Town of Carlisle, MA - Minutes of 4/14/08 PB meeting

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.

Consideration of potential amendments to Special Permit Rules and Regulations for Accessory Apartments to incorporate zoning bylaw amendments (Sec. 5.6) approved 5/06, DHCD regulatory agreement and LIP guidelines.

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

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 8:05 pm in the Clark Room of Town Hall. Members Greg Peterson, Ken Hoffman, Brian Larson, Carol Nathan, Kent Gonzales, Associate Member David Freedman, and Planning Administrator George Mansfield were present. Member Marc Lamere and Associate Member Tom Lane were absent.

Chair Epstein announced several changes to the Agenda for this meeting. The public hearing on the Omnipoint application will be continued to the May 12, 2008 meeting at the request of the applicant. The joint hearing on the subdivision and common driveway applications of Hanover Hill will be continued to the April 28^th meeting at the request of the applicant, in order to allow time for engineering peer review of revised plans. Also, the discussion on amendments to the Rules and Regulations for Accessory Apartments will be held at the April 28^th meeting, to allow additional time for comments from other Boards.

Chair Epstein opened this hearing and noted that there was no new information to present. The applicant is still negotiating with the First Religious Society (FRS) on the exact antenna location. This application is also scheduled to be heard by the Historical Commission on Tuesday, April 29^th, and the applicant has been asked by the PB to return after the Commission has heard and approved their application. With the exact time for continuation of this hearing still to be determined, Peterson moved and Larson seconded that this application be tabled until later in tonight’s meeting. The motion was approved 6-0.

Planning Administrator Mansfield explained that in 2007 there was a settlement of an 11 year appeal of a PB decision not to endorse an ANR for one buildable lot on Berry Corner Lane. As part of the settlement agreement, the Plaintiffs were required to bring the roadway up to the standards of a common drive, as described in the PB’s Rules and Regulations for Common Driveways. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, this has required engineering review and inspection by the Board’s peer review and the Plaintiff’s engineer.

In December, 2007, John Boardman had provided a written review of the original roadway design plans and had examined the site conditions. He noted that the roadway had deteriorated and also that abutters had performed work on the roadway without informing the PB, and he made recommendations for corrections to the plaintiffs’ engineer, Stamski & McNary. A response to Boardman’s review was received from Town Counsel last Friday, April 11, 2008, with an attached letter from Stamski and McNary (dated 2/21/08) asking the PB to consider not requiring some of the recommended work. Mansfield added that the reasons for this request are not known.

Chair Epstein reiterated that a goal of the settlement, as noted in section 1.8 of the Settlement Agreement, was to bring the roadway up to common drive standards, and added that PB engineer John Boardman was present to discuss whether the roadway is safe and whether it meets common drive standards. He asked Boardman to comment on the letter from Stamski & McNary. Among other things, Boardman explained that the grading is only 0.2% for approximately 185 feet at the end of the roadway, and therefore this area of the roadway is too flat to drain well. He displayed the As-Built Plan of the roadway with the design overlay. Epstein pointed out that drainage and icing have historically been one of the main problems with this roadway. Mansfield added that the cul-de-sac is flat and also ices up in winter.

Peterson confirmed that Boardman had reviewed both the 2001 and 2007 As-Built plans, and Boardman pointed out that they are revisions of the same plan. Boardman also noted that while a slope of 0.5% was proposed for the end of the roadway on the 2001 plan, it was constructed to only 0.2%, and he had pointed this out previously to Stamski & McNary. Freedman inquired if this part of the roadway had been constructed according to the 2001 plan, it would have been acceptable. Hoffman whether the 0.5% slope indicated on the As-Built plans is, already below the slope required for good engineering practices. Boardman agreed that it would be preferred to have slope at least .75% if possible.

After discussion, the PB instructed Boardman to advise Stamski & McNary that his suggestions for roadway improvement are not maintenance related, but are what is needed to meet common drive standards pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. The Board noted that his letter should suggest a grade in the aforementioned section of the roadway of greater than 5%, and that all culverts must be uncovered in order that they can be properly inspected. Per Section 2.2a of the Settlement Agreement, the PB engineer should review the 2001 as-built plan to determine whether it meets the Common Drive standards, inspect the site to determine whether its existing conditions conform with the 2001 plan, and set forth the areas that must be revised in order to meet the common drive standards.

Freedman asked about wetlands in the area, and Planning Administrator Mansfield said there is an outstanding enforcement order with the Conservation Commission relating to work done on the lane in a buffer zone without approval.

Chair Epstein reopened the joint public hearing. After discussion of schedule, Epstein moved and Peterson seconded the continuation of this joint public hearing to Monday, April 28, 2008 at 8:15 pm. The motion was approved 6-0.

Peterson moved that this item be taken off the table, which was approved unanimously. Planning Administrator Mansfield reported that he had been contacted by Alan Cameron (First Religious Society) and that Sprint is very interested in Omnipoint occupying the 82-foot lease site that they will not be using, but they cannot get any response from Omnipoint.

Planning Administrator Mansfield reminded the PB that at their 3/10/08 meeting, they had rejected Northland’s request to substitute a cash bond for the surety of an occupancy permit to allow more time to complete drainage corrections to this drive. Northland has since made the recommended improvements, and Nitsch has been asked to confirm them with a site inspection. Meanwhile, Farshad Nayeri, the owner of the Hobblebush lot for which the occupancy permit is being held, has submitted a letter listing his concerns about other drainage issues on the drive – issues not previously identified by Nitsch.

Mansfield added that on reviewing the project, he discovered that Nitsch had been using an earlier version of the roadway plans in its analysis, and not the final ones approved by the PB. The contractor had also been working with these older plans. Mansfield noted that the final plans show redesigned drainage swales and repositioned leaching catch basins, per recommendation of a now former Nitsch employee. However, the roadway has been built per the old design, and the current Nitsch engineer agrees that this may be contributing to many of the drainage problems.

Mansfield added that Nayeri is now asking that the PB transfer the surety from his lot to the next (and last) remaining lot to allow him to move into his home. The fourth lot on the roadway has been purchased by an abutter who will not be building on the property.

Larson asked why the applicant (developer) was not present to discuss this request. Mansfield said that all parties are meeting on Wednesday, April 16^th to discuss these issues, and that this discussion is to brief the Board in advance.

Freedman suggested that a letter be placed in the record regarding this issue, and also regarding the mistaken issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for a newly constructed home on this unfinished roadway. He asked that the PB office review the Building Department’s checklist relating to PB Special Permits for

Freedman referred to the article in the April 11^th Carlisle Mosquito that covered this forum, and indicated that although attendance at the event could have been greater, meaningful input was obtained from the discussions. He added that the event was well received, and that PB was well represented, with several members in attendance. .