The Town of Lincoln, MA - Planning Board Minutes, May 7, 2008

Mr. Whitehead explained that the application is for retrospective approval of a change to lighting under the approved site plan, following a complaint by a neighbor, Mr. Naiman of 12 Huntley Lane. The Board received letters from the Building Inspector, Mr. Brodney and Mr. Naiman. The Zoning Board of Appeals has scheduled a hearing to consider a number of complaints from Mr. Naiman.

Myra Brodney said that the driveway to the house is long and dark. A fixture with spot lights was installed over the center of the garage, which faces the road. The lights are operated by a motion sensor and Mrs. Brodney stated that they only come on for one or two minutes. There are also ordinary sconce lights at the sides of the garage, which the Brodneys turn on when they go out; Mr. Whitehead clarified that these lights were approved under the site plan. The Brodneys stated that they are concerned about the safety of people arriving when the sconce lights are not on, and drew attention to a turnaround area in front of the garage where vehicles need to back up. There is a steep drop at one side with a retaining wall, marked by boulders. The Brodneys also stated that the positioning of the spotlights was adjusted in response to a previous complaint by Mr. Naiman and that, more recently, lower wattage bulbs have been substituted as suggested by the Building Inspector. The Board examined the site plan and reviewed the approval decision.

The Board asked whether the lights have a shield to limit stray light; it was established that there is no shield extending beyond the front of the bulbs. Board members commented that motion sensor lights can be unreliable in terms of coming on and off. Some landscape lights near the driveway were also mentioned. The Brodneys said that these were small, low level solar-powered lights.

A representative spoke on behalf of Mr. Naiman who was unable to attend. He stated that the spotlights stay on for about six minutes and are triggered by animals as well as visitors. He agreed that the lights had been adjusted. He said that Mr. Naiman also does not like the driveway lights and considers that the ‘dark sky’ lighting condition of the site plan approval was not followed. He asked the Board to deny the Brodneys’ request for the change to the approved site plan, or to leave the matter to the ZBA.

The Board confirmed that the spotlights were not approved under the site plan. The Board commented that it does not normally allow high spotlights or driveway lights. It suggested that there may be acceptable alternatives in terms of low level lights at the turnaround area and reflectors. Mr. Snell suggested that the Brodneys look at cases relating to similar sites where lights have been approved or ask a professional lighting consultant for suggestions.

David and Patricia Levy attended with their design team. The Beattys, neighbors at 36 Tower Road, also attended. An email was received from the Deloris of 44 Tower Road expressing support for the scenic road changes.

The Levys stated that there have been no changes to the design since the preliminary meeting on April 16^th. The Board examined the site plan and photographs. A panoramic photograph was also shown. The Board checked distances to the property line and to the Beattys’ house. The Beattys said that they were interested in hearing about the impact of the addition and driveway, and its mitigation; they understood that the changes would result in the family activities being further from them but the building will be closer.

The Board asked about trees to be removed. It was stated that the large one is a hemlock. The Board reviewed the planting schedule and noted that it is not keyed precisely to the plans. The designers said that they would like to work with the neighbors to firm up the details of the planting plan and that exact positions are usually determined at planting. They were of the opinion that plants will grow better near the property line once they receive more sunlight. The Beattys requested some early screening. The designers offered to depict high density zones on the landscape plan in areas that the Beattys and the Planning Board identified as high priority visual screening zones.

The Board examined the proposed lighting, for which catalog cuts were supplied. The existing house door lights are to be kept and new lights added at new doors. Two existing post lights are to be removed but a new post light is proposed. Low level landscape lights are proposed on the edge of the patio. All lights were stated to be labeled as dark sky friendly or approved. The Board questioned the need for the pole light and thought it was rather high. The designers suggested that the alternatives would be either to eliminate this light or substitute a lower one, possibly with some planting. The owners preferred to find a substitute low landscape light.

The Board examined the proposed driveway and asked about its drainage. The designers stated that most of the driveway will drain towards the interior of the lot; also that the driveway will be less steep than the current one and can be expected to shed less water towards the road. The driveway will have a top coat of aggregate.

A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Domnitz and seconded by Mr. Snell, to approve the site plan, including the creation of a new access to the public way and changes to the scenic road, subject to the following conditions:

David Albrecht, engineer and Walter Bartkus, project manager attended. The Board met with Deaconess staff on the site about a month previously. Construction of the deceleration lane required by Mass Highway within the Route 2 Right of Way was commencing. To make space for the lane, the slope was being moved back. This appeared to affect grades within the Deaconess development site.

David Albrecht explained that construction of a retaining wall was not considered to be a good alternative to moving the slope back, since the wall would have to be removed when the Crosby’s Corner reconstruction project went ahead, and its construction would require extensive excavation anyway. Mr. Albrecht showed a plan of the deceleration lane and the adjoining portion of the development site. He said that the trees in this area have been removed and a tree nursery has been established for those that are to be replanted following construction. The landscape plan within the development site has been adjusted. It is proposed to create a small berm between the buildings and the highway, and to plant trees, shrubs and ground cover. Pictures of trees were supplied. The remainder of the slope adjoining the deceleration lane will be seeded to control erosion.

In terms of the effect on views of the site from Route 2, Mr. Albrecht said that from cars coming eastbound, the buildings will be hidden by the berm, while from westbound, there will be little change with the trees near Bethany Road continuing to screen the site. The housing units will be approximately 45 feet from the highway.

Deaconess reported that further regrading has been done since the Board’s visit. Ledge rock has been encountered and some blasting will be needed. The berm design may be adjusted further. Planting is likely to be done in fall, prior to construction of the nearby housing units which are in the second phase of the development. Highway marking and signage have been agreed with Mass Highway. Mr. Snell suggested provision of a ‘no through route’ sign at the site entrance.

Deaconess also reported that where the rear site access road crosses the Saw Mill Brook, a construction issue has led to a proposed revision of the plan, with the crossing point shifted and the road alignment modified; otherwise the road design will stay the same. The Conservation Officer has been consulted.

Approval will be needed from the Planning Board for the amendments to the site plan. A copy of the latest version of the plan was supplied and reduced size copies were promised for Board members. Members agreed to revisit the site individually and to schedule the matter.

Peter DeVeau and Ronan Ryan of Mayo Group attended with Tim Taylor, attorney. A memorandum was received from Mr. Taylor, discussing the developer’s difficulty in marketing the housing units and requesting a release from the over 55 age restriction. Copies of the special permit issued under a North Lincoln Planned Development District and a letter of opinion from town counsel on procedural aspects were distributed. The Chairman began by stating that when the Board had previously discussed the situation, it was inclined to uphold the age restriction unless Town Meeting voted otherwise. Mr. Whitehead read out town counsel’s opinion that the Planning Board should make a determination of whether the proposed changes are “not substantially consistent with” the preliminary development and use plan approved by Town Meeting. If they are not, then a two thirds vote of Town Meeting will be needed before the Planning Board can consider a change to the special permit.

The Board invited further information about the status of the development. It was established that all four apartment buildings have been constructed and seven units are occupied, of which six were sold under the affordable housing provisions and one was sold at market rate. Mr. Taylor said that there is a widespread problem of low demand for age-restricted housing. Release of the restriction would help to stem the Mayo Group’s ongoing losses and would help to get the housing occupied rather than remaining vacant. The Mayo Group has offered to make two more of the units affordable if the age restriction is released.

The Chairman asked about the effect on school enrollment. Mr. Taylor asserted that two bedroom units rarely house children, although he conceded that there would be more than with the over 55 restriction. He referred to some studies from New Hampshire that showed low numbers. He said that this type of development is not popular with young families and people tend to move out when they have children.

Mrs. Wolf pointed out that other interests are involved, including the existing owner-occupiers and other town bodies. She suggested that dropping prices is always an option. The Mayo Group stated that they have reduced the asking prices but that potential purchasers are having difficulty in selling their larger houses to downsize. The Board commented that it would be reluctant to make a long term change in the nature of the development on the basis of short term market conditions.

The Mayo Group reported that they had spoken with the Housing Commission, who seemed interested in gaining additional affordable housing units. Mr. Taylor said that as the proportion of affordable units becomes higher it tends to affect the pricing of the market rate units. Mr. Domnitz asked whether a change from ownership to rental units was an option, and whether the development could be made to qualify under Chapter 40B or other state rules so that all the units would count for the town’s affordable housing inventory. Mr. Taylor thought that this was probably not possible since at least one unit has already been sold in each building.

The Board stated its recollection that the age restriction was fundamental to Town Meeting’s understanding of the project. If a proposed change goes to Town Meeting for a vote, the Board suggested that the developer will need to offer significant benefits to gain a two thirds majority. Mr. Whitehead mentioned that a fall Town Meeting might be possible.

9:00 PM PRELIMINARY MEETING CONTINUATION: MASS AUDUBON, 218 Lincoln Road, Map 113/Lot 5, preliminary discussion on proposed pre-school. Christy Foote-Smith and Gary Clayton attended on behalf of Mass Audubon. Mr. Snell recused himself as an abutter and left the meeting.

The Chairman reported that he has reviewed the Hatheway will that relates to the majority of the Mass Audubon site and that sets terms for the use of the land. He thought it would also be necessary to refer to the Articles of Incorporation of Mass Audubon that existed at the time, to interpret the intention of the will. He believes the Attorney General would be the proper authority to address any complaint about departure from the terms of the will. The Planning Board’s only jurisdiction on the pre-school project relates to the changes to the curb cut on the scenic road, but it would be interested to understand the situation.

Mass Audubon stated that the organization has been involved in educational activities since early in the 20^th century and that there are records that show Mrs. Hatheway’s awareness of the nature of its activities. It will endeavor to supply a copy of the relevant Articles of Incorporation.

Mass Audubon reported that since the previous discussion with the Planning Board, a further meeting with neighbors was held. Tree cutting, parking, paving, and traffic safety were discussed further, as well as the issues of future expansion and alternative development options. At the meeting, reference was made to a master plan for the site drawn up in the late 1990s in conjunction with the Planning Board. Cost estimates were presented for alternative development options to accommodate the pre-school program, ranging from $75,000 for the current proposal using the house on Lincoln Road to $1.5 million for a new multi-purpose educational building. Cost issues are favoring the current proposal at this time.

Mass Audubon has offered to commit to limiting enrollment to twelve children per session at the house location, and to revise the parking proposal with a reduction in the existing paved area on a trial basis. Mass Audubon intends to meet with neighbors again with the revised plan, but would like to be sure it incorporates the Planning Board’s views. The Board suggested that attention be given to screening of the parking area on the north side. If the plan involves cars looping around the garage, screening from the town trail would also be desirable. One suggestion was to distinguish between regular and maximum parking needs, and designate an overflow area for the latter.

The curb cut will raise the issue of sight lines and the Board noted that it will need to consider whether any trees should be removed for safety (including safety of bicycle path users). A formal hearing will be scheduled when the plans are finalized.

Margie Brown of 79 Old Sudbury Road said that the bicycle path is used and that it is important as a safer alternative to Old Sudbury Road. She also expressed the hope that Mass Audubon will be able to find a better solution to accommodating the pre-school, which does not alienate neighbors.

Bruce Adler, developer of the Stratford Way subdivision, has arranged to see Mr. Whitehead to discuss the release of remaining funds held by the town for ensuring completion of work associated with the subdivision. Matters may be complicated by poor documentation and legal actions by other parties.