TOWN OF LINCOLN
MINUTES OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING
Held on June 17, 2009
At 7:30 PM in the Donaldson Room, Lincoln Town Offices
PRESENT: R.Domnitz (Co-Chair), B.Wolf (Co-Chair), J.Craig, K.Hurd
STAFF: M.Whitehead, C.Perry
7:30 PM BUSINESS:
Minutes
The Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes of May 26th as submitted, and to approve the minutes of June 3rd with an amendment.
Brooks, 39 North Great Road
The Board was reminded to visit the site to view the stone being used for the house wall.
Verizon appeal, Tracey’s site
In response to a question received from town counsel, the Board denied that it had offered to withdraw the requirement for tree planting.
Estes/Binder, 36 Beaver Pond Road
The Board signed the decision approving reconstruction of the house.
Lazay, 69 Silver Hill Road
The Board signed the decision approving a new house on a tear down lot.
RLF, Lincoln Station mall
Mrs. Wolf signed a letter to the Building Inspector conveying its approval of a sign for Premier Cleaner and Tailor.
ANR Plan: MACDOWELL, Stonegate Gardens, 331-339 South Great Road, Map 124, Lots 7, 8 and 9.
The owners of Stonegate Gardens attended with their attorney, Edward Bigham. They presented a plan for the Board’s endorsement under the ‘Approval Not Required’ rules. The plan shows two lots in place of the existing three. The new lots will each be a little over 80,000 sq ft in area whereas the existing lots are smaller than the current zoning requirement. The Board noted that there are several existing buildings on the lots (business buildings and two houses), which will continue to be non-conforming to current zoning requirements. A second plan showing the existing lot lines was provided for information.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Domnitz and seconded by Mr. Craig, to endorse the plan as submitted. Passed 3-0 (Mr. Hurd was absent for this item)
Three Board members signed the mylar plan and two paper copies.
Feinberg, 185 Weston Road
The 8:00 PM discussion item on the agenda was withdrawn by the proponent.
8:30 PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: VERIZON WIRELESS (Morrissey site) 23 Cambridge Turnpike, Map 14/Lot 12-1, wireless communication facility under Section 12.6.
Attorney Michael Giaimo of Robinson and Cole, LLP represented Verizon. He had supplied some information by email about the FAA requirement for lighting. The Board asked him to clarify the regulations as it was unclear whether the red light at night had to be flashing or whether it could be steady. Mr. Giaimo responded that he has consulted Verizon’s regulatory experts who say that the lighting that is proposed is what is needed. Mr. Giaimo reaffirmed that Verizon proposes to fit a light shield.
Mr. Domnitz reported that he and Mrs. Wolf visited the site and did not see evidence of any tree cutting as alleged by David Segal. Mr. Segal attended and clarified that the tree clearing took place some years ago and that he did not report it at the time, but that it was on one side of the driveway. He suggested that the Board should compare the trees in existence with Verizon’s original tree survey. He further argued that Morrissey is not a good landlord and that Verizon should relocate to the Mobil site in Concord or seek to locate on the Deaconess site. The Board stated that the Building Inspector is the zoning enforcement officer and agreed to refer Mr. Segal’s complaint to him for investigation. Mr. Giaimo showed photographs of trees surrounding the tower and argued that they screen it
sufficiently. He stated that if any tree cutting took place it was not done by Verizon.
The Board asked if some of the faux foliage could be removed from the tower but Mr. Giaimo did not think this was feasible.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Domnitz and seconded by Mr. Craig, to close the public hearing. Passed 4-0
9:00 PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: PETER FRUMKIN, 1 Tower Field Road, Map 112/Lot 18-4, site plan review for new house under Section 17.7.
Paul Mahoney, architect, and the project engineer attended. The Board noted that Mr. Hurd was not present for the first session of the hearing, although he had attended the preliminary discussion and viewed the revised plans. He would not be entitled to vote but could contribute comments to the discussion.
Mr. Whitehead reported that he has found a copy of the conservation restriction and confirmed that it controls the house site as well as the adjoining land. The building envelope is part of the conservation restriction.
Mr. Mahoney presented a letter from Peter and Elizabeth Frumkin expressing concern about potential delays to the project. The Frumkins pointed out that it would be very difficult to change the conservation restriction to amend the building envelope at this stage. They stated that the site is constrained and that their house design has a low height and relatively modest size. They felt that the Board had given them few specific suggestions on meeting its concerns apart from some comments on the driveway and lighting.
Mr. Domnitz commented that he had suggested lowering the garage to reduce the need for a long driveway. The engineer stated that alternative approaches were considered to the driveway, having regard to the slopes and the need to incorporate the septic system in the design. Mr. Hurd suggested having the driveway approach from the west, with a lower garage, noting that the garage is currently higher than the basement. The designers stated that the applicants do not want the garage to be lower than proposed. They presented new drawings. They stated that the higher garage floor reduces the apparent height of the building and that the effect of having the garage doors facing the road will be lessened by the form of the land in front. On the side facing the Foxes’ house, a walk in door and an upper window
are proposed. The Board considered the current design to be better than previous ones. Mr. Hurd commented that the fenestration of the house was a little regimented.
The driveway was stated to drain two ways, to the east and west from a high point part way along. Mr. Domnitz asked if more water could be taken from the east side to a drainage system at the southwest corner of the lot. The engineer said he would need to check what capacity could be provided and that a pipe to a swale may be an option.
Lighting was reviewed at the previous session and the Board stated that it was satisfied except that it considered one light over the garage doors would be preferable to two. A sketch landscape planting design was shown, with low ground covers and shrubs along the driveway and some screen planting in front of the western portion. The designers wish to adjust the lower end of the driveway with a small curve at the entrance; the Board was agreeable to this.
Jonathan Hoch, a neighbor, spoke in support of attention to drainage and warned of the difficulties. He also asked for existing vegetation on the site to be kept, as far as possible. He asked about the visibility of the rear terrace from the conservation land. The Board commented that the terrace complies with the rules that were set.
Mr. Hoch also raised an issue concerning the position of the road for the cluster development, which he believes to impinge on his property. He was advised to take this matter up with the Building Inspector.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Domnitz and seconded by Mr. Craig, to approve the site plan subject to the following conditions:
- the retaining wall along the road shall be of fieldstone
- vegetation shall not be disturbed within 30 feet of the west boundary, except as necessary to construct the drainage system or the septic reserve system
- a drainage system to address runoff shall be submitted for approval
- planting between the retaining wall and the road shall be specified for approval
- there shall only be one light above the garage doors
- the plan shall be modified to reflect a curve in the driveway at the entrance.
Passed 3-0
In addition the Board suggested that the applicant consider reducing the regimentation of the windows.
9:30 PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: LISA & CARLOS GUTIERREZ, 16 Old Sudbury Road, Map 119/Lot 2, site plan review for reconstruction of a house under Section 17.7.
The applicants attended with Timothy Burke, architect and Roy Cramer, attorney.
The Board reviewed the proposed landscape plantings. Plant sizes were supplied. The proponents stated that they were trying to save existing trees as far as possible.
The architect supplied calculations relating to average natural grade. He reported that he has dropped the first floor by 15 inches so that the basement does not count as a story and the proposal is now a two story house.
In relation to the pool location, the proponents stated that there is little buildable land for alternative locations due to wetland buffers, and pointed out that the chosen location is the site of a previous building. The architect reported that the house elevations have been simplified and the height lowered slightly. He showed a section and perspective views and stated that the skylight will be hidden from the street. The Board asked the height of the fence around the pool; it will be four feet.
The Board asked the architect what the effect on the project will be if it does not allow the height to be calculated from average natural grade, noting that at least one neighbor has objected to this approach. Mr. Burke stated that the height could be reduced but that there was a risk of a squashed appearance.
The Board received an email letter from Mark Golden, a neighbor across the street, who noted that the applicants propose to significantly increase the size and height of the house and asked for landscaping to provide screening.
The Board examined the elevations, observing that the skylight (glazed atrium roof) is the highest point, followed closely by the silo/turret and then the main roofs. The architect reported that a flatter version of the skylight did not prove practicable. He pointed out that the site drops by ten feet from the front to the back of the building, contributing to the overall height. The Board observed that the site is not especially steep but the building is deep from front to back. Mr. Burke explained that this was largely a result of the courtyard concept.
Mr. Hurd commented on the lack of unity in architectural design elements, including differences between the front and the back of the house. The clients said that they were happy with it. The Board discussed the relationship to other houses in the neighborhood. Mr. Hurd recalled that there was a degree of similarity between houses on Old Sudbury Road apart from one recent one. The Board noted that some neighbors were concerned about the scale and massing of the proposed house. Mrs. Wolf commented that although the lot is large, the house is positioned close to the road and presents a large front. She was also concerned that the skylight would show some light. The Board checked the floorspace, noting that the new floorspace figure includes the atrium. The attorney stated that there will be an overall
reduction in impervious area.
The Board returned to the issue of whether to allow the height calculation to be made from average natural grade. It pointed out that many proposals do not invoke this discretionary provision in the bylaw. The Board said that it currently has some doubts about the additional height and will need to consider the impact on the neighborhood. It suggested that the applicants prepare a design option that does not require use of average natural grade for the height.
The applicants asked for a brief adjournment to discuss the situation, which was granted. Upon return, they requested a continuation of the hearing to allow them to consider a lower design.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Hurd and seconded by Mr. Craig, to continue the hearing to July 14th at 9:30 PM. Passed 4-0
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Comprehensive Long Range Plan
Mr. Whitehead reported that the Steering Committee confirmed the public hearing date of July 21st. The Selectmen’s discussion is coming up on June 22nd.
Board members relayed to Mr. Hurd some current concerns from reviewing the Plan:
- instances of a lecturing or over-praising tone from the consultant
- lack of discussion of resources for enforcement of regulations
- need for more consideration of water supply/conservation issues
- need for separation of responsibility between the Planning Board and an economic development committee.
On the last point, it was noted that economic development is a required element in the Plan and that the intention is for the proposed committee to be appointed by the Selectmen (the wording in some parts of the Plan may need to be adjusted to reflect this).
Mr. Whitehead mentioned that a new finance section has been added to the Plan, and that the Board also needs to examine the Implementation Plan.
Mr. Hurd asked board members to send him their comments as bullet points. A discussion session for the Board has been scheduled for July 7th.
Town Planner’s Report
Mr. Whitehead provided a written update on items scheduled for upcoming meetings.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 PM.
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved July 21, 2009
| 
