July 23, 2012
7:00 PM
The Planning Board for the City of Marlborough met on Monday, July 23, 2012 in Memorial Hall, 3rd Floor, City Hall 140 Main Street, Marlborough, MA 01752. Members present: Barbara Fenby, Colleen Hughes, Sean Fay, Philip Hodge, Edward Coveney and Clyde Johnson. Also present: Assistant City Engineer Timothy Collins.
MINUTES
July 9, 2012
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Fay it was duly voted:
To accept and file the meeting minutes with minor amendments.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN
CHAIRS BUSINESS
Mike Berry, Mayor’s Aide
Mayoral Aide Berry appeared to discuss ongoing sign issues.~ The Board discussed how the sign ordinance differentiates between signs on public property for City-sponsored events versus signs for other civic events or those appearing on private property.
~
Ms. Hughes stated that a major issue is determining what events are City-sponsored and need only mayoral approval as the term “city sponsored” is not defined.~
~
Mr. Fay explained to Mr. Berry that in order for the Mayor to have authority to approve a sign, two conditions needed to be present. First, the event must be city sponsored. Second, the sign in question must be placed on public property. Mr. Fay stated that the sign ordinance does not permit the Mayor to approve signs on private property under any circumstances, no matter how desirable the event. ~Mr. Fay also cited recent examples where limited approval for signs promoting civic events resulted in a proliferation of signs appearing on private property, city streets, hanging from awnings, in close proximity to crosswalks and congested intersections resulting in public safety issues.
~
Mr. Fay explained to Mr. Berry that signs for civic events, whether or not city-sponsored that appear on private property need to go through the same approval process as any other sign- application to the building department for each sign, and if the application is denied, application for a variance to the Planning Board was required before any signs were erected. ~
~
Mr. Berry indicated he would communicate with the Building Department for guidance on future sign requests that come into the Mayor’s Office and would also notify business owners to contact the Building Departed for specifics on allowed signage.
~
Ms. Hughes also inquired of Mr. Berry is he had any knowledge of hand held ticketing devices for use by Code Enforcement.~ Mr. Berry will discuss this with the Mayor.~ The Chair asked if there was any report from Code Enforcement indicating time or financial savings on use of the hand held decided by other communities.~ Mrs. Lizotte will ask the Code Enforcement Officer is she was able to gather any information.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SUBDIVISION PROGRESS REPORTS
City Engineer Update
Mr. Collins stated that he is working with the developer for Wayside Hollow and he is hoping to have this subdivision on the acceptance list by the end of this year.
Blackhorse Farms
Extension Request
The developer submitted correspondence from their representative requesting that the matter be tabled for 30 days to allow Howard Fafard an opportunity to address the Board.
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. Johnson, it was duly voted:
To accept and place on file.
Taxes
Mrs. Deborah Fox, City Tax Collector, stated all taxes are current on the subdivision. She mentioned parcel 36-67, which is part of the subdivision, but not owned by the Developer is in default. Mr. Collins explained that the previous Developer still owned the rights to that lot and not the current Developer.
Ms. Hughes and Mr. Fay shared photos with the Board that they took at the site earlier in the day. The photos showed the deterioration of the site, a pile of debris the removal of which was a condition of the prior extension, and the gate to the subdivision still blocking access. The removal of this gate was a part of the condition in the prior extension as well.
With regard to the correspondence from Mr. Fafard requesting another 30 day extension, Mr. Fay stated his objection saying that the Board has been led down the garden path long enough with no action on the part of the developer.
Mr. Fay questioned the developer’s representative, Don Seaberg and asked whether the Board’s instructions at the last meeting were unclear. He questioned why the gate was not taken down, and why the developer had not produced the requested completion schedule in keeping with the Board’s instructions. Mr. Fay stated that Mr. Fafard was always welcome to address the Board that his presence would not change his opinion- that the subdivision infrastructure must be completed and as-built plans be filed with the City Engineer by the end of this construction year or the City rescinded the bond and hired someone else to complete the work, that it would be done this year. Mr. Fay also stated that the Board would be monitoring the progress being made on the completion schedule offered by the developer and if the
developer fell behind, he would ask the Board to consider taking action on the Bond.
Ms. Hughes concurred and she expressed her displeasure the developer’s inaction and the current condition of the subdivision noting the presence of the gate and deterioration of the site.
City Councilor, Joseph Delano, requested that the Board hold the developer accountable and to seek completion of~the project. He stated that the developer has not been a good neighbor ad recited instances of promises that had not been kept; including neighboring claims of property damages were ignored.
The chair polled the members of the Board. Mr. Johnson, Mr. Coveney and Mr. Hodge expressed their discontent with the developer’s conduct, inaction and the current status of the subdivision and indicated their willingness to take action on the bond now. The chair agreed.
Mr. Rider, City Solicitor, reminded the Board that the existing bond needs to be in the name of the Slocumb Realty, LLC and not its current listed name on the bond.
On motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Coveney, with Mr. Fay opposing, it was duly voted:
To extend the subdivision approval to August 28, 2012 and instruct the developer to submit a completion schedule showing all work completed by the end of this year, start the process of clean up, remove the gate and have the secretary start the paper process of rescinding the bond.
Country Club Estates
Request for release of Subdivision Bond
The developers are asking for a release of their current bond. Mr. Brian Falk of Myrick O’Connell has been closely working the City Solicitor to obtain the necessary easements for the taking on Stow Road. They have 11 of the signatures needed out of 14, with 250 Stow Road was deemed not necessary by the Public Works Commissioner because it contains less then 1 square foot needed. They are striving to obtain consent from the remaining three residents, however if not, the City Solicitor, the City Engineer, Commissioner of Public Works and the Developer have an alternate plan which is the following:
- Make final attempt to obtain signed deeds,
- Toll Brothers will prepare necessary plans to show the extending of Stow Road layout to cover the strip as can be reasonably obtained through signed deeds,
- Toll Brothers will present widen plan to the City Council with the assistance of the City Solicitor,
- Possible ANR plan for endorsement of conveyances to the City.
Ms. Fenby stated that this not a normal practice to return the bond with items left to finish in the subdivision including the acceptance of the subdivision through the City Council. However, she stated the Board will entertain a request of a bond reduction. Mr. Falk prepared a bond request and presented it to the Board.
Mr. Fay questioned why the mortgage issue that was raised the last time the matter was before the board had not been addressed in the current proposal. Mr. Fay stated that the developer is suggesting the property owners in question convey property to the city that is encumbered by a mortgage, which could result in a bank retaking the conveyed property as part of a foreclosure putting the city in the same position it is in now.
Mr. Fay also questioned whether the proposed transfers would result in the triggering of the due on sale clauses in the owner’s mortgages. He suggested that the developer explore extinguishing the mortgagee’s interest in the properties in question by eminent domain taking. Attorney Falk stated that the banks are on notice of the right of way issue which makes the mortgage issue a non-issue. Mr. Fay disagreed stated that having notice is very different than having title, and that any conveyance by the landowners of encumbered property would be subject to the encumbrance and ineffective if the mortgage was foreclosed.
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To continue this discussion until the next meeting, to send the request of a bond reduction request to the City Engineer for his review.
West Ridge Estates
Acceptance of Subdivision
The City Engineer has reviewed the subdivision known as “West Ridge Estates” for acceptance or roadways and easements as requested by the developer. He has reviewed the following documents:
- As-built Plan and Profile of Dufresne Drive (Sheet 1 of 1), for West Ridge Estates Subdivision, dated January 7, 2011 with the latest revision date of January 14, 2011, Noted plans were prepared by Cabco Consult;
- Plan of Acceptance of Dufresne Drive and Municipal Easements (Sheet 1 of 1), dated January 7, 2011, with latest revision date of January 27, 2012, Noted plans were prepared by Cabco Consult;
- The latest legal descriptions.
They are able to provide a favorable recommendation for the acceptance of the following:
- Dufrense Drive as a public way;
- Drainage Easement No. 1 as a municipal easement;
- Drainage Easement No. 2 as a municipal easement;
- Drainage Easement No. 3 as a municipal easement;
- Flowage Easement as a municipal easement;
- Drainage Easement No. 4 as a municipal easement;
- Access Easement as a municipal easement.
He is also suggesting to keep the remaining bond of $127,000.00 in place until the developer has had full City Council Acceptance and Acceptance plans have been recorded with the South Middlesex Registry of Deeds, Cambridge, MA.
On a motion by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To accept and file all correspondence, to accept “Plan of Acceptance Dufrense Drive & Municipal Easement” (Sheets 1 thru 1), dated January 7, 2011 with latest revision date of January 27, 2012; Scale 1”=40’ prepared by Cabco Consult, P.O. Box 14, Clinton, MA 01510.
PENDING SUBDIVISION PLANS: Updates and Discussion
PRELIMINARY/ OPEN SPACE SUBDIVISION SUBMITTALS
DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION SUBMISSIONS
SIGNS
UNFINISHED BUISNESS
Master Calendar
Status
Mrs. Lizotte will add more information for review.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION
COMMUNICATIONS/CORRESPONDENCE
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Johnson, 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 was duly voted:
To adjourn at 8:00 p.m.
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST: _____________________________
Colleen Hughes, Clerk
| 