Ms. Killam called the meeting to order at 7:47 P.M.

Ms. Killam welcomed new alternate member Timothy Dziechowski to the Board and asked members to update the contact information list.

The minutes of March 3, 2004 were reviewed.

The minutes of March 17, 2004 were reviewed.

The minutes of April 7, 2004 were reviewed.

The minutes of April 21, 2004 were reviewed.

All members are voting.

This motion could be amended should a member, not present at this meeting, have an objection.

Ms. Killam asked Board members if there is a more favorable time to start the meeting than 7:30 P.M. She observed that some members have difficulty arriving at the meetings before 8:00 P.M. She expressed concern that if the meeting were changed to an 8:00 P.M. start time that members would not arrive until 8:30 P.M. Another concern was that the meetings would be over too late.

Ms. Killam stated that it is frustrating waiting until there is a quorum to start a meeting. Mr. Fletcher stated that he has a problem getting to the meeting before 8:00 P.M. This may also be a problem with Mr. DiMaggio. Mr. Earley felt that the time should stay as is and wait until there are enough members for a quorum. Mr. Fletcher suggested that members call in to let the Board know that they are on the way so that the chairman would not have to call them. Ms. Killam thought it would be better for a member to call when they are not coming. This is especially important when the meetings are televised.

Ms. Killam asked the Board if, as chairman, she gave them enough of a chance to have their say during a hearing and they gave her their vote of confidence.

Ms. Killam reported that the amendments that were made at the April 7, 2004 Workshop Meeting had already been made several years ago. The copies of the Rules of Procedure that were distributed to the Board did not reflect these changes. No action is needed.

Mr. Kukshtel distributed copies of his amended Proposed Wetlands Zoning Article. The Conservation Commission feels that the current Zoning Article is overly restrictive in some ways and not restrictive enough in others. The Planning Board reviewed the proposed article by section.

After some discussion, the question was raised as to how the edge of a wetland is determined and if there was an easier method to determine this. Mr. Kukshtel stated that a wetland scientist would have to make this determination. How the high and low water mark is measured was also discussed. Mr. Earley noted that, in this discussion, the word 'probably' was mentioned three times. He stated that when this Board and this Conservation Commission is gone, somebody else would be trying to determine what 'probably' means to them. Mr. Kukshtel stated that they would have to talk to someone who knows more than we do, like a wetland scientist. Discussion continued on what it would cost to hire a wetland scientist to flag the edge of a wetland. Mr. Kukshtel agreed that it is not an inexpensive proposition. Mr. Earley asked how the town can identify a wetland on a residents property when they come in for a permit, how will the town know if there is a wetland on the property. Mr. Dziechowski asked if there was some simple procedure available to help the building inspector make a determination, such as photographs to identify wet areas. Mr. Kukshtel stated that there are some records of larger wetlands but not for the small areas.

Mr. Guishard noted that there is no language in the document that states that if there is a small wet area on a piece of property the owner would not have to go through a wetland scientist. Mr. Guishard stated that he went through this before and it took five months to get a determination. They way the language reads in this document, if you construct a pond on your property it becomes a wetland. This is also the case on a golf course, which means that fertilizer cannot be used.

Ms. Sullivan noted that the Board has not been through the second page of the document and we are dealing with 'interpretation'. Ms. Killam agreed stating that if the Board can't interpret this how can the homeowners understand it. This is why we have to keep discussing it. Ms. Killam was concerned with the homeowner who wants to add on a garage, does someone on the Board or a building inspector ask if they have any wetlands. Or do they have to come in and offer this information. Ms. Killam asked what the building inspector does in this situation. Mr. Kukshtel stated that he looks at the lot before he signs the permit. If they have a questionable wetland area, does he deny them a permit? Mr. Kukshtel stated that he will look at the area and if he says it is a wetland the permit is denied and they would have to go for a variance. Ms. Killam asked at what point the homeowner needs to hire a soil scientist noting that there is a line in the document that states that the area must be determined by on site inspection by a certified soil scientist. Mr. Kukshtel stated that it depends on what the Zoning Board wants to see in order to determine if the five criteria are met. Mr. Kukshtel stated that it is highly recommended that a soil scientist make the determination. There is nothing in the regulations that say a homeowner has to do this in order to get a variance. Ms. Killam stated that it does not indicate this in the language. Section 410:4b was changed to read 'When the precise location of a wetland boundary is required it must be delineated by a licensed wetland scientist'. Ms. Killam also had an issue with Section 410:5c - Passive recreational uses and this language will be amended. Several housekeeping changes will also be made.

Section 410:7b states that a homeowner can go to the Zoning Board for a Special Exception, instead of a variance. This regulation was read and discussed and it was thought that, under this regulation, a soil scientist might not be needed. The definition of 'vegetative buffer' was discussed. Also discussed was how these regulations will be enforced.

The Board asked Mr. Kukshtel to send copies of this draft to the Zoning Board for their input and this will be put on the agenda for the May 19^th meeting.

This discussion was closed at 9:20 P.M.

The next discussion was opened at 9:22 P.M.

Ms. Killams stated that we understand bonding from the perspective that, when a subdivision is granted, Mr. Keach will remind the developer to post a bond, which will be recommended by the Planning Board and sent to the Selectmen. No one understands what happens behind the scenes. We are attempting to put this information into a document that can be interpreted easily.

Ms. Killam suggested that the Board takes the draft document home to read it and it will be brought up at the May 19^th meeting. At that point it should be sent to the Town Engineer for his input.

Next Planning Board meeting - Public Hearing May 19, 2004.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 P.M.

APPROVED_______________________Respectfully submitted,

Carol Kater