TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: December16, 2014
1.0. PROJECTS
1.1. 370 Grove St. RDA: This permit is a result of a complaint received by my office. (See memo and letter below.) The play area in question is already in place and based on the information supplied by the applicant and my field observations are not within the 25’ buffer. No special conditions are recommended.
1.2. 39 Opal NOI: A field inspection was conducted on 12/2/14 and a letter generated to the applicant’s engineer. I would recommend that this hearing be continued given that there has been no response to my review letter, a copy of which is below.
If approved, I would recommend the following special conditions: 20, 22, 24-29, 34 & 44. I would also recommend that erosion control barriers be a double row due to the slopes in the rear of the lot.
1.3. 860 West Central NOI cont.: No additional information has been received.
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. Land Use/purchase: In your packets, there is information on a number of properties on which the town has foreclosed. Of these, there are 4 parcels on which the Commission should make a recommendation to the town council on disposal or retention and if retained, under whose jurisdiction. I have enclosed in the packets a brief report on each, the original listing from the treasurer and a map or aerial of each.
2.4.2. Forestry- Washington Street: The application send to the town as part of the abutter notification was included in your packets. I have also included the section of 304 CMR 11.00 that exempts forestry from the wetlands regulations. You will note there are certain criteria to “qualify” for the exemption. I have discussed this permit with DEP and DCR and in their opinion the exemption criteria have been met. I have requested an opinion from the town attorney on the applicability of the town’s by-law. (See sections 181-4 A (8) and 181-2 A.) It is his opinion that the Commission has the authority to either require a permit or citations to show that the local by-law should not be applied.
One additional note, the mapping on this application is not drawn to a scale that will accurately show the proposed area of logging as it relates to the immediately adjacent priority habitat as determined by Mass Wildlife (PH 288). I think this is an issue that needs to be resolved.
2.5. Minutes
2.6. Violations:
- Chair and Commission Comments
4.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION
| 
