Town of Carlisle, MA - Minutes of 1/22/2007 PB meeting

Review of application to Zoning Board of Appeals for Comprehensive Permit under MGL Chap. 40B for 41 condominium units/12 affordable of attached housing to be known as “Coventry Woods,” on Concord Street, northeasterly of 515 Concord Street (Map 8, Parcel 10 – 22.8 acres), (Application of Coventry Woods LLC and MCO & Associates, Inc., referred by Board of Appeals)

Joint Public Hearing with Carlisle Tree Warden of request to move five (5) trees and approximately 31 feet of stone wall within the right of way of Cross Street adjacent to Map 7, Parcel 21-4, to create a driveway entrance to a proposed single-family dwelling, under the provisions of the Scenic Roads Bylaw (Art. XII & MGL Ch. 40, S. 15C) and the Public Shade Tree act (MGL Ch. 87, s.3) [Request of William Costello]

Chair David Freedman called the meeting to order at 7:32 pm in the Clark Room at Town Hall. Board members Michael Epstein, Kent Gonzales, Tom Lane, Brian Larson, and Planning Administrator George Mansfield were present. Greg Peterson was absent. Peter Stuart arrived at 7:40 pm.

Mansfield reported that Larson has developed a model showing the impact of fee changes on the overall PB budget, and suggested discussing updating the fee schedule. Freedman suggested that he, Mansfield and Larson meet at another time to discuss metrics for setting the fees. He added that the staff time spent by Mansfield and his

assistant should be considered in setting fees for the various applications to the PB, and asked Mansfield to estimate staff time required for processing of each type of special permit application. Mansfield reported that fee data had been collected for various cities and towns about three years back. Epstein suggested targeting a few towns to ascertain whether the data needs updating, and perhaps instituting an administrative fee for information requests that occasionally require significant staff time but are not related to a particular application. The PB agreed to discuss proposed fees at their next meeting on Monday, February 12, 2007.

Freedman opened this continued public hearing by reading the published notice, and reported that he and Stuart had viewed the trees slated to be removed. While Freedman mentioned that the Mosquito had mistakenly listed the tree hearing as beginning at 9:45 pm, Epstein confirmed from Dimakarakos that the abutters had been notified of the original time.

Dimakarakos reported that the lot on which the alterations will be made has a 40-foot frontage strip on Cross Street, and therefore the proposed location of the driveway is confined to within this area. The driveway is proposed for the westerly side of Cross Street between Bingham Road and South Street, and its construction will necessitate the removal of a 13-inch oak, a quad of 12-inch oaks, and approximately 31-feet of stone wall. The alteration is located approximately 53-feet south of utility pole 3 33, and opposite an open space parcel that is with the Greystone Crossing Conservation Cluster.

Dimakarakos confirmed that the proposed driveway location is very close to that proposed for the adjacent lot. Epstein suggested the use of a common driveway for these lots. Dimakarakos confirmed that this had been considered, but the applicant was concerned about opening himself up to additional requirements under the Common Driveway Special Permit. Freedman said that the matter of cisterns could presumably be sorted out in a joint meeting between Dimakarakos, the Fire Chief and a PB representative. A common drive would result in less overall paved area (as compared to two separate drives) thereby reducing runoff. Dimakarakos confirmed to the PB that if a common drive is used, the best location would be following the existing cart path. Mansfield said that the Conservation Administrator had pointed out that a driveway in that location would be a long-term maintenance issue due to wetlands proximity, and therefore suggested that a common drive might be preferable at the current proposed location, as the cart path is closer to wetlands.

Freedman expressed that further discussion is required before the PB can close their hearing on this issue, as agreeing to tree removal and closing the hearing would end the discussion of a common driveway. Dimakarakos confirmed that the applicant would be willing to meet and discuss this issue.

Freedman ascertained that the Tree Warden agreed to the removal of the designated trees. Therefore this portion of the hearing under the Public Shade Tree Act was closed. Since, when polled, the entire PB indicated preference for a common drive to be used for these two lots, the PB’s portion of this hearing was continued. Stuart moved to continue this Scenic Road Hearing on behalf of the PB to 7:45 pm on Monday, February 26^th. Gonzales seconded and the motion carried 6-0.

Kelley-Jaye Rosberg and Justin Sellars, co-coordinators from the Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination (MAGIC), were in attendance to meet the PB and to solicit input on ways to enhance MAGIC and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council’s (MAPC) representation of their more rural community constituents.

Rosberg and Sellars reviewed the monthly meetings offered by MAGIC, highlighting the last meeting in which a presentation was made on a new data system called DataCommon, an online planning tool that combines MAPC and GIS data, and is slated for formal release in February. They will email the data link to the PB office. Rosberg also reported that the next flyover for data collection will be this spring, the last one having been from April to November of 2003.

Freedman and other PB members pointed out to the MAGIC representatives that Carlisle’s issues are quite different from those of larger cities. For example, the Town has no public transportation, no commercial tax base of significance, and no large Town center, unlike many other MAGIC communities. Epstein suggested quarterly meetings might cover topics of greater concern to the more rural communites that are members of the organization, as they will have more issues in common.

Mansfield informed the PB that a special PB meeting may be necessary if any new draft proposed settlement documents are received which require PB review. This is because the judge has required that an agreed-on settlement be submitted no later than February 14, which is just two days after the next PB meeting. Otherwise a new trial date will be set. Epstein asked Mansfield to inform Town Counsel that the PB will require some time to coordinate schedules for such a meeting should it be necessary.

Mansfield reported that he had forwarded a memo to the Town Administrator requesting information on the potential acceptance of MGL Section 23D. He added that there was a brief discussion of this at the recent Department Heads meeting, but otherwise no formal response to date. Mansfield will forward the Town Administrator’s response to the PB upon receipt.

Freedman reported that an updated draft of the proposed Rules and Regulations has been agreed upon by the PB, and that Mansfield and Caywood will compile the new version of the R & R. Freedman suggested that the final compilation be submitted to Town Counsel with a request for their comment before the next PB meeting. Larson reported that Maxson will provide a general statement in the RFP strategy regarding adaptation of the R & R to future technology, and added that he is working to get revision of the R & R on the BOS agenda as soon as possible. Larson has a copy of an updated presentation on the RFP strategy that he will forward to the PB. He added that there have been two main changes to the RFP draft. One is that the right-of-way license will not be put into a new bylaw. The other is the pieces of property that might be considered as sites for wireless equipment. Larson will inform the PB when this item is placed on a BOS agenda.

Mansfield reported on an updated policy on use and monitoring of the computer, email and internet facilities at Town Hall, which was voted on by the BOS at their last meeting. While it applies to employees as well as elected and appointed Board members, only employees are required to sign a statement agreeing to the policy. A main incentive for the policies is that the laws have changed to make all business e-mail, public or private, discoverable.

Freedman expressed concern that the policies had not been reviewed by Town Counsel nor coordinated with existing Personnel Policy on technology use. The Board expressed concerns about some of the provisions in the new policy. They concurred that Freedman attend the BOS meeting to express these concerns and suggest that Counsel review the policy, with further review by the BOS before asking employees to sign. Freedman will also request an extension of the signing date (currently February 2, 2007) to accommodate such reviews.

Freedman moved that the PB give the option to Mansfield and Caywood (the employees) not to sign the computer, e-mail and internet use policy, with the full support of the PB, and that the PB ask the BOS to extend the signing date beyond February 2, 2007 to allow for proper review of the document as well as input on the final draft from all Board members. Stuart seconded the motion and it carried 6-0.

Freedman reported that at the January 16^th BOH meeting, there was considerable discussion about septic system C and about water, wells and irrigation. He added that the ZBA has not yet reviewed all of the PB issues with this project expressed in a recent memo to them. While the ZBA Chair has expressed interest in closing the hearing at their meeting on January 29^th, there remains much to be settled about this project. Freedman said that in the opinion of the BOH and their engineer, septic system C will not work properly. The BOH also indicated that their Board has more power within the hearing to deal with these issues than under Title V alone.

Freedman added that the ZBA’s project review account for Coventry has been out of funds for over a month and unless the applicant deposits the required $20,000 to the account, the hearing may be continued without taking additional testimony. Freedman also pointed out that according to state law, the applicant can go to the Housing

Appeals Committee (HAC), set up by Chapter 40B, at any point and claim undue delay. Other aggrieved parties, such as the abutters, must go through Superior Court, the decisions of which can be overruled by the HAC. Mansfield added that after the Carlisle Woods 40B was dismissed by the ZBA for lack of information, the HAC ruled that the ZBA had three months to approve it.

Regarding issues with septic system C, Freedman pointed out that while the applicant has reviewed an alternative system that would be applicable to systems A and B (the Presby system), this alternative would not be applicable to system C, and therefore no viable alternatives have been investigated for this system. In light of this, Freedman reported that abutters Epstein and Stone have hired a hydroengineer to study system C. The engineer’s study demonstrated that the BOH concerns about system C are well-founded, and that direct flow from septic system C into the Epstein/Stone well is quite possible. Freedman added that these and other issues are why the draft conditions forwarded by Hill (attorney for the ZBA) and suggested revisions by the PB are necessarily detailed in an attempt to cover many bases in case the hearing closes.

Speaking as an abutter, Epstein (Spencer Brook Road) urged the PB to review a memo that he had written to the ZBA, and copied to the PB earlier today. In the memo, he detailed the hearing and review process to-date on this proposed 40B. He also referred to a January 16^,2007 letter from his engineer, Scott Horsley (Horsley Witten Group) and one from Sullivan and Worcester, attorneys for another abutter (Salemy), urging the PB to review both.

As an abutter, Epstein expressed that this applicant is a sophisticated developer and has clearly been approaching this project in his own interest from the outset. His dissemination of information has often been piecemeal, delayed and incomplete. Not until a ZBA hearing on May 6, 2006 did the applicant submit the 41-unit version of the plan, and he asked for the hearing to be closed that night, not having submitted any engineering data or allowing for any ZBA peer review. Epstein added that his engineer, after assessing the septic plans, stated that he had never seen anything like this design. Horsley expressed his concerns in writing to the ZBA and they were not addressed. On the other hand, the BOH took the opportunity to listen to Horsley’s concerns, and they voted unanimously to recommend not to close the hearing. There are other issues beyond septic system C. Epstein expressed that in his opinion as an abutter, the PB and the BOH have pressed for additional information all along this hearing process. To this Freedman added that if this 40B is built as currently proposed, it appears that either the abutters or the Town, or both will have to deal with the problems.

Alex Parker (Russell St) asked the Chair if the BOS has any authority over the ZBA, to which Freedman replied that he believes it does not, except as the appointing board. Parker also reiterated the importance of requiring water testing pre-permit, since the Town is in a much weaker position to insist on this testing if the hearing is already closed. Epstein added that water testing results help determine how many units the property can support.

The PB then reviewed the draft Decision and Conditions presented by Dan Hill (ZBA attorney) concerning Coventry Woods. Upon review, the PB endorsed Freedman’s previously submitted written comments and suggested changes, and proposed some additional changes. After discussion, the PB endorsed all proposed changes to the draft Decision and Conditions for the Coventry Woods Comprehensive Permit, and also endorsed a cover letter to be finalized by Freedman and Mansfield formally requesting that the ZBA not close the public hearing, and also highlighting several of the major concerns about the draft Decision and Conditions.

The cover letter will also discuss the PB’s strong recommendation that a working advisory group be established to meet offline and help address the open issues and important technical points, an approach anticipated by Mass Housing. This approach had previously been suggested by the PB for this project.

Gonzales moved that the PB approve the cover letter, the contents of which has been outlined above, and the reviewed comments on the draft Decision and Conditions for the Coventry Woods Comprehensive Permit, both to be submitted to Dan Hill, with copies to the ZBA, BOS and BOH. Stuart seconded, and the motion carried 5-0-1, with Epstein abstaining.