The Lincoln Squirrel – News, features and photos from Lincoln, Mass.

government

Water bottle, plastic bag issues may be tabled at Town Meeting

In the wake of some pushback against proposals to ban some uses of small water bottles and plastic grocery bags, one of the high school students behind the warrant articles wrote on Thursday that at least one of the issues will be withdrawn from a binding vote at Saturday’s Town Meting.

Students in the Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School’s Environmental Club submitted two citizen’s petitions for Town Meeting in both Lincoln and Sudbury. One measure seeks to ban single-use plastic check-out bags at supermarkets and other retail stores. Thin-film plastic bags without handles that are used for meat, produce, newspapers, dry cleaning, etc., would not be affected.

The other measure would ban the retail sale of plastic single-use water bottles in town. Specifically targeted are polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles of 1 liter (34 ounces) or less containing non-carbonated, unflavored drinking water. Bottles could still be given away at any time or distributed in the event of a town-wide water emergency.

But some of the discussion on the town’s LincolnTalk email forum as well as letters to the editor of the Lincoln Squirrel took issue with the proposed bans for various reasons. Objections came from the owners of Donelan’s supermarket and two new restaurants in town, and residents on LincolnTalk urged more study and discussion of both issues before voting.

“We understand that although there are considerable environmental benefits to limiting plastic, there are also drawbacks when it comes to people’s convenience or to businesses that sell the non-reusable plastic bottles, making this subject controversial. For this reason, we are choosing to take a ‘sense of the town’ vote on the plastic bottle bylaw, and possibly also the bag bylaw, and revisit the issue at next year’s meeting in order to give voters a chance to [form] an informed opinion on the matter,” Lucy Bergeron, a junior at L-S, wrote in a post to LincolnTalk on behalf of the Environmental Club Thursday morning. “That said, we hope to get people thinking about this issue and begin the process of educating people.”

A “sense of the town” vote, which the Board of Selectmen had suggested earlier to the students, means that there will still be a presentation, discussion and vote on the warrant article, but the vote is non-binding and intended only to gauge where public opinion stands on the issue.

Letter to the editor: Town Meeting challenge is finding balance

letter

To the editor:

This coming Saturday, at town Meeting, we face a serious challenge: maintaining balance. Our community has retained its small-town character, rather than simply becoming another bedroom suburb, by careful planning and discussion and debate with an eye on maintaining balance. Almost 25 percent of our populations are school age children and almost 30 percent of our population is over 60. We raise our children here and then we stay. For the most part, we age in our homes while sometimes moving within Lincoln.

This is not the case in many of the communities around us. We need to think about that as we open discussion at Town Meeting about some very real wants and needs. We also need to keep in mind that about 35 percent of our population makes under $100,000 a year. We are more economically diverse than some might realize. With a sensitivity to that economic diversity, we must continue to invest in our community. And our upcoming Town Meeting will begin a number of critical discussions of how best to proceed. Finding balance that will be the challenge for all of us in, for our leadership, and for our community. This was a theme at an open space plan discussion and bears consideration for all that lies ahead.

We have many exciting opportunities for investment that will enhance our town. We may be investing in a much-needed playing field, plans for a consolidated home for our Park & Rec and Council on Aging programming, and of course our schools. The community campus—the schools and the community center—are at the beginning stages of planning. The potential addition of a playing field at the Wang property is a fully developed proposal. These are immediate needs that require our attention and funds. In addition, ideas for investing in our South Lincoln business district, a potential relocation of our DPW, roadway and bike path projects, more open space, and large land acquisitions all may require our attention and tax dollars in the future.

Finding a way to balance so that we can continue to invest and preserve our small-town character will be a challenge not just to town leadership, but also to all. It will require active engagement—volunteering on committees, attending meetings, providing comments and critiques early in planning processes, and above all, open communication and coordination between all aspects of work. Town Meeting is the starting point. In the future, it will also provide critical decision points in the process determining final projects and in finding and maintaining balance.

Town Meeting matters. Your participation matters this Saturday, March 25. Be there.

Sincerely,

Sara Mattes
71 Conant Rd.

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.

News acorns

Historical Society hosts talk

The Lincoln Historical Society will host a talk, book-signing and reception, with Donald L. Hafner, captain of the Lincoln Minute Men and author of William Smith, Captain: Life and Death of a Soldier of the American Revolution on Sunday, April 2 at 3 p.m. in the Lincoln Public Library.

Holy Week and Easter schedule at St. Anne’s
  • Sunday, April 9 — Palm Sunday services at 8 a.m. and 10 a.m.
  • Thursday, April 13 — commemoration of the Last Supper with a Maundy Thursday service at 7 p.m. The service includes foot-washing and Holy Eucharist.
  • Friday, April 14 — two Good Friday services: one at noon with the Passion gospel and venerating the cross, and a family service at 4 p.m.
  • Saturday, April 15 — celebration of Holy Saturday with the Great Vigil of Easter beginning at 7 p.m. We kindle the new fire and light a new Paschal candle, and then read bible stories by candlelight. The service ends with the first Eucharist of Easter.
  • Sunday, April 16 —Holy Eucharist with special music and flowers at both 8:30 a.m. and 11 a.m. (On April 16, there is not a Still Your Soul service.)

All are welcome at St. Anne’s in-the-Fields Episcopal Church, located at 147 Concord Road.

Jennifer Glass, candidate for selectman in Monday’s election, braved the cold on Wednesday to meet residents including Rick Mandelkorn at the transfer station (right) and hand out flyers.

Letter to the editor: background on accessory apartment warrant articles

letter

To the editor:

Lincoln is renowned for its creative and resourceful strategies for developing affordable housing while working diligently to maintain its small-town character. Lincoln has a long history of addressing the systemic roots of economic and social inequity, as seen in the diversity of its housing stock and its inventory of affordable housing. Unlike most Massachusetts cities and towns, Lincoln has provided affordable housing entirely through its own local initiatives: by adopting zoning incentives, granting special permits, and investing local revenues and Community Preservation Act funds.

Lincoln has achieved the state’s 10 percent affordable housing goal without ever having to issue a Chapter 40B Comprehensive Permit. This is an amazing achievement since most towns only achieve 10 percent when mandated to. A Chapter 40B Comprehensive Permit enables developers to bypass most local permit approval processes and local zoning bylaws without Town Meeting approval, leaving the town and neighbors’ minimal recourse and control over the density or design of the project.

While Lincoln’s track record is impressive, by 2020 Lincoln’s affordable housing inventory projection, based on current data, might decrease below 10 percent, leaving Lincoln vulnerable to 40B development. Diversity remains important to Lincoln, as evidenced by the town’s vision statement; but today, residents also recognize that creating affordable housing will help to protect the town from large, unwanted Chapter 40B developments. To meet these challenges, Lincoln will need to remain innovative and proactive in its housing policies and initiatives.

About 15 years ago, one of Lincoln’s innovative strategies was to develop an affordable accessory apartment bylaw. The bylaw was successful, as some homeowners took advantage of the zoning incentives to create affordable units. However, these units did not count toward Lincoln’s affordable housing inventory because they did not meet Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) regulations. A few years ago, DHCD issued new guidelines, making it easier for homeowners to comply with DHCD regulations and permit affordable accessory apartments to be included in a town’s affordable housing inventory.

For the past two years, the Housing Commission’s primary focus has been working toward the development of an Affordable Accessory Apartment Program to capture accessory apartments for the subsidized housing inventory. Warrant Article 12 creates the foundation for the Affordable Accessory Apartment Program by revising the current bylaw to conform to DHCD regulations.

While incorporating DHCD regulations into the current bylaw, it was necessary to re-organize the bylaw to distinguish between requirements and procedures, and to improve the overall organization and clarity of language. The only substantive changes were made to the affordable accessory apartment section of the bylaw, not to accessory apartments or multiple accessory apartments.

Warrant Article 12 is a new “tool” to help Lincoln create affordable units to maintain Lincoln’s affordable housing stock at 10 percent while the Affordable Housing Coalition looks for new opportunities to create affordable housing.

Warrant Article 13 will provide an opportunity for homeowners participating in the Affordable Accessory Apartment Program to receive a tax exemption on the portion of the building (not land) that is used for affordable housing. Warrant Article 13 is contingent upon Warrant Article 12 passing.

Click here for more information on affordable accessory apartments and Lincoln’s Affordable Housing Program.

Sincerely,

The Lincoln Housing Commission (Allen Vander Meulen, chair; Diana Chirita, Peter Georgiou, Mary Sheldon, and Sharon Antia)

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.

Letter to the editor: water bottle ban would hurt businesses

letter

To the editor:

I am writing in opposition to Article 41 of the March 25 Town Meeting Warrant, the proposed ban on the sale of water in non-reusable polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles of one liter or less.

I have lived in Lincoln for more than 35 years. My family owns the two new restaurants in town, Trail’s End Café and Lincoln Kitchen. In Concord, we own another restaurant, Trail’s End Café, as well as Concord Convenience, a gas station/convenience store.

Concord’s ban on selling bottled water in such plastic containers of 1 liter or less has affected us negatively in a number of ways, while doing nothing to decrease the consumption of bottled water. Those who formerly bought bottled water from us in Concord include, among others, bikers, landscapers, snow plowers, tradesmen, town of Concord employees, those hosting workshops and meetings, families not wanting their children to drink carbonated and sugared beverages, and people who take medication in the course of the day. People have not stopped buying bottled water, but have gone elsewhere to get it. In addition to water, our customers once bought snacks, breakfast and lunch, gas, and convenience store products. These sales have declined. I expect that businesses in Lincoln, including ours, will suffer a similar decline in sales. This is particularly worrisome in a town that values a vibrant business district, but has a small potential customer base.

It is naïve to expect that customers will continue to do the rest of their shopping in a town that forbids a product they find essential. It is also naïve to expect that those wanting water will search out and use a public drinking fountain. In fact, I find such fountains to be unsanitary and would never allow my children to use them. Carrying around a plastic water bottle and refilling it from a public fountain or public bathroom also holds little appeal.

It is a mistake to demonize bottled water, a clean, healthy, and convenient product. The problem is a larger one, the disposal of recyclable materials into the overall waste stream. And this problem is solvable, without a water ban.

Our family is very mindful of environmental protection and carries our concerns into our business practices. We use biodegradable packaging; publicize, participate, and volunteer in recycling events; and, in Concord, have several recycling dumpsters. While I admire the Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School Environmental Club for its activism, I believe that its energy can be used more productively  in encouraging recycling and making sure that recycling containers are available wherever people congregate, eat, and drink healthy beverages, such as water.

Sincerely,

Carol White
38 Bedford Rd.

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.

Letter to the editor: 8th-graders ask for Town Meeting support

letter

To the editor:

Make way! Here comes the renowned eighth-grade Warrant Article Group! What, you ask? The Warrant Article Group is a group of eighth-graders who had a dream—a dream to learn more about local government. Led by the town clerk and the town moderator, we have been able to fulfill this dream. Now we have to get to Town Meeting.

This year we are aiming to add a set of benches to the school athletic fields. The need had come to our attention when our dear friend Maya informed us that in the Codman field, due to lack of space, people are often forced to put important belongings on the often muddy ground. In addition, currently we only have one set of benches and they are on the Brooks field.  Just recently we added more playing area at the Codman field, which means a higher demand for benches. The 15-foot weatherproof and portable benches we propose have shelves on top to provide extra space for belongings.

The Warrant Article Group has gained support from the School Committee, the Board of Selectmen, the Recreation Committee, and the Finance Committee. And we are hoping for support from you. See you at Town Meeting on March 25.

Sincerely,

Achla Gandhi (8th-grader, Lincoln School)
21 Juniper Ridge Rd.

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.

Letter to the editor: proposed bag/bottle ban is ‘an infringement of consumer rights’

letter

(Editor’s note: The warrant articles in question would not ban all types of plastic bags and water bottles—see this February 28 Lincoln Squirrel story.)

To the editor:

There are two articles on the Town Meeting warrant that are of concern to Donelan’s Supermarkets. Article 41 and 42 propose to ban the use of plastic bags and bottled water in the town of Lincoln. Donelan’s shares the concerns of the proponents, the Lincoln Sudbury Environmental Club, regarding waste and its impact on our environment. However, these two articles will affect our business and your shopping trip to Donelan’s. All consumers should have the right to make their own decisions on safe and legal products for themselves and their family. To impose such a ban is an infringement of consumer rights.

Donelan’s spends a lot of time, energy, and resources on recycling. We keep shrinkwrap and corrugated cardboard out of the waste stream by having it compressed and bundled in our stores for recycling. We have an organic recycling program in our stores when perishable food cannot be donated to a local food bank or a local farmer. This program keeps food waste from entering the waste stream and in turn is made into useful compost. Our locations use new energy efficient equipment and lighting, and our Lincoln store was built with many recycled materials.

We also collect and recycle plastic bags, even from our competitors, and plastic wrapping material. Our Lincoln store manager reports that our collection bins are widely used and we are constantly having to empty them. Additionally, we encourage our customers to purchase reusable shopping bags, and we sell them at just about our cost. Donelan’s Supermarkets is a member of the Massachusetts Food Association. The Mass. Food Association and Donelan’s support a statewide recycling program that would include all elements of the waste stream, not just a narrow segment.

Currently, there is proposed state legislation banning plastic bags (editor’s note: see also this May 2016 Boston Globe article). The Mass. Food Association is working with the proponents on legislation that will address the issue statewide. Town-by-town bans create an un level playing field and creates confusion.

The proposed bottled water ban is of concern to Donelan’s and our industry. We understand that plastic bags and water bottles are the most vilified components of the waste stream. However, shouldn’t a solution encompass all items in the waste stream? Bottled water is a safe and legal product. In the case of a local emergency or catastrophe, it is vital.

Lincoln is a small community with a small local business component. The proposed ban on bottled water will hurt small local businesses like Donelan’s, local food shops, pizza shops, and convenience stores. In the case of Donelan’s, we need to be a full-service supermarket in Lincoln in order to compete and survive. Customers who purchase bottled water will not buy their groceries from Donelan’s and then go out of town for their bottled water. They will simply take their entire grocery shopping out of town, along with other potentially local business.

These two issues are more complex than the proponents may imagine and have long-lasting consequences. Individual selectman and town officials have expressed serious reservations, and we agree that more needs to be done before these bans are passed. The issues raised are bigger than us. These issues are state wide, nationwide, and global.

We hope that the dialogue on these important issues in our industry continues. The Mass. Food Association and Donelan’s Supermarkets are committed to working toward a comprehensive state wide recycling program that addresses all waste.

Sincerely,

Jack and Joe Donelan
256 Great Road, Suite 15, Littleton MA 01460

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.

Letter to the editor: vote yes on community center feasibility study

letter

To the editor:

The warrant for the  Annual Town Meeting on March 25 includes an article to approve $150,000 to fund “a feasibility study and preliminary design development plans for a community center to be located within the Hartwell Complex of the Ballfield Road school campus.” If funding for a school project feasibility study is approved, the board of the Lincoln Council on Aging and the Parks and Recreation Committee recommend approval of the community center article at both Annual Town Meeting and the town election to be held on Monday, March 27. The benefits to all residents of Lincoln in funding feasibility studies for both the school and community center projects are many, and include:

  • Funding feasibility studies for both projects assures that planning will be done jointly, and therefore will take into account the needs of both projects most efficiently.
  • Beginning the process for a community center project now will save the town money in the long run. Multiple committees have determined that both the Council on Aging and Parks and Recreation need significantly improved facilities and construction costs will only increase over time.
  • The community center will provide all residents with attractive space for programs and activities they already enjoy as well as new ones, with enough parking that is a reasonable distance, and that is fully accessible. This includes:
    • Adults and children who participate in Parks and Recreation programs
    • Seniors who attend COA programs and use COA social services
    • Members of community organizations who will hold meetings and programs in the community center
    • Residents of all ages who need confidential health and social services
    • All members of the community who would like to participate in fun and community-building activities like community suppers and townwide fairs, and
    • Anyone who would like a place to gather to socialize with others in a relaxed, welcoming place.
  • A community center in the Ballfield Road area, along with the schools and athletic fields, would enhance Lincoln’s sense of community by providing one place for formal and informal opportunities for residents from many generations and a diversity of interests to come together to get to know one another and feel a part of a vibrant and welcoming town.

The reasons for supporting a community center are as many and as individual as each town resident. What would you like a community center to do for you?

Sincerely,

Lincoln Council on Aging Board
Lincoln Parks and Recreation Committee

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.

Letter to the editor: Vote yes on solar array at landfill

letterTo the editor:

Without question, we Lincolnites are dedicated conservationists. Almost 35 percent of the town’s land is protected, giving us five square miles of undeveloped natural habitats for wildlife and plant life, fresh air, clean streams, and long stretches of space to walk and reflect.

It’s perhaps not surprising, then, that we also care about sustainability and the environment. In a recent Green Energy Committee survey, 90 percent of respondents indicated an interest in rooftop solar out of concern for climate change; 65 percent were concerned about the global politics of fossil fuels.

There is a direct connection between climate change and energy consumption. In Massachusetts, state law requires a minimum of 12 percent of its electricity be supplied from renewable sources in 2017, with those minimums increasing at just 1 percent each year. This means that the remainder—up to 88 percent—comes from dirtier or more dangerous sources. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, more than 63 percent of Massachusetts electricity came from burning natural gas, petroleum, and coal in 2016.

Fortunately, Lincoln has alternatives. Many volunteers have worked tirelessly over the past several years to explore supplying a portion of the municipal electricity with locally sourced clean energy. A Selectman-appointed Solar PV Working Group developed a Solar Blueprint, a detailed analysis of 25 municipally owned sites for potential solar arrays. These sites included school buildings and parking lots, public buildings, Codman Farm, and the capped landfill at the transfer station, automatically eliminating options that were located on environmentally sensitive lands, in historic districts, or with too much shade.

Two sites were ultimately selected for near-term solar installations that have the potential to generate up to 50 percent of the municipal electricity supply: a 45kW array on the Public Safety Building along Lincoln Road, and a 600-1,000kW array on the landfill at the transfer station.

Landfills have been natural first choices to host solar arrays in communities throughout the United States. Capping a landfill involves layering over a contaminated trash heap with a plastic-like drainage material, then clay and gravel, topped off with a vegetative layer to prevent soil erosion. In June 2016, Lincoln published a study on the environmental impact of using Lincoln’s capped landfill for a solar array. The study determined that the site provides low-quality habitat for wildlife and native plants.

To install solar PV at the landfill, Lincoln must identify and designate an equivalent amount of non-conservation protected land into conservation protection. The town’s proposed acquisition of An and Lorraine Wang’s property on Bedford Road provides an excellent opportunity for a win-win: using poor-quality land from a capped landfill to host solar electricity generation, and acquiring equivalent or better-quality land to contribute to Lincoln’s current Article 97-protected stock of conservation land. After a thorough review, the Conservation Commission unanimously voted in December to support the project and the removal of the capped landfill property from Article 97.

The proposed landfill solar PV generation system exemplifies Lincoln’s active engagement in and support for environmental conservation and stewardship projects. The landfill solar PV project has benefited from well-developed research, thoughtful consideration, and community engagement process. By continuing to move in the direction of clean, local, and renewable energy supplies, we will leave a more sustainable environment in Lincoln for future generations to come.

We encourage you to vote “yes” on Article 36 at Town Meeting on March 25.

Sincerely,
The Lincoln Solar PV Working Group

(Renel Fredriksen, Board of Selectmen; Tom Gumbart, Jim Henderson, and Peter von Mertens, Conservation Commission; Tim Higgins, Town Administrator; John Snell, Green Energy Committee; and Gary Taylor, Planning Board)

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.

Letter to the editor: ConComm supports Wang project

letter

To the editor:

Over the past several weeks, the Conservation Commission has received several questions about the 100 Bedford Road project (also referred to as the Wang project), which will be going before Town Meeting on March 25. The Parks and Recreation commission has put together an excellent video describing the proposal, which has two major components:

  1. The creation of an athletic field
  2. Placing 7.1 acres of land into conservation protection

There is a third aspect of the proposal related to a solar power installation that will also be presented at Town Meeting. The purpose of this letter is to explain the decisions made by the Conservation Commission regarding the proposed solar project and the processes taken that informed those decisions. The Conservation Commission strongly supports the 100 Bedford Road project and believes it represents a major benefit to conservation efforts in the Town and to the Town as a whole.

The Conservation Commission strongly supports solar energy, and the state is a proponent of using town landfills to provide solar energy. The Green Energy Committee has done extensive work in identifying potential solar sites in town and concluded that the landfill is the optimal site for a significant photovoltaic installation. At the 1995 Town Meeting, the Town voted to “permanently dedicate and restrict exclusively for active and passive recreation and open space uses, consistent with and subject to the mandate and protections of Article 97 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts… the “Landfill Parcel.”

Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution grants “people the right to a clean environment and authoriz[ed] the Commonwealth to acquire conservation easements. Article 97 was intended to be a legislative ‘check’ to ensure that lands acquired for conservation purposes were not converted to other inconsistent uses.”

It is extraordinarily difficult to remove land from Article 97 protection, and to ensure that such removal is rare and to good purpose, the state has defined a rigorous series of steps that must be taken to effect removal. The Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) Article 97 Land Disposition Policy, commonly referred to as the “No Net Loss of Conservation Land Policy,” requires that the several steps be taken to effect removal of a parcel from Article 97 protection, including:

  • The Conservation Commission must vote unanimously that the parcel is surplus to municipal, conservation, and open space needs.
  • Town Meeting must support the disposition with a two-thirds vote
  • The state legislature must support the disposition with a two-thirds vote

Not surprisingly, the process that the Conservation Commission followed is also quite rigorous. I’ll go through each issue that was considered:

  1. Have all alternative sites in Lincoln not covered by Article 97 been considered and rejected as “not feasible and substantially equivalent”? The Green Energy Committee and Solar Design Associates identified approximately 25 potential sites for solar photovoltaic (PV) arrays, with a ranking system for suitability. The work showed that the landfill is the most suitable and the consensus of the Commissioners was that there are not alternative sites that are “substantially equivalent.”
  1. Does the disposition and proposed use destroy or threaten a unique or sensitive resource? Rimmer Environmental Consulting was hired to prepare a Solar Site Assessment and Habitat Evaluation of the landfill site and that report was completed in June 2016. The evaluation found that the proposed use will not destroy or threaten a unique or sensitive resource, and the commissioners supported this finding.
  1. Is real estate of equal or greater fair market value, or value in use of proposed use, whichever is greater, and significantly greater resource value provided to the municipality? The Conservation Commission then considered the 7.1 acres of the 100 Bedford Road property as the property to be provided to the town in exchange for the removal of the landfill from Article 97 protection. The potential acquisition parcels have perimeter habitat, which the commission determined are of substantially greater value (with respect to both fair market value and proposed use) than the landfill. The 100 Bedford Road property offers valuable habitat, trail connections, and vegetated buffer to other uses. The commission contacted the EOEEA and town counsel about the swap, and both parties agreed that the proposed swap is appropriate.
  1. Is the conversion of the minimum acreage necessary for the proposed use and, to the maximum extent possible, does it continue to protect the resources of the parcel proposed for disposition? The commission has not been presented with a final construction plan for the installation of solar panels on the landfill site. Accordingly, the commission determined that it would condition its approval (if all the other above conditions are met) on conducting a review of the construction documents in order to ensure that the resources continue to be protected to the maximum extent possible. Items the commission will examine include staging and work sequencing, fence detailing for wildlife passage, and restoration plant specifications.
  1. Does the disposition serve an Article 97 or another public purpose? The commission concluded that the disposition does serve an important public purpose, namely the first major source of solar PV energy for the Town. The commissioners expressed their strong support for this public purpose.

This evaluations described above were conducted over approximately one year and involved the Conservation Commission, conservation director, conservation planner, Green Energy Committee, and several consultants. On December 14, 2016, the Conservation Commission voted unanimously to remove the landfill parcel from Article 97 protection for conversion to a site for solar energy. The removal was conditioned on (1) that the 100 Bedford Road land swap, and (2) Conservation Commission approval of the solar construction plans.

In my personal opinion, the town made an intelligent decision in 1995. By putting the landfill under Article 97 protection, our citizens made it difficult for later generations to remove the land from protection without having exceptionally strong reasons. As a direct result, the outcome of this lengthy exercise will provide major victories for the town: more valuable conservation land and a large solar power installation. And we should not lose sight of the fact that the driving force behind the 100 Bedford Road acquisition is a new playing field, filling a long-felt need for the town. The solar benefit is real and the processes to enable it are complex, but to be clear, the solar benefit was a positive side effect of the playing field acquisition, not the driver of the 100 Bedford Road project. All of these positives would be gained with no additional tax burden, a serendipitous sequence of events and outcomes for the town!

Sincerely,

Richard Selden, MD, PhD
Member, Conservation Commission and Community Preservation Committee

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.