TOWN OF SUTTON

Pillsbury Memorial Hall

93 Main Street

Sutton Mills, NH 03221

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

Approved Meeting Minutes for Wednesday November 16, 2022, at 7:00 p.m.

 

Call to Order: Chair Lick called the meeting to order at 7:03pm

Roll Call: Chair Derek Lick, Betsy Forsham, Zachary Brock, Sam Gordon, Melissa Ballinger (alternate), Peter Stanley (Land Use Coordinator)

Absent: Katy Beauchemin, Marc Beauchemin (alternate)

Melissa was asked to sit in for Katy, who was absent.

Public Hearings:

Case 2022-06 – Special Exception – Knight

Peter Stanley said all the fees had been paid and no comments had come in from any abutters or the public.

Kyle Knight who lives at 133 Route 103, was present with his dad, Jason Knight, to explain their application. They have a building on their property that needs a lot of work done to it. They would like to enlarge the building and possibly start doing some of their brewing there for a brew pub they own in another town. There would be no public traffic at all, just production.

Betsy said she had gone by the site. She said it looked like they were proposing a new building. Jason said that the prior owners of the property had a farm and there was a site for a proposed barn which is 30’ x 20’. They’d like to take the current structure down and build a new barn. Kyle lives in Sutton and his dad owns the property adjacent to him. They own and operate a brew pub in the town of Londonderry, NH.  They’d like to eventually have a farm, and the grain that comes from the byproduct of the beer could be used to feed the animals. He currently gives this grain to other farms in the area but ideally, he would like to use it for himself. They would like to use this building for storage of other things as well as to produce the beer. Large trucks would come to pick up their products about once a month. Kyle offered that there is an Eversource easement on the property so the road can handle large trucks.

Jason said that this is the first step in their plans for the property to include production. They will still need to get their liquor license. The Liquor Commission will want to know where they are brewing and how much they are making. There is a lot of paperwork that has to be done to satisfy the needs of the Commission.

Sam asked about the “Seven Barrel” method that Jason described and asked if it was the same as the restaurant named “Seven Barrel Brewery.”  Jason said that “seven barrel” is a method of brewing and said it can make about 200 gallons at a time. She asked why the special exception was needed. Peter Stanley explained that the special exception was needed because this was a proposal for a commercial use in a rural agricultural zone. Chair Lick said that a special exception made sense in this case because it is a lower threshold than a variance. Peter Stanley said that a site plan review will also be required as the next step. He then showed the lots on the map. Jason said at some point, he would like to add a house to the second lot, adjacent to the one being discussed that evening.

Melissa asked if a commercial license would entitle them to sell to the public later on.  Jason said that the license they have in Londonderry is to brew and serve the alcohol. They will have a brewing/manufacturing license in Sutton. Bellevance trucking would pick up the beer from Sutton and bring it to their brew pub in Londonderry.

Chair Lick asked about septic water/discharged water and how it would be handled. Jason said that at their facility currently, they break the discharge down while they are producing it and have a big compost bin where it is stored. DES had to come to approve the bin. This sort of material can be put onto their own property, which saves their septic system. They take a lot of time and effort to pump all the solids out to the compost bin. Water and some beer goes into the septic system. They do plan to put a septic system in on this property and use these same methods as they do in Londonderry. Jason noted that Peter Stanley had gone out onto the property to help determine where they could put a septic system. Figuring this out would be done prior to any construction.

Chair Lick asked about a water supply. Jason said they have a well on site that Kyle uses for his home, but they have a quote to put a new well in on the property specifically for this use.

When given the opportunity, there were no questions from the public.

The public comment portion of the meeting was closed.

Chair Lick asked for any final thoughts from the Board.

Chair Lick started the discussion and said that prior to the meeting he had just one concern, which was septic and water, but his question was satisfied during their current discussion. It was noted that these details would be hashed out further through the site plan review. Chair Lick added that the spot was good for this use and felt allowing it met the spirit of the ordinance.

Betsy said that it is not off of a Town road, which she felt was beneficial. She thought the use fits the Town for a home occupation. She saw no issues.

Sam said given the Master Plan’s hopes for business to come to town, this plan is relevant and in-line with the direction of the town. She is pro-brewery.

Zachary agreed with what had been said.

Melissa agreed with what had been said as well.

It was moved by Sam Gordon and seconded by Betsy Forsham to approve the special exception for Kyle and Jason Knight, per the discussion at the meeting and what was stated on the application.

The motion was approved unanimously.

Chair Lick explained the 30-day timeframe following this decision, and noted that anything done or constructed within that time was at their own risk. He welcomed the Knights to Sutton and wished them luck.

Review of Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2022

It was moved by Betsy Forsham and seconded by Sam Gordon to approve the minutes of 10/19/22 as amended.

It was asked to include those who were absent in the roll call.

The motion was approved unanimously.

New Business:  Review of proposed amendments to Article IX (Cluster) of the Sutton Zoning Ordinance, with Glenn Pogust and Roger Wells

Glenn Pogust joined the meeting and said that he is the Chair of the Planning Board, and Roger Wells is the Vice-Chair. They were there to discuss improvements to the Cluster Development Ordinance. In the Master Plan, their ultimate goal was to have some incentives for affordable housing and senior-restricted housing. They decided as they moved towards the deadline for having a warrant article for Town Meeting, it would be too difficult to frame those types of ordinances in an acceptable way. It will take a lot of conversation, research and outreach to do it right. They’d like to take the current Cluster Development Ordinance and tighten it to avoid any situations like they just went through with Peacock Hill. The current cluster ordinance makes no sense for Sutton in a lot of different ways. Glenn shared that the Planning Board has a draft of some amendments and have circulated this to the ZBA. They’d like to make a distinction between open space (conservation land) and common space (recreation such as tennis courts/swimming pools). They’d like to have a way to separate those two things to have the open space amenable to conservation easements or stewardships. The common land would be limited to what is needed for the residents of the community. There is a provision in the current ordinance that has a minimum percentage that is for common space for recreation. Not every cluster development will want tennis courts, etc. Instead of having a minimum, they have a maximum so that large portions of the developed parcel can be put into common land. They’ve also increased the buffer around the perimeter to 100’ from the current 25’ which is too small they believe. The lots can only be accessed via a road off of the main road, which isn’t a problem with Peacock Hill, but it does avoid the possibility of having each house along the road with a separate driveway.

Glenn said they couldn’t require applicants to meet with the Planning Board and Conservation Commission, but they could suggest it (per counsel). Input from the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission on these cluster developments makes sense so the developers will know what they are dealing with and what the considerations are. They’ve added a requirement for a feasibility study for cluster developments. This should be done to see if the subject parcel could support the requested number of lots based on an existing site analysis plan. Instead of requiring that there be consultation from those boards, it is offered and encouraged to the applicant so they will understand what they will face down the road. Roger said that even though it is an overview, the feasibility study can help the applicant figure out what they are able to do.

Glenn said they also updated the minimum acreage for a cluster subdivision in a residential district (10) and in the rural agricultural district (25). 25% of the acreage in a cluster in residential districts has to be open space. 50% has to be open space in the rural agricultural district. In the event that there is more than 25 acres of open space, Glenn suggested that a provision has to be made to make it accessible to the public. The idea is that a cluster development is a favor being extended by the Town to the developer to save money. Right now in return for that there is nothing that the Town gets back. The developer gets to save money but the Town gets nothing. With Peacock, there is a large portion of land that is empty and unused. A large piece of open space should be available for public access, along with a parking area.

Ownership of common land is also suggested to change. Right now, the developer is not required to convey the land to anyone. In the approval stage, it would be better if the Planning Board could review how this piece of the puzzle is structured. The common land should have to be conveyed to a homeowners or condo association. Open space should be first offered for the purpose of a conservation easement or ownership to a land use trust or the Town. If there is no interest, the land has to be conveyed back to the homeowners with the restriction that it could not be developed. There would be no obligation to maintain the property but there also wouldn’t be any stewardship, as it would have if the property was conserved with a conservation easement.

The rest of the changes in the plan have to do with the nature of internal roads. They are trying to eliminate long, narrow driveways.

Betsy applauded the Planning Board for coming up with these amendments and said it is an overall improvement. She had some issues, however:

• Proposed article B2, common land for recreation as defined below (where is it?). Roger said it is in section E3, but they will add a reference here where the definition can be found.
• Open Space: Nowhere is there a provision for managed forestry or agriculture. Glenn said they can’t include this unless they have someone who is willing to do it. Betsy said if they had 50 acres of undeveloped open space land, homeowners might want to hire a forester and have a managed timber harvest. Glenn said they can’t, as a town, restrict a timber harvest. Whoever owns the property has the right to do a timber harvest as part of state law.
• Page 4, #5B. Number of lots; overall density. Do attached units count as one unit? Glenn said a unit is considered a residential dwelling unit. A residential lot is not needed for each residential unit. A residential structure can have within 1-6 residential units in the structure. The applicant has to present to the ZBA a subdivision plan on how many units they plan to build on the lot. Chair Lick wondered if there was an easier way to determine this. Glenn said right now there is no requirement to provide a yield plan. They want to have this required in the ordinance and have them show something more than a vague drawing on a map. Peter Stanley said this is considered conceptual so the designer won’t have to go through DOT to find out if it can work. Roger said the feasibility study can be done very easily and the information is available. They can show the two-acre lots of what would be a conventional subdivision. The study is a site analysis. It shows how steep the land is, where the wetlands are, where are the stonewalls, etc. The conceptual design will then show what the yield is. Glenn said the study shows the nature of the land to see where they can build.

Roger said they want to make as few changes as possible so they get an approval at town meeting. It will be presented as modifications that would improve the ordinance for the town. This won’t be discussed at Town Meeting so the education will have to be done prior. Glenn said the Planning Board will conduct a public hearing on December 6^th, and they will take out a full page ad in the Intertown Record (maybe twice,) to explain the “what and why” of the proposed amendments. Everything will be on the website this coming Monday or Tuesday. Roger reiterated that they are trying hard, as they did with the Master Plan, to get people involved and “get a nod.” They want to keep this simple and short and focused on making things better. If this gets turned down, what is the point of them trying to do more, sophisticated changes in the future?

Chair Lick asked if when Peacock came in were they obligated to identify the numbers of houses? It was confirmed that yes, this was required on a yield plan. They have to net the two acres after taking out the wetlands and wetland buffers, and they can’t use the steep slopes. Peter said if they did this proposed feasibility study, it would be found very difficult to put seven houses in there. Glenn said their priority now is to close the loop holes in the cluster ordinance. He isn’t concerned with developers who, right now, won’t want to develop in Sutton under this revised ordinance. They can figure out incentives in the future. For now, they need to close the loopholes so developers can’t get around the subdivision rules. There are a lot of big tracts of land that have sold in the last six months and they want to eliminate the loop holes as soon as possible.

Chair Lick asked if the ZBA deems the feasibility study insufficient, could they make the applicant then have a conceptual review? Glenn suggested moving “5B” on page 4 and incorporating it into the feasibility study language so it isn’t two separate things. The idea would be that the feasibility study would also require demonstration of a conceptual subdivision. There will be one sheet showing where its buildable and where it isn’t. The second shows where the lots will be situated. Betsy thought that both could be done at the same time. Glenn said they hoped that going through the ZBA and the Planning Board would help both boards get in on the conversation early on.

Glenn said he would move the yield concept and include it in with the feasibility study.

• Betsy said page 6 talks about common land and open space. She asked if they care if someone starts building on prime agricultural land. Glenn said he didn’t know that they could restrict the use of land, regardless of how it is ranked.
• Betsy had questions about page 7, A3. Glenn explained that the maximum amount of common land for recreation shall include a total area of not more than the greater of: 1) 20 % of the total land designated as individual residential lots, or 2) 20% of the total size of the land used for residential dwelling units and adjacent yards and patios, if the units are not situated on individual lots, or 3) one acre. Glenn said he’d like open space to be undeveloped but that it can be used for trails, with no motorized vehicles allowed. If it is just trails, the open space can be made available for that. Roger said most developers are not going to put in a recreational area unless it is a very large development. Glenn said when they get to the next round, they could modify this aspect of common land to suit the different uses they will be applying. Peter Stanley said these changes are temporary to close up loopholes. Glenn said this is to avoid taking large tracts of land and turning them into cluster developments by shrinking the lots and the road.

Betsy said she objected to requiring public access for large properties. Why should an owner open their property up to others to use? Glenn said if it can’t be conveyed to a land trust or the town, it has to be conveyed to the homeowner’s association. Betsy said that properties that are conserved and owned by the town are difficult to monitor. Glenn said that amount of land should be accessible, not to do just anything. Just put a couple parking spots and put in trails. This requirement provides a benefit to the Town for allowing a developer to get a benefit of doing a money-saving cluster subdivision.

Chair Lick said he would have a problem buying into a development where the public is invited to walk around his shared common area. Glenn said that if there was no way to provide access that doesn’t restrict the convenience and privacy of the residents, the Planning Board can restrict entrance to the property to a separate entrance. He lives on King Ridge and frequently has people walking around the land behind him. That is part of the advantage of living next to conservation land.

Chair Lick said the benefit to the Town for allowing a cluster subdivision is the green space that surrounds the cluster. He doesn’t’ believe that a portion of the land has to be turned over to the public. He thinks this requirement would deter developers from developing. Glenn didn’t think that the open land should just sit there and not be a benefit to anyone.

Roger suggested that the applicant have the right to request that public access be made to the land, or the Planning Board could require it should it be deemed appropriate. This would be instead of demanding it. Chair Lick said that it could be incentivized for the developer. Glenn said at this point, incentivizing would deter people from voting for these changes. More discussion ensued about this issue. Glenn felt that this wasn’t a big deal to a developer and they are already getting a benefit from the Town. He felt that allowing for public use on the property would be a benefit to the Town. There was discussion about the open space and whether or not someone who lived in such a development would mind or not mind others on the property. Glenn said common owned land is exempt from taxation.

Roger said common land for recreation around the houses is only for the residents who live there. The rest of it is intended for the Town. Roger said that there would be deed restrictions to determine what would be allowed on the property. Glenn said the Planning Board would have to approve the deed restrictions and a public hearing would be held.

Melissa thought the proposal was a good thing. She said there is no way to prevent camping on land even if it is posted. She was happy to see the changes that are being proposed. Baby steps are the best way to get this passed.

Chair Lick said he was for the changes proposed and thanked the Planning Board for making these proposed amendments.

Old Business:

There was none.

Administrative: The next meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals will be held on December 21, 2022.

It was moved by Melissa Ballinger and seconded by Sam Gordon to adjourn the meeting.
The motion was approved unanimously.

The meeting adjourned at 8:47pm.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Kristy Heath, Recording Secretary

Town of Sutton