Newton zoning board continues Land Bank Properties hearing after applicant submits revised plans

A majority of the Newton Zoning Board voted to continue the public hearing on an application from Land Bank Properties LLC to July 1 after the applicant presented revised plans and the board said members had not had sufficient time to review the new materials.

Brett Allard, attorney for the applicant, told the board the submission is for a two‑lot subdivision that requires two variances: one for frontage (the proposal is about 9 feet short of the required frontage) and one for lot width near the road. Allard said a recent surveyor adjustment changed the measured lot width from roughly 79.7 feet to 77.7 feet and described that as a technical correction rather than a substantive revision. “We would be prepared to move forward tonight, uh, if the board is, uh, so inclined,” Allard said.

Allard outlined plan corrections made since prior hearings: side setbacks on Lot 8 and Lot 9‑1 were redrawn to be parallel and consistent, wetland setbacks for both buildings and septic were shown on the plan (a 50‑foot building setback and a separate 75‑foot septic buffer), the proposed well and septic on Lot 9‑1 were swapped to improve grade and distance from an abutter, and a culvert was added where the driveway bends. He also summarized an email from the fire chief stating the driveway must meet NFPA fire apparatus access standards and that a driveway permit and an installer affidavit will be required to confirm as‑built compliance.

A board member said the revised documents arrived too close to the meeting for adequate review and that they were not comfortable rendering a decision without more time. Neighbor Kristen Daro, a trustee who lives at 13 Marramac Road, told the board she had not been able to find the updated plans posted publicly and asked for time to review the changes side‑by‑side so she could evaluate impacts on the town’s rural character and potential hardship. “I would also like time to review them,” Daro said.

Board members discussed whether the two‑foot measurement difference required resubmission to the building inspector; most said the change appeared to be a technical correction and did not require re‑referral, but insisted the applicant produce a clearly dated revision and deliver a complete set of plans to the board at least one week before the continued hearing so members can review them prior to deliberation. Allard agreed to have the surveyor add revision dates and correct sheet numbering and to provide the materials on that timetable.

With the applicant’s agreement to suspend the statutory 90‑day review deadline, a motion to continue the public hearing to July 1 was made and carried on a roll call vote: Mr. Ren (yes), Mr. Gibbs (yes), Mr. Hamill (yes) and Mr. Kek (yes). The motion’s mover and seconder were not specified on the record.

Next steps: the hearing will reconvene on July 1 with the expectation the board will have received the revised, dated plan set and supporting materials (including the fire chief’s email and any conservation commission materials) at least one week beforehand. If variances are granted in a future action, that grant would only allow the applicant to proceed to the planning board for subdivision review; it would not itself approve construction.