TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: June 23, 2015
1.0. Projects
1.1. 5 Clover Leaf NOI: Review letters have been generated and site visits conducted. If the Orders are issued, I would recommend the following special conditions: 20, 22, 24, 27, 28, 34, 38, 40 & 44.
1.2. 165 Grove Street RDA: This application is being submitted on my recommendation to give the property owner the legal “back-up” by having the Commission accept the designated wetlands line and to proactively vote that the proposed construction is not within jurisdiction. I would thus recommend a negative determination.
1.3. 1312 West Central Street (Weston Woods) NOI: This hearing was continued to allow for peer review of the stormwater issues associated with the site. Graves Engineering has not yet completed peer review.
1.4. 5 Lily Way RDA: In your packets there are copies of letters etc. concerning this site. In my opinion it is very analogous to the problems at 727 Washington Street wherein the property owner put material in the wetland and then removed it, all without the proper permits or evaluation of the material deposited and removed from the resource area. Given the above, it is my recommendation that the property owner by required to file a report from a wetlands scientist on any impact on the deposition/removal of the material and that the RDA that has been filed be continued until this report is received. The issue of the bridge can be addressed at this time. I would also recommend that this report be filed by a date certain, August 15, 2015, and if not filed, an enforcement
order be issued and fines be leaved under the local by law.
1.4. 29 James RDA: This hearing was continued for a site visit by the members. Based on the letter from the tree expert, the removal of tall pine tree seems to be warranted. Erosion control should be installed and inspected prior to removal and that a plan showing the proposed “new” vegetation be submitted to my office so that a record is maintained.
1.5. 45 Kenwood ANRAD: This permit is pending peer review. The fee for peer review was received on 6/17/15 and authorization to proceed given to Graves. If we do not have the review back by the meeting, I would recommend that the hearing be continued with the consent of the applicant to 7/16/15. The Commission’s peer reviewer has received the application. PLEASE BRING THE MATERIAL FROM YOUR LAST PACKET ON THIS ITEM AND THE ONE BELOW TO THE MEETING.
1.6. 45 Kenwood RDA: This permit is pending the “results” of the ANRAD peer review and the hearing should be extended if this review is not received in time. If all is OK with the peer review, I would recommend a negative determination with the following special conditions: 20, 21, 22, 28, 34, & 44.
2.0. General Business
2.1. Minor buffer Zone Activities
2.1.1. 2 Richard Lane: This is an application for the replacement of a bulk head door and will necessitate the excavation of 18 cubic feet (0.666 yds³). Given that this is a “replacement”, it is my opinion that an MBZA is warranted.
2.1.2. 31 James: The applicant is here at my recommendation to seek the Commission’s guidance on extending the fencing that was approved as part of the NOI for the pool project. The fencing, by and for itself, would meet all of the requirements for an MBZA permit. This is similar to the fencing that was approved for 77 Jefferson when the fence was installed during the pool installation but was not shown on the plans. I believe that any NOI modification that would impact the quantities of fill, excavation, building footprint or other significant feature of the approved permit should be subject to the formal amendment process. A non-significant item, such as a fence that would normally be an MBZA could be handled as such.
However, given the “active” NOI, the Commission needs to determine the best way to address this from a procedural point of view.
In anticipation of a decision from the Commission that an MBZA might be legally sufficient in this instance, the applicant has filed an MBZA application. The applicant does understand that there is a possibility of an NOI amendment being necessary and the process that would involve.
2.2 Permit modifications/extensions
2.2.1. Franklin Heights: The requested modification involves only the stipulations attached to the initial 2006 approval. The issues with these stipulations were developed as a result of a total file review prior to signing off on a building permit for a new building in phase one of a two phase project. This is a 40B project and is not subject to the local by-law. I do not believe this rises to the level of requiring a new NOI and thus would recommend a public hearing for an amendment only.
2.3. Certificate of Compliance
2.3.1. None
2.4. Discussion items
2.4.1. DelCarte Pond: Since this item was before the Commission last year, I have reached out to a number of colleges/universities in an attempt to see if we could get the necessary study done as a class or student project. Among the schools I have contacted are Dean, Bridgewater State, Framingham State and Worcester State. Two have expressed interest and then there was no follow-up communication despite my requests, one (Dean) met with us and decided they could not do it and one simply did not respond.
My request to the Commission is should we keep reaching out to academic institutions or should we expend funds from the wetlands filing fee account, or any other source of funding we can use, put an RFP/RFQ “on the street” and see if we can get the study done. It will take some time to put this together and I have a rough idea of the cost. However, when the RFP/RFQ is received, the Commission can make a cost-benefit decision.
We are also anticipating the receipt of an NOI for control of water chestnuts in the pond. This permit and application of the herbicide will not, in my opinion, alleviate the need for the study; e.g. we still do not know the ecology of the fish population.
2.5. Minutes
2.6. Violations:
2.6.1. 31 Hayward: This violation concerns fill being placed in the wetlands and on a bank by a landscaper without a permit, on a site on which a stop work order is in place and AFTER they were told to stop. All of this is outlined in the material in your packet. Given the above, it is my recommendation that the property owner by required to file a report from a wetlands scientist on any impact on the deposition/removal of the material and that an RDA be filed. I would also recommend that a this report must be filed by a date certain, August 15, 2015, and if not filed, an enforcement order be issued and fines be leaved under the local by law.
3.0. Chair and Commission Comments
4.0. EXECUTIVE SESSION
| 
