TOWN OF LINCOLN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
September 6, 2006
PRESENT: K.Hurd (Chairman), E.Flint, B.Wolf, R.Domnitz, J.Snell
STAFF: M.Whitehead, C.Perry
7:30PM BUSINESS:
Eisner, 188 Tower Road
The Board signed the decision on a site plan and scenic road review for a single family house.
Odio/Berton, 56 Conant Road
The Board signed the decision on a site plan and scenic road review for reconstruction and expansion of a single family house.
Dubrovsky/Waugh
The Board signed the decision on a site plan review for reconstruction and expansion of a single family house.
Minutes
July 19 – approved with amendments
Committee representation
The Board agreed that Mr. Domnitz would be the HATS representative and Mrs. Wolf would be the Community Preservation Committee representative.
8:00PM RECOMMENDATION FOR ACCESSORY APARTMENT: JOHN AND NATHALIE RICE, 31 Red Rail Farm Lane, Map 57/ Lot 2-7, recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals on an accessory apartment application under Section 14.3.
John and Nathalie Rice presented their proposal for an accessory apartment in their existing dwelling. It is in a cluster development. They explained that the original house was very small. Within the last ten years it was expanded. The Rices now wish to create an apartment in the older decagonal wing. It would be on two floors, with part of the lower floor kept as a utility room for the owners. Both levels have doors to the outside. The apartment would occupy 16% of the floorspace of the house.
The Board noted that the proposal appears to conflict with the ten year rule in Section 14.3.2 (f) of the zoning bylaw, although the sequence of construction on this house is unusual.
The Board assessed the planning merits of the proposal. They found that the parking provision was satisfactory and the proposal was appropriate to the neighborhood. No objections were received. The Board asked if any new exterior lighting was proposed; the applicants said they did not propose any changes. The Board concluded that they had no planning objections.
The Board agreed to craft a letter to the ZBA reflecting the above.
8:20PM PUBLIC HEARING: AMJAD HUSAIN AND INDERNEEL SAHAI, 9 Reiling Pond Road, Map33/ Lot11-5, site plan review for a new single family residence under Section 17.7.
Paul Apkarian, architect, presented the proposal for a single family house in a cluster development. Mr. Domnitz recalled that there had been a previous approval for a speculative house design on the site. The current proposal was described as a broadly colonial design. Materials are clapboard with wood trim except for the possibility of stone facing on portions of the front elevation.
The floorspace of the house will be 4850sq ft, 5640sq ft including the garage. Mr. Whitehead commented that the cluster development agreement sets a maximum floorspace of 6500sq ft, with calculations based on the old bylaw, and that the proposal is within this limit. Mr. Apkarian mentioned that a question had arisen about the roof, with regard to the 2½ story rule. A steep pitch is desired and there is an area of roof space with over 5 feet of headroom, but this is not structurally designed for use as a third floor and no staircase is proposed to it. It is proposed to insert collar ties to effectively reduce the headroom. The Board did not object to this approach. The basement will be unfinished but a lower level entry is desired, which affects the height calculation. The architect requested to be allowed to base calculations on average
natural grade. The Board examined the grades of the house and septic system and questioned the low placement of the house. They considered that it could be placed higher and still satisfy height requirements. The architect agreed to look at this. The Board asked about drainage, and pointed out that the mounded septic system suggests a high water table.
Turning to landscaping, the Board asked for a clearer depiction of changes, including detail of the stone wall. Mr. Snell asked for an explanation of the effect of the proposed septic system on the trail easement. The design appears to create a mound that impinges on the easement, but the trail needs to be easily passable. The engineer will address this question at a continuation of the hearing. Mr. Snell suggested that a smaller system with a limitation on the number of bedrooms might be a solution.
The Board examined the proposed lighting. Lights are proposed at the porch, two on the walkways and others at entrances. They were described as low power compact fluorescents. Illustrations of firm selections will need to be supplied.
The Board examined the elevations and questioned the unbalanced window arrangement on the left side elevation. The architect agreed to consider this point.
A SITE WALK was arranged for Saturday September 16 at 10:00am. The applicant was asked to stake the house site, marking cut and fill levels at the corners, and place a stake in the area of the septic system indicating the depth of fill.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Snell and seconded by Mr. Hurd to continue the hearing to September 20 at 9:00pm. Passed 5-0.
8:40PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: KINGSLEY AND LESLIE BROOKS, 39 North Great Road, Map 12/ Lot 11-0, site plan review for new single family residence under Section 17.7.
Jonathan Lipman, the architect for the project, stated that the applicants’ team has met with Nancy Nelson, Superintendent of Minuteman National Historic Park regarding an appropriate design in relation to the Park. He said they felt able to respond to some of her points, and hopefully at the same time to address some of the Planning Board’s concerns. He presented a computer-generated photo simulation of the proposed design.
An illustration of the east elevation (front) was presented, showing the positions of trees. Margaret Hensel, landscape consultant, presented the revised landscape plan showing existing trees and revised planting, and a shift in the driveway that will allow some sycamore trees to be kept. She reported that the ash trees, which are the main large trees on the site, are dying back although the nature of the problem is uncertain. The plan is to keep dead trees except near the house. New evergreens and deciduous shrubs will be planted near them. There will be no planting in the area of the septic system which is to the north east of the house. The Board asked for a plan showing the existing contours and the proposed new contours following construction.
Dogwoods, sugar maples, holly and arbor vitae have been added to the plan, near the house. Hemlocks have been substituted for pines to add variety, and the evergreens have been reduced in favor of American elder. The Board asked the height of the proposed stone wall; this will be three feet.
A photo simulation of the view from the direction of the tavern in winter was shown, with the tree planting positions marked. The applicants expect to be able to plant 10ft trees and they asserted that after ten years the trees should screen 85% of the house. They mentioned that the understory is currently invasive plants due to the previous owner having cut all except the ash trees. Mr. Brooks presented photographs of views of neighbors’ houses for comparison.
The Board asked for information about any trees to be removed, and about clearing of understory cover in the areas of the driveway and septic system. The applicants confirmed that trees will be removed for the house and brush will be cleared for the septic system. The trees to be removed will be marked on a plan.
Sections showing the relation of the house to nearby National Park land were still being prepared, but a sketch version was shown. The applicants stated that the land where trees will be planted near the wall is ten feet lower than the house, and the wetlands beyond are lower. Mr. Domnitz asked about the permissibility of planting in the wetland buffer zone. The applicants said they have discussed this with the Conservation Officer and he told them they would be able to plant small trees using light equipment. The Board questioned whether the Conservation Officer could make any commitment in this regard, since the Conservation Commission had not yet considered the matter.
Isometric drawings depicting an overhead view of several buildings in the vicinity of the proposed house were presented. The applicants stated that the central portion of the proposed house is similar to the main wing of the Noah Brooks house.
The amount of exterior lighting proposed has been reduced to four 60W downlight sconces on the front and side entries of the house and a 50W wall-mounted driveway light at 2½ ft high.
A photograph of the proposed roofing shingles and a sample of the proposed facing stone (light grey limestone) were presented.
The Board discussed the proposed changes to the application. Members questioned whether the isometric drawings provided a fair comparison between the visual impact of the proposed residence and other buildings in the vicinity.
Nancy Nelson, Superintendent of MNHP, asked whether the height had been reduced; it was established that while the cupola and the roof portion of the end wings have been removed, the ridge of the central portion has been raised by two feet. There will be a smaller ornament in place of the cupola. On the issue of screening by vegetation, she commented that the illustrations include all the existing cover with no allowance for what will be removed during construction; she considered that the visibility of the Kennelly house points to the significance of this. On the color of the proposed house, she felt that this would still appear rather bright due to its paleness.
The applicants agreed to provide complete revised packets of application materials for the Board on Friday September 8.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Snell and seconded by Mr. Flint, to continue the hearing to September 13 at 9:00pm. Passed 5-0
9:00PM PUBLIC HEARING: SPRINT WIRELESS, 37 Cambridge Turnpike, Map24/ Lot 1, special permit and site plan review for change and expansion of equipment on an existing wireless tower under Section 12.6.
Mr. Asmussen, agent for Sprint, presented a proposal to add antennas to the existing tower and an equipment box within the compound at the base. There will be a total of twelve antennas: four on each side of the triangular structure at the top of the tower, rather than two. This is to provide for a combination of technology. Current equipment at the base will stay. A large box will be added. This will have sliding doors to access equipment, and will also contain two air conditioning units, one of which is a back up. There will be two small GPS antennas on top of the box.
Mr. Domnitz drew attention to a number of current issues relating to the tower:
1. Lights on this tower and on the Verizon tower are causing annoyance to residents. The Board may wish to ask Sprint to apply to the FAA for removal of the light and to coordinate with the Board on this.
2. The current permit asked for measurements of radio frequency emissions after installation to be supplied; these are still outstanding.
3. There is a problem with service vehicles for both cell tower sites mistakenly entering a resident’s driveway. Signage may be needed to address this.
4. There may be an outstanding requirement for a bond to cover removal in the event of discontinuance.
Catherine O’Brien, the resident whose driveway is affected, confirmed that problems are continuing and stated that T-mobile has gone ahead with its installation on the Verizon tower but has not yet provided a sign. Mr. Asmussen asked the Board to provide a copy of the existing special permit and to identify in writing the outstanding issues.
Mr. Domnitz asked whether it would be feasible for Sprint to put a shield under the light to block downward light; Mr. Asmussen agreed to investigate this. Mr. Domnitz further asked whether the GPS antennas would require any trees to be cut for adequate reception; Mr. Asmussen said that this would not be necessary.
The Board enquired about the appearance of the proposed equipment box and about the position of the air conditioning units. The box was described as having a smooth grey finish and the units will be at one end of it. Sprint was asked to supply more detail of the box and equipment design. The Board mentioned that there is likely to be a condition for noise to be inaudible at the property line. The Board mentioned that New England Deaconess Association is proposing to build a senior living community development on adjoining land. Catherine O’Brien suggested that service access via the NEDA site would be preferable if NEDA were agreeable.
The Board discussed whether the application should be handled as a new special permit or a renewal of the existing one.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Domnitz and seconded by Mr. Hurd, to continue the hearing to September 13 at 8:00pm. Passed 5-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:25pm
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved as amended, November 15, 2006
| 
