The Planning Board for the City of Marlborough met on Monday, April 28, 2003, in Memorial Hall, 3rd floor, City Hall, Marlborough, MA 01752. Members present: Chairperson Barbara L. Fenby, Clerk Colleen M. Hughes, Philip J. Hodge, Edward F. Coveney, and Clyde L. Johnson. Also present: Assistant City Engineer Thomas P. Temple.
MINUTES
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the minutes of the meeting on Monday, April 7, 2003.
CHAIRS BUSINESS
Update by Director of Planning Lima: Comments re: Fairfield
Mr. Lima discussed the Fairfield at 495 comprehensive permit plan that is currently before the Zoning Board of Appeals. He would like the Planning Board to review the project and draft a letter to the ZBA regarding any concerns they may have with the project.
Chairperson Fenby agreed to work with Mrs. Wilderman to draft a letter for the Board’s review at the next meeting on Monday, May 5, 2003.
A brief discussion was held regarding the City’s standing for affordable housing and additional comprehensive permits that may be pending before the zoning board.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLANS
Mistry Associates: Donald Lynch Boulevard
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To accept and endorse a plan of land believed to be Approval Not Required of DLB, LLC, 259 Turnpike Road, Suite 100, Southborough, MA 01772. Name of Engineer: Mistry Associates, Inc., 315 Main Street, Reading, MA 01867. Deed of property recorded in Middlesex Registry of Deeds Book, 15741, Page 474. Location and description of property: 14.43 +, 853 and 905 Donald Lynch Boulevard, Marlborough, MA.
Glen Street: Central Mass Engineering
Mr. Parente of Central Mass. Engineering was unable to attend this meeting and asked that the plan be held over until the next meeting on Monday, May 5, 2003.
Mechanic Street: Highland Land Surveyors
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted:
To accept and refer the plan of land believed to be approval not required to the City Engineer for his review and recommendation at the next meeting on Monday, May 5, 2003.
SUBDIVISION PROGRESS REPORTS
Update by City Engineer
Mr. Temple advised the Board that he has received responses to a large number of developers from his correspondence requesting revised completion schedules. Mrs. Wilderman advised that the documents from Shaughnessey Estates and Forest Trail were revised schedules sent in response to the original request.
Mr. Temple will be in contact with Mrs. Wilderman in the next week to get corrected addresses for any letters that have been returned by the post office.
On a motion by Mr. Coveney, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence.
Hudson Street Crossing: street acceptance
Mr. Temple advised that he has notified Mr. O’Malley that there four or five items which need to be addressed before he can make a final recommendation to the Board. Mrs. Wilderman asked for a copy of the correspondence for her files.
Cider Mill Estates
Conservation Officer Ryder’s e-mail correspondence was read regarding the use of land not under the developers control for stockpiling material from their blast site. Mr. Temple advised that he has a meeting with the developer within the next few days to discuss the issue. Mrs. Wilderman advised that the developer has not yet requested the earthmoving permit.
Forest Trail
Scott Goddard of Carr Research made a short presentation of a proposed plan to reforest one of the open space parcels that has been substantially clear cut and used as a stockpile for material removed from other portions of the subdivision site. There is a step process proposed to:
· Stop using the site for stockpiling immediately
· Remove the existing large pile of material
· Re-grade the area
· Re-plant.
Mr. Goddard advised that a review of the other parts of the site show that the predominant species are low blueberry bushes and red maples and that those will be re-planted in the open space.
Ms. Fenby asked what the caliper of trees proposed would be? Mr. Carr advised that they would be a minimum of 1 ½” minimum.
Mr. Johnson asked why the trees were removed in the first place. According to Mr. Goddard the open space regulations are unclear as to the use of the parcel while the parcel remains under the ownership of the developer. There are no clear specifications. Mr. Johnson advised that they should have asked.
Ms. Fenby asked how long it would take for the proposed red oaks to reach the size they were before the clear cutting. Mr. Goddard advised approximately twenty years. Ms. Fenby advised that perhaps Mr. Goddard had expectations of being available to witness the correct growth but that he may, in fact, be a small minority of the people in the room. She asked what the developers have considered as options should the proposed plan be unacceptable to the Board but Mr. Goddard believes that the regulations are still unclear.
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Ms. Hughes, it was duly voted:
To refer this matter to Conservation Officer Ryder to review and make a recommendation regarding the plan; to refer this matter to City Solicitor Golden for his review and recommendation regarding revoking the special permit.
Ms. Fenby advised that she would also entertain a motion to refer the matter to City Engineer Clancy to review the site to determine the extent of trees lost on site for the meandering sidewalk and other amenities. It was so moved and seconded by Ms. Hughes.
Ms. Fenby advised Mr. Goddard and the developer that the Board is extremely displeased with this development. That the developer may have found the regulations unclear and used that as an excuse to decimate an open space parcel may have some basis for the “letter” of the law but certainly not the “spirit” of the regulations. This action put the developer at variance with the original plan.
The Board asked Mrs. Wilderman to make sure that answers from the referrals are available at the next meeting on Monday, May 5, 2003.
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Ms. Hughes, it was duly voted:
To request that the City Solicitor advise the Board on the ability to seek an injunction to stop work on this project until such time as this issue is resolved.
PENDING SUBDIVISION PLANS: Updates and Discussions.
Definitive Plan Shorter Street
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Ms. Hughes, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence from Mr. Parente and to extend consideration of the this subdivision until June 16, 2003.
DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION SUBMISSION
Old Orchard Heights Resubmittal
A public hearing date of June 2, 2003 was set for this subdivision.
COMMUNICATIONS/CORRESPONDENCE
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted:
To accept and file all items listed under communications and/or correspondence.
Before adjourning the members had a brief discussion regarding the issue of open space regulations and the general topic of enforcement for all subdivision rules and regulations. Mr. Clancy, Ms. Ryder and Mrs. Wilderman will continue to work on conditioning approvals. While the Board is in the process of working on updating the rules and regulations it is the general belief that the enforcement portion should take priority.
Additionally, the Board asked Mrs. Wilderman to speak with Building Commissioner Reid regarding the issuance of occupancy permits at Forest Trail subdivision. The Board would like to insure that building occupancies are issued only at such time as the subdivision has been brought into compliance.
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To adjourn at 8:35 p.m.
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST: ____________________________
Colleen M. Hughes, Clerk
| 