Minutes
September 28, 2009
Minutes 9/14/09
Bills
Budget
Associate Member Positions
Open Meeting Law amendments
MAGIC Mobility questionnaire
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 [Next steps]
Preparation of Request for Proposals for Personal Wireless Communications Facilities on Town-owned land [Broadcast Signal Lab - Planning Board/joint subcommittee - RFP issued 7/09]
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)
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.
Consideration of amendments to Rules and Regulations for Site Plan Review consistent with Zoning Bylaw Sec. 7.6 (Request of Board of Selectmen)
Request for release of all remaining lots except Lot A from the Restrictive Covenant for Hanover Hill Definitive Subdivision Plan (Request of Wilkins Hill Realty LLC)
Review of proposed revisions to Special Permit Decision document for a special permit and site plan approval for Bell Atlantic Mobile of MA Corp., Ltd (Verizon Wireless) under Sec. 5.9 of the Carlisle Zoning Bylaws to install, operate and maintain a personal wireless communication facility at 871 Bedford Road (Map 11, Lot 1) on and adjacent to a previously permitted 189-foot monopole tower, owned by Bay Communications, LLC.
Informal conceptual presentation of proposal for Chapter 40B project of 11 units of attached housing at Lot 6, Maple Street (Red Fox Drive)(Map 36, Parcel 63) [Request of Yongdeng Chen]
Report from THAG and staff meetings regarding proposed application for comprehensive permit for Benfield Farms development (South Street, Map 5, Parcel 7-1), and discussion of number of copies of application materials required by Planning Board.
Chair David Freedman called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm in the Clark Room of Town Hall. Members Michael Epstein, Marc Lamere, Carol Nathan, Tom Lane, Nathan Brown and Planning Administrator George Mansfield were present. Member Kent Gonzales arrived at 7:40 pm.
Gretchen Caywood, Administrative Assistant to the Planning Board, Alan Carpenito (South Street), Ray Kubacki (South Street), Rob West (Wilkins Hill Realty), Karl Baker (Robinson and Cole, LLP, Boston), and Bob Zielinski (Carlisle Mosquito) were also in attendance.
Minutes
The PB reviewed the draft Minutes of the September 14, 2009 meeting. Lamere moved to approve the Minutes as drafted, Mr. Brown seconded and the motion was approved 4-0-2 (Epstein and Lane abstaining).
Meeting Dates
The PB agreed on the following Monday PB meeting dates: October 26th, November 9th, November 23rd, and December 14th, 2009. All meetings will start at 7:30 pm. PB meeting dates from January through March will be confirmed at the next PB meeting (October 26th).
(Gonzales arrives).
Request for release of all remaining lots except Lot A from the Restrictive Covenant for Hanover Hill Definitive Subdivision Plan (Request of Wilkins Hill Realty LLC)
Rob West, agent for the applicant, noted that while the PB has already released lots 22, 23 and F, the present request is for release of all remaining lots (31 lots) except A-1 (Lot A on the original plan). Chair Freedman confirmed that West agrees with the assessed value of $457,400 for one lot, and pointed out that the PB's review engineer has estimated that the cost estimate for completion of construction is $435,000, or nearly the value of one lot. This is in close agreement with the estimate obtained from the applicant's engineer. West explained that the applicant's goal is to be finished with construction before the last lot is sold.
Planning Administrator Mansfield noted that Lot A-1 is 2.74 acres in size, and that the lots in the subdivision range from 2.01 - 6 acres. Chair Freedman said that the value of the remaining lot and the remaining construction cost are too close to retain just one lot as surety, as it is his understanding that a factor of 1.25-1.5 times the estimated cost of remaining construction work is standard. Epstein asked which of the lots in the subdivision have infrastructure built out to them, and West explained that all lots do, as the two subdivision roadways are built to binder course. All common drives are also built to binder except for common drive A, the construction of which has just started. West explained that this drive has binder course to the 200-ft point, and construction will be stopped at this point for now. The entire subdivision will be ready for final paving about 1 year from now. Epstein confirmed from West that all stormwater drainage systems are complete and the
cisterns are in and awaiting NSTAR power connection.
Lamere asked West about the applicant's promised purchase of supplies for boardwalk construction over wetlands at two locations, estimating that the material cost would be about $20/ft with each walk about 200 feet in length, the estimated cost totaling $4000. Lamere further explained that to determine the exact necessary length of each boardwalk, and therefore exact supply cost, the area must be viewed in the wet season. West said that an amount anywhere on the order of $4000 would definitely be available for supplies when needed.
The PB asked West which lot he would prefer the PB hold as a second lot for surety, and West suggested Lot 20A. Ms. Nathan moved that the PB release all remaining lots in the Hanover Hill subdivision with the exception of Lots A-1 and Lot 20A, to be held as security for completion of construction work on the subdivision, and pursuant to the PB covenant dated July 2, 2008. Lamere seconded and the motion was approved 7-0. Chair Freedman asked Planning Administrator Mansfield to prepare a list of lots for release and have West review it before drafting the Certificate of Performance and Lot Release.
Open Meeting Law amendments
At the last meeting, the PB had discussed an article in a newsletter from Deutsch Williams highlighting the recently voted changes to open meeting law, which will go into effect July 1, 2010. Chair Freedman had asked all to review these changes before this PB meeting, and to note any questions they may have.
Chair Freedman asked Mansfield to get opinion from Town Counsel as to whether the change requiring minutes to be available within 10 days of the meeting means that draft minutes would have to be released before the PB approves them, or whether the meeting notes would fulfill the requirement of minutes being available in this timeframe. Mansfield reminded the PB that the notes from meetings as well as draft minutes have always been considered legal record and are available upon request until the draft minutes are approved and finalized. He noted that rarely have we received requests for these.
Lamere asked about the change requiring that the Agenda be visibly posted outside Town Hall, conspicuously visible to the public at all hours, and whether it could be satisfied with a bullet Agenda list of postcard size. Chair Freedman asked Mansfield to add this to the questions for Town Counsel on this matter.
Regarding Executive Session (ES) and the upcoming requirement that these minutes be reviewed regularly to determine if continued non-disclosure is warranted, Chair Freedman asked Mansfield to find out if this requirement is grandfathered and, if so, how far back. Mansfield will assemble this list of questions for Counsel and review it with Chair Freedman before submitting to Counsel. It was noted that other boards were likely to have questions regarding these new requirements, and that there is considerable time before they will take effect, so the expectation is that other boards may develop questions in the coming months and the PB should coordinate with them re: questions for Counsel.
Informal conceptual presentation of proposal for Chapter 40B project of 11 units of attached housing at Lot 6, Maple Street (Red Fox Drive)(Map 36, Parcel 63) [Request of Yongdeng Chen]
Planning Administrator Mansfield noted that although forms of this proposal have been discussed by the BOS, Housing Authority (HA) and the Board of Health (BOH) for at least 9 months, it is still very much in the conceptual stage. Chen, the lot owner, has asked ConsComm to hear the proposal at this stage as well, but they refused to do so without a formal application. Mansfield explained that he and chair Freedman had met with Chen to go over the goals of the presentation before agreeing to an informational meeting with the PB. At that meeting, they explained to the applicant that he would most likely need to file with ConsComm before the PB would be likely to make any formal recommendation on the plan. This is because a major wetlands, flood plain and river crossing is the key requirement to the viability of the
proposed project on this site. Chair Freedman and Mansfield had also recommended to Chen that he seek the advice of a land use permitting attorney, as also recommended by Chen's engineer, Tetra Tech Rizzo. Chen is seeking any advice the PB has to offer on his proposed project.
Chen presented his proposal to the PB using a PowerPoint presentation. He proposes a project containing 4 affordable units (two 2-bedroom and two 1-bedroom) and 7 market rate 2-bedroom units. The site would be serviced by two private wells and two septic systems, with two condo associations each owning one well and one septic. Chair Freedman confirmed from Chen that the purpose of proposing two wells, each being owned by a separate legal entity, was to avoid classification (by the State) of the wells as a public water supply, as each well will serve less than 25 people. If only one well were used, due to the number of people it would be servicing, it would be classified as a public water supply. Epstein confirmed from Chen that he had met with the BOH on this proposed project, and that the BOH is in support of
this approach. When Epstein asked Chen to explain why one well was not proposed, Chen explained that for the well capacity required for the public water supply the necessary well field would require 2 acres of land, leaving insufficient building space on the lot. When Epstein reiterated his concern that the proposed approach is clearly trying to circumvent public water supply regulations, Chen explained that he and Health Agent Linda Fantasia went to the Drinking Water Division of the local office of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) with this proposal, and it was deemed acceptable.
Chen described the proposed building site, noting that almost the entire lot is buildable. The proposed septic system would be built into the slope of the lot and would not be visible to abutters. He noted that there are areas of dense natural screening between the proposed structures and abutters' houses. The major issue with this pork-chop lot is that access from Maple Street would necessitate crossing a stream of approximately 9 feet in width, and a 100-year flood zone that is about 70-feet wide. There is also a small wetland area in the access strip from Maple Street.
When asked about the approximate distance of the proposed septic system to abutters' wells, Chen estimated it to be 300 feet to the closest abutting well. Epstein asked that he obtain more accurate information on this. Chen stated that abutters' wells are not downgrade of the proposed septic site.
Concerning alternative access to the site, Chen stated that Red Fox Drive cannot legally be used for multi-unit development, and therefore Maple Street is the only legal access. Planning Administrator Mansfield explained that the Common Driveway Special Permit restricts Red Fox Drive to single family homes. All residents of the common drive would have to agree to petition the PB to allow for multi-unit development in order for access to be allowed to Lot 6 Maple Street from Red Fox Drive.
Regarding potential access from Maple Street, the access strip going back to the proposed development area is about 430-feet long. Chen proposed that any access roadway from Maple Street would be designed with a vertical retaining wall and guardrail to minimize flood fill area and minimize loss of area for flood water "storage". The access would employ a 50-foot bridge that would span most of the wetland, thereby minimizing wetland fill, and to span the stream and most of the 100-year floodway. The overall design goal for the access roadway would be to attain no loss of 100-year flood flow area. Chen proposed to use a townhouse design similar to the Belmont Hill development (Belmont, MA) as he illustrated in the PowerPoint slides, and would utilize low impact design (LID) and LEED (Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design) principles.
Chair Freedman asked about the proposed cistern location under the proposed access roadway about 20 feet from Maple Street. Epstein confirmed that Chen had met with the Fire Chief on this point.
Chair Freedman asked for questions from the audience. Alan Carpenito (South Street) asked Chen if he had discussed this project with the Housing Authority (HA), and Chen noted that he had and that the HA seemed to approve of the project idea. Lamere asked about potential access from Red Fox Drive, and Planning Administrator Mansfield explained that while the common drive easement from Red Fox Drive does extend to the rear of Lot 6, the access to Maple Street is the only legal frontage to the Lot. Chair Freedman said that the applicant's engineer is under the impression that the DEP would allow the necessary access to the lot over vegetated wetlands, but he advised Chen to confirm this with legal counsel, and to obtain solid legal information on the access issue to take to the ConsComm, as resolution of lot access issues,
including the extent of wetlands crossing, is the key to this project going forward, and ConsComm has indicated that they would like to see more developed plans. Chen said he is working with counsel, and that his understanding is that since the wetlands disturbance is well under 5000 feet, access is permissible. His counsel is drafting a letter to this effect for ConsComm. Chair Freedman pointed out that most of the detailed information available at this point requires DEP, ConsComm and BOH review, and that at this time there is not a lot of detail for the PB to review on this project.
PB member Lamere noted that this proposed site is across from one of the largest open space parcels in Carlisle, and that the applicant please consider that his project will pose safety issues. Chair Freedman pointed out that it will be important for the applicant to meet with the abutters to discuss his proposal, particularly those downstream from the proposed wetlands crossing.
Review of proposed revisions to Special Permit Decision document for a special permit and site plan approval for Bell Atlantic Mobile of MA Corp., Ltd (Verizon Wireless) under Sec. 5.9 of the Carlisle Zoning Bylaws to install, operate and maintain a personal wireless communication facility at 871 Bedford Road (Map 11, Lot 1) on and adjacent to a previously permitted 189-foot monopole tower, owned by Bay Communications, LLC.
Prior to this meeting, the PB had been provided a copy of this draft document containing proposed changes requested by the applicant's attorney, Karl Baker. Among these were a request to decrease the requested liability insurance to $1M (from $2M), and to eliminate the requirement of annual submission of a liability insurance certificate.
The PB reviewed the requested changes with Baker, who was in attendance on behalf of the applicant. While the PB suggested that the applicant could notify the Town upon any changes in the insurance, instead of an annual requirement, Planning Administrator Mansfield noted that this requirement is in the PB regulations and can therefore not be waived without reopening the hearing. Baker agreed that the applicant would not wish to do this. The PB did however agree that liability insurance in the amount of at least $1M would be suitable.
Report from THAG and staff meetings regarding proposed application for comprehensive permit for Benfield Farms development (South Street, Map 5, Parcel 7-1), and discussion of number of copies of application materials required by Planning Board.
Chair Freedman reported on the recent THAG meeting, and noted that the developer NOAH (Neighborhood of Affordable Housing) may be filing with the ConsComm simultaneously to filing their comprehensive permit application with the ZBA. He reviewed with the PB the submissions that they would need from NOAH to review this application, as NOAH had prepared a cost estimate for complying with the Town's submission requirements
by submitting the required number and form of copies of application materials. Toby Kramer, agent for NOAH, has stated that the applicant is considering posting the application on the Internet once it is formally filed to allow easy access by all departments.
The PB reviewed the application materials they would need, and the number of PB meetings anticipated on this subject, in an effort to minimize associated costs. Chair Freedman pointed out that since the ZBA holds the hearings for such a permit, and the PB addresses any questions on the application through the ZBA, no separate attendance by the applicant at PB meetings will be required for this application. He also noted that the HA will meet on October 6th as an opportunity for community input, and that NOAH has stated they intend to file the application by the 15th.
Chair Freedman reported on the THAG meeting of September 22nd which he and Gonzales attended, and at which fire access and cistern requirements for the proposed site were discussed. There was agreement that NOAH's plan needed revision of the access roadway to provide a bump out for a cistern, and that a cistern had not been included in the plan design.
South Street resident Ray Kubacki asked about the application procedure and the THAG's opportunity for further input. Chair Freedman explained that the THAG's work is not done when the permit application is filed. They and the PB, as well as other Boards and Committees as needed, will continue to provide input to the ZBA. He emphasized that the THAG should not be represented as substituting for a review by the Boards, and the Boards do not give their formal response to the application through the THAG, but directly to the ZBA. Freedman stated that the PB expects to have ample opportunity for input to the ZBA.
South Street Alan Carpenito emphasized that no one has reached out to the abutters concerning this application, and that the abutters have asked several times to meet with NOAH about some specific points that the abutters feel are in contradiction to the Town's Zoning Bylaws. Carpenito said that the abutters do not feel that this is a friendly 40B, as neither the applicant nor any one from the Town is seeking abutters' input. He added that in his opinion, this application violates aspects of the Zoning Bylaws.
Budget
Chair Freedman reported that the BOS and FinCom are considering asking all departments to prepare an impact statement on the effects of a 10% budget cut for FY2011, which begins July 1, 2010. Toward this, Treasurer Lamere and Planning Administrator Mansfield had reviewed the FY09 budget in detail for all one-time expenses that will not be needed in FY10, and it was estimated that this amount of non-recurring expenses is about $1000. The PB also reviewed items that could possibly be cut, and decided that the annual cost for the "carlplan" email account through RCN will be able to be cut once an alternative departmental email can be set up by the Town, The PB also agreed to discontinue the annual subscription to the Planning Commissioner's Journal, and to consider discontinuing the subscription to "Ordinance.com", which is a website for reviewing Bylaws for every MA municipality, as many towns now have this information on their website. These cuts would total a little over $400 in
savings.
The PB reviewed anticipated FY10 spending vs. the voted budget, as requested by Town Treasurer Larry Barton, to see how much the budget may fall short. The PB had recently pointed out to Barton that funds remaining for possible public hearing advertising costs may be insufficient, among other budget concerns. Barton has explained to the PB that it is possible to request a reserve fund transfer at the end of the fiscal year, but that he and FinCom would prefer advance notice and a sense of the likely amount to be requested well ahead of year end.
PB Treasurer Lamere pointed out on a spreadsheet that the PB budget would not cover the anticipated costs of hearings for accessory apartments, affordable accessory apartments, site plan review, all zoning bylaw amendment hearings (e.g., wind energy, wireless facilities), scenic road hearings, nor for the GIS software maintenance expenses. The PB budget has been funding all of these related expenses, to the amount of several thousand dollars annually. He explained that MAGIC (Minuteman Advisory Group for Interlocal Coordination) dues in the amount of $1338, have been paid for by the PB budget to this point as well. The PB agreed that these expenses should be funded from a more general Town budget, as they are not expenses limited to the support of PB activities. Chair Freedman asked assistant Caywood to inquire
as to whether the BOH maintains their GIS maintenance contract and, if so, how they cover the cost. If the PB is asked to reduce its budget by 10%, all of the above items, which add to the PB total budget number but do not cover any PB specific expenses, artificially boost that 10% number, aside from the fact that the PB budget now lacks the funds to sufficiently cover them. After analyzing the anticipated FY10 spending vs. the budget, the PB cut the funding in various categories to balance the budget on paper.
Chair Freedman noted that Town Treasurer Barton proposed a recurring warrant article for Planning and Professional expenses (hiring of expert technical consultants when necessary). Freedman suggested that for example $5000 per year could be requested, and that after a few years, this line item could be maintained at $10,000. Freedman offered to check with Barton on the next steps to make this happen. He added that much of the Planning and Professional expenses that have come out of the PB budget for the year have been used for overall Town benefit, such as consultant expenses for the RFP for wireless facilities on Town-owned land. Chair Freedman also noted that on careful analysis of the use of P & P funds since this line item was expanded in 2005, the data clearly shows that over 98% of any and all unused monies
from this line item were returned to the Town's general fund at the end of that fiscal year, information that he planned to share with the Town Treasurer.
Regarding possibly not renewing the GIS software maintenance contract, Mansfield suggested discussing this matter with the Conservation Administrator and her Chair, as they will need the GIS software for updating the Open Space and Recreation Plan. N. Brown pointed out that costs that may be incurred from letting the maintenance contract lapse must be factored into this decision.
Consideration of amendments to Rules and Regulations for Site Plan Review consistent with Zoning Bylaw Sec. 7.6 (Request of Board of Selectmen)
Chair Freedman referred to the draft changes to the Site Plan Review Regulations that had been provided to the PB and asked that the PB members review the draft and forward proposed changes to him. He also referred to the draft document of proposed changes to the PB's Subdivision Rules and Regulations and their Conservation Cluster Rules and Regulations, asking the PB to review both. Freedman proposed a target hearing date of November 23rd for the Subdivision Regulations, as changes to these regulations require a public hearing.
Preparation of Request for Proposals for Personal Wireless Communications Facilities on Town-owned land [Broadcast Signal Lab - Planning Board/joint subcommittee - RFP issued 7/09]
Planning Administrator Mansfield noted that unfortunately the Town had not received any proposals in response to the issuance of the RFP.
At 11:15 pm, Mr. Brown moved and Gonzales seconded the adjournment of the PB meeting. The motion was approved 7-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
Gretchen Caywood
Administrative Assistant
Carlisle Planning Board
| 
