May 10, 2022 | Town Admin TOWN OF SUTTON Pillsbury Memorial Hall 93 Main Street Sutton Mills, NH 03221 PLANNING BOARD Draft Meeting Minutes for Tuesday May 10, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. Chair Pogust called the meeting to order at 7:00pm and took roll. ROLL: Roger Wells (Vice-Chair), Glenn Pogust (Chair), Christine Fletcher, David Hill, Dane Headley, Chuck Bolduc ABSENT: Peter Blakeman (arrived at 7:30 pm.) OTHERS PRESENT: Peter Stanley (Land Use Coordinator), Laura Spector-Morgan (Town Counsel), Jacques Belanger, Daniel Muller, Gary Fitzgerald, Anthony Costello, Linda Park, Emily Wilmott, Shawn Laliberte, Barbara Hoffman, George Nixon. REVIEW OF MINUTES: Chair Pogust asked to review the minutes of April 12, 2022. Roger Wells said page 9, “own” should be “town.” It was moved by Christine Fletcher and seconded by Roger Wells to approve the minutes of April 12, 2022, as amended. The motion was approved unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2021-02 Peacock Hill Road – Major Subdivision Application, Continuation Chair Pogust said some revised engineering plans were submitted and the Selectmen have approved the name of the road that was suggested by the applicant. Gridley Drive will be the name. Jacques Belanger was there to represent Peacock Hill Road. He said they tidied up the plans and added a cover sheet. They used some color to show more detail. Sheet #2 of the subdivision was reviewed to show the walking trail and the access to the open space; it has been highlighted to show the recreation area. Chair Pogust asked if the intention was to put down gravel or anything over the walking trail. Jacques said he did not believe it would be anything more than a walking path. It wouldn’t be constructed like a road. Sheet #3 shows the changes that had been made to the lots, which were less than the 10% limit imposed as a condition of the Zoning Board’s approval. Some color has been added to show the detail. Utility pole 33/24 was shown to be pink/purple in color near the access road entrance. It was noted that the pole needs to be out of the line of sight and if it isn’t, needs to be removed. There were no changes to the engineering plans. Drainage details that could be used for each individual lot were included in the new plan set. Some suggestions were made in the new set plan set on how to handle the drainage for each of the lots, as this was a big concern at the last meeting. David Hill said looking at the yield map, a question from the abutters had been whether the previous plan met the ZBA’s accepted plan at the time the special exception was granted. The yield plan that has been provided that evening looked much different; do they need to bring this back to the ZBA to approve it? Chair Pogust said the ZBA only required that the applicant improve the setbacks from the cemetery and establish that the seven lots could fit on the property. He said that the Zoning Board didn’t require the applicant to show anything more than those things on the yield plan. Town Counsel noted that a yield plan is not required but is allowed and that these other details are not necessary to be reviewed by the ZBA. Peter said that the setback from the cemetery is now 50’ instead of 25’. Laura said the regulations state the minimum lot size is 2 acres and there are 100 acres in the property, providing plenty of flexibility in the location of the lots. Chuck said under construction specifications, the road being described as “packed to 24 inches” is excessive. 12 inches of loose lift thickness is sufficient. Jacques said he could change this on the plan. Chuck said the specifications for the types of fill aren’t specified for materials being used. Also, clean fill was not specified and he didn’t see any specs on the plan for this. It was noted by Jacques that these specifications could be added. David asked if the drainage plans for the northeast portion of the property had been done. Chair Pogust said when they are ready to do disturbance to any of those lots to build a house, they would have to submit to the Planning Board a mitigation plan which would solve any drainage issues onto East Sutton Road. This is the only issue Nobis Engineering said needed to be addressed. Under the proposed draft conditions of approval, the applicant will not be able to get a building permit without submitting to the Planning Board calculations and a plan to show how drainage would be mitigated so it doesn’t impact East Sutton Road beyond what is already there. David referred to Ira Thomas’ letter with regards to DOT’s involvement on the plan. Chair Pogust said DOT will have to sign off that what is being done is correct as it impacts a state road. This will be a state issue, not the Town’s. David said the abutters are concerned that these drainage issues or solutions should be in place as opposed to being a condition of future approval. He agrees; there are 19 conditions for approval he wondered if this was the best way to address the drainage. He wondered if the application was actually complete? Do the concerns raised by the abutters require the board to go back and look at the application? Laura said completeness is a finding that there is enough information to accept jurisdiction. It doesn’t mean that everything has been addressed. It is enough to be able to start asking questions. You can’t “un-accept” the application as complete. It is also legal to conduct the approval process either way; setting conditions as they go, or require the plans ahead of time. David said that the plans address the road and the downhill portions toward East Sutton Road. He understands there are concerns from the public and they should take them into account, 100%. Chair Pogust said that rather than do some major infrastructure along East Sutton road, this could be alleviated with respect to the design of each lot. Once a house is going to be built, the applicant will have to come back to the Planning Board which will need to assess if the calculations and solutions will deal with the drainage issues. David wanted to clarify one of the items of concern to the abutters: they have claimed that four of the lots drain onto the abutting property to the north. He pointed this out at the last meeting that only lots #6 and 7 drain to the north and east. Roger said the whole point of the conditions associated with this is that it is a small area and they don’t know what the houses are going to look like and be. They have the parameters used for the calculations, which were generous, and the Planning Board has set up a series of checks to make sure when they come forward to build a house, they will have proof that no more water onto East Sutton Road will be present. DOT needs to approve this too. No site work can be done on any lot until these checks are satisfied and plans are provided for that lot. Christine asked about the culvert issue on Dr. Nixon’s driveway. Chair Pogust said the applicant is willing to do the work if they could reach a mutually acceptable agreement with Dr. Nixon regarding this work. They may also need to get an update on the DES permit because it has expired. The applicant said they were agreeable to doing this work for Dr. Nixon. Peter said it would be a permit by notification most likely, for the replacement of a culvert. Christine said the conditions for lots 6 and 7 don’t say when they have to be done before other work would happen. Chair Pogust said it would be prior to any construction for the house; showing the design and the plans for drainage mitigation. Laura said that it doesn’t say “prior to construction” in the conditions for lots 6 and 7. Chair Pogust said he would add this language in as it needs to be made clear. There was no issue raised by Nobis Engineering with regards to excess runoff from lots 1, 2 and 3; this seems to be an issue with the size of the culverts that presently run below Dr. Nixon’s driveway. This can be remedied and Dr. Nixon is agreeable to this work being done. An agreement will need to be made between the applicant and Dr. Nixon to proceed. Chuck asked how they would know if that condition (culvert replacement) was met. Chair Pogust said that it is not the town’s jurisdiction, but they will have engineers there looking at everything being done pursuant to these conditions, including any work on Dr. Nixon’s property. Roger said there will be a check sheet with the order of things that need to be done. Peter will review these things on at least a monthly basis to know how the project is moving along and report that to the Planning Board. Christine asked about the wetlands in the open space area as she understood they were close to the maximum allowed under the ordinance. Nobis was asked if the calculation was made for the open space that that consists of wetlands or steep slopes. They had done this calculation and it is actually 37%; not 47% as shown on the plan. An email from Nobis that came in last week for this would be submitted into the record stating this finding. Peter Blakeman arrived at 7:30pm. Jacques asked about the process for applying for a building permit when they have a buyer for a lot who wants to build a house. Chair Pogust said that they should let the Planning Board know by the 15th of the month to be on the agenda for the next month’s meeting. It was asked if this would be a compliance hearing or just an agenda item. Laura said the town is not required to notice for any of the conditions. Peter said he didn’t see a legal requirement to notice; they can post it as required, but sending notices is terribly expensive and not required. Jacques said he was asking about the procedure so he would be better able to anticipate a schedule for the builders. Roger said that basically, once they know what they want to do for a particular lot they should come to the Town and the Planning Board as soon as possible to let them know that their request should be put on the agenda. Chair Pogust said there are a number of letters that have come in since the last meeting. He wondered if there were any that the applicant wished to address. Mr. Muller said from their perspective, the abutters are trying to involve other boards when this is a Planning Board function, which causes legal implications. Mr. Muller said on the conditions of approval, which he had been provided with at the previous meeting, he had some questions. Mr. Muller referred to the conditions on getting a building permit prior to the recreational field being complete. They should make this a condition of any occupancy of any house in the subdivision. Chair Pogust said all of the common work should be done before the building permits are issued. A bonded road is the only thing in the statute that cannot hold up the issuance of building permits. His inclination is that as much of the common work has to get done before building permits are issued. Laura said while they can’t require a bond for something like that, a fair compromise is that they bond the improvements and that no certificates of occupancy are issued before the building is complete. The Town can’t require a bond for that, but the applicant can volunteer it. Roger said they need grass to come in to absorb the rain to avoid pollution and runoff. Mr. Muller said it isn’t just stabilization of the area, this portion of work also includes things such as lighting. Chair Pogust said it would be helpful to know what they are planning to put in; the board has no idea. This is why they’d like to see what is getting done before the building permits are issued. More detail is needed. Mr. Muller said he understood. With regards to recording, Mr. Muller said he understood that the Town does the recording for the plan. What is a prerequisite in terms of things that have to be met before the plan is recorded? They usually look for approvals and legal documents. The conditions about approving the road could take up to four years. This would indirectly deny building permits for a lot that doesn’t exist because the subdivision plan can’t be recorded. Laura said this is important because they can’t sell lots until the plan is recorded. Chair Pogust suggested they provide a plan to the Board that shows the minimum information needed in order to sell the lots. Mr. Muller said with regards to the timber harvesting, he wanted to make it clear that if there is a tree, due to its condition, that needs to be removed, they can do so and it is not to be considered as timber harvesting. If there is a tree that is a threat to an individual or property, the landowner can be held liable if it should fall. Mr. Pogust said there is a difference between a timber harvest and a land clearing for the sites. As part of the timber harvest trees could be removed on the footprints of the houses, driveways and leach fields. They could also remove dead or damaged trees at this time. Mr. Muller said he didn’t want there to be an argument down the road because their client is taking down a tree and someone comes to the Town about it. Roger said that they need to specify what a “dangerous” tree is. Dead or dying is easy to diagnose. He doesn’t want to get into battles with the applicant about this kind of thing. Peter said whatever they come up with should not be a tool to be able to cut a tall tree because it has the potential to fall on something. Mr. Muller said he would provide some language about this and provide it to the Town. Mr. Blakeman suggested having an arborist instead of a forester to diagnose whether a tree is dead or dying. Mr. Muller said he had some basic language he could provide to the Board. Roger said clarification of language is welcome. Mr. Muller said there is a 25’ buffer around everything. The notion is that that area is left alone, of course there could be dead or dying trees in there as well. The Zoning regulation about trees is that on steep slopes and other areas, they wouldn’t be touched in any way. This area would be in the restricted covenants section. These are private restrictions and do not replace of modify any of the board’s conditions of approval. They are two separate “realms.” Chair Pogust asked if they would be willing to add a covenant to not cut within the 25’ setback to create a protective buffer between lots? Mr. Muller said he had some language for cutting in the 25’ buffer except for a dead/dying tree or dangerous tree. The language refers to land in its raw, natural state and not improved, etc. He would provide some language in the next week. Chair Pogust asked for Word versions of the information to be sent to Peter so the Town can work on them on their end. Mr. Muller said he would be sure to do this. Mr. Muller noted the condition that there shall be no cutting of vegetation in the 25’ buffer. Peter said that this was in addition to the setback specified in the ordinance. This would create a 50’ buffer in total. He wasn’t sure they could require it. Peter said a setback is for a building and they cannot expect to build at the edge of the tree line. Between the lots, this combined 50’ would create a protective buffer. Mr. Muller said he would check with his client to see if they would be willing to do this. Mr. Muller mentioned the use of a haul road for a timber harvest. Chuck said it would need to be returned to its original state after; they can’t just put the proposed cluster access road on top of it afterwards. Chair Pogust said he recognizes they would use the area for the cluster access road as the location of the haul road so as not to disturb other portions of the property. Mr. Muller said he has a redlined version of the conditions of approval he would forward to Peter so the Town could review it. Chair Pogust said he believed there was a misapprehension of comments made about what would happen if the Planning Board denied the application and it was found upon appeal that the denial was improper. These comments were not made with respect the citizens’ rights to appeal, and they have every right to take whatever legal action they believe is justified. The comment was that if the Planning Board rejected the application and the applicant went to the court or the housing appeals board and the denial was overturned, the Planning Board might be limited in how it can control the process going forward. The “builders remedy” is extreme but there is always a possibility of it happening. Laura said if the application is denied, the applicant could appeal it to superior court or the housing appeals court. The authority is to affirm, modify or reverse the Planning Board decision. In rare cases the court could award a “builders remedy.” The court or the board could provide an approval such that the applicant does not have to go back to the Planning Board. This is done if the court feels the applicant could not get a fair hearing in the town. This has been done in workforce housing issues in the past. Christine said on the 24th at a Selectmen’s meeting, there was something said about the appeals process. Laura explained that the appeal process of the Planning Board is that anyone aggrieved can appeal to superior court or the housing authority within 30 days. They would need to file a complaint, explaining where the Planning Board erred. The court will issue a summons to the town. Laura said in these cases, she sends all the information from the case on file with the Town to the court. There are no witnesses or testimony, and only about 15 minutes of argument heard. The court decides if the decision was legal and reasonable. Christine said some abutters commented that the Planning Board was giving undue aid to the applicant. Laura said the New Hampshire constitution requires towns to assist citizens (applicants) when coming to them for help. This includes pointing them the right way, denying and giving reasons, etc. The Planning Board has to assist applicants by law. They must treat them in good faith, not unnecessarily delaying things by causing hurdles, or sequentially dragging things out. Chair Pogust said most of the board members have read everything that has been submitted to them in terms of letters, emails, etc. They have read them and considered them and have consulted with counsel as needed. They have looked at the videos and he noted that no one has asked during the course of a Public Hearing that the Board show said videos. Demanding in a letter prior to a scheduled Public Meeting that videos be played at that meeting is not asking during the meeting that they be played. Chair Pogust said that they have not told anyone that they could not read a letter, make a statement, or show something. For the sake of getting the process moving, the Board members have considered everything that has been said. If the abutters have something new to share, that is great. He suggested that repeating the same things five times is not likely to change the Planning Board’s view of the issues to be addressed. Chair Pogust reminded those at the meeting that they are nevertheless free to speak as the meeting is a public session. It was moved by David Hill and seconded by Roger Wells to open the meeting to public comment. The motion was approved unanimously. Linda Park, 62 E. Sutton Road asked Peter Blakeman to identify himself. He did so. Linda said she didn’t feel free to speak because of Chair Pogust’s tone. Chair Pogust said that he invited all to speak and would not cut them off. Linda said the tone is not welcoming. Linda was asked to go ahead with her comments about the application before them. Linda said she didn’t feel like the abutters are welcome and what they have to say is relevant. She said that Peter has said that it has always been their [abutter’s] goal to stop the project. She said they have reasonable and rational issues with the process. She wanted to speak to what Town Counsel said to them about exercising their rights as town citizens and speaking with the selectmen about the process. She felt the Selectmen was where they should take their questions to be answered as they weren’t getting answered at the Planning Board level. She apologized if her questions were repetitive but they [abutters] don’t feel they’ve gotten clear answers. Linda asked about the “builder’s remedy”; is this an extreme case? Peter said that if such a remedy is awarded by the court the applicant might be able to do whatever they want without Planning Board oversight. Laura said it depends on the court. They will instruct on a case by case basis. She has never seen a case where there has been a denial and the court has approved the application outright. It is always remanded so the board can come up with appropriate conditions of approval. This case will have proposed conditions of approval. If it is denied and the applicant appeals and the court agrees it should be approved, it would be per the conditions of approval. That is only the remedy if the applicant appeals, not the abutters appealing. Chair Pogust said that Peter’s statement related only to what could happen if the applicant appeals. With regards to the wetlands, Linda asked why the dates and references of the wetlands delineations had not been listed on the plans. She was concerned about the 47% of recreation area being so close to the 50% maximum. Chair Pogust said the Town went back to Nobis Engineering and asked if they did their examinations of the open space area, did they determine whether the total amount of the open area consisting of wetlands and steep slopes was less than 50%. They determined that although shown as 47% on the plan, their calculations showed it was only 37%. Linda asked if there were other guidelines for wetland percentages in the regulations. Laura said there were not with cluster developments. In a conventional subdivision there is a 2-acre minimum lot size, where wetlands and steep slopes cannot be included in the area within a proposed lot that is available for improvements. Linda said on March 22, Scott Parker said the Town needed to require a full wetlands impact analysis so they can identify, predict and mitigate any effects on wetland habitat prior to commitments being made. She noted that Roger requested that Peter contact the Town attorney to advise what the Town’s obligations are relative to State regulations for runoff from properties and the impact on wetlands and habitat. Peter advised that attorney Joe Driscoll was contacted. Attorney Driscoll advised that the Town has no right or ability to enforce State Laws. Linda said with regards to the wetlands, the lots as drawn will be impacted by the existence of wetlands. Chair Pogust said it is conceivable that the residential lots can be redrawn in a way that satisfies the other requirements and allows for the buffers from the wetlands. The lot proposed for subdivision is 100 acres in size. Linda said with regards to the yield plan, the abutters were told by Peter that the yield plan was a moot point and didn’t need to be brought up at public meetings. She was told by another source that it is important. The ZBA decision is based on the yield plan. Laura said she would look at the ZBA approval. She said the Special Exception was given for the use, not for the layout of the subdivision. The yield plan is there to understand what the possible density of the area would be. With 100 acres, and it being an option not a requirement, she didn’t think it would apply. Laura said she would look into it, however. Linda asked about the curb cuts on the State road; there were already three, which she found was the maximum allowed. Peter said DOT approved the curb cut and it actually had to be moved from the first requested area. Laura said the Town has no authority over a State road. The Town doesn’t have any say about this. This question had been raised to address the possibility of adding another access to the property. Linda asked about drainage; why are the plans only required in the post-development plans? Chair Pogust said the engineer indicated at prior hearings that he did do post development calculations based on the assumption of the footprints of the houses, septic systems and driveways, plus the other disturbances in that area. Linda asked if the Board was getting further advice from Nobis Engineering regarding further drainage issues. Chair Pogust said they were not doing that at this time. It was estimated by Nobis that there would be at most a .1 cfs increase of drainage onto East Sutton Road; to address that issue the applicant will be required to come to the Planning Board before each building permit is approved and the applicant will design a drainage mitigation system to insure that the drainage isn’t an issue on East Sutton Road. They can’t begin construction on a lot until they provide that information and it is approved by the Planning Board. Linda asked why the soil data from NRCS is labeled as inadequate at the depicted scale being used for drainage calculations. Peter Blakeman said NRCS uses a large scale and it is not meant for onsite drainage calculations. That is why they have the wetlands scientists on the ground doing the work. That is a common comment on the NRCS maps. Linda noted that the developer offered general ideas on how to deal with drainage in the recommendations. What was he referring to? Chair Pogust said the last sheet of plans shows five or six examples of drainage mitigation options. The drainage plans per lot will show what options they will use and the Planning Board will determine whether or not they are adequate. The applicant has to get the approval of the Board. Chair Pogust said they have to show which method they will use, where they will be used and how they will be implemented for each lot. Linda asked about the minimum recommended conditions of approval. Chair Pogust said they have to be complied with before there is final approval of the plan. Laura said it is a draft. The conditions of approval are binding once approved. Chair Pogust said the conditions are recorded at the registry of deeds. Christine asked how the board will know if the plan is sufficient for drainage. Chair Pogust said they would send the plans to their engineer from Nobis Engineering to review this, as well as possibly a soil geologist. Linda asked about the land responsibility; in a previous meeting, Chuck said he doesn’t know what the intent of the open space land is and who it goes to. If the intent is to go to one of these entities, it should be in the verbiage. He said that maintenance wouldn’t be taken over by the Conservation Commission or the land trust. What happens if no one wants it? Chair Pogust said the owner said they own the land and are going to sell seven lots and will keep everything else. Until the owner decides he has a way to convey it or wants to convey it, it is his property. They are requiring in the conditions that he has to maintain that land. Town Counsel said they don’t have to require anything now regarding future ownership of the common areas, but the Planning Board can require as a condition of approval that if the owner decides to convey to a homeowners’ association or a community group, the documentation regarding such a transfer must to be reviewed by counsel to make sure it is OK. Chair Pogust said that Chuck was talking about a covenant to maintain the recreational fields; the Town may want open land but that is not what is provided for in the cluster development. This doesn’t go with what the land trust or town conservation commission would take on. A homeowners’ association could take over that responsibility. This documentation will need to come to the Planning Board and to town counsel for review. It was noted that the covenants say the recreational areas cannot be subdivided. Linda said in the meeting of April 12, 2022, it was mentioned that they would be approving a development and they don’t know where the houses will be? Laura said that when someone comes in for a permit after purchasing a property they will have a plan showing where the house will go, having to comply with setback requirements, etc. No subdivision specifies exactly where the houses will go on each lot. It is only to distinguish where the lots are. Linda said she heard that the Town’s safety officer was to be appointed to oversee the test pits on the property. Chair Pogust said that it was actually the Town’s Health Officer and he is qualified to do this. Ira Thomas asked at the last meeting if the Town would do something about having someone oversee this process. Chair Pogust said he noted that this person from the Town would be their Health Officer who knows what they are doing in this regards, and Ira said that was fine. The Health Officer is appointed by the Town. Laura suggested that Linda email the Town Administrator to request information about the health officer’s qualifications. Linda referred to the letter of reprimand sent to Peacock Hill by the Selectmen. She didn’t believe any of the trees had been replaced after the letter was sent. She wondered how they were reprimanded. Laura said a letter from the select board was sent to them. Peter said they removed the temporary power pole out of the 25’ buffer and they planted several small saplings in part of the area that was disturbed. Linda said it was recommended that the Planning Board consult with the Conservation Commission before granting approval. Has this happened yet? Chair Pogust said that meeting was planned for the following night. Linda asked how the public would know what the Conservation Commission said. Laura said that their comments wouldn’t constitute an approval. The Commission is asked to comment. Laura added that the Conservation Commission meeting, like all town meetings, are open to the public and minutes will be kept. Chair Pogust asked if Linda had any further comments or if anyone else present at the meeting wished to speak. With no one seeking to make additional comments, Chair Pogust asked for a motion to close the public comment period. It was moved by Roger Wells and seconded by Dan Headley to close the public comment period. The motion was approved unanimously. David had a question about storm water and East Sutton Road. Chair Pogust said the applicant will have to get whatever permits are needed by the EPA. The Planning Board and the Town can’t judge compliance with state regulations. If someone thinks something contrary is being done, they can take this up with that state or federal agency. The permit is submitted to the Town with the application, but the Town cannot judge it. David said there has been email correspondence from an abutter regarding the Town being liable if there is an issue in this regard. He now understands that it isn’t within the Town’s purview. He was concerned as a board member. David said he feels that they are giving both sides absolute undivided attention and are looking at everything closely. He said he was there for the constituents for the Town of Sutton. Laura said with regards to the liability issue: as long as the board proceeds in good faith and to the best of their ability, if the project goes through and there are negative effects, the Town is not liable. The applicant may be, but not the Town. If town laws are being violated, the selectmen have to be the enforcers. Chair Pogust thought everyone around the table felt the same way as David did. It was moved by Roger Wells and seconded by Dane Headley to continue the hearing until the June 14, 2022 Planning Board meeting at 7:00pm. The motion was approved unanimously. Chair Pogust shared with the applicant that he had hoped they could get further along with the conditions and covenants. It is possible the Planning Board won’t have a final say on them by the June meeting depending on what changes come back and when Board receives the suggested changes from the applicant. This is the current deadline that the applicant specified after it waived the prior deadline and the Town was asked to continue the hearing. Laura was asked to be at the June meeting. Peter Blakeman asked how the Board can communicate about these covenants and conditions. Laura said they can only comment to Peter, who will distribute the information from the applicant to the rest of the Board. They cannot talk amongst themselves. All emails will become part of the record. Roger said when they get the documents, everyone should take some time to sit down and make notes. Linda Park asked what happens in June if they don’t meet conditions of approval. Chair Pogust said the applicant can waive the deadline and ask for another 60 days. If the applicant needs more time, they have the ability to waive the current deadline and extend it. The board doesn’t have the authority to stop the hearings and has no authority to impose a time limit on the applicant if the applicant chooses to waive the Planning Board’s deadline to render a decision. Other Chair Pogust said the Master Plan is going to be presented at a Public Hearing on May 24th. All are welcome to come and ask questions and make comments. He said the entire draft is posted online. Roger said the presentation would be 30-40 minutes and there would be discussion afterwards. He welcomed those on the board to attend and speak up if they sensed any questions from those there, or had questions themselves. Chair Pogust said Mike Tardiff from the Central NH Regional Planning Commission suggested they could probably get some money from the State that was being allocated for drafting zoning ordinances that promote affordable housing. He will follow up on that process. With no other business, Chair Pogust called for a motion to adjourn. It was moved by Roger Wells and seconded by Dane Headley to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:47pm. Respectfully submitted, Kristy Heath, Recording Secretary Town of Sutton