TOWN OF LINCOLN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
November 7, 2007
PRESENT: R.Domnitz (Chairman), J.Snell, B.Wolf, K.Hurd
STAFF: M.Whitehead, C.Perry
7:30PM BUSINESS:
ANR PLAN: LAURENCE & PAULINE HERTHEL, 199 Concord Road, Map 97/Lot 6
Mr. Herthel requested endorsement of a plan that would create a fourth lot in addition to the existing three, and would also transfer a strip of land at the western edge to an adjoining non-buildable parcel. Mr. Herthel said his intention was to keep the two parcels nearest Farrar Pond and to sell the remainder.
The Board noted that the proposed lot configuration will make an existing building non-conforming. Mr. Herthel stated that the building is proposed for removal. The Board said that it would ask the Building Inspector to check at a future date that it has been removed.
The Board asked why Mr. Herthel wished to keep the non-buildable parcel separate. He said that he was advised to do so by his engineer, based on the way the lots are set up at the Registry of Deeds.
The Board wished to obtain the advice of counsel on the change to the non-buildable parcel, and therefore it did not endorse the plan at this time.
Minutes
The Board voted to approve the minutes of previous meetings as follows:
October 10 - approved with amendment
October 17 - approved with amendment
Conway, 9 Morningside Lane
The Board signed the decision approving an addition to a house.
8:00 PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: THOMAS BLAKELY, 144 and 146 Lincoln Road, Map 95/Lot 11, site plan review for addition to a building in the B-1 Zone and associated site alterations under Section 9 and 17.
The applicant had requested a continuation.
A MOTION was proposed and seconded, to continue the hearing to December 5 at 8:00pm. Passed 4-0
8:20 PM PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE: VERIZON WIRELESS, 131 Cambridge Turnpike, Map 29/Lot 25, installation of wireless antennas and associated equipment on existing tower under Section 12.6
The pre-application conference was advertised and abutters were notified but none attended. The Verizon team explained that the company previously received a special permit for a wireless communication facility on the existing tower, which is at the rear of Tracey’s gas station. The permit was not implemented and therefore lapsed. Verizon is now proposing to submit a new application.
The proposal is for antennas at 56ft on the existing ‘monopole’ tower, and associated equipment. The team stated that the proposed design is the same as the previous one. It recalled that the Board had previously asked for the height of the ice bridge not to be above the fence, and this stipulation will be satisfied. The equipment will be inside the existing fenced compound, and includes a generator and a propane tank.
In relation to Verizon’s written statement that the facility will have minimal impact, the Board pointed out that the considerations set out in the bylaw are more specific.
Mr. Snell asked why it is not proposed to use natural gas, which is available nearby, to fuel the generator. Verizon’s team agreed to examine this. Noise from the generator and cooling equipment was discussed; the Board pointed out that the bylaw requires facilities to be inaudible at the property line. Verizon’s noise expert said that this would be difficult to satisfy due to the proximity of the property line. However he thought the noise would not be noticeable at neighbors’ properties. He stated that the generator is the smallest size since it is only to serve one carrier. The Board asked for information on any other carriers’ generators on the site. Verizon mentioned that the noise study refers to DEP standards since ‘inaudible’ is not technically measurable. The
Board responded that although it is difficult to translate human hearing into quantified sound testing measures, in practice it is usually possible to reach agreement as to whether a noise is audible. The Board was prepared to recognize that the effects of background noise and other carriers’ equipment will play a part in the overall picture. It was concerned to prevent noise nuisance to neighbors, especially at night time.
The Board asked when the generator will be operated. It is intended to be used for prolonged power outages since batteries will provide initial back up. It will be tested regularly, but the most appropriate times for doing this will be determined.
The shed design is not shown on the preliminary plans. Verizon said that it could have a peaked roof if the Board so wished.
The light on the tower was discussed. It is required by the FAA. The Board believes that the amount of light being projected downward could be reduced. Shielding is now required by the bylaw. Verizon agreed to approach T-Mobile, the tower owner, about providing a shield for the light.
The Board asked about the need for a facility in this location, and examined Verizon’s coverage map. There is a small gap, which Verizon said it was important to fill because of the high traffic level. Verizon explained that the blue boxes on the map are its search areas for new facilities. Existing Verizon sites are shown, but not other carriers’ sites. The Board said it considered the coverage map adequate for the situation, but asked for a legend to be added to the map, and for a statement as to whether the signal levels are measured or calculated. Verizon requested a waiver from giving information for other carriers. Following discussion, it agreed to make some effort to obtain this information, but explained that it may be easier to obtain information for towers than for rooftop sites. As
far as its own future proposals are concerned, the company said it would provide a statement identifying any specific proposals, coverage issues and identified search areas.
The Board ran through the remaining submittal requirements in Section 12.6.4. Field measurements of radio frequency emissions are to be taken within 45 days of the application. The radio frequency engineer identified constraints on taking measurements in this location, and cautioned that readings are approximate at low levels. He agreed to conduct the measurements at a busy time of day and to cover the perimeter of the property and roads used by the public in the vicinity, including Juniper Ridge Road and Rockwood Lane. He stated that calculations are designed to model the ‘worst case’ scenario and the 16ft calculation is intended to estimate the upper level of houses.
Verizon was asked to supply full details of all the equipment, with better drawings and/or pictures. The Board agreed to waive items e, f, g and h relating to trees, topography, and balloon tests. Verizon agreed to provide copies of any future communications with the FAA.
A full hearing will be scheduled when complete materials are received.
8:40 PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: ANDREW EGENDORF, 10 Tower Road, Map 74/Lot 24, site plan review for an addition to house in the R-1 Zone under Section 6.0 and 17.7
A site walk was held on October 27. The LLCT has asked for further staking of the site in the vicinity of the septic system. The Board received a letter from Paul and Lucretia Giese of 32 Tower Road.
The applicant requested a continuation.
A MOTION was proposed and seconded, to continue the hearing to December 5 at 8:20pm. Passed 4-0.
9:00 PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: SOHAIL MASOOD, 12 Stratford Way, Map 71/Lot 7-15, site plan review for an all season pool enclosure in the R-1 Zone under Section 6.0 and 17.7.
The Board received a letter from Mr. Guldalian, the neighbor at 10 Stratford Way, stating that he approved of any planting on the edge of the property and did not see a need to trim the wall.
Mr. Masood’s representative recalled that the remaining issues were landscaping and lighting. He stated that for landscaping, the proposal is to replace the trees that were removed for construction. These were originally planted by the current owner.
A site walk was held on October 27, and the Board found that the structure is 20 feet off the property line and therefore meets the setback requirement. The height of the structure is less than twenty feet and complies with the bylaw now that it has been accepted as an accessory structure. The Board noted that it did not loom over any neighbor’s house.
The Board examined the light selection for the pool building. It recommended an alternative fixture that was similar to the one proposed, with a light output equivalent to a 60W incandescent bulb. It agreed that if there is any change to the lighting between the house and the pool, it will have minimal external impact.
The Board discussed the landscape lights in the side yard, referring to the October 15th plan showing three fixtures to be removed and noting the limited use of the remaining two. The Board noted that the property will still have more external lighting than other properties on the street and significantly more than most properties in Lincoln, although the style is to some extent in keeping with this neighborhood. It noted that the driveway lights were original from the development of the neighborhood. Mr. Domnitz was of the opinion that more lights should be removed. The remaining Board members considered that the applicant’s current plan would be acceptable if the fixtures on the field were replaced with ones that were dark sky compliant.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Hurd and seconded by Mrs. Wolf, to approve the development as presented, including removal of three post lights, with conditions that dark sky fixtures be placed on the two remaining posts, and that the pool structure use light # 8592-02 from the submitted catalog. Passed 3-1 (Mr. Domnitz voted against)
OTHER BUSINESS:
Brooks, 39 North Great Road
Further to the recent site plan approval, the Brooks have submitted a drawing of a proposed balustrade design. The Board commented that the top and bottom rails and newel posts looked heavy. It wished to see sections and dimensions.
Estes/Binder, 36 Beaver Pond Road
The Board previously approved a site plan for this property. Mr. Whitehead reported that the number of bedrooms in the house was increased and the Board of Health asked for a deed restriction. The owner is appealing the Board of Health’s decision in court.
Jurisdiction over aviation in Lincoln
Mr. Domnitz reported that the Massachusetts Aeronautical Commission claims jurisdiction over aircraft movements. However the legal situation may be less than clear.
Mrs. Wolf said that helipads have to be approved for safety. Also, towns can designate landing places for emergency use.
Proposed Zoning Changes
The discussion of zoning for alternative energy equipment will be rescheduled. Copies of a recent application to the ZBA for solar panels were distributed.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15pm.
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved as amended, December 5, 2007
| 
