December 6, 2022 | Town Admin TOWN OF SUTTON Pillsbury Memorial Hall 93 Main Street Sutton Mills, NH 03221 PLANNING BOARD Draft Meeting Minutes for Tuesday December 6, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. Chair Pogust called the meeting to order at 7:00pm. He called roll and found there was a quorum. ROLL: Glenn Pogust (Chair), Roger Wells (Vice-Chair), Chuck Bolduc, Christine Fletcher, David Hill, Dane Headley ABSENT: Jason Teaster (alternate), Kristin Angeli (alternate), Peter Blakeman ALSO PRESENT: Henry Howell, Barbara Hoffman, Bonnie Hill, Sue Esposito, Marilou Steblai,Bruno Steblai, Dan Rahilly and NH State Representative Tom Schamberg NEW BUSINESS: Public Hearing – Proposed Draft of Revised Cluster Ordinance Chair Pogust said the information on the handout that was provided was also posted on the Town’s website in greater detail. This proposed ordinance is the first step in implementing the 2021 Master Plan update. It is based on a detailed analysis of the cluster ordinance which they found had many issues that needed cleaning up. The Planning Board has tried to maintain the rural character of Sutton in this draft of the cluster ordinance. The goal is to make it so this ordinance can’t be used to avoid the more stringent regulations of the regular subdivision rules. Chair Pogust said that incentives for workforce housing and senior housing are something they would like to implement at some point in the future, but for the time-being they will forego including those provisions. More education on behalf of the board and input from the citizens needs to take place before the Planning Board is comfortable making these things a part of the cluster ordinance. This is something that needs careful study, input and education. For now, loopholes need to be closed to prevent issues like those that have arisen of late with regards to cluster subdivisions. He welcomed the members of the Board to make comments. Christine Fletcher said they have been through an experience this past year that was painful because all they could do was make sure the developer was following the rules, which were not ideal. With this new Ordinance, if a developer is following the rules of the ordinance in place, the Board will be happy with the outcome. David Hill complimented the direction from the Chair and Vice-Chair. He offered that the Board is in favor of keeping useful setbacks to help this kind of development blend into the rural atmosphere of the town. Charles Bolduc said a lot of thought and work went into making the changes in the draft before them. He is happy that there is a focus on there being a benefit to the Town if someone chooses to develop a cluster subdivision and to have a provision for open space to be open to the public. Dane Headley and Roger Wells did not have any additional comments. It was moved by Dane Headley and seconded by Roger Wells to open the hearing for public comment. The motion was approved unanimously. Henry Howell, resident and Conservation Commission Co-Chair, thought this provision was a tremendous step forward for the entire state of New Hampshire which benefits the woodlands and rural atmosphere and preservation of the natural environment. This is important for their tourists and recreation, and those residents who move to Sutton for the ambiance. The provision provides for houses to be built, but it allows for some land to be put into conservation and would allow for public access in some instances. This will allow the residents of Sutton to get outside and enjoy the outdoors. He wanted to mention that the proposed setback is a nice addition, as well. Barbara Hoffman, a member of the Conservation Commission and an abutter of the recent development in Town said she had a few suggestions. She feels they need more information on the applicant in future development. If it is a corporation, they should know the names and addresses of the players, state and location of the corporation. The status of corporations and LLCs in the State exists and Barbara felt that the Town should have a rule that if the applicant is not in good standing, they cannot apply for a permit to do a cluster development. She would like to see the applicant pay a bond for oversight for their project. This may make the Town’s position stronger and will encourage the developers to follow the rules. Barbara added that in California, there is a statute that allows the air quality regulators to review an applicant’s history of compliance. They can deny a permit if someone has been out of compliance in the past. This is something that the Board may want to consider. These applicants will need to get environmental permits and it wouldn’t hurt if the Town was aware of the applicant’s track record. Barbara said there are a few places where “may” should be changed to “shall.” C.1: b2; C.1:d; D.3:b. In E4:c Barbara suggested that the Town provide criteria to avoid litigation. She asked if the Town Attorney had reviewed the draft. Chair Pogust said Town Counsel had reviewed the draft and he would discuss her suggestions with them as well. He said some of the suggestions she has raised are State issues, and not Town issues. He would have to go back and see if the regulations provide that the Planning Board may impose an escrow. If DES is willing to grant an alteration of terrain permit to someone who has violated their standard three times and will grant it again, the Town may not have the authority to deny a permit. He would take Barbara’s suggestions to Town Counsel to see what they say. The Town can require that State permits are acquired, but if the State says “yes” the Town can’t then deny the application on the grounds that there had been non-compliance on other projects. He also didn’t know if they could deny someone based on past history. They can’t discriminate against people. They have to follow all the laws, and he feels that for some of her suggestions they will not be allowed to legislate. Barbara said they don’t want to leave any gray areas, which was her point behind “may” and “shall” changes. Chair Pogust said the Board will take into consideration all of her points. He appreciated her taking the time to really look at the document carefully. Peter Stanley said in New Hampshire, the town can only do what the state has authorized it to do. They cannot make up their own rules, by statute or common law. They are bound by certain limitations placed upon the Town by the state. Bonnie Hill is also on the Conservation Commission. She said the cluster ordinance isn’t something mandatory to do a development, correct? She wondered what kind of incentives there are to opt to do a cluster development instead of a traditional “land-wasting” development. Roger said that there are no lot size restrictions in a cluster development. Dane said that the incentive is to the developer as it costs less to develop in this way. Chair Pogust said lot size, working within a tighter space, and a smaller road are benefits to the developer. Theoretically, more units can go into a cluster than a traditional subdivision but this is all something they need to look further into; the incentives and bonuses will be researched for the future. Right now, they need to keep the number of units the same as with a conventional subdivision and tighten up the ordinance so developers won’t use it to do things the Town doesn’t want. Passing these changes will give time to the Town to design an expanded cluster ordinance that will work for the town and developers, alike. Bonnie said the buffer being increased to 100’ seemed to be a bit of a waste. She felt this was fragmentation for wildlife habitat. Peter said when it comes to rural character of a community, 100’ helps hide the development. 50’ isn’t practical. 25’ is a joke. 100’ hides the development from people driving by and is not visible from the road or the neighbors. Chair Pogust said the buffer also abuts other land that may also be undisturbed. Chuck Bolduc said Bonnie’s comment makes sense in a conservation and wildlife perspective. The fragmented habitat isn’t beneficial to wildlife or recreation. It is something to keep in mind as they think about incentives further down the line. They had talked about areas where there is continuous conserved land. If a project can add to that continuity of conserved land, the developer may be able to get a bonus to reduce the buffer, for example. Chair Pogust said they were told they cannot require applicant to meet with the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board as part of the Zoning Board process, but that the ordinance can encourage the applicant to do so. These two boards could encourage the developers to situate their open space in a way that would add to the benefit of continuous conserved land. The boards could help the developer come up with a design that would benefit from a conservation perspective. Chair Pogust noted that their current cluster ordinance doesn’t actually create what most people would perceive as a cluster. Unfortunately, it is the ordinance the Town must follow until it is changed. Sue Esposito asked where the cluster was they were discussing as being a problem. Chair Pogust said it is on East Sutton Road, is 100 acres in size with seven houses on lots constituting about 12 acres. Chair Pogust asked if anyone else in attendance wished to speak and no one asked to do so. It was moved by Roger Wells and seconded by Dane Headley to close the public portion of the meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. Chair Pogust said he was glad everyone came out that evening that did. It takes a lot of effort to get a zoning change in the town even when it isn’t controversial. They will be spending a lot of time to educate people and he asked that those who are for it, talk it up and ask their friends and others to come out and vote in favor of it. This is just the first step towards creating an ordinance that will include the most important aspects of a cluster ordinance. They will be looking for public input. Roger suggested creating opportunities to talk about this issue in public. Any ideas the attendees may have to create a positive turnout were welcomed. It needs to be viewed as an important first step in getting the Master Plan implemented. This will be voted on by secret ballot on the first day of Town Meeting and not discussed at the open session on the second day of Town Meeting. People need to come to the ballot box educated and ready to vote for the changes. Henry Howell suggested an editorial in the Intertown Record. Peter said they need to pick a date to continue the meeting to, otherwise they would need to re-notice everything. If changes are made from “may” to “shall,” it is substantive to necessitate a continuance of the hearing. Peter suggested doing this on the December 27th to not get into the new year. It was moved by Roger Wells and seconded by Dane Headley to continue the Public Hearing on the Proposed Draft of the Revised Cluster Ordinance until December 27, 2022. The motion was approved unanimously. It was moved by Roger Wells and seconded by David Hill to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:45pm. Respectfully submitted, Kristy Heath, Recording Secretary Town of Sutton