TOWN OF LINCOLN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
May 16, 2007
PRESENT: R.Domnitz, B.Wolf, K.Hurd, E.Flint, J.Snell
STAFF: M.Whitehead, C.Perry
7:30PM 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 in the R-1 zone under Section 6 and 17.7.
A MOTION was proposed and seconded, to continue the hearing to June 6, 2007 at 9:00 PM. Passed 5-0.
7:45PM BUSINESS: 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, Mrs. Wolf and Mr. Whitehead reported that they met with the RLF the previous day, together with Tim Higgins and Gary Taylor, to discuss the RLF’s concerns about the extent of future control over the mix of uses. The RLF clarified that their main concern was how the situation would be handled if Donelan’s became non-viable. Rather than having to return to Town Meeting, they would like guidelines setting circumstances in which they would be able to exceed the floorspace limits currently proposed for each of the component use categories.
The Board discussed the idea of a hardship clause to address a situation in which empty space was difficult to let. Some members felt that an attempt to define the hardship situation was helpful; others had doubts about the difficulties of establishing whether best efforts were being made. The Chairman suggested that in the end it would be necessary to rely on the judgment of a future Planning Board. Gary Taylor thought some guidance on the process to be followed would help to ease the RLF’s concerns.
Mr. Whitehead put forward a version of the conditions that incorporates some of the RLF’s suggested wording, but with the Planning Board as the final arbiter, and increases the office floorspace limit slightly. Mr. Domnitz wondered if the phrase “actively marketed” needed to make some reference to pricing; Mr. Whitehead has asked the RLF staff to look at making this phrase more specific. Overall, the Board thought that it should be possible to work out a wording that was acceptable to both the Board and the RLF. Mr. Hurd said he would like some reassurance that the project was currently expected to be viable as proposed.
Peter Von Mertens spoke in support of the RLF based on the organization’s important wider role in the town. The Planning Board acknowledged this but explained that it has to recognize that the ownership of the Mall area could change.
(Mr. Flint left the meeting at this point.)
8:00 PUBLIC HEARING: DAVID BAU, 88 Lincoln Road, Map 85/Lot 1, site plan review for a teardown and reconstruction of single family house in the R-1 zone under Section 6 and 17.7, including scenic road approval and review of access to a public way.
The applicant was represented by O’Neil, Pennoyer, architects. The Chairman outlined the scope of site plan review. David O’Neil described the site as a 4.1 acre lot with a u-shaped driveway, on Lincoln road opposite Mackintosh Lane. He said that the site is park-like with specimen trees, and a field runs beyond the property line to a tree line. The Board thought there may be a conservation restriction and trail easement there. The approach to constructing a new house is to preserve the trees and hence the existing topography. The current house was built in the 1930s, is in poor condition and will be demolished.
The proposed house was stated to comprise 6,500sq ft of floorspace, broken into three volumes and facing different ways. The existing outdoor pool will be filled in and a small indoor pool provided. The architects have aimed to give the entry yard some privacy from Lincoln Road with orientation and landscape planting. The architect showed a model for illustrative purposes (some design revisions have been made since), and pointed out that most of the house will have a one story appearance. Some solar heating will be incorporated. It is proposed to fill in the two existing curb cuts and move the access further north, where the grades and sight lines are better. This is just south of the speed bump in Lincoln Road.
The Board inquired about the septic system. A system was designed in order to sell the property but it was for the smaller house footprint, so new percolation tests will need to be done and a new design submitted.
David Urion, a neighbor at 3 Pierce Hill Road, examined the plans and model.
The Board asked if any trees are to be removed; there are three which have been marked on a plan. The intentions for the road frontage are to keep the old stone wall, and to fill in the old curb cuts with some piled stones and low planting. There was stated to be no wall where the new curb cut is proposed. The intermittent portion of the wall will be left in its current state. The applicant offered to remove a rotten 24” oak on the road frontage if the Town wishes.
The Board checked how drainage will be handled, and noted that the site slopes down from Lincoln Road so there is no danger of water spilling onto the road. The designers reported that they have had discussions with Conservation staff and moved the proposed driveway to be further from wetland.
Utilities are proposed to be underground. No need is anticipated for gateposts or driveway lights.
The Board discussed the architecture. It noted that the existing house is a long cape, which is just visible from Tower Road. The new house will be about eight feet higher, measuring 28 feet from the lowest exposed point, but will be set a little lower. The Board was happy with the general form, and commented that the large size of the lot makes it easier to design an unobtrusive house. The architect stated that some of the details may be revised. To the rear of the house, a patio with a low curved, concave wall is proposed.
Lighting is proposed at entrances and on the garage/ car port. Mr. Hurd thought that one light would be sufficient for the garage area and suggested that two ‘C’ lights be removed. The lights will have frosted glass. The fixtures can take up to 100W bulbs.
A neighbor asked about the expected timeline and about the demolition process. It is hoped to make a start in fall and take about nine months. Demolition will be done professionally, taking account of any applicable regulations. There is no anticipated need for blasting on the site.
A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Snell, to approve the plans for a reconstructed house, with amendments to remove two garage lights and limit lights to 60W maximum bulbs, subject to the stone wall remaining substantially ‘as is’, and the removal of the rotten tree to be at the Tree Warden’s option. Passed 4-0.
Mr. Whitehead asked for a full set of final plans reflecting the above conditions.
8:20PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: CHRISTOPHER KNOLLMEYER, 44 Page Road, Map 50/Lot 2, site plan review for a tear down and reconstruction of single family house in the R-1 zone under Section 6 and 17.7.
Mr. Whitehead reported that the applicant had asked to withdraw the application.
A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Hurd, to accept the withdrawal of the application. Passed 4-0.
8:40PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: SUSAN & MICHAEL SALM, 236 Lincoln Road, Map 117/Lot 22-1, site plan review for an accessory structure in the R-1 zone under Section 6 and 17.7.
The applicant had requested a continuation.
A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Hurd, to continue the application to June 6 at 8:20pm. Passed 4-0.
(Mr. Flint rejoined the meeting at this point.)
9:00PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: FORREST ST. CLAIR/KATHRYN ANAGNOSTAKIS, 111 Tower Road, Map 105/Lot 9, site plan review for tear down and reconstruction of single family house in the R-1 zone under Section 6 and 17.7.
Some members attended the site walk on May 5 and spoke with the neighbors. The neighbor at 105 Tower Road has a pool on lower land, and screen planting on the applicant’s land is not possible due to the location of the septic system, installed five years ago. The Board suggested that the applicant consider offering to plant some evergreen trees on the neighbor’s property, although it cannot require this. Mr. Flint and Mr. Snell commented that because the house is on a high point and the lots are narrow, there is a risk of a big impact on neighbors, especially those whose houses are closer to the road. The Board checked the height of the house, which was stated to be 34ft 2in from the lowest point at the back, and accepted that it has normal ceiling heights. The architect commented that the
steepness of the site makes an alternative location impractical and that efforts had been made to reduce the facades; it would be hard to make the design seem any lower. Mrs. Wolf commented that the staggering of the houses in relation to the road has some advantages in terms of the character of the neighborhood. Several Board members felt that the cupola extended the height unnecessarily.
The Board asked if utilities will be underground. It was established that there is a pole carrying electric and cable services to this property and an adjoining one. Mr. St.Clair indicated he was willing to coordinate with the neighbor to place the wires underground. The Board agreed it would require the wires to be underground beyond the common pole.
Mr. Hurd expressed concern about the loss of some mature trees for the driveway and suggested that it may be possible to avoid this with a realignment. He also suggested some planting on either side of the leach field for screening purposes. He was satisfied with the architecture, including the cupola which he said was authentic to the shingle style, added interest and helped to break up the roofline.
Mr. Domnitz thought the driveway as proposed may have the advantage of allowing planting between it and the lot line to help with screening. Mr. Hurd thought that if some of the large trees can be kept they will help. The Board asked the applicant to look at the possibility of a shift to the driveway if it will save some good trees.The Board considered that a landscape plan would be helpful, showing planting alongside the driveway, near the rear right corner of the house and at the other side of the septic system.
A neighbor commented that sectional drawings showing the relationship between the houses would be helpful. The Board suggested that the architect could check if the Building department has a lot survey for the adjoining property on file, or prepare a sketch section.
The Board asked about lighting. Downlights are proposed under the building overhangs, together with one sconce between the garages. No driveway lights are proposed and the cupola will be unlit. The Board requested full details of the lights.
A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Hurd, to continue the hearing to June 6 at 8:40pm. Passed 5-0.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Omnipoint/T-Mobile, Red Rail Farm
Mr. Domnitz reported that he would represent the Board at the ZBA meeting the following evening. If the public hearing for a variance for a cell tower is closed, the Planning Board will need to provide a statement of its views within five days. The Board agreed that it was opposed to the granting of a variance and that there should instead be an orderly process for the applicant to discuss potential sites with the Planning Board.
The Board noted that in its recent applications to the Planning Board, Omnipoint did not mention its intention to apply for any further sites, as required in the bylaw.
A MOTION was proposed and seconded, to support a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, against the grant of a variance. Passed 5-0.
Town Planner’s Report:
Salm, 236 Lincoln Road
Mr. Whitehead showed building plans that have been submitted for alterations to the house. There will be a small increase in floorspace, of around 117sq ft. This can not be considered as part of the current site plan review since that was advertised as relating only to the accessory structure. The Board thought the small additions would qualify as a minor change and could be considered on June 6.
Zarella,Cabin, Lot 31-2, Cambridge Turnpike
Mr. Whitehead reported an enquiry about relocating a cabin from Page Road to an undeveloped lot off Route 2. The lot is a legal lot but has wetland issues. The proposal will need a building permit but there is a question as to whether it needs site plan review. The Board was of the opinion that it does.
White church, Bedford Road
Board members reported that the Lattimores, neighbors to the church, are concerned about what changes the church is allowed to make without Board control. The Board established that the zoning provides for a 75ft setback and the existing extension is closer to the lot line than that. Even though a church is an ‘exempt use’, it would have to come before the Board with any changes, to request exemptions.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:40pm.
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved July 25, 2007
| 
