TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: Sept. 15, 2015
1.0. Projects
1.1. DPW Beaver Street Interceptor Road NOI: This permit application was continued to allow the town to respond to questions raised by DEP. The responses have not yet been finalized and I would recommend the hearing be continued to the 10/1/15 meeting.
1.2. 74 Elm Street NOI: This application is to cut trees, build a deck and to have the Commission find a stream to be intermittent thus removing the need to comply with the Rivers Protection regulations, 310 CMR 10.58. I have met with the property owner, discussed the application with the owner’s consultant, reviewed the application and conducted a site visit. I agree with the wetlands flagging and it would appear the “tests” for determining that the stream is intermittent have been met (310 CMR 10.58 (2) d). Further, there was no water in the stream channel during my site visit on 9/2/15. Should the NOI be approved, I would recommend that the Orders clearly indicate the finding that the stream is intermittent and the following special conditions be
attached: 20, 24, 27, 28, 34 & 44.
1.3. 300 East Central Street NOI: This project, as well as the one under item 1.4 below, is part of one large project but on two separate lots. The applicant has chosen to separate these applications so as to not hold up certification on the “other end” when the work on one lot is complete but there is remaining work on the other. It is my recommendation that both of the projects be sent for peer review as outlined in the letter in your packet. If the Commission decides to authorize peer review, I would recommend the hearing be continued until October 29th to realistically give all parties time to do what is required.
There is one other item that needs to be addressed by the applicant: some of the proposed work is on land not owned by the developer, it is owned by the town. The town has NOT given permission for this work to take place. See the letter in your packet. In talking with the developer, it was indicated to me that this work on town land was submitted in error and will be corrected.
1.4. 340 East Central Street NOI: See above comments.
2.0. General Business
2.1. Minor buffer Zone Activities
2.1.1. 11 Thomas Street: The requirements for the MBZA are met and I would recommend approval. No special conditions are necessary.
2.2 Permit modifications/extensions
None
2.3. Certificate of Compliance
2.3.1. 7 Shawkemo: All is in order for the release to be granted.
2.3.2. 4 Georgia: All is in order for the release to be granted.
2.3.3. 332 Chestnut: All is in order for the release to be granted.
2.4. Discussion items
2.4.1. Enforcement procedures: This item is on the agenda at the request of the Commission so that the process used in enforcement can be reviewed. The process currently used by my office is outlined in the memo in your packets.
2.4.2. Local By-law: At their Sept. 9, 2015 meeting, the town council deleted the requirement in C. 181 that all applications submitted to the Commission need to be submitted to multiple town departments, only to DPW.
2.4.3. OSRP: We are starting to “put together” a subcommittee to work on the OSRP; i.e. identify and bring together the stakeholders. It has been made very clear that the Commission is the lead in this project.
In your packets is a copy of the questionnaire used in the last OSRP. Staff is recommending that if the Commission/subcommittee wants to distribute a questionnaire, the same questions and format be used with new dates. This will allow us to accurately compare responses to the same questions seven years later and will give us insight as to whether attitudes, priorities and/or demographics have changed. I am asking at this time to give this some thought so that we can begin to develop the mechanics.
2.5. Minutes
2.6. Violations:
3.0. Chair and Commission Comments
4.0. EXECUTIVE SESSION
| 
