Town of Carlisle
MASSACHUSETTS 01741
------------
Office of
PLANNING BOARD
66 Westford Street
Carlisle, Massachusetts 01741
Tel. (978) 369-9702
Fax (978) 369-4521
Minutes
October 26, 2009
Minutes 9/14/09
Bills
Budget; FY11 budget
Long Term Capital Requirements Comm. Request
2010 meeting schedule
Associate Member Positions
Open Meeting Law amendments
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 [Amendments to regs.]
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)
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.
Status report on construction activities in the Greystone Crossing Conservation Cluster, including removal of material from the Open Space parcels and possible infringements upon easements
Investigation of alternate or additional peer engineering review consultants and review of procedures regarding selection of such firms
Discussion of options for funding expenses for required public hearings not associated with development applications
Notice of filing of application for Comprehensive Permit for Benfield Farms, 273 South Street (Map 5, Lot 7-1) with Zoning Board of Appeals (10/24/09 - Neighborhood of Affordable Housing [NOAH], applicant)
Chair David Freedman called the meeting to order at 7:30 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. Member Carol Nathan arrived at 7:35 pm.
Gretchen Caywood, Administrative Assistant to the Planning Board, Tim Goddard (Town Administrator), Alan Carpenito (South Street), Charles Bennett (Berry Corner Lane). and Bob Zielinski (Carlisle Mosquito) were also in attendance.
New Town Administrator
Tim Goddard, Carlisle's new Town Administrator, was in attendance to meet the PB members. Each PB member introduced themselves and provided a brief background on their work with the PB as well as other volunteer work for the Town, and how long they have lived in Carlisle. Town Administrator Goddard also provided a brief background of his experience as Assistant Town Administrator in Framingham, Town Manager in Littleton, and prior volunteer work as a PB member in Littleton. He explained that the BOS is looking to him to play a broader role in Town, enhancing the Town Administrator's function as a conduit between all Boards and Committees and the BOS. He thanked Planning Administrator Mansfield for providing him with a brief writeup before tonight's meeting describing the PB structure, chief responsibilities, and
current work before the PB and staff. Town Administrator Goddard encouraged the PB to reach out to him for any information they need and with any questions they may have, and he will do the same. Chair Freedman thanked Goddard for coming to tonight's meeting, and Goddard then left the PB meeting.
Minutes
The PB reviewed the draft Minutes of the September 28, 2009 meeting, and a few amendments were suggested. C. Nathan moved to approve the Minutes as amended, N. Brown seconded and the motion was approved 7-0.
Notice of filing of application for Comprehensive Permit for Benfield Farms, 273 South Street (Map 5, Lot 7-1) with Zoning Board of Appeals (10/24/09 - Neighborhood of Affordable Housing [NOAH], applicant)
Planning Administrator Mansfield reported that this application had been formally filed with the ZBA. The text portion of the application, but not the plans, had been provided to the PB members prior to this meeting. Chair Freedman noted that the ZBA is legally required to open the hearing within 30 days of the receipt of the application, and that the hearing is tentatively set to open on November 23rd. Chair Freedman asked the PB to review the application materials, as this item will be discussed at the next meeting.
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)
Berry Corner Lane resident Charles Bennett was in attendance for an update on this site. Chair Freedman explained that the PB's last correspondence with their engineer (LandTech) was that the engineer had reviewed the plans and conducted some review of the site, and had emailed the applicant's engineer (Stamski & McNary, Inc.) with their findings. They requested that certain detailed notes be added to the plan and that inspection holes be dug at the site. Planning Administrator Mansfield explained that the PB engineer had forwarded his inspection field notes, which indicated that he had inspected the holes, and indications are that the roadway was properly installed. This indicates that the sub drains were constructed properly, but this does not explain why the roadway has deteriorated as much as it has.
Mansfield added that the latter point may be unanswerable, and noted that he expects a full report from the PB engineer tomorrow.
Chair Freedman noted that in the absence of a full report from LandTech, the PB is unsure if the potholes can be considered the result of normal wear and tear. He explained to Bennett that the next step is for the applicant's engineer to revise the plans and to submit an itemization of what needs to be done to repair the roadway and bring it into compliance with the plans, including a cost estimate. Then the signatories to the Settlement Agreement will need to decide how to pay for these repairs, and the work can then be performed. Bennett said he will wait until he sees the engineering report, but expressed concern about conservation issues that may arise during roadway repair. Chair Freedman assured Bennett that the applicant's engineer should be aware if and when they need to work with ConsComm and that this is
specified in the agreement among the parties. Planning Administrator Mansfield clarified that the conservation issues regarding the site, if any, would be concerning Lot 1 of Berry Corner Lane, and not concerning the roadway.
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.
THAG member and PB Chair Freedman reported on their recent meeting, indicating that some town residents and a representative from the Carlisle Conservation Foundation (CCF) were in attendance. The group discussed the proposed locations of the septic and well, noting that shifting the proposed well location somewhat toward the adjacent wetland may minimize the upland areas within Zone 1 of the well. Freedman explained that while the DEP documentation on permitted uses of land in Zone 1 is somewhat vague, the BOH agreed to address this with specifics. He added that the suggested shifting in proposed location of the well would also move it farther from a vernal pool. The vernal pool will be tested when the well pump is tested to make sure its water level is not drawn down by the new well.
Budget
Prior to this meeting, the PB had received a memo from FinCom asking each department to project a FY11 budget that is 10% less than that of FY10, and to prepare a narrative impact statement on the effects of such a budget reduction on the services the department provides. This statement is due November 6th.
Chair Freedman noted that for the PB, presuming the elimination of MAGIC from the budget, this would mean a cut of $7722 for FY11, and since there is very little funding left in the other line items (supplies, dues and meetings, legal ads - amounts totaling just over $1100), most of this reduction would have to come from reduction in staff hours for both the Planning Administrator and the Administrative Assistant. He noted that neither position is full time, with the PA being funded for 32.5 hours per week and the Assistant for 18 hours per week.
The PB reviewed the current work schedules of the staff in an attempt to formulate a response to FinCom about the impact of such a budget reduction on the operation of the department. They discussed several potential schedule changes noting that for efficient office operation, it is important to maintain at least a minimum level of overlap between the schedules of the PA and the Assistant, and the current staff schedules are already at that point. Chair Freedman pointed out that the PB's workload is largely in response to the applications and interdepartmental work that comes in, and is therefore generally beyond PB control. The PB noted that many of the possible schedule modifications would have the already part-time Planning Administrator out of the office 2 days in a row; a situation which all agreed is not ideal.
Since the Assistant's position is a shared one with the BOH, this might mean that the office would be closed one day a week. Additionally, with the Assistant's hours reduced, the PB office may need to close an additional half day. These schedule changes would affect overlap and coordination with other Boards, as well as interaction with the public. Gonzales also pointed out that with this amount of office closure, a delay in PB meetings may possibly result from time to time. C. Nathan pointed out that we would have no assurance of getting the hours (and budget funds) back, and that any increase in demand for PB services would add to the severity of the situation. Lane added that FinCom should also consider that hours cuts may also reduce the ability to retain staff, with the PB then faced with attracting new staff to the reduced-hour positions.
Lamere pointed out that the current Chair and Vice Chair are very involved in the PB work, and are volunteering much time to the updating of all PB Rules and Regulations, with the assistance of other PB members and staff. Future members might not be willing to be as involved, and therefore the PB would need to be more reliant on staff. Vice Chair Epstein pointed out that there are points in the Subdivision Regulations that need updating, and really require some expert review in specific areas, but there is no money for this - another way in which further budget reductions would affect PB work. Planning Administrator Mansfield also reminded the PB about the upcoming changes to Open Meeting Law that will likely require additional PB staff time.
Chair Freedman offered to draft the response and impact statement for submission to FinComm, with prior review by Lamere, Epstein and Mansfield. He added that while the amount of money in this proposed budget cut has a huge impact on the PB and its work for the Town, the amount of money is small as far as the Town budget needs are concerned. Freedman said that Selectman Hult has asked him to serve on the Structural Financial Planning Committee now being formed to address Town budget issues, and he has agreed. This Committee will look at the potential effects of budget cuts on all departments, and will look at the big picture to determine how best to achieve the needed savings. They will begin meeting in November and will likely meet through January 2010.
Investigation of alternate or additional peer engineering review consultants and review of procedures regarding selection of such firms
Chair Freedman reviewed with the PB the list of firms under consideration. He noted that NOAH, the Benfield applicant, had provided positive input on Nitsch Engineering and Beals and Thomas. Vice Chair Epstein asked Lamere to check with his contact on the Stow PB concerning their experience with the firm Places Associates and with Fay, Spofford and Thorndike.
Chair Freedman confirmed with Mansfield that the requirement for obtaining bids for work is for expected amounts of $5000 and over, and that if the amount is expected to be greater than $25,000, then a full Request for Proposal (RFP) must be put forward.
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.
The PB reviewed the latest draft of proposed revisions to these Rules and Regulations, and each PB member provided their comments. Chair Freedman reminded the PB that the new Wireless Bylaw, as amended in May of this year at Town Meeting, while still under review by the Attorney General, is currently in effect unless the AG does not approve the Bylaw revisions. This revised version of the Rules and Regulations will coordinate with the newly amended Bylaw.
C. Nathan moved that the PB adopt the "Carlisle Planning Board Rules and Regulations regarding Special Permits and Site Plan Approval for Personal Wireless Service Facilities, dated January 8, 2007, as amended October 26, 2009. Lane seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously (7-0).
Status report on construction activities in the Greystone Crossing Conservation Cluster, including removal of material from the Open Space parcels and possible infringements upon easements
Planning Administrator Mansfield reported that Health Agent, Linda Fantasia, had spoken with him regarding two lots in this conservation cluster on which the septic design plans propose septic locations that encroach on easements. For Lot 15, the proposed septic plan illustrates that a retaining wall that would be a necessary part of the system would be built on a pedestrian easement, thereby not allowing flexibility in laying out the trail on that easement. In their letter to the applicant, the BOH has requested that the contractor check with the PB or its engineer to determine whether this is permissible before the septic permit will be issued. For Lot 9, the proposed septic plan is designed to be so close to the Common Drive Access and Utility Easement that grading for it is likely to be in the easement. Therefore,
the Health Agent is concerned that future installation of utilities, snow storage, and other possible activities could damage the system. Fantasia noted in both cases that the PB's consulting engineer should have alerted both the PB and the BOH to these situations if sufficient detail was on the original Conservation Cluster plans. However, Mansfield explained that the design details shown on individual lot plans are not included on the cluster plans.
Chair Freedman asked Lamere, also a member of the Trails Committee, if the pathway plans for this Conservation Cluster will need to utilize the Pedestrian Easement on Lot 15. Lamere said that since there is a permanent easement on an adjacent property that can be used, the Trails Committee does not feel it will need this easement. Lamere confirmed that no other easements will be endangered by relinquishing this one. Chair Freedman pointed out that the deed for this property would need to be changed if the easement were to be changed.
Chair Freedman asked Planning Administrator Mansfield to explain to the contractor that when he comes before the PB to discuss this issue, he must bring his engineer also. He asked Mansfield to clarify with Health Agent Fantasia that the BOH should require PB approval of this type of situation, and not rely solely on the contractor's engineer's input. Freedman also suggested asking the Health Agent if, in the future, it would be helpful for the PB to provide other Land Use Boards with a list of the lots in a newly approved development that have easements.
Mansfield reported that in light of these easement encroachments, he and the Health Agent reviewed all of the lots in the Greystone Crossing Conservation Cluster, and that, along with Lots 9 and 15, Lot 10 may have a similar issue to Lot 9. On reviewing the plans for Lot 9, the PB decided unanimously to recommend that the BOH not approve the septic plan for that lot. The PB further noted that, in general, no septic grading or septic system components, including grading, can infringe on an easement. In circumstances where there is no other option for location of a septic system on a lot, a developer must come before the PB and can perhaps renegotiate the precise location of an easement, subject to agreement, of course, by the holder of the easement. Since in this instance for Lot 15, the pedestrian easement
involved will not be needed, the PB felt that it had no reason, not to approve it, but that to get that approval, the contractor and the engineer would have to come to a PB meeting. Chair Freedman further suggested that the BOH and ConsComm may want to change their regulations to require that plans submitted to their departments show easements and open space respectively, and suggested that the three Land Use Boards may want to form an advisory group concerning this issue. Mansfield was asked to include this suggestion in his communication with the BOH.
In a separate issue on this project, the Fire Department has forwarded a letter to the PB noting that the three cisterns installed at this project are not acceptable for various reasons. Mansfield noted that resolution of this issue is between the developer, the Fire Department and the Building Commissioner, but since one roadway is not yet complete, he will monitor this issue closely for the PB.
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 [Amendments to regs.]
Prior to tonight's meeting, the PB had received copies of the latest draft revisions for the PB Subdivision Rules and Regulations, and Chair Freedman noted that final approval of these Regulations requires a public hearing (Subdivision Control Law). The PB is in the process of incorporating Attachments A-C ("Performance Standards", "Development Review Hearing Schedule and Policy governing Use of Town Hall Advisory Groups", and "Agreement for Reimbursement of Expenses and Certification of Accuracy of Application") into these Regulations as well as their Conservation Cluster, Common Driveway and Senior Residential Open Space Community special permit rules and regulations.
Chair Freedman noted that other boards should be approached for feedback on these proposed revisions to the PB's Subdivision Regulations in advance of any public hearing, particularly as the PB is adding the requirement of applicant submission of a Construction Management Plan (CMP) to these regulations.
The PB reviewed proposed revisions to the Subdivision Regulations including to Article III (Design Standards) and to Article IV (Administration), the latter including the proposed CMP submission requirement. Article IV also proposes a new section on hours of construction. Vice Chair Epstein noted that this section is particularly important, as the current Regulations do not mention this at all, which puts the ZBA and the abutters at a disadvantage when negotiating work on the once-proposed Coventry Woods 40B project. The PB reviewed the proposed hours of construction in detail, agreeing upon several revisions. A section addressing construction staging and storage will also be added to Article IV of the proposed Subdivision Regulations to provide the Town with some recourse when construction materials are not
properly stored at a site. The PB noted that Article VIII of the Carlisle General Bylaws designates the PB as the key authority for earth removal licenses. Chair Freedman agreed to revise the Hours of Operation section of Article IV and forward it to Mansfield.
The PB reviewed Attachment A (Performance Standards). Gonzales suggested removing the requirement of achieving LEED gold standards certification, as this typically refers to dense development (6 units/acre) and would generally not apply to Carlisle. He suggested merely requiring the use of a LEED standards or National Home Building Standards (NAHB)approach, incorporating green home building guidelines as much as possible. Freedman agreed to incorporate this change and provide it to the ZBA as a suggested change in their regs, along with some others, for consistency with what the PB has been discussing, before its November 2nd meeting. An updated draft revision of the Subdivision Regulations will be provided to the PB before the next meeting. The PB agreed that to allow time for input from other Boards, then for
advertising, the public hearing on these Regulations would probably take place in January.
Discussion of options for funding expenses for required public hearings not associated with development applications
Mansfield reported that Town Counsel has assured him that the PB can require an applicant (including other Boards) to pay for public hearing advertising costs except in the case of a hearing on the subdivision regulations, which it may be possible to fund from the Town's General Expense Account.
2010 Meeting Dates
The PB agreed upon the following meeting dates for early 2010 (all Mondays): January 11th and 25th, February 8th and 22nd, March 8th and 22nd, and April 12th and 26th.
At 10:45 pm, N. Brown moved and Lane seconded the adjournment of the PB meeting. The motion was approved 7-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
Gretchen Caywood
Administrative Assistant
Carlisle Planning Board
| 
