City of Marlborough, MA - Committee Reports

CITY COUNCIL STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS

Marlboro City Council Finance Committee

Monday March 20, 2006

In Council Chambers

Present: Chairman Ossing; Finance Committee members Councilors Ferro, Levy and Juaire. Councilors Vigeant and Clancy were also in attendance. The meeting convened at 6:31 PM.

The Finance Committee (FINCOM) met and discussed the following orders:

1. 06-100-1091 – Transfer $7,504.00 to fully fund the City Solicitor salary for FY06 – The FINCOM discussed the transfer of $7,504.00 from Legal Services to fully fund the City Solicitor salary for FY06. The FINCOM voted 3 – 0 (Ossing/Ferro/Levy) to approve.

2. 06-100-1071 – Salary Ordinance for the Parking Enforcement Officer position. The FINCOM voted 4-0 to approve the salary ordinance for the parking enforcement officer at a rate of $10/hour and not to exceed 19 hours per week. The FINCOM voted 4 – 0 to support the suspension of the rules at the March 27, 2006 City Council meeting to report this item to the full City Council.

3. 06-100-1042 – Revolving Fund for the Collection of Parking Receipts – The FINCOM voted 3-1 (Ferro) to deny the establishment of a revolving fund for the collection of parking receipts. The FINCOM acknowledged that the FY07 budget may request funding for $25,000 ($20,000 for 2 part time parking enforcement officers, $3000 for the Parking Clerk and $2000 for tickets and uniforms).

4. 06-100-1109 – Intra-department DPW Transfers of $73,666.14 – The FINCOM voted 4 – 0 to approve the DPW intra-department transfers identified in the Mayor’s March 6, 2006 letter totaling $73,666.14.

5. 06-100-1066 – Intra-department Legal transfer of $250.00 – The FINCOM voted 4 – 0 to approve the Legal intra-department transfer identified in the Mayor’s letter dated February 8, 2006 totaling $250.00.

6. 06-100-1065 – Transfer $76,664 from Fringe Benefits to DPW Water Department Salary account – The FINCOM voted 4 – 0 to approve the transfer of $76,664.00 identified in the Mayor’s letter dated February 8, 2006 from Fringe Benefits to the DPW Water Salary account.

The FINCOM adjourned at 7:25 PM.

URBAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Tuesday, March 7, 2006

In Council Chambers – 7:00 PM

Report - Mauro Farm Rezoning

Meeting Convened: 7:04 PM

Members Present: Chairman Pope; Councilors Schafer, Towle and Katz

Members Absent: Councilor Clancy

Also Present: Councilors Juaire, Ferro, Vigeant, Levy; Attorney Pezzoni for Capital Group Properties; Attorney Bergeron for Community Development Corp.

1) 1-9-06 – ORDER #06-100-1000A: PUBLIC HEARING: Petition of Atty. Pezzoni for Capital Group Properties, LLC to amend City Code, Chapter 200-Zoning, Section 08 – Boundaries Established; Zoning Map as follows:

That the land located off Cook Lane, Assessors Map 71, Parcel 36 presently zoned Business be rezoned to Residence A3.

Chairman Pope read letters in opposition to the rezoning request.

· Questions from City Councilor Clancy:

Unfortunately I am unable to attend the meeting of the Urban Affairs Comm on March 7, 2006. There are some questions that I feel must be addressed, concerning the rezoning of a portion of a parcel known as "Mauro Farm".

1. In the conceptual plan, showing the~70,000 sq. ft. office building, it shows two parcels of land that are included in the plan. One at the end of the driveway~across from Kane Dr. and the one next to it, owned by Patrick Mauro.~~Are these parcels included in the rezoning and are they representing the owners of these two properties? If they are, do they have written proof? In a discussion with Pat Mauro, although he is unopposed to the zoning change,~he was unaware of the rezoning and was never notified of the intended change. Do they have proof of notification of the abutters to this proposal?

2. In the conceptual plan showing the office building, the roadway is shown over the city owned drain and sewer easement. Would they be seeking and abandonment of this easement, if they were to construct a road?

3. The conceptual plan also shows homes with 180' and 200' frontages on the ANR lots and also the subdivision lots. Would they be changing these to the 100' frontage if the zoning change is allowed and a new subdivision plan is created?

4. One of the major issues that has to be considered in any development to this property is the wetlands present on or adjacent to this property and the 200' restriction created by the perennial stream covered under the "Rivers Bill".

Hopefully these questions can be answered and we can move on to a decision regarding the zoning change.

Councilor Edward Clancy

· Responses from Attorney Pezzoni to Councilor Clancy’s inquiries:

In response to Councilor Clancy's email I would submit the following:

~(I) the conceptual plan was just that and a further progress print has been delivered this date to the City Council offices which I believe addresses several of the concerns raised and I'm sure may raise others based upon the possible Round Top Road access, which appears to have been contemplated by a previous Planning board.

(ii)The parcels owned by Pat Mauro were included in the request because we believed all the Mauro's were apprised of the request and the P&S and they supported the request.. If this is not the case we will either request the parcels not be included or obtain written authorization from him regarding same.

(iii)The new plan does not impact the sewer easement.and

(iv)Appropriate frontage and other relevant zoning and planning issues will be addressed at the time of a definitive submittal. This includes any wetlands or River Front issues, although we believe there is little, if any impact which would fall into either act.

~~~ I hope this information and the newly submitted concept/progress plan are helpful.

· Questions from City Councilor Levy:

~-----Original Message-----

From: City Council [mailto:citycouncil@marlborough-ma.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 12:13 PM

To: James Agoritsas; Stephen Reid

Subject: From Councilor Levy: Request for information from City Solicitor and Building Inspector (Mauro Farm)

There are two issues I am hoping you can help me with regarding the zoning change request for the Mauro Farm property.

1)~ It has been suggested that building a road through the residential-zoned portion of the property to access the business-zoned parcel is not allowed by law.~ Mr. Pezzoni says he has case law to say it is and I have another party with case law that says it is not.~ Do you have any information/opinion on this?

2)~ What section of code/statute is it that gave the city right of first refusal on the purchase of this land?~ If this right is tied to the requirement of purchasing it at fair market value and~fair market value is deemed to change after the city passes on the purchase but before the sale is completed, is there anything that would allow the city to have the opportunity to purchase the land again at the new FMV?~ In other words, if Capital Group Properties and the Mauros renegotiate the purchase at $1.7M after the city declined to purchase it at $2M, couldn't it be argued that $2M was never a FMV and the city should get another opportunity to purchase it at the now lower price?

Your assistance would be greatly appreciated on both of these matters.

· Response from former Solicitor Agoritsas:

From: James Agoritsas

Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 12:26 PM

To: City Council

CC: Stephen Reid

Subject: Re: From Councilor Levy: Request for information from City Solicitor and Building Inspector

Dear Councilor Levy:

These are my opinions~concerning your two inquires:

1. If the developer were to build an approved subdivision and that subdivision contained an approved subdivision road, then the parcels which front on that approved road could be developed according to how the parcel is zoned consistent with the existing dimensional requirements.~I have always been concerned about the Mauro property because of this. I believe it would be in the best interests of everyone concerned to approve the request to rezone from B to residential.

2. The City has lost its right to purchase the Mauro property. Their option was to match the bona fide offer. As they refused to exercise its option under 61A, the Mauros are free to do what they wish, including to enter into a new agreement for a lesser price.

I hope that this answers your questions.

· Response from Building Inspector Reid:

From: Stephen Reid

Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 1:26 PM

To: City Council

Subject: RE: From Councilor Levy: Request for information from City Solicitor and Building Inspector (Mauro Farm)

Solicitor Agoritsas responded before I had the opportunity.~~ Despite the case law that you presented to me last night, I agree with Jim’s conclusion.~ The key is the development of and approved roadway rather that “access” across land to another zone.

· Letter in support of zoning amendment:

1) Letter in support of the zoning amendment (postmarked 3/6/06) from Ann Marie Mauro Ebert and Alfred Ebert, David C. Mauro, Maryann Mauro, Patricia Mauro Murphy, Paul Murphy – cc: councilors

2) Letter in support of the zoning amendment, dated March 3, 2006, in favor of the rezoning of the Mauro Farm from Paul Gale of 82 Cook Lane, Nancy Brooks of 97 Cook Lane, Pat Finn of 131 Cook Lane, Melissa Hicks of 167 Cook Lane, Frances Blackney of 14 Sherwood Drive north and R.J. Blackney of 14 Sherwood Drive north – cc: councilors

Action taken: Motion made by Councilor Katz, seconded by Councilor Towle, to DENY the zoning change. VOTE: 3-1

TO DENY (Katz, Towle, Schafer)

Reported by: Chairman Pope