Ms. Killam called the meeting to order at 7:50 PM.

Correspondence and Approval of Minutes were moved to the end of the meeting.

All members are voting.

The Abutter's List was read. Present: James Lavelle Assoc.

Mr. Lavelle reported that the Abutter's List has been revised. The lot number and name has been added. The street line has been modified, a roadway and construction easement has been granted to the town. It was suggested that it be 25' from the centerline of the existing pavement, they went to 30'. This is shown on Sheet 2 & 3 of the plan. All of Mr. Keach's recommendations have been addressed. The other items are a Driveway Permit and to add Winslow Drive to the easement. The proposed driveway is shown on Sheet 3. No wetlands will be crossed. House numbers for 3 Pages Lane & Main Street have been added to the plan. Note 2 - The westerly line of the subject tract approximates the location of the Town Center/Rural Residential-2 Zoning District Boundary. It was recommended the plans be expanded to depict the correct zoning district boundary. A review showed where the line should be and the buildable area will be redrawn. The plan will be revised to reflect the zone line, re: Section 240 - Z2. This will not change the buildable envelope.

Mr. Stewart stated the driveway easement would take care of the site distance and the frontage issue on Page's Lane.

The hearing was opened to the public with no comments noted.

The hearing was closed at 8:10 PM.

The next hearing was opened at 8:12 PM.

OLD WORDING:

Article IV; Section 410:8 Buffer Zones

No waste disposal system nor building from which human or animal waste is generated, shall be constructed within a 100' horizontal distance from a designated wetland boundary or from intermittent streams. (This does not apply to existing or replacement systems).

NEW WORDING:

Article IV, Section 410:8 Buffer Zones

No waste disposal system nor building from which human or animal waste is generated, shall be constructed within a 100' horizontal distance from a designated wetland boundary or from intermittent streams. (This does not apply to existing systems that were installed in accordance with a NH DES approved design plan).

This amendment is brought in by the Zoning Board of Adjustment and will mainly effect residents on Big Island Pond. Mr. Stewart discussed the wording of this amendment and felt that it was contradictory. The amendment applies to septic systems that were installed prior to 1967. If a septic system by the lake fails the replacement must be to DES standards. In addition, if the system is under 100' from wetlands the owner must go for a variance from the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board would grant a variance provided the owner is able to prove they have a vested right. Mr. Stewart was concerned with the cost to the homeowner; having to go to the state and the zoning board would cost thousands of dollars. Ms. Killam discussed cottages on the lake that have added on. If they come in for a variance would this be an opportunity to expand the septic or would this take amendment take them back to where they were. Mr. Stewart was aware that there are a lot of illegal additions in the lake area but was concerned that someone may have purchased property with illegal additions who were unaware of this and who may be hit with a large cost when their system needs replacement. Mr. Morse agreed. The lot sizes at the lake limit what can be installed. Mr. DiMaggio questioned what would happen if the lot size would not support a state-approved septic system.

Mr. Stewart noted that the only change in this amendment is the last few words and asked how the voters could support this. Mr. Lavelle asked what would happen if a septic system can not meet state standards. Mr. Lavelle felt that what the Zoning Board is trying to do is not accomplished in this article and that they would be opening up a can of worms.

Ms. Killam read an email from Frank Polito of the Zoning Board. The reason the Zoning Board is proposing a variance is to make sure the septic system is as far from the wetlands as possible. He felt that most residents would be granted a variance. The system would be sized for the vested rights of the property. Meaning if an original two-bedroom house has been expanded without the benefit of permits two bedrooms is what the house must become. It was felt that this will only effect seasonal cottages around the lake, almost all year round cottages have approved systems.

The hearing was opened to the public.

Pat Goodridge, a director of Island Pond Corporation stated that this article is so innocent it's dangerous. She objected to the labeling of lots in her area as 'tent lots' and septic systems as 'barrels in the ground'. Her septic system is 53 years old, they have added on. She stated that her home is not a camp. It has three bedrooms. About three years ago they cut trees in order to dig a test pit and hired someone to put in a new system. Before this could be done her husband had a stroke. It was her opinion that the oversized homes on the lake are not caused by improper zoning but lack of enforcement. She noted that if she wants to install a new septic system she must go for a variance. To install a new system on her property would cost her $20,000. The Board was not sure that it would cost that much. Presently her septic tank is made out of cement, 10' wide, approximately 65' from the water and is pumped out twice a year. Ms. Goodridge had an issue with the term 'seasonal home'. She added that her home is not 'seasonal' it is a dwelling. It was noted that the 'seasonal' dwelling issue was not before the board at this time.

Mr. Polito, Zoning Board arrived at the meeting to explained the Zoning Board's position.

DES started regulating septic systems in 1967 for Hydric A, which is great ponds, and 1969/70 was for wetlands, Hydric B. Hydric A requires a 75' setback. If you have a septic system, even if it is DES approved, and you are replacing it a waiver from the state is necessary. The state will only allow systems that meet today's design standards. Whether you have a seasonal home or not, if you have an old septic system and it fails, and it is less than 75' from the water you need waivers from the state that will cost a substantial amount. Going for a variance will not cost any more money. A licensed engineer will have to design a system as best he can. Absorption is another issue. Another issue is how large the system should be. The Zoning Board and the State is saying that whatever the dwelling was when it was built, if you expand it legally, that is your vested right. If the town allowed you to expand they will allow you to put a four bedroom system in, making sure the system is as good as it can be, even though it won't meet today's standards. The issue for the Zoning Board is how large should this cottage be and how to prove vested rights. This article is to close a loophole we have created. If there is no DES plan, and you are closer than 100' you need a variance. What is needed for a variance is a Septic Design and to demonstrate to the Zoning Board that you have a vested right to certain size house and system.

Ms. Killam noted that there are quite a few incidents where there are already replaced systems that would still need a variance and does not have a DES plan to go along with this. This would be a significant cost to the homeowner. Mr. Polito stated that it does not cost a lot of money to design a septic system. The costs to replace a septic system were discussed.

Other lake residents had concerns that they may not be allowed to replace their system. Ms. Killam stated that there is not intention in the article that prevents anyone from installing a system. The intent is to cause a process to take place where records are created; it's a way of accomplishing enforcement so that things that have slipped by in the past might be brought to light.

Mr. Polito noted that he is not benefiting from protecting a lake that none of us in town can use. He is trying to represent the people who are concerned about the quality of the water. If the residents on the lake don't want this, the Zoning Board has no problem with it, it is less work for them. All they want to do is to make sure the house matches the septic system. A resident agreed with Mr. Polito and appreciated what the Zoning Board was attempting to do but felt the issue was enforcement. Residents felt that this article is not clear and that more information is needed. Discussion continued on the fact that there is no public access to this lake. Ms. Goodrich stated that the lake belongs to everyone and that she was in favor of a state park on the lake.

Mr. DiMaggio stated that the people living on the lake have nothing to do with the fact that the town did not have the foresight to keep access to the lake. It is not the resident's fault. Mr. DiMaggio stated that he would like to have more information on this and asked if the state ever requires holding tanks. Mr. Polito stated that this would be a last resort. Mr. Stewart felt that enforcement should take place when they are reassessed every year. This article will add another month to the process to get a septic system running. Mr. Stewart did not want to see any waterways get polluted but he felt this was an enforcement issue.

Mr. Polito stated that there is no quick way to replace a system. Mr. Polito suggested changing the wording of the article to say Hydric A and limit it to the lake. Mr. Morse felt that this is a lake issue that may affect a lot more people in town. He did not feel another layer should be added to the process. Mr. Morse felt that it is expensive to go to the Zoning Board. Ms. Sullivan felt that there was too much controversy to send this to ballot at this time and that we do not have enough information. Mr. Dziechowski asked what the minimum cost would be to go to the Zoning Board and to obtain a septic design and this was discussed briefly.

Mr. Polito stated that the main reason for this article is to establish what the vested rights of the lot are. Mr. DiMaggio stated that if that is the main reason this is not the right way to do it. He felt that this is a code enforcement issue and there is another way to accomplish this. Mr. Polito felt that the Health Officer would not be able to handle this. Ms. Goodrich added that tests of the lake have not uncovered any pollution.

Mr. DiMaggio suggested that Rockingham Planning Commission be consulted to work on this and offer their input. Ms. Killam thanked the citizens for coming in and voicing their feelings. Mr. Polito thanked the Planning Board for asking pertinent questions and listening to all sides. Mr. Polito stated that this was the Zoning Board's shot at trying to help the residents based on the complaints the Zoning Board has received and the number of hours spent on the phone with attorneys and state DES. If the residents don't want the Zoning Board's help don't come back into a public hearing and accuse the Zoning Board of not doing their job. If this is not approved, the resident's arguments are with the DES and not with the Zoning Board. Mr. DiMaggio thanked Mr. Polito for coming in to discuss the article.

Mr. DiMaggio made a motion to not move this article to the ballot and to send this to the Rockingham Planning Commission to research. Mr. Stewart seconded the motion. Motion approved unanimously.

Discussion followed on the Citizen Petition of the Atkinson Conservation Commission. Mr. Dziechowski pointed out that the citizen petition would erase the existing exception for replacement septic systems within the buffer zones and this was discussed. Board members felt it was intimidating and a cost to the 'little guy'.

The hearing was closed at 9:27 PM.

Next hearing opened at 9:30 PM.

New text to read as follows:

This hearing was continued from December 28^th in order for the Board to review the regulations to determine if this needs to go to ballot or if the codes can be adopted by the Planning Board at a single Public Hearing.

It was determined that this amendment should go to ballot.

The hearing was closed at 9:35 PM and the Board continued with correspondence.

Correspondence

Incoming

Keach-Nordstrom Associates dated 12/19/05, Invoices re: Chambers Subdivision; Gagnon Site Plan.

Keach-Nordstrom Associates dated 12/21/05 re: Lincmark RT Subdivision plan review comments

Zoning Board Legal Notice for meeting 1/11/06.

Planning Board Budget printout dated 12/31/05.

City of Haverhill Legal Notice for meeting 1/11/06.

The minutes of November 16, 2005 were reviewed and the following corrections were made:

Page 6, first large paragraph, third sentence, change FPA 1 and FPA 101 to NFPA 1 and NFPA 101.

Page 6, 3^rd paragraph from the bottom, second sentence from the bottom to read: He noted that there are pros and cons to this.

The minutes of December 7, 2005 were reviewed and the following corrections were made:

Page 2, 2^nd paragraph from the bottom, second sentence to read: The town currently pays for rubbish removal.

Page 4, 4^th paragraph, second last sentence, delete 'as to'.

Page 5, 4^th paragraph from the bottom, last sentence to read: Mr. Dziechowski will not be bringing another Proposed Article in by petition regarding buffers.

The minutes of December 21, 2006 were reviewed and the following corrections were made:

Page 1, Correspondence #3, correct spelling of 'Dziechowski'.

Page 5, 3^rd paragraph, first sentence to read: 'they were concerned that the 'brush' was being dumped into the wetlands'.

Page 5, last paragraph motion to read: Mr. DiMaggio made a motion to substitute (replace) the improper text.

Mr. Stewart discussed RS5, second paragraph from the bottom. Changes were made on Winslow Drive by the developer without going before the Selectmen first. The Town Engineer was aware of these changes and okayed them. Mr. Stewart stated that a revised plan should have been presented. Mr. Stewart stated that the Town Engineer should not approve any change without a design change. Changes made may make the road unable to meet road specs. Mr. Stewart felt that they could make this change work. Ms. Killam asked if they had requested a new plan. Mr. Keach was informed that it would require a plan but still recommended a 90% bond reduction on that binder. The Board questioned if there is another side to this story. Selectmen should go to Town Council for advice.

The meeting was closed at 10:30 PM.

Next scheduled Public Hearing meeting January 18, 2006.

APPROVED________________________Respectfully submitted,

Carol Kater

.