 |
Town of Carlisle
MASSACHUSETTS 01741
------------
Office of
PLANNING BOARD
66 Westford Street
Carlisle, Massachusetts 01741
Tel. (978) 369-9702
Fax (978) 369-4521
Minutes
May 14, 2007
Minutes 5/2/07
Bills
Budget
Organization of 2007-2008 Board
MPO Suburban Mobility Assessment (5/16/07 deadline)
MAPC Technical Assistance available
GIS Development Task Force/ESRI software maintenance
Preparation of Request for Proposals for Personal Wireless Communications Facilities on Town-owned land [Broadcast Signal Lab – Planning Board/joint subcommittee]
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.
Discussion of strategy with regard to pending litigation, Valchuis et al. v. Planning Board, Berry Corner Lane, Map 7, Parcel 29 (motion to go into executive session may be entertained)
Acting Chair Michael Epstein called the meeting to order at 7:31 pm in the Clark Room at Town Hall. Board members Kent Gonzales, Greg Peterson, Brian Larson, Carol Nathan, Ken Hoffman, Marc Lamere, associate member Tom Lane and Planning Administrator George Mansfield were present. Associate Member David Freedman arrived at 7:37 pm.
Gretchen Caywood, assistant to the Planning Administrator, Alan Carpenito (BOS), Paul Gill (Judy Farm Road), Nancy 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), Kamal Johari (Nexus Wireless), Bob Ford (Maple Street), Martha Howe (Lowell, MA), Richard Howe, Sr. (Lowell, MA), Peter Howe (Fay, Spofford & Thorndike),) and Bob Zielinski (Carlisle Mosquito) were also in attendance.
Acting Chair Epstein welcomed new members Nathan, Hoffman and Lamere to the PB. He also appointed Lane and Freedman (who had been appointed as Associate Members by a joint meeting of the PB and BOS) as voting members on the two Omnipoint hearings and the Chestnut Estates hearing for the duration of these hearings (including at future meetings). Acting Chair Epstein then appointed Freedman as Chair of these special permit hearings.
Minutes
The PB reviewed the draft minutes of the regular session of May 2, 2007. and several revisions were suggested... Peterson moved to approve the minutes as revised. Larson seconded and the motion carried 4-0-3 with Nathan,
Hoffman and Lamere abstaining. The PB then reviewed the draft minutes of the Executive Session of May 2, 2007. Larson moved to approve the minutes as drafted, Peterson seconded and the motion carried 4-0-3, with Nathan, Hoffman and Lamere abstaining.
GIS Development Task Force/ESRI software maintenance
Mansfield explained this software maintenance service indicating that annual contract renewal is necessary, and added that a representative from ESRI will be in on May 21st to address some issues with the software. Epstein and Freedman suggested waiting until after the representative is in to renew the service contract.
MPO Suburban Mobility Assessment (5/16/07 deadline)
Mansfield explained that the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has recently sent information outlining an offer for staff services to evaluate the potential for demand-responsive transit services (eg dial-a-ride and other public transport) in Carlisle, with a response date of May 16th. He asked the PB to review the information and decide whether to recommend that the BOS follow up, as it is the first step towards a potential funding opportunity. Peterson expressed interest in assessing the viability of such transit services, for example transport from Carlisle to the Concord train station. He and Mansfield discussed obtaining a letter from the BOS stating our interest in being chosen as a study community. Nathan added that this organization coordinated the transportation service
setup for the Council on Aging, and that the service was good. Freedman said that mentioning upcoming 40B’s in Town may add support for considering Carlisle as a study Town. Epstein asked Peterson, Nathan and Mansfield to compose a letter to the BOS requesting their support in requesting that Carlisle be considered for this evaluation. Peterson moved that the PB request that the BOS apply to the Boston Regional Metropolitan Planning Organization to enter Carlisle in their Suburban Mobility Assessment study. Hoffman seconded and the motion passed unanimously (7-0).
Organization of 2007-2008 Board
Epstein reviewed with the PB a list of Board Officers and Appointees and Liaisons to other Town Boards and Committees, and reviewed the available positions. He suggested that the members consider where they would like to serve before the next meeting, at which the necessary Officers, Appointees and Liasons will be chosen. Lamere volunteered for the position of liaison to the Trails Committee, as he is still a member of that Committee. Epstein asked Peterson to seriously consider the position of BOH liaison, as this is a key role. Epstein agreed to continue as liaison to Town Counsel. Larson agreed to continue as liaison to the Housing Authority. Ms. Nathan volunteered for the position of Clerk and Larson moved to elect Carol Nathan as Clerk of the Planning Board for the next year,
Peterson seconded and the motion passed unanimously (7-0).
Future PB Meeting schedule
The next meeting had been previously set for Monday, June 11, 2007 at 7:30 pm. The subsequent meeting was set for Monday, June 25, 2007. It was noted that Lane and Hoffman would not be in attendance on the 25th.
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.
Freedman chaired this continued public hearing. Mansfield referred to the revised list of requested waivers that had been submitted by the applicant and provided to the PB prior to the meeting, and indicated that he had reviewed it. Freedman summarized that in his opinion even though the site would only provide a limited enhancement of coverage, since it would be a totally stealth facility, it is in keeping with the intent of the bylaw. The only issue remaining is that this site application has not been presented as part of an overall comprehensive plan for wireless coverage in Town. Freedman offered that the fully stealth nature of the proposed site lessens this concern in this case.
When Freedman opened the hearing to public input, there was none forthcoming. The PB then reviewed the draft findings, waivers and conditions for this application prepared by the Planning Administrator. Members commented that the stealth nature of the proposed site is the main way in which this application addresses minimizing collective impact of wireless facilities on the Town, and also the way in which it protects property values. Epstein noted that the Decision document should not state that the proposed facility will result in a substantial improvement in wireless coverage, but an improvement satisfactory to the PB, given the stealth nature of the facility. The PB completed their review of the draft waivers and conditions. When Freedman again called for public input, there was none.
Epstein moved to approve this application of Omnipoint Communications, Inc. for a special permit and site plan approval under Section 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 the property owned by Thomas and Tamara Erickson, as shown on the site plan entitled “Erickson Farm Cupola,” 886 Lowell Street, Carlisle, MA; Sheets T-1, C-1, Z-1, Z-2 and Z-3, dated August 21, 2006, and drawn by Chappell Engineering Associates, included in the application dated December 20, 2006, and subsequent submittals, based on the findings and conditions discussed and granting the three waivers requested by the applicant. Gonzales seconded, and the motion passed 6-0-3, with Associate Members Lane and Freedman voting,
and new members Nathan, Lamere and Hoffman abstaining.
Larson and Freedman agreed to review the final Decision documents. Epstein moved to close the hearing for this application, Peterson seconded and the motion carried 6-0-3, with Nathan, Lamere and Hoffman abstaining.
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 chaired this continued public hearing, noting that is one of the more difficult decisions in his 5 year on the PB. He reviewed some comments from the last meeting (May 2nd) that pointed out the major issues and the applicant’s position on this application. Larry Sorli said that the revenue provided by wireless facilities may help property owners maintain the rural nature of their land, even though others may argue that such a facility will detract from the rural nature of the land. It was also noted that while the site would improve coverage, there will still be a coverage gap between 1022 Westford and Town Center. Freedman pointed out that since this location will not be a stealth facility, it will be harder to minimize adverse impacts of the facility, and to protect
scenic vistas. To compensate for this, a higher level of coverage enhancement should be required for this facility than is required for the stealth site at 886 Lowell Street. The drive test data presented at the last hearing shows greater coverage with an 80-foot tower than with a 60-foot tower, and the applicant indicated his company will not build a 60-foot tower, as the lesser enhancement in coverage would not be worth the expense.
At the last hearing, Freedman asked the applicant to suggest ways to mitigate the visual impact of the proposed tower and also to provide information on the height of the tree line behind the proposed facility. Brian Grossman (attorney for the applicant) provided pictures of four typical styles that his company considers to conceal the antenna: flagpole style, mono ‘pine’, white ‘slick stick’ (white monopole), and a silo-shaped covering. When Epstein inquired about typical tower heights, Grossman said 100-feet was considered low, with a typical height being 120-150-feet. Freedman noted that the Anderegg tower in Town is 189-feet. However that facility is the result of a legal decision and not a PB decision. Grossman added that the trees behind the proposed site
are probably 60-80 feet, but he was not sure.
The PB reviewed the ViewShed report provided at an earlier hearing, depicting the possible visibility of the facility by placing balloons at the heights of 60 and 80 feet at the location of the proposed monopole, and photographing such from different vantage points. Various surfaces and paint colors for a monopole were discussed. Freedman asked the applicant if he saw any site opportunities between this proposed location and Town Center for construction of an additional 60-foot tower, in order that two 60-foot towers could be used in place of one 80-foot at 1022 Westford to eliminate coverage gaps. Grossman offered to provide data at the next
PB meeting to compare the use of a 60-foot tower at 1022 Westford plus at least one additional 60-foot site between there and Town Center as opposed to the existence of only an 80-foot tower at 1022 Westford. The goal of this assessment is to discern which approach would lead to more continuous wireless coverage along Westford Street.
When Freedman inquired about the possibility of using small form factor technologies (SFFT) instead of monopoles, Grossman agreed to provide coverage prediction data. When Grossman confirmed that Omnipoint does use SFFT, Freedman asked why no information had been provided on this approach. Freedman said that the applicant needs to provide more information to show that the suggested approach is the best one and also that it would minimize additional towers.
Larson asked the applicant why he is considering the 900-foot setback rule as an unwaivable matter in the bylaw, as waivers can be requested for this deviation. Grossman said that other locations have a higher number of residences within the 900-foot setback and, he thought, would require requesting a greater number of waivers.
Gonzales provided information on 4 websites that show more extensive examples of wireless facilities designs to minimize visual impact than what the applicant put forward, and questioned whether a monopole as presented was appropriate for this location. He asked that the consider ways to camouflage the proposed facility, such as a screen print of surrounding scenery placed on the monopole surface. Gonzales strongly felt that the applicant should make some attempt to cause this application to propose a facility that was ‘site-specific,’ that is tailored to the specific site.
Larson asked the applicant to explain why they would not build a 60-foot facility at 1022 Westford Street (a site with greater coverage needs) when they opted to put a 38-foot antenna in the Erickson cupola (886 Lowell Street) at a site with better existing wireless coverage. Grossman said that the site objectives were different, and he could not offer any additional explanation. Larson and Freedman suggested to the applicant that if Omnipoint would provide a co-location contract to help justify the request for a waiver of the 60-foot tower height limitation, it would help support the application.
When Freedman opened the hearing to the public, Bob Ford (Maple Street) commented on the balloon test conducted at the site. He said that when heading east on Westford Street, he could not see the balloons at all until he reached the house. When heading west, the view of the 60 and 80-foot balloons was mostly shielded by roadside trees, and could only be seen at a small spot along Westford Street, which is where the Mosquito had taken its photo. He felt that there was little difference in visibility between the 60 and 80-foot heights.
Peter Yelle (Cross Street) said that in his opinion, the data presented by the applicant has been inconsistent from the beginning. He added that drive test data can vary, and is usually the result of compilation of many drive tests. Yelle said that when driving east on Westford Street, the hill between Acton and Cross Street will likely terminate a signal whether the tower is 60-feet or 80-feet in height. Yelle suggested that the PB should require detailed information on the possibility of using SFFT’s. Freedman asked that at the next meeting, the applicant explain the topographical connection as to whether there is a critical height between 60 and 80-feet at which signal coverage area significantly improves.
Larry Sorli, property owner at 1022 Westford, commented on the current landscape of the site. He said that the landscape and buildings can change quickly, since the chicken house is nearly falling down and would not be replaced.
Lane moved to continue this hearing to 8:30 pm on Monday, June 11, 2007. Peterson seconded and the motion carried 6-0-3, with new members Nathan, Lamere and Hoffman abstaining.
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.
Freedman chaired this continued public hearing. Marc Lamere recused himself from this discussion, as he is an abutter to the site. Peter Howe, the applicant’s engineer, informed the PB that ConsComm had closed their hearing on this application at their last meeting, but has not yet issued an Order of Conditions. Freedman said that the PB’s approval may be conditioned upon ConsComm’s Order of Conditions. Martha Howe, the applicant’s attorney, provided to Mansfield a copy of the Letter of Dismissal that ended the lawsuit concerning Rangeway
Road access to this site. The applicant had previously provided a blasting plan showing locations, indicating that mats will be used to protect property, and also including a letter stating that a pre-blasting survey of abutters’ homes will be conducted.
The PB reviewed the draft findings and conditions prepared by the Planning Administrator for the Conservation Cluster Special Permit and for the Common Driveway Special Permit. Freedman suggested adding a finding describing the stone markers that will be placed at the bounds of private property and open space land, as well as the signs that describe the importance of the bioswale system and how it will be maintained. Peterson suggested adding a condition regarding the provision of a Declaration of Maintenance for upkeep of the private way. Freedman suggested adding a condition requiring the marking of the limits of disturbance before work begins, marking trees that will remain, and requiring engineer’s review and confirmation of this work. Freedman asked the applicant to provide a copy of the
plans on CD, if possible, in addition to the paper plans.
Epstein moved to approve the Definitive Subdivision Plan dated November 2006 for Chestnut Estates 400 Rutland Street, Town of Carlisle, MA, submitted by applicant Richard P. Howe, Sr. which creates a 978-foot long dead end road and two building lots at 400 Rutland Street, Map 36, Parcels 23 and 26, waiving all submission requirements of Article II, Sect. 6, except a lot layout plan, all drainage system design requirements of Sect. 6.B, referral to other Town officials as set fort in Sect. 6.E, the performance guarantee requirements set forth in Article II, Sect. 7, recording requirement of Article II, Sect 9.B, all construction requirements of Article III, and Administration requirements of Article IV of the PB Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land provided that this approval will be
conditioned upon the plan not being recorded and the roadway not being constructed. Peterson seconded and the motion carried 4-0-2-1, with Nathan and Hoffman abstaining and Lamere recused.
Epstein moved to approve the plans for the Special Permit entitled Town of Carlisle Chestnut Estates 400 Rutland Street, titled Conservation Cluster and Common Driveway plan, and dated May 14, 2007, applicant Richard P. Howe, Sr., prepared by Fay, Spofford and Thorndike, and to issue a special permit in connection with the cluster subdivision shown on the plan, subject to the Draft findings, Waivers and Conditions dated 5/14/07 reviewed by the PB as modified in the course of the PB’s discussions this evening, the modifications including but not limited to adding a condition requiring marking of the limits of disturbance, marking trees that are to remain, and requiring engineer review before any blasting work is conducted. Gonzales seconded and the motion carried 6-0-2-1, with Nathan and Hoffman abstaining and Lamere
recused.
Peterson moved that the PB approve the plans for the Special Permit entitled Town of Carlisle, Chestnut Estates 400 Rutland Street, titled Conservation Cluster and Common Driveway plan, and dated May 14, 2007, applicant Richard P. Howe, Sr., prepared by Fay, Spofford and Thorndike, and to issue a special permit for two common driveways at 400 Rutland Street to be known respectively as Chestnut Lane and Twin Beech Road, with the Findings, Waivers and Conditions dated 5/14/07 reviewed by the PB as modified in the course of the PB’s discussions this evening, the modifications including but not limited to adding a condition regarding the provision by the applicant of a Declaration of Maintenance for upkeep of the common driveway and drainage swales. Larson seconded and the motion carried 6-0-2-1, with Nathan and
Hoffman abstaining and Lamere recused.
Gonzales moved to continue this hearing for the review of final decisions and signing of final plans to 8:15 pm on Monday, June 11, 2007. Peterson seconded and the motion carried 8-0-1, with Lamere recused.
Freedman thanked the applicants for their cooperation in all aspects of this application.
Associate Members Freedman and Lane left the meeting at this point.
Budget
Larson moved that the Planning Board encumber $4500 from its current FY07 budget from “Planning and Professional” funds extending this amount to FY08 for the purpose of hiring consulting assistance for the preparation of an RFP for the leasing of Town parcels and/or rights-of-way to install wireless communication facilities, and that the Chairman of the BOS agrees that the drafting of the RFP should include a member of the BOS, a member of the PB and the procurement office. Gonzales seconded and the motion carried 7-0. It was agreed that the consulting contract must be executed prior to June 30, 2007.
Epstein requested that Mansfield draft a memo to McKenzie thanking her for her letter and indicating that the PB has passed a motion to utilize the $4500 and that Larson will be the PB representative on this matter.
At 11:20 pm, the PB meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully Submitted,
Gretchen Caywood
Administrative Assistant
Carlisle Planning Board
| |
