TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report for May 1, 2014 meeting
DATE: April 29, 2014
1.0. PROJECTS
1.1. DelCarte invasive plant removal (RDA)
This is a resubmission of the previously withdrawn RDA application. The instant permit request incorporates the recommendations of the New England Wildflower Society and includes the “game plan” that the Commission had previously requested for plant removal.
1.2. DelCarte boardwalk and canoe launch
The NOI number (159-1062) has been received and thus the public hearing can be closed.
I would recommend that the following special conditions be attached to any orders that are issued: 23, 24, 25, 26, 28 & 31.
1.3. 13 Haverstock Road
I have reviewed the application, conducted a site visit, and have received responses to my questions and concerns from the applicant’s engineer. The application is interesting in that all of the proposed structures are proposed to be constructed on piers thus dramatically minimizing the land disturbance. I would recommend that the following special stipulations be attached to any approval: 20 through 29, 34 & 38.
We have not yet received an NOI number from DEP and the hearing should be kept open to receive this information.
1.4. Cooks Farm
Memos have been generated to the Planning Board concerning the vote of the Commission at their last meeting. We have also received a response from the applicant to my comments and DEP’s comments. My response and the memo to the Planning Board are below. Also below is the preliminary review from the Town Engineer. I would call your attention to item # 12 in this memo as it has an impact on both the ConCom and Planning Board decisions on the limited road crossing.
2.1. Minutes
Under the Discussion for 727 Washington St., I would recommend that that the third paragraph be amended to read”
“Mr. Russell informed the Commission that the damage down to the land under the water body as well as the bank is still unknown. DEP is of the opinion that a restoration plan needs to be submitted and this should have been required as soon as the violation was observed. There is still debris in the buffer area that needs to be removed and given the steep slope this removal plan should be developed by a wetlands scientist so as to minimize any damage to the area. In addition, Mr. Russell noted that the property owner removed the subject material after he was informed not to do so and until the Commission approved the removal.”
Under CE159-1061, in the third paragraph, change “all” to “most”.
2.2 Minor buffer Zone Activities
None
2.3. Permit modifications/Extensions
2.2.3.1. SE 159-813, Walsh, Uncas Ave.
The permit in question is still valid and is under the local by-law only; the DEP permit was a superseding order. The Commission has extended the permit twice and §181-8 D of the local by-law allows the Commission to grant three extensions to any permit in force at the time the extension request is received. The wetland on site is ±250 ft² and thus the impact is relatively small. I see no reason not to grant the “final” extension.
2.4. Release from Conditions
2.4.1. 236 Daniels Street
A field inspection was conducted on 4/16/14. This inspection revealed significant erosion issues and these have been communicated to the current property owner. See attached letter. I cannot recommend the release be granted until such time as these issues are satisfactorily addressed.
I have a meeting wet up with the property owners on May 1, 2014 to go over the issues and may have more information at the meeting.
2.4.2. 4 Green St.
A field inspection was conducted on 4/24/14. This permit was issued for two building lots and 4 Green Street is one of the two. As-built plans and the appropriate certification have been received. There is some minor deviation in terms of the plantings in the rear of the property and the installation of a children’s play area in the outer riparian zone. I would recommend however that a partial release is in order for this lot.
2.5. Discussion items
2.5.1. Forest cutting NOI Franklin/Wrentham
The NOI for forest cutting was received on 4/16/14 and is being submitted for comment to the Commission under 304 CMR 11.00. The activity is exempt from the wetlands act requirements if a number of conditions are met one of which is giving the Commission the “opportunity to comment”. The activity is to start in “April 2014” and this does not give the Commission a lot of time to comment. In addition, there are no signatures on the form received. There do not appear to be any jurisdictional areas in the subject parcel but I do not have the legal authority to inspect. I did attempt to undertake an inspection, but was unable to secure permission. In addition, there is no way to determine when the town line is in the field. All things considered, I would
recommend that we send a letter to the State Forester who has jurisdiction in this area of the state indicating that insufficient time was given for comment, the application was not signed and all of the wetlands may not be shown.
2.5.2. Violations:
2.5.2.1. 860 West Central Street
No response to my letter has been received and I would request that an enforcement order be issued. (I will bring it to the meeting.)
2.5.2.2. 16 Crystal Pond Ln.
No response to my letter has been received and I would request that an enforcement order be issued. (I will bring it to the meeting.)
2.5.3. Meeting organization/procedures
Based on comments and discussions at the end of the April 17th meeting, I would propose the following procedural changes be considered (Note: the first bulleted item is already being implemented):
- Schedule the first public hearing at 7:15 PM to eliminate the “gap” at the beginning of the meeting. In order to fill this gap, the Commission has been taking discussion items “out of order” and this results in a lot of the paper shuffling etc.;
- The law dictates that a public hearing cannot begin until the advertised time, but may begin later. The Commission may want to consider spacing the public hearings no more than 10 minutes apart so that there are no “gaps” that need to be filled. As it stands now, the 10 minute time frame is used on all the hearings except the first two;
- I have developed a draft agenda format for your review. (See below.) By numbering the items as I have, I can tailor the Agent’s Report to correspond to the numbers on the agenda and thus there will be an easier correlation between the report and the agenda;
- Whenever possible, I am going to be placing any memos, letters etc. of which the Commission should be aware at the end of my report. This is being done given the difficulty that some members have experienced opening attachments to my report. The first three are below. PLEASE let me know if this is better or worse for you.
- We were thinking of supplying the members with expanding folders at the beginning of each meeting and these folders will contain files, tentatively labeled by time or subject so that the item under discussion will be easily accessible; and
- We can continue to mail the applications we have received to the members so that they will have the opportunity to review the material before the meeting. However, we need to know how long the members would like; e.g. do you want us to mail the applications and supporting material to you as soon as the “window” closes or wait and send it as we are currently doing. It is important to remember, that the Commission can continue a hearing for 21 days, or close a hearing but not vote for 21 days. This is important for “digesting” all of the information that may be presented.
- Chair and Commission Comments
4.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION
| 
