NEWTON PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING AND WORK SESSION
OCTOBER 27, 2009
1. Call to Order:
Chairperson Miles called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. In attendance were: Chairperson Ann Miles; Vice Chairman Jim Doggett; Planning Board members Barbara White and Kim Vaillant; and Alternate Chuck Whitman. Minutes were transcribed by Administrative Assistant, Lisa Babcock.
Also in attendance: Brian Groth, Circuit Rider Planner.
2. Ann McKillop Araki of Boise, ID: continuation of a public hearing for a 4-lot Subdivision and Roadway at 9 Sarah's Way, Newton. The property is referenced as Tax Map 10, Block 2, Lot 10-7.
Miles recused herself. Vice Chairman Doggett appointed Whitman to stand in for Pettit.
David Leach of Civil Construction Management addressed the board on behalf of the applicant. Ms. Araki was not present. Mr. Leach reviewed the most recent changes to the plans. He pointed out that a note had been added to sheet PL stating: "The roadway area northwesterly of the proposed culverts shall be maintained, during the winter months, by the owners of lots 10-11 and 10-9."
Planning Board member Frank Gibbs arrived at 7:02 pm.
Groth said the note should be changed to indicate that "all maintenance" is the responsibility of the owners of the lots. Gibbs added that the culvert shouldn't be treated any differently than a driveway culvert. Driveway culverts are maintained by the property owners not by the town – even though they are on town property.
Alternate Rick Milner arrived at 7:03 pm. Doggett appointed Milner to stand in for Miles.
Mr. Leach said the note can be clarified to specify that the homeowners will be responsible for year-round maintenance.
The Board then reviewed the requested waivers. 1) Turnaround being a T configuration rather than 62' pavement, 2) Grade of the road and 3) 20' of pavement.
Groth said he had found two more waivers that would need to be requested. First, for section 8.3.2.D of the subdivision regulations which states: "No portion of a lot created under these regulations shall be less than 75’ in width." Groth pointed out that a portion of lot 10-12 is narrower than 75'. Mr. Leach argued that those measurements should be taken from sideline to sideline. Groth said this is different than lot width; the regulation requires that no portion of the road be less than 75' in width to avoid having fingerlike pieces of parcel.
Second, a waiver is needed for section 2.4 of Appendix B which requires a minimum ROW of 50' for local service roads. Groth said the ROW is typically measured perpendicular to the centerline of the road. For lots 10-11, 10-9 and 10-12, when we try to take a ROW measurement it doesn't work because of the arc of the circle.
Mr. Leach said disregarding the configuration of the pavement, the ROW looks like any other ROW in town – it is exactly to town specifications. It’s the pavement within the ROW that's different. Groth said ROW is a relationship to the centerline of the traveled way.
Doggett asked if any of the abutters wanted to comment. The abutters declined to comment.
Vaillant said she has problems with the shapes of the lots and the design of the road and the road maintenance issues. She asked if any other board members share these same concerns. Milner said his concern is with the width of road over the culvert. He said it is too narrow from a safety stand point. It could probably be made wider without too great an impact on the wetlands.
Doggett said he agrees with Vaillant concerning the lot shapes; however he said he understands that it was done to create buildable space. He also said having the larger lot sizes is a good use of the land. Mr. Leach pointed out that they could have extended the road further, put in a full cul-de-sac and created even more lots but they were trying to minimize the impact to the wetlands.
Mr. Leach said the culvert is 30 feet. Gibbs said the pavement over the culvert could be wider; the banking on either side will just be steeper. You could have retaining walls. Mr. Leach said guardrails are proposed on either side so the steepness shouldn't be a problem. The current design calls for 14' of pavement with 1' of gravel on each side. The guardrails are 16' apart.
Doggett polled the board – who agrees that the pavement over the culvert should be 20' in width? All agreed except Gibbs who was not in favor of requiring 20' of pavement.
Gibbs moved to change note # 2 on sheet PL from "…shall be maintained during the winter months by the owners…" to "…shall be maintained during the summer and winter months by the owners…" Vaillant amended the motion to have the note read "…shall be maintained year-round by the owners…" Second by Milner. Motion carried unanimously.
White moved to grant a waiver from Appendix B section 1.7 of the subdivision regulations "the grade with[in] 100 feet of the intersection does not exceed 1%" to allow a slope of 3% for the first 15', transitioning to 7% at 65' from the intersection. Second by Gibbs. Motion carried unanimously.
The Board looked at the waiver to permit 20' of paving (instead of 24'). Doggett pointed out that there is a problem with the waiver. It would seem to indicate that all portions of the road should be 20' in width. However, the portions over the culvert and beyond are not 20' in width.
Mr. Leach said he would change the plans to show only the road and culvert, and not show the driveway entrances. All of the pavement shown will be 20' in width.
White moved to grant a waiver from Appendix B section 2.4 of the subdivision regulations requiring 24' of pavement and allowing a pavement width of 20'. Second by Gibbs. Motion carried unanimously.
Gibbs moved to grant a waiver from Appendix B section 2.8 of the subdivision regulations requiring that the "turn_around of a dead end street shall have…a minimum radius of 62' to the outside edge of the pavement" and allow the T-turn as proposed. Second by White. Motion carried unanimously.
Gibbs moved to continue the public hearing to November 11, 2009. Second by White. Motion carried unanimously.
Milner stepped down and Miles came back to the table.
3. Hen House – 85 South Main Street: Board Review of Existing Site Plan.
Nick Desroche, part owner of the Hen House, was present. Mr. Desroche informed the Board that he plans to re-open the second floor of the restaurant as a lounge and function hall. He explained that the area had been used for this purpose in the past but had been closed for several years due to occupancy issues. He said that he was going to have to install a sprinkler system for the occupancy at that time. He decided to reduce the number of occupants so a sprinkler system would not be necessary.
Mr. Desroche said he is working on some electrical and plumbing issues as directed by the building inspector.
Vaillant asked if the spiral staircase is still in use. Mr. Desroche said no, it has been capped.
Gibbs asked about the occupancy for the 2nd floor. Mr. Desroche said the new occupancy would be 49 on the 2nd floor, including staff.
Doggett asked about egresses. He pointed out that the stairways are not noted on the plans. Gibbs said the plans should show stairways. Mr. Desroche described the existing configuration of the exits. He stated that there are two exits including and emergency exit.
Gibbs asked if the 2nd floor is handicapped accessible. Mr. Desroche said it is not, but the 1st floor is. Gibbs said handicapped ramps should be shown on the plans.
White asked if this is a new use. Mr. Desroche said the space was used previously as a lounge and function hall for about 1½ to 2 years around 2003. White said she would like to see a drawing showing the stairways.
Miles said Mr. Desroche should find out if he can legally operate the 2nd floor as a function hall without it being handicapped accessible.
Gibbs asked if the septic design is adequate for the extra 49 people. Mr. Desroche said the previous occupancy for the 2nd floor was 95 people when the building was originally built.
Miles asked if there is a community well. Mr. Desroche did not know.
Doggett said one of the problems is since the area has not been used for five years it reverts to open space. It is now subject to new regulations and codes. He said some of the questions and concerns will have to be addressed by the property owner.
Gibbs said the board needs to review the septic design. If the current system is not adequate, a new design must be kept on file. In the event the current system fails, the new design can be implemented.
Miles said the board needs to review the septic design, community well requirements and also review the site plan. If the site plan is different form what's there, the board will probably request a new site plan.
Vaillant asked if there was anything on record showing that the planning board had approved the use of the 2nd floor. Mr. Desroche said when he bought the business; the 2nd floor was already in use. Mr. Desroche said the occupancy at the time was 95 for the 2nd floor and 85 for the 1st floor.
Vaillant said the 2nd floor was opened when the restaurant was called KJ's and was owned by someone else. She said at some point either the planning board or building department had given permission for the business, and now the board's telling the owner that the entire building has to be reviewed and is questioning the wells and septic.
Miles said the board is really just asking for more information. The function room must come back into use with the current laws that drive the restaurant business. A restaurant with over 50 customers is much different than a small retail operation.
Gibbs asked if the 1st floor has a sprinkler system. Mr. Desroche said no, they are grandfathered. Doggett suggested reviewing all of the information at the next meeting.
Miles said the board will need: the septic design, well information, the total number of people in the building and plans that show the egresses.
Gibbs said the plans are needed because they are used by the Fire Department. In the event of an emergency the FD will know the layout of the building.
4. G.F. Appliance Warehouse: Request to address board concerning proposed business at 2 Puzzle Lane, Unit # 6.
Greg Foucault addressed the board. The proposed business will include some retail, wholesale and warehousing of appliances. Gibbs asked if there is an occupancy permit for the building. Mr. Foucault said he was told that there is. Miles asked the secretary to check with the building department.
Miles said the inspections listed on the back of the commercial business form are required. This should be done on a yearly basis or as the tenants change.
Mr. Foucault said the unit is empty now. It's just some warehouse and office space. He will not be doing any renovation. He said customers will pick up appliances there. Mr. Foucault explained that he has 5 employees between his Haverhill store and this one. He may eventually hire one or two full time employees for the Newton store. Only two will be employed in Newton.
Mr. Foucault said the hours of operation will be: 8 am to 6 pm Monday through Saturday and closed on Sundays.
5. Acceptance of Minutes:
Doggett moved to accept the minutes of October 13, 2009 as written. Second by White. Motion carried unanimously.
6. Manifests:
Doggett moved to authorize the chair to sign the NPREA manifest dated 10/27/09 in the amount $781.40. Second by White. Motion carried unanimously.
Doggett moved to authorize the chair to sign the Operating Budget manifest dated 10/27/09 in the amount $89.79. Second by Gibbs. Motion carried unanimously.
7. Sargent Woods: Groth explained that a developer had contacted him and asked whether the board would consider dropping the 55+ age restriction at Sargent Woods.
The Board discussed possible uses for the property and the impact the uses would have on the town but did not say whether or not any particular use would be allowed. Miles said to have the developer contact the Planning Board.
8. Workforce Housing: The Board reviewed a time line of its work on workforce housing over the past year.
9. Subdivision w/in Subdivision: The Board agreed to review this on a case by case basis and require a note on any set of plans for which there should be no further subdivision.
10. Excavation Regulations: The Board reviewed an old excavation regulation which appeared to have been passed by an earlier board. The secretary will research the circumstances under which this regulation was passed. It was noted that the older regulation is very similar to the regulation that the Board had worked on more recently.
11. DTC Bill: The Board reviewed an e-mail from Rob Peterson who requested that the board pay some of the DTC invoice of $175 for work related to the Sara Realty case.
White moved to pay the DTC invoice in the amount of $175 for work related to the Sara Realty case. Second by Doggett. Motion carried unanimously.
12. E-mail re Home Based Business Sign: The Board reviewed an e-mail from C. Burns concerning the procedure for getting a waiver or variance for a larger home based business sign. Mr. Burns had approached the board of appeals but was told he needed to get a denial from the planning board first.
White said it is not necessary for an applicant to get a denial from the planning board before going before the Board of Appeals.
It was mentioned that a variance can't be given for a conditional use permit anyway. The secretary will check on that and find the applicable RSA.
Miles said to inform Mr. Burns that an applicant does not need to get a denial before going to the board of appeals and that variances cannot be granted for conditional use permits. He also may wish to consult legal counsel.
13. Newton Learning Center: A person had inquired about putting up a new sign for the Newton Learning Center. The board asked the secretary to have the person submit a sketch of the sign, find out if it is to be lighted and ask if the sign will be going on property owned by Newton Learning Center.
14. Puzzle Lane Complaint: A complaint had been received by the planning board secretary that a gravel operation is ongoing at Puzzle Lane and concrete is being brought in and dumped. The person will be referred to the code enforcement officer.
15. Home Businesses: A call had been received from the Massachusetts Bureau of ATF concerning a possible home business in Newton. The homeowner will be asked to fill out a home business form for the board's review if he/she is operating a home business.
The Board asked the secretary to send a memo to the Board of Selectmen concerning a possible home business on Zoe Lane.
16. Adjourn: Miles called the meeting adjourned at 9:18 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lisa Babcock
Administrative Assistant
Newton Planning Board
| 
