PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
April 5, 2010
7:00 PM
The Planning Board for the City of Marlborough met on Monday, April 5, 2010 in Memorial Hall, 3rd floor, City Hall, Marlborough, MA 01752. Members present: Barbara Fenby, Steven Kerrigan, Phil Hodge, Edward Coveney, Clyde Johnson and Sean Fay. Also present: Asst. City Engineer Richard Baldelli.
MINUTES
Meeting Minutes March 22, 2010
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the minutes of March 22, 2010 with spelling corrections.
CHAIRS BUSINESS
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SUBDIVISION PROGRESS REPORTS
Update from City Engineer
Mr. Baldelli stated they are almost ready to bring the Fahey Street Subdivision to the Planning Board for road acceptance; they are just waiting for the stamped plans. He also stated that he and Mr. Cullen walked the sites for Indian Hill and Forest Grove, with recommendations to be forthcoming.
Blackhorse Farms, Cider Mill Estates and West Ridge Estates (Fafard Development)
Correspondence from the City Solicitor
Donald Rider, the City Solicitor, sent correspondence explaining that he has been out of the office and that he has had a conversation since his return with Attorney Roelofs.~ It is his understanding from Attorney Roelofs that the developers have been in talks with our City Engineers Department.~ Mr. Rider will be providing a further update when one is available.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence.
Correspondence from City Engineer
(Cidermill Estates, West Ridge Estates)
McDermont Way, Goodwin Street and DuFresne Drive
Subdivision Bond Reviews and Recommendations
This was read into record on March 22, 2010; Mr. Kerrigan read it into record once again.
In his correspondence to the Planning Board, Mr. Cullen has reviewed the current bond status for these subdivisions; he is asking to increase the bonds.
· Cider Mill Estates- Increase bond from $462,000 to $581,000.
· West Ridge Estates- Increase bond from $195,000 to $246,000.
The assumption has been made by the Engineering Division that the subdivision should be completed within the next two years. ~Mr. Cullen also noted that the major infrastructure items still remain (installation of curbing, sidewalks, finish pavement, landscape obligations, misc cleanup, approvable as-builds and approvable acceptance plans).
On a motion made by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To accept and file the bond recommendation.
Correspondence from the City Engineer
Subdivision Bond Review (Blackhorse Farms)
Slocumb Lane
This was read into record on March 22, 2010; Mr. Kerrigan read it into the record once again.
Mr. Cullen has reviewed the current subdivision bond and is recommending the Planning Board increase the bond amount from $248,000 to $334,000.~ It is the Engineering Departments assumption that the subdivision will be completed within the next two years. He also noted that the subdivision still has many items before completion including curbing, sidewalks, finish pavement, landscaping, misc cleanup, approvable as-built plans and approvable acceptance plans.~
On a motion made by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To accept and file the bond recommendation.
Mr. Kerrigan asked if the Planning Board has ever increased a bond, when the normal practice is to reduce the bonds.~ Mr. Fay stated that the bond amount is only one of many issues related to the subdivisions in question and questioned whether increasing the bond amount would make sense at this point without acknowledgement from the developer that the developer has an affirmative obligation to request an appropriate extension. ~Mr. Fay questioned whether the developer would be willing to request an extension if the bond amounts were increased.
Mr. Baldelli stated that if the Planning Board does agree to increase the bond, the City would be in a better position to be able to pull the bond if needed to complete the work as needed.
Mr. Hodge stated that the increase is necessary. The current bonds monies dates back to 2006 when construction costs were less then today’s standards.
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Kerrigan, with Ms. Fenby and Mr. Fay opposing, it was duly voted:
To notify Fafard Development that the Planning Board is increasing the bond amount for Cider Mill Estates from $462,000 to $581,000; to increase the bond amount for West Ridge Estates from $195,000 to $246,000; and to increase the bond amount of Blackhorse Farms from $248,000 to $334,000.
All members acknowledged the importance of the developer posting the increased bond amounts. Mr. Fay stated the reason he opposed the vote was because he did want the Board's actions to be construed as a waiver of the two year time limit imposed by the Planning Board's Rules and Regulations and that he would like to get further guidance from the City Solicitor.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Fay it was duly voted:
To reconsider the vote to increase the bond amounts.
Mr. Kerrigan stated that he did not fully understand the previous motion made by Mr. Hodge.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To table any motion on the bond increases; to send correspondence to the City Solicitor seeking guidance as to whether a vote to increase the bond amounts prohibits the Board from acting on the bonds should the developer choose not to seek an appropriate extension.
Davis Estates (Bouvin Drive)
Correspondence from the City Engineer
At the last meeting on March 22, 2010, the Planning Board asked the City Engineer to review the verbal requests made by Mr. Valchuis. Mr. Cullen provided the following on the trees:
· Pursuant to Section V, F Trees of the Rules and Regulation Governing the Subdivision of Land, Marlborough, MA last updated in December 1991: “Trees of a species approved by the City Forester shall be planted on each side of each street in subdivision, except where the Definitive Plan showed trees to be retained which are healthy and adequate. Such trees shall be located outside of the Right-of-Way as shown…approximately at 40’ intervals, and shall be at least 12’ in height, and a minimum of 3” caliper”.
· Note that the developer can plant the trees get approval from the City that the trees have been planted, and the property owner can then cut the trees down. Without a landscape easement in place, he believes the developer may not be able to comply with making sure that the trees stay up until such time the subdivision is accepted.
· Also discussed at the Planning Board meeting was placing a deed restriction (through a formal change to the approved subdivision land plan) on the land to assure that the trees or replacement trees are required in the event that a site contractor destroys the planted trees.
· Also discussed was placing money into a fund to be used at the discretion of the City for planting elsewhere in the City. Note this defeats the purpose of the streetscape which he thought was the original intent.
· Also discussed was planting the trees and hope for the best as the lots are developed. Under this scenario, the developer has met his obligations.
Mr. Cullen stated that his recommendation would be that the developer be required to meet his obligations for the subdivision relating to the tree plantings.
On the fencing issue, Mr. Cullen provided the following:
· The developer is looking to eliminate the requirement of the fence around his detention basins. Mr. Cullen noted the fence indicated on the attached plan does not have a required height. Standard practice has been 6’, however:
· Although not stated in the Rules and Regulations, Mr. Cullen believes the inclusion of a fence or other around a detention basin which has the possibility of having over several inches (24”) of water in it is directly related to the general safety of the lot(s) in question and the requirements of the building code and/or City Code (see old chapter 176 attached herewith) come into play. Therefore, any recommendation that comes from the City Engineer’s office will/needs to be directly related to the Codes.
· With all that said, as we move forward, the City will not be responsible for the maintenance of any aesthetically pleasing wall or fencing. Access needs to be maintained for the purpose of maintenance, passing, re-passing, etc.
Mr. Cullen is recommending that the developer be required to meet his obligation for his subdivision relating to the fencing or decorative fencing would feasible as well, as long as it meets the height requirements. However, Mr. Cullen stated that the City will not be responsible to maintain the fence and the developer would have to provide a “shop” drawing prior to installation.
Mr. Kerrigan stated that the request for not installing the trees a reasonable request since the lots have not been built yet.
Trees:
On a motion made by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Coveney, with Mr. Kerrigan opposing, it was duly voted:
To send notification to the developer that the requirements of the tree plantings must to be fulfilled to meet his required obligation for his subdivision.
Fencing:
On a motion made by Ms. Fenby, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To send notification to the developer needs to meet the obligation for this subdivision relating to fencing requirements or other noting a that decorative fencing is feasible assuming that it meets the height requirements and must submit a shop drawing prior to installation to the City Engineer.
The Residences of Oak Crest (Graves Lane)
Subdivision Extension
Code Enforcement and Blight Conditions
Ms. Pamela Wilderman, Code Enforcement for the City Solicitor, stated that the subdivision appears to be in acceptable condition under the terms of the blight ordinance. She mentioned there were numerous dirt piles on one of the lots, sufficient precautions have been taken to prevent impact on the already constructed detention basin and noted the uninstalled light pole lying in the end of the cul de sac.
On a motion made by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence.
Correspondence from the City Collector
Ms. Deborah Puleo, the City of Marlborough Tax Collector, sent correspondence to Mr. Breslouf stating that the taxes are current for: 8 Graves Lane, 18 Graves Lane, 25 Graves Lane and 26 Graves Lane.
On a motion made by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence.
Extension
Mr. Baldelli stated that Mr. Cullen spoke to Mr. Breslouf and stated he needs to resubmit a more realistic subdivision completion schedule before he could recommend to the Planning Board an extension.
On a motion made by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To table the decision of an extension until the next meeting on April 26, 2010.
PENDING SUBDIVISION PLANS: Updates and Discussion
PRELIMINARY/ OPEN SPACE SUBDIVISION SUBMITTALS
DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION SUBMISSIONS
SCENIC ROADS
SIGNS
265A Lakeside Ave, Holiday Inn
Request for Variance
Mr. Kerrigan reminded the board of his disclosure of Appearance of Conflict of Interest.
Mr. Peter Zahka, the Attorney for the Hotel, presented to the Planning Board his variance request for the Holiday Inn. The Hotel was built in 1972, the current signage dates back to 1984 and the hotel itself has currently gone through a $5,000,000 renovation project including new hotel branding logos.
He stated in his findings for a variance the reasons would be:
· “Way finding” for patrons on I-495 and Route 20
· Locating hotel is impacted by distance, topography, vegetation and location
· Difficulty determining actual entrance due to proximity to on/off ramps
· Hotel located approx 300 feet from entrance on Route 20
· Hotel entrance immediately off-ramp for I-495
In his correspondence he stated the following for satisfaction of standard for issuance of variance:
· City Ordinance: “The Planning Board may vary the provision of [Sign Ordinance] in specific cases which appear to it not to have been contemplated by this chapter, and in case where enforcement would involved practical difficulties, if, in each instance, desirable relief may be granted without substantially derogating from intent and purposes of this chapter”
· Unique situation due to distance topography, vegetation and location not contemplated by the ordinance
· Enforcement would involve practical difficulties since signs needed for “way finding” from I-495 and Route 20 – given distance and site line signs of the proposed size are required
· No substantial derogation from Ordinance since all proposed sign are less non-conforming than signs being replaced- Overall major improvement to the area – no adverse impact on others
· Hardship (not actual required - Need for appropriate signs is shown by complaints as well as significant loss of business
Mr. Kerrigan stated that applicant demonstrated his case and was willing to consider the signs.
Mr. Hodge asked the Board if they should consider the whole package and not just the ones needing variance. Ms. Fenby confirmed that has been past practice to review the whole package. Mr. Hodge also mentioned that the overall sign calculations were incorrect on how the signs were configured.
Ms. Fenby stated that the signs are less then what the current variance, however as pointed out by Mr. Hodge, the calculations seem to be mis-represented. Mr. Hodge stated the applicant should recalculate the signs dimensions.
Mr. Hodge stated that the applicant should consider moving the pylon sign to the current location of the message board signage, would eliminate some of the entrance to the site issues. Mr. Coveney and Mr. Johnson agreed with Mr. Hodge and the placement of the pylon sign. Mrs. Lizotte asked if the current pylon sign is removed, would the variance for the on-street message board sign should be null and void? Ms. Fenby stated that would be correct.
Mr. Zakra stated he would like to discuss with his client about the sign calculations and the possible change in location for the pylon sign.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To table the sign discussion until the next meeting on April 26, 2010.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION
Proposed Change to the Rules and Regulations
Correspondence from the City Solicitor
Mr. Rider stated that he has not had the opportunity to review the proposed amendment to the Planning Board Rules and Regulations. He is hoping to submit his thoughts on this matter at the next Planning Board.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence.
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
| 
