Newton Planning Board
Public Hearing
September 13, 2006
1. Call to Order
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:08 PM, declaring a quorum of six members and two alternate members present. The meeting was posted in three town locations: Newton Post Office, Newton Junction Post Office and Newton Town Hall and was published in the August 29, 2006 edition of the Carriage Towne News. There was no challenge to the legality of the meeting.
2. Attendance
The following members were present:
Kim Pettit -Chairman
Ann Miles – Vice-Chairman
Mary Allen - Member
Richard LeClaire - Member
Gary Nelson – Selectmen’s ex-officio member
Kim Vaillant - Member
James Doggett –Alternate member
Carl Malm – Alternate member
Also, present:
Sharon Cuddy Somers – Town Counsel
Eric Weinreib – Town Engineer
Trisha McCarthy – Conservation Commission Chairman
Mary Marshall – Conservation Commission
Frank Gibbs – Road Agent
The Chairman appointed Mr. Doggett to sit in place of Ms. Finnigan.
3. Manifest – Operating Budget
The following manifest was submitted to the Board for approval:
Budget Item Balance Expense New
Balance
Consultant Fees $5000.00 $2880.23 $2119.77
Reimbursement of NPREA
For charges paid to Altus for
Engineering services for Smith Corner & Peaslee Crossing Road
Total Expenditures from Operating Budget $2880.23
Ms. Pettit explained that this was to reimburse the NPREA account for the preliminary work that was performed in preparation of the improvements to Smith Corner Road and Peaslee Crossing Road.
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Ms. Miles to pay the amount as presented to reimburse NPREA. The motion passed unanimously.
The NPREA manifest was reviewed and Ms. Pettit said that there were legal charges from town counsel that should have been applied to specific applications and this could not be immediately determined. She requested that this matter by postponed until the work session.
Motion made by Mr. Doggett with a second by Mr. Nelson to table the NPREA manifest. The motion passed unanimously.
4. Nordic Wood Lane – Bond Reduction Request, #5
A letter was received from Todd D. Connors, PE of Sublime Civil Consultants, requesting a bond reduction for Nordic Woods Road (Gundersen), Map 9, Block 3, Lot 15. A report was received from James Kerivan in support of the reduction in the amount of $48,659.43, leaving the remainder of the bond at $99,711.75.
A motion was made by Ms. Allen with a second by Mr. Doggett to approve the request for the bond reduction as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
5. Request of DC Development for town acceptance of Philip Way
Mr. Weinreib stated that the cistern on site was now located differently and this must be dealt with prior to acceptance. The following conditions were suggested by James Kerivan for Altus Engineering following a site inspection and observation and agreed that Philip Way was ready for acceptance by the Town with the following conditions:
1. A maintenance bond shall be in place for a period of two (2) years in an amount no less than ten (10%) percent ($20,013) of the improvement cost per Section 9.3 of the subdivision regulations.
2. The “As-Built” plan shall be amended to accurately depict the location s of all underground utilities. Also include a signed certification on the drawing that states “The Developer certifies that the locations of all newly installed underground utilities are in conformance with the As-Built Plan” (per Section 9.2).
3. The maintenance easement area around the fire cistern on Lots 5-3 and 5-4 must be recorded at the Registry of Deeds so as to allow the Town legal access to this facility.
Motion made by Mr. Doggett with a second by Ms. Allen to approve the acceptance of Philip Way with the conditions as set forth by Altus Engineering. The motion passed unanimously.
6. Correspondence
A letter was received from Steve Cummings regarding a bond reduction for George’s Way. There was some discussion that there were still deficiencies with the road, telephone pole and stop sign. There was also discussion about maintenance of a private road. It was stated that private roads must be maintained by the owner/developer.
Motion made by Ms. Pettit with a second by Ms. Allen to defer this request to Altus Engineering for further review. The motion passed unanimously.
7. Approval of Past Meeting Minutes
Motion made by Ms. Pettit with a second by Ms. Vaillant to table the acceptance of minutes until the September work session. The motion passed unanimously.
8. Certificate of Occupancy – Nordic Woods
A certificate of occupancy was received from Fred Gundersen for Nordic Woods but it was unclear the purpose; pre-construction. The AA will follow up with the exact nature of this.
9. Master Plan Report
The AA reported that Dr. Robinson was unable to attend this meeting and had been invited to attend the October 10th public hearing at 7:15 to provide the Board with an update with regard to the Master Plan survey results and to seek direction from the Board for chapter revisions. Ms. Pettit asked the AA to pull the grant information as this should be reviewed along with the proposed 2007 budget and ordinances.
10. White Fence Development
This was a continuation of a public hearing for the purpose of amending a conditional approval received on October 12, 2004 for an eighty unit elderly cluster development at Smith Corner Road. The property is referenced as Map 8, Block 3, Lot 11 (Known as Sargent Woods). Mr. Ned Nichols, principal for White Fence Development said that he had reports that were consistent with the bonding. He said that he was before the Board because other projects had been approved without required bonding and he cited the Fitzgerald and McDonough projects. He said that he was before the Board in the interest of fairness.
Ms. Vaillant said that she thought bonds were not required for the other projects because they were not being constructed in phases. Mr. Nichols said that he did not follow that argument. Ms. Pettit asked how many phases were involved with this project and he said that there was two, 1A and 1B. Ms. Pettit said that creative constructive timing would turn over quickly. Mr. Nichols said that other developers were kept under control via COs and asked why bonding was needed in this instance. Ms. Pettit said that the board had asked for bonds and were trying to stay consistent with that request. Mr. Nichols asked if the town would finish this project if he did not because it was private. Ms. Pettit said she was not sure if the town would finish the project in the event that he could not but would
restore or finish what was begun. Mr. Nichols said that he was only asking for a reduction with regards to the occupancy permits and he understood that there was no bond for the road but for everything underneath the road. Ms. Pettit said that she thought this would be deferred to the Town Engineer and Town Planner. She asked for Board comments. Ms. Allen asked what was being requested.
Mr. LeClaire said that he understood the bonding but if the water and septic were not installed, COs could not be obtained. Mr. Nichols said that the roads were not built to town standards anyway; this was for electric, water and sewer only. Ms. Miles said that her concerns were if Phase 1 was partially completed and then Mr. Nichols went bankrupt, the project could not be completed if not bonded and she explained the burden connected to that. She said that if there were 80 total units and 22 were included in Phase 1, those units should be able to stand alone. Mr. Nichols said that the entire water system was included in Phase 1. Ms. Miles asked how he would ensure that tax payers that this would be done without burdening them. Mr. Nichols said that the Attorney General watched these types of projects
closely. Ms. Vaillant suggested that the minutes from the original meeting be pulled. Ms. Pettit said that there had been discussion that if the phases were done sequentially, there had been great concern that each phase functioned independently. Attorney Somers said that if there was no further input, the hearing should be closed and the board should deliberate.
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Mr. Doggett to close the public hearing and continue the deliberations on October 10, 2006. The motion passed unanimously.
11. 125 Development Corp
This is a public hearing to consider the request of 125 Development Corporation~to have the Newton Planning Board, pursuant to NH RSA 676:4 (I) (i), find that all conditions required as part of a conditional approval granted on April 12, 2005 for a Non-Residential Site Plan Application Review for property located on Puzzle Lane, Newton, NH, Map 14, Block 1, Lot 27-3 has now been fulfilled and to grant final approval for the project. Mr. McDonough was present and represented by his attorney Greg Michaels.
Attorney Somers said that the Board would need to determine if the conditions had been met with a specific focus on three items: mitigation plan, sound study and there were various non-compliance issues addressed and compliance with the ordinances. She said that there were three things to decide:
o Conditions satisfied and COs could be issued.
o Conditions not satisfied and no COs could be issued
o Table the discussion and continue the hearing to seek further information.
NH RSA 676:12 allowed for temporary COs to be issued for thirty days and renewed at the discretion of the Building Inspector.
The letter from Newton Conservation Commission was reviewed. A notice of a buffer zone violation had been received from Altus in May 2005. A mitigation plan had been submitted.
Ned Nichols stated that the letter addressed the buffer but he was concerned about the wetlands, as referenced in the last paragraph of the Conservation Commission’s letter:
As a final comment the Conservation Commission observed the clear cutting to the wetlands, and what appeared to be an altering of the slope & grading into the wetlands in lot 27-4. We’ve been told that this happened in error while work was being done on lot 27-3 not lot 27-4, (although the two locations in question are not close to each other on the plans). We have no problem signing off on the Mitigation Plan as described above and request our conditions be noted on the official recorded plan.
He said that the violation was on 27-3 not 27-4. He said that there had been cutting beyond the silt fencing and beyond the limit of cutting. Ms. Allen said that 27-3 had not been addressed. Mr. Nichols said that the cutting had been done right up to the wetlands and it had been stated that this was not one of the conditions. A plan entitled “Vegetative Buffer Mitigation Plan for 27-3” was submitted which addressed the Altus letter of May 2005. It was stated that the letter addressed lot 27-4. Attorney Somers said that the Conservation Commission letter stated what notes they were requiring be added to the plan. It was suggested that the mitigation plan be amended and presented in a recordable format and then recorded.
Attorney Somers said that the Conservation Commission comments addressed issues to be monitored over a five-year period and bonding might be appropriate. Ms. Pettit said that an estimate would be needed for this (ten trees replanted, maintained and thriving for five years).
Sound Study – Mr. Nichols expressed concern abut the tree removal, the baseline study and that there had been no requirement for a post-occupancy study. Ms. Miles said that the town should be responsible for post-occupancy sound issues and there were adequate enforcement procedures. She added that hours of operation were important because as noted on Page 5 of the Sound Study “an existing building does not create noise by itself”. Attorney Somers agreed and advised that the numbers be checked and look for agreement with the conditions.
Ms. Miles said that the 50’ buffer must be maintained and this should be enforced by the Selectmen and there should be a fining mechanism. Ms. Pettit said that per 7.2.18 in the regulations, everything tested well below level except in the instant when I ten-wheeler drove by. She said that the sound conformed to the regulations and anything following occupation was an enforcement issue.
Mr. Nichols said that he was disappointed with the sound study and that there were two locations that should have been checked for violations at the border and he suggested that this sound study be reviewed by another sound study engineer. Attorney Somers said that an independent study had been rejected by the board.
Mr. Nichols contested that he was not noticed about this hearing. The certified mailing information was retrieved and it had been signed for but had the wrong address. Attorney Somers said that he was present at this hearing. Mr. Doggett said that without a CO there was no sound and he suggested issuing a CO upon the completion of the mitigation plan. Attorney Somers suggested taking each item in order.
Motion made by Mr. Nelson with a second by Mr. Doggett to accept the sound study as meeting a requirement of the conditional approval as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
Non-compliance Issues
Mr. Weinreib stated that issues addressed in his letter of non-compliance dated June 3, 2005 contained six items, which were erosion control issues and these had all been resolved. He said that the detention pond was not correct and he had acknowledged that the site was stabilized prior to the Cease and Desist of September 2005.
Motion made by Mr. Doggett with a second by Ms. Miles that all issues with the exception of item C had been met. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Weinreib referred to his letter dated June 23, 2006 regarding the overall conformance with town regulations. He asked that the Board skip the first eight items, which dealt with the roadway and not Lot 27-3.
(Bold text indicates Mr. Weinreib’s original comments, italicized comments are from the applicant and plain text is meeting discussion.)
11.a. The width of the gravel surface did not extend to the limits shown on the approved drawings. In some areas the gravel barely extended to the edge of pavement. Altus predicts that edge cracking of the pavement will occur in the near future.
Roadway has been installed for seven months with extremely heavy traffic and shows no cracks have occurred on McDonough’s private driveway.
On June 13, Altus confirmed the concern. Cracks are forming at the edge of pavement. With the site approved for a construction company, Altus expects a rapid deterioration of the pavement. Field correction required. This is a critical issue.
Mr. Weinreib said that the pavement was still cracking but this was a private driveway and dealt with construction and was not a compliance issue.
11.b, c: Altus observed wet, sloppy areas of gravel just prior to laying asphalt. The parking lot entryway was not compacted with a roller prior to paving. One (1”) inch deep ruts in the gravel were paved over.
Pavement on McDonough’s private driveway and parking area after seven months of heavy traffic shows no sign of failure. If it should show any signs of failure it will be addressed at the time of the finish overlay. Jorworski Engineering tested the roadway and parking lot for compaction and we met the town specifications on all test prior to paving. Waiver was granted on width and depth. Please advise Civil Construction Management.
The finish overlay will not resolve this issue. The pavement will need to be cut out, the subgrade repaired and the pavement reinstalled. Field correction required. Altus is not aware of any compaction tests on the parking lot. Field correction required.
Not a compliance issues.
12. Drain pipe – The crushed stone trench bedding for drainage pipe was not installed according to the approved plans.
Manufacturer’s specs were forwarded to the Board. We achieved the manufacturers
specs with the installed gravel base under the pipe.
The approved plans show crushed stone bedding. There has been no waiver. Altus highly recommends stone bedding on projects where there is no full time inspection to ensure proper compaction.
Mr. Weinreib said that this was acceptable but not shown on the original plan and an “as-built” will need to be submitted.
13. Detention Pond – Tree roots were observed protruding from the earth “leaching berm” that creates the detention pond. Altus did not observe the construction of this berm and questions its quality.
Roots have been removed from the loam berm.
Altus: At the June 13th inspection, Altus performed auger tests of the berm. We note that the berm is constructed with a loam surface layer and dense sand.
This does not conform to the approved plans which specify septic sand and riprap. The berm width does not conform to the design requirements. Altus is extremely concerned that failure of the design intent will occur. Field correction is required. This is a critical issue.
Mr. Weinreib said that the detention pond was designed as leaching with no outlet structure; stone was specified and course sand at the bottom of the berm. Auger tests showed loam and dense sand and this was witnessed today. No stone found and fine to medium sand was used, which did not permit permeability. He said that he had received correspondence from Mr. McDonough regarding flood levels and that this held up under the recent floods in May. He said that he was concerned that this had not been constructed properly and that water would run out through the emergency spillway. He said that Mr. McDonough had offered to test the material. He said that as a new solution for this the material could either be replaced or certified and this was the largest issue on site.
He said that some of his comments could be handled with an as-built plan such as there were four overhead doors on the approved plan but seven had been built and this affected the parking, which was not striped.
He said that the dumpster area and parking areas needed to be squared off, the handicapped ramp had been moved, the building canopy shown on the approved plan did not yet exist, there were no handicapped signs, wetlands permits were needed, and “end-of-the-road” signs were required.
He said that there was a guardrail proposed on the inside of the road and where the slope was steep, which had not yet been installed. Some grades had been modified or re-graded and there were no drainage swales at the toe of the slope.
He said that all of the water was running into the wetlands because the swale was wrong and this could be modified to comply with the approval or it could be modified and resubmitted to the town and State.
He said that the catch basins had been addressed and resolved.
He said that a community well would be needed if there was to be more than 24 people at the facility and although the site plan stated that there would be 24, recently received information regarding the tenants indicated that there would be more.
Vegetation had been relocated from the adjacent woods and it was no healthy, tree-tops were broken but he was comfortable with the recommendations of the Conservation Commission.
Mr. Weinreib stated that this had been a long process and efforts had been made by the applicant to comply and the applicant’s engineer concurred with Altus regarding the berm. He said that all of these issues could be resolved.
Ms. Pettit read the letter from Mr. McDonough to Mr. Weinreib and there was a request for an extension until October 25 to replace material. Mr. Weinreib said that either the specifications should be met or replaced.
Ms. Allen said that they should be replaced.
Attorney Somers asked if the applicant chose to revise field work, could be completed in thirty days. The answer was given in the affirmative. Ms. Pettit asked if more hearings would be needed if more time was allotted for the work to be corrected/completed.
Attorney Michael said that he was not an engineer and he had listened attentively. He stated that the berm had been in place for more than one year and had withstood throughout the October and May rains. He said that Mr. McDonough had done testing and it did sieve and if needed would be replaced. He said that the 100-year mark had been met and this would be tested. He said that the more critical issue was the COs. He said that this project had been on-going for some time and many of the outstanding issues could be handled with an “as-built” plan. He said that the parking was set and there had already been a discussion as to where more parking could be added. He said that the community well issue was subjective and he would ask the Board to take a position. He said that the
town was holding $27,000.00 in bonds and these were sufficient to deal with all of the issues and he didn’t believe that the guard rails were needed , the drainage would be reviewed and revised if necessary within thirty days. He said that a project like this was never simple and there were good people waiting to move in and they were requesting to move forward and asked that COs be issued and have a thirty-day time line attached. There was discussion about the CO that had been issued for the super structure. Mr. McDonough provided a breakdown of the units. He said that the Building Inspector would not permit electricity.
Attorney Somers said that if there were 6 tenants for 15 bays that was 42 bodies. She said that she was concerned with being consistent and 24 occupants had been approved. She said that there was a lot of confusion that needing resolution. She said that there could either be a community well or no more than 24 occupants. Attorney Michaels said that there would be no more than 24 occupants. Attorney Somers said that the approval must match the facts.
Ms. Miles said that moving forward and advised the applicant to do the work per the plan and look at community wells.
A continuance was suggested. Mr. Weinreib said that the turn-around for site specific permits was 115 days. Mr. LeClaire suggested that temporary COs be issued. Ms. Pettit said that the tenants needed to be reviewed. Attorney Somers suggested tabling that issue and taking it up later and suggested that if the Board agreed with the mitigation plan, temporary COs could be issued with conditions such as:
- as built plan to be submitted
- signage added
- guardrails added
- all conditions to be completed in 30 days
- (i) Altus Comments – provide field work in 30 days
- no temporary CO for more than 24 total occupants
- have Mr. Weinreib addre4ss sufficient bonding and issues to address #’s 1-7 of his comments and if the bond amount was sufficient.
Ms. Miles said that this had been a painfully long, overdue situation. She said that the temporary COs were to set up careful conditions and the tenants could pressure the developer. She suggested revisiting the mitigation and bonding issues. Ms. Pettit said that there would have to be a mitigation bond, road bond (in place), driveway bond and if conditions were not met the temporary COs would expire. Attorney Somers said that the Board would need to set a time limit.
Motion made by Mr. Doggett with a second by Ms. Allen to accept for filing the mitigation plan as specified by the Newton Conservation Commission with the appropriate bonding and a recordable plan. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. McDonough and his attorney stated that all items would be addressed.
Motion made by Ms. Pettit with a second by Ms. Miles that the Planning Board recommend to the Building Inspector to issue 30-day temporary Certificates of Occupancy for 125 Development, 14-1-27-3, with the following conditions:
1. Provision of a complete as-built plan
2. All signage to be installed as per Comment f, by Altus Engineering.
3. Guardrails to be installed.
4. Field work to be completed as per the conditional approval granted on April 12, 2005.
5. Under no condition can there be more than a total of 24 occupants.
6. Berm to be tested by Altus and if it doesn’t meet the requirements, it is to be rebuilt per the approved plan.
7. Altus to prepare bonding calculations for mitigation.
8. Additional bonding required for NPREA and Bonding reviews.
The motion passed with a vote of 6-0-1, with Ms. Vaillant abstaining.
12. Woodhouse
This was a continuation of a public hearing to consider the request of Janice and
Robert Woodhouse for a proposed 19-lot, residential subdivision on property
located on Peaslee Crossing Road, Tax Map 13, Block 3, Lots 6,7,8,10,11, & 12. James Lavelle of Lavelle Associates provided the presentation. Revised plans were submitted to the Planning Board office today. Ms. Vaillant, stepped down as she is an abutter and Mr. Malm was appointed in her place. Ms. Pettit said that the revised plans should have been received sooner and the applicant would have to grant the Board an extension to the jurisdictional clock and suggested 65 days. Mr. Woodhouse asked if 30 days would be sufficient. He agreed to 60 days.
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Mr. Doggett to continue this hearing until October 10, 2006 with an extension of 60 days having been granted to the jurisdictional clock. Passed 6-0-1, with Mr. LeClaire abstaining.
Mr. Lavelle said that the applicant wanted his fifteen minutes before being continued. He said that 48 comments from Altus had been addressed and all that remained were housekeeping issues. A letter was submitted from Sublime addressing specific comments:
#5 – There will be no homeowner’s association. The Trolley way will be deeded to the Town to have and maintain as a nature trail.
#9 One will be installed if the town wished. Ms. Vaillant, said that as an abutter, she did not want a light there and although it would not affect her it would affect her neighbors and there was no shielding. Ms Miles thanked her for the comment but stated that as fall and winter were approaching, it would be dark earlier and there was safety concerns. Mr. Gibbs said that when they shut off the thirty other street lights the town had not been thinking about children. Ms. Allen asked which of the 74 issues were the most important. Mr. Weinreib said that the berm of the detention pond was an issue.
There was discussion about the severity of the driveway slopes at 8-1,8-2 and 8-3 in particular. Mr. Lavelle said that the lots met all of the town specifications.
Ms. Pettit suggested that Mr. Weinreib choose specific lots to review.
Ms. Miles said that at a TRC meeting, because of the sensitivity of the site there was to be sequencing about how materials would be moved on this fragile site.
Mr. Lavelle said that the lots would be sold over a period of time and be deeded fee-simple. Mr. Woodhouse said that the road would be done all at once. Ms. Pettit said that it would be a good idea to designate phasing. Mr. Lavelle stated that there was sequencing notes on the plan and there was no gravel on-site.
13. Marra and Marley Builders
This was a continuation of a public hearing in which the applicants are requesting review and approval for a five-lot subdivision on 23 Whittier Street. The property is owned by John & Constance Marra and is referenced as Tax Map 6/Block 9/Lot 9.
(Jurisdiction was invoked upon this plan on June 13, 2006 and extension for 65 days was granted on 8/8/06). James Lavelle of Lavelle Associates provided the presentation. Mr. Lavelle stated that the following documents had been received:
o State subdivision approval
o NHDOT Driveway permit approval
o Letter of certification from Mr. Marra
o Bond estimate
Mr. Lavelle stated that all comments had been satisfactorily addressed. Ms. Pettit said that she had spoken with Mr. Hull who had no further planning issues. Mr. Lavelle said that an independent soil scientist had verified all soil typing and the overly excavated area met 2 out of 3 of the criteria for the wetlands. He said that it had almost been dug to the jurisdictional limit but this would be corrected. The bond estimate submitted by Steve Cummings is $76,658.98. Mr. Weinreib said that the applicant had done a great job addressing all issues. Ms. Pettit said that she thought this application was good to go forward for a conditional approval.
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Mr. LeClaire to grant conditional approval on the Marra plan based on a clean letter from Altus and a submittal of a mylar of the plan. The motion passed unanimously.
This public hearing was declared closed.
14. Difeo and Brogna LLC
This was a continuation of a public hearing for a three-lot subdivision at 31-41 Whittier Street. The property is referenced as Map 6, Block 11, Lot 2. (Jurisdiction was invoked on 8/8/06). Kevin Hatch addressed the comments submitted by Altus and all Conservation Commission information had been added to the plan. Ms. Miles said that it was rude that the applicant had provided the letter addressing Conservation issues at the last minute and the Board needed to be consistent. Ms. Pettit said that she agreed and there were significant issues. Mr. Weinreib said that he had received the revisions on September 8 and there was several issues dealing with zoning, easements without permission, well-citing waivers, and restricted access on lot 2-3 was suggested. Ms. Pettit related that some of these issues were
similar to the Richards’ application.
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Mr. Doggett to continue this hearing until October 10, 2006. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Hatch said that had delivered plans to the Fire Department and asked if sprinklers were required. He was told that they were. Mr. Hatch said that the Board was asking for something then that was not in the building code. Article V, Section 5.2 was cited. Mr. Hatch said that the easement was an existing 24’ easement that had been granted in 1986. He said that there was a waiver request for the well radius and that the State requirements for the wetlands could be met. He said that he had no doubt that the State would grant a dredge and fill. He cited 8.2.10.B stating that the intent could not be met and a waiver request had been prepared. There were some questions concerning the abutters and the well radius and the frontage issue. Mr. Doggett said that the Planning Board had not
created the narrow lot but was trying to correct it.
15. Saunders
This is a continuation of a public hearing in which the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for the purpose of establishing an accessory apartment, which is pre-existing but not approved. The property is owned by Randall C. Saunders, is located at 76 Peaslee Crossing Road and is referenced as Map 7-Block 3-Lot 28-17. Mr. Saunders submitted a plan showing the existing accessory apartment and the total area for it was 240 square feet.
Motion made by Ms. Pettit with a second by Mr. Nelson to approve the Conditional Use Permit for an accessory apartment for Mr. Saunders. The motion passed unanimously.
16. Patricia Gleichauf-Wonson
This is a public hearing for a boundary line adjustment between 34 & 36 Highland Street. The properties are owned by Patricia Gleichauf-Wonson and Percy Wonson and Gleichauf Revocable Trust and are referenced as Map 11/Block 5/Lot 5 and Map
11/Block 5/Lot 4. The Board reviewed the plan as submitted and determined that the boundary line adjustment would now permit both lots to be in conformance. Trisha McCarthy, an abutter stated that she was good with this.
Motion made by Ms. Pettit with a second by Ms. Allen to invoke jurisdiction on the Wonson plan. The motion passed unanimously.
Motion made by Ms. Allen with a second by Mr. Nelson to approve the Boundary Line Adjustment plan for Wonson as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
17. Continuation of Board Business
Ms. Pettit said that the approval for 125 Development for lot 27-1 had been appealed and remanded back to the Board because jurisdiction had not been invoked and a hydrogeologic study had not been submitted. It will be scheduled for October 10, 2006.
18. Adjournment
Motion made by Ms. Miles with a second by Mr. Doggett to adjourn at 10:45 PM. The motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Sally E. Cockerline
Administrative Assistant
Newton Planning Board
| 
