 |
Town of Carlisle
MASSACHUSETTS 01741
------------
Office of
PLANNING BOARD
66 Westford Street
Carlisle, Massachusetts 01741
Tel. (978) 369-9702
Fax (978) 369-4521
Minutes
October 22, 2007
Minutes 9/24/2007
Bills
Budget
Liaison reports – Board of Health
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 1022 Westford Street (Map 18, Lot 42A) on property owned by Lawrence A. Sorli.
Continued 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
Request release of security and Certificate of Completion for Maplewood Definitive Subdivision Plan, (Map 17, Lots 17A-1 through 17A-5) [Request of Robert Koning]
Request for release of security and Certificate of Completion for Carriage Way Definitive Subdivision Plan, (Map 23, Lot 1 and Map 13, Lots 22-2, 22-3, 22-4, 22-5, 22-6, 22-7, 22-8 and 22-10) [Request of William Costello]
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]
Discussion of policy regarding use and/or modification of Carlisle’s GIS database by other than Town’s land use departments
Discussion of scope of peer review of Definitive Subdivision Plan for Hanover Hill, composed of 35 lots on 167.31 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
Chair Michael Epstein called the meeting to order at 7:32 pm in the Clark Room at Town Hall. Board members Kent Gonzales, Greg Peterson, Brian Larson, Ken Hoffman, Marc Lamere, Associate Members Tom Lane and David Freedman and Planning Administrator George Mansfield were present. Carol Nathan was absent.
Gretchen Caywood, assistant to the Planning Administrator, Alan Carpenito (BOS), Ed Pare (Brown/Rudnick), Joe Pereira (TerraSearch), Muhammad Ibrahim (Sprint), Alan Cameron (School Street), Bob Koning (Building Commissioner), David Maxson (Broadcast Signal Lab), Nancy Pierce (Westford Street), Steven Ventresca (Nitsch Engineering), and Bob Zielinski (Carlisle Mosquito) were also in attendance.
Minutes
The PB reviewed the draft minutes of September 24, 2007, and one revision was suggested. Peterson moved to approve the minutes as revised, Epstein seconded and the motion carried 8-0.
Announcements
Chair Epstein announced that the hearing for Hanover Hill Definitive Subdivision Plan will not take place this evening, as the applicant did not publish a notice of the public hearing, as required by the PB’s Subdivision Rules and Regulations. The Common Drive Special Permit applications associated with this subdivision have now been
submitted by the applicant, and all will be heard at the November 26th PB meeting. He added that the PB will only discuss process pertaining to the PB engineer’s draft report of their review of the plans at the hearing tonight.
Chair Epstein also announced that while a special PB meeting has been scheduled for Monday, October 29th particularly for the hearing on the Carlisle Pathways Plan, there is now a joint meeting on Tuesday, October 30th at 8:45 pm between the Planning Board, Historical Commission, Board of Selectmen, Pedestrian/Bike Safety Advisory Committee and the Tree Warden. The hearing relating to the pathways scheduled for October 29th will be reopened and continued to the 30th. Chair Epstein encouraged all to attend this joint hearing.
Liaison Reports – Board of Health
Gonzales, PB liaison to the BOH, reported on the recent BOH meeting, which he and Epstein attended. The BOH is considering changes to their Rules and Regulations, particularly toward moving away from oversized septic systems. In cases where the septic system is too large for the home, they are finding that the system is not running efficiently. The importance of good design standards is realized. Gonzales added the BOH is planning to modify their regulations for large septic systems, such as would be required for the Coventry Woods project, for example. Epstein reported that there was a very productive dialogue at the meeting.
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.
Epstein appointed Freedman to be Acting Chair of this hearing. Freedman confirmed from the applicant that it does not have any new information to submit. He also confirmed with the applicant that if the PB were to approve a 90-foot facility, Omnipoint would accept a condition that the highest co-location spot is made available to a co-locating carrier, even though Omnipoint might prefer to use this spot. In addition, the applicant confirmed agreement with a condition that if an 80-foot facility is approved, with the permission to retrofit to 90-feet once a co-locator is found, Omnipoint would make provision for a later 10-foot increase in height, and would offer this highest spot to the co-locator. Freedman suggested that while the PB could impose a condition to make provision for the additional 10
feet, they would require a hearing for the actual modification, in order to evaluate new information about the modification with regard to a new or amended Special Permit. Grossman, the legal representative for Omnipoint, also agreed that the applicant would be willing to paint the facility whatever color is specified by the Board. Without much discussion, there was general agreement that a neutral gray was probably best.
At this point, Freedman explained that in order for this application to be approved, five positive votes (of the six original voting members present this evening) will be required. He stated his belief that any decision on this application would not necessarily set a precedent for subsequent decisions, as each application must be judged on its own merits and no two applications would be exactly the same. He then summarized the key issues concerning this application, and related them to key aspects of the Wireless Bylaw. Freedman referred to Section 5.9 of Carlisle’s Zoning Bylaws which begins by listing the various purposes of the Bylaw. He pointed out that it is likely not possible for all of the purposes to be met equally well, but they are intended to be met collectively, with the PB’s
judgment as to the best balance among the various purposes.
Concerning Section 5.9.1.1 of the Bylaw, protecting the scenic, historic, natural and man-made resources of the Town, Freedman said that this location seems to be one where for the most part one would not easily see much of the facility when driving along Westford Street. The applicant’s balloon tests have shown that the extra 20 feet of height sought by waiver should not make the facility significantly more visually intrusive. Freedman also pointed out that while many camouflage approaches have been considered, he is in agreement with the owner of the property that a plain, neutrally painted monopole would be less intrusive and minimize the appearance of the monopole. Freedman reminded those attending that, compared to the Anderegg monopole at 189-feet, this facility, if approved, will be
significantly shorter. The pre-existing access drive which will require little or no clearing, along with the existing barn which will obscure most of the facility and its ground equipment both speak in favor of locating at this site.
Freedman stated that eveidence had been presented showing that the proposed facility met Section 5.9.1.2 regarding beneficial use of PWS by providing coverage in areas where it is currently lacking.
With regard to section 5.9.1.3, minimizing any adverse impacts on the residents of the Town with regard to the general safety, welfare and quality of life, this location is unusual for sites in Carlisle along a major way as there are only two structures, aside from those of the owner, within the 900-foot radius of the proposed site, and the closest is 537 feet away. Sections 5.9.3.20.2 and 5.9.3.21 of the Zoning Bylaws refer to the requirement of a minimum 900-foot setback from existing residences, and possible waiver of that requirement. Freedman pointed out that this waiver would be needed whether the facility is constructed to 60 or to 80-feet height, and, as he reads the Bylaw, even if a Distributed Antenna System (DAS) system were used.
Regarding the protection of property values (Section 5.9.1.4), if the design of the approved site protects the scenic, historic, natural and man-made resources, since the FCC prohibits the PB from considering issues related to RF emissions as long as the facility falls well within Federal safety limits, this condition is being met as much as may be possible. Based on testimony from the applicant, confirmed by Mr. Maxson, approving the facility to 80 feet (or 90 feet with co-location), is expected to help limit the quantity of additional facilities, thereby protecting property values in the wider community. Regarding the possibility of approving a 90-foot facility, Section 5.9.3.15 of the Zoning Bylaws states that the PB can allow greater height than needed if the increased co-location possibility outweighs
detriments of the increased height. The applicant’s engineer has also provided testimony that an 80-foot facility would be more likely to provide a successful ‘handoff’ of calls to the facility proposed at First Religious Society, while a 60-foot facility would definitely not.
Concerning protecting the environment (Section 5.9.1.5), Freedman noted that there are no wetlands issues, no tree cutting required, and no new access roads or paving proposed. Concerning existing trees which would partially shelter the facility, the PB can impose a condition that trees cannot be cut without prior PB approval. The trees can be marked on a site plan as ”not to be removed.”
With regard to minimizing the collective impact of PWF’s in Town (Section 5.9.1.6), the key question has been whether an 80-foot monopole helps control the quantity and height of other facilities that might be needed to meet the same coverage needs. Freedman said that in his opinion adequate evidence has been presented that the coverage at 80 feet is substantially better than that at 60 feet. The applicant’s engineer has testified that if this facility is limited to 60 feet, several additional monopoles would be needed to provide as much coverage as an 80 foot facility at this location. Also, given the terrain, the use of small form factor technologies (SFFT) is not practicable and would not provide off-roadway coverage as the proposed facility will. Freedman said that in his
opinion that, it is understandable that the applicant has not provided at this time a plan for additional facilities that would allow for seamless coverage throughout Town. While it would be preferable to see a long range plan from the applicant, Freedman expressed his belief that the applicant has been forthcoming that, to the best of their knowledge, no additional facilities are currently planned (except for at First Religious Society). Also, any future facility proposed must come before the PB, and the applicant understands that future applications will be thoroughly scrutinized by the PB in terms of coverage needs and projections presented with the application currently before the Board.
Regarding Section 5.9.1.7, Freedman pointed out that the PB has a standard condition of permit approval which requires a removal bond to assure that any equipment no longer needed is removed, and the site restored to pre-installment condition. The PB has heard testimony from its consultant, David Maxson (Broadcast Signal Lab), that the proposed facility complies with all federal and state laws. Standard conditions would require reviews by the Building Inspector prior to and during construction.
Freedman then reviewed the waivers requested by the applicant and the provision in the Bylaw that the Board must find “that such waivers better serve the purposes of this Bylaw… than any alternative PWSF not requiring such waivers.” Concerning the request of a waiver to the 60-foot height limitation, Freedman felt that the applicant had presented sufficient evidence of a remaining significant coverage gap if the facility was constructed to 60 feet in height. Allowing an 80-foot facility should help in minimizing the collective impact of PWF throughout the Town (Section 5.9.1.6) by lessening the need for additional facilities. Concerning the requested
waiver to the 900-foot setback, the PB’s wireless consultant has confirmed that there are no sites in the general area of the coverage objective that would meet this setback (from all residences). Since the wireless consultant has confirmed that there are no viable, more preferable alternative locations to fill the coverage gap that would not require a waiver, and other sites would require additional waivers, a denial of this application may result in an effective prohibition of service. Based on his presentation thus far, Freedman then enumerated specific findings, the Board should make pursuant to Section 5.9.4 Approval criteria. Planning Administrator Mansfield added that there have been 8 hearings at which testimony has been given on this application.
At this point, Epstein moved that, from testimony received from the applicant in its application and subsequently at one or more of the following hearing dates: 2/12, 3/12, 4/09 (no testimony), 5/02, 5/14, 6/11, 6/25 (no testimony), 7/23, 9/10, and 10/22/07, and based on the considerations just enumerated, the PB approve the Application for a Special Permit for a Wireless Communication Facility at 1022 Westford Street in Carlisle per the plans submitted with the application entitled "Sorli Farm, 1022 Westford Street, Carlisle, MA," dated 5/16/06, and subsequently revised 9/07/07, prepared for Omnipoint Communications, Inc., Norton, MA, by Chappell Engineering Associates, Concord, MA, for an 80 foot Concealed Antenna Monopole, and further that the Planning Board also grant the waivers requested by the
Applicant from Sections 5.9.3.20.2 and .3 of the Carlisle Zoning Bylaw regarding setbacks from existing residences and from structures eligible to be listed as a Historic Place, respectively, and from Sections II.4 and II.5 of the Planning Board's Rules and Regulations for PWS Facilities concerning scale of submitted plans, per the Findings enumerated above, with standard Conditions regarding PWSF such as signage, safety, state, federal and local laws, regulations, and building codes, regular monitoring and filing of monitoring reports, removal bond as agreed, as well as the following additional Conditions:
1. In order to maximize the opportunities for co-location at this site and to minimize the quantity of additional PWSF in Carlisle, the applicant agrees, as a condition of accepting this decision, to construct the facility to be capable of supporting a Monopole up to 90 feet in height, and to apply for a permit for, pay for and construct a visually seamless extension of up to 10 feet to a maximum tower height of 90 feet, if and when another PWS provider seeks co-location at this site, on which extension space is to be made available to the other PWS Provider(s) on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis.
2. In order to maintain existing visual buffers for abutters and passersby on Route 225 ,the owner of the property at 1022 Westford Street, his successors, and assigns, agrees to protect trees on the property in visual buffer areas as indicated on a site plan to be submitted for the approval of the Planning Administrator and Building Inspector, and to not significantly trim, remove or arrange for the trimming or removal of said trees without the prior approval of the Planning Board, said agreement to be filed simultaneously with this decision, to run with the land, and to remain in effect until the Monopole ceases to operate and is removed in its entirety.
3. Similarly, that the owner, his successors and assigns agrees to maintain the existing barns shown on the site plan as a visual buffer or as necessary, to replace the barns with a similar structures for as long as the Monopole remains.
Peterson seconded the motion. Acting Chair Freedman then asked for discussion from the PB.
Epstein said that he felt it was reasonable for the PB to approve this application, including the provision for a 10-foot extension in the event that a co-locator is found, as this will help lessen the number of facilities in Town. He added that in his opinion the balloon tests conducted by the applicant showed that there would be little visual detriment if the tower was extended to 90 feet. Also, with respect to the number of abutters that will be able to see this facility from their window, no location will have fewer people affected on a daily basis. There are only 2 residences nearby, both are over 500 feet away.
Epstein reconfirmed with Maxson that DAS would not be very effective here because of the terrain, the widely separated streets and numerous trees. Such systems are most effective in high density developments and along highway corridors. However, Epstein expressed concern about a possible coverage gap between this site and the First Religious Society (FRS) proposed site. Freedman suggested a condition of approval that, if the Applicant were to file an application with the PB for a site in between FRS and 1022 Westford (if a coverage gap persists), they must demonstrate why the gap cannot be covered with SFFTs such as DAS. Grossman said that the applicant may not accept such a condition.
Gonzales suggested that since the landowner of the proposed site, Larry Sorli, had indicated that revenue from the site would help to fund his working farm, it may be appropriate to have a condition that the landowner would not subdivide his land as long as the monopole lease was in place, and that if the land is subdivided, the wireless facility lease must be terminated and the facility removed. Gonzales expressed that in his opinion the visual impact of the facility is a negative factor for this site.
Peterson said that in his opinion the visual impact is negligible, and that this site is unusual as even an 80-foot facility would be virtually hidden. Also, the trees along Westford Street screen view of the site. He added that the Applicant has been flexible in that they are agreeing to provide the top-most spot to a co-locator. Peterson expressed his view that in the current poor wireless coverage in Carlisle there could be safety concerns in the event of an emergency. Peterson also counseled against conditions related to parcels other than the parcel on which the Special Permit for this facility was being sought.
Larson said that in his opinion the Applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that an 80-foot facility offers significantly better coverage than a 60-foot one, and that there will likely be a need for another facility between
this site and FRS even if an 80-foot facility is constructed. He suggested that the PB should work to enforce as much co-location potential as possible at this site, perhaps by requesting a narrowing of the vertical centerline distance between potential antenna sites on the monopole. He indicated that he is not in favor of a site over 60-feet, and that he felt the intent of the bylaw was for the Town to insist on smaller, more frequent sites. Larson suggested that the PB approve the site for 60 feet, with extension to 80 feet if a co-locator is found.
Lane said that while it would be ideal to see the applicant’s overall plan for coverage in Carlisle, companies generally look for incremental improvement. He added that in his opinion, one 80-foot facility is preferable to several 60-foot facilities, and expressed agreement with the motion.
Hoffman said that, though he is not a voting member on this Special Permit, he is in favor of an 80-foot site, as it is a way to increase the functionality of the site while incurring minimal additional visual impact. Lamere also said that in his opinion the Applicant has presented substantial evidence that an 80-foot facility will provide significantly enhanced coverage over a 60-foot facility.
With no new information from the Applicant, and no new input from the public, Acting Chair Freedman suggested that the applicant should consider co-location without height extension as their first goal. He also asked that the Applicant notify other carriers that co-location sites are available, and that they seriously consider the possibility of narrowing the distance between antenna centerlines for sites on the monopole, thereby possibly allowing more sites. Grossman agreed that the applicant would circulate a notice to all known possible co-locators making them aware of the opportunity for co-location at this site, including notification that the facility height could and would be increased by 10 feet to facilitate such co-location. This was added as a condition.
The PB voted on the motion, and it passed 5-1-3, with Larson opposed and new members Nathan, Lamere and Hoffman abstaining. Peterson moved to continue this public hearing to 7:45 pm on November 26th. Epstein seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. The hearing was continued to allow time to clarify some points, draft a decision, and have the applicant confirm conditions with the landowner of the proposed site.
Discussion of scope of peer review of Definitive Subdivision Plan for Hanover Hill, composed of 35 lots on 167.31 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
Steven Ventresca (Nitsch Engineering), PB engineer for this project, spoke about the draft review report he had submitted for this project. Two major issues he saw were the drainage design and the traffic analysis. He reported that the applicant’s traffic analysis was not done by a traffic engineer, but by an ITE member, as allowed by PB Regs. Ventresca suggested that since the requested waivers pertain directly to traffic and safety, that a more thorough analysis be undertaken by a PE from their in-house Traffic Division, taking about 2-3 weeks. The PB agreed, and noted that at the preliminary plan stage they had identified the need to determine sight distances at actual speeds on Westford Street, and that the applicant had agreed to include sight line clearing in the definitive plan to
assure safe stopping distances.
Regarding drainage, Chair Epstein noted that at the preliminary plan stage the PB had requested that a low impact development (LID) design approach be used as much as possible. The Subdivision Rules and Regulations (Article II, Sec. 1.B) do encourage this type of design, . The PB requested Nitsch that they should once again encouraged the applicant’s engineers to adopt a LID approach, and to redesign the grading and drainage on the site to LID standards. Ventresca added that a LID design would lower the height of the roadways and reduce the amount of fill necessary to be brought to the site, and that no change in overall lot or roadway layout would be necessary to accomplish this.
The PB agreed that it would not be worthwhile for Nitsch to make a detailed analysis of the current drainage design until further discussion with the applicant is completed, and asked Ventresca to contact Stamski & McNary regarding the desired redesign.
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
Ed Pare (Brown/Rudnick), attorney for the applicant, reported that Sprint had responded to the PB’s request for additional information well in advance of this meeting, supplying coverage maps for their Billerica and Bedford
Road Facilities, a list and photos of stealth facilities in church steeples in eastern MA, and a set of revised plans for the facility including spec sheets for the HVAC equipment. Pare added that Nextel has decided not to utilize the second antenna location at 82 feet, leaving Sprint to use only the 89-foot location, and confirmed that the Sprint facility at the Anderegg site (871 Bedford Road) is expected to go online by October 31st, and the Billerica site by the end of November. Alan Cameron (FRS) added that the church has recently been contacted by a third potential carrier, and information will be forthcoming at a later date. Pare added that Sprint is very willing to work with the PB to maximize co-location potential.
Chair Epstein confirmed with Pare and Mr. Cameron that currently Omnipoint plans to co-locate at 60 feet (within the corners of the bell tower), but added that since the PB’s goal is coverage linkage throughout the Town, it would be preferred if Omnipoint could move up its co-location height if agreeable to the new third party.
Pare explained that the planned location of the small GPS antennas has been revised, and they will now be placed inside the steeple on pulleys to allow easy access for necessary maintenance. Joseph Pereira (TerraSearch), development consultant for the applicant, explained that another proposed change is removal of all clapboards above the belfry for replacement with the custom-molded fiberglass material discussed at the prior PB meeting, and noted that the original wood frame would remain. In this way, the entire outside skin of the spire will match on all sides, and will be RF transparent. This will allow for easier co-location as well.
When the PB asked about the proximity of the cable run to the clock and mechanism, Pare described the proposed location, which is as far as possible from the clock and mechanism as it passes through the clocktower. Planning Administrator Mansfield inquired as to possible sound changes to the bell due to the replacement of wood with fiberglass, and Pare did not have any information on this. When asked about possible Sprint co-location at 886 Lowell Street, an Omnipoint site within a barn cupola, Pare said that Sprint would be willing to co-locate there if at all possible.
Lamere inquired as to whether additional AC units (beyond the 2 now proposed) can be accommodated if needed by a third co-locator. Cameron said that a meeting the next night is planned to discuss needs with this carrier. Pereira also pointed out that the 2 ACs will not run at the same time, as one is backup for the other. Regarding sound baffling of these units, on discussion it was decided that this will need to be addressed after installation and sound testing.
Chair Epstein urged the applicant to assure that the manner in which they place their equipment does not impede co-location, since each provider must come before the PB for co-location at the site. Freedman pointed out that if the equipment requirements of all planned co-locators were known, it may be possible to minimize the total
number of ACs needed, for example. Epstein said that while the site is a benefit to the church and to the Town, he encouraged Cameron to try to have all three applicants come before the PB with coordinated applications for complete co-location and integration of their equipment, as it may be advantageous to all parties involved to do so. In this manner, the PB can readily review this application in A comprehensive fashion.
Lamere asked the applicant for more detail on the RF calculations, particularly for the coverage area of the school, to enable him to explain it readily to any Townspeople that may inquire. Lamere suggested that the PB hearing be kept open, as the applicant is meeting with the CHC at its November 27th meeting.
Freedman moved and Gonzales seconded the continuation of the hearing to Monday, November 26, 2007 at 8:15 pm. The motion passed unanimously.
Gonzales then moved and Freedman seconded the adjournment of the meeting at 11:25 pm, and the motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Gretchen Caywood
Administrative Assistant
Carlisle Planning Board
| |
