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

Outgoing

Selectmen memo dated 7/27/04 re: Killam Subdivision remaining bond estimate for project.

Planning Board Legal Notice for meeting dated 8/18/04.

Mr. Keach presented a request for a bond reduction for Jameson Ridge for action.

Mr. Keach recommended that this project receive a bond reduction in the amount of $181,288.00, which leaves a total remaining bond value of $664,082.00. The developer recommended holding onto $10,000 for any emergencies.

The Public Hearing was called to order at 8:00 P.M.

Mr. Fletcher suggested that the discussions be limited to 1/2 hour for each presentation. Ms. Killam will attempt to do this.

The abutter's list was read.

Present: Melvin & Myda Muise; James & Shirley Desmond; Bernard Campbell, Esquire.

Attorney Campbell presented the Carriage Chase Subdivision Plan as it is recorded at the Registry of Deeds as plan number D27356. This plan was originally approved in January 1996 and revised in August 1998. The actual signing of the plan was delayed because of litigation to July 1999. Note 14 on the plan indicated that sites 99 through 199 contained deed restrictions. Attorney Campbell noted that the site numbers do not exist. Note 14 was read. The note has previously been amended. At the time of approval the Cluster Subdivision Regulation required a 100' undisturbed landscaped buffer. In 2001 that number was reduced to 50', see Section 600:11.

The Hammond family is looking to install a swimming pool in the area that is adjacent to their home. The Building Department is still enforcing the 100' setback because of Note 14. During a hearing with the Board of Adjustment it was suggested that the appropriate relief was to file for amendment to Note 14 pursuant to provisions in Section 600:22. Attorney Campbell told the Board that the residents of Carriage Chase are supportive of this concept and presented several letters reflecting this for the record.

Attorney Campbell presented language taken from Section 600:8b and proposed some language that Attorney Campbell believes is what the applicant is seeking. Ms. Killam reviewed the old language and the updated language for the audience. What needs to be done is to change the note that refers to the buffer and then take care of the structure setback. Attorney Campbell proposed to replace the language 'no new structures or septic systems in the 100' buffer' is amended to read 'no new structures or septic systems within the 50' buffer and no dwelling shall be constructed within 100' of the perimeter of the parcel'. What Attorney Campbell is proposing is that the buffer becomes 50' consistent with the zoning regulations but the dwelling setback remain at 100'. This will allow a backyard for a septic system or an ancillary structure.

Mr. DiMaggio stated that the abutters have been properly notified and there has been no opposition, which allows this to be treated as a minor change. All abutters, externally and internally, have been notified.

The hearing was opened to the public. The following question was raised. If an article is passed that changes the buffer to 50' and the existing subdivisions have 100' and a minor change is made to this plan, does this mean that the other subdivisions can come in with the same request? The Board agreed that they could, for single family dwellings on an individual basis per subdivision. This minor change may not work for all subdivisions. In reply to a question, Attorney Campbell reported that he did a search of the title and at no point did any covenant documents get recorded and there are no restrictions in any of the chains of title.

Discussion: A question was raised if a new plan showing the 50' buffer zone would be needed along with re-noticing the abutters. This may be needed in the event of a title search. Ms. Killam asked how this would be referenced if someone were to do a title search. It was thought that, on the index cards, Carriage Chase Estates could be referenced or the Board could list the names of the effected owners in the written document. The Board agreed that the names of the effected owners should be noted.

Mr. Morse amended the motion to include referencing and indexing all cards on all lots in the subdivision. Mr. Earley seconded the motion. Motion approved unanimously. Mr. Campbell will coordinate this.

6 members voted

The hearing was closed at 8:45 P.M.

The next discussion was opened at 8:46 P.M.

Mr. Morse stepped off the Board.

Mr. Lewis is back before the Board to discuss a proposed Zoning Amendment and the issue of 'spot zoning' which was raised at the last meeting. They are proposing an amendment to the height restriction from 35' to 55' in this zone and a per building unit restriction from 8 to 33 as it pertains to density calculations. Referenced 64f. Also proposed is a 400' setback from the property line for all taller buildings. It was noted that the buildings would be sprinkled.

Section 620:1 was read. Ms. Killam asked what the amount of acreage is that we are dealing with noting that it was difficult to determine this from the tax map. There are 393 acres involved, owned by Atkinson Farm, Inc. The Lewis Farm located across the road is not included in this acreage.

Mr. Earley discussed Section 501 and 503 of the International Building Codes, which are exactly the same as the BOCA codes and explained how the height restrictions are calculated. Mr. Earley felt that the 55' height could be allowed because of grade. Ms. Killam asked about the new equipment on order for the Fire Department. Chief Murphy was present and described the fire truck and 75' ladder and added that they could work comfortably at approximately 60'. He agreed with Mr. Earley that there should not be a problem with the height. Mr. Murphy noted that the Fire Department would require complete access all around the building in the form of a fire lane. He noted that the buildings are sprinkled.

Ms. Killam stated that the Planning Board should discuss this in a workshop format to work towards getting this proposal on the ballot. The workshop discussions would not make it on the agenda before October or November. Mr. Earley questioned the over 55 population and the impact it would have on the rescue units. Mr. Murphy stated that it would increase the calls to the Fire Department but that the Planning Board has to be aware that if the town continues to grow at this rate, town services will be affected.

Ms. Killam noted that we do not have a building proposal before us we have a proposed zoning amendment before us. The density may be allowed in our regulations and we may not be talking about anything new at all other than more units per building.

It was suggested that Section 530 be looked at for possible language. Mr. DiMaggio referenced 600:7b and 600:1a on Pg. 2, 2^nd last paragraph and the units allowed per building was discussed. Mr. DiMaggio felt that this proposal is workable and he was happy with the 400' setback to the property line proposed. Mr. DiMaggio would like to see a figure of how many units will be in that acreage and how this could benefit the town.

Ms. Killam stated that the Board would have to decide if they can support the proposed article or if it will go to ballot without the recommendation of the Board. Mr. Lewis stated that he would prefer to work with the Planning Board on this. Mr. Keach will work with Mr. Lewis to get the proposed article advanced. A poll of the Board indicated that they agree with Mr. Lewis and would like to work with him.

The discussion was closed at 9:30 P.M.

Mr. Morse returned to the Board.

The next discussion was opened at 9:31 P.M.

Busby Construction - Re: Road Construction Inspections and Specifications.

Mr. Busby is before the Board to discuss the Jameson Ridge construction inspection process. He noted differences between the notes on the plan and notes located on the back sheets and he wasn't sure which notes to follow. He asked if he should deal with the notes on the plan or the zoning regulations. The back of the plan is standard detail. Mr. Keach stated that Mr. Busby's confusion has merit and told him that he should go with what has been approved. Mr. Busby had specific questions on this particular plan which Mr. Keach answered. Mr. Keach asked the Board if he could continue to advise Mr. Busby without consulting the Planning Board and the Planning Board agreed. It was noted that there is a fine line that constitutes an engineering decision or an amendment to the plan.

The question of excess scrutinizing by some people regarding the construction of the road was discussed. Mr. Keach felt that this is behind them and that this job has moved along as well as any job. Mr. Stewart noted that the inspectors have no authority in enforcement. This is the responsibility of the Selectmen. Mr. Keach stated that if there is a complaint received about a project to call his office and he would address the issue.

Mr. Stewart stated that the Board of Selectmen would like to see any outstanding road bonds once a year by Keach-Nordstrom and this should be added to the inspection list. There is nothing in place to mandate the town engineer to do this. Mr. Keach referred to Section 340:2a and it was read. Mr. Stewart asked who is responsible for payment for road inspections where the roads are not owned by the town. Ms. Killam thought that this process could use some fine-tuning and suggested a package document be drafted by Keach-Nordstrom. Mr. Keach showed the Board what form he is using now and what the procedure is. Mr. Keach will make this form Atkinson specific and will send it to the Board for their review.

The discussion was closed at 10:00 P.M.

A five-minute recess was called.

Mr. Fletcher left the meeting.

The next discussion was opened at 10:15 P.M.

Conservation Commission - Scott Kukshtel - Proposed Wetland Zoning Changes.

Ms. Killam had asked the Board to read the latest document presented at the last meeting and Mr. Kukshtel would answer any questions they had. Ms. Killam asked if this document covers storm water protection, DES, New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control, and US Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Kukshtel was not sure but will research it.

Mr. Kukshtel stated that he would like this to go to public hearing as soon as possible. Two public hearings are needed before it goes to ballot.

The Board recommended that this be put first on the agenda at that time.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:29 P.M.

Next scheduled Planning Board meeting September 15, 2004.

APPROVED_________________________ Respectfully submitted,

Carol Kater