Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairman David Pabich, Michael Blier, Dan Ricciarelli, Amy Hamilton, Rebecca Christie, Carole McCauley
Members Absent: Julia Knisel
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Chairman Pabich calls the meeting to order at 6:12PM.
Meeting Minutes—January 13, 2011 and January 27, 2011 meetings
A motion to approve the minutes from January 13th is made by McCauley, seconded by Christie and passes unanimously (3-0). Ricciarelli, Blier and Hamilton do not vote due to their absence from the above meeting.
Devine notes two minor errors. A motion to approve the minutes from the January 27th meeting with corrections is made by Blier, seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously (4-0). Hamilton and McCauley do not vote due to their absence from the above meeting.
Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-513—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 and Lewis Legon are also present. The applicant asks if the Commission has any further questions. The Chairman asks about roadside erosion control. Mr. Patrowicz says that because the seawall is higher than the edge, they will put up a snow fence to catch blowing material but there is no erosion control planned for street side. Chairman Pabich suggests a silt fence across from the stairs to the seawall, but Mr. Patrowicz says the area drains across the lawn towards the street, but that area will be needed for access. Hay bales could be placed in the gutter line. The Chairman asks if there is a catch basin; there is one but it is far down from site so erosion could be caught before it hits that point. Filter fabric is discussed and approved as a
solution. Mr. Patrowicz says the area will be monitored and swept; Chairman Pabich says housekeeping is critical so that nothing goes onto the street and gets washed away.
He then asks about a planting plan; it was discussed that Devine would come to the site to discuss it but there will not be a formal plan by a landscape architect. He would like to save the larger plants. Planning would be done just prior to planting, after hardscape is installed. Two weeks prior to planting, there could be another site visit to view the hardscape, then planting could occur.
Blier asks if the brick terrace in the back will be flush to the ground – it will be. It will be brick pavers on sand.
Blier asks about a large tree, which is staying though the large shrubs are going. Chairman Pabich asks about stockpiling soils – it will be hauled away directly as there is no room for storage. Material that drains better will be brought in as well.
The Chairman opens to the public.
Anne Powers is present to represent the concerns of her mother, Rosamond Powers, who lives at 1 Dustin Street, across from the site. Ms. Powers is concerned about drainage and how it may affect water being drained into the street and her mother’s basement, as there are already problems with water there. Seawater can also enter the basement. Mr. Patrowicz says that the road is crowned, so drainage from this lot, which is not substantial, just from the front portion, will drain into the street but will flow into the gutter on the sea side of the neighbor’s property. It would have to be a global event for it to affect Dustin St., since the water will be staying on the side of the property.
McCauley asks if the road floods in general – it does – and ocean water sometimes floods the entire street; the whole neighborhood is underwater in a 100 year flood. The applicant feels the additional amount will be inconsequential. Also, any water coming off the addition will go into the backyard like it does now. Chairman Pabich says there will be an additional couple hundred square feet of impervious surface. The negligible amount of additional water compared to what already flows into the area is discussed. FEMA has mapped the whole neighborhood as a flood area.
Anne Powers then asks about the snow fence and Mr. Patrowicz explains its setup, and that it will be temporary.
McCauley asks about material for the porch, if it will be pavers and sand. She asks if it will be permeable or if the sand compacts with time. Chairman Pabich says it should be permeable, and Mr. Patrowicz says it is not as permeable as the lawn, but it drains back toward the seawall and some landscaping. Patrowicz says there are no scuppers or direct discharges through the wall. McCauley asks about material for the driveway. The requested permit is for asphalt but if budget allows they can do something else. Other materials have been considered, according to Mr. Legon, but budget is a factor. Chairman Pabich asked the people up the street to put in a gravel berm in a previous instance, but there was more work going on at that site. Does this site warrant it? Probably not. There will be some work on the
City’s concrete sidewalk so there can be a curb cut (he explains for the benefit of the neighbors). Permission has not yet been granted for that.
Devine says the DEP comments that the addition should comply with FEMA’s coastal flood construction guidance. Chairman Pabich asks if this was considered; it has been. DEP’s comment will be conditioned. Blier says if there are changes to site plan based on complying with FEMA’s guidance, the applicant will have to come back to the Commission.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Christie, and passes unanimously.
An Order of Conditions is issued after affidavits are signed by Christie and McCauley as they were not present at the last meeting. A motion to issue is made by Hamilton, seconded by Christie, and passes unanimously.
Conditions:
Filter fabric for catch basin.
DEP comment to conform to FEMA floodplain guidelines must be followed; if changes are made to comply the applicant must submit a Notice of Project Change.
Diligent housekeeping measures must be kept on the sidewalk and street.
The neighbors discuss the area and the flooding with the Commission.
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. Applicant requests to continue to the April 14, 2011 meeting
Devine says legally the applicant can continue for 2 years but should be ready in the spring. A motion to continue is made by McCauley, seconded by Christie and passes unanimously.
Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—MassDOT, 519 Appleton Street, Arlington, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed drainage line repair on Loring Ave. at the Forest River crossing. The proposed work includes alteration of a coastal bank and is within a riverfront area and a buffer zone to a salt marsh. Applicant request to continue to the March 10, 2011 meeting
There is no DEP File number yet as their fee has not cleared.
A motion to continue is made by Blier, seconded by Christie, and passes unanimously.
Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-512—Frank Lanzillo, 150 Centre St., Danvers, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within a buffer zone of a bordering vegetated wetland at 23 Parlee St.
Here for Mr. Lanzillo is Luke Roy with O’Neill Associates. He displays a Site plan dated December 20, 2010. He summarizes the current situation, outlining how the Commission wanted to explore the current drainage system at the end of Parlee St. and determine whose responsibility it is. The Planning Department determined that it is the City’s responsibility and references approval by the town engineer, but it is not certain whether such approval was obtained. The Chairman would like to see that it was approved as the approval by the city would be contingent upon an as-built plan. He says the developer has developed the neighborhood subdivision with a detention pond, forebay, etc., yet there is never any water in it. There is no crown, and the catch basins are such that water flows down the
middle of the street to the end, between the basins before it discharges into the wetland. Chairman Pabich says he worries that this will continue the problem and wonders if they need to follow up with the City. It is uncertain whether it was designed but not implemented properly, and whether it was accepted by the City. This lot was not part of the original subdivision.
McCauley says it behooves the applicant to know who handles the discharge; if it is the City then the applicant should clear that with the City. Basically they would be asking permission to discharge into an already-failing system. The situation should be explored for the benefit of the resource. Chairman Pabich opines that the party responsible for fixing it would depend on who accepted it in the first place – if the design itself was shoddy or if implementation was at issue. Mr. Roy states that he examined the plan for the area and it appears that it was meant to be swaled, but he is not sure that it was.
The original plan is reviewed and discussed. Chairman Pabich says they can condition that it drains into a functioning collection system. Devine distributes affidavits as Blier, Ricciarelli,and Hamilton were not present at the prior meeting. Hamilton signs an affidavit so she may vote in a quorum.
The applicant prefers to close with the above mentioned condition, rather than continuing. The Chairman says it will be conditioned to discharge into a collection system provided it was built as designed, and if not, the applicant should return to make adjustments. Devine suggests the possibility that changes could be significant enough to require filing an amendment, paying a second time for an ad in the paper and going through the trouble of re-notifying abutters. Mr. Roy talks about timing and says the process could be drawn out; the applicant prefers not to prolong the process. A letter from an engineer saying the system is functioning as designed would be sufficient. McCauley says the City will have to do something about it, and Chairman Pabich says they won’t unless there is a complaint.
McCauley asks if this Commission will lodge such a complaint. They will, but first they need confirmation that it’s working or not.
Chairman Pabich opens to the public, but there are no comments. A motion to close the hearing is made by Christie, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously.
A motion to issue an Order of Conditions is made by McCauley, seconded by Christie, and passes unanimously.
Conditions:
Certification from an engineer that the stormwater system functions as designed, confirming whether or not runoff goes into the system or discharges directly into the wetland. Questions remain about ownership, if the City knows they own it (this is not a condition, but should be known); Devine will follow up.
Old/New Business
- DEP #64-511, 8 and 10 Franklin St., Notice of Project Change
Presenting is Luke Fabbri, of Geological Field Services, who received an Order of Conditions with a condition forbidding storage of heavy equipment within 100’ of the North River. The property owner took exception as he has a Chapter 91 license that allows him to maintain a marine bulkhead and railway to service boats. Mr. Fabbri was not aware that he was using the crane, but he is and would like to continue, as he has a dredging business next door. In the pollution prevention plan is a section on hydraulic equipment, which was a concern, and Mr. Fabbri wants to know if Condition 21 applies to the retroactive Order of Conditions, and if it remains in perpetuity; it does. The long-term pollution prevention plan says that storage of heavy equipment indicates high use, and triggers the Plan; the Plan requires
routine inspections of equipment there, with no servicing of equipment by bringing in additional equipment, and he must use drip pans to service existing equipment. He wants to use the Chapter 91 license and crane to load and unload barges. Mr. Fabbri will come back with an engineering plan for the bulkhead and railroad and will request another Order of Conditions.
Chairman Pabich asks about the specifics of the request. Mr. Fabbri says there is “no storage of equipment unless in conjunction with long term storage.” Mr. Fabbri states that he understands that equipment leaks, but its owner says it doesn’t. He does maintain his equipment well; he bought this property because it does have a Chapter 91 license to service marine vessels, and he can’t reach his boats from 100’ back under the current restrictions. Mr. Fabbri thinks as long as the owner complies with the long term pollution plan, it should be OK. The owner asked about storage vs. usage of equipment. Chairman Pabich says if it is mobile and being used you could move it outside the resource are to store it when NOT in use. He then asks if in the Pollution Prevention Plan requires spill kits to be
onsite. They are not because there are no direct discharges. Chairman Pabich says the crane is right at the bulkhead, and Mr. Fabbri thinks having spill kit is reasonable.
The Chairman asks what the options are. Mr. Fabbri would like a clarification on the condition that allows the owner to keep equipment within 100’ of the river provided he complies with the Pollution Prevention Plan. Chairman Pabich says that a clause stating that a spill kit must be kept on the premises must be inserted into the Plan. However, this will be added as a condition. The movement of the crane is discussed as are nearby parcels of land. Pabich says it is a reasonable solution.
The spill kit language will be added as a condition in perpetuity; procedurally this must be accepted as a minor change. Christie clarifies that this is a modification of Condition 21, to state now that marine-related hydraulic equipment will not be stored UNLESS there is a Spill Kit onsite. No other equipment, such as dump trucks, backhoes, etc. may be stored within 100’ of the river.
Devine will put this together. Limited-mobility marine equipment can stay near the bulkhead, while readily mobile non-marine equipment must be 100’ out of the zone, but all hydraulic equipment near bulkhead must be accompanied by a spill kit onsite.
Mr. Fabbri describes the spill kit and its contents. Chairman Pabich asks where on site the kit will go. It is agreed that it should be affixed to something stationary to prevent its removal. Mr. Fabbri continues that, according to the owner NOT being able to store equipment on the site limits his use and its value. The Commission comments that there is a procedure to address that matter by obtaining a variance from the DEP. However, the owner does not want to do that, saying that if he is storing equipment, there should be tarmac to park it on. This can be addressed when the Commission reviews the next application for the property.
A motion to approve the change is made by Christie, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
After the applicant departs, Devine speaks about approving minor changes – DEP recommends we phase this procedure out; the best way is with a full amendment. In this case we are doing applicant a favor by not requiring that he file an amendment which requires another legal ad and notification of abutters. The Commission approves of changing this process going forward. Any change other than a typo must be made with a full public hearing or new NOI. Devine notes that there may be cases when approval of a minor change is a convenient option, but it should be generally avoided.
The information session for the Brownfields Assessment Grant will be at the next meeting. There is no set date yet for the Commission’s review of the stormwater ordinance.
A motion to adjourn is made by Christie, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously.
The meeting ends at 7:15PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on February 24, 2011
| 
