The Planning Board for the City of Marlborough met on Monday, September 24, 2012 in Memorial Hall, 3rd Floor, City Hall 140 Main Street, Marlborough, MA 01752. Members present: Barbara Fenby, Colleen Hughes, Phillip Hodge, Sean Fay, Edward Coveney and Clyde Johnson. Also present: City Engineer Thomas Cullen.
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hodge it was duly voted:
To move up section 8 a and b.
SIGNS
Scouting for Food
Mr. Watson is asking on behalf of the Boy Scout of America, to utilize the mobile message signs for their campaign of “Scouting for food” to benefit the Marlborough Community food pantry. Mr. Fay was in support of the scouts using the mobile sign; however the rest of the Board spoke on how the original intent was to use the board for emergency use only.
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To DENY the request of use of the mobile signs for “Scouting for Food”.
Mr. Watson objected to the vote citing prior similar uses and non-enforcement.
The Board also noted that they would entertain use of other materials located throughout the City for this event; however they would still need the Board’s approval.
Trombetta’s
Charlie Trombetta was asked to speak to the Planning Board regarding their signage at 655 Farm Road. The Chair asked Mr. Trombetta if he was any closer to redesigning their freestanding sign to include all businesses at their location. He stated they were planning to do this soon but that he was not sure what the sign rules allowed. The Board suggested that Mr. Trombetta contact the new Building Commissioner to discuss this further.
Mr. Trombetta referenced other properties in the City with similar signs that have been allowed to continue without enforcement. The Chair stated in response that the City is working to address sign issues city-wide.
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Ms. Hughes, it was duly voted:
To move up Agenda item 5b.
Subdivision Progress
Country Club Estates
Correspondence from City Solicitor Rider
The City Solicitor submitted correspondence to the Board and apologized that he could not attend the meeting; however he stated that the attorney for the developer would be in attendance. He stated that he is in discussions with the developer’s attorney regarding the “Future Stow Road Taking Line” that is referenced in the subdivision plan, and that Mr. Falk would discuss the matter with the Board to determine if the Board was in favor of a new proposal.
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Johnson it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence.
Mr. Falk, attorney for the developer, suggested taking the matter to the City Council and asking them to make a decision to either pursue the taking or abandon the requirements of the approved plan. However he also suggested that the bond would be tied to the City Council’s actions, and if the City Council did not act on the matter, then any agreement that the developer would be willing to sign would require the Board to release the remaining bond.
Mr. Fay stated that it was not an accident or mistake that the bond has remained in place and that the Board made a recommendation that roadways be accepted based upon the developer’s representations that they would address the Stow Road taking issue. He stated his position that the only resolution that would be acceptable to him would be one that addressed the three access issues that he raised at the last meeting, and that he thought that the taking of an easement would be more palatable to the owners on Stow Road. He also stated that the developer was ultimately responsible for providing the City with the legal access shown on the accepted plan.
Dr. Fenby asked Mr. Falk if the proposed agreement would require the developer to return to the Board to request release of the bond based on whether or not the City Council acted on the taking. Mr. Falk said that the agreement must provide that release of the Bond would be automatic if the City Council did not proceed with the taking. Dr. Fenby stated that she was opposed to this provision.
Mr. Hodge agreed and stated that he was not in favor of asking the City Council to make a determination and taking the Bond issue out of the hands of the Board.
Ms. Hughes stated she was fine with the action. Mr. Coveney stated that this would not solve anything and Mr. Johnson stated he had mixed emotions.
All the Board members agreed that they want further guidance from the City Solicitor prior to taking any action.
MINUTES
August 27, 2012
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Ms. Hughes it was duly voted:
To accept and file the minutes.
September 10, 2012
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Ms. Hughes with Mr. Hodge abstaining:
It was duly voted to table the minutes for amendments.
CHAIRS BUSINESS
40B, Briarwood Village, Attorney Arthur Bergeron
It was the Board’s understanding that the ZBA was requesting a recommendation concerning the proposed 40B project. The Board asked Attorney Bergeron to give a brief overview the proposed comprehensive permit. Mr. Bergeron stated that there would be 4 apartment buildings with a total of 225 units located on Ames Street. He reviewed for the Board the requested waivers and characterized them as minimal. Mr. Bergeron stated that if the project was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the total of affordable housing units would put the City over their required amount until the year 2030. He also stated that local employers frequently bring up the need for housing for their employees in areas near where they work, particularly for younger workers.
Attorney Bergeron also stated that the Glen Street neighborhood would not see the complex due to the height the buildings and topography of the site.
Mr. Hodge stated he was interested in this project because Marlborough lacks the housing stock for single occupants and starting out families.
The Board was not being asked for a complete technical review of the project, or to take a formal action. A majority of the members did agree to submitting a letter expressing a favorable position on the project on a conceptual basis.
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted, with Mr. Fay abstaining:
To send correspondence to the Zoning Board of Appeals in support.
Mr. Fay stated he did not have enough information to vote in favor or against the proposed development because he did not attend the full presentation at City Council. He stated that he was generally in favor of having developments of this type in commercial areas, but that he was not sure that this proposal fit this criterion due to its proximity to residential neighborhoods. Based on Attorney Bergeron’s presentation alone, he was not inclined to vote against sending a favorable opinion to the ZBA.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN
None.
PUBLIC HEARING
Ravenswood, 637 Sudbury St, 7:30pm
The Planning Board of the City of Marlborough held a public hearing on Monday, September 24, at 7:35 p.m. in Memorial Hall, 3rd Floor, City Hall, 140 Main Street, Marlborough on the proposed Subdivision known as “Ravenswood” Members present: Chairperson Barbara L. Fenby, Clerk Colleen Hughes, Philip Hodge, Edward Coveney and Sean Fay. Also present: City Engineer Thomas Cullen.
The Chair introduced all of the members of the board including the City Engineer and the Planning Board Secretary. She advised the audience that everyone should direct questions to her and she will direct the questions to the proponent or others.
Ms. Hughes read the public hearing notice into record.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board of the City of Marlborough will hold a public hearing on Monday, September 24 at 7:30 P.M., at Memorial Hall, City Hall, 140 Main Street, Marlborough, MA on the following Definitive Subdivision Plan “Ravenswood” subdivision which proposal is herewith published in compliance with the requirements of the M.G.L. 41, §81T and is hereby set forth as follows:
NAME OF SUBDIVIDER: Ravenswood Properties, Inc.
637 Sudbury Street
Marlborough, MA 01752
NAME OF ENGINEER: Hancock Associates
15 Fletcher Street, Suite 7
Chelmsford, MA 01824
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 637 Sudbury Street, Between Stone Hill Road and Concord Street, Map 10, Lot 39 and Map 10 Lot 19C
A plan of the proposed subdivision is on file in the City Clerk's Office, the Planning Board Office, and the City Engineer's Office and may be seen prior to the public hearing.
Attorney Sem Aykanian provided the Board with an overview of the proposed subdivision. He stated that the proposal was for a 3 lot subdivision, with one lot being that existing home on the property. He stated that the developer is trying to construct an ecologically sound project that includes a private road.
Matt Hamor, Hancock Associates, presented the plan to the Board. The Plan shows the 3 lot subdivision off of Sudbury Street. One lot would have frontage along Sudbury Street and the other two lots would have frontage on the 22’ wide private drive. They are looking to do a low impact development with drainage swales on both sides of the street as well as the catch basins as shown on the plan. They are also seeking to only add a gravel sidewalk on only a portion of the subdivision. Mr. Hamor pointed out that they are looking to tie into the sewer trunk line that leads into Mosher Lane. He also mentioned they are currently working with the ConComm commission regarding the wetlands. He also spoke to the Fire Chief regarding the turnaround at the end of the street for fire apparatus and added gravel to a
portion of the subdivision to accommodate the fire trucks.
Dr. Fenby asked for a letter written by Code Officer Wilderman
Dear Chairperson Fenby and Members:
It has come to this office’s attention that there is a proposed subdivision public hearing before the board this evening for the Ravenswood Subdivision. I would ask that as consideration for this subdivision move forward through the process that sufficient attention is paid to the schedule for construction and the conditions for construction.
This office has received numerous complaints in the past concerning commercial vehicles being parked on residential properties, additional living space being used as rental property and single family homes being used as rooming houses for construction workers for projects other then the pending subdivision. A reminder that despite the potential construction of a small subdivision, in this area continues to be specifically zoned from the quiet enjoyment of single family zones might be in order.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. As always, please feel free to contact my office if you any further questions or if we can be any further assistance to you.
Sincerely,
Pamela A. Wilderman
Code Enforcement Officer
Dr. Fenby then asked if anyone was in favor of the project.
In Favor
Frazor Edmondson
661 Sudbury Street
Mr. Edmondson could not attend the meeting, however in a written letter he stated he was in favor of the project.
Richard Nardo
637 Sudbury Street
Mr. Nardo stated he was in favor of the subdivision.
Alicia Nardo
637 Sudbury Street
Ms. Nardo stated she was in favor of the subdivision
With no one else in favor, that portion of the hearing was closed.
In Opposition
Joseph Delano
Ward Councilor
Councilor Delano commented that he felt that ABRN and its owners have had a very negative influence on the neighborhood. They have taken many actions that have detracted from this nice country road and neighborhood. Among other things they were apparently living in an illegal apartment on the property of their benefactors/partners in ABRN on Hemenway next to the old farm house and mislead the city about the use of this illegal apartment over the garage. They began storing their equipment and materials creating an eyesore at the highly visible farm house on the corner of Sudbury and Hemenway, apparently having made some sort of arrangement to do so. They bought at least two houses on Sudbury Street, one of which was being used as an office for ABRN at 637 Sudbury, and where they store at least one Bobcat tractor. I have
pictures of that.
They have turned 661 Sudbury into some sort of rooming house-apparently for some of their workers, which is totally out of character for that neighborhood, and has been the subject of complaints from area neighbors for quite a while. On my way to the meeting I counted seven vehicles parked there, and music was blaring out of that house. I have a picture of this assortment of trucks and other vehicles.
The applicants have devalued the neighborhood, and have reduced the ability of neighbors to enjoy their property. Now they come before the Planning Board and ask you to take further value from every neighbor in the area, and then increase the value of ABRN’s property and proposed project by granting them numerous waivers which are designed to do nothing but increase their profits.~ Any suggestion that they are interested in “green” developing is a sham in my opinion, and their only motivation is to make more money on this project.
“I ask you to deny ever single waiver request for this project”
Ben Resnikoff
1061 Concord Road
Mr. Resinkoff asked about the wetlands on the property. The Chair informed him that the subdivision was before the Conservation Commission and they will have their own hearing. He also asked about the site line issues for the driveway and stated that the road is already dangerous and does not think adding a road would be beneficial.
Zach Shapiro
1039 Concord Road
Mr. Shapiro asked about the borings that were done as well if they have any precaution on the blasting that may be performed. Dr. Fenby stated there is a whole process that would done prior to any blasting done.
Bill Magner
79 Mosher Lane
Mr. Magner stated he was the previous resident at this address and the drainage was a huge issue. He stated when it rained there were rivers of water from Blancehette Drive that would flow into his yard and settle in the rear of the property, always a constant flow of water that saturated the grounds around the property. He was not convinced by the plans for drainage and stated that this road was too dangerous to add another road.
Kyle Magner
79 Mosher Lane
Ms. Magner stated that the rain water flowed into that property, that the city’s resources were already burdened with enforcement actions on this particular property and that if they allow this subdivision we’d be starting down a slippery slope.
Stacey Resnikoff
1061 Concord Road
Ms. Resnikoff stated there is a huge public safety issue and she also has concerns about the wetlands at this property.
Neal Kunycky
70 Jackson Circle
Mr. Kunycky stated he was opposed for all the reasons his neighbors cited and that he believes the owners are running a commercial business at the property.
Matt Scola
621 Sudbury Street
Mr. Scola stated that he is opposed to this project, he is worried that the catch basins would not catch all the water and would end up saturating his property more. He also stated the propose driveway was too close to his property and his existing well.
John Kennedy
84 Mosher Lane
Mr. Kennedy stated that he was in opposition of the subdivision and stated the roadway was too dangerous.
Dorothy Butler
85 Mosher Lane
Ms. Butler stated she was not in favor of the subdivision.
Frank Collins
54 Hanlon Street
Mr. Collins stated that the safety factor should be taken into concern due to the amount of accidents along the roadway and the water drainage would be an issue as well.
MaryAnn Tunnera
209 Blanchette Drive
Ms. Tunnera is opposed to the plans, she stated it was already a dangerous intersection.
Katherine McCabe
11 Jackson Circle
Ms. McCabe stated it was too dangerous to add more houses.
Mike Dragone
593 Sudbury Street
Mr. Dragone stated it was too dangerous of a road to add more houses.
With no one else speaking in opposition, this portion of the hearing closed.
The Chair asked the Board members if they have any further questions.
Mr. Johnson was concerned about the roadway length and if the fire trucks could access the turnaround. Mr. Hamor stated he spoke to the Fire Chief and the ladder truck would be able to turn around, and if fact they are adding gravel to a portion of the turnaround to help the trucks just in case they are not able to do a complete turnaround. Mr. Johnson stated this could be a problem in to the winter months.
Mr. Fay asked Mr. Hamor about the proximity of the proposed roadway to the driveway for the neighbors at 621 Sudbury Street. Mr. Fay expressed his concern that the short distance would cause ingress and egress issues for the existing home at 621 Sudbury. Mr. Hamor stated that he did not see this as an issue. Also, Mr. Fay commented that if the turnaround for emergency vehicles was a gravel area, that this would be a problem in the winter months and that the area would deteriorate over time due to repeated plowing, and that it would end up as a muddy mess that emergency vehicles would be unable to use after the developer had finished the project.
Mr. Fay asked the developer’s representative to review for the Board the waivers that were being requested. Mr. Hamor reviewed the requested waivers which were:
- A waiver to Subdivision regulations designs standards section IV.B.3 “The Minimum width of rights of way shall be as follows: Secondary Streets: Fifty feet (50’).” A 40 foot wide right of way is being proposed.
- A waiver to the subdivision regulations design standards section IV.B.4©: “Where a grade is five percent (5%) or grater within one hundred and fifty feet (150’) of the intersection of street right of way lines, there shall be provided a leveling area of at least seventy-five (75’) feet with a maximum grade of three percent (3%). The horizontal tangent distance between any two (2’) reverse vertical curves shall be a minimum of one hundred feet (100’). A 50 foot long leveling area with grades between 3% and 5% is provided, and a tangent of 35.78 feet is provided between two reverse vertical curves (The Combined sight distance exceeds the 200’ minimum requirement from section IV.B.4(d)).
- A waiver to the subdivision regulations required improvements section V.B.2: “The minimum width of roadways shall be as follows: Lanes- Twenty Six feet (26’). A 22 foot wide paved roadway is proposed.
- A waiver to the subdivision regulations required improvements section V.D.1-2: “Sidewalks shall extend the full length of each side of the street….the sidewalk shall be constructed with a shaped granite curbing or upright curbing.” A gravel sidewalk is proposed along one side of the street and a grass shoulder is proposed in lieu along the other, and cape cod berm is proposed in one section (L=75).
- A waiver to the subdivision regulations standard of adequacy section II.F.2. (b): “Ways providing access to the stress within a subdivision...shall normally be considered adequate if…the minimum traveled width is =22 feet.” Sudbury Street has a pavement width of approximately 20 feet.
- A waiver to the subdivision regulations definitive plan contents section III.B.2 (d): “The Definitive plan shall contain…major features of the land, such as…Large trees, wooded areas…” Large trees are not individually located, through wooded areas are located.
Mr. Hodge stated that a low impact subdivision would be good for the City, but only for the right project. He stated he was skeptical on this project and would like further comments from the Fire Chief regarding the turn around. Mr. Hodge stated that he was generally in favor of low-impact, environmentally friendly developments but that he was reluctant to pursue this type of development on a case by case basis instead of amending the City’s rules and regulations
Dr. Fenby stated that they have never approved a roadway this small, that sidewalks all the way around were favored by the Boards even on private roadways and there are no gravel sidewalks.
The Public Hearing closed at 8:30PM.
SUBDIVISION PROGRESS REPORTS
City Engineer Update
Mr. Cullen stated he is in talks with the developer of Lacombe subdivision regarding its completion. He also discussed Blackhorse Farms and the light request has been submitted and has had dialog with NGRID. He also stated that unfortunate NGRID works on their own timetable and no date was given for installation.
The Planning Board also stated that Blackhorse Farms was due to have a few items completed by their next meeting including the bond name change and grading. If work is not completed according to the agreement between the developer and the Board, the developer will be in violation of the conditions imposed by the Board for the granted extension and the Board would discuss appropriate enforcement actions.
PENDING SUBDIVISION PLANS: Updates and Discussion
PRELIMINARY/ OPEN SPACE SUBDIVISION SUBMITTALS
DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION SUBMISSIONS
SIGNS
Collection Boxes
Ms. Wilderman sent correspondence to the Board regarding the enforcement of the collection boxes. She stated that to enforce the boxes, she needs to contact the owners of the property, because half the time the owners themselves are not aware of the boxes being on their properties. She also stated that the owners of boxes that are located on City property will be notified to remove the boxes immediately.
The Board discussed inviting the new Building Commissioner to introduce them as well as to talk about the sign issues that the City faces. Mrs. Lizotte will send a formal letter to Mr. Mendoza.
UNFINISHED BUISNESS
Master Calendar
INFORMAL DISCUSSION
COMMUNICATIONS/CORRESPONDENCE
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Coveney, 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 9:15 p.m.
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST: _____________________________
Colleen Hughes, Clerk
| 