TOWN OF LINCOLN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
October 3, 2007
PRESENT: R.Domnitz (Chairman), J.Snell, B.Wolf, K.Hurd, E.Flint
STAFF: M.Whitehead, C.Perry
7:00 PM SITE WALK: BLAKELY, 144 and 146 Lincoln Road, Map 95/Lot 11.
The Board conducted a site walk.
7:30 PM BUSINESS:
Minutes
Deferred.
ANR PLAN: RONALD ORR/DAVID HOBSON, 172 Bedford Road/ 31 Bedford Lane, Map 17/Lot 21 and Map 16/Lot 20
David Hobson attended. He explained that the two parcels back onto each other. A land swap, of equal portions of the back yards is proposed. The Orr house is currently only 30 feet from the property line, and the exchange is intended to make it conforming to the bylaw by providing a little over 50 feet. The change will also rationalize use of the back yard areas.
The Board was satisfied in principle, but asked for the statement of the added and subtracted portions to be expressed more clearly on the plan. It was agreed that the applicants will have the plan corrected and that the time clock on the Board’s endorsement will be suspended pending submission of a corrected plan.
Soukup, 6 Woodcock Lane
The Board voted last week to approve the site plan for a house. Mr. Domnitz reported that he has since heard from Lucretia Giese of the Lincoln Historical Commission that the Commission is concerned about the size of the proposed house and that it is significantly different from the sketch design shown to the LHC. The LHC was not independently represented at the Planning Board hearing and the Planning Board regretted that this aspect was not fully discussed. However as the vote had been taken, a majority of the Board considered it appropriate to proceed to sign the decision. Four members of the Board signed the decision.
8:00 PM PUBLIC HEARING: SOHAIL MASOOD, 12 Stratford Way, Map 71/Lot 7-15, site plan review for an all season pool enclosure in the R-1 Zone under Section 6.0 and 17.7.
The agent/ architect, Richard Carls, and the contractor attended. The Board had received copies of two letters from the Building Inspector to the applicant and agent, concerning various recent and proposed operations on the site, in particular the replacement of soil and installation of lighting on an open area at the south side of the lot and the construction of a pool and enclosure building on the east side of the lot. The pool and the lighting are already in place. The decision to add a built structure to cover the pool was made at a late date and raised issues concerning setbacks and height. Mr. Carls stated that the current design has lower walls and that although it is close to the house, it qualifies as an accessory structure rather than being considered part of the principal building.
The Chairman stated that although site plan review is only triggered by the pool enclosure structure, it opens other aspects of the site development, including the lighting, to review. The Board received a letter from Julie Jewett of 28 Winter Street asking for the new lighting to be removed or permanently dimmed.
Mr. Carls presented the plan. The Board noted that connecting decks were shown between the house and the pool enclosure, with a 3” gap, and asked whether the Building Inspector accepted that the structure was detached. Mr. Carls confirmed this. The Board asked if the pool had been located on a properly surveyed plan. The representatives showed a surveyed plot plan and said that the position of the pool was being checked carefully. Mr. Snell commented that the structure’s window arrangement seemed well designed to minimize the effect on the nearest neighbor.
The Board asked about landscape changes, since only existing vegetation was shown on the plan. The contractor reported that some plants have been removed temporarily for construction near the pool. Mr. Whitehead commented that the amount of screening by trees is generally good.
The Board discussed the lighting that has been installed in an open area at the south side of the lot, and examined photographs. This is pole lighting that was relocated from the front of the house when the lights there were replaced. The lights are in a line down the center of an area that has been grassed and is partly occupied by the septic system. Mr. Carls reported that the nearest neighbors, opposite and adjacent, like the lights. Following a letter from the Building Inspector, an electrical permit has been obtained, but the lights have been switched off pending the Planning Board’s review. It was established that the neighborhood was built before the introduction of site plan review and most of the houses have lights at the front of the properties.
The Board asked if any exterior lights were proposed in connection with the pool enclosure. Lights are proposed at the sliding doors on the side of the enclosure. It was established that one will also be needed at the exit near the house. An elevation was not supplied for this portion. The Board asked for final plans to show this light. A catalog cut was supplied. The Board questioned whether the proposed light fitting is dark sky approved; although it has a solid top and suitable wattage, the clear glass may be a problem.
The Board wished to hold a site walk.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Snell and seconded by Mr. Hurd, to hold a site walk on October 10 at 7:00pm. Passed 5-0.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Snell and seconded by Mr. Hurd, to continue the hearing to October 17 at 9:00pm. Passed 5-0.
8:20 PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: 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 their attorney, Tom Frisardi. Following the last meeting on September 25, the applicant has submitted a revised design and some additional information. Mr. Brooks described the changes, which he said aimed to address points raised by the Board. For the main roof, a slightly steeper pitch and a central flat portion has been adopted, as suggested by Mr. Hurd. For the side roofs, three-sided hips are employed, and a balustrade has been adopted for decoration. Windows have been varied further with smaller ones for the closets and on one wing. Example pictures of stone colors and patterns on existing buildings have been supplied, of which ‘Linwood Cottage’ is the preferred choice. Non-aluminum screening material is proposed for the porch. Lights at the exits and in the screened porch are shown.
The comparison chart has been amended to include the north elevation as requested. The eaves detail on the elevations has been corrected.
The Board asked if the height of the house remained the same. This was confirmed. The Board discussed the main roof and preferred it to the previous design. The Board asked the size of the finial; it was stated to be approximately 1ft 7in. The Board requested that its maximum dimensions be marked on the drawings. The color of the finial was stated to be white or stone color. The Board asked what material was proposed for the balustrades; the applicant said he is considering fiberglass cement, and that it will appear like wood. Mr. Hurd thought the balusters looked a little heavy, although it might simply be an issue with the CAD representation. Mr. Domnitz wondered if the impact on the National Park might be less without the balustrade.
The Chairman invited questions or comments from the audience. Nancy Nelson, MNHP Superintendent, commented that overall, the design is less simple than the previous one. She considered it important not to let the details be white or bright. Mr. Brooks responded that he would be happy for the balustrade to be grey like the stone facing. Ms. Nelson asked about the lights. Mr. Brooks stated that they were required by building code, but would be dark sky compliant.
Sara Mattes provided pictures of some stone houses in Kansas, one of which had a red roof, and pointed to the risk of bright colors. The applicant displayed various samples of roofing shingles. Ms. Nelson indicated some that she thought might be suitable in a historic context.
The Board resumed its discussion. A majority of the Board was satisfied with the new roof shape and considered that the balustrade helped to resolve complications. Mr. Brooks showed an enlargement of the balustrade drawing on a computer screen. The Board was satisfied with its simple design, but wished to ensure that it would not look heavier. Mr. Domnitz objected to the arched windows on the North elevation of the house, but after discussion the Board agreed that these were acceptable.
The stone to be used for the house walls was discussed. Nancy Nelson commented that limestone is not a local material, but recognized that its color varies and suggested making a choice that looks most similar to granite. The majority of the Board thought the example on page 14 of the latest submission booklet might be acceptable, but wished to see a mock up sample on site. For the roof color the Board expressed a preference for a neutral, mid to dark grey. It considered that the final choices for the roofing shingles and the trim color would be best reviewed after selection of the stone.
Planting was discussed. Nancy Nelson expressed concern that preparatory clearance of underbrush would make the development more visible. The Board considered that the planting plan, reviewed previously, is the best long term strategy. It recognized that the plan will need Conservation Commission approval for work in the 100ft wetland buffer zone.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Hurd and seconded by Mr. Flint, to approve the site plan as presented, subject to: review of the final choice of roofing shingles; review of the final trim color; review of the final choice of stone for the house walls, based on a 4ft by 4ft sample panel to be viewed on site; and detail of the balustrade to be shown on the drawings, with the width of the balusters to be no more than 30 percent of the spacing between them.
AN AMENDMENT was proposed by Mr. Snell and seconded by Mrs. Wolf, to make clear that the development is limited to single family residential use.
The amendment was voted and passed 5-0.
The main motion was voted and passed 5-0.
Mr. Frisardi asked for an opportunity to review the draft notice of decision.
8:40 PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: THOMAS BLAKELY, 144 and 146 Lincoln Road, Map 95/Lot 11, site plan review for additions to a building in the B-1 Zone and associated site alterations under Section 9 and 17.
The Board held a site walk at 7:00pm.
Thomas Blakely attended the continued hearing with his attorney, Tim Taylor. The applicant provided a memorandum clarifying the existing and proposed floorspace. Mr. Taylor also submitted a memorandum concerning parking provision in relation to floorspace. A revised drawing, showing the proposed sign on the building slightly shorter than previously, was circulated prior to the meeting.
The Chairman stated that, having reflected upon the issue of parking provision, he doubted that the Board had the authority to approve the proposal with fewer parking spaces than is set out in the bylaw. The Board read Mr. Taylor’s memo. The Chairman commented that it addresses the practical issue, and argues that the amount of parking proposed is sufficient, but does not show that the bylaw is satisfied. Mr. Taylor argued that if Section 15.3.2.1 was interpreted to place offices in category g), and only the retail or quasi-retail element in category e), the bylaw could be satisfied, subject to a determination by the Building Inspector with the advice of the Planning Board. The Board thought that the offices should correctly be considered to fall in category e), which would mean that the ratio of one parking space per 140 sq ft cGFA (a
little over 7 spaces per 1000 sq ft) applied to the whole of the floorspace. It calculated that this results in a parking requirement of about 38 spaces for the site as proposed. Mr. Taylor compared this level of provision to other premises in the South Lincoln business area and argued that the requirement would be inequitable. He said that parking requirements in other towns are typically 4 spaces per 1000 sq ft for retail and 2.5 for offices. Also the applicant stated that he has tried to design the parking area to stay away from the boundary with the church, and to retain trees on the site; a larger parking area would jeopardize these aims. The Board acknowledged that the requirement is high. It advised the applicant that he will need to request relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Board proceeded to review the remainder of the site plan. Mrs. Wolf asked how close the proposed fence will be to the driveway on the neighbor’s property; Mr. Blakely said that it will be quite close but will be similar to an existing portion of fence that the neighbor is happy with.
Turning to the architecture, Mr. Hurd stated that having viewed the site in more detail, he had changed his opinion and now thought it would be preferable to extend the building (number 144) as one story. Mr. Blakely expressed his disappointment with this, having worked to address the low height limit and followed previous design advice. Also, he wished to have his own office on the second floor. It was established that there is little potential for expansion at basement level because of a high water table. The Board discussed some options for expanding the building on one floor but was concerned about a tunnel effect if the building went much further back, and about the effect on traffic circulation if the rear portion of the building was expanded to the left. Four members of the Board indicated that they were prepared to entertain the
building form as currently proposed by the applicant, if the ZBA ruled favorably on parking.
A color sample was shown; the applicant proposes a Burgundy paint color for the siding with cream trim.
The Chairman expressed concern about the lack of input from the abutters, who had not attended and who would not be aware of the letter from the Building Inspector about the zoning of the lot.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Flint and seconded by Mrs. Wolf, to continue the hearing to November 7 at 8:00pm Passed 5-0.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Town Planner’s Report
Planning calendars for the next Annual Town Meeting were included in the Board’s packets.
Route 2 Crosby’s Corner Project
Mr. Snell reported that the 75% design plans have been received but that the construction cost has doubled and the project is now stated to cost $100million in total, not $60million. Mr. Whitehead has a copy of the plans.
Arshad and Kennedy properties, Winter Street
Mr. Flint reported that a resident called him about the Arshad property that the At Risk Properties Committee is considering, and members reported that a petition is said to be circulating.
T-Mobile, 22 Red Rail Farm Lane
The Board received a copy of a letter submitted to the Board of Appeals by the Selectmen, urging denial of the cell tower proposal and recommending that T-Mobile pursue its interests through discussions with the Planning Board.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:30pm.
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved as amended, October 17, 2007
|