The Town of Lincoln, MA - Planning Board Minutes

The attorney, architect and project manager attended. Mr. Whitehead distributed an email from Erin Bettez of DHCD and reported that most of the issues concerning the affordable housing seem to have been resolved. The developers reported that they have appointed a consultant, Karen Sunnarborg, to liaise with DHCD and she will address the remaining issue about the walk-up unit.

The documentation has been reviewed for the Town by Kathleen O’Donnell. Mrs. Wolf has provided a further correction to the deed, which was passed on. Mr. Domnitz raised several points, of which the following were agreed to call for changes:

1. Parking: there seems to be a repeat paragraph in the declaration of trust. Also the phrase ‘non-designated spaces’ is confusing; reference to interior and exterior parking spaces would help to clarify.

3. Children (limits on occupancy): in section 10A of the master deed (and elsewhere?), an upper age of 19 for the restriction would be better than 18; 12 months would be better than 9 for the reference period; ‘persons’ would be better than ‘children’; and the affordable units should be excluded.

The Board requested an update on construction progress. The developers reported that the first building is complete and contains two model units. The second (building C) is nearly complete, awaiting flooring and cabinets; sales will drive completion with customized fittings. The third (building D) is not finished, so that it does not require heating. Mrs. Wolf commented that it appeared that further site work was needed. The developers agreed that the landscaping is incomplete (including some hard elements such as guard rails) but stated that the drainage work is complete.

It was established that the remaining DHCD issues were the marketing plan, the question of the walk-up unit and the pricing of the affordable units. The Lincoln Housing Commission has provided comments to the developers. The developers will supply a copy of the marketing plan for the Commission to check.

8:00 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.

8:20 PUBLIC HEARING: OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC., 51 Sandy Pond Road, Map 44/Lot 2, DeCordova Museum, special permit for wireless communication facility under Section 12.6.

Adam Braillard, agent, and Rakesh Goel, radio frequency engineer, attended. The proposal is for a new rooftop wireless communication facility for T-Mobile, in the form of a faux chimney on the staircase penthouse portion of the building. It is separate from the existing facility operated by Cingular. A pre-application conference was held on November 1, 2006.

Mr. Braillard addressed some of the issues raised at the previous meeting. He provided copies of a radio frequency study that takes into account emissions from the AT&T/Cingular facility as well as the proposal. Mr. Goel explained that he took readings at different places on the rooftop that will be open to the public, found the maximum one and multiplied it by three to estimate the total maximum exposure. This figure is 92 microwatts per square centimeter, which is 9.2% of the permitted limit for 24 hour exposure. Mr. Domnitz commented that while this was well below the permitted maximum, it was a higher percentage than the Board had encountered in previous cell tower proposals. He asked if reflections from the building might increase the levels; Mr. Goel considered that the effect would be minimal.

The applicant provided service coverage plans showing T-Mobile’s existing and proposed facilities. The aim of this proposal is to address patchy and unreliable coverage on Sandy Pond Road, Bedford Road and Lincoln Road and give continuity of coverage between the sites on Route 2 and at the Department of Public Works. The Board noted that it will not serve Route 126.

The applicant provided new plans showing both the proposed facility and AT&T/Cingular’s existing one. Mr. Braillard described the proposal as having three panel antennas in a faux chimney, with cables along the gutter and back of the roof to cabinets on the lower roof. There will be a back-up battery. Photo simulations were provided in the application packet, showing views from the grounds of the museum. Mr. Braillard stated that the building is not visible from public ways off the site. He further provided a copy of an email from the De Cordova Museum stating agreement with the choice of design and giving the view that it is preferable to other options such as a fake vent pipe. Example photographs were provided in the application packet. The approval of the Historic District Commission has been obtained.

The Chairman asked for clarification of the design, in particular the size of the braces for the chimney and their relation to the parapet. Mr. Braillard thought that the engineer’s schematic drawing was probably more accurate than the elevation. The Board said that it may wish to condition approval on the braces not being visible. The Chairman asked about the color of the faux brick. This is fiberglass and can be custom-colored.

Public comment was invited. Marcus Gleysteen of 39 Sandy Pond Road questioned the design choice, suggesting that it might be better to have no chimney. He asked if any light would be added, to which Mr. Braillard responded that they are not required; there is no need to notify the FAA as the proposal is on an existing building. John LeGates of 14 Canaan Drive asked if there would be ‘internal traffic’ between the applicant’s towers in the area. Mr. Braillard stated that this would be handled by a land line, and clarified that his earlier reference to connectivity referred only to coverage for customers. Mr. LeGutes mentioned that John Bredis, who lives between this site and the tower at Tracey’s, was unable to attend but wished the Board to give careful consideration to radio emissions exposure.

8:40 PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: 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, agent, and Rakesh Goel, radio frequency engineer, represented the applicant. At the previous meeting on December 13 the applicant agreed to conduct a balloon test. This was advertised and carried out on the reserve date of January 7, as January 6 was too windy. Mr. Braillard presented photographs of the balloon at 85ft. A second balloon was also flown at 65ft but it popped. He also presented photo simulations of towers painted white and brown.

Mr. Braillard provided an elevational drawing comparing the existing and proposed poles. The existing pole has external antennas and the proposed pole has internal ones. The Board asked for clarification of the applicant’s height needs. Mr. Braillard stated that T-Mobile could operate satisfactorily at 65ft but that he was unsure about Cingular’s needs in this respect. The Board asked whether, if a 65ft pole was approved (in addition to the existing Sprint tower), it could be extended in future if needed. Mr. Braillard was not sure about this. The Board asked what was the minimum separation needed between towers; this was stated to be 40ft.

The Board invited comments from the public. Frank Panetta of 109 Page Road, three Panetta family members and Chris Knollmeyer of 50 Page Road were present. Mr. Panetta presented photographs showing the balloons, taken from the yards of his family’s houses, showing that they were plainly visible. He read a letter on behalf of his extended family. This asserted: that the proposed tower will be intrusively visible to the neighborhood; that it will reduce property values and hence taxes; that lower towers could work; and that Sprint (the operator of the existing tower) failed to file some of the required emissions reports. Mr. Panetta questioned whether the benefits of a higher tower outweighed its adverse effects, and argued that two lower towers would be preferable. He suggested that a high tower could also set a precedent for others.

The Board asked Mr. Panetta what height, in his judgment, would represent 10ft above the tree canopy. He responded that this would be about 63ft, and reiterated that he considered height to be the key to visibility and hence to impact on the neighborhood. The Board commented that in an open situation, it normally considers a single tall tower to be preferable to proliferation, but that in a wooded situation there may be a case for having more than one lower tower. Mr. Braillard commented that the company had felt it was following the bylaw by proposing a tall tower and making provision for other carriers.

Mr. Whitehead asked whether, if the Board decided to only allow 65ft towers on the site, the applicant would wish to build one or two. Mr. Braillard was unsure. He offered to seek some input from AT&T/Cingular. Mrs. Wolf wondered whether Farrington Memorial would have any preferences on the tower configuration.

Chris Knollmeyer attended. Mr. Whitehead explained that a site plan was approved in January 2000 for a new house. The old house on the site was left standing, with the intention in the plans that it would be converted to a garage. The Building Inspector required the kitchen and bathroom to be removed, which was done. The owners now wish to change the exterior of the old house building to match the new house and add a second story.

Mr. Knollmeyer said that the old house was a ranch. It is not intended to increase the footprint, which is approximately 1900sq ft, but to rebuild on the old foundation and to incorporate space for a hobby room/art studio. It is proposed to reinstall a half bath on the first floor. He said that although a second story was not mentioned in the paperwork of the approved site plan, he thought that a drawing showing it was probably presented during the hearing. Mr. Whitehead said he thought it would be appropriately handled as an administrative amendment.

The Board checked the relationship to neighbors’ houses. Mrs. Wolf was concerned that an accessory apartment should not be created; this was considered unlikely with only a half bath and no kitchen. The Board asked for the half bath to be marked on the plans, which was done.

A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Domnitz and seconded by Mr. Snell, to approve the request for an administrative amendment as presented, subject to a condition that the Building Inspector file with the Planning Board an opinion that the half bath to be installed does not create a dwelling unit. Passed 4-0.

The Chairman signed a letter to the ZBA setting out the Planning Board’s recommendation on the proposal for a taller tower. Mr. Whitehead and Mr. Domnitz attended a meeting with the applicants on Monday. It appears that the FAA may require a light, which would mean that the proposal failed to meet the Planning Board’s recommended requirements. The ladder test is set for Saturday January 13 and the ZBA hearing for January 18. Mr. Domnitz agreed to attend.

Mr. Whitehead has circulated the latest compilation of proposed changes. Mr. Snell suggested minor changes to the conservation one. In relation to the signs bylaw, Mr. Domnitz wondered if the proposed change should be reworded or rearranged to prevent additional signs in business zones. The proposed changes will be finalized at the next meeting.