PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
January 10, 2011
7:00 PM
The Planning Board for the City of Marlborough met on Monday, January 10, 2011 in Memorial Hall, 3rd floor, City Hall, Marlborough, MA 01752. Members present: Barbara Fenby, Colleen Hughes, Clerk, Philip Hodge, Edward Coveney and Sean Fay. Also present: City Engineer Thomas Cullen.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS 2011
The gavel was turned over to Ms. Colleen Hughes to serve as Chairman Pro Tem for the election process.
Barbara Fenby was unanimously re-elected as Chair for the year of 2011.
Colleen Hughes was unanimously re-elected as Clerk for the year of 2011.
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To appoint Barbara L. Fenby as Chairperson and Colleen Hughes as Clerk for a term to expire on December 31, 2011.
Ms. Hughes returned the gavel to Chairperson Fenby.
MINUTES
Meeting Minutes December 6, 2010
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted:
To accept the meeting minutes of December 6, 2010 with amended changes.
Meeting Minutes December 20, 2010
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Ms. Hughes, it was duly voted:
To accept the meeting minutes of December 20, 2010 with amended changes.
CHAIRS BUSINESS
Blackhorse Farms
In recent months, the Board has expressed it’s objections to the condition of the subdivision and its displeasure concerning representations made to the Board by the developer’s representative that were not true and inconsistent with what could be observed by visiting the site. The developer’s attorney, Paul J. Beattie, was in attendance seeking to start constructive dialogue to address the Board’s concerns. Mr. Beattie stated that there has been a party interested in purchasing one of the lots and that this transaction could lead to further activity at the site. It was Mr. Beattie’s understanding that there were two main concerns: the condition of the road way and the condition of the erosion controls.
Mr. Fay summarized what he considered were misrepresentations made by the developer’s representative. The first concerned the regular inspection and maintenance of the erosion controls. This representation was made in a letter from Donald Seaberg and was refuted at a subsequent meeting with photographic evidence. Mr. Fay informed Mr. Beattie that deteriorating erosion controls are readily observable by ~driving to the entrance of subdivision. The second misrepresentation concerned the presence of a gate across the roadway. Mr. Seaberg stated that this gate was taken down in support of his request for an extension at the last meeting in December. Mr. Fay stated that these two representations were the basis, in part, for the Board’s good faith vote in favor of a limited extension of one year.
Mr. Fay also stated that there were additional concerns at site including the condition of one of the lots that he considers to be an attractive nuisance and a danger to public safety. In addition, Mr. Fay stated that in his opinion, it is not acceptable to have indefinite extensions and at some point, to make sure that the City’s interests are secure, that the roadway and infrastructure needs to be completed whether or not lots are sold.
Mr. Beattie offered to provide the Board with a letter within two weeks stating the developer’s intent and stated that he would put all statements to the Board in writing. Mr. Fay and Mr. Hodge objected, stating that conditions at the subdivision needed to be addressed before the next meeting and that gate needed to be taken down and the roadway maintained as was supposed to be case prior to the approval of the extension.
Mr. Beattie discussed the problem of illegal dumping. Mr. Fay stated that in his mind, this was a self-created hardship and had the subdivision been completed on schedule, or within the original extension, this would not be a problem. He stated that it was the responsibility of the property owner, the developer, to monitor and address illegal dumping. ~
Mr. Beattie asked if the City would be willing to plow the roadway. Mr. Cullen explained the process of submitting a request that the roadway be plowed and confirmed that as of now, the developer has a private contractor plowing.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN
Framingham Road
Prior to the meeting, Attorney Bergeron asked to remove this item from the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
SUBDIVISION PROGRESS REPORTS
Update from City Engineer
Mr. Cullen provided an updated map to the Board. He stated that he has several subdivisions close to acceptance.
Country Club Estates (Stow Road)
Correspondence from City Solicitor
Mr. Bergeron asked for this to be removed from the agenda.
Mauro Farm (Cook Lane)
Bond Establishment
Mr. Cullen has determined for the bond to be set in the amount of $1,241,000.00 to be posted to secure the release of the lots in the Mauro Farm Subdivision. He stated that some of the subdivision’s infrastructure is under construction and some of the wall construction has begun.
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence.
Bond Request and Lot Release
The Developers are asking for only bond to set for Nolan Way and Spenser Circle at this time. They are planning to only build those streets at this time.
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence.
Mr. Loiselle and the Board discussed the process for releasing lots in the subdivision. The Board and Mr. Cullen discussed following his suggested course of action and improving prior Board practice. The consensus of the Board was that lots would be released on an as needed basis, not a blanket release.
Mr. Fay asked how this would be different from allowing phasing of the subdivision which has not been practiced in the past. Mr. Loiselle stated that this will not alter the construction schedule or construction development.
Mr. Cullen stated that the Planning Board should stay on course and not reduce the amount to benefit the developer.
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To recommend that a bond of $1,241,000.000 should be posted to secure the release of lots in this subdivision.
Shorter Street
City Engineer correspondence
The City Engineer sent correspondence stating that the Building Commissioner still needs to approve the driveway grading and that the following summarizes his review and acceptance:
· Definitive Subdivision Plan (Sheets 1 thru 3), Shorter Street (Private-40’ Wide) for Shorter Street (Private-40” Wide), dated October 30, 2002 with the latest revision date of August 27, 2003. Note that the plans were prepared by Central mass Engineering & Survey, Inc. 277 Main Street, Marlborough, MA 01752;
· As-Built Plan for 13 Shorter Street, dated October 8, 2010 with the latest revision date of December 17, 2010. Note that the plan was prepared by SITEC Civil and Environmental Engineering Land Use Planning, 449 Faunce Corner Road, Dartmouth, MA 02747;
· Recorded Easement Agreement, Book 41282 Page 162, Recorded 10/27/2003, Recorded Definitive Subdivision Plan, Plan of Land, Plan No. 1099 of 2003, recorded 10/27/2010.
According to Mr. Cullen, the intent of the plan was to widen the existing roadway/driveway from 18 feet to 24 feet. Based on his review, the roadway/driveway intent has not been met. Mr. Cullen also stated that the “Turn-around Easement to the City of Marlborough” which is the recorded easement noted in the above dated 10/27/2003. However based on his review of the documentation, it would appear the easement agreement and Plan of Land was recorded at the Middlesex Registry of Deeds South District, Cambridge, MA. This “turnaround” easement was not brought before the City Council for acceptance. It is Mr. Cullen’s prevue to recommend to the Planning Board to refer the matter to the Legal Department to ensure that the easement rights are transferred to the City of Marlborough and adopted by
the City Council in the proper fashion.
Also, based on emails provided by both the Police and Fire Chief that a turn-around is not required. The Engineering Department would support the Planning Board if they chose not to adopt the easement.
On a motion by Mr. Coveney, seconded by Ms. Hughes, it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence.
Correspondence from the Building Commissioner
Mr. Reid stated on the plan that the driveway grades do not conform to zoning grade requirements, that the lot is a pre-existing building lot on a way created prior to zoning and too steep to allow compliance alternatives to be met.
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence.
Mr. Hodge asked what was the cleanest way to finish this subdivision. He suggested that the Legal Department should be asked on how to accept this subdivision or if the Planning Board even has to accept this subdivision since it will remain a public way.
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To refer the acceptance plans including all easement information to the Legal Department for their opinion on the acceptance of the easements.
Bond Reduction
Attorney Michael Norris asked for a bond reduction at this time. He stated that he has been working on the acceptance for some time and a bond reduction would be helpful in paying the consultants who help create the as-builts.
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Ms. Hughes it was duly voted:
To reduce the current bond to from $5,000.00 to $1,000.00.
Mr. Fay stepped out of the room due to conflict of interest.
Water’s Edge (Worster Drive)
Correspondence from City Engineer
The City Engineer has reviewed the request by the Planning Board to review all documents and easements for the open space subdivision known as “Water’s Edge”. In his review, the City Engineer can now provide a favorable recommendation to accept the roadways and easements in the subdivision with these findings:
· As-Built Plans and Profiles of Water Edge (Sheets 1 thru 7), dated November 26, 2002 with the latest revision date of December 29, 2010. Note the plans were prepared by Thomas Land Surveyors and Engineering Consultants, 265 Washington Street, Hudson, MA 01749;
· Plan of Acceptance of Easements, Open Space, Worster Drive, Beauregard Circle, Gauceher Circle and Perolman Drive (Sheets 1 thru 3), dated December 12, 2002 with the latest revision date of January 3, 2011. Note the plans were prepared by Thomas Land Surveyors and Engineering Consultants, 265 Washington Street, Hudson, MA 01749;
· The latest Legal Descriptions/Deeds/Grant of Easements.
Mr. Cullen also provided the copy of the easement documents that will transfer the developer’s rights and interest in the sewer easement, which connects the sewer from the subdivision to Cullinane Drive, to the City of Marlborough. Also attached with his report in the copy of the recorded plan (292 of 1998), Book 28328, Page 140 and further referenced in deed Book 28328, Page 144 with both have been recorded in the Middlesex registry of Deeds.
The Open Space Parcels as reference on the acceptance plan as “A”, “B” and “C” are also to be deeded to the City of Marlborough:
· Open Space Parcel “B” as indicated is located interior to Worster Drive, which contains drainage infrastructure and sewer infrastructure (fencing was not a standard condition, Mr. Cullen noted the standard today is to fence all detention basins);
· Open Space Parcels “A” and “C” do not contain and utility infrastructure. However a tree issue located within Open Space Parcel “C”.
Mr. Cullen also attached the City Conservation Officers letter stating that the developer has complied with all of the Conservations Commissions Order of Conditions. Also noted was the non payment to taxes owed to the City by the developer, and those need to be paid in full with the Tax Collector of the City of Marlborough.
Mr. Cullen also stated that since the status of the subdivision has been reviewed by the Engineering Division and it has been determined that the work in same has been completed and the street shave remained in satisfactory condition for an excess of the one year maintenance period.
On a motion by Mr. Coveney, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence.
Ms. Fenby asked about the trail signs that need to be replaced and the couch in the trail system needs to be removed. Mr. Ansari stated that the signs and the couch will be removed immediately. Mr. Cullen noted that there was no fencing around the detention basin. Mr. Coveney stated that since no fencing was required around the basin at the time of approval, they should not be required to fence the basin.
Attorney Christopher Flood stated that if it was correspondence from the developer the issues were taken care of, Could the Planning Board move forward with the approval. The general consensus was yes.
On a motion by Mr. Coveney, seconded by Mr. Hodge, with Ms. Fenby opposing, it was duly voted:
To recommend to Mr. Ansari that the tree needs to be removed, to have him replace the signs and to remove the couch on the trail system, to send notification when it’s completed.
Bond Reduction Request
Mr. Ansari provided correspondence at the meeting that is asking for a bond reduction. The current bond remains at $137,403.00. He is asking for the remaining bond to be reduced to $20,000.00.
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To reduce the current bond amount from $137,403.00 to $20,000.00.
Mr. Fay returned back to the room.
PENDING SUBDIVISION PLANS: Updates and Discussion
PRELIMINARY/ OPEN SPACE SUBDIVISION SUBMITTALS
DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION SUBMISSIONS
SCENIC ROADS
SIGNS
INFORMAL DISCUSSION
COMMUNICATIONS/CORRESPONDENCE
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, 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 Ms. Hughes, it was duly voted:
To adjourn at 8:23 p.m.
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST: _____________________________
Colleen Hughes, Clerk
| 
