MARLBOROUGH PLANNING BOARD
MARLBOROUGH, MA 01752
Call to Order April 8, 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, Edward Coveney and Shawn McCarthy. Also in attendance were Board Secretary Melissa Irish and City Engineer Thomas Cullen.
Absent was Clyde Johnson
1. Meeting Minutes:
A. March 25, 2013
On a motion made by Mr. Fay, seconded by Ms. Hughes, it was voted to table the minutes of the March 25, 2013 meeting. Motion carried.
2. Chair’s Business: None
3. Approval Not Required:
A. 93 Framingham Road Lots 3&4 Decision
Ms. Hughes read into record the letter of recommendation of approval from the Engineering Department, motion made by Ms. Hughes seconded by Mr. McCarthy to accept the recommendation and place it on file.
On a motion made by Mr. Coveney, seconded by Mr. McCarthy, it was voted to endorse the plan. Motion carried.
B. Forest St (Partners Health Care) Decision
Ms. Hughes read into record the letter of recommendation of approval from the Engineering Department, motion made by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Coveney, to accept the recommendation and place it on file.
On a motion made by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was voted to endorse the plan. Motion carried.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Rescission of Definitive Subdivision Plan of Land located at Forest St and Hayes Memorial Drive
The public hearing was opened at 7:15pm 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 in partnership with Mr. Scott Weiss of Guttierrez Company gave the presentation.
In Favor – No one spoke.
In Opposition – No one spoke
Questions from the Board Members: None
The Public Hearing was closed by Chairperson Fenby at 7:22pm.
On a motion made by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted to take the following action and act in the positive regarding:
1. Rescind approval of the plans
2. Fully release the Covenant; and
3. Fully release the Amended Covenant.
Motion carried with a vote of 6-0-0.
5. Pending Sub Division Plans: Updates and Discussion:
A. City Engineers Report
Mr. Cullen reported that the Engineering Department has supplied the Board with an updated subdivision status report. Two of the older subdivisions are still works in progress such as Waters Edge and Shaugnessy Estates II.
On a motion made by Mr. Coveney, seconded by Mr. McCarthy, it was duly voted to accept the report and place it on file. Motion carried.
B. Ravenswood Discussion
Mr. Cullen reported that he has not had a chance to fully review the plans; he will have an update for the Board at the next meeting.
Mr. Fay noted that he has received a call from Attorney Aykanian, regarding the driveway issue, as well as he will be visiting the site before the next meeting to gain a better understanding of the proposed placement of the new roadway. It was noted that it would be helpful if all members took a drive by the proposed site and any questions could be brought up at the next meeting.
6. Preliminary/Open Space Submissions/Limited Development Subdivisions: None
7. Definitive Subdivision Submission: None
8. Signs: None
9. Unfinished Business:
A. Review/Discussion Support for Code Enforcement Officer Technology
Mr. Fay noted that he has been in contact with Councilor Seymour the chair of the Legal and Legislative Affairs subcommittee regarding the issues being faced by the Code Enforcement Officer regarding signs. It is the desire to have the sign ordinance revisited and employ a stricter wording for any possible future “grandfathering” clause. There are new “off premise” or “unpermitted” signs that have cropped up in new areas of the City such as but not limited to:
• The Piano Man, Boston Post Rd East
• McDonald’s on Maple Street
• Fay School Athletic Fields on Rte 85 South
All areas have been noted and passed along to the Code Enforcement Officer for follow up.
It has been noted that the technology request is being considered by the appropriate people.
A request has been made to place the “Downtown District” on the next agenda for review as well in regards to signs.
B. Country Club Estates Update:
Attorney Falk submitted an update for the Board, Solicitor Rider also noted that his office has been in touch with an appraiser and all is progressing. It appears that the reporting from the appraiser should be supplied to the Board for the June 3, 2013 meeting which in turn will allow time for review and approval by the Board prior to the June 30, 2013 imposed deadline.
C. Black Horse Farms Update
Mr. Cullen reported that the subdivision and roadways have been cleaned up as well as the bases for the street lighting have been delivered to the Site. Work is progressing.
It was noted to keep this item for reporting purposes on the next Planning Board agenda as well.
D. Addition Hill Subdivision Modification
Ms. Hughes read into record the findings of the City Engineer as follows:
1) As mentioned in the previous review of this subdivision modification, this proposed subdivision modification includes a relotting of the land, shortening the existing deadend roadway from the originally approved subdivision, modifying the profile of the existing subdivision roadway (i.e. cutting and the addition of a crest curve), adding/modifying drainage infrastructure, lowering the existing water main to maintain the required 5 feet of cover, and adding a proposed roundabout.
2) As previously mentioned, there were a number of waivers required for the originally approved subdivision. I believe that the waivers need to be reaffirmed, where applicable, for this subdivision modification and indicated on the plan set for consideration. This should be presented on the plan set in a table form with an approved column and not approved column for completion by the Planning Board.
a) Deadend length (IV,A,5a from existing subdivision plan) – The proposed subdivision modification shortens that length. Therefore, I believe the modification improves the subdivision and Engineering has no opposition to shortening the length of the deadend. I note that today’s standards require deadend roadways not to exceed 500’.
b) Roadway Width (V.B.2 from existing subdivision plan) – The proposed subdivision modification matches the existing roadway width. Therefore, Engineering has no opposition to matching the existing roadway width of the previously approved subdivision. I note that today’s standards require roadway widths for major streets for industrial & commercial to be 44’ minimum.
c) Sidewalk Both Sides (V.D.1 from existing subdivision plan) – The proposed subdivision modification matches the existing sidewalk configuration. Therefore, Engineering has no opposition to matching the existing sidewalk configuration (i.e. sidewalk on one side). I note that today’s standards require sidewalks on both sides and a 6’ sidewalk width including curbing.
d) Vertical granite curbing (V.D.2 from existing subdivision plan) along islands - Not applicable because today’s standard indicated a shaped granite curbing or upright granite curbing.
3) There are a number of waivers being requested by the proponent and some that have not been:
a) Comparative Analysis – The Engineering Division concurs with the statement made by the proponent relating to the shortening of the roadway network and the relotting of the subdivision. Therefore, Engineering has no opposition to this waiver request.
b) Major Features - The Engineering Division concurs with the statement made by the proponent relating to the shortening of the roadway network, the relotting of the subdivision, and the impacts little to no impacts on major features. Therefore, Engineering has no opposition to this waiver request.
c) Existing Profiles - Engineering has no opposition to this waiver request.
d) Hydraulic Calculations - Based on the subdivision modification being proposed, there is a net decrease in impervious area and therefore a positive impact to the existing drainage system. No further analysis is required for this portion of the project. Engineering has no opposition to this waiver request.
e) Locations of trees - Engineering has no opposition to this waiver request.
f) Streets Stationing - Engineering has no opposition to this waiver request.
g) Easements - Engineering has no opposition to this waiver request. The proponent has indicated a proposed 40-foot wide access easement from Lot 7 to Lot 6 on the plans.
h) Grading Plan - Engineering has no opposition to this waiver request based on the limited scope of the work within the proposed right of way.
i) Change in Grade (IV.B.4(b)) – Under IV.B.4(b), Major Street maximum slope of 5% does have applicability and the proponent has requested a waiver. Engineering would have no opposition to this waiver request noting the existing grade of the roadway is currently 6%.
j) With the new lotting of the subdivision, the proponent needed to ensure that access is made sufficient to serve the potential needs of said lot(s). The revised plans indicate a proposed 40-foot wide access easement from Lot 7 to Lot 6 on the plans.
4) The following two additional waivers are being requested by the proponent. Engineering has reviewed them with the proponent and the design constraints of both and we offer the following noting that both waivers, although independent, are connected from a design perspective for this subdivision modification:
a) Slope of Roadway at cul-de-sac, IV.B.5(c), which states: “the slope of the road shall not exceed 3% beyond a point 75’ before the radius point of the turnaround area.” As stated, Engineering has reviewed this design criteria with the proponent and concurs with the design as currently presented noting the following:
i) Without lowering the cul-de-sac elevation by approximately two (2) additional feet, the design criteria cannot be met without modifying the approach roadway slope from 6% to 7.8%. A steeper roadway approach to the cul-de-sac is not a preferable design slope.
ii) The current approach roadway slope (Boston Scientific Way) is at 6% at the major driveway connection from Sasseville Way. The submitted design is a design improvement to the existing conditions.
b) Section IV.B.4(d) of the Planning Board’s Rules and Regulations, Minimum Vertical Curve, states: “Vertical curves shall be a minimum of one hundred (100’) feet in horizontal length and provide for a minimum sight distance of two hundred feet (200’).” As stated, Engineering has reviewed this design criteria with the proponent and concurs with the design as currently presented (vertical curve 50’ in horizontal length) noting the following:
i) As previously stated, this design criteria and slope of roadway at cul-de-sac criteria for this site are connected together. To maintain a vertical curve 100’ in horizontal length in combination with the slope approaching the cul-de-sac would require grading modifications to the approach roadway to the cul-de-sac which results in a steeper slope approaching the cul-de-sac which is not a preferable design slope (i.e. 7.8% and approach roadway work of approximately an additional 150’ plus or minus).
ii) Vertical curves with a 50’ length have been approved in the past noting that 50’ lengths have been the minimum.
iii) According to the proponent’s engineer, the resulting vertical curve provides a minimum sight distance of 200 feet plus.
iv)
In addition to the findings above the following condition was requested to be added by the City Engineer:
The proponent has provided a plan with an all stop condition entering the cul-de-sac (three driveways and Boston Scientific Way). I ask the Planning Board to condition the “stop” condition on the easterly approach to the cul-de-sac (Boston Scientific Way) such that this stop condition may be eliminated if so determined by the City Engineer. The concern is the approach slope and potential winter conditions.
The formal final plans also must have a note added stating:
“Board of Health Approval by failure to report”
On a motion made by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hodge, it was duly voted to accept the findings and place them on file. Motion carried.
Ms. Hughes read the requested listing of waivers into the record.
On a motion made by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. McCarthy, it was duly voted to approve the requested waivers numbering 1-14. Motion carried.
Ms. Hughes read the requested listing of conditions attached to the security covenant into record.
After much discussion, on a motion made by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. McCarthy, it was duly voted to amend the subdivision security covenant by adding the following conditions with Chairperson Fenby and Mr. Fay volunteering to work with the City Solicitor to put into proper legal form.
• Approval of the Traffic Commission regarding the stop condition
• Addition of the rail trail remote flashing beacon
• The consultation of the Conservation Officer in the improvement of the view shed pertaining to the project.
On a motion made by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted to endorse the plan as amended. Motion carried.
On a motion made by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted to accept the waivers on the amended plans. Motion carried.
On a motion made by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Coveney, it was duly voted to approve the certificate of vote as amended with the modifications as created by Chairperson Fenby and Mr. Fay and approved by the City Solicitor. Motion carried
10. Informal Discussions: None
11. Correspondence: None
12. Public Notices of other Cities and Towns:
A. Town of Sudbury Zoning Board of Appeals, Notice of Decision March 18, 2013
B. Town of Berlin Zoning Board of Appeals, Public Hearing April 10, 2013
C. Town of Berlin Planning Board, Public Hearing May 6, 2013
D. Town of Hudson Zoning Board of Appeals, Notice of Decision March 14, 2013
E. Town of Framingham Planning Board, Public Hearing April 18, 2013
F. City of Marlborough Zoning Board of Appeals, Public Hearing April 9, 2013
On a motion made by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hodge it was voted to accept the notices A-F and place on file. Motion carried.
Adjournment: On a motion made by Mr. McCarthy seconded by Mr. Hodge it was voted to adjourn at 8:43pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Colleen Hughes
/mai
| 
