Lighting amendment shot down; other zoning changes OK’d

By Alice Waugh

Two of the three warrant articles that sought changes to zoning regulations passed easily at Town Meeting, but the third—which would have imposed limits on residential outdoor lighting—went down to defeat in what proved to be the most contentious issue at the March 28 gathering.

Voters unanimously approved Article 37, a proposal to expand the list of the types of businesses permitted in the Lewis Street commercial district. Retails stores, banks, and rail or bus stations or terminals are now permitted uses in that zone. Article 38, an accompanying measure to relax the required amount of parking for businesses in that district was also easily approved.

Both changes are intended to attract a wider range of businesses to the area. Applicants still must apply for a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

“It’s not just wishful thinking on our part—we’ve received a number of inquiries” from potential applicants, said Planning Board vice chair Robert Domnitz.

Among them is Richard Card, who hopes to open Blazes, a combination bookstore, coffee shop and cocktail bar. Before Saturday’s action, a retail establishment such as this would not have been allowed in the Lewis Street district.

Card, who is negotiating with The Food Project to use part of their property at 10 Lewis St., hopes to open for business (minus cocktails) in December 2015. In a separate Town Meeting action, residents gave permission for him and the town to seek a liquor license from the state. If the legislature grants the license, it comes back to the Board of Selectmen for final approval next year.

Some residents at Town Meeting worried that allowing retail businesses in the Lewis Street district could open the door to franchises such as Dunkin Donuts. There is currently nothing in Lincoln’s zoning by-law that prohibits franchises. If one were to apply, “It’s left to the discretion of the ZBA,” said Joel Freedman, chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals chair. “You have to judge what’s in front of you.”

Resident Kati Winchell noted that some area towns have enacted “formula business bylaws” and suggested the Planning Board consider presenting something similar for vote at a future Town Meeting.

Disagreement on outdoor lighting

By far the most contentious zoning issue was a measure to place controls on any newly installed outdoor lighting. Article 39 would have required permanent outdoor lighting fixtures to be shielded so as not to direct light above the horizontal, and would have required new lights to have a color temperature of no more than 3,000 Kelvin and brightness limit of 900 lumens.

Temporary lights such as Christmas decorations would be exempt, as would be all existing light fixtures. New installations for which the property owner’s had gotten a town permit would be inspected, but “there’s no one driving around to check” on lighting that was installed without a permit, said Planning Board member Margaret Olson.

Resident Michael Coppock spoke against the measure, saying that 900 lumens (roughly equivalent to a 60-watt bulb) is inadequate for security lighting and that the rules may interfere with residents who wish to have lights shining upwards to illuminate the American flag on their property.

The new restrictions will not reduce the light pollution from nearby cities and highways, and it will take decades for it to produce a noticeable effect, Coppock added.

“This is yet another effort to insert government into personal decisions,” he said, “As government power expands, personal liberty contracts.”

Olson responded that those with flagpoles could follow the Girl Scouts’ example and simply lower their flags at dusk. “Philosophically, we all need to do what we can do to make the world a better place,” she added.

Resident Vincent Cannistraro agreed with Coppock, saying that “60 watts is not enough to do it in most cases” and that officials should not hinder a resident’s ability “to express patriotic loyalty and affection” by illuminating a flag at night.

Resident Adam Greenberg proposed that the meeting table the motion because it “has too many holes in it.” Another resident agreed, saying the specifics of the proposal were “arbitrary and ill-conceived.” In response, resident Sara Mattes urged passage of the rules. “Here is an opportunity to move forward with something that’s common sense. If it creates a problem, we can go back and tweak it later,” she said.

Town moderator Sarah Cannon Holden called for a voice vote on a motion to pass over the article, but the result was inconclusive. A standing vote was 137-130 in favor of voting on the article as written.

Before the final vote was taken, Conservation Commission member Richard Selden argued in favor of the new rules on the grounds that excessively bright outdoor lighting is harmful to wildlife. Certain types of outdoor lighting can interfere with migratory bird behavior and fertility, as well as the behavior of nocturnal predators and their prey.

To be approved, the article to amend the lighting regulations required a two-thirds majority, and a voice vote was again inconclusive. A second standing vote resulted in 161 votes in favor and 133 against, so the measure did not pass.