TOWN OF LINCOLN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
April 5, 2006
PRESENT: K.Hurd (Chairman), E.Flint, B.Wolf, R.Domnitz, J. Snell
STAFF: M.Whitehead, C.Perry
7:30PM 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.
The Board began its consideration of this request at its previous meeting.
B.J.Scheff (Housing Commission) presented photographs of the existing house and neighborhood, and revised plans for the apartment. She commented that other driveways in the vicinity go straight back from the road, though not as far as the proposal on the lot adjacent to the apartment.
The Board examined the proposed driveway/ parking layout. No planting details were shown but it was confirmed that the intention was to put in suitable screen planting. Mr. Hurd commented that he disliked the driveway being straight and immediately alongside the house but it was agreed that this part of the layout had already been approved. In terms of the additional parking, the Board wanted to see:
· A stub shape at the end of the driveway for backing and turning (rather than a wider than necessary parking space);
· Parked vehicles not to be visible from the rear windows of the house;
· Compatibility with the septic mound at the rear;
· Sections of planting kept between the parking bays.
Turning to the design of the apartment, the Chairman commented that the revised design was a significant improvement. Materials were described as being white siding to match the existing house, though possibly using vinyl rather than wood.
Mr. Snell commented that although the shape of the apartment was less than ideal, he thought the Housing Commission had made the best of a constrained situation in pursuing a development that the Town supported. Vicky Diadiuk, a neighbor and member of the Housing Commission, stated that she was unhappy with the use of the lot for two units; that she would have preferred the parking to share the existing driveway for the house; that she doubted whether money would be available for planting; and that the development would be recognizable as an ‘affordable’ one.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Flint and seconded by Mr. Domnitz to approve the recommendation for the accessory apartment. Passed 4-0.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Flint and seconded by Mr. Domnitz to approve the administrative amendment for the driveway with a fifth space, subject to provision of a revised plan showing a stub layout as discussed, to be reviewed by a Member of the Board, and subject to ZBA approval of the apartment. Passed 4-0.
8:00PM PUBLIC HEARING: Kris Estes and Stephen Binder, 36 Beaver Pond Road (Map 86/ Lot2 and Map 73/ Lot 9), site plan review for extension of a garage attached to a single family house in the R-1 zone.
Mr. Whitehead reviewed the situation on this site. The applicants previously requested an administrative amendment for changes to the accessory building and garage; the Board ruled that the accessory building changes could be processed as an administrative amendment but that the garage extension should have a public hearing. Approval is also being sought from the ZBA.
The applicants presented the design for the garage extension. They explained that building constraints encountered with the accessory building left a desire for additional garage space and the best solution seemed to be to extend the front of the existing garage. Two existing light sconces will be moved to be positioned at each side of the new doors; no new lighting is proposed. The building was close to the lot line due to the zoning at the time the lot was created. The applicants had spoken to the neighbors and believed they were happy with the proposal. Mr. Whitehead reported that Ellen and Jim Meadors had seen the plans. Mr. Domnitz asked whether the extension took the building any closer to the lot line; the applicants thought it might slightly as drawn, but that if this proved to be a problem they could revise it
slightly so that it did not. The Planning Board was satisfied with the design.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Snell and seconded by Mr. Flint to approve the plans as shown. Passed 5-0.
8:20PM PUBLIC HEARING: Mark Vallucci, 100 Page Road (Map 33/ Lot25-1), site plan review and scenic road review for new residence in the R-1 zone.
Mr. Whitehead reminded the Board that a preliminary meeting had been held in December 2005. Now the formal hearing was being opened. Mark and Carolina Vallucci introduced their design team.
Mr. Hayes (engineer) introduced the proposal for a new single family house on upland open pasture, near Route 2. At the rear of the house, a pool, patio and gazebo are proposed. Access is proposed to be along a driveway on the line of an old cart path off Page Road at the southern end of the frontage. Scenic Road approval is needed for removal of an old oak tree in the right of way on the north side of the driveway entrance. The tree presents a visibility problem and it is already slightly damaged. A pine tree on the other side of the driveway can be kept. The ground is mounded at the entrance and new walls are proposed to lead into this. Most existing vegetation along the road will be kept. Young trees along the south of the driveway will be removed but a few mature ones near the lot line will be kept. The grading of the
site has been designed so that the septic mound is incorporated with the higher land where the house is sited. A landscape wall is proposed around the north east corner of the house site.
The Board asked about the amount of fill; the site is lower to the north and four or five feet of fill is proposed on that side of the house. The basement has been eliminated since the preliminary meeting, allowing the house to sit lower and the design generally to conform more with the natural grade.
In terms of visibility, the house was described as reasonably screened and set back from Page Road but fairly close to a nearby house to the west. Lighting has been reduced from the initial proposal, to two lights on the garage, two at the front door, others at exits on the house, lights at the pool (including within it) and in the gazebo.
Karen Blake (landscape architect) described the planting design; it is proposed to add to the natural screening with indigenous trees and a few shrubs. Along Page Road, one section has only invasive scrub so it is proposed to replace this with trees and shrubs. The landscape wall is three feet high and will echo the tumbled fieldstone wall along the frontage. The position of the driveway will create an interesting approach to the house.
Lawns are intended to be kept short close to the house but left longer away from it. The pool fence will be four feet high but remains to be chosen.
The Board asked about discrepancies between the landscape and engineering plans in respect of tree removal near the driveway. Mr. Hayes clarified that some trees will need to be removed for a drainage basin receiving water from a culvert under the driveway. It was not clear whether a ten foot strip along the lot line would remain undisturbed but a few large trees are to be kept and there are currently other trees beyond the lot line. The Board considered a site walk would be useful and agreed to visit individually. The house footprint, as originally proposed, has been staked out. The applicants agreed to tape and number trees along the southern property line.
Lighting was discussed. The Chairman disliked a light selection presented that had an encasing diffuser. The applicants stated they would really prefer downlighters and agreed to select new sconces with a low wattage and in line with ‘dark sky’ recommendations.
The architecture was discussed. Lindal Cedar Homes draws the plans. Changes from the preliminary design include moving the driveway to the side, dropping the profile, eliminating the basement and adding more window area to the Page Road façade. The blank side wall of the garage is smaller than previously.
The Board thought that the window pattern on the façade facing Page Road was better than previously but still awkwardly unbalanced; the Chairman suggested that the applicant modify it. The Board asked about the design of the gazebo and requested an illustration. They also asked for positions of all the lights to be marked on the plans.
Mr. Snell asked about the size of trees to be planted; this would be 10-15 ft, with the ground raised a little to help.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Snell and seconded by Mrs. Wolf to continue the hearing to April 12 at 9:00pm (the date contingent on the applicant being able to obtain revised plans). Passed 5-0.
8:40PM ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENT : Deborah Hawkins, 69 Page Road (Map 50/ Lot4), change to approved site plan, to move driveway to an existing common driveway for the R-1 zone.
Mr. Whitehead reported that the site plan for the residence had been approved last year. At the time, the applicant had not wanted to have a shared driveway but had proposed using a gravel driveway close to wetlands. The design team explained that now it is proposed instead to use the existing easement and go down to a lower-level garage. The gravel driveway would be restored to vegetation. In the course of discussions it emerged that it is also proposed to significantly change the design of the house, making it smaller but higher. The Board ruled that this would require a complete application for an amended site plan, which the applicant’s team agreed to pursue.
9:00 PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: 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.
A MOTION was proposed and seconded to continue the hearing at the applicant’s request. Passed 4-0.
BUSINESS:
Davoli, 6 Winchelsea Lane: The Board signed a letter to the Building Inspector confirming its approval of the administrative amendment.
Lexington Road (Apple Meadow): Mr. Ries (retiring member) had already signed the special permit and covenants for the residential cluster development. The other four members who had been present for the hearing completed the signing.
Omnipoint at Morrissey site, Cambridge Turnpike: The Board reviewed the proposed conditions for the special permit for a wireless communication facility.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Domnitz and seconded by Mr. Flint to approve the proposal with the conditions. Passed 4-0.
The decision was signed by the Board.
Minutes: Paper copies were distributed. The Board required further time for reading.
Site plan reviews: The Board discussed some of the legal issues surrounding site plan reviews, including the circumstances in which site plan approval can be refused.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:50pm.
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved April 12, 2006
| 
