Stow Conservation Commission
Minutes
June 18, 2013
A meeting of the Stow Conservation Commission was held at the Stow Town Building, 380 Great Road, Stow, Massachusetts, on June 18, 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
Present: Maureen Trunfio, SCC Secretary
Pat Perry, SCC Coordinator
The Conservation Commission meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Proposed Changes to Revised Flood Insurance Rate Map and Flood Insurance Study
Pat Perry informed the Commission that Jesse Steadman, Assistant Planner, is coordinating with neighboring towns to discuss recent proposed changes to FEMA’s floodplain maps. If finalized the new flood hazard determinations would become the basis for the floodplain management measures that Middlesex County would be required to adopt. The Commission asked Pat Perry to request an analysis of changes from Steadman.
Planning Board Comprehensive Permit Policy Task Force
Karen Kelleher, Town Planner, submitted a memo to office of the Commission dated May 30, 2013. The memo stated that the Comprehensive Permit Policy Task Force was charged with the task of reviewing and updating the Board of Selectmen’s Comprehensive Permit Policy, dated December 18, 2002. Kelleher asked that the Commission review the results of the Task Force’s efforts and provide comments by June 21, 2013.
Review and Comment
36 Homestead Lane (R-16 #19-2)
Hammerhead Lots
The Planning Board requested the Commission review and comment on an application for a Special permit for the hammerhead lot at 36 Homestead Lane. Pat Perry informed the Commission that this was not a proposal to construct new homes but to reconfigure the parcel to allow for three hammerhead lots. Perry stated that investigations on Oliver and our wetland maps did not indicate wetlands; however an onsite investigation could prove differently. Recommend noting that if there are wetlands, the Commission has jurisdiction.
Interview Candidate for Hire
Conservation Administrator
Lori Capone has been selected as one of two final candidates who will be considered for hire as a replacement for Patricia Perry. Perry will be retiring at the end of June. Capone attended this meeting to meet members of the Commission that were not involved with the hiring subcommittee. Capone introduced herself and answered questions regarding her experience. She circulated projects she had completed during her career. She is currently employed as the Assistant Natural Resources Director by the Town of Concord. The Commission told Capone that they will reach a decision by the end of the evening and would like to make a recommendation to the Town Manager the following morning.
Notice of Intent (#299-0557)
19 Brook Mill Road (R-16 #29-6)
At 8:00 PM Ingeborg Hegemann Clark opened the public hearing for a Notice of Intent (NOI) filed by homeowner Kristin O’Brien for the proposed activity of construction of an in-ground swimming pool and associated site work at 19 Brook Mill Road. Serena Furman reviewed the Notice of Intent and conducted the site inspection, along with Commissioners Snow and Saunders.
Gary Shepard, Senior Project Manager at David E. Ross Associates, Inc. was present to explain the project to the Commission, along with the homeowners.
Shepard displayed a site plan for the Commission and audience members to view. Both 100-foot and 200-foot buffer zones were shown on the plan. He explained that the property is a two-acre lot and that the back property line borders the Elizabeth Brook. He pointed out that the house, driveway and septic are all located completely outside all buffer zones. Buffer zones of various sorts were shown behind the house. Shepard pointed out a thick area of vegetated wetland along the Elizabeth Brook that he noted as being as wide as 150 feet. The property has been flagged by his firm.
Shepard told the Commission that all work proposed would be outside the riverfront zone and all work would consist of buffer zone work. He told the Commission that approximately half of the pool would fall within the 100-foot buffer zone. He said that the new, proposed patio and walkway would be outside the buffer zone. He pointed out an existing patio that they intend to blend with the proposed patio and walkways. Shepard offered details regarding distances from the wetlands. He stated that the edge of all patio pavement is at least 70 feet away from nearest point of the wetland. He stated that the perimeter fence may be a bit less, approximately 68 feet away.
Shephard showed details regarding the proposed grading work relating to the project. He explained that the far end of the yard drops off where the pool would be located. They would like to excavate the hole for pool, take the excavated soil, build up that end of the landscape, and feather out the soil at the end of the pool. He said that in all cases, fill will be more than 50 feet away from the edge of the wetland as shown on the plan. He pointed out that the hay bale line, at its closest point, would be 50 feet away from the wetland. From 55 feet out to 68 feet from the wetland there would be temporary disturbance to the soil and the homeowners would revegetate the area after the project has been completed.
Shepard told the Commission that the filter for the pool would be located outside buffer zone and that the homeowner plans to utilize a non-backwash filter that would not discharge water out to yard or buffer zone. No dry wells would be required for this type of system. He added that they would utilize a saline filtration system.
The homeowner explained the need to remove a number of small trees. The Commission asked if any of the trees proposed for removal were outside the proposed hay bale line. O’Brien explained that they were all inside the proposed hay bale line. She explained that there was one strangled oak that was dead or nearly dead. She also mentioned a birch that they would prefer to save but says that it would be leaning over the pool and might also endanger the house. The Commission approved of the removal of approximately eight trees.
During the site inspection the Commission noticed lawn clippings that were dumped in an area near the wetland flagging that was not permissible. The O’Briens said that the clippings had been placed there by the previous owners and that they continued the practice, but assured the Commission that they would be certain find an appropriate place to place clippings going forward.
There were no abutters present.
The Commission agreed to close the hearing and issue Orders of Conditions for the project with two special conditions stating that no lawn waste shall be disposed of within 50 feet of the wetland and that pool discharges shall be made outside the 100-foot buffer zone in a manner that does not cause erosion.
Cortni Frecha made a motion to close the public hearing for a Notice of Intent File No. 299-0557 filed by homeowner Kristin O’Brien for the proposed activity of construction of an in-ground swimming pool and associated site work at 19 Brook Mill Road. Serena Furman seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
David Coppes made a motion to approve and issue the Order of Conditions for File No. 299-0557 filed by homeowner Kristin O’Brien for the proposed activity of construction of an in-ground swimming pool and associated site work at 19 Brook Mill Road ad drafted and amended. Cortni Frecha seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Minute Man Air Field Solar Project
Provectus Business Development Services
John Ricketson of Provectus Business Development Services requested time at a meeting for a brief, informal discussion regarding the existing plan that was recently presented to the Commission. Paul Gavin accompanied Ricketson to this meeting.
Ricketson read from page 4-11 of the Draft Report for Minuteman Air Field’s 2005-2009 Vegetation Management Plan that had been issued on April 4, 2006. (Quote follows below.) Ricketson explained that the VMP would have expired in April of 2011 but has been extended via the Permit Extension Act to 2015. It is his belief that, with regard to permissible height of vegetation, the VMP proves compatible with the proposed solar array installations in the area that wraps around the end of the runway, Zone 11.
“Maintenance of vegetation to the ground level is required, since actual ground topography penetrates the primary and approach surfaces in this area. The soils in this upland are capable of supporting this type of clearing and grubbing activity. Secondary management may consist of using the area for agriculture, or may consist of yearly mowing for hay production. The vegetative characteristics of this area will significantly change from a forested area to an agricultural field. Conversion of the area will allow for easier future maintenance.”
Ricketson explained that he interpreted this passage to mean that the types of vegetation that are permissible in this plan are compatible under the proposed solar panels. He stated that they would intend to plant grass that’s slow growing and achieves a particular height. He reminded the Commission that nothing, except for the solar panel posts, would touch the ground in this area.
Hegemann Clark reminded Ricketson that what the Commission is concerned about is the undisturbed riverfront area and the associated regulations. The Commission’s concern is that if panels were placed in this particular area, it would then be considered a previously disturbed area and the performance standards associated with previously disturbed riverfront areas are much less stringent.
Another aspect that has been raised in regard to solar field installations at the airport is the recent case in which DEP ruled to allow solar panels to be installed in a cranberry bog. They justified the decision by explaining that while the cranberries couldn’t grow vertically, they could grow laterally and, therefore, the field would still function as an agricultural field.
Hegemann Clark explained to the Commission that they would need to debate whether this otherwise upland area, under the Commission’s approved VMP practice, would still function as that same type of upland area with the holes bore into it. Additionally, once the life of the project has reached completion the developers must be able to guarantee fund in reserve that will ensure that the posts and arrays would be eliminated and the site would return to its “undisturbed” area status. Hegemann Clark stated that the fact that it is maintained as an agricultural field under a VMP does not constitute it becoming a previously disturbed riverfront area per the definition by the WPA.
Hegemann Clark reminded Ricketson that she had asked him in the prior, informal discussion whether the riverfront areas would be graded and that he answered, “No.” She concluded that the only other change associated with the placement of the panels would be the clearing and grubbing in accordance with this plan and the placement of the posts.
The other piece that still would be part of the Commission’s review would be all the other proposed components of the proposed solar project and Hegemann Clark stated that all of those met the performance standards when the Commission originally looked at them. The question that the Commission is struggling with is whether this project could even meet the performance standards based on the case mentioned above.
The Commission would need to provide some response informally whether it believes it is feasible to allow the panels with a restriction stating that if the Commission were to issue an Order, the mentioned area could not be considered previously disturbed during implementation and following completion of the project.
Ricketson talked about a hangar shown on the Airport Master Plan that does not yet exist. The Commission explained that if the airport wanted to build a hangar in the area, MMAF would need to come before the Commission. Ricketson explained that they did not intend to build a hangar but instead was making a point that the solar structures would prove much less invasive than a hangar. The Commission agreed that they saw Rickston’s point and that it may or may not be advantageous to have the potential structure removed from the plan. The Commission thought that this would be a discussion better suited for a different time.
Coppes asked Ricketson if there would be any intrusion in the 35-foot NDZ. Ricketson said that this topic is something else he would like to discuss when he’s allotted more time for discussion. Coppes asked him what he meant by “no grading in the riverfront.” Coppes wondered if that implied that there is other grading proposed elsewhere. Coppes asked if the work proposed would be changing the topography. Ricketson reminded the Commission that they would be proposing to remove the hill at the end of the runway.
The Commission reminded Ricketson that if MMAF chooses to submit an NOI, they must be certain that their engineer notes the square-footage of disturbance in the riverfront area.
The Chair reminded the Commission that the project would have no chance of feasibility if MMAF were not allowed to use space in the river front area. Hegemann Clark asked the Commission for a straw vote indicating the opinion of the Commission on the issue of whether the project might seem feasible and whether MMAF should consider submitting a Notice of Intent at some point in the future. The Commission was in agreement that the project might be possible.
Ricketson spoke briefly regarding two issues that remain. The first issue regards the power lines crossing the wetland. The second has to do with the fact that if they raise the runway, they will increase the slope. He added that the amount of slope increase does encroach onto wetlands. He told the Commission that they are looking at all options including retaining walls. The Commission reminded Ricketson to utilize the sequence to avoid, minimize and mitigate when considering alternatives. They added that he should review the regulations with potential for variances under the 35-foot NDZ.
Interview Candidate for Hire
Conservation Administrator
Kathy Sferra has been selected as one of two final candidates who will be considered for hire as a replacement for Patricia Perry. Perry will be retiring at the end of June. Sferra attended this meeting to meet members of the Commission that were not involved with the hiring subcommittee. Sferra introduced herself and answered questions regarding her experience. She circulated projects she has completed during her career. One example of this was Stow’s 2008 Open Space and Recreation Plan of which she was the Chief Author. She is currently employed by Massachusetts Audubon and currently volunteers on several boards including Planning Board for the Town of Stow. The Commission told Sferra that they will reach a decision by the end of the evening and would like to make a recommendation to the Town Manager by the following morning.
Decision: Candidate for Hire
Conservation Administrator
The Commission discussed the two applicants and agreed that Kathy Sferra would be the candidate selected to replace Patricia Perry.
Payment for Unused Vacation Time
Pat Perry informed the Commission that she is owed $6,021.44 for 198.5 hours of unused vacation time during her career with the Commission. This item was not included in the Town or Commission’s budget. Bill Wrigley, Town Administrator, informed Perry that there are two ways to pay the money owed. He said it could be taken from the town’s reserve account or, preferably, the Commission could draw funds from their Wetland Account or Conservation Fund. The Commission voted to authorize the expenditure and agreed that the funds should be taken from the Wetland Account. The Commission voted to retain Perry as a part-time employee until the new hire begins service.
Cortni Frecha made a motion to approve spending money from the Conservation Commission’s Wetland Account to pay Patricia Perry for unused vacation time and to retain her as a part-time employee. Doug Moffat seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Request for a Red Line Change
222 Barton Road (U-2 #35)
The original project at this site was approved by the Commission on July 19, 2011. Steve Poole of Lakeview Engineering explained the proposed changes to the Commission at an earlier meeting. He was not present at this meeting.
The Commission decided that items relating to this project could be addressed as a red line change. The Commission noticed that the area had been heavily mulched and asked that ground cover be put in place as well. They also requested that all storm water, including water from the roof of the pool structure, be directed to dry wells. It should be noted that the homeowners have changed plans and will use permeable gravel on all sidewalks instead of impervious pavement as originally planned. The Commission asked Pat Perry to request a written description of all changes, as well as both changes are noted on a new plan, from Steve Poole.
David Coppes made a motion to allow changes relating to the project at 222 Barton Road, provided Steve Poole of Lakeview Engineering, provides the Commission with a written description of all changes on new plans. Cortni Frecha seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Pilot Grove 2
Lot 1 West Acton Road (R-17 #3)
Cortni Frecha raised concerns that the Order of Conditions did not fully address all concerns or intents of the Commission. It was noted that the conditions under which the Commission wrote the orders were stressful. The Commission was pressured by the Stow Housing Corp. (SHC) to write intricate orders the night of that meeting, due to a June 30th closing date and the ten-day appeal period. Because it was a town project, the Commission was making special efforts to accommodate SHC’s needs. There was one condition, regarding a 200-pound stone, which was placed in the incorrect place on the final OOC. The Commission pointed out that, regardless of any details it would like to change, they are permitted to go onto the property at any time and inspect conditions.
The Chair suggested that Patricia Perry investigate whether an errata sheet could be filed. It was agreed that in future situations such as this, the Commission would close the hearing and utilize the 21 days to draft, review and finalize conditions.
Certificate of Compliance Requests (#299-290/A & #299-0469)
11 Chestnut Street (U-7 #48)
Sydney Craig contacted the office requesting two Certificates of Compliance for his property located at 11 Chestnut Street. Pat Perry conducted the site inspection on behalf of the Commission.
File number 299-290/A was issued for a truck port and shed. The amended Order was to allow construction of a two-car garage instead of the truck port and shed. The completed garage structure stands further away from the wetland.
File number 299-469 was issued for the installation of an artesian well.
Perry found the area stabilized and in good condition. The Commission agreed to issue the Certificate of Compliance.
David Coppes made a motion to issue the Certificate Of Compliance for work satisfactorily completed at 11 Chestnut Street in compliance with Order of Conditions Files No. 299-290/A & #299-0469. Cortni Frecha seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Certificate of Compliance Request (#299-0552)
819 Great Road (R-3 #50-A)
David Goguen contacted the office requesting a Certificate of Compliance for his property at 819 Great Road. Pat Perry conducted the site inspection on behalf of the Commission and found the area stabilized and in good condition. The Commission agreed to issue the Certificate of Compliance.
David Coppes made a motion to issue the Certificate Of Compliance for work satisfactorily completed at 819 Great Road in compliance with Order of Conditions File No. 299-0552.
Serena Furman seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Certificate of Compliance Request (#299-0545)
36 Northshore Drive (U-5 #1-A)
David Mitrou contacted the office requesting a Certificate of Compliance for his property at 36 Northshore Drive. David Coppes conducted the site inspection on behalf of the Commission and found the area stabilized and in good condition. The Commission agreed to issue the Certificate of Compliance.
David Coppes made a motion to issue the Certificate Of Compliance for work satisfactorily completed at 36 Northshore Drive in compliance with Order of Conditions File No. 299-0545.
Serena Furman seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Adjournment
Doug Moffat made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 PM. Serena Furman seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
The Commission adjourned at 11 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Maureen Trunfio
Stow Conservation Commission Secretary
| 
