Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes 12-13-12
Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting


Date and Time:  Thursday, December 13, 2012, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location:       Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present:        Chairwoman Julia Knisel, Dan Ricciarelli, Amy Hamilton, David Pabich, Gregory St. Louis
Members Absent: Michael Blier, Bart Hoskins
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder:       Stacy Kilb


Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:06PM.
Old/New Business

  • 81 Highland Avenue (Salem Hospital), DEP #64-539: Discussion of proposed tree removal
Scott Patrowicz represents the Hospital. Mary Jo Gagnon and Shelley Bisegna are also present.  He outlines the layout of the project on the illustration, the Auto Turn Template for Tractor Trailer Combo WB65 (size of trailer) SKC 33.

They did not want to remove the tree, but the turning radius of the trucks would not accommodate it. It is a Sycamore tree, next to other Sycamores. It was not included in mitigation plan; Mr. Patrowicz shows the tree, which is up higher than the pavement. They can’t cut out the earth surrounding it, as it contains the roots. They are proposing replacement with another tree in the same location once construction is complete. Bill Manuel, wetlands specialist, identified and examined the tree, which is mature but somewhat stressed. There is some canopy dieback and it is covered in ivy, however it is providing value as it is in the buffer zone and it is connected to wildlife habitat. Mr. Manuel suggests allowing construction to proceed, then replacing the tree with a 3” caliper Sycamore in roughly the same location. There is a bowl area on the property where additional wildlife habitat could be created. The wetlands scientists suggested blueberries or some other wildlife attractant.

Mr. Patrowics feels these mitigations will help improve the buffer zone and can be incorporated into the mitigation plan already submitted.

Pabich asks about the low point and Mr. Patrowicz outlines it. The area is soggy so wetland plants would do well there. There is a catch basin so wetland plants would add filtration. It would also be easier to maintain than grass.

They want to eliminate the island during construction, then it would be replaced along with the light pole and tree upon completion.

Ricciarelli was not aware that the duct bank was also in question; that is part of permanent installation and makes this plan more palatable, especially with additional plantings.

St. Louis asks about the location of the duct bank and Mr. Patrowicz outlines.  More details are coming to light as they begin to build.

Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments.  Mr. Patrowicz verbally requests approval for a minor modification.

Ricciarelli motions to approve a minor modification and is seconded by Pabich. All are in favor. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

  • Right-of-way off Waite Street, DEP #64-347: Request for Certificate of Compliance
Here for Coneco Engineers is Tracy Duarte on behalf of National Grid. The Order was issued in 2003 for a switch break structure, which she describes.  There were 390 square feet of replication approved; Devine and did a site visit and thinks it is substantially in compliance. The Commission did not specify any monitoring requirements and the replication area is overrun with invasives as expected. Pabich recalls that they expected it would be overrun with phragmites so they were not going to hold them to a high standard. Devine says grading has been lowered to match that of an adjacent wetland, and that was all he could verify.

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

Pabich motions to issue the Certificate of Compliance, Ricciarelli seconds, and all are in favor. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

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.

Here for the Applicant is Jay Goldberg. This is for a children’s playground, not a dog area. He passes around photos and a description titled “Proposed Natural Playground Plan. 12/11/12.”

The tenant, Pathways for Children, represented at the meeting by Sue Todd, serves Pre-K children ages 3-5, from families with low incomes. It is a federally funded Head Start program. They want a playground in walking distance and have hired an architect who understands nature and how children think. One class of 18 will be on the playground at a time and 90% of the area will be left in its natural state. The fence will be 6’ high and will follow a rectangular shape.

Pabich asks about the extent of the construction. Sue Todd, president of Pathways, says they are planning to keep most of the natural elements of the site, but they will be putting two mounds of dirt built up where the bridge is, and there will be mulch under the bridge. Everything on the playground will be handicapped accessible. A flagstone area will be a performance stage, which is not raised. They will put in two steel posts with a wooden xylophone. Other instruments will be made of wood. Seating will be existing granite or round wood stumps.

The 6’ fence will be black vinyl-coated chain link. The property owner will maintain the fence, and the tenant will be responsible for everything inside the fence. Pabich comments that when mounds are installed, they’d want to have erosion control or have it done quickly enough that it can be loamed and seeded in such a way that it does not wash away during a rain event. Mr. Goldberg states that he has not noticed that area flood. Ms. Todd says the plan would be to plant rye grass in the spring.

Chair Knisel asks if there is the potential for destabilization of the bank when setting the flagstones. The distance from fence to bank is unknown. Mr. Goldberg guesses that it might be 15 feet. Pabich thinks the work will not destabilize the bank.

Chair Knisel opens to the public and Teasie Riley-Goggin of 9 Wisteria St. states that she is confused. Originally the plan was for a dog run, and now it is a playground. That area has not been tested for contamination and there are AULs (Activity and Use Limitations) on most properties in this area. They are also talking about steel posts, granite, etc, and she wonders if they are appropriate for a playground. Mr. Goldberg explains that when they applied originally it was for a doggie daycare, but that tenant found another space since he did not want to wait for the Commission. As he backed out, Pathways came into the picture and asked to just continue where they left off.

Ms. Riley-Goggin also asks about a river and bridge. Mr. Goldberg describes the bridge as a play structure over land and not over the water. This will be a small structure for children to climb on. Granite that is there currently will remain, and small stones will be used for seating.

Ms. Riley-Goggin asks how close this is to Legacy Park. Mr. Goldberg does not know, but Pabich says this is the corner parcel by Grove and Harmony Grove Rd. The other property, Salem Oil and Grease, is on the other side of the river. The area has been tested and there is no contamination. Mike Derosa of Derosa Environmental, here for another agenda item, worked as the site’s LSP in 2006 when they did a full Phase II site assessment with test pits, and this area came up clean.

Rosemary O’Connor of 111 Mason St. states that she is concerned about having a children’s play area in a location that has high automobile traffic. Ms. Todd states that there will be a crosswalk through the parking lot and speed bumps to slow traffic. Chair Knisel recommends that Ms. O’Connor discuss this matter further with the applicant after the hearing.

Paul Prevey, Ward 6 Councilor states that the Open Meeting Law cannot allow the Commission to approve a children’s play area that was posted as an off-leash dog area. Pabich suggests that the project is largely the same—a portion of lawn enclosed by a fence. The use, from a resource protection standpoint, is less impactful.

Chair Knisel says she is comfortable moving forward with this, but would like Tom Devine to review Councilor Prevey’s concern with the City Solicitor.

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

A motion to issue a Negative 3 determination, with the condition that adequate erosion controls are to be utilized as necessary, is made by Pabich, seconded by St. Louis, and all are in favor. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.


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

Presenting for the applicant is Michael DeRosa, of DeRosa Environmental. He outlines the setup of the brook and bordering vegetated wetland. They are 48’ away from the garage at the closest point. The area is in a 500 year flood plain. This is out of the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act. As far as resource areas, they are not in land subject to flooding but are in the buffer to BVW. They want to do as much as they can with facilitating infiltration. To this end, the footprint was kept the same, but there will be a shed roof so will cascade off the side of the house into a coarse gravel drip edge. They have also added an aqua brick, drivable grass or gravel (permeable) surface for the driveway. They will use Groundscapes Filter and a compost filled tube will be used and will degrade after defining the limit of work and providing erosion control. Mr. DeRosa believes this addresses the Comission’s concerns and they are requesting a Negative 3 determination with the option for conditions to be added.

St. Louis asks if they had to file with the planning board, but not for a garage or driveway, other than to obtain a building permit. Pabich comments that his concern is that the site suffers from overland flooding from the pond. When the area floods, the garage will displace a certain volume of water equivalent to the volume of the garage. The Commission wants to see a structure that allows passage of floodwaters through it. It may seem small relative to scope of the flooding, but that water has to go somewhere and will be someone else’s problem, so the suggestion was compensatory storage onsite equal to the volume of the garage. Pabich thinks firm maps are inaccurate, and he understands their frustration but he knows there WILL be flooding and the garage WILL displace some of that water.

Mr. DeRosa says they have to go by regulations and according to the Act and the Ordinance, must design to a 100 year flood, not a 500 year flood, but that is not in the jurisdiction of this Commission. There is no elevation for a 500 year flood. During a rain event there may be flooding or seasonal flooding, but it may not be that the resource area is flooding. In a 100 year storm, there will be localized flooding everywhere, so if they take runoff from an increase in impermeable surface of 427 square feet, they will have it infiltrate and will catch 90% of the storms. Sheetflow and puddles are probably what people are seeing.

But Pabich says he is not familiar with it long term. The edge of the pond in one storm event was to the west and South of the structure pictured. The entire site was surrounded by floodwater from the pond. It is not a water table issue. The pond elevation is flooding.  Pabich comments that flood boundaries can be determined by a professional engineer if the maps are wrong. He thinks there is enough data to say that this is an area of concern. He would like to deny and require a full notice of intent. Another solution would be to invite water into that structure, but they are “putting a basketball into a bathtub.” Mr. DeRosa says they must design to FEMA. Chair Knisel says they do not have to design to FEMA, the firm is not the last word. Derosa says that is the case if it is not mapped, but this is mapped. Pabich disagrees, saying that the presumption of boundary accuracy may be overcome. Observation and recording can come into play.

Chair Knisel notes that FEMA digitized maps and changed dates, but they did not re-survey. This will be for vehicle storage. Ricciarelli suggests pervious paving with the garage on piers. Pabich suggests scuppers in the foundation to allow water through and wire mesh to keep animals out. The applicants are amenable to that option. They will put scuppers into the foundation wall. Pabich is satisfied with that solution. Ricciarelli comments that the contractor seemed inflexible. Pabich shares a photo of the house surrounded by water in 2006 in the mother’s day storm that year, and Mr. DeRosa shows it to his clients. Devine requests that Pabich email him the photo so that it can be added to the file.

St. Louis is worried about compensation but with this setup there will be no displacement so it is not necessary.

Chair Knisel opens to the public. There are no comments. Pabich motions to close the public hearing, is seconded by Ricciarelli and all are in favor.

Pabich motions to issue a Negative 3 determination, specifying that the garage be built with scuppers or openings at grade to allow floodwater to pass through, subject to review and approval by the Conservation Agent. He is seconded by Ricciarelli, and the motion passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Robert Tyack, 65 Pond Street, Essex, MA. The purpose this of hearing is to discuss proposed removal of trees within a buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 204 Highland Avenue.

Bob Tyack represents the owner, who leases the above facility to New England Veterinary Clinic. There are 12 trees to be removed in the buffer zone. They are shading the buildings and leading to the growth of fungus and mold, and deterioration of the roof. The area in question is an overhang shed roof protecting an outdoor area.

Three trees are fully mature and in decline. One shows substantial decay and has lost a major leader. Other trees are on the Highland Ave side, 15-18’ from wetland border, and upland. They are fully mature black cherries and are causing the most serious shading problem.

The shed roof is not shown on the site plan. It was added later after registry of deeds recorded the property. Many trees are in buffer zone, one is 1’ from wetlands boundary, but there is risk due to hydric soil. As a mitigation plan he recommends shrubs rather than trees to avoid repetition of the situation later. He has recommended 18 shrubs providing habitat and stabilization in place of the 12 trees to be removed.

Trees will be either cut with a crane or bucket truck with rigging that will minimize disturbance. Ricciarelli asks about a particular tree that may come down. It is not as close to building as others, but is a 70’ white ash. If not addressed now, it would need to be looked at shortly. Pruning would not help structurally or with shade. Hamilton objects to replacing trees with shrubs due to loss of canopy. Mr. Tyack says the property already has a good canopy and these are just right next to the building. Many would remain and the owner can replant trees if the Commission desires. These trees were not a threat before shed roof went on, but roof looks like it is 25 years old.

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

Devine made a site visit but has no comments to add. Pabich comments on the removal of trees with shrub replacement, wondering if it is adequate with regards to the benefit to the resource area. St. Louis comments that 177 diameter inches will be lost. Mr. Tyack reiterates that there is excellent canopy that will remain, despite the removal of these trees.

Pabich says it is hard to tell without resource area delineation. The edge will be denuded, then the next substantial stand of trees is on the other side. Mr. Tyack says there are some here, but the majority are on the other side. If they do replant trees, he would recommend Silver Maple. For aesthetic purposes, they would be spaced evenly. There will be no excavation and stumps will be left in place. They would be in a straight line behind the building. St. Louis asks if only one of the 12 trees is decayed. One is badly decayed and a safety risk. Almost all are in decline, have different life spans depending on the species. There is really only one exception; the one that is 1’ from the water is young, but will be a concern soon. Black cherries have a shorter lifespan. Half of those in the area are already dead and the ones they are cutting probably only have five years left.

Chair Knisel asks if the preference is a silver maple/shrub mix. Pabich asks if they will have the same problems with Maple. They will, which is why Mr. Tyack prefers shrubs. There is no slow growing wetland tree; they will all be the same size as the ones in question eventually. And some shrubs, such as speckled alder, can provide some height and canopy, growing to 8-10’ without posing a threat to the building.  St. Louis asks if trees #3-6 could remain with thinning as they are close to the boundary. #3 is large with a  huge canopy, the smaller trees are not much of a threat now, and could be thinned to buy some time, but are fast growing so would be in the same situation as now, in the future. Hamilton asks if this is just an issue of shading the roof, but it is also a safety issue due to hydric soil. Wetlands and tall trees near structures can be hazardous– storms can be devastating to homeowners, and his company has to deal with lots of emergency orders when trees reach this age.

Pabich comments that the speckled alder is acceptable. He would like to see more specifics as to replanting, but wants to see mostly speckled alder. St. Louis says spice bush and blueberry all have wetland value. Mr. Tyack says the Commission can speak to a specialist, and Pabich thinks this would be best. Mr. Tyack should submit a letter from the specialist with recommendations. Replanting will take place in Spring, so there is some time to plan that. They would like to take the trees down after the waiting period, then Mr. Tyack will get the letter in order. The letter should be submitted by the next meeting on Jan. 10th. Also, siting of the replantings should be shown.

Instead of holding a formal site visit, commissioners will visit individually at their convenience prior to the next meeting.

A motion to continue to the January 10, 2013 meeting is made by Pabich, seconded by St. Louis, and passes unanimously.

Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Jeff Holloran, Holloran Companies, 100 Cabot Street, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss, after-the-fact, grading and landscaping within a buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 6 Martin Lane, Witch Hill Subdivision Lot 213.

Here for the applicant is Mr. Chris Mello for Eastern Land Survey. He shows a 2010 Plan, under three Orders of Conditions for lots 211, 212, 213, and 214. The area in the buffer zone had already been graded due to the road. The as-built plan is shown as they are looking for Certificates of Compliance for the lots.
        
Lot 213 is almost entirely out of the buffer zone; the small area in question is lawn. Wetlands are behind lot 214 on the other side of the road. Devine comments that there is not much to see, just a small wedge of outer buffer zone that was regarded as part of a yard.

Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. Pabich says that everything else that was permitted is in order so this was a clerical oversight.

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

A motion to issue a Negative 2 determination is made by St. Louis, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously.


Old/New Business, continued

  • 3 Martin Lane, Witch Hill Subdivision Lot 214, DEP #64-504: Request for Certificate of Compliance
  • 4 Martin Lane, Witch Hill Subdivision Lot 212, DEP #64-505: Request for Certificate of Compliance
  • 2 Martin Lane, Witch Hill Subdivision Lot 211, DEP #64-506: Request for Certificate of Compliance
Mr. Mello also presents for this request. He shows the Commission the same site plan as for the previous agenda item. He has submitted the requests for certificates of compliance and a letter stating compliance and some minor deviations; the houses are smaller and steps are different. These are reflected on the as-built. Driveways are all the same as on the original plan. The resource area is to the North of Martin Lane.

Devine comments that he made a site visit and agrees that deviations are minor. Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments.

Pabich comments on the erosion control at lot 214 in the photos; Mr. Mello would like to leave it for another season. It is a compost tube, and there is still runoff while the lawns continue growing. They will be removed next season.

A motion to issue the 3 Certificates of Compliance is made by Pabich, seconded by St. Louis, and passes unanimously.

  • Strongwater Crossing Lot 18, DEP #64-457: Discussion of project change
  • Strongwater Crossing Lot 37, DEP #64-456: Discussion of project change
Mr. Mello presents again for these lots. Mr. DiBiase of DiBiase Construction, Strongwater Crossing, is also present. He presents a 2007 plan and is seeking an amendment to the Order of Conditions for these lots. He also shows the as-built.

Mr. DiBiase made the error of building the homes without the required recharge systems. There were 50 potential lots for roof recharge in subdivision. Mr. DiBiase needed 18 recharge units. Lots 17 and 38 have since been built with stormwater recharge systems in place. They are asking for approval of a minor change and Certificates of Compliance without the recharge system on these two lots; the systems will instead be installed on other lots in place of these, since they do not have to be on specific lots. These are StormTech recharge systems systems.

The systems that were not installed are for individual lots, not shared. They were dedicated to the houses on the plan as mitigation for the subdivision in general, to help with drainage. They can go anywhere in the subdivision. Pabich asks about individual orders for each lot –it was broken into phases. The first phase was done, this is the second, and the 3rd is coming. The road is not built yet. They have an Order of Conditions for the subdivision saying they will build 18 recharge units, and they will. They only need so many for the whole subdivision – it is a question of volume, not specific location.  Of the 18 promised, six will be done in the future, and 8 would have been done in this round, but only 6 were actually completed, so they need to make up 2.  

Recharges are going in, in general, not specifically in the buffer zone. Lots have been pre-identified in the buffer zone. They will be coming in during the spring with notices of intent and will include roof recharge systems for some of those lots. They are moving in groups to build in some flexibility if the market shifts.  St. Louis asks if the stormwater management system is dependent on locations. It is, as some lots have been blasted and could not be used for such a systems. They are not increasing peak flow to greater than the original design.

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

Orders are being modified for these two lots. The Order for the subdivision includes 18 recharge systems for the lots, with separate Orders of Conditions. Should the Order be modified for the entire subdivision? No, this is not being requested. Mr. Mello will propose which two lots will get recharge systems. The total will remain 18, with the 2 missing ones to be relocated. This is in the subdivision filing, not for specific lots. Notices of Intent will be filed in groups in the future.

To comply with the Order for the roadway, utilities and stormwater (the 18 recharge systems) are required, but not on specific lots. These 2 orders must be modified and Certificates issued.

Devine notes that Lot 37 has a condition that trees be replaced 3 for 1 if lost. One tree was removed, and three were planted. Devine asks for an explanation of compliance with the condition for the retaining wall to be angled to prevent scouring. Mr. Mello says that they were concerned the wall would be vertical, and that water would come over and eat at the base. Native stone was used with a slight angle to cut down on the velocity of the water to prevent erosion. The wall has a slope.

A motion to approve the minor change to remove the required recharge systems from the two lots and to issue both Certificates of Compliance is made by Pabich, seconded by St. Louis, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

  • 28 Goodhue Street, DEP #64-441: Discussion of project change
Joe Correnti, who represents the  North River Canal LLC, presents. This project is a single, four story building, with 44 condominium units and 1st floor commercial/office/retail space. Permits are in place, and have been kept in place, so he would like to move forward with construction.

The Order of Conditions lists 46 Conditions; one is in question. Condition 45 is about scuppers and a riverwalk as proposed. This is currently a vacant lot, with the canal running through and alongside. Permitted was a public walkway to be built along the canal, connecting with the lateral park, crossing Goodhue and leading to other projects across the street such as Salem Oil & Grease.

The walkway has been designed and engineered with a drainage design and the condition is not necessary.

This would be a 10’ wide sidewalk along the canal. The building and parking lot have all contained drainage, and the walkway is flat and pitches to the river, acting as a curb. To put scuppers in would be impairing bike and handicap accessibility, and would also make it difficult to walk on. The parking lot pitches the other way. If it could be done and make sense, it would have been easier. Pabich wonders what on the plan made the Commission determine they were necessary. The sidewalk would be notched for water to go through, but it is pitched the other way toward the parking lot. It is not known if the railing is on a curb. It will most likely be attached to sleeves at grade. There is no curb detailed to hold a pipe. The plan as modified is passed around. The Commission cannot find the reason for that Condition.

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

Pabich thinks there may have been some aspect where water would have sheetflowed, but the water pitches toward the site and catchbasins; it is a self contained system. Devine reads from the findings in the order of conditions stating that the scuppers were to address the commission’s concern regarding erosion in the wall. If there was no drainage other than walkway itself, there would be no volume according to Pabich. There would be point sources; but this is nonpoint, a gentle slope.

Commissioners are in favor of the modification. The agent at the time wrote up detailed findings referencing the reasoning for this requirement, which no longer applies.

A motion to approve this as a minor change is made by Pabich, seconded by St. Louis, and passes unanimously.

  • 11R Winter Island Road, DEP #64-519: Update on enforcement action
Devine updates the Commission. The Commission issued an Enforcement letter for five violations in early November. Three have been resolved completely. The unidentified white material was removed, erosion controls installed around the remaining disturbed area, and a stockpile of soil in the buffer zone was removed. They have received a landscaping plan that required approval. The landscaping was installed, but the commission has the plan before them now to review after the fact.

Devine notes that the landscaping is entirely upland and landward of the seawall. They are not looking for any kind of wetlands vegetation or to stabilize a bank. The plan the Commission had originally saw did not have landscaping details, so the Commission requested this plan.

Mr. William Warf is present. The crushed stone issue is still unresolved. Pabich says the Commission can’t approve a plan on a property that extends beyond the property line for plantings. If the Commission approves the plantings plan, 4 of 5 violations would be resolved. The Commission accepts the planting plan, though Pabich comments that items are shown beyond the property line. Mr. Warf says that area does not belong to anyone. It is within the inner buffer zone.

The crushed stone is still there, though it was required to be removed. The Notice of Intent included photos by Scott Patrowicz; his notes said “Public way to be restored/repaired as required during construction,” but this goes above and beyond that. What was there was dirt and asphalt. Mr. Warf would like to know what to do – he did not buy, order or approve ¾” stone that is there now. The right of way was dug up, and the gas people took away most of the existing pavement. He does not know who installed the stone. The landscaper, Mike Nash, says they did a good job. Because it was larger stone, it was compacted by trucks going over it. Mr. Warf contacted the City who gave him the name of City snowplower, who said that they back down and plow out. Mike Nash said stones are hard packed and will not move with plowing.

Three neighbors who view it think it is more aesthetic than the mud that was there. This is a public way, not a right of way. Pabich asks if the City Engineer was consulted; he has not been spoken to yet. Devine says a condition of the trench permit would have been restoration; Mr. Warf thinks it may have been National Grid. Pabich comments that whoever installed the stones should have come before the Commission to seek approval for this change. Mr. Warf says the first 20’ was asphalt, then it turned to dirt. Old broken asphalt at the bottom was removed, and plumbing supplies were also dug up.  Devine said not to take away asphalt.

Ricciarelli asks if the utilities are new – they are and were shown on the site plan. The only evidence is Mr. Patrowicz’s handwritten note. Mr. Warf asks if stone would provide better infiltration, and Pabich says that he worries about stone getting pushed into the marsh. Why would they back in and plow outward?  There are no vehicles in the public way, but according to Mr. Warf they said “that’s how they always do it.’ He’d rather have pea stone washed rather than asphalt, but Pabich says properly maintained asphalt would not wash down. Pabich says improvements should not make matters worse, and that material will be moved during plowing.

It is uncertain who put the stone in.  Ricciarelli asks if the stones could be paved over or if it would make a raised surface, but St. Louis says the engineer commented that it was not a suitable surface. No one is sure how much pavement is under the stone. It is unlikely that the anyone tore up the whole road to install lines, although they must be 5’ apart and the road is only 12’ wide.

Pabich asks about the property line. It is from the phone pole past the seawall. Most of this is not on Mr. Warff’s property, which is slightly more than 5’ off the house. Devine has the Request for Determination of Applicability for demolition and the Order of Conditions for construction, which he passes to Pabich.

Ricciarelli comments that the Commission should get the opinion of the City Engineer. Devine says in any case it would have to be permitted and that would require the approval of the City Engineer, who will not view it from a resource area protection standpoint. St. Louis asks about the enforcement action, which was against the applicant who was issued the Order of Conditions. St. Louis thinks whoever pulled the trench permit should be held responsible. They did not ask for a change.

Devine says they need to find out who pulled the trench permit. Pabich says that the way must be paved and the current state is unacceptable. This is not on Mr. Warff’s property. Devine says the Engineer may not be involved until there is a request for a Certificate of Occupancy, so he has not been contacted. Pabich thought the Right of Way and the City had been discussed in previous meetings. Devine thinks that that was not in the Order. But no matter what the Commission approves, there may still be requirements from the Engineering Department.

Ricciarelli asks about Compliance for the road vs. the lot itself. The road was in the work area, outside of the property on the public way, due to the utilities needed for the house.

Chair Knisel asks if the Commission is satisfied with issues 1-4, and if so, then should follow up about the roadway to find out who pulled the trench permit.  Pabich is uncertain about the landscape plan but St. Louis says it won’t be taken out; the Commisson can approve the plan except for plantings outside the property lines. It would then need to be addressed when there is a request for a Certificate of Compliance, when it would be considered a deviation. The solution is uncertain but Chair Knisel thinks it is not a major issue.

The enforcement letter is out with a mid-November deadline. Four of five violations are resolved, so the letter is outstanding. Pabich suggests consulting the City Solicitor to determine their options.

Devine asks if they want to take back the threat of fines but Knisel suggests extending the deadlines. Mr. Warf will discover who put the stone down. Ricciarelli thinks it may have been the builder.

The deadline requiring removal of the crushed stone is moved to the second meeting in January. However, the letter holds William Wharff accountable. Devine will consult the City Solicitor as to how to proceed. Ricciarelli thinks the general contractor should be present, and Pabich comments that it depends on who pulls the permits. The Commission asks Devine to consult with anyone who pulled a trench permit.

  • Clark Avenue Extension, DEP #64-259: Update on enforcement action
An enforcement directive was issued by Commission; the first deadline was for Ken Steadman to have a wetlands scientist and surveyor write letter attesting that they’ve been hired to create an as-built. That deadline has been met. Ken Steadman is present. He has met with Ralph Reid, the surveyor of the project, and also with Mary Rimmer, the wetlands scientist. The site was flagged and has been surveyed, but the as-built was not completed yet and will be presented at the next meeting on January 10th.

Mr. Steadman reviewed the file which contains another, additional plan, which is what he built off of. The plan the Commission had was an old one. Mr. Steadman contacted Steve Dibble to find out what happened. The plan he had was not the plan Mr. Steadman used, and he would not have done certain things. The Plan he actually built from had several key differences, which he outlines. One is regarding an isolated wetlands. He says all replications and fill areas even out. It was a question of 1300 feet. There was also an issue of one corner on one lot; there is area elsewhere that replication could happen. It would only be 180 square feet.  Ricciarelli asks if a recent survey was done to get that determination, and the plan the Commission had did not show anything. The Plan referenced in the Order of Condition is reviewed. The Order references the August 29, 1996 plan but Steadman says he built off another August dated plan, which is he doesn’t have with him. The Commission would like to see it. If there is an issue with the small triangular piece, they could replicate elsewhere, pending approval of the homeowner. There are other issues: the as-built now shows a shed, and some of the walls are different. Also the pavement differs.

Ricciarelli asks if there is an issue with 24 Clark Ave. The owner still can’t close. The wording on the easement isn’t done as the City Solicitor is out on vacation. Mr. Steadman thinks there are bigger issues. Ricciarelli asks if they can make an agreement with another owner to fix the triangle. It would be easier to move the replication. The Commission needs an as-built of the whole subdivision, to be presented at Jan. 10th meeting.  Steve Dibble does not remember specifics but recalls that there were issues with that isolated wetland that did not end up in the calculations.

Ricciarelli comments that site conditions were not followed up on. St. Louis asks if the Lot 3 owner could provide permission to do the work to get this lot owner off the hook. If they need to replicate 290 feet, but he only has 180 to work with, there is a larger area elsewhere that could be replicated.  The Commission needs something to prove that to relieve burden on the lot in question.

Also there is an outfall pipe that was a major change. Mr. Steadman also points out several other changes. The former agent does not have field notes from that long ago.  Chair Knisel opines that they just have to wait and cannot take action tonight. David Moulison, owner of 24 Clark Ave., asks if he can get a Certificate without the easement, or if he needs to wait for that language. Devine says the Commission does not need the as-built before the easement, but the owner wants relief from the easement. St. Louis says they could get another owner to allow mitigation, but that could be difficult especially given the larger issues elsewhere.

Mary Rimmer did the replication for Mr. Steadman, but she does not have records that far back. She will be present at the next meeting. If she can attest that it was done, the Commission can move on. She is currently looking for the relevant materials. Pabich says they can’t close it out without proof that it was done.  The easement can be executed before the next meeting, but would have to be signed by the Commission. Pabich questions that, but it would mean that the lawyer would have to change who executes it. The owner says it is unbelievable that there is this much delay over the easement; it even has a place for the Mayor to sign. The buyers have already moved into the house and he is acting as landlord. Ricciarelli asks if the as-built can be presented ASAP. Devine will review it as soon as he has it. Pabich asks how to resolve this without another meeting. Mary Rimmer can write a letter stating that the replication was done as according to plan. Devine will want to consult with the Chair in the event that that letter and the as-built indicate that the work was done and the commission is likely to issue a full certificate. If everything lines up right, the easement would be unnecessary and Devine could release the partial certificate for 24 Clark Ave. Ricciarelli says signing something would be OK, even if they have to come in for an additional meeting.

  • Meeting Minutes—October 25 and November 8, 2012
This item is postponed to the end so those present may present.  After Old/New Business is taken care of, a motion to approve both sets of minutes is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously.

  • Review of 2013 meeting schedule
Nothing has changed, and the Commission will still meet he 2nd and 4th Thursdays each month, with an August recess, and one meeting in Nov. and Dec.

Miscellaneous

The Commission permitted composting at Harmony Grove cemetery, and there was an enforcement issue in the riverfront area/100 year flood zone, as there had to be a grass berm and they had to move it and put in a fence and vegetation. The composting may be in the proper location now, but with no fence or vegetation. Pabich says the berm is there with plants on it. The purpose of the fence was on the road side, to keep the composting on the proper side of the fence, to prevent encroachment and define the area. Knisel suggests contacting the cemetery.

The Gateway Center pile is uncovered again. Devine wonders what the appropriate permanent solution is. The material remains onsite because the developer thinks it can be reused when the site is developed. The commission requires that if they want to keep the material there, measures must be taken to protect the resource area.

National Grid would like to build a temporary roadway with temporary storage and office trailers at their Bridge Street Neck facility. Devine thinks they need to file an RDA as this is within a wetlands buffer zone. They are working on another location and must temporarily relocate. Site security requires a unique access point for this, so that limits their alternatives. National Grid wants to know if this can be done with merely a letter to update the commission. But Devine and the commission agree that an RDA is necessary.

A motion to adjourn is made by St. Louis, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 9:22 p.m.


Respectfully Submitted,

Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission

Approved by the Conservation Commission on February 14, 2013