The Town of Lincoln, MA - Planning Board Minutes

Mr. Whitehead reported that John Hamel has asked for guidance on submission requirements for a subdivision amendment to divide the parcel. Provisions in the Rules and Regulations can be waived.

The Board asked for the applicant’s attention to be drawn to Section 3.3 of the Rules which states that all buildings, structures and lots shown on a subdivision plan must comply with the Zoning Bylaw or have been granted a variance, for the Planning Board to approve the plan. Submission requirements are topographical plans, and information to show that a secondary road could be built, utilities provided and natural features protected. The Board suggested a two foot contour interval for the topographic plan.

Kris Estes and Stephen Binder attended with two architects from Foley Fiore Architecture. They explained that their old house has been razed following a fire and they are proposing to rebuild it in a similar location but with an altered footprint. The side setbacks are less than current zoning but the new house will not go closer to the side lot lines than previously. The plan has been presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals which has approved the revised footprint. A submission is being made to the Conservation Commission.

One aim of the design is to provide more windows at the rear. The intention is to increase the total floorspace by 2,600 sq ft, comprising a basement, a tandem garage and a small addition to living space.

The architects showed photographs and an aerial view of the old house and the property. Mr. Foley noted that the site has a lot of vegetation, which will mostly be undisturbed. There is some screening on the side lot lines including recently planted hemlocks on one side (ex Dautremont). The Board asked for any trees that will be removed to be marked on a plan. No change is proposed to the driveway but a new patio will be laid at the rear of the house.

A sketch design for the landscaping was shown. The Board recommended reference to its lighting policy and cautioned against too many lights. Existing lights include a low light at the entrance to illuminate a rock with the house number, and path lights near the accessory building, a gym. Light fixtures will be selected and catalog cuts supplied.

8:20 PM ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENT FOR SIGN: DONELANS, 145 Lincoln Road, Map 95/Lot 38, sign permit as administrative amendment to special permit for Lincoln Station issued May 23, 2007 and amended August 15, 2007.

Charles Bomely of Plan B Retail Design presented a design for a sign for Donelan’s supermarket, to be placed above the new entrance and in front of the staff break room. The sign comprises large lettering for “Donelan’s” and smaller lettering for “supermarkets” underneath. Proposed colors are hunter green and burgundy which will match trim colors elsewhere on the building. The large letters will be made of foam with a metal backing and will be mounted in a channel to form a convex curve. Mr. Bomely showed a sample letter. The sign frame will be attached to the wall of the building and its front will be about 1½ feet back from the edge of the entrance canopy. Mr. Bomely stated that the size of the sign would be 20.7 sq ft, compared with 24 sq ft for the previous sign. Three gooseneck lights with cut-off shades are proposed above the sign, to match lights used on other parts of the mall complex.

The Board considered the size of the lettering. The large letters are proposed to be approximately 16” high. The Board thought they may be too large, although it accepted that the sign needs to be readable from the ground and preferably from the train. The designer said that the fairly broad lettering style reflects Donelan’s logo and suggested that the scale be considered in relation to the building. He felt that a 14” letter height would be acceptable to the applicant but that 12” would be too small to be effective.

The Board asked whether light would be reflected off the metal roof but this was not considered likely due to the painted surface. Mr. Hurd suggested that low, upward-angled lights might be preferable as the goosenecks are high, but the designer said that low lights would be affected by snow. The Board asked for details of the bulbs. They were stated to emit a white light and to be the same as those used in other gooseneck lights at the mall.

Scott Lacy, attorney, of Prince, Lobel, Glovsky and Tye LLP, represented Metro PCS. He recalled that at the pre-application conference in November 2008, he mentioned two options for the Tracey’s site: the first being to extend the existing tower by 10-15 feet and co-locate on it, and the second being to construct a shorter, second tower on the property. He reported that Metro PCS filed with the FAA, first for the extension as advised and then for the new tower. The FAA has responded that any extension of the existing tower by more than one foot would be a hazard to air navigation. Mr. Lacy does not consider that an appeal of this ruling is likely to succeed. He noted that the trees in this vicinity are not higher than the tower. With respect to a second tower, the FAA has responded that this would not be a hazard, and so long as the first tower remains in existence it will not need marking or lighting.

Metro PCS therefore proposes to pursue a second tower. The proposed location is to the east of the existing tower, and Mr. Lacy said that it meets the 75 foot setback requirement. He provided a plan. The intention is for the tower to have external, flush-mounted antennas which are close to the pole, and to be enclosed in a wood fence. The height will be similar to the predominant tree canopy. Equipment will be in ‘outdoor’ cabinets with no requirement for air conditioning, and a battery will provide back-up power.

The Board discussed whether a new pre-application conference was needed for the revised proposal but considered that, as a new notice will be issued for the public hearing, the process will be sufficient. It agreed to waive the balloon or crane test. The Board will need to check the setbacks. The Board asked how many operators could be accommodated on the site. Mr. Lacy advised that the proposed tower could accommodate one additional carrier. The Board reviewed the submission requirements. It noted that the trees were surveyed within the last six months. With regard to radio frequency emissions, it asked for the engineer to either take measurements during the rush hour or provide a statement that the level of call traffic does not affect the results, if that is true.

Mr. Hurd and Mr. Whitehead provided an update. The Steering Committee will meet on May 20^th. Planning Board members should read the chapters and send in any comments of a conceptual nature. The chapters will be further revised prior to the Board of Selectmen’s discussion and the Planning Board’s public hearing.

Mr. Whitehead outlined upcoming agendas. He reported that applications have been received for the Gutierrez house at 16 Old Sudbury Road, the Lazay house at 69 Silver Hill Road and a sign for a dry cleaner’s at the mall, all of which have been scheduled for June 10^th.

The Board noted that Ephraim Flint needs to formally respond to the election result. Assuming he declines, a session will need to be scheduled for the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen to consider candidates for positions of board member and associate. Letters of interest should be sent in by prospective candidates.