The Town of Lincoln, MA - Planning Board Minutes

At the Selectmen’s request, Mr. Domnitz had drafted a letter commenting on the proposed Land Use Partnership Act (LUPA) for submission to the state legislature. Other Planning Board members reviewed the letter and agreed with its contents.

The Coalition, known as 128 C3, comprises selectmen from four towns. Lincoln is represented by Sara Mattes. Mr. Whitehead reported that the group has asked the towns’ planners to look at transportation demand management policies with a view to developing a consistent approach. However as there is little common ground between the towns, the planners have been unable to propose a unified approach. Contact has been made with the 128 Business Council.

8:00 PM PUBLIC HEARING, JOINTLY WITH TREE WARDEN: LINCOLN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS and NSTAR ELECTRIC AND GAS CORPORATION, for cutting and removal of trees in the public Right of Way on Winter Street, Old County Road, Sandy Pond Road, Baker Bridge Road, Oakdale Lane, Mill Street, Bedford Road, Concord Road, Bedford Lane, Trapelo Road, and Old County Road Extension, under the Shade Tree Act (MGL c. 87) and the Scenic Road Act (MGL c. 40, s. 15C and Lincoln General Bylaws Art. XVII).

Ken Bassett attended as Tree Warden. Chris Bibbo, Director of Public Works, who is also the Deputy Tree Warden, and William Hayes of NSTAR attended as proponents. Mrs. Wolf introduced the hearing, explaining that the proposals for tree removal have originated partly in connection with the Town’s repaving project and partly in connection with NSTAR’s review of trees that may pose a hazard in conjunction with its wires. Numbered lists of the trees proposed for removal were advertised in the newspaper and posted on bulletin boards and the trees were marked in the field with ribbons and/or paint. Abutters within 200 feet were notified. Copies of the lists and a generalized map of the tree locations were made available at the hearing. The Planning Board has jurisdiction under the Scenic Road Act; the trees which are on scenic roads are indicated on the lists. The Tree Warden also has jurisdiction over all the trees under the Shade Tree Act but may not authorize cutting or removal if any objection is made in writing at or before the public hearing; in such cases the Selectmen’s approval is needed.

Mr. Bibbo explained that as part of the Town’s paving plan, it is hoped to carry out some shoulder restoration work, including limited tree removals and some repairs to stone walls. Removal of hazardous trees is a DPW responsibility which it is difficult to budget for, and it would be cost effective to wrap a major effort into the repaving project. The DPW marked and posted the trees that it considered problems some time ago, had public discussions and received some representations. The trees were reviewed individually, with the assistance of the Tree Warden. The NSTAR trees were similarly reviewed more recently. Mr. Bassett explained that NSTAR has some responsibility to prevent trees from interfering with the electricity wires. These are the wires at the top of the poles, above the communication wires. If the Town denies NSTAR’s requests, the company is absolved to some extent for responsibility for power outages that result from the trees.

Mr. Bassett reported that most of the trees that are proposed for removal are dead, nearly dead or have major structural problems such as rot so that they are in danger of falling. The Planning Board asked if tree roots were a problem for the road repaving and Mr. Bibbo replied that this was true in at least one case on Baker Bridge Road.

Letters were received from Sam Mygatt, Susan Mygatt, Marcia Gnagey, David Ries and Sara and Gulrez Arshad. Several of the letters objected to the removal of certain trees. Mr. Bibbo agreed to provide copies of other letters received previously.

Mark Kluge of 111 Old County Road spoke in general support of the tree removal proposals, including one tree on the corner of his property. He reported a near accident to a cyclist from a falling branch and said he considered that the work was needed. He also asked whether the cut trees would be left or hauled away. NSTAR stated that it usually leaves the wood and people take it, although the company removes rotten wood and pines. Mr. Bibbo said that on the narrow main roads, the Town prefers that the wood be removed, although on the side streets it could be left for a period.

Sam Mygatt referred to his letter discussing courses of action. He recommended holding on to some of the trees, at least for a while, and relocating some of the sugar maples that were planted on Baker Bridge Road in the 1970s, with a large tree spade. He showed annotated photographs of those trees which he had objections to removing. Mr. Bassett commented that large trees do not always survive relocation, and Mrs. Wolf recalled that the sugar maples were planted with the understanding that they would not all remain.

Mr. Bassett said that he may be prepared to recommend to the Selectmen that some of the trees on which people have raised objections be saved. The Planning Board was inclined to grant scenic road approval for all the listed trees on scenic roads that no-one has objected to. Some members agreed to visit the trees that were objected to and supply recommendations for a decision. The Board noted that a continuance of the hearing would allow more time to receive written objections. Mrs. Perry agreed to compile a complete set of those received to date.

The applicants attended with their architect. The Board reviewed the minutes of a preliminary discussion held on May 13^th. The applicants stated that the plans are essentially the same but lighting details have now been supplied and shown on the drawings. They stated that they are not proposing to remove any trees. The height of the proposed house is less than 36 feet.

The Board examined the site plan showing the existing and proposed buildings. It viewed the catalog cuts for the lighting and was satisfied that they would not create glare, but suggested using dimmers on the 60W candelabra lights. The applicant stated that there is an existing low 5W LED light to illuminate the stone at the driveway entrance, and provided a photograph. There is no mailbox and the house number is on the stone.

Attorney Mike Giaimo represented Verizon/ Bell Atlantic, accompanied by Donald Haes, radiation safety specialist. Mr. Giaimo recalled that at the pre-application conference on April 1^st, he had been advised to submit a proposal for shielding the light on the tower. He reported that he believes the type of light is conducive to fitting a shield. He further reported that the malfunctioning of the light has been rectified. Mr. Domnitz asked about the question of whether the red light has to be blinking or whether it can be steady red. He noted that as some nearby residents are at a higher elevation, a shield will be only partially effective. Mr. Giaimo stated that the FAA requirement was for ‘dual obstruction lighting’ which is defined in regulations. The Board wished to see the regulations to check if the light needs to blink.

Verizon sent application materials by email shortly before the hearing and supplied copies. These comprised a revised statement in support of the application, reports on existing and predicted radio frequency emissions, antenna equipment specifications, a plan showing the access road, a plan of the equipment compound with an elevation of the tower, and photographs. Verizon is proposing to exchange some of the existing antennas for a different type.

Mr. Domnitz asked whether the facility is always transmitting at the same level of power or whether it varies with the call traffic. Mr. Haes responded that with the system used here, the coverage area shrinks during periods of high call demand, to limit the number of calls, and the power needed actually reduces. Another provider has found that the difference between a weekday rush hour and a Saturday was of limited scale. Mr. Domnitz noted that the RF studies showed exposure levels of less than 1% of the federally permitted maximum.

In relation to the tree cutting issue raised by a resident, Mr. Giaimo stated that he believed Mr. Morrissey cut some trees near the access road but that some cutting proposed by Verizon as part its work to install the compound was not done. He showed photographs of the area near the compound. The Board noted that the bylaw has a provision to prevent cutting of trees within 200 feet of a facility without the Board’s approval. David Segal claimed that trees had been cleared within that distance of the tower. The Co-Chairs agreed to visit the site to check.

Mr. Segal acknowledged that the malfunctioning of the light had been corrected but asked if anything could be done to ensure that future problems were addressed in a timely manner. Mr. Giaimo denied that Verizon had previously failed to respond when notified of a problem.

Elizabeth Frumkin attended with Paul Mahoney, architect, and Dan Feeney, engineer. Several neighbors were present. Mrs. Frumkin explained that she and her husband bought the lot in 1995 but have been living away and now wish to build a house here. A preliminary discussion was held with the Board on April 29^th and Board members have visited the site individually to familiarize themselves with it.

The Board recalled that at the preliminary discussion it had raised concerns about a conceptual design which required a long driveway with retaining walls. Site constraints were discussed, including the topography (a knoll), the building envelope set by the cluster subdivision, a 20 foot no-disturb strip adjacent to conservation land to the rear, and the presence of ledge rock which constrains the septic system location. Other factors in the design were the owners’ desire not to have a large height difference between the garage and the first floor of the house, and to have a courtyard in front of the house rather than a direct approach to the garage.

The Board viewed the site plan. The architect stated that design has been revised with a shorter, more curved driveway. The west portion of the septic system has been placed within the driveway area reducing the need for retaining walls and allowing more space for screen planting. The driveway will be paved; the engineer reported that it needs to be impervious above the septic system and that porous pavement would not work well on the slope. A drainage basin is proposed at the south east corner of the lot. The engineer noted that currently water drains from the Row and Frumkin lots across the road, and stated that the development will not increase run off in that direction.

The Board recalled the history of drainage in the subdivision: it was originally forecast that the installation of the road and related work would reduce pre-existing run off but problems were experienced so the developers installed an additional drainage system. One of the neighbors, Mrs. Holberton, reported that there are still some drainage problems.

Mr. Domnitz asked about the height requirement for the septic system and whether the garage could be placed lower. The designers explained that the height is needed; placing the driveway over the septic system required the garage to be set a little higher. Mr. Domnitz asked if a garage entrance on the east side was an option. The designers responded that the geometry was tight and that the owners liked the arrangement with the driveway sweeping around in front of the house. The possibility of changing the building envelope through an amendment to the special permit was discussed briefly but it was acknowledged that it may be undesirable to allow the house to go closer to the conservation land.

Mrs. Holberton asked about the height of the house, which was stated to be within the 24 foot limit set by the cluster special permit. Mrs Frumkin mentioned that the size of the house had been reduced from earlier conceptual plans and that the massing had been designed to give the appearance of a group of smaller buildings.

Another neighbor, Mr. Hoch, asked about the no-disturb zone on the southern edge of the lot. It was established that since the southern lot line is beyond the road, and pines were previously planted along it, the buffer zone will not be affected by development of the house. Mr. Hoch said that his concern was screening and visual impact. He preferred the revised driveway proposal to the original one. The designers expressed an intention to keep the site as natural as possible and said that the south east corner will not change. Mr. Hoch noted that the area cleared for the road has been kept mowed across its full width which may not be necessary.

Lighting proposals were reviewed. There are two low walkway lights in place of the original idea for a post light. There are recessed lights in the porch and dark sky compliant sconce lights at the rear of the house. Mr. Hoch commented that he was satisfied with the lighting.