TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: Feb. 10, 2015
1.0. PROJECTS
1.1. 470 Maple Street NOI: This filing is a result of a positive RDA determination by the Commission. An in depth site inspection cannot be undertaken due to snow cover. However, when the RDA was filed, the wetlands were clearly defined in the field. If approved, I would recommend the following special conditions: 20-28, except 26, 33, 34, 43, 44, 46 & 47.
1.2. 505 West Central St. NOI Amendment: (Copied from my last report.) 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. 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
1.3. SNETT Trail RDA: I have conducted a site inspection with the applicant and the applicant’s consultant, over the portion of the trail that is proposed to be improved and would recommend that a negative RDA is in order.
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. Keystone Project: This is an item that the Chair has indicated an interest in pursuing.
2.4.2. Regulation Amendment: There is a memo in your packet which outlines the reason for this item. The proposed amendment is to codify a current practice by my office, but is prompted by an issue that has a rather unique twist from the norm in where the Agent is indicating there is no problem, but an abutting property owner indicates there is.
It should be clear that there is a legal alternative to this situation, a mandamus action in court, but it involves potentially significant legal costs.
2.5. Minutes
2.6. Violations:
2.6.1. 674 Pleasant St.: Included with your packets are copies of correspondence from my office and the Building Commissioner as well as a letter from the property owner.
The enforcement order has been issued and it is my intention to start levying fines under the local by-law unless directed otherwise by the Commission.
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 or not shown at all. The Commission should consider an additional enforcement order on this and a draft was included in your packets. It is my opinion that this deviation is much more than an amendment to an NOI.
- Chair and Commission Comments
4.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION
| 
