The Town of Lincoln, MA - Minutes

The applicant, represented by Diana Thomas, proposed landscaping activities in a backyard located within a wetland buffer zone including: (1) the removal of an elevated asphalt-surface patio (18' x 20') and the construction of a new ground-level patio (18' x 30'), composed of bluestone pavers set on crushed stone and stone dust base, that will contain a 7 sq. ft. concrete pad for a portable hot tub; (2) the repair of a deteriorating raised-bed wooden planter located about 40' from the wetland with mortared NE fieldstone construction; (3) the removal of approximately 1,000 sq. ft. of maintained lawn lying between the patio and woodland and subsequent planting of the area with native plant species. In a frontyard area located within the 100' buffer zone the applicant proposes: (1) removing existing plantings and replacing them with native species suited to site conditions; (2) replacing about 750 sq. ft. of maintained lawn with ground covers.

In the future the applicant may want to put a small addition and deck on the house on the pond side. The Commission acknowledges that the applicant under this filing will undertake considerable improvements to the buffer zone that are over and above that which is normally comensurate with a project of this type. The Commission voted 6-0 to issue a negative Determination of Applicability allowing work to proceed.

Fred Tingley attended the meeting for Valley Pond Corporation and Marc Bellaud, Aquatic Control Technology, attended as the biologist for the proposed work. They reviewed that the pond is emptied in winter and refilled in the spring and the bottom is raked and shoveled in the off-season. Four or five treatments of buffered alum are done each swim season to strip phosphorus and algae from the water column. This is necessary for maintaining proper water clarity to meet public swimming guidelines (4 feet of clarity required). In the past they tried introducing zooplankton to eat the algae but this was not successful. Each treatment uses approximately 500 pounds of alum which is mixed with water to make a slurry. When this is spread it creates a floc that removes the algae and phosphorus when it sinks to the bottom. Soda ash is also applied to buffer the acidic properties of the alum and keep the pH unchanged. This treatment is only done in the one-acre swimming area that is about 6 feet deep.

Bill Jackson, Tom Scott, Garrett Tunison, and an engineer from GPR (Calvin) attended on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Tunison reviewed mitigation that is proposed for the roadway project. They put together a stormwater management plan for the parking lot at MM Tech to improve the quality of stormwater runoff. They proposed blocking the drainage to the vernal pool that lies to the southeast of the work site to prevent potentially sediment-laden stormwater from reaching the pool. At the athletic field to the east of the vernal pool is a drainage channel the needs improvement. They proposed stabilizing the soils along this channel and installing a small stone wing dam between the field and the vernal pool to disperse the flow, allowing sediments to settle out and minimizing any erosion on the slope to the pool. In addition the applicant proposed to remove the existing road crossing that lies to the north of the subject project. This will restore open water flow and expose the stream banks. These proposals represent additional mitigation over and above the replication that is required for the alteration within the stream channel. The wetlands replication will be planted with herbaceous plants to mimic the plant community that currently exists in the channel.

The project engineer discussed construction and drainage. A 42" culvert will be installed to allow flow within the intermittent stream and this will have concrete wingwalls. Two shallow detention basins will pickup runoff from the road. The main basin will be at the lowest elevation and will be within the buffer zone. The groundwater is high in this area and so the basin needs to be large to provide for proper infiltration. Pre and post-construction runoff volumes remain the same.

The Commission discussed the proposed mitigation and decided that the closure of the drainage connection to the vernal pool would not be a good idea. Based on field observation it appears that this drainage rarely, if ever, discharges into the vernal pool and that additional work in this area may not be an improvement. The Commission discussed with the applicant that there would be language in the Order of Conditions requiring them to submit draft Stormwater Management Plans for both MM Tech and for the EDCO portion of the project for approval by the Commission. In addition, input will be sought from the Cambridge Water Department because all of the drainage ultimately ends up in their Hobbs Brook Reservoir.

The applicant, Ken Eisner of Countryside Building Corporation, presented the plans for a teardown of an existing structure and construction of a new single-family home on this property. The demolition permit was obtained from the Historical Commission. The topography between the proposed home and the wetlands is moderately steep and the house has been located to keep it on the highest and flattest point of land. The home is pushed against the 50-foot zoning setbacks from the roadside and the northern side lot line. The closest the physical structure is to the wetland area is 70 feet and the home is oriented so that it is a corner that is this close and not a whole side of the home. The impervious footprint within the outer 50-foot buffer zone is approximately the same as that of structure that is being removed. No alteration is proposed within the inner 50-foot buffer zone. The septic system lies outside of the buffer zone and will not require the felling of big trees. Mr. Eisner is willing to add additional screening as needed. The Commission discussed that this will be discussed with the Planning Board hearing.

The lot is 4.6 acres is size and the entire house, driveway, grading, septic etc. is pushed into the northeast corner of the lot and the overall footprint of disturbance is relatively small. The Commission approves of this project as shown but has serious concerns over the long-term protection of the wetlands and undisturbed buffer zone on the parcel of land. Future owners may want to expand the home, clear more trees, plant additional lawn or otherwise alter protected areas. This can happen as part of one large project or by incremental creep down the slope over the years. The Commission wants to ensure that when a home like this is built, that has very tight constraints on how it fits with the regulations and landscape, that all owners are aware of the wetland resource issues associated with the property and that these are respected now and well into the future. With the wetlands protection bylaw's new buffer zone regulations the Commission can require an applicant to execute a deed restriction that will be recorded at the Registry of Deeds in the chain of title of the subject property. This will serve to always put new owners on notice of how the presence of wetland resource areas affects management of the property. After a Certificate of Compliance is issued Orders of Conditions are buried in the Registry and permanent restrictions are effectively lost. This mechanism of using the Deed Restriction will help both the Commission in properly administering the State and local wetlands laws but will also help future buyers avoid costly violations of these laws. Such a Deed Restriction must be executed on this property.

Sam Perkins read the prepared statement regarding use of the ½ acre piece of land at Red Rail Farm that is owned by Gustav and Nicolette Beerel and that has a "common easement" on it running to the Conservation Commission and the Beerels. Kim Johnson has used this piece of land for part of his commercial agricultural operation for many years. This document is available at the Conservation Office and will not be reiterated here.

Mr. Beerel disputed that the fact that the land has been used exclusively as a paddock over the years. His research indicates that although horses have been on the land for many years, it is a more recent development to paddock horses within the area. He discussed that the Beerel's and the Town have common rights to the area and that neither can exclude the other but that the management must be governed by the Conservation Restriction language. What is in dispute is whether or not paddocking is acceptable (the language mentions pasturing not paddocking) and whether or not the Town can lease the easement area. An option proposed by the Commission is to physically split the easement area in half but Mr. Beerel said that legal counsel says there is no legal right to do that. He views the site as not soundly managed; there is ponding of water, compaction of soils, damage and death to trees, odors, and unsightly conditions. His advice from individuals experienced with horses says that even 2 horses cannot be sustained on a ½ acre plot.

Mr. Johnson said that horses were never only confined in the ½ acre paddock but rather over a larger area. He acknowledges that the land is low and poorly drained but that this is its historic condition and that is why it was left for horses and not used for hay production. He also knows that a ½ acre cannot support horses that are being pastured but that hay and grain are brought in to feed the horses and keeping them off the entire field lets the larger field remain healthy and productive. When conditions are right the horses can graze the larger field but at times they cannot, such as when Japanese beetle larvae seriously impact the grasses.

Mr. Johnson also said that the hemlock trees have long been in decline, they are old trees and they have been impacted by the wooly adelgid. He said that the site has always been in active use and has not been a beautiful pastoral setting but a working farm. Also he noted that the easement was essentially a swap for ½ acre of prime garden land that lies to the east of the Beerel's property. The Town owns this land but the Beerel's hold an exclusive easement for the use of that land. Mr. Johnson said that John Quincy Adams told him that the paddock goes with the big field and the house goes with the garden area.

Mr. Beerel said he believes the land was managed better in the past. In addition to what he previously mentioned he discussed that the fencing and horse shed were in disrepair. He believes the entire field, not just the paddock area, is not being properly managed. Mr. Johnson strongly disagreed with this belief. He said it might not look like what the Beerel's want but that the land is healthy and well managed. Jim Henderson discussed that the area needs to be looked at as a "commons" and he believes that the Commission cannot solve the issue. There needs to be give and take on both sides. He agrees that the sustainability of activities on the land is a major issue.

Mr. Johnson said that a lot more biomass has been brought in to the site than has been taken out over the years. He is concerned if the low spot is filled it will cause runoff onto other field areas that currently do not have drainage problems. The possibility of dry wells to provide drainage was discussed. This option may provide some relief from standing water but unless the area is fully vegetated the fine particulate matter from the soil will fill the wells in over time rendering them ineffective. Mr. Johnson suggested that one option would be to fence off the wet area of ponding and let it naturally revegetate. Probably the biggest question is whether or not the site should remain as a paddock after restoration.

Mary Lincoln discussed that the Commission has a mandate from the Town to preserve agriculture and that frequently a working farm is not aesthetically pleasing to all but farms are designed to be functional. She said the Beerel's purchased the property with the knowledge of how the land is used and that Red Rail Farm surrounds their land. It is not reasonable to expect Mr. Johnson to make major changes to his commercial operation. Mr. Johnson said that there are really only two options for the horses, concentrate them in one area or spread them out over a large area.

At this time the Commission is in general consensus that the ½ acre paddock has been subjected to heavy use and needs a management plan that will allow the site some period of rest. However, they want to make sure Mr. Johnson is able to continue a viable agricultural enterprise. How this should happen needs more discussion. There was agreement to have another on-site visit to see conditions in the field and to discuss the issue. This meeting at Red Rail Farm is scheduled for Tuesday March 4^th.

Tim Higgins, Mark Whitehead, and Tom Gumbart have been researching town bylaws and regulations and other mechanisms for water conservation in Lincoln. At the February 23^rd Selectmen's meeting there was discussion of the results of this research and it is likely that after the conclusion of this year's Town Meeting there will be a committee formed to explore the available options.