TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: May 27, 2014
1.0. PROJECTS
1.0.1. RDA 169 Pine St.: A site visit was conducted on 5/7/14. There are no site issues that would preclude a negative determination and no special conditions are warranted save that my office be notified at the start of construction and that erosion control measures be implemented if in the opinion of the agent they become necessary.
1.0.2. RDA 5 Dwight Street: This RDA was filed as a result of activity undertaken prior to any permit filing and enforcement action was taken by my office. Much of the project area has already been cleared. The work is taking place in the buffer zone only and if a negative determination is granted, erosion control barriers need to be installed and then approved by my office prior to any additional site work.
1.0.3. RDA 727 Washington Street: I would recommend that a negative determination be issued with the following stipulations:
My office should be notified when the restoration work is to begin and when it is completed; and
The applicant’s wetlands scientist should submit a report in writing to the Commission via my office that all restoration work was completed according to the approved plan.
1.0.4. RDA 4 Elm St.: A site visit was conducted on 5/14/14 and my findings forwarded to the applicant. A copy of this letter is below. As of this date, there has been no response to my letter. Absence a response, I would recommend a positive determination be considered. I would also strongly suggest that if the applicant brings the requested material to the meeting, that the commission not go forward since we will have not had any time for review.
1.0.5. NOI 15 Bald Head Road: A site visit was conducted on 5/14/15 and my findings forwarded to the applicant. I would recommend that, given the steepness of the slope in the rear of the property, that a double row of erosion control barriers be placed between the areas of construction on the slope leading to the wetlands. I would recommend that the following special stipulations be attached to any approval: 20, 22, 25-29, 34 & 44.
Revised plans with the RLS stamp and the double erosion control barriers have been received.
1.0.6. 210 Grove Street: We have not received the information requested on the wetlands boundary.
2.1. Minor buffer Zone Activities
2.1.1. 115 Mastro Drive: A site visit was conducted on 5/14/14. There are no site issues that would preclude approval and no special conditions are warranted save that my office be notified at the start of construction and that erosion control measures be implemented if in the opinion of the agent they become necessary.
2.2 Permit modifications/extensions
2.2.1. Villages at Oak Hill: As with any request for a plan modification, the commission must decide if the proposed changes warrant a public hearing etc. The proposed changes to the project are “large” in aerial extent but will result in less impact to the wetlands as called out in the table on page 2 of the cover letter from the applicant. The most significant issue is the accidental filling of an ILSF which the applicant is preparing to address via mitigation. I would recommend that given the overall scope of the project, this change does not rise to the level of requiring a more formal NOI amendment etc. However, I believe the town engineer should review and comment on the modifications, especially in terms of the storm water. I have taken the liberty of
forwarding a copy of the request to him for review.
2.3. Certificate of Compliance
None
2.4. Discussion items
2.4.1. Bench policy: One of the issues that I think the Commission needs to address in any policy is whether the Commission will accept already made benches or whether funds should be given and the Commission “orders” the bench with the necessary plaque dedication. I suggest that any policy require funds be given to the town for maintenance of the bench. The maintenance would include vegetation removal, painting etc., whatever is necessary to maintain the bench in good condition. This is contained in the Arlington model which is a very good one, which I would recommend be used as a basis for our model.
2.4.2. A letter to the abutters for the DelCarte trails has been generated and reviewed by the Mr. Mello and the police chief and a copy is below for your edification.
2.5. Minutes
2.6. Violations:
2.6.1 As of the date of this report, there has been no response to the enforcement orders for 16 Crystal Pond. I will be discussing the “next step” with the town attorney after the June deadline for response.
2.6.2. We have received written permission from the property owner of 860 West Central Street allowing the tenant to file all applications. I have generated a letter to the tenant (copy below) and would ask the Commission to stay the enforcement order until July 2, 2014 to allow the process to work. This will require a formal motion by the Commission.
- Chair and Commission Comments
4.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION
| 
