> You can be irritated with the ~2015/2016 planning board who originally approved the site plan with the 3 lots for development.
For clarity: The subdivision of the original large lot that is now the Plaut property into three separate house lots was an "ANR". ANR stands for "Approval Not Required". If a property meets the requirements for a subdivision the planning board endorses the subdivision plan, confirming that it does meet those requirements, but it does not have the power to approve or disapprove the subdivision. Site plan review is the review of the details of a plan to develop a property. It can be used to do things such as require screening, control drainage and grading, and other site related matters. It can not be used to deny a by-right use of the property. It's powerful but limited. To prevent a property from being developed in any manner whatsoever it must have a conservation easement. These are sometimes donated, but in general this requires the purchase of the property in question. For those of you who share my concern about wildlife and the environment, remember that the food chain starts at the bottom - the insects and other invertebrates. Invasives that are currently pervasive on this property do not support our native insect populations. At least part of the crash in the songbird population is related to the crash in the insect population - the birds are starving. The Plauts are replacing invasives with natives. You can argue whether or not the pines should be removed, but a great deal of their proposal is either inevitable (the driveway) or unarguably excellent (invasive removal). And, as the current planning board observed, given the constraints in which they operate if they denied this plan based on excess tree removal for a solitary house there will very likely be another plan with three houses and ultimately less conserved land. Margaret (No longer on the planning board, so certainly not speaking for them) On Sat, May 3, 2025 at 4:27 PM Justin Hopson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi - > > As an abutter I am going to respond to this. An abutter who is mostly > negatively impacted by the project. > > There are lots of places to focus your disappointment with, but the > current purchasers of that land should not be it, nor the current planning > board. > > You can be irritated with the people who sold the land for the development > of 3 houses. > > You can be irritated with the LLCT/RLF who had the right of first refusal > and declined to take action on a property that has a large portion of > protected wetlands within its borders. > > You can be irritated with the abutters who didn't feel it was financially > responsible to purchase the land. > > You can be irritated with the ~2015/2016 planning board who originally > approved the site plan with the 3 lots for development. > > You should understand that the people purchasing this land will be > reforesting it after this project. They also will only be building one > house at this time. So in the grand scheme of things, apart from this land > never being sold, there are a lot worse outcomes for the town, abutters, > and wildlife. The alternative is a developer who has to flip 3 lots to make > it profitable and I can assure you that would be worse for every aspect of > this land. > > I think the planning board did an admirable job within the scope of their > jurisdiction. > > Appreciate your concern and caring for the environment and Lincoln. > > > JCH > > > > > On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 9:25 PM Barbara Peskin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear Lincoln, >> >> Recently, the Planning Board had an opportunity to offer some protection >> to wildlife in its decision-making regarding a site plan request to clear >> 2.8 acres of healthy forest, undeveloped land, for a driveway. The plan >> does not include a house at this time. One member of the Planning Board >> supported clearing only for the driveway because that was practicable at >> this stage, noting that our Bylaw 17.7.4a reads: “The landscape shall be >> preserved in its natural state insofar as practicable...” The other four, >> voting to approve clearing the full 2.8 acres, chose to bypass >> preservation, preferring what they called the applicant's novel idea to cut >> down the existing forest and strip the land to be replaced with a new >> meadow and new kind of forest that would have mature trees in 20-30 years. >> >> Sometime this May or June, wildlife will be running and flying for their >> lives from this 2.8 acres, near Chapman pasture, to other land and trails. >> Please welcome them to your patch of land. >> >> If you find yourself in front of the Planning Board in the future for >> either a neighbor's or your own proposal, please work with other residents >> to protect the wildlife involved. It is up to each of us to watch out for >> the living, existing wildlife calling Lincoln home. >> >> Thank you for your care of wildlife. >> >> >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Barbara Peskin >> >> *My Moments in Nature Photo Gallery: barbarapeskin.com >> <http://barbarapeskin.com>* >> -- >> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >> To post, send mail to [email protected]. >> Browse the archives at >> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >> Change your subscription settings at >> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >> >> -- > The LincolnTalk mailing list. > To post, send mail to [email protected]. > Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/ > . > Change your subscription settings at > https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. > >
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to [email protected]. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
