Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, January 27, 2011, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairman David Pabich, Julia Knisel, Michael Blier, Dan Ricciarelli, Amy Hamilton
Members Absent: Rebecca Christie, Carole McCauley
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Chairman Pabich calls the meeting to order at 6:11PM.
Meeting Minutes—January 13, 2011 Meeting
There is not a quorum of members who were present at the January 13 meeting. A motion to table the minutes is made by Knisel, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously.
Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-509—Barbara Bowman, 8 Dearborn Lane, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of coastal Beach, coastal Bank, and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane.
The applicant requests to continue to the next meeting and does not know when he will be ready. Devine did ask him when he thought he would be ready but he did not know.
A motion to continue is made by Blier, seconded by Knisel and passes unanimously.
Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-511—Fortunate Son Realty Trust (Craig Burnham), 14 Franklin St., Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the after-the-fact clearing and grading within a riverfront area and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 and 10 Franklin St.
Luke Fabbri of Geological Field Services represents Fortunate Son. The continuation from the last meeting was because the stormwater report was in progress and not included with the original NOI. There were also some questions on how to deal with Standard 8, requiring erosion control during construction; as this had already happened and it was an enforcement order. He spoke to MA DEP regarding this, who said the rest of the checklist must be completed.
Mr. Fabbri has prepared the stormwater report checklist, reviewed by Robert Griffin, PE in Beverly. He describes the ten standards, some of which must be met in their entirety and some which must be met “to the maximum extent practical.” All were met to the former standard, except for 5 and 6, which were met to the maximum extent practical and have to do with land use with a high potential of contaminant loads and critical areas, respectively.
There is a pollution prevention plan in place and there are no point source discharges of stormwater, thus no treatment for #5. Mr. Fabbri states that the work done will improve discharges. The applicant has been notified of the prohibition on certain discharges.
Blier asks if the stormwater report has been delivered; the Commission has it in front of them. Blier is looking for actual calculations, but they are not required in this case. Chairman Pabich points out that the five page summary is the report. Blier comments that there was no great change of grade at the site; the concern was lack of storage. The Chairman says that the argument of removing the structures is a good one. Mr. Fabbri says that you can use Google Earth to go back to 1995 and see aerial photos; you can see some of the boats that were removed in 2010, that have been there since 1995. He opines that the site is better than it was even though appropriate procedures were not followed. The applicant will come before the commission again to repair bulkheads
Chairman Pabich opens to public – there are no comments. Devine says the DEP looked at it, and also had no comments.
Blier signs an affidavit so he can vote on the matter, as he did not attend the last hearing. Mr. Fabbri asks about next steps, wondering if an Order of Conditions would be issued and if he would then request a Certificate of Compliance. He asks how the enforcement order can be satisfied. Obtaining a valid Order of Conditions will fulfill it. The Chairman comments that after issuing the Order, the applicant must wait for the 10-day appeal period, then can request a Certificate of Compliance.
Chairman Pabich suggests a special condition that storage of hydraulic material (such as the crane currently on the property) must be kept on landward side, not the seaward side, and 100’ from the bulkhead. Knisel asks if this is covered under the plan – that no materials stored on site; this is to clarify. Devine asks if the crane is stationary; it can be moved.
Knisel motions to issue an Order of Conditions, is seconded by Hamilton, and the motion passes unanimously.
Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Lewis Legon, 44 Columbus Ave., Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed removal of an existing porch and construction of a new house addition, patio, steps, and driveway within land subject to coastal storm flowage and within buffer zones to a coastal bank and a salt marsh at 44 Columbus Ave.
Illustrations: Proposed Site Plan of Land Jan. 18th 2010 and Existing Site Plan of Land, Jan 6th 2011. Photos of the property with proposed work areas outlined are also displayed.
Here for Mr. Legon is Scott Patrowicz. Patricia Berking, fellow applicant, is also present. Mr. Patrowicz describes the setup of the proposed work on Columbus Ave. The addition is proposed for the location of the existing porch and landing.
There is an elevation higher than 10 all around the property; the 100 year flood level is at elevation 10, but the property is subject to coastal storm flowage due to a gap in the seawall at Steps Beach. A two story addition will be in the footprint of the porch, but they must put in a new foundation. A structural engineer is working on the details of that. They would also like to put a driveway where there is currently a walkway.
A snow fence would be installed around the perimeter to catch windblown debris. No silt fence is needed as the wall is higher than the lawn around it and has no defects. They will also remove some landscaping and remove the existing porch of 315 square feet. A new foundation would be installed, and the addition of 420 square feet built. A new patio area would be installed on an area of the lawn – it will be brick pavers set in sand, of 320 square feet, then some landscaping. A new driveway in the front would also be installed for 2 cars off-steet parking.
There is no DEP File number yet. Mr. Patrowicz hands Devine the cards for the project. Chairman Pabich asks if there are plans for replacing removed vegetation; there will be landscaping done in the back and around the driveway. Currently there are evergreen Yews there and maybe a juniper. The large tree may need to come down. Chairman Pabich would like to see proposed plantings added. Patrowics notes that he needs to correct the date on the plans (listed as Jan. 2010).
Blier asks about proposed material for the patio; they will be brick or brick pavers set in sand, flush with the grade. Knisel asks about material for the driveway; Mr. Patrowicz is going to ask for asphalt. Chairman Pabich and Mr. Patrowicz discuss the parking situation at the location. The curb cut for the driveway is 22’. The Chairman clarifies that flood elevation is 10 and the applicant would like to fill in an area 20 x 5 x.5’.
Blier asks if the house has a basement; it does and so will the addition; basements would be connected in the new addition and existing house. The Chairman asks if utilities in the basement are off the ground; they are. The home and the addition must be compliant with flood zone building codes.
Devine asks about the impact the work will have on the salt marsh; there will be none as work is contained by the wall. All dirt will be removed as there is nowhere to put it. Chairman Pabich asks if it is a full height basement; both existing and proposed are. Knisel asks about splashover on seawall; there is, over the whole length of the seawall. Mr. Patrowicz says that some other seawalls have washed out. Knisel asks if because of that they considered doing without a basement. Mr. Patrowicz says flood storage change is very small and they are choosing to have a basement since that is more practical than to consider raising the amount of water in the ocean by an infinitesimal amount.
As there is no DEP number, the hearing will have to be continued and the Commission would like a site visit.
Chairman Pabich opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to continue is made by Blier, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
A site visit is scheduled for Feb. 10th at 5:30PM.
Old/New Business
- DEP #64-420, Leggs Hill YMCA, Request for Certificate of Compliance
This item was taken out of order, as Mr. Patrowicz is involved and the Commission would like his input.
Ricciarelli recuses himself from this issue. Devine reports that he could see that the hill was graded and vegetated, and the riprap removed and covered, which was the desired result. There are erosion controls still there and the Certificate would be conditioned on the timely removal of these. There was also a deed restriction issue that slowed things down, but has been sorted out. Mr. Patrowicz was not involved in the original design, but did help design the extra parking spaces. Nick Menino was the contractor and has said he will remove the erosion controls, but they have been buried in snow. The Chairman asks if the toe of the slope has been completed according to the original plan; it has, and it was walked even though there was some snow there it could still be seen
A motion to issue the Certificate with the condition of removal of erosion controls is made by Blier, seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously (4-0, Riciarelli recused).
- 441 Lafayette St, violation update
Devine updates the Commission; there was a boat ramp and float in the salt marsh here; the resident was asked to move it, which she did, and although she moved it, it is still on the bank, and in the resource area. It has been pulled out of the most critical area.
Suzanne Green, of 441 Lafayette St., is here to request options going forward; Devine feels they should allow her to keep the float and ramp where they are until boating season, then find other storage next time around. It must be permitted if she wants to keep it where it is. Ms. Green asks what a resource area is; in this case it is the salt marsh and coastal bank. Chairman Pabich clarifies that if there was upland on the site, it could be used, but it is not practical. A permitted location in the resource area, or an upland location, should be used for storage next summer. If she has a Ch. 91 license for the float where she uses in summertime, it could stay there, but the resident says it gets too much weather.
The solution proposed by the Commission is to leave it where it is for now, especially as it was not specified to the owner that it must be completely out of the resource area. Then she must store it elsewhere at the end of the next season. Devine says that it may have already had an impact on the salt marsh; if vegetation does not grow back the Commission will have address that.
So far the only item in the file on this issue is the letter requesting that Ms. Green move the items in question; nothing else. The Chairman states that the Commission will issue a letter outlining the above. The items are secure where they are now.
- DEP #64-492, 72 Flint St. (former Salem Suede), discussion of concrete slabs
There is a letter from the City Solicitor, which Devine passes to Commissioners and also gives to some members of the public. The letter outlines the Solicitor’s opinions on further fining the applicant, and the Commission reviews the letter.
The letter indicates that fines may not be levied punitively, and without prior notice to the applicant, but at the same time, the Commission has chosen to hold off issuing a Certificate of Compliance until the previous fine is paid. However, new fines may not be levied retroactively as the applicants were not notified that they would be fined. They should have been notified in writing at the beginning of the process when the Commission brought up the violations.
Scott Grover, representing Salem Suede, speaks. Based on a letter submitted, Jacob Butterworth, environmental scientist for Salem Suede, had agreed to monitor the site during rain events, and make sure that concrete patches are effective, and will contact Devine to arrange a site visit during a rain event. Devine has been out in the snow, but not melting snow and rain. Chairman Pabich states that scrutiny will be given to erosion controls when the snow starts to melt. He does not feel that the erosion control is up to par right now.
The Chairman does not entirely agree with the letter but will accept its findings. He opens to the public
Jane Arlander of 93 Federal St. Comments on the NOI to take down Salem Suede – a project completed on 8/27/09. On the NOI is a section asking if any resource areas are impacted; “fish run” is one of them but the box is not checked, despite the fact that the state receives federal dollars to do smelt counts at the North River. These fish measure the health of the river. She is concerned that the North River is a fish run, and Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coast Watch confirmed that it is, though this was not checked. If a second NOI is submitted this should be included. Mr. Grover says he will make the engineer aware of that.
Loreen Scanlon of 77 Mason St. states that she heard work being done one morning at the Salem Suede site, and wants to know what was going on. Mr. Grover is not aware of any work; Ms. Scanlon says police were called but no one is aware of anything happening. Devine asks Mr. Grover to check on this issue.
Jim Treadwell, of 36 Felt St., speaks. He is curious about the timeline of the project and whether Chapter 91 will be considered and will have influence on public access.
The Commission comments that the NOI before it does not discuss future plans, but Mr. Grover says he will outline them briefly.
The applicant is in the process of obtaining a Chapter 91 license, which is why they were in front of the Historical Commission. Also, the Order of Conditions from Conservation Commission must be met; they must file an NOI with this Commission for cleanup of the site, which should be filed by April 2011. Cleanup will begin in the spring. The Chapter 91 license should be issued in early fall so that redevelopment can occur later in the fall.
Mr. Treadwell asks about review of the site on MEPA law. It will not require an environmental impact report but will require an ENF process; the consultant is Susan St. Pierre from Salem. There will be a MEPA review.
Pierre Pelletier, of 120 Federal St., asks about soil samples. The Commission states that the upcoming cleanup will involve soil sampling.
Mr. Treadwell asks about the MEPA review and consideration of the impact on wetlands. There will be some impact and it will have to do with this Commission, and is part of the Chapter 91 license.
Devine comments on the Solicitor’s letter – there is an imperfection in our local ordinance where we should be using 21 D, local ticketing to fine/enforce the Wetlands Protection Act, but there is a line missing from local bylaw that enables that. Would we like to request an amendment to this local bylaw?
The Chairman agrees and the Conservation Commission is on record requesting this change.
Devine has also talked to Chairman Pabich about the Salem/Peabody Brownfields assessment grant; the Commission will hold a public session about that. The funding is for assessment for cleaning properties for redevelopment. This would go beyond the usual permitting and require a go-ahead from the Commission. They agree with the concept. Weston and Sampson, on behalf of the City of Salem and the MAPC, would run the session. It would have to come at the beginning of the agenda on a lighter meeting agenda day, and would not require a quorum.
Knisel asks about timing for this funding. It is a 3 year grant, with 1 year in, and could be done at the Feb. 24th meeting as thus far there are not many agenda items then. There will be targeted mailings and the usual publicity through the planning department.
The Commission requested a draft of the new stormwater ordinance; it was distributed and Knowlton (the City Engineer) is interested in a Conservation Commission discussion before it goes into effect.
On Feb. 2nd at 6:30PM, the first Winter Island Master Plan public meeting will be held.
Devine puts in a request to use Commission funds to go to a conference; as an APA (American Planning Association) New Professional, he gets discounts and this year it is being held in Boston. The cost is $295 + commuter rail fare. Devine will see various case studies, how other municipalities do things, and also will participate in discussions with other environmental professionals and expand his network.
A motion to grant funds is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously.
A motion to adjourn is made by Blier, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously.
The meeting ends at 7:28PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on February 10, 2011.
| 
