Franklin Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
August 13, 2015
To: Town Clerk
cc: Members
File
Present: P. Harrington, R. Pendkar, S. McLean, Steven Younis, B. Batchelor, George Russell, Conservation Agent.
Mr. George Russell’s Agent’s Report has been appended to the minutes.
Public Hearing – Regulation Amendments – Conservation Commission
Mr. George Russell gave the Commission an overview of the regulation amendments. The amendments primarily add definitions clarifying the verbiage of the guidelines for working in the buffer zones.
The Commission questioned if this was needless duplication as they would like to streamline regulations not expand the document, and this may appear as though Commission is trying to modify standard terms already in use. Document may be better suited as a glossary of terms or put on the website for non-binding informational purposes. It was noted that the public would not be reading 310 CMR; therefore, it may be a good to have these definitions included.
Mr. Russell recommended the Commission strongly consider the definitions for Request for Determination (RDA) for both positive and negative determination as it becomes confusing to the public when told the Commission is issuing a negative determination which is a positive occurrence. Mr. Russell compared 310 CMR, State statute and local bylaw and there are no term conflicts; 310 CMR and State statute supersede these term definitions.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to close the public hearing for the Regulation Amendments. The motion was seconded by Steven Younis and accepted with a vote of 5-0-0.
There was a motion made by Steven Younis to accept the Regulation Amendments deleting the term “definition of” and correcting the spelling mistake that was found in the text. The motion was seconded by Scott McLean and accepted with a vote of 5-0-0.
Public Hearing – Request for Determination – 12 Forge Parkway – Real Estate Associates Fund Construction of a New Parking Lot
Mr. Russell recommended the hearing be continued to August 27, 2015 at 7:45 PM as the applicant was not present.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to continue the public hearing for 12 Forge Parkway to August 27, 2015 at 7:45 PM. The motion was seconded by Bill Batchelor and accepted with a vote of 5-0-0.
Public Hearing – Request for Determination – 21 Peck Street – Antonelli
Mr. Christopher Antonelli appeared before the Commission for the removal of vegetative debris. Per the recommendation of a hired wetland scientist, Mr. Antonelli requested to remove grass clippings and sought guidance from the Commission.
Mr. Russell stated he observed the grass clippings onsite, spoke with the property owner, and received the report from the wetland scientist. Mr. Russell recommended a negative determination with the stipulation the agent be notified when the clippings are removed to conduct a final inspection. It was agreed the clippings would be removed by hand.
Discussion ensued between members regarding how to address future minor violations and proper enforcement with Commission agreeing to schedule topic as discussion item when Chairman Livingstone returns in September.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to close the public hearing for the RDA for 21 Peck Street. The motion was seconded by Ravi Pendkar and accepted with a vote of 5-0-0.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean for a negative determination for the RDA for 21 Peck Street with the condition that the agent be informed once the work is done so he can conduct a follow-up inspection. The motion was seconded by Steven Younis and accepted with a vote of 5-0-0.
Public Hearing – Notice of Intent – Dacey Fields Culvert Replacement – DPW
Bill Batchelor recused himself from this public hearing.
Mr. Jay Mello, Assistant Town Engineer, appeared before the Commission for the Dacey Fields culvert replacement. Mr. Mello gave the Commission members background information on this project. The failing culvert was originally installed with a bridge on top as an Eagle project, not designed by an engineer. The intent is to replace it with a functioning culvert which will allow the embankment to be used again. There is currently a buildup of sediment at the culvert inlet and it is not pitched correctly for the stream flow. The embankment, made of earth not stone, is failing as the culvert does not work correctly. Work will be done close to the wetland and stream with the entire project done in the wetland buffer zone.
Mr. Mello stated another part of project will be to put a surface treatment on the existing farm road. The proposal is to lay down filter fabric to prohibit growth up through the road and then
use about one foot of gravel or pavement millings to protect the road. The road is currently earth and this maintenance will help it to not erode. Small scale construction equipment will be brought in to work on this. He noted the project will likely be contracted out as the Town is very busy, but he will be onsite to oversee as much as possible.
Mr. Russell recommended five special stipulations enumerated in his agent’s report.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to close the public hearing for the NOI for Dacey Fields culvert replacement at 700 Lincoln Street. The motion was seconded by Ravi Pendkar and accepted with a vote of 4-0-1.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to approve the NOI for 700 Lincoln Street with special conditions #20, #21, #28, #34, and #44. The motion was seconded by Ravi Pendkar and accepted with a vote of 4-0-1.
Continued - Public Hearing – Notice of Intent – 620 Pleasant Street – Oakes
Mr. Russell stated a written request for a continuation was received from the applicant; he recommended a continuation to August 27, 2015 at 7:45 PM.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to continue the public hearing for the NOI for 620 Pleasant Street to August 27, 2015 at 7:45 PM. The motion was seconded by Bill Batchelor and accepted with a vote of 5-0-0.
Public Hearing – Request for Determination – 12 Forge Parkway – Real Estate Associates Fund Construction of a New Parking Lot
Mr. Russell stated the applicant had arrived and requested the Commission rescind its previous motion to continue this hearing and then take up the applicants RFD.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to rescind the continuance of the public hearing for the RFD for 12 Forge Parkway made previously at this meeting. The motion was seconded by Bill Batchelor and accepted with a vote of 5-0-0.
Mr. Peter Bemis, Engineering Design Consultants, appeared before the Commission for the construction of a new parking lot. Mr. Bemis gave the Commission a detailed overview of the project. There is one-quarter million square feet of warehouse space with only seventy-nine parking spaces which poses difficulty attracting building tenants. Proposal will allow for about 230 parking spaces. Originally, there were not any wetlands on this site. But, an onsite detention basin was constructed; over time from the stormwater and soil conditions a fresh water wetland has formed. Local Bylaw states that all fresh water resource areas are protected and detention basins are not distinguished from this.
Mr. Bemis stated the proposal for the new parking lot involves treating the stormwater before it gets recharged into the ground; it will flow into an infiltrative drainage system. A galley system will receive the water with stormceptor that will treat the stormwater prior to discharge to the ground. He requested a negative determination as there is no impact to the wetlands that are on the site, and the wetlands are a function of the stormwater management system. He also sought permission to do maintenance work on the trees in the basin area.
Commission noted that applicant would have to file separately for the maintenance of the basin area as it is now a protected resource area.
Mr. Russell stated there is nothing in the submitted RDA regarding the stormwater basin. If the Commission considers maintenance of the basin, Mr. Russell stated he will change his recommendation from a negative to a positive RDA. If the applicant proceeds with the application as is, Mr. Russell recommends a negative RDA. Mr. Russell suggested for future consideration of work in the basin the applicant should file an NOI.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to close the public hearing for the 12 Forge Parkway RDA. The motion was seconded by Bill Batchelor and accepted with a vote of 5-0-0.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to make a negative determination for the 12 Forge Parkway RDA. The motion was seconded by Ravi Pendkar and accepted with a vote of 5-0-0.
GENERAL BUSINESS
Permit Modification: 438 West Central Street
Mr. Russell stated the applicant requested a continuance to the next meeting.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to continue the permit modification for 438 West Central Street. The motion was seconded by Bill Batchelor and accepted with a vote of 5-0-0.
Permit Modification: Villages at Oak Hill
The applicant was not present at the meeting.
There was a motion made by Bill Batchelor to continue the permit modification for the Villages at Oak Hill. The motion was seconded by Ravi Pendkar and accepted with a vote of 5-0-0.
Certificate of Compliance: 9 Molly Lane
Mr. Bill Halsing, Engineer of Land Planning, Inc. appeared before the Commission. He stated the certificate of compliance was not straight forward. There was an order of conditions issued on September 9, 2000. The plan in the Conservation Commission file is that with no modifications. After reviewing minute meetings and the final plan in the Planning Board file, it seems like the original plan was modified with a smaller cul-de-sac, less impervious area, and a scaled-back project. The current conditions onsite represent this final Planning Board plan. It seems as though this was the intended plan, but it was not noted properly on the order of conditions with the correct revision date.
Mr. Russell stated current staff verify all Boards and Committees approve the same set of plans to avoid similar situations. However, in this case the Commission approved a set of plans which was then recorded in the land records that were not the same as the plan filed and approved by the Planning Board. The NOI order of conditions references a plan date from the Conservation Commission plans which is the legal perspective. One of the biggest differences regards the lot in question—Lot 3A. On the approved Conservation Commission plan there is no Lot 3A.
Mr. Russell stated a release of conditions should not be granted because of the discrepancy between the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission approved plans. Furthermore, an expired permit cannot legally be modified or extended. Should the request be denied, the applicant has four options: 1.) accept there will never be a release from conditions, 2.) file a new NOI that reflects the existing conditions, 3.) file an RDA for the existing conditions with hope the Commission would find a negative determination, or 4.) appeal the Commission’s decision to DEP.
Mr. Halsing stated the certificate of compliance could be granted on Lot 3 as it is the same as Lot 3A in the Registry of Deed’s recording. After a review of the plans and meeting minutes, it seems as though the plan approved by the Planning Board and located in their files took into consideration the changes requested by the Conservation Commission. The dates and intent make sense suggesting the approved plan was just not put into the Commission’s file.
Mr. Russell indicated the dates of the approved plans from the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board indicate different plans. In addition, when the Commission members signed the order of conditions, it certified that the plan was complete according to what they approved. If the plan had come back to the Commission, there would have been a recorded event in the file or in the land records as an amended order of conditions.
Mr. Russell stated that although the changes are in the roadway and detention basin, nevertheless, the plan that was approved by the Commission is not what was built. Also, as the detention basin was not constructed, the original drainage calculations submitted for the development should be considered.
Mr. Russell recommended the Commission vote to approve or not approve the release of conditions.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to release the order of conditions for 9 Molly Lane. The motion was seconded by Ravi Pendkar and accepted with a vote of 0-5-0. The vote did not pass.
The Commission made suggestions to applicant on various ways to proceed.
Discussion: 11 Vine Street
Mr. Stephen Elkins, homeowner of 11 Vine Street, appeared before the Commission for the removal and replacement of a pressure-treated wood deck which collapsed from the winter snow. He stated he had applied for and was granted a permit with condition that material used not be pressure-treated.
Mr. Russell stated the Commission attached a stipulation that no pressure-treated wood could be used, and further noted that the Commission has never attached this stipulation to any other structure or deck. As well, pressure-treated wood has changed dramatically over the past ten
years with no heavy metals now used. He checked with the building official and there is no restriction for the use of pressure-treated lumber. Mr. Russell recommended this stipulation be removed.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to remove the restriction from the previous MBZA prohibiting the use of pressure-treated wood. The motion was seconded by Ravi Pendkar and accepted with a vote of 5-0-0.
Discussion: Open Space and Recreation Plan Update
Mr. Russell stated the Open Space and Recreation Plan is a State required document to be updated every seven years. The current plan will expire February 2016. There are segments of the plan that do not require many updates, such as the geology of the Town. Greatest updates include the Town’s open space and recreation land. He proposed that as segments of the plan are updated he will provide Commission members same to review, while other sections continue to be completed including a public survey. It is under consideration that this questionnaire could be completed online as well as through paper distribution. He will advertise and allow for public hearings as well. He requested Commission members review updated plans and respond to Mr. Russell with questions, comments, and suggestions. Without an
approved of plan from DCR some funding could get cut off.
Signed Orders of Conditions & Determinations of Applicability
Orders of Conditions – Dacey Fields Culvert Replacement – DPW – CE159-1100
Determination of Applicability (Negative) 21 Peck Street – Antonelli
Determination of Applicability (Negative) 12 Forge Parkway – Real Estate Assoc. Fund
There was a motion made by Ravi Pendkar to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Steven Younis and accepted with a vote of 5-0-0.
The meeting adjourned at 8:46 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Judith Lizardi
Recording Secretary
| 
