Town of Carlisle
MASSACHUSETTS 01741
------------
Office of
PLANNING BOARD
66 Westford Street
Carlisle, Massachusetts 01741
Tel. (978) 369-9702
Fax (978) 369-4521
Minutes
June 23, 2010
Minutes 5/24/10
Bills
Budget - **FY10 encumbrances
Summer meeting schedule (August)
Open Meeting Law amendments
"Green Community" status
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.]
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 4/7/10)
Request for amendment to cross-section detail of "Conceptual Pathway Plan" incorporated in Condition
#12 of Greystone Crossing Conservation Cluster special permit (Cross Street - Map 7, Parcels
38-A, B and C, and Lots 38-1 - 38-11) to substitute asphalt for stabilized crushed aggregate
surface (Request of William Costello)
Request for discussion of informal conceptual plan for the subdivision of land at 291 River Road, Map 1,
Parcels 1, 1A and 1B (Request of Stamski and McNary, Inc.)
Chair David Freedman called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm in the Clark Room of Town Hall. Members Marc Lamere, Tom Lane, Kent Gonzales, Jeff Johnson, and Planning Administrator George Mansfield were present. Member Nathan Brown was absent. Member Michael Epstein arrived at 7:50 pm.
Gretchen Caywood, Administrative Assistant to the Planning Board, Louise Hara (Trails Committee), Greg Peterson (Indian Hill), Deb Belanger (Pedestrian/Bike Safety Advisory Committee), George Dimakarakos (Stamski & McNary, Inc.), William Costello (Concord, MA), Nicholas Holmes (New York, NY), Elizabeth and Maris Platais (River Road), and Mosquito reporter Bob Zielinski were also in attendance.
Bills
The Board reviewed bill submissions since the last meeting, including a local conference expense submitted by Planning Administrator Mansfield. Treasurer Lamere moved and Lane seconded a vote that the PB reimburse Planning Administrator Mansfield for registration and travel (mileage) expenses to attend a local conference of the Massachusetts Association of Planning Directors. The motion was approved 5-0.
Liaison Reports
Johnson reported on a recent MAGIC meeting (Minuteman Advisory Group for Interlocal Coordination) he attended. He noted that the main topics of discussion were water supply concerns as well as funding/ tax base concerns. The funding from Green Community programs has been less than expected because more towns qualified for this status than had been expected.
Chair Freedman referred to a 6/4/10 letter forwarded from the PB to the Energy Task Force regarding Green Community status designation, in which the PB invites members of the Energy Task Force to attend an upcoming PB meeting to explore issues related to helping achieve Green Community status for Carlisle. He noted that there has been no response as of yet.
Lamere reported on a recent GIS seminar he attended, one of a set of seminars being sponsored by the State. The seminar focuses on funding resources available to towns to update their GIS databases.
Epstein arrived at this point.
Minutes
The PB reviewed the draft Minutes from the 5/24/10 PB meeting, and two amendments were suggested. Lamere moved to approve these Minutes as amended, Johnson seconded, and the motion was approved 6-0.
Budget - FY10 encumbrances
The Board discussed re-encumbering a balance of $1527.50 remaining from a prior fiscal year and designated for retaining professional assistance related to the exercise of the Town's RFP for Personal Wireless Service Providers/Facilities, the need for which stated was confirmed in a memo from the Town Administrator. The Board also discussed re-encumbering a balance of $720 previously designated for consulting assistance in revising regulations if needed.
Vice Chair Epstein moved that the PB encumber the total sum of $2247.50 remaining from prior encumbrances for possible use in FY11 as noted. Johnson seconded the motion and it was approved 6-0.
August Meeting Schedule
The Board chose future Monday meeting dates of August 16, 2010, and September 13th and 27th, 2010.
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 4/7/10)
Chair Freedman reported on the ZBA hearing of June 8th on this subject, which Epstein attended. Snow removal issues were discussed, a main issue being that the only snow storage areas possible on the site are behind the parking spaces on one end of the site. At the ZBA meeting, Epstein explained that an Operation and Maintenance plan is necessary, and should include how and where the cars will be moved during a storm, so that the snow can be plowed and stored. Chair Freedman reported that at the subsequent ZBA hearing on 6/21, while snow removal was not specifically discussed, the ZBA decided on a condition of approval that all Operation and Maintenance plans must be reviewed for adequacy, and revised a condition to allow snow to be trucked off site. Chair Freedman also confirmed to Lamere, also a Trails Committee
member, that no snow storage will be permitted on unpaved parking spaces (which will also be an access to trails).
Landscaping was also discussed at the ZBA hearing, and Chair Freedman and Gonzales, also a ZBA member, reported that a revised landscape plan had been submitted, and sent to arborist John Bakewell for review. Gonzales explained that the documents provide that the landscaper will guarantee the plantings for one year, then the responsibility, in perpetuity, goes to the applicant.
Chair Freedman reported that a major change from the 6/21 hearing is that the ratio of the different levels of affordability of the units has changed. While the original application indicated that 22 units would be available at ? 60% of area median income (AMII) and 4 units at 100%, the applicant now wishes to change to 7 units available at ? 60% AMI and 19 at 100%. At the meeting, it was noted that this is a significant change. The applicant is seeking to enhance the initial revenue stream, and also would like, at a later date, to be able to move the affordable percentage up to 80% of median, and later 100%. Chair Freedman noted that the total number of units (26) will count as affordable because this is proposed as a rental project, even if only ¼ actually qualify as affordable at 80% or less AMI. He noted that at the ZBA hearing, he suggested to the applicant that they should not shoot for the minimum affordable content in their application.
Chair Freedman noted that at the ZBA hearing there was again a concern expressed by citizens about the design as one large building and not several smaller ones, as was proposed originally to Town Meeting in a conceptual phase. The applicant explained that this was done to generate a smaller footprint.
Signage for the Benfield site was also discussed. There is a 3' x 4'8" rectangular sign proposed for each entrance, Chair Freedman said that rectangular sign with somewhat modern lettering style is not in character with the area, noting that the Malcolm Meadows and Village Court signs are probably the most relevant. The former is a 9 sq ft oval which is 30 feet back from the road, and the latter is similar in size to the one proposed, but is 100' from the roadway. The Assurance Technology sign is 2.5 sq ft. Epstein agreed that the proposed signage design is not in keeping with a rural setting. Chair Freedman added that the applicant also proposes a 10' x 10' construction sign, and noted that the construction sign at the Hanover Hill subdivision site is a two-paneled sign with each surface 3' x
7'. On discussion, it was agreed that the PB will recommend that the construction sign be a maximum of 4' x 8', and may be two sided. Also, the PB will propose that the two permanent signs for Benfield Farms should be smaller and not rectangular, with a design more appropriate foor Carlisle.
Epstein referred to a letter from an abutter to the site regarding the importance of screening between their residence and the site, and Chair Freedman noted that he has suggested that language referring to the "adequacy of screening" be kept in the conditions related to the decision on this application.
Request for amendment to cross-section detail of "Conceptual Pathway Plan" incorporated in Condition #12 of Greystone Crossing Conservation Cluster special permit (Cross Street - Map 7, Parcels 38-A, B and C, and Lots 38-1 - 38-11) to substitute asphalt for stabilized crushed aggregate surface (Request of William Costello)
Planning Administrator Mansfield had explained to the PB that the applicant has requested the PB's consideration of a change in the specifications approved for the pathway parallel to Cross Street that passes through the open space parcels in this Conservation Cluster. The pathway is partially built, but the grading isn't complete and the final surface has not yet been installed. The applicant has provided a Conceptual Pathway Plan and detail sheet on the changes. They propose to revise the 2" stabilized crushed aggregate surface to a standard asphalt surface. It is the PB's decision as to whether this change, if acceptable, can be approved as a field change or requires a public hearing to amend the special permit decision. Mansfield noted that the Trails Committee has indicated support for the proposed change,
as has the Pedestrian/ Bike Safety Advisory Committee and the DPW.
Dimakarakos distributed a cross-section detail of the planned pathway. Chair Freedman confirmed through him that the elevation of some deeply excavated areas of the pathway will be raised. Dimakarakos explained that the specialized surface originally proposed is installed through a more complex process than simple asphalt, and the product manufacturer requires that they have a representative present during installation. This has made it more difficult to obtain contractor bids on the work. Also, the asphalt surface used at Hanover Hill is easier to install, and is lower maintenance than the stabilized crushed aggregate surface material.
Louise Hara (Trails Committee) confirmed that the Trails Committee is in favor of this proposed change. She did express concern about the pathway area between Captain Wilson Lane and Trillium Way, noting that it tends to wash out. The applicant agreed that measures would be taken to avoid this, and suggested that final grading, loaming and seeding would address the issue.
Deb Belanger(Pedestrian/Bike Safety Advisory Committee) agreed that the asphalt surface would be easier and more recreationally friendly, and noted that she is not surprised that the applicant had difficulty finding a contractor to install the proprietary mix. Belanger added that, if not done exactly per manufacturer, the material would not be under warranty.
Dimakarakos noted that the trail needs some buildup over almost all of it before the asphalt can be installed.
Epstein asked about the cost differential (supply and installation) between the two surfaces, and Dimakarakos estimated that the asphalt would be approximately 15% less expensive. Belanger noted that a precise "warrantied" installation of the specialized surface can even be 50-100% higher than asphalt.
It was noted that the applicant would be presenting the proposed change to ConsCom, as some of the pathway is within areas under their jurisdiction.
Lamere moved that the PB approve the change of surface material for the pathway at Greystone Crossing from the original stabilized crushed aggregate surface to asphalt per the pathway detail submitted on 6/23/10 by Stamski & McNary, Inc. as a field change based on the testimony from members of the Trails Committee and the Pedestrian/Bike Safety Advisory Committee that the change is acceptable and will not reduce the functionality of the pathway. Johnson seconded the motion, and it was approved 6-0.
Request for discussion of informal conceptual plan for the subdivision of land at 291 River Road, Map 1, Parcels 1, 1A and 1B (Request of Stamski and McNary, Inc.)
Nicholas Holmes was present as estate Executor representing the Estate of Rachel Elliott, owner of this property. Maris and Elizabeth Platais, also present, reside at 291 River Road.
Dimakarakos explained that this site is at the intersection of Skelton and River Road and spans about 40 acres consisting of mostly wooded property between the farmhouse and the Concord River. Planning Administrator Mansfield noted that a 2001 ANR plan created two pork chop lots with frontage on Skelton Road, and these lots have not been developed. These lots and the existing lot 1 are under a Ch. 61 tax classification (agricultural use), although the FY11 application to continue that status refers only to lot 1 and not the 2 pork chop lots. There is an existing common driveway accessing Skelton Road that crosses the necks of the two pork chop lots, and is used by 121 Skelton Road, which is in separate ownership. Mansfield pointed out that while this common drive is permitted, it may become necessary that the permit
holder ask for a modification of that special permit.
Dimakarakos displayed two conceptual plans for the property. The first displayed a proposed common drive that would cut through the middle of the lot containing the 291 River Road residence in its northeast corner. This common drive would be less than 1000 ft in length (not requiring a waiver for length) and the conceptual plan shown allowed for 7 lots. Dimakarakos noted that this common drive would cut right through pasture that is actively used for agricultural purposes, and would destroy scenic vistas. He suggested therefore this is not the proposal of choice.
The second conceptual plan proposed using the existing common drive at the necks of the pork chop lots, and extending it straight out before the bend at the end of the drive, and continuing into the back portion of one of the pork chop lots, for a total drive length of approximately 1200 ft. While this approach would require a waiver request since the drive would be over 1000 ft in length, it would not impact the pasture, and the extension of the drive would be placed along the natural landscape in such a way as to minimize its visibility in the vista. It would be mostly screened by trees from view by travelers along River Road. This second plan would allow for 6 large ANR lots, two of which would be over 7 acres and so can be kept under Ch. 61A. In this plan, the farm would continue to operate as it is.
Dimakarakos noted that all of the property is currently under 61A. This second approach would also require a new wetlands crossing, and the applicant planned to talk with the Conservation Commission at their meeting the next night (6/24/10).
The PB reviewed the proposed plans, focusing on the second one as the most suitable plan for the reasons cited above. Dimakarakos pointed out that the need for the length of the proposed common drive was to site it behind a knoll, taking advantage of the natural landscape for screening. He added that he expects this would be the only waiver request they would need to make. Epstein asked about the expected grade along the drive, and Dimakarakos said that in one area it may be 6%, and that the natural grade will be followed as much as possible. The proposed width of the drive would be 12 ft of pavement with 2 ft shoulders on either side.
Chair Freedman asked if there may be an opportunity for public trails, and Dimakarakos pointed out that the agricultural activity on the land must be taken into consideration. He added that the landowner is hopeful of finding a conservation buyer so that the proposed lots either are not developed at all, or are only minimally developed. He noted that some lots are to remain under family ownership.
Planning Administrator Mansfield noted that the 121 Skelton Road resident (the existing common drive special permit holder) would need to be a co-applicant to amend the existing special permit. Dimakarakos added that all 4 lots (the other 2 already being served by the existing drive) would access the proposed drive off of the cul-de-sac, and therefore only 4 potential homes would use the entirety of its length.
Elizabeth Platais, daughter of the late Rachel Elliott, spoke on behalf of this conceptual plan noting that, as an Elliott, she knows that many residents have utilized this land over the years and that she hopes to continue to share it with the Town. Nicholas Holmes, Executor of the estate and grandson of the original landowner, noted that the second plan was created purposely to maintain the beautiful vistas, and that the agricultural use will continue as well. He said that the plan as described has taken about 5 years to develop, and that his late grandmother had been able to provide much input on it. Elizabeth Platais said that, regarding trails, the land is still used by the hunt, trackers, and sled dogs, and that they have been happy to allow these uses by Carlisleans and others. However, a formal walking trail
may be problematic when the horses are out on the land.
Planning Administrator Mansfield informed the applicant that the PB has been approached by a developer regarding a nearby lot also for sale, with interest in discussing a potential "cottage community" development. They were not aware of this interest in the nearby land.
Epstein commended the family for their effort in preserving the natural surroundings, and said he is "favorably disposed" to this plan. Chair Freedman stated his similar inclination, and also suggested a provision not allowing further subdivision of the proposed lots, or a 40B. Holmes was in agreement with such a provision.
Elizabeth Platais cordially invited the PB to come and enjoy a walk throughout the property if they are interested.
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.]
Mansfield noted that he is still waiting to hear from the ConsComm concerning edits to the Conservation Restriction section of the Conservation Cluster Rules and Regulations. Chair Freedman said the goal is to finalize these CC Regulations, as well as those for Common Driveways and SROSC at the July 19th meeting. Chair Freedman asked the PB to send all comments on this draft of the CC Regulations by the end of the following week to him and to Epstein and Mansfield as well.
Other Business
Lane moved and Johnson seconded a motion that the PB authorize Chair Freedman to sign any final bills for submission at the end of FY10 (June 30th). The motion was approved 6-0.
At 10:10 pm, Gonzales moved and Lamere seconded the adjournment of the PB meeting, and the motion was approved 6-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
Gretchen Caywood
Administrative Assistant
Carlisle Planning Board
| 
