Stow Conservation Commission
Minutes
May 18, 2010
A meeting of the Stow Conservation Commission was held at the Stow Town Building, 380 Great Road, Stow, Massachusetts, on May 18, 2010 at 7:30 in the evening.
There were present: David Coppes, Chair
Becky Mattison, Vice Chair
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark
Doug Moffat
Kathy Sferra
Absent: Kathy Tarbi
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/April 20, 2010
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark made a motion to approve the minutes of April 20, 2010 as drafted and amended. Becky Mattison seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Notice of Intent
Parcel K Randall Road (R-11 #37B)
At 7:45 PM David Coppes opened the public hearing continued from April 20,2010 for a Notice of Intent for a project at Parcel K Randall Road. The applicant is proposing construction of a driveway involving a wetland crossing. Included will be access for electric, telephone and cable utilities for the purpose of accessing the southern uplands of the site for construction of a single-family dwelling. Ingeborg Hegemann Clark and associate member Helen Castles conducted the site inspection on behalf of the Commission. Scott Hayes, FORESITE Engineering, represented the applicant.
During the site visit, Hegemann Clark and Castles noted an additional wetland area that had not been flagged on the property and also requested changes to the eastern portion of the wetlands that had been delineated. In addition, Hegemann Clark and Castles noted that wetlands on the adjacent parcel to the south were close enough to the property line to result in extension of buffer zone onto the Parcel K. Scott Hayes presented revised plans for the proposed driveway crossing. Hayes stated that as a result of the heavy rains of March 2010, an additional area of wetland was noted, an area that was labeled “extreme limit of flooding” and found the need to change the original driveway plan so that it would avoid this area. Hayes found the best redesign plan would be to share a portion of an existing driveway with 24 Randall
Road (lot 2A). An easement is already in place. The new section of the proposed driveway was moved upland
8 feet from where it was proposed on the original plan. Hayes located all large trees in the area where the driveway is proposed as well as the replication area. Hegemann Clark observed the trees within the proposed driveway location and the replication area at a second site visit to check the revised wetland flags on May 18. These trees were taken into consideration and will be avoided during construction, minimizing clearing that will need to be done. The Commission confirmed that Hayes would be working in the narrowest part of the crossing.
Hayes explained that originally the proposed driveway was located on the confluence of a few of seeps and now it’s slightly up from that. He explained that nothing flows really heavily or in a major channel. He noted that there were a number of little seeps that come together and then, at one point, starts to form the beginnings of a brook which then fades out into a big wetland area.
The replication area was discussed. Some of the mature trees include a 30-inch Maple, an 18-inch pine and several other large trees. Scott Goddard of Carr Research was present and added to the discussion of the site work. The Commission questioned the size of the replication area and Goddard said it would be 112%. The Commission asked whether the replication area would be graded down in elevation. Goddard offered details on how replication in that area will occur. He stated that the replication area will be graded down in elevation but doesn’t need to be taken down very much. The grade in the area is very gentle, rises up out of the wetlands and then really starts to climb. Goddard said taking the grade down 18-24 inches will be adequate. Organic matter from the crossing will be taken and used in the replication areas. Hayes
states that they’re going to leave the areas around the trees undisturbed. Goddard explained that a hummock and mound system will be used carefully around the root systems. Hayes added that it will vary from tree to tree, but the measure will be approximately ten feet around each tree.
Scott Goddard flagged the new wetland area observed by Hegemann Clark and Castles and labeled the area extreme limit of flooding. Goddard and Hayes believed the area was isolated and too small to be considered isolated Land Subject to Flooding under the MA Wetlands Protection Act. The Commission debated whether they agreed with the assessment that the area is isolated from the adjacent wetlands, in that someone had recently created an opening in the stone wall to the south of the area, allowing the area to flow southerly toward the adjacent wetland. The Commission is not certain whether the area actually does connect to those bordering wetlands. The Commission would like to have written into the Orders that the area has been delineated, but the Commission does not necessarily agree with the applicant’s representation that it is
isolated and therefore not Bordering Vegetated Wetland.
The Commission raised the point that there is always the possibility that construction would be delayed and work might not start until the fall. A wet fall could equate to drainage problems during construction. The plans didn’t talk in detail about the construction of the open bottom box system that will be installed at the crossing. The technology should encompass some way of redirecting flow around the construction site. The Order should also take into consideration the possibility of a thunderstorm with flow. Goddard said of the area, “It’s seeping but it’s not flowing like it was three or four weeks ago, and every year it dries up.” The Commission talked about conditioning the Order to include a statement that the driveway may not be constructed during certain times of the year due to possible
precipitation. Goddard talked about a technique they’ve used where they would dig a sump hole, put a pump in it and then run a hose away from the work area. This would work as long as the capacity of the pump exceeds the flow. The Commission stated that perhaps it should be conditioned that in the event of heavy precipitation, construction should stop.
The replication area was discussed in the field on the site visit. The Commission questioned the methodology. Goddard said he would prefer permission to use a 6-foot rubber track vehicle. The Commission also questioned whether the size of the crossing of the open-bottom box could be minimized. Hayes explained that they will only be excavating an area two-feet wide underneath each supported side on which the box will sit. The entire area underneath the box will not be excavated.
Because the local bylaw requires a public benefit whenever work is proposed within the 35 foot no disturb zone, the Commission suggested writing a condition with regard to preserving the open land near the wetlands after the home is built and preventing further alterations with a deed restriction or conservation restriction. Goddard suggested cleaning up an area where trash had been dumped many years ago. Large trash has been removed but some debris remains in the soil. This also shows a public benefit for work within the 35-foot No Disturb Zone.
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark made a motion to close the public hearing for a Notice of Intent filed for proposed work at Parcel K Randall Road. Becky Mattison seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Kathy Sferra made a motion to approve the Findings and Special Conditions drafted and issue the Order of Conditions for proposed work at Parcel K Randall Road. Becky Mattison seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously
Notice of Intent
70 Pine Point Road (U-1 #25)
At 8:28 PM David Coppes opened the public hearing for a Notice of Intent filed by Richard Bleau. The applicant is proposing to repair an existing seawall. Pat Perry conducted the site inspection on behalf of the Commission.
Steve Poole, Lakeview Engineering Associates, presented the plans to repair an existing seawall. He added that this will be, primarily, the same project as was recently approved at 66 Pine Point; two houses over from 70 Pine Point. Poole explained that the wall is being eroded at the bottom by wave actio. When the original wall was poured the technique was concrete poured over the original stones.
The project, as designed, includes the repair of the existing retaining wall to correct defects in the integrity and appearance of the wall. The repairing of the wall will require the temporary installation of an erosion control barrier and concrete forms in the lake itself to allow for the work area to be dewatered and the wall work to proceed in the dry. Dewatering discharges will be made to a temporary “Birds Nest” type-dewatering basin to prevent silt from being discharged to the lake. Once work area is dewatered, continuing pumping of groundwater will be required to maintain the work area in a dry condition. The project should take 4-5 days and the applicant would like to begin work soon after Memorial Day. There will be no work done on the shoreline. A DEP file number had not been assigned as yet; therefore, the public
hearing must be continued.
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark made a motion to continue the public hearing for a Notice of Intent filed for proposed seawall work at 70 Pine Point Road to June 1, 2010 at a time to be determined. Kathy Sferra seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Notice of Intent
Athens & Goshen Lane (R-2 #4 & 5)
At 8:37 PM, David Coppes reopened the public hearing 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 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. The public hearing was continued to facilitate a site meeting. The site visit occurred on May 2, 2010. Those attending were Kathy Sferra, Ingeborg Hegemann Clark, Becky Mattison, Dr. Jerome Carr.
Dr. Carr presented on behalf of Robert Quirk.
Area One:
The discussion began with debate regarding soil samples from the area upgradient from the road. The Commission claimed that soil samples proved the area was a wetland. Dr. Carr claims the area is not. The Commission explained that our town bylaws have a different definition of BVW so that the area may be a BVW. The Commission said that during the site visit Dr. Carr dried soil samples in a tissue. The Commission did not agree with methodology used by Carr during the site visit in terms of soil testing. The Commission decided that they would assume the area is a wetland. The Commission reminded Carr that they had requested a calculation of the tributary watershed to assist in determining the flood storage capacity of the isolated area. The Commission would like to make known that in the future, should there be any changes, everyone will
be on notice that this Commission values this area as a wetland resource area.
With regard to Area One Carr said, “Commission said it might be an isolated wetland, it might be jurisdictional. The area had some wetland vegetation and also had some upland vegetation. I said it was stunted. And I said that all upland vegetation outside of it precluded it from becoming a BVW. If it was not a BVW it might be an isolated wetland or it might not be.”
Hegemann Clark countered, “ The Stow bylaw has a different definition of isolated land.” She also reminded him that they had a dispute on the soil: whether it was wetland or upland soil and whether it had hydric characteristics. During the site visit she addressed Carr, “You and I disagreed on the color of the soil. What was your reasoning?”
Carr said, “When you look at the new third edition of the Hydric Soil Book of New England it says that if you have a subsoil with a color of 4 or less it should be considered a hydric soil and it has to have a chroma of 1 or less.”
Hegemann Clark replied, “Okay, but you dried the soil.”
Carr, “Yes. It was saturated: you’re supposed to look at the soil damp.”
Hegemann Clark replied, “But not dry. You dried them and you also rolled them around in a tissue when you’re supposed to have the fresh soil face. You’re supposed to keep them moist. I reviewed the Third Edition of the New England Water Pollution Control Book also. In the 2004 Edition there’s a supplement, and in that supplement it tells you how to evaluate your soils. So I think we had a disagreement I had a lower chroma color and you had a lighter chroma and when I pointed that out to you, you [Carr] said that’s because my soil sample was moist and yours was dry.”
Carr said, “It was saturated. You need to dry it so that it is damp, not saturated. Doesn’t matter; if it was completely dry you could just throw water on it.”
Hegemann Clark, “But you also didn’t have a fresh face. I think your methodology is incorrect, and so I don’t think this Commission if going to take your position as an accurate representation of colors of the soils. We also looked at evidence of mottles and concentrations, and do you recall your thoughts?”
Carr stated, “Mottles don’t count anymore.”
Hegemann Clark explained, “The term motteling may not be used anymore, but it is used as the evidence of oxidation and is very valuable. One looks for evidence of concentrations and depletions and we saw evidence of both of those in the soil. You cannot say that anywhere in any document that it says that the evidence of redoxymorphic features no longer counts. So I think, once again, your information and your approach to delineation is incorrect. I think that it’s just a point of fact, and I think that the work you do in this town will be reviewed very strictly from this point on.”
What we will do is just make an assumption when we issue that this area is identified as an isolated wetland, at a minimum. The other thing we asked at the site visit, and I know that you’re not the engineering firm, but we asked that there be some calculation of tributary watershed area.”
Commission explained that the road area was a mud hole, was made into a roadway and now the condition will state that it is to be allowed to go back to natural vegetation. I should be be blocked off and not used. The condition must state that this road was originally constructed without permission and it may not be used in the future as a road. The Commission instructed Dr. Carr that this should be notated on revised plans.
Hegemann Clark concluded by saying, “In the future, should there be any changes, everyone will be on notice that this Commission values this area as a wetland resource area.”
The Commission explained the area that was made into a roadway was, at times, a mud hole. The condition in the Order will state that it be allowed to go back to natural vegetation. The road should be blocked off and not used. The condition must state that this road was originally constructed without permission and it may not be used in the future as a road. The Commission instructed Dr. Carr that this should be notated on revised plans.
Dr. Carr addressed the issue of placing a blockade where loads were being dumped. He said they will place a line of logs to prevent trucks from pulling up and dumping.
Area 2
Additional material has recently been pushed over the bank in this area according to Dr. Carr. It will be pulled back with an excavator or, preferably, a dragline. The Commission, again, suggested creating a physical barrier in this area with either rocks or low fencing to prevent further incursions into the wetland. The Commission said they must consider requiring all materials that have been dumped within the 100-foot buffer to be removed and legally disposed. At minimum, the material should be moved out of the buffer zone. The Board of Health may need to be involved with this issue.
Area 3
Plans presented by Dr. Carr noted that the area of fill that will be removed and pulled back out of the 50 foot buffer. The Commission again suggested creating a physical barrier in this area with either rocks or low fencing to prevent further incursions into the wetland. It was noticed that additional trash has been deposited in the buffer zone near the road. Also, the piles of scrap metal and debris on the other side of the road, but within the 100 foot buffer, have been significantly increased since the last site visit. The Commission stated they would require that the material be removed and disposed of properly.
Area 4
It was strongly recommended that the applicant eliminate the retention basin construction and grading proposed for this area in favor of a much “lighter” approach that would use swales to direct water off the steepest part of the road. Water would collect in an existing depression. There is a cow path that could be augmented slightly – as it is already functioning as a swale, directing water toward the depression. The idea of a berm or water bars were mentioned as a suggestion. Despite the recent heavy rains, the Commission saw no evidence of erosion and sedimentation to the wetland from the steep slope. This could change if there is significant use of this roadway.
Area 5
Dr. Carr pointed out several areas where the recent floodwaters overtopped the roadway. In several areas there is a fan of siltation in the wetlands that will be removed by hand. The applicant desires to use stones to help stabilize the roadbed. The Commission indicated that they thought this would be acceptable, provided the stones were kept close to the roadway and mirrored the existing stone work in this area. Carr mentioned building a stone wall all the way down. The Commission did not agree with that idea, but said if he plans to do that, the Commission must see plans indicating how wide, how long,
where it would be located, etc. Also, if a wall were approved it should be limited to the area only where erosion occurs. The Commission did want it made clear that Carr must repair the roadway along the shoulder that had collapsed.
Richard Bonczek, 217 Hudson Road, stood and commented that he’s lived as an abutter for 30 years and has seen the bridge wash out twice.
The Commission instructed Carr to remove sticks and other debris that have gotten jammed in the culvert. All of this work will be done by hand. The Commission suggested a maintenance plan that would prevent culvert problems in the future.
The Commission requested that the following revisions to the Plan. At the request of Dr. Carr, the requested revisions will be documented in letter form and sent to Dr. Carr.
- It should be noted on the Plan who delineated the wetlands and the date of the delineation.
- Area 1: Access road built without a permit from the Commission shall be marked “to be abandoned.” Wetland flags are to be shown on the plan for isolated wetland near the access road. Provide calculations to determine whether this area qualifies as Isolated Land Subject to Flooding.
- Area 2: Revise Note 5 to provide a clear description of what is being proposed- and making clear that no filling or disturbance of land is permitted between the boulders and the wetland.
- Area 3: Describe how large pile of trash/debris will be removed from the 100’ buffer zone using proper disposal methods in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.
- Area 4: Add location of cow path and transfer detail of the water bar to revised Plans.
- Area 5: Note that all work shall be done by hand. Add trash rack to Plan and include detail on repairs to the edges of the road (Athens Street) where breaches occurred.
Kathy Sferra made a motion to continue the public hearing for a Notice of Intent filed for proposed restoration work at Athens and Goshen Lane to June 1, 2010 at a time to be determined. Doug Moffat seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Certificate of Compliance
33 Gleasondale Road
Steve Poole has requested a Certificate of Compliance on behalf of the homeowner for the installation of a new Title V septic system and removal of existing cesspool. Becky Mattison conducted the inspection on behalf of the Commission and found the area to be in compliance.
Kathy Sferra made a motion approve and issue a Certificate of Compliance for 33 Gleasondale Road. Doug Moffat seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Forest Cutting Permit
Tuttle Lane/South Acton Road
Owner George Morey, 49 Ridge Road, Lexington, MA, has permitted Bob Estes to cut trees in an area under control by the State’s Forest Cutting Plan and a Notice of Intent under M.G. L. Chapter 132, The Forest Cutting Practices Act, 304 CMR 11.00.
Pat Perry spoke with Laura Dooley, the state’s DCR forestry representative, and gave approval and confirmed that Morey does indeed have a Forestry Plan in place. She stated that cutting is supposed to commence only during frozen conditions.
The Commission noticed that there were no stream crossings, no wetland crossings and no harvesting in wetlands indicated on the permit.
Violation Issues
152 Barton Road & 218 Sudbury Road
152 Barton Road: It was discovered that extensive upgrades such as rock walls and the addition of a sand beach had occurred at 152 Barton Road. After research it was discovered that no RDA’s or NOI’s were filed. Pat Perry presented photos of the work and the Commission agreed that a letter to be written requesting that the owners, Brian and Lori DeWolfe appear before them and explain their actions. Research with the assessors department proved there was a building permit for work done on the home.
218 Sudbury Road: A letter of possible violation 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.
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark made a motion to issue a letter to the owners of 152 Barton Road and 218 Sudbury Road appear before the Commission with respect to possible wetland violations. Kathy Sferra seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Adjournment
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Kathy Sferra seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
The Commission adjourned at 10:27 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia R. Perry
SCC Coordinator
Maureen Trunfio
SCC Secretary
| 
