TOWN OF LINCOLN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
September 5, 2007
PRESENT: R. Domnitz (Chairman), J. Snell, E.Flint, B.Wolf, K.Hurd
STAFF: M.Whitehead, C.Perry
7:30PM BUSINESS:
Public Safety Wireless Communication Tower, Bedford Road
Mr. Domnitz reported that he had discussed the tower proposal with the ZBA Chairman. The Planning Board asked Mr. Whitehead to check the latest situation.
Comprehensive Long Range Plan consultant
The Board discussed arrangements for supervision of the contract work. It favored having Mr. Whitehead approve the invoices, with updates to the Board every $20,000 or 3 months, whichever came first.
Minutes
The Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes of previous meetings as follows:
August 15 –Approved as submitted
August 21 – Approved with amendments
8:00PM PUBLIC HEARING: STANLEY ROWIN/NANCY RIGOTTI, 254 Concord Road, Map 115/Lot 1, site plan review for teardown and reconstruction of a single family residence in the R1 zone under Sections 6.0 and 17.7.
Stanley Rowin and Nancy Rigotti attended, with their architect, Bill Warren. A preliminary discussion was held with the Board on June 13. Mr. Warren reported that the proposal has now been approved by other relevant boards. The Zoning Board of Appeals decision was supplied (with a correction to clarify that the Planning Board had not approved the proposal at that time).
The Board referred to the minutes of the preliminary discussion in which the Board recognized that the design was making a good attempt to address a number of constraints. Mr. Warren stated that little has been changed in the plans since then. He described the proposal as follows. The pre-existing curb cut is to be kept but the impervious area will be reduced compared to the current layout. There is very little net change in the extent of development in the wetland buffer zone. A drain system has been introduced to absorb roof run off. The Conservation Commission is satisfied with the proposals. At the Planning Board’s preliminary meeting, there was some discussion about the desirability of adding planting on the Giles Road frontage. “Potential planting” has been shown on the plan, since the applicants are unsure if the
neighborhood would want it. There will be some loss of trees but this has been kept to a minimum, and there will be little regrading. It has not been found possible to reuse the foundation but the ZBA has responded favorably to the plans.
Lighting catalog cuts were supplied. The Board liked the design of the sconces but thought the maximum wattage was higher than desirable.
The Board discussed the existing wood stockade fence on the Concord Road frontage. Mr. Rowin stated that a neighbor has observed that the fence makes the road safer at night by marking the bend.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Hurd and seconded by Mr. Snell, to approve the site plan as presented, with conditions that the lighting sconces be limited to 60W maximum incandescent bulbs and that the legend on the plan be amended to show the fence as ‘existing.’ Passed 5-0
8:00PM PUBLIC HEARING: KIMBERLY AND MARK SOUKUP, 6 Woodcock Lane, Map 106/Lot 3, site plan review for teardown and reconstruction of a single family residence in the R1 zone under Section 6.0 and 17.7.
The applicants attended with their architects, Patrick Ahearn and Chris Crump. Mr. Ahearn introduced the proposal. The site is a large lot on the corner of Weston Road. It has an existing house and detached garage, totaling 3548sqft, and a field area towards Weston Road. Photographs of the site were shown. The proposed new house was described as being in the same general location, set back slightly further, but larger with 7328sqft of living space and a total of 8256sqft including the garage. The maximum height is 29ft 10in. The design concept is a country stone house, broken down into elements as if added onto over time. Materials are dry-set New England fieldstone and shingles. Open areas of the site towards the roads will be preserved. Existing vegetative screening along Woodcock Lane will be strengthened. The driveway will be
relocated a short distance to the east of its present position; it will have a single access, a parking/maneuvering area in front of the garage and a turning circle at the end near the main door of the house. Proposed lighting consists of recessed lights under some porches, and carriage lights (four on the front and three on the rear) for which catalog cuts of alternative designs were presented.
In response to a question from the Board, the architects said that little regrading would be needed. Mr. Snell commented that the existing house fits into the landscape well but that it was hard to judge from the submitted materials whether this would be the case with the proposed new house. The architects stated that they do not anticipate a much larger impact. The house has been designed to have a low roofline. Some mature trees will be displaced; it is intended to move these within the site. Mr. Hurd said that he was comfortable with the architecture, but Mr. Flint had reservations about the size. The applicants explained that they wanted plenty of space for their family of four boys. The Board asked about the purpose of the small high dormer windows; it was clarified that the roof space is only an attic and some of the small windows are
to light a stairway and a dressing room. Mr. Whitehead confirmed that the limit on the number of stories is satisfied.
Lighting was discussed. The Board was satisfied with the preferred design, Option A, for the sconces. Apart from these and recessed lights under overhanging portions of the house, no other lighting is proposed on the site. No other structures or pools are proposed.
The Chairman invited questions from the audience. The Tortis, neighbors to the south at 119 Weston Road, commented that they liked the design of the house in terms of its position and moderate height, but were concerned that the quoted floorspace seemed to have increased. The architect discussed various definitions of floorspace and stated that the footprint (first floor) of the proposed house including the garage is around 4700 sq ft compared with 3548 sq ft for the existing house and detached garage. The Board checked the overall length of the proposed building, which is around 150ft. Another neighbor asked how the size of the house compared with the Wise house, a recent development at the end of the next private way (121 Weston Road), which she considered oversized. Heights in the neighborhood were discussed and the architect stated that a
deck house would typically be 24-25ft high.
The Board asked for horizontal dimensions and a visual scale to be added to the elevations. The site has already been staked but the Board requested that strings or ribbons be attached and a key plan provided.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Snell and seconded by Mr. Wolf, to hold a site walk on Saturday September 8 at 9:30am. Passed 5-0
A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Flint, to continue the public hearing to Wednesday September 12 at 8:20pm. Passed 5-0.
8:40 PM PUBLIC HEARING: KINGSLEY BROOKS, 39 North Great Road, Map 12/Lot 11, site plan review for construction of a single family residence in the R1 zone under Section 6.0 and 17.7.
Kingsley and Leslie Brooks attended with Tom Frisardi, attorney, and John Lipman, architect. The Chairman introduced the site plan review, explaining that he and Bryce Wolf met with the applicants about six weeks previously to review some concepts for a new application. Their comments did not necessarily represent the views of the whole Board. A sketch design was discussed at that time. It had a two story central portion with two single story side wings. There was discussion on the appropriate roofs for the side wings, and on whether it would be desirable to add a rear porch. The sketch design was shown to the Board, marked for comparison with the dimensions of the previous application that the Board denied last year.
The new proposal was presented. The design is for a part two story, part one story house of 4059sqft with an unfinished basement and porches. Proposed materials are grey split-faced limestone, wood trim painted in a neutral color and neutral colored shingles. The height of the house is just under 24ft to the ridge; 25ft including the finial. It will be surrounded by a New England fieldstone wall.
The architect reviewed the changes made from the previous application, aiming to make the proposal more in harmony with the neighborhood and to address principles advocated by the Board. In terms of size and massing, it was found easier to lower the roof than to set the building lower in the ground. The height is now about the minimum possible for a two story house. The massing and scale have been varied by introducing one story wings and different roofs – a hipped roof on the main portion and gabled roofs on the side wings. The flat roofs proposed for the side wings at the earlier meeting would have required balustrades; instead, they have been replaced with low pitched gabled roofs which the applicants consider to be more practical while not adding to the appearance of mass. A simple screened porch has been added on the west side, but
is viewed by the applicants as optional. Screen planting was developed previously, mainly to address the view from the Noah Brooks tavern. Three 17ft hemlocks are proposed to be added. The planting in the 100ft wetland buffer zone will need Conservation Commission approval. The number of windows at the second story level has been reduced, and since some of these will be in closets, a limited amount of light will be projected.
A set of drawings of elevations was shown, comparing the proposed house with other houses in the neighborhood at the same scale. Mr. Lipman commented that roof types vary but include both hips and gables, and that the Joshua Brooks and Noah Brooks houses are a few feet taller while Ellen Kennelly’s house is one foot lower at the ridge.
The Board discussed the massing. It established that the depth of the building has been increased to offset the reduction in the profile facing the Minuteman National Historic Park. The Board was uneasy with the shape of roof proposed for the wings, and commented that the depth contributes to the difficulty with the roof; if the wings were shallower the ridge could run parallel to the front.
The Board asked about exterior lighting. Lights are only proposed at the entrances. The Board asked whether the central full length windows over the front door on the second floor will function as doors. This was confirmed, therefore a light will likely be required, to meet the building code. Mr. Domnitz considered that the pediment and Palladian window give a feeling of height to this façade but noted that it is on the east side, which does not directly face the Park.
Mr. Flint asked if the orientation or placement of the building had changed. The orientation remains aligned with the points of the compass, while the reduction in the widest dimension has been made on the north side. Mr. Flint said he would like to see samples of the materials. A sample of the stone was presented: a matt, light, warm grey. It was stated that the stone pattern will consist of varied rectangular blocks. Lintels and sills will be of smooth stone. The wood trim will be of a low-contrast color. A picture of the roofing shingles was included in the application packet but the applicants were open to alternative suggestions.
Mr. Snell pointed out that the eaves details appeared over-large. This was thought to be an inaccuracy in the computer aided drawings. The Board asked for this detail to be neatened up and a scale line added to the drawings.
Mr. Domnitz observed that the design of the house does not fit his previous suggestion of a 1½ story design. The architect responded that the applicants wanted a two story house and that it would be hard to meet their space needs with a 1½ story design.
Mr. Hurd commented that the 3/12 roof pitch is very low and may look odd. He suggested a greater pitch with a flat central portion. He welcomed the varied window pattern and suggested that the closet windows could be made narrower. He considered the color of the stone and roof to be too light, and suggested a stone color more like fieldstone and a darker roof. He inquired about the ashlar pattern for the stone, as he was concerned that this type of construction can easily look out of place in New England. If the porch is retained, Mr. Hurd suggested using copper screen mesh.
Mrs. Wolf asked about the width of the driveway. This was stated to be 18ft, to allow parking and passing.
Sara Mattes offered some comments and asked questions. She stated that although a Selectman, she was not speaking on behalf of the Board of Selectmen, but would report back to the Hanscom Area Towns Committee. From familiarity with stone houses in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, she advised that most stone houses are darker than the sample presented, but do have a neutral appearance. In relation to the sheet of comparisons with other houses in the neighborhood, Ms. Mattes asked about side views. The architect assisted her in making some comparisons. Ms. Mattes asked the Board about the relevance of screen planting, given that its permanence is not guaranteed. Mr. Domnitz advised her that screening was requested by the Board and can be considered in site plan review. Ms. Mattes asked if the height of the proposed house could be marked for the
public to observe. The Board said it could consider whether to request this.
Nancy Nelson, National Park Superintendent, stated that the site is within a historic area: it is in the vicinity of the colonial Brooks village and there was also a Native American presence in the area. Archaeological investigations have not been done and there is a risk of remains being destroyed in development of the site. She therefore asked the applicants to consider a survey. In response to the current proposal, Ms. Nelson commented that she thought the color light; a New England fieldstone palette would be deeper and richer.
The Board further discussed the roof design for the side wings of the house. One suggestion was a three-sided hipped roof with a 5/12 pitch and a flat portion at the top, similar to the suggestion for the main roof. Mr. Domnitz said he liked the sketch proposal for flat roofs with balustrades.
The Board recommended the applicant to:
- examine a slightly steeper main roof with a flat central portion
- examine other roof treatments for the side wings, including a hip, possibly with a flat area at the top
- obtain samples of roof shingles, preferably in a darker color
- obtain photographs of the proposed stone pattern
- examine greater window variation, such as smaller closet windows
- put more dimensions and a reducible scale on the drawings
- provide side view comparisons
- retain the one story wings and the screened porch.
The question of a height flagging exercise was discussed. The Board recalled that an exercise was attempted previously and that photographs were obtained in winter, of a 24ft marking for the eaves line of the previous proposal. These would be likely to assist Ms. Mattes in reporting to the HATS Committee.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Snell and seconded by Mr. Flint, to continue the public hearing to October 3 at 8:20pm. Passed 5-0
BUSINESS:
Boynton, 3-S Building, Lincoln Road
Mr. Whitehead has circulated copies of background documents for the Board to read in preparation for next week’s meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00pm.
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved as amended, September 19, 2007
| 
