Stow Conservation Commission
Minutes
August 20, 2013
A meeting of the Stow Conservation Commission was held at the Stow Town Building, 380 Great Road, Stow, Massachusetts, on August 20, 2013 at 7:30 pm.
There were present: Ingeborg Hegemann Clark, Chair
David Coppes, Vice-Chair
Cortni Frecha
Doug Morse
Jeff Saunders
Andy Snow
comprising a quorum of the Commission; also
Present: Kathy Sferra, Conservation Coordinator
The Conservation Commission meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM.
Member & Coordinator Updates
- Doug Morse shared an Order of Conditions that he received from the Town of Georgetown and which he thought was a good model.
- Kathy Sferra updated the Commission on two recent site visits at Pilot Grove 2. The Commission asked that she get clarification on who is the Owners’ Rep/Inspector.
- Andy Snow volunteered to do the site inspection for 41 Gleasondale Road (RDA).
- Kathy Sferra clarified with the Commission how they would like packets delivered. The current system of emailing the packets and providing a hard copy at the meeting works well.
RDA Hearing – 396 Hudson Road
Construction of Addition
Ingeborg Hegemann Clark read the hearing notice. Present were Tom DiPersio and Jared Snapp. The proposed addition is 20’ x 15’ and will be built on 6 piers. Wetlands were flagged by Dave Crossman. The project is 53’ from the wetlands at the closest point and will be constructed in an area that is already maintained as lawn. There is no proposed excavation or change in topography. An intermittent stream is located nearby. Jeff Saunders and Andy Snow did the site visit and reported that no trees will be removed and the site conditions are as represented by the applicant. They presented photos that they took of the site. The site is flat and silt fence is proposed for erosion control. There are no gutters on the house and runoff from the addition will be directed into drip aprons
around the house. After discussion, the Commission recommended that the toed in silt fence be replaced with wattles or coir as this will be easier to install and should be sufficient to control erosion. Cortni Frecha moved to close the hearing. Andy Snow seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. Dave Coppes moved to issue a Negative Determination #3 with the conditions that the project be built as shown on the plan and that the erosion controls be modified as noted above. Cortni Frecha seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously.
The Commission signed the Determination and it will be issued on 8/21/13.
Minute Man Airfield Solar Project
Discussion
John Ricketson was present for an informal discussion with the Commission on the project, specifically issues relating to the 35’ no disturb buffer.
Ricketson noted that a small amount of wetland alteration will be required as a result of flattening the hill and raising the runway due to slope issues. He believes that the public safety benefit would justify a waiver. In response to questions, he said that they cannot build a retaining wall in this area due to FAA requirements and safety issues.
Ricketson presented a series of options for addressing the electrical service lines for the West Array that are proposed in the wetland and buffer and provided a written summary of these options. Their goal is to get the “sense of the Commission” about what might be the preferable approaches to minimize impacts and then explore the cost of the various options in greater detail.
- Option 1 – Above ground on poles
- Option 2 – Relocate a pole outside of the wetland area
- Option 3 – Lay the electric lines on the surface of the wetland
- Option 4 and 5 – Directional drilling under the wetland
The Commission discussed the pros and cons of the various options. Several questions were raised including the need to understand whether the tall poles would still need to be constructed for runway safety lighting needs, and how many would be needed and where, as well as the exact methods of construction that would be employed (e.g. do they trench across the wetland, or can they pull the line through from the upland; what is the diameter of the pipe). Are the swamp mats required just for pole construction or are they needed to extend the lines across the wetlands. Also questioned was what would be needed by way of long-term maintenance. The Commission expressed concern about direction drilling as Commissioners Coppes and Saunders both had experience with directional drills that had failed or resulted in a release of grout
and drilling materials (bentonite) into wetlands and streams. Ricketson said that a consultant had told him that they could “drill through anything” and the Commission encouraged him to be skeptical of such claims and make sure they understand the subsurface geology. The applicant would need to be prepared to address what steps would need to be taken in the event of failure of the directional drill.
Overall the Commission is inclined to favor Option 2 as the simplest alternative, and would be open to consideration of direction drilling. The Commission advised Ricketson to be very clear about which aspects of the project were needed for the solar application and which were related to airport improvements, as well as to be prepared to provide supporting document for citations to “FAA requirements.” The applicant was asked to provide information on the location of the treeline as well as the type of wetland that will affected by the project. Hegemann Clark noted that the water quality of the stream is important as it is the headwaters of Heath Hen Meadow Brook.
The Commission noted a recent case that is pending in Newbury with regard to wetland impacts from a solar project, and potential inconsistencies with another recent case involving a cranberry bog. Ricketson clarified that they have pulled back any panels that were located in the 35’ buffer zone and that their insurance company is telling them that they will not be required to fence the array in the area of the buffer/riverfront area. Hegemann Clark noted a provision in the Riverfront Area (RA) regulations that may allow up to 10% of the RA to be altered – they may want to see how that would apply to their property.
The Commission asked about the project timeframe. Ricketson explained that there have been recent changes in the solar incentives that have caused a lot of scrambling among project proponents and many projects are on hold. They are unsure when they will be proceeding but hope that the dual project purpose will mean they get favorable treatment
Member and Coordinator Updates (Continued)
Kathy Sferra shared with the Commission a list of priorities for the next two months, which the Commission reviewed and supported. Commission members expressed a desire to identify some additional associate members that might be interested in serving on the Commission in the future.
Andy Snow indicated that she had been at Captain Sargent recently and was concerned about stockpiled materials. Kathy Sferra will do a site visit and is planning to meet with the farmer.
Dave Coppes took the NOI for Hemenway Farms for review. Kathy Sferra will get in touch with Sue Carter about reviewing. Doug Morse asked for the plans to be emailed to him.
Adjournment
Dave Coppes made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Cortni Frecha seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
The Commission adjourned at 9:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Sferra
Stow Conservation Coordinator
| 
