The Town of Lincoln, MA - Planning Board Minutes

Mr. Whitehead explained that a minor addition is proposed to an existing house and it triggers site plan review by exceeding the total gross floorspace threshold in Section 6.0.2. Section 17.7.4 g) allows a waiver of the full procedure if the change is determined to be de minimis.

The applicant stated that the house was built in 1969 and added to a few years ago. The currently proposed addition is being considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals in an advertised public hearing with notice to abutters. The site adjoins the Wayland town line. The applicant stated that the house is not particularly close to neighbors and is buffered by trees, and that he has discussed the proposal with the neighbors.

The Board examined the plans. The architect explained that no new foundation is involved; the volume of the house will be expanded over the screened porch. The highest point of the roof will not be raised. The Board concluded that the impact would be minimal. The applicant said that some architectural details were being finalized. The Board requested confirmation that no other changes, such as addition of exterior lighting, were proposed.

A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Hurd, to make a determination that the proposal presented is de minimis, and to waive additional review under Section 17.7, subject to submission of final plans in accordance with the presentation. Passed 5-0.

The Planning Board had visited the site. Mr. Hurd commented that the drainage arrangement was unprofessional and probably inadequate. The applicant stated that it is needed infrequently but acknowledged that water runs onto the neighbor’s property.

The Board evaluated the apartment against the criteria of Section 14.3.2. Under a), the dimensional criteria appear to be met. Also, either the apartment or the main residence has to be occupied by the owner. The Tatlocks said that the house is their main residence although they go away in summer. The Board accepted that the criterion was met. Under b), adequate provision for disposal of sewage, waste and drainage must be made. The Board of Health’s agent currently states that the system is not adequate unless a deed restriction is filed to limit the total number of bedrooms. The applicant stated her intention to create a deed restriction if the apartment plans are approved. The storm water issue could be identified by the Planning Board as something to be addressed.

Under c), the Board thought the ingress and egress provision satisfactory. Under d), which refers to detriment to the neighborhood, the Board noted that this case has more potential for impact on neighbors than most due to the proximity of the apartment to the lot line, and also noted that the apartment bylaw provides for renewal of special permits because problems can arise during operation. It considered that more effort could be made to improve screening with fencing and/or landscaping. Exterior lighting can be addressed with conditions.

Criteria e), f) and h), relating to lot size, age of buildings and number of apartments, are met. Criterion g) covers parking; the Board found that there is sufficient space but that it is close to the street which is unusual for Lincoln but not for the neighborhood. Screening of headlights is largely addressed by fencing.

Mr. Curren, the closest neighbor, reaffirmed his view that stormwater drainage is a problem that needs to be addressed. He also commented that if the apartment had been properly reviewed before it was created, he would have suggested a different layout. He contended that there is a detriment to the neighborhood and that the case raises issues of public policy.

The Board discussed whether the the physical layout was so unsuitable that a denial should be recommended. A majority of the Board considered that the issues could be addressed adequately with conditions, although they had concerns about the history of non-compliance issues and felt a need for better assurances going forward.

A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Hurd, to recommend approval of the apartment to the ZBA, only if the physical issues of drainage, screening and lighting were properly addressed, and the measures maintained, with non-renewal of the permit after three years if compliance was not satisfactory. Mrs. Wolf proposed an AMENDMENT to add to the recommendation a note of the history of detriment to the neighborhood and the Board’s uncertainty about future compliance. The amended motion was seconded.

A site walk was held on March 31. The Board expressed a desire to see the proposed building turned at 90 degrees and moved away from the conservation restricted land. Mr. Foster stated that the applicants have not made a change along those lines. He reviewed the fact that the applicants worked with the Conservation Commission previously in planning to clear invasive plants and provide for future maintenance. He said it was his understanding that the Conservation Commission recommended the provision in the conservation restriction that avoids a twenty foot building setback. He therefore asserted that the proposal is consistent with the conservation restriction and with what was agreed between the parties at the time of its creation. He stated that the landform and shadow studies influenced the siting of the barn. A new plan was supplied, with the building slightly pivoted.

Mr. Snell recalled that the Board had raised the legal issue of whether there could be a severable lot. The Chairman said he was satisfied that the land, including the conservation land, was a single lot and was only treated as separate parcels for assessment purposes. Mr. Foster confirmed that the conservation restriction, and the current configuration of the conservation parcel, will run with the main property and that the legal situation concerning setbacks is as stated in the conservation restriction.

The Board asked how close the edge of the revised footprint is to the conservation land; it was established to be from one to eight feet away. The Board pointed out that this would make it impossible in practice to avoid disturbing the conservation land during construction. The landscape architect asserted that it would not suffer an increased impact as it has already been excavated to remove invasive plants. She considered that a change as suggested by the Board would result in more fill, more impact on the neighbor, and a poorer relationship to the woodland. The Board asked if any trees would be lost with the current proposal. After examining the plans, it was agreed that a few trees would be lost. The applicants pointed out that they are proposing some new planting.

The Board asked if any heating and plumbing are proposed for the building. There will be some heating and a bathroom. The Board mentioned that it will require details of exterior lighting. A potential future fence line has been shown on the plan.

The Board asked if any other additions were proposed on the lot. Mr. Whitehead reported that building plans have been submitted for changes to the house which suggest some additional floorspace; if this is the case, they will also need site plan review. The applicants said that the proposals for the house involve addition of dormers in place of skylights, and a porch. Mr. Foster suggested that these can be examined separately and if necessary withdrawn.

Returning to the current proposal, the Board invited the Conservation Commission to comment. Peter Von Mertens said that the Commission would require hay bales and a minimum of four feet of working space to stop machines going onto the conservation land, but recommended twenty feet as more realistic. To construct the building as proposed would be very difficult. Despite previous selective plant clearance, he considered that disturbance would still be harmful. No storage of materials would be allowed on the conservation land. The Board asked if there was any potential for a buy-back of a portion of the conservation land; Mr. Von Mertens responded that this was not realistic because other parties were involved in creating the agreement.

Ellen Gallitano, a neighbor, provided further comments. She had submitted a second letter. She considered that the building should be described as a gymnasium rather than a barn, and stated that it was a massive building, much bigger than others in the area. She doubted that it was within the bylaw.

The Board discussed the proposal. Mrs. Wolf was sympathetic to the Conservation Commission’s concerns. Mr. Flint was uneasy about the proportions of the building and whether it looked authentic. Mr. Hurd thought that the building was acceptable in principle but that there was an opportunity to improve its siting. The Board suggested that the cupola would be better without windows. None of the Board members supported the proposal as it stood.

The Board noted that a change in the roof had been submitted and asked if there were any elevations to match this. It requested a full set of consistent plans, including any landscape walls and paved areas. It suggested revising the proposal to allow fifteen feet of working space.

On the question of whether the proposal meets the test of being an accessory structure, the Board noted that there have been other large accessory uses in town, some of them outdoors and some attached to the main house. The Board noted that the applicants stated that the intention was not to use the building for team practice. Overall, the Board found that the proposal qualified as an accessory structure.

Forrest St.Clair attended with his architect, Rob Bramhall. The proposal is for a new single family house, following tear down of the existing house on the site. Copies of an aerial view were distributed, with the existing and proposed house marked. The former garage no longer exists.

The lot was described as long and narrow. A site plan was presented, with the old and new houses highlighted. The curb cut is to be kept but the driveway realigned within the lot. There is a pond to the rear, and the proposed house is mainly oriented towards it, with a narrow frontage towards the street. Some trees will need to be removed for the driveway but little re-grading is needed. Mr. Domnitz commented that the driveway seemed circuitous. The architect explained that it allows the house to have a sunny exposure. The Board asked if any planting is proposed; there will be some on the site of the old driveway and near the house.

Proposed materials are cedar with a red cedar roof. No landscape lighting is proposed. Details of a porch light have been supplied. The Board was satisfied with this. The driveway is proposed to be gravel, at least initially.

The Chairman outlined the site plan review considerations. The Board checked the size of the house and noted that it is larger than the previous one and is on a knoll, but is set back from the road. The architect pointed out that it does not have a massive façade; the roofs and garage help to reduce the scale. The setbacks were examined. The applicant stated that the Building Inspector has confirmed that the bulkhead can be excluded from the measurement.

Several neighbors attended and had supplied letters. Ruth Barron and Jennifer Leaning at 113 Tower Road had some concerns about the height of the house and whether the large façade would loom over their house. They were not sure the proposed planting would be enough to screen it. They thought a demonstration of the height, such as a balloon test, would be helpful. The neighbors at 105 and 103 Tower Road pointed out that the proposed house is on a knoll; their land is lower and this creates problems in accommodating a large house. Mr. Hurd commented that the architect had done a good job in reducing the mass. The architect acknowledged that the proximity of neighbors’ houses to the lot lines makes the situation difficult. The Chairman suggested that some illustration of sight lines may be helpful. The neighbor at 105 said that any screening between his house and the new one would have to be on his own lot as the adjacent part of the applicants’ lot is cleared for the septic system. The system has been upgraded to five bedroom capacity on the site of the old one.

Mr. Whitehead reported that the gas station is changing hands to Sunoco, and there is a wish to change the signs accordingly. The Board determined that this change requires a public hearing and can not be handled as an administrative amendment.

DISCUSSION OF DECISION: RURAL LAND FOUNDATION, 145 Lincoln Road, Map 95/Lot 38, Definitive Development and Use Plan Special Permit, South Lincoln Overlay Zone, renovation of Mall and new Post Office/ Café complex under Section 12.7

Mr. Domnitz and Mr. Whitehead reported that they had met with the RLF that morning, to discuss the RLF’s concerns about controls on future changes to the mix of uses. The RLF would like freedom to go up to fifty percent office use on the first floor and flexibility within retail uses. The RLF’s suggested conditions can be mapped to the Board’s previous suggested categories. The reasons given for the RLF’s concern are based on financing the project and having a way forward if the supermarket should be lost in future.

Mr. Domnitz had some concerns about the vagueness of the financing argument, and about wording on hardship and bona fide marketing efforts which would be difficult to interpret. The Board discussed their sense of Town Meeting’s attitude to the mix of uses; they thought voters’ main concerns were to have a supermarket, restaurant, Post Office and ‘Something Special’ (which could be interpreted as general retail). They considered a fifty percent ceiling for offices to be high and suggested twenty-five percent. They considered merging the retail categories but a majority thought it important to keep the supermarket. The Chairman undertook to do a little research on lenders’ attitudes and to consider a redraft of the proposed conditions.