TOWN OF LINCOLN
MASSACHUSETTS
16 Lincoln Road, Lincoln, MA 01773
(781) 259-2615/ Fax (781) 259-8729
Zoning Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
Thursday, July 9, 2015
Present: Joel Freedman, Co-Chair, David Henken, Co-Chair, David
Summer, Eric Snyder, Kathleen Shepard, and Vinit Patel
New Matters:
Davis, Martha, 77 Conant Road, 182-27-0, for extension of a previously approved
special permit dated September 14. 2014, for alterations to a nonconforming
house on a nonconforming lot with a nonconforming 3-family use. Ms. Davis
appeared herself in this matter described the circumstances that led to her
special permit not being used during its initial term. The board discussed the
issues she had with contractors along with some of her financial issues and
determined that this did meet the conditions to grant an extension to her special
permit for good cause.
Action: Motion to approve the extension of the term of the special permit for a
period of 1 year from the date of the decision subject to a written decision and
the terms and conditions of the decision. Approved unanimously as follows:
Joel Freedman – yea, David Summer – yea, Kathleen Shepard – yea, David Henken
– yea. Joel freedman is the decision writer.
Brannen, Robert and Barbara, 14 Baker Bridge Road, 142-2-0, for a special
permit for an accessory apartment. Barbara and Robert Brannen appeared
before the Board and discussed their home, and that the accessory apartment
would be located within the existing studio space above their garage. They stated
that there has been no exterior work done to the house other than the change of
a window to a door and consequently no change to the existing footprint. There
is parking on the site currently for 6 cars. The Board noted that the
recommendation from the Board of health was missing from the application. Mr.
Brannen assured the Board that he had discussed this matter with both the
building inspector and the Board of Health, and that his septic is sufficient for a 4
bedroom home and he has made that adjustment since he now uses one
bedroom in his home for a home office and that the addition of the accessory
apartment will not exceed the 4 bedroom limit on his property. He promised to
provide the Board with an appropriate certificate from the Board of Health
confirming this.
Action: Motion was made to approve the special permit subject to receiving the
BOH recommendation, for the maximum of 2 people and 2 cars for a term of 3
years, subject to a written decision and the terms and conditions of the
decision as follows: Joel Freedman – yea, David Summer – yea, Kathleen
Shepard – yea, David Henken – yea, Eric Snyder – yea. David Henken is the
decision writer.
Crosby, Anne and Gregory, 29 Page Road, 145-35-0, for a special permit to
construct a screened in porch. Mr. and Mrs. Crosby appeared before the Board to
discuss the screen porch they are hoping to build. They explained that as part of a
renovation that had done 17 years earlier footings for a porch were poured but it
was not constructed. They now wish to construct a porch in that location now.
They stated that the only lighting would be inside the porch and that the exterior
of the porch will match the rest of the home. The board noted an error in a
calculation on the Zoning Worksheet which was corrected during the meeting and
submitted to the recording clerk to become part of the record.
Action: Motion to approve the special permit. Approved unanimously, subject to
a written decision and the terms and conditions of the decision, as follows: Joel
Freedman – yea, David Summer – yea, Kathleen Shepard – yea, David Henken –
yea. Vinit Patel is the decision writer.
Furfine, Eric, 221 Lincoln Road, 172-14-0, for a special permit to raze an existing
single family dwelling and reconstruct a single family dwelling. Matt Hall,
architect, representing Eric Furfine, appeared before the Board. Matt described
the challenges associated with this property. The lot is triangular in shape, nonconforming in area, and nearly the entire parcel is located in the 100 foot
wetlands buffer zone. He described the plan before the Board, which included
locating the new structure in approximately the same location as the existing,
with a small change in the foot print of the home and a modest increase in the
square footage. Mr. Hall had been before the historic commission which decided
the existing house was significant, but not preferably preserved, and granted him
a demolition permit based on the new-home plans being presented to the Board.
The applicant was also before the conservation commission and worked with
them to increase the distance of the structure from the wetlands as much as
possible. Both Boards had letters submitted. Mr. Hall went over the proposed
plans which showed the new structure further away from the wetlands and
skewed from the front property line rather than parallel as it stands today. The 2
car garage was reconfigured to be on the ground level and not under, minimizing
paved areas nearer the wetlands. The Board discussed some landscape issues
regarding the proposal, including plantings and the configuration of the driveway
and parking. The landscape plan was requested to show what plantings will stay
and what is planned to be removed, and to address concerns about the driveway
and parking layout. There were two abutters in attendance, Ms. Frost, 233
Lincoln Road, and Ms. Ritsher, 251 Lincoln. Both had received the legal
notification and were interested in what was happening on the parcel. They
spoke of concerns over drainage on the site and the size of what was being
proposed. They said they were proud of the character of their neighborhood,
being modest, smaller houses for the most part, a unique part of Lincoln. Mr. Hall
stated that the new structure would not be much bigger than it is today and that
the fill coming to the site would be minimal and that the property owner was
looking to do a more natural grade with the runoff going to the wetlands. The
Board asked that Mr. Hall speak to Mr. Furfine and suggest that he reach out to
the neighbors as a matter of courtesy.
The Board asked that Mr. Hall ask the applicant to submit some further and/or
revised materials for the next continued hearing: a full set of elevations; clearer
elevations with overlays showing the new structures compared to the existing; a
landscape plan with indication of topography; a model or 3D rendition of the
project (to give the Board a better idea of the massing of the project), more
complete information on the condition of the existing structure and the reasoning
behind the requested tear down; and a revised Zoning Worksheet
Action: Motion to continue to the August 6th meeting approved unanimously.
Continuances:
Munroe, William, 9-11-13 Lewis Street, M/P 161-5-0, for a renewal of a
special permit for a business use. Mr. Munroe had a family issue that kept him
from being in town for this hearing. He chose to have his mother, Mary
Munroe, represent him, and he phoned in remotely (on a speaker phone
audible to the Board and audience) to continue the public hearing. The board
heard testimony from Mr. Soo and Ms. Carroll, both abutters, who said things
have improved over the last two months. Mr. Munroe needed to get off of his
phone due the family issue, and the Board decided it would be best to
continue this hearing until the August meeting. The Board told Mr. Munroe
that they would like to go over his spring operations, the site plan and get it
up to date to what is really on the site and how it is set up, and complete
testimony on this matter at that time. Mr. Munroe said he would be ready for
that discussion on August 6.
Action: Motion to continue to August 6, 2015 approved unanimously.
Lipcon, Eli, 4 Sweet Bay Lane, M/P 159-4-0, for a variance of the solar by-law
for a roof setback. A representative from Solarcity appeared on behalf of the
applicant. He described the current conditions and stated that solar panels
had already been installed of the home’s roof by Solar City. An error in the
calculations had caused the panels on both sides to be closer than the
required 12 inches from the edge of roof. The panels are set back 8” on one
side and 9” on the other side. The peak and the bottom edge of roof are
conforming. The Board discussed its understanding that this is a fire safety
driven requirement, and that there is a certain vagueness of language in the
by-laws . The Board was presented with a letter from Fire Department stating
that this setback was for the safety of Firefighters to have a footing onto the
roof and also to accommodate a ladder if needed, and the Fire Inspector stated
that he did not have any safety concerns with the small discrepancy in the
setback amount in this case. The Fire Inspector asked that the AC disconnect
for the panels be remotely accessed on the outside of the home and that the
pathway to the AC Disconnect be unobstructed and maintained to be clear of
obstructions in a location that is approved by the Fire Department. The Board
and applicant’s representative discussed the Fire Inspector’s
recommendations and other safety actions that could be implemented. The
Board noted that the nonconformity at issue was de minimus - consisted of a
3” encroachment on one side of the roof and a 4” encroachment on the other
side – particularly in light of the purpose of the requirement and the
statement of the Fire Inspector.
Action: Motion to approve this variance, with the conditions that at all times
the panels’ AC Disconnect is located on the exterior of the home in a remotely
accessible location approved of by the Fire Inspector, that access to it remain
unobstructed at all times, and that the soffits under the north-facing roof
remain accessible to firefighters at all times. Approved unanimously, subject
to a written decision and the terms and conditions of the decision, as follows:
Joel Freedman – yea, David Summer – yea, Kathleen Shepard – yea, David Henken
– yea. David Summer is the decision writer.
Briggs, Randall, 31 Morningside Lane, M/P 113-29-0, for a special permit to
perform alterations, extensions, and renovations to an existing structure and
to construct an accessory barn. Mr. Briggs appeared before the Board and did
a Powerpoint presentation, with site plan, aerial views and elevations,
showing his property and his proposed project, including both the house
additions and the new barn. The Board was presented at the meeting with
several letters from abutters in support and in opposition to Mr. Briggs’
project . The Board expressed concern about the size and scope of the
proposed additions, especially in light of the small size of the lot and its corner
location. In particular the Board was concerned with the proposed barn
structure, and several members stated that it was just too large for its site and
neighborhood. The Board asked Mr. Briggs to consider the feedback given to
him by the Board regarding the scope, scale and design of the project, and in
particular to consider eliminating the barn. The applicant was also asked to
provide a full set of plans, including a site/landscape plan, consistent
elevations and perhaps 3D renderings to better show the configuration of the
project..
Action: Motion to continue this hearing to the August 6th meeting approved
unanimously.
Other Matters:
Sign completed decisions
Early, 31 Baker Farm Road
Robbat, 151 Old Concord Road
Lincoln Trees, LLC, 15 Lewis Street
Herthal, 199R Concord Road
Approve meeting minutes
May 7, 2015
June 4, 2015