PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
May 24, 2010
7:00 PM
The Planning Board for the City of Marlborough met on Monday, May 24, 2010 in Memorial Hall, 3rd floor, City Hall, Marlborough, MA 01752. Members present: Barbara Fenby, Steven Kerrigan, Phil Hodge, Clyde Johnson, Edward Coveney and Sean Fay. Also present: City Engineer Thomas Cullen.
MINUTES
Meeting Minutes May 10, 2010
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the minutes of May 10, 2010 with noted corrections.
CHAIRS BUSINESS
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN
Boston Post Road West
Marlborough/Northborough Realty Trust
Correspondence from Smerczynski & Conn
In a letter from Mr. Donald Conn, Attorney for the applicant, he is requesting to continue to the next regular scheduled meeting. He stated that his Engineer has not finalized the plans according to the recommended comments from the City Engineer.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence, to delay taking action until the next regular scheduled meeting on June 7, 2010.
PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed Zone Map Change
Map 78, Parcels 12, 38 & 39
Map 89, Parcel 77
The Planning Board of the City of Marlborough held a public hearing on Monday, May 24, 2010, at 7:15p.m. in Memorial Hall, 3rd Floor, City Hall, 140 Main Street, Marlborough on the proposed changes to the amend the Zoning Map of the City of Marlborough, established by Chapter 650, Zoning Article III, Establishment of Districts Section 650-8, “Boundaries Established; Zoning Map”: Members present: Chairperson Barbara L. Fenby, Clerk Steven Kerrigan, Philip Hodge, Edward Coveney, Clyde Johnson 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, May 24 at 7:15 P.M., at Memorial Hall, City Hall, 140 Main Street, Marlborough, MA to amend the Zoning Map of the City of Marlborough, established by Chapter 650, Zoning Article III, Establishment 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 all of Map 78, Parcels 12, 38 and 39 and Map 89, Parcel 77 of the City of Marlborough Massachusetts Assessor’s Map.
A copy of Chapter 650 and the proposed amendment material are available for review in the Office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 140 Main Street, Marlborough, MA.
Per order of the City Council
#10-1002512
Attorney David Gadbois is representing the developers, the Gutierrez Company. They are seeking to amend the zoning map for Map 78, Parcels 12, 38 & 39 and for Map 89 Parcel 77 to extend the Business District back 300 feet. Mr. Gadbois stated that by changing the zone to Business, his client would have a greater marketability for this site including the possibility of a mixed residential use.
Attorney Gadbois has already met with the City Council and the Urban Affairs committee. It was discussed as a possibility of leaving a 50 foot landscape strip of Limited Industrial Zone along the Glen Street. Mr. Gadbois stated that Glen Street would be for emergency access. Mr. Gadbois stated they have started the MEPA process and will continue keep the Conservation Commission aware of the notifications.
Scott Weiss of the Gutierrez Companies presented to the Board the scope of the zone change. He explained that in previous meetings, they had envisioned a mix use of the Beacon Site including retail, office space and a possible of residential space. He stated that the terrain for the corner of Boston Post Road West (Route 20) and Glen Street would be possible residential units similar to townhomes or apartments.
Mr. Kerrigan asked what was the purpose of leaving the 50 foot limited industrial. Mr. Gadbois stated that it was more of the request of the residents that live along Glen Street and creating a buffer for the residents. It would be impossible to do a private covenant to leave that strip in if it was to remain part of the Business zone.
In Favor
No one spoke in Favor.
In Opposition
Ron Bucchino
88 Glen Street
Mr. Bucchino spoke in opposition stating that this is the first he is hearing of the possible residential units and that he did not learn of the public hearing until this past Friday. He stated there was not enough time to warrant his neighbors to speak out against this change. He submitted a list of names that were against the proposal of 300 apartments. He sees this as more of a complex issue then just a zoning change. He requested the Planning Board continue the hearing so he can alert the neighbors.
Elisha Simon
147 Desimone Drive
Ms. Simon spoke that she is employed by the Marlborough Public Schools and she has seen first hand the overcrowding issues that the Richer School. An residential complex would have an awful affect on the school system.
The public hearing closed at 7:35pm.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded By Mr. Coveney with Mr. Fay and Mr. Hodge opposed it was duly voted:
To continue the public hearing to June 7, 2010.
Mr. Fay presented to the Board the Disclosure Act he has presented to Mayor Stevens. Mr. Fay stepped out of the room for the public hearing.
Proposed Zoning Change
Open Space Subdivision Provision
The Planning Board of the City of Marlborough held a public hearing on Monday, May 24, 2010, at 7: 35 p.m. in Memorial Hall, 3rd Floor, City Hall, 140 Main Street, Marlborough on the proposed amendment to Chapter 650 of 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 the section 650-28.E(3), after the words “Lot area(square feet)’, Members present: Chairperson Barbara L. Fenby, Clerk Steven Kerrigan, Philip Hodge, Edward Coveney, Clyde Johnson and Sean Fay. Also present: City Engineer Thomas Cullen.
Mr. Kerrigan read the advertisement into record:
“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. 650-28.F(6) shall be not less than 50% of the total site.”
A copy of Chapter 650 and the proposed amendment material are available for review in the Office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 140 Main Street, Marlborough, MA.
Per order of the City Council
#10-1002515
Attorney Bergeron is presented the Developer, Robert Moss and the Engineer, Michael Sullivan of Connorstone Engineering. Mr. Bergeron stated that Mr. Moss has a long term option to purchase the land that consists of several parcels of what is known as “Shoestring Hill”. This land consists of 88.4 Acres with a total of 17.7 acres of wetlands, and abuts Bracken Drive, Desimone Drive, and South Street.
They are looking to amend the current open space table lot area for developments over 50 acres to allow lots sizes to be 8,000 square feet per lot and the common open space shall not be less than 50% of the total site. They provided an plan showing an conventional as of right plan showing 71 lots including the roadway coming through Bracken Drive to South Street. The next plan they showed was an open space plan with the current zoning of 71 lots consisting of lot sizes to be 15,000 for the A1 zone. This plan has a proposed area of 24.5 acres disturbed with 10 acres proposed impervious area. The last plan they showed would be with the proposed zone change of the 71 lots with the 8,000 square feet for lot sizes. With this plan comes to a 19.6 acre that is disturbed with 8.5 impervious areas and with an open
space of 65 acres.
Mr. Bergeron showed a similar subdivision known as Rose Point built by Fafard Development. This development is a considered detached condominium with exclusive use areas. Since this is the only development in the City that has close approximates, he was stated that what they are proposing are further apart.
There was also a study done by Mr. Bergeron’s office regarding the affect of the occupancies would have on the school system. The following is what the result of the study is:
· 1069 Students in 4 bedroom homes with 2360 4 bedroom homes throughout the City
· 1169 Students in 3 bedroom homes with 3651 3 bedroom homes through the City
The study also showed that if there are 71 homes built in this subdivision, only
32 students would be an average amount for 4 bedrooms home and 22 students for 3 bedroom homes per average.
Mr. Moss then stated that he has built several subdivisions with similar or smaller lots then what the current zone requires. He is looking to build homes that are in the 1800 to 1900 square foot range.
Mr. Sullivan prepared the plans and discussed the waivers if necessary including one for the road length of 7200 feet for the open space, 8700 feet for the conventional plan. He stated that the 8,000 lots would be ideal in this situation because of the less impacted wetland space. He also stated that after the plan has been decided on, they will contact the proper authorities for local and state conservation.
This part of the hearing closed.
In Favor:
No one spoke in favor.
In Opposition:
Sasha Simone
254 Desimone Drive
Ms. Simone is opposed to the zone change. She stated that this would further impact the City and used the phrase “pave paradise for a parking lot”. She thinks it’s a horrible proposal.
Mark Simon
147 Desimone Drive
Mr. Simon is opposed to changing the open space to 8,000 square feet. He sees no sense in an access road over wetlands. Mr. Simon thinks that that preservation is the key for all open spaces in New England. Ideally, he would not like to see a development.
Jeff Kisty
273 Desimone Drive
Mr. Kisty is just opposed to the rezoning of the already existing zoning. He sees no issue with the 15,000 square lot. He is concerned of the assessed values of the lots and the honesty of the builder.
Monique Duross
261 Desimone Drive
Ms. Duross stated she has been a life long resident of Marlborough and has always enjoyed the open space. She stated that this plan has no economic sense and questions if this is spot zoning. She would rather see a conventional subdivision.
Elisha Simon
147 Desimone Drive
Ms. Simon stated that she and her neighbor have taken pride in their neighborhood. She is questioning the price values of the subdivision and that Marlborough has a lot of vacancy at this time.
Karen Kisty
273 Desimone Drive
Ms. Kisty stated that the closest comparison to the new subdivision would be the Fafard project. She questioned the occupancy study of the students and how many seniors reside in those residents compared to those families that have school aged children. She stated that the as of right plan is acceptable, that the majority of the neighbors are in favor of the current zoning for open space.
John Morgello
278 Desimone Drive
Mr. Morgello stated that there is no foundation or date for the occupancy study. He would not like to see the development behind his home look like the Fafard development. He is also concerned about the condensed roadways for emergency travel and snow disposal.
Barbara Earley
84 Desimone Drive
Ms. Earley stated that this bothers her to see the residential units and does Marlborough really need new homes. She stated that she sees all this discussion just on one parcel of land. Is there any other parcel in the City this would apply too?
Lori Renfo Rutberg
107 Bracken Drive
Ms. Rutberg states she is opposed to the zone change as well. She would rather see a conventional subdivision. She also asked how emergency apparatus would be able to maneuver. She is also concerned of the property values, the wetlands and the effect it would have on the school system.
Ty Rollin
213 Desimone Drive
Mr. Rollin is opposed to changing the zoning to 8,000 square feet. He stated from an engineering prospect the street that will connect from Bracken Drive would the windiest in the city and there would be cliffs.
Danielle Monreau Rollin
213 Desimone Drive
Ms. Rollin is opposed to changing the open space zoning to 8,000 sq feet and is concerned of the wetlands.
Krista Holmi
232 Desimone Drive
Ms. Holmi stated that she has provided a disclosure of interest as Mayor Stevens’s aide; however she is speaking as a private citizen. She is not in favor of changing the current open space zoning to 8,000 sq feet. She stated the City should provide planning for the future. She said the purpose of the current zoning ordinance is too able to have guidelines and be able to stay within the guidelines to achieve the goals of what is provided in the current use.
Ellen Pollack
25 Desimone Drive
Ms. Pollack is against changing the zoning and it will not be a positive change for the City.
James O’Neil
254 Desimone Drive
Mr. O’Neil stated that he against the change in the zoning ordinance.
The Public hearing was closed at 9:00pm
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was unanimously voted:
To send a negative recommendation to the City Council on the proposed amendment to Chapter 650 of 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 the section 650-28.E(3), after the words “Lot area(square feet).
No information was provided on the city-wide impact of the proposed change to the code.~ The proponent did not even present clear evidence that the proposed change would benefit the city in the single project discussed, though it did appear that it would be advantageous for the proponent.~ The Board is unanimously opposed to making this change without being clearly convinced that the effects would be beneficial for the City.
SUBDIVISION PROGRESS REPORTS
Update from City Engineer
Mr. Cullen stated that he has attended a preconstruction meeting with the developers of Mauro Farm.
Blackhorse Farms, Cider Mill Estates and West Ridge Estates (Fafard Development)
City Solicitor Donald Rider
Mr. Rider advised the Planning Board that he sent to Attorney Roelofs, and that Mr. Roelofs has not heard back from his client to date. Mr. Rider then asked if he had any more information regarding the continuation bond for Cider Mill Estates or the extension request, Mr. Roelofs had no further information. Mr. Rider stated he is hoping to have further information at the next meeting.
Shaungnessy Estates (Kelber Drive)
Correspondence from Attorney Joseph Connolly
Attorney Connolly is representing Avidia Bank, who is seeking to complete the infrastructure of the subdivision. He is requesting a remaining completion schedule of work necessary. Once they have this schedule, they will explore their options as the holders of the performance bond.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence, to refer this to the City Engineer for a report back at the next meeting on the completion schedule.
PENDING SUBDIVISION PLANS: Updates and Discussion
PRELIMINARY/ OPEN SPACE SUBDIVISION SUBMITTALS
Shoestring Hill
Submittal
Michael Sullivan from Connorstone Engineering submitted Preliminary Plan 71 building lots for Shoestring Hill, Rawchuck Land. The application is complete except for the comparative analysis, will be submitted after a decision from the City Council on a zoning change request.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence, to set a public hearing date of June 28, 2010 at 7:30pm.
DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION SUBMISSIONS
SCENIC ROADS
SIGNS
Sudbury Militia and Minute Companies
Temporary sign on Boston Post Road West and Hagar Road
Mr. Matthew Mees is requesting on the behalf of the Sudbury Militia and Minute Companies to place a sign to advertise and provide directions to their faire from September 18, 2010 to September 26, 2010.
On a motion Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence, to approve the temporary sign from September 18, 2010 to September 26, 2010 and to send notification to the City Council.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION
Proposed Change to the Rules and Regulations
Correspondence from the City Solicitor
After some discussion, and the first draft to the City Solicitor, he provided several amendments to section III.B.7 of the Rules and Regulations to their Subdivision R&R which states:
7.~~~~~~~~ Performance Guarantee
Before endorsement of the Board's approval of a Definitive Plan of subdivision, the subdivider shall agree to complete the required improvements specified in Section V for any lots in a subdivision, such construction and installation to be secured by one, or in part by one and in part by the other, of the following methods which may from time to time be varied by the applicant with the written consent of the Planning Board.
(a)~~~~~~ Approval with Bonds or Surety
The subdivider shall either file a proper bond or a deposit of money or negotiable securities in an amount determined by the Planning Board to be sufficient to cover the cost of all or any part of the improvements specified in Section V not covered by a covenant under sub-section (b) hereof. ~The amount of the security provided hereunder shall be determined by the Planning Board in consultation with the City Engineer, taking into consideration the City Engineer's standard contingency and inflation factors.
Such bond or security, if filed or deposited shall be approved as to form and manner of execution by the City Solicitor and as to sureties by the City Treasurer. The legal sufficiency of the bond shall be contingent upon the completion by the subdivider of the required improvements specified in Section within two (2) years of the date of the bond.
If the improvements specified in Section V not covered by a covenant under sub-section (b) hereof are not completed within two (2) years of the date of the bond, such completion to be certified in writing by the City Engineer, the Planning Board shall proceed with enforcement thereof as provided in §81Y of the Subdivision Control Law unless the Planning Board first takes one of the following actions:
i. The Planning Board, on its own, grants an extension of the two (2) year completion date for a period of not more than sixty (60) days to allow a subdivider to submit the documentation required for a complete extension request; or,
ii. The Planning Board, upon request of the subdivider, grants a request not to exceed two (2) years from the date such extension is approved. Any such extension shall be contingent upon the following:~
a. Written certification from the City Engineer that the bond or other security currently in place, or in place at the date such approval is granted by the Planning Board, is in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of all or any part of the improvements specified in Section V not covered by a covenant under sub-section (b) hereof, taking into consideration the City Engineer's standard contingency and inflation factors;
b. Written certification from the City Tax Collector that all real estate taxes for the sub-division are paid to date; and,
c. Written certification from the Code Enforcement Officer or Building Commissioner stating that the sub-division is free from any violations of the City's Anti-Blight Ordinance.
(b)Approval with Covenant
The subdivider shall file a covenant, executed and duly recorded in the Registry of Deeds by the owner of record, running with the land, whereby such ways and services as specified in Section V, not covered by bond or deposit under (a) hereof, shall be provided to serve any lot before such lot may be built upon or conveyed, other than by mortgage deed.
The developer shall also note on his Definitive Plan that any and all lots within the subdivision are subject to the restrictions of the covenant.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence; to set a public hearing date of June 28, 2010 at 7:15pm on the proposed changes.
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 9:38 p.m.
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST: _____________________________
Steven Kerrigan, Clerk
| 
