TOWN OF LINCOLN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
March 8, 2006
PRESENT: K. Hurd (Chairman), D.Ries, E. Flint, R. Domnitz, J. Snell
STAFF: M. Whitehead, C. Perry
7:30PM BUSINESS: LEXINGTON ROAD LLP, TIM TAYLOR (ATTY), 118 Lexington Road (Map 34 Lots 4, 4.02, 4.03, 4.04, 4.05), special permit and site plan review for R-1 cluster subdivision.
The Board had previously closed the public hearing. Mr. Whitehead reported that the town’s engineering consultant has signed off the changes to the plans. Signed covenants still need to be received from the owners.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Ries and seconded by Mr. Flint, to approve the cluster subdivision plan. Passed 4-1.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Ries and seconded by Mr. Flint to approve the special permit, subject to amending the date and receiving the covenants as previously approved. Passed 4-1.
The Board signed the final version of the plans.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Brodney, 10 Huntley Lane
The Board signed the approval of the administrative amendment for paving the driveway.
Weinburg, 234 Tower Road
The Board signed the decision on the site plan review for an addition to a house.
Corwin-Russell School
Mr. Whitehead reported that the school, currently located in Sudbury, is purchasing the Tjan property at 44 Baker Bridge Road with the intention of building a school for about fifty students. They have been in touch with the planning department and are contemplating a building of around 20,000sq ft. Neighbors are unhappy.
Korean Hope Church of Boston
Mr. Whitehead reported that this religious organization has purchased a residential lot on Acorn Road with the intention of building a church. They have sent a letter to neighbors inviting them to a meeting but have not yet provided any information to the planning department.
8:00PM PUBLIC HEARING: KINGSLEY AND LESLIE BROOKS, 39 North Great Road (Map 12/ Lot 11-0), site plan review for new single family residence in the R-1 zone.
Mr. and Mrs. Brooks introduced their architect, John Lipman, a certified architectural historian. They also introduced family members including Rosalind Brooks Stow who is assisting with the application. Mr. Brooks introduced the proposal for a house, expressing a desire to move back to the location of the Brooks family’s historic roots and a hope that the design would meet the Board’s expectations.
Mr. Lipman described the house as being in the Federal style, with 2400 sq ft of space on each of two stories. The roof is 26 feet high, with a cupola taking it to 33 feet. No garage is proposed. The materials are brick on the main section of the building and stucco with painted trim on the side wings. The elevations have been revised since the preliminary hearing, particularly in terms of the style details. Mr. Lipman briefly explained how the plans addressed each of the components of a site plan review:
· Preservation of landscape: Three-quarters of the site would be untouched and the house site itself needs little regrading, so most trees can be saved. In terms of new planting, a combination of period and natural tree species is proposed together with some flower beds. The applicants have met with the Conservation department on proposals to increase the number of trees in the wetland fringe in order to improve screening.
· Relation of buildings to environment: There are two non-historic, two story houses nearby and also the historic Joshua Brooks house and Noah Brooks tavern. Compared to the historic ones, the proposed new house is larger than the house but smaller than the tavern.
· Building design and landscaping: The house attempts to fit in without pretending to be historic. It is classically symmetrical with the long side facing the road. Its style was taken from Federal precedents but not necessarily local to Lincoln.
· Open space: The house occupies less than 5% of the site and is 80feet from the nearest house.
· Circulation: No significant issues
· Screening: The buffer for the house to the south has been increased to 30 ft rather than the 10 ft minimum. There is forest to the north and a 100 ft wetland buffer to the west, offering a substantial screen that the applicants propose to strengthen.
· Consistency with the bylaw: As this is a non-improved lot, it can rely on 1939 zoning guidelines for setbacks; it cannot meet current ones.
Mr. Lipman explained that the non-profit company that Mr. Kingsley works for (the Global Country of World Peace) is reviving an ancient set of architectural principles known as Vedic architecture, which it considers to be based on natural law, and that are currently a subject of research interest. The orientation of the house, facing East, is important in this regard. The current proposal is not a ‘Peace Palace’ although the organization is looking for suitable sites for those.
The Board asked whether the use might change in the future; Mr. Brooks indicated that the current intent is for a single family dwelling but that he could not look into the distant future.
Mr. Lipman identified the changes that had been made to the house following the preliminary meeting, in response to comments from the Board and neighbors: it had been moved further from the neighboring house on the south side; details of styling and materials had been changed and more variety of fenestration introduced. The roofing material has been selected to match winter branches, but is open to guidance from the Board. Brick samples were presented in the preferred pale range of colors: either whitewashed red bricks or cream ones. The architect presented the eastern elevation and clarified that the pilasters are flat and shallow, not as prominent as the drawing suggests.
Mr. Ries commented on the existing vegetation, which he considered to provide minimal screening from Route 2A, being largely dead ash trees. The applicant proposed planting fast-growing white pines and Douglas firs and was willing to accept conditions on appropriate planting. Mr. Whitehead advised that any major work in the wetland fringe would need a permit from the Conservation Commission but that limited planting by hand could be approved by the Conservation Officer who recognized that the existing scrubby invasives were of low value.
The Board discussed the general design of the house. Mr. Ries considered it jarring in this location in the historic landscape, especially from the Noah Brooks tavern. Mr. Snell referred to a previous consultation by the owner, Mr. Shea, on what was acceptable in the context of the Minuteman National Historic Park (MNHP), when it had been suggested that attention be given to colors, roofline, massing and scale but that a reproduction colonial building was not desirable. Mr. Hurd’s view was that the current house proposal is attractive in its own right but rather formal or aggressive for the site and for the proximity to neighbors. Mr. Domnitz added that it seemed contradictory to have a house that looked as if it wanted to command a large site and then to screen it with landscape planting. Mr. Brooks indicated he was
happy for the house to feel secluded. The Chair suggested that a 3-D computer model, incorporating ground contours, would help to examine views from different angles. Mr. Snell asked Nancy Nelson of MNHP about plans for the nearby field. MNHP has been restoring the historic farmland landscape, has grazed sheep in the area and plans to improve trail connections and increase the level of activity in this part of the park. To the east of the Noah Brooks tavern, an apple orchard has been created. It was always intended to open up the fields for agriculture and MNHP had hoped to purchase the subject lot. Now detailed plans depend partly on what takes place on the privately owned lots. Mr. Flint considered the critical impacts to be on the neighbor to the south and on the view from the tavern. He commented that at the site walk, the Board could see across to the existing house beyond the site and it was hard to imagine screen planting being effective quickly. The tavern is on higher
ground, adding to the challenge.
The Board asked the applicant about some detailed aspects of the development. A stone wall is proposed for enclosure near the house. The size of the foundation is a little under 30ft by 80ft. Clarification of lighting details (recessed and mounted fixtures) was asked for at the next session. Parking is intended to be on the adjacent lot, also purchased by the applicants. Access is via a 20ft right of way from the stone wall to the road; the applicants do not currently plan to pave it but would consult MNHP if they wished to in future.
The Chair invited comments from the floor. Nancy Nelson (MNHP) thanked the Brooks for their presentation and previous discussions. She said that optimally she would like to see a house designed for the site and adjusting to it rather than at odds with it. She expressed concern about the mass and scale of the proposed house due to the danger of it dominating the fields and tavern. She felt that dimensions on the drawings would be helpful; the applicants agreed to supply these. Ms. Nelson said she was not looking for a reproduction Colonial or Federal style house but would like something quieter looking than the current proposal (which she judged to be more like a Peace Palace design than a Federal house). The light, reflective colors she considered unhelpful; colors that recede and blend with the landscape would be
preferable. Landscaping might help and minimal lighting would be good as the area is currently very dark.
Mr. Domnitz thought the Board should state what kind of house design would be preferable and suggested a one and a half story design, since a steeper roof coming down lower would appear less massive. Mr. Brooks stated that part of the reason for the choice is to present or champion the peace palace designs. Mr. Domnitz stated that this should be secondary to the MNHP context.
Ellen Kennelly, the neighbor to the south, said she considers the size to be a problem in the context, and also pointed out that trees are slow to grow in this area. Neil Feinberg asked about the number of bedrooms and baths; there are four of each, with a total of twelve rooms. He questioned Mr. Brooks further as to the long term intentions. Mr. Brooks said that he would use the building as a house for as long as he lived there, but
stated that the ownership is in the hands of the Global Country of World Peace Organization (a non-profit organization), of which he is the agent.
The Board agreed that the discussion needed to be continued and suggested that the applicants bring in dimensioned drawings, lighting details, results of a 3-D model, details of screening with support from the Conservation Commission, the expected timeline for growth and assurances that the proposed species would realistically grow there, and full information on ownership of the site. Mr. Ries warned that he would not support the current house design on this lot, and Mr. Domnitz said that he would be more receptive to a one and a half story design.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Ries and seconded by Mr. Flint, to continue the public hearing to April 5 at 9:00pm. Passed 5-0.
8:20PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: OMNIPOINT HOLDINGS, INC, 23 Cambridge Turnpike (Map 14/ Lot 11-0), special permit and site plan review for wireless communication facility.
Brian Grossman (attorney) represented Omnipoint. He supplied a listing and map of existing wireless communication facility sites, as previously requested by the Board. The Board pointed to some omissions but accepted that an effort had been made to collate the information. Corrected site plans were provided, with non-applicable generic notes deleted.
Mr. Ries asked about the location of the access and how problems with trespassing on neighbors’ property would be prevented. Mr. Grossman responded that technicians usually have a regular route and become familiar with the premises, also that he would be open to suggestions on signage. Cathy O’Brien, a neighbor with an adjoining driveway, said that her driveway is paved whereas that for the cell tower is not, which could be part of the reason for mistakes. Mr. Grossman suggested a resident name sign for her property. Mr. Domnitz suggested the applicant pays for signs for both driveways. Mr. Grossman pointed out that this would need a legal agreement between Omnipoint, Verizon and the site owner; the Board suggested this should be trivial as all parties have an interest in cooperating. Mr. Grossman thought it
would be preferable for the Board to ask Verizon for a sign when their permit came up for renewal.
On the matter of the lighting, Mr. Grossman suggested this was a matter for the FAA, although Omnipoint would be prepared to provide a letter saying they had no objection to a change if the town wished to make a request. The company would prefer not to be a signatory to the request. After discussion it was agreed that Omnipoint could sign to say that the company supports the town’s effort and has no objection. The Board assured Mr. Grossman that they would not expect Omnipoint’s attendance at any meetings with the FAA.
Mr. Ries summarized and responded to a number of points made in a letter from the O’Brien family.
The Board considered that the permit could be progressed with appropriate conditions, and if there were any unresolved problems these could be reviewed when the Verizon permit came up for renewal.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Ries and seconded by Mr. Domnitz, to close the public hearing. Passed 5-0.
8:40PM OTHER BUSINESS
Town Meeting Preparation:
Accessory Apartment Zoning Bylaw
The Board discussed the mixed responses this had received, and also its own conflicted feelings. It considered that it would be nice to ensure compatibility with the LIP application, and that it might be worth taking the proposal back to consider relating the cap mechanism to shifting ratios.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Ries and seconded by Mr. Flint, to ask Town Meeting to pass over the Accessory Apartment Zoning Bylaw article. Passed 5-0.
Signs
It was agreed that Mr. Domnitz would present this item.
Lot Coverage
It was agreed that Mr. Hurd would present this item.
Neighborhood Conservation District General Bylaw
It was clarified that the Planning Board is sponsoring this item.
Joel Freedman explained the most recent changes. These would allow two weeks for objections following the close of a public hearing; reduce to one third the proportion of a neighborhood would be able to veto a proposed NCD; clarify that there is no obligation to call a Special Town Meeting; and allow NCDs to regulate alterations not visible from a public right of way.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Ries and seconded by Mr. Flint, to commend the Neighborhood Conservation District General Bylaw to Town Meeting. Passed 4-0.
It was agreed that Joel Freedman would make the presentation, with an introduction from the Board.
Master Planning
Mr. Whitehead reported that he has drafted a Power Point presentation.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:20pm.
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved May 17, 2006
| 
