Town of Carlisle, MA - Minutes of 12/10/2007 PB meeting

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, a designated scenic road, 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.

Continued Joint Public Hearing for approval of a Definitive Subdivision Plan for Hanover Hill, composed of 35 lots on 167.31 acres at 672 and 872 Westford Street, and five (5) Common Driveway Special Permits under Sec. 5.4.4 of the Carlisle Zoning Bylaws, Map 19, Parcels 37, 39, 40 & 41 and Map 20, Parcels 9 & 10A, Wilkins Hill Realty, LLC, applicant

Continued Public Hearing on application of Omnipoint Communications, Inc. for a special permit and site plan approval under Sec. 5.9 of the Carlisle Zoning Bylaws to install, operate and maintain a personal wireless communication facility at 1022 Westford Street (Map 18, Lot 42A) on property owned by Lawrence A. Sorli.

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

Vice Chair Greg Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:20 pm in the Clark Room of Town Hall. Members Carol Nathan, Ken Hoffman, Brian Larson, Marc Lamere, Associate Members David Freedman and Tom Lane, and Planning Administrator George Mansfield were present. Kent Gonzales arrived at 7:25 pm. Chair Michael Epstein arrived at 7:50 pm.

Gretchen Caywood, assistant to the Planning Administrator, Alan Carpenito (BOS), George Dimakarakos (Stamski & McNary), Rob West (Wilkins Hill Realty, LLC), Paul Alphen (Balas, Alphen & Santos, P.C.), Steven Ventresca (Nitsch Engineering), Doug Prentiss (Nitsch Engineering), David Keast (Westford Street), Doug Edwards (Meadowbrook Road), Brian Grossman (Prince, Lobel, Glovsky and Tye), Nancy Pierce (Westford Street), Robert Koning (Building Commissioner), Joe Pereira (TerraSearch), Ed Pare (Brown/Rudnick), Muhammad Ibrahim (Sprint), Alan Cameron (First Religious Society), and Bob Zielinski (Carlisle Mosquito) were also in attendance.

Vice Chair Peterson opened the hearing, and, after inquiry, noted that no members of the public were in attendance for this particular hearing. Lamere, Historical Commission appointee from the PB, confirmed that the CHC’s recommendations regarding the Concord Street pathway are in agreement with the recent decision of Pedestrian/Bike Safety Advisory Committee and the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee, and involve locating the pathway such that Concord Street Scenic Road items 1, 2, 3 & 4 have been removed from this application, as they will no longer require alteration and/or removal.

Lamere spoke briefly about the November 27^th CHC meeting, and actions on the Carlisle Pathways Plan. Deb Belanger (Chair Ped/Bike Comm) presented the proposal for aspects of the Concord Street and Lowell Street pathways plans that were still under discussion. They noted that the proposal had been approved by the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC). Lamere reported that it closely agreed with the recommendations of the CHC, and is the reason for elimination of Concord Street Scenic Road items 1-4 from consideration.

Lamere also reported attending a GIS trade show sponsored by ESRI, in which the wide range of potential applications for GIS was highlighted, as were ways in which other Towns use their GIS. Lamere reported to the PB that he had reviewed the Town’s GIS files, and would like to obtain ArcView reader software in order to use these files at his home office. With other PB members interested in this as well, Lamere offered to follow up. He agreed to have an action item list for the PB regarding GIS for the January 28, 2008 meeting.

Planning Administrator Mansfield explained that Steven Ventresca (Nitsch Engineering) has recommended that the nine trees that were recently replanted be inspected by the Tree Warden in the spring to assure that they survived the winter season. At that time, any non-surviving trees should be replaced by the contractor, using the same species and caliper of tree. Mansfield added that the engineer had recommended a bond of $7200 be held for the cost of the trees and their installation, should all of the trees need replacement. After discussion, the PB decided on retaining a deposit of $5000, assuming survival of at least some of the trees.

Hoffman moved and Nathan seconded the approval by the PB of the Certificate of Completion of Carriage Way, with the retention of a $5000 deposit pending confirmation that the new trees replaced this fall do survive the winter season, to be determined by reinspection of the trees by the Planning Administrator and the Tree Warden prior to June 1, 2008. The motion carried 6-0-1, with Epstein abstaining, who had just arrived to the meeting.

The PB first reviewed the comments on the traffic analysis compiled by Nitsch’s Transportation Engineer, Doug Prentiss. Prentiss reported that he had some concerns with the traffic report offered by Stamski & McNary. He particularly mentioned concern with sufficient intersection sight distance (ISD), which is the sight distance along the existing roadway as seen from the entry on the proposed roadway. ISD is mainly beneficial for safety of those leaving the new development. Prentiss suggested that while ISD compliance is not state or federally mandated, it is advisable for new developments to design for it. He suggested asking the applicant for a sightline diagram of the proposed intersections at the two proposed roadways, and asked that they investigate measures for enhancing the ISD at both driveway locations. He had forwarded this suggestion in a report to the PB, along with other suggested mitigation measures, to enhance traffic safety at these proposed intersections. For example, brush clearing in right-of-ways may enhance ISD. Planning Administrator Mansfield confirmed that Prentiss felt these proposed roadways could be accepted as Town roadways.

Rob West, agent for the applicant, reviewed with the PB several specific suggestions for enhancing ISD along Westford Street. Many involved removal of tree stumps and debris in the right-of-way along Westford Street, and would need to be maintained by the DPW. West agreed to remove stumps and also to move the stone wall at 672 Westford Street, if necessary. Freedman noted that removing trees and brush on the opposite side of Westford Street is equally important for ISD at the proposed Cross Street/ Hanover Road intersection. West replied that two trees in the right of way on that side have been flagged and will be removed. He said they were also willing to clear trees for improved ISD opposite the Johnson Road intersection, if the neighbor at #565 Westford Street so approved.

Chair Epstein asked that the applicant’s engineer provide a detailed triangulation drawing of each of the proposed intersections to address the ISD issues noted by Prentiss. Freedman pointed out that this level of traffic study should be required for projects going forward. Chair Epstein then asked Steve Ventresca, PB’s review engineer from Nitsch, to review his firm’s recent recommendations concerning low impact development (LID) for this project. Ventresca noted that the measures the applicant is suggesting do not cause this project to be considered Low Impact development, but do incorporate some LID concepts, and should provide some reduction in environmental impact. Ventresca explained that with LID, the goal is to let the water percolate into the soil as close to where it falls as possible. In this way you are minimizing change to the natural system. Utilizing LID techniques, one generally designs the site to accommodate the frequent (2 year) storms, (thereby handling over 95% of the rainfall amount) and not to accommodate the 100 year extreme. In this way, less extensive swales are needed and more natural bioretention systems may be used.

Freedman asked about the pathway that is being considered along Westford Street in the area of the proposed subdivision, and LID considerations that may influence it. Ventresca suggested that the pathway be designed first, and possibly graded in a manner that would prevent stormwater from flowing over the pathway as it drains. Ventresca pointed out that use of a LID approach is more design intensive in the early stages, with

environmental benefits and often cost benefits, down the line. LID design features will require appropriate landscape maintenance. Ventresca also explained some possible design changes to the common drives, using a T-shaped common drive to replace three separate short drives. This may reduce pavement area and help retain more of the natural drainage features of the landscape.

Dimakarakos explained to Chair Epstein that the applicant feels a significant amount of LID steps have been taken in the design plan, and that reconfiguring the common drives as suggested would make minimal difference. The applicant is also concerned about not designing for a 100 year storm, as has customarily been done. Ventresca explained that by designing for the vast majority of storms instead of one extreme storm, the majority of stormwater can be mitigated while at the same time reducing the design impact on the site. Planning

Chair Epstein explained that the PB is in favor of reducing impervious surface and reducing fill as much as possible with the design of this large subdivision. He suggested that the applicant’s engineer speak with the Fire Chief regarding the design of roadway shoulders and the width of the proposed roadways. Epstein said that the continuation of this hearing in January will focus on the roadway design, infrastructure, grade and on all proposed common driveways. Also, he is anticipating that pathways and sidewalks will be discussed

The PB reviewed the draft Decision, with Findings and Conditions, prepared by Planning Administrator Mansfield. Brian Grossman, attorney for the applicant, and the PB discussed and agreed upon some revisions to the draft Conditions, including that the fencing of the enlosure at the base of the monopole be wood or faced in wood painted to match the adjacent barn. Acting Chair Freedman pointed out that Grossman has provided the sound specifications for the proposed equipment cabinets – information that was requested by an abutter at the last hearing. According to the information provided, at a distance of just under 115 feet (less than the distance to the abutter’s property line), the sound level would be approximately 35 dBA. This is in the worst case scenario of no obstructing vegetation and no fencing, items that would further attenuate the sound from the facility.

Peterson moved to approve the form of the Decision as provided to the PB entitled “Decision on Special Permit and Site Plan Approval for a Personal Wireless Service Facility for Omnipoint Communications, Inc. at 1022 Westford Street”, with a decision date of October 22, 2007, with changes to Condition 2, relating to notification of other PWS providers, as suggested by David Maxson and modified by the PB tonight. Nathan seconded the motion.

Freedman requested public comment at this time. Bob Zielinski (Mosquito reporter) asked if the Police Department would need antenna facilities at this proposed location. Freedman explained that one of the conditions of approval of this application states that the applicant will allow public safety officials to install communications equipment on the facility, but their equipment must be completely concealed within the monopole. He added his understanding that the Police are not currently in need of additional equipment at this location.

Epstein resumed the Chair. The PB reviewed the draft Decision, including Findings and Conditions, prepared by Planning Administrator Mansfield, and also reviewed comments submitted by Peterson. Epstein suggested that the PB can vote on the Findings and Conditions, and appoint two members to review the final Decision when editing is complete.

After review and revision of the Findings and Conditions, Peterson moved that the PB approve the Decision on the Special Permit and Site Plan Approval for a Personal Wireless Service Facility for Sprint Nextel Corporation at 27 School Street, with the Findings and Conditions to be substantially as reviewed, modified and discussed this evening, and that the PB delegate to Michael Epstein and David Freedman the review of the final Decision document, authorizing them to approve the document for signing by the Clerk. Gonzales seconded and the motion was approved 7-0, with Associate Member Lane voting, since member Nathan is not eligible to vote in this hearing. Peterson then moved that the hearing be closed. Gonzales seconded and the motion was approved unanimously.