DATE: December 17, 2013
TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
1.0. PROJECTS
1.0.1. 14 Garnet Dr.
A field inspection of the site was conducted on 12/4/13. I forwarded my findings to the applicant’s engineer. The findings:
I cannot find the marked wetlands flags on the lot. There is some pink tape on some trees, but there are no markings on these. Therefore, I am requesting the wetlands be reflagged. In addition, the application indicates on page 7 that the method for BVW determination is attached. However, I cannot locate it and would request the documentation for the wetlands determination be submitted.
Based on the details shown on the plan, I assume there is not going to be an outlet from the roof recharge area that is proposed in the rear of the structure. Is this correct?
Also, what is the date of the FIRM map you reference in your narrative? The most up-to-date FIRM maps for the town have a different panel number and I want to make sure the information is accurate.
1.0.2. RDA Beaver Street Tree Removal
This was previously discussed with the commission concerning the reasons for, and the extent of, the work involving the removal of the trees on the sewer interceptor line. The work is completed and I would recommend a negative determination.
1.0.3. RDA DelCarte vegetation removal
Due to a defect in the legal notice, this hearing is being re-advertised and no testimony should be taken.
1.0.4. Camp Haiastan 722 Summer St. Don Nielsen – NOI
Information/approval on the septic system from the Health Department is still required.
2.1. Minutes
No comments
2.2 Minor buffer Zone Activities
None
2.3. Discussion items
2.3.1. Ronca, Silver Fox Road SE 159-907
Mr. Ronca disagrees with the commission’s decision, based on my report, not to issue the COC. I believe the work completed deviates sufficiently from the approved OOC as to warrant an NOI amendment, and meets the requirements of 310 CMR 10.05(9)(c), which states: “If the issuing authority determines, after review and inspection, that the work has not been done in compliance with the Order, it may refuse to issue a Certificate of Compliance.”
The original agent’s report stated:
The OOC was issued for a single family dwelling in March 2006. I conducted a field inspection on 11/14/13. The following deviations from the as-built plans submitted with the request for a COC, and the plans that were approved by the Commission, are noted below. All of these activities are within the 100’ buffer zone:
- There was a deck constructed in the rear of the house as noted in the engineer’s letter. This deck required the construction of a concrete block retaining wall, also shown on the as-builts, 3 2x2 concrete pads for the deck piers and a 2x4 concrete landing pad at the base of the stairs. The deck and retaining wall have caused a change from the grading plan submitted with the NOI;
- The Engineer’s letter indicates that the deck is 68’ from the wetlands buffer zone. The deck is 68’ from the wetlands and is in the buffer zone;
- There is a small disturbed area without vegetative cover along the sidewalk where the boulders are indicated on the as-builts;
- There is a flexible 4” tube carrying the water from the roof downspout into the 50’ buffer zone;
- There is a concrete block retaining wall extending from the east side of the structure and this retaining wall is also shown on the as-builts; and
- There is no evidence of the submission of the written reports required by special condition number 23. These reports were to be submitted in April and October to detail the project’s conformance with the Orders.
2.3.1. Application filings
2.3.1.1. Review by other departments
I have included a new distribution sheet. It appears that all applicants will be required to file copies with the listed departments as part of the application process. Also, please see the attached memo.
2.3.1.2. Electronic filing
In an attempt to make our files more accessible to all, the issue of requiring an application to be filed with a PDF copy on a disk has been discussed. This would allow us to put the application in our data base so that it could be accessed by all without having other municipal staff having to try and find it in the event ConCom staff is not available. This would also require that any modifications to the plan, prior to final action by the Commission, would require a new disk. Sections 16 of the Commission’s “Rules and Regulations” specify that this should be done for NOIs. I would ask the commission to consider this application procedure for all filings, not just NOIs.
2.3.2. Sign In sheet: Based on discussions at the last meeting, I have attached a draft sign in sheet for the commission’s consideration.
2.3.3. Violations. I will pass out at the meeting any possible violations that are being investigated so that the Commission is aware of any issues.
- Chair and Commission Comments
4.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION
| 
