TOWN OF LINCOLN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
January 16, 2008
PRESENT: R.Domnitz (Chairman), K.Hurd, B.Wolf, J.Snell, E.Flint
STAFF: M.Whitehead, C.Perry
7:30 PM BUSINESS:
Minutes
The Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes of previous meetings as follows:
December 12 – Approved with amendments
January 2 – Approved as submitted
Hall, 20 Garland Road
The Board signed the decision for an addition to a house.
Bau, 88 Lincoln Road
The Board signed the decision for the removal of a tree.
8:00 PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: 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
The Chairman outlined the remaining issues from previous meetings.
The septic system was discussed. The Board of Health staff has determined that a nine bedroom capacity system is required based on the size of the existing house (translating to six bedrooms) plus three bedrooms proposed in the addition. The total room count (existing plus proposed) is fourteen. The applicant stated that the existing system is not adequate. He stated that the existing system was installed in a location that was substandard in terms of percolation rates. It was granted a waiver in connection with the building of the current house. The limit for the waiver was seven bedrooms, from the size of the previous house. The applicant reported that the site as a whole was extensively tested in the past and asserted that the only suitable locations for the septic system are around the edges or in the
conservation land, and that the easement was created for this purpose.
The applicant supplied documentation relating to the past testing. The Board asked about the meaning of dashes in place of some test results. The applicant’s engineer, David Schofield, said that this usually means that these tests were not completed as the soil appeared visually to be no better than other failed test locations. The Board noted that current standards allow a slower percolation rate than in the past, and wondered if further testing should be carried out. It was stated that the rate used in design calculations for the existing system was 130 minutes per inch which is still slower than allowed. Mr. Schofield expressed the view that there are only small areas of the site where the percolation rate could possibly be good enough; also that previous work suggests that soils are better where
the site is steeper but that this factor causes breakout problems. Mr. Hurd asked if a completely new system is required or if the existing one can be supplemented. Mr. Schofield did not think the Board of Health would allow the existing system to be expanded or supplemented.
The Chairman asked if the applicant would consider offering a deed restriction to limit the house to seven bedrooms. The applicant said he would need time to consider this.
The Board examined a plan of the proposed septic system. It noted that it shows a reserve area going beyond the 10,000 sq ft area of the easement. Mr. Schofield said that this would not be needed in practice, because reserve capacity could be found within the 10,000 sq ft area, but that it has to be shown on the plans submitted to the Board of Health. Also, he contended that the applicant is entitled to 10,000 sq ft of subterranean space. The Board received a letter from Buzz Constable. Mr. Constable also appeared and reiterated his argument that the 10,000 sq ft figure means the cleared area, and suggested that the Board should not approve a plan showing the reserve area going beyond it. He suggested that with innovative designs like the one proposed, it may be more possible than in the past to locate the
septic system on the higher land. Mr. Schofield responded that a percolation rate of less than 60 minutes per inch is still required.
The Board turned to the issue of site drainage. A catch basin and drains are shown on the plan, leading to a dry well. The engineer stated that there will be a seasonal overflow, with the water emerging at least 200 ft from the property line. The Board asked how much impervious surface is being added; the applicant agreed to provide calculations.
The height of the building was discussed. Mr. Adams suggested that the highest point should be considered to be the ridge of the main house but the Board noted that there is also a circular parapet about two feet higher. In either case, the height of the house from lowest to highest exposed point without the addition exceeds 36 ft, and the addition increases the vertical span by extending it downwards. Calculations have now been provided based on average natural grade; by this method the height with the addition is less than 36 ft. The number of stories has been calculated not to exceed 2½; the lowest level does not count based on the drawings.
The Board considered who will be affected by the increased vertical span. Mr. Adams asserted that the shape of the hill will cut off a portion of the building in views from the foot of the hill. Lucretia Giese said that the addition will exaggerate the height of the house from her residence. The Board considered that the outward extension of the building would make it more visible from some places at the foot of the hill.
The Chairman reported that he has reviewed the documents relating to the helipad. There was evidence of a submission having been made to the Massachusetts Aeronautical Conmmission (MAC), although the details of the submission were not clear, and a letter from Chief Arena saying that in his opinion there was no conflict with town laws. The Board commented that it was not clear whether the Chief’s authority included zoning bylaws. There was a notification to, and response from, the FAA which noted that it did not pre-empt local authority. Mr. Egendorf said he believed he would have to reapply to the FAA or MAC or both.
The Board examined the proposed exterior lighting. Mr. Adams stated that all the proposed lights are in soffits except for one on the house wall that is angled to shine on the courtyard/ parking area. Bulbs of 100W and 120W power are proposed; Mr. Hurd suggested that 75W bulbs would be sufficient and that dimmers be provided. The Board asked about existing lighting. Mr. Adams said that only the parking area currently has active lighting; bulbs were removed from fixtures facing the neighbors, and there are no lights along the driveway.
The Board considered the proposed metallic siding material. Mr. Adams said that he believed it was non-reflective and that he would be willing to mount a sample for approval during construction. He provided a photograph of an example in Sudbury and agreed to provide the addresses of the two examples mentioned previously. He described the color as similar to pewter. The metal element is zinc.
The applicant offered to allow the Gieses to carry out screen planting on the applicant’s land within 25 feet of their property.
A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Flint, to continue the hearing to February 6 at 8:20pm Passed 5-0
8:20 PM PUBLIC HEARING: CHRISTINA BREITER, 10 Reiling Pond Road, Map 33/Lot 1, amendment to a cluster subdivision special permit to change a sound barrier wall in the R-1 zone under Section 6.6
The Board agreed to visit the site individually.
A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Flint, to continue the hearing to February 6 at 9:00pm. Passed 5-0
Mr. Snell left at this point and the remainder of the meeting was recorded on audio tape.
8:40 PM PUBLIC HEARING: KIMBERLY AND MARK SOUKUP, 6 Woodcock Lane, Map 106/Lot 3, amendment to previously approved site plan review for teardown and reconstruction of a single family residence in the R-1 zone under Section 6.0 and 17.7.
The applicants attended with their agent and landscape architect. They are proposing a revised version of the site plan that was approved in October. The new plan was presented. The revisions involve reducing the size of the house from 6,986 sq ft to 6,222 sq ft (excluding the garage) with a smaller mudroom connector; moving the house back slightly and increasing the separation between the driveway and the large beech tree; and replacing the circular driveway turn with a teardrop shape. The changes were said to take account of comments made previously by the Board.
The Board considered whether the revised site plan would have any more impact on neighbors but this did not appear to be the case. The agent suggested that it would improve the appearance of the house from Woodcock Drive by reducing the length. Mr. Gordon, the landscape architect, said that he intended to conduct an inventory of trees on the site and would aim to preserve them as well as possible. The Board asked if any trees would be lost for the driveway; this will need to be checked. Mr. Domnitz asked about the juniper. Mr. Gordon considers this to be out of keeping and proposes to remove it but to replace it with a transplanted rhododendron. The Board asked about a stand of birch trees; it is intended to keep as much of this as is in good condition. The use of planting to soften or break up views of
the house and driveway was discussed. Mr. Gordon said he would like to keep the field area open but would consider adding some planting to the line of trees along Woodstock Drive to make it less formal, and some shrubs near the driveway loop. He confirmed that existing vegetation near Weston Road is to be retained. The Board said that it would like to see a more detailed landscape plan.
The Board examined the elevations. Mr. Hurd commented that he disliked the small dormers. Other Board members were not concerned by them. No changes are proposed in exterior lighting compared to the previous approval.
Lucretia Giese of the Historical Commission examined the plans but had no comments.
Overall, the Board welcomed the revised plans as an improvement.
A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Flint, to approve the site plan subject to conditions: that a landscaping plan be submitted to and approved by the Board; and that the small dormer windows may be removed at the applicant’s option.
Passed 4-0
9:00 PM PUBLIC HEARING: JAMES AND KAREN DWYER, 83 Page Road, Map 50/Lot 4-3, site plan review for construction of a new residence in the R-1 zone under Section 6.0 and 17.7.
The applicants attended with their design team, led by Don Bartles of Eck/MacNeely Architects. Mr. Whitehead stated that the Conservation Commission has issued a Certificate of Approval for the project: there is a buffer zone for an intermittent stream to the rear of the site.
Mr. Bartles explained that the site is a portion of the former Hapgood property that was subdivided. It is an undeveloped lot. Several constraints have influenced the design, including the 250 ft lot width rule and the wetlands buffer. The septic system has been discussed with the Board of Health, resulting in a smaller design. Storm drainage has been discussed with the Conservation Commission.
The Board examined the plans. Mr. Domnitz asked about the amount of site clearance. The design team said that trees have been located and that they are sparse in the area of the house. The landscape architect stated that clearing will be limited to areas where re-grading is proposed. A natural knoll will be left undisturbed. New planting is proposed to be in keeping with the woodland setting. Stone material will be used for walls and patios.
The septic system will be mounded. The design team said that its shape would be made to look as natural as possible and it may be possible to lower it. The Chairman commented that the tree buffer shown in this vicinity on the plan may be exaggerated, but that a 10 ft strip at the edge of the lot must be left undisturbed.
The Board asked about views of the property. Mr. Bartles said that as the house site is some distance from Page Road it is unlikely to be seen from there, and that it is also distant from the Farrington property to the rear.
The architects presented the elevations for a house and a two story accessory building. The Board inquired about the purpose of the accessory building. The owners wish to use the lower floor for storage for Mr. Dwyer’s business as a building contractor/carpenter and may wish to use the upper floor for a home business for Mrs. Dwyer who is a therapist. The septic system has only been sized for the house. Mr. Domnitz asked for information about the room calculation.
The size of the house was given as approximately 6,254 sq ft, and the calculated gross floor area including the accessory building as 8,837 sq ft. Mr. Bartles stated that the 250 ft rule is met. He recognized that the placement of the accessory building was too close to the lot line; it will be moved to 24 feet back and an amended plan will be supplied.
Proposed materials are wood shingles with a fieldstone lower portion and a standing seam metal roof in a natural tone. The height of the house is 39 feet. A request was made to allow the use of average natural grade for the height calculation. Mr. Hurd commented favorably on the architecture. The Board asked for a scale and marked dimensions to be added to the elevations.
Exterior lighting was discussed. The Board advised that it subscribes to the dark sky initiative and does not normally allow lights along driveways or lights that are directly visible from neighboring properties. The landscape architect presented pictures of two proposed types of fixture, both with full cut offs: the first is intended for hanging from trees, at approximately 12 feet high at intervals along the driveway, to create a slight moonlight effect, and the second is to be mounted no more than 18 inches high on the retaining wall at the head of the driveway and on an ornamental wall in the grounds, close to the driveway. The number of lights has not yet been decided. The Board discussed the ornamental wall and concluded that it may help to screen headlights. Mr. Flint suggested that lights will not
be needed all along the driveway but may be reasonably necessary in the turning area. The Board also examined a submitted catalog cut of sconce lights for the entrances to the house and accessory building. Mr. Hurd suggested using dimmer switches. The Board asked for a full set of lighting cut sheets, with locations marked on the drawings.
The proposed driveway surface was stated to be asphalt with a stone chip top coat.
The Board wished to conduct a site walk. Mr. Bartles said that the site has markers to show the setbacks for the house site which is closely constrained, and offered to mark the approximate position of the accessory building.
A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Domnitz, to hold a site walk on Saturday January 26 at 10:00am. Passed 4-0
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Flint and seconded by Mr. Hurd, to continue the hearing to February 6 at 9:20pm. Passed 4-0
Other Business
Town Planner’s Report
Mr. Whitehead reported that placeholder items have been placed on the warrant for Town Meeting, for the zoning changes that the Board is considering.
The Board agreed to hold a meeting on January 23 to finalize the wording for the warrant articles.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:35pm.
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved as amended, February 6, 2008
| 
