TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: August 26, 2014
1.0. PROJECTS
1.1. Grove St Conduit Installation RDA: I have inspected the site and agree with the applicant’s assessment that the project meets the criteria for a negative RDA.
1.2. Forest St. Reconductoring RDA: I have inspected the site and agree with the applicant’s assessment that the project meets the criteria for a negative RDA. This permit is for work on a scenic road and may also require approval from the Planning Board.
1.3. 418 Oakland Parkway RDA: This permit for a pool that is both above ground and below ground. I have met with the property owners on site. I do not see any significant issues with the permit, but would recommend that if approved the following stipulations be added: (1) erosion control between the pool and the wetlands be installed and inspected by my office prior to any construction; (2) my office be notified when construction begins and ends and (3) any stockpiled/disturbed soil which remains as such for longer than 30 days, be seeded to prevent any additional erosion.
1.4. 236 Daniels NOI Amendment: I have met with the property owners to try and develop a plan that would be acceptable to all. As it turns out, the plans in the file and those submitted with the request for release have been superseded by a newer plan that in fact does show the trees and shrubs that were planted on the site. The property owner is planning on removing two trees that pose a danger to the house; one of these trees contains an insect infestation and is dying. The applicant plans to plant an additional fifteen shrubs, all of which are acceptable to the Franklin Best Practices and to relocate some of the existing shrubs closer to the proposed wall. All of this information is on the plan and construction sequence that was in your packets.
The fill will serve to limit the slope in the rear and will come to the top of the proposed wall. While not changing the natural run-off direction, the fill will greatly reduce the velocity of the run-off, thus reducing erosion potential.
Should the amendment be approved, I would recommend the following stipulations be added: (1) a double erosion control barrier between the proposed work area and the wetlands be installed and inspected by my office prior to any construction; (2) my office be notified when construction begins and ends and (3) any stockpiled/disturbed soil which remains as such for longer than 30 days, be seeded to prevent any additional erosion. NOTE: Stipulation #1 is shown on the plans.
1.5. Camp Haiasten NOI: This application was continued at the applicant’s request pending the BOH decision on the permit. I have checked with the Health Department and have been informed that the BOH approvals have been obtained, but the plans have not yet been endorsed. I would suggest the hearing be continued.
1.6. Villages at Oak Hill NOI Amendment: There are two NOIs and Orders for this project: SE 159-739 and CE 159-921. The former was approved in 2002 and extended through 2010 and then via the Permit Extension Act to 2014. The latter was approved in 2006 and extended to 2011 and then via the Permit Extension Act to 2015. The "older" approval was never released from conditions and this is what I originally referenced in my review. In the "newer" order, there are still a number of conditions that were not met, specifically #s 19, 36, 41 and 58 & 59 if dewatering was necessary.
Permit CE 159-921 is now controlling, since SE 159-739 has expired. In order to prevent a repeat and any future confusion, I would recommend that for any modification approval granted by the Commission, that special stipulations 20, 32 and 34 be attached to complement current stipulations and to insure the Commission receives timely information and biodegradable erosion control is used on site.
2.1. Minor buffer Zone Activities
None
2.2 Permit modifications/extensions
2.2.1. See item 1.3 above
2.3. Certificate of Compliance
2.3.1. 1 Woodland Park: We have the engineer’s certification that the only deviation from the original project approval is the “addition” of stone walls to the west of the driveway. A field inspection was conducted on 7/30/14. There are in fact 4 stone walls that were constructed that were not on the original orders. In addition, special condition #22 requires written reports from the project engineer in April and October until such time as the orders are released. There are no reports in the file for this project, which was approved in October 2007. I have requested the reports from the engineer. A summary of the reports has been received. While the lack of reports is troubling given that they are the significant in keeping track of the project, knowing
that the inspections were done should not delay the release. In my opinion, the stone walls do not rise to the level of requiring a formal amendment to the NOI, given that they are all in the outer riparian zone and do not impact work approved by the Commission.
2.3.2. 7 Spring St.: A site inspection and file review was undertaken on 8/18/14. All is in order for the release.
2.4. Discussion items
2.4.1. Property Use Permit: The use permit requested is for a wedding at DelCarte. I have spoken with the applicant and stressed the importance of removing anything they bring onto the property. There have assured me they will comply with all of the Commission’s rules, a copy of which was given to them.
2.5. Minutes
2.6. Violations:
2.6.1. 860 West Central Street: The site conditions remain the same; there has been no remediation and the “trench” to the manhole is still open. The owner of the restaurant has indicated that they are working on a solution, but nothing has been submitted as of this report. The enforcement order was only extended until August 28, 2014.
I have reached out to the restaurant owner once again to try and determine the status.
- Chair and Commission Comments
4.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION
| 
