TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: December 15, 2015
1.0. Projects
1.1. Town of Franklin DPW sidewalk/drainage project: While at first glance the work appears to be quite extensive, it is important to bear in mind that most of the work is not “new” but rather replacement and improvements to the existing sidewalk and drainage infrastructure. There are some minor changes to the application itself that still need to be submitted.
I would recommend that if approved, the Commission may want to consider the following as reasons for approval:
- The proposed improvements will allow greater 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;
- Improved sidewalks will contribute to enhanced pedestrian safety;
- 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 or volume of current stormwater run-off.
As of this date, we have not received a DEP number for this application and if not received by the actual meeting, the hearing should be continued.
1.2. 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 just received updated documents and revised plans from the Applicant but they have not been reviewed by BETA. We need assurance that the following issue has also been addressed:
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, which were received on 12/14/15, which is not in keeping with the Commission’s timeline for plan submission, are reviewed by BETA, that this hearing be continued.
1.3. Beaver Street Access Road NOI: This permit application is not ready to go forward and the hearing should be continued.
2.0. General Business
2.1. Minor buffer Zone Activities
None
2.2 Permit modifications/extensions
None
2.3. Certificate of Compliance
2.3.1. 23 Hutchinson: All is ready for the release to be granted. Special condition number 26 should remain in perpetuity.
2.4. Discussion items
2.4.1. Recreational Trails Grant: As I have previously mentioned, we are preparing a grant application to improve the trail system in the town forest on off of Summer St. In your packet you will find the draft narrative for the grant and a draft letter of support. I would request the Commission vote to support the grant and authorize the Chair to sign the support letter.
2.4.2. 120 Conlyn Ave. In your packets are letters and maps concerning the “construction” taking place on site. The activity in question would normally be handled via an MBZA application but the construction is taking place (or has taken place) in the 25’ buffer and possibly in the resource area, and thus does not meet one of the prerequisites for an MBZA. The property owner is in front of the Commission on my recommendation to obtain input on what level of permitting is required. I would suggest that if the 25’ buffer zone has been disturbed, an RDA is in order and a variance request under the local by-law would need to be made as part of the application.
2.4.3. 706 Pond Street: As you can see from the letter enclosed with your packet, the tank at 706 Pond Street that was removed via an Emergency Certification contained no toxic/hazmat substances. The Commission, as part of the Emergency Certification required that an NOI be filed based on the material found within the tank. Given the results of the testing, I would recommend the Commission vote to rescind the NOI filing requirement.
2.4.4. 656 King St. NOI: The property owner is requesting “relief” from stipulation no 62 attached to the original approval. This stipulation is included in your packets. I would call the Commission’s attention to the next to last sentence in this condition. The Commission may want to consider, at the applicant’s expense, having this condition reviewed by our peer review wetland’s scientist for recommendations. Any change in this condition will require a public hearing on the proposed amendment with abutter notifications.
2.5. Minutes
2.6. Violations:
2.6.1. 23 Longfellow: Enclosed in your packet is the background on this issue. I would especially call your attention to my e-mail of 12/1/15. It is my opinion that given the size/extent of the violation, the original enforcement order should remain in force with a one month extension considered. It is critical that this area be looked at by a qualified wetlands scientist to accurately determine the extent of the impact and the best method of dealing with the violation. I would suggest that an RDA would still require the services of a wetlands scientist and would in all probability result in a positive determination. Thus it would appear to be a waste of time and money to go through the RDA only process.
3.0. Chair and Commission Comments
4.0. EXECUTIVE SESSION
| 
