NEWTON PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING
APRIL 9, 2013
1. Call to Order: Vice Chairman Jim Doggett called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm. In attendance were: Vice Chairman Jim Doggett; Planning Board members Frank Gibbs, Robert Miller, Michael Blanchette, and Fred Gabriel; Alternates Mary Allen, Roger Hamel, and Jim Holland; and Circuit Rider Planner Jennifer Rowden. Minutes were transcribed by Administrative Assistant Rick Milner.
Doggett appointed Allen to stand in for White.
2. 125 Development NH Corp. in Plaistow, NH requests a public hearing for a minor site plan review (amended site plan for Lot 27-4 Phase I construction) at the Southern New Hampshire Industrial Park commercial subdivision located on Puzzle Lane. The property is referenced as Tax Map 14, Block 1, Lot 27-4.
Doggett opened the public hearing.
Phil Henry of Civil Design Group, LLC was present to represent the applicant.
Mr. Henry addressed the Board. He stated that 125 Development NH Corp. was presenting an amended site plan for Lot 27-4 Phase I Building #2. The purpose of his presentation was to address:
- the completion of construction related items such as site stabilization and storm water management
- efforts by the developer to bring the site into compliance with the approved site plan
- construction issues still remaining as noted in the Town Engineer’s April 8 site visit memorandum.
Mr. Henry stated that the developer is requesting to construct the driveway access to Building #2 with a crushed gravel base.
Doggett asked for Board member comments as to whether the driveway should be paved as per the approved site plan or allowed to remain as crushed gravel.
Milner noted that the Town Fire Chief submitted an email stating that he would prefer that the driveway be paved as shown in the original approved site plan.
Gibbs and Holland stated that the driveway should be paved as shown in the approved plan.
Mr. Henry noted that bonding estimates for completion of paving were included in the Town Engineer’s review letter. He requested that the Board consider bonding the completion of paving rather than paving the driveway now since Phase II construction will be built in the near future and the cul-de-sac shown on the Phase I plan will eventually be removed.
Doggett stated that the Board should not consider implications for Phase II since that plan has not been brought before the Board. The Board should only consider the plan before the Board at present.
Mr. Henry stated that a licensed structural engineer had evaluated the retaining wall noted on the proposed amended site plan and found it to be structurally adequate to support the design loads per the current International Building Code.
Gibbs stated that the opinion of the licensed structural engineer was based on his review of the plans for the wall, not the wall’s actual construction. He further stated that the Town Engineer should inspect the wall to verify that the retaining wall was actually constructed according to the specifications shown in diagram SK-1 of the licensed structural engineer’s certification letter.
Mr. Henry noted the Town Engineer’s comments that the portion of the wall along the side of the building was required to support the foundation of Building #2. The portion of the wall along the back of the building was installed to create a flat area and changes the function of the site, considering a garage door has been installed on the back of the building.
Mr. Henry added that a wooden guard rail has been installed to prevent vehicles from accessing the rear of the building.
Allen asked for clarification regarding the proposed use of the garage door in the back of the building.
Mr. Henry stated that there was no use for the garage door except to provide sunlight inside the building.
Milner stated that the garage door could be used to access the back area for storage or a variety of activities.
Allen suggested that the garage door in the back of the building be removed.
Doggett asked Mr. Henry to address the loading dock depicted on the proposed amended site plan.
Mr. Henry described the recessed loading dock added to the building and indicated its position on the proposed amended site plan.
Doggett stated that he was disinclined to approve the added loading dock since it was constructed with the knowledge that it was not part of the original approved plan. The construction of the loading dock is a major change that changes the use of the building and the use of the land.
Gabriel agreed with Doggett that the loading dock should not be approved. The developer should not add construction items that were not on the approved plan.
Doggett stated that the loading dock area could have a potential negative impact on the wetlands buffer zone.
Mr. Henry stated that the developer has corrected some non-conformities to the original approved plan. He realizes that other construction items not on the approved site plan were installed. Mr. Henry requested that, in its deliberation of the proposed amended site plan, the Board consider whether these additional construction items would have been approved if they were on the original plan.
Doggett stated that concerns expressed during deliberations of the original approved site plan have been ignored such as:
- storage and outside activity behind the buildings accessed through a garage door
- potential negative impact of loading docks situated near the wetlands buffer zone.
Doggett explained that these items were discussed during deliberation of the original site plan and rejected. If the construction items were on the original site plan, he would not have approved them.
Abutter Jaimie Fitzpatrick of Walnut Farm Road addressed the Board. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that this situation is not a unique situation for this project. Many times in the past with this developer something was agreed to and something different was done. The developer’s words are there, but the actions are not. Mr. Fitzpatrick urged the Board to sustain its decision at a previous meeting that the developer must conform to the approved site plan.
Abutter Jodi Baronian of Walnut Farm Road addressed the Board. Ms. Baronian stated that residents want to see projects completed as approved on the site plan. Residents are concerned that changes to plans may present risks to abutters. She had to follow regulations when doing work on her property. This developer should have to follow regulations also.
Mr. Henry asked the Board for specific feedback on construction items that have been built and are not shown on the approved site plan.
The Board came to a consensus without objection to suggest that the developer take the following actions to bring the site into stricter conformance with the original approved site plan:
- Wall behind Building #2 may remain as long as Town Engineer certifies that the wall was built according to plans shown in diagram SK-1 provided in the correspondence from Casco Bay Engineering stating that the wall was structurally adequate.
- Garage door at rear of Building #2 be removed. It may be replaced by a regular hinged door suitable for one person passage.
- Loading dock installed near wetlands buffer zone be removed, filled in, and grassed over. Loading dock door be removed, but may be replaced by a regular hinged door suitable for one person passage.
- The driveway and cul-de-sac be completed and paved per the original approved site plan.
Allen moved to continue the public hearing to April 23, 2013. Second by Gibbs. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Other Board business.
a. Review of 55 and 57 Heath Street amended site plan mylar.
Milner notified the Board that the notes requested by the Board have been added to the amended site plan for 55 and 57 Heath Street. The plan is ready for recording.
Gibbs moved that the amended site plan for 55 and 57 Heath Street be granted final approval. The Board authorizes the Chairman to sign the mylar for recording. Second by Allen. Motion carried unanimously.
b. Acceptance of minutes.
Allen moved to accept the minutes of the March 26 meeting. Second by Gibbs. Motion carried unanimously.
c. Manifests.
Doggett presented a NPREA manifest to the Board. The invoices reflected payment to the Town Engineer for site visit and as-built plan review at Puzzle Lane and payment for public hearing legal ads.
Gibbs moved to pay the NPREA manifest in the amount of $753.37. Second by Miller. Motion carried unanimously.
d. Correspondence
Milner presented the Planning Board First Quarter Budgeted Expenditure Report to the Board.
4. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 8:33 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rick Milner
Administrative Assistant
Newton Planning Board
| 
