Town of Carlisle, MA - Minutes of 2/26/2007 PB meeting

Continued Public Hearing of request to remove 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]

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)

Chair David Freedman called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm in the Clark Room at Town Hall. Board members Michael Epstein, Kent Gonzales, Tom Lane, Brian Larson, Peter Stuart and Planning Administrator George Mansfield were present. Greg Peterson arrived at 7:50 pm.

Gretchen Caywood, assistant to the Planning Administrator, Martha Howe (Lowell, MA), Peter Howe (Fay, Spofford & Thorndike), Kevin Gagne (Fay, Spofford & Thorndike), Bill Cucciero (David Ross Associates, Inc.), George Dimakarakos (Stamski & McNary), Robert West (Concord Street), Justin Romeo (Virginia Farme Lane), Rita Maistrellis (Virginia Farme Lane), Tom & D’Ann Brownrigg (Acton Street), Sylvia Willard (Conservation Administrator), Linda Fantasia (Cross Street, BOH Agent), Barbara Ludwig (Westford Street), Sean Fitzpatrick (Virginia Farme), Marc Lamere (Rutland Street, Trails Comm), Alan Carpenito (BOS & South Street) and Bob Zielinski (Carlisle Mosquito) were also in attendance.

The PB discussed the draft minutes of February 12, 2007, and two corrections to attendees’ affiliations were suggested. Epstein then moved to approve the minutes as revised. Larson seconded and the motion carried 6-0. The PB then reviewed the Executive Session minutes from that meeting, and a few edits were suggested. Larson then moved to approve the Executive Session minutes as revised, Epstein seconded, and the motion carried 6-0.

Mansfield reported that Cindy Nock has forwarded a proposal for a plan for personal time off (PTO) for part-time staff which, for the Planning Department, would apply to Caywood. He added that each department may decide whether to support the proposal, and whether the cost of this PTO benefit would be an additional expenditure (i.e. in addition to the budgeted 18 hours/week), or whether it would be funded from existing budget hours. After discussion, the PB agreed to the PTO proposal, and indicated that it should be an additional expenditure, thereby not effectively reducing current part-time staff hours. It would allow for up to seven part-time days of personal time off (sick time, etc.), while adding less than $500 per year to the PB budget.

Freedman opened the continued public hearing. He summarized the status of the hearing for the attendees, indicating that the applicant had agreed to the PB’s request to propose a Common Drive to serve the two adjacent lots instead of two separate drives. The applicant had also agreed to peer review of the proposed design and engineering, with assurances that the board would do its best to help expedite such review. Freedman then moved to continue the hearing to 9:00 pm on Monday, March 12, 2007. Lane seconded the motion and it passed 7-0.

Freedman reminded the PB that the Town Caucus is on March 12th, and that at that time, three prospective candidates for PB membership are needed for the three terms that will expire in May of this year. He added that a press release will be placed in the upcoming Friday issue of the Mosquito, along with an article on the PB members and staff, and the Board’s activities. There was one candidate suggestion put forward by Gonzales. Freedman urged the members to seek out more candidates before the Caucus date.

Bill Cucciero, Ross Associates, Inc., described that this is a previously divided lot that Mark owns. His neighbor’s driveway crosses a corner of his lot, and therefore the neighbor is interested in purchasing this portion of his lot. Mark’s remaining lot will still be conforming in frontage and shape. Cucciero added that since there is no contract with the neighbor, if a deal is not struck, he does not intend to file the ANR and the lot will remain as-is. Cucciero noted that an earlier plan which changed the adjacent lot 1-B has been recorded in Book 215 Plan #84 at the North Middlesex Registry of Deeds.

Peterson moved to endorse the plan of land in Carlisle, MA prepared for Theodore J. Mark and dated February 16, 2007, prepared by David E. Ross Associates, Inc., as Approval Not Required on the understanding that the address of the house, #24 Bingham Road, will be marked on the plan and the locus map lot number changed to 1-A. Epstein seconded and the motion carried 7-0. At the request of the Board, Cucciero marked the house address on the Mylar plan and corrected the locus map lot number.

Freedman reopened the public hearing. Martha Howe, attorney for the applicant, referred to a letter from the BOH engineering consultant, Rob Frado in which he stated that in his opinion all deep hole tests on the property indicated that the soils met Title V requirements for the proposed two-lot subdivision. Howe also indicated that they would discuss with BOH the possibility of additional test holes being required for the Cluster lots. Peter Howe indicated that while they are in agreement with additional testing as required, they would like to proceed with the project. He added that Frado’s findings are in agreement with those of his consultant, Meridian Associates.

Epstein ascertained from Mansfield that what is needed from the BOH regarding the subdivision plan is either a letter of its approval or a 45-day lapse with no response from them. That period has now run, and the BOH had previously indicated that they did not have enough information for an approval. Mansfield requested that the applicant request a letter from the BOH indicating their confirmation of Mr. Frado’s comments on the adequacy of the test pit data for the two-lot subdivision.

Howe indicated that they had an initial meeting with ConsComm on Thursday, February 22, 2007, and that all drawings, including those submitted with their Notice of Intent, were reviewed at the meeting. He noted that the Commission expressed concern about the delineation of the open space parcel. The Commission also had concerns on the maintenance and sustainability of the bioretention system, in particular how abutters would be dissuaded from trimming greenery that is part of the system. Howe plans to make a supplementary submission on each of these items. A third concern, of the Trails Committee, is providing access to the trail on the property instead of the current access that is on an adjacent privately owned parcel.

While there was some concern over the impact of the cistern location on the wetlands, it was agreed that repositioning the cistern could create other problems. Howe pointed out that the site overall is above the required wetlands replication ratio. Howe said that due to the ORAD (Order of Resource Area Delineation) and wetlands delineation, it was necessary to move the location of the proposed Twin Beech Road slightly. The proposed bioretention area will also be divided into two sections to lessen influence on the wetlands. The drainage report and plans will be updated accordingly. Sylvia Willard (Conservation Administrator) indicated that there will be a DEP habitat evaluation because the work for this project is near vernal pools, and therefore the bioretention replication area must be designed accordingly.

Howe noted that the proposed locations of homes for lots 6 and 7 have changed and may change further to allow for more privacy from the proposed trail location. Freedman and Epstein noted that since the applicant was not certain that they will be involved with lot development, the proposed house locations should be included in the deeds for this land.

Howe noted a change to where the trail will cross Chestnut Lane. The trail will be “jogged’ 90-degrees to cross the lane, thereby allowing for safer crossing by bikes and pedestrians. He added that while all these changes have been submitted to Nitsch Engineering, they have not yet responded. Mansfield noted no review has been provided to the PB yet as well.

Freedman opened the hearing to questions from the public. Mark Lamere (Rutland Street) asked about boundary delineation of the Open Space and the trail access, and Howe indicated he will return with a proposal to address these issues. Howe added that a landscape architect will be utilized to develop a landscape plan. The applicant will meet with ConsComm again on March 22^nd.

Freedman opened this public meeting noting that it was not a hearing, as the applicant is presenting a preliminary subdivision plan for discussion purposes. Mansfield provided an overview of the preliminary subdivision process, stating that the Subdivision Rules and Regulations encourage submission of a preliminary plan, for which a public meeting is held and abutters are noticed of the meeting. There is a 45-day timeframe during which the PB may approve, request modification of, or disapprove the preliminary plan. Mansfield added that it is informational only, but freezes the current zoning for 7 years if followed by a definitive plan within 7 months. Peterson added that the preliminary plan is required for a commercial subdivision, but discretionary for residential.

Dimakarakos (Stamski & McNary) showed the plan of land that abuts the Westford and Curve Street intersections and continues east to lots on Virginia Farme Lane. It is the development of Grant Wilson’s property plus abutting parcels acquired by the applicant totaling 126 acres. While it is mostly wooded, the house at 672 Westford Street is proposed to be retained, and the building at 872 Westford street is expected to be demolished. Dimakarakos reviewed the 21-lot ANR plan that was endorsed by the PB at their meeting on September 27, 2006, and noted that if that development approach was pursued, there would possibly be 20 additional driveways onto Westford Street in the area between Virginia Farme Lane and Curve Street. He made it clear that such an approach was not preferable to anyone – the applicant or the residents of the Town.

The Preliminary plan Dimakarakos proposed showed two subdivision roadways off Westford Street, which merge further back on the property and end in a cul-de-sac. There are four proposed common driveways off of the subdivision roadways. The lengths of the proposed access roads are as follows: 1200-feet for the more easterly access road (Johnson Road) and 2575-feet for the western access road (Hanover Road), with Johnson Road intersecting Hanover at about the 1600-foot point. The four proposed common drives would be between 380 and 470 feet each.

A total of 35 lots are proposed for the subdivision, with 36 possible. One proposed entrance onto Westford Street would be directly across from Cross Street. The other would be just west of 546 Westford Street. The design indicates placement of homes as far back as possible on the lots along Westford Street in an attempt to preserve the streetscape as much as possible.

Dimakarakos noted that the developer intends to ask for a waiver of the grade limitation requirement that the entrance points onto Westford Street be at areas with less than a 5% grade. A waiver request would be required for each intersection. He reviewed the grade, site distance and stopping distance for each proposed entrance. While the area does meet the desired stopping distances as it currently stands, he explained that they propose to regrade Westford Street down to 6.2% in the area east of the proposed entrance adjacent to 546 Westford Street. Freedman requested that trip number calculations be done for this development at these proposed entrances.

Freedman requested accident data for the Cross Street intersection onto Westford Street, and suggested looking at the South Street – West Street intersection as well. He and Mansfield requested that the applicant have a traffic engineer study these intersections and make recommendations to enhance safety. Epstein pointed out that the proposed entrance opposite Cross Street, making a 4-way intersection, may increase accident probability in this area.

Dimakarakos informed the PB that the applicant is interested in providing some affordable housing in this project, and that the plan designates an approximate 19-acre area on the western edge of the parcel for it. He had no additional detail on the number or type of units proposed, as much of the detail is still under discussion.

Given the possibility of additional units for affordable housing, Stuart suggested considering a third entrance onto Westford Street. Gonzales pointed out that without knowing the density of the affordable housing area or the proposed number of units, it is not possible to do an accurate trip analysis to determine potential use of the entrances. Freedman said that the affordable housing details must be decided upon before the applicant comes before the PB with a Definitive Subdivision Plan.

Freedman opened this discussion to the public. Barbara Ludwig (Westford Street) asked the difference between lettered and numbered lots on the plan. Dimakarakos pointed out that the lettered lots all have frontage on Westford Street, and therefore could have driveways directly onto Westford Street. However a common drive

has been proposed to avoid this situation. Linda Fantasia (Cross Street) expressed concern about the proposed entrance across from Cross Street, indicating that approaching the entrance from the east will require a turn with short sight distance. She also suggested that the trip number calculation take the new Greystone Crossing Conservation Cluster (under construction) into account, as this development will increase Cross Street traffic. Peterson pointed out that most of the traffic will be through traffic, and that the percentage added by Greystone Crossing residents should be small.

Tom Brownrigg (Acton Street), a former member of ConsComm, presented some information to the PB concerning this parcel. He referred to the BioMap project, a Natural Heritage and Endangered Species program, and indicated that this area for proposed development has been designated a core habitat for certain wildlife species, and is one of only three core habitat areas in Carlisle. While the spotted turtle has been removed from the endangered species list, the blue spotted salamander has not. These two species are indigenous to this area. Brownrigg suggested that the developer be encouraged to create a Conservation Restriction buffer strip to parallel the wetlands, indicating that a 200-foot corridor would be appropriate. He also suggested a trail along the buffer strip on the upland area. He asked that the developer consider how at least some of the area might be protected, particularly near the vernal pools. Brownrigg suggested that ConsComm and a wildlife biologist should be consulted on this matter. Freedman asked Dimakarakos to provide a plan showing all of the proposed buffer areas between wetlands and proposed development.

At this point, the PB discussed what additional information the applicant should provide for the next discussion. They requested detail on the number and type of affordable units, an exact number of lots to be developed, and trip number data for the proposed entryways. They also requested a traffic analysis and engineering study of what can be done to mitigate possible problems at the proposed intersections, considering other possible road locations and an additional entry road onto Westford Street. When asked about an alternative entrance across from Acton Street, Rob West (agent for the applicant) indicated that the accident data for that intersection shows more accident frequency than at Cross Street. Peterson suggested that Dimakarakos prepare a written summary of why the proposed entryway locations were chosen above other possibilities.

Larson reported that he will be meeting with the BOS tomorrow night to make his recommendations concerning the RFP for wireless communication facilities with the goal of having an article in the Warrant. He added that the PB’s work with the draft Rules and Regulations for wireless is all set for now, and they are with Town Counsel for review. Since Mansfield had not heard from Counsel as of yet, Freedman requested that he ask the Town Administrator to instruct Counsel to have his review of the draft completed before the next PB meeting on March 12^th.

Mansfield reported that the applicant and his contractor have requested permission to remove the trees within the cul-de-sac, as they are in poor condition and some have come down of their own accord. He added that he and Freedman had visited the site and had agreed to this request. The applicant would plant new trees to the extent possible, as there is ledge in the area. The PB agreed that in this case a revised plan was not necessary, and the applicant could be entrusted to plant as he sees fit. Freedman asked Mansfield to request from the applicant a simple planting sketch that the PB can approve as a matter of record, and include in the files to document this change to the plan.

Mansfield informed the PB that the Town will need to appoint a liaison to review and update the local address list for the U.S. Census. The Town will receive a formal invitation this July to participate in the 2010 Census Update. The Board suggested that someone from the Town Clerk’s or Assessors’ Office was a more appropriate liaison than PB staff.

Mansfield informed the PB that this issue will be on the Town Meeting warrant, but added that Counsel does not support the adoption of Section 23D by the Town. Mansfield and other Department Heads have requested a meeting with Counsel to discuss this issue, but have not had a response as of yet. Freedman suggested that Mansfield forward another memo to the Town Administrator requesting information on this issue.

Freedman reported that he had spoken today with the ZBA’s special counsel, the abutters’ counsel and with two Selectmen on Coventry. He summarized that two meetings ago the ZBA voted to require pre-permit testing related to septic system C as well as specific testing for virus transport. Later on at that same meeting, the applicant presented a letter indicating that he is closing the hearing. Therefore, this situation has not been resolved, and the applicant’s letter may have started a 40-day clock for a final decision. Town Counsel is advising the ZBA to keep the hearing open.

When Gonzales inquired how a developer can close a hearing, Freedman said that according to ZBA counsel, they cannot. However if the applicant feels that there has been undue delay in reviewing and rendering decision on a proposal, they can declare the hearing closed, wait 40 days, and then ask the State Housing Appeals Committee to declare the hearing closed.

Freedman said that at the upcoming March 1^st ZBA meeting, if the applicant agrees to testing (by computer modeling) for nitrogen loading at a BOH recommended standard, and to a testing standard of zero for coliform and virus at the property line, the hearing can be closed. However, the applicant was not in agreement with these requests, agreeing only to testing for a higher level of nitrogen load and to no testing for coliform or virus load. Freedman added that the BOH is expected to be making recommendations on these issues in

After discussion, the PB decided to inform the ZBA that even if the BOH were to change their vote on the testing requirements, the hearing should not be closed. The PB therefore chose to support the BOH in its original decision on pre-permit testing, in the absence of additional technical information.

Freedman said that in his conversation of today with the attorneys and with BOS members, he indicated that as long as profitability criteria are met, there should be a reduction in the number of units to maintain public health standards. Therefore, these discussions are part of an approach to persuade the ZBA to write a decision for a lower number of units than has been requested by the applicant.

At 11:25 pm, Stuart moved to enter into executive session to discuss pending legal matters, not to return to regular session. Peterson seconded the motion, and it passed 7-0: Lane – aye, Larson – aye, Peterson – aye, Freedman – aye, Epstein – aye, Gonzales – aye, Stuart – aye.