Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Sale topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Atkinson residents urge selectmen not to sell conservation-linked parcels at public hearing
Summary
Residents at a Feb. 9 Atkinson Board of Selectmen public hearing urged the board to remove several town-owned parcels from a proposed sale, citing conservation value, wetlands, impacts to wells and threats to Blunts Pond; the board set a second hearing for Feb. 23 and will vote March 9.
Atkinson — Dozens of residents told the Board of Selectmen on Feb. 9 that the town should not sell several town-owned parcels under consideration, citing conservation value, wetlands and concerns about local wells.
Vice Chair Bob Worden opened the public hearing and solicited comment on parcels including sites on Oak Ridge and Maple Avenue. Ed Wensis said he was concerned about the minimum setbacks for a narrow strip that abuts his property. Ms. Blair asked whether the land is conservation land, whether it is eligible for sale and whether it is buildable or being sold primarily to raise revenue. Brian Malo raised questions about zoning, emphasized the parcels’ conservation value and said he opposed the sale because of potential impacts to the health of Blunts Pond.
Other speakers warned of environmental and groundwater risks. Gail Wensis and Justine Corson said selling the land could harm wildlife, alter the water table and increase runoff. Matthew Racite said the conservation designation had been presented as a selling point when he purchased his home and said a sale could affect neighborhood wells. Robert Massey raised concern about an abandoned well on or near a parcel. Michael Chambers noted that, combined with adjacent conserved land, the parcels would total nearly 14 acres of conservation land.
Paul Wainwright explained the town’s reference to the ‘7.5% parcels’ during the discussion; the transcript does not record an official title for Wainwright. Karen Steele provided a history of police-station planning that she said bears on the parcels and asked the board to remove one parcel from consideration. Several other attendees, including Jack Hanock and Glen Saba, urged the board to hold onto parcels now because of wetland constraints, timing and limited lot value.
The board closed the hearing by voice vote and scheduled a second public hearing for Feb. 23, 2026; the board plans to vote on the matter March 9, 2026. No formal decision to sell or retain the parcels was recorded at the Feb. 9 meeting.
