TOWN OF LINCOLN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
November 14, 2007
PRESENT: R.Domnitz (chairman), E.Flint, B.Wolf, K.Hurd, J.Snell
STAFF: M.Whitehead, C.Perry
7:30PM BUSINESS:
Masood, 12 Stratford Way
The Board reviewed the draft decision.
A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Flint, to add a condition to limit the lights to 60W incandescent or equivalent bulbs. Passed 5-0.
The Board signed the amended decision.
ANR PLAN: LAURENCE & PAULINE HERTHEL, 199 Concord Road, Map 97/Lot 6
Further to the previous week’s discussion, Mr. Whitehead reported that Town Counsel advised that the parcel that lacks frontage can be changed as long as it is marked as non-buildable.
The Board voted unanimously to endorse the plan, and signed the mylar plan and three copies.
ANR PLAN: CHARLES I REALTY TRUST, 5 Sandy Pond Road, Map 53/Lot 6
Ephraim Flint presented the plan on behalf of the Trust, and did not participate as a Board member. He explained that the house originally sat on a common lot including a field. Previous changes have included creation of an agricultural preservation and conservation restriction, and transfer of a small piece of land to the church on Bedford Road. The intention now is to sell the house separately, and therefore a lot comprising slightly over 80,000 sq ft has been drawn around the house. Mr. Flint said that it was consistent with the conservation restriction. Also, a small piece of land is to be deducted from parcel 53-6-0 and added to parcel 53-10-0, which is the 8 Bedford Road house lot, in the same ownership. The plan also shows building envelopes, which are existing restrictions on the title but are not
relevant to endorsement of the ANR plan.
The Board confirmed that the lot proposed for 5 Sandy Pond Road has adequate frontage.
A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Domnitz, to endorse the plan. Passed 4-0
Four members of the Board signed the mylar plan and three copies.
ANR PLAN: CHARLES I REALTY TRUST and ESTATE OF MARGARET S. FLINT, 27 and 33 Lexington Road, Map 52/Lot 3
Ephraim Flint presented the plan and did not participate as a Board member. Mr. Hurd recused himself as an abutter. Mr. Flint explained that the plan will alter the lot line between the two above addresses (parcels 52-3-01 and 52-3-04), in order to include existing accessory buildings in the appropriate lots in case of future separate ownership. A variance to allow the proposed configuration has been approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The plan also makes a small adjustment to the rear lot line, affecting the large parcel 52-3-0, which is also in Flint family ownership. The plan also shows building envelope, which are existing restrictions on the title but are not relevant to endorsement of the ANR plan.
A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Snell, to endorse the plan.
Passed 3-0
Three members of the Board signed the mylar plan and three copies.
8:00 PM PUBLIC HEARING: JAMES DIGIOVANNI, 300 South Great Road, Map 119/ Lot 19, renewal of site plan approval.
The agent, Thomas Falwell, presented the application. He explained that the property was granted site plan approval for construction of a house in November 2005. Efforts have been made to sell the property with the benefit of this approval but these have so far been unsuccessful. The approval has lapsed and the applicant wishes to renew it, and so a new application is being made with resubmission of the previous plans. The proposal is before the ZBA for the same reason.
The Board received copies of an email from Barbara Peskin concerning the sidewalk through the property. The agent recalled that the treatment of the sidewalk had been considered at the previous hearing and the original plan was revised as referenced in the decision letter. The Board checked the approved site plan and confirmed that it shows a continuous sidewalk with a curve to avoid a tree.
Debra Woods of 183 Tower Road asked a general question concerning landscaping in relation to residential site plan reviews. The Board explained that landscape treatment is considered in relation to specific sites, and that its extent may depend on what is proposed by the applicant as well as on what is required by the Board. In this particular case there was a concern at the previous hearing about glare from headlights on the circular driveway, and planting was proposed to address it.
The Board accepted that there was good cause for construction not having commenced and hence for the request for renewal of site plan approval.
A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Hurd, to approve the plan as presented with the same submissions and conditions as previously. Passed 5-0
OTHER BUSINESS:
Potential Zoning Changes:
Alternative energy structures
The Board discussed the reasons why a bylaw may be needed to address these types of developments. In some cases they may already be allowable as accessory uses/ structures, subject to the usual dimensional limits. One argument for a bylaw is to clarify this and to encourage alternative energy by allowing certain equipment by right. Another is to consider whether the dimensional limits are appropriate for these types of equipment. Mr. Snell suggested that the set of UK proposals for ‘permitted development’ (which equates to ‘by right’) might be a useful aid to discussion. Mr. Domnitz suggested that the Board consider:
a) what it wants to approve
b) what process it wants to apply, e.g. by right/ by review/ subject to specific restrictions.
The Board noted that the ZBA is currently considering an application for solar panels close to a property line.
Lighting
Mr. Domnitz agreed to lead work on this topic.
Signs
Mrs. Wolf explained that her proposal is to replace the special permit provision in Section 16.5 with simply a sign permit. It would not need to be recorded at the Registry of Deeds. The considerations to be applied could be kept, but the requirement for renewal deleted. The Board supported the idea and asked Mr. Whitehead to draft the revision.
Preliminary meetings for site plan review
The Board continued its previous discussion of this idea. It was in agreement that it is desirable, in the case of major projects, to see applicants at an early stage, before they are invested in specific designs. However, procedures cannot guarantee that applicants will arrive with an open mind. Mr. Whitehead reported that although many applicants enquire early about procedures, they rarely ask for design advice. Section 17.7.3 of the bylaw currently encourages, but does not require, preliminary meetings with the Board. These meetings are not subject to public notice and advertisement. The new Land Use Permitting Guide encourages applicants to discuss their projects with the Town Planner. The Board noted that Weston holds a site walk with neighbors at the start of the public hearing. The Board felt that,
while it is useful to at least drive by a site at the outset, a site walk is better conducted once the plans have been studied and some issues identified.
The Board asked Mr. Whitehead to draft a change to the bylaw making preliminary meetings mandatory for larger developments, based on criteria such as the amount of new floorspace, changes to grading or a new septic system.
Wireless communication facilities
The Board discussed whether it should take a more proactive approach to facilities in the west side of town, with an additional overlay zone. The Chairman agreed to talk to Concord to explore matters relating to Pine Hill.
Town Planner’s Report:
Conservation Commission proposed warrant article
Mr. Whitehead reported that the Conservation Commission proposes to sponsor a warrant article to put GIS maps on the Town’s website. This will need an appropriation of money. The Commission is looking for a co-sponsor.
A MOTION was proposed and seconded to support the proposed warrant article.
Passed 5-0
Schools signs
The Lincoln schools have emailed designs for two new signs. The Board viewed a print-out. The Board wished to know what materials were proposed, and suggested inviting the proponents for a discussion.
Hall, 20 Garland Road
Mr. Whitehead showed plans that have been received for an addition to a house. The Board considered whether the proposed construction could be regarded as de minimis, but decided that a full application was needed. It would wish to examine the grades and the relationship to abutters.
Planning Board Budget
Mr. Whitehead reported that he has been asked to draw up a budget for FY 2009. The Finance Committee guideline is for a 3% overall increase. Because the Planning budget is heavily dominated by salaries, this means a cut of 30% in other operational spending. The Board noted that while it should be possible to absorb this for 2009, any similar constraints in future years would be problematic.
Husain, 9 Reiling Pond Road
The applicant has requested two changes to the site plan for a house, which was approved in August. One is a change to the shape of the gables; the other is the use of stone in a portion of the front elevation. Pictures of potential stone choices have been supplied. The Board noted that the covenants for the cluster development include architectural guidelines aimed at securing designs in keeping with New England traditions. The Board did not think the proposed new shape for the gables was consistent with this. The guidelines include lists of appropriate and unacceptable exterior materials. The ‘appropriate’ list includes “Field or river stone veneer with a minimum thickness of 4”. The Board considered that the sample pictures may be of thinner veneers. Mr. Hurd undertook to
research available stone types, and the Board agreed to consider the request further at its next meeting if the applicant wishes to pursue it.
Committee Reports:
School emergency access
Mrs. Wolf reported on discussions taking place concerning provision of a secondary access route for the Lincoln schools campus. Alternative proposals have attracted opposition. The Board asked Mr. Whitehead to obtain further information from the School Superintendent.
At-Risk Properties Committee
Mrs. Wolf and Mr. Hurd reported on a well-attended meeting earlier the same day, at which potential developer Leggat McCall presented its proposal for 200,000 sq ft of offices on the Arshad site. The intention is to preserve a short stretch of Winter Street as one-way. The developer stressed the financial benefit to the Town. There was strong negative reaction from residents concerned about traffic. Judi Barrett has been asked to model five scenarios for the Arshad property and five in combination with the Mayo Group (ex Kennedy) site. The timeline is too tight for Spring Town Meeting. It was agreed that the Board will discuss the results of the studies when they are available.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:25pm.
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved as amended, December 5, 2007
| 
