PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
January 26, 2004
The Planning Board for the City of Marlborough met on Monday, December 15, 2003, in Memorial Hall, 3rd floor, City Hall, Marlborough, MA 01752. Members present: Acting Chair Philip J. Hodge, Clerk Colleen M. Hughes, Robert Hanson and Clyde L. Johnson. Also present: Acting City Engineer Paul Giunta.
MINUTES
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the minutes of the meeting of January 12, 2004.
CHAIR’S BUSINESS
ANR article from Lawyers Weekly
At the last meeting there was a discussion of a recent article from Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly magazine concerning a recent Superior Court ruling in an approval not required case. A short copy of the article was provided for the member’s information.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLANS
Royce Road recommendation from City Engineer
Attorney Arthur Bergeron provided the Board with a full copy of the decision of the Worcester Superior Court decision referenced above. A review of the plan shows the following findings:
· That Royce Road is a public way in the City of Marlborough
· That the plan presented to the Planning Board for approval, entitled “Petitioners Plan in Marlborough, MA”, issued on September 2, 3004 and amended most recently on January 21, 2004, name of engineer Thomas Land Surveyors, 118 Forest Avenue, Hudson, MA 01749, consists of two parcels, one designated Parcel B and the other designated Parcel A.
· Parcel A has 120.19 feet of frontage on Royce Road, which exceeds the required minimum of 120 feet in a Residence A-2 zone.
· Parcel B has 107.30 feet of frontage on public way, which is insufficient under the provisions of the zoning ordinance. Therefore, said Parcel B is designated on the plan as “parcel B is for descriptive purposed only and is not to be considered a building lot”, because construction thereon would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding said frontage, and regarding the related lot width requirement of the zoning ordinance.
· Both Parcels A and B have sufficient access to the public way.
Acting City Engineer advised that he has reviewed the plans and they do meet the requirements of an approval not required plan. He would therefore recommend the Board’ s acceptance.
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Hanson, it was duly voted:
To accept and endorse a plan of land believed to be Approval Not Required of Peter J. Murphy, 71 Royce Road, Marlborough, MA 01752. Name of Engineer: Thomas Land Surveyors, 118 Forest Avenue, Hudson, MA 01749. Deed of Property recorded in south Middlesex Registry of Deeds, Book 23245, page 238. Location and description of property: 71 Royce Road; 2.04 acres with residence in an A2 zone.
Russell Street
A review of the proposed plan shows the following:· That Russell Street is a public way in the City of Marlborough
· That the plan presented to the Planning Board for approval, “Prepared for Shane’s Lane, LLC, P.O. Box 4136, Westford, MA 01886”, Dated January 16, 2004, consists of two parcels, one designated Lot 1 and the other designated Parcel A.
· Lot #1 has 101.09 feet of frontage on Russell Street, which exceeds the required minimum frontage requirement of 100 feet in a Residential A-3 zone.
· Parcel A has 37.01 feet of frontage on a public way, which is insufficient under the provisions of the zoning ordinance. Therefore, said Parcel A is designated on the plan “Not a Building Lot”, because construction thereon would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding said frontage, and regarding the related lot width requirement of the zoning ordinance.
· Both Lot #1 and Parcel A have sufficient access to the public way.
The City Engineer noted that he had reviewed the plans and that they appear to meet the requirements of an approval not required plan. However, he was concerned that existing dwelling would straddle the lot line and some sort of notation was required to indicate that the house is to be moved.
To defer a decision until the next meeting to allow the developers representative to have a note added to the plan indicating the move.
(A further review of the plan shows that there are notations on the plan that state, “existing dwelling to be relocated” and can become part of the Board’s approval.)
Attorney Bergeron was also going to send correspondence to the Clerk’s office regarding the delay in acceptance so there would be no consideration of a constructive grant of approval.
Acre Bridge Estates
This plan was approved at the meeting on January 12, 2004 but the developer had failed to drop off the mylar for signature. Ms. Hughes signed the plan at the conclusion of the meeting.
Lakeside Avenue Realty Trust
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hanson, it was duly voted:
To accept and refer the plan believed to be approval not required of Lakeside Realty Trust, to the City Engineer for his review and recommendation at the next meeting on Monday, February 23, 2004.
SUBDIVISION PROGRESS REPORTS
Update by City Engineer
Mr. Guinta provided the Board with the most recent update schedule from engineering regarding outstanding subdivisions. Mrs. Wilderman noted that she would be researching the outstanding subdivisions from a bonding standpoint to determine who may be out of compliance. Mr. Guinta asked that Mrs. Wilderman coordinate with Assistant City Engineer Temple.
Deerfield Village maintenance period recommendation
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Hanson, it was duly voted:
To notify the developer that the Board will defer a recommendation on this request until the meeting of April 5, 2004. Due to the winter weather it is impossible for the engineering department to do a final inspection of the site.
Millham Woods Land Court Appeal
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Ms. Hughes, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence from City Solicitor Agoritsas advising the Board to table the issue until further notice from his office.
Water’s Edge Open Space parcel
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence from Conservation Officer Priscilla Ryder concerning close out of the subdivision.
Forest Grove request for bond reduction and maintenance period
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence from Assistant City Engineer Thomas P. Temple and to allow a reduction in the bond securing this subdivision from $576,000.00 to $200,000.00. This does not authorize the start of the maintenance period.
Brigham Street Open Space Deed and payment
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hanson, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the copies of correspondence from developer Michael F. O’Malley to Conservation Officer Ryder concerning the Open Space parcel at Brigham Street.
Shorter Street
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To accept the check from Michael J. Norris, Attorney at Law, for $5,000.00 as a bond to secure the release of the single lot and to authorize Acting Chairman Philip J. Hodge to sign the Certificate of Performance.
There was a brief discussion regarding the Building Departments authority to withhold either building permits or certificates of occupancies to insure full compliance with any subdivision rules but it was determined that the engineering department should review their rules and bonding procedures.
PENDING SUBDIVISION PLANS: Updates and Discussions
Definitive Old Orchard Heights
This plan is still under review.
Definitive Acre Bridge Estates
Mrs. Wilderman gave amended plans to the Acting City Engineer from the developer.
Definitive Eager Court
This plan is still under review.
SIGNS
Rack and Roll
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Ms. Hughes, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence from the city solicitor concerning the recent City Council order to allow Mr. Ferro to place an off-premise sign on city property.
Mr. Ferro’s attorney has been to the Building Department and picked up a sign appeal form for this property.
COMMUNICATIONS AND CORRESPONDENCE
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To accept and file all items listed under communication and/or correspondence.
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Hanson, it was duly voted:
To adjourn at 8:30 p.m.
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST: ________________________
Colleen M. Hughes, Clerk
| 