Managing seasonal neighborhoods in transition with case study of Buena Vista Shores, Lakeville, Massachusetts

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Coastal Zone massachusetts
Information department
Center of
community
affairs

MANAGING
SEASONAL
NEIGHBORHOODS
IN
TRANSITION

case study
lakeville, massachusetts

local assistance series 14
office
of
local
assistance

HD
7289
.M4
M36
1977

COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER
This report was jointly prepared by the firm of

Charles E. Downe
Community and Regional Planning Consultant

and the

Massachusetts Department of Community Affairs
Office of Local, Assistance
1 Ashburton Place, 16th Floor
Bostont Massachusetts 02108

In cooperation with
U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERC-E NOAA
V,Crq
Board of Selectmen COASTAL SER C@ CENTER
Town of Lakeville, Mass. 2234 ISOUTH HOF@'SON AVENUE.
CHARLEQTON, SC 29405-2413
and the

Bue na Vista Shores Association
Town of Lakeville, Mass.

Project Staff:

Department of Community Affairs/Office of Local Assistance

Gary R. Brown Senior Planner/Project Director
Tamara S. Plakins Planning Assistant (Intern)

Constantine Yankopoulos Chief Planning Officer

Charles E. Downe/Community and Regional Planning Consultant

Charles E. Downe Principal
Peter L. Wells Associate
-J

Contributing Staff:

John Walker Assistant Planner/DCA
Allan K ania junior Planner/DCA

The.preparation of this report was financed in part through a Comprehensive
Planning Grant from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
under the provisions of Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended.

Property of CSC Library

MANAGING SEASONAL NEIGHBORHOODS

IN TRANSITION

with Case Study for

BUENA VISTA SHORES

Lakeville, Massachusetts

Massachusetts Department of Community Affiars

Local Assistance Series

Publication No. 14

June 1977

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

STUDY METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

INTRODUCTION . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I. STATEWIDE OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A. Nature of shoreline neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
B. Age of neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
C. Density of neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
D. Municipal services provided to neighborhoods . . . o . . 4
E. Problems of shoreline neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
F. Municipal controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

II. INDEPTH STUDY . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . 10

III. UNDERLYING PROBLEMS . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

A. Neighborhood density and conversion . . . . . . . . . . 15
B. Neighborhood organization and structure . . . . . . 28

IV. SPECIFIC PROBLEM AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

A. The Lakeville Ponds complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
B. Waste water disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
C. Water supply . . . . o . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
D. Road system . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
E. Police protection . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
.F. Fire protection o . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . 93
G. Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

V. RELATED CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . 105

A. Land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
B. Tax equity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . 117

A. State level . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
B. Municipal level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . 121
C. The neighborhood level . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . 132
D. Individual level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
E. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

APPENDIX

A. Analysis of Buena Vista Shores Citizen Survey Responses
B. Water Quality Tests in Long Pond and at BVS
C. Lake Boone Commission - Rules and Regulations
D. Statewide Survey of Seasonal Neighborhoods

BIBLIOGRAPHY

EVALUATION SURVEY

LIST OF TABLES Page

1 Nature of Shoreline Neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Decade During Which Neighborhood Was Developed . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Nature of Municipal Services Received by Neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . 5

4. Problems of Municipalities with Shoreline Neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . 6

5. Present Controls by Municipalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

6. Future Controls by Municipalities . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . 9

7. School Enrollment for Lakeville and BVS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

8. Educational Cost. Analysis for Lakeville and BVS . . . . . . . . o . . . . 113

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Buena Vista Shores and Surrounding Area . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Buena Vista Shores - Land Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Buena Vista Shores - Occupancy Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . 17
Lot Area Requirements for On- site Facilities and other Site Conditions . . . . 23
The Lakeville Ponds Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 37
Watershed Area of Long Pond (in Lakeville only) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Distances Between On-site Sewage Disposal Facilities
and Water Supply Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Soil Characteristics - BVS and Surrounding Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Buena Vista Shores - Residences Serviced
by Resort Supply Company Water Mains . . . . .. . . . 72
Buena Vista Shores - Roadway Widths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Buena Vista Shores - Roadway Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Buena Vista Shores.- Future Road System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Buena Vista Shores - Alternate Sites for Neighborhood Park . . . . . . . . . . 103

Characteristics of Properties Surrounding BVS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Optimum Site Locations for Dwellings Along Shorefronts . . . . . . . . . . . 109

PREFACE.

This report is part of the local assistance series prepared by the Office
of Local Assistance. The local assistance series consists of reports
prepared as a result of extensive work conducted by the Office in vari-
ous localities throughout the Commonwealth. To date, fifteen projects
have been undertaken. While these studies are conducted for specific
communities, they.are designed to be of value to other cities and towns
faced with similar planning and management issues. A list of reports
prepared by the Office appears on the back cover of this report.

In addition to the series of in-depth studies, the Office provides other
services to local governments. The Office assists local governments
in the solution of problems related to community development, planning,
managementand intergovernmental relations. The staff includes
specialists in land use management, planning, public administration,
municipal finance and related fields. To deliver its services, the Office
functions through three sections: Local Liaison; Community Planning
and Management; Municipal Advocacy and Policy.

The Local Liaison section is staffed by municipal field representatives
assigned to specific communities who maintain regular contact with
local chief executives. The section also maintains a toll-free telephone
service to respond to inquiries by individual communities. The Com-
munity Planning and Management section provides community development
planning and land use management services -and prepares in-depth studies
to assist individual communities in solving significant planning and
management problems. The Municipal Advocacy and Policy section
identifies and investigates issues of common concern to all communities,
and disseminates relevant information to municipalities. The staff is
responsible for developing policy positions for the Governor that embody
the municipal perspective on issues which affect local government. The
section also assists the Community Planning and Management section
in the preparation of in-depth studies.

Managing Seasonal Neighborhoods in Transition , No. 14 in the Local
Assistance Series, outlines the problems being faced by local officials
and neighborhood residents when the character and use of neighborhoods
originally developed for second homes change to accommodate year-round
residency. Various alternatives that could aid in the management of
these identified problems are presented and a plan of action on the
individual, neighborhood, municipal and state level is suggested.

Any community desiring further information on the subject areas covered
in any of the reports in the Local Assistance Series should contact the
Office of Local Assistance. We request readers to complete the evalua-
tion form appended to this report so that we may benefit from your
experience as to the value of this publication.

STUDY METHODOLOGY

The study was conducted in the following manner, First, a survey was
made of all municipalities in Massachusetts to determine the extent and
number of seasonal neighborhoods. Then a survey form was sent out to
each municipality identified as having such neighborhoods to solicit
information about the characteristics of seasonal developments in their
jurisdictions and about the problems of such neighborhoods or others
converted to a predominantly year-round neighborhood. This forms
Chapter I of the report.

An indepth case study was undertaken of the Buena Vista Shores neighbor-
hood in the Town,of Lakeville to analyze in more detail the interrelation-
ships between recreationally-used water bodies and the housing
developments along their shores. Underlying problems and issues were
explored as well as specific physical facilities and services of the
neighborhood. This analysis is discussed in Chapters 11 through VI of
the report.

The cooperation and active involvement of the Town officials and Buena
Vista Shores Association was solicited and received, principally in the
form of monthly meetings with the Board of Selectmen to di scuss the
methodology and the recommendations of the study. A citizen question-
naire was circulated to residents of Buena Vista Shores to better identify
the desires and perceived needs of the neighborhood. Numerous field
trips were made to the neighborhood by the study team to record facts
and impressions of the existing situation in Buena Vista Shores. When
the analysis was concluded, tentative recommendations were made for
solutions to the various problems which had been determined. These
recommendations were reviewed by and discussed with Lakeville officials
and the Buena Vista Shores Association. Specific steps in an action pro-
gram have been outlined, including agencies and organizations responsible
for implementing an improvement program.

Other information of general interest, but too detailed to include in the
body of the report, has been included in an Appendix.

A uniform format for the presentation of the study was adopted. This
generally follows the pattern, in each chapter, of briefly introducing the
problem, discussing the existing situation in Lakeville or Buena Vista
Shores, identifying the specific problems arising out of the existing cir-
cumstances and then giving guidelines for solutions. This last category
is further subdivided into general recommendations which are broadly ap-
plicable to most seasonal neighborhoods including Buena Vista Shores and
alternatives for Buena Vista Shores which deal specifically with that situation.

INTRODUCTION

Throughout the Commonwealth there are over 800 residential areas con-
tiguous to water bodies. The majority of these neighborhoods were
constructed for seasonal occupancy many years ago and were often
established prior to any municipal regulations that could have properly
guided their development.

Being seasonal in nature, the dwellings in these neighborhoods were
seldom constructed in the same manner as year-round homes and were
often built on small lots with narrow streets weaving through the area
and serving as access to homesites. Little attention was given to any
future need which might be created by increased use and changing times.
Often, the availability of drinking water year-round, the installation of
adequate sewage disposal systems, and the proper construction of ways
were not considered. The prime selling points were status, access to
a waterbody for recreational use, and privacy and quiet away from the
faster paced areas nearby.

The construction of these dense seasonal neighborhoods was looked
upon as a benefit by the host community. The parceling of the property
and the construction of homes resulted in an increased tax base with
little or no investment having to be made by the municipality and with
minimum services having to be provided.

In many communities, however, the use of these neighborhoods has
changed with time, shifting from seasonal residence to year-round homes.
Many owners have converted their homes and moved into them upon retire-
ment or after their families have grown. New owners have purchased
already winterized homes or existing shells with the idea of winterizing
for year-round occupancy. The more recent purchasing of this type of
property is often spurred by the fact that such homes are available at
an affordable price in an economic climate that makes many other homes
unobtainable. Seldom, however, is the buyer truly aware of the
problems that might arise or that already exist for a homeowner within
such a neighborhood.

The problems associated with the conversion of these neighborhoods must
be addressed in a straightforward manner. No longer is it possible to
ignore the important issues raised by conversion arid the need/demand
for municipal services.

Some studies are available that discuss the pitfalls, potential problems,
possible solutions and alternative courses of action which a municipality
can choose when confronted with the possibility of a recreational,

seasonal or second home development within its boundaries. Few
reports, however, have been written that deal primarily with older
existing seasonal neighborhoods developed either before, or in the
absence of, legally binding controls which have been stipulated by
the municipality in its regulations or by the initial developer in his
deeds. The absence of such controls reflected the lack of awareness
that problems might arise over time.

This report attempts to pinpoint the problems caused by uncontrolled
development of a seasonal neighborhood and to propose solutions to
them. Some of the problems being faced by such neighborhoods and
the host community take on a common quality, such as inadequate
construction of dwellings and roads causing safety and health hazards,
and utility facilities which are experiencing failure or obsolescence.
That which was once adequate for seasonal use now proves totally
unsatisfactory in the face of increased demand from year-round use.

This report details these problems and outlines specific legal and
environmental measures as possible solutions. Great effort has been
made to insure that both the problems pinpointed and the solutions
proposed have general applicability. This report reflects the specific
attempt to aid Lakeville in the solution of its problems but its ultimate
aim is to aid all Massachusetts communities facing similar problems.

iv -

I. STATEWIDE OVERVIEW

Although the problems resulting from conversion of once-, sea son'al
neighborhoods to.year-round use appear to be numerous in many com-
munities. across the Commonwealth, little actual investigation previous
to this study has taken place. There is little information which can
help in understanding the extent of these neighborhoods, the problems
which they and their host communities are facing, or the methods that
are being employed to solve particular problems. For example, there
are no data readily available as to the characteristics of a particular
lakeside neighborhood: is it seasonal or year-round? Is the
area a camp or a resort? Are private and/or public services
available to the neighborhood? What is the age of such development?

In order to acquire this information, a statewide survey was undertaken
of approximately 220 municipalities that were identified from USGS maps
as having densely developed settlements on the shores of a waterbody
in the Commonwealth. An explanation of the methodology of this survey
appears in the Appendix.

At the time of this writing, information had been received from 89
municipalities containing 292 neighborhoods, or over one-third of
the estimated total of neighborhoods. The municipalities that responded
expressed general interest in this report and its potential usefulness
to them and often provided detailed descriptions of their neighborhoods
and resulting problems. Other communities, while not yet able to
return their survey@, indicated that they were using DCA1 s survey form
to investigate their neighborhoods.

Following is a discussion of the survey responses on the characteristics
of the existing shoreline neighborhoods in various parts of Massa-
chusetts, their problems and municipal efforts to control the problems.

A. NATURE OF SHORELINE NEIGHBOPdIOODS

At the beginning of this survey, four categories of shoreline neighbor-
hoods were identified, namely seasonal, converted, year-round and
urbanized. They were specifica Ily defined as follows:

seasonal - initially built and primarily still used for seasonal
purposes

converted a significant number of units are being converted
from seasonal to year round use

year-round - units initially constructed for year-round use

urbanized units were once seasonal, but conversion has taken
place to such an extent that this area is no longer
'considered seasonal

Table 1 indicates the nature of shoreline neighborhoods identified in
response to the statewide survey.

TABLE.l:. NATURE OF SHORELINE NEIGHBORHOODS
Afor which there is information available)

NATURE NEIGHBORHOODS HOUSING UNITS

Percent Percent
@Number of.Total Number of Total

Seasonal 109 38 7,972 35

Converted 56 19 4,602 22

Year-Round 55 19 4,053 .20

Urbanized 72 24 5,193 23

TOTALS 292 100@ 21,140 100

Since this report deals primarily with seasonal neighborhoods, and those
neighborhoods which are in transition from seasonal to year-round use,
the statistics dealing with neighborhoods which were from the outset
"Year-round" have beeneliminated from the following analysis. Alsol,
the two categories identified as 11seasonaV and "converted" were
grouped together under the title "predominantly seasonal"J, to dis-
tinguish them from the "urbanized" category, which includes neighbor-
hoods which are at the stage of transition which characterizes them as
predominantly year-round.

B. AGE OF NEIGHBORHOODS

Table 2 lists the appro@dmate decade during which initial construction
took place, or when the subdivision of that land was recorded. This
Table does not, assume that all units in the neighborhood were built

2 -

during this decade, only that the neighborhood came into existence
at that time. Of course, units were constructed over the years, both
seasonal and year-round, and neighborhoods expanded and/or experienced
further subdivision.

The importance of these data will be seen when the problems of shore-
line neighborhoods are discussed.

TABLE 2: DECADE DURING WHICH NEIGHBORHOOD WAS DEVELOPED

DECADE TOTAL NUMBER OF PREDOMINANTLY
DEVELOPED NEIGHBORHOODS SEASONAL URBANIZED
REPORTING* NEIGHBORHOODS NEIGHBORHOODS

Percent Percent Percent
Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total

Before 1920 33 19 24 21 9 17

1920-29 39 23 29 25 10 18

1930-39 27 16 13 11 14 26

1940-49 21 12 17 15 4 7

1950-59 32 19 19 16 13 24

1960- 69 15 9 12 10 3 6

After 1969 4 2 3 2 1 2

TOTALS 171 100 117 100 54 100

Number of neighborhoods for which a date was given in survey returns -
there were also 15 "Don't Knows" and 39 nonresponses on neighborhoods
(N=225).

C. DENSITY OF NEIGHBORHOODS

In response to the statewide survey, most -municipalities listed the
number of housing units in a seasonal neighborhood and the number of
acres in that neighborhood, including the undeveloped house lots.
This leads to a calculation of "gross" density of a neighborhood by
dividing the number of units by the acreage. Of all the neighborhoods
41% had a "gross" density of less than two housing units per acre.

A more meaningful figure, however, is the "net" density of the neighbor-
hoods, which divides the number of housing units by the acreage of -
the developed lots. Calculations by this method reveal many seasonal
neighborhoods with a "net" density of over five housing units per acre
and very few with less than two housing units per acre..

D. MUNICIPAL SERVICES PROVIDED TO NEIGHBORHOODS

So-called "essential" municipal services to a shoreline neighborhood
are not necessarily provided even when the neighborhood is recog-
nized as having primarily year-round units. Services such as sewers,
water, road maintenance and trash removal are provided at the dis-
cretion and according to the capability of the municipality. Police
and fire protection and the public education of children of year-r-round
residents must be provided. A -few municipalities provide beach
maintenance and some provide parks and/or playgrounds.

The quality of services can vary with municipalities, especially in
the case of road maintenance. Even though almost three-fourths of
the neighborhoods received "road services", these services ranged
from the modest maintenance of gravel roads to complete maintenance
of paved roads including snow removal and roadway surface repairs.
The most common situation seemed to be that the municipality would
take care of town roads leading up to the neighborhood and maybe
one or two major roads within the neighborhood. All other roads were
considered "private", both by the Town and the neighborhood, with
maintenance left.up to the neighborhood.

Table 3 summarizes the major services available to 190 neighborhoods
responding to the survey. These services are identified separately
and in combination with other services.

The results of this summary show that 5% of the neighborhocds had
some sewerage; 51% had some public water; 71% had some roads
maintained by the municipality and 11% had trash removal of some
kind or designation. Of the. total neighborhoods only 42 or 2 3% had
no access to or did not receive services such as water, sewers or
road maintenance.

4 -

TABLE 3: NATURE OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES RECEIVED BY NEIGHBORHOODS

MUNICIPAL PREDOMINANTLY
SERVICE TOTAL SEASONAL URBANIZED
PROVIDED NEIGHBORHOODS* NEIGHBORHOODS NEIGHBORHOODS

Percent Percent Percent
Number of Total Number of Total Number of Total

Water Only 13 7 5 3 8 13

Sewer Only 0 - 0 - 0 -

Road Only 52 27 44 35 8 13

Water/Roads 73 39 44 35 29 46

Sewer/Roads
or Sewer/and
Water 0 0 0

Water/Sewer/
Roads 10 5 1 1 9 14

None 42 22 33 26 9 14

TOTALS 190* 100 127 100 63 100

Number of neighborhoods for which information was given in survey returns -
there were also no responses for 35 neighborhoods (N=225)

E. PROBLEMS OF SHORELINE NEIGHBORHOODS

The most common problems reported were inadequate sewage disposal
and potential or actual pollution of water bodies and groundwater.
These were followed by the inadequacy of neighborhood roads and
the density (overcrowding) of housing and lotting. These and other
factors are identified in Table 4 which shows the relative impor-
tance of problems in shoreline neighborhoods. There were three
factors influencing these problems: the density of housing units in

TABLE 4: PROBLEMS Or MUNICIPALITIES WITH SHORELINE NEIGHBORHOODS

MUNICIPALITIES MUNICIPALITIES
WITH SEASONAL WITH URBANIZED 2
TOTAL NEIGHBORHOODS NEIGHBORHOODS
PROBLEM MUNICIPALITIES (N= 2 9) (N=23)
Number I Percent Number Percent Number Percent
of Mun' s. of Mun' s. of Mun' s.

No Problems 4 9 4 14 0 0

Sewage Disposal 26 60 20 69 12 52

Water Pollution 22 5.1 14 48 12 52

Roads 14 33 10 34 7 30

Provision of Muni-
cipal Services 9 21 6 21 5 22

Conversion 5 12 3 10 2 9

Density of Homes
and Lots 12 28 11 38 1 4

"Grandfather"
Clause 5 12 1 3 4 17

Fiscal Impact 3 7 2 7 2 9
Flooding 3 7 3 10 0 0

Unauthorized
Recreation 2 5 2 7 0 0

Water Supply 2. 5 2 7 1 4

Public Access to
Water Body 1 2 0 0 1 4

Gasoline
Pollution 1 2 0 -0 1 4
Note: Forty-three municipalities responded to this question in the survey
--return and eleven did not.
"'Number" is-th-e-n-u-m-b-er-o-f---mu----ni--c-i-p-a-l-i-ties which stated they had aparticular
problem. Most municipalities had more than one problem.
"Urbanized" municipalities include some listed in the "Seasonal" column
because those municipalities had both types of neighborhoods. The
"Total" column avoids double counting of this type.

6 -

the neigaborhoods; substandard, narrow, winding, dirt roads; and
housing converted in a substandard way - all characteristics of the
typical seasonal neighborhood.

Because the density,of housing units was so high, onsite septic
systems could not provide for adequate year-round sewage disposal.
Unless the municipalities provided water, wells were in danger of
-pollution because of their proximity to leaching fields. The same
was true for the adjacent water body. The narrow roads could not be.
widened and improved because abutting houses were close to existing
ways and because residents would insist on having "private" roads.

These same substandard roads hinder police and fire protection and
snow removal services when they are sought. The need for fire pro-
tection is increased because converted housing can have substandard
heating and electrical wiring systems. Again, the density of units
makes containment of a fire difficult.

F. MUNICIPAL CONTROLS

Presently, over 60% of the municipalities have no control or limited
means of controlling conversion of seasonal units to year-round use
as shown in Table 5: Present Controls. Of the seasonal neighborhoods,
88% were developed before 1960. It was not until the late 1950's
that many municipalities developed comprehensive zoning by-laws.
However, because of the "grandfather" clause of Chapter 40A, lots
which were laid out before the enactment of a municipal zoning by-
law are not required to conform to the new regulations, even if the
lot is to change ownership subsequently. Of course, modem-day
standards and requirements for road construction, as enforced under
the Subdivision Control Law, cannot be applied retroactively to
seasonal neighborhoods which were laid out many years ago.

The primary methods which a municipality can currently exercise for
controlling con'version are the enforcement of the State Building Code
the State Environmental Code (Title 5) and Local Sanitary Regulations.
Building inspectors can ensure that a unit obtains permits and receives
approval of variances as required. The Health Inspectors can cite
violations of town sanitary regulations and require that existing sewage
systems are brought up to town standards.

For future neighborhood development, 35 percent of the municipalities
still stated they had no me ans of control. Table 6 on Future Controls
identifies this and other factors which would govern future design,
conversion and improvements in shoreline neighborhoods. However,

the majority are beginning to utilize a variety of measures, particularly
in those seasonal neighborhoods which had additional land where
development could take place. The municipalities which have no more
developable land can only rely on the enforcement of the State Building
Code and Environmental Code: as they apply to replacement or modi-
fication of existing housing units.

TABLE 5: PRESENT CONTROLS BY MUNICIPALITIES

MUNICIPALITIES MUNICIPALITIES
WITH SEASONAL WITH TJRBANIZED
TOTAL NEIGHBORHOODS NEIGHBORHOODS
NATURE MUNICIPALITIES
Number 1Percent Number Percent Number Percent
-,of Mun's. of Mun, s. of Mun's.

No Controls 32 65 20 63 18 67

Zoning 7 14 5 16 2 7

Building Code 1.6 33 8 25 11 41

Local Sanitary 10 20 6 19 5 19

Flood Plain 1 2 1 3 1 4

Subdivision - - - - -

Wetlands Regula-
tion 1 2 1 3

Advisory
Committee 1 2 1 3

NUMBER OF MUNI-
CIPALITIES
RESPONDING 49* 32 27

Five municipalities did not respond to this que stion.

See footnotes for Table 4.

8 -

TALLE 6: FUTURE CONTR S BY MUNICIPALITIES

MUNICIPALITIES MUNICIPALITIES
WITH SEASONAL WITH URBANIZED
TOTAL NEIGHBORHOODS NEIGHBORHOODS
NATURE MUNICIPALITIES
Number 1Percent Number Percent Number 1 Percent
of Mun' s. of Mun' s. of Mun's.

No Controls 17 35 7 22 10 37
zoning 27 55 20 63 12 44

Subdivision 8 16 5 16 6 22

Sanitary Code 14 29 9 28 9 33
Building Code 6 12 3 9 3 11

Wetlands
Regulations 8 16 5 16 6 22

Floodplain
Zoning 7 14 5 16 5 19
Town Ownership 4 8 3 9 1 4

Conservation
Restriction 1 2 1 3

National Park 1 2 1 3

Conservation
Acquisition 2 4 - 2 7

NUMBER OF MUNI-
CIPALITIES
RESPONDING 49 32 27

1
See footnotes for Table 4.

9 -

II. INDEPTH STUDY

The number of seasonal neighborhoods across the Commonwealth and
the commonality of problems that may eventually. arise in such neigh-
.borhoods emphasizes the need for a deeper understanding of what the
problems are, why the problems exist, to whom they are problems and
ways in which solutions to these problems may be approached. In or-
der to understand these problems and,adequately deal with-the -result-
ingissues, a municipality containing several seasonal neighborhoods
was selected for an indepth case study. The Town of Lakeville, a
rural community 45 miles south of Boston, with a population of 5,118
and currently facing,problems resulting from seasonal neighborhoods
was chosen. Within Lakeville there are numerous water bodies, two
of which are the largest natural water bodies in Massachusetts (As-
sawompset and Long Ponds). The shoreline of Long Pond is dotted
with both seasonal and year-round housing. The largest concentra-
tion of such dwellings exists along the west side of the pond in a
section of the community known as Buena Vista Shores (BVS). It is
the uncontrolled conversion of this and other neighborhoods within
the municipality, originally conceived as being seasonal neighbor-
hoods, to year-round use that has created the kinds of problems that
are the subject of this report.

The relationship. of BVS and other neighborhoods to the ponds on which
they are located cannot be overemphasized. Assawompset and Quittacas
Ponds serve as the water. supply for both the cities of Taunton and New
Bedford. Long Pond flows into Assawompset and the other ponds in the
complex, thus contributing to the water supply of these two neighbor-
ing cities. The existence of seasonal neighborhoods along the shore
land of a pond used as a surface water supply can cause problems.
More intensive use of the housing resulting from conversion merely
adds to the problems. Thus the problems experienced within Lake-
ville incorporate not only those generic to all seasonal neighborhoods,
but also those of neighborhoods located on the shoreline of a public
water supply.

The Buena Vista Shores neighborhood is located in the central part
of Lakeville, approximately two miles from the town center. The
neighborhood has about 5000 feet, or almost one mile of frontage
on Long Pond. It is, surrounded on the other sides by Robbins
Lane on the north, Highland Road on the west, Route 140 on the
southwest and Hathaway Brook on the south. Within this area
of 325 acres, Buena Vista Shores subdivision occupies approxi-
mately 50 percent of the land closest to the pond; the remaining
acreage is, for the most part, undeveloped with only six resi-
dences fronting on the major roads. (See map entitled "BVS and
Surrounding Area

10 -

BUENA VISTA SHORES
AND 5URROUNDING AREA

0 1500 low

GOAL-P- IN FEET WOK-rw

4-0 <

>
.4 ;y4r
41d k

Within BVS are 3 9 0residences occupying 91 acres of land. There
are an additional 197 undeveloped house lots privately held by owners,
occupying another 31 acres of land. There are 13 town-owned parcels
of land within, the BVS neighborhood and six parcels of land held by the
Buena Vista Shores Association. A private water distribution systern
supplies water to the cottages during the warm season only; a few small
parcels of land are owned by the initial developer of the subdivision,
under the name of Resort Supply, Inc., for this purpose. All liquid
waste disposal is handled by individual property owners using septic
tankst cesspools or holding tanks. The six miles of roads in BVS are
privately owned, and in a generally marginal state of repair. Police
and fire protection service are provided by the Town and supplemented
by a neighborhood security patrol.

The recreation facilities in BVS are limited to two types of activities:
outdoor swimming in Long Pond, and indoor social events at a recreation
hall. There is a small convenience food store in the center of the
neighborhood, operated during the summer months. See map entitled
"Land Ownership," which shows the locations of the parcels discussed
above.

Buena Vista Shores was developed in the mid 1950's as a private
land development venture. The subdivision of the neighborhood
took place prior to any municipal subdivision or zoning regulations
later adopted by the Town of Lakeville. Original development also
tookplace in the absence of a comprehensive and legally binding
plan, established by the developer to insure that adequate services
would be provided as further development took place. Thus, it was.
established that maintenance of the roads and beaches, the pro-
vision of recreational opportunities, a domestic water supply and
waste water disposal systems were private responsibilities. These
were variously assumed by a private association, a private seasonal
water company and individual owners. The Association is composed
of members who are residents of the neighborhood. This voluntary
Association holds meetings to discuss and plan for items of concern,
solicit dues and otherwise collect funds to pay for social activities
and the repair and maintenance of the roads and its other properties.
Since the private status of.the BVS community was one of its major
attractions, the extent of private responsibilities, inasmuch as they
meant private control, was viewed as desirable.

So long as the BVS community remained a seasonal community, this
system of providing services remained generally adequate. This study
has found, however, that the subsequent conversion of summer homes
to year-round use has led to environmental, social, economic and
political problems that point to the lack of original controls as their
root cause.

weparation )I this document was financed Fn
through an urban planning grant from the BUENA VISTA SHORES
Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
under the provisions of Section 701 of LAKEVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS
fousing Act of 1954, as amended.
1000

SCALE IN FEET

LAND OWNERSHIP

VACANT (PRIVATE)

TOWN HELD

B.V.S. HELD

RESORT SUPPLY INC.

The following three chapters contain the primary investigative work
of the study. The first of these, chapter III, entitled UNDERLYING
PROBLEMS. identifies and, discusses those characteristics of BVS which
were found to be underlying causes of many other specific and more highly-
visible problems. In chapter IV, entitled SPECIFIC PROBLEM AREAS,
the physical components of the neighborhood and the services pro-
vided to the neighborhood will be examined to point out problems
and alternatives for solutions to the problems. Included in this chap-
ter are discussions of the Ponds complex, the waste water disposal
system, the water supply systems, the roads, police and fire pro-
tection and recreational facilities. In chapter V related considera-
tions of land use and municipal financing are discussed.

While the alternatives presented within each of these three chapters
are meant to cover a wide array of options, they are not exhaustive.
Efforts were made, however, to present alternatives that might serve
the needs of other communities experiencing similar problems. There-
fore, some alternatives which appear in these chapters are not neces-
sarily applicable to BVS and Lakeville. In the final chapter entitled
RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION, recommendations are
given which specifically apply to the local case study in Lakeville
and are based on integrating the individual alternatives into a com-
patible plan of action. This synthesis is an essential step in the
study; otherwise a preferred alternative for satisfying the require-
ments of one component, for example, waste water disposal, may
be inconsistent with best alternatives for other components.

14 -

UNDERLYING PROBLEMS

A. NEIGHBORHOOD DENSITY AND CONVERSION

The root cause of many problems is the high intensity of development:
the land is too overcrowded with cottages in the first place and con-
version of seasonal homes to year-round residences has added to the
congestion, overburdening the road system and overextending the
subsurface soil's ability to provide simultaneously drinking water and
purify the waste water.

Seasonal or second-home housing around the shores of a water body
has many unique characteristics. In the first place, an attempt is
usually made to locate as many of the lots in a subdivision as close
to the water as possible, thereby creating a dense development near
the water's edge. Secondly, since this housing is intended to be used
only "seasonally", the buildings are not constructed with very durable
materials. The.units themselves are usually smaller than year-round
residences.

Added to these unique characteristics is the recently- accelerating
trend to convert seasonal homes, to year-round residences. This trend
has been coincident with the outward migration of the population in the
U.S. away from central cities to the suburbs and to rural areas. This
conversion phenomenon should have been anticipated by the original
developers and/or the municipal officials of the community in which
seasonal neighborhoods have been constructed. However, the problems
associated with this transition generally have not been anticipated and
the problems discussed in this section of the report are the result.
Guidelines for ameliorating the high density layout in the neighborhoods,
and minimizing the problems of conversion will be presented. It will be
seen that the seasonal housing around the shores of Long Pond in Lake-
ville is typical of many similar neighborhoods in the Commonwealth.

I . Description of Existing Situation

Lakeville's housing stock is characterized generally as single-family
dwellings, in good condition and of moderate to high value. There are
no apartments in Town nor are they currently permitted under the Zoning
By-Law. Mobile homes and trailer parks are permitted only under strict
control and regulation.

The 1975 Annual Town Report by the Board of Assessors indicated that
there were 1473 single-family dwelling units in Lakeville. New cons-
truction has been at a moderate rate. An average of 33 new units was

constructed annu.ally during the decade of the 1960's. An average of
43 per year has been constructed since then@@ New housing of high
value has been selling well in Lakeville; however, there appears to
be a demand for lower cost housing, especially for rental units. The
Master Plan survey* published in 1970 indicated a high demand for.
rental units in Lakeville.

As recently as 1960, approximately one-half of the dwelling units in
the Town were seasonal vacation homes. By 1970, this percentage-of
seasonal homes decreased to the point where less than one-fifth of
the total dwelling units in Lakeville were seasonal. In BVS, there is
still a.greater percentage of seasonal homes to year-round (230 units
out of 390 are seasonal - see Map entitled "Occupancy Characteristics"
showing location of seasonal and year-round homes at BVS).

Many of the housing units at BVS were constructed by builders in
typical "tract" housing fashion. Some of the plans and elevations of
units were repeated in rows of adjacent housing. The materials used
for much of the housing,were not durable; little to no insulation was
installed. Some of the units, particularly those undergoing "do-it-
yourself" conversion, illustrate questionable'constru.ction practices.
In addition, some have yards strewn with all types of equipment,
lumber and building materials, and assorted items of questionable value.

However, many property owners have improved their houses and keep
them in good repair. Therefore, it is accurate to characterize the BVS
neighborhood as a mixture of well-built and maintained properties, and
11marginal" properties.

The estimated value of the seasonally-used dwellings averages in the
$13, 0 00. price, range. The estimated value of the year-round residences
is higher, predominantly in the $16, 500. price range.

The characteristics of existing housing at Buena Vista Shores.and
other seasonal shoreline neighborhoods are generally such that the
pressures for lower cost housing can be accommodated in these areas.
This housing is relatively high density, older, of poorer quality (in
terms of original construction and maintenance) and with marginal
utility facilities. Thus, it. provides relatively inexpensive year-round
housing, assuming that the units can be lived in "as is" with few or
no major renovations or repair expenses. In short, there is a great
pressure for persons or families with a lower than average income to
occupy seasonal housing and use it for year-round residency.

Master Plan for Lakeville, Massachusetts, Metcalf and Eddy,
page 40.
16 -

'he preparce,on of this document was financed in
art through an urban pionning grant from the. BUENA VISTA SHORES
I.S. Deportm nt of Housing and Urban Develop-
LAKEVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS
-went, under the provisions of Section 701 of
he Housing Act of 1954, as amended. - --- DCA
125 250 500 1000

SCALE IN FEET

....... ...
... ....... ... .

/4 ...

..........

.......... ----
........ ....

OCCUPANCY CHARACTERISTICS

< SEASONAL-
YEAR ROUND

Z. 17

This trend or pressure raises all sorts of policy questions. How does
the State or region view this pressure viz-a-viz the overall housing
supply/demand picture? According to a recent report by DCA, there
was a need in Lakeville for 281 low and moderate income housing units
(as of 1976). This was broken down to 127 units for the elderly and
154 for families. New or converted housing in BVS could help to satisfy
this need, to some extent.

And how does the municipality as a whole feel about this prospect?
This can best be determined by analyzing the stated local goals for
development. Many communities have established committees of
townspeople to articulate the goals and objectives which they feel
should be pursued in setting town policies regarding the development
and the character of their towns in the future. In 1975, the legislature
passed a Growth Policy Development Act (chapter 807) which en-
couraged each community in the Commonwealth to assess itself and
to establish goals, for its future growth, so that the State and regional
authorities could make their policies and capital spending programs
as consistent with locally- determined goals as possible.

In Lakeville, the following goals, policies and observations have been
formulated in the Growth Policy Statement regarding housing in general,
and seasonal neighborhoods in particular:

a. description of "desired future": (2:26) page 13

Selective residential growth at a rate less than or, at most, the
same as the rate experienced in the town during the past half-decade. .

b. -in what respects and for what reasons, is this "desired future"
preferable? (2:27) page 13

"The real estate tax rate would be stabilized, thus permitting
those residents with fixed income to have a greater opportunity
to retain their homes and to permit owners of large amounts of
land to retain them. The social and environmental character of
the community should be retained. It should be remembered that
Lakeville serves as the watershed for much of Southeastern
Massachusetts so that such environmental protection afforded
by controlled, selective growth is to the mutual benefit of the
area beyond our immediate region.

c. what are the major growth-related issues facing your communaL?
@4:2) page 19
"Probably the most significant growth-related problem is the con-
tinued growth in year-round residents along the shores of Long Pond

in areas that were primarily constructed on small lots as seasonal
communities. The enforcement of,health and building codes and
regulations to prevent health-related crises associated with such
a buildup is a major issue in the community.

d. in terms of resolving or addressing the above issues, what
actions would be necessary? (4:3) page 19

"Continued strong enforcement of wetlands protection statutes,
health regulations and building codes are viewed as a method by
which unplanned growth is diminished and haphazard development
along the shoreline is checked.

How does the resort neighborhood feel about its future: Their goals,
that is the goals of the people living there and the owners of vacant
land, may or may not be compatible with Town-wide goals and policies.
Do present owners want to see existing conditions perpetuated and re-
inforced, or do they want to see the neighborhood "upgraded" ?

Based on the questionnaire answered by Buena Vista residents, the
following desires which relate to housing policy were expressed.

There was general agreement that the residents wish to keep the
neighborhood "private". There was a mixed feeling as to whether the
Town's by-laws and regulations are too restrictive or too permissive
concerning the control of development in BVS: there were almost an
equal number of respondents on each side of this issue. Many residents
did report that they had experienced difficulty in obtaining the necessary
approvals from the Town for making improvements or additions to their
properties. Many cited a desire for improvements to the roads and the
water system, for liquid and solid waste disposal, and for police pro-
tection. They were generally satisfied with other Town and Association
services.

2. Description of Problem Areas

One of the major problems associated with seasonal neighborhoods is the
high density of the development. In the first place, many of the sub-
divisions were laid out with very small lots and narrow roadways. For
instance, the Lost Lake Development in the Town of Groton was laid
out with approximately 8000 parcels in the size of 20 feet by 100 feet,
or 2000 square feet. Buena Vista Shores in Lakeville, though not as
large in size, nonetheless had similar characteristics. Through the
years, many of these lots have been consolidated into larger parcels,
but still the average size is small being 8700 sq. ft. for the 390 developed
parcels and 7000 sq. ft. for the 197 vacant parcels.

19 -

Even though present day zoning requirements in most communities now
require larger lot sizes for housing development, lots of lesser size,
separately- owned, are exempt from these requirements, since they
are protected by the so-called "grandfather clause" in the State Zoning
Act (Chapter 40A, Section 6.) In numerous instances.this provision
controls the den.sity of developments which were laid out and recorded
prior to the time that zoning restrictions were adopted by a municipality.
The provision permits residential lots to be a minimum of 5000 square
feet in area, be separately owned from adjoining parcels, have a
minimum of 50 feet of frontage on a way, and conform to setback
limitations which may have been applicable to such land when the deed
for the subdivision plan was recorded.

Buena Vista Shores wa s recorded in the mid- 195 O's, prior to the time
that a zoning by-law was adopted in Lakeville in 1959, so therefore
the "grandfather.clause" situation obtains in BVS. Some of the lots
are as small as 40 feet by 80 feet, or 3200 square feet. In total,
there are 49 vacant lots below 5000 sq. ft. If these lots do adjoin
land in the same or common ownership, they are not considered
building lots; they, would have to be combined with adjoining lots
to meet the zoning requirements. This leaves approximately 148 lots
available for development, without assuming combinations of under-
sized lots.

There is another basic problem concerning the seasonal neighborhoods
as a result of changes which have occurred over the years; the neigh-
borhoods are attracting more year-round residents. Based on the
results of the questionnaire responses received from the Buena Vista
Shores residents, there are some differences between the seasonal
and the year-round residents. The residents come from different eco-
nomic circumstances and hold some different attitudes and aspirations
regarding the neighborhood in general and their own property in
particular.

Yet despite many differences, there was one generally common desire
expressed by most of the seasonal and year-round residents--to expand
or improve their properties. Many of the seasonal owners expressed a
wish to convert their homes to year-round use. Figures show that there
is, in fact, an accelerating trend toward conversion of seasonal homes
to year-round: homes in BVS and elsewhere around the Pond. This is not
a problem per se , but the manner in which the conversions are often
done and the limitations of the site, cause the problems.

For instance, the lot sizes of most of the seasonal homes are small.
Conversion generally requires expanding the building, which reduces

20 -

the useable open space on an already small lot. Also, increased use
of the building will bring with it a demand for more parking space,
outdoor storage space and outdoor activities.

Probably the most serious problem is providing increased "service"
facilities, such as. for sewage disposal, water supply, heating,
electrical appliances, and other domestic services. Upgrading these
facilities can be difficult due to the constraints of the site and can
definitely be, expensive. Generally greater insulation is required to
make the home suitable for year-round use, especially in this age of
limited energy resources and accelerating energy costs.

There is a high cost of complying with the applicable building and
sanitary codes of the State and the municipality in which the conversion
is taking place. This encourages "midnight" conversions and additions,
where improvements are made surreptitiously.

Most people who responded to the questionnaire in BVS identified an
inability to obtain necessary permits as the major reason they were
unable to make improvements to their homes. The Lakeville Board of
Health Regulations state that "no permit required by the Town of Lakeville
shall be issued in circumstances which indicate a substantial change in
use or a significant expansion in use of any structure or dwelling
within the townt unless the applicant can demonstrate that all regula-
tions and requirements of the State Sanitary Code, Chapter 111 of
the General Laws of Massachusetts, the State Building Code, and
the regulations and by-laws of the Town of Lakeville have been met.
The Regulations also state that "any lot of less than one-half acre
shall be deemed'to be too small for both water supply and sewage
disposal on the same lot. " Many shorefront lots are less than one-
half acre in size, and the, soils often cannot adequately handle the
effluent from on-site sewage disposal systems. Therefore, permits
for conversion and for additions to houses, whether for converting
a seasonal unit to year-round use or simply expanding a seasonal
unit on lots of less than one-half acre, cannot be issued in the
shorefront neighborhoods according to the Regulations of the Board
of Health.

There are only three vacant lots over one-half acre in area in Buena
Vista Shores. The Board does allow noncontiguous lots owned by
the same owner to be'added together to account for the one-half acre.
Nonetheless, the number of new houses permitted, or conversions which
can be made under these current requirements is, as a practical matter,
severely limited.

However, the main problem is not that the Town is being arbitrary or
unreasonable in requiring that certain conditions be met before they
will issue building permits, but rather that many owners either cannot
afford to purchase additionall land to insure proper functioning of a
septic system and a well on the same lot, or that the owners of
adjacent land willnot sell the extra land to them.

In summary, there are basically two underlying problems typical of
seasonal neighborhoods: the high density of the original subdivision
layouts, and the consequences of attempting to convert seasonal
housing to year-round, housing.

3. Guidelines for Reducing Housing Density

Local officials in several communities with seasonal neighborhoods
have recognized the problems of high density in such developments,
especially where o n-site sewage disposal and water supply,are
required. Several.have taken steps to deal with this problem. The
Town of Lakeville is obviously "on the right track" in initiating the
policy of establishing a "larger- than- stat e- mini mu m- lot- area" for
so-called "grandfather"' lots where both on-site facilities are to be
installed. This is particulariy important for lakeshore lots (with or
without dwellings), most of which are non-conforming as to dimensional
requirements and in no way can conform to the town-wide density of
701 000 sq. ft. minimum lot area.

For instance, it can be clearly demonstrated (see diagram showing
"Lot area requirements for on-site facilities and other site conditions")
that the size of the 5000 square foot lot, a legal building lot under the
"grandfather clause" in the Zoning Enabling Act (Chap. 40A), should
be increased to at least 8500 square feet,, a "bare minimum, " if both
water and sewage, disposal are to be accomodated on- site. According
to the requirements of the State Environmental Code, the well would
be placed at one.,extre.me end of the lot and. the sewage disposal fa-
cilities -would be.
placed at the other end, enabling a minimum distance
of 100 feet to-be maintained between these two facilities. Therefore,
the length of the typical 50 x 100,foot lot would have to be increased
to 170 feet, creating a lot area of 8500 square feet. This lot size must
be considered the, "bare minimum". It assumes the most favorable soil
conditions for the sewage disposal facilities and a favorable location
of the water aquifer. This size lot becomes increasingly marginal if
many of these lots are put together side by side, since certain site
conditions on any given lot could disrupt the allowable placement of
these facilities and possibly on adjoining lots render certain lots un-
buildable.

BASIC HOUSE
AN 0 YARD (5000 s-ir)
LOT AREA Pl.AY ARF-A
REQUI REMENTS
FOR ON-SITE HOUSE - I ri-roK-(, -2 6eo goo
FACILITIES ANP
OTHER SITF- CAR FORVORNEWA-T-
CONDITIONS (400 9-?-)
GMM4 /YAK?
10 50 c,-. r.?
FYJ FrF F9 @-70TZ@@WK,

(76@ ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ADDITIONAL REQUIlZEMENT5 FM
FOK ON-SITE UTILITIES TYFIr-AL LAKE KESoitr rROFFIZTY

r
sernc TANK
LeACW(N(A 9UNNrNG YARV
r 7"
'T
HELIOS T (1000 S.F.)
(4-2500 S.F) meLo
4..........

15OAT 5TOFA6F-
(456 S.F.)
0
r lod MINIMUM
DASIC NOW tiAW, *OVA
At4p YAXV 01-7TA+4CF- AMV

EXTRA PARKING
:,J (Goo S.F.)

. ............. MTKA DUFF-SR
Wew,
(+ 1000 S.F.)

,/-J@ AVt)i-noNAI- S'FACE FOR 9FEr-IAL ADDITIONAL SPACE F-017,
RELA11014614IF 10 ADJArENT LOT UNIQUE NATURAL F-FATUIMS

ADOMONAL. STEEPLY
BUFFMSFACE
SLOFING
TO AV0iV L4CJMN6
NM 40 6-59- DANK
"ON TOr OF*
BEAC44
exronme How
OR -VmAiL WT AREA
(22% S.F)
r
t4aw
;40USr-

'mnn
FRE-GeRVINC;
ROCK OUTCROP
(2000 sx?

23 -

There ara other considerations which should be taken into account
in seasonal neighborhoods in determining what an "optimum" or
realistically desirable housing density should be. The following
step-by-step analysis is undertaken to show what factors should
be considered:

a. analyze basic requirements for any typical house lot,
including land needed for coverage of house, for park-
ing/driveway, for outdoor space for play, for gardening
and for landscaped buffer areas,

b. analyze spatial requirements for on-site utilities, such
as septic disposal systems and water wells and study
their relationships to each other and to storm drains,

c. analyze special space requirements for lakefront hous-
ing lots, such as space for boat storage, extra parking
ing for visitors and a sunning yard,

d. analyze the relationship of one lot to its neighboring
lots. and

e . analyze the relationship of a lot to existing natural fea-
tures, including rock outcrops, trees and shrubs, beach,
steep banks.

The diagram of lot area requirements was prepared using this meth-
odology to determine the implications, in terms of increased space
requirements, of these features when they are added to the minimum
lot of 5000 square feet. These lot area requirements can be sum-
marized as follows:

a. Basic house and yard (50 x 100) 5000 sq. ft.

b. Additional requirements for
on- site utilities:
. septic disposal system only (+2500)
. water well and septic system (+3500) 3500 sq. ft.

c. Additional requirements for
typical lake resort features (20 x 170) 3400 sq. ft.
d. Additional space for special
relationship to adjacent lot (20 x 170) 3400 sq. ft.

24 -

e. Additional space for unique
natural features (25 x 170) 4250 sq. ft

11optimum" lot area requirement 19,550 sq. ft.

Therefore, this figure of 19,550 (use 20,000) square feet gives a good
idea of a more realistic lot area for a "typical" lot in a seasonal neigh-
borhood requiring both major on-site facilities.

Obviously, some sites would be such that a house and related facili-
ties could be built on less than this standard, if some of the conditions
assumed above were not present to limit development. Nevertheless,
this optimum density figure of 2 0, 000 sq. ft. is a more realistic guide-
line for housing density than the extremes of the 5000 sq. ft. minimum
allowable under the "grandfather clause" or the 70, 000 sq. ft. re-
quired for new construction in the undeveloped sections of Lakeville
according to the current Zoning By-Law minimum lot size requirement.
Furthermore, this optimum lot size of 20,000 sq,. ft. is consistent
with standards. used for the layout of most recent lakefront subdivi-
sions along the shores of lakes or ponds throughout New England. If
this standard were applied to BVS, 38 new dwelling units could be con-
structed on lots which could be created by combining contiguous vacant
lots into areas of 20,000 sq. ft. or more.

Suggested alternatives for achieving a reduced density throughout ex-
isting seasonal neighborhoods are as follows:

. have owners of housing purchase adjacent vacant land
themselves to increase the size of existing built-upon lots,

. have a neighborhood association or town agency purchase
undeveloped lots for dedication as permanent open space
or other neighborhood/town purposes,

. encourage change in "grandfather clause" to increase mini-
mum lot size for lots laid out prior to town zoning controls
and

. change permitted density for undeveloped, unsubdivided land
by changing permitted lot size of existing residential districts,
or by creating a new special lakeshore zoning district.

4. Guidelines for Conversions

There is an inescapable conclusion that year-round homes create more
short-term and long-term problems to the neighborhood and to the Town

25 -

than do seasonal homes. They consume larger amounts of land in an
already densely developed area; they impose larger waste disposal
loads on a soils system which is already marginal and under conditions
which could lead to pollution of the pond and ground water in the long
run; they require year-round water which is not always easily supplied;
they require the establishment and maintenance of a more durable road
system; and they impose greater requirements for schools, recreation,
fire protection and other municipal services.

The more intense use of the land represented by year-round residences
will be more costly to the Town and/or the owner. It probably will have
greater detrimental impacts on an already fragile environment -- pri-
marily Long Pond as a source of water supply and recreational activities.

Therefore, the Town should take steps to see that conversions take
place only under strict regulations which will assure limited future
costs and liabilities to the Town. All zoning, building , and health
regulations should be tailored to make sure that conversion is done
carefully and thoughtfully, even it if costs more to the owners. Since
so many public interests are involved, this appears to be a reasonable
and justifiable course of action for the Town to pursue.

Suggested guidelines to work toward this policy are as follows:

require larger lot size in the Zoning By-Law for construction
of year-round homes, or for the conversion of seasonal
homes to year-round in the lakeshore areas of town,

� require stricter standards for site development to mitigate
erosion, pollution, and esthetic degradation,

� require strict standards for construction and maintenance of
septic disposal systems and

encourage owners of converted homes to assume more responsi-
bility and financial liability for improvement and maintenance
of private roads, for recreation and for other town services.

S. Guidelines for New Housing on Vacant Lots

Most of the preceding discussion in this section has concerned ways
to reduce the density of future development in seasonal neighborhoods
or to minimize disadvantageous aspects of converting seasonal housing
to year-round housing. The following discussion addresse,s the situation
where a property owner desires to construct a new residence on one of

the vacant lots in a seasonal neighborhood such as BVS. Should he
build a strictly seasonal home,6r should he build a year-round home?
What is the municipality' s response to this situation?

It has been demonstrated above that seasonal homes are easier for a
municipality to accommodate than year-round housing. Therefore, the
municipality should adopt special standards to make seasonal dwellings
more "affordable" relative to year-round housing during iftitial construc-
tion, and as a corollary, to make subsequent conversion of seasonal
homes to year-round permissable only under strict guidelines, as dis-
cussed in the preceding section.

UP until the present time most property owners who have desired to
construct a new seasonal home have been, to some extent, penalized
or put at an economic disadvantage, since the rules and regulations
governing development in a municipality do not take into account some
of the unique aspects of seasonal housing. For instance, lot area
requirements and other zoning regulations @are the same for each type
of dwelling in the community regardless of the size of the dwelling,
the number of rooms, and the number of people occupying the dwelling.
Also, the requirements for sewage disposal systems are based on such
requirements as number of bedrooms in a unit regardless of the
frequency of use of the toilets and sinks within that unit. Obviously,
week-end users or summertime users are putting less of a strain on a.
septic disposal system than are year-round residents, and also
seasonal units' septic systems contribute less pollutants to the
ground water or the pond.

Therefore, it could be useful to adopt separate standards for seasonal
versus year-round housing. For instance, the lot area required for
housing around the ponds could be based on the number of rooms. A
standard of 4000 square feet per room.could be required, so that a basic
six room house with two bedrooms (this is the size of a "typical"
seasonal home) would require 24,000 square feet of lot area. However,
a year -round house is likely to be constructed with at least one more
bedroom and probably a family room or den and therefore, applying the
above standard, 32,000 square feet of lot area would be required.

Similarly, the Board of Health could use a clause in the State Environ-
mental Code (Title 5, regulation 7. 11) which permits a reduction in the
size of the required disposal area by 20% if the leaching facilities are
to be used during the summer only.

27 -

B. NEIGHBGRHOOD ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE

It is not uncommon for seasonal neighborhoods to have a formally established
or informally organized group, association or club. Such organizations
exist for a wide variety of reasons. Unfortunately there is often confusion
over what their functions were, are, or should be and when -and under what
authority they can carry out their original or revised functions.

This lack of understanding concerning the function and structure of a
neighborhood organization is most important when looking at seasonal
neighborhoods experiencing change and conversion. Misconceptions or
misunderstandings concerning the function and structure of an existing
neighborhood organization and what it can do, cannot do and why, are
underlying reasons why many identified problems cannot easily be solved.

Within changing seasonal neighborhoods the need for increased or improved
services often arises and residents begin to look to one of two places to
have them provided. One is the municipality in which the neighborhood is
located; the other is the local neighborhood organization if one should exist.
Since the need to provide for such services was usually not initially per-
ceived as a function of an organization, the structure needed to provide
services may not have been put in place. The ability of that organization
to assume those functions at a later time is most difficult. In turn, the
municipality is usually unwilling to assume responsibility for what is
considered by neighborhood and town-wide residents as a "private" area,
and frustration develops. An existing neighborhood organization might
then exist that is expected to do more than it is capable of doing under
its legal mandate. A seasonal neighborhood is not a town within a town.
Even under the best structure, a neighborhood organization's power is
limited. At the outset, this fact should be recognized by both residents
of the neighborhood and other residents of the municipality.

To understand what an organization might be established to do and the
varying structures that permit it to do so, the basic functions of neighbor-
hood organizations are reviewed below.

Social function - Mutual interest in recreational activities, the
feeling that comes from living in an identified seasonal area,
and the desire of many residents to socialize during vacation
periods often means that the perceived function of a neighborhood
organization is social.

Policy/problem- solving oriented function - A recognized neighbor-
hood group can function as a neighborhood policy-maker and com-
munity neighborhood liaison group. In this capacity, it often may
speak on behalf of the neighborhood and serve as the body to which

complaints are referred and where minor problems are resolved.

Area maintenance function - Maintenance of common space used by
all residents is often considered another function of neighborhood
organizations. Common spaces might include roads, beach areas,
community rooms and/or a club house, recreational facilities and
equipment. In particular situations, modest road maintenance,
street lighting and lifeguard service may be provided.

Municipal service function - A fourth function is often assumed by
organizations when extensive conversion from seasonal to year-
round homes is experienced. As the transition occurs, increased
services are required to meet the needs of an expanding year-
round population. The functions most often assumed or expected
are those of providing year-round water, increased road maintenance,
installation of proper drainage, increased security, expanded
lighting and waste water treatment or disposal facilities; in other
words, the normal functions undertaken by a community servicing,
a year-round population.

This report deals with once seasonal neighborhoods that are experiencing
change. Therefore, emphasis must be placed on the ability of that neighbor-
hood to carry out the increasing functions expected of an existing organization
by the residents and/or municipality. This is particularly true when the
municipality cannot or will not assume the increased burden or the neighbor-
hood does not desire to relinquish its "private" status and to see its
flexclusive" amenities open to the general public.

I . Description of Existing Situation at Buena Vista Shores Association

The Buena Vista Shores neighborhood in Lakeville is similar to many
seasonal developments evolving into year-round neighborhoods which
have an inappropriate organizational structure. It was developed in the
19501 s prior to adequate municipal controls. Small parcels were sold
off by a developer unaware or uncaring of the possible problems that
would face the purchaser and the community.

Original residents indicate the establishment in 1956 of two groups of
residents, one whose membership came from the Dean Shores area and
another comprised of property owners from the Indian Rock area. As
the development expanded, these separate groups combined to form a
summer resident group and a relatively small year-round resident group
known as Dean and Indian Rock Inc. organized under provisions of Mass.
General Laws Chapter 180 Sec. 10 (corporation status). In 1969 these
groups joined to establish the Buena Vista Shores Association as a

29 -

newly incorporated organization functioning under the same articles of
organization as its predecessor.

The purposes for which the corporation is formed are as follows: to
promote and advance the health, safety and general welfare and the
civic and social interests of the residents and real estate owners of
Dean Shores and Indian Rock districts (so-called) % located in areas
abutting and adjacent to Long Pond in Lakeville, Massachusetts and
to do anything which is legal and necessary and not inconsistent with
foregoing declared purposes.

The Association extends "automatic" membership according to its by-
laws to all BVS property owners. However, no legal covenants exist
within parcel deeds that mandate membership. Thus, the level and
extent of participation are purely optional. The Association must rely
on soliciting dues and sponsoring fund-raising activities in order to
carry out the responsibilities that have fallen on it. These responsi-
bilities were not vested in the members through any formal creation or
documentation. It is, therefore, unclear what responsibilities the
Association was originally intended to carry out.

Although responsibility and power was not mandated, the Association
attempted to function in ways "beyond" its authority and power. Roads,
beaches and selected parcels of property were eventually put under its
control. With this control came the responsibility of maintenance.
The decision of the Association to take over control was perhaps an
unwise one. Without an assured method of financing, the Association's
ability to carry out maintenance successfully and any required improve-
ment was severely limited. By accepting this responsibility, the
neighborhood maintained its "private" status; but in addition, it provided
an association to which the community could now point to as having the
prime responsibility for providing not only maintenance but also the
increased services needed by an expanding year-round population. At
this point, in fact, the Association is struggling to carry out all four
of the major functions of a neighborhood organization.

2. Identification of Problem Areas

If a proper ortjanizational structure had been in place at the inception
of development, some of the problems now being faced by converted
seasonal neighborhoods would not exist or at least a wider range of
solutions could be offered. Unfortunately, few developments in
Massachusetts have workable intemal structures to deal with increas-
ing environmental, social and political problems. These organizations
themselves, seldom, if ever, have any legal authority that approximates

30 -

that of a municipal government in providing such services. Yet it would
be unrealistic to demand or expect a neighborhood organization, even
with an adequate structure, to deal with the tremendous costs of providing
such services as water supply, sewage disposal, drainage and the like.

The most important authority which is lacking is that of generating funds
to carry out these functions. Without the ability to tax or levy fees or
charges, little can be done to operate existing holdings satisfactorily
or to expand or improve neighborhood services. This is e.specially
critical within a neighborhood which is experiencing an escalating con-
version rate. This inability to cope can lead to high levels of frustration
on the part of the residents within the organization and the municipality
in which the organization is located.

3. Guidelines for Solutions

If the developer, of that neighborhood did not take the proper initial steps
to insure the neighborhood self-sufficiency, or the Town did not require
that a method of continued self-sufficiency be put in place, severe
problems are likely to occur as conversion takes place. Unfortunately,
many such developments throughout the Commonwealth were constructed
prior to adequate knowledge of potential problems. Either the municipality
was ill-prepared to deal with the issues or unaware of possible future
ramifications, or the developer was inexperienced or uncaring about
future implications to the purchasers of property and to the municipality
in which the development took place. Whatever the case, the problems
of ina ppropriate neighborhood organizational structure lead to significant
problems of jurisdiction and responsibility.

Therefore, once the functions of various neighborhood organizations are
clear, it becomes necessary to look at the types of structures that can
be put into place and the structures with which neighborhoods similar
to BVS are working. The Urban Land Institute investigated types of
homeowner associations across the country and issued a comprehensive
report in 1968. According to their research, associations fall into two
basic categories:

Automatic- membership homes association @ This organizational
structure requires, through covenants, deeds, or other recorded
legal documents which affect the title of the land within the
development, that all owners of property are members of the
association and, as members, must pay their equal share of
expenses to maintain community facilities and services provided
for the common enjoyment of all residents. Because the
association is referenced in the legal documents and its

functions and financial base are outlined, nonsupport of the
association can lead to the placement of a lien against the
individual properties in the development and run with the land.

Nonautomatic membership homes associations - The mere
existence of covenants, however, does not make the associations
automatic in nature. If no sharing of financial support is made
through a binding of the land with the payment of assessments
or dues, a property owner cannot be required to actively par-
ticipate (active participation defined as financial support).
Thus, while the owner might be a member, it is left to his
discretion to be active or passive. Covenants extending mem-
bership to all residents within the neighborhood without
expressly obligating that resident to financial support does
provide a structure for organization membership. However, it
is still similar in some respects to that of a club or citizens'
association whose membership is not provided for or referenced
in deeds, is inclusive or exclusive and derives its financial
support from a voluntary or selected membership paying dues,
assdssments, betterment fees or the like.

There are several variations under each of these broad organizational
structures. For example, under automatic associations might fall the
condominium concept. Although most often associated with multi-family
development, a condominium concept could be utilized in single-family
development.

Under this form of operation all common portions of the development would
be under common ownership. Maintenance and operating charges would be
shared by the individual owners. There are, however, disadvantages to
this structure that make this less appealing than the standard automatic
homes association. The liability factor is an example. Within a standard
condominium, community-owned property is not the property of a corpora-
tion that might enjoy limited liability for its shareholders. Limited
protection, though a major liability, is extended to property owners.
There is also the difficulty of justifying tax-exempt status. That would
free commonly-held space from being a shared financial burden, at least
concerning real estate tax.

Another structure that may be considered automatic is the cooperative.
Its distinctive characteristic involves the 1-blding of property. Under a
cooperative, the development is held by an entity and occupants of that
development, while they make up that entity, have less than fee title to
the property they occupy. They are perhaps more accurately described
as tenants sharing in the amortization of a master deed and only adding

32 -

to their equity as a shareholder. The "lease" can stipulate mainten-
ance assessments as part of the agreement. Nonpayment leaves the
same remedies to the corporation as are available to a landlord.*

Within the nonautomatic category, there are few available structures
that guarantee economic solvency. One method is the establishment of
continuity agreements where each member agrees to continue member-
ship payment. However, while this might hold for the owner, it is not
attached to the land. Thus, with a change in ownership, the new owner
is under no obligation to the association unless he chooses to be
through the execution of a new agreement.

In order that BVSA may function as more than a citizen group, it must
become aware of its existing structure and consider alternatives to that
structure that would assist it in carrying out duties and responsibilities
successfully. It must clarify its responsibilities. Only then can it
function purposively and work towards putting a necessary structure
in place. With such a structural change, it may no longer function in
the same manner nor be viewed as the same entity. It may have to
subordinate itself to a new entity or function as an influential subset
of that entity.

In the following sections of this report, a series of alternatives for
each of the main problem areas agreed on by the Town and the Buena
Vista Shores Association are outlined. Briefly, the problem areas of
major concern are:

pond water quality

waste water disposal

water supply

roads

police protection

fire protection

recreation

For furtherinformation concerning other forms of ownership and
operation, see The Homes Association Handbook, Urban Land
Institute, October, 1964, pages 4-13.

Within each section the suggested alternatives are varied but primarily
divide responsibility between the Town and the neighborhood. While
general agreement can be reached between the Town and the BVSA on
the most desirable or acceptable alternatives, the real difficulty lies
in the funding that would be required to implement those options and
the political or quasi-legal position required to capture necessary
funds and assistance.

The municipality,has an inherent advantage in this area. As a recog-
nized entity with broad powers, it can function as a conduit for
substantial Federal and State funds or,through taking certain actions,
increase its ability to seek and receive assistance. A& the BVSA does
not have those powers, its ability to capture general revenue sources
is limited. Therefore, if the municipality, for whatever reason, does
not elect to assist at least partially this segment of its population,
the burden falls on another entity. That entity is not necessarily the
BVSA. It might be.a restructured public or quasi-public entity that can
carry out the functions that BVSA is unable to because its structure
results in funding limitations.

34 -

SPECIFIC PROBLEM AREAS

A. THE LAKEVILLE PONDS COMPLEX

Since the residential neighborhoods which have been constructed pri-
marily for summer seasonal use have been located along the shores of
lakes and ponds in the Commonwealth, it is important to understand
the interrelationships between the man-made development along the
pond and the pond itself. The results of investigations, which are re-
ported in this section of the report, indicate that problems can r esult
in the water body as a result of development such as pollution, diminished
water capacity and conflicts over users' rights to the pond. Therefore, it
is important to understand how the water level and quality of the pond
fluctuates according to natural cycles and activities by man along the
shores and in the remainder of the watershed.

Lakes and ponds can obtain their water from either one of two sources
or both. They can be fed by surface water flowing into them from streams,
brooks and rivers and, to a limited extent, from rain or snow falling on
their surface or immediate shore lands. The other source is fromground
water; the lake or pond is essentially part of the ground-water table,
generally at the lowest point in the ground-water system. In either case,
the water body is dependent on rain and snow for its replenishment. The
level of a water body is dependent upon the amount of precipitation which
falls in its watershed and the rate at which its waters evaporate from the
surface. Since the evaporation rate is more or less constant, depending
only on slight variations, in climate, the water level change is primarily
dependent on fluctuations in the rate of precipitation in a given year or
period of years.

Ponds that were formed by melting ice blocks during the retreat of the
glaciers, commonly known as kettle ponds, typically have no streams or
brooks flowing into them and therefore are fed only by the ground water.
A hydrogeological study was made of Walden Pond* to analyze how it
functions and to clear up common misinterpretations of how this Pond and
other such kettle ponds are supplied with water and how the water level
fluctuates. The following excerpt from the report summarizes the processes:

The pond is fed by seepage from the sand and gravel that
encloses it, rises each year in the season of replenish-
ment of ground water, falls in the season when growing
plants use all the rain and fluctuates more widely with
gmups of wet and dry years.
"Walden's Way Revealed," Eugene H. Walker, reprinted in Man and
Nature, December, 1971, page 19.

1 Description, of Existing Situation

a. Characteristics of Long Pond and its Watershed

Long Pond is one of five interconnecting ponds in a complex of
water bodies which are located in Lakeville, Middleborough, Free-
town and Rochester. The other ponds in the complex are Great and
Little Quittacas Ponds and Assawompset and Pocksha Ponds. The
water surface area of Long Pond at its normal water elevation of
54 feet above mean sea level is 1721 acres. It derives its name
from the fact that its longer dimension, measured in a north-south
direction, is 3 1/2 miles. Its average width approximates 4000
feet. Although the depth of water varies, it averages only 6 to
10 feet and is not greater in depth at any point than 15 feet. (See
Map entitled "The Lakeville Ponds Complex") .

The pond depths in the other ponds within the Lakeville Pond Com-
plex are also relatively shallow. Assawompset Pond has an av-
erage depth of 9 to 10 feet; only near the southwest shore does the
water become deeper with 31 feet being the deepest point. Pocksha
Pond has an average depth of 10 to 20 feet, but parts of it are much
deeper with 58 feet being the deepest.

Long Pond is fed by water from two major brooks, namely Fall Brook
(in Freetown) and Hathaway Brook (in Lakeville). These inlets oc-
cur at the southwestern and western ends of the Pond, respectively.
Long Pond is drained by a stream passing through a broad wetland
at its northern end. The stream passes through a circular culvert
under Bedford Street (Routes 18 and 105), at which point its waters
flow into Assawompset Pond. A brisk current can bedetected at
the discharge end of the culvert. There is also an outlet from Long
Pond in the southeast comer, where a channel discharges into Squam
Brook, which flows southerly for two miles before discharging into
the New Bedford reservoir in Acushnet. However, this outlet drains
the Pond only at the season of high water.

Essentially, the normal water surface levels of all the Lakeville
Ponds in the complex are at the same elevation of approximately
54 feet above mean sea level. There is a slight downhill gradient,
generally flowing from south to north, such that the other four ponds
drain into Assawompset Pond, which in turn is drained by the Nemas-
ket River. This river flows northerly, into the Taunton River at the
Middleborough/Bridgewater town boundary, just south of the cor-
rectional institution in Bridgewater.

36 -

THE LAKEVILLE
PONDS COMPLEX

0 1000 90M
4CAL-t- 19 F697' NoKTH

m I PDLE DO ROU61

A KEV I L@LE

A 519A WOMP'SrT pomp

ARENA
< VISTA
OWES

4FRIA7'
11 TrA CA -5 0 Al V

0 K ROCH EGTE 9
"4,iL

F FRI FE E \N

37 -

Long Tond and the other water bodies in the Lakeville Complex
provide a large storage capacity at the normal water surface
elevation and therefore function as flood retention reservoirs
for their upstream watersheds. Since the watersheds are rela-
tively small, flood flows aria not great and the water levels are
not increased appreciably. This characteristic provides a mea-
sure of flood control for the Taunton River downstream.

The watershed of Long Pond (that portion which is in Lakeville
some of it is located in Freetown) is approximately 4,190 acres.
This amounts to 22 percent of the total land area in Lakeville.
The area of the Pond itself (again, that portion which is in Lake-
ville only) is approximately 1,320 acres. Therefore, the total
land and water area of Long Pond's watershed in Lakeville is
5,510 acres.

The configuration of the watershed is irregular. The watershed
line is generally quite close to the edge of the Pond in the middle
section of the Pond on the east. However, it expands for a great
distance to the northwest and southwest of the Pond. The former
area, entirely in Lakeville, is drained by Hathaway Brook and ex-
tends as far north as Elders Pond. Since the elevation of Elders
Pond is 90 feet above mean sea level, the gradient drops 36 feet
along a run of 12,000 linear feet, for an average gradient of 0.3
percent. (see map entitled "Watershed Area of Long Pond")

Some of the steepest points in the watershed occur along the banks
of Long Pond. At a point just south of the Hemlocks development,
the slope to the water's edge is over 10 percent and contains a ver-
tical drop of 85 feet. In Buena Vista Shores, at the steepest point,
the slope is 7.5 percent in a vertical difference of 100 feet.

b. The Water Supply Function of the Ponds

The ponds in the Lakeville Ponds complex are not owned by any single
person, government, institution or agency; rather, the owners of the
land abutting the water bodies have riparian rights to the Ponds. How-
ever.. the water rights to the Ponds have been allocated to the cities of
Fall River, Taunton and New Bedford under the following provisions:

The legislative rights of New Bedford for obtaining its water
supply are contained in Chapter 163 of the Acts of 1863,
which authorized it to take the Acushnet River; Chapter 345
of the Acts of 1894, which authorized it to take Great and
Little Quittacas Ponds; and Chapter 400 of the Acts of 1924,
which allocated the waters of Long, Assawompset and Pock-
sha Ponds to the cities of Fall River, Taunton and New Bedford.

- 38 -

WATEKSHED AKEA
OF LONG POND
ec- (IN I-AV-F-Vlw@p-
fArCT 'STREIET Woo
.500o

SCALS IN FEET K 0 K-rw
J4
Na
VN

TAUNlbk WAIER PEPARrMEtCr
fPUMpIM* eFrAlloK

5 5 A W d M -5- 6 7-
14 47

DUEMA
V I C*TA

.J
105

c*J Fmg;

CAN

V, FREE-roWn"
70WK LIKE

Under Chapter 400 of the Acts of 1924, Fall River is
authorized to take only such waters from Long Pond
as required in addition to the waters of North Watuppa
Pond. The City is further limited to a maximum with-
drawal rate of 11.5 million gallons per day (mgd) from
Long Pond. The waters of Long Pond, not so required,
shall be permitted to flow into Assawompset Pond for the
benefit of New Bedford and Taunton. If a reapportion-
ment of water becomes necessary, any one of the cities
may apply to the Department of Public Health for a re-
apportionment. In any reapportionment, the Depart-
ment is required to give consideration to the existing
supplies of the cities and their ability to secure water
from other sources.

In addition to the cities of Fall River, New Bedford and
Taunton, the towns of Lakeville and Middleborough are
authorized under Chapter 400 to draw water directly from
Assawompset and Pocksha Ponds. If Fall River should
exercise its rights in Long Pond, the towns of Lakeville
and Freetown are authorized to draw directly from Long
Pond. Also, upon application to either New Bedford or
Taunton, water may be furnished by either city to Lake-
ville, Middleborough, Acushnet, Dartmouth, Raynham,
Fairhaven, Dighton, Berkley, Freetown, Carver, Ware-
ham, Marion, Rochester or Mattapoisett. If Fall River
takes from Long Pond, it may furnish water to Lakeville,
Freetown, Swansea, Somerset or Westport.*

The Lakeville Ponds Complex supplies water directly to the cities of
Taunton and New Bedford and indirectly through these systems to the
towns of Dighton, Acushnet and Dartmouth and parts of Freetown. The
total combined safe yield of these ponds is 31 mgd based on a 5-foot
drawdown. The Taunton Water District draws water from a pumping sta-
tion on the western shore of Assawompset Pond. The New Bedford Water
Department draws water from an intake station in Little Quittacas Pond.
No water is currently drawn directly from Long Pond for water.supply
purposes.

Water System, City of New Bedford, Prepared for SRPEDD by the City
Planning Department

40 -

At the present time there are no local zoning controls covering the
protection of flood plains'or wetlands surrounding Long Pond or any-
where else within the municipalities which contain. watershed lands
surrounding the Lakeville Ponds. As one measure of control, the City
of Taunton owns 175 acres in Lakeville around Assawompset, Long
and Pocksha Ponds. The City of New Bedford owns 624 acres along
the edges of Assawompset and Pocksha Ponds.

c. Recreational Use of the Ponds

At the present time there is limited use of the Lakeville Ponds for
recreational activities such as swimming, boating and fishing. As-
sawompset Pond is posted with a prohibition on swimming by order
of the Taunton Water Board.

A greater recreational use is permitted on Long Pond, since it is fur-
ther removed from the intake source for municipal water supply to the
Taunton Water System. Therefore, swimming, boating and fishing are
allowed on Long Pond. There are numerous bathing beaches around
the Pond@with five of them being located in Buena Vista Shores alone.
The town of Lakeville has no public beach on Long Pond; however, the
town of Freetown has one located near the outlet of Fall Brook into the
southwest comer of Long Pond. There is a public boat launching site
at the Pond, located at the southeast end of the pond with access from
Route 18. It is maintained by the Public Access Board and has a good
launching ramp with storage space for 30 car/trailers. Many lakeshore
residents launch their boats here, as well as the public at large.

There is good fishing in the Pond with large mouth bass, pickerel and
perch predominating the waters. There is a large alewife run in the
spring with the marsh and rivers between Long Pond and Assawompset
Pond serving as a spawning ground. The Department of Fish and Wild-
life has not stocked fish in recent years, nor do they have any exten-
sive inventory or maintenance programs there.

2. Identification of Problem Areas

a. Deterioration in Water Qualit

Eutrophication is a natural process which accompanies the aging process
of a lake or pond and occurs with the buildup of nutrients in the water.
This process essentially takes place at the bottom of the water body and
is caused by the decomposition of natural organic matter which settles
there. It can be hastened by the infusion of nutrients, particularly

phosphorous, which are introduced naturally from direct precipitation
on the pond, and from storm water runoff, and by waste disposal from
septic systems, which permit phosphorous from human excrement and
detergents to filter through the soil into the pond. It is generally true
that the more shallow the pond, the more rapid will be the process of
eutrophication.

Eutrophication is not the same as pollution; however, it does cause
certain problems in the ecology of a pond. It encourages the growth
of aquatic plants which can get excessive and thereby limit water
contact sports on the water body. It also causes algal bloom, or the
excessive growth of algae which clouds the water and often forms a
green layer on the surface. It causes a bad odor to be emitted from the
pond when a thermal inversion occurs, usually in the Fall of the year,
as the cooler surface water falls to the bottom and forces the warmer,
decomposing lower layer (hypolimnion) to rise to the surface.

Pollution to a water body can be caused by discharges from point or
non-point sources. Typically, pollution of the ponds which contain
seasonal or vacation home communities is caused by non-point sources,
since these resort areas are generally located in rural communities
which do not have high intensity, concentrated sources of pollution.
Some of the non-point sources of pollution which may be found in resort
communities are:

1) leachate from septic systems

2) storm water surface runoff

Some non-point sources of pollution which are not necessarily generic
to resort communities but which are potential or actual problems in the
Lakeville Ponds Complex include:

1) sand and gravel operations which can cause siltation of
the streams and ponds,

2) salt intrusion from roadside runoff (particularly from
Route 140 into Hathaway Brook which flows into Long
Pond); and
3) low stream flows during periods of drought (the
Nemasket River, which drains the Lakeville ponds,
was cited in the SENE study as being susceptible
to this problem).

42 -

1) Leachate from Septic Systems

The problem of pollution from improperly functioning septic systems
is particularly acute in the seasonal home neighborhoods which are the
focus of this study. Malfunctioning systems can cause accelerated
eutrophication of the lake or pond, can cause-health hazards and
unpleasant odors due to effluent leaching onto the surface of the ground
and can contaminate the ground water which in many cases is used for
municipal or domestic water supply.

Septic systems, in general, are a good method of disposing of domestic
waterborne waste. In the proper soils, the organic pollutants can be
absorbed and filtered effectively. These systems have the added advan-
tage that they recharge the ground water of a community which helps, at
least, to maintain the underground aquifer as a source for water suppiy.
However, inorganic materials such as nitrogen and phosphorous are not
readily absorbed by most soils, and can pass through the ground water
into an adjacent waterbody. Furthermore, septic systems must be
properly designed and maintained to be effective in filtering bacterio-
logical contaminants.

Throughout the region, not only at resort neighborhoods but in general,
many existing septic systems should be upgraded or replaced. The
SENE study estimated that 60% of the septic tank systems in the region
should be connected to sewers because of undersized lots, poor soil
conditions or other reasons.*

While it is clear that many of the on-site septic disposal sytems at
Buena Vista Shores are marginal, it is not clear that these systems
have caused critical pollution problems to Long Pond. Test samples
taken at semi-monthly intervals in the past two years at the outlet
from Long Pond indicate fluctuating measurements of coliform bacteria,
with the average level over this period being 480 per 100 ml; levels
below 1000 per 100 ml are not, considered to be critica,l to human health.

Bacteriological samples from the past four summers at two
bathing beach sites in Freetown at the southern end of Long
Pond also indicate relatively low counts of coliform, with
the exception of one high count in the summer of 1976.

Report of the Southeastern New England Study - Regional Report,
New England River Basins ConTniEssion, 1975, page 17.

Measurements of the physical and chemical parameters of the Pond
outlet, taken by the New Bedford Water Department, indicate no ab-
normally high levels of nutrients or toxic wastes.

Unfortunately, no measurements have been taken by the Lakeville Board
of Health on Long Pond, and no evidence of tests which may have been
made by private associations such as BVS has been uncovered. It is
also unfortunate that the New Bedford tests do not measure phosphorous,
which is one of the prime indicators of the level of eutrophication-
causing nutrients.

There is evidence from the large fish population in the Pond that a
relatively high level of aquatic vegetation (algae and submerged
vegetation) is present upon which the fish are feeding. This in turn
is evidence of an advanced or advancing stage of eutrophication.

In summary, based on this evidence, it would appear that the Pond
could not be considered to be polluted at the present, but that there
are circumstances out of which problems could develop in the future.

2) Storm Water Runoff

As rain falls to the ground, some is absorbed into the soil and some
flows off the land seeking a lower elevation. That rain which runs
downhill can pick up silt, debris, inorganic elements deposited by
man and organic wastes left by animals or decaying vegetation. All
these elements can cause harm to a water body into which the rain
runoff flows.

Siltation caused by runoff of a pond or lake can cause a loss of the
storage capacity of the water body and excessive turbidity. Runoff
can also help to accelerate the process of eutrophication by bringing
nutrients into the water body. The carrying of debris or small amounts
of organic elements into a pond is not a major problem but can cause
aggravation and require maintenance.

The quality and velocity of storm water runoff are affected by the
perviousness of the surface of the land and the slope of the land.
Typically, man-made development of the land with buildings and roads
decreases the ability of the land to absorb the water from rainstorms
or melting snow.

Many of the seasonal home complexes in the Commonwealth are located
around ponds which have steep-sloped banks. This makes the ponds
especially susceptible to pollution from storm water run-off, either

- 44 -

across the surface of the ground or through ditches, culverts or other
collectors which channel the runoff. Some of the banks around White
Pond in Concord have slopes as steep as 40%. The steepest slope in
the Long Pond watershed in Lakeville is just over 105/o.

Storm water runoff is obviously a problem at Buena Vista Shores. In
the steeper part of the development (northern end), the slopes average
7% down to the,waterfront. The main roads in the sub-division are
partially paved which accelerates the speed of the runoff from the sur-
rounding house lots and streets. There are no man-made devices to
collect the storm water, so that it flows along the edge of the roadway
.causing erosion to the berm and over time causing the breakup of the
pavement.

A major source of concern is the fact that much of this down-hill runoff
is channeled to the beach area thereby causing the sand on the beach to
be eroded into the pond and undoubtedly bringing some pollutants from
automobiles and possibly effluent from malfunctioning septic systems.
There is one catch basin at the upper end of the principal beach, from
which water is carried by pipe directly to the pond; this helps to correct
the beach erosion problem, but does not help the pond pollution problem.
There is evidence of iron stains being discharged from this pipe into the
pond.

In the lower portion of the subdivision, particularly in the flood plain
of Hathaway Brook, much of the storm water collects on the roadway
surface and remains for long periods of time. The roads themselves
are raised not much more than one foot above the water level of the swamp
and Long Pond. It is reported that the water supply pipes are leaking in
some places and therefore aggravating this problem,

At the southern end of the subdivision, there is a large area which has
been used as a sand excavation operation. Si ince this lies adjacent to
Hathaway Brook, there is the possibility of siltation of the water from
the exposed banks. Also, this area is used as a dumping ground for
old tree roots and other construction debris. Directly on the other side
of the brook from this operation, Route 140 passes alongside. The
waterway has been put into a channel at the foot of the bank of this
elevated limited access highway, thus creating a potential salt water
intrusion into the brook.

b. Conflicts of Uses of a Pond

The conflicts of uses for a body of water fall into three categories:

45 -

1) conflict between water used as a visual amenity by
homeowners of the shore vs. water used for recreation,

2) conflict over who has rights and priorities for recreational
use of the water body, i.e. , between homeowners along
the shores vs. "the public," and

3) conflict between water used as source for public drinking
water vs. water used for recreation.

To these three commonly perceived and recognized conflict areas must
be added a fourth, and ultimately an overriding concern. With intense
urbanization of lands in a pond's watershed, and increasing pressure
for use of the shores of the water body and the water itself comes the
obvious problem of degradation of the intrinsic value of the water
body by inappropriate and incompatible use of the lands in the water-
shed. Indiscriminate and pollution- generating uses of the land can
reduce the quality of the water, can lead to accelerated eutrophication
of the water, and can reduce the amenity value of the pond and its
natural. setting. Although some of these problems are not so obvious
or easy to detect, since they are difficult to measure and analyze in
the short-run, nonetheless these kinds of conflicts must be resolved to
maintain a healthy water body, and to insure that it continues to be a
unique and positive resourcefor the population.

1) Visual Amenity vs. Recreational Use

Waterfront property attracts residents to such a location primarily for
two reasons. First, the aesthetic attractiveness of a lake and its
natural shorescape encourage people to live there. They seek peace
and tranquility away from the typical man-made urban landscape. The
water and the environment have a literal and a psychological cooling
ef fect on people. Secondly, the recreation potential of lakes and ponds
attracts people to own homes adjacent to them so they can swim, sail
and fish in the waters in their leisure time or on vacation.

These two basic assets of lake and lakefront property are often in con-
flict with one another. Even though water sports are of relatively low
intensity, measured in the numbers of people participating and the
activity they generate, nonetheless, certain water sport activities
detract from the peaceful atmosphere many people come to enjoy,

These uses are not always entirely incompatible. One recent study*

Lakes and Ponds, Tourbier and Westmacott, Urban Land Institute,
1976, page 5.

46 -

determined that a majority of lakefront owners did not object to public
access to their lake (for recreation purposes), though they did favor
strict controls over the use of the lake. Therefore, a delicate balance
must be struck in the relative accommodation of these goals in a given
lake setting.

2) Private Recreation vs. Public Recreation

Another area of conflict is over the competition between various parties
seeking to use water bodies and the shore lands for various recreational
pursuits, including boating, fishing, hunting and swimming. This
problem is becoming more acute as Massachusetts becomes more
urbanized. A good summary of this problem can be found in the follow-
ing statement from the Report by the Public Access Board:

"Although the waters of these ponds are public, the shores
are not necessarily so. The history of Massachusetts'
progression from an agricultural state, through a period of
industrialization depending largely on use of water power,
to the present conflict between spreading development and
increased recreation activity has had the effect of closing many
a pond to everyone but the shoreline owners. Where once open
farmlands lay around a pond and the farmer welcomed the oc-
casional fisherman, there is now a housing development
restricting easy access, and there are many more people
clamoring for recreational use of the water.

Obviously, land owners adjacent to the ponds have the right to use the
water for recreational pursuits. When a pond is greater than ten acres
in size, it is designated a Great Pond in Massachusetts, thereby
granting to the public the use of the pond. When a pond is greater
than twenty acres, the public has not only the right to use of the pond,
but also the right of access to it. A Public Access Board has been created
to encourage the public to obtain access, and to distribute funds earmarked
from the gasoline tax for creating and maintaining access sites. At the
present time, there are 84 locations on ponds, rivers, and estuaries in
the Commonwealth where access sites have been designated by the
Board, including a site on the southeast end of Long Pond in Freetown.
The Commonwealth has had a long-standing policy of encouraging
fishing on the ponds and certain rivers and coastal waters; the Division
of Fisheries and Wildlife stocks ponds and otherwise encourages fishing
activities.

Public Access to Waters of Massachusetts, 1974, Public
Access Board, Department of Environmental Management.

There ar e other ways that access to ponds can be provided for the
public. Governmental agencies can acquire and develop parks and re-
creation facilities on the shores of water bodies. Private associations
,can be formed to purchase land on a pond and develop facilities for
swimming and boating. An interesting, although not altogether atypical,
situation of multiple access to a pond occurs at White Pond in Concord.
In addition to home owners surrounding parts of the pond who have
access to its waters, there is a small boat launching area maintained
by the County. There is the White Pond Association swimming beach
which offers membership to a limited number of Concord residents.
There is a beach used by the employees of a large industrial company
which owns extensive lands along the south shore of the pond. The
Town has considered from time to time purchasing a site which would
be available to all town residents since there is no town-owned
swimming facility elsewhere in Concord.

To the extent that the situation is typical of other ponds throughout the
Commonwealth, the problem of the conflicting demands for recreational
use can be seen. In Long Pond, there are potential problems in this
regard. Town-wide facilities for swimming are provided at Clear Pond,
where there is a municipal beach. However, as stated in the Master
Plan for Lakeville:

"The outdoor swimming facility at Clear Pond Park is not
sufficient space or adequately located for Lakeville residents.
It is, therefore, recommended that public access to Long Pond
be developed to allow the use of this resource by all town
residents. In addition, the possibility of the use of the Great
Ponds for swimming activities without need of special permits.
should be investigated. " (Pg. 98)

3) Water Supply vs. Recreation

Another "presumed" conflict of uses for lakes and ponds is between the
water as a source of public drinking water, and water being used for
recreation, including primarily wa.,ter-contact sports. It is commonly
believed that bacteria generated from human wastes if it is allowed to
dissolve in the water used for public drinking will cause disease and
even epidemics among the public who is drinking the water. Indeed,
particularly in the last century in America, disease was spread by con-
taminated drinking water supplies and the threat is still ever present.
Therefore, as public water supply reservoirs were developed on the
east coast, strict prohibitions against human contact with the water
bodies were instituted and still remain in effect today. Swimming
is prohibited in Massachusetts water supply reservoirs, according

to a law passed in 1884, and other forms of recreation such as boating
and fishing are carefully limited and controlled.

There are unfavorable emotional or aesthetic perceptions of reservoir
recreation. Also, some people resist reservoir recreation for economic
reasons on the assumption that greater costs for water treatment will
be necessary if recreation is allowed on a public water supply lake or
reservoir.

However, many of the arguments against public recreational use of
reservoir land can be demonstrated to be overly cautious at best and
misleading at worst. The case for increased recreation has been well
documented in a handbook prepared by the Council for Environmental
Quality*, and will be summarized in the Guidelines for Solutions
section of this report which follows.

3. Guidelines foir Solutions

a. Measuring the Water Quality

Problems in water bodies,, namely, accelerating eutrophication,
siltation, and bacteriological and chemical pollution can be measured
in a water body by taking samples and analyzing them. Therefore, as
a general guideline for analyzing the health of a water body, a lim-
nological study should be undertaken by competent specialists. There
are many parameters which can be measured and then compared with
accepted standards to determine if the water body is above or below
the standards.

The following list identifies the three major elements of a water
quality test, and the items to be sampled:

Parameter Test for:

physical characteristics: temperature, flow, turbidity

chemical characteristics: chlorides, phosphates,
nitrates, pH

biological characteristics: bacteria

Recreation on Water Supply Reservoirs, A Handbook for Increased
Use, Council on Environmental Quality, September, 1975.

b. Avoiding Pollution of Pond from Ground Water Contamination

In general, pollution of the ponds and wells caused by organic wastes
around the pond can be avoided by insuring that a "safe distance"
exists between the water supply source and the pollution source. The
safe distance includes both the horizontal and vertical dimension (see
sketch A). In the vertical dimension, an effective filtering layer of
soil is required to remove human and animal excreta and toxic chemical
wastes before they reach the water-bearing aquifer. This filtering
layer depth depends on the type of soil through which the effluent is
passing, since if the soil is too porous, as with coarse gravel, the
material cannot be effectively filtered. In general, where the water
table is high, disposal field system for filtering septic effluent should
be used, since it requires only about four feet of depth to perform the
filtering. Where the water table is low, a deep disposal system can
be used, such as deep seepage pits, cesspools and waste injection
wells. The filtering quality of the aquifer itself should also be
considered.

In the horizontal dimension, a "safe distance" must be maintained
between the point where the effluent enters the aquifer and the point
where the water is drawn off for use in the domestic water supply.
Since ground water moves, too, in a down hill direction, generally
corresponding to the slope of the land above, pollutants which pass
through the filtering area, or which cannot be filtered out since they
dissolve in water (salts, detergents and other inorganic substances)
can be transmitted in a horizontal direction. It is generally considered
safe to put a residential well fifty feet from a septic system, assumin
that the vertical and horizontal filtering action would be adequate The
State Environmental Code requires a distance of one hundred feet between
a well and a septic system.

It is difficult to say what an acceptable minimum safe distance should
be between a septic system and a pond which is usedfor water supply
reservoir; it really depends on the slope of the ground water and the
filtering quality of the soils above the aquifer and in the aquifer itself.
Obviously, the danger to contamination is increased as the volume of
discharge is increased, since this could cause a steeper slope of the
ground water. (see sketch B) Therefore, since the characteristics of
the soils are such an important determinant of how septic systems and
wells will function, the soils must be sampled and analyzed in great
detail. Also, the depth and characteristics of the ground water aquifer
must be measured and analyzed.

In measuring the "health" or water quality of a pond, one of the principal
indices is the degree to which the pond is becoming eutrophic and the

50 -

DISTANCES 15EMEEN
014-SITE SEWMe D16POsAL.
FACALITIES AND WATEK
SUPMY SOUKC159
MVML- FIELP

WE
FwK aTT

Vf RT"t-
MMAA

WATER
MAKING,
AQUIFEK
BEVKOOK

5KETC,H A

100 FEeT- M1140AUM
Dlc2TAMC5 PEKMITTEP jH
S-rATE ENVIKONMEWrAL COM

EASED WA,5TF- Vlc@c+MaEs
CAN lNCK5A<v-e I-vLOM OP
GKOUNP WATM AQUIFEV-

WAT-j!M
AOUIFF-m
PON 0

SKF-TCH

eAFF- vi,:-vTAKGE-
-foO MET 9f4ulFzf-D 15r
STATF- f;MVlKoNM6NTAL- 66VE
UI.F

IF P0140 15 MIX WA-MR SMSCP-

principal ingredient which must be measured is the phosphorous level
in a pond. High quantities of phosphorous cause a high concentration
of chlorophyll a . This concentration reduces the clarity of the water,
and encourages the growth of aquatic vegetation and algae.

As discussed earlier, phosphorous is carried to a pond by natural and
man-made causes. The amount of phosphorous which is added to a
pond can be calculated by measurements of the amount of phosphorous
supplied to the soil from human and detergent wastes per capita, and
by the calculations of numbers of people per residence, the number of
residences along the shore, and the amount of time spent by each person
at a residence in a year. To these human factors must be added cal-
culations of natural factors such as the amount of precipitation, the
pond's morphometry and water budget. A summation of these factors
will determine the added concentration of nutrients to the pond in a
given year.*

By working backwards, knowing the actual concentration of nutrients
(measurements of chlorophyll a as determined by Secchi disc readings),
it is possible to calculate what the maximum number of residences can
be on the shore of a pond before the water quality of the pond will be-
come irreversibly deteriorated.

In ponds which have passed this point, stringent measures will have
to be taken, such as eliminating on-site septic systems, and dredging
the bottom of the pond to remove the nutrient layer and allow the water
to purify itself. If the pond is only "becoming" eutrophic, it may be
sufficient to take steps to control the nutrients, such as eliminating
the use of high-phosphate detergents, or reducing the use of lawn
fertilizer. Also, steps can be taken to control the growth of vegetation
in the pond such as cutting and harvesting the weeds, aerating the
hypolimnion, and using chemicals to precipitate the nutrients.

At Long Pond, based on the existing available evidence, it would appear
that the Pond is in a relatively healthy state. However, since the future
health of the pond is of such vital concern, and since the factors which
can be measured to determine the health of the pond are so complex, it

Determining the Capacity of Lakes for Development, Peter J.
Dillon, from Lake-Shoreland Management Programs: Selected Papers,
Berger, Kusler and Klinginer-, Water Resources Research Center,
University of Massachusetts at Amherst, page 96.

52 -

would be helpful if periodic testing and analysis were undertaken to
monitor the water quality in Long Pond. The type of services which
were utilized in the study at John's Pond in Mashpee in measuring the
discharge of subsurface leachate into the Pond would be useful for fur-
ther knowledge on the health of Long Pond. The Mass. Division of
Water Pollution Control could provide helpful testing and analysis, as
they have for other ponds and reservoirs in Southeastern Massachusetts.

c. Handling Storm Water Runoff

Ideally, the roads in resort community developments should have some
system for collecting storm water and disposing of it in an environ-
mentally acceptable manner. This can include either open ditches
or swales (with culverts under roads and driveways as needed) or a
system of underground storm sewers ' and catch basins. In either sys-
tem, the waterwhich is collected must be returned to the ground at a
location which will not cause pollution or erosion problems. The ad-
vantage of the former system is that the storm water is essentially re-
turned to the ground at or near the point where it is collected from the
roadways and house lots, therefore, avoiding the need for expensive
piping systems and having the added advantage of helping to recharge
the ground water aquifer. This system works best in relatively flat
sites and, therefore, would be ruled out as a possible. alternative for
many of the resort communities which have steeply sloping sites.
Under these conditions the underground storm drain system is about
the only solution. However, great care must be taken in the planning
and construction of such a system to avoid simply discharging the
collected water at the lowest point of the site, since this usually
tends to be the pond itself, or streams or wetlands surrounding the
development and will aggravate the pollution problem.

The state sanitary code requires that storm drain pipes be located
twenty-five feet from septic systems or if the drains are being dis-
charged into a public water supply reservoir, one hundred feet from
septic systems. Since this latter condition obtains at Buena Vista
Shores and since the house lots have individual septic systems, either
it would be impossible according to the state law to build a storm drain
system under the roads, or the septic systems would have to be replaced
by a municipal, collection system before storm drains could be built to
serve the area.

In order to reduce the erosion potential of storm water runoff on the
lots, roads and beaches of Buena Vista Shores and to avoid pollution
of the Pond from the runoff . the storm water should be stored or de-
tained as much as possible. This storage can occur naturally in the

53 -

landscai:,e, in surface depressions and on land that has thick vegetation.
It can also be stored temporarily and allowed to be released slowly, as
with the use of "dry ponds", trenches or swales or even previous parking
lots which are designed to permit easy percolation. It can be stored
11permanently" in ponds or stream channels.

When excess water which cannot be stored must be transmitted over-
land to a receiving water system, natural overland flows or open chan-
nels should be a preferred method of transporting the water, rather than
enclosed systems. However, the alignment of open channels must be
coordinated with the layout of lot and street patterns and grades. This
could cause a problem in Buena Vista where the lots are close together
and the grades are relatively steep.

In an enclosed system, the components should be designed to help
manage storm water, not just dispose of it. Energy dissipators and
other outfall protection devices may be needed when the discliarge is
onto highly erodible soils. Siltation ponds may be necessary to reduce
erosion and to prevent pollutants from being discharged directly into the
Pond.

d. Resolving Conflicting Use Demands for Ponds

It is in the interest of all the persons and agencies who seek to use a
lake or pond to decide what priorities should be given for the various
use alternatives for the pond, some of which may be in conflict with
one another. These uses, which were described in the previous section
of the report, can be identified as recreation uses, water supply uses
and homesite uses. Once priorities are assigned and agreed upon, the
implications of these decisions must be carefully considered.

For instance, if the Town of Lakeville and/or regional authorities were
to decide to maximize the recreation aspects of the Lakeville Ponds,
this would have consequences on the existing residences located on
the Ponds, on the vacant land on or near the Ponds and on municipal
facilities. The case for such an emphasis has been stated in various
planning studies, including the TAMS report on Water Supply, Sewage
Disposal and Drainage. To quote from the report (page 11-35)

If these ponds were put to such use, they would represent
the largest purely recreational fresh water areas in the

54 -

Commonwealth. From the viewpoint of transportation,
location and access, they have excellent recreational
potential for camping, swimming, boating, fishing and
picnicking. A preliminary economic estimate of partial
recreational development of Great Quittacas, Pocksha
and Assawompset Ponds, keeping Little Quittacas as an
emergency water supply for New Bedford and maintain-
ing a controlled level of residential development around
Long Pond, indicates a possible return of approximately
$500, 000 per year over annual expenditures.

The secondary benefits accruing to the surrounding cities
and towns in the form of increased tourist trade, retail
services and associated tourist-oriented services have
not been included but would be substantial. Nor has
there been an attempt to analyze the impact of such a
development on the socio-economic character of South-
eastern Massachusetts, but further engineering studies
relative to the construction of a dam on the Taunton
River should consider this factor in greater depth.

This course of action would also have implications on the water supply
function of the Lakeville Ponds. Either the ponds would have to be
replaced as the source of potable water, or increased treatment would
likely be required to insure that the drinking water met public health
standards.

As a guideline to help in deciding the feasibility of increasing recrea-
tionaluse of a public water supply reservoir, the following questions
should be answered, in generally the following order:

-what type of treatment is now being given to the water
before it is used by the public and what increased
treatment, if any, would be required to insure that
the water would be safe for drinking?

"safety.of drinking water requires upgrading
of treatment to include a full filtration pro-
cedure as well as disinfection" (C.E.Q.
Report, p. 31--see also Appendix I)

-what type of restriction would be required on the water
body and in the watershed: partial or minimal?

11recreation on reservoirs is not an all or
nothing matter; restrictions on some forms
of recreation may be entirely appropriate,
depending on local conditions" (C.E.Q.
Report, p. 25--see also Chapter 3, Plan-
ning Increased Recreation, for specific
guidelines and design standards).

-what legal impediments to implementing the desired level
of recreation would have to be overcome?

"Since 1884 bathing in reservoirs has been
prohibited by law and exceptions are possible
only by a special act of the State Legislature
(inIMassachusetts). In addition, Section 160
of Chapter 111 of the State Code gives the
Department of Public Health authority to pro-
hibit swimming in reservoirs and sets a high
fine for violators. Unless both the law and
the public health department regulations are
repealed, planners should concentrate on
opening restricted properties for activities
other than swimming. " (C. E. Q. Report, p. 41--
see also Appendix II, copy of Laws and Reula-
tions for Mass.)

As a guideline for solutions to the problems of conflicting demands for
the recreational use of a water body, it would seem to be necessary
to get a common agreement among many parties and agencies as to
what proportion of a pond and its shore lands should be used by the
"public" as opposed to private property owners around the pond. It
is encumbent upon state and regional governing bodies to help des-
ignate certain ponds and water bodies in the Commonwealth to meet
the demands of the public who cannot afford to purchase lake-front
property. This means providing long-range planning to anticipate
future demands and must take into account the location of the pond
in relation to thepopulation of a region. A study should be made
of existing facilities compared to the demand to determine what areas
are deficient in providing public accesses. This approach should be
coordinated with municipalities to insure that their interests and
needs are being accounted for. Municipalities also have the primary
responsibility to insure that the private owners' rights are being re-
garded; homeowners' associations can also facilitate this process.

56 -

There should-a lso be a hierarchy of control ranging from general
regulations down to very specific rules and regulations governing
the recreational use of ponds. For instance, the state registers
boats and also develops operating rules concerning the use of
boats, the discharge of sewage from boats, water skiing behind
boats and the provision of safety devices for boats. The state
has enforcement officials to help achieve compliance with its
rules and regulations. However, local towns may want to adopt
more specific rules and regulations and institute their own po-
licing programs to obtain greater control over use of lakes which
may have a higher density of use. An example of this greater
kind of control is that exercised by the Lake Boone Commission,
whose members are from the Towns of Stow and Hudson, acting
under authority of Chapter 712 and 713 of the Special Acts of 1941.
It has published two separate sets of regulations containing
twelve and five separate rules respectively. These rules des-
cribe permitted and prohibited types of activity on the lake, such
as requiring proper construction, maintenance and identification
of docks and rafts on the pond and even prohibit the use of pro-
fane language. (See copies of these rules and regulations in the
appendix.)

There is some controversy over the ability of municipalities to pro-
hibit power-operated boats on ponds within their jurisdiction. Some
towns have such prohibitions in effect. However, the legality of
towns acting to prohibit motor boat use has been questioned. The
right of a municipality to use this kind of authority should be clearly
established at the state level as an important step toward resolving
conflicting recreational demands.

e. Implications for the Lakeville Ponds

The interrelationship between water and land is the fundamental issue
in this problem. The jurisdiction over the use of the water and the
land is also a basic ingredient since the cities of New Bedford, Taun-
ton and Fall River have water supply rights in Long Pond but no con-
trol over its watershed and Lakeville has no legal access to the Pond
for water supply but exercises use control (zoning and related legali-
ties) over the surrounding lands draining into the Pond. There are two
questions of equity which might be asked here and for which answers
are necessary. Why should Lakeville be required to provide water
and maintain its quality for use by the cities and yet be denied ac-
cess to it for water supply purposes? If the cities continue the rights
to use the Lakeville Complex water, why shouldn't they participate
financially in protecting and improving the watershed lands in Lakeville

to protect the quality of the water?

These questions, and possibly others related to them, raise the
regional concern of water supply and the moral obligation of muni-
cipalities benefiting from natural resources such as water to share
in the responsibilities of preserving those resources.

It is evident from prior sections of this study and analysis that
limited thought has been given to this water/land relationship
until the recent environmental surge. When the water rights in
Long Pond were assigned, no provision was made to include pro-
tection of the shorefront. Similarly, when the various resort neigh-
borhoods were established and subsequently grew, their impacts on
the Pond were either ignored or not even known. Over the years
these relationships have grown out of proportion and it becomes
apparent that certain prior actions now have to be undone or :'cor-
rected" if a rational relationship is to be reestablished between
water and land.

This "correction" process is not an easy one -- it will have its costs,
its compromises and its frustrations. Hard decisions have to be made
now -- otherwise the situation will muddle along until a crisis or a
disaster dictates an even "harsher" solution.

"Since the areas around the other four ponds in the
complex are protected areas, Long Pond af fords the
only lakeside potential for year-round and summer
housing, and almost half of the shoreline's 1,500
acres with potential for development are already in
private use. Ultimate development of the shoreline
could support up to 10, 000 people and could create
unfavorable conditions in the area's waters unless
treatment other than individual disposal were pro-
vided for the area's sewage. Problems with sep-
tic tanks are already being experienced in this area
during prolonged rainy periods when the ground-
water table is high. The areas of Buena Vista Shores,
on the northwestern shoreline of Long Pond and East
Freetown, southwest of Long Pond, are also ex-
hibiting problems with their individual disposal
units because of 'the density of development and
poor soil conditions .........

Most of the remaining areas of Lakeville north of
Long Pond are free of problems and could probably
go on using individual disposal units through 1990 .....

To prevent pollution of Long Pond and to allow its
continued development as a popular residential and
recreational area, as well as to alleviate individual
disposal problems in East Freetown, it will be neces-
sary to collect and treat the sewage in these areas.
The greatest problem in serving the area is the lack
of a natural receiving water which would offer suf-
ficient dilution to treated sewage other than Long
Pond itself. Discharging the treated sewage into
Long Pond would not be acceptable because of the
risks associated with accidental pollution, which
could by improper operation or breakdown of the
sewage treatment plant, and the possibility of long-
range disturbances to the biological balances, caus-
ing (sic) a speedup of eutrophication in the pond. "

The report continues by discussing two schemes (A and B) for discharg-
ing the effluent from the treatment facility into a receiving water suf-
ficient to provide adequate dilution.

Scheme A would discharge the effluent from a proposed treatment plant
in the vicinity of Route 18 and the New Bedford Canal into the Canal

65 -

(Squam Brook). Several small pumping stations along the shores
of Long Pond would be necessary to lift the sewage flows in a sys-
tem of collection sewers into the treatment facility. This solution
would permit early construction because it does not depend upon an
expansion of the New Bedford system north through Acushnet and
Freetown to Lakeville.

Scheme B would. take the collected waste waters from the Long
Pond neighborhoods and transport them in a trunk sewer for treat-
ment at a New Bedford municipal sewerage facility. The time factor
here is considerably longer than in Scheme A because of the need
for more construction at the New Bedford end of the system and the
installation of a force main from Lakeville to New Bedford.

Each of these two schemes would be interpreted as structural perma-
nent solutions and would permit Buena Vista Shores to continue as
both a seasonal and year-round neighborhood. The possibility of
public health nuisances in the area and contamination of Long Pond
would be eliminated.

2) Local Treatment Facilit

The categories of local treatment facilities are as follows and would
be managed by the municipality or a town- wide, neighborhood (s) or
intermunicipal sewer district:

Town-wide treatment plant - There could be a town-wide
collection and treatment plan system which would serve
all of Lakeville, including Buena Vista Shores and other
critical lakeshore neighborhoods.

� Package treatment 121ant - Such a treatment plant could
be designed to serve only a limited lakeshore district
such as Buena Vista Shores. These facilities are usually
designed to handle flows up to 25 0, 000 gallons per day
and can be designed with either secondary or advanced
treatment. The treated effluent would be discharged into
Long Pond or Hathaway Brook.

� Stabilization ponds or lagoons - This category of treat-
ment facility involves spreading the sewage over large
areas of the land and relying on certain kinds of vege-
tation to consume toxic wastes. Upland sites could be
found beyond Buena Vista Shores. This would avoid
having to discharge the treated water directly into Long

66 -

3. Guictelines for Solutions

Waste water disposal has traditionally been conceived of as a strictly
engineering problem. Indeed, much careful thought and planning must
be given to the design of waste water disposal systems, from the in-
dividual toilet to regional treatment facilities. However, there is a
growing awareness that the engineering problems are interrelated with
broader land-,u.se planning issues. Should a community be designed to
foster totally onsite disposal of sewage, or should it require centralized
collection and treatment facilities? What is the relation between water
supply and sewage disposal? What impact will the community's sew-
age disposal system have on the water quality of the rivers and lakes
in the town ?

These and other questions require a comprehensive approach to solv-
ing waste water planning problems. An important beginning has been
made toward such a process with the initiation of regional waste water
management programs, initiated in response to directives from Section
208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. These plans
will be completed within the next few years to guide regions and muni-
cipalities in long-wrange solutions to waste water disposal.

Other municipal tools which are useful for effective waste water manage-
ment include zoning, subdivision regulations (including environmental
impact assessments of development alternatives) and board of health
rules and regulations. It is important for a municipality and individual
developers to have accurate knowledge of soil conditions, ground water
profiles and quality measurements and other important hydrogeological
information to guide the formulation of local waste water disposal plans
and policies.

The primary and overriding problem in the Buena Vista Shores area is
waste water disposal. Both the short-range and long-range stability
of the area for both seasonal and year-round occupancy is dependent
upon the adoption of an effective management plan to handle the waste
water. The contamination of the ground water and Long Pond from the
11septic" systems could force the abandonment of all the residences
in the area until the waste water problem is eliminated by means of a
long-range solution. Such a drastic step would present a real hard-
ship to the year-round residents, would result in many tax abatement
requests and would produce numerous mortgage foreclosure actions.

To avoid this step and related measures, a waste water management
plan must be prepared, adopted and put into operation at the earliest
reasonable moment. The fact that the Buena Vista Shores area has

survived" up to this point in time is no guarantee that its continua-
tion, safely, is a foregone conclusion.

The three major alternatives for the solution to the waste water dis-
posal needs of Buena Vista Shores residents are:

a. Construct a centralized sewer system
b. Rely on onsite septic disposal systems
c. Condemn or acquire shoreland properties

Within each of these major alternatives there are -several secondary
options which can be pursued depending upon the extent the Town
officials and local residents are willing to go to solve the long-range
problems.

a. Construct Centralized Sewer System

A centralized waste water (sewage) system generally consists of two
principal elements -- a collection system and a treatment system. A
collection system could be provided to serve the whole Town of Lake-
ville or only certain critical sections such as Buena Vista Shores. In
either case, there are two possible alternatives for treatment of waste
water: a regional treatment facility and a local treatment facility. In
each case the collection system would be the same up to the point
where a pump would discharge the collected waste water to a treatment
f acility.

The collection system for Buena Vista Shores can be easily designed
because of the topographic shape of the neighborhood. Gravity flow
is possible for almost the entire area excepting the shorefront proper-
ties which might have to be collected at a couple of pumping stations
and boosted into a trunk sewer near the southerly end of the Shores.
A collector sewer paralleling the shore front would be the means of
"tieing-in" the residences fronting on the Pond, though such a sewer
would have to be designed to withstand the high ground water conditions
which exist near the Pond's edge. It might also be feasible to use a
low-pressure system to offset this potential problem.

1) Regional Treatment Facility

The TAMS report proposed the ultimate expansion of the New Bedford
regional waste water system northerly to include Long Pond and its im-
mediately surrounding area. The report reads as follows:

64 -

SOIL CHARACTERISTICS

W5 SURROUNDING AREA

NpA
Wri 5

AIJ4
Ul. Fa (14r

15 rAL0UCA-.eTF-jZ VeRY 43TOW @ANVY (XAM
HpC f4olWrv - CHARLTW4 Vr_py KOCKY PINE 9ANDY WAM
NpA ROKWF-L-J, EMEMELY c.,"MM-f 19ANCrY WAM.
ss ei SOITUAl-r- .1 1%
Wn 13, Wit-**OK LZAPA--f SA917
Fe, PEAT
Mtl m u C*-,
144 MA17f- I@AWV

61 -

Logs from six wells which have been drilled in Buena Vista, which
penetrated into the bedrock to obtain a supply of water, reveal that
the depth to the bedrock is relatively shallow in at least four of the
six wells, with the bedrock occurring at seven to fourteen feet be-
low the surface. Detailed logs from these well borings were not
available and, therefore, the composition of the soil down to the
bedrock is, not known from the recorded information from these tests.
The water level in these wells was high (from eight to twenty-two
feet below the surface) indicating a relatively high water table.

There is evidence from recently conducted soil tests and septic sys-
tem installation permits which substantiates the marginal usefulness
of the soils for sustaining onsite septic systems. At one site in
Fuller Shores, across Long Pond from Buena Vista Shores, a seepage
pit had to be located 160 feet away from the septic tank, across a
road on a separate lot, since the soil adjacent to the house and
septic tank was "tight, clay gravel". At Nelson Shore Road, on a
lot 1600 feet from the pond, the soil was hardpan and the water table
was only six and one-half feet below the surface of the ground, so
that a leaching bed had to be excavated and filled with clean gravel
to make an acceptable leaching field. Several sites at Buena Vista
Shores and other neighborhoods around the pond have not passed per-
colation tests due to the unsuitable soil conditions. It is reported
that "midnight" installations of septic systems are being made on
some houselots atBuena Vista Shores, since the soil is of question-
able suitability and substandard systems are being installed so that
a residence can be made marginally useable.

Therefore, based on this preliminary investigation of available in-
formation about the soils and water-bearing capacity of the ground
under Buena Vista Shores, it can be seen that conditions are not uni-
formly favorable for onsite septic systems. While the upper surface
of the Gloucester series soil, which predominates in much of the area,
is generally suitable for onsite septic systems, almost all the other
soil series in the subdivision have limitations -- some because they
do not allow fast enough percolation and some because they allow
too fast percolation, which can allow pollutants to filter through into
the ground water. Furthermore, since bedrock is relatively close to
the surface of the soil, at least in several places, there is the pos-
sibility that nutrient- bearing elements in the effluent could be chan-
neled into the Pond or into the ground water aquifer.

B WASTE WATER DISPOSAL

Often seasonal neighborhoods were developed with minimal facilities
for onsite disposal of waste water. Since they are largely located in
rural communities, no thought was ever given to centralized waste
water collection and treatment systems and, in fact, the onsite treat-
ment facilities were often designed with limited capacity because of
anticipated limited use. Also, advanced technologies have occurred
recently so that properly designed and constructed systems are more
efficient and, to some extent, complicated. To make the systems
function properly, much more knowledge is required of soil conditions
today than was deemed necessary in earlier decades.

The fact of high,density of development In these neighborhoods makes
the problem of waste water disposal all the more critical, as does the
proximity of these neighborhoods to bodies of water. Conversion of
seasonal dwelling to year-round use exacerbates this problem. This
conversion generates increased water consumption and, in turn, in-
creased waste water, often beyond that which the existing system was
designed for or that can be adequately handled.

Improper disposal of waste water resulting from an inadequately de-
signed, constructed or maintained onsite system can result in contami-
nation of onsite water supplies in addition to nearby water bodies.
This pollution can make the neighborhood unpleasant and in certain
situations unhealthy. Drastic actions on the part of the homeowner,
the neighborhood association (should one exist) or the municipality
may be necessary.

The following discussion illustrates some of the characteristics of
these problems at seasonal neighborhoods and at Buena Vista Shores
in particular. A range of alternatives for solutions to local problems
are given with the understanding that many of the proposed solutions
would be applicable in other communities as well as Lakeville.

I . Description of Existing Situation

There is no municipal sewer system in the Town of Lakeville. Liquid
waste water from the residences in Buena Vista Shores is disposed of
into a variety of systems, including septic tanks, cesspools and
holding tanks. The liquid effluent from the first two systems perco-
lates into the ground. In the case of the holding tanks, it must be
pumped out and taken away from the neighborhood for disposal at an
approved discharge site. Also, periodic but less frequent pumping
out of the septic tanks and cesspools is required. A detailed inven-
tory of the type of waste water disposal system at each residence at

Buena Vista Shores is not available

2. Identification of Problem Areas

Most of the onsite septic disposal systems in Buena Vista Shores
are either of inadequate original design, are of inadequate capacity,
or are not functioning properly. Many of the systems would not be
approved according to today, s standards since in recent years State
and local requirements for design and construction have been up-
graded, Most of the systems in Buena Vista Shores and elsewhere
around the pond were installed prior to the institution of the more
stringent standards. For instance, at a residence in Churchill
Shores, a new septic system with a seepage pit was installed in
1971 to replace an old system which used a fifty-five gallon drum
filled witil stones to filter the effluent from the house. In some
cases the residents use holding tanks to store the liquid waste;
these tanks are pumped out periodically. Such systems may be ade-
quate for summer residents but are not easily adapted to year-round
use if the house is used on a permanent basis.

Problems occur with some onsite sewage disposal systems at certain
locations in Buena Vista Shores and other shorefront areas due to the
characteristics of the soil and bedrock around Long Pond. The upper
layer of the soil is composed of types which are part of the Gloucester-
Windsor- Brockton association. These soils were formed in glacial
till or outwash materials and are generally classified as being well-
drained soils with only slight or moderate limitations for septic system
leaching fields. The majority of the land in the Buena Vista Shores sub-
division is in the Gloucester very stony loamy sand classification with
3 to 8 percent slopes. This soil type is generally quite deep and well-
drained. However, at selected portions within Buena Vista Shores the
soil is not very amenable to onsite septic systems. At the very highest
elevations within Buena Vista, located at the western ends of Wildwood
Road, Wisteria Road and Azalea Street, the soil series is Hollis-Charl-
ton, which has bedrock within two feet of the surface or a firm layer
at a depth of three to five feet. There are rock outcrops at various lo-
cations in this portion of the Shores. At the lower end of the subdivision,
the soil between Fifth Avenue and Hemlock Road is in the Scituate and
Norwell soil series, which is characterized as having a high water table
and a slowly permeable hardpan within 2 1/2 feet of the surface of the
soil. Two smaller areas in the southern end, plus a large area near the
Hathaway Brook, are in the Windsor loamy sand series which may allow
pollution of nearby shallow wells because it has a rapidly permeable
substratum. This series, incidentally, is a good source of "commercial"
sand and excavation for that purpose has occurred in some of these areas.

60 -

Pond or Hathaway Brook. These schemes are rela-
tively inexpensive but require large land areas. There
is some question as to their acceptability by the State;
however, the town of Marion is utilizing a lagoon system.

Holding tanks - The use of a holding tank is another
means of removing the sewage from the homes where
it is generated to be treated elsewhere. The "septage"
is either disposed of at a regional treatment plant by
trucking it to the facility or it can possibly be dis-
posed of at specially designed septage disposal facili-
ties such as the one being planned to serve the towns
of Sudbury and Wayland. Several of the homes in Buena
Vista Shores have small-capacity holding tanks which
must be pumped out at frequent intervals. It is possible,
in principle, to construct a neighborhood holding tank
which would require piping the effluent from individual
homes to a large tank located at the low point of the
neighborhood. From here it would have to be pumped
away to a sewage disposal facility.

b. Rely on Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems

The continued use of onsite sewage disposal systems is a feasible pos-
sibility. The lakeshore areas can continue to use the septic tanks which
are now in existence since these systems, if properly constructed and
maintained, are inherently effective in disposing of waste and in avoid-
ing contamination of the ground water. However, there are certain de-
vises which can be installed or steps which can be taken to enhance the
capability and performance of these systems including the following:

Aerobic treatment units - The individual septic tanks could
be replaced by aerobic treatment units which use an aerated
chamber to break down the waste by bacteriological action.
This produces a higher quality effluent which is then dis-
posed of in the soil in conventional leaching beds or seep-
age pits.

Specialized toilets - Although not currently acceptable to
State health officials, the use of systems which separate
"black water" from "grey water" for onsite treatment has
good possibilities for the future. Such systems involve the
use of special toilets which incinerate, compost, digest
or recirculate the "black water" wastes, including the
solids. The "grey water", generated predominantly by

67 -

clothes washing or bathing operations in the house, is
treated onsite with traditional leaching systems. For a
good discussion of the technologies of these systems,
their costs and their current limitations, see the booklet
put out by SRPEDD entitled "What are the Options? --
a Handbook of Alternatives for Wastewater Management.

Water conservation techniques - Another basic means of
increasing the effectiveness or extending the life of an
onsite sewage disposal system is to limit the amount of
liquid being percolated back into the ground. This can be
accomplished with water conservation techniques. There
are mechanical ways to achieve reduction in the use of
water, such as through the use of low-flow shower heads
and low-flow toilets. In the latter case, care must be
exercised to insure that enough water is used to prevent
clogging of the pipes. Another way to achieve a reduction
in the amount of water used is through voluntary cooperation
by individuals in each house who discipline themselves to
use as little water as possible for their daily needs.

Systematic maintenance of onsite sewage dis22sal systems
The continued use of onsite sewage disposal systems would
require that the Board of Health enforce vigorously all rules
and regulations governing maintenance of existing septic
systems, and the installation of new systems. Local regula-
tions might have to be revised, refined and strengthened.
Such regulations might require annual inspection of all sep-
.tic systems, periodic cleaning, reconstr-uction of faulty parts
and, in critical locations, a complete new installation. For
a detailed discussion of these proposed regulations see
Chapter VI.

c . Condemn or Acquire Shoreland Properties

Many of the existing septic systems in Buena Vista Shores and other
seasonal neighborhoods are marginal. There is the probability for
increased pollution problems in the future as new homes are added
or conversions are made from seasonal to permanent use of the homes.
A possible alternative would be to close down all or part of the neigh-
borhood through condemnation or acquisition of the properties. This
is the harshest of all the alternative solutions. However, it eliminates
the major problems of waste water disposal and the need to provide a
potable year-round water supply. This alternative would be consistent

68 -

with the use of Long Pond as a major water supply reservoir by
eliminating sources of pollution from septic systems and surface
drainage runoff.

The alternative would require a sizeable sum of money to acquire all of
the properties and structures. It would probably have to be accomplished
by a phase-out program extending over a period of years by starting now
with a moratorium on new buildings, or additions or renovations to septic
systems, wells or other facilities. and services. For a year-round resident,
this would mean moving to another residence or possibly relocating an
existing residence to another lot with opportunity for installing a suitable
well and an adequate septic system.

Although this alternative would resolve some problems, it would create
many others -- not the least of which would be the relocation of some
160 year-round families and upwards of 240 seasonal famili-9. The
public cost of doing this may be more than other structural solutions;
however, comparative cost estimates should be made. In the light of
the number of families involved and the settlement patterns in Buena
Vista, this alternative is politically impractical,

It is conceivable that the testing and analysis of the septic systems would
determine that only certain locations could not function properly over a
period of years and would have to be acquired and converted to other uses.
As an example, those septic systems whose leaching fields are installed
below an elevation which is 6 feet above the normal water surface level
(El. 54 msl) of Long Pond might have to be vacated and a plan for pur-
chasing the properties served by those systems vvould be devised including
an estimate of cost, sources of funding, schedule of purchase, possible
relocation of residences and future use of acquired land.

Selective condemnation of substandard properties could be combined with
one of the other alternatives under b. above to form a viabb. course of
action. This alternative would reduce the potential of pollution in the
Pond and could enhance the situation of existing upland residents of the
area.

0. WATER SUPPLY

Water supply, an important public health service needed to sustain a
seasonal neighborhoood, can be furnished in a variety of ways. If a
form of communal supply is provided, it can be either seasonal or year-
round and it can be furnished by a public agency (municipality or water
district) or by a private entity. If water supply is to be provided by
the developer/builder of each house, he must dig a well on the site of
the house lot. In some early lakeshore neighborhoods, where seasonal
use only was clearly the intention, the problem of providing drinking
water was left to the individual resident, which he solved by bringing
in bottled water or digging his own well.

The quality, quantity and regularity of the supply will help determine the
livability of the neighborhood and will also influence the functioning of
the waste water treatment system located on each lot. The rclationship
of the ground water level to the pond is critical; a lowering of the ground
water table, either naturally or through excessive draw-down from wells,
can lower the level of the water body. Therefore, water supply problems
become especially critical at seasonal lakeshore neighborhoods.

The situation at Long Pond in Lakeville is further complicated by the
reliance of neighboring communities on the Lake-ville ponds to provide
a source of water for domestic and commercial -ise. The following dis-
cussion addresses this situation first. Then, che particular situation
at Buena Vista Shores is analyzed. Guidelines for solutions are given
for the town of Lakeville in general, and for alternative means of im-
proving the water supply situation at BVS. These alternative solutions
set the framework for other communities or seasonal neighborhoods facing
similar water supply problems. The Lakeville Ponds provide a major
source of supply to most of the principal municipalities in southeastern
Massachusetts. At the present time there is no comprehensive long-
range plan for meeting the regional needs which has been agreed upon
by all the municipalities and water boards involved. The possibilities
for solving these needs have been outlined in recent comprehensive
studies of the problem. The two major studies are contained in the TAMS
and the SENE reports. The following summary was made of these studies
to try to extract common recommendations and to highlight areas of
difference so that these differences might be resolved in the future.
There was general agreement on the following recommendations:

The Taunton system should supply many surrounding
municipalities, including the Attleboro region. They
should use the Lakeville Ponds Complex to supply water
.needs until 1990, including the acquisition of Fall River's

- 70 -

share of the rights and including the impoundment of
streams with diversion to A ssawompset. After 1990
they should divert Taunton River surface sources to an
off stream reservoir. The New Bedford system should
also acquire Fall River's rights. They should expard
the capacity of the New Bedford reservoir located in
Acushnet.

There was general disagreement on the following methods of implementing
a long-range plan:

For the Taunton system, SENE rejected many of the
alternatives proposed in the TAMS report for meeting
Taunton's post 1990 needs, including specifically the
dam across the lower Taunton River due to the damage
it would cause to the estuarine ecology and including
the further expansion of the Lakeville Ponds Complex.
They did not specifically reject some of the other pro-
posals such as the Winnetuxet River impoundment and
diversions of water into the Lakeville Ponds from various
downstream rivers, but rather endorsed the off stream
reservoir concept. However, the site proposed in TAMS,
harmly the Copicut valley, has since been preempted by
Fall River for a new reservoir.

For the New Bedford system, SENE recommended short-
term development of ground water sources (not pro-
posed by TAMS), and eventual (rather than immediate)
increased capacity of the New Bedford reservoir in
Acushnet.

It has been suggested, in a recent study by SRPEDD* that t1l.e Cit-
of New Bedford's water supply problems could be improved by " en-
hancing the hydrologic relationship of Long Pond to the Lakeville Pond
Complex". This could be done by building a dike and outflow control
system at the northern end of Long Pond. While it is apparent that
such a project would help to maintain the level of Long Pond at a con-
stant elevation which could enhance the recreational use of the pond,
it is not apparent (at least from the memo) how this would help the
water supply problem of New Bedford. Raising the level of Long
Pond would be disastrous for Buena Vista Shores, since many of the
homes, roads and septic systems are only slightly above the existing
water level. If the Pond were to be raised for any reason, all pro-
perties below a critical elevation would have to be acquired because

"Sale of Water Rights to Long Pond, " What are the Options?,
Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District,
June, 1976.

-71-

preparation of this document was financed in V..
@-f through an urban pfanning grant from the BUENA VISTA SHORES
U.S. Deportment of Housing and Urban Develop-
LAKEVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS
ment, under the provisions of Section 701 of
the Housing Act of r954, as amended. -,--DCA
0 125 250 500 1000

SCALE IN IF EET

C) ...

RESIDENCES SERVICED BY
RESORT SUPPLY COMPANY WATER MAINS

< 4
\00,

of inundation. of the properties and access roads and, in particular,
shorefront septic systems.

There has been some disagreement as to the methods of implementing
the recommended plans for increased future water supply in the Taunton-
Attleboro system. In the TAMS study, the consultants recommended a
creation of a water district to be entitled "Southeastern Massachusetts
Water District" (SEMWAD). However, according to a recent memorandum
from SRPEDD concerning "Sale of Water Rights to Long Pond", such a
District does not seem to be politically feasible. Instead, the region
recommends the creation of a number of advisory groups to the water
commissions of the major cities of Fall River,,New Bedford and Taunton-
Attleboro composed of representatives from their respective suburban
communities that both supply and consume water resources controlled
by the cities.. This memorandum goes on to delineate proposed powers
and rights of the advisory groups and to suggest an organizational
structure. The SRPEDD memorandum also outlines the practical com-
plications surrounding the proposal for sale of Long, Assawompset and
Pocksha Ponds' water rights from Fall River to New Bedford.

1. Description.of Existing Situation at BVS

There is currently no municipal supply of water to the residences or
businesses in Lakeville, At Buena Vista Shores the local neighborhood
water supply consists of a single well located on Second Avenue, where
a pump lifts the water to a second pump located at the comer of Clark
Road and Fifth Avenue. From there it is pumped to the southwest comer
of Azalea and Summit Streets where there are the following facilities:
a pumphouse, a covered shed housing a cylindrical tank, horizontally
mounted with an estimated capacity of 4000 gallons and three free-
standing cylindrical tank s each with an a pproximate 10, 0 00 ga llon
capacity. These tanks are used to store water pumped from the well
and then to distribute it into the water distribution system. The system
consists of relatively small diameter pipes in very shallow trenches so
that the pipes are near the, surface of the ground and in some instances
exposed. These conditions obviously make the water supply a seasonal
one which operates only for the period April 15 to October 15 of each year.

This water supply is privately owned by the Resort Supply Company and
is financed by a seasonal fee (in 1976 - $42 and in 1977 - $74) paid
for by each residence receiving water from the system. There are 236
houses served by this system, at locations shown on the accompanying
map. The year-round residences have their own wells or bring in water
from sources outside the Buena Vista community during the off-season
period.

2. Identification of Problem Areas

In addition to questions concerning the future role of the Lakeville
Ponds in serving regional water supply needs, the role of the privately-
owned system serving BVS is questionable. The system was built some
twenty years ago to serve the needs of summer residents only. Origi-
nally, the system contained three well sites to supply the water from
ground water aquifers, but two of the wells have proved inadequate as
to the quantity which could be supplied. The acceptability of the re-
maining well has been questioned. The Department of Public Health of
the Commonwealth has never approved the well site as a source of public
water supply, since it is located close to on-site septic disposal sys-
tems and is therefore not adequately protected from sources of pollution.
Test samples from the well indicate increasing amounts of nitrates in
the water, approaching the point where they would exceed the accepted
standard. Based on an analysis made in 1970, it is reported that "at
times manganese is in excess of generally accepted standards. "

The owner of the well has appeared before the Department of Public
Utilities at a recent hearing to support his claims of the need for rate
increases from the consumers. At this hearing it was not indicated
specifically what he would do, if anything, to upgrade the system.
The D.P.U. granted an increase of $32 per customer.

3. Guidelines for Solutions

The majority of the 800 recreational neighborhoods in the Commonwealth
are located in cities or towns without municipal water supply systems.
There is a strong likelihood that these municipalities will in the future
look to the lakes and ponds to provide a surface water source of supply
(or possibly they will draw water from wells which are. located in the
watershed of the ponds). This may mean that the municipality should
implement strict standards for waste water disposal in the watershed
in order to control all possible pollution sources in the watershed. It
may mean that the municipality should begin to acquire land in the water-
shed which is particularly susceptible to creating pollution problems if
it were to be developed.

Zoning is another management technique available to municipalities for
water supply conservation. They might consider watershed protection
Zoning, which would require identification and protection of flood plains,
wetlands and other aquifer recharge areas. For those communities which
require each land owner to provide his own water and sewage disposal

Memo from files of Department of Public Health, Lakeville
Regional Office.
74 -

on-site, a large minimum lot size can be established. A two-acre lot
size (87,120 sq. ft.) in Sherbom was recently upheld by the courts on
these grounds. Lakeville has taken a step in this direction, presumably
with these considerations in mind, by requiring 70, 000 sq. ft. as a
minimum lot size.

However, if the municipality will never have to rely on the watershed
of its pond(s) to provide local needs and, assuming that regional needs
do not require the use of the watershed for water supply, then the
municipality can be more permissive in its land use and sanitation
policies regarding development in the watershed.

In any case, each municipality should develop a long-range plan for
obtaining water for its residents, existing and future. This will help
immeasurably to resolve many of the land use and natural resource
questions which are facing communities with seasonal neighborhoods.

The Lakeville Ponds represent a unique situation in that they provide
a major source of supply to most of the principal municipalities in
Scu theastem Massachusetts. Therefore, before discussing water
supply alternatives for Buena Vista Shores, it would be helpful to re-
solve the questions concerning future regional demands on the water
capacity of the Lakeville Ponds Complex.

A recent study done for New Bedford indicated that the raising of the level
of both Long Pond and Ass awompset- Pock sha Ponds by one foot would
only increase the safe yield from the ponds by 0. 7 mgd. It would be very
expensive to achieve this slight increase due to the extensive land takings
and damages that would be incurred. The SENE study also questioned the
feasibility of greater use of the Ponds in the future. Their conclusion:
"Further expansion of the Lakeville Ponds was not recommended due
largely to a limited potential for developing additional storage capacity.

Since the potential for increased yield from the Lakeville Ponds is
minimal, Lakeville officials should join regional efforts to find water
supply sources outside of the Lakeville Ponds Complex to meet regional
needs, since it would appear that regional attempts to increase the
capacity of the Lakeville Ponds or to draw water from wells in the water-
shed of the Ponds would have adverse land use and environmental impacts
on the Town.

Basically, there are three major alternatives for the long-term solution
to the water supply needs of Buena Vista Shores residents:

75 -

a. Construct a public water supply system

b. Rely on private water supply system

c. Rely on individual wells on each lot

Within each of these major alternatives there are several secondary
options which require different levels of improvement and which can
be accomplished by the actions of various government agencies or
citizen groups. These are discussed below.

a. Construct public water supply system

1.) Develop a town-wide syste

It would be possible for the Town of Lakeville to develop its own water
supply system to serve the needs of its residents and businesses. The
Town could either purchase the water from the Taunton or New Bedford
Water Departments or it could obtain its own water from local sources.
Lakeville is authorized under Chapter 400 to take water directly from
Assawompset or Pocksha Ponds. It is also probable that the Town could
obtain a qood and sufficient source of water from under round sources,
-9- --
Once a source of the water has been obtainedl, the Town could construct
a distribution system which could serve BVS and other parts of the Town
as well, using a time/finance schedule which would be phased to serve
areas with most critical needs first.

2.) Develop a special Water District serving BVS

A special water district can be established upon a vote of the town meeting
and with an acceptable petition to the General Court. The district would
have the power to construct all the facilities necessary for providing
water to buildings within the district, including the provision of fire
protection facilities. It could collect money through assessment to the
customers of the district.

There is no enabling legislation which deals directly with the requirements
for setting up a water district. However, there have been several examples
of such districts being set up with approval bf the General Court as in
the towns of Dighton and Millbury. Selected extracts from these pieces
of legislation are included in the appendix of the report.

b. Continue to rely on private water supply system

76 -

1.) Upgrade system to a year-round service system

A new system could be constructed privately to serve existing and future
needs in BVS. This would undoubtedly require that a new source of
water be discovered and developed and would definitely require the
construction of.a new underground distribution system, since the present
pipes are not deep enough to protect the water from freezing in the winter.
There are questions as to whose initiative would be required to develop
such a system. Obviously, the present owner could develop such a
system, assuming he could get the necessary approvals from State and
local officials and could secure the necessary financial arrangements.
It is questionable if the present owner could be forced to build this new
system. However, State and local officials could exert influence toward
this end, assuming that the existing situation was "officially" deter-
mined to be a public health hazard.The municipality, local association
or water district might also contemplate the purchase of the eri,sting
system, for upgrading to a year-round service.

2.) Retain and up-grade the seasonal system

Another alternative would be to determine that the existing level of
service, i.e. "seasonal", is acceptable, but that improvements should
be made to the system to overcome the apparently increasing possibility
of pollution of the source. It would also be desirable to check out
thoroughly the existing distribution system and make repairs to it where
necessary. Such improvements would probably require rate increases
to pay for the improvements. Presently, rate increases are approved by
the Department of Public Utilities. However, no notification that action
is pending by the Department is automatically given to the town officials
or the users of the system. There should be a better mechanism for ex-
change of information on these matters.

c. Rely on individiiai wells on each lot

This alternative could be arrived at by one of two ways; either the
residents of BVS and town health officials could decide that individual
wells are the best solution to the problems, independent of what happens
with the private water supply system, or residents and town officials
could choose to rely on individual wells if, for any reason, the private
system service is no longer available.

This alternative would at first glance appear to be the easiest and
least costly way out of a difficult long-range problem. However, the
ted hnical feasibility of implementing this plan is questionable, since
the closeness of the lots in BVS make it difficult to place wells the

required minimum distance from septic systems. It may also depend
upon a favorable finding that additional ground water is available to
supply additional wells.

It is a.necessary implication of this alternative that new year-round
homes, or seasonal homes which are converted to year-round use would
have to be provided with a year-round supply of water, as required under
the State Santtary Code, Article II, regulation 4. 1. However, this
might conflict with the waste water disposal alternative of reliance on
on-site septic disposal systems.

78 -

D
ROAD SMEM

As with the other support facilities, roads were installed prior to re-
cently upgraded standards. Especially with seasonal communities, due
to the seasonal use, it was not thought to be necessary to build as
durable roads as would be required to stand up to the annual freezing/
thawing cycle. Also, since the homes were more modest in size and
cost, it was not.thought to be so important to provide fire protection
through the use of pipes under the roads and hydrants. Traffic con-
gestion was never anticipated; streets and lots were laid out with more
concern for waterfront orientation and access than arrangement according
to a functional hierarchy. Therefore, solutions for upgrading road sys-
tems and road structures must redress these built-in inadequacies.

Another major issue is the responsibility for maintenance of roads.
Since typically the roads in resort communities are private, the muni-
cipality has no legal responsibility to maintain them. Most resort
communities were developed before the municipality anticipated that
problems would develop in the future over the issue of responsibility
for road repair and maintenance. Therefore, no explicit understandings
were worked out to govern these matte *rs. The developers of the communi-
ties did not set up homeowners' associations as legal entities with the
power to make assessments for road repair and maintenance. The present
homeowners are somewhat caught in the middle of this dilemma, and it
could be argued that the municipality has some moral responsibility to
try to correct this situation. Therefore, questions of responsibility
for maintenance should be resolved, so that physical improvements can
be made, and improved services can be provided. The following section
discusses this situation at BVS, which is quite typical of other seasonal
neighborhoods in this aspect.

1 Description of Existing Situation

Buena Vista Shores is connected to Highland Road, a major collector
road in the town of Lakeville, by Clark Road. Clark Road penetrates
for almost a mile before it ends at Dean's Point on the shore of Long
Pond. On either side of Clark Road is a network of local roads totalling
six miles in length and arranged generally in a gridiron pattern. The
rights-of-way of these roads vary from twenty-five (25) to forty (40)
feet in width, and the paved surfaces of the road vary from ten (10) to
twenty-four (24) feet in width (see map entitled Roadway Widths).

The roadways are constructed with a variety of materials ranging from
bituminous concrete to gravel. The condition of the roadways and the
type of surface are shown on the accompanying map entitled Roadway
Condition

79 -

The preparation of this document was financed in
par t through an urban planning grant from the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop- BUENA VISTA SHORES
ment, under the provisions of Section 701 of LAKEVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS
the Housing Act of 1954, as amendec?. N.
DC
0 i2s 250 Soo 1000

SCALE IN FEET

4
A60'

60,

ROADWAY WIDTHS

20 FE ET OR MORE
17 TO'19 FEET
.............. 13 TO 16 FEET
12 FEET OR LESS
80

no prepom..,on or rnis cocumenr was rinancea . in
,art through an urban planning grant from the BUENA VISTA SHORES
I.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop- LAKEVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS
,tent, under the provisions of Section 701 a( N
he Housing Act of 1954, asomend-od. DCA
o i2s 250 500 1000
q SCALE IN FEET
-00

ROADWAY CONDITION

<. PAVED -GOOD CONDITION
7 PAVED FAIR TO POOR CONDITION
........... GRAVEL

There is electrical service to the homes via overhead wires with service
provided by the Middleboro Gas and Electric Company. This company
also has installed some street lights at no cost for installation to BVS
residents. However, the operating costs are billed to the BVS Associa-
tion. Telephone service is available. There are very few storm drainage
facilities, including one catch basin and drain at the beach near the
north end of the neighborhood. There are no underground municipal
services, nor any gas mains. The private water company does have
distribution pipes and shut-off valves located in the road rights-of-way.

The roads are private roads built by the initial developer and sub-
sequently turned over to the neighborhood Association. The BVS
Association therefore has responsibility for their maintenance. There
was never an approved subdivision plan for the community, since it
was developed prior to the assumption by the Town of responsibility
for subdivision control under the Subdivision Control Act in Chapter 41
of the General Laws. Snow plowing and minor resurfacing improve-
ments are provided by the Association.

2. Identification of Problem Areas

At the present time there is only one access road leading into the
development from Highland Road. Although this provides a clear iden-
tification of Buena Vista Shores for the visitor, it is dangerous from a
public safety point of view, since it is conceivable that emergency
vehicles could not get in to the Shores neighborhood if the main road
were to be blocked.

Within the development there is no apparent reason for the pattern of
the road system and the layout of one street to another. A heavy burden
is placed on Clark Road and certain critical intersections to handle the
traffic flow through the neighborhood. For instance, the intersection
at Clark Road and Locust Street is the primary access point for 146
houses, more than one-third the total number of dwellings. This inter-
section has a steep grade on the north side, making it dangerous under
many conditions, especially winter.

There is no system for handling the storm water runoff from the roads
and the surrounding lots. There are pot holes in the paved surfaces
in a number of locations and numerous holes in the gravel- surface
roads. While some attempts have been made to fill some of the holes
with stone dust, it does not appear that concerted efforts have been
made to bring all of the roadways to a reasonably uniform standard of
repair. While some maintenance work is contracted out by the
Association, most is done by residents who volunteer their time.

82 -

Another rjroblem which is indirectly attributable to the substandard road
system is with the mail delivery service. Since the roads are private,
and of generally marginal condition, the Post Office is reluctant to. provide
mail delivery to each lot in the subdivision. Therefore, all the mail
boxes are located at the intersection of Clark Road and one of the internal
streets, namely Hemlock Road. This location is far away from many
residences, and the mail has been stolen on occasions. The school bus
serving the neighborhood stops at this point, also.

3. Guidelines for Solutions

There are two basic alternatives for establishing a clearly structured
framework for responsibility for improving and maintaining roads in
seasonal neighborhoods.

a. Establish municipal participation with shared responsibility
between municipality and seasonal neighborhood.

b. Rely on seasonal neighborhood for responsibility.

Within these two alternatives are several secondary options, discussed
below.

a. Establish municipal participation

1 .) Town acceptance of roads as public roads

Under this alternative the Town through a vote of Town Meeting would
accept the roads at Buena Vista Shores as public streets. This would
mean that the Town would also assume responsibility for maintenance of
the roadways including making repairs and plowing the snow. Before
this could be accomplished, the Town would undoubtedly require that
the roads and their appurtenances be rebuilt to Town-wide standards.
Included in this might be widening of certain rights-of-way, widening
and reconstruction of the pavement, installation of storm drainage
facilities and installation of other utilities such as street lighting and
fire protection facilities.

2.) Town acceptance of roads as private roads

Under this alternative, the roads could remain private. However, the
Town would agree to accept the responsibility for certain specified
maintenance items on the roads. In order for this to occur, the Town
would undoubtedly require some upgrading of the existing roads and
utilities, but probably would waive some of the standards applying

to public roads. A likely feature of this alternative would be that the
Town would agree to provide snow plowing services in addition to the
public safety servies it is now providing, including fire protection and
police protection.

There is statewide enabling legislation which permits repairs and im-
provements to be made to private roads by the Town. Specifically, there
are three sections in the statute which can be used depending on the
length of time the roads have been open for public use and how the costs
will be assessed. In Chapter 40, Section 6-H, repairs may be made to
private ways which have been open to public use for six years or mo re.
These repairs must be agreed upon at Town Meeting and then the costs
are borne by all the residents of the Town. Under Section 6-1 the Town
may construct, reconstruct, resurface and repair any private way which
has been used by the public for fifty years or more. The approval and
financial arrangements are the same as above. However, all the owners
of land abutting on the ways must petition the Town to do t@_ework. These
two statutes were approved in 1961 and have been used in some resort
communities such as the White Pond neighborhood of Concord, which
has used the former.

The third alternative according to Section 6-M is a more broadly based
statute which was passed in 1975. This statute authorizes repairs on
private ways which have been open to public use for six years or more
and specifically includes installation and construction of drainage and
the filling of holes in the subsurface of such ways. However, under
this provision the repairs can be undertaken only if it is declared at
Town Meeting that the repairs are required by public necessity and con-
venience and if.a majority of the abutters petition for such repairs to be
made. The other major differenc*e is that the Town is authorized to assess
betterments upon, the owners of property which derive benefit from such
repairs.

b. Relyon seasonal neighborhood for responsibility

1 Establish road district

The problem with the above plans involving Town participation is that
there is no guarantee that the Town would approve of such projects to
benefit a limited section within the Town. Therefore, it is quite likely
that improvement . plans for private roads in resort communities such
as BVS would have to rely on the voluntary arrangements among the
property owners themselves. It is possible that the neighborhood
association could obtain funds through a long-term loan to make im-
provements to the roads,. This is a questionable possibility at best

since there is no guarantee of obtaining necessary funds to pay back
the loan. A possible solution would be the establishment of a road
district which would have the power to assess all the owners in a given
neighborhood or district to make the improvements. This idea has been
initiated! by the residents. of the. Sherwood Forest seasonal neighborhood
in the town of Becket and a bill has been introduc'ed in the State legis-
lat ure to authorize the establishment. of such a' district (to be added as
Section 44-A of Chapter 40 of the General Laws)

2.) Maintenance of the status-quo

The final alternative would be simply for the residents of seasonal
neighborhoods, specifically at Buena Vista Shores, to continue their
existing program of making minor improvements to the surface of the
roads without making any major changes to the existing layout of the
roads. Consistent with this policy might be a program to make minor
drainage improvements such as the installation of culverts and dry
.wells at appropriate places to prevent washouts along the edges of the
.pavement.

4. Physical Planning.Guidelines

As a general guideline, the following objectives. should be pursued for
improvements concerning roadways and parking facilities. The right-of-
ways and pavements of roads should be widened where possible and
appropriate so that fire equipment and other larger vehicles, such as
moving vans, can maneuver and turn around. There should be additonal
parking spaces for visitors of the residents. These could be provided by
selected widening of the pavement, or the berm area, or it could be pro-
vided at vacant.lots located convenient to a number of houses, yet
screened from the view of the residents so as not to be intrusive. These
special parking lots should not be lo.cated too close, to the water! s edge
or beaches where "outsiders" might be tempted to use them.

Specifically at BVS, road improvements should be made to supplement
the single acces's Road to the neighborhood via Clark Road. A new road
could be opened up into..t.he neighborho od, as shown on the accompanying
sketches. If the neighborhood continues to desire its "private" status,
it could at lea-st considerdevelopinga road which would be chained off
7
to normal traffic,., but could be used by emergency vehicles tr .ying to
reach the nei.g4borhoo d

FUTURE ROAD
SYSTE M - B-V. S.:

IV
CZ

86 -

E. POLICE PROTECTION

Many seasonal neighborhoods experience serious problems with security.
Homes occupied seasonally that remain vacant for up to 10 months an-
nually are prey for burglars and vandals. Properly secured homes reduce
the likelihood of such occurrences but cannot guarantee full protection.

As a neighborhood experiences increased conversion to year-round
occupancy, area security should be less of a problem. Continuous
activity, better street lighting and mere occupancy tend to provide for
a safer environment. However, increased safety is not always the
result. Unless residents report trespassing and other unusual occur-
rences to the local authorities, little control of the situation is possible.

The term, "local authorities", can mean quite a different thing to resi-
dents of resort neighborhoods than to other residents, particularly if
that neighborhood is considered by its residents "private" in nature.

1 Description of Existing Situation

Previously, only one marked police cruiser serviced the town of Lakeville.
Recently, another cr-uiser was put into service to assist on patrols and
to respond to calls. The town police force consists of nine people: one
police chief, two sergeants, five police officers and a dispatcher. Limited
equipment and staffing reduce any special patrols in one section of the
town over the other section. During the weekend and evening hours all
calls are dispatched from Middleborough, a neighboring town.

Difficulty also arises because BVS is considered by its residents as a
11private" area. The roads within the neighborhood are owned by the
Buena Vista Association; noneof the roads have been accepted as public
or private ways. The police generally respond to any call from BVS in the
same manner as other areas of the town. However, there has been debate
on jurisdictional questions which has strained the relationships between
town and BVS neighborhood.on occasion.

Buena Vista Shores has had for the past few years a group of citizens
that is termed its security patrol. This patrol consists of area residents
who volunteer their time and vehicles to patrol the area. Association
sanction haa been given to this group through providing BVS funds to
purchase equipment (CB radios) and by giving this group subcommittee
status with the Buena Vista Shores Association. The BVS Security
Patrol, while using vehicles privately owned and unmarked, are recog-
nized by the people within the area and, therefore, gives at least a
psychological assurance of protection to residents.

2. Identification of Problem Areas

The Association has no authority to exceed remedies of controlling use
of that property beyond what is extended to any individual property
owner. The Town, because of its size and operating budget, cannot
justify'efforts to control problems through increased protection for some
400 town residents at the detriment of the Town's remaining 4700
residents.

There is, of course,a municipal obligation to protect its residents. The
local police force does respond on request for assistance and while no
consistent surveillance of the BVS area is made, it does patrol the
neighborhood in the normal course of its daily activities. However, the
limited availability of police vehicles and the number of officers on the
force does restrict police ability to respond to all calls as quickly as
might be desired. Also, on occasion, the urgency and the severity of
the calls must be considered in dispatching assistance. While it would
be desirable to reduce delay times or to eliminate the necessity of
priority listing of calls, the current situation leaves little option.

The existence of a neighborhood security patrol within the BVS area is
considered a benefit on the one hand and a detriment on the other. The
patrol has successfully deterred some undesirable, if not illegal, ac-
tivities within the neighborhood but its limited power breeds membership
frustration at times. This is particularly true when incidents are develop-
ing and the patrol is in close proximity, yet there is little "police power"
that can be used. In certain cases, town police response can be obtained
but sometimes slowly. The limited power that this patrol can exercise
is also known by those %ho often violate the law or exceed what is con-
sidered proper actions by the neighborhood. This knowledge can lead
to some verbal abuse directed at the patrol and at times can make a
mockery of their efforts to solve area problems. Interviews with the
Lakeville Police Chiefj discussions with members of the Buena Vista
Shores Security Patrol and individual responses from a citizen survey
indicated the following specific police and security problems:

a. burglary/ vandalism

b. speeding and

c. noise disturbances

a. Burglary and vandalism occur throughout the year and are not
restricted to just the seasonal homes. However, seasonal homes are
prime targets during the winter months. Often burglary and vandalism

88 -

go unreported until the early spring when summer residents begin
utilizing their homes. Activity of this nature also increases in early
spring when people begin to bring more valuable belongings on weekends
and leave them for use during the summer months. Broken windows, the
stealing of personal property and the destruction of property are the most
often reported incidents.

b. SP-6eding is also a problem, particularly durin g the summer
months when the BVS population increases. The generally poor road
conditions do not seem to deter people from travelling at excessive
speeds throughout the area. The Association has attempted to reduce
speeding by constructing several bumps in the roads. However, this
has met with little success.

The problems are related to jurisdiction and responsibility. Private
roads are not subjected to state speed limits (30 m.p.h. in unposted
areas) and, therefore, speeding violations do not fall under the juris-
diction of the town police. The Association has posted several speed
limits throughout the area in an attempt to control the problem. However,
the placement of these signs is not systematic and enforcement by the
Association is not legally possible. The security patrol has no power
to ticket violators and the town police do not feel obligated to enforce
limits privately established.

c . Noise disturbances are accentuated because of the high density
of the Buena Vista Shores neighborhood which results in a number of
complaints. One location the disturbances take place is in private
homes, or in the yards of private homes. Little outdoor activity takes
place during the winter months; complaints during these colder months
are of late night gatherings at private homes. However, the number of
complaints increase dramatically during the warmer months when activity
moves to the outdoors.

Another of the major complaints is boisterous evening beach activity.
Although the Association has posted signs indicating a beach curfew,
enforcement is difficult. and late night gatherings are not uncommon.
Although the beach property belongs to the Association and usage has
been freely extended to all neighborhood residents, they are often used
by people who do not live in the area and are not guests. of the BVS residents.
In summary, therefore, the problems are the lack of enforcement of es-
tablished rules of the Association on area residents, and unauthorized
use of the beach by persons who have not received Association permis-
sion to enter their private land.

89 -

3. Guidelines for Solution

There are certain things that can be done in the i,nterest of increasing
area security and protection within seasonal neighborhoods. The respon-
sibility for implementing many of these must be shared by the individual
homeowner, the association, if one exists, and the municipality.
General guidelines are as follows:

Make every effort to secure homes properly

While this is particularly necessary for seasonally-used homes, even
those occupied year-round should be protected. The installation of
even simple protective devices will not eliminate burglary or vandalism
but will deter such activity. In conjunction with this, police should be
notified when questionable activity is noticed within the area.

Establish better neighborhood/municipal_police communications

This is particularly important when misunderstandings and misconceptions
have developed and questions of jurisdiction and responsibility arise.
Every effort should be made to apprise local law officials of existing
problems and a forum should be established to air mutual concerns and
explore acceptable methods of a solution or eradication. A neighborhood
group like an individual, should not and cannot take the law into its
own hands, but rather should work constructively and cooperatively with
those within whose hands the responsibility and legal authority for pro-
tecting the rights. of all residents are vested.

There are several specific alternatives available to the Town of Lakeville
and the Buena Vista Shores neighborhood that should be explored. They
include the following:

a . Eliminate "private" status of neighborhood,

b. Increase municipal police force,

c. Install entrance gate and guard to private area,

d. Hire private security force and

e. Establish "special police" forr-e serWcing neighborhood.

Some of these alternatives require municipal actions while others could
be implemented by the neighborhood. The existing situation does make
some more realistic than others.

- 90

a. Eliminate "private" status of neighborhood - Such action by
the Association and municipality would resolve the jurisdictional/
responsibility dilemma and clear the way for unquestioned municipal
police presence. This alternative might require the municipality to ap-
prove the private streets through the subdivision control process and
waive some of the design and construction requirements. Approval would
carry With it the responsibility for maintenance and upkeep of the roads.
The neighborhood residents would also lose their "private" designation
and any assumed control or status this gives them.

b.. Increase munici2al police force - This alternative would require
town approval and would involve municipal expenditures but would im-
prove the ability of the existing police force to respond to more calls
with greater efficiency. While such action is in the interest of town-
wide protection, Buena Vista Shores, as a neighborhood within the
municipality, would also gain the benefits. Increasing staff would
also require adding police patrol vehicles.

C. Install entrance gate and_guard to private area - It would be
possible for the Association to block off the entrance to the Buena Vista
Shores neighborhood to allow only property owners, guests and service
vehicles access to the area. This alternative would have to be funded
by neighborhood residents. While it would provide control of entry and
perhaps reduce problems now created by people from outside the area,
it would not eliminate problems qenerating internally. Also, there would
be difficulty in implementing an effective communication system between
the gate, residents and visitors.

d. Hire private security force - Another alternative would be for
the neighborhood to employ a security force. This force would have certain
powers authorized and assigned by the Association that are not. available
to the general residents of the neighborhood and provide them with ex-
clusive protection of their interests.

e. Establish "special police" force servicing neighborhood - It
is possible for the Chief of Police with the approval of the board of
selectmen to give "special police" status to individuals that allows
them to carry out some recognized police functions. This authority can
be vested in a volunteer or an individual who is compensated by the
Town for his efforts. Unlike a neighborhood security patrol, this indi-
vidual or group of individuals is a recognized public unit with recognized
authority. The Buenia Vista Shores, neighborhood security patrol was at
one time recognized by the Town as a "special police" unit. Such
designation gave certain limited police powers of arrest and the carTying

of weapons. This status, however, created problems through over
zealousness of some group members. "Special police" status was,
therefore, lifted from this.group. Current thinking of both the Association
and the municipality preclude vesting this status in a group of private
citizens.

See Chapter 41, Section 96 of the Massachusetts General Laws,
which is an explanatory note on General Statute 1860, Chapter
.18,.Section 38, of the legislation authorizing the appointment
of "special police." Legislation relevant to constables who,.
unlike "special police," are empowered to serve civil process
can be found in Chapter 41, Sections 91A-95.

F. FIRE PROTECTION

Because most seasonal neighborhoods are in smaller municipalities,
their fire protection problems can be linked to general municipal wide
concerns. Should the municipality heavily rely on a part time force
the ability of the firefighters to respond quickly is restricted by the
location of employment- employer attitude. Also, temporary absence
of firefighters from the town during a holiday season can cause
staffing problems. The location of a seasonal neighborhood within a
municipality may also pose problems if it is difficult to reach and far
from a central fire station. If municipal water is provided to sections
of the municipality excluding the seasonal neighborhood or outlying
areas, the fire department might not have fire apparatus with sufficient
water carrying capacity. Thus assistance from neighboring municipalities
might need to be requested resulting in an increased response time.
Where seasonal neighborhoods are without a public water supply system
and fire hydrants, access to the water body for pumping purposes is crucial.
Fire protectionis particularly important in a seasonal neighborhood largely
because of the nature of construction of the dwellings and because of
its relatively high density of the neighborhood. These types of neighbor-
hoods are generally set in a wooded area accentuating the need for this
type of protection.

I Description of Existing Situation

Lakeville has a Board of Fire Engineers that oversees the Fire Department.
This seven-member Board is appointed by the Board of Selectmen and
serves without compensation. The Fire Department staff consists of a
part-time Fire Chief, a full-time Deputy Chief, three Captains - one
full-time and two receiving hourly rate compensation - one part-time
Lieutenant on an hourly.rate and approximately 3 6 firefighters on cal I
with hourly rate compensation. Training sessions are conducted by the
Deputy Chief three times a week to assure continuous readiness.

The fire station is located at the Town Hall and houses three engines,
one brush breaker,. one 1600 gallon tank, one fire boat and one rescue
truck registered as a class V ambulance. The latter, while officially
under the control of Civil Defense, is maintained by the Fire Department
which responds to emergency medical calls.

There is no public water system within the Town; therefore, all trucks
have water-carrying capabilities. According to the Fire Chief, the total
carrying capacity is adequate for a Town such as Lakeville and the
severity of the fires that most often occur. Any additional assistance
needed could be provided by the departments of neighboring towns.

No call boxes exist within the municipality except the one that is
located outside Town Hall. Therefore, all reports of fire and requests
for assistance are made by telephone on one of two lines coming into
the Department. Because of the small full-time staff, a communication
system has been developed with additional phones installed at the homes
of various firefighters. In emergencies these men are called and in turn
are responsible for notifying at least three other firefighters. Such a
communication network assures rapid transmission of calls even during
weekends when the fire house is covered by only one individual.

2. Identification of Problem Areas

While the Buena Vista Shores neighborhood poses no insurmountable
problems to the Fire Department, there are certain conditions and
situations characteristic of seasonal neighborhoods that are of concern.
They are as follows:

a. Character of building construction

b . Road conditions and layout

c . Traffic and parking

d . Inadequate access to water body

e . Restricted entrance and egress to area

a .Character of building construction

From a fire safety point of view, the basic construction of many of the
dwellings is substandard. The exterior sheathing of some of the buildings
consists of a quarter-inch plywood over which shingles or other familiar
treatment are applied. Construction is neither fire-proofed nor retardant.
In addition, the small size of the structures and the lack of substantial
interior walls create a situation whereby a home can very quickly be
consumed by- flames. High housing density adds to the problem; flames
can jump quickly from one dwelling to another, destroying abutting
property. Therefore, when a fire does break out in the neighborhood,
every effort is made by the fire fighters to soak the area that immediately
surrounds the burning structure as quickly as possible. This method is
generally applied but is especially required in the case of a delayed
alarm when the dwelling in which the fire began is already engulfed in
flames.

94 -

b. Road conditions-and layout

During the winter months the neighborhood association has the respon-
sibility to keep all its roadways clear and passable. During severe
storm conditions, it is impossible for its one truck and volunteer driver
to clear all roads quickly and well. Ice build-up can occur and create
maneuvering problems for the fire department. The existence of such
ice conditions causes another type of problem for the fire department
also. During periods of severe icing the Town will assist the neighbor-
hood by sanding the most critical grades and intersections. However,
false alarms are sometimes called in in the hope of getting the Town
sand trucks to the neighborhood more quickly and often.

Road quality and layout present problems even when the neighborhood
is free from snow and ice. Because some BVS roads are narrow, in
poor condition and meet at. acute angles, the maneuvering of fire
apparatus is severely hindered. The inability of some fire apparatus
to negotiate sharp comers and to travel easily up sharp grades is a
problem. Dead-end streets and narrow paths used as streets are also
of concern. All streets in seasonal neighborhoods are not always re-
corded on the f ire '.department's maps either because original street
names were subsequently changed or because paths have developed
into marginally usable ways. Should a fire break out on one of these
streets, the fire department may not be able to ascertain its location.
Also, in neighborhoods that are strongly identified by a specific name
residents may sound an alarm and give that name as the location of the
fire instead of specifying the exact street location of that fire.

c. Traffic and parkin

Summer months often prove to be the most difficult and dangerous periods
for fire protection, particularly during holidays. It is during these periods
that the BVS population swells and the number of cars significantly in-
creases. The width of many of the roads is minimal which means that,
if a car should park along the side of a road, little room is left for the
passage of another vehicle. In the case of fire, it would be impossible
at times for fire apparatus to pass.

d. Inadequate access to water body

Another concern is the inability of fire apparatus to gain access to the
water Is edge to acquire additional water supply through pumping from
the lake or pond. If a fire erupts and increased water or increased
pressure is needed to fight it, the placement of stationary obstructions
to water access points delays response time and increases the amount
of hose that must be laid down.

e. Entrance and egress

That the Buena Vista Shores neighborhood has only one road serving as
an entrance and exit has been expressed as a concern by some area
residents. They fear that in the case of fire, fire apparatus would not
be able to enter and neighborhbod residents would be prevented from
escaping. The local fire department, how ever, does not view the lack
of an alternative access road as a serious problem. They point out
that the existing entrance'road would only be blocked if a fire was
wind-driven away from the neighborhood. In this case, there would
be no cause for alarm, since the neighborhood would not be in the path
of the fire and area evacuation would not be necessary. If the wind
should be coming from the opposite direction, thus driving the fire
towards the neighborhood, the road would be open according to the
fire department. It should be noted that this situation is a result of
the geography specific to BVS. Other neighborhoods with limited access
might not be in the same situation. Alternative entrance and egress
routes are desirable as the erratic characteristics of a fire make
assurances of safety questionable.

3. Guidelines for Solutions

Most of the fire hazards and obstructions to fire control outlined in the
preceding sections are aspects of yet other problems that plague
seasonal neighborhoods. The inability of a fire engine to maneuver
on an icy road, for example, is part of the larger problem of road
maintenance. The rapid spread of flames in and among dwellings is
a result of the general characteristics of seasonal housing. Road layout
and traffic and parking conditions present many difficulties, or which those
related to fire protection are just of one type. Increased fire protection
and prevention can be accomplished only when other problems are solved.
This section will propose some solutions, but the reader is advised to
consult other chapters--housing, roads, recreation, police, miscellaneous
land-use considerations, and neighborhood organization--for additional
material relevant to fire protection.

a. Character of building construction

Efforts should be made to eliminate hazardous fire conditions from the
dwelling whenever possible. When any interior or exterior construction
is done, all material used should be approved under the State Building
Code requirements with particular attention given to their fire
retardation properties. Any installation of heating systems or elec-
trical equipment should be done by a qualified, licensed individual
and inspected on completion of the work.

96 -

G. RECREATION

The types of recreational needs that should ideally be met by a com-
munity are many - physical, social and cultural. While it is true that
in the case of many seasonal neighborhoods, provision for these is
inadequate, such inadequacy is not limited to these neighborhoods.
The small, rural towns that are normally the site of seasonal neighbor-
hoods often demonstrate the same inability to successfully meet all the
recreational needs of its residents. Several factors, however, differ-
entiate seasonal neighborhoods from the towns in which they are located--
factors that make their needs for and problems with recreational facilities
unique.

To begin with, the recreational needs of neighborhood residents may be
particularly acute in the case of certain age groups. Because, by virtue
of its seasonal nature, neighborhood housing has an intrinsically
specialized function, residents may be characterized by an age distri-
bution analagously "specialized". Summer shore communities, for
example, may have a large percentage of children, whereas communities
near mineral springs would attract large numbers of older people.

The conversion of seasonal housing to year-round use causes a shift in
its function and often a consequent shift in the age distribution of its
residents. The once seasonal home may be converted to year-round use
by aging parents who no longer find double homeownership desirable or
necessary and find the area attractive for retirement living. These same
people, however, may desire to sell their home to a younger person for
summer use or conversion to year-round use. Certainly, such converted
homes are attractive to those interested in less expensive homes --
young couples just starting out in life or senior citizens living on a
fixed income.

Secondly, unlike the towns in which they are located, the populations
of these neighborhoods are not constant throughout the year. A seasonal
neighborhood can be contrasted not only with its "host" town but also
with itself at a different time of the year. During the season of greatest
use, the need for recreational facilities is especially acute, yet the re-
creational needs of the year-round residents during the off-season cannot
be ignored.

Seasonal neighborhoods were consciously planned as resort enclaves
and developed for commercial profit. Such neighborhoods may, there-
fore, be more densely populated than the towns in which they are
located. High density means a large concentration of residents with
recreational needs. It also implies a lack of open space that could be
used to satisfy these needs.

99 -

Finally, seasonal neighborhoods, because they were usually planned
as resorts, may enjoy a proximity to natural recreational facilities that
the towns in which they are located do not. Shoreline developments may
exist on a lake, river, stream or ocean. Other developments may be
located near mountains or in areas of unspoiled beaiaty. All such loca-
tions provide opportunities for outdoor recreation.

1 Description of Existing Situation

The Buena Vista Shores Association owns and maintains five resident
beaches and several boat ramps along the shoreline. BVS residents
enjoy free access to and use of these facilities. They are not available
for use by other Town residents.

The BVS Association also owns and maintains a recreation hall. This
hall is located in the center of the neighborhood and is surrounded by
several cleared lots owned by the Association. Bathroom and kitchen
facilities are provided in the hall. During the summer months, the hall
receives extensive use as the meeting place for the association, the
location of numerous Association activities, and the center for a recently
organized youth group.

There are no other recreational facilities available to BVS residents in the
neighborhood. The Association is unable to meet the cost of potential
expansion of and addition to existing recreational facilities and programs.
Nor does the Town of Lakeville provide any facilities for BVS residents in
the neighborhood itself because of the neighborhood's private status.
Public recreation facilities in other parts of Lakeville do exist; aT.own
beach area at Clear Pond, the John G. Paun. Memorial Park off Vaughan
Street, and the facilities of the Lakeville and Regional schools are

a
ilable to all town residents.
val

It should be stressed that a lackof recreational facilities is character-
istic of not only the Buena Vista Shores neighborhood but also of Lakeville
and, for that matter, of many similar towns. Limited financial resources
are one cause of this inadequacy. In addition, recreational facilities
are not often missed when absent, although they almost always are ap-
preciated and even viewed as indispensable when provided. Several
factors thus combine to preserve the status quo in both Lakeville and
Buena Vista Shores.

2. Identification of Problem Areas

Although the beaches owned by the Association are attractive, their
upkeep and operation present problems. To begin with, the ability of

100 -

Increased building inspection and citing of code violations are alternatives
available to the municipality attempting to decrease area fire hazards
due to poor building construction. Attempts can be made to diminish
the potential hardship that this might cause by utilizing local, state, or
federal program funds to underwrite the home owner' s cost of improvements
needed on a structure.

Finally, given that most seasonal houses will remain substantially the
same as when they were built, every residence should contain at least
one fire extinguisher of adequate size and mounted at a central location.

b. Road conditions andJayout

The road network and the roads themselves need to be improved in many
seasonal neighborhoods. The major problems encountered in implement-
ing a road improvement and maintenance plan where the roads are under
private ownership aTe those related to responsibility and funding. Under
some circumstances the Town may be willing to take responsibility for
neighborhood roads as either pu U ic or private ways. If the Town is
unwilling, the neighborhood, perhaps by establishing a roads district for
obtaining loans might be able to fund road improvement. Funding and
responsibility considerations are discussed in much greater detail in
the "Roads" section of this report.

c. Traffic and parking

Som e of the conditions that lead to parking problems could be alleviated
if the roads were widened under a general road improvement plan. Even
if this were accomplished, however, the lack of off-street parking would
still result in a potentially dangerous narrowing of the effective width
of a road to be used by fire and emergency vehicles. Individual property
owners on their own initiative might make appro-1priate changes in their
parking patterns. They might attempt to limit the number of cars brought
into the neighborhood by their guests and could urge visitors to park so
as not to obstruct roadways. A neighborhood association should request
that these steps be taken and, depending on its legal status, may or
may not be able to enforce them.

Off-street parking might be a viable alternative if vacant land could be
set aside for the purpose. A neighborhood association might acquire
properties or use existing-held property for the collective parking of
resident vehicles. The Town might be willing to relinquish neighbor-
hood property its holds for parking purposes.

97 -

d. Obstrugtions to the water body

Beach barriers might become altogether unnecessary if beach parking
problems were alleviated. Alternatively, a different type of barrier
might be installed. Posts, placed twelve feet apart to allow the passage
of fire apparatus, could be connected with either a locked@swing cross-
bar or a chain joined by a lock at one post. A set of keys could be kept
at the fire station. In any case, the water access should be posted as
a fire lane and minimum width access of 12 feet available at all times.

e. Restricted entrance and egress to the neighborhood

The construction of an alternative access road could be part of a road
improvement plan undertaken by either the Town or the neighborhood.
Alternative mechanisms to establish such a program are outlined above
in "road conditions and layout" and are detailed in the "Roads" section
of this report.

the BVS Association to maintain the beach areas is questionable.
Maintenance is funded through Association dues. Not all BVS residents
pay these dues yet all expect the beaches to be maintained. As a result,
the Association must rely on voluntary labor and judicious expenditure
of limited money. Furthermore, beach upkeep extends to more than just
removal of debris. Severe runoff from surrounding areas washing over
the beaches removes much of the sand trucked to the area in previous
attempts to remedy beach erosion. Other efforts to control this erosion,
the placement of storm drains, catch basins, and retaining walls have
proved unsuccessful because of improper placement, grading, or cons-
truction.

Restricting access to the BVS beaches has also proved difficult. It has
been the intent to limit use of these private beaches to BVS residents
and their guests. Others, however, do in fact use these facilities.
For example, some Town residents and even out-of-towners desiring
access to Long Pond come to BVS private beaches to enjoy water-related
activities. In so doing, they avoid the fee charged for use of the only
other public beach on Long Pond, a beach in neighboring Freetown. The
Association, as the owner of the beaches, could request the trespassers
to leave or could call the Town police to eject them. Association officials
responsible for limiting beach access, however, can hardly be expected
to recognize all owners, renters, and guests, and consequently to dif-
f erentiate legitimate beach-users from trespassers. Strict but fair
enforcement is, therefore, difficult to accomplish.

Parking problems caused by the existence of the beaches constitute a
third problem faced by the Association. The beach areas were never
designed to accommodate vehicle parking and even after modification,
the available parking space is very limited. As an attempt to limit
parking to legitimate users of the beach, an auto sticker for the use of
BVS residents was introduced. Identification of an unwanted vehicle,
however, is not a complete solution since the problem of removal still
remains. Uncontrolled and haphazard parking by residents and other
beach-users reduced the availability of the beach for everyone and causes
bothersome and.even dangerous congestion.

Finally, water safety is another problem encountered in the operation of
the BVS beaches. Previously, the Association has funded lifeguards
through a CETA grant it acquired. Future application for such assistance
was abandoned when difficulty in finding voluntary supervision of the
lifeguards was experienced. At present, the safety of the individuals
using the beaches is their own responsibility.

101

The beaches present problems but they successfully meet the need for
recreation that is water-related. In contrast, the recreation hall is
inadequate to its purposes. Because it is not winterized and does not
have an independent water supply, it is unable to meet the needs of the
year-round residents during the off-season.

Even improving the beaches and the recreation hall, however, would not
solve the recreation problems of the BVS neighborhood. The absence of
alternative sources of recreation is as critical a problem as the in-
adequacies of those currently in existence. As a watefront community,
BVS is able to provide one kind of recreation, but water-related activities
are not sufficient. A young child cannot stay in the water for the entire
day. Yet the opportunity to use a swing, a slide, or a sandbox is not
provided. Older youths might enjoy playing basketball, baseball, or
tennis. Recreational equipment at present is at a minimum or non-
existent. Furthermore, due to the density of the neighborhood, there
is little room, for example, to start an informal game of softball. Open
land does exist, owned by the Association, BVS residents, and theTown,
but most of this land consists of widely scattered lots that may or may
not be cleared. The largest open area owned by the Association is the
land contiguous to the recreation hall; this land, however, is normally
used for parking.

During the off-season, recreation problems become even more critical.
The pond is too cold for swimming and the recreation hall is closed. No
provision for the recreational needs of the year-round residents is made.
The plight of adult residents is particularly severe. Children can at
least take advantage of school recreational programs during their school
day. There are no indoor facilities for adults to hold club meetings, play
cards, or just to get together.

3. Guidelines for Solutions

Several steps can be taken to provide year-round recreational facilities
and programs not already provided as a result of Town and Association
efforts or the neighborhood's proximity to a natural source of recreation.
If Town residents were granted access to and use of neighborhood
recreational facilities, theTown might agree to maintain and even im-
prove these facilities. All the problems associated with upkeep and
operation of the beaches, for example, would be handed over to the
Town. By virtue of its legal authority, its greater financial resources,
and its greater ability to apply for and receive federal and state grants,
theTown would be.more effective in dealing with problems than would
the Association. Furthermore, Town residents would er@oy use of a
waterbody for which there might be no other public access.

102 -

It is recojnized that this solution to recreational problems is in most
cases the least. likely and feasible. The Town might be unwilling to
shoulder additional responsibility and the neighborhood might be unwill-
ing to relinquish its privacy. Such is the case in Lakeville. It seems
unlikely that the Town will undertake to singlehandedly solve the
recreational problems of BVS, particularly as the citizen survey has
indicated that BVS residents desire to keep their neighborhood private.

There are other steps, however, that Lakeville, like other towns in
similar situations, could take in an effort to remedy recreational problems.
Town-held lots in the neighborhood might be developed into playgrounds.
Control, although not title, of these lots might be transferred to the
Association. Alternatively, the Town might sell these lots to the Asso-
ciation for a minimal price. Either of these measures would probably
require Town Meeting approval. (Town counsel should be consulted.)

The Town, in expanding its own possibly deficient facilities, could
choose to develop recreational areas adjacent to the neighborhood. Such
a decision on, the part of the Town of Lakeville could be warranted.
Assuming that there could be as many as 600 dwelling units in the neigh-
borhood, including 540 at Buena Vista Shores and 60 if the adjacent land
is developed for single-family housing, there would be approximately
2000 people, enough to justify a neighborhood park of five acres, in-
cluding playfield area for ball games and playground equipment for the
younger children. The following sketch shows possible locations for
a neighborhood park and playground.

d
AMMMATM GI-IM5590'
Z FOR NeioHsoKHo6P
PAKK

0,4.

103

The neighborhood Association could also undertake to improve
recreational facilities and programs. If it held unencumbered legal
title to the beaches, it could charge neighborhhod residents and others
for their use. The resulting income would be used to cover maintenance
and operational costs. This might not be possible in all cases, parti-
cularly if uninterrupted use of the beach areas has been sanctioned/
allowed by the owners of the property (in the case of BVS, the Association),
for a substantial number of years. Prescripted rights, as they are re-
f erred to, would make the denial of access questionable if an implied
right of uninterrupted access has existed for a twenty five year period.
(Town counsel should be consulted.)

The Association might choose, if financially possible, to develop play
areas on land it owns or to purchase other lots for the same purpose.
Recreational equipment must also be purchased and clubs and programs
geared to age groups with the most pressing recreational needs might
be established. Most importantly, the Association might build a year-
round recreation hall if one is not already in existence or winterize an
existent hall that is open only during the summer.

To suggest improvements is perhaps not that difficult. To fund them
is another matter. The cost of developing a tot lot or a ball field can
be low, particularly if the Town. hands over property to the Association
or the Association already owns available parcels. Other steps, such
as the construction of a recreation hall, are more costly. Perhaps if
the Association were relieved of other responsibilities such as road
maintenance, it would have more funds available for improvement of
recreational facilities. Otherwise, alternative sources of funding would
have to be sought.

104 -

V. RELATED CONSIDERATIONS

A. LAND USE

The preceding chapter has dealt with specific components and facilities
inside of Buena Vista Shores. There are, however, land use and planning
issues that should be considered with reference to land on the periphery
of the subdivision. For instance, the undeveloped. land which sur-
rounds the neighborhood on three sides could either be developed in
a way Which would aggravate existing problems or which would ameli-
orate them. Also, the flood plain of Hathaway Brook, which passes
on the outskirts of BVS before emptying into Long Pond, should be
looked at as a critical resource which could adversely affect BVS if
not properly managed. These and other related issues.will be dis-
cussed in this section..

1. Guidelines for Future Development of Vacant Land

A study was made of the properties surrounding Buena Vista Shores
to project the future land use and cir culation patterns for the area .
Analysis was made of the vacant (undeveloped) land, of the physical
features of the land and the soils, and of the requirements of the
zoning by-law*. The sketches on the following page illustrate some of
the characteristics of existing or potential development.

Based on this analysis, it is possible that additional single family
dwellings could be constructed at some time in the future. There
could be as many as 55 to 60 houses constructed under existing local
zoning which requires 70, 000 sq. ft. lots. Four additional roads
intersecting Highland Road would be necessary.

However, it is possible that some of this land could be utilized in
a way which would be more beneficial to BVS. For instance, some
of the larger upland, relatively flat sites, could be used as a playground.
Some of the land could be utilized to bring additional access roads into
the BVS neighborhood which would facilitate access by emergency
vehicles and owners of some properties at the more distant ends of
the development. It is possible that some of the land could be utilized
for water supply purposes.

There are a number of alternate uses which could be made of the re-
maining vacant parcels of land within BVS. Obviously, additional
housing could be built as seen in the preceding sections. However,
this may not always be the "best use" of the land. Some of this land
might be better used to provide public or private recreational lands,

10S

01,
C4iAKAcTEKtsTlc9
OF PROPF-RTIES
PARCEL A'
PASCal, 0: 40 MR657 S1JFF,0UNVlKC-1 3AI.S.
74 ACKlf

2(o A4R 66

WMA
715 AMM NATURAL
0 VWTA
41
FeATURES

0 woovw

f Imcc5l, cl:
24a A0954p 6. "T
AKFA

UWDEVEL-OMD
PARCELS

WETL@4

AAMAWAY

Of
06

40
IN

Z
BUEWA 0
V W)Tpl -1
SHOKE5 POTENTIAL
KESIDENTIAL

106

off-street parking facilities for owners and their visitors,
pedestrian walkways to the beaches or permanently dedicated
open space to create more privacy for the existing residents.
Certain vacant parcels might be purchased by adjoining
property owners to increase their lot areas.

In order to protect some of the undeveloped land from inappropriate
development which would be harmful to future owners and could ag-
gravate conditions among the existing residents, the Town should
consider creating a flood plain and wetland protection zoning district
for that land adjacent to BVS which could be affected. Detailed map-
ping would be required to identify the flood prone areas and a set of
restrictions should be drawn up to govern the use of this land. In
principle, no construction of buildings should be allowed in these
areas and other measures should be taken to govern the use of land
in this zone. Existing residences which are in this zone should be
put on notice that their property is subject to damage from flooding,
and the Town might consider a long-range plan of acquisition of these
properties, or at least strict restriction against permitting conversion
to year-round use. Under the new Federal Flood Insurance Program,
it is possible to obtain subsidized insurance for protection against
damage; however, in the long run it is probable that the owners should
consider moving to a new location rather than suffering periodic flood-
ing damage.

2. -Guidelines for Mapping and Recording Existing Seasonal
Subdivisions

Another problem which often occurs in resort neighborhoods is an
unclear description of the legal boundaries of roads and lots in the
neighborhood. If plans were drawn up hastily, with an.interest in
quick sale rather than future transfers among property owners, then
troubles can occur often. A lack of clear legal description of the pro-
perties hinders transfer of title, assessment for tax purposes, and
construction layout and inspection.

At BVS, the subdivision was drawn up in several sections, and the
deeds were recorded at different times. Present day owners, including
BVSA, have had trouble acquiring these legal documents. Fortunately,
The Town has recently prepared new assessors'maps based on aerial
photographic mapping and extensive "on the ground" research, which
has helped to clarify the locations of the critical lot lines. However,
even this project is still not totally completed, since certain question-
able areas within BVS have not been resolved and mapped.

107 -

Also, in some seasonal neighborhoods houses have been built in the
road rights-of-way, so that if road improvement work is to be under-
taken, either houses would have to be moved, or the road plans
severely adjusted to take these problems into account.

As a guideline to solving these problems, an up-to-date legal survey
and title search should be made of property descriptions, and engineer-
ing surveys should be made in the field to establish critical base points
and lines. This could lead to an engineering and legal document, re-
flecting actual conditions, which could be recorded as an "as built"
subdivision plan for the neighborhood. This could be a lengthy and
costly procedure, but it would facilitate future property transactions
and improvements projects.

3. Site Planning Guidelines

The location of a house and other facilities on the lakefront lot has an
influence on the visual attractiveness of the entire pond environment.
Since houses or cottages are viewed by people on the far shore, or by
people using the water surface for recreation, the owner of land who is
building a new house or rehabilitating an existing house should make
his improvments with thought to the "neighbors.

One of the prime objectives should be to minimize the intrusiveness of
a man-made structures on the lake or pond. In order for the pond environ-
ment to retain its "natural" character, one should be able to see a great
proportion of natural vegetation and very few man-made structures.
Therefore, great care should be shown in the relationship of a struc-
ture to the topography and the existing natural vegetation.

In general, the greater the distance a house is set back from the
water's edge, the less prominent it will appear from the far shore or
the water. Minimum setback distances should be required to implement
this objective. Greater setbacks from the edge of a water body should
help to mitigate environmental problems, such as erosion, and con-
taminated ground water from on-site sewage disposal systems which
could reach the water body. Special setback requirements for lakefront
houselots should be established, in any case, since houses located on
the edge of a waterbody do not lend themselves to the usual criteria of
zoning. What is the "front yard" and what is the "back yard" of a
shorefront lot? Where is the property line along the edge of the water
body--the mean high water line or the mean low water line, or some
other point?

Also, in addition to setting the house back from the edge of the pond,
a screen of trees should be retained or provided in front of the structure

108 -

to minimize the visual impact. The sketches below illustrate optimum
site locations of a house in relation to the water and vegetation, so
both the homeowner's view to the water is preserved, and the view to
the structure from across the shore is obscured.

OMMUM SITE LOCATIONS FOR
DWEL-LING5 ALONr4 CGHOREFKOW-5

ON 6LOPIKG SITE:
(0R0,5!5,--,EC,T10WAtL VIEW)

VIM OF HtUSF PFLOM
ACM095% WPITF-P-
1-Y XF-1 S
6"MU El a

tACATID&L

%Aj A

ON FLikT "SITE:
(PLAN V I EW)

V IVA6 OF 116051@

N
oeuouf- VIF'V4"
TO Tfif@ WATtk
FROM VF- "Usf- W ^-T EA
ARE F66SI 5LZ V
%.V
IN
6
mum
@':

109 -

The type and color of materials used on the structures have an influence
on the "visibility" of the structure from across the pond. Natural wood
materials should be preferred to synthetic materials, especially metals
or highly reflective materials. Even the use of tinted glass or glare
absorbing glass should be preferred. Obviously, somber, "earthy"
colors should be preferred to bright ones.

Other site planning considerations which are important to lakefront
housing include the design and construction of facilities for the launch-
ing and mooring of boats, the stabilization and enhancement of the
beach, the construction of paths, steps and boardwalks along the banks
to the water's edge, the prevention of erosion, the design of sun bath-
ing areas, and the consideration of landscaping, including the
preservation of existing vegetation and the planting of appropriate
new trees, shrubs, and grasses.

One of the ways to implement the guidelines spelled out in this section
would be to require greater setback distances for structures from the
edge of the water body. This could be done for new developments by
offering certain bonuses to developers who would agree to set back
new houses a certain distance from the water body. They could be
offered greater density for housing in the rear of the development.
This is the same principle upon which cluster zoning provisions are
applied. For a thorough discussion of this technique, see the DCA
study entitled "Developing a Land-Use Management Process" (case
study: Mashpee, Mass.), Local Assistance Series 4, December 1975,
pgs. 28-33.

It is Possible to impose these guidelines as requirements in the zoning
by-law for a special permit for new construction on existing developable
lots within an established seasonal neighborhood.

While there is little that can be done to impose these guidelines on
properties on which construction of a house has already taken place,
technical assistance might be provided concerning landscaping,
erosion control, exterior alterations, and similar activities.

110 -

B. TAX EQUITY

When aeasonal neighborhoods were first developed, they were often
viewed as a financial boon to the municipalities in which they were
located. It was expected that these neighborhoods would contribute
valuable tax dollars without requiring most municipal services. The
municipalities did not necessarily feel obliged to provide such services
as water, sewer, and road maintenance to such neighborhoods. They
were, however, obliged to educate the children of the tax-paying
residents, if these residents were to live in their homes year-round.
This situation has changed and is changing as more and more seasonal
residents convert their homes to year-round use. After such changes,
do the neighborhoods remain a financial boon to the municipalities or
do they become a financial burden? How do taxes collected from the
neighborhoods compare with the costs of educating neighborhood
children ?

In the case of the BVS neighborhood, the issue of tax equity has become
a controversial one. On the one hand, it appears to some Lakeville
residents that with increasing conversion of seasonal homes to year-
round use, the BVS neighborhood has become a tax burden to the Town
of Lakeville; perhaps BVS taxes cannot cover the cost of educating BVS
children. On the other hand, in the view of some BVS residents,
since the Town provides so few services to the neighborhood, they
are not getting their money's worth for the taxes they pay. Summer
residents claim that they receive absolutely no services from the
Town and, thereforel they subsidize the education of the children
of year-round residents; they press for a lower tax rate for seasonal
residents. The following discussion puts some of these claims in
perspective.

1. Educational Costs

The aim of the statistics and calculations that follow should be made
clear. Ideally, these would lead to an exact measure of the relationship
between revnue generated by and services rendered to the BVS neighbor-
hood. Actually, however, the data collected were used only to deter-
mine roughly if any gross imbalance between revenue and service
exists, mainly because an exact measure of this relationship is
impossible to obtain without extensive research and experienced
insight. It is not possible to separate the figures for general Lake-
ville revenue and general Lakeville expenditures into BVS and non-BVS
residents.

First of all, only educational expenditures, not expenditures on other
services, could be reasonably subdivided into these two categories.

Secondly, the measure of educational expenditures used to accomplish
this is the per pupil cost by grade groups furnished by the State De-
partment of Education. The unit costs used with total enrollments give
total costs which approximate but are somewhat less than the Town
totals.

Thirdly, only that part of Lakeville revenue attributed to real and
personal property taxes can be easily broken down into those portions
of total Town taxes paid by BVS and by non-BVS properties.

Table 7 summarizes the data compiled using the numbers of Lakeville
pupils, both those that do and those that do not live in BVS. The
grade group distribution of Lakeville pupils and BVS students and the
percentage of BVS students in the total Lakeville enrollment have been
calculated. BVS students constitute 9. 7% of the total Lakeville public
school enrollment.

The average cost of educating a student varies with the grade in which
that student is enrolled. Table 8 summarizes cost data compiled using
per pupil cost figures and the enrollments from Table 7. The per pupil
cost figures were obtained from the Mass. Department of Education and
represent that Department's calculation from Town records. Total costs
have been broken down to indicate their distribution among the differ-
ent educational levels and between BVS and non-BVS students, Using
this approach the computed total of $143,800 is the cost of educating
the BVS students. The percentage distribution of total cost among
grade groups is the same as the percentage of BVS students in the
total Town enrollment. The percentage of BVS children to total enroll-
ment is 9.7 whereas the percentage of BVS costs to town costs computed
with the per pupil cost of the Mass. Department of Education is 10. 1.

What percenta�e of the Lakeville taxes can be attributed to BVS residents?
In FY 7 7, the Town of Lakeville collected $1, 818, 814. 94 in real estate
and personal property taxes: $1, 7 7 7, 0 8 6. 9 9 in real estate tax and
$41, 72 7. 95 in personal property tax. BVS residents paid a total of
$167,995. 61: $161,052.66 in real estate tax and $6, 942.95 in per-
sonal property tax. BVS tax payments as percents of the Town totals
for each of the two categories above -are- computed as 9.06 and 1-6._64
percents respectively. For the totals in each case, the percentage is
9.24. These percentages reflect the assessment policy of assigning
personal property values to the seasonal residences in BVS.

112

TABLE 7. School Enrollment* for Lakeville and BVS

Total Town Enroll ment Total BVS Enrollment BVS Enrollment as
Grade Percent Percent Percent of Town
Number of Total Number of Total Enrollment

K-4 502 37.4 50 38.4 10.0

5-8 470 35.0 37 28.5 7.9

9-12 344 25.7 37 28.5 10.8

Voc. Ed. 25 1.9 6 4.6 24.0
Total 1341 TOO. 0 130 100.0 9.7

Based on enrollments from student files as of 3-15-77

TABLE 8. Educational Cost" Analysis for Lakeville and BVS,

Total Cost for Town Total Cost for BVS BVS Cost as
Average Cost Percent Percent Percent of Town
Grade per Pupil Amount of Total Amount of Total Cost

K-4 $ 773.00 $ 388,046 27.0 $ 38,650 27.0 10.0

5-8 964.80 453,456 32.0 35,697 25.0 7.9

9-12 1560.36 536,764 37.5 57,773 40.0 10.8

Voc. Ed. 1946.66 48,667 3.5 li,680 8.0 24.0
Total $1,426,933 100.0 $143,800 100.0 10.1

Based on enrollments from student files as of March 15, 1977.
Based on the "per pupil costs" from the Massachusetts Department of Education
as of 1975 fiscal year.

Some conclusions can be drawn from these statistics. The first is that
the percentage (10. 1%) of Lakeville total pupil costs (see Table 2)
attributable to BVS students is slightly higher than the percentage (9.24%)
of Lakeville real and personal property tax revenues received from BVS
property owners. This differential is relatively small although it does
indicate that BVS tax revenues are not sufficient to cover educational
costs as determined by this method.

On the other hand, the calculation using per capita school costs shows
a total expenditure of $143,800 which compares with a tax revenue of
The difference, $22,505, represents that amount of BVS real
and personal property taxes that pay for services to BVS residents other
than education. Since the cost of those services -- general government,
fire, police, library, etc. -- probably exceeds this amount, the follow-
ing general conclusion can be safely drawn. BVS personal and real prop-
erty tax revenues pay for the educational costs of BVS students, but
other Town services furnished in BVS are supported, in part, by tax rev-
enue from other than BVS sources.

It should be understood that other areas in the Town similarly analyzed
at any point in time might produce even more disparate results. For
financing purposes the Town is an entity and all share in the responsi-
bilities and benefits where assessment policy is uniformly applied and
no particular situations set one area apart from another.

2. Revenues from Seasonal and Year-Round Residences

Seasonal residents generally pay less taxes than year-round residents
because summer homes are not assessed as high as winterized homes.
The summer resident in BVS pays an average of $399.39 on a house and
personal property, while the year-round resident pays an average of
$465.28 in taxes on the home only.

Since it has been demonstrated that for all practical purposes BVS taxes
go toward the education of the children in the year-round residences in
BVS, it may be concluded that all taxes on summer homes in BVS do,
in fact, support educational services for the year-round homes. The
extent of this support or relationship is shown in the following table.

Number Percent Average Total Percent
Residences in BVS of Total Taxes Taxes of Total

Year-round 160 41.0 $465.28 $74,445 44.8

Seasonal 230 59.0 399.39 91,86 55.2

Totals 390 100.0 $166,305 100.0

- 114 -

Approximately the same amount of taxes is paid by the respective
totals of year-round and seasonal residences which means that slightly
more than one-half of the educational costs of the year-round residents
are supported by seasonal homes.

The differential in the average taxes for each of the two types of
wsidences approximates $66. 00. As conversion takes place, the Town
receives more tax revenue. If there are no school children, the taxes
represent a net addition to Town revenue. If there are children, the.
conversion obviously represents a net addition to Town expenditures,
the amount depending upon the number of school age children in the
converted residences and the grade level at which they enter the
system. Assuming an average per pupil cost of $1100. 00, it would
take sixteen conversions without children to provide the tax revenue
to meet one conversion with one child. This conversion ratio is not
probable if the present ratio of 130 students in 160 year-round residences
maintains. If all 230 seasonal residences are gradually converted, it
is most probable that the educational costs computed on a per pupil
basis for children in BVS would increase at a considerably greater rate
than tax revenue. This is not to imply that a direct and known relation-
ship exists between conversion and the number of children within a
seasonal neighborhood. Although conversion can take place that would
increase the municipal tax base without significantly increasing re-
quired municipal expenditure, it is rather unlikely.

3. Tax Assessment Policy

There is an aspect of the taxing structure as applied to seasonal
residents in BVS and other neighborhoods that needs explanation and
understanding. Municipalities across the Commonwealth have the
statutory authority to levy a personal property tax on the personal
property of all property owners. This covers all types of personal pro-
perty including the contents of seasonal homes. Lakeville does, in
fact, assess seasonal home owners for those contents.

Some perman ent Lakeville residents pay personal property tax on heavy
machinery, farm equipment and, in the case of businesses, on the con-
tents of their establishments. All public utility lines and equipment
are personal property and taxed as such. However, the method of
determining the assessment of personal property in residential areas
is somewhat different for the permanent resident than for the seasonal
resident because the seasonal home is closed and its owner usually
absent at the time of the year when the assessing process takes place.
All Town residents submit an itemized list of their taxable personal
property each year. However, a seasonal resident who does not submit
such a listing by March lst of each year is assessed at ten percent of

115

the assessed value of the real property. Notice of the possibility of
submitting such a list on personal property is posted in 13 locations in
Lakeville. However, none are in BVS. The only exemption from tax on
personal property on a seasonal home is when the home is rented and
the contents of the home belong to the renter and not the owner. In
this case the renter is not subject to the personal property tax.

4. Other Town Services.

The services at this point in time most needed by BVS residents - -
water, sewer and road maintenance and improvement - -are not provided
by the Town. This situation may anger or confuse some BVS residents
but it actually represents no blatantly prejudicial practices on the part
of the Town. Town sewer and water are not provided anywhere in Lake-
ville, largely because most parts of Lakeville are less dense than the
BVS neighborhood and do not require these services. No part of the
4.9% of the FY 76 budget allocated for highways is spent on BVS roads
because these roads are "private property"*. Other Town expenditures
are of equal benefit to BVS and non-BVS Lakeville residents. These
include appropriations for general government, public safety, the
_p@a, retirement funds, conserva -tion land and other local govern-
mental services, essential for municipal operation and either directly
or indirectly beneficial to all residents whether seasonal or year-round.

The level of services which BVS residents receive for their tax dollars
is a more complicated issue centering around the "private" status of the
BVS community. Should the town be responsible for providing services to
a "private" neighborhood which are not delivered to other areas of the
town? Should the town provide all of the same services to BVS as it does
to the rest of Lakeville if BVS is considered as and remains "private" ?
Such questions strike at. the heart of the relationship between private
seasonal neighborhoods and municipal government.

5. Conclusion

The analyses and discussions above have not been undertaken with the
intention of demonstrating that either the municipality or the neighbor-
hood,is being shortchanged. In fact, taxes that pay for services
to the entire municipality are based on the value of the propelty not
on the vallue of the services rendered to an individual taxpayer.
The purpose is to indicate in general terms the financial impact of a
seasonal neighborhood on the municipality in order that reasonable
steps might be taken to cushion the fiscal burden of such a neighborhood
and prepare for the effect of conversion as it might take place.
*Annual Report of the Town Officers, Lakeville, 1976.

- 116 -

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION

Throughout the preceding sections of the report, various guidelines for
solutions were discussed to correct some of the existing problems con-
fronting seasonal neighborhoods in general and BVS in particular. These
discussions were generally addressed to the questions of "what" improve-
ments were needed and various options available concerning how they
might be accomplished. In this section of the report, the above guidelines
are summarized and an integrated set of recommendations for BVS made
based on an analysis of the interrelationships among alternative solutions
to specific problem areas. Then a descriptive explanation is given as to
"how" the improvements can be made through municipal and/or neighbor-
hood action, the steps which are necessary to begin the implementation
process.

There are limitations on the extent of improvements which can be made,
such as lack of funding at various levels of government and the limited
assessing power of the BVS Association. However, problems can be solved
by the combined effort of governmental agencies and private initiative.
Specifically, there are four levels of responsibility for implementing im-
provements to solve some of the major problems: the State level; the mu-
nicipal level; the neighborhood association level; and the individual prop-
erty owner's level. These will be discussed in order below.

.A. STATE LEVEL

1. Create a new enabling legislation for shoreland manage-
ment for water bodies and their shorelands which
are of "greater than local concern" .

2. Direct the Division of Water Pollution Control to make
an indepth analysis of the water quality and its
trends of Long Pond and the other water bodies in
the Lakeville Ponds complex.

3. Change the "grandfather clause" in the State Zoning
Enabling Act, Chapter 40A.

4. Pass enabling legislation to permit the establishment
of Road Districts in lakeshore neighborhoods.

5. Direct the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering to
further investigate and possibly accept alternative waste
water disposal methods.

117

1. Create New Enablincf Leciislation For Shoreland Manaclement

The following material has been excerpted in its entirety from a re-
port entitled Strengthening Lake-Shoreland Management in Massa-
.chusetts. It is presented here because of its appropriateness and
its completeness.

"Adoption of a new statute establishing a conjunctive
State/local lake protection program. A Massachusetts
shoreland zoning program might be modelled upon the
shoreland zoning programs of Maine, Vermont, Michigan,
Wisconsin and Minnesota which require that local units
of government adopt lakeshoreland regulatory controls
consistent with State standards. Statutes in these states
authorize a state agency to promulgate minimum standards
for shoreland use and require local units of government to
adopt and administer regulations meeting or exceeding
State standards. A Massachusetts statute should, of
course, recognize the special lake resource and insti-
tutional conditions found here including the developed
condition of many Massachusetts lakes, strong tradi-
tions of local autonomy, town control of land use and
the private nature of many smaller ponds. The draft bill
would:

(1) Authorize a single State Agency to assume responsi-
bility for coordinating lakeshoreland programs in the State.

(2) Authorize the agency to undertake a lakeshoreland in-
ventory for the State, develop lakeshoreland management
policies, carry out necessary studies and offer technical
assistance to local units of government.

(3) Authorize the agency to promulgate standards and cri-
teria for shoreland zoning for all public lakes greater than
100 acres. Town and cities would be responsible for adopt-
ing and enforcing land-use regulations meeting or exceed-
ing State standards within one year or the State would di-
rectly regulate water and shoreland areas.

(4) Authorize the agency to designate (after proper study)
other lakes of 'greater than local significance, and adopt
similar standards and criteria. Such additional lakes could
be identified based upon specified criteria such as:

118 -

(a) Site of a rare or endangered species.

(b) Serious conflicts between public users of
the lake and shoreland uses.

(d) A lake lying in more than one local jurisdic-
tion where no single local unit can adopt and
administer adequate controls.

(e) An undeveloped lake of special scenic beauty
or needed for scientific study.

Local units of government and other agencies would be en-
couraged to suggest 'candidate' lakes of 'greater than local
significance'. A public hearing would be held on the pro-
p3sed status of such a lake."'

This proposed legislation gives the following examples of items to, be
regulated on land surrounding the water bodies:

a . "The areas of a lot and the length of water frontage suit-
able for a building site,

b. The placement of structures in relation to shorelines and
erosion,

c. The placement, construction and maintenance of sanitary
and waste disposal facilities,

d. The designation of the types of land use and,

e. The protection of shoreland areas of public concern such
as wetlands, erosion areas, steep slopes, ground water
recharge areas, flood areas, areas of special scientific
interest and areas of special historic significance."*

Strengthening Lake-Shoreland Management in Massachusetts,
Berger, Kusler and Klinginer, Water Resources Research
Center, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, February,
1976, pages 11-12.

Ibid., page 16.

119 -

2. Direct the Division of Water Pollution Control to Make Indepth Studies

Another important step of planning for the future. of lakes and ponds
and related residential development along their shores is to continue
extensive and ongoing studies of the quality of the water. To some
extent this has been mandated by the recent federal law (Public Law
92-500) which requires identification and classification of all lakes
over twenty acres as the first step in preparing restoration programs
for those lakes which need "restoration". The Massachusetts Divi-
sion of Water Pollution Control has accepted responsibility for con-
ducting these studies. However, they obviously cannot conduct
studies on all the critical lakes and ponds simultaneously, due to
budgeting limitations.

The Southeaste rn Regional Planning and Economic Development Dis-
trict (SRPEDD) has contracted for water quality samples and tests to
be made in the 1977 spring season. Twenty-five samples will be
taken in the Lakeville Ponds complex, particularly in the tributaries
of the rivers flowing into and out of the complex. The results of these
studies will be incorporated into the "208" Waste Water Management
Plans being prepared for the District and to be made available to the
municipalities in the District. Unfortunately, the "208" planning
funds will run out at the completion of these studies and therefore
no ongoing testing program can be initiated using this source of
funds. It is recommended that local and regional authorities re-
quest that the Lakeville Ponds, with Long Pond in particular, be
made a high priority for a comprehensive testing program under the
responsibility of the Division of Water Pollution Control.

3. Change the "Grandfather" Clause in the State Zoning En abling Act

Based on the analysis in the neighborhood density and conversion sec-
tion of this reportl it would appear that the "grandfather" clause,
which was inserted in Chapter 40A in the mid-fifties, did not take in-
to consideration many of the problems which are generic to residential
neighborhoods. Several communities besides Lakeville have ex-
pressed concern over this provision in the law. The law, which al-
lows development on lots as small as 5000 square feet, if separately
owned without adjoining land to make them conform to lot area re-
quirements, was primarily directed to urban lots where both public
water supply and waste water disposal systems were available. It
is clear that lots of 5000 square feet cannot accommodate onsite
waste disposal facilities, a well and other requirements for seasonal
or year-round residential use. It should also be understood that the

120 -

proposed changing of the "grandfather" clause would affect only new
construction on previou sly- approved lots held in separate ownership.

It is recommended that the minimum lot size (grandfather clause) be
revised on a sliding scale so that larger minimums are required where
public water supply and/or public sewage disposal systems are not
available, or in environmentally sensitive areas (such as shoreline
neighborhoods) where so il/to pogra phic/g eo logic characteristics can
justify larger lots. Slightly smaller minimum lot sizes would be permitted
where one utility is available, and smaller sizes still would be permitted
where both utilities are available.

4. Pass Enabling Legislation to Permit Establishment of Road Districts

A bill (S798) that would authorize the establishment of road districts
within towns has been introduced in the 1977 legislative session of
the General Court. This bill seeks state-wide enabling legislation
to be added as Section 44A of Chapter 40 of the General Laws and was
proposed through the efforts of the Sherwood Forest Seasonal Neighbor-
hood in the Town of Becket. Passage of this bill would provide a means
by which seasonal neighborhoods in all municipalities could effectively
handle the repair and maintenance of its "privately" owned road system.
The capital and operating costs of the district would be paid through
assessments on properties within the district. This enabling legisla-
tion would eliminate the need for individual special legislation on a
neighborhood- by- neighborhood, town-by-town basis.

5. Direct the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering to Further
Investigate and Possibly,Accept Alternative Waste Water Disposal
Methods

Much research has been and is continuing to be done on alternative methods
of waste water disposal. Many of these methods such as cornposting,
chemical toilets, cluster systems and similar methods deserve serious
consideration for acceptance as viable alternative means of waste water
disposal.

B. MUNICIPAL LEVEL

I . Establish a special Lakeshore Residential District in the
Zoning By-Law of Lakeville.

2. Assist in the formation of water and road districts and provide
new recreational facilities in the BVS neighborhood.

121

3. Establish an ongoing advisory committee concerned with the
lakeshore areas of Lakeville.

4. Create flood plain and watershed protection districts in
Lakeville.

1. Establish a Special Lakeshore Residential District

It is within the Town of Lakeville's preogative under the revised
Zoning Enabling Act (Chapter 808 of the Acts of 1975) to establish a
variety of districts to meet its overall -needs. For example, a special
lakeshore residential district could become the cornerstone of a
management policy for areas around all water bodies in these unique
sections of the Town.

In using such a zoning district to include seasonal neighborhoods,
use controls could be established to govern the construction of all
new year-round and seasonal residential units, the conversion of a
seasonal to a year-round residence and the enlargement or alteration
of both conforming and non-conforming year-round and seasonal
residences.

The first step would be to define the limits of such a special district
around the lakeshores in this community. Existing physical character-
istics of the land and present lotting arrangements would be used to
establish the boundaries to be added to the zoning map. Then, special
lot size requirements, intensity regulations and other controls normally
included in the zoning by-law would be determined and written for in-
clusion in the by-law text.

In the present Lakeville Zoning By-Law there are no specific provisions
pertaining to seasonal housing units as contrasted with year-round
housing units. Both are considered to be "detached one-family houses"
and fit that designation. In order to make the Zoning By-Law applicable
to each type of housing, it would be necessary to introduce definitions
to make a clear distinction between these two types of residential uses.
Then, it would be desirable in the Zoning By-Law use regulations to
subdivide the "detached one-family house" use into two uses -- one
for seasonal units and one for year-round units. Following this, it
would be advisable to consider the conditions under which each of the
two uses would be permitted either as a matter-of-right or by a special
permit. It would be reasonable to allow new year-round residences as
a matter-of-right in the same manner as the present By-Law. Seasonal
residences might be allowed on a special permit granted by the Board
of Appeals. Even though stringent controls could be designed for this

- 122

use, individual review of each location would be advisable
particularly if there are to be any different controls applied
to seasonal units than to year-round units. With seasonal
units the possibility of future conversion is always present.

Then, a use provision could be introduced to govern the con-
.version of a seasonal unit to a year-round unit providing
certain criteria or standards are met. These criteria would
be part of the Zoning By-Law amendment. If the criteria could
not be met, then no conversion could take place.

As an illustration of this point, the Town of Harvard,
Massachusetts, has a Zoning By-Law provision relating to the
conversion of a seasonal residence which requires a special
permit by the Board of Appeals. This is reproduced here, with
a few minor adjustments, to make it generally useful in similar
circumstances, with or without further modification.

"CONVERSION OF SEASONAL RESIDENCE. Conversion
of a lawful existing seasonal residence for use
as a permitted year-round residence and for which
the lot is not conforming to the lot size standards
of the By-Law is subject to the grant of a special
permit by the Board of Appeals. Any application
for such permit shall be referred to the Board of
Health and to the Planning Board for reports
thereon.

A special permit shall be granted only if:

a. the Minimum Standards of Fitness for Human
Habitation and minimum ReQuirements for the
Disposal of Sanitary Sewage in Unsewered Areas
(Article 2 of the State Sanitary Code and
Title V of the State Environmental Code
respectively), sewage disposal setback require-
ments of this By-Law, and the rules and
regulations of the Board of Health are met; and

b. the Board of Appeals finds that similar such
conversion of all seasonal residences in the
.general area having lots similar (or less
limited) in lot size and land and soil type
characteristics would not result in substantial
danger of contamination of the ground water
supply or of any pond or stream. In making
such finding, the Board shall consider the
ability of the soil to absorb expected quantities
of sewage disposal effluent, the degree of
filtration of effluent before entering bedrock
fissures or other ground water supply, and other
characteristics of the land and soil types."

-123-

The adoption of alakeshore residential district, if followed, would
result in certain nonconforming uses in lakeshore neighborhoods. In
the case of a seasonal or year-round unit which becomes a nonconform-
ing use and which is subsequently proposed to be enlarged or extended,
certain alterations would have to be made. An amendment would be
added to the By-Law to govern that alteration so the enlargement might
be permitted if it is reasonable on the lot, is not detrimental to the
neighborhood. and is consistent with the regulations of the Board of
Health. Such a provision might have language as follows:

"A building of nonconforming use may be enlarged
or altered for an extension of such use on the same
lot or an adjacent lot in the same ownership of record
at the time it is placed in a district, provided that
the Board of Appeals shall issue a special permit
therefor based upon a finding that such enlargement
or alteration will not result in any detrimental or in-
jurious effect of the building or use on the neighborhood
and will be consistent with the Regulations of the Board
of Health.

The expansion of a conforming use of either a year-round residence or
a seasonal residence could also be conditioned by the grant of a special
permit similar to the above in order to insure the adequacy of on- site
facilities to accommodate the planned expansion.

Amendments such as these within the context of a lakeshore residential
district could provide an integrated set of controls to permit a series of
alternative residential uses with adequate safeguards for the protection
of the lake or pond and for appropriate use of the lakeshore and upland
areas.

2. Assist in the Formation of Water and Road Districts, and Provide
New Rec@eational Facilities in the BVS Neighborhood

The primary problems identified in the preceding sections of the study
are the water supply, the waste disposal and the small lot sizes of the
lakeshore neighborhoods of Lakeville, particularly BVS. Other problems
concern the roads, recreational facilities and public safety services.
Obviously, the Town cannot solve all of these problem areas, nor does
it have the sole responsibility to do so. However, the Town should
take the lead to create improvements in the following categories:

a . help establish water districts for densely developed
lakeshore neighborhoods including BVS,

124 -

b establish more stringent standards than are currently
in force in the State Environmental Code for the design,
construction and maintenance of onsite septic systems,

c. help establish road districts for densely developed
seasonal neighborhoods and

d. provide expanded recreational facilities in the vicinity
of densely developed seasonal neighborhoods.

-------------- -
The problems of water supply and sewage disposal are paramount and
interrelated. Among the alternatives explored for these areas in the
preceding sections of the report were the creation of public systems
for either water supply or sewage disposal or both. In looking at
these alternatives, it should be kept in mind that construction of one
system can influence the need for construction of the other. For instance,
if a sewer system were built to serve BVS, this would increa6e the de-
mand for water supply since people would be able to use more water for
their domestic needs (that is, they would no longer be constrained in
their use of water due to faulty septic systems). If individual well
systems were not capable of meeting these needs, the pressure to pro-
vide a public water system would increase; therefore, one major project
would help to generate the need for another.

Provision of public sewers can also be shown to induce a demand for
more intense land use because lot size and soil conditions for onsite
disposal are no longer factors to contend with. This could put added
pressure on the vacant parcels around the shorefront to be built upon
or on seasonal homes to be converted to year-round use.

Higher intensity land use on small lots, which could result if sewers
were installed, does not appear justified in an already fragile environ-
ment around the Lakeville Ponds, since it would exacerbate other
problems. Furthermore, it cannot be adequately documented that the
soils are of such poor quality that onsite sewage disposal systems
will not be effective, at least in the foreseeable future. Therefore,
it is the conclusion of this study that a public sewer system is not
recommended for BVS.

However, it is felt necessary to begin a program of creating local
water districts to serve many of the seasonal neighborhods in Lake-
ville. This is especially necessary at BVS where the existing private
seasonal system is marginal and cannot be effectively upgraded. It
will become increasingly infeasible to rely on wells on individual
house lots as a long-range alternative. As long as onsite septic
systems are permitted, health regulations will rule out the possibility

125

of constructing individual wells for new houses or for conversions,
primarily because of the small area of the house lots and the neces-
sity for wells to be located at safe distances from surrounding septic
systems.

Since these problems are concentrated primarily in certain sections
of the Town, it does not seem equitable to construct a town-wide
public water system to solve problems in localized areas. There-
fore, special water districts should be created to serve only those
problem areas. The Town should assist those neighborhoods to
create such districts. The district(s) would be formed by members
within the seasonal neighborhoods who would assess themselves
for construction and operation of the system. This would not re-
quire the Town as a whole to participate in these costs. The de-
tails of siich a system are explained in the following section.

In the long run it is possible that centralized sewage collection
and treatment systems might have to be installed in these lake-
front neighborhoods at great cost to all the people involved. How-
ever, this eventuality can be delayed if not eliminated by strict
procedures and regulations designed to make onsite sewage dis-
posals more efficient. The Town should set strict standards for
construction and maintenance of existing and future septic systems.
This would be facilitated by a major recodification of the Board of
Health's regulations. The Town should also establish a systematic
inspection and maintenance program for septic systems (see draft
of proposed by-law which follows). The first step in this procedure
would be a complete inventory of existing septic systems in Town,
particularly in the seasonal neighborhoods and a public information
program explaining the necessity for good operation and maintenance
of septic systems by individuals in the Town.

The information program should also point out water conservation
measures which would reduce the impact of contaminated leachate
from onsite sewage disposal systems on the ground water table.
Composting toilets, smaller capacity flush toilets and-low flow
shower heads can help reduce the water entering septic systems.
Also, aerobic treatment systems, in lieu of septic tanks, can be
used to help improve the quality of the effluent which is delivered
to the soil and the water table.

In order to upgrade the existing septic systems, a complete -survey
and evaluation of, all systems would be made using the State En-
vironmental Code requirements as a standard. Adequacies and in-
adequacies would be noted and an improvement plan and estimated

126 -

cost for upgrading each septic system installation would be pre-
pared and a time period set for bringing each system into compliance
(or as close to.compliance as the existing circumstances would safely
permit). Pertinent data, such as lot size, location of wells, soils
characteristics, topography, ground water levels and property lines
are essential to determine the probable and realistic future of all
existing systems. The Town has already begun to implement this
project through the receipt of approval to hire CETA employees to
begin the inventory of all septic systems in the Town.

As a companion process, all vacant, legally buildable lots would be
similarly evaluated and preliminary judgments as to the suitability
of the lot for an onsite septic system would be reached.

With these two steps completed, an overall plan of onsite disposal
can be prepared to show the practical saturation of the Shores area
with residences for either seasonal or year-round occupancy. The
relationship with the private onsite wells would also be established
so new systems would not interfere with either wells on the same
lot or on an adjoining site.

The following provisions might be appropriately added to the Lakeville
Board of Health's recodified regulations on minimum requirements for
the disposal of sanitary sewage in unsewered areas:

a. Purpose

It is recognized that proper maintenance of septic tanks
will increase the useful life of all onsite sewage disposal
systems which rely on soil absorption of septic tank ef-
fluent. To further the purpose of increased life of such
onsite disposal systems and to protect the health, safety
and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Lakeville,
the Town of Lakeville hereby establishes a septic tank
maintenance permit program.

b. Permit Required

No owner may occupy, rent, lease, live in or reside in, either
seasonally or permanently, any building, residence or other
structure serviced by a private domestic sewage treatment and
disposal system unless the owner has a valid septic tank
maintenance permit for that system issued in his/her name by
the Board of Health. Owner is defined to mean a natural per-
son, corporation, the state or any subdivision thereof.

127 -

c. Fee

A fee of $ shall accompany each application for a
septic tank maintenance permit.

d. Permit Application

Application for a septic tank maintenance permit shall be
made to the Building Commissioner on forms supplied at
the Town Clerk's office. All applications shall state the
owner's name and address, the address or location of the
private sewer system and shall contain the following state-
ment:

"I certify thaton day of 19
I inspected the septic tank located at the address
stated on this application, and I (check one):

-pumped all sludge and scum out of the septic
tank, or
found That the volume of sludge and scum was
,less than 1/3 of the tank volume, and I did
not pump the septic tank.

Signature

Sanitary License Number

e. Issuance

The Board of Health shall issue a permit to the applicant upon
receipt of the fee and a completed application, properly signed
by a person licensed to service septic tanks and stating his
sanitary license number. The permit shall include on its face
all information contained in the application and shall contain
the date of issuance.

f. Validity

The permit issued under this section shall be valid for a period
of two years from the date of issuance.

128 -

g. Sale of Property

When property containing a private domestic sewer system
is sold, the new property owner, prior to occupying, rent-
ing, leasing or residing in the building, residence or struc-
ture served by the system, shall make application for and
receive a septic tank maintenance permit. However, the
system may be used for a period not to exceed 30 days after
making application for a permit.

This permitting structure assumes the existence of a licensed septic
tank service firm. There is, of course, a potential for abuse or ex-
ploitation whenever a private owner's compliance with a permitting
standard is based on the opinion or certification of a free-charging
third party. In the absence of state licensing and regulatory con-
trol of the septic tank service firm, the Town may wish to bc rather
creative in its efforts to ensure integrity in the permit process and
protection of the interests of the owners.

,One approach would be for the Town itself to assume licensing or
regulatory control over the service. This alternative may, however,
encounter very serious constitutional or restraint of trade problems
depending on state law.

A second alternative would be for the state to assume licensing and
regulatory powers. In either case, the model ordinance, code or
statutory language to accomplish licensing could be as follows:

Licensing: (a) License; application; fee. Every person
before engaging in the business of servicing septic
tanks, seepage pits, grease traps or privies in this
state (municipality) shall make application on forms
prepared by the (department of
licensing) of each vehicle used by him in such busi-
ness. The annual license fee is $25 for each vehicle
for a state resident licensee and $50 for a nonresident
licensee. If the (department),
after investigation, is satisfied that the applicant has
the qualifications, experience and equipment to perform
the services in a manner not detrimental to public health,
it shall issue the license, provided a surety bond has
been executed. The licensee fee shall accompany all
applications. The (department) shall
maintain a list of all those licensed under this section
and shall make the list available to all interested persons.

129 -

The "qualifications, experience and equipment" should be defined
to include an acceptable septage disposal site, of course.

As a third alternative, the Town could establish an agency charged
with the duty of regularly checking private septic systems and given
the power to contract directly with private service firms to pump
septic tanks when necessary. The cost of pumping would then be
assessed against the property owner. This approach would assure
that pumping occurred when, and only when, it was necessary.
However, it might raise fiscal problems for the Town, although
any system will cost the Town money, but of all those systems,
this one appears to be the least expensive. More importantly, it
might lead to problems related to a Town's power to contract with
private parties to have work performed. A legal opinion should be
received early in such planning.

Another technique would be to provide technical assistance to in-
dividual property owners. This alternative takes the form of a ser-
vice offered to individual home owners rather than, as in the case
of the mandatory maintenance program, a legally enforceable regu-
lation applicable to the entire community. Many of the problems
that arise in the disposal of waste water result from the individual
home owner's lack of knowledge of remedial techniques. Tech-
nical assistance -- problem analysis followed by specific recom-
mendations -- would therefore be offered on a case-by-case basis.

Recommendations might include installing water conservation mecha-
nisms, practicing water conservation techniques, reducing high
water consumption, reducing use of garbage disposals and suggest-
ing the need for new leaching fields. Through this individualized
technical assistance, it. might be possible to avoid the adoption of
across-the-board requirements that are insufficient in some cases
and overly restrictive in others. Instead, the "site- specific" prob-
lems would be analyzed for the home owner and alternatives pre-
sented for each case or each parcel of land.

3. Establish a Town Advisory Committee on Lakeshore Areas

The Town of Lakeville should establish an ongoing advisory committee
which would monitor activities in the Long Pond area and make recom-
mendations for improvements. Because there are distinct subdivision
areas around Long Pond of which Buena Vista Shores is only one, it
would be helpful for a group of citizens to represent all the local or-
ganizations, especially in matters dealing with the Town government

130 -

or other governmental agencies. This committee could serve as a
clearing house for passing on information concerning Town policies
which may be applicable to the Lakeshore neighborhoods and also
for making known to the Town officials various specific complaints
and other suggestions from the local organizations.

This committee should have the task of preparing a master plan for
the entire Long Pond watershed area. This effort should be coordi-
nated with the Planning Board and other Boards or Commissions in the
Town. There was a Long Pond Association at one time. Reactivation
might be advisable. Many towns in the Commonwealth already have
this kind of committee working actively to achieve some of these ob-
jectives listed above, including the Jacobs Pond Committee in Nor-
well, the White Pond Advisory Committee in Concord and the Lake
Boone Commission in Stow and Hudson. As other municipalities have
lakeshore neighborhoods in Long Pond area, thought might also be given
to expanding this advisory committee to be intermunicipal.

4. Create Flood Plain and Watershed Protection Districts in Lakeville

Many of the la nds surrounding the lakeshores in Lakeville are wet-
lands. In addition, several streams and brooks which have flood
plains flow into the Lakeville ponds. Even the shore fronts of the
ponds themselves are at low points in many locations and would be
subject to periodic flooding. These lands help control the balance
of water flowing into the Lakeville ponds and should not be filled
in or otherwise developed. Therefore, the Town should institute a
mapping program to clearly identify the boundaries of these flood
plains and wetlands and should prepare an amendment to the Zoning
By-Law to restrict development in these types of areas throughout
the Town.

13l

C. THE NEIGHBORHOOD LEVEL

As discussed in the Neighborhood Organization section of this report,
an organization which does not have automatic membership and, there-
fore, does not have assessing power is severely limited in its ability
to carry out many important functions. Since there is no way for an
existing neighborhood organization to achieve automatic membership
status without approval of every property owner in the neighborhood
which is a practical impossibility to achieve, the organization must
turn to other means for solving specific problems. Despite this
negative observation there are certain actions that can be taken by the
Buena Vista Shores Association that would help to tackle some of the
major problems identified in this report. Briefly, they are:

1 . work with the municipality on creating a water district,
road district, or preferably a water and road district within
the BVS neighborhood or in concert with other seasonal
neighborhoods,

2. continue to seek increased resident participation and
support for the Association, and

3. strive to expand and improve lines of communication and
cooperation between the neighborhood and the various Town
boards and departments.

1. Create a Water/Road District(s)

Road conditions and water supply have been mentioned in this report
as two of the most serious problems faced by the neighborhood.
Results of the BVS citizen survey place roads as the number one
improvement desired by both the seasonal and year-round residents.

The vast majority of respondents stated that the responsibility for
road improvements should be placed with the Town. However, the
desire of the residents to maintain the "private status" of the roads,
the fact that the roads are personal property with title held by the
BVS Association, and the fact.that those roads do not meet acceptable
municipal standards all work against the feasibility of municipal
takeover.

The water supply (quality, quantity, and duration of service) was
also highly cited in the BVS citizen survey as needing improvement.
As most yean-round residents have their own source of water (well),
it is not unexpected that the greatest request for improvement came

132 -

from summer r esidents who do not have a well and must, thereforel
rely on the seasonal private water company servicing the area.

Alternative solutions to this problem appeared in the water supply
section of this report. Most of them are rejected for BVS- for the
following reasons: municipal water is not anticipated for the Town
and the likelihood of getting town meeting approval to provide such
a municipal service to a section of the municipality is highly impro-
bable. The possibility that the existing owner of the private water
company will substantially improve the seasonal delivery of water,
not to mention upgrading the marginal seasonal system to year-round
service, is also unlikely. The acquiring and upgrading of this
system by another party seems questionable due to the fact that
practically the entire system would have to be rebuilt for year-round
use. Reliance on private wells, while cost effective and currently
viable, might not provide a lasting solution because of potential
future environment degradation.

Therefore, it is the conclusion of this report that the most viable
solution to the road maintenance and water supply problems at BVS
is the establishment of one or more special districts. It should be
made clear that great care must be taken in the establishment of special
districts. Their legal options and responsibilities must be clearly
stated to ensure' successful operation. It 'is not advisable to "lift
existing legislation that establishes a special district and assume that
it has universal applicability. Legal advice should be solicited to
clarify any and all points. Therefore, the following discussion is
offered only as a general introduction to the legal and practical intricacies
of establishing a special district. The general characteristics of special
districts in the Commonwealth should be men tioned before the potential
special district in BVS is discussed. These characteristics are outlined
below.

a . At present, there is no statutory authorization, i. e. enabling
legislation, for special districts in the Commonwealth. All special
districts have been established by Special Act. In general, a legis-
lator representing the municipality in which the district is to be
located or a state agency submits proposed legislation to the General
Court.

b. The municipality in which the potential district is to be located
must approve the creation of the district through town meeting vote.
Cooperation between both the neighborhoods and the municipality is
advisable to insure mutual acceptability.

133 -

c. The manner of establishing the district governing body would
be outlined in the Special Act. Presumably, members of the governing
body would be residents of the district and would be elected or pos-
sibly appointed by the Board of Selectmen. Participation in the district
could be based on use of the services provided or the ownership of
property within established district boundaries.

d. The creation of a special district results in a qua si- governmental
structure that is often recognized as eligible to receive Federal and
State funds.

e. The manner in which a special district can acquire funds from
district property owners is stipulated in the Special Act authorizing
its establishment. These powers are legally binding and enforceable;
failure to pay can result in the termination of service.

BVS should consider establishing both a road district and a water
district or alternately, one district that would have the responsibility
for both roads and water. Under current law, either alternative would
be accomplished through the local legislator or a state agency who
would submit a bill(s) to the General Court. If passed, this Special
Act(s) would allow the creation of the special district(s) within the
area specified in the bill(s). The boundaries of the special district
could be those of the BVS neighborhood, or they might include a number
of similar neighborhoods.

However, the proposed bill (S-798) would create enabling legislation
so any town could establish a road district. If passed, a BVS roads
district could then be established without a Special Act. In this case,
the BVS.wQad district would have to meet requirements spelled out in
the general enabling legislation whereas a Special Act would be "tailor-
made" to the petitioner's specifications. Establishment of a roads
district through enabling legislation also precludes the possibility of
establishing a combined water and roads district through a Special Act.

The benefits of establishing one district for both road and water supply
are several. Easements from one district to andther would not be neces-
sary, bureaucracy would be minimized, and more efficient and cost
effective delivery of services would be possible. It appears undesir-
able to have one district tearing up the roads to lay piping without
coordinating that action with the paving of that road by another district.
One district would encourage appropriate planning and follow through.

If, however, a phased establishment of such districts appears to be a
more acceptable alternative at this time, that course of action should

134-

be followed. Whatever the case may be, a capital improvement plan
which integrates provisions of both services is essential.

Whether the water district is to be a separate district or combined with
a roads district, particular care must be taken in its establishment.
Because a private water company now exists and operates in the BVS
neighborhood, it would be wise to include certain provisions within the
Special Act. For example, acquisition of the water company would be
required if the district desires to use immediately the existing system,
to upgrade it or to eliminate it. Acquisition is possible in several
ways. One, of course, is through outright purchase of the company
and any applicable easements used by that company. Price would be
negotiated between the district and the current owner. Another pos-
sibility is through a "taking. " If the Special Act under which the
district was established gives that district the power of eminent
domain, that district may "take" the company upon payment of "just.
compensation". That compensation may be agreed upon among the
parties involved. If the Special Act states the desire for intervention
on the part of the Department of Public Utilities, DPU can establish
the rate of "just compensation" if no agreed-upon figure could be
reached in direct party negotiations.

Both road and water supply improvement would require large capital
expenditures. Because special districts can incur long-term debts
with few legal restrictions, initial capital can often be acquired through
the issuing of revenue bonds. Almost inevitably, in the Commonwealth,
these bonds are nonguaranteed. The Town, if it wished to aid the dis-
trict financially, could pledge their full faith credit behind the bonds.
This method has been described as questionable since the municipality
might have legal liability for district debt. Furthermore, if the dis-
trict defaulted, the municipality would be affected adversely.* As
an alternative means of assistance, the Town might consider making a
loan at municipal preferred rates or contributing "seed" money to allow
the district to capture independently available funds. Finally, a
special district's legal status enables it to be eligible for federal and
state grants or loans.

The Problem of Special Districts in American Government,
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 1964,
page 40.

The possibility of acquiring 201 funds, FHA and MDPW monies
and/or assistance and Farmers 1111=e Administration loans should
be pursued.

- 135 -

There are several ways by which a special district can acquire funds
for operating costs. In the Commonwealth, the bulk of special dis-
trict revenue comes from user charges. User charges am not tied to
property values and can be adjusted to reflect the cost of services
provided. They are considered easy to assess and collect. In the
event a user does not pay the user charge, service can be terminated.
In determining the level of user charges, several factors should be
taken into account. These are:

a. the period within which amortization of capital costs is to
occur,

b. whether the level of charges should be set to produce a
revenue above debt service and operational cost to be used towards
potential additions and improvement,

c. the possible effects of the level of service rates (user charges)
on the extent of the use of the services.

User charges could take the form of a flat rate to be collected from.
each property owner or they could be proportional to the amount of the
service provided. The latter would be accomplished, in the case of
a water district, for example, through the installation of water meters.

Water and road districts in the Commonwealth also have the power of
levying a "property tax". They may also levy special assessments
against property. In the past, however, the amount of district revenue
attributed to these sources has been comparatively insignificant.*

2. Continue to Seek Increased Resident Participation and Support
for the Association

The Buena Vista Shores Association is a non-automatic membership
organization and as such, must rely on property owner contributions
for its-. financial operation. *2 In order to interest peo'ple in providing
financial support, the operations and programs of the association must
reflect the wishes of the residents it serves and/or represents.
Organization directors and active members must, therefore, clearly,
understand why the organization exists, what the organization is
expected to do, why the organization has been successful or unsuc-
cessful and what activities the organization should pursue in the
future.

Discussion of special district financing is based on Chapter V.
Refer to Chapter III, Section B - Neighborhood organization
and Structure.

136 -

Until there is understanding at this level, it would be nigh impossible
to create an understanding among all local residents.

A concerted. effort to actively solicit the perceived desires of the
neighborhood residents and to inform them of what is possible for
the association to do and what is beyond the association's capabilities
should be adopted as an ongoing course of action. This action should,
in turn, increase understanding among the residents of what the pur-
poses of the organization are, what it can and can not do and what it
plans to do. Increased resident participation and support may auto-
matically follow increased understanding and awareness of the
association's goals and objectives. However, initiation of that
understanding may be significantly aided with the publication of
informative and interesting newsletters, published on a regular basis
and supplemented by special notices supplying information and solicit-
ing opinion.

If the association is to remain a viable neighborhood organization, the
residents that make up that neighborhood must be listened to, made
interested, be stimulated and kept informed. Being an association for
the neighborhood is quite different than being an association of the
neighborhood.

3. Strive to Expand and Improve Lines of Communication and
Cooperation bettveen the Neighborhood and the Various Town
Boards and Departments

Many seasonal neighborhoods across the Commonwealth lack established
or mutually understood lines of communication and cooperation between
the neighborhood and the various municipal boards and departments.
This is most evident in those neighborhoods that are geographically
set off from the rest of the municipality or viewed as being part of
but autonomous from the municipality. While it is true that the
characteristics and needs of a neighborhood might be peculiar to that
neighborhood, many problems that arise must be addressed at a muni-
cipal level.

The neighborhood must recognize its place and importance in the
municipality as the municipality must recognize the place and impor-
tance of the neighborhood. Under the recommendations at the
municipal level, the need for an ongoing advisory group was stated.
That forum can serve as a vehicle for nurturing increased understanding
and awareness of inter- neighborhood problem areas of mutual concern.
Through open discussions of the issues it is hoped that acceptable
resolutions can be achieved. For specific neighborhood problems it

- 137 -

is perhaps best to use the existing BVSA organization as a sounding
board and reflector of neighborhood problems, needs and desires.
With renewed confidence in BVSA and broadly increased resident par-
ticipation, this Association could represent the neighborhood at board
and town meetings. The municipality, in turn, should recognize this
body and work with it in the resolution of any problems that might
arise.

D. INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

The fourth level at which improvements can be made is by the indivi-
dual property owner in a seasonal neighborhood. The viability and
livability of any densely developed neighborhood depends on the
individuals living within the area. The recommendations for action
at various levels should not be looked at in a vacuum nor considered
a panacea. Even if all the recommendations are implemented at the
appropriate levels, it is up to the home owner to coordinate and per-
sonalize the effects with his own particular situation. Cooperation
and understanding on the individual, level are essential if recommenda-
tions are to be implemented and utilized in the best and most appropr-iate
manner.

The methods of sewage disposal have been outlined and the actions
that affect the functioning of that system have been discussed. It is
an individual's responsibility to protect that system by keeping it in
good operating condition. Periodic checks and water conservation
efforts are individual actions that will help.

Police and fire protection are other areas where the individual has a
role and responsibility. Cars belong to people. The individual owners
operate them and park them. Even with the best of roads and parking
facilities that might exist, the problems created by automobiles are
not eliminated. Speeding and access obstruction are "people"
problems. Likewise, if unusual activities are observed, it is the
responsibility of the individual to notify appropriate authorities.

The owner also has the responsibility for maintaining his property,
both the buildings and grounds. The regularity with which this is
carried out and the general improvements made can often make the
difference between an area looking unkempt or attractive and pleasing.
This aesthetic aspect of neighborhood life, if respected by the indi-
viduals within the area can enhance neighborhood cohesiveness and
pride.

138 -

The maiatenance of the public areas is not directly the responsibility
of the individual property owner. However, the owner does have an
indirect relationship in that he uses those areas in common with all
residents. Wanton littering or misuse, therefore, affects more than
the individual involved. The Association has assumed responsibility
for maintaining these areas and expends funds collected from the
individual property owners to carry out that responsibility. A property
owner who contributes to the Association is, therefore, assisting not
only himself but also his neighbors by making it possible to mutually
enjoy amenities that otherwise Could not be provided.

Basically a neighborhood is not just buildings that exist in a geo-
graphic area but a collection of people residing in an area. How
those people relate to and interact with their surroundings has a great
deal to do with the satisfaction that can be derived from living there.
The extent to which neighborhood residents, individually and col-
lectively, work toward achieving solutions to separate and common
problems can do much to make the neighborhood either a desirable
or undesirable place to live.

This report has proposed certain actions on all levels but only the
people who live in the neighborhood can make many of them work.
Desired autonomy increases responsibility. How that responsibility
is handled determines the future.

E. CONCLUSION

The decision-making process dealing with solutions to the problems of
Buena Vista Shores neighborhood has to take place within an atmosphere
of complete and uninhibited cooperation and commitment on the part of
both the Town and the neighborhood. Although there have been dis-
agreements in the past and feelings have run high, the present relations
are improving and approaching a state of willingness to work together
constructively. This study and report, and more importantly its joint
preparation, should consolidate. all. energies and efforts toward realistic
solutions.

In this regard the Town cannot overlook or push aside its responsibility
to the neighborhood since governmental aids for basic improvements
involving public financial aid can only be channeled through a govern-
mental entity or special districts. Furthermore, funds and services of
the Town should be made equally available to all neighborhoods to the
extent that they are legally entitled to them.

On the other hand, Buena Vista Shores cannot retain a high degree of
I'privacy" and overlook Town by-laws and rules and regulations and

139 -

their application and enforcement while still expecting Town help in
L
many areas of need.. There has to be a spirit of compromise or at least
an understanding of each other's points of view for amicable solutions
to be reached. Anything short of that goal will result in a continuous
"muddling along" until some crisis or disaster forces an urgent decision
which may not be as good as a carefully worked out and premeditated
answer shared in by all concerned.

140

APPENDIX A

I Analysis of Buena Vista Shores
Citizen Survey Responses

Seasonal

Year Round
BUENA VISTA SHORES

Citizen Survey

.1. What are your personal objectives for your property and neighborhood on a long and
short term basis? For example, do you prefer to keep BVS "private" or would you
prefer to have the area "open" or, do you feel the restrictions are too loose,
encouraging shoddy construction. In other words, what do you want for your
community?

BVS should remain private 41 (24) Town water & hydrants/water
BVS should be open 4 7)_ system poor 8 3)
BVS should remain as is 5 Yr-round water wanted 5
BVS should become yr-round 1 Street lighting needed 3 3)
Stop population growth 1) Better sewage system needed 2 3)
Keep outsiders out 1 Beaches need improvement 3 1)
Beaches should be open by permit to town 3 Ponds need improvement 1 1)
BVS too crowded and noisy 3 Lake patrol needed 1
Town restrictions too loose/homes shoddy 14 Yr-round rec. room needed 1)
Restrictions too tight/cannot make Yards should be cleaned up 1)
improvements 9 Entire area should be upgraded 6)
Restrictions and taxes same in BVS and Town should provide more serv-
rest of Lakeville 1) ices or lower taxes 3 5)
Conversion should be allowed only if Town should provide services 6 5)
own sewage and water 1) Betterment fees should be paid 1)
Roads should be improved 12 9)1 Lower interest rates 1
Poor police protection/vandalism 11 3)! Better town attitude desired 1 2)
1 1 2 1 2 1 4 1 5 16 17 1 8 191 10
2. How many people are in your household? 4(4)127(15)116(15)114(6))7(5)11 11 1(1)1(1@

3. If you have children living at home that attend public schools, please identify by grade.

12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 K
2 (3) (1) 1 (2) 3 (5) 1 (5) 3 (2) 1 (2) 3 (4) 3 (2) 2 (2)- 4 (3) 2 (3) 1 (2).

4. What is the age of the adults in household?

Husband Wife Other

Under 21 36 (13)
21-35 11 (8) 12 (11) 12 (7)
36-49 11 (5) 12 (8) 2 (1)
40-65 31 (17) 31 (17) 2 (3)
Over 65 11 (5) 11 (5) 3 (1)

5. What is the occupation of the adults in your home?

Husband Wife Other

A-1

6. What is the employment status of the adults in your home?

Husband Wife Other

Self-Employed 9 (6) 4

'Employed:

Full-time 38 (19) 18 (18) 13 (16)

Part-Time 3 11 (4) 4

Unemployed (2) 5 (6) (2)

Retired 13 (6) 5 (3)_ -3 (1)

7. Are you a year-round resident of Buena Vista Shores (BVS)? Yes (51) No 83

If Yes, in what community were you living before you moved to BVS?

Did you Rent (20) Own 19 (21) (Other)
When did you move to BVS? 1954 11955-59 1 1960-1964 1 1965-69 11970-74 1 75
1 (4) 1 4 (4) 1 (4) 2 (8) 1 5 (19) 11 (4)

If no, how long did you stay there each year? 4E5-3 3 --> 6 -30 9 ---> weekends
11 1 24 (2)1 20 Ill 1 4

Do you rent your own BVS home at any time d uring the year? Yes 5 (1) No 37

Year Round Summer Winter
If so, when? 4

Do you have any plans to become a year-round resident? Yes 27 No 37

Maybe 3

8. When did you purchase your home/property at BVS? 195411955-59,il960-6411965-6911970-74 197
6 (4A 16 (6)1 6 (4)1 12 (7)1 25 (18 3(

9. Which statement(s) best describe your reason for living in or owning a home or property
at BVS? (Check all that apply.)

Family and friends living in town 9 (10)
neighborhood 6 (7)
Close to my place of employment 18 (16)
Good highway access 28 (18)
Good educational system 6 (15)
Affordable housing 18 (32)
Low tax rate 19 (28)
Recreational Facilities
Water 59 (23)
Fishing 36 (21)
Sailing 34 (15)
Swimming 60 (23)
Boating 49 (22)
Pleasant Environment 51 (26)
Close community spirit 9 (12)
Other

ILO. Overall, how satisfied are you with the BVS neighborhood as a place to live or
vacation?

Very satisfied 9 (10)
Satisfied 27 (12)
Acceptable 29 (16)
Dissatisfied 9 (5)

Why:

-1. How would you rate the following services provided for the BVS neighborhood by the town?

Education

Education 7 (16) 9 (18) 11 (3). 1 (2)
Police 9 (13) 28 (1T) 16 (6) 9 (4) A (3)
Fire Department 8 (18) 34 (16) 14 (5) 1 (3) 1
Recreation 5 (17) 27 (16) 11 Tq--) '6 (7) 6_(2)
Dump 20 (13) 35 (17) 7 (6) 3 (5) 1
Libraries 9 (12) 20 (15) 12 (11) (3) -M
Public Health 2 (11) 9 (14) 15 (8) 6 (5) 4 (1)
Emergency Services 5 (14) 9 (12) 12 (8) 4 (3) 2 (2)
Other (Specify)

12. Would you be willing to contribute more in taxes if more services were to be
provided by the town? Yes 36 (18) No 31 (20)

13. What would you like to see improved in the BVS neighborhood?

Please List Who do you feel should provide these services?

See Attached

14. What is the estimated valueof your home or cottage at BVS (in your opinion) if
you were to put it on the market today? $ See Attached

Do you, feel that your home at BVS is fairly assessed according to the value
indicated above? Yes 58 (32) No 9 (5)

16. Have you made any improvements to your BVS home since you purchased it? Yes 56 (39)
If Yes, what amount in dollars? $ See Attached No 14 (3)

A-3

17. Has your BVS home reached what you would consider its maximum,value? (Any
improvement you made would not increase its possible selling price? Yes 30 (18)No 38 (24'

18. Have you been unable to make improvements due to:

Inability to obtain necessary permits 36 (21)
Lack of funds 11 (10)
High interest rates 4 (4)
Inability to acquire a loafi.or credit 4 (2)

19 Would you consider making improvements to your home if you could receive a

Federal, state or local grant or loan to help with the cost of these improvements? 29 (18)

Reduction in the interest rate on borrowing money? 13 (@Jl
Knowledge that nay improvements done would not alter your tax assessment? 40 (20)
Required permit(s) was easier to obtain? 41 (21),

Other (please state)

20. What is the main source of your heat?

Wood .7 (6)
Coal
Gas (bottled) 57 (19)
Oil 4 (16)
Electric 15 (8)
Other (please specify)

21. Has the building inspector or board of health inspected your home?
Building Inspector 24 (20) 26 (16) Constr.1 195@ 591691701711721731741751
Board of Health 10 whe+r-S

22. What is the main source of water?

During Summer Mos. During Winter Mos.
(if used)
BVIS water system (seasonal) 53 (4)
Drilled well 14 (31) 3 (29)
Dug well 4 (1) 3 (1)
Other (specify) (2) (2)

23. If you have your own source of water, have you had it tested? Yes 14 (30) No 8 (9)
If so, how often and when (please specify)

24. What type of sewage system do you have?

Cesspool 36 (24)
Septic Tank 34 (20)
Don't know 2
Other (specify)

A-4

25. If you have had any problems with your sewage system, please describe.

@26. Do you ever have your septi&/sewage pumped out? Yes 34 (33) No 37 (13)
If so, how often (please specify)
ITwice/Year I Yearly 12 Years 13 Yearsl 4 Years13 Times/Year 15 Years
3 (9) j..7 (13) 1 6 1 (1) 1 2 (1) 1 (1) 2
In summer every 4 weeks I

.27. Are you a registered Lakeville voter? Yes 3 (34) No 69 (5)

28. Do you or any member of your household attend the

Annual Lakeville town meeting 7 (23)
Meetings of the selectmen 4 (12)
Meetings of the planning board (2)
BVS Association meetings 48 (25)
Other (please specify)

29. Did you vote in the last town election? Yes 3 (33) No 59 (8)
BVS Association elections? Yes 27(18) 39 (18)

30. Have you paid your BVS dues on a regular basis? Yes 46 (28) No 23 (14)

31. Do you feel that you are getting your money's worth from BVS dues paid?
Yes 34 (26) No 30 (12)

32. Would you be willing to contribute more in dues if more services were provided by
the BVS Association? Yes 50 (21) No 16 (13) Yes, if all paid dues 1
Depends on services 1

33. What is the highest level of education completed by the adults in your home?

Husband Wife Other

Less than High School 10 (9) 2 (2)
High School 31 (14) 49 (17) 13 (3)
2ryear College 10 12 (8) 3 (1)
4-year College 9 (7) 4 (5) 8 (4)
.Other 9 3 (4) 1 (3)

34. In which of the following brackets does your total household income fall?

Under $5,000 3 (4)
$ 5,000 - $ 9,999 10 (18).
$10,000 - $14,999 17 (9)
$15,000 - $19,999 18 (7)
$20,000 - $24,999 9 (4)
$25,,000 or more 11 (3)

A-5

Comments:

BVS should remain private 2
BVS should be open 1
BVS should be quiet and uncrowded 1 (1)
Difference of interests, seasonal-vs.
permanent (1)
Seasonal should pay less taxes 3
Poor quality of people (1)
Welfare Recipients housed in BVS 1 (1)
Town looks down on BVS 1 (1)
Town officials not trustworthy
Realtor Deception
Discrimination in getting mortgages
Restrictions too tight/prevent 10 (8)
conversion and improvement
Restrictions too loose (1)
Restrictions good/should be enforced 3 (1)
BVSA was arrogant, is improving 1
BVSA good _ (2)
Poor police protection 8 (7)
Good police protection 1
Road improvements needed 4 (1)
Access road needed (1)
Better water services needed 9
Year-round water 3
Sewage system needs improvements 2 (3)
Dogs roam loose 3
Home mail delivery (1)
'Trash removal 2
Supervision of children (1)
Property/houses should be cleaned up 3 (3)
BVS should improve itself 3 (1)
BVS should bet help from town 2
BVS should get same services/same taxes
or have lower taxes 8 (9)
Taxes should be raised to improve services 1

#13 What Would You Like to See Improved in the BVS Neighborhood?

Who Should Provide Services?

List Town BVSA Other
BVSA & TOWN
Roads* 44 (28) 34 (19) 5 3)

Owner BVS Water CO.
Water 32 (7) 27 (2) 1
BVSA & TOWN
Police 22 (12) 16 (10) 1 0

State or Fed.
(9) (5)
Sewage 15 13

9
Street Lighting 10 (5) (4)

(7) 6 (4)
Trash 7

8
Beaches (1) 3 5

Recreation 4 (2) 2

Roaming Dogs 4 3

USPO
Mail Del ivery 3, (3)

Fire/Hydrants (3) (3)
Owner
Lots/Property 4 (4) (2) 1
2 (2)

Permit System 1

Insect Spraying

Boat Launch

Owner
Store Appearance

Education/Summer 1
School

Health Services

Speeding Vehicles 2

Power Boats 2

Access Road

School Bus
Coast Guard
Lake Patrol I

Gas
Includes Snow Removal. (continued)

List Town' BVSA OTHER

Canal Clean-Up I

Lake Clean-Up 1

Zoning Enforcement

Essential Services (2)

Living Standards

Residents
BVSA

#14 Estimated Value of BVS Home or Cottage:

$ 4,999

$ 5,000 - $ 9,999 8 (3)

$10,000 - $19,999 4o (9)

$20,000 - $29,999 11 (18)

$30,000 - $39,999 3 (3)
$4o,ooo - $49,999 1 (2)
$50,000 - Over (2)

#.16 Amount in Dol lars Spent in Improvements:

None 0 (1) $ 4,5oo - $ 4,999 1 (0)
0 - $ 499 3 (0) $ 5,000 - $ 5,499 8 (3)
$ 500 - $ 999 14 (1) $ 5,500 - $ 5,999 0 (0)
$ I,ooo - $ 1,499 8 (2) $ 6,000 - $ 9,999 2 (3)
$ 1,500 - $ 1,999 2 (1) $10,000 -,$14,999 0 (4)
$ 2,000 - $ 2,499 4 (5) $15,000 - Over 1 (2)
$ 2,500 - $ 2,999 2 (0)

$ 3,000 - $ 3,499 2 (4)
$ 3,500 - $ 3,999 2 (0)
$ 4,000 - $ 4,499 3 (2)

A-8

ANALYSIS OF BUENA VISTA SHORES CITIZEN SURVEY RESPONSES

Of the 339 questionnaires sent out to Buena Vista Shor es (BVS)
residents, both seasonal and permanent, 120 were returned. Although not
all the respondents answered every question, the great majority were very
cooperative, concerned, and frank. They provided background information
in great detail. T 'heir personal objectives with respect to their BVS
properties and neighborhood improvement were cited in question #13 and
general comments made, often extensively at the end of the questionnaire.

The questionnaires were divided into those filled out by year-round
residents (47) and those filled out by seasonal residents (73). This
division was based on the belief that the backgrounds and interests of
year-round and seasonal residents would differ. One respondent commented
extensively on these differences. "There has always been a difference of
interest between year-round and summer residents," he wrote. He pin-
pointed two sources of this difference, "Most inhabitants are low income
families, at least those who are year-round ... summer residents hold the
money." He cited as the second source, "A lack of interest in difficulties
encountered by those in year-round residences, on the part of the summer
resident." While the results of the questionnaire do not bear out this
respondent's opinions on every matter, they do confirm his basic con-
tention that year-round and seasonal residents differ in their backgrounds,
interests and in their perceptions of and interests in the BVS community.

YEAR-ROUND RESIDENTS

Many factors were cited in the questionnaire as influential in the
decision to settle permanently in BVS. Several general trends, however,
have emerged from the questionnaires. Whether the permanent residents
consider BVS as primarily a place to bring up children, a place to
retire, or simply a place to live, they seem to have been attracted to
BVS as an area that is affordable and pleasant. Significantly, the
factor most often cited as influential in the decision to take up
permanent residence in BVS was the affordability of its housing (67%);
the low tax rate was also a major consideration (59%). Given that the
housing costs in BVS are moderate, the area has a number of advantages,
foremost being the opportunities for recreation. The availability of
recreational facilities appealed to most permanent residents. The
opportunities to swim in Long Pond, for example, was a factor in the
decision of 50% of the pollees to buy a home in BVS.

Most of the residents moved to BVS from other communities in eastern
Massachusetts, half of them since 1970. For a relatively small investment,
a pleasant home could be purchased. Almost all of these homes were sub-
sequently improved. 63% of year-round homes are presently assessed at
under $30,000. Only 4% of the homes are valued at less than $10,000,
20% are valued at between $10,000 - $20,000 and 39% at between $20,000 -
$30,000, 15% of year-round homes are assessed at over $30,000. Only one
pollee stated that he rents his BVS home, indicating that few BVS year-
rounders purchased their homes as real estate ventures.

A-9

BVS comb.,ned family incomes fall within a low to middle range, a
reflection of the low to moderate prices of BVS houses, the income of
35% of BVS year-round households is under $10,000. Another 35% earn
between $10,000 and $20,000. Only 15% of BVS households earn over $20,000.

These BVS year-round households tend to be small. 0 nly 9% of these
households consist of jus't one person. 30% of them, however, consist of
just two people and a full third consists of three people. 24% of BVS
year-round households consists of 4 or 5 people. 30% of the adults in
BVS households are under 36. 70% are over 36. The results of the ques-
tionnaire indicates that there are .85 children per BVS year-round house-
hold. Given the low percentage of questionnaires returned, it would be
advisable to verify this ratio with the Lakeville School Department.

How satisfied are the year-round resident& with the BVS neighborhood
as a place to live? 11% of the respondents are dissatisfied and 33% rate
the neighborhood as acceptable. 26% are satisfied with BVS and 24% are
very satisfied. BVS permanent residents rate the services offered by the
Town of Lakeville - education, police, fire, recreation, dump, libraries,
public health, and emergency services - very highly. Nevertheless,
symptomatic of the serious problems facing the BVS community, almost all
respondents pinpointed other sources of discontent.

Because year-round residents have almost by definition developed some
workable, though by no means ideal, solutions to problems inherent in
converting summer cottages to permanent homes, their most immediate con-
cern is-not the improvement of water and sewage facilities. Only 15% of
the respondents cited water facilities as needing improvement and only
17% cited sewage. Almost all permanent residents have their own wells.
Almost half make use of cesspools and the other half make use of septic
tanks. 70% of the residents have their septic/sewage pumped out, usually
once or twice a year. 17% of the residents have had problems with their
sewage systems, the same.percent cited sewage as an area needing improve-
ment.

Most BVS permanent residents are more concerned with a problem that
is more apparent - the state of BVS roads. 61% would like to see the
roads improved, better salted and sanded. Vandalism is another problem
more obvious that slowly seeping sewage or contaminated water. Accord-
ingly, 26% of the residents called for increased police protection.
Break-ins and slippery roads - these are issues of immediate importance
to those who have managed, certainly not with total or uniform success,
to accomplish the conversion of their houses to year-round use.

On one issue, the permanent residents are split in half. While some
residents complain that the town restrictions are too loose, encouraging
shoddy construction, others complain that restrictions are too tight,
preventing much needed and desired improvements. Several factors con-
tribute to this polarization of viewpoints. Notable is the . perception
that BVS is a deteriorating community, physically, and in the view of a
few, socially. To those residents that perceive such deterioration,
stricter enforcement and stricter regulations are in order. Those that
call for the loosening of restrictions are not always aware of the
rationale behind them. They feel the restrictions are unfair. Some have
suggested that a double standard, born of condescending attitude of
Lakeville residents towards BVS neighbors, exists in the stringency of

these codes. (Actually the regulations are the same for both Lakeville
and BVS properties.) Because of the characteristics of the BVS area,
however, - lot size, density, etc. - BVS residents find themselves more
restricted in their efforts to improve their properties than do Lakeville
residents. 46% of the permanent residents have actually been unable to
make improvements due to their inability to obtain the necessary permits.
This inability appears to be the major stumbling block for making improve-
ments. It is not surprising, therefore, that 44% of the respondents would
consider making improvements if they could receive permits to do so.
Other incentives are also important; the knowledge that the improvements
would not alter tax assessments (41%), and not surprisingly, a federal,
state or local grant or loan (37%). These potential improvements might
include, not only improvements in water, sewage or heating systems, but
also structural modifications and additions.

Year-round residents of BVS identify with both the BVS community an d
the Town of Lakeville. 72% are registered Lakeville voters. 50% attend
the annual Lakeville town meeting and about the same attend the BVSA
meetings. More residents voted in the last town elections (72%) than in
the BVSA elections (40%). 61% pay their BVSA dues on a regular basis and
57% feel they are getting their money's worth from these dues. There
appears to be a general sentiment, however, that it is the responsibility
of the town, and not the BVSAP to initiate improvements in the BVS area.
Those that suggested areas of improvement almost without exception cited
the town as the body they consider responsible for these improvements.
The residents feel they should get results from their taxes. This desire
to place responsibility on the town, however, may run into conflict with
some of the other sentiments expressed by the year-round residents. Two
potential sources of conflict are noteworthy. First of all, of those
expressing a preference, 77% want to keep BVS private. Only 15% of all
those that responded to the questionnaires specifically expressed the
desire to see BVS become open. 67% of all those that responded to the
questionnaire specifically expressed an opinion on the issue. Secondly,
BVS residents are not uniformly willing to pay more in taxes in exchange
for increased services. 39% would be willing and 43% would not. These
residents may not be aware of the fiscal and legal problems inherent in
the town's assumption of responsibility for improvements.

SEASONAL RESIDENTS

The experiences of seasonal residents of the BVS community contrast
with those of the permanent residents. This contrast is largely due to
the difference in background and in reasons for purchase of a BVS home.
To begin with, seasonal households earn more than permanent households.
This is not surprising since the former by definition have been able to
invest in a second home. Only 18% of the seasonal residents earn below
$10,000 as compared with 35% of the permanent. Almost half of the
seasonal households earn between $10,000 and $20,000, and a full 27%
earn over that amount. Not unexpectedly, therefore, seasonal residents
were much less influenced by the affordability of BVS housing (25%) vs.
(67%) and the low BVS tax rate (25% vs. 59%), in their decisions to
purchase BVS houses than were permanent residents. The opportunities
for recreation on Long Pond were the overwhelming considerations involved
in the decision. Seasonal residents listed water (82%), swimming (81%),
boating (67%), fishing (49%), and sailing (47%) as important factors.

A-11

The homes of seasonal residents, however, are not assessed as highly
as those of p,!rmanent residents. 66% are valued at under $20,000 and
most of these center at about $12,000. Summer houses, of course, are
worth less precisely because they have not been winterized. While the
overwhelming majority of seasonal residents have improved their BVS
houses, the costs of these improvements were relatively small. Unlike
many year-round residents, they have not had to invest in wells or
expensive heating systems. 73% depend on the seasonal BVS water system.
78% rely on bottled gas as their source of heat. About equal numbers of
households use septic tanks as cesspools.

In some respects, seasonal residents resemble the permanent residents.
Both groups come to BVS from towns and cities in eastern Massachusetts.
As with year-rounders, a sizable number of seasonal residents have purchased
their homes since 1970, although almost a third acquired their homes when
BVS was just beginning to be developed. Seasonal, like permanent residents,
tend to occupy the houses they have purchased. Only 7% of the respondents
classified themselves as absentee landlords. Finally, seasonal households
like permanent ones, tend to be small. While only 5% of the seasonal
households consist of just one person, a full 37% consist of two persons.
Three persons make up another 22% of the households, and 4 people make up
another 21%. Households consisting of five or more persons make up only
14% of BVS seasonal households. Most seasonal residents are middle-aged
or older. From the questionnaires, it would appear that relatively few
children come to vacation in BVS; 73 respondents recorded a total of only
26 children. As respondents were not including the children of visiting
families in their responses, however, these results might be misleading.

Most seasonal residents rated the services provided by Lakeville most
highly. The overall evaluation of their BVS experience was one of neither
tremendous enthusiasm nor unmitigated dissatisfaction. Like the permanent
residents, most decided they were either satisfied with BVS or at least
found it acceptable. But also like year-rounders, seasonal residents had
their share of complaints..

Roads again proved to be of paramount importance. 60% of the pollees
called for road improvements and maintenance. Seasonal residents also want
to see improved police protection of their property (30%). Many pollees
reported vandalism and break-ins to their summer homes. 44% of the pollees
called for improvements in the water delivery systems. There appear to be
many sources of dissatisfaction over this issue. One is the state of the
current seasonal BVS water system. One respondent, for example, complained
that a glass of this water left overnight separates into a layer of water
and a layer of rust. Many would like to see this system improved. Others
would like to rely on wells in the summer but cannot get permits to drill
them. Still others want to drill a well because they plan to become year-
round residents and would like to winterize their homes. These residents
also cannot get permits.

The issue of permit restrictions polarizes seasonal residents as it
does permanent. Those seasonal residents favoring tighter restrictions
fear, as do their year-round counterparts, the shoddy construction they
associate with loose regulations. Those that favor a loosening of the
restrictions fall into a number of categories. Some merely want to make
their homes more comfortable in the summer by adding on a porch, for
example. Others, as mentioned above, do not want to rely on the BVS water
system for their summer water supply. 30% of the seasonal residents want to
winterize their homes in order to live there year-round.

A -I *')

49% of the seasonal residents have actually been unable to get the
permits necessary for making improvements. 56% of the respondents would
consider making improvements of some kind if they could get these permits.
Equally important would be the knowledge that the improvements would not
affect their tax assessments. A grant or loan would be another important
incentive (40%).

BVS seasonal residents have little to do with the Town of Lakeville.
They, almost without exception, are not registered Lakeville voters and
do not attend the Lakeville town meetings. A substantial number (66%)
do attend BVSA meetings, although less actually vote in the BVSA elections.
Almost one-third of the respondents admitted that they do not pay their
BVSA dues on a regular basis, but even more, 46.5% felt that they are not
getting nor would get their money's worth from these dues. 68% of the
respondents, however, expressed a willingness to pay higher BVSA dues in
exchange for more and improved services.

Like the permanent residents, however, it is not to the BVS that the
seasonal residents turn for improved services. They place responsibility
for improved roads and street lighting, a beefed-up police force, and
better water and sewage systems on the Town of Lakeville. Only a few
people suggested the BVSA as a vehicle for improved services. Yet, like
the year-rounders, seasonal residents are not unanimous in their willing-
ness to pay higher taxes for services. While 49% are willing, a sizeable
majority (42%) are unwilling.

Seasonal residents also want to see their community remain private.
56% of the respondents stated they want to see their community remain
private while a mere 5% stated they would like to see BVS open. Seasonal
and permanent residents alike would like to see the Town of Lakeville
its problems without changinq either their taxes or their lecal
status as members of a private community.

During analysis of Buena Vista Shores, citizen survey responses
noted several weaknesses in the survey and method of tabulation.

These weaknesses certainly do not invalidate the results. Unreliable
data were not used as the basis for conclusions. Those questions that
were flawed were more than outweighed in effect by those that provided a
wealth of reliable and revealing information. The conclusions that were
drawn were based on careful calculation and a qualitative understanding
of and familiarity with the responses. Furthermore, the device of a
citizen survey proved most useful and is highly recommended. The weak-
nesses listed below are not inherent to a survey. They are presented
largely to caution the reader against imitating the exact survey format
used in this study.

1) The nature of the information provided in questions #1 and #13 and
in the general comments section was similar. Since an overlapping of re-
sponses did not always occur, concerns over a specific problem were dif-
fused throughout the survey responses. It was therefore difficult to
measure the extent of these concerns.

2) From question #2, it was not possible to ascertain the number, age,
length and time of stay of visitors that might supplement the number of
people living in a BVS household.

A-13

3) Question #4 contained a typing error. Where "40-65" was typed,
"50-65" was actually intended. It was therefore difficult to calculate
the age distribution of BVS residents.

4) Housewives were categorized variously as self-employed, employed,
full-time and unemployed.

5) Two terms in question #1 were ambivalent. In its position between
"good'' and "poor", "neutral'' could have been construed as fair, or its
literal meaning might have been understood. "Recreation" might have con-
jured up the image of BVS's many opportunities for water recreation or
alternatively it's lack of winter activities.

6) In question #20, several people listed more than one source of
heat as applicable to their situation.

7) The lack of a question specifically asking respondents to state
their preference for an open or a private neighborhood is regretted.

8) As an inevitable consequence of the need to generalize data, it
was not possible to correlate the propensity to answer one question in
a certain way with the propensity to answer another question in a certain
way.

A-14

APPENDIX B

Water Quality Tests in Long Pond
and at BVS

MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
1975 WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS (mg. per liter)

Source A Great Quittacas Pond

Source 8 Little Quittacas Pond

Source C
Source D Long Pond, Upper End

A 6 C D
Sample No. 530,026 530.027 530,02B
Date of Collection 2/24/75
Date of Receipt 2/25/75

TURBIDITY 1 1 1

SEDIMENT 0 0 0

-COLOR 30 25 40

ODOR 1E 1E 1E

pH 6.4 6.4 6.1
ALKALINITY -Total (CaC03) 5 6 4

HARDNESS (CaC03) 11 11 10
CALCIUM (Ca) 2.8 2.8 2.8
MAGNESIUM (Mg) 1.0 1.0 0.8
SODIUM (Na) 8.0 8.0 8.0
POTASSIUM (K) 0.7 0.7 0.7
IRON (Fe) .12 .17 .20

MANGANESE (Mn) .03 .04 .04
SILICA (SiO2) 2.7 2.4 2.4
SULFATE (SOW 9 8 7
CHLORIDE (CQ 14 11 13
SPEC. COND.(micromhos/cm: 66 66 64
NITROGEN (AMMONIA) 0 0 .1
NITROGEN (NITRATE) 0 0 .01
NITROGEN (NITRITE)
C OPPER (Cu) .05 0

B - 1

MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
1975 1WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS (mg. per liter)

Source A Great Quittacas Pond

Source 8 Little Quittacas Pond
Source C
Source 0 Loncj Pond, Upper End

A C D

Sample No.

Date of Collection 6/2/75
Date of Receipt 6/3/75
TURBIDITY 2 9.

SEDIMENT 1 2
COLOR 45_ 30 60
ODOR 1ED 1ED 0
pH 7-3 7-2 7-1
ALKALINITY -Total (CaC03) 3 3

HARDNESS (CaC03) 12 13
12
CALCIUM (Ca) 3.0 3.4 3-2
MAGNESIUM (Mg) 1-0
SODIUM (Na)
8 0 8.0 in
POTASSIUM (K) 0.5 0 5 0.8
IRON (Fe) .35 .20 .35
MANGANESE (Mn) .05 -.03 .10
SILICA (SiO2) 1.8 1-8 1,1
SULFATE (SOO 10 9 1 n
CHLORIDE (Cl) 14 10 20
SPEC.,COND.(micromhos/em] 70 70 80
NITROGEN (AMMONIA) .01 0 .01
NITROGEN (NITRATE) 0 0 0.1
NITROGEN (NITRITE) 0 0 0
C OPPER (CU) 0 0 04

B - 2

MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS (mg. per liter)

Drilled Well, tuena Vista Shores
Tap on System

1964 1964 1965 1965 1966 1966
Sample No. 463,905 464,513 4709263 4,72-12-2-2- 476,366 478,291

Date of Collection
Date of Receipt 5/20/64 6/24/64 5/12/65 -8/11/65 5/5/66 8/1/66

TURBIDITY 0 0 0 0 0 0

SEDIMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0
COLOR 5 10 5 4 5 0
ODOR 0 0 0 0 0 0
pH 6.3 6.5 6.1 5.8 6.1 6-10
ALKALINITY -Total (CaC03) 17 23 20 25 22 2 9'

HARDNESS (CaC03) 46 60 58 56 66 48
CALCIUM (Ca)
MAGNESIUM (Mg)
SODIUM (Na)

POTASSIUM (K)
IRON (Fe) .02 .04 .02 .06 .07 .00
MANGANESE (Mn) 12 .06 .08 .20 .02 .12
SILICA (SiO2)
SULFATE (SOO
CHLORIDE (CI) ii 16 21 21 21 24
SPEC. COND.(micromhos/cm,
.NITROGEN (AMMONIA)
NITROGEN (NITRATE) 4.6' 4.8 1.2 3.0 7.2 6.8
NITROGEN (NITRITE) .000 .000 .000 .005 .000 .000

B - 3

MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS (mg. per liter)

Drilled Well, Buena Vista Shores
Tap on System

1967 1967 1968 1968 1969 f969

Sample No. 482,711 4841,571 488,199 489,864 494,169 495.984

Date of Collection
Date of Receipt 5/2/67 8/10/67 5/1/68 '8/1/68 6/5/69 8/26/69

TURBIDITY 0 0 0 0 0 0

SEDIMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0

COLOR 5 2 0 5 0 0
ODOR 0 0 2 cc I cc 0 0
pH 6.3 6.1 6.4 6.4 6.6 6.0
ALKALINITY -Total (CaC03) 24 25 18 26 25 27

HARDNESS (CaC03) 52 80 44 52 50 48
CALCIUM (Ca)
MAGNES I UM (Mg)
SODIUM (Na)
POTASSIUM (K)
IRON (Fe) .12 .02 .07 .00 .00 .00
MANGANESE (Mn) .06 .10 10 .06 .02 .08
SILICA WOO
SULFATE (SOO
CHLORIDE (0) 19 22 20 21 17 22
SPEC. COND.(micromhos/cm,'
NITROGEN (AMMONIA)
NITROGEN (NITRATE) 0.9 5.2 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0
NITROGEN (NITRITE)
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 1 .000

B 4

MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS (mg. per liter)

Drilled Well, tuena Vista Shores
Tap on System

1970 1970 1971 1971 1972 1973
Sample No. 501,303 504,118 509,498 511,395 517.040 522,517
Date of Collection 5/18@70
Date of Receipt 5/19/70 9/9/70 5/26/71 9/8/71 9/22/72 10/12/73
TURBIDITY 0 0 0 2 0 0

SEDIMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0

COLOR 3 0 0 0 0 0

ODOR 0 0 0 0 0 1 M
pH 6.4 6.8 6.2 6.4 6.1 6.1
ALKALINITY -Total (CaC03) 44 36 27 32 36 36

HARDNESS (CaC03) 50 58 54 52 59 57
CALCIUM (Ca) 17 16
MAGNESIUM (Mg) 4.4 4.0-
SODIUM (Na) 12 14 is 17 17 14
POTASSIUM (K) 1.7 1.8
IRON (Fe) .01 .00 .01 .04 .02 .00
MANGANESE (Mn) .02 .04 .02 .06 .15 1. 2
SILICA (Si02) 14 14
SULFATE (SOO 14 16
CHLORIDE (CI) 20 21 21 26 28 21
SPEC. COND.(micromhos/cm: 205 190
NITROGEN (AMMONIA) 0 0 .18 .10 .20 .30 .23
NITROGEN (NITRATE) 5.2 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 4.9-
NITROGEN (NITRITE) :000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Copper (Cu) .03 .00

B - 5

14ASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS (mg. per liter)

Drilled Well, tuena Vista Shores
Tap on System

1974 1975 1976

Sample No. 526,098 532,478 538.172

Date of Collection

Date of Receipt 6-25-74 6-17-75 6-3-76
TURBIDITY 0 0- 0
SEDIMENT 0 0 0

COLOR 5 0 0

ODOR 0 0 0

pH 6.1 6.1 6.4
ALKALINITY -Total (CaC03) 30 26 26

HARDNESS (CaC03) 59 62 61
CALCIUM (Ca) 17 17 17
MAGNESIUM (Mg) 4 2 4.6
4-1
SODIUM (Na) 14 16 17
POTASSIUM (K) 1.8 2.0 2.2
[RON (Fe) .02 .00 .00
MANGANESE (Mn) .10 .15 .13
SILICA (SiO2) 12. 8.5 8.9
SULFATE (SOO 13. 16 17
CHLORIDE (CI) 25 0.5 29
SPEC. COND.(micromhos/cm: 205 230 200
NITROGEN (AMMONIA) .17 .19 13
NITROGEN (NITRATE) 6.0 7.9 8.5
NITROGEN (NITRITE) .000 .000 .002
Copper (Cu) .01 .00 .02

B - 6

APPENDIX C

Lake Boone Commission
Rules and Regulations

LAKE BOONE COMMISSION

NOTICE

The Lake Boone Commission,acting under the authority of Chapters 712
and 713 of the Special Acts of the Legislature of Massachusetts of the
year 1941, adopted the following rules on June 26, 1968 and published the
same as required by law on July 3, 10, and 17, 1968.

RULE NO. 1 - No person shall annoy another person, or utter any profane,
threatening or abusive language, or loud outcry except for emergency; or
have possession of or drink any intoxicating liquor or do any obscene or
indecent act on the waters of Lake Boone.

RULE NO. 2 - No'person shall throw any stone or other missile, or have
possession of any firecracker, torpedo or other fireworks; or, except with
the written authority from said Lake Boone Commission, engage in business,
sell or give away any goods, wares or circulars; or post, paint, affix or
display any sign, notice, placard or advertising device; or have posses-
sion of or discharge any firearm on or over the waters of Lake Boone.

RULE NO. 3 - No person shall bathe in the waters of Lake Boone except in
a costume proper for bathing purposes and either at a place designated
therefor or with the consent of the owner or person in possession of the
land immediately adjoining such place.

RULE NO. 4 - No person shall throw, drop or place in the waters of Lake
Boone or its tributaries, any waste paper, rubbish, brush, leaves, grass
clippings, pine needles, or refuse; or chemically treat the waters of
Lake Boone or its tributaries without the approval of the Massachusetts
State Department of Health and the Lake Boone Commission.

RULE NO. 5 - Whoever shall at any time make an opening in the ice of Lake
Boone exceeding twelve (12) inches in diameter shall properly guard such
opening by lights, ropes or brush so as to prevent accident.

RULE NO. 6 - No person shall use the waters of Lake Boone for the taking
off or landing of aircraft, except in case of emergency to save the lives
of pilot or passengers.

RULE NO. 7 - No person shall row or paddle a boat or canoe unless able to
control or handle the same with safety to himself and others; or in such
a manner as to annoy or endanger the occupants of other boats or canoes,
or neglect or refuse to stop the same or to place the same when stopped
as directed by a police officer in uniform or who displays his badge; or
abandon a hired boat or canoe or leave the same unattended by some person
or fail or neglect to return the same to the place from which it was hired
except with the written consent of the owner and no boats or canoes of any
description shall be rented to any person under the influence of intoxi-
cating liquor.

C-1

RULE NO. Z; No person, without the permission of the Lake Boone Commission,
may permanently moor any vessel, boat, canoe, raft or float, marker buoy,
or series of connected buoys, so that any part of the same extends more than
than twenty (20) feet from the shore, or outside the limits of such lesser
distance as may be designated by the Lake Boone Commission for particular
locations, by buoys, markers or otherwise.

RULE NO. 9 - Any structure, whether fixed or floating, on the waters of
Lake Boone, shall be maintained in good condition so as to be considered
safe for normal use; it shall be removed or repaired within twenty (20)
days after notification in writing by the Lake Boone Commission that it
has been deemed unsafe for said normal use. The property owner concerned
may request a Commission hearing within ten (10) days of receipt of noti-
fication in case of dispute with the Commission's findings. In which case,
the property owner.will have ten (10) days following final determination
in which to complete removal or repair of said structure if necessary.

RULE NO. 10 - All docks, piers, floats and similar structures shall be
clearly marked with the name of the owner in letters not less than three
(3) inches in height and placed at the front of the dock, pier, float or
other structure.

RULE NO. 11 - No person shall engage in the business of renting boats or
canoes or permit their premises to be used for launching or dock facili-
ties by other than members of their family or social guests without a
Commercial Use Permit. Such permits to be issued by the Selectmen of the
town in which the property concerned lies and only after recommendation
of the Lake Boone Commission. The fee for such permits is five (5) dol-
lars and they shall continue in force until December 31 of the year issued
unless sooner suspended or revoked.

RULE NO. 12 - Any person who violates any rule or regulation or order of
said Commission or any provision of the acts shall be punished by a fine
of not more than fifty (50) dollars.

The Lake Boone Commission
Gerald A. Horne, Chairman
Donald W. Powers, Clerk
William Gregory, Member

C-2

BOATING REGULATIONS AT LAKE BOONE

RULE NO. 1 No person operating a craft propelled by other than muscular
power shall allow said craft to approach closer than seventy-five (75)
feet to Another craft unless said second craft is stopped and a closer
approach is for the purpose of communicating with the occupants of the
second draft; nor circle around any craft in a manner as to annoy or en-
danger the occupants of other crafts; nor pass between moored rafts or
floats and the shore. No craft shall operate at a speed that endangers
the life, limb or property of any person. No towline shall exceed seventy-
five (75) feet from the point of contact on tow boat to object being towed.

RULE NO. 2

A. EQUIPMENT

All motorboats or powerboats on the Lake, whether or not required to be
registered under State law, shall display the lights and be equipped with
a proper muffler or underwater exhaust as is or may be required by Sec-
tions 5 and 6 of Chapter 275, Acts of 1960, or acts in amendment thereof,
or regulations made thereunder.

B. SPEED

(1) No person shall operate any motorboat on the Lake at a speed that is
greater than is reasonable and proper under the circumstances and
conditions then existing, or operate same or manipulate any water
skis, surfboard or similar device in a negligent manner so that the
lives or safety of the public might be endangered.

(2) Speed in any of the narrows shall be such that no wake is produced,
but in no case to exceed the minimum necessary to maintain steerage
way.

(3) Speed during the period from one-half hour after sunset until one-half
hour before sunrise shall not exceed that which is reasonable and
proper.

(4) Speed shall not exceed fifteen (15) miles per hour on all Sundays,
May 30, July 4, and Labor Day between the hours of two P.M. and six
P.M.

C. WATER SKIING

(1) Water-skiing and skipboard-riding is prohibited in the narrows be-
tween the first and second, and second and third, basins at all
times, and same shall be prohibited on all the waters of Lake Boone
between the hours of 2 P.M. and 6 P.M. on all Sundays, May 30, July 4,
and Labor Day.

C-3

(2) No pecson operating a boat with a water-skier, skipboard rider or
similar device in tow shall bring such device or rider or the boat
within seventy-five (75) feet of any other boat, dock, pier, raft,
wharf, float or a person or persons swimming or any part of the shore
except to embark or disembark, and except as allowed under Rule 2. C.
(1), in the performance of official duties or to render assistance
to a boat or person in need of it.

(3) Two persons, an operator and an observer, shall be in any boat towing
a skier, skipboard, or similar device.

(4) The towing of two or more persons on skis, skipboard, surfboard, or
other device is hereby prohibited.

(5) No craft, skier, or towed object may go beyond the markers set by
the Commission at Hanson's Beach except for the purpose of docking
at a permanent dock. Craft proceeding to dock or leaving said dock
shall enter and leave without delay from the marked area and shall
be operated so as not to endanger any swimmer.

RULE NO. 3 - When any person having charge of a vessel, canoe, boat or
motorboat approaches another vessel, canoe, boat or motorboat head and
head, that is, end on, or nearly so, it shall be the duty of each craft
to pass on the left side of the other. But, if the course of such vessel,
canoe, boat or motorboat is so far on the left side of each other as not
to be considered as meeting head and head, each shall pass on the left
side of each other. When any person, having charge of a vessel, canoe,
boat or motorboat overtakes another vessel, canoe, boat or motorboat, it
shall be the duty of the person in charge of the overtaking boat to pass
on the left side.

RULE NO. 4 - Any person who violates any provision of the bylaw shall be
punished by a fine of not more than fifty (50) dollars.

RULE NO. 5

A. HOUSEBOATS

No vessel may be used as a residence, either permanently or tempor-
arily, on the waters of Lake Boone.

B. AIRBOATS

No airboat, so-called, which requires a propeller or propellers which
are located above the surface of the water (and said propeller or
propellers are used with a motor of more than twenty-five (25) horse-
power) for the propulsion of a boat shall be used or allowed on the
waters of Lake Boone except vessels as described above which are
operated by any governmental subdivision or department.

C-4

APPENDIX D

Statewide Survey of
Seasonal Neighborhoods

MICHAEL S. DUKAKIS
Governor

WILLIAM G. FLYNN
Secretary

December 10, 1976

Dear Chairman:

The Department of Community Affairs, Office of Local
Assistance is currently conducting an in-depth study of
mixed, seasonal and year-round residential neighborhoods on
the shoreline of coastal and inland water bodies. Many such
neighborhoods, and in turn the communities in which they
exist, are experiencing common problems of water supply,
sewage disposal, drainage, public safety and community rela-
tions. Unfortunately, no documentation of such neighborhoods
and their associated problems is currently available. Part
of the DCA study will identify where such neighborhoods exist
within the Commonwealth, their problems and recommendations
for solutions. To date, the Office of Local Assistance has
identified some 700 areas that appear to be seasonally
oriented neighborhoods. This information was obtained from
USGS map interpretations. Because of differences in the
years that various maps were produced and the lack of
collaborative information from this or any other source, we
are unable to confirm the information obtained from the maps.

Attached is a listing of the shoreline neighborhood(s)
that we have identified within your community as the result
of our initial inventory. Also included is an approximation
of the number of buildings and the estimated land area of each
neighborhood. It would be most helpful to our study and to

D-1

communities.across the Commonwealth if you would review the
attached information and comment on its accuracy. In addition,
there are a few questions that we would like you to respond to
concerning such neighborhoods. While this will take only a
few moments of your time, your response will greatly improve the
quality of information in the final report and be of benefit to
other communitiesthat might face similar problems and/or have
similar concern.. We look forward to your assistance and response.

Sincere

Ellis Goldman
Administrator
Division of Community
Services

EG/kc
Attachments.

D-2

Name of Community:

The following shoreline neighborhoods have been located within your municipal boundaries, according to our USGS map
inventory. We have listed the location of the neighborhood; the water body by which is is located; and approximate number
of dwelling units in the neighborhood; and, for inland coastal neighborhoods, the approximate acreage covered by the units
in the neighborhood. We left blank spaces to the right of the data, so that you can make corrections, if desired. Also,
you may wish to add other neighborhoods which had not been located by us, cross out those which no longer exist or which
you do not consider part of your municipality, and/or substitute the name of the place to the local designation.
The right half of the table contains boxes to be filled in according to instructions on the following page.

Code Location or Designa- Name of Number of Number of Nature Date SERVICES
tion of Neiahborhood Water Bodx Units/.Correct Acres Correct of Units Built wa. sew. rd. Other

Instructions for Completing Data Sheet

For each neighborhood that appears on the fact sheet would you please indicate the
present nature of th,it neighborhood by inserting one of the following classifications
in the appropriate column and box:

S - Units are primarily used as seasonal residencies
Y - Units were initially constructed for year round use
C - Units are being converted from seasonal to year round use
U - Units were once seasonal, but conversion has taken place to such an extent tjat
this area is no longer considered seasonal
D - Don't know

In the next column would you please indicate the approximate decade that major
construction in each neighborhood took place or that subdivision of the land was
recorded.

3. If the town provides any of the following services to the neighborhood, please
check the appropriate column and box on the date sheet.

wa. - town water Sew. - town sewers rd. - road maintenance

Other please specify (i.e., trash collection, beach maintenance, neighborhood playgrounds)

4. What problems, if any, exist for your municipality because of development of these
shoreline areas. Please give the code number of the neighborhood causing any specific
problem(s). (Code # appears on data sheet)

5. Does the community have any means of controlling conversion of seasonal units to year
round use? (Yes) (No) If so, what mechanism(s) is being used and is it
effective? (Please enclose copy of any applicable by-laws and/or regulations).

Does the community have any means of controlling future shoreline development?
(Yes) . (No) If so, what mechanism(s) is being used? (Please enclose copy
of any applicable by-laws and/or regulations).

7. If any of these neighborhoods have a citizen group or association for the area residents,
please fill in the neighborhood code # as it appears on the fact sheet, the name of the
groups or association and the chairperson/president's name and address. (See attached sheet)

D-4

Code Number Organization Title Chairperson/President Address

D- 5

.BIBLIOGRAPHY

B I B L 1 0 G R A P H Y

Adrian, Donald Dean et al.
Suitability of New England Soils in Acceptinq Waste Effluents
Phase I, Publication No. 70, Water Resources Research Center,
Un-I'versity of Massachusetts at Amherst, 1976.

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations
The Problem of Special Districts in American Government, May,
1964.

Baldwin, Helene L. and McGuiness, C.L.
A Primer on Water Quality, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1965.

Bender, William H.
Soils and Septic Tanks, Agriculture Information Bulletin 349,
Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1971.

Berger, Bernard B.; Kusler, Jon A.; and Klinginer, Sally G.
Lake-Shoreland Management Pro@rams: Selected Papers, Water
Resources Research Center, University of Massachusetts at
Amherst, February, 1976.

Berger, Bernard B.; Kusler, Jon A.; and Klinginer, Sally G.
Strengthening Lake-Shoreland Management in Massachusetts, Water
Resources Research Center, University of Massachusetts at
Amherst, February, 1976.

Bureau of Community Environmental Management
Manual of Septic Tank Practice, U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, 1957.

Council on Environmental Quality
Recreation on Water Supply Reservoirs, a Handbook for Increased
Use, September, 1975.

Davis, Steven C.
Ecological Analysis of the White Pond Watershed, Concord,
Massachusetts, Ecosystems (Division of Jason Cortell and
Associates), October, 1972.

Downe, Charles E. and Wells, Peter L.
Pillings Pond - Lynnfield, Massachusetts - Land Acquisition
Possibilities for Public Recreation Uses, 1975.

Hanke, Byron et al
The Homes Association Handbook, Urban Land Institute, 1964.

Kusler, Jon A. et a!
Rural Land Use in Wisconsin -- A Preliminary Description of
Problems and Preventive Efforts, Institute for Environmental
Studies, University of isconsin at Madison, 1972.

Leopold, Luna B. and Langbein, Walter B.
A Primer on Water, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1960.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Affairs
Public Access to Waters of Massachusetts, Public Access Board,
T9-74.

McGauhey, P. H. and Winneberger, H. J.
Methods of Preventing Failure of Septic Tank Percolation,
Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, University of California, 1967.

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
Master Plan for Lakeville, Massachusetts, 1971.

Metropolitan Area Planning Council
Clean Water?: Our Common Concern,1976.

New Bedford City Planning Department
Water Systems, City of New Bedford, Southeastern Regional
Planning and Economic Development District, undated.

New England River Basins Commission
Report of the Southeastern New England Study Buzzards Bay
Planning Area Report, 1975.

New England River Basins Commission
Raort of the Southeastern New England Study Regional Report,
1975.

New England River Basins Commission
Report of the Southeastern New England Study Taunton Planning
Area Report, 1975.

Nixon, Scott W.; Oviatt, Candace A.; and Northby, Sharon L.
Ecology of Small Boat Marinas, Marine Technical Report Series
Number 5, University of Rhode Island, 1973.

office of Water Programs
Manual of Individual Water Supply Systems, Water Supply Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975.

Old Colony Planning Council
Environmental Assessment: Proposed Sewerage Facilities, Town
of Avo , November, 1976.

Sargent, Frederic 0. and Bingham, William H.
Lakeshore Land Use Controls, Vermont Agricultural Experiment
Station, University of Vermont, Burlington, 1969.

Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District
What are the Options?, A Handbook of Alternatives for Wastewater
Management, June, 1976.

Steele, William T. and Stryker, Barry W.
"Community Management of Individual Home Sewage Disposal Systems
Through District Specialist Program," a presentation at the
New England Water Quality Workshop studying on-site wastewater
disposal alternatives.

Swenson, H.A. and Baldwin, H.L.
A Primer on Water Qualityr U.S. Department of the Interior, 1965.

Tippetts - Abbett - McCarthy - Stratton, Engineers and Architects
Regional Study for Water SuRply, Sewage Disposal and Drainage
for Southeastern Massachusetts - Southeastern Regional Planning
and Economic Development District, 1970.

Tourbier, Joachim and Westmacott, Richard
Lakes and Ponds, Technical Bulletin 72, Urban Land Institute, 1976.

U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Survey, Plymouth County, Massachusetts, July 1969.

Urban Land Institute, American Society of Engineers and National
Association of Home Builders
Residential Storm Water Management, Objectives, Principles and
Design Consia-e-ra-Tir-ons, 1975.

Urban Land Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers, and
National Association of Home Builders
Residential Streets -- objectives, Principles & Design
Considerations, 1974.

Walker, Eugene H.
"Walden's Way Revealed," Man and Nature, Massachusetts Audubon
Society, December 1971.

Williams, John R. and Willey, Richard E.
Taunton River Basin, Massachusetts Basic-Data Report Number 12,
Groundwater Series, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1970.

EVALUATION SURVEY
IN-DEPTH STUDY PROGRAM

EVALUATION SURVEY
DCA IN-DEPTH STUDY PROGRAM

The Department is conducting an evaluation survey of its
in-depth study program and requests recipients of this report to
evaluate its effectiveness. It would be greatly appreciated if@you
would take a.few minutes of your time to complete the following
survey form, and return it to:

Massachusetts Department of Community Affairs
Office of Local Assistance
1 Ashburton Place - Room 1619.
Boston, Massachusetts 02108

For all the following questions, please place appropriate
letter rating in the column.indicated. The letter ratings a-re:

A - High or Excellent
B - Above Average or Good
C - Fair or Average
ID - Poor or Below Average
N/A - Not Applicable

MANAGING SEASONAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN TRANSITION
Title.of Report: LAKEVILLE
Letter
Rating

1. Applicability to your constituents' pr community's
problems/issues/concerns.

2. Usefulness to your constituents or community in:

a. Solving problems/issues;

b. Providing insights to problem solving;

C. Catalyzing local officials' action;

d. Stimulating local discussion and providing focus.

3. Adequacy of subject matter treatment

@4. Qual.ity of writing and readability

5. Quality of graphic material

6. Adequacy as a self-teaching or "how to" manual
17. Timelines's of subject matter to current local issues

'OVER

-2-

8. Is follow-up by,DCA staff to discuss the content of this report
necessary? not necessary? . If necessary, would
group training seminars be acceptable? Yes No
Prefer individual meetings and discussions Yes No
Other

9. Should the in-depth study program continue? Yes No
If no, please indicate reason.

10. Shoul d the in-depth study program continue? Yes No
If Yes, what would you suggest?

11. What was your reason for requesting the report?

12. Other comments/ remarks:

13. optional:

Name:

Address:

Telephone:

COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER

J U668 outjuz 7831