TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: January 27,2015
NOTE: Based on the town attorney’s input, any continued public hearing must be continued to a date and time certain.
1.0. PROJECTS
1.1. 860 West Central St. NOI: The internal grease trap has been approved by the DPW and it is my opinion that the hearing can be closed and a vote on the NOI can be taken. If approved, I would recommend that the following special conditions be attached: 27, 34, 44 and 50.
1.2. 4 Georgia Drive NOI: AFTER CLOSING THE HEARING, BUT BEFORE VOTING ON THE NOI, THE COMMISSION SHOULD VOTE ON THE RELEASE FROM CONDITIONS, ITEM 2.3.1 BELOW. I would recommend that if re-approved, the following special conditions be once again attached: 20-31, except 23, 34, 38, 40, 43, 44, 46 & 47.
1.3. 31 James NOI: All of my comments have been addressed. A revised landscaping plan was submitted to my office on 1/27/15 and appears to address the concerns of the Commission. I would recommend that if approved, the following special conditions be attached: 20-28, except 26, 33, 34, 44, 46 & 47.
1.4. 505 West Central St. NOI Amendment: Since the November 2013 meeting when this was discussed and today, the issue of the release from conditions and amendments has come up for projects that were permitted under one NOI number and have had subsequent land divisions and new parcels created. The town attorney has indicated that the original NOI was assigned to a parcel of ground and recorded in the land records under an address and parcel number. The Commission cannot now arbitrarily “reassign” the NOI number to a different address or parcel number. In the instant case, CE159-1009 refers to 505 West Central Street, parcel number 270-029-000-000, which when first filed, represented the large, undivided parcel that now has four lots, one of which is the access
way. Today, 505 West Central Street is Wendy’s and parcel 270-029-000-000 is the access roadway. The lot on which Midas proposes to build is 270-029-001-000 and has a street address of 529 West Central. It is DEP’s, the town attorney’s and my recommendation that the applicant request a certificate of compliance for the original orders and submit a new NOI for the new construction on the rear two lots. Each modification to the original NOI will impact all lots.
The wetlands have been reflagged. However, the following issues still remain:
- All of the original and left over erosion control barriers have failed or are non-functioning and need to be removed - especially the silt fencing;
- The adjoining property owners on the plans do not seem to be accurate, e.g. the condominium to the north of the site does not reflect what is in the assessor’s data base;
Has the impervious coverage changed; and
- The proposed location of new erosion control between the wetlands and the areas of land disturbance needs to be shown.
2.0. General Business
2.1. Minor buffer Zone Activities
2.1.1. 9 Spring Street: I have inspected the site. The plot plans need to be amended to show the actual location of the proposed garden. It should be noted that the entire lot is either wetlands or buffer; there is a perennial stream on the south side of the lot and a wetland in the rear on the southeast portion of the yard.
2.2 Permit modifications/extensions
None
2.3. Certificate of Compliance
2.3.1. 4 Georgia Drive: The certificate should be granted so that there are not two NOIs for the same work on the same lot in the chain of title. No work save the installation of the erosion control barriers has been undertaken on the lot.
2.3.2. MBTA Culvert: There was one minor change to the project concerning the dewatering during construction, which I authorized. The required site visit was conducted on 1/21/15 and I would recommend the release be approved.
2.4. Discussion items
2.4.1. 78 Daniels: Included in your packet are minutes, an enforcement order and a series of letters dealing with a reoccurring issue of fill being brought onto the property. The issue before the Commission concerns the “maintenance plan” which was required by the Commission in 2010.
The property owner has filed what he considers a “maintenance plan”. However, there are no maps, flags or field data that adequately delineate the wetlands and where the fill has been placed. The Commission is being asked to decide if the material submitted by the applicant is sufficient to meet the requirements imposed in 2010.
It is my opinion that the only way to legally determine if the fill brought on site is outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction is to have the wetlands delineated by a qualified wetlands scientist and have the “line” approved by the Commission. Further, in the “normal maintenance activities for land in agricultural use”, there is no provision for bringing in fill.
2.5. Minutes
2.6. Violations:
2.6.1. 674 Pleasant St.: Included with your packets were a number of photographs, a suggested enforcement order and correspondence related to the above address. The property owner has established a defacto construction yard on the property and it is my opinion that the enforcement order be issued to require removal of the material and a restoration plan for the site. It is my intention to start levying fines under the local by-law unless directed otherwise by the Commission.
I have issued a stop work order and violation notice.
It should also be noted that the lot as developed and the structure that was built deviate significantly from the approved NOI plan; e.g. the driveway, garage and retaining wall are all in different locations.
- Chair and Commission Comments
4.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION
| 
