TOWN OF LINCOLN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
March 7, 2007
PRESENT: K.Hurd (Chairman), R.Domnitz, J.Snell, B.Wolf, E.Flint
STAFF: M.Whitehead, C.Perry
7:15PM BUSINESS:
The Board had a discussion with Joel Bard, Town Counsel.
7:30PM BUSINESS: Discussion with Kingsley and Leslie Brooks regarding 39 North Great Road, Map 12/ Lot 11.
The Chairman explained to the public audience the recent history of the Brooks’ site, with the denial of site plan approval for a house, and subsequent legal appeal, now withdrawn. He stated that the present meeting is for a discussion between the Brooks family and the Board, rather than a public hearing.
The Board and the Brooks exchanged perspectives on how the site plan review process had gone, and on the design aspects that were of remaining concern to the Board.
The Brooks presented a revised version of their house proposal and asked for feedback from the Board. They explained that the revisions reduced the overall size somewhat and scaled back the ornamental elements. Several Board members said that they felt the design would still look out of place in the location, on the edge of the Minuteman National Historic Park. The Chairman commented that he did not think the overall size was the problem but that the formality of the design made it appear institutional, and that the tightness of the site combined with the applicants’ desire for symmetry made it difficult to make adjustments. He suggested that a basically symmetrical house could have some asymmetry at the rear. Mr. Domnitz recalled that he had expressed a preference early on for a 1½ story design, and said that in his view the size
of façade presented towards the National Park was of critical importance. He suggested starting afresh with a different type of design.
On the question of landscaping, the Board expressed the view that although this could be helpful, it could not be used as a remedy for a design that was inappropriate for the location.
The parties invited Nancy Nelson, Superintendent of the National Park, to comment. She said that she appreciated the Brooks’ efforts to make modifications but that she still considered the design too grand and stately. She suggested that the smaller historic houses in the area, rather than the Noah Brooks tavern, may be a reasonable model.
The Brooks said that they would reconsider their design, concentrating on the elevation that faces the Park.
8:00 RECOMMENDATION ON ACCESSORY APARTMENT: JANE TATLOCK, 80 Winter Street, Map 88/Lot 11, accessory apartment recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals under Section 14.3.4
The Board noted having received a letter from a neighbor, Mr. Curren of 82 Winter Street, pointing to a history of friction and alleged zoning/permitting violations in relation to the Tatlocks’ use of the barn as an apartment. Mr. Curren was unable to attend but had supplied photographs and a map showing the relationship between the barn and his house.
Mr. and Mrs. Tatlock introduced their site plan showing the existing house and barn. They stated that the barn had been used in the past as a nursery school. They hope to legitimize the use of the lower level as an apartment. They stated that it has been cleared with the Board of Health. They said that the lot is large and that the barn was built in about 1910. They described the proposed apartment as having 1050sq ft of floorspace including a kitchenette and bathroom, and three entrances, and stated that there is parking space for several cars, and that there is no other apartment on the lot. No further work is proposed except for repairs and painting.
The Board asked about the floorspace of the existing house, for the 35% calculation in Section 14.3.2 (a); the owners said they thought it was about 3000sq ft. The Board found that this requirement appeared to be met. The Chairman requested a plan showing the internal layout with dimensions and fixtures, and a site plan showing dedicated parking spaces and the positions of neighboring properties. The Board asked if there was any external lighting; there was said to be a motion-sensor light over the door to illuminate the parking space. The Board mentioned that one may be required for the remaining egress. The Board requested catalog cuts of all external lighting fixtures and stated that they must be dark sky compliant.
The Board commented that the apartment is close to the lot line and noted the history of a neighbor dispute, concluding that the ZBA will need to consider the question of impact on the neighborhood.
The applicants were invited to return on April 4th at 8:20pm.
8:20 PUBLIC HEARING: ROBERT JAHRLING, 10 Canaan Drive, Map 53/Lot 3, site plan review for single family residence under Section 17.7.
The site engineer, Jason Lavoie, and the architect, John Chapman, presented the plan for a new house. The area around the site has six parcels totaling 19 acres all on one deed, but the site is a separate lot for the purposes of the zoning bylaw. The house is sited similarly to the existing house that is to be demolished. The lot has frontage on a paper street off Bedford Road but takes its access via an easement from Canaan Drive. There is an existing non-conforming garage. A catch basin is proposed in the parking area. This will feed a ‘rain garden’ (planted swale). Buffer lines from a pond and wetlands on adjoining parcels are shown on the site plan. Some floodlights associated with the existing house are proposed for removal. The proposal will go before the ZBA as the frontage does not meet the current zoning requirement.
The architect described the site as an undulating meadow with apple and walnut trees and views to ponds. He said that the new house aims to nestle into the landscape, similarly to the old one. There will be terraces at the rear, with low retaining walls without railings. In terms of landscaping, it is proposed to remove five trees but add some new planting; a list is supplied. Otherwise, it is proposed to maintain the site in a similar way to in the past. The house is proposed to have 5,600sq ft of floorspace. It will be set back to avoid setback lines and a large tree, and will be connected to the old garage. It will appear as 1½ stories at front and rear but in total will be 2½ stories or 35ft 6in from the lowest exposed point to the ridge. The roof is proposed to be black asphalt shingles and the lower portion of the walls, and
the retaining walls, will be fieldstone. Lighting is proposed in the front and back porches and at exit doors. Recessed fixtures are proposed in the landscape steps and a pillar light is proposed to light the parking court. The latter will be concealed from views from off the site. Catalog cuts have been supplied.
Mr. Domnitz asked if the site would be re-graded. The engineer stated that there will be a small amount of fill at the rear of the house, with a maximum depth of 5ft. The house footprint will move back by about 40ft but the terrace will be smaller and the slope up to it will be gentler than now. The retaining wall will be masked by meadow grass and wildflowers. Mr. Flint was concerned to assess the effect of pushing the house back in terms of how much it would dominate the open land. It was established that although there was informal recreational use of the land, there were no formal trails or conservation restrictions. Mr. Hurd thought the proposal would fit well into the site.
John LeGates, a neighbor, spoke in favor of the proposal as he felt the design was sensitive to the site. He was not in favor of situating the house higher up the slope. Marcus Gleysteen, resident of a nearby property across the pond, said that although the proposed house was a modest size, it had a wide spread and would be visible from a bridle trail beyond the pond. He considered the roof color to be harsh and obviously synthetic. Mr. Chapman responded that the second floor was of a condensed size and that the wide spread of the design allowed the building to be stepped and stay low to the land. He also said that the color palette had not been finalized but that light grey shingles would be more reflective.
A section of the building was examined and it was established that the main house floor would be 35ft above the pond and the ridge would be 65ft above.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Flint and seconded by Mr. Domnitz, to hold a site walk on Saturday March 17th at 10am. Passed 5-0.
The site will be marked out by the applicant, to indicate the edge of the house, edge and height of the terrace, and bottom of the slope.
A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Domnitz, to continue the hearing to March 21st at 8:20pm. Passed 5-0.
8:40 PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS INC., 295 Cambridge Turnpike, Map 48/Lot 7, Farrington Memorial, special permit for proposed replacement with extension of height of existing wireless communication tower under Section 12.6
Adam Braillard, agent for Omnipoint, recalled that at the last session of the hearing, the Board had indicated that a 65ft tower (which would accommodate Sprint and T-Mobile) would be acceptable. Omnipoint has confirmed that this would be acceptable to them. Mr. Domnitz asked what Cingular’s position was; Mr. Braillard did not know. Mr. Hurd asked if the applicant would build the tower to be extendable, and Mr. Braillard said they would not do so unless directed by the Board. The Board took the view that on this site, it would wish to discourage a higher pole even if that meant having more towers in future.
The Board requested amended drawings to reflect the amended height and any change in the design.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Domnitz and seconded by Mr. Snell, to close the public hearing. Passed 5-0.
9:00 PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: AMJAD HUSAIN AND INDERNEEL SAHAI, 9 Reiling Pond Road, Map 33/Lot 11-5, site plan review for a new single family residence under Section 17.7.
The applicants had requested a continuation.
A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Snell, to continue the hearing to April 18th at 9:00pm. Passed 5-0.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Town Planner’s Report
Mr. Whitehead reported that the Town Meeting warrant articles have been finalized. The wording of the Mullin rule article has been expanded to explain it more fully. The Board expressed satisfaction with the latest versions of the bylaw revisions.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:20pm.
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved as amended, July 11, 2007
| 
