PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
October 5, 2009
7:00 PM
The Planning Board for the City of Marlborough met on Monday, October 5, 2009 in Memorial Hall, 3rd floor, City Hall, Marlborough, MA 01752. Members present: Barbara Fenby, Steven Kerrigan, Phil Hodge, Edward Coveney, Clyde Johnson, Robert Hanson and Sean Fay. Also present: Assistant City Engineer Richard Baldelli.
MINUTES
Meeting Minutes September 28, 2009
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To accept and file the Meeting Minutes of September 28, 2009 with amendments.
CHAIRS BUSINESS
Correspondence from City Council
Proposed Zoning Change, Narcotic Detoxification
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To schedule a public hearing for October 26, 2009 at 7:05.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN
Crowley Drive
Correspondence from the City Clerk
Ms. Lisa Thomas sent correspondence stating that there was a written agreement between Metro Park Corporation and The City of Marlborough for the “Access and Maintenance Agreement” for Crowley Drive. She certified that Crowley Drive was duly laid out as a private way in 2006. The drive is to be privately maintained and the public use is to be allowed pursuant to the agreement between the City of Marlborough and the owners.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence.
Approval
Mr. Baldelli reviewed the ANR plan known as Crowley Drive and verbally agreed that it was the same plan reviewed by the Engineering Department. He stated that they accept the plan and the Planning Board should endorse the plan.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Fay it was duly voted:
To accept and endorse a plan of land believed to be Approval Not Required of Toll MA Land Partnership, 250 Gibraltar Road, Hursham, PA 19044-2323. Name of Engineer: GCG Associates, 84 Main Street, Wilmington, MA 01877-9714. Deed of property recorded in South Middlesex Registry of Deeds book 48877, page 33. Location and description of property: Assessors Map 29 parcel 1.
PUBLIC HEARING
The Planning Board of the City of Marlborough held a public hearing on Monday, October 5, 2009, at 7:15 p.m. in Memorial Hall, 3rd Floor, City Hall, 140 Main Street, Marlborough on the proposed amended language to: Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land, Approval Not Required. Members present: Chairperson Barbara L. Fenby, Clerk Steven Kerrigan, Philip Hodge, Clyde Johnson, Robert Hanson and Sean Fay. Also present: Assistant City Engineer Richard Baldelli.
The Chair introduced all of the members of the board including the Assistant 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.
B. PLAN BELIEVED NOT TO REQUIRE APPROVAL
1. Submission of Plan:
Any person who wishes to cause to be recorded in the Registry of Deeds or to be filed with the Land Court a plan and who believes that the plan does not require approval under the Subdivision Control Law may submit the plan and application Form A (see Appendix A) to the Planning Board accompanied by the necessary evidence to show that the plan does not require approval. For the purpose of establishing the official submission date, said submission shall be made to the Planning Board at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board. The Planning Board requests the applicant to arrange for the Engineering Department to review the plans prior to said submission to the Planning Board as outlined above. Said person shall also file, by delivery or registered mail, a notice with the City Clerk stating
the date of submission for such determination accompanied by a copy of said application and describing the land to which the plan relates sufficiently for identification. If the notice is given by delivery, the City Clerk shall if required, give a written receipt therefor.
Said plan shall contain the following information:
a) The zoning classification and the location of any Zoning District Boundaries that may lie within the locus of the plan.
b) In the case of the creation of a new lot, the remaining frontage shall be shown.
c) The plan shall contain the statement “Approval under the Subdivision Control Law Not Required” and provide sufficient space for the signature and date by the Board.
d) Notice of any decisions by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
e) Location of all buildings.
2. Endorsement of Plan Not Requiring Approval:
If the Planning Board determines that the plan does not require approval, it shall without a public hearing and without unnecessary delay, endorse the plan under the words “Approval under the Subdivision Control Law Not Required”. The plan so endorsed will be returned to the applicant, and the Planning Board shall notify the City Clerk in writing of its action.
3. Determination that Plan Requires Approval:
If the Planning Board determines that the plan does require approval under the Subdivision Control Law, it will so inform in writing the applicant and return the plan. The Planning Board will also notify the City Clerk in writing of its action.
4. Failure of Planning Board to Act:
If the Planning Board fails to act upon a plan submitted under this section or fails to notify the City Clerk and the person submitting the plan of its action with twenty-one (21) days after submission, it shall be deemed to have been determined that approval under the Subdivision Control Law is not required, and it shall forthwith endorse said plan, and on its failure to do so forthwith, the City Clerk shall issue a certificate to the same effect.
Mr. Rider, the City of Marlborough City Solicitor, stated that this was the first step in an overall change that needs to be made to the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. He stated that the Board will have to take into consideration what information is required for ANR approval including having adequate access and topography. Some ANRs that have been approved show enough frontage, but due to wetland and barriers, sufficient access is not always the present.
Ms. Wilderman stated that during her previous position as the Planning Board Secretary, then City Engineer (Patrick Clancy) mentioned that adequate access should be considered when approving ANRs. However, this was never acted upon or considered when changing the ANR standards.
Mr. Johnson questioned the submission date. He asked if the time frame starts when applied for with the Secretary or at the meeting. Mr. Rider confirmed the “clock starts ticking” when presented at a regularly scheduled meeting and then it would have to be approved or denied 21 days from that meeting.
Mr. Hodge asked if the 21 days was enough for action and notification, given the example by Mr. Hodge, if the 21 days is up, given a denial, can the proponent go to the City Clerk the next day for approval, since the recording is not prepared.
Mr. Rider stated that he did not have an answer and would like to table the hearing in order to retain the State Statute.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Hanson it was duly voted:
To table the hearing.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Fay it was duly voted:
To reopen the hearing.
Mr. Rider stated that there was no answer to Mr. Hodge’s question in the statue. He stated that in most cases the approval letter of denial is recorded by Mrs. Lizotte within a few days. As stated by Mr. Rider, meetings are generally held within a two week succession, the worst case scenario would be during the summer months when the meetings are a month apart.
Ms. Fenby asked the Board for their opinion.
Mr. Kerrigan stated that they are just changing the time frame from 14 days to 21 days to concur with the State Regulations.
Mr. Fay asked what the possibility of adding definitions to the statute. Mr. Rider stated that would be possible; however that would require a new public hearing. Mr. Fay noted that definitions should be added when there is a review of the regulations.
The hearing closed at 7:38.
On a motion made by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To amend the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land, Approval Not Required as proposed and described in the hearing notice.
SUBDIVISION PROGRESS REPORTS
Update from City Engineer
At this time, Mr. Baldelli did not have an update.
Acre Bridge Estates (Blake Circle)
Street Acceptance
The Planning Board had asked Mr. Cullen to review all files for Acre Bridge Estates for Subdivision Acceptance. At this time he has reviewed the following:
· As-built Plan and Profile of Acre Bridge Estates: dated September 18, 2008, with the latest revision date of August 17, 2009 prepared by Inland Survey, Inc. / Zanca Land Survey of Stow, MA.;
· Street Acceptance Plan and Easements of Blake Circle: dated September 8, 2008 with the latest revision date of July 16, 2009 prepared by Inland Survey, Inc. / Zanca Land Surveyor of Stow, MA;
· The latest Legal Descriptions.
Mr. Cullen stated that the Engineering Division has determined that the work has been completed in accordance with the Planning Board’s Rules and Regulations and it was maintained in satisfactory condition for the one year maintenance period. He is also suggesting that the Planning Board hold onto the remaining bond amount of $31,000.00 until the City Council accepts the streets and all recordings have been made to the South Middlesex Registry of Deeds.
At this time, the City Engineer has given his favorable recommendation for the Planning Board to accept the subdivision.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To accept and file the letter from City Engineer Thomas Cullen, and endorse his recommendation that the subdivision known as “Acre Bridge Estates, As-built plot plan dated September 18, 2008 with revised date of August 17, 2009 drawn by: Inland Survey / Zanca Land Surveyor” has remained in satisfactory condition for the year long maintenance period. The remaining bond will stay in place until certification of the recordings.
Blackhorse Farms (Slocumb Lane)
Cider Mill Estates (Goodwin Drive)
West Ridge Estates (Dufrense Drive)
Correspondence from Benchmark Engineering
Mr. Donald Seaberg, on behalf of West Hill, LLC and Slocumb Realty, LLC sent correspondence regarding the status of the above mentioned subdivisions. His response to the Planning Board’s correspondence indicating that the approval for all three subdivisions has lapsed was to state that lots for all three subdivisions had been released from their respective covenant restrictions through the Certificate of Performance.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence.
The Code Enforcement Officer, Ms. Pamela Wilderman, stated that this correspondence does not mention subdivision approval status. At this point, the Developers have not asked for a subdivision extension, which has caused their approvals to lapse. Ms. Wilderman stated that “it’s either an approved subdivision or it’s not a subdivision”.
Mr. Rider, the City Solicitor, was asked to explain the Subdivision Control Law, Chapter 41, Section 81W, which would allow a Planning Board, on its own motion or on the petition of any person interested, the power to modify, amend or rescind the subdivisions in question. Mr. Rider explained that no modification, amendment or rescission of the approval of a plan of a subdivision or changes in such plan shall affect the lots in such subdivision which have been sold or mortgage in good faith. Mr. Rider stated that he would provide complete guidance at the next meeting but thought that to use this section for rescinding the lots, the Planning Board would have to hold a public hearing, approve the rescission and then record all information with the Registry of Deeds.
Mr. Rider stated that there was an oddity in the West Ridge Subdivision. There were several lots “scooped” up and incorporated into the Cider Mill Subdivision when planned out. The Planning Board would have not seen this since the two subdivisions were applied for several years apart. He is suggesting that the lot releases may be tainted because there may be double releases on several of the lots.
Mr. Fay is stated that the scooping of land is more of a distraction from the issue at hand that was brought to the attention of the Board by Ms. Wilderman. He stated that the developers, by not attending the meetings, are not being cooperative. He asked if Mr. Rider could provide step by step guidance at the next meeting for the Board if the Board determined that it was appropriate to pursue formal recession of all three subdivisions.
At this time there is only one viable building permit that has been issued for the Cider Mill Estate Subdivision. It was noted that work is being completed that was not shown or approved with the subdivision lots. Ms. Wilderman is suggesting that one viable course of action would be for the Planning Board to rescind all three subdivision approvals if the Board determined that it was justified.
Mr. Fay stated that the Planning Board should be prepared to address these issues at the next meeting having the benefit of guidance from the Engineering Department and step by step guidance from the City Solicitor.
On a motion made by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Hodge it was duly voted:
To ask the Engineering Division and the City Solicitors office to review the files; and report back to the Planning Board with recommendations on how to proceed.
Forest Trail (Mosher Lane)
Correspondence from Attorney Burger
Mr. Burger is asking for another postponement in the waiver request. He stated that his client has not had the meeting with Fire Chief Adams for the placement of the Knox Box and gate.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Johnson it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence and to postpone the request.
PENDING SUBDIVISION PLANS: Updates and Discussion
PRELIMINARY/ OPEN SPACE SUBDIVISION SUBMITTALS
DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION SUBMISSIONS
SCENIC ROADS
SIGNS
INFORMAL DISCUSSION
COMMUNICATIONS/CORRESPONDENCE
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney, 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 8:18 p.m.
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST: _____________________________
Steven Kerrigan, Clerk
| 
