Stow Conservation Commission
Minutes
June 7, 2011
A meeting of the Stow Conservation Commission was held at the Stow Town Building, 380 Great Road, Stow, Massachusetts, on June 7, 2011 at 7:30 in the evening.
There were present: Rebecca Mattison, Chair
Helen Castles, Vice Chair
David Coppes
Doug Moffat
Kathy Sferra (arrived at 8:20 PM)
Absent: Ingeborg Hegemann Clark
comprising a quorum of the Commission; also
Patricia R. Perry, SCC Coordinator
Maureen Trunfio, SCC Secretary
The Conservation Commission meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM.
Possible Violation
265 Gleasondale Road (R-11 #7A)
Due to complaints received in the office, Doug Moffat conducted a site inspection to confirm that the residents at 265 Gleasondale Road were working within the buffer zone of the wetland without a permit from the Conservation Commission. The Bradways were notified to attend this evenings meeting.
Bradway stated he had problems with erosion on the slope and installed riprap to help with the erosion they were experiencing. He was apologetic and is happy to comply with whatever the Commission suggests.
Mr. Bradway stated that when it rains, the water flows like a river off the back of the paved driveway. He said you could see evidence where the silt settles. Bradway added that there was a grassy area off his back porch that extended out 20 feet. After the spring rain, the surface area of that land was reduced to 5 feet. The majority of the soil had washed down the slope. He said he brought a machine down to the base of the slope and pushed the soil back up toward the porch.
Mr. Bradway’s profession is installing athletic fields. He told the Commission that when building a field their goal is to have water percolate down through the fields. He would like to recreate a situation like that on his property. As a more permanent fix to his property, Mr. Bradway suggested instead of having a slope, he would rather flatten out the area, put riprap down, and put turf over the top with stone under it. His goal is to have water percolate down through the fields. He would like to recreate a situation like that on his property.
When he moved into the home the yard behind the driveway was a 40% slope. No one expected the water to run and erode the soil like it did.
Before straw bales are put down, Bradway asked the Commission if he should take a small tractor with turf tires down to the base of the hill and pick up the silt material that has slide into the conservation area. He described the material as sandy soil. Alternately he said he could leave the material where it is, in the buffer zone, and spray conservation seed on it.
Mr. Bradway would like to install riprap and sod before the silt fence and straw bales go in. The Commission said they would like to have him immediately get the silt fence and straw bales into place. Bradway said he would complete the task on Monday, June 13, 2011.
Moffat reported that there is no evidence of work within the buffer zones on other areas of the property. Moffat was pleased to see that riprap had been placed on the steep slope. The Commission denied the builder’s request for a Certificate of Compliance in 2008 due to the slope not being stabilized and signs of seepage from where the well was installed. Moffat suggested silt fence or haybales at the toe of the slope to prevent further erosion.
The Commission directed Mr. Bradway to remove the sandy material before installing the erosion controls and to notify the Commission regarding the seed mix to be used prior to seeding the area. Mr. Bradway was also instructed to notify Pat Perry when the erosion controls were installed. The Commission suggested that Bradway work with the builder so this problem can be resolved and a Certificate of Compliance can be issued.
Request for Determination of Applicability
Town Building Parking Lot Expansion
380 Great Road (U-10 #68)
At 7:53 PM Rebecca Mattison opened the public hearing for a Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) filed by the Town of Stow for the expansion of the parking lot at Town Building, 380 Great Road. Kathy Sferra reviewed the application and conducted the site inspection on behalf of the Commission. Craig Martin, Building Inspector, presented to the Commission.
Summary: The expanded parking area is proposed to be approximately 2 feet lower than the existing parking lot. Due to the existing slope, fill material will be required to meet the final grades. 3:1 grading is proposed at the southerly side and a boulder retaining wall is proposed along the easterly side. One deep sump catch basin with a hooded trap is proposed with an open pipe.
Martin began by informing the Commission that the original plan that involved moving the well located on the property, has changed. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has granted a negative determination allowing the town to leave the well in its present location. Martin presented copies of the letter from DEP.
DEP instructed the town to honor the requirement of 120 feet from the existing well. They added they would like the town to be responsible for channeling runoff off to the side of the property, not toward the well location. The dividing line for the conservation easement is shown on the plan. When building the parking lot the Highway Department will try to honor that line and keep grading inside that line.
There will be a boulder wall built at the edge of the parking lot. All work will be done by
Mike Clayton and the Stow Highway Department with a budget of $50,000. They are hoping to repave the existing parking lot as well if funding is sufficient.
The plan allows for 14 new parking spaces. Martin showed the plan for traffic flow in the existing and new area. New spaces will be striped diagonally. The existing spaces may or may not be re-striped diagonally. Martin and Highway Department will meet with Planning Board (PB) next week to review the site plan.
Martin clarified that no work will be done in the conservation easement area. Clayton has staked that line. Three-to-one grading is proposed. Martin feels that 3:1 is a manageable slope. He said Highway would bring in topsoil and seed the slope. Establishing grass will serve as a means for erosion control.
Martin addressed questions from the Commission. The Commission noted that the wetlands are not flagged in the area but they are reasonably shown on the plan. Martin said he had not tested the soil and does not feel qualified to do so. The Commission agreed that the wetlands, as shown on the plan, were acceptable and flagging wouldn’t be required.
The Commission said that stakes in the field are assumed to be the boundaries of the conservation land. Martin confirmed and said that this is the only plan he has seen that shows the line. Martin confirmed that Mike Clayton, Superintendent for the Highway Department, “tied” the line and has determined that the line is accurate.
The Commission was concerned that the proposed silt fence would be placed well into the conservation easement area. They asked Martin if it could be pulled closer to the driveway. There is approximately 30 feet between the silt fence and the work area. Martin said that he had placed it there to be sure that there was room for equipment, such as large dump trucks, to get into the work area, especially the area where the boulder wall will be built. Martin said he would like to speak with Clayton before agreeing to pull the fence back. He felt that 20 feet would be a minimum requirement. The Commission decided that as long as the area would be restored, they were comfortable with 30 feet.
The Commission was concerned with the silt fence terminating short of the existing lot. Martin said they would plan to extend it to the edge.
The Commission questioned the method for the drainpipe installation. Martin told the Commission that the existing catch basin, with the existing outlet, is shown on plan. The proposed catch basin is at a low point on the property. The design would bring water to the new pipe and allow it to exit two ways to a riprap swale. Martin said a small machine, probably a small excavator or backhoe big enough to handle a 12-inch pipe, would be the machine utilized to install the pipe. The Commission wondered if the pipe needed to be extended out as far as was shown on the plan. Martin agreed to end the pipe shorter than originally planned and to riprap the area instead of digging any closer to the protected area.
The Commission questioned why the proposed catch basin would be located as shown and if it would be located at the lowest point on the lot. As stated earlier, Martin confirmed that the new catch basin would be located at the lowest point. The slope runs from west to east. Martin added that this is what was on the plan that DEP approved for drainage. The plan channels water away from the well. He said they would build a berm near the bottom of the parking lot to contain the area, as shown on the plan.
The Commission asked whether there would be fill required between the new driveway and the old driveway. Martin answered that there would be a drop of two feet and that they would need to fill in that area. They would plan to level the small area and grade it. There will be fill added and the area will be stabilized with a boulder wall.
The Commission asked a question unrelated to the wetlands. Would there be a clear path for pedestrians to the building from the lower lot? Martin said that they had not planned on any sort of sidewalk to come from the driveway to the building. He added that there would be a 10-foot strip of grass between the two lots that will remain as a grassed area. It was determined that people will find their own way from the parking lot to the building.
Pat Perry mentioned the weeping cherry tree that is located at the top of the slope of the current grassed area of the park. It has been determined by the town’s Tree Warden, Bruce Fletcher, along with a certified arborist, that the weeping cherry tree is diseased and will need to be removed. The copper beech tree has been moved down to the lower area of the park where the memorial bench will also be relocated and protected.
Residents Adam and Dianna Quinn live on Center Place and were interested in examining the plans. They came to the table and Martin displayed the plans and explained that there would be no work done on that side of the property, near the Council on Aging parking lot. Perry explained that there is a conservation easement on the remainder of the property so work cannot be done in that area.
David Coppes made a motion to close the public hearing for a Request for Determination of Applicability filed for proposed expansion of the Town Building parking lot. Helen Castles seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. (Kathy Sferra not yet present during the vote.)
David Coppes made a motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination approving the Request for Determination of Applicability filed for proposed expansion of the Town Building parking lot as drafted with a special condition requiring the extension of the silt fence to the edge of the existing parking lot. Doug Moffat seconded the motion and it was passed. Kathy Sferra abstained from the vote.
Notice of Intent (#299-0535)
117 Great Road (R-30 #13A)/Stow Shopping Plaza
At 8:12 PM Rebecca Mattison opened the public hearing for a Notice of Intent (NOI) filed by Linear Retail Properties, LLC for the proposed activity of repair and stabilization of an eroded slope along the edge of a small pond and the construction of a new pump house dry hydrant connection. Helen Castles reviewed the Notice of Intent and conducted the site inspection on behalf of the Commission. This NOI has been filed in response to the Commission’s notice of violation due to work at the pond without a permit causing slope erosion.
Gordon Whitman was present of behalf of Linear and David Crossman of B&C Associates Inc. was present as Linear’s wetland consultant. Crossman informed the Commission of their intent to repair the erosion to the bank at the edge of the driveway behind the Stow Shopping Plaza. They propose to install a new hookup for the fire department. Linear had planned to remove riprap on the bank but Planning Board had required the placement of that riprap and, therefore, Linear will not remove it. Crossman stated that no major earthwork would be involved. All work will be done by hand. The property’s landscaper had suggested that after they cleaned out the silt they allow the weeds to grow. Crossman said would rather seed with a proper mix.
Commissioner Helen Castles presented photos of areas around the pond. She explained that
the over story is Red Maple and White Pine. The under story is a mix of exotic invasive species such as bittersweet, etc. Castles stated that she noticed the stormwater in two locations that were pictured had no catch basins. Water appears to run down and pool in a corner area and flow over the rip rap areas mentioned. She said that is was, most likely, not a large amount of storm water run off but she could understand why PB wanted riprap to remain. She noticed evidence of a small amount of concentrated flow. Castles questioned whether the pond is the exit for most of the catch basins for the parking lot. Crossman confirmed. That riprap protects the bank. She presented photos that produced evidence of excess sedimentation.
Castles questioned the snow management plan was for the property. Whitman stated that their snow management is performed under direction from the PB. Snow is not dumped off bank. He added that snow is piled in back of the building and a few piles are allowed in front of the plaza. There’s no pushing of snow near the pond. Crossman added that it did appear in one photo as if a snowplow had cut the berm, leading to its degradation.
The Commission agreed that cleaning up by hand would be a reasonable solution to the problems presented. The Commission requested that trash in the area be cleared. The damaged berm was required in the original Order of Conditions (OOC). The damaged berm is causing water to flow in an inappropriate direction and should be replaced.
Castles asked whether any large trees would need to be cut. Crossman replied in the negative. She also questioned how will the storm water be addressed in the future. Would it be left as is? She asked if it might be possible to plant native shrubs along the bank instead of a grass seed mix. She felt that shrubs might be easier to establish. Crossman was uncertain that clearing the native under story would be successful. Whitman was concerned that the slope to the pond might be too steep. He mentioned that digging holes for shrubs might leave the area open to further erosion. Castle agreed that would be a valid point on the deeper part of the bank, but they agreed shrubs near the top would be beneficial. Whitman explained that the company had recently spent a great sum of money landscaping the front of the plaza. The Commission
explained that they are not requiring expensive ornamental plantings, but rather shrubs that will establish strong roots.
The plan showed that erosion control net would be utilized in certain areas during the cleanup process. The Commission asked in the case that they would be using jute matting, would they be removing all vegetation when they remove that material. Crossman said they will not remove all vegetation, they will rake and scoop as they operate. He added that the jute would be utilized only in those areas where they’re cleaning up, not along the entire slope. Hay bales and silt fence are already established around the pump house.
The Commission reminded Linear that the fire truck must have the ability to back into the area adjacent to the pump house. Whitman explained that the Fire Department has changed trucks and the water hook up is now located in the middle of the truck, and not at the rear, so a pipe extension is required on the pump house. The extension will run straight out from the pump house.
There were no questions or comments from the audience.
Doug Moffat made a motion to close the public hearing for a Notice of Intent File No. 299-0535 filed by Linear Retail Properties, LLC for the proposed activity of repair and stabilization of an eroded slope along the edge of a small pond and the construction of a new dry hydrant connection to the pump house at the Stow Shopping Plaza, 117 Great Road. Dave Coppes seconded the motion and it was passed. Kathy Sferra abstained.
David Coppes made a motion to approve the special conditions as drafted and amended and issue the Order of Conditions File No. 299-0535 for the proposed activity of repair and stabilization of an eroded slope along the edge of a small pond and the construction of a new dry hydrant connection to the pump house at the Stow Shopping Plaza, 117 Great Road. Doug Moffat seconded the motion and it was passed. Kathy Sferra abstained.
Notice of Intent (#299-0536)
11 Hale Road (U-5 #32A-1)/Restoration Project
At 8:25 PM Rebecca Mattison opened the public hearing for a Notice of Intent (NOI) filed by
Kent Seith for the proposed restoration of 12 feet of water opening to allow for better water flow into the lake. Ingeborg Hegemann Clark reviewed the Notice of Intent and conducted the site inspection on behalf of the Commission but was not present at this meeting. Kent Seith presented his plan. Donald O’Connell of 7 Hale Road presented with Seith.
Seith explained that they’re trying to open up a 2-foot wide channel into the pond to help with the flow and provide for healthier water quality. Seith investigated different options for retaining walls and made a decision based on price, esthetic appeal and durability. He decided to use a vinyl-bulkhead product similar to what other residents on the lake have utilized.
Seith said that only 1.5 feet of the bulkhead would be visible. The Commission asked to see a map of where the bulkheads are being proposed to be placed. Seith showed them and explained that they would place one on each side of the channel. He clarified that they are 30 feet in length and will serve to keep the channel open. He said that as soon as they are finished dredging out the area, they would slide the bulkhead in place and this will prevent the channel from “clogging” up again.
There is a low point at the top of Seith’s property from where he had removed trees several years prior. He told the Commission that this is where the fill will be dumped. Fifty-three cubic yards will be permanently dumped in the area and spread. Seith clarified for the Commission that when the excavator comes in there will be a dump truck waiting to be loaded and moved up to the top of the property immediately. There will be no stockpiling.
Seith told the Commission he would like to dig down 3-4 feet of sediment. Based on Hegemann Clark’s meeting report, she suggested that based on Seith walking in the water while she was present, he may need to extend further than the 30 feet as staked in order to meet existing grade. She reminded him to stay well under the 100 cubic feet or a water quality certification would required. She advised that he maintain a steady depth. For example, if he dredges to 3 feet on one side make sure it’s level with 3 feet in the middle and 3 feet on the other side. Hegemann Clark suggested that they evaluate this area every 4-5 years and assess the residual “junk” leaves, etc. from the pond that flows into this area.
The Commission questioned how the bulkheads would be anchored. Seith explained that they arrive in strips and would be dragged out to the location and pushed down into the base. He explained that, by design, they work as interlocking pieces. Seith would like to place a 4”x4” anchor on top of it.
Seith and his neighbor, Michael Latz of 21 Hale Road, would appreciate a condition in the Order that states there would be no docks allowed out beyond the bulkhead. Latz spoke and said that if docks were built out there, boats that were docked would create an enormous problem such as blocking the cove entrance and impeding the flow of water. The Commission reminded them that this would be a perpetual condition. Seith said he was comfortable with the condition and would be happy to sign an agreement stating that no docks should be built beyond the bulkhead. Latz added that it should read, “as long as the cove is accessible by boat.”
Phil Winin of 32 North Shore Drive questioned how many docks each house was allowed to install. Twenty feet of dock is the law, but does that mean one dock for each house? Could a resident built two, ten-foot docks. Seith said that he heard about the 20-foot limitation, but had never heard whether that meant one dock only. Perry reminded them that when installing a permanent dock, residents must file for a Chapter 91 license.
Winin questioned whether 53 yards of fill would fit in the depression at Seith’s specified location. Seith assured him that if there were to be excess, it would not end up on Winin’s property.
Winin talked about the amount of water already coming onto his property. Winin said that a project was approved by the Commission in 2000 allowing Winin’s neighbors, the Judge family, to “build up” their property. As a result, Winin said, water has poured onto his property and it has taken him ten years to remove the excess water. He was concerned that if Seith built up his property, water would again flow into his yard. Winin approached the conference table and looked at the area where Seith would dump the dirt. He expressed concern for the possibility of water, again, flowing down onto his property. Seith assured him that he was certain water would not flow from the fill. Seith, himself, told Winin that he would be responsible to fix the problem if it impacted Winin’s property. Latz spoke and assured Winin
that Seith has been very responsible and very amenable to work with in the past when performing projects that affected both of their properties.
Kathy Sferra made a motion to close the public hearing for a Notice of Intent File No. 299-0536 filed by Kent Seith of 11 Hale Road for the proposed activity of restoring the cove adjacent to his property. David Coppes seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
David Coppes made a motion to approve the special conditions as drafted and amended and issue the Order of Conditions File No. 299-0536 filed by Kent Seith for the proposed activity of restoring the cove adjacent to his property. Kathy Sferra seconded the motion and it was passed
Radant Technologies (#299-0532)
255 Hudson Road/R-2 #1-1, 1-1
Continuation of Public Hearing
Rich Harrington of Stamski & McNary, who represents Radant, sent a written request to continue the public hearing to June 21st to allow for more time preparing their proposal.
Helen Castles made a motion to continue the public hearing for a Notice of Intent for a proposed vegetation management plan at Radant Technologies, 255 Hudson Road, to Tuesday,
June 21, 2011 at 7:30 PM or later. Doug Moffat seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Notice of Intent (#299-0537)
77 Hudson Road/R-10 #56C
The applicant is proposing to reconstruct a single-family home destroyed by fire, installation of utilities, site grading, cleanup of trash and debris and landscaping. Scott Hayes, FORESITE Engineering presented the plan to the Commission on May 17th, however the public hearing was continued to receive a file number from DEP. A file number has been issued and the public hearing may be closed.
Kathy Sferra made a motion to close the public hearing for a Notice of Intent File No. 299-0537 filed by Catherine O’Brien for the proposed activity of reconstruction of a single family dwelling destroyed by fire, installation of utilities, site grading, cleanup of trash and debris and landscaping at 77 Hudson Road. David Coppes seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
David Coppes made a motion to approve the special conditions as drafted and issue the Order of Conditions for File No. 299-0537 filed by Catherine O’Brien for the proposed activity of reconstruction of a single family dwelling destroyed by fire, installation of utilities, site grading, cleanup of trash and debris and landscaping at 77 Hudson Road. Doug Moffat seconded the motion and it
was passed. Helen Castles abstained.
Arbor Glen Site Walk
Certificate of Compliance
The Commission said it would schedule a site walk at Arbor Glen via email. The Commission needs to confirm compliance with the Order of Conditions and to view the public easement that the Commission has agreed to manage. Members of the Homeowners Association would like to be involved in the site walk.
Certificate of Compliance
Stow Acres Country Club
24 Randall Road (#299-0504)
No action was taken.
Enforcement Issues
Athens Lane
The Conservation Commission office has received a phone call stating that work had begun on May 25, 2011 at Athens Lane. David Coppes volunteered to visit the site to confirm.
277 Sudbury Road
Pat Perry wrote a letter to Gary Shimmel with a deadline regarding plantings on the hillside.
CW Fuels/626 Great Road
The Conservation Commission agreed to send a letter drafted by Kathy Sferra to David Lorden, Trustee, Community Convenience Trust, stating their concern with the lack of compliance with the Orders of Conditions. Mr. Lorden will be asked to immediately remove signs at the property allowing for additional parking in an area near the riverfront and to block off the back parking area with cones and make an appointment to talk with the Commission regarding compliance. He will be informed that if he does not reply within seven days, fines and Enforcement Order may be issued.
Adjournment
Kathy Sferra made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 PM. Helen Castles seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
The Commission adjourned at 9:50 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia R. Perry
SCC Coordinator
Maureen Trunfio
SCC Secretary
| 
