Ms. Killam called the meeting to order at 7:32 P.M.

The minutes of September 15, 2004 were reviewed.

The minutes of October 6, 2004 were reviewed.

The minutes of October 20, 2004 were reviewed.

The minutes of November 3, 2004 were reviewed and the following correction made:

Page 2, 2nd paragraph, 3^rd sentence, delete - 'and they will have already paid impact fees'.

The minutes of November 17, 2004 were tabled to the next meeting.

Ms. Killam opened the discussion at 8:00 p.m.

On November 17^th a sub-committee was formed to work on this proposed ordinance. The committee met on November 18^th and the members present gave their report.

Present at the meeting was Paul DiMaggio, Chuck Earley, John Miller, Michael Fletcher, Phil Consentino.

Mr. Earley felt that the developer had answered most of their questions at this meeting. One change made to the document was that the age of the residents must be 55 or over. Some other minor changes were made. Density calculations were discussed. Ms. Killam asked about the septic system and she was told there is an on site sewage treatment center that should handle the expansion. Mr. Lewis stated that they don't count on the soils and Mr. Lewis agreed to show the Board the system that will be used.

Ms. Killam stated that she has met with the Town Engineer, Steve Keach to get his input on this proposed ordinance. Mr. Keach spoke only to the structure of the ordinance and offered to structure the language to make it cleaner and with less verbage. He offered to do this free of charge and Ms. Killam stated that, if the Board was in favor of this, she would sit down with him and structure the ordinance, which should encompass a retool of Section 620 in its entirety. Discussion followed on the timing and if this would be possible in the time allowed for posting. Mr. Lewis was in favor of this and agreed it should be as simple as possible.

Mr. Lewis does have a petition and discussion followed on having two separate documents. Mr. DiMaggio felt that the document the subcommittee worked on should be put on file as a petition while Mr. Keach is working on a new document. The petition can always be withdrawn should the decision be made to go with the rewrite. The twenty five people that sign the petition would have to be involved in the withdrawal process. Discussion continued on when the last dates are to post and hold a public hearing. Ms. Killam noted that the Board has indicated that they would support this with some changes.

Mr. Earley felt that this would be a good idea if there were more time. He felt that the Board had worked on this long enough and that it is good enough the way it is presently written. Mr. Earley was assured that there is enough time to get this done right. Mr. Lewis stated that he had enough faith in what Mr. Keach says and would like to go this way. Mr. DiMaggio stated that Mr. Lewis needs to protect himself and, if this is not going to be taken care of tonight, he needs to get those twenty five signatures and go forward.

The Board discussed in detail the changes that the subcommittee made at their meeting. Mr. DiMaggio and Mr. Lewis continue to disagree on the issue of counting 1 bedroom unit as 2. After some discussion Mr. DiMaggio agreed to compromise on this issue.

The Board reviewed the draft they have been working on and decided to post it to Public Hearing. In the meantime, Mr. Keach and Ms. Killam will work on structural rewrites, which may require another Public Hearing. Once a final document is decided on the petition will be withdrawn. Mr. Stewart asked that a note that 'all roads will remain private' be added to Section 600:5.

The Board reviewed all the changes that were made by the subcommittee. A poll of the Board showed that the document was fair as written and a revised copy of the draft will be sent to Mr. Keach to work on.

The discussion was closed at 9:24 P.M.

Mr. Fletcher left the meeting.

The Public Hearing was opened at 9:30 P.M.

Are you in favor of the adoption of the amendment proposed by the Atkinson Planning Board for the Town Zoning Ordinance, which would repeal the present wetlands ordinance (Section 410. WETLANDS ZONING) and replace it with a new ordinance. The technical revisions are as follows:

to delete Section 410. WETLANDS ZONING in its entirety; and

to replace it with language that would:

Establish a Wetlands Conservation District as an overlay district encompassing wetlands, surface waters and variable-width upland buffer areas.

Replace the current definition of "wetlands" with one that is more commonly accepted in the scientific community and that is more consistent with State and Federal regulations.

Replace the current fixed 100 ft. wetland buffer with buffers that vary in width, from 50 ft. to 150 ft., depending on the functional value of the wetland.

More clearly define activities, which are permitted and prohibited in the wetland buffer.

Provide regulatory relief in the form of a special exception from the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) rather than a variance from the ZBA for many of the most common request for relief cases.

Mr. Kukshtel reviewed the revised draft and went over the change in the definition of 'wetlands'. This proposed ordinance adopts a new definition entitled 'wetland resources' and has been added to the final document. Only Ecologically Significant Wetlands will be referred to as 'wetlands'. A few other minor changes were noted. Section 410:7 has been deleted. For existing lots of record and existing houses there are grandfathered clauses that put the homeowner in a position no worse and probably better than what they currently have now.

The Public Hearing was opened to the public with no comments noted.

Mr. Kukshtel was commended for his hard work and perseverance on this article.

He added that he would need to do some public education.

The hearing was closed at 9:43 P.M.

Ms. Killam read a proposed article that she put together and brought it to the Board for their input. Section 674:21 'Innovated Land Use Controls', Phasing of Development'. This would be a Land Use Control Provision. She asked that this be put in their 'tool box' to be worked on as a new article. This will involve large developments only and the phasing would allow the town to expand services to meet the demands. Discussion followed on the differences in 'Phasing' and 'Growth Control'. It was suggested that Attorney Kalman review this for any legal issues. Ms. Kilman noted that 'phasing' is not 'growth control'. It was noted that some research or study would be needed and Mr. Morse questioned the criteria.

Mr. Morse noted that a development has to happen as the economy permits. Ms. Killam added that the Board has to worry about the town providing services.

The Board thought this would be worth working on. Ms. Killam will consult with the Rockingham Planning Commission and Attorney Kalman.

Mr. Stewart and Mr. Earley left the meeting to answer a fire call.

The motion was adjourned at 10:00 P.M.

Next scheduled Planning Board Hearing meeting December 15, 2004.

APPROVED_______________________ Respectfully submitted,

Carol Kater