The Town of Lincoln, MA - Planning Board Minutes

Mr. Whitehead reported that Buck Creel has requested a minor change to the sign permit that the Board voted to approve on August 13^th. The Board approved option 2 for the lettering but it has emerged that the School Committee preferred option 1. The sign permit has not yet been issued.

Following the previous discussion on July 16^th, a draft decision for the Wireless Communication Facility special permit was circulated. This has now been revised to include a five year time limit. The decision includes a condition covering transfers of interests. These two points will be standard conditions for future WCFs. The Board reviewed the latest draft decision.

Copies of the accounting department’s end-of-year budget report for the Planning service were distributed in the Board’s packets. Mr. Whitehead reviewed the figures. The year’s revenue totaled $8,592 and included fees for several wireless communication facility applications and ANR endorsements. The salaries budget was increased slightly to pay for cover for a meeting when Mrs. Perry was on leave. The Board’s agreed contribution of $1000 towards creation of a GIS data layer for buildings was fully paid from the non-salaries budget but a portion of it was accidentally allocated to the wrong category. The memberships category pays for the town’s contribution to MAPC/ MAGIC. Overall the non-salaries budget was under-spent by $2,538. Revenue and unspent budget monies become part of the town’s general fund.

The Board asked about funds held in connection with developments, for example review fees and performance guarantee deposits. These are a separate matter from the budget but the Board may wish to review them at a future time.

The applicant attended with her architect, Anne McCallum. Ms. Lammert explained that she wishes to make a one story addition to the existing house at first floor level, to provide stair-free accommodation for her daughter who has a chronic medical condition. The Board viewed a location plan and aerial photograph. The driveway is located further west than the lot’s legal frontage on Baker Bridge Road. Board members commented that the house is set on low land and is largely hidden from the road.

Elevations and draft plans were circulated prior to the meeting. Mr. Domnitz asked if any tree removal was proposed; the applicant responded that one large tree will be removed but that most of the regrading that is proposed is in an area of garden rather than woodland. Some work in the wetland buffer zone is involved. A small shed on the site will be moved.

A new site plan was presented, showing more detail of existing and proposed grades in the area that will be altered. The Chairman noted that the scale of regrading is greater than indicated previously, and under the bylaw it should trigger a preliminary meeting. It was agreed that in effect the current session would act as the preliminary meeting. The plan shows the positions of the septic tanks and leaching field, which are existing. The system is for six bedrooms and the applicant believes that an upgrade is not required; the Board recommended fully checking this with the Board of Health. The Board asked for key dimensions such as the setback of the shed from the lot line to be marked on the plan, and for the tree that is to be removed to be shown on the plan.

The Board examined the elevations and asked for a visual scale to be added and for more dimensions to be marked. It asked for clarification of which portions of the building are new and which are existing. It transpired that a number of changes to the existing house are proposed as well as the addition. The architect agreed to provide a new set of drawings showing the changes more clearly.

Mr. Whitehead identified a possible issue with the height of the building. The proposed addition goes onto lower ground than the existing house and it is also proposed to add a cupola/ monitor to the existing roof. The total height from lowest exposed point to highest point is approximately 38 feet. The Board considered that the monitor was too large or integral with the house to be excluded as a feature carried above a roof under Section 13.1.2. It may be prepared to consider allowing the use of average natural grade for the height calculation but the applicant will need to supply calculations.

The Board asked how storm water would be handled. It is proposed to use gutters and downspouts, with water dispersing on the ground. The Board asked about exterior lighting. The applicant proposes to keep existing lights. The Board pointed out that a new light will be needed where a new access is created, and it will need to see a catalog cut. It would also like to see details of existing lighting. Positions of lights should be marked on the drawings.

8:40 PM PRELIMINARY MEETING: ELINOR L. HARDIGG, 61 Beaver Pond Road, Map 85/ Lot 12, preliminary meeting for site plan review for a teardown and renovation of a house under Sections 6 and 17.7

Jamie Pope, the applicant’s husband, attended. He explained that the existing house is a one story, flat roofed modern design, built in 1952. He stated that it is a poor quality house with moisture problems causing mold. The couple are proposing to tear it down and replace it with a two story house on a similar footprint. The applicant has been to the Historical Commission. Mr. Pope said that the existing house was on the list of important houses compiled by the Friends of Modern Architecture (FOMA) but the architect was unknown and the house has been through a number of alterations. In his view it was of far poorer architectural quality than others in the vicinity. Lucretia Giese attended, representing the Historical Commission, and said that that the Commission felt the house was significant in the context of the neighborhood.

Mr. Pope displayed a plan showing the proposed new house, and sketched in the outline of the existing house for comparison. He stated that the footprint will be reduced slightly but the height increased and the position rotated to face due south. Solar panels may be added. He estimated the height at 32 feet. A detached garage, 20 feet high, is also proposed. Mr. Pope said that one consideration in planning the new house was trying to avoid going closer to wetlands. No trees will need to be cut.

The Board noted that the house is non-conforming with respect to lot width and the proposal will therefore need to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Pope stated that the proposal will decrease the amount of building in the side setback.

Proposed elevations were shown. Mr. Pope said that a long porch with a pitched metal roof will help to keep something of a low, horizontal appearance to the house. He added that the applicant chose an architect who would respect the surroundings.

The Board inquired about the floor area of the house. Mr. Pope said that the existing house is about 3,000 sq ft and the porch will add to the footprint. He mentioned that a basement is being considered but if there are big problems with ledge rock, a crawl space will be substituted.

The Board asked if the site had drainage problems. Mr. Pope said he believed the mold issue was due to poor construction rather than the site drainage issues but he was working with an engineer on drainage in relation to the wetlands. It is proposed to use the existing septic system which passed Title V six months ago. It is believed to be a 3 bedroom system. The applicant may need to discuss a deed restriction covering the number of rooms/bedrooms and/or a garbage grinder with the Board of Health.

The Board discussed how the proposal relates to the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Pope stated that there are several houses with pitched roofs as well as flat roofed contemporaries. The Chairman asked if the applicant has talked with the neighbors; Mr. Pope responded that this is in process and so far no-one has raised any issues.

Lucretia Giese stated that the house demolition issue came before the Historical Commission in 2007. The house was determined to be of historical significance as one of a group of modern houses, many of which were still in existence. Eight houses on Beaver Pond were part of the FOMA inventory. Mrs.Giese said that neighborhood residents were concerned with what would replace the house if it was demolished. The Historical Commission will be viewing the proposal on September 9^th and will examine its consistency with the neighborhood. It is likely to be concerned to see that the massing and size respect the character of the area. However, a year has already passed since the first hearing so the Board will need to consider whether the six months delay period should be treated as having already passed.

Some members of the Planning Board commented that there was some variety in the houses in the neighborhood and that changes had occurred; Mrs. Giese was of the opinion that it had stayed relatively coherent. Mr. Hurd commented that he had visited the existing house and concurred with Mr. Pope that it was lacking in quality and integrity.

Mr. Pope showed a small model of the proposed house. The Board considered that although it has pitched roofs, it is not an imposing design. It had doubts about a tall chimney above the side porch; the applicant will look at revising this. The Board considered that the house will be partly masked by the rise of the land from the street, although it will have a higher appearance than the current one. It noted that there are some trees on the frontage that will be kept. The Board examined the parking area and pointed out an issue with proximity to the lot line. There should be a ten foot setback, with a vegetative buffer. The Board will need to check the relation to adjacent houses.

The Board took a roll call vote to enter executive session for the purpose of discussing strategy in relation to pending litigation, to be followed by a return to open session, as follows:

The Board viewed final plans received from Mr. Blakely under the terms of its decision for a minor change to the office addition, issued on August 4, 2008. The Board was satisfied.

Mrs. Wolf reported that the Selectmen’s Traffic Committee is looking at road design. The Selectmen have identified a need for the committee to coordinate with the CLRP sub-committees and the Planning Board. It was agreed that Mr. Hurd and Mrs. Wolf will attend the September meeting of the Traffic Committee on behalf of the Planning Board.

The Board reviewed two copy letters received from Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection concerning Mr. Egendorf’s application for a variance for the new septic system. The first was a denial; the second said that the system would be allowed on the basis of it being an upgrade to an existing system rather than to serve new construction, and that it was subject to the applicant creating a deed restriction limiting the property to seven bedrooms. The Board noted that the approval letter refers to “the existing seven-bedroom dwelling” whereas information presented to the Planning Board was that the existing house has six bedrooms. The Board wished to obtain a copy of the revised materials submitted to Mass DEP, on which the approval was based.

The Board also reviewed Joel Bard’s note of the case management conference held on July 22^nd. The judge requested the parties to meet on site to discuss specific tree planting positions, to see if the Board’s desire for screening from the trail could be reconciled with the appellant’s desire for a long distance view from his house. The Board commented that this would be an unusual procedure; normally the applicant submits a proposed planting scheme to the Board.