Franklin Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
December 17, 2015
To: Town Clerk
cc: Members
File
Present: J. Livingstone, B. Batchelor, P. Harrington, R. Pendkar, S. McLean, T. Henrichon, 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 – Notice of Intent – Pleasant & Chestnut Streets – DPW
Jay Mello, Assistant Town Engineer, addressed the Commission for the installation of sidewalks and drainage improvements along Chestnut and Pleasant Streets. Mr. Mello stated these two streets are among the busier in Town that do not have sidewalks with many neighborhoods off these roads and looking to improve pedestrian access. There will also be a connection with Griffin Road to make one continuous sidewalk. Sidewalks will be on opposite side of street from DelCarte, but installing crosswalk and handicap ramp. At six points the project will cross into the wetlands buffer zone as the right of way goes through. Project improves drainage issues and reduces impervious area where possible. Current catch basins on Pleasant Street are sumpless so collected sediment gets washed into stream. This will be improved by
replacing with deep sump catch basins. Project involves 210 ft. within 25 ft. buffer, but it is all pre-disturbed area. This qualifies and falls under a limited project. There will be no land taking; entirely on Town property. It is all part of the right of way in front of people’s homes, not private property.
Mr. Russell stated a Conservation jurisdictional area is such whether in or out of the right of way, so it still requires permitting. This falls under a limited project as compared to a straight NOI.
Commission indicated there has been concern from residents regarding access to DelCarte without driving and this will alleviate concerns and make it more accessible to pedestrians. Commission asked where the vernal pool in Area One was located and wanted to make sure drainage was designed to drain away from the vernal pool.
Mr. Mello stated he did not know the exact location, but the direction of drainage would not be changed from current. He would get back to Commission with location information.
Ed Powers, 321 Chestnut Street, stated he has had problems with drainage for a few years. At this address there is a brook so it is considered wetland area. The drainage comes down into his driveway, across the driveway, through the yard, and into the wetland. It eats up the driveway. Occasionally, DPW has filled the created rut with gravel to keep water on road, but that does not work. Hoping within the development of project this storm drainage runoff problem is rectified.
Mr. Mello stated 321 Chestnut Street is on the side of the street getting sidewalks. Curb will be installed in front of house and driveway will be rebuilt, so problem will be solved. Any open swales on Pleasant and Chestnut Streets will be blocked off by installed curb and catch basins.
Mr. Russell stated hearing must be continued as DEP number for this application has not been received. Commission must bear in mind the major benefit of this project which is stormwater management in the area will be dramatically improved. Installation of sumps in catch basins will dramatically increase water quality. None of this work is being done on private property; all on public right of way.
Kathleen Traphagen, 1 Matthew Drive, abutter to project and lived at address for 20 years, stated on path between streets ATVs, snowmobiles, dirt bikes, and other off-road/motorized vehicles use road. It should be made a walking path, not an area for off-road/motorized vehicles. She would like considerations addressed to prevent off-road vehicles from going through as there are wetlands on both sides.
Mr. Mello stated it would become a paved 5 ft. wide walkway. This situation is similar to that faced on other properties; dirt bikes are difficult. Very little law enforcement can do unless actually caught. Could build wall, but they would put up a ramp; could put up trees, but they would cut them down. It is a law enforcement issue.
Andy Chan, 1 Miller Street, stated he lives at the corner of Miller and Pleasant Streets. He heard that this corner was to be reconfigured as it is a high speed area and asked if the squaring off of the corner was going to be installed before or after the sidewalk project.
Mr. Mello said he was not sure of sequence, but projects have been designed to work together.
Mr. Russell stated he was going to visit the vernal pool area and provide information in next Agent’s Report.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to continue the public hearing for the Town of Franklin drainage project for Pleasant and Chestnut Streets to January 14, 2016 at 7:15 PM. The motion was seconded by Paul Harrington and accepted with a vote of 6-0-0.
Continued - Public Hearing – Notice of Intent – 300 & 340 East Central Street – Franklin Properties
Mr. Russell stated a report was received today from BETA Group, Inc. regarding this project for the construction of three (3) buildings and one (1) restaurant. There are seven outstanding stormwater issues that need to be resolved. He recommended the hearing be continued. He noted importance of making sure plans approved by Planning Board and Conservation Commission have the latest revision dates so all are working with same documents.
Mr. Donald Nielsen of Guerriere & Halnon, Inc. confirmed the hearing extension to the January 14, 2016 meeting was requested.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to continue the public hearing for the NOI for 300 & 340 East Central Street to January 14, 2016 at 7:20 PM. The motion was seconded by Ravi Pendkar and accepted with a vote of 6-0-0.
Continued - Public Hearing – Beaver Street Access Road – DPW
Mr. Russell stated request from DPW was received to extend this hearing for improvements to the access road for three months as there are significant stormwater and wetlands issues outstanding that must be worked out between DEP, DPW and Conservation Commission.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to continue the public hearing for the Beaver Street access road to March 17, 2016 at 7:15 PM. The motion was seconded by Bill Batchelor and accepted with a vote of 6-0-0.
GENERAL BUSINESS
Certificate of Compliance: 23 Hutchinson Street
Mr. Russell stated all is ready for the release to be granted; special condition #26 should remain in perpetuity.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to release the Certificate of Compliance for 23 Hutchinson Street with the understanding that special condition #26 shall remain in perpetuity. The motion was seconded by Bill Batchelor and accepted with a vote of 6-0-0.
Discussion Item: Recreational Trails Grant
Mr. Russell stated grant application to improve the trail system in the Town forest off Summer Street is ready to go forward and only two pieces are missing which are final budget numbers and letters of support. Commission has received draft narrative for the grant and a draft letter of support. Recommended the Commission vote to support the grant and authorize signing of the support letter. In addition, he acknowledged Ms. Henrichon’s help in proof reading the narrative.
There was a motion made by Ravi Pendkar to accept the letter and narrative for the Recreational Trails Grant. The motion was seconded by Bill Batchelor and accepted with a vote of 6-0-0.
Discussion Item: 120 Conlyn Avenue
Mr. Russell stated property owner is present at meeting at his recommendation to get Commission’s input on level of permitting required. There seems to be some minor construction adjacent to a shed on the property. It appears the shed is in a resource area. If it is not, it is at least in the 25 ft. buffer area. Therefore, it would not be eligible for an MBZA.
Mr. Martin Parlon, 120 Conlyn Avenue, addressed the Commission to add a lean-to on his shed in the back of his property. Ten years ago he applied for a permit for a 6 ft. stockade fence and assumed since he received permit for fence it would be allowed to put footing in the ground to hold up the 8-10 ft. lean-to roof. He confirmed this was in his backyard and in previously disturbed area. He showed Commission members’ pictures.
Mr. Russell did not go on the property; he has only seen this from the street. He does not believe that it is in anyone’s best interest to make property owner do an NOI; however, an MBZA is not appropriate in this case. Therefore, an RDA is in order and a variance request under the local bylaw would need to be made as part of the application.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean that it is the Commission’s position that at 120 Conlyn Avenue the roof-over-the-fence project requires an RDA. The motion was seconded by Bill Batchelor and accepted with a vote of 6-0-0.
Discussion Item: 706 Pond Street
Mr. Russell stated the Commission granted an Emergency Certification to remove a tank with condition that the Commission had required an NOI be filed based on the material found within the tank. Tank was empty; found to contain no toxic/hazmat substances. Given testing results, recommended Commission vote to rescind the NOI filing requirement for this application.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to rescind the NOI filing requirement for 706 Pond Street. The motion was seconded by Bill Batchelor and accepted with a vote of 6-0-0.
Discussion Item: 656 King Street
Mr. Thomas Espanet, Maintenance Supervisor at The Estate at Franklin, addressed the Commission and provided an overview of the matter. He noted the facility is almost full with senior citizens; therefore, many older people and visiting guests are on property. There is an elaborate system of detention areas to retain all property runoff that work very well. There is a very strict statement of conditions for property which includes no salt to be used. Originally thought it was no salt within 100 ft. of wetland areas. There were four wetland areas on property blue prints; did not consider the detention areas wetlands so was using some salt last winter. When thought this may be in violation, stopped using salt and went to all sand. But, it was very difficult with winter conditions. He asked for clarification from the
building owners. He believes they contacted Conservation Department and stated no salt on the property. He determined this meant the detention areas are considered wetlands. He questioned if he is restricted to using no salt on the property. If so, he noted that snow removal people have other customers with similar restrictions, in and around hospitals for instance, and in some situations they are granted permission to use a 15/85 percent salt/sand mixture. He asked if he could be permitted to use this
small amount of salt in the mix as all runoff stays on the property. He mentioned straight calcium which is very expensive and would be a much more difficult process for distributing, but calcium is not good once snow starts to pile up.
Mr. Russell stated the stipulation refers to the wetlands buffer. All runoff is going into a wetland or the detention basin. Calcium only works as a pretreatment and is expensive. Commission must decide if want calcium chloride runoff going into wetlands. If they do not think it is a big concern, then should amend order of conditions which requires public hearing. He recommended potential alternative of retaining services of consultant engineer with wetland scientist available to study problem and give recommendations, with fee at the applicant’s expense. He noted part of this problem is the creation of new wetland areas on either side of the access road.
Commission noted the task of the expert would be to look at all chemical alternatives and return recommendation balancing needs of conservation protection and needs of the site with understanding of elderly population, and asked if applicant would be accepting of having specialist look at this.
Mr. Espanet said he would discuss with his executive director, but most likely she will say yes.
Mr. Russell stated he would ask the peer review consultant for a cost to look at the site and evaluate the best way to handle said issue and protect wetlands. He will let applicant know fee for report. Applicant would then decide whether to continue as is, have report done, or go forward with an amendment which Mr. Russell does not recommend as that would require a public hearing without knowing what really needs to be done. Discussion continued about hypothetical outcomes of peer review.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to authorize the Conservation Agent to seek estimate from Peer Review for the best way to address the 656 King Street salt dilemma. The motion was seconded by Bill Batchelor and accepted with a vote of 6-0-0.
Discussion Item: Education & Outreach
Ms. Henrichon asked with the Open Space Plan coming up and the opportunity to work on the Trail’s Project if Conservation Commission can determine how to have more of a vehicle for the public to interact with the Commission. She mentioned a conservation agent in another town that runs a Facebook page containing information such as natural history facts and pictures of the town’s trails and did not think this would violate the open meeting law.
Mr. Russell stated both Town Administrator and Town Council would need to be consulted regarding the open meeting statute. Commission members cannot discuss certain items and legal parameters must be considered. He thought as long as there was no discussion of specific or potential applications on the social media site it would not be a problem. He requested information from Ms. Henrichon with her ideas regarding social media so he could discuss with Town Administrator and Town Council as this topic is germane to other Town boards. He mentioned could be more proactive on current website with information. In process of compiling
the 600 responses received from survey. He would like to invite new Deputy Town Administrator to future meeting to meet Commission, and noted invitation to February Town Council meeting to discuss retention basins. He is open to Commission members’ suggestions in making Commission more transparent. He noted difficulty for average homeowner to deal with extensive pages of wetlands regulations; therefore, he spends a lot of time explaining to people what the wetlands law is.
Ms. Henrichon stated she would be happy to manage Facebook and Twitter pages if Town allows as it is a good way to reach people.
Chairman Livingstone mentioned a few years ago the creation of Facebook page was voted down due to open meeting considerations. He recalled suggestion from legal to not do it due to potential for liability as it could be an uncontrolled communication channel, but should get input again.
Ms. Henrichon suggested doing a series of walks in open space property in spring or summer to let people know where trails are along with providing some natural history information.
Mr. Russell stated there is approximately $300 in an education fund for DelCarte only. He said an appointment was made to meet with summer intern candidate who stated she would be interested in doing educational work regarding DelCarte. Also expecting draft report by end of year on the health of DelCarte. Discussion continued regarding possible effects of new sidewalks on DelCarte.
Minutes:
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to accept the meeting minutes for September 17, 2015, and October 1, 2015. The motion was seconded by Bill Batchelor and accepted with a vote of 5-1-0. (Mr. Pendkar voted No.)
Violation: 23 Longfellow Drive
Mr. Russell stated the Commission issued an enforcement order requiring a wetlands scientist to look at the issue of a major deposition of vegetative material. The deadline passed with no NOI or report filed. Applicant requested to appear before Commission. Mr. Russell stated he would hold off issuing fines and requesting Town Attorney to go to Superior Court until Commission had chance to discuss with applicant.
Mr. Michael Mavrides and Mr. Bruce Wilson, 23 Longfellow Drive, addressed Commission and provided an overview of the development of Longfellow Estates and current matter.
Mr. Mavrides stated he had wetlands number at the time of development in 1984-1986. He retained 23 Longfellow Drive for his own use. Throughout the years people have been using the driveway at 23 Longfellow Drive to dump leaves and it has been getting worse. Apparently, someone complained to Mr. Russell. Mr. Mavrides went to site and confirmed leaves have been
dumped and are now composting. He is ready to remove them, but Mr. Russell said do not touch leaves. He hired Mr. Wilson and decided best thing to do was to file an NOI regarding removal.
Mr. Wilson stated there is a title issue on the back part of the property as to whether Mr. Mavrides owns the entire parcel or if there is a possible owner unknown involved with a portion of property; therefore, have not been able to fully prepare site plan to file the notice. The enforcement order would allow ability to deal with the leaves. Then can work out the title issues to come back with a notice. He showed Commission members where the dumping occurred and where title issue concerns are on a map.
Mr. Mavrides stated after he was notified by Mr. Russell he hired Mr. Waldron as a wetland scientist who flagged everything and will write a report. He is not sure who is dumping leaves there, but wants to clean it up.
Mr. Russell stated he agrees with what applicant is proposing. Problem is that Commission established applicant had to provide written report from wetland scientist and NOI for a restoration plan by December 1, 2015; it was not done. He does not want to take the next step which is going to court and issuing $300 per day fines, but the Commission is being ignored. He questioned why applicant did not tell Conservation Commission report would not be provided for December 1, 2015 requirement. He also stated he made repeated requests for the report.
Mr. Mavrides stated he has not ignored the Commission. When first notified by letter by Mr. Russell in July, he and Mr. Wilson went to Mr. Russell’s office and stated they had hired a wetland scientist and he would create plan to address leaves. They could not finish the plan/report because of the title issue. As well, the people he worked with when developing the land in 1984 are deceased. He stated he also responded to Mr. Russell via emails.
Commission stated the burden rests on the applicant regardless of who applicant hires to work on project. Must make sure Conservation Commission has all information needed and dates for report/plan submissions are followed. It was noted complications for applicant due to title issue were understood. Stated would like to help applicant and determine how to proceed without going to court.
Mr. Russell recommended enforcement order remain with an extension to January 31, 2016, with report submitted by that time. If not going to meet January 31, 2016 deadline, applicant must communicate that information or will start receiving fines. Statue states cannot remove debris under the enforcement, must submit plan.
Commission suggested applicant keep in contact with Conservation Agent and provide updates. Plan should entail where the leaves are with diagram and sequencing of remediation plan.
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to extend the enforcement order for 23 Longfellow Drive to January 31, 2016, with the understanding that if the enforcement order of conditions cannot be met the applicant will notify the Conservation Agent, and if neither of those circumstances is met then the Conservation Agent will start issuing fines. The motion was seconded by Bill Batchelor and accepted with a vote of 6-0-0.
Signed Certificate of Compliance
Certificate of Compliance – 23 Hutchinson Street – Franklin Cable Access – CE159-1040
There was a motion made by Scott McLean to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Paul Harrington and accepted with a vote of 6-0-0.
The meeting adjourned at 8:47 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Judith Lizardi
Recording Secretary
| 
