Ms. Killam called the meeting to order at 7:41 P.M.

Continued to the next meeting.

The developer is before the Board to discuss the Fire Chief's letter as it pertains to Jameson Ridge - at the end of Woodlawn Ave. and how and if it ties to the proposed Winslow Drive.

The Fire Chief's letter was read. In relation to providing fire and rescue protection to the residents, Chief Murphy noted the length of the roadway that ends in a cul de sac is a problem, and recommended a secondary means of access and egress at the rear of the property to town owned property attaching to Woodlawn Ave., much like what was done in the Pope Road project. Sections 310:1 and 400:2 were referenced. The dwellings within the development are required to be sprinkled. In the past, AHJ has waived this requirement provided pressurized fire hydrants are installed. This would require a system capable of 500 gallons per minute for a two-hour duration. Note 8 on Sheet S3 does not properly request this. Chief Murphy asked that, in the event fire hydrants are chosen and an official waiver is requested and granted by the Fire Chief, that it is properly bonded and no construction permit be issued until the system is completely installed, tested and approved by the Fire Department. The proposed road name (Winslow Drive) does not conflict with any other roads in town and is approved by the Fire Department.

Ms. Killam noted that what is needed is a fire lane similar to the one at Pope Road. In response to a question, Mr. Stewart stated that the access at Pope Road does not get plowed and felt it would be a good idea if the Homeowner's Association have control of this right of way. At present, Woodlawn Ave. gets plowed to the end. A gate will be added at the end and from that point to the cul de sac should be the responsibility of the association.

In response to the concerns raised by the Fire Chief, the developer stated that the duration of the water would be changed to 2 hours as was requested. If the developer cannot get the hydrants to work the houses will be sprinkled. The notes on the plan will reflect this. Regarding the secondary means of access, additional survey work has been done and a 12' wide graveled access road is being proposed which will tie into Lots 11 & 12 with a shared driveway. Parking will be provided for these lots off the shared driveway. The gravel path will extend from the end of the shared driveway, which will minimize the impact. An easement will be provided for all of this. Winslow Drive will eventually be a town road. The homeowner's that are sharing this access would be responsible for maintenance. Ms. Killam stated that, in order to make this work, there has to be strict easements stating that this is a fire lane access only. The developer offered to increase the width of the paved driveway to 18' but this was rejected because the Board felt it would encourage people to park there. The deed to the homeowners would be subject to an easement and the easement would be defined as a right to pass with no obstructions.

Mr. Earley asked if there was 50' between the buildings. There is a note on the plan stating that buildings not 50' apart will be sprinkled. Ms. Cheney asked who would be responsible for enforcing the 'no parking' in the shared driveway noting that there is room for only one car and the possibility of 'no parking' signs was suggested. The developer suggested a 12' paved fire lane with 2' graveled shoulders. Ms. Killam felt that a shared driveway would not affect the sale of a house. Ms. Killam asked how many times an association plows a road before the town accepts it. Mr. Stewart stated that he would like to see a note on the plan and in the Homeowners' Association Documents that make the association responsible for maintaining the section of the fire lane on the property. The developers hoped that whoever plows the driveway would plow the fire lane. Mr. Morse and Mr. Consentino did not agree and felt that if the town wants the fire lane they should maintain it. Long term maintenance is also a problem. Also discussed was the maintenance of the road to the pump house. The Homeowner's Association would be responsible for this.

Ms. Killam suggested the road be paved with a gate at the wall for the shared portion maintained by the Homeowners' Association. In response to a question from Ms. Cheney, Ms. Killam stated that a draft version of the easement would be provided. After the shared section the lane will be 12' wide paved with 1' gravel shoulders on either side to the gate.

A poll of the Board showed that the Board was, in most cases, satisfied with what was discussed this evening. Mr. Consentino would like to save as many trees as possible. Mr. Morse and Mr. Guischard were not completely happy with the plan as discussed but agreed to go along with it. Discussion continued on what the Board will require for the width of the easement.

The discussion was closed at 8:55 P.M.

The next discussion was opened at 8:58 P.M.

Copies of the Rules of Procedure were distributed and reviewed. Ms. Killam apologized for misinterpreting a rule when she did not allow Mr. Consentino to vote at the last meeting when he should have been allowed to vote. If Mr. Consentino is not present there are only 6 voting members. If the ex-officio cannot attend a meeting the Board of Selectmen need to appoint his replacement. Ms. Killam referred to Section II, #3 regarding alternate members. We can have up to 5 alternates on top of the seven regular members. She announced that Mr. Miller would be the new alternate member.

The Board reviewed the document.

One Public Hearing must be held before the Board can vote on these amendments and the motion will be tabled to the next meeting.

Mr. Stewart felt that Section VI, #8, Page. 3, should be the responsibility of the applicant. It was suggested that this be added to the checklist.

At this time Mr. Earley and Ms. Killam were sworn in for their new terms.

The next discussion was opened at 9:27 P.M.

The wording for the way performance bonds get administered in the town was discussed and it was suggested the wording get put together in one document so that it could be understood without searching through the book. Ms. Killam felt that this should be worked on. It is a lengthy document and should be reviewed.

The Board decided to put this on the next Workshop Meeting and that it should take precedence.

Mr. Consentino left the meeting at 9:29 P.M.

1. To define new a "Wetlands Conservation District" which

comprehensively includes wetlands and certain wetland buffer areas

around those wetlands.

Mr. Kukshtel distributed copies of "NH Towns' Wetland Buffer Requirements" (March 2004) for the Board's information and for comparison. He also presented Connecticut River Valley Fact Sheets re: Buffers.

Mr. Kukshtel reported that he has not worked on this document since the last meeting. His personal feeling was that the document was getting too far away from what he envisioned. The Conservation Commission feels very strongly about certain aspects of the document and they are willing to go forward with the petition process if necessary. Mr. Kukshtel would prefer working with the Board.

Ms. Killam stated that the problem with a citizen's petition is that the petitions are not always worded well or thought out well. They have to be heard at a Public Hearing by the Planning Board but no changes can be made. They go to the ballot as written. Mr. DiMaggio felt that if they can't get satisfaction from the Board by the third try they should go to a Citizen's Petition. He urged Mr. Kukshtel to try to work with the Board and felt that the Board and Conservation were not too far apart. It was suggested that the issues be heard one at a time and the issues be resolved on an individual basis.

Mr. Kukshtel hoped some regulations could be relaxed and others made more restrictive. He agreed to write something up for the Board to look at. The Conservation Commission's primary concern is that they would like to see something greater than a 100' buffer for those areas titled Ecologically Significant and some protection as to what can be done in the buffer. The 'no cut no disturbance' can be reworded but there needs to be some language that provides reasonable guidelines as to what you can or can't do in the buffer. Further discussion followed on trees being cut in the buffer. Mr. Stewart felt the issue is very complex and Mr. Kukshtel added that he could work with the Board on this issue. Forestry and tree farming is allowed in the wetlands.

It was suggested that Jim Gove be asked to give a presentation to the Board at a Workshop Meeting. Ms. Cheney will work on this.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 P.M.

Next Planning Board Meeting - Public Hearing April 21, 2004.

APPROVED_________________________Respectfully submitted,

Carol Kater