TO: Franklin Conservation Commission
FM: George Russell, AICP
Conservation Agent
RE: Agent’s Report
DATE: May 24, 2016
1.0. Projects
NOTE: There have been issues concerning the minutes due to the fact that not all of the applicants and members of the public speak into the microphones. It is important that everyone addressing the Commission speak into a microphone (and the one on the stand can be carried around) at all times and that they print on the sign in sheet so that names and addresses are legible. This should be made clear to everyone speaking.
1.1. 49 Daniels RDA: This RDA amounts to an “after the fact” permit to clear up a title issue. All of the work was done years ago and at the time I would have recommended a negative determination.
1.2. OSRP: This is the “official” hearing to gather public input on the draft 2016 OSRP a copy of which you have received.
1.3. 9 Loretta NOI: I have reviewed the application, met with the property owner and conducted a site visit. Given the slope of the land and that the project is in the outer riparian zone, I would recommend approval with the following special conditions: 20, 24, 27, 28, 34, 35, 38 & 44.
1.4. 100 Financial Park NOI: I have reviewed the application and conducted a site visit. I have generated a review letter on some issues that need to be addressed and I would recommend peer review for this project.
One issue that has come up since my original review is the AT&T easement that passes through the wetlands. One sheet in the plan set indicates this is a proposed easement and if so, what “construction” will be taking place in the wetlands. This was not mentioned in the narrative and I think it needs to be clarified. On a side note, if this is a proposed easement, why is it going under the proposed building? I have addressed this issue with the project engineer and it has been clarified. I have sent the information to BETA and the Town Planner.
Peer review is recommended, a scope of services has been received and the applicant has been so notified. I am recommending peer review since a significant portion of the site drainage will be directed towards the jurisdictional areas and the proposal is for a 300,000 ft² building and associated parking.
1.5. Rolling Brook Estates NOI: We have received the review of the applicant’s response to the original peer review and it is included in your packets. There still seems to be some significant issues and I have asked the Commission’s wetlands peer reviewer and the applicant’s engineer to meet and work these out. As a result a continuation may be requested.
1.6. 300 Fisher Street NOI: The fee for peer review has been submitted and the notice to proceed issued. I would recommend that the hearing be continued until the peer review is received.
1.7. ANRAD Maple St.: The fee for peer review has been submitted and the notice to proceed issued. I would recommend that the hearing be continued until the peer review is received.
2.0. General Business
2.1. Minor buffer Zone Activities
2.1.1. 20 James: This is basically a deck replacement/addition with minimal land disturbance. I have conducted a site visit and given the slope of the land and the distance from the resource areas, see no need for any special conditions.
2.2 Permit modifications/extensions
None
2.3. Certificate of Compliance
2.3.1. 485 E. Central Street: All is ready for the release from conditions.
2.3.2. 722 Summer St.: All is ready for the release from conditions.
2.4. Discussion items
2.4.1. Fee Structure: I have included in your packets a chart of local wetland by-law/regulation fees and some brief analysis and discussion points.
2.5. Minutes
2.6. Violations:
3.0. Chair and Commission Comments
4.0. EXECUTIVE SESSION
| 
