April 12, 2022 | Town Admin TOWN OF SUTTON Pillsbury Memorial Hall 93 Main Street Sutton Mills, NH 03221 PLANNING BOARD Draft Meeting Minutes for Tuesday April 12, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. Chair Wells called the meeting to order at 7:00pm and took roll. ROLL: Roger Wells (Chair), Glenn Pogust (Vice-Chair), Christine Fletcher, David Hill, Dane Headley ABSENT: Peter Blakeman, Chuck Bolduc OTHERS PRESENT: Peter Stanley (Land Use Coordinator), Jacques Belanger, Gary Fitzgerald, Daniel Muller, Zachary Brock, Barbara Hoffman, Ira Thomas, Gary Watkins, Linda Park, Tim MacKay, Cheri Parker, Emily Wilmott, Shawn Laliberte, Mike McManus, Anthony Costello NOMINATIONS: Chair Wells said that at the last meeting he had announced that he would be stepping down as Chair of the Planning Board. After polling the Board for nominations or an interest in serving as Chair or Vice Chair and there being none, Chair Wells nominated Glenn Pogust as Chair. Glenn Pogust, in turn, nominated Chair Wells as Vice-Chair. Both individuals were willing to take on these roles, should the board vote as such. It was moved by Roger Wells and seconded by David Hill to nominate Glenn Pogust as Chair of the Planning Board. The motion was approved unanimously. It was moved by Glenn Pogust and seconded by David Hill to nominate Roger Wells as Vice – Chair of the Planning Board. The motion was approved unanimously. Glenn Pogust then assumed the role of Chair and Roger Wells as Vice Chair for the remainder of the meeting. REVIEW OF MINUTES: Chair Pogust said they would review the minutes of February 8 and March 22, 2022. It was moved by Roger Wells and seconded by Dane Headley to approve the minutes of February 8, 2022, as circulated. The motion was approved unanimously. It was moved by Roger Wells and seconded by David Hill to approve the minutes of March 22, 2022, as circulated. The motion was approved unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Coldwell Annexation and Lot Line Adjustment Joel Coldwell was there. He said that his father owns the land with the house on it and once they do the annexation, his name will be on the deed. They don’t plan on doing any further building. Joel noted that he has been selected to represent both families and submitted a signed authorization to that effect. Nathan Silver is the neighbor. Glenn said there were three waivers to the Zoning Ordinance that were being sought: Article IV, Section 3d: The requirement of a survey of the entire lot. It was noted that a plan has been submitted with a complete survey of both pieces. Article IV, Section 3q: A waiver for submitting topographical maps. It was noted that there won’t be any construction so topographical mapping wasn’t necessary. Article IV, Section 3u: A waiver for submitting soil samples. It was noted that this is not mandatory under the Town’s regulations for an annexation, so can be waived. The board members did not have any further comments. It was moved by Roger Wells and seconded by David Hill to open the hearing to public comment. The motion was approved unanimously. There were no comments from the public. It was moved by Roger Wells and seconded by David Hill to close the public comment portion of the meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. It was moved by Roger Wells and seconded by David Hill to waive requirement Article IV, Section 3d as explained above. The motion was approved unanimously. It was moved by Roger Wells and seconded by David Hill to waive requirement Article IV, Section 3q as explained above. The motion was approved unanimously. It was moved by Roger Wells and seconded by David Hill to waive requirement Article IV, Section 3u as explained above. The motion was approved unanimously. Chair Pogust announced that all three waivers had been granted. The next vote would be to determine if the application was complete. It was moved by Roger Wells and seconded by David Hill to consider the Coldwell application as complete. The motion was approved unanimously. It was moved by Roger Wells and seconded by David Hill to approve the application for the requested annexation and lot line adjustment. The motion was approved unanimously. 2021-02 Peacock Hill Road – Major Subdivision Application, Continuation Chair Pogust said the Planning Board had deferred the vote of two waivers that had been discussed at the last meeting (March 22) so that there could be public comment regarding the waivers, but that no vote was taken after the public comment period closed. It was moved by Roger Wells and seconded by David Hill to waive Article VIII, Section B.1. of the Subdivision Regulations regarding the requirement of a 200’ radius at the intersection and property lines as the plan shows adequate site distance. The motion was approved unanimously. It was moved by Roger Wells and seconded by David Hill to waive Article VIII, section B2 of the Subdivision Regulations with regards to the curve at the hammerhead at the end of the road, as the engineers recommended that it is unnecessary and does not fit with the zoning regulations. The motion was approved unanimously. Chair Pogust said there are two items he wanted to discuss: the drainage map and the drainage plan for the northeast quadrant of the property. Mr. Belanger said this information had not been sent in to the Town by his office, but he would like to discuss it. Chair Pogust said the name of the road also needed to be proposed and approved by the Town’s administrator. Nothing in this regard had been sent into the Town. Mr. Costello said the name proposed is “Gridley.” Roger said the Planning Board can make it a condition of approval that the Town approves the name, as the name had not yet been submitted to the Town for review. David Hill said there was some suggestion about a contractor looking at the numbers for construction estimates to see if they were OK. Chair Pogust said that contractor, Kevin Rowe, volunteered to review the numbers. He said he looked at the cost estimate and they seemed reasonable at current costs but prices for everything are rising. Chair Pogust said a 25% contingency has been added to the bottom number. Additionally, a provision added to the proposed conditions is that although the Planning Board can reduce the bond if bonded improvements are performed, any request to reduce the bonded amount will require the submission and approval of the costs for the remaining work at the costs then in effect. With the 25% contingency on the submitted cost estimate, the bond will be $150,000. Chair Pogust said he would like comments by the applicant to be heard. Anthony Costello said they wanted to discuss the scour hole that was on the plan. There was a concern about it not being sufficient enough to slow down the water on the property, and the town wanted, instead, a level spreader. They have added a stone berm level spreader to their plan in addition to the scour hole. He feels that this addresses the town’s concern. There were also concerns about drainage to the north. They’d like the drainage plans to be addressed as each lot is being constructed. There are best practices to design drainage plans as construction is being done and they are hard to design before the construction has started. Mr. Costello thought the verbiage could be added to the approval as a condition. Peter Stanley urged the Board to require that typical examples, with specifications, for the typical devices and treatments that the developers could choose from to deal with the drainage, be presented in plan form to them so they have something to review. It needs to be visualized by everyone. Chair Pogust said the statute permits house construction to begin before the road construction is completed. Roger said it is a good idea to see the kinds of things they could select to deal with the runoff. Mr. Costello said he could do this. Roger said this would help so that it can be in the file for future Planning Board members to refer to. The Planning Board should be informed when these devices are being utilized. Chair Pogust said they could make it a condition to each building permit to inform the Planning Board of the plans. David asked how many of the seven lots would need to make use of these devices. Mr. Costello said there are two for sure, but they would add these things to all the houses to deal with excess water. Lots #6 and #7 are creating the biggest concern. Mr. Costello said he has done drainage calculations for that area with consideration of the buildings, grass and several other things, and there were only slight increases in peak flows: from a 4.9 to a 5.0 increase. This increase can definitely be handled with the devices he suggested. David asked if it was possible to redirect the water towards the other catchment areas from that area of concern. Mr. Costello said they could; they want to do this to avoid putting additional water in Mr. Nixon’s driveway. Peter mentioned item #16 on Nobis’ engineering review. He had asked for the changes in the facility and what impact that had on the flows. Mr. Costello said because of the roadway comments at the last meeting, they now show a detention pond. They’ve added a catch basin with a 6” orifice. Whatever doesn’t infiltrate will not leave the pond until it reaches the orifice. The only water coming out will be whatever comes out of the 6” pipe. David asked if they could add this excess water to the wetlands. Mr. Costello said they can if the water is clean, but they don’t include the storage of water in wetlands in their calculations. He said they met with Mr. Nixon after the last meeting and discussed the issues with his property and it was a useful discussion. They talked about trying to get the water to the west of the property. As long as they are not increasing the peak flows they can increase the volume of water coming from the property. The plan to move the water away has to be designed as the construction is being done. Chair Pogust suggested that a condition of approval be that before any building permit is issued, they have to submit an updated drainage plan for each lot and it must be approved by the Planning Board. He asked if this was acceptable to the developer? Mr. Costello said that each lot will have to have their septic plan approved and so this drainage plan could be included with that plan and approved together. Chair Pogust said the Board would like a sheet of the examples of what devices may be implemented to deal with additional runoff. Chair Pogust said on the site plans he knows there were revisions made on the recreation areas for the size of the field and the trails. He wasn’t sure about those changes. Mr. Costello said he wasn’t sure about that section of the plans and he passed that question on to Mr. Belanger. Roger said sheet #2 shows a trail and it is made up of three lines and is stippled. Another part of the trail is a single line. Roger thought this was a trail that would be cleared and have crushed stone put on it to allow for driving. He didn’t understand why the rest of the trail goes around the back edge and comes around again. Mr. Belanger said he wasn’t sure unless they are trying to get additional acreage for the recreational land requirement. Glenn said they weren’t able to determine the acreage from the plan. Roger said where it is stippled, the path has been reinforced. He didn’t understand why there were two kinds of trails and why the reinforced trail loops around to the back of the property. Mr. Belanger said he wasn’t able to answer that question. Peter said that information should be discovered and written out and submitted to the Town, along with calculations showing how much property is in the recreational area, including the paths. Roger thought only a small piece of the trail needed to be reinforced to enable them to get to the back land. Chair Pogust said there needed to be some organization with how the plans are dropped off to the Town; they were just delivered on a table without an indication of what was inside the rolls. Peter said the Planning Board had requested a table be added on one of the plans to compare the acreages and frontages between the original plan in April 2021 and the new plan with respect to the seven lots. This was not done. It was noted that the change in these numbers cannot change by more than 10%, once the plan has been approved. Christine said that the calculations on the plan say there is 5.17 acres for recreation. Is the problem that they don’t know how they got that number? Roger agreed; they don’t know how much is the path and how much is the field. David noted the area; the dotted area says 5.17 acres. It seems that the recreation area has been documented. Roger said he is still concerned about the detail of the trails. Chair Pogust invited comments from the applicant to rebut the previous comments provided by the abutters, if they wished. The applicant did not wish to speak at that time. Chair Pogust said that the draft proposed conditions of approval had been provided. He sent it to counsel and the only changes noted were that Counselor Muller said the Town cannot delay building permits for the completion of the road and drainage if it is a bonded project. This is a statute and cannot be changed. The two conditions related to the road have been moved to a second section which is that there cannot be any use or occupancy of the buildings until the road is complete. After review and discussion of the possibility that the applicant may begin some housing construction before road is done, the Town has reserved the right to having additional regular inspections done. The Town has upped the minimum escrow balance for inspections to $15,000 and the applicant will need to update the Planning Board on the progress of construction. The Town will determine if more inspections are required and if additional escrow is needed. The Town can also inspect the logging work to make sure it is done appropriately and is not affecting the development area. The applicant has indicated that they would not be doing any wholesale timbering. No timber harvesting was to be done in the lower section shown on sheet #2 because the applicant has stated that their whole intent was to keep those trees in that area. Mr. Muller said that he needed time to review the conditions. He could tell right away that for one condition, he didn’t think he could authorize his client to go onto someone else’s property to perform work. Chair Pogust asked if the property owner was OK with having the specified work done on his property, would his client be OK with it? Mr. Muller said speaking as a lawyer, he felt that other issues needed to be addressed. Chair Pogust said assuming that an acceptable agreement was provided, would Mr. Muller’s client be in favor of this? Mr. Muller said yes. Chair Pogust said there is a DES permit on the driveway in question (belonging to Mr. Nixon) that requires 18” culverts so if he was willing to help him comply with that permit, would they be willing to do this work? Mr. Muller said there are ways to get that done. Mr. Muller said he would have to speak to his client on the condition about the timber harvest. Chair Pogust said the rationale for that condition was that the developer said he didn’t want to disturb any of the tress where the houses are. If they want to harvest, it needs to be done before they put in the road. Mr. Muller said he wanted to review the language before commenting. Mr. Muller said #19 is a declaration for a driveway easement, but it only applies to two of the driveways. He wanted to look through the wording and would provide comments at the next meeting. Chair Pogust said the Board looked at the covenants, which had changed a bit. Mr. Muller said he saw the changes and is working on those, as well as the abutter’s comments. Certain changes may have easier ways to do things. For example, conditions of approval are noted many times. Maybe add a provision that “nothing in this declaration alters or modifies the conditions of approval.” Chair Pogust said this was fine. They want to make things consistent with the proposed conditions. Chair Pogust asked the applicant for any further comments. There were none. Chair Pogust asked the Planning Board if they had any comments. Roger said he supports what has been done to date. They need feedback from the applicant and he feels the efforts the Board has made are working to cover all the bases. Chair Pogust said people need to understand they [the Planning Board] are doing their job and are constrained by the law, statutes and ordinances. They all understand that the abutters feel strongly about this but he does not feel that warrants name-calling or accusing the Board of corruption. They are doing their job and no one at the table has an agenda but to serve the town and the abutters. They have to be fair to allow things that are allowed to be done. They don’t look upon the abutters with distain, as was said in a letter sent to the Town by one of the abutters present at that meeting. The Planning Board will do everything in their power to do what is best for the Town and to protect the owners of the adjacent properties. Roger said they have received videos and letters and appreciated that information. The notion that some land that someone owns currently has water running over it naturally is a drainage problem is not so; it is called a wetland. The issue is not a drainage problem, but whether they meet the rules of the water running off the new property. More water is allowed, but it has to be slowed down. That is the requirement. It is logical for the water to go to the wetlands and the channels to go where they naturally go. It was moved by Roger Wells and seconded by Dane Headley to open the public comment portion of the meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. Ira Thomas, 108 E. Sutton Road wanted to speak first. Chair Pogust said at the last meeting, Ira said that he wanted to hand in a letter his wife wrote, instead of reading it aloud. He then sent a letter to the Board of Selectmen saying he wasn’t allowed to read it at the meeting. Chair Pogust cautioned against Mr. Thomas doing this again; they would have allowed Mr. Thomas to read the letter. He never even asked to do so and was not told he could not read it. Mr. Thomas said that he thought he would have gone over his time allotment if he had read the letter. Mr. Thomas said as another condition, he wondered if the board would consider appointing a 3rd party soil scientist to observe test pits on the property. He is in a similar industry and knows there is some fudging possible. He thought the abutters would appreciate the Town taking this measure. Roger said that is a State issue (septic is the reason test pits are done). Chair Pogust asked how they will enforce this to be done? Mr. Thomas said test pits will show the elevation of where the houses will be built. Peter said typically other towns will have a health officer that will go witness the test pit with whomever the designer is. They’d need to find someone to do this. Chair Pogust said David Burnham, the Town’s Health Officer may be willing to do this. Chair Pogust said he may not be a trained geologist but knows what he is doing. Would the abutters be OK with this? Mr. Thomas said something is better than nothing. Mr. Thomas said in order for the application to be deemed complete, weren’t drainage plans supposed to be submitted? Chair Pogust said they were. He said they retained the engineer and wetlands scientist to provide their input before the Board deemed the application as complete in February. Roger said the plan covered the areas that are being built on and the areas that they drain into. The houses are included in this. Chair Pogust said this was discussed at the last meeting; the properties don’t have to be specifically sited, but the disturbance was taken into consideration. No building permit will be issued until the plans for drainage and septic are approved for each house lot. Mr. Thomas stated that he had nothing further. Barbara Hoffman: 70, E. Sutton Road said she knows that the Board has seen the letter that the abutters sent, but she wanted to provide an original to the Town for the file. She thought the Planning Board was doing a great job. Barbara said she thought that there hadn’t yet been a drainage plan submitted for the northeast quadrant of the property. Chair Pogust said there is a drainage plan for the lots in that area. It wasn’t planned out beyond what would happen beyond the border. Roger said they have dealt with the two lots that did not have specific plans that evening. Barbara wondered the difference in getting that information before they approve the plan and before the developers get the building permit. It sounded to her like they were saying that the developers will figure it out as they go. Roger said they’ll sell the property to someone who will decide where they want the house and the leach field to go. They’ll know what the impact will be and they will offer different ways to deal with the water. Chair Pogust said they will need a building permit to begin constructing the house on the lot. Barbara didn’t understand how the developer could give the board something later that they can’t give them now. Roger said they don’t know what the house design will be, as well as the exact location on each lot. Once they do know this information, they will know better about just what they are looking at. Before a building permit is given, the developer will provide the plans and drainage issues to the Town. Chair Pogust said the original calculations said the water going off the property in the northeast corner would be “minimal” and that wasn’t good enough in the Planning Board’s eyes, so they asked the developers for more detail. They will be required to provide a plan before building. Barbara offered an additional condition of approval. She opined that there are going to be seven 4,000 sq’ homes, multiple driveways, and a retention pond. This will also be a phased project. Barbara said she worked for an energy company that had to submit periodic reports on how a project was going when they were doing large projects. Given the fact that the Town of Sutton is small and they only have a building inspector and a Land Use Coordinator to check on things, it may be a good idea to require periodic reports to make sure the conditions are being complied with. Chair Pogust said they have done this; the engineering company will be allowed to have as many inspections as they feel are necessary; the original proposal from the engineers said there would only be eight inspections but we expect that more will be required. At the expense of the contractor, these inspections will be done throughout the entire process on a regular basis, in addition to a retention of the escrow in case anything arises over two years’ time. They will be getting reports; the engineer works for the own, not the contractor. Barbara thought a periodic report would save the Town man hours if they know what has happened and what will be happening. This will improve communications between the Town and the developer. Chair Pogust said this isn’t something where there will be a lot hidden; someone can go out and see what is going on. It isn’t like a major power plant with underground piping, etc. There will be a trench for the road and it will be constructed in layers and inspected at each point. The septic and excavation will be examined. Peter said the trigger is each time a building permit comes in; they will send their representatives out to make sure that trees haven’t been cut that shouldn’t be, everything is where it is supposed to be and things are functioning as they should. He is going to be sure that drainage measures are addressed sooner than later so it is most stable to function the way it is supposed to. Roger said that is the method they have used for many years. The engineer is certified and knows what they are talking about. Barbara said she spoke with Mr. Nixon about work to be done on his property. He said he needs to talk more about it. Peter said that a DES permit was given to a previous owner to fill wetlands, around 3,000 sq’. That permit specifically states that there shall be two, 18” culverts and that wasn’t done. The property does not comply with that approval. The proposed Conditions of Approval include a provision for that to be remedied by the Applicant with the installation of the specified size culverts. If the property owner elects not to do that, he doesn’t have to. But it would bring him into compliance. Holden Engineering and DES had created an approved this plan so the water coming to those pipes would go through correctly. Because of Mr. Nixon’s driveway washing out, the State has diverted water from the high side of his driveway. The culverts put in were 8” and 10”. The developer has agreed to bring those culverts into compliance. Roger said point #1 in Barbara’s letter says that any additional runoff from the development is not allowed. He said that this isn’t true; it isn’t the amount of water, but it is the speed of it that has to be addressed. That is what all the drainage calculations for all projects use. Extra water is detained but it is allowed to move at a slower pace. Roger noted that Barbara also talks in her letter about four houses that are the issue; it is actually two. Barbara asked how they know that the other properties won’t add to the runoff issue. Roger said that it is because of the contours of the property. Barbara said in her letter that wetlands should be mapped in the growing season. Roger noted that this isn’t in their regulations. The applicant doesn’t have to do this now. With regards to the yield plan, Roger said that he understands what she said, but it is a Zoning Board issue, not the Planning Board’s. Chair Pogust said the regulation does not require a yield plan, but it may be requested. Under the zoning requirements it has to be shown that the number of lots can fit on the property. They don’t need a submitted yield plan to be approved as subdivision. Barbara said that it is a condition of the Zoning Board. Roger said the abutters would need to go back to the Zoning Board to say the condition isn’t met, if she doesn’t agree. With regard to the claim that the plan is “scattered and premature” Roger said that her attorney should be approached to see how a judge would determine that. This is a paved road with lots of houses on it now. He didn’t think this would be an applicable claim and it would be thrown out by the courts. Peter said a builder’s remedy would be provided by the courts if a Planning Board denial is thrown out in court. The applicant would be allowed to do whatever they want without oversight. Claiming scattered and premature was simply not an adequate argument. Chair Pogust said that Barbara references no covenant of open space being held in perpetuity. He said the proposed revisions to section 2.1b and 3.1 of the Declaration of Covenants have it there specifically. In her letter, Barbara commented that the ownership isn’t proper. Chair Pogust said he thought it was a stretch saying ownership by a homeowners’ association is a co-op or condo situation. Right now there is no co-ownership of the open space. This is a single ownership so that wouldn’t apply. In both the conditions and proposed Declaration of Covenants they’ve been specific and strict on how timber harvests will be done. A Declaration of Covenants can’t be enforced by the town. The Planning Board is trying to protect the future owners; if something happens and the developer isn’t around anymore, the owners will come to the Town. The Town doesn’t want this to happen. Ms. Hoffman had nothing further. Zachary Brock said with regards to the conditional approval of 7b, he understands that the culverts are undersized. If they are installed the way they were engineered, there would be an impact to his property, potentially. Does he have to accept this? Peter said the culverts do not generate more flow. They allow the water that would have gone through the wetland area that was filled to bypass it and go to the other side. It is an impact but doesn’t produce more water. They don’t want the culverts to fill up and have debris fill the entrance to them and cause a washout of the road or a blow out and have a serious impact to his property. This is to insure that the water going through is a non-issue. The amount of water depends on forest cover, hard surfaces, roofs with hard shingles, etc. They had designed features in the property that would mitigate this water and slow it down. The size of the culvert is to prevent a damming or a blow-out of that driveway. Peter thought the 18” culvert was more than what he would suggest, but it is what the State approved. Technically they could go back to DES to apply and do less than this but he didn’t think it would be approved. It is a wet area. Mr. Brock said the State did divert drainage in that area last year. He noticed this work increased the water flow onto his property after it was done. He asked if he could make a complaint to the State. David asked if there was a culvert across his driveway. Mr. Brock said no, he has a ditch. David asked whose responsibility is to put the culvert in? Peter said it is the property owner’s responsibility. Peter said there was a ditch but it probably hasn’t been cleaned in many years. Mr. Brock said the culverts were opened up last year but were filled up again very quickly. David wondered if Mr. Brock could put a culvert in, himself, to redirect the water. Roger said they all have wetlands and can’t make them disappear. Mr. Brock said he understood this. Mr. Brock asked if the drainage only addresses the road. Roger said they are addressing everything. Peter said one of the conditions preserves the 25’ buffer and the wetland buffers that are adjacent to that. There is no disturbance in order to maintain as much forest cover as possible. Mr. Brock said he’d like to see some alternates on the plan that “if” there are issues from the lot, they will do “x, y, z.” Chair Pogust said this will be addressed with the building permit. Mr. Brock wondered who would do the calculations for runoff from roofs, etc. Mr. Pogust said with each building permit, the house they want to build will deal with the drainage such as drip lines with stone trenches, etc. They do these things to avoid water running from the house. These details will be provided for each lot as they are sold and an owner decides on a house design. That is a condition to the issuance of a building permit. Roger said in his opinion, a drip strip is much better than rain gutters. Mr. Brock asked about the trail details; is it a hiking trail or a paved path? Chair Pogust said their preference is that it won’t be paved or be a cinder trail. They are still waiting for the details from the applicant. Roger said they want it to be a walking trail. Peter said best management practices are to be followed for crossing a wetland for timber harvesting. These are State regulations which, unfortunately, are not closely monitored. Mr. Brock had nothing further to add. Gary Watkins, 62 E. Sutton Road, said he hopes they can work to protect the town together. He asked if the Planning Board had the data sheets for the original wetland delineations or the review. Chair Pogust said they did not. Mr. Watkins said that they are Army Corps. of Engineer wetlands delineations. Perhaps they don’t exist? Roger said this was done on site by a wetlands scientist. Peter said they only input this information into data sheets when making an application to the Army Corps. of Engineers. A typical wetlands application doesn’t include a data sheet for every wetland. Mr. Watkins thought that assessing the wetlands in this way was vague. Roger said that the scientist takes note of the soils, etc. Mr. Watkins opined that he didn’t think this was the correct way to delineate wetlands per regulations from the Army Corps. of Engineers. Peter reiterated that no wetlands scientists use the data sheets unless they are making an application to the Corps. of Engineers. Mr. Watkins said that there are new wetlands discovered all the time. Roger said if a suggestion is to be made of what they should/not do, please make the suggestion, as his remarks were accusatory in nature. Mr. Watkins said the abutters are confused about how these delineations are done. Roger suggested the abutters hire their own wetlands scientist to explain it to them. Mr. Watkins said that he had asked that this be done at the last meeting. They have not yet hired anyone because they aren’t in the growing season. Roger said things are growing right now and have been for the past three weeks. Mr. Watkins said that the Corps. of Engineers does not define this as the growing season yet. Chair Pogust asked the applicant if they would like to request a waiver because they are nearing the 65-day limit on their application. The applicant said they would like to ask for 60 additional days. Chair Pogust said they can have another meeting in May if they wish. Chair Pogust asked if there was there any objection for the abutters to have their own wetlands scientist. The applicant said they would not be in favor of this. They have already had three scientists there. Peter said Stoney Ridge Environmental trains the State in wetlands identification and has done all the wetlands identification up and down the highway for their wetlands drainage upgrades. They have used the best person from the State of NH to be the Town’s representative. Peter said he sent the drainage plan to the scientist they hired three weeks ago and asked if all wetlands she identified were present on the plan. She replied that they were. He would be happy to provide that email to whoever is interested. Chair Pogust said the Town has had independent expert representatives on the property and still the abutters say they have no trust in the system. They also can’t seem to direct the Town towards anything that is inaccurate. Chair Pogust said he can’t believe that the abutters have not been on the land walking around. How can they keep saying they don’t trust the board when the board is bringing in the best experts? They have tried to do everything the abutters have asked and have probably one of the most expansive conditions of approval for the developers to work within. Chair Pogust said that a letter that was sent in from Mr. Watkins’ spouse said the board was corrupt and incompetent. He wondered why he is being accused of being distrustful. Mr. Watkins wondered why delineations and their review were done in suboptimal conditions? Chair Pogust said that they were not being cross examined at the meeting. Mr. Watkins has yet to identify one area that he believes that should have been designated as a wetland that isn’t being taken into account. Mr. Watkins said he hasn’t been on the property as it is posted “no trespassing.” Mr. Watkins asked if utility plans encompass telephone and internet. Chair Pogust said they would all be put together and it is in the plan. The power company does the design and the other utilities follow suit. It would be absurd to build seven houses without internet or telephone. He reiterated that this information is presently on the plan. Mr. Watkins moved to Section B, additional requirements, Article 6. He thought the Town should undertake as many of these as possible including a traffic study. He said he hasn’t found a compelling argument that seven houses could be put on the property and not have a traffic study done. Chair Pogust said seven houses on a loop road or a straight road makes no difference. Mr. Watkins said a traffic study could be done at no expense or inconvenience to the Town. He said that a previous subdivision was denied due to results of a traffic study. This road is not very wide and sees a lot of foot traffic. Chair Pogust said implying that a road can’t have more houses on it because people walk on the road is not feasible. Roger said a significant amount of new housing that could create a significant delay at traffic intersections would constitute a traffic study. If the level of service changes significantly enough, there would be modifications of the intersection which would be a State responsibility, not the Town’s. Roger added that this is a State road and it is not a large development. The typical capacity of a rural road is 1,500 cars per hour and they are nowhere near that. No one ever wants more traffic, but that is why the road is there; to handle the traffic. Mr. Watkins asked if there was an increase in traffic, which is the cause of an accident, who would be liable? Chair Pogust said it would be the State, or no one at all. David offered that it would be the operator of the vehicle that is liable. Chair Pogust said many properties on that road can be subdivided by right, which would increase the number of houses and driveways. They would never have to do a traffic study for any of those. Since there is only one access and egress for this development, it doesn’t appear to pose a problem. Mr. Watkins said with regards to #12, the drainage study states the soils maps include wetlands delineation. There is a disclaimer on the NRCS website when looking at this area, it is beyond the scale for which it is intended to be used. He believed that a soil study should be done of the property. Chair Pogust noted that every disturbance will have soil tests: septic, road, construction. They need to make sure it is suitable for whatever is going to go in there. Chair Pogust asked Mr. Watkins if he wanted the Town to go soil test the whole 100 acres. Mr. Watkins answered in the affirmative and asked “why not.” Chair Pogust said it isn’t required and isn’t necessary. Roger said what is not useful at this level is that where the line is drawn is precisely where the soil has changed. If they have a hydric soil, they will know, the line is not accurate enough, which is why they sent out a wetlands and soils scientist to do more accurate wetlands delineation. Mr. Watkins asked if the playing field and trail included in the current costs? Chair Pogust said they are not included in the cost estimate and they don’t have the authority to bond for those improvements. They can require that they are done before certain other things are done, however. They only have authority to bond for roadways, drainage and utilities by what the law says. Mr. Watkins said soils surveys are not efficient for determining where to put in walkways, houses and other buildings, etc. Chair Pogust said any house in NH will have issues with the land and it doesn’t stop them from building houses. Mr. Watkins said the old map shows the trails cross wetlands. Roger said it is in the buffer but it is permitted in the buffer. Peter said no structure is proposed in the wetland. #5 on the map does go through a wetland but it isn’t considered a disturbance. Peter asked if anyone else wished to speak, as Mr. Watkins had been speaking a while. Mr. Watkins said the visibility of open space is to be maximized for residential lots. The open space is to the left. Roger said the 25’ buffer counts as the visibility of open space, per their town counsel. Mr. Watkins said that isn’t maximizing visibility. Chair Pogust said they have to follow the ordinance and if it is met, they have to allow it. Adjectives, modifiers and opinions as to “quality” don’t count. They don’t have that discretion. If they decline the application based on their “thought” that something didn’t reach their aesthetic standard or opinion, they could lose and then the developer could go in and do whatever they want; that is the remedy in the State of NH. We are working to hold the applicant to the strictest standard and law that we can. We are making reasonable demands while adhering to the ordinance. We can’t do more than that. We are doing as much as we can to enforce the ordinance. Roger said to be sure whether the 25’ buffer actually met that standard, they consulted with the Town’s attorney who said it did. Mr. Watkins said he had nothing further. Chair Pogust asked if there were any other comments from the public. There were none. It was moved by Roger Wells and seconded by Dane Headley to close the public comment portion of the meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. It was moved by Roger Wells and seconded by Dane Headley to approve a waiver by the applicant of the 65-day deadline and to extend the deadline for 60 additional days, ending at the June Planning Board meeting and to continue the hearing to the May meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. Chair Pogust said that the deadline has been extended. They should be meeting, however, at the May meeting so they can work to get to the point that they can be ready for the June meeting. The May meeting is the 10th. The June meeting is the 14th. Chair Pogust said that the hearing is continued until the May 10th meeting, but the deadline for a Planning Board decision is now June 14th. Roger reiterated that the Planning Board is trying to do the right thing so the Town is not going to get sued. They are doing their best to protect everyone’s rights, including the applicant. Discuss Master Plan Update Meetings Roger and Chair Pogust said they would be doing a Zoom meeting with the Historical Society, the Keyser Lake Protective Association and the King Ridge Homeowners Association the next day. The Board members agreed to meet on May 24th at 7pm to have a public hearing on the plan. When abutters from the Peacock Hill hearing asked about the Master Plan, Chair Pogust said among other things, they are looking to change and improve the ordinances that they have been discussing in the recent plan. When the time comes to get involved in helping the Town develop ordinances that the abutters have voiced opinions about, they should get involved and encourage their neighbors to do the same. Chair Pogust said that these abutters have shown great interest in the zoning ordinances. The meeting on May 24th will be to discuss the Master Plan that the Planning Board has been working on for the past two years. After this is finished, the Planning Board will work to develop changes to the zoning ordinance and have them voted on through Town Meeting. Chair Pogust noted that there are 12 recommendations (for change) but they hope to get one or two brought to the town for the March 2023 Town Meeting to be voted on. One of the changes they hope to propose is focused on the cluster subdivision ordinance; they’ve all seen where it has shortcomings. They want to make those changes. Chair Pogust said that the Zoning Board followed its criteria for granting a special exception for a cluster development. Linda Park disagreed that this was a cluster development. Chair Pogust said it is a cluster development because it is a cluster development as defined by the Zoning Ordinance; they’d like to be able to look at the ordinance and make provisions on what they think is a better design. Ms. Park said by the time the ordinance is changed it would be too late for them. Ms. Park, who had sent the letter to the Selectmen said that her letter said “what she has seen leads her to believe they [the Planning Board] are incompetent. She doesn’t feel that they [the abutters] have been treated well and singled out Peter Stanley, Roger Wells, and Glenn Pogust. Chair Pogust said that the Planning Board asks questions of everyone. Ms. Park said that they are hand-holding the applicant and not the abutters. Chair Pogust said they are not hand-holding and asked her if she has reviewed the conditions of approval? Ms. Park said she had. She said the applicant is shady. Chair Pogust said that the applicant’s past business practices cannot be taken into consideration. The applicant is posting a bond of $150,000 that won’t be released until everything is done right. He is also proposing the escrowing of more money for other requirements, such as inspections to be done by the Town. Chair Pogust said the Planning Board can’t judge who comes to them. Everyone faced with development, especially in a rural area, is concerned. People have to realize that if they move next to a lot with 100 acres without restrictions on it, someone might do something on it. There is only one way to make sure nothing is done to it, and that is to buy it. That’s the way of the world. This happens everywhere people live. Mr. Watkins said the absence of trust is not among the board, it is with the applicant. It was asked if the master plan was accessible. Chair Pogust said members of the Planning Board met with 10 town groups and sent out a survey to the townspeople about what people find important to the town. After the Master Plan was drafted, representatives of the Planning Board then went back to the 10 groups for further comment. The plan is then adopted by the Planning Board after taking public comment. The plan will be posted online with appendices prior to the public hearing set for May 24. The ordinances that come as a result of recommendations in the master plan are voted on by the people in March at Town Meeting. Chair Pogust said that they need people who support the proposed changes to get out there and vote for these things and talk to people about this. If people aren’t educated in the reasons why changes are being proposed, they won’t vote for those changes. Chair Pogust thanked Roger for all he has done as Chair and for not leaving the board. He has taught Glenn and the others a lot over the years and is the only reason he can do the job of Chair at this point in time. It was moved by Glenn Pogust and seconded by David Hill to adjourn. The motion was approved unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:24pm. Respectfully submitted, Kristy Heath, Recording Secretary Town of Sutton