Stow Conservation Commission
Minutes
June 22, 2010
A meeting of the Stow Conservation Commission was held at the Stow Town Building, 380 Great Road, Stow, Massachusetts, on June 22, 2010 at 7:30 in the evening.
There were present: Becky Mattison, Chair
Helen Castles, Vice Chair
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark
David Coppes
Kathy Sferra
Absent: Doug Moffat
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.
Minutes/May 18, 2010 and June 1, 2010
David Coppes made a motion to approve the minutes of May 18,2010 as drafted and amended. Ingeborg Hegemann Clark seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
David Coppes made a motion to approve the minutes of June 1, 2010 as drafted. Helen Castles seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Notice of Intent
65 Kingland Road (U-4 #71)
At 7:35 PM Becky Mattison opened the public hearing for a Notice of Intent filed by Nile Ziemba proposing to refurbish the existing home and install a new septic system and well. The existing septic system will be pumped out and removed. A Title V sewage disposal system will be installed outside of the 100-foot buffer zone. A new artesian well will be drilled and will be outside of the 35-foot No Disturb Zone. Upon completion the lot will be fine graded and landscaped. No work or alterations proposed within the 35-foot No Disturb Zone.
Tom DiPersio, Jr. of Thomas Land Surveyors & Engineering Consultants, Inc. presented the plans to the Commission. He explained that because the lot is very small there are not a lot of options for replacing the existing cesspool on the property. Displaying plans he showed that the lot is very flat and then drops to a steep wooded embankment. He felt that the embankment drop served as a good line for hay bales. He noted that the soils are typical of areas around the lake. There will be excavation for the installation of the new components. They will then backfill, loam and seed to bring the lot back to existing conditions. There is no proposed change in grade after the project is temporarily disturbed. There is no proposed cutting of trees.
The septic system is located outside the buffer zone. The leaching area is outside the buffer zone. There will be some minimal work inside the buffer zone for the installation of the tank. The well is approximately 40 feet from the water and is located on top of the embankment at the flat portion of the site.
DiPersio explained that, except for the well and septic work, all renovations to the house will be within the original footprint. The Board of Health (BOH) has issued a deed restriction requirement on the home that would have it listed as a one-bedroom dwelling so that there’s no potential for expansion in the future.
Helen Castles and Ingeborg Hegemann Clark conducted the site inspection on behalf of the Commission. They questioned whether the owners mentioned wanting to replace stairs leading down the embankment. DiPersio said there was no mention of that. The Commission also specifically questioned the statement that there would be no tree cutting at all. DiPersio said it was not part of the project. The Commission questioned stockpiling of dirt during excavation. DiPersio noted on the plans that any stockpiling should be minimized and temporary. There was only one area that was an option for stockpiling, which he showed on the plan.
The Commission questioned excess water and any sediment-laden water that would occur during well testing. DiPersio said he could delineate an area for that. He said that logistically he couldn’t move that out of the buffer zone. He suggested the Commission write a condition for that and said he was willing to implement a second row of hay bales.
There were no abutters present.
David Coppes made a motion to close the public hearing for a Notice of Intent filed for proposed work at 65 Kingland Road. Helen Castles seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
David Coppes made a motion to approve the Findings and Special Conditions drafted and amended and issue the Order of Conditions for proposed work at 65 Kingland Road. Kathy Sferra seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Notice of Intent
32 Davis Road
At 8:00 PM Becky Mattison opened the public hearing for a Notice of Intent filed by James Halliday. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing retaining wall on the shoreline of Lake Boon with a pre cast block type retaining wall. The existing wall is made out of stone and mortar with a stairway in the middle leading to a 300 sf dock. The retaining wall has withstood many freeze/thaw cycles. A large tree grew into the northern portion of the wall and the wall has slowly leaned west toward lake Boon. A small sinkhole on the southern portion of the wall has become progressively larger. The dock has had several attempts to repair its structural deterioration but also needs to be replaced. A Chapter 91 Waterway License will be sought after the issuance of an Order of Conditions.
Jude Gauvin of GW Site Solutions, Inc. represented Halliday and presented. He explained that on the southern side of the wall there’s a washout area where sand and gravel finds its way into the lake. As he describes it, the wall has been undermined and the back of the wall is sloughing into the water.
Along the northern side, a large pine tree had grown into the wall and has pushed the wall out. Cracks have grown from ¼ inch to 1 1/2 inches over the last 18 months. Gauvin would like to dismantle the existing rock retaining wall and put a large-block wall in its place. He has not yet specifically designed what would be built, but he’d like to build a freestanding wall that will displace wave action and fluctuate with the freeze/thaw cycles. He would plan to put stone behind the new wall for adequate drainage. The product he prefers and has experience with is interlocking, cast concrete block. The large mass (42”x48”) of the blocks sitting atop each other creates the friction needed to hold back the earth. The joint lines allow water to pass through and allow wave action to be absorbed by the wall.
Gauvin presented the technique they would employ to ensure the footing at the bottom of the wall would be stable. He described a pyramid of sand bags that would be built and then wrapped in 20 mm polyethylene. They would then pump the water from that area into a dewatering basin with hay bales around it. That water would dissipate out into the lake after sitting in a sediment basin. The technique described above would allow enough area to dry out along the front of the wall so the wall could be excavated and the footing could be laid on a dry surface. Gauvin has not determined whether they would pour concrete footings or use crushed stone.
The Commission wasn’t convinced that a basin would work. They raised the possibility of a storm occurring. Gauvin referred to the plans to show how the basin design would function. Briefly, he explained it as a detention basin within the dewatering basin. There will be a sock on the end of the discharge hose that will catch a majority of the sediment. There will be extra hay bales and sand bags on site. The Commission questioned the timeframe for the project. Gauvin said the critical part of the project, which will include dewatering, tearing down the old wall and prepping for the footing, would most likely take one week. The following week would include finishing footings and stacking the blocks. He added that the steps would be rebuilt completely as part of the new retaining wall.
The Commission questioned the depth of the water that will be contained by the sandbag/poly structure. Gauvin reported that the water is 2 ft deep and the wall is 7+ feet tall. The Commission was concerned with the angle that he would be cutting to get a safe working angle. The Commission was concerned that when he cuts back what is going to prevent them from having to cut back the other direction? The Commission felt if they cut straight back, as was proposed, they’d have a slope on Halliday’s property but they’d have a vertical wall of soil on the neighbor’s property. Gauvin explained that he wanted to mimic the other side with a poured retaining wall shaped like and “L”. When asked about the final grade at completion of the project, Gauvin told the Commission that the grade would end up
being the same as when he started.
Gauvin explained that despite efforts to save it, a 30-inch pine at the corner of the wall would be removed. The reason this will need to be removed is because when the wall is dismantled, they will need to establish a safe slope to come back and start working on the wall and filling it in sections. Gauvin solicited two opinions from tree experts who visited the site and said there was no way around removing the tree. There is also the fear that if left its roots could push against the newly constructed wall. At this point its roots are 5-6 feet away from the wall. There are two other trees on the right-of way that can stay. There’s a small ornamental tree on the northern side of the wall that will be dug up, held and moved back near the completion of the project.
Gauvin explained how tight the site is and the difficulty in getting the work done. He said it would prove difficult to get materials down to the site. Halliday has gone to the neighbor, [Yvonne] Anna Kane of 34 Davis Road, and requested permission to use a portion of her abutting land to get materials down to the site, which Kane has permitted. The Commission requested that Halliday get proof of that agreement in writing. Gauvin would like to lay down a stone path, use a small Bobcat machine on the top portion of the property and keep a track machine down at the bottom of the property. He explained that there’s a portion of grassy land at the top of the property next to the garage that will be used for stockpiling the block and stone. Only a reasonable number of blocks will be delivered to the site daily due to the limited space. Soil
that has been removed and materials from the old wall will be trucked off daily.
Halliday would like approval to repair the dock. It is currently 300 sf and will remain at 300 s.f. when the repair is complete. The owner would like to use an aluminum material for the dock repair. They will file a Chapter 91 Waterway license in relation to this portion of the project.
Castles and Hegemann Clark agreed the dock and wall needed work. They reiterated the need to get permission from the neighbors in writing to utilize a portion of their property in order to get materials down to the site.
Kathy Sferra made a motion to close the public hearing for a Notice of Intent filed for proposed work 32 Davis Road. David Coppes seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously
Kathy Sferra made a motion to approve the Findings and Special Conditions drafted and to issue the Order of Conditions for proposed work at 32 Davis Road. Helen Castles seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Violation
152 Barton Road/DeWolfe
The Commission sent a letter to Mr. DeWolfe noting that he had conducted work without a permit from the Commission. DeWolfe graded his property and installed stone retaining walls on the steep slope to the lake. Steve Poole will be representing DeWolfe and are aware that the Commission will require an after the fact Notice of Intent.
Steve Poole of Lakeview Engineering was present and represented DeWolfe. He explained that there was an existing railroad-tie and rock retaining wall at the water’s edge that DeWolfe rebuilt with the original stones. The height of the wall remained essentially the same. Up from the water’s edge there were two existing railroad-tie retaining walls that DeWolfe replaced with large stonewalls. An additional stone retaining wall was built in order to further terrace the slope. The wall work was done in 2009. The planting was completed this year; mainly grass in the front yard and between the terraced levels in the backyard. The front yard was graded up before grass was planted. There was only dirt in the front yard and DeWolfe has established a lawn. Sand was brought in for the shore in the Spring of 2010. The sand will
need to be removed and wildlife plantings will be recommended.
The Commission gave advice regarding what to include in the Notice of Intent application. They said he should propose natural vegetative plantings on the terraces and along the shoreline. The Commission questioned possible erosion in an area, near canoe storage, leading down to the lake that did not have a retaining wall. They suggested that the sandy beach be reduced in size. They also warned against the use of grass because of fertilizer requirements. They explained to DeWolfe that although he may vow not to use fertilizer there is the possibility that if he sells his home the next owners may choose to fertilize which would add to the weed growth in the lake.
“Before” photos were very helpful. They showed the railroad tie retaining wall at the shoreline and pre-existing terrace work. They showed an existing stump from a tree that had been removed before DeWolfe purchased the property. DeWolfe stated he did not need to remove any trees and he left the one stump intact. A Notice of Intent for the restoration work will be filed with the Conservation Commission to bring DeWolfe into compliance.
Certificate of Compliance
70 Pine Point Road
Steve Poole requested a Certificate of Compliance for this project. The project involved refacing a wall at the water. Pat Perry has seen the project and found it to be in compliance with the Orders that were issued.
Kathy Sferra made a motion to approve and issue a Certificate of Compliance for Order of Conditions File No. 299-0520 for work satisfactorily completed at 70 Pine Point Road. David Coppes seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Certificate of Compliance
66 Pine Point
Steve Poole requested a Certificate of Compliance for this project. There was some question because the owner did not complete all the work proposed. The owner repaired the failing seawall at the shore of the lake. The work proposed for a second retaining wall with plantings and roof gutters with a drywell will not be done under this filing. The engineer for the project submitted an as-built plan and letter for only the work completed.
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark made a motion to approve and issue a Certificate of Compliance for Order of Conditions File No. 299-0506 for work completed as presented in the as-built plan at 66 Pine Point Road. Kathy Sferra seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Liaison Appointments
Becky Mattison currently serves on the Master Plan Committee (MPC) and Kathy Sferra on the Community Preservation Committee (CPC). The Commission would like to appoint them to act as official liaisons from those committees to the Conservation Commission.
David Coppes moved to appoint Becky Mattison to act as the Conservation Commission’s liaison to the Stow Master Plan Committee and Kathy Sferra to act as liaison to the Community Preservation Committee. Ingeborg Hegemann Clark seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Agriculture Fields/Tuttle Lane
The Commission has not had any interest to farm the field formerly used by Applefield Farm. In discussion with Associate Member and local farm owner Dwight Sipler, it was his recommendation to wait until next year to put the parcel out for bid…too late to plant. In the meantime the Commission is having the field mowed so that it doesn’t become overgrown. Next year Pat Perry will get a list of farmers in Stow and surrounding towns to notify them that we have farmland available for use.
There is a need for an additional pitcher pump at the Tuttle Lane Community Gardens. A new area was dedicated to perennial gardens and without an additional pump there would be no easy access to water. Pat Perry received a quote of $800 to install the new pump.
Kathy Sferra moved to approve spending $800 from the Conservation Fund in order to install a pitcher pump at the town’s perennial gardens. David Coppes seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Agriculture Fields/Arbor Glen
Pat Perry attended a meeting on Monday, June 21st at 10:00 at the Arbor Glen site with Craig Martin, Planning Board Rep and Steve Mong to discuss the agriculture land (Parcel B) that has been deeded to the town. Most of the concerns were not addressed in our Order or the Planning Board’s Special Permit.
Concerns discussed included unscreened topsoil, construction debris and boulders/rocks deposited in various places on the parcel, boundary markers and a vegetative buffer between the agriculture field and homeowners. Most of the concerns were not addressed in our Order or the Planning Board's Special Permit.
Pulte agreed to screen soil they will use on site. Steve Mong offered to absorb some of the cost for screening the remaining soil to remove the large stones and debris so that the soil is suitable for the farm fields. Pat Perry recommended that the Commission consider paying a portion of the cost. A proposal from Pulte will follow and will be discussed before any decisions are made.
Pulte agreed to install boundary markers to denote where Pulte property ends and Conservation land begins.
Center School/Top Soil
The earth removal permit cited locations to stockpile the topsoil to be removed from Center School. The community gardens on Tuttle was one. Helen Castles drafted pertinent comments against accepting the soil at Tuttle Lane, which the Commission took under advisement.
- No information that this soil is free of invasive seeds, will be free of debris and large sized rocks that would be unsuitable for gardening.
- Topsoil from another site is the not the solution for fertility problems. ~~
- The soil genesis or development is an important part of the Conservation Lands natural resources and does not recommend mixing soils. Foreign soil invites invasive species. ~
- Soils are an important part of the lands natural resources just as the wetlands, vegetation, geology, etc. ~~
- Concerned about the precedent this sends for conservation lands as areas of storage or dumping. ~
Pat Perry will inform Craig Martin, Building Inspector, that the topsoil will have to be stockpiled at another location.
Herbicide Treatments/Lake Boon
Perry informed the Commission that Lycott is going forward with another spot treatment and the Commission had been notified. There was a question whether or not the Commission needed to vote to allow the spot treatments to be in compliance with the Order. The Commission agreed that a vote was not necessary since they voted to allow an Extension to the existing Order to allow further chemical treatments to Lake Boon.
Adjournment
Kathy Sferra made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ingeborg Hegemann Clark seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
The Commission adjourned at 9:40 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia R. Perry
SCC Coordinator
Maureen Trunfio
SCC Secretary
| 
