October 12, 2021 | Town Admin TOWN OF SUTTON Pillsbury Memorial Hall 93 Main Street Sutton Mills, NH 03221 PLANNING BOARD Draft Meeting Minutes for Tuesday October 12, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. Chair Wells called the meeting to order at 7:00pm and took roll. ROLL: Roger Wells (Chair), Chuck Bolduc, Glenn Pogust, Christine Fletcher, Dane Headley, David Hill ABSENT: Peter Blakeman OTHERS PRESENT: Peter Stanley (Land Use Coordinator), Kristy Heath (Recording Secretary) Chair Wells called the meeting to order at 7:00pm and took roll. There was a quorum. Public Hearings: 1. Peacock Hill Road, LLC, Formal Application for a 7 lot Cluster Subdivision. It was noted that the applicant was asking for three waivers. They were for the following: General Lot Configuration – in the subdivision regulations, it is noted that the length to width must be at a 4:1 ratio. Site Distance for Driveways – in the subdivision regulations, there is a requirement for there to be a 250’ long line of sight. The road being built is only 250’ long so they will obviously not meet sight requirement Complete Utility Plan – Peter said that no complete plan has been submitted as the applicant has said Eversource will provide a plan once the town has approved the subdivision and recorded it. This plan is integral to the road regarding where all of the utilities will be located. Discussion: General Lot Configuration – Glenn said in a cluster development there is no requirement that there be specific lots or lot size. Peter said a cluster could actually be constructed without any lots whatsoever. Site Distance for Driveways – Peter said the requirement is for there to be 10 times the speed limit, which in this case would require a minimum of 250’. This is not possible as the road is only 250’ long. Chair Wells said this is a legitimate waiver request as the regulation is intended for a long road. Utility Plan – There was a suggestion on the plan of some conduits but it is not a complete plan. The suggested reason is that Eversource will make the design once the actual plan has been approved and recorded. Peter said he wasn’t sure that Eversource creates their plans taking into consideration other utilities. Chair Wells said the application has very clear delineations on where trees will be removed. It is important to know where utility lines will go; above or below ground. His inclination is to deny this waiver request. Peter said it has been indicated by the applicant that all the utilities will be underground. There is no indication, however, where transformers will be and details about location. Chair Wells said this is important to know as this will determine the impact to the trees on the property. It was moved by Glenn Pogust and seconded by David Hill to open the public hearing to take comments regarding the waiver requests. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. Attorney Zolinski, on behalf of Peacock Hill Road, LLC, said the focus is on the last waiver; the utility plan. Five months ago his client contacted Eversource and he was told that they would not create a utility plan until the plan has been approved and recorded. Unless the board has another suggestion, this poses a problem. Eversource does the plan for free and so they want to make sure the configuration has been approved by the Town. Glenn asked why they don’t have anything in writing from Eversource; they have no way to verify that this is how Eversource works. Glenn said he wasn’t saying they don’t trust the applicant, but the board has to act in a legally responsible way. Chair Wells said if a plan they come up with doesn’t meet a conditional approval (meaning that they are going to impact a lot of trees), the Planning Board won’t approve the plan. Attorney Zolinski said he could make an effort to get something in writing from Eversource with the understanding that the waiver would be on hold until then. Amy Manzelli, representing the most direct abutters to the subdivision, the Thomases, passed paperwork around for the board to see. She said the applicant has not done the legal work to ask for a waiver. They need to provide evidence of an unnecessary hardship. This has not been provided to the board. In her opinion, none of the waivers should be granted. Ms. Manzelli said she wasn’t sure why the waivers couldn’t be conditions of approval. There is a wise requirement in Sutton’s laws for utilities. With respect to the sight line, this may have some merit for the future; the distance may not be available in the future and the legal requirements may be satisfied; she thought it premature at this time to grant the waiver request. The distances discussed are likely going to be obsolete by the time the applicable plans are the approved DOT plans. Chair Wells said the application, no matter what, is not for driveways coming off the existing road; it is for a newly proposed road. The entire length doesn’t meet the requirement from one driveway to another. To meet the nature of a cluster, the driveways have to be together. Even if the DOT changes the location of the entry, the road is still just 250’ long. They may have other problems if the road moves from where it is but that will not change the site distances for the driveways. Ms. Manzelli thanked Chair Wells for the clarification of this being about the internal road. Chair Wells said for the utilities – if they don’t give a waiver, the application is incomplete and cannot be heard. Ms. Manzelli said the way the wording is, it is that the information won’t ever need to be provided to the board. Chair Wells said that needs clarification; it just means for the application to be approved, they do want the information. Glenn asked about the issue Ms. Manzelli brought up about there being a hardship when asking for a waiver. Ms. Manzelli said Article XI explains there needing to be a necessary hardship, in writing, to the board explaining the reason the waiver should be granted. Chair Wells said that in their discussions, the second and third request have been discussed as being hardships. Glenn said the term “undue” and “unnecessary” mean very different things. David Hill asked about the possible movement of the location of the driveway on Sutton Road, as the board has not been notified about this. Ms. Manzelli said that Ira Thomas called DOT who noted this possible change. Chair Wells said that the State may be doing some study to determine the best location for the road off of Sutton Road. Christine Fletcher said if the lot shape isn’t an issue with a cluster, why is there a waiver being asked. Chair Wells said that it is a point of clarification that this issue does not apply. Ms. Manzelli said the ratio is not what is intended for a cluster subdivision. The elongated shape is the opposite of what is intended in the ordinance. The waiver is needed because they don’t meet the intent and spirit of the ordinance. The public hearing was closed at 7:29pm. It was moved by Glenn Pogust and seconded by Dane Headley to waive the requirement for a 4:1 depth to width ratio for each lot. The motion was approved unanimously. The waiver was granted. It was moved by Glenn Pogust and seconded by Dane Headley to grant the waiver of the requirement in the subdivision regulations for a driveway location not less than 250’ from another driveway on the provision that there are no driveways of this subdivision that would enter onto East Sutton Road, but on the internal road constructed by the contractor, which is only 250’ in total length. The motion was approved unanimously. The waiver was granted. It was moved by Glenn Pogust and seconded by David Hill to reject without prejudice the waiver requested of the subdivision regulations as the board doesn’t have sufficient information to grant the waiver in particular what may or may not be provided by Eversource as guidance to the town on improving the plan and providing a complete utility layout. Chair Wells said the town will want something from Eversource at some point. If no letter from Eversource is provided, it is doubtful that the waiver request will be granted. Dane said if Eversource says they will create the plan after the approval, it would be one thing, but after it is recorded, it is too late for the Town to do anything about it. Peter said to keep in mind whatever plans are approved and something may be found that requires a plan to be changed, that can happen. The applicant will communicate with the Town and they will make an amendment to the plan and adjustments are made. There are frequently impediments in NH soils that require these amendments to be made. Whatever they approve may not be the end of it. It was noted that the anticipated utilities need to be included in the plan. A vote in favor is to deny without prejudice. A vote was taken: The motion was approved unanimously. Waivers 1 and 2 were granted. More information was needed before the third waiver could be waived. With regards to the application being complete, Peter said the only thing absent is the utility plan, which deems the application incomplete. Chair Wells asked if they granted all three waivers, would it be considered complete? Peter said it is complete, conditioned on receiving satisfactory information for the next meeting. Peter said it is important that they get what they need before they move forward as the 65-day clock begins upon their decision. Chair Wells said there is no reason the applicant can’t prepare a utility plan with the understanding that it may need to be amended once work begins. This can solve the issue of completeness. David Hill said that at an earlier meeting there was discussion about trees that would be cut. He wasn’t sure if there was something specific as far as the intent of what would be cut. He feels that somewhere in the plan or application, something should be stated regarding the intent for tree-cutting. Where is their protection that the applicant isn’t going to clear-cut the whole property? Chair Wells said he doesn’t think that the Planning Board had the right to control tree removal on a lot. Glenn said that a complete application doesn’t necessarily mean that they agree with everything they want to do; it is not a particular of completeness. Chair Wells said that he hoped the applicant hears that the Town would like a representation of what the intentions are with tree-cutting. Dane said significant tree cutting requires an intent-to-cut permit from the Select board. It was moved by Glenn Pogust and seconded by Chuck Bolduc that the application is not yet complete in the absence of one requested waiver. The motion was tabled so there could be public comment. It was moved by Glenn Pogust and seconded by David Hill to open the public hearing. The motion was approved unanimously. Attorney Zolinski said a vote on the completeness of the application has to be made at a public meeting and not a public hearing. Peter agreed. The public hearing was closed. Chair wells asked for a vote on the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. Peter said the next step is to continue to the next meeting, which is November 9, 2021. The applicant agreed that they would like to continue to the November 9th meeting. It was moved by Glenn Pogust and seconded by Chuck Bolduc to continue the meeting and public hearing on Peacock Hill Road for a 7 lot subdivision to the November 9, 2021 Planning Board meeting at 7pm. The motion was approved unanimously. Chair Wells said an escrow account needs to be set up so that a wetands scientist can be secured. This information, as well as information from Eversource about their utility plan should be provided to Peter Stanley. Martin Gross & Jenna Hastings – Conditional Use Permit Application for access to a lot through Wetland Buffers Peter Stanley said the road is on Shaker Road. The map showed the wetland boundary and the property; it is impossible to leave Shaker Road and get to a viable building site without crossing a wetland. This application is for a request for a conditional use permit to use a crossing to access the house. There were three violations from the previous owner as part of the project which have been corrected by the current owners. For example, the previous owners dammed a pond to allow access and didn’t undam it, and a temporary driveway permit was used to create a permanent driveway. The applicant is applying for a conditional use permit and there are two waivers to consider. Tom Carr from Meridian Land Services was there to represent the project. He said he met with Peter Stanley and Henry Howell from the Sutton Conservation Commission to talk about the history of the site. He then walked the site with Henry. The buffer impact for the driveway is being discussed. Some sites had not revegetated from a previous cut and they plan to regrade and replant those areas to prevent further erosion and stabilize the areas. Glenn said there was no application for a subdivision but the wetland conditional use permit is part of the subdivision checklist and is therefore required. His sense is that there is no requirement at all other than do the specific wetland checklist points. It is an inconsistency in the interrelationship between the wetland and subdivision checklists. He was fine to waive the application for a subdivision. It isn’t relevant. Peter said the second waiver has to do with before and after runoff calculations. The driveway has been there and stable since 2008 and he doesn’t see any issue with it. Glenn agreed; he didn’t know how they could do anything to fix the drainage without making it worse or disrupting it more. The driveway is discreet and direct to the site. He found the explanation credible considering the situation in that area. It was moved by Glenn Pogust and seconded by David Hill to grant the two requested waivers as part of the conditional use permit process. Chair Wells asked about the driveway material. Tom said it is currently gravel and will remain so. A vote on the motion was called: The motion was approved unanimously. Peter said in his opinion, the application was complete. It was moved by Glenn Pogust and seconded by David Hill to accept the application as complete. The motion was approved unanimously. Mr. Carr said the applicants purchased the property a little over a year ago. He recognized that there may be violations with the property. He looked into it and found no wetlands permit for the driveway, and found buffer violations that had not been addressed. They had not yet purchased the property and were willing to go through the permitting and restoring the wetland regulations. They hope that after the next meeting the property will be considered “legal” and will get a septic design which will make it ready for development. They got the wetland restoration permits from the State. He is pleased at how the brook has recovered already. They are now into the wetland restoration monitoring program which is monitoring the wetlands 2x/year for three years and report back to the state. As part of the wetlands permit for the driveway, the driveway is a little wider than the DES wetlands bureau would approve. The fill installed was more than what was approved. They will have to restructure the driveway and pull back some of the fill and restore some of the wetland. That is part of a four-year approval done during construction. They met with the Conservation Commission on September 8 and went over the plan with them and got a unanimous approval to support both the conditional use application and the zoning application. Chair Wells asked about a concrete truck coming across the driveway; would it hold? Tom said that they have been over the driveway with a full-size excavator (60 tons) and he sees no reason why the driveway isn’t stable and able to sustain the weight of a concrete truck. Peter said the property has been logged and that machinery is about 40 tons. He felt it was stable. Chuck asked if the slopes of the driveway would be done after the construction was complete. Tom said that the summer was too wet to tend to this area and DES is OK with that. They are in compliance with that. It was moved by Glenn Pogust and seconded by Chuck Bolduc to open the public hearing on the conditional use permit application. The motion was approved unanimously. There were no comments from the public. The public hearing was closed. It was moved by Glenn Pogust and seconded by David Hill to grant the conditional use permit contingent upon the variance applied for by the ZBA also being granted. The motion was approved unanimously. Sam and Christine Dube – Amendment to a Subdivision on Pound Road (North) Peter showed the map which shows the Dube property, as well as the property of Morse, and Mills. A note appears on the original plan which was recorded saying lots 1, 2, and 3 shall not be further subdivided. In the minutes, it was noted that this was volunteered by the people doing the subdivision and not a requirement of the Planning Board. The Dubes are requesting the ability to subdivide. Ms. Fournier, previous owner of the property at the time of the subdivision, was in favor of allowing subdivision. The other owners in the subdivision may like to subdivide as well. The Dube property is 52 acres, and the other properties are 33, 55 acres. They are amending the final approval that was made in 1998 to delete the note from the plan regarding further subdivision. Peter said it is unusual to amend a subdivision this far down the road. There is nothing in the minutes to suggest that there was anything else going on that would result in a denial of a future subdivision. Dane asked if the abutters were notified. Peter said they were, as well as the abutters of all the other lots. Glenn said the minutes from the meeting in 1998 show an extensive discussion of everything except for this note that was put on the plan. By doing this, they are not granting a subdivision, they are only giving the possibility for them to come to the town to subdivide. Peter said if this is approved, each property owner should go to their attorney to have their deed reflect the new plan once it is recorded. It was moved by Glenn Pogust and seconded by David Hill to open public hearing the public hearing. The motion was approved unanimously. There were no comments from the public. It was moved by Glenn Pogust and seconded by David Hill to approve an amendment to a subdivision plan owned by Douglas and Linda Fournier on Pound Road, made on August 11, 1998 to remove note #1 forbidding further subdivision. Plan is number 14522 Recorded October 15, 2:50pm, 1998 at the Merrimac County Registry of Deeds. The motion was approved unanimously. An updated mylar was signed by the members of the Planning Board and would be recorded at the Registry of Deeds. Review of Minutes of September 14, 2021 It was moved by Christine Fletcher and seconded by Glenn Pogust to approve the Planning Board minutes of September 14, 2021 as circulated. The motion was approved unanimously. Other Business: Peter said the wetlands scientist he has selected is, in his opinion, the best in the state. He has worked with her a lot and he has no doubt that the wetland delineations are accurate. He doesn’t think things will change much but she needs to look at it. It is $1,800 for her services. Nobis Engineering will review the plan and best management practices for design, storm-water management, and will produce a report. That review is $2,600 and does not include any on-site inspection or follow up with road construction or estimates for what the overall construction will cost for bonding purposes. If the applicant wants to get moving with this, they can make a deposit into the escrow account and have the engineering review done before it is accepted as complete. It was discussed that there would be multiple conditions of approval including the road, drainage, winter construction, etc. It was moved by Glenn Pogust and seconded by Christine Fletcher to approve the consultants selected by Peter Stanley to perform the work as proposed. The motion was approved unanimously. Budget Peter said the budget won’t be much different except for two steps in the Master Plan. Mike Tardiff of the Regional Planning Commission would like to take the project through the implementation phase (zoning changes) which would be an additional $6,000. The last piece is the economic development side, which is $3,300. The budget would go from $34,900 to $45,600. This is not a contract; it is a budget item. Peter questioned whether or not they would get to the economic development side in 2022. He thought perhaps they should stick with the $6,000 piece which would help with a 2023 zoning change. Chair Wells thought the proposal was a little vague. It wasn’t clear how many zoning amendments he would propose. Chair Wells said he would make a suggestion: they need to modify the rural agricultural section, do the village zones, and do the R&D. If Mr. Tardiff can do those three for $6,000, that’s what he would choose. Chair Wells believes they should do the villages first and foremost. It was moved Glenn Pogust and seconded by and David Hill to adjourn. The motion was approved unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:35pm. Respectfully submitted, Kristy Heath, Recording Secretary Town of Sutton