MARLBOROUGH PLANNING BOARD
MARLBOROUGH, MA 01752
Call to Order March 25, 2013
The Meeting of the Marlborough Planning Board was called to order at 7:00pm in Memorial Hall, 3rd Floor City Hall 140 Main Street, Marlborough, MA. Members present included Barbara Fenby, Colleen Hughes, Sean Fay, Philip Hodge and Shawn McCarthy. Also in attendance were Board Secretary Melissa Irish and City Engineer Thomas Cullen.
Absent were Clyde Johnson and Edward Coveney
1. Meeting Minutes:
A. March 11, 2013
On a motion made by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was voted to accept the minutes of the March 11, 2013 meeting. Motion carried.
2. Chair’s Business:
A. Review/Discussion in regards to letter of support for Code Enforcement Officer Technology.
Motion made by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hodge to table item 2A.
3. Approval Not Required:
A. Partners HealthCare System Inc. Forest St & Hayes Memorial Drive
Ms. Hughes read the notice into the record.
On a motion made by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hodge the notice was accepted and placed on file and the plan was referred to the Engineering Department.
B. 93 Framingham Rd Lots 3&4
Ms. Hughes read the notice into the record.
On a motion made by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hodge the notice was accepted and placed on file and the plan was referred to the Engineering Department.
On a motion made by Mr. Fay, seconded by Ms. Hughes a recess was called at 7:12pm the meeting reconvened at 7:15pm.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Definitive Subdivision Plan “Ravenswood Road”
The public hearing was opened at 7:15pm Ms. Hughes read the notice into record. Ms. Hughes also read the second (additional info) letter from the proponent into the record. The hearing was taken in the traditional 4 stages:
Presentation
Those speaking in Favor
Those speaking in Opposition
Questions from the Board Members
Presentation: Mr. Joseph Peznola, Professional Engineer, Principal – of Hancock Associates gave the presentation, assisted by Attorney Sem Aykanian. This is the second presentation of this subdivision. The original version was created as a low impact development which was withdrawn by the applicant. This rendition is in a more conventional form. This iteration keeps the original house at 637 Sudbury St. and creates two additional lots to be serviced by a private roadway. The drainage and detention ponds have both been recalculated, and septic systems have been designed for the additional 2 houses. Mr. Peznola also noted that the separation between the existing driveway and the proposed minor roadway is 45’. Attorney Aykanian stated his position that it would be a misapplication of the distance requirements to determine
that a subdivision of the subject property would cause the existing driveway of an abutter to be non-conforming.
In Favor – No one spoke.
In Opposition –
Ward 1 City Councilor Joseph Delano, 10 Harper Circle, Marlborough stated that this is not a good project for the area. It appears to him that the developer is trying to skirt around the rules and regulations. Sudbury Street is a dangerous road and he is concerned about the trip count per home. This subdivision will reduce the enjoyment of the neighborhood. He is against this project.
Mr. Bill Magner, 79 Mosher Lane, Marlborough was concerned about the safety issues and noted that Sudbury St is a dangerous Road.
Mr. Ben Resniknof, 1061 Concord Rd, Marlborough, feels that this project does not keep with the intent of the existing neighborhood.
Mr. Matt Scola, 621 Sudbury St, Marlborough, also had concerns about safety and claims this is the same plan as the one prior the only change is the addition of septic systems.
Ms. Dorothy Butler, 85 Mosher Lane, Marlborough, also had concerns regarding safety and sight lines.
Mr. John Kennedy, 84 Mosher Lane, Marlborough, also had concerns regarding safety.
Ms. Laura Kennedy, 84 Mosher Lane, Marlborough also had concerns regarding safety.
Questions from the Board Members:
Mr. Fay asked the developer to review the waivers that are being requested with the Board.
Mr. Peznola noted the right of way width and the width of the roadway (Sudbury St)
Mr. Fay asked that since the developer was requesting that the Board determine that the proposed roadway was in keeping with public safety, if the Board was also able to determine that the developer had not established that the roadway was in keeping with public safety. Mr. Peznola answered in the affirmative.
As a follow-up, Mr. Fay asked which of the subdivisions cited by the developer in support of their request that the Board make this finding is most similar to the proposed Development.
Mr. Peznola noted that the examples were given not as precedent but as examples only.
Chairperson Fenby requested that the developer work with the neighbors to try to alleviate some of the safety concerns revolving around driveways.
The Public Hearing was closed by Chairperson Fenby at 7:43pm.
On a motion made by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McCarthy the plan was accepted placed on file and referred to the City Engineer for review.
B. Proposed Zoning Amendment Addition to Section 650-40(F) 48(C)(1) & 47(F)
The public hearing was opened at 7:44pm Ms. Hughes read the notice into record.
The hearing was taken in the traditional 4 stages:
Presentation
Those speaking in Favor
Those speaking in Opposition
Questions from the Board Members
Presentation: Attorney Arthur Bergeron made the presentation accompanied by Mr. David Mackwell of Kelly Engineering Group and assisted by Attorney David Mackay of Mirick O’Connell Attorneys at Law.
Attorney Bergeron noted that this amendment had already been discussed on the City Council floor and there had been 2 modifications made by the Council, the first being the tabling of the building height as mentioned in item #1. That issue would be looked at in more detail at a later date if deemed necessary. The second change was to the length of the walkways to be less than 200’.
In Favor – No one spoke
In Opposition – No one spoke
Questions from the Board Members:
Mr. Fay questioned why the Building Commissioner was the final authority.
Attorney Bergeron noted that there had to be someone to interpret the ruling.
Mr. McCarthy questioned why the easement part of the ordinance was needed.
Attorney Bergeron noted that common ownership may not always be the case in point leaving the allowance for the buildings to be independently owned.
Chairperson Fenby questioned if the amount of landscaping needed would decrease?
Mr. Mackwell noted that the parking lot requirements would stay intact, thus requiring landscaping.
The Public Hearing was closed by Chairperson Fenby at 8:02pm.
On a motion made by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. McCarthy it was voted to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed Zoning Amendment. Motion carried.
On a motion made by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. McCarthy a recess was called at 8:07pm the meeting reconvened at 8:20pm.
5. Pending Sub Division Plans: Updates and Discussion:
A. City Engineers Report
Mr. Cullen reported out that the Engineering Department is currently reviewing outstanding subdivisions within the City.
6. Preliminary/Open Space Submissions/Limited Development Subdivisions: None
7. Definitive Subdivision Submission: None
8. Signs:
A. Communication from Code Enforcement Officer regarding 655 Farm Rd
B. Communication from Code Enforcement Officer regarding 721 Farm Rd
C. Communication from Code Enforcement Officer regarding 17 East Main St
& 531 Lincoln St
Ms. Hughes read all 3 communications into the record.
On a motion made by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. McCarthy to accept the correspondence and place them on file. Motion carried.
9. Unfinished Business:
B. Request for extension Boston Scientific Company, Inc.
Ms. Hughes read the request for an extension into the record.
On a motion made by Mr. Fay, seconded by Ms. Hughes it was voted to accept the request and place it on file. Motion carried.
C. Decision regarding Zoning Amendment Utility Service Vehicle Maintenance
After much discussion on a motion made by Mr. Fay, seconded by Ms. Hughes it was voted to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed zoning amendment with the following suggestions:
Screening of the parking lots must be provided for the abutters.
The size of the fleet of vehicles covering the lot may not exceed a certain percentage of the available parking. The board recommends no more than 50%.
No unregistered vehicles may be left on the lot and that no vehicles be permitted to be parked on grass surfaces.
The term “routine maintenance” must be defined with a list of “allowable” repairs to be provided.
The motion carried with a vote of 4-0-1, with Mr. Hodge abstaining.
10. Informal Discussions: None
11. Correspondence:
A. dcr, Terra Firma #2- Curing for Mature Trees, I
On a motion made by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hodge it was voted to accept the correspondence and place on file. Motion carried.
12. Public Notices of other Cities and Towns:
A. Town of Framingham Planning Board Public Hearing, April 25, 2013
B. Town of Framingham Planning Board Public Hearing, April 11, 2013
C. Town of Framingham Planning Board Notice of Decision, March 14, 2013
D. Town of Framingham Planning Board Notice of Decision, February 21, 2013
E. Town of Framingham Planning Board Notice of Decision, February 21, 2013
F. Town of Sudbury Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing, April 1, 2013
G. Town of Sudbury Board of Appeals Notice of Decision, March 14, 2013
On a motion made by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hodge it was voted to accept the notices A-G and place on file. Motion carried.
On a motion made by Mr. Fay, seconded by Ms. Hughes Item 2A was removed from the table for discussion. Motion carried.
A. Review/Discussion in regards to letter of support for Code Enforcement Officer Technology.
After much discussion it was noted that additional information needs to be obtained by the Board regarding this matter. It is to be discussed again at the April 8, 2013 meeting.
On a motion made by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Fay a recess was called at 8:45 the meeting reconvened at 8:47pm.
Ms. Hughes noted that she has been in touch with Mr. Cummings regarding the presentation that was given at the last meeting involving the section of Route 20E. She is trying to secure a meeting with him to discuss the possibilities of extending the area in question further west to include a seemingly orphaned part of Route 20.
A request was made to request updates on both Black Horse Farms and Country Club Estates for the next meeting.
Adjournment: On a motion made by Mr. McCarthy seconded by Mr. Hodge it was voted to adjourn at 8:57pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Colleen Hughes
/mai
| 
