The Town of Lincoln, MA - Minutes

Jamie Atkins attended the hearing to present the landscaping plans for her property. Gail Alden is the landscape designer who developed the plan but she was not at the meeting. On the submitted landscaping plan there was a stone wall shown along the western edge of the house and this is no longer being considered. A portion of that wall extended into the 50-foot buffer zone resource area.

A bluestone terrace of approximately 400 sq. ft. is proposed to the rear of the house with polymer joints between the stones. The polymer is impervious and since the terrace is within the buffer zone the ConCom wants the terrace to be permeable so stormwater can infiltrate directly into the ground. There was discussion of the best way to accomplish this, including: eliminating the polymer joints, using sand instead of stone dust, and installing an appropriate stone base. Any grading associated with the work needs to be shown on the plan or discussed in a narrative. Short stone walkways exit from the patio area and these are proposed to be placed on the existing native soil and not a prepped base. The walkway from Sandy Pond Road to the front door is currently shown on the plan as bluestone; however, Jamie Atkins is willing to switch this to a brick and sand walkway with its enhanced infiltration capability. The ConCom is in support of this change.

There is a new pullout proposed in the front of the house along the driveway, just large enough for one car to turn around. Construction details are needed for what this surface will be. There is also a path between the garage and the house and the ConCom also needs details for this. All of the roof runoff is connected to dry wells for infiltration, thus eliminating any potential surface drainage problems associated with this source of runoff.

The applicant is willing to provide additional construction details on the patio, stone walkways (if not on native soil), brick entrance walk, path between garage and house, and driveway turnaround for discussion at the next hearing. This information needs to include the square footage of each component of the landscaping other than plantings (i.e. walks, patio, pullout). David and Gerry Lattimore attended the hearing and submitted a written document dated June 24, 2009 listing their concerns with the proposal. Gerry Lattimore read the document and then discussed her desire to keep views open to the field from her home and from the roadway. The Conservation Restriction on the field portion of the property requires it to remain open agricultural land; it cannot be converted into lawn. Tom Gumbart will copy and distribute the written comments from the Lattimores to each Commissioner.

Paul Lazay and Kathy Huber, the owners, and Carter Williams, their architect, attended the hearing and presented their plan. The new house will be located almost entirely on the existing footprint of the house to be torn down. All of this is well outside of the 100-foot buffer zone resource area but this construction site will be enclosed with a sedimentation barrier.

The work that is proposed within the buffer zone is construction of a new driveway and removal of a tennis court. The driveway will, in part, be installed using pervious paving. In addition, the driveway will be pitched so that the runoff goes to the upland side of the driveway and is captured and infiltrated using recharge trenches. The new curb cut site is based on the topography, an entrance further north on Sandy Pond Road would require more extensive earthwork, whereas the proposed layout is essentially on the existing grade. The buffer zone in this area is created by a small farm pond that lies immediately to the west of the roadway. When the pond was dug the spoils were placed along the roadway, thus creating a significant berm that keeps any stormwater from the road away from the pond.

The asphalt tennis court is partially located in the buffer zone. Vehicular access to the court will be from the upland, northern end. After removal the area will be restored to its natural grade and seeded with a native grass and wildflower mix. The project will result in a net decrease in paved impervious surface, both for the entire property and for the areas located within the buffer zone. In addition, stormwater will be captured in a 3,000 gallon recovery system for outdoor watering use. An engineered infiltration field will accommodate stormwater that is in excess of the recovery system.

This hearing was attended by Josh and Sandy Grindlay (property owners), Dave Burke (wetlands consultant), and Whitney Beals as an observer. Jim Meadors started with an introduction as to where we are at with this issue. He said that the ConCom could close the hearing tonight but that we would not have deliberations since no LLCT member was present. All along we have working to come up with a resolution that is endorsed by both the ConCom for wetlands issues and the LLCT for the CR issues. We need to make sure that all the information needed for final decision making is on the table.

Earlier in the day we received two documents dated June 23, 2009, a “Proposed Remediation Agreement for 145 Old Concord Rd.” submitted by J. Grindlay, and a letter from Dave Burke. Discussion centered on the latest proposal from Josh Grindlay. Jim Meadors said that there was substantial cutting outside the view corridors and within the buffer zone and wetlands. He also said that he had discussed that no spraying should take place prior to the spraying. Josh Grindlay said he thought the herbicide treatment was ineffective and that was why he did not bring it up. Peter von Mertens said that Josh Grindlay was specifically told at the original site visits not to do anything else without proper permits. Sara Lewis also questioned why Josh Grindlay went ahead with the spraying and Josh responded that he was only targeting buckthorn. Dave Burke said that his analysis of where spraying occurred did indicate that he believed that buckthorn was the target of this work.

Jim Meadors brought up the issue that the Town has, to date, already has had considerable expenses in dealing with this issue. It is not just the Grindlays who are expending funds for this matter. Dave Burke raised the point that perhaps these funds are being misappropriated. Joyce Hersh did not agree with this assessment and does not believe the Town is misappropriating expenses in dealing with these violations.

The discussion moved to the requested changes in the planting plan. The LLCT was not represented here so these are the thoughts only of the ConCom. Moving the mountain laurel grouping out of the view corridor seemed to be alright with the ConCom. The red maple at the end of view corridor “E-F” was then discussed. Josh Grindlay would like this to be a smaller tree and planted along the edge of the pond at the edge of the view corridor, not in the center of the corridor out in the mowed meadow area. There was some confusion regarding whether or not the large red maple that was cut in 2008 was located in the center or at the edge of the view corridor. However, it appeared that everyone agreed the new maple should be in line with the one that was cut. The ConCom is willing to consider a smaller tree based on the difficult wet conditions that are likely to be found when digging the planting hole for this new tree.

Next we discussed the tennis court. The ConCom is concerned with protection of the land during removal operations. Access to the site includes a steep woodland pathway, an earthen wetlands crossing with a culvert, and a sensitive wet hay meadow and any efforts need to take all this into account. Because of this the ConCom believes they, and the LLCT, need to be in control of this project, not Josh Grindlay. Josh Grindlay said he is willing to work with the two organizations but wants Don Morris to do the work, who previously quoted $5,000 for the tennis court project. Dave Burke and Josh said that the asphalt court is only 1" to 2" thick and it lies over native sandy soil, not gravel or other base that was trucked in from off-site. Dave said that Don Morris thought it would only take two 8 or 10-wheeler truckloads to get all the court surface out. Jim Henderson said each truck with a load could be as much as 50,000 lbs. and this has the potential to cause serious damage to the conservation land. Josh said he spoke with Kim Johnson about the project and that Kim said the work could happen in the fall after haying. Dave brought up the issue that the work will need a wetlands permit and the ConCom acknowledged this. There was also discussion of what would happen with any remaining funds if the removal came in at a lower cost than estimated but nothing was decided at this time.

Next we discussed the ongoing monitoring. Josh Grindlay wants to include Dave Burke in the monitoring, particularly so he can help with ongoing invasives control on the property. Josh would also like to gradually phase out the monitoring by year three, provided the restoration was on track. Several Commissioners spoke to the need to keep the monitoring intact for the full five years, although there was some willingness to consider reducing the intensity if everything was going well. However, the reverse would also have to be a possibility – if things did not progress well and there were significant problems then the monitoring may need to become even more rigorous.

Dave Burke said that he does not think it will take two people to do the monitoring and that it should take less money and time over the years to complete it. Josh said he agreed with the first year’s schedule but with Dave Burke being one of the two monitors. Jim Meadors brought up the issue that having Dave be a monitor could be a built-in conflict of interest since the Grindlays are his clients. Dave refuted this and said that this is how it is done on a regular basis with similar issues. Josh stated that he wants more trust and that Dave should be able to monitor and do invasives control work at the same time. Josh reiterated that his only motivation is to control invasive plants. Ari Kurtz suggested that the Grindlays could pay into a monitoring fund to the LLCT or ConCom and then we could pay Dave Burke for the monitoring.

Jim Meadors, acting as chair for the evening, asked if there was any more information we needed to get on the record prior to closing the hearing. Peter von Mertens rebutted a point in Dave Burke’s letter and said that the Commission had not voted on the installation of a boardwalk to the “island” and it should not be assumed that this will be allowed. There was some confusion on this, although no Order of Conditions has been issued, there seemed to be some members of the Commission (and the Grindlays and Dave Burke) who thought it was likely to be allowed at a later date. Subsequently there was discussion regarding the boardwalk specifications, Dave Burke said he submitted a spec. sheet to Angela Kearney at one of the previous meetings but none of the Commissioners could recall seeing it. Dave had extra copies of this spec. sheet for the boardwalk and submitted it.

Peter von Mertens stated that this whole issue is about the larger picture, not just wetlands issues. It includes the CR and the support from residents and the Community Preservation Act funds. We are holding these hearings as a public process jointly with the LLCT participation and their role in enforcing the CR. Dave Burke questioned the legitimacy of discussing the CR in this public hearing format and Peter responded that it was appropriate. Jim Meadors said that if the agreement that we seem fairly close on falls apart, then we may have to revert to the ConCom just handling the wetlands issues and the LLCT separately pursuing their enforcement of the CR. This would likely end up costing everyone more in terms of both time and expenses.

Given the uncertainty of closing the hearing without having the LLCT represented (i.e. would they be able to participate in deliberations after closing the hearing) it was decided, with the applicant’s consent, to once again continue the hearing. The ConCom voted 7-0 to continue the hearing until July 22, 2009 at 8:45 p.m.

The LLCT working with a volunteer outdoor education group and the ConCom have published a “Passport” to the Lincoln trails. This is specifically aimed at getting young children out on the land. When a child visits a property and completes the checklist for the property she or he can go to the Library or the Conservation Office and get a passport stamp for that property. If the child gets to all the properties then they will get a prize at the Library. This is an innovative way to engage our younger population with nature and hopefully it will be a great success.