PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
October 26, 2009
7:00 PM
The Planning Board for the City of Marlborough met on Monday, October 26, 2009 in Memorial Hall, 3rd floor, City Hall, Marlborough, MA 01752. Members present: Barbara Fenby, Steven Kerrigan, Phil Hodge, Edward Coveney, Robert Hanson and Sean Fay. Also present: City Engineer Thomas Cullen.
MINUTES
Meeting Minutes October 5, 2009
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Fay it was duly voted:
To accept and file the Meeting Minutes of October 5, 2009 with amendments.
CHAIRS BUSINESS
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING
The Planning Board of the City of Marlborough held a public hearing on Monday, October 26, 2009, at 7:10p.m. in Memorial Hall, 3rd Floor, City Hall, 140 Main Street, Marlborough on the proposed in to changes in the Zoning Ordinance by adding Narcotic Detoxification And/or Maintenance Facilities to Chapter 40A. Members present: Chairperson Barbara L. Fenby, Clerk Steven Kerrigan, Philip Hodge, Edward Coveney, Robert Hanson and Sean Fay. Also present: City Engineer Thomas Cullen.
Mr. Kerrigan read the advertisement into record.
THAT, PURSUANT TO § 5 OF CHAPTER 40A OF THE GENERAL LAWS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARLBOROUGH, HAVING SUBMITTED FOR ITS OWN CONSIDERATION CHANGES IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MARLBOROUGH, AS AMENDED, TO FURTHER AMEND CHAPTER 650, NOW ORDAINS THAT THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MARLBOROUGH, AS AMENDED, BE FURTHER AMENDED BY ADDING THERETO AS FOLLOWS:
1. Section 650-5, entitled “Definitions; Word Usage,” is hereby amended by adding to said Section the following definition:
NARCOTIC DETOXIFICATION AND/OR MAINTENANCE FACILITY: A non-residential drug treatment program that assists individual addicted to drugs by administration of a substitute drug. Any facility that dispenses, prescribes, administers, allocates, delivers, hands out, or uses in any way a substitute drug, with or without providing other treatment services, shall be deemed a “Narcotic Detoxification and/or Maintenance Facility” and subject to the regulations under Section 650-31 of this ordinance.
2. Section 650-17, entitled “Table of Uses,” is hereby amended by adding to said section a new business use entitled, “Narcotic Detoxification and/or Maintenance Facility,” which shall be regulated, as follows:
RR A1 A2 A3 RB RC B CA LI I
N N N N N N N SP SP SP
3. A new Section 650-31, entitled “NARCOTIC DETOXIFICATION AND/OR MAINTENANCE FACILITIES,” is hereby added, as follows:
650-31 NARCOTIC DETOXIFICATION AND/OR MAINTENANCE FACILITIES
A. Subject to the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws, and provisions of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Marlborough Zoning Ordinance will not prohibit the location of a facility for narcotic detoxification or narcotic maintenance within the City of Marlborough, but will instead regulate such facilities. A Narcotic Detoxification and/or Maintenance Facility should provide medical support, security, drug testing with oversight by a physician, and standards that meet or exceed state regulations under 105 CMR 164 for licensure of substance abuse treatment programs. Facilities should not compete to provide streamlined care to patients and should not provide a location for patients to wait for treatment in the
vicinity of children. Therefore, to ensure that these facilities are located in such a way as to not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of either the participants in the rehabilitation treatment or the public at large, the provisions of this section will apply to all such facilities.
B. Where a Special Permit is required for a Narcotic Detoxification and/or Maintenance Facility, the Special Permit Granting Authority shall grant the Special Permit only upon its written determination that any adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts to the City or the neighborhood, in view of the particular characteristics of the site, and of the proposal in relation to that site. In addition to any specific factors that may be set forth in this Ordinance, the determination shall include consideration of each of the following:
1. Social, economic, or community needs which are served by the proposal;
2. Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading;
3. Adequacy of utilities and other public services;
4. Neighborhood character and social structures;
5. Impacts on the natural environment;
6. Potential fiscal impact, including impact on City services, tax base, and employment; and
7. The ability for the facility to:
a. meet a demonstrated need;
b. provide a secure indoor waiting area for clients;
c. provide an adequate pick-up/drop-off area;
d. provide adequate security measures to ensure that no individual participant will pose a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals; and
e. adequately address issues of traffic demand, parking, and queuing, especially at peak periods at the facility, and its impact on neighboring uses.
The Special Permit Granting Authority may require the applicant to provide a traffic study, at the applicant's expense, to establish the impacts of the peak traffic demand.
C. A Narcotic Detoxification and/or Maintenance Facility shall not be located:
1. within five thousand (5,000) feet of another Narcotic Detoxification and/or Maintenance Facility; nor,
2. within two thousand (2,000) feet of:
a. a school (as defined in § 517-2 of the Code of the City of Marlborough, as amended) located within the City of Marlborough;
b. a recreational facility (as defined in § 517-2 of the Code of the City of Marlborough, as amended); or
c. a park (as defined in § 517-2 of the Code of the City of Marlborough, as amended).
d. an elderly housing facility (as defined in § 517-2 of the Code of the City of Marlborough, as amended); or
e. a retirement community (as defined in § 650-4 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Marlborough, as amended) located within the City of Marlborough.
Council President Arthur Vigeant presented to the Planning Board the reasoning behind the proposed additional zoning change. He stated that there is no plan or proposal at this time if such as facility does come into the City; the proper zoning would be in place. They are asking that such facilities be no closer together then 5,000 feet and not within 2,000 feet of schools, a recreational facilities, parks, elderly housing facilities or retirement facilities. Mr. Vigeant said that the 2,000 restriction would be moved to 1,000 feet be enactment.
Councilor Levy spoke on why this was being proposed. He feels that the zoning should be in place now. He stated that most of the buffer zones will be less restrictive at 1,000 foot restriction would allow more facilities and all facilities will still need special permit approval with the City Council.
In Favor
No one spoke in favor.
In Opposition
No one spoke in opposition.
This portion of the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Hodge asked if there were maps showing where the facilities would be allowed. Councilor Ferro provided the maps. Councilor Levy stated the maps do show where the facilities could be if they were 5,000 feet apart which would only allow 2 sites.
Ms. Fenby questioned the language “Facilities should not complete to provide streamlined care to patients and should not provide a location for patients to wait for treatment in the vicinity of children”. She stated that this was an awkward passage. Mr. Vigeant stated that the ordinance was written by the City Solicitor using guidance from other similar City Ordinances.
Mr. Fay asked if an elderly center, child care center, or an retirement community is currently located close to the allowed zones. Mr. Vigeant stated there is a child care facility that would prohibit a facility of a site along Cedar Hill Road despite the maps showing a possibly location. Mr. Fay also asked the possibility if detox or maintenance facility is already in place, what would happen if a day care center, elderly faculty, recreation faculty or retirement community was placed near the maintenance facility. Mr. Vigeant stated that it was possible, but the City Council could always amend the ordinance.
Mr. Hodge asked what would happen if the facility was located and operated at the hospital? Mr. Vigeant stated that most likely they would be using the Dover amendment.
((The Dover Amendment (M.G.L. Chapter 40A Section 3) is a state law that states that "No zoning ordinance or by-law shall prohibit, regulate or restrict the use of land or structures for religious purposes or for educational purposes on land owned or leased by the commonwealth or any of its agencies, subdivisions or bodies politic or by a religious sect or denomination, or by a nonprofit educational corporation; provided, however, that such land or structures may be subject to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures and determining yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking and building coverage requirements."))
The public hearing was closed at 7:30 PM.
Proposed Zoning Change
400 South Street LLC, Map: 93 Parcels 18A, 19, 20, 22, 23, 32, 101 & 103
7:30
The Planning Board of the City of Marlborough held a public hearing on Monday, October 26, 2009, at 7:30p.m. in Memorial Hall, 3rd Floor, City Hall, 140 Main Street, Marlborough on the consideration to changing proposed change to the Zoning Map by petitioners 424 South Street and 428 South Street, LLC. Members present: Chairperson Barbara L. Fenby, Clerk Steven Kerrigan, Philip Hodge, Edward Coveney, Robert Hanson and Sean Fay. Also present: City Engineer Thomas Cullen.
Mr. Kerrigan read the advertisement into record.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board of the City of Marlborough will hold a public hearing on Monday, October 26, 2009, at 7:15 P.M. in the Memorial Hall, 3rd floor, City Hall, 140 Main Street, Marlborough, Massachusetts on the petition of 400 South Street LLC, 424 South Street LLC and 428 South Street LLC, all hereinafter referred to as “Petitioners”, which said Petitioners each own land which is subject to this proposal, to amend the Zoning Map of the City of Marlborough, said map being referred to in the Marlborough Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 650 Section 650-8 of the Marlborough City Code, by rezoning certain parcels of land on South Street, shown on the Marlborough Assessors Maps as Map 93 Parcels 18A, 19, 20, 22, 23, 32, 101 and 103, removing said parcels from an
Industrial (I) District and including them in a Commercial & Automotive (CA) District.
Attorney Bergeron represents the petitioners who are seeking to change their current zoning from Industrial (I) to Commercial Automotive (CA). They have been before the Site Plan Review Committee for several issues that concern their buildings. The Site Plan Review Committee suggested that they seek a change in their zoning status to Commercial Automotive. Mr. Bergeron did not have a map available (slide show was ready for the City Council public hearing at 8:00pm).
In Favor:
Kristen Cappello
29 Beverly Street
Marlborough, MA 01752
Ms. Cappello stated she was in favor of the zone change.
Richard Cappello
4 Killam Road
Southborough, MA 01772
Mr. Cappello stated he was in favor of the zone change.
Robert Valchious
180 Farm Road
Marlborough, MA 01752
Mr. Valchious stated that he was in favor of the zone change.
Mr. and Mrs. Neil Fossile
424 South Street
Marlborough, MA 01752
Mrs. Fossile asked for the current zoning setbacks for Commercial Automotive. Mrs. Lizotte read the zoning guidelines: 5,000 Square feet for minimum lot size, 50 feet minimum lot frontage, 50 feet side year (only when it abuts a residential zone, otherwise 0), 50 feet front yard, and 0 for minimum for rear with a height restriction of 2 stories.
Mr. Fossile stated that there are current boundary issues between his property and the neighbor’s property. Mr. Fossile’s property is also being included in the zone change and he stated he had no knowledge of the proposed change.
Marilyn Gaudette
21 Mill Street Central
Marlborough, MA 01752
Ms. Gaudette stated that she was concerned about how the public hearing came to the Planning Board when it was being advertised for the City Council on the same night. Attorney Bergeron explained that the City Council must notify the Planning Board and Urban Affairs when there is any change to the Zoning Ordnance including maps.
Michael Kennedy
80 Cameron Drive
Marlborough, MA 01752
Mr. Kennedy questioned the lots. In the advertisement the lots show Map 93 Parcels 18A, 19, 20, 22, 23, 32, 101 & 103. No mention of lot 21. Mrs. Lizotte provided the Zoning Maps which showed a Parcel 21 not being part of the proposed change. Mr. Bergeron stated that he used the Assessor’s maps to gauge the parcels. The Cappellos who own parcel 20 stated that their taxes are parcel 20.
The Board discussed tabling the hearing until the parcels are clarified.
In Opposition
Mrs. Celeste Wright
330 South Street
Marlborough, MA 01752
Mrs. Wright stated that she had a petition with 68 signatures in opposition that to the proposed to the zone change.
Mr. George Wright
330 South Street
Marlborough, MA 01752
Mr. Wright stated changing the current zoning to Commercial Automotive leaves a gap of the possibilities that can take place. He stated the zoning should be left as is and changing could lead to a bigger mess.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Hanson it was duly voted:
To table the public hearing until November 9, 2009.
SUBDIVISION PROGRESS REPORTS
Update from City Engineer
Mr. Cullen provided his status updates. His update shows the work of the completed work at Fiddlehead Subdivision, except for the as-built plans and acceptances. He has also reviewed the Crystal Ridge Estates and is providing correspondence for acceptance.
Blackhorse Farms (Slocumb Lane)
Cider Mill Estates (Goodwin Drive)
West Ridge Estates (Dufrense Drive)
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Hanson, it was duly voted:
To table this discussion.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To reopen the discussion.
Mr. Donald Rider, the City Solicitor, provided this proposed motion for the Planning Board:
MOTION:
It is moved that the Planning Board, pursuant to MGL c. 41, § 81W, does hereby require that the developer, West Hill LLC, submit to the Planning Board for its review at its next meeting on November 7, 2009 a change in the definitive subdivision plan for Cider Mill Estates, such change to reflect the developer’s earthen berm work, and all deposits or stockpiling of soil and/or other materials, within or upon the subdivision; that such change is a condition of the plan’s retaining the status of an approved subdivision plan; and that the developer’s failure to timely submit the changed plan shall result in the plan’s losing the status of an approved subdivision plan.
Mr. Rider stated that he offered the motion because of the changes in the stockpiles and berm is enough change to rescind the subdivision.
Mr. Fay also stated that this gives them a plan of action for the Cider Mill Estates, but what about West Ridge Estates and Blackhorse Farms? Mr. Fay questioned if there was enough in the performance bond if the subdivision lots were rescinded. Mr. Cullen was not prepared with the amount outstanding bond amounts and he also stated that all the streets have a binder coat with utilities underneath the binder.
Mr. Fay asked if there was a possibility of just rescinding the lots, not the subdivision in whole. Mr. Rider was not aware of any court cases where the lots were rescinded.
The Planning Board asked Mr. Cullen to review the status of the remaining bond amounts for Cider Mill Estates, West Ridge Estates and Blackhorse Farms. They asked for the City Solicitor to look into the possibility of rescinding just the lots for all three subdivisions.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To table the discussion.
Crystal Ridge Estates (Danjou Drive)
Subdivision Acceptance
At the Planning Boards request and the Developers request, the City of Marlborough’s Engineering Division has reviewed the following:
· As-Built Plan and Profile of Crystal Ridge Estates, dated December 4, 2000 with the latest revision date of August 17, 2001. Note that the plans were prepared by Central Mass Engineering & Survey, Inc. 45 River Street, Marlborough, MA 01752.
· Plan of Acceptance of Danjou Drive and Easements, dated October 14, 2004 with the latest revision date of October 14, 2009. Note that the plan was prepared by Robert J. Parente P.L.S., 15 Hickory Road, Southborough, MA 01772.
· The latest Legal Descriptions.
Mr. Cullen is recommending the Planning Board accept the subdivision. He is also suggesting retaining the remaining bond of $49,000.00 in place until such time of the Acceptance Plan and Municipal Easements has been approved by the City Council and recorded with the Middlesex Registry of Deeds South District, Cambridge, MA. He also recommend that the Developer take the necessary steps with the City of Marlborough City Council to have Danjou Drive and easements accepted by the City as shown on the plan prepared by Robert J. Parente P.L.S., 15 Hickory Road, Southborough, MA 01772 entitled “Plan of Acceptance of Danjou Drive and Easements, Marlborough, MA’, dated October 14, 2004 with the latest revision date of October 19, 2009, scale 1”=40”.
On a motion made 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 “Plan of Acceptance of Danjou Drive and Easements, Marlborough, MA’, dated October 14, 2004 with the latest revision date of October 19, 2009, scale 1”=40” drawn by Robert J. Parente P.L.S. 15 Hickory Road, Southborough, MA” has remained in satisfactory condition for the year long maintenance period. The remaining bond will stay in place until certification of the recordings.
The Developers are responsible of contacting the City Council for their approval.
Davis Estates (Bouvin Drive)
Request for Bond Reduction
Attorney Also Cipriano provided to the Planning Board a request for a bond reduction and a subdivision completion schedule.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence, to refer the request the bond reduction to the City Engineer for a full review.
Mr. Cullen stated there was a request for plowing of the street; the request needs to go to the City Council.
Forest Trail (Mosher Lane)
Correspondence from Attorney Burger
Mr. Burger and his client are still in discussion with Fire Chief Adams over the gate at the trail entrance with the Knox lock system. He is asking for a postponement of any action until the November 9, 2009.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence and to postponing action as requested.
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. Coveney, seconded by Mr. Kerrigan, it was duly voted:
To adjourn at 8:45 p.m.
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST: _____________________________
Steven Kerrigan, Clerk
| 
