Town of Carlisle
MASSACHUSETTS 01741
------------
Office of
PLANNING BOARD
66 Westford Street
Carlisle, Massachusetts 01741
Tel. (978) 369-9702
Fax (978) 369-4521
Minutes
December 13, 2010
Minutes 11/8/10
Bills
Budget; FY12 budget process
Associate Member positions
Liaison Reports
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
Application for Amendments to Site Plan Approval granted 9/28/10 in accordance with Sec. 7.6 of the Zoning Bylaws for the Carlisle School Building Project, 83 School Street, Map 14, Parcels 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 (Request of School Building Committee)
Notice of receipt of application for Amendment to Site Plan Approval granted 9/23/08 under Sec. 7.6 of the Carlisle Zoning Bylaws for more intensive non-residential use of property at 8 Lowell Road (Map 22, Lot 43), dba Ferns Country Store (Request of Carlisle Center Ventures, Inc.) [to be scheduled for discussion on 1/10/11]
Discussion of proposed 10-voter petition to place a Noise Control Bylaw on the 2011 Town Meeting Warrant that would place limits on construction activities (Request of Virginia Lamere).
Chair David Freedman called the meeting to order at 7:45 pm in the Clark Room of Town Hall. Members Michael Epstein, Tom Lane, Marc Lamere, Jeff Johnson and Planning Administrator George Mansfield were present. Members Kent Gonzales and Nathan Brown were absent.
Gretchen Caywood, Administrative Assistant to the Planning Board, Selectman Doug Stevenson, George Dimakarakos (Stamski & McNary, Inc.), Steven Ventresca (Nitsch Engineering), Jonathan White (Deputy Fire Chief), Nicholas Holmes, Elizabeth and Maris Platais, (291 River Rd) Fontaine Richardson (Skelton Rd), Greg Peterson (Indian Hill), Sally Swift (River Rd), Carolyn Ing (Westford, MA), Lee Storrs (School Building Committee), Ginny Lamere (Rutland St), John Bakewell (Rutland St), and Mosquito reporter Bob Zielinski were also in attendance.
Minutes
The PB reviewed the draft Minutes from the 11/8/10 meeting, and a few amendments were suggested. Lamere moved to approve the draft Minutes as amended, Lane seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0.
Liaison Reports
Lamere reported that the Trails Committee went to the Chestnut Estates site and walked the parcel to review the location of the proposed trail on the site. He reported that on the north side of the site a resident appears to be encroaching into the Mannis Land and that the Conservation Administrator has checked into this, noting that the Mannis Land is not well surveyed. The designated open space parcel on this site abuts the Mannis Land. Lamere said that the wetland that drains under the bridge at the site is now producing a flow that does not seem to be channeled to the bridge correctly. That water now flows along a line of haybales, but there is no mediation for the flow when the bales are removed. Planning Administrator Mansfield will inform the PB’s review engineer of this
situation.
Epstein reported on the work of the Carlisle Energy Task Force (CETF), noting that the draft Bylaw for as-of-right solar facilities was submitted to Town Counsel and returned with minor comments, and these are now incorporated into the draft. At the last BOS meeting, the CETF presented the status of their work, and noted that the transfer station is the primary site of interest (for an overlay district) at this time. Epstein suggested that the PB should coordinate with the CETF as to when they would be attending an upcoming PB meeting to discuss their
work and continue the Bylaw development process. It was agreed to ask the CETF to send representatives to the 1/10/11 PB meeting. Chair Freedman noted Epstein’s suggestion that, if needed, the PB could facilitate a multi-group meeting to expedite the resolution of any remaining issues concerning the draft Bylaw.
Lamere reported that Fontaine Richardson, abutter to the proposed amended common driveway work at 291 River Road and Skelton Road, attended a recent meeting of the Conservation Restriction Advisory Committee (CRAC) with a preliminary plan to subdivide his property and put 2 lots under a conservation restriction. He said that CRAC was in full support of the area of land proposed for a CR (two parcels along Skelton Road).
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 acted as Chair. Acting Chair Epstein informed applicant Nicholas Holmes that with only four PB members present this evening (two not in attendance and Freedman recused), and the requirement of five affirmative votes for the issuance of a special permit, it will be necessary for the two members not present this evening to review the recording and notes from this meeting, along with all support documents. Epstein reported that both members have agreed to do this and that, according to Open Meeting Law, this will allow them to vote at the conclusion of the hearing on this matter. He asked Holmes if, under these circumstances, he wished to continue with tonight’s hearing, and Holmes asked to proceed with the
hearing.
Acting Chair Epstein reported that a sitewalk on November 14th was attended by members of the PB, PB Administrator Mansfield, Greg Peterson of the Carlisle Conservation Foundation (CCF), a representative of the Sudbury Valley Trustees (SVT), PB review engineer Steven Ventresca, and also by Fontaine Richardson, resident of 121 Skelton Road, which is currently served by the existing common driveway. While the CCF and SVT members pointed out the features of the land that are of interest to them, the applicants/owners of the land also suggested that the staked layout of the proposed driveway was not acceptable because it removed too many mature trees and disrupted the rural vistas on the property. Their suggestion was to move it closer to the river and wetlands, which would need discussion with
ConsComm.
Planning Administrator Mansfield reported that on 12/8/10, revised plans were submitted to the PB office, as well as to Nitsch Engineering, along with a memo from the applicant’s engineer summarizing the changes to the plan, a revised Drainage Analysis, and revised Cut and Fill Calculations. The PB office also today received the PB review engineer’s report detailing his review of the common driveway plans, initial and revised, for this project, along with the stormwater management report and earth removal calculations, and other supporting documents.
George Dimakarakos of Stamski & McNary, Inc. (engineer for the applicant) presented the revised plans, and reported on an additional hearing with ConsComm at which a shift in the proposed driveway location was discussed. The shift would move the driveway out of a stand of trees and the cul-de-sac to a lower point in a hollow of the land, better preserving the rural vistas. He noted that the change was amenable to ConsComm. The new layout will necessitate another waiver request to allow one fewer turnout on the driveway.
Acting Chair Epstein asked about the revised locations of the turnouts. Dimakarakos explained there are two turnouts before the cul-de-sac: the first at approximately 400 feet from the entrance and the second 300 feet from the cul-de-sac. Dimakarakos explained that the shoulders on the current drive were tested by digging several holes, assuring an appropriate layer of gravel underneath. Dimakarakos provided Mansfield with the revised ANR plan which modifies the originally proposed lot lines for Lots 1 and 6, He then displayed a plan showing what would be required if separate driveways were installed to access lots at the rear of the property, a less environmentally and aesthetically sensitive layout.
The applicant will need to request a waiver for the length of the proposed common drive (greater than 1000 ft). Dimakarakos displayed a diagram showing that the cul-de-sac would be located within 200 ft of the riverfront if the driveway total length was kept to less than 1000 ft, and that more tree removal would be required with greater
disturbance to the rural vistas. Planning Administrator Mansfield asked Dimakarakos to provide the total length of the common drive including the two branches emanating from the cul-de-sac (each branch serving two lots).
Chair Epstein asked each PB member their initial thoughts on these proposed changes in order to gain a sense of the Board, particularly on the length of the drive and on the revised turnout locations. Lamere confirmed from Dimakarakos that the two branches of the drive (from the cul-de-sac) are 12 ft wide with 2 ft hard shoulders to each side. Since the branches are each about 250 ft long, there should be no need for additional turnouts on them. Lamere stated his support of the proposed common drive length and location. On discussion, the PB members in attendance agreed that the length and turnout locations were acceptable.
The PB then reviewed a memo from the Fire Chief dated 12/4/10 with the Chief’s input from his review of the original plan set. Deputy Chief White was present to discuss this information. Dimakarakos reiterated the request for a waiver to the requirement of naming the common drive, and noted that there would be a street number sign at the juncture with the current portion of the drive, and at two other points along the new portion of the drive. White referred to the Fire Chief’s 12/4/10 memo in which the Chief requested that the new homes not be given Skelton Road addresses to avoid confusion. The memo also noted that the Fire Chief is in agreement with the proposed cistern location, and with the 12-ft width of the proposed common drive, as long as there are unimpeded 2-ft hard shoulders
on each side. He also reported that the Fire Chief is satisfied with the preliminary design overall. The memo expressed the Fire Chief’s concerns with the turning radius from Skelton Road onto the drive, particularly when approaching from River Rd, and with the outside radius of the proposed cul-de-sac. It was noted that, when approaching from the River Rd direction, the turn onto the drive is tight. Deputy Chief White said that with some adjustments to the entrance, a compromise could be reached, and that the Fire Department understood the desire to not in open up a “wide swath” at the entrance. Liz Platais (291 River Rd) reminded the PB about the existing cow tunnel under the drive entrance, and suggested caution about widening the entrance.
Concerning the cul-de-sac, Acting Chair Epstein pointed out that it is the same dimensions as the one used for the recently constructed Captain Wilson Lane (in Greystone Crossing) and has an outer diameter of 44 feet (including the shoulders) with 20-ft wide pavement. Deputy Chief White said that in winter, the fire truck will hit the snowbanks if the outer diameter is less than 50 ft. Dimakarakos agreed to meet with White regarding this issue, noting that it would require an additional fill to increase to this diameter.
Acting Chair Epstein asked Deputy Chief White for his opinion on the stability of the shoulders of the existing drive, and he said that he hasn’t checked them. Fontaine Richardson (121 Skelton Road, on the existing drive) said that ambulances and fire trucks have been on the drive to his house without problem (but did not address the issue of the shoulders). Lamere asked about the slope of the proposed more southerly drive extension out of the cul-de-sac and, when Dimakarakos said it was 10% at the steepest location, Lamere suggested moving that extension access slightly west on the cul-de-sac.
For next steps on this project, it was agreed that Dimakarakos will meet with the Fire Department to discuss their concerns, and will address all concerns in the PB review engineer’s memo dated 12/13/10. Concerning stormwater management requirements, Dimakarakos said that since only 4 new lots are being served by the common drive, it is not technically subject to meeting stormwater management standards, however the applicant is trying to meet these standards as much as practicably possible. PB engineer Ventresca agreed with this assessment, however added that at some point in the future, Lot 2 could be developed to access the drive. Mansfield suggested that the PB could condition their permit approval to state that Lot 2 cannot be accessed by the drive.
Speaking as a citizen, Freedman asked whether any changes to the existing drive would cause the entire drive to fall under stormwater management jurisdiction, and Dimakarakos said that it would not.
Ventresca pointed out that rock outcroppings noted on the plans indicate that there may be a need for rock excavation, and suggested that the applicant and the PB discuss options for the rock excavation, taking into account minimizing noise as well as on-site rock crushing, blasting, and rock transport from the site. On discussion, Epstein moved and Lane seconded the continuation of this public hearing to January 10, 2011 at 8 pm, and the motion was approved 4-0. Freedman resumed the Chair.
Application for Amendments to Site Plan Approval granted 9/28/10 in accordance with Sec. 7.6 of the Zoning Bylaws for the Carlisle School Building Project, 83 School Street, Map 14, Parcels 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 (Request of School Building Committee)
Chair Freedman reminded those in attendance that this is not a hearing, and the BOS will open the hearing for this application for amendments to the Site Plan Approval on December 21st. He reported that he had met with Selectman and School Building Committee member Doug Stevenson and discussed the proposed changes, and that he concurs with the BOS that the proposed changes require an amendment of the Site Plan Approval.
School Building Committee Chair Lee Storrs displayed the new and the original plans, and explained that the originally proposed location of the cistern was not going to work, and that they are proposing locating the cistern to south side of the brick building. This would necessitate widening School Street by 5 feet over a length of 20 feet flanking the new cistern location. The fire truck would access the cistern from the widened the roadway.
Another modification would involve changes to the now designated Fire Lane between the Robbins and Wilkins buildings, as the Fire Department has stated that access is needed for more than just roof antenna maintenance. Therefore, the radius of the pavement into the access lane would be increased somewhat, and the ramp as it continues to the plaza would be widened also. This would allow fire trucks to pull in to the plaza and back up into the courtyard. Paver material is proposed for these shoulders rather than using bituminous concrete. These changes will require the removal of 2 additional trees, one of which is a 36” oak. A total of 4 trees would be removed for this project. Chair Freedman asked about mitigation work to compensate for the additional trees removed. Storrs
said that currently the plan is to just seed the area where the trees are to be removed, as other plantings may impede fire truck access. Chair Freedman said that the PB will include in its report to the BOS that they acknowledge the loss of the 36” diameter oak. Stevenson noted that the SBC had discussed the 36” oak and had determined that its removal would actually save money currently spent to keep the tree alive and increased insurance costs because of the proximity of the tree to the school buildings.
Chair Freedman confirmed from Storrs that these proposed changes would still allow for possible changes in the future to improve the area between the buildings, and that there will not be Fire Lane markings on the plaza area. Storrs said that signage will be used to indicate the fire lane location.
Chair Freedman pointed out to Deputy Chief White that the PB had understood that the width of the ramp on the site had been agreed upon, but that these revised plans show the proposed width has gone from 12.5 ft to 13.5 ft. White explained that this was necessary for proper access by fire equipment. Chair Freedman explained that the PB’s role is to gather input from the departments toward compiling its Report and Recommendations to the BOS on the site plan review, and that it is difficult to provide definitive recommendations when items that were understood to be resolved are subject to revision. He suggested that there needs to be better coordination among the design process between the architect and the Fire Department and the design process with the SBC, and the Site Plan Review
process.
Chair Freedman suggested that since the Fire Department won’t need the pull-off area for the originally proposed cistern that is at the south entrance to the new parking area, this could allow for more green space and less impervious pavement. Storrs confirmed that the project will maintain an overall “no net increase” in impervious surface with these proposed changes. Lamere and Freedman suggested that half of the width of that area could be used as a sidewalk in order to provide a continuous sidewalk in the area. White confirmed that the extra pavement width at the entrance to the parking lot is no longer needed by the Fire Department.
Chair Freedman noted that it is his understanding that the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) has the responsibility for changes in public roadways, and said that they should weigh in on this proposed change before next Tuesday’s BOS hearing. Mansfield will confer with the Town Administrator about this matter. Lamere asked if the existing pavement of the Highland Building area could be used instead of widening School Street adjacent to the cistern, but White expressed concern that the fire equipment would be within the “fall zone” of the building, which is not appropriate.
Chair Freedman reminded Storrs that he had asked that someone reach out to the neighbors along School Street regarding this proposed work, particularly the widening of the roadway in front of their properties, and asked if this had been done. Storrs was not certain, and Freedman asked that he confirm that it had been done or arrange for the contacts to be made before the Public Hearing. Freedman also asked if the proposed widening would encourage drop-offs by parents, and double parking, and asked how this tendency would be minimized. Deputy Chief White said that there would be “no parking” signs posted all along School Street to the south of the Highland building. Freedman suggested that the PB’s report to the BOS include a note regarding monitoring this location.
It was noted that a granite step near the street in front of the Highland Building may need to be removed. It was suggested that the width of School Street be a consistent 25 ft from the Highland driveway to the north end of the new parking lot rather than having the width vary in this area from 25 to 20 and back to 25 feet. . On discussion, Chair Freedman said that the PB will include in its recommendations to the BOS that the roadway be a consistent width, that the pathway in this area be continued north of the fire lane entrance, that at the request of the Fire Department the pavement radius just north of that entrance be increased slightly if possible without removing the nearby tree, and that the granite step at the street and in front of the Highland building be removed.
Chair Freedman reported that the Conservation Administrator has forwarded a memo indicating that the amended plans do not affect the site area under ConsComm jurisdiction. He added that the Health Agent has said that it is not clear from the plans whether the 100-ft well radius encroaches on abutting septic systems. If it does, the Board of Health may require that the cistern well be designated as not for potable water. Chair Freedman suggested that all abutting wells within 100 ft of the cistern well be identified.
Planning Administrator Mansfield pointed out that the PB should recommend to the BOS that they reach out to RecComm and to the School Committee suggesting that they review their upcoming program dates at the school and adjacent properties during the entire construction timeframe, for possible relocation or rescheduling.
The PB authorized Chair Freedman to work with Planning Administrator Mansfield on the PB’s Report and Recommendations on this SPR. Selectman Stevenson thanked the PB and other participating Boards and Committees for their work on this proposed project.
Discussion of proposed 10-voter petition to place a Noise Control Bylaw on the 2011 Town Meeting Warrant that would place limits on construction activities (Request of Virginia Lamere, Rutland Street).
Chair Freedman explained that he and vice Chair Epstein attended the recent BOS meeting when Ginny Lamere discussed this concept with the Selectmen and garnered their support. He noted that independently of this citizen petition, the PB had begun gathering noise bylaw information from nearby towns in response to previous noise complaints about construction activities at Chestnut Estates, and has shared this information with Ms. Lamere.
Ms. Lamere explained to the PB that she is interested in creating a noise bylaw specifically to address construction and rock hammering, and is seeking the PB’s support. She said that The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP) has regulations concerning noise, but these may not have “teeth” in a rural town like Carlisle, as they define ambient noise as 50 dB, which is well above ambient levels for Carlisle. Ms. Lamere reported that a MA DEP employee measured the noise level at the Rutland Street site of the Chestnut Estates construction project during rock hammering, and obtained a reading of 85 dB. The MA DEP defines nuisance noise as levels 10 dB or greater than ambient. Ms. Lamere noted that with her windows closed, the noise level from the rock hammering
was still quite loud and caused her to wear hearing protection in her home. She noted that the BOS are supportive of the development of a noise bylaw to address these issues, and thanked the PB staff for sharing the information they had gathered from other towns.
On reviewing noise bylaw information from other towns, Ms. Lamere noted that information from Wenham referred to the MA DEP noise regulation (310 CMR 7.10) and stated that noise levels cannot exceed 10 dB above ambient. She noted that Stow has a more detailed and restrictive bylaw for noise, allowing not more than 3 dB above ambient levels with a few exceptions: noise levels cannot be greater than 10 dB above ambient levels for more than 5 minutes in any one hour period, and the total sound level cannot exceed 30 dB above ambient for more than 60 minutes in any 7 day period. Ms. Lamere noted that for 5 straight weeks the rock hammering continued from about 9 am to 4 pm. She noted that in her opinion the high noise levels would be tolerable if limited to 60 minutes in a 7 day period, per
Stow’s bylaw.
Vice Chair Epstein asked about enforcement, and Ms. Lamere explained that the Police can shut down the operation if it is found in violation of the noise bylaw. Also, in some cases the Building Commissioner can provide enforcement, but this would only be during his business hours. Epstein noted that it could be difficult to prove a violation of a limit on the amount of noise within an extended time frame.
Ms. Lamere presented the PB with a table (from the Department of Transportation) of noise levels of various machines. John Bakewell (Rutland Street) suggested that the use of specific machines could be regulated by the Bylaw. Ms. Lamere noted that the noise bylaws of many towns exclude construction, and said that this will not help. She agreed that a noise bylaw should put limits on general noise at certain times (e.g. night), but it must address construction.
Planning Administrator Mansfield said that he believes a Noise Bylaw should be a General, rather than a Zoning, Bylaw. He added that if a noise bylaw is part of the General Bylaws, the Police are the enforcement agent, an advantage due to their 24/7 availability to address issues. If it is a Zoning Bylaw, then the Building Commissioner is the enforcer. He also pointed out that for adoption of General Bylaws, there is no public hearing requirement, and this would provide time flexibility in development of the Bylaw. For a Zoning Bylaw, a public hearing by the PB is required, as is their report to Town Meeting.
Chair Freedman pointed out that the MA DEP regulations include an exception for construction equipment, but that requirements can be established that construction and demolition equipment be enclosed or otherwise modified to suppress sound where possible. Ms. Lamere suggested that enclosing it would probably reduce the sound by about 10 dB. Freedman cautioned that if the contractor does even a minimal level of noise suppression on the equipment, then depending on how the bylaw is designed, the machine use may not be able to be regulated.
Bakewell asked about alternatives to rock hammering, as the quality of life of the abutters is not factored in at all to the methods the contractor is using. He noted that at the Chestnut Estates site, there has basically been regular on-site rock processing. He suggested that a contractor can use more blast holes to generate smaller rock which would not require on-site rock crushing, noting that this approach was used at Calderwood Way. Chair Freedman explained that the Building Commissioner had reported that the developer stated that the reason he did not blast is that he was told not to by the PB, but Freedman noted that the PB had not prohibited blasting, as evidenced by the fact that the developer had done some blasting on site.
Chair Freedman suggested that a combination of changes is required: noise bylaw development, as well as the PB’s modification of its Rules and Regulations, including the requirements for construction management plans (CMPs). They could incorporate a requirement that if a developer finds an amount of ledge that may require extensive removal, they need to return to the PB to work out a specific approach. Mansfield pointed out that, for example, when a developer finds that installing the roadway as planned would mean going straight through rock, they should first discuss this finding with the PB in case there are other options for the roadway location.
PB member Marc Lamere said that the ram hoe use for rock crushing is the noisiest component of the work expect for the backup signal on the construction trucks. Ms. Lamere agreed.
Chair Freedman suggested that Vice Chair Epstein speak with Town Counsel regarding their experience with noise bylaws, and also that a subcommittee be formed to thoroughly address the bylaw development. He suggested that the subcommittee consist of Ms. Lamere, one BOH member, one PB member, one Selectman and the Town Administrator. Freedman also suggested that enforcement of a possible bylaw be discussed with the Building Commissioner. Epstein asked if the Chestnut Estates developer has been in compliance on other issues, and Freedman said that ConsComm must address the encroachment into the designated open space area. Epstein strongly suggested that the developer should be required to come before the PB, and he expressed his outrage that the developer has apparently shown no consideration for
abutters and no understanding how developers are expected to operate in Town. Mansfield agreed to arrange a conference call with Chair Freedman and the PB engineer to review the project status and the developer’s compliance with the Special Permit.
Regarding the development of the noise bylaw, Chair Freedman suggested that Ms. Lamere meet with Planning Administrator Mansfield to go over the key timeframes for bylaw development in order that it be included in the warrant for the spring Town Meeting. Bob Zielinski (Mosquito reporter and former PB member) noted that10 citizens can petition for an article to be on the Town Warrant, and suggested a noise bylaw simply stating “not to exceed some amount of dB for more than 1 hour per day”.
At 11:05pm, Lane moved and Johnson seconded the adjournment of the PB meeting. The motion was approved 5-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
Gretchen Caywood
Administrative Assistant
Carlisle Planning Board
| 
