Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes 12/8/2011
APPROVED MINUTES
Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting


Date and Time:  Thursday, December 8, 2011, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location:       Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present:        Chairwoman Julia Knisel, David Pabich, Gavin McAuliffe, Amy Hamilton, Michael Blier
Members Absent: Carole McCauley, Dan Ricciarelli
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder:       Stacy Kilb

Chairwoman Julia Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:06PM.

Meeting Minutes—November 17, 2011
A motion to approve the minutes is made by Pabich, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously.

Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-519—11R Winter Island LLC, 30 Federal Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition of an existing single family house and construction of new single family house and appurtenances within a buffer zone to coastal bank, coastal beach and salt marsh at 11R Winter Island Road.

Illustration: Site plan 11R Winter Island Road, dated Nov. 1st, 2011

There was a site visit before tonight’s meeting, and Devine was there on behalf of the Commission. Scott Patrowicz presents. He reviews the previous plan and shows a new plan, which includes an illustration of a roofline and covered and uncovered patio. There is also a garage entrance shown. He reviews other elements of the updated site plan.

Demolition is permitted under a negative determination of applicability. The house will be a slab on grade, so there are no groundwater concerns. Pabich asks about the first floor footprint and Mr. Patrowicz outlines the existing and new coverage. 1290 square feet is the footprint of the house. Flood elevation is discussed and Mr. Patrowicz wants the finished floor above 10’ to avoid problems in case of flooding. Blier asks about elevations and the applicant clarifies. Coverage of the porch and patio is further discussed.

Chair Knisel asks about the spruce in the patio area, which will be removed. Pabich asks if there is a landscaping plan, but there isn’t one yet. Mr. Patrowicz says they could submit one 30 days prior to landscaping for review by the agent. Blier comments that historically Mr. Patrowicz has combined all those elements into one drawing, but a different person has made these illustrations. Pabich feels that this is acceptable as it will probably be standard yard landscaping, with the only detriment being the removal of the tree.

Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments.

Pabich asks if they will excavate; they will fill the existing hole with gravel, build a frost wall, and top it off. They will then landscape the area.

Chair Knisel asks if the commission is ready to move forward with approval of demolition and rebuilding contingent upon a landscaping plan. They also need confirmation that the patio will stay the same, even though the roofline may change a bit. Pabich asks Patrowicz to submit any substantial changes to the Commission; the applicant agrees.

Because the demolition of the house is already permitted by a negative determination of applicability, Patrowicz withdraws the demolition from this notice of intent. Pabich asks about stockpiling of soils; there will be a temporary pile for construction of the frost wall. Pabich says it should be covered if it will be in the buffer zone.

Devine comments that there is a pile of debris on the bank at the end of the public way and suggests that the Commission ask the applicant to remove it as part of the order. There is debris that has washed up from the ocean as well as some asphalt. The DPW has not removed it, and the applicant agrees it should be removed and is willing to have that be a condition. It is on a bank, before the grasses. It would be picked up by hand; no machinery needed and it would only take about an hour. The Commission requests that only surficial materials be removed. Pabich comments on the wall but that is not part of this application.

Conditions:
A landscaping plan will be presented prior to landscaping
Hand removal of surficial debris at the end of the public way
Confirmation of plan dimensions
Any soil or debris stockpiled within the buffer zone must be covered

Pabich motions to close the public hearing, is seconded by McAuliffe, and all approve.

Blier signs an affidavit verifying that he has reviewed materials from a single missed hearing on this item. A file number has been issued but DEP has not issued comments for this project. Devine thinks we don’t need to wait for comments on a buffer zone project.

A motion to approve is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliffe, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-520—National Grid, 40 Sylvan Road, Waltham, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss removal of debris from coastal beach, salt marsh, coastal dune and tidal flat along Collins Cove off Waite and Planters St.

Here for the applicant is Jason Naiden of National Grid. They have a location on the above area, a former coal gasification facility. Mark Mahoney with Anchor is the sediment and water consultant and LSP. He is also here to answer questions. Jeff Bridge represents Mason & Associates.

There is miscellaneous debris on the beach; over the course of time debris has been deposited by the ocean. It is easily removed and they did it under an emergency certification last year. They feel it should be repeated. It will be the same type of project as the first time.

Jeff Bridge speaks. Nichole Hays is also with Mason & Associates. He speaks about the emergency certification in 2010, so now they are doing an additional filing. The proposed work is similar to that previously approved in area access methodology and extent of alteration. They will be using the same equipment to sift through and remove debris without removing sand. It has also accumulated in the tidal flat, salt marsh and dune areas; in all those areas, debris will be removed by hand. Unavoidable impacts to sandy beach area will be with the use of equipment to rake and remove. About 30 cubic yards of debris will be removed. A long term strategy will mean that this has to be done more than once. They are proposing removal 2x/year for 10 years, but they are assuming 30 cubic yards each time for a total of 600 cubic yards of debris removed over 10 years.

A post-topographic survey was done last year. Topography was essentially the same before and after, and that was using the same equipment they plan to use now. Access will also be identical using an existing gravel drive, but crossing a narrow phragmites wetland. Timber mats will be put down to minimize impact. There are 35,000 square feet to the beach, and 420 square feet of phragmites-dominated wetlands to be temporarily altered for access.

Because they are doing long term maintenance they are requesting a long term Order of Conditions for five years. They can monitor and come back in five years, then get an extension of the Order. The work they are proposing is very similar to that which was previously approved; impacts are restricted to temporary alteration, and ultimately this will be an enhancement. The activity complies with the Act and the Ordinance. The project will also protect the health and welfare of the general public.

Hamilton asks about disposal –the 30 cubic yards will be disposed offsite. Material will be placed in a dumpster. The whole operation takes 4 days, and then material will go to a New Hampshire waste facility. They have suggested spring and fall work, to be done at low tide. No months were mentioned, only seasons. The debris to be removed includes glass, brick, and unidentified materials. There are samples provided. Some are byproducts from the old gasification plant – coal tar, clinkers, etc. as Mark Mahoney explains. Pabich asks about the primary source of debris. The beach was capped and originally had large stones with voids, and material would wash out. Mr. Mahoney describes changes to the beach over the years. It is constantly changing. Pabich asks if core sand samples have been taken; is that why there is a 10 year plan? Test pits as deep as 10’ have been dug, but material is concentrated in upper 3’ with the occasional pit as deep as 6’ or 7’. Storms turn over layers of sand, then wind blows it back. In the spring after winter storms, and during hurricanes in fall, is when the debris gets uncovered.

Pabich asks about Marine Fisheries comments, but none have been submitted yet. He asks if there is sensitivity to shellfish in given months. There is some evidence of shellfish in the area, but they are not disturbing the mudflat other than hand removal at low tide.

Pabich asks about disposal, which will be brought to a standard landfill in Rochester, NH. They do chemical testing on the material before sending it out.

Chair Knisel opens to the public. Jim Grocki of 29 Planters St. wonders if there will be truck traffic. They will use a small Bobcat to get in but there will not be any trucks circulating. There will be two pieces of equipment -1 truck and the dumpster. Mr. Grocki asks about changes to the area. Jason Naiden outlines the type of material to be removed. The removal of this solid material does not affect flooding, other than that the material can get pushed down onto adjoining properties. They want people to be able to be safe on the beach.

Knisel comments that there was a site visit in 2010 after the Emergency Order was issued; McAuliffe has kayaked but not been on the beach, but is somewhat familiar with the site. Pabich does not feel a visit is warranted and neither do other Commissioners. Devine notes that he visited the site upon receiving the notice of intent.

Chair Knisel requests some Conditions – she wants a profile with grading after each cleaning event (twice a year), not only after 5 years. Also, Devine must be notified if there is a major storm event that requires activity more than twice a year. Mr. Bridge comments that it is more than they usually do after each event, but Mr. Mahoney comments that they could do it. Mr. Bridge says that a storm could alter the profile, not because of what they did. Chair Knisel wants to see it to isolate the effect of their work on the beach profile – profiles directly before and directly after each cleaning. Pabich comments that the Commission may change over a long term project like this, so annually they should update the Commission to remind them of what has been permitted and any progress. They can use the same letter each year.

Chair Knisel comments that they can issue an Order for a maximum of 5 years, and that may be extended. They are proposing restoration of 420 square feet that will be altered by mats. It was a different area that was restored last year. After the final event the 420 square feet will be restored. That plan should be reviewed by Devine. Pabich clarifies that the mats will be removed after each 4 day work period. There is some question as to when that 420 square foot area will be restored – whether at the end of 10 years or not. It will re-vegetate itself every year. An active planting plan of something other than phragmites isn’t practical. Why bother restoring? The applicant would like to have flexibility at end of 10 years to determine if damage warrants restoration; if not it can re-vegetate naturally.

A motion to close the public hearing is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliffe, and passes unanimously.

There are no DEP comments yet, so there is a small risk that they could appeal it if an order is issued and the DEP has a serious concern that isn’t addressed. The Commission feels that all possible concerns are addressed.

A motion to issue the Order of Conditions is made by Pabich, seconded by Blier, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

Conditions:
  • A grading profile will be submitted indicating conditions immediately before and after each event
An annual monitoring report to recap activity must be submitted
  • The applicant will provide Devine notice if additional cleanings beyond the proposed two yearly ones are warranted
A special 5 year Order of Conditions will be granted and may be extended

4. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-518—Michael O’Brien, 5 Broadmoor Lane, Peabody, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of slabs and footings and remediation of contaminated materials within riverfront area, land subject to coastal storm flowage and buffer zone to coastal bank at 72 Flint St (Former Salem Suede).

Bruce Poole with SP Engineering presents. He presents a revised plan and detail sheet to show additional mitigation measures as discussed in the last meeting. The site visit occurred on Saturday. The MPNA would also like to meet with him.

Illustrations: SITE PLAN, SALEM SUEDE, INC.; 72 FLINT STREET, SALEM, MA, revised 12/5/11; DETAIL SHEET, 12/11.

The RAM plan as submitted to DEP, and the health and safety plans, have also been submitted. Last meeting they discussed silt fence and hay bales along entire property line. Specific tie-in details are on the detail sheet. Mr. Poole describes an area with a greater slope at site B. Angle iron and studs will attach a double siltation fence, there will also be more hay bales and plywood. Earthen berms will be constructed between excavation areas and downgrade. They will be constructed as the work is done. Primary focus this winter is to take out oily soil with the highest potential for migration. The second area is the lagoon, stabilized from the early 1900’s with ash material on top, covered with tar.

He discusses the equipment decontamination area. An area of contiguous paths will form a spill remediation zone, and spills will be stored in a frac tank. There is a trailer for hazmat materials, which are not just what is being removed but also if there are vehicular issues or other underground drums, etc. Another trailer will be for chemical storage onsite. He describes the process of oil and sludge and ash cleanup. The spill control area will have a liner on top. He describes the liner and pumps for the cleanup area as well, along with the cleaning process for the trucks – they will use brushes, dry wiping, and pressure wash ONLY with oil and organic material. It will go into a frac tank. The area will after that be swept, cleaned and pressure washed so they don’t have to segregate it after rain events.

Blier asks the process of truck cleaning. Neighbors complained that the soil stockpile slab was too close to them, so it is being moved to Site F to be loaded on trucks which will exit over the right of way, over a 4” wooden berm with tapered edges. Pabich asks about path out of the decontamination site and Mr. Poole outlines. Truck decontamination will happen when soil is loaded for ultimate disposal, not when the small truck moves material within the site. He outlines the different truck paths. They will be backfilling every day to stabilize material before removal. Pabich asks about the paved area; some is paved. Pabich wants reassurance that trucks will not be on unpaved surfaces between cleaning and going offsite. If that is the case, areas will be backfilled with clean gravel.

Pabich asks about sump detail. Material coming off trucks and excavators will go to the frac tank after the sump. The sump will be cleaned by solids being swept off first before a pressure wash. Mud will wash into the sump, which will then be pressure washed. Pumps will take solids and water to the frac tank. There will be an end-of-day decontamination of surfaces. After a large rain event, water will be pumped off to the side if it is clean.

Hamilton asks about vague language discussing “can be, may be transported, stabilized materials may be used on site?” Mr. Poole says that some non-hazardous ash cannot be left in place but cannot be taken to Maine for disposal, and stabilized waste may be stored underground, under the parking garage. It cannot exceed S2 criteria, but the parking garage is by the right-of way and can receive it, pending approval – material must be non-leachable and pass a stabilization test. There are three waste streams: oily soil can be recycled, organic material must go to landfill, and the third waste component is ash – some is stable, and will get mixed and compacted for use under roadways.

Knisel opens to the public and Jane Arlander of Federal St. speaks. She comments on how close the soil stockpile is to Mason and Flint St. residents – almost right up to the yards. She is concerned about contaminated materials. The new slab is further away, but she wants to see it moved further east. She thinks other options could be to clean up soils with heavy metals such as ash during winter months while residents have storm windows up and regular windows closed, to avoid dust in homes. Knisel comments that this discussion must be limited to resource area and dust/neighbor issues must be taken offline.

Ms. Arlander contacted the Board of Health, who referred her to the DEP, who said that she should go to the Conservation Commission. She wonders who has jurisdiction as it is beyond the 200’ mark. Mr. Poole comments that public health is the purview of the DEP. Ms. Arlander wants additional measures, such as those people removing lead paint have to follow – they build scaffolds and use fabrics to contain dust. Could such a system be used here around concrete foundation? The Commission cannot condition that as it is not relative the resource area, but Ms. Arlander can work with Mr. Poole and the MPNA (Mack Park Neighborhood Association) to discuss this. Areas will be covered with plastic, which is normally not covered by another mesh. Ms. Arlander understands using the concrete foundation for storage, but is still concerned about proximity to residents. Devine comments that although some concerns cannot be addressed here, they do expect the applicant to be sensitive to neighbors; he suggests she call Mr. Poole after the meeting.

Pabich asks about the total yardage of stockpiled storage – the maximum would be 1000 yards; Mr. Poole sketches out the pile on the diagram. It will be in 2 windrows, standard at 8’ tall, and 20’ wide. This will be done in staggered form, oily and landfill in the winter, and they could do ash during rainy weather (small rain events). Piles would be hosed down and covered daily. They can work with the Salem Board of Health on these issues. Devine will explore what their authority is.

Darrow Lebovici of 122 Federal St. asks if it can be conditioned that the issuance of approval be conditioned upon a statement by the Board of Heath and the MPNA that there is an agreement dealing with the issues that go beyond Conservation Commission jurisdiction. Pabich says fugitive dust from the site can get into the resource area, so it may be possible. Mr. Poole says that Board of Health is part of MCP and supposedly monitors that. Mr. Lebovici clarifies that it is the applicant’s obligation to make everyone aware of it; does that mean the Commission could defer issuing its approval until that is done? Pabich says it can be conditioned. But Mr. Poole clarifies that Mr. Lebovici meant that proceeding on the project could be contingent on a Board of Health and MPNA agreement. That does not have to do with the Conservation Commission, but he encourages monthly or bi-weekly inspections, as has happened in the past. Salem was very responsive.

Hamilton says there will be both dust and water issues, and there could be gas issues. What kind of dust and gas monitoring are proposed? MR. Poole says material is stabilized, whereas gas is more of an issue with fresh material. That is why they will do it during the winter but Hamilton says there could be warm weather. Lagoon excavation is “disgusting,” says Hamilton. There are deodorizers and lime in the plans. Hamilton views the Health and Safety Plan. Pabich comments that it is in Mr. Poole’s interest to present something to put the neighbors at ease that the applicant will do everything in its power to make sure there will be no dust control/public health issues. If it is a memorandum of understanding it will be between MPNA, Board of Health and the applicant

Mr. Lebovici suggests that the MPNA be contacted and asked if they should be the appropriate participants in this process, as they are not present tonight. A copy of the Heath and Safety plan should be given to them. The RAM and Health and Safety plans were only recently provided, but not to the MPNA.

Hamilton comments that everything in the Health and Safety plan seems boilerplate. There was no specific odor or dust monitoring proposed, since it was not required as long as things were covered and wet down, but now they are getting into the actual waste, not just doing demolition. Pabich thinks dust monitoring is a reasonable requirement. Mr. Poole says that the DEP asks for it if necessary, but there are no high levels of lead – no hazardous materials in upper concentration limits, just urban fill type materials.

Chair Knisel asks if a type of dust monitoring should be conditioned.

The applicant will use dust track monitors as a minimum, and usually has someone qualified put a Heath and Safety plan together. Is this to protect the resource or should Mr. Poole work with Board of Health? Dust in the resource area is a concern, and this is through the concerns of the neighbors but has to do with resource areas. Dust monitoring usually involves weight, and Hamilton means particulate monitoring. There is a discussion of dust vs. contamination. Dust control plans are usually drafted by LSP’s. Both the RAM and Health and Safety Plan were done by an LSP.

Mr. Poole says they can make it a condition to present a dust monitoring plan outlining distances when excavating and moving.

Jane Arlander asks if Mr. Poole has chosen their LSP. Poole states that they have one on board. Chair Knisel states that the Commission is not ready to make a decision and would like to continue in order to bring the LSP in for the next meeting, or to have the dust monitoring plan in hand to review, at a minimum. Dust control plans are already there and are available online, and copies of the RAM plan are in the packets. Hamilton would like documentation on where materials will be placed, especially stabilized material that is being left onsite. Mr. Poole doesn’t know if they will need to put it there, it is just an alternative option. If they do it will be outside of the 200’ zone. Hamilton says to document this, but Mr. Poole says it is in the RAM plan. Hamilton didn’t see it. They are not sure if it was included in the NOI; it could be conditioned. Hamilton said tests were not run but Mr. Poole rebuts that tannery waste does not usually fail TCLP toxicity. They would only know after it is out of the ground, in a pile, after characterization. Mr. Poole asks about another meeting for dust monitoring/particulates, but if it is in the Order of Conditions, he will make sure they have it within a week. He would like to move forward before bad weather moves in.

Blier wants to hear this presentation by an LSP before they issue the order. Pabich would also prefer a discussion with the LSP before the Commission. Pabich points out that no soil will be moved without an LSP there anyway. The next meeting is Jan. 12. That means nothing will be done this year. Pabich wonders why this was not brought before the Commission in June. Knisel says it is just the beginning of the winter. Mr. Poole says he was here in November too but had to wait for funding.

Knisel says there will be no consensus on the issuance of an Order of Conditions tonight. Devine outlines the Commission’s requests:
  • Dust monitoring plan
  • LSP must present to the Commission
  • Develop a framework with the Board of Health to have an MOU showing that it, the applicant and the MPNA are in agreement with respect to addressing the neighbors’ concerns
A motion to continue is made by McAuliffe, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously.


5. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—United States Coast Guard, 300 Metro Center Boulevard, Warwick, RI. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss installation of aids to navigation at 3 offshore ledges in Salem Sound: Brimbles, Hardy Rock and Satan Rock.

Kate Schweitzer is here for the applicant. They are charged with repairing and replacing these aids to navigation. They are missing or severely damaged; they mark dangerous rocks. They are currently unmarked and the markers must be replaced. More durable supports for the aids will be installed. This involves drilling a hole in the rock, putting in a new pole and grouting it. It is unknown when they were last replaced but they were damaged or destroyed over the last year from storms. These aids have seen 30’ waves. Grout application is injected from the bottom of the hole up, from a barge. They don’t specify to the contractor which grout to use, but the grout must meet certain specifications. All work is to be done at low tide. This is a public bid process but Ms. Sweitzer does not expect many bidders as this is very specialized work. Pabich asks about the location of the holes – they may be at or near the same spot; if nearby the original rod will be cut off. The Coast Guard was requested to do this by a local yacht club that alerted them to the issues. They hope to work this summer, depending on budget. She does not know the method of drilling- it will depend on the contractor. There will be a 22” diameter hole.

Mr. Robert Leavens of 385 Magnolia Ave, Gloucester, a summer resident of Baker’s Island, comments. He has very rarely seen Brimbles above water, and it only barely emerges, so he comments that they will only be able to drill one or two days a year at extreme low tides, unless they are drilling underwater. Also he is unsure about what the resource area is and who controls it. Is it Commonwealth of Massachusetts bottomlands and does this Commission have jurisdiction? Any land under a water body has Commission jurisdiction.

Pabich wonders about the mechanism--drilling into rock--will produce waste. Schweitzer notes that there is no method of collection. It is material that was already there, just in a different state.

Elizabeth Ware of 84 Federal St. Newburyport asks if all markers are within Salem Waters; they are. Six aids will be worked on; one is in Marblehead and others in Manchester. Marblehead did not want a filing but they will do an RDA in Manchester. The depth of the hole will be 10’ and the marker will be 30’ above mean high water. The pole is 45’ but can vary to ensure that the base is 30’ above mean high water. Mr. Leavens thanks the Coast Guard for undertaking this project; patchwork repair attempts in the past have not lasted. It is agreed that boats crashing would pose much worse environmental problems. Signs are being engineered to withstand 30’ waves.

Sediment removal and grout application can’t really be addressed; Pabich says both should be done carefully and not in excess. Blier wonders about tide levels and the process of drilling in water vs. dry rock. There is no variation in technique and it will depend on the contract. What if they say they can’t drill? Will the signs only be mounted on the rock? In that case, Ms. Schweitzer would not  come back before the Commission as it would be a replacement in kind, not drilling.

Mr. Levins asks if the drill bit is lubricated. She does not know. Pabich says large drill rigs are normally lubricated with water, and he hopes this is the case, but it cannot be conditioned.

A motion to close the public hearing is made by McAuliffe, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. Devine will process the RDA and send it. Schweitzer says the Coast Guard is open to recommendations on how to do the work and can work them into the bid specs.

Mr. Leavens notes that it is not clear what the resource area is here. If there is an island – coastal bank, beach, etc. then out to resource area, to 200 or 400 feet would have to do with depth. But there is no shoreline here, so it is all bottomlands, not intertidal, even though it is exposed, since there is no upland to make it intertidal.

A motion to issue a negative 2 determination is made by Pabich, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

6. Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Mark Tremblay, 7 Laurier Road, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a shed within buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands at 7 Laurier Road.

Presenting is Mark Tremblay. He describes the shed as a wooden structure, 8’x12’. It was on the opposite corner of the property where there is a catch basin. Wetter weather and large storms have overflowed the catch basin; it is functioning but there is a lot of water. All surrounding yards are flooded. Prior to the 60” drainage, there was a swamp or small pond there. When the drainage line was installed, the pond went away. There has never been that much water in that area. He has concerns about the golf course; the perimeter has some drainage but this is why he wants to remove his shed to the other end of the yard, since it gets inundated.

This is an after-the-fact filing; the shed has been installed already. Chair Knisel wants to know how it is not creating a negative impact; Mr. Tremblay says that the garage is much larger and closer to the wetland (20’x30’ and 20’ away vs. 8x12’ and 50’ away). He tried to build it as far from the wetlands as possible without being in the middle of the yard.

Blier asks how the shed is fixed to the ground. It is on a slab that could be removed if needed. There was no excavation involved; it was just poured with stops.

Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. Pabich comments that most of the property is in the buffer zone and all construction should at least be run through the Agent. Mr. Tremblay says that a small shed doesn’t require a building permit, so he was assuming he did not need to come before the Commission, and Mr. Pabich says he still at least needs to call Devine. Mr. Tremblay filed the next day once Devine approached him.

A motion to close the public hearing is made by McAuliffe, seconded by Pabich and passes unanimously.

A motion to issue a negative 2 determination is made by Pabich, seconded by Blier, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.


Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Mildred Ananayo, 37 Intervale Road, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed removal of trees within buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands at 37 & 39 Intervale Road.

Presenting is Mildred Ananayo. Large tree branches have fallen on the property, so they would like to cut the tree down. There are also nearby trees they would like to remove. Devine outlines the situation; the applicant contacted Carey Duques (the previous Conservation Agent) a couple of years ago, thinking the large oak tree was on Conservation Commission land, but a survey plan submitted in 2001 with the RDA for construction of the house indicates it is on Mildred’s property. It is still in the buffer zone, so the Commission needs to approval its removal. The applicant wants to discuss removal of 2 trees in Conservation Commission land. The applicant may want to also remove an additional tree that is outside the buffer zone, and the Commission has no jurisdiction on that.

Pabich asks if these are the same trees that they wanted to cut to improve satellite dish reception. These are different trees, on the side. Chair Knisel asks about tree trimming vs. full removal; the applicant will do what the Commission wishes; someone told her if you cut large branches, you will kill the tree. It would cost $1200 just to cut a branch. This request is for safety issues. Also a builder told her oak trees draw termites into a house. Blier points out that trees, particularly big trees, need to be maintained and periodically pruned and balanced to be stable. Dead wood must be removed before large branches become hazardous. He thinks the large oak is impressive, probably over 100 years old, and he would like the applicant to consider the value the tree brings to her home. Taking it down will cost more than pruning it, possibly 3-4 times as much.

What will the Commission allow in terms of impact to wetland area? The applicant has not received professional advise. Pabich says that more trees in the buffer zone enhance the resource and are desirable. He believes she should be allowed to remove this tree since it is on the far edge of the buffer zone, but he would prefer an alternative. Blier opines that she should consult an arborist, a tree doctor who can give feedback on what is best for the tree and safety.

Knisel asks if the Commission can issue a negative determination with a preference for pruning. It is the homeowner’s decision, ultimately, as it is not critical to the resource area. They want her to feel safe, but pruning would be preferred.
        
A Negative determination can be issued with conditions because it is in the buffer zone.

There are two other trees in question but Ms. Ananaya is going to consult an arborist first. Pabich is opposed to cutting anything on Conservation Commission property. She will have to consult the Commission further before cutting anything on Conservation Land. The Commission owns 39 Intervale Raod.

A motion to close the public hearing (there is no public present, so no one comments) is made by McAuliffe, seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously.

Conditions:

  • Although the large oak tree the applicant’s property may be removed, the Commission strongly recommends obtaining advice from an arborist regarding alternatives to removal.
  • No tree on the neighboring Conservation Commission property at 39 Intervale Road may be removed.
A motion to issue a negative 3 determination is made by Pabich, seconded by Blier, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

Old/New Business

  • Discussion of application submittal requirements
Devine notes that a member is concerned that by not having a professional and thorough submittal, the Commission’s time can be wasted guiding an applicant through the process. Devine would like guidance from the Commission on whether he should turn applications away if he knows the applicant needs more. If Devine feels the application is incomplete, should he not accept it?

Blier thinks they should be complete because the general public is expecting more details. Devine can provide feedback as a courtesy to applicants in order to not waste their time before the Commission. If the submittal is inadequate, it won’t be on the agenda. He does have that authority according to the DEP; if instructions that go with NOI are not followed, it can be held up. Pabich says that any project of significant size, say larger than 1000 square feet, must have topographic lines and an engineer’s stamp. There should be no vague language, and it should include plans for soil placement, etc. It should include what they intend to do and discuss specific aspects of the work. Final site conditions should also be outlined. If the Commission does not have the information necessary to make a decision, Devine should turn down the application.

Pabich thinks they should require a signed, stamped design plan for NOI’s for projects over a certain size, but Devine says it is in the instruction for the NOI. Pabich notes that the NOI instructions say that certain things are necessary if a Commission deems it to be. Devine states that he can give applicant’s guidance on what the Commission requires.
  • Discussion of wetlands violations
77 Valley St. is a single family property with a stream passing behind it. The homeowner called the Health Agent to report a sewage odor. The Health Agent then alerted the Conservation Commission to the issue. The applicant builds an ice rink each year right along the stream, using stream water. There is also a bridge over the stream and something along the banks. There may also be boulders places in the stream to create a waterfall. Devine reached out to the owner, but he is unwilling so far to cooperate.

Pabich asks about the setup. The owner has done something to the bank and may or may not have built a waterfall by putting boulders in the stream. The stream runs through his backyard. Devine says he asked him to file with the Commission but he refused. A first written notice via certified mail may be in order. McAuliffe asks if the violations are clear and specific. Does the homeowner understand the Commission’s concerns? Devine made them clear on the phone, but it would be clearer in a letter stating that that the Commission has jurisdiction 100’ from the banks of an intermittent stream, and he has unpermitted activity within that area. They can’t prove that he has activity in the water without looking.

Knisel says to draft a letter outlining violations and requesting him to come before the Commission, and if there is no response they will move forward with fines. Devine says it was considered an intermittent stream in a recent filing by a neighbor 2-3 houses down. Since it is not a perennial stream, it has no jurisdictional riverfront area, but it still has jurisdictional land under water and banks with a 100’ buffer zone.

  • Old Creek Salt Marsh
At Salem State neighbors on Monroe road are pushing yard waste into the salt marsh. Devine has talked to Salem State. Devine may do some outreach then Salem State may clean it up as it is their property. It is near the Greenhouse School, down the road from Loring Ave. Devine describes the setting. The University may be willing to install signage. Knisel suggests a different fence could be installed.

  • Camp Lion
Devine has not had any luck getting in touch with the trail builders who constructed what may be a stream cut. The Commission recommends putting a request in writing to the attorney.

  • Discussion of proposed 2012 meeting schedule
Meetings will continue to be held every 2nd and 4th Thurs. of the month except for August, November, and December.

  • DEP# 64-492, Salem Suede: Discussion of requirements for a certificate of compliance
Salem Suede will be asking for a Certificate of Compliance for their demolition, and they want to know if they need to submit an as-built plan. Knisel said they could submit a letter rather than an illustration.

  • Miscellaneous
There is a stormwater conference next week at Raytheon in Tewksbury, which will cost $30 plus travel. Devine has been to one of these before. He would like to go because the City is trying to expand its stormwater management authority beyond the Commission. There will be representatives from the EPA and DEP to give updates on requirements on implementing the Clean Water Act locally.

A motion to approve $30 registration plus travel expenses is made by Blier, seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously.

MBTA, represented by TRC (Hamilton, a TRC employee, recuses herself for this discussion), requests to repair a washed out section of concrete seawall by the MBTA parking lot near an outfall pipe. Devine notes that it is legal for someone to repair or maintain a lawfully existing structure, as long as there is no expansion or significant reconstruction, without even filing an RDA. This is based on a Massachusetts Appeals Court case. The Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions has requested that the DEP codify this as it revises its wetlands regulations. The Commission has no objections to this work.

A motion to adjourn is made by McAuliffe, seconded by Blier, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 9:08 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission

Approved by the Salem Conservation Commission on January 12, 2012