2006-09-14-ZBA-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

September 14, 2006 Minutes 7 DRAFT MINUTES of the Lexington Zoning Board of Appeals September 14, 2006 Present: Chairman — Judith J. Uhrig, Nyles Barnert, Maura Sheehan, Arthur Smith and John McWeeney Petition Address: 313 Marrett Road The relief sought is for a Special Permit from Section 135 -86, 135 -87 and 135 -88A -2 1 and C to allow to install, operate and maintain a wireless communications facility The Chairman opened the hearing at 8:53PM by reading the legal notice and described information received from the petitioner relative to the petition. Prior to the hearing, the petition and supporting data were reviewed by the Building Commissioner, Conservation Administrator, Town Engineer, Health Director, Zoning Administrator, Planning Board, the Design Advisory Committee, the Communication Advisory Committee and the Development Review Team. Letters and comments were received from the Communication Advisory Committee and from EBI Consulting on behalf of the Lexington Historical Commission. Attorney Adam Braillard of Prince, Lobel, Glovsky and Tye, representing T Mobil and Byron Peres from the Radio Frequency Department of T Mobil presented the petition. Attorney Braillard stated that the Use was permitted by Special Permit that the plan was to replace the tower roof and put on a structure 7 -feet higher to accommodate the antenna. The additional equipment would be placed on the lower roof structure at rear of building next to the dumpster area. He indicated that equipment would be screened as suggested by the Design Advisory Committee. He indicated that additional information requested by Communication Advisory Committee would be provided before seeking permit to install. He stated that noise from the roof - mounted equipment would be no louder than a residential window air- conditioning unit and with screening wouldn't be heard at all. He provided a large application that he said showed the existing coverage of his client, the holes in local coverage, the locations approved and pending with the resultant potential coverage. He cited the lack of cell phone service coverage in the area. Mr. McWeeney asked if there was any way to provide co- location at this site, was this in fact the best site in the area, were there any other sites that could provide co- locations, good service and eliminate the proliferation of towers. Attorney Braillard replied that given the zoning limitations on where towers could go, there was no better site. This filled in a hole for them, was in an area of need, met zoning requirements and was hidden from view.