Town of Carlisle
MASSACHUSETTS 01741
------------
Office of
PLANNING BOARD
66 Westford Street
Carlisle, Massachusetts 01741
Tel. (978) 369-9702
Fax (978) 369-4521
Minutes
April 12, 2010
Minutes 3/22/10
Bills
Budget
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.]
Request for review of application for Comprehensive Permit for Benfield Farms, South Street (Map 5, Lots
7-1 thru 7-4) with Zoning Board of Appeals (10/24/09 - Neighborhood of Affordable Housing
[NOAH], applicant) - revised plans submitted 3/10/10 (Request of Board of Appeals - 11/05/09 -
Draft peer review letter 4/2/10)
Review of revised draft of Affordable Accessory Apartment proposed deed restriction (Request of
Housing Authority)
Joint Public Hearing in accordance with the Scenic Roads Bylaw, Article XII, and the Public Shade Tree
Act, MGL Ch. 57, Sec. 3, on request to remove approximately five (5) trees and portions of a
stone wall to provide driveway access to Lot 1 of Benfield Parcel A on South Street (Request of
Neighborhood of Affordable Housing)
Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the Zoning Bylaws as follows:
Sec. 5.2, Wetlands/Flood Hazard overlay district to conform with revised FIRM maps effective
6/4/10;
Sec. 2.2, Location of Districts, to conform with revised FIRM maps effective 6/4/10;
Sec. 7.6, Site Plan Review and Rules and Regulations for Site Plan Review consistent with Zoning
Bylaw Sec. 7.6 (Request of Board of Selectmen)
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, Kent Gonzales, and Nathan Brown, and Planning Administrator George Mansfield were present. Member Carol Nathan was absent.
Gretchen Caywood, Administrative Assistant to the Planning Board, Tim Goddard (Town Administrator), Tim Hult (Chair, BOS), Doug Stevenson (BOS), Gary Davis (Tree Warden), Ed Rolfe (ZBA Chair), Mark Beaudry (Meridian Associates), Toby Kramer (NOAH), John Bakewell (Rutland Street), Alan Carpenito, Ray Kubacki, Juergen Lemmermann (all of South Street), Jeffrey Johnson (Tophet Rd), and Bob Zielinski (Carlisle Mosquito) were also in attendance.
Minutes
The PB reviewed the draft Minutes from the PB meeting of 3/22/10, and one revision was suggested. Lane moved to approve the Minutes as amended, Lamere seconded, and the motion was approved 6-0.
Budget
The PB reviewed the FY2010 budget status, finding the overall budget expenditures to be on track.
Liaison Reports
Chair Freedman reported that he, Planning Administrator Mansfield and Town Administrator Goddard recently met with two individuals, one a project organizer and one a facilities developer, to discuss their interest in possibly installing wireless sites on Town owned land. This would be their first wireless facility installation. Their interest is in facility installations on wooden poles of 60 - 80 feet in height using unshrouded, vertical antennas. The poles apparently could be shrouded if necessary to comply with the Wireless Bylaw. Freedman pointed out that the discussion was preliminary, and that the parties would submit a proposal to the Town Administrator with the understanding that if their proposal is for installation on Town owned land, it would need to be put out for competitive bid. Chair Freedman noted that
they mentioned possible interest in other sites that are not Town owned land, and would file applications once they have obtained providers. Chair Freedman had asked the potential applicants to consider devising a comprehensive plan of site locations.
Joint Public Hearing in accordance with the Scenic Roads Bylaw, Article XII, and the Public Shade Tree Act, MGL Ch. 57, Sec. 3, on request to remove approximately five (5) trees and portions of a stone wall to provide driveway access to Lot 1 of Benfield Parcel A on South Street (Request of Neighborhood of Affordable Housing)
Chair Freedman reported that several PB members had recently walked the site, along with resident John Bakewell, a MA Certified Arborist. Mark Beaudry of Meridian Associates, site engineer and landscape architect for the applicant, reviewed the site along the frontage of Benfield Parcel A on South Street, the site of a proposed 26-unit senior affordable housing facility. Since the site will be served by a single loop drive, there will need to be two sets of curb cuts at the frontage. Beaudry explained that while the revised plans submitted 3/10/10 depict a driveway of 24-ft width within the site and 22-ft width at the entrances with 1-ft hard shoulder on each side, the Fire Department wants a 24-ft wide driveway at the entrances also. All curb radii at both entrances will be 20-ft. Beaudry explained that this entrance width
will necessitate removal of 40 feet of stone wall at the planned north entrance location, along with 2 trees that are in the planned driveway. At the planned south entrance location, approximately 15 feet of stone wall would need to be removed, as some of the wall is not continuous at that location, and 3 trees that are in the planned driveway area and in the line of site to South Street traffic. Beaudry noted that the stone wall along this parcel is not in good condition in many areas, and explained that the stones from the sections of wall to be removed would be used to repair the areas of stone wall that are minus some stones, as well as to enhance the entrances to the site.
At the proposed south entrance location, a 27" diameter oak (described as not healthy) and a 6" diameter oak are proposed to be removed as they are in the planned driveway area. A 6" diameter maple that is south of the planned south entrance area is also proposed to be removed to clear the line of sight to South Street traffic. At the proposed north entrance location, a 4x9" diameter cluster maple and a 10" diameter locust are proposed to be removed as they are in the planned driveway area. When Chair Freedman asked if the Conservation Commission would have jurisdiction regarding these proposed tree removals, Beaudry explained that the request is before ConsComm now, as some trees are in the wetland buffer zone. He added that the applicant also plans to clear brush and scrub materials which are
outside delineated resource areas along this area of South Street. Beaudry noted that he is meeting with the Building Commissioner this Wednesday, and will subsequently meet with the Fire Chief.
At this time, Chair Freedman asked the PB members if they had any questions. With none forthcoming, Freedman displayed a series of photographs he had taken depicting the entire frontage of Parcel A on South Street, clearly showing the existing trees and vegetation in the area. He pointed out a small tree very near the marked cluster maple (at the proposed north entrance area), and suggested to Beaudry that, since it is in the right-of-way and meets size criteria that require Scenic Road approval, the applicant should consider proposing removal of this tree also, as its removal would probably be necessary to construct the proposed driveway.
The PB and the applicant's representatives reviewed the displayed photograph. Chair Freedman pointed out that once the planned north entrance trees and the brush are removed, there could be a frontage of about 90-ft that would be generally open. Likewise at the planned south entrance, when trees and brush are removed, there could be a frontage length of about 120-ft that is generally open. He explained that according to the Scenic Road Rules and Regulations, the PB can require compensatory actions by the applicant. He confirmed from Beaudry that the proposed tree plantings intended to screen the building consist of both deciduous and evergreen, and suggested that they be planted closer to the stone wall than depicted in the landscape plan. Beaudry agreed. Bakewell had suggested that red maples be
used for compensatory tree plantings. On reviewing the photo, he suggested some
locations for them and that they be tucked in near the stone wall to help mitigate the open look that will result from brush removal. Chair Freedman confirmed with Tree Warden Gary Davis that it is permissible to plant the trees in this manner.
Chair Freedman explained for those in attendance that some years ago the Town adopted a Scenic Roads Bylaw, designating the PB as having jurisdiction, and that South Street was among the roadways designated as a scenic road. This is why PB consent is required for tree removal and stone wall alteration in the right of way. Article XII of Carlisle's General Bylaws lists the designated scenic roads in Carlisle, and describes the procedure for designation of a scenic road. Concerning requests for scenic road alteration submitted to the PB, the Board must hold a public hearing to discuss the request, and Section 3.4 of the PB's Scenic Road Rules and Regulations lists the criteria the PB must consider in rendering a decision on the request. Freedman also read a portion of a Warrant Article approved at the October 2006 Special
Town Meeting as follows: "every effort is to be made to maintain to the extent practicable the rural vista of South Street." Freedman suggested that this Article reinforced the Planning Board's responsibility to protect the rural vista in front of the proposed project.
Chair Freedman asked the public for questions. Ray Kubacki (South Street) specified that he is not an abutter to the proposed site, and commented on the size of the proposed building, noting that it is one large, 3-story building instead of the separate smaller buildings depicted in presentations at initial meetings concerning this project. He said that the building now proposed clearly is not in keeping with maintaining the vista on this scenic road. Chair Freedman explained that the building is not within the PB's purview under the Scenic Roads Bylaw, notwithstanding the section of the regulations concerning a no-build alternative, and that this hearing is to address proposed tree removal and stone wall alteration on the scenic road. The PB can ensure that at least some trees are planted right at the stone wall to
provide some added screening. Chair Freedman added that the PB has not yet provided its written official response to the ZBA concerning their review of this proposed project, and that while one of the items the PB is concerned about is the proposed width of the access ways into the project, even if these access ways were narrowed to 18-feet the trees under discussion would still need to be removed. He added that brush removal is not part of the scenic road hearing, and is allowed by right, subject perhaps to the Town Meeting vote concerning preserving the vista.
Alan Carpenito (South Street) presented a geometric sketch of the building, street, and distance to the tree line of the trees that will remain behind the proposed building (well into the site). He explained that if one is standing on South Street, these trees are about 200-feet away and with the height of the proposed building, no one will be able to see those trees. He stated that the proposed building will block them. He also noted that one of the proposed entryways would be near the tallest point of the building, which is also at its closest point to the road. He suggested that this will be difficult to screen. Carpenito gave the example that Assurance Technology, also on South Street, has only about 6800 sq ft of their structure (which is an old colonial structure) facing South Street, while this proposed
building will have its entire 30,000 sq ft facing South Street. He said that it is clearly not what the residents were told the Town would get in this project, and that 40-50-ft high trees would need to be planted near the stone wall to screen this building. Juergen Lemmermann (South Street), expressed his complete agreement with the concerns expressed by his neighbors.
Toby Kramer from Neighborhood of Affordable Housing (NOAH) said that prior to the building permit stage, a file landscape plan will be submitted which will show the number and type of trees to be planted, and that shrubs and other low level plantings can be used to soften the view. Chair Freedman explained that, in its written response on this project to the ZBA, they will address screening vegetation and specific tree locations, and that there will be additional opportunities to address the screening of the vista.
N. Brown suggested that there may be ways to lessen the impact on the stone wall, as the applicant is looking to remove about 10% of it. Beaudry agreed that the stone wall could be left closer to the entryway at the north entrance, reducing this cut from 40 ft to about 34 ft. Epstein explained to those in attendance that the PB's tree removal jurisdiction is for perennial woody plants that are 4" in diameter at 4-ft of height, and therefore does not include brush. Epstein also noted, for the record, that while the width of the entrance roadways will be dealt with in another forum, a vote in favor of tree removal does not indicate support of this 24-ft wide roadway. Beaudry explained that even if the proposed entryways were reduced, the hard gravel width would still need to be 24 feet.
Epstein asked if a more detailed landscape plan could be approved by the ZBA as part of the comprehensive permit, since this is a sensitive scenic road vista. Kramer pointed to the added expense of preparing this plan prior to project approval. Epstein said that he would feel better about this situation if he could be assured that the appropriate representatives of the Town will have approval over a final landscape plan even if such is not available before the permit is granted.
Lamere said that while the vista is unique, since invasive bittersweet has taken over the area, it is not similar to other roads in Town which tend to have spaced trees, visible walls and less brush. He suggested that the applicant be relied upon to come up with a planting solution that includes low level screening.
Lamere moved that the PB consent to the removal of 6 trees - 5 as identified in the public hearing notice and a 6th (4" in diameter) just north of the cluster maple and just at the roadside edge of the stone wall - and with the consent conditioned on the granting of the comprehensive permit for Benfield Farms and on the issuance of the building permit for development of the project. Lamere also moved that the PB consent to the removal of stone walls up to 5-ft to either side of the approved roadway base, and that compensatory plantings of at least 5 red maples or equivalent all of 2" caliper, within 50-ft of either side of the centerline of the south entrance and 60-ft south of the centerline of the north entrance, and that stones taken from the area are to be used to create a traditional farmers wall within the first
10 ft of either side of both entryways. On discussion of a recommendation of John Bakewell, Planning Administrator Mansfield suggested amending the motion to require a greater number of slightly smaller trees. Lamere revised his motion to require a minimum of 8 compensatory tree plantings with a range of 1.5-2" caliper. Epstein seconded, and the motion was approved 7-0 (6 PB members and Tree Warden Gary Davis). Epstein asked that the PB recommend that the ZBA review a detailed landscape plan.
Lamere moved to close this PB public hearing, Epstein seconded and the motion was approved 6-0. Gonzales left the meeting at this point.
Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the Zoning Bylaws as follows:
Sec. 5.2, Wetlands/Flood Hazard overlay district to conform with revised FIRM maps
effective 6/4/10;
Sec. 2.2, Location of Districts, to conform with revised FIRM maps effective 6/4/10;
Sec. 7.6, Site Plan Review and Rules and Regulations for Site Plan Review consistent
with Zoning Bylaw Sec. 7.6 (Request of Board of Selectmen)
Chair Freedman explained that while the PB has been working on the development of these Zoning Bylaw amendments for quite awhile, at the request of the BOS, these 3 Warrant Articles are formally being proposed by the BOS. At this hearing, he said, the Town Administrator and the PB will present the proposed Bylaw amendments and explain their overall purpose, as will be done at the May 10th Town Meeting. He noted that the BOS has also asked that this hearing incorporate the propose amendments to their Site Plan Review Rules and Regulations.
Town Administrator Tim Goddard presented the proposed revisions to the Wetlands/Flood Hazard overlay district Bylaw (WFHD) using a GIS version of Assessors Map #13 which depicts an area of town near Brook Street. He explained that the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) were last revised in 1988, and that there are new revisions which change the label designations for the WFHD and the 100 year flood zone, as well as some notations on the maps, but do not at all change the locations of the designated areas in Carlisle. The new FIRM maps will be effective 6/4/10 and that in order for the Town to continue to satisfy flood insurance requirements, the Town must adopt these new maps. The Town must adopt these reference changes to allow residents to continue to be eligible for flood insurance where appropriate. Goddard
reiterated that the WFHD and 100 year flood areas shown are to remain exactly the same as those on the 1988 map. Therefore there are no map changes that would impact any properties in Carlisle.
Town Administrator Goddard explained that there will be 2 Warrant Articles on this topic at Town Meeting: one for the Zoning Bylaw text amendments and one to accurately reference new Map panel reference numbers and tie them into our Assessors' maps. Epstein suggested that when Goddard presents these Articles to Town Meeting, he state that there is "no practical change" to Carlisle residents concerning these amendments.
Concerning Site Plan Review (SPR), Chair Freedman explained that proposed amendments to both this Bylaw and these Rules and Regulations will be discussed in this hearing, as advertized. Selectman Tim Hult presented the proposed amendments. Hult explained that the site plan review process is for projects that fall outside normal single family residential development, and that there are generally only one or two such projects per year. He added that experiences gained in reviewing applications of this type over recent years had illustrated that the process needed some modification and clarification to make it more appropriate for various sized project and also make it easier for applicants to go through the process.
Hult explained that the proposed amendments for SPR Bylaws and Regulations fall into 4 areas: 1. Removing some specific requirements (Bylaw), which will remain included in the Regulations, in order to allow them to be waived when they do not apply to an application, 2. Emphasize and clarify an 'up front' process (Regs) coordinated by the PB, with pre-application meetings and discussions encouraged, 3. The introduction of the requirement of a Construction Management Plan (CMP) into the SPR process, and 4. Clarification of the role of the PB and Planning Administrator as the coordination point of the process, as the Planning Department has the most experience and expertise, explained Selectman Hult, in compiling input from all Boards and Committees, formulating conditions, and making recommendations to the BOS. The BOS then
balances the applicant's request with the conditions developed by the PB. Selectman Hult thanked PB Chair Freedman and Vice Chair Epstein for their hard work on this process.
Selectman Hult and the PB discussed the addition of Section 7.6.3.8 to the Bylaw, which addresses the protection of public health and safety, and the maintenance of ways against extraordinary wear or damage that may be caused by construction operations.
When the SPR Bylaw Warrant Article is presented at Town Meeting, Chair Freedman suggested highlighting the examples of Center Park, Assurance Technology, and Ferns Country Store as recent SPR applications. Concerning the SPR Rules and Regulations, Chair Freedman explained that the proposed amendments were presented to the BOS at their March 9th and March 23rd meetings. Selectman Hult added that the BOS will consider adopting these amended Regulations at their April 27th meeting conditioned on the subsequent approval by Town Meeting of the amended Bylaw.
Selectman Stevenson thanked all PB members for their hard work on these amendments, but noted that he is not in favor of the proposed amendment to Section 7.6.2 which extends the allowed time between PB receipt of the complete SPR application and its submission of a report to the BOS to 45 days (from 35). Chair Freedman noted that he had checked with other towns finding that in Concord, for example, the SPR hearing cannot be opened until 28 days after submission of all SPR application materials.
Town Administrator Goddard reported that both the proposed amended SPR Bylaw and the Regulations were mailed to all local businesses. Planning Administrator Mansfield reported that he had sent the proposed amended Rules and Regulations to all Boards and Committees that would be involved in the SPR process. No comments were received.
Lamere moved that the PB support Warrant Articles 25 and 26 concerning the Wetlands/Flood Hazard District and the adoption of the FIRM maps. N. Brown seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0. N. Brown moved that the PB support Warrant Article 27, proposed amendments to Site Plan Review Zoning Bylaws. Lane seconded and the motion was approved 5-0. Lamere moved that the PB recommend to the BOS the proposed language in the amended Site Plan Review Rules and Regulations. N. Brown seconded, and the motion was approved 5-0. Epstein moved and Lane seconded the closing of this public hearing, and the motion was approved 5-0.
Request for review of application for Comprehensive Permit for Benfield Farms, South Street (Map 5, Lots 7-1 thru 7-4) with Zoning Board of Appeals (10/24/09 - Neighborhood of Affordable Housing [NOAH], applicant) - revised plans submitted 3/10/10 (Request of Board of Appeals - 11/05/09 - Draft peer review letter 4/2/10)
Chair Freedman proposed a brief PB meeting on Monday, April 26th to discuss the PB's formal response to the ZBA regarding this application, thereby allowing a draft of the PB's response to be prepared for review at the May 3rd PB meeting to meet request from the ZBA for comments and recommendations to be received by May 5.
Epstein left the meeting at this point.
Review of revised draft of Affordable Accessory Apartment proposed deed restriction (Request of Housing Authority)
Planning Administrator Mansfield explained that he had not yet received the most recent revisions to this document from the Administrative Coordinator, and therefore the PB does not have the latest documents to discuss. He reported that on Wednesday, April 21st, both he and Chair Freedman are invited to meet with representatives from the Housing Authority (HA) and the BOS and with a resident interested in converting his accessory apartment (AA) to an affordable accessory apartment (AAA), with one goal being obtaining feedback on this process from the resident.
The PB discussed the process, again noting their concern that the proposed Deed Restriction document does not agree with the AAA Bylaw: in the Bylaw, the special permit runs with the owner and in the Deed Restriction document, the restriction runs with the land. Lane, liaison to the HA, noted that this type of Deed Restriction can be cancelled if a new property owner does not wish to renew an AA or AAA permit. Chair Freedman suggested that the HA should bring the Town Treasurer into this process to help resolve how the subsidy program can be managed and secured.
At 10:20 pm, N. Brown moved and Lamere seconded the adjournment of the PB meeting.
Respectfully Submitted,
Gretchen Caywood
Administrative Assistant
Carlisle Planning Board
| 
