Franklin Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
October 1, 2015
To: Town Clerk
cc: Members
File
Present: J. Livingstone, B. Batchelor, P. Harrington, T. Henrichon, R. Pendkar, S. McLean, Steven Younis, George Russell, Conservation Agent
Chairman Livingstone announced the meeting would be audio and video recorded.
Mr. George Russell’s Agent’s Report has been appended to the minutes.
Public Hearing – NOI – 674 Pleasant Street – Thornhill
Mr. Russ Waldron of Applied Ecological Services, on behalf of Mr. James Thornhill, applicant and property owner, addressed the Commission for removal of debris and trailers. He stated Mr. Thornhill would not be present at the meeting and he had requested the hearing be continued. Mr. Waldron provided an overview and stated Mr. Thornhill had been given an enforcement order for having a number of items in the riverfront within jurisdiction. He had moved some items out, but was told to stop. Mr. Waldron reviewed the provided plans and stated he would be preparing the proposed mitigation plantings. He discussed the applicant’s preferred options for moving the trailers and Conex box. Mr. Waldron stated the applicant is aware he must clean up.
Mr. Russell stated the request for the hearing continuance was warranted as the applicant was not present. He stated the applicant should decide which of the three submitted options he wanted. The option should be governed by the impact on the wetlands area. Then, the applicant should be required to submit, as part of the amendment, prior to the next hearing, an actual list of the planned plantings and where they will be placed, as well as the square footage of the area that has regrown. This NOI is a re-filing of an enforcement order because the original NOI was not complied with relative to house location, retaining wall, and restoration plan for removal of all construction equipment found within the buffer zone area.
Chairman Livingstone stated 3,500 square feet of delta is not insignificant. The entire plan was completely changed, there is an area of debris in the wetlands, and as well, the impact area was substantially increased.
Commission members asked what was in the trailers and how trailers were placed on the ground.
Mr. Ken McKenzie addressed the Commission and stated the applicant is in construction and stores items and tools that he does not want to get wet in the trailers. It is another storage area rather than building another building. He stated the applicant winterizes his four-wheel drive vehicles in there, but believes applicant does not have any chemicals stored in the containers. The Conex box is almost on the ground, but has small blocks underneath it. The trailer has wheels on it. A semi-tractor would have to remove it. There will be additional impact because area will have to be cleared in order to move trailer.
Mr. Russell stated area is zoned residential, but being discussed with the zoning enforcement officer as there seems to be some commercial activity.
There was a motion made by Paul Harrington to continue the public hearing for 674 Pleasant Street to October 15, 2015 at 7:25 PM. The motion was seconded by Bill Batchelor and accepted with a vote of 7-0-0.
Public Hearing – Amendment – The Villages at Oak Hill – Off Washington Street
Mr. Mark McGlynn and Mr. Robert Messier, residents and members of the Board of Trustees at The Villages at Oak Hill, appeared before the Commission for tree pruning. Mr. McGlynn provided an overview and stated the amendment to the NOI had been completed. They would like to remove 41-42 trees of various sizes of which he provided photographs. Some of the trees were deemed hazardous by Tree Tech, professional tree experts. Also, there will be some pruning to overhanging areas to residents’ decks and walkways. On September 11, 2015, notification to abutters was sent by certified mail. They have tentatively scheduled Tree Tech to do the work on October 19, pending result of this hearing. They plan to have professional landscaper do mitigation planting of eleven, three-gallon size winterberries, spread equally
throughout the impacted area, no later than spring 2016.
Mr. Russell stated the mitigation replacement is not at one to one, but it seems adequate. He stated this is an amendment to the notice of intent filed by the members of the Board of Trustees of the development. There is also an ongoing construction project in the development. All of this must be tied together at the end when the release of the conditions is requested.
Commission discussed the location of the trees. They asked if the map was to scale and stated all the trees seem to be within a few feet of the wetland boundary. Commission wanted to know if said trees were within the 25 ft. buffer. The map did not provide enough information to make a decision. It is understandable to take down trees that are a hazard, but not trees that are perfectly healthy.
Mr. McGlynn stated the trees are of all different sizes with some dead, and all are on the border of previously disturbed area and not in the forested area. No stump removal will be done. He suggested Commission come for a site visit. He provided Commission members with a colored photograph showing the proposed trees for removal and the density of the woodland. He stated everything is between the 50-foot and 100-foot buffer.
Commission member requested a site walk.
Mr. Russell suggested members make arrangements with applicant individually as the Commission does not want to set a specific site visit date.
There was a motion made by Ravi Pendkar to continue the public hearing for the Amendment for The Villages at Oak Hill to October 15, 2015 at 7:30 PM. The motion was seconded by Paul Harrington and accepted with a vote of 7-0-0.
Public Hearing – NOI – 11 Evergreen Drive - Chaudhury
Mr. Paul DeSimone of Colonial Engineering, on behalf of the owners, addressed the Commission for the construction of an in-ground swimming pool. He provided a detailed overview of the project and showed placement of proposed pool on plan as well as mitigation plantings for trees to be removed. Currently, the area to be disturbed is lawn.
Chairman Livingstone asked if the Conservation Restriction had any impact on this project.
Mr. Russell stated in the instant case, the project will not encroach on the Conservation Restricted area. It shows up on the Deed, but not in the State Approved Listing. As well, he recommended stipulations for approval outlined in his Agent’s Report.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to close the public hearing for the NOI for 11 Evergreen Drive. The motion was seconded by Ravi Pendkar and accepted with a vote of 7-0-0.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to approve the NOI for 11 Evergreen Drive with special conditions #20, #27-30, #34, #38, #40, #44, & #47. The motion was seconded by Bill Batchelor and accepted with a vote of 7-0-0.
Public Hearing – RFD – 24 Red Gate Lane - McNellage
Mr. Russell stated this is the result of an enforcement letter. Property owner contacted Mr. Russell after receipt of letter and then retained the services of a wetland scientist who prepared a report which is in the Commission’s packet. The wetland scientist recommended removal of vegetation due to some potential chemical changes to the composition of the area. Mr. Russell recommended a negative determination of the RDA and stated no work has been done since property owner was notified.
Ms. Tambra McNellage, homeowner and applicant, appeared before the Commission for the removal of downed tree and grass trimmings. She stated she was unaware they had violated any codes and will not do that again.
Mr. Russell stated applicant must notify his office prior to the removal of the grass clippings and again after grass clippings have been removed.
There was a motion made by Bill Batchelor to close the public hearing for the RFD for 24 Red Gate Lane. The motion was seconded by Scott McLean and accepted with a vote of 7-0-0.
There was a motion made by Bill Batchelor for a negative determination for the RFD for 24 Red Gate Lane. The motion was seconded by Scott McLean and accepted with a vote of 7-0-0.
Public Hearing – NOI – Rt. 495 Maintenance – MassDOT
Mr. Russell stated, as in his Agent’s Report, the issue was whether MassDOT was subject to local bylaw or not. After his Agent’s Report was generated, the issue was worked out with Council. He received legal opinion from MassDOT Council and Town Attorney is in agreement. State Supreme Court case did not say that MassDOT is exempt from local bylaw, but the test that has to be met is to show significant harm if local bylaw is not complied with. Mr. Russell stated his opinion is that it is not rising to that standard. Therefore, he recommended Commission go forward with application. He stated he must receive from applicant the name and address of PE that designed the plans and the date they were prepared. An order of conditions cannot be prepared without said information.
Applicant showed name, address and date on the submitted plan. Date was not in title block, it was in the stamped area. He stated this was standard procedure for MassDOT.
Chairman Livingstone noted this was the date of the plan that Commission will use.
Mr. Brian Cordero of MassDOT Highway addressed the Commission for the maintenance and improvements of existing roadway and stormwater improvements to treat roadway runoff. He stated that along with the approximate 1.5 mile stretch of resurfacing, it was thought to be a good time to do stormwater improvements. Within jurisdiction there are four infiltration swales which are check dams which will in turn reduce phosphorus as well as reduce some peak flow rates. Overall, it will be a good benefit to the highway that once had zero stormwater management. This is all for treating runoff and is all within the Charles River Watershed.
Mr. Russell requested confirmation they are not changing where the storm water is going, just how it is getting there.
Mr. Cordero confirmed and noted the CFS runoff will be reduced.
There was a motion made by Ravi Pendkar to close the public hearing for the NOI for Rt. 495 Maintenance. The motion was seconded by Bill Batchelor and accepted with a vote of 7-0-0.
There was a motion made by Ravi Pendkar to approve the NOI for Rt. 495 Maintenance. The motion was seconded by Bill Batchelor and accepted with a vote of 7-0-0.
GENERAL BUSINESS
Certificate of Compliance: 104 Populatic Street
Mr. Russell stated all is in order for the release to be granted.
There was a motion made by Paul Harrington to release the Certificate of Compliance for 104 Populatic Street. The motion was seconded by Bill Batchelor and accepted with a vote of 7-0-0.
Discussion Item: Emergency Certification – 706 Pond Street
Mr. Russell stated he provided a supplemental information packet which outlines the reasons for the request for emergency certification. As indicated in the emails from the Fire Department and MassDEP, there is leaking from an underground storage tank at this site. He stated he is not sure what is in the tank or where it is going. Mr. Russell agreed with the request for emergency certification to remove the tank on two conditions. First, the erosion control must be established around the excavation site prior to any excavation because there are significant wetlands on the western part of the site. Second, an NOI must be filed after the tank is removed, but no later than December 1, 2015. Mr. Russell stated he spoke today with Wetlands Division of DEP and they are onboard with this procedure to remove the
tank and then do an after-the-fact NOI.
Margaret Ranieri, Trustee of Ranieri Trust, on behalf of the property owner, addressed the Commission. She stated she was not aware the tank was leaking. She stated the tank was empty. She said they have owned the property for over 30 years and it has not been in use during that time. So, until tank is removed the status will not be known.
Mr. Russell stated MassDEP had assigned a tracking number to this situation which means they are considering it to be significant. It is a single-walled tank. Mr. Russell stated he was led to believe from conversations with DEP that the tank was leaking, but it may not be. Therefore, this may be proactive. But, tank must be removed and then soil testing done.
Ms. Ranieri stated this is on a property that was once on a much larger tract of land. Prior owners had a farm and a sand and gravel operation. They may have used the tank for fuel for their equipment. She reiterated that it was empty; it is probably a 500-gallon tank. DEP asked her to remove it right away.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to approve the Emergency Certification for 706 Pond Street with the stipulations that the erosion controls be in place before the tank is removed and a post-hoc NOI filed no later than December 1, 2015. The motion was seconded by Bill Batchelor and accepted with a vote of 7-0-0.
Discussion Item: Open Space and Recreation Plan
Mr. Russell provided an overview as outlined in his Agent’s Report. He stated all is moving forward. Staff is meeting next week to discuss the work on the Plan. Rewriting the narrative has started which will be provided to Commission members as the sections are prepared. Would like
Commission to think about any parcels they think the Town should purchase if the parcels become available, with special consideration given to any parcel currently under Chapter 61, 61A or 61B tax status. The Open Space Parcel Inventory from 2008 to current is beginning to be
updated. There are a few changes so far. For instance, about one-quarter acre of the State Forest was sold to a private party and is now considered Industrial.
Discussion Item: By-Law Amendment to Detention Basins
Mr. Russell stated there is a memo concerning the retention basins issue in the Commission members’ packets. The way local bylaw is structured, when a subdivision or other development is developed and a retention or detention basin is put in, it will eventually become a viable wetland area once the vegetation starts to grow. Under local bylaw, that is a jurisdictional area. The question has come up as to whether the Town should be regulating man-made retention/detention areas. As with 12 Forge Parkway, there are examples of both why Commission should and should not regulate this. No decision is needed by Commission at this time; just want Commission to be aware of issue. There is a potential that someone will file an amendment to this bylaw with the Town Council. If they do, it will probably
be forwarded to Commission for review and recommendations. Mr. Russell stated his feeling is that Commission should regulate these basins.
Commission members discussed retention and detention ponds with distinctions provided. Discussion focused on retention ponds, pros and cons of basin issue, and subsequent issues for property owners. Different bylaw and maintenance plans were discussed and questions such as the following were considered: Should there be an annual or bi-annual report on the condition of the basin? Should bylaw be amended to exclude retention basins as these could be covered under separate maintenance plans?
Minutes:
There was a motion made by Bill Batchelor to accept the meeting minutes for August 27, 2015. The motion was seconded by Paul Harrington and accepted with a vote of 4-0-3. Ravi Pendkar, Steven Younis and Tara Henrichon abstained as they were not present at this meeting.
There was a motion made by Bill Batchelor to accept the meeting minutes for June 25, 2015. The motion was seconded by Ravi Pendkar and accepted with a vote of 6-0-1. Tara Henrichon abstained as she was not present at this meeting.
Signed Orders of Conditions, Determination of Applicability & Certificate of Compliance
Orders of Conditions – 11 Evergreen Drive – Chaudhury – CE159-1109
Determination of Applicability (Negative) 24 Red Gate Lane – McNellage
Orders of Conditions – Rt. 495 Maintenance – Mass DOT – CE159-1108
Certificate of Compliance – 104 Populatic Street – LeBlanc – CE159- 953
There was a motion made by Bill Batchelor to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Scott McLean and accepted with a vote of 7-0-0.
The meeting adjourned at 8:55 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Judith Lizardi
Recording Secretary
| 
