TOWN OF SUTTON
Planning Board
DRAFT
Meeting Minutes
December 27, 2005
Present: Dan Sundquist, Naia Conrad, Steve Enroth, Courtney Galluzzo, Bob Wright (Ex-Officio), Joe Burns (Alternate), Sue Reel (Alternate), and Dave Burnham (Alternate).
Also present: Marnee Saltalamacchia, Recording Secretary
Chairman Sundquist appointed Joe Burns to sit for John Sullivan and Sue Reel to sit for Courtney Galluzzo.
7:00 p.m. Public Hearing Wetlands Overlay District
The Planning Board will take public input for a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to add a new article for a Wetlands Overlay District. This proposed article recommends setback distances from wetlands based on size and value of the wetland.
This would also result in a subsequent proposed amendment to repeal Article IV D 2 and Article V D 1. The amendment would remove the requirement for a minimum of 75 ft. from a normal high water of any wetland.
Sundquist explained that this ordinance reflects a new schedule of wetland distances.
Saltalamacchia made note that the Public Hearing Notice was incorrect in using the word repeal as it relates to what the new article would replace; she should have used remove.
Motion made by Steve Enroth to open the Public Hearing. Seconded by Joe Burns. Unanimous Affirmative Vote (6:0).
Bill Hallahan stated that he is here to hear comment and answer questions having already presented to the Planning Board at an earlier meeting.
Sundquist added that the schedule of setbacks in the proposed ordinance is to relieve the ZBA of making variance decisions on a blanket 75 ft. setback.
Discussion ensued.
Joe Burns questioned if the map being displayed is an outline of wetlands in town.
Sundquist suggested that it is necessary to accompany the ordinance.
Saltalamacchia pointed out that the cases before the ZBA this summer did not necessarily fall into the areas on this map. She stated that some wetlands were actual puddles that fell under the state’s definition. She also stated that the proposed ordinance did not require a map and as in other towns could remain solely as text.
Dave Burnham clarified that the definition of wetlands is specific to a set definition.
Bill Hallahan explained that the idea of looking at distances and size comes from working with two wetlands scientists who volunteered to be on the committee.
Wright stated that Hallahan did come before the Board of Selectmen and it was the sense of the Select Board that they give him full support so that the townspeople have a clear definition separate from the Lake Shore and Shoreland Protection ordinances.
Leslie Enroth stated that she is concerned about why the 10,000 sq. ft. is even there if you’re not concerned about puddles.
She asked why drainage ways to divert water is not being included.
Hallahan stated that Newbury Road and Roby Road both had cases where this was applicable and although they fell under the states definition, there was no value associated with the wetland.
L. Enroth questioned the distance to perennial streams and stated that it is in direct conflict with the watershed ordinance, which asks for 100 ft. buffer.
Sundquist stated that the 75 ft. setback came from the septic system setback rules. He stated that the he hopes that the schedule of distances takes into account the actual pollution from soil erosion and sedimentation.
L. Enroth felt that anything that runs into a lake would be of concern.
Sue Reel stated that the rivers and perennial streams is also her area of concern.
Steve Enroth stated that he is concerned that 25 ft. as a setback from a river and perennial stream could result in a barn being built that close.
Betsy Forsham, Conservation Commission Chairman, stated that 15 ft. in the area about the animal enclosures is the setback she would like to see increased. She also felt that the 75 ft. should be replaced in some places with 100 ft.
Hallahan stated that we have handled the 75 ft. setback well but the quantity of cases is of concern.
Sundquist stated that he is curious where the numbers came from and what the science is behind them. He stated that his concern with the new schedule is how these numbers were determined.
Hallahan replied that the numbers came from the wetland scientists’ and Doug Sweet’s expertise.
Sundquist asked Hallahan whether he would be upset if the Board looked at these numbers with some manuals.
Hallahan replied that he wouldn’t but he doesn’t want the ordinance confused or shared with the watershed ordinance.
Sue Reel felt that the numbers should have been higher. She stated that even though she realizes that Hallahan is trying to give relief to the individual homeowner, she is more concerned about the developers.
Wright stated that he disagrees and feels that we need to be concerned with the people both the volunteers and the citizens.
Saltalamacchia added that the idea is to protect the integrity of a variance.
Hallahan suggested that if the Planning Board wants to make changes, that is fine but to remember that a variance requires proof of hardship. He explained that we are looking for a better way to share information with a simple approach scientifically within reason.
Sundquist read a letter into record dated December 2, 2005 from Bill Uhl regarding “condition #4”. Uhl suggested that #4 be deleted from the ordinance.
Sundquist asked Hallahan if that is acceptable. Hallahan replied, yes but it was in an effort to be consistent with surrounding town ordinances. He stated that it is not a problem to remove it.
Ken Udanivich questioned what the criteria are for the town representative that goes out. He was also concerned about the fees.
Joe Reel stated that the right number might not be clear but a number at the high range may be the best choice because you can never make it higher.
Dana Gould stated that he would like to point out that since both the watershed and wetlands proposed ordinances have a huge amount of protection in interest the two should be compatible.
Motion made Bob Wright to close the public hearing. Seconded by Sue Reel. Unanimous Affirmative Vote (6:0).
7:45 p.m. Public Hearing for a Minor Subdivision Application made by Eckman Engineering, LLC of Portsmouth, NH on behalf of Wayne P. Johnson seeking a Minor Subdivision of Tax Map 7 Lot 568,014 located on Kearsarge Valley Road in the Rural Agricultural zone. This is a 12.12 acre lot which would be subdivided to create a 2.12 acre and 9.91 acre lot(s).
Courtney Galluzzo arrived at meeting. Sue Reel stepped down.
Sundquist asked Saltalamacchia if she found the Application to be complete. She replied with the exception of the state subsurface approval, she did.
Motion made by Steve Enroth to accept the Application before the Board. Seconded by Joe Burns. Unanimous Affirmative Vote (6:0)
There was no one attending to represent the Application.
Motion made by Steve Enroth to table to later this evening or at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Seconded by Sue Reel. Unanimous Affirmative Vote (6:0).
MINUTES
Motion made by Bob Wright to approve the Minutes of November 22, 2005. Seconded by Steve Enroth. Unanimous Affirmative Vote (6:0).
Motion made by Bob Wright to approve the Minutes of December 13, 2005 subject to clarification:
1. Page comments of Ash
2. Page 5 check on if it was the 64 or 63 day
Seconded by Sue Reel. Unanimous Affirmative Vote (6:0).
Chairman Sundquist acknowledged that Steve Enroth and Joe Burns stepped down.
8:00 p.m. Continued Public Hearing for a Major Subdivision Application submitted by Eckman Engineering, LLC on behalf of Henry D. and Helen Palmer for subdivision of Tax Map 8 Lot 217,478 located on Hominy Pot, Felch, Kings Hill and Penacook Road(s) in the Residential and Rural Agricultural zones. This is a proposed 132+ acre major subdivision (Meadow View Farms) that would create 18 lots.
Sundquist appointed Sue Reel to sit for Steve Enroth.
Motion made by Bob Wright to open the Continued Public Hearing. Seconded by Sue Reel. Unanimous Affirmative Vote (5:0).
Sundquist explained that we had a special meeting on 12/20/05 and reviewed the engineering items that presented issues.
Sundquist stated that many people have been here for many meetings and that the applicant and the Board wish to move into the deliberation phase; this will be the last hearing that we will take in public comment; we will likely close the public hearing tonight.
Sundquist turned to applicant Tony Scarpa for new information.
Scarpa stated that he’d like to discuss:
§ Improvements to King’s Hill Road
§ Road upgrade of King’s Hill Road – public meeting on January 30, 2006 at 5:30 p.m.
§ Update on covenants, and
§ Engineering Updates.
Scarpa stated that he met with the Selectmen last night and discussed the proposed improvements to King’s Hill Road as well as an easement we are prepared to give the town. He stated that this is presently a 2-rod wide road and we will make it into a 3-rod wide road. He stated that there is some difference of opinion about the upgrade of the road; the road agent wanting us to pave it and the townspeople expressing concern to have it remain as gravel. Scarpa stated that this would be an acceptable condition of the subdivision approval.
Wright stated that we have to act on the gift to the town and the discussion as to whether you want it paved or not. He stated that this means the removal of the trees and the stonewall.
Wright stated that the Select Board would follow what the town wants but we will not over rule the road agent unless the town made it very clear that this is what they want. He clarified that it is the portion of the road not maintained for winter travel.
Scarpa stated that we would bring the road up approximately 24 inches from where it is now but essentially we would keep the same look that it has now; that country kind of look.
Scarpa distributed “Revisions to Declaration of Protective Covenants for Meadow View Farms” and stated these items will be changed as outlined.
He mentioned that while he was in Deering, NH they recommended the drywell system and although it is more expensive we are going to try it as long as it will prevent run off from entering the Lyon Brook corridor.
He reviewed the document and informed the Board that a conveyance of the conservation easement was added to the covenants.
Scarpa turned the meeting over to the engineers and introduced Andrew Milwaukee representing Eckman Engineering.
Milwaukee stated they have changed the plans in response to the meeting on 12/20/06 and are submitting revised plans tonight.
Lou Caron, L & C Engineering Co. LLC responded that they appear to have addressed quite a bit but that because of the smaller copy he is uncertain about all the drainage calculations. He stated that he received HISS information but that he is uncertain about the methodology.
Caron stated that he is specifically concerned with lots 1 and 2 and if they will support septic.
Caron questioned as to whether he heard that Hominy Pot was off the table. He checked with Paul Parker and he is confident that the applicant will provide the road agent with the turn around that he is looking for.
Caron shared that the cistern concerns that he had shared were addressed and he was pleased to see it bigger and in a new location. He asked Milwaukee to point to the new location.
Caron stated the driveway he was a little concerned about is lot 9 – the plan showed a 13% grade and he recommends that the driveway be flattened out. He also felt that lot 12 needs a little evaluation.
Sundquist asked if we have grading plans for any of these.
Caron stated that they have done it before but it is not included here.
Caron requested a full size set of the plans submitted tonight. He stated that he believes that they will meet the requirements but he does need to review the latest plans.
Sundquist asked if Caron would make a punch list for the Board.
Caron represented Parker’s wish for an easement to the town on Pam Kennedy’s property.
Scarpa was open to working with the abutter to create an easement for the town to serve the new subdivision.
Caron asked about the covenant that refers to the under the road culvert and the reference to the beavers. He was most concerned with the reference of 36 ft. He stated that he wouldn’t want it coming back to harm the town in any way.
Scarpa stated that we feel that the number is a fair estimate of what the pipe should be but we can adjust that number once we get a realistic flow of water after removal of the beaver damns.
Sundquist stated that the point is well taken.
Caron summarized that a number of technical details need to be worked out but are doable. He also wanted to make sure that the Fire Department is agreeable to the new location of the cistern.
Scarpa stated that we will continue to work with the engineer until we reach consensus.
Sue Reel asked about the width of the PSNH easement. She stated that if you take 20 ft. and do the acreage it may drop below the 2 acre requirement.
Scarpa replied that we did research on this to determine that there was no width to the easement but for $1.00 PSNH could go onto the property.
Wright asked questions about the covenants protecting wetlands.
Sue Reel asked about the wording of number 3. She asked why the phrase no further subdivision “unless approved by the town planning board” is there and requested it be removed. Scarpa agreed to remove.
Sundquist asked about #23 and if there is a landscape plan that goes with each. He then asked how the applicant would maintain a relationship with the Sutton Conservation Commission.
Scarpa stated that he would look to them for input about acceptable species.
Sundquist asked if Scarpa is willing to restrict what people will plant on their property.
Scarpa responded that he does not want to restrict the development so much, that people would be hesitant to purchase the homes.
Sundquist asked that he consider water irrigation systems.
Scarpa replied that we would consider that.
Sundquist referred to BMP and asked who decides which devices are used and who polices that?
Scarpa stated that the DES does an excellent job in watching over their requirements – he stated that if this town had an engineer or a building inspector that were qualified this would not be an issue and the town has responsibility for the oversight.
Sundquist stated that he doesn’t believe that the town inspector would be able to handle the details of this particular plan.
Scarpa replied that the reason his plan is so detailed is that the Board has required it.
Caron interjected that it is not a bad idea to prepare lot site plans. He stated that it is reasonable to have a site contractor oversee the construction.
Scarpa stated that if you ask us to do this then other people should be required to do this as well.
Sundquist stated that he would like to know how the line was chosen on a particular lot and how it got that shape.
Dave Eckman replied that the back area is a good wood area and we left that for the wildlife; he stated that it provides continuity to the ASLPT.
Sundquist stated that it is good and important to provide the corridor but with Kennedy’s property, you have an area of the corridor where it is particularly narrow and that places a burden on her.
Scarpa stated that we are not required to have a wildlife corridor.
Sundquist stated that it only functions because of Kennedy’s land lending to the corridor.
Dan referenced #25 about the conservation easement and asked Betsy Forsham if she’d be interested in taking it.
Betsy Forsham stated that the things she heard tonight that would require caution on the part of the SCC is the culvert at 36 inches and the mowing details – she would need to work out the “further terms and conditions”.
Sundquist stated that the declaration is like a contract with the town and he feels that this will need to signed off by the town attorney.
Sundquist stated that he does not see any building envelopes on each lot in his subdivision.
Scarpa stated that until we are further along in this process we feel it would be better to site the houses after the state approvals; for instance the wetlands crossing. He stated that he would be open to submitting building plan information at the time of the building permit. He stated that he would be willing to sit with the town building inspector and share the engineering information about each lot.
9:40 p.m. Chairman Sundquist opened the meeting to Public Comment.
Charles Ash stated that it would be a formidable task to get the culvert down and deal with the beavers. Dan Sundquist added that it would require a program.
Doug Palmer stated that he used to tear the damns down.
Leslie Enroth stated that the reason that we have hesitated in hiring trappers is that they don’t take down the damns.
Palmer stated that there were none (damns) and now there are 30.
Betsy Forsham added that on page 6 it refers to being allowed to have dead trees removed and she feels that dead trees are important to the wildlife.
Roger Wells asked to address the Board:
§ He doesn’t see how the applicant or the land owner could not get an approval on a 18 lot subdivision;
§ He doesn’t feel that the applicant should have to provide conditions that are not in the town zoning ordinance; and
§ The Board has an opportunity to change the regulations and add new performance standards.
Wells stated that as he mentioned at the earlier meeting if he could have only one wish it would be that the Board require that the applicant take all the open space land and make it one lot in the homeowners association so that when damage is done the town will have someone to sue.
Scarpa stated that we have presented a conforming subdivision that meets all of the town requirements.
Roger Wells clarified that he would like to have the Board approve this with one condition.
Scarpa stated that he doesn’t believe that the Board can legally require that of the applicant.
Eckman stated that the wetlands are a moving target and that they are under the jurisdiction of the state.
Sundquist asked Wells about the plan he presented (at an earlier meeting).
Wells stated that he used those as an opportunity to show the Board an alternative.
Scarpa stated that we stayed with our plan with the idea that every condition is within the regulations whereas Wells proposed plan would have required requesting waivers.
Joe Burns stated that he feels that the restrictions and covenants are in general very restrictive. He stated that he feels that Scarpa will follow this through and that there would be a lot of “police” without having added restrictions on.
Scarpa read names from many decisions that the Board has made and explained that they have done their homework.
Leslie Ward stated that she would like to request that there be a 100 buffer to accommodate wood turtles. She read a statement about the habitat and the need for 100 feet for the wood turtle. She went on to say that the population of turtles has diminished greatly.
Chairman Sundquist read a letter from David Carroll of Warner dated November 30, 2005 into record.
Scarpa stated that for the record according to the Fish & Game Department there is only one animal in the State of NH that is endangered. He stated that under “endangered species.com” the only animal that is endangered the ….snake and that the turtles in NH are thriving and doing well.
Dan Sundquist disagreed.
Scarpa stated that we are doing a wildlife corridor; that we meet the regulations; that we are buying a property that has been on the market for a long time; and that we have revised the proposed subdivision plans based on feedback from the townspeople and the Planning Board.
Ken Udanivich stated that he has select cut (trees) three times in 25 years; he loves the bears and the moose; and if the growth is done well then it is fine. He suggested that Tony Scarpa is a good developer and we would be fortunate to have someone who does meet our regulations come before the Board. He stated that I think it’s time that we share our town a little. He stated that his son just got back from Iraq; if you want something that’s fine but don’t take away my rights.
David Beard stated that he has been to a number of planning board meetings and he has a copy of the traffic report that completed within the last 18 years possibly on this same property. He stated that the engineer that prepared that study indicated that it may constitute an unsafe condition. He asked if the town is prepared to make that improvement and how will we cover the cost of someone being harmed when we have on file that it is a dangerous road. He questioned how the town addresses the increased liability.
Kim Hazarvartian, Traffic Engineer, stated that the traffic study generated trips for the new houses and the numbers are low. He stated that the numbers of cars that are out there are also low. He stated that the actual numbers are an increase of 13 AM vehicle trips and 17 PM vehicle trips. He stated that the flow is split in two directions.
Beard asked if it means a 70% increase in traffic.
Charlie Ash stated that he takes exception with what Mr. Scarpa stated regarding the cost of a hydrologic study. He recommended that the Board discuss the letter he submitted from Jody Connor at DES and come to a decision about it.
Sundquist stated that the reason why this hasn’t come up is because of the applicant’s refusal to complete the study.
Chris Rowe asked if the developer meets all the criteria that the townspeople have put in place. He stated that to him this man is getting the bum end of the deal. He pointed out that the applicant has brought you a plan and you chose to discuss a plan Roger Wells presented. He agreed that on the trapper side it will require yearly maintenance.
Sundquist stated that we still have loose strings on the engineering side of things.
Lou Caron stated that the one piece he is still uncertain about is the 2 ½ acres usable or less to be documented. He then stated that he gives his opinions on road conditions.
Courtney Galluzzo stated that he is hoping for a date tonight that a decision will be made (right or wrong) and after a year of being before the Board he feels that if it goes much farther he will have to resign.
Scott Palmer stated that he thinks it is time for the planning board to make a decision.
Doug Palmer (landowner) asked for a decision after a year.
Betsy Forsham asked if there has been state subdivision approval.
Scarpa stated that this would happen during the site-specific phase.
Eckman stated that once we get approval from Sutton, we would submit to the state for septic decision immediately.
Scarpa stated that two meetings ago we gave this Board a voluntary extension. He stated that we are behind in this process not because of our own doing but because you did not hire a review engineer until three weeks into this. We have done everything; we would like this Board to act tonight.
Motion made by Bob Wright to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Courtney Galluzzo.
Unanimous Affirmative Vote (5:0).
Sundquist explained that the choices before the Board are approving, denying it with rational reasons or a conditional approval.
Sundquist described the way in which we approach a decision with conditions is to organize the conditions in a way that we make clear our concerns; and, if necessary, add a set of subsequent conditions.
Courtney Galluzzo shared his frustration about the process.
Sue Reel asked who is going to protect the lake.
Galluzzo asked why not have the town Health Officer do it.
11:00 p.m. Deliberative Session
The Board discussed the possible conditions of approval.
Courtney Galluzzo asked the Chair if a compromise to make a recommendation to the applicant about the wood turtles is possible. He suggested having the applicant confer with David Carroll with a goal of sharing information.
Motion made by Dan Sundquist to require a 100 ft. buffer zone for turtles. Seconded by Sue Reel.
Discussion.
Roll Call: Naia Conrad – no; Sue Reel – yes; Courtney Galluzzo – no; Bob Wright – no; and Dan Sundquist – yes. Majority Negative Vote (3:2).
Motion by Bob Wright to Approve the Major Subdivision Application with 19 conditions and a Board recommendation:
1. Condition of State Approvals
2. Document HISS study regarding lot sizes
3. Lot size certified
4. Engineering Issue regarding roadway drainage and erosion control
5. Resolution of hammerhead on Felch Road; Kings Hill Road; and private road cul-de-sac
6. Approval of placement, size and Construction details of Fire Chief
7. Baseline water quality data at preconstruction annually for the period of the phased build out at the Penacook Road bridge and at Felch Road bridge.
8. Testing for a minimum of three years after completion of last house.
9. The road construction on Kings Hill Road will meet the subdivision regulation standards with hot bituminous surface
10. Stonewalls will be relocated to edge of proposed ROW
11. Evergreen trees to be planted sufficient to provide an adequate wind break on frontage of lot 8
12. Secure a PSNH easement to construct and maintain slopes and drainage in writing.
13. Hire oversight engineer at the applicant’s expense to oversee road construction and road improvements (eg. Drainage, fire cistern).
14. The following applications be obtained and submitted for the record:
§ NH DES Subdivision
§ NH DES Wetlands
§ NH DES Alteration of Terrain
15. Mini site plan submitted with building permits which includes site grading and proposes temporary and permanent erosion control measures (BMP) submitted for review and comment by town agent
16. Show project phases on plans
17. Declaration of Protective Covenants for Meadow View Farms of Sutton are reviewed by town counsel
18. Have building envelopes included in plan sets with driveways and show clearing limits for driveways and house sites
19. DES review of hydrologic study to determine its adequacy
Recommendation: the Applicant confers with David Carroll with a goal of sharing information regarding a habitat management plan (educational dialogue that may lead to an educational program).
Seconded by Courtney Galluzzo.
Roll call: Dan Sundquist – yes; Naia Conrad – yes; Sue Reel – yes; Courtney Galluzzo – yes; and Bob Wright – yes. Unanimous Affirmative Vote (5:0).
1:00 a.m. Meeting Adjourned.
| 
