Lincoln Conservation Commission
MINUTES
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Lincoln Town Offices
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Toby Feibelman, Elizabeth Frumkin, Jim Henderson, David Katsuki, Mary Lincoln (chair) & Sara Silverstein. STAFF: Tom Gumbart.
WETLAND FILINGS
Public Hearing - Notice of Intent: Robert & Sarah Marcotte for a home addition at 119 Cambridge Turnpike in Lincoln (Map 29-Block 7-Lot 0).
The applicants, Robert & Sarah Marcotte, presented their project at the public hearing. They propose to construct a garage addition to an existing single family home. The addition lies within the 100-foot buffer zone and one corner just lies within the 50-foot buffer zone. Approximately 400 square feet of new driveway will be located within the 50-foot buffer zone in an area that is currently lawn. This is an existing house lot that is very constrained by site conditions. Wetlands wrap around the eastern and northern edges of the property, the recently replaced septic system lies behind the house, and the lot is one acre in size. The proposed location works with the house layout and will not require extensive grading and just one tree needs to be removed. Other
locations would require more grading and more tree removal.
The applicants will undertake mitigation by removing approximately twice as much existing pavement as will be installed. The pavement proposed for removal all lies within the buffer zone and most of it is within 50 feet of the wetlands. The Commission decided that with proper sedimentation controls, containment of work, and the removal of pavement, the project would not adversely impact the wetland resources.
The Commission voted 6-0 to close the public hearing.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
106 South Great Road Conservation Restriction & Wetland Issues
Matt Trombadore and Joanne Wood own this property. Tree and brush clearing
activities triggered review of the terms of the CR that is jointly held by the Town and by the LLCT, with the Town being the primary enforcer of the restriction. Matt Trombadore attended the discussion along with Fred Paulsen, his attorney, and Curtis Young, his wetlands consultant. Dwight Gertz and Buzz Constable attended on behalf of the LLCT and Chris Klem attended. Mr. Klem worked on the CR during while he was chair of the Conservation Commission. Mr. Paulsen started the discussion by saying that Mr. Trombadore and Ms. Wood received the letter from Mary Lincoln and the Commission regarding the activities on the subject property. He said there are CR issues and wetlands issues to resolve. He said that the areas affected by wetlands regulations are in the buffer zone and that they
anticipate filing a Notice of Intent to the Commission for the work that was done and any newly proposed activities.
Curtis Young said that the site plan with topography and wetlands delineations was just completed and the field buffer zone markings clearly showed work was done in this zone. He said that 10.82 acres of the lot are under the CR and 9.78 are unrestricted. The initial cutting happened in the fall of 2002 and Tom Gumbart met with Mr. Trombadore and Mr. Young on the property during the winter following this work and substantial snow was on the ground. At this point it was agreed that no further cutting would occur within the estimated buffer zone area and the owner would have the wetlands delineation that was done by Mr. Young shown on a plan to see just where the 100-foot buffer zone line was. At that time it was seen as a wetlands issue not a CR issue. Most of the CR land lies on the front and the rear sections of the property and these areas had not been affected. On a fall 2003 site visit to look at the buffer zone area with Mr. Gumbart, Mr. Trombadore, and Mr. Young
it was apparent and acknowledged that tree and shrub clearing had occurred within the 75-foot CR strip that runs along the western property edge. Another site visit occurred in February of 2004 with William Munroe, arborist working on the property, and several of the Commissioners. Issues associated with the CR strip work and the buffer zone clearing were discussed at this time.
Mary Lincoln said that a good starting point for interpreting the CR is to look at definitions of the words in the CR, starting with "forest". Mr. Paulsen then distributed a marked up CR and clarified that cutting only occurred in the 75-foot strip and not in the back of the property. He said that the language in the CR has an exception for the selective cutting of vistas. A question he posed to the Commission is does the work in the 75-foot zone fall within the exemptions or not. He views the CR as flexible, the environment is not static. Ms. Lincoln discussed that "open" as used in the CR means open space not cleared land. Mr. Klem also stated that "open and natural" is used in MA general laws and it can
include fields and forests. Ms. Lincoln said that the relevant time frame for the CR is when the CR was signed. Even if the site was cleared historically it was not meant to be converted from forest into field. The dictionary definition of forest says it is dense and has shrubs, trees, and a canopy. Therefore removal of underbrush and leaves and some trees does not maintain a forest. Mr. Paulsen said that an exception in the CR allows for piles of brush and said that implies you can remove vegetation.
At this point Mr. Trombadore said that no ill intent was meant with the work undertaken. He and others spent considerable time reviewing the language of the CR and he believes that the work was within the scope of the CR. Mr. Gertz described that the LLCT is responsible for many CRs in Town and each one is a little different. He said that the preamble in the CRs is not meant to be guidance or a provision of what is allowed or not on the subject property. The history of the land as a farm is not particularly relevant and he believes the clearing is indeed a violation. Mr. Constable mentioned that CR monitoring efforts during the summer of 2003 showed that clearing had taken place on CR land. Mr. Trombadore said that lots of trees were left
intact in the CR area, it was not completely cleared. Mr. Paulsen said that it is the hard language in the CR that counts and it does include vistas. His client wants to see the stonewall at the property edge and vistas are defined as a distant view. Ms. Lincoln countered that the vistas referred to in the CR are existing vistas at the time the CR was executed, not new vistas. Mr. Klem said that preserving views and vistas for this CR is preserving them for users on the public land at Mt. Misery, not preserving the private view.
There was discussion that softwoods, deadwood, and the understory was removed. The natural condition of the area is mixed woodland. Mr. Constable is very familiar with the site because he was a potential buyer of the lot and walked it several times before it was sold. Before the clearing the view to the house from Mt. Misery was very obscure and now it is very open. Mr. Trombadore said that the steep slope down to the trail means trail users cannot see the house anyways. Mr. Constable is very concerned with the changed ecology of the site and the potential for exotic invasive plants to become established. He believes the site needs screening plantings and ongoing management to prevent invasives from taking hold. Mr. Trombadore then
said he wants to hay and/or mow within the 75-foot strip.
Jim Henderson said that as a life-long resident he recalls that the trail below the cleared area used to be dark and cool now a lot of sunlight penetrates to the trail. He has concerns that the change in light regime will negatively impact the ecological community. The closed canopy and understory are missing now and there is a need to restore what was taken out. The site needs to be kept wild, dead trees and limbs are fine and belong in the landscape. The CR is about a larger area, it helps protect Mt. Misery as a whole. Trees have also been fertilized in the CR and Mr. Trombadore would like to cable others. There was discussion about agricultural considerations being included in the CR. The Commission and LLCT position is that it is
boilerplate language in all State-approved CRs and this particular property was never intended to become agricultural land.
Mr. Paulsen said that the issue now is how to come to consensus and he asked Mr. Young to discuss his thoughts. He said that one of the owner's goals is to have a scenic stonewall vista and does not believe significant ecological damage will result from the cutting that has been done. Sara Silverstein said that the CR language serves as the guidance to the Commission about what can or cannot happen on the property. She believes that the vistas mentioned were clearly the present vistas and not new ones. In addition, she disagrees about the ecological change. A simple regrowth of trees does not recreate the forest. Ms. Lincoln concurred that there is much more to the forest such as mosses, liverworts, and fungi that change with different land
use scenarios. Mr. Trombadore stated that the 75-foot strip was never densely vegetated but was always navigable. Mr. Paulsen wondered if the Commission and LLCT would be amenable to allowing new plantings, mowing, and maintenance of a limited vista with no new cutting of trees. Elizabeth Frumkin said that mowing would compromise the original intent of the CR. Mr. Constable said there was not much undergrowth in past and maybe a planting plan could be put in place to inhibit invasives and allow the area to regenerate. Mr. Gertz said that any planting plan needs to be consistent with donor intent. If an agreement is reached it is essential that it is acknowledged that the plan is indeed in line with donor intent.
Mr. Young said a planting plan could be implemented to reestablish canopy and in the interim understory maintenance will be periodically needed. Mr. Henderson said that a plan needs to be presented to the two grantee organizations for review. Mr. Klem said that the intent of the donor in regards to vistas was "you don't see me and I don't see you". He agrees that something needs to happen but he does not view the CR language as wishy-washy. The intent is clear and let's not make a decision or bargain with the owner now. We need to get a plan submitted to the groups. Mr. Young said that they are not trying to make a deal to preserve the vista to the wall and Mr. Klem responded that there is not a right to a vista. Ms.
Silverstein reiterated that the CR is for the facts and they should not be reinterpreted with every new owner. Mr. Paulsen responded that the CR is not clear and Mr. Klem strongly disagreed. He does not believe that it is at all vague.
Considerable discussion then occurred about how restoration could occur on the property. The owner agreed to work on restoration plans and Mr. Young agreed to be in touch with Mr. Gumbart by June 2nd regarding their planning efforts for future work in the CR strip and the buffer zone. They will file a Notice of Intent to allow for fall planting.
LLCT Invasive Species School Programs
Sean Hale and Tom Gumbart worked with the five classes along with LLCT and parent volunteers. The programs were very successful and the students enjoyed the learning and did a great job with the actual field work.
Apple Meadow Farm Cluster Plans, 118 Lexington Road
The Commission reviewed the latest set of plans that had been submitted to the Planning Board. The Commission already submitted comments on the proof plan for this cluster subdivision to the Planning Board and asked Tom Gumbart to work with Mark Whitehead, Town Planner, as the plans evolve to ensure wetlands interests are protected.
ACTION ITEMS
Group Use Permit Issued - Wild Women Outfitters - for Mt. Misery Nature Walk.
Payroll was signed.
Respectfully submitted,
Tom Gumbart
| 
