TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: October 27, 2015
1.0. Projects
1.1. 300 East Central NOI: The review letters have been received from BETA/Wetlands Strategies Inc. (WSI) and are included in your packet. The applicant has been provided copies of these reports.
I would call the Commission’s attention to items 3, 5 and 7 from WSI which would indicate that changes in the plans are in order. Also, please note the comments on drainage and stormwater management, particularly item number 4 on the letter from the town engineer and the section on stormwater management from BETA, which begins on page 10 of their report to the Planning Board.
Further, it must be noted that the plans that have been submitted to ConCom are different than those submitted to the Planning Board.
1.2. 340 East Central NOI: Same comments as item 1.1 above.
1.3. Lot 1 Marine Way NOI: For all intents and purposes this, and items 1.4 & 1.5 below are in essence one development and are resubmissions of NOIs that have expired. However, just prior to the expiration of the NOIs, the wetlands line was re-evaluated by a qualified wetlands scientist and found to be still accurate. Therefore, I would suggest that the line shown on the plans is still accurate. I would also recommend for all three items on Marine Way the following special conditions: 20-31, 33-35, 41, 43 & 44 and as a special, special condition that all filter fabric on site be removed. (There is a lot of this material on and under the ground on the site.)
I would suggest that the Commission may want to consider the following reasons should they decide to approve the applications:
- The NOI is a re-approval of an expired NOI and the site conditions, including the wetlands boundaries have not changed and has been deemed to fall within the Commission’s jurisdiction under 310 CMR 10.02 (1) and is subject to regulations under 310 CMR 10.02 (2);
- Significant mitigation plantings are proposed and will partially off-set vegetation that is removed as part of the construction; and
- No wetland resource areas will be disturbed thus meeting the Interests of the Act as enumerated under 310 CMR 10.01 (2) and the requirements of 310 CMR 10.02 (2) (b).
1.4. Lot 2 Marine Way NOI: See item 1.3 above.
1.5. Lot 3 Marine Way NOI: As with the other two lots on Marine Way, this is for the construction of a new single family home AND Marine Way itself. The only portion of Marine Way that is within jurisdiction is on this lot.
1.6. 674 Pleasant Street NOI: Based on input from the start of the hearing, I have requested additional information from the applicant; and some of this was submitted at the last hearing. If approved, it is my recommendation that the owner remove all items from jurisdiction, or at least onto paved surfaces, that could leak fluids onto the ground (e.g. the tractor mentioned in my letter) including the trailers and storage units.
In addition, the following special conditions should be attached to any approval: 20 (With the provision that this be done for any “new work” such as moving the trailers), 22, 27-30, 33, 34, 37, 40, 44 and 46-50.
The Commission may want to consider the following reasons for approval of the instant NOI:
- The revised calculation of the impact on the resource buffer areas indicate a significant reduction from the original NOI thus meeting the Interests of the Act for the protection of stormwater damage and the prevention of pollution;
- The NOI is a re-approval of an existing NOI and the site conditions, including the wetlands boundaries have been deemed to fall within the Commission’s jurisdiction under 310 CMR 10.02 (1) and is subject to regulations under 310 CMR 10.02 (2) and (2) (b);
- The 1,1179 ft² of mitigation shown is greater than a 2:1 ratio for areas disturbed;
- Removal of all equipment that could leak polluting fluids, e.g. oil, onto the ground will be removed to an impervious surface;
- The instant NOI more accurately reflects what was actually constructed in terms of the house and
- The final “clean-up” of the jurisdictional areas and the submission of the NOI meet the requirements of the enforcement order issues by the Commission for these items.
2.0. General Business
2.1. Minor buffer Zone Activities
2.1.1. 57 Dover: Please see the background material in your packet. This pool that is on the property was never permitted and the instant permit is to remove it.
2.2 Permit modifications/extensions
2.2.1. . Franklin Hts. In your packets are a series of letters which outline the issues involved. There needs to be clarification concerning the plans and the stipulations of approval. The plans do not show any stockpile locations, but reading the stipulations, it appears that it was the Commission’s intent to allow for stockpiling on site. The applicant and I are asking for clarification on the Commission’s intent so that all parties understand what is to be done going forward. I would suggest that by placing the stipulations in the approval as was done, stockpiles were anticipated as they are a common construction practice and the developer should be allow to proceed. The issue comes in when a narrow wording of the approval is undertaken, e.g. see stipulation
#12 of the DEP standard Stipulations which refers only to the work shown on the plan. When there is ambiguity, as there is here, I think the benefit of the doubt should go to the property owner.
Therefore, I would recommend a formal vote on the issue and would suggest the following wording, which also includes the reasons for the vote:
After a review of the stipulations attached to the Orders for CE 159-911, it is the Conservation Commission’s position that the stockpiling of material was anticipated as indicated in special conditions 56-58 and is therefore allowed. Given that no locations were indicated on the approved plans, and in order to prevent a repeat of the instant problem, all future stockpile locations must be submitted to the Conservation Agent prior to any stockpiling of material.
2.2.2. 11 Thomas Drive: The applicant was not present to address this issue at the last meeting and a letter was generated to request they be at this meeting to address any issues. MY comments from the last meeting were: This is a request for a change to an MBZA, something that has not come up before. The change is minor, but would need to be approved by the Commission. Given that there is no recording involved, and thus no title issues, I believe the Commission would be on firm ground to approve the change.
2.2.3. 8 Pauline NOI: The applicant was not present to address this issue at the last meeting and a letter was generated to request they be at this meeting to address any issues.
2.3. Certificate of Compliance
2.3.1. 11 Forge Parkway: All is in order for the release to be granted.
2.4. Discussion items
2.4.1. 620 Pleasant St.: The Commission originally approved an NOI for the address and the scope of the project was and is a project that would lend itself to an MBZA. The homeowner wishes to approach the project in such a manner that would be governed by an MBZA vis-à-vis the legal and procedural requirements of a NOI. However, there needs to be some assurance, not a guarantee, from the Commission that an MBZA could be approved and then a Certificate of Compliance issued for invalid Orders. The applicant could then file the paperwork necessary for both actions to occur.
This situation has not happened before in my tenue, but I would recommend that an MBZA, vis-a- vis an NOI is in order for a project of this scope.
2.5. Minutes
A comment was made at the last meeting that the reasons for the Commission voting the way they did on an application should be included in the minutes. This is very important in light of the recent court decision from Bridgewater. In light of this, and given that my report is always made part of the minutes, I will try to include suggested “reasons” for a vote. However, it is very important that these reasons be cited in any motion, and if there are changes, these changes be noted.
2.6. Violations:
2.6.1. 23 Longfellow: In your packets are a series of letters which outline the issues involved. The property owner is aware of these issues and addressed the Commission on them. The Commission directed that an NOI be submitted no later than 10/8/15. This date was not met and I would recommend the enforcement order in your packets be issued unless the owner can justify to the satisfaction of the Commission as to why this date was not met, or an extension requested.
2.6.2 31 Hayward: The letter in your packets is self-explanatory; a date specific was given to the property owner for the submission of an application and this date was not met. I would recommend the enforcement order in your packets be issued unless the owner can justify to the satisfaction of the Commission as to why this date was not met, or an extension requested.
3.0. Chair and Commission Comments
4.0. EXECUTIVE SESSION
| 
