TOWN OF LINCOLN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
December 13, 2006
PRESENT: K.Hurd (Chairman), E.Flint, B.Wolf, R.Domnitz, J.Snell
STAFF: M.Whitehead, C.Perry
7:30PM BUSINESS:
REQUEST FOR BOND REDUCTION: HOBBS BROOK FARM PROPERTY CO, Hobbs Brook Farm Subdivision, Reiling Pond Road, Map 33/Lots 11-5 through 11-14, request to reduce amount of bond held for subdivision completion.
Shallan Fitzgerald of Design Consultants ran through a list of engineering items completed, in support of the request for a reduction in the bond funds by about a half ($52,339.80 out of $110,000.00) She recalled that the original tripartite agreement was made in 2004, and then when a problem was encountered with the operation of the drainage pond due to ground water seepage, the bond was increased. An overflow pipe has now been installed.
The Chairman asked whether the work completed had been professionally reviewed for the Town. It was established that the original engineering work had been reviewed by VHB but that at the time of the remediation work the Board had not considered a further review necessary. At this point only a limited visual inspection and overflow test would be possible.
It was confirmed that the road will remain a private road. The engineer stated that the finish course and the rims for the catch basin remain to be completed and will await construction of the houses. The Board asked who will eventually own the road; this was stated to be the individual home owners through a condominium association.
The Board considered whether professional review of the costs and items completed was called for before releasing any of the bond, to protect future owners and the Town. Some Board members considered that review was unnecessary at this stage and that the remaining funds would provide a reasonable level of security.
The owner, Christina Breiter, expressed her anxiety to have some of the funds released and pointed to the amount of money she had paid for the original review.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Domnitz and seconded by Mr. Flint to release the portion of funds requested. Passed 3-1 (Mr. Hurd voted against and Mrs. Wolf abstained).
Mr. Whitehead agreed to draft a letter for the Board to sign. The parties will check whether this needs to be recorded at the registry of deeds. Mr. Whitehead will also check whether any money remains from the original review fund.
8:00PM PUBLIC HEARING: OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS INC., 295 Cambridge Turnpike, Map 48/Lot 7, Farrington Memorial, special permit for proposed replacement with extension of height of existing wireless communication tower under Section 12.6
Adam Braillard introduced Omnipoint’s proposal for an 85ft wireless communications tower and associated equipment, in place of an existing 55ft tower. The site is in the wireless communications facilities overlay district. T-Mobile (Omnipoint’s parent company) has determined that it has a gap in coverage that would be addressed by the proposal. The proposed design is a ‘monopole’ with three panel antennas inside for T-Mobile’s use, and cabinets at the base in the shed within the existing compound. The existing carrier, Sprint, will also be accommodated in the pole at its current height of 55ft. The new tower will be in the existing compound and once it is built, the old one will be demolished. The facility owner is Global Signal, and a package of information about the lease structure has been provided. The height
of the new tower will allow for two additional intermediate ‘slots’, at ten foot intervals, which could be occupied by Cingular in future. Mr. Braillard reported that Cingular is not ready to move forward yet but has confirmed that the proposed configuration would enable it to fill a gap in coverage. Photographs of existing poles of a similar design on other sites were presented. Asked about the degree of taper, Mr. Braillard estimated that it goes from 40” diameter to 24-30”.
Referring to issues from the preliminary meeting (pre-application conference) held on October 4, Mr. Braillard said he considered white to be the best color for monopoles but that the company was prepared to be guided by the Board on this. He was not sure if the pole would be visible from Route 2. The Board had waived the balloon test. There is no light on the existing tower and the FAA has determined that they do not require one on the new one.
The Board asked whether the pole could be made taller in future to accommodate further carriers. Mr. Braillard thought this might be possible, although some strengthening might be required. A special permit would be needed. The Board asked for clarification of the equipment housing. Sprint’s equipment occupies one half of the existing shed and T-Mobile’s equipment will occupy the other half. There will be ice trays. For the pole color, Mrs. Wolf suggested that battleship grey would be preferable to white, since the intention is for the pole to be inconspicuous rather than to look like a flagpole.
The Board invited public comments. Frank Panetta of 109 Page Road said that he was a long-standing resident and an abutter. He represented several family members who also live in the vicinity. Mr. Panetta asked if the preliminary meeting was subject to abutter notification. Mr. Whitehead responded that it was but the list of addresses used had erroneously been based on an adjacent parcel, also owned by Farrington Memorial, rather than the one where the tower was. This problem was corrected for the main hearing. Mr. Panetta commented that a balloon test would have been desirable. He asked for clarification of the elevations of the treetops since he considered that most of the taller trees were on lower ground to the south/east of the tower site and that there were few on the west side towards his house. Sections across the site provided by the
applicant were examined. Mr. Panetta asked what radius was used for the average tree canopy elevation calculations; Mr. Braillard responded that this was 150 feet as set out in the bylaw. Mr. Panetta stated that there will be a visual impact on abutters. He showed a photograph of a test done by the neighbors in the past using a pipe. He had marked the photograph to indicate approximate 55ft and 85ft heights. The photograph was taken from the field next to the driveway approach within the Farrington Memorial property. He also showed a photograph of a balloon test at 125ft with his mother’s house in the foreground. He said that the current tower, at 55ft, is hard to see. He suggested that two lower towers would be preferable to one taller one.
Mr. Panetta asked whether Sprint had undertaken the radio frequency monitoring that is required by the bylaw. The Board replied that it acknowledges this to be a gap in enforcement, which it intends to tighten up. However, since predictions for emissions from cell towers have always been well below the FCC limit, it does not expect results to be of critical significance. Rakesh Goel, Omnipoint’s radio frequency engineer, assured Mr. Panetta and the Board that cell phones only need a low power signal and that the signal is adjusted according to the need on particular calls. Even at beam level, he said he expects emissions to be well within permitted levels. The Board asked Mr. Panetta which house was the closest to the tower site; he said this was his mother’s house at approximately 600ft from the tower site.
Mr. Panetta asked what would be the benefit from the proposed tower, that would justify a height greater than normally allowed under the bylaw. He pointed to the existence of cell towers not far away, in adjacent towns. Mr. Braillard showed the coverage map for T-Mobile, indicating a gap that would be addressed by the proposal. He stated that although a second 65ft pole would be adequate for T-Mobile, it would not provide for the needs of other new carriers. Mr. Braillard also said that the new tower would help to provide 911 emergency cover for Route 2. The Board confirmed that cell phone coverage is a consideration and that part of the reason for amending the bylaw to give some flexibility on height was to minimize the number of towers. However it wished to consider whether in this case two lower towers would be a better solution. It might
be necessary to consult Cingular. It also considered that a balloon test would be desirable after all, and wished to have a site walk. Mr. Braillard agreed to try to set up a balloon test for Saturday January 6 from 8:00am to 12:00noon with a reserve date of Sunday January 7 in case of unsuitable weather.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Flint and seconded by Mrs. Wolf, to continue the hearing to January 10 at 8:40pm. Passed 5-0.
8:20PM ACCESSORY APARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: CHRISTOPHER ROGERS, 16 Weston Road, Map 65/Lot 16, request for accessory apartment recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals under Section 14.3.
The agent, Zach Bensley, explained that Mr. Rogers has sought approval for an accessory apartment from the Zoning Board of Appeals and needs a recommendation from the Planning Board. Mr. Whitehead advised that the ZBA has opened its hearing but continued it pending the Planning Board’s consideration.
John Margolis, the architect, showed the plans for a barn conversion, with the parts that will constitute an apartment highlighted. This is mostly on the second floor but there is also a heated bathroom on the first floor. He also made reference to a plot plan and to a letter submitted to the ZBA relating the proposal to eight criteria for a special permit in Section 14.3.2 of the bylaw. He stated that the floor area of the apartment is less than 35% of the total of the principal residence and the apartment, based on assessors’ records.
Mrs. Wolf commented that there currently appears to be little remaining of the original barn, and the Board asked how this fits with the Historical Commission’s ruling. The agent responded that the condition of the building has necessitated much demolition but that the intention is to reinstate the frontage facing Weston Road.
The Board checked that provision for exits from the building was adequate. It examined the proposed lighting, for which a catalog cut and specification were provided. The agent reported that the septic system is in place and has been approved. The Board commented that the proposal did not appear to raise any parking or drainage issues.
Mr. Domnitz expressed concern that the residential floorspace could easily be expanded within the barn. The Chairman felt this was an enforcement issue. Mrs. Wolf commented that other residential units within barns are more clearly demarcated. The agent related that the reasoning behind the proposal is that the applicants have a modest-sized house and wish to be able to accommodate guests; they felt that converting the barn was the best way to do this. The proposal would preserve an attractive building, and the design had avoided features such as dormers that would change its character. Mr. Domnitz recalled that the accessory apartment bylaw had been mainly aimed at helping residents who needed additional income.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Snell and seconded by Mr. Hurd, to recommend approval of the proposed accessory apartment to the ZBA. Passed 3-1.
(Mr. Domnitz voted against and Mrs. Wolf abstained).
8:40PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: AMJAD HUSAIN AND INDERNEEL SAHAI, 9 Reiling Pond Road, Map 33/Lot 11-5, site plan review for a new single family residence under Section 17.7.
Mr. Whitehead reported that the applicant had requested a continuation.
A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Snell, to continue the hearing to January 10 at 8:00pm. Passed 5-0.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Town Planner’s Report:
Schedules
Mr. Whitehead distributed new schedules. Mr. Domnitz mentioned that he will be absent on February 7.
New England Deaconess Project, 17 Cambridge Turnpike
In view of the above, it was agreed to try to reschedule the New England Deaconess hearing for the special permit.
NEDA has asked if it can make a start on marketing the units, since it requires a certain percentage to be pre-sold in order to establish tax exempt status. The intention is to establish a waiting list but not to take any deposits at this stage. The Board did not see any problem with this.
NEDA also requests an early start on the engineering review of the project. The Board was happy with this provided NEDA understood that any increased expense due to changes made during the permitting process would be at its own risk.
RLF, Mall Project
The RLF will be submitting their special permit application early next week.
Minuteman Commons, Virginia Road
Mr. Whitehead has spoken to Taran Grigsby, the lawyer for the applicants, informing him of the items to be addressed and asking the applicants to come before the Board on January 10.
Munroe, 9-13 Lewis Street
The Chairman signed a letter to the Building Inspector informing him of the Board’s approval of the administrative amendment for the garage roof extension and lighting.
Lee/Suh, 31 Mill Street
This is a ZBA case on which they have asked for an initial opinion on the site plan from the Planning Board. It will be scheduled for the January 3 Planning Board meeting.
Brooks, 39 North Great Road
Copies of a recent approval for the septic system were distributed.
Town Annual Report
The Board approved Mr. Whitehead’s draft of the Planning Board’s section of the report.
Comprehensive Long Range Plan
Feedback from boards on the initial list of issues and their allocation to plan elements was requested for tomorrow’s meeting. There is likely to be a need to reduce the number of elements to which some of the issues are allocated.
The Board suggested further issues:
• How to keep tax bills down (probably an item for the ‘services’ element);
• Administration of Title V by the Board of Health – currently allowing small septic systems for large houses if deed restrictions are filed;
• Emergency vehicle access around town – a safety and liability issue, with possible regionalization aspects;
• Privatization of services;
• Cell tower coverage;
• Potential Historic District on Route 2A;
• Location of DPW;
• Location of transfer station;
• Train stop issues.
Route 2A
Mr. Whitehead reported that the National Park will be working on a master plan of its own, over the next 12-18 months. Following the State’s designation of the road as a scenic byway, a bid for grant funding for planning of the corridor is being put together. The aim will be to achieve federal designation.
‘Mullin Rule’
A draft guide to the rule, that allows board members to miss one session of a hearing and still vote, has been supplied by the Attorney General’s office; copies were distributed. The guide contains suggested motions and forms, recommended by the City Solicitors and Town Counsel Association. The Board confirmed that it would like to pursue adopting the rule. The next step will be to develop a warrant article for Town Meeting, in conjunction with other interested boards.
Zoning Changes
Mr. Whitehead circulated a draft of the changes suggested so far, with additions and deletions to the text highlighted. Mr. Domnitz circulated proposed changes to the wireless communications section, and explained them. The Board wondered if the term ‘inaudible’ could be quantified.
The aim is to fine tune the changes and decide upon them at the January 3 meeting. For the form of the motions, Mr. Whitehead suggested that the changes to wireless communication facilities and to Sec.3 exempt uses could be separate articles, and the remainder be grouped as ‘housekeeping’ changes.
Community Preservation Committee
Mrs. Wolf reported that the CPC has voted on its allocations of funds, with some going to the library, conservation and repairs to the Pierce house.
Minutes – deferred to January 3.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30pm.
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved March 14, 2007
| 
