TOWN OF LINCOLN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
March 15, 2006
PRESENT: K.Hurd (Chairman), E.Flint, D.Ries, J.Snell, R.Domnitz
STAFF: M.Whitehead, C.Perry
7:30PM BUSINESS:
Lexington Road LLP, Tim Taylor(Atty), 118 Lexington Road (Map34/ Lots 4, 4.02, 4.03, 4.04, 4.05), special permit and site plan review for R-1 cluster subdivision.
Mr. Taylor did not attend and the Board did not make a decision.
CPA II and Housing Study
Mr. Whitehead reported that Sarah Mattes (BOS) had asked for the Board’s views on the study of Regulation and the Rise of Housing Prices in Greater Boston, produced by the Pioneer Institute and Rappaport Institute. Copies of the report were distributed and the Board agreed to discuss it at a future meeting.
Brown, 24 Tower Road (Map 74, Lot 26)
Mr. Whitehead reminded the Board that the site plan approval for an addition to a residence, issued in December 2005, required the owners to supply final lighting plans for approval by the Board. Plans have now been received; they include extensive landscape lighting. The Board examined the plans. Mr. Flint commented that the houses in this area are close to the road. The Board considered the number and potential brightness of the lights excessive; also that the lights at the front should be switched separately rather than together. The board asked Mr. Whitehead to draft a response.
8:00PM RECOMMENDATION FOR ACCESSORY APARTMENT: LINCOLN HOUSING COMMISSION, 30 Sunnyside Lane (Map 11/Lot 42) Request for recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for accessory apartment; administrative amendment to site plan (Map 11/Lot 41) for additional parking.
Members of the Housing Commission (B.J.Scheff, Bryce Wolf, George Georges and Nicky Diadiuk) introduced themselves and their designer, Sam Rapaport. Ms. Diadiuk explained that she was also a local resident and objector.
The Commission presented plans for a one-bedroom accessory apartment to be added to the existing house, joined on at the rear corner. Parking is proposed to be on the adjacent lot, linked to parking spaces for the approved dwelling on that lot, which is also owned by the Town. The Commission explained that the layout of the development had been influenced by the existence of ledge rock; this had caused the septic system to be positioned at the side of the rear yard closest to the driveway. The apartment was therefore at the other side. The Commission thought it was preferable to have the parking nearby on the adjacent lot, rather than place it in front of the house or add an extra driveway or add space to the to the existing driveway beyond the front of the house.
The Board asked about lighting; one external light was anticipated. The Board suggested that the parking space may need adjusting to ensure space for backing up to turn.
Mr. Hurd commented that the connection of the two buildings at the corner was visually awkward and that generally the design needed more architectural credibility. There was discussion on the possibility of adding a porch to increase the overlap at the corner. Mr. Hurd commented that the roofline appeared complex and that the pattern of windows and doors was poorly related to it.
Ms. Diadiuk expressed concern that any of the three lots that had been transferred from the State could be reclaimed by the State and that it was unwise to commingle uses across them. She questioned the choice of parking location and considered that the existing driveway could accommodate both households’ cars. The Housing Commission’s view was that it would need widening and that it was undesirable to have the apartment resident(s) make a long walk across the front of the house. Ms. Diadiuk disliked the idea of more paving on what was previously a wooded lot. It was clarified that only young trees and scrub had been taken out here although woodland had been cleared for the septic system for the new house on this lot. Some hemlocks on the boundary between the two lots would be kept; some of a group of pines on
the apartment lot may need to be removed for the building. Parking for the approved house at 26 Sunnyside Lane needs to be immediately alongside it as it is designed to be handicap-accessible, but it is intended to break up the bays with planting. The Commission thought putting the extra parking space behind it would be relatively unobtrusive. The Board agreed with the Commission’s choice of location for the parking for the apartment but recommended looking at curving the approach slightly and using planting to screen the cars as well as possible. The Board agreed to visit the site informally as individuals. The applicants were asked to try to improve the apartment design from an aesthetic point of view and to consider adjustments to the driveway/parking area. It was agreed to continue the discussion on April 5 at 7:30pm.
8:20PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: MAUREEN AND JOSEPH FICO, 199 Concord Road (Map 97/ Lot 6), site plan review for new residence in R-1 zone
Mr. Whitehead reported that the application by the owner, Mr. Herthel, to the Conservation Commission for a driveway off South Great Road has been withdrawn and the Ficos are working on an alternative driveway. They wish to return to the Planning Board when that issue is resolved.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Ries and seconded by Mr. Snell to continue the hearing to April 19 at 9:00pm. Passed 5-0.
8:40PM: PUBLIC HEARING: LIAM AND LYN SPAETH, Silver Hill Road (Map72/ Lot 11-7), site plan review for new residence in R-1 cluster development.
Sarah Cannon Holden attended for this item as an abutter.
Mr. Whitehead reminded the Board that a preliminary meeting was held in February and that this was a lot previously owned by the Crowleys. As requested, Mr. Whitehead had checked the following points:
· Septic system: it is acceptable to locate this in the conservation area;
· Status of trail at rear of lot: this is a Town public trail;
· Pool in relation to building envelope: the Building Inspector’s opinion is that the pool is an accessory structure, which would normally be allowed up to 20ft from lot lines. In the definitions contained in the zoning bylaw, ‘building envelope’ relates to buildings, and ‘buildings’ does not appear to include outdoor pools.
The architect, Mr. Janovsky, introduced the house design. A two story dwelling of 5,926 sq ft gross is proposed. It is within the height limit of the zoning bylaw; the basement does not count as a story. The landscape designer described the site as having gentle slopes at the front and steeper at the rear. A circular driveway and entrance forecourt are proposed at the front, as well as a side access to the garage. The rear of the house has an exit at a lower level leading to a terrace and pool. The septic line is fairly central with the leaching field on lower land. Fieldstone walls and bluestone paving are incorporated in the landscape design. Elevations were presented. The house has two gables at the front and rear, and one at each side. The maximum height was stated to be 35ft 6in from the walk-out lower
level.
Mr. Domnitz questioned whether portions of the building overlapped the building envelope; it was clarified that only paving and granite steps are outside the envelope. The pool was stated to be four feet high and not to have a fence on top of the edge. The wall is to be faced with stone and to have some planting in front. The position of the building envelope was checked and appeared to be correct.
Lighting has been reduced since the preliminary meeting, by the removal of the light in the center of the circle and lowering of the driveway post lights. Discreet lights are proposed at the doors and low wattage ones in the courtyard. None shine upwards. There will be lights in the pool to be operated during use but no patio lights at the rear.
Sarah Cannon Holden asked what work could be done outside the building envelope, in terms of disturbing the land and trees. The landscape architect indicated that some clearing would be necessary to build the house but that healthy specimen trees were flagged for retention and would be protected with fencing and boulders. The 50 ft conservation strip between the properties cannot be disturbed. The Chairman asked if it would be feasible to leave a ten foot strip alongside the boundary undisturbed; the response was that while this would be possible in most parts, some leeway may be needed to make the cut at the corner of the house near the pool. Mr. Hurd suggested some after-planting beside the house where the ground was disturbed. At the other side of the house, the driveway is only five feet from the boundary but the
adjacent land is now owned by the land trust.
Ms. Cannon Holden also asked whether the lighting was really necessary and what the Board’s policy was. The applicants reaffirmed that they wanted lights but did not intend them to be bright, had chosen dark sky compliant types and would not operate them all the time. The landscape architect said that a few low wattage lights would not catch attention.
Drainage was discussed. The driveway will drain into a gravel sink at the side of the house, and in the rare case of overflow, water would go down the slope to the rear. Unpaved land at the other side should drain down the slope to the rear.
The extent of clearing around the septic system was discussed. Mr. Flint was concerned about the visual effect on the trail along the rear of the lot, especially as the house sits at the top of a hill. The Board was unsure whether they could authorize clearing in the conservation land, beyond what was needed for the septic system.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Flint and seconded by Domnitz, to hold a site walk on Saturday March 18 at 4:00pm. Passed 5-0.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Flint and seconded by Mr. Domnitz, to continue the hearing to April 12 at 8:00pm. Passed 5-0.
9:00PM ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENT: ROBERT DAVOLI AND EILEEN MCDONAGH, 6 Winchelsea Lane (Map101/ Lot 7-6), administrative amendment of site plan request for lighting and landscaping.
Peter McCann, a neighbor, attended for this item.
Michael Price, the designer for the residential property, explained that a site plan had been approved in 2000 and revisions in 2004. Since then, following a change in construction documents and landscape staff, the lighting had been installed in a different location without approval. The owners had been asked to resolve the situation. The Board is being requested to approve the lighting as installed, with mitigation planting that has been discussed with the neighbor, Mr. McCann.
Mr. Price described the property line as being in a dip and said that because of this there was visibility across it and there had been careful coordination in the past. The lighting that was previously approved was uplighting near the house and low lights near the driveway; it was now proposed to change the uplights to five tree-mounted downlights at a height of thirty feet and to get the driveway lights approved in the new location but with lower wattage (50W).
The Board questioned the need for the tree lights to be so high and were concerned about the effect downslope and across the pond. The end one was considered the most problematic. The designer thought it may be acceptable to substitute two bollard lights for this. Mr. Snell asked about the control system for the lights, which was stated to be a flexible, electronically operated one. The choice of planting was discussed. Mr.McCann expressed satisfaction with this.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr.Ries and seconded by Mr.Flint to approve as an administrative amendment: the driveway lighting as shown on the plans; the landscaping as shown; the soffit lights as shown; four tree lights at 20ft maximum rather than 30ft and with 35W maximum bulbs; and two low wattage bollard lights, to be approved by the Town Planner. Passed 5-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00pm.
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved May 17, 2006
| 
