TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: May 12, 2015
1.0. Projects
1.1. By-law and Regulation Amendments: 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.
This public hearing is for amendments to both bearing in mind this is a required step and does not mandate any specific changes or actions at this time. After the hearing, unless there are changes the Commission wishes to make, I would recommend that the amendments to both documents be adopted. A suggested motion based on the information in your packet:
That the Conservation Commission adopts the amendments to Chapter 271 of the Town Code and the Conservation Commission Rules and Regulations for the reasons outlined in the April 7, 2015 memo from the Conservation Agent, and as outlined in the documents attached to said memo.
1.2. 10 Cotton Tail Lane NOI: 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 According to DEP, this permit, SE 159-590, is no longer valid and thus the wetlands line is no longer valid. The wetlands line has been re-established with new flagging but we do not have the field data cards. If I cannot undertake a field inspection and the cards are not submitted by the meeting, I would suggest one more continuation is in order. If the NOI is approved, I would recommend the following special conditions: 20-35 & 44.
1.3. 11 Forge Parkway NOI: 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.
1.4. 176 Grove St. NOI: The issues highlighted in the letters from the town engineer and BETA engineering (the peer review for the Planning Board) have been addressed. When the Orders are issued, I would recommend the following special conditions: 20-35 & 44.
1.5. 880 West Central St. NOI: This application is a result of the Commission’s action on the enforcement order for this site. A site visit revealed that there are no wetlands flags on site. This has been pointed out to the applicant’s engineer along with other issues that need clarification. A subsequent site inspection revealed that the wetlands flags have been posted. There is one area of contention in that the application was filed as a “limited project and I do not believe it meets the requirements of that designation since not all of the new sewer line will be “public” as required by 310 CMR 10.53 (3) (d). I would recommend that if approved, the following special conditions be attached to the approval: 20-35 & 44.
1.6. 332 Chestnut St. NOI: A site visit was undertaken on 4/29/15 and a review letter generated to the applicant’s consultant. All my concerns have been addressed. I would recommend that if approved, the following special conditions be attached: 20, 22, 27, 28, 34, 38, 43 & 44.
1.7. 1312-1342 West Central St. NOI: This is an NOI for an affordable housing project that is NOT subject to the local by-law, only the state statute and regulations. The applicant has shown the local buffer zones on the plans, but this is done only for the sake of showing location of work relative to the wetlands.
The wetlands were established by an ANRAD approved by the Commission and the project has been conceptually approved by the ZBA. It is important to note however, that the plans submitted for the NOI and the plans approved for the comprehensive permit from the ZBA have different dates. Not all of these plans will be under the jurisdiction of the Commission, but given that there are approximately 50 sheets per plan set, it is going to be very onerous to determine what is different and what is not. This is important since the plans will be referenced in the final orders and these will be placed into the land records.
I have requested that the plans be stamped by a registered surveyor. There is a difference of opinion between the applicant’s engineer and my office concerning the need for a surveyor to stamp the plans. It is my opinion that under MGL c 112 §81D, a PE cannot certify property boundaries, and while I may take this position, I have informed the engineer that the Commission will decide if a RLS stamp is required.
The Town Engineer is of the opinion that peer review of the drainage for this project is warranted. Based on this, and the concerns raised by the Charles River Watershed Association, the difference in plans referenced above, and the opinion from the town attorney that the concept plans approved by the ZBA are not the same type of development plans that will be approved by the Commission, I would request the Conservation Commission vote to authorize peer review and continue the hearing to at least 6/11/15 to allow time for this review.
I have generated letters to the applicant’s engineer on the above and undertaken a site visit.
2.0. General Business
2.1. Minor buffer Zone Activities
2.1.1. 2 Master Drive: This is a very minor activity involving the placement of two sign posts in the buffer with minimal excavation. I would recommend approval.
2.1.2. 10 Meadowbrook: This permit is to replace a deck that structurally failed with a new deck in the same location with new footings. The land disturbance will be limited to the footing work and should not pose any issues with the abutting wetlands.
2.2 Permit modifications/extensions
2.2.1. Franklin Retirement Community, 485 E. Central: This request was continued from the last meeting. 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.
2.3. Certificate of Compliance
2.3.1. Eric Drive Drainage: This is a Conservation Commission project and the COC will not be recorded but is used only to show that the project is complete according the approved plans should anyone question this in the future.
2.4. Discussion items
2.4.1. Keystone: This item will be discussed by the Chair.
2.4.2. 9 Spring Street: This is a request by the owner to modify an approved MBZA to install a walkway to the approved garden. The basic question before the Commission is whether this can be treated as an amendment to the MBZA or whether a new permit needs to be filed. There is no public hearing issue, only a procedural issue.
2.4.3. Peer Review: At the direction of the Chair, I want to keep the Commission in the loop while we are in the process of selecting a new peer review firm for the Commission. As of this date, we have received 8 responses to our RFP/RFQ and have selected 3 firms to come in for an “interview” and in fact conducted these interviews on the 12th. I will update the Commission on the progress of this.
2.5. Minutes
2.6. Violations:
2.6.1. 39 Opal: For the Commission’s information only, I have issued a stop work order for this address since work, consisting of the cutting down of about a dozen trees, has started prior to the installation and approval of the erosion control as required under the Orders.
3.0. Chair and Commission Comments
4.0. EXECUTIVE SESSION
| 
