Stow Conservation Commission
Minutes
March 2, 2010
A meeting of the Stow Conservation Commission was held at the Stow Town Building, 380 Great Road, Stow, Massachusetts, on March 2, 2010 at 7:30 in the evening.
There were present: David Coppes, Chair
Becky Mattison, Vice Chair
Kathy Sferra
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark
Doug Moffat
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/February 2, 2010
Doug Moffat made a motion to approve the minutes of February 2, 2010 as drafted and amended. Kathy Sferra seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Request for Determination of Applicability
403 Great Road (U-9 #44)
AT 7:45 PM, David Coppes opened the public hearing for a Request for Determination of Applicability filed by the Stow Elementary School Building Committee for the installation of a water supply test well and associated pump tests at 403 Great Road. David Coppes reviewed the application on behalf of the Commission.
Jamie Warren of Symmes Maini & McKee Associates (SMMA) introduced Lorraine Finnegan, also of SMMA, who will serve as the Project Manager for the Pompositticut/Center School addition and renovation project.
The applicant is proposing the installation of a water supply test well and associated pump tests in conjunction with the DEP Source Approval process for the Project. The applicant received DEP approval of the proposed well location & pump test requirements on February 16, 2010. The well is located at the northern edge of the existing ball fields. The test well & pump tests consist of the well installation; pre-pumping test data collection; pumping tests & data collection; water quality testing; and data evaluation. The well will be a bedrock well approximately 400 feet deep installed by a Mass registered well driller. After completion of the drilling operation the well will be fitted with temporary pumps to perform the required pump tests. The well drilling operation and pump tests will result
in generation of groundwater discharge. The well drilling operation typically results in sediment laden water and therefore SMMA is proposing to pump this water to a covered, 30 yd roll off dumpster and discharge it off-site. After completion of the drilling operation a Step Drawdown & 48 hour pump test will be performed to determine the final yield of the well. Groundwater from the pump tests will be discharged to a temporary plywood splash pad surrounded by haybales. It will be located approximately 200 feet from the well to minimize impact to the well test operation. Water discharged from the pump test will be clean (at potable levels) and will not pose a risk to surrounding resource areas. SMMA is also proposing to surround the well drilling operation with haybales to provide additional protection to the resource areas during the drilling operation. In total the test well installation & pump tests will take approximately 10-14
days to complete, depending on field conditions encountered.
They have coordinated with Ogden Wells & Sanborn Head & Associates who will be drilling the well and performing the pump test respectively and have requested that all water from the drilling & pump test be collected, contained and disposed of off-site to minimize the potential for disturbance to the wetlands.
The Commission expressed some concern that at a flow rate of 5-10 gallons per minute, the pond could be impacted and additional erosion controls or a check dam should be installed. Warren assured the Commission that hay bales and all means available would be utilized to stop potential flow. A suggestion was made by the Commission to provide a second line of defense by providing a silt fabric fence at the base of the slope along the chain link fence. Warren stated that a well consultant would be on site to monitor the test. There was also assurance that they would make efforts to protect the ball field as large trucks bring and remove the water-filled dumpsters. Warren addressed the question whether negotiations were underway with Assabet Valley Water to, potentially; provide water to the school building. His understanding,
at present, was that the water company was not an option.
The Commission opened the floor to questions from attendees. Warren Anderson of 41 Packard Road questioned the location of the well and whether the wetlands could handle any additional runoff that may occur. Warren showed and explained the location of the well on the plan displayed and explained their plans to properly handle the runoff.
Kathy Sferra made a motion to close the public hearing for a Request for Determination of Applicability for a test well and associated pumping at 403 Great Road. Kathy Tarbi seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
The Commission discussed issuing a negative determination contingent upon the following conditions: (1) Removal of the water containment dumpster shall be conducted to minimize rutting or unstable conditions within area subject to the SCC’s jurisdiction. (2) Secondary erosion controls shall be installed between the pump test splash pad and the pond.
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark made a motion to issue a negative Determination of Applicability with conditions for the test wells at 403 Great Road. Kathy Sferra seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Notice of Intent
Stow Elementary School Renovation
403 Great Road (U-9 #44)
At 8:00 PM David Coppes opened the public hearing for a Notice of Intent application filed by the Stow Elementary School Building Committee for an addition and renovation to the existing Center School at 403 Great Road. Ingeborg Hegemann Clark and Helen Castles reviewed the plans on behalf of the Commission.
Jamie Warren of Symmes Maini and & McKee Associates (SMMA) presented plans for the Pompo/Center School addition and renovation project with regard to the Wetland Protection Act, Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 131, Section 40 and the Town of Stow Wetland Protection Bylaws. Warren explained that his firm is working from a Conservation Commission approved Order of Resource Area Delineation and that they will be working from that established and approved wetland line.
The project will combine the educational programs of the Pompositticut Elementary School, Center Elementary School, and the Stow Pre-K program into a single facility at the Center School site. The new addition will include a 2-story classroom wing with single-story community spaces including a new gymnasium/cafeteria, library and administration spaces. Site improvements will include parking for approximately 100 vehicles, separate parent and bus driveways and construction of new utilities and drainage systems to serve the building. The proposed project will total 98,000 square feet. The baseball field will be scaled down to a softball field.
The first parking lot for the site, off Great Road, replicates existing conditions. This area will also serve as the parent drop off. The new design will segregate parent and bus drop off. There will be a secondary entrance to the site off Hartley Road, which is where bus drop off will occur. There will be an additional paved parking lot adjacent to the bus drop off location. Additional paving is required for a fire lane around the rear of the site with a service area for unloading into the building and dumpster locations. A paved ball court will also be built.
Warren gave a brief utility summary explaining that the existing well, located in the basement of the existing school, will be decommissioned. A proposed new drinking water supply well will be located at the rear of the site. There is an existing subsurface wastewater disposal system that will be gutted and reconstructed at the same general location on Hartley Road. Utilities to the building will enter from Great Road including gas, cable, telephone and electric.
Warren explained that storm water management would be accomplished, in terms of mitigation, through two major subsurface infiltration systems. Run off will then enter the pond and ultimately drain under Great Road to a larger wetland system. SMMA stated that the stormwater management systems shall be designed so that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development peak discharge rates and are in compliance with Stow’s Zoning Bylaws.
There is an increase in impervious surface associated with the larger building footprint and the additional parking area. There was some question as to whether the new design can handle the extra runoff that will be generated by additional paving. Warren demonstrated that the increase would be mitigated through the use of BMPs.
Porous pavement is proposed for the project. This will be paid for by a grant from The Organization of the Assabet River to promote ground water infiltration. The goal will be to put as much water as possible back into the ground. The design mitigates not only peak rate of runoff but also peak rate of volume for up to a 100-year storm event. That design was reviewed as part of the Planning Board process. We have a peer review of the design showing compliance with the ten standards. There was one concern about raising the bottom of this system up slightly to give it a comfort level being above the high ground water. We’ve done a preliminary and accomplished that. There will be a revised drainage plan showing a slight change to these. Right now they are
four-feet deep and we will change them to three-feet in depth. We will need to increase the footprint slightly so that they can handle the same volume. These infiltration systems are manufactured by Rainstore 3 and resemble stacked egg crates made from modular, molded plastic. The reason they’re used in this application is because of the mitigation of volume, which is very restrictive. These units provide 94% void volume.
The project will be built in two primary phases. Phase I of the project will be the construction of the building addition. With the other end of building being occupied, this phase must be done first. This first phase also includes building the bus loop, the wastewater treatment area and the rear parking lot.
Upon completion of the Phase I addition to the building, it will be occupied by the students and Phase II can begin with the abatement and renovation of the original section of the school. Phase II includes the paving of the front parking lot.
The storm water design is sensitive to these plans and takes into consideration that during Phase I a system must be functional in all of Phase I and after completion of that phase. The larger infiltration system to the rear will mitigate the entire new area.
In Phase II runoff will be mitigated through the use of porous pavement and a smaller infiltration area that exists as a separate unit on the east side of the building.
The Commission questioned that the plans indicate that some of the areas in the test pit area of the bus loop indicated bedrock and that some of the bedrock is above elevation and that, even in a slow-draining situation, might present problems.
There’s a transition between the glacial till soil near Hartley Road, the upper elevation of the site, and then transitions down to sand and gravel within the lower portion of the site. The storm water was designed to locate everything to the lower level of the site where there is good soil. There is about one thousand yards of high bedrock on site. That will be addressed with a blasting plan; mainly trench blasting to get the footings in and for any deep utilities such as water lines. There will be a detail of that blasting plan that will be a requirement of the contractor including pre-blast surveys and they will need to follow all applicable state and federal guidelines.
The Commission questioned the maintenance of the porous pavement and surface drainage
Warren explained the surface drainage system starting from Hartley Road and working its way down the to the school site. He prefaced his explanation by stating that there will be an under slab drain crossing that will run through the building. This design is necessary because of the inability to drain the lower portion of the bus loop around the building and provide positive drainage on that drain line. SMMA was concerned about sediment build up and found the under slab design to be the best approach in addressing the issue.
Water will be captured through surface drains, catch basins, manholes, through a storm center treatment unit for TSS removal and direct connection through bypassing the infiltration and connecting to our main connection point, which is the existing link between the upper and lower pond.
Soil in the upper parking lot area proved not to be conducive to porous pavement. The fire lane will be paved with the porous substance and used for foot traffic only except in emergencies. Planning Board has requested gates be installed to restrict vehicular traffic. The building will go direct discharge into the infiltration areas with an overflow that would connect to the main drain connection. Prior to any discharge to outlet device from the parking lots, surface structures, catch basins, etc. water would filter through a pre-treatment storm center. With this design we’re getting deep sump catch basin treatment and then getting the additional storm center treatment prior to discharge. Which those by themselves meet the 80% TSS requirement.
William Spratt, Director of Facilities from Nashoba Regional School District, voiced concerns regarding maintenance of porous pavement. The question was raised whether the District would need to purchase a sweeper recommended for porus pavement if not available at the Stow Highway Department or rent equipment required for the twice annual cleaning of the asphalt. Warren explained that Stow’s Building Inspector, Craig Martin, is overseeing the OAR Grant and would have information regarding the availability of equipment to clean the porous pavement. Spratt stated he would use best management practices and asked the Commission for flexibility in expectations while becoming acquainted with the unfamiliar surface material and maintenance of the drainage system.
The Commission discussed the proper procedure with regard to a properly written maintenance plan for the property and how to determine a reasonable time frame to require reporting. The Commission agreed that during the first few years of maintenance it would be hard to determine how often a report would be required stating that if, for example, a report were required every week and nothing changed, the school district would be spending time and money and inefficiently. It was noted that at the issuance of the Commission’s decision, a special condition regarding maintenance would be included.
The Commission noted that the system as proposed cannot function properly and will fail if not regularly inspected by trained personnel. They understand that a weekly inspection may not be needed but the system will fail if not properly maintained and would be very expensive to replace.
The Commission questioned the zone around the well. Warren explained that this is a Zone 1 non-community well, which is a direct relationship to wastewater Title V design flow. SMMA requested a yield of 7,000 gallons per day. They presently have a wastewater design flow for 5,500 gallons a day. They have designed expansion capabilities to accommodate another 100 students. They have a yield in the 6,000-gallon range.
The storm drain and catch basins will be protected during construction and a requirement that at project completion the contractor will go in and complete a final cleaning. That will be written into the documents for the contractors. Although if it’s not in this set of plans, it usually shows up on the site preparation drawings. The Commission will write a requirement into their Orders.
Warren noted that there would be a project manager on site to make sure that the stormceptors are installed properly. Clark stated that the manufacturer should oversee the installation. The Commission will want the manufacturer to sign off on the stormceptors and this requirement will be included in the Orders.
Dust control is a responsibility of the contractor. It may not have been noted in the site plan but is generally written into the general conditions of the construction documents. Water must be on site to keep dust down. Warren said he could make that information available to the Commission.
Planning Board’s consultant made a suggestion on the affects of the swale from the parking loop area and existing drainage from the Hartley Road area. They asked that it be routed in a more general direction of the natural swale and Warren said that they would redesign that and soften up that turn so that there’s not a rush of water headed in the direction of the building. Warren noted that there will be minor updates to these plans in terms of the peer review and Planning Board comments that they received last week. There will not be substantial site plan changes.
The Commission discussed the procedure for amending the Operation & Maintenance Plan if necessary after one year and including in the Order of Conditions for the project. Bill Spratt stated that the porus pavement is new and no one knows how it will react. Spratt is in support of revisiting the plan.
On-site wetland resource areas include Bank, Land Under Water and Bordering Vegetated Wetlands. There is an associated 35 foot No Disturb Zone, 100 foot Buffer Zone and 200 foot Pond Buffer Zone. There is no work proposed within the limits of Bank on the site associated with the intermittent stream that extends behind the tennis courts and no work proposed for Land Under Water associated with the clay pond. SMMA is requesting a waiver for work proposed in the 35 foot No Disturb Zone in compliance with the Town of Stow’s Wetland Protection Bylaw for construction of the classroom wing and minor construction in previously developed areas of the site. Siltation barriers will be installed to prevent impact to the wetland resource areas and to demarcate the limit of work. Catch basin inlets, existing and new
will be protected from sediment inflow during construction through the use of catch basin filters.
There was general discussion of the placement of the school building, fire lane, playground. Warren explained that during planning stages the school was moved as far forward from the wetlands as possible and space was extremely limited in placement of other items, such as the playground. The idea of rotating the playground 90 degrees was not an option because of a proposal to have a garden area for the students. The proposed playground area had been previously disturbed by the tennis courts. The vegetation line behind the softball field will not be touched.
The Commission noted that the Planning Board commented on the planting plan. Warren mentioned that at the preliminary Planning Board meetings the planting plan for the site was not discussed but said there would be more dialog regarding native plantings. Ingeborg Hegemann Clark offered to submit comments on the planting plan to SMMA and the Planning Board.
Audience member, Brenda Magazu, 2 Crescent St., mentioned the apple trees on site should be saved. Lori Clark, representing the Planning Board, stated that everyone was welcome to the meeting planned on March 4, 2010, which would address general comments.
Janet Stiles, 58 Pine Point Road, questioned how many feet of restriction around the drainage swale near tennis courts and the path that the students use to cut through to Hale School. The Commission explained the Commission’s jurisdiction and regulations surrounding the 100-foot buffer zone and the 35-foot buffer zone. Stiles also questioned parking on top of the elevated leaching field. Warren answered by saying that because it is a raised system with a retaining wall; we would not want to do anything that might compromise the system. It would not be recommended to suggest parking on top of the leaching field. Stiles questioned the bedrock blasting technique. Warren explained that the blasting would be done in a controlled fashion. The Commission further explained the trench technique that includes backfilling, compacting and
the use of plants on top. There was the question raised as to why there was such a large footprint for the school instead of building a two-story school. Warren stated that the proposed buildings could have a second story addition to accommodate future needs with no further site expansion.
Warren Anderson, 41 Packard Road, wondered if there would be any work done to the existing concrete box culvert at present between the ponds. Warren explained that SMMA is planning on picking that box culvert up and replacing it with hard piping. The Commission asked if they were replacing it up to the pond itself, and Warren replied by explaining that they’re intercepting it where their construction is and replacing it.
Anderson questioned where the roof water would drain and would that water be tied into the drainage system. The answer was that all water would discharge to the large draining system. At present it discharges now directly into the ground and then into a series of catch basins that go around the building. We’re going to pick that up as well and dump that into the ground with an over flow that connects to the drain.
Anderson had a question of the big pond handling the volume. Warren explained that the mitigation would handle that volume before it reaches the pond. He assured Anderson that the Town of Stow Bylaws controls the rate of runoff, which may not be increased at all. He explained that the system could handle up to six and one-half inches of rain in a 24-hour period.
The Commission suggested continuing the public hearing to be able to receive further testimony and the revised plans based on comments from the Planning Board from their public hearing on March 4th. The Commission will have the ability to close the public hearing and issue a decision at their meeting on March 16th. All were in agreement.
Kathy Sferra made a motion to continue the public hearing for the Center School renovation at 403 Great Road to March 16, 2010 at 8:15 PM. Kathy Tarbi seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Extension Request
Arbor Glen
The Commission received a request from Michael Rosati, Marchionda & Associates for a one-year extension to the Orders of Conditions for Arbor Glen. The Commission issued an extension last year, which will expire on April 11, 2010. Currently construction has begun on all but two buildings. Pulte plans to have the construction completed by the end of 2010.
The Commission suggested that Pat Perry request verification that the vernal pool has been certified and documentation sent to National Heritage & Endangered Species Program. Arbor Glen will not be able to attain a Certificate of Compliance until this has been completed.
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark made a motion to issue a one-year extension to Pulte Homes of New England for Order of Conditions File No. 299-0437 for Arbor Glen Active Adult Community on Hudson Road and request confirmation that the vernal pool has been certified. Kathy Sferra seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Certificate of Compliance
356 Great Road
Due to snow conditions the Commission had not been able to determine if the site was stabilized in compliance with the Order of Conditions. During a site inspection, David Coppes noted that he viewed an area that he questioned. Steve Poole, the engineer for the project, submitted photos and a narrative on how the area in question was repaired once the snow had melted. David Coppes revisited the site and found it to be in compliance and submitted photos of the area in question also.
David Coppes made a motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance for work satisfactorily completed at 356 Great Road in compliance with Order of Conditions File No. 299-0485. Kathy Sferra seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Zoning Board of Appeals
Special Permit/Center School
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing for a Special Permit request from the Stow Elementary School Building Committee for a reduction in parking from the 149-space requirement and to allow construction of a building within the Flood Plain/Wetlands District in connection with the proposed addition and renovation of the existing Center School at 403 Great Road. The Zoning Board of Appeals requested comments from the Commission.
The Commission had no issue with regards to the drainage and maintenance as proposed for the project and supports the reduction in parking.
First Parish Church Property Purchase
The First Parish Church of Stow would like to purchase a small triangle of land that abuts their property. The Commission had no objection to the purchase of the land assuming it is located on the East side of their property.
Agricultural License
Tuttle Lane
Pat Perry will prepare an article for the newspaper regarding the availability of agriculture land on Tuttle Lane.
SUASCO/CISMA Early Detection Project
Ted Elliman of the New England Wildflower Society contacted the Commission to summarize the SUASCO-CISMA early detection invasive species project. They plan to hold four training sessions in the watershed in order to recruit and train volunteers to survey for early detection species in each of the watershed towns. They plan to hold the training sessions in late May/early June on weekends, and to have the surveys continue through the summer and early fall. The purpose is to identify early detection species throughout the watershed and develop a prioritized list of populations for management.
CISMA is asking each town to identify priority, high-quality natural areas within the town and the volunteers would then survey for the early detection species in those areas. CISMA will recruit volunteers from their own volunteer sources and from the towns. They hope to build a good network of local volunteers.
The training sessions will teach identification and ecology of the species, documentation and mapping methods, and survey techniques. They will also discuss impacts and management. They also plan to start controlling some of the populations within this field season. CISMA included a list of early detection species taken from the Mass Invasive Plant Advisory Group list.
The Commission mentioned including conservation lands along the river, Flagg Hill and Marble Hill as problematic areas. It was also mentioned that all of our large parcels, such as Heath Hen and Captain Sargent, should to be listed as areas with high density of invasives. The list sent from the agency mentioned was herbaceous; not the invasives that most are familiar with. The Commission requested that the Stow Conservation Trust be asked if they would like some of their conservation lands included.
425 Taylor Road/Enforcement Issues
Pat Perry informed the Commission that she received a report by email that another tree was cut down in northeast corner of property at 425 Taylor Road. A reply from DEP stated that a landowner could cut trees for their own use as an exempt activity as long as it meets the exemption criteria. The trees can even be in the wetland. As long as it’s less then 10 cords & 50% of the basal area of the trees are left. However if he drove in there and pulled the stump the Commission should be concerned. See 10.04 Agriculture #5 cutting trees for own use.
Athens Lane/Enforcement Issues
Pat Perry had contacted Stamsky & McNary who would only tell her that they have a contract with Mr. Quirk to conduct the survey. Dr. Carr states that he has the plans and will get back to me regarding when the Commission can expect a Notice of Intent application for the restoration work. Dr. Carr will be informed that the Commission will expect a reply by March 16th.
The Commission received a report that Athens Lane was being paved. Pat Perry inspected the site on March 2nd and found that the road had been graded and some loose asphalt had been distributed on a portion of the road crossing the wetland.
The Commission commented on the fact that Mr. Quirk had been allowed to fill potholes in the past, but he was informed that if he intends to do extensive work a permit is required.
Lake Boon Drawdown
DEP granted another extension to the Lake Boon Commission appeal for a Superceding Order to May 3, 2010.
Corzine Property
The Commission was given an information packet regarding the Corzine property. The Stow Conservation Trust (SCT) is scheduled to meet with the Commission on March 16, 2010. SCT would like the Commission to purchase a Conservation Restriction on this property. The SCT has already applied to the Community Preservation Committee and looking for support from the Conservation Commission.
Adjournment
Becky Mattison made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 PM. Ingeborg Hegemann Clark seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
The Commission adjourned at 9:45 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia R. Perry
SCC Coordinator
Maureen Trunfio
SCC Secretary
| 
