The Town of Lincoln, MA - Planning Board Minutes

Mr. Zarella explained that he owns a log cabin which he constructed on a lot on Page Road and which he wishes to relocate to an undeveloped lot on the north side of Route 2. The lot is a large, legal ANR lot. Access to the main portion of the lot is via an old bridge over a creek. When the lot was created, the Conservation Commission successfully opposed the construction of a larger bridge that would provide vehicular access for a dwelling. The applicant wishes to use the cabin for short periods of time as a retreat and hunting base.

The Board first considered whether the cabin would constitute a dwelling unit. The applicant stated that the cabin will have a wood stove but no bathroom or plumbing, and that he will not be living in it; he has a house in Waltham. The Board formed the opinion that the proposal would not meet the definition of a dwelling unit. However, the Board wondered if the Board of Health might require a septic system.

The Board considered whether site plan review was required. It asked if any site alterations were involved. Mr. Zarella indicated that footings and beams will be needed to support the cabin; that a few trees would need to be removed; and that part of a stone wall would be temporarily removed to allow the cabin to be brought onto the site. The Board formed the view that since some development or alteration of an undeveloped lot was involved, site plan review was needed. However it considered that the small scale of the development meant that the proposal could be treated as de minimis under Section 17.7.4 (g), with a simplified procedure.

A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Hurd and seconded by Mr. Snell, to authorize Mr. Whitehead to write a letter to abutters explaining the proposal and procedure, and to review the site plan at a public meeting on June 20. Passed 4-0 (Mr. Flint was absent).

8:00PM PUBLIC HEARING: LAWON SUH, 31 Mill Street, Map 20/Lot 3, site plan review for teardown and reconstruction of single family residence in the R-1 zone under Section 6 and 17.7.

The applicant was represented by her husband, Peter Lee, and Tim Taylor, attorney. They explained that the applicant is proposing to tear down and reconstruct a house on a non-conforming lot, and that the proposal has been before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a year. Mr. Whitehead supplied a letter from the ZBA indicating that the proposal has been revised following the Planning Board’s preliminary comments in January, and the ZBA is inclined to approve the proposal but would like to see the outcome of site plan review first. The ZBA also requested some screen planting.

Mr. Taylor said that the applicant proposes to plant 6 or 8 evergreens on one side of the lot, and that the other side has solid vegetation. He presented the site plan. The Board asked how much re-grading was proposed; Mr. Taylor replied that the details were not finalized but that little re-grading was anticipated. The Board asked about effects on wetlands; Mr. Taylor reported that Conservation staff had no objections to the construction, and that the area to the rear of the house would keep its existing open nature. An Order of Conditions will be obtained for the work.

Mr. Snell commented that the positioning on the lot was reasonable but that the house will be significantly different to the previous one. The Board examined the floorspace and dimensions. The new house was stated to have 6,382sqft of floorspace compared with an existing total (in several buildings) of 4,849sqft. The Chairman considered that the massing was satisfactory. Mr. Hurd suggested that the applicant should challenge the architect to improve the detailing of the elevations, and pointed out that the shape of the shutters was unconvincing.

It was established that utility wires are currently above ground, with a pole on the adjacent lot. The house will be further from the pole, and the applicant was recommended to pursue having the wires placed underground.

The applicant was asked to supply details of proposed contours and landscape planting; to show dimensions and a re-sizable scale on the elevations; and to mark a missing light on the lighting plan.

8:20PM 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 and determination of minor change for porch and dormers on house.

The landscape architect presented a revised site plan for the accessory building. Its position has been shifted to between 8 and 9 feet, at the closest point, from the conservation restriction line. It is intended that disturbance during construction will be limited to four feet from the two most sensitive sides of the building, with staging located on the side away from the conservation land. Hay bale barriers will be provided.

The size of the building has been reduced from 50 to 45ft wide; the length remains 65ft. A low wall and a flagstone patio have been shown on the plan. A connection to the shared driveway has also been shown. This will have a permeable base. Planting and reforested areas of the site have been shown, as well as existing trees. There will be a mown lawn to the rear of the house.

The Chairman asked how the position of the septic system had been determined. It was approximated using the surveyed plan together with visible covers. The landscape architect did not consider it feasible to place the building foundation any closer to the septic system.

The architect presented a new design for the building. The use of wood trusses has allowed it to be narrower and have a steeper roof than the previous steel-framed design. The height is 32ft. The cupola will provide daylight and ventilation. The design is suitable for potential use as a horse barn. Proposed materials are ship-lap siding with sliding shutters, a metal roof with standing seams, and a mixed stone base. The retaining wall will also be of stone. Proposed colors are grey for the siding, ‘caviar’ (a warm dark grey) for trim, and brown for doors. Perspective drawings were shown to illustrate views of the building, with trees at semi-maturity.

Mr. Hurd commented that he liked the design and thought it an improvement. Mr. Domnitz asked how roof run off would be dealt with. No gutters are proposed and it is intended that a patio and dry well will absorb the water. The size of the roof overhang was examined and determined not to impinge on the conservation restriction.

Timothy Taylor, attorney, spoke on behalf of the neighboring Gallitano household. A further letter has been submitted. Mr. Taylor argued that the proposal was not for a permitted use of an accessory structure. He reiterated the earlier concern about safety on the common driveway and suggested that a two-way driveway be required. Eleanor Gallitano noted the revised building design but suggested that it would be improved by incorporating the entryway within the main part of the building.

The Chairman recalled that the Board had discussed whether the proposal qualified as an accessory structure and formed the initial view that it did. The applicant’s attorney assured the Board that the use will be attendant to residential use of the lot. The owners propose to use the building for recreational use but not team practice, and it could potentially be used as a horse barn. A condition precluding regular team use would be acceptable to the applicant.

Mrs. Gallitano asked the Salms to consider using the shorter potential access route via an easement off Long Meadow Road for the construction equipment and tree deliveries. The Chairman thought this was not something that the Planning Board could reasonably require.

The Board felt that it would like confirmation from the Conservation Commission that it was satisfied with the practicality of the narrow working space for construction. Peter Von Mertens appeared briefly on behalf of the Commission and gave this confirmation.

8:40PM 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 residence in the R-1 zone under Section 6 and 17.7.

Mr. St.Clair recalled that the Board had suggested a change to the driveway, a reduction in the size of the cupola and some screening for the neighbors. The architect reported that he has re-examined the levels, sight lines and trees on site. He showed photographs. A planting plan proposes some pines near the septic trench and rhododendrons beneath an existing large tree in this vicinity, and some pines and rhododendrons on the other side of the lot. The line of the driveway has been shifted to avoid a large pine and some smaller trees.

Mrs. Wolf wondered if headlights shining on the neighbor’s house would be a nuisance, and suggested denser screening, perhaps with a wider range of shade-tolerant broad leaved evergreens.

A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by MR. Flint, to approve the site plan as presented subject to an increase in the planting to a dozen, three foot rhododendrons or similar broad-leaved evergreens on each side of the lot, and white pines of 6-8ft size in the locations shown. Passed 5-0.

9:00PM 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.

Mr. Whitehead reported that Elizabeth and Rob Orgel wish to add a screened porch to the rear of their house and the floorspace exceeds the threshold for site plan review by a small amount. The proposal is also being submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals as the lot is less than 80,000sq ft.

The Board discussed whether a reduced procedure under the de minimis provisions of Section 17.7.4 (g) would be appropriate. It examined the plans and discussed the topography of the site. It considered the plans provided to be adequate.

A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Domnitz and seconded by Mr. Hurd, to determine that the proposed construction is de minimis, and to allow a simplified site plan approval process with notice to abutters and a public meeting on June 20. Passed 5-0.

Mr. Whitehead reported that the draft Open Space Plan is being submitted to the State for approval, by the Conservation Commission. Copies have been circulated. The Planning Board’s endorsement is sought.

The Board noted that various enquiries have been received concerning the status of non-conforming churches and schools. It discussed the procedures that may be applicable to changes to such uses.