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 22, 2009
Minutes 5/11/09, 6/8/09
Bills
Budget
Summer Meeting Schedule
Update from THAG meeting on Benfield Farms proposed development (6/16/09)
Town e-mail archiving
Conflict of Interest Training/Report
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 [Report of ZBA hearing & next steps]
Preparation of Request for Proposals for Personal Wireless Communications Facilities on Town-owned land [Broadcast Signal Lab – Planning Board/joint subcommittee]
Designation of Planning Board representatives to a committee charged with the responsibility of revising and resubmitting Carlisle’s Affordable Housing Plan, to be completed prior to October 2010.
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)
Public Hearing of request to remove approximately eight (8) trees within the right of way adjacent to #165 Prospect Street, Map 1, Lot 22A, to relocate a driveway entrance to an existing dwelling and accessory buildings, under the provisions of the Scenic Roads Bylaw (Art. XII and MGL Ch. 40, s. 15C) and the Public Shade Tree Act (MGL Ch. 87, s. 3) [Request of Jeffrey W. Adams]
Review of proposed layout changes to approved footpath and Pathway Easements B & C as they intersect Johnson Road, on Lots 28 and 1 respectively, of the Hanover Hill Definitive Subdivision Plan, to improve grading and safe sight distances [Request of Wilkins Hill Realty LLC]
Discussion of results of Preliminary Town Survey on Housing Needs
Review of possible Planning Board initiatives over the summer months
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.
Chair David Freedman called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm in the Clark Room of Town Hall. Members Michael Epstein, Marc Lamere, Kent Gonzales, Tom Lane, Nathan Brown and Planning Administrator George Mansfield were present. Carol Nathan arrived at 7:40 pm.
Gretchen Caywood, Administrative Assistant to the Planning Board, Alan Carpenito (South Street), Gary Davis (Tree Warden), Terri and Doug Chapman (127 Prospect St.), Jeff Adams (J.W. Adams Construction), Leslie Thomas (Estabrook Rd), Steve and Dori Davis, Rick and Leslie Amodei, Tom and Beth Williams, and Ernie Prete (all of Prospect St), Rob West (Concord St.), and Bob Zielinski (Carlisle Mosquito) were also in attendance.
Minutes
The PB reviewed the draft Minutes of the June 8, 2009 meeting, and a few revisions were suggested. Epstein moved to approve the minutes as amended, Lamere seconded and the motion was approved 6-0. The Draft Minutes from the 5/11/09 meeting will be reviewed at the next meeting.
Carol Nathan arrived at this point.
Summer Meeting Schedule
The PB finalized the summer meeting schedule, with the next meeting agreed upon for August 3rd, the following meeting for August 24th, and the regular meeting schedule (second and fourth Monday evenings of the month) resuming September 14th.
Public Hearing of request to remove approximately eight (8) trees within the right of way adjacent to #165 Prospect Street, Map 1, Lot 22A, to relocate a driveway entrance to an existing dwelling and accessory buildings, under the provisions of the Scenic Roads Bylaw (Art. XII and MGL Ch. 40, s. 15C) and the Public Shade Tree Act (MGL Ch. 87, s. 3) [Request of Jeffrey W. Adams]
Jeff Adams explained that the owners of the property are building a LEED certified home here, and would like to relocate the driveway and entrance approximately 165 feet south on Prospect Street, closer to River Rd. He pointed out that the location was chosen to minimize the loss of mature trees. This relocation would also allow for the mid section of the property to be used as an orchard and farm field. Adams also explained that the owners intend to rebuild the remnants of stone walls located on the first 120 feet of the property (running parallel to the street). Since the proposed driveway entrance site is of similar slope (away from Prospect Street) to the existing entrance, and since the new driveway would be constructed of gravel and to the same width as the existing one, no adverse impact on
drainage is expected. Adams also presented a letter from an abutter to the property stating that they had no objection to the work.
At this time, Chair Freedman explained to those in attendance that the PB only has responsibility for (and jurisdiction over) the tree removal request, and not the plan for the use of land or the driveway relocation. Tree Warden Gary Davis noted that the largest tree (16 inches in diameter) is technically on the owners property and not in the right-of-way, Lamere noted that since some of the trees indicated for removal are also below the threshold size limit to be technically considered a ”tree” per PB Scenic Road Rules and Regulations, there are actually 6 trees to be removed that are subject to PB jurisdiction: 1 Norway Maple (9” diam.), 2 White Pines (6” diam.), and 3 Ash (1@4” diam. And 2 @ 6” diam.).
Chair Freedman asked for questions from the PB. Vice Chair Epstein asked the width of the current driveway entrance, which Adams said is 35’. Adams noted that the turning radius of the planned driveway entrance will match that of the existing driveway. Epstein asked the Tree Warden his opinion concerning the sight lines at the proposed driveway entrance, and Davis said they are suitable. Epstein also confirmed that the current driveway entrance will be planted with vegetation, and not left as gravel, and the applicant agreed that some small trees could be planted there also. PB member Carol Nathan pointed out that removal of the small trees would not have an historic impact on the site, as they are too young.
Chair Freedman asked for questions from the public. Ernie Prete (Prospect St.) asked if there would be any changes to the existing stone wall, and Chair Freedman pointed out that it has been reported that the stone wall has fallen down to a degree that it apparently doesn’t qualify as a stone wall per the Scenic Roads Rules & Regulations, and will in any event be restored. Prete then noted that he is ”dead set” against any tree removal on the street. Rich Amodei (Prospect St.) suggested that there is no reason to move the driveway entrance, and that the existing driveway be curved to avoid bisecting the field. He spoke against removal of any trees, since it will detract from the current appearance of the street.
When Steve Davis (Prospect St) asked what trees were in place at the site when the road was approved as a Scenic Road, Chair Freedman explained that the PB does not establish scenic roadways, and that this is done by vote at Annual Town Meeting. Davis also asked for confirmation of the width of the proposed driveway, and Chair Freedman confirmed from the applicant that the driveway itself will be no wider than 20 feet and could be less.
Chair Freedman read from the PB’s Scenic Road Rules and Regulations Section 3.4 which summarizes the 9 major points that the PB considers in rendering its decision. Among these, he highlighted Section 3.4.6 – compensatory action, and noted that if the applicant is agreeable to planting 6 trees of similar variety as those
removed in this work, and to plant them at the current driveway entrance location, then the PB may conclude that there is no significant net effect on the scenic roadway. Chair Freedman also asked the applicant to make an effort to minimize the driveway width and the width of the street opening, and to repair the existing stone wall in a manner that will result in the intended traditional farmer’s stone wall.
When Epstein asked about the status of the work at this site, the applicant explained that the construction of the new home is nearly complete. Epstein explained that ideally the PB requires a better understanding of the type of trees going in, and additional stone wall detail, along with knowledge of the final planned driveway width. This generally involves a site visit before the PB decision is rendered. The applicant agreed to meet with Planning Administrator Mansfield and Tree Warden Gary Davis at the site to consider ways to minimize tree removal. The applicant also explained that the underground utility service to the home cannot be completed until the new roadway is in, and the new owners would like to move in as soon as possible.
Vice Chair Epstein moved that the PB consent to removal of up to the 6 trees identified, of minimum 4” caliper, with the exact number to be determined based on conclusions from a site visit involving the Planning Administrator and the Tree Warden with the applicant, and that the body of the driveway be no wider than the current gravel drive, and narrower if possible, with compensating trees to be planted in the right of way at the old (existing) driveway entrance to minimize encroachment on visibility as they mature not to exceed 6’ beyond the boundary of the right of way, the precise locations to be recommended by the Tree Warden. An amendment was proposed and accepted that the compensatory trees be a minimum of 2” caliper and of species similar to those being removed, substituting red maple for Norway
Maple. Lamere seconded the motion.
On discussion, Beth Williams (Prospect Street) asked if there is a Town Bylaw limiting the proximity of a private driveway to an adjacent property line. Planning Administrator Mansfield referred to Section 5.4.2 of the Carlisle Zoning Bylaws indicating that there is no such minimum setback for a private drive. Steve Davis (Prospect Street) referred to his earlier question about the driveway, and explained that the entrance of the proposed driveway should not be minimized, as there may be safety concerns. He pointed out that there is a driveway directly across the street at that proposed location, and that this should be kept in mind. Mansfield suggested that such safety concerns could be brought to the attention of Police Chief Sullivan. Leslie Amodei (Prospect Street) asked if the PB has
considered that Prospect Street narrows at the point of the proposed new driveway entrance, and Chair Freedman noted that the BOS has jurisdiction over the Town’s roadways and concerns with roadway width.
The PB then voted the above motion, and it was approved 8-0 by members of the Planning Board and the Tree Warden.
Review of proposed layout changes to approved footpath and Pathway Easements B & C as they intersect Johnson Road, on Lots 28 and 1 respectively, of the Hanover Hill Definitive Subdivision Plan, to improve grading and safe sight distances [Request of Wilkins Hill Realty LLC]
Planning Administrator Mansfield explained that as the construction of Johnson Road, one of the two subdivision roadways, has commenced, Rob West, agent for the applicant, has become aware of a potential problem with the alignment of the footpath paralleling Westford Street which, if it followed the approved easement, would have to come down through a cut on the east side of Johnson Road that would limit the visibility of and by pedestrians and bikers and would require the removal of several large trees near the intersection. West has therefore proposed a realignment of the footpath which is adjacent to the radius of the intersection and would more or less abut the Town’s right-of-way, then cuts back to the original location behind the stone wall. Mansfield reported that the Town Administrator, Police
Chief and Deb Belanger (Chair Ped/Bike Safety Advisory Committee) have agreed that this revised alignment is preferable, and Nitsch engineering, the PB’s engineer for this project, has agreed that it is an acceptable field change.
Mansfield displayed a plan, also provided to the PB before the meeting, showing these changes. He also reported that the Town Administrator agreed that the pathway easement language could be changed at a later date in various documents and accepted at a future Town Meeting. West described that during pathway construction it became clear that a very significant cut-through would be necessary, with much gravel removal, and that 2 large oak trees would need to be removed, and two more nearby trees would likely not survive the process. He
explained that moving the pathway a few feet would avoid this. Therefore, he proposed that the pathway easement be shifted at this point. Mansfield confirmed with West that the applicant’s engineer will revise the Hanover Hill Subdivision Plans accordingly, and that the revised easements will be recorded and the easement documents revised as well. All agreed that the relocated pathway will be an improvement.
Brown moved to approve the pathway easement changes as described by Rob West, including that the 20’ easement will shift as shown on the plan titled “Definitive Plan for Hanover Hill in Carlisle, MA: Pathway Revision”, revised by Stamski & McNary and dated 6/16/09, as approved by the Pedestrian/Bike Safety Advisory Committee, subject to appropriate legal recording of all easement documents and plans. Lamere seconded the motion and it was approved 7-0.
Liaison Reports
Lamere reported that member of the Ped/Bike Safety Advisory Committee met with the State’s team regarding the Safe Routes to School project. The Ped/Bike Committee jointly with Carlisle Public School had filed a grant application with the agency Mass Rides, and recently learned it was one of the Towns approved. Lamere explained that the grant provides for an assessment of the walkability for school children living within a one mile radius of the school. The State’s team consisting of a planner, an engineer and an architect will study walkability issues in Carlisle and prepare a written report that will be provided to the Town and the State. The Ped/Bike Committee will utilize the report to help inform any recommendations for additional pathways. The State will evaluate the
report for potential construction funding of the top recommendations in the report.
Lamere displayed population maps showing where the school age children are located in Town, that he had prepared using the GIS software. These can be useful in planning the project. Deb Belanger (Chair Ped/Bike Committee) had included these maps in the information that was provided to the State. Lamere displayed another map showing the location of all pathways and trails in Town, in relation to the school. He added that Kevin Smith has recreated the Trail Guide on GIS.
Conflict of Interest Training/Report
Lane reported that he and Lamere had attended this session recently held in Needham. He said that the information discussed reassured him that the PB is operating appropriately in this regard. Lamere added that executive session rules were also discussed. Regarding meeting agendas, he noted that there is no legal obligation to set an agenda or to follow it except for public hearings.
Request for Planning Board review of draft Affordable Accessory Apartment deed restriction (Request of Administrative Coordinator)
On May 15, 2009, the Housing Authority provided the Planning Board a draft Deed Restriction based upon Barnstable’s Deed Restriction and asked the Planning Board for its comment, as the PB is the Special Permit Granting Authority for Affordable Accessory Apartments (AAAs). At the previous meeting, the PB had also received a second version of the Restriction marked up by Town Counsel. Planning Administrator Mansfield reported that he had met with Administrative Coordinator Elizabeth Barnett to review the initial concerns expressed by the PB regarding the revised draft of the Deed Restriction that would be used in creating and approving an AAA.~ He explained that the PB had been reviewing the draft and Town Counsel’s comments and will discuss it further at tonight’s meeting, and that she and the
Housing Authority (HA) members were welcome to attend.~ When Mansfield had asked Barnett which sections of the existing deed restriction (referenced in the PB’s AAA Rules and Regulations) were most troubling to lenders that have seen it, she said that she believed that lenders would be satisfied with a form that had been accepted by other lenders, such as the deed restriction used in Barnstable that she had provided the Board.~ She suggested not making any major changes to the draft document for this reason, as it is based on the Barnstable document, which she indicated has been approved by DHCD as well.~
~
Chair Freedman explained that in his work on the Committee that developed the AAA Bylaw, which was adopted by the Town in 2006, one concern was that if the deed restriction ran with the land, it may be harder to sell the property, and it was therefore decided that it should terminate on the sale of the property. This is stated in the current AAA Bylaw.~ A new owner could then renew the PB special permit, or give the tenant 60 days notice to move out.~ Freedman explained his understanding that in Barnstable, a deed restriction may be viewed as a ”positive” for a property, perhaps since that town is reliant on the tourist trade, the area needs workers to support that seasonal trade, and they require affordable apartments for housing.~ Freedman believes part of the incentive in Barnstable is an amnesty
program such that people are more likely to agree to put the deed restriction on a property to avoid losing the accessory apartment (AA).
~~
Planning Administrator Mansfield noted that in his prior conversation with Barnett, when he mentioned this discrepancy between the draft deed restriction and the existing AAA bylaw, Barnett said that the termination of the deed restriction on sale of the property would be unacceptable to the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) in her opinion, since the sale of the property cannot, without at least a 60-day notice, displace the low income tenants.~ When Mansfield explained that the current AAA Bylaw provides for this termination and the 60-day notice (Section 5.6.10), she suggested that the language of section 5.6.10 be incorporated into the draft deed restriction.
~
In his prior discussion with Barnett, when Mansfield expressed the PB’s concerns that the draft deed restriction does not set any conditions on how the stipends from CPA funds would be handled, she said that such conditions will be subject to separate procedures that will be developed by the Housing Trust (HT) at a later step in the process.~ She also said that although the AAA form letter to be signed by the HA (contained within the PB’s Rules and Regulations) references LIP guidelines in selecting tenants, in her opinion this reference need not be included in the deed restriction, as Section II.A.2 is more specific, limiting tenant household income to 80% of the median income of the Boston area.~
Freedman also noted that the Rules & Regulations include a form letter that the HA would sign and present to the PB attesting to a list of elements that are included in the deed restriction, but that several of these elements are not included in the draft restriction presented for review.~~
~
Freedman asked Mansfield to suggest to the HA and to Barnett that Town Counsel review the draft deed restriction in terms of the AAA Bylaw and the AAA Rules and Regulations.~ Freedman also pointed out that the deed restriction should make reference to the guidelines that will be developed by the HT for disbursement of CPA funds, and therefore these guidelines should have perhaps been developed first so that they could simultaneously be reviewed by Counsel.~ Vice Chair Epstein suggested making Counsel aware of the inconsistencies up front at the time of any request for Counsel review.~ Epstein also noted that if the deed restriction that is put in place does not comply with the existing Bylaw, the PB might be forced to then seek Town Counsel’s input which could delay a pending application. Depending on that
input, the PB might have to deny the AAA special permit, and this was clearly not a desirable outcome.~He suggested we not play Town Counsel, but rather should seek a targeted review by Counsel at this time.
Lane offered to attend the upcoming HA meeting to convey the views of the PB, and to offer that the PB will seek the review by Town Counsel if the HA prefers, and the PB agreed on this approach.~ Freedman asked Mansfield to send a note to the HA Chair that Lane would like to attend their meeting to discuss this.~ Freedman also ascertained from the Board that if this approach (at the HA meeting) is not fruitful, the PB agreed that a letter be sent to the HA regarding the perceived inconsistencies and the Board’s willingness to discuss them with Counsel, as the PB did not want to be in the position described above, where the Board is faced with an application that includes a deed restriction that may contain provisions inconsistent with our bylaws and/or our Rules & Regulations.~
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 reported that he, Epstein, and Planning Administrator Mansfield will be speaking with Town Counsel tomorrow, at which time they will request that he determine clearly how to best communicate with, and
therefore best achieve agreement between, all parties, particularly as some of the parties in the agreement do not have counsel or have counsel different from Lisa Mead who has been the main contact for communications regarding issues or questions that have arisen. Chair Freedman asked the PB to authorize that he and Epstein can move forward with this matter as needed before the next PB meeting on August 3rd, and all were in agreement.
Review of possible Planning Board initiatives over the summer months
At tonight’s meeting, Mansfield provided the PB with a list of proposed initiatives drafted by he and Chair Freedman. The list included revision of several of the PB’s rules and regulations for particular special permit applications, as well as a municipal permit tracking system, which the Town Administrator has asked all departments to consider, and a Town Master Plan.
Chair Freedman asked all members to review the list and provide input within the week.
Update from THAG meeting on Benfield Farms proposed development (6/16/09)
Mansfield noted that the Town Hall Advisory Group (THAG) had met recently, and that the BOS had forwarded letters to the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) in support of the Benfield Farms project. He noted that the documents were not reviewed by the THAG before they were issued.
At that recent meeting, Chair Freedman (also a THAG member) expressed his concerns about the communication of information and pointed out that neither the PB, BOH nor CC received any plans for review regarding this project, and that the THAG is not a substitute for Board input. Members of the PB expressed similar concerns, noting that the Boards must have an opportunity to review the plans and information. Freedman noted that since the last THAG meeting a number of documents have been circulated.
Chair Freedman noted that Greg Peterson has volunteered to continue as a THAG member for now, and it is not necessary that he be a PB member to represent the PB. Freedman noted that if any current PB members would like to serve on the THAG in place of Mr. Peterson, they should let him know. He stated that he believed THAG meetings could not continue to be held exclusively at 7am on weekdays throughout the Benfield hearing before the ZBA.
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 [Report of ZBA hearing & next steps]
The ZBA voted to adopt the draft 40B regulations at their public hearing on June 15th. Chair Freedman noted that the PB should consider adoption of Attachments A, B, and C in an appropriate form for the PB, as well as any amendments that may be necessary to the existing regulations. He noted that other Boards (such as BOH) may also need to adopt appropriate changes to their regulations. Chair Freedman noted that the draft LIP regulations had been presented at the first meeting of consultant Witten and the PB in March (3/24/09). He noted that to-date there has been no comment from the BOS, and therefore these draft regs remain outstanding. He suggested that if there is no input from the BOS by the Fall, that the PB should perhaps initiate dialogue with the BOS regarding the draft
regs.
Epstein noted that he had revised Attachments A, B, and C of the draft 40B regulations for PB use, and will talk with Witten about how to adopt these by reference in the PB’s other special permit regulations including those for Conservation Clusters, Common Drives and others, and possibly the BOS’ Site Plan Review regulations. Chair Freedman noted that revisions to the PB’s Subdivision Rules and Regulations do require a public hearing, and he suggested that it could be planned for the PB’s September 28th meeting. He asked that all PB members review the revised draft of Attachment A, and be prepared to discuss them at the August 3rd PB meeting. He asked that any substantive comments be sent to him prior to the meeting. He noted that he and Epstein will
send out the B and C revised draft documents prior to that meeting. He also reported that he and Epstein met with the Conservation Commission at their meeting last week, and the Commission appeared interested in adopting Attachments B&C.
Chair Freedman said he had emailed the BOH Chair and asked for a slot on the BOH Agenda at their next meeting to discuss the Attachments.
Chair Freedman noted that at its June 15th hearing, the ZBA unanimously voted to adopt the 40B regulations. They have been sent to the HA Chair, and he has agreed to supply a markup. Freedman asked if the PB members would authorize him and Epstein to make recommendations to the ZBA for changes, if needed, on the new regulations prior to the next PB meeting, and all were in agreement. He stated that if any changes were major, he would circulate such proposed changes to the PB for comment.
Freedman also noted that he has asked the ZBA to notify Mansfield of any incoming applications, and that he and Mansfield would determine if the presence of PB members at any ZBA hearings was advisable, then would inform PB members via email should such hearings fall between PB meetings.
Discussion of results of Preliminary Town Survey on Housing Needs
Planning Administrator Mansfield noted that the ad hoc committee chaired by John Ballantine presented the preliminary survey on Town housing needs to the BOS last week. Several PB members were in attendance at that presentation. Mansfield noted that the survey conclusions included the point that large segments of the Carlisle population do not seem to favor the continued development of large, expensive homes – virtually the only choice that has been offered in the last 20 years. Ballantine has offered to attend a subsequent PB meeting to discuss the results.
Budget
Planning Administrator Mansfield reported that consultant Witten’s invoiced expenses to date total $8280, which will leave $1220 remaining of the funds that can be encumbered for this work. Nathan moved to encumber the amount of $1220 encumbered from the FY08 budget, making these funds available in FY10, to enable Jon Witten to continue working on the comprehensive regulations project. Brown seconded and the motion was approved 7-0.
The PB discussed the remaining funds that had been originally encumbered from the FY07 budget for work on the Wireless RFP. Pursuant to a request from former PB member Larson, Nathan moved to encumber the remaining $1527.50 of funds originally encumbered from the FY07 budget for the continuation of work on the wireless RFP, making these funds available for this work in FY10. Lamere seconded and the motion was approved 7-0.
Chair Freedman noted for the record that a member of the BOS had initially questioned whether the contract amount approved for Attorney Witten’s services would be adequate to complete the assignment, the development of new 40B regulations and corresponding documents for adoption by the Land Use Boards. Freedman stated his belief that the assignment would be completed on budget. He added that Jon Witten has been extremely cooperative throughout this regs development process, and readily made himself available to the PB when requested.
Designation of Planning Board representatives to a committee charged with the responsibility of revising and resubmitting Carlisle’s Affordable Housing Plan, to be completed prior to October 2010.
Chair Freedman agreed to represent the PB on this Committee, and Lane volunteered as well. Mansfield will inform the BOS.
At 10:26 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
| 
