PLEASE NOTE THE ISSUES UNDER SECTION 2.5.1 AS THESE ARE POTENTIALLY LEADING TO ENFORCEMENT ORDERS
TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: April 15, 2014
1.0. PROJECTS
1.0.1. Dacey Fields trail work (RDA)
This project is very similar to the trail maintenance project at the DelCarte recreation area. The critical component to the proposal is the maintenance does not involve any land disturbance save that necessary for some minor root removal. The application requests that routine annual maintenance be included as part of the application approval. I think this is warranted as long as the work outlined in the permit remains basically the same, i.e. there is no work in the wetlands and there is little or no soil disturbance.
1.0.2. DelCarte Boardwalk and Canoe Launch (NOI)
The town is proposing to link the trails around ponds 3 & 4 in the DelCarte recreation area and to construct a canoe launching facility. Both of these components will improve the accessibility and utilization of the area and has been designed to minimize wetlands impact. In fact the canoe launching facility will improve the area of the bank by allowing the citizenry to launch canoes without damage to the bank that is currently experienced.
I would recommend that the following special conditions be attached to any orders that are issued: 23, 24, 25, 26, 28 & 31.
1.0.3. 64 Maple St. (RDA)
A site inspection was conducted on 4/3/14 and a letter generated to the applicant requesting additional information. The application has been amended to include a small fence and the removal of invasive plants on the south side of the property. This removal will be done by hand and does not seem to pose any issues involving land disturbance.
1.0.4. Cooks Farm (NOI)
I recommend that this application/hearing should be continued until such time as the issues raised by DEP are addressed, The Town Engineer’s comments are addressed, the peer review has been finalized, the Planning Board finds the road “acceptable” and all my comments have been addressed. See attached memos to Planning Board.
2.0. General Business
2.1. Minutes
No comments
2.2. Minor buffer Zone Activities
None.
2.3. Permit modifications/extensions
2.3.1. Marine Way
This permit for a three lot subdivision and a new road is now six years old and no activity has taken place. Were it not for the Permit Extension Act, this permit would have expired four years ago. Prior to granting any extension for these permits, I would recommend that at the very least the Commission should request the applicant to obtain a written report from a wetlands scientist that the site conditions have not changed, including the wetland boundaries. This way the Commission will be assured that the impact of any work will remain the same. Absent this report, I do not recommend the extensions be granted.
I have forwarded my recommendations to the property owner and have not heard anything back.
2.3.2. 656 King Street
The applicant is requesting a modification to the planting plan to place required vegetative barriers in a different location. The ConCom, the ZBA and the Planning Board are all involved in this modification and all three need to agree. ZBA has made any final decision, Planning Board has not. I have informed both boards that the ConCom needs to approve the modification.
The Commission needs to make a determination if the change is significant enough to warrant a formal NOI amendment and to communicate to the other boards any objections to the new planting plan. In my opinion, if the board believes that the planting plan is “OK”, in the interests of fairness, the Planning Board should be so informed as soon as possible.
2.4. Release from Conditions
2.4.1 96 Populatic
A site inspection was conducted on 4/2/14. All conditions have been met and the release from conditions should be granted.
2.4.2. 26 Beech St.
Site inspections were undertaken on 4/2/14 and 4/9/14. All conditions have been met and the release from conditions should be granted.
2.5. Discussion items
2.5.1. Violations
2.5.1.1. 860 Washington Street
There have been repeated sewer overflows at this address and the effluent is coming out of the manhole and going directly into Mine Brook. (E.g. this issue was the subject of an enforcement order in 2012.) I have asked the property owner to file an NOI with a remediation plan for cleaning up the overflow residue and a “plan” for physical improvements to prevent this from happening again. This may involve the construction of some type of emergency containment basin between the manhole and the brook or an overflow piping system to channel any overflow to a containment vessel in the ground. The health department is also involved and has issued an order to abate the situation as well.
As of the date of this report, I have not had any contact with the property owner and thus I would recommend the Commission vote to issue an enforcement order at their next meeting if there is no response from the property owner by that meeting.
2.5.1.2. 5 Dwight St.
Unauthorized tree cutting and clearing was taking place in the buffer zone. This work has been stopped by both my office and DPW. The property owner was contacted and he has agreed to file a permit for the work already undertaken and any additional work by April 15th. If no application is received by the end of the month, I will be bringing an enforcement order to the commission for the May 1, 2014 meeting.
2.5.1.3. Various projects
As the Commission is aware, I have been following up on various projects that have “open” OOCs. There are four property owners who have not responded to any of the four letters that have been generated requesting information. I have also made site visits to all of these properties but cannot really determine if all of the approved work has been completed. In all some cases, there is no evidence the orders were ever recorded. 310 CMR 10.05(6)(g) as well as section 181-8 G of the local by-law, require the recording of the orders prior to starting any work and 310 CMR 10.05(9)(a) requires a certificate of compliance when the work is completed. I would request the Commission’s input on the issuance of an enforcement order to make the permit holders at least produce
evidence that the orders were recorded. If there was no recording, I would then issue a “stop work” order for any remaining work until the orders were recorded.
On one of these properties, there appears to have been fill placed in the 50 foot buffer zone and this fill was not on the approved plans. I have generated another letter to the property owners and a copy is attached for your edification. If no response is forthcoming, an enforcement order will be requested at the next meeting.
2.5.1.4. 727 Washington St.
The property owner has engaged an environmental consulting firm and that firm has prepared a report. This report was received on 4/10/14 and is attached. I have requested some additional information from the consultant concerning any “degradation” to the wetlands. This information has been received and is attached. I would recommend that the Commission may want to consider having the property owner file an RDA for the removal of the remaining vegetative debris that is still in the buffer zone and the implementation of the remediation plan.
- Chair and Commission Comments
4.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION
| 
