Technical Review Subcommittee
of the Newton Planning Board
Minutes of Meeting
October 3, 2005
In attendance:
Kim Pettit, Jim Doggett - NPB
Eric Weinrieb - Altus Eng.
Jill Robinson - Sr. Planner, RPC
Mike DiBartolomeo - Building Inspector
Discussion:
1) S&R Lot Line adjustment (SRBLA091005)
Intention of the lot line adjustment looks to be the transfer of a piece of land to an abutting property so that its existing septic system/leach field is completely within the bounds of that abutting property.
TRC recommends that applicant show the existing well & septic for Lot 24 and that the signature & stamp of the surveyor be added.
2) Continental Biomass Minor Site Plan Review (CBISRP082405)
Plan is not entirely clear as to applicant’s intent, so we will have to wait for their presentation to understand it completely. The plan’s scale is overly small (1”=100’?) and a larger-scale (1”=40’-0”) might be easier to review.
TRC recommends that the Board require the applicant to clarify its intent on the plan and provide a zoning analysis table for the proposed work in order for the Board to review the proposal’s conformance with zoning, especially parking.
3) Woodhouse 19-lot subdivision - request for Design Review (WOOSBD092005)
Weinrieb noted that the following information is missing from the package: road design, drainage design, lot sizes, details, utilities and test pits. While the TRC recognizes that this information is not required at the design review stage, it would certainly be useful in evaluating the overall project. Because the size of the project requires use of match lines on most sheets, a key plan would be useful.
Pettit noted that the gas line location is missing from the plans and that, although frontage can be calculated using the radius schedules, total street frontage for each lot must be noted clearly on the plan. Weinrieb feels that DOT approval of the road location, site distance & ROW must come first for this project. TRC has real concerns with grading at driveways & septic systems, cross-slopes at roads, numerous wetland crossings, 5- & 6-series hydrics. Robinson noted that the required buffer btw. residential & light industrial zones is not shown. TRC was unable to determine whether all lots meet minimum lot size & shape requirements.
Mike Bartolomeo, Building Inspector, joined the meeting at this point and asked about utilities and street lighting, sprinklers vs. cisterns. He prefers to see single-family homes sprinklered and noted that the next version of the national life safety code (2006?) will make this a requirement of all single-family construction.
TRC recommends that the Board ask the applicant to pursue DOT permitting prior to submitting a full application, to review the overall site design relevant to the above comments on grading and wetlands, and to solicit the fire chief’s review & comments on this plan.
4) 125 Development, 27-1 (125SPR083105)
DiBartolomeo expressed his concerns about the proposed tenants & uses for these buildings and all of the others in the industrial park. It is his experience that roughly 1 in 10 commercial units end up as auto repair or service shops. He would like to see the Board be proactive in determining allowed uses with the applicants rather than having to be reactive and address prohibited uses via enforcement. Discussion centered on providing a list of approved uses for this zone so that there is no confusion over what is and is not allowed, and on specific and detailed review of plans at the building permit stage to be sure that the spaces are built out appropriately for the planned uses of each space.
As the documents available for review at this meeting had already been reviewed by Altus and RPC, and responses from the applicant received, discussed & reviewed during the public hearing for this project on 9/13/05, no further review was made of the documents at hand. Without the meeting minutes for reference, TRC members were unsure of the specific marching orders which had been given to the applicant that night.
TRC requests that the Planning Board’s administrative assistant contact the applicant to ask for updated documents & plans as requested by the Board, for distribution to the Board and its consultants prior to the continued public hearing scheduled for 10/11/05.
5) Fitz Realty Trust (04SU008)
Plans dated 9/1/05 were reviewed at this meeting. Units being shown on the plan (45 total) are still in excess of the 41 available units per the housing calculation published by the Selectmen’s office. TRC believes that the Planning Board cannot approve more units than are available nor can the applicant “reserve” future units by showing them on the plan. TRC believes that the size and scale of this project requires it to design for a community water supply under the state regulations. Weinrieb will provide a well-written note in his letter review of this documents set prior to the 10/11/05 public hearing. Robinson noted her concerns with the layout of the walking paths and suggested that they be reviewed and revised to better inter-relate with the units and to keep walkers off the roadways; she also recommended that an
overall landscape plan be required. TRC also notes that the Board has required community buildings for other 55+ cluster projects. Lack of architecturals & elevations makes it difficult to determine whether these units have garages under; this should be clarified by the applicant and plans should be submitted. The fire cistern is more than 500’ away from the nearest unit; DiBartolomeo recommends that the applicant sprinkler the buildings, even though all agreed thatit would be nice to have a cistern in the proposed location for general use. TRC has concerns about the overall design & layout of the roads and recommends that the road designs be reviewed carefully by the Board and that the Fire Chief’s input is important with regard to fire truck access relevant to his recent citation of NFPA 1, the Uniform Fire Code (2003) 18.2.2.5.4 which states that “Dead-end fire department access roads in excess of 150 ft. (46m) in length shall be provided with approved
provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus.” TRC believes that the Chief will likely request some revisions to certain areas in order to have appropriate fire access.
Weinrieb has concerns about evidence of excavation, debris piles, and previous burns about the site and suggested that the Board might want to require the submission of a Phase 1 report (21E) for the property. Robinson directs the Board to sections 8.2 and 8.4 of the Subdivision regs in determining its authority to request additional studies and reports. TRC recommends that the Board require the applicant to submit a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment to the Board for its review prior to the approval of the application.
TRC recommends that the Board require the applicant to remove the 4 units shown at the back of the project, 2 of which are noted as “future” and all 4 of which exceed the available number of units as calculated by the Selecmen’s office.
TRC strongly recommends that the Board require the applicant to provide a community well/water supply rather than spotting wells all over the site.
TRC recommends that the Board require a community building for this project.
TRC recommends that the Fire Chief review the plans and in particular, the road designs, for adequate access.
TRC recommends that the Board require the applicant to submit architectural plans & elevations and overall landscape plans.
Other TRC business:
Meetings:
Next TRC meeting is scheduled for Monday 10/31/05, 3PM in the Planning Board Office.
Circuit Rider:
The TRC thanks Dr. Jill Robinson for her several years’ service to the Planning Board and to the Town of Newton, and is grateful for her guidance and encouragement; we also look forward to working with Reuben Hull, RPC’s new circuit rider for Newton.
| 
