The Planning Board for the City of Marlborough met on Monday, June 2, 2003, in Memorial Hall, 3rd floor, City Hall, Marlborough, MA 01752. Members present: Chairperson Barbara L. Fenby, Clerk Colleen M. Hughes, Philip J. Hodge, Raymond R. Peters, Robert Hanson and Clyde L. Johnson. Also present: City Engineer Patrick M. Clancy.
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, May 19, 2003.
CHAIR’S BUSINESS
Update by Director of Planning Lima
Mrs. Wilderman advised the members that Mr. Lima was unavailable at that time. He was before the Finance Committee for his preliminary budget review.
Definitive Answer on non-compliant ANR’s
Chairperson Fenby asked that the document distributed to the members be included in any new member package.
Request for Assistance; homeowner at Forest Grove
Mrs. Wilderman distributed photos taken by Mr. And Mrs. Franco regarding the condition of their rear yard at lot 9, 38 Muir Way. Both Mr. And Mrs. Franco were at the meeting as was Don Seaberg of FRE Building Company.
On a motion by Mr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted:
To refer the matter to the City Engineer and the Building Commissioner for a review and recommendation at the next meeting on Monday, June 16, 2003 and to ask both to work with Mr. Seaberg for a resolution.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLANS
Spring Lane Decision from City Solicitor
Mr. Clancy advised the Board that City Solicitor Golden feels that the Board should approve the plan as it does meet the requirement for an approval not required plan but should also carry a note that endorsement of the plan does not carry any implied confirmation of ownership.
Mr. Clancy pointed out that the plan was never properly filed at the City Clerk’s office and as such, should be changed to include that language and officially filed with the Clerk’s office. Attorney Rowe, on behalf of his client Mr. Mazzaferro, advised that he has no problem with that direction and will have the plan prepared for the next meeting on Monday, June 16, 2003.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8:00 p.m. Definitive Subdivision Old Orchard Heights
The Planning Board of the City of Marlborough held a public hearing on Monday, June 2, 2003, at 8:00 p.m. in Memorial Hall, 3rd Floor, City Hall, 140 Main Street, Marlborough on the Definitive Plan of a subdivision entitled, “Old Orchard Heights”. Members present: Chairperson Barbara L. Fenby, Clerk Colleen M. Hughes, Philip J. Hodge, Raymond R. Peters, Robert Hanson and Clyde L. Johnson. Also present: City Engineer Patrick M. Clancy.
Chairperson Fenby introduced the members of the Board and staff and explained the process to those present at the meeting. Clerk Hughes read a copy of the proposal advertisement.
Public Notice
The Marlborough Planning Board will hold a public hearing on
Monday, June 2, 2003, in Memorial Hall, third floor, City Hall at
8:00 P.M. on the Definitive plan of a subdivision known as
Old Orchard Heights which proposal is herewith published in
compliance with the requirements of the M.G.L. 41, §81T and is
hereby set forth as follows:
NAME OF SUBDIVIDER: Robert P. & Sandra E. Delesky
Lucille Y. Cooney
492 Hosmer Street
502 Hosmer Street
Marlborough, MA 01752
NAME OF ENGINEER Consolidated Design Group, Inc.
21 Main Street Suite 9
Hudson, MA 01749
LOCATION OF
PROPERTY West side of Hosmer Street Bounded
North by Scaneider & Kourafax, East by
Hosmer Street, south by R & N Nominee
Trust, West by Sherman and Barnes
A plan of the proposed subdivision is on file in the City Clerk's Office, the Planning Board Office, and the City Engineer's Office
and may be seen prior to the public hearing.
Steven Poole of Consolidated Design in Hudson, spoke on behalf of his clients. He explained that this is a resubmittal of a previously reviewed plan. The last plan was denied because the Board would not give a waiver of the 50’ roadway width. The new plan is not asking for any waivers. He gave a brief review of the subdivision, explaining the new reconfiguration of the two existing lots and the four new lots behind. The plan now meets all of the subdivision rules and regulations with no waivers required.
In Favor
No one spoke in favor of the plan.
The Chair asked if anyone had any general questions.
Donald Ackroyd
522 Hosmer Street
Mr. Ackroyd asked if all the site utilities were to be buried and was advised in the affirmative. He is concerned with traffic exiting the site onto Hosmer Street as a great number of drivers use Hosmer Street as a shortcut (as he does) and the sun is often in the driver’s eyes early morning or late afternoon. He feels that this would be a severe hazard.
Additionally, there appears to be some sort of natural spring underground in that location and the neighbors have had a great deal of problems with roadway icing in that area during the winter. He is afraid that the work proposed will increase that danger. The situation has been improved by the city’s resurfacing work but he feels that it still is a problem.
Mr. Poole advised that the addition of the new drainage system and detention pond may mitigate that situation even further.
Richard Fix
484 Hosmer Street
Mr. Fix is concerned with the setbacks on the existing property. Mr. Poole explained that the engineering department will review that during the process but that the plan shows sufficient setbacks.
Steven Taylor
41 Baldwin Avenue
Mr. Taylor is concerned with the blasting that may take place on site. Mr. Poole explained that the regulations for blasting fall under the jurisdiction of the Fire Chief but that blasting is really the last choice for construction. Consideration to use a hammer drill before blasting will be given.
Mr. Poole explained, in response to Mr. Taylor’s inquiry about setbacks for the back two parcels, that they would submit the individual house lot site plans at the building permit stage. He explained what the setbacks are for the zone.
Mr. Taylor asked that the Board and the developer be sensitive to the issue of leaving existing buffer trees.
Amanda Kourafas
512 Hosmer Street
Ms. Kourafas is concerned with any standing water that may be in the detention system and how attractive it may be to mosquitoes.
Mr. Poole explained how a detention basin is designed to work as opposed to a retention pond. The detention system will not allow standing water.
Ms. Kourafas also had questions about blasting procedures and was referred to the Fire Department. She would also like to encourage the developer to leave buffer trees.
Donald Ackroyd
522 Hosmer Street
Mr. Ackroyd reiterated his concerns with any blasting and drainage problems. He wants some protection from the blasting and is very apprehensive about the amount of blasting that will be required. He also was referred to the Fire Department.
Margaret Cheatwood
21 Stacey Road
Ms. Cheatwood was unsure why she received a notification of this public hearing. Mrs. Wilderman explained the requirements for determining the abutters to the proposed development property and how she errs on the side of caution if there is a question.
Ms. Cheatwood appreciated being told and would have some concern about blasting as well. Mr. Poole explained again that blasting would be the last choice for work on site but that blasting is regulated by the Fire Department.
In Opposition
No one spoke in opposition
There being no further discussion, the hearing was closed at 8:30.
SUBDIVISION PROGRESS REPORTS
Update by City Engineer
Mr. Clancy advised that there has been little change in the reports due to the extreme weather interfering with construction.
He did note that his office continues to try to work with Ansari Builders regarding the Water’s Edge subdivision. He has plans from the developer’s showing final slopes at the detention basin in the interior open space lot but he is not convinced that the plan accurately reflects the actual slope. Ms. Fenby also advised Mr. Clancy that they will need to barricade a portion of the walking trail from one of the existing lots as the homeowner continues to place material on the trail.
Forest Trail
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence from Conservation Officer Priscilla Ryder and to recommend acceptance of the requirements outlined in her correspondence. Additionally, the Building Commissioner is to be notified that the final occupancy for the last home built on the project shall not be issued until such time as all of the outlined work has been completed and the first home completed shall not receive an occupancy permit until such time as the stockpiled hill has been moved.
Gregoire Drive
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Ms. Hughes, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence from Assistant City Engineer Thomas P. Temple and to recommend that the bond securing this subdivision be reduced from $9,500.00 to $6,000.00. It was further recommended that the check for that reduction be issued to directly to Attorney William F. Brewin, Jr., 277 Main Street, Marlborough, MA 01752 for filing fees.
Thoroughbred Acres: Request for plan amendment
(Mr. Clancy left the meeting.)
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To accept and refer the request to amend the originally approved plan to remove the requirement for a fence surrounding the detention basin to Anthony Marques for his review and recommendation at the next meeting on Monday, June 16, 2003.
It was further requested that Mrs. Wilderman make arrangements for a few members of the Board to visit the site with the Developers representative, Attorney David Gadbois.
PENDING SUBDIVISION PLANS: Updates and Discussions
Definitive Shorter Street
There was a brief discussion with the Board and Mr. Parente of Central Mass. Engineering regarding the road layout for this proposal. While the Board agreed that this was a very tough lot they are still concerned with the roadway width minimum.
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Ms. Hughes, it was duly voted:
To advise the developer that the Board will be looking for a twenty four foot (24’) roadway layout. Consideration should be given to the neighbor regarding the location of the roadway layout.
SIGNS
Request for Variance: City Club
Attorney Douglas Rowe was present on behalf of his client. The Board members had reviewed the sign locations in question.
With regards to the sign proposed on the westerly wall of the “Rack n’ Roll” club (facing the rear garden behind City Hall), the Board felt that while the façade does not front on a public way, it does front on a much used pedestrian public way and would, therefore, pose a public good as a directional sign.
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Ms. Hughes, it was duly voted:
To approve the request for a variance for a sign on the westerly wall of the building to provide directional information to pedestrians using the Weed Street access.
On the matter of the second sign variance request for the easterly wall of the front, Joseph’s on Main building, the Board asked that the matter be held over until the next meeting when Mr. Reid’s input regarding colors, etc. could be considered.
Correspondence from New England Development re: Target pylon sign
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence from New England Development regarding the pylon sign for the new Target Store.
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.
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Peters, it was duly voted:
To adjourn at 9:00 p.m.
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST: _______________________
Colleen M. Hughes, Clerk
| 