PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
August 30, 2004
The Planning Board for the City of Marlborough met on Monday, August 30, 2004, 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, Robert Hanson and Clyde L. Johnson. Also present: Acting City Engineer Thomas P. Temple.
MINUTES
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the minutes of the meeting on July 26, 2004.
CHAIR’S BUSINESS
Discussion with Community Development Director Lima
Mr. Lima was unavailable for the meeting.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLANS
121 Shawmut Avenue
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hanson, it was duly voted:
To accept and endorse, with reservations, the plan of land believed to be Approval Not Required of Larry B. And Sandra L. Beane, 121 Shawmut Avenue, Marlborough, MA 01752. Name of Engineer: Jack Costedio, P.O. Box 399, Southborough, MA 01772. Deed of property recorded in Middlesex South Registry of Deeds, book 13766, page 528. Location and description of property: southside Shawmut Avenue. Bounded north by Shawmut Avenue, west by Hilner; south by Ferrecchia, SMC Realty Trust & Valianti; east by Naves.
The Board is concerned that the method used by the surveyor to establish the frontage, established “illusory frontage” only and that the plan should have been presented as a subdivision plan as it would not meet the “anr” test if that were the case. However, as the plan, as presented, does show sufficient frontage the Board has chosen to sign and endorse the plan with reservation and to request that the Building Commissioner make the final determination at the time of application for a new structure.
West Hill Road and Pleasant Street
Due to a small mix up with the plans, the surveyor for this project was not at the meeting with the mylar for the plan. However, the plan had been reviewed by the Engineering Department and only required minor adjustments to the plan. Because this is a land deal that has some deadlines attached, the Zoning Board of Appeals has agreed to hear an appeal to lot shape on this plan on September 7 if approved by the Planning Board. Mr. Temple confirmed that he had reviewed the plan and that it meets the requirements of an approval not required plan.
A review of the plan shows the following:
· That Pleasant Street and West Hill Road are both public ways in the City of Marlborough
· That the plan presented to the Planning Board for approval, “Plan of Land in Marlborough, MA” owned by Anita P. D’Aurora, dated July 30, 2004 consists of Lot 1 and Lot 2.
· That Lot 1 contains 19,434 square feet with 124.55 feet of frontage.
· That Lot 2 contains 19,726 square feet with 145.50 feet of frontage.
· That both lots meet the zoning requirements for lot size and frontage but both lots are deficient to a small degree for the lot shape requirements and will require Zoning Board of Appeals relief prior to any construction.
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Ms. Hughes, it was duly voted:
To accept and endorse a plan of land believed to be Approval Not Required of John Depietri, 45 Main Street, Hopkinton, MA 01748. Name of engineer: Zanca Land Surveying, 16 Gleasondale Road, Stow, MA 01532. Deed of property recorded in Middlesex Registry of Deeds, book 11736, page 727. Location and description of property: Bounded in the north by West Hill Road and Pleasant Street. Bounded in the east by Patricia M. Perry, N/F. Bounded in the south by City of Marlborough. Bounded in the west by Ralph P. Albertini.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8:00 p.m. Joint public hearings with City Council
City Council Order 100555
The Planning Board of the City of Marlborough held a joint public hearing with the City Council on a proposed amendment to the Code of the City of Marlborough, Chapter 200 Section 26.1 (Affordable Housing), Zoning. City Council President Arthur Vigeant and Planning Board Chairperson Barbara Fenby opened the hearing for their respective Boards at 8:15 p.m. The City Clerk read a copy of the notice of the hearing into the record. (Ms. Hughes of the Planning Board abstained from this hearing.)
City Council President Vigeant opened the hearing and explained that the hearing would be held in four stages.
In Favor
Ward Three Councilor Scott Schafer spoke on behalf of the proposal which designates that any existing special permit for a retirement community does not have to abide by the recently amendment to the zoning ordinance that requires that the City’s requirement for affordable housing now apply to all special permit applications for retirement community developments. As a result of concerns by a number of individuals currently living in existing retirement community Councilor Schafer wished to specify that no existing retirement community could be forced to implement affordable housing.
Questions from the Public
There were no questions from the public.
In Opposition
There was no one speaking in opposition.
Questions from Councilors or Planning Board members
Councilor Pope advised that the housing committee, at the time they implemented the change to the affordable housing regulations, never intended to penalize existing projects.
There being no further discussion the hearing was closed at 8:20 p.m.
City Council Order 100542
The Planning Board of the City of Marlborough held a joint public hearing with the City Council on a proposed change to the City Code, Chapter 200 Section 15, hours of operation in business or commercial automotive zone within 1000 feet of a residential district. City Council President Arthur Vigeant and Planning Board Chair Barbara Fenby opened the hearing for their respective Boards at 8:20 p.m. The City Clerk read a copy of the notice of the hearing into the record.
City Council President Vigeant opened the hearing and explained that the hearing would be held in four stages.
In Favor
No one spoke in favor of the proposal.
Questions from the Public
Manuel F. Alves
11 Manning Street
Mr. Alves has lived next door to a commercial automotive zone since 1986 and has been subjected to problems since that time. People open and close the business whenever they choose, they start work as early as 5 in the morning and often times are working as late as 2 or 3 in the morning. He and his family have been subjected to noise, foul language, the property being used as a “lovers lane” and he feels that calling the police does not solve any problems, as no has any control of the property. The police have advised him on a number of occasions that this is a “civil” problem but he believes that it is a quality of life issue that the city should be addressing. However, he does not believe that a new ordinance is necessary; the city should be enforcing the regulations it has.
Council President Vigeant stated that this was the first he had heard of the situation but that he would refer the matter to the building department the next day for some sort of action.
Marilyn Gaudette
21 Mill Street Central
Ms. Gaudette said that she had two questions:
1. What are the hours of operation allowed now?
2. Why is the city considering a change?
Building Commissioner Reid explained that there are currently no restrictions on the hours of operation in the city’s ordinances. There are some restrictions for heavy construction that is outlined in the noise ordinance but the police enforce that ordinance.
Additionally, in response to a further question, Mr. Reid explained that it is his belief that no ordinance can be made retroactive so it would not apply to any business now operating. He suggested that any question of whether or not a business remaining at a location but changing ownership would have to comply should be addressed to the City Solicitor.
In Opposition
No one spoke in opposition.
Questions from Councilors or Planning Board members
Councilor Webster stated that she had spoken to Mr. Alves for the first time this evening but that her district encompasses this area and has heard other complaints of this nature from residents abutting commercial automotive districts.
She does not believe that she can support anything that would allow the extension of work beyond the restrictions of the noise ordinance. As the noise ordinance now stands, she believes that the noise must cease at 7:00 p.m. while this proposal would allow its continuance to 11:00 p.m. Noise is the major concern.
Councilor Stevens agrees with Councilor Webster. She believes that the noise ordinance restricts Sunday work as well and this is not addressed in this proposed change. She would prefer to see what we have go even further to protect residents and allow them the undisturbed use of the property.
There being no further discussion, the hearing was closed at 8:32 p.m.
City Council Order 04-100558
The Planning Board of the City of Marlborough held a joint public hearing with the City Council on a proposed change to the City Code, Chapter 200 Section 30, “Limited Development Subdivision”. City Council President Arthur Vigeant and Planning Board Chair Barbara Fenby opened the hearing for their respective Boards at 8:35 p.m. The City Clerk read a copy of the notice of the hearing into the record.
City Council President Vigeant opened the hearing and explained that the hearing would be held in four stages.
In Favor
Planning Board member Philip Hodge spoke on behalf of the proposal. Mr. Hodge explained that the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals (three members of whom were present at the hearing) have had a number of requests over the past several years from individuals who owned sufficient land to construct a multi lot subdivision but who wished to only construct one additional home. Because of a lack of frontage, the homeowner either needs to construct a roadway or go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. However, once the proponent has separated the lot, they have effectively created their own hardship, making it difficult for the ZBA to grant any relief.
This proposed change would allow the city a means of proving assistance to homeowners under very specific circumstances and with a special permit only, to add a single dwelling unit to a lot that could be subdivided into several housing lots, thereby controlling growth.
Zoning Board of Appeals Chair James Natale also spoke on behalf of the proposed change. He said that there have been a number of requests of the past several years and that the Board wholeheartedly endorses this solution.
Questions from the Public
Planning Board Clerk Colleen Hughes read two letters into the record in support of the proposed change.
In Opposition
No one spoke in opposition.
Questions from Councilors or Planning Board members
Councilor Yurkus advised that as Chairman of the Urban Affairs Committee, he will want to see examples of past requests, how much potential property this may effect and how would this preclude common driveways from being accepted as city streets in the future.
Councilor Clancy has seen this situation before and would also like to see the numbers on this proposal.
Councilor Pope advised the Council that this topic was one that the late councilor Natalie Towle was very concerned with and Councilor Pope suggested that Urban Affairs should make sure they review the old records before making any decisions.
There being no further discussion, the hearing was closed at 8:50 p.m.
Upon return to chambers, the Planning Board and ZBA Chair Natale directed Mrs. Wilderman to work with ZBA Secretary Brown to provide the information requested by Councilor Yurkus to him before the Urban Affairs meeting.
SUBDIVISION PROGRESS REPORTS
Update from City Engineer
Mr. Temple provided the latest update to the outstanding subdivision report. He expects to have letters out to all of the developers who have not responded to previous correspondence.
Waters Edge request for bond reduction\
Mr. Temple advised that the developer still has not returned the area by the new fence at 178 Worster Drive to our standard.
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted:
To refer the matter to the City Engineer for his further review with the developer and to direct Mrs. Wilderman to respond to the homeowner of 178 Worster Drive with that information.
Slocumb Lane request for bond amount
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence from Acting City Engineer Thomas P. Temple and to recommend a bond amount of $314,000 to secure the release of lots at Slocumb Lane.
Stow Road Conservation Land
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence from Conservation Officer Priscilla Ryder regarding the construction of the parking area for the Mellow Family Meadow Conservation Land.
O’Leary’s Landing Request for bond reduction
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Hanson, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence from Acting City Engineer Thomas P. Temple, and to authorize the reduction of the bond securing the subdivision from $126,000.00 to $82,000.00.
Forest Trail
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence from Acting City Engineer Thomas P. Temple and to notify the developer that a bond in the amount of $36, 200.00 must be provided to insure the replacement costs for the trees planted in the open space parcel.
Forest Grove
The Board held a short discussion of the issue of subdivision tree plantings. We have experienced problems at sites (Forest Grove, Fay Farm) where the street trees have not been planted until the developer is trying to complete the subdivision. Unfortunately, in some cases, that means that the developer is attempting to install trees a number of years after property has been occupied.
It was determined that at the time of occupancy of a subdivision property, the developer shall have staked where the subdivision trees will be planted so that the homeowner will be aware of the location.
Crystal Ridge Estates request for bond reduction
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence from the developer requesting a bond reduction and to refer the matter to the Acting City Engineer for his review and recommendation at the next meeting on Monday, September 20, 2004.
Elm Farm Valley Estates request for bond reduction
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence from the developer requesting a bond reduction and to refer the matter to the Acting City Engineer for his review and recommendation at the next meeting on Monday, September 20, 2004.
PENDING SUBDIVISION PLANS: Updates and Discussions
Old Orchard Heights
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To extend consideration of this subdivision at the developer’s request until September 20, 2004, in order to allow the engineers to revise the drainage numbers.
Eager Court
Mr. Temple advises that he has not yet received amended plans from this developer.
SIGNS
City Club request for off premise sign (continued)
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted:
To continue this matter at the proponent’s attorneys request.
Correspondence from City Solicitor
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence regarding sign ordinances.
Request from Emergency Management for off premise directional signs
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Ms. Hughes, it was duly voted:
To approve placement of off premise signs for September 25, 2004 CERT Family Day.
204 Glen Street request for variance for home occupation sign
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted (with Ms. Fenby opposing):
To approve a variance to the sign ordinance to allow the installation of a 4.375 square foot sign in place of the allowed three square foot freestanding sign. The variance is granted with the stipulation that no flat wall sign be installed on the premises and that the variance may be re-visited should we receive complaints from neighbors.
Target on Donald Lynch Boulevard
Mrs. Wilderman explained that the Board does not currently have a request for a variance in front of them for the Target freestanding sign however; she wished to bring them up to date as they may have seen some discussion of the issue in the newspapers. The Office of Inspectional Services received an application to expand the size of the freestanding sign that currently exists. The sign company was advised that the sign application had been denied and that the Planning Board would be looking at any request for variance extremely closely. So far no request for variance has been requested.
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.
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Hanson, it was duly voted:
To adjourn at 9:05 p.m.
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST: _________________________
Colleen M. Hughes, Clerk
| 