My name is Lisa Lapinski. I have lived in the Acorn Park - PDF document

To: Board of Selectmen, Town of Acton Date: November 1, 2016 Re: Site Plan Special Permit/Use Special Permit #11/20/2015-459 My name is Lisa Lapinski. I have lived in the Acorn Park neighborhood for close to 20 years and I am currently the President of the Board of Trustees for the Acorn Park Condominium Association. I am here to ask that the Board deny Concord’s application for the Permits it seeks to construct a new water treatment facility because the project is “detrimental and injurious to the neighborhood in which it is to take place,” and therefore fails to satisfy at least one of the Permit criteria before you, under Section 10.3.5.3 of the Use Special Permit provisions; and section 10.4.5.3 of the Site Plan Special Permit. Back in 1994, a mere two years before our family built a home in Acorn Park, the Acton Zoning Board of Appeals was asked by the Town of Concord for a vari- ance from several requirements of the Acton Zoning By-Law to facilitate the pro- posed construction of an ozone treatment facility. One of the zoning by-law sections from which Concord sought the variance was Section 5.2.2, which requires “frontage on a street” for any building lot. The vari- ance was sought because the project site was - “located in woods at a location that currently lacks vehicle access . . . and [it] also lacks frontage on a public way.” The Zoning Board of Appeals granted the variance from the frontage require- ment, and in reaching that decision, noted the following features of the proposed project and the site: 1. “In order to provide vehicle access to the site, a driveway is proposed to con- nect the site to the Acorn Park subdivision, which is currently under con- struction . 2. The site will be visited once per day by a water system operator . There will not be a significant traffic using the driveway. 3. The impact on drainage patterns resulting from construction of this project will be very limited due to the small size of the treatment structure . . . . . . . . In paragraph (4) of the decision, the Zoning Board states that “strict enforcement of Section 5.2.2. would prohibit the project without the purchase of significant ad- ditional land for no other purpose than to reach a public way. Given the nature of this project there is no overriding need for frontage on a street as long as access has been provided via permanent easements.” Presentation to Acton BOS 11/1/16 - Lapinski

Again, in paragraph (7), regarding drainage questions, the Zoning Board refers to the “small size of the treatment structure”. Thus, the nature of the project was, in the words of the Zoning Board - small in size, and one that would generate little traffic In it’s August 1994 decision to grant the Site Plan Special Permit for the Disinfec- tion Facility, the Board of Selectmen approved the plan based in part on finding, as required by the Acton By-Laws, under Sec. 10.4.5.3, that the plan would “[p]rovide for convenient and safe vehicular and pedestrian movement and that the locations of driveway opening are convenient and safe in relation to ve- hicular and pedestrian traffic circulation, including emergency vehicles, on or ad- joining the site.” The Board of Selectmen also found the project “will not be det- rimental or injurious to the neighborhood in which it is to take place.” In its submission for the Town of Concord in connection with the Permit Applica- tion before you, counsel Peter Durning argues that the 1994 Variance from the street frontage requirement should remain in place because the “nonconformity” for which it was granted has not been “exceeded” in the current proposal. (Au- gust 22, 2016 letter to Board of Selectmen pg. 4-5). I am an attorney, and though I am not an expert in zoning law, I have read the cases cited by counsel for Concord, and I have a basic grasp on what their argument is: the site lacked the 200’ frontage in 1994 and it lacks the 200’ frontage in 2016. However, I say in response that the current ozone facility would not have been constructed where it is had Acton not granted the variance in 1994, and Acton granted that variance in light of Concord’s presentation of plans to build a SMALL structure that would not require either chemical deliveries or more than 1 staff person commuting to the facility 1-5 times per week. Concord has stated many times during this hearing that it has long had the inten- tion of utilizing more water from Nagog Pond, and long has had plans for increas- ing the treatment of the water; but that was not what the Zoning Board of Ap- peals had before it. The Zoning Board granted a variance for a small brick struc- ture that would generate little traffic - the proposed structure is 400% larger and is not at all similar to what stands on the site now. The lack of a frontage for a __ __ square foot building on a mostly wooded lot with very little vehicular traffic, no chemical deliveries and minimal personnel onsite is far different than the lack of frontage for a ___ square foot building operated daily by 3 people and receiving 8 chemical deliveries at least per month. Presentation to Acton BOS 11/1/16 - Lapinski

There has been an “inevitability” to Concord’ s presentation to this board - an as- sumption that because safe drinking water is a public good and because they own some of the land and arguably, the water draw rights to Nagog Pond - there isn’t anything Acton can do to prevent them from doing what they want with that land. They have spent a lot of time, and probably a substantial amount of mon- ey, to convince you, and us, that this is just the way it’s going to be. But just be- cause Concord believes it is “inevitable” does not mean Acton must see it that way if the plans are contrary to the interests of Acton residents. Concord has other options that would both provide proper treatment of the water they draw from Nagog Pond, and that would preserve the natural area around Nagog and good community relationships with those who live close to the area. That brings me to the second basis for my objection to this plan. The zoning by- law under which you are assessing this permit application requires a finding that the project “will not be detrimental or injurious to the neighborhood.” I guess I am wondering what the definition of “neighborhood” is. To read Concord’s attorney’s letter it merely consists of the little brick building that sits on their property right now. Again, I’m not a zoning law expert, but can that be the limit of the “neig h- borhood” whose benefit you are to consider? The Town of Concord is asking to construct a facility that is 4x larger than the current structure; which will result in the delivery of 8 different water treatment chemicals each month in 8 different 17 foot long tanker trucks through a residen- tial neighborhood on a barely adequate road that hosts 25-30 elementary school aged children. In fact, in its latest, October 27th submission, Mr. Durning claims that the Town of Concord cannot even agree to a permit condition that would limit the time of day when these large trucks are delivering chemicals through my neighborhood. When there are 15’ high snow piles at the corners of Hazelnut Street in the mid- dle of winter and the trucks are trying to enter the streets while the school buses are driving through, and someone gets hurt, is that what it will take to work this out? Instead of telling us this project is “good” for our neighborhood, perhaps Concord should try being a good neighbor and agree that such limits are neces- sary should this Board grant the permits it is seeking. To that point, I note that, before this proposal first came to our attention almost a year ago, 2 days before Thanksgiving, the Town of Concord had made no effort to contact any of the abutting neighborhoods to discuss the ways in which they would seek to mitigate the obvious impacts this project would have on our communities both during con- struction and during operations. In conclusion, due to the size of the plant, the lack of frontage and consequent increase in hazardous construction and delivery traffic in a residential community, Presentation to Acton BOS 11/1/16 - Lapinski

I believe this project is most definitely injurious to the “neighborhood” of Acton residents, including the several hundred who constitute the communities of Acorn Park, Breezy Point and Quail Ridge. Presentation to Acton BOS 11/1/16 - Lapinski