Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes 04/12/2012
Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting


Date and Time:  Thursday, April 12, 2012, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location:       Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present:        Chairwoman Julia Knisel, Amy Hamilton, David Pabich, Gavin McAuliffe, Dan Ricciarelli
Members Absent: Michael Blier
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder:       Stacy Kilb

Chairwoman Julia Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:05 PM.

Meeting Minutes—March 22, 2012

A motion to approve the minutes is made by McAuliffe, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.

Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-523— William Wharff, 30 Federal St., Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a parking lot and associated utilities within riverfront area, land subject to coastal storm flowage, and buffer zone to coastal bank at 162 and 150 Federal St.

The applicant requests to continue to the April 26th meeting. A motion to continue is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliffe, and passes unanimously.

Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-525—Mark DeNisco, 10 Bailey Terrace, Peabody, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a 2-family home and appurtenances at 12 Woodbury Court within land subject to coastal storm flowage.

Mark DeNisco describes the project as a 2 family duplex. The property is subject to flooding; there will not be a full basement, and there will be proper drainage and water flow. There was a house on the site in 2002 and he wants to put in a new house exactly as approved; he will not be changing elevations and the footprint on the plan is the same as the one before. The old foundation is from the former house.

Mr. DeNisco is a licensed construction supervisor; he intends to build and live in the house. He is the owner and the closing will be tomorrow; the Order of Conditions will be issued to him.

There is a right-of-way through 10 Woodbury Court and parking will be in the back; he only has one car in his family, and parking will be for the other unit. He is planning to pour a concrete parking lot but he is open to suggestions. Chair Knisel points out that the Commission wants to make sure water does not divert onto the neighbor’s property; she suggests gravel and Mr. DeNisco agrees.

Number 10 has a driveway now but it is a right of way and they will have a parking space. On the variance there was parking available for number 10. The layout of the parcel and buffer area are discussed. It is outside the riverfront area but everything under elevation 10 is in the 100 year flood zone. Hamilton asks about changes in grade but there will be none. There will be a concrete foundation, a slab on grade with a few steps into the home; utilities will be above the flood elevation. It will be an Energy Star rated home.

Chair Knisel opens to the public and Peter Sofronas of 10 Woodbury Ct. speaks. He wonders about the easement issue; he has a survey that shows that they own the front portion of the driveway, and Mr. DeNisco has a portion of land behind that. Work with the EPA has lead to landscape changes and removal of trees that prevented them from parking there. Now there is sod. If there is an easement, they will not have parking.

Chair Knisel points out that this is not within the jurisdiction of the Commission, which is only concerned with issues of flooding. Devine suggests they consult the Planning Board and property lines should be discussed offline. Mr. Sofronas says that now that all the trees are out of the back, there is nothing to stop the deluge from coming through, and the area becomes a small pond every time it rains. He worries about where that water will go. There were already flooding issues as it was last year. Pabich asks if his parcel floods; two years ago there was severe flooding; not so much now that the EPA did their work, but 12 Woodbury fills up. The EPA and DEP had done remediation since there was a coal ash issue.

Ricciarelli comments that there is not a lot of information on the plan; it is a neighborhood problem, not just at this site. Pabich comments that it is like the bottom of a bowl. Most elevations are at 8 in the center, going up around the perimeters. Elevations are discussed further, along with storm surge and the connection to the North River. If it is connected by drainage and pipes with finite capacity, then a problem will be created, vs. if it is connected to the river there is no issue. The applicant must provide further information.

Mr. DeNisco is aware of the flooding problem on the property but has not yet considered putting the home at a higher elevation; the Commission suggests that he put it on stilts. He is not proposing helicals or stilts. If the lowest point is 8.8 and the highest is 10, the house will be at the lowest point and the water that would collect there must go somewhere. If the house is built above it, it will not be an issue. Mr. DeNisco says the house above the street has no steps, but he has no problem elevating the house.

A site visit is planned for 5PM on April 26th, before the next Commission meeting. The application has not yet been submitted to the planning board, and Mr. DeNisco needs a wetlands and flood hazard overlay district special permit. However, if it gets denied in Planning, then the Conservation Commission is wasting its time. Devine can ask Danielle McKnight for a sense of what the Planning Board will expect so there will be no conflict between the expectations of the two Boards. Ricciarelli thinks it will have to be four feet above flood elevation. Chair Knisel says it does not have to be that much for this zone, according to state requirements. There is no requirement for pilings, but if the Commission finds it would exacerbate flooding on neighboring properties, they must remedy that.

Pabich asks why he does not want to build at the back of the property; there is an (Activities and Use Limitation) there saying no pools; the front side is clean where the back is environmentally challenged. The DEP only mitigated four feet down.

Karen Butler of 4 Woodbury Court speaks. The house across the street with only a couple of steps has a foundation and full basement. They had to bring in 6 tractor trailer loads of gravel when they dug that basement; there are French drains. During the Mother’s Day (2006) storm, they still lost everything in the basement. Everyone from 8 down pumps their basements every time they have a big storm. Chair Knisel says Mr. DeNisco is being responsible by not having a foundation, but Ms. Butler says he can’t anyway due to the AUL. However, the applicant says he could in the proposed area.

The Commission plans for the 5PM April 26th site visit.

A motion to continue is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliffe, and passes unanimously.

Illustration: Plan to accompany NOI by Christopher Mello, March 22, 2012

Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-524—Luke Fabbri of Colliam LLC, 14 Hubon St, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a gangway, float and piles within coastal bank and land under ocean at 14 Hubon St.

The applicant is not present at this time so the order of the Agenda will be modified as needed. Mr. Fabbri arrives later and presents the project. There is a building on a seawall at this location; there will be a 3’ x 25’ gangway attached to the building down to the tidal flats, with a T-shaped float and four piles.

Illustration: Griffin Engineering, layout and setbacks, aerial view from Google Earth to show positioning relative to other floats.

A Chapter 91 application has been filed and a 25’ setback is required if it can be done, but the property is only 50’ across. There are neighboring floats – he made it so everyone could come in and turn around to navigate their boats. Mr. Fabbri outlines the location of all the floats. He asks about the stops; floats are not supposed to touch the tidal flats but stop 2’ above them, so he asks if they can put stops on the bottom of the floats or if they have to be piles. Two piles will support the rear end and gangway; as for the ocean end he could use floats. Two rear posts hold it in place; the Engineer and he are not sure if two additional piles are required on the ocean end of the float. Two piles stop the float 2’ off the mud, or a stop could be attached to the bottom of the float. Piles are more expensive than stops. Pabich comments that two piles on the landward side are fixed, but in theory stops could be moving, so for his own protection it might be a cleaner design to install piles. Mr. Fabbri comments that it is a calm area with very little wave action, and it is not clear which is more appropriate.

Tay Evans from Mass. Marine fisheries comments. The area is shellfish habitat for soft-shell clams. Impacts can be reduced by minimizing the footprint. There is a mooring on the other side of the bypass road, in order to put an aluminum skiff in position for launch. Mr. Fabbri wants to put the skiff on the float when not in use, and roll it off, so he has to be able to walk around it. The skiff will take up the top part of the “t.” Ms. Evans also says that impacts can be reduced by preventing grounding on the mudflat. The question is the impact of having piles permanently vs. stops that can cause turbidity and scouring underneath. Marine Fisheries says to have float stops on piles to minimize impact. Also another option is to use skids. Instead of legs, have the weight distributed on runner skids that don’t sink in. There is no “correct’ answer from Marine Fisheries perspective. Mr. Fabbri will not be removing the float seasonally and there are shellfish there. Piles will be small, 12” in diameter, whereas legs would be 4’x 12”. Ms. Evans opines that piles would probably be minimized if the float will not be removed seasonally. Pabich thinks that in storm conditions, having the float supported by piles on both ends is a good idea, and also would have more strength for a heavier boat being moored to it.

Mr. Fabbri discusses the size and materials of the proposed float. Chair Knisel asks about the condition of the seawall and land behind it. He came in for an RDA to shotcrete the wall previously, and that came out great. It was done in November or December and fortified the wall, also improving its texture.

Chair Knisel opens to the public and Larry Tamilio of 557 Cabot St. in Beverly comments. He owns the property abutting this project at 11 Ames St. He is a commercial fisherman and has had a dock for many years, and keeps his lobster gear there. He describes the setup of his docks. He has just enough room to turn around as it is. This proposed project would prevent him from turning around; he has discussed this with Mr. Fabbri. He wonders if Mr. Fabbri can move his project over. The Commission can address this issue if it involves moving the dock. Mr. Fabbri says he has moved it over as far as he can. Chapter 91 wants a 25’ setback.

Chair Knisel asks about the draft of Mr. Fabbri’s boat, which is only 10”, but he wants access to the water from a tender. He is set back 50’ from the bridge and says he has pulled it back as far as he can; but Pabich says he is only 8.9’ from the property line of the abutter in question; Mr. Fabbri can move it over another 6’ and angle it differently. There are few other options. Tay Evans of Marine Fisheries asks about a boat lift, but there must still be water underneath it. He tries to go out but it is difficult to climb over the wall. They won’t allow him to put a skiff by the City pier. Devine notes that the issue of space for navigation is not within jurisdiction of the commission.

Chair Knisel says that aside from potential boat blockage, there are no commission concerns regarding the proposed design. The Commission wants to help resolve the navigation issue, but it may not be under their purview so chair Knisel suggests moving forward by issuing an Order of Conditions, but notifying that they have to check in with the DEP regarding Chapter 91. You can’t get a Chapter 91 without an Order of Conditions so the Commission should discuss it with the relevant parties. They can issue an order with some flexibility for the final location of the dock. Mr. Fabbri is amenable to that.

The commission agrees to issue the Order but leave flexibility on location as long as there are the same number of piles and same size in general as specified. He can reduce the area but not go further out.

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


Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-526—N. Tay Evans of Mass Division of Marine Fisheries, 30 Emerson Ave, Gloucester, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed eelgrass restoration in Salem Sound impacting land under ocean.

The applicant is not present at this time so the order of the Agenda will be modified as needed.

Tay Evans presents with Wesley Dukes of Marine Fisheries. She leads the seagrass project in addition to Environmental Review. The Division wants to restore seagrass as mitigation to the hubline pipeline impact out of Beverly, which damaged two acres of eelgrass. This happened in 2003 or 2004 and the pipeline installers were required by the DEP to monitor the impact to eelgrass, and to provide mitigation if it did not grow back, which it didn’t. Thus, Marine Fisheries is restoring the eelgrass. Ms. Evans would like to plant eelgrass at two locations in Salem, off of Winter Island.

Illustration: Map of Salem Sound, 3 transplant sites, (Figure 1) Harvest Site included. The total area in Salem is ¾ of an acre; DMF is looking to restore an acre in Salem Sound. The other portion will be in Beverly.

Layout and methods:
Figure 5: Planting Site Layout
They will plant in a checkerboard pattern of planted and unplanted squares. There will be 50 shoots per meter squared; the plants over time will seed, spread and vegetate the entire quarter acre. The existing conditions consist of very sparse eelgrass, though historically an area where it used to grow. With assistance it should grow again. The site closest to Ft. Pickering has a little bit of eelgrass, but just a few square meters. All sites are subtidal, shallow, sandy to gravelly and of different grain sizes. They will plant by 2 methods, with scuba gear for each.

Photo: Planting method (diagram)

The horizontal rhizome will take 2 shoots of eelgrass with 3-4 nodes of rhizomes, cross them, and anchor with a biodegradable bamboo skewer.

Method 2, the “tortilla method”, uses tortilla-shaped cutouts of burlap with 10 shoots woven in. PVC collars are sunk into the seafloor, and the burlap “tortilla” burried to anchor the eelgrass shoots. The  PVC is then removed after the burlap is buried.

Both methods are proven effective. The horizontal rhizome method is much more underwater intensive, while the tortilla method is more intensive above the water on the beach, so it is helpful to have volunteers for that.

Hamilton asks how long it will take to fill in after replanting; it will be 3-5 years. The source for the replacement eelgrass is West Beach because it is a healthy bed with a permanent monitoring station, so they are familiar with that stretch. Since the eelgrass is healthy between West Beach and Misery Island there will low impact from harvesting.

No equipment will be on the beach other than people. Work will be by boat for one segment, and they will harvest and replant in the same day, depending on the method. They are very familiar with the horizontal rhizome method, and would harvest in the morning, and plant in the evening. They have only done a few test plots with the tortilla method, which can take 2 days; one day to harvest and weave, then the next day to plant. Eelgrass to be planted could be left loose in a fish tote or lobster car off the dock overnight if need be. DMF plans to be done with this project by the end of July. They will be monitoring throughout the fall and will continue planting next summer depending on the results, if not totally successful. Test plots throughout Salem Sound have been successful so far.

Knisel opens to public but there are no comments.

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

There is some debate as to whether or not this project requires a recorded order of conditions. It may not be able to be recorded at the Registry of Deeds since it is in the middle of the ocean, but they did it for Beverly. It is uncertain in that case which property the project is associated with. Ms. Evans will find out. The Commission also normally requires a pre-construction site meeting, but that can be waived in this case.

The only added condition is that Ms. Evans will send a copy of the monitoring report.

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

Old/New Business

  • 61 and 185 Jefferson Ave.: Discussion of wetlands violation
Chair Knisel was surprised at the extent of the material that went into the marsh area; it was not evident in the photos. John Dick of Hancock Associates has been hired by Mr. Palm and presents. He is experienced with historic encroachment on abutting properties, where the abutter was usually National Grid. There have been different solutions in each case, from preventing more illegal filling to full restoration. Midnight dumpings, no monitoring, a public lot with no one there at night, material being dumped for decades – all are similar situations. There is a lot of added material in the phragmites. Over the course of years, “coarse granular material” –cars, masonry, etc – have been dumped. The plan here is a 1997 plan from SP Engineering entitled “Wetland Map.” In that year they did a topographic survey of the area, and found a pipe end that belongs to the City of Salem.

Figure B is the “Wetlands Map” from SP Engineering dated 4/27/98. It is not known when the pipe went in but it could be as early as 1951 as flood control, or could have been early 70’s during banking and flood plain management. It dumps water into a tributary in the South River. The end of the pipe is under recently deposited pile of leaves; material under the finished grade was already there prior to purchase. It is 1’ in depth over 9600 square feet in trespass. The property that Mr. Palm owns is outlined. The property line used to be marked by short telephone poles in ground, but they have now disappeared. Encroachment over the years worked out to whatever was available. Fill was placed on top of fill that was already there; it is simple to remove material recently placed in violation, but it may be impossible to remove all material out there. If they will be digging into historical material, he feels it should be left since phragmites was growing up through it. He has a seed mix that is good for riparian zones and floodplains. It is not a wetland area. It looks like a wetland but the dominants are phragmites, bittersweet, multiflora rose, and honeysuckle. The 1997 plan did not refer to any wetlands, but to riverfront area. 200’ is not a buffer but a resource area, so this is not actually in a wetland except where the pipe discharges, perhaps. One can see the depth of fill from stream bed.

He is proposing taking out as much material as possible, replacing it with 6” of loam to the extent it can be restored, rake, seed, put down straw mulch, then withdraw from the site, and put a pile of rocks or chain link fence up to keep out trespassers. National Grid will need to give its permission to do specific work. He is only proposing seed mix, nothing woody, so Nationl Grid can still have access, as this is on their property. They may build a chain link fence, and the likelihood is that there will be a permanent barrier installed by National Grid or by his client. He does not have any contact with National Grid except for a couple of emails. He was referred to someone in their Environmental division. Devine can contact them and apply pressure due to the resource violation on their property.

Mr. Dick wants to know what National Grid wants them to do, and he also wants this Commission to consider an Enforcement Order to allow them to do work, but does not want to propose specific work until National Grid gives him the green light. Once he finds out what they want he would like to come back to the Comission and get to work so they can take advantage of this growing season.

Devine says the DEP is considering this to be a high priority case and has threatened to take over enforcement and fine the  property owners. Mr. Dick would like to avoid fines and penalties. There could be a $10,000 to $15,000 fine if DEP has its way.

Chair Knisel says they can issue an Enforcement Order with a timeline to have discussion with National Grid, then they can come back with plan. It would be a friendly Enforcement to do the work without filing a Notice of Intent, but Pabich wants to require an NOI. Devine says that the DEP instructed him not to require an NOI, but Pabich opines that the area is in a riparian zone, thus despite politics it should go through the public notice process. Devine says that this is different from building a house in a jurisdictional area without a permit, but if it needs restoration, that’s different. Pabich reiterates that any work in a resource area requires an NOI, so that everyone plays by same rules.

Devine thinks equal treatment is possible with Enforcement Order, and Pabich says it will come through, but they will have to have a plan and the Commission will require an NOI. Devine says it can all be required with or without an NOI. Mr. Dick says if they file an NOI, they will then have 2 -3 weeks before the next hearing, then they must advertise, post it, and notify most of Salem since the activity is on a piece of land that extends very far. He outlines the entire process, which could take up to early June, which is a bad time to do mitigation plantings. He wants to get the work done two weeks after receiving the Commission’s go-ahead. Planting of native vegetation is exempt under Wetlands Protection, and removal of bad material can be done under an emergency condition. Although it is a resource area, it is previously altered and is upland, NOT wetland area, having been extensively altered and with lots of phragmites and knotweed. His client can’t improve it a whole lot but will correct as much as possible. The main issue is trespassing. He must deal with the actual owner of the property. Ricciarelli says the Commission can continue to the next meeting in two weeks, and in that time could get some direction from the DEP and National Grid.

Devine states that that it is best to issue an enforcement order now. DEP’s threat to take over and immediately issue a fine remains. Pabich argues that it is not the Commission’s problem, and we would not do this for anyone else. However Chairwoman Knisel cedes the point about removal; at the last meeting the Commission had stated that material had to be removed. One option would be to have the owners remove the fill, return to the Commission with a replanting plan, then file an after-the-fact Notice of Intent. The amount of material that must be removed is obvious and measurable.

Mr. Dick established 1997 grades by direct survey and will directly examine the substrate to find out what they need to do. He may need to pull out material, but it will probably be mostly vines with a veneer of rubbish. The property changed hands in 1991 from the Rail Road and National Grid to Michaud Bus.

Chairwoman Knisel says that the Commission could approve the removal of material and investigation of the depth of historical material, which would allow time for National Grid’s input on vegetation and fencing. There would be equipment under the power lines so the Palms must speak to National Grid. Pabich says the enforcement orders must be issued to National Grid. McAuliffe asks how to approve a plan to remove material without a specific plan in place. Chairwoman Knisel says that the Enforcement Order could say they have to bring a plan back before the Commission in two weeks. Pabich says they could use a bucket without teeth to reach and smoothly scrape the surface. Devine says that the Commission will ask for a restoration plan in the Enforcement Order, which would satisfy the DEP for now. They will come back and explain how they will remove material. Pabich current elevations surveyed in order to measure the fill since the 1997 survey.

Devine notes that Mr. Dick believes there are no wetlands present, only riverfront area. Pabich says that there may have been wetlands underneath; Devine is not qualified to confirm that and wants it documented. Devine wants something written up to show his contact at DEP in order to confirm the area is not wetlands but only riverfront area. Mr. Dick suggests three transects for this site; the Commission agrees.

Most of the vehicles have been removed from the filled area but there us one truck remaining that must be removed. The Palms should also demarcate the end of their property, and make a barrier for vehicles instead of mere spray paint. Mr. Dick says posts and construction fence would at least stop pickups, and would also let people know that violations are being addressed.

Mr. Dick will send other materials. There is an outstanding Order of Conditions from 1997 for the building; they only found out that it was recorded a few days ago, so now there is an encumbrance on the title. A request for a Certificate of Compliance on the original work will be forthcoming.

The situation should unfold as follows:
  • The Conservation Commission will issue an Enforcement Order to the Palms and to National Grid.
  • Within one week, the parked truck must be removed, and fencing installed to mark the end of the Palm property and to prevent vehicles from entering with fill material.
  • By the next Commission meeting (4/26), the applicants should have a vegetation analysis and topographical map of existing conditions, and should also be in touch with National Grid.
  • Mr. Dick will be cc’d on the Enforcement Order.
  • The Commission will approve the restoration plan before work commences; the plan should be submitted by the next meeting. Within 30 days of this meeting (4/12), the Commission will have an approved restoration plan.
  • The applicant may require submittal of an after-the-fact Notice of Intent to allow for planting at the appropriate time.
If an after-the-fact NOI is required it should be by a certain date. Pabich wants to wait and see the plan in two weeks, then might want to amend the Enforcement Order to require the NOI. The NOI timeline can be longer since the DEP doesn’t care. It could be done within 60 days of implementation of the plan. Chair Knisel asks why they should do an after-the-fact NOI.  This is to ensure due public process; since the public should have right to have a say. All commissioners agree

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

  • DEP #64-512: 23 Parlee Street: Request for certificate of compliance
This house was built without any of the pre-construction conditions fulfilled or any notice from the applicant. Erosion controls were present during construction, but the builder did not fulfill any conditions on that Order of Conditions. The builder sold the property with the outstanding Order still on it, so Devine had them put together an as-built and apply for a certificate of compliance. An Engineer also had to go to the site to fulfill Special Condition 43, which required a registered Engineer to assess the drainage system at the end of the street. The Engineer looked at the stormwater system and said was imperfect, but functioning. Roof water is captured in an underground infiltration system with some going offsite, some into the catch basin, and some going into the forebay.

The inspecting engineer was not involved in the construction of the house; the land surveyor confirms that the underground system is there, but that’s all we have to go by. Since the surveyor’s license is at stake, Devine thinks this is sufficient. When they put up this subdivision, there was a stormwater system previously built.

Illustration: As Built Plan, REID Land Surveyors, March 15, 2012

If the system was required to be put in, there should be ties on the foundation to certify that it is there. Pabich wonders what else may not have been done. The house is smaller and there is a deck in the backyard. The infiltration location looks very gravelly and is on higher ground. Pabich concedes that it may in fact be there because there are no downspouts on the corners of the house. Devine says we can ask for verification that the system is there.

City of Salem was to take ownership of the stormwater facility, but it may not have been conveyed. The builder was Frank Lanzillo.

Chair Knisel asks if they should require additional work to the swale, and Pabich says it is at the corner of a buffer zone, and that the owners should ensure it’s there. There follows more discussion of the infiltration system. There is a question as to whether the Commission can enforce this on the builder or if they have to work with the current owner. Devine thinks it is the builder’s responsibility. McAuliffe thinks we should assist the owner, and Pabich suggests that the Commission inform the builder that they have some concerns. He should attest to the fact that he installed a system. Devine points out that the as-built shows it as being installed, but Pabich still wants a letter since the as-built is merely a copy of the original plan.


  • DEP #64-468: 1 Parallel Street (lot C): Request for certificate of compliance
  • DEP #64-469: 1 Parallel Street (lot B): Request for certificate of compliance
Chris Mello of Eastern Land Survey has submitted an As-Built Plan and letter for each lot stating compliance and any existing deviations. Work is complete and Devine is all set. Mr. Lovely is also present to answer any questions. There is lawn and plantings are growing.

Devine points out that a Certificate of Compliance was issued in Sept. 2010 for Lot A with the understanding that other Certificates would only be issued when Dave Knowlton was satisfied with drainage issues having been addressed. David Knowlton has not issued such a letter yet. He submitted a letter stating that Condition 44 regarding road work has been addressed. But other drainage concerns have not been resolved.

A copy of the minutes from when the original Certificate was issued are distributed. Chair Knisel asks when David Knowlton was last consulted; this morning; he had previously given approval for Lot A; they did not build until 2010 to allow for swales and drainage improvements, which were improved. The City Engineer asked them to abandon the swales, so when they came in for approval on Lot A the swales had been covered over and abandoned in place. Lots B and C did not have requirements for further swales. Pabich recalls discussion of swales running parallel to the railroad tracks. Construction began, but David Knowlton felt they would not be effective. To get the approval for Lot A, he had to approve those swales.

The applicant was supposed to work out such concerns with David Knowlton before coming before the Commission again. David Knowlton did not require swales on Lots B and C, but the Commission wanted stormwater addressed on those lots. His current letter required a drainage analysis and a proposed solution. The analysis was done, but a peer review found it to be unsatisfactory. The applicant insists he did not have to put swales on the other two lots and the ones on Lot A were abandoned. Chair Knisel asks if there was a misunderstanding regarding the decision from September 2010. According to the minutes of the meeting, the stormwater from Lots B and C had to be dealt with – not necessarily by using swales. Pabich states that the applicant did not satisfy the conditions by completing Lot A. There are still many outstanding issues in David Knowlton’s letter from Sept. 2010.

After the meeting in which it was decided that swales would be abandoned, they were graded, loamed and seeded. There was a drainage study and they would do all they could to improve drainage across lots B and C. Drainage was studied over a large area. Mr. Mello mentions possibly filing for an amendment.

Riciarelli clarifies: after the Certificate of Compliance was issued for Lot A, Knowlton asked for an analysis, and it did not meet his requirements. He really needs to be involved in this conversation. The scope was further than what Mr. Mello had anticipated, and he felt blindsided. They did take that condition but are now asking for the Commission to take it away. Pabich feels there is still a drainage problem but Mr. Mello feels it is no worse than it has been. All contours and elevations are the same. Pabich says there is uncontrolled drainage that must come across their site to get to the pond.

Mr. Lovely says it is no different from when he got the approval for the three lots. The swale between B and C was accepted, and he tried to add something to help with drainage. An engineer suggested a swale, and the Commission agreed pending approval of David Knowlton. Now he is being told he has to do something different. Nothing can be done to that site other than raising it up, or reducing the level of Rosie’s Pond, which they cannot do. He feels that the project is successful. He wanted to build swales, the Engineer felt they weren’t adequate, but now he has to spend more money.

Mr. Lovely does not feel it is fair that he has to address water coming down from Parallel St. where there is no drainage. Devine points out that the City Solicitor believes that it is appropriate and legal that the Commission does not issue Certificates of Compliance until David Knowlton is satisfied. Mr. Lovely insists that David Knowlton admitted that nothing could be done on their property, yet he wants further study, and that was not part of the original conditions. He claims that the City Solicitor did not say it was legal to withhold the Certificates.

Chair Knisel says they cannot follow through tonight until they consult David Knowlton; there is no way around that. Pabich says the issue is not cut-and-dried. The area is inundated regularly, and everyone’s perspective changed between issuing the original plan and seeing the water. The issue must be handled. Mr. Lovely reiterates that the drainage for the entire area is not his responsibility. Chair Knisel asks what the result of the meeting with Mr. Knowlton was, but it was left open. Devine says they could have looked at the drainage analysis and come up with alternatives, but other options were also discussed, such as how much it would cost the City to do this work, and Mr. Lovely could pay the City.

Chair Knisel says the Commission will speak to David Knowlton, and Devine will then follow up with Mr. Lovely. The response to the drainage study, in writing, was very clear as to what needed to be done to satisfy the concerns about drainage. Mr. Lovely insists he does not have the funds to correct the larger drainage issues of the area.

Ricciarelli and Hamilton also feel that David Knowlton should be consulted for guidance. Chair Knisel asks if they will respond to him about revising. They do not have the money to do anything. The Commission will not issue the Certificates of Compliance tonight, but will contact Mr. Lovely after their conversation with Mr. Knowlton.

Mr. Mello asks about filing an amendment to eliminate the drainage issue, but Pabich thinks they should all be on the same page with Dave Knowlton. Mr. Mello says it was clear in their meeting that he wants further study and work on Parallel St. and Mr. Knowlton refused to sign off on Item 48, so they are at an impasse. Chair Knisel instructs Devine to have Knowlton send a letter for clarity and request that he come to the next Commission meeting – the former is more likely. Devine will distribute the studies that were completed. McAuliffe is not certain this will be a workable solution, but Pabich says there must be a solution and it is a beginning. Mr. Lovely says they have been holding off on paving until this is resolved and hopes to do that soon, next week in fact.

  • DEP #64-516: 60, 64 Grove Street, 3 Harmony Grove Road (Former Salem Oil & Grease): Update on appeal of order of resource area delineation
The appeal has been appealed, requiring an adjudicatory hearing, and the information is in the Commissioners’ packets. They will find out a lot about the historic mill exemption.
A motion to adjourn is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliffe, and passes unanimously.

The meeting ends at 8:47PM.

Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission

Approved by the Conservation Commission on May 10, 2012