Town of Carlisle
MASSACHUSETTS 01741
------------
Office of
PLANNING BOARD
66 Westford Street
Carlisle, Massachusetts 01741
Tel. (978) 369-9702
Fax (978) 369-4521
Minutes
September 24, 2007
Minutes 9/10/2007
Bills
Budget
Liaison reports
Report of the 40B Working Group
Personnel Board PTO proposal
CPTC workshops
Preparation of Request for Proposals for Personal Wireless Communications Facilities on Town-owned land [Broadcast Signal Lab – Planning Board/joint subcommittee]
Continued Joint Public Hearing with Carlisle Tree Warden of a request to remove certain trees within the Town’s right of way along the east side of Concord Street, from Church Street to Bingham Road, and along the west side of Lowell Street, from the Police Station to Morse Road, both designated scenic roads, 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). The proposed removal of trees is to construct a footpath adjacent to the roadway, which will also include the renovation and relocation of certain stone walls within the right of way
Request for release of security and Certificate of Completion for Great Brook Estates Definitive Subdivision Plan, 195 Rutland Street (Map 26, Lots 18-1, 18-2, 18-3, 18-8, 18-A, 18-B, 18-C, 18-D, 18-E, 18-F, and Parcels 18-G & 18-H), or extension of time to complete said subdivision [Request of Betsy Goldenberg]
Public Hearing on application of Sprint Nextel Corp. 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 27 School Street (Map 22, Lot 5) on property owned by the First Religious Society
Chair Michael Epstein called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm in the Clark Room at Town Hall. Board members Kent Gonzales, Greg Peterson, Brian Larson, Ken Hoffman, Marc Lamere, Carol Nathan, Associate Members Tom Lane and David Freedman and Planning Administrator George Mansfield were present.
Gretchen Caywood, assistant to the Planning Administrator, Alan Carpenito (BOS),, Deb Belanger (Ped/Bike Comm), John Bakewell (Ped/Bike Comm), Jack O’Connor and Jen Bush (Church Street), Annette and John Lee (Lowell Street), Sylvia Sillers (Concord Street), Kevin Cusak (Concord Street), Gary Shepard (David E. Ross Assoc.), Betsy Goldenberg (Pine Brook Road), Ed Pare (Brown/Rudnick), Joe Pereira (TerraSearch), Bob Koning (Building Commissioner), David Maxson (Broadcast Signal Lab), Miloje Makivic (Heald Road), and Bob Zielinski (Carlisle Mosquito) were also in attendance.
Minutes
The PB reviewed the draft minutes of September 10, 2007, and a few revisions were suggested. Peterson moved to approve the minutes as revised, Hoffman seconded and the motion carried 9-0.
Report of the 40B Working Group
Chair Epstein reported that he had met with Hoffman and Freedman, the Planning Board sub-group asked to prepared recommendations for the Town’s 40B Working Group, and compiled a memo of recommendations for the 40BWG concerning guidelines and regulations for the 40B review process for future projects. The memo included recommendations for immediate actions, process modifications and specific suggestions toward
establishing new 40B procedural guidelines. The draft memo had been circulated to the PB for further input and revision, and at this point the Chair asked the PB for any further comment. Several revisions were suggested.
Peterson moved and Epstein seconded the submission of the revised memo to the 40BWG for consideration at its meeting on Wednesday, September 26th. The motion carried unanimously (9-0).
Public Hearing on application of Sprint Nextel Corp. 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 27 School Street (Map 22, Lot 5) on property owned by the First Religious Society
Chair Epstein opened the public hearing and appointed Associate Members Freedman and Lane to be voting members for this special permit public hearing. Joseph Pereira (TerraSearch), a representative for Sprint/Nextel, presented Planning Administrator George Mansfield with the certified mail receipts indicating that public hearing notices had been mailed to all abutters.
Ed Pare (Brown/Rudnick), attorney for Sprint, described the proposed site, which will consist of the installation of up to 12 panel antennas within the church steeple and four radio equipment cabinets installed within the attic of the church annex. Antenna placement at heights of 89 and 82 feet (6 antennas at each height) would be required to meet Sprint’s coverage objectives. Concealed coaxial cables will run between the equipment and the antennas. There will also be three small GPS antennas. Three air conditioning units, necessary for cooling the equipment cabinets in the attic, would be located on the northeast side of the church behind Union Hall and alongside the annex and would be shielded by fencing and shrubbery. Pare mentioned that this application was formulated after a June
meeting with Planning Administrator Mansfield and Sylvia Sillers, then Chair of the Historical Commission. Pare explained that since the radiofrequency (rF) signal does not penetrate wood well, portions of the clapboards on the steeple will be replaced with identical fiberglass clapboards that will be custom molded, finished and painted to match the existing wood ones. He reported that the design has been approved by the FRS. He then submitted a list of waivers requested by Sprint to Planning Administrator Mansfield.
Muhammad Ibrahim, rF engineer for Sprint Spectrum, presented Sprint coverage maps for the area, showing very little coverage in Carlisle, while the surrounding Towns are mostly covered. These maps are based on computer models designed from drive test data, but not directly on actual drive tests. Ibrahim noted that two Sprint sites will be coming online shortly, one at the Anderegg property (871 Bedford Road) in Carlisle at 166 feet height and one on Republic Road in Billerica at 133 feet. When he showed a coverage map depicting the projected enhanced coverage from these two sites, there was still a coverage hole of about 1 mile mainly along Westford Street
to the west of Town center. The engineer estimated that the in-building the gap is probably just over 1 mile, while in-car it is about 1 mile. When asked about nearby operating sites, he added that their facility on Annursnac Hill Road in Concord is actually a repeater (about 80-feet in height) and not a full tower. Their Butter Brook Farm facility in Acton is a tower of 160 feet in height.
When Chair Epstein inquired as to the accuracy of these computer models, the engineer said they are generally 90-95% accurate, being derived from other drive test data. He added that while all carriers follow the same method, the software differs and is proprietary to the carrier. PB consultant David Maxson (Broadcast Signal Labs) explained that they are computer estimations using a terrain database and a statistical average of the area vegetation, accurate within an error margin. The carrier uses drive test data to ‘tune’ the model. Overall the models adequately predict actual coverage in his opinion.
Ibrahim then showed actual drive test data obtained on September 20th which was taken by setting up a transmitter at the proposed facility height and transmitting the same power planned for the site. Measurements were then made by driving the area roads with a cell phone, and a receiver antenna atop the car. The data showed there would be a wide range of coverage expected for a full 360 degrees around the site. A different transmitter frequency is used than that of nearby functioning sites to avoid interference during this drive test.
Maxson then summarized key points in his report to the PB. In his opinion the applicant plans to conceal equipment well, but some possible concealment issues should be discussed.
-three small, white GPS antennas proposed for location in the belfry would be visible
-if the coaxial cable is run through the belfry, the cable tray should be painted to best conceal it. Also, the PB should be assured that the cable tray will fit within the design appropriately, as they can be sizable.
-the PB should consider whether any power upgrades are required at the site. If so, the PB should be assured it will have no negative visual impact.
-Is it really necessary for the applicant to have separate Nextel antennas? Can they be combined with the Sprint antennas in the same space? If possible, this would leave a co-location space.
Maxson concluded that in his opinion, the facility is fully compliant with FCC rF emission standards.
Pare indicated he will have Nextel’s coverage requirement information well in advance of the next PB meeting, but at this time, the company still intends to put both facilities in this location. He said there should still be room for Omnipoint to co-locate at this site, and will verify this for the Board.
Alan Cameron (FRS) said Omnipoint has a signed lease with FRS. They plan to share the facility in the annex, with a common coax cable to be used. Their antennas will be in the four corner posts of the belfry. Pereira added that the third air conditioning unit location would be for an Omnipoint unit, if they required it.
When Maxson asked about the extent of proposed coverage up Lowell Street, Periera showed that according to the coverage projections, the Omnipoint site approved at 886 Lowell Street should fill in the small coverage gap that may remain on Lowell Street.
At this time, Chair Epstein asked for public input, but also indicated that the hearing will be continued. He then read a letter submitted to the PB by Paul McCormack (School Street) expressing concerns about the proximity of the facility to the school and the rF emissions. Maxson explained that this facility will operate at such low power levels that there would need to be 250-1000 co-locators to even approach a problematic level of rF emissions. It would only be a concern to someone working in the steeple, and Sprint must be notified in advance when this is necessary. Mansfield added that rF emissions information is on file with the Town Clerk.
Jack O’Connor (Church Street) inquired about back-up power equipment. Pare said that a battery and generator back-up will be located in the equipment room in the attic. Bob Koning (Building Commissioner) pointed out that the Town owns the clock in the tower, and asked that the plans detail exactly what the setup will be in the clock tower, especially as one can see into the tower readily at night.
When Freedman asked about any failsafe for the air conditioning units, Pereira said that the site will automatically shut itself down if the air conditioning fails.
Jen Bush (Church Street) asked if screens for the air conditioning units could include a means of noise buffering. The applicant indicated that this is planned.
Miloje Makivic (Heald Road) asked about monitoring compliance of the site. Pare said it will be monitored 24/7 at a Sprint switch site, and that Sprint operates well below standard power levels. He reiterated Maxson’s statement that it would take about 500 co-locators at this site to approach emission level concerns.
At this point, Chair Epstein pointed out to the applicant’s representatives that co-location potential is an important consideration to the PB in approving these applications, and it would help their cause if another co-location site were to be made available. When Epstein asked the consultant Maxson’s opinion whether it would be necessary to have radiation safety specialist Don Hayes present at the continued hearing, Maxson said that he is very comfortable concerning site compliance and, in his opinion, it is not necessary.
Freedman moved to continue this public hearing to 9:30 pm on Monday, October 22, 2007. Epstein seconded and the motion carried 9-0.
Freedman left the meeting at this point.
Joint Public Hearing with Carlisle Tree Warden of a request to remove certain trees within the Town’s right of way along the east side of Concord Street, from Church Street to Bingham Road, and along the west side of Lowell Street, from the Police Station to Morse Road, both designated scenic roads, 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). The proposed removal of trees is to construct a footpath adjacent to the roadway, which will also include the renovation and relocation of certain stone walls within the right of way
Chair Epstein reopened this public hearing and explained that at the last meeting the hearing was opened to discuss the Planning Board’s jurisdiction in this matter and general procedure, and no testimony was taken in the absence of the applicant. He reminded the group that the PB’s purview regarding scenic road hearings is for changes to trees and stone walls within the right-of-way off of a Scenic Road. Deb Belanger (Chair, Pedestrian/Bike Safety Advisory Committee), presented this application, explaining that the applicant is the BOS, with the Ped/Bike Committee in a staff role. The project will be implemented by the DPW and the Ped/Bike Committee.
Belanger reviewed the history of this project, reminding the PB that 100 years ago there was a network of sidewalks in Town Center that has receded and overgrown over time. Thirty years ago, the League of Women Voters proposed pathways in Town Center. In 2002, Ped/Bike Comm issued the Carlisle Footpath Plan which included a small network of paths totaling about 3 miles in length, with the intent of honoring the character of the Town in the design and construction of these pathways. In 2004, the Committee requested funding for a crushed stone path on Bedford Road. It passed Town Meeting and the ballot, and was put in place on Bedford Road. While the path held up well at first, weeds intervened. Since chemical treatment of the weeds was not allowed and no organic weed killers had been
approved yet, manual removal was the only course of action. Therefore investigation of a new surface was required. After initial recommendation of asphalt, subsequent Historical Commission requests for a more natural surface material in the Historic District, and investigation of other stabilized surfaces, Ped/Bike Comm recommended the asphalt with chip seal product. Funding was approved at this year’s Town Meeting, and after an RFP and acceptance of bids, a contractor was selected.
Belanger added that all the pathways have been sited, and the potential issues and concerns have been brought out for discussion. The proposed locations of the four pathways are as follows:
Bedford Road – from Town Center to Kimball’s Ice Cream
East Street – from Bedford Road to Partridge Lane
Lowell Street – from Police Station to Old Morse Road
Concord Street – from Church Street to Bingham Road
The Historical Commission approved the pathways on Bedford Road and East Street at their September meeting. The PB and Tree Warden have already approved the East Street plan through a Scenic Road hearing and, since Bedford Road is not designated a Scenic Road, only Concord Street and Lowell Street remain for PB review. ConsComm will review the pathways plan for the first time on Thursday, October 11th.
Chair Epstein added that there will be a site visit for the Concord Street and Lowell Street pathways at 8 am on Saturday, September 29th, and that the public is encouraged to attend. The next hearing o the matter will take place at the October 29 th PB meeting.
Belanger summarized the overall process and factors for siting the path locations, including popular walking destinations, minimizing wetlands impact, and minimizing effects on private property. She added that while there is generally sufficient space within the Town right-of-ways along the roadway, occasionally a path will need to be diverted behind a stone wall instead of in front of it. All necessary easements have been agreed to by the property owners.
Regarding the siting of the proposed Concord Street pathway, Belanger explained that the easterly side of the road was chosen as no easements will be necessary and there are less potential issues with wetlands. However, there are some areas where the right-of-way narrows, and some constructability issues will be addressed. She added that, per the CHC’s recommendation, the pathways will be no more than 4-feet wide within the Historic District, widening to 5-feet outside the district where possible.
John Bakewell (Ped/Bike Comm), also a certified arborist, spoke to tree preservation, noting that only minimal tree removal will be recommended when there is no alternative for path siting, and their efforts have been toward conserving the trees as much as possible. He added that tree root systems will cause problems in some areas, leading to cracking and heaving of the asphalt, and it is understood that repair work will be needed. While there is
generally a significant depth of excavation required, Bakewell said that the contractors will be instructed not to excavate a full 12-inches in root sensitive areas, as they will in other areas of the path, and it will be documented that because of this shallower excavation where necessary to preserve tree roots, the contractors will not be liable for premature pathway damage. Mr. Bakewell also said that the method by which the tree roots are severed is important and that if done correctly, the trees should not be affected.
Chair Epstein said that when he walked the site, it seemed that there were some marked trees that may not need removal. Bakewell explained that in some cases, the excavation and grading would damage the roots too much for the tree to remain, although they have worked to site the path to minimize these cases. The Chair confirmed with Belanger that the DPW and BOS have approved the proposed pathway locations and are aware of the significant issues. The BOS has not held a public hearing yet. Belanger said that the Ped/Bike Comm goal is to do preconstruction work in November, and is therefore hoping to have Town reviews completed by the end of October.
Nathan asked how the separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic will be assured. Belanger explained that there will be a planted verge of least 2-feet of depth from the roadway. Curbing in the Historic District for Lowell and Concord Streets is under discussion with the CHC
Bakewell described to the PB that when the neighborhood paths and the trails are mapped, there is nothing in terms of walkways throughout Town Center. When the proposed path locations are overlayed with the current paths and trails, the entire system is interconnected. Belanger said that these paths will be designated for mixed use, but are not for performance biking. The paths will comply with ADA guidelines for size, surface traction and grade. Belanger said that notices were sent to 74 abutters to these two proposed paths.
John Lee (Lowell Street) expressed concern about the black walnut trees at the front of his property, and about the path height being elevated as it goes by his property due to the rise in elevation of Lowell Street from repaving over the years. Belanger said that the path will be 4-feet wide in this area, and immediately adjacent the roadway with granite curbing, per discussions with the CHC. Lee said this should avoid any problems. Belanger added that the curbing detail is still under discussion, but should be known for the October 29th PB meeting.
Sylvia Sillers (Concord Street) expressed concern about the three trees currently marked for possible removal on her property, along with several close by on her property that may be in danger of root damage during excavation. She added her understanding that the location of the pathway was still open on Concord Street. Chair Epstein verified that Sillers and the Lees will attend the sitewalk, and reminded the public that pathway siting is not within PB purview.
When Jen Bush (Church Street) asked if trees could be planted for each tree removed, Chair Epstein said that such a condition is within the purview of the PB.
At this point, Chair Epstein expressed his appreciation for the diligence that Belanger and Bakewell have shown over their many years of work to develop this project and bring it forward. All agreed to meet at 8 am on Saturday, September 29th at the corner of Church and Concord Street to begin the sitewalk.
Peterson moved and Epstein seconded the continuation of this public hearing to Monday, October 29th at 7:45 pm. The motion passed unanimously (8-0).
Request for release of security and Certificate of Completion for Great Brook Estates Definitive Subdivision Plan, 195 Rutland Street (Map 26, Lots 18-1, 18-2, 18-3, 18-8, 18-A, 18-B, 18-C, 18-D, 18-E, 18-F, and Parcels 18-G & 18-H), or extension of time to complete said subdivision [Request of Betsy Goldenberg]
Planning Administrator Mansfield summarized the status of this project, with two issues remaining: 1. The size of one outlet from the detention pond does not match that in the design plan (the outlet is larger) and 2. The applicant has not submitted a cross section design of the retaining wall, and certification that it was designed by a professional engineer.
Gary Shepard (Ross Associates), engineer for the applicant, verified that the fire cistern capacity, engineer’s certification note, grading detail, and detention basin detail had been added to the new plans provided this date. He added that the outlet size for the detention pond had been discussed with the LandTech engineer assigned to the project at that time, and he had approved of it. It was installed 6 years ago, and has been functioning very well, despite some high capacity storms in that timeframe. Shepard agreed to provide calculation data showing that the impact of this change to outlet diameter is minimal. He added that a hearing for a Certificate of Compliance has been requested from ConsComm, with a date to be assigned.
When Hoffman asked about certification of the retaining wall design, Shepard said that his office had been billed for the inspection of it, but the present LandTech engineer had not been able to discern it’s inspection from the notes. Planning Administrator Mansfield added that generally a summary report is received at the end of a project detailing items that did not pass, and there were no such items indicated with respect to the retaining wall. However, the only documentation the PB has in its records is the specifications sheet on the Versa Loc products used for the retaining wall. Hoffman added that, in his experience, there is generally not an engineer’s stamp for a VersaLoc retaining wall, as it is a pre-engineered product.
Lane left the meeting at this point.
Chair Epstein suggested that since this road will be accepted by the Town as a public way, the PB needs further assurance that the appropriate wall design was installed. After discussion, Peterson and Epstein, suggested asking Sleger (formerly of LandTech) through the LandTech President whether any information on this wall is available. As LandTech was the engineering firm in charge of the review of this project, it is their responsibility to provide satisfactory answers to these questions for the PB to confirm that the retaining wall was built appropriately.
Betsy Goldenberg (applicant) reported that she has notified the homeowners of Great Brook Estates that she, as representative of Great Brook Estates LLC, will be resigning as Trustee, and that the homeowners are in the process of appointing their Trustees. She requested an extension of subdivision approval to November 30, 2007. Peterson moved and Epstein seconded the extension of approval for the Great Brook Estates Definitive Subdivision Plan to November 30, 2007, and the motion passed unanimously (7-0).
Personnel Board PTO proposal
Planning Administrator Mansfield reported that at its meeting the next night (September 25th) the BOS planned to discuss the proposal for paid time off (PTO) benefits for part-time staff, recently approved by the Personnel Board, and the Report and Recommendations of the facilitator hired by the BOS to address some ongoing issues at Town Hall.
Miscellaneous
Peterson reported that there is a citizen’s petition to repeal 40B which has been filed with the Attorney General’s office, and that to obtain information about this petition one can go to: repeal40B.com. The goal is for this issue to be on the 2008 ballot.
At 11:07 pm, Peterson moved and Gonzales seconded the adjournment of the PB meeting, and the motion carried unanimously (7-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Gretchen Caywood
Administrative Assistant
Carlisle Planning Board
| 
