Developer asks board to allow larger occupied space at 125 development while DOT finalizes permit

Coleman McDonald, owner of the 125 development, told the Newton Planning Board on June 9 that the project team wants to construct a full 75,000-square-foot shell for one building while immediately occupying only about 45,000 square feet, leaving the remainder unoccupied until later studies and permitting are complete. "I would like to move it up to 45,000 square ft," a project representative said when outlining the request.

The request centers on how the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) permit interacts with the planning board’s occupancy limits. The site currently has a DOT permit that limits total building square footage tied to traffic-study conclusions; the developers and staff agreed the project remains about 9,750 square feet under the DOT cap of 105,000 sq ft. Developers said a DOT letter confirming the phase’s allowance was expected within days.

Why it matters: the DOT permit governs what can be built with respect to highway access and traffic mitigation; the planning board’s approval controls occupancy conditions and local site conditions. Planning staff and the board emphasized that moving square footage between buildings is permissible if the total remains below the DOT cap, but that unresolved conditions (recording affidavits, selectmen bond verbiage, and driveway permit issues) must be satisfied before final approvals or bond releases.

Board guidance and next steps: the board did not take a formal vote on the request. Staff advised the developers to secure the DOT confirmation and complete outstanding compliance steps; the building inspector’s ability to issue a certificate of occupancy will be a gating condition. McDonald said he will provide the DOT letter and continue coordinating with the town engineer, building inspector and selectmen on bond verbiage.

Community concerns: an abutter raised concerns about truck traffic from a gravel operation on the site and nighttime hauling; a resident asked whether DOT had considered gravel-truck traffic in its study. Planning staff said DOT District 6 is the appropriate authority for DOT-permit questions and recommended residents direct DOT-specific traffic concerns there. A developer representative said signage and daily barricade placements are being used to warn drivers during construction.

The board moved on to other agenda items after agreeing to await DOT’s written confirmation and for staff to continue monitoring outstanding conditions. The planning board did not change any formal conditions or issue occupancy permits at the June 9 meeting.