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 30, 2007
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]
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]
Discussion of policy regarding use and/or modification of Carlisle’s GIS database by other than Town land use departments.
Chair Michael Epstein called the meeting to order at 8:00 pm in the Parlin Room of Town Hall. For this first portion of the meeting, members Greg Peterson, Kent Gonzales, Ken Hoffman, Carol Nathan, Associate Member David Freedman and Planning Administrator George Mansfield were present. PB members Brian Larson and Marc Lamere were absent. Also present was Betsy Goldenberg of Pine Brook Road. Attendance for the Special Joint Meeting immediately following is listed at the bottom of page 2.
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]
Mansfield reported that the review engineer had not yet submitted his report on his final field inspection. Therefore the Board agreed to hold this item until the meeting of November 26 or later.
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]
Epstein noted that only items #2 and #4 from the LandTech report of 9/21/07 still remained to be addressed in order to approve this request for a subdivision release. These pertained, respectively, to the drainage capacity of a redesigned outlet of the detention basin on Lot F, and to the design of the retaining wall supporting Great Brook Path at its entrance. He referred to a letter from John Boardman of LandTech dated October 29, 200 (sic) that confirmed that the 9/28/07 letter from David E. Ross Associates adequately certifies that the variations from the original design of the basin outlet will have no impact on the performance of the drainage system. This satisfies item #2.
Mansfield explained that the absence of evidence that the retaining wall had been designed by a professional engineer, as required by the approved plans, and that the installation had been observed by LandTech, is more difficult to overcome. In part because of the passage of time—at least 6 years, since this wall was installed, neither the design engineer nor the review engineer can ascertain that these conditions were met. However, with the assistance of LandTech, Mansfield reported that he had found some evidence in PB minutes from 2001 and 2002 that showed that the Board at that time was made aware that here was no record of an engineer’s design nor that LandTech had observed the installation. This came up in the context of the PB’s concern about the design of the guard rail that was
being installed on top of the wall. Discussions at meetings of 12/10/01, 1/14/02 and 1/28/02, however, seemed to focus almost exclusively on the guard rail and not on the wall to which it was attached. One member of the Board at that time, Dan Holzman, himself a civil engineer, did state that he was familiar with the vendor and installer of this segmented wall, Versa-Lok, and its engineer, and that they are “very reputable.” Apparently, that Board chose not to question the design or installation any further beyond that endorsement. Mansfield suggested that the current Board might not want to re-open these questions. In addition, the 10/29 LandTech memo reported on a current, thorough visual inspection of the walls on both side of the roadway in which Boardman “observed no evidence of failure or movement of the blocks” 6 years after installation.
Epstein stated that unless the PB wishes to take additional steps to inspect the structure of the wall, there appears to be nothing more that can be done. Hoffman added that the force of a car hitting the guard rail attached to the wall would cause more stress than just normal traffic and weather conditions, and if the PB then was satisfied with the design of the railing, the wall should be fine. He moved approval of the release of security and completion of the Great Brook Estates definitive subdivision plan, Gonzales seconded the motion, and it carried by a vote of 5-0.
Discussion of policy regarding use and/or modification of Carlisle’s GIS database by other than Town land use departments.
As reported at previous meeting, Mansfield reviewed a number of requests by other Town agencies as well as State and private organizations for access to the Town’s GIS data base and permission to develop additional layers of data therefore. These are all reputable sources, but the Town should have a policy for responding to these requests, which it does not. Since the PB paid for and oversaw the majority of the development of this data base, it would be appropriate to take the lead in recommending a policy. At a meeting in September where this question was raised, Lamere volunteered to examine the software and the data that is available, and to work with Mansfield and staff from other Town departments to draft such a policy. However, Mansfield reported that Lamere has been very busy with a
project at work and cannot address this matter until next month. Epstein agreed to ask Lamere again about his availability. Peterson suggested that access be made available, with the proviso that any additional information developed be turned to the Town on CD’s or DVD’s in a form in which it can be added to the database. Freedman talked about how the GIS system is not really fully functional, and Mansfield agreed that it is very difficult to use it and impossible to update it without knowledgeable technical assistance. Peterson asked whether there is a virtual GIS circuit rider available through MAPC or MassGIS.
Epstein said that he would not be able to take the lead in overseeing this matter, but would try to find someone who would be willing to “own it.” When he speaks with Lamere, he will assess his interest. Freedman suggested that nothing wrong with letting people utilize Carlisle’s GIS, as long as there is full back up on a hard drive or disk. He asked if Applied Geographics sent the final product on CD in 2006. (The data is on CD.) He suggested that AppGeo should be asked if there is a means to preserve the data base while others are using it.
At 8:45 pm, the meeting was recessed to join in a joint meeting.
Special Joint Meeting with the Carlisle Board of Selectmen, Carlisle Historical Commission
and the Pedestrian and Bike Safety Advisory Committee:
Historical Commission Chair Peggy Hilton called the joint meeting to order at 8:45 pm in the Clark Room at Town Hall. Planning Board Chair Michael Epstein, members Kent Gonzales, Ken Hoffman, Carol Nathan, Marc Lamere, and Planning Administrator George Mansfield were present. PB members Brian Larson and Greg Peterson were absent.
Gretchen Caywood, assistant to the Planning Administrator, Alan Carpenito (BOS), Tim Hult (BOS), John Williams (BOS), Gary Davis (Tree Warden), Bob Koning (Building Commissioner), Deb Belanger (Ped/Bike Safety Advisory Committee), David Freedman (Hutchins Road), Jen Bush and Jack O’Connor (Church Street), Gale and Peter Constable (Lowell Street), John and Annette Lee (Lowell Street), Tom and Lee Lockwood (Lowell Street), John Bakewell (Ped/Bike Comm), Eileen Faber (Lowell Street), Steve Hinton (East Street) and Ellen Miller (Carlisle Mosquito)were also in attendance.
Historical Commission Chair Hilton opened this continued joint public hearing. Chair Epstein continued this hearing on behalf of the PB and stated: 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.
Deb Belanger, Chair of the Pedestrian/Bike Safety Advisory Committee (Ped/Bike) presented this application, and pointed out that both the CHC and PB had opened and continued their public hearings to tonight regarding the Lowell Street and Concord Street pathways plans. She pointed out that the CHC has approved the plans for the East Street and Bedford Road Pathways. The PB had approved the East Street plan in 2005, and does not hold a hearing regarding Bedford Road, as their purview in this hearing is for alterations to stone walls and trees within Scenic Roads, and Bedford Road is not designated as a Scenic Road.
Chair Epstein explained that the PB’s purview is narrower than the CHC’s for this hearing, and pertains to Carlisle general Bylaws, Article XII, and Mass General Laws Ch. 40 Sect. 15C for Scenic Roads, which states that the prior written consent of the PB is required for any construction within the road right of way of a designated scenic road that involves the cutting or removal of a tree or trees, and/or the tearing down or destruction of stone walls. Epstein also reviewed the pertinent definitions in the PB’s Scenic Road Rules and Regulations.
The Right of Way includes the vehicular traveled way and shoulders, including portions of intersecting driveways, within the public way. It does not include any private property.
A tree protected by this bylaw must be at least 4 inches in diameter 4 feet above the ground. Trimming of major branches of a protected tree is also subject to PB consent.
A stone wall is an assembled grouping of stones comprising at least one cubic foot per linear foot and totaling 5 or more feet in length. Moving a stone wall or a portion thereof to another location requires the consent of the PB.
Tim Hult, BOS Chair, called the attending Selectmen into session for this hearing. He pointed out that four boards and committees are coming together to do this for the good of the Town. While the CHC protects Town Center, and the PB Scenic Roads, the BOS’ goal is to assure that the will of Town Meeting goes forward.
A detailed summary of the Historical Commission’s activities related to this hearing may be found in the CHC minutes from this meeting, October 30, 2007.
Concord Street Pathway Plan
Deb Belanger described the pathway route in detail, pointing out the Scenic Road items under consideration for alteration to install the pathway. A list of these 15 items, along with detailed annotated maps and photographs, was submitted to the PB in advance of this meeting for their review.
Scenic Road Item 1 is a 10-inch diameter apple tree on the property of Sylvia Sillers (CHC Commissioner who has recused herself from the Commission for all matters pertaining to this hearing as she is an abutter to the pathway location). It is located near utility pole 5. Since the Pathway Committee is recommending that the pathway curve behind the pole at this point, it would be necessary to trim one major and one minor overhanging branch of this tree. Several CHC members expressed reasons why the path should curve outside the pole at this
point (discussed in the CHC Minutes, as pathway location is not within the PB purview). Sylvia Sillers (Concord Street) explained that if the pathway curves in front of the pole at this point, there would likely be no need to trim the tree. She added concerns that placing the path inside the pole would likely damage the roots of this 30 – year old tree, and trimming would remove 20% of the tree. No decision was made at this meeting regarding the exact pathway placement in this area.
Belanger showed photographs of Scenic Road Items 2 (a 6” diameter crab apple tree), 3 (a 14” heavily pruned pine, and 4 (a 16” heavily pruned pine), and requested that the PB consent to their removal. These trees are a short distance further south on Concord Street, still adjacent to Sillers’ property. Chair Epstein said that since the
actions on items 1-4 will depend on whether the pathway is placed inside or outside the pole, it is not necessary to render a decision on such items at this time. He suggested scheduling this discussion and decision for the 11/26 PB meeting if necessary once the pathways lay out has been determined.
Belanger continued the description of the pathway plan heading south on Concord Street. Scenic Item 5 is an 8” maple tree, already dead. Epstein said this had been noted during the site visit on September 29, 2007. Nathan moved and Epstein seconded the removal of this 8” maple tree, shown as Item 5 on the proposed footpath plan. The motion was approved 5-0 by the PB and by the Tree Warden. Epstein indicated that the consents from the PB at this meeting are all conditioned upon the pathway being placed in the approximate locations shown by the Pathways Committee and if the pathways is not installed or the location altered so that the trees and stone walls that are consented for removal because of such pathways placement need not be removed or altered, then such consent shall be of no
force and effect.
Belanger described a stone wall corner just south of this location. This was planned for relocation to the property line, approximately 2 feet further from the road. Nathan moved that the PB consent to the removal and relocation of up to 20 feet of stone wall to the property line, approximately 2 feet further from the roadway, shown as item 6 on the proposed footpath plan. Epstein seconded and the motion was approved 5-0 by the PB and by the Tree Warden.
Item 7 is a joined/double trunked 10” and 19” maple further south on Concord Street, near utility pole #9. Belanger explained that it is necessary to remove these in order to place the pathway. Nathan moved that the PB consent to the removal of the joined trees designated as item 7 on the proposed pathway plan. Epstein seconded and the motion was approved 5-0 by the PB and also by the Tree Warden.
Item 8 is a cluster of small trees – two 5” elms, one 3” hardwood and one 3” twin trunk hardwood, the removal of which is necessary to place the pathway in the right-of-way. Epstein moved and Nathan seconded that the PB consent to the removal of the cluster of trees shown as item 8 on the proposed footpath plan. When a resident commented about the removal of elm trees and their scarcity, John Bakewell, an arborist on the Ped/Bike Committee, commented that this type of elm is not rare, but seeds quite readily. However it is not disease resistant. He suggested installing disease resistant elms around Town. The motion was approved 5-0 by the PB and by the Tree Warden.
Item 9 is a heavily pruned, 12” white pine, the removal of which is required to appropriately place the pathway within the right-of-way. Epstein moved and Gonzales seconded the removal of the tree shown as item 9 on the proposed footpath plan. The motion was approved by the Tree Warden and the PB (5-0).
Belanger continued to describe the pathway as it would head south on Concord Street. She explained that several small trees just to the south of the Clark Farm Road entrance onto Concord Street would require removal to allow appropriate placement of the pathway within the right-of-way at 249 Concord Street. These are items 10-13: an 8” ash, a double 6” and 8” ash, a 9” oak and a 7” oak. Nathan moved that the PB consent to the removal of 4 trees shown as items 10, 11, 12, and 13 on the proposed footpath plan. Hoffman seconded and the motion passed 5-0 with the PB and with the Tree Warden in favor.
Heading further south, Belanger pointed out that the pathway location will require an easement in the location of the McMorrow property (301 Concord Street), and added that the McMorrow’s have offered to allow path placement on their property to save removal of the trees near the roadway. After this point, however, there is a 16”
red maple in poor condition that would need removal. Nathan moved and Hoffman seconded that the PB consent to the removal of the tree shown as item 14 on the proposed footpath plan. The motion was approved 5-0 by the PB and by the Tree Warden.
Belanger described the last scenic road item on this street as a series of 4 small birches on the slope within the right-of-way at 333 Concord Street. Nathan moved and Hoffman seconded that the PB consent to the removal of the multiple birch trees shown as item 15 on the proposed footpath plan. The motion was approved 5-0 by the PB and by the Tree Warden.
Lowell Street Pathway Plan
Belanger described that for Lowell Street, the pathway location will pick up where the current path leaves off. For a detailed summary of the discussion on pathway siting, see the CHC Minutes for the meeting of 10/30/07.
Scenic road item 1 is a 16” elm tree at 109 Lowell Street, and its removal was requested to enable proper placement of the pathway within the right-of-way in this area. Hoffman moved and Nathan seconded that the PB consent to the removal of the tree designated as scenic road item 1 on the proposed footpath plan. The motion was approved 5-0 by the PB and by the Tree Warden.
Item 2 is a 14” maple for which the Ped/Bike Committee is requesting removal for location of the pathway within the right-of-way. Gonzales moved and Hoffman seconded the removal of the tree designated as item 2 on the proposed pathway plan. The PB approved (5-0), as did the Tree Warden.
Item 3 is a 14” hickory located at 125 Lowell street, and item 4 is the location of the stone wall at utility pole 12. The Ped/Bike Committee requested removal of the tree and permission to create an opening in the stone wall at this point, in order to move the pathway behind the stone wall at this location. Belanger pointed out that the abutters have orally agreed to the opening in the stone wall. Hoffman moved that the PB consent to the removal of
the tree designated as item 3 on the proposed pathway plan, and to creating an opening in the stone wall shown as item 4 on the pathway plan, on condition that an easement is obtained. Nathan seconded this motion and it was approved 5-0 by the PB and by the Tree Warden.
Belanger explained that requested scenic item 5 is at 175 Lowell Street and involves obscuring portions of a stone wall to integrate the stone wall as a retaining wall for a distance of approximately 125 linear feet. Gonzales moved that the PB consent to filling, as necessary, in front of a 125-ft portion of the stone wall shown as item 5 on the proposed footpath plan, thus integrating it as retaining wall. Nathan seconded and this motion was approved 5-0 by the PB and also by the Tree Warden.
Belanger requested the removal of scenic items 6 and 7, a 10” pine and a 16” pine, the latter being in very poor condition, with the owner having requested removal. Hoffman moved and Nathan seconded that the PB consent to the removal of 2 trees shown as items 6 and 7 on the proposed footpath plan. The motion was approved 5-0 by the PB and also by the Tree Warden.
The last scenic road item involves relocation of a stone wall and corner up to three feet further from the roadway at 225 Lowell Street. Belanger explained that on this lot, there is insufficient room between the wall and a utility pole, and therefore it would be necessary to move the wall back in order to place the pathway behind the pole. Gonzales moved that the PB consent to the removal and relocation of a stone wall corner up to three feet further from the roadway, for a distance of about 10 feet, this being indicated as item 3 on the proposed footpath plan. Gonzales added that this be conditioned upon obtaining an easement from the property owners. Hoffman seconded the motion and it was approved by the PB (5-0) and by the Tree Warden.
This concluded the discussion of the scenic road elements. Gonzales moved and Hoffman seconded the continuation of the PB’s Scenic Road joint public hearing with the Tree Warden to 10 pm on Monday, November 26, 2007. Hoffman seconded this motion and it was approved 5-0 by the PB and by the Tree Warden.
The joint meeting of the CHC and the PB was adjourned at 11:45 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Gretchen Caywood
Administrative Assistant
Carlisle Planning Board
| 
