Atkinson Planning Board explores zoning changes to expand housing options amid water and safety limits

The Atkinson Planning Board on March 18 reviewed a packet of proposed zoning amendments aimed at encouraging housing opportunities in town, focusing discussion on Rural Residential 3 (RR3) descriptions, mixed-use in small commercial districts, frontage requirements and innovative in-fill options.

Chair Sue Killam opened the housing discussion by distributing a Future Land Use map and draft language and said the Board should consider both rewriting zone descriptions and where limited changes to permitted uses could create housing opportunities without wholesale boundary changes. "This is an opportunity to review things that have been previously approved and need to be reviewed," Killam said.

The Board spent substantial time on RR3, a 3-acre minimum district. Member Ted Stewart argued the 3-acre standard "does not create opportunities" in much of town and could create subdivision impacts for neighbors when smaller lot options exist. Stewart also raised public-safety concerns around the lake, saying access for fire apparatus and winter plowing is "extremely difficult especially when there is snow," and urged the town to consider safety and longer-term acquisition options if rebuilding would increase risk.

Members discussed permitting apartments or accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in Commercial and Commercial/Professional zones as a practical way to add workforce and affordable units without creating large new developments. Board members cited Lewis Lane and the Wright Farm cluster development as existing examples that helped Atkinson meet regional affordable-housing needs. "If Lewis Apartments were shut down, the Town could be forced to come up with alternatives," Stewart said.

Water and sewer availability framed much of the debate. Killam noted the Commercial area near the Post Office relies on a single well, and members observed that connecting to public water or sewer (for example, tying into Haverhill's line on Hilldale Avenue) would be expensive and technically challenging. The Board agreed that infrastructure limits will shape what zoning changes are practical.

The Board also discussed dimensional standards and relief processes. Frontage minimums — currently higher in some zones (250 ft) — were debated, with members saying narrower frontage (150–200 ft) and 'pork chop' lot allowances could enable targeted in-fill. Killam recommended clarifying Section 490:1 to specify whether relief should be processed as a variance or a special exception, saying the current wording leaves uncertainty in practice.

Board members expressed interest in "innovative land-use controls" such as cottage-style courts and model ordinance language from the new Blue Book to create small-scale infill housing. Several members said boundary changes should be a multiyear effort, and that updating definitions and permitted uses could be the first year’s work while the Board develops public engagement plans.

No formal zoning amendments or votes were taken at the workshop. The Board scheduled follow-up technical input from Town Engineer Keach and will hear the Water Resource Committee and Circuit Planner Jenn Rowden at the April 1 meeting to support Master Plan implementation work.

Votes at the meeting were limited to routine governance: the Board reorganized leadership and handled minutes and adjournment. The Board did not adopt any ordinance changes at this session.

What’s next: the Planning Board directed staff to consult the Town Engineer on specific ordinance sections (including Section 520c and frontage language), to quantify remaining buildable land, and to draft potential language for mixed-use and innovative controls for further public discussion.