TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: Oct. 14, 2014
1.0. PROJECTS
1.1. 17 Echo Bridge Rd. NOI: I have met with the property owner and inspected the site. The major issue is that one of the trees the applicant wishes to remove is right on the wetlands line. This should not be a problem as long as erosion control is installed as close to the tree as practicable to allow the work to go forward. Special conditions 20, 28, 29 & 34 are recommended.
1.2. 19 Echo Bridge Rd. NOI: I have met with the property owner and inspected the site. All of the trees to be removed are in the buffer and at least 47’ from the closest BVW. It is important to note that a crane will be used to fell the trees and bring them out of any jurisdictional buffer for cutting and chipping. No special conditions are recommended except that my office should be notified when the work begins and ends.
1.3. 70 Daniels Street ANRAD: I have inspected the proposed wetlands line and it appears to be accurate. However, I have noted and DEP has commented that the ANRAD application form used by the applicant is out of date. Given that the approval needs to be recorded, current forms should be used.
1.4. Rules and Regulation Amendments: These rule and regulation amendments are proposed to eliminate conflicts within the document, 310 CMR 10.00, the statutes and the local by-laws and to allow more effective implementation and enforcement of the local wetlands by-law. The proposed amendments will also allow for more realistic use of the MBZA criteria and process.
1.5. 23 Hutchinson Street NOI Amendment: A field inspection was conducted on 10/x/14 and a review letter generated to the engineer. The issues raised in my letter (below) should be addressed prior to any final action by the Commission.
1.6. 127 King St. NOI: I have conducted a site inspection and the project is basically a replacement of what is already there. I would recommend the following special conditions: 20, 22, 24, 24, 27, 28, 34 & 44.
1.7. 10 Garnet Drive RDA: This is a continued hearing and in fact was continued primarily due to the lack of the timely submission of material. I have conducted another site inspection and requested additional information/plan revisions from the engineer and these have been received. The proposed fill will not encroach into the wetlands only into the buffer by a maximum of 30’. The applicant has shown mitigation plantings it does not appear that the drainage flow will be changed. Should the permit be approved, I would recommend the following conditions: (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.
1.8. Camp Haiastan NOI: Revised plans have been submitted that have received health department approval. I would recommend all special stipulations be attached to any approval.
1.9. Villages At Oak Hill NOI Amendment: As stated in a previous agent’s report:
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.
The revised plans have been submitted and 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 in addition to special conditions 20, 32 and 34:
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 bi-annually for at least two growing seasons after establishment. This report shall document the vitality of the mitigation as well as any problems that have been encountered and shall also contain the scientist’s opinion as to any special measures necessary to ensure the mitigation area remains viable.
2.0. General Business
2.1. Minor buffer Zone Activities
None
2.2 Permit modifications/extensions
None
2.3. Certificate of Compliance
None
2.4. Discussion items
2.4.1. 656 King: See letter below. Additional site inspections were conducted on 10/8/14 & 10/15/14. The grasses have basically “taken over” the mitigation areas on the east side of the access roadway. The only way one would know that there are wetlands plants there is by the flags; the plants for the most part are not visible. I have spoken to Mr. Murphy and he has informed me that the mitigation areas will be better maintained to keep the grasses at bay. A “report” dated 10/3/14 was in your packets.
2.4.2. 84 Palomino Drive: The property owner has requested to speak to the Commission concerning the jurisdictional areas on his property. You have received a packet of information on this item which revolves in large part around a difference of opinion between me and my predecessor. The Commission will ultimately need to decide if the area(s) in question are jurisdictional. It is my opinion that the only way to resolve this is via a delineation of the area by a wetlands scientist which is then accepted by the Commission.
2.4.3. Well # 9: The DPW has determined that the access road to well #9 is unsafe for the heavy trucks that deliver chemicals etc. to the well, e.g. chlorine. Should one of these trucks spill product, the environmental consequences would be significant. In addition, if the trucks cannot get to the well, the public water supply is in jeopardy. I believe this is a health and safety issue under 310 CMR 10.06. Should the Commission agree, they need to certify the emergency and require DPW to apply for an “after the fact” RDA.
2.5. Minutes
2.6. Violations:
- Chair and Commission Comments
4.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION
| 
