PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
April 26, 2010
7:00 PM
The Planning Board for the City of Marlborough met on Monday, April 26, 2010 in Memorial Hall, 3rd floor, City Hall, Marlborough, MA 01752. Members present: Barbara Fenby, Steven Kerrigan, Phil Hodge, Clyde Johnson and Sean Fay. Also present: Asst. City Engineer Richard Baldelli.
MINUTES
Meeting Minutes April 5, 2010
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the minutes of April 5, 2010 with noted corrections.
CHAIRS BUSINESS
Correspondence from City Council
Request to Amend Chapter 650 of the City Code
Table of Lot Area and Yard Requirements
Mr. Fay stated that he has informed the Mayor that he has a conflict of interest and until acknowledged by the Mayor, Mr. Fay opted to step out of the room.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Hodge it was duly voted:
To table the correspondence until another member attends the meeting.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Hodge it was duly voted:
To remove the matter off the table.
Mr. Fay stated once again that there is a conflict of interest disclosure pending; Mr. Fay stepped out of the room.
Attorney Bergeron is requesting to amend Chapter 650 of the Code of the City of Marlborough, by adding, in the Table of Lot Area and Yard Requirements for Open Space Development that is part of section 650-28.E(3), after the words “Lot area (square feet)”, a note to read as follows:
“For Open Space Developments of more than 50 acres, the required Lot area may be reduced by as much as 50%, but not below 8,000 square feet per lot, provided that, in that case, the Common Open Space required pursuant to Sec. 650-28F(6) shall be not less than 50% of total site.”
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Johnson it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Hodge it was duly voted:
To schedule a public hearing date of May 24, 2010 at 7:30 pm.
Request to Amend Zoning Map
Attorney Gadbois, on behalf of the Gutierrez Co, is seeking to amend the Zoning Map of the City of Marlborough, established by Chapter 650, Zoning Article III, Establishments of Districts Section 650-8 “Boundaries Established; Zoning Map”. Said map is amended by extending the Business District shown on the City of Marlborough Massachusetts Zoning Map by including in said Business District shown on the City Map 78, Parcel 12, 38 and 39 and Map 889, Parcel 77 of the City of Marlborough.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, second by Mr. Johnson it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Hodge it was duly voted:
To schedule a public hearing on May 24, 2010 at 7:15 pm.
Reappointment of Barbara Fenby
The Personnel Committee is sending recommendation to the City Council to a term of 5 years expiring the first Monday in February 2015. Also noted, Mr. Coveney still remains in committee.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Hodge it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence.
DCR
Sudbury and Foss Reservoirs
The DCR division of Water Supply Protection is charged with protection of the Metropolitan Boston water supply watershed system. The Sudbury and Foss Reservoirs are emergency water supplies to this system and act as reserve drinking water supply. The DCR is required to develop plans for managing and protecting these two watershed lands.
A plan originally for the Sudbury Reservoir was developed in 1994, updated in 2004, details the agency’s polices for public use of the facilities. The DCR is looking to update the plan once again and is looking for viable feedback from the Planning Board, Conservation Committee and the Recreation Committees.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Hodge it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence.
Mr. Fay asked if it was known who would be responding to the DCR with comments. Ms. Savoie, the City Planner, stated that it would most likely be the Conservation Commission. Mr. Fay would like the Planning Board send a letter asking them to consider allowing mountain bikes access.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Fay it was duly voted:
To send correspondence to the Conservation Commission stating that the members of the Planning Board would like them to consider asking the DCR about bicycle access for the Sudbury Reservoir.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SUBDIVISION PROGRESS REPORTS
Update from City Engineer
Mr. Baldelli stated that the review of Elm Farm Valley is almost at the completion stage. Also, they are in full swing of the construction phase.
Blackhorse Farms, Cider Mill Estates and West Ridge Estates (Fafard Development)
Correspondence from the City Solicitor
The City Solicitor was asked by the Planning Board if an increase in the bond amounts prohibits the Board from acting on the bonds should the developer choose not to seek an appropriate extension.
Mr. Rider stated that the Board’s question presumes that the bonds in question have not expired and thus can be voted on in the first place. He inquired the surety bond company (United Casualty and Surety Insurance Company), the developer’s attorney (Jeffery Roelofs), and the developer’s engineer (Donald Seaburg) in attempt to determine if the bonds in question have not expired. The bonds for Black Horse Farm and West Ridge Estates are still valid, with the Cider Mill Estate bond expired, with Mr. Seaburg stating the bond is renewed. He recommended that prior to any vote to increase of the bonds, to wait for certification of continuance of the Cider Mills Estates’ bond.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Johnson it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence.
Mr. Fay asked Mr. Rider if there was any continuance of discussion with the developer’s attorney to resolve the outstanding issues with subdivision approvals. Mr. Rider, through his research of the subdivision files, found past extensions for Cider Mill Estates and West Ridge Estates but none for Blackhorse Farms.
Mr. Hodge asked Mr. Rider if it was possible to increase the bonds. Mr. Rider stated that according to MGL Chapter 41 section 81U, states “shall bear a direct and reasonable relationship to the expected cost including the effects of inflation, necessary to complete the schedule work. Such amount or amounts shall from time to time be reduced so that amount bonded deposited or retained continues to reflect the actual expected cost of work remaining to be completed”.
Mr. Rider also stated that in the Board’s own Rules and Regulations it mentions under Section III, B.1. (b) That “applicant agrees to complete the ways shown thereon and install the public utilities aforesaid within two (2) years of the date of approval of his Definitive Plan.” Mr. Rider stated that he is going to refer this section to the developer’s attorney.
Ms. Fenby also stated that she has had several discussions with Mr. Rider regarding the increases of the bonds and the covenants. Mr. Rider stated that it may be in the best interest of the Planning Board to reconsider reviewing the bond status yearly.
Subdivision Completion Schedules
The City Engineer has reviewed the completion schedule for the three subdivisions. Mr. Baldelli stated that he finds the schedules acceptable.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence.
Mr. Fay asked Mr. Rider if it was possible to invite Mr. Roelofs to attend the next Planning Board meeting. This meeting would be to clarify if there is still subdivision approvals, bond increases and bond status.
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted:
To Invite Mr. Roelofs to the next Planning Board meeting to discuss the three Fafard Subdivisions.
Fahey Street
Subdivision Acceptance
In November 2005, the Planning Board has asked the City Engineer to review the subdivision file for street acceptance. Mr. Cullen noted that the following was provided to his office:
· As-Built Plan and Profile of Fahey Street, dated March 25, 2004, prepared by Thomas Land Surveyors and Engineering Consultants, Inc. of Hudson, MA;
· Acceptance Plan of Fahey Street and Easements, dated March 30, 2010, prepared by Thomas Land Surveyors and Engineering Consultants, Inc. of Hudson, MA;
· The latest Legal Descriptions
The status of the subdivision has remained with the required one year maintenance period since November 2004. Also noted by Mr. Cullen the wooden stockade fence located with the proposed municipal utility easement on 35 Orchard Street which surrounds a swimming pool. He stated that the department typically does not allow encroachments within an easement area. However, they are allowing the fence to remain for the following reasons; the fence precludes the construction of the sewer infrastructure, distance between the two sewer manholes and the fencing can be removed if necessary for excavation.
Mr. Cullen stated that he can give a favorable recommendation to accept the subdivision and to keep the remaining bond of $66,000.00 in place until the Acceptance Plan and Municipal Easements have been accepted by the City Council and recorded at the Middlesex Registry of Deeds South District.
On a motion 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 “Fahey Street”, As-built plot plan and profile dated March 25, 2004 drawn by: Thomas Land Surveyors and Engineering Consultants, Inc. of Hudson, MA and has remained in satisfactory condition for the year long maintenance period. The remaining bond will stay in place until certification of the recordings.
The Residences of Oak Crest (Graves Lane)
Subdivision Completion Schedule
Mr. Baldelli has reviewed the completion schedule for the subdivision. He has found the schedule to be unacceptable at this time and cannot give a recommendation.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Johnson it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence.
Amended Agreement Extension
Mr. Breslouf is requesting an extension of the covenant for the Residences of Oak Crest be extended to the first meeting in May 2010. He is currently working out the details of the subdivision completion schedule with the City Engineer.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence; to grant an extension of the covenant until May 12, 2010.
PENDING SUBDIVISION PLANS: Updates and Discussion
PRELIMINARY/ OPEN SPACE SUBDIVISION SUBMITTALS
Moss Development, Shoestring Hill (June 10, 2010)
Mr. Fay discussed his conflict of interest and stepped out of the room.
Correspondence from the City Solicitor
The City Solicitor sent an email to Mrs. Lizotte regarding the date of submission of the preliminary plan may be debated under the current rules and the States rules. The State guidelines for preliminary plans have a 45 day period for approval, approval with modifications or disapproval. If the developer uses the date under which it was submitted to the Planning Board it would be today’s date with a decision date due by June 10, 2010. If the developer was to use the date which submitted to the City Clerk, which was April 13, 2010 the decision date would be May 28, 2010. Mr. Rider also spoke with the Mr. Cullen, the City Engineer, regarding his review for the plans. Mr. Cullen stated that his preliminary plan would be reported back to the Board by the second meeting in May.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Johnson it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence.
With both the Developer (Mr. Moss) and the developer’s attorney (Mr. Bergeron) it was discussed on which date they will use as the start date and the approval date. Mr. Bergeron stated his client will be using today’s date of April 26, 2010 and a decision date of June 10, 2010; a written agreement will precede this decision.
Preliminary Submittal
Mr. Michael Sullivan for Connorstone Engineering, Inc. has submitted a Preliminary Plan for the Shoestring Hill Subdivision located on approx. 88 acres on South Street. He has submitted an appendix b, subdivision plan package checklist, five copies of the 17 sheet subdivision plans, and the filing fee. A Comparative Impact Analysis (CIA) was not submitted with the filing. He stated that the developer has filed a zoning change with the City Council that could result in an open space development. They intend to file an CIA once they Zoning issues have been addressed.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Johnson it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence.
Mr. Kerrigan asked if they hold a public hearing for this on May 24, 2010, would propose would it provide to hold a zoning hearing and a public hearing for the subdivision on the same date. Mr. Kerrigan also stated that depending on what the Planning Board’s recommendation on the zoning change, is it possible to review the current preliminary plans. Mr. Bergeron stated that the Planning Board is holding a public hearing on a convention plan not an open space plan. Mr. Bergeron also stated that there are two caveats of the open space plan that was submitted, one with today’s standards of Open Space A-1 of 15,000 square feet per lot and the request of the zoning change for A-1 of 8,000 square feet. The plans also show lots with cross marks that cannot be built due to slope requirements or wetlands.
Mr. Hodge is concerned that the clock is running before the completion of the plans as well as the Zoning Change. He understands that the City Council sometimes uses the Planning Boards input, however they sometimes disregard opinion. He expressed concern they will vote without the Planning Board opinion.
Mr. Moss stated that they did not want to have to submit two preliminary plans for the subdivisions. He stated that depending on the outcome of the zoning request, he will be submitting for definitive plans of either a convention plan or a special permit plan for open space. He stated he would have no issue extending the review time with written extensions.
Mr. Kerrigan asked Mr. Baldelli if there would be enough time to review the plans prior to the May 24, 2010 meeting. Mr. Baldelli stated they can start an initial review.
Ms. Fenby stated that the submittal is not complete without the CIA. It was the conscious of the Planning Board that the CIA is a crucial part of the submission of a subdivision of this size. Mr. Moss stated that they can have the CIA into the office within a week for review. However, Mr. Kerrigan stated that the review time would still be ticking and that he felt it was unfair to have the time still running without complete submission.
Ms. Fenby suggested that the developer should consider withdrawing the plans without prejudice and resubmit the complete package when it is available so there would be no lapse of reviewable time.
Mr. Bergeron made a verbal request to withdrawal the plans without prejudice. Ms. Fenby stated that if the Planning Board votes to withdrawal, a written formal letter should be forthcoming.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Johnson it was duly votes:
To allow the developer to withdrawal the preliminary plans without prejudice.
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.
Attorney Peter Zhaka provided the revised plans for the signage for the Holiday Inn. The new signage survey is as follows:
· Exiting menu board was eliminated
· Two proposed 9 sq signs at the entrance we eliminated
· Proposed 49 sq freestanding pylon sign has been relocated to front of property
· Proposed front wall sign has been modified by eliminating “& Suites” and reduced in width
· Proposed side wall sign has been modified by eliminating “& Suites” and reduced in width
Ms. Fenby stated this is greatly improved from the original submission. Mr. Hodge stated that he still has a few questions, including the message board, site distance and E911. Mr. Zhaka stated that the site distance is more of a Zoning Issue not a site distance. Mrs. Lizotte did state that the revised plan was shown to Mr. Reid and he saw no conflict. However, Mr. Baldelli stated there was a 400 foot site distance. Mr. Zhaka will review this.
Mr. Zhaka stated that the Holiday Inn brand logos do not include message boards with their freestanding signs. The owner of the hotel already stated that the address will be included on the freestanding sign.
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Fay it was duly voted, with Mr. Kerrigan opposing:
To approve the signs as requested, to include the address on the freestanding sign and to have the site distance require no variance.
The Board granted the variance because of the location hardship. The building itself sets back further from the street, the signage is appropriate for the business and is closer to being conforming then the past variance at this location.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION
Proposed Change to the Rules and Regulations
There was a discussion with Ms. Savoie about rewriting the Planning Boards Rules and Regulations. Mr. Fay stated that if she reviewed some of the surrounding City’s and Towns for their adoptions of their Rules and Regulations.
Ms. Savoie stated she will contact the Board with her availability and then start the process of revising the rules and regulations.
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. Kerrigan, it was duly voted:
To adjourn at 8:24 p.m.
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST: _____________________________
| 
