TOWN OF LINCOLN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
August 9, 2006
PRESENT: K.Hurd (Chairman), B.Wolf, R.Domnitz, J.Snell
STAFF: M.Whitehead, C.Perry
7:30PM BUSINESS:
Minutes
5/10 – Approved with amendments
5/17 – Approved with amendments
6/7 – Approved with amendments
6/21 – Approved as submitted
7/12 – Approved with amendments
Mall Site Walk
Mr. Whitehead reminded the Board of the scheduled site walk at the Mall the following evening.
8:00PM PUBLIC HEARING: SAROJ SANTHAMOORTHY, 138 Lexington Road, Map34/ Lot 9
Mr. Whitehead explained that Mr. Santhamoorthy is applying for a fence permit for his property at the corner of Lexington Road and Route 2. The applicant supplied color photographs of the existing situation, showing an old chain link fence, and of a panel of the proposed new fence. He intends to place the new fence behind the old one. Mr. Whitehead advised that the chain link fence is probably within the State-owned right of way and that the applicant will need to ensure he places his fence inside his property line.
Mr. Domnitz suggested that the applicant might find it more effective for noise reduction to place the fence further back from Route 2 and higher up the slope. This would also be preferable from the public point of view, visually and in terms of sight lines for traffic at the corner. The Board pointed out that if the fence were placed more than twenty feet from the lot line, it would not need a permit.
The Board did not wish to approve the fence as submitted without a site walk and more detailed drawings of its positioning and height based on site contours. The applicant asked for some time to consider which way to proceed.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Domnitz and seconded by Mr. Hurd, to continue the hearing to September 13. Passed 4-0.
8:20PM PUBLIC HEARING: KAREN AND BRUCE CLARKE, 23 Bedford Road, Map 53/ Lot 12, site plan review for addition and renovation under Section 17.7
Karen and Bruce Clarke introduced their architects, Tim Houlihan of Zen Associates and Ben Matteson of Mostue and Associates. The house was identified as the old Heck house, in the Historic District. The applicants have obtained approval for their proposals from the Historic District Commission. They have a Purchase and Sale Agreement on the property, contingent on Planning Board approval.
The architects explained the site plan. The house is some distance from the road, with two driveways connecting at a parking area at the front of the house. It is proposed to move the parking area forward a little from the house. The house will be expanded with a triple car garage and additional rooms. Part of the previous house will be retained. Views from the house will be oriented toward the south lawn which will have a pool feature. The septic system will be located at the rear of the house, to the east. A strip along the front of the lot, beside the road, is conservation land. Heritage trees in the front lawn are to be kept. Some trees close to the house are proposed for removal; these are mostly in poor condition.
Outdoor lighting is proposed, to both the front and rear of the house. Along the driveways, a series of path light fixtures, approximately one foot high, is proposed. Karen Clarke said she considered there was a need for some lighting for safe walking in the dark. The Board asked about existing lighting in the vicinity. It was established that there is a street light across the road near one of the driveway entrances, and that other houses in the area have little or no outdoor lighting. It was agreed that some of these houses are closer to the road. The Board considered that there would be some light from the house itself. The Board stated that it was reluctant to allow lighting along the driveway as it considered that it was unnecessary and would change the nature of the neighborhood and the hill. The
applicant argued that driveway entrance lights were needed for identification. The architect considered that visitors would easily miss the first driveway, as the house is shielded by trees. After discussing possible solutions, the Board suggested placing a light immediately behind one of the stone pillars at each of the two driveway entrances, to make small patches of light on the driveways, and eliminating the lights along the driveways. A catalog cut of the fixtures would need to be supplied. The applicants agreed.
The Board asked about proposed lighting on or near the front of the house. A light is proposed at the entrance, together with recessed lights in the wall alongside the parking area. The Board considered these to be satisfactory. The applicants said they were examining the possibility of placing some lighting under the soffit above the garage doors; the Board thought this would be feasible and acceptable. A light is also proposed in the landscaping between the garage and driveway; Mr. Hurd suggested that this was superfluous.
At the rear of the house, multiple low path lights are proposed. A catalog cut was supplied. The applicants stated that this area is not visible from the public road or abutters’ houses. The Board was a little concerned about the total amount of light that would be released. The total wattage was calculated to be 420W. The applicants expressed a strong desire to create an ‘outdoor room’ look, and suggested that trees in the area would reduce the light leakage.
Turning to the architecture, the Board noted that this had been carefully reviewed by the Historic District Commission. The architects explained that the fenestration pattern of the existing house had been copied into part of the addition, and similarly the flat surface, which was tight tongue-and-groove siding. The Board expressed satisfaction.
The architects said that no significant changes were being made that would cause problems with stormwater. They believed the abutters were satisfied with the design.
Mr. Snell asked if any changes were proposed to the pool and barn. Only general repairs were anticipated.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Domnitz and seconded by Mr. Snell, to approve the site plan as presented, and as amended with respect to lighting, subject to: submittal of the amended site plan and lighting catalog cuts; removal of existing flood lights on the exterior of the present structure; and standard conditions. Passed 4-0.
The Board stated that further reductions in exterior lighting would be welcomed but not required.
8:40PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: KINGSLEY AND LESLIE BROOKS, 39 North Great Road, Map12, Lot 11-0, site plan review for new single family residence under Section 17.7.
The applicants had requested a continuation.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Snell and seconded by Mrs. Wolf, to continue the hearing to September 6 at 8:40pm. Passed 4-0.
9:00PM PUBLIC HEARING: MARK LEWANDOWSKI, 3 Bowles Terrace, Map 119, Lot 2, fence permit application under Section 18.5.
Mr. Whitehead reported that Mr. Lewandowski has applied for a wire deer fence within his yard, and a stone wall on the frontage of the corner property on Bowles Terrace and South Great Road and part way along the side lot line. The deer fence is not under the Board’s jurisdiction as it is more than twenty feet from the right of way.
Mr. Lewandowski described the proposed stone wall. Color photographs were supplied showing its appearance based on a pilot project. The wall is proposed to be six feet high except at the corner of the intersection where it will be lower to comply with the bylaw.
Mr. Whitehead advised the applicant of the need to identify the right of way accurately and ensure that the wall is set back within the property line. The applicant stated that he had had it surveyed.
The Board questioned the height, which they considered to be greater than usual for a stone wall. They thought there may be concerns about incongruity and also potential instability. Mr. Lewandowski said that he has spoken to the abutters, who have expressed no objections. He considers stone to be more attractive than wood, and is aiming to reduce the intrusiveness of traffic from his house. He is building the wall himself, and described the construction method: a rubble core with some mortar to anchor the outer layers of stones but the appearance of a dry stone wall from the exterior. The stones will be obtained from within the yard.
The Board asked about the appearance of the step-down from six feet to three feet. The applicant considered that this would be softened by overhanging branches.
The Board considered it necessary to see the site and agreed to visit individually. The property is marked out.
A MOTION was proposed and seconded to continue the hearing to August 23 at 7:30pm. Passed 4-0.
BUSINESS:
New England Deaconess Steering Committee (ex BIIC site)
Mr. Snell reported on his input to the Steering Committee’s discussions on behalf of the Board. The potential extension of the project to include the three ‘island’ lots was discussed; the Board was comfortable with this.
New law on participation by board members in hearings
Mrs. Wolf asked about the status of the new Massachusetts law. Mr. Whitehead advised that the change would have to be approved by Town Meeting to come into effect. It would allow members to miss a single session of a hearing and still vote, but it requires the members to update themselves with suitable materials. Advice is being sought on interpretation of this requirement.
Mall Project, Rural Land Foundation
It was agreed that Ken Hurd would represent the Board in any discussions with the architects.
Minuteman Commons, Virginia Road
The information requested from the developers at the July 12meeting has not yet been received. The Board asked Mr. Whitehead to send a reminder.
Lighting
The Board discussed whether there was a need for it to clarify its approach to outdoor lighting.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:50pm.
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved September 13, 2006
| 
