March 22, 2022 | Town Admin TOWN OF SUTTON Pillsbury Memorial Hall 93 Main Street Sutton Mills, NH 03221 PLANNING BOARD Draft Meeting Minutes for Tuesday March 22, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. Chair Wells called the meeting to order at 7:02pm and took roll. ROLL: Roger Wells (Chair), Glenn Pogust (Vice-Chair), Chuck Bolduc, Christine Fletcher, David Hill, Dane Headley ABSENT: Peter Blakeman OTHERS PRESENT: Peter Stanley (Land Use Coordinator), Jacques Belanger, Gary Fitzgerald, Daniel Muller, Zachary Brock, Barbara Hoffman, Ira Thomas, Gary Watkins, Tim MacKay, Scott and Cheri Parker, Emily Wilmott, Shawn Laliberte, George Nixon, Anthony Costello PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2022-03, Lang Property Merger Chair Wells said this is a merger of two lots on Camp Kemah Road. One lot has a house on it and one lot is a sliver; both lots are owned by the same people. The owners want to combine the lots, which, Chair Wells noted, had to be approved. It was moved by Glenn Pogust and seconded by David Hill to approve the lot merger for Lang properties, case number 2022-03. The motion was approved unanimously and the application form signed. 2021-02 Peacock Hill Road – Major Subdivision Application Chair Wells said that the Town has the application and the Planning Board deemed it complete at their last meeting. This approval set the clock going for a 65-day timeline. The board’s review that evening is a planning and site plan review and is not a zoning review. The Planning Board can make requirements for things having to do with the design, but the fact that seven lots are allowed as a cluster subdivision has already been decided by the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA). Chair Wells said that the normal procedure is that now that everything has been submitted, we can proceed to review the submission. If the applicant would like to make some comments up front, that is fine. The Board has all that is required for it to proceed with their review, which was what the plan was for this evening. If something is said that anyone in the audience would like to discuss, he asked them to please keep a note of it and speak when the opportunity has been offered, which will happen. Everyone will have an opportunity to speak. The amount of time will be limited to 5-10 minutes to allow everyone to speak who wishes to. If someone has already made a comment or asked a question, it isn’t necessary to bring it up again unless there is additional, critical information. Chair Wells said that he would stop the meeting if it was not completed by10pm and continue the hearing until the April meeting. The applicant was welcome to make any comments at this time. The applicant said they were all set and had nothing to add. Peter Stanley said that when the ZBA approved the Special Exception for the cluster subdivision there were five conditions: one is that the lot size and frontage for each of the lots remain within 10% of what appeared on the plan dated April 2021. Barbara Hoffman, Sutton resident and neighbor, wrote and submitted a letter to the Town, which was distributed to all, about this condition in light of changes in the proposed plan due to wetlands, the road moving, etc. Mr. Stanley advised that he did a comparison between the plans and the lot sizes remained essentially unchanged. They are all very close — within a few hundredths of a percentage – to what they were initially. However, two of the frontages changed; lot one changed 16% and two changed 26%. This happened because the road moved 25’ and the lines moved as a result of having to relocate houses to fit everything in. Peter said he spoke with the applicant about this and about what needs to happen. Unless they want to go back to the ZBA they will need to adjust the road frontage of two parcels down a few feet to remain within the parameters of the ZBA’s conditional approval. Chair Wells said the ZBA likely wouldn’t be upset with the frontages or the lots being larger, but in any event, they need to be changed. Chair Wells thought that if this could not be completed prior to the Next Planning Board meeting this would need to be a condition for approval by the Planning Board. The applicant said they would change the parcels to meet the ZBA’s conditional approval. Peter said that this would need to be done by the April meeting, which, because it was a minimal change, could easily be done. Peter thanked Barbara Hoffman for pointing out this discrepancy. He added that it would be helpful to see a table, for comparison, on the plan that shows the current lot sizes from the April 2021 plan and the frontages as well. The new frontages must be within 10% of this plan from April 2021. Engineering Report and Applicant’s Response to it: Chair Wells asked whether the houses would be sprinklered. The applicants said they would. Chair Wells said that this item will have to be a condition of approval. There was a question about whether the recreation field was being relocated from the storm water storage area. The applicant said this would be done. Glenn said that the applicant also had a materials storage area within the recreation area on the map. To get to these materials, the storm water detention area must be crossed. They could go around this area, but he wondered if this was the intent and whether it was feasible. Peter said he was under the impression that nothing involved in stumpage and rough grading was going to be left on site but would be removed. The applicant agreed; it would all be removed. Chair Wells asked if it is specified on the plans that all such debris will be removed from the site? The applicant said that there is a note somewhere that says this is so. Chair Wells asked the applicant to make sure the note is on the plan so it is clear and there is no question about it. Chuck asked if there would be any materials stockpiled during construction. The applicant said there would not, outside of the road’s right-of-way. The applicant said they provided a supplemental sheet showing where such materials may be stored temporarily. It is on sheet 3B of 7 of the engineering documents. Trail Chair Wells said that the trails have been shown on the map. Note 8 has been removed, as requested, and the construction sequence has been amended and is on sheet 6. Road Design Chair Wells commented that this has been resolved and dealt with. Underground Utility Lines and Legend Chair Wells said that this should be on the plan. Waivers Requested There were requested waivers and other updates to the plan that had been made: Intersecting property lines at road intersections need to be joined by a curve radius of at least 200’ – this waiver still needs to be voted on. No horizontal curve shall have a centerline radius of less than 100’ – this waiver needs to be voted on with respect to the hammerhead turnarounds. The 4 to one ratio – This waiver was granted on 10/12/2021. Driveway sight distance – this waiver was granted on 10/12/2021. 5.Storm water Culverts – this has been addressed. Roadway sections have been revised. Section notes have been revised Guardrail has been revised. Driveway detail has been added. Chair Wells said that it has been noted that the disturbed area during construction will be under 99,999 square feet. Under storm water drainage submission, the analysis has been revised to account for the recreation field. The detention pond has been redesigned as requested. Chair Wells indicated that the applicant claims the runoff from the northeast to East Sutton Road is so small that they don’t believe it needs to be addressed further. That issue will be discussed as part of the discussion of the Drainage Calculations. Cost estimate Peter said reasonably the cost estimate is off by a factor of two. If the developer walks away and the Town has to complete the project and go out for bids, no one will do it for $80,000. The Applicant indicated that a revised estimate has just been submitted. Chair Wells said that the Town’s engineer should review what has been resubmitted so they know if it is enough, coming from an expert. Peter said he would rather pay a contractor to do this review. Glenn said an engineer doesn’t know today’s costs, but a contractor does. It was moved by Glenn Pogust to retain a contractor recommended by Peter Stanley to review the cost estimate and provide the Town with their opinion of the realistic cost estimate, and such expense for the contractor shall be paid for by the applicant. Chair Wells explained that the applicant has to bond for the construction costs and if they back out, the Town is responsible to complete the work. That makes it important to get a real price for the project. Glenn said once the work starts there will be a cost to remediate the work; either completing it or taking it out. David Hill said looking at the cost estimate he wants to ask questions of the applicant about some of the items. Can this be done now or let the contractor comment on this. Chair Wells suggested allowing the contractor to give their opinion first. David said a line item in the cost estimate doesn’t make sense to him. David asked about the silt fence, which was listed at 185’. Christine said it was 285’ at $3 per foot. When asked, the applicant said that he contacted a contractor out of Warner to modify the prices in the estimate, and they came up with a new cost estimate of about $130,000. Peter said he hasn’t seen this cost estimate. The applicant said it was sent in with the new drainage report. Peter said that this is a higher number than the $80,000 that had been suggested. David said in an area this large, which portion needs a silt fence? The applicant said only the downslope side that has a road being built around it. Chair Wells called for a second to the motion. Glenn’s motion was seconded by Dane Headley. The motion was approved unanimously. Waiver 3 & 4 Chair Wells said that there was a request for a waiver to Article 8, Section B1. This has to do with intersection roadways being joined by a curve at least 200’ in radius. He noted that this is the regulation only if using curves to approach an intersection. The applicant is using a straight line at the intersection. Chair Wells said this regulation applies to the property line, not to the road design. Glenn said the engineers felt it was reasonable to waive this requirement. Chair Wells said that there was a request for a waiver to Article 8, Section B2. This has to do with the notion that the centerline of a horizontal curve must have a radius of at least 150’. He said that this is moot for a hammerhead turnaround because the subdivision regulations clearly allow less than a 150’ radius. Development Plans Chair Wells said that there were five sheets total. Glenn said on sheet #2, he would like to see the storm water detention area delineated too. Although it is detailed on another drawing, it should be designated on Sheet 2 so it can be identified on the subdivision plan. There is also a storm water detention area adjacent to the playing field that doesn’t appear on this page. Chair Wells said the proposed road “B” needs to be named and the Planning Board will need to approve it. He asked them to come back with a name next time. Peter noted that the name cannot be the same name as another road in the town. He said that Elly (Town Administrator) will check this to be sure. Chair Wells asked about the18 acres referenced in the plan; is that the common land for recreation? Is that all the land inside of the proposed trail? Or is it the entire property? Peter said it is the crosshatched space on sheet 2. Chair Wells said the Cluster Regulations require 25% of the application to be open space. That means for this subdivision it is about 25 acres. This is easily achieved here. Also required is a min of 20% of that 25 acres, which is five acres of land that is suitable for outdoor recreation. It doesn’t say it has to be improved, but suitable. Chair Wells said he read that to mean some improvements would need to be made to make it suitable. Five acres should be shown. He assumes the trails that are shown are what they are figuring for part of the outdoor recreation area. Chair Wells said he calculated the trail to be about 1.5 acres in size. The playing field is about half an acre. The wetland overlay district has uses that are allowed: forestry and tree farming for construction of access roads. Within the wetland buffers, trees can be removed and the land used for recreational uses consistent with the intent of the purpose of the Wetlands Regulations. Chair Wells suggested removing some trees and seeding with grass to create a playing field or meadow that can be used could include wetland buffers. If they look where the proposed recreation field is now proposed and the area around it, there is room to create at least 2.5 acres of field. With the acre and a half of trail the applicant can get to the required five acres. Since this is a Zoning Ordinance requirement the Planning Board cannot waive this, but they can give the applicant direction on how to achieve this acreage. Chair Wells thought the easiest and most useful idea would be to take the area behind lot four and the end of the new road and open those up to be a level playing field. He asked for board member input on what they’d like to see. Chair Wells repeated that in the wetlands district, wetland uses permitted include forestry and tree farming, to include construction of an access road for such purposes. Chuck asked if this conflicted with DES. He said there are buffers around wetlands for the purposes of forestry. Peter said they can only cut trees in a wetland when they are frozen. He didn’t think that wetlands were buffered. Chuck said his concern is that, while he likes the idea of open fields, he doesn’t like the idea of them being open right up to the wetlands. This opens up a possibility of pesticide use on the field which will run off into the wetland. Chair Wells said that would not be permitted. Chuck said regardless, these things still happen sometimes. Sheet #3 Chair Wells said this shows the area that can be timbered. The applicant has the right to go in and timber this part of the property up to the time of the transition date when in fact, all the lots have been sold. If there is a real difficulty for the applicant to get the five acres, he thought there could be a consideration that the back part (shown on Sheet 3) not be part of the application. Glenn said they have to consider the entire lot because it is a subdivision of a single parcel; they can’t say they aren’t going to count a particular section. It is all part of the lot to be subdivided. Glenn said they could add more trails in that area shown on Sheet 3 to help make up the five acres of recreation. Glenn said the transition date is when the owner conveys the property to the homeowner’s association or another owner. How will they get into this timber area there after the road is built? Peter said because of the wetlands there is no way to get back there unless they go over the access to the small recreation field proposed now. Chair Wells said this should be in the conditions of the covenants. Glenn said the key on using the area shown on sheet 3 for additional trails is they may have the potential to deal with the percentage of the recreation area in a less impactful way and provide better access for the residential owners and others. Sheet #4 Limits of Cutting Utility Plan – Eversource’s plan doesn’t have a legend so they don’t show where the transformers or pads, etc. are. The applicant said Eversource didn’t want to provide any plans at all. They also won’t put together a detailed plan until a subdivision is approved. Since the Applicant had recently submitted a Utility Plan with EverSource’s data Chair Wells said he would ignore the original Eversource’s plan. He would, however, like pole 34 located so it is absolutely not in the clear site triangle. He doesn’t want it obstructing the view of the southern part of the existing road. David Hill said the pole had already been placed. Chair Wells said even so, it still needs to be moved it must be to assure safety. Glenn asked if the flagging now present on E. Sutton Road is for the old entrance or the new entrance. The applicant said the southern stakes are the new ones. The others were left there because they were frozen. Chuck asked Chair Wells if he was satisfied with the tree line with regards to the utility cutting plan. Chair Wells asked who was putting in the driveways. The applicant said they were doing it themselves. Driveways would be put in as the houses are built, not all right away. Chair Wells said because there are so many driveways which are so close together as well as leach fields needed, and utilities, in his opinion, it seems that most of the trees between the driveways and around the houses were going to be gone. It won’t be woodland anymore. He was inclined to say to the applicant that they don’t want any trees more than 10” in diameter removed unless they are in the driveways, as shown. They should be concerned with the backs of the lots; those areas can be left treed. Chair Wells said the leach field doesn’t show any trees being cleared, but they need to be. The applicant agreed. Chair Wells said he thinks it is better to recognize the amount of cutting instead of creating hopes of it being a treed area. The applicant said they will try to keep as many trees as possible. They will try not to disrupt the roots to kill the trees on both sides of the driveways. Sheet #5 was the yield plan. Engineering Drawings Sheet #1 Chair Wells asked what “FES” was referring to. The applicant said it was for: Flared End Section. Chair Wells wondered where the water energy dissipated would be going. The applicant said it would be at the end of the pipe. Output protection is at the end of the pipe. Riprap will be located there to help deal with it. Peter brought up the plunge pool on the plan. He said that it is across the contours and dumping down to the wetland buffer. He would recommend that the contractor be required to move this and have an area that involves a combination of a trench and a level spreader, perhaps armored, to allow water to disperse in a less concentrated fashion than a plunge pool. Chair Wells said there weren’t any calculations showing how big the scour pad has to be. The applicant said it is on one of the sheets. Chair Wells said nothing explains the size and why that size was chosen. The applicant said this is based on the diameter of the pipe. The applicant said the pipe will be 12-15”. Peter suggested it should be 15”. In some places in the plan, it shows 15” and some shows 12”. The applicant said the pipe has been shrunk to control the flow. Chair Wells thinks the scour hole is not as good a plan as Peter Stanley’s suggested plan. Peter said they can get a longer level spreader. The applicant said there is not a lot of storage with the level spreader, but with the scour pad, it holds more and dissipates slower. The water will go downhill from either way but the Applicant said he thought the scour hole was a better idea in this area, but if Peter would prefer a level spreader, he would put it in the plan. Glenn said given the frequency of high volume rainfalls, he would like to see something that is over-engineered. Chair Wells said if they want to keep the scour hole, that’s fine but there should a level spreader as well. The low side should be parallel with the contours of that slope. He is worried about fast-moving water going into the wetlands. Peter said they are particularly concerned with the abutter; even if the rate of water won’t increase due to the development, it will run longer because the volume has increased. The applicant said he could drop the pipe at the bottom of the scour hole, which would create a slower flow into the hole. He didn’t think the level spreader was the best way, but he would change it if that’s what the Town wanted. Sheet 2 of 7. With respect to site-lines from the road entrance on East Sutton Road, Chair Wells said the code on the plan doesn’t specify what “eye-level” is in a car. It is typically 3.5’. The applicant has used 3.75’ which avoids the sight line touching the road. The applicant said DOT gave them that number and it has already been approved by them. Chair Wells said if that is the case, he has no further issue with this item. Chair Wells asked what the grades are around the hammerhead, which is around the edge of the swale. Applicant said those are 2:1. Chair Wells said at the end of the road the slope is meant to be 4:1 which the detail says, but it drawn as 1:4. He asked the applicant to correct this. The applicant said that it is exaggerated on the drawing. Ditch Grate Detail 3B of 7 Chair Wells asked where the ditch grate is being used: The applicant said at the outlet for the detention pond. This is just called a ditch grate; it isn’t actually in a ditch. Peter said he didn’t see a required minimum compaction for the road bed. It has to be a minimum of 95%. The applicant said 95-105% was what they were planning. Peter said there should be related testing to insure this percentage is met. He explained to the Board that each one-foot lift gets compacted to 95%. Drainage Calculations Chair Wells asked the applicant to explain what is meant by a “reach.” The applicant said it is a pipe, or something else transporting water from one place to another. So a pipe to a detention pond in this case. Reaches are described in a sub-catchment; the reach describes what happens to the water as it leaves the detention pond and goes to another sub-catchment. Sheet 2 of 2 of the drainage plan Chair Wells asked if there was going to be a detention pond at location 13P. The applicant said there was not; that is a driveway culvert. Chair Wells asked if 14P was off-site. The applicant said 14P shows where everything drains. This shows the max peak flows, volumes and how much water is leaving the property. Chair Wells asked if this should be in the hatched area. The applicant said he could move it. It is what goes through that wetland, goes to the detention pond, and goes through 14R and off the property. Chair Wells said his concern is that if he was the owner next door with wetlands and this construction was being proposed, he would be concerned if something didn’t work right or potentially fail, if say there was a huge storm, everything would come whooshing onto his property. The applicant said that at13P there is a 12” pipe there. A whoosh of water will be controlled as it goes through 14R. This is in the calculation. He added that currently, they are assuming where the houses and driveways are going to go. The houses can go left or right and it is hard to design these things in detail until they actually know where the houses will go. Chair Wells said he is concerned for the property owner near the wetlands. Something put in that area as a safety gauge would be helpful to show that the developer is being a good neighbor. He didn’t think it would be a big or expensive addition to the plan. The applicant noted that if they were to add something here, like a detention pond, the Town would take it over and be responsible for maintaining it. Glenn said the Town wouldn’t take it over. Peter said it is either the homeowner association of the property owner responsible for it. Chair Wells thought there could be an easement on the property that would allow access to it for maintenance. The applicant said they have provided three areas where they are trying to divert and retain water. They have a buffer, a detention pond with a catch basin (which will have a small hole to let water go through), then a pipe to slow the water down again. They have it set so peak flows will not all come to the same place, but will be diverted. The idea is to slowly stop the water and change the peak flow so it isn’t dumping on the property at the same time. They have done at least three kinds of yields or slowdowns. The applicant said the intent of the design is to work as good as it works today, or better. The last thing he wants is to design something that will wash someone’s driveway out. He wants to make sure everyone is happy. The intent is to control the peak flows going onto the property. With respect to the northeast end of the property along East Sutton Road, Chair Wells asked if there was any problem with there being a small catch basin added? Glenn said without it, the road is too vulnerable; it wouldn’t take much to protect it. Chair Wells said it will be small, that is fine. The applicant asked who would be responsible to maintain this catch basin. The applicant said they would place an easement on that part of the property for maintenance. Chair Wells agreed that this would be appropriate. The applicant said instead of cutting down trees and building a pond (catch basin or pipe) at the northeast end of the property, the water will now flow onto the road. The water will increase ¼” in height in a ditch. This ditching would cut down on maintenance that would normally be needed for a catch basin and will allow the water to travel north along the western edge of the road for approx. 50’ to a cross culvert. This alternative is included in his updated drainage analysis. Peter said the Town has not received an updated drainage analysis. The applicant said that other towns don’t want to maintain catch basins. A ditch can be more easily maintained because the town is already doing ditch work anyway. Peter said this is a State road but the State will probably not do the work to maintain the ditches. David said he didn’t believe there was a ditch on the side of the road that the applicant was referring to. He added that 1/8” of water would flow into the sheep field across the way. If there was a ditch, that would be fine, but there isn’t one. Chair Wells said if there is an alternative he would like to hear it. The applicant asked if the State would be the one to worry about this? Chair Wells said he is trying to address conditions and impacts to the neighbors. The State doesn’t consider these kinds of things. Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions and Easement Chair Wells said he would like an “unimproved” definition added to the definitions section to mean: “areas that have not had trees removed (except for dead or severely diseased ), that have not had the existing terrain modified by either filling or excavating, and that do not have any man-made structures.” Open Space under 2B Chair Wells said the path needs to be addressed as far as how it is being dealt with. The applicant said if the plan shows 20% and this references the plan, do they still want a written description? Chair Wells said he would like both. 2.3a reserved rights: Chair Wells thought the applicant should add words that when the transition date is to occur, at least 48-hours prior, the Planning Board is to be advised (except for weekends and holidays). Glenn said why not ask for 14 days? The applicant said that real estate closing dates change several times before actually happening. Glenn said that within seven days after going to contract with respect to the transition, the Planning Board would like to be alerted. The applicant said he would provide for notification to the Board that the transition is in process and he would come up with wording to make this clear. Glenn said they don’t need an exact closing date, just to know that something is in the works. Chuck said he noticed that in paragraph 1.10 it says that the property can be transitioned to an unrelated party. In para 7.6 the words are conflicting. It says that it can be assigned to a corporation or to a different entity that the applicant owns under a different name. The applicant said that some people transfer these kinds of things to an LLC, so it is still the same person. The zoning ordinance defines who can own this; it is either the owner, the Town or certain non-profits or a homeowner association. This wording allows for them to transfer the ownership into an LLC. Chuck said he doesn’t know what the intent of the open space land is and who it goes to, but the way it is written doesn’t look like something the Town’s Conservation Commission or the local land trust would take over. If the intent is for this land to go to one of those organizations, the verbiage has to be right. The applicant said this wording is included to comply with the town’s zoning regulations. Chuck said whatever the intent is, it should be stated. The applicant said once approved, there will be a condition of approval that they would need to record Declarations and the declarations would run with the land going forward. Chuck said he sees maintenance, etc. which wouldn’t be taken over by the Town’s Conservation Commission. The applicant said the wording is kept open so it can go to someone that has been selected and the Town’s zoning ordinance is followed. It identifies which groups or people it can go to. Chuck asked what happens if no one wants it? The applicant said they’d have to go to the homeowner’s association. Chuck said as it is right now, the Conservation Commission or Ausbon Sargent Land Preservation Trust wouldn’t accept this property if it was requested of them. David said he recalls the first declaration. This new draft is much more detailed. Chair Wells opened the meeting to the public hearing at 8:38pm. The public was welcomed to come forward and ask questions. Ira Thomas of 105 E. Sutton Road spoke first. He had a handout for the board with bulleted concerns, which he read through. Mr. Thomas said that copies of his handouts are also available at the Town Office. Several handouts were provided, including emails and photographs. Glenn said part of the issues brought up were NHDOT issues. Chair Wells said he believes NHDOT will say something needs to be done by the developer with regards to the drainage. Chair Wells said that the applicant should receive a copy of all the handouts. Ira said that he had enough copies to go around. Chair Wells said the applicant will have a chance to respond to the points in Ira’s presentation at the next meeting. Chair Wells said they are not bound by the State to require sprinklers. However, the fire chief can sign off on a sprinkler system that is put in. Chair Wells said cisterns can be used. Chair Wells thanked Ira for bringing this information to the attention of the Planning Board and the applicant. The information should be addressed by the applicant at the next meeting. Ira passed out a final handout, which was a letter composed by his wife, who was unable to be present at the meeting. George Nixon, owner of the property at the southern of the property spoke next. George said that 89 people signed a petition against the project. He thanked the Town for asking a lot of good questions of the developers. He felt that they were all focusing more on the north and the west of the development. George feared that the south side would have water running off right into his driveway. In the 25’ buffer area there is no drainage or retention area. The buffer area is basically his yard. They need to impede the flow and/or cut down on the volume. George said that in the future, they are going to have less snow and more rain, which will be a problem with flow. He added that the 99 acres has never had well water brought up and he consulted the US geological survey at UVM. For the three houses on his side, the average weight of a house for a 3-bedroom house and three persons living inside, is estimated at 687,000 pounds. That’s over 2 million pounds of construction that will be within 75’ of his property which is already wet in some places. Nobis Engineering has even showed concern about the water. He has only one way out of his driveway and fears being trapped or unable to get into his home. He anticipates foundation problems as well if more water is brought onto his land. George went on to say that 12,000 gallons a month per month per house will be used and put back into the ground. This amount of water has not been seen on this property before. He fears the water problem to be imminent. George said he sent a letter to the Town previously that wasn’t read into any record or responded to. But he is thankful for the questions that were asked that night because they were all the right ones. It was clarified that the letter had been sent with respect to the ZBA consideration of the plan and was not directed to the Planning Board. Peter asked George what size pipes are under his driveway. George said either 15” or 18”. There is water running through them all the time and even so, there is standing water on his property. They can anticipate that there will be an increased flow and environmental issues and they need to plan for this. Peter asked George if he would accept improvements to his property to deal with the anticipated volume flow if they were to make it a condition of approval. George said if they trenched it, not deep, they could have the water go out back. He would be appreciative of any help he could get in this regard. Zachary Brock is not an abutter, but lives down the hill from Mr. Nixon. His concern is runoff from the property. The 14B catchment area goes onto George’s property and under the driveway into a vernal pool. From there the water goes into his own property and within 20’ of his dug well. He is drinking the surface water and is worried about the water quality. Zachary wanted to make sure he gets a comprehensive water test done before this happens. He is concerned. He doesn’t understand from the drainage report if any water flows from East Sutton Road which is poorly drained and maintained. This is a State road. Chair Wells suggested contacting NHDOT about these concerns on East Sutton Road. Chair Wells said that the engineer said that those southern lots in the subdivision will drain internally. Zachary said he hasn’t seen a subdivision like this before. There are three driveways running in parallel within 350’. He doesn’t envision a tree surviving with the driveways being cut and the compaction work. That forest is pretty scraggly pine and he thinks it will be very ugly. Chair Wells said the way the ordinance is written, there isn’t a lot they can do in this regard. Zachary said he didn’t think people come to this part of the State to drive next to their neighbor’s driveway for 350’. Glenn said they have to comply with the ordinance. For now, there isn’t a lot of leeway. Chair Wells said they are looking at the cluster ordinance this year and will to try and amend it for the future. Gary Watkins of 62 Sutton Road lives across from the proposed development. He referred to the wetlands survey that was reviewed in November and again in December. In the latest plans, he sees that there were some new wetlands added. Peter said that this was done in November by the third party wetlands scientist that the Town hired at the expense of the developer to review the wetlands as they had been delineated by the developer’s wetlands scientist. They jointly went to the site to do this and flagged the wetlands locations. The surveyor was there shortly after to take the measurements for the new delineation boundaries. Peter said this was done by the surveyor on January 5, 2022. Gary asked for the wetland scientist’s report. He said that there is one wetland delineated that isn’t accounted for on the latest plan. Peter said they resolved between them what was or was not a wetland together so the plans may not be the same. Chair Wells said if that is true, the applicant should make sure the missing wetland is put on the plan. Gary said it is designated as the recreational area; the most central one. He was curious as to why it wasn’t added. Maps were compared to see if all the wetlands appeared on all the plans. Gary said he is concerned that this was all done in the winter and should be done in a growing season. Peter said the land was reviewed prior to any snow. He said the Town’s scientist did the delineation prior to the snow being on the ground. Gary said he feels like the Town’s wetland’s scientist’s report should be followed. Peter said the scientist they hired trained most of the other scientists in the State. Peter said the survey was delineated before the winter and that’s just flagging. The surveyor comes and picks up those measurements to apply to the plan to show where the wetlands are, spatially on the plan. It doesn’t matter what time of year the measurements are picked up. Chair Wells said the applicant’s surveyor can check to see if it was done on the ground or by satellite. The surveyor was present and said it was in the field not by satellite. Gary asked if the wetlands scientist could confirm the measurements. Peter said she has fulfilled her duties and was not required to review the plans after the surveyor picked up the measurements. Gary was concerned with what was on the plan in relation to what the scientist has plotted. The surveyor said Tom Carr was the wetlands scientist for the applicant. The surveyor said they are looking at a page in the report marked with a pink highlighter but that he goes out and maps things within inches. Chair Wells said the Board would take this under advisement. Gary said he would like the plan to be confirmed as accurate. If they are different, another survey should be done. His main concern is that it is done properly. Barbara Hoffman, 70 East Sutton Road said she submitted a letter to the Town, which was referenced earlier in the meeting and they all received. She provided a copy of the letter for the record and to the applicant. Barbara thought there were some great comments that came out at the meeting. She wanted to endorse Ira’s comment to require a drainage study in the northern portion to consider contours to make sure there isn’t additional runoff onto East Sutton Road. She asked about a traffic study. It is a State road, which turns into Eaton Grange Road which is a Town road. A lot of people go that way to get to the high school. Ira said that portion of the town road is impassible currently. Glenn said most dirt roads are like this in VT and NH because it is mud season. Barbara noted that there are no sidewalks and everyone walks on the road. She walks her dog at least once a day and others are outside with their kids. It is a narrow road and with the increased traffic, she thinks it would be a good idea to do a traffic study to see how it would affect the area. Glenn said the applicants have a right to put seven houses on the property; what is a traffic study going to tell them? They can’t be required to reduce the number of houses. If anything, the way this development is being designed is reducing the cuts into the roads from possibly two to one, so there is less going in and out. They can’t change East Sutton Road and we can’t limit the number of houses to less than seven. Barbara said the ZBA said they could only talk about frontages and the traffic would be the purview of the Planning Board. The subdivision regulations say traffic is something that is supposed to be looked at. She recalls another attempted subdivision on the other side of Eaton Grange Road that was denied by the Planning Board because of the traffic situation. Chair Wells asked how many houses were currently on the Sutton side of East Sutton Road. It was suggested that there were 11 houses. Chair Wells said he would go look at the permitted traffic volume that is feasible for a road this size when adding seven houses. He suspected that it wasn’t over the limit. Glenn asked how the applicant proposes that the drainage be calculated on the finished grades if the houses aren’t completed. There is nothing they can do to require them to be laid out prior to being finished. Chair Wells said the finished grades on the lots aren’t going to affect the flow; it will be the same. The water will now go into a buffer or an open space. It isn’t going to be graded differently. Barbara said if cutting trees, adding driveways and construction, they are going to have more runoff. Chair Wells said the engineering report takes all of this into account in a detailed manner and calculations to determine the size of the pipes, catch basins and energy dissipaters. The Town has asked the applicant to make sure they are properly dealing with drainage so as to not affect the adjoining properties. Chuck said if they take into consideration the trees staying everywhere they are not adequately calculating the runoff, as some of the trees on the plan are actually being cut. Chair Wells asked the applicant about this. The applicant said whatever they assumed would be cut for the house and driveway was included. Leach fields aren’t 4,000’ these days, they are much smaller. Barbara didn’t think that this had been done for the northern part of the property. The applicant said it has been done but apparently not provided to the Town as he had hoped. Scott Parker, of 78 East Sutton Road spoke next. He said that East Sutton Road has no ditches. On the northeast side of the property there is a culvert that has been plugged for over 20 years. All runoff, where there is no drainage on the north side of the development, runs into Ira’s property, across the road and floods into his. Scott said he has added a culvert into his property and water drainage into one corner to the southeast side of his property which runs into the wetlands behind the Town sheds. Chair Wells said he is hearing there are issues on the northeast corner. Maybe the catch basin he suggested earlier isn’t the best answer. He thought the applicant’s engineer should go back there and figure out how they can be assured that their plan will work. Scott said there is no intention by the State to add any drainage to East Sutton Road. The east side from the bottom of the hill past the cemetery to Ira’s has no ditch on either side of the road. Scott said they were told that they can only assume where the water is going to go, which is South. Chair Wells said the contours all show, which seem accurate, that based on using topography, the water will go where it is going right now. Scott said that the applicant said the Town or the State is responsible to pick up and manage a system. He wondered how that would work. Scott said there is a lot of water already. What about the property around this land? There has been no discussion of the effect of water in these areas. Chair Wells said except for the northeast corner, all the water going to the south is being addressed in the studies. The volume of the water cannot go off the property any faster than it does now. Scott asked where the water was going to go? Chair Wells said it will keep going onto his property the way it is now. Scott said his request to the Town is for a full wetlands impact analysis so they can identify, predict and mitigate any effects on wetland habitat prior to commitments being made. They need to consider both on and off site, short and long-term effects. If these things are not investigated, the liability falls on the Town. Chair Wells asked Peter to contact the Town attorney to provide a statement as to what the obligations are relative to State regulations for runoff from properties and the impact on wetlands and habitat. Scott said if this property sat on Corporation Hill in Sutton, they wouldn’t be there that night. Peter said they would be there, because they are bound by the regulations of the town. Glenn said they want to protect all they can protect but they have to comply with the ordinance or they will be liable if they try to overstep it. If it was Corporation Hill and the zoning regulations were satisfied, they’d have the same issue going on. Chair Wells said they have to do what they think is right for the entire town. He understands the heartfelt feelings of Scott. They can only do what they can do. Chair Wells continued the public hearing to their next regular meeting to give the applicant time to make zoning board issue corrections and answer the points raised. They could then discuss the conditions of approval. This next meeting would be at 7pm on April 12th. The applicant was asked to provide the information ASAP to meet the deadline for the next meeting cutoff for materials. Chair Wells said he didn’t think they were ready to vote on the application that night but perhaps at the next meeting. It was moved by Glenn Pogust and seconded by Chuck Bolduc to close public input portion of the meeting. The motion was approved unanimously at 9:38pm. Glenn noted that if the Board finds that it cannot act on the 12th of April, the next meeting will be beyond the 65-day time-period. The applicant will need to bring a letter asking for an extension. Other business Chair Wells noted that April is when the Planning Board votes for officers of the board, Chair and Vice-Chair and any changes to their rules and regulations. He said he is stepping down as Chair and Glenn has agreed to take over the post. Chair Wells said he would nominate Glenn as Chair at the next meeting. Other nominations are welcome, including for Vice-Chair. Chair Wells said he would remain a member of the Planning Board. Glenn said the Town was contacted by Kristin Angelli who is interested in being an alternate on the Planning Board. Kristin is a realtor in town and a long-time resident. He could have the select board nominate her as an alternate. The members of the Board were familiar with Kristin and the Angelli family. It was the consensus of the Board to have Kristin nominated as an alternate. Peter said the Planning Board has the authority to evaluate a subdivision to determine where improvements need to be made on abutting properties and funded by the applicant. He said he will look at the area on Friday morning after forecasted rain on Thursday. There was some discussion about the wetlands on the property and if there are minor discrepancies, it doesn’t make a difference. Major discrepancies, however, are an issue. Chuck said the hope of the person questioning the wetlands on the map was that there is a huge discrepancy and they’ll have to shut this project down. In reality they’ll be able to revise the plan to draw around the wetland. With no further business to be had, Chair Wells called for a motion to adjourn. It was moved by Glenn Pogust and seconded by Dane Headley to adjourn. The motion was approved unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:50pm. Respectfully submitted, Kristy Heath, Recording Secretary Town of Sutton