March 28, 2011
7:00 PM
The Planning Board for the City of Marlborough met on Monday, March 28, 2011 in Memorial Hall, 3rd floor, City Hall, Marlborough, MA 01752. Members present: Barbara Fenby, Colleen Hughes, Clerk, Philip Hodge, Clyde Johnson and Sean Fay. Also present: City Engineer Thomas Cullen.
MINUTES
March 14, 2011
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Fay, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the meeting minutes with amendments.
CHAIRS BUSINESS
Proposed change to Zoning Ordinance
At the last meeting the Board heard the reasoning behind the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance.~ A motion to approve the zoning changes was made by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Johnson, with Ms. Fenby, Ms. Hughes and Mr. Fay opposing. This motion did not carry.
Mr. Fay stated that he had two concerns with the proposed changes. The first was that an amendment that potentially decreases the percentage of the living space that has to be allocated to the first floor could result in designs that would make the units less livable for people with physical disabilities, and would limit the ability of unit owners who wished to occupy the units as their last home to age in place if they developed physical limitations later in life. Mr. Fay stated that is second concern was that there was a less drastic alternative to meeting one of the stated reasons for the requested change by simply not counting finished space in basements as part of the calculations under the ordinance. This would permit owners of current units to utilize this extra space without the potential for taking away first floor living space.
Ms. Hughes stated that she lives in an active adult community where most of the residents are older.~ Ms. Hughes agreed with Mr. Fay's concern about the ability to age in place.
Mr. Hodge disagreed, stating that the Planning Board or any other entity should not be denying anyone the ability to purchase a private home with the design that they wanted.
Mr. Fay stated that there is a basis for doing so. Developers of this type of subdivision are given certain concessions in density and infrastructure in part in exchange for meeting certain design specifications. Mr. Fay stated this as the basis for requiring a developers to allocate a certain percentage of square footage to the first floor so that those with physical limitations are not eliminated as potential buyers of these units so that a developer can use a particular set plan. ~~~
Mrs. Lizotte wisely suggested taking a singular vote on each item. The Planning Board agreed that this was the best way to vote on the amendments.
· Parking Spaces: 650-21; amending subsection C(8) thereof, by amending the second sentence thereof, by adding “at least” after provide.~
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Fay it was duly voted:
To send the City Council a recommendation to approve the change in the Zoning Ordinance 650-21C(8), which will now read “ Each unit shall be required to provide at least one parking space inside a garage and an additional space in front of a garage”.
· Removing “Ancillary”: 650-22: amending subsection 14 to strike out said subsection in its entirety; including sub-sections (a) through (f).
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. Johnson it was duly voted:
To send the City Council a recommendation to approve the removal of subsection 650-22 (14) in its entirety.
· Living Area: 650-21; amend subsection C(3) thereof, by deleting the second sentence thereof, which now reads “At least 66% of the living area in each unit shall be located on the first floor”
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Ms. Hughes, it was duly voted, with Mr. Hodge and Mr. Johnson opposing:
To send the City Council a negative recommendation to the City Council.
The Board members stated that they were concerned that the proposed amendments would limit the ability of owners of the future units to age in place, would limit the ability of potential buyers with physical limitations to live in new units, and that eliminating square footage in finished basements from the square footage calculations would be a less drastic alternative to address one the stated objectives of the proposed amendment. ~~
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN
417 South Street
Submittal
ATC reality Sixteen, Inc has retained Bruce Saluk to subdivide 413-417 South Street. At the present time the land has 14.55 acres of land being divided into two lots, Lot 2 with 9.27 Acres and Lot 2A with 5.28 Acres. Mr. Saluk explained that the lots are being subdivided at the request of the future purchaser owner of the building at 413 South Street, with no interested in building on the empty lot. The current owner will retain the rights for the lot 2A .
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Ms. Hughes, it was duly voted:
To accept and refer the proposed plan to the City Engineer for his review and recommendation at the next meeting on Monday, April 11, 2011.
PUBLIC HEARING
SUBDIVISION PROGRESS REPORTS
City Engineer Update
Mr. Cullen provided a formal update to the Planning Board. He stated the following:
· Indian Hill Subdivision: met with Priscilla Ryder regarding the walking trail and dealing with the use of the exclusive use area,
· Shaughnessy Estates: meeting with Avidia Bank to discuss completion of the subdivision.
Shorter Street
At the meeting held on February 14, 2011 the Planning Board voted to send notification to the City Council to not accept the turn around easement and to keep the bond monies. Attorney Norris is asking for the Board to release the remaining bond monies.
In discussions, the Board discussed asking the City Solicitor on ways to approach the City Council to remove “table” action off the table, the proper procedure to amend the subdivision plan and then amending all deeds associated with the subdivision.
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Fay it was duly voted:
To seek the City Solicitor’s opinion in asking the City Council Public Services Committee to remove the item off the table and ask what the procedures would be to amend the subdivision as- builds and all associated deeds.
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. Hodge, it was duly voted:
To accept all of the items listed under communications and/or correspondence.
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Ms. Hughes, it was duly voted:
To adjourn at 7:55 p.m.
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST: _____________________________
Colleen Hughes, Clerk
| 
