TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: Oct. 28, 2014
1.0. PROJECTS
1.1. Drainage improvements off of Eric Drive NOI: This project is on land owned by the town/commission and is designed to prevent flooding by removing a non-functioning drainage pipe and replacing it with a rip-rapped swale and a drainage control structure.
1.2. 860 West Central Street NOI: By submitting the NOI application which contained a plan for remediation work and a solution to the sewerage overflow problem, the applicant has complied with the enforcement order. The major problem is a difference of opinion between the applicant’s engineer and the Franklin Public Works Department; the former indicates the proposed fix will solve the problem, the latter indicates that it will not. Further, there appears to be an issue with the proposal and §139-3 B (3) of the Franklin Sewer Bylaw.
It is my opinion that the Commission must decide on the application before it and to determine if the work complies with the Act and 310 CMR 10.10. If the NOI is issued by the Commission and the work is not allowed by DPW, it would appear that everyone is wasting time and not solving the problem. I would recommend that the hearing be continued until November 13th to allow the applicant, the Health Department and DPW to work out a solution. However, I would also recommend that the Commission allow the open trench between the manhole and the embankment to be filled in now. If no solution can be developed, I would recommend that the instant application be approved and the applicant will have to file another application if necessary and if there is another sewer overflow,
another enforcement action will be initiated and fines levied immediately.
1.3. 4 Georgia Drive NOI: A preliminary review and site inspection was undertaken on 10/8/14 and a letter generated to the applicant’s engineer. All of my comments and questions have been addressed. I would recommend that if approved, the following special conditions be imposed: 20-31, except 23, 34, 38, 40, 43, 44, 46 & 47.
1.4. Lincoln Street sidewalk Repair RDA: When the school year started, a problem with the drainage structure at this location was discovered and it required attention to eliminate the possibility of the sidewalk becoming unpassable for students. A negative RDA is in order.
1.5. 10 Bent Drive NOI: A site inspection was conducted when the Health Dept. was contacted for the septic system work to ascertain if the activity would be under ConCom jurisdiction. This inspection indicated that a wetlands permit would be required and this was filed. A second field inspection was conducted and the application was reviewed on 10/5/14 and a letter was generated to the applicant’s engineer. Revised plans were submitted and reviewed. Should the application be approved, I would recommend that the following special conditions be attached to the approval: 20, 22, 27-30, 34, & 44.
1.6. 1312 West Central Street ANRAD: Based on my field inspection on 10/15/14, the wetlands line as delineated appears to be accurate. The Commission needs to bear in mind that this is a 40B project and as such is not subject to the local wetlands by-law. Nevertheless, the applicant has shown the 25’ and 50’ buffers on the plans to give the commission some reference benchmarks.
1.7. 17 Echo Bridge Road NOI: This hearing was continued so that the Commission could undertake a site visit. No special conditions are recommended except that my office should be notified when the work begins and ends.
1.8. 19 Echo Bridge Road NOI: This hearing was continued so that the Commission could undertake a site visit. No special conditions are recommended except that my office should be notified when the work begins and ends.
1.9. 70 Daniels ANRAD: The correct application has been submitted and all is in order.
1.10. 23 Hutchinson Street NOI Amendment: No action was taken by the planning board at their 10/20/14 meeting. Revised plans have been submitted and reviewed. No additional special conditions are necessary.
1.11. 127 King Street NOI: The NOI number has been received from DEP and this was the reason for the continuation of the hearing. I would recommend the following special conditions: 20, 22, 24, 24, 27, 28, 34 & 44.
1.12. Villages At Oak Hill NOI Amendment: No action was taken by the planning board at their 10/20/14 meeting. 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.
2.1. Minor buffer Zone Activities
2.1.1. 8 Shady Lane: The pool, which is the subject of the MBZA, was originally brought to my attention by the Inspections Department since they had no permit for the structure. I issued a stop work/violation notice to the property owner. After correspondence with the applicant, it has been determined that the pool has been in place for a number of years and was there when the house was purchased by the current owners. I recommended they obtain a MBZA permit so that the pool is “legal” under the local by-law.
2.1.2. MBZA Application: Based on the Commission adoption of the regulation amendments, a new MBZA application needed to be developed. A proposed revised application was included in your packets and will need to be formally adopted by a vote of the Commission. It should be noted that the revised application clearing gives permission to go “on-site” for inspections.
2.2 Permit modifications/extensions
2.2.1. The permit modification request for the DelCarte canoe launch should in my opinion be handled as a NOI amendment. It is the first step in the large plan to improve the water body which will be the subject of a new NOI at a later date.
2.2.2. Included in your packet were three letters to Mr. Wise, one dated May 11, 2012 from the Commission, one dated 24 July 2013 from the Commission and one dated July 22, 2014 from me. These letters establish the germane history and timeline for tonight’s request.
One September 17, 2014, Mr. Wise, his attorney, myself, the town attorney and other staff met to discuss the issues surrounding this property. It was my position at this meeting that the August dates for the “permit” had come and gone and the property owner was no long able to conduct the authorized activities. At this meeting, Mr. Wise’s attorney presented a letter, also in your packets, dated August 1, 2014 requesting an extension of time. This is what is before the Commission. (Note the date stamp on the letter.)
310 CMR 10.05 (8) (a) states: “The request for an extension shall be made to the issuing authority at least 30 days prior to the extension of the order.” I would submit that the extension request is not in order and should not be granted since the request was not submitted to the issuing authority in the manor proscribed by the regulations.
2.3. Certificate of Compliance
2.3.1. None
2.4. Discussion items
2.5. Minutes
2.6. Violations:
- Chair and Commission Comments
4.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION
| 
