June 4, 2012
7:00 PM
The Planning Board for the City of Marlborough met on Monday, June 4, 2012 in Memorial Hall, 3rd Floor, City Hall 140 Main Street, Marlborough, MA 01752. Members present: Barbara Fenby, Sean Fay, Philip Hodge, Edward Coveney and Clyde Johnson. Also present: City Engineer Thomas Cullen.
MINUTES
May 21, 2012
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted:
To table the meeting minutes until the next meeting.
CHAIRS BUSINESS
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN
Map 13, River Road, Berlin
Decision
The City Engineer has reviewed the latest ANR Plan known as “Plan of Land in Berlin and Marlborough, MA” dated October 25, 2011 with last revision date of April 15, 2012. After the review, he can favorably recommend to the Planning Board to endorse this plan.
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. Hodge it was duly voted:
To accept and endorse a plan of land believed to be Approval Not Required of Plan of Land in Berlin and Marlborough, MA owned by Richard Casaceli, Casaceli River Road, LLC, 5 Coolidge Street, Hudson, MA 01749. Name of Engineer: Thomas Land Surveyors and Engineering Consultants, Inc. 265 Washington Street, Hudson, MA 01749. Deed of property recorded in Worcester County Registry of Deeds Book 7487, Page 373: Assessors Map 13 Parcels 26-1.
141 Maple Street, ANR
Decision
The City Engineer has reviewed the ANR plan known as Maple Street/Valley Street, Lots A & B dated April 23, 2012 with a revision date of June 4, 2012. After the review, he can favorably recommend to the Planning Board to endorse this plan.
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. Hodge it was duly voted:
To accept and endorse a plan of land believed to be Approval Not Required of Plan of Land in Marlborough, MA owned by Alfred Bonazzoli, JR.13 Pendulum Pass, Hopkinton, MA 01748. Name of Land Surveyor: David Humprey, PLS, of Schofield Brothers, 1071 Worcester Road, Framingham, MA 01701. Deed of property recorded in Middlesex South Registry of Deeds Book 19514, Page 152: Assessors Map 82 Parcels 1285,125A, 125B, 125C and 131.
PUBLIC HEARING
SUBDIVISION PROGRESS REPORTS
City Engineer Update
Mr. Cullen stated that he has been speaking to the developer of the Berlin Farms Subdivision and is working with him to complete his subdivision.
Country Club Estates
The City Solicitor brought a plan before the Planning Board regarding the taking of land affecting 15 lots along Stow Road. The color coded map showed which lots have given deeds; one lot has recorded the deeds and three lots that have refused to give any of the land for the required easement. After conferring with the City Engineer, and Brian Faulk, Attorney for the developer, he has come up with alternative plan that shows that only smaller strips of land would have to be taken. The original easement layout assumed that Stow Road would have meandering sidewalks that were not part of the plan. The City has no intention of constructing. As a result, the developer is suggesting a solution to the long running problem of only dealing with easement transfers for parcels where the roadway actually encroaches on private
property. In this case, all deeds not registered would be void, new deeds would be signed and then recorded in all the lots except the three lots were no action has been taken. After discussion with the Board, the current plan is to pursue transfers for those lots where the roadway encroached on private property and for those lots, pursue a taking to cut off the rights of any mortgagee of record.
The City Solicitor and Mr. Bergeron also stated they would discuss the amended plan with the Ward Councilor to discuss the reasoning behind the new plan to address the Stow Road issues. The Board will wait to hear from the City Solicitor on the plan of action that is agreed upon by the City, the Developer and the current homeowners.
Indian Hill
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. Hodge it was duly voted:
To table the discussion of Indian Hill.
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted:
To remove the tabling.
Mr. Donald Rider, The City Solicitor, Priscilla Ryder, The Conservation Officer and Mrs. Lizotte discussed if the public hearing would be warranted since there is a change in the width of the easement. Mr. Rider’s argument was that since the owners are gaining more of their exclusive use area, it’s a minor change and a hearing would not be necessary. After Ms. Ryder had emailed and spoken to one of the trustees, and he was okay with just a verbal notice that this was happening, it was the opinion of the City Solicitor that a public hearing would not be necessary; the change in easement width would be noted on subdivision acceptance plans. Mr. Fay also asked the if the City Solicitor if he thought the abutter to the South should receive notice. The City Solicitor indicated that notice to Mr. Gulbankian,
abutter to the south, would not be necessary.
Mr. Fay asked the City Solicitor if new easement plan was in recordable form so that the Board could vote on the amended easement plan at the meeting. Mr. Rider said that the plan was ready to record and that the Board was in a position where they could vote to amend the easement that was part of the original subdivision plan by referring to the plan presented to the Board as prior meetings.
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To endorse the change in easement width to be shown on the Acceptance Plans, which once accepted will be registered with the Registry of Deeds.
The Residences of Oak Crest
Mr. Cullen, City Engineer, has reviewed the bond reduction request and has the following history of reductions to provide:
· Initial bond $128,000 (2/07)
· Reduction 1 $108,000 (8/08)
· Reduction 2 $50,000 (9/11)
He stated that he is comfortable to recommend to the Board a bond reduction from $50,000.00 to $41,000.00. He also noted that the listed remaining work should be completed by this years end and has recommended an updated subdivision completion schedule to note those completion dates.
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To reduce the current bond amount from $50,000.00 to $41,000.00 and to have the developer submit a new completion schedule.
PENDING SUBDIVISION PLANS: Updates and Discussion
PRELIMINARY/ OPEN SPACE SUBDIVISION SUBMITTALS
DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION SUBMISSIONS
SIGNS
MEDC, 169-171 Main Street
Arthur Bergeron, Attorney for the MEDC is asking to place a freestanding sign located at 169-171 Main Street. He stated that they have rented this location and have turned it into a park area for this summer. He spoke with the Building Commissioner and he said to come before the Board to discuss the sign prior to obtaining a sign permit because the parcel has no establishment to calculate the sign area. He stated the proposed sign would be 60’ x 40” and not more then 4 feet high on posts and removed when the space was no longer used at the end of the summer season. They advised the Attorney that a permit was still needed as well as a variance request.
The Planning Board all agreed that the freestanding sign was more beneficial then a banner. They also thanked the Attorney for coming in and asking permission prior to erecting the sign.
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To GRANT a variance for a 60” X 40” freestanding sign for the MEDC park located at 169-171 Main Street.
Sign Enforcement
Over the past few meetings, the Board has expressed concern about the proliferation of non-permitted signs promoting various public and private events. Mr. Fay and Ms. Fenby expressed concern about the Taste of Marlborough banners that had been placed on free standing signs and building facades throughout the City as well as A-frame signs promoting the event.
Mr. Fay stated his position that the banners were not allowed under the sign ordinance as the banners were not for a city sponsored event and the signs were placed on private, not public, property. He also stated his position that each banner would require a separate permit or that the sponsor for the event, a corporation, not the City, should have come to the Planning Board to request a variance and that there was no justification under the sing ordinance for approving a permit for multiple banners. Mr. Fay also offered to every member of the Board, a formal complaint to be filed with the Code Enforcement officer. Some members agreed to sign complaints.
UNFINISHED BUISNESS
INFORMAL DISCUSSION
COMMUNICATIONS/CORRESPONDENCE
On a motion by Mr. Fay, 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 Mr. Coveney was duly voted:
To adjourn at 8:17 p.m.
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST: _____________________________
Colleen Hughes, Clerk
| 