Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
2010/04/06 ConCom Minutes
Stow Conservation Commission
Minutes
April 6, 2010

A meeting of the Stow Conservation Commission was held at the Stow Town Building, 380 Great Road, Stow, Massachusetts, on April 6, 2010 at 7:30 in the evening.

There were present:     David Coppes, Chair
                        Becky Mattison, Vice Chair      
Kathy Sferra
Doug Moffat
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark
Kathy Tarbi

Absent:    Dennis Walsh
                                                
comprising a quorum of the Commission; also

                        Patricia R. Perry, SCC Coordinator
                        Maureen Trunfio, SCC Secretary
                        Helen Castles, Associate Member
        
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM.

Minutes/March 16, 2010

Kathy Tarbi made a motion to approve the minutes of March 16, 2010 as drafted and amended.  Ingeborg Hegemann Clark seconded the motion and it was passed. Doug Moffat abstained from the vote.

Agricultural Land
Arbor Glen and Tuttle Lane

The Conservation Commission submitted a legal ad in the Stow Independent posting the availability of agricultural land at Tuttle Lane. Pat Perry informed the Commission that Steve Mong, of Applefield Farm, is not interested in using the Tuttle Lane parcel for farming and will not renew his license.  Last year Ted Painter of Shelburne Farm showed some interest in growing hay but has not initiated a discussion with the Commission. If there is no interest from the public in farming this land, the Commission will need to make arrangements to have the property mowed and maintained so that it does not return to woodland.

The Commission recently discovered that it does not have vehicular access or right of way to the agricultural parcel at Arbor Glen. Steve Mong is currently farming the Arbor Glen parcel. He has worked out an access agreement for himself with Bose. The Commission recommends continuing to allow Mong to farm the parcel.  Only 10 of the 20 acres are adequate for farming said Pat Perry.  The Commission realizes that it will have to negotiate an agreement with Arbor Glen or Bose to allow access to the parcel for farming.  The Commission will also need to negotiate a fee and license in the future for farming the open space parcel at Arbor Glen.

Notice of Intent
403 Great Road/Center School (U-9 #44)

At 7:45 PM, David Coppes opened the continued public hearing for a Notice of Intent application filed by the Stow Elementary School. The public hearing was continued to be able to receive new testimony based on the Planning Boards review.  

Jamie Warren of SMMA presented changes to the drainage plan consistent with comments noted by the Planning Board’s consultant, Sue Sullivan. Warren proposed the following revisions:
  • Segregation of the project’s drainage system from the existing drainage connection from the two ponds located on the west side of the property.
  • Replacement of the existing 30” drain line from the upper pond to the lower pond.  SMMA is not proposing to replace the section within the wetland boundary.
  • Replacement of the existing headwall with a new headwall that will discharge both the 30” drain from the upper pond and the new outfall from the project’s drainage system.
  • Installation of a rip-rap stilling basin in front of the new headwall.
  • Construction of an approximately 6-foot wide swale behind the maintenance building to accommodate potential for the large pond overflow.
  • Installation of a debris grate on the existing concrete weir box at the large pond.  The new headwall will include the same.
Warren stated that the plan revisions result in approximately 1,000 sf of new work within the 35-foot No Disturb Zone, primarily to install the new headwall and stilling basin.  There is no work proposed within the wetland boundary.  The area immediately west of the maintenance building is within the 100-foot buffer zone.  

Warren visited this area with a peer reviewer during the recent rainstorms and decided that it was necessary to re-route the course and implement a shallow, natural swale west of the school turnaround. This will provide a natural defined channel six feet wide and one foot deep. The plan is to let the swale return to natural; no plans to going to bring in gravel, no plans for any heavy treatment to it.

Another critical design change is to completely separate the drainage systems from the upper and lower ponds. Warren says they’re planning to replace the existing line so they know the integrity is there and so they’re replacing it just outside the wetland boundary extending it east of the building through a manhole. They’re proposing a new headwall that would serve both the pond drain system and separate the school drain system. This will be pulled back from the wetlands so that work will be completed five feet from the wetland boundary. The new location of the headwall will be brought back 14-15 feet from the location of the current headwall,  which is situated right against the wetland border. The area will eventually naturalize. There will be some clearing required for this installation but the area, according to Warren, is, at present, fairly clear due to foot traffic.

The Commission was concerned that there be something planted in the swale so that invasive plants such as Japanese Knotweed will not populate the area.  If the swale is not planted with some sort of stabilizing vegetation, erosion will occur.  SMMA explained when completed the swale will be loamed and seeded but said they do not have plans to plant. The Commission is concerned with maintenance in the area where the 20-foot span transitions down to a six-foot width at the bottom. Warren explained that they’re trying to create this channel so that in the case of an overflow, every 50-80 years, water will not run into the doors of the maintenance building. Upland of the swale side there will be shrubs planted to create a screen.

With regard to the buffer, the only other change Warren reported was a change in the size of the basketball court. SMMA decreased the size of the playground/basketball court so that it is entirely outside of the 35-foot No Disturb Zone, as previously discussed.  The original design included a college level court and SMMA reduced it by approximately 10 feet to a standard size.

Warren confirmed that the fence along the field’s perimeter will be located outside the 35-foot No Disturb Zone and will consist of a four-foot high, black vinyl chain link fence with openings in the fence for passage to Hale School.

Kathy Sferra made a motion to close the public hearing for a Notice of Intent filed for the addition and renovation to the existing Center School at 403 Great Road.  Kathy Tarbi seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.

Notice of Intent
Kirkland Drive Pond

At 8:05 PM David Coppes opened the public hearing for a Notice of Intent filed by Jamie Monat on behalf of fellow property owners for chemical treatments to the Kirkland Drive Pond.  Jerry Smith of Aquatic Control Technology, Inc. represented the property owners.  David Coppes conducted the site inspection on behalf of the Commission.  Jack Wallace, Health Agent for the Board of Health has reviewed the proposal to rid the pond of millweed using herbicide/algaecide treatments regarding individual wells.  

Jamie Monat, a resident of Conant Drive, has retained Aquatic Control Technology Inc. to file an NOI for permission to dispense chemicals into the pond to deter the growth of duckweed. David Coppes completed the site inspection .

Monat presented the proposal of treatments to the Commission. Monat has resided on Conant Drive for twenty-six years and explained the change in the ecology of the pond in the last five years. According to Monat green slime has developed on the surface of the pond each May or June and would completely cover the pond. He believes from his observation that the slime has reduced the number and varieties of wildlife in the pond. He explained that there is a foul smell, from time to time, on the pond.

The neighbors have gotten together to discuss what they might do to resolve the situation and have decided to contract with Aquatic Control Technologies. They found that the green slime is not algae; it’s water meal, Wolffia. Aquatic Control Technologies has experience working with this exact issue.

Jerry Smith of Aquatic Control presented the details of his inspection of the pond. He visited in September to sample plants and collect data. Two basins are involved. The larger basin has a depth of approximately 7-8 feet and the other is shallower with a depth of 4-5 feet. These ponds were set up as storm water detention ponds in the 1970’s, which Smith describes as a sizable watershed area. There is a single outlet that flows toward Delaney Project. Water meal is a native plant that grows in response to an abundance of nutrients; generally higher levels of phosphorous. When a water sample was taken the levels weren’t extremely high at .018 g/liter but Smith claims that it is safe to say that the water meal is growing in response to the excess of nutrients.

Aquatic Controls, along with Monat and his other neighbors involved, looked at alternatives other than chemicals because of the watershed component. As part of the proposed Aquatic Management Program two newsletters a year on the effects of stormwater runoff on water quality and measures that can be taken to reduce the runoff as well as reduce the nutrient content of this runoff.  The newsletters will inform residents in the neighborhood that stormwater runoff from their properties enters the local storm sewers and feeds directly into the pond.  Suggestions for reducing the runoff may include installation of rain gardens below roof gutters, next to driveways and along sidewalks, inclusion of vegetated buffers, septic maintenance, etc.   The use of low to no phosphate fertilizers, laundry detergents, and dish detergents. They would also like to set up discussions with the DPW to look at the drainage path, review street sweeping practices, catch basin cleaning practices, etc.  The watershed management should yield benefits but won’t solve this problem alone. There is still phosphorous in the sediment. Aquatic Control would like to take a two-prong approach:
  • Implement water shed initiatives
  • In-pond management
The residents have tried skimming the water meal and found it be impossible to manage. They came to the realization that they would need to treat and would like to use, primarily, Sonar (flouridone). Smith noted that this is the same herbicide used in lake Boon and one of the few that is effective on water meal. They would like to start applications in early May. Results are usually seen in 60-90 days. The label on the EPA label for Sonar allows for treatment up to 90 parts/billion over the course of the season. Smith reported that they’re looking at split applications and are anticipating between 60-90 parts/billion in total.

The group is proposing a three-to-five year project and will provide the Commission with annual reports. Aquatic Controls perceives management of this pond as an ongoing process and, therefore, looked at other products for use in conjunction with Sonar. One of these additional products is Buffered Alum (aluminum sulfate and soda ash). Alum is not an herbicide or algaecide but a coagulant precipitant. The Alum would bar any phosphorous in the sediment from recycling, which is contributing to some fraction of phosphorous to the overlying water. Sonar would help reduce the numbers in the phosphorous level in the water down to a number that would no longer support water meal.

Reward (Diquat dibromide) was another herbicide proposed. This chemical would be used for small, spot treatments in future years.  Once the pond is primarily under control, Diquat would alleviate the need for additional Sonar treatment of the entire pond. Sonar is very water-soluble and, therefore, can’t be used to treat small areas. All chemicals proposed for use are USEPA/MA DAR registered and EPA approved.

Copper-based algaecides were mentioned in the NOI as a chemical that would help to control nuisance filamentous and microscopic algae. The trade names for these are K-Tea and Captain.

Smith presented other non-chemical techniques written into the NOI for future consideration.  One of these would be a submersed aeration system. This helps to distribute the algae in the water, may help to tie up the phosphorous in the water and may help oxidize and convert nitrogen.

The Commission questioned detail of applications as presented in the NOI. Clarification was needed to verify that in 2010 only Sonar would be applied. Smith asked for some professional latitude in accordance with DEP and explained that their hands would be tied as far as providing a quick enough turnaround in the quality of the pond if excessive algae appeared. He assured the Commission they would be notified when applications would be applied. The Commission explained that The Lake Boon Commission is required to schedule an appointment each year, present a detailed report, explain their plans and request approval specifically for each year’s planned work. Smith said he was aware of that and would be happy to come in report their intentions each year. Smith did request permission in the case of a sudden outbreak of algae, for example, to apply chemicals immediately. The Commission asked if he anticipated an algae problem. Smith explained that he wanted to ensure that he didn’t exchange a water meal problem for an algae problem.

The Commission questioned the function of the Alum and asked about the conditions of chemically tying up the phosphorous with regard to temperature and pH levels. Smith said that when using buffered alum they analyze alkaline and pH per treatment and that they monitor levels at the start of treatment and shortly after in order to get the ratio of alum (acid) correct to the proper ratio of soda ash that is a buffer. The Commission questioned how likely that would be to shift over time. Smith said that once they treat and it flocked it would be very stable. He explained that it forms an aluminum hydroxide flock that settles and integrates into the sediment at the bottom of the pond.

The Commission referred to Smith’s recommendations regarding specifics of the vegetated buffer around the shoreline and wondered if the homeowners were committed to maintain the area and whether it could be written into the conditions. Dan Foster, 24 Kirkland Drive resident, mentioned that he has a high-sloping bank down to the smaller pond approximately 8 feet from the point where the usable lawn ends. He doesn’t mow and has allowed the pond’s edge to return to a natural state. Foster noted that his neighbors fertilize and mow right down to the water. He added that the same neighbors do have a silt fence in place along the buffer in an attempt to deter geese.

Christine and Brent Midwood, residents of 32 Kirkland Drive, stated that she has no intention of committing to allow a vegetated buffer along their section of shoreline. They do mow right up to the edge of the pond, at present, because that area is the largest part of their property.  

The Commission questioned the overall goal of the project.  It seems that the goals, as they were being discussed at the hearing, seem aesthetic and habitat sensitive. The Commission felt that in the case that future treatments need to be done, they would prefer to be able to refer back to the goals and review them before granting permission.
It was clarified by Smith that certain water quality impacts: lack of oxygen beneath that covering during the summer is contributing to stunted fish population. Additionally some wading birds have a harder time trying to find fish. Smith defined the overall objective of the project as trying to restore the ponds to a more reasonable balance point. The residents don’t want to see 100% covering of water meal or a dense covering of any plant on the water surface. The Commission pressed for a specific number and Smith countered that in terms of plant control he thought a reasonable level of control to be achieved would be an 80-85%reduction in pond coverage. Smith said that if they could reduce the coverage by that amount they would consider it quite successful. The Commission wanted to ensure that after the Sonar application, Aquatic Technology did not intend to continue with spot treatments in order to achieve eradication of 100%. Smith stated that the Commission should write this into the order if they feel more comfortable with that.

The Commission questioned the major source of the nutrient load. Smith claimed the bulk was most likely coming in from the water shed. Smith was asked if he tested sediment. He said he had completed 15 probes and was quite surprised to find that there was thin sediment. In the deepest area the depth of the sediment was one foot but in most areas it was approximately 3 inches. Smith said that in the 1980’s DEP collected data on several hundred ponds and lakes and they looked at sediments. Next they looked at the productivity of phosphorous levels of the overlying water. They found that there was not a good correlation between phosphorous levels in the sediments and the fertility of the water body and the phosphorous in the water.

Christine and Brent Midwood, 32 Kirkland Drive, presented concerns regarding drinking water supply. They have a well scheduled to be drilled in the near future.  Jack Wallace, Health Agent for the Stow Board of Health, addressed the question of the impact of chemical treatments on wells. If a shallow well were proposed there might be a problem. In this case, a deep bedrock well, there is no water supply involved. Smith added that Aquatic Control would be happy to supply the Commission with all EPA studies associated with these chemicals and reminded everyone that the proposed chemicals are all approved by DEP.

The chemicals proposed for use are approved for Zone 2 ground water recharge areas. Smith stated his company would not be allowed to use certain aquatic herbicides in the setting of municipal wells but in this case all chemicals are permitted and in fact all chemicals can be used in potable water supplies. Sonar, specifically, can be used without any restrictions. The Commission questioned the fact that the proposed well was in Zone 1. Smith countered that with these chemicals there aren’t any restrictions of any kind. He offered an example of a project Aquatic Control completed in Foxboro, MA. They treated a 350-acre reservoir with multiple, high-volume, gravel-packed wells that were directly adjacent to the reservoir. The wells were monitored the whole time and no traces of sonar showed up during water testing.

The Commission read a statement submitted by Tom Versoi, 16 Kirkland Drive, requesting notification 24-hours in advance of any treatments. Smith explained that they notify abutters of any scheduled treatments. Aquatic Controls suggests restricting swimming and fishing for 24 hours after chemical application. The Commission made the suggestion that the Midwood’s portion of the pond is marked with metal stakes on the shore and that spot treatments are prohibited on their portion of the pond.

The Commission discussed the proper procedure for recording the Order of Conditions. The question of which property should be recorded proved problematic. It was noticed that there is no book/page numbers on the NOI application for recording purposes. Do they all get recorded? Do you write five individual Orders?

Perry pointed out that since this is a five-year request, recording properly is especially important. If an abutter involved attempts to sell their home during those five years, a lien may appear on the deed. Christine Midwood wanted it made clear that although she is an abutter to the pond her property should not be recorded on the Order. Pat Perry said she would contact Town Council and DEP for the correct procedure to properly record the information. The Commission decided to continue the hearing, research recording procedure.  The hearing could be closed and a decision  issued at the next meeting, April 20, 2010. Jamie Monat stated that he did not want to be the only name on the Order. He, and his neighbors, felt that it would not be reasonable to hold him accountable in an instance where one abutter did not maintain their vegetative border, for example.

The abutters present questioned whether they needed to be present at the next meeting. The Commission stated they were welcome to come and listen. They thought it might be a good idea to send a representative from the Kirkland Drive Pond group. The Commission stated that Jerry Smith need not attend the next meeting. Christine Midwood wondered how she could find out what transpired if she is not present. Pat Perry stated that she would send her a copy of the decision.

Kathy Sferra made a motion to continue the public hearing for a Notice of Intent for Kirkland Drive Pond to April 20, 2010 at a time to be determined. Kathy Tarbi seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.

Pilot Grove Hill 40B Construction
Preliminary Discussion

Brandon Ducharme, Ducharme & Dillis, requested a meeting with the Commission to discuss the site and construction proposals prior to a formal filing for a 40B project proposed for Pilot Grove Hill.  The Board of Selectmen received a copy of the Pilot Grove Apartments II and Plantation Apartments II proposal for Funding submitted to DHCD.   

Ducharme & Dillis have prepared preliminary site plans for a 30 unit residential housing development consisting of 5 six-unit buildings.  The site comprises approximately 7.35 acres with an intermittent stream that breaks out of the side slope.  The stream travels east through the middle of the property until it enters a catch basin on Boxboro Road.  Much of the site contains Wetland Resource Areas and a development without impacts appears unavoidable.  They are looking for feedback from the Commission prior to filing with the Zoning Board of Appeals.  

Greg Roy presented the plans to the Commission on behalf of Ducharme & Dillis.  Bruce Fletcher was also present. The question of final drainage of the stream that runs down the hillside was discussed. It was thought that the stream makes its way over to a catch basin at the intersection of Boxboro Road, South Acton Road and Crescent Street. The Commission thought that exact information on the drainage of that area should be diagramed in the water pipeline project.

Originally the project proposed a loop driveway for the project that would have involved crossing the wetlands twice. The steep slope made grading difficult. The firm redesigned and worked out a scheme to accommodate the 30 units and, with the help of regrading, a new driveway plan that would only require one crossing of the wetland. The Commission studied the plans and searched for ways to minimize the crossing, minimize hard surfaces, etc.  One piece of important alternate advice was to eliminate planned parking spots over the culvert.  Parking over the septic was a proposed idea. Parking under the units was proposed but Roy explained that the design of the units did not make that possible. Most suggested changes did not seem possible while working within the parameters given. Runoff would be controlled with underground units, similar to the project at Center School.

There will be clearing done for a utilities corridor to bring utilities in from Boxboro Road. This project is contingent upon the water pipeline that is proposed to run from Harvard Acres down to the Lower Village.

The Villages of Stow project did try to respect the 35-foot No Disturb Zone. Stow’s Zoning Board of Appeals has the right to issue waivers. Roy recognized that they must comply with the Wetlands Protection Act. Roy asked for suggestions on restoration and replication. The Commission suggested sidewalks on only one side of the driveway. There was an additional retaining wall suggested by the Commission.
 
Notice of Intent
Parcel K Randall Road (R-11 #37B)

The applicants have agreed to postpone further discussion to April 20, 2010. The Commission has received a revised abutter’s list to include the abutting 22 Randall Road parcel, which the proposed driveway goes over a portion of.  This did not change the list of abutters and will not need additional notification.  Carr Research has re-flagged the wetlands.  Attached is a draft plan for reference for the new flag locations relative to the old delineation and is not a fully revised site plan.  This will be a helpful reference for the Commission while conducting a site inspection.

Ingeborg Hegemann Clark made a motion to continue the public hearing regarding Parcel K on Randall Road to April 20, 2010 at a time to be determined. Doug Moffat seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.

MEPA Consultation Session re Center School

Meeting is scheduled for April 7th at 1:00 PM in the Stow Town Building, to receive advice and comments regarding which environmental issues, if any, are significant for this project. Opinions as to the extent and significance of possible environmental impact will be welcome.  Comments on the project will be welcome in writing prior to April 13th.  The Certificate will be issued on April 23rd. Pat Perry offered to attend the meeting and listen to discussions since they will be discussing environmental issues. The Commission said that any wetland buffer concerns could be addressed in the Order of Conditions. Perry should feel the need to attend only if there were other issues that needed to be address.

Parcel Off South Acton Road (R-21 #39)

This is a landlocked piece of property that the town is looking to purchase for municipal use since it abuts the Highway Barn. The property is divided by wetlands and floodplain.  According to the NHESP, no rare species or wildlife is identified for that location stated Perry.

Ingeborg Hegemann Clark and Helen Castles walked the site and reported that the property is littered with electronic trash such as radios and televisions as well as rubbish such as a half of an  old oil tank. Hegemann Clark mentioned an impressive hemlock tree that they felt should be saved in the event the property is to be cleared in the future. Hegemann Clark and Castles felt the price should be adjusted to better reflect the condition of the property. The Commission questioned whether soil samples should be taken if the town is seriously interested.

The portion of the property closest to the Highway Barn appeared most suitable for development such as a town dog kennel. The far end is where there are wetlands and a potential vernal pool. A wetland delineation and flagging at a future date was suggested to ensure that portion of the land remain natural.

Warrant Articles

The Commission reviewed warrant articles #’s 32, 38, 40, 45 and 48.  The Commission may want to speak in support of some or all of the articles at town meeting.  
        #32 – Lake Boon Water Quality Remediation ($8,000 for weed remediation)
                In Support

        #38 – Alternate Design to Center School Project to Retain Stone Building
                Out of the Commission’s jurisdiction

        #40 – Town Land Gift to First Parish Church
                In Support

        #45 – Open Space Conservation Restriction/Corzine Parcel:  The Commission wondered if they had final wording on this piece. There were questions surrounding water rights. The Community Preservation Committee (CPC) has not yet voted on its recommendation of the article but it’s written in there to pay $75K for the property. The FinCom and Capital Planning asked for a well to be written in as an allowed use. The Conservation Trust, or anyone approved, would have the right to extract water from the property.

The warrant article won’t be modified because that only speaks to the conservation restriction. CPC has had no discussion of the well. The Stow Conservation Trust voted last night that they were willing to allow drilling on the property if the town wanted that in the restriction but the wording hasn’t been developed. The question that needs to be addressed: if the Trust receives water rights on a parcel that’s relatively undevelopable, does that change the value of the conservation restriction? The Commission feels that if water  rights are  surrendered on a piece of property in the conservation restriction, the cost of the restriction should warrant a lower price. This talks about supporting it as open space but we should want to know what the restriction includes exactly.  The Commission feels that a well is a significant addition to the allowed use. The Commission felt that they were uncomfortable supporting a conservation restriction where they don’t know what exactly is being purchased. The Commission thought this should be something that will be discussed further a future meeting.

        #48 – Zoning Bylaw Amendment:  Flood Plain/Wetland Overlay district

Enforcement/124 Old Bolton Road:   A neighbor called and reported that construction vehicles and other debris located along the intermittent stream. Pat Perry visited the site and documented the site with photos.  It looked as if the vehicles should be removed. In 2006 when the current owner, Peter Waldron, purchased the property he visited the Conservation Commission’s office and asked for permission to remove debris in the 35-foot buffer that was left by the previous owner. He was granted permission to clean up the area by hand.  A letter of violation will be sent to Mr. Waldron with a request to submit plans to the Stow Conservation Commission by May 1, 2010 explaining the work proposed to clean up and stabilize the buffer zone of the intermittent stream to allow this area to return to its natural state.

Enforcement/55 Pine Point:   A letter of violation was sent and the homeowner has responded.  Erosion controls are in place and more stabilization will be installed midway down the slope.  An engineer has been contacted to develop a plan to stabilize the site and will submit a site plan and narrative.

Other Business:  Homeowner at 61 Hiley Brook Road requested permission to remove three large pine trees on his property to prevent future damage to his home.  The property abuts Elizabeth Brook.  Pat Perry took photos and noted that the brook is unusually high. The closest tree to be cut is 50-feet from brook and therefore comes under 50-foot exemption stated Perry. There would be no impact to the brook from the removal of the trees. The Commission had no objections to the removal of the three pine trees.
Order of Conditions
Pompositticut/Center Elementary School Project

The Commission discussed and revised the draft Order of Conditions prepared by Ingeborg Hegemann Clark for the renovation of the Center School to house Pompositticut and Center School students.  

Becky Mattison made a motion to approve the Findings and Special Conditions as drafted and issued the Order of Conditions for the addition and renovation to the existing Center School at 403 Great Road. Kathy Tarbi seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.

Adjournment

Becky Mattison made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:34 PM. Doug Moffat seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.

The Commission adjourned at 10:34 PM.

Respectfully submitted,




Patricia R. Perry
SCC Coordinator





Maureen Trunfio
SCC Secretary