Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, March 13, 2014, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chair Julia Knisel, Gregory St. Louis, Tom Campbell, Dan Ricciarelli, Bart Hoskins
Members Absent: Amy Hamilton, David Pabich
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:03 PM.
- 27 Pierce Road House Addition—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-563—Charles A. Smith, 4 Galloupes Point Road, Swampscott, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a house addition and appurtenances at 27 Pierce Road within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act (MGL c.131§40) and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.
Attorney William DeMento, Wetlands Scientist Bill Manuel, and Engineer Scott Patrowicz are here for the Applicant, who is also present.
Mr. Patrowicz presents. Mr. Smith’s parents currently reside at the house; he describes its location. The house also abuts conservation land. There are riverfront area, salt marsh and 2012 FEMA flood zone areas. Mr. Smith would like to do an 1125 square foot addition, extend the existing driveway, and add a two story connector. They do not need to comply with stormwater standards, but a settling basin will be installed. They will not be working in the shrub line, and a stockpiling area outside the riparian area is outlined.
Bill Manuel presents. He outlines the various areas of interest listed above in further detail. The proposed addition falls within riverfront, and some is within the buffer zone to the salt marsh. They will not be working in the marsh; the closest they will get is 42’. Erosion control boundaries will isolate the site. They feel this is sufficient given the topography and scope of work. Elevation according to FEMA maps is also outlined. The house addition is still higher than and landward of the elevation according to either map; being coastal, they do not need to provide compensatory storage but must not hinder storm drainage on abutting properties. There will only be very minor grading that will not create additional storm damage to abutting properties.
Four alternatives have been included:
- No build – not an option as the applicant needs the living space of the in-law space with garage.
- Move project outside of riverfront – not possible, as they cannot detach a livable structure on a single lot; zoning does not allow this. Also they would need to increase driveway to get to the new structure, which would create much more of an impact.
- Site addition somewhere else on lot to reduce the drive – also not possible due to zoning constraints.
- As proposed –this is the chosen option as it is zoning compliant, connected to the existing structure so there is minimal disturbance.
Impact thresholds: They are within the acceptable level of riverfront impact. Appropriate erosion control will be used.
Ricciarelli asks if the driveway could go behind the house, but it would still be in the riverfront area and would create more riverfront area impacts. Chair Knisel points out that it would mitigate runoff into the riverfront area. Mr. Patrowicz proposes providing a swale area in the lawn area on the right-of-way as a revision to the current proposal.
The driveway supports two cars but is very large. Mr. Patrowicz points out that the owner may park a boat or want parking for company. St. Louis asks about the wetlands flags and additional information is outlined. St. Louis comments that some areas flood multiple times a year.
Ricciarelli asks about the siting of the house and why it does not mirror the 30’ site setback. The client would consider rotating the house to make it more parallel to the existing house; the Commission feels that the amount of pavement is excessive. Hoskins asks if pervious pavement could be used, especially for boat storage. The client would be willing to consider this. The connector will be slab on grade with no basement, but the client is open to making it a covered walkway rather than a slab. It must meet zoning requirements.
Campbell asks about utility connections; those of the existing house will be used. Chair Knisel asks when plans showing new footprint and driveway configurations are shown, can they add in swale? The Commission is interested in that. St. Louis asks about pitching the driveway in another direction and Mr. Patrowicz says it can be changed. Mr. Patrowicz outlines the trees in one of the shrub areas.
St. Louis comments on the loam and fill stockpile, but he views the whole area as riverfront so would like to see it moved upgradient, which will be done. They do not need a construction entrance since the paved driveway will be used for this purpose. At the end of and during work, if needed, street sweeping will be done. St. Louis also comments on the elevations and capacity of the riparian area.
Chair Knisel opens to the public Patrick Burke of Buchanan Rd. (#6), whose parents live at #20, comments that he has seen the water line come up to the existing light post on the property at the end of the grass line. He is concerned about disturbance of wildlife in the area. Red tailed hawks and bald eagles have been seen, in addition to the usual wildlife. Humans continue to encroach on the conservation areas of the City. He wants to make sure that all factors are taken into consideration during upcoming projects. Other sites up the street on the “paper road” section of Pierce Rd. were not allowed to be built; he is concerned that allowing this project will set a precedent. He feels a site visit should be conducted. Silt in the river continues to accumulate; it used to be a river but now is a “flood
zone” instead. The garden in the Pickman Park tennis court made runoff a huge issue; runoff here will also be an issue.
Chair Knisel acknowledges Mr. Burke’s comments and recognizes the challenge of protecting this riverfront. Roof runoff would go into the detention area. St. Louis comments that most of the right-of-way is in the resource area and Hoskins says that this is really the only last bit of viable space on the paper road, but Mr. Burke says there are other plots on the other end.
Chair Knisel asks the property owner to allow Commissioners access in lieu of a formal site visit, due to Commissioner schedules and the lack of available light during the day. Commissioners agree to visit the site individually and at their own convenience before the next meeting.
Revised plans will be submitted.
A motion to continue to the March 27 meeting is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and all are in favor.
2. 86 Bay View Avenue House Demolition and Reconstruction—Notice of Intent—Robert King, 81 Laconia Circle, North Andover, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition and reconstruction of a house and appurtenances at 86 Bay View Avenue within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act (MGL c.131§40) and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.
Robert King presents. He and his wife, Christine, purchased the house in December. He gives a brief history of the house, which is almost uninhabitable. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted permission to remove and rebuild. He submits plans for the house they are planning on building, and an aerial view has already been provided, along with a plot plan.
The Commission is concerned about the footprint of the new structure. The footprint will be smaller, inside that of the existing house. Erosion controls will be in place. Mr. King reports that one neighbor wonders if hay bales can be kept within Mr. King’s property boundaries; they can. The sea wall will remain in place and the lawn will not change. Elevations are discussed, and the house is above current and future flood zones. No patio is proposed at this time, but may be added later. The slab in the proposal will not be altered at this time; there is grass there as of now.
For the proposed house, the basement will be slightly altered from what is there. There is no foundation on the current house; floor joists are on the ground. Rear sliders will be above grade so the Commission should assume there will be some impervious surface there, or perhaps a deck on footing.
The footprint will be the same as there are no other options on the small parcel. All work will occur upgradient of the terraced wall. All hard paving area will be at the front by the roadway. Any changes to the plan would require another visit before the Commission, so these things should be incorporated now. Christine King discusses the patio. The original deck was going to be 8’ but the neighbor was concerned so Mr. King scaled it back to 6’. The proposed patio would be up to 10’ x 12’. The Commission would like it to be pervious material or elevated deck, and no greater than 120 square feet. Silt fencing down property lines and 10’ off of the working area will also be required. The houses are very close so there aren’t many options.
Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell and passes unanimously.
A motion to issue the Order of Conditions is made by St. Louis, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously, with standard conditions and the following special conditions.
Special conditions
- Add silt fence downgradient of work zone, approximately 10’ off the work, upgradient of first terraced wall
- 120 square feet maximum of patio area is allowed; this must be a pervious material or otherwise elevated decking.
3. Old/New Business
- Devine cannot find signed Order of Conditions for Shetland Park Seawall, so he passes around another copy for execution.
- DEP will hold an information session on the revised wetlands regulations in Billerica. He is requesting up to a $50 reimbursement for mileage. A motion to reimburse Tom Devine for this expense is made by St. Louis, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
- The City is still seeking someone to fill the vacancy left by David Pabich on this Commission; St. Louis recommends someone at Salem State. Devine notes that he has done outreach with the University when there have been vacancies in the past. Chair Knisel suggests contacting Salem Sound Coastwatch Beach Keepers.
- The Commission needs to elect a new vice chair now that David Pabich has resigned. Devine will put his on the next agenda.
A motion to adjourn is made by St. Louis, seconded by Campbell, and is approved unanimously.
The meeting ends at 7:00PM
Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on March 27, 2014
| 
