Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes 11/08/2012
Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting


Date and Time:  Thursday, November 8, 2012, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location:       Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present:        Chairwoman Julia Knisel, David Pabich, Dan Ricciarelli Amy Hamilton, Bart Hoskins, Gregory St. Louis
Members Absent: Michael Blier
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder:       Stacy Kilb


Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:05PM

Meeting Minutes—September 27, 2012

A motion to approve the minutes is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, and all approve. St. Louis does not vote as he was appointed to the commission after the meeting in question.

Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—50 Grove Street Real Estate LLC, 7 Rantoul Street, Suite 100B, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed off-leash dog area within riverfront area and flood zone at 50 Grove Street.

The applicant requests to continue to the Dec. 13th meeting. A motion to continue is made by Hoskins, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously.

Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Misha and Sheila Eliasziw, 3 Parallel Street, Salem MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a garage within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 3 Parallel Street.

Here for the applicant is contractor Michael Burgess of MDB Construction. The applicant is proposing a garage, for which he gives a brief description. They are seeking a negative determination with some conditions. Their property is on previously disturbed area. The corral fence out back is marked as the edge of a wetland, but he thinks it is 4-5’ away from bordering vegetated wetland. There is also a small swale there which was previously the subject of some controversy; some of Dave Knowlton’s (City Engineer) requests will be met.

St. Louis asks about drainage upgrades. Those will be done by someone else; Mr. Lovely was putting up $10K to ensure that was done. Mr. Burgess notes that a certificate of compliance was obtained for the construction of the house. It is a complete certificate with no ongoing conditions, so nothing related to that order of conditions should stand in the way of the commission’s review of this garage.

Mr. Burgess describes the setup, the fence, and the footage. He is proposing a filter sock around the entire area for erosion control. Stockpiling of materials will be controlled at the back with tarps on top. The pile itself will be 25-30’ back; stockpiling along the edge will be minimal. All material will be carted away and will not be re-used.

Devine outlines the current situation: there were unresolved drainage problems at this site and the Commission issued the certificate of compliance under the condition that Steven Lovely make drainage improvements to the neighborhood. Originally Knowlton said he could not approve this garage without the drainage issue resolved, but ultimately agreed it could be built if the following conditions were met:

  • Space is to be left to widen and improve swale to 10’ centered on the existing swale with a clear 5’ buffer zone. This means that the garage and driveway should be at least 10’ from the centerline of the existing swale.
  • There should only be one curb cut.
  • A right of entry agreement should be endorsed by the owners to allow the City or Steve Lovely to go in and make the required improvements and maintain a future swale. Knowlton is comfortable with just a signed agreement, rather than a full easement that would require City Council approval.
Under these conditions, the City Engineer has no opposition to a garage if it satisfies the commission’s requirements.

They have 9’ for the widening of the swale, while Mr. Knowlton wanted 10’. Mr. Burgess describes moving back part of the project to accommodate this requirement if absolutely necessary. Mr. Burgess questions whether the easement would be legal.

Pabich asks about dimensions and Mr. Burgess outlines them again. Pabich points out that this place is notorious for flooding and he says that the building under construction is surrounded by water. They never should have built it in the first place since Rosie’s pond floods with incoming water from the golf course, and it backs up. When they were making proposals, the Commission did not have control as it was not in a flood zone. Pabich asks if anyone has looked at the new FEMA flood maps. This is still outside the mapped 100 year flood zone. The end of the swale is an inlet. Water comes down from Lawrence Street under an archway onto Parallel St. then comes across this parcel, which is now developed.
Mr. Burgess wonders if, since the homes already exist, the garage makes it worse, better or if it will stay the same. He thinks there will be no adverse effects since this is not affecting the swale or flooding, and is just another structure. Pabich disagrees since garage will displace whatever water would have been on the ground there in its footprint. It will go somewhere else, not on this property. The reality is that the site does and will flood. Mr. Burgess asks if the drainage that will be repaired was done property this would be an issue. Pabich says it still would be. Improving the swale will still not solve flooding. It is not stormwater flooding, but only in a major event.

Chair Knisel asks if Pabich wants a full filing; not necessarily as it is not in a flood zone, even if it should be. This Commission doesn’t have jurisdiction to require that. It would also not solve the issue. Ricciarelli asks if they can amend the original Order, but it is closed. Chair Knisel asks about other mitigation measures. The Commission had asked them to reduce the level outside the house to accommodate water displacement of the house. However, to get proper drainage of the garage would require major excavation. Elevating the slab is counter to the problem. To make it have minimum impact you would want water to go into a structure, which isn’t desirable. Burgess said they could put a perimeter or French drain to allow water to pass through, but Pabich is talking about full inundation in which the garage displaces water.

The original plans did not show garages or expansions and it was not conditioned that expansions would require further filing. Mr. Burgess says nothing he can do will affect the flood water, but if there is 8” of water all around, displacement will not increase rate of flow into area basements, but Pabich still disagrees and says it will make a difference.

Mr. Burgess illustrates the existing and proposed driveway. He proposes a single standard 9’ x 7’ garage door with an entry door off to the side. Pabich reviews the Knowlton’s comments and continues discussing the setup of the swale, distance from the driveway and garage door. He thinks Burgess should come back with more details and answers to questions, to avoid having to file something more substantial.

Pabich wants to see the driveway sketched in. St. Louis asks about the utility pole which appears to be 10’ off the swale, but no information is available. Burgess thinks its 18’ away from the swale. Riciarelli asks if the swale could be moved as it is not on the property line, and that would give some relief to that 10’ buffer zone. Mr. Lovely owns the property next door, which is for sale. He could be forced to put an easement on his property and put the swale there, in Burgess’ opinion.

Chair Knisel asks if there is wiggle room with the position of the swale. Pabich says he was just raising his objections to the development in general; he does not necessarily want to hold it up.

Devine notes that an area can be determined to be land subject to flooding under the wetlands protection act even if it is outside FEMA’s 100 year flood zone. Photos of flooding should be sufficient evidence to determine that an area floods.

Pabich says the entire parcel is then within a flood zone, since he has photos of flooding there. He wants to see a solution, ideally where water could flow through. Burgess says water cannot pass under a slab – due to frost it would have to be 48”. Ricciarelli suggests a pier and grade beams. Burgess says there would be issues with water passing underneath freely – it does not pass freely but freezes in New England unless it is 48” down. He would have a warranty nightmare if water had to pass underneath. The slab would crack no matter what from expansion.

St. Louis asks about the threshold for filling in a flood plain. Devine says compensatory flood storage is required to offset any loss of flood storage within inland flood areas. Burgess said the land is level and all houses are on grade, with no basements.

Burgess opines that foisting the problem onto homeowners isn’t fair but Pabich takes exception, saying that if this project is approved, every other house could want to add a garage, which would add up to a lot of displacement. Hamilton thinks it is more than an RDA and Pabich says it could be done if there was compensatory storage in the yard.

Chair Knisel asks if they want a full filing or a delay to allow floodwater calculations. Hamilton suggests requiring a full filing; Pabich agrees and wants more detail with topography, driveway, and swale shown on the illustration.

Hoskins asks about the proposed driveway – would removing some driveway area improve it? St. Louis was also considering compensatory flood storage. To accommodate that volume they would be looking at a 60’ trench that would be 6’ wide and 1’ deep. Mr. Burgess says forcing it into an NOI would be killing the project. The other option is a negative RDA with conditions. Having to put money into such research and considerations for just a garage and bringing in heavy equipment to do the work would be even worse.

Chair Knisel asks if applicants would change their plans – i.e. a smaller garage or driveway. Burgess says they have already agreed to using pervious pavers.

The applicants want a garage for parking and a small bit of storage. Burgess likes having the garage set back from house to make it more appealing. If they lose some storage, that is OK. Sheds could be used for storage instead. St. Louis asks if the swale could run straight back. Burgess says it would eliminate Mr. Lovely’s responsibility and put it on his client. Burgess does not have enough info on the swale for that idea.

He thinks Mr. Lovely should have an easement onto his property for the swale; since it is up for sale and has an open Order of Conditions it could be forced upon him. Devine says all three properties have Certificates of Compliance which were issued free and clear under the condition that Lovely signed the escrow agreement.

Pabich says to move forward, Mr. Burgess should withdraw and bring this proposal back with more detail. He says the Commission should revisit the relevant minutes and review the drainage swales. Ricciarelli comments that they should put the whole garage on piers with screens below grade to keep out rodents. Or make an elevated structure on posts, with no floor, just crushed stone. Mr. Burgess thinks there would be an issue with moisture control and such a project would require an engineer. He would like to keep costs reasonable for his client. Most of these would not be an issue if the escrow agreement was taken care of.

Mr. Burgess says that as presented, he wanted a negative determination with conditions. Chair Knisel opines that they will issue a positive determination. Ricciarelli says they could come back with more engineering detail; Pabich agrees and reiterates that the options are to withdraw or to continue and come back with more information.

The Commission would want compensatory storage or another way to prevent water from migrating. The Commision can research the footprint and possible shifting of the swale in the meantime. Other garage options are also discussed, such as building without a foundation so water could flow through, like a carport.

Mr. Burgess requests to continue to the next meeting. A motion to continue to December 13th is made by Pabich, seconded by Hoskins and passes unanimously.

Old/New Business

  • Strongwater Crossing Lot 18, DEP #64-457: Discussion of project change
  • Strongwater Crossing Lot 37, DEP #64-456: Discussion of project change
Devine says that Paul DiBiase had intended to request certificates of compliance for these two lots, but discovered that the recharge systems hadn’t been installed as required. He wants to discuss ideas for resolving this, but needs more time to put information together and requests that this be tabled until the December 13 meeting.

  • 89 Lafayette Street, DEP #64-412: Request for Certificate of Compliance
This item was taken out of order in the meeting, after 24 Clark Avenue. Pabich was not present to hear this item.
Tracy Duarte represents National Grid for an Order of Conditions issued in 2006. Devine says it is for what amounts to a utility box that was built as planned. Bollards surrounding the box are the only deviation and Devine things that is unsubstantial. St. Louis asks if the existing switch gear remains – it is still there. It is separate from but next to the harborwalk project. Devine confirmed that geogrid material had been installed as required. Devine recommends issuing the full Certificate of Compliance.

A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance is made by Hamilton, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously (5-0). This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

  • 24 Clark Avenue, DEP #64-259: Request for Certificate of Compliance
Devine passes around copies of the request and photos. The request is for a partial Certificate of Compliance.

Devine recaps the issue. The commission issued a single order of conditions in 1996 for the construction of a roadway extension and 6 houses. The approved plan includes the filling of approximately 2000 square feet of wetlands under the condition that there be better than 1:1 replication.

The surveyed plan submitted with this request for a certificate of compliance shows that a small area of replication on the lot was not done, and where gentle slope was approved, a boulder retaining wall was constructed. Devine has not inspected the entire subdivision, but from this property and the roadway, he was able to identify at least one additional area where wetlands replication was required that was not apparently done. In additional, Devine has not confirmed the presence of an infiltration chamber or a culvert shown on the approved plans.

Attorney Robert Strasnick represents applicant David Moulison. This is the only parcel owned by the client, who wishes to sell. The situation is urgent; closing is scheduled for next Friday and the owner has been trying to sell for the past three years. This issue came to light upon having title work done prior to the sale. At first Mr. Strasnick thought that the Certificate was not recorded. Mr. Reid, the original surveyor for the development, was contacted, viewed the site, and did a write up explaining that the work was never done. This outstanding Order of Conditions clouds the title so the property may not be sold without some sort of resolution.

The applicant has no ability to petition on behalf of the adjacent landowners. Mr. Reid stated in a letter dated Nov. 1st that the problem on this particular parcel is limited to one small area. At this time it would be difficult to change the property to match the plan and would be detrimental to existing wetland areas to do so. It would also be prohibitively expensive. Thus, Mr. Strasnick is requesting that the Commission grant a partial Certificate of Compliance for this property only.

Ricciarelli asks about the purchase of the property in 1999. Why did a title search not turn this issue up earlier? The applicant was the first to purchase a property there. Currently, when a development is underway, there is a separate Notice of Intent for each house lot, so work outside one lot can’t encumber it, but this was permitted instead under a single order. Pabich says the NOI was never closed out, but they could still purchase. Buyers and sellers have varying standards for what is a clean title – a property may be sold with an open Order of Conditions, but there can be issues upon resale or refinancing in the future. This is what title insurance is for. Sometimes upon refinancing, conveyance attorneys overlook this as it does not concern them, but they should pick it up on conveyance; in this case it was overlooked.

Devine describes the area. The house is slightly different. There is a landscaped island in the middle of the road, which is not on the plan but is actually an improvement. There is a concrete slab in the backyard and a boulder wall behind the house, both unpermitted. Some of these deviations from the approved plan are probably insignificant from a wetlands protection perspective. The trouble deviation is the apparent lack of wetlands replication.
Devine has a call into the DEP; even if this segment looked good they would need to verify that the rest of the project was built as approved. It is not possible to separate this one parcel. There was supposed to be a culvert and an underground infiltration chamber whose presence has not been confirmed. The buyer is aware of this situation as their lender hired an attorney who reported back on the title search. If not for this instance, the Commission never would have been made aware of this issue.

Mr. Strasnick understands the need for whole neighborhood to be looked at but he does not have standing to do that, so he wants the Conservation Commission to issue a partial Certificate of Compliance. It has been done before. Devine asked the DEP if any of this falls on the developer. Mr. Steadman is in violation if properties are sold without a Certificate, since the order requires written notification of the order to the buyer, but Pabich says it would be draconian to have Steadman come back and replicate the wetlands. Another option would be issue a partial certificate, then get things replicated. This would burden the new owner with an issue that should have been caught by the original selling attorney. Ricciarelli asks if the replication has to happen in specific locations – another owner would have to take it on. Mr. Steadman may still own some property within the subdivision or adjacent to it.

He could replicate elsewhere as long as it is all hydraulically connected. The grade drops off behind the house, and that is why the retaining wall is there. Ricciarelli says it looks like Mr. Steadman meant for it to be missed. What was permitted was a gradual slope. The original order was for 3 years, so it has long since expired. If Mr. Steadman was here and we could hold him to it, the work would be mitigation under a new Order, and wetland replication could be completed somewhere else. Ricciarelli asks about the slope and if they already met the volume by losing slope. Devine says that for wetland replication, area rather than volume is relevant.

St. Louis comments on replicating an upgradient area, but this is not the case. Pabich discusses the setup and intent. Devine describes the setup according to the illustration. Was any replication done? Devine only knows that replicated wetlands are missing from some key areas. Pabich asks if there would be any record of wetlands being done elsewhere. There is not. St. Louis asks about the Partial Certificate – can the Commission can ask that the total replication be met before issuing the complete Certificate of Compliance? They don’t want to burden this seller but don’t want to burden the abutters either. Current developments submit an NOI for each lot to avoid just such issues. According to Mr. Strasnick it may be less burdensome to others and less detrimental to the area to insist on compliance. St. Louis says this will continue to come up with other lots. Nowadays, the building inspector sends a routing slip to all boards and commissions to ensure that all local permitting is satisfied before issuing a certificate of occupancy. This unfortunately did not occur in this case.

Devine is waiting to hear back from the DEP. He needs guidance outside of this Commission. Chair Knisel thinks that the DEP would tell them to pursue enforcement about the developer, and that is an answer that Devine would like to have. But Ricciarelli says one particular lot could be left hanging. Mr. Steadman does have the equipment and could modify the wall. Pabich asks if it is possible to condition a Certificate of Compliance. There can be ongoing conditions but this is bigger than that. Pabich asks if it is possible to do that, but leave window open so the next owner understands that work may have to happen, though not necessarily at their expense. Devine will also consult with the City Solicitor.

Mr. Strasnick reiterates the urgency of the situation and that closing must happen next Friday. He feels it should be taken into account that that his client brought the issue to the Commission’s attention. Devine reiterates that he would like to work with them and will be aggressive with the DEP, and consult the City Solicitor.

Pabich asks about the total square footage of the required replication and reviews it on the plan.  This is going to Mr. Steadman no matter what; if we give up a small bit of replication here, we still have leverage. Riciarelli asks if they buyer could put money in an escrow to rip out the wall, and to replicate the wetland. Mr. Strasnick replies that it could be done that way, but the buyer will need title insurance and it will be difficult to convince the lender to go along with it. Pabich has sympathy but does not want to drop the issue entirely. Devine asks what is the penalty for this situation. Pabich says there could be fines of up to $200/day for the past 15 years, and Mr. Strasnick comments that the Commission could go back against Mr. Steadman for the violation that long. The owner could fix the issue, then go after Mr. Steadman.

Hoskins asks if in issuing a partial Certificate of Compliance, the Commission compromises its ability to pursue a solution on the whole project. It might be seen as “arbitrary.” Others could come forward. Pabich opines that Mr. Strasnick should contact Mr. Steadman, who should prove that the work was done. Mr. Strasnick appreciates Hoskins’ concern with regards to this being arbitrary, but the retaining wall differentiates it from other lots. Those may or may not have the same topography. Ricciarelli asks about the other neighbors. Can the wetlands replication simply be shifted? Chair Knisel thinks no one would agree to that.

The applicant is not in a position to speak for the other homeowners in the development. The owner of lot 25 appears to have the same problem. That neighbor has the space to replicate wetlands. Ricciarelli likes Devine’s idea of talking to the City Solicitor. Mr. Strasnick asks if the Commission would approve the partial Certificate subject to the approval of the City Solicitor over the next week. If this must be put off to the December meeting, the damage will have been done as his client cannot close on time. He would like the legal concerns to be satisfied, and at worst, if the City Solicitor does not approve of the options, they would have to return in December.

Pabich thinks there are legal ramifications to whatever the Commission does, so guidance is needed. The underwriters must be satisfied, so language is important. The Commission could write this in such a way as to leave the door open to have the work done before issuing the full Certificate. Pabich worries that the Commission will forego work not done on this lot if we issue a partial Certificate. We want to be able to fix it but it would set precedent for other developers.

Mr. Strasnick says the way the law interprets the daily violations is for each day to be a continuing offense, thus the fines renew daily with no statute of limitations, according to Mr. Strasnick. Ricciarelli says the easiest way to do this would be to make it right on the buyer’s dime, then pursue Mr. Steadman after the fact, but this is harsh. Plus, costs are unknown, and if other landowners pursue Mr. Steadman it will be tied up by him, and they could be escrowing more than the value of the property. The applicant asks what he would have to do. The retaining wall would have to be removed and reset, and pulled back in a slope as outlined by Pabich. Hoskins asks if it would be possible to issue the Certificate on the condition that the future owner make the land accessible and allow restoration activities to satisfy the original conditions. Yes, that is what Pabich is saying, but he wants it written by an attorney so that the owners can get what they need, while the Commission still has the authority to get the work done.

Devine wonders how they will deal with the unpermitted slab and boulder wall near the house. Mr. Strasnick says the boulder wall could be removed, but the owner says it is holding up the land that his stairs are on. The slab was not there until later. Pabich opines that the presence of the wall is not as bad as the wetlands not being replicated.

Pabich leaves the meeting at this point due to a prior engagement.

St. Louis offers to help draft the letter stating that the developer must rectify the situation, but Devine says he must make sure it is legal, and does not want to issue a conditional Certificate of Compliance. There is an area to list ongoing conditions from the Order on a Certificate, but not new conditions. Mr. Strasnick says the square footage of the wetlands was on original Order, but Devine says it should have been completed before issuing the Certificate. It was not a condition of the order, but an element of the approved plan, so it won’t transfer like a condition for annual monitoring would. This is a deviation from the plan. Devine is not sure if any replication was completed. No amendments are on file. There were many conditions that were not met. St. Louis asks if there was a bond posted for the completion of the work. Devine states that there wasn’t. There is no incentive for the developer other than fines. The incentive would have been when he wanted the Certificates of Occupancy to sell the houses, for which a Certificate of Compliance is usually required. But these homes were issued Certificate of Occupancy without resolving the open Order of Conditions.

Devine says this may not be resolved on an acceptable timeline for the seller, but Knisel points out that it would not have come up if not for this seller. Mr. Strasnick says that the penalties are real for Mr. Steadman, so he should clear it up and make it right before he comes before them for other items. Hoskins notes that the Commission has to be careful with this developer. Knisel wonders if wetlands could be replicated on municipal land. Mr. Moulison explains the urgency of his situation, and the Commission is sympathetic.

St. Louis asks if they could require mitigation as wildlife habitat or plantings to replace the wetland still there. Devine says they are good creative solutions but he does not know if they can legally be done. He must consult the DEP, his peers and the City Solicitor to see what can be done. Chair Knisel says we will pursue enforcement against Mr. Steadman, but Devine says the Order of Conditions runs with the land and the conditions go with the owners of the properties, but some violations still belong to Mr. Steadman.

The commission is willing to hold a special meeting as a courtesy, considering the urgency of Mr. Moulison’s situation.

Devine notes that the conventional way to get a Certificate of Compliance  is to show that the work was done according to the Order of Conditions and the approved plan plan. Despite all the proposed creative solutions, this is an incomplete project.

Devine will meet with City Solicitor Beth Rennard. Devine recommends that Mr. Strasnick contact her as well to emphasize the urgency of the matter.

The Commission agrees to hold a special meeting next Thursday, November 15 at 6:00 p.m. to review options for resolving this situation.

  • 81 Highland Avenue (Salem Hospital), DEP #64-539: Discussion of proposed tree removal
The Commission issued an Order of Conditions for a central utilities plant, and now the applicant wants to take down a large maple tree that impedes access for construction vehicles. Two trees of similar species are proposed in mitigation by Scott Patrowicz, the engineer representing the petitioner. Removal of this tree was not on the original plan.

There is a question as to whether the applicant is required to replace the exact “amount’ of tree material – i.e. if the tree has a 30” diameter must they replant with 30 1” caliper trees? The Commission has the flexibility to require whatever mitigation they think would be adequate.

The site plan is reviewed and the Commission is not pleased with the tree removal plan. St. Louis wonders why this is in front of the Conservation Commission and not the planning board. Devine explains that it is part of a project with in the Commission’s jurisdiction and it has an open Order. It is a very large tree, probably 150 years old. Chair Knisel asks if there is a different route they could take the crane. There is no roadway connection and there are some steep slopes. Other possibilities are discussed. The Commission’s opinion is that temporary access could be created without taking the tree down. Chair Knisel says they have to work around it. St. Louis wonders why they don’t access the site through an area that will be disturbed anyway.

Miscellaneous

On another note, Devine wishes to inform the Commission of violations on 11R Winter Island Rd. Workers who were building a permitted new house were dumping a paint-like substance on the end of the public way and some of it made its way onto the beach. Devine observed a lack of erosion controls, and uncovered stockpile of soil. The presence of crushed stone on the public way is an ongoing violation as well.
Landscaping has also been installed despite a condition requiring submittal of a landscaping plan for the Commission’s review. After consulting with the Chair, Devine issued an enforcement letter with a November 15th deadline. William Wharff is the builder. This project was permitted about a year ago.

Devine states that he received a return receipt for the certified letter, but has not heard from Mr. Wharff, despite attempts by phone and email. There is no minimum for hazardous materials release, according to St. Louis, so this could be a notification event. There is some overlapping jurisdiction with the City Engineering Dept. on public the way with the gravel. Devine is not sure of other avenues for dealing with this paint-like substance in the resource areas. A violation letter has been issued by the Agent, and the owner has been notified of the possibility of fines in that letter, and must rectify the violations. Mr. Wharff doesn’t necessarily have to come to the Commission as long as Devine can verify that the project has been brought back into compliance. At the next meeting they can decide to issue fines if the owner has failed to correct these problems by the deadline. If there is snow before the next meeting and gravel gets plowed into beach, it will be a worse problem. St. Louis recommends constructing silt or a construction fence. The owner should remove the paint like substance or discuss a restoration plan if it goes below the surface, and should install erosion controls, cover stockpiled soil, give the Commission a landscaping plan, and remove the crushed stone.

Ricciarelli wonders why fines do not accrue from the date of issuance of the Order of Conditions. Devine states that in a previous situation, the City Solicitor urged the Commission not to use fines punitively, but only as a tool to bring a project into compliance.

Hoskins is considering MACC training, but does not have specific requests at this time. Devine suggests approval of funding for mileage and registration for those since they will not be meeting until December. He notes that if Hoskins does not register for any training, this money will remain in the Commission’s account.

A vote to approve up to $200 for mileage and registration for Hoskins is made by St. Louis, seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously.

A motion to adjourn is made by Hamilton, seconded by Hoskins and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 8:33 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission

Approved by the Conservation Commission December 13, 2012.