Town of Carlisle
MASSACHUSETTS 01741
------------
Office of
PLANNING BOARD
66 Westford Street
Carlisle, Massachusetts 01741
Tel. (978) 369-9702
Fax (978) 369-4521
Minutes
January 14, 2008
Minutes 12/10/2007
Bills
Budget
Long Term Capital Requirements
Annual Town Report
Liaison reports
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 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
Review and discussion of proposed Supplementary Regulations for Sewage Disposal Systems, Carlisle Board of Health, Jeffrey Brem, Chair
Notice of application filed by 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 27 School Street (Map 22, Lot 5) on property owned by the First Religious Society (Public hearing scheduled for February 11, 2008).
Chair Michael Epstein called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm in the Clark Room of Town Hall. Members Greg Peterson, Kent Gonzales, Ken Hoffman, Brian Larson, Marc Lamere, Associate Member Tom Lane, and Planning Administrator George Mansfield were present. Associate Member David Freedman arrived at 7:33 pm, and Member Carol Nathan arrived at 7:35 pm.
Gretchen Caywood, assistant to the Planning Administrator, Alan Carpenito (BOS), Jonathan White (Deputy Fire Chief), George Dimakarakos and David Friend (Stamski & McNary), Rob West (Wilkins Hill Realty, LLC), Paul Alphen (Balas, Alphen & Santos, P.C.), David Keast (Westford Street), Henry Cox (Trails Committee), Kate Rowan and Jon Larabee (Virginia Farme Lane), John Bakewell (Ped/Bike Committee), Steve Tobin (Trails Committee), and Bob Zielinski (Carlisle Mosquito) were also in attendance.
Minutes
The PB reviewed the draft minutes for the December 10, 2007 meeting, and one revision was suggested. Larson moved and Peterson seconded the approval of the draft minutes as amended. The motion was approved 7-0. Freedman and Nathan arrived at this point.
Budget
Chair Epstein reported that the PB’s Memo concerning the FY09 budget had been forwarded to FinComm, the Town Administrator and the BOS. This Memo, prepared by Chair Epstein, Freedman and Larson, was in response to the PB guideline budget received from FinComm. The PB’s position is that with such a cut of $15,000 to the Planning and Professional funds category as is proposed, the PB will have painfully little funding available for outside consultants, thereby seriously restricting its ability to function in a true planning mode. The FinComm hearing on the PB budget is Monday, January 28th.
Liaison Reports
Chair Epstein asked Larson, appointee to the Long Term Capital Requirements Committee (LTCC), about any upcoming long term initiatives. Larson reported that there is a total of $1M in project value that various groups throughout Town would like to see funded by the Town. LTCC hopes to reduce this to a total of no more than $220K. He added that all departments in Town Hall are working to balance out a zero growth requirement for the overall budget. The PB did not anticipate any LTCC requests.
Lamere reported that he attended a recent ConsComm meeting for the Hanover Hill hearing. While Conservation Administrator Willard had some suggestions for the applicant to incorporate in their plans, since Dimakarakos is not yet able to provide new drainage plans, the discussion was not detailed.
Annual Town Report
Chair Epstein will work with Planning Administrator Mansfield in preparing this year’s PB contribution to the Report. He requested that, since the next PB meeting will be February 11th, they may need to solicit input from other PB members. Such should be forwarded to Mansfield well in advance of that meeting, to have a draft available at the meeting. Epstein and Mansfield agreed to provide a rough draft to all PB members.
Preparation of Request for Proposals for Personal Wireless Communications Facilities on Town-owned land [Broadcast Signal Lab – Planning Board/joint subcommittee]
Larson reported that he is making progress on the draft RFP utilizing Town volunteers and local experts to prepare as complete a draft RFP as possible before requesting review by consultant David Maxson. He added that he is working to get information on some legal issues related to the proposal., and added that the goal of this work is to start circulating this information to other boards in February for their input.. Larson asked the PB members to review the ‘Terms Sheet’ section of the draft RFP and provide input to him well in advance of the next meeting. Chair Epstein added that there will be a meeting this Thursday, January 17th at 8 pm to discuss potential changes to the current wireless bylaw.
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
Vice Chair Peterson recused himself from the PB for this hearing. Chair Epstein re-opened the hearing for the Definitive Subdivision plan and the hearing for the five Common Driveway special permits.
Planning Administrator Mansfield pointed out that among the materials received since the last meeting were several letters from abutters. Also, Stamski and McNary had submitted its triangulation study to establish intersection sight distance (ISD) at the two newly proposed intersections, as requested by the PB at the last meeting, and it has been reviewed by the PB traffic engineer at Nitsch Engineering.
Traffic Consultant David Friend explained the triangulation report. The goal is to have a sufficient ISD to allow a vehicle departing a roadway to make a turn while maintaining 70% of its approach speed. He explained how it is measured, and confirmed that, with minimal vegetation clearing, an ISD of greater than 400 feet can easily be achieved at each proposed intersection while maintaining a speed of 35 mph. Friend was not certain why the ISD’s determined by Nitsch were much shorter, as no detail had been provided by Nitsch on their measurement approach. Chair Epstein pointed out that the Nitsch engineer had indicated by email his agreement with the triangulation report from Stamski & McNary, and expressed his own satisfaction with the report, but asked Planning Administrator Mansfield to
ascertain from Nitsch why there is such a large discrepancy between the ISD values obtained by both firms.
Friend added that a good benchmark is an ISD that is approximately equal to the stopping sight distance (SSD), and this seems to be the case for both proposed intersections. Dimakarakos explained that to achieve these ISD
values, all required clearing is within right-of-ways except for an area on Lot 29 that he suggested be put in an easement for DPW clearing. West explained that it will be necessary to create a break in the stone wall for the Hanover Road entrance, but the newly created ends would be no higher than the current stone wall. Freedman suggested that there be a condition of this application that no stone wall be higher than at present, in order to maintain an ISD of greater than 400 feet. Chair Epstein asked for any traffic questions from the public, and there were none.
The PB then reviewed updated comments and information submitted by the Fire Chief. Dimakarakos agreed that all streets and common driveways in the project will have 30 foot inside turning radii at the entrances, and that T-turnarounds will be tapered into the driveway width. He agreed to change these details on the plans. Deputy Fire Chief White reiterated the importance of this, and indicated that for Greystone Lane and Applegrove Lane the inside turning radii at the entrances are insufficient and should be increased. Planning Administrator Mansfield will confirm the dimensions of the above intersections and address these details on the plans with Dimakarakos.
The PB then discussed recommendations from the Pedestrian and Bike Safety Advisory Committee (Ped/Bike) concerning proposed pathways at the Hanover Hill site. John Bakewell (Ped/Bike) reported that the Committee recommends footpaths that would run roughly parallel to Westford Street, as they believe strongly that the amenity should be built in the same neighborhood impacted by the development. This would provide more safety and more access both for current neighbors and for new residents of the proposed developments than sidewalks along the subdivision roads, and by removing the sidewalk requirement for the subdivision roads, would be a lower impact development approach. Bakewell said ideally the path would run from opposite Acton Street to Virginia Farme Lane, and provide access to Towle Field. The
Committee also recommended an easement be provided for the possible future construction of a path from 872 Westford Street and along both Westford and Curve Streets for the full length of the project frontage. West said that the applicant would be willing to grant an easement at this location.
Dimakarakos showed the plan for the proposed pathway from 546 Westford Street as it passes the proposed Hanover Road entrance and then winds in around the wetland near 872 Westford Street, then down the driveway of that address, and then would continue on Westford Street to Curve Street, with an overall length of about 3300 feet. West added that the proposed route is entirely outside the Town’s right-of-way in order to preserve the streetscape. The PB confirmed that the applicant would be asking the Town to maintain the pathway, and will provide an easement to the Town, and that three easements would be required from residents (at 546 and 514 Westford, and 19 Virginia Farme Lane) if the path was begun at Virginia Farme Lane. West noted that if any of these abutters do not want the pathway on their
property, it will be placed in the right-of-way at these points, but added he is in positive discussions with two of them. In a letter to West, agent for the applicant, the resident of 514 Westford Street noted the need for an appropriate barrier between the pathway and her yard, and the planting of screening to maintain privacy. Kate Rowe and John Laraby (19 Virginia Farme Lane) expressed their concern with required foliage clearing at their property, and added that they had moved from the city to eliminate sidewalks. After discussion, West indicated that the pathway will likely only require clearing at 546 Westford Street, and the residents there are in full agreement with its location on their property. Chair Epstein suggested that West walk the proposed route with Rowe and Laraby, and return to the PB with a finalized plan for this area.
Chair Epstein asked Bakewell for a recommendation from the Ped/Bike Committee on pathway surfaces, with some information on the pros and cons of their suggestions, and asked that the DPW Superintendent be provided the proposed plans and his input solicited on pathway surfaces. When Chair Epstein asked for public comment regarding the pathways plan, none was forthcoming.
Henry Cox (Trails Committee) provided input regarding proposed trails on the site. He reported that West had attended recent Trails Committee meetings to discuss the proposed Hanover Hill trail easement. The Committee was unanimously in favor of a trail, as it offers the chance to create a link between the Virginia Farme and Hanover Hill neighborhoods. TrailsComm did express concern with the part of the trail that lies within a wetland behind proposed Lot 10, as it would require extensive bridging, and suggested finding a trail location on the upland side of the wetland in this area. The Committee saw no problems with the rest of the proposed trail route,
and noted that only two moderate bridges or boardwalks would be required, for which the Applicant has offered to buy materials. TrailsComm would construct these boardwalks. The PB requested that the trail easement have more prominent markers in some areas, particularly near Lot 10.
David Keast (Westford Street) spoke in strong support of the proposed trail and pathway, and pointed out the inconvenience of not being able to safely walk along Westford Street. He suggested that if the pathway continues to Curve Street, the internal trail should connect to the pathway somewhere on Curve Street.
The PB advised the applicant to meet with the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) to discuss the pathway, in particular for advice on entryway locations to the pathway for the general public, since the pathway would largely be on private property, and for advice on any crosswalks that may be necessary. They also advised discussion with TSAC re continuing the planned pathway on Westford Street until Curve Street, as the roadside area here is narrow, with a steep drop into wetlands, and warrants careful consideration.
The PB then continued discussion of low impact development (LID) design for this proposed subdivision. Chair Epstein asked the applicant’s engineer for an update on further discussions with the PB’s engineer (Nitsch Engineering) concerning their additional LID recommendations. Dimakarakos briefly reviewed the history of LID discussions on this project, and added that when he requested references on what Nitsch felt were example LID projects, they provided two on Cape Cod (Pinehills and Mashpee Commons) that are not similar by design, density or soil type, and are therefore in his opinion not relevant to this project. Dimakarakos summarized the applicant’s planned LID features, which include two roof drain drywells for each house (to help maintain the site’s natural hydrology, and
to promote recharge of clean stormwater to the ground), infiltration trenches for three of the five common drives (enhancing runoff treatment and recharge rate), and infiltration basins (bioretention areas). The ‘old’ approach of one large centralized drainage system will not be used. The PB’s engineer has agreed that these are all positive moves.
When Chair Epstein asked about developments within Carlisle that may exemplify use of LID techniques, Dimakarakos suggested Pine Meadow and Carriage Way, but noted that those sites and their soils more easily lent themselves to LID. This site is more difficult due to its terrain and the large wetland area on the western end of the site. The site as planned will have a net density of 4.7 acres per unit, and about 9% impervious surface per lot – well below the suggested maximum of 15%. Dimakarakos felt that LID has been incorporated into the design as much as possible. Chair Epstein said that his impression on reading the information supplied by the PB engineer is that to go further with LID would mean a complete reanalysis and reengineering of the entire project. PB members agreed that
2-acre zoning does not lend itself well to LID, as the optimum LID approach would involve a cluster development with reduced lot sizes. Freedman agreed to meet with Planning Administrator Mansfield and the PB engineer to discuss whether there is a realistic potential for any further LID design on this site.
Gary Davis, DPW Superintendent, informed the PB in writing that he does not support the use of LID on roads that are planned for acceptance as a public way. He noted several concerns with the more extensive maintenance of the infiltration trenches and basins, and with homeowners altering these features unintentionally, thereby possibly rendering them ineffective. Hoffman indicated that such resistance to other than traditional methods is generally common, and that maintenance of the trenches and basins may require landscapers, rather than traditional DPW expertise.
The PB reviewed information submitted by Dimakarakos on a recent meeting between the applicant’s and the PB’s engineers in which additional measures to minimize fill, maximize groundwater recharge and stormwater dispersement, and minimize impact on existing vegetation were discussed. The PB discussed the use of narrower shoulders and steeper roadway side slopes on the proposed roadways. Jonathan White, Deputy Fire Chief, said he is mostly concerned with the narrower common drives and that less slope of the shoulders is better for maneuvering the fire trucks. On the wider subdivision roadways, a steeper slope is not a problem. The PB noted that currently the common drives are all planned for at least 14 feet in width, which is greater than the 12 foot required by regulations. For Sorli
Way, the common drive serving more than three lots, the PB discussed a possible 16-foot width, which is the minimum width recommended by the Fire Department for this slightly longer common driveway. The use of steeper slopes and narrower shoulders will reduce fill considerably, reduce runoff,
and save clearing of natural vegetation. Infiltration trenches will be added in a few strategic locations, with swales along some of the roadways rather than curbing and catch basins.
The PB concurred that the bioretention area proposed by Stamski & McNary’s December 4, 2007 sketch plan would involve too much tree clearing and significantly change the streetscape. It might also be problematic for pathway passage by this area. Dimakarakos said that a detailed landscape plan identifies the trees that are being maintained. With this PB decision on the entryway area, Dimakarakos said he now has sufficient information to do a drainage analysis for the site.
Chair Epstein noted that at the next meeting on February 11th, the PB will discuss additional roadway detail, blasting areas, cut and fill areas, drainage analysis and landscaping. Epstein moved and Hoffman seconded the PB’s acceptance of the applicants request for an extension of time from February 1st to March 17, 2008 to act upon this subdivision plan.
Chair Epstein moved and Lamere seconded the continuation of this public hearing to 8:30 pm on February 11, 2008.
Review and discussion of proposed Supplementary Regulations for Sewage Disposal Systems, Carlisle Board of Health, Jeffrey Brem, Chair
Linda Fantasia, BOH Agent, had forwarded a copy of the final draft of proposed changes to the BOH’s local sewage disposal regulations, asking for PB comment. Chair Epstein asked the PB to provide any comments by January 25th to Planning Administrator Mansfield, who will compile and forward them. Mansfield noted that the BOH public hearing on the revised regulations is February 12th, with PB’s comments to the draft requested by February 6th.
At 11:20 pm, Peterson moved and Gonzales seconded the adjournment of the PB meeting, and the motion was approved unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Gretchen Caywood
Administrative Assistant
Carlisle Planning Board
| 
