TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: Nov. 10, 2014
1.0. PROJECTS
1.1. DelCarte NOI amendment: Due to a scheduling conflict, the applicant, DPW, has requested that the hearing be continued until the December 4, 2013 meeting.
1.2. 470 Maple Street RDA: A site inspection and permit review was undertaken on 10/29/14 and a letter generated to the applicant. No major issues have been identified. 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 the conservation Agent prior to any construction; (2) The conservation 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. 1312 West Central St. ANRAD: This hearing was continued since the NOI number had not been received from DEP. The file number has been received and the hearing can be closed. The wetlands line appears to be accurate and the ANRAD can be approved.
2.1. Minor buffer Zone Activities
None
2.2 Permit modifications/extensions
None
2.3. Certificate of Compliance
2.3.1. 7 Ainsley Dr.: The request is for an Order of Conditions that has expired (1990) and was part of a larger subdivision. I did conduct a site inspection on 11/4/14 and all is in order for the release.
2.3.2. 13 Haverstock: A site inspection was conducted on 11/10/11 and all is in order for the release.
2.4. Discussion items
2.4.1. 656 King Street: You have received the requested report in your packets. Once again the proposal should work, but there is no way to tell until the mitigation areas have gone through a couple of growing seasons. I would recommend the Commission accept the report and if all is well in November 2016, the full release from conditions can be granted with any stipulations that are designed to be “in perpetuity”. Also included in the packets, at the request of Ms. Murphy, was a 10 page fax.
2.4.2. Environmental Trust Grant: In your packets was a copy of the Letter of Intent that we have filed in the hope of receiving an invitation to submit a complete grant application. In hoping for the best, we would request that the Commission allow, via a motion and a vote, the expenditure of $4,000 from the wetlands filing fee account as a matching component. This type of expenditure is authorized by the statutes since it would allow the Commission to carry out its duties under the Act; duties in this case being able to effective evaluate the water bodies at DelCarte for both future applications and true conservation in protecting the resource. See suggested motion below.
2.4.3. Use of wetlands fees for minutes: For the past couple of months, given the workload of the Commission, we have been experiencing a real “time” issue in generating minutes in the timely manner required. In light of this, I am asking the Commission to consider and vote on using the funds in the wetlands filing fee account to allow us to outsource the preparation of minutes on an as-needed basis. This will significantly free up time to tend to the administrative workload we are currently under. As stated above, it is my opinion that this use of the wetlands fee account is authorized by the statutes since it would allow the Commission to carry out its duties under the Act. We are required by law to produce the minutes. See suggested motion below.
2.4.4. Meeting Schedule: We have developed the meeting schedule which is before you tonight for acceptance. We have been “preempted” on some Thursdays by the ZBA and this is causing some three week “gaps” between meetings. The only issue this may sometimes raise is the “21 day hearing” criteria. Therefore, we will have to make sure when an application is filed that we get an extension of the 21 days. Should this not be forthcoming, we will see if we can get a special meeting or the applicant can appeal to DEP.
2.4.5. 84 Palomino: This is being placed on the agenda at the request of the Town Administrator. Below is a memo to Mr. Nutting outlining options on this issue.
2.5. Minutes
2.6. Violations:
- Chair and Commission Comments
4.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION
Suggested Motion item 2.4.2.:
If the Environmental Trust Grant for the study of the DelCarte Recreation Area is approved, the Franklin Conservation Commission hereby approves the expenditure of $4,000 from the wetlands filing fee account as a matching component. Said use of funds is deemed in compliance with the provisions of the Act since it would allow the Commission to carry out its duties under the Act; duties in this case being able to effective evaluate the water bodies at DelCarte for both future applications and true conservation in protecting the resource.
Suggested Motion item 2.4.3.:
The Franklin Conservation Commission approves the use of the funds in the wetlands filing fee account to outsource the preparation of minutes of the Conservation Commission meetings on an as-needed basis. Said use of funds is deemed in compliance with the provisions of the Act since it would allow the Commission to carry out its duties under the Act; duties in this case being able in order to meet the statutory requirements to prepare said minutes.
TO: Jeff Nutting, Town Administrator
FROM: George Russell, AICP Conservation Agent
DATE: November. 5, 2014
RE: 84 Palomino Drive
In order to resolve the issue(s) concerning 84 Palomino Drive, I would suggest the following options are viable:
1. Request another meeting with the Conservation Commission to determine what level of permitting they would require if it is assumed that the area is in the wetlands buffer and then file that permit. Depending on what the Commission decides, and what the property owner still wants to do, this would still involve a wetlands designation and potential significant permitting costs.
2. Retain a wetlands professional and have the wetlands delineated and file a permit with the Commission to accept this delineation and permit the tree removal IF the area is in fact a wetlands. If the area is NOT wetlands, then the work that has been started can be completed. In addition, IF the area is not wetlands, the ConCom would accept a letter from a wetlands scientist indicating this and the basis for the determination.
3. The property owner can contact Michele and determine the basis for her decision. This would need to be “accepted” by the ConCom. Her e-mail is: mgski@verizon.net
4. Do nothing. This would mean that the stop work order remains in force and no activity can take place on the lot.
It is my opinion that the quickest way to solve this issue is to retain a wetlands professional and determine once and for all if in fact the area in question is a wetlands. It is important to remember that the entire area does not need to be delineated, only that area adjacent to 84 Palomino, thus significantly reducing the cost. (See option 2.)
I have reached out to a couple of wetlands professionals to try and determine a cost of delineation and they have informed me that the cost for just delineation is most likely less than $500. However, the costs are very site specific and do not include permitting costs.
| 
