 |
TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: January 26, 2016
1.0. Projects
1.1. 300 & 340 East Central St. NOIs: Final plans have been submitted to BETA Engineering but the final approval has NOT been received from BETA. Until this final approval is received, I would suggest the application be continued.
When the final approval is received, I would suggest the following reasons for 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’s peer reviewer;
- The construction of the drainage improvements 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);
- The project is subject to the Franklin Wetlands By-law and regulations and compliance with these have been verified by the Commission’s peer reviewer;
- There are no known or suspected priority habitats on the site; and
- The site is subject to the local and state stormwater requirements and the proposed stormwater management systems and the incorporated detention basins have been reviewed by BETA Engineering as part of the Planning Board’s and the Commission’s peer review process.
I would also recommend that the following stipulations be attached to the approval: 19-41, 44, 46 & 47.
1.3. 67 Prospect St. NOI: The commission has requested a mitigation plan based on the comments from DEP, and further revisions on the plan to show the tree line, plantings, erosion control and the workflow for the project. Assuming the revised plans are received and reviewed, I would recommend that following special conditions be attached to any approval: 19, 20, 22-30, 38, 34 & 44.
1.4. 100 Financial Park, ANRAD: This application has been sent for peer review. If the peer review is received by the meeting, the Commission should vote to accept the wetlands line as recommended by our consultant. If the review is not received, I would recommend that the hearing be continued until February 18, 2016.
1.5. ANRAD Lincoln Street: This application has been sent for peer review. If the peer review is received by the meeting, the Commission should vote to accept the wetlands line as recommended by our consultant. If the review is not received, I would recommend that the hearing be continued until February 18, 2016.
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. 5 Clover Leaf: All is in order for the release to be granted.
2.4. Discussion items
2.4.1. DelCarte Pond Study: It is important that any changes the Commission thinks should go in the report be forwarded to ESS ASAP so that the report can be finalized. If there are none, I will tell ESS to finalize the report.
The Commission needs to indicate to the Council which management options should be funded and when. The “presentation” to the Council has been moved to the 24th of next month. I will bring to the meeting a list compiled by ESS at the Commission’s request of potential grants that may be accessed. Below is a table that I think we can use as a starting point. These figures come from pages 23-29 of the report from ESS and I would ask the Commission to double check my math. Obviously it must be borne in mind that year 2 will be partially dependent on the results from year 1 and year 3 on years 1 & 2. In addition, activities on years 4+ can only be determined based on the success of the preceding years.
YEAR 1 |
YEAR 2 |
YEAR 3 |
Action |
Cost |
Action |
Cost |
Action |
Cost |
Permitting |
$5,000 |
|
|
Permitting |
$15,000 |
Herbicide treatment (2,4-D, & Imazmox) |
$39,500 |
Herbicide treatment (2,4-D, & Imazmox) |
$39,500 |
Spawning Habitat Enhancement |
$30,000 |
Monitoring |
$5,000 |
Monitoring |
$5,000 |
Monitoring |
$5,000 |
Contingency |
$5,000 |
|
$4,000 |
|
$5,000 |
Total Costs |
$54,500 |
|
$48,500 |
|
$55,000 |
2.4.2. Education and Outreach: This item is on the agenda to further discuss any ideas the Commission may have.
2.4.3. Stormwater management and the local by-law. I have forwarded the “position paper” for your review and included it in your packets. The Commission should forward this to the Council and/or present it when they appear before the council. I will also forward some suggested edits from Paul for your review. The proposed language in front of the Council is below.
Also included in your packets were three maps displaying the known (and we are not sure where all of the basins are) basins, the wetlands and the 100’ buffer. In determining which basins were private, two of the filters used were are the basins on or off of unaccepted town streets and are they located within business or industrial properties, e.g. 12 forge Parkway.
2.4.4. OSRP: Maps and tables and narratives are being revised based on the Commission’s input and will be forwarded when ready.
2.5. Minutes
2.6. Violations:
3.0. Chair and Commission Comments
4.0. EXECUTIVE SESSION
| |
