PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
June 7, 2010
7:00 PM
The Planning Board for the City of Marlborough met on Monday, June 7, 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: Assistant City Engineer Richard Baldelli.
MINUTES
Meeting Minutes May 24, 2010
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the minutes of May 24, 2010.
CHAIRS BUSINESS
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN
Boston Post Road West
Marlborough/Northborough Realty Trust
Correspondence from Smerczynski & Conn
Mr. Donald Conn, Attorney for the developer, is asking to continue the consideration of the ANR plan known as Marlborough/Northborough Realty Trust ANR Plan. The finalized changes have not been made by their Engineer from comments from our City Engineer.
Mr. Rider explained that the correspondence he sent in 2006 relating to the same issue of the developer asking for extensions, which is not allowed by statue. He stated that the plan was given back to the developer on the 8th day of the allowed 21 day period which would allow the Planning Board to still have enough time to meet if alerted by the City Engineer under the assumption that all the comments given by the City Engineer would be resolved. In that case, the Board would be able to call an emergency meeting if they should run into a time issue.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Johnson it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence, to delay taking action until the next regular scheduled meeting on June 28, 2010.
PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed Zone Map Change
Map 78, Parcels 12, 38 & 39
Map 89, Parcel 77
Attorney David Gadbois sent correspondence regarding that he is herby requesting a continuance of the public hearing. He stated he was unaware of the meeting until today. His client has scheduled a meeting with the neighborhood to be held on June 8, 2010 to review the current proposal and informing them that the public hearing was continued until June 14, 2010. He is asking the Board to continue the hearing until June 28, 2010.
Mr. Fay stated his concerns that if we continue the public hearing with the summer schedule, then the City Council would not be able to vote on this matter until their August 23, 2010 meeting. He stated that the public hearing was continued because one abutter requested time to gather more signatures in opposition effective notice of a properly advertised public hearing. Mr. Fay though the board should act accordingly. Mr. Hodge and Mr. Johnson both agreed with Mr. Fay.
Mr. Rider stated that this was considered a “mix bag” that it was the abutter to state he had no knowledge of the hearing, that the abutter did not see the placement of advertisement (ads for zoning amendments are only in papers, no direct mailings to abutters) or the Attorney was not present at the meeting. Mr. Rider suggested that the Board wait until the 7:30 time to see if the Attorney or the public shows.
When Attorney Gadbois was present he stated that this neighborhood is already thinking that his clients are pulling a “fast one” and his client would be losing any trust that they may have with the neighbors. Mr. Kerrigan stated as a courtesy to the residents he would be willing to continue the public hearing. Mr. Fay reluctantly agreed with Mr. Kerrigan.
As a result, the Board decided to reopen the hearing.
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, Clyde Johnson and Sean Fay. Also present: Asst. City Engineer Richard Baldelli.
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
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Johnson it was duly voted:
To continue the public hearing to June 28, 2010 at 7:05PM.
SUBDIVISION PROGRESS REPORTS
Update from City Engineer
Blackhorse Farms, Cider Mill Estates and West Ridge Estates (Fafard Development)
Correspondence from Donald Seaberg, Benchmark Engineering
Mr. Seaberg, Engineer for Benchmark Engineering is asking for a two year extension of the completion date of all three subdivisions. He has provided updated completion scheduled and a copy of the Continuation Certificate for the Cider Mill Subdivision.
Mr. Fay asked Mr. Seaberg about the completion of the sidewalks at Blackhorse Farms. Mr. Seaberg stated that if property is sold, then they would install the sidewalks as needed.
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 refer the two year extension of Blackhorse Farms, Cider Mill Estates and West Ridge Estates to the City Engineer for a full review and to report back to the Planning Board at their next meeting.
Elm Farm Valley Estates (Cleversy Drive)
Correspondence from City Engineer
Road Acceptance
The Planning Board had asked Mr. Cullen to review all files for Elm Farm Valley Estates for Subdivision Acceptance. At this time he has reviewed the following:
· As-built Plan and Profile of Elm Farm Valley Estates: dated May 4, 2001, with the latest revision date of April 14, 2010 prepared by Central Mass Engineering & Survey, Inc.;
· Plan of Acceptance of Cleversy Drive and Easements: dated October 14, 2004 with the latest revision date of March 8, 2010 prepared by Robert J. Parente P.L.S.;
· The latest Legal Descriptions.
Duly noted is the Acceptance Plan has corrected the labeling errors and shows the utility easement and the note explaining that the Utility Easement shown on the Acceptance Plan reflects the existence of a water main and sewer main within the easement area between Cleversy Drive and the Millham Street lots as shown on the Plan & Profile Sheets.
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 $35,000.00 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.
Mr. Kerrigan was about to make a recommendation when Mr. Rider spoke. Mr. Rider sees one more option of maybe having the Legal Department enter into a side agreement with the residents that reside on Lot 12 where there is the issue of the current utility easement. He stated that if the resident agrees to allow the City an easement, then the City would have access to the water main access that is a part of the utility easement. He is asking the Planning Board prior to accepting the subdivision to allow the Legal Department to review.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Johnson it was duly voted:
To refer the subdivision acceptance to the Legal Department for their review.
Shaungnessy Estates (Kelber Drive)
Correspondence from City Engineer
At the last meeting on May 24, 2010, it was asked of the Planning Board by Attorney Joseph Connelly to review the subdivision for a completion schedule. Mr. Cullen’s correspondence shows the following still needs to be completed:
Labrache Lane
· There is a proposed 8” sewer and water main within the Westerly Utility Easement on Lot 12 that was never extended to the end of Belleview Ave. This must be completed to connect the sewer to Belleview Ave.
· There is a drainage connection that is required at the end of Belleview Ave and the rear of lot 12 in the same Utility Easement.
· There are a number of granite curbs in the cul-de-sac of Labrache Lane that require adjusting
· Loam and seed all areas involved in the installation of these utilities.
Kelber Drive
· The fence and gate around the detention basin is not installed.
· The area around the detention basin should be graded so that the guard rail is not required.
· Modify driveway the apron and sidewalk at #80 Kelber Drive so that water runoff from the street remains in the street.
Acceptance Plans
· Preparation of approvable as-built plans, acceptance plans and legal descriptions of all roadways.
Mr. Cullen stated that several attempts were made to the original contractor, Franchi Construction. However the phone service has been disconnected and the office building where the company resided was no longer occupied. The records still indicate there is a bond being held in the amount of $172,000.00. It is Mr. Cullen’s desire to complete said subdivision in a timely manner and move forward with the acceptance process.
It was discussed that if the proponent proceeds, then the proponent will have to enter into an amended agreement with the Planning Board.
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Mr. Johnson it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence and to have the Attorney contact to the City’s Legal Department regarding amended agreements.
PENDING SUBDIVISION PLANS: Updates and Discussion
PRELIMINARY/ OPEN SPACE SUBDIVISION SUBMITTALS
DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION SUBMISSIONS
Marlborough Elms (289 & 401 Elm Street)
Correspondence from Stephen Campbell
On behalf of Marlborough Elms, LLC., Highland Engineering & Development Inc. is requesting to withdraw without prejudice the application of definitive subdivision known as “Marlborough Elms” located at 289 & 401 Elm Street. Mr. Campbell stated that the design is being modified based upon the guidance of the Planning Board and the Engineering Department.
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. Kerrigan it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence and to accept the withdrawal of the definitive subdivision plans known as “Marlborough Elms” without prejudice.
SCENIC ROADS
On a motion by Mr. Kerrigan, seconded by Nr. Johnson it was duly voted:
To move up agenda item 10 A (signs) to be discussed prior to 8 A.
SIGNS
222 Bolton Street
Submittal for Variance
Dr. Sanjiv Nehra stated that he recently bought the business and has had his patients are having a difficulty finding his business practice. He stated that since he is in a residential zone he is only allowed a 3 square foot sign. However, he stated 3 square feet was hard to see when you are on a busy road that the mph is 35.
There were some concerns from the Board that if you are traveling north, would there ne any site issues for people turning onto Bolton Street. Dr. Nehra stated that because the landscape sits higher then the road, there should be no issue. When asked if it was possible to set back the sign would that be possible? Dr. Nehra stated it could be possible.
When reviewing the sign, the stonework is considered as part of the sign. Mr. Hodge stated that the stonework in this case is a part of the landscaping feature. Mr. Hodge stated that the sign itself would be an improvement over the existing sign.
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Johnson with Dr. Fenby abstaining, it was duly voted:
~~~ To GRANT relief allowing the stone mounting to be excluded from the calculation of sign area, bringing the proposed signage within the three square feet allowed.~ No waiver of required sight distances was requested or allowed.~ If the Building Commissioner finds the planned new sign would not comply with sight distance requirements as proposed, it should come back before the Planning Board at the next meeting.~ The applicant's location is in a residential zone, with very restrictive sign allowances, but located on a street that is of a more commercial than residential nature, including a speed limit higher than normal residential conditions.~ The difficulty of spotting a sign for the business at customary road speeds presents safety problems as well as business disadvantages.~ The compromise proposed of a sign within dimensional
requirements, but mounted on a stone background should be easier for patrons to spot without negative effects on neighborhood aesthetics.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION
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 8:25 p.m.
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST: _____________________________
Steven Kerrigan, Clerk
| 
