Stow Conservation Commission
Minutes
February 2, 2010
A meeting of the Stow Conservation Commission was held at the Stow Town Building, 380 Great Road, Stow, Massachusetts, on February 2, 2010 at 7:30 in the evening.
There were present: David Coppes, Chair
Becky Mattison, Vice Chair
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark
Kathy Sferra
Doug Moffat
Absent: Kathy Tarbi
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/January 5, 2010
Doug Moffat made a motion to approve the minutes of January 5, 2010 as drafted. Becky Mattison seconded the motion and it was passed. Ingeborg Hegemann Clark abstained from the vote.
Certificate of Compliance
45C Marlboro Road U-7 #6-4)
As approved by the Commission, the applicant has installed the stone aprons along the new foundation to receive and infiltrate runoff from the new roof area. An as-built plan and letter from the engineer, Tom DiPersio, Jr. has been filed.
Doug Moffat made a motion to approve and issue a Certificate of Compliance to clear Order of Conditions File No. 299-0448 for work successfully completed at 45C Marlboro Road. Becky Mattison seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Application for Project Eligibility & Site Approval
Highgrove Estates
The Board of Selectmen determined that it would be best to consolidate department comments into one letter.~ Karen Kelleher, Planning Board Coordinator, volunteered to draft the letter to be endorsed by the chairman of each committee. Pat Perry confirmed that the comments from the Conservation Commission are accurate. The final draft letter to the 40B Project Coordinator, Mass Housing was reviewed and commented upon by the Commission and signed by David Coppes, Chair.
The Conservation Commission’s concerns are those involving the proposed road, which would require wetland crossings and the proposed embankments, which would appear problematic.
Kathy Sferra made a motion to approve and sign the draft letter to the 40B Project Coordinator at Mass Housing regarding the proposed Highgrove Estates. Ingeborg Hegemann Clark seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
FY2011 Budget Discussion
Pat Perry met with Bill Wrigley regarding the Commission’s budget request for fiscal year 2011. Due to this year’s budget constraints, Mr. Wrigley will not support the $5,000 appropriation at Town Meeting for the Conservation Fund unless the Commission can show that they will be spending a significant amount of money in the near future that would warrant the appropriation. He based his decision on the average of the last six years of expenses from the Conservation Fund.
The Commission decided since they aren’t presently facing any large expenses, the request could be delayed until the FY2012 budget is submitted.
Kathy Sferra made a motion to withdraw the $5,000 appropriation from the proposed budget. Doug Moffat seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Notice of Intent
56 Pine Point Road (U-1 #17)
At 7:45 PM David Coppes opened the public hearing for a Notice of Intent filed by Bruce Gumbert and Linda DeGregorio for proposed repair or replacement of the existing seawall at 56 Pine Point Road. Chuck Budnick, CABCO Consult, Inc. represented applicants. A waiver request for work in the No Disturb Zone has been submitted. Doug Moffat reviewed the application and conducted a site inspection on behalf of the Conservation Commission.
Budnick stated that the purpose of the filing is to conduct an investigation (PHASE I) to determine the subsurface condition of an existing wooden seawall (bulkhead) structure. The existing structure is showing some signs of rot in the top coping boards and is also allowing lake water to infiltrate between the vertical wall members, which is causing soil behind the wall to erode and wash back into the lake. Photos were submitted for the Commission’s review.
Budnick stated that plastic sheeting would be installed on the outside of the seawall to prevent lake water from entering the proposed pit excavation. A tarp would be placed in the inspection spoils containment area and an inspection pit is dug using hand tools with the spoil being placed on the tarp to completely contain the soil upon completion. Dewatering will occur to allow inspection of the wall. All three test holes will be dug by hand; no machinery will be used.
Once the condition of the seawall has been determined, a Phase II construction plan will be submitted to repair or replace any members as necessary and to install material to prevent the soil behind the wall from eroding into the lake.
The existing seawall and dock was licensed in 1999. All work is considered maintenance of existing footprint and will not require a new application to the Department of Environmental Protection, Waterways Division.
Doug Moffat conducted the site inspection on behalf of the Commission and found that the seawall was in bad shape and work would be required.
Evan Holmes of 64 Barton Road owns the neighboring property. He stated that his “only concern was that the work not impact his property.”
Doug Moffat made a motion to close the public hearing for a Notice of Intent filed for proposed work at 56 Pine Point Road. Kathy Sferra seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Doug Moffat made a motion to issue the Order of Conditions for 56 Pine Point Road including a condition that a written report from a registered professional engineer on the findings of the test pits shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission prior to any further filings or amendments with an indication of the proposed plan of action to repair or replace the seawall. Kathy Sferra seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Request for Determination of Applicability
472 Gleasondale Road (U-8 #33)
At 8:03 PM David Coppes opened the public hearing for a Request for Determination of Applicability filed by Brokk Galea for paving, tree removal and landscaping work on property located at 472 Gleasondale Road. Tom DePersio, Jr. of Thomas Land Surveyors & Engineering Consultants represented the applicant. Kathy Sferra reviewed the filing and conducted the site inspection on behalf of the Commission.
The proposed work involves an expansion and paving of an existing parking area, the removal of one large tree, and the removal of a stand of invasive plants (Japanese Knotweed). The work will also involve the construction of a rain garden for the mitigation of stormwater impacts from the proposed pavement. Only a small portion of the grading and installation of rain garden are within the 100’ buffer.
Tom DePersio of Thomas Land Surveyors & Engineering and Consultants, Inc. and Brokk Galea, property owner, presented photos and further explained plans for the proposed work. A revised plan moving the erosion controls along the 35-foot no disturb line and the area of the Japanese Knotweed was submitted. Runoff from the new paving was discussed. Suggestions for eradicating Japanese Knotweed were discussed. It was determined that work should not be permitted beyond the stonewall that exists at the border of the wetlands. Kathy Sferra reviewed the filing and conducted the site inspection on behalf
of the Commission and found the project to be acceptable.
Kathy Sferra made a motion to close the public hearing for a Request for Determination filed for paving, tree removal and landscaping work on property located at 472 Gleasondale Road. Becky Mattison seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Kathy Sferra made a motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination contingent that the no work is permitted beyond the stonewall. Becky Mattison seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Robert Collings/Access Road
Mr. Collings requested a meeting with the Conservation Commission to discuss creating an access road from his property to connect to Liberator Lane (Riverhill Subdivision) off Barton Road to alleviate the traffic congestion during special events on his property. Mr. Collings met with the Public Safety Committee and they (Police, Fire, Highway) have written letters supporting an access road. Riverhill Subdivision was in litigation and recently Superior Court has ruled in favor of the Planning Board. It was questioned whether the Planning Board must review a revised plan and until there is an approved plan, no work is to commence on Liberator Lane.
A letter from Town Counsel regarding Mr. Collings request for a “new access road” was read aloud at the meeting. Mr. Collings was given a copy of the letter. A portion of the letter from Town Counsel follows:
Unless overturned by an appellate court, Judge Piper’s January 14, 2010 Judgment (referencing the Court’s Decision denying the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, dated July 10, 2009) is controlling and the layout or construction of any new way must conform with the Subdivision Control Law, the Town’s Subdivision Rules and Regulations and, where applicable due to its coincidence of location, the Land Court’s January 14, 2010 Judgment. Put another way, while the land owner has every right to petition the town’s respective boards, departments and commissions to construct the proposed “new access road”, this “road” must conform with applicable Town regulations and, where coincident to the roadway(s) shown on the plans reviewed by the Land Court, the Planning Board’s
May 23, 2007 decision. (The “new access road” is not included within the Planning Board’s 2007 approval or shown on the plans approved by the Board).
Accordingly, construction of the “Riverhill Estates” subdivision (including “Liberator Lane” or any portion of “Liberator Lane”), may not commence until the final plans have been endorsed by the Planning Board and the plans and all required legal documents have been recorded with the Registry of Deeds. If a new roadway is to be constructed (e.g. the “new access road”), this roadway must either be incorporated into the Planning Board’s 2007 approval (via a modification of the 2007 decision pursuant to G.L. c41, s.81-W) or a new application for definitive subdivision approval must be filed and the Planning Board’s approval must be obtained.
The Commission was unsure of the expectations of Mr. Collings at this meeting since no forms were filed and the Mr. Collings was looking for the support of the Commission to accompany the support of the Fire, Police and Highway Departments. Collings felt it was in the best interest of the town since the discussed road would enhance the flow of traffic. Mr.Collings questioned an alternate possible route for the road that would require more tree cutting but would keep the proposed road out of the 100-foot buffer zone, in which case he would not need the Commission’s permission, in any form, to proceed. The Commission responded by saying that unless erosion or drainage problem occur after construction, a road constructed outside the 100-foot buffer zone would be considered outside the jurisdiction of the Commission. He was advised,
however, that the new plan would need to be brought in front of Planning Board.
Notice of Intent
277 Sudbury Road (U-3 #19)
At 8:45 PM David Coppes opened the public hearing for a Notice of Intent filed by Gary Shimmel for proposed clearing, grubbing, grading and landscaping associated within reconstruction of a single-family dwelling. Becky Mattison reviewed the Notice of Intent application and conducted a site inspection on behalf of the Commission.
Keith Murray, representing LandTech Consultants, presented the proposed work to the Commission. Presented were the proposal 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 new Title V septic disposal system is outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction. The new dwelling is a two-story building with a walkout basement since the property drops off. Murray stated that there would be some clearing for vista to provide a temporary access for installation of the new well. The staircase to the lake will be protected.
Becky Mattison noted that the back portion of the property has a 15 foot drop and wanted to know how equipment would access the area to install the new well which is located at the bottom of the slope in the 35 foot no disturb area without disturbing much of the natural landscape. Murray stated that it was a 10% slope and will need to be graded temporarily and restored after the work was completed. There was also concern with restoration when such a considerable slope is involved and that the restoration work would return the area to an undisturbed buffer and not loamed and seeded to create a lawn.
The Commission felt that a new well and septic would be beneficial to the area but made special notes that grading be restored as shown on plans, that the deck be constructed on pylons and that native plantings be allowed to naturalize.
A neighbor to the left, Daniel Nicholson of 281 Sudbury Road, voiced concern about restoring the affected area to natural shoreline. In addition, Nicholson was concerned about a 120-year old white pine tree and natural spruces that help keep the shoreline intact. Mr. Nicholson requested a provision be noted in writing that a specific grove of hemlocks not be disturbed. The Commission determined that this particular grove of hemlocks was outside of the jurisdiction of the Commission.
Becky Mattison made a motion to close the public hearing for a Notice of Intent filed for proposed work at 277 Sudbury Road. Doug Moffat seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark made a motion to issue the Order of Conditions 277 Sudbury Road as drafted and amended Becky Mattison. Kathy Sferra seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Notice of Intent
Parcel K Randall Road (R-11 #37B-1)
At 9:00 PM David Coppes opened the public hearing for a Notice of Intent filed by Roger Kane. Scott Hayes of FORESITE Engineering represented the applicant. Ingeborg Hegemann Clark reviewed the Notice of Intent application and conducted a site inspection.
The applicant is proposing construction of a wetland driveway crossing and installation of electric, telephone and cable utilities for the purpose of accessing the southern uplands of the site for construction of a single-family dwelling. 3,021 sf of wetlands are proposed to be filled to construct this driveway with 3,510 sf (116%) of replication proposed in two replication areas adjacent to the crossing. The crossing design utilizes an open bottom precast concrete box culvert to allow the current drainage patterns to be maintained and provide a natural bottom for migration of animal species in accordance with the Army Corps of Engineers stream crossing guidelines.
Hayes stated that they are proposing a 12-foot wide driveway accessed by a utility easement on the abutting property. There was some question regarding easements on the property. The front portion of the driveway would be on an easement that is owned by Stow Woodlands and there is a second easement, which appears as a cart path at the top of the property that was given to Walter Lankau. The Commission discussed the procedural issue in cases where there are two lots involved. It was decided that the Order would need to be recorded on both lots because work will be done on both lots.
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark had the following comments following her review: “In terms of the proposed wetland crossing, I think you may need to evaluate alternative designs to minimize the amount of impact.~ As you know, over the past few years, proposed wetland crossings are more carefully reviewed. ~Items to be discussed include how the wetland to be crossed currently functions, whether one open bottom culvert will be adequate, what types of soils are within the wetland, and whether the proposed means of crossing will affect wildlife habitat.~ The driveway could also be minimized. In our previous Order we had requested that a more detailed design of the replication area be provided to the Commission.~ I had hoped that such a design could have been filed with the Commission with the new Notice of Intent.~ The goal is to
establish whether or not existing overstory trees can be preserved. The ORAD has also expired.~ A review of the wetland delineation should be conducted as part of this NOI as soon as the snow cover is less than current amounts. You~are probably~aware that the Army Corps issued its new PGP on Jan 21, 2010.~ You should review the PGP to confirm that the project fully evaluates impacts to Federal Wetlands.~ Many of my comments with respect to Item 1 above are included in the new PGP.~ You will also need to file the new Category 1 form.”
The Commission asked Hayes why he was meeting with the Planning Board and he replied that the house was not constructed within two years of the Special Permit for a hammerhead lot and the permit expired.
Hayes noted that the Bordering Vegetated Wetland was flagged in 2001 by Carr Research but most of the flags are gone and will need to address. The Commission stated that they needed to recheck the wetland line and walk the site in the spring and suggested the public hearing be continued. They also want soil support for the delineation.
Gay Gibson McDonald and Robert McDonald, abutters, of 387 Gleasondale Road voice their appreciation of the vernal pool on the property. Mr. and Mrs. McDonald claim to have worked diligently to protect the area for 31 years. They gave Scott Hayes and the Commission permission to walk the land where the vernal pool forms. Mr. McDonald gave permission to flag the pool with the caveat that the dimensions change seasonally. The Commission raised the point that Scott Hayes might suggest the idea of a Conservation Restriction on a portion of the lot to be in compliance with the Bylaw for allowing work within the 35 foot no disturb zone.
Kathy Sferra made a motion to continue the public hearing to April 6, 2010 at 7:30 PM or later. Doug Moffat seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Athens Lane Enforcement
According to a fax the Commission received on December 16, 2009, Dr. Carr was unable to meet the Commission’s deadline of December 15th to submit a Notice of Intent for the restoration work on property owned by Mr. Quirk due to the fact that the survey work had not been completed. Dr. Carr has requested another extension.
The Commission decided not to grant an extension. It was decided that the Commission would issue Mr. Quirk a violation notice. Mr. Quirk will incur a $300 fine. The Commission also requests a letter from the surveyor with a date by which the company will have the survey done and a letter from Mr. Quirk stating when the NOI will be submitted.
At present, the Commission has not received any correspondence from Dr. Carr or Mr. Quirk. Mr. Quirk did, however, pay the $300 fine that was issued in January 2010. Pat Perry will call Mr. Carr and ask for a status update.
Assabet River
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark updated the Commission on the town’s investigation of phosphorus loading in Elizabeth Brook. Dwight Sipler reviewed DEP’s report titled “Total Maximum Daily Load for Phosphorus” and finding errors in 9 standard deviations. There has been some discussion on how to educate Stow’s population regarding phosphorus loading. Ingeborg and Becky will be meeting with the Board of Selectmen on March 2nd.
Adjournment
Becky Mattison made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:17 PM. Doug Moffat seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
The Commission adjourned at 10:17 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia R. Perry Maureen Trunfio
SCC Coordinator SCC Secretary
| 
