TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: August 16, 2016
1.0. Projects
1.1. 291 Washington St, NOI: This permit application is for the clean-up of a commercial site that has significant debris placed within jurisdiction. Include in your packet are photos and new maps of the site. The fees have been paid and I would recommend the application proceed.
When approved, I would recommend special conditions: 20, 21, 24, 27-30, 34, 35, 41 & 44.
1.2. 176 Grove Street – NOI Amendment: This project was before the Commission some time ago the Commission voted that the proposed changes constituted an amendment only.
However, the abutter notifications were not send out, the hearing needs to be re-advertised and will be on a future agenda. Therefore the Commission should take no action, since the hearing should not have been opened had we known of this procedural error.
1.3. South Hill Est. NOI: This NOI is being submitted as a result of the vote of the Commission that the proposed work was not an amendment to the existing permit and the stop work order issued by my office. Also in your packet are some e-mails and photographs of damage done to a portion of the ROW, but may be perceived to be on private property, and the roadway allegedly by the contractor working in Wrentham but accessing the area via Franklin. This access is not considered “work” and thus does not violate the stop work order.
In order for this development to proceed, it is imperative that the approvals from the Planning Board and the ConCom are based on the same plan. As per the instructions of the Commission, a memo was sent to the Planning Board outlining the preference of the Commission for the 2:1 slope and the applicant was requested to submit ONE plan showing this detail and title.
On 8-9-16 at 12:30 PM, I undertook a routine inspection of the site. I observed that the cut logs were being removed from the site and some previously cut vegetation has been “moved”. This constitutes work and violates the stop work order. I once again stopped the work and the owners were notified.
The property owners have submitted a statement on all of the site activity and it is included in your packet.
If approved, I would recommend that all original special conditions be attached to this approval.
PRIOR TO VOTING ON THIS NOI, THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO VOTE ON ITEM 2.3.3 BELOW.
1.4. Eversouce Access Road Maintenance, RDA: This RDA is being submitted under the local by-law only. The third paragraph of your application letter references MGL 131-40. This section of the statues is also found in 310 CMR 10.02 (2) (a) 2 and is accurate as far as it goes. To be exempt from an NOI under 310 CMR10.02 (2) (a) 2, the applicant has the burden of proof that an NOI is not required. The RDA indicates that several resource areas will be crossed or otherwise impacted by the proposed maintenance.
In your packet is supplemental information from Eversource to address the above issues. In reviewing this information, I am not comfortable with the last bullet point on page 3 that indicates restoration efforts will be undertaken “. . . if necessary at the discretion of a wetland specialist.” I believe the Commission should know what thresholds will be used to determine when they are necessary. The last sentence under Mitigation Measures addresses some of these concerns in terms of what will be done, but not when.
The RDA filing is under section 181-5 B of the local by-law. This section allows the Commission to determine only if the activity is subject to the by-law. It is my opinion that the work in the resource areas is subject to the by-law and thus may be subject to the requirements of section181-2 A of the by-law which requires an NOI.
1.5. 100 Financial Drive: This application was continued from the last meeting due to a quorum issue. We have received the final review from the peer reviewers as of this report and all is ready for the application to move forward. I would recommend the following stipulations be attached to the approval: 19-40 & 44.
1.6. 14 Oxford NOI: The applicant has requested a continuance since the required report from a wetlands scientist has not been received.
2.0. General Business
2.1. Minor buffer Zone Activities
2.2.1. 75 Jefferson: A field inspection revealed an issue concerning the clearing of pathways in the buffer zone. The MBZA has been amended to reflect this and I do not see why this “clearing” cannot be approved as part of the MBZA since it meets all of the criteria.
2.2.2. 758 Union: Almost the entire lot is jurisdictional, but the proposed activity is between the 50 and 100’ buffer and should not pose any problems. A site inspection did not reveal any issues.
2.2.3. 1 Peters Lane: The two trees in question are just within jurisdiction and a field inspection did not reveal any issues.
2.2 Permit modifications/extensions
2.2.1 Lot 14-1 Lena Circle: This permit will expire in September and under the local by-law, an extension can be granted for only 1 year. No activity has taken place on the lot since the original NOI was granted in 2013.
2.3. Certificate of Compliance
2.3.1. 19 Colt: All is ready for the release to go forward.
2.3.2. 101 Jordan: This is an extremely old permit for which a COC was never issued. All is ready for the release to be granted.
2.3.3. End of Garnet Drive: This is the “old” NOI and should be granted as invalid.
2.4. Discussion items
2.4.1. DelCarte: In your packet is a “Lesson Plan” developed by Mike and he will address this as well as any changes in the Guidebook or website.
2.4.2. Green Communities: Enclosed in your packets is a memo from the Town Planner to the Town Administrator concerning this program. As of this report, no decision has been made by the administration concerning participation in the program.
2.4.3. Franklin TV tower: In your packet is information on a proposed TV tower at 71 Forge Road. The report indicates there are no jurisdictional areas on site. The Commission needs to authorize a letter confirming this for the applicant’s federal filing.
2.5. Minutes
2.6. Violations:
3.0. Chair and Commission Comments
4.0. EXECUTIVE SESSION
| 
