Stow Conservation Commission
Minutes
April 16, 2013
A meeting of the Stow Conservation Commission was held at the Stow Town Building, 380 Great Road, Stow, Massachusetts, on April 16, 2013 at 7:30 in the evening.
There were present: Ingeborg Hegemann Clark, Chair
David Coppes, Vice-Chair
Cortni Frecha
Serena Furman
Doug Moffat
Doug Morse
Jeff Saunders
Associate: 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
Dave Coppes made a motion to approve the minutes of April 2, 2013 as drafted. Cortni Frecha seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Correspondence
Previously the Commission has received a complaint regarding tree cutting at the property of John W. Melone, 497 Great Road. It appears that a large area has been cleared of trees without a forest cutting permit.
On September 12, 2011 Pat Perry sent a letter to Melone on behalf of the Commission regarding a change of land use. Perry informed Melone that she was in receipt of forestry cutting plan disapproved by Laura Dooley, DCR Forester, instructing Melone that he must file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Stow Conservation Commission for any work within the 100 foot buffer of wetland resources on the property. Melone was also informed in that letter that his property is within a “priority Habitat of Rare Species” and also “Estimated Habitat of Rare Wildlife” therefore a copy of the NOI must be sent to National Heritage Endangered Species Protection
(NHESP).
The Commission suggested that Pat Perry send a letter to Melone asking what his plans are for the property and request a response within two weeks. The Commission noted that since he has altered more than an acre of soil, EPA may need to be involved if he does not respond to the Commission’s letter.
Certificate of Compliance State Firefighters Academy Denied
The Massachusetts Firefighters Academy located in Stow requested a Certificate of Compliance.
Representatives from the Commissioner and a representative from the Academy conducted a site visit on April 6, 2013. The Commission found several issues with the property and, therefore, denied the Certificate of Compliance. These issues will be presented to the Academy in written form and once they have been resolved, the Commission will revisit and inspect the property.
Request for Determination of Applicability
31 Robert Road (R-14 #5a-54)
At 7:45 PM Ingeborg Hegemann Clark opened the public hearing for a Request for Determination of Applicability filed by Bob and Marge Alessio for the replacement of a rotting septic tank at 31 Robert Road. This project was declared an emergency replacement by the Stow Board of Health and work was completed prior to this meeting.
Chuck Hartwell, of CH Septic, presented to the Commission. He showed photos and verbalized the plan of action he utilized on the project. Pat Perry had inspected the site and taken the photos used during this discussion. Hartwell stated that the previous tank was replaced with a monolithic tank, often suggested in areas where a septic is required in the vicinity of wetland areas. The tank is manufactured in one piece and due to its no-seam design, leaks are almost non-existent.
Hartwell explained his erosion-control plan to the Commission. He had installed straw bales in the appropriate locations and will leave them there until the lawn has been established and the risk of runoff has passed. After burying the tank, loam, seed and straw was put down in the area so grass would soon be established.
No abutters were present for this hearing.
Dave Coppes made a motion to close the public hearing for a Request for Determination filed by Bob and Marge Alessio at 31 Robert Road for the replacement of a rotting septic tank at 31 Robert Road. Cortni Frecha seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Doug Moffat made a motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination with conditions for the replacement of a rotting septic tank at 31 Robert Road. Dave Coppes seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Certificate of Compliance Request (#299-0322)
28 Orchard Drive (U-2 #4)
Pasco Loffredo of the law firm Loffredo & Sciotti, LLC contacted the office requesting a Certificate of Compliance for clients Matthew and Lindsay Lucarelli of 28 Orchard Drive. A site inspection was conducted to insure that no disturbances had occurred on the property within the buffer zone of the wetland as shown on the Permit Plan and that the home was constructed according to the plan. Because the property is part of a larger 40B development, the Commission agreed to issue a Partial Certificate of Compliance, but expressed concern that a full request for a Certificate of Compliance will be required as soon as possible to avoid the issuance of numerous partial COCs.
Cortni Frecha made a motion to issue a Partial Certificate Of Compliance for work satisfactorily completed at 28 Orchard Drive in compliance with Order of Conditions File No. 299-0322.
Doug Morse seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Minute Man Air Field Solar Project
Provectus Business Development Services
The Commission had planned to have Planning Board (PB) attend this preliminary meeting with John Ricketson of Provectus Business Development Services to discuss the existing plan that was withdrawn by Kearsarge Solar and how to improve on a new submission for possible approval. Randy Christensen of Stantec presented with Ricketson.
The Commission asked what the FAA’s view is on older, smaller airports in terms of meeting newer safety requirements. Ricketson responded by saying that since the airport’s Master Plan is over 20 years old, there’s a certain amount of tolerance and patience with the airport coming into compliance with the FAA safety requirements. Ricketson said that the FAA does review all airports regardless of size, but safety comes to the fore when a project such as this develops. The FAA would need to agree to changes to the 1988 Master Plan.
Ricketson began by explaining that this project will serve two purposes; one, to harness solar energy and two, to improve safety at the airport. He told the Commission that the hill at the end of the runway is considered an obstruction. He proposed raising the runway with a significant amount of fill, increasing the angle of the runway by 2%. The Commission reminded him that wetlands run along the sides of the runway. Lenny Golder of PB asked if raising the runway might increase the chance of a plane sliding off the runway due to the increased slope and elevation. Ricketson said there are rules about raising the runway and they plan to raise the land around it. Ricketson stressed that raising the runway would surely make the runway safer and that FAA had seen the plans to raise the runway and were in favor of it.
.
Ricketson mentioned that lighting was another improvement needed for safety. Ricketson said their project would require that poles be installed to provide lighting for obstructions, such as trees. The poles would also serve to transfer energy from the solar panels and would cross the wetland area. Lori Clark, PB Chair, asked if obstructions are only an issue during the night, not during the day. Christensen responded that the obstructions are allowable as long as they’re visible. Therefore, the obstructions need to be lit at night because it’s a visual runway as opposed to airports that allow for instrument-guided landings. The obstruction are allowable during daylight because it is assumed they can be seen by pilots.
The Commission questioned whether the FAA has considered solar glare from the panels, especially since the panels will be facing southerly which is the same direction as the approach. Ricketson explained that eventually the FAA would review the plan, but not at this point.
PB member Kathy Sferra asked if the lighting needs being discussed are simply for current safety improvements required by FAA or if there is intent to use the airport at night or to expand the airport in any way. Ricketson said that safety issues being discussed are simply to follow the recommendations by FAA and improve the safety. The use will remain the same. Christensen added that the as long as the pavement strength and length of the runway remain the same, the airport cannot support larger planes, change use, etc.
The Commission reiterated an earlier question and asked if increasing safety would increase traffic at the airport or allow for night time use. Christensen answered by saying that the increase in safety would not allow change in aircraft use.
Christensen referred to the letter from the Commission dated August 9, 2012 discussing the Commission’s limitations on previous proposed project.
The Commission explained that if presented as a version of Kearsarge’s plan, the riverfront will not allow for the requested number of solar panels and poles. Ricketson said that if that is indeed the case, the project cannot move forward. The Commission invited Provectus to submit different plans that did not intrude on the wetlands, if they would like to do so.
Christensen presented to the Commission his interpretation that much of the property at MMAF falls in the category of a previously degraded riverfront area. He argued that on a case-by-case basis it has been shown that when you have a previously degraded riverfront area (absence of soil, prior grading, etc.) on a contiguous property, you have permission to follow the second set of performance standards instead of the first. In this case the paved runway, he believes, constitutes “previously degraded riverfront area.” He added that if the Commission deems the majority of this property as “natural” and does not agree with his interpretation, the project almost surely could not move forward due to limitations that would be enacted under the first set of performance standards.
The Commission did not agree that the riverfront area adjacent and contiguous to the river should be considered previously degraded riverfront area. Hegemann Clark added that if Christensen had a good case law study on property, she would most likely view it as case law on that particular parcel, not necessarily a comparison to the land at MMAF.
The Commission felt that simply because vegetation has been managed in the riverfront area, this does not render the area “degraded” and referred them to the full performance standards. Hegemann Clark, Chair, read aloud from the regulations.
Christensen mentioned that after the panels would be installed, the grass underneath would return the area to a natural state. The Commission did not agree that if solar panels were installed, the ground underneath would return to natural conditions, providing natural habitat, etc.
Ricketson reiterated that he believed that this would render the project impossible. He asked Hegemann Clark if she might act as the point person for the Commission if they come up with new ideas. She said that as long as the riverfront is properly protected, she would entertain a different version of the proposal.
Notice of Intent Continuation (#299-0555)
Lot 1 West Acton Road (R-17 #3)
At 9:05 PM Ingeborg Hegemann Clark reopened the public hearing continued from April 2, 2013 for a Notice of Intent (NOI) filed by Stow Community Housing Corp. for the proposed multi-unit apartment project with five primary buildings, sewage disposal and public water supply systems.
Greg Roy of Ducharme & Dillis represented the applicant, presented to the Commission and submitted revised plans showing the replication area as requested and agreed upon on April 2, 2013. Hegemann Clark reported on their April 13, 2013 site visit. She also mentioned that Sue Carter was asked to review drainage calculations for the project. Carter had not completed that task at the time of this meeting, but did formulate comments. The Commission and Roy had briefly seen her comments, but did not have responses to them at the time of this meeting.
Hegemann Clark summarized and read aloud comments from Carter. One, was that there was no testing at the infiltration area as required by DEP storm water regulations. Two, storage volume to infiltration is exceeded in one of the detention areas. Three, high ground water elevation raises a concern about slope stabilization in the wetland replication area where two-foot cuts in combination with proposed grades seem unlikely.
Hegemann Clark mentioned that the Commission talked about changing the crossing during the site walk. Roy said that he prepared revised plans to show a crossing alternative. He said that previously they had planned an open bottom arch crossing and during the site walk, as a result of DEP’s comments, they talked about a different solution that would allow them to install an elliptical culvert that would allow them to slope the area more to match the existing grade in the wetland area. The Commission appreciated the new plan and asked that the base of the culvert be buried and that the engineers would provide for a stony sub strate. Roy agreed and said his detail would show that.
Roy said that when they thought about moving the replication area, as suggested by the Commission, he found that it would intrude into the area for the reserve septic system. Hegemann Clark asked if he could do half and half or something along those lines. Roy replied in the affirmative.
The Commission was concerned about erosion from the northern swale (facing easterly). Roy said he could utilize a level spreader at the end of the cul de sac to gather run off.
The Commission was concerned that a level spreader might not function. There was also concern that the significant cut into the hill will intercept ground water. The Commission suggested that when Roy comes back, he should have detailed plans regarding this issue.
The Commission reminded Roy that they had requested more detailed contours for the site. They told him that he would need to email the same information to Sue Carter. Roy said he would do so.
The Commission noted that during the site walk, it was evident that machinery had driven up the stream bed from West Acton Road, presumably to install a boring, resulting in gullies, erosion and sedimentation. They told Roy that they would like to see plans for restoring the intermittent stream on site. The Commission suggested that they plan on raking or shoveling out sediment. Roy agreed and said he would include that in his next version of plans.
The Commission mentioned that they were upset that the boring site was bleeding out and running off into the street. They reminded Roy that this is a violation. The Commission would like them to stabilize the area. Roy agreed.
Roy agreed to continue the meeting to April 30, 3013.
David Coppes made a motion to continue the public hearing for Notice of Intent File No.299-0555 filed by Stow Community Housing Corp. for the proposed multi-unit apartment project with five primary buildings, sewage disposal and public water supply systems to April 30, 2013. Serena Furman seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Adjournment
Doug Moffat made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 PM. Cortni Frecha seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
The Commission adjourned at 9:45 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Maureen Trunfio
Stow Conservation Commission Secretary
| 
