The Town of Lincoln, MA - Planning Board Minutes

The Board discussed the draft chapters of the Comprehensive Long Range Plan, which incorporate the work of COG and the CLRP subcommittees. The Board has an opportunity to make comments at this stage and has been advised that it would be a good time to raise any major concerns about balance and policy direction.

Mr. Domnitz stated that the Steering Committee had discussed the draft chapters on May 20^th, including comments that had been sent in (by Ken Bassett, Bryce Wolf, Peter Braun and Peter Sugar). He referred to handwritten notes of the Steering committee meeting. He noted that there is ongoing discussion of the process for review of development ideas. The Steering Committee agreed to include an outline of the land use criteria and a fuller explanation of their role in the body of the Plan as well as placing the full criteria in an appendix.

Questions relating to water, raised by Bryce Wolf, were discussed by the Steering Committee which decided to strengthen water conservation in the Plan. COG advised that the state’s rules on water use are under review which limits analysis. Mrs. Wolf suggested that there could still be some discussion in the Plan of potential penalties for exceeding the water budget and the implications of water constraints for planning for population change, development and agriculture.

The Board discussed the Plan’s suggestions for new types of zoning. The Board had doubts about the usefulness of a transfer of development rights bylaw. In theory, TDR could help to achieve open land preservation by linking it to allowing higher density in preferred locations. However with the availability of overlay districts to achieve higher densities, members thought this may not work/ be appropriate. On page 2-3 in the third bullet, the Board favored qualifying “open to creative proposals for other land uses” with “selectively” or adding clarification.

The land use chapter discusses encouraging more cluster subdivisions, perhaps through a ‘cluster by right’ provision. The Board commented that most recent subdivisions have been clusters and that it is doubtful that more incentive is needed. Allowing clusters without a special permit might lead to poor lot configurations.

Mrs. Wolf commented that the text relating to two acre zoning is an over-simplification given the large proportion of non-conforming lots. Mr. Domnitz has asked if they can be quantified but this may be difficult.

The idea of making it easier to move small houses in order to keep them was discussed. There was uncertainty as to the exact proposal. Currently there are sometimes two houses on one lot with one being an accessory apartment, but it has to be smaller than the main house. The Plan could discuss issues pertinent to allowing two small houses on one lot or dividing large Victorian houses into apartments. Locational or site criteria could be discussed.

Mr. Craig asked if the Plan could do more to control the size of new houses; Mr. Domnitz advised that this can only be done indirectly, for example through floor area ratios which work better on smaller lots. The Plan’s recommendation for non-disturbance buffers adjacent to conservation land was discussed; this could be applied through site plan review.

Mrs. Wolf noted that the Plan contains a number of proposals for more regulation, but also calls for streamlining. She suggested recognizing that regulation has costs in terms of a degree of interference in people’s lives and in terms of volunteer time. The Board welcomed the fact that the Plan tries to prevent ‘board shopping’ by project proponents.

Mr. Domnitz noted that affordable housing has consequences for open space, schools and town finances, and suggested that there should be more discussion of the levels of different types of housing that are being aimed for in the long term, preferably with a pie chart. There was no agreement on this. It was noted that Chapter 40B is one of the drivers of affordable housing and that resistance to site-specific development ‘threats’ has sometimes been a factor in the past. The Board may discuss housing further.

Overall, there was agreement that much good work has gone into the Plan and that it sets out useful discussion of different topics. Mrs. Wolf commented that the Plan shows the difficulty of getting the town’s goals to come together in a coherent way. Mr. Whitehead said he thought the addition of the Implementation Plan would help to integrate matters.

The purpose and format of the Planning Board’s public hearing on the Plan were discussed. Mr. Whitehead advised that the purpose is essentially to receive comments from the public. It is also an opportunity to explain the process that has gone before and that remains for the Plan’s adoption. The Planning Board has statutory responsibility for the Plan but Town Meeting will vote on it. In the fall, the Steering Committee will vote on the Plan, followed by the Planning Board, prior to Town Meeting. The Board needs to consider what, if anything, to say about its position on the Plan at the public hearing.

The complete Plan will include an Executive Summary and an Implementation Plan as well as the chapters. Documents will be made available on the website, in the library and at Town Offices.

It was agreed that Mr. Hurd will introduce the public hearing, explaining the process, highlighting key matters and outlining changes made since previous presentations. It may be useful to state that there is no land use map and no immediate zoning changes.

The Board discussed alternative permitting routes for non-profits such as schools and daycare centers on non-conforming lots: via the Planning Board or the ZBA.