TOWN OF LINCOLN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
February 8, 2006
PRESENT: K.Hurd (Chairman), E.Flint, R.Domnitz, J.Snell
STAFF: M.Whitehead, C.Perry
7:30PM ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENT: Row Property, Cluster Subdivision, 145 Tower Road (Map 112/ Lot 18) for changes in roadside construction.
Nathalie Rice explained that she had supervised, on behalf of RLF, the installation of the water line in connection with the construction of this single family house in a cluster subdivision. Two minor amendments to the subdivision plan were requested:
1. Change from retaining wall to rock outcrop.
The original plans showed a 90ft retaining wall but as ledge rock had been encountered, it was considered more practical and visually preferable to omit the wall. Jonathan Hoch, a neighbor overlooking the property, commented that he wished the wall/ rock cut had been illustrated more clearly at an earlier stage but that it was probably too late to request a change in the basic design.
2. Change in hydrant location.
The plan had shown a hydrant on the north side of the road, its position based on an assumption about development of the neighboring lot. It was proposed to instead place it on the south side of the road, where the water line was, and this met with the approval of the Fire Chief.
A MOTION was proposed and seconded to approve the two amendments subject to submission of an ‘as built’ plan. Passed 4-0.
Mr. Hoch also drew attention to the design of the street light in this subdivision, which he felt created more light spillage than necessary. He said he was interested in initiating a review of town street lights and would write to the Town Administrator. The Board expressed support for this.
7:45PM PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed general bylaw for Neighborhood Conservation Districts
A number of town residents and board members attended for this item. Copies of the proposed bylaw were circulated, together with an overview and outline.
Joel Freedman spoke on behalf of the Neighborhood Conservation Committee, a seven-member sub-committee of the Planning Board comprising representatives of the Planning Board, Board of Appeals, Housing Commission, Friends of Modern Architecture and citizens. The committee’s work had resulted in a proposal for a general bylaw that would enable the establishment of Neighborhood Conservation Districts and provide a process for their creation and operation. Mr. Freedman outlined the main provisions, explaining that the proposal is different from a historic district where every detail is reviewed and from zoning bylaws that focus on uses and dimensions. The process would begin with proposal of a NCD by neighborhood residents, submission to the Historical Commission, followed by preparation of a report examining the
issues, a public hearing and recommendation. It could be vetoed by a neighborhood majority at that point or progress to a Town Meeting vote. Interim rules would apply to prevent developments from prejudicing the outcome. Each NCD would be different, with rules set according to what was considered appropriate for that neighborhood. The proposed bylaw includes a list of exceptions to what could be controlled. Once established, the NCD committee would review relevant developments in the neighborhood; the proposed bylaw sets out relevant considerations in decisions. Appeals and violations are addressed. In terms of interaction with other boards, the bylaw provides that where a NCD controls demolition, there would be exemption from the demolition delay bylaw. Other boards would be required to take account of the views of the NCD committees.
The Chairman asked about arrangements for record keeping. Rules could be made by the Historic Commission. Open meeting rules would apply, together with the usual reporting provisions.
Mr. Domnitz raised a number of issues:
· Neighborhood size: is there a minimum?
Mr. Freedman indicated not but thought that frivolous NCD proposals would be filtered out by the review and reporting process.
· Likely contentiousness – possible cost of arbitrating/defending decisions;
· Conflicts of interest – previous discussion had led to the conclusion that individuals would have to recuse themselves from decisions on abutters’ property, but beyond that, the situation of committee members having a general interest in outcomes was no different than other boards;
· Any risk of having to call Special Town Meetings solely to approve NCDs?
Mr. Freedman responded that the bylaw allows for approval by either Annual Town Meeting or a Special Town Meeting, but as the latter requires 100 signatures it could not easily be required.
· Visibility from a public right of way – was it appropriate to have this as a precondition of control?
Mr. Freedman reported that this had been copied from the rules for historic district control. It was discussed, with a feeling by the Board that it was less appropriate for NCDs where neighbors’ views of properties might be relevant.
Mr. Flint commented that he liked the wording that promoted consistency with other boards such as the Board of Appeals.
Provision for objections to designation of a NCD was discussed; the Board was concerned that if a body of objection developed during the course of a public hearing there would be insufficient time for objectors to coordinate a case. A 30 day period between hearing and decision was suggested.
A town resident questioned the 50% figure for initiating a NCD, asking if this meant that one could be pushed through against the wishes of 49% of people in the neighborhood. Mr. Freedman thought the Historic Commission would be unlikely to recommend approval in a situation where there was major opposition, and that 50% was a reasonably high threshold to set for active involvement at the outset.
A resident questioned the number of control regimes, with the Board of Appeals covering non-conforming lots and Planning covering large house developments.
Fred Hopengarten, a town resident, gave a powerpoint presentation raising the following objections to the proposed bylaw:
· Burden of time and cost
· Backward view of what neighborhoods should be like
· Discouragement of diversity
· Vagueness as to what standards would be applied
· Length of potential freeze on development
· Fewer safeguards than a zoning bylaw
· Cambridge precedent irrelevant to Lincoln
· Controls less visible to purchasers than common covenants and restrictions
· Committee meetings might not be regular
Mr. Hopengarten offered copies of his presentation.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Domnitz and seconded by Mr.Flint to close the public hearing and plan to discuss further whether to propose a Neighborhood Conservation District bylaw to Town Meeting. Passed 4-0.
8:20PM PUBLIC HEARING: Mareen and Joseph Fico, 199 Concord Road (Map 97/ Lot 6). Site plan review for new residence in R-1 zone.
Mr. and Mrs. Fico introduced their architect, Frank Del Muto.
The Chairman informed the applicant that the Board may wish to delay a decision on the site plan until the Conservation Commission has ruled on the driveway, but could hear other aspects of the case in the meantime.
The architect explained that some changes have been made since the preliminary discussion with the Board: the orientation of the house has been altered at the Board’s suggestion; a farmer’s porch, false barn door and other detailing have been added to the front façade, facing South Great Road and a ‘dog house’ dormer has been removed. No changes have been made to the rear.
Mr. Hurd welcomed the changes to the front façade. He asked about the house’s visibility from Route 126 (Concord Road). The applicant felt it was well-screened by trees. Mr. Hurd commented that this façade appeared less well-designed in terms of window alignment and proportioning, and recommended that adjustments be considered.
A neighbor at 207 Concord Road expressed concern about the appearance from their upper floor.
The height of the house was discussed and it was agreed that, as drawn, it would be slightly over the height limit of the zoning bylaw. The applicant was asked to make adjustments and to mark the average natural grade on the drawings.
The driveway was discussed, including the option of a hammerhead, but it was recognized that the driveway was unresolved due to wetlands issues.
In terms of lighting, the positioning was not marked but was described in the written submission as being between the false barn doors and over the front door. The Board described the ‘dark sky’ initiative and recommended the applicant to use fittings that are commended on the website or at least use low-illumination bulbs and supplement them with a downlight under the soffit.
Another neighbor, Alexis Sauer-Budge of South Great Road, explained that the side of her house (across the wetland area) has a lot of glass, and she is concerned that the development should maintain privacy and avoid bright lights.
The wider situation concerning surrounding undeveloped lots was briefly discussed.
A MOTION to continue the hearing to March 15 at 8:20pm was proposed by Mr. Snell, seconded by Mr.Flint and PASSED 4-0.
8:40PM PUBLIC HEARING: LV Realty LLC, 170 South Great Road (Map96/ Lot21). Special Permit for signs and lighting for gas station in R-1 zone.
Betsey Harper of LV Realty introduced prospective tenants from Purley Burrill gas station and T and F World of Service vehicle repair business. Purley Burrill is an independent gas company offering an old family tradition and low prices; they have operations in Lynnfield and Peabody. T and F World of Service has been operating on Route 126 and is looking for larger premises to expand a successful business.
The site is in an R-1 planning zone but has a history of use as a gas station. An out-of-court agreement arising out of a zoning dispute provides a basis for continuing the gas station operation subject to conditions. It allows replacement of signs within pre-existing sizes and is valid until April. Ms. Harper said the companies were aiming to update the old signage, decrease the lighting and use ‘dark sky’ compliant fixtures.
Illustrations of the proposed signs were examined. They comprised, for the gas station: two signs on the canopy and one on the existing pole, one on the building and a small fixed spring-loaded sign at the front to advertise special offers; and for the repair shop a name sign and AAA and ASE signs on the building and a small moveable A-frame sign at the front.
Details of colors and materials were discussed. Ms. Harper explained that burgundy was considered to have a historic look and that efforts had been made to coordinate the signs, although the degree of matching was limited by the fact that the two operators had used different sign companies who had proposed different materials for the signs. The use of internal illumination in some of the gas station signs was questioned by the Board and by several town residents.
A resident living close to the gas station said that the lights under the canopy were a big problem. Another resident felt that the total extent of lighting was too great for a residential area and that there was a lot of glare/light spillage.
The Board examined the proposed lighting and asked questions about the pre-existing lights and what was currently in place. They indicated that they would be prepared to allow new fixtures if it produced a better outcome. Mr. Domnitz commented that it was difficult to assess the lighting without it being marked on drawings.
Lighting fixtures proposed on the remainder of the premises were discussed. Ms. Harper indicated that two on the side of the building would be on motion sensors. Potential problems with this type of lights were discussed. Nearby residents expressed the view that there should be no after-hours activity or lighting, at all. The legal agreement prohibits after-hours vehicle drop-offs but it was unclear whether it covered people picking up cars. T and F World of Service suggested it may be an option to have the lights time off at 8:30pm. A neighboring resident mentioned that in the past they had been disturbed by after-hours tanker deliveries; Perley Burrill gave an assurance that this would not occur under their operation.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr.Snell and seconded by Mr.Domnitz to conduct a site visit at 6:45pm on Wednesday February 15 and to continue the hearing to 9:00pm that evening. Passed 4-0.
9:00PM PRELIMINARY MEETING: Liam and Lyn Spaeth, Silver Hill Road (Map 72/ Lot 11-7). Site plan for new residence in R-1 cluster development.
Mrs. Spaeth introduced her design team (architect, landscape architect and engineer) and confirmed ownership of the site. Vladimir Janovsky (architect) presented the plan. The site is sloping and currently wooded. A house of 5900 sq ft (including garage) is proposed, designed with the massing broken. A ten foot fall in the land across the house allows a walk-out design. An illustration was provided.The approach to landscaping has been to plot the largest hardwoods for retention, clear areas at the front of the house and on the site of the leachfield at the rear, but keep woodland at the sides.
The Chairman asked whether the conservation area allowed the septic system to be in this location; Mr. Whitehead agreed to check this. The applicant indicated that tests had shown it would work best in this area. Mr. Hurd wondered if the clearing could be made to look more natural; the designers agreed to look at this.
Paths at the rear and side of the lot were agreed to be public trails. The side one was described as having a twenty foot easement, which the path wanders off slightly, and as being part of a trail network that has moderate use. Mr. Snell asked asked for the design team’s thoughts on treatment next to this trail. It was agreed that while new planting might help, it would not entirely screen the house and it would be best to keep as many big trees as possible.
A circular driveway is proposed at the front of the house, meeting the need for a fire truck to be able to turn. Mr. Hurd queried the amount of hard surface being created with the circular drive and branching garage access. Mrs. Spaeth explained the wish to encourage visitors to come to the front forecourt and entrance.
At the rear of the house it is proposed to have a terraced arrangement using bluestone, and fieldstone retaining walls. A black vinyl fence is proposed around a pool and patio. There was discussion of whether the pool is permitted to extend outside the building envelope defined in the cluster plan; Mr. Whitehead agreed to check on this.
Elevations were presented and it was agreed that they will need to be checked against the rules on height and number of stories. Visually the height is to be broken up with a banded treatment using shingles and siding.
The applicants indicated that arrangements for utilities were underway. Mr. Domnitz asked about drainage and said that run-off should be dealt with within the site. For the lighting the applicants had referred to the dark sky initiative. They wished to mark the entrance and light the driveway at a low level of illumination, possibly with lights hung from trees. Mr. Hurd questioned the height of the driveway entrance light and whether it was necessary.
It was agreed that a hearing could be scheduled and that the items mentioned above would be checked upon.
OTHER BUSINESS
The Town Planner’s report and approval of minutes were deferred.
The meeting adjourned at 11:40pm.
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved March 1, 2006
| 
