February 27, 2012
7:00 PM
The Planning Board for the City of Marlborough met on Monday, February 27, 2012 in Memorial Hall, 3rd Floor, City Hall 140 Main Street, Marlborough, MA 01752. Members present: Barbara Fenby, Sean Fay, Colleen Hughes, Philip Hodge and Clyde Johnson. Also present: City Engineer Thomas Cullen.
MINUTES
February 13, 2012
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted, with minor amendments:
To accept and file the meeting minutes.
CHAIRS BUSINESS
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SUBDIVISION PROGRESS REPORTS
City Engineer Update
Mr. Cullen had no update at this time.
Cider Mill Estates
Extension Request
Donald Seaberg from Benchmark Engineering is requesting on the behalf of the Developer to extend the subdivision for one year. This request was submitted without the necessary documents of free from blight correspondence, tax information or the subdivision status report. The Planning Board decided to extend the subdivision consideration until March 27, 2012 with the understanding that the developer will gather all necessary documents for submittal at the next scheduled meeting.
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the correspondence; to extend the subdivision approval until March 27, 2012; and to have the developer submit the necessary documents at the next regular scheduled meeting.
Mauro Farm
Extension Request
Martin Losielle of Capital Group Properties is requesting an extension of the subdivision approval. The request came into the Board without the necessary documentation.
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted:
To table the request; have the developer submit all documentation prior to the next meeting for review.
Shorter Street
Bond release
Attorney Norris is asking for the Planning Board to release the bond of $1,000.00 that still remains for this subdivision. In April of 2011, this matter was before the Public Services Committee of the City Council where the order was never acted upon, and was not resolved prior to the end of the year and “died” in committee. The Planning Board would like to ask the Committee why this matter was not acted upon.
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Ms. Hughes, it was duly voted:
To request an answer on why the Public Services Committee never accepted the subdivision.
Bond Amount
Mr. Hodge stated that he saw no reason why the Planning Board could not reduce the bond amount to $1.00.
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence, reduce the current bond from $1,000.00 to $1.00.
PENDING SUBDIVISION PLANS: Updates and Discussion
PRELIMINARY/ OPEN SPACE SUBDIVISION SUBMITTALS
93 Framingham Road
Correspondence from the City Solicitor
The Planning Board sought the guidance of the City Solicitor regarding the extension of the open space special permit and the City’s ownership in a contiguous parcel of land within the layout of the subdivision. After some research Mr. Rider provided the following:
· The public hearing was improperly noticed and the Board must re-start the whole process. There is a two step process that was not followed, first step is under Marlborough Zoning Ordinance, Section 650-28.H(3)(a), which failed to notice the public that the hearing was involving a special permit. The second step, in which the notice was under the M.G.: c41 ss 81T, which led the public to believe the Planning Board was preceding under the subdivision control laws.
· As for the site ownership, Mr. Rider stated that the developer does not have legal standing over the portion of land owned by The City of Marlborough. Their Attorney filed an “assent” letter to the City Council stating they have applied for a open space special permit with the Board, However Mr. Rider stated that the developer will not have the City’s “binding consent” over the parcel and until the developer secures a City Council vote authorizing the Mayor to execute a purchase and sale agreement.
With the date of the public hearing ending on January 23, 2012, with the 90 days for review, put the date for consideration as April 22, 2012. With no representative for the developer in the room, the Board decided it was best just to accept and file the correspondence, and wait to hear from the developer. If no decision before the April date, the Board will deny without prejudice.
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence.
DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION SUBMISSIONS
SIGNS
River Road
Sign Variance Request
Jon Weaver is proposing to place a 29 Square foot directional sign along River Road in Marlborough. The location of the sign is on a contiguous parcel of land that lies in the town of Berlin, with a small portion of land in the City. They are seeking relief from the Board because it would be considered an off premise sign.
The Building Commissioner stated in his denial that the parcel is a portion of the City; however the buildings are in the neighboring community. He has no issue if the Planning Board granting a variance for this location.
The Planning Board debated on setting precedence for this sign because it’s a directional sign promoting business in another community. In the past, other businesses in the City have tried to place signs without success of obtaining a variance. In this case, the property is all contiguous; however the parcel of land sits on two communities.
A motion was made to approve the sign variance by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Johnson; however it was opposed by Mr. Fay, Ms. Hughes and Dr. Fenby.
After several discussions regarding the wording on the sign “gas, liquors and housing” was troublesome to a few members. Ms. Hughes stated she would support a variance if that phrase was removed. Mr. Weaver stated it was possible to remove the wording.
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hodge, with Ms. Fenby opposing; it was duly voted:
To grant a variance on a 29Sq Ft sign “Riverbridge” without the wording “gas, liquors, and housing.”
121 Bolton Street
Sign Variance Request
Mr. Robert Brown. Owner of the Citgo located at 121 Main Street is seeking a variance to keep in place the existing signs until a new sign can be erected. In Mr. Reid’s correpsondene to the Planning Board he noted the following:
· Property is located in a Residence B district, business is non conforming to today’s uses, however it was allowed to remain as a existing nonconforming use; sign was erected
prior to the sign ordinance and the sunset clause to bring up to conformanity has passed; and the site has been an automotive gas filling station, repair shop for over 30 years.
· In 2006, a sign permit was applied for an granted, however the sign was never placed.
Mr. Reid, Ms. Wilderman and Councilor Clancy all met with Mr. Brown to discuss his signs in good faith efforts. Ms. Wilderman sent out initially compliance letters beginning in February 2010, but no efforts were made by Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown stated that it will take several months to erect a new sign due to the channels of the gas company and their sign company.
Mr. Fay stated that when he went to view the property, he noticed many non-permitted signs on the ground. Affixed to light polls, canopy supports, walls and banners attached to fences. Mr. Fay opposed granting relief to the property owner when a routine inspection of the property revealed that the property was grossly out of compliance with the sign ordinance.
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Ms. Hughes, with Mr. Johnson opposing, it was duly voted:
To deny the sign variance.
Enforcement Signs
In efforts of all the members calling in sign violations to the Code Enforcement Officer, the members will be compiling a list, report that list to the secretary for her review of permitted and non-permitted signs and she will forward the report to the Code Enforcement office for the March 27th meeting.
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. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted:
To adjourn at 8:30 p.m.
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST: _____________________________
Colleen Hughes, Clerk
| 
