Town of Carlisle
MASSACHUSETTS 01741
------------
Office of
PLANNING BOARD
66 Westford Street
Carlisle, Massachusetts 01741
Tel. (978) 369-9702
Fax (978) 369-4521
Minutes
January 25, 2010
Minutes 1/11/10
Bills
Budget; FY11 budget
Town Meeting warrant
Annual Town Report
Associate Member Positions
Liaison Reports
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.]
Public Hearing for proposed amendments to the Rules & Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land, last revised 6/10/02
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
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)
Review of revised draft of Affordable Accessory Apartment proposed deed restriction (Request of Housing Authority)
Consideration of proposed amendments to zoning map of Wetlands/Flood Hazard overlay district boundaries to conform with revised FIRM maps effective 6/4/10 (Request of Town Administrator)
Request for documentation of release of Lot 5 (56 Cutters Ridge Rd.), Map 22, Lot 61, Crestview Subdivision. Note: Tri-party agreement dated 3/20/87; no release on record. (Request of Attorneys Graham & Harsip)
MAPC request for proposals for technical assistance to help the Town achieve sustainable land use objectives or to establish partnership(s) with one or more local municipality.
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 was absent.
Gretchen Caywood, Administrative Assistant to the Planning Board, Alan Carpenito (South Street), John Luther (Building Commissioner), and Bob Zielinski (Carlisle Mosquito) were also in attendance.
Minutes
The PB reviewed the draft Minutes of the January 11, 2010 meeting, and a few revisions were suggested. Lamere moved to approve the Minutes as amended, N. Brown seconded and the motion was approved 6-0.
FY11 Budget
Chair Freedman noted that the FinComm hearing for the PB's FY11 budget is on Monday, February 22nd, and therefore the PB should discuss the budget in detail at the next meeting (February 8th).
Annual Town Report
Planning Administrator Mansfield reported that the PB's Annual Report is due February 5th. Chair Freedman asked Mansfield to request an extension of this deadline until after the February 8th PB meeting in order to allow the PB to review and discuss a draft of the PB's Annual Report submission at that meeting. The PB agreed that, if an extension of the deadline is not feasible, Chair Freedman and Planning Administrator Mansfield could review and finalize the draft on behalf of the PB.
PB Membership
Chair Freedman thanked Bob Zielinski, Mosquito reporter at tonight's meeting, for his article in the January 15th Mosquito in which he gave notice of the membership and associate membership opportunities with the PB. While there are 3 membership seats ending their term, two of the members intend to run for re-election. Member C. Nathan reported that she will not be running for re-election, and her seat will be open. The two Associate Member positions (appointed by PB and BOS jointly) are also open.
Mansfield reminded the PB that the Town Caucus is March 1st, and Chair Freedman asked all PB members to work on finding candidates, particularly for the one open elected Member seat, by the February 22nd PB meeting.
Liaison Reports
N. Brown reported that the Highland Building Stabilization Committee has selected an architectural firm, and that at their next meeting, the Committee will discuss the project with architects from this firm, as well as negotiate the contract for their work.
Lane reported on the recent Housing Authority (HA) meeting, and explained that Neighborhood of Affordable Housing (NOAH), the developer for the Benfield Farms project, has become aware of some unexpected expenses required for the project: a necessary wildlife study, since a rare species had been found at the site (blue spotted salamander), and the cost to procure necessary CAD files to perform a riverfront delineation. The HA approved the expenditure of $2,500 and $5,000 respectively for these items. Lane reported that the HA also agreed to reimburse NOAH for some other expenses, for a total amount of up to $15,000.
Having also attended the HA meeting, Chair Freedman reported that neither the PB's comments on the Affordable Accessory Apt Deed Restriction document nor the PB's proposed Subdivision Regulations revisions were discussed.
Public Hearing for proposed amendments to the Rules & Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land, last revised 6/10/02
Chair Freedman opened the public hearing, and noted that only Alan Carpenito was present from the public. Planning Administrator Mansfield explained that according to Massachusetts General Law (MGL) Section 41, Chapter 81, any revisions to the PB's Subdivision Regulations require presentation at a public hearing. While a subdivision is a "by right" development, it must conform to the PB's Subdivision Regulations. The PB oversees all subdivision applications. MGL also requires that the public hearing be noticed and that it be advertized in 2 consecutive editions of the local paper, and Mansfield pointed out that this had been done, as the hearing was advertized in the January 8th and 15th editions of the Carlisle Mosquito. The notice was also posted in the Town Clerk's office on January 8th. On
this date, Mansfield also distributed a draft revised Subdivision Regulations document to other Boards and Committees with a memo requesting their review and input, and noting the hearing date.
Chair Freedman presented the background of the development of the recommended revisions to the Subdivision Regulations [see attached draft of the Chair's presentation], and summarized the proposed revisions. He noted that both the BOH and ConsComm have asked for more time to review the proposed revisions, and that both have agreed to provide their input in time for review at the February 22nd PB meeting.
Chair Freedman reviewed the draft revisions to the Subdivision Regulations, explaining each of the proposed changes. The most significant revision to these Regulations is the incorporation of several guidance documents [Attachments A-D of the revised Subdivision Regulations]. These documents are to be incorporated in the PB's Rules and Regulations for various types of developments, where appropriate. Their main purpose is to achieve a high degree of consistency in the treatment of these various permitting processes, as well as to provide guidance to the applicants. Attachment A, General Development Standards, sets forth standards for development that should be applied, where applicable, to Subdivisions, Conservation Clusters, Common Driveways, and Senior Residential Open Space Communities. Attachment B, Policy
Governing Use of Town Advisory Groups, outlines a procedure for the PB to initiate the establishment of a Town Advisory Group to assist the PB and other Boards and Committees in addressing the application. Use of this group is intended to facilitate communication between the various Boards and Committees when reviewing the application. Attachment C, Agreement for Reimbursement of Expenses and Certification of Accuracy of Application, provides a form to be signed and used in all applications of these types before the PB. Attachment D, Construction Management Plan (CMP), requires the applicant to address specific issues in advance of construction for every development in Town of four or more residences, a subdivision of four or more lots, or a non-residential development, to safeguard the public health and safety, to maintain Town ways against extraordinary wear or damage, and to minimize impact of construction on the quality of daily life in Town. These
documents are referred to throughout the proposed revised Subdivision Regulations.
In Article III, Section 4 of the Subdivision Regulations ("Fire Protection"), revisions have been made to remove information that, according to Fire Chief Flannery, is no longer accurate. In its place, a statement has been added that the adequacy of a water source for fire protection shall be "... determined by the PB in consultation with the Fire Chief."
Pertaining to Article III, Section 5C of the proposed revised Subdivision Regulations ("Footpaths"), Building Commissioner Luther reminded the PB that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not approve the use of chip seal-type surfaces, and suggested that it not be used on any areas that are to be ADA accessible. The Chair pointed out that the proposed Regulations do not reference this surface treatment.
Article IV, Section 1, discusses the Construction Management Plan (CMP) detailed in Attachment D. It states that the CMP shall be approved and enforced by the Building Commissioner. To this point, Commissioner Luther asked what the funding provision is for his role in this process, as his salary is funded solely by construction permit fees submitted to the Building Department, and he has no labor budget available for this work. More importantly, Luther pointed out that his role is to inspect work from property lot lines and inward, and not for roadways. He suggested that the PB's consulting engineer for the project should inspect and report any findings to the PB, enforcing the CMP in this way. Referring to Attachment D (CMP) and the list of items the CMP should address, Commissioner Luther explained that some
items, such as noise control, are BOH issues, and some, such as truck routes, traffic and parking, are Police Department issues. When Epstein explained that the proposed regulations provide for the Building Commissioner to serve as a key person, coordinating with the Fire Chief and Police Chief in addressing the CMP, Luther explained that he is not paid for this work. Chair Freedman asked if the Building Commissioner role has any responsibility beyond construction, and Luther explained that once a lot is released by the PB for construction to begin, his role begins. The PB revised the draft Subdivision Regulations to indicate that the PB shall approve the CMP, and removed the enforcement statement referring to the Building Commissioner. Chair Freedman confirmed that the PB will hold a security for any project work, and the PB's review engineer can bring problems to the PB's attention, with the PB enforcing the CMP through lot release procedures.
Concerning Article IV, Section 1.B, "Hours of construction", Luther suggested that the on-site Saturday construction hours be revised to 8 am - 4 pm (rather than the proposed 9 am - 5 pm), noting that generally the contractor must begin earlier than 9 am for a construction day to be worthwhile. He added that he does not have a say in the hours of roadway work. Concerning the details of the CMP, Chair Freedman asked Planning Administrator Mansfield to check with the DPW Superintendent as to which matters he would have a role in.
Building Commissioner Luther offered input on the roadway cross section proposed in the Subdivision Regulations (Exhibit G). He suggested reducing the loam depth at the roadway shoulders to 2-inches from the proposed 6-inches, noting that trucks will tend to create ruts in deeper loam and that 2" was adequate for grass. Chair Freedman agreed to look into this by checking other town's subdivision regulations, and also asked Mansfield to check with the PB's engineer at Nitsch Engineering. Luther also pointed out that the contractor working on the project will want to finish the roadway as soon as possible. Then when large equipment is brought in for individual lot construction, there may be damage to the finished roadway. Luther suggested that there be a provision for a bond for roadway repair in case it is
damaged, noting that some other towns require a $5000 bond as a "Street Opening Permit". Planning Administrator Mansfield suggested that Article X Section 3 of the Carlisle General Bylaws ("Public Ways") should perhaps be revised to include this provision, and that this was likely an issue Luther could pursue with the Board of Selectmen.
Chair Freedman reported that Deb Belanger, Chair, Pedestrian/Bike Safety Advisory Committee, had forwarded suggestions in response to the PB's request for input on these proposed Regulation revisions. On behalf of her Committee, she recommended that the footpath construction conform to specifics established in the town's standard specifications (without chip and seal surface treatment). She also suggested that the static $15/lf contribution in lieu of construction of a pathway be replaced with a prevailing rate or indexed value. Chair Freedman asked the PB to carefully review Article III, Section 5.C of the proposed Regulations. Mansfield noted that according to Belanger the Town paid $20/lf for the installation of the Carlisle Pathways in Town Center and, according to Rob West, agent for the developer of Hanover Hill,
their cost was $35/lf. Freedman suggested that the amount must be reasonable but yet not so low as to entice a developer not to build pathways, and suggested a figure between $25 and $30/ lf for materials and installation. Chair Freedman asked Administrative Assistant Caywood to contact nearby and similar towns to determine the figure that they use in this regard. Lamere expressed concern that filling and seeding the disturbed area around new pathways are not addressed in the town's specifications and suggested this be addressed in the subdivision regulations.
After discussion, the PB voted to continue this public hearing to 7:45 pm on Monday, February 8, 2010.
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 reported that the attorney for Verizon Wireless contacted him expressing the Company's interest in amending their Special Permit. This Permit was approved by the PB on August 3, 2009 and is for co-location of wireless facilities on the existing monopole at 871 Bedford Road (Anderegg). Mansfield explained that the attorney had asked for a copy of the current Wireless Bylaw and Wireless Regulations, and Mansfield informed him that while the Regulations have been revised, the Bylaw revisions are not officially in effect yet. Chair Freedman asked Mansfield to learn more from Verizon about exactly what they are looking to do, and to speak with Town Counsel as to whether or not we should have the Bylaw revisions as amended by the State Attorney General's office posted promptly by the Town Clerk.
Consideration of proposed amendments to zoning map of Wetlands/Flood Hazard overlay district boundaries to conform with revised FIRM maps effective 6/4/10 (Request of Town Administrator)
Mansfield reported that Town Administrator Goddard had asked the State's Flood Map Coordinator to assist us in finding out the details of the changes to the FIRM maps. They were informed that the maps have not changed substantively, and that the properties of concern are outside the changes being adopted now. Upon their request, the owners of these properties will get a letter from FEMA stating that they do not require flood insurance on their properties. Chair Freedman asked Mansfield to follow up with Goddard to ensure that he was clear that the PB would await his and BOS determination regarding whether or not a Warrant article (and a possible PB-held hearing) would be necessary. Freedman also asked that Mansfield follow up with Goddard regarding getting advice from Town Counsel, as well as determining how affected landowners
in Carlisle would know to contact FEMA regarding changes to their properties.
Town Administrator Goddard also asked the State Coordinator for digital copies of the new flood maps. Chair Freedman asked Mansfield to ask Goddard to request GIS-compatible digital files.
Investigation of alternate or additional peer engineering review consultants and review of procedures regarding selection of such firms
Planning Administrator Mansfield reported that he had contacted Town Administrator Goddard to ask for a revised opinion from Town Counsel regarding procurement requirements for peer review services, particularly in light of the changes made by the Transportation Reform Act MGL Ch. 30B) signed last June.
Counsel's written response said that, based upon their review of the changes to Ch. 30B, they are in agreement that peer review services have now been exempted from 30B, and therefore do not require that three quotations for services be obtained for amounts greater than $5000 but less than $25,000. Therefore, the PB can continue in the present manner of obtaining the appropriate peer review firm for a given application using sound business practices.
Request for documentation of release of Lot 5 (56 Cutters Ridge Rd.), Map 22, Lot 61, Crestview Subdivision. Note: Tri-party agreement dated 3/20/87; no release on record. (Request of Attorneys Graham & Harsip)
Planning Administrator Mansfield reported that the sellers' attorney had called and spoken with Administrative Assistant Caywood regarding this request, and that on review of the files for this subdivision there was no form O (Certificate of Completion) releasing the tri-party agreement on the subdivision. The tri-party agreement which releases all lots except 13 from the covenant was never recorded. While the sale has closed and there is no urgency, subsequently, the buyers' attorney called and, when Mansfield reviewed the files in detail, he located an "uncustomary" form of a release document that may suffice.
Chair Freedman asked Mansfield to contact the attorney's office and request that they cover the cost of this records search and any expenses involving PB review with Town Counsel and that, if they do not agree, they must file a formal public records request with the Town Clerk for PB staff to work further on the matter.
Consideration of amendments to Rules and Regulations for Site Plan Review consistent with Zoning Bylaw Sec. 7.6 (Request of Board of Selectmen)
Vice Chair Epstein reported that, as a follow-up to an email from Selectmen Chair Hult expressing interest in continuing work on the revisions, he had emailed Hult asking when the BOS would like to address this, but he has not heard back as of yet.
MAPC request for proposals for technical assistance to help the Town achieve sustainable land use objectives or to establish partnership(s) with one or more local municipality.
Planning Administrator Mansfield reported that MAPC is seeking proposals from member cities and towns for projects that meet sustainable land use objectives (e.g. development of LID regulations). These planning activities would be funded through the MAPC budget with no local match required. MAPC has requested a 1-page project scope, to be followed by discussions with MAPC staff. While there is no deadline, the MAPC hopes to have all funds allocated by March 31, 2010.
Chair Freedman asked the PB members to read the information provided from MAPC, for discussion at the February 8th PB meeting.
At 9:50 pm, C. Nathan moved and Lamere seconded the adjournment of the PB meeting. The motion was approved 6-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
Gretchen Caywood
Administrative Assistant
Carlisle Planning Board
| 
