TOWN OF LINCOLN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
February 15, 2006
PRESENT: K.Hurd (Chairman), E.Flint, D.Ries, R.Domnitz, J.Snell
STAFF: M.Whitehead, C.Perry
7:30PM PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Zoning Bylaw changes, Section 14.3, Accessory Apartments
Mr. Domnitz introduced the proposed bylaw changes. He explained that in his discussion, the term affordable housing was being used to mean units that qualified under the state’s designation of subsidized housing, used in calculating the trigger for Chapter 40B, whereas it was recognized that other units might be considered affordable in common sense terms. He mentioned that John Kimball had compiled a history of accessory apartments in town. The long term trend had been for around two new permits per year to be granted for accessory apartments. Last year there were five, which had aroused the Planning Board’s interest. Of all the current units in town, only two meet the State’s definition, whereas all add to the denominator, so approving apartments tends to act against the town’s aim of meeting the
State’s 10% target for affordable housing. Putting this in terms of the cost for the town to provide extra affordable housing units to keep pace with increases in the denominator, based on the most recent buydown cost of $150,000 - $200,000 to subsidize an affordable housing apartment, it costs the town about $20,000 per market rate unit.
The existing bylaw allows permits to be granted based on dimensional criteria and age of the building, with no restrictions on rent. The proposed change is intended to ensure that the ratio of market rate to affordable accessory apartments in relation to the State’s calculations does not escalate. The proposed bylaw caps the rate of approvals of market rate accessory apartments at two per year in line with the long term trend, and does not cap affordable units under the State’s rules (to be termed ‘restricted apartments’).
Mr. Domnitz reported that the Town has submitted proposed rules for the ‘restricted apartments’ to the State but has not yet received confirmation of their acceptance. This means that initially the revised bylaw would mean a total cap of two units per year.
The proposal was discussed. Neil Feinberg asked if Chapter 40B was the only concern. David Ries expressed his personal view that there was no clear need for accessory apartments; that they created higher density without any clear objectives. Mr. Domnitz said that there was no consensus on the surrounding issues but that all parties to the proposal were concerned about the cost of trying to meet the 40B threshold.
Ellen Meadors advised that accessory apartments brought no financial benefit to the town in terms of assessments, but also made little difference to school rolls.
Mr. Feinberg asked why it was not proposed to allow more ordinary apartments in a year when any affordable ones were approved. The response was that as town’s real aim was to move towards the 10% affordable housing target, any additional units would be welcome progress. Mr. Feinberg felt there was a social benefit from accessory apartments in helping people to pay their mortgages.
Susan Mygatt commented that it was a complicated issue and there seemed currently to be little discussion in town. She felt the town may be too afraid of 40B, and that accessory apartments may have benefits in terms of elder care, people’s need for company or financial help with maintenance of large houses. Her research suggested that these kinds of considerations had been involved in framing the original bylaw. Two other speakers expressed concerns that the bylaw change would limit truly affordable housing and owners’ options in trying to stay in their houses and that it would appear exclusionary. Past data had suggested that a proportion of apartments were in existence illegally and some people thought a tightening of rules might lead to more illegal apartments. Mr. Domnitz suggested that if the town
considers there is a social case for keeping the bylaw as it is, it needs to balance it against the costs. Most of the Planning Board members felt conflicted about this.
Bryce Wolf said that she would like to have agreement with the State on the rules for affordable apartments before capping others. Ken Hurd wondered if the subject needed a broader review, taking into account the issues of density, social value and relation to Chapter 40B, and whether this might be better addressed in a Master Plan context. Mr. Domnitz thanked people for their input.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Hurd and seconded by Mr. Domnitz to close the public hearing. Passed 5-0.
8:00PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: LEXINGTON ROAD LLP, TIM TAYLOR (ATTY), 118 Lexington Road (Map34/ Lots 4, 4.02, 4.03, 4.04, 4.05), special permit and site plan review for R-1 cluster subdivision.
Mr. Taylor presented updated plans that corrected minor differences between the lotting plan and engineering sheets, and made the definition of the drainage easement clearer. The interrelation between the proposed permit and subsequent development proposals had been clarified and Mr. Ries said he was satisfied with this.
Mr. Snell raised a question about the meaning of the building envelopes; Mr. Whitehead advised that the definitions in the zoning bylaws meant that it should cover items that were buildings, such as sheds, but not necessarily other structures. The Board considered whether to clarify the wording but Mr. Taylor pointed out that in this cluster layout there would be little difference between the building envelopes and required setbacks, so it was not considered to be a significant issue.
Mr. Snell also asked why trails were only designated for use by town residents; Mr. Whitehead advised that this was in accordance with the bylaw.
Mr. Whitehead asked if the engineering plans had now been finalized, showing changes that the town’s engineer had requested and the applicant had agreed to; Mr. Taylor agreed to pursue this.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Ries and seconded by Mr. Snell, to close the public hearing. Passed 5-0. The Board will continue discussion on March 8th.
8:20PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: OMNIPOINT HOLDINGS INC, 23 Cambridge Turnpike (Map 14/ Lot 12.1), special permit and site plan review for wireless communication facility.
Local residents attended for this item, which concerned a proposal to co-locate on the existing Verizon tower.
Mr. Whitehead reminded the Board that at the previous session of the hearing, Omnipoint had been asked to address inconsistencies in its plan compared to approval conditions placed on the lapsed 2002 special permit, to look at problems relating to the light on the tower and to produce research on other facilities as required by the zoning bylaw.
Adam Braillard spoke for Omnipoint (owner of T-Mobile) and introduced the company’s radio frequency expert. Mr. Braillard reported that the plans had been modified to fulfill the previous requirements except for the shrubs that had been shown on the northern perimeter; generic language in the notes had been revised and details of paint had been changed.
Mr. Domnitz asked about the light; Mr. Braillard indicated that it was not proposed to address it as part of Omnipoint’s application and that he had obtained confirmation that Verizon’s tower light complies with FAA requirements. Mr. Domnitz explained that the concern was not FAA compliance but to improve the situation for residents. Residents attending the meeting reported that lights on the two towers on the Yagjian property are constant red while that on the Verizon tower was flashing. It had been constant in the past. The residents believed it was a matter of obtaining a waiver from the FAA. Mr. Domnitz suggested that the Board write to the FAA to try to get an agreement between the parties on improving the light from the point of view of the residents.
The Chairman asked about information on alternative locations, especially the Mobil site at Crosby’s Corner. Mr. Braillard replied that although the Mobil tower was co-locatable, there might be difficulties obtaining ground space for the equipment; also the Morrisey site would connect T-Mobile’s coverage areas better and the faux pine tree design offered better capacity. He pointed out that the Verizon tower complies with the bylaw and that aesthetically the addition of a second carrier would make minimal difference. In relation to the nearby Yagjian site, Mr. Braillard said that the access issues were more complex and his company did not have agreements in place.
The O’Brien family and Mr. Segal also expressed concern about access issues; Verizon’s maintenance vehicles were mistakenly turning into residents’ driveways. The possibility of signs or gates was discussed. Residents also asked what monitoring of emissions was being done. Mr. Domnitz explained that for practical reasons emissions would never approach maximum allowed levels. Landscaping was raised as an issue and Mr. Whitehead agreed to check whether provision had been included in the Verizon permit or only in the non-implemented Omnipoint one. Residents also criticized Omnipoint’s failure to do the full amount of research on other facilities as set out in the bylaw.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Ries and seconded by Mr.Domnitz to continue the hearing to March 1st at 8:40pm. Passed 5-0.
After checking attendees’ interests, the Chairman switched the order of the two remaining public items.
9:00PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: LV REALTY LLC, 170 South Great Road (Map 96/ Lot21), special permit for signs and lighting for gas station in R-1 zone.
Local residents attended for this item.
Betsey Harper spoke for LV Realty and introduced their attorney. She distributed copies of a previous decision on signs at the gas station, to provide a benchmark of what had been allowed in the past.
The Chairman referred to the site walk held earlier in the evening and asked if there was a plan showing the lights. Ms. Harper said not but offered to create one and also to mark positions on building elevations. She described the wall-mounted lights as being two on the left elevation, one on the back, one on the front and one on the shed. The pylon sign was now proposed to be externally illuminated, as the Board had suggested, with light at a modest level using downward angled fittings, positioned to minimize light spillage. Mr. Snell asked how much light strayed beyond the sign. Ms. Harper said she had been unable to get more detail in the time available but stressed she had selected the most modest option presented. In response to a question from Mr. Hurd she confirmed that the lights could be adjusted if necessary. In
relation to the canopy lights, Ms. Harper reported that there are no State regulations; lights simply have to be bright enough for the safety and security of patrons. The lighting company, LSI, had given an opinion that the current lights were similar to other gas stations and appropriate to the canopy size. Ms. Harper considered that the move to darken the outer edges helped.
At the site walk, Mr. Flint had taken some informal measurements of illumination in terms of foot-candles. Ms. Harper had circulated some suggested target light levels and the actual measurements were lower. Mr. Snell pointed to some ISNEA standards that pointed to lower figures for what is appropriate in a low-illuminance area. He commented that these were not far off what was being proposed, although light spillage could still be an issue. He also mentioned that a different lighting company offered ways of addressing things, including retrofit canopy edges. The Board generally agreed that the level of illumination they had observed was reasonable, and that some aspects had been greatly improved.
Bryce Wolf commented that as a resident she views the gas station at a distance but it still appears bright; also the painted edge had been tried before and does not last. She considered that better shrouding or recessing would help.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Hurd and seconded by Mr.Snell to approve the canopy lighting subject to shrouding so that direct light from the fixtures was not visible from abutting properties. Passed 4-0.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Flint and seconded by Mr. Domnitz to approve the pylon sign as now proposed, adjusted to minimize light spillage beyond the sign. Passed 4-0.
There was discussion of the remaining proposed lights: seven carriage lights, of which two would be on motion sensors, and a floodlight for infrequent use by the repair shop. Mr. Domnitz questioned whether the carriage lights were dark sky approved. Ms. Harper said they were described as dark sky qualified, glare-free and with cut-offs. The Board expressed disappointment with the results. A resident questioned the floodlight as he had understood this would be removed, and asked about the locations of lights. It was explained that the carriage lights would be over the doors of the building and were required by code. In relation to the floodlight, it was clarified that this consists of three spotlights in a single fixture. T and F World of Service intended to only use it occasionally for about ten minutes, for example to
attach a tow-hook. Hours of operation were asked about; Ms. Harper clarified that lights have to be off by 8:30pm except for pump lights that are allowed until 9:00pm if needed for testing. It was intended to have employees shut off lights when they left. T and F World of Service indicated that they do not work after 5:30pm.
The motion-detector lights were described as staying on at 15W giving a low level of illumination and coming on brighter for about a minute when triggered. Some Board members expressed satisfaction with this, while others and some residents felt such lights were unreliable and a nuisance. The operators said they felt they were important for security and safety.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Snell and seconded by Mr. Flint, to approve the floodlight subject to no operation after 5:30pm. Passed 4-0.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Flint and seconded by Mr. Snell to approve the pylon sign as revised. Passed 4-0.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Flint and seconded by Mr. Snell to approve the signs on the canopy, as proposed but without lighting. Passed 4-0.
The proposed signs on the building were discussed. The applicants now intended to place the AAA and ASE signs under the window.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Flint and seconded by Mr. Domnitz to approve the signs on the building, as presented. Passed 4-0.
The proposed small promotional signs (one fixed, one moveable) were discussed, including their location.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Flint and seconded by Mr. Snell to approve the two small signs subject to their being located behind a line drawn through the pylon and parallel to the road. Passed 4-0.
The Chairman thanked the applicants for their efforts.
8:40PM PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Zoning Bylaw changes, Section 16: Signs.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and Mr. Whitehead introduced the proposed changes to the signs bylaw. The changes added a requirement for permits for temporary signs and reformatted the section to make it clearer.
There was no discussion.
A MOTION was proposed and seconded to close the public hearing. Passed 5-0. A MOTION was proposed and seconded to recommend the proposed change to Town Meeting. Passed 5-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00pm.
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved May 17, 2006
| 
