TOWN OF LINCOLN
MINUTES OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING
Held on November 5, 2008
At 7:30 PM in the Donaldson Room, Lincoln Town Offices
PRESENT: R.Domnitz (Chairman), B.Wolf, J.Craig, J.Snell ABSENT: K.Hurd
STAFF: M.Whitehead, C.Perry
7:30 PM BUSINESS:
Minutes
The Board voted 4-0 to approve the minutes of the meeting held on October 15th with amendments.
Brooks, 39 North Great Road
The Chairman signed a letter to the Building Inspector concerning the timing for approval of details of the stone, trim and balustrade.
Countryside Development, 173 Tower Road
The Board signed a decision approving the site plan for a single family house.
Rural Land Foundation, Restaurant at Lincoln Station
The Board reviewed a draft decision on the approval of the restaurant as an amendment to the special permit for the Lincoln Station development. Board members had proposed two additional conditions: requiring the RLF to obtain all other permits or licenses as appropriate from the Board of Health and Board of Selectmen, and allowing the Planning Board to amend the conditions up to December 31st, 2010.
A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Craig, to approve the amendment to the special permit with inclusion of the two additional conditions as drafted. Passed 4-0
Verizon Appeal, Tracey’s site
Mrs. Perry had obtained two estimates for the cost of supplying and planting six white pine trees on the Cunninghams’ property. The Board agreed to propose, via town counsel, that Verizon deposit $1463 for this purpose with any surplus to be returnable.
Committee Reports:
HATS
Mr. Domnitz reported from the HATS meeting on October 30th. Lou Sideris of Minuteman National Historic Park attended and referred to potential changes in the use of roads in the area, including a proposal to civilianize the military housing that is under construction. Mr. Domnitz felt that the Planning Board would be concerned if this was a true proposal since civilian housing is not a federal purpose and the housing being built does not meet normal zoning requirements. The HATS meeting also received a presentation about regulation of hazards to aviation.
Comprehensive Long Range Plan: Joint meeting of CHUG and LUED sub-committees
Mrs. Wolf reported that two of the CLRP sub-committees met on November 3rd to discuss an area of overlapping interest, commercial development and the town’s revenue needs, where a possible conflict in recommendations had been identified. CHUG offered a revised wording of its recommendation, expressing the search for expanded revenue streams more broadly, and this met with agreement.
Historic District Commission
Mr. Craig reported that at the HDC meeting, the Traffic Committee was asking for comments on proposals to install a raised crosswalk and granite curbing and to change the operation of Old Lexington Road.
8:20 PM PUBLIC HEARING: MARC LEWANDOWSKI, 3 Bowles Terrace, Map 119/Lot 12, amendment to previously approved fence permit to allow for a stone wall fence in excess of five foot limit from the existing ground level as approved in the original permit of September 20, 2006 under Section 18.5.
Mr. Lewandowski provided a written brief description of the wall as he would like it to be approved. He acknowledged that the wording on the application form was inexact as it was completed hastily. He is requesting approval of the stone wall as built, as depicted in photographs supplied. He also proposes to continue the fence further back along the property line that adjoins 291 South Great Road as either a six foot cedar fence or a combined stone wall and cedar fence. Mr. Whitehead pointed out that the Board’s jurisdiction only extends 20 feet back from the road and therefore the additional proposal does not need its approval, although it will need a permit from the Building Inspector.
The Board drew attention to the fact that the five foot height approved for the stone wall was explicitly stated to be from the pre-existing ground level and that it did not allow Mr. Lewandowski to achieve greater height by raising the ground level with an earth berm. The Board referred to the Building Inspector’s photographs which show the wall to be well over five feet. The Board had originally considered Mr. Lewandowski’s request for a six foot wall and decided to limit it to five feet; now it is close to seven feet in places. Mr. Lewandowski stated that the top of the wall is level, that it is five feet from the present ground level and that the ground has only been raised to the level of the road, not higher. He said that he began building the wall at five feet and kept its top level
where the ground sloped down. He felt the result was aesthetically pleasing and said he had received compliments on it. The Board said that if Mr. Lewandowski found he had made a mistake, he should have requested an amendment to the approval before proceeding. The Board considered the wall as constructed to be over imposing and was concerned about it setting a precedent. Mr. Lewandowski pointed to other properties on Route 117 that have six foot fences or walls (mostly wood fences).
The Board asked how the wall was constructed. Mr. Lewandowski stated that it has a concrete core that would make it difficult to reduce the height. The Board asked whether a similar height issue will present itself in relation to the remaining unbuilt portion of wall on Bowles Terrace. The applicant confirmed that there will be a similar issue as the ground falls by about one foot.
Two letters were received from neighbors. The Masons of 289 South Great Road stated they approved of the applicant’s request. Deborah Peebles of 296 South Great Road observed that the wall is quite dense compared to a wood fence and wanted to ensure that it does not go any higher, but commented that it was nicely built . Mr. Snell noted that most stone walls in Lincoln are low.
Mr. Kelman, an abutter on Bowles Terrace, commented that the situation puts the Board in a hard position. He took a neutral stance but said he would like to see the piles of stone that have been in the yard for a long time removed.
The Chairman asked about the material used for the wall, which was originally proposed to be stones from within the yard but does not look like fieldstone. Mr. Lewandowski stated that he has had piles of stone delivered. He said he is also planning an addition to his house, for which he will make an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and he wishes to delay completion of the wall to allow modular units to be delivered.
The Board noted that the issue about fire truck access to Bowles Terrace that was raised at the original hearing has been cleared by the Fire Chief.
In conclusion, the Board considered that it was being put in a difficult position in deciding whether to approve the wall as built or to require its partial demolition. It wished to take time to consider the matter. One option may be to require some planting to soften the appearance. There may be a need for an accurate plan to determine if there is space between the wall and the Right of Way.
A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Craig, to continue the hearing to November 19th at 9:00 PM Passed 4-0
8:40 PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: CARROLL SCHOOL, 25 Baker Bridge Road, Map 55/Lot 5, site plan review for new classroom structure under Sections 17.0 and 19.1e.
The Board conducted a site walk on Saturday October 25th. The Carroll School has submitted a letter addressing points raised at the previous session. The design team attended and ran through these points as follows:
Parking lot lighting
A photometric study has been supplied. Calculations are based on 16 foot poles. The brightest level of illumination shown is 2.7 fc. The fixtures have dark sky cut offs. The Board examined the plan. It asked about the choice of height. The design team stated that a lower height would require poles within the parking lot that would create problems with snow removal and possibly with the septic system underneath; also it would give less even illumination. The poles will have a footing at or below grade. Comparisons were made with lighting at Drumlin Farm and Lincoln Station. The Carroll School’s parking lot is further from the road than Drumlin Farm’s. The study shows a light level of 1 fc on the road. Also the school’s lights will be turned off by a timer at 7:30 PM except when evening
events are held. The poles are a little lower than at Lincoln Station and maximum illumination is less.
The Board viewed a picture of the fixture. The bulb was stated to give a white light. Optional shield rings are available. The team agreed to examine the effect of these. The Board wanted to be sure of the effect on the road and thought that the lights on the north side of the parking lot shining down towards it would be the most visible, although it noted that there will be some screening by the gatehouse and trees. It wished to obtain Mr. Hurd’s opinion.
Lot coverage
The team did not have any further information about the accuracy of the floorspace figures, which were given as 40,000 sq ft of existing space and 22,000 sq ft proposed, but calculated that there is a very wide margin for error before the 25% maximum lot coverage is reached. The Board agreed to check the floorspace against property tax records.
Cooling tower/generator
No dedicated generator is proposed for the building. Sound specifications for the cooling tower were supplied. It will cycle on and off. The Board suggested that the design team investigate the manufacturer’s noise shielding options.
Transformer
The routing of utilities has been amended to make use of the cleared path to the bomb shelter; from there the lines will need to go up the hill at a steep angle but the visual impact should be less. The driveway was not considered a viable route due to limited space alongside the septic system. Mr. Snell asked if a water line was really needed; if it is only for fire suppression, a storage tank off the existing system may be a simpler alternative.
Storm water run off
In response to the concern raised by a resident, a proposal has been added to have pipes taking storm water from the project area to a retention area set behind gabion baskets to the south of the parking lot. A double sized catch basin at the side of the driveway will collect as much water as possible from the driveway and feed into the retention system. However it is not proposed to re-grade the entire driveway. Construction of the drainage system would require some tree clearing. The Board considered that this may be justified if it significantly reduces run off problems. The engineer said that it was hard to quantify the proportion of the driveway flow that would be captured. The Board wished to discuss the nature of existing run off problems with the town engineer and possibly consider an engineering
peer review.
Circulation
The team clarified that only the drop off/ pick up traffic would use the reverse route along the driveway from the west entrance.
Landscaping
The main view of the building from the road will be from just west of the gatehouse. The Board said that it may ask for some additional planting in this area.
Construction limits
The team expressed an intention to manage construction carefully within the maximum limits shown.
No further comments were received from members of the public.
In conclusion, the Board said that it will need to discuss the information received and draw up some conditions in areas under its jurisdiction. These stem from the height of the building, parking and possibly noise. The Board offered to supply the Carroll School with a copy of proposed conditions at draft stage.
A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Craig, to continue the hearing to November 12th at 8:00 PM Passed 4-0
OTHER BUSINESS:
Solar, 40 Deerhaven Road: discussion of lot division
Following the discussion with the owners and their attorney, the Board reviewed the history of the property. Staff provided further details. The Board noted that the Planning Board decision of 1973 was rescinded.
The Board noted that the original subdivision showed a cul de sac with a 60 ft radius. The Board considered the “Approval Not Required” law. If there is sufficient frontage and access, a plan to divide land must be endorsed. Frontage must be on a way of certain types. In the case of a subdivision road, either the road must be built or a construction bond deposited. As neither of these applies, the Board is not obliged to endorse a plan. The proposed new plan would create a zoning violation in respect of the 250 foot lot width rule. It would need a variance from the ZBA but there may not be sufficient grounds for a variance. If an application is made under the subdivision control laws, these laws confirm the need for a variance. As the attorney noted, an alternative would be to move the house.
The Board confirmed that the 250 foot rule could be satisfied on both of the proposed lots.
The Board noted that if the ZBA granted a variance, the Planning Board would need to consider whether to uphold the previous covenant concerning the road or if it would prefer not to see a large road constructed. Some members felt they would wish to hear abutters’ opinions on this.
The Board did not consider that it was appropriate for it to make a recommendation to the ZBA for a variance. It suggested a wording for a letter to Mr. and Mrs. Solar’s attorney.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 PM.
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved as amended, November 12, 2008
|