November 29, 2017 | Town Admin TOWN OF SUTTON PLANNING BOARD Regular Meeting of Tuesday, November 14, 2017 (7:00 p.m.) Pillsbury Memorial Hall 93 Main Street Sutton Mills, NH 03221 Not Official Until Approved by Board at its Next Regular Meeting Board Members Present: Roger Wells, Chair; Jim Lowe; David Angeli; Dennis O’Connor; Diane Lander (Alt.); Debbie Lang; and Julie McCarthy (tardy). Ex-Officio Present: Bill Curless Others Present: Adam Hurst, Assistant Road Agent; Jennifer McCourt, McCourt Engineering Associates; Freeman Boynton III, Applicant; Jim Morris, Resident; Maurice Saunders, Applicant; Tony Seminara. 7:00 p.m. – Call to Order Regular Meeting Chairperson Wells called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ~ Welcome Diane Lander, New Planning Board Alternative Board Member Lander introduced herself. ~ Roll Call ~ Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 10, 2017 Board Member Lander inquired regarding page 5, and requested some clarification as to what is actually to be received from the Conservation Commission, whether it be an approval, an opinion, or a recommendation. Chairperson Wells responded that it’s a review and comment, but went on to say that if DES has approved it, unless the Town has a superseding, stricter rule, that that should be sufficient in moving the CUP forward. He suggested revising “approval” to “review and comment”. MOTION: Board Member Lowe moved to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of October 10, 2017, as amended. It was seconded by Board Member Lang. The motion carried unanimously. 7:05 p.m. – Meetings Commence 7:05 – 7:30: Fire Chief, Corey Cochran, and Road Agent, Steve Bagley – Road Designs Chief Cochran was unable to attend the meeting, so he submitted an email to the Board regarding his opinions. Chairperson Wells read the email to the Board, wherein he approves the road designs. Adam Hurst, Assistant Road Agent, appeared on behalf of Mr. Bagley. He expressed the following concerns: Exhibit E.1: Increase Minimum Traveled Way for the Neighborhood and Local A to 18 feet for the minimum, which is right now drawn at 14 feet, where they don’t believe it would be wide enough to pass two cars. Increase Minimum Ditch to Ditch Line for the Neighborhood and Local A to 32 feet. Increase Minimum Right-of Way for the Neighborhood, Local A, and Local B to 50 feet. 7:30 – 8:00: Jennifer McCourt Road Designs Chairperson Wells recapped the previous meeting. He reiterated the rationale for the figures listed in Exhibit E.1. He noted that the underlying issue is: how do we deal with existing roads that are likely to be further developed; and at what point does further development trigger the need to widen or improve them? Board Member Lowe inquired whether the Board has the right to differentiate between longstanding ownership and new purchases. Chairperson Wells clarified that the differentiation actually occurs in terms of the number of lots of records lining a particular road, and therefore would apply to both existing owners, as well as future owners. Board Member Lowe inquired about the impact on adjacent roadways that provide the only means of access into another roadway that is being developed, i.e. Kezar Street/Hominy Pot. Chairperson Wells responded that, if Hominy Pot was a dead-end road, there might be an argument for that. Further discussion was had regarding hypothetical situations, and what steps would need to be taken to adhere to these standards. Board Member O’Connor inquired as to situations where roads are being repaved, if they should not just go ahead and adjust the road at that time, regardless of the number of lots on the property, in order to accommodate and possibly entice future development. Chairperson Wells responded that subdivision triggers this, not repaving. Chairperson Wells described his intent in requiring the limits listed in Exhibit E.1. He then made the suggestion that, since, for driveways, we have built into the Zoning Ordinance that if it’s 800 feet or more, there’s got to be a layby, it may be good practice to utilize the same procedure for roads that are 14′ or 16′ wide. Discussion was had regarding the pros and cons to doing this. Board Member Lander inquired whether this relates to the situation where, for example, a street has 10 lots on it, but nobody’s built on it, and that actual development would trigger this standard. Chairperson Wells responded that that is the intent. Ms. McCourt indicated that she was confused on whether the Board was talking about a new road that was going to be built, or building frontage lots on existing roads. Chairperson Wells responded that it would be both. She went on further to recommend that the two are separated, and that, from a liability standpoint, the Regulations should not allow for building of new roads that are substandard to Federal and State Regulations, which is 18′. She pointed out the challenges of having smaller roads. She recommended, in terms of building frontage lots on existing roads, that the road should be inspected, for cost analysis, in order to see what improvement could be done to help. She noted that the bottom line is to assess what sort of impact a subdivision development would cause to the Town. She suggested that the Board put in some language regarding collateral incidentals to the development that impacts the Town, as well as the possibility of requiring a Traffic Study to show the impact on the road. Chairperson Wells suggested that in Exhibit 1.A, it should be noted that Neighborhood and Local A apply only to existing roads. Ex-Officio reiterated the utilization of laybys, if possible, every so many feet, for Neighborhood and Local A roads. Board concurred that if it’s a new road, it starts at Local B. Freeman Boynton III – Lot #09-865-299, Route 114 – Consultation Chairperson Wells gave an overview of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Application. He pointed out that the decision from the Board tonight will be regarding completeness only. Ms. McCourt presented her Application to the Board. She indicating that she had submitted into the Wetlands Bureau for this, and they are in the process of reviewing it, as well as into DOT for a Driveway Permit, who is in the process of reviewing it. Chairperson Wells inquired if the abutters have been notified. Ms. McCourt responded that the Town would be responsible for that. Chairperson Wells concluded that the Applicant has completed what is necessary for the Board to deem the Application complete, as long as the following conditions are met: Appropriate Noticing of Public Hearing – to be completed by the Land Use Coordinator (LUC) DOT Permit – Board cannot issue a CUP until they receive this MOTION: Ex-Officio Curless moved to deem the Application complete. It was seconded by Board Member O’Connor. The motion carried unanimously. 8:00 – 8:30: Maurice Saunders – Lot #06-733-421, Chalk Pond Road – Pre-Consultation Mr. Saunders explained his situation to the Board. He inquired if there’s a way to do a re-subdivision, in order to alleviate the situation, and to make everyone whole. Chairperson Wells responded that, if Mr. Saunders and the Landowner are in agreement to the re-subdivision, the Board would have no way to prevent that happening. He suggested that they need to do a re-subdivision, which may come before the Board again for approval, meeting all the Rules and Regulations of what lots have to be. In terms of an easement, he stated it wouldn’t be an issue, as long as both Parties consented, and appropriate paperwork and procedures were followed. 8:30 p.m. – New Business ~ Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Board reviewed proposed Conditional Use Permit. Board suggested the following edits: Page 1 – Remove comma in “a, driveway” on the second-to-last paragraph Page 1 – Replace occurred with “occur” on the fourth paragraph Page 4 – Encapsulate Land Use verification side in a box and entitle it “For Official Use Only” MOTION: Board Member McCarthy moved to adopt the proposed Conditional Use Permit with the above-mentioned amendments. It was seconded by Ex-Officio Curless. The motion carried unanimously. 8:45 p.m. – Old Business ~ Subdivision Regulations Review – 90-Day Clause Board reviewed the research that the LUC submitted on adjacent towns: “Unless otherwise specified, the date for the security to expire shall not exceed three years, which would include one year beyond the date set by the Board for completion of all improvements.” MOTION: Board Member Lowe moves the recommendation by the LUC. It was seconded by Board Member Angeli. The motion carried unanimously. 8:55 p.m. – Final Comments Chairperson Wells indicated that he would like to keep this format for future meetings, with a two-hour limit. Board expressed their approval of the new LUC. 9:00 p.m. – Adjournment MOTION: Ex-Officio Curless moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:13 p.m. It was seconded by Board Member Lowe. The motion carried unanimously. Respectfully Submitted, Victoria O’Connor, Recording Secretary Town of Sutton