 |
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 24, 2011
Minutes 1/10/11
Bills
Budget; FY12 budget process
Liaison Reports
Review of application for Amendment to Site Plan Approval granted 9/23/08 under Sec. 7.6 of the Carlisle Zoning Bylaws for expansion of use of property at 8 Lowell Road (Map 22, Lot 43), dba Ferns Country Store (Request of Carlisle Center Ventures, LLC)
Continued Public Hearing on request for amendment to Common Driveway Special Permit (ID #62) originally issued on 2/14/84 at 121 Skelton road, to be known as “Elliott Farms,” to serve up to 6 lots (Map 1, Parcels 1, 1A, 1B, 2, 3, & 3B) Request of The Rachel Webster Elliott Trust – 2004, 291 River Road
Chair David Freedman called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm in the Clark Room of Town Hall. Members Michael Epstein, Tom Lane, Marc Lamere, Jeff Johnson, Kent Gonzales and Planning Administrator George Mansfield were present. Member Nathan Brown arrived at 7:55 pm.
Gretchen Caywood, Administrative Assistant to the Planning Board, Selectman Doug Stevenson, Building Commissioner John Luther, George Dimakarakos (Stamski & McNary, Inc.), Steven Ventresca (Nitsch Engineering),, Larry Bearfield (Proprietor, Ferns Country Store), Attorney Greg Peterson (Tarlow, Breed, Hart & Rodgers and Indian Hill), Elizabeth and Maris Platais (River Rd), Christina Collins (Sudbury Valley Trustees), Fontaine Richardson (Skelton Rd), Alan Carpenito (South Street), Ken Harte (Estabrook Rd), Robert Hilton and Annette and John Lee (all of Lowell St), and Mosquito reporter Bob Zielinski were also in attendance.
Minutes
The PB reviewed the draft Minutes from 1/10/11 and one amendment was suggested. Lane moved to approve the draft Minutes as amended, Lamere seconded and the motion was approved 6-0.
Liaison Reports
Chair Freedman reported that he had been in contact with Dan Cook (Chair, Carlisle Energy Task Force (CETF)) and Helen Young (Committee member), regarding the next steps and schedule toward development of a proposed Bylaw for as-of-right siting for solar facilities. The Committee had scheduled a public information session for February 9th at 7:30 pm to present the proposed Bylaw and site location of the transfer station, and will put the information on their website as well. They also sent the draft proposed Bylaw (excluding exact site metes and bounds) to the Green Communities division of the MA Department of Energy Resources (DOER) for their input. Planning Administrator Mansfield explained that since the public hearing for this proposed Bylaw will be site specific, abutters notices will
need to be sent out and Building Commissioner Luther offered to obtain the abutters list from the Assessor’s office. Chair Freedman reported that the CETF had met with various stakeholders to discuss possibilities for sites and other issues. He asked Mansfield to provide a spreadsheet contrasting and comparing the pros and cons of the potential sites for discussion at the February 14th PB meeting. Freedman said that the CETF will be invited to that PB meeting to discuss their decision on the site, then metes and bounds will be incorporated into the draft Bylaw before it is submitted to the BOS. The BOS then formally refer the hearing for this potential new Bylaw to the PB, with the hearing likely taking place at the March 28th or April 11th PB meeting. Mansfield will coordinate with the CETF and BOS concerning process.
Regarding the status of noise Bylaw discussions, Chair Freedman explained that it has been agreed that there is insufficient time to properly develop this draft Bylaw for the Spring Town Meeting, but that a group is being formed to develop the draft for a later Town Meeting. The group will likely consist of Freedman, Epstein, BOH member Cathy Galligan and Building Commissioner Luther, who will ask DPW Superintendent Gary Davis to participate as well. Chair Freedman asked Planning Administrator Mansfield to inform Town Administrator Goddard of the interest in forming this group which, if the BOS approves, will be formally created at the next PB meeting.
Brown arrived at this point.
Review of application for Amendment to Site Plan Approval granted 9/23/08 under Sec. 7.6 of the Carlisle Zoning Bylaws for expansion of use of property at 8 Lowell Road (Map 22, Lot 43), dba Ferns Country Store (Request of Carlisle Center Ventures, LLC)
Planning Administrator Mansfield and Chair Freedman had prepared a draft of the PB’s Report and Recommendations to the BOS concerning this SPR, and the PB members had reviewed this in advance for discussion this evening. Chair Freedman reported that the PB had received a letter from ConsComm stating that there are no areas under their jurisdiction on the property, but adding that the Commission does not see the need to again waive the filing fee for the SPR for this commercial venture. Regarding the sandwich board sign often displayed outside Ferns, he explained that the Historical Commission (CHC) had reviewed it at their 6/29/10 meeting, Bearfield having submitted an application for display of the signage, and that the CHC had issued a Certificate of Appropriateness (#10-03 dated 7/27/10) with
conditions concerning its display (black and white sign allowed in a specific location with no time limit, but understanding that message would change every two weeks or so). The PB’s draft Report and Recommendations points out that the applicant has agreed that there will be no exterior signage related to BYOB, and so this signage will not be used to advertize BYOB. The BOH stated that they had no comment on this application. The Police Department stated that they had reviewed the application and had no concerns.
Chair Freedman noted that the applicant proposes noon – 9 pm BYOB hours on Sunday, while the package store section is not open to sell beer and wine on Sunday. When he asked the applicant if he was proposing any change to the hours of the package store, the applicant said: “not under this application.” Chair Freedman noted that if the applicant did wish to extend those hours of sale, it could also be considered an intensification of use. Chair Freedman pointed out that the local Retail Package Goods Store License for selling wines and malt beverages, issued to Ferns Country Store clearly states “not to be drunk on the premises”, and suggested that a BYOB license might not be compatible with the Package Store license. Greg Peterson, Counsel for the applicant, said that
the applicant is aware that there can be no BYOB within the package store area, and added that there is a MA license that clearly defines the premises as the beer and wine shop and the sales checkout area. However, Chair Freedman explained that since the local license does not state this, and the applicant is seeking to allow BYOB in the country store, the Town may have an issue to clarify. Peterson explained that the intent is per the State license. When Vice Chair Epstein pointed out that the local license is therefore potentially more restrictive, Peterson agreed that the BOS will need to address this issue. Planning Administrator Mansfield asked Peterson if the BOS is provided with a copy of the MA license, and he responded that he was not sure.
Chair Freedman asked for public comment. Robert Hilton (Lowell Street) asked for a copy of the PB’s draft Report and Recommendations to the BOS. There were no other general public comments at this time.
The PB began reviewing its draft Report and Recommendations with the applicant. Bob Hilton (Lowell Street) noted that the package store in Groton and the connected BYOB restaurant (referred to in the draft Report) are actually separate businesses under separate ownership. He asked that this be noted in the Report.
PB member Brown asked for clarification as to whether it is legitimate to “section off” the building and say what activities can take place in which sections, since it is all one building. Chair Freedman explained that it is apparently allowed, and that the BOS has dealt with Town Counsel and the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission (ABCC) on this matter, with an understanding that it is a decision for the local licensing authority.
Chair Freedman informed the applicant that there have been comments from the public expressing concern about children in the store when the proposed BYOB hours begin at 4 pm. He suggested that starting the BYOB later would be helpful. The applicant stated a desire to keep the 4pm weekday start time for potential business such as people leaving the Cross Country ski venue at the State Park On discussion, the PB decided to accept the proposed hours, but to note this as a concern in their Report and Recommendations, leaving this policy decision to the BOS.
Regarding signage, Chair Freedman suggested that, although Ferns does not fall into the category of a pouring establishment as defined by State regulations, alcohol would be consumed in the café under a BYOB policy, so the applicant should post the State-supplied sign warning against driving under the influence of alcohol. He also suggested posting State-supplied signage about the penalties for having an open bottle while driving. Bearfield said there is no State signage requirement for BYOB, and said that he has already posted the signs required by the State for package stores. Epstein stressed that the PB’s goal here is to help ensure public safety, and that for the Ferns café BYOB, which would seem to be most similar to a BYOB restaurant, the posting of this signage is a
reasonable request – especially with the proximity of Ferns to the rotary. When Lamere asked if the State has any guidelines on signage requirements for restaurants with BYOB, Mr. Peterson said that it does not. Chair Freedman said that it is then up to local authorities to decide. Mr. Gonzalez stated his belief that requiring indoor signage went beyond the scope of what the PB should be considering. Mr. Peterson requested that any signage requirement not reference the State statutes as that could cause problems for the applicant. On further discussion, the PB decided to recommend as a condition of the BOS’ decision on this application that both a sign regarding driving under the influence and a sign regarding driving while drinking from an open container be posted in the café seating area designated for BYOB.
In its Report and Recommendations to the BOS, the PB recommended that pursuant to Section 7.6.3.1 of the Bylaws, the BOS not issue the Site Plan Approval until the ZBA has ruled on the appeal that is before it relating to whether a special permit is required for the existing use of the premises, with an indoor café seating area. Chair Freedman explained that at a December 2010 BOS meeting, the Selectmen stated that a special permit might be required, and that this would impact how they would need to proceed on this application. Also among the PB’s recommendations is that the BOS determine if the use contemplated in the application (i.e. BYOB) is in compliance with all provisions of the Zoning Bylaws (per Section 7.6.3.1).
In its Report and Recommendations to the BOS, the PB also detailed issues for the BOS to consider regarding the BYOB license and policy development. They noted the issues raised before the PB by residents concerning Ferns’ oversight of the BYOB, and listed points that should be included in policy development such as: the requirement that food be consumed by patrons using BYOB, oversight by qualified Ferns staff, and the scope and limitations of the role of Ferns staff and management in the entire BYOB process. The PB also included in its Report, that citizens should be reassured by the BOS that this newest application is not a step toward even more intensification of use (beyond BYOB), and that a term limit be imposed on the license in order to enable periodic evaluation of the operation. Other
issues were documented in the Report as well.
On concluding its review of the draft document, the PB voted in favor of submitting its draft Report and Recommendations to the BOS (7-0).
Continued Public Hearing on request for amendment to Common Driveway Special Permit (ID #62) originally issued on 2/14/84 at 121 Skelton road, to be known as “Elliott Farms,” to serve up to 6 lots (Map 1, Parcels 1, 1A, 1B, 2, 3, & 3B) Request of The Rachel Webster Elliott Trust – 2004, 291 River Road
Chair Freedman recused himself from this public hearing, and Vice Chair Epstein assumed the role of Acting Chair. Planning Administrator Mansfield noted the items submitted for this hearing since the last meeting, which included: revised common driveway plans dated 1/4/11, response from the applicant’s engineer (Stamski & McNary, Inc.) dated 1/5/11 to Nitsch’s first review as well as rain garden drawdown calculations, Nitsch’s response to Stamski’s comments (dated 1/21/11), pertinent excerpts from the MA Stormwater handbook regarding 10 Standards for Stormwater Management, Town Counsel opinion, received 1/24/11, regarding eligibility for Board members to vote if they miss a second meeting of a public hearing, and a letter from abutter Fontaine Richardson dated 1/24/11, summarizing
new issues.
George Dimakarakos (Stamski & McNary, Inc.) reviewed the changes to the plans, and remaining open issues with the PB engineer Steven Ventresca. Dimakarakos reported that he had met with the Deputy Fire Chief and agreed on revisions to the driveway entrance radii and to the locations of the driveway extensions off the end of the cul-de-sac. Also, the cul-de-sac inside and outside radii were made slightly larger to resize it without a significant increase in pavement area. Some widening is proposed at the driveway entrance, adding some pavement on the westerly side and providing gravel reinforcement to the shoulders. No trees will be affected if these changes are approved. Also newly proposed is a gravel area 31 x 40 ft in size near the driveway entrance for parking of 3 or 4 cars. The intention is that people could park in this area and walk back to Lot 6 to access the proposed conservation area. Acting Chair Epstein confirmed from abutter Richardson that he is in agreement
with this parking area.
Dimakarakos also said he had corresponded with the Deputy Fire Chief and with Building Commissioner Luther regarding street numbering. The applicant’s family would like to name the drive Elliott Farms Road, but keep the street numbering on Skelton Road. The applicant’s engineer acknowledged that this is a matter still to be resolved. The applicant still must request waivers concerning the length of the common driveway, since it is greater than 1000 ft in total length, and to the number of turnouts along it, since one was removed in the driveway repositioning. Acting Chair Epstein confirmed that the PB members are comfortable with the driveway layout and the waivers requested. Dimakarakos detailed that the length of the drive to the cul-de-sac is 1150 ft and the extensions are an additional
260 ft (for the extension serving Lots 4 & 5) and 245 ft (serving Lots 1 & 6), this layout having the least effect on the landscape.
Gonzales confirmed from Dimakarakos that while vehicular access to Lot 6 is planned, it is hoped that Lot 6 will be put into conservation and that no vehicular access will be needed. Nicholas Holmes (Estate Trustee) explained that signs to Lot 6 would be provided and placed by Sudbury Valley Trustees (SVT) and trails maps by the Carlisle Conservation Foundation (CCF). Holmes said that the Trust is amenable to an access easement wherever the CCF and SVT would like it. He said that they might be thinking of access along the drive and then into Lot 6. Greg Peterson (as a CCF member) explained that they expect visitors would park up front and walk back on a trail that would be partly in the common drive easement. He added that since SVT expects to do long term stewardship/ maintenance of any
conservation restriction at the site, they would need access for maintenance and upkeep only. Holmes said that he is confident that the Estate, SVT and CCF can agree to locations and that there is no need to put easements on these plans, particularly as the trail locations may evolve. However, Planning Administrator Mansfield reminded the PB that once lots are sold and the driveway is being used for residential access it can become more difficult to obtain desired locations to place a trail, and therefore easement locations should be depicted on the plan. Mr. Lamere, also a Trails Committee member, agreed and said that no trails should be adjacent to the drive unless there is a sidewalk. Lamere explained that people will tend to walk on the drive, and so plans should allow for this by having defined easements and a sidewalk.
PB engineer Ventresca addressed stormwater management at the proposed site. He explained that since the proposed development is more than four lots, it must meet the Ten Stormwater Management Standards (“SMS”). With the original (current) drive serving 2 potential lots, and the amended drive serving 4 lots (Lot 2 is not served by the amended drive), the Elliott Farms project is potentially a 6 lot development. Acting Chair Epstein explained that a restriction will be placed on any special permit issued for this application indicating that Lot 2 can never be accessed by the common drive. When Epstein asked for Dimakarakos’ view on the applicability of the SMS, he explained that the DEP cannot enforce these standards outside the buffer zone, and so their jurisdiction does not
include the existing portion of the drive. Therefore, with just 4 lots, the DEP does not require it to meet the 10 Standards. He said that stormwater runoff has been dealt with to the maximum extent practicable in this design. Ventresca agreed that the design incorporates stormwater management practices to the maximum extent practicable, and stated that he would have no issue if the PB agreed with this current plan, but would like to hear the opinion of the ConsComm on this matter, to be discussed at their next meeting. Ventresca added that Standard 2 (dealing with peak runoff and flood prevention) has not been met to address the larger storm events, and to meet Standard 4 (removal of at least 80% total suspended solids (TSS)) the applicant would need to re-size the rain garden in the cul-de-sac. Dimakarakos said that to completely meet these standards would require more drainage infrastructure, more design costs, and potentially larger drainage
basins. The current plan treats 70% of storms in total volume and in his opinion achieves a balance with preserving the landscape. Dimakarakos said that to completely meet all standards would require significantly more landscape impact, thereby countering the purpose of designing for a common drive (rather than a subdivision) to begin with. Ventresca said that in terms of low impact design credits (LID), the applicant’s current design is quite effective. Epstein said that while the PB is inclined to agree, ConsComm’s input will be considered. Elizabeth (Elliott) Platais (291 River Rd) said that the land is quite solid and, due to the landscape, will not be made soggy by runoff. She spoke in approval of the roadway location, and noted that she had ridden the land for over 60 years.
Acting Chair Epstein asked the applicant if discussions are on track for a resolution of remaining issues with abutter Fontaine Richardson. Holmes said he is confident that all matters can be resolved. Richardson (121 Skelton Rd) agreed, noting that the remaining issues are mainly the parking, and the screening of it, pedestrian safety (in transit to Lot 6), the routing of traffic, and the location of the pathway to Lot 6. Mansfield noted that the bioretention swales may make it difficult for pedestrians to walk along the drive, and Lamere offered to assist the applicant with siting the trail.
Acting Chair Epstein asked the applicant’s engineer to stake the areas of proposed alterations to the entrance of the existing portion of the drive (from Skelton Rd) as proposed by the Fire Chief and the parking area. He asked if the Fire Chief had agreed to the cistern specifications, and Dimakarakos noted that they had been developed it in discussions with the Deputy’s input and approval. Epstein asked Planning Administrator Mansfield to correspond with the Fire Chief asking for the Fire Department’s response to the revised plans for this project.
Although the ANR plan that accompanies this common driveway application has not been formally filed and is not under review at this meeting, Planning Administrator Mansfield explained that the applicant has asked for a waiver of the portion of the ANR filing fee associated with the small parcels of land being transferred among the 6 lots ($1000), requesting that the PB consider agreeing to the fee on the main 6 lots alone ($1700). Acting Chair Epstein asked Mansfield to check back to whether waivers of ANR fees on this basis have been granted previously, and report this to the PB at the next meeting.
Acting Chair Epstein moved that this hearing be continued to 8:15 pm on Monday, February 14th, Brown seconded, and the motion was approved 6-0 (Freedman recused). Epstein reminded Brown and Gonzales to provide written statements noting that they have each reviewed the recording of the previous hearing, which they were not able to attend.
At 11:25 pm, Brown moved and Gonzales seconded the adjournment of the PB meeting. The motion was approved 7-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
Gretchen Caywood
Administrative Assistant
Carlisle Planning Board
| |
