PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
September 8, 2008
7:00 PM
The Planning Board for the City of Marlborough met on Monday, September 8, 2008 in Memorial Hall, 3rd floor, City Hall, Marlborough, MA 01752. Members present: Barbara Fenby, Chairperson, Steve Kerrigan, Clerk, Clyde Johnson, Philip Hodge, Edward Coveney, Robert Hanson and Sean Fay. Also present: City Engineer Thomas Cullen.
MINUTES
Meeting Minutes August 13, 2008
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the meeting minutes.
Meeting Minutes August 18, 2008
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the meeting minutes with amended changes.
CHAIR’S BUSINESS
LDS Approval
City Council Adoption of 200, Article VI, section 200-30
The City Council has approved and adopted the change in the Limited Development Subdivision that was a submission from the Planning Board. The Planning Board was pleased to see the adoption of the ordinance, however the wording for that adaptation “be and is herewith APPROVED” is being questioned if this is standard language as it tends to be confusing.
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Kerrigan it was duly voted:
To send correspondence to ask the City Clerk if the language “be and is herewith APPROVED” a standard clerical addition of policy.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN
Phelps Street
ANR Submittal
Mr. Joel Cain presented the ANR plan to the Planning Board members. He described that he started this process with then City Engineer Ron LaFreniere nearly 10 years ago when he was looking to purchase property to build an additional house for a family member. He has recently purchased from the City Lot 1 with enough frontage along Phelps Street. He is looking for the Planning Board to approve the plan.
Engineering Correspondence
Informal Review
Mr. Cullen, the City Engineer, has done an informal review at the Planning Boards request from the August 18, 2008 meeting. He noted that a December 3, 2007 plan was developed to divide land between the City of Marlborough (Sewer takings) into three parcels. Parcel B of this division was created for the purpose of combing the parcel with the property at 107 Phelps Street, creating sufficient frontage to subdivide the property into two lots.
The proposed plan to subdivide the property at 107 Phelps Street into two lots meets all the requirements of the Rules and Regulations for the Subdivision of Land in Marlborough along with the deed restrictions to limit the use of Parcel B for the development of an additional building lot. (Parcel B may not be used as access to the new building lot, access must be made off the driveway for the existing house outside limits of Parcel B). After an informal review, Mr. Cullen would like to give a favorable recommendation for the Planning Board to endorse the plan.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Johnson it was duly voted:
To refer the ANR plan to the City Engineer for a formal review and have him report back to the Planning Board at the next meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
7:30 PM
Proposal Amendment in Retirement Community
Public Hearing
The Planning Board of the City of Marlborough held a public hearing on Monday, September 8, 2008, at 7:30 p.m. in Memorial Hall, 3rd Floor, City Hall, 140 Main Street, Marlborough on the Proposal to Abolish Retirement Community Overlay District and Retirement Communities be an allowable use in all districts with a Special Permit granted by the City Council. Members present: Chairperson Barbara L. Fenby, Clerk Steven Kerrigan, Philip Hodge, Clyde Johnson, Edward Coveney, Robert Hanson and Sean Fay. Also present: City Engineer Thomas Cullen.
The Chair introduced all of the members of the board including the City Engineer and the Planning Board Secretary. She advised the audience that everyone should direct questions to her and she will direct the questions to the proponent or others.
Mr. Kerrigan read the public hearing notice into record.
LEGAL NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board of the City of Marlborough will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on Monday, September 8, 2008 at 7:30 PM in the Memorial Hall, 3rd floor, City Hall, 140 Main Street, Marlborough Massachusetts for Proposal to Abolish Retirement Community Overlay District and that Retirement Communities be an Allowable Use in all Districts with a Special Permit.
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Marlborough that the Code of the City of Marlborough, Chapter 200 as amended be further amended by deleting the words "aged fifty-five or older" as part of the definition in ARTICLE II Definitions and Severability Section 200-05 Definitions; Word Usage. B. RETIREMENT COMMUNITY and inserting in place thereof the following words: "fifty-five (55) years of age or over or sixty-two (62) years of age or over"; and
That the Code of the City of Marlborough, Chapter 200 as amended be further amended by adding to ARTICLE V Permitted Uses Section 200-14 Use Regulations Applicable in All Districts the following:
"C. A Retirement Community, as defined in Article II Section 200-05 B hereof, shall be allowed only by grant of a Special Permit by the City Council in accordance with Article VI Section 200-22. Retirement Community"; and
That the Code of the City of Marlborough Chapter 200 Section 200-17 Table of Uses Single family and Single family, attached be amended by adding to each a foot note numbered "(41)"; and
That the Code of the City of Marlborough Chapter 200 Section 200-18 Conditions for Use as Noted in the Table of Uses, be amended by adding the foot note numbered "(41)" which states as follows: "(41) Except as provided for in a Retirement Community under the provisions Sections 200-14 and 200-22."; and
That the Code of the City of Marlborough Chapter 200 Section 200-17 Table of Uses Retirement Community Overlay (Sec. 200-22) as amended be further amended by deleting the word "Overlay" and the symbol "N" under the Zoning District Abbreviations RR, Al, A2, A3, RB, RC, RCR, B and CA and inserting in place thereof for each deleted symbol the symbol "SP"; and
That the Code of the City of Marlborough Chapter 200 as amended be further amended by deleting from Article VI Special Districts, Overlay and Special Requirements, all of Section 200-22 Retirement Community Overlay Districts and inserting in place thereof the following:
200-22 Retirement Community
Purpose. The purpose of a Retirement Community shall be to advance the public health, safety and welfare of persons fifty-five (55) years of age or over or sixty-two (62) years of age or over by providing housing in a structure or structures constructed expressly for use as housing for persons fifty-five (55) years of age or over or sixty-two (62) years of age or over on a parcel or on contiguous parcels of land, totaling at least five (5) acres in size, in areas appropriate for residential use.
Location. A Retirement Community may be located in all zoning districts with a Special Permit of the City Council granted under the provisions of Section 200-59 hereof
Permitted Uses. A Retirement Community must comply with the appropriate provisions of Article Y and Article VII, except as otherwise specified herein and consistent with the following provisions:
(1) Height of buildings in a Retirement Community shall not be higher than that which is allowed in the zoning district in which the Retirement Community is located and as provided in Section 200-41.
The provisions of Section 200-49 shall apply to the location and construction of the driveways and private ways within the Retirement Community development. All ways and/or driveways in a Retirement Community shall be private and maintained by the Retirement Community. To ensure adequate access for traffic and emergency vehicles within the Retirement Community, and to provide increased public safety for vehicles and pedestrians within the development, the City Council may modify the provisions of Section 200-49.
Each building in a Retirement Community shall face either upon an existing private or public way or on a private way or driveway constructed within said Retirement Community. Each building shall have a minimum front yard of no less than twenty (20) feet from the edge of the paved way to the closest point of the structure, and a side yard of not less than ten (10) feet from the edge of the paved way to the closest point of the structure. Each building, whether principal or accessory, shall be at least ten (10) feet distant from any other building by air line distance between the nearest points of the buildings.
No dwelling in a Retirement Community shall contain less than one thousand (1,000) square feet of living area or more than two thousand eight hundred (2,800) square feet of living area. At least fifty (50%) percent of the living area shall be on the first
The number of dwelling units allowed within a Retirement Community shall be determined by dividing the total square foot area of the development site by the minimum lot area square footage as provided in Section 200-41 for the zoning district in which the development site is located. The number resulting from said division shall be the number of units allowed in the Retirement Community. If the number results in a whole number plus a part of a number the number shall be rounded to the next higher number.
No part of any building in a Retirement Community shall be less than twenty-five (25) feet from any exterior lot line.
A town house style dwelling unit in a Retirement Community shall have its own attached yard area.
Each dwelling unit shall have two parking spaces dedicated to its use, of which at least one space shall be in a garage attached to the unit. The other space shall be adjacent to the building or within close proximity thereof as approved by the City Council. The City Council may, as a condition of the Special Permit, require additional parking areas to be used in common by dwelling unit owners and their invitees.
The City Council may, as a condition of the Special Permit, require adoption of legally enforceable condominium by-laws or other similar regulations to limit or prohibit the presence in a. Retirement Community, either entirely or in designated locations, of boats, boat trailers, campers, or other recreational vehicles.
The maximum combined lot coverage in a Retirement Community shall be as provided for in the provision of Section 200-41 hereof for the zoning district in which the development site is located.
Each lot or contiguous lots upon which a Retirement Community is located shall have total frontage on an existing public way of at least seventy five (75) feet.
The City Council shall, as a Permit condition, require that deed covenants, proposed condominium by-laws, or similar community regulations prohibit the ownership or residential use of a dwelling unit by a person or persons of less than fifty five (55) years of age or less than sixty-two 62 years of age. Failure to enforce said provisions shall be a violation of the Special Permit.
The City Council shall, as a Permit condition, require that a proposed Retirement Community be constructed entirely on one lot or contiguous lots, and that, from and after the date of issuance of a building permit for said community or any portion thereof, no subdivision of said lot or lots shall be allowed without the express approval of the City Council; provided, however, that the recording of a condominium master deed and the conveyance of condominium units with the lot covered by the master deed shall be allowed.
(14) No unit in a Retirement Community shall have more than three (3) bedrooms.
Per order of the City Council
#08-1001939
Attorney David Gadbois presented the proposal on behalf of his Client, Mr. Lewis Clark of 710 Pleasant Street. Mr. Clark presently owns the property and is looking to develop the property into a retirement community. In the past, Mr. Clark tried to develop a traditional subdivision, now he would rather develop a retirement community for age qualified of 55 and older. At this present time the Retirement Overlay District is allowed in an LI district and must have at least 15 acres. Mr. Gadbois believes that abloshishing the current ordinance and creating a new one would allow a more harmony with being allowed to develop in a residential district. According to Mr. Gadbois, he consulted with the Zoning Officer, Mr. Stephen Reid, who agreed that by developing in a residential district versus a limited industrial district would be more
beneficial. Mr. Gadbois also stated that density is a key issue and this new ordinance would allow a less dense area.
The developments would become individual owned condominium units with at least 50% percent of the living space on the first floor and shall contain no less then 1,000 square feet to 2,800 square feet of total gross area. The number of dwelling units would be determined by dividing the total square foot area if the development site by the minimum lot area square footage as provided in Section 200-41 for the zoning district. Each unit would have their own private drive that leads to private streets.
The City Council would ultimately decide where the projects could go with granting special permits. They would be able to attach conditions to the special permits. Attorney Gadbois also stated that he believes with a new ordinance would allow the retirement community more space and pleasant projects.
Mr. Lewis Clark spoke on how the initial plan was to build a conventional subdivision and that after all the engineering work; a retirement community would be a better solution. The City would benefit from having a more residential setting and the roadways would be private. He has met with the neighbors on the potential project and the feedback was positive.
In Favor
Arthur Bergeron
54 Shea Drive
Mr. Bergeron stated that he believes this new ordinance is a way to improve the current ordinance in place.
In Opposition
No one spoke in opposition.
In General
Mr. Hodge welcomes and finds it refreshing to see the new ordinance that would allow retirement communities to go city wide. He stated to keep in mind that the ordinance should be an advantage to other parcels not just one parcel. Mr. Hodge also asked Mr. Gadbois if there was a limit of ownership; Does one spouse need to be the required age or both spouses? Mr. Gadbois stated that he believes that the States ruling is only one spouse of designated age would have to qualify.
Mr. Hodge also stated that the development does look like a traditional subdivision. What would the biggest difference would be between the two? He also stated that the development should have sidewalks; he also stated the City Council should consider all these benefits before deciding on a new retirement community ordinance.
Ms. Fenby stated that her biggest concern would be living area should all be on one floor and sidewalks should be considered for the safety of all residences.
Mr. Kerrigan stated that since the rewriting of the ordinance is in sense what is being done, it would be nice to have all issues dealt with in the beginning.
Mr. Fay questioned whether the proposed ordinance would allow a greater density than a traditional subdivision in the same zone would allow. Mr. Fay would like for Mr. Gadbois to clarify the amount of lots that would be allowed.
Mr. Coveney and Mr. John both collectively agreed that the current ordinance being in a limited development zone is detrimental to those who live there. They both would rather see the developments in a residential neighborhood.
The Public Hearing closed at 8:30pm.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To reopen the public hearing and have Attorney Gadbois return to the Board with several suggestions that were made.
SUBDIVISION PROGRESS REPORTS
Update from City Engineer
Mr. Cullen stated at this time there were no major updates.
Gristmill III, Carisbrooke I (Farrington Lane)
Correspondence from Legal
Rescinding current bonds
The Planning Board sent correspondence to Legal Department asking their guidance in rescinding the Gristmill IIl, Carisbrooke I bonds to complete these subdivisions. Tim Collins informed the Planning Board and the Legal Department that there is still necessary work that needs to be completed on both subdivisions and needs to pull the monies to complete the subdivisions. The Assistant City Solicitor, Cynthia Panagore Griffin, has reviewed and approved the proposed vote relative to a notice of default to Marlborough Savings Bank; the proposed notice of default to be provided to the bank; the proposed vote relative to a sign draft to be presented to the bank; and the proposed sight draft.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Johnson it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence from the Assistant City Solicitor; and to sign all necessary papers for the taking of the Gristmill Ill and Carisbrooke I Performance Bond.
Forest Trail (Mosher Lane)
Correspondence from Conservation Commissioner
The developers violated their Open Space Permit by providing an access road to lot 16. Both Open Space Parcel A and B were to left in there natural state and conveyed to the City as required by the special permit. After a meeting with the City Engineer, Building Inspector and the Planning Board Chairperson; Ms. Ryder listed the following items to be completed:
· Remove Gravel that was placed to create the short access road.
· The area disturbed that is not rock face shall be loamed and stabilized with native grass mix.
· The three trees that were removed in this area must be replaced with five trees at least 1 ½ caliper must be planted along top slope and type of trees must be approved by Ms. Ryder before placement.
· Work must be completed on or before September 30, 2008.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Johnson it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence; to ask Ms. Ryder to update the Planning Board of the status of the corrective work for their upcoming meeting on October 6, 2008.
Pembroke Street
Modification of Plan
Correspondence from Engineering
The 26 Pembroke Street Subdivision was a single lot subdivision that was approved by the Planning Board on June 9, 2008. The Proponent had to take the plans to the Zoning Board or Appeals for a variance on lot shape, lot size and frontage. They were granted approval from the ZBA (Case# 1374-2008). Now they have come back before the Board with a revised plan and at the last meeting the Planning Board referred the plan to the City Engineer for his review and to the Building Commissioner for the corrective language.
Thomas Cullen, the City Engineer, reviewed the new modification plan for 26 Pembroke Street and found the following to be true:
· Proponent owns three abutting lots with one single family with a single family home on of these lots
· Two lots are vacant and are undersized to current zoning standards
Stephen Reid, the Building Commissioner had requested the following language be added to the plans before the Planning Board signs the plans:
· Delete language for waiver requests for lots 1 & 2 and add the following language; The Planning Board is responsible for granting a waiver insufficient frontage and the zoning board of appeals for granting variances for lot area, frontage and shape.
· In Notes; delete the language and add the following; Lots 1 & 2 are not to be considered building lots until a variance has been granted by the Marlborough Zoning Board of Appeals, see Zoning Board of Appeals Case #1374-2008.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Johnson it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence; and to have the City Engineer review plans to be reported back to the Planning Board at its next regular scheduled meeting.
PENDING SUBDIVISION PLANS: Updates and Discussion
PRELIMINARY/ OPEN SPACE SUBDIVISION SUBMITTALS/ LDS SUBMITTALS
LDS Submittal
214 Wilson Street
Correspondence from Thomas Land Surveyors
Thomas Dipersio sent correspondence to the Planning Board that the revised plans being presented for “SMC Estates (LDS)” includes the following changes: A 10 foot no-disturb buffer strip that was added along the northerly, westerly and a portion of the southerly lot lines, arborvitae plantings added along a portion of the southerly lot line, note regarding blasting protocol has been added and the proposed right-of-way for the Preliminary Layout has been increased to 50 feet in width.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Hanson it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence.
Facts and Findings
Mr. Kerrigan has prepared the Facts and Findings for the special permit. The Facts and Findings showcase the facts that were stated during the public hearing. Mr. Johnson asked for clerical modification to add the revised dates of plans.
Correspondence from City Engineer
Mr. Cullen sent correspondence for his last review of “SMC Estates (LDS)” for 214 Wilson Street. He stated he has reviewed all changes made and that the LDS meets all of the dimensional requirements per City Council Order No. 04-10558C. Mr. Cullen is recommending to the Planning Board to grant a special permit to SMC Reality Trust.
On a motion made by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney with opposition from Mr. Hodge it was duly voted:
To approve the findings and facts and the special permit for a Limited Development Subdivision located 197 Stow Road 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.
DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION SUBMISSIONS
SCENIC ROADS
SIGNS
INFORMAL DISCUSSION
COMMUNICATIONS/CORRESPONDENCE
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, 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. Kerrigan, it was duly voted:
To adjourn at 9:15 p.m.
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST: _____________________________
Steven Kerrigan, Clerk
| 
