TOWN OF LINCOLN
PLANING BOARD MINUTES
October 17, 2007
PRESENT: R.Domnitz (Chairman), K.Hurd, J.Snell, E.Flint
STAFF: M.Whitehead, C.Perry
7:30PM BUSINESS: Approval of Minutes
October 3 – Approved with amendments.
7:45PM DISCUSSION with Historical Commission
Lucretia Giese and Ruth Wales, members of the Historical Commission, attended to discuss a recent case where there had been poor coordination between the Historical Commission and the Planning Board, and to explore ways to improve procedures in future. Mr. Whitehead reported that some boards have begun circulating their agendas to other boards, and Town Hall staff is looking into the idea of using a central email list to send all agendas to all board members. He also explained that the staff Land Use Group checks that demolition permits have been issued prior to site plan review for new construction, but there is no mechanism to identify cases where the Historical Commission’s decision was based on assurances or conditions about design that need to be carried forward in the site plan. The time lag that can occur between the two boards’ deliberations makes reliance on memory problematic. One suggestion was for the Historical Commission to send an opinion letter to the Planning Board
when it makes a decision that calls for follow-up; this could be placed in the Board’s file for the relevant property parcel and retrieved when a site plan review application is received.
In the short term, it was agreed that the Planning Board will send its agendas to the Historical Commission and will check demolition decisions more fully.
8:00 PM PUBLIC HEARING: MARK CONWAY, 9 Morningside Lane, Map 22/Lot 4, site plan review for construction of an expanded garage with second floor living space in the R-1 Zone under Section 6.0 and 17.7
Mark Conway attended with his architect, Jake Lilley.
Mr. Conway introduced the proposal, to increase the size of his existing house by enlarging the footprint of the garage and adding a second floor family room over it. The lot is only one acre and therefore non-conforming, and the proposal has already been presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals. It was established that the ZBA has voted favorably but has not yet issued its written decision.
The Board discussed the character of the neighborhood. The Chairman recalled that the land was fairly level and that the house has good separation from its neighbors. He commented that the addition seems consistent with the style of the house and not inconsistent with the neighborhood. The Board concurred. Mr. Conway said that he has shown his design to the neighbors and not received any adverse comments. No neighbors attended the hearing.
The Board asked about proposed lighting. The applicant proposes to replace an existing motion detector light at the front of the garage with a switched fixture, and to provide similar fixtures at doorways. A catalog cut was supplied, and the Board was satisfied with the chosen fixture but considered that the brightness of the bulbs should be limited. A shield design was also submitted, which the architect said was in case Mr. Conway also wished to have a floodlight. The Board said that it would prefer there to be no further lights and the applicant agreed.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Snell and seconded by Mr. Hurd, to approve the proposal as submitted subject to the lights being dark sky compliant and limited to 60W maximum incandescent (or equivalent) bulbs. Passed 4-0.
8:20 PM PUBLIC HEARING: ANDREW EGENDORF, 10 Tower Road, Map 74/Lot 24, site plan review for an addition to house in the R-1 Zone under Section 6.0 and 17.7
Andrew Egendorf attended with his agent, Doug Adams. The session was recorded on audio tape due to Mrs. Wolf’s absence.
Mr. Adams introduced the site, which comprises 6.91 acres at the top of a hill. There has been a residence on it for fifty years but it was reconstructed in 1988. An addition is now proposed, within an open field to the south of the house. Despite its elevated position, Mr. Adams said that the house is not very visible from the surrounding area due to trees on the lower slopes of the hill, although it can be seen from further south on Lincoln Road. The house has the benefit of long views, particularly to the west.
The existing house was described as a low energy, stucco design. It is composed of a group of masses including a circular central tower. Pictures were provided. The proposed addition will be partially below grade, will be built on slightly lower land, and will only be connected to the main house at basement level. Mr. Adams said that the addition is designed to be architecturally subordinate to the main house. Its footprint will be about 2,800 sq ft. It will have a rooftop terrace, and the highest portion of the addition will be a stairwell giving access to the terrace. Much of the addition will have a one story appearance. A revised set of plans was presented.
Mr. Adams discussed height calculations, making reference to a number of different base planes. The Chairman explained that the bylaw makes provision for average natural grade to be used as the basis of height calculations in certain situations, but that it has to be the composite average natural grade of the existing house and the addition, and that the use of this method is subject to Board approval. The Board asked for calculations to be set out in writing. The agent mentioned that a massing model is being developed; the Board thought it would be useful to see this.
Mr. Snell asked about the intended purpose of the addition. It was stated to have capacity for three bedrooms and not to be intended as an accessory apartment.
The Chairman invited questions or comments from the audience. Paul Giese, an abutting neighbor, said that in winter the existing house is fully visible to him, and that it can be seen from various parts of town, at least at night with the lights on. He noted that the hill top has been cleared of trees and he was worried that more trees may be cut; he wished to see them preserved. In terms of the design of the addition, he found some reassurance in its low height. However he was concerned that it might be used in future as a second dwelling or accessory apartment. The Board said that it would wish to consider this issue. Mr. Giese also pointed to a marking on the plan that looked like a helicopter pad and asked if this was proposed. The applicant stated that it is an existing facility, and was permitted by the Town. He said that it is used
infrequently and that the aircraft used are not loud. The Chairman said he would check whether this matter is within the scope of site plan review.
Nick Maynard, a neighbor whose property is next to Mr. Giese’s and adjoins the conservation parcel, said that he noticed in the file that the new septic system is proposed to be located in the conservation land and that while the conservation restriction appears to allow this, he is concerned that it will require removal of trees. The Board referred to an extract from the conservation restriction and asked who was the original grantor. Mr. Egendorf said that it was a prior owner of his house.
Lucretia Giese asked if the exterior material proposed for the addition is the same as the main house. Mr. Adams stated that a rather different material is proposed: a metal siding composed of strips, which will be applied in different orientations on different portions of the building. He mentioned an example under construction near Sherman’s bridge, opposite the entrance to Weir Hill. He showed a sample of the material and said that it weathers to a soft, semi-reflective patina.
The septic system was discussed. Mr. Adams explained that the addition will require an increase in capacity, and due to changes in Title V since the previous system was installed, Board of Health staff have advised that a new system will be needed. Also, only the lower land percolates well.
The Board wished to conduct a site walk. It requested that the site be staked at the corners of the proposed addition, to show the heights, and a reference plan provided. It also asked for reduced copies of the plans and satellite image that were shown at the hearing, and if possible a copy of the deed.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Hurd and seconded by Mr. Flint, to hold a site walk on Saturday October 27 at 9:30am. Passed 4-0
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Hurd and seconded by Mr. Flint, to continue the hearing to Wednesday, November 7 at 8:40pm. Passed 4-0
8:40 PM PUBLIC MEETING: FRED WINCHELL/THERESA MANNING, 221 Concord Road, Map 101/Lot 7.02, de minimis site plan review for construction of deck and hot tub in a cluster development in the R-1 Zone under Section 6.6 and 17.7
Fred Winchell attended. Mr. Whitehead reported that abutters had been notified about the proposed development.
Mr. Winchell stated that a deck was shown on the original plan for the house but was not constructed. He now wishes to add a deck at the rear of the house, and to raise the height of the retaining wall by one foot. The deck will have steps but no railing. He also proposes to install a hot tub. The work is near to wetlands and has been approved by the Conservation Commission.
A brown composite material is proposed for the deck. The applicant said he intends to make the hot tub installation as energy efficient as possible. No additional lights are proposed, except as required by code for the tub. Mr. Winchell offered to check whether the existing light on the house is dark sky compliant and to change it if necessary. The Board welcomed this.
Mr. Snell asked about the applicant’s approach to vegetation on the edge of the site. The applicant said he would aim simply to keep invasive species under control.
A neighbor from across the street attended and had no comments. The Board was satisfied with the proposal.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Hurd and seconded by Mr. Flint, to agree that the proposed development is de minimis construction, and to approve the proposal.
AN AMENDMENT was proposed by Mr. Snell and seconded by Mr. Domnitz, to recommend the applicant to consider making the existing light dark sky compliant. Passed 4-0
The main motion was voted upon with the amendment. Passed 4-0.
9:00 PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: 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 session was recorded on audio tape due to Mrs. Wolf’s absence. Mr. Whitehead showed a copy of the foundation permit that has been granted by the Building Inspector. The Chairman stated that the final grading of the site is still subject to review.
The agent, Richard Carls, presented a plan of the existing and proposed contours. It was clarified that the ‘existing’ contours reflect the situation at this stage in construction, rather than the previous form of the site. Mr. Carls stated that there has been some backfilling since the date of the plan. The Board made an observation, from its site visit on October 10, that there is now a steep bank in the vicinity of the property line, with no retaining wall. It was concerned that the piled earth may have encroached on the neighbor’s property or that at least the ten foot ‘no disturb’ zone has been violated, and that the slope may need stabilizing. The site walk was conducted after dark in order to view the effect of the lights, and the Board now wished to see the site in daylight and to clarify the facts. It
also wished to consult the affected neighbor at 10 Stratford Way, Mr. Guldalian. The Chairman undertook to telephone the neighbor.
The Board checked the information about trees affected. The Board checked the height calculation for the pool enclosure and was satisfied. The architecture of the pool enclosure was discussed briefly, and members did not identify any major concerns with it.
A new plan for the field lighting was shown, indicating that four of the pole lights are to be removed, and two are to be used occasionally for 20-30 minute periods, for exercise for a child with special needs.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Snell and seconded by Mr. Hurd, to holds a site walk on Saturday October 27 at 9:00am. Passed 4-0
It was agreed to locate the two pins nearest to the pool, as shown on the surveyed plan.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Snell and seconded by Mr. Hurd, to continue the hearing to November 7 at 9:00pm. Passed 4-0
OTHER BUSINESS:
Brooks, 39 North Great Road (Map 12/ Lot 11-0)
Mr. Whitehead reported that the Brookses’ attorney, Tom Frisardi, has expressed reservations about the wording of the draft decision as it may limit normal accessory uses. The Board wished to ensure that the decision relates to the application as presented, including its being for single family use, but was prepared to include wording to acknowledge that uses accessory to single family use are acceptable. Mr. Whitehead was asked to revise the draft decision for signing.
Ridick, 9 Juniper Ridge Road (Map 29/Lot 17-0)
Mr. Whitehead reported that the applicant has supplied more information in relation to the proposed accessory apartment, as requested.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Hurd and seconded by Mr. Snell, to recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals the approval of the accessory apartment as presented.
Passed 4-0
Arshad property, Old County Road/ Winter Street
Mr. Hurd and Mrs. Wolf are attending the At Risk Properties Committee which is looking at this site. The next meeting is on October 24.
Upcoming events
Mr. Whitehead informed the Board of the following events:
• MAGIC legislative breakfast, Monday October 22 in Bedford
• Mass Federation of Planning and Appeals Boards conference, October 27 in Worcester.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:40pm.
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved as amended, November 7, 2007
|