PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
November 10, 2008
7:00 PM
The Planning Board for the City of Marlborough met on Monday, November 10, 2008 in Memorial Hall, 3rd floor, City Hall, Marlborough, MA 01752. Members present: Barbara Fenby, Chairperson, Steve Kerrigan, Clerk, Philip Hodge, Clyde Johnson and Sean Fay. Also present: City Engineer Thomas Cullen.
MINUTES
Meeting Minutes October 27, 2008
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Johnson it was duly voted:
To accept and file the meeting minutes with a minor change at the request of Mr. Fay.
CHAIR’S BUSINESS
Marlborough Civic Class
The Planning Board was visited by a local Civics Class and was in the audience for the meeting.
Modified New Car Dealership Overlay District in Marlborough Zoning Ordinance
Legal Correspondence
The Planning Board received a memorandum from the City Solicitor to the City Council if the overlay would be considered as spot zoning. ~According to the Solicitor's opinion, the case has not yet been made by the “NCDOD” proponent as to how and why, if at all, new car dealerships serve the public health, safety, welfare of Marlborough by being located in the Business District via a new car dealership overlay district.~ There are three items that the Solicitor advised the City Council to consider: How is the public health/safety/welfare of Marlborough served by establishing an overlay district – the NCDOD – that does not purport to be more restrictive than, or to further regulate or restrict, the underlying Business District, but instead purports to expand the underlying Business District by allowing,
via special permit, a brand new use not otherwise allowed in the underlying Business District:~ new car dealerships?~
· What are the land use planning considerations for allowing a new car dealership as of right in Marlborough’s Commercial and Automotive District?~ What are the land use planning considerations for allowing a new car dealership by special permit in Marlborough’s Business District via the NCDOD?~ How do the 2 sets of considerations compare and contrast?
· More to the point, when the existing Table of Uses already says “No” to “auto sales and service” in the Business District, what are the land use planning considerations for now saying “Yes via Special Permit” to “new car auto sales and service” in the very same Business District?
The City Solicitor stated that for the City Council to properly vote on whether new car dealerships should be located in the Business District the decision should be based on “land use planning considerations”. Mr. Ryder stated that it is the NCDOD proponent’s burden to provide that the rationale by addressing, among others, the land use planning consideration bulleted above on page 1 to the Council’s satisfaction and any vote to create the proposed NCDOD overlaying the Business District would be open to a finding of spot zoning.
The City Solicitor's correspondence was accepted and placed on file and reference thereto should be made for the Solicitor's complete opinion.
Before the vote was taken, Dr. Fenby asked if the Board had any questions or comments.
Mr. Kerrigan asked Mr. Ryder what should the Planning Boards’ prevue of voting for the Overlay. Mr. Ryder stated that his memorandum was just of his opinion and was not persuading which way to vote.
Mr. Fay stated that he believes that the overlay is a well designed plan, however he stated that the City Council should consider a plan that would reduce the frontage requirement. This would result in a larger number of lots that could potentially be used for new car dealerships which would allow more “boutique” type dealerships.
Mr. Hodge stated that he found the legal correspondence helpful. He stated that the Overlay District is not a solution to the problem that new car dealerships should be placed back into the zoning ordinance. Mr. Hodge would like to hear what and if anything that Mr. Bergeron would say about the legal correspondence.
Mr. Johnson stated that he agrees with everything Mr. Hodge stated.
Dr. Fenby stated that the public hearing has closed on the matter, however when asked, no one had any objection to allow Mr. Bergeron to speak.
Mr. Bergeron stated that the City Solicitor was very articulate and well written; however he left out some very key facts. When the original plan was proposed it was clear that the current Commercial Automotive zone or parcels in that zone cannot possibly fit a new car dealership. ~In the mid 1990’s the City Council abolished any new car dealerships in the zoning ordinance not having given and forethought of a possible new car dealership. Mr. Bergeron also stated that the overlay would be able to go where there would be no property lines would be next to a residential home. At the current location of the Nissan Dealership has a few residential residences that are located in the business zones.
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Kerrigan, with Mr. Fay and Dr. Fenby opposing it was duly voted:
To oppose any approval of the Modified New Car Dealership Overlay District and to ask the City Council to take a further look into the zoning ordinance for a possibly allowing new car dealerships back in the business zone.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SUBDIVISION PROGRESS REPORTS
Update from City Engineer
The City Engineer provided a new detailed subdivision report to the Planning Board. In his report he stated that several subdivisions were awaiting acceptance including Eager Court, Deerfield Village; and he still awaiting further documents from both Elm Farm Valley Estates and Crystal Ridge Estates. He also stated that the developer for Forest Trail is near completion of the subdivision and has a meeting with the developer of the Berlin Farms Estates to discuss completion.
Eager Court
At the last Planning Board meeting on October 27, the Board had asked for the City Engineer to review the subdivision for final subdivision acceptance. The City Engineer has reviewed all documents including the As-Builts Plan of Acceptance of Eager Court and Municipal Easement and revised legal descriptions. Mr. Cullen has determined the subdivision is completed with the Boards Rules and Regulations and has been in satisfactory conditions of the year maintenance period. Mr. Cullen would like to recommend to the Planning Board to reduce the bond from $17,000 to $11,000 and accept the subdivision known as “Eager Court, As-built plot plan dated October 10, 2006 with revised date of October 15, 2008 drawn by: Thomas Land Surveyors”.
On a motion made by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Johnson it was duly voted:
To accept and file the letter from City Engineer Thomas Cullen, and endorse his recommendation that the subdivision known as “Eager Court, As-built plot plan dated October 10, 2006 with revised date of October 15, 2008 drawn by: Thomas Land Surveyors” has remained in satisfactory condition for the year long maintenance period and to reduce the current bond of $17,000 to $11,000. Mr. Dipersio should contact the City Council regarding taking the necessary steps to have the acceptance plan approved.
PENDING SUBDIVISION PLANS: Updates and Discussion
PRELIMINARY/ OPEN SPACE SUBDIVISION SUBMITTALS/ LDS SUBMITTALS
DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION SUBMISSIONS
Marlborough Elms
The Conservation Officer and the Conservation Commission has responded to Marlborough Elms latest draft proposal for propose subdivision at 289 and 401 Elm Street. The Commission made the following comments:
· Two cul-de-sac proposal eliminates all direct impacts to the wetlands
· Project lies in the Water Supply Protection District for the Millham Reservoir water supply, the reduction will minimize the storm water runoff which will benefit the water supply.
· The Commission accepted the withdrawal without prejudice of the wetland application from Mr. Schorer.
On a motion made by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded Mr. Johnson it was duly voted:
To accept and file all correspondence.
SCENIC ROADS
SIGNS
INFORMAL DISCUSSION
COMMUNICATIONS/CORRESPONDENCE
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Kerrigan, 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 8:00 p.m.
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST: _____________________________
Steven Kerrigan, Clerk
| 
