June 22, 2021 | Town Admin TOWN OF SUTTON Pillsbury Memorial Hall 93 Main Street Sutton Mills, NH 03221 PLANNING BOARD Draft Minutes for Tuesday June 22, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Wells called the meeting to order at 7:03pm. ROLL: Roger Wells (Chair), David Hill, Chuck Bolduc, Peter Blakeman, Glenn Pogust, Christine Fletcher, Dane Headley Others Present: Patrick Riviezzo, Bette Fredrickson, Ira Thomas, Danielle Thomas, Amy Manzelli, Chari Parker, Emily Wilmott, Shawn Laliberte, Carroll Thomas, Art Siciliano, Daniel Muller, Zachary Brock ADMINISTRATIVE: Approval of the Draft Meeting Minutes of June 8, 2021 It was moved by Glenn Pogust and seconded by David Hill to approve the minutes of June 8, 2021, as circulated. The motion was approved unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: To review a Major Subdivision application submitted by Peacock Hill Road LLC, 15 Constitution Drive, Ste. 1A, Bedford, NH 03110, for a 7 lot Cluster Subdivision on Map/Lot 01-173-097, a 100-acre parcel of land on the West Side of East Sutton Road, as permitted by Article IX of the Sutton Zoning and Building Ordinance. Chair Wells said the applicant got an approval from the ZBA for a 7-lot subdivision on the property. The restrictions were that if the plans changed from what was approved by that board, they would need to come back before the ZBA. The Planning Board’s job is to review the application when complete to determine that it is being done according to the rules and regulations of the towns, specifically pertaining to cluster subdivisions. Chair Wells explained that the first part of the process is the applicant submits an application to the Land Use Coordinator who reviews it. The meeting is advertised and abutters are notified. It is up to the board to decide if the application is complete. If it is deemed complete, they can proceed with the public hearing. If they decide there are things missing, items that need to be added or changed, it would be considered incomplete. Chair Wells asked Peter Stanley if the application was or was not complete. Peter Stanley said in his opinion, there were a variety of things missing from the application rendering it not complete. There are no waiver requests, and at least three are required – one to waive the requirement for Preliminary Design Review (as required by Article V, A, 3 of the Subdivision Regulations), a second to waive the lot configuration requirements (Article IV, E of the Subdivision Regulations), and a third to waive driveways having less than the minimum 250’ sight distance (Article III, C of the Driveway Access Regulations). There are no documents regarding the requirements of Article IX, D, 6 of the Zoning Ordinance – long-term ownership, disposition, and protection of Common Land. Exhibits required by Article IX, F, 1-4 & 7 of the Zoning Ordinance are missing. These cannot be waived. Electrical power plans are not provided (per Article IX, E, 3 of the Zoning Ordinance – underground electrical utilities, unless otherwise permitted in advance by the Board). Peter Stanley’s recommendation is that they do not proceed with the public hearing. Chair Wells said the Planning Board will initially review and talk with the applicant about all the items that have been submitted and what their concerns are. There is typically a lengthy discussion. The public will be allowed to speak but not during that point. He asked people to take notes about things they want to discuss when the Planning Board is done discussing with the applicant. The public will have an opportunity to speak. When all the comments have been made, the Board will discuss it further and decide how to proceed. Chair Wells said that their Land Use Coordinator has identified missing components to the application. He asked for a motion to approve or disapprove the application as complete. It was moved by Glenn Pogust and seconded by David Hill to declare that the application is incomplete. Glenn added that he has reviewed the application and the subdivision regulations and the cluster ordinance and looked at the missing items. He agreed that those identified by Peter were not provided and are required; they can’t proceed without these documents. Peter Blakeman asked about Article IX, section E5, sewage disposal. He wondered if it was asking for septic plans for each lot to be approved? Chair Wells said the applicant could apply for a waiver if they didn’t wish to provide this. Peter Stanley said typically, the applicant doesn’t get a building permit for the individual structures until or unless they have an approved septic plan from DES. To his knowledge there is no plan of having a community septic service or well; each lot will function independently. This is a requirement from the zoning ordinance so would need to be a condition of approval. Chair Wells said it would be an approval with condition; the septic requirement of the State must be met and proven before a building permit is issued. It was noted that test pits have been done. Glenn said they can’t begin to deliberate until they accept a complete application. Chair Wells said that if the applicant identifies things that are vague or oddly written, they should get in touch with the Land Use Coordinator or speak with the Board at a meeting. They wish for the applicant and the public to voice any issues through the process. Roll call vote: Pogust: Yes, Hill: Yes, Bolduc: Yes, Fletcher: Yes, Blakeman: Yes, Headley: Yes, Wells: Yes The motion was approved unanimously. The application has been deemed not complete. Chair Wells said that the applicant can come talk with the Land Use Coordinator to get clarifications on what is missing and get that information back to the board in the time allotments that are provided in the ordinance. The information will be available to the public to review prior to the meeting. They will be notified of another meeting. Chair Wells asked if the applicant wished to amend or add anything to what he had said in his application. The applicant said he would have liked to have known that his application was incomplete before that evening. He would like to continue the meeting until next month. Chair Wells said it would need to be submitted by the 15th of the month preceding the second Tuesday of the month of the meeting desired. Chair Wells said the hearing has not ended, it has been continued to the next meeting as per the allowed notice timeframes. Peter urged the applicant to submit an application for a preliminary review, not a final review. Chair Wells said the ordinance asks for a preliminary and final; if they don’t want a preliminary they have to request a waiver. Amy Manzelli is the attorney for the immediate abutters, the Thomases. She said that once a board has decided an application is incomplete, the proceeding has hit a dead end; it is over. If they choose to submit a new application, it is a new proceeding which triggers a new abutter’s notice. Chair Wells asked for the reference on this (RSA). Amy said she did not have it, but it has been her experience in the past that this was the way it goes. She urged the Town to check with legal counsel if they disagreed. Chair Wells said they are not rejecting the application; they are stating that it is not yet complete. He said that the Land Use Coordinator contact Town Counsel about this, and they will advise abutters and the applicant of Counsel’s opinion. Mr. Stanley said there is no time to resubmit and re-notice for a meeting in July. The second Tuesday of August (the 10th) is when the meeting has to be rescheduled. They have missed the deadline for the July timeframe. Mr. Stanley said the applicant needs to update their application and abutters notice list (the town updated the abutters list for him), and pay to re-notice the meeting in the paper. With no other business, Chair Wells called for a motion to adjourn. It was moved by Glenn Pogust and seconded by David Hill to adjourn. The motion was approved unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:29pm. Respectfully submitted, Kristy Heath, Recording Secretary Town of Sutton