TOWN OF LINCOLN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
May 17, 2006
PRESENT: K.Hurd (Chairman), E.Flint, B.Wolf, R.Domnitz, J.Snell
STAFF: M.Whitehead, C.Perry
7:30PM BUSINESS:
Minutes
2/15/06 – Approved with amendments
3/8/06 – Approved with amendments
3/15/06 – Approved
4/19/06 – Approved
5/3/06 – Approved with amendments
Estes/Binder, 36 Beaver Pond Road
The Chairman signed a letter to the Building Inspector indicating the Board’s approval of a change to the position of the accessory building, as an administrative amendment.
8:00PM PUBLIC HEARING: RICHARD SELDEN, 21 Huckleberry Hill (Map71/ Lot 7-1), site plan review for addition to single family residence in the R-1 zone.
The architect, Vladimir Janowsky, presented plans for an addition of about 900 sq ft to the rear of the existing house. The intention is to add a cabana for a pool that is proposed in the rear yard. The pool itself does not require site plan approval but the pool and landscaping are related to the addition. The addition comprises a sun room and changing rooms, and is a single story design with a pitched roof that is lower than the house roof. The sun room has an angled bay with windows. The site was described as sloping to the south. Zoning setbacks were shown on the plan. Plans showing the pool, landscaping and lighting were presented. The pool will have low edges. The Board asked about the positions of neighboring houses and referred to the Assessor’s map of the lots.
Lighting on the building was described as being under the door canopy. The selection for this was changed. Downward-projecting landscape lights are proposed in the edge of the terrace outside the living room; under a stone bench in the garden; in the pergola outside the family room; and on the path. The pool will have under-water lighting. Board members had no objections to the chosen lighting. The pool fence will be four feet high as required, in black iron, with a gate.
The Board asked which trees would be lost. The designers had marked some ‘definites’ and some ‘maybes’ on the plan but Mr. Janowsky stated the intention was to keep as many as possible. The Board asked about the impact on site drainage. Existing drywells will not be disturbed, and most paving will be dry set to minimize run-off.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Domnitz and seconded by Mr. Flint, to approve the plans as presented, subject to the usual conditions. Passed 5-0.
8:20PM PUBLIC HEARING: DEBORAH HAWKINS, 69 Page Road (Map 50/ Lot 4), review of amended site plan for single family residence in the R-1 zone.
Three neighbors, C. Knollmeyer, Jackie Lenth and Dennis Picker, attended for this item. The original site plan was approved in January, 2005. The architect, Andrew Cohen, introduced a revised site plan. The house design has been changed and the configuration of the driveway has been altered to avoid the buffer zone of vegetated wetland. It is now proposed to use the common driveway to access the garage and an upper driveway area. Revised lighting and landscaping are also being submitted.
The architect explained that the size of the proposed house has been reduced and the area of driveway paving has also been reduced. The house exterior is to be wood, in a natural finish. The architectural goal is to integrate the house into the landscape. The design is modern, with a gently sloping roof plane following the topography of the site. The house has three levels, but is only two stories high at each end. From the parking area, steps ascend to a first floor entrance, under an overhanging upper story. Recessed outdoor areas are proposed to be softly lit. The roof, a white thermoplastic membrane, will be concealed behind a fascia.
The Board examined the lighting plan and catalog cuts. The architect stated that the lighting ‘studies’ that were also supplied did not reflect the current building sections. Lighting consists of a number of floor or wall mounted fixtures with angled beams, which will create a low-intensity wash on recessed walls and overhanging canopies of the building, and on a landscape wall with an adjoining walkway, and one Watt LEDs to mark the edge of a patio in the evening. The low wash approach will avoid the need for individual entrance lights. The Board explained its position that it does not normally allow lighting designed to illuminate architecture or objects but only for safety, and that it would not allow extensive light spillage. In response to the Board’s questions, the architect confirmed that most of the exterior of the
house will not be lit, only relatively small, overhanging portions. The house surfaces to be lit will be wood but the landscape wall will be stone tile. The Board expressed some concern about light spillage from the landscape wall lights. The designers stated that the parking area has a wall and landscape planting to screen this area from the direction of the driveway. It was established that the land rises to the common driveway and then falls to a neighbor’s house on the other side, reducing the risk of light nuisance. The Board pointed out that specific lighting selections were not marked on the catalog cuts and stated that full specifications would need to be supplied.
The height of the house was discussed. The architect stated that the overall height was 34ft 8in from average natural grade, 34ft from the lowest exposed level and 28ft from the parking level. He had marked the average natural grade on the elevations and made calculations to confirm that the house met the two and a half story definition.
The Board asked about site drainage. The design team said that the lower driveway would drain toward the house or toward the grassed edge and water would go to a dry well; the upper parking area would also have a dry well. The Board stated that full drainage details would need to be submitted.
The large size of the upper driveway/ parking area was questioned. The design team explained that it was intended to be utilized as a gathering space as well as for visitor parking and maneuvering.
Mr. Picker, the neighbor living on the other side of the common driveway, expressed satisfaction with the change to the driveway and said he was not unhappy with the design of the house. However, he questioned the upward lighting of the stone tile wall near the stairs, asking if downlights would not be better in terms of light spillage, and about the amount of reflection from the stone surface. The architect said he thought downlights would spill more light toward the vernal pool, and that the stone would not have a gloss surface. Mr. Hurd commented that he considered the ‘soft glow’ approach to be less intrusive than point sources. Mr. Picker asked why so much parking space was needed; the response was that the applicant hosts big social events occasionally and wishes to be able to accommodate visitor parking without
inconveniencing the neighborhood. The other two neighbors considered the degree of screening to be good and had no concerns except for possible disturbance from outdoor gatherings. The Chairman stated that this was not within the purview of the zoning bylaw.
Returning to the lighting issues, the Board concluded that it would be prepared to accept the ‘low wash’ approach given that the house was in a relatively isolated location, the neighbors were agreeable to it, the amount of surface to be illuminated was relatively small and contained, and the surfaces would not be very reflective.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Domnitz and seconded by Mr. Flint, to approve the site plan as presented, subject to: a full lighting schedule to be submitted for approval; all lights to be on dimmer switches; details of storm water drainage to be submitted for approval; and the external wall surfaces that are to be illuminated by uplights, to be of light-diffusive materials. Passed 5-0.
8:40PM PUBLIC HEARING: CHARLES FOX, 3 Tower Field Road (Map 112/ Lot18-3), site plan review for single family residence in R-1 cluster zone.
The representing agent introduced the applicant, Mr. Fox, together with the engineer and builder. He stated that all plans and design details had been submitted, but presented a color sample for the painted stucco.
Greg Patrini, the builder, presented the proposal for a single family house. He said that it is on a beautiful site and that the applicant wishes to respect the landscape with the design. Therefore the design has broken massing and a cottage-like style; it is well below the maximum height allowed and has a low impact on the site.
The engineer stated that the site is part of the Row cluster subdivision, which created three lots and two landscape parcels; this is Lot 3.A common driveway through Lot 2 becomes a private driveway on this lot. The septic system will be to the east of the house and there is a reserve area to the rear. A drainage swale and infiltration area is proposed, to take water from the driveway. The ground percolates well.
Mr. Domnitz asked about the condition of the site following the recent heavy rains. The team stated that the site remained dry. There was a problem with flooding on one section of the common driveway but this was being addressed by the Rural Land Foundation as the owner. Mr. Row explained that two catch basins are currently inactivated. Intentions for paving the road were discussed. Mr. Whitehead referred to the covenants for the cluster subdivision which state that drainage and planting related to the common driveway should be in place before construction of the houses.
Returning to the house site plan, the design team stated that two lights are proposed on the house and one on the garage, plus two driveway post lights. The development is positioned to avoid the 100ft wetland buffer and 20ft conservation restriction easement on the southern edge of the site. Landscape planting has been chosen to be non-invasive and deer-resistant. The house has three bedrooms and the design is low to the ground. No access to the attic space is proposed. The materials are stucco with painted wood surfaces in the gables and an asphalt shingle roof. A screened porch is proposed.
Mr. Snell asked about the visual impact from the field. The response was that as the landscape is open the house will be visible, but it is designed to be attractive, and the low roofs will reduce the impact. Vegetation in the 20ft buffer adjoining the next lot will be kept, and the buffer is matched on the neighbor’s side. The applicant stated that the neighbor is currently living out of State and does not intend to construct his house imminently, but that it will be at a higher elevation. Mr. Snell asked the applicant to consider impact on the future neighbor, in locating any air conditioning equipment. The Board asked if there were any plans to finish the basement; the applicant indicated that this was not proposed at the present time.
Mr. Whitehead advised the design team that if there is a need to encroach on the wetland buffer zone for construction, this will need approval.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Domnitz and seconded by Mr. Flint, to approve the site plan as presented, subject to standard conditions. Passed 5-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:20pm.
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved as amended August 9, 2006
| 
