Franklin Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
October 15, 2015
To: Town Clerk
cc: Members
File
Present: P. Harrington, S. McLean, R. Pendkar, B. Batchelor, T. Henrichon, George Russell, Conservation Agent, Kathleen Celorier, Secretary
Mr. Paul Harrington, Commission member, chaired this meeting and announced the meeting would be video and audio recorded.
Mr. George Russell’s Agent’s Report has been appended to the minutes.
Public Hearing – Amendment – 438 West Central Street – Shell Station
Mr. Russell stated this hearing was continued to allow the applicant to submit evidence that they have been complying with reporting requirements. The request is for an amendment to the stipulations for approval and for an extension of time on the permit.
Mr. Alan Micale, Consulting Engineer of Ayoub Engineering, Inc., appeared before the Commission and provided an overview of the history of the project. Applicant has been trying to keep permits going for a number of years. The most recent request to extend for another year was stalled due to looking for backup documents that supported construction for the underground storage tank project. As part of the tank project many years ago there was some oversight of required reporting. By looking through files and with environmental consultants a report has been provided which contains numerous reports and documents submitted to various Town agencies over the course of the project. An amendment to the order of conditions allowing this documentation to suffice for meeting the requirements of the conditions has been
requested. Although approved several years ago, the remodel project has not yet started; no work has been done. Therefore, there is no closing out on that order of conditions. In addition, Mr. Micale commented on the pictures he just received at this meeting showing some filling in the back left corner of the site. He did not know who did it or even how much filling was there. He stated he would like to get the amendment approved and be allowed an extension, and then be allowed time to collect information about what is taking place with the fill.
Mr. Russell recommended granting amendment to the orders allowing the provided documentation to substitute for reports that were required while retaining the requirement to continue the reporting going forward, and extend the orders. In addition, an enforcement order to obtain wetland scientist to provide Commission with report should be issued. Commission could then either amend the existing order based on the wetland scientist’s findings or require the filing of a new notice. Mr. Russell also noted technical concerns. The property was originally 438 West Central Street, but the assessor is listing it as 412 West Central Street. The orders in the land title are still going to reference 438 West Central Street, even though technically it is 412 West Central Street. Also, ownership has changed from
the original orders which were issued to David Weeks of Shell Oil. Nouria Energy bought the site from Shell. Correct information must be in the orders.
Mr. Micale said the property is owned by the Ranieri family. Nouria Energy is the applicant.
Mr. Russell stated the enforcement order would reference 412 West Central Street, but would reference the same NOI number. He noted only a one-year extension could be granted.
Commission members agreed this situation needed an enforcement order.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to close the public hearing for the Amendment for 438 West Central 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 to approve the Amendment and issue an extension on the NOI for 438 West Central Street with the stipulation that they will have the reports as in the original NOI from this day forward. The motion was seconded by Ravi Pendkar and accepted with a vote of 5-0-0.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to issue an Enforcement Order where the applicant will have the fill evaluated by the wetland scientist and submit a report and restoration plan by December 1, 2015 and no additional work on the site will be approved until the violation is corrected. The motion was seconded by Bill Batchelor and accepted with a vote of 5-0-0.
Public Hearing – Request for Determination – 1 Helen Circle – Hohmann
Mr. Donald Nielsen, Engineer of Guerriere & Halnon, Inc., representing the applicant and owners, appeared before the Commission and provided an overview of the history of the project. In 2006 there was an enforcement order issued for a mulched area that had been cleared of vegetation by the applicant. That activity had been stopped and the Conservation Agent at the time had recommended letting nature take over to determine if the vegetation would come back; it has returned to a wetland system. Currently, the applicant contacted Mr. Nielsen for the replacement of a deck and possibly a pool. Mr. Nielsen spoke to Mr. Russell that the enforcement order had not been completed and Mr. Russell recommended the RFD which would release the enforcement order. The applicant would like to remove and replace the
old deck and install a 260 sq. ft. based on diameter above-ground pool. He requested a negative determination for the deck and pool, and also a release of the enforcement order. The wetlands were reflagged and vegetation has reestablished.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to close the public hearing for 1 Helen Circle. The motion was seconded by Bill Batchelor 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 1 Helen Circle along with special conditions #20, #28, #34, and #44. The motion was seconded by Bill Batchelor and accepted with a vote of 5-0-0.
There was a motion made by Ravi Pendkar to release the Enforcement Order on 1 Helen Circle. The motion was seconded by Bill Batchelor and accepted with a vote of 5-0-0.
Continued - Public Hearing – Notice of Intent – 674 Pleasant Street – Thornhill
Mr. Russell stated he is asking the Commission to continue the hearing. There are two missing members of the Commission; if testimony is taken tonight the members that are not present cannot vote.
Mr. James Thornhill, applicant, Mr. Russ Waldron of Applied Ecological Services, and Mr. Ken McKenzie addressed the Commission for removal of debris and trailers.
Mr. Thornhill stated he did not have an issue with the missing members.
Mr. Russell stated that revised plans and information on this project were received late yesterday afternoon which is beyond the Commission’s submittal deadline; the materials have not yet been reviewed.
Mr. Waldron apologized for not providing the new information by last Thursday. He stated the abutter notification form had been submitted and the potential plant species, if planting was going forward, have been listed. He stated the significant change was the correction of the as-built permanent disturbance numbers. An error was discovered. When it was redone, currently, the total as-built disturbance construction related impervious surface is 4,381 sq. ft. which is 4,524 sq. ft. less than originally proposed; the buffer zone remains the same at 462 sq. ft. Since it was built, the vegetative growth continued. So, with this new vegetation there is approximately 9,941 sq. ft. At 2 to 1 mitigation for the as-built, that would be 8,762 sq. ft. Therefore, this is on the plus side of revegetation.
He hoped this would count for any revegetation the Commission may request.
The Commission asked if the trailers and equipment mentioned were going to be removed.
Mr. Thornhill stated he was ordered not to touch anything in the yard until after this was taken care of. He stated Mr. Russell told him he could move things that were on impervious areas so he has started to clean that up. But, he has not touched anything in the back half of the property.
Mr. Russell stated he is aware of what is on the property. He is unaware of what is in the trailers; this information has been requested.
Mr. Thornhill stated that in the summer he puts hand tools, lawn equipment, saws, and other tools in the trailer. In the winter he puts his four-wheelers in the trailer. He distributed a list with this information to the Commission members. Mr. Thornhill stated he is requesting to put the trailer in the Option 3 area indicated on the provided map. He stated he had always planned to remove the trailer. In the original order of conditions the Conex storage box was to be moved as well. He stated he has intentions of moving it; he never planned to leave it in that spot and he has no issues with this. The original order of conditions did not indicate how trailers were going to be removed. He stated there is plenty of room to get around the area to remove the Conex box. His intent was to wait until the ground
was frozen so it will not cause damage to the ground surface or the vegetation when moved.
Commission asked if there was a real plan on paper.
Mr. Thornhill stated he was going with the Option 3 location which is directly behind the house as noted on the provided plan. He stated it is the least desirable spot for him, but best for conservation of the property. It is not out of the 200 ft. buffer zone. To do that, it would have to be put in the front yard or in the back side, but he would have to cut trees which would be invasive. He did not want to do that since the container will not be there permanently. He stated the only person that has been for a site visit is Mr. Russell; he invited other Commission members to visit as well.
Mr. Russell requested time to review the newly submitted information. He stated that progress is going in the right direction including the information regarding the math error that had been made. He also noted there may not be a quorum at the next Commission meeting and Mr. Thornhill needed to decide the date he wanted to continue the hearing.
The Commission stated they are not endorsing the items on the property and the applicant may need to get a permit for said stored items; the Commission is for wetlands jurisdiction only.
Charles Dellacona, 670 Pleasant Street, addressed the Commission. He stated Mr. Thornhill’s sons had built a stone wall six feet onto his property line. He asked if the applicant’s house was moved, does that mean the septic system will be moved as well. He also asked if the Commission plans to look inside the trailer and Conex box located on the applicant’s property.
The Commission stated the stone wall issue was not in the Commission’s jurisdiction.
Mr. Russell stated Mr. Thornhill had filed a new application because what was on the original application and what was built were so different that the Commission believed it required a new application. A new plan has been submitted. Any further changes that have to do with this Commission’s jurisdiction would have to come back to the Commission for approval. As well, the current septic system is on the water line. Mr. Russell stated the septic system could be in the water if the Commission allowed it. This Commission only considers wetland issues. Mr. Russell also stated that one of the issues raised is what is in the trailer and the Conex box. Mr. Thornhill submitted a written document as to what is in them, but this document has not been reviewed yet.
There was a motion made by Paul Harrington to continue the public hearing for the NOI for 674 Pleasant Street to October 29, 2015 at 7:45 PM. The motion was seconded by Bill Batchelor and accepted with a vote of 5-0-0.
Continued - Public Hearing – Amendment – The Villages at Oak Hill
Mr. Mark McGlynn and Mr. Bob Messier, members of the Board of Trustees at the Villages at Oak Hill, appeared before the Commission for tree pruning. They submitted a map and pictures noting three changes since the last meeting: 1.) a 25 ft. offset was added, 2.) three trees outside of the 25 ft. were determined to not need to be removed, and 3.) within the 25 ft. area, there were originally 16 trees for removal and now reduced to 9 trees to be taken down.
The delineation for the 25 ft. was done in 2008. The Commission stated it is not allowed to accept delineation that is more than three years old, and noted if they do not require a new delineation then it sets a precedent for other cases. But, in this case, the applicant is willing to concede that all trees are in the 25 ft. buffer. The old delineation is potentially more adverse to the applicant. It is only an issue if trees were on the borderline. Section 7 shows a tree in the 25 ft. area which could be a concern. Section 1 shows a much wooded area so this is not as much of an issue.
A Commission member stated that on site visit only some trees were tagged and requested clarification on which trees were going to be cut down. Also, these trees are in the wetlands and when cut down will fall onto the ground full of fern. Most of the trees seen did not seem to be in bad health or large enough to cause damage. They are in area that is part of the wetlands system. He would not be in favor of cutting any of these trees and requested the specific reasons to remove. Also, in Section 1 there was a pile of lawn clippings. Property owners were informed that this is not a good place to dispose of lawn clippings. As well, in Section 8 on the new plan, maybe some pruning would be acceptable, but not removal of the trees.
Mr. McGlynn stated a contractor provides lawn services; he will inform them about the lawn clippings. He showed pictures of trees that he wanted to remove of which one is a hazard to the property.
Commission indicated that an arborist needed to determine whether tree should be pruned or taken down and provide valid reasons. It was also noted that this is a 25 ft. no-touch buffer. So, if tree does not need to be taken down it should remain. In the past, Commission has allowed cut down for safety reasons. Commission determined that tress in Section 8 would be pruned.
Mr. McGlynn stated this process has already been longer and more tedious than he believes it should have been. He is willing to make concessions as he would like to get the work done. He has tried to answer all Commission’s questions. He proposed to do pruning for the trees except in Section 6 which should be removed as it is a safety issue.
Mr. Russell reminded that original application showed planting of eleven trees. Commission recommended that male and female plants be put in for mitigation. Mr. McGlynn stated the mitigation plants would be dispersed.
Mr. Russell summarized the proceedings. The vote is to amend the order of conditions to allow the mitigation of plantings as outlined in the September 21, 2015 memo from the Board of Trustees at the Village at Oak Hill, and to allow the removal of vegetation as shown on the plan tonight with the changes that the trees in Section 1 are only going to be pruned and the tree in Section 8 is not going to be removed completely, but going to be cut to the level necessary to prevent property damage.
Christine Gruner, 904 Washington Street, neighbor to the Villages at Oak Hill, addressed the Commission. She stated she had no problem with applicant taking down trees or pruning on the property, but wanted to know when the cutting would be done so she can make sure her house is protected from carpenter ants, a problem she incurred when nearby construction work had been done in the past.
Mr. McGlynn stated that with approval the cutting would commence on Monday.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to close the public hearing for the Villages at Oak Hill. 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 approve the amendment with the most recent tree cutting plan as submitted, with the exception of the trees in Section 1 will be pruned, the one tree in Section 8 that is marked to be taken down will be cut off as necessary for safety considerations, and Commission will be accepting the plan from September 21, 2015 for plantings at the Villages at Oak Hill. The motion was seconded by Bill Batchelor and accepted with a vote of 5-0-0.
GENERAL BUSINESS (items taken out of order from agenda)
Discussion: DelCarte Pond Study
Mr. Russell stated the Commission authorized an RFP/RFQ for consultants to study the ecological health of the area. The consultant has been retained, contracts signed, and work started.
Carl Nielsen, Certified Lake Manager with ESS Group with degree in fisheries and wildlife, addressed the Commission. He stated he would like to refine goals and get input from Commission and the public. He provided the Commission with an outline of the study. Currently, they are compiling data including aerial imagery. From 2003 to 2014 lower pond has been disappearing and growing in with wetland vegetation. There have been changes to fisheries habitat overtime. They are going to evaluate biological community as well as the aquatic plants in and around pond. Over 100 pond locations were sampled. Data has not yet been compiled. Detailed maps will be prepared. This will be helpful to developing short and long-term management plan. During the fall they are going to sample fish very intensively
using a variety of techniques. Also, wetland habitat and water quality will be sampled. Goal is to have final report by end of the year. He stated the first year is the most difficult to harvest water chestnuts so hiring contractor is usually recommended. Aquatic herbicide can also be used. In ponds such as this, usually if the invasive species can be removed, it can be controlled. The water quality testing and fish sampling is still to be done. Bottom sampling has been completed. Draft scenarios for management will be ready to present by end of November.
Mr. Russell stated it is best to do scientific analysis to determine what is there before anything is done. He recommended that an online survey not be done. He stated he is the contact person if they have any questions.
Permit Modification: 11 Thomas Drive
Mr. Russell stated this is to amend a minor buffer zone activity. It is the addition of two or more sonotubes on the side of the house. As this is not a public hearing, the Commission could proceed to amend, but uncomfortable because the applicant was not present at the meeting. Mr. Russell stated item would be put on the next agenda and would notify the property owner.
Permit Modification: 8 Paulene Drive
Mr. Russell stated he does not recommend going forward because it is a modification of an NOI. The applicant was not present at the meeting. Mr. Russell stated item would be put on the next agenda and would notify the property owner.
Certificate of Compliance: 3 Chilmark Road
Mr. Russell recommended release be granted.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to release the Certificate of Compliance for 3 Chilmark Road. The motion was seconded by Bill Batchelor and accepted with a vote of 5-0-0.
Minutes:
A Commission member stated that, in his opinion, the minutes for September 17, 2015 were not expansive and detailed enough. The minutes are not verbatim transcripts, but should capture more details.
Mr. Russell noted a recent court decision from Bridgewater and stated that he will be looking for more information in the minutes regarding the reasons the Commission voted the way they did on an item. He suggested maybe the best way to do this is to generate findings of fact and attach said information to the minutes, as the agent’s report is always attached to the minutes.
Discussion: Town Forest/State Grant
Mr. Russell stated the Chairman had requested the feasibility of applying for a recreational trails grant to improve the trails at the Town forest be investigated. It is currently being worked on. The major components include: improvement of parking area on Summer Street, actual improvements to trails to make them more accessible, and complete wetlands delineation in the forest to minimize any impact to the wetlands—this is a requirement of the funding agency. Signage such as at DelCarte indicating trails, entrances, and private property, will be installed.
Discussion: Draft 2016 New Hearing Schedule
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to accept the Draft 2016 New Hearing Schedule. The motion was seconded by Bill Batchelor and accepted with a vote of 5-0-0.
Signed Certificate of Compliance, Orders of Conditions & Determination of Applicability
Certificate of Compliance – 3 Chilmark Road – Barry – CE159-984
Determination of Applicability (Negative) 1 Helen Circle – Hohmann
Orders of Conditions – 412 West Central Street – Shell Station – SE159-862
Amended Orders of Conditions – Oak Hill Villages – Washington Street – SE159-921
Orders of Conditions – Interstate 495 – Mass. DOT – CE159-1108
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Ravi Pendkar and accepted with a vote of 5-0-0.
The meeting adjourned at 9:06 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Judith Lizardi
Recording Secretary
| 
