TOWN OF LINCOLN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
May 3, 2006
PRESENT: K.Hurd (Chairman), B.Wolf, R.Domnitz, J.Snell, E.Flint
STAFF: M.Whitehead, C.Perry
7:30PM: BUSINESS:
ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENT: CAROL CADOGAN, 185 Weston Road, Map 111/ Lot 5-12, change site plan to remove pool and barn, modify landscaping and lighting.
Ken Eisner of Countryside Building and Development Corporation appeared on behalf of Carol Cadogan, the owner. He explained that the project to build a house under a site plan approval for Cadogan/ Ames had now been completed, but that the applicant wishes to modify the landscaping and lighting plans. The proposed changes are:
· Eliminate planting near the pool;
· Substitute ornamental fruit trees for the proposed planting between the driveway and the woodland;
· Substitute six 36” bollard lights for eight approved 5ft. lights around the driveway circle, and add a low-illumination house number to one of the main driveway lights.
Mr. Eisner stated that it was no longer intended to construct the pool, or the barn that had been approved separately. Additional planting had been carried out near the house.
The Board recalled that the planting near the pool was for the benefit of the adjacent public trail and considered that most of it should be kept in the plans. The Chair asked whether the bollard lights would be incandescent and this was confirmed.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Domnitz and seconded by Mr. Flint, to approve the requested changes as an administrative amendment, subject to keeping six trees to be planted alongside the trail near the previously planned pool, while allowing elimination of a group at the western end. Passed 5-0.
8:00PM: PUBLIC HEARING: OMNIPOINT HOLDINGS INC., 30 Lewis Street (Map 103/ Lot 6), special permit and site plan review for wireless communication facility.
Mr. Whitehead explained that a previous special permit granted to Omnipoint for collocation on the existing Verizon pole had not been implemented within eighteen months and had therefore lapsed. The current application was similar to the previous one with the antennas within the pole and cabinets within the existing compound.
Adam Braillard represented Omnipoint and introduced the company’s radio frequency expert. He explained that the proposal is for three antennas at an 84ft. centerline within the monopole. This is 10ft. higher than the previous proposal but there is no visual impact. The cable to the cabinets will be at or below the top of the fence. The radio frequency study shows a significant gap in coverage which this proposal would substantially fill.
Mr. Domnitz asked which other carriers were using the pole. Mr. Braillard was not sure but he believed that not all the original interested companies went ahead, as the antenna position above Omnipoint’s original one was now available for them. The Board referred to Omnipoint’s coverage map, pointed out that there will still be significant gaps and asked if the company was planning further facilities. Mr. Braillard indicated that the company is looking for additional sites and that the number needed depends partly on the heights obtained. Mr. Domnitz asked for clarification of some of the proposed equipment. In addition to the main panel antennas within the pole, there will be a single small cabinet-mounted antenna for E911/ GPS; this will receive timing information from satellite. The Board noted that the
plans showed the existing pole and equipment on site as ‘proposed’ and asked the applicant to ensure that the plans reflect ‘as built’ conditions.
Mr. Snell asked about access arrangements; these are believed to be covered by the Town’s agreement with Verizon which covers several carriers. For the same reason there is unlikely to be any additional financial benefit to the Town from the current proposal.
Omnipoint’s facility will not have a generator, but will have a battery back-up for 8-12 hours in the event of a power outage, so it is unlikely that a generator would need to be brought in.
A resident on Lincoln Road was concerned that the proposal might involve a second tower but was reassured that this was not the case.
Potential conditions were discussed. Mr. Whitehead suggested that the permit have a five year life from the date of approval rather that from sign off by the Building Inspector.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr.Domnitz and seconded by Mrs. Wolf, to approve the special permit with the same conditions as the previous one but running for five years from issue, and subject to: radio frequency measurements being within rather than ‘matching’ predicted levels; the applicant to correct the wording in the application materials about the height of the antennas; and the engineer to revise the plans to show existing conditions correctly. Passed 5-0.
8:20PM 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.
Kingsley Brooks stated that the applicants wished to address concerns expressed by the Board at the previous meeting, about screening (especially from the road and historic properties), and massing. He presented two visual aids: an aerial photograph from the GIS, with the proposed house footprint marked on to scale, and a panoramic photograph with a white banner placed in the position of the house.
The landscape architect described existing vegetation on the site as third growth upland woodland, predominantly oak, ash, with scrub that was mainly invasive species. She had identified the 50ft. and 100ft. wetland buffers, and chosen planting sizes to minimize disturbance, in discussion with the Conservation Officer. Existing pine trees off the site were also identified. A planting scheme was drawn up for the most critical portion of the site. It includes grouped planting of evergreens with native shrubs as an understory, and native groundcovers (ferns etc.).
Mr. Snell asked whether there were any time-progressed views. An artist’s painted illustration had been produced to depict the scene at five years from planting. The artist commented that the existing tree trunks obscured a significant proportion of the building and that the shrubs would fill many gaps. The poor condition of the ash trees was discussed; the landscape architect conceded that some may die and some smaller ones would be removed but she believed that the lower layers would be important. Best effects would be achieved with phased planting. The Board asked about the level of screening in winter; the landscape architect thought the density and the inclusion of evergreens would help to hide the residence. It was clarified that the new planting scheme, which covers only a portion of the site, is
intended to replace that portion in the previous landscape plan but that the remainder of the original plan still stands. The Board asked about the level of screening from Ms. Kennelly’s house; this was said to be only partial but she is also doing some planting.
A further illustration was presented, using photographs taken from near the Noah Brooks tavern, incorporating a photoshop image of the house. The Board commented that the color of the house was lighter on this than in the painting and agreed that the photoshop image was more realistic.
Mr. Flint stated that he took a flag on site with a twenty to twenty-five foot pole and that he could see it clearly from the tavern. He believed that the ashes would not survive and that the lie of the land, with a low field between higher areas, made screening difficult. The architect commented that the house roof will be dark grey and therefore blend in, so the main issue would be the lighter walls. The architect presented photographs taken (in current winter conditions) from next to the Noah Brooks tavern with the banner in position on the site. He stated that Ms. Kennelly’s house and outbuilding are more visible than the banner but both are only partly screened.
The architect also showed photographs of two other non-historic houses close to the National Park. To address the issue of massing, he presented a sheet of axonometric drawings of the proposed house compared to six other buildings in the area and asserted that the proposal fits within the mix. With respect to the Board’s suggestion of altering the house to a one and a half story design, he had investigated this but in order to avoid reducing the usable floorspace too much, a compromise solution was proposed. The roof has been lowered on the end wings and gables used to compensate. The roofline is more complex as a result. The new packet of drawings includes marked measurements as requested. The height to the ridge is 27ft.-in. The material is still brick.
In terms of lighting, it is not proposed to light any landscape features. The plan for external lighting on the building shows two types of lights, intended to be dark sky compliant:
A. miniature recessed lights with 20W bulbs: three over the verandah, one over the north entrance, and under the eaves around the second floor;
B. wall-mounted lights at the entrances, with two 40W incandescent bulbs.
The ‘A’ lights were described as soft and downward looking. They are wanted for safety if people walk around the outside of the house at night, and the intention is to only operate them when needed. The applicants said they preferred not to have any low landscape lights because of maintenance/ snow removal issues. No lights are proposed along the driveway. The driveway material has not yet been selected.
The Board discussed the revised proposals that had been presented. Mr. Flint said he was still concerned about the landscaping. He did not believe the proposed evergreens would screen effectively, especially in the first ten years, while most of the present screening is from dying ash trees and invasive scrub that will be removed. Mr. Hurd pointed out that forty years to maturity is a long time. He was concerned about how much of the house would show above the planted trees, taking land elevations into account.
Turning to the lighting, Mr. Flint thought that the high position of the lights would cause light to be spread farther than necessary. Mr. Hurd pointed out that the 20W MR halogen lights are a crisp bright light and would light the façade too much. The door lights would add to the brightness. The applicants acknowledged that the halogen lights specified are brighter than what was intended. Mr. Hurd suggested that light spillage from indoor lights would be adequate for the purpose. The applicants offered to consider eliminating the soffit lights and substituting some lower wall lights.
The discussion was opened to the floor. Nancy Nelson, Superintendent of the Minuteman National Historic Park, read from a letter that she had submitted, expressing regret that she had not been involved in the design process, given the sensitive location. She said that in her view the proposal was out of line with site plan review guidelines; it was bright and shiny, large and monolithic, rather than having its massing broken like traditional rural New England houses. She pointed out that standards for Historic District Commissions do not permit consideration of plantings in evaluating the merits of architecture and its character in relation to neighboring structures. She requested the Board not to approve the house as proposed.
Warren Flint stated that the predominant trees, ash, are dying, and only substantial evergreen planting could screen the site. He considered that the exterior lighting could have a big impact. He pointed out that the National Park is a world-scale attraction as well as embodying for Americans the values that created the independent nation. He had supported its planning and felt strongly that development on its boundaries should not be allowed to harm it.
A Brooks Road resident said that her Residents’ Association sees itself as custodians of the historic North Lincoln area. They had observed the work done for years to bring back the historic landscape and wanted to fight to defend it. Mr. Flint expressed a wish for the applicants to have discussions with the National Park staff to explore a solution.
Margie Brown, landscape architect for the National Park, said she was interested in the ‘viewshed’, especially around the Noah Brooks tavern. She considered there was a need to look at cross-sections from the tavern area across to the proposed house. Since there are clapboard houses with simpler roofs in the area, she considered the design could be better and urged that discussions be held.
Tim Taylor, attorney for the applicants, commented that Nancy Nelson had said she did not favor a colonial reproduction. He stated that there is a right to build a house on the lot. He said that the landscape architect could try to find a compromise between the Conservation Officer’s dislike of planting large trees due to disturbance and other speakers’ desire for them. Also the applicants might consider adjusting the design in consultation with the Park Service. Mr. Taylor asked what the peak visitor times are for the Park; Ms. Nelson said it was an eight month season with the peak time spreading as the Park becomes better established.
Leslie Brooks responded to Nancy Nelson’s comments on the proposal, saying that she appreciated the dedication of the Park Service and recognized that their concern was not self-interested. However she saw their proposal as representatives of the Global Country of World Peace as also being idealistic and not opposed to the values represented by the Park.
The Chairman asked if the applicants wanted to take some time to reconsider the architecture. Kingsley Brooks agreed with Mr. Taylor’s suggestion of a continuance to have discussions and consider a way forward. Mr. Hurd agreed to represent the Board in any discussions.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Domnitz and seconded by Mr.Snell to continue the hearing to June 21st. Passed 5-0.
BUSINESS:
Vallucci residence, 100 Page Road
The Board signed the decision on the site plan and scenic road review.
Coughlin fence permit, 153 South Great Road
The Board signed the decision.
Alden, 6 Brooks Hill Road
The Board signed the decision on the site plan review for a porch extension.
Brown, 24 Tower Road, administrative amendment to site plan: lighting
Mr. Whitehead reported that one of the lights proposed for deletion by the Board was already existing on site and the applicant wished to keep it. The Board agreed. The Chairman signed the letter to the Building Inspector.
Estes, 36 Beaver Pond Road, administrative amendment to site plan for accessory building
Mr. Whitehead reported that the applicant wishes to shift the location of the accessory building by fifteen feet. He has advised her to come to the Board’s meeting next week at 7:30pm.
Mr. Whitehead reminded the Board that Joel Bard, Town Counsel, will be coming to the next meeting for a discussion of site plan reviews, exempt uses etc.
The advertisement for ‘at large’ members of the Master Plan Committee has been placed in the newspaper.
Minutes
March 1 – approved by those who were present on the date.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:10pm.
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved May 17, 2006
| 
