TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: March 24, 2015
1.0. Projects:
1.1. 505 West Central St. NOI: There are now three approved or pending permits/amendments for the same parcel of ground: (1) the original NOI, (2) the amendment to the original NOI and (3) the new NOI. See item 1.4 below. I strongly recommend that the proposed amendment be denied, that the hearing not be continued again and that the new NOI (item 1.4 below) NOT be approved until the original NOI is released from conditions. This is also DEP’s position.
1.2. 11 Forge Parkway NOI: Part of this application is a wetlands delineation. I was able to undertake a site inspection and most of the wetlands flags are visible. There is enough land and water present to assume the wetlands line is accurate.
As indicated at the last meeting, there was a previous NOI for this property which has expired but there is no record that a certificate of completion was ever approved. I have requested the applicant to provide us with a run-down of what was done and what was not done under this NOI. The applicant’s engineer has submitted a set of revised plans, but has not yet detailed what was or was not done under the conditions of approval under the expired NOI; e.g. condition 18 indicates that no slopes should be greater than 3:1 and there is no way to tell if in fact this is the case. I believe this should still be required prior to any approval for the instant permit application and the best way to address this would be via a request for a release from conditions with an as-built plan
and engineer’s certification.
I would recommend the following special conditions be attached to any approval: 20-30, 33-35, 38-41 & 44.
1.3. 176 Grove St. NOI: The proposal is designed to improve traffic circulation, stormwater management and aesthetics on site and water quality off site. This will be accomplished primarily via a reduction of impervious surface and installation of stormwater BMPs and water quality structures. I was able to undertake a site inspection and the stream and most of the wetlands flags are visible. There is enough land and water present to assume the wetlands line is accurate. I have generated a review letter.
I would recommend that this hearing be continued until such time as the Planning Board’s consulting engineer submits a report on the stormwater “issues” associated with this project. This is especially important given the location of the perennial stream and the DEP Zone I area.
When the Orders are issued, I would recommend the following special conditions: 20-35 & 44.
1.4. 529 West Central St. NOI: This is a new NOI for a parcel of ground that already has (1) an approved Order of Conditions, (2) a pending amendment to those Orders and (3) a new street address from the original orders. Further, some of the notes on the revised plans for this project refer to the vacant lot that was approved as part of the original NOI, e.g. note 2 on sheet 4 of 9 and “previously approved landscaping” note on sheet 6 of 9.
The abutter listing in this NOI is dated 11/24/14. A question has been raised as to whether this is from the most “recent applicable tax list” from the assessor’s office as required by the statute. The answer is yes; the most “recent” tax list is dated 1/1/14.
I cannot support two approved orders, one with an amendment, (See item 1.1 above.) for the same parcel of land or in this case not only the same parcel but multiple parcels. These parcels should have NOIs that all stand on their own.
2.0. General Business
2.1. Minor buffer Zone Activities
2.1.1. 9-12 Spruce Road: These are four deck replacement projects that are consistent with previously approved deck replacements in this same development. I believe one motion can be made to approve all four as long as all four are mentioned in the motion.
2.2 Permit modifications/extensions
None
2.3. Certificate of Compliance
2.3.1. 20 Berkshire Drive: The NOI of this lot has expired and no request for release was ever made while it was still in force. A site inspection was conducted on 3/12/15. The original Order of Conditions, as amended, the request form itself on page 2 and 310 CMR 10.05 (9) (d) require, not only “as-built” plans, but certification that the structure etc. on the lot was built according to the approved plans. The as built plan has been received, but the certification has not. In addition, there was a special condition attached to the Orders that an “executed deed and modified plan” be submitted to the Commission. I have no record of this deed and plan.
Therefore, I cannot recommend the release from conditions for this lot.
There is no provision in 310 CMR 10.05 (9) for the extension of the 21 day time frame for the Commission to act. Should the Commission not approve the release, a formal vote not to do so should be taken and the reason for the denial would be the lack of the required certification as required by 310 CMR 10.05 (9) (d).
2.4. Discussion items
2.4.1. Application packets/revisions: Just to keep you informed, first drafts of the new material have been completed and are under staff review. The initial review indicates that there may be significant changes (read deletions) to the Commission’s Rules and Regs since the material is actually in the by-laws and cannot be changed by the Commission. We have developed draft cover letters etc. that will go with the permit application packets and to give the members an idea of what we are working on, the draft cover letter is below. I hope to have all material to the Commission for review and final action within the next few weeks.
As part of this process, I have also come across a couple of significant issues with c. 217 of the Town’s By-laws, which are the ConCom’s by-law, which may not in fact be a town by-law. (It’s confusing!) Specifically, there are provisions in this by-law which mandate, where the Commission meets, what time it meets, carrying out the open space plan and election of officers among others. I am going to be discussing these issues with the town attorney and will bring a recommendation to the commission for action asap.
Also, staff has been working on revisions to the Best Management Practices book. As part of this process, the plant listing has been comprehensively reviewed and revised by New England Wildflower Society. I will forward copies of the document when finalized.
2.5. Minutes
2.6. Violations:
2.6.1. 674 Pleasant Street: (UPDATE) I have talked with the property owner’s engineer and have outlined the issues to him. We have received a request to extend the date for submission of the restoration plan for this lot that was in the enforcement order. The enforcement order was sent to the property owner via certified mail and this was never “picked-up” by the property owner. The enforcement order was then served by a constable and as a result, there was very little time to submit the plan by the date required in the order.
The Commission has also required that a new NOI be submitted for this lot by June 1. 2015. This decision was made after the enforcement order requiring a restoration plan was issued. Given the requirement for a new NOI, and the snow received in February, it appears reasonable, to extend the requirement for submission of the restoration plan until June 1, 2015 and make one submission for both the NOI for the house etc. and the restoration plan.
It should be made clear, that this June 1, 2015 date will not be extended and fines will be issued starting June 2, 2015.
3.0. Chair and Commission Comments
4.0. Executive Session
| 
