TOWN OF LINCOLN
MINUTES OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING
Held on July 28, 2009
In the Donaldson Room, Lincoln Town Offices
PRESENT: B.Wolf (Chair), R.Domnitz, J.Craig, K.Hurd ABSENT: D.Boynton
STAFF: M.Whitehead, C.Perry
7:30 PM BUSINESS:
Copies of state guidelines for qualifying as a Green Community under the Department of Energy Resources’ Green Communities Program, were distributed. The Board noted that one of the requirements is to provide for as-of-right siting of facilities for renewable or alternative energy, which may be generation facilities over certain sizes, research and development or manufacturing facilities.
8:00 PM PUBLIC HEARING: METROPCS, 0 Bedford Road (Rear of Tracey’s), Map 29/Lot 25, special permit application for wireless communication facility under Section 12.6.
Attorney Scott Lacy of Prince, Lobel, Glovsky and Tye represented Metro PCS, together with a radio engineer. A pre-application conference was held on November 19, 2008 and further discussions on February 18 and May 13, 2009. In February Metro PCS proposed to make two applications to the Federal Aviation Authority: one to extend the existing tower by ten feet and one for a second, lower tower nearby on the same site. Mr. Lacy subsequently reported that the FAA disallowed the additional height on the existing tower but approved the second tower with no lighting so long as the existing tower remains lit. Metro PCS is therefore proceeding with an application for a special permit for the second alternative.
Application packets were supplied. The proposal is for a 75 foot monopole with externally mounted antennas, located slightly east of the existing tower within the same lot which is in the wireless communication district. Mr. Lacy stated that it meets the 75 ft setback requirement. Access will be gained from the rear of Tracey’s Towing via an extension of the existing access road around the perimeter of the vehicle compound, with a wood fence and a gate. A plan was supplied.
In terms of service coverage, Mr. Lacy stated that Metro PCS has a gap in this area which it wishes to fill similarly to other carriers. Its nearest facility to the east is at Farrington Memorial. The existing tower at Tracey’s has five slots but the available one, the lowest, is too low to satisfy the company’s need. The new pole will accommodate Metro PCS and potentially one more carrier.
Mr. Lacy described the equipment and referred to drawings. The antennas proposed for Metro PCS have been revised. There will be six, with two mounted side by side in each of three sectors. There will also be a small GPS antenna near the ice bridge. Base equipment will be on a small concrete pad within a larger, 30’x30’ compound. No lighting is proposed and equipment cabinets are an all-weather type with fans but not air conditioning. Mr. Lacy said that they would be inaudible on the property line. Batteries will be used for back up power in the event of power outages, for up to a few hours; beyond that it would be necessary to bring in a generator. No tree cutting is proposed.
The Board considered the factors and conditions pertaining to special permits for wireless communication facilities in Sections 12.6.5 and 12.6.6. Mr. Domnitz asked about a coverage gap around Trapelo Road. The engineer said that the Farrington Memorial tower does not reach that area due to the terrain. The company hopes to fill out its coverage in due course but for now it is focusing on locations that have established facilities. It launched its service in the region in February this year.
The Board asked why external antennas are proposed rather than internal ones. Mr. Lacy explained that it is harder to fit them on the inside; they might have to be stacked vertically which could affect the co-location potential. He pointed out that the appearance will match the existing nearby tower and be below the tree canopy. The Board inquired about the color of the pole. Mr. Lacy said that it is naturally a gray metal but that it can be painted. The Board considered that a painted finish was likely to maintain its color better.
The Board asked what the function of the GPS antenna is. The proponents stated that it is used to synchronize the timing of signals, and is used in determining the location of 911 calls.
The Board received a letter from Steve Daigle, a resident nearby on Cambridge Turnpike, expressing concerns about radio frequency emissions, visual intrusion and disturbance by work at the site and also complaining about litter and hazardous waste at the site. Mr. Domnitz noted that the emissions report states that RF levels at ground level will be less than 1% of the federally allowed limit but that the percentage is higher at 16 ft above ground. The Board observed that Mr. Daigle’s house is set on lower ground. Mr. Lacy stated that towers with four or five carriers never reach 100% of the federal limit. He offered to pass on the complaint about litter, although the Board recognized that this problem was probably caused by other companies’ staff. The Board agreed to ask the Conservation
Officer or Building Inspector to investigate the alleged dumping of waste oil containers in the vicinity of the gas station/ towing facility. Mr. Whitehead agreed to inform Mr. Daigle that the Board hopes to have a light shield fitted to the existing tower.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Hurd and seconded by Mr. Domnitz, to close the public hearing. Passed 4-0
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Hurd and seconded by Mr. Craig, to grant a special permit for the proposed facility, for five years, with a condition that it be painted and maintained with a matte medium gray finish. Passed 4-0
8:30 PM PUBLIC HEARING: METRO PCS, 169 Lincoln Road, Map 96/Lot 2, special permit application for wireless communication facility under Section 12.6.
Attorney Scott Lacy of Prince, Lobel, Glovsky and Tye represented Metro PCS, together with a radio engineer. A pre-application conference was held on November 19, 2008. Metro PCS proposes to extend the existing 80 foot ‘flagpole’ style tower by
10 feet.
Application packets were provided. Mr. Lacy drew attention to the photo simulations and drawing C4 which illustrate the appearance of the tower as proposed. The change involves adding a new portion to the top and relocating the ball finial. The antennas are internal. AT&T will be relocated to the top position with two sets of antennas stacked vertically. Metro PCS will occupy the second slot at 75 feet. A plan of the site was shown. Mr. Lacy stated that the cabling will be underground. Base equipment for Metro PCS will occupy the third bay of the existing equipment shelter, and Mr. Lacy said that it will not be visible except for a small GPS antenna. He reported that the FAA does not require any lighting on the tower.
Mr. Domnitz asked if this was the maximum height for the tower on the existing foundation. Mr. Lacy did not have the information to answer this question.
The Board considered the factors and conditions pertaining to special permits for wireless communication facilities in Sections 12.6.5 and 12.6.6. Mr. Lacy mentioned that a variance was obtained to build the existing tower but that now the bylaw allows the Board to authorize additional height without a variance. He referred to the test set out in Section 12.6.6 (p). To approve the special permit, the Board would have to make a finding that the height was no greater than needed to meet carriers’ coverage requirements, and that the proposal would eliminate the need for another antenna support structure. Mr. Lacy asserted that the tower at the DPW site cannot accommodate any more carriers and that if the current proposal is disallowed, there will be a need for another tower.
The Board noted that Metro PCS has authorization to apply for the special permit, but asked about the lease status. Mr. Lacy said that once it obtains approval, Metro PCS will sign a sub-lease with AT&T, which has a lease from the Town.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Domnitz and seconded by Mr. Craig, to close the public hearing. Passed 4-0
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Hurd and seconded by Mr. Craig, to make a finding under Section 12.6.6 (p):
1) That the height to be approved is no greater than the minimum antenna support structure height that would allow all licensed wireless communications service providers who seek coverage from the site to meet their service coverage requirements for the subject area, and
2) That the approval of an antenna support structure of this increased height would result in the elimination of the need for one or more other new antenna support structures in the Town of Lincoln that would otherwise be required to meet the service coverage requirements of the licensed wireless communication service providers who seek coverage from the site,
and to grant a special permit for the proposed facility for five years subject to the pole extension matching the existing color. Passed 4-0
9:00 PM PUBLIC HEARING: JANE M. SOLAR, 40 Deerhaven Road, Map 24/Lot 27, subdivision of property under Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land and the Laying Out of Ways.
Jane and Robert Solar attended with their attorney, Mark Lanza. They propose to divide one lot into two. Subdivision plans were filed on July 2, 2009. Previously, in March, an ANR plan was proposed but the Board considered that subdivision approval was needed due to road issues. Two plan sheets were supplied: one showing the proposed division into lots 31 and 32, with notes, and one showing the topography and utilities for information.
Mr. Lanza outlined the history of the property. The Deerhaven subdivision was approved in 1958 and modified in 1964 to allow two lots to be combined to form the current one without construction of the secondary street, Horseshoe Lane. A house was built on the lot and a driveway constructed. The two houses on the corners of Horseshoe Lane and Deerhaven Road have driveways off Deerhaven Road. In approving the modification, the Board required a covenant stating that the subject lot can not be divided again unless Horseshoe Lane is constructed to the standards in effect at that time. In 1974 the owners applied to divide the property, requesting a waiver of the road construction; at that time the Board voted to approve it and wrote a decision but it was eventually rescinded following a court appeal by a
neighbor.
The Solars are requesting waivers from road construction beyond what has been provided as a driveway. The position of the existing house will not enable compliance with the 250 ft lot width rule following the proposed division, and the applicants propose to either move the house within lot 32 or obtain a variance. There is also an existing barn which the applicants propose to raze prior to construction of a house on lot 31. The Board noted that the barn would not be allowable as an accessory structure without a principal building.
The Board viewed the plans. The existing house and barn are shown. A building envelope for lot 32 is depicted, taking account of 50 ft zoning setbacks, the 250 ft lot width rule and the 100 ft wetland buffer. The Board checked the location of the nearest fire hydrant.
The Solars stated that they propose to use the second lot for a house for their son and that they wish to have the driveway serve both lots. Mrs. Wolf said that the Board is sympathetic to their wishes but explained that its decision has to have regard to potential future ownership by separate families. The Solars also reported that the neighbors do not want the access way to be widened.
Mr. Solar reported that fire and police vehicles have visited the property in the past and did not have problems accessing it. Mrs. Solar said she understood the Town was moving away from road construction standards of the 1960s and preferring more rural design. She stated that the base layer of the driveway was allowed to settle and then a second layer applied and that it is in good condition. The Board noted that the Subdivision Rules and Regulations have a provision for minor streets but that it includes a requirement for larger parcels of land and therefore does not apply in this case. It checked the requirements for various types of street in Section 7.5.8, which are: 24 feet for a principal street, 20 feet for a secondary street and 16 feet for a minor street (if it requires paving).
The Board discussed the situation. Mr. Domnitz observed that if the road was built to secondary street standards, then the applicants would be entitled to the subdivision; however, to comply with zoning, they would have to move the house or obtain a variance for it in its present location and they would have to raze the barn. The Board needs to consider the waiver requests. The Board reviewed the 1974 decision that was rescinded. It noted that the memorandum of decision referred to removal of the barn but not to the 250 ft lot width rule affecting the house; it was possible that the rule was interpreted differently as the language defining lot lines has been revised since then. Mrs. Wolf said that she may not be prepared to support a recommendation to the ZBA for a variance. The Board wished to take time
to consider its decision.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Domnitz and seconded by Mr. Hurd, to close the public hearing. Passed 4-0
It was agreed to schedule a discussion of the decision on August 18th. Some Board members wished to visit the site and agreed to do so individually.
9:30 PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: LISA & CARLOS GUTIERREZ, 16 Old Sudbury Road, Map 119/Lot 2, site plan review for partial teardown and reconstruction of a dwelling under Section 17.7.
The applicants attended with their architect, Timothy Burke. Mr. Burke presented a revised design. He stated that the elevations have been changed to reduce the height to 36 feet from lowest exposed point to highest point, avoiding the need to use average natural grade for the height calculation. The styling has also been simplified, and materials on all faces will be clapboard with some stone, similar to the existing portion of the house that will be kept. The turret/silo and side chimney have been eliminated and the atrium ‘skylight’ roof will now be near-flat. A columned porch is proposed. Mr. Burke noted that some details on the building plan need updating to match the revised elevations. On the landscape plan, some planting alongside the pool has been added.
The Board responded that it much preferred the revised design. It noted that the stepped front line of the house will help to break up the massing. It was satisfied with the proposed landscape screening.
Exterior lighting was discussed. At the front of the garage, a combination of recessed lights and wall-mounted dark sky fixtures is proposed. The Board considered that 26W fluorescent bulbs would be too bright and suggested 13W. The porch is proposed to have wall-mounted fixtures and other parts of the house exterior are proposed to have recessed lights. The Board pointed out that all doors that function as entrances or exits will need lights to meet the building code. Full details including positions and fixtures/bulbs should be supplied to the Planning Board. Mr. Hurd suggested wiring the wall-mounted lights separately from the recessed ones and having a dimmer for the latter. At the edge of the parking/ driveway area, a series of low lights approximately ten feet apart are proposed. The architect stated
that the bulbs are 12.3W but he did not know the type; he agreed to provide this information. The Board said that a timer would be preferable to a photocell to reduce nighttime disturbance. The Board also suggested reducing the number of these lights and ensuring that they are within the normal brightness maximum of 60W incandescent equivalent. The Board asked if there is any intention to mark the house number at the driveway. The applicants propose to have a mailbox with the number. Around the pool, small LED lights are proposed. These were stated to emit a low glow.
The Board considered that the drainage proposals were satisfactory.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Domnitz and seconded by Mr. Craig, to close the public hearing. Passed 4-0
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Domnitz and seconded by Mr. Craig, to approve the site plan as presented subject to submission of a complete final set of plans, with height measurements marked, and submission of a lighting plan for approval by the Board.
Passed 4-0
10:00 PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: MARK & LIZ WILKINSON, 9 Tabor Hill Road, Map 69/Lot 7, site plan review for teardown and reconstruction of a dwelling under Section 17.7
David O’Neil, architect, attended on behalf of the applicants. He stated that he has revisited the method of separating the two buildings as the applicant did not like the appearance of the raised portion of walkway roof. The revised proposal is to construct the walkway in portions with a small gap between a pair of double columns. The Board suggested that it might be preferable to place the gap at a similar pair of columns further from the house. Mr. Domnitz asked if the floor also has a gap. Since it is a raised wood floor, it will also need to be broken somewhere, perhaps adjacent to the accessory building. Mr. O’Neil agreed to submit amended plans.
Mr. Domnitz asked if blasting will be needed for construction. Mr. O’Neil said that he would not know until the existing riprap material is removed from the slope.
The Board considered the stormwater drainage issues. It had observed signs of runoff from the driveway onto the road. Mr. Whitehead reported that the DPW Director was not aware of issues or relevant proposals in the area. The architect corrected his earlier statement that water runs off to the side of the driveway, as curbs are retaining it and sending it down the driveway. The project includes new drainage measures for the upper half of the driveway which is proposed to be reconstructed, and Mr. O’Neil suggested improving the situation lower down by removing some pieces of curb. The Board considered that the whole driveway is likely to need reconstructing after it has been used for house construction, and said it would prefer a more complete plan to address the drainage issues. Mr.
O’Neil agreed to prepare a suitable plan.
The Board discussed control of erosion and runoff during construction, having regard to the letter received from the Cambridge Water Department.
Exterior lighting proposals were examined. Catalog cuts for two types of light (marked as A and E) were supplied. It was agreed to delete one of the three lights shown on the front of the accessory building but that a light will be needed at the other door to meet building code. The Board mentioned that it will apply a standard condition of 60W incandescent equivalent maximum bulbs.
The Board checked the height of the principal building. Its height exceeds 36 feet from lowest exposed point to highest point. The Board asked for the height to be shown on the drawings. The Board noted that the house spans a steep slope. Calculations using average natural grade were supplied; on this basis the house measures 29.8 feet. The Board was satisfied with the appearance of the building and did not consider that it would adversely affect the neighborhood. It noted that no objections were received from neighbors.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Craig and seconded by Mr. Domnitz, to close the public hearing. Passed 4-0
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Craig and seconded by Mr. Domnitz, to approve the use of average natural grade for the height calculation for the principal building.
Passed 4-0
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Domnitz and seconded by Mr. Craig, to approve the site plan as presented, subject to conditions that:
- the residence and accessory structure shall be physically separated with a gap, and the walkway shall not be enclosed;
- prior to obtaining a building permit, the applicant shall submit a plan to address driveway runoff for approval;
- erosion and sedimentation byproducts of construction shall be retained on the site
- full corrected plans, including lighting, shall be supplied. Passed 4-0
The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 PM.
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved as amended, September 8, 2009
| 
