Town of Carlisle, MA - Minutes of 5/2/07 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]

Continued Public Hearing on application of Omnipoint Communications, Inc. for a special permit and site plan approval under Sec. 5.9 of the Carlisle Zoning Bylaws to install, operate and maintain a personal wireless communication facility at 886 Lowell Street (Map 33, Lot 7) on property owned by Thomas and Tamara Erickson.

Continued Public Hearing on application of Omnipoint Communications, Inc. for a special permit and site plan approval under Sec. 5.9 of the Carlisle Zoning Bylaws to install, operate and maintain a personal wireless communication facility at 1022 Westford Street (Map 18, Lot 42A) on property owned by Lawrence A. Sorli.

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.

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 7:32 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, George Dimakarakos (Stamski & McNary), Nancy and Rik Pierce (Westford Street), Larry Sorli (Westford Street), Peter Yelle (Cross Street), Sean Reid (Prince, Lobel, Glovsky and Tye, LLP), Brian Grossman (Prince Lobel Glovsky and Tye, LLP), David Maxson (Broadcast Signal Labs), John Bakewell (Rutland Street), Martha Howe (Lowell, MA), Richard Howe, Sr. (Lowell, MA), Peter Howe (Fay, Spofford & Thorndike),) and Bob Zielinski (Carlisle Mosquito) were also in attendance.

Regarding this schedule, Freedman reported that he had spoken with Selectman Stevenson and suggested that for next year the review process be conducted from February to April instead of the usual April to June. In this way, the review process could be completed by the same sitting Board, and not be subject to a change of Board members midstream due to Town Election in May.

Dimakarakos (Stamski & McNary) reported that the abutters for the Common Drive hearing had not been notified by his office, and therefore no testimony can be taken this evening. According to Public Hearing Law, abutters must be notified by certified mail at least 14 days in advance. Peterson moved to continue the Common Drive hearing on Monday, June 11^th at 7:45 pm. Stuart seconded, and the motion carried 7-0. Stuart moved to continue the Scenic Road hearing to the same time, Peterson seconded, and the motion carried 7-0.

Freedman reviewed the latest draft with the PB, which included changes suggested by Town Counsel. Peterson moved to adopt the Planning Board Rules and Regulations for Personal Wireless Communications Facilities, including some but not all of the changes recommended by counsel, as discussed, as amended this date, May 2, 2007. Stuart seconded and the motion carried 7-0.

Brian Grossman (Prince, Lobel, Glovsky and Tye, LLP), attorney for the applicant, informed the Board that the property owner has signed the wireless application, per the PB’s request. Grossman then provided the PB with a list of requested waivers. Drive test data previously requested by the PB had been submitted before the meeting.

Freedman said that based on prior discussions, the content of the draft decision put forward by Mansfield, and the consultant’s report, in his opinion this is the kind of (minimal impact) facility that the bylaw encourages. Larson expressed concerns that this site still would not address several areas of poor wireless coverage adjacent to the site, and asked Grossman what other sites were in the Omnipoint planning stages. Grossman assured the PB that there were no additional sites in planning other than the ones before the PB at present, and one in the Town Center.

While this stealth location would address several of these points, Larson said that the Town needs to be provided by the applicant with a comprehensive plan for wireless throughout the Town in order to evaluate collective impact. This has not been done. When asked how this particular site location was chosen, Grossman said that their testing had identified it as a significant gap area. Maxson said that when considering their other proposed site locations, this site helps complete their coverage picture. While the PB pointed out that there were other greater coverage gaps in Town, they added that this location provided opportunity for a completely concealed facility, thereby minimizing visual impact. Freedman said that in his opinion this application generally complies with the bylaw.

At this point, the PB reviewed the draft Decision for this application, including draft Findings and Conditions. Regarding a condition that the applicant submit an annual declaration of continuing operation to the Building Inspector, Epstein suggested that a follow-up approach on this be coordinated with the Inspector, and Mansfield suggested that the Inspector review these draft Conditions and provide his input. Regarding co-location, while this particular site offers atypical restrictions to such opportunities, Grossman agreed to cooperate as much as possible toward providing co-location opportunities.

Mansfield pointed out that since this Special Permit runs with the land (site), it is therefore possible for Omnipoint to assign it to someone else, with notification to the Town. Freedman also pointed out that since this particular site is stealth, it is not an issue to historic structures within 900-feet.

The PB reviewed a written list of requested waivers that Grossman had provided, and Freedman asked that he improve the correlation of these waivers to appropriate sections of the Wireless Bylaws and Rules and Regulations. He also requested that Mansfield prepare a revised and expanded written Decision on the permit.

Stuart then moved and Peterson seconded the continuation of this hearing to 8:15 pm on Monday, May 14, 2007. At that time, Lane and Freedman will have been sworn in as associate members (their membership terms having ended May 8^th) in order to complete this and other hearings.

Continued Public Hearing on application of Omnipoint Communications, Inc. for a special permit and site plan approval under Sec. 5.9 of the Carlisle Zoning Bylaws to install, operate and maintain a personal wireless communication facility at 1022 Westford Street (Map 18, Lot 42A) on property owned by Lawrence A. Sorli.

Freedman reopened this public hearing, and explained to the public that a main difference between this potential site and the one discussed prior is that this facility would not be concealed. Therefore, the issue of the applicant providing a comprehensive plan for wireless sites in Town in order to address minimizing collective impact of such facilities on the Town is more applicable, in his opinion.

David Maxson (Broadcast Signal Labs), wireless technology consultant for the PB, reviewed the test data with the PB. The drive test data seemed to support the coverage prediction data generated by computer models, indicating that a monopole of 80-feet in height is likely to provide a significantly greater area of coverage than a monopole of

60 feet in height. Therefore, coverage maps for 80-feet showed a significant decrease in coverage gap between Sorli Farm and the First Religious Society in Town Center. Drive test data and computer model predictions for a monopole height of 90-feet did not indicate a significant enhancement over the 80-foot data.

When Larson asked Grossman if the applicant could assure the PB that constructing the tower to 80-feet in height (if a waiver to the 60-foot maximum was granted) would reduce the number of sites they plan in Town, Grossman could not assure this. When Larson asked if granting a waiver for an 80-foot tower would eliminate the need for another monopole sight between the Sorli Farm and the First Religious Society, Grossman did not directly respond, but said that due to needs changes, coverage changes and technology changes, he would never be in a position to assure that Omnipoint would not wish to return with another application for a site in this area. Grossman also said that the drive test results and the computer modeling predictions for a tower of 60-feet, provide the documented proof required by the wireless bylaw that a 60-foot tower would not provide sufficient coverage between the proposed site and Town Center and on other roads adjacent to the site. He added that any other location between 1022 Westford and Town Center would require more waivers from the 900-foot setback.

When Freedman asked Grossman if there was any technical reason that the site could not be located further back near the trees to be less noticeable, Grossman said that this would place the site less than 1.5 times its height from the back property line. Mansfield confirmed that this would require a variance from the ZBA.

Freedman explained that were this application approved for the 80-foot height, it would only be with the possibility of co-locators. Therefore the property owner should be aware of possible additional equipment being sited on his property. Grossman explained that there would be room for co-location equipment within the 10-foot by 20-foot fenced area. Sorli confirmed that this was acceptable to him. When Larson asked whether any thoughts had been given to concealing the ground equipment, the applicant stated that there were not any viewing lines that would need screening.

When Larson and Freedman asked Grossman if other types of equipment (other than a 77-foot monopole) had been considered to meet the special needs of Carlisle, Grossman said no, and expressed his opinion that other forms such as distributed antenna systems (DAS) were not appropriate for this type of coverage gap, based on his experience. Peter Yelle (Cross Street) stated that Omnipoint/T-Mobile was using DAS in Andover and other MA communities.

Freedman noted that if the special permit is approved, there would still be areas without coverage, and cited the adjacent development, Tall Pines as an example which was shown not receiving coverage under this application. He expressed concern that with the monopole in place, the applicant would have no incentive to address coverage gaps in these smaller areas. Therefore, Freedman stressed that the applicant needs to take the comprehensive plan intent of the bylaw into consideration, designing an overall coverage plan for the Town.

When Freedman opened the hearing to the public, Rik and Nancy Pierce (Westford Street) expressed the same concerns with the proposal’s impact on the scenic view and the farm and the possibility of visual impacts from additional yet-planned towers. Kent Gonzales expressed his opinion congratulating the applicant on the stealth site proposal for Lowell Street, but expressing extreme disappointment with this application, which offers no approach for disguising the site for this historic farmstead landscape.

At this point, the property owner of the proposed site, Larry Sorli, presented his perspective: in some cases, cell towers are helping farms stay as farms because of the supplemental income they provide. Often times today there is no profit to be made running a small farm, and the income from such a site is essential. In Sorli’s view, this is a reversible (temporary) site that will probably be in use for about 20 years before the technology changes. If it helps avoid the selling of land to augment expenses, it assures that no additional housing is likely to be built on the property- at least not for the next generation. If land must be sold, there is no guarantee what would be built on it. Sorli pointed out that, in this case, the revenue would pay all annual taxes on his land. Sorli added that the trees abutting his neighbors would not be cut, providing some visual buffer.

Regarding monopole height, Freedman confirmed from Maxson that a 60-foot monopole would have a similar impact to small form factor technologies. Maxson added that extending monopole height from 80-feet to 90-feet may allow for one additional co-location opportunity.

Peter Yelle (Cross Street) said that in his opinion the data presented tonight generated by computer model for prospective tower heights of 60 and 80 feet is not entirely consistent with data presented in the application. He suggested that this data be reviewed before any decision is rendered. Freedman asked Maxson to compare the

Prior to the meeting, the applicant had submitted a partial set of revised plans, along with a construction sequence and schedule proposal; and a plan of excavation and fill locations. Mansfield reported that the draft legal documents had been reviewed and revised by Peterson, the Conservation Administrator and Marc Lamere (Trails Committee), as well as the applicant’s counsel. Town Counsel’s review was just received today. Peter Howe, engineer for the applicant, reported that while they have met with ConsComm, there has been no decision on their application yet. ConsComm is in the process of determining the existence of vernal pools on the site which, if confirmed, might alter the nature of the construction of the bioretention swales. ConsComm will be visiting the site (with Howe) on Sunday, May 6^th at 1 pm.

Howe and the PB reviewed the new information he had provided prior to the meeting, as well as the PB engineer’s written response to the information. Freedman suggested that the blasting plan include that mats will be placed to control the blasting discharge, and Howe agreed. He also agreed to a condition that the applicant would be responsible for any blasting damage incurred by abutters. Howe offered to tag all trees within the limits of the work, and to locate these trees on the plans as well. Freedman suggested the condition that the PB’s engineers (Nitsch Engineering) review the marked trees before any clearing work is done.

Epstein confirmed from Freedman that the only outstanding information on this application is concerning the vernal pools, and that it is not likely to be a significant problem. Peterson confirmed from the applicant’s attorney, Martha Howe, that there is proof of ownership of the property, including, a copy of the lender’s policy, and a Certificate of Title. Howe also presented a copy of a Legal Opinion that the applicant’s property is indeed the property under consideration, and Peterson said he felt able to accept the Opinion. Peter Howe said that while most of the land has been surveyed, they have not completed a certified ALTA (American Land Title) survey. An ALTA survey would settle any ownership uncertainty, assuring no gaps in land ownership. Peterson asked that the applicant’s attorney provide a copy of the Summary Judgement Decision from the Court regarding the legal case on this land, as well as a letter from the surveyor.

At this point, Howe thanked the PB and, in particular, Chair Freedman, for their courtesy and helpfulness during this application process. The PB expressed their appreciation of the applicant’s use of LID approaches throughout the design of this Conservation Cluster, and indicated that it will be a useful positive example for future applicants.

Freedman reported to the PB that the BOS have requested that the PB finance the wireless RFP to put into effect Article 16 (Lease of Land for Wireless Facilities) using remaining PB FY07 funds. He noted that even though the PB had previously asked that the Town fund the RFP, any unused PB funds from FY07 would return to the Town anyway. Therefore Epstein moved to approve an expenditure of up to $4500 to produce an RFP for personal wireless service facilities on Town land and on rights-of-way. Larson seconded the motion.

At this point, Freedman asked if there were any other possible funding sources. Larson said that the PB has some remaining funds in its FY07 budget while the BOS does not. Freedman expressed concern that it should not become customary that PB funds be used for BOS/Town initiatives purposes not directly related to planning.

When asked the BOS’ intended procedure for developing the RFP, Larson said that the PB would provide the funds to the BOS and they would have the RFP prepared. Freedman and Peterson said that the BOS should appoint the PB as the coordinator or supervising body for preparation of the RFP. Therefore Epstein withdrew the motion, and Larson withdrew his seconding of the motion.

Mansfield suggested that the PB authorize Larson to be the PB representative in drafting the RFP with the Town Administrator, Selectman Tice and the Consultant, Maxson. Then Maxson’s invoices can come through the PB office for approval and funding, with Larson’s verification that the work was completed. Freedman asked Mansfield to present this suggested procedure in writing to the Town Administrator on the PB’s behalf. The Town Administrator can present it to the BOS. They can come back to the PB with their written verification of agreement with this procedure, which the PB can then approve at their next meeting.

At 11:45 pm, Peterson moved to enter into executive session to discuss pending litigation, not to return to regular session. Stuart seconded and the motion carried 7-0: Lane – aye, Larson – aye, Peterson – aye, Freedman – aye, Epstein – aye, Gonzales – aye, and Stuart – aye.