Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved minutes 5/14/2015
Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting

Date and Time:  Thursday, May 14, 2015, 6:30 p.m.
Meeting Location:       Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present:        Chair Gregory St. Louis, Tom Campbell, Bob Pond, Gail Gambarini, Bart Hoskins,
Members Absent: Dan Ricciarelli
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder:       Stacy Kilb

Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:30PM.

27 Pierce Road Amendment—Public Hearing—Request to Amend an Order of Conditions—DEP #64-563— Charles A. Smith, 4 Galloupes Point Road, Swampscott, MA. The purpose of hearing is to discuss a proposed Amendment to an Order of Conditions that previously permitted construction of 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. The proposed amendment would permit, after the fact, grading and drainage changes that include reconfiguration of an asphalt driveway and stormwater mitigation basin, and construction of a boulder wall.

Mr. Bill Manuel presents the as-built plan, outlining the changes. There was an overall decrease of 444 square feet of impervious area. He also outlines the progress of the plantings. Additional shrubs are proposed to help the grubbed area naturalize, and a monitoring protocol is being submitted. No additional work has been completed yet this spring pending this approval. Chair St. Louis asks for clarification – this is an as built plan but some work must still be completed, including some paving, basins, and shrub plantings. Pavement calculations presented include pavement yet to be installed.

Chair St. Louis discusses the planting plan, for which an illustration should be provided, including what is now outlined. He also requests the addition of several trees that would complement the abutting landscape; they will be considered but the applicant prefers to naturalize the area rather than install something that will require a lot of care. Smaller specimens are acceptable but should be installed.

The setup of the retaining wall is outlined along with water treatment. An area of salt marsh is also described; the owner will cease mowing the area of lawn that is actually salt marsh on Conservation Commission property. Devine asks if a barrier along the salt marsh edge would be desirable; one will be in place elsewhere but the stone wall will mark the end of the property. A line of shrubs is proposed. Posts at intervals would be acceptable.

Chair St. Louis opens to the public and Mr. Charlie O’Donnel of 11 Buchanan Rd. asks about removal of trees and shrubs by a sewer line. The Commission has received conflicting reports of who cleared the area, but the City is working with the applicant to re-vegetate. Mr. O’Donnel would like to see a design and asks about how they will be planted; this is why St. Louis would like an updated planting plan.  The plan will be on file at the Conservation Commission office; the applicant hopes to have it there within a week of the next meeting and the public can view it then.

Mr. Joseph O’Keefe, Councilor Ward 7, is neither in favor nor opposed but was told the house was being built for an elderly couple. He states that the Forest River Conservation Area is all phragmites; he would like to have a resolution on paper with a record of shrubs, caliper of trees, etc. – as in a plan. Such details will be specified on the planting plan, including a diagram and planting specifications. Installation may or may not wait until the fall depending on timing.

After this winter, the owners discovered that the driveway may be inadequate so it is possible that it may need to be revised again. Any redesign would be incorporated into the next plan. Chair St. Louis requests that all square footage be updated and that before any additional pavement is installed, they should review the area. Mowing is also discussed again.

A motion to continue to the June 11 meeting is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and all are in favor.

Bridge and Planters Street Houses (Three single family homes)

Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Joe Skomurski of Skomurski Development LLC, 107 Bradstreet Avenue, Danvers MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 13 Planters Street and 43 Bridge Street (Lot 1) within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.

Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Joe Skomurski of Skomurski Development LLC, 107 Bradstreet Avenue, Danvers MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 13 Planters Street and 43 Bridge Street (Lot 2) within an area subject to protection under the Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.

Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Joe Skomurski of Skomurski Development LLC, 107 Bradstreet Avenue, Danvers MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 13 Planters Street and 43 Bridge Street (Lot 3) within an area subject to protection under the Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.

Here for the applicant is Mr. Bill Manuel. He describes the site; one lot is in a resource area and land subject to coastal storm flowage. All remaining area on the site is paved and fenced and the abutting areas are described. The local wetlands ordinance imposes a jurisdictional buffer zone, to which Lots 2 and 3 are subject, hence the difference in the NOI for Lot 1 vs. Lots 2 and 3. The Order of Conditions will be for all three, though only Lot 1 will be under both state and local jurisdiction, while 2 and 3 will be under only local jurisdiction.

The houses are described with finished floors being above flood elevations. No vegetation will be lost; one Norway Maple may be pruned but will be preserved. Erosion control is described. Buildings will be demolished and the site developed progressively. There will always be a dumpster onsite for demolition debris. There will be a net reduction in pavement on each lot, along with installation of drip line infiltration trenches. The one difference on this plan is addition of a screening material such as Arbor Vitae along the back fence. Each dwelling also has a ground level patio and privacy fence added to this plan vs. the one previously submitted.

Overhead lines do not go over these properties. Campbell asks about new utilities and all services to the street are being installed; St. Louis would allow gas installation as incidental to the development, even though it is not shown on the plan. The structures do have basements according to Mr. Skomurski. There is a catch basin in the street beyond the area shown on the plan. They would like to commence work in July. The soils were tested; the land is sandy with decent drainage. Demolition of the existing building and pavement is included in this notice.

Gambarini asks about flood vents in the basement of Lot 1; none are planned but elevations are discussed; the applicant will do whatever the flood code requires. Mr. Manuel does not see many problems with flooding occurring. The buyer will become aware that the house is within a flood zone when purchasing the property.

Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments.

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

A motion to issue three orders of conditions with all standard conditions, modified as noted below, is made by Pond, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously.

Special conditions:

  • Standard conditions regarding drainage structures do not apply, as there are none proposed
  • Grass shall be planted over at least 6” of top soil, rather than 3” required by the standard conditions
  • Drip edges should include ¾” to 1½” stone
Freeman Road Extension and Houses Lots—DEP #64-590—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—David Walch and Scott Green of Athens Street Capital, LLC, 106 Cypress Street, Watertown, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed extension of Freeman Road and construction of 3 single family homes at 20, 22, and 24 Freeman Road  within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.

Items 4 and 5 are taken before this item. Here for the applicant is Rob Marini of NativeTEC. Comments were received from the Commission at the last meeting and are being addressed.  Additional details as requested are outlined:

A shared driveway was considered, but found to be impractical. The southern of the three houses and its driveway were reconfigured away from the wetlands. Bridge details are provided, as well as a cross section of the street and details of the infiltration chambers. The waterway was analyzed using StreamStats and the results indicate that it is intermittent. The wetlands contain habitat, but are not true vernal pools. Potential decks are shown.

Gambarini asks about the foundations and Mr. Marini outlines. Distances of structures to wetlands are also discussed. Chair St. Louis comments that hard copies of this PowerPoint presentation have not been submitted but are required by the Commission, along with stamped engineered drawings. This is in an undeveloped area with the potential for high habitat value; he feels additional consideration is warranted and will review materials with further suggestions once hard copies are submitted. Construction of house lots could drain wetlands; that is one concern. He personally favors a less dense development further from the wetlands. The developer comments that he usually designs the homes larger since it easier to size down rather than ask to scale up.

Hoskins comments that there is a lot of good habitat up on the ledge, even if it is not a vernal pool. He is concerned about wildlife migration to the different wetland areas. The only way after development is under the bridge or through yards.

Devine outlines DEP comments, which were received as per the original plans, before these changes were made, and were answered. Chair St. Louis indicates he would prefer a 25-foot buffer, vs. a 5-foot buffer so that future homeowners do not disturb the area, but also to maintain habitat value. Hoskins comments that we should have a local ordinance specifying such things since related activity can go far beyond the blast zone. That said, the applicant must submit what is feasible and the Commission’s jurisdiction is within 100 feet of a resource area. Devine comments that even though the local ordinance does not require a specific development setback from wetlands, the Commission can determine the appropriate setback on a case by case basis.
        
Mr. Marini comments that the area will drain better once developed. Chair St. Louis comments that a 25 foot buffer would put them in a specific area and a specific layout, with few other alternatives. Mr. Green states that he is willing to work with the Commission. The applicant has not yet submitted to the City Engineer;  this is also necessary for the bridge in the right of way. The Commission expects a higher level of detail then what has been presented. The full application and fee must also be submitted. There is some additional discussion of the bridge and bridge fee. The bridge question can be posed to the DEP if necessary.

Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments.
        
A motion to continue to the June 11 meeting is made by Hoskins, seconded by Pond, and passes 4-0 with
Ganbarini abstaining, as she was not on the Commission as of the previous meeting.

23 Parlee Street Path—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for Kenneth and Patricia Corneau, 23 Parlee Street, Salem, MA.~The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of an asphalt path at 23 Parlee Street within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.

Applicants Pat and Ken Corneau present. A small section of the proposed path, which will provide access to the rear of the building, falls in the buffer zone. A contractor will perform the work. The piece on the front is part of the existing driveway which is damaged but will be repaired. Devine remarks that repair of the existing pavement can be done without a filing.

Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments.

Chair St. Louis suggests 4” of stone and 3” of asphalt for longevity.

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

A motion to issue a Negative 2 and a Negative 6 determination is made by Campbell, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously.

25 Osborne Hill Drive Back Yard Improvements—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability for David Mackey, 25 Osborne Hill Drive, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed new patio and fencing, deck expansion, and enlargement of existing stone wall at 25 Osborne Hill Drive within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.

Applicant David Mackey presents. His home was purchased on Aug. 20th and a Certificate of Compliance was recently issued for the NOI that permitted its construction. He describes his situation – the soil moves during rain events. He would like to increase the height of the retaining wall to keep his yard in place. The existing silt fence is still in place. He describes the damage and the work to be done on the wall, and installation of the fencing, patio and deck.  

Chair St. Louis asks for more details about the stone wall, which must stay under five feet tall, otherwise it must be engineered. Some areas to the rear may need to be terraced. Hoskins is surprised that the construction of the wall was not specified in the original order of conditions. Wall height is discussed. Mr. Mackey will go to the building department for the porch and they may want to discuss the wall and require an engineer. The fence will be installed inside the wall. Abutters next to and across the street will probably also be requesting fences. St. Louis comments that fences are usually exempted as minor activities. Material from under the porch will be used to level the yard. The applicant is aware of the roof recharge area. 15 cubic yards of base for the patio, as well as some crushed rock, may be brought in. Chair St. Louis comments on loading; all materials will be dropped in the driveway and the recharge system will not be passed over. He comments that the applicant should obtain a building permit if applicable to meet Building Inspector’s requirements.

Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no questions.

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

A motion to issue a Negative 2 and a Negative 6 determination is made by Pond, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously.

National Grid Gas Line at Jefferson Ave., Wheatland, and Lawrence Streets—Public hearing—Notice of Intent for Beverly Auxford-Paiva of Boston Gas Company (National Grid), 170 Medford Street, Malden, MA.~The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed installation of a natural gas line under Jefferson Avenue (Ocean Avenue West to Arthur Street), Wheatland Street, and Lawrence Street (Wheatland Street to Cloutman Street) within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.

Here for the applicant is Amanda Neville of Coneco Environmental. Work consists of replacing an existing steel gas line in the street, upgrading to plastic next to the existing line. A culvert will be crossed. She describes the area; all work will take place within pavement of roadway and the work is described. Soil removed will be sidecast or put into an onsite dump truck. Soil removed will be used to backfill and if not, will be removed offsite the same day. No stockpiles will be left overnight. The areas will be repaved or plated at the end of each day.

Chair St. Louis comments that both areas before the Commission may include contaminated materials so he is concerned with National Grid’s handling of stockpiled soils. He would like barriers to be in place so that materials do not migrate offsite or downstream. Silt sacks in catch basins will be used. If prior to the project, National Grid’s environmental group assessment finds contamination, they will implement a URAM or put all soil into an onsite truck for removal. Whichever method the Commission prefers would be used. Ms. Neville describes the process for analyzing for contaminants.

Chair St. Louis opens to the public.

Donna Herman of 214 Jefferson comments. In a previous instance National Grid implemented a project but those living on the street were not notified by them until the day of. She was also dissatisfied with the City’s response when she asked about it; she was told that “National Grid paid their money and can do what they want.” She outlines issues with material storage on their property, and parking issues.  They would also like more notice of City meetings.

Chair St. Louis comments on the setup of the properties in question. The right of way situation and city maintenance is discussed. St. Louis suggests that easement language may be very specific as to what utilities can and cannot do, and that should be discussed with National Grid. St. Louis comments that erosion control should surround any piles and permission for storage should be obtained first. Property owners should also be contacted with applicable easements; Ms. Herman comments that there may be no easement.

Hoskins comments that it may be better to have National Grid submit plans showing where material will be stockpiled as the available area for that may be limited. Mr. Herman comments on flooding in the area as well.

Devine states that some work National Grid does is exempt from Conservation Commission review, in which case there would not be a notice to abutters regarding a Conservation Commission hearing. The homeowners would still like notice of work being done.

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

Ms. Neville indicates that National Grid can have contractors simply leave material in the truck rather than on the roadway; Chair St. Louis indicates that this will be necessary. Hoskins approves of this process.

A motion to issue an order of conditions, with standard and the below special conditions, is made by Campbell, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously.

Special Conditions:
  • A logistics plan for handling and storing soils, including proof of permission to use private property, shall be submitted to the Conservation Agent prior to start of work.
National Grid Gas Line at Rosedale Ave.—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent for Beverly Auxford-Paiva of Boston Gas Company (National Grid), 170 Medford Street, Malden, MA.~The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed installation of a natural gas line under Rosedale Avenue within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.

Ms. Neville presents this item also. The description is similar to that above, though this is a smaller project. The current gas main will be abandoned in place. It will be cut and capped, then the plastic pipe will be trenched in next to it.

Chair St. Louis notes that erosion control has been in place for some time; it is National Grid’s for a gas main installation from the fall. Controls will stay up until that project is completed.

Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments.
A motion to issue the standard order of conditions, with the same conditions as the previous item, is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and all are in favor.

148 Marlborough Road Houses—Public Hearing--Notice of Intent for Anthony M. Jermyn, 50 Ravenna Avenue, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of 2 single family houses and appurtenances at 148 Marlborough Road within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.

Documents:
  • Letter from Jeffrey Bacon to Salem Conservation Commission, dated 5/14/20105.
Presenting for the applicant is Ms. Laura Krause of DeRosa Environmental. She describes the property and the intermittent stream. She describes the work to be done. A mini excavator will be used for invasive species removal. A planting plan of native species that are pollinator friendly is also submitted.

Chair St. Louis asks about the tree line on Lot B; it will not be cleared to the property line but Ms. Krause will confirm the extent of clearing. He also asks that the silt fence be extended up the side of the lot lines to define the limit of work. It is unclear if there is a larger watershed to the north; Chair St. Louis asks about runoff from that area. He is concerned that water coming down the hillside not be directed onto a neighboring property and Ms. Krause indicates that a swale can be added. There is no work schedule yet but Ms. Krause speculates that work should begin soon.

Grading on the Lot B driveway should also be modified to be less steep. Erosion controls were placed inside rather than at the limit of clearing to follow a pool contour, but they can be moved.

St. Louis opens to the public.

Mr. Jeffery Bacon, and his wife, Margaret Leonard, of 1 outlook Ave comment. Their property abuts lot A. Mr. Bacon asks about tree removal and wonders about a conifer on the property. Chair St. Louis shows him an overhead view; the tree will remain. Mr. Bacon submits a letter to the record. He opines that development of the area is detrimental to the resource area, citing several specific observational examples, as no flow measurements have been taken. He and his wife are opposed to the development of this area.  However, as it appears the project will move forward, he and his wife would like a strict order of conditions to be imposed. Conditions should be perpetual and listed in the homeowner’s association documents or conveyed by some other means if there is no such association.  Suggestions for specific special conditions are outlined. Discussion of applicable conditions continues. Ms. Leonard outlines the history of the property.  A nearby home is also being sold and Mr. Bacon and Ms. Leonard feel that the new owners should be notified of what is going on. They have not yet closed but the house is under contract.

Chair St. Louis comments that it is not under Conservation Commission jurisdiction but Ms. Leonard feels the developer would have a conflict of interest with the new owner, because the seller is related to the owner of the property under review tonight. However, as the potential owner is not present there is not much the Commission can do. Site conditions are discussed; houses as proposed are a practical distance from the wetland.

Regarding Mr. Bacon’s request for prohibition of storage of boats and RV’s: this is not in Commission jurisdiction unless there is a higher pollutant load (LUPL).

Chair St. Louis comments on the requested special conditions. In general, any further activity onsite/within the buffer zone would have to come before the Commission. He feels that re-use of the area will stabilize soil and be low intensity. Conservation area signage can be installed. Two per lot are desired.

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

A motion to issue an Order of Conditions, with standard and the following special conditions, is made by Hoskins, seconded by Pond, and passes unanimously


Special Conditions:
  • Erosion control to follow limit of vegetation line and contour of pool on South side
  • Extend silt fence along side lot lines
  • Swale to direct runoff away from western neighbors
  • Modify grading: Reduce slope to less than 5%  on Lot B driveway
  • Gravel drip edges to be 6” deep by 18” wide of ¾” – 2” stone
  • Two wetland markers per lot on 4x4” cedar posts to be installed
  • Gravel shoulders should be 2’ wide and constructed of ¾” -2” gravel

Riverview Place (Salem Suede Redevelopment)—DEP #64-579—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Riverview Place, LLC, 5 Broadmoor Lane, Peabody, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed mixed-use redevelopment of 72 Flint Street, and 67 & 71 Mason Street (former Salem Suede) consisting of 3 buildings and appurtenances within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem’s Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.
Applicant requests to continue to the June 11, 2015 meeting.

Devine states that the applicant requests to continue to the June 11 meeting. St. Louis requests that the applicant provide an update the Commission.

A motion to continue to the June 11 meeting is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously.


Old/New Business

  • DEP #64-493, Removal of Invasives at Winter Island: Request to Amend and Extend an Order of Conditions
Chair St. Louis states that he considers invasives removal exempt activity, but would like to hear what the applicant has to say. Kyle Zeckam has been hired by the City to work on the restoration of Fort Pickering. It has undergone many studies, and the recommended  work can now be implemented. Phragmites now inhabit the moat, and that is what is under the previous Order of Conditions.
        
This is Phase 1 of the project: Uncovering features which have been obscured, followed by masonry repair, signage, and other enhancements. They will make it safe and stabilize historic features, then complete work as funds allow. Future stages will require additional funding so they are not planned yet. Work for the current phase can begin soon.

Chair St. Louis asks if the phragmites is considered part of the wetland; some is but some is upland. Soil will be stabilized by various means; some will be lawn, other areas will have more native species to replace invasives.

This is a request for a minor change since specifics of work are different, plus there is a request to extend; the 2009 Order’s expiration date was automatically extended from 2012 to 2016 by the Permit Extension Act and now needs to go beyond that. The extension will be recorded and approval of a minor modification, per 5/4/2015 letter from Kyle Zick to Tom Devine and attached undated sketch entitled “FORT PICKERING VEGETATION CLEARING”, is noted in the record.

A motion to approve a minor modification and extension of the Order to 2018 is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously.

  • Meeting minutes—March 12, 2015
The Commission tables the minutes to the June 11 meeting.

Campbell motions to adjourn, Hoskins seconds, and all are in favor.

The meeting ends at 10:25 PM


Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission

Approved by the Conservation Commission on June 11, 2015