The Town of Lincoln, MA - Planning Board Minutes

Mike Fitzpatrick, the builder for the Brooks house project, attended to discuss how to proceed with detailed approvals needed under conditions of the site plan approval. Site work has begun under a permit for the foundation only.

Condition number 1 requires the Board’s approval of the type, pattern and color of the stone veneer, which is to match the submitted photograph and be mocked up in a sample panel to be viewed on site “prior to construction”. The builder wishes to proceed with the framing, and to obtain approval for the stone when the project is ready for this element to be added. He has identified a source of stone and will bring some pieces for viewing prior to creating the sample panel.

The Board asked whether the framing will constrain the choice of stone treatments. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that the framing will accept various thicknesses up to several inches and that a substantial thickness is proposed. The plinth and lintels will be of a cast stone material. With this information, the Board was satisfied that it would be appropriate to interpret “prior to construction” as prior to construction of the stone portions of the project. It asked Mr. Whitehead to notify the Building Inspector accordingly.

Condition numbers 2 and 3 require the Board’s approval for the type and color of the trim and for the balustrade design. The builder stated that the trim will be Hardiplank and will be flat, not ornate. He agreed to email cross-sectional drawings. In relation to the balustrade, he reported that he has concerns about potential water leaks if a post is inserted through the roof shingles. The Board said that if the owners wished, they could request an amendment to the site plan approval to omit the balustrade; the Board would need to study the drawings again to evaluate this.

Robert and Jane Solar attended with Mark Lanza, attorney, and John Hamel, surveyor. The Solars explained that they own a lot that has frontage on Horseshoe Lane, a paper street off Deerhaven Road. Their house is on the lot, accessed by a private driveway. The Solars wish to divide the land into two lots with the intention of selling one and remaining in the house. Mr. Hamel showed a plan of the potential division, with various lot width lines marked. There is sufficient acreage and frontage but the division would make the house non-conforming with respect to the 250 ft lot width rule. The Solars are seeking advice.

The Board noted that the total area is a little less than four acres, but over 160,000 sq ft; also that there is a barn on the lot on the portion that would be separated from the house. Land to the rear is owned by the town.

Mr. Lanza reviewed the history of the property, as follows. In 1959 the Deerhaven subdivision was approved, with this land shown as two lots (lots 9 and 10). In 1964 the buyer preferred to combine the lots and build a single house with only a driveway. The 1964 Planning Board agreed, subject to a covenant which provided that if the land was ever divided again, Horseshoe Lane would be built in accordance with the subdivision rules. The house was built and the configuration remains today.

In 1973 a new owner of the property came before the Planning Board requesting a two lot configuration. The Planning Board, in 1974, approved a division and waived the road construction, but the plan was never registered. The property has changed hands since then.

Mr. Lanza stated the following: when it was built, the house complied with zoning; under the division proposed in 1974, it appears not to have met the 250 ft rule but it may have been interpreted differently; it complied in all other ways.

The access was discussed. Mr. Lanza said that the driveway was adequate to serve two houses. Legally, the private way allows the two adjacent owners on Deerhaven Road also to use it but they take their access directly off Deerhaven Road. The easement for the private way does not restrict the number of houses served. If the driveway was required to meet current standards under the subdivision rules and regulations, it would need widening. The Solars and the adjoining owners do not favor this. Therefore the Solars would request a waiver from the full rules and regulations and from the 1964 covenant.

The Board considered that it would be able to endorse an ANR plan for the two lots as proposed but that it would need to endorse the plan as not meeting the zoning bylaw in relation to the 250 ft rule, therefore its implementation would be a violation unless either the house was moved or a variance was obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Board examined the plan and was unable to suggest any way of dividing it that would be fully conforming, with the house in its present position. Mr. Lanza asked the Board to consider if it could make a supporting recommendation for a variance to the ZBA. The Board briefly discussed whether the terrain was a factor in the siting of the house. It asked staff to provide more details of the background.

8:20 PM PUBLIC HEARING: COUNTRYSIDE BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT (EISNER), 173 Tower Road, Map 119/Lot 20, site plan review for teardown and reconstruction under Section 17.7

Ken Eisner presented the site plan for a single family house. He described it as a 3 bedroom, 2½ bathroom house with 2,800 sq ft of floorspace plus a basement. The positions of the old house (to be torn down) and the proposed new house were shown on a plan. Mr. Eisner stated that the proposal complies with zoning except for the lot size which is approximately one acre. The proposal will go to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Mr. Eisner presented photographs and indicated the position of the lot line. He stated that some paving that remained near the lot line, from the former Aunt Sadie’s farmstand, has been removed. He intends to keep existing vegetation on the north and southeast sides of the lot and to use the existing curb cut for the driveway. Clearing will be needed for the house and the septic system, and trees that are close to the house will also be removed, as indicated on the plan.

House elevations were presented. The house will be set two feet higher than the existing one to avoid dampness. Recessed lights are proposed in the soffits at the house entrances. Two bollard lights are also proposed in the front yard near the parking area and walkway; a catalog cut was supplied.

For screening between this lot and the adjacent one at 300 South Great Road, two rows of trees are proposed: one of pines and one of junipers. Some planting is also proposed on the road frontage, extending from the adjacent lot.

The Board asked about some points that were raised at the preliminary discussion. Mr. Eisner said that the Conservation Commission is satisfied with the proposed drain from the foundation. He confirmed that the driveway will be paved and the electric service will be placed underground from the pole.

Three neighbors, Barbara Peskin, Patricia Cable and Michael Frankston, attended. The Board received letters from Ms. Peskin and Ms. Cable. The neighbors’ main concern was to preserve the rural look and feel of the neighborhood. They questioned the extent of tree cutting. The Board commented that this was driven by the need to locate the house and septic system, which they felt were of a reasonable size and complied with constraints such as setbacks. Additional screen planting was discussed. Ms. Peskin questioned the need for outdoor lighting. The Board stated that it normally allows some limited lighting at parking areas.

A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Hurd and seconded by Mrs. Wolf, to approve the development as submitted, subject to additional planting of two, six foot evergreen trees near the southwest corner of the lot and three near Tower Road, to the south of the driveway. Passed 5-0

The Carroll School principal, Steve Wilkins, attended with the design team led by Samiotes Consultants. The school is a non-profit educational organization covered by MGL Ch 40A Sec 3.

The principal outlined the background to the plans as set out in a written narrative accompanying the application. A new building is proposed, to house classrooms for grade K-4 students and associated faculty and administrative space. The school’s stated aim is to improve physical accommodation rather than to increase student numbers. As described at the preliminary discussion on April 16^th, the building will step up the hillside to connect the lower and upper levels of the campus. Parking will be formalized at the lower level and the arrangement will avoid the need for daytime visitors to drive further into the site.

A site plan and elevations were presented. The building will be of red brick above a fieldstone base and will be most visible at the parking lot. An exemption from zoning regulations is being requested for the height of the building, which will have four stories in total and will span a vertical height of approximately 49 feet although no individual elevation exceeds 36 feet and the height calculated from average natural grade is a little less than 32 feet.

The main issue identified at the preliminary discussion was the traffic problem caused by vehicles queuing to pick up students in the afternoon. The design team stated that this issue has been examined and it is proposed to reverse the flow on the two-ended driveway and have pick-up in the lower parking area. This arrangement is projected to allow all waiting vehicles to queue within the property.

The engineer explained that the building has been designed to minimize site disturbance and a Low Impact Development approach has been taken to drainage. A drainage study was submitted. A neighbor, Keith Miller, stated that there are currently problems with water running off the site onto the road. The Board wondered whether further measures could be taken to reduce this problem.

The project team reported that it has met with the Board of Health to discuss the septic system, which will be rebalanced to deal with the flows. Also, a dedicated water line and a new electric line will be laid from Baker Bridge Road. The Board suggested looking carefully at the routing of these utilities to minimize tree cutting.

Lighting is proposed around the parking lot, with 16-18 ft poles. These were described as being dark sky compliant and having an adjustable tilt. The intention is to only have them on in the evenings when there are functions at the school. The Board recommended a photometric study and referred to the one done for the Mall project. Low lights are also proposed alongside walkways and steps.

An existing walking trail along the hillside to the west of the building will be widened with retaining walls. Planting of native shrubs and trees is proposed in front of various retaining walls on the site.

Mrs. Wolf asked if any ledge rock would need to be removed for construction work. The engineer anticipates that about 75% of the building will need ledge removal, which may involve blasting.

The Chairman summarized the main planning issues as height (including number of stories), parking (including lighting) and runoff. The Board welcomed the effort to address traffic circulation. The Board wished to visit the site and to consider the scope of its jurisdiction.

The Board agreed to conduct a site walk on Saturday October 25^th at 10:00 AM (Mr. Hurd will visit separately). The applicant agreed to have the outline of the building staked and to provide a plan.

9:00 PM ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENT: RURAL LAND FOUNDATION, 145 Lincoln Road, Map 95/Lot 38, compliance with special condition #2 regarding restaurant use as required in the Special Permit for Lincoln Station dated May 23, 2007.

Geoff McGean and Sarah Andrysiak, RLF staff, attended with Carol Kendrick and Bill Jackson, project manager. No members of the public were present. Mr. McGean stated that the RLF’s submission attempts to address the various factors relating to restaurant approval in zoning bylaw Section 10.3. He summarized the main points. Dumpsters for trash will be small. The one for the restaurant will be emptied as needed, probably daily. Kitchen exhaust odors will be addressed with air filters. Waste water will go to the Lincoln Woods treatment system under the shared use agreement. The current plan is to serve lunch and dinner, and closing time will be at 11:30 PM based on ‘last call’ at 11:00 PM. The special permit provides for lights to be turned off half an hour later.

No short stay parking spaces are being designated at this stage but the application provides for two to be designated if necessary. The Board was agreeable to allowing this flexibility.

The Board discussed the timing of deliveries and trash pick up. It was concerned about nearby residents being disturbed by the ‘beeping’ sound of vehicles backing up in the early hours. The Board asked about noise from exhaust fans. The fans will be on the roof but the noise characteristics are not known.

A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Domnitz and seconded by Mrs. Wolf, to approve the restaurant as an amendment to the special permit, subject to the following conditions:

The RLF asked about some other potential amendments to the special permit. They would like a flagpole (for the Post Office) rather than hanging the flag from the building as previously proposed. The flag size will be 4ft by 6ft. The Post Office would like a light on it. The Board said that it was prepared to consider this as a minor change to the site plan but requested information about the size of pole, which it would wish to compare to the existing Cambridge Trust flagpole. It was opposed to a light. Mr. Hurd suggested placing the pole near the road front but Mr. Jackson thought there may be a constraint there.

Mr. Hurd reported that he attended the Traffic Committee presentation on road repaving and improvement. Sara Mattes has asked for input from the Planning Board and Historic District Commission. The Committee is considering measures such as speed tables and signage. The engineers have been authorized to move forward with the repaving; any other measures are to be approved by December. Mr. Hurd will continue to act as the Board’s liaison.