TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: July 15, 2014
1.0. PROJECTS
1.1. NOI Camp Haiastan, 722 Summer Street: A site inspection and preliminary plan review were conducted on 6/18/14 and a letter generated to the applicant’s engineer. A copy is below. It is my opinion that these issues need to be adequately addressed before any final action can be taken on this application.
1.2. NOI Lincoln St.: A site inspection and preliminary plan review was conducted on 6/24/14 and a letter generated to the applicant’s engineer. A copy is below. It is my opinion that these issues need to be adequately addressed before any action can be taken on this application.
1.3. NOI amendment 14 Garnet: This amendment has been discussed in detail with the Commission and the engineer’s certification on the retaining wall has been received.
1.4. NOI Amendment Oak Hill Village, 1000 Washington St.: This amendment has been discussed in detail with the Commission. There will be no increase in the number of dwelling units or stormwater run-off for the hundred year storm and decreases in run-off for storms of less frequency. I would request the following stipulation be attached to any approval:
The new wetlands mitigation area should be supervised by a qualified wetlands scientist who shall also submit a report to the Commission when the mitigation area is established and annually for at least two growing seasons after establishment.
I have also reviewed the original stipulations of approval for this development and there are a number of issues that need to be addressed. Specifically, there are no reports in the file since 2006, as required by special condition numbers 4, 19, 20, 21, 22, 44, 54, 59, 62 and 69. If these reports have been generated, I have asked for copies. If they have not been generated, this is a significant issue of non-compliance that needs to be addressed before any amendments are granted. I cannot recommend this amendment go forward until these “missing” reports are addressed.
2.1. Minor buffer Zone Activities
None
2.2 Permit modifications/extensions
See item 1.4. above
2.3. Certificate of Compliance
2.3.1. 711 Lincoln St.: A filed inspection was conducted on 7/1/14 and a letter generated to the applicant. (Letter below). I have received an e-mail from the applicant dated 7/14/14. I would strongly recommend that unless the applicant can demonstrate that more damage will be done by removing the fencing, the silt fencing should be removed before the release is granted. This fencing is slowly being pushed over and buried and will be in the ground “forever”. The drainage pipe and grass clipping issues have been adequately addressed.
2.3.2. 656 King Street: The revised mitigation area plans have been received. I have requested the applicant’s wetlands scientist to provide a narrative as to the differences from the original and the revised plantings and what measures are necessary to insure the mitigation areas are successful.
I have requested the applicant to remove the silt fencing and in being consistent with my recommendations and findings for 711 Lincoln Street above, I recommend that the silt fencing should be removed before the release is granted. This fencing is slowly being pushed over and buried and will be in the ground “forever”.
In addition, the commission may want to consider holding a public hearing on the “new” mitigation plantings to be consistent with policy. This would also give the abutters an opportunity to address the commission.
2.3.3. 14 Eisenhower Drive: A Certificate of Compliance was issued by the Town for the entire Order of Conditions recorded with the Norfolk County Registry of Deeds, Registered Land Section, as Document No. 966763 and Document No. 966764.~ The attorney’s office attempted to record the certificate of compliance as part of a closing on Lot 188. However the Land Court would not allow this to be recorded as it was not lot specific and it would cost a substantial amount of money to record it as prepared given that it would need to reference all the lots within the subdivision.~ For this reason, they are requesting a Certificate of Compliance specific to 14 Eisenhower Drive, for recording purposes and to thus issue a clear chain of title for this property.~This is not a “new” request in the
traditional since it is only to comply with a legal technicality and the “non-lot specific” COC has already been issued.
2.3.4. 5 Alexandria Drive: A field inspection was conducted on 7/8/14. All is in order for the release.
2.4. Discussion items
2.4.1. Bench policy: The town attorney has recommended some changes in the policy. I have incorporated them into the policy and they are in italics. The Commission will need to vote to adopt the amended policy.
2.4.2. Annual Report: The final (hopefully) annual report has been forwarded in your packets. We have permission to use Emma’s photo in the report, captions have been added to the photos and final numbers on the permitting have been established. We need to submit this report to the town clerk at the end of the month and I would request that any final revisions be decided upon.
2.4.3. “Pipeline” letter: The more I read this letter, the more it sounds like a total “political” statement vis-à-vis an environmental statement that enumerates the facts. It is my opinion that the Commission would be ill advised to be associated with a letter that starts with “We the people” unless independence is being re-declared. Should the Commission wish to go on record as opposing the proposed pipeline, I would recommend a letter be drafted to express that position independent of the instant letter.
2.5. Minutes
2.6. Violations:
2.6.1. 860 West Central St.: The restaurant owner has informed the commission that he has hired an engineer to look at the issues. I have received a letter from the engineer that indicates they are looking at the problem. I have talked to the property owner who indicates the issue is being caused by the restaurants across the street.
The more pressing issue is the fact that work is taking place in the riverfront area. I have issued a stop work order (see below) and have requested the restaurant owner and the property owner to appear before the commission to address the outstanding issues including the instant work.
In your packets, I have enclosed a copy of the written “history” of this issue for your edification.
2.6.2. Wachusett St.: I have included letters in your packets that outline the issue and a solution. I believe the proposal to “remove” the rocks to a location in the stream is the best solution since it solves the issue of the “dam” and at the same time does not “remove material” from the jurisdictional area. I would thus recommend that the Commission endorse the proposed restoration plan and also allow the property owners to remove any future dam but not allow removal of any material from the stream channel. If there is a future build-up of rocks etc. so that they cannot simply be rearranged without causing a problem with the bank or the land under water body, an NOI will need to be submitted to address the issue.
| 
