Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, May 9, 2013, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chair Julia Knisel, David Pabich, Bart Hoskins, Greg St. Louis
Members Absent: Amy Hamilton, Dan Ricciarelli
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove (former Salem Oil & Grease)—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-547—Michael Hubbard of MRM Project Management, LLC, PO Box 388, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed mixed-use residential and commercial development with associated building demolition, site clean-up, landscaping, vehicle and pedestrian bridges, parking areas, utilities, and stormwater management features within resource areas and buffer zones regulated by the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem’s Wetlands Protection Ordinance at 60 & 64 Grove St. and 1 & 3 Harmony Grove Road.
Applicant has requested to continue.
A motion to continue to May 23 is made by St. Louis, seconded by Ricciarelli, and is approved unanimously.
Public Hearing—Request to Amend an Order of Conditions—DEP #64-418—Osborne Hills Realty Trust, PO Box 780, Lynnfield, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed modification of 2 wetlands crossings at Amanda Way and Osborne Hills Drive to install box culverts rather than approved bridges within Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing Subdivision, 57 Marlborough Road.
Based on DEP comments, the applicant intends to withdraw this request to amend the order of conditions and file a new notice of intent.
Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Salem Play Areas for Canine Exercise (SPACE), PO Box 8875, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed installation of 2 light posts and an electric conduit within riverfront area and buffer zone to a wetland resource area at the dog park at Leslie’s Retreat Park between North St., Bridge St., and the North River.
Here for SPACE, and recusing himself from the Commission, is Bart Hoskins. He outlines the plan for the lights. Poles will be installed by volunteers. A machine will be rented to dig a trench for the electrical conduit. Mr. Hoskins outlines the setup and procedure. The trench will not be open long but the conduit must be inspected before it is backfilled – thus the trench will need to be open for two days. Then it will be seeded with grass seed.
Disturbance to the area will be temporary and minimal. They would like to complete work in June or July.
Hoskins is filing differently than recommended by Devine. This could be considered a minor activity in the riverfront area, according to Hoskins, but he decided that was not applicable, so Devine suggested the Commission ignore that interpretation. This is work within the resource area that will not impact it, but was not there before. Chair Knisel ask if solar was considered – it was. The donated fixtures were not suitable so the Neighborhood Association was consulted and ultimately LED fixtures were chosen, at a significant cost. They will be shielded and have many benefits, but solar panels to run them were not feasible.
A motion to issue a negative 2 determination is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli and all approve.
Old/New Business
- DEP #64-519, 11R Winter Island Road: Discussion of wetlands violations
Pabich recuses himself from this item and exits the room. Devine outlines Mr. Wharf’s violations, including reconstruction of the seawall without authorization. Devine says it looked like minor repairs had been done to the wall, but after reviewing past photos, it became clear that a portion of the wall was substantially reconstructed.
Ricciarelli comments on the state of the wall. The setup is discussed. Mr. Wharff showed a planting plan for the yard and there was some question as to whether some of it went beyond this property. There is no approval for repair of the wall.
Several Conditions from the Order have been violated by doing this work without authorization. One is that work must be done in accordance with the Order, and any deviations require consultation with the Commission. Also, if the property is sold, the applicant must submit a signed statement by the buyer saying that they have a copy of the Order of Conditions and are aware of it. Also, the applicant must submit a request for a certificate of compliance once the project is completed. Reconstruction of the wall and sale of the property involve seven violated conditions – some are double because the DEP and City of Salem have the same conditions. Should Devine send an enforcement letter outlining all the violations, or just some?
Chair Knisel says to list all of the violations in the enforcement letter. There has been ongoing enforcement action with this developer already. St. Louis asks what would be the desired result of this enforcement action. Devine replies that the reconstructed wall was built within overlapping resource areas and not reviewed for compliance with the Wetlands Protection Act. An after-the-fact review would ensure that the resource areas are protected.
Devine states that he has been unable to verify that the bollard Mr. Wharff installed is removable, as required by the commission. He has been unable to contact him to discuss ths matter.
The wall does not extend onto the beach beyond its original footprint. Mr. Wharf claims he spoke to the Building Inspector who said he did not need to file a building permit from repair. Devine has not verified that that conversation took place, however compliance with building code does not exempt an applicant from coming before the Conservation Commission and complying with the Wetlands Protection Act.
This is unpermitted alteration of the coastal bank and, based on the delineation on the NOI plan, probably alteration of beach as well. The work is discussed further. It is uncertain whether a Chapter 91 filing was submitted.
Devine will send out an enforcement directive outlining the Conditions violated, including an enforceable timeline where Mr. Wharff must resolve the violations, including after-the-fact filing of an NOI (45 days) and two weeks to get a signed statement from the buyer saying they are aware of the open order of conditions. Ricciarelli and the other Commissioners are concerned with the quality of the work on the wall. Devine says that if the work had been proposed as part of the original Notice of Intent, the Commission probably would have required approval by an Engineer before construction.
Devine comments that they do not have to follow up on all violations—the commission can choose what violations to focus on—but the Commissioners feel that this is important and should be addressed. Devine thinks that enforcement action should be pursued here, but the bollard is a challenge since it is not part of a plan, but corrective action for a separate violation. The Commission feels that the bollard should be taken care of too, though.
No vote is necessary and the Commission has provided Devine with direction on how to draft the enforcement letter.
- Review of the Commission’s standard “Attachment to Order of Conditions”
Devine outlines his methods as conservation agent, continuing in the footsteps of Carey Duques and Frank Taormina. They attached the above to every Order, but it has never been discussed and Devine would like to examine it. It gives the Agent space to enter detailed findings and special conditions.
St. Louis has some ideas to add in supplementary conditions; Devine will distribute a copy electronically so the Commission can add comments. This is a boilerplate set of Conditions. Things that do not apply to a given project are stricken. The DEP form also has general conditions. Devine wants the Commission to review and determine which conditions should be attached to most or all orders. For example, does every project need to submit an as-built, or can it be at the discretion of the Commission? Pabich thinks it is good to include all conditions, then waive some as needed. He also thinks it would be too much work to edit all 47 conditions for every project. There can be a statement such as “The Commission reserves the right to waive or modify any conditions,” and the applicant can request that they be
reviewed on a case-by-case basis. As it stands, the Order is issued, then they see the attachment is added when Devine processes the paperwork.
St. Louis comments that draft Conditions can be circulated prior to voting, but this Commission has not done that in the past. Normally this happens when the applicant has an Engineer, but is not done by lay people. However, that process is a possibility. Chair Knisel wonders if it would be more useful as a spreadsheet with check boxes to include only those Conditions which apply, but the Agent would have to be very familiar with the project. As of now Devine scans it and pulls out any Conditions that do not apply to the project. For something like Salem Oil and Grease, he should show them the document and see if they have objections. It may be counterproductive to have the applicant get it afterward if they do not agree.
Chair Knisel comments again that it should be submitted electronically for the Commission to review and comment, and perhaps even posted to the website. Hoskins says the applicant should have the opportunity to review and comment on the conditions while they are before the Commission, not after the fact, even if they have seen them before. Other commissioners agree that they should be upfront about it, and there can be amendments after the meeting, if they want changes. They should not be changed every time they are used. Unused conditions can be numbered and reserved, or noted at the end that they are being waived so that renumbering is not needed.
Devine says the conditions are pretty well thought out and are probably be based on suggested on suggested conditions from MACC and its members’ listserv. The Commissioners will review, track changes, and discuss again in the next meeting.
- Meeting minutes—April 11, 2013 and April 25, 2013
A motion to approve the Apr. 11 minutes with some edits is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by St. Louis, and passes unanimously.
A motion to approve the April 25 minutes is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
A motion to adjourn is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
The meeting ends at 6:52PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on June 13, 2013
| 
