TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: March 4, 2014
Special note: PLEASE BRING THE MATERIAL DISTRIBUTED FOR THE 2/13/14 MEETING WITH YOU, ESPECIALLY THE MATERIAL ON 727 WASHINGTON ST., THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
1.0. PROJECTS
1.0.1. MBTA Culvert replacement project.
A field inspection was conducted on 1/29/14 and based on the field inspection and the application review; comments were generated and forwarded to the applicant on the same day. All issues have been addressed by the applicant.
I would recommend that all erosion control barriers be biodegradable.
The application was not signed by the property owner and this is required if the owner is different from the applicant. It appears that MBCR is TRC's client but TRC does not represent the MBTA. I have checked with the town attorney on this, and it is his opinion that the application is not complete until signed by the property owner or there is written authorization from the owner for TRC to file the application. DEP has concurred with having the property owner sign the application. This issue has been rectified for the instant application, and all is ready to proceed. I only bring this up for the commission’s edification on future applications.
1.0.2. NOI 137 Mastro Drive:
The commission should consider attaching the conditions outlined in my memo on “standard” special conditions to this approval. The commission may want to consider the conditions outlined in my memo on 2/6/14 on standard conditions for most NOI permits.
1.0.3. RDA DelCarte Trail work
This work does not involve any land disturbance within the Commission’s jurisdiction and will dramatically improve the public access around the ponds. I would recommend a negative determination. There is also a student, Ms. Emma Goulet, working on a project to place signage on the improved trails that will be discussed at the meeting. These signs are not going to have any impact on jurisdictional areas and will improve the overall quality of the trail system.
1.0.4. RDA Delcarte recreation area plant removal
This application has been withdrawn.
1.0.5. Camp Haiasten
Based in large measure on the Mullin decision, I would not recommend that the commission continue this hearing many more times. As time goes by, the possibility of getting the necessary quorum to vote on the project diminishes. I would also suggest that if an extension of the public hearing is not received in a timely manner by the commission, as has been the case in the last two hearing continuances, the commission may want to close the hearing and act on the application with the information that has been received. Should the commission approve the permit and if the applicant needs to change what was approved by the commission, the amendment process would need to be followed. (See section 2.5.2 below.)
2.1. Minutes
No comments
2.2 Minor buffer Zone Activities
2.2.1. 30 Shady Lane:
This request is for an above ground drainage pipe that will direct roof run-off into an underground chamber with the capacity to accommodate the additional discharge. I do not see any reason not to grand this permit.
2.3. Permit modifications
None
2.4. Release from Conditions
2.4.1. Lots 6-4 and 6-5 Grace Lane.
I have undertaken a preliminary inspection and generated a letter to the applicant, which is attached. The commission has 21 days to act (310 CMR 10.05(9)) on this release unless granted an extension by the applicant. Based on the reasons enumerated on the attached letter, if an extension of time is not received, I would recommend that the release of conditions not be granted.
2.4.2. 3 Peppermill Lane
The original NOI did not approve the addition of a deck, which was in fact built and is so noted on the request for the release. Given that the deck appears to be the only deviation from the approved plan, is outside of the 50’ buffer zone, and is elevated, I believe the commission should look at this structure as an “unregulated” minor activity under 310 CMR 10.02(b)1 e., and grant the certificate of compliance.
2.4.3. 348 East Central Street
I have undertaken a preliminary inspection and generated an e-mail to the applicant’s representative. The commission has 21 days to act (310 CMR 10.05(9)) on this release unless granted an extension by the applicant. I expect this extension will be granted. However, if an extension of time is not received, I would recommend that the release of conditions not be granted
2.5. Discussion items
2.5.1. Violations: I will distribute copies of letters that have been generated for any new and/or on-going violations.
2.5.1.1. 727 Washington Street:
The original violation was observed and a letter to the property owner generated on December 4, 2013. A follow-up letter was mailed on December 31, 2013 and a meeting held with the property owner on January 23, 2014. The property owner requested a meeting with the commission for the January 30th meeting, but then requested a postponement until the Feb. 13, 2014 meeting, which was canceled.
Photos of the violation were mailed with your 2/13/14 packets. Given the very steep slope over which the material will need to be moved and its location IN the wetlands jurisdictional areas (bank, LUW and possibly BVW) as well as the 100’, 50’ and 25’ buffer areas, it is my opinion that the applicant should file an NOI, prepared by a licensed professional, to remove this material. I am not a proponent of having a property owner incur unnecessary expense, but I believe this is warranted to help assure the commission that no further degradation will take place in the removal of the material. Further, the application should be filed no later than the close of business on 4/3/14. If the NOI is not filed by that date, or a professional hired by the applicant to
prepare the permit application has not contacted our office with a date certain timetable, I would recommend that an enforcement order be issued and fines under the local bylaw be imposed. No enforcement order has been issued to this point in time, but I believe that this violation does warrant such action.
I have “instructed” the property owner to discontinue any activity until after the Commission has an opportunity to discuss what is taking place.
2.5.2. Oak Hill Estates:
The material you received in your packets is submitted as per DEP Policy 85-4. The Commission needs to make a decision as to the significance of the proposed amendment request; i.e. does it rise to the level of requiring a new NOI or can the existing NOI be amended. It is important to note that if an amendment is sufficient, the expiration date of the original permit and any amendments thereto, do not change.
2.5.3. “Standard” special conditions
Your opinion on the “standard” special conditions that were originally forwarded for the 2/13/14 meeting and on wetland boundary markers is requested.
2.5.4. Findings of Fact
Information was distributed in your packets. I would recommend the commission adopt the use of these findings, or some modification thereof and that they be made part of the minutes for NOI permit approvals.
2.5.5. Hearing Attendance
Information was distributed in your packets
- Chair and Commission Comments
4.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION
| 
