TOWN OF LINCOLN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
February 6, 2008
PRESENT: R.Domnitz (Chairman), B.Wolf, J.Snell, K.Hurd, E.Flint
STAFF: M.Whitehead, C.Perry
7:30 PM BUSINESS:
Minutes
The Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes of previous meetings as follows:
January 9, 2008 – Approved with amendments
January 16, 2008 – Approved with an amendment.
Soukup, 6 Woodcock Lane
The Board reviewed a landscape plan submitted by the applicants pursuant to a condition of the site plan approval for a house. The Board considered that the plan was not sufficiently specific in terms of identifying trees to be removed and locating the new plantings that were listed.
8:00 PM PUBLIC HEARING: VERIZON WIRELESS, 131 Cambridge Turnpike, Map 29/Lot 25, collocation on Wireless Communication Facility in the R-1 zone under Section 12.6.
Verizon was represented by Michael Giaimo of Robinson and Cole, LLP, together with an expert on noise issues. Mr. Whitehead reviewed the items of information requested by the Board at the preliminary meeting on November 7, 2007, and recalled that the Board waived requirements for information on trees and topography and for a balloon test.
The Board examined the plans, for installation of antennas in the fourth position out of five, from the top of the pole. There will be three sector antennas to achieve 360º coverage. Discussion covered the following aspects:
Site access:
The agent stated that an agreement has been made with Tracey’s for access to be obtained from Bedford Road through their premises, and that this will be the sole access for the proposed facility. The Board noted that vehicles currently accessing the site appear to be crossing an adjacent Town-owned lot, and asked if permission was being sought from the Town. Verizon responded in the negative and stated that if vehicles were prevented from crossing the Town lot, they would use a route completely within Tracey’s land.
Fuel:
It is proposed to use propane as fuel for the generator. The Board asked how the tank will be filled, as it is not close to the parking area. Verizon stated that it could be filled with a long hose.
Noise:
a) Generator:
The specifications for the generator are included in Tab 8 of the application materials. Verizon stated that the other operators do not have on-site generators. The generator proposal includes sound attenuation features, described as a Generac level 2 noise mitigation package, with a specification of 62dbA at 23 feet. The noise expert explained that the sound of the engine itself will be dampened by an acoustic foam liner inside a steel face, and the radiator and exhaust air will be directed vertically upwards so that most of the sound will go with it. The noise report was summarized as follows: it covers the routine testing of the generator but not emergency operation of it; it concludes that at the property line the generator noise will be less than the ambient noise; and that at the nearest house
(Williams), the increase in ambient noise will be 1-2dbA, not allowing for any absorption by soft ground or trees. The Board commented that the proposal would not meet the bylaw requirement of inaudibility at the property line. However, it considered that a stationary, properly shielded generator was preferable to bringing in a portable one for emergency use.
b) HVAC:
A fiberglass noise shield is proposed for the cooling equipment. Verizon explained that it has to have a gap at the base for air intake. The noise expert said that there is no clear way to calculate the noise at nearby points such as the property line, but it has been estimated. Calculations are more certain at a greater distance.
Light:
Mr. Domnitz reported that he had discussed the status of the light with T-Mobile’s field technician who had visited the site recently. The light is unshielded. The Board said that it would like a shield installing, and suggested that Verizon discuss this with T-Mobile, the tower owner.
Coverage maps:
Maps of existing and predicted coverage were included in the submission. The Board asked for an explanation of coverage versus capacity issues. The agent explained that capacity problems can arise when call volume is high. When the call volume is too high to be accommodated, the furthest calls are dropped, therefore the definition of coverage gaps is not a precise thing. However, the agent stated that both types of issue apply in the vicinity of the application site.
Other WCF locations:
The submission included a list of other existing tower locations. This excludes Verizon’s own facility locations.
Radio Frequency measurements:
The agent stated that existing RF emissions in the vicinity of the site were measured at a time between noon and 3:00pm. The measurement picks up all radio signals. Levels would actually be highest during a traffic emergency.
Tree planting:
The Board noted that the previous special permit that lapsed required that some pine trees be planted on a neighbor’s property. No planting is included in the current proposal.
No neighbors attended and no representations were received on the application.
A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Snell, to close the hearing.
Passed 5-0
8:20 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
The applicant attended with Doug Adams, agent, and David Schofield, engineer. The Chairman outlined the remaining issues. Each was discussed as follows:
Design and materials:
The Board noted that the applicant requested the use of average natural grade as a basis for the height calculation. The Board referred to the design considerations in Section 17.7, and commented that the house will be very large with the addition but that it sits on a large lot. Three members of the Board had viewed an example of a building that uses the proposed metallic siding material; they confirmed that it has a matt appearance. Overall, the Board was satisfied with the design.
Lighting:
The applicant agreed to put the lights on dimmer switches. The Board was satisfied with the choice of fixtures.
Drainage:
The engineer clarified that the site drainage overflow will direct water down the hill to the west.
Helipad:
Mr. Egendorf stated that he will have to reapply to the FAA after construction, to use the helipad, but he wishes to keep it. The site plan shows the existing helipad but no construction is proposed in that area. Mr. Domnitz stated that if the Board does not allow the helipad, the applicant could appeal to the MAC to overrule the local zoning board. The Board needs to consider its approach.
Septic system:
The Chairman reviewed email correspondence between himself and the applicant that looked into whether there might be a way forward by limiting the number of proposed bedrooms. The applicant did not wish to pursue this approach.
The standard and condition of the current septic system were discussed. It was described as having an oversized tank and an alarm system. It was believed to be working but little was known about it. Mr. Egendorf asserted that it was not a legitimate system for the proposed project.
In relation to the proposed septic system design, the Board was uncomfortable about the reserve area extending beyond the 10,000 sq ft area allowed under the easement, and was not sure it could approve the site plan in this form. Mr. Adams suggested that because the engineer believed a replacement system would be able to be built within the 10,000 sq ft area, the applicant could agree to a provision that if the system fails he would resubmit with a design that was within the easement. Alternatively it may be possible to re-draw the reserve area within the applicant’s land, knowing that a new system would have to be designed and approved.
Mr. Hurd suggested that the Board could request a peer review, covering the viability of the proposed septic system and whether this is the only location for it, or wait for a decision on this design from the Board of Health. The Board also reviewed other options, including: rejecting the plan as violating provisions of the bylaw; approving it as presented; and approving it with compensatory planting or with a different shape for the cleared area or with no clearing at all.
Paul Giese said that on behalf of users of the trail and as a town citizen as well as a neighbor, he requested the Board not to allow the proposal. He asserted that there was no good justification for the large number of bedrooms, nor for the helipad, to support the clearance of woodland.
Christina Breiter, a town resident, recommended the use of a Presby septic system as needing a smaller area of land. Mr. Schofield responded that the type of system she referred to has to be sized for either with or without a garbage grinder; with one, it does not give a size advantage, and a decision was made to design for with one.
Mr. Adams suggested that the applicant should proceed with his application to the Board of Health, and offer an alternative depiction of the reserve area. The Board wished in this event to communicate its concerns, which are to minimize impact on the conservation land and not allow any work beyond the allowable easement. The applicant requested that the Board close the hearing at this point.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Snell and seconded by Mr. Flint, to close the public hearing. Passed 5-0
9:00 PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: CHRISTINA BREITER, 10 Reiling Pond Road, Map 33/Lot 1, amendment to a cluster subdivision special permit to change a sound barrier wall in the R-1 zone under Section 6.6
The applicant presented a new plan showing more detail of the proposal. Mr. Flint asked what material would be used for the berm. This will be rubble and loam. Mrs. Wolf asked if the remnants of stone walls along the road frontage would be affected. Ms. Breiter said that there are only a few rocks near the berm; the more intact portions of stone wall are further to the west. The Board inquired about the number of panels of prefabricated wall.
Ms. Breiter reported that she has met with an engineer from Mass Highway Department and that he considered it acceptable to put steel columns within the drainage easement. MHD is aiming to repair the culvert and would welcome a paneled wall design. The gabion wall that was approved previously cannot be built here because of its weight.
Mr. Hurd suggested making a ‘jog’ in the line of the panel fence near the western end, to create some variety. The applicant agreed to amend the plan. The Board asked for full details of materials, heights and planting to be shown on the new plans, and for a cut sheet of the fence shown on the top of the berm to be supplied.
A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Flint, to continue the hearing to February 20 at 7:45pm. Passed 5-0
9:20 PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: JAMES AND KAREN DWYER, 83 Page Road, Map 50/Lot 4-3, site plan review for construction of a new residence in the R-1 zone under Section 6.0 and 17.7.
Mr. Dwyer and his agent/ architect attended. The Board visited the site on January 26 but considered that clearer staking was needed to assess it fully. The applicant agreed to stake the outline of the house and to mark the line of the driveway.
Mrs. Wolf asked how the pipe will be laid to the septic system. The agent said that it will go through woodland, partly on disturbed land. Mrs. Wolf was concerned about the amount of additional disturbance close to a neighbor’s property. Mr. Hurd commented that the septic system was also close to the property line at the other side and would require a stand of trees to be removed. He asked if a retaining wall could be used to save some of the pine trees. He observed that the parking area for the accessory building would add to the impact on the neighbor on the south side and wondered if the positions of the building and parking could be reversed. Mr. Whitehead reported that the affected neighbor, Debra Hawkins, had viewed the plans and was not concerned. The Board considered that a detailed landscape
plan may be needed, especially for the edges of the lot.
William Finsthwait, the neighbor on the north west side, expressed the view that there was inadequate separation between the two houses. He said that he understood the site had constraints, but questioned the size of the house and the positioning of the driveway/parking area on the side closest to his house. It was established that the house was 53 feet from the lot line but that the driveway area was closer. The Board asked the architect about the orientation of the house and he explained that the plan was designed to give a southern exposure to living areas. Mr. Finsthwait asked if some of the floorspace could be accommodated at basement level. The applicant said there was little potential for this, and asserted that the house has been set low and that the retaining wall would help to screen the
driveway. The Board accepted that the siting of the house was constrained, especially by wetlands.
The applicant stated that the initial lighting proposals have been reconsidered and it is no longer proposed to have tree lights. Some lights are proposed on the ends of the ornamental walls, in the retaining wall near the parking area, and in the wall to the rear of the house. A catalog cut was shown and the bulbs were stated to be 20W. The Board said that it was satisfied with this fixture but may want to reduce the number of lights. The applicant showed a picture of a selected sconce light with a custom shield. Three of these fixtures are proposed on the house and two on the accessory building. The applicant said that these lights could be placed on dimmer switches. Some recessed lights are proposed under overhangs, and the applicant wishes to select a pendant light also.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Snell and seconded by Mrs. Wolf, to conduct a site walk on Saturday February 9 at 1:30pm Passed 5-0
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Snell and seconded by Mrs. Wolf, to continue the hearing to February 20 at 8:40pm Passed 5-0
OTHER BUSINESS:
Town Planner’s report:
Comprehensive Long Range Plan survey
Mr. Whitehead presented a request by the CLRP Committee for funding of the printing and postage costs associated with a survey of town residents. He advised that the Planning Board’s consultancy budget is currently likely to be under-spent for this year.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Snell and seconded by Mrs. Wolf, to approve the expenditure, at less than $3000. Passed 5-0
CLRP Public Forum
Mr. Whitehead reminded the Board that two important public events connected with preparation of the Comprehensive Long Range Plan would be held on the coming weekend:
· “kick-off” lecture by Armando Carbonell, chairman of the Department of Planning and Urban Form at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (Cambridge), at Bemis Hall on Friday February 8 at 7:30pm
· public forum to discuss draft goals and policies for the plan, at the Brooks school on Saturday February 9 at 8:30am.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:40pm.
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved as amended, March 12, 2008
|