TOWN OF LINCOLN
MINUTES OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING
Held on June 18, 2008
At 7:30 PM in the Donaldson Room, Lincoln Town Offices
PRESENT: R.Domnitz (Chairman), K.Hurd, J.Snell, B.Wolf, J.Craig
STAFF: M.Whitehead, C.Perry
7:30 PM BUSINESS:
Deaconess, 17-19 Cambridge Turnpike
The Chairman signed a letter to the Building Inspector conveying the Board’s approval of a minor change to the site plan under the special permit.
Zornig, 6 Brooks Road
The Chairman signed a letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals, setting out its recommendation on the proposed amateur radio tower.
Countryside (Eisner), 300 South Great Road
The Board signed the decision approving a site plan for a new house.
Minutes
The Board unanimously approved the minutes of June 4th with an amendment.
Egendorf, 10 Tower Road
Mr. Whitehead reported that the case management conference for the legal appeal is being rescheduled.
7:45 PM REQUEST FOR MINOR CHANGE: LARRY & MYRA BRODNEY, 10 Huntley Lane, Map101/Lot 5, request for minor change to approved site plan for lighting under Section 17.7.
Mr. and Mrs. Brodney attended. Following the Board’s denial of a minor change for the installed garage/ driveway lighting on May 21st, the Brodneys sought an informal view from the Board at its last meeting on a revised set of lights and the Board agreed to consider a new minor change.
The applicants presented a catalog cut for a shielded downlight to be positioned over the garage at a height of about ten feet. This is proposed to be operated with a motion sensor - either the existing one if it is suitable or a professionally-installed replacement. The fixture is described by the manufacturer as dark sky compliant.
Alaric Naiman, neighbor, said that he would be satisfied if this light meets the bylaw regarding direct light or glare illuminating neighboring properties. He requested that the sensor be set to a low sensitivity so that it is not triggered by animals and to a short duration. The applicants agreed to set the duration to one minute.
The applicants also requested approval for three small solar driveway lights in place of the previous six that were removed. They showed one of the lights and said that they would be set low to the ground. They described the purpose of the lights as being for safety and security. They confirmed that these lights would be on all night (depending on the amount of light received during the day).
Mr. Naiman said that he would have no objection to the driveway lights if the sides that faced his property were painted over. The Board recognized the small scale of the lights but had some concern about them being on all night. It considered the need for consistency between cases coming under site plan review, and questioned whether there was a sufficient safety need in this case to override the normal practice of denying lights along driveways.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Snell and seconded by Mr. Hurd, to approve a minor change for the proposed shielded light on the garage subject to conditions that: it does not cast direct light on adjacent properties; and that it is operated with a motion sensor with a one minute time setting and low sensitivity. Passed 5-0
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Domnitz and seconded by Mr. Craig, to deny a minor change for the driveway lights. Passed 4-1
(Mr. Snell voted against)
8:00 PM PUBLIC HEARING: PAUL PEDINI, 11 Reiling Pond Road, Map 33/Lot 11-6, site plan review for single family residence under Section 17.7.
Paul Pedini attended with Tom Frisardi, attorney. Christina Breiter, the subdivision owner, also attended. The Board had informally reviewed the design concept at a preliminary meeting on April 16th. Mr. Pedini stated that the design is essentially unchanged, but the extent of tree clearing has been reduced.
Mr. Whitehead drew attention to an issue that has become apparent concerning the building envelope. There is an unsigned plan on the Planning Department’s file for the subdivision, showing building envelopes, in addition to a signed plan showing the layout of the lots. The proposed design is not within the building envelope shown for lot 6. Because the building envelope plan is not signed, the status of the envelopes is unclear. The Board discussed this issue with Ms. Breiter. It was agreed that the intention of both parties at the time the subdivision was created was to include building envelopes, and that they were desirable to ensure that houses are reasonably positioned in relation to one another. It was suggested that the omission of the envelopes from the signed plan of the subdivision may be a
drafting error. The Board stated that it could consider a new building envelope for the current house proposal, provided that the effect on adjacent lots was also considered. The house on lot 5 has already been built but lot 7 has not yet been sold. To be compatible with the current proposal for lot 6, it would be desirable for the building envelope for lot 7 to be changed. Ms. Breiter agreed to propose a new set of building envelopes for the subdivision, for the Board to consider as a change to the special permit.
The Board examined the proposed site plan. It asked about the effect of the septic system on grades in the area of a trail easement within the eastern edge of the lot. It thought the contours shown for the adjoining lot 5 were incorrect and may have been taken from an earlier plan for that lot which was not approved. The applicant agreed to check this and to provide sectional drawings across the trail easement.
The Board discussed the effect of the proposal on trees and whether any new planting would be desirable. The applicant presented a plan showing trees near the house that are to be removed or to remain. The Board requested further information on trees in the vicinity of the trail. The Board noted that an application will need to be filed with the Conservation Commission, and it considered that some input from the Lincoln Land Conservation Trust would also be helpful.
The Board asked about lighting. Mr. Pedini stated that the only exterior lighting proposed is recessed lights in the soffits or ceilings at house entrances. He provided a catalog cut, but the Board recommended selecting lights with a deeper recess.
The applicant said that paving choices need to be finalized. The Board advised that runoff will need to be retained within the lot.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Snell and seconded by Mrs. Wolf, to continue the hearing to July 9th at 8:20 PM Passed 5-0
The Board considered a site walk. The applicant stated that the house corners and property lines have been marked.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Snell and seconded by Mrs. Wolf, to conduct a site walk on Sunday June 29th at 11:00 AM. Passed 5-0
8:20 PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS, PC, Yagian Site, 37 Cambridge Turnpike, Map 24/Lot 1, renewal of special permit and replacement of antennas under Section 12.6.
The Chairman reported that the information received from Cingular about the generator did not include any acoustical data. The applicant has been asked to obtain further information.
A MOTION was proposed by Mr. Snell and seconded by Mr. Craig, to continue the hearing to July 9th at 8:00 PM Passed 5-0
8:40 PM DISCUSSION OF MINUTEMAN COMMONS PROPOSAL: 82 Virginia Road, Map 5/Lot 3. Discussion of options regarding changes to Minuteman Commons development.
Peter De Veau of Mayo Group attended with Tim Taylor, attorney. Mr. Taylor had sent an email letter to the Board earlier in the day. The Chairman summarized it as arguing that a Chapter 40B development was not feasible and that the impact of a release of the age restriction upon school enrolment and traffic would be minimal. The Chairman asked if the Mayo Group had any new proposals or information to report. Mr. Taylor responded that he was simply reporting back on questions raised by the Board at the previous discussion on May 7th.
The Board noted that the school enrolment data referred to was from New Hampshire and questioned its transferability to a high quality school district in a metropolitan area. The Board asked if data was available from Battle Road Farm; the Mayo Group did not know.
In relation to the Board’s view that a release of the age restriction would need to be approved by Town Meeting, Mr. Taylor asserted that the Town Administrator had told him that town counsel had changed his opinion on the matter since his memorandum of March 7th (which advised that the matter rested on a determination as to whether the changes are “not substantially consistent with” the Preliminary Development and Use Plan). The Board responded that it had not heard of any change to town counsel’s advice, and that it considered that the matter should go back to Town Meeting whether legally required or not.
Mr. De Veau reported that the buildings have been fitted out and that the bank wants the owners to undertake a further marketing initiative. His opinion was that potential buyers over 55 are not ready to drop the selling prices of their existing homes sufficiently. He suggested that a release of the age condition would widen the purchaser pool and enable sales of the units. Mr. Craig asked about previous marketing efforts. Mr. De Veau said that the units were actively marketed for eighteen months up to January. Mr. Taylor added that a new effort is starting this weekend.
Mr. Domnitz asked whether housing that was designed for over 55s was likely to appeal to younger age groups. Mr. Taylor said that it would not be inherently attractive to young families. Mr. Whitehead pointed out that only one resident in each unit has to be over 55 anyway. The Board wondered if the age restriction could be widened to over 18 without allowing children, but thought that this would not be legally permissible.
Mr. Taylor said that the town’s option to buy down two units to affordable status still stands, together with the offer of two more affordable units in conjunction with a release of the age restriction. He reiterated the argument that sharing out the condominium fees becomes problematic if the proportion of affordable units becomes high. Mrs. Wolf noted that the Housing Commission was familiar with this issue.
The Board reviewed the history that led up to the approval of the development. A Planned Development District was created originally for the Battle Road Inn concept, which proved not to be an economic proposition, and the landowner was searching for alternative forms of development. The discussions took place prior to the Deaconess proposal and there was some interest by town citizens in elderly persons’ housing as well as in affordable units.
The Planning Board opened the meeting to other town boards’ representatives. Sara Mattes spoke for the Board of Selectmen and reported that the Board felt the proposal to eliminate the age restriction was questionable. On the issue of school enrolments, she reported that Lincoln’s affordable units do have children in school and that the Lexington experience is similar. The Board of Selectmen was also concerned that releasing the age restriction could create a precedent. It concurred with the Planning Board’s view that the proposal should go back to Town Meeting.
Ms. Mattes said that the selectmen noted that if the development could be converted to a rental model and all the units qualify as affordable on the town’s state inventory, then that would offer a significant benefit to the town. Ms. Mattes suggested that while it may not be possible to meet all the standard rules for Chapter 40B, an individual proposal could be put forward to the state; however this would need the willing support of all participants.
George Georges, a member of the Housing Commission but speaking personally, said that in his view a good outcome would be if a larger number of affordable units, say a total of 12, were provided by the developer in return for a release of the age restriction.
A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Domnitz, to establish joint discussions with the Board of Selectmen and the Housing Commission, if they are agreeable, to consider a way forward, with Mrs. Wolf as the Planning Board’s liaison.
Passed 5-0
Mr. De Veau said that the developers were prepared to work collaboratively provided there was a realistic approach. Mr. Taylor asked for the timeframe for a Town Meeting to be borne in mind.
9:00 PM PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: THOMAS BLAKELY, 144-146 Lincoln Road, Map 95/Lot 11. Sign permit under Section 16.5.
Ken Hurd reported that he visited the site and discussed potential paint colors for the building at 144 Lincoln Road with Mr. Blakely.
Mr. Blakely presented painted samples of clapboards and trim. For the clapboards, two alternative colors are proposed: cream or light blue. The trim is proposed to be white. Mr. Blakely noted that the adjacent Cambridge Trust building is a darker cream while the church is white. For the sign, the black version with white lettering is proposed. The wording in the heading will be Lincoln Road rather than Lincoln Village.
A MOTION was proposed by Mrs. Wolf and seconded by Mr. Snell, to approve the use of either of the two paint colors presented for the building, with white trim boards, and to approve a black wooden sign with white lettering, with a semi-gloss finish and with the word “Road” in place of “Village”, subject to submission of an image of the final design.
Passed 5-0
OTHER BUSINESS:
Comprehensive Long Range Plan
Mark Whitehead announced that on Monday 23rd, the Board of Selectmen will be hosting a televised update on the CLRP with reports from each of the sub-committees and an outline of the results of the citizen survey.
HATS
Sara Mattes announced that there will be a HATS meeting on June 27th, incorporating a workshop on Section 106 Review of federal projects affecting historic resources. The proposal to demolish Hangar 24 at Hanscom is going through this process.
July 4th Parade
The Board discussed its ideas for participation in the parade.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 PM.
Submitted by Catherine Perry
Approved July 16, 2008
|