TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: April 7, 2015
1.0. Projects
1.1. 60 Daniels ANRAD: Site visits were conducted on 1/31/15 and again on 4/7/15. Most of the flags were visible and seem to accurately reflect the BVW boundary. Riverfront Area and Bordering Land Subject to Flooding associated with Shepard's Brook may be present within the western portion of the property. It appears that the locations of these resource areas will not be verified under this ANRAD and it would seem that this permit would be the best opportunity to do so Some of the “missing flags” (e.g. 103-109) are important since the wetlands do not appear to run in a straight line and these flags need to be re-established. In addition, in order to prevent the issues associated with properties such as 505 West Central Street, addresses for all properties under
consideration with this permit should be obtained. Therefore, I would recommend this hearing be continued until 4/23/15 until these issues are addressed.
1.2. 10 Cottontail Lane NOI: No detailed site inspection has been conducted due to the snow cover. Part of this application is a wetlands delineation which was approved as part of the original subdivision via a superseding order. According to DEP, this permit, SE 159-590, is no longer valid and thus the wetlands line is no longer valid. I would recommend this application be continued until such time as the wetlands line can be re-established with new flagging and field data cards. I recommend the hearing be continued until 4/23/15 since there is still too much snow cover to reflag the resource areas and inspect them.
1.3. 11 Forge Parkway NOI: (Copied from my last report since there was no testimony taken.) 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. SEE ITEM 2.3.2 BELOW.
When the Orders are issued, I would recommend the following special conditions: 20-35 & 44.
1.4. 176 Grove St. NOI: 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.
The Town Engineer has raised issues concerning access, property lines and Stormwater O&M Plans which need to be addressed by the applicant and a continuation will allow time to do that.
When the Orders are issued, I would recommend the following special conditions: 20-35 & 44.
1.5. 529 West Central St. NOI: The site plan was reviewed by BETA Engineering, the peer review engineer for the Planning Board and copies of the reports have been placed in the ConCom file. The last review by BETA was dated March 4, 2015 and some of the issues raised are germane to the NOI; e.g. the location and size of the infiltration basin and some of the proposed plantings. The plans submitted for the NOI are dated 2/26/15 and the applicant has assured me that the plans submitted for Conservation are the same plans submitted and reviewed by BETA.
I cannot recommend that this permit be granted until the release for 505 West Central Street is approved. SEE ITEM 2.3.1 BELOW. When the release is granted and if the orders are approved, I would recommend the following special conditions: 20-35 and 44-48.
2.0. General Business
2.1. Minor buffer Zone Activities
2.1.1. 28 Steward: I authorized the removal of the tree that fell on the house due to the immediacy of getting the roof fixed. This is an “after the fact permit” and no stumps etc. have been removed.
2.2 Permit modifications/extensions
2.2.1. Marine Way NOI: These permits were extended by the Commission until 4/1/15. The requests were filed on 3/25/15 and 3/30/15.
According to 310 CMR 10.05 (8) (a), a request for an extension must be filed 30 days prior to the expiration date of the permit. The regulations use the word “shall” which in legal parlance means the requirement is “mandatory”. In the course of activity, I did not reach out to the applicant to remind him that the expiration date was approaching. This is something I strive to do, but sometimes, it just does not happen. I informed the applicant that as long as the applications for the extensions were received prior to the expiration date, I would bring the request to the Commission. I feel badly concerning the timing issues, but the regulations may preclude the Commission from extending these permits. The applicant can appeal any Commission decision to DEP.
2.3. Certificate of Compliance
2.3.1. 505 West Central Street: The NOI for this address originally covered a large tract of land that was proposed to have three buildings and an access way on one lot. Since the original approval, the land has been subdivided into four parcels, has different street addresses and may have different owners. There is a pending NOI for one of these parcels with an address of 529 West Central.
The request and accompanying certification indicates that one building at 505 West Central Street (Wendy’s) is complete and the other two approved buildings have not been constructed and will not be constructed as approved. Most of the site work approved for these lots will not be completed under the original orders, but will be completed under new orders. Erosion control to control site run-off from the vacant lots has been inspected and inspected. A release from conditions with the deviations noted will facilitate each lot having its own, unique NOI without any “complications” resulting from multiple Orders covering the same land. It should be made clear in the release that because of the land division, the Commission is not at this time requiring that all work
proposed on the “vacant lots” be completed.
As noted in the engineer’s certification, conditions 55, 58, 59, 60 & 61 of the original orders shall remain in perpetuity but only for the lot occupied by Wendy’s.
2.3.2. 11 Forge Parkway: A request for the release was submitted on 4/2/15 and a field inspection conducted on the same day. The issues raised in my previous comments have been addressed and the release is ready to go forward.
2.4. Discussion items
2.4.1. By-law/Regulation revisions: Enclosed with your packets were “working copies” of the Commission’s by-law and Rules and Regulations. These two documents are in many areas duplicative and in the former unduly restrictive, e.g. where the Commission must meet.
I am forwarding these so that the members have an opportunity to review and discuss. I am recommending a public hearing be scheduled for amendments to both bearing in mind this is a required step and does not mandate any specific changes or actions at this time.
2.4.2. Application packets/revisions: Also enclosed in your packets was a copy of the draft NOI application packet that we have been working on. I would welcome any input you may have. (NOTE: the state application forms and instructions are not included.) This packet information does not need to go through the public hearing process.
2.5. Minutes
2.6. Violations:
2.6.1. 45 Kenwood: (UPDATE) This issue has been brought forth as a result of actions by my office and DEP. There were piles of recycled glass in a buffer zone with inadequate stormwater “controls” and leachate from the piles is traveling via the storm sewers into the wetlands and from them potentially into the public water supply. The piles have been dramatically reduced in size over the last couple of months as another facility in Rhode Island has come on-line. Various divisions at DEP, including wetlands, are also currently involved in enforcement concerning this site.
An NOI was submitted by the consultant engaged by Strategic Materials (SMI) but the consultant, Tunison-Dias is no longer working for them. We have written confirmation from Strategic Materials indicating that the consultant was authorized to proceed, and the consultant was “on-board” at the DEP enforcement meeting on 3/26/15. This dramatically changed on March 4th, as indicated in my 3/9/15 letter which was included in your packets. Also included is a letter from the attorney for SMI; please note the change of consultants and the fine from DEP. The originally filed NOI itself is not being considered as complete since it was not signed by the property owner.
There are remaining issues concerning exactly when permits are going to be filed and what they will contain. A lot will depend on what is in any consent order between the property owner and DEP. Included in your packets is an update dated 4/1/15 which does indicate some of the actions taken by SMI and the timelines for future actions. We have also had a number of meetings with SMI and their consultant and we all seem to be working towards the same goal.
An option that has been discussed is the submission of an ANRAD to legally and clearly establish the wetlands line and to allow the installation of stormwater control units and new paving on site. One of the units is in the buffer. The Commission needs to decide what level of permitting will be required to “clean-up” the wetlands. Once again, this may be impacted by the consent order from DEP.
2.6.2. 78 Daniels Street: Please see the letter in your packets on this item. It is my opinion that the positon being taken by the property owner is counterproductive. Given the history of violations, the lack of compliance with the requirement to submit a maintenance plan and the recent phone call will lead to recommendations from my office for additional legal action, all of which can be avoided.
- Chair and Commission Comments
4.0 Executive Session
| 
