Town of Carlisle
MASSACHUSETTS 01741
------------
Office of
PLANNING BOARD
66 Westford Street
Carlisle, Massachusetts 01741
Tel. (978) 369-9702
Fax (978) 369-4521
Minutes
June 11, 2007
Minutes 5/14/07
Bills
Budget
Organization of 2007-2008 Board
Summer meeting schedule
GIS Development Task Force/ESRI software maintenance
Wireless Applications Advisory Committee (WAAC)
MPO Suburban Mobility Assessment (study approved)
Preparation of Request for Proposals for Personal Wireless Communications Facilities on Town-owned land [Broadcast Signal Lab – Planning Board/joint subcommittee]
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 for request for Common Driveway Special Permit on Cross Street to serve two lots located at Map 7, Parcels 21 and 21-4, William Costello, applicant.
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.
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.
Request for additional extension of time to complete Maplewood Definitive Subdivision Plan (Map 17, Lots 17A-1 through 17A-5) [Request of Robert Koning]
Request for additional extension of time to complete Carriage Way Definitive Subdivision Plan (Map 13, Lots 22-2 through 22-10) [Request of William Costello]
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 members David Freedman and Tom Lane, and Planning Administrator George Mansfield were present.
Gretchen Caywood, assistant to the Planning Administrator, Alan Carpenito (BOS), Nancy Pierce (Westford Street) Kamal Johari (Nexus Wireless) Brian Grossman (Prince Lobel Glovsky and Tye, LLP), William Costello (Concord, MA), George Dimakarakos (Stamski & McNary) and Bob Zielinski (Carlisle Mosquito) were also in attendance.
Acting Chair Epstein reminded those in attendance that at the prior meeting (May 14, 2007), he had appointed Freedman as Chair of the special permit hearings for Omnipoint at 1022 Westford Street and for Chestnut Estates.
Minutes
The PB reviewed the draft minutes of the regular session of May 14, 2007. and several revisions were suggested. Lamere moved to approve the minutes as revised. Nathan seconded and the motion carried 9-0.
Organization of 2007-2008 Board
Epstein suggested that the PB choose its officers tonight, and that in the interest of time, the choosing of appointees and liaisons to other Boards and Committees be kept until the next meeting. Epstein reviewed that Nathan had been nominated as Clerk at the prior meeting. Since Larson was willing to continue as Treasurer for the PB, he was nominated as such for the next year, with Lamere expressing interest in the following term. After discussion, Peterson nominated Epstein as Chair of the PB for the 2007-2008 term and Gonzales seconded the nomination. Epstein nominated Peterson as Vice Chair, and Gonzales seconded the nomination. Hoffman moved that the PB officers for 2007-2008 be named as follows: Michael Epstein as Chair, Greg Peterson as Vice Chair, Brian Larson as Treasurer, Carol
Nathan as Clerk. Gonzales seconded the motion and it passed 7-0 (with associates not voting).
Summer meeting schedule
With the next meeting already set for Monday, June 25, 2007, the PB scheduled its subsequent summer meetings for Monday, July 23rd and Monday August 20,th with the regular meeting schedule resuming Monday, September 10, 2007. Epstein indicated that he will not be in attendance on August 20th, and Peterson agreed to chair that 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]
-and-
Continued Public Hearing for request for Common Driveway Special Permit on Cross Street to serve two lots located at Map 7, Parcels 21 and 21-4, William Costello, applicant.
Mansfield reviewed that this hearing was opened at the April 9th PB meeting and continued to the May 2nd PB meeting, however no testimony has been taken yet. Epstein appointed the two associate members to vote in the Common Drive hearing, but noted that they will not be voting in the Scenic Road hearing. Epstein added that while associate members can contribute on all matters, they can only vote on special permit hearings when they are appointed by the Chair.
Dimakarakos (the applicant’s engineer) provided the proof of notification of abutters (certified mail receipts) to Mansfield. He then summarized the history of this application, for the benefit of the new PB members. In December, his client had submitted an application for a hearing under the Scenic Road and Public Shade Tree Act regarding the removal of certain trees for construction of a driveway for one lot, with the adjacent lot to have its own individual driveway. On review, the PB suggested that the applicant consider a common driveway, which could instead serve both lots, thereby eliminating one driveway cut and access way onto Cross Street, while using the existing cart path. The applicant’s engineer then designed the common drive and a Special Permit application was submitted. The proposed common drive would be approximately 100 feet in length, just under 14 feet in width, and would have a T-turnaround. Dimakarakos reported that they had filed a Notice of Intent (NOI)
with ConsComm which was approved, and an Order of Conditions was issued. He added that the proposed common drive still requires the removal of five trees within the right-of-way, which will allow the widening of the existing opening and improve sight lines. The two requested waivers are that the driveway not be named (as it serves only 2 lots) and that the proposed T-turnaround is 21-feet from the property line instead of the required 40 feet.
Epstein referred to a point made by the PB’s engineer (LandTech) that the proposed design, which calls for a super-elevated drive (sloped from an elevation on one side), may lead to icing problems in winter. Dimakarakos explained that in this situation a sloped drive will help alleviate icing, since one side of the drive is naturally elevated from the other. Crowning would require catch basins on the uphill side that may still overflow due to the natural slope. He stressed that in this case a cross slope is best, and that they had submitted a response to this comment from LandTech, whose final comment was to leave it to the PB’s discretion. Dimakarakos added that the proposed infiltration trench on the downhill side will mitigate the impact on wetlands. He said stormwater
guidelines were followed in the design, even though it is not a requirement for this size lot.
Epstein confirmed from Mansfield that a Driveway Access and Maintenance Agreement has been submitted, and Nathan requested and received confirmation that it includes requirements for maintenance of the infiltration trench And that the homeowners are obligated to maintain it. Dimakarakos added that if the trench is clogged and damages the wetland, ConsComm can enforce the Order of Conditions.
Alan Carpenito (BOS) confirmed with Mansfield that abutter Carl Andreassen (Cross Street) had been notified of this hearing. [ this correct, or should it be the other way around?]
The PB then reviewed a draft Decision including draft Findings, Waivers and Conditions, prepared by the Planning Administrator, regarding the common driveway special permit. Peterson suggested a condition that the Common Drive not be used to access more than two lots, with a maximum aggregate development of two single-family homes, and structures and uses accessory thereto. The applicant agreed to this condition. Peterson pointed out that such a condition can be modified by a future PB by amending the special permit. Freedman suggested a minor change to one of the findings and additional wording to justify the waiver of the setback requirement. Hoffman moved to approve the draft Findings, Waivers and Conditions as amended herewith Peterson seconded and the motion passed unanimously (9-0). It
was agreed that Peterson will review the final draft of the decision.
Regarding the Scenic Road hearing, Mansfield read a letter forwarded from the Tree Warden, Gary Davis, indicating his agreement with removal of the noted trees. Dimakarakos added that the amount of stone wall to be removed is actually only 19 feet as opposed to 31 feet.
Hoffman moved to give the PB’s consent to remove the indicated 5 oak trees within the right-of-way and to remove 19 feet of stone wall. Peterson seconded and the motion passed unanimously (7-0, with associates abstaining).
At this point, Chair Epstein closed both hearings. Freedman noted that it should not be common practice for the Tree Warden to not attend Scenic Road hearings, although in this case it is understandable because of the continuance of the hearing. Freedman also thanked Dimakarakos and Costello for their patience and cooperation, particularly in modifying their plan to include a common drive in place of two separate drives.
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.
Chair Epstein opened this public hearing and, since many were in attendance for the subsequent hearing on wireless at 1022 Westford Street, suggested tabling it until later this evening. Peterson moved to table the public hearing on Chestnut Estates and pick it up later this evening. Nathan seconded and the motion carried 8-0-1, with Lamere (an abutter) recusing himself from the vote on this hearing.
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 public hearing. An e-mail of 6/11/07 from David Maxson, the PB’s review consultant, and an estimate of residential lots possibly served by the proposed facility, prepared by Mansfield based upon the drive test data, dated 6/6/07, were submitted. The applicant wishes to install an approximately 80-foot monopole at the site. Regarding the PB consultant’s recent written comments on this application, Freedman asked the applicant if their drive tests take into account the differences between the test antenna setup and what the actual setup will be. Kamal Johari, design engineer for the applicant, explained that, to the extent possible, steps are taken to compensate for the differences in the two systems. In the test system, an omnidirectional antenna and
portable transmitter are used, with a brief cable length leading to less transmission loss. For the real site, three panel antennas are used (covering 120 degrees each) and a long coaxial cable within the monopole, leading to greater transmission losses. Therefore, in the real case, greater power is used along with a higher gain antenna to
compensate for the loss. In this way, the drive test data should reflect the real case. Johari also explained that while the omnidirectional antenna has a broader bandwidth, the panel antennas can be adjusted up or down slightly to help compensate. Johari explained to Freedman that “post site” drive tests to compare with the operational site are generally not performed. He added that while the panel antennas can be adjusted for horizontal angle coverage, the monopole structure limits the possibilities to slight adjustments only.
When Freedman pointed out that it has been suggested that the terrain changes do not correlate with the projected coverage differences between the 60 and 80 foot antennas, Johari assured the PB that all data they have put forward is genuine, the tests actually having been conducted twice, and indeed demonstrates significant coverage deficiencies in the desired area if a 60-foot antenna is used. He added that the differences in projected coverage between the two heights are due to a combination of terrain effects and foliage effects. In some directions, a proposed 60-foot antenna is below the tree line, and in others it is not. Johari felt that the drive test data is consistent with foliage effects, since the differences between 60 and 80 feet really start to show at a point where the foliage picks up
again and that there is thus significantly less difference in coverage plots between the 80-foot and 90-foot tests.
Regarding some input to the PB that the applicant’s goal may not be seamless coverage, Freedman said that the PB should be aware that it is likely that the wireless provider’s goal may be different than the bylaw’s goal. He said that, in his opinion, he is not sure whether the bylaw can require seamless coverage as a goal. Peterson said that, per the PB consultant’s comment, the applicant may require at least one more 60-foot monopole between the proposed site and Town Center to avoid dropped calls whether the current facility under review is built to 60 or 80 feet. After further discussion with Grossman and Johari, Larson summarized that whether or not the PB were to grant a waiver to the 60-foot height limitation in the bylaw, the applicant would still need to apply for at least
one additional 60-foot site located between 1022 Westford and Town Center in order to provide continuous wireless coverage along Route 225 in that area. However, Johari stated that at this time the applicant would be satisfied with one monopole at the proposed site, of 80-feet in height. To the best of his knowledge, no additional facilities are planned as of this time. He said that using an 80-foot monopole would provide a better chance of avoiding dropped calls between the site and Town Center.
Freedman pointed out that based on the drive test data showing large residential areas not covered , the primary goal of the applicant seems to be coverage on 225 as opposed to serving residential areas, . Johari said that their coverage objective includes the residential areas also. Grossman added that due to terrain, heavy foliage, and home placement, theoretically it is not possible (practically speaking) to cover every home in Carlisle.
Larson paraphrased wireless consultant Maxson’s input to the PB: that the applicant will likely continue to apply for construction of additional facilities in Carlisle whether this monopole is 60 or 80-feet, Maxson therefore recommending that the PB approve the application for a 60-foot monopole only, and asked Grossman to address this comment. Grossman assured the PB that by approving this site for an 80-foot monopole, they will not be setting a precedent that all future applications will request at least 80 feet structures. He said that for other sites, 60 feet may be sufficient. He added that since Carlisle is such a small Town, if this facility is approved it will likely be some time before the applicant returns to apply for another facility.
Peterson pointed out to Grossman that it would greatly help the applicant’s case if they would better address possible co-locators for this site, and said that the PB would like to see some outreach to other potential carriers to solicit possible co-locators. Grossman said that while they would design the site to allow co-locations, whether there are any forthcoming or not, the applicant still needs to construct an 80-foot site at this location. Nathan stressed the importance of showing a good faith effort that they are actively seeking co-locators, and that this will help the applicant’s case.
Peterson requested additional photographic data depicting the site view from different vantage points at different times of year, and with the use of different monopole camouflage approaches (silo, etc.). He referred Grossman to the views of interest depicted in information submitted tonight as well as in a previously submitted ViewShed
report. The goal is to depict clearly what will be visible with a 60-foot facility and with an 80-foot facility along with appropriate camouflage suggestions.
Lane asked the status of the First Religious Society wireless application, and Grossman said that since his client is the co-locator on that application he is unsure where it stands at this time.
At this point, Larson reminded Grossman that as of yet the PB has not heard a business reason why the applicant would not build a 60-foot monopole on the site. Such an explanation is required by the bylaw. Epstein strongly suggested that the applicant needs to make a case supporting its application in an organized and concise manner and apply the facts to the bylaw, addressing specific points of the bylaw. While much information has been presented, it needs to be compiled and directly related to the issues raised in the hearing relative to the bylaw. It is the applicant’s job to make their case for the need for an 80-foot monopole at this site.
Freedman opened the hearing to the public. Nancy Pierce (Westford Street) asked that if the PB grants the waiver for the 900-foot setback requirement (for the three buildings nearest the site), would this have any bearing on the future development of the land. Freedman said that it would not, and that the land could still be developed, with the knowledge that a nearby wireless site is already in existence. Mansfield pointed out that it is within the PB’s purview to put a condition of ‘no development’ on the property while this special permit is in place.
With no additional comments from the public, Larson moved to continue the public hearing until Monday, June 25, 2007 at 8:00 pm. Peterson seconded and the motion carried unanimously (9-0).
Request for additional extension of time to complete Maplewood Definitive Subdivision Plan (Map 17, Lots 17A-1 through 17A-5) [Request of Robert Koning]
Mansfield summarized that Koning Farm Road was approved as a 5-lot subdivision in 1998, and construction was completed in 2000. EarthTech, Inc. had reviewed the original As-Built plan. Later on, an abutter filed suit indicating that the subdivision was built to include a small portion of his land, and this was subsequently determined by Land Court to be the case. Therefore the plans were changed with respect to the right-of-way for the roadway, and a new As-Built plan was prepared. When LandTech (PB engineers) reviewed the as-built plan, there were several inconsistencies indicated which will not be resolved by June 30th, 2007, when the current extension expires.
Peterson moved to approve an extension of time to December 31, 2007 for completion of the Maplewood Definitive Subdivision Plan, the property being located on Map 17, lots 17A-1 through 17A-5 at the request of Robert Koning. Hoffman seconded the motion and it passed unanimously (7-0).
Request for additional extension of time to complete Carriage Way Definitive Subdivision Plan (Map 13, Lots 22-2 through 22-10) [Request of William Costello]
Mansfield reported that while this subdivision is near completion, an As-Built plan has not yet been submitted. Hoffman moved to approve an extension of time to December 31, 2007 for completion of the Carriage Way Definitive Subdivision Plan, the property being located on Map 13, Lots 22-2 through 22-10, at the request of William Costello. Peterson seconded and the motion passed unanimously (7-0).
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.
Peterson moved to pick this matter up from the table and continue, Larson seconded and the motion carried 8-0-1, with Lamere (an abutter) abstaining. Lamere recused himself from this hearing.
The PB reviewed the draft Decision, including Findings and Conditions, for the Conservation Cluster, and the draft Decision, including Findings, Waivers, and Conditions, for the two Common Drives, these drafts having
been prepared by the Planning Administrator. Peterson offered to craft some suggested revisions and to discuss them with the applicant’s attorney, and will submit these to Mansfield.
Peterson moved to continue this public hearing to 7:45 PM on Monday, June 25, 2007, Hoffman seconded and the motion carried 8-0-1, with Lamere abstaining.
GIS Development Task Force/ESRI software maintenance
Mansfield asked the PB to authorize him to sign the ESRI maintenance quote for 2007-2008 in the amount of $728. Epstein moved to authorize George Mansfield to sign the maintenance quote in the amount of $728 for ArcGIS maintenance for 2007-2008, Peterson seconded and the motion passed unanimously (7-0).
Wireless Applications Advisory Committee (WAAC)
Mansfield instructed the PB to take a vote on their recommendation to disband this committee. Nathan moved and Gonzales seconded a recommendation to the BOS to disband the Wireless Applications Advisory Committee. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).
At 11:25 PM, Gonzales moved to adjourn the PB meeting, Nathan seconded and the motion carried unanimously (9-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Gretchen Caywood
Administrative Assistant
Carlisle Planning Board
| 
