TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: March 25, 2014
1.0. PROJECTS
1.0.1. Village at Cooks Farm
The wetlands on this site were delineated and accepted by the Commission in Feb. 2013 and thus the boundaries are still valid. There is no indication in the current application of any changes.
This application is undergoing peer review as part of the planning board application. I would recommend that ConCom application hearing be held open for this peer review and that the Commission request the Planning Board’s consultant also look at this application, OR the Commission hire their own independent peer reviewer. This is recommended especially in light of the stormwater plan and riverfront area impacts. (Please see item #5 in my review letter.) I also believe this review is important to evaluating the applicant’s statement in the narrative for the variance request which states: “Part of this process is determining the criteria and issues that are the most sensitive to the area, and which solution is best for the environment.” I have discussed the stormwater aspect
of this application with the Town Engineer and he agrees that peer review may be appropriate.
I have generated a review letter to the applicant’s representative and it is attached and contains my additional comments on this application.
2.1. Minutes
Based on discussions among the staff, I have been doing some research on the requirements of the state’s Open Meeting Law. The law requires that the minutes contain the following: (1) date, time, place and members present, (2) a “list” of all the documents and other exhibits used at the meeting that the commission considered in making its decision. {This would mean any plans or other written material, e.g. a wetlands delineation report.}, (3) a summary of the discussion, and (4) all votes on all actions taken.
I know this is becoming more cumbersome, but we many want to consider attaching exhibit labels to each item presented to the Commission as well as those submitted with the application and then we can list the documents as “exhibit 1: plan showing xxxxx”. Please let me know what you think.
2.2 Minor buffer Zone Activities
2.2.1. None
2.3. Permit modifications
2.3.1. 7 Shawkemo
The applicant is requesting a change in the plan. Under DEP policy 85-4, the Commission needs to determine if this change is significant enough to require a new hearing or a new NOI. I would suggest that the proposed modification is not a significant deviation from what was approved. However, it is important that any approval by the Commission reference a title and date of the plan and the narrative, so that when the request for release from conditions is submitted, all parties will be working from the same plan.
2.4. Release from Conditions
2.4.1. 153 Pine Street.
I conducted a preliminary inspection on 2/25/14 and a subsequent inspection on 3/11/14. The permit was for a driveway and stream crossing. One structure is shown on the original plans but there are currently two structures on the site, one of which is outside of jurisdiction. The driveway is as depicted on the plans and the stream crossing appears to also be functioning as permitted. I would recommend that the release of conditions be granted.
2.5. Discussion items
2.5.1. Violations:
2.5.1.1. 727 Washington Street:
A violation letter has been issued as per the Commission’s vote on 3/6/14 and a copy is attached. The applicant has once again requested to speak to the Commission. In addition, I have been contacted by Mr. Donald Nielsen of Guerriere & Halnon, Inc. on behalf of the property owner. I have forwarded a copy of all correspondence to him.
2.5.2. “Standard” special conditions
The “standard” special conditions that were discussed at the 3/6/14 meeting have been amended based on discussion at the 3/6/14 meeting, and subsequent changes suggested by the chair. If there are no additional comments/changes, we will place these on the Commission’s website. In addition, we have found some additional issues with the website which we are addressing.
2.5.3. Issuance of Order of Conditions for 176 Cottage St.
The public hearing has been closed. The Commission needs to issue the order of conditions and attach any special conditions they deem necessary. I would recommend all conditions be attached except numbers 19, 32, 42, 43 and 45.
2.5.3. Findings of Fact
The findings of fact discussed at the 3/6/14 meeting have been amended and are now being “tested” on any new NOIs submitted.
- Chair and Commission Comments
4.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION
| 
