Town of Carlisle, MA - Minutes of 2/11/08 PB meeting

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

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 27 School Street (Map 22, Lot 5) on property owned by the First Religious Society.

Request for modification of condition #10 of Common Driveway Special Permit for Hobblebush Lane to allow certificate of occupancy to be issued for Lot 1C prior to completion of certain drainage and landscaping details, which cannot be addressed in the winter season (request of Northland Residential Corp.)

Chair Michael Epstein called the meeting to order at 7:32 pm in the Clark Room of Town Hall. Members Greg Peterson, Kent Gonzales, Ken Hoffman, Brian Larson, Marc Lamere, Associate Member David Freedman, and Planning Administrator George Mansfield were present. Associate Member Tom Lane was absent, and Member Carol Nathan arrived at 7:35 pm.

Gretchen Caywood, assistant to the Planning Administrator, Alan Carpenito (BOS), Sylvia Willard (Conservation Administrator), George Dimakarakos (Stamski & McNary), Rob West (Wilkins Hill Realty, LLC), Paul Alphen (Balas, Alphen & Santos, P.C.), David Keast (Westford Street), Deb Belanger and John Bakewell (Ped/Bike Committee), Alan Cameron (First Religious Society), Brian Grossman (Prince Lobel Glovsky and Tye), Elizabeth Kirby (East Street), and Bob Zielinski (Carlisle Mosquito) were also in attendance.

The PB reviewed the draft minutes for the January 2, 2008 Special Meeting. Peterson moved and Lamere seconded the approval of the minutes as drafted. The motion was approved unanimously (7-0). The PB then reviewed the draft minutes for the January 14, 2008 meeting, and a few amendments were suggested. Hoffman moved and Nathan seconded the approval of the draft minutes as amended, and the motion was approved unanimously (7-0).

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 comply with a zero increase 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 was not yet able to provide new drainage plans, the discussion was not detailed.

It was agreed that Chair Epstein and Vice Chair Peterson would review the draft Town Report that is being prepared by Planning Administrator Mansfield. Chair Epstein also asked that Board members review the content of the PB’s contribution to the 2006 Town Report and suggest by the end of the week any content and style revisions they feel appropriate for the 2007 contribution.

Chair Epstein opened the hearing and appointed Associate Member Freedman to be a voting member for this special permit public hearing. Brian Grossman (Prince, Lobel, Glovsky and Tye), a representative for Omnipoint, provided the green cards, indicating notification of abutters, to Planning Administrator Mansfield, and assured the PB that the hearing had been properly advertised, agreeing to provide the advertisement tear sheets at the next hearing.

Grossman described the proposed site, which will consist of up to three wireless antennas mounted within the existing Bell Tower at a height of 62 feet (at the top of the antenna). The Applicant will replace existing portions of the Bell Tower with radiofrequency permeable panels (fiberglass) that will be fabricated and painted to match the existing steeple finish. The antennas will be connected to the equipment cabinets by coaxial cable running within the Church. All of the radio equipment will be located within the existing attic, and will include three equipment cabinets and one battery backup. It will require one additional AC unit (in addition to those required by Sprint). The Applicant also plans to install one GPS antenna and one E911 antenna, per FCC mandate. These are small antennas and will be mounted on the Bell Tower railing. After installation, the proposed facility will require bi-weekly maintenance and inspection visits. The site is depicted in detail on plans previously submitted to the PB.

Grossman reviewed the exact proposed equipment and antenna locations with the Board. Chair Epstein confirmed that the only visible antennas proposed will be the two smaller GPS and E911 antennas, and the Board requested, and Grossman agreed, to review other possible locations for that equipment that are more concealed.

Chair Epstein pointed out that the Omnipoint application to the PB indicates that the Carlisle Historical Commission has reviewed the application, but it was his understanding that Omnipoint had not yet filed an application with the Commission (as confirmed by PB appointee Lamere). Grossman agreed to follow up on this, and said the applicant does plan to file with the Historic Commission. Chair Epstein also directed the applicant to review the Sprint application, recently approved by the PB, for this location to coordinate the location of the Omnipoint and Sprint equipment. More specifically, he directed the applicant to use the AC unit plan developed by Sprint, which included accommodation for Omnipoint’s AC equipment needs. He added that the Sprint plan for the AC unit pad should be incorporated into Omnipoint’s plans for this site. The Chair noted that the Building Commissioner should review the proposed equipment setup, and asked Grossman to coordinate this review with Planning Administrator Mansfield. Peterson suggested that Grossman review the Conditions of the Sprint application approval, as conditions associated with this application may be similar if this application is approved.

Alan Cameron (FRS) confirmed that there is a co-location slot available at 82-foot height if Omnipoint is interested in a higher location point for their antennas. Grossman said that this slot may be of interest to Omnipoint, but was not yet available at the time this application was prepared.

Peterson referred to the antenna orientation depicted in the plans and how it relates to the coverage maps supplied by the applicant. Grossman noted that the coverage maps imply a different antenna orientation. Chair Epstein directed the applicant to update and enhance the coverage maps with respect to antenna orientation, as the PB will be reviewing this thoroughly. Grossman said that it is possible that Omnipoint will want to collocate in the higher 82 foot site that is now available. When the PB asked about drive test data, Grossman said that the applicant did not plan to conduct drive tests for this site. Chair Epstein pointed out that seamless coverage along Route 225 is important to the PB, and that such tests would be helpful to the application.

Grossman explained that two waivers from the Wireless Bylaws are being requested: one for proximity to a day care and to an historic structure, and a second for residences within a 900 foot setback. He pointed out that this structure is the only one in the area available to a stealth design within an existing structure, and that the lack of coverage in this area justifies use of this facility, even though waivers must be requested. Grossman agreed to provide a comprehensive list of waivers at the next hearing.

Chair Epstein confirmed from Grossman that Omnipoint is seriously considering moving up their siting to the now available 82 foot slot, and indicated that this may change some of the questions the PB will have for the applicant. Freedman said that this will necessitate generation of new coverage plots. Cameron said that FRS will want to review the updated coverage plots before they agree to allow Omnipoint to locate at the 82 foot slot. Freedman asked for assurance that the applicant plans to work with Sprint representatives as much as possible to minimize setup disruption should this application be approved. He also suggested that the applicant use the same company for fabrication of the fiberglass replacement components for the steeple. Grossman said it is likely that Omnipoint can decide whether they wish to co-locate at 82-feet by the February 25^th PB meeting.

Chair Epstein explained that at tonight’s hearing, the PB will seek to address issues associated with low impact development (LID), some ConsComm concerns, and pathways. Dimakarakos reported that after a meeting with the PB’s engineer, PB representatives, and the Conservation Administrator, the applicant began further planning on the agreed upon LID measures. He showed a plan with highlighted areas along the proposed Hanover Road where the shoulder width can be reduced, and along one common driveway where the side slope can be increased. The applicant’s engineer testified that he thought these measures will better preserve natural vegetation. Dimakarakos added that along the center section of Hanover Road, the proposed roadway could be lowered. Dimakarakos also stated that shoulders could be narrowed along the roadway and on the cul-de-sac to also preserve natural vegetation. In addition, he suggested that the shoulder width along Johnson Road could be narrowed where possible, to save trees.

Dimakarakos then referred to a February 5, 2008 letter from EcoTec, Inc., retained by ConsComm, to review the Notice of Intent filed for this project, in which the firm expressed concern with the proximity of the proposed Hanover Road cul-de-sac and the proposed common drive A to a likely vernal pool. In the letter, EcoTec had suggested many design measures to help protect the future viability of the vernal pool. Among the items suggested were: lowering the elevation of the common drive, limiting clearing as much as possible in the areas near the vernal pool, designing infiltration trenches that are passable by amphibians (i.e. no exposed crushed stone), and shifting the end of Hanover Road and its cul-de-sac to the east as much as possible. Dimakarakos said he is able to accommodate many of their suggestions, particularly lowering the driveway elevation, reducing grading, removing a retaining wall and moving the common drive further from the vernal pool. He added that the Hanover Road cul-de-sac cannot be shifted to the east due to lot constraints, but they are working to incorporate as much of EcoTech’s suggestions as possible.

Conservation Administrator Willard noted that the public hearing with ConsComm on this project is at 8:30 pm on Thursday, February 14, 2008, at which the suggestions provided by EcoTec will be discussed. She also noted that the vernal pool under discussion is one of four vernal pools on the proposed site with a high potential of being certified, the other being near wetland flag #2 on the site, and that it would be important to leave as many trees around the edges of these vernal pools as possible.

The PB then discussed the proposed pathway for the site. Rob West, agent for the applicant, noted that of the three addresses where a pathway could be located on private property (546 and 514 Westford Street and 19 Virginia Farme Lane), the 546 Westford Street residents have agreed to the pathway being located on their property, while discussion is continuing with the other residents. The path can be located entirely on the right-of-way at the other two addresses if necessary. John Bakewell (Pedestrian/Bike Pathways Advisory Committee) confirmed that the right-of-way is sufficient at these addresses for a 4-foot path, and noted that the Ped/Bike Committee will work on the pathway sitings if requested by the BOS. Chair Epstein agreed to ask the BOS to direct Ped/Bike to assist with the pathway siting on this project along Westford Street.

Regarding siting of the pathway as it continues past the driveway at 872 Westford Street toward Curve Street, West reported that the DPW Superintendent has suggested that the pathway be located inside the stone wall, and felt that a 4-5 foot wide path could be built tightly to the inside of the stone wall with minimal wetland impact. Chair Epstein confirmed from West that the applicant would provide an easement to the Town for this portion of pathway location. Bakewell added that an easement would likely be needed along Curve Street to end the path at a safe location on Curve Street. Deb Belanger (Ped/Bike) suggested Utility Pole #2 as a natural spot to end the path.

parallel to the site’s Westford Street frontage, instead of within the subdivision as required by the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. The Planning Board noted that any pathways within the public right of way or any paths dedicated to the Town would need to be approved by the BOS.

The applicant indicated that they calculated approximately 3,800 feet of sidewalk would be required within the development, while approximately 3,000 feet of path would be required pursuant to the suggested plan; however, the cost of completing the pathway along Westford Street would be more expensive on a per foot basis than construction within the development, so that the overall cost to the applicant was roughly equivalent. . The PB directed Dimakarakos to remove from the design any grading and shoulder features included in expectation of an internal pathway siting.

Dimakarakos then reviewed for the PB the proposed width, grade, shoulder and slope of all proposed roadways. For the subdivision roadways, a total width of 29 feet is planned, composed of 20 foot pavement width, 6-inch granite curbing on each side, and 4-foot shoulders on each side. Chair Epstein confirmed that the PB approves of 4 foot (rather than 6 foot) shoulders, but asked West to confirm that this is acceptable to the Fire Chief. The applicant also proposed changing the shoulder slopes from 3:1 (which is required in the Subdivision regulations) to 2:1 in order to preserve vegetation. The PB confirmed that this was acceptable based upon previous correspondence with the Board’s peer engineer and stated that it understands that the Fire Chief is accepting of this change per the Chief’s previous testimony before the Board at the last public hearing.

For common driveway widths, if three or fewer lots are served by the drive, the PB concurred that a proposed 14 foot pavement width and 2 foot shoulders may be reasonable, but reserved the opportunity to consider a reduced width of 12 feet which is required by the Common Driveway Regulations.. For Sorli Way, serving 5 lots, Dimakarakos proposed an 18 foot pavement width, as is used at Greystone Crossing, with 2 foot shoulders. Chair Epstein pointed out that this is well beyond the 12 foot width requirement for common drives as set forth in the Board’s Rules and Regulations for Common Driveways, and added that both the PB and the Fire Chief agree that a 16 foot width is sufficient. Dimakarakos said the applicant prefers 18 feet for this drive, as well as 14 feet on the common driveways serving fewer lots. This item will be discussed at the continued hearing.

Planning Administrator Mansfield reported that residents along each roadway have requested that the roads be accepted by the Town as public ways. He added that if many years had passed since these subdivisions had been certified complete by the PB, or if the roadways were not built to subdivision standards, then a detailed evaluation by the PB would be required. However, since the PB has just certified these subdivisions as complete, no detailed evaluation is necessary. The BOS has voted its intention to lay out each roadway as a Town way, and has referred the matter to the PB for its non-binding recommendation.

Planning Administrator Mansfield explained to the PB that Larry Sorli, Sr. is proposing to divide a portion of his property at 1081 Westford Street to create two new building lots. He assured the PB that the plan as drawn meets all requirements of the ANR Regulations. After reviewing the plan, Hoffman moved to endorse the plan of land in Carlisle, MA for 1081 Westford Street prepared by Stowers Associates, Inc. for Lawrence O. Sorli as Approval Not Required. Lamere seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously (6-0).

Mansfield explained that the new owners of this property wish to divide it into two non-buildable parcels, and indicated that the plan meets all ANR regulations. Hoffman moved to endorse the plan of land in Carlisle, MA for 333 Concord Street prepared by Stamski & McNary, Inc. for Frank Desimone as Approval Not Required. Larson seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously (7-0).

Freedman reported that all Boards have been asked to respond with their comments on the draft report prepared by this group by March 31^st. He noted that earlier feedback would be helpful, and specifically asked Peterson for his input. The PB expressed concern that this draft report had not been discussed with Town Counsel, and recommended that this be done as soon as possible, rather than waiting until a later point for such input. Freedman agreed. . While the PB had been provided key sections for review before tonight’s meeting, Chair Epstein asked Planning Administrator Mansfield to forward the entire draft document to the PB.

Chair Epstein reported that he had submitted an email to the BOH dated February 3, 2008 with the PB’s feedback on the BOH’s draft Regulations. He and Freedman had attended the BOH hearing on February 7, 2008 on the proposed revisions , and found that some of the PB comments had already been incorporated into the draft. Since the BOH had requested a formal letter from the PB concerning the draft revised Septic Regulations, Peterson moved to approve the February 3, 2008 memo to the BOH as the PB’s formal response with input on the revised regulations. Freedman suggested that the threshold where shared systems would require a higher gallon/day design be lowered from 19 bedrooms to 15 bedrooms. Peterson accepted the amendment to his motion, Gonzales seconded and the motion was approved 7-0.

Chair Epstein referred to a recent decision by the Acting Building Commissioner to rescind a building permit that had been issued for construction of a wind turbine on a Berry Corner Lane property. He noted that the BOS may ask the PB to look into developing zoning bylaws for this and other like purpose structures. Peterson offered to begin researching this issue, and cautioned against developing too narrow a bylaw. Larson stressed the importance of knowing the Town’s preferred direction and/or policies on these systems before drafting a bylaw.

Chair Epstein reported that March 3^rd is the caucus for open seats on the Board, and that both his seat and Gonzales’ seat are up for reelection. While Gonzales has decided not to run again, Epstein added that he has not yet decided, but asked Mansfield to inform the Mosquito reporter that there will likely be two seats available.