Stow Conservation Commission
Minutes
April 19, 2011
A meeting of the Stow Conservation Commission was held at the Stow Town Building, 380 Great Road, Stow, Massachusetts, on April 19, 2011 at 7:30 in the evening.
There were present:Rebecca Mattison, Chair
Helen Castles, Vice Chair
David Coppes
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark
Doug Moffat
Absent: Kathy Sferra
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.
April 5, 2011 Minutes
David Coppes made a motion to approve the minutes of April 5, 2011 as drafted and amended. Helen Castles seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
ET&L Corp.
Installation of Dirt Road
Pat Perry received notice that a road was being constructed off Delaney Road by ET&L Corporation in a wetland area without a permit. Perry contacted Garry Balboni, Vice-President of ET&L, who explained why the road was being built. Ingeborg Hegemann Clark volunteered to contact Balboni to let him know that she would be conducting a site inspection and that he should appear before the Commission at tonight’s meeting.
Mr. Balboni stated that Teradyne Corp advised ET&L that they would have to remove their non-hazardous equipment from designated areas on the open field portion of Teradyne’s property off Delaney Road by April 15th, 2011. Balboni moved much of the material (jersey barriers) across the street to a piece of commercial property that served as an existing storage area for ET&L. More space was required, therefore Balboni planned to utilize a portion of his property that he considered to be high ground clear of any wetlands. A gravel road was constructed for the trucks to achieve access to the upland area.
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark stated she inspected the site where road construction had begun and classified it as wet meadow. She found that there was no erosion and no damage had been done to the wetland. Balboni was informed that because he was working within the buffer zone a Notice of Intent (NOI) might need to be filed with the Commission.
Hegemann Clark found the road to be well built. Two 8-inch pipes were utilized to allow flow under the roadway. Balboni assured the Commission that it would remain an unpaved dirt road. The Commission suggested he apply more riprap and a layer of crushed stone at the outer edge of the roadway. The Commission wants to be certain that the roadway will not erode away into the wetland.
The Commission questioned whether the road could be moved east to get it out of the 35-foot buffer zone. Balboni said that would be difficult because of a telephone pole and the size of the large trucks that would need to navigate the curve. He said he would look into the possibility of moving the road. The Commission suggested he wait until the public hearing when he would produce a plan to be submitted with the Notice of Intent to be discussed and reviewed with the Commission.
As Balboni describes the area where he will be storing the jersey barriers, it appears the Commission has no jurisdiction. These will reside on a parcel that remains outside the wetlands. The Commission asked Balboni to respect the 35-foot line, to which he agreed.
Notice of Intent (#299-05)
Radant Technologies (R-2 #1-1 & 1-2)
At 7:50 P.M. Rebecca Mattison opened the public hearing for a Notice of Intent filed by
John-Claude Sureau for a proposed vegetation management plan at Radant Technologies. David Coppes reviewed the Notice of Intent and conducted the site inspection on behalf of the Commission. Rich Harrington, Engineer for Stamski & McNary presented. John-Claude Sureau, President and CEO of Radant, was present as well.
Harrington explained that when the company began over 30 years ago, vegetation on the parcel was low but has now grown to reach heights that are now disturbing testing procedures. Radant hired a wetland specialist to mark wetland areas. The applicant would like permission to cut brush and trees as needed.
Radio waves are sent from the far tower to the main building. This one particular corridor must be kept free from interference of trees. The area is clearly defined and would need cutting in obvious areas. Harrington likened this to clearing done along public utility high-power lines. The second area where Radant is concerned, as identified on the plan, is along the edge of the corridor. They would like permission to trim high growth in that area as it occurs.
The Commission questioned the public benefit. Harrington explained that the company supplies products to the U.S. Military, which benefits everyone. The Commission was not certain this was an adequate justification. A public benefit must be found in order to allow the requested cutting.
Harrington’s plan that was exhibited showed over 65 trees that would need to be removed or “topped off.” He said that, in reality, not all of those trees would need to be cut. He said “ten” was a more realistic number of trees that would need to be brought down.
The Commission felt the description of work to be performed written in the NOI application was too vague. There would need to be specific wording such as, “Radant would like no tree to exceed “X” number of feet in height,” or “Trees within this specific corridor would need to be cleared.” With more specific wording the Commission feels it would have an easier time offering permission. The current proposal is too open-ended and allows too much free reign when clearing.
Harrington explained that his client was looking for a more long-term working maintenance plan so they would not need to come to the Commission every 5-10 years and open up this case again. The Commission countered that they would possibly consider such a plan but only if the language were much more specific and defined.
The Commission asked for specifics on how the work would be completed. Harrington said all brush cutting would be done by hand on the ground. There was a question whether the brush should be chipped in place or allowed to remain where it falls. A licensed forester would perform larger tree removal. Harrington stated they would be following Massachusetts Highway Vegetation Clearing Guidelines. The Commission insisted that no vehicles be driven into the middle area where many streams exist. The area is very wet. Harrington commented saying that there are existing paths to get back toward the tower. He added that he thought the project would need to be done during the winter when the ground is frozen or August when the ground is very dry.
The Commission asked Harrington how many square feet of wetland would be affected. Harrington said he didn’t know because he was treating the area as one large wetland, so square footage would not change. The Commission suggested that Harrington come back with a better definition of their approach to the project.
The Commission scheduled a site walk to re-visit the property on Sunday, May 1 at 9 am.
David Coppes 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, May 17, 2011 at 7:30 PM or later. Doug Moffat seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Highgrove Estates/ West Acton Road (R-20 #17, 19, 20, 21, 22)
Notice of Intent (#299-530)
Continued from March 1, 2011
At 8:30 PM Becky Mattison reopened the public hearing continued from March 1, 2011 to
allow new testimony to be heard since Distinctive Homes/Stamski & McNary have met with the Planning Board (PB). PB has closed the public hearing and issued a decision. The Commission’s input from Kathy Sferra was included in the PB decision except for the annual inspection of the deed-restricted parcels.
Rich Harrington, Engineer for Stamski & McNary, presented. Jim Fenton, owner of Distinctive Acton Homes, was present. Harrington updated the Commission on developments agreed upon since their last meeting. The road was deemed a private way. There were requirements put forth by PB to set up an escrow account to have money available to clean drains, culverts, clear the driveway/road, etc. Lawyers have set up a homeowners association and submitted draft language for the covenant for maintenance agreements. The Conservation Commission will have an opportunity to review the draft documents when they become available.
In addition, the developer agreed to provide a woodland buffer (outside the Commission’s jurisdiction) on the east edge of the parcel. The developer has met with the Fire Chief and was informed that they may not rely on having rescue and fire vehicles enter the development through Acton. The Stow Fire Department agreed to a minimum 12-foot road width with a turnout for emergency vehicles. There will be sidewalks provided at the foot of the four hammerhead lots, or the town may decide to instead put that money into the sidewalk fund.
Harrington explained public benefit by saying the builder would improve drainage significantly. This will help neighbors below on West Acton Road and Canterbury Road who have been having problems with water running off the hill for years.
The Commission’s only concern, at this point, was the fact that they could not perform inspections on the property. Harrington explained that the 4”x4” granite markers discussed and agreed upon at an earlier meeting would clearly mark where owner could and could not mow, erect structures, etc. Harrington explained further that Kathy Sferra’s insistence that deed restrictions be included in the PB’s decision should be sufficient to insure that the vernal pools and wetlands would be well protected. According to Harrington, Massachusetts State Law says that deed restrictions expire after 30 years. He added zoning laws should be considered as an additional layer of protection. The Commission explained their concerns with situations that could arise. The example given was the encroachment on Stow
Conservation Trust land at Red Acre Woodland where an abutter erected a horse corral and is storing manure piles on protected land. Fenton spoke and said that too many restrictions scare buyers away.
The Commission had concerns regarding the water flow design being able to handle additional flow in the case homeowners cut trees on their property. Rich assured the Commission that Stamki’s numbers, when figuring drainage, were conservative and added that Sue Sullivan, engineering consultant to the PB concurred.
The Commission reminded Harrington that they will have an annual inspection by PB, and questioned why there would be a problem with the Conservation Commission performing an annual inspection. Harrington stated that the inspection with PB is only mandatory until the project is complete.
Fenton spoke to say that time is critical with this project and he’d like to start building as soon as possible in order to have certain pieces in place by the time winter arrives. Harrington and Fenton would not agree to extend the time period for the Commission to close the hearing and issue Orders until the next scheduled meeting on May 17, 2011.
The Commission agreed to schedule an additional meeting on Thursday, May 5, 2011 at 7:30 PM in order to issue the Orders of Conditions. Ingeborg Hegemann Clark has volunteered to draft the first version of conditions.
David Coppes made a motion to close the public hearing for a Notice of Intent #299-0530 filed by Distinctive Acton Homes, Inc. to construct a private common driveway for not more than five lots with two wetland crossings and a single family dwelling with associated utilities, grading and storm water management system at West Acton Road. Helen Castles seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Canoe Launch Proposal
Crow Island
Bernard Donahue has requested permission to set up a canoe rental business at Crow Island and submitted a short business plan for the Commission’s review. The business plan did not give enough information for the Commission to be assured that the bank of the Assabet River would not be compromised. The Commission thought it would be best if Donahue came before the Commission at a future date and presented his idea. No further action was taken.
Certificate of Compliance (OOC #299-431)
Stow Acres Country Club /Pave Existing Parking Lot/58 Randall Road (R-11 #37A)
Doug Moffat visited the site and displayed photos of accumulated trash; possibly adjacent to or within a wetland area. The Commission felt the trash area should be further investigated but should not delay issuing a Certificate of Compliance for the paving of the existing parking lot at the Stow Acres Country Club. Doug Moffat mad a recommendation to the Commission to issue the Certificate of Compliance for Order of Conditions File No. 299-0431.
The area was found to be stabilized and in good condition. The site is well vegetated and all hay bales have been removed. The as-built plan has been submitted. The Commission agreed that the work was acceptable and agreed to grant the Certificate of Compliance.
Doug Moffat made a motion to issue the Certificate Of Compliance for work satisfactorily completed on the of paving of a parking lot at 58 Randall Road in compliance with Order of Conditions File No. 299-0431. David Coppes seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Request for Certificate of Compliance (OOC #299-105)
Stow Acres Country Club /Driving Range (R-11 #37A)
The Commission scheduled a site inspection to take place on May 1, 2011 to ensure that a 30 foot vegetated buffer from the wetland is still in place as required in the original Order.
Center School Building Site
The Commission observed two hay bales wash downstream and also observed pumping of sediment-laden water at the headwall. Ingeborg Hegemann Clark said that Joe Stella, owner of the construction company, had personally promised her that haybales would be staked, etc. The Commission discussed that the infiltration tank is almost ready to go in. They reported seeing one pipe going in and two pipes pumping out. The Commission determined that they were, most likely, pumping out due to overflow. The Commission thought that perhaps they’re pumping because the amount of water exceeds the limit and the system is overwhelmed. On one occasion a member of the Commission observed pumping after work hours, approximately 4:30 PM. Hegemann Clark has spoken to DEP and they advise enforcement orders in situations such as these.
The Commission affirmed their goal of getting the site stabilized and the stream restored. An enforcement order is something the Commission decided they would rather not have to issue. Hegemann Clark intends to send a stern email to Stella
The Commission will attempt to set up a site inspection for Saturday morning on April 23, 2011 if representatives from Stella, Glen Davis, etc. are available.
Tuttle Lane Agricultural Land
Use & Water Issues
The Commission received two requests for the use of the farmland off Tuttle Lane. Applications were presented to the Commission for review and comment.
One farmer, Lenny Rodriguez, would like to farm five acres to raise vegetables. The Commission voiced agreement that he should be granted a license for one or two years.
The second applicant is Ted Painter, owner of Shelburne Farm. Painter is proposing to establish an experimental commercially viable organic apple planting, using best practices as established in the commercial organic fruit growing industry. This would provide a commercial laboratory for experimental and new organic growing techniques that will contribute to the long-term development of viable “no-spray” apple orchards. The Commission expressed concern regarding any crop that is planted permanently which could prevent the use of the parcel for field crops in the future. Painter is asking for a 25-year license, which the Commission could not grant. Presently, the longest license allowed is five years. The Commission is now reviewing the license agreement being put before Town Meeting requesting
permission to issue six-year licenses. The Commission denied Painter’s request for apple tree planting but would approve the use of the land for field crops for a five or six year license agreement.
The community gardens site is in need of another water pump. Pat Perry spoke with Mike Sullivan, the well driller who has installed all other pumps at the site. Sullivan agreed to install an additional pump at the same price as the other three ($800). Mr. Sullivan also provides a complimentary service for the Commission of inspecting and getting these water pumps up and running every spring and shutting them down at the end of the season.
David Coppes made a motion to permit Sullivan Drilling to install a well and hand pump at the Stow Community Gardens and to pay the sum of eight hundred dollars to be expended from the Conservation Fund. Ingeborg Hegemann Clark seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Crescent Farms/Deerfield Lane
The Commission is still waiting to hear from the Legislature’s attorneys on whether this will trigger Article 97. No discussion or action was taken.
Enforcement Issues
Athens Lane
Pat Perry received a letter from the Department of Agriculture stating that Mr. Balzotti on behalf of Mr. Quirk requested the Department of Agriculture consider his property off Athens Lane for an Agriculture Preservation Restriction stating that they had pastureland. Perry explained that Athens Lane was an easement and Mr. Quirk’s property had no frontage on Hudson Road. There was a piece of property for sale on Hudson Road that Quirk reportedly was considering buying, but did not. Furthermore Mr. Quirk had an Enforcement Order and Order of Conditions to conduct restoration work on the property. The Commission suggested issuing another Enforcement Order if they have not started the restoration work. The Commission believes Quirk should be fined each month until work begins.
David Coppes made a motion to issue a fine of $300 if the restoration work did not commence by May 1, 2011 as stated in their letter to Mr. Quirk dated September 17, 2010. Ingeborg seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
277 Sudbury Road:
The Commission did not issue a Certificate of Compliance last November due to the Commission’s site report and photos indicating that the site was not stable and the plantings would likely not survive the winter season. Pat Perry spoken with the developer and has requested that he submit a planting plan for the Commission’s approval. The developer has given Perry the plan and a letter he claims to have sent to the buyer’s attorney that serves as indemnification that he agrees to do what is necessary to obtain a Certificate of Compliance. The Commission did not approve the planting plan submitted and is requesting the developer submit a new planting plan stamped by an engineer showing a mix of trees and shrubs native to New England. Rebecca Mattison will conduct an additional site visit.
Stow Shopping Plaza/Slope Erosion
A Notice of Intent (NOI) has not been submitted for a public hearing to repair the slope of the pond at the pump house at the shopping plaza. Linear has hired an attorney to get an NOI submitted and also to submit a request for a COC on the original Order. Pat Perry has informed the attorney that he not the correct person to complete the forms and draw plans for the project. Completion of forms and a plan should be completed by an engineer. Perry suggested that the attorney instruct Linear to contact Stamski and McNary for an as-built plan for the Original Order and to submit an NOI for slope stabilization at the pump house pond. If this is not completed as instructed, the Commission will issue an Enforcement Order. The first notification to Linear regarding the slope was sent August 18, 2010.
152 Barton Road
The Commission had requested that Mr. DeWolfe submit a Notice of Intent for work that he had already completed on his property without a permit. Steve Poole represented DeWolfe. Pat Perry will contact Poole to remind him that the Commission expects compliance.
265 Gleasondale Road
The Commission did not issue a Certificate of Compliance (COC) due to some seepage on the slope to the wetlands. Before the developer could address the Commission’s concerns, the homeowner covered the slope with riprap. In the meantime, Pat Perry received a complaint just before the heavy snowfall that the owner was working in the buffer zone. Perry was not able to view the area due to the snow. Scott Hayes, within the last two weeks, notified Perry that the owner would not allow his surveyors on the property so that they could prepare the as-built plan for submittal for a COC. Hayes says the homeowner is working in the buffer zone. Doug Moffat was given a set of plans and assigned the task of visiting the site. He will report back to the Commission at a future meeting.
Kids-A-Lot/Red Acre Road
The driveway at this business is very steep and the owners have it salted and sanded during the winter months. Unfortunately when they have it plowed the snow/sand/salt is pushed across the street into the wetland. Pat Perry will write a letter to the owners and inform them of this infraction.
Adjournment
David Coppes made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 PM. Ingeborg Hegemann Clark seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
The Commission adjourned at 10:20 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia R. Perry
SCC Coordinator
Maureen Trunfio
SCC Secretary
| 
