TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: June 9, 2015
1.0. Projects
1.1. 29 James RDA: This permit is to remove one very large pine tree. The tree is “too close” to the wetlands to qualify for an MBZA. Based on the letter from the tree expert, the removal of this one tree seems to be warranted. Erosion control should be installed and inspected prior to removal.
1.2. Weston Woods NOI: This permit is pending peer review. I would recommend that the hearing be continued with the consent of the applicant to 6/25/15 in accordance with 310 CMR 10.05 (5) (2). The Commission’s peer reviewer has received the application.
1.3. 8 Pauline NOI: Application review and site visits were conducted, review letters generated to the applicant’s consultant and my concerns have been addressed. I would recommend that the following special conditions be added to any approval: 20, 24, 27-30, 34, & 44.
1.4. 17 Jefferson Road NOI: This application was continued to allow for “re-advertising” with the correct address, 17 vis-à-vis 15. The project is an attempt to allow captured stormwater runoff to recharge and thus help with the replenishment of our water supplies. I would recommend that special conditions numbers 20, 23, 24, 34, 44, 46, and 47
1.5. 45 Kenwood ANRAD: This permit is pending peer review. I would recommend that the hearing be continued with the consent of the applicant to 6/25/15 in accordance with 310 CMR 10.05 (5) (2). The Commission’s peer reviewer has received the application.
1.6. 45 Kenwood RDA: This permit is pending the “results” of the ANRAD peer review. Included in your packet is a copy of the draft administrative consent order (ACO) and a letter from the applicant’s engineer on the status of the project.
2.0. General Business
2.1. Minor buffer Zone Activities
None
2.2 Permit modifications/extensions
2.2.1. Chestnut Street Senior Village SE159-918: The applicant has requested a three year extension of this permit. However, while a three year extension is allowed for the state permit, the local by-law only allows for a 1 year extension; see §181-8 D. Further, this section of the by-law only allows for three, one year extensions. The instant extension would be the second of three. It is my understanding that this project has not yet started and prior to any extension being granted, I believe it would be prudent to ascertain exactly why this project is languishing or what remains to be competed under the Orders.
If an extension is granted, I would recommend it be for one year only so there is no “conflict” with the state regulations.
2.3. Certificate of Compliance
2.3.1. 14 Garnet: All is ready for the release to be granted.
2.3.2. 2 Bell Circle: This is an expired OOC and the release was never applied for. A file review and site visit did not reveal any problems preventing the release.
2.4. Discussion items
2.4.1. Annual Report: The final draft of the annual report was included in your packets. Unless the members have any changes, we will add the final numbers after the end of the month and it will be ready to go.
2.4.2. 176 Grove St.: Included in your packet is a series of e-mails and reports concerning a fuel spill on this site. DEP has asked if we can add a stipulation to the NOI which would read:
The property owner shall maintain booms at the outfalls into the detention basin and that the outfalls are regularly monitored for any oil impact.
A boom has been placed in the basin in question and as long as it is maintained, the issue should be resolved. Under special condition number 29 in the original NOI approval, the Commission has the right to add this condition. I do not believe this is necessary at this point in time.
2.5. Minutes
2.6. Violations:
2.6.1. 674 Pleasant St.: The property owner has requested to address the Commission and another extension on the deadline for filing a new NOI. I have attached some of the most recent correspondence and past meeting minutes on this project. I have not issued the fines as directed by the Commission given the request for another extension. It is my opinion that this permit is necessary, especially considering the fairly massive retaining wall that was constructed in violation of the original NOI.
It needs to be noted that in all previous action between the Commission and the applicant (e.g. 6/18/09) there were no formal votes by the Commission and there is no follow-up correspondence in the file. Therefore, there is no way to accurately determine what was in fact decided by the Commission.
In addition, the “debris” that was placed in the jurisdictional area is being removed without the requested restoration plan. Thus we have no idea of the impact on the area.
3.0. Chair and Commission Comments
4.0. EXECUTIVE SESSION
| 
