Stow Conservation Commission
Minutes
June 1, 2010
A meeting of the Stow Conservation Commission was held at the Stow Town Building, 380 Great Road, Stow, Massachusetts, on June 1, 2010 at 7:30 in the evening.
There were present: David Coppes, Chair
Helen Castles
Becky Mattison, Vice Chair
Doug Moffat
Kathy Sferra
Absent: Ingeborg Hegemann Clark
comprising a quorum of the Commission; also
Patricia R. Perry, SCC Coordinator
Maureen Trunfio, SCC Secretary
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 PM.
Notice of Intent
70 Pine Point Road (U-1 #25)
At 7:45 PM David Coppes opened the public hearing continued from May 18, 2010 for a Notice of Intent filed by Richard Bleau. The applicant is proposing to repair an existing seawall. The Commission was simply waiting for a DEP number which was received.
Kathy Sferra made a motion to close the public hearing for a Notice of Intent filed for proposed work at 70 Pine Point Road. Helen Castles seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Doug Moffat made a motion to approve the Findings and Special Conditions drafted and issue the Order of Conditions for proposed work at 70 Pine Point Road. Kathy Sferra seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Notice of Intent
Athens and Goshen Lane (R-2 #4 & 5)
At 7:50 PM David Coppes reopened the public hearing continued from May 18, 2010 for an after-the-fact filing in response to an Enforcement Order issued by the Commission for work previously done without a permit. The NOI seeks to obtain approval for work conducted as well as additional restoration work proposed in areas subject to the protection. The work includes construction and maintenance of portions of an access road within the 100 foot Buffer Zone of BVW, the stabilization of barren soils in the buffer zone of BVW and Bordering land Subject to Flooding, the removal of fill from BVW, the restoration of altered areas, and the addition of several drainage improvement structures.
Dr. Jerome Carr of Carr Research Inc. presented changes that were to appear in new documentation after being discussed at the previous meeting.
Area One
On May 24, 2010 staff of Carr Research Laboratory flagged what they called a potential isolated wetland. The tributary to this area was also flagged at that time, as requested by the Commission. The Commission disagreed with Carr and stated that they claimed this area as an official wetland; not a potential isolated wetland. Soil samples analyzed by the Commission clearly concluded that this is a wetland area. Cattails and standing water during their site visit also supports the case of a wetland area. It was decided at the last meeting that The Commission did not agree with methodology used by Carr during the site visit in terms of soil testing. Calculations were requested of Carr to be submitted at the present meeting but were not proffered. [Pat, Carr did, verbally, at that time, announce some calcs but I couldn’t discern them.]
The plans Carr presented still had the road in Area One noted as Access Road. The Commission had asked at the last meeting for it to be noted on new plans as an abandoned road.
The Commission requested at the last meeting that dates of wetland flagging, and who completed the work, to be noted on the new plans. Much of Carr’s current work is reliant on flagging from 2005. The Commission asked if Carr reconfirmed that the line when he was completing present work. He answered that he was relying on a delineation from 2005. The Commission did request that the delineations be affirmed before this meeting and Carr did not comply. Therefore, the Commission would like to have on record that they are not affirming that they agree with that the established lines are correct at this date.
Area Two
Work to be completed in this area includes removing debris that has been dumped and pushed down the slope. The Commission wanted verification that this material will be removed using a machine that will sit at the top of the slope and reach down to pull up refuse. Carr confirmed that this will be the method used.
Area Three
Work in this area encompasses removing trash and debris from the buffer zone. The Commission wondered if the material would be removed from the 100-foot buffer and relocated on site or disposed of off site. Carr did not guarantee that material would be moved off site. This may become an issue that needs to be addressed by the Board of Health.
Area Four
The Commission reiterated that they would like to maintain the natural swale for water drainage.
Carr proposed a rip rap swale that would run along the whole section from the road down the hill.
Area Five
Carr proposed removing all debris from upper end and inside of the culvert and install smooth metal bars at an angle at the inlet end of the culvert to act as a screen. The metal bars would be spaced closer at bottom and flare outwards toward top. The owner will be responsible to monitor the culvert and remove debris as needed. Carr stated that all material that washed into wetlands will be removed by hand.
The Commission questioned debris control in the culvert. Carr’s plan did not clearly explain the design and the Commission would like more detail. At this point the lack of detail could either hold up the issuance or the Commission would need to condition seeing a design plan prior to installation. The Commission explained to Dr. Carr that it was unfortunate that a specific design depicting the plans for the metal bars straining the entrance to the culvert plan wasn’t available at the present meeting.
Carr claimed to prevent erosion of roadway surface he seeks permission to construct a two-foot high stonewall along the shoulder of the road and install a one-foot high pea stone berm along the road face of the wall.
The Commission reminded Carr that at the last meeting they did not approve of the stone wall proposed. The Commission did agree to the need to bring in rock and shore up the road in specific places. Carr explained that because of the washout the wall would be a good solution. The Commission felt that this year’s water level was extreme and not normally the case. The Commission raised the point that in the future, if the road did require widening, the stone wall would need to be taken out. The Commission emphatically denied the permission to build such a wall.
The Commission commented that the plan presented did not show the rip rap area. Typical areas of erosion were shown but, according to Carr, only two of them were proposed as rip rap. This was not clear on Carr’s plans.
The Commission would like to include dates by which work must be completed. They want to avoid a situation where it’s late Fall/Winter and planting cannot be completed due to weather conditions.
Abutter, Kenneth Duchi, 209 Hudson Road, had concerns with areas that were out of the jurisdiction of the Commission. The Commission explained the purpose of the filing and explained how erosion control is imperative to preserving wetlands.
Abutter Donna Bonczek, 217 Hudson Road, had voiced comments at the prior meeting with regard to trash on the property and revisited that subject. Bonczek reported that she sees numerous trucks coming in full and leaving empty on a daily basis. The Commission explained that it can only demand that trash be removed from the buffer zone. The Commission explained that after it’s removed from the buffer, she may want to follow up with the Board of Health. It was suggested that, if she felt compelled, she could document the truck traffic coming onto the property.
Abutter Richard Bonczek, 217 Hudson Road, claimed to have a map showing that Radiant Corp. owns Goshen Lane and that Goshen Lane abuts his property line. If that is truly the case, he would like to know who granted Quirk permission to widen Goshen Lane. The Commission suggested Mr. Bonczek pursue some form of deed search if he wanted to have legal accuracy as to who owns the road. Planning Board had attempted this several years ago but found it to be a difficult task. The Commission claimed that Bonczek’s map was not an official map. While working on a former order, it proved impossible to find an accurate map of the area showing ownership of the road.
Kathy Sferra made a motion to close the public hearing for a Notice of Intent filed for proposed restoration work at Athens and Goshen Lane. Becky Mattison seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. [Pat-Helen wasn’t “official” for the prior meeting, do we need to note that in the vote somehow instead of saying “unanimously”?]
Doug Moffat made a motion to approve the Findings and Special Conditions drafted and to issue the Order of Conditions for proposed restoration work at Athens and Goshen Lane. Kathy Sferra seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. [Helen? Again.]
Order of Conditions #299-513 Phase One Report
56 Pine Point Road
At 8:40 PM David Coppes opened the public hearing regarding an Order issued on February 2, 2010 allowing for investigative work on an existing seawall to determine if the seawall should be repaired or replaced. The Commission specified that the Phase I report be submitted prior to any work on the seawall to determine if a full Notice of Intent would be required or if submittal of a request for an amendment to the existing Order would suffice.
Owners, Bruce Gumbert and Linda DiGregorio, presented their findings from investigative work. [Pat I took most of what needed to be done from the Budnick letter (dated 5/14)]
The owners would need to replace the missing vertical seawall board or boards at the southeast corner using a cypress or greenheart wood and have it fabricated with a tongue and groove design to match the existing boards.
At the southeast and the northeast corners of the seawall, they would need to replace the diagonal brace boards with rot resistant lumber.
The owners would need to replace all of the top cap boards with rot resistant lumber or a rot proof composite material.
They would need to replace all of the outside fascia boards with rot resistant lumber or a rot proof composite material.
A new concrete footing would need to be poured under the end of the concrete block wall on the south side.
In addition to the above repair work, it is the recommendation of Cabco Consulting that plastic sheeting be installed on the outside face of the seawall in order to seal the fill behind the wall from wave action and to protect fill from washing back into the lake. The Commission questioned whether this might actually promote rot. Gumbert seemed to believe it would be beneficial to the project.
When all dock work has been completed, the soil will be brought back to grade and seeded. At present, the staircase that connects lake level to house level needs to be replaced. The current staircase is wood but Gumbert would like to rebuild with wood stringers and a composite material for the treads. In addition, the owners would like to add a small paver patio down at the base of the staircase area.
The Commission found that this work could be done by amending the existing Order instead of needing to submit a new NOI. However, work could only be done under an amendment provided the Commission still hold a hearing, notify abutters and issue modified conditions. The commission instructed Gumbert that he note very specifically exactly what he intends to do, i.e., bringing fill in, bringing the grade up 1 inch, 2 inches, etc. If you don’t tell us what you have planned then you don’t have permission to do.
Becky Mattison made a motion to consider an amendment to an Order for work to be completed at 56 Pine Point Road. Doug Moffat seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Possible Violation
215 Sudbury Road
A letter of possible violation was sent to Kirk Teska for filling the ditch at the rear of his property with yard debris and other material. The ditch at the rear of the yard, near Track Road, appears to be a wetland that is hydrologically connected to the Assabet River floodplain and within the 200 foot Riverfront Area. Kathy Sferra reported the infraction and Mr. Teska was asked to appear before the Commission. He was asked to bring a plan regarding how the material was to be removed from the area in question.
Mr. Teska explained to the Commission that he was unaware that the area was a wetland and agreed to remove the yard debris, by hand, to an appropriate location.
Elect Chairman & Vice Chair for FY2011
David Coppes has served three years as Chair for the Commission. Kathy Sferra moved to name and Becky Mattison as the new Chair to serve a three-year term. Doug Moffat seconded and it was passed unanimously. Coppes will serve as Chair for the July 6, 2010 meeting, as Mattison will be out of town.
Kathy Sferra moved to name Helen Castles Vice-Chair for the Commission. Doug Moffat seconded and it passed unanimously.
Arbor Glen Trail System
Clifford Martin, a resident and member of the Arbor Glen Transition Committee, has visited the office with maps of the area and a section of the master deed that addresses the open space plan. Speaking as a representative for the Arbor Glen community, he is seeking specific information regarding who will maintain various sections of the pedestrian trail network. It appears that sections of the trails are located on land owned by the SCT, yet under control of the Commission under the CR. One particular section of trail appears to be in an area owned by Arbor Glen Condominium Trust, itself. Martin submitted a list
of residents’ concerns such as incomplete footpaths, fallen trees, mudslides over footpaths, washout and brush envelopment potential.
The association is concerned that Pulte Homes may exit the project before all trail work is completed. A letter articulating their concerns has been submitted to Planning Board and to the Commission. Karen Kelleher says she has been in contact with Pulte who states they, Pulte, will take care of all of the concerns. The Commission decided it would be wise to invite Martin to a meeting to listen to his concerns. The Commission thought it would be prudent to have Pulte present at that meeting as well.
Martin was not certain what their responsibilities are as an association. He thought they were responsible for maintaining all trails. The Commission will explain liability issues and address their obligation to maintaining specific trails when Martin attends a future, scheduled meeting.
Lake Boon Commission’s Appeal/Drawdown:
The Commission has been copied on all documents submitted to Joe Bellino of DEP in response to the appeal by Lake Boon Commission (LBC) for a superceding Order of Conditions. Mr. Bellino emailed a request for a meeting with the Commission and LBC. Joe requested Pat Perry try and schedule a meeting for the week of June 14-17 or June 21-25. He wants the Commission to narrow it to say 2 days each week that the Commission is available. He will run it by the LBC and confirm: Perhaps 2 morning dates, 2 afternoon dates. Bellino said he will accommodate whatever dates work best for the Commission. Jack Wallace, BOH, and Mike Clayton, Highway, have been asked to attend.
The Commission found that June was already overscheduled and they would need to consider dates in July. Pat Perry will pass possible dates to Bellino who can then choose a date.
277 Sudbury Road
Possible Violation
On February 2, 2010 the Commission issued an Order of Conditions allowing permission for the applicant to demolish the existing home and construct a new single-family dwelling. A portion of the new home, deck, grading, landscaping and installation of a well is within 100 feet of a resource area.
The Commission has been made aware that many more trees were cut down than they were led to believe. The Commission did grant permission to take down several trees near the shoreline in order to be able to move in equipment to drill a well. The Commission talked about making the landowners accountable by demanding that they create an undisturbed buffer down to the waterfront when work has been completed. The Commission mentioned the neighbor who had recently built an addition and how nicely they had worked with the natural landscape. The Commission mentioned that it seems there may be a need to put together an article for the newspaper reminding all lakeside residents of limitations on work they are permitted to do without first visiting the Commission.
Adjournment
Kathy Sferra made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Becky Mattison seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
The Commission adjourned at 10:10 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia R. Perry
SCC Coordinator
Maureen Trunfio
SCC Secretary
| 
