Town of Carlisle, MA - Minutes of 3/26/2007 PB meeting

Continued Public Hearing: Definitive Subdivision Plan, Conservation Cluster and Common Driveway Special Permits for Chestnut Estates, at 400 Rutland Street, Map 36, Parcels 23 & 26, Richard P. Howe, Sr., Trustee of John Raymond Brown Revocable Trust, applicant.

Preliminary Subdivision Plan for Hanover Hill, composed of 36 lots on 126.27 acres at 672 and 872 Westford Street, Map 19, Parcels 37, 39, 40 & 41 and Map 20, Parcels 9 & 10A, Wilkins Hill Realty, LLC, applicant

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 7:33 pm in the Clark Room at Town Hall. Board members Michael Epstein, Kent Gonzales, Greg Peterson, Tom Lane, Brian Larson, Peter Stuart and Planning Administrator George Mansfield were present.

Gretchen Caywood, assistant to the Planning Administrator, Alan Carpenito (BOS & South Street), Carol Nathan (Robbins Drive), Martha Howe (Lowell, MA), Richard Howe, Sr. (Lowell, MA), Peter Howe (Fay, Spofford & Thorndike), Kevin Gagne (Fay, Spofford & Thorndike), Steven Ventresca (Nitsch Engineering), Marc and Ginny Lamere (Rutland Street), John Bakewell (Rutland Street), Nelson Rosas (Westford Street), Justin Romeo (Virginia Farme Lane), Linda Fantasia (Cross Street and BOH Agent), Tom and D’Ann Brownrigg (Acton Street), Bruce Vienneau (Acton Street), Robert West (Concord Street), Paul Bell (Brighton, MA), David Friend (Bedford, MA), Robert Blanchette (Stamski & McNary),and Bob Zielinski (Carlisle Mosquito) were also in attendance.

Freedman reported that one PB seat remains open, and will have no candidate listed on the printed ballot. Carol Nathan and Ken Hoffman have been nominated for the other two seats. Freedman added that at a recent

Mansfield informed the PB that the BOH requests that applicants submit electronic copies of plans in PDF format along with hard copies of the plans. He added that this could simplify distribution of new plans to PB members.

Epstein moved to add to the PB Rules and Regulations, special permit application checklists, the new PB application fee schedule, and online, that the PB requests plans to be submitted in electronic PDF format as well as hard copy. Peterson seconded and the motion carried 7-0.

Steven Ventresca attended the hearing on behalf of Nitsch Engineering (engineers for the PB), and had prepared the most recent review of the revised plans for the project. Peter Howe, engineer for the applicant, presented the revised conservation cluster plan which now shows the abutting homes. He reviewed major changes on the plans.

Howe pointed out changes at the proposed entrance to the cluster, involving widening of the western side of the entrance and reorientation of the swales to avoid impacting the wetlands. A minor shift in cistern location and a change to the planned bioswale located further into the cluster were also outlined, with the purpose again being to minimize wetlands impact. Howe added that for Lot 7 in the cluster (the lot furthest to the south), the southernmost lot line has been shifted 10-feet to more easily allow enough space for a trail In the proposed conservation cluster plan, a few house locations were shifted to shorten the proposed driveways and to avoid disturbing the buffer zone. Freedman suggested that the property deeds include provisions for restricting the house locations on the lots to further assure minimizing clearing.

Howe reported that planting plans for the replication area and bioswales had been submitted to ConsComm the prior week, and that they were well received, with a few minor points to be addressed. He showed a mockup of a proposed 3 -½ foot high granite marker, fifteen of which are to be placed at the boundary between private land and the open space parcel. Howe also displayed a model of a proposed plaque entitled “Stormwater Management Plan” to be mounted within the site and near the bioretention swales, which explains the purpose and importance of the swales, as well as referencing maintenance procedures to be followed. The PB was in favor of these proposals.

Howe reported that the exact easement locations have been updated on the plans. The access and utility easement includes the bioretention areas and the cistern. Howe outlined the location of the trails easement around the proposed cluster. He reported that the trail easement documents had also been modified, with restrictive covenants to help assure maintenance of the buffer for the two abutters.

Peterson asked if the Trails Easement document is a non-exclusive easement, without much language on uses of the trail and miscellaneous structures. He asked to meet with the applicant’s counsel to further discuss these documents. Mansfield added that while the legal documents had been submitted to Town Counsel, no input has yet been provided by them.

Peterson ascertained that the applicant currently plans to deed the Open Space parcel with a separate Conservation Restriction to the Town. He suggested that there may be a simpler approach, such as to deed the land to ConsComm with some open space restrictions, and that a Conservation Restriction may not be necessary. Peterson asked to meet with applicant’s counsel to discuss this matter also.

Freedman then asked the PB engineer for his input on the project. Ventresca summarized what he felt were the main issues remaining with the revised plan: the proximity of the common driveway to outer lot lines (less than 40 feet), the lack of turn arounds every 300 feet at the start of the drive, and the lengths of the two common drives.

Concerning comments on the bioretention swales, Peter Howe explained that the proposed design will help alleviate filling and leaf buildup concerns. Martha Howe assured the Board that the Conservation Cluster documents contain strict language guiding maintenance and inspection of the swales, of which the Homeowners’ Association will be in charge and will be required to retain a firm to conduct these activities and is required to submit regular reports to ConsComm on these activities. Freedman ascertained that the applicant will make potential developers aware of these obligations in order that they can inform potential buyers. Peter Howe added that he is developing a runoff and erosion control plan to be utilized during construction, and will be submitting this plan to ConsComm.

At this point, Freedman opened the hearing to the public. John Bakewell (Rutland Street) said that he is in favor of the overall approach and plan, but would like more detail on the construction footprint of the common drives with respect to the private property and conservation land. He also asked if more protection could be provided for the existing trail to prohibit unnecessary clearing. Peterson said that this is one of many items he will look into when he reviews the trails easement and other legal documents with the applicant’s attorney. Marc Lamere (Rutland Street and Trails Committee) expressed interest in the trails documents as well, and Peterson suggested that he and also a ConsComm representative participate in review of the trails documents.

P. Howe pointed out that the amount of open space in the proposed conservation cluster plans exceeds the requirements (8.15 A as opposed to 7.78 A). Freedman pointed out to the meeting attendees that the applicant is striving to make this conservation cluster as low impact on the environment as possible.

Since Howe indicated that a small amount of blasting would be necessary in two or three areas, the PB requested detail on these areas, cut and fill detail, and a plan for controlling the blasting. Mansfield suggested that the PB should consider if it wants a complete Construction Management Plan from the applicant. Freedman requested that the applicant provide blasting details to Nitsch as soon as possible as well as the location and quantity of earth to be removed.

Epstein reviewed the rest of the Nitsch Engineering response of March 26^th regarding the revised plans, assessing each item with the PB. Regarding the naming of the common drives, it was decided to return to the original proposed names of Chestnut Lane for the longer drive and Twin Beech Lane for the shorter one that will turn off from Chestnut Lane.

Freedman requested that the applicant send a letter requesting an extension of time for the definitive subdivision plan approval (since the time limit for this decision ends shortly) to April 23rd. This plan is necessary only as a first step to establish frontage of the proposed conservation cluster development area, and the applicant has agreed that the subdivision road will not be built.

Peterson moved to approve an extension of time to act upon the two-lot subdivision plan of land entitled Chestnut Estates for land at 400 Rutland Street in Carlisle, MA drawn by Fay, Spofford and Thorndike for Richard P Howe, Sr., Trustee of the John Raymond Brown Revocable Trust, and dated November 20, 2006, subject to the applicant’s request for extension of time to April 23, 2007. Epstein seconded and the motion carried 7-0. Epstein moved to continue the hearing to 8:00 pm on April 9, 2007, Peterson seconded and the motion carried 7-0. The PB directed Mansfield to prepare outlines of the draft decisions for the Common Drives and the Conservation Cluster for the April 9^th meeting.

Mansfield reported that several members of the PB had attended a recent sitewalk of the proposed development area with Rob West. Dimakarakos (Stamski & McNary) presented updated information on this preliminary

Access across from Acton Street was presented as undesirable due to the grade and curve of Westford Street in that area, as well as accident data. Access from Virginia Farme Lane would result in an access way that is too narrow to be accepted as a public way, since the applicant’s strip of land is only 40-feet wide in that area. In addition, there is a very steep grade change (over 35-feet) in that area which would require high retaining walls and much wetland fill to construct an access way. Another possibility, with an intersection across from 637 Westford Street, while meeting grade requirements at this area of Westford Street, would require significant tree removal, excavation, and stone wall relocation to clear sightlines. This would change the Westford Street landscape significantly.

The applicant had also presented a Conservation Restriction Upland Sketch Plan showing the relationship of wetlands, upland and the edge of the conservation restrictions. This was in response to Tom Brownrigg’s (Acton Street) request, at the February 26^th meeting, that the applicant be encouraged to preserve a corridor of core habitat as a buffer to the conservation land. Freedman asked Dimakarakos whether it would be possible to place deed restrictions on the back parts of the lots that are abutting conservation land, in attempt to preserve some of the corridor of land for protected species. Dimakarakos indicated that this would be considered. When asked about existing trails in the area, Rob West (agent for the applicant) indicated that there currently are none. Marc Lamere of the Trails Committee confirmed this.

Concerning affordable housing, Dimakarakos expressed that in the applicant’s opinion there is the possibility of 24 units on 5 lots. Freedman added that, due to State requirements, 25 units would be necessary to allow for a two-year moratorium for Carlisle on the creation of new affordable housing, and West said this could be done.

The PB then discussed potential locations for affordable housing with Dimakarakos. He indicated that up to five lots on the western edge of the property nearest Westford Street were being considered as sites for affordable units. Epstein pointed out that the density of the development must be considered in determining the roadway layout.

The applicant’s traffic consultant, David Friend (Transportation Planning Services), had submitted a traffic study on the 4-way intersection that would be created with the construction of a proposed entrance across from Cross Street. Friend said that in his opinion the oblique angle of Cross Street does not pose a problem. Freedman questioned this, since the short sight distance to the top of the hill is an issue when heading east out of Cross Street. Friend felt that additional signage on Westford Street could alleviate concerns, and that there were no substantive issues. Freedman suggested clearing trees in the right-of-way on the western edge of the Cross Street entrance to improve sight-lines, as well as clearing some of the right of way at both of the proposed entrances (if they are created) on Westford Street.

Concerning the grade on Westford Street in the area of the proposed entrance at Cross Street, Friend calculated that a 1% grade reduction (to the required 5% or less) would add only 11 feet in stopping sight distance (SSD). After discussion, the PB expressed that selective tree removal within right-of –ways at and across from proposed entrances, plus moving back the stone wall at the Gormley house may increase SSD as much as reducing the grade of Westford Street. Friend was in agreement with this. Freedman ascertained that the applicant would be willing to pay for and conduct the proposed tree removals and stone wall relocation. Peterson asked Dimakarakos to determine how much tree removal is necessary to improve the SSD by at least 11 feet, thereby having the same effect as reducing Westford Street grade 1 %.

Freedman opened the hearing to the public. Tom Brownrigg (Acton Street) expressed that while the applicant’s proposed upland preservation is helpful, he was hoping for a complete undisturbed strip all the way back along the border of the conservation land. He added that this is core habitat for the blue spotted salamander. It was noted that this matter is currently neither within PB or ConsComm purview, but Dimakarakos said that an ANRAD

Linda Fantasia (Cross Street) expressed strong concerns with the proposed entrance across from Cross Street. She suggested that the Cross Street volume is more significant than the consultant’s report has noted, and it is being added to with the Greystone Crossing development going up on Cross Street. Fantasia added that turning out from Cross Street to the east into traffic is already difficult due to the uphill grade and short sight distances, and will be

exacerbated with entering traffic across from Cross Street. She asked that the PB carefully consider their alternatives, and that they first consider any access road locations that are fully compliant and do not require waivers due to road grade.

Mansfield pointed out that the new plans and support documents, along with the Traffic Study, had been submitted late Friday afternoon (after the usual Thursday deadline for meeting materials), and there had not been sufficient time to review it. He added that the PB is making only recommendations at this stage of a preliminary subdivision plan. If the PB takes a formal action of approval on this preliminary plan, zoning of this land is frozen for 7 months. If the applicant returns with a definitive plan in that timeframe, the zoning is frozen for 8 years.

· The applicant is expected to demonstrate that SSDs at the originally proposed entrances can be improved with selective tree removal within right-of-ways at and across from the proposed entrances, as well as with the moving back of the stone wall at the Gormley house. This is an alternative to regrading Westford Street. The applicant must submit detail on how at least an additional 11-feet of stopping distance will be achieved without changing the grade of Westford Street, in order to justify the waiver requests.

· There should be demarcation of conservation land and private property, with delineation of the land under Conservation Restriction. The applicant was directed to consider the granite post markers proposed for Chestnut Estates.

The PB took no formal action on the preliminary subdivision plan. Epstein reminded the applicant that they can still come to the PB for informal discussion before starting to expend funds on this project, and Mansfield added that it may be helpful for the applicant to have a conceptual discussion with the “new” PB, as there will be 3 new members starting at the May 14^th meeting.

Freedman asked the PB if they had reviewed his email to be sent to ZBA attorney Dan Hill summarizing current concerns with the project, and ascertained that they were in agreement with the content of the email.