PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
May 10, 2004
The Planning Board for the City of Marlborough met on Monday, May 10, 2004, in Memorial Hall, 3rd floor, City Hall, Marlborough, MA 01752. Members present: Chairperson Barbara L. Fenby, Clerk Colleen M. Hughes, Philip J. Hodge, Robert Hanson and Clyde L. Johnson. Also present: Acting City Engineer Thomas P. Temple.
MINUTES
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hanson, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the minutes of the meeting for April 26, 2004.
CHAIR’S BUSINESS
Discussion re: proposed zone change “Limited Development Subdivision”
Mr. Hodge advised that he has spoken with City Solicitor Agoritsas and the misunderstanding appears to have been cleared up regarding this proposal. Mr. Agoritsas was waiting for an updated copy of the zoning ordinance to verify the wording and he would return to Mr. Hodge. Mrs. Wilderman advised that the correct zoning ordinance had been provided to the legal office this afternoon.
SUBDIVISION PROGRESS REPORTS
Update by City Engineer
Mr. Temple advised that he had not had a chance to draft out a copy of the update report. Unfortunately they are a bit shorthanded as the City Engineer’s position has not yet been filled and they have just been advised that Mr. Andrade, another engineering associate, will be leaving within the next two weeks.
They are working with the developer at Crystal Ridge Estates with regard to a retaining wall that was constructed well in excess of the approved plan. There are concerns that the wall is not engineered or constructed properly and will continue to present problems during future storm events.
West Ridge Estates and Cider Mill Estates
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence from Project Manager Harry Mack and to advise that the Board requires an amended plan and completion schedule by the next meeting on Monday, May 24, 2004.
Forest Trail
Conservation Officer Ryder has reviewed the amended plan for the reforestation of the open space parcel on the site and while it does not completely restore the area it does at least approach what the site may have looked liked before it was denuded by the contractor. Additionally, the city’s tree warden, Chris White, advised Ms. Ryder that by installing 1.5” caliper trees in place of the originally required 3” caliper trees, the chances of their survival would improve.
On a motion by Mr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence from Conservation Officer Priscilla Ryder and to approve revised plan submitted by Scott Goddard of Carr Research, Inc., dated May 4, 2004 which allow the following:
· Twelve (12) Red Oak trees 1.5” caliper
· Twelve (12) White Oak trees 1.5” caliper
· Six (6) Red Maples 1.5” caliper
· Six (6) White Pine 1.5” caliper
· Forty (40) American Hazelnut shrubs
· One Hundred Twenty (120) Lowbush Blueberry shrubs
· Forty (40) Black Cherry shrubs
· Twenty Four Highbush Blueberry shrubs
Additionally, the developer shall present the Planning Board with documentation regarding the difference in price from the 3” caliper trees originally ordered by the Planning Board and the 1.5” caliper trees allowed. The difference in price will be contributed to the open space fund for the City of Marlborough.
Finally, a bond will be placed with the City of Marlborough to guarantee the health of all of the material being planted before May 30, 2004. The bond will be predicated upon the replacement of material and, in particular, the trees, to a 3” caliper standard. Assistant City Engineer Temple will have a price set for a bond at the next meeting on Monday, May 24, 2004.
The developer should also be cognizant of previous correspondence requiring this and other work to be completed and approved before the release of any further certificates of occupancy.
Water’s Edge: request for bond reduction
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence from Acting City Engineer Thomas P. Temple and to recommend that the present bond securing the subdivision should remain the same until all the outstanding work has been completed.
Indian Hill DiCenzo Boulevard request for bond reduction
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence from Acting City Engineer Thomas P. Temple and to recommend that the bond securing this subdivision be reduced from $611,000.00 to $321,000.00.
PENDING SUBDIVISION PLANS: Updates and Discussions
Definitive Old Orchard Heights
Review continued until May 31, 2004.
Definitive Acre Bridge Estates
Review continued until May 31, 2004.
Definitive Eager Court
Mr. Temple advised the Board that his meeting with the engineer for the developer was postponed until May 13, 2004. In discussion with him, however, Mr. Temple believes that there will be an agreement regarding the required engineering specifications.
SIGNS
Adopt a Space Program
Ms. Fenby initiated a discussion about what appears to be a proliferation of off-premise signs all over the City. They are extremely large and appear to have no permission be placed at the locations.
Mrs. Wilderman explained that the signs are manufactured and placed by the DPW as part of the “Adopt a Space” program whereby businesses or individuals adopt a particular for landscaping purposes, several of the city’s public spaces. A sign is erected identifying who is overseeing each particular spot. In past years, the signs were relatively small and unobtrusive.
This year the signs are large and erected on posts, in some cases, at least five feet tall.
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To send correspondence to DPW Commissioner Ronald LaFreniere asking the following:
· If this is a City program and City signs, why is the seal not on the signs?
· Why is the program itself not clearly identified on the signs?
· Why are the signs so extremely large? (In many cases they actually block the view of the space being adopted.)
· Why was the Planning Board not given the courtesy of at least an explanation of the program?
· Why are we erecting signs that appear to be inconsistent with the intent of the sign ordinance when we are simultaneously citing other individuals for failures to adhere to the ordinance?
· Why are we designating veteran’s parks and then obliterating that recognition with these signs?
COMMUNICATIONS AND/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.
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Hanson, it was duly voted:
To adjourn at 8:20 p.m.
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST: __________________________
Colleen M. Hughes, Clerk
| 