TOWN OF LINCOLN
MINUTES OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING
Held on July 9, 2008
At 7:30 PM in the Donaldson Room, Lincoln Town Offices
PRESENT: R. Domnitz (Chairman), J.Snell, K.Hurd, B.Wolf, J.Craig
STAFF: M.Whitehead, C.Perry
7:30 PM BUSINESS:
Minutes – deferred
Brodney, 10 Huntley Lane
The Chairman signed a letter to the Building Inspector setting out the Board’s decision on a minor change to the site plan relating to lighting.
Blakely, 144-146 Lincoln Road
The Board signed the decision approving a sign permit for a directory sign on an existing support. The Chairman signed a letter to the Building Inspector approving certain paint colors for the building at 144 Lincoln Road, under a condition of the site plan approval.
Minuteman Commons
Mrs. Wolf reported that the Housing Commission discussed the offer of additional affordable units in conjunction with a release of the age restriction. The commission was agreeable to the Planning Board’s suggestion of establishing a joint working group with the Selectmen and possibly DHCD to explore the issues, including legal frameworks and septic system regulations.
7:45 PM DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ENFORCEMENT ACTION: SPRINT, Yagjian site, 37 Cambridge Turnpike
This item was brought forward from later in the agenda. Joseph Pereira of Terrasearch and Ted Hoyt, attorney, of Prince, Lobel, Glovsky and Tye represented Sprint. Mr. Pereira presented a letter responding to the Planning Board’s letter of April 10th concerning unfulfilled conditions on the special permit issued on January 3rd, 2007. He stated that the points relating to submission of radio frequency emissions measurements and drawings had been addressed and that progress was being made on the shielding of the light. The Towershade shield is not compatible with the existing light. Sprint therefore proposes to replace the light with one that meets the FAA requirements and is compatible with the available shield. Terrasearch is recommending that Sprint goes ahead with the
installation regardless of whether Sprint or Crown Castle (the current tower owner) ultimately pays for it.
The Chairman drew attention to the fact that the change in the tower ownership only came to light part way through the public hearing and that the split in ownership has caused difficulties. He also pointed out that Crown Castle may need to apply for a renewed special permit for the tower.
Mr. Pereira said that it may take sixty days to achieve installation of the new light and shield, and requested a stay of enforcement action for that period. He also requested permission for the substitution of the light, but the Board did not consider its formal approval necessary since the specific light was not referenced in the decision.
A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Craig, to hold enforcement action for a period of sixty days. Passed 5-0
8:00 PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS, PC, Yagjian Site, 37 Cambridge Turnpike, Map 24/Lot 1, renewal of special permit and replacement of antennas under Section 12.6
Eric Campbell of AT&T and Doug Wilkins of Anderson and Kreiger LLP represented Cingular. Mr. Campbell stated that the remaining issues were lighting and generator noise.
On lighting, Mr. Campbell stated that this tower only has small, low-intensity red lights that are steady during the day and blinking at night. He said that lighting was not an issue for the previous permit since the FAA accepted the small red lights.
Ownership of the generator was not clearly known, although it was stated not to be Cingular’s. Sprint had originally owned it and assisted by supplying photographs but did not know what type of muffler was installed. The applicant supplied specification sheets showing the range available. Mr. Campbell stated that the generator is used for lighting, while the communications equipment has batteries for backup power. The Board asked about test running of the generator. It was believed to be operated on a timer and overseen through a maintenance contract. The Board considered that ownership of the generator needs to be determined. A possible approach to the noise issue would be to condition approval on noise being inaudible at the property line (as per the bylaw) and to conduct an on-site test in future
if deemed necessary.
In relation to the lighting, the Board pointed out that with the Deaconess development, the surroundings will become more sensitive. Mr. Campbell stated that shields are not available for the type of light that currently exists. The Chairman asked if Cingular could apply to the FAA for a waiver of lighting on this tower, on the grounds of its proximity to two other towers that are lit. The applicant was prepared to pursue this approach but wanted to have an alternative plan available if the waiver was not granted. The Board noted that once a shielded light has been installed on the adjacent Sprint/Crown tower, it will be possible to compare the small red lights with the shielded light. Therefore the Board may be prepared to allow finalization of the light issue to be deferred for a period of time following
approval of the special permit.
No comments were received from members of the public.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Snell and seconded by Mr. Craig, to close the public hearing. Passed 5-0
8:20 PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: PAUL PEDINI, 11 Reiling Pond Road, Map 33/Lot 11-6, site plan review for single family residence under Section 17.7.
The applicant attended with Tom Frisardi, attorney, and Christina Breiter, subdivision developer. They reported that copies of the approved subdivision plans have been obtained from the registry and they do include sheets showing the building envelopes. The Board viewed sheet C1 and noted that the Pedinis’ proposed house falls partly outside the building envelope for lot 6. Therefore an amendment to the building envelope under the subdivision special permit would be needed before the site plan could be approved. This change might also trigger the need for an amendment to the envelope for lot 7 which could be applied for at the same time.
Mr. Frisardi presented a letter drawing attention to the fact that the 20 foot trail easement at the edge of lot 6 is not part of the conservation restriction. He stated that he believed it was only intended for local use. Mr. Whitehead reported that he has already consulted the Lincoln Land Conservation Trust via the Rural Land Foundation staff. Buzz Constable of LLCT suggests that the trail be established and its walkability ensured, perhaps with a retaining wall at the edge of the septic system to avoid a lateral slope. The Board thought that the important consideration is to ensure that use of the trail is not impeded by the development. Mr. Frisardi reported that the engineer is working on establishing the correct contours and producing sectional drawings, but that the slope is expected to be less
than the natural slopes found elsewhere on the trail.
A revised landscape plan was presented, including proposals for treatment of a wider area than previously. No formal planting is proposed near the lot line. A final version will be provided.
A new specification sheet for the recessed lights on the house was submitted, and it was confirmed that no other external lights are proposed. The Board was satisfied with the lighting.
The Board examined site drainage. The applicant stated that the driveway will be porous pavement. The Board was satisfied with the drainage.
The Board informally discussed potential changes to the building envelopes for both lot 6 and lot 7. Mr. Frisardi showed a draft of a substitute for Plan C1, with the envelope for lot 6 moved forward and lot 7 amended. The Board commented that the envelopes appeared large and that there is no need to include driveway areas. Mr. Whitehead reported that he has informally consulted the Conservation Officer, who has concerns about development on lot 7 moving any closer to wetlands. The Board offered some suggestions for positioning the edges of the envelopes. Christina Breiter will have the draft plans amended and submit an amendment to the subdivision special permit for consideration at the August 13th meeting, prior to continuation of the Pedini site plan review.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Snell and seconded by Mrs. Wolf, to continue the hearing to August 13th at 8:20 PM Passed 5-0
9:00 PM PRELIMINARY MEETING: CHRISTOPHER WATSON, 164 Sandy Pond Road, Map 38/Lot 1, site plan review for teardown and reconstruction of single family residence under Section 17.7
Christopher and Michelle Watson attended with their architectural designer. The preliminary meeting is an optional rather than a mandatory one in this case. The Watsons are proposing to tear down most of an existing 1950s concrete house and reconstruct it with an increase in size. The lot is non-conforming and the proposal will go before the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to the Planning Board’s hearing.
The prospective applicants showed photographs of the existing house and its surroundings, and stated that there is a mixture of house types in the area. They intend to retain the concrete slab foundation but to extend the footprint of the house by 8 feet on a side that has minimal vegetation; also to add a deck and porch, construct a two car garage beneath the slab and enlarge the parking area. They may wish to remove a large oak tree near the house.
The conceptual design has a barn/studio look, with a steeply pitched roof, some large windows and a barn style door. It will incorporate green energy features. The footprint will be 48 feet by 33 feet, which the Board considered not to be particularly large. The Board suggested that the Watsons may wish to consider heating the driveway, which is on the north side, to avoid an ice problem.
The Board examined the proposed height of the building in relation to the bylaw. The designer stated that the 2½ story rule is satisfied. The building has a raised central portion of roof, described as a cupola. The height from lowest exposed point, to either the main ridge or the top of the cupola, exceeds 36 feet. If the use of average natural grade was allowed for the calculation, then the height to the main ridge would be less than 36 feet but the height to the top of the cupola would be greater than 36 feet. The Board pointed out that the use of average natural grade under Section 13.1.1.b is at the Board’s discretion, having regard to the effect on the neighborhood, but that it may be allowable. The Board considered whether the cupola was covered under Section 13.1.2, which exempts certain
rooftop features from inclusion in height calculations, but was not convinced that it satisfied the requirements. The factors that were driving the height of the building were examined. The Board suggested that there may be potential to reduce it by lowering the eaves and making the cupola sit lower on the roof.
The Watsons agreed to consider the Board’s comments and submit a formal application with a revised design in due course.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Lighting Policy
The Chairman had circulated a first draft of a policy note setting out the Board’s approach to exterior lighting in site plan reviews. Mrs. Wolf proposed a suitable wording for the purpose in relation to dark skies. The Board agreed to describe the note as guidelines rather than policy and to limit its application to residential situations.
Mr. Hurd suggested that, as written, it may be too limiting on soft decorative lighting or on lights that are not dark sky fixtures but are placed under overhangs. He agreed to draft some wording to address these points. Mr. Snell wondered if the term ‘safety’ would be misinterpreted by some applicants without clarification. Mrs. Wolf suggested including a reference to effects on the neighborhood. The Board agreed to consider the guidelines further in the fall.
Starwood Hotel, Lexington
The Chairman raised the issue of a hotel close to the town border on Route 2A in Lexington, that has colored strip lights. The location is at the entrance to the Minuteman National Historic Park for vehicles coming off Route 128 or from the east. The Board considered that the matter was outside its jurisdiction but that the National Park Service might be concerned about the inappropriate image presented. The Chairman agreed to discuss it with Nancy Nelson, MNHP Superintendent.
Cell tower ownerships
The Board discussed its concern about the transfer and fragmentation of ownerships of wireless communication facility sites, which makes it difficult to attribute responsibility for special permit conditions. It believed that in principle, these special permits run with the land. Possible ways to increase cooperation and compliance are: to require that all relevant owners are party to an application; and to introduce a standard condition that any transfer of ownership or assignment of obligations is notified to the Board. Renewal reminders could be issued when permits are approaching expiry.
Lincoln Station (the Mall)
Mr. Craig reported that, according to Community Newspaper Group, a tenant has been identified for the restaurant in the new development. It will be in the same ownership group as Sierra’s and Serafina’s.
Egendorf, 10 Tower Road – appeal of conditions on site plan approval
An executive session of the Board will be held on July 16th to discuss the appeal with town counsel. Mr. Whitehead confirmed that the Department of Environmental Protection received the Planning Board’s letter in connection with the variance application. The application has been rejected due to an incorrect submission.
Reports from meetings:
Land Use Group
Mr. Whitehead reported on items currently before other boards.
At Risk Properties Committee
Mrs. Wolf and Mr. Whitehead reported on a recent meeting of the Committee. It is working on the report. There may be a further meeting on July 22nd. The report is expected to be presented to a joint meeting of the Board of Selectmen and Planning Board.
Hanscom Area Towns Committee
Mr. Domnitz and Mr. Craig reported on a meeting on June 26th that discussed review processes relating to historic resources, under the federal National Historic Preservation Act (“Section 106”), the federal Transportation Act (Section 4(f)) and Massachusetts laws (“Chapter254”).
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM.
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved July 16, 2008
| 
