A public hearing for a short-term rental at 79 Ridge Road in Marlboro kicked off the new year for Marlborough’s Planning Board. This first meeting of the year took place Tuesday night, January 2.

The board also reviewed a new application for a lot-line revision, continued its discussion of the proposed Some Place Upstate resort complex on Mount Rose Road and discussed its recommendations for three proposed amendments to the town code.

The short-term rental application came from Sean Slutsky and Jacklyn Bowdren, who live in the neighboring house at 73 Ridge Road. Several members of the Planning Board as well as Patrick Hines, the town’s consulting engineer, noted that several key elements of the application are still required. Accordingly, the board voted to keep the public hearing open through January 16 when it meets next.

Hines, who could not attend the meeting, noted in communications with the board that the application still lacked a proper site map, as was noted when the application was brought before the board at the December 4, 2023, meeting.

“Typically, you require some additional or more detailed mapping for this kind of use,” Hines said during that earlier meeting.

Board member James Garofalo noted that even though the 79 Ridge Road property includes a driveway leading to a two-car garage, the site plan needs to denote the parking area’s size. He reiterated the need for a better map than the 8 -by-11-inch sheet that was provided with the application.

“It should show the location of sewer/septic provisions and the existing distances and proposed distances [from the house],” said Garofalo. “Even though they [before and after] are identical, they should be noted. Getting a full-size map will also be helpful.”

The lot-line revision request came from Peter and Frances Fremgen, who live on Clarks Lane in Milton. In their application, the Fremgens note that they wish to clear up an error in the lot line recorded in a previous subdivision application that took place in 1979. That lot line now passes through a garage also built in 1979.

“To keep it conforming, the lot line has to be removed,” the Fremgens wrote in the application.

Board members noted that the application required certain items to be listed. These included the existing and proposed sizes for both lots, as well as the location of any easements. The application then must be brought before the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) prior to any further decision by the Planning Board.

On the Some Place Upstate/Mount Rose Road application, surveyor Patricia Brooks noted that the owner of the property has agreed to consolidate two of the parcel’s four lots to better meet the acreage required to operate resort facilities. Those two lots both now exceed 10 acres.

The third lot totals 3.45 acres and will be the subject of a variance application to the ZBA, which will also determine the merits of zoning variances for a variety of structures on the two larger lots. The latter currently do not meet setback requirements.

The 3.45-acre lot is currently slated for use as a parking area. “I would like to keep the parking where it is designated because it would be isolated from neighbors, but it can be moved,” said Brooks.

Among other business, the Planning Board changed language in a proposed law on where cannabis businesses can be established in town. The revised language takes out a reference to “government buildings” and substitutes “any facility where children commonly congregate.” Regarding proposed changes to the town’s ridgeline regulations, the Planning Board reiterated the need to preserve such a restriction to comply with the town’s long-range plan.

As a compromise, the Planning Board has proposed changing the height requirement from 50 feet to 40 feet. “That way, any structure likely to be built will be below the ridgeline,” noted board member Cindy Lanzetta. “It’s not that you can’t develop property [on the ridgeline] – it’s that you have to do it in very careful way.”

The Planning Board also eyed the changes proposed to the time limits on development projects. Under the proposed changes to the rules, extensions could be granted at longer intervals of a project; the Planning Board suggested putting a seven-year cap on the total time from the start of a development project to its completion.