TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: July 28, 2015
1.0. Projects
1.1. 39 Blueberry NOI: A site inspection was undertaken and a letter generated to the applicant’s consultant. A response to the review letter has been received and my comments addressed. The “big” outstanding issue is the expired NOI for the subdivision approval. I would recommend that the following special conditions be attached: 20-35, 38, 40, 41, 43 & 44. (See letter below.)
1.2. 43 Blueberry NOI: A site inspection was undertaken and a letter generated to the applicant’s consultant. A response to the review letter has been received and my comments addressed. The “big” outstanding issue is the expired NOI for the subdivision approval. I would recommend that the following special conditions be attached: 20-35, 38, 40, 41, 43 & 44. (See letter below.)
1.3. 620 Pleasant Street NOI: A site inspection was undertaken and a letter generated to the applicant’s consultant. The applicant’s consultant has addressed all of my concerns. The one issue that needs to be addressed by the Commission is outlined in the last bullet in my original review letter and the response/recommendation in my follow-up letter. Both letters are below.
If approved, I would recommend that the following special conditions be attached: 20-22, 27-30, 38, 40, 41, & 44.
1.4. Franklin Retirement NOI Amendment: The requested modification has been approved by the Planning Board. Under DEP policy, the Commission has made a determination that the proposed changes do not rise to the level of a new NOI. I would submit that the proposed changes in fact will be positive by decreasing impervious area. No additional special conditions are warranted.
1.5. 5 Kenwood RDA: A response to my review letter was submitted late on the 22nd and a follow-up site visit conducted. Revised plans were also submitted. I can still not locate some of the wetlands flags, but they seem to be far enough “away” from the construction that it may not be necessary to have them in the field. My site inspection did find some of the flags and they appear to be accurate. The field data cards submitted are not dated however so I cannot determine when the original delineation was conducted and if it was in the last three years as required.
There is significant erosion on site now and this plan will go a long way to correct the issue. A negative determination is warranted. It should be noted that the plan is also under peer review for the Planning Board, but this review has not yet been completed. However, no significant changes are expected from this review.
1.6. Weston Woods, West Central St. NOI: Peer review should be completed on the revised plans by the meeting. Assuming all is in order for the NOI to be approved and I would recommend the following special conditions: 19-44 & 46.
2.0. General Business
2.1. Minor buffer Zone Activities
2.1.1. 33 Miller St.: I have met with the property owner, discussed the project(s) and recommended the MBZA permit. While multiple projects seem to be “a lot”, each individual project component meets the MBZA criteria and as they also do collectively. I do not see the need for erosion control given the collective amount of land disturbance is minimal.
2.1.2. 11 Vine St.: The requested permit is to replace a deck which has failed. I have conducted a site inspection and do not see any impacts from the deck construction.
2.2 Permit modifications/extensions
2.2.1. 438 West Central: In light of this request for an extension of the NOI, a file review and site inspection was undertaken. There is no evidence that the reporting required under special conditions #’s 22 and 25 have ever been submitted. I do not recommend an extension of the permit given the lacking of reports and thus non-compliance with the NOI.
2.3. Certificate of Compliance
2.3.1. 10 Bent: The appropriate certifications have been received and numerous site inspections have been undertaken. All is ready for the release.
2.3.2. 236 Daniels: The appropriate certifications have been received and numerous site inspections have been undertaken. All is ready for the release.
2.4. Discussion items
2.4.1. DPW Herbicide application: In your packet was information on the town’s annual herbicide application. This needs to be approved by the Commission and signed by the Chairman.
2.5. Minutes
2.6. Violations:
3.0. Chair and Commission Comments
4.0. EXECUTIVE SESSION
| 
