TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: Sept. 9, 2014
1.0. PROJECTS
1.1. 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. The applicant has requested that the hearing be again continued.
1.2. 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 are some conditions that were not met, e.g. 58 & 59 if dewatering was/is 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.
The applicant has requested the hearing be continued until the first meeting in October and
I have notified the applicant as to potential quorum issue on this application.
2.1. Minor buffer Zone Activities
None
2.2 Permit modifications/extensions
None
2.3. Certificate of Compliance
2.3.1. 348 East Central St. (Big Y): All is ready for the release to be granted.
2.4. Discussion items
2.4.1. Release from conditions: When I receive a request for release from conditions, a site inspection and a file review is undertaken to determine if everything is set for the Commission to act. There have been a couple of instances, e.g. 236 Daniels Street, where there were issues that may have prevented the Commission from granting the release and thus the items were not placed on the agenda to allow the applicant to get everything “in order” to allow the release to go forward. A reading of 310 CMR 10.05 (a) & (c) indicates that the Commission is required to act, either positively or negatively, within 21 days of the submission of the request. There is no provision in the regulations to extend this 21 day time frame.
I would ask the Commission for their guidance in that if a request is put on an agenda and, due to various issues, the request is not ready to be granted, the applicant would lose the $25.00 filing fee and would be required to go thru all of the procedures again. E.g. this could involve another engineer’s certification. I have been trying to save the applicant this hassle but it may not be in accordance to the regulations.
My proposed solution would be to establish a policy of suggesting that requests not be officially submitted until such time as I have had an opportunity to inspect the sites, review the files and allow for time to “correct” any problems. This will not work however when someone, e.g. an engineering firm, submits the request as SOP to start the process. This was the case with the Big Y that is on tonight’s agenda. This request was submitted by the engineer over three months ago.
2.4.2. Rules and Regulations: As per the Commission’s direction, I have undertaken a preliminary review of the Commission’s Rules and Regulations. The suggested revisions are in your packet.
2.4.3. Fish survey at DelCarte: The town is interested in restocking the fish in the ponds at DelCarte and we need to understand what the current population is and its health. Jay Mello has been researching this and will bring the Commission up-to-date on the status.
2.5. Minutes
2.6. Violations:
2.6.1. 104 Populatic: The issues are outlined in the letters, photos and maps which were included in your packet, especially “STOP WORK ORDER (2)”. It is my opinion that at the very least the property owner should file an amendment to the NOI. The current NOI will expire in December 2014 and thus time is of the essence since an expired order cannot be amended. The NOI cannot be extended given that it is 7 years old.
- Chair and Commission Comments
4.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION
| 
