MARLBOROUGH PLANNING BOARD
MARLBOROUGH, MA 01752
Call to Order                                                         				November 4, 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 Sean Fay, Colleen Hughes, Barbara Fenby & Philip Hodge.
Also in attendance were Board Secretary Melissa Irish and Assistant City Engineer Timothy Collins.
Edward Coveney, Shawn McCarthy and Clyde Johnson were absent.

1. Meeting Minutes:
	A. Regular Meeting October 21, 2013
On a motion made by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Fay it was voted to approve the minutes of the October 21, 2013 meeting. Motion carried, with Mr. Hodge abstaining
	
2. Chair’s Business: 
	A. Notice from the City Council Proposed Zoning Amendment 
(Medical & Dental Clinics)
Councilor Joseph Delano Ward 1 presented an overview of the proposed changes to the Board.
On a motion made by Mr. Fay, seconded by Ms. Hughes it was voted to accept the information and place it on file as well as set a Public Hearing for December 2, 2013. Motion carried.

Chairperson Fenby announced to the Board that she will be sitting on a special committee formed by the City Council to study and or regulate LED Signs within the City. There is currently a moratorium in place regarding this type of signage. Chairperson Fenby will report out to the Board as it is warranted.

3. Approval Not Required: 
A. Slocumb Realty, Decision
Ms. Hughes read the City Engineers findings into the record.

On a motion made by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. Hodge it was duly voted to accept and endorse the plan of land believed to be Approval Not Required Subdivision of Lots 47, 48, 49 Shown on Land Court Plan 2370F Slocumb Lane. Owned by: Slocumb Realty LLC, 120 Quarry Dr, 2nd floor, Milford MA 01757.Engineer of record: Guerriere & Hanlon, Inc.333 West Street, Milford, MA 01757 Date of Submission October 17, 2013. Motion carried

4. Public Hearings: None	

5. Pending Sub Division Plans: Updates and Discussion:
A.  Engineers Report
Mr. Collins supplied to each member a current copy of the Subdivision Status Report. That and the associated discussion comprised the Engineers report.  Mr. Collins and the Board Secretary will work together to come up with a working list of developers to have in front of the Board. There are several subdivisions that are languishing in the final stages.
	B. Jenks Rd Subdivision Revisions (November 30, 2013)
Ms. Hughes read into the record the recommendation from the DPW Engineering Division. Ms. Hughes also read in to the record a communication between the developers engineer and the DPW Engineering Division.
On a motion made by Mr. Fay, seconded by Mr. Hodge both communications were accepted and placed on file. Motion carried.

Mr. Fay read the following communication into the record: 
“The Board's decision to approve a subdivision is not just an analysis of engineering plans. Our rules state that after the public hearing, the board in due course will approve, modify and approve, or disapprove the definitive subdivision plan submitted. Criteria for action by the Board shall be the following: Determination (meaning a finding) that development at this location does not entail unwarranted hazard to safety, health and convenience of future residents of the development or of others because of possible natural disasters, traffic hazard, or other environmental degradation. In short, we are supposed to analyze not only technical compliance, but other factors are well. In my opinion, there are significant additional factors that the board should consider with this plan, including the access to the development.

There are two instances when we get waiver requests that are very different. The first is when we have an application before us where the developer has the ability to develop a parcel as a matter of right. We consider the waiver requests most often on the basis of lessening the impact of a particular subdivision on the surrounding neighbors. 

The second instance when we consider waiver requests is when the waiver itself will provide the basis for the developer's ability to develop a particular parcel. That is the case here. In this instance, our focus is not only on lessening the impact of a particular development, but whether there are other factors that should be considered in whether or not a parcel should be developed. Design requirements are important, sight distances are important, but not definitive. It is not the number of vehicles alone that would be generated by the subdivision, but the location as well. 

In my own experience, I drive on Sudbury Street 8-10 times each week. When I come up to this section of the road in my truck, I have to anticipate traffic coming in the other direction, especially other large vehicles, so I can pull to the right in an area where there are no trees present. This is especially problematic at night, in bad weather, and when there are bicyclists in the area, not to mention when there are snow banks following winter weather events. Common sense tells me that adding additional vehicles entering at this spot, however many, will exacerbate existing safety concerns. This may change once the reconfiguration of Sudbury Street is complete.  

Given that the subject parcel cannot be developed as a matter of right, the Board has the discretion to determine whether this particular proposal is in the best interests of the public, the best interests of the City, and the best interests of the neighborhood.

Given the current configuration of Sudbury Street, the insufficient width of that roadway, the trees directly adjacent to the roadway, the condition of the roadway during snow events- in general, in my opinion, the overriding safety issues with adding new access to Sudbury Street in its current configuration, I believe that the current proposal is not in the best interests of the public, City, and neighborhood and I will voting against the current proposal. I will defer to any motion to approve but I am prepared to make a motion that the Board deny the application with prejudice.”

On a motion made by Mr. Fay to deny subdivision approval, seconded by Ms. Hughes it was duly voted by a roll call vote to DENY the Jenks Rd Subdivision. (Clarification a vote in the positive is a vote to Deny)
Roll call votes as follows:
Mr. Fay 		Yes
Ms. Hughes		Yes
Chairperson Fenby	Yes
Mr. Hodge		Yes
The motion to deny subdivision approval carried.  
It was noted by each member that after the reconstruction of Sudbury Street the Board would be willing to re consider the subdivision in the future.

	C. Mauro Farms (Street Lighting)
Mr. Fay noted his conflict for the record, as well as he has been directed to vote on matters as they arise.
Ms. Hughes read the communication from the City Engineering Department to National Grid into the record.
On a motion made by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hodge it was duly voted to accept the communication and place it on file. Motion carried.

6. Preliminary/Open Space Submissions/Limited Development Subdivisions: None
7. Definitive Subdivision Submission: None
	
8. Signs: 
	A. First Church Congregational, 37 High Street 
Mr. George Pellerin presented the revised request to the Board. The revised request raises the existing freestanding sign by 24” allowing for placement of a 24” X 48” additional sign below the existing sign. That configuration was met with favor from the Board however; the congregation has not rectified the outstanding issue regarding the illegally installed “Banner” style sign currently on the property. Mr. Pellerin was advised to bring the existing signage into compliance prior to the next meeting and to reappear at the next regularly scheduled meeting to discuss. Mr. Pellerin was reminded of what he was told when he first appeared before the Board, that it was the standing policy of policy of the Bard not to approve any variance request when the applicants’ property is not in compliance with existing sign rules.

B. Marlborough Historical Society (Festival of Trees)
Ms. Hughes read the variance request into the record.
Ms. Janet Licht President of the Historical Society presented the request to the Board.
Since the request included multiple locations with differing sizes of signage the request was taken in three separate and distinct stages.

The largest requested signs comprised of 3’ X 4’ two sided sandwich board style signs.
The sign locations for this style sign are:
133 West Main Street – St. Mary’s Credit Union Location 
1 Northboro Rd – St. Mary’s Credit Union Location

On a motion made by Mr. Fay seconded by Mr. Hodge it was duly voted to allow the placement of the 2 requested signs for the duration of November 29, 2013- December 16, 2013. 
The Board requested that these signs be securely anchored to the ground to keep them from blowing into the street.

On a motion made by Mr. Fay, seconded by Ms. Hughes it was duly voted to allow for an additional 3” X 4’ two sided sandwich board style sign to be placed at 377 Elm St for the same duration. Motion carried.

The next requested signs comprised of 3’ X 2’ two sided lawn style signs.
The sign locations for this style sign are:
57 West Main Street:		Approved
133 South Bolton Street:	Approved
Corner of Maple & Mill	Approved as long as proper Owner approval is also granted
Corner of Bolton & Union	Approved as long as proper Owner approval is also granted
655 Farm Rd			Denied – Location is currently out of compliance 
377 Elm St 	Signage modified approval already in place by Board action see above.

On a motion made by Mr. Fay seconded by Ms. Hughes it was duly voted to allow the placement of the 4 requested signs for the duration of November 29, 2013- December 16, 2013.  The applicant was specifically instructed not to place a sign on the Trombetta property.

The final requested signs comprised of 18” X 24” two sided lawn signs:
There were 21 multiple locations requested.  

On a motion made by Mr. Fay seconded by Ms. Hughes it was duly voted to allow for the placement of 15 18” X 24” two sided lawns signs the locations to be chosen by the Historical Society and a list of locations is to be provided to the Board Secretary once completed. Duration of this approval is 2 weeks only – 14 days. Motion carried. The applicant was reminded not to place any such signs near crosswalks, bus stops or busy intersections to avoid dangers to pedestrians from distracted drivers.

Requirement of the Board is that the City Seal be affixed to each individually approved sign with the text “Variance approved by the Planning Board 2013” attached.
9. Unfinished Business: 
	A. Berlin Farms
Mr. Freeman did not appear in front of the Board as he had alluded he would. Mr. Collins updated the Board with information pertaining to the work Mr. Freeman has completed; however the work is not up to the standard that is acceptable. The slope needs to be re-graded and the loam needs to be raked and sifted to remove the large shards of glass that are currently present. The Board requests that Mr. Freeman appear at the next regularly scheduled meeting. (November 18, 2013) 

It was noted to keep this item for reporting purposes on the next Planning Board agenda as well.

	B. Blackhorse Farms Estates
Ms. Hughes noted that she had visited the site earlier in the day there are still large holes on the site, these have the appearance of trenches however they do not meet the full definition of the term. However it is still an exposed excavation and is a hazard to the surrounding homes.
It is the request of the Board the Mr. Fafard or Attorney Beattie appears at the next regularly scheduled meeting to discuss the current situation as well as the impending expiration date of the subdivision. The Board had mentioned this previously to Attorney Beattie and is waiting on the proper extension request paperwork. It is required that a current construction schedule accompany the extension request.

It was noted to keep this item for reporting purposes on the next Planning Board agenda as well.

10. Informal Discussions: 
Ms. Hughes brought forward her concerns which are echoed by Mr. Fay regarding the proliferation of “Collection style bins” within the City. These bins are typically emblazoned with logos and equate to visual clutter.  Ms. Hughes made reference to the MetroWest Daily News article from November 4, 2013, “Donation bins are sometimes a headache for MetroWest Officials.” 

On a motion made by Ms. Hughes seconded by Mr. Hodge it was duly voted to send a letter to the Building Commissioner asking for his insight on the regulation of the advertising which is all over the collection bins as off premises signs. Motion carried.  The Bard noted that although there may be no method of fining the owners for placing the bins on private property, the signage on these bins is in clear violation of the sign ordinance.

On a motion made by Ms. Hughes seconded by Mr. Hodge it was duly voted to send a letter to the City Council requesting the Council take action on this issue with the attachment of the MetroWest Article. Motion carried.

Mr. Fay brought forward information that has come to his attention; The Westender Restaurant has placed 2 permanent signs without proper permits affixed to a fence in advertisement of the new patio and entertainment. The issue other than the lack of permits is that signs are not allowed to be affixed to fences. It is the request of the Board that this issue be brought to the attention of the Code Enforcement Officer to be dealt with as soon as is practical.

Mr. Fay also brought forward the excessive signage for the restaurant located within the Country Club at 200 Concord Rd. It is requested that the Code Enforcement Officer and the Building Commissioner be made aware of the excessive signage if they are not already.
	
11. Correspondence: 
	A. MAPC 50 Years Fall Council Meeting
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 Hudson Zoning Board of Appeals, Public Hearing November 14, 2013.
	B. Town of Hudson Zoning Board of Appeals, Public Hearing November 14, 2013.
On a motion made by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Mr. Hodge it was voted to accept the notices A-B and place on file. Motion carried.

Adjournment:  On a motion made by Mr. Hodge, seconded by Mr. Fay it was voted to adjourn at 8:13pm.
							Respectfully submitted,

							Colleen Hughes
						
/mai