations.

DISCUSSION: Mr. Keach reviewed page 2 of his letter and each of the necessary changes including adding the wetlands area to the new plan.

Ms. Killam pointed out that the Board had not voted to take the application under jurisdication.

DISCUSSION: Mr. Keach concluded that the Board needs to send a letter to Kevin Cam including Mr. Keach’s letter causing him to make a correction to the plat; forward a copy to Ms. Killam. After it is okayed, 5 copies and a mylar need to be signed and then the attorneys can prepare the deeds.

Ms. Killam noted that the next Master Plan meeting is next Wednesday, July 26^th and more members and helpers are needed at this phase in the project.

APPROVED:_Wed. Aug. 16, 2006 as corrected.