Town of Carlisle, MA - Minutes of 12/14/09 PB meeting

Review of recommendations 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.]

Chair David Freedman called the meeting to order at 8:10 pm in the Clark Room of Town Hall. Members Michael Epstein, Kent Gonzales, Tom Lane, Nathan Brown and Planning Administrator George Mansfield were present. Member Carol Nathan was absent. Member Marc Lamere arrived at 8:20 pm, having been in attendance at a FinComm meeting on behalf of the PB.

Lamere reported on behalf of the Historic Commission (CHC), of which he is Chair. He reported that the CHC is interested in developing a sign bylaw, and pointed out that other sister towns, such as Concord, tend to have them in order to control the number of signs displayed in town. Lamere explained that members of the CHC have received comments and complaints from Town residents about the number of contractor signs around Town Center. According to the CHC Rules and Regulations, signs can be displayed in the Historic District (Town Center) on a temporary basis (up to and including 30 days) without formal approval from the CHC. For display beyond this timeframe, an application must be filed with the CHC. Many contractors have been displaying their signs at a property well after their work is completed, and this has been posing a problem. This is why the CHC wants to pursue a bylaw, and is trying to figure out an enforcement policy and determine what level of action the BOS would consider appropriate. Lamere has requested input from the BOS on how to proceed with a potential sign bylaw, which can then be presented to the PB for a public hearing to be held. He has not had a response from the BOS yet.

Chair Freedman suggested that the CHC approach the BOS to get their concurrence that there is a need for this bylaw, such that the BOS and Town Administrator will cover advertising costs for a public hearing on the matter from the general expense budget. Chair Freedman explained that anyone proposing a new bylaw change must work out how public hearing costs will be paid, as the PB does not have any funding to cover these costs for other departments.

Lane reported on the recent Housing Authority (HA) meeting, at which the PB's memo to the ZBA (requested by the ZBA) summarizing the PB's preliminary review of the Benfield Farms Comprehensive Permit Application was discussed. Chair Lehotsky had expressed the hope that the various groups could come to an agreement with the Fire Chief. Some at the meeting expressed the opinion that safety outweighs all else, including possible environmental detriment of constructing wide roadways. Chair Freedman pointed out that the nature of neighborhoods must be taken into consideration, noting that in this case the roadway widths for the proposed Benfield development are considerably wider than most other Town roads, including South Street, from which the development would be accessed.

Lane also reported that the HA expressed concern that the PB's memo was not circulated in advance to Neighborhood of Affordable Housing (NOAH), the project developer. Chair Freedman explained that since the public hearing on this application had not yet been opened by the ZBA, he had deemed it best to be careful about communicating outside of the hearing process.

Chair Freedman reported that the BOS is holding a public hearing next Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 8:30 pm on the option of the Town adopting the "Stretch Code", also known as Appendix 120.AA of the MA Building Code 780 CMR. The State of MA has decided that cities and towns can adopt this code, if they choose to, in addition to the energy efficiency requirements of the base building code. The Building Commissioner will be in attendance at the hearing, as will some developers, in order to express their opinions on the matter. Some have expressed concern on how the adoption of this Code could impact current building projects.

Lane mentioned that at the recent Housing Authority (HA) meeting where a State representative explained the Stretch Code, HA members expressed concern about NOAH, the developer for the proposed Benfield Farms project, having to go to added expense to meet the Stretch Code standards. There was a discussion that, since the Building code will be changing next year anyway, adoption of this Code may not result in any significant extra expense to the developer.

Gonzales pointed out that the Stretch Code, if adopted, would enable the Town to satisfy one requirement for becoming a "Green Community." He pointed out that since another important requirement for Green Community status is allowing commercial energy generation, it will be difficult for Carlisle to achieve this status, and therefore this renders the Town's adoption of the Stretch Code less important. Gonzales stressed that he is very much in favor of green energy and energy efficiency, but that in his opinion Carlisle's adoption of the Stretch Code does not seem to be part of an integrated approach to sustainability. Gonzales suggested that more effective approaches for Carlisle may be to reduce the excess capacity requirements for septic systems that are currently required for homes of less than 6 bedrooms, and pointed out that this is contrary to low impact and sustainable development (requiring more cut and fill). Gonzales added that MA and CA already are two of the more energy efficient states and that while he is all for more energy efficiency, the Stretch Code adoption may not be the best way to do it.

Epstein asked whether other towns have adopted the Code, and Gonzales explained that Newton has and Cambridge may have, but that cities rather than towns are tending to adopt it, perhaps because of the commercial energy generation requirement for green communities. Planning Administrator Mansfield explained that the Code is more effective for commercial and multi-family development. Mansfield explained that for Carlisle, the Stretch Code adoption may have to go before Town Meeting, because in Newton it was approved in a vote by the Board of Aldermen, the legislative body.

Gonzales reported that he is waiting for information from Nitsch Engineering detailing their experience reviewing 40B applications. Of the other firms that the PB had recommended to the ZBA for consideration as peer review engineers, Gonzales noted that Places Associates seems quite good and has experience with many small towns like Carlisle. He added that while Woodard and Curran is quite capable as well, Places Associates maybe more appropriate for the ZBA to utilize for 40B application review.

Chair Freedman reported that he, Treasurer Lamere, Vice Chair Epstein, and Planning Administrator Mansfield had met with FinComm and the other land use departments' representatives prior to this PB meeting. The departments had a chance to discuss the potential effects of a 10% budget cut on their work. The PB, BOH and ConsComm all responded that this significant a cut was not feasible with respect to continued operations. When cost cutting by increased job sharing of an assistant was suggested, the land use department heads explained that while the departments all work for the same Town, the procedures they deal with are pretty much exclusive to each department, and therefore the assistant tasks have very little overlap.

Chair Freedman had explained to FinComm that the PB can survive with a zero budget increase in FY11, but not after that without cuts in staff hours. He reminded FinComm that a zero increase budget also does not allow for any staff training or seminar attendance. Freedman also explained to FinComm that while the BOH Agent and Conservation Administrator are funded for 35 hours per week, the Planning Administrator is funded for 32.5 hours per week, and he asked the Committee to consider this when preparing guideline budgets. He explained to the PB that the next step is for FinComm to come back to the departments with budget guidelines for FY11.

Chair Freedman explained that Stamski & McNary has forwarded their review of work needed to bring the roadway up to standard, and provided a cost estimate for the work. The PB's engineers (LandTech) have reviewed the estimate and are in agreement. The next step is for all parties on the Lane to agree on who pays for this work. Planning Administrator Mansfield explained that Stamski & McNary will oversee that process. Once the work is completed, the PB engineer will inspect the work and provide a report to the PB.

The PB agreed that LandTech forward a letter to Stamski & McNary indicating that they have reviewed the revised common driveway upgrade plan and profile (dated 10/27/09) for the Lane, along with Stamski's letter and cost estimate, and are in agreement that the Plan is acceptable with respect to the Settlement Agreement, and that the cost estimate is reasonable.

Chair Freedman pointed out that the Fire Chief, at the PB's request, has proposed revisions to the Fire Protection section of the PB's Subdivision Regulations, along with additional information referencing the specifications for fire cisterns. Chair Freedman and Planning Administrator Mansfield have asked the Fire Chief to meet to discuss his proposed revisions.

Vice Chair Epstein reminded the PB that tonight's goal is to determine if the PB is in agreement on its proposed Subdivision Regulation amendments, and to set a date for a public hearing in January. He suggested that since these proposed changes are rather narrow - mainly adopting Attachments A-C and incorporating a few minor changes, the PB should explain to the Fire Chief that the PB will address his suggested revisions at a later round of Subdivision Regulation modifications, as it is important to hold a prompt hearing to incorporate Attachments A-C into these Regulations. Chair Freedman asked Planning Administrator Mansfield to forward a memo to the Fire Chief explaining this situation, thanking him for his input, including a copy of the proposed revisions for now, and assuring him that his further suggested revisions will be addressed in a later phase of Regulations revisions.

Nitsch Engineering had reviewed the roadway cross-section diagram included in the Subdivision Regulations and suggested several changes. Gonzales reported that Nitsch has offered to revise the drawing (using CAD software) for no charge. The PB then reviewed the remaining proposed changes and corrections to the Subdivision Regulations and Attachments, including minor changes forwarded by Town Counsel. Chair Freedman asked Mansfield and Assistant Caywood to incorporate the final proposed changes into the draft Subdivision Regulations by January 1, 2010, and circulate a blacklined master copy to the PB. This document will be circulated to other departments the first week of January. All agreed that the public hearing will be held at the January 25th, 2010 meeting, and will be advertized in the January 8th and January 15th editions of the Carlisle Mosquito.

Planning Administrator Mansfield reported that he, the Town Administrator and the Town Clerk reviewed the AG's notification that was discussed at the last PB meeting, and concluded that the simplest and most effective way to correct subsection 5.9.3 of the amended Bylaw (removing the priority distinction between Town-owned and private land for placement of concealed antenna monopoles (CAMs)) was for the Town Clerk to contact the Assistant AG who prepared the response memo and ask if the clarifying changes decided by the PB at the last meeting could be made by the Town Clerk. However, since this AG contact is out of the office for a prolonged period, another approach will be required.

On discussion, the PB decided to ask for Town Counsel review of the AG's response to the Bylaw in two phases: Counsel's advice on how best to get the AG to reconsider this point, and Counsel's review of, and opinion on, the entire AG's response to the Bylaw. Chair Freedman asked Planning Administrator Mansfield to speak with the Town Administrator and explain that the contact at the AG's office is not available, and that the PB wants to start the response process through Town Counsel. He asked Mansfield to review the AG's other concerns (several items that have been part of the Bylaw for some time and were previously approved by the AG's office, such as setback distances) with Counsel, and to confirm from the TA whether this review will be covered in the Town's retainer agreement with Counsel.

At the request of the Housing Authority (HA), Administrative Coordinator Elizabeth Barnett forwarded a draft of a DHCD-required deed restriction in the form of a Regulatory Agreement, which would be signed by the Town, the property owner, and DHCD. This document is required for DHCD approval of the program, which is necessary if the units are to count on the Town's affordable housing inventory.

Chair Freedman explained that there are still other aspects of the AAA program that the Town needs to develop, such as the procedure for getting the $15,000 subsidy to the resident. He also said that in his opinion this proposed agreement that the DHCD requires seems to complicate the process and may require an owner to sign on to aspects beyond his control . Based on feedback from one lender, the requirements may also eat up a large amount of the subsidy. Chair Freedman suggested having a member of the Housing Trust review the draft document. He and Epstein agreed that HT member Greg Peterson be asked to review it.

Chair Freedman asked all PB members to send their comments on the document to him, Epstein and Mansfield. Lane pointed out that the deed restriction should not run with the land but with the owner, and Chair Freedman agreed. Freedman asked Mansfield to obtain from Barnett the version of the document that she forwarded to potential lenders with any blackline changes shown, and to confirm the origin of the changes.

Planning Administrator Mansfield explained that Conservation Administrator Willard had circulated a memo explaining that the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs is offering communities the opportunity to extend the 5-year eligibility period for the OS&R Plan to 7 years. Only towns with a plan approved within the previous 5 years, such as Carlisle, are eligible.

Submitting an extended document would allow postponement of preparing a completely revised document for another 2 years. Willard suggested in her memo that since the full plan revision is a lengthy, time-consuming, and therefore costly process (in staff hours), at this time it would be best to submit an extended plan.

The only requirements for submitting an extended plan are that the plan must be extended for 2 years and that the information added to the plan must be added in a public session. Only the list of initiatives in the plan needs to be revised to accommodate 7 years. No existing information may be removed from the plan. The deadline for submission of the extended plan to the State is February 28, 2010. Willard has asked that all submissions be provided to the ConsComm office by 1/29/10. This will be discussed in more detail at the 1/11/10 meeting.

Chair Freedman noted that the ZBA public hearing will continue at their meeting tomorrow night, and that he will likely have the opportunity to present the PB's memo to the ZBA summarizing its preliminary comments on the application and plans. The ZBA had acknowledged receipt of the memo at their last meeting (11/30/09) at which they opened this hearing. Freedman said he plans to reiterate, per the PB memo, that the ZBA not send the application out for engineering peer review until some more issues get settled.

The applicants had filed a Notice of Intent (NOI) with ConsComm, and this hearing will be held at the 12/17/09 ConsComm meeting. Planning Administrator Mansfield had noted that the site plans filed with ConsComm differ in some significant ways from the ones filed with the ZBA. He noted that, for example, bioswales are not shown on the plans submitted to ConsComm, and the plans were submitted as new plans and not revisions. Chair Freedman said he will bring up this point to the developer at the 12/15/09 ZBA hearing, and noted that he also had a few questions on the plans.

Chair Freedman said that the Fire Department had forwarded their comments on the application and plans to the ZBA as well, and that the Fire Chief had asked that the cistern have its own well. Chair Freedman will clarify to the ZBA that, since they are acting also as the PB on this application, while they get feedback from the Fire Department, they then should consider it and balance it with the overall needs and requirements regarding this application, and do not simply adopt the feedback.