The Planning Board for the City of Marlborough met on Monday, November 5, 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.
MINUTES
September 24, 2012
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the meeting minutes.
October 15, 2012
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the meeting minutes.
October 23, 2012
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted:
To accept and file the meeting minutes.
CHAIRS BUSINESS
Building Commissioner
The Board welcomed the new Building Commissioner, Michael Mendoza. Mr. Fay shared a few of the Boards issues, including the illegal signs and the collection bins. Mr. Fay gave a brief overview of the illegal signs that are scattered throughout the City. Mr. Fay suggested that the Code Enforcement Officer would be more efficient if she was given the right tools to (i.e. handheld ticket machine) ticket the offender. Ms. Hughes stated that the research from another community showed the effectiveness of the machine. Mr. Mendoza stated that signs have always been an issue in any community and that he will have Ms. Wilderman continue to fine the offenses with the ticket books.
Mr. Fay also stated that the biggest offense was the collection bins that were multiplying in the parking lots of retail businesses. He stated that the previous Commissioner agreed that they were considered off –premise signs and should be treated as such. Mr. Fay also spoke of the community organizations and their continuing lack of asking permission by the Planning Board for their signs during events.
The Chair stated that the sign ordinance does need to be tweaked to today’s standards and is willing to submit some changes to the ordinance. City Council member Joseph Delano stated that he was willing to aide in the changes and that if there is evidence of an illegal sign, then the sign owner should be fined.
Mr. Mendoza stated that he will review the ordinance and is willing to work the Planning Board. He stated that if something is not described in the ordinance then it is simply not allowed.
On a motion by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To move up agenda item 5B.
SUBDIVISION PROGRESS REPORTS
Country Club Estates
Proposed Agreement
Attorney Falk and the City Solicitor have written a proposed agreement that reflect the agreement from 2010 written by Attorney Bergeron and the City Solicitor. This Agreement is intended to set forth the plan of action Toll Brothers would enable the City to complete a proposed taking for street expansion purposes for Stow Road, affecting 15 lots in the subdivision. For their consideration the following is the basic terms:
- Toll Brothers will pay for any necessary taking plans, appraisal reports, and title reports;
- After receiving approval from City departments of the taking plans and other documents, the Planning Board will recommend the proposed taking to the City Council;
- The Planning Board, with assistance of Toll Brothers, will submit the proposed taking to the City Council;
- Toll Brothers will pay for the hearing advertisements and damages awards, if any;
- Toll Brothers will indemnify the City against lawsuits challenging the
takings during the 3-year statute of limitations period, up to a total sum of $45,000;
- If the City Council approved the proposed taking within 3 months after the Planning Board’s submittal of the proposed taking, the Planning Board will reduce the bond to $45,000, and the 3-year statue of limitations period has expired, the Planning Board will release the remainder of the bond; and
- If the City Council fails to approve the taking plan within 3 months after the Planning Board’s submittal of the proposed taking, the Planning Board will release the full balance of the bond.
The City Solicitor stated that this was an agreement that would accommodate both the City and the developer.
Mr. Fay stated it was a step in the right direction, that his only concern was the 3 month time frame; he stated it was too short of time to get everything accomplished. Mr. Falk stated he discussed the appraisals with an appraisal company and they feel they should have a short turn around.
Councilor Delano stated he did not think it’s appropriate to put deadlines on the City Council. He also stated that he is concerned about the risk this puts the current homeowners and he feels they will “pay for it”.
The City Solicitor stated that is why there is a cushion of the remaining about of $45,000 that would protect the City against any lawsuits that may possibly arise. The City Solicitor asked that if the Board would be more comfortable with a 6 month period vs. a 3 month period, so that it would end about the same time as the fiscal year. The Board was more comfortable with the 6 months vs. the 3 months.
The City Solicitor and Attorney Falk will reconfigure the language to a 6 month period and then will resubmit the proposed agreement at the next meeting.
APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED PLAN
Phelps Street
Decision
Mr. Cullen has reviewed the ANR known as “4 Phelps Street” and can a favorable recommendation to the Planning Board to endorse the plan.
On a motion by Ms. Hughes, seconded Mr. Coveney it was duly voted:
To accept and file correspondence; to accept and endorse a plan of land believed to be Approval Not Required of “4 Phelps Street” owned by Ernest Winske, 169 Boston Post Road East, Marlborough, MA, 01752. Name of Engineer: Thomas Dipersio, Thomas Land Surveying, 265 Washington Street, Hudson, MA 01749. Deed of property recorded in South Middlesex Land Court Cert# 195774 Book 1109 Page 24.
PUBLIC HEARING
SUBDIVISION PROGRESS REPORTS
City Engineer Update
Mr. Cullen stated that he has had some dialog with the developers for Mauro Farms development in regards to the sidewalks and curbing with their subdivision completion schedule. He also mentions that Blackhorse Farms is installing some water and sewer services and the trees are installed.
PENDING SUBDIVISION PLANS: Updates and Discussion
PRELIMINARY/ OPEN SPACE SUBDIVISION SUBMITTALS
DEFINITIVE SUBDIVISION SUBMISSIONS
Ravenswood
Correspondence from the City Engineer
The City Engineer has performed his initial review of the proposed definitive subdivision known as “Ravenswood”. Mr. Cullen stated in his comments that the proponent should have submitted a subdivision plan meeting all the rules and regulations without waivers, so he could fairly access the current proposed plan.
In his general comments he stated that he does not believe that the currently presented proposed subdivision meets the Alternative Standards as defined, with a multitude issues being pavement width, centerline raii, curbing or sidewalks. He also noted that there is currently no sewer infrastructure on Stow Road, however there is indication there will be in the future; and easements would have to be secured prior to construction.
Mr. Fay stated that since the proponent came in several times informally to show the plan and the waivers were discussed, he was surprised that several waivers that the proponent knew were important to the Planning Board were still asked to be waived from the rules and regulations. He stated that the fact that no easements were secured for sewer seem to be a fatal flaw in this proposal.
The Chair asked if the developers were notified of the Engineers comments. Mrs. Lizotte stated that she was asked by the City Engineer to hold on to the comments until they were discussed by the Planning Board. The last communication from the developer stated they were waiting for the comments to come straight from the City Engineer.
On a motion by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Ms. Hughes, it was duly voted:
To send the City Engineers comments to the developer and their representative and ask them to appear at the next Planning Board meeting on November 26, 2012.
SIGNS
UNFINISHED BUISNESS
INFORMAL DISCUSSION
Results Way Mixed Overlay District
At this time, the Board did not have any concrete comments. Ms. Hughes asked if she could make a suggestion about asking for local contractors. Ms. Hughes and Mr. Hodge are going to discuss the findings prior to the next meeting.
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 Mr. Coveney was duly voted:
To adjourn at 8:20 p.m.
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST: _____________________________
Colleen Hughes, Clerk
| 