 |
Minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting on 9-6-07
Meeting convened at 7:40 pm in the Donaldson Conference Room at Town Hall. Present: John Kimball, Chair, members Anna Hardman, Joel Freedman, Jeff Macklin, Win Quayle and Pamela Green and Dorothy Blakeley, ZBA Clerk.
Continuances:
1) Ms. Lawon Suh & Mr. Peter Lee, 31 Mill Street, M/P 20 3 0, for a proposal to reconstruct a single family residence. Mr. Lee appeared with his counsel, Tim Taylor. Mr. Taylor noted that the since our last ZBA meeting, the applicant had appeared before the Planning Board again and the PB approved this application. Mr. Taylor said the last matter in question was the landscape plan and that Tom Gumbart had requested additional screening. John Kimball noted that the plan reflects new trees off to the left and Mr. Taylor noted that are already substantial trees on the right that will remain in place. It was also noted
that the new dwelling will be utilizing an existing portion of the existing foundation. As far as the site plan, the only change is that the reconstructed dwelling will be moved by about 1 and ½ feet to satisfy the needs of the Conservation Commission. It was also noted that the square footage has not changed from the last meeting, and total remains at 6,382 square feet. Motion to close the record unanimously approved. John Kimball stated the original plan had a house size of 8,000 square feet and has gone through much iteration since the applicant originally came before the Board. John Kimball also noted that the Planning Board, under Section 4.4, said we could consider all accessory structures together. John Kimball asked the applicant to confirm that none of the existing accessory structures will be reconstructed such as the kennels and sheds that currently exists on the property. Mr. Lee confirmed this fact. Anna Hardman stated that
this applicant has been through a lot in satisfying all the necessary boards and she admires their tenacity. Win Quayle and Pamela Green both agreed that although this is a big house, it does satisfy the broad standard and does not create a bad precedent. Joel Freedman stated he believed the house, despite the modifications made by the Applicant, remained too large and imposing, in massing and siting, for its lot and neighborhood.
Action: Motion to approve this application approved by four members of the Board with Mr. Freedman dissenting. Final vote: 4-1. Panel consists of John Kimball, Pamela Green, Anna Hardman, Joel Freedman, Jeff Macklin and Win Quayle. John Kimball is the Decision Writer.
2) Mr. Shihab Ahmed and Mrs. Marlene Major-Ahmed, 59 Oxbow Road, M/P 100 6 0, for a special permit to construct additions to a single family home. The applicants appeared with their architect, Andrew Bennett of Bennett Architecture. At the last meeting on June 26, 2007 the ZBA asked for additional information, specifically how far the existing dwelling protrudes into the rear yard setback. It was determined that a professional engineer would be advantageous in determining the proximity of the existing dwelling to the side and rear yard setbacks. It was noted that this is the heart of the challenge, to determine which element
is non-conforming, as it relates to the fact that the applicant is asking for both a special permit and a variance. Mr. Bennett noted that Mark Whitehead suggested the applicant come before us for both. John Kimball stated the lot is oddly shaped, sort of like a bowling alley. John Kimball also said the proposed changes are reasonable, if not necessary, changes. However, the plot plan that is being used is from 1959 and an updated survey, as discussed in our last meeting, would have been very helpful. This impacts how we look at the application, do we consider a special permit or variance? Joel Freedman stated his reluctance to use a variance. Anna Hardman asked if the proposed changes are increasing the non-conforming nature of this structure? Mr. Bennett responded, in either case, the proposed changes maintain the spirit, intent, fit and scale of the neighborhood. Win Quayle noted that it is a question of analysis, and what
analytical method we are going to use. Joel Freedman stated that we do need the survey in order to have the facts to proceed. John Kimball asked Joel Freedman to contact Town Counsel, Joel Bard, to confirm whether this application should fall under a Special Permit category to clarify how the decision will be written. This matter was continued until the next posted meeting of the Board. Mr. Bennett stated they will hire a surveyor before our next meeting.
Action: Matter continued until September 27, 2007. Panel consists of John Kimball, Anna Hardman, Joel Freedman, Jeff Macklin and Win Quayle. Decision Writer is Joel Freedman.
3) Thomas Bray and Linda Mieu, 19 Trapelo Road, M/P 65 11 0, to construct additions to an existing single family dwelling in the Historic District. The applicant, Linda Mieu, appeared with her architect, Martin Dermady. Since the applicants last appeared before us on June 26, 2007, they have received approval from the Lincoln Historic District Commission on August 16, 2007. The Historic District Commission requested minor changes such replacing picture windows with bay windows. As the ZBA was awaiting only this approval from the Historic District Commission before closing the record, a motion to close the record passed unanimously.
Action: Motion to approve this application approved unanimously. Panel consists of John Kimball, Pamela Green, Anna Hardman, Joel Freedman, Jeff Macklin and Win Quayle. Win Quayle is the new Decision Writer.
4) T-Mobile, continuance of a public hearing for a proposed cell tower at 22 Red Rail Farm. Appearing for the applicant, T-Mobile was new counsel, Brian Grossman, of Prince, Lobel, Glovsky and Tye and Mr. Sameer Parakkavetty, Senior RF Engineer. Pamela Green chaired this session. She stated this is the third public hearing on this matter and reminded those in attendance that the purpose of this hearing was to gather data, views and arguments pertaining to the application for use and dimensional variances filed by the applicant. In particular, the purpose of the hearing was to review the
supplemental proffer of evidence from the applicant responding to questions posed by the Board during the course of the last hearing (May 17, 2007). The Board noted for the record a letter from Kate Wolf and Ashton Peery dated 9/5/07 which contained information regarding a possible alternative site for the proposed cell tower.
Pamela Green asked that all speakers identify themselves for the record. Ms. Green said she could not say in advance whether or not the record of the hearing could be closed to further evidence after this hearing. The Board might require additional facts and might have to entertain the possibility of keeping the record open after tonight to receive answers to questions posted this evening. Ms. Green stated that the Board is trying to conclude its review expeditiously, while still compiling a record adequate to enable a fair decision.
Mr. Grossman, counsel for the applicant, was the first to speak. He said that the supplemental filing to be reviewed at this hearing had inaccuracies in it and that these would be corrected in a subsequent filing to be made after tonight’s hearing. Mr. David Maxson, the Board’s expert, had pointed out a number of them shortly before the hearing convened. These inaccuracies were discussed at length.
The Board noted that, at the last hearing, it had a long list of questions for the applicant to answer and that some questions were not answered or not answered fully. The Board reiterated that it is interested in the impact of a hypothetical tower or other facility at Lincoln Fuels, 110 Concord Road, now that the Board has received information on the potential availability of that site.
Brian Grossman responded that the applicant is aware of the Lincoln Fuels site generally, but that he believed that the owner of the site of Lincoln Fuels was not interested in pursuing locating a wireless facility on his property. Ashton Peery, 50 Old Concord Road, noted that the new owners of Lincoln Fuels, on Rte 126, Scott Guenard and James Durkin, told him on September 4th that T-Mobile never followed up on an initial proposal from October 6, 2006. He said he believed that these owners are favorably disposed to having a cell tower on their property.
The Board members questioned the applicant’s counsel and Mr. Parakkavetty, the applicant’s engineer, about the scope and provenance of the traffic count data submitted in the supplemental information. The applicant was asked to provide accurate estimates of the traffic along the portion of Route 126 that is pertinent to the applicant’s claims concerning a gap in service and to explain where the data comes from and how it was compiled. The Board also needs accurate information about the number of household customers in the area that the applicant claims are affected by the “gap” in wireless service.
Bob Domnitz, representing the Planning Board of which he is now the Chair, stated he is going to provide written commentary to the ZBA. Mr. Domnitz questioned some of the numbers that were cited in the report, such as the sound level of the air conditioning units. He noted that he would like data from the air conditioning manufacturers regarding the level of sound emanating from the air conditioning units in the equipment shed that would be built at the base of the proposed tower. Mr. Grossman responded that data from the manufacturers differ. He said that he would obtain additional information on the amount of sound emitted from the proposed equipment shed.
David Maxson, the Board’s radio frequency expert, stated that a distributed antenna system is a known technology for delivering wireless signals. In the early days of wireless telecommunications it used to be the norm to use open framed towers with 15 wide antenna racks. Later, it became more common to use steel monopoles which, he said, the wireless companies initially resisted. The monopoles had the antennas installed inside the poles. David Maxson noted that it is not the Town’s responsibility to worry about the economic impact that a carrier have to bear to comply with the Town’s zoning. David Maxson added that perhaps a lower antenna height or locating a tower in a different location might help solve the coverage issue.
David Maxson, spoke of data used both in the applicant’s April 18th submission and also of the applicant’s latest proffer, and the different heights and coverage used in various examples. Mr. Maxson noted that with the incorrect heights used in many of the examples in the latest proffer, it is difficult to analyze this data.
Ashton Peery, 50 Old Concord Road, said most of his concerns were stated in his letter dated 9/5/07. However, he wanted to add that he is also concerned with the impact on the public, the people who use the trail daily such as jogger and horseback riders. Ashton Peery noted that the crane test took place in the spring when the foliage was in bloom and that the visual impact of the tower would be much different in the winter. Ashton Perry also stated the level of diligence on the part of T-Mobile is sorely lacking and that the applicant has an obligation to explore alternative sites.
Gustav Beerel, 25 Red Rail Farm Road, an abutter, said that legal counsel for the Red Rail Farm Trust maintains that the applicant needs approval from the Trust for access to the proposed site. Mr. Beerel would like for the record to note that the filing done by the applicant does not demonstrate that the applicant has complied with the Trust’s requirements.
Pamela Green stated that it will be impossible the evidentiary record tonight and said that there would have to be an additional hearing to review the answers to the questions posed by the Board and others tonight. The Board decided to continue the hearing until November 1st, 2007 but that the additional documents to be submitted by the applicant should arrive no later than October 15th, 2007.
Action: This matter is continued until November 1, 2007. Panel consists of Pamela Green, Chair, Anna Hardman, Joel Freedman, Jeff Macklin, Win Quayle and John Kimball, Decision Writer.
Meeting adjourned at 11:00 pm
| |