PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
March 7, 2005
The Planning Board for the City of Marlborough met on Monday, March 7, 2005 (held over from February 28, 2005), 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: City Engineer James Arsenault.
MINUTES
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Hanson, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the minutes of the meeting on February 14, 2005.
CHAIR’S BUSINESS
Rules and Regulation Subcommittee meeting dates
The Chairperson suggested that the Committee (Barbara Fenby, Philip Hodge, Robert Hanson, Pamela Wilderman and James Arsenault), meet on the alternate Mondays from the regular meeting schedule. The members of the committee agreed that the schedule is workable. Mr. Hodge may not be available for some of the meeting dates but should make most of the schedule. The next meeting of the subcommittee will be Monday, March 21, 2005 at 7:30 p.m.
Discussion re: bond taking to complete outstanding subdivisions
Mrs. Wilderman advised the Board that they have not yet received an answer from the City Solicitor regarding how they will have to proceed to take the outstanding bond monies and what it can be used for. Until such time as that decision has been forwarded, the Engineering Department cannot provide a list of what subdivisions they will be taking.
Correspondence from M8/M10
Mrs. Wilderman advised the Board that she had sent correspondence to M8/M10 regarding their request for assistance on their new show. Ms. Hughes advised that she has not heard back to set up anything.
Storm water Management Report
Mr. Hanson and Mr. Arsenault advised the Board that they are almost completed with the new storm water management recommendations and hope to have a public hearing scheduled within the next few weeks.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLANS
Taking of land at Intersection of Stevens and State Street; DPW
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To accept and endorse a plan of land showing a taking of land at the intersection of Stevens and State Street to improved sight distances.
Daniels Road
Mrs. Wilderman advised the members that the City Solicitor advised that the only issue before the Board is the frontage requirement. As the plan, as designed, meets the frontage requirement for the City of Marlborough.
A review of the plan shows the following:
· That Daniels Road is a private way shown on a plan of land “Indian Lake Shores II, Subdivision Plan of Land in Marlborough, Mass., dated September 1, 1986 and approved by the Marlborough Planning Board on June 16, 1987.
· That the plan of land presented to the Planning Board for approval, “Plan of Land in Marlborough, MA and Hudson, MA” owned by Edwin A. and Mary E. Saaristo, 231 Desimone Drive, Marlborough, MA 01752 consists of Parcels A, B, C, D, E and F, and Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
· That the following dimensions and notes are applicable to each of the parcels:
o Lot 1 12,500 s.f. area 100’ frontage
o Lot 2 15,524 s.f. area 100’ frontage
o Lot 3 12,500 s.f. area 100’ frontage
o Lot 4 12,500 s.f. area 100’ frontage
o Lot 5 12,539 s.f. area 100’ frontage
o Parcel A 93,700 s.f. area 239.80’ frontage
o Parcel B 47,659 s.f. area no frontage
o Parcel C 2, 061 s.f. area no frontage
o Parcel D 10,439 s. f. area no frontage
o Parcel E 6,815 s.f. area no frontage
o Parcel F 5,724 s.f. area no frontage
· That parcels B, C, D, E and F are not to be considered building lots and are for descriptive purposes only.
· That Parcel C and D is combined to create a single building lot, Lot 4.
· That Parcel E and F is to be combined to create a single building lot, Lot 5.
· That the Plan has already been been accepted and endorsed by the Hudson Planning Board on February 1, 2005
· That the lots meet the requirements of the “approval under subdivision control laws in not required.
On a motion by Mr. Coveney, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To accept and endorse the plan of land believed to be approval not required of Randy Boyle, 32 Frye Road, Bolton, MA 01740. Name of Engineer: Susan Sullivan, Inland Survey Inc. DBA Zanca Land Surveying, 16 Gleasondale Road, Stow, MA 01775. Deed of property recorded in Middlesex Registry of Deeds, book 10175, page 116. Location and description of property; residential wooded, north side of Daniels Road.
Fairfield ANR
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted:
To accept and refer the plan to the City Engineer for his review and recommendation at the next meeting on Monday, March 14, 2005.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8:00 p.m. Outdoor Storage in LI Zones
The Planning Board of the City of Marlborough held a public hearing on Monday, March 7, 2005 at 8:25 p.m. on a proposed zone amendment. Members present: Chairperson Barbara L. Fenby, Clerk Colleen M. Hughes, Philip J. Hodge, Edward F. Coveney, Robert Hanson and Clyde L. Johnson. Also present: City Engineer James Arsenault.
Chairperson Fenby introduced the staff and members of the Board and explained the public hearing process. Clerk Hughes read a copy of the advertisement into the record.
Public Notice
PLANNING BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board of the City of Marlborough will hold a public hearing on Monday, February 28, (continued to March 7, 2005) at 8:00 p.m. in Memorial Hall, Third Floor, 140 Main Street, Marlborough, on the following proposed amendment to the Code of the City of Marlborough:
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARLBOROUGH, that the Code of the City of Marlborough, Chapter 200, Sections 200-17
Tables of Uses – Business Uses-Outdoor Storage by changing LI (Limited Industrial District) from N to SP and FURTHER:
To amend Section 200-18 Conditions for Use as Noted in the Table of Uses;
To amend Section 200-17 (26) by deleting in its entirety and inserting in place thereof the following:
(26) Outdoor Storage
Outdoor storage, but not any auto junkyard, may be permitted in the Business, Commercial Automotive, Limited Industrial and Industrial Districts, if it is incidental to one (1) of the permitted uses I the zoning district in which the main building and lot is located. Further, the outside storage must be adequately fence and screened from the street and adjacent properties with a solid fence of sufficient height to obscure the materials stored therein.
Speaking on behalf of his client, MHQ, Attorney David P. Gadbois gave a brief overview of the history of the project. His client had applied for and received a special permit from the City Council for outdoor storage at the old Stop and Shop location (which is in an Industrial zone) but was unable to make the project work due to the age of the building and the amount of work that would have been required to retrofit the location.
Attorney Gadbois advised the Board that it would be inappropriate for the client to store the vehicles within the building at 401 Elm Street as utilization of the building for storage purposes would seriously devalue the property. He explained that his client company retrofits emergency response vehicles only, that no noise would be involved and that the storage would be screened from the abutters. He further pointed out that the outside storage of these vehicles would be considered incidental to a use permitted in a Limited Industrial zone (according to the Building Commissioner) and that adequate screening would be required.
In favor
No one spoke in favor of the proposal.
In Opposition
No one spoke in favor of the proposal.
Mr. Johnson asked questions regarding the screening requirement, who determined what an allowed use is and who reviews the plans. Mr. Gadbois explained that the building commissioner determines allowed uses and that the other requirements would be handled during the special permit phase.
Mr. Hanson took exception to the issue of noise. He has been privy to MHQ’s operation on South Street and there have been numerous complaints over the years about the noise while working outside and testing sirens.
Mr. Hodge explained that he is concerned that while we are speaking of one particular site and application, this change would affect any land zoned Limited Industrial.
Mr. Johnson believes that the company should look for another location where they could warehouse their work instead of changing the zoning ordinance.
There being no further discussion, it was determined that the hearing would close at 8:40 p.m. and that the Board members would review the site for the next meeting on Monday, March 14, 2005.
SUBDIVISION PROGRESS REPORTS
Update from City Engineer
Due to weather conditions there has not been significant progress on any of the subdivisions to warrant a change.
Shaughnessy Estates II
Chairperson Fenby asked if the developer had scheduled the test for the sewer system and was advised that to the City Engineer’s information, it has not. She asked that it be continued until the next meeting.
West Hill and Cider Mill Estates
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence from Project Manager Donald Seaberg for a two year extension of both subdivisions and to have a bond amount set for Cider Mill Estates and to refer the matter to the City Engineer for his review and recommendation at the next Planning Board meeting on Monday, March 14, 2005.
Eager Court
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hanson, it was duly voted
To accept and file the correspondence from Assistant City Engineer Thomas P. Temple and to recommend that a bond of $96,000 should be posted to secure the release of lots in this subdivision.
The issue of the covenant will be held over until the next meeting on Monday, March 14, 2005.
PENDING SUBDIVISION PLANS: Updates and Discussions
Old Orchard Heights
Consideration of this subdivision has been extended to April 1, 2005.
Crowley Drive
The City Engineer confirmed that the plan is ready for review and final approval by the Board. Because they were absent for the public hearing, Ms. Hughes and Mr. Hanson abstained from any vote on this project.
1. On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To grant the waiver request from the Subdivision Rules and Regulations, Section III.B.1.b – requiring a 1”=40’ scale plan, profile sheets and a 1”=100’ locus plan.
2. On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To grant the waiver request from the Subdivision Rules and Regulations, Section 111.B.2.d – requiring major features as there is no change to the existing roadway or land.
3. On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To grant the waiver request from the Subdivision Rules and Regulations, Section III.B...2.m – as no new utilities are being proposed.
4. On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To grant the waiver request from the Subdivision Rules and Regulations, Section III.B.1.n – as no new utilities are being proposed it will be unnecessary to supply hydraulic calculations.
5. On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To grant the waiver request from the Subdivision Rules and Regulations, Section III.B.2.o – as no trees are being removed as a result of this subdivision it will be unnecessary to locate proposed trees.
To approve the Definitive Plans of a subdivision known as “Metro Park Definitive Subdivision Plan of Land, Crowley Drive, Marlborough, MA”. Note: there are five (5) approved waivers. The Planning Board will endorse the definitive plans after the twenty (20) day appeal period, provided no appeal has been recorded and a covenant has been submitted and approved by the Planning Board. Name of Owner: Metro Park Corporation, 929 Boston Post Road East, Marlborough, MA 01752. Engineer: Bruce Saluk and Associates, 676 Boston Post Road East, Marlborough, MA 01752.
Davis Estates
Because they were absent for the public hearing, Ms. Hughes and Mr. Hanson abstained from any vote on this project.
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence from Mass. Historical regarding the significance of the area.
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To grant a waiver from the Subdivision Rules and Regulations, Section III.A.2 (k) – Comparative Impact Analysis as a preliminary plan has already been submitted.
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To grant a waiver from the Subdivision Rules and Regulations, Section IV.B.3(a) – Minimum width of right of way, to allow a ROW of forty feet (40’) in place of fifty feet (50’).
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To grant a waiver from the Subdivision Rules and Regulations, Section IV.B.5(a) – Length of dead end street, to allow a cul-de-sac of one thousand, two hundred feet (1,200’) in place of the maximum length of five hundred feet (500’).
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To grant a waiver from the Subdivision Rules and Regulations, Section V.B.2 – pavement width, to allow a pavement width of twenty eight feet (28’) in place of the minimum of thirty two feet (32’).
There was a considerable discussion of the following two requested waivers:
· Section IV.B.5© - Maximum roadway slope. The proponent has requested a waiver to allow a roadway slope of 8% for a secondary street to be allowed through the entire length of the roadway, including the cul-de-sac turn around area, in lieu of a maximum 3% slope within seventy five feet (75’) of the radius point of the turn around area.
· Section IV.K – Street Lighting. The proponent has requested that the street lighting matching the style of street lighting on Main Street be allowed in lieu of the standard street lighting used elsewhere in the city.
City Engineer Arsenault explained that the Engineering Division does not support the waiver for the roadway slope as it may present a difficult situation from owners exiting their driveways. He also explained that DPW Commissioner LaFreniere will also not support the waiver request for the lighting as it presents an additional cost that the DPW is unwilling to accept.
As far as the lighting is concerned, the proponent has explained that he is willing to purchase additional lights for stock for the City to use as replacements, if necessary at either his subdivision or the downtown area.
The development and his engineer were especially concerned with the discussion regarding the roadway slope. This would severely affect the work on site as it would have a considerable impact on conservation concerns.
After lengthy discussion, it was determined that the Planning Board will hold over a final decision on this subdivision until the next meeting on Monday, March 14, 2005. Additionally there will be a meeting scheduled with the City Engineer, Mrs. Fenby, Commissioner LaFreniere, the developer, his attorney and engineer and the Conservation Officer to discuss these arrangements prior to the meeting.
Before the Board left the topics, .Mr. Johnson asked the Board to consider the issue of a sight distance easement. Because of the location of the subdivision roadway Mr. Johnson would like the proponent to include a sight distance easement on the front properties, in the same manner that one was placed at the Crystal Ridge Subdivision. This will eliminate the possibility that a homeowner would place landscaping in such a way to block the sight distanced from anyone exiting the subdivision.
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To require the proponent to include a sight distance easement on the front two properties to insure clear sight distances for anyone exiting the subdivision.
Birchwood Development
On a motion by Mr. Coveney, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence from the Conservation Officer regarding the wetlands and regulations regarding wetland determinations.
Attorney Gadbois advised the Board that he will have the revised plan the Board requested at the next meeting on Monday, March 14, 2005.
SIGNS
Marlborough Savings Bank
The bank asked that this be held over until the next meeting on Monday, March 14, 2005.
Hess Sign
After a brief overview of the project for the benefit of the Board by Attorney Bergeron, there was a brief discussion of the benefits of allowing the signage. Mr. Hodge felt that the sign was an improvement and not inconsistent with other signs in the area.
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Hanson, it was duly voted, with Ms. Fenby and Ms. Hughes in opposition:
To grant the variance from the sign ordinance to allow 53.19 square feet in place of the allowed 35 square feet as the sign will be consistent with other variances granted on the site.
Review of the Entrance Signs
The Board held a brief discussion regarding correcting the wording on the sign variance for the City entrance signs to eliminate any further confusion regarding who and what will be allowed on the sign in the future. The word “non-profit” should be added but the Board suggested that perhaps the legal department could provide some concise language. Mrs. Wilderman will work with legal for some language that can be reviewed by the Board.
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. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To adjourn at 9:20 p.m.
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST: _____________________________ Colleen M. Hughes, Clerk
| 