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 29, 2007
Bills
Budget
Liaison reports
Nitsch traffic peer review contract
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 release of security and Certificate of Completion for Maplewood Definitive Subdivision Plan, (Map 17, Lots 17A-1 through 17A-5) [Request of Robert Koning]
Public hearing on application of Michael and Bethany Richman for a special permit under Sec. 5.6 of the Carlisle Zoning Bylaws to create an Accessory Apartment at Lot 3, Greystone Lane, off Cross Street (Map 7, Parcel 38-3)
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, Carol Nathan, and Planning Administrator George Mansfield were present.
Gretchen Caywood, assistant to the Planning Administrator, Alan Carpenito (BOS), Gary Davis (Tree Warden), Bob Koning (Building Commissioner), Deb Belanger (Ped/Bike Safety Advisory Committee), Michael and Bethany Richman (Bedford, MA), and Bob Zielinski (Carlisle Mosquito) were also in attendance.
Announcements
Chair Epstein reviewed the meeting Agenda, pointing out that the joint public hearing regarding the pathways will be reopened and continued to tomorrow night,, October 30th at 8:45 pm as there is a joint meeting between the PB, CHC, BOS, Pedestrian/Bike Safety Advisory Committee and the Tree Warden. Chair Epstein encouraged all to attend this joint hearing.
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
Chair Epstein opened the continued public hearing and noted that no public testimony would be taken, since there is a joint meeting on this issue tomorrow night, October 30th, at 8:45 pm involving the Historical Commission and the PB. Peterson recused himself from PB participation for this hearing. Hoffman moved and Epstein seconded the continuation of this hearing until 8:45 pm on Tuesday, October 30th, 2007. The motion carried 6-0-1, with Peterson recused.
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]
Peterson recused himself from PB participation for this discussion. Planning Administrator Mansfield referred to LandTech’s review of the revised as-built plan, which listed their comments and concerns. Epstein confirmed that one lot (Lot #5) has been held as security. He said that since this is a subdivision, the residents may come to the Town for acceptance of the roadway as a public way, and 3 of the 5 lots have not been built upon as of yet. Epstein asked how the Town assures that the roadway is maintained in good condition between the time of the release of security and the possible acceptance of the road as a public right of way if construction takes place after the release of the security but before roadway acceptance. Building Commissioner Koning said that if current residents
become aware of roadway damage due to construction on a lot, they can write a letter to the Town to hold up the building permit on that lot until the roadway is repaired. Also, the Certificate of Occupancy is generally held until the roadway is repaired. Mansfield said that the BOS relies on LandTech’s inspection as performed for the PB prior to release of subdivision security before the PB would provide its recommendation to the Selectmen concerning the possible acceptance of a roadway as public. He added that with Hartwell Road, the PB signed off on the roadway well before its acceptance as a public way. Epstein suggested that the Town require a reinspection if there has been significant period between the release of the security and the request that the road is requested for acceptance as a public way.
Epstein moved that the PB release from the restrictive Covenant for Maplewood Subdivision, dated October 26, 1998, and recorded in Book 9862, Page 186 of the Middlesex North District Registry of Deeds on January 13, 1999, the Lot numbered 5A, as shown on the Plan of Land in Carlisle for Robert J. Koning by Stamski and McNary, Inc. dated November 10, 2005, endorsed by the Carlisle Planning Board as “Approval Under Subdivision Control Law Not required.” This release is issued in accordance with Section 4 of the Restrictive Covenant, as the Board finds this lot is adequately served by a way that has been completed with its final wearing course installed.
Further, Epstein moved that the PB issue a Certificate of Completion of the Definitive Subdivision Plan entitled “Maplewood, Carlisle, MA,” Robert Koning, owner/applicant, dated October 2, 1998, by Stamski and McNary, Inc., 80 Harris St., Acton, MA, Sheets 109, as amended on April 26, 1999 and June 28, 1999, and modified on July 24, 2006, having determined that the construction of ways and installation of municipal services in the subdivision have been fully and satisfactorily completed by the applicant in accordance with the Board’s Rules and Regulations to serve Lots 1, 2, 3A, 4A, and 5A, Koning Farm Road. Gonzales seconded and the motion carried 6-0-1, with Peterson recused.
Preparation of Request for Proposals for Personal Wireless Communications Facilities on Town-owned land [Broadcast Signal Lab – Planning Board/joint subcommittee]
Larson reviewed information compiled for the RFP for wireless facilities in Carlisle. He reported that at the last Town Meeting, a decision was made to take a proactive approach regarding future wireless facilities in Town, and consider specific sites to recommend to carriers. Article 16 of the Town Warrant for the Annual Town Meeting on April 30, 2007, had authorized the consideration of several Town-owned parcels as potential sites, and 5 have been
selected for further consideration. Planning Administrator noted that all 5 will likely have residences within a 900-foot radius, and therefore waivers will be requested by applicants.
Larson reviewed the five sites, noting that the PB will review any site and facility that comes forward pursuant to its usual Special Permit Application process. The suggested sites include locations near Town Hall, the Fire Station, the DPW, at Banta Davis, and on Conant land off Rockland. The goal in reviewing the RFP contents is for the PB to be comfortable with these sites before the RFP goes out.
The Banta Davis site would accommodate a concealed antenna monopole (CAM) with a base station, as well as a central location of a site network. Larson pointed out that a network facility would require only one equipment building, not one at each site of the network. The proposed site is 70 feet by 30 feet southwest of the corner of the
sewage treatment plant. This location is 500 feet from the nearest property line, will be hidden considerably by trees, and would avoid the sewage treatment plant’s underground facility. Larson recommended a maximum CAM height of 90 feet for this site. Larson had discussed this potential site with RecComm, in light of the possible additional development at that site, and this is designed to avoid interference with their plans. He added that all equipment will be within enclosed buildings (with the exception of T-Mobile). Also, since the Town is the tenant on the land, it will have strict control over the style of any necessary buildings. He added that the site is sizable, so it is possible an application could be received for 2 60-foot CAMs.
The proposed DPW site is smaller, a 16 x 50 – foot location, and is within the right-of-way of Old Morse Road. Measurements were based on a maximum possible 90-foot CAM, with a 135-foot minimum setback from all private parcel boundaries. Larson said this site would likely be for a CAM only, and 4 equipment carriers at most could be accommodated within a building at the location. Larson confirmed to Lamere that the site would cause no disruption to the trail to Old Morse Road.
The Fire Station site, on Town Hall property, has been discussed with the Fire Chief and his deputy. The site would be 30 feet back from the station, near where a wood pole currently stands. In this way it would pose no conflict to future Fire Department expansion. The site would accommodate a CAM up to 90 feet high. A 20 x 40 foot building is proposed for an equipment shelter, with the overall site land area being 30 x 45 feet. Larson said that the Fire Department and Police will have first choice of height location if they wish to relocate onto any new facility there. The Fire Department has 2 antennas they wish to mount. Larson suggested that if an application is submitted for a CAM greater than 60 feet in height at this site, the PB should insist upon a balloon test as well as
drive test data with the formal application. He added that this site sits at a slightly higher elevation than the first two, and there is 1 abutter across the street that may see the top of a CAM.
The Town Hall property site is halfway up the gravel part of the parking lot, and halfway up the hill into the trees (on the Town Hall side of the lot). The exact location was chosen to avoid two septic fields and wetlands on the property. Larson explained that this site would not be appropriate for a network. The front of the site’s equipment building will face the parking lot, with the CAM behind the building. Again, a maximum of a 90 foot CAM is recommended, with special requirements if the CAM is over 60 feet. Larson said that this facility should not be visible from abutting properties, and that the Town Hall building will block its view until one has driven in past the Town Hall. Peterson pointed out that it will likely be visible from the Town Common, which is land
belonging to the First Religious Society. Larson asked Lamere, Historical Commission appointee from the PB, to ascertain whether the Historic District encompasses this site.
The Rockland Street site on Conant land is suggested for a one story equipment building only. This would be best suited for a bid with an extensive network facility. The exact location is 60 feet from the street centerline and 60 feet up Rockland Street, and therefore the building should not be visible from #43 Rockland. When Nathan inquired why this site is suggested for equipment housing only, Larson explained that a CAM would be too visible, and not in keeping with the wooded land area.
Larson gave examples of other Towns having a network setup: Wellesley, Andover, Brookline, Nantucket, and Weston. He explained that while sometimes there is only one carrier on a distributed antenna system (DAS), for example, some carriers allow several co-locators. Larson asked for feedback from the PB regarding network facilities. He explained that the notion of a network is in flux as the technology changes. The main hurdle nay be
getting a carrier to install the back bone of a network, as it likely will involve embedding fiber optic cables up and down the streets of the Town. Larson suggested that Paul Callahan, a Town resident knowledgeable in network facilities and upcoming technologies, come in and talk with those involved in this project at Town Hall.
Larson asked if the PB would consider waiving its fees for applications that come forward for these sites where the Town is the landlord (and would therefore be receiving the site revenue). Chair Epstein was in favor of this, with a project review fee still applicable to cover evaluation of the application by the PB engineer. Nathan pointed out that these carriers are perhaps more concerned with expeditious review rather than waiving the $5000 fee, and the PB discussed the possibility of streamlining the application process. Epstein suggested setting up a Town-wide system involving joint meetings with the relevant boards, for review of these applications.
The PB then discussed possible necessary changes to the current wireless bylaw with respect to the RFP and these recommended sites for wireless facilities. Chair Epstein asked the PB members to review the current wireless bylaws and to provide comments to Planning Administrator Mansfield, then comments will be incorporated and reviewed by the wireless RFP working group and by Town Counsel. Any changes to the wireless bylaw must go before Town Meeting in the spring.
Epstein then asked Larson to speak with both Peter Yelle and Paul Callahan to set up a time when they could discuss this at a PB meeting to discuss their input toward approaches to wireless coverage for the Town and to inform interested Boards and Committees when such a meeting will take place. Epstein asked Planning Administrator Mansfield and his assistant to schedule a November site visit for the 5 locations.
Public hearing on application of Michael and Bethany Richman for a special permit under Sec. 5.6 of the Carlisle Zoning Bylaws to create an Accessory Apartment at Lot 3, Greystone Lane, off Cross Street (Map 7, Parcel 38-3)
Curt Farnsworth presented this on behalf of the applicant. This will be a newly constructed home and apartment, and it is designed to look like a single family home, hiding the appearance of any apartment. The residence will be within the Greystone Crossing Conservation Cluster development, on Lot 3, to be accessed by the planned Greystone Lane common driveway.
Planning Administrator Mansfield explained that, according to the bylaws, the PB must find that the apartment is a “complete, separate housekeeping unit” in order to approve the application. The proposed apartment occupies 1176 square feet of floor space, which is just below the Bylaw maximum of 1200. There is also a 324 sq. ft. garage and unfinished basement space about equal to the area of the apartment. Since the total structure would be 6912 sq. ft. of finished living space, the apartment would occupy 17% of this total – much less than the maximum of 35% allowed by the Bylaw. Mansfield pointed out that the application meets other criteria for approval.
The apartment will contain an eat-in kitchen, a large bedroom, a laundry room, 1.5 baths, but no living room. When the owners were asked why this is so, they explained that the owner’s father will be the tenant and he simply does not need it. Chair Epstein noted that there is no accessibility to the attic or to the basement from the inside. Hoffman pointed out that if the basement were to be finished and made accessible, the apartment would be too big. Peterson suggested a condition that the basement is for storage only. Epstein pointed out that the owners can finish the basement if no access is made directly to the apartment.
When the PB asked about the possibility of making this an affordable accessory apartment (AAA), Farnsworth explained that the owners cannot commit to this because it would preclude them from assuring that the apartment is available for the father, since AAAs must participate in a tenant lottery system. The PB expressed concern about the screening of the accessory apartment garage, and Farnsworth explained that trees will be left on either side of the garage.
Peterson moved to approve a special permit to construct and occupy an accessory apartment at Lot 3 Greystone Lane in accordance with Section 5.6 of the Carlisle Zoning Bylaws, finding that:
Per Section 5.6.5.1, to date only 12 accessory apartment permits have been issued by the Town
Per Section 5.6.5.2, the apartment will be a complete, separate housekeeping unit.
Per Section 5.6.5.3, the living area does not exceed 1200 sq. ft.
Per Section 5.6.5.4, the finished living area of the apartment is less than 35% of the combined finished living area of the apartment and the principal residence.
Per Section 5.6.5.5, the principal residence will be occupied by the owners of the lot.
Per Section 5.6.5.6, requirements of the Carlisle Board of Health have been met in the design plan
Per Section 5.6.5.7, adequate provision is planned for ingress and egress to the apartment and separate garage.
Per Section 5.6.5.8, construction and occupancy of the apartment will not be detrimental to the neighborhood, particularly as this is the first lot to be developed at Greystone Crossing.
Per Section 5.6.5.9, the lot is at least 2 acres.
Per Section 5.6.5.10, there are not more than 2 bedrooms in the apartment
Per Section 5.6.5.11, adequate provision has been made for off-street parking consistent with the character of a single-family residence.
Per Section 5.6.5.12, there is no other apartment on the lot
Per Section 5.6.5.13, the external appearance of the residence will be that of a single-family home.
and Per Section 5.6.5.14, the construction will conform to Building Codes (plans have been reviewed by the Building Inspector).
And in accordance with the following Conditions:
1. The special permit will terminate upon the sale of the property or transfer of title of the building, provided, however, that a sale or transfer of title shall not dispossess the then resident(s) of the accessory apartment of their tenancy. The new owner or owners may apply for a re-approval of the special permit which, if the Planning Board finds that conditions at the time of the original application remain substantially unchanged, shall be approved without a hearing. A special permit granted hereunder shall not terminate upon a transfer of title which converts an owner’s individual title to a tenancy by the entirety or a joint tenancy for the owner and his or her spouse or to otherwise provide for said spouse to
share in the ownership of the property.
2. The basement space located directly below the accessory apartment shall be separated from the basement space below the main dwelling, shall be used only for storage and utilities and shall not be finished or used as living space.
3. The attic space located directly above the accessory apartment and its garage shall not be connected to the living space of the apartment and shall be used only in conjunction with uses limited to the main dwelling.
Hoffman proposed an amendment to Condition 2: that the basement space below the accessory apartment can be finished for living space only if it remains inaccessible from the apartment, and is used only by the main house.
Peterson accepted the amendment, Gonzales seconded the amended motion, and it was approved 7-0. Planning Administrator Mansfield reminded the applicant that once the decision is filed with the Town Clerk, there is a 20-day appeal period that must expire before they can obtain a building permit. The PB designated Hoffman to review the draft motion before the November 26th meeting. Epstein then moved to close the public hearing, Hoffman seconded and the motion carried 7-0.
Nitsch traffic peer review contract
Chair Epstein will review this scope of work on behalf of the PB.
Gonzales moved and Epstein seconded the adjournment of the PB meeting at 9:50 pm, and the motion carried unanimously (7-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Gretchen Caywood
Administrative Assistant
Carlisle Planning Board
| 
