TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: April 21, 2015
1.0. Projects:
1.1. 237 Conlyn Ave. RDA: The applicant has submitted an RDA for a fence on my recommendation. The proposed fence would normally be exempt under 310 CMR 10.02 and would be a MBZA under the local by-law. A portion of the fence however is in the flood hazard zone and thus subject to permitting. There will be minimal excavation for the fence posts and no loss of flood storage, which is key when working in the flood zone. Therefore, I would recommend a negative determination.
1.2. 606 East Central Street RDA: You will note that both items 1.2 & 1.3 are for the same street address, but they are in fact on different lots. Given the confusion and legal problems with this issue, I have recommended unique street addresses for each application and lot. The Planning Board has “approved” the land division and this issue has thus been resolved. This application is for a small amount of work at the very end of the 100’ buffer for a new driveway and for a new sewer line. There is no work within the 50’ buffer and the excavation is not for a permanent structure. I therefore recommend it is ripe for a negative determination.
1.3. 606 East Central Street NOI: See above comments on the street address issue. The new street address will be on Red Gate Lane, but has not yet been received. The DEP number for this application has not been received and unless received before the hearing, the hearing should be continued to receive the number and any comments from DEP as well as the street address from DPW.
I would recommend that special conditions 20, 22-24, 28, 34, 43 & 44 be attached to the approval.
1.4. 60 Daniels St. ANRAD: Site visits were conducted on 1/31/15, 4/7/15 and again on 4/15/15. 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 should 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. The applicant has indicated that this address issue is not something they wish to deal with at this time.
1.5. 11 Forge Parkway NOI: This application has been continued due to a lack of a quorum for two meetings and will not be able to go forward on the 23rd again due to a quorum issue. In light of this, and the fact that the Planning Board has approved the site plan, I have authorized the applicant to install erosion control and bring pre-ordered steel on site. No land disturbance has been authorized.
I would recommend that the Commission consider a special meeting, possibly during the day, to hear and decide on this permit. If this is not feasible, we need to make sure we will have a quorum on May 14th. Any special meeting must be posted at least 48 hours in advance and the date time and place be set at the meeting. All members can sit and decide on a special meeting, not just the ones who will be hearing and deciding the instant permit.
The issues raised in my previous comments have been addressed. When the Orders are issued, I would recommend the following special conditions: 20-35 & 44.
1.6. 176 Grove Street NOI: The issues highlighted in the letters from the town engineer and BETA engineering (the peer review for the Planning Board) still need to be addressed. I cannot recommend that the application go forward until these issues are resolved.
When the Orders are issued, I would recommend the following special conditions: 20-35 & 44.
2.0. General Business
2.1. Minor buffer Zone Activities
None
2.2 Permit modifications/extensions
2.2.1. Franklin Retirement Community, 485 E. Central: Under DEP policy, the Commission needs to make a determination as to whether the proposed changes rise to the level of a new NOI. I would submit that they do not and in fact will be positive. A public hearing needs to be scheduled on the amendment as soon as the advertising fee is paid.
The Commission should be aware that there are some issues on site concerning erosion control and the required reports have not always been submitted in a timely manner. If the former is not addressed before the public hearing, I cannot recommend any amendments be granted.
2.2.2. Villages at Oak Hill: There are no major outstanding issues that would stand in the way of granting the extension. Under the town by-law, the permit can only be extended for one year at a time.
2.3. Certificate of Compliance
2.3.1. 646 Old Farm Road: The partial certificate does not need a new vote. The registry is requiring information that we need to fill in and that information is on the signature page. Thus all that is required are new original signatures.
2.4. Discussion items
2.4.1. Annual Report: It is time to start thinking about the annual report for 2014-2015. Enclosed with your packets is a first draft revision and I would request the Commission forward any edits, ideas etc. I have put in a photo of the signs that Emma developed and as the weather improves, I will be searching for an additional photograph to replace the bridge from the last report. (Although this in not a bad photo for the report.) Underlined words are “new” and strikethroughs are to be removed. The individual photo included in your packets is the drainage/flood control structure off of Eric Drive which is on Commission property and is may be an option.
2.4.2. Cooks Farm erosion control: This item is on the agenda at my request. The erosion control has been installed for phase one of the project. The control consists of a filter mitt and non-biodegradable filter fabric. This fabric is shown on the approved plans but was not allowed by special condition 20. I have “allowed” the project demolition to go forward since it will not involve significant land disturbance. However, I believe this filter fabric should NOT be used and a double row of bio-degradable filter mitts or wattles should be used.
It is my opinion that the stipulations are controlling since very often the Commission will stipulate a change from something that is on the plans but needs to be changed for the permit to be approved. If this were not the case, the Commission could only approve the plans submitted and the applicant may have to make numerous changes and trips back to the Commission before final approval.
It is due to the “conflict” between the plans and the stipulations, that the applicant’s engineer and I are requesting clarification on this.
2.5. Minutes
March 26. 2015 minutes: On page 5, under the Violation: 674 Pleasant St., I would recommend the second paragraph be reworded to read:
George Russell, Conservation Agent, informed the Commission members that the Enforcement Order, which was mailed certified mail, was never picked up by the applicant and we had to serve it by constable. The applicant therefore only had about 2 weeks to comply with the order. The applicant has submitted a request to extend the Enforcement Order on the restoration plan. Mr. Russell recommended that the Commission extend the Enforcement Order to comply with the June 1st Notice of Intent filing requirement to help insure a comprehensive review of the issues.
2.6. Violations:
3.0. Chair and Commission Comments
4.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION
| 
