TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: Sept. 23, 2014
1.0. PROJECTS
1.1. 10 Garner Drive: I undertook field inspections on 9/2/14 and again on 9/16/14. I have requested the following information from the applicant’s engineer:
I conducted a site visit today for 10 Garnet Drive. I have observed some flagging in the field consisting of orange and blue markings on some trees that appear to correspond to the locations on the prints. However, any marking on the flags has faded so it is not readable. Can you verify that this flagging represent the wetlands markers.
In addition, given past history, I would strongly recommend that some mitigation be shown on the prints. The commission has been requiring applicants who wish to undertake what your client is requesting, plant some trees or shrubs to take the place of what is being cut down. It does NOT have to be a 1:1 but they are going to request something. I would also recommend that you provide a narrative that indicates how much fill in going in and the square footage of new lawn. The plans need to show the final grades and where any "new" trees are going to be planted.
The information requested in the second paragraph has not yet been received, but the wetlands have been reflagged and appear to be accurate.
1.2. National Grid, Peck St. RDA: A site inspection was conducted on 9/16/14. I would recommend a negative determination with the following stipulations: (1) erosion control barriers 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.
1.3. 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. Given that there are no only four members who have heard all of the testimony, a quorum issue becomes potentially more acute the longer this hearing is continued.
2.1. Minor buffer Zone Activities
2.1.1. 77 Jefferson: The applicant has requested this approval at my suggestion and as a result of my letter which is below. The fence was inadvertently left off on the NOI application and was always part of the property owner’s intention to install this fence. The fence has caused minimal disturbance and does not, in my opinion, appear to rise to the level of a modification to the NOI. In my opinion, the MBZA is the most expeditious way to handle the issue.
2.2 Permit modifications/extensions
2.2.1. 23 Hutchinson: It is my opinion that the requested changes in the NOI come close but do not warrant a new NOI and should be handled as an amendment after a public hearing with the necessary abutter notifications and legal advertising. More review is needed by my office and will be available by the public hearing.
2.3. Certificate of Compliance
2.3.1. 656 King St.: The report from the applicant’s wetlands scientist has not been received. In addition, the 21 day criteria for issuance under 310 CMR 10.05 (9) has already been passed. I would not recommend that unless an extension is granted on the 21 day requirement, a formal vote to deny the release should be considered.
2.4. Discussion items
2.5. Minutes
2.6. Violations:
2.6.1. 860 West Central Street: Letters have been generated concerning the activity or lack thereof, and the Commission’s request to set up a meeting. Both were included in your packets. No response has been received to either letter. I intend to issue fines beginning next week.
On the 23rd, I met with Mr. Clark’s engineer who indicated that he will get a letter to me indicating the solution to the problem and a timetable for submission of an NOI. I hope to have this for Thursday night.
2.6.2. I have included in your packets a list of current stop work orders that I have issued.
- Chair and Commission Comments
4.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION
| 
