land use

Upcoming public hearings

The Lincoln Conservation Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, May 18 at 7:45 p.m., in the Lincoln Town Offices in response to the duly filed Notice of Intent by Christopher Boit for restoration of wetland and buffer zone resource areas at 61 Bedford Road.

The Lincoln Planning Board will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, May 24 in the Town Offices to review an application from the Town of Lincoln, 58 Codman Road for extension of a fence under Section 18.5 of the Zoning Bylaw. The Historic District Commission will also hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 7 at 7:30 p.m. in the Donaldson Room to consider the town’s application to replace the existing fence and extend it to the stone wall at Codman Farm.

The Zoning Board of the Appeals will hold a public hearing on Thursday, June 2 at 7:30 p.m. at the Town Offices to hear and to act on the following petitions under the Zoning Bylaws:

• Renewal of a special permit for an accessory apartment, section 14.3 of the bylaws:
  • Mary Alice Williamson, 15 Conant Road
  • Christopher S. Boit, 61 Bedford Road
  • Philip Greenspun, 10 Beaver Pond Road
  • Julia and Sylvia Altman, 5 Boyce Farm Road
  • Johan and Laura Pontin, 19 Bedford Road
  • James E. Nicholson, 14 Meadowdam Road
  • Kathleen Corkins, 18 Baker Bridge Road
• Joe and Dana Robbat, 151 Old Concord Road, for amendment to the original special permit for an accessary apartment.
• Seth and Lisa Rosen, 53 Bedford Road, to replace existing porch with a mud room and an enclosed porch.
• Mayer Tree, 9-13 Lewis Street, to modify and transfer the original special permit.

Property sales

• 170 Sandy Pond Road — Charles B. Dolan Trust to Eric Mazur for $1,600,000 (April 20)
• 28 Lincoln R0ad — Addison Parks to Zachary and Elisabeth Herbert for $815,500 (April 21)
• 135 Weston Road — James Lintott Trust to Rachel and Jonathan Drew for $1,975,000 (April 1)
• 216 Aspen Circle — Ilya Staroselsky to Michelle and Allison Seliger-Schamberg for $505,000 (April 22)
• 4 Hawk Hill Road — Gunnar Evermann to Gunnar Evermann for $1,800,000 (April 7)

After hearing from two attorneys and dozens of angry Bypass Road residents who packed the Donaldson Room, the Planning Board decided on Tuesday night that the McLean Hospital proposal for an educational therapeutic residence on Bypass Road should go to a public hearing because the new use of the property does not constitute a minor change to its previously approved site plan.

A storm of controversy arose after the plan to house up to 12 young men aged 15-21 at 22 Bypass Road became known to residents in the area. About 18 of those residents have hired Boston attorney Michael Fee, who argued on their behalf at Tuesday’s meeting. The issue before the board was whether adding striping for 20 parking spaces on existing pavement near the house constituted a minor or major change to the site plan that was approved when the five-bedroom, 7,000-square-foot house was built in 2014.

Although the shift from private home to educational facility also constitutes a change of use, the town may not prohibit this use under state law that allows exemptions for educational and religious facilities, in the opinion of town attorney Joel Bard.

Patients at the facility will be young men with a history of anxiety and depression but would not be “court-mandated or have histories of significant assault,” said Dr. Philip Levandusky, McLean’s senior vice president for business development and communications. They will not be allowed outside the building without a staff member, and at least two staff members will be on site and awake at all times, he said. The facility will be staffed with a full-time program director, psychiatrist and nurse as well as several counselors.

During stays of two to four months, patients will participate in “a highly structured psychoeducational model” involving dialectic behavioral therapy, learning skills for healthy self-expression and self-esteem, Levandusky said.

Planning Board chair Margaret Olson noted before taking comments that McLean does not propose changing the exterior of the building or the location of the driveway, so “this is consistent with what we have called minor in the past,” she said. “However, it is just the very beginning of the process around this property” that will require Board of Health approval for its septic system, a certificate of occupancy and a public safety review.

The board was permitted to consider only traffic and parking issues as they affect the intersections with Bypass Road, Olson said. Nonetheless, DIrector of Planning and Land Use Jennifer Burney noted that the proposed use for the property is “more intense than [was] anticipated” when the site plan review for the single-family home was done.

“What’s being proposed is a fundamentally different use with a fundamentally different impact on the neighborhood. [Other houses] don’t have 25 people and 20 cars every single day,” Fee said. “Lighting, noise, screening—all of these are in play here. This is your jurisdiction and your function.”

A one-lane private paved driveway serves the two adjacent properties targeted by McLean as well as several other houses, and neighbors worried about the traffic impact on the roadway and at the two intersections with Bypass Road.

Planning Board member Gary Taylor asked Bard if the property would still be considered residential if people were living there for two to four months. “In my opinion, it is. It’s a hybrid use,” Bard replied, provoking “No!”s and derisive laughter from some members of the audience.

Bypass Road resident Ernest Mrakovich asked the board to do a traffic study at the two intersections, saying the volume of cars on the private road has already increased since the plan was announced. Dr. Steve Kanner of 12 Bypass Road agreed, adding concerns (echoed by other residents) about headlights shining into their homes at the 11 p.m. shift change.

“We’re kidding ourselves if we think there won’t be major traffic problems,” Kanner said. “It’s a dangerous situation.”

The fact that the facility will be locked is “a direct admission there is danger there,” said Don McCarthy, who lives on Brooks Road just east of the property. Voicing the frustration of many in attendance, he said to the board, “we can’t ask [McLean] questions but you don’t ask them anything. Nothing!” which prompted a caution from Planning Board member Steve Gladstone to “keep it in a civil manner.”

“You’re trying not to take this problem on, and I think that’s what we’re frustrated with,” said Brooks Road resident Kimo Tam.

Several residents asked the board to conduct a site walk to see the roadway and parking situation first-hand, claiming the turning radius for cars was insufficient. Judging by a sketch of the plans, “it appears as though [parked cars] are like this,” Mrakovich said, holding his hands a few inches apart. Former longtime Planning Board member Bob Domnitz, who was also in the audience, also predicted that McLean would come back with a future request for more pavement.

When site plans are approved, they normally have conditions attached to satisfy neighbors’ concerns, Domnitz said. “The mitigation package was predicated on residential use. I think we would have come up with a totally different mitigation package if we knew this was a proposed use,” he said.

“It feels as a resident that Lincoln has cut us off,” Mrakovich said, alluding to the disruptions from the nearby Route 2 project as well as other similar home-based facilities for disturbed or disabled residents in the area. “Please look at this as a town-wide situation.”

“I understand there is fear but I don’t know what it’s based on,” said Sharon Antia, the only attendee who defended the proposal. “The facts are that people with mental health issues issues are no more dangerous than people without.”

But this did not reassure Linda Kanner (Steven’s wife), who said her daughter would be reluctant to bring her grandchildren to visit. “There are 30 kids connected by that meadow” behind Bypass Road, she said. “It frightens me what we can’t protect.”

After a brief discussion, the Planning Board determined via unanimous vote that McLean’s proposal did not constitute a minor change and that a public hearing would be scheduled. They also schedule a site visit for Sunday, May 29.

When board member Lynn DeLisi asked whether the board could negate the previous site plan and require a new one, Olson noted that Bard would look into this and other issues and have more answers at the public hearing.