PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
February 9, 2009
7:00 PM
The Planning Board for the City of Marlborough met on Monday, February 9, 2009 in Memorial Hall, 3rd floor, City Hall, Marlborough, MA 01752. Members present: Barbara Fenby, Chairperson, Steve Kerrigan, Clerk, Clyde Johnson, Robert Hanson, Edward Coveney and Sean Fay. Also present: Assistant City Engineer Richard Baldelli.
MINUTES
Meeting Minutes January 12, 2009
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the meeting minutes of January 12, 2009.
Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2009
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the meeting minutes of January 26, 2009.
Signs
Correspondence from City Solicitor Rider
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Fay it was duly voted:
To move this portion of the sign ordinance to the beginning of the meeting to accommodate the City Solicitor’s schedule.
The Planning Board asked Mr. Rider to review the proposed amended language to the sign ordinance. Mr. Rider has reviewed the language change and he noted that the sign ordinance states that it was adopted pursuant to the MGL c. 93 that section 29 of Chapter 93 states that cities may further regulate and restrict signs by ordinance “not inconsistent: with sections 29 to 33 inclusive; and that section 33 provides as follows:
Whoever violates any rule, regulation, ordinance or by-law established or adopted under section twenty-nine shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars, and whoever after conviction of such violation unlawfully maintains such a billboard, sign or other device for twenty days thereafter shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars.
With this constraint the City Solicitor has revised the proposed change to provide for a set of penalties “not inconsistent” with section 33. In the revision, he also included the definition of a sign contractor.
The City Solicitors version as it stands:
ORDERED:
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARLBOROUGH THAT THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MARLBOROUGH, AS AMENDED, BE FURTHER AMENDED BY AMENDING CHAPTER136, ENTITLED “SIGNS,” AS FOLLOWS:
1. Section 163-2, entitled “Definitions,” is hereby amended by adding thereto a definition for the term, “sign contractor,” as follows:
SIGN CONTRACTOR: A person, whether doing business as an individual, a sole proprietor, a partnership, a limited liability partnership, a corporation, a limited liability corporation, or any other form of business entity, and including his or her agents, employees, assigns and subcontractors, who erects, alters or re-locates a sign for or on behalf of an owner.
2. Section 163-12, entitled “Administration and Penalties,” is hereby amended by adding thereto a new paragraph E, entitled “Penalties for Sign Contractor,” as follows:
E. PENALTIES FOR SIGN CONTRACTOR
If the Building Inspector or his/her designee determines that a sign contractor has erected, altered or re-located a sign in violation of § 163-3 of this Chapter 163, the Building Inspector or his/her designee, and in addition to the remedies provided for in § 163-12.D above as against the sign owner, may take the following actions as against the sign contractor:
1. The Building Inspector or his/her designee may enforce a violation of § 163-3 committed by a sign contractor by assessing a fine of $100.00. The fine shall be payable to the City of Marlborough, through the City Clerk's office.
2. As a non-criminal alternative to the penalty provided in sub-paragraph 1 above, the Building Inspector or his/her designee may, pursuant to M.G.L. c. 40, § 21D, treat violations of § 163-3 by assessing a non-criminal fine of $150.00 for a first violation; and (2) a non-criminal fine of $300.00 for each additional violation of § 163-3. A sign contractor commits a separate offense for each day a violation of § 163-3 continues to exist as solely determined by the Building Inspector or his/her designee.
3. In the event that a fine assessed pursuant to sub-paragraphs 1 or 2 above remains unpaid by a sign contractor as of the date when said sign contractor submits any new application for a sign permit, the Building Inspector or his/her designee may deny said application and may continue to so deny for so long as said fine remains unpaid.
3. The effective date of these amendments shall be thirty (30) days after their approval.
The Planning Board thought this was a great starting point to amend the sign ordinance and the definition of a sign contractor. Mr. Fay had questioned the daily fine on section 2.2.. He asked if this was a viable option.
Mrs. Lizotte then explained what happens when a permit is brought to the Building Department, the permit process and the denial process of a sign permit. Most signs brought in do comply with the sign ordinance. She also stated that generally the signs that have been denied, the contractor or owner will seek a variance with the Planning Board. In some cases the Building Inspectors will notice a non-conforming sign and will notify the Code Enforcement office to start the process with a warning and then the fines. The Board still questioned that if the contractor fixed the situation before they were fined would the fine be dismissed? In most cases, once a sign company/owner is notified they try to rectify the issue.
Mr. Fay will review the proposed language again. Dr. Fenby and Mr. Fay will be speaking with several council members to get their input before the Board decides to move further.
On a motion made by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To place the proposed change in the sign ordinance on the February 23, 2009 agenda.
CHAIRS BUSINESS
Proposed Change in State Zoning
The Board all received packets regarding the change in zoning for the State. After reading through the change in language; Dr. Fenby had some questions regarding the changes and has highlighted the limitations of Requirements for Subdivision section (B) Limit consideration of off-site traffic impacts, section 4 Limitation of Scope of Site Plan Approval/Required Mitigation and the proposed changes to Subdivision Plan Freeze. The Board has asked Mrs. Lizotte to look into what the meanings of the proposed changes and report back to the Board.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SUBDIVISION PROGRESS REPORTS
Update from City Engineer
Mr. Baldelli stated that the City Engineer’s Department is expecting several subdivision acceptance plans including Forest Trail and Berlin Farms.
Berlin Farms
Timeline
Mrs. Lizotte prepared a detailed timeline for the Berlin Farms subdivision.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Johnson it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence.
Correspondence from Attorney Yates
The developer’s attorney, Christopher Yates, sent correspondence advising the Board that his client has met with the Code Enforcement Officer and the City Engineer on site. The developer has removed the blight and moved the trailer off the roadway layout. In his correspondence, Mr. Yates, has asked the Engineering Department to resume snow plowing the right-of-way, ask Ms. Wilderman to rescind the citations amounting to $200.00 and cancel the request of Marlborough District Court for the “Show Cause Hearing. “
Correspondence from the City Engineer
Tom Cullen sent correspondence to his Assistant City Engineer, Richard Baldelli, asking him to prepare a standard letter to the Commissioner of Public Works and to the City Council regarding plowing of a subdivision street, to coordinate efforts with the City Code Enforcement Officer to dismiss the fines and to keep an open line of communication with the developer.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To accept and file all correspondence.
Commonwealth Heights
A verbal request from Attorney Gadbois to remove this item and place an extension until the next meeting.
Davis Estates
Aldo Cipriano, attorney for the developer, is seeking an extension for the subdivision. Mr. Cipriano stated that the subdivision is progressing with houses, the roadway and utilities are being installed.
The Board has asked for more information from the developer and would like to attend the next meeting.
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Hanson it was duly voted:
To refer the correspondence to the City Engineers office; and to ask Mr. Valchious to attend the February 23, 2009 meeting to discuss his extension.
PENDING SUBDIVISION PLANS: Updates and Discussion
PRELIMINARY/ OPEN SPACE SUBDIVISION SUBMITTALS
DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION SUBMISSIONS
SCENIC ROADS
SIGNS
28 South Bolton Street
Variance
Seth Cohen and Marilyn Green are the business owners of Heritage Home Lending and Re/Max signature Properties located at 28 South Bolton Street. They are seeking a variance from the sign ordinance for a 9 square foot message board. For them to have the sign without a variance they would have to have at least (33%) signage with a minimum bonus of 15 square feet. In the fall he applied for new signage totaling 37.5 sq ft including a 9 sq ft message board. They were granted 28.5 sq ft and denied for the 9 square foot message board because it did not meet the minimum requirements.
Mr. Cohen stated that they are trying to keep the feel of the neighboring signs. He stated the hardship has had was because of the signs that the state put for Route 20, you cannot see the sign. The main advantage of having the sign will be that they are going to partner with local charities to advertise their upcoming events. They have also verbally agreed that if they are allowed the message board sign they will not be asking for any faltwall signs on their building.
On a motion made by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Johnson it was duly voted:
To grant a variance for the 9 square foot message board from the sign ordinance.
Reasons for the granting:
The Planning Board along with the owners agreed after some discussion that there will be no flatwall signs on the building, which the message board will be used for community events, which the message board will be done in a tasteful manner and it will comply with all safety ordinances.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION
COMMUNICATIONS/CORRESPONDENCE
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Johnson, 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 8:18 p.m.
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST: _____________________________
Steven Kerrigan, Clerk
| 
