At 8:05p.m. Ms. Killam opened the meeting to the public televised portion where applications are handled.

Ms. Killam read the list of abutters; present was Gilles Gagnon, Salem, NH and Tim Lavelle of James Lavelle Associates, Hampstead, NH, representing Mr. Gagnon.

Ms. Killam pointed out that this was a plan that had been dealt with before but time had run out, no one attended the meeting to represent the plan and so the Board had no choice back then but to disapprove. Mr. Lavelle took responsibility and noted a number of items had been added to the plan as had been asked. He pointed out on Sheet 3- added screening that the abutter to the rear had requested (resident in Salem). He received a letter from Mr. Keach this evening with corrections and everything on the list is essentially cleaned up.

Mr. Lavelle submitted a conceptual design (per Mr. Keach’s request) and can certainly add the septic design to the sheet. He noted that the drainage has been taken care of; leaving only a few items in the letter to be addressed.

Ms. Killam suggested reviewing Mr. Keach’s letter and then the Board will take jurisdiction. Mr. Keach summarized his letter of recommendations as a result of his technical review of this plan. 1) State permit for septic system, 2) driveway permit prior to building permit, 3) zoning is clean, 4) Planning matters: #1,#2 are perfunctory, #3 written statement of intent not clear to department heads, #4,5,6,7 not as important; #8-Looking at the plan, retaining walls proposed, he explained on the north side the wall holds back the slope and on the south side the wall holds up the slope (sheet 2 of 5 and 3 of 5). The height of the walls is not enormous, but not inconsequential. The south wall causes the parking spaces to be higher than the lot itself so there is a guardrail specified and fences on the walls. Recommend safety fences 4’ high. Planning Matters continued: #9,10,11,12 not as important; but #13 was spoken of at the December meetings, Mr. Wolters, a residential abutter in the rear in Salem, this reflects his comments about screening (sheet 3 shows landscaping/berm on the retention base but not the tree lines; existing tree lines are on sheet 2) it bridges the gap. Pros and cons of white pine vs. blue spruce were discussed along with compliance with a 15’ screen.

Mr. Dziechowski suggested in looking at sheet 1 he felt the screening was doing more for lot 16/79 than for lot 16/3 which is Mr. Wolters lot and who is more concerned. Mr. Lavelle will add more trees rather than argue.

Ms. Killam asked to deal with the question of jurisdiction.

Mr. Earley suggested doing a site walk, checking the side walls, and sending the plans to department heads. Mr. Lavelle noted that he agreed with all the recommendations in Mr. Keach’s letter and will add the safety fences to the top of the retaining walls as he doesn’t want to create a liability. Mr. Keach suggested for this type of retaining wall some manufacturers of segmented units having cat walks with holes (economical and easy to maintain) where you can’t easily do a fence.

Mr. Earley made a motion to continue this hearing to the May 3^rd meeting at 8:00p.m.; (and send the packages to the department heads which Mr. Lavelle said he could do by Thursday, April 20^th) Mr. Sapia seconded; Vote: unanimous. 8:25p.m.

Mr. Dziechowski asked to announce that there would be a public hearing on Tuesday, May 2^nd at 7:30p.m. to discuss the purchase of a Conservation Commission plot on East Road with Conservation funds/The Busby lot.

Mr. Dziechowski also had another item where an issue had been raised at the Selectmen’s meeting regarding the Town enforcement of site plan, zoning and wetlands violations. He spoke to Town Counsel regarding the Wetland Ordinance and was given RSA 482A:14-

BII: Municipalities may apply to Superior Court for injunctive relief against existing violations or pending…. The reason he suggests this note to basically light a fire under the state now, because if the town were to go to Superior Court, the town would be asked why the state wasn’t aware about this already.

Ms. Killam suggested writing letters to the Commissioner of the Bureau and getting our state Reps and and Senators involved in making phone calls to get something started sooner rather than ten months later.

A representative for Ted Stewart stepped up with concerns Mr. Stewart had with Mr. Gagnon having stock piles of stuff on his site and so he took some pictures on the town’s right of way that shows the retaining wall, etc and can be used on the site walk on Thursday.

Mr. Dziechowski asked regarding the pink book, what regulates the house numbers; and Ms. Killam answered nothing. It is strictly done by the Fire Dept.

Next meetings will be May 3, and May 17. Ms. Killam adjourned the televised portion of the meeting at 8:35p.m.

Review of the meeting minutes of February 15 indicated only grammatical errors due to cut and paste process. Corrections to be made. Mr. DiMaggio moved to accept the minutes as amended; Vote: unanimous by those in attendance at that meeting (Ms. Killam, Mr. DiMaggion, Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Guischard, and Mr. Dziechowski).

Review of the meeting minutes of March 1; approved as submitted by Ms. Killam, Mr. DiMaggio and Mr. Dziechowski attendees.

The minutes of the March 15^th meeting were not available; copies were made and distributed for review at the next workshop meeting May 3^rd.

Meeting adjourned at 8:55p.m.

APPROVED:_May 17, 2006_________

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Joanne Carbone