The Town of Lincoln, MA - Minutes

Dave Burke, wetlands resource specialist, Josh Grindlay, homeowner, Buzz Constable, president of the Lincoln Land Conservation Trust and Doug Adams, architect attended the public hearing. The Commission conducted a site visit with Dave Burke and Josh Grindlay on March 17, 2009 during which they reviewed the areas of cutting that took place without permission from the Conservation Commission or Land Trust. They reviewed the placement of 36 stakes which were previously installed by Dave Burke to represent locations for proposed tree plantings and they discussed the cutting of several large trees adjacent to the north side of the house, three of which were located within the Buffer Zone Resource Area and cleared without permission.

At the beginning of the public hearing, Doug Adams requested permission from both the Conservation Commission and Land Trust to repair an existing concrete block wall along the north side of the house with naturalized boulders and native plantings no closer to the Wetland Resource Area than the existing wall. Approximately 8 feet of the wall extends into the 100-foot Buffer Zone Resource Area and Conservation Restricted Area, however Mr. Adams proposed to install erosion control fencing along the perimeter of the work area and to stake the work area in the field with Conservation Staff and Buzz Constable prior to removal of the existing wall. The Commission agreed to this work with the requirement that Doug Adams work with Tom Gumbart and Buzz Constable to define the area and scope of work prior to any work on the wall. Doug Adams shall submit an As-Built plan with the new wall location and identification of native plantings installed to stabilize the soil between the boulders.

During the public meeting, Josh Grindlay, Dave Burke, Buzz Constable and the Commission walked through each planting area on the Conservation Remediation Base Plan dated February 16, 2009 to understand the proposed tree species, size and density as demarcated both on the plan and as staked in the field. All parties reviewed what new plantings were being proposed to restore the pre-existing landscape character of the property. The Commission plans to discuss a revised drawing delineating the changes made as a result of the comments in the field and from the hearing. The revised Remediation Plan will require review and a separate agreement by the Lincoln Land Conservation Trust with respect to the Conservation Restricted Area of the property. The following changes were discussed:

Planting Area E – The Remediation Plan shall be revised to depict 15 proposed trees as staked in the field. Trees that were proposed within the Wetland Resource Area on the plan dated February 16, 2009 shall be moved to the north and east and shall be evenly distributed throughout the entire planting area. Plants shall consist of 8 white pine trees each planted at 2” DBH, 7 white and red oak trees planted at 1.5” DBH, 1 witch hazel and 1 alternate-leaved dogwood each planted at 8’ tall Ball & Burlap. Except as specifically indicated, shrub and perennial plantings need not be added as part of the initial restoration installation, as natural re-growth should be sufficient to achieve 75% coverage by the end of the 5-year restoration period. The Conservation Commission will require an annual monitoring report with photographs and may require supplemental plantings if additional cover or stabilization is necessary or to control invasives that may emerge from newly disturbed areas.

Causway – The Commission noted that the site visit revealed 1 8” Elm that was removed along the causeway. They agreed that the entire causeway shall be managed for non-native, invasive plants by cutting these plants between 2 and 3 feet above the ground before they leaf out in the spring of 2009. The non-native invasives shall be re-cut flush with the ground and painted with rodeo in the fall of 2009. All native plants shall be flagged in the field with Conservation Staff prior to cutting and shall remain beyond the restoration period. The Causway shall be monitored and managed for non-native invasive plants for the duration of the 5-year restoration period and the Commission may require supplemental plantings if 75% coverage is not achieved with native re-growth.

Planting Area F - This is the most suitable area for planting with respect to soil and light conditions. The Area as defined on the February 16, 2009 plan shall contain 2 larch trees planted at 3” DBH, 1 red maple tree planted at 2” DBH, 1 tupelo tree planted at 3” DBH. The proposed plantings in the southwest area, adjacent to the boardwalk, shall be 3 winterberry (male & female) planted at 6’ tall Ball & Burlap. An additional area on the south side of the boardwalk, adjacent to the winterberries shall include 2 white oak trees planted at 5 Gallons.

Planting Area B – This area shall consist of 2 white oak trees, 3 red maple trees and 1 tupelo tree all planted at 1” DBH. Shrub and perennial plantings need not be added as part of the initial restoration installation, as natural re-growth should be sufficient to achieve 75% coverage by the end of the 5-year restoration period. The Conservation Commission will require an annual monitoring report with photographs and may require supplemental plantings if additional cover or soil stabilizations is necessary. This area should be managed for non-native, invasive plants in the same fashion as the Causway.

Planting Area A – This area shall be planted with 3 red maple trees at 2” DBH. One winterberry shall be planted at 8’ high Ball & Burlap and coppice growth on the 18” maple shall be allowed to grow through the duration of the restoration period. Once sufficient growth has been established, one strong sprout shall be maintained to continue growing and the others can be removed. Shrub and perennial plantings need not be added as part of the initial restoration installation, as natural re-growth should be sufficient to achieve 75% coverage by the end of the 5-year restoration period. The Conservation Commission will require an annual monitoring report with photographs and may require supplemental plantings if additional cover or soil stabilizations is necessary.

Dave Burke provided a summary of the enforcement timeline to date and completed restoration activities requested by the Commission including a wetland delineation, preparation of a surveyed base plan, removal of fill from the wetlands resource area, installation of sedimentation controls and seeding of disturbed areas. Dave Burke summarized the proposed wetland restoration activities as discussed during the February 18th hearing and as depicted on a Restoration Plan prepared by Columbia Design Group dated February 9, 2009. As detailed in the Notice of Intent application and depicted on an Existing Conditions Site Plan prepared by Snelling & Hamel Associates dated October 22, 2008, there were 4 ‘Areas of Impact’ which included dumping of 5 piles of soil in the Wetland Resource Area, cutting of non-native, invasive shrubs along Bank to Bordering Vegetated Wetland, cutting of fourteen 3-4” diameter trees and cutting of 16 mature red maple, black cherry and white pine trees within the Wetland Resource Area and within the 100-year floodplain. The Commission noted the proposal to plant 19 trees ranging from 5 gallons to 3” DBH in approximately the same areas where the original trees were cleared and to install several areas of native, wetland shrubs and perennials around the perimeter of the pond.

As requested during the February 18th hearing, the design team provided the Commission with a Property Master Plan prepared by Columbia Design Group dated March 17, 2009. The plan specified box culvert dimensions and invert elevations, path improvement details, anticipated future use of the cart path/road associated with animal-husbandry operations on a daily basis and a roadway sequence of construction. The plan did not specify bearing-use limitations or anticipated lifetime-maintenance requirements. During the hearing however, the design team expressed confidence that the upgraded road as proposed would last approximately 60 years and could handle the weight of a fire truck and vehicles required to construct a barn. Peter Gammie stated that he had experience with the performance of the Invisible Structure Paving System, but not in a directly comparable application. Tim Burke and Roy Cramer also had some experience with the Invisible Structure Paving System, primarily within subdivision applications and did acknowledge that it is a relatively new technology.

The Master Plan depicted two potential barn locations: Barn Option 1 located on the east side of the back property, outside the 100-foot Buffer Zone Resource Area and Barn Option 2 located on the west side of the back property within the 50-foot Buffer Zone Resource Area. The Commission reminded the applicant and design team that construction of a barn would require a separate Notice of Intent filing if located within the 100-foot Buffer Zone Resource Area. They expressed sentiment that the Commission would likely deny the construction of a barn within the 50-foot Buffer Zone Resource Area as it would result in significant adverse impacts to the Wetland and Buffer Zone Resource Areas. The Commission noted the proposal of a well associated with each barn option as an alternative to the proposed 5-foot deep water line trenched below the cart path/road from the existing house through the Wetland and Buffer Zone Resource Areas. Peter Conrad is an abutter to the property and stated that he dug a well on his property and found water approximately 300 feet down. The Commission noted a change from the original proposal to replace a corrugated metal culvert which was crushed during the un-permitted clearing activities with a 10” round concrete pipe installed at the same invert elevations as the existing culvert. They also noted the proposal to replace existing barbed-wire fence with paddock fencing in approximately the same location around the perimeter of the existing fields.

Jim Meadors chaired the meeting and reviewed the responsibilities of the Commission in making a determination on the project. He reviewed the interests of the Wetlands Protection Act and Wetland Protection Bylaw, summarized the decision process and reminded the applicant and design team that the Commission would be looking to understand whether there were suitable alternatives which would result in less impact to the Wetland and Buffer Zone Resource Areas. Several Commissioners expressed concern that the proposed upgrades would result in the conversion of an existing, seasonal-use cart path to a full-service road directly through a Wetland Resource Area. They were concerned that the existing cart path would result in a significant increase in width of the road, use, infrastructure and chemical inputs associated with required maintenance. They expressed concern that these increases would, in turn, result in significant adverse impacts to wildlife habitat and migration, water quality and flood control. Jim Henderson expressed concern with the proposed road construction and resultant temporary and permanent impacts to the resource area. He requested additional information regarding material storage and stockpile areas, volumes of materials to be removed and replaced, additional sequencing information, and information relating to existing and proposed road base as it relates to the movement of groundwater across the site. The Commission questioned whether or not they were able to restrict the future use of the road through the Order of Conditions, through a Deed Restriction or through a Conservation Restriction and it was determined that they needed to base their decision on the proposal before them with respect to the interests of the Act and Bylaw.

Peter Conrad and other neighbors expressed concern that the back fields would become a storage area for parking trucks and other landscape or construction equipment. They expressed concern that the Commission would not have further review of a project if it was proposed outside the 100-foot Buffer Zone Resource Area. The Commission reminded the neighbors that the Planning Board would have site plan review if a building was proposed in the back property.

Dave Burke, wetlands resource specialist; Peter Gammie, engineer; Tim Burke, architect; and Roy Cramer, attorney represented Mr. and Mrs. Gutierrez with a plan to renovate an existing house within the 100-foot Buffer Zone Resource Area at 16 Old Sudbury Road in Lincoln. The referenced plan entitled, Conservation Submission Site Plan prepared by Columbia Design Group, LLC dated March 5, 2009 was previously approved by the Lincoln Historical Commission and still requires Site Plan Review from the Lincoln Planning Board. The proposed house uses much of the existing foundation and will result in a net decrease of 101 square feet of impervious area, with the existing impervious area totaling 6,508 square feet and the proposed impervious area totaling 6,407 square feet. The primary decrease in impervious area is the result of a new, porous paving and stormwater infiltration system. Stormwater on the site currently drains toward the wetlands as sheet flow. The proposed design captures and infiltrates all stormwater runoff for a 2"-24 hour storm through a porous paving and crushed stone driveway, cultec infiltration chambers and a crushed stone infiltration area. The closest point of permanent disturbance is 13' from the Wetland Resource Area with all new building areas located farther from the Wetland Resource Area than previously existed. The Commission was pleased with the applicant’s proposal to work within the general footprint of the existing development. They recognized the constraints of the property and were pleased with the careful attention to capturing and infiltrating stormwater before it enters the wetland resource areas on the property. Provided that a detailed septic system is designed within the approximate limits as depicted on the Conservation Submission Site Plan and approved by the Board of Health, no additional wetlands permitting is necessary. The Commission would appreciate written notification once septic system approval from the Board of Health is received.

The applicant submitted a plan to replace an existing, single-car 400 square-foot garage with a two-car 756 square-foot garage (356 square-foot increase) with the closest point being approximately 69 feet from the Wetland Resource Area. The proposed location is required due to constraints on the site including the location of the existing septic system, preferred use of the existing driveway and garage location, and wetlands wraping around the back of the property. Mitigation proposed includes a stone drip edge around the perimeter of the new garage to capture and infiltrate stormwater, cobbles and a stone drip edge along the edges of the new driveway and native plantings between the garage and Wetland Resource Area. The proposed plan was previously approved by the Historic District Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals.

Chris Bibbo, DPW Director and John Vancore from CEI presented a preliminary overview of the Notice of Intent filing that will be before the Commission on April 1, 2009. The filing is associated with the Town Road Reconstruction Project and specifically includes the replacement and/or repair of five culverts on Trapelo Road, Baker Bridge Road and Concord Road. The headwall associated with the culvert on Trapelo Road (near the intersection of Minebrook Road) will be rebuilt within the existing footprint and will be one of the first projects to be done. A 15” corrugated metal culvert will be replaced as a preventative maintenance measure at Trapelo Rd. and Stratford Way and will be within the limits of existing pavement. Also, the culvert on Baker Bridge Road will be a direct replacement within the limits of the existing pavement. Two culverts along Concord will be replaced. The culvert near the gas station will require approximately 40 square feet of wetland alteration to allow for an extended pipe to eliminate the need for a guard rail and to reduce sediment loads into the Wetland Resource Area. The culvert at the Beaver Dam Book crossing will be a direct replacement, but the area will also incorporate 40 square feet of wetlands replication to mitigate for the impact at the gas station culvert. The replication work will include the removal of soil (mostly accumulated sediments from road runoff) to establish wetland hydrology and planting of native wetland plants. The Commission requested that they make sure the crossings meet the MA stream crossing standards and explore whether open box culverts can be installed in any of the proposed locations to allow for wildlife passage under the roads.