Stow Conservation Commission
Minutes
February 5, 2013
A meeting of the Stow Conservation Commission was held at the Stow Town Building, 380 Great Road, Stow, Massachusetts, on February 5, 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
Associate: 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.
Jesse Steadman, Assistant Planner
Middlesex Conservation District Conservation Needs Assessment 2012
Jesse Steadman, Planning Assistant from the Town of Stow’s Planning Board, requested a meeting with the Commission to deliver an overview of the Middlesex Conservation District Conservation Needs Assessment 2012 and MAPC’s Agriculture Project.
One purpose of the study was to discuss issues and potential solutions from different stakeholders in Middlesex County regarding conservation and agriculture needs. More importantly they wanted to be able to identify specific areas where there was more activity to be able to better request funding from the federal level.
Steadman’s process included holding three public meetings and sending out a survey. He had a total of 30 people at his public meetings and had 50 surveys returned. Responses came from Conservation Agents, farmers, people on conservation land trusts, etc. Steadman told the Commission that this was supposed to be a conservation needs assessment that looked into issues such as soil and water quality. However, Steadman reported that it was clear that most people wanted to talk about agriculture and farming.
Steadman said that it was clear that there was a conflict between non-agricultural interests and farmers. He heard this from municipal people as well as farmers. He said that the main problem stemmed from an overwhelming lack of education and outreach in the community regarding farming.
Farmers reported that they felt that the general public did not understand how difficult it was to stay in business, and that they, the farmers, did not have the ability to convey to public how important farming was to the community.
According to information gathered, there was difficulty reported with regard to attaining farm land. This was heard from both long-time farmers as well as new comers. There were regulatory and policy issues that were raised. There were issues that Steadman said the Middlesex Conservation District and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) couldn’t truly understand since they are accustomed to looking at regulations with local boards of health and then trying to reason how things could be improved. Overall they were more interested in which properties are under direct threat and which lakes have more pollution. This raised the question by participants whether this survey served a purpose on the local level. The Middlesex Conservation District answered that question by stating that they felt that they were compiling
useful information and would move forward.
The lack of regional planning support was another common complaint raised by participants. Steadman believes that there is sufficient planning support, but understands that many people are not aware of the support available. He said that one fact that they were surprised to learn was that there are a lot of resources out there, but people simply are not aware of their existence. He stated that there’s a big gap in thinking that people know about the resources, and the fact that they actually didn’t. For example, he stated that this research was funded by the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and there were farmers still struggling to understand the role of the NRCS.
When Steadman’s group approached solutions, they were very broad solutions. The municipal participants present could delve into actual solutions and resources or look at what had worked in the past. They found that there was a lot of both regional and educational collaboration and partnerships that could work. The consensus was that more people would be required to work on this in order to be effective.
Steadman told the Commission that the funding for the project had ended, and that the report had been sent to the state technical committee and the district conservationist. This group collects all the different reports that concern Massachusetts, reviews them and then makes their funding recommendations.
Steadman told the Commission that simultaneously they have been working on MAPC’s Agricultural Planning Project. He said that he’d been speaking with Julie Conroy and other partners involved with that project. They decided to borrow some of the information from the Middlesex Conservation District’s report and some of its broad themes. This seemed applicable because a project developed that was attempting to form a regional collaboration. Steadman reported that there were tense conference calls that demonstrated that diverse interests were being brought together.
The farm bureau has provided support. They shared a white paper showing legislative priorities of their own. He added that they have other data from MAPC surveys that they included to attempt to realize what issues stand out at present in order to help farmers or municipalities that own land or are dealing with agriculture on a daily basis.
The Commission told Steadman that it holds land that is used for solely for agriculture. They mentioned that agriculture is addressed in the Town’s Master Plan, and in the Town’s Open Space Report. Steadman congratulated Stow on its positive attitude toward farming. Steadman has spoken with Dwight Sipler, Chair of the Agricultural Commission. He plans to continue to speak with him in the future He added that part of the MAPC project is to share what techniques and procedures have been successful in other towns, and to put this information into print so that it is not assumed that people know certain details and/or procedures. Steadman is planning to conduct informal interviews and to put together a list of examples of ideas that have been successful. One example he stated was that the Stow Ag Commission worked to
remove the excise tax on their properties. This may help other Ag Commission’s look into that process. These interviews will serve as Stow’s contribution to the MAPC’s project.
Pat Perry informed Steadman that Stow has three Agricultural Preservation Restrictions on property in town. She added that farmers have been very supportive in putting their land in Agricultural Restriction. Stow’s most visible, and currently farmed parcels, are Arbor Glen and Tuttle Lane.
Steadman said that they are now revisiting what they originally mapped out as farm lands, and redefining parcels that people may have forgotten or may not consider to be potential farm land. This may include an overgrown section of a back yard, an empty lot that can yield crops or land that’s being leased out. He said notice has been taken in the trend in valuing very small parcels that can be utilized. At present, he added, they are revisiting the inventory process and counting pieces of land that may not have been counted that first time around. They are also adding comment on how these properties are important to the surrounding community. Steadman said that the towns of Lincoln and Concord had finished re-inventorying their farm land.
Steadman hopes that the following information will be mapped to show where agriculture stands at present, and how it contributes to the community. They are questioning whether there are pieces of land that could be utilized. Steadman will be working closely with the Agricultural Commission and would like to know how much the Conservation Commission would like to be involved.
Steadman requested that Commission review his report and inform him if any of the data resonates with Stow. The Commission responded saying that they would. The Commission conveyed to Steadman that they are very interested in and appreciative of his work. They suggested that Steadman include statistics from Bolton when possible.
Craig Martin, Building Commissioner for the Town of Stow
Hydro Electric Generation Station
Craig Martin, Building Commissioner for the Town of Stow sent a letter to the Commission on January 10, 2013 expressing his interest in installing a small hydro electric generator at “The Dam,” which is Town land located at the west end of the first basin of Lake Boon. Martin mentioned in his letter that he has observed constant water flow through the 60-inch overflow pipe into Bailey Brook which feeds the Assabet River. Martin sees this as a possibility to generate clean electricity and provide revenue to the Town. Martin requested a meeting with the Commission to provide an overview for potential hydro-electric power generation at the Lake Boon Dam. Martin presented the idea to the Commission at the present meeting. Selectman and Lake Boon resident, Don Hawkes, was also present.
Martin presented plans and photos of the Dam area. He is presently investigating the myriad of different choices of turbines. The model that he prefers is the type that would be located over the outlet structure. Martin reports that this is primarily where work would take place. He told the Commission that they may need to bypass flow while the work is being done. The Commission recommended that the work be done when the boards are being put back in from the drawdown. The Commission reminded Martin that that the Commission wouldn’t allow flow to stop completely.
At the present time the flow involves a five-foot diameter pipe. Martin explained that they would not utilize the full five-foot diameter to feed into the turbine. He estimates they would want to utilize a12-15 inch diameter pipe to feed into the turbine unit. The remainder of the flow would bypass the unit. Martin told the Commission that when he gets to the point where the final design will be decided, he would call in a design professional. It would be a capital project and would need to come before Town Meeting. Martin suggested Fall Town Meeting as a goal.
The Commission asked Martin the purpose of the project. Martin told the Commission that he had spoken with Hudson Light & Power and they agreed to purchase any power produced by the generation station and that he could foresee extra income for the town.
The Commission questioned whether the installation of additional power poles would be required. Martin said there would be a need for a minimum of one pole, possibly more. Power generated would need to be brought to an existing pole at the location where Pine Point Road meets Barton Road. Martin said a pole would probably be needed at the dam. The Commission suggested that he explore the possibility of whether a trench could be utilized instead of a pole. The Commission asked whether the power would need to be converted and Martin explained that conversion would be done at the turbine which would be set up to generate AC power. Martin reported that there would be a15-20 year life expectancy for the turbine unit and that there may be a need for a small dog house type structure to cover the generator. Don Hawkes suggest installing a
filter of some sort to catch debris.
Martin told the Commission that there is a permitting process he will need to undertake with the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) regarding their dam safety provision. The Commission suggested that Martin check with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to find out if the project may be small enough to exclude the need for extra processes such as this. Martin said he would discuss this with Hudson Light & Power.
The Commission questioned the amount of noise that would be generated by the unit at the dam. Martin said that he didn’t imagine that the generator would be any louder than the current sound of rushing water.
The Commission was supportive of the idea presented and suggested that when Martin feels prepared to move forward with the project, he should file a Notice of Intent with the Commission.
Certificate of Compliance Request (#299-0553)
320 Hudson Road (R-2 #17)
Steve Poole PE contacted the office requesting a Certificate of Compliance for
Andrianne H. Snow’s property at 320 Hudson Road. Poole was present and explained that the project has been completed. The hay bales remain in place due to frozen conditions. Doug Morse and Cortni Frecha conducted the site inspection on behalf of the Commission and found the area stabilized and in good condition. They asked Poole how he will treat the area where the hay bales were trenched in. Poole explained that the area will be raked out when it’s over seeded in the spring. The Commission agreed to issue the Certificate of Compliance.
Doug Moffat made a motion to issue the Certificate Of Compliance for work satisfactorily completed at 320 Hudson Road in compliance with Order of Conditions File No. 299-0553.
Doug Morse seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Certificate of Compliance Request (#299-0551)
27 Barton Road (U-1 #53-1)
The Conservation Commission Office received a request a Certificate of Compliance for Thomas & Connie Zimmerman’s property at 27 Barton Road. Ingeborg Hegemann Clark conducted the site inspection on behalf of the Commission. Grass that had been planted in the fall had not grown. It was determined that the site of disturbance was not stabilized and that once the ground thawed there could be possible erosion. Hegemann Clark recommended that the Commission not issue the Certificate of Compliance at this time. She suggested that the Commission re-check the site in the late spring season. The Commission agreed.
Approve Minutes
Cortni Frecha made a motion to approve the minutes of January 15, 2013 as drafted and amended. Serena Furman seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
Lower Village Water Supply/
Heritage Lane Open Space
Kathy Sferra contacted the office and said she would like to ask the Commission to approve
test wells in the specific area in Town Forest that was shown on the GIS plan. The purpose is to insure that there is indeed the amount of water that the town is hoping for before the issue goes before town meeting.
Dave Coppes stated that conceptually he agrees with allowing test wells. However, he does not want to approve anything, even test wells, without seeing specifics. He clarified by saying that if the drilling company would like to put a stake in the ground where they’d like to locate a test well, he will go out and check it. The Commission was also concerned with an email received today stating that they are looking at possibly drilling two wells instead of one in this area.
Pat Perry reported that Kathy Sferra has been discussing first steps that must be taken in this process. Perry said that it would be wise to state what those first steps are, in what order they should be completed and who is responsible for completing each step. The Commission would like to know if the Board of Health would eventually have jurisdiction over the new well. There will be a meeting set up with Bill Wrigley and the different parties involved to discuss first steps.
The Commission would like advice on how to proceed with the process of allowing test wells to be drilled. The Commission raised the idea of permitting temporary use of land. Pat Perry will seek advice from Bill Wrigley. Perry suggested that a written agreement be drawn up stating what the drilling company intends to do. The Commission insisted that before test well drilling begins, they would like to review the proposal, have the chosen well company stake the location, walk the property with the Commission and have them explain their vehicular access plans to the site for test well drilling. The Commission would like to review Planning Board’s build out analysis for Route 117 to help understand water demand.
Woodhead Parcel
The Open Space Committee has told the Commission that they feel that the proposal from
Bill Woodhead, as it is currently written, is too complex, too expensive and, ultimately, not fundable by the Community Preservation Committee. They said that they would consider a scaled-back version that proposed only purchasing one parcel and entrusting Woodhead to separately sell the machine shop parcel.
Pat Perry had a discussion with Bruce Trefry and asked him to relay this information to Woodhead. Perry added that she knows that Woodhead would like to see this parcel remain as an open meadow and a part of Flagg Hill. Woodhead is aware that the process could be delayed. Perry added that there are two commercial companies interested in purchasing the property, but the town still retains the right of first refusal.
Annual Report
Pat Perry gave the Commission a draft copy of the Annual Report to review. This information will appear as a section in the Town’s annual report.
Budget Meeting
Pat Perry met with the Bill Wrigley, Town Administrator, to discuss the proposed budget. Wrigley approved $5K to be allotted for the Conservation Fund. Some of this money might be needed to be drawn upon when Perry retires in June in order to pay her as a consultant to train the new administrator for a brief period of time.
Use of Conservation Land by Lincoln Labs
Pat Perry was made aware that Lincoln Labs has been granted permission to use town conservation land. Permission was granted by the Board of Selectman’s Administrative Assistant, Susan McLaughlin. The Commission did receive use details but did not approve or deny use.
Town Forest Dog Issue
Pat Perry has spoken with the Police Department regarding the issue. They said they will attempt to put a patrol car in the parking lot from time to time. They also offered to install a trail camera on one of the trails so that flow in and out of the area can be monitored. The Commission received a letter from Lori Clark, member of a local dog club who often walk their dogs at Town Forest. Perry told Clark that the Commission is open to recommendations they may like to submit.
Adjournment
David coppes made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 PM. Cortni Frecha seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.
The Commission adjourned at 9:00 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Maureen Trunfio
Stow Conservation Commission Secretary
| 
