Town of Carlisle
MASSACHUSETTS 01741
------------
Office of
PLANNING BOARD
66 Westford Street
Carlisle, Massachusetts 01741
Tel. (978) 369-9702
Fax (978) 369-4521
Minutes
November 9, 2009
Minutes 10/26/09, meeting schedule 11/23/09
Bills
Budget; FY11 budget
Long Term Capital Requirements Comm. Request
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 Subdivision, conservation Cluster, Common Driveway & SROSC regs.]
Discussion of strategy with regard to implementation of Settlement Agreement, Valchuis et al. v. Planning Board, BerryCorner Lane, Map 7, Parcel 29
Notice of filing of application for Comprehensive Permit for Benfield Farms, 273 South Street (Map 5, Lots 7-1 thru 7-4) with Zoning Board of Appeals (10/24/09 - Neighborhood of Affordable Housing [NOAH], applicant)
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
Consideration of amendments to Rules and Regulations for Site Plan Review consistent with Zoning Bylaw Sec. 7.6 (Request of Board of Selectmen)
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
Chair David Freedman called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm in the Clark Room of Town Hall. Members Michael Epstein, Marc Lamere, Tom Lane, Nathan Brown and Planning Administrator George Mansfield were present. Member Carol Nathan arrived at 7:35 pm. Member Kent Gonzales was absent.
Gretchen Caywood, Administrative Assistant to the Planning Board, Alan Carpenito (South Street), Curt Farnsworth (CNC Builders, Northborough, MA), Charles Bennett (Berry Corner Lane), and Bob Zielinski (Carlisle Mosquito) were also in attendance.
Minutes
The PB reviewed the draft Minutes of the October 26, 2009 meeting, and a few amendments were suggested. Lamere moved to approve the Minutes as amended, N. Brown seconded and the motion was approved 5-0.
FY11 Budget
Chair Freedman referred to the memo that the PB had submitted to Town Administrator Tim Goddard regarding the FY11 budget process and in response to FinComm's request that all Boards prepare a budget that presumes a 10% funding reduction (from FY10) and that they provide a narrative impact statement describing the effect of such a reduction on the Board's service objectives for the Town. He explained that these statements will be utilized by the Structural Financial Committee toward investigating approaches to reduce costs throughout Town Government. This Committee may then meet with various Boards to discuss possibilities.
Long Term Capital Requirements Comm. Request
As requested by this Committee, the PB discussed possible departmental funding needs that may fall within this category, and agreed that at this time there is no significant one-time expenditure needed that would fall within this category.
Liaison Reports
Lamere reported that the Historical Commission (CHC), of which he is Chair, is in the final stages of creating a survey of historic sites, formally known as the Cultural Resources Survey, which includes a detailed survey of historic structures, land, markers, and other historic features. This is a $41,000 contract with Preservation Consultants Anne Forbes and Gretchen Schuler, and was funded through historic-related Community Preservation Act funds, the use of which was approved by Town Meeting. The Survey is using the current MA Historical Commission (MHC) survey methods, standards and inventory forms, and the information will be submitted to MHC as well as provided to the CHC. One eventual goal is for this information to be on the Town website, and it could also be incorporated into the GIS database for the Town.
The work product will also include a list of recommended resources (recommended by the consultants) for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Sites.
Lamere also reported on the Conservation Restriction Advisory Committee (CRAC), which recently conducted a site visit of Conservation Restriction #25, which is at the end of Hartwell Road and into the Benfield land. There is a trail easement in the area that the Committee had authorized the Carlisle Conservation Foundation to hire a surveyor to stake the centerline of the easement in order to accurately locate it. The CRAC expedition verified the staking. A future goal is to have a trail across this area.
Lamere reported on the Trails Committee's recent clearing of a trail on Benfield E. He described the loop trail route, which passes along the stone wall at Applegrove Lane. Lamere noted that Tim Lamere has completed his Eagle Scout project involved with completing the Greystone Trail, which starts at the end of Captain Wilson Lane and connects to Bingham Rd.
Chair Freedman reported that he and Lane had taken part in the initial work of the Housing Production Plan (HPP) Rewrite Committee, noting that the current plan expires in October 2010. The Plan must be approved by both the BOS and the PB, and the Rewrite Committee is composed of 2 members each from BOS, PB, and HA (Housing Authority).
N. Brown reported on the recent work of both Highland Building Committees - one of which focuses on conceptual designs for a restored building, and the other focuses on future uses. Highland 1 is drafting an RFQ for development of conceptual designs of a restored historic Highland Building. The building preservation work, for which funding has been approved, will be conducted with this in mind. N. Brown also noted that there is interest in whether Highland could share the fire cistern the school project will be installing, and use it as source water for a sprinkler system. Highland 2 (future uses) is working on how to market to interested users of the building, and devising a questionnaire to evaluate their interest.
Investigation of alternate or additional peer engineering review consultants and review of procedures regarding selection of such firms
Chair Freedman reported that the ZBA is seeking some recommendations for peer review consultants, and that based on a list of possible selections that has been reviewed, and on feedback received, he suggested recommending Nitsch Engineering, Woodard and Curran, Places Associates, and PSC. He added that while Neighborhood of Affordable Housing (NOAH), developer of the proposed Benfield Farms senior housing project, had indicated that they would not recommend Woodard and Curran or PSC, other recommendations on these firms had been positive. Chair Freedman explained that the ZBA will likely request PB input at which time NOAH may explain their reservations about these firms. The ZBA would then send out an RFQ and RFP, and then decide. If NOAH does not agree with their choice, there is a process to address the
matter.
Chair Freedman added that the PB has received legal opinion that it is best to send out RFQ's annually regarding choice of peer review engineer(s), and he suggested that Planning Administrator Mansfield meet with the Town Administrator on this procurement issue. For example, the PB could send out an RFQ every December, review submissions in January and decide upon 2 or 3 firms to utilize for different types of application submissions. Changing firms from time to time may be beneficial in that any firm goes through changes over time and may no longer be as suitable for use in engineering review. Epstein suggested that an annual process to identify 2 or 3 firms qualified for peer review engineering services would alleviate the necessity of an RFQ for every application.
Notice of filing of application for Comprehensive Permit for Benfield Farms, 273 South Street (Map 5, Lots 7-1 through 7-4) with Zoning Board of Appeals (10/24/09 - Neighborhood of Affordable Housing [NOAH], applicant)
Chair Freedman asked for comments from the PB on this application, and noted that ZBA Chair Ed Rolfe had forwarded a memo to all Town Departments, Board and Committees asking that they review the application and provide their preliminary comments and concerns. These comments and concerns will be considered in the ZBA's selection and scope of peer review.
Planning Administrator Mansfield expressed concern that the applicant is making a blanket waiver request and is not stating the reason why they are asking for the various waivers. Referring to the request for fee waivers, Mansfield suggested informing the BOS that the cost to the Town for reviewing this application is at least equal to the $3800 fee, and likely much more.
The PB reviewed the 8-page list of requested waivers, and noted that the list does not generally include justifications for the waiver requests. Chair Freedman suggested that the note to the ZBA on this application should point out that it is a standard requirement of the ZBA regulations for an applicant to state the reason for each waiver request. He added that the 40B statute supports this approach. Epstein pointed out that while this application requests waivers to many of the local Regulations, the applicant is supposed to comply with these unless doing so would render the project uneconomic.
Planning Administrator Mansfield also pointed out several waiver requests that should likely be reviewed by a peer review engineer, and Chair Freedman agreed. These include proposed reductions in the minimum gravel thickness used in roadway construction, types of curbing, waiver of time requirement for binder course "aging", and a waiver allowing the design engineer to perform all inspections. Chair Freedman noted that stormwater management information was not included in the application beyond what is shown on the plans. It was also noted that lot numbers were not marked on any of the submitted plans, making it more difficult to follow the application, and that there were a number of typos and blanks in the application.
Mansfield pointed out that while the entryways and driveway throughout the Benfield Farms site are 24 ft wide, South Street itself is only 18 ft wide. Chair Freedman explained that the Fire Department had requested the 24 ft width, and PB member Gonzales, an experienced land development professional, had recommended it also since Benfield Farms will be a dense development. Mansfield reminded the PB that the Zoning Bylaws state that all public roadways in Town are to be 20 ft wide with 2 ft shoulders on either side, but Freedman pointed out that the Fire Department has noted that roadway shoulders are often not plowed in winter. He suggested that perhaps the entrances to the development could be narrowed somewhat as long as the turning radii remained sufficient to accommodate fire and emergency
vehicles.
Mansfield expressed concern about the proposed location of the fire cistern, noting that is will be perpendicular to South Street, and that fire equipment would need to back out onto South Street. Chair Freedman agreed that this may be a concern for the Fire Chief.
Chair Freedman suggested that the letter of response to the ZBA pointing out the PBs comments and concerns with the Benfield Farms application should include the comments that:
" There are a number of issues that will require engineering review, e.g. proposed reduction in gravel thickness and no proposed delay in applying finish coat to binder for roadways, among other concerns,
" Full drainage information would need to be provided before the application goes out for engineering review,
" Requested waivers should provide justifications as to why they are necessary,
" Number of parking spaces may not be sufficient. Reiterate the suggestion made during THAG meetings that the applicant provide information concerning actual experience with adequacy of parking spaces in other developments they have been responsible for,
" Cistern location and/or orientation may be a problem,
" Effect of the 24 ft wide entrances on the streetscape at South Street should be considered, and
" There are a number of blanks in the submitted application.
Epstein also suggested that the letter to the ZBA point out how the PB utilizes engineering peer review to provide an overall assessment of an application in terms of completeness. Mansfield offered to draft the letter for review by Chair Freedman and Vice Chair Epstein, to be submitted to the ZBA before November 23rd.
Status report on construction activities in the Greystone Crossing Conservation Cluster, including possible infringements upon easements
Curt Farnsworth, CNC Builders, was present on behalf of the developer, and noted that his engineer, George Dimakarakos of Stamski & McNary, Inc. was unable to attend this evening. Farnsworth referred to a letter from Attorney Richard Gallogly, of Rackemann, Sawyer & Brewster, stating his opinion that pertaining to Lot 15, the proposed septic plan illustrating construction of a retaining wall (a necessary part of the system in this location) on a pedestrian easement is consistent with the easement and would be allowed "by right." The PB noted that this is one laywer's opinion and does not override the PB's ability to decide on this matter. Farnsworth explained that the developer is willing to change the proposed retaining wall from one of concrete to a natural stone wall. The purpose of the wall is to
complete a breakout barrier for the septic system, with a rubber barrier and fill on the septic side of the wall. He assured the PB that the resulting mound will be sloped gradually so that people using the easement can readily walk it.
Chair Freedman asked Farnsworth if the developer was aware of the easement when the system was designed. Farnsworth replied that they were not, and that the BOH had brought it to his attention. Freedman explained that if the pedestrian easement had been needed for the trail route, and if changing the slope was detrimental, the PB would have the right not to allow this septic plan to proceed as is. Farnsworth noted that he is not sure if there are any other options for location of the septic system on this lot. Chair Freedman asked Farnsworth if any other easement issues have arisen previously for properties where he has worked in Town, and Farnsworth said that while they had not, he agreed that it would be helpful to know easement locations when locating a septic system. Freedman did point out that the
applicant's engineer does hold some responsibility for being mindful of the easement locations when designing septic systems.
Chair Freedman explained that while the septic design plan was approved by the BOH, the permit has been held until the PB's review and approval of the situation. Epstein pointed out that this should not set a precedent for expectations in the future in similar situations. Freedman noted that if this was an access and utilities easement, this system would not be allowed.
Planning Administrator Mansfield reported that Farnsworth had agreed with the Conservation Commission to build the wall of fieldstone rather than concrete, and to extend a matching farmer's wall along a portion of the property line separating the building lot and the open space parcel. Chair Freedman suggested a written statement from the PB to the BOH that while the pedestrian easement is not needed now, it may be in the future, and that approval of the septic system location for Lot 15 should be contingent upon the applicant fulfilling the ConsComm request of a fieldstone wall and its extension as noted above. Freedman noted that grading cannot be extended into the open space.
Lamere noted that he had visited the proposed site and saw an open pipe near what may be the drainage area down slope of the proposed leach field for the septic system, and he had wanted to ask Dimakarakos about this. Freedman asked Mansfield to speak with the Health Agent on this matter.
Discussion of strategy with regard to implementation of Settlement Agreement, Valchuis et al. v. Planning Board, Berry Corner Lane, Map 7, Parcel 29
Planning Administrator Mansfield noted that no action is required by the PB at this time on this matter, as he is awaiting LandTech's response to plan revisions submitted by Stamski & McNary on 11/1/09.
Consideration of amendments to Rules and Regulations for Site Plan Review consistent with Zoning Bylaw Sec. 7.6 (Request of Board of Selectmen)
The PB reviewed the proposed amendments to these Regulations, which they will put forward to the BOS. Chair Freedman explained that the goal in revising these Rules and Regulations is to remove some items that should perhaps be waiveable in some circumstances from the Bylaw and incorporate them in the Regulations. Bylaw provisions cannot be waived.
Lamere suggested that the general request of submission of digital copies of all applications and As-Built plans be incorporated into all regulations. The PB agreed, and this and other proposed changes will be submitted to the BOS.
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.]
The PB reviewed the draft changes to their Subdivision Rules and Regulations, along with draft changes for Attachments A-C ("Performance Standards", "Development Review Hearing Schedule and Policy governing Use of Town Advisory Groups", and "Agreement for Reimbursement of Expenses and Certification of Accuracy of Application") and the construction Management Plan (CMP, also referred to as Attachment D) which are being proposed for incorporation into these Regulations.
PB member Lamere, also Historical Commission Chair, suggested that the required content for a Definitive Subdivision Plan include any boundary marker stones, corner monuments, guideposts and road stones on the site, and he noted that some of these items are historic markers and are detailed in the Cultural Resources Survey being prepared for the Town.
After review of the draft, the PB agreed that, with a few minor changes, this draft is ready to be circulated to other Boards and Committees for comment. Epstein suggested sending the draft to Town Counsel for review before circulating it more broadly, but to point out that it is not a comprehensive change to the Regulations, but is mainly to incorporate Attachments A-C. Chair Freedman offered to incorporate the minor changes before sending to Counsel.
The PB then reviewed their draft changes to the Conservation Cluster Rules and Regulations, noting that since there are presently no design standards in this document, the incorporation of Attachments A-D is particularly important.
Chair Freedman suggested that all final changes to these and other Rules and Regulations be incorporated after the public hearing for the revisions of the PB's Subdivision Rules and Regulations (likely in January), in case something arises during that process that might require a change in any of these Regulations.
At 10:40 pm, Epstein moved and N. Brown seconded the adjournment of the PB meeting. The motion was approved 6-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
Gretchen Caywood
Administrative Assistant
Carlisle Planning Board
| 
