June 20, 2011
7:00 PM
The Planning Board for the City of Marlborough met on Monday, June 20, 2011 in Memorial Hall, 3rd floor, City Hall, Marlborough, MA 01752. Members present: Acting Chair Philip Hodge, Colleen Hughes, Clyde Johnson and Sean Fay. Also present: City Engineer Thomas Cullen.
MINUTES
June 06, 2011
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Fay, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the meeting minutes.
CHAIRS BUSINESS
Elm Farm Valley Estates
Correspondence from City Solicitor
The City Solicitor provided a draft of a Indemnification Agreement to the Board. He stated this is a working draft that needs to be discussed with the developers and their attorney prior to acceptance. The Board suggested placing it on the July 18, 2011 agenda.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN
108 Kelber Street
Submittal and Approval
Mr. Evangelous resubmitted his ANR plan to the Planning Board. The ANR’s intent is to divide the original Lot 10 into Lot 10A and Parcel A with a total of 5,238S.F Parcel A is to be removed from Lot 10 and added to Lot 6; Lot 10A will have a remaining 20, 212 S.F and Lot 6A will have a total 33, 274.S.F. Mr. Cullen stated that he has reviewed the re-submittal dated April 7, 2011 and can give a favorable recommendation for the Planning Board to approve the ANR.
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence.
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To accept and endorse a plan of land believed to be Approval Not Required of Victoria J. Evangelous of108 Kelber Drive, Marlborough, MA 01752. Name of Engineer: Rim Engineering Co., Inc. 150 North Main Street, Mansfield, MA 02048. Deed of property recorded in South Middlesex Registry of Deeds Book 30815, Page 91: Assessors Map 43 Parcel 208 and Map 43 Parcel 204.
PUBLIC HEARING
SUBDIVISION PROGRESS REPORTS
City Engineer Update
Mr. Cullen provided a status update to the Board and stated not much has been completed since his last report.
Blackhorse Farms
Correspondence from Engineering
Mr. Cullen provided correspondence including all the approval dates, completion dates and timelines of the schedules for the subdivision. Under his review, the completion schedule has 60 working days to be completed. The Developer’s completion schedule is within normal range of construction practice.
Mr. Cullen offered the following for the Planning Board to consider:
· Individuals have purchased homes under the impression the subdivision would be done in a timely manner, it was approved 7 years ago;
· Little activity has been performed in the past year;
· Recommends the Planning Board only entertain a one year extension;
· Recommends the developer provide a bi-monthly construction schedule as well as actual start dates and completion of all tasks.
Mr. Fay asked if the developer has seen Mr. Cullen’s review. Mr. Donald Seaberg stated that he has seen the review and he would agree with the terms. Mr. Fay also stated that he was concerned about the remaining utilities infrastructure. Mr. Seaberg stated that the infrastructure has been put in place. Mr. Seaberg stated that the developer is planning on paving, installing curbing and the roadside trees to location 5+50 with work slated to begin this August.
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Ms. Hughes, it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence, extend the subdivision approval until July 1, 2012 and have the developer provide bi-monthly completion schedules.
Cider Mill Estates
Correspondence from Engineering
Mr. Cullen provided correspondence including all the approval dates, completion dates and the subdivision dates for this subdivision. He noted that the submitted completion schedule shows approximately 87 working days as indicated to complete this subdivision. Mr. Cullen stated that he believes that the assigned tasks can be completed within normal completion practices and the provided schedule coincides with the completion schedule.
Mr. Cullen is offering the following for the Planning Board to consider:
· Individuals have purchased homes under the impression the subdivision would be done in a timely manner (8 years);
· Little activity has been performed in the past year;
· Recommends the Planning Board only entertain a one year extension;
· Recommends the developer provide a bi-monthly construction schedule as well as actual start dates and completion of all tasks.
Mr. Fay questioned if the Board could entertain the subdivision completion schedule for this subdivision when there has been no subdivision extension granted. Mrs. Lizotte stated that the original intent when the developer’s other subdivisions were under review to extend all the subdivisions however the main focus became the Carisbrooke II subdivision. The discussion came back to the bonding and if the bonding was still valid. Mr. Rider stated that he would review the bonding and then report back to the Planning Board. Mr. Seaberg was instructed to provide the Board with an extension request.
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Ms. Hughes, it was duly voted:
To table until the next meeting.
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Ms. Hughes, it was the duly voted:
To move up agenda item 5E.
Mauro Farms
Tri-partite Agreement
Mr. Pezzoni provided the recorded copy of the amended Covenant from the Registry of Deeds. He is also asking for the release of all lots. Mrs. Lizotte reminded him that the Tri-Partite needs to be recorded prior to the release and that the Planning Board will not do a blanket release as stated in a letter to the developer. Mr. Pezzoni argued that the bonding was sufficient and that his client will have the subdivision completed in the two years as stated or he will ask for an extension. Mr. Pezzoni state that the Section 81U required the Planning Board to release all lots once the bond was established.
The Planning Board reviewed the subdivision plans with Mr. Pezzoni, after some concession on both ends, it was verbally agreed to release Lots 1 through 19 and Lots 22 through 25 once the Tri-Partite was recorded.
With Dr. Fenby not returning for several weeks, it was decided that Mr. Hodge would sign the Certificate of Performance.
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Johnson it was duly voted:
To endorse the Tri-Partite agreement, to authorize Mr. Hodge to endorse the Performance Guarntee and release Lots 1 through 19 and Lots 22 through 25 once proof of the recorded Tri-Partite agreement has been received .
Forest Trail
Detention basin fencing
The Planning Board asked Mr. Cullen to review the applicants request to modify the detention basin fencing. Mr. Cullen has reviewed the plans and stated the following:
· Westerly fence line is to shift easterly but must maintain a 10’ level maintenance area between 248 to the proposed wall;
· Proponent has proposed a versa lock wall;
· Proponent shall identify the type of fencing and height of fence from the proposed ground elevation to the top of the proposed fence.
Mr. Cullen also suggested that the proponent should have a revised as-built after the work has been completed. Mr. Hodge asked if the proponent sells the property before work is completed, who would perform the work? It was suggested to the homeowner provide a completion schedule to the Board when the work will be completed.
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Fay it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence, to endorse Mr. Cullen’s recommendations and to have the proponent provide a completion schedule and a revised as-built after work is completed.
West Ridge Estates
Engineering Correspondence
Mr. Cullen provided correspondence including all the approval dates, completion dates and the subdivision dates for this subdivision. He noted that the submitted schedule shows approximately 17 working days to complete this subdivision. Mr. Cullen stated that he believes that the assigned tasks can be completed within normal completion practices and coincides with the completion schedule.
Mr. Cullen offered the following for the Planning Board to consider:
· Individuals have purchased homes under the impression the subdivision would be done in a timely manner (11 years);
· Substantial amount of work activated were performed last construction season;
· Recommends the Planning Board to entertain a one year extension to allow trees to mature, punch lists completed and provide enough time for the City to review the as-built and acceptance documents.
Mr. Cullen stated out of the three subdivisions, this one is close to completion. His office has already received the as-builts and is waiting to discuss the completion punch lists with the developer.
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence, to extend the subdivision approval to July 1, 2012.
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. Fay, it was duly voted:
To accept all of the items listed under communications and/or correspondence.
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Ms. Hughes, it was duly voted:
To adjourn at 9:15 p.m.
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST: _____________________________
Colleen Hughes, Clerk
| 
