PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
October 24, 2005
The Planning Board for the City of Marlborough met on Monday, October 24, 2005 in Memorial Hall, 3rd floor, City Hall, Marlborough, MA 01752. Members present: Chairperson Barbara L. Fenby, Acting Clerk Philip J. Hodge, Robert Hanson, Edward Coveney, and Clyde L. Johnson. Also present: City Engineer James Arsenault.
MINUTES
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted:
To accept the minutes of the meeting of Monday, October 3, 2005 with the changes and corrections as discussed.
CHAIR’S BUSINESS
Appointment of Planning Board Secretary
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To unanimously recommend that Ms. Carrie Lizotte be appointed to the position of Planning Board Secretary.
Changes to Rules and Regulations
The corrections and/or amendments to the Subdivision Rules and Regulations were distributed to the members along with the latest agenda. As all of the members have not had time to digest the new document completely, it was suggested that Ms. Lizotte contact the members of the subcommittee within a week to set up a new round of meetings.
Scenic Road Hearing 410 Stow Road
A date of Monday, November 21, 2005 at 8:00 p.m. was chosen for the public hearing on this issue.
SUBDIVISION PROGRESS REPORTS
Update from City Engineer
Mr. Arsenault has been working on the changes to the Rules and Regulations. He also provided the Board with a document regarding the Shorter Street subdivision that he has received from the developer.
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To send correspondence to Mr. Tucci, advising him of the process to closeout the subdivision.
Davis Estates
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, 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 amount of $810,000.00 be posted to secure the release of lots in this subdivision.
Fahey Street
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Hanson, it was duly voted:
To accept and file and refer the request for bond reduction to the City Engineer for his review and recommendation at the next meeting on November 7, 2005.
PENDING SUBDIVISIONN PLANS: Updates and Discussions
White Oak Estates
City Solicitor Agoritsas gave the Board a brief explanation of the current status of the constructive approval for the White Oak Estates subdivision.
While the decision itself was made within the appropriate time period for the subdivision review, the decision by the Planning Board secretary to send the notice of denial to all appropriate parties as certified mail delayed the notification to the City Clerk’s office by one day beyond the allowed time.
Attorney Agoritsas explained that the regulations make no mention of when the notification needs to be made to the City Clerk, only that the decision itself needs to be made within the allowed timeframe. However, a number of cites have shown that the court systems have settled the issue that the filing itself must be accomplished within the statutory time frame.
However, Attorney Agoritsas further explained that the Planning Board can vote to re-open the subdivision based upon a number of factors. A brief discussion with some of the abutters showed that they abutters may have lost their time for appeal as no one was notified of the constructive approval by the city clerk, it would be best to let the Planning Board start the process based, in part, upon the fact that requested plans were not submitted to the Board in a timely fashion.
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Hanson, it was duly voted:
To invoke the Board’s rights under Section 81W of MGL 41 and to re-open the Definitive Subdivision entitled, “White Oak Estates” as not meeting at least twelve of the requirements of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations; and as required plans for the original review of the subdivision were delayed by the developer and his engineer, therefore making it impossible for the Board to review plans.
A public hearing will be scheduled at the next meeting of the Planning Board on November 7, 2005 to allow sufficient notice to the developer.
Berlin Farms
Mrs. Wilderman (filling in for Ms. Lizotte) explained to the Board that she has spoken with the City Solicitor’s office regarding invoking the “Rule of Necessity”. Due to the personnel shortage on the Planning Board, the fact that Mr. Hanson has historically abstained from a discussion of this plan and the fact that Mr. Hodge was not in attendance at the public hearing for the definitive plan, there would be insufficient people to ever vote on this project.
By invoking the Rule of Necessity the Board allows the following:
· Mr. Hanson abstained not for any financial reasons and has no interest in the property or its development other than a knowledge of the proponents
· Mr. Hodge was not at the public hearing for the definitive plan but was in attendance for the special permit public hearing and approved the plan.
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted, with Mr. Coveney and Mr. Hanson in opposition:
To deny the request for a waiver from the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Section 4J “Sidewalks” and to require a sidewalk throughout the subdivision.
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted with Ms. Fenby in opposition:
To approve the request for a waiver from the Open Space Regulations, Section F(7) Open Space and Buffer areas as only an extremely small portion of the open space would be eligible under the requirements.
On a motion by Mr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To approve the Definitive Plan of Land entitled “Berlin Farms” owned by Henry and Marlo Renaud, 226 Berlin Road, Marlborough, MA 01752 and Thomas and Elizabeth Kehoe, 238 Berlin Road, Marlborough, MA 01752. Name of Engineer: Central Mass. Engineering & Survey, Inc., 15 Hickory Lane, Southborough, MA 01772. Note that only one variance was approved. 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.
571 Concord Road
A similar problem exists with the final approval of this plan as with the plan before. The action required for this evenings’ meeting would be two-fold; first an approval of the special permit and second, a signature of the ANR plan that will establish the lot.
In the case of this plan, a five member majority would be required to approve the plan as it is a special permit requiring a 2/3’s majority of the Board. Mr. Coveney was not at the pubic hearing for this project.
By invoking the “Rule of Necessity” in this case the Board allows the following:
· Despite Mr. Coveney’s absence at the public hearing, he has been present during other discussions of the plan.
· The Board would not be able to act under any circumstances due to a loss of Board members and would put an unnecessary hardship on the proponent.
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To approve the special permit for a Limited Development Subdivision as allowed under Section 200-30 of the City Code, as the developer has met all of the requirements of that section of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Marlborough.
A review of the plan of land for the Limited Development Subdivision showed the following:
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To approve a plan of land believed to be approval not required of Karl H. Kurbs, 571 Concord Road, Marlborough, MA 01752. Name of Engineer: Guerard Survey Co., and Associates, Inc., 11 Summer Street, Westborough, MA 01581. Plan of Land filed in the Middlesex Registry of Deeds, book 30676, page 311. Description of property: approximately 3.75 acres with existing building.
DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION SUBMISSIONS
Residences at Oak Crest
A public hearing date of November 21, 2005 at 8:15 p.m. was chosen for this submission.
SIGNS
Walgreens
Building Commissioner Stephen Reid made a brief presentation to the Board regarding the request of the Walgreens for their freestanding sign at 525 Boston Post Road East. As Mr. Reid explained, the aggregate size of the sign is within the allowed limits of the sign ordinance by three square feet. However, there is a dimensional requirement that states that the message board portion of the sign cannot exceed 16.5 square feet. The Walgreens has asked to allow the message board portion to be 23.11 square feet while still maintaining the overall size restrictions.
On a motion by Mr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To approve the variance for the freestanding sign as presented, conditioned upon a review of the City Council Special Permit to insure that no additional conditions were placed by the City Council. Consideration for this approval was based upon the fact that the aggregate size of the freestanding sign will not exceed the allowed square footage.
Best Western Temporary Sign for Toy Show
The Board was not pleased that the Hotel and Trade Center has put both their client and the City in the position of having to give relief to one of their clients because they cannot manage their sign space. However, the Board is also not inclined to punish the gentleman from the toy show who is just trying to do things right.
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Coveney, with Mr. Hanson in opposition, it was duly voted:
To allow the placement of Mr. Martin’s single directional sign on for Sunday, October 30, 2005 and to also advise the general management of the hotel and trade center of the Best Western that this one time variance in no way should be considered precedent setting for any future shows. The Board encourages the management of both the trade center and the hotel to make sure that all clients who are sold space at their hotel have adequate means of advertising without resorting to either variances or illegal signs.
Wildwood Flat wall sign
The Wildwood restaurant has been closed for major renovation over the past few months and is hoping to open soon. They have a proposal for a new type of sign that will have a color change but no change in the intensity of the light source. Commissioner Reid explained that the signs, as they have been proposed, meet the dimensional requirements of the sign ordinance and would require no variances.
However, the stipulation in the sign ordinance under “Prohibited Signs”, prohibits the use of “an electrically activated sign which has blinking, flashing, or fluttering lights or other illuminating devices which have a change light intensity, brightness of color, except public service signs showing time and temperature.” Mr. Reid wished the Board to review a demonstration of the sign to determine whether or not they believe that the sign proposed would fall into that category.
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Coveney, with Mr. Johnson dissenting, it was duly voted:
To consider the proposed electronic sign would not be prohibited under the following guidelines:
· That the cycle speed be no less than sixty seconds
· That the intensity of the light will remain the same throughout the cycle
· That the colors being used be contiguous colors (from the color chart) to eliminate any garishness
· That the light source not be directly visible to abutters.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION
25 Millham Street
Thomas DiPersio, Jr. of Thomas Land Surveyors was present to discuss a proposal by his client, Anthony F. Abdal-Khabir. Mr. DiPersio explained that his client may have the opportunity to purchase the house and land next to his. Both lots are currently non-conforming as to the lot shape requirement; the understanding being that the lots were established prior to that requirement being part of zoning. Both lots are extremely deep and could possibly be further divided in the future but the question was being raised whether or not the Board could approve any type of ANR or subdivision that would result in a non-conforming lot.
As a result of a discussion with the Board and the Building Commissioner to discuss the dimensional issues with regards to a zone differentiation, (partially in A1 and A2 zones) it was determined that the Board could approve an ANR plan if frontage and area was correct with a comment on the plan that the plan did not represent any approval of zoning.
COMMUNICATIONS/CORRESPONDENCE
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Hanson, it was duly voted:
To accept all of the items listed under communications and/or correspondence.
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Hanson, it was duly voted:
To adjourn at 9:00 p.m.
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST: _____________________________
Acting Clerk Philip J. Hodge
| 