PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
December 6, 2010
7:00 PM
The Planning Board for the City of Marlborough met on Monday, December 6, 2010 in Memorial Hall, 3rd floor, City Hall, Marlborough, MA 01752. Members present: Barbara Fenby, Colleen Hughes, Clerk, Philip Hodge, Clyde Johnson, Edward Coveney and Sean Fay. Also present: City Engineer Thomas Cullen.
MINUTES
Meeting Minutes November 22, 2010
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Fay, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the minutes of November 22, 2010 with minor revisions.
CHAIRS BUSINESS
Proposed Amendments to Sign Ordinance
City Solicitor
The City Solicitor discussed his correspondence to the Board concerning proposed changes to the City's Sign Ordinance. The Building Commissioner is proposing minor amendments to the Sign Ordinance that he considers important because of common confusions related to specific provisions. Most of the Building Commissioner's requested revisions were changes to word usage for consistency, grammar for clarity, improved definitions, and clarification of terms. The City Solicitor also stated that the proposed amendments include most, if not all of the Planning Board’s requested enhancements to the ordinance’s enforcement provisions.~
Mr. Fay asked the City Solicitor if the proposed amendments would allow the Building Commissioner to deny a sign application filed by a developer that had outstanding and unpaid fines for the unlicensed installation of a sign. It was clear that the proposed change allowed the Commissioner to deny an application filed by an owner with a sign that had been installed without proper permits. The original intent of the Planning Board's proposed change was to give the Commissioner the discretion to deny permits to contractors if fines were unpaid.
Mr. Rider stated that he can amend this section of the ordinance to include the request of the Planning Board when the ordinance goes out to committee.
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. Hodge it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence, to provide a representative for committee meetings if requested by the Committee.
Proposed Home Rule Petition
City Solicitor
The City Solicitor sent to the City Council, with a copy to the Planning Board, a proposed home rule petition providing for a simplified procedure for City Council acceptance of subdivision roads as public ways.~ Mr. Rider proposes the procedure primarily to help deal with city roads which are being treated as public ways but for which the existing formal acceptance procedures have never been completed.~~ He is asking the City Council for expedited consideration, if possible, in order to meet the Legislature's January filing deadline.
Mr. Rider asked the Planning Board to send a letter to the City Council with the Board's recommendation on the proposed petition.
Councilor Clancy stated that he has some concerns regarding the process. With about 100 Streets in the City that are not accepted, if public hearings were required, the expenses of holding these hearings including the cost of the mailings could be staggering. He stated the City does not have the resources to cover the costs. ~
Councilor Delano asked if it would be possible to group streets for consideration on a neighborhood or subdivision basis in order to minimize the time and expense.
Ms. Hughes stated that in theory the proposed procedure sounds like a terrific idea, however she expressed concern about the cost factor,~including filing fees, advertising fees and as-built plans.
Mr. Cullen stated from an engineering standpoint that the concept is a great idea; however the City Council will have to weigh in on the idea and decide if it’s truly feasible.
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Johnson it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence; to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve filing the petition with modifications to allow the approval vote be by simple majority and to retain the requirement of a public hearing while specifically allow grouping of streets for hearing purposes where appropriate.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SUBDIVISION PROGRESS REPORTS
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To move up the agenda item 5C.
Blackhorse Farms (Slocumb Lane)
Attorney Roelofs Correspondence
The Planning Board voted at their last meeting to send a letter to the developer notifying the developer that the Board intended to take action on the developer's extension request at the meeting on December 6, 2010.
The attorney for the developer, Jeffrey Roelofs, sent correspondence in support of the developer's extension request. Mr. Roelofs stated in his letter that that the remaining work was properly bonded, that all recommended actions have been completed. Mr. Roelofs stated his position that there was no reason for the Board to deny the request.
Mr. Roelofs referred to his letter to the Board dated February 22, 2010, where he stated his position that subdivision approval itself would remain valid even if a constriction deadline was not extended.~ He also stated his contention that the passage of Governor Patrick’s Permit Extension Act (Section 173 of Senate Bill 2882) would automatically extend any permit by 2 years of any constriction deadline.~ Mr. Roelofs stated his belief that this subdivision would fall within the parameters of the Act. The Board, upon referring to the dates in question, came to the opposite conclusion.
The City Solicitor stated that after several months of exchanges between the developer and the City Engineer’s office, the Board was in a position to consider the developer's request.~~
Mr. Donald Seaberg, project engineer for Benchmark Engineering, stated that all work has been completed at the request of the City Engineer and the dates were given to him early in the day. Mr. Seaberg stated that the gate had been taken down allowing for access to the end of the roadway and that erosion controls were being monitored and maintained.~
Mr. Cullen stated that he did receive the requested information and was satisfied with the information that was provided by the developer.
Mr. Fay stated that he is opposed to the extension and stated his position that the Board should take further action to protect its interests. In particular, Mr. Fay cited the inconsistency in Mr. Seaberg's representations with what can be observed on the site. Mr. Fay was concerned with the inaction on the subdivision and the likelihood that this will continue for years to come, the potential for deterioration of the roadway, visual evidence that the erosion controls are not being properly maintained or monitored, nuisance conditions that impact public health and safety in the subdivision. ~Mr. Fay asked Mr. Cullen if the remaining bond would cover the necessary work if the bond were to be revoked today. Mr. Cullen stated that there was enough to cover the roadwork if needed.
Councilor Delano stated that the developer has not been a good neighbor to the residents who have purchased the house that was built in the subdivision, and is concerned that the conditions will remain unsatisfactory for the foreseeable future.
Ms. Fenby asked for the Board for their thoughts of granting the extension of the subdivision.~ Ms, Hughes asked if it was possible for the Board to approve a shorter extension instead of extending the subdivision by two years. Mr. Hodge stated that 6 months has already past since they asked for the extension, and questioned whether an 18 month extension would benefit the developer.~ Mr. Hodge stated that an extension of 1 year from the request date would benefit all parties showing good faith on the part of the Board and the developer.~~
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Ms. Hughes, with Mr. Fay and Mr. Coveney opposing, it was duly voted:
To grant an extension of the subdivision until May 10, 2011.
On a motion by Mr. Coveney, seconded by Mr. Johnson it was duly voted:
To move up agenda item 5D.
Shorter Street
Correspondence from Attorney Norris
Mr. Norris represents the current owner of the subdivision. He is asking for the Board to release the bond monies and authorize the issuance of a permanent occupancy to the current homeowner of the premises.
At an early meeting held by the Public Services Committee, the matter of the easement was discussed. Councilor Clancy stated that there is not enough room for a standard turn around. At the original time of acceptance, the Planning Board had asked both the Fire Chief and the Police Chief if this was acceptable.
Mr. Cullen stated that he would like to review the file and as-built.
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence, to refer the information to the City Engineer for his review, and to refer to both the police and fire for their opinion on the no turnaround street. .
Update from City Engineer
Mr. Cullen stated that the mylars are in review for Fiddlehead, Water’s Edge is being reviewed by the Assistant Engineer and Davis Estates is ready for acceptance and will be placed on the next agenda. Mr. Cullen also stated that he has spoken to the project manager of the Mauro Farm subdivision and they should be forthcoming to establish a bond for lot releases.
Elm Farm Valley (Cleversy Drive)
Correspondence on easement descriptions
At the last meeting the Planning Board members voted to have Mr. Fay and Mr. Hodge draft correspondence to the current homeowners regarding the error in the description of easements. The correspondence reads as follows:
“The developer of the above-referenced sub-division has made the Planning Board aware of a minor error in the description of an easement that encumbers your property. The original subdivision plan that was approved by the Planning Board, part of the public record that affects the title to your land, clearly labels this easement as a water and sewer easement. A simple clerical error on a later recorded plan labels this easement as a "Sewer Easement." Copies of the relevant pages of both plans are enclosed for your reference. ~
This letter serves as notice of the nature and extent of the City of Marlborough's interest in your land, and the City's right to enter upon your land to access, maintain, and repair water and sewer lines. From the time the subdivision was approved, the City of Marlborough had the right to enter your property to inspect, maintain and repair water and sewer lines without exception. This notice does not constitute an expansion of the City's rights in your land, but simply a clarification of what was in the public record, and what you knew or should have known at the time you purchased your property.
The Board has instructed the developer to prepare and record a Confirmatory plan that labels the right of way in a manner that is consistent with the easement that was approved by the Planning Board when the subdivision was approved. A copy of this plan is also enclosed for your reference. ~
~Should you have any questions, or if you would prefer that a separate easement specific to your property alone be recorded as an alternative, kindly contact the City Solicitor, Donald V. Rider at 508-460-3771. If you do not act by January 15, 2011, the actions outlined above will be completed and the matter will be concluded.~“
~The City Solicitor stated that he liked this approach by the Board since neither he nor the City Engineer was able to achieve the consent of the homeowners. He asked if the Board members if he could review this prior to the mailing. Once he reviews, he will then send it to the Chair for her approval, and Mrs. Lizotte will send out the mailings.
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To refer the easement descriptions mailings to the City Solicitor for his review; after his review mail out the correspondence to current homeowners via certified mail.
PENDING SUBDIVISION PLANS: Updates and Discussion
PRELIMINARY/ OPEN SPACE SUBDIVISION SUBMITTALS
DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION SUBMISSIONS
SCENIC ROADS
SIGNS
Target
605 Boston Post Road East
Request for Variance
Attorney Arthur Bergeron has requested to postpone this matter until the next meeting, December 21, 2010.
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence, to postpone the request until the next meeting.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION
COMMUNICATIONS/CORRESPONDENCE
On a motion by Mr. Fay, 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. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To adjourn at 8:19 p.m.
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST: _____________________________
Colleen Hughes, Clerk
| 
