Town of Carlisle
MASSACHUSETTS 01741
------------
Office of
PLANNING BOARD
66 Westford Street
Carlisle, Massachusetts 01741
Tel. (978) 369-9702
Fax (978) 369-4521
Minutes
Special Meeting: PB Goals and Priorities for FY09
April 16, 2008
Chair Michael Epstein called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm at 63 Indian Hill. Board members Greg Peterson, Kent Gonzales, Ken Hoffman, Carol Nathan, Marc Lamere, Associate Member David Freedman and Planning Administrator, George Mansfield were present. Brian Larson arrived at 7:15 pm. Tom Lane was absent.
General Business
Planning Administrator noted that due to recent changes in Nathan’s schedule, the PB should appoint an alternate Clerk. Gonzales moved and Peterson seconded the appointment of Brian Larson as Clerk alternate. The motion was approved 6-0-1 (Larson abstaining).
Goals and Priorities
Chair Epstein pointed out that tonight’s meeting is to discuss goals and priorities for FY09, as well as priorities for the remainder of FY08. In light of a major cut to the ‘Planning and Professional’ budget line item, rapid action may be necessary on priority items requiring consulting input. The PB discussed that in light of new information obtained in developing the draft Wireless RFP, revisions to the wireless bylaw will likely be necessary, requiring input from a consultant in this field. Also, in light of recent changes to 40B law, formulation of a common development control bylaw and/or regulations, which would apply to all potential developments in Town, may be valuable for protecting the character of Carlisle. While available, FY08 funding could be utilized to begin this
process.
The PB discussed several parameters affecting the future of Carlisle. From the recent ‘Day of Community’ held on April 5, 2008, and sponsored by the PB on behalf of the Livable Carlisle Community, Freedman pointed out that the changing demographic (aging of the Town population) was viewed by the attendees as a significant parameter that will shift the needs of Carlisleans in the future, and PB goals need to address this issue. Maintaining the character of the Town in the future needs to be a constant in any planning process. Changes to the FY09 budget were pointed out by all to be a significant factor potentially affecting the PB’s ability to take a proactive role in planning the Town’s future by limiting their ability to utilize experts when necessary for evaluating possibilities
and for developing new bylaws.
Concerning revisions to the wireless bylaw, the PB discussed utilizing Kreines and Kreines, Wireless Planning Consultants, to review the current bylaw and revise it to encompass developing technologies as well as comprehensive coverage for the Town. This firm has developed wireless bylaws for many communities and counties, several of which are in eastern Massachusetts. Chair Epstein offered to speak with Ted Kreines regarding their experience and possible arrangements with the Town.
The formulation of a common bylaw for development control was discussed, as it may better protect the Town in light of the State’s recent revisions to 40B regulations. Chair Epstein expressed concern that these changes may result in 40B applications to the Town that, if developed, would significantly change the character of the Town and undo much of what the Town has achieved in terms of preservation. Peterson pointed out that a development control bylaw should include measures to help protect the water supply so that it is not irrecoverably altered by 40B’s, and all agreed that the bylaw should support low impact development as much as possible. The PB discussed that the new 40B revisions allow comprehensive permit projects to include non-residential uses and structures within a project,
regardless of the underlying zoning. A proactive, development control bylaw can also help direct 40B developments to locations that the Town has deemed most appropriate. Such a bylaw could also become part of a comprehensive master plan for land use in the Town.
The PB also discussed revising many of its Rules and Regulations, including those for Subdivision, Conservation Clusters and Common Drives, to encourage use of a low impact development approach as much as possible.
Peterson suggested that a strategic plan be developed to investigate the feasibility of locating 40B projects on Town-owned land. He suggested reviewing Conservation Commission parcels to determine appropriate locations for 40B’s. Peterson also pointed out that many 40B developers avoid Carlisle due to the lack of infrastructure in the Town. Several possible Town-owned locations were discussed, including the back part of Towle Field land (furthest from Westford Street), a part of Foss Farm land (due to its proximity to Bedford for shopping and other amenities), and a part of the Greenough Land (for its proximity to Billerica for use of amenities).
Freedman suggested that one approach to development planning would be to analyze potentially available parcels in Town, perhaps with the assistance of a developer, and determine where best to locate small subdivisions, with the goal of blocking larger 40B developments in those areas while increasing the tax base with revenue from these market-rate homes. Another approach would be to develop a cluster bylaw to slightly increase allowable housing density. Peterson suggested that if a cluster bylaw is crafted, a specific parcel should be used to design a ‘paper example’. He suggested using the parcel formerly considered for the Coventry Woods 40B project for such a cluster bylaw example. This would be one way to have a ‘ready-to-go’ site (planning wise) for a
developer.
The PB also agreed that an updated Affordable Housing Plan needs to be developed, with work to commence promptly, as a revised plan is required by the State in 2 years.
Concerning the aging demographic in Carlisle, Larson stressed that the PB needs to consider if the Town is sustainable in its current form. He suggested that the Town may need the careful incorporation of some commercial revenue to supplement the shrinking tax base, and that the wireless facilities will be one added source of commercial revenue. This will require heavy PB involvement to assure maintaining the character of the Town.
Nathan noted that the changing demographic may require enhanced transportation needs, and added that the Council on Aging has a small fund that can be utilized by the Town to study transportation needs.
Chair Epstein suggested that at an upcoming PB meeting, the Board vote on the priority of these matters, choose those for PB action, and assign responsibilities. Freedman suggested that the new PB Chair (to be appointed at the first PB meeting after Town Elections) meet with FinComm to work on the PB budget, and, with the PB’s priority list in hand, provide specific information on what these funding needs are.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Gretchen Caywood
Administrative Assistant
| 
