TOWN OF LINCOLN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
October 4, 2006
PRESENT: K.Hurd (Chairman), E.Flint, B.Wolf, R.Domnitz, J.Snell
STAFF: M.Whitehead, C.Perry
7:30PM BUSINESS:
State of the Town Report
Mr. Whitehead circulated a revised draft of the Planning Board’s section of the SOTT Report. The Board made some amendments.
8:00PM : NEW ENGLAND DEACONESS ASSOCIATION, 9, 11, 15, and 17 Cambridge Turnpike, Map 14/Lots 13, 14, 15, and 16, Preliminary Development and Use Plan, North Lincoln Planning District, Deaconess Abundant Life Community under Section 12.5.
The following people attended:
Bill Jackson Wm. Jackson Associates
David Albrecht Rizzo Associates
Maria Gonzales EGA
Peter Smith PSA Associates
Sharon Buehrle NEDA
Karen Santucci Council on Aging
Bob Sutherland ”
David Reece 15 Cambridge Turnpike
Avram Kalisky Wells Road
Mary Helen Lorenz
Sarah Marcotte 119 Cambridge Turnpike
Tim Oldfield 207 Sandy Pond Road
Linda McMillan ”
Bill Williams 56 Birchwood Lane
Paul Giese Finance Committee
Andy Cole 228 Sandy Pond Road
Rick Kosowsky 4 Goose Pond Road
Cheryl Lecesse Lincoln Journal
The hearing was televised. The Chairman introduced the hearing, for a continuing care residential development of approximately 31 acres under the North Lincoln Planning District. He explained that an affordable housing component is included in the proposal, based on the inclusionary housing bylaw passed at the 2005 Town Meeting.
Bill Jackson introduced NEDA’s project team. Rev. Herb Taylor sent his apologies as he had a conflicting commitment. Mr. Jackson explained that the Preliminary Development and Use Plan had been filed with the Planning Board. Full packages of information had been supplied to Board Members, and a sub set of this information had been mailed to all residents; the full set was made available at the Library as well as at Town Offices. Traffic and fiscal impacts are addressed. The site is 34½ acres, including a small portion that will be taken for the Route 2 Crosby’s Corner reconstruction project, and the number of residential units proposed is 197.
Dave Albrecht of Rizzo Associates presented the site plan and explained that after Route 2 is reconstructed, there will be three access points: One at Bethany Road, which will be connected to a service road alongside Route 2; one from Sandy Pond Road along the existing driveway; and one off a new intersection at Crosby’s Corner. In the interim, Bethany Road will be used for construction and service traffic, and the Sandy Pond Road access will be used by residents once the development is occupied. At the crossing over Saw Mill Brook, the driveway will have a one lane section.
The site plan provides two parking spaces for each cottage unit, and there will be three extra spaces for guests. Roadways within the site will be 24 feet wide, with sidewalks and crosswalks. The speed limit is expected to be 15mph. The main congregate building contains 100 units as well as common facilities. It will have an underground garage, a circular driveway at the main entrance, and a separate loading area. Two existing structures will remain on the site: a barn near Bethany Road and the former President’s house near the access from Sandy Pond Road.
The elevation of the site varies by about 90 feet and the layout is stepped to take account of this. Roads have been kept to below a 5% grade, and disturbance of the wetland buffer has been avoided. The site drains towards its north and west edges. Five small, shallow detention basins are proposed. There will also be some underground tanks for roof run off, to be used for landscape watering. Catch basins will have sediment sumps to protect water quality.
Mr. Albrecht explained that the development’s water consumption has been the subject of extensive discussions with the Water Commission, and a Memorandum of Understanding is being prepared. NEDA proposes to replace the old 8” water main through the site with a 12” one; eventually the Town hopes to replace the entire loop. Fire flow, hydrants and sprinkler systems have been discussed with the Fire Chief, and the proposed provision found adequate.
Waste water treatment will be handled on site. Ground conditions are good towards the west of the site. Some pumping may be needed. There may be some scope to adjust the arrangement of cottage units on the site in conjunction with finalizing the leaching fields.
Gas, electricity and telephone services exist in the vicinity and are adequate for the proposed development to tie in. Outdoor lighting will need to be sufficient for elderly residents. The project designers envisage 12 to 15 foot poles with downward lights, chosen to complement the architecture. Although this will make the area brighter than now, neighboring residents are at a reasonable distance.
Maria Gonzales of EGA described the proposed buildings. She presented illustrations of the congregate building and described the parking level and common areas. This building incorporates a hundred apartment units. The design aims to keep down the visual scale of the building by breaking it into wings and employing dormers with a steep roof. It takes advantage of the grade change across the site. Only the central portion appears as 3½ stories; most of the building presents as 2½ stories. Elsewhere on the site, sixty five cottage units are proposed, mostly in attached groups of four, with integrated garages. These units are approximately 1600sq ft plus lofts, and some have basements. The scale of the buildings is small and residential, with dormers used in the design. The remaining element of the project is a thirty unit, 3 story
apartment building, with a range of unit sizes but no common areas. Materials proposed for all the buildings are clapboard and wood trim, for a residential look.
Peter Smith, the affordable housing consultant, explained that the apartment block will be part of the site, with residents able to access the same facilities and services, some of them for a fee. The apartments will be mixed income, with some marketed as affordable, to qualified applicants, and some as open market. All will count on the State’s subsidized housing inventory, as is the case with other mixed income subsidized housing developments. This will put Lincoln over the 10% threshold, at least in the short term. The affordable units will have long term affordability assurances and monitoring.
The Chairman informed the public that a Steering Committee, with representatives from relevant town boards, the Council on Aging and others, has worked with NEDA to give guidance on developing its plans. Mr. Snell reported on the work of the Steering Committee. The At Risk Properties Study had provided the background to the Town’s approach. The Committee’s stance was to be helpful towards the development but also to flag concerns and permitting requirements. It assisted in coordinating interaction with town boards.
The Chairman recalled that in the At Risk Properties Study, a development of this type emerged as a favorable option; only open space was less costly to the town. Now the main emphasis is on examining the current proposal.
The Planning Board asked questions of the project team:
Q. Will extraneous traffic be discouraged?
A. The roads within the development will be private. Entry will not be prevented but design will discourage drivers from cutting through the site. If it proved a problem, signage could be added. NEDA is open to advice on whether to gate the Sandy Pond Road access once Route 2 has been reconstructed.
Q. How visible will the development be from Route 2?
A. Route 2 will be raised on an embankment as it curves around the corner, but the service road alongside it will be lower. There may be some retaining walls. There are buffer areas where some trees will be kept.
Q. What will the President’s house be used for?
A. This has not been decided but it may be an office.
Q. What is the maximum grade of the driveway from Sandy Pond Road?
A. It is believed to be less than 10% and it will not change.
Q. Will there be landscape irrigation?
A. Any that is done will use run off water from the roofs. Planting will be selected for drought resistance, similarly to the existing facility in Concord.
Q. Will utilities be placed underground?
A. Yes.
Q. What provision is made for employee parking?
A. ?
R. How will traffic be managed during the phases of Route 2 construction? Accident data suggest that the eastbound uphill stretch is currently dangerous as well as the westbound downhill approach to the lights.
A. This is being examined and could be addressed at a later date.
Q. The occupancy figures on page 4 of the submission booklet show 40 cottage units rather than 65; is this a mistake?
A. Yes. The total initial population should be 242 rather than 196.
Q. Is there a walking circuit as well as routes to and from the congregate building?
A. There is a variety of connected paths within the development, across the green spaces as well as alongside the roads. There may be scope to provide more, and to connect in to trails leading off-site.
Q. Will any water mains off the site be upgraded?
A. The Route 2 section is subject to an agreement for replacement, with the town funding the upgrade to a 12” main.
Q. Headlights of vehicles exiting the underground garage may be a nuisance for residents of the nearby cottage units; can this be addressed?
A. An adjustment to the layout will be considered.
Q. What is the overall housing density?
A. A little over 6 units per acre
Mr. Whitehead commented that this is dense for Lincoln as a whole, but comparable with other multi-unit developments in town, and not the highest.
Q. Will any trees be preserved?
A. There will need to be fairly extensive re-grading of the site but a landscape plan will be developed, including a look at whether some trees can be saved.
Q. Could the apartment building be better integrated? Currently it does not look very consistent architecturally.
A. This may need further work.
Q. There are three cell towers nearby, and the Board has been investigating ways to get the nuisance caused by the lights reduced, but without success so far. Has the project team considered this from the point of view of their future residents?
A. The towers are on higher land which is likely to make this less of a problem. NEDA is also examining the tower access question.
Q. In relation to the affordable housing, a thirty year period was mentioned. Should this not be ‘in perpetuity’?
A. Thirty years is a minimum. Herb Taylor has agreed to ‘in perpetuity’.
Mr. Whitehead advised that the bylaw asks for ‘in perpetuity’.
Q. How does a rental property fit in with the normal fee-entry pricing structure?
A. For affordable housing it was necessary to have a simple rental arrangement. Residents will have opportunities to use common amenities and to pay extra for services. The details need to be worked out, but NEDA is committed to making things work, and is trialing something similar in Concord.
Q. What nursing facilities will be available?
A. There will not be a full nursing facility on the site, but there will be a practice of bringing services to people in their cottages or apartments. A range of public and private funding sources will be accepted. There will be a connection to a nursing facility in Concord.
Q. Who will administer the affordable housing?
A. NEDA will evaluate tenants against the criteria, and collect data required for monitoring, but the Town may be involved in the marketing. A plan will be developed for this.
Q. How close is NEDA to getting confirmation in writing from the Department of Housing and Community Development, that the proposal will satisfy their rules?
A. This is expected before Town Meeting.
Residents asked the following questions:
Q. Can you clarify the number of residents?
A. While the number of units is known, the number of residents can only be predicted. It is usually up to a third more than the number of units.
Q. What is the construction period?
A. 24 months.
Q. Who assesses the traffic implications?
A. Professional consultants, Traffic Solutions Inc., were hired by NEDA to do the traffic study. The full documents are on deposit at the library and the Planning office. Rizzo Associates are also traffic engineers and they have adjusted the numbers to reflect the increase in units. The calculated traffic figures may seem low but they are based on national research. Due to residents’ age, the peak hour movements are low. Employees are included in the model.
The questioner commented that access from Route 2 is currently difficult, and going westbound there is no access into the site. If the Sandy Pond Road access is kept open there will be significant traffic using it. Also, Sandy Pond Road has a time restriction.
Bill Jackson clarified that the calculated numbers of trips referred to are totals so they do not depend on assumptions about which access points will be used.
Another resident of Sandy Pond Road commented that the Route 2 project is subject to uncertainty, so it would be advisable to take account of the possibility that it will not happen, or at least not rely on a particular timeframe.
Q. How many cars are expected at off peak times?
A. The study gives figures for the morning and afternoon peaks and the 24 hour total. The total is 199 trips entering, and the same leaving. This includes employees, visitors, vendors etc. There will be shuttle buses so residents may not need to drive.
Another resident suggested allocating the trips to the different access points.
Q. What is the position on gating the access from Sandy Pond Road?
A. NEDA will do what the Town deems best; this can be an issue for the Planning Board.
One of the residents whose lots have been incorporated in the proposal commented that they had previously asked for the access to be kept open for them but now that would not be necessary.
Q. In relation to the affordable housing figures, will not the addition to the denominator cancel out the gain in the numerator? What will the long term effect be?
A. The number of units provided in the proposed development was based on the bylaw requirement of 15% which would result in a net gain against a 10% goal. There are uncertainties in the timing of the change to the denominator, in terms of occupancy of the development, and the base date that will be used for the 2010 Census. The town’s long term percentage depends also on the number of other new houses in town.
A resident of Woods End Road said that he was shocked at the scale of the project and considered that it should be cut back by half or more. Sarah Mattes commented that the project should not be compared with a ‘no change’ situation; development was likely on the site and a previous bid had been for a Chapter 40B development that would be of a higher density and not serve the town well. Mr. Domnitz suggested that NEDA consider disclosing some of their costs to illustrate the development economics.
A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Snell, to close the hearing. Passed 5-0.
Mr. Jackson provided the Board with a draft question and answer sheet for Town Meeting.
9:00PM PRELIMINARY MEETING: OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS INC., 295 Cambridge Turnpike, Map 48/Lot 7, Farrington Memorial, special permit for proposed replacement with extension of height of existing wireless communication tower under Section 12.6
Adam Braillard, the agent for Omnipoint, explained that the company is a subsidiary of T-Mobile. It has undertaken radio frequency studies and found that it has a gap in coverage along Route 2 in the vicinity of the application site. The preliminary application proposes to replace the existing 55ft tower on the site with an 85ft ‘slick stick’ flagpole design. This would be similar to the tower at the Mobil station in Concord. The tower owner is Global Communications and the only carrier at present is Sprint. An 85ft tower would accommodate four communications slots, and it is intended that T-Mobile would be at 85ft, Sprint would be at 55ft, and Cingular may take the two intervening positions. Cingular is not a co-applicant at this stage but has expressed interest, and would come before the Board separately for a special permit.
It was established that the existing special permit runs with the land, and the bylaw provides for it to be to be reviewed if changes are made. It contains a provision for removal if its use is discontinued. Mr. Braillard indicated that there is cooperation amongst the interested parties. The new tower will be in the same compound but not on the same foundation.
Mr. Domnitz asked if there would be a light on the tower. Mr. Braillard replied that the FAA is not requiring one in this case. He distributed copies of a ‘determination of no hazard to navigation’.
The Board asked about the proposed color of the pole. This type is produced as galvanized steel and is usually painted white, often with a flag added. The Board expressed a preference for a light grey color and no flag. It asked for a color chip to be provided. Mr. Braillard offered to supply photographs of existing similar towers.
In terms of height, the Board considered that the existing tower is not visible from off the site, but the proposal is well above the tree canopy. It accepted that T-Mobile has a coverage gap, and that there is a case to accommodate more carriers. A balloon test was not considered necessary.
The Board asked about the lease structure and financial interests. The tower owner, rather than the site owner, would be expected to gain from this proposal.
Mr. Whitehead reported that the police and fire services are interested in improving their radio coverage and would like to coordinate with cell tower operators when they are making changes. Mr. Braillard said that Omnipoint are offering to cooperate with this.
The applicant’s radio engineer provided more detail of the background to the proposal. A 65ft tower would work for T-Mobile but the extra height is proposed to allow for other carriers. 65ft is above the tree line. The engineer presented data on 911 calls made from cell phones using the three T-Mobile towers in Lincoln; there was a high volume. It was agreed that although many will be repeat calls relating to the same incident, this is a significant public benefit. The engineer clarified that 911 calls can use the nearest tower without needing a subscription to the operator.
Mr. Domnitz mentioned that the Board has received complaints that special permit recipients are not providing the post-installation emissions test data that is required in the bylaw, and warned that this will be required.
The Board considered that a review fee will not be needed for the application.
9:20PM PUBLIC HEARING: NICK AND JUNE VENTRESCA, 0 South Great Road, Map 82/Lot 2, site plan approval for new single family residence under Section 6 and 17.7
Nick and June Ventresca introduced their project manager. Mr. Ventresca described the property as close to the intersection of Routes 117 and 126. The landform is a dual plateau with a twenty foot drop in between. There is a small pond on the site. An unofficial pull-over on the side of South Great Road encroaches on the site and may need to be filled.
The site plan provides a driveway from a private way off South Great Road. Some planting is proposed, with a mix of deciduous trees and pines, and a four foot landscape berm is to be created near South Great Road. A pool is proposed near the house, with a four foot fence around both this and a vegetable garden. Existing trees over 12” in diameter are shown on a plan; those in the construction area will be removed, but there will be little re-grading of the site. Drywells are proposed to deal with run off. Little run off is expected from the higher portion of the site as the soil is well drained. There will be a three foot stone retaining wall around the west side of the house. The septic system will be on the east side.
The house itself is an Acorn design with a total floorspace of over 9000sq ft. Its maximum height is 31½ft from the average grade. It has a four bay garage. There will be a basement beneath the main part of the house but not the garage. Photographs of a similar house in Gloucester were presented. The style has shingles, weatherboards and wide eaves. Elevations were presented. The Board requested the applicant to mark heights on them.
The Board asked about the courtyard paving material; this will be asphalt. Mr. Snell queried the large amount of glazing on the north elevation, as it would lose a lot of heat and shed a lot of light. The applicant said that he wanted large windows for star gazing and that they will have heat insulating double glazing.
The Board examined the proposed lighting. This consisted of lights under the soffit of the porch, along the driveway, beside the retaining wall, in the arbor and in the pool. The Board asked about the locations of neighbors’ houses; there are two across the private way, a third with a different driveway and one across the pond. The Board thought the total amount of lighting was rather large, and questioned the need for the ones at the retaining wall and at the driveway entrance. The applicant agreed to delete these. Final lighting selections and wattages will need to be supplied.
Barbara Sampson of 126 Great Road and Eliza Anderson of 122 South Great Road said that the Ventrescas had consulted them. They felt the house was large but that care had been taken in its design. They remained concerned about looking at a four car garage.
A discussion of various residents’ access rights took place. Mr. Whitehead stated that the private way was probably laid out as a paper subdivision road. The Board did not consider that the proposed access presented any safety problem, but advised the applicants to research their right to use the private way. The Board advised other residents that they should also research their access rights privately.
The Board examined the proposed landscaping along the private road frontage and suggested that the applicants examine whether the septic system could be adjusted to allow more planting. Mr. Snell asked about the size of trees to be planted; this had not been decided. The applicants agreed to prepare a fuller landscape scheme.
A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Snell, to approve the site plan subject to: removal of the light at the driveway entrance and the three lights by the retaining wall; submission of a revised landscape plan; submission of lighting selections with wattages; and standard conditions. Passed 5-0.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Discussion of decision: KINGSLEY AND LESLIE BROOKS, 39 North Great Road, Map12/ Lot 11-0, site plan review for new single family residence under Section 17.7
The Board discussed its options for a decision.
Mr. Whitehead reported that the septic system approval supplied by the applicants has recently been revoked. This is believed to be because of the number of bedrooms shown on the current house plan. The documents supplied to the Planning Board may have failed to reveal a degree of uncertainty that remains over the design of the septic system. He advised that the Board cannot regulate the interior of the house, but that if the septic system changes, the applicants may need to submit an amendment to the site plan. The Board discussed whether this would put them in a difficult position if the site plan was approved and the change then had an adverse effect on it.
Mr. Snell reported that he had carefully studied the scale and massing of buildings in the MNHP. In relation to these, the proposed house was out of keeping in terms of its color, scale and material. He felt the incongruity was heightened by the building’s situation on a small lot and on a rise.
Mr. Hurd and Mr. Flint reported that they had been unable to develop conditions for the project that would mitigate the detrimental impact on MNHP while still allowing the applicants to retain the current design of the building. The Board discussed what positive guidance they could give the applicants if they denied the current site plan. They suggested addressing the height, the façade exposure to the Park, the type of stone (to make it a better match with New England walls), the septic system and the landscaping.
Overall, the Board concurred at this point that they favored a denial. They wished the decision to document the importance of the MNHP and the site’s relation to it, and to refer to the elements of the proposed development that do not satisfy the considerations of the bylaw: the mass and scale, the character of the area and the building, the fenestration, the color, and the fact that vegetative screening is not permitted as a remedy for an incompatible building.
It was agreed that Mr. Whitehead and Mr. Domnitz would work on a draft denial decision and circulate it. Mr. Whitehead stated that the decision must be signed by October 12.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:30pm.
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved as amended, January 3, 2007
|