TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: August 25, 2015
1.0. Projects
1.1. 5 Lily Way RDA: This hearing was continued to allow the submission of a report from a wetlands scientist on any impact the placement and removal of plywood would have on the wetlands. A wetlands scientist has been retained by the property owner and the report has been received and included in your packet. Based on this report, I would recommend a negative determination be issued. There is one outstanding issue and that is the “bridge” across the stream. I would suggest that this crossing should be included in the negative determination given that there does not seem to be any impact to the bank.
1.2. 63 A Street. Ext. NOI: I have conducted a plan review and a site visit and generated a letter to the engineer. I would recommend the following special conditions: 20, 22, 24-30, 34, 43 & 44.
1.3. Beaver Street Interceptor Access Road NOI: As stated in the application, the proposal is to basically stabilize an existing access road that was created under an emergency finding to repair failed culverts in the rear of the Franklin Mall. The permit is thus for a limited project and will not add any new impervious area or change any drainage from what currently exists. However, DEP has raised significant questions that must be addressed prior to any action by the Commission. I would request that even though this is a town project, the following conditions be attached: 24-29 when the project is approved.
1.4. Hawthorne Village Drive RDA: The RDA is being submitted for a repaving project within the condominium development that contains a relatively small section of the roadway that is in the 100’ buffer. I have reviewed the filing and conducted a site visit. Given that the roadway configuration will stay the same and the drainage characteristics will not change, I would suggest a negative determination is in order. I would however request that standard stipulation numbers 20, 34 and 44 be attached to the determination.
1.5. 22 Garnet Drive, NOI: I have conducted a plan review and a site visit, generated a letter to the applicant and discussed with him in detail what is required. We need to receive proof at the hearing of filing with DEP since this was not part of the part of the application. I would recommend the following special conditions be attached to the approval: 20, 22, 25-30, 34, 43 & 44.
1.6. 275 Beaver St. RDA: This project is the first phase of the redevelopment of this site, which is the new location of the Town’s Park and Recreation Dept. The permit is required under the local by-law only since the wetlands in question are not jurisdictional under 310 CMR 10.02. There will be a net decrease of over 300 ft² of impervious area and no change in current drainage. I would recommend a negative determination.
1.7. 620 Pleasant St. NOI: Revised plans have been received and the project has been scaled back. The issue raised at the last meeting concerning the deposition of vegetative debris in the buffer zone still needs to be addressed. If approved, I would suggest the following special stipulations: 20, 24, 27, 29, 34 & 44.
2.0. General Business
2.1. Minor buffer Zone Activities
None
2.2 Permit modifications/extensions
2.2.1. 438 West Central St.: This item was continued from the last meeting. My recommendation remains the same: this permit should not be extended do to the non-compliance with the original Orders.
2.2.1.Villages at Oak Hill: This has been continued from the last meeting due to the lack of a representative to discuss the proposal. I have generated a letter to the applicant informing him of the continuance and explain that a representative must be at the meeting to address the proposal.
2.3. Certificate of Compliance
2.3.1. 446 Union Street: This lot was originally approved as part of the Willow Run Subdivision under NOI #159-166. The instant lot has never been released from conditions although all of the other lots in the development have been. A certification of completion cannot be obtained since the original surveyor is deceased and the engineering firm that did the original work no longer in business. Given this, I would recommend that the release be granted.
2.3.2. 31 Hayward: See item 2.6.2 below.
2.3.3. 11 Forge Parkway: I have conducted a site inspection and I would recommend that request not be granted until such time as the vegetation around the basins becomes more established, e.g. the grass should be growing and mowed. In addition, there is erosion between the basins and the access road that needs to be addressed.
It is important to bear in mind that there is no provision in 310 CMR 10.05 (9) (c) to extend the 21 day criteria for action on a Request for Release from Conditions.
2.4. Discussion items
2.4.1. OSRP: We have started the “rewriting” and information gathering and are working on refining the process. I would ask the Commission to consider if there are any specific issues that we should be considering, or asking in any questionnaire we develop.
One specific that has come up: Should the parking area for the Town Forest on Summer Street be expanded. Presently it holds about 4 cars on crushed stone with no area to turn around. An Expansion would involve tree/vegetation clearing, but not necessarily paving or drainage work.
2.5. Minutes
2.6. Violations:
2.6.1. 23 Longfellow: Included in your packets are a number of letters and photos documenting the issue. Given the lack of response from the property owner, I would recommend that the Commission vote the following:
The property owner is to obtain the services of a wetlands scientist to prepare a report testifying as to whether the placement of the vegetative debris into the resource/buffer area produced any damage to said resource/buffer area and if this material should remain in place or be removed. The applicant is then required to file a Notice of Intent application to the Commission based on the report of the wetlands scientist. i.e. a restoration plan if it is to be removed; a NOI if it is to remain.
The wetlands scientist’s report and the completed application must be received by the Commission no later than noon October 8, 2015. If the report and application is not received by this date, or a request for an extension from this date is not received, the Commission will issue an enforcement order pursuant to the state statutes and regulations and may begin to issue fines under the local wetlands by law.
2.6.2. 31 Hayward: A wetlands scientist has been retained and her report is in your packets.
The Commission also required the submission of a request for a certificate of completion be submitted by the 20th, but this has not been received.
I believe that the report is sufficient to lift the stop work order. However, there are two other issues: (1) The NOI is still expired and any work in a jurisdictional area, INCLUDING the placement or removal of the instant material, will still require a permit and (2) the request for the release of the expired order. Bear in mind that an expired order CANNOT be amended or extended.
3.0. Chair and Commission Comments
4.0. EXECUTIVE SESSION
| 
