Town of Carlisle
MASSACHUSETTS 01741
------------
Office of
PLANNING BOARD
66 Westford Street
Carlisle, Massachusetts 01741
Tel. (978) 369-9702
Fax (978) 369-4521
Minutes
June 8, 2009
Minutes 5/11/09
Bills
Budget
Organization of 2009-2010 Board
Summer Meeting Schedule
Conflict of Interest Training
Liaison Reports
Review of recommendations by Jon Witten. AICP, Esq., regarding the revision of the Carlisle Zoning Bylaws and various Boards’ Rules and Regulations to establish a comprehensive set of regulations and/or a land use and development bylaw
Review of grading and drainage changes to Lots A-1 and 20-A, Hanover Hill Definitive Subdivision Plan, and elimination of Common Driveway C. [Request of Stamski & McNary, Inc.]
Discussion of strategy with regard to implementation of Settlement Agreement, Valchuis et al. v. Planning Board, Berry
Corner Lane, Map 7, Parcel 29 (motion to go into executive session may be entertained)
Request for Planning Board review of draft Affordable Accessory Apartment deed restriction (Request of Administrative Coordinator)
Consideration of necessary amendments to Rules and Regulations for Personal Wireless Service Facilities consistent with Zoning Bylaw amendments to Sec 5.9 approved by Town Meeting.
Invitation to participate in Senior Tax Work Program for FY10.
Acting Chair Michael Epstein called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm in the Clark Room of Town Hall. Members David Freedman, Marc Lamere, Kent Gonzales, Tom Lane, Nathan Brown and Planning Administrator George Mansfield were present. Carol Nathan was absent.
Gretchen Caywood, Administrative Assistant to the Planning Board, Ed Rolfe (ZBA Chair), Alan Carpenito (South Street), and Bob Zielinski (Carlisle Mosquito) were also in attendance.
Minutes
The Draft Minutes from the 5/11/09 meeting were not yet available for review. Assistant Caywood apologized to the Board and noted that she had not completed them before her recent illness, from which she has just returned today. She noted that they will be available for review as soon as possible, with the goal being for the next meeting.
Budget
Planning Administrator Mansfield explained that both he and Assistant Caywood are, to-date, under hours for the fiscal year thus far, and that therefore would be able to provide extra office time, if needed, over the next few weeks. While the PB agreed to this if the workload necessitates it, Freedman suggested that the staff try to remain under budgeted hours as a ‘good faith’ effort.
Other Business
Acting Chair Epstein had forwarded an email to the PB regarding a June 11th meeting of MAGIC (Minuteman Advisory Group for Interlocal Coordination) at which the Land Use Partnership Act will be discussed, suggesting that a PB member attend for this discussion. He asked the PB to notify Planning Administrator Mansfield of their
ability to attend. Freedman asked Mansfield to inquire as to whether information distributed at these meetings can be obtained electronically.
Conflict of Interest Training
Planning Administrator Mansfield reminded the PB about this seminar on June 10th in Needham, and noted that there is a side benefit of a reduced insurance rate for the Town based on the number of attendees. Freedman asked Mansfield to determine the amount of savings to the Town for each attendee. Lane and Lamere indicated their intentions to attend the seminar.
Organization of 2009-2010 Board
Acting Chair Epstein introduced the new PB member, Nathan Brown, and thanked him for his interest in joining the PB. Epstein also thanked Freedman and Lane for becoming full members on the Board, Freedman filling the membership position recently opened by Ken Hoffman’s resignation (due to relocation). Freedman’s appointment took place at the joint meeting of the BOS and PB on Tuesday, May 26, 2009, and is recorded in the BOS Minutes.
Acting Chair Epstein noted that Tom Lane has been involved with the PB for 10 years, beginning with his election to a 5 year term in May 1999, and he has held many official roles for the Board. After this term was up, he accepted a three year appointment as Associate Member, but agreed to become a full Member in 2006, filling the position held previously by Ray Bahr. In May, 2007, Lane agreed to return to the role of Associate Member, and this May was elected to a three-year full Membership term.
Acting Chair Epstein noted that David Freedman has been involved with the PB for over 7 years, having chaired the Board for 2 years, acted as Vice Chair and as an Associate Member. His interaction with the PB began in 1999, though, when as a resident he became very active in aspects of the completion of the Tall Pines subdivision project. In 2002, Freedman was appointed to the Board to fill Epstein’s position. In 2003, he was elected to a 5-year term on the Board, which in 2004 was readjusted to a 2-year term when all incumbents were required to seek new terms. In 2005, Freedman was elected Chair of the PB and, in 2006 was appointed to fill the position formerly held by Rich Boule. In 2007 Freedman was appointed to a 3-year Associate Member Term and this spring was appointed to the PB
as a full member as noted. Epstein then enumerated a number of Freedman’s contributions as a member of the Board. Planning Administrator Mansfield will place a press release in the Mosquito publicizing the need for two Associate Members for the PB.
The PB then reviewed their list of Officers, Appointees and Liaisons for this past fiscal year, and considered new assignments. Acting Chair Epstein explained that while the Appointee role to certain Boards and Committees is legally required, the Liaison role is less formal.
After discussion, Epstein moved that David Freedman be Chair of the PB for FY10, and Gonzales seconded. At this point, Epstein asked if any other Members were interested in becoming Chair at this time, and no others were interested. When voted, the motion was approved 5-0-1 (Freedman abstaining). Epstein passed the reigns to Chair Freedman at this point. Gonzales moved to nominate Epstein as Vice Chair, Brown seconded and the motion was approved 5-0-1 (Epstein abstaining).
Lamere offered to remain in the office of Treasurer for FY10. Chair Freedman moved to nominate Lamere as Treasurer, Epstein seconded, and the motion was approved 6-0. Chair Freedman nominated Carol Nathan for the office of Clerk, Gonzales seconded and the motion was approved 6-0.
The PB then discussed Appointees to the Community Preservation Act Committee (CPC), Historical Commission, Magic representative, Long Term Capital Requirements Committee, and Conservation Restriction Advisory Committee. Epstein moved the following slate of appointees:
Community Preservation Act Committee Kent Gonzales
Historical Commission Marc Lamere
MAGIC representative Carol Nathan
Long Term Capital Requirements Committee Tom Lane
Conservation Restriction Advisory Committee Marc Lamere
Lamere seconded the motion and it was approved 6-0. Epstein asked Highland Building Study Committee member Alan Carpenito about the future of this Committee. Carpenito noted that the BOS will form two Committees for various stages of the project: one to formulate and implement the RFP for the approved stabilization funding ($440k), and one to work with various Boards and Committees to formulate potential uses for the building. Carpenito also pointed out that former PB and Committee member Ken Hoffman had done excellent work for the Highland Building Study Committee to get things to this point. New PB member Nathan Brown expressed interest in possibly participating in the second committee (potential use investigation) when it is formed.
The PB then discussed Liaisons for the upcoming fiscal year. Lamere moved to approve the slate of Liaisons as follows:
BOS David Freedman (Michael Epstein, alternate)
ZBA David Freedman (Nathan Brown, alternate)
ConsComm David Freedman (Michael Epstein, alternate)
Trails Marc Lamere
BOH Kent Gonzales
Town Counsel Michael Epstein (David Freedman, alternate)
RecComm Michael Epstein
Housing Authority Tom Lane
Pedestrian and Bike
Safety Advisory Committee Marc Lamere
Gonzales seconded the motion and it was approved 6-0. This and the appointment list will be circulated to these Boards and Committees once the Highland Committee has been formed and its member included.
Summer Meeting Schedule
With the next PB meeting already set for June 22nd, the PB discussed meeting dates for July and August. While the first meeting remains uncertain and will be set at the June 22nd meeting (for either July 27th or August 3rd), the subsequent meetings were set for August 24th and September 14th.
Review of recommendations by Jon Witten. AICP, Esq., regarding the revision of the Carlisle Zoning Bylaws and various Boards’ Rules and Regulations to establish a comprehensive set of regulations and/or a land use and development bylaw
Chair Freedman confirmed that all members had read the May 28, 2009 letter forwarded by ZBA Chair Ed Rolfe that had been submitted to him by Alan Lehotsky, Chair, Housing Authority (HA). Rolfe, on behalf of the ZBA, had asked for the PB to review and comment on the letter, as in an email response he had made to Lehotsky regarding the letter, he had suggested that the CHA work through the PB and the other Boards with interest in these regulations to cooperatively pool their input and support to the ZBA.
In this letter, Lehotsky reported that the HA had voted unanimously at its May 18th meeting to instruct him to recommend that the ZBA withdraw the proposed comprehensive permit regulations from the June 15th ZBA public hearing, on the basis that the HA feels they are non-compliant with the State’s (Department of Housing and Community Development) enabling regulations. Chair Freedman noted that the ZBA has clearly accepted and encouraged the PB’s leading role in developing the scope of these 40B Regulations. It was noted that the HA has reached this conclusion despite Town Counsel’s review and approval of the proposed regulations, and even though the consultant who helped the Town draft the regulations (Jon Witten) is an attorney and a planner well-known to be a
knowledgeable expert in this area. Chair Freedman also noted that the ZBA is apparently not required to hold a public hearing on the adoption of these regulations, as public hearings are generally only required when amending or adopting a zoning bylaw, or issuing a special permit or variance, but they voluntarily decided to do so.
As members of the Ad Hoc Steering Committee for the development of these regulations, Chair Freedman and Vice Chair Epstein, after conferring with Witten, had prepared a draft response from the PB to the ZBA Chair concerning the HA letter. This draft was distributed to the PB for their review prior to tonight’s meeting. Prior to this meeting, the entire set of proposed 40B regulations, as most recently revised, had been distributed to the PB as
well. Chair Freedman explained that the goal is to finalize this draft response this evening, and to suggest that the ZBA Chair circulate it to the ZBA as soon as possible for their meeting of June 15,th the continuation of the hearing on the adoption of these regulations.
The PB reviewed their draft response to the HA letter in detail. Chair Freedman explained that he believed the HA had received the 40B draft regulations as early as February 2009, and that the current drafts are mostly similar. He added that the only official time that the PB has had to discuss this before the HA was at the March 26, 2009 HA meeting, at which the PB was allotted 15 minutes. Chair Freedman noted that after the first few minutes of discussion, the HA turned to questions of how Witten was hired, along with additional questions. mostly not related to the content of the draft regulations at hand. After this HA meeting, Epstein and Freedman talked with some abutters and with Selectman Williams, who were very interested in discussing whether there will be any potential hindrance imposed
by these regulations on the Benfield Farms project. Epstein and Freedman assured them that there is nothing in the regulations that should in any way impede the Benfield Farms project, and that the regulations just further assure due diligence regarding any 40B project. They offered to meet again with the HA on several occasions, but, as Epstein pointed out, there has been no response from the HA concerning these offers.
Concerning any revisions offered by the HA to the regulations, Freedman noted that HA member Steve Pearlman had spoken with him and suggested some changes, but that subsequently the HA had said that they would offer no further comment until after Town Counsel’s review. Chair Freedman explained that Town Counsel had been directed by members of the BOS to review the proposed regulations for their conformance with DHCD regulations, and requested a few changes to bring them into conformance. He noted that, despite this, the HA is asking the ZBA to take their interpretation of the proposed regulations conformance rather than Counsel’s.
On further discussion, there were several points noted in the HA letter that indicated their potential misinterpretation of the law. For example, the HA letter had pointed out how the proposed regulations refer to requiring that a 40B project comply with Executive order 193, ‘Preservation of State Owned Agricultural Land’, the HA letter commenting that “this is not required of subdivisions and/or single-family homes in Carlisle”. The draft PB response points out that, indeed, E.O. 193 is a recognition by the State of the value of agricultural land and the first policy that the law states is that “state funds and federal grants administered by the State shall not be used to encourage the conversion of agricultural land to other uses when feasible alternatives are available”. Since 40B developments must include a state or federal subsidy, E.O. 193 is directly relevant to a 40B application, but generally not to other private development applications.
The PB’s draft response to the HA letter also includes correction and clarification concerning the HA’s interpretation of the BOH water regulations, this being confirmed by a discussion between BOH Chair Brem and Chair Freedman. The response goes on to explain that, by 40B statute and by 760 CMR 56.00, the ZBA assumes the BOH’s purview in connection with any local regulations promulgated by the BOH, just as it will do with respect to other local bylaws and rules and regulations, when it reviews 40B applications. Epstein added that according to State statute for the 40B Comprehensive Permit process, the ZBA is charged to take on the role of other Boards and Committees if there are local regulations that apply. The PB therefore, in its response, attempted to explain that the
HA’s premise that the ZBA cannot ask for information normally within the purview of the BOH is an incorrect one. Since 40B’s are generally a case of more dense development (than local zoning bylaws allow), the ZBA can indeed ask for additional information. This is different from the fact that the ZBA must guard against applying the same regulations/bylaws differently to a 40B project than to other developments.
Chair Freedman added that in the 40B process, the ZBA is charged with defending all underlying Town zoning regulations and that is what these proposed comprehensive permit regulations are designed to support.
Member Tom Lane offered several suggestions for modification of the PB’s draft response that he felt would get the point across, but perhaps aid in how it was received by the HA, and these were embraced by the PB. Chair Freedman did note, however, the importance of pointing out that the HA are basically saying that their
understanding of the DHCD regulations should take precedence over that of consultant Jon Witten and of Town Counsel. Lamere made additional comments regarding sections of the letter, as did Gonzales and Brown. Revised language was discussed and agreed upon.
Chair Freedman asked for comments from the public.
Alan Carpenito (South Street) stated that in his opinion it is strange that the HA wants to be part of the review process at this late point when, during the Benfield Farms project RFP development, they did not reach out to any other Board or Committee that should have been included, and was only reviewed by Counsel for legality. He pointed out that the Benfield RFP should have been a cooperative process. He did not agree that the HA should be the ones determining the 40B regulations in Carlisle, and that their opinion should be considered above that of the experienced consultant and of Town Counsel. Carpenito was adamant that the PB should be very firm in their response to the HA’s letter, and should let them know that what they did was out of line with this community, because what they are
proposing violates every Bylaw that has jurisdiction over multi-family housing in Carlisle. He noted that in his opinion, the HA’s intention to build a ‘friendly 40B’ is not consistent with bylaws passed by a 2/3 majority at Town Meetings. Their approach, he said, is that if the project has a 40-foot setback and it’s a 40B, it’s all set.. Carpenito added that the Town Boards and Committees are supposed to uphold Town Bylaws and regulations,, and for the HA to build a 24,000 sq ft building in very close proximity to citizens’ private homes is not at all in keeping with the character of Carlisle..
Chair Freedman thanked Carpenito for his input, and pointed out that in the conclusions of the PB’s draft response, they have formally stated their view, which will read:
‘Further, we are well aware of the tremendous effort of CHA and others in town to move forward the Benfield proposal. It is the PB’s view that nothing in the Proposed Regulations would hinder the development of the housing proposed at the Benfield land. To the contrary, we suggest that the Housing Authority should consider embracing the Proposed Regulations , as doing so will reassure the neighbors on South Street that the proposed development will be adequately vetted to ensure that their health and safety will not be compromised.’
Chair Freedman also pointed out that, since it is possible that the developer for the proposed Benfield Farms project may be about to receive their site approval letter from DHCD on this project, it would have been tidier if these proposed regulations had already been in place.
Epstein added that while this work on 40B regulation revision was begun in April 2008, in November 2008 a large joint meeting was held in which members of the HA, BOH, BOS, consultant Witten and others met with the PB in a public forum to discuss these regulations. The ZBA and the 40B Working Group had realized the need for new regulations for 40B comprehensive permits in February 2008. Epstein stressed that it is entirely coincidence that the coming to fruition of these proposed regulations and of the Benfield project are now somewhat
coincident. This has been explained to the HA; these proposed regulations were not at all drafted with the Benfield project in mind. Chair Freedman noted that he has offered to discuss the draft regulations with the Benfield developer if desired, and this was rejected by the HA.
ZBA Chair Ed Rolfe, also in attendance this evening, thanked Epstein, Freedman and the entire PB for their diligent work on these regulations and on their response to the HA letter. He noted that it is a pleasure to see the high level of cooperation between the PB members on this sensitive project. Rolfe confirmed that the ZBA is pleased with the proposed 40B regulations as currently revised. He pointed out that in the 40B process, the ZBA relies heavily on some Boards, and all parties need to get as much information as possible early on in the process.
Epstein asked Rolfe to have the specific changes noted by Town Counsel to the proposed 40B regulations available at the ZBA public hearing on June 15th.
At this point, Lamere moved to strongly recommended that the PB present to the ZBA on June 15, 2009 that they adopt the proposed 40B comprehensive permit regulations along with Attachments A, B and C, with the amendment to section 3.01f as noted in the draft PB response to the HA’s 5/28/09 letter. Lane seconded and the motion was approved 6-0.
Lamere moved to approve the PB’s memo to be dated 6/9/09 as amended this evening, to the ZBA in response to the HA letter of 5/28/09. Brown seconded and the motion was approved 6-0. Chair Freedman asked Planning
Administrator Mansfield to both email and hardcopy the revised response to all parties to whom the HA letter had been copied, plus Doug Stevenson, as Chair of the BOS.
Review of grading and drainage changes to Lots A-1 and 20-A, Hanover Hill Definitive Subdivision Plan, and elimination of Common Driveway C. [Request of Stamski & McNary, Inc.]
Prior to this meeting, the PB had been provided with an email response from the PB engineer (Nitsch) to their questions about his report on the revised plans and drainage for this project. In his report he had made three recommendations. Planning Administrator Mansfield reported that the first recommendation, confirmation of the endorsement of an ANR plan to revise the property lines for Lots 19 and 21 to accommodate the individual driveways in conformance with Carlisle’s Zoning Bylaws, has been done. The second, confirmation of the stone size and depth to be used in the infiltration trenches along the sides of the two individual drives for these properties, is not yet confirmed. This second recommendation was made due to drainage problems observed by Nitsch at Hobblebush Lane.
Regarding the third recommendation, the engineer is in agreement with the culvert analysis calculations for the proposed culvert that will pass under these driveways. The PB’s engineer confirmed that the drainage impact with these two individual drives should be similar to that with the formerly planned Common Drive C for these lots.
Epstein confirmed with Mansfield that, while new fill calculations were not submitted, the PB engineer noted that the expected amount of fill required would remain the same. From the engineer’s point of view, the new plan (without Common Drive C) is comparable in expected drainage and expected fill requirements to the original plan.
Planning Administrator Mansfield reported that he had spoken with the Fire Chief and Deputy Fire Chief as to whether these plan changes would result in any impact on the number and placement of cisterns for the project, and they said there would be no difference. Therefore, Mansfield recommended to the PB that a ‘field change’ designation for these plan changes is suitable, instead of requiring that the hearing be reopened and the new plans be endorsed. He noted that the PB engineer will recommend in writing which sheets of the subdivision plan need replacing. Mansfield pointed out that the Tall Pines project had undergone many field changes. Revised Hanover Hill plan pages will be available before the next PB meeting. Epstein asked that the PB engineer include in his memo
that he is in agreement with the field change designation. At the end of the project, the As-Built plan will include all field changes. Chair Freedman confirmed that all PB members were in agreement with this as a field change.
Discussion of strategy with regard to implementation of Settlement Agreement, Valchuis et al. v. Planning Board, Berry Corner Lane, Map 7, Parcel 29 (motion to go into executive session may be entertained)
Chair Freedman asked Mansfield to try to get a sense of where the parties are headed with the further implementation of this settlement. He also asked Mansfield to draft a memo to Town Counsel as to where this work stands, and what should be communicated to Valchuis’ counsel. He also asked Mansfield to ascertain how best to communicate with the other abutters on the Lane, as they do not all share the same counsel as Valchuis.
Request for Planning Board review of draft Affordable Accessory Apartment deed restriction (Request of Administrative Coordinator)
The PB has been asked to review a revised draft Deed Restriction document for use in creating and approving affordable accessory apartments (AAA). This draft was prepared by the HA, who will be reviewing and approving any deed restriction in conjunction with the PB granting the special permit on the AAA. The draft was based on an AAA program in operation in Barnstable. While the Barnstable and Carlisle housing stocks and demographics have little in common, in her cover memo the Administrative Coordinator explained that a similar deed restriction has been approved by mortgage holders in Barnstable, and she said that potentially interested parties in Carlisle have run into a roadblock when they have shown their lenders the currently drafted deed restriction form.
Chair Freedman explained that Community Preservation Act funds have been approved to support AAAs. This funding allows the HA to compensate owners for deed riders for AAAs. The PB has previously modified their accessory apartment regulations to include AAAs with the assistance of the HA.
Planning Administrator Mansfield reported that, as requested by Freedman, he had spoken with the Administrative Coordinator about whether the HA has adopted any regulations for the distribution of the funds to the AAA
applicants. He pointed out that an agreement or regulation document is needed to spell out the procedure for disseminating these CPA funds. Administrative Coordinator Barnett had told him that the HA does not intend to adopt any regulations as they do not feel they need them. Chair Freedman pointed out that, at minimum, conditions of the funding should be contemplated by the wording of the deed restriction which currently includes a statement that it is the only agreement between the parties. He noted that while the current form letter from the HA, which is part of the PB’s AAA Rules and Regulations, includes a list of elements that must be incorporated in the Deed Restriction, they are not all consistent with what’s included in the draft before us for review and comment.
He reiterated his belief that the CHA should have procedures in place as the PB has the responsibility in their hearing as the SPGA to confirm that all is in order with the application before granting the Special Permit.
Chair Freedman asked Mansfield to discuss with Barnett: 1. how the HA will deal with the CPA funds they have – i.e. what document will the homeowner sign?, 2. Inconsistencies between the draft Deed Restriction and the Bylaw and/or Rules & Regulations, including an incorrect statement in the Deed Restriction that the lease runs with the land, 3. the CHA letter in the AAA regulations refers to setting the rent using LIP guidelines, while the deed restriction refers to other terms, and 4. how does the HA plan to set the utility allowance if they have no rules and regulations to do so? Freedman asked Mansfield to provide this feedback to Barnett, and note that since the PB just received Counsel’s input today, they will not be able to have a formal response letter by Thursday, and
would like more time to review the draft deed restriction once we have answers to the questions noted above.
Mansfield and Freedman agreed that the HA should be invited to the next PB meeting to discuss this if they wish, and this item was put on the June 22, 2009 Agenda for 8:30 pm. Epstein offered that a PB representative could meet with an HA representative in advance of the PB meeting, if they wished.
Liaison Reports
Lamere pointed out that the Omnipoint wireless facility installation at the First Religious Society is well underway. He also noted that the Trails Committee had recently dedicated a boardwalk to Hal Schneider, who had made all the trails signs in the Town.
Lamere also reported that thousands of dollars in funding has been approved by the State for outfitting the Great Brook Farm barn.
Lamere also displayed some highly customized GIS maps of areas in Carlisle that he had developed utilizing information learned from recent GIS training course. Due to the lateness of the hour, he suggested discussing this next time.
At 11:20 pm, Gonzales moved and Brown seconded the adjournment of the PB meeting. The motion was approved 6-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
Gretchen Caywood
Administrative Assistant
Carlisle Planning Board
| 
