See last two pages for Executuve Session Minutes re: Woodhead Property Released on January 15, 2013
Stow Conservation Commission
Minutes
September 4, 2012
A meeting of the Stow Conservation Commission was held at the Stow Town Building, 380 Great Road, Stow, Massachusetts, on September 4, 2012 at 7:30 in the evening.
There were present: Ingeborg Hegemann Clark, Chair
David Coppes, Vice-Chair
Cortni Frecha
Doug Moffat
Doug Morse
Absent: Serena Furman
Rebecca Mattison
Associates: Jeff Saunders
Andy Snow
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.
Approve Minutes
David Coppes made a motion to approve the minutes of August 7, 2012 as drafted and amended. Doug Morse seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
11 Hale Road Cove Restoration Complaint
The Conservation Commission received a written complaint from Michael Latz, formerly of 21 Hale Road, regarding a swim raft floating in the cove at Hale Road. The raft was placed in the cove by Kent Seith, homeowner at 11 Hale Road. Latz has sold his property, and the new homeowners at 21 Hale Road, Kevin Trenholme and Joyce Auclair, have questions regarding the placement of the swim raft. Kent Seith, Kevin Trenholme, Joyce Auclair and Cindy Curley, member of the Lake Boon Commission (LBC), were all present at this meeting.
Pat Perry received a written reply from Kent Seith and a photo of the raft that Latz is calling a dock. Seith’s letter states that his lawyer refers to the dock as a raft. The Commission will need to make a determination whether or not this floating raft/dock is in compliance with their Order of Conditions #299-0536.
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark, Chair of the Conservation Commission read aloud a section of the Minutes from the Conservation Commission’s office from June 7, 2011 pertaining to the relevant Order of Conditions. This section of the Minutes follows:
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.”
Seith indicated that the last sentence of those minutes was his comment, Seith said it should read: “Seith added that it should read, “as long as the cove is accessible by boat.” The Commission will check records to determine to whom that sentence should be attributed.
The Commission looked at the drawings from June of 2011 that illustrated Seith’s plan to perform work. Seith’s intent was to increase water circulation in the cove and make it viable for boat traffic. Seith and Trenholme pointed out where their property is on the plan. Trenholme noted that the raft was located less than 20 feet out from the beach area on their side of the channel. During the period when Trenholme was considering buying the property, he questioned whether the raft was part of the property he might be purchasing. The realtor explained it belonged to the Seith’s.
The Commission asked whether Trenholme/Auclair agreed with Latz’s letter. They said that they did agree. Trenholme said that his property does not yet have a dock. He is concerned that the placement of the raft will impact placement options for their future dock and/or the shape of the dock they may choose. Trenholme/Auclair added that when friends visit, they have difficulty navigating their boats into and out of the cove due to the raft. They are concerned that someone could potentially get hurt. The Trenholme/Auclair’s said they are not especially concerned with the noise that the kids produce while playing out on the raft.
When asked by the Commission the reason for placement of float, Seith admitted that when looking from 21 Hale Road it does appear that the raft is directly behind that house. He added that it is located directly behind his house at 11 Hale Road. He said that he would have like to move it more to the right, but slightly to the right is another neighbor’s property; the Winin’s of 32 North Shore Drive. Seith said originally the raft was further from the shoreline, but he recently moved it closer to the shoreline and has found that the water is relatively shallow. The cove is relatively small and there are few choices where to place the raft.
Cindy Curly of the LBC told the Commission that according to the LBC bylaws a swim raft is a dock and follows the same guidelines as a dock. It was found upon looking at the LBC Bylaws that nothing was specific in the area of docks and rafts. Seith asked if Curley were speaking as a representative of the LBC. If so, he would prefer that the LBC Chairman attend. She stated that she was not speaking on behalf of the LBC but simply explaining how the LBC views docks. She added information stating that in the past special permits have been granted regarding docks more than 20 feet off shore or in an unusual area. Curley clarified that in those situations , however, the docks had never been contested.
In order to clarify compliance with their order, the Commission asked whether the raft was blocking the channel or the ability to get a boat into or out of the area. Seith replied that there were no problems. Trenholme said that since he has been living there he has seen people have to lean over the front of their boat and push the raft aside. Seith agreed that he has seen that occur in the case of an inboard motor boat.
Seith said he would like to make his intent for the swim raft clear. He said that he understands that the cove obviously must remain navigable and that they must not dock boats on the raft. Seith said that he had talked to Latz years ago and said that instead of having a dock in the middle of the cove with boats attached, it would look better if each house could have its own dock with boats parked there. Seith added that his lawyer stated that a dock is married to boats and the raft in question appears to be a swim platform. Seith’s lawyer said that as long as a boat is not moored there, it’s a swim platform.
Pat Perry retrieved the LBC bylaws and the Commission read them, mainly looking for a definition of a dock. They did not find clarification.
Seith said that he believed there were two different issues being discussed. One being the OOC that Seith considers irrelevant in conjunction with the swim raft issue. The second issue, that he views as a separate issue, is the LBC’s issue with their rule pertaining to docks. The Commission agreed with Seith.
The Commission decided that they would like to further research the definition of a dock. They also felt that a site visit would be useful. A site inspection was set for Saturday, September 8, 2012 at 9 A.M.
Notice of Intent (#299-0551)
27 Barton Road (U-1 #53-1)
At 8:20 PM Ingeborg Hegemann Clark opened the public hearing for Notice of Intent (NOI) #299-0551 filed by Connie and Thomas Zimmerman for the proposed activity of repairing a failed septic system at 27 Barton Road. Ingeborg Hegemann Clark reviewed the Notice of Intent and conducted the site inspection on behalf of the Commission. Approval for the septic system has been granted by the Board of Health.
Mark Farrell of Green Hill Engineering was present, along with the Zimmerman’s, and presented to the Commission. This property abuts the Assabet River and vegetated wetlands. The septic would be outside the 100-foot buffer, but there would be grading work within the 100-foot buffer. Work would be done within the 200-foot outer riparian but not within the 100-foot riparian zone.
Farrell told the Commission that several trees would need to be removed. Photos of the area that would be cleared were presented. The Commission questioned whether there was any way to reduce clearing of trees and to tighten the grading work. Farrell explained that they have analyzed a couple of choices for this space and have decided to choose an ADS GEO- flow System, a more compact system rather than a traditional septic system that would be larger.
The Commission questioned a drainage system shown on the as-built plan. Farrell explained that when the home was originally built, a drainage system was installed to move ground water away from the front of the home and to discharge it on the property at a fair distance from the septic system. Farrell will maintain that drainage system.
The Commission asked if the proposed system, as presented, is sized for the current home. Farrell confirmed that the proposed system is sized for the current home, not oversized for possible future home expansion.
The Commission found that this project qualifies for an exemption because the original home was recorded before 1996. Additionally, this project qualifies as a redevelopment. These criteria insure that the project conforms with the Riverfront Protection Act 310 CMR Section 10.58.
Farrell plans to utilize straw waddles and silt fence for erosion control.
No abutters were present.
David Coppes made a motion to close the public hearing for Notice of Intent (NOI) #299-0551 filed by Connie and Thomas Zimmerman for the proposed activity of repairing a failed septic system at 27 Barton Road. Cortni Frecha seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
David Coppes made a motion to approve and issue the Order of Conditions File No. 299-0551 filed by Connie and Thomas Zimmerman for the proposed activity of repairing a failed septic system at 27 Barton Road. Cortni Frecha seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously
After closing the hearing, the Zimmerman’s spoke briefly with the Commission regarding the possibility of curtailing invasive species along the edges of their property. Ingeborg Hegemann Clark confirmed an invasive problem when she conducted the site inspection for the septic replacement.
Hegemann Clark told the Zimmerman’s that there is a provision that allows for vista clearing in the river front area. The Commission granted immediate permission for the Zimmerman’s to cut down invasives at any time during the fall season. Due to the fact that spraying of herbicide might need to be utilized, the Commission suggested that the Zimmerman’s file an RDA for any further work that they might want to pursue such as spraying or cutting down trees.
Connie Zimmerman said that they have worked with Greg Carbone of Bartlett Tree Experts in the past and would be willing to contract with Bartlett to do the work. The Commission reminded her that whoever sprays herbicides, if required, must be licensed by the State.
Tuttle Lane Agriculture Fields
Pat Perry received a request to keep bee hives at the fields at Tuttle Lane. The applicant, Matthew Smith of Lincoln, MA, raises queen bees and works for Mass Audubon. Perry recommended that the Commission allow the activity and charge him no more than what is charged for a community garden plot. That fee is $30/per year for a 30x50 foot plot. Perry stated that Smith would be responsible for maintaining the area where the hives would be located. The Commission agreed with Perry and advised her to let Smith know that he would permitted to place hives at Tuttle Lane.
Kirkland Pond Algaecide Treatment (#299-0517)
8 Conant Drive (R-5 #8-16)
Erika Haug, Aquatic Biologist for Aquatic Control Technology, Inc. has contacted the Commission requesting approval to complete a treatment of the dense filamentous algae mats with a chelated copper algaecide (Trade name: Captain) in 2012. This algaecide was included in the original NOI filed in 2010 and the 2012 License to Apply Chemicals.
David Coppes made a motion to allow an Aquatic Biologist from Aquatic Control Technology, Inc to apply a chelated copper algaecide (Trade name: Captain) at Kirkland Pond as specified in the original Notice of Intent #299-0517. Doug Moffat seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Derby Wood Conservation Restriction
Pat Perry told the Commission that Habitech’s surveyor has given her the Baseline Documentation Report on this property. This report showed several encroachments. Some examples of this were the Schwartzkopf property and the Wedgewood County Club property. Perry has talked to Habitech’s attorney and requested she send letters to the parties that have encroached upon the open space.
The Stow Conservation Trust (SCT) has asked Pat to study the report and decide if it’s what the Commission wants. If so, she will then send it to the SCT to approve.
Habitech has said they will install the bounds for Dunster Drive, Phase II of the subdivision.
Center School Site Inspection
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark inspected the school site on behalf of the Commission. Glenn Davis, clerk of the works for the school project, provided several photos and they were exhibited at this meeting.
There is an outlet in the area on the west side of the school in the vicinity of where the blacksmith shop used to stand. There were problems with this area and Hegemann Clark requested that the contractors dig out all sediment by hand in this area.
Another area of slight concern was at the side of a headwall that showed some gullying. Large stones were placed on either side of the headwall to help with erosion. Once the area is hydroseeded Hegemann Clark believes there will not be a problem with erosion in this area.
Request to Amend Plan (#299-0541)
128 Barton Road (U-2 #7)
Homeowner, Laurel Reynolds, is in the process of demolishing a house that currently stands on the property and replacing it with a prefabricated home. Reynolds would like permission to enlarge the foundation for a screen porch. The Commission said they considered this a small revision and would allow this change.
Cortni Frecha made a motion to grant permission for an amendment to a plan involving the slight enlargement of a screen porch foundation at 128 Barton Road in compliance with Order of Conditions File No. 299-0541. Doug Moffat seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Reynolds also asked permission to demolish and rebuild a patio that is situated on the property in the vicinity of the lake. She would like to extend the patio’s footprint by 16 feet on each side, replace all of the patio stones and change the grade of the slope to the existing patio while the excavator was on site. The Commission viewed photos of the current patio and agreed with Perry that an amendment to the Order of Conditions or a new Notice of Intent would be required.
Executive Session
Woodhead Parcels on Boxboro Road
Cortni Frecha moved to enter into executive session for a discussion relative to property owned by William and Vivian Woodhead at 297 Boxboro Road and to adjourn the meeting at the conclusion of the Executive Session. The motion was seconded by David Coppes and carried by a unanimous roll call vote of five members present, Ingeborg Hegemann Clark, Chair,
David Coppes, Vice-Chair, Cortni Frecha, Doug Moffat and Doug Morse.
The Commission adjourned at 9:35 PM.
Executive Session
Earlier this year the Woodhead family approached Pat Perry and informed her that they would like to offer to the town for purchase two Approval Not Required (ANR) parcels. These two parcels are located at 297 Boxboro Road and are contiguous to the Flagg Hill Conservation Area. At the present meeting Perry reported to the Commission that Avery Associates submitted an appraisal for the Woodhead Property. The cost for the appraisal was $1,800. Avery submitted an appraisal for each ANR lot. The first lot, 8A, was appraised at $196,000. The second lot, 8B, was appraised at $205,000. The combined amount, $401,000, is an amount higher than the $350,000 amount originally mentioned by Woodhead. The parcel measures approximately 9 acres. It abuts the Flagg Hill Conservation Land.
Kathy Sferra, a former member of the Open Space Committee, has been in contact with Perry and has discussed the proper steps that must be taken in a situation such as this one. Sferra suggested that Perry and a liaison from the Commission meet with the Open Space Committee. Perry explained that she and Cortni Frecha will attend a meeting with the Open Space Committee on September 19, 2012.
After that initial step, the Commission would need to speak with Jon Witten, town counsel, who would assist the Commission. After speaking with Witten, the next step would likely be for the Commission to request a formal proposal from Woodhead. Woodhead would need to state the purpose for which the land would be intended, for example, Conservation Land, in that proposal.
Depending on counsel from Witten, the Commission would next speak with Woodhead and make an offer. The Commission would request that the parcels be presented in Woodhead’s proposal as conservation land. It was suggested that the Commission should, at that point, broach the subject of “possible water source” and ask Woodhead if they would consider writing that into the offer. The Selectmen would much prefer that this be the case.
Perry explained that after all of the above listed steps were accomplished, the next step would be to talk about funding. At present the Commission does not know where funds for this parcel would be raised. If Woodhead do indeed ask for a price of $400K, the offer would come back to the Commission and the Commission will have to decide if they would like or could raise that amount of money for these parcels. Self-help money is a possibility for raising funds and Community Preservation funds.
Perry informed the Commission that the Commission’s Conservation Fund has a balance of approximately $50K. Perry stressed the importance of not depleting that fund. Money from this fund is utilized to maintain the Community Gardens, pay legal fees, etc. Additionally, it is important to note that the Commission has not been requesting money annually to replenish that account each year. Perry put forth the idea that perhaps the Commission could expend money from that account to pay for administrative costs and/or legal fees. The Commission agreed with Perry’s comments.
Perry told the Commission that eventually they would need to have a discussion with the Board of Selectmen. It is important that they are aware of the process. We would need to ask them if there are any provisions that they would like to see, if we want them to accept the land.
Any presentation regarding this issue would need to be prepared for Spring Town Meeting 2013. It should be noted that it is not certain that Woodhead is willing to wait for the town to raise money for this purchase.
Executive Session Minutes were released and approved at the January 15, 2013 meeting.
Doug Moffat made a motion to release and approve the Executive Session Minutes of September 4, 2012. Doug Morse seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Maureen Trunfio
Stow Conservation Commission Secretary
| 
