The Town of Lincoln, MA - Planning Board Minutes

The Board approved a letter to Mr. and Mrs. Solar drafted by the Chairman based on the Board’s November 5th discussion of the Solars’ inquiry about dividing their property into two lots. The Chairman signed the letter.

Further to its discussion of the proposed flagpole the previous week, the Board noted that the flagpole has now been erected. It considered the location, close to the Post Office and Lincoln Road, to be acceptable.

A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Craig, to approve the flagpole as a minor change to the site plan under the special permit for the Lincoln Station Mall redevelopment. Passed 5-0

Jason Felsch, John Caswell and Beth Ries of the Traffic and Roadway Committee attended for a discussion with the Board. A few other committee members and residents were also present. Mr. Felsch explained that the Committee is in the middle of a process for overseeing the design and bidding of a project for road repaving and traffic calming. For roadway rehabilitation, the Committee feels it can rely on the engineering consultants’ advice but for design of other components, it would like to receive input from the Planning Board and Historic District Commission and from the public. It aims to take into account the interests of pedestrians and cyclists as well as others.

Data on traffic volumes and speeds was collected earlier in the year. Mr. Snell requested an electronic copy of the report that sets out this information. Mr. Felsch said that public input on the overall project led to the engineers being given some basic advice on what the town wanted, for example not to widen the roads and to keep trees. A number of potential measures for traffic calming have been identified, including ten speed humps or elevated crosswalks, a few adjustments to road geometry, a three way stop, and changes in the operation of Old Lexington Road. Some sketch designs are on the website and the yellow markers on roads around town indicate locations being examined. The Committee sees these measures as offsetting the effect of a smooth new pavement on traffic speeds.

The Planning Board mentioned some road-related issues that have arisen in connection with reviews of projects: sound barrier walls, run off and driveway lights. Selectman Sara Mattes advised that these kinds of issues could be addressed at a future date by a broader committee that it is proposed to convene following the current project.

Ken Bassett stated that the Traffic Committee is still discussing matters and suggested that the Planning Board could give firmer comments when it has had time to discuss its ideas. The Traffic Committee offered to communicate any revised versions of its proposals.

8:00 PM PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE: METRO PCS, 169 Lincoln Road, Map 96/Lot 2, proposed wireless communication facility with additional height and antennas on an existing pole with associated equipment under Section 12.6.

Attorney Scott Lacy of Anderson and Kreiger represented Metro PCS together with two technical specialists. This is one of three pre-application conferences on proposed facilities for the company. The Chairman explained that the purpose of such conferences is to share some background information and to discuss the required materials for an application, including any waivers.

Mr. Lacy stated that Metro PCS is a new wireless communication service provider, building out its network in Massachusetts. It obtained a license from the state in 2006. Its range of services will be similar to other providers but its subscription plan models may be different. As a strategy to achieve coverage it is targeting existing WCF sites. In Lincoln, Route 2 is a priority but the company also aims to cover other parts of town.

Mr. Lacy said that the intention is to extend the tower at the Public Safety site by ten feet which can physically be done without replacing the existing structure. The positions that each carrier would occupy have not yet been resolved with AT&T, the tower owner, but its authorization has been received for permit applications. Mr. Lacy supplied a letter of authorization signed by Bruce Nicholson. The Board asked for a letter bearing clearer identification of the company and the signer’s position. The Board also pointed out that there is a need to deal with the Town as landowner. Mr. Lacy said that AT&T would do this.

The Board recalled that the possibility of greater height at this location had been considered favorably in the past. In general the Board prefers greater height to additional towers. Metro PCS asked if a balloon/ height test would be required; the Board did not consider it necessary in this case.

The Board reviewed the other normal submission requirements. Tree cover was agreed to have little relevance in this location and the Board agreed to waive this item of information. In terms of topography, no site changes are proposed. It was agreed that only local grade information would be submitted with a plan showing the equipment.

The Board drew attention to the need to notify the FAA, with prior notice to the Planning Board, in relation to airspace obstructions. The Board mentioned that it previously submitted a hypothetical notification for a higher tower and the FAA did not require lighting on it.

In terms of site equipment, Metro PCS intends to use an existing generator. No air conditioning is proposed for the electrical equipment, only cooling fans, as the equipment is not inside a cabinet. The Board will require detailed information about equipment, and noise calculations to confirm that it will be inaudible at the lot line.

8:20 PM PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE: METRO PCS, 0 Bedford Road, Map 29/Lot 25, proposed wireless communication facility with additional height and antennas on an existing pole with associated equipment under Section 12.6.

Attorney Scott Lacy of Anderson and Kreiger represented Metro PCS together with two technical specialists. This is one of three pre-application conferences on proposed facilities for the company. The proposal involves adding ten feet to the height of the existing Tracey’s tower to allow the company’s equipment to be accommodated. A letter of authorization was supplied from Robert Tracey, the landowner. Mr.Tracey has control over the compound. The Board noted that the tower is owned by Omnipoint and that a letter of authorization would be needed from that company in addition. Mr. Lacy said that Metro PCS has opened negotiations with Omnipoint.

The Board recalled that the history of this tower is complex. The tower was approved under a court order. The property is now in the WCF Overlay District but the normal setback is not met by this tower. The Planning Board may need a little time to research the situation.

The Board considered that it could waive the requirements to submit information on the tree canopy and to conduct a balloon or other height test. The Board mentioned that it is asking one of the other carriers on the tower to provide some tree planting to screen the view from a neighbor’s property, and it may potentially ask Metro PCS to contribute. FAA notification of the proposal will be needed, with advance notice to the Planning Board. The Board has a current issue with the air traffic warning light on the top of the tower, which it wishes to have fitted with a shield to cut off downward light. If the light is repositioned, shielding will need to be incorporated.

8:40 PM PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE: METRO PCS, Farrington Memorial Site, 295 Cambridge Turnpike, Map 48/Lot 7, proposed wireless communication facility with antennas on a new pole under Section 12.6.

Attorney Scott Lacy of Anderson and Kreiger represented Metro PCS together with two technical specialists. This is one of three pre-application conferences on proposed facilities for the company. The proposal is to construct a new 65 foot tower with its own equipment compound on the other side of the driveway from the existing tower on the Farrington Memorial site.

The Board recalled that it approved the replacement of the original 55 foot tower with a 65 foot tower for two carriers, and that at the hearing it expressed the view that if there was a need to accommodate more carriers in future, it would prefer to see a second tower rather than increased height.

Mr. Whitehead asked why it was not proposed to place the second tower in the existing compound. Metro PCS stated that there is a need for horizontal as well as vertical separation to avoid interference. The company said that it considered a location on the same side of the driveway but found that this would require cutting significant trees and therefore that it would be more intrusive. Some fill will be needed on one side of the proposed compound to level the site.

An eight foot stockade fence is planned, to screen the equipment The Board pointed out that the labeling of the enclosure on the drawing will need correcting. No air conditioning is planned. A new electrical service will need to be run parallel to the existing one in the driveway.

Frank Panetta, whose family has several houses nearby, said he would prefer not to be able to see the tower. He asked questions about the tree canopy. Metro PCS said that the trees have been surveyed anew but the ground elevations were taken from GIS sources and are therefore likely to be the same as those that Sprint presented. The average tree canopy height was calculated as 49 feet. The Board noted that the bylaw allows it to permit towers up to 20 feet above the tree canopy. Mr. Panetta said that the existing tower is not visible from the properties he is concerned about. The Board asked Metro PCS if the height of the existing tower has been confirmed by survey. There was uncertainty as to whether the 65 foot tower that was approved had been installed at that height. Metro PCS agreed to check on the situation.

Mr. Snell asked whether the proposed tower would be able to accommodate a second carrier if demand should arise. Metro PCS responded that an additional carrier could go in a lower position on the same tower but that the compound would need to be expanded.

The Board discussed whether to require a balloon/ height test. It considered that it could be waived if the existing tower was confirmed to be 65 feet high and the proposed one is no higher. Metro PCS agreed to stake and tape the site of the compound.

Confirmation will be needed from the FAA that no light is needed. Metro PCS noted that FAA notification is necessary due to proximity to both Hanscom airport and a private heliport (Raytheon). Advance notice will be supplied to the Planning Board.

9:00 PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: MARC LEWANDOWSKI, 3 Bowles Terrace, Map 119/Lot 12, amendment to previously approved fence permit to allow for a stone wall fence in excess of five foot limit from the existing ground level as approved in the original permit of September 20, 2006 under Section 18.5.

The Board received a letter from Bob and Christine Donaldson, abutters on South Great Road, expressing approval of the wall as built and of the as yet uncompleted sections, and arguing against requiring Mr. Lewandowski to reduce the height. Board members had visited the site to view the wall. They noted that it was not built in accordance with the plans and that the ground has been raised, including areas within the town Right of Way. The Board observed that stone bounds appear to have been moved. Mr. Lewandowski responded that the bounds were not present previously and he had them installed.

The Board had previously intended to consider asking for some planting to soften the appearance of the wall, depending on the position of the Right of Way. However it noted that Mr. Lewandowski has already planted shrubs and done further regrading without regard to the Right of Way line.

The Board observed that the fire hydrant at the corner of the lot is partially buried, which it considered to be a safety concern. Mr. Lewandowski stated that the base of the hydrant was always below grade. The Board considered that the problem needed to be rectified.

The Board remained dissatisfied with the wall as built and discussed whether to require the applicant to remove a portion of it to bring it into conformity with the original decision. Mr. Kelman, an abutter on Bowles Terrace, offered his view: he did not find the wall offensive although he would have preferred it lower, but he felt that the Board’s authority needed to be upheld. He also said that his wife hoped for removal of the piles of stone that have been in Mr. Lewandowski’s yard for a long time.

The Board also stated that the applicant should restore the previous grades in the Right of Way. Mr. Lewandowski asked about extending the line of the wall or a wood fence back along the property line on the west side of the lot. The Board advised that beyond 20 feet from the road this would only need a permit from the Building Inspector.

9:20 PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: CARROLL SCHOOL, 25 Baker Bridge Road, Map 55/Lot 5, site plan review for new classroom structure under Sections 17.0 and 19.1e.

Some Board members had visited the site and were concerned about the effect that the drainage installation with gabion baskets would have on the appearance of the property from the road. On Friday, Mr. Domnitz and Mr. Whitehead had met with Chris Bibbo, DPW Director, and representatives of the Carroll School on site to discuss runoff issues. Following this meeting, a revised drainage plan with an additional catch basin on the east side of the driveway has been submitted. Mr. Bibbo welcomed the School’s offer to accept responsibility for any water that discharges onto the road.

The Board further discussed the conflicting issues in connection with site drainage. It wondered if there was potential to fit a drainage system under the southern edge of the parking area or in land to the southwest. It asked Mr. Whitehead to communicate its concerns about the gabion basket system to the School.

The Board discussed its approach to the building height issue, in terms of the Zoning Bylaw. It could potentially allow the use of average natural grade for the height calculation under Section 13.1.1 b; this would require a determination that additional height would not adversely affect the neighborhood. Alternatively it could apply the test under 19.1e for allowing exemptions from dimensional zoning regulations for certain organizations (in this case a non-profit educational use). This requires the applicant to demonstrate that the regulation in question would be unreasonable as applied to the land or structures devoted to its use. The Board preferred the latter approach.

Charles Stankard of 16 Huckleberry Hill attended to discuss his family’s property on Winter Street, Map 91/ Lot 7. He showed a plan of the parcel which currently has two houses on it. The desire is to divide it into two parcels with a house on each. A plan has been drawn up for a minor street to create frontage for the rear house. This involves acquiring a strip of the neighbor’s property in exchange for a piece of land at the rear that would bring the neighbor’s property up to 80,000 sq ft. The minor street would be 40 feet wide and 440 feet long.

Mr. Whitehead stated that a minor subdivision requires at least 12 acres and each lot must be at least 3 acres. The proposal would create a two lot minor subdivision, and the neighboring lot would continue to have its frontage on Winter Street. He commented that previous ideas for resolving the problem of the property’s configuration have not proved viable, and involvement of the neighbor seems to help. The Board checked the frontage for the rear lot and confirmed that it appeared satisfactory.

Mr. Stankard said that there is an existing 10 foot access way to the rear house and the intention would be to request a waiver from construction of the road. He pointed out that much of the unused land is in wetlands, and reported that the Rural Land Foundation is discussing buying some of it for conservation. The Board noted that if it decides to grant the waiver, it will need to restrict further division of the land.

The Chairman asked about the effect of losing a strip of land for the road on the non-conformity of the neighbor’s lot. Mr. Stankard said that this lot would become less conforming in relation to the 250 ft lot width rule but more conforming in relation to lot size. The Board concluded that the proposal would need to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a special permit under Section 4.4 of the Zoning Bylaw. The Board considered whether the neighbor’s lot could claim frontage on the proposed minor road as well as on Winter Street, but concluded that it could only do so if the minor street was constructed.