The Town of Lincoln, MA - Planning Board Minutes

The Board received a copy of a letter to the Tree Warden from Susan Mygatt, dated March 30^th, concerning an advertised public hearing into the removal of trees on several roads in town. The letter mentioned that some of the roads are scenic roads and drew attention to the need for Planning Board approval in these cases. Catherine Perry confirmed that Baker Bridge Road, Sandy Pond Road, Trapelo Road and Old County Road Extension are scenic roads subject to the town’s Scenic Road Bylaw. The proposed tree work appears to be connected with the town’s road improvement project. Mrs. Perry was asked to contact the Director of Public Works and the Tree Warden with a view to setting up a joint hearing on a new date.

Mike Giaimo, attorney, represented Verizon together with technical staff. Verizon wishes to renew its special permit for an existing 91 foot tower and associated equipment on the Morrissey site in the WCF overlay district. Mr. Giaimo said that no new equipment is proposed except possibly for replacement antennas.

The Board received copies of an email from Mr. Giaimo. Mr. Whitehead had informed him of a neighbor’s complaint that the light on the tower is flashing white at night instead of switching to red. The email reported that Verizon is working to address the problem, and also stated that Verizon would be willing, if the Board wishes, to install a shield on the light subject to FAA regulatory or structural issues.

Mr. Giaimo stated that the light had malfunctioned previously and was repaired in December. Since receiving the recent complaint, he has arranged for a repair team to investigate it and they will be going out the next week. The Board is likely to require a shield, and advised Verizon to check that the shield design is compatible with the light and if necessary change the light.

The Board referred to the text supplied by Verizon in support of its proposal. The Chairman pointed out that it was incorrect to state that the facility emits no light; Verizon agreed to revise this to say that the only light is the one required by the FAA. Mrs. Perry pointed out that some of the dates given in the text describing the history of the facility are wrong, and supplied the correct ones. She also noted that Omnipoint/ T-Mobile co-located on the tower in 2006.

The Board mentioned that the town is seeking to improve its public safety radio coverage and may ask for permission to co-locate on the tower without imposing costs on Verizon. Mr. Giaimo cautioned that antenna whips can probably not extend above the light under FAA rules, and that the equipment must not interfere with the other operators’ signals.

David Segal, resident of 39 Cambridge Turnpike and trustee of the Yagjian site, asserted that the light on the Verizon tower has been white with a strobe effect for the last six months, causing disturbance to residents’ sleep and a potential seizure risk. He argued that the Planning Board should withhold Verizon’s permit and that the Yagjian site is a better location. He criticized the Board for failing to enforce the correct operation of the light. Mr. Giaimo referred to his electronic records and reiterated that action was taken in December to correct the problem with the light at that time although he accepted that it may have gone wrong again. The Board stated that enforcement questions should properly be addressed to the Building Inspector. Mr. Segal further asserted that Verizon’s maintenance vehicles use the access route across his property which is for the Yagjian site. Mr. Giaimo denied this. Mr. Segal also said that trees have been cut by Mr. Morrissey in violation of the terms of the special permit, and asked the Board to check the facts against the original tree survey.

Walter Bartkus, project manager for the Deaconess development on the adjoining lot, said that Deaconess was hesitant to object outright to the cell tower as it was pre-existing but that it would like the effects of the light on nearby residents to be minimized. The Board noted that the light should be red at night and that a shield would be likely to reduce impact on new residents of the development at least on the lower stories.

Submission requirements were discussed. The Board stated that it will need to see a plan showing the access to the site, full details of any equipment changes and the proposal for shielding the light. It noted that a post-installation study of radio frequency emissions remains to be submitted.

Mr. Davoli attended with his architect, Michael Price. Mr. Price presented the site plan for a large storage shed and parking area on a vacant lot in a cluster subdivision. He provided revised elevations, together with photographs of the site and its surroundings and photo-montage illustrations. The applicant proposes to use the proposed shed for personal storage including books and possibly furniture. The construction will be wood framed and will have structurally insulated panels with a wood face. The Chairman asked what was implied by the term “conditioned”; the building will have both heating and cooling, mainly to control humidity.

The Chairman stated that there are some legal questions concerning the proposed uses, in terms of the residential zoning, the parking regulations and the cluster subdivision approval. Under Section 6.1, it is clear that the proposed uses could be allowed within the same lot as a house but it is not clear that they could be allowed on a separate lot without a variance. The Board wondered if combining the lot with the Davoli’s house lot, 6 Winchelsea Lane, might be a way forward. It asked whether the Davolis intend to build a house on the vacant lot in future. They may wish to do so. The Board suggested that the applicant may wish to plan the position of the shed in conjunction with the house, or to consider off-site storage. The Board did not consider that the shed could be treated as a temporary use as it will have an electricity supply. The Board will need to research the legal aspects further.

The Board received a letter from Peter and Ellen McCann, residents across the street at 7 Winchelsea Lane. The McCanns commented on the submitted plans and requested screen planting, a shift in the position of the entrance to the parking area, and the use of a hard surface at the entrance. Mr. Davoli stated that he had previously paid for planting on two lots and was concerned at further expectations. The Board commented that the vacant lot was currently unattractive and some screening may be required. It asked if the lot was still being used for construction staging for the adjacent house lot, which was confirmed. Mrs. Wolf noted that a gravel surface, which is proposed for the parking area, can cause problems. Mr. Domnitz suggested a porous concrete paving material that allows grass to grow through it.

Alaric Naiman of 14 Huntley Lane attended. He raised a number of concerns relating to the development of the house at 6 Winchelsea Lane, namely noise, light and run off. The architect responded that the generator noise will be reduced once the shroud is installed, scheduled to occur this summer, and that any light disturbance is probably from interior lights as the exterior ones are low and point downward. In relation to run off issues, the Board suggested that Mr. Naiman check the site plan approvals on file against the situation on site; if there are differences, there may be an enforcement issue but otherwise it is an issue between neighbors.

The applicant attended with his builder. The Board had held a site walk at 7:00 PM. Mr. Craig commented that Ms. Jewett’s house was at some distance and that a small amount of screen planting would alleviate the problem. Mr. Domnitz considered that the addition would not increase the impact of the existing house on views.

Mr. Hurd asked if the first floor room was desired or if it was added for appearance, because there may be ways to address the latter with lower energy use. The applicant said that he felt it would be more useful than the current minimal balcony and wished to have it. The Board examined the elevations and commented that the window pattern was unbalanced. The applicant and builder explained that the fenestration had been driven by interior considerations but agreed to reconsider it. The Board also asked for exterior lights to be marked on the drawings.

The Board noted that its public hearing on the Plan is scheduled for May 6^th. Mr. Hurd reported that the Steering Committee will meet on April 8^th. He noted that the section on economic development is still being refined. Wording was filled out for the Town Meeting document on a number of topic areas where COG identified gaps in coverage. Progress is being made on water issues in conjunction with the Water Commission and the new Water Department manager, Greg Woods.

In Mr. Whitehead’s absence, Mrs. Perry attended the Land Use Group and reported on the work of other boards. The Conservation Commission has closed its hearing on 16 Old Sudbury Road and an application to the Planning Board is expected soon for this site. The Commission will consider a Notice of Intent for the Town’s road improvement project. The ZBA further denied Mr. Lewandowski’s request for an appeal of the Planning Board’s decision on the wall at 3 Bowles Terrace. The Historical Commission will be reviewing a preliminary proposal for a new house at 69 Silver Hill Road on April 7^th. The Planning Board has scheduled a preliminary discussion of this matter for April 15^th.

The Board noted that Ephraim Flint received the most votes in the election but has declined to take up the position and therefore there is a vacant seat. The Chairman has been informed that the vacancy can be filled by a procedure involving the Selectmen and the Planning Board, if suitable candidates are found.

The Board voted unanimously to elect Mr. Domnitz and Mrs. Wolf as Co-Chairmen for the coming year. Assignments to represent the Board on other committees remain unchanged. Representation on the Route 2 Corridor Advisory Committee, formerly Mr. Snell’s responsibility, remains to be decided.