TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: December 1, 2015
PLEASE NOTE THE INFORMATIONAL MATERIAL IN YOUR PACKETS
1.0. Projects
1.1. 8 Pauline Dr. NOI Amendment: This is an amendment to an existing NOI and I would recommend approval given that there is negligible impact and no addition conditions are required. (NOTE: This would also suffice as a “reason” for action.)
1.2. Open Space and Recreation Plan: This hearing, which is part of the update process, is designed to receive public input on the new plan. At this hearing, it would be appropriate for the Commission to not only gather input, but to also really focus on the goals and objectives of the plan update. I have included the 2008 G&Os in your packet. Many of these will be carried over since they are on-going.
1.3. 5 Kenwood: This application has been filed as a result of modifications to the drainage system that were proposed after the Commission approved an RDA for much more limited improvements earlier this year. Included in your packets is a series of letters and reviews concerning this application that has been pending in front of the Planning Board awaiting the filing of the NOI with the Commission. These are important given that this application is totally about stormwater management.
A site visit and a review of the instant application have been undertaken and a letter generated to the applicant’s engineer, a copy of which is also included with your packet materials. The most outstanding items in this review are the issue of the property owner’s signature which has been resolved and the fact that work has started on site. In my opinion, this last issue is significant and needs to be addressed.
Assuming all issues are resolved, I would recommend the following special stipulations: 20-32, 34, 42 & 44. I would suggest that the Commission consider the following reasons for any approval:
- The proposed improvements will allow great management of stormwater generated on site and help prevent illicit discharges to the wetlands resource areas;
- The wetlands boundaries have been deemed to be accurate and approved by the Commission under an RDA on July 30, 2015;
- The construction of the drainage improvements thus falls 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);
- There are no known or suspected priority habitats on the site; and
- The site is subject to the local and state stormwater requirements and there will be no change in the direction of current stormwater run-off and the proposed improvements have been reviewed by BETA Engineering as part of the Planning Board’s review process.
1.4. 300-340 E. Central St. NOI: The wetlands line has been verified by the Commission’s peer reviewer. However, there are other outstanding issues, e.g. final stormwater approval which will involve work in the 25’ no touch zone, for which we have not received revised plans that have been reviewed by BETA Engineering. BETA responded to my request for an update on the plan status stating:
We have not received any updated documents or revised plans from the Applicant yet.~ I am not sure when they plan to submit these or what their current project schedule is.
Note 7 from the original review by the Commission’s wetlands scientist’s states:
The town’s Wetland Regulations establishes the standards for work in the 100-foot buffer zone. More specifically, the regulation states that there shall be no activity within the first 25 feet without a variance. The work proposed by the subject Notices proposes minor grading in the 25-50 foot buffer zone and structures, parking, and grading within the 50-100 foot buffer zone. In accordance with Section 4.4 of the town regulations, work in the 50-100 foot buffer zone may require mitigation off-sets. The Notice does not address any mitigation and offers no alternatives for working within the 25-50 foot and 50-100 foot buffer zones.
Therefore, I would suggest that until the “final” plans are submitted and reviewed by BETA, that this hearing be continued.
1.5. 674 Pleasant Street NOI: Based on input from the hearing, a revised map has been requested from the applicant. This map has still not been submitted.
Please note the memo from the zoning enforcement officer from your last packet. This letter indicates that the storage of material, some of which is the subject of the NOI, is a zoning violation. I would recommend that any approval by the Commission clearly indicates that the Orders, if issued, do not relieve the property owner from any compliance issues with the town’s zoning regulations.
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 issued by the Commission for these items.
2.0. General Business
2.1. Minor buffer Zone Activities
2.1.1. 161 Pine St.: The application is an “after the fact” MBZA. The property owner had a diseased tree in the front yard and within the buffer zone. National Grid determined the tree was in danger of falling and would not only take down all of the power lines in the area, but depending on the direction of fall, could cause significant damage to the house. As a result, National Grid removed the tree. The property owner and I discussed this issue and I advised her to have the tree removed and file the permit as soon as possible. I do not see any reason not to approve the MBZA.
2.1.2. 5 Briarwood: This application is a result of a letter from my office outlining that while the pool construction was out of jurisdiction, the storage of the excavated material etc. was not. The property owner and I have discussed the issues and the options and it would appear that the MBZA would satisfy the legal requirements for the temporary storage of the material.
2.2 Permit modifications/extensions
2.2.1. 176 Grove St. Please see correspondence in your packets. In my opinion, the proposed change does not rise to the level of a new NOI and should be handled as an amendment to the existing permit. Given the material and review from BETA, the Commission may also consider this so inconsequential that no action is necessary. I would strongly caution however, that once this type of position is considered, how should future issues of this scope be addressed and where does the Commission “draw the line”. E.g. see item 2.2.2 below.
2.2.2. 39 Opal Circle: A routine field inspection revealed that a fence has been erected around the pool area and this fence was not shown on the NOI approved by the Commission. The fence would lend itself to an MBZA but the Commission has taken a firm position that MBZAs shall not be used to modify an NOI. When the request for a release from conditions is submitted, the fence will come up as a “plan deviation” and thus will eventually need to be addressed.
There has been an interesting development concerning this area of Town: National Heritage has confirmed the presence of a young Eastern Box Turtle in this neighborhood. This species has not been seen in Franklin since 1997 and is listed as a species of “special concern” by the state.
2.3. Certificate of Compliance
2.3.1. 95 Chestnut St: No work approved under the NOI was ever undertaken and the property owner is selling the property and needs to clear the title. Therefore an “invalid” release can be granted.
2.3.2. Uncas Ave. Ext.: The permit is a local by-law NOI only. The DEP superseding order has expired. Not all work is complete, but there should be no more land disturbance and the slopes are stabilized. I believe any additional work, (e.g. a new structure) within 100’ of the isolated wetlands will require the filing of a new NOI. Under these circumstances, the release can be granted.
2.3.3. 5 Red Gate Lane: All is ready for the release to be granted.
2.3.4. 222 Daniels: All is ready for the release to be granted.
2.4. Discussion items
2.4.1. Commission Procedures:
2.4.1.1. NOI Amendments
2.4.1.2. MBZA
2.4.2. By-law amendment: There is an official amendment request to the town council from DPW and I am forwarding the request in your packet to allow the members time to comment. This discussion has been before the Commission and concerns retention/detention basins that are jurisdictional under the local by-law. I think the Commission would be well served to make sure that no truly viable wetlands are compromised while still making sure these wetland/basins are functioning as designed. I think the proposed wording would accomplish this. I would recommend a formal recommendation to the Council by the Commission if the Commission is comfortable with the wording.
2.5. Minutes
2.6. Violations:
2.6.1. 438 West Central St: The applicant is under an enforcement order to engage a wetlands scientist to evaluate the material placed adjacent to or in the resource area in the rear of the subject property, submit a restoration plan to remove the material and hopefully prevent a reoccurrence of this dumping. The report and the plan are included in your packet and I would recommend that they be accepted as complying with the enforcement order and that the restoration work be authorized to proceed while the weather is still “cooperating” and before the temptation to dump snow in the area presents itself.
There is an NOI in force for this property and to make sure all of the legal technicalities are met, I would suggest that an amendment to the NOI will be necessary. This can be done immediately or when the applicant “returns” to the Commission for additional work, but before the request for the release from conditions OR before any additional extension of the permit is issued in 2016.
3.0. Chair and Commission Comments
4.0. EXECUTIVE SESSION
| 
