TOWN OF LINCOLN
MINUTES OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING
Held on May 6, 2009
At 7:30 PM in the Donaldson Room, Lincoln Town Offices
PRESENT: B.Wolf (Co-Chair), R.Domnitz (Co-Chair), J.Craig, K.Hurd
STAFF: M.Whitehead, C.Perry
7:30 PM BUSINESS:
Zimmerman, 15 Stratford Way
The Board signed the decision granting site plan approval for an addition to a house.
Feinberg, 185 Weston Road
The Board signed the decision granting site plan approval for a pool cabana as an accessory structure.
Minutes
The Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the meeting held on April 29th, with amendments.
8:00 PM PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE: NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC. 51 Sandy Pond, Map 44/Lot 2, special permit renewal for wireless communication facility under Section 12.6.
New Cingular Wireless (formerly AT&T) was represented by attorney George Hall of Anderson and Krieger and engineer Richard Detch. The De Cordova Museum was represented by its Finance Director Janet Ganson, who is also a resident of Baker Bridge Road.
Mr. Hall showed an oblique aerial photograph of the site and photographs of the existing rooftop antenna and equipment. He explained that cables from the antenna run down the penthouse to equipment cabinets on a lower roof between two older portions of the building.
A packet of background materials was supplied. Mr. Hall stated that the original special permit was issued in 2003 with a condition that it be renewed within five years from the Building Inspector’s final sign-off. A building permit was issued in February 2004 but there is no record of a sign-off. The facility is operating. New Cingular will wish to change the equipment in the near future but wishes to apply for renewal of the special permit to cover the interim period. Mr. Hall suggested that a period of eighteen months would be sufficient. The Board recommended simply applying for renewal, which is likely to be issued for five years (assuming a satisfactory review).
The Board asked whether the required radio frequency emissions monitoring report was ever submitted. Mr. Hall referred to a report by Donald Haes that was included in the packet but the Board pointed out that this is a theoretical calculation only. Since there is public access to the museum’s rooftop terraces, this is the most sensitive site in town from an emissions perspective. The Board asked for measurements to be taken, during busy operating hours, with information as to their relation to the “worst case scenario”. It also asked for the theoretical calculations to be checked to ensure they match the physical configuration on the site.
Information on other wireless communication facilities within two miles of the town’s boundaries also needs to be submitted.
Ms. Ganson reported that the second rooftop antenna that was approved for Omnipoint/ T-Mobile in January, 2007 has not been installed.
New Cingular will submit a formal application once it has gathered the required materials.
8:20 PM PRELIMINARY MEETING: LISA & CARLOS GUTIERREZ, 16 Old Sudbury Road, Map 119/Lot 2, site plan review for teardown and reconstruction of structures under Section 17.7.
Lisa and Carlos Gutierrez attended with their architect, Timothy Burke. They explained that they are hoping to renovate and partially demolish/ reconstruct a group of buildings comprising a single family residence. Mr. Burke displayed an oblique aerial photograph of the property which is large (8.9acres) and contains wetlands. The buildings concerned - a house and barn - are at the front, close to the road. Photographs of the existing buildings were shown.
The intention is to demolish a 1980s portion of the house, create a patio and pool, add a garage and increase the height of the current barn building, grouping the buildings around a courtyard with a glazed roof. An old garage, which is in the wetland buffer zone, will be removed.
The proponents stated that they have met with the Historical Commission who approved the plan, and that they have met with the Conservation Commission which has issued an order of conditions. Work is currently being done at the rear of the site and it is proposed to make improvements to the pond and possibly build a barn at the rear of the lot.
Preliminary plans and elevations for the house were presented. The architect suggested that the demolition of the 1980s wing will open up the view of the pond and field from the road. However the Board considered that there may be a need for privacy screening as well as fencing around the pool, which would affect the view. The orientation of the garage is proposed to be toward the road; Mr. Burke reported that the Conservation Commission did not favor vehicles going around the north side.
The Board noted that the house will be large, over 9,000 sq ft including implied upper floorspace in the courtyard. Setback requirements appeared to be met. The height was discussed. Mr. Whitehead estimated that it is 44 feet from lowest exposed point to highest point (the apex of the courtyard roof), significantly exceeding the normal bylaw limit of 36 feet. The architect stated that the site has approximately a twelve foot grade change and that the house is higher at the rear than the front. A request could be made to allow height to be calculated from average natural grade, in which case the Board will need to determine whether the additional height adversely affects the neighborhood. Heights should be shown clearly on the elevations and calculations supplied for checking. In terms of the number of
stories, Mr. Burke said he believed the lower floor will not count as a story. This will need to be checked.
The architecture will need to be considered in terms of its scale and style in relation to its surroundings. The Board suggested that less elaborate detailing may be more appropriate. The Board asked for some sectional drawings to help it to assess the visibility of various parts of the building.
The preliminary plan shows a wide driveway. The Board was concerned that this may not be in keeping with local character, and stated that it would wish to examine the need for it. In planning any outdoor lighting, the Board recommended reference to its lighting policy.
The Board asked if there is a trail to the rear of the site. Mr. Burke advised that there is a trail in the woods but that views of the house are mainly from within the property.
The Board will wish to conduct a site walk once the public hearing opens and will wish to read the minutes of the Conservation Commission.
8:40 PM PUBLIC HEARING: FIRST PARISH CHURCH, 4 Bedford Road, Map 53/Lot 9, expansion of building under Section 19.1e.
Representatives of the Church’s building committee attended with Maryann Thompson, architect. Other congregation members and neighbors were also present.
Mrs. Wolf outlined procedure and stated that the public hearing will be continued beyond tonight’s session. Mr. Hurd stated that he is a member of the First Parish congregation but has not been personally involved with the expansion plans, and signed a disclosure of appearance of conflict of interest.
Mr. Domnitz distributed copies of an extract from the Zoning Bylaw. He stated that the setback for non-residential uses is 75 feet (as from 2004). He explained that state law provides exemptions for certain uses/ organizations including religious uses and that Section 19.1 (e) of the Zoning Bylaw sets out a procedure for relevant organizations to request exemptions where needed. The wording of the test in paragraph (2) closely mirrors the leading court decision on the subject. In the case of the proposed addition to the church, the exemptions that may be at issue are setbacks, lot width and parking. The Church needs to show that a strict application of the bylaw would substantially diminish or detract from the usefulness of its structure without appreciably advancing the purposes of the Bylaw.
Maryanne Thompson presented the proposal to replace and expand the rear portion of the White Church building, known as the Stearns Room. She explained that this portion was added in the 1950s and that the original church building will not be altered. The reasons for the changes are that the Stearns Room is small, crowded and not handicap accessible. Ms.Thompson stated that she has an established reputation for historically sympathetic work and displayed examples of her previous projects. She asserted that the proposed architecture will be similar to and compatible with the church, and an improvement on what exists now.
Ms. Thompson showed elevations and plans of the proposed building, which have not changed since the preliminary discussion with the Board which was held on March 4th. She stated that the project has been designed to consider the view from the road and to minimize the effect on neighbors. Setbacks are marked on plans showing the current and proposed situation and the situation prior to a recent land grant from the Flint family. The footprint of the building will be expanded, mainly at the rear. Ms. Thompson noted that prior to the land grant, the building was only a little over 3 feet from the rear lot line whereas with the land grant, the addition will be 20 feet from it. Mr. Domnitz pointed out that the raised patio is also a structure that is relevant to setbacks; Ms. Thompson responded that
it could be revised to be at ground level. On the south side, the wall of the building will be shifted out slightly to the outer edge of the existing chimney and on the north side the new portion will be a little closer to the lot line (at 7’ 8”) but a little further from the road. Ms. Thompson stated that a 75 foot setback is clearly not possible as it would not allow any new building. The plans submitted also show landscaping and lighting proposals. Ms. Thompson stated that there are no wetlands affecting the site, and that the existing septic system meets the standard needed.
Peter Pease gave a fuller explanation of the reasons for the project. He stated that the existing kitchen is tiny and non-functional. Together with the general space it is inadequate for after-service gatherings. The new internal layout will have a meeting room that can be divided off from the main social area, allowing for post sermon discussions and making it easier to hold meetings during choir practice. The expanded kitchen will allow food preparation. The new bathroom will be accessible for people with disabilities. Mold is a further issue that is prompting renovations and if any building work is done, the kitchen and bathroom will have to meet disability access standard, which means enlarging them. The robing room is needed in connection with services. The extra space may reduce the tendency for the
congregation to spill out onto the road after services.
Ken Bassett outlined the landscaping proposals. The plan shows existing trees to be kept. Additional planting will mostly be small-scale. Maryann Thompson described the lighting, which will comprise low wall lights, lights at the doors to the building and lights at the steps to the basement. It was stated that the Stearns Room will rarely be used in the evenings and that there will be window shutters on inside tracks. The patio will not normally be used at night so the lights will not often be on.
The Board asked about the purpose of the 2001 land grant. Ken Bassett advised that it occurred at the same time that the land to the rear was placed under conservation restriction, and allowed some flexibility for any future building project. The Board noted that the grant specified a no-build area on the perimeter.
Mr. Craig asked how the project relates to the stone church building higher up Bedford Road. This was stated to be used for Sunday school classes. The building committee explained that it studied the Church’s needs at some length and considered that, in order to capture people’s energy after services, it was important to have sufficient space on the white church site. It added that the hill between the two sites is sometimes icy.
There was a brief discussion of how the issue of need is assessed and relevant legal cases. The proponent asserted that the Church does not need to show a new or expanded purpose, just that the desired space is reasonable and necessary for its purpose.
The Board wished to check the floorspace figures as there appeared to be some differences from the assessor’s records and the lot coverage may be over the 25% limit of the Zoning Bylaw. The Board also requested information on the stone church building, to help to assess the relationship and possible options for the arrangement of uses. It asked about the use of outdoor space; this will be three season use and no tents are planned.
The Board asked about seating and fire capacity. Seating capacity in the sanctuary was stated to be approximately 265 and in the Stearns Room approximately 100. The size of the congregation is 365 adults and 180 children. Attendance is logged.
The Board asked about functions apart from regular services, where people stay behind. There are approximately fifteen memorial services and eight weddings each year. Christenings are part of Sunday services. A small number of non-church functions are held each year and meetings such as those of the building committee are held. The Board thought it would be helpful to have some information about parking.
The Chair invited other comments. Ruth Wales read a statement from the Historic District Committee concerning the importance and character of the church building and outlining the aspects that the HDC will review.
Carla Flint, an abutter at 8 Bedford Road, read out a letter opposing the expansion, which she considered to be unnecessary. She expressed support for the 75 foot setback rule.
Jamie Atkins, an abutter to the rear at 5 Sandy Pond Road, said that she and her husband had no objections but asked for attention to landscaping between the two properties.
David Lattimore, an abutter at 2 Bedford Road, said that he appreciated the architect’s efforts to reduce the impact of the expansion. However, he considered that Lincoln Center as a Historic District embodies an early settlement pattern in which farms were clustered around a central point, and that the spaces between the buildings are important to this character. He suggested that the Church could remedy the mold problem and find space nearby without this building project. Gerry Lattimore added that currently only the chimney juts out and with the proposed building the whole wall will be closer. She pointed out that the Church owns more land adjacent to the stone church.
The Board stated that it intends to conduct a site walk and to keep the hearing open while the proposal is considered by other boards. The building perimeter is staked on the site.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Domnitz and seconded by Mr. Craig, to conduct a site walk on Saturday May 9th at 11:00 AM. Passed 4-0
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Hurd and seconded by Mr. Domnitz, to continue the hearing to Tuesday July 14th at 8:30 PM. Passed 4-0
OTHER BUSINESS:
Binder, 36 Beaver Pond Road
Mr. Whitehead reported a request to schedule the public hearing for the house reconstruction prior to holding the preliminary discussion. The project has been to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Board agreed to allow it to be scheduled for June 3rd.
Comprehensive Long Range Plan
Mr. Whitehead reminded Board members to read the chapters of the Plan in preparation for the public inquiry.
Route 2 Crosby’s Corner Project
Mr. Domnitz reported from the Route 2 pre-TIP meeting. Sarah Cannon Holden will make the presentation on the Crosby’s Corner project at the TIP Input Day.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 PM.
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved as amended, June 3, 2009
| 
