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 23, 2009
Minutes 11/9/09
Bills
Budget; FY11 budget
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, Berry Corner Lane, Map 7, Parcel 29
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
Request for review 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) (Request of Board of Appeals - 11/5/09)
Attorney General's Office review, with amendments and recommendations, of Warrant Article 34, 5/4/09 ATM approval of amended Sec. 5.9 of Zoning Bylaws, Personal Wireless Communications Facilities (11/18/09)
Request from Town Administrator for list of State mandates that affect responsibilities and budget obligations of Planning Board (11/19/09)
Discussion of staff response to requests for Planning Board public records.
Chair David Freedman called the meeting to order at 7:32 pm in the Clark Room of Town Hall. Members Michael Epstein, Marc Lamere, Tom Lane, Carol Nathan and Planning Administrator George Mansfield were present. Members Kent Gonzales and Nathan Brown was absent.
Gretchen Caywood, Administrative Assistant to the Planning Board, Alan Carpenito (South Street), Alan Galster (Rutland Street), and Bob Zielinski (Carlisle Mosquito) were also in attendance.
Minutes
The PB reviewed the draft Minutes of the November 9, 2009 meeting, and a few amendments were suggested. Lamere moved to approve the Minutes as amended, C.Nathan seconded and the motion was approved 5-0.
Attorney General's Office review, with amendments and recommendations, of Warrant Article 34, 5/4/09 ATM approval of amended Sec. 5.9 of Zoning Bylaws, Personal Wireless Communications Facilities (11/18/09)
Planning Administrator Mansfield informed the PB that while the AG's office had notified the Town Clerk that they have approved the amendments to Section 5.9 of the Zoning Bylaws (Personal Wireless Communications Facilities) as voted at the May 2009 Town Meeting, they have disapproved of one section, and raised some questions that they suggest be addressed to Town Counsel regarding other provisions. In particular, the AG has eliminated subsections 5.9.3 (f) and (g) from the approved Bylaw, which refer to the PB's preference for a concealed antenna monopole (CAM) on Town own (or leased) land over that on land not owned or leased by the Town, respectively. Mansfield suggested that the AG's office may be viewing this establishing of priorities as equivalent to establishing rights of use, and he suggests that this is not the case. He also noted that Town Counsel had not objected to this provision in his review of the approved Bylaw, and should be asked to review and comment on the
AG's action.
Chair Freedman also noted that included in the materials on the table for this meeting is an informational memo sent by David Maxson (Broadcast Signal Lab) summarizing recently adopted changes to FCC Regulations for wireless facilities, these changes having gone into effect on November 18, 2009.
The PB discussed removing 5.9.3 (f) and (g) from the approved Bylaw, and replacing them with a modified 5.9.3 (f) - concealed antenna monopole. No Town vs. private land preferences would be noted. Chair Freedman asked Mansfield to pose this question to Town Counsel, and ask about the process requirements for making this change. He noted that the AG has instructed the Town Clerk to publish the bylaw as their office has amended.
On discussion, Planning Administrator Mansfield and Chair Freedman suggested asking the Town Clerk to briefly delay the publication of the AG-amended Bylaw, and immediately seek Counsel's input as to whether the PB can resubmit the Bylaw to the AG with their proposed revised Section 5.9.3 (f) (in place of current Sections 5.9.3 (f) and (g)), and to remind Counsel that the Town Meeting vote agreed that CAMs are last priority for preferred types of wireless facilities in Carlisle.
Chair Freedman reviewed the remaining points noted by the AG's office in their 11/16/09 letter to the Town Clerk. Concerning the AG's reference to Sections 5.9.4.13, - 16, - and 17, which refer to the PB's ability to require that wireless equipment be relocated to another nearby facility if it will allow for maximization of co-location potential, Chair Freedman pointed out that these Sections state that the PB would only require this if it would not create any gaps in coverage, and added that this Bylaw section has been employed verbatim in approved Bylaws of other Towns (such as Acton). Concerning the AG's reference to Bylaw Section 5.9.7.2 which details facility setback requirements (from childcare facilities, schools, residences, vernal pools). Chair Freedman noted that these are the core of the Bylaw, and suggested that Counsel
review this issue. Vice Chair Epstein pointed out that this and some other Bylaw Sections cited by the AG's office have been in the Bylaw since 1999, and Freedman suggested that since for the 2009 amendments the PB printed the entire Bylaw for the Town Meeting Warrant Article (as many sections were re-ordered) and not just revised Sections, the AG's office may have reviewed the entire Bylaw as if it were new. It was suggested that for future reference we ascertain whether the approach the PB took with this amendment to the bylaw (for reasons of clarity in presenting the changes to Town Meeting) determines the level of AG review.
Lamere pointed out that the AG's office also suggests that Bylaw Section 5.9.4.4 (prohibiting lattice towers) may discriminate against providers that may prefer these structures, and Epstein noted that, once again, this is a point that was already in the Bylaw, and the AG's office had not expressed concern prior to this.
There was also discussion of some of the changes noted in the Maxson memo, particularly the imposition of time frames for review of applications as well as changing definitions of co-location.
Planning Administrator Mansfield will compile a list of questions for Counsel, and will check with the Town Administrator as to whether this review by Counsel will be covered by their retainer. Chair Freedman asked Assistant Caywood to review the PB's Wireless Rules and Regulations to determine if they would at all be affected by the proposed elimination of Section 5.9.3 (g) and revision of Section 5.9.3 (f), suggested above. He also asked Assistant Caywood to review both the PB's Wireless Regulations and the Bylaw versus the new changes to FCC Regulations and note any sections of the documents affected by the FCC Regulation changes.
Request for review 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) (Request of Board of Appeals - 11/5/09)
The PB reviewed the draft memo prepared by Planning Administrator Mansfield summarizing the PB's preliminary review of the Benfield Farms Comprehensive Permit Application to the ZBA, agreeing on the final content. This information had been requested by the ZBA Chair. Chair Freedman asked Mansfield to finalize the memo and submit it to the Town Administrator for the BOS meeting the next night, as well as to the ZBA.
In their memo, the PB suggests that the ZBA consider, in consultation with the BOS, that the cost to the Town in staff time for reviewing the application is at least equal to, and likely will exceed, the $3800 application fee. When C. Nathan suggested that not only should the fee not be waived by the ZBA, it should be raised, Chair Freedman explained that since this is a Town-sponsored project, the fee reduction may be considered as part of the Town's contribution to the project.
Request from Town Administrator for list of State mandates that affect responsibilities and budget obligations of Planning Board (11/19/09)
Planning Administrator Mansfield explained that the info provided on State mandates affecting the PB budget, along with information provided by other departments, will be discussed at the November 24th BOS meeting. Mansfield noted that any legal obligation required by the State but not funded by it is an unfunded mandate for the PB. Chair Freedman added that generally anything the PB does in response to State statutes and regulations is unfunded.
Epstein suggested that approval of Comprehensive Permit applications could be considered an unfunded State mandate. He cited the expense of increasing demands on the school system, the Fire Department, and DPW when 40Bs are constructed.
Lamere suggested that the requirement of GIS mapping in the Carlisle Open Space and Recreation Plan, which is due to be revised, is an unfunded mandate in that the Town must pay to maintain the GIS software system and data. Chair Freedman cited the recent changes to Open Meeting Law which will require more work from the Department staff. The cost of legal ads and notices for public hearings is also an unfunded mandate.
Chair Freedman reported that the Conservation Administrator has recently learned that due primarily to budget cuts, the State may transfer a lot of what is currently done regarding wetlands protection by the DEP to the individual towns, with any appeals being handled in superior court. There may also no longer be DEP staff available to answer some questions from local boards. The PB Administrator was asked to let the Conservation Administrator to keep the PB informed of further developments in such DEP changes.
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.]
The PB reviewed its proposed changes to Attachment D (Construction Management Plan requirements),, noting that CMPs will be required for all subdivisions regardless of size. Chair Freedman reported that he, Epstein and Selectmen Hult and Williams met to discuss the BOS Site Plan Review Regulations, and that the PB suggested that the CMP requirement be included. The Selectmen were open to this idea, proposing some revised language to Attachment D, and were also open to the PB as the initial point of contact regarding Site Plan Review applications after filing of the application with the Town Clerk.
Chair Freedman noted that the PB is waiting to hear back from Counsel on the proposed changes to the Subdivision Regulations and that, if no substantive changes are proposed, the required hearing could be held at the late January PB meeting. The Conservation Cluster, Common Drive and Senior Residential Open Space Cluster Regulations will all be revised to incorporate a CMP requirement.
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 reported that no new information has been received on this matter. Revised plans have been submitted by Stamski & McNary to LandTech for review.
Investigation of alternate or additional peer engineering review consultants and review of procedures regarding selection of such firms
Chair Freedman asked Assistant Caywood to forward him an electronic copy of the listing of PB's suggestions to the ZBA for Peer Review Engineering Firms, in order that he can provide it to the ZBA at their next meeting, if requested.
Discussion of staff response to requests for Planning Board public records.
Planning Administrator Mansfield referred to a recent call from an attorney with a question related to a subdivision approved some time ago, and that, on checking the files, required more investigation than simply providing documents. He noted that every so often the PB receives this type of request, taking more office staff time than expected, and that there should be a way to obtain some revenue to cover the work. Chair Freedman asked Mansfield to check with the Town Clerk regarding the process for filing an official public records request.
At 9:08 pm, C. Nathan moved and Lamere seconded the adjournment of the PB meeting. The motion was approved 5-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
Gretchen Caywood
Administrative Assistant
Carlisle Planning Board
| 
