No preview available
Minutes and Agendas 2011-2012 - CONSERVATION COMMISSION r I Salem- Conservation Commission Agendas & Meeting Minutes 2011 - 2M2,- CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION �1 'Zoll, . .,T ' 2011 Meeting Schedule You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meetings for 2011 every second and fourth Thursday of each month at 6:00 PM in City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street, unless the meeting conflicts with a holiday. Also, the Commission does not meeting during the month of August. David A. Pabich, PE Conservation Commission Chairman Thursday,January 13,2011 Thursday, September 8, 2011 Thursday,January 27,2011 Thursday,September 22,2011 Thursday, February 10,2011 Thursday, October 13,2011 Thursday,February 24,2011 Thursday,October 27,2011 Y Thursday,March 10,2011 Thursday,November 10,2011 Thursday,March 24,2011 Thursday,April 14,2011 Thursday,December 8,2011 Thursday,April 28, 2011 Thursday,May 12,2011 Thursday, May 26,2011 Thursday,June 9,2011 Thursday,June 23,2011 Thursday,July 14,2011 Thursday,July 28,2011 August- No Meetings This na#fidte poetod on "orr- i m Bunton actard" OJ@y Hall Sa19 ti:l, M&m's On cerwbe,- ia,2zio { 5 at 0-P H , ^a� e��, c..,n $,"r-1 Mm. :;0 �saa' wRr u_ CITY OF SALEM . Jb ' CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,January 13,2011 at 6:00 PM at City HallAnnex, Room 314, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. 0w") f�s,,� Z' David A. Pabich, PE Chairman n ~ N MEETINGAGENDA o n 1. Meeting Minutes—December 9,2010 Meeting i. J 2. Old/New Business ■ DEP #64-461, Chadwick Notice of Project Change co N g. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-509—Barbara Bowman, 8 Dearborn Lane, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of coastal Beach, coastal Bank, and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane.Applicant requests to continue at the January 27 meeting. 4. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent MassDOT,519 Appleton Street,Arlington,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed drainage line repair on Loring Ave. at the Forest River crossing. The proposed work includes alteration of a coastal bank and is within a riverfront area and a buffer zone to a salt marsh. Applicant requests to continue at the February 10 meeting. 5. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-511—Fortunate Son Realty Trust (Craig Burnham), 14 Franklin St., Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the after-the-fact clearing and grading within a riverfront area and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 and 10 Franklin St.Applicant requests to continue at the January 27 meeting. 6. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Frank Lanzillo, 150 Centre St.,Danvers,MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within a . buffer zone of a bordering vegetated wetland at 23 Parlee St. 7. Old/New Business,continued ■ DEP#64-492, 72 Flint St. (former Salem Suede), discussion of concrete slabs Tl+1a note poftd on "Oltlelet ®u etin Board" C"Y Hall Salem, Mass. on7, Zoa at4z*01-1 pwin" r1 241ASo Of Ulf i l t Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,January 13, 2011, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairman David Pabich,Rebecca Christie, Carole McCauley,Julia Knisel Members Absent: Michael Blier,Dan Ricciarelli, Amy Hamilton Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chairman Pabich calls the meeting to order at 6:08PM. i. Meeting Minutes—December 9, 2011 Meeting A motion to approve is made by Christie, seconded by McCauley, and passes unanimously. z. Old/New Business DEP#64-461 (former Chadwick Leadmills), Notice of Project Change Illustration: Proposed Remediation Project, Figure 3, dated 12/23/10, WOODARD & CURRAN • Daniel Garson, Sr.VP at Woodard& Curran, speaks. John Thompson, the LSP of Record, and Mike Battistelli, lead tech manager, are also present to discuss this notice of project change and get Commission approval of an adjustment to siltation boom. Mr. Garson outlines the current order of conditions, which involves remediation of this site; the Commission is concerned with the removal of the entire surface of the beach and removal of a portion of sediment subject to tidal influence below mean high water. Mr. Battistelli describes how his company found higher areas of contamination and points out these areas on the illustration; they would like to focus on the delta area of the project, so they must slide the boom out further from shore to go past the area of deposition due to Forest River's flow and the tidal action. This change is limited to the ebb tidal delta area as described in the Notice of Project Change letter submitted. There are 20-100 cubic yards of additional sediment in question. The silt curtain was moved out 40' from its original location. Everything else will be the same. Mr. Batistelli describes the setup and installation process of the boom; the work involving it will be finished in a couple of weeks, then the remaining remediation will be completed. The Chairman says the scope of project change is minor but this is major for the segment in Salem. The more lead removed from the harbor, the better. Mr. Battistelli agrees; Mr. Garson says that once the boom is in place, it is cumbersome to move so they wanted to give the contractor flexibility inside of it. Chairman Pabich says they could ask for permission to 1 1 work within boom as it is now; Mr. Garson agrees. The Chairman asks about a small island; this area was originally Class C, but they want to remediate that and make it Class A like the rest of the site. Mr. Garson spoke to the DEP, and said work is within the limits of the existing permit, as well as the Army Corps permit. The Commissioners have no questions. Chairman Pabich asks about the seawall, which is in disrepair. It is not being worked on yet but care will be taken when they get close to it. The Chairman also mentions the use of tide gates, which are operable. The applicant will coordinate with city engineer Dave Knowlton if necessary. The Chairman opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to approve the project change is made by Knisel, seconded by Christie, and all approve. 3. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-509—Barbara Bowman, 8 Dearborn Lane, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of coastal Beach, coastal Bank, and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane.Applicant requests to continue at the January 27 meeting. A motion to continue is made by Christie, seconded by McCauley, and passes unanimously. Tom Devine says that he calls the applicant before each meeting and he's never ready; he opines • that instead,he will call him and ask when he will be ready instead of putting it on the agenda as in in cont u g each time. 4. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—MassDOT,519 Appleton Street, Arlington, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed drainage line repair on Loring Ave. at the Forest River crossing. The proposed work includes alteration of a coastal bank and is within a riverfront area and a buffer zone to a salt marsh. Applicant requests to continue at the February 10 meeting. The DEP has not yet issued a file number since there is an issue with the fee. McCauley says there are trucks there every day but work has not started. Devine says the city engineer Dave Knowlton has been there and approves of the plan but, but the Commission may want his assessment again when the applicant submits more information. Chairman Pabich says they may need to replace the whole bridge. A motion to continue is made my McCauley, seconded by Christie, and passes unanimously. 5. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-511—Fortunate Son Realty Trust (Craig Burnham), 14 Franklin St., Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the after- the-fact clearing and grading within a riverfront area and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 and 10 Franklin St.Applicant requests to continue at the January 27 meeting. Devine informs the Commission that the applicant is still working on the stormwater report. A • 2 motion to continue is made by McCauley, seconded by Knisel, and passes unanimously. 6. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Frank Lanzillo, 150 Centre St., Danvers, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within a buffer zone of a bordering vegetated wetland at 23 Parlee St. Illustration: O'Neil Associates, Site Plan, 23 Parlee St. Dec. 20"', 2010 Luke Roy represents the applicant. The Notice has been filed; he describes the existing lot on Parlee St. A 2001 plan was used to determine the wetland boundary line. There is also a detention pond and closed drainage system for stormwater collection. The proposed work falls within the buffer zone, 81' at the closest point to the structure but there is an existing paved roadway between the work,and wetland area, so they want to protect the existing drainage system and wetland from erosion and sediment transfer during construction using a silt fence, erosion control construction entrance, and filters on the catch basins. Also included is a subsurface infiltration system to infiltrate roofline runoff into ground, accommodating 1/2 of the roof area of this house, consistent with other homes built there. The high area is in the back, low area in the front. Other work in the buffer zone will be utility connections; existing water and sewer stubs will be connected in the driveway at the front. Chairman Pabich asks about the stormwater facility, what is it and who controls it? He asks if it was part of the original subdivision. Mr. Roy says it was done when that portion of street was constructed,but is not sure of ownership and maintenance. He is also not sure how it functions • but offers to find out. Chairman Pabich opines that it looks straightforward. He asks if the house will have a basement. The structure will be at grade at the front, and in back will be below grade and will have a drive-under garage. McCauley wants to schedule a site visit. The house will be 28' x 48' Chairman Pabich opens to the public. , Stephen Medico of 25 Parlee St., next door, has some concerns about drainage, interruptions to service at his house, and plans to secure the site to make it safe for children. He is also worried about access to other homes during construction. The Chairman explains to him that some of his concerns are outside the scope of this Commission and advises him to consult the Building Department. Drainage may be addressed by the Conservation Commission. Tom Devine confirms that this is a grandfathered, buildable lot. The Chairman explains that impervious surfaces will drain to the street; the rear part of the house will permeate into the ground and the front will drain into the street, not onto abutting properties. Concerns about safety, ledge and blasting, plus damage to surrounding homes, would go before the Building Department. Chairman Pabich asks if there is enough soil for burying a drainage system behind the house. Mr. Roy says he has not looked at it'yet. There would have to be some soil there. The Chairman says it can be conditioned. • He then asks Mr. Medico if the stormwater system installed upon the development of the street functions well;he has not seen any issues. It fills up with very little water. One ditch gets none, 3 while the other gets a maximum of 6" during major rain events. He doesn't know if that's built correctly. Chairman Pabich says water should flow from one to the other, then into the wetland. Mr. Medico doesn't know who is in charge of maintaining the system, but he weed whacks the one near his house, as he has called the city to maintain it but no one ever comes down. DiBiase built the parcels in the development. There is a question about who owns the parcels that the ditches are on. Ledgewood Hills realty trust is listed on the abutters list according to Roy. Chairman Pabich suggests a site visit and says normally a developer must make a homeowners' association maintain drainage; we do not know if one was formed at that time to take care of it. The site visit is scheduled for Feb. 10th at 5PM (tentatively, pending Mr. Roy's client's OK). Mr. Roy and/or the applicant should be present and corners of the house should be staked. Chairman Pabich invites Mr. Medico to the site visit and points out that all utilities are already stubbed out to the lot, so no work should be taking place in the street. A motion to continue to Febuary 10'' is made by Christie, seconded by McCauley, and passes unanimously. 7. Old/New Business,continued DEP#64-492, 72 Flint St. (former Salem Suede), discussion of concrete slabs Tom Devine went to the Salem Suede site, but did not see anything due to snow cover. The applicant took pictures between snow storms; the Commission reviews the photos. A whole truck's worth of concrete was poured in to fill the voids in the slab. Some voids were cut into • and prepped before filling, and it looks like they tried to fill them with gravel first but were unsuccessful. The Chairman comments on the machines in the photo, which are not on this parcel and are on an abutter's land, but are improperly placed directly alongside the river. They have been there since the first site visit and are not in the buffer zone but actually in the resource area. The Chairman comments that this is how the area should have looked the day after they ripped the building down last spring. This most recent work was completed on Jan. 5`", and the buildings were demolished before the meeting on Jan. 14, 2010; we don't know when the process started but that's when it was finished. If fines are levied for this violation, they would amount to $36,500 which accrued during that year. The previous fine (a single $200 fine daily even though there were eight violations) is for the amount of$12,200 and is being paid in installments. The former amount would be in addition to the fine already in place and would cover from a week after the building came down, through completion of sealing the slab on Jan. 5`". The Chairman debates leniency in only fining them$100 a day, though the Commission could fine them more. Groundwater sampling, or lack thereof, is discussed. Slabs were penetrated in 9 areas for soil review; the Commission wanted to see contamination at a"non-reportable level" and was not expecting pristine conditions. Bruce Poole, who was neither an engineer nor an LSP, had opined that no further testing was needed, and also that what they found was not the "wrong" kind of • chromium. 4 r • Chairman Pabich worries that the conditions were not explicit enough re: sealing the slab but McCauley says that the intent was clear—the slab should be sealed and no water should pass through. The Chairman wants to go back, count the number of days water could have gone through slab, and fine the applicant for that number of days, minus one week for prep and repair. Devine suggests inviting attorney Scott Grover to discuss the matter before issuing fines. The Chairman opines that this has been discussed too many times with the applicant already but also agrees with the Conservation Agent. Beth Rennard should be consulted to make sure the Commission is on solid legal footing so that Mr. Grover does not find any openings to appeal, and to avoid further"circular discussions" like the ones that occurred at previous meetings. Mr. Grover had previously mentioned to Devine that his client would be asking for a Certificate of Compliance once the slab was fixed. However, there are two issues: first, the question of Commission's willingness to issue the certificate, and second, the legality of doing so. According to Ms. Rennard, who Devine consulted, there are no legal issues, so the Commission can condition the Certificate on the full payment of the fines. One installment has already been paid late and the general feeling of the Commission is that the applicant has been given lots of leeway and that this does not merit further flexibility. The Commission is inclined to hold the Certificate of Compliance until the fines are paid. The Chairman opines that some Commissions are much stricter with their fines, which are much higher. • Christie says that some Conservation Commissions do not allow any building whatsoever in a buffer zone, and McCauley opines that that would be a good discussion to have. Chairman Pabich states that it's a matter of modifying local bylaws. This can be discussed with the Conservation Agent but would also need to garner public support to be successful. Devine says he would like to discuss gaps in the Wetlands Protection Act that can be filled by local ordinances, with other conservation agents. Knisel discusses other possible projects. This could be tied into climate change and the need to adapt wetlands. Our local floodplain ordinance is being updated to reflect changing of flood zones; this is standard, and will be before the Planning Board. For the update of the Wetlands and Flood Hazard Overlay District Ordinance, the Conservation Commission really has no role in this. The map references for wetlands will be updated since currently they are using 1977 wetlands. This planning board will review this and make a recommendation to the City Council,and they are the body that issues permits under the ordinance. Anything in a resource area or buffer zone, as always, goes before the Conservation Commission. The City Engineer wants to move forward with a stormwater ordinance, in final draft form, and the way it is worded now Conservation Commission jurisdiction would expand to include construction projects affecting stormwater everywhere, not just in resource areas. The Commission would review far more projects, anything disturbing a certain threshold of land. McCauley would like a copy of the draft, which will be reviewed by this Commission, who will • then make recommendations to the City council. The Chairman opines that this all makes sense, as many drainage issues come into a resource area, especially if it is just outside of a resource 5 area/buffer zone. McCauley feels the Commission should review this and have someone knowledgeable help them explore the boundaries of everything, not just certain segments, so they don't overlook anything. Since the City did not draft the language for the stormwater ordinance, Chairman Pabich suggests having the authors review it; they could be hired by the Conservation Commission. He would also like such a presenter to get a sense for who is in the audience so the document is accessible to all. This should be done before the Commission makes its recommendations to the City Council; McCauley opines that the dialogue should start now so that the Commission is familiar with the processes and how to review proposals. Devine wants to go to a Ih day conference, and is asking permission to spend $25 + mileage. Christie motions to approve his request, McCauley seconds, and all approve. McCauley may want to go to the MACC conference. The Winter Island master plan process has begun; the first public meeting will be in early February. Christie asks if it's based on the study from several years ago; it is a new plan that will draw on previous ones. We want something final to move forward on. Chairman Pabich asks how much jurisdictional area the Commission has with the Lowe's/Walmart project on Highland Ave. They want to move an intermittent stream and are filling close to the maximum permittable amount of wetlands. There has been no ruling yet from the DEP on the appealed Order of Resource Area Delineation for the property. A peer reviewer may be justified for this major project. A motion to adjourn is made by Knisel , seconded by Christie and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 7:36PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on February 10, 2011. 6 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting January 13, 2011 Name Mailing Address Phone Email 4 ZS -a2uv w-J v� aa-- << ( i� cuf✓a ,Lon. Lv a b e�'ll « 6c °� ?$ -66q- S1g1 (V-!Y, r r Y • CITY OF SALEM ' CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING CITY CLi'.F„S, .; You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,January 27,2011 at 6:00 PMat City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Jo,,,-p Al,�k i �E David A. Pabich, PE Chairman MEETINGAGENDA 1- Meeting Minutes—Ianuary 13,2010 Meeting 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-509—Barbara Bowman, 8 Dearborn Lane, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of coastal Beach, coastal Bank, and land subject to coastal storm flowage at S Dearborn Lane. 3- Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64511—Fortunate Son Realty Trust (Craig Burnham), 14 Franklin St., Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the after- the-fact clearing and grading within a riverfront area and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 and 10 Franklin St. 4. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Lewis Legon,44 Columbus Ave.,Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed removal of an existing porch and.construction of a new house addition,patio, steps, and driveway within land subject to coastal storm flowage and within buffer zones to a coastal bank and a salt marsh at 44 Columbus Ave. 5. Old/New Business • 441 Lafayette St, violation update • DEP#64-492, 72 Flint St. (former Salem Suede), discussion of concrete slabs • DEP#64-420, Leggs Hill YMCA, Request for Certificate of Compliance p4tit;e pott T hi: ed on "O lil hal Bulletin IBoard” City Hall ,talent, taiason at 16 Pmt �A �► 20 of #A. Page i of i Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting January 27, 2011 Name Mailing Address Phone pEmail G 2 � � r� pwz__t�m 3 Co $'Z k44 -6p Bd.r� 5- - 603 -ante 93 7Ss7y'f--O!� 46 �S 1 / car, -777 b zr�o '7 eek I lip Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,January 27,2011,6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairman David Pabich,Julia Knisel, Michael Blier, Dan Ricciarelli,Amy Hamilton Members Absent: Rebecca Christie, Carole McCauley Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chairman Pabich calls the meeting to order at 6:11PM. i. Meeting Minutes—January 13, 2011 Meeting There is not a quorum of members who were present at the January 13 meeting. A motion to table the minutes is made by Knisel, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. z. Continuation of Public Hearing-Notice of Intent—DEP#64-509—Barbara Bowman, 8 Dearborn Lane, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of coastal Beach, coastal Bank, and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane. The applicant requests to continue to the next meeting and does not know when he will be ready. Devine did ask him when he thought he would be ready but he did not know. A motion to continue is made by Blier, seconded by Knisel and passes unanimously. 3. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-511—Fortunate Son Realty Trust (Craig Burnham), 14 Franklin St., Salem, MA. The purpose of thishearing is to discuss the after-the-fact clearing and grading within a riverfront area and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 and 10 Franklin St. Luke Fabbri of Geological Field Services represents Fortunate Son. The continuation from the last meeting was because the stormwater report was in progress and not included with the original NOI. There were also some questions on how to deal with Standard 8, requiring erosion control during construction; as this had already happened and it was an enforcement order. He spoke to MA DEP regarding this, who said the rest of the checklist must be completed. Mr. Fabbri has prepared the stormwater report checklist, reviewed by Robert Griffin, PE in Beverly. He describes the ten standards, some of which must be met in their entirety and some which must be met "to the maximum extent practical." All were met to the former standard, except for 5 and 6, which were met to the maximum extent practical and have to do with land use with a high potential of contaminant loads and critical areas, respectively. There is a pollution prevention plan in place and there are no point source discharges of stormwater, thus no treatment for #5.-Mr. Fabbri states that the work done will improve discharges. The applicant has been notified of the prohibition on certain discharges. Blier asks if the stormwater report has been delivered; the Commission has it in front of them. 1 Blier is looking for actual calculations, but they are not required in this case. Chairman Pabich points out that the five page summary is the report. Blier comments that there was no great change of grade at the site; the concern was lack of storage. The Chairman says that the . argument of removing the structures is a good one./Mr. Fabbri says that you can use Google Earth to go back to 1995 and see aerial photos; you can see some of the boats that were removed in 2610, that have been there since 1995. He opines that the site is better than it was even though appropriate procedures were not followed. The applicant will come before the commission again to repair bulkheads Chairman Pabich opens to public – there are no comments. Devine says the DEP looked at it, and also had no comments. Blier signs an affidavit so he can vote on the matter, as he did not attend the last hearing. Mr. Fabbri asks about next steps, wondering if an Order of Conditions would be issued and if he would then request a Certificate of Compliance. He asks how the enforcement order can be satisfied. Obtaining a valid Order of Conditions will fulfill it. The Chairman comments that after issuing the Order, the applicant must wait for the 10-day appeal period, then can request a Certificate of Compliance. Chairman Pabich suggests a special condition that storage of hydraulic material (such as the crane currently on the property) must be kept on landward side, not the seaward side, and 100' from the bulkhead. Knisel asks if this is covered under the plan–that no materials stored on site; this is to clarify. Devine asks if the crane is stationary; it can be moved. Knisel motions to issue an Order of Conditions, is seconded by Hamilton, and the motion passes unanimously. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Lewis Legon, 44 Columbus Ave., Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed removal of an existing porch and construction of a new house addition, patio, steps, and driveway within land subject to coastal storm flowage and within buffer zones to a coastal bank and a salt marsh at 44 Columbus Ave. Illustrations: Proposed Site Plan of Land Jan. 18`s 2010 and Existing Site Plan of Land, Jan 6a' 2011. Photos of the property with proposed work areas outlined are also displayed. Here for Mr. Legon is Scott Patrowicz. Patricia Berking, fellow applicant, is also present. Mr. Patrowicz describes the setup of the proposed work on Columbus Ave. The addition is proposed for the location of the existing porch and landing. There is an elevation higher than 10 all around the property; the 100 year flood level is at elevation 10, but the property is subject to coastal storm flowage due to a gap in the seawall at Steps Beach. A two story addition will be in the footprint of the porch, but they must put in a new foundation. A structural engineer is working on the details of that. They would also like to put a driveway where there is currently a walkway. A snow fence would be installed around the perimeter to catch windblown debris. No silt fence is needed as the wall is higher than the lawn around it and has no defects. They will also remove some landscaping and remove the existing porch of 315 square feet. A new foundation would be installed, and the addition of 420 square feet built. A new patio area would be installed on an area of the lawn– it will be brick pavers set in sand, of 320 square feet, then some landscaping. A new driveway in the front would also be installed for 2 cars off-steet parking. 2 r 41 There is no DEP File number yet. Mr. Patrowicz hands Devine the cards for the project. Chairman Pabich asks if there are plans for replacing removed vegetation; there will be • landscaping done in the back and around the driveway. Currently there are evergreen Yews there and maybe a juniper. The large tree may need to come down. Chairman Pabich would like to see proposed plantings added. Patrowics notes that he needs to correct the date on the plans (listed as Jan. 2010). Blier asks about proposed material for the patio; they will be brick or brick pavers,set in sand, flush with the grade. Knisel asks about material for the driveway; Mr. Patrowicz is going to ask for asphalt. Chairman Pabich and Mr. Patrowicz discuss the parking situation at the location. The curb cut for the driveway is 22'. The Chairman clarifies that flood elevation is 10 and the applicant would like to fill in an area 20 x 5 x.5'. Blier asks if the house has a basement; it does and so will the addition; basements would be connected in the new addition and existing house. The Chairman asks if utilities in the basement are off the ground; they are. The home and the addition must be compliant with flood zone building codes. Devine asks about the impact the work will have on the salt marsh; there will be none as work is contained by the wall. All dirt will be removed as there is nowhere to put it. Chairman Pabich asks if it is a full height basement; both existing and proposed are. Knisel asks about splashover on seawall; there is, over the whole length of the seawall. Mr. Patrowicz says that some other seawalls have washed out. Knisel asks if because of that they considered doing without a basement. Mr. Patrowicz says flood storage change is very small and they are choosing to have a • basement since that is more practical than to consider raising the amount of water in the ocean by an infinitesimal amount. As there is no DEP number, the hearing will have to be continued and the Commission would like a site visit. Chairman Pabich opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to continue is made by Blier, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. A site visit is scheduled for Feb. 10'' at 5:30PM. 4. Old/New Business DEP#64-420, Leggs Hill YMCA, Request for Certificate of Compliance This item was taken out of order, as Mr. Patrowicz is involved and the Commission would like his input. Ricciarelli recuses himself from this issue. Devine reports that he could see that the hill was graded and vegetated, and the riprap removed and covered, which was the desired result. There are erosion controls still there and the Certificate would be conditioned on the timely removal of these. There was also a deed restriction issue that slowed things down, but has been sorted out. Mr. Patrowicz was not involved in the original design, but did help design the extra parking • spaces. Nick Menino was the contractor and has said he will remove the erosion controls, but they have been buried in snow. The Chairman asks if the toe of the slope has been completed according to the original plan; it has, and it was walked even though there was some snow there 3 it could still be seen A motion to issue the Certificate with the condition of removal of erosion controls is made by • Blier, seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously (4-0, Riciarelli recused). • 441 Lafayette St, violation update Devine updates the Commission; there was a boat ramp and float in the salt marsh here; the resident was asked to move it, which she did, and although she moved it, it is still on the bank, and in the resource area. It has been pulled out of the most critical area. Suzanne Green, of 441 Lafayette St., is here to request options going forward; Devine feels they should allow her to keep the float and ramp where they are until boating season, then find other storage next time around. It must be permitted if she wants to keep it where it is. Ms. Green asks what a resource area is; in this case it is the salt marsh and coastal bank. Chairman Pabich clarifies that if there was upland on the site, it could be used, but it is not practical. A permitted location in the resource area, or an upland location, should be used for storage next summer. If she has a Ch. 91 license for the float where she uses in summertime, it could stay there, but the resident says it gets too much weather. The solution proposed by the Commission is to leave it where it is for now, especially as it was not specified to the owner that it must be completely out of the resource area. Then she must store it elsewhere at the end of the next season. Devine says that it may have already had an impact on the salt marsh; if vegetation does not grow back the Commission will have address that. • So far the only item in the file on this issue is the letter requesting that Ms. Green move the items in question; nothing else. The Chairman states that the Commission will issue a letter outlining the above. The items are secure where they are now. ■ DEP#64-492, 72 Flint St. (former Salem Suede), discussion of concrete slabs There is a letter from the City Solicitor, which Devine passes to Commissioners and also gives to some members of the public. The letter outlines the Solicitor's opinions on further fining the applicant, and the Commission reviews the letter. The letter indicates that fines may not be levied punitively, and without prior notice to the applicant, but at the same time, the Commission has chosen to hold off issuing a Certificate of Compliance until the previous fine is paid. However, new fines may not be levied retroactively as the applicants were not notified that they would be fined. They should have been notified in writing at the beginning of the process when the Commission brought up the violations. Scott Grover, representing Salem Suede, speaks. Based on a letter submitted, Jacob Butterworth, environmental scientist for Salem Suede, had agreed to monitor the site during rain events, and make sure that concrete patches are effective, and will contact Devine to arrange a site visit during a rain event. Devine has been out in the snow, but not melting snow and rain. Chairman • Pabich states that scrutiny will be given to erosion controls when the snow starts to melt. He does not feel that the erosion control is up to par right now. 4 r The Chairman does not entirely agree with the letter but will accept its findings. He opens to the public • Jane Arlander of 93 Federal St. Comments on the NOI to take down Salem Suede — a project completed on 8/27/09. On the NOI is a section asking if any resource areas are impacted; "fish run" is one of them but the box is not checked, despite the fact that the state receives federal dollars to do smelt counts at the North River. These fish measure the health of the river. She is concerned that the North River is a fish run, and Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coast Watch confirmed that it is, though this was not checked. If a second NOI is submitted this should be included. Mr. Grover says he will make the engineer aware of that. Loreen Scanlon of 77 Mason St. states that she heard work being done one morning at the Salem Suede site, and wants to know what was going on. Mr. Grover is not aware of any work; Ms. Scanlon says police were called but no one is aware of anything happening. Devine asks Mr. Grover to check on this issue. Jim Treadwell, of 36 Felt St., speaks. He is curious about the timeline of the project and whether Chapter 91 will be considered and will have influence on public access. The Commission comments that the NOI before it does not discuss future plans, but Mr. Grover says he will outline them briefly. The applicant is in the process of obtaining a Chapter 91 license, which is why they were in front of the Historical Commission. Also, the Order of Conditions from Conservation Commission • must be met; they must file an NOI with this Commission for cleanup of the site, which should be filed by April 2011. Cleanup will begin in the spring. The Chapter 91 license should be issued in early fall so that redevelopment can occur later in the fall. Mr. Treadwell asks about review of the site on MEPA law. It will not require an environmental impact report but will require an ENF process; the consultant is Susan St. Pierre from Salem. There will be a MEPA review. Pierre Pelletier, of 120 Federal St., asks about soil samples. The Commission states that the upcoming cleanup will involve soil sampling. Mr. Treadwell asks about the MEPA review and consideration of the impact on wetlands. There will be some impact and it will have to do with this Commission, and is part of the Chapter 91 license. Devine comments on the Solicitor's letter—there is an imperfection in our local ordinance where we should be using 21 D, local ticketing to fine/enforce the Wetlands Protection Act, but there is a line missing from local bylaw that enables that. Would we like to request an amendment to this local bylaw? The Chairman agrees and the Conservation Commission is on record requesting this change. Devine has also talked to Chairman Pabich about the Salem/Peabody Brownfield, assessment grant; the Commission will hold a public session about that. The funding is for assessment for cleaning properties for redevelopment. This would go beyond the usual permitting and require a go-ahead from the Commission. They agree with the concept. Weston and Sampson, on behalf 5 of the City of Salem and the MAPC, would run the session. It would have to come at the beginning of the agenda on a lighter meeting agenda day, and would not require a quorum. Knisel asks about timing for this funding. It is a 3 year grant, with 1 year in, and could be done • at the Feb. 24th meeting as thus far there are not many agenda items then. There will be targeted mailings and the usual publicity through the planning department. The Commission requested a draft of the new stormwater ordinance; it was distributed and Knowlton (the City Engineer) is interested in a Conservation Commission discussion before it goes into effect. On Feb. 2"d at 6:30PM, the first Winter Island Master Plan public meeting will be held. Devine puts in a request to use Commission funds to go to a conference; as an APA (American Planning Association) New Professional, he gets discounts and this year it is being held in Boston. The cost is $295 +commuter rail fare. Devine will see various case studies, how other municipalities do things, and also will participate in discussions with other environmental professionals and expand his network. A motion to grant funds is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. A motion to adjourn is made by Blier, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 7:28PM. Respectfully submitted, • Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on February 10, 2011. • 6 / X11^�� . •. '' a CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION y NOTkEOFMEETING ' FILE # You are here noti CITY CLERK, SAL-EM, MASS. by fred that the Salem Conservatidn Commission wiU hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Tbtustlay,February 10,2011 at 6 00 PMat City Hall Annex,Room 313, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. x Did Rich David A.Pabrch, PE Chairman MEETIIVGAGEIVDA �- Meeting Minutesiaauary 13,2011 and January,27,'20117meetings z. Continuation of Public Herring—Notice of Intent, DEP#64 513—Lewis Legon,44;Columbus Ave., Salem,MA The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed removal of an existing porch and construction of a new house addition,patio; steps,and driveway within land subject to coastal storm flowage and within buffet zones to a coastal bank and'a salt marsh at 44,Columbus Ave. 3• Continuation of Eublie Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-509—Barbara Bowman, 8 • Dearborn Lane, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the.proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with1 .riprap within a portion of coastal Beach, coastal Bank, and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane.Applicant requests 14; 2011 meeting to con timte to the April q. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—MassDOT,519 Appleton Street,Arlington, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed drainage line repair on Loring Ave. at the Forest River crossing he proposed work includesalteration of a coastal bank and is within a riverfront area and a buMT zone to a salt marsh. Applicant request to continuto the Mar meeting ch 10,2011 5• Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-512—Frank Lanzi11o, 150 Centre St.,Danvers,MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed'construction of a single family house and appurtenances within a buffer zone of a bordering vegetated wetland at 23 Parlee St. 6. Old/New Business ■ DEP#64-511, 8 and 10 Franklin St.,Notice of Project Change TM* ttofoe posted on "O ictal BBQ _tin Boar' City Hail Salem, Masa, on �eG. 3, zori at 9;a�if+L/ WO Cites. 39 a$A ® M. of lb". Page i of 1 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting February 10, 2011 Name Mailing Address Phone Email LLQ �dN�ctt �4tsac.� L3`( 1�ar� S� N . `PS - 664-01 ` 1 A CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COM r.; • MISSION 1611,FE8;73 ` A or 25 FILE # CITY CLERK, SALEt , h1 t S. City of Salem Conservation Commission Will hold a site visit at 44 Columbus Avenue on Thursday,February 10 at 5:30 pm..The purpose of the site visit is to inspect the project site where the following activities have,been proposed: . removal of-an existing porch and construction of a new house addition,patio, steps, and driveway within land subject to coastal storm fl marsh. owage and within buffer zones to.a coastal bank and a salt, Davi A, Pabich, P.E. Chairman • Tttls lobe pvoed otl "®"WW Bt l Board' CRy Wall_ Salem, Mass. on at 26A 6► of id* `a4' ��' •. .CITY OFT SALEM CONSERVATION COM MISSION 1011 FILE: # 'e. CITY CLEuki SALEM, i A95. City of Salem. Conservation Commission ' Will hold a site visit at 23 Parlee Street on Thursday,February_10 at 5:00 pm The purpose of the site visit is to inspect the project site where the following activities have been,proposed:construction of a single family house and appurtenances within a buffer zone ofa bordering vegetated wetland. David A. Pabich, P.E. Chairman C e� Ce Pouted an "djodal Bt�it eosb" at9. ,gam ��BeM, plass. on 3 ��� Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,February 10,2011,6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairman David Pabich,Michael Blier,Dan Ricciarelli, Amy Hamilton,Rebecca Christie, Carole McCauley Members Absent: - Julia Knisel Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chairman Pabich calls the meeting to order at 6:12PM. i. Meeting Minutes—January 13,2011 and January 27,2011 meetings A motion to approve the minutes from January 13s' is made by McCauley, seconded by Christie and passes unanimously (3-0). Ricciarelli, Blier and Hamilton do not vote due to their absence from the above meeting. Devine notes two minor errors. A motion to approve the minutes from the January 27"' meeting with corrections is made by Blier, seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously (4-0). Hamilton and McCauley do not vote due to their absence from the above meeting. • z. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-513—Lewis Legon, 44 Columbus Ave., Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed removal of an existing porch and construction of a new house addition, patio, steps, and driveway within land subject to coastal storm flowage and within buffer zones to a coastal bank and a salt marsh at 44 Columbus Ave. Illustrations: Proposed Site Plan of Land Jan. 18s'2010 and Existing Site Plan of Land, Jan 6`h 2011. Photos of the property with proposed work areas outlined are also displayed. Here for Mr. Legon is Scott Patrowicz. Patricia Berking and Lewis Legon are also present. The applicant asks if the Commission has any further questions. The Chairman asks about roadside erosion control. Mr. Patrowicz says that because the seawall is higher than the edge, they will put up a snow fence to catch blowing material but there is no erosion control planned for street side. Chairman Pabich suggests a silt fence across from the stairs to the seawall, but Mr. Patrowicz says the area drains across the lawn towards'the street, but that area will be needed for access. Hay bales could be placed in the gutter line. The-Chairman asks if there is a catch basin; there is one but it is far down from site so erosion could be caught before it hits that point. Filter fabric is discussed and approved as a solution. Mr. Patrowicz says the area will be monitored and swept; Chairman Pabich says housekeeping is critical so that nothing goes onto the street and gets washed away. He then asks about a planting plan; it was discussed that Devine would come to the site to • discuss it but there will not be a formal plan by a landscape architect. He would like to save the 1 I larger plants. Planning would be done just prior to planting, after hardscape is installed. Two weeks prior to planting, there could be another site visit to view the hardscape, then planting could occur. Blier asks if the brick terrace in the back will be flush to the ground — it will be. It will be brick pavers on sand. Blier asks about a large tree, which is staying though the large shrubs are going. Chairman Pabich asks about stockpiling soils — it will be hauled away directly as there is no room for storage. Material that drains better will be brought in as well. The Chairman opens to the public. Anne Powers is present to represent the concerns of her mother, Rosamond Powers, who lives at 1 Dustin Street, across from the site. Ms. Powers is concerned about drainage and how it may affect water being drained into the street and her mother's basement, as there are already problems with water there. Seawater can also enter the basement. Mr. Patrowicz says that the road is crowned, so drainage from this lot, which is not substantial, just from the front portion, will drain into the street but will flow into the gutter on the sea side of the neighbor's property. It would have to be a global event for it to affect Dustin St., since the water will be staying on the side of the property. McCauley asks if the road floods in general — it does — and ocean water sometimes floods the entire street; the whole neighborhood is underwater in a 100 year flood. The applicant feels the • additional amount will be inconsequential. Also, any water coming off the addition will go into the backyard like it does now. Chairman Pabich says there will be an additional couple hundred square feet of impervious surface. The negligible amount of additional water compared to what already flows into the area is discussed. FEMA has mapped the whole neighborhood as a flood area. Anne Powers then asks about the snow fence and Mr. Patrowicz explains its setup, and that it will be temporary. McCauley asks about material for the porch, if it will be pavers and sand. She asks if it will be permeable or if the sand compacts with time. Chairman Pabich says it should be permeable, and Mr. Patrowicz says it is not as permeable as the lawn, but it drains back toward the seawall and some landscaping. Patrowicz says there are no scuppers or direct discharges through the wall. McCauley asks about material for the driveway. The requested permit is for asphalt but if budget allows they can do something else. Other materials have been considered, according to Mr. Legon, but budget is a factor. Chairman Pabich asked the people up the street to put in a gravel berm in a previous instance, but there was more work going on at that site. Does this site warrant it? Probably not. There will be some work on the City's concrete sidewalk so there can be a curb cut (he explains for the benefit of the neighbors). Permission has not yet been granted for that. Devine says the DEP comments that the addition should comply with FEMA's coastal flood construction guidance. Chairman Pabich asks if this was considered; it has been. DEP's comment will be conditioned. Blier says if there are changes to site plan based on complying with FEMA's guidance, the applicant will have to come back to the Commission. 2 J • A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Christie, and passes unanimously. An Order of Conditions is issued after affidavits are signed by Christie and McCauley as they were not present at the last meeting. A motion to issue is made by Hamilton, seconded by Christie, and passes unanimously. Conditions: Filter fabric for catch basin. DEP comment to conform to FEMA floodplain guidelines must be followed; if changes are made to comply the applicant must submit a Notice of Project Change. Diligent housekeeping measures must be kept on the sidewalk and street. The neighbors discuss the area and the flooding with the Commission. 3. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-509—Barbara Bowman, 8 Dearborn Lane, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of coastal Beach, coastal Bank, and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane. Applicant requests to continue to the April 14, 2011 meeting • Devine says legally the applicant can continue for 2 years but should be ready in the spring. A motion to continue is made by McCauley, seconded by Christie and passes unanimously. . 4. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—MassDOT, 519 Appleton Street, Arlington, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed drainage line repair on Loring Ave. at the Forest River crossing. The proposed work includes alteration of a coastal bank and is within a riverfront area and a buffer zone to a salt marsh. Applicant request to continue to the March 10, 2011 meeting There is no DEP File number yet as their fee has not cleared. A motion to continue is made by Blier, seconded by Christie, and passes unanimously. 5. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-512—Frank Lanzillo, 150 Centre St., Danvers, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within a buffer zone of a bordering vegetated wetland at 23 Parlee St. Here for Mr. Lanzillo is Luke Roy with O'Neill Associates. He displays a Site plan dated December 20, 2010. He summarizes the current situation, outlining how the Commission wanted to explore the current drainage system at the end of Parlee St. and determine whose responsibility it is. The Planning Department determined that it is the City's responsibility and references approval by the town engineer, but it is not certain whether such approval was obtained. The Chairman would like to see that it was approved as the approval by the city would 3 be contingent upon an as-built plan. He says the developer has developed the neighborhood • subdivision with a detention pond, forebay, etc., yet there is never any water in it. There is no crown, and the catch basins are such that water flows down the middle of the street to the end, between the basins before it discharges into the wetland. Chairman Pabich says he worries that this will continue the problem and wonders if they need to follow up with the City. It is uncertain whether it was designed but not implemented properly, and whether it was accepted by the City. This lot was not part of the original subdivision. McCauley says it behooves the applicant to know who handles the discharge; if it is the City then the applicant should clear that with the City. Basically they would be asking permission to discharge into an already-failing system. The situation should be explored for the benefit of the resource. Chairman Pabich opines that the party responsible for fixing it would depend on who accepted it in the first place — if the design itself was shoddy or if implementation was at issue. Mr. Roy states that he examined the plan for the area and it appears that it was meant to be swaled, but he is not sure that it was. The original plan is reviewed and discussed. Chairman Pabich says they can condition that it drains into a functioning collection system. Devine distributes affidavits as Blier, Ricciarelli,and Hamilton were not present at the prior meeting. Hamilton signs an affidavit so she may vote in a quorum. The applicant prefers to close with the above mentioned condition, rather than continuing. The Chairman says it will be conditioned to discharge into a collection system provided it was built as designed, and if not, the applicant should return to make adjustments. Devine suggests the • possibility that changes could be significant enough to require filing an amendment, paying a second time for an ad in the paper and going through the trouble of re-notifying abutters. Mr. Roy talks about timing and says the process could be drawn out; the applicant prefers not to prolong the process. A letter from an engineer saying the system is functioning as designed would be sufficient. McCauley says the City will have to do something about it, and Chairman Pabich says they won't unless there is a complaint. McCauley asks if this Commission will lodge such a complaint. They will, but first they need confirmation that it's working or not. Chairman Pabich opens to the public, but there are no comments. A motion to close the hearing is made by Christie, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. A motion to issue an Order of Conditions is made by McCauley, seconded by Christie, and passes unanimously. Conditions: Certification from an engineer that the stormwater system functions as designed, confirming whether or not runoff goes into the system or discharges directly into the wetland. Questions remain about ownership, if the City knows they own it (this is not a condition, but should be known); Devine will follow up. 6. Old/New Business • DEP#64-511, 8 and 10 Franklin St., Notice of Project Change • 4 Presenting is Luke Fabbri, of Geological Field Services, who received an Order of Conditions with a condition forbidding storage of heavy equipment within 100' of the North River. The property owner took exception as he has a Chapter 91 license that allows him to maintain a marine bulkhead and,railway to service boats. Mr. Fabbri was not aware that he was using the crane, but he is and would like to continue, as he has a dredging business next door. In the pollution prevention plan is a section on hydraulic equipment, which was a concern, and Mr. Fabbri wants to know if Condition 21 applies to the retroactive Order of Conditions, and if it remains in perpetuity; it does. The long-term pollution prevention plan says that storage of heavy equipment indicates high use, and triggers the Plan; the Plan requires routine inspections of equipment there, with no servicing of equipment by bringing in additional equipment, and he must use drip pans to service existing equipment. He wants to use the Chapter 91 license and crane to load and unload barges. Mr. Fabbri will come back with an engineering plan for the bulkhead and railroad and will request another Order of Conditions. Chairman Pabich asks about the specifics of the request. Mr. Fabbri says there is "no storage of equipment unless in conjunction with long term storage." Mr. Fabbri states that he understands that equipment leaks, but its owner says it doesn't. He does maintain his equipment well; he bought this property because it does have a Chapter 91 license to service marine vessels, and he can't reach his boats from 100' back under the current restrictions. Mr. Fabbri thinks as long as the owner complies with the long term pollution plan, it should be OK. The owner asked about storage vs. usage of equipment. Chairman Pabich says if it is mobile and being used you could move it outside the resource are to store it when NOT in use. He then asks if in the Pollution .. Prevention Plan requires spill kits to be onsite. They are not because there are no direct discharges. Chairman Pabich says the crane is right at the bulkhead, and Mr. Fabbri thinks having spill kit is reasonable. The Chairman asks what the options are. Mr. Fabbri would like a clarification on the condition that allows the owner to keep equipment within 100' of the river provided he complies with the Pollution Prevention Plan. Chairman Pabich says that a clause stating that a spill kit must be kept on the premises must be inserted into the Plan. However, this will be added as a condition. The movement of the crane is discussed as are nearby parcels of land. Pabich says it is a reasonable solution. The spill kit language will be added as a condition in perpetuity; procedurally this must be accepted as a minor change. Christie clarifies that this is a modification of Condition 21, to state now that marine-related hydraulic equipment will not be stored UNLESS there is a Spill Kit onsite. No other equipment, such as dump trucks, backhoes, etc. may be stored within 100' of the river. Devine will put this together. Limited-mobility marine equipment can stay near the bulkhead, while readily mobile non-marine equipment must be 100' out of the zone, but all hydraulic equipment near bulkhead must be accompanied by a spill kit onsite. Mr. Fabbri describes the spill kit and its contents. Chairman Pabich asks where on site the kit . will go. It is agreed that it should be affixed to something stationary to prevent its removal. Mr. 5 Fabbri continues that, according to the owner NOT being able to store equipment on the site • limits his use and its value. The Commission comments that there is a procedure to address that matter by obtaining a variance from the DEP. However, the owner does not want to do that, saying that if he is storing equipment, there should be tarmac to park it on. This can be addressed when the Commission reviews the next application for the property. A motion to approve the change is made by Christie, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. After the applicant departs, Devine speaks about approving minor changes—DEP recommends we phase this procedure out; the best way is with a full amendment. In this case we are doing applicant a favor by not requiring that he file an amendment which requires another legal ad and notification of abutters. The Commission approves of changing this process going for Any change other than a typo must be made with a full public hearing or new NOL Devine notes that there may be cases when approval of a minor change is a convenient option, but it should be generally avoided. The information session for the Brownfields Assessment Grant will be at the next meeting. There is no set date yet for the Commission's review of the stormwater ordinance. A motion to adjourn is made by Christie, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 7:15PM. Respectfully Submitted, • Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on February 24, 2011 6 � ? CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMIS SION NOTICEOFMEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on T kunday,Februoy 24,2011 at 6.00 PM at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. David A.Pabich,PE Chairman MEETTNGAGENDA y 6:00 p.m. rn 1. EPA Brownfields Assessment Grant Information Session—RepresentativesJf om the EPR, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council,and Weston&Sampson will discuss the$F000,0W EPA grant to assess environmental conditions on underutilized, former industrial properties. Th�iformation session will give potential participants a chance to learn about program benefits gLul eligibility requirements. « d, 6.45 p.m. 2. Meeting,Minutes—)r ebruary 10,,2011 a. Publie Hearing-Request for Determination of Applicability—John Peterson,210 Broadway, Lynn,MA The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within a buffer zone of bordering vegetated wetlands at 31 Intervale Rd. 4. Old/New Business ■ DEP #64482, 10 Blaney St., Salem Wharf Expansion Project: Notice of Project Change and discussion of project scope and timeline, Hugo Key and Sons, contractor • DEP#64496,245 Derby St., Hess Harborwalk: Request for Certificate of Compliance ■ DEP#64499, Furlong Park: Project update from TRC iad Oil "Ot d� I'M Boards TMO ire R� City Salem, Mtl�s. o l�, Uii ba pw"Ve A Amo# Page 1 of t Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting February 24, 2011 Name Mailing Address Phone Email vm .nst a 1,0_0 36 v,.-* S q✓erg 8 /Zptur4C. Z3 Lo1. is ed. %za6 97e-573-09LL C �Q r oQo� 3 �Zev-Cr1_ �/�2 700 %CYZ A,0f4 X15 .t fdve o9 ,-fti , tc f o�7 �GZI 7'i nAwvo tnwc92t y 6 u-2111 617-,M-7-7 746 X'2-012— � I..Pp. 8 -7�a,ti7 ��'` SL.,Ye, Bose / 77 9,7e 7211- d Iie 36 C.a 4 Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting • Date and Time: Thursday,February 24, 2011, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairman David Pabich,Dan Ricciarelli, Amy Hamilton,Rebecca Christie,Julia Knisel Members Absent: Carole McCauley, Michael Blier Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chairman Pabich calls the meeting to order at`6;05PM. 6:00 p.m. 1. EPA Brownfields Assessment Grant Information Session—Representatives from the EPA, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, and Weston & Sampson will discuss the $1,000,000 EPA grant to assess environmental conditions on underutilized, former industrial properties. The information session will give potential participants a chance to learn about program benefits and eligibility requirements. Martin Pillsbury of MAPC introduces the topic. The EPA has a grant program to help • communities assess and clean up brownfield (contaminated) lands. This is the Coalition Grant; usually they are granted individually to cities but in this case it is a partnership between Salem and Peabody. The grant is for$1 million over a 3-year period. Consultants (Weston & Sampson) have been engaged to develop the program; this is early in the process and site assessment is just starting to take place. George Naslas from Weston& Sampson continues. Mr. Naslas defines brownfields – these are former industrial and commercial sites that are unused or abandoned. They may have real or perceived environmental issues which are an impediment to redevelopment. They see them as opportunities. Goals of the program are to: • Remove blight • Protect environmental resources • Utilize existing infrastructure • Enhance local tax base • Create jobs • Increase property values • Promote area-wide planning This program will look at the area as a whole, not just individual properties. Jim Currier reviews. the specifics of the grant's goals and activities. They will: • Inventory potential sites • • Conduct community outreach • Phased assessment * Remedial action/reuse planning 1 • Primary focus —North River Corridor • Secondary focus —other sites Sites will be compared for participation in the program, then there will be a phased assessment to •_ explore historical use and environmental barriers. They then work with the community to plan for the end use of the property. Mr. Currier reviews a map of the program. Mr. Naslas speaks again, saying that they are looking for input from the community. Benefits of the program include: • Job creation in redevelopment area • Increase land value • Enhance community appearance • Increase community pride • Leverage additional investment Projects do not happen in isolation; they are part of a larger vision. Mr. Naslas opens up to Q&A. Some questions/comments from the public: Q: Are there properties that are worse than brownfields ("blackfields") that cannot be remediated? A: There are many options for various properties; sometimes it is a question of how many resources are available to put into it. Cost can be a determining factor in end use. For example, remediation for use as a parking lot would be less costly than for a playground. Q: If you have a site that is contaminated, the EPA makes you clean it up until it is safe. How • much of a benefit is provided to property owners and how much is their responsibility? A: Owners have an unused site they may want to get some value out of eventually. The bank will require due diligence before development; this program will do for you what you have to do anyway as far as exploration. If a problem is discovered, there are options. Again, commercial development requires less remediation than residential. Sometimes this EPA funding is available for such projects; it varies by case. The EPA representative says they work with people in a step- by-step process. Property value is what it's worth after it's cleaned. The questioner says that once they know, it must be cleaned up. EPA representative Alan Peterson agrees that if contamination is found, that it is the owner's responsibility, but at least they would have gotten a cleanup figure without spending any of their money, so the bank has those details. It is up to the owner. Q: How is the amount of benefits for each property determined? A: The maximum per property is $200,000; $50,000 is a more likely figure for assessment, including lab work. This does not include remediation. Phase 2 includes remediation planning. Knowing what you are facing as a property owner gives you more leverage. Q: Many properties in the corridor fit this description. How are they selected for this program? A: Right now they are at the preliminary stages. Interest, access, types of contaminants, health hazards, etc. are all factors. Inventory is going on now, as is community outreach. Stalled projects would be looked at. Q: Do the hurdles have to be environmental or can they,be more design issues? Those issues are • outside of the scope of brownfields; they look at properties where redevelopment hurdles are 2 A environmental. They are currently hoping for some property owners to come forward to determine fit. • Q: Salem Suede has been through phase 1 and is moving into phase two. Would they need to backtrack if they took part in the grant? A: It depends; they may be able to continue from the stage they're at, but it would have to be determined on an individual basis. Q: What is the timeframe on this project? A: The grant is up in 18 months so they would like to get started investigating properties; it may go into next year. Q: Must the money be placed into service or can it be earmarked? A: It must be used, not earmarked. Lynn Duncan, director of Planning and Community Development, comments that it is in the City's interest to move this process along. Criteria have been discussed, but they have no idea about the interest level yet; it is uncertain how competitive the process will be. Once they determine interest level, they will move forward. Q: If successful, will there be further grants? A: It is up to Salem and Peabody. Weston & Sampson are vested in this project and the community pride it will engender. Q: Will they go beyond the 114 bridge on North Street up to Furlong Park? A: Yes, although the North River Corridor is the primary focus, they will go beyond it. Lynn • Duncan states that that area is part of the priority. Q: If municipalities own easements, can there be assessments done there or must they be done on the whole property? A: The owner's permission must be obtained for work on the property itself but the easements are eligible. Q: What about soil testing and monitoring wells —is funding available? A: Yes, that is what the funding is for. Building demolition is not included, only assessment work. But this can include the risk characterization needed as part of preparation for demolition on a contaminated site. Q: "Environmental" can be used in the engineering sense or the neighborhood sense. There are several neighborhood associations along the corridor and outreach to them is suggested. There is a neighborhood master plan for the corridor (which won a SmartGrowth award from the state). The Corps will not be ready to present its findings (on flood zones) until the spring; will that slow the process? A: No it will not slow them down. Q: Does the inventory process depend on owners reaching out to the company or will they target owner's directly? A: They will use a variety of factors and a combination of the above. This is part of the reason • they're doing outreach. Notices have been sent to property owner within the North River canal area to notify them of this meeting. 6:45 p.m. 3 2. Meeting Minutes—February 10,2011 A motion to approve the minutes is made by Christie, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes • unanimously. Knisel did not vote due to her absence at that meeting. 3. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—John Peterson, 210 Broadway, Lynn, MA The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within a buffer zone of bordering vegetated wetlands at 31 Intervale Rd. Illustration: Exhibit Plan - 31 Intervale Rd. - Feb. 21, 2011 Devine has received updated plans which he hands out. John Peterson also has a plan in hand. There will be some minimum grading for the driveway; he describes the setup of the pavement and use of the silt fence. The Chairman says he assumes no delineation of wetlands; they were delineated in 2001 for some other properties, but nothing recent has been done. The other properties did encroach on the buffer zone. Chairman Pabich states that the proximity to wetlands is an individual question relative to the parcel. The Chairman says that it is an undeveloped lot at the edge of the buffer zone; his only question is about proximity. Wetlands line on record are not official but an approximation. The data is from the early 90's aerial images, not ground surveys. An approximation by observation of a wetlands scientist should be given and presented to the Commission, but a site visit could also be scheduled instead. Ricciarelli points out the high elevation. • Elevations are further discussed and the Chairman states that due to the elevation they probably do not need a site visit. The Chairman opens to the public but there are no comments. The applicant says he discussed this with the abutters who have no concerns about runoff, etc. Chairman Pabich says he is comfortable issuing a negative Determination. Christie motions to close the public hearing, Ricciareli seconds, and the motion passes unanimously. Hamilton motions to issue a negative 3 Determination, is seconded by Ricciarelli, and the motion passes unanimously. A permit will be sent to the property owner which will need to be recorded at the Registry of Deeds. 4. Old/New Business ■ DEP #64-482, 10 Blaney St., Salem Wharf Expansion Project: Notice of Project Change and discussion of project scope and timeline, Hugo Key and Sons, contractor Illustration: Layout and Materials Plan- Site Development, (December 20, 2010) Here for the City is Ron Bourne, engineer, and Sandy Key, contractor. This was to be a full pier, is boardwalk and dredging. Due to budget constraints that will not happen at this present time. He discusses grants and project financing that will allow them to build a segment of the pier. They 4 will return to the Commission again for further work. • Changes include: Work in Blaney St. hooking up utilities; a 24" stormwater line connecting to their system was requested and not in the previous order; also some manholes have been relocated. The Chairman says that he spoke with the City Engineer and he had discussed this line, which is intended to reduce flooding in the area. There is also some work going on with tidegates; this line would enhance street drainage. Mr. Bourne says that as the Boardwalk is not being built in this phase, they have put a timber rail along the edge for safety. The last item is the terminal building, which will be a smaller, temporary building. The Chairman confirms that the intent would be to enlarge the building at a later date. Mr. Key describes the erosion controls that will be put in place. Chairman Pabich asks if there is an AUL(Activities and Use Limitation) on the property—there is. . The Chairman also asks about the truck washing station and this is discussed; there is a sedimentation collecting basin that is lined to remove contaminants, releasing only freshwater. All material on the site is treated the same and will be disposed of accordingly. Hay bales and silt fence will be all along one property border. They also discuss excavation along the wall and use of geotextile fabric there. Christie asks about the archaeological significance on the plan that they are avoiding. It is a pre- Columbian finding of flakes of manmade materials; testing was done and they were determined to be possibly significant; they are fairly deep but must be avoided. Divers had also found timbers out there but were determined not to have significance. Devine asks for clarification of erosion controls on the plan, and they are outlined further. The Chairman recaps the plan, including excavation, filter fabric placement, and timber barriers. Hamilton asks about relocation of stormwater treatment systems and Mr. Bourne outlines its placement. Ricciarelli asks if the building has a foundation; it does and will be tied to City water and sewer. Barbara Warren speaks, saying she will get people calling her on this, concerned about contamination from dust blowing. Mr. Bourne states that there are dust control measures in place. Much of the surface will be paved after the seawall is completed. Devine reminds the Commission that approval of minor changes should be phased out, per DEP, but he recommends approval of these four minor changes. Christie motions to approve four minor changes, is seconded by Knisel, and the motion passes unanimously. Changes are: -Connection to Derby St. stormwater system • Relocation of stormwater treatment system -Installation of a timber guard rail system -Installation of a smaller terminal building 5 1; t • DEP#64-496, 295 Derby St., Hess Harborwalk: Request for Certificate of Compliance Will have to table this as an inspection was done; benches were not up to City specifications and • they will need to return at a later date. DEP#64-489, Furlong Park: Project update from TRC Matt Robbins of TRC presents. Amy Hamilton recuses herself from the issue. Environmental contamination was discovered at the site and additional testing was done. Data has been reviewed for submittal to Mass DEP. They have found that there is contamination from historical filling when land was created in 1926 under the Chapter 91 license. Tests were compared to state standards for acceptable health levels: four areas are above those levels and a remediation plan has been submitted. The Release Abatement Measurement plan (Feb. 2011) is presented; soil tests on the land portion are shown. Contaminants are primarily PAH's and various metals such as lead and arsenic. Four marked areas have elevated concentration that could be excavated and removed leaving the remainder of the site at safe, acceptable levels. These areas comprise about 1000 cubic yards; there is also a 300 cubic yard pile of soil that should be removed and responsibly disposed of. Holes left over will be filled with certified fill, then construction can be completed. Depth of excavations will be to 3 feet below ground, then further testing would be done before backfilling occurs. The work is within the limits of existing erosion controls. The City currently has an RFP out for a contractor to perform this work. The schedule would depend on them but excavation would take a few days, then they would wait a week for test results before backfilling. Ricciarelli asks about the pile onsite but its origin is unknown. No separate testing on it has been • done; it is just presumed to be contaminated at some level and must be removed anyway. The entire site is contaminated but those four sites are at higher levels. Mr. Robbins also turns in the full plan; there will be dust monitoring and fill should be live loaded, but if it must be stockpiled will be piled on top of plastic, surrounded by hay bales. The Chairman asks about the scope of work. They are not sure if they will be submitting an NOI or not; some remediation areas are on the resource area. Chairman Pabich thinks this would warrant an NOI; there is one for the park itself already but another is necessary. Also soil piles should be tarped as it is likely they are contaminated. That is a housekeeping issue under the current Order of Conditions. Jim Treadwell of 36 Felt St. speaks, stating that the Commission was concerned in the past about the possibility of contamination, and then everyone was upset when the project was halted when it was found. He asks about not going into the resource with contaminated sediments; that will not happen at this time. It is unknown whether or not they must go before MEPA again. They had previously found no need for further environmental review, based on the project for the designated port area. Mr. Treadwell thinks finding out if a MEPA review is necessary now would be a good idea; if it had been done before it would have saved a lot of trouble. The Mayor's letter stated that work would begin in January and continue in February yet only • now is the RFP out. So we do not know the timeline but it could be a few more months. Mr. Treadwell says that the remediation area near this project used to be called Laboratory St. as 6 laboratories were located there. . Chairman Pabich believes that an NOI is required for the activities discussed. Further business: Devine is requesting up to $35 to attend the Salem Sound Coast Watch Symposium, plus mileage to drive to Leominster for the Mass Watershed annual meeting. Mileage is discussed. A motion to grant Devine these funds is made by Christie, seconded by Knisel and passes unanimously. There is a scoping meeting for the South River Navigational Dredging.on Feb. 28a', at LOAM at Beverly Cooperative Bank. Becky Christie announces that she will be stepping down from Conservation Commission. She will attend the March meetings and has notified the Mayor's office. A motion to adjourn is made by Christie, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 8PM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb • Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on March 10, 2011 7 COy�I.1 ti-. CITY OF SALEM ` CONSERVATION COMMISS qV -- p� NOTICEOFMEETING FILE sr�Pt Mf�`�5 CITY CL EKY. SAL- Yoa are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thersday,March 10,2011 at 6:00 PM at City Hall Annear, Room 313, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Jaa J A� David A.Pabich, E Chairman MEETiNGAGENDA 1. Meeting Mmutes—February 24,2011 a. Old/New Business • Discussion of Greenscapes Massachusetts,Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coast Watch a. Public,hearing—Request to Amend Order of Conditions for DEP#64489—City of Salem, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed remediation of contaminated soil within a riverfront area,coastal bank and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 20 Franklin Street(Furlong Park). 4. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent MassDOT,519 Appleton Street,Arlington, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed drainage line repair on Loring Avenue at the Forest River crossing. The proposed work includes alteration of a coastal bank and is within a riverfront area and a buffer zone to a salt marsh. 0. Old/New Business,continued • DEP#64496,295 Derby Street,Hess Harborwalk: Request for Certificate of Compliance • DEP#64 472, 100 Swampscott Road,Request for Certificate of Compliance • DEP#64487,3 Everett Road, Request for Certificate of Compliance This Rofte posted on e0?MV81 13uitOn Board" Clty H I S alma, Mass. on . " 3, zoo/ at hi pawrom Wkh Ch* 0 an ,0 Page i of i Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting March 10, 2011 Name Mailing Address Phone Email -T&) c v✓ y _ �} �Uiri cliJ�/�2 l7�- 4�3-D�oZ G -11 - 9 6Gf1� Meg Y [,v. Gi0 v X01 i— 27 -656- -gv- CL CITY OF SALEM y� CONSERVATION COMMISSION o _ " 33U HLF '+ CITY CL.[-RK, SALE'`, NASS City of Salem Conservation Commission 978-619-5685 Will hold a site visit at the Forest River Crossing on Loring Avenue on Thursday, March 10, 2011 at 5:15 pm. The purpose of the site visit is to inspect the project site where the following activity has been proposed. drainage line repair which includes alteration of a coastal bank and is within a riverfront area and a buffer zone to a salt marsh. David A. Pabich, P.E. / Chairman • This 40*0 posted an "01,3.391 B.�s�p}F®ti9g Board" City mail s agem, Mass. on Mate 3, Zoic Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, March 10,2011,6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Michael Blier,Dan Ricciarelli, Amy Hamilton, Rebecca Christie,Julia Knisel Members Absent: Chairman David Pabich, Carole McCauley Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Acting Chair Christie calls the meeting to order at 6:12PM. Meeting Minutes—February 24,2011 Approval is tabled until the next meeting since there is no quorum as of now. Old/New Business • Discussion of Greenscapes Massachusetts, Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coast Watch Ms. Warren is again asking for the Commission's support of the Greenscapes program. Devine has a copy of the letter asking for support, which Ms. Warren reviews. The scope of work this year is different; last year magnets were handed out and were well-received. This • year three different educational leaflets are proposed; each community will receive 500 with an option to purchase more. There are 18 communities on the North Shore that support the program. The leaflets can be left out, handed out at events, or put into mailings. More articles will be written. The focus is on water conservation, green lawn care, and stormwater. They will also do workshops on organic lawn care. Additionally, the EPA is coming out with a draft of a plan for what communities must do for their discharge permits. It is under NPDES and as a result of the new permit, new outreach and education materials must be provided as well as having concrete goals. Over the five years of the permit, each audience listed must be targeted twice a year; Greenscapes will help the City set priorities and a timeline, and assist in developing outreach and education components of the NOI. With Conservation Commission support, they would develop materials for the targeted audiences. This year the price is reduced again–the membership fee is $1500 per town, with a $300 materials fee for a total of$1800. In the past the City has split the cost between Conservation Commission and another department (Julie Rose). Devine has not yet spoken to Julie about this. Last year the Salem Beautification Plant Sale was held, and Greenscapes has attended the Living Green Fair and had a volunteer organic landscaper come. They are continuing to build awareness and were at the Salem Maritime Festival. Next year there will be more news articles and SATV programs. They also paid for some trees planted on Columbus Day. Christie asks if there is a deadline. Ms. Warren would like an answer by Mid-April; the end of April would be acceptable but they would like to place their order soon. Blier asks about the cost, which will depend on if they split it with another City Department. Devine asks who I coordinates work for the NPDES permit; it would probably be the City Engineer. It is suggested that all departments form a committee. But, this is still in draft form and has not gotten going yet. The NOI must be put in by August but the EPA keeps changing the date. • SSCW's role with Greenscapes is that it is a coalition of organizations on the North Shore and Ms. Warren would work with Salem and nearby watershed communities to do outreach and education. The Commission suggests that Devine speak to Julie Rose and Ms. Warren says a decision can wait until the next meeting. Acting Chairwoman Christie opens to the public but there are no comments. The issue is tabled until more information can be gathered, to be reviewed at the next meeting. Public hearing—Request to Amend Order of Conditions for DEP#64-489—City of Salem, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed remediation of contaminated soil within a riverfront area, buffer zone to a coastal bank and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 20 Franklin Street(Furlong Park). Amy Hamilton recuses herself from this discussion. Jeff Brant and Matt Robinson from TRC are here. Mr. Brant presents large scale plans. Illustration: Plan Showing Limits of Remediation Work, March 2011 During the previous renovation, contamination was discovered at Furlong Park and TLC has . formed a remediation plan. Soils must be removed and replaced with clean fill. There are four sites on the plan which will need to be excavated, at a total of 10,000 square feet or 1000 yards. 9 They will excavate down 3 feet, remove the soil, and put it in a truck for immediate disposal or stockpile it at a temporary site with plastic, hay bales and silt fence. The entire site is in the riverfront area and 1/3 of the site is in land subject to coastal storm flowage. To protect the resources, several mitigation means are to be put in place. These include augmenting and repair to existing erosion control on the site. Gravel will also be placed where the trucks will be driving; trucks will not come onsite so truck tires will not get dirty. There will be dust control and the contractor would monitor the amount of dust produced, and would spray if necessary. Two catch basins along the site on the roadways will also be protected with hay bales. Blier asks why they selected a certain area for stockpiling; it is large and flat with nothing around it, and is fairly central. Ricciarelli asks about the extent of stockpiling. It could be a couple of days; if overnight, the soil would be covered with plastic but they are hoping to immediately load it. . Blier asks about the method used to determine the four areas that need to be cleaned. There is another plan, not shown here, of test pits all over the site, which was carefully evaluated. These sites are the most contaminated areas. The outlines are an estimate; there could be less or slightly more contamination. Christie asks how far the will o down to remove the contamination; the Y g Y will dig down 3' or perhaps a little less. There will be an environmental rofessional onsite to supervise erosion controls; he/she will P report to the LSP. Blier asks if they will lose some trees. There are some along the tennis courts 2 J� but they will try not to disturb them. Trees on top of material will be left, as they are a natural cap. Trees to the North of the site will also be left if possible. • Christie asks about the stockpile in the photo, which is currently onsite and will be taken away before the start of work. Mr. Robins explains that the stockpile there now is from previously stockpiled excavated materials and one of them is contaminated; those may have been in preparation of further grading onsite. The contractor may have left some materials when the project stopped suddenly. They will determine which pile is which. Testing was done in October and November of last year. Knisel asks about Remediation Area#2 and how it will not destabilize the topography. The contractor will not go beyond the hay bales; there is no proposed work in the bank. Blier asks again about the stockpile and grades around it, which head West and South. He asks about elevations and a swale—when the area is protected, it will need to be wrapped on the sides as well. Mr. Brant agrees and explains the control measures. Blier asks if there is a contingency plan if the extent of contamination grows as they work. If significant, the Commission would be notified; TRC is responsible for removing all contaminated material. Based on sampling the marked areas are the worst of it. Blier comments that the areas seem discrete. Mr. Robins says the site was peppered with sample holes; they took the averages of them then chose the worst areas to be removed, to get the averages down. Confirming tests will be conducted before the holes are filled to determine if they are at acceptable levels. If a certain area still had high contamination, more removal would be done. • Acting Chairwoman Christie opens the item to the public. Charlie Ferris comments that there are 2 storm drain pipes under the playground that drain to the river; they are poorly maintained and he wonders if they will be fixed. He asks if they are digging near the pipes. Blier comments that one of the contaminated areas sits on top of the pipe. Mr. Ferris wonders if it can be requested that the pipes be cleared. Mr. Brant says it was discussed and they will do hand digging near the pipe, but pipe repair was beyond the scope of the project. Mr. Ferris would like to see the pipe cleaned or modified so it does not get plugged up. Devine comments that the City may need to look at it but it does not have to do with remediation. Blier comments that it was not on the original designs. Mr. Robins adds that the remediation is for the land portion of the park, though the river bank and sediments are also contaminated. This is not defined enough for removal and further testing must be done before remediation. Pipes might be looked at in that case. The timeframe on cleaning up the river bank and sediments would be extended; that could be 6 months away or longer since assessing sediment contamination is a long term issue. Blier suggests taking it back to the City and having them look at it. Larry Giunta of 35 Franklin St. comments about water in his basement. Ricciarelli asks how soon the park can open after remediation. Mr. Robin says that the work will take 3-4 weeks; the City has received bids from contractors but has not rewarded it yet. Remediation and construction work are set to be done before the end of June. Dorothy Jodin asks what precautions will be taken while contaminated soil is being removed as the area is very windy. Mr. Brant says dust will be monitored and the contractor will wet the area down by spraying it so it doesn't blow around. Mr. Robin says he expects it to be muddy while 3 + 1� workingbut if it does dr out there will be remediation Y Jim Treadwell of Felps St. asks if an Order of Conditions will be released; this is a request to • amend the original. He requests that all abutters be given a copy of the Order so they may monitor. Devine says he can make it available to anyone who wants one but Mr. Treadwell wants them mailed out, and would also like to have a hotline to call. Devine says there will be a contact person available. Mr. Brant says one will be available but has not been identified yet. Mr. Robin states that he will be the contact; although he will not be onsite continually, he will have contact with the contractors. His phone and email are available in the remediation plan The last plan and map were dated in February and the plan presented tonight has a March date; it is the same plan, only larger. The old plan does not show the stockpile site as the new one does. Mr. Brant shows the larger plan to the audience and points out the stockpile site. The truck cleaning area has also been added. Mr. Treadwell says it is important for abutters to know and be able to monitor the conditions and have someone to contact. The Neighborhood associations would like copies of the documents presented. He asks how they intend to keep the plastic on the stockpiles. Cathy Winn of the City of Salem states that the contractor will maintain the site and soil piles. The DPW is not there every day and does not do that. Mr. Treadwell comments that previously this was a problem and the area was not maintained for a long time. The mayor sent a letter on February 22nd discussing the time frame and grant received; no residents got the letter and Mr. Treadwell wants to be sure that the abutters' list and mayor's distribution list are consistent. He comments that pits will be open for a few days and that they will be accessible to kids and dogs. They have consistently gotten onto the site during construction and he wants to know how they will keep them out or seal the pits temporarily. Mr. Robin says they will ask the contractor that in addition to the locked fence they can put a snow • fence around each excavation; while not a physical barrier, it would be a deterrent. Mr. Treadwell says this is not enough and Mr. Robin says that local residents can contact him if they see anything. Mr. Treadwell says this is the first he has heard of riverbank contamination and wonders when that area will be considered. Mr. Robins says he did mention it at the last meeting and that contamination would be further explored before the riverbank is cleaned up. The park will reopen in June. There is no plan to restrict access to the riverbank. Blier asks if they City will forward that information requested by Treadwell; it will. Judy Giunta of 35 Franklin St. asks about the basketball and tennis courts, which do not have to be removed. The court surfaces provide a protective cover. Ms.,Giunta asks about the grasses along the shoreline that had been planted. If they are seaward of the haybales that area won't be touched, and areas other than the squares would not be disturbed. Barbara Warren asks how long it takes to get test results back for heavy metal. It takes a few days, at least 2 days, at most 5. A motion to close public discussion is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Blier, and approved unanimously(Hamilton recused). Blier asks about the storage of materials onsite and equipment used; there does need to be discussion of that and the Commission asks the applicant. Now that they are stockpiling, what happens to equipment left overnight? Mr. Brant says that the excavator would be stored next to the soil pile. Trucks would not be stored onsite except one for the next morning. He outlines 4 J locations on the plans. Devine suggests storage outside the inner 100' of riverfront area. New conditions are: Machinery is to be stored 100' out of the riverfront area A contact person must be provided Blier says if plans must change they must come before the Commission again, but this is boilerplate and always issued. Ms. Giumi asks why they picked a particular spot to go in and out. One of the contaminated sites is near the end; there is also a gate at that location whereas the gate at the other end does not provide enough room between it and the excavation. Mr. Treadwell asks about the gate at the south end but that is the one where they are excavating. If the fence along Franklin St. will be replaced, why do gates matter? Mr. Treadwell comments that the site is not secure. Devine will send map, the mayor's letter and the Order of Conditions to abutters, though he notes that these are not special conditions. A motion to approve the amended Order of Conditions to include the above is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Knisel and passes unanimously, with Hamilton recused. The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—MassDOT,519 Appleton Street,Arlington,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed drainage line repair on Loring Avenue at the Forest River crossing.The proposed work includes alteration of a coastal bank and is within a riverfront area and a buffer zone to a salt marsh. Illustration: Maintenance & Repair of Outfall (no date provided) Christie and Blier were not present at the prior meeting covering this issue, and sign an affidavit confirming they have reviewed the application and meeting materials and are up to date so they may vote on the issue. Andrea Norton of Mass DOT presents. The Commission had asked for a number of issues to be addressed. Previous issues were: 1. A site visit between City Engineer and Mass DOT did take place. They reviewed the project in detail and the City Engineer approves of the project. Devine confirms. 2. Mean high water line and the salt marsh were delineated. Flags mark both areas and soil sampling in the upland area were done; the upland area is 100% fill; salt marsh is typical. 3. A site visit with Commissioners also took place with Devine and Hamilton, and Ward Seven Councilor Joseph O'Keefe 4. A survey was also requested and completed; they ran elevations and locations, and opened catch basin but were not able to provide depth as it is not on the plan. It is at least 17" deep. 5. Plans were given to Devine and are passed out to commissioners, as are photos. Ms. Norton reviews plans and shows photos to the Commissioners, describing the setup of the 5 new line that will replace the damaged pipe. Ricciarelli asks if the blocks are consistent with what is there now. Ms. Norton says there is nothing out there as of now. She reviews the setup again. Ricciarelli comments that it looks like it should be slabs, not cinderblocks. Dave Knowlton has not seen the updated plan, though he did go out to the site. Ricciarelli wants to make sure it stays in place and suggests it would be easier for them to pour from above. Blier is also concerned about the plan. There is not a stable surface and that concerns him. Riciarelli asks when the work would take place—as soon as possible as there is a sinkhole. Ricciarelli asks about talking to Dave Knowlton about the construction and integrity of thee headwall. Devine worries about a quorum if the issue is moves to another meeting; he suggests approving it while conditioning that a structural engineer approve it. Affidavits cannot be signed (allowing Commissioners to vote on an issue for which they were not present) if more than one meeting on a topic is missed. It would be hard to have a quorum at the next meeting but Blier says that none of them really approve of the wall as is and would like more information. Ricciarelli asks about an erosion control plan; there was one, including a silt fence and wattle but something else is needed- that could be taken care of tonight but the structural issues can wait. Hamilton points out that the City engineer didn't design this and has not seen the plan. He approved them doing the project in general but not the specifics. Blier reiterates that the opinion of a structural engineer is needed. Devine says they are looking for a plan stamped by an engineer or approved by the City Engineer. Christie opines that something must be done and that should be sufficient. Ricciarelli says it is a state road, but it is in a resource area so we can use our engineer. If the Order of Conditions was issued tonight, they could settle erosion controls (such as a silt curtain in the water) but will ask for them to propose it in the future. Ms. Norton says they will not work below mean high water line, but Devine says it is work on the bank, at the edge of the water; if a professional thinks it is not necessary, the Commission can consider that. Devine reiterates the Commission's concerns about the viability of the structure in a new plan the City Engineer hasn't seen. Ms. Norton should submit the plans to the City engineer and ask him if he approves of it or thinks it requires modification. The Commission's concern is structural though the strategy itself seems fine. Ricciarelli asks about the sidewalk along the rest of the bank. There is no wall where the sidewalk is. Blier asks about footing; it is unknown but possibly gravel. The structure is again discussed. Devine asks about causes of erosion of the salt marsh. Ms. Norton opines that it is due to the severe weather, with chunks of ice flowing through. Devine believes that because it is some distance away and around a bend, it is very unlikely related to the damaged pipe. The Commission is also waiting for DEP comments which have not been issued; if this is continued they can get their comments. Blier says we will get an inch of rain tomorrow. Christie notes that there are no members of the public present to comment. Ricciarelli motions to close public discussion, is seconded by Knisel, and the motion passes unanimously. A motion to continue to March 24`" is made by Blier, seconded by Hamilton, and all approve. Old/New Business,continued • DEP#64-496, 295 Derby Street, Hess Harborwalk.Request for Certificate of Compliance 6 The Comission is still waiting on installation of the correct benches; this is not done yet. No action is required. • DEP#64-472, 100 Swampscott Road, Request for Certificate of Compliance This issue was superseded by the DEP after the order was issued to fill and replicate wetlands; the Conservation Commission approved building a culvert in that case, but the DEP allowed all the work but the culvert, and has now issued a Certificate of Compliance. However, the applicant has requested a local Certificate of Compliance as it is still open under the local wetlands ordinance. Devine went out in December for the DEP inspection, where the inspector verified the replicated wetlands, and he now recommends issuing the local Certificate. A motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, and approved unanimously. The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. • DEP#64-487, 3 Everett Road, Request for Certificate of Compliance Devine recommends issuing this. One issue is almost a deviation—text of the Order of Conditions asked for crushed stone under the deck, but they put in semi-pervious pavers. Duques went to inspect the stairs and did not raise the issue while the pavers were being installed. This is substantially in compliance. A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Knisel, ..- and passes unanimously. The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Miscellaneous updates Devine states that in acting on the violation at 441 Lafayette St., he became aware of other nearby violations. Devine wants to let the Commission know before he sends out a first letter to one of the neighbors. He adds that Jim Treadwell had also asked that the Commission be made aware that the comment period for the South River Dredging ENF has been extended. A motion to approve the minutes from the March 10, 2011 meeting with revision is made now that there is a quorum by Knisel, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. A motion to adjourn the meeting is made by Knisel, seconded by Hamilton, and all approve. The meeting ends at 7:4513M. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on March 24, 2011. 7 CITY OF SALEM ; hy CONSERVATION COMMISSION 'r NOTICE OFMEETING You are hereby noir W that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on 77tuesday,Marek 24,2011 at 6.00 PMat City Hall Annex Room 313, 120 Washington Street,Salem, MA. Dbvid A.Pabich, PE Chairman' MEETINGAGENDA 1. Meeting Minutes—March 10,2011 2. Continuation of Public,Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-514--MassD9' T, 519 Appleton Street,Arlington,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed drainage line repair on Loring Avenue at the Forest River Crossing. The proposed worts includes alteration of a coastal bank and is within a riverfront area and a buffer zone to a salt marsh.. • g. Old/New Business • DEP#64-496,295 Derby Street,Hess Harborwalk: Request for Certificate of Compliance • Leslie's Retreat Dog Park:Discussion of proposed fence,Bart.Hoskins of Salem Play Areas for Can=Exercise(SPACE) • Cttcenscapes North Shore: Discussion of membership renewal: . Ktmw your rights wrier the Open Meeting Law MG.L. c 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. ti z A TWO 400CS P`, A0d City Naill s s lien mess. o. � — �l � f id 26A 20 of a s Page 1 of 1 Please Sign-In . Salem Conservation Commission Meeting March 24, 2011 Name Mailing Address Phone Email . , 1" rl�r Z6uzC S' ��� � „rl, moH� 1'� D �L14� 97* / 77 - 0-01/ G � oSl<i rel. he nl �.p ,soy Ef 2 • • t Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,March 24,2011, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Acting Chairwoman Rebecca Christie, Carole McCauley,Julia Knisel,Dan Ricciarelli, Amy Hamilton Members Absent: Chairman David Pabich,Michael Blier Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kith Acting Chairwoman Rebecca Christie calls the meeting to order at 6:15PM. is Meeting Minutes—March 10,2011 A motion to approve the minutes is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Knisel, and passes unanimously. There is one correction on page 5 regarding signing of affidavits. 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of I.ntent—DEP#64-514—MassDOT, 519 Appleton Street, Arlington, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed drainage line repair on Loring Avenue at the Forest River Crossing. The proposed work includes alteration of a coastal bank and is within a riverfront area and a buffer zone to a salt • marsh. Illustrations submitted: ' • Photos of the area • Maintenance & Repair of Outfall (no date) • CSI Concrete Systems illustration (no date) Devine points out to McCauley that we have a quorum to vote regardless of whether or not she signs the affidavit to confirm she has reviewed materials for the hearing she missed, but she would like to vote and so affirms that she is up to date on the issue. New plans are handed out. Andrea Norton of Mass DOT in Arlington presents again. She had several meetings at her office about the plans. Previously Blier had mentioned block vs. granite block and cement. The construction manual (Mass DOT standards) was consulted and they came up with the current plan. Devine was met with and the City Engineer was contacted but has not replied. This is the routine headwall that has been used for a long time in this type of situation. It is PE approved and Ms: Norton has a letter saying that the City Engineer did approve it. She feels the Commission would approve this over the cement block. Ms. Norton went over the DEP comments with DEP Circuit Rider Pam Merrill. Devine outlines the actions so far–DEP comments have been addressed; they were in response to the original NOI but many other changes have taken place since. This final iteration with a reduced spillway moved back from the top of the bank is good; the issue was that if it goes on • the bank it would not be permitable under the regulations cited by DEP. But with it reduced in size and pulled back from the bank, those performance standards are not triggered. 1 Another concern was sediment eroding into the river, but Devine went at low tide and the river was clear. So those DEP concerns have been addressed. Christie asks about one of the photos submitted, what the area will look like when finished, and Ms. Norton explains. She also outlines the process that they will use for repairs. The new sump will be 30" and she passes the measurements and specs to Devine. Hamilton asks if the existing catch basin will be cleaned out; it will. Acting Chairwoman Christie opens to the public but there are no comments. Devine says that a straw wattle would be appropriate erosion control, now that the splash pad has been moved back, it could go between the work area and the bank and define a limit of work. Ms. Norton says that if they would like a condition stating they will be notified 48 hours in advance and be told who the PE is, and that the District Environmental Analyst is onsite during construction, she is willing to accept those conditions. Devine says that the 48 hour notice is a standard condition; it is up to the Commission if they want the other items. Acting Chairwoman Christie would like more oversight. A resident engineer from maintenance will be there overseeing the contractor but an environmentalist could be onsite too. A resident engineer is supposed to be on every job but she can't speak for what happened last time. For this reason more oversight may be preferable. The project will not take very long to do, but they will work when the tide is lowest so work may be spread over 2 days. Ricciarelli was thinking of capping the outlet but Ms. Norton is not familiar with the process; she cannot dictate construction but feels it will be done in a timely • manner. The first group who caused the issue was Structures Maintenance and now it will be DOT personnel. Conditions: • Erosion control measures between top of bank and splash pad, delimiting area of work. •Adequate erosion controls for catch basin and bank. • An analyst must be onsite during construction. A motion to issue an Order of Conditions with the above special conditions is made by Hamilton, seconded by Knisel, and passes unanimously. The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. g. Old/New Business • DEP#64-496,295 Derby.Street, Hess Harborwalk: Request for Certificate of Compliance Devine passes around some images of the Harborwalk and landscaping. The delay was due to issues with the benches and elevation. They had to be sure that their elevation was ADA compliant; now it is. The project is satisfactorily complete and Devine recommends issuing the Certificate. A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance is made by McCauley, seconded by Ricciarelli • and passes unanimously. The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 2 f • Leslie's Retreat Dog Park: Discussion of proposed fence,Bart Hoskins of Salem Play Areas for Canine Exercise (SPACE) Illustrations: • Leslie's Retreat Off-Leash Park, Alternative A, 7-20-05 • Leslie's Retreat Off-Leash Park, Alternative B, 7-20-05 • Leslie's Retreat Dog Park Site Plan, 4-29-2009 • Leslie's Retreat Dog Park [as-built plan], 10-4-10 • Leslie's Retreat Dog Park Small Dog Park Addition, 10-5-10 Devine comments that there are three approved plans for this dog park and there is a minor addition to the fencing to be added. We must decide if this is allowed on any of the three plans, all of which were previously issued negative Determinations of Applicability. Ricciarelli asks if they are bisecting an existing enclosure but this is not exactly the case. , Mr. Hoskins directs the Commissioners to look at the first two plans, orienting them with the river facing toward them. Key features are the parking area at one end and a gazebo at the other end. In 2006 these two plans were alternatives, and this was being done by SPACE and would depend on money raised for fencing. Both plans were approved; one was in the footprint of parking and the gazebo; the other would have gone beyond the gazebo. At one point he wanted one area to be cut off and become a small dog space. • Devine says normally the plans would have expired after three years but the State Legislature granted a two-year extension for virtually all permits. When the applicant came back in 2009 the plan had some new features added. So far a pass program has been implemented and the money goes into a City account, so SPACE is in an advisory capacity to the Parks &Rec. Dept. The 2009 plan still includes a small dog area still within the original footprint; also they would like to add a seating area of high-drainage pavers that were donated, and a drainage garden would be added. For this one,the water would go in when it's raining then out when the tide is up as the area floods due to its proximity to the North River. It would create a buffer from the storm drain for dog waste. In 2009 it was approved as long as the drainage garden was included in the first phase of work. Photos of the work are passed around. Mr. Hoskins describes the setup of the pavers, which have thick layers of stone underneath and drain really well. The drainage garden is still fenced in and being worked on with different plants being tried. There are two new plans. One is the "As Built" plan showing the dog park right now. One section includes a circle of steel edging with 1 'h" stone around trees with some half benches. The last plan is in question tonight. Changes include mainly going beyond the current footprint of the fence. Having a small dog park at the parking end has some issues, since flooding makes the area muddy and swampy. There is no good place to put a gate. They are proposing removal of the fencing that goes diagonally to the back of the gazebo and putting it at that end of the park instead. Usually they are fence posts are sawed off when fencing is changed, but this time they will be taken out, concrete and all, and holes backfilled. A second entry way will go behind the I gazebo and straight back, for a slight increase in the footprint of the last plan, but still within the footprint of one of the alternatives approved in 2006. 3 i f Hamilton asks about the vegetation; there are some bushes and shrubs and a tree in the proposed small dog area. No bushes will be removed, though some are missing from the plan. Mr. Hoskins � hopes to get more plantings as it can be quite windy there. Ricciarelli comments that it is chain link, there is no new grading, and dimensions are being moved to be closer to one of the original plans. They would also like additional benches and a seating area for the small dog park, but nothing departing from the original plan. Ricciarelli asks about the shed on the plan, which will not be happening. People bring chairs but they would like to eventually have all benches to keep the area looking neat. The kiosk, pavers, etc. are all part of that"look" and the shed will not be necessary to keep chairs in since those are going away; there will be a 12' gate in its place. Work is subject to how many passes are sold in a year and what donations they get. Ricciarelli comments on the fire hydrant which will 1 be outside the park,which is a good thing since otherwise it would be tooo ular with th p p e dogs. Devine opines that with two determinations in effect and three plans, today's change is covered by those. He thinks no further action is required on the part of the Commission for this change. All Commissioners agree. No vote is required. Mr. Hoskins outlines 2009 issues with construction at the park. He mentions a methane digester system used in Cambridge which may eventually be a possibility for dog waste at this park. • Greenscapes North Shore: Discussion of membership renewal • Barbara Warren presented last time but the Commission was not ready to vote before knowing what the Commission's share of the cost would be. Water and Sewer will be covering half; the total cost is $1800; $1500 + $300 for materials, which is still less than last year. Knisel says it is a good value for the publications —newspaper articles, brochures and workshops. A motion to spend $900 on Greenscapes is made by Knisel, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously with McCauley abstaining since she has worked on this issue. McCauley motions to adjourn the meeting, is seconded by Hamilton, and the motion passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 7:03PM. Respecfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on April 14, 2011. 4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protecuon Provided by MmDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-514 1 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEPFile# — Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 -- — eDEP Transaction# Salem City/town -- A. General Information Please note: Salem this roan has 1.From: ---__. been modified conservation commission — ----- --. with added 2. This issuance is for apace to accommodate (check one): a.®Order of Conditions b.ElAmended Order of Conditions • fe Registry Of toeees 3. To: Applicant: Requirements Patricia _ ___ Leavenworth a.First Name ---- Important: b.Last Name --------- when filling MA Dept. of Transportation out torms c.Organization - _. - ------ _-.- on the 519 Appleton St computer, d.Malb Address -- use only ttre ng --- ---------- tab key to Arlington —_— MA ___ 02478 move your e.City?own f.State — -- cursor-do g.Zip Code not use k the e. Property Owner(if different from applicant): returnCommonwealth of Massachusetts a.First Name —. MA isi Dept. Hi9 of Transportation= hwat Divon C.Organization 10 Park Plaza d.Mailing Address -------... ------------------------ Boston MA 02116 e.City/Town --- f.state ----- - - -- g.Zip Code 5. Project Location: Rt. 1A NB(LO ring-AmLgt Forest River— Salem a.Street Address b.Qily/rown ------- ------ 30 __ 0082 _ c.Assessors Map 61:Number _ __._.__.—.___. d.ParceVLot Number • Latitude and Longitude, if known: 42d19m30s_—_ _ 70d53m4_Os__ d.Latitude e.Longitude wpmams.aoc• �.osnamlo Pegg 7 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: • Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-514 WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions Mass DEP File# -_- Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction# Salem City(Town A. General Information (cont.) 6. Property recorded at the Registry of Deeds for(attach additional information if more than one parcel): Essex - - - -- _ aCounty - b.Certificate Number(If registered land) 6472 589 c Book d.Page T Dates: 11/12/2010 3/24/_2011 _ 3/_29/2_011 _ -- ----------- .... _ _ _ a.Date Notice of Intent Filed b.-Date Public Hearing Closed c. Date of Issuance a. Final Approved Plans and Other Documents (attach additional plan or document references as needed): ROUTE 1A(LORING AVE) OVER FOREST RIVER, SALEM --- ---- — --- ——- ----- -- —-- a. Plan MassDOT None b. -P-repared By-- iby-..-------- ----- -- _ - c.Signed and Stamped by ' None-Submitted 3/21/2011 1"=41 ---- ---Date -- --- ---- - - ----------------------------- d. Final Revision Date - e.Scale HEADWALL FOR 12"RCP, CSI#BSHW-12 None f Additional Plan or Document Title g.Date _ B. Findings t. Findings pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: Following the review of the above-referenced Notice of Intent and based on the information provided in this application and presented at the public hearing, this Commission finds that the areas in which work is proposed is significant to the following interests of the Wetlands Protection Act (the Act). Check all that apply: a. ® Public Water Supply b. ® Land Containing Shellfish c. Po Prevention of Pollution d. ® Private Water Supply e. ® Fisheries r. ® Protection of Wildlife Habitat g. ® Groundwater Supply h. ® Storm Damage Prevention i. ® Flood Control 2. This Commission hereby finds the project, as proposed, is:(check one of the following boxes) Approved subject to: a. ® the following conditions which are necessary in accordance with the performance standards set forth in the wetlands regulations. This Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the Notice of Intent referenced above, the following General Conditions, and any other special conditions attached to this Order. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, these conditions shall control. • 'W.1m5.doc- rev.051192010 Page 2 of 12 • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands 64-514 WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions MassoEPFte#- Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 ----- -- eDEP Transaction# Salem City/Town------ B. Findings (cont.) Denied because: b. ❑ the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the performance standards set forth in the wetland regulations. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a new Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to protect the interests of the Act, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the performance standards which the proposed work cannot meet is attached to this Order. c. ❑ the information submitted by the applicant is not sufficient to describe the site, the work, or the effect of the work on the interests identified in the Wetlands Protection Act. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides sufficient information and includes measures which are adequate to protect the Act's interests, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the specific information which is lacking and why it Is necessary is attached to this Order as per 310 CMR 10.05(6)(c). • 3. ❑ Buffer Zone Impacts: Shortest distance between limit of project disturbance and the wetland resource area specified in 310 CMR 10.02(1)(a) a.linear feet Intend Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) , Resource Area Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration Alteration Replacement Replacement 4. ❑ Bank ----._ _.-..--- ----------- --------------- a.linearfeet b.linear feet a linear feet d.linear feet 5. ❑ Bordering ----- ----- ---------- Vegetated Wetland a.square feet J.square feetfeel C.square feel tl.square feel a. ❑ Land Under Waterbodies and a square feet b.square feet c.square feet -d,square feet Waterways e.Gy dredged I.dy dredged 7. ❑ Bordering Land ------------ ---------- -- Subject(0 Flooding a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet Cubic Feet Flood Storage - -- --.--- e.cubic feet t cubic feet g.cubic feet h cubic feet a. El Isolated Land _ Subject to Flooding a_square feet b.square feet Cubic Feet Flood Storage ------ -------- ._.___...__.-- ._.__--..___- c.cubic feet d.cubic feet e.cubic feet f.cubic feet g. ® Riverfront Area 18 is J.total sq.feet Sq It within 100 ft 18to _o�__ - ��„ r d square feet ------.---- Sgflbetween 100• q f square feet • 200 ft 0 0 --......_ - -m- h square feet- fee _ i �,,, ��i e,_ ) square feet vo,atorm5.doc- rev.0511912010 Page 3 of 12 LLMassachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: • Bureau of Resource Protection- Wetlands 64-514 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassoEPFifett'-- Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 - ---- ---- eDEP Transaction# Salem City/Town B. Findings (cont.) Coastal Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration Alteration Replacement Replacement 10. El Designated Port Areas Indicate size under Land Under the Ocean, below n. ❑ Land Under the __..--- - -------- Ocean a.square feet b.square feet ' C.Uy dredged d.Uy dredged 12. ❑ Barrier Beaches Indicate size under Coastal Beaches and/or Coastal Dunes below 13. ❑ Coastal Beaches ----- —. — cu_v_4._ a.square feet b.square feet c.nourishment d.nourishment 14. ❑ Coastal Dunes ---- -- ---- -- -___w.La_ a.square feet b.square teat c.nourishment d.nourishment 15. ❑ Coastal Banks a.linear feet b linear feet • 16. ❑ Rocky Intertidal Shores a.square feet b.square feet n: ❑ Salt Marshes --- -- —__ __— _ a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet 1e. ❑ Land Under Salt _ Ponds a.square feet b.square fee_t C.dy dredgetl d c/y dredged 19. ❑ Land Containing Shellfish a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet 20. ❑ Fish Runs Indicate size under Coastal Banks, Inland Bank, Land Under the Ocean, and/or inland Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways, above a.Gy dredged b.6! dredged 21. Q Land Subject to Coastal Storm a.square feet b.square feet Flowage • w forms.dx• rev.05/13/2010 Paye 4 of 12 • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: _ Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands 64-514 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MaSsDEP File# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transactioctio n# Salem. city/Town B. Findings (cont.) #22.If the project is for 22. Restoration/Enhancement'; the purpose of restoring or _...__..__ _ ._._ _.....sat enhancing a a square feet of BVW b.square feet of salt marsh -- wetland - resource area 23. Q Stream Crossing(s): in addition to the square footage that a.number of new stream crossings b.number of replacement stream crossings has been entered in C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts-Wetlands Protection Act Section 8.5.c B.fvior c(Salt The following conditions are only applicable to Approved projects. Marsh)above, 1Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein, and with all related statutes and other please enter the additional regulatory measures, shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this Order. amount here. 2. The Order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges; it does not authorize any injury to private property or invasion of private rights. • 3. This Order does not relieve the permittee or any other person of the necessity of complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, bylaws, or regulations. 4. The work authorized hereunder shall be completed within three years from the date of this Order unless either of the following apply: a. the work is a maintenance dredging project as provided for in the Act; or b, the time for completion has been extended to a specified date more than three years, but less than five years, from the date of issuance. If this Order is intended to be valid for more than three years, the extension date and the special circumstances warranting the extended time period are set forth as a special condition in this Order. 5. This Order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or more periods of up to three years each upon application to the issuing authority at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the Order. 6. If this Order constitutes an Amended Order of Conditions, this Amended Order of Conditions does not extend the issuance date of the original Final Order of Conditions and the Order will expire on 3/29/2014 unless extended in writing by the Department. 7. Any fill used in connection with this project shall be clean fill. Any fill shall contain no trash, refuse, rubbish, or debris, including but not limited to lumber, bricks, plaster,wire, lath, paper, cardboard, pipe, tires, ashes, refrigerators, motor vehicles, or parts of any of the foregoing. 8. This Order is not final until all administrative appeal periods from this Order have elapsed, or if such an appeal has been taken, until all proceedings before the Department have been completed. • wpalorm5.0oc• rev.0 511 9/2 01 0 Page 5 0112 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: • t-- Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-514 a. WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions MassDEP File# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 — — eDEP Transaction# Salem _ City/Town .. C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) 9. No work shall be undertaken until the Order has become final and then has been recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property.In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done. In the case of the registered land, the Final Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is done. The recording information shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission on the form at the end of this Order, which form must be stamped by the Registry of Deeds, prior to the commencement of work. 10. A sign shall be displayed at the site not less then two square feet or more than three square feet in size bearing the words, "Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection"for, "MassDEP"] "File Number 64-514 " 11. Where the Department of Environmental Protection is requested to issue a Superseding • Order, the Conservation Commission shall be a party to all agency proceedings and hearings before MassDEP. 12. Upon completion of the work described herein, the applicant shall submit a Request for Certificate of Compliance (WPA Form 8A)to the Conservation Commission. 13. The work shall conform to the plans and special conditions referenced in this order. 14. Any change to the plans identified in Condition#13 above shall require the applicant to inquire of the Conservation Commission in writing whether the change is significant enough to require the filing of a new Notice of Intent. 1 . 5 The Agent or members of the Conservation Commission and the Department of Environmental Protection shall have the right to enter and inspect the area subject to this Order at reasonable hours to evaluate compliance with the conditions stated in this Order, and may require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by the Conservation Commission or Department for that evaluation. 16. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in interest or successor in control of the property subject to this Order and to any contractor or other person performing work conditioned by this Order. 17. Prior to the start of work, and if the project involves work adjacent to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland, the boundary of the wetland in the vicinity of the proposed work area shall be marked by wooden stakes or flagging. Once in place, the wetland boundary markers shall be maintained until a Certificate of Compliance has been issued by the Conservation Commission. • e alor 5der:• rev.05/19/2010 j Page 6 0/12 • M assachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: P:Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-514 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP File-#-- Massachusetts Wetlands Protection-Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 ---- __LI eDEP Transaction# Salem city/Town - C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) 18. All sedimentation barriers shall be maintained in good repair until all disturbed areas have been fully stabilized with vegetation or other means. At no time shall sediments be deposited in a wetland or water body. During construction, the applicant or his/her designee shall inspect the erosion controls on a daily basis and shall remove accumulated sediments as needed. The applicant shall immediately control any erosion problems that occur at the site and shall also immediately notify the Conservation Commission, which reserves the right to require additional erosion and/or damage prevention controls it may deem necessary. Sedimentation barriers shall serve as the limit of work unless another limit of work line has been approved by this Order. NOTICE OF STORMWATER CONTROL AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS 19. The work associated with this Order(the "Project") is(1)❑ is not(2)® subject to the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards. If the work is subject to the Stormwater Standards, then the project is subject to the following conditions: • a) All work, including site preparation, land disturbance, construction and redevelopment, shall be implemented in accordance with the construction period pollution prevention and erosion and sedimentation control plan and, if applicable, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit as required by Stormwater Condition 8. Construction period erosion, sedimentation and pollution control measures and best management practices (BMPs)shall remain in place until the site is fully stabilized. b) No stormwater runoff may be discharged to the post-construction stormwater BMPs unless and until a Registered Professional Engineer provides a Certification that: i. all construction period BMPs have been removed or will be removed by a date certain specified in the Certification. For any construction period BMPs intended to be converted to post construction operation for stormwater attenuation, recharge, and/or treatment, the conversion is allowed by the MassDEP Stormwater Handbook BMP specifications and that the BMP has been properly cleaned or prepared for post construction operation, including removal of all construction period sediment trapped in inlet and outlet control structures; ii. as-built final construction BMP plans are included, signed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, certifying the site is fully stabilized; W. any illicit discharges to the stormwater management system have been removed, as per the requirements of Stormwater Standard 10; iv. all post-construction stormwater BMPs are installed in accordance with the plans (including all planting plans)approved by the issuing authority, and have been inspected to ensure that they are not damaged and that they are in proper working condition; v. any vegetation associated with post-construction BMPs is suitably established to withstand erosion. • - wpaform5.doc• rev.05nwoio Page 7 of 12 F-- Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: • Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-514 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP File# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 ---- — eDEP Transaction# Salem City/Town —...— C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) c) The landowner is responsible for BMP maintenance until the issuing authority is notified that another party has legally assumed responsibility for BMP maintenance. Prior to requesting a Certificate of Compliance, or Partial Certificate of Compliance, the responsible party(defined in General Condition 18(e)) shall execute and submit to the issuing authority an Operation and Maintenance Compliance Statement("O&M Statement) for the Stormwater BMPs identifying the party responsible for implementing the stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan ("O&M Plan")and certifying the following: i.)the O&M Plan is complete and will be implemented upon receipt of the Certificate of Compliance, and ii.)the future responsible parties shall be notified in writing of their ongoing legal responsibility to operate and maintain the stormwater management BMPs and implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. d) Post-construction pollution prevention and source control shall be implemented in accordance with the long-term pollution prevention plan section of the approved Stormwater Report and, if applicable, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Multi-Sector General Permit. e) Unless and until another party accepts responsibility, the landowner, or owner of any • drainage easement, assumes responsibility for maintaining each BMP. To overcome this presumption, the landowner of the property must submit to the issuing authority a legally binding agreement of record, acceptable to the issuing authority, evidencing that another entity has accepted responsibility for maintaining the BMP, and that the proposed responsible party shall be treated as a permittee for purposes of implementing the requirements of Conditions 18(f)through 18(k)with respect to that BMP. Any failure of the proposed responsible party to implement the requirements of Conditions 18(f)through 18(k)with respect to that BMP shall be a violation of the Order of Conditions or Certificate of Compliance. In the case of stormwater BMPs that are serving more than one lot, the legally binding agreement shall also identify the lots that will be serviced by the stormwater BMPs. A plan and easement deed that grants the responsible party access to perform the required operation and maintenance must be submitted along with the legally binding agreement. f) The responsible party shall operate and maintain all stormwater BMPs in accordance with the design plans, the O&M Plan, and the requirements of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. • n0fwm dX• rev.05119PO10 .. _ Page a of 12 • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands 64-514 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions Ma55oEP F e# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 -------- eDEP Transaction# Salem Oty/Town C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) g) The responsible party shall: 1. Maintain an operation and maintenance log for the last three (3)consecutive calendar years of inspections, repairs, maintenance and/or replacement of the stormwater management system or any part thereof, and disposal (for disposal the log shall indicate the type of material and the disposal location); 2. Make the maintenance log available to MassDEP and the Conservation Commission ("Commission") upon request; and 3. Allow members and agents of the MassDEP and the Commission to enter and inspect the site to evaluate and ensure that the responsible party is in compliance with the requirements for each BMP established in the O&M Plan approved by the issuing authority. h) All sediment or other contaminants removed from stormwater BMPs shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. 1) Illicit discharges to the stormwater management system as defined in 310 CMR 10.04 are prohibited. . j) The stormwater management system approved in the Order of Conditions shall not be changed without the prior written approval of the issuing authority. k) Areas designated as qualifying pervious areas for the purpose of the Low Impact Site Design Credit(as defined in the MassDEP Stormwater Handbook, Volume 3, Chapter 1, Low Impact Development Site Design Credits)shall not be altered without the prior written approval of the issuing authority. 1) Access for maintenance, repair, and/or replacement of BMPs shall not be withheld. Any fencing constructed around stormwater BMPs shall include access gates and shall be at least six inches above grade to allow for wildlife passage. Special Conditions (if you need more space for additional conditions, please attach a text document): See attached woaform5,doc• rev.05/19/4010 - Page 9 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: • Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-514 WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions "^assDEP File fi Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 -- -- — ---- -------- eDEP Transaction# Salem__ City/Town D. Findings Under Municipal Wetlands Bylaw or Ordinance 1. Is a municipal wetlands bylaw or ordinance applicable? ® Yes ❑ No z. The Salem __ hereby finds (check one that applies): - - Conservation Com-mission - a. ❑that the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the standards set forth in a municipal ordinance or bylaw, specifically: 1 Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw ---------- p,Citation Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to meet these standards, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. b. ® that the following additional conditions are necessary to comply with a municipal ordinance or bylaw: Salem Wetlands Ordinance __ ____ c. 50 - - . - -- ----- 1.Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw --- -- - . _.. .._..______.. 2.Citation 3. The Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the following • conditions and with the Notice of Intent referenced above. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, the conditions shall control, The special conditions relating to municipal ordinance or bylaw are as follows (if you need more space for additional conditions, attach a text document): See attached n wpafwm5goc rev.OSII9R010 , Page 10 0l 12 • - Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands s4-_514 WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions MassDEP File# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. a 131, §40 ------- ---- e iE Transaction# Salem E. Signatures city/Town This Order is valid for three years, unless otherwise specified as a special �8 l condition pursuant to General Condifions#4,from the date of issuance. 1. ate of Issuance - Please indicate the number of members who will sign this form. This Order must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. 2. Number of Signers The Order must be mailed by certified mail(return receipt requested)or hand delivered to the applicant.A copy also must be mailed or hand delivered at the same time to the appropriate Department of Environmental Protection Regional Office,if not filing electronically,and the property owner, if different from applicant. Signal s: n i • ❑ by hand delivery on by certified mail, return receipt requested,on uu � Date _.___.._ _...._...__- �.�._ Q.. Date .. .._ .._.--...._ F. Appeals The applicant, the owner, any person aggrieved by this Order, any owner of land abutting the land subject to this Order, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate MassDEP Regional Office to issue a Superseding Order of Conditions. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and a completed Request of Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form, as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7)within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Order. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. Any appellants seeking to appeal the Department's Superseding Order associated with this appeal will be required to demonstrate prior participation in the review of this project. Previous participation in the permit proceeding means the submission of written information to the Conservation Commission prior to the close of the public hearing, requesting a Superseding Order,or providing written information to the Department prior to issuance of a Superseding Order. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Order which is being appealed and how the Order does not contribute to the protection of the interests identified in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act(M.G.L. c. 131, §40), and is inconsistent with the wetlands regulations (310 CMR 10.00). To the extent that the Order is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. • wpaform5.aoo� rev,05/1912010 Page 11 0f 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP:17 • Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-514 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions - Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 ------ --- eDEP Transaction# Salem City/rown --- G. Recording Information Prior to commencement of work, this Order of Conditions must be recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land subject to the Order. In the case of registered land, this Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land subject to the Order of Conditions. The recording information on this page shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission listed below. Salem_ Conservation Commission ---- ------------- Detach on dotted line, have stamped by the Registry of Deeds and submit to the Conservation Commission. ----------- ...... ------------- ---------- To: Salem __....-tion -- ------ ----- ------- ---- ._... Conservation Commission - - ----- Please be advised that the Order of Conditions for the Project at: • Pr -- - --- - - ------.. .- o-j-ect-Lo--ca--tion --_.----..--..---.__.—_--_._---_ MassDEP File Number Has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds of: - - --- ounty- Book -Page— for: _.... pe-r_..__.-_-_...._._ Property Owner ----- and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property in: Book —Page--..-----------.:_......_____._....__. In accordance with the Order of Conditions issued on: Date If recorded'land, the instrument number identifying this transaction is: J. - - - - -- - - nstrument Number If registered land, the document number identifying this transaction is: _. . .----"..-mbe - -- - DocumentNur Signature of Applicant - ----- - +Walorm5.tloc- rov 0511912010 Page 12 of 12 Attachment to Order of Conditions# 64514 • Page 10f 6 SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION DEP FILE #64-514 Rt. IA Northbound (Loring Ave.) at Forest River City of Salem, Massachusetts ADDITIONAL FINDINGS Based on the Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife and Certified Vernal Pools Map(October 1, 2008) from Natural Heritage& Endangered Species Program (NHESP) of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, it has been determined that this project does not occur near any habitat of state listed rare wildlife species nor contains any vernal pools. This Order is issued under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, M.G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40 and the City Of Salem Wetlands Protection Ordinance,Salem Code Chapter 50. This Order permits the repair of the damaged stormwater drainage system at above-referenced site as specified in the plans listed below. The original proposal included construction of a rip rap splash pad adjacent to the top of coastal bank. In response to DEP comments advising of performance standards on in CMR 10.30(3)-(8) and response the plan was revised to reduce the size of the splash pad and move it away from the top of bank. In response io DEP inquiry concerning the presence of sediment in the river caused by the damaged pipe, the • Conservation Agent confirmed that no eroded sediment is visible in the river near the work area Due to the sensitivity of the location of work, the District Environmental Analyst shall be present during construction. Adequate erosion and sediment controls shall be placed between the work area and the top of coastal bank. In addition to protecting the resource area from erosion and sediment, these controls shall serve as a limit of " work Furthermore, when exposed to sediment from approved work, the system's catch basin shall be protected with adequate erosion and sediment controls. GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. This Order of Conditions must be recorded in its entirety(including all 6 pages of Special Conditions) at the Essex County Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located after the expiration of the 10-day appeal period and within 30 days of the issuance. A copy of the recording information must be submitted to the Salem Conservation Commission before any work approved in this Order commences. 2. Approval of this application does not constitute compliance with any law or regulation other than M_G.L Chapter-'131, Section 40, Wetlands Regulations 310 CMR 10.00 and the City of Salem Wetlands Protection Ordinance, Salem Code Chapter 50. 3. All work shall be performed in accordance with this;Order of Conditions and approved site plan(s). No alteration of wetland resource areas or associated buffer zones, other than that approved in this Order, shall occur on this property without prior approval from the Commission. •4. Prior to any work commencing on site, a DEP Sign showing DEP File#64-514 must be installed at the entrance to the site and seen from the public way, but not placed on a living tree. Attachment to Order of Conditions#64-514 ; Page 2of 6 • 5. No work approved in this Order may commence until the ten(10)day appeal period has lapsed from the date of the issuance of this Order. 6. With respect to this Order, the Commission designates the Conservation Agent as its agent with powers to act on its behalf in administering and enforcing this Order. 7. The Commission or its Agent, officers,or employees shall have the tight to enter and inspect the property at any tine for compliance with the conditions of this Order,the Wetlands Protection Act MGL Chapter 131, Section 40,the Wetlands Regulations 310 CMR 10.00,and shall have the right to require any data or documentation that it deems necessary for that evaluation. 8. The term"Applicant'as used in this Order of Conditions shall refer to the owner, any successor in interest or successor in control of the property referenced in the Notice of intent, supporting documents and this Order of Conditions. The Commission shall be notified in writing within 30 days of all transfers of title of any portion of the property that takes place prior to issuance of the Certificate of Compliance. 9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to procure all other applicable federal, state and local permits and approvals associated with this project. These permits may include but are not necessarily limited to the following: (1) Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act(P,L. 92-500, 86 stat. 816), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. • (2) Water Quality Certification in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution Control under authority of sec. 27(5)of Chapter 21 of the Massachusetts General Laws as codified in 314 CMR 9.00. (3) Sewer Extension Permit from the DEP Division of Water Pollution Control under G. L. Ch. 21 A ss7 and 314 CMR 7.00. Any Board of Health permit for septic system design for any portion of the septic system within 100 feet of wetlands shall be submitted to the Commission prior to construction initiation. (4) Design Requirements for Construction in Floodplains under the State Building Code(780 CMR 744.). 10. If there are conflicting conditions within this Order, the stricter condition(s)shall rule. IL. All work shall be performed so as to ensure that there will be no sedimentation into wetlands and surface waters during construction or after completion of the project. 12. The Commission or its Agent shall have the discretion to modify the erosion/siltation control methods and boundary during construction if necessary. 13. The Commission reserves the right to impose additional conditions on portions of this project or this site to mitigate any actual or potential impacts resulting from the work herein permitted. 14. The work shall conform to the following attached plans and special conditions: • F Attachment to Order of Conditions# 64-514 • '•.nd" Page 30f 6 Final Approved Plans MAINTENANCE&REPAIR OF OUTFALL, ROUTE I (LORING AVE)OVER FOREST RIVER, SALEM (Title) No date;presented at 3/24/2011 Conservation Commission Hearing (Dated7 MassDOT (.Signed and.Stamped by) City of Salem Conservation Commission (On file with) HEADWALL FOR 12"RCP,CSI#BSHW-12 (Title) • No date; presented at 3/24/2011 Conservation Commission Hearing (Dated) Concrete Systems, Inc. (Signed and Stamped by) City of Salem Conservation Commission (On file with 15. Any proposed changes in the approved plan(s)or any deviation in construction from the approved plan(s)shall require the applicant to file a Notice of Project Chanee with the Commission. The Notice shall be accompanied by a written inquiry prior to their implementation in the field, as to whether the change(s)is substantial enough to require filing a new Notice of Intent or a request to correct or amend this Order of Conditions. A copy of such request shall at the same time be sent to the Department of Environmental Protection. 16. In conjunction with the sale of this property or any portion thereof before a Certificate of Compliance has been issued,the applicant or current landowner shall submit to the Commission a statement sibmed by the buyer that he/she is aware of an outstanding Order of Conditions on the property and has received a copy of the Order of Conditions. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION • 17. Prior to the commencement of any activity on this site other than activities listed above, there must be a Pre-Construction Meeting on site between the project supervisor, the contractor responsible for the work, and the Conservation Agent and/or a member of the Conservation Commission to ensure that the requirements of the Order of Conditions are understood. The staked erosion control line shall be Attachment to Order of Conditions# 64-514 Page 4of 6 • adjusted, if necessary,during the pre-construction meeting. Please contact the Conservation Agent at (978)619-5685 at least forty-eight(48)hours prior to construction to arrange for the Pre- Construction Meeting. 18. Prior to the pre-construction meeting and commencement of any activity on this site, sedimentation and erosion control barriers shall be installed as shown on the approval plan(s)and detail drawings. The Commission and/or its Agent shall inspect and approve such installation at the pre-construction meeting. 19. No clearing of vegetation,including trees,or disturbance of soil shall occur prior to the pre-construction meeting. Minimal disturbance of shrubs and herbaceous plants shall be allowed prior to the pre- construction meeting if absolutely necessary in order to place erosion control stakes where required. 20. There shall be an adequate amount of additional erosion and sediment controls stored under cover on the site to be used for emergency erosion control purposes. EROSION CONTROL 21. Appropriate erosion control devices shall be in place prior to the beginning of any phase of construction, and shall be maintained during construction in any wetland resource area and/or buffer zones. The erosion control measures shown on the approval plan(s)and provisions in the Order will be the minimum standards for this project; the Commission or its Agent may require additional measures. 22. All debris, fill and excavated material shall be stockpiled a location far enough away from the wetland • resource areas to prevent sediment from entering wetland resource areas. 23. Erosion and sedimentation control devices shall be inspected after each storm event and repaired or replaced as necessary. Any accumulated silt adjacent to the barriers shall be removed. 24. The area of construction shall remain in a stable condition at the close of each construction day. 25. Any de-watering of trenches or other excavation required during construction shall be conducted so as to prevent siltation of wetland resource areas. All discharge from de-watering activities shall be filtered through hay bale sediment traps, silt filter bags or other means approved by the Commission or its Administrator. 26• Within thirty(30) days of completion of construction on any given portion of the project, all disturbed areas in the completed portion of the site shall be permanently stabilized with rapidly growing vegetative cover, using sufficient top soil to assure long-term stabilization of disturbed areas. 27. If soils are to be disturbed for longer that two(2)months, a temporary cover of rye or other grass should be established to prevent erosion and sedimentation. If the season is not appropriate for plant growth, exposed surface shall be stabilized by other appropriate erosion control measures, firmly anchored, to prevent soils from being washed by rain or flooding. DURING CONSTRUCTION 28. A copy of this Order of Conditions and the plan(s)approved in this Order shall be available on site at all tunes when work is in progress. • 29. No alteration or activity shall occur beyond the limit of work as defined by the siltation barriers shown on the approved plan(s). Yon =a Attachment to Order of Conditions# 64.514 • Palm 5of 6 30. All waste products,grubbed stumps, slash; construction materials, etc. shall be deposited at least 100 feet from wetland resource areas and 200 feet from river. 31. Cement trucks shall not be washed out in any wetland resource or buffer zone area,nor into any drainage system. Any deposit of cement or concrete products into a buffer zone or wetland resource area shall be immediately removed 32. All exposed sub-soils shall be covered by a minimum of three(3)inches of quality screened loam topsoil Prior to seeding and final stabilization. 33. Immediately following drainage structure installation all inlets shall be protected by silt fence,haybale homers and/or silt bags to filter silt from stormwater before it enters the drainage system. 34. There shall be no pumping of water from wetland resource areas. 35. All equipment shall be inspected regularly for leaks. Any leaking hydraulic lines, cylinders or any other components shall be fixed immediately. 36. During construction, all drainage structures shall be inspected regularly and cleaned as necessary. 37The applicant is herby notified that failure to of enforcement accomply with all requirements herein may result in the issuance tions by the Conservation Commission including,but not limit penalties under M.G.L Chapter 21 A, section 16, ed to, civil administrative • AFTER CONSTRUCTION 38. Upon completion of construction and final soil stabilization, the applicant shall submit the following to the Conservation Commission to request a Certificate of Compliance(COC): (1) A Completed Request for a Certificate of Compliance form(WPA Form 8A or other form if required by the Conservation Commission at the time of request). (2) A letter from a Registered Professional Engineer certifying compliance of the propertwith is Order of Conditions. y (3) An "As-Built,'plan signed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer or Land Surveyor showing post-construction conditions within all areas under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. This plan shall include at a minimum: (a) All wetland resource area boundaries with associated buffer zones and regulatory setback areas taken from the plan(s)approved in this Order of Conditions; (b) Locations and elevations of all stormwater management conveyances,structures and best management designs, including foundation drains, constructed under this Order within any wetland resource area or buffer zone; (c) Distances from any structures constructed under this Order to wetland resource areas- "structures"include, but are not limited to, all buildings, septic system components, wells, utility lines, fences, retaining walls,and roadsldtiveways; (d) A line delineating the limit of work-`work"includes any filling,excavating and/or disturbance Of soils or vegetation approved under this Order; :9. When issued, the Certificate of Compliance must be recorded at the Essex County Registry of Deeds and a copy of the recording submitted to the Salem Conservation Commission. j )= Attacluneut to Order of COnditions# 64-514 page hof 6 40. If the completed work differs from that in the original plans and conditions, the report must specify how the work differs; at which time the applicant shall first request a modification to the Order. Only upon review and approval by the Commission, may the applicant request in writing a Certificate of Compliance as described above. 41. Erosion control devices shall remain in place and properly functioning until all exposed soils have been stabilized with final vegetative cover and the their removal. Conservation Commission and/or its Agent has authorized ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS 42. Due to the sensitivity of the location of work,the District Environmental Analyst shall be present during construction to ensure that work is undertaken in accordance with this Order. 43. Adequate erosion and sediment controls shall be placed between the work area and the top of coastal bank. In addition to protecting the resource area from erosion and sediment, these controls shall serve as a limit of work. Furthermore, when exposed to sediment from approved work, the system's catch basin shall be protected with adequate erosion and sediment controls. • t��0"10Y1++ CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION 3. 13 NOTICE OF MEETING U0 Y i f_ You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on - Thursday,April 14,2011 at 6.00 PM at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington /Street, Salem, MA. �o,() loa6v l David A. Pabich, PE Chairman MEETING AGENDA i. Meeting Minutes—March 24,2011 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Barbara Bowman—DEP #64-509, 8 Dearborn Lane, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of Coastal Beach,Coastal Bank,and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane. g. Old/New Business ` • None Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. i , Thiln`NpP d �b Abet Board' ass. an App T Ow A a of K Page i of i Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting April 149 2011 Name Mailing Address Phone Email VLPtm u c"- ClH -SIG Lo__�Ayt,yQ YJ. t` ,v-urkc[ ggO_5jS-7gSZ V(sS-e 1ppar� StwtTre2 �we�� 3 (� V;"1t ST R1V_ -L44 - bO%y ikoyo() v Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,April 16, 2011,6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairman David Pabich, Carole McCauley,Julia Knisel, Amy Hamilton Members Absent: Dan Ricciarelli,Michael Blier Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chairman David Pabich calls the meeting to order, and announces that it will be recorded, at 6:15PM. 1. Meeting Minutes—March 24,2011 Chairman Pabich is not eligible to vote on the minutes, so Hamilton motions to approve, is seconded by McCauley and passes 3- Affirmative with 1-present(Chairman Pabich). 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Barbara Bowman—DEP#64-509, 8 Dearborn Lane, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of Coastal Beach, Coastal Bank, and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane. • Carole McCauley signs an affidavit indicating that she has reviewed material on this matter so she may vote, as she was not present the last time that issue came up. The applicant is not present as of 6:17PM. The Chairman says that he should be furnishing new information, and Devine says he spoke with him and the engineer a week ago. A motion to table is made by Hamilton, seconded by Knisel, and passes 4-0. At 6:30PM a motion to continue this issue until the May 12 is made by McCauley, seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously. 3. Old/New Business Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt St., asks if he may offer some updates to the Commission. The Commission agrees. First, Secretary Sullivan of EOEA certified the City's request for dredging of the South River and Controlled Aquatic Cell; the City must also prepare an Environmental Impact Report. Two points in the certification are relevant: 1. Permitting- Water Quality Certification; an Order of Conditions from the Commission will be considered part of the permitting process. 2. Secretary Sullivan is satisfied that impact on tideland resources can be addressed through permitting. Mr. • Treadwell does not know when the EIR will be produced. Second, in December US HUD approved the loan for the Senior Center on the Gateway site, 1 i with many financial conditions on the approval. The Council will consider this issue tonight; HUD says Environmental Review responsibilities are applicable to this project. Mr. Treadwell says an RFP went out in October but the a review hasn't been conducted yet; in either case the • environmental assessment form must address water quality, wetlands protection, and other issues. Devine asks for Commission funds to attend an MACC wetlands delineation workshop in Maynard in July. Chairman Pabich agrees he should go and Devine says that Commission members are welcome to attend. McCauley motions to grant him the funds, is seconded by Hamilton, and all approve. Salem Sound Coast Watch wants to install a data logger under footbridge in the Forest River conservation area by the South Campus of Salem state. Devine thinks it's exempt from review but wanted to bring it up. The purpose of the data logger is to collect information on the level and temperature of water; they will test separately for salinity when they go to check on the device. Devine notes that he hasn't heard from the volunteer who proposed doing repair work on this bridge. McCauley says they are installing a dozen data loggers in the area, especially in fish runs and to look at regional climate change trends. Rich Brennan for Barbara Bowman (Item #2) is still not present at 6:28PM. Chairman Pabich suggests making a motion to continue to May 12 as there are no agenda items for the next April meeting on the 28`h otherwise. See above for the motion. Knisel motions to adjourn the meeting, is seconded by Hamilton and the motion passes • unanimously. The meeting ends at 6:30PM Respectfully submitted, Stacy KilbT- Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on May 12, 2011 • 2 CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION 20!1 APR 20 P 3- 0 i CITY CLERK(.S'+LES'. fK,ASS NOTICE OF CANCELED MEETING You are hereby notified that„the Salem Conservation Commission meeting'scheduled for Thursday, April 28, 2011 at 6:00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street has been canceled due to lack of a agenda - items. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 §23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. 4 RrAkkrn A00 s@ BURR ds Board” 1&y WAN 3, dues. on Aarz 4o �io i� J"o, p s lawbi uA- 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM,MAssAcxusEm 01970 It TEL:978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.SALEM.COM ."CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION 1011 MAY -S P 2-- NOTICE OFMEETING CGTY GL- }FILE You are hereby not-;fled that the Salem Conservation Commission wi11 hold its regularr y sce2fuled A,on Thursday,May 12,2011 at 6:00 PM at City Hall Annex, third floor conference room, 120.Washington Street Salem, MA. David A.Pabich, PE Chairman AfEETI/VGAGENDA 1. Meeting Minutes-April 14,2013 a. Public Hearing—Notice of,Intent=DEP#64-515-Bakers Island Wharf Co., 132Nichols St.; Wilmington,MA.The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed replacement of 12 pilings on the Bakers Island Pier(map 46,lob 126)in Salem Sound, impacting land under the ocean. meg. Public Hearing-Request for Determination of Applicability—Salem Community Gardens, P.O. Box 82, Salem,MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss after-the-fact installation of 95 community garden.plots and appurtenances within riverfront area and buffer zones to coastal bank, coastal beach and salt marsh at 20 Lincoln Rd.(Dickman Park). 4. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-509—Barbara Bowman, 8 Dearborn Lane, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing,is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion ofcoastal beach,coastal bank,and land subject to coastal stone flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane. S. Old/New Business • Discussion of forthcoming election of Conservation Commission officers • Discussion and vote regarding funding for removal of debris from 44 Intervale Rd., within the Forest River Conservation Area • Discussion and vote regarding funding for consultant services for development of the City of Salem stormwater ordinance • DEP#64-321, 30 Cloverdale Ave.: Request for an invalid certificate of compliance Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. .."� Pftbd 4141 fterd" �oSalem, on 5 Zoll *6 Page r of i CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION all U'v P NOTICE OFMEET17VG C11 Y ('t L You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,May]2,2011 at 6-700 PM at City Hall Annex, third floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem, AU David A. Pabich, Chairman REVISED MEETING AGENDA i. Meeting Minutes—April 16,2011 2. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP 1164-515—Bakers Island Wharf Co., 132 Nichols St., Wilmington,MA.The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed replacement of 12 pilings on the Bakers Island Pier(map 46, lot 126)in Salem Sound, impacting land under the ocean. 0) 3. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Salem Community Gardens, P.O. Box 82, Salem, MA- The purpose of the hearing is to discuss after-the-fact installation of 95 community garden plots and appurtenances within riverfront area and buffer zones to coastal bank, coastal beach and salt marsh at 20 Lincoln Rd.(Pickman Park). 4. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-509—Barbara Bowman, 8 Dearborn Lane, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of coastal beach,coastal bank,and land --- subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane. 5. Old/New Business • Discussion of forthcoming election of Conservation Commission officers • Discussion and vote regarding funding for removal of debris from 44 Intervale Rd., within the Forest River Conservation Area • Discussion and vote regarding funding for consultant services for development of the City of Salem stormwater ordinance • DEP#64-321: 30 Cloverdale Ave., request for certificate of compliance for an invalid order of conditions • DEP#64466: South River Harborwalk,request for certificate of compliance Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. Page 1 of i l Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting • Date and Time: Thursday,May12, 2011, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairman David Chairman Pabich,Michael Blier, Amy Hamilton,Julia Knisel Members Absent: Carole McCauley,Dan Ricciarelli Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb The meeting is called to order by Chairman David Chairman Pabich at 6:05 p.m. i. Meeting Minutes—April 16,2011 A motion to approve the minutes is made by Knisel, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. 2. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— DEP #64-515—Bakers Island Wharf Co., 132 Nichols St., Wilmington, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed replacement of 12 pilings on the Bakers Island Pier (map 46, lot 126) in Salem Sound, impacting land under the ocean. Illustration: Bakers Island As-built Pier, H-25-1993, with undated notes. Here representing the company is Peter Golden. He outlines the situation; the work will be performed by JR Freitas Marine Construction, Demolition&Engineering; Mr. Freitas has done prior work on the pier. The pilings will be 40' long, and pressure treated. The start date is July 18a'. The footprint of the existing pier will not change. Chairman Chairman Pabich clarifies that the pilings will be replaced in kind, with the same diameter. The applicant states that they will be replaced one at a time, from a barge, not the top of the pier. A diagram has been submitted–the northwest corner will be shored up; old pictures shows work from 2004. This is constant maintenance heeded from erosion and collisions with boats. Chairman Pabich asks about shoring up and how the supports are attached to the pier. They will be done one at a time, as not all need replacement. ' Chairman Pabich says it sounds straightforward, and does not feel a site visit is needed. Pilings will be pulled out, not cut out. This will generally happen over a few days– a dozen is too many to do in one day. Blier asks what happens to the barge at night. Barges are pre-anchored and lift their own pilings –they temporarily drop a stationary anchor and stay in place. They will be at least 250'-300' from the beach. Chairman Pabich is concerned by debris landing in the water when drilling through the pressure ' treated pilings. A skirt may be placed under it to catch that. Devine says the DEP reviewed this 1 and made no comments. Mr. Golden has photocopies of all paperwork. There is a Chapter 91 license. Chairman Pabich opens to the public and Robert Leavens of 385 Magnolia Ave, Gloucester, comments that this would fall under regular maintenance of the pier, which is required under the chapter 91 license. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hamilton, seconded by Knisel and passes unanimously. A motion to issue an Order of Conditions is made by Blier, seconded by Knisel, and all approve. The plans to contain materials generated by drilling must meet the approval of the conservation agent, but verbal approval is all that is needed. The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. g. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Salem Community Gardens, P.O. Box 82, Salem, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss after-the-Fact installation of 95 community garden plots and appurtenances within riverfront area and buffer zones to coastal bank, coastal beach and salt marsh at 20 Lincoln Rd. (Pickman Park). Here for Community Gardens is Lisa Spence. She outlines the situation and their request. The Community Gardens are within a buffer zone and riverfront area, but they feel they will have negligible impact on it. Construction of gates and two fence sections were added; two more posts will be installed to finish the gates. Nine posts were put into the ground and that is all the soil • disturbance in this case. The city contracted with sprinkler installer to put in a tap; they used a Ditch Witch that digs 6-12" below ground. This also caused minimal disturbance. They are all organic gardens. They do not monitor it all the time but there are 4 garden captains in place; they live nearby and do keep an eye on things. In the past water conservation guidelines have been posted and will be again. Illustration: "Photos of Rainwater Runoff, the Spigot, and the Gates at the Pickman Park Community Garden", undated Normally they get a delivery of composted manure there; they understand if they cannot do that at this location. Although it could be delivered outside the buffer zone. She went out after a recent rainfall and presents pictures of how the water pools. They are open to taking additional steps toward mitigating the Commission's concerns. Chairman Pabich asks how individual plots in the center drain; they did not cut though the asphalt. Each is a non-pressure-treated pine box with 2" of gravel in the bottom, a permeable weed cloth barrier stapled to the box, then plant-based compost on top of that. She did not feel comfortable drilling into the asphalt due to potential contamination. There are some cracks in the tennis court. It is fairly flat but there is a gradual slope towards the water. Chairman Pabich asks if there is any drainage on the site; water comes down and slows at the back bay of beds. Ms. Spence hopes they will not add to runoff if gardeners are using their • resources properly; she hopes to actually absorb runoff from rain by putting the beds on the court surface. 2 Chairman Pabich says it is actually riverfront area, entirely within the resource, and he is concerned that there will be a fair amount of nutrients heading to the river. He wonders if steps • could be taken along the perimeter in order to prevent that. If boxes fail or compost is left on the surface it may wash into the river. Devine says that Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coastwatch stated that, at a minimum, all compost should be at the far end of the site. Ms. Spence says they will not be getting additional compost (manure) since they cannot control what the people nearest the water do with it; what is there now is plant-based, so is low in nitrogen and will have a slower release. They do have a space behind the boxes where they could install a device to slow or stop the water, or to absorb it. They are considering a poly-grow tube; soil can fill it and plants can be grown in it. This would act as an additional sponge for the water runoff; slowing the water would also prevent the release of any sediments. There are no plans to do any additional plantings; Ms. Spence states that they can do all mitigation within the fence, either in front of or behind the boxes. Chairman Pabich thinks vegetation along the perimeter strip to catch water coming off the site, along with any nutrients, would be desirable. Ms. Spence says the poly-grow would work like that but is somewhat different than a strip of sod. She thinks it should be able to be installed where the Commission would like. Hamilton asks if the river floods in that area; Ms. Spence says she has not seen it but imagines that it does, and Devine comments that it is NOT in the 100-year flood zone. It is not land subject to flooding with regards to the Conservation Commission's jurisdiction. This means it . has a lower probability of a major flood. Knisel asks how close floods come to the site; Devine shows the Commission the flood map. Chairman Pabich states that housekeeping is very important and says it could have no impact, or a large impact. Knisel asks about if they planned to build boxes along that side; Chairman Pabich says that if they had come to the Commission before building, he would have recommended that something be put there. He feels that having a continuous barrier there would be acceptable. Ms. Spence agrees they could build something vegetated; she bought 100' of tube to go around the corner. Chairman Pabich asks about the corners and the setup is described and discussed. He thinks they should give the water a number of avenues to get to the sock so that it will work as designed. Water should go through it rather than up and over it. He asks that it be planted on the outside— planted or excavated so that water leaving the site gets trapped. Ms. Spence states that it is fairly thickly vegetated right now. Blier says a consideration is that this is going to be an ongoing issue; he questions who will maintain it in the coming years and wonders how it will be maintained and by whom; is there a plan in place for when the gardens are no longer there? Ms. Spence says that it would be maintained the same as at other locations; if plots are abandoned, they become donation plots until the next year, when they become available for rental again, as there is a waiting list. They also have an agreement with Parks and Recreation to maintain all community gardens. The • raised beds last a long time and they can build new ones when need be. Even the Winter Island beds will be moved and those expenses are covered by fees charged. Chairman Pabich opines that they should go for a site visit to understand the setup. 3 Advantages of having the gardens there are discussed, including replacing blacktop with surfaces that don't heat up, and keeping teenagers and their glass-breaking out of the area. Blier says there • may be unintended consequences, though, related to maintenance. Chairman Pabich requests submission of a maintenance plan, or establishing one. Housekeeping will be important. Hamilton asks if it is subject to Commission jurisdiction, but Devine says there is some flexibility due to precedent; this is a similar situation as the dog park, which is also in a resource area but the Commission did review and approve that with conditions, using an RDA even though an NOI might actually be more appropriate. Even though boxes are being filled, they are temporary in nature. They may need to make a positive determination. But, it is felt that gardens are better than a tennis court; though now, on the other hand, more material may wash off of it than before. Chairman Pabich opens to the public and there are no comments. A formal site visit is not scheduled but Commissioners are asked to go individually instead. Devine mentions that the playground is also being replaced at Pickman Park, and they may also have to file. He will follow up. A motion to continue to the next meeting is made by Knisel, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. Chairman Pabich asks to see a plan to address the Commission's concerns at that time. Pabich states that no one will issue a cease and desist to stop the gardening while this is still under review. 4. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-509—Barbara Bowman, 8 . • Dearborn Lane, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of coastal beach, coastal bank, and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane. Here for Ms. Bowman is Richard Brennan of 405 Mason St. Devine has an affidavit for Blier to sign as he was'not here at the last meeting. Illustration: Hobbs Endeavour Corporation; Bowman Residence, 8 Dearborn Lane, Salem; 5- 11-2011, 7 pages Mr. Brennan apologizes for missing the last meeting when he was on the agenda. He shows the Commission a copy of the plan, which he has not thoroughly reviewed yet. There was a site visit and at that time they had planned to do a riprap wall to match the existing wall. Now the plan is to replace the concrete wall with another concrete wall, this time with blocks. There is a drawing of the setup included. He describes the blocks and the capstones on top. The existing riprap has moved out onto the beach and should be pulled back. That will happen in phase 1 since it is at the most difficult part to reach. The existing wall would then be removed and they will dig back to give room to put the new wall in. There will be three steps at the edge to get to the beach. He thought there was a 3' public right of way, but it is a drainage easement, not public access. Chairman Pabich comments • on the drainpipe which is on the neighbor's property. 4 They discuss the setup and continuation of the new wall across a certain area to stabilize the bank. It is above high water, but is still subject to very high tides. • The applicant and Chairman Pabich also discuss a few other points: • Eroded materials, a source of sediment, are being replaced with hard materials that will not provide sediment. While replacing the current wall with an in-kind one is understandable, the Chairman would like to see a"soft" solution. • A more thorough, detailed plan is requested. • There is some question as to DEP comments —the ones made so far pertain to the original plan, and this one is a radical departure. Revised plans should be re-submitted to the DEP and if they have further comments, these should be taken into account. • The new setup is also discussed in more detail, in particular the length and height of the wall. A motion to continue is made by Hamilton, seconded by Knisel, and passes unanimously. g. Old/New Business • Discussion of forthcoming election of Conservation Commission officers A Chair and Vice Chair must be named; Chairman Pabich is willing to continue in his role if there are no other options. Devine clarifies that the Chair does not have to be an engineer. Knisel asks if they should wait until they have a final member; but, as voting is not on the agenda, they will not vote tonight. This is supposed to be done every year but Chairman Pabich has been chair • for 2 or 3 years. The Commission will continue this discussion at the next meeting. • Discussion and vote regarding funding for removal of debris from 44 Intervale Rd., within the Forest River Conservation Area Devine outlines the situation; a resident is volunteering to clean up the area as long as the Commission is willing to pay for a dumpster. Knisel worries that the neighborhood could use it for disposal of their own refuse. Chairman Pabich says that maybe they can ask this gentleman to. put items on the side of the road, then a collection truck could be sent. Devine only has quotes for a dumpster but Chairman Pabich says whoever we hire could do it in one fell swoop; a dumpster would draw attention. The site is where people would go to throw trash before the new house was there; now that it's been improved they no longer do that. Devine does not want to lose another volunteer and Chairman Pabich agrees it would be counterproductive to make it cumbersome for him. Knisel asks about the volume of material, which is enough to fill a dumpster. Chairman Pabich clarifies that you pay for volume with a dumpster. It costs $475 minimum no matter how full or not it is. Devine proposes moving forward with the dumpster and asking the volunteer to keep an eye on it; this would be a large dumpster with an open top. The area looks like it is his property • since the road continues; it will not appear to be in a public area. Chairman Pabich asks about the prices; they range from (for Northside Carting) $400 for 15 yards, with a 3 ton max and an $80/ton charge over that, with no tires. There is also a quote from 5 BFI for a 15 cubic yard dumpster for $350, prepaying for 1 ton and a charge of $83/ton over that. Knisel comments that one ton may not be enough if there are a bunch of TV's, and Devine opines that the 3 tons for $400 may be a better deal in this case. • Knisel asks what's down there — car parts, wheels, appliances, tires, random trash. She also suggests he should sign a waiver in case he gets hurt. A motion for approval of funding for the dumpster is made by Blier and seconded by Knisel. It passes unanimously with a$485 maximum charge allotted. • Discussion and vote regarding funding for consultant services for development of the City of Salem stormwater ordinance No vote is needed; Devine was going to ask for $5,000 to match the same amount coming from the Engineering Department, to finish development of this ordinance. However, Engineering has paid the full $10,000, so no additional funds are needed; there will be discussion at an uncoming meeting. • DEP #64-321: 30 Cloverdale Ave., request for certificate of compliance for an invalid order of conditions This expired before the work was done; work was completed under a new order and a certificate of compliance was issued for that. No inspection is required. A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance is made by Knisel, seconded by Hamilton, and • passes unanimously. DEP#64-466: South River Harborwalk, request for certificate of compliance Devine passes around photos. It has been done for a while but they were wrapping up some small details. A deviation was that the harbormaster asked for a safety ladder, which was installed. A motion to issue the Harborwalk Certificate of Compliance is made by Hamilton, seconded by Knisel, and passes unanimously. Devine announces that at Furlong Park they are taking some trees down and this requires public hearings with the Tree Warden. Chairman Pabich suggests replanting the removed trees. This is in a riverfront area, so they should be replaced. A motion to adjourn the meeting is made by Hamilton, seconded by Knisel, and passes unanimously. The meeting adjourns at 7:15PM. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Kilb I • Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission 6 Approved by the Conservation Commission on September 8, 2011. • • • 7 l CITY OFSALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION May 27, 2011 Peter Golden 132 Nichols St. Wilmington, MA 01887 Re: Order of Conditions DEP #64-515—Bakers Island Pier Dear Mr. Golden: Enclosed, please find the amended Order of Conditions for the above referenced project. Following the 10-business-day appeal period, this document and the attached Special Conditions must be recorded at the Essex County Registry of Deeds (Shetland Park 45 Congress Street, Suite 4100 Salem, Massachusetts). Once recorded, please return a copy of Page 12 of the Order, which will indicate to the Commission that the document has been recorded. As indicated in the Order, prior to any work commencing: 1. this Order must be recorded, 2. contact me at least 48 hours prior to any activity to schedule a pre-construction meeting to review the Order with your contractor. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 978-619-5685. Sincerely, C Tom Devine Conservation Agent/ Staff Planner Enclosures CC: DEP Northeast Regional Office • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-515 ., WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions Mesg�EPFile# - - Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 — -- eDEPTransaction f Salem _ Cdy?own-_ A. General Information Plane note: Salem this form has 1. From: -------------------------__..-_--- - - - -- - been modified Conservation Commission ---------- `Ah added2. This issuance is for apace to a.®Order of Conditions b. ❑Amended Order of Conditions accommodate (check one): the Registry Requires a. To Applicant. Requirements Peter __— Golden important: a.First Name b:Last Name -When filling _ out forms c.Organization on the 132 Nichols St. computer, use only the d.Mailing Address tab key to W Imington MA 01887 move youra. ?own f. C' cursor•do � .State g.Zip Code not use the 4. Property Owner(if different from applicant): return key. . 1/I�m���� a First Name 'IAV Bakers Island Wharf Co Inc c.Organization ------�- 132 Nichols St ' d. fling Address _..._. Wilmington — MA 01887 �' f.State--- -------- ---- e—..__ e.C crown g.Zip Code 5. Project Location: Bakers Island Pier Salem - a. street Address -..... b.City frown 46 -- --------... 126 C.Assessors Ma let Number P� d.PerceVLot Number Latitude and Longitude, if known: -d----m----- S d m s d. Latdude e.Longitude «pabrmsdoc �.os�rnorR revs 1 a 12 • r Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP_ �. ,. . Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands 64-515 }., WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP File it Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 - -------- - __ eil Transaction# Salem Crty/Tovm A. General Information (cont.) s. Property recorded at the Registry of Deeds for(attach additional information if more than one parcel): Essex a.Coun -- __ - —_ .- ry 3189 b.Certificate Number(if _.._,.... ..___. egist. e ed land) --- - -- --.._._ 329 c Book -._-..__._..._ d.Page------- . d.Page 3/8/2011 5112/2011 _ 7. Dates: — _S"— a.Date Notice of Intent Filed b.Date Public Hearing Closed C.Date of Issuance e. Final Approved Plans and Other Documents (attach additional plan or document references as needed): —Bakers Island As-built Pier with undated notes --- ---- -- — — notes) Title -- --- —._. -- a. Plan Trtb ------- ----— b.Prepared 6y------ c Sgned and Stamped by 11/25/1993 1"=20' d.Final Revision Date e,Scale -- • f.Add'Rional Plan or Documem B. Findings TAb g Date t. Findings pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: Following the review of the above-referenced Notice of Intent and based on the information provided in this application and presented at the public hearing, this Commission finds that the areas in which work is proposed is significant to the following interests of the Wetlands Protection Act(the Act). Check all that apply: a. ❑ Public Water Supply b. ® Land Containing Shellfish c. ❑ Prevention of Pollution d. ❑ Private Water Supply e. ® Fisheries f. ® Protection of Wildlife Habitat g. ❑ Groundwater Supply h. ® Storm Damage Prevention i. ® Flood Control 2. This Commission hereby finds the project, as proposed, is:(check one of the following boxes) Approved subject to: a. ® the following conditions which are necessary in accordance with the performance standards set forth in the wetlands regulations. This Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the Notice of Intent referenced above, the following General Conditions, and any other special conditions attached to this Order. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications,or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, these conditions shall control • -Per«rns o Iwxlo Page 2 d 12 M1 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: • Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-515 �. WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions Mail-sD-EFFict: Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. C. 131, §40 - ----- - -"- - --- eDEP Transaction# Salem City/Town B. Findings (cont.) Denied because: b. ❑ the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the performance standards set forth in the wetland regulations. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a new Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to protect the interests of the Act,and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the performance standards which the proposed work cannot meet is attached to this Order, c. ❑ the information submitted by the applicant is not sufficient to describe the site, the work, or the effect of the work on the interests identified in the Wetlands Protection Act. Therefore,work on this project may not go forward unless and unbl a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides sufficient information and includes measures which are adequate to protect the Act's interests, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the specific Information which Is lacking and why it Is necessary Is attached to this Order as per 310 CMR 10.05(6)(c). 3. ❑ Buffer Zone Impacts: Shortest distance between limit of project disturbance and the wetland resource area specified in 310 CMR 10.02(1)(a) a.linear • Inland Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) Resource Area Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration Alteration Replacement Replacement 4. ❑ Bank a.linear feet b.linear feet c.linear feet d.linear feet 5. ❑ Bordering Vegetated Wetland a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d,square feet e. ❑ Land Under _ Waterbodies and a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet Waterways e.dy dredged f.dy dredged 7. ❑ Bordering Land Sub' to Flooding a.square feet b.square- .. ._.. square--- - Subject g feet c. feet d.square feet Cubic Feet Flood Storage ------ -----..._ _._—__ ......_. e.cubic feet f.cubic feet g.cubic feet h.cubic feet 5. ❑ Isolated Land - ---------- Subject to Flooding a.square feet b.square teat Cubic Feet Flood Storage __............. c.cubic feet d.cubic feet e.cubic feet f.cubic feet g. ❑ Riverfront Area __._._- __._"... f;.4 b.total sq.feet Sq It within 100 ft d.square feet f.square feet Sq It between 100- 200 00.200 ft - - ---- - -- - - -..._. h.square feet I.square feet • wpefwm5 aoc• rev OSn9M10 Page 9 of 12 • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP. Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-515 WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions MassDEP File Of Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 - ---- -- - eDEP Transaction k Salem - Cty/Town - B. Findings (cont.) Coastal Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration Alteration Replacement Replacement fo. ED Designated Port Areas Indicate size under Land Under the Ocean, below tt. ® Land Under the 30 30 _ Ocean a.square feet to square feet c.Uy dredged . d.dy dredged 12. ❑ Barrier Beaches Indicate size under Coastal Beaches and/or Coastal Dunes below 13. ❑ Coastal Beaches --------- ------.----__ cu yd_ cu a.square feet b.square feet c.nourishment d.nourishment fa. ❑ Coastal Dunes - ---- ----- -.-_--. -_-- cu yd_ cu yd.._ a.square feet b.square feet c.nourishment d. nourishment is. ❑ Coastal Banks ------ -- a.linear feet b. linear feet -- fs. ❑ Rocky Intertidal _ Shores a-Square feet b.square feet 17. ❑ Salt Marshes a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.squarefeet fe. El Land Under Salt Ponds a.square feet b.square feet c.cty dredged d.dy dredged.. ts. ❑ Land Containing _ Shellfish a.square feet b.square feet a square feet d.square feet 20. ❑ Fish Runs Indicate size under Coastal Banks, Inland Bank, Land Under the Ocean, and/or inland Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways, above a.cly dredged c d edgee 21. ❑ Land Subject to Coastal Storm a_squa.-. ref-eet-- b.s-quaref—-eet- - . e Flowage • »v�rams aoc•rev ovrs�nrn P990 4 of 12 -- Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: • Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-515 ..... ...:.._ WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions MassDEP Re Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 -Tra -aaioni eDEP Transaction# Salem - ------... City/Town B. Findings (cont.) 111122.If 22 ❑ Restoration/Enhancement': project is for the purpose.of restoring or ..._____._. ._ __. _ a square feet of BVW s _ . ......- ._.__.__,........_... enhancing a b.square feet of salt marsh wetland resource area 23. ❑ Stream Crossing(s): in addHion to the square ___---- footage that a.number of new stream crossings b.number of replacement stream crossings has been entered in C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act Section B.5.c (Bvw)(or S 6.17.e tsars The following conditions are only applicable to Approved projects. Marsh)above, 1. Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein, and with all related statutes and other please enter l the additional r e9uato ry measures, shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this Order. amount here. 2. The Order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges; it does not authorize any injury to private property or invasion of private rights. 3. This Order does not relieve the permittee or any other person of the necessity of complying • with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes,ordinances, bylaws, or regulations. 4. The work authorized hereunder shall be completed within three years from the date of this Order unless either of the following apply: a. the work is a maintenance dredging project as provided for in the Act; or b. the time for completion has been extended to a specified date more than three years, but less than rive years, from the date of issuance. If this Order is intended to be valid for more than three years, the extension date and the special circumstances warranting the extended time period are set forth as a special condition in this Order. 5. This Order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or more periods of up to three years each upon application to the issuing authority at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the Order. 6.. If this Order constitutes an Amended Order of Conditions, this Amended Order of Conditions does not extend the issuance date of the original Final Order of Conditions and the Order will expire on unless extended in writing by the Department. 7. Any fill used in connection with this project shall be clean fill. Any fill shall contain no trash, refuse, rubbish, or debris, including but not limited to lumber, bricks, plaster, wire, lath, paper, cardboard, pipe, bres,ashes, refrigerators, motor vehicles, or parts of any of the foregoing. 8. This Order is not final until all administrative appeal periods from this Order have elapsed, or If such an appeal has been taken, until all proceedings before the Department have been completed. • •verarmsax• �..oyrtrzuio Pepe 5 of 12 • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: [L711 Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-515 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions Mass6EPRIe# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. a 131, §40 eDEP Transaction# Salem Cdy/rovm C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) 9. No work shall be undertaken until the Order has become final and then has been recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done. In the case of the registered land, the Final Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is done. The recording information shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission on the form at the end of this Order, which form must be stamped by the Registry of Deeds, prior to the commencement of work. 10. A sign shall be displayed at the site not less then two square feet or more than three square feet in size bearing the words, "Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection'[or, 'MassDEP"] 'File Number 64-515 11. Where the Department of Environmental Protection is requested to issue a Superseding • Order, the Conservation Commission shall be a party to all agency proceedings and hearings before MassDEP. 12. Upon completion of the work described herein, the applicant shall submit a Request for Certificate of Compliance(WPA Form 8A)to the Conservation Commission. 1 13. The work shall conform to the plans and special conditions referenced in this order. 14. Any change to the plans identified in Condition#13 above shall require the applicant to inquire of the Conservation Commission in writing whether the change is significant enough to require the filing of a new Notice of Intent. 15. The Agent or members of the Conservation Commission and the Department of Environmental Protection shall have the right to enter and inspect the area subject to this Order at reasonable hours to evaluate compliance with the conditions stated in this Order, and may require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by the Conservation Commission or Department for that evaluation. 16. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in interest or successor in control of the property subject to this Order and to any contractor or other person performing work conditioned by this Order. 17. Prior to the start of work, and if the project involves work adjacent to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland, the boundary of the wetland in the vicinity of the proposed work area shall be marked by wooden stakes or flagging. Once in place, the wetland boundary markers shall be maintained until a Certificate of Compliance has been issued by the Conservation Commission. •Pr«m9 - rev M19RO10 Pape 6 0l 12 ------ m assachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP.L • Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-515 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions ivassmooFiien (i\ Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 — ---- - eDEP Transaction 0 Salem cnrrown C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act(cont.) 18. All sedimentation barriers shall be maintained in good repair until all disturbed areas have been fully stabilized with vegetation or other means. At no.time shall sediments be deposited in a wetland or water body. During construction, the applicant or his/her designee shall inspect the erosion controls on a daily basis and shall remove accumulated sediments as needed. The applicant shall immediately control any erosion problems that occur at the site and shall also immediately notify the Conservation Commission, which reserves the right to require additional erosion and/or damage prevention controls a may deem necessary. Sedimentation barriers shall serve as the limit of work unless another limit of work line has been approved by this Order. NOTICE OF STORMWATER CONTROL AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS 19. The work associated with this Order(the"Project')is (t)❑ Is not(z)®subject to the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards. If the work is subject to the Stormwater Standards,then the project is subject to the following conditions: a) All work, including site preparation, land disturbance, construction and redevelopment, • shall be implemented in accordance with the construction period pollution prevention and erosion and sedimentation control plan and, if applicable, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Construction General Perk as required by Stormwater Condition 8. Construction period erosion, sedimentation and pollution control measures and best management practices (BMPs)shall remain in place until the site is fully stabilized. b) No stomtwater runoff may be discharged to the post-construction storwater BMPs unless and until a Registered Professional Engineer provides a Certification that: i. all construction period BMPs have been removed or will be removed by a date certain specified in the Certification. For any construction period BMPs intended to be converted to post constriction operation for storwater attenuation, recharge, and/or treatment, the conversion is allowed by the MassDEP Stormwater Handbook BMP specifications and that the BMP has been properly cleaned or prepared for post construction operation, including removal of all construction period sediment trapped in inlet and outlet control structures; ii. as-built final construction BMP plans are included, signed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer,certifying the site is fully stabilized; X. any illicit discharges to the storwater management system have been removed, as per the requirements of Stormwater Standard 10; iv. all post-construction stonmwater BMPs are installed in accordance with the plans (including all planting plans)approved by the issuing authority, and have been inspected to ensure that they are not damaged and that they are in proper working condition; v. any vegetation associated with post-construction BMPs is suitably established to withstand erosion. • .vebrtns.mc• rev avivnoa Page 7wiz • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands 64-515 WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions WSOEP PileR Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 --- --- eDEP 7rensaaion# Salem _-...____._._.__.._--__ C - C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act(cont.) c) The landowner is responsible for BMP maintenance until the issuing authority is notified that another party has legally assumed responsibility for BMP maintenance. Prior to requesting a Certificate of Compliance, or Partial Certificate of Compliance, the responsible party(defined in General Condition 18(e))shall execute and submit to the issuing authority an Operation and Maintenance Compliance Statement("O&M Statement) for the Stormwater 8MPs identifying the party responsible for implementing the stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan ("O&M Plan')and certifying the following: i.)the O&M Plan is complete and will be implemented upon receipt of the Certificate of Compliance, and ii.)the future responsible parties shall be notified in writing of their ongoing legal responsibility to operate and maintain the stormwater management BMPs and implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. d) Post-construction pollution prevention and source control shall be implemented in accordance with the long-tern pollution prevention plan section of the approved Stormwater Report and, if applicable, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Multi-Sector General Permit. • e) Unless and until another party accepts responsibility, the landowner,or owner of any drainage easement, assumes responsibility for maintaining each 8MP. To overcome this presumption, the landowner of the property must submit to the issuing authority a legally binding agreement of record, acceptable to the issuing authority,evidencing that another entity has accepted responsibility for maintaining the BMP, and that the proposed responsible party shall be treated as a permittee for purposes of implementing the requirements of Conditions 18(f)through 18(k)with respect to that BMP. Any failure of the proposed responsible party to implement the requirements of Conditions 18(f)through 18(k)with respect to that BMP shall be a violation of the Order of Conditions or Certificate of Compliance. In the case of stormwater BMPs that are serving more than one lot, the legally binding agreement shall also identify the lots that will be serviced by the stormwater BMPs. A plan and easement deed that grants the responsible party access to perform the required operation and maintenance must be submitted along with the legally binding agreement 0 The responsible party shall operate and maintain all stormwater BMPs in accordance with the design plans, the O&M Plan, and the requirements of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. • -P-km6le - .w 060+90010 P�sar2 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDER • Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands 64-515 . ...-_.... WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP Re# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 -- ------------- eDEP Transaction# Salem Cit rmn C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) g) The responsible party shall: 1. Maintain an operation and maintenance log for the last three(3)consecutive calendar years of inspections, repairs, maintenance and/or replacement of the stormwater management system or any pan thereof, and disposal(for disposal the log shall indicate the type of material and the disposal location); 2. Make the maintenance log available to MassDEP and the Conservation Commission ("Commission")upon request; and 3. Allow members and agents of the MassDEP and the Commission to enter and inspect the site to evaluate and ensure that the responsible party is in compliance with the requirements for each BMP established in the O&M Plan approved by the issuing authority. h) All sediment or other contaminants removed from stormwater BMPs shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. i) Illicit discharges to the stormwater management system as defined in 310 CMR 10.04 are prohibited. j) The stormwater management system approved in the Order of Conditions shall not be • changed without the prior written approval of the issuing authority. k) Areas designated as qualifying pervious areas for the purpose of the Low Impact Site Design Credit(as defined in the MassDEP Stormwater Handbook, Volume 3, Chapter 1, Low Impact Development Site Design Credits) shall not be altered without the prior written approval of the issuing authority. 1) Access for maintenance, repair, and/or replacement of BMPs shall not be withheld. Any fencing constructed around stormwater BMPs shall include access gates and shall be at least six inches above grade to allow for wildfrfe passage. Special Conditions(if you need more space for additional condifions,'please attach a text document): _See attached _----- • rpelam5.0oc• rov oui m1D Pape 9 d 12 • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-515 WPA Form 5 - Order of ConditionsMassDEP File# - _ - Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.I. c. 131, §40 - -- -----.--- -- eDEP Transaction# Salem Ciry/lown D. Findings Under Municipal Wetlands Bylaw or Ordinance 1. Is a municipal wetlands bylaw or ordinance applicable? ® _Yes ❑ No 2. The Salem - hereby finds(check one that applies): Conservation Commission a ❑ that the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the standards set forth in a municipal ordinance or bylaw, specifically: 1.Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw -----------_.___.__.__. -. ... 2.Citation--'-- Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to meet these standards, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. b: ❑that the following additional conditions are necessary to comply with a municipal ordinance or bylaw: 1.Municipal Ordinance wBylaw - 2.Citati--onn - 3. The Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the following • conditions and with the Notice of Intent referenced above. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent,the conditions shall control. The special conditions relating to municipal ordinance or bylaw are as follows(if you need more space for additional conditions, attach a text document): No additional conditions are needed for compliance with the City of Salem Webands Protection and Conservation Ordinance, Salem Code Chapter 50 • wyeMnu`me rev 06fis2010 Pupa 10 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: • Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-515 WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions MassDEP FileA -- Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 -- -- - -- Salem Transaction# - LL7i] SSalem - City/Town E. Signatures This Order is valid for three years,unless otherwise specified as a special condition pursuant to General Conditions 94,from the date of issuance. t.Date of Issuance Please indicate the number of members who will sign this form. This Order must by a majority of the Conservation Commission. 2.-Nu r of Signers The Order st be mailed by dified mail(return receipt requested)or hand delivered to the applicant.A copy also ust be mailed or nd delivered at the same time to the appropriate Department of Environ tal Protection R fonai Office, if not filing electronically,and the property owner, if different from appli nt. Signatures: - C��.-. --- --------- ❑ by hand delivery onTTT by certified mail, return receipt requested, on • } _ 17—�1 Date - Date F. Appeals The applicant, the owner, any person aggrieved by this Order, any owner of land abutting the land subject to this Order, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate MassDEP Regional Office to issue a Superseding Order of Conditions. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department,with the appropriate filing fee and a completed Request of Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form, as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7)within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Order.A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. Any appellants seeking to appeal the Department's Superseding Order associated with this appeal will be required to demonstrate prior participation in the review of this project. Previous participation in the permit proceeding means the submission of written information to the Conservation Commission prior to the dose of the public hearing, requesting a Superseding Order, or providing written information to the Department prior to issuance of a Superseding Order. The request shall state dearly and concisely the objections to the Order which is being appealed and how the Order does not contribute to the protection of the interests identified in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act(M-G.L. c. 131, §40), and is inconsistent with the wetlands regulations(310 CMR 10-00). To the extent that the Order is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. • wperarm5.�1c• rw 05192010 _ Pepe 11&12 • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP 1 Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-515 WPA!p Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP Fib# - - Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction# Salem cityrr ----- G. Recording Information Prior to commencement of work, this Order of Conditions must be recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor index under the name of the owner of the land subject to the Order. In the case of registered land, this Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land subject to the Order of Conditions. The recording information on this page shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission listed below. Salem Conservation Commission ------" -------- Detach on dotted line, have stamped by the Registry of Deeds and submit to the Conservation Commission. ------------ ---------- ----------------------------------- ------------ — ------- To: Salem _ Conservation Commission -- ------ ------ • Please be advised that the Order of Conditions for the Project at: Project Location -----"-------------"-------- --- MassDEP Fib Number Has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds of: County Book Page for Property Owner---------------------------------- and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property in: Page- In In accordance with the Order of Conditions issued on: - Date --------- ---- If recorded land, the instrument number identifying this transaction is: Instrument Number ---------- If registered land, the document number-identifying this transaction is: Document Number --------..._------ ------------------------------------------- • Signature of Applicant Pepe 12 012 ;. Attachment to Order of Conditions # 64-515 ' Page lof 5 • SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION DEP FILE #64-515 Bakers Island Pier City of Salem, Massachusetts ADDITIONAL FINDINGS Based on the Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife and Certified Vernal Pools Map(October I, 2008) from Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP)of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, it has been determined that this project does not occur near any habitat of state-listed rare wildlife species nor contains any vemal pools. This Order is issued under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act,M.G.L.Chapter 131, Section 40 and the City of Salem Wetlands Protection and Conservation Ordinance,Salem Code Chapter 50. This Order permits the removal and replacement of twelve (12) pilings on the Bakers Island Pier as indicated on plan submitted with the Notice of Intent. Prior to construction, a method of containing construction debris shall be submitted to the Conservation Agent for approval. GENERAL CONDITIONS • 1. This Order of Conditions must be recorded in its entirety(including all 5 pages of Special Conditions) at the Essex County Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, after the expiration of the 10-day appeal period and within 30 days of the issuance. A copy of the recording information must be submitted to the Salem Conservation Commission before any work approved in this Order commences. 2. Approval of this application does not constitute compliance with any law or regulation other than M.G.L Chapter 131, Section 40, Wetlands Regulations 310 CMR 10.00 and the City of Salem Wetlands Protection Ordinance, Salem Code Chapter 50. 3. All work shall be performed in accordance with this Order of Conditions and approved site plan(s). No alteration.of wetland resource areas or associated buffer zones, other than that approved in this Order, shall occur on this property without prior approval from the Commission. 4. Prior to any work commencing on site,a DEP Sign showing DEP File#64-515 must be installed at the entrance to the site and seen from the public way, but not placed on a living tree. 5. No work approved in this Order may commence until the ten(10)day appeal period has lapsed from the date of the issuance of this Order. 6. With respect to this Order, the Commission designates the Conservation Agent as its agent with powers to act on its behalf in administering and enforcing this Order. 7. The Commission or its Agent,officers,or employees shall have the right to enter and inspect the property at • any time for compliance with the conditions of this Order, the Wetlands Protection Act MGL,Chapter 131, Attachment to Ordct.r >I Conditions # 64 515 Page 2of 5 • Section 40,the Wetlands Regulations 310 CMR 10.00,and shall have the right to require any data or documentation that it deems necessary for that evaluation. 8. The term"Applicant'as used in this Order of Conditions shall refer to the owner,any successor in . interest or successor in control of the property referenced in the Notice of intent, supporting documents and this Order of Conditions. The Commission shall be notified in writing within 30 days of all transfers of title of any portion of the property that takes place prior to issuance of the Certificate of Compliance. 9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to procure all other applicable federal, state and local permits and approvals associated with this project. These permits may include but are not necessarily limited to the following: (1) Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act(P.L.92-500,86 stat. 816), U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. (2) Water Quality Certification in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution Control under authority of sec.27(5)of Chapter 21 of the Massachusetts General Laws as codified in 314 CMR 9.00. (3) Sewer Extension Permit from the DEP Division of Water Pollution Control under G. L.Ch. 21 A ss7 and 314 CMR 7.00. Any Board of Health permit for septic system design for any portion of the septic system within 100 feet of wetlands shall be submitted to the Commission prior to construction initiation. (4) Design Requirements for Construction in Floodplains under the State Building Code(780 CMR • 744.). 10. If there are conflicting conditions within this Order,the stricter condition(s)shall rule. ] I. All work shall be performed so as to ensure that there will be no sedimentation into wetlands and surface waters during construction or after completion of the project.. 12. The Commission or its Agent shall have the discretion to modify the erosion/siltation control methods and boundary during construction if necessary. 13. The Commission reserves the right to impose additional conditions on portions of this project or this site to mitigate any actual or potential impacts resulting from the work herein permitted. 14. The work shall conform to the following attached plans and special conditions: Final Approved Plans Bakers Island As-built Pier(with undated notes) (Title) 11/25/1993 (Dated) - - (Signed and Stamped by) City of Salem Conservation Commission (On file with) • 15. Any proposed changes in the approved plan(s)or any deviation in construction from the approved plan(s)shall require the applicant to file a Notice of Project Change with the Commission. The Notice shall be accompanied by a written inquiry prior to their implementation in the field, as to whether the Attachment to Order of Conditions # 64-515 1A Page 3of 5 change(s) is substantial enough to require filing a new Notice of Intent or a request to correct or amend this Order of Conditions. A copy of such request shall at the same time he sent to the Department of Environmental Protection. 16. In conjunction with the sale of this property or any portion thereof before a Certificate of Compliance has been issued,the applicant or current landowner shall submit to the Commission a statement signed by the buyer that he/she is aware of an outstanding Order of Conditions on the property and has received a copy of the Order of Conditions. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 17. Prior to the commencement of any activity on this site other than activities listed above,there must be a Pre-Construction Meeting on site between the project supervisor,the contractor responsible for the work, and the Conservation Agent and/or a member of the Conservation Commission to ensure that the requirements of the Order of Conditions are understood. The staked erosion control line shall be adjusted, if necessary,during the pre-construction meeting. Please contact the Conservation Agent at (978)619-5685 at least forty-eight(48) hours prior to construction to arrange for the Pre- Construction Meeting. 18. Prior to the pre-construction meeting and commencement of any activity on this site,sedimentation and erosion control barriers shall be installed as shown on the approval plan(s)and detail drawings. The Commission and/or its Agent shall inspect and approve such installation at the pre-construction • meeting. 19. No clearing of vegetation,including trees,or disturbance of soil shall occur prior to the pre-construction meeting. Minimal disturbance of shrubs and herbaceous plants shall be allowed prior to the pre- construction meeting if absolutely necessary in order to place erosion control stakes where required. EROSION CONTROL 20. Appropriate erosion control devices shall be in place prior to the beginning of any phase of construction, and shall be maintained during construction in any wetland resource area and/or buffer zones. The erosion control measures shown on the approval plan(s)and provisions in the Order will be the minimum standards for this project,the Commission or its Agent may require additional measures. 21. All debris,fill and excavated material shall be stockpiled a location far enough away from the wetland resource areas to prevent sediment from entering wetland resource areas. 22. Erosion and sedimentation control devices shall be inspected after each storm event and repaired or replaced as necessary. Any accumulated silt adjacent to the barriers shall be removed. 23. The area of construction shall remain in a stable condition at the close of each construction day. 24. Any de-watering of trenches or other excavation required during construction shall be conducted so as to prevent siltation of wetland resource areas. All discharge from de-watering activities shall be filtered through hay bale sediment traps,silt filter bags or other means approved by the Commission or its Administrator. 25. Within thirty(30)days of completion of construction on any given portion of the project,all disturbed . areas in the completed portion of the site shall be permanently stabilized with rapidly growing vegetative cover, using sufficient top soil to assure long-term stabilization of disturbed areas. Attachment to Order of Cote li6ons 4 64-515 EJ F 1�11 Page 4of 5 • 26. If soils are to be disturbed for longer that two(2) months,a temporary cover of rye or other grass should be established to prevent erosion and sedimentation. If the season is not appropriate for plant growth, exposed surface shall be stabilized by other appropriate erosion control measures, firmly anchored, to prevent soils from being washed by rain or Flooding. DURING CONSTRUCTION 27. A copy of this Order of Conditions and the plan(s)approved in this Order shall he available on site at all times when work is in progress. 28. No alteration or activity shall occur beyond the limit of work as defined by the siltation barriers shown on the approved plan(s). 29. All waste products,grubbed stumps,slash;construction materials,etc.shall be deposited at least 100 feet from wetland resource areas and 200 feet from river. 30. Cement trucks shall not be washed out in any wetland resource or buffer zone area,nor into any drainage system. Any deposit of cement or concrete products into a buffer zone or wetland resource area shall I be immediately removed. 31. All exposed sub-soils shall be covered by a minimum of three(3) inches of quality screened loam topsoil prior to seeding and final stabilization. • 32. Immediately following drainage structure installation all inlets shall be protected by silt fence,haybale barriers and/or silt bags to filter silt from stormwater before it enters the drainage system. 33. There shall be no pumping of water from wetland resource areas. 34. All equipment shall be inspected regularly for leaks. Any leaking hydraulic lines,cylinders or any other components shall be fixed immediately. 35. During construction,all drainage structures shall be inspected regularly and cleaned as necessary. 36. The applicant is herby notified that failure to comply with all requirements herein may result in the issuance of enforcement actions by the Conservation Commission including,but not limited to,civil administrative penalties under M.G.L Chapter 21 A.section 16. AFTER CONSTRUCTION 37. Upon completion of construction and final soil stabilization,the applicant shall submit the following to the Conservation Commission to request a Certificate of Compliance(COC): (1) A Completed Request for a Certificate of Compliance form(WPA Forth 8A or other form if required by the Conservation Commission at the time of request). (2) A letter from a Registered Professional Engineer certifying compliance of the property with this Order of Conditions. (3) An "As-Built" plan signed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer or Land Surveyor showing post-construction conditions within all areas under thejurisdiction of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. This plan shall include at a minimum: (a) All wetland resource area boundaries with associated buffer zones and regulatory setback areas taken from the plan(s)approved in this Order of Conditions; Attachment to Order of Conditions # 04-515 r Page Sof 5 (b) Locations and elevations of all stormwater management conveyances,structures and best management designs,including foundation drains,constructed under this Order within any wetland resource area or buffer zone; (c) Distances from any structures constructed under this Order to wetland resource areas- "structures"include,but are not limited to,all buildings,septic system components, wells, utility lines,fences,retaining walls,and roads/driveways; (d) A line delineating the limit of work-"work"includes any filling,excavating and/or disturbance of soils or vegetation approved under this Order, 38. When issued, the Certificate of Compliance must be recorded at the Essex County Registry of Deeds and a copy of the recording submitted to the Salem Conservation Commission. 39. If the completed work differs from that in the original plans and conditions,the report must specify how the work differs;at which time the applicant shall first request a modification to the Order. Only upon review and approval by the Commission,may the applicant request in writing a Certificate of Compliance as described above. 40. Erosion control devices shall remain in place and properly functioning until all exposed soils have been stabilized with final vegetative cover and the Conservation Commission and/or its Agent has authorized their removal. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS • 41. Prior to construction,a method of containing construction debris shall be submitted to the Conservation Agent for approval. Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting May 12, 2011 Name Mailing Address Phone Email 1 cH 4&L� ✓,u-nJ MA-i'„ti.! Sr. lfl,lin/ arwA N - � _ cn n►I t, :� i CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICEOFMEETING Zell MAY 1 9 P 14 2- Yowwv herebynotified that-the-Salem-Conservation Commission will-hold its-regullrrkscheduted meeting on Thursday,May 16,2011 at 6:00]'Mat City Hall Annex, third floor cont 9Kcg kh8A, $2Q MwAhgFon Street, Salem, MA. � Z avidr A. Pabich, PE Chairman MEETWGAGENDA i. Meeting Minutes a. Public Hearing—Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation—MRM Project Management LLC, P.O . Box 388, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed delineation of resource areas and exemptions from riverfront area regulations for the property located at 60&64.Grove St.and 3 Harmony Grove Rd.(former Salem Oil and Grease). ' 3. Continuation Public Hear n"equest for Determination of Applicability—Salem Community Gardens,P.O.Box 82,Salem,MA.The purpose of the bearing is to discuss after-the-fact installation of 95 community,garden plots and appurtenances.within riverfront area and buffer zones to coastal bank,coastal beach and salt marsh at 20 Lincoln Rd.(Dickman Park). 4. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-509—Barbara Bowman, 8 Dearborn Lane, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of coastal beach,coastal bank,and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane. g. Public Bearing-Request for Determination of Applicability—City of Salem,5 Broad St.,Salem, MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss replacement of playground facilities at 20 Lincoln Rd. (Dickman Park)within riverfront area and buffer zones to coastal beach and coastal bank. 6. Old/New Business • Annual election of Conservation Commission officers: discussion and vote -{ Know your rights under-the Open MeetingLaw MG.Lsc.39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028` through 2-2033. This notice posted on "Official Bu�i'v in Board" City HailSalem, Mass. on M /y ?-a//at 3: 4Z�t M 1 tdance WM p. 3b sm 23A & 239 of -)A G.L. Page i of 1 I_ Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting May 26, 2011 Name Mailing Address Phone Email cls. _ _eack"at, f�• F -3 i -703 ov nI c--r-i ex 7 13'3z2_ 36 1 1-4 4 (,10 �a Po vis"A27-511f 19 q-�YOelhR'l ie* 2 a vCr - 2 f 0 - © ( 41 APPROVED MINUTES Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,May 26,2011,6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairman David Pabich, Carole McCauley,Julia Knisel, Amy Hamilton,Dan Ricciarelli,Michael Blier Members Absent: None Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Carole McCauley, in Chairman Pabich's absence, calls the meeting to order at 6:15PM. i. Meeting Minutes—May 12,2011. Last meeting's minutes will be reviewed at the next meeting. z. Public Hearing—Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation—MRM Project Management LLC, P.O. Box 388, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed delineation of resource areas and exemptions from riverfront area regulations for the property located at 60 & 64 Grove St. and 3 Harmony Grove Rd. (former Salem • Oil and Grease). Illustrations: MRM Project Management Existing Conditions Plan C-2 filed 4/28/11 Presenting for MRM is Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering. They are filing a request to agree on wetlands before finalizing plans for redevelopment. He feels the site walk will be useful and the wetland resources are fairly straightforward. He outlines the three parcels of land at the addresses above. There are 6.8 acres total, divided by the MBTA tracks, and bordered on the right and at the top by Harmony Grove Rd. There is a bridge crossing the North River which is not in good shape, though it is passable by foot. He outlines existing buildings. In 2007 they were before the Commission requesting an Order of Conditions for environmental cleanup, which has been mostly done. More work and investigations must be done, but the work in 2007 stopped imminent threat of release. Access to the property is off of Grove St. Wetland resources have to do with the North River Canal and land subject to coastal storm flowage; there are various elevations but they are in an unspecified zone. They have looked at elevations at extreme rain events for reference–during the Mother's Day storm of 2006 it was 8.5; 10.5 has been suggested as an appropriate number to use, so that is what they did use. Parts of the property are in the 100-year flood zone. Some of the property is along the bank of the North River; in this case it is clear what the bank is due to rock walls, and elsewhere the bank has been marked with flags. They did not find bordering vegetated wetlands. The buffer zone of 100' back from the bank is drawn on the. • illustration. There is also a 200' riverfront area; there are some exceptions to the Wetlands Protection act 1 A which he believes apply to this property. A site that has been primarily used for industrial purposes prior to 1946 would qualify; this site has been used in that manner since the 1800's. A mill and tannery were on different parts of the property; the history was described in the paperwork submitted. He also shows a 1946 status plan, drawn according to many historical sources. Existing buildings are highlighted in yellow, and there were support facilities associated with the buildings. He will show the Commission old maps and photos during the site visit. The North River was a flat, stagnant water body before it was narrowed into a canal (previously used as a sewer). Mr. Griffin discusses the comments made by the DEP, which had questions about flood elevation. They attempted to talk to FEMA but got nowhere; FEMA contracts out flood mapmaking and he feels they will not get any information. Historical storms of record have been lower than the 10.5 he specified; if the commission is not happy with that they can just say it's an A zone without specifying an elevation. Knisel asks if he checked FEMA's delineation; he did, there are also better flood maps being made next year, but all they did was trace old flood maps so he looked at other data, which used an elevation of around 10. Knisel asks about DEP clarification, but none was provided. Also they wanted to provide the commission with information on uses in 1946. Adjacent areas were used for storage and during the site walk Commissioners will be able to view storage areas. Devine reviews the points he discussed with the DEP: There have already been resource delineations approved with a prior order of conditions; both can stand without conflict. The more stringent of the two, in the event that the Commission • approves the proposed exemptions, is the existing order of conditions as there are no riverfront area exemptions approved with that. Jill Provencal at DEP asked for more info to back up the 10.5 foot flood elevation, so that will need to be looked at. She questioned if this qualifies as a canal—there is no definition in the Wetlands Protection Act. This is a modified river, not a completely manmade waterway like the examples cited in the regulations. Jill also asked more info to demonstrate that not just the building footprints were present prior to 1946, but also that the space was used for utilities, parking, and driveways, since those areas would be exempt under the historic mill exemption. Blier asks about precedent canal cases—Cape Cod, Lowell, and Haverhill are exempt. Cape Cod was not completely manmade either so he's surprised that Jill from the DEP is objecting. McCauley asks about the first illustration—200' would take up most of the property as resource area. It does not make the project impossible but it will be easier if they do not have to take it into account. This site is exemplary of why the exemptions are in place— it was heavily used for industry. Blier asks about vegetation. There is some along the canal, but is primarily invasive. Mark Pattison, of 2 Beaver St., asks about the redevelopment plans. There is no plan in place yet —this is all preliminary. Chairman Pabich has arrived at this point but McCauley is acting as chair for this issue. • Pabich reiterates the need to walk the site and also thinks the scope of this is beyond what 2 they've dealt with in the past; peer review may be sought but that need will be determined after the site visit. Hamilton asks if FEMA ever did a flood profile of the site; Peabody Phase 1, 2 and 3 studies were reviewed and this site is below that flood elevation. McCauley opens to the public. Joan Sweeney, of 22 Silver Street, asks about the Stop & Shop. That site qualified as riverfront, and the Army Corps of Engineers was involved. Teasie Riley Goggin, of 9 Wisteria St. asks about the elevation coming from Peabody into Salem —they are not sure what is going to happen so she wonders where they got their information. Mr. Griffin's info comes from reports of the Army Corps of Engineers published by their contractors, which provide elevations for this area. Jim Treadwell, of 36 Fell St. would like to challenge elevation of floodplain via the FEMA flood map. He gives the Commission a copy of the 1979 map for this property, which states that the elevation is 11, and everything north of the line is in a flood area. He says that this is coincidental with the line shown by FEMA. Plans and maps are reviewed. Mr. Griffin says flood maps show no specified elevation, but into Peabody it's elevation 11. He does not think the map presented by Treadwell has anything FEMA doesn't have. Pabich asks about a straight line extrapolation—wouldn't it be 10.75'? • Mr. Griffin thinks in this part of Salem flood zones are driven by storm events, but Pabich asks if this is the case at the Peabody line. Griffin doesn't think so. He cites extreme flood events such as the 2006 flood in which the elevation was 8.5, so that a straight line extrapolation is not possible. Knisel asks if that flood was a 100-year event, but that is unknown. Treadwell continues, saying they have a letter from the former owner, Mr. Goldberg, written when they were developing the North River Canal Corridor plan. They were hoping to expand boundary of the North River canal corridor since this would permit mixed use. Treadwell believes that in the letter, Mr. Goldberg states that there are environmental problems on this site, and the area at 60 Grove St. is thought to be polluted. He also mentions the Brownfields Coalition grant, which this owner has shown interest in, and Pabich clarifies that the grant is not for cleanup, only for investigation. It does not commit an owner to cleanup or mean a property is actually contaminated, although there are some AUL's (Activity and Use Limitations) on this site. Since 1946 many buildings have been eliminated. Historic preservation and the definition of a mill complex are discussed. If buildings no longer exist, does the exemption still apply? The area would include the footprint that is or was occupied by a building, and the exemption would still apply even after it was demolished. Mr. Treadwell outlines some regulations regarding NOI's—Chapter 91 is not applicable. He • wants to mention that the trees being removed from the slope was shocking, as the embankment was held in place by vegetation, and that is of interest in the regulations. 3 Mr. Griffin points out that his quote of the historic mill exemption was incomplete; also regarding the fact that Chapter 91 as not applicable–there is no Ch. 91 input for the ANRAD. If . they are working below historic low water levels, this would include Chapter 91, but at this time it is not being requested. Ms. Sweeney again says there is a railroad map with elevations, and she has a 9' elevation. Stop and Shop starts near Main St. at elevation 11 and goes down to 9 or 10 further down. Teasie Riley Goggin was with Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coastwatch during the smelt count, and they took some from this area. She wonders how this work would affect the smelt population. Mr. Griffin says cleanup would benefit them. There is no eel grass. McCauley asks about a site visit–is the public welcome on this site visit? The public is welcome but may be asked to sign a waiver before entering the property. Site visits are not automatically open to the public, as permission from the owner is required. Mr. Treadwell suggests they could have a representative of the public there rather than everyone attending. A site visit is set for June 9a', at SPM. Commissioners will meet at 64 Grove St.. A motion to continue to June 9"' is made by Pabich seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. 3. Continuation Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Salem Community Gardens,P.O. Box 82, Salem, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss after-the-fact installation of 95 community garden plots and appurtenances within riverfront • area and buffer zones to coastal bank, coastal beach and salt marsh at 20 Lincoln Rd. (Pickman Park). Chairman Pabich takes over as chair from Carole McCauley. Brett Mentuck presents. She describes the setup of the gardens and the boxes, which are on top of the paved surface of the old tennis court. Pine (untreated) was used for the boxes and the fence posts. Boxes were filled with compost and due to the recent rain, the area needs to be cleaned up and the leftover compost dispersed. The City of Salem pruned some of the trees. Community Gardens is trying to be environmentally responsible. Ms. Mentuck wonders if the Commission is more concerned about runoff coming from rainwater or from the hose. The source of runoff makes no difference; the Commission is concerned with runoff in general. As it is, runoff will be reduced since the surface now has soil on it rather than pavement. The plan is to supply only a short hose so gardeners must haul water in buckets or watering cans to their plots, on the theory that they will use less if it is more work. There is also a plan in place to address maintenance down the road; funding is set aside to fix the boxes. Chairman Pabich is concerned that runoff will go into the marsh. He feels the maintenance plan addresses many of his housekeeping concerns. A sample of the sock is shown; this will be filled with soil and plants. There is a question as to whether it could be filled with hay, but the idea is to have small plants grow through the sock, which helps prevent runoff. The boxes are against • the fences so placing it inside the fence along the perimeter would be difficult. There are many invasives growing on the outside of the fence, also making the situation difficult. 4 Knisel asks if there are rules about gardeners planting seedlings vs. using seeds. There are no rules, but they want to control seeds getting out of the footprint. They have been referencing Mel Bartholomew's All New Square Foot Garden book. Not everyone uses it, but many gardeners rely on it. Knisel wants to add to the maintenance plan monitoring the perimeter of the garden. Chairman Pabich says they should also have language in the code of conduct referencing the need to control seeds and why. Ms. Mentuck asks if asparagus can go wild and if cutting it would spread its seeds. Some people put hay and chicken wire over their seeds. No one is planting asparagus. The plants outside the fence are established, and have been there a while. They can put up a sign warning people not to eat it. They can also do volunteer monitoring or can train people to monitor. Chairman Pabich says it is an activity within the resource area, but is a developed site and beds are temporary in nature, so there is a technical loophole if they want to issue a negative determination. Gardens are not in the resource so much as temporary. McCauley comments on the vegetation left there. Blier comments that 75% of the impervious materials have been "removed," though not exactly converted to pervious surface, since there is no infiltration, but are still reducing sun exposure to the asphalt, keeping things cooler. Chairman Pabich asks if the exemption is not just for single family houses; Devine says it is not only for single family homes. Ms. Mentuck asks if there is something they can do in the off season to reduce runoff when gardens are not in use. They can just leave plots there and they will absorb water. • Chairman Pabich says installation of the vegetated sock will help in winter. The beds closest to the fence should be separated to allow water to get out the entire side through the vegetated sock. McCauley says the sock could be outside of fence, attached to it. Blier says if the sock is on the inside with plants going through it, it might damage the boxes. What happens if grasses grow up through sock. Does it matter if they are native or invasive? They are not sure if they're native or invasive—it's marsh grass. Chairman Pabich says it doesn't matter what it is. McCauley says they should just put sock along bottom side, not along the whole perimeter. They would put it along the river side and park side. Chairman Pabich wants to point out that this is City land. The obligation is on the City to know what is going on, and they should have instructed the Community Gardens to come before the Conservation Commission. The Community Gardens asks if they can remove the poison ivy, which is coming into the fenced-in area. McCauley opines that it's a question for the parks department. Landscape activities are exempt and poison ivy could be removed under that exemption; conversion of impervious surfaces to pervious is another exemption, and both can also be used outside of single family homes. Pat Burke of the Community Gardens states that he has lived there whole life, and came up with idea for the community garden. Vegetation was coming into park, and had been kept back by kids playing there,but now they go to camps. So the vegetation had grown into tennis court, • which became an eyesore, and is now an asset to the city. Middleton prisoners helped clean it out. 5 McCauley is surprised that parks dept did not alert them to issue of Conservation Commission jurisdiction,but Pabich not. Pabich would have said cut out asphalt under boxes if something • would have been different. Ms. Mentuck worried about pollutants coming up. McCauley and Ricciarelli sign affidavits so they may vote. Chairman Pabich asks if they would like to exercise the exemption for a negative determination. The Commission wonders if there is a negative determination that encompasses the exemption, since it is not a number 1, 2, or 3. This actually would be a Negative 5, which allows exemptions to be cited The Commission can make a request that they install the sock. They ask about the filling. The Community Gardens at Pickman Park can use compost in the sock. The Commission is also requesting monitoring of the edge of the gardens and to let gardeners know they are in a sensitive area. Community Gardens will be provided with resource area placards. They will also post this on facebook and by email. A motion to issue a negative 5 determination is by Blier, with exemptions for the conversion from impervious to vegetated surfaces and for the fencing, seconded by seconded by Hamilton, and all are in favor. This decision is made hereby part of these minutes. 4. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-509—Barbara Bowman, 8 Dearborn Lane, Salem, MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of coastal beach, coastal bank, and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane. • Rich Brennan is not ready with materials, plus there would not have been a quorum due to people missing meetings. He may have to re-file if this goes on. There is a question on the maximum number of continuations,but there is no maximum. A motion to continue to the June 9 meeting is made by McCauley, seconded by Knisel, and passes unanimously. Mr. Treadwell says the comments of Marine Fisheries should serve as a basis for conversation, and they should minimize incursion into beach—this has been addressed already, as the footprint will not change. New plans were submitted. There may be another new set of plans before this is over. The public easement is discussed. Pabich says this is not a Conservation Commission issue; he should bring it up with the property owner. Chairman Pabich said it was a drainage easement, not a public access easement,but Treadwell is concerned about this. There is also a question as to whether or not a Chapter 91 license was in place. 5. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—City of Salem, 5 Broad St., Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss replacement of playground facilities at 20 Lincoln Rd. (Pickman Park) within riverfront area and buffer zones to coastal beach and coastal bank. Brett Mentuck presents again. This will be in the same footprint as the existing play ground; the issues are that the resources must be protected during the construction. Chairman Pabich asks . how many footings will be needed; they can count the footings on the plans. Ricciarelli comments that it is probably poured. 6 e Chairman Pabich says the site is flat, the old equipment worn out, and work will be done by hand • or small machines. Current equipment and its removal are discussed. There will be no barrier around it, they will dig down instead. The new playground will be slightly offset from the current one; it is a longer, skinnier structure. Chairman Pabich asks how it will be implemented; they are hoping to have it in before July 41', and the process will take about 3 days. Inmates from Lawrence will come help out, the City will prep the area first, but when uncertain. The build itself will take 2 days in addition to removal of old equipment and pouring of cement. Chairman Pabich asks if erosion control is needed. Ricciarelli opines that it is only a 3 day process. Also the inmates work very fast, so it could be less than 3 days. The community can help but this work will be done during the week. They could ask the City to put up a silt fence, but Pabich thinks it may not be necessary. There are no public comments, and the Commission recommends a negative determination. A motion to issue a negative two determination is made by McCAuley, seconded by Knisel, and passes unanimously. This decision is made hereby part of these minutes. 6. Old/New Business Baker's Island Pier maintenance, DEP#64-151 —Devine needs Knisel, Hamilton, Blier, and • Pabich's signatures on that document. Devine wants to attend a trails design workshop and a workshop for applying for recreational trails grants. The Commission asks him about the Forest River footbridge. A volunteer repairs the small footbridge, but the larger of the two still needs work. Volunteers could have a role in further work, and both workshops free. Devine would just need mileage to travel to Leominster and Milton. McCauley motions to reimburse him, Hamilton seconds, and all are in favor. Devine updates the Commission on two enforcement issues; 38 Commercial St. between the Salem Suede property and the North River: The owner had the tenant purchase a spill kit and agree confirm regular inspections of hydraulic equipment. 417 Lafayette St.: The Owner has moved a float out of the salt marsh and completely offsite. This is a few houses down from 441 Lafayette St., where another float was removed from the salt marsh. The City is progressing with the stormwater ordinance, and needs a member of the Conservation Commission to review drafts before bringing it to the Commission. The Document is 7 pages for the ordinance, but the regulations may be longer. Hamilton volunteers to review it. • Annual election of Conservation Commission officers: discussion and vote Chairman Pabich states that he is happy to remain as Chair if no one else has interest in it. McCauley nominates Knisel for Chair, and she accepts. The nomination is seconded by 7 i Hamilton. All Commissioners vote in favor of Knisel as chair. McCauley nominates Pabich as Vice Chair, is seconded by Blier, and all vote in favor. • A motion to adjourn is made by Pabich, seconded by Hamilton, and all approve. The meeting ends at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on June 9, 2011. • 8 CITY OF SALEM R CONSERVATION COMMISSION May 27, 2011 Lisa Spence and Brett Mentuck Salem Community Gardens, Inc. P.O. Box 82 Salem, MA 01970 Re: Negative determination of applicability-20 Lincoln Rd. (Pickman Park) Community Gardens Ms. Spence and Ms. Mentuck: Enclosed, please find the negative determination of applicability for the above-referenced project. As discussed during the hearing, the Commission requests the following actions: I. Add a monitoring provision to your maintenance plan to ensure that garden plantings do not grow outside the footprint of the tennis court. 2. Place an erosion control sock, filled with compost, in an appropriate location between • the garden plots and the resource area. 3. Place resource area markers on the river side of the garden. Please contact me to obtain the markers. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 978-619-5685. Sincerely, Tom Devine- Conservation evineConservation Agent/ Staff Planner Enclosures CC: DEP Northeast Regional Office • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection T Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 1 WPA Form Z — Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 • A. General Information Important When filling out From: forms on the Salem computer, use - Conservation Corpmission -only the tab key to move To: Applicant Property Owner(If different from applicant):cursor- do not use the Salem Community Gardens Inc. City of Salem return key. Name Name P.O. Box 82 _ 93 Washtington Street Mailing Address Mailing Address Salem MA 01970ode Salem _ to 01970 Cod City/Town State Zip Code City/Town State Zip Cade a� 1. Title and Date(or Revised Date if applicable) of Final Plans and Other Documents: Figure 2. PPCG Plan 4/2/2011 Title — Date Pickman Park Maintenance Plan 5/18/2011 TMe Date Title Date 2. Date Request Filed: • 5/5/2011 B. Determination Pursuant to the authority of M.G.L. c. 131, §40, the Conservation Commission considered your Request for Determination of Applicability, with its supporting documentation, and made the following Determination. Project Description (if applicable): 95 raised-bed garden plots (8'x2'or 4'x4')on existing asphalt tennis court, 3 compost pins outside western fence, 2 fence/gate sections in tennis court entrances, water line and spigot from Lincoln Road to edge of garden area, and possible picnic table and children's play area on former tennis court Project Location: 20 Lincoln Road Salem Street Address - ---------____- --.—_-_-----___--- _ _ City/rown 31 286 Assessors MaplPlal Number Parcel/Lot Number wmfwm2.40C•Determination d Appii blity-rev.1 Or60/ Page 1 or 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability • Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) The following Determination(s) is/are applicable to the proposed site and/or project relative to the Wetlands Protection Act and regulations: Positive Determination Note: No work within the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act may proceed until a final Order of Conditions(issued following submittal of a Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent)or Order of Resource Area Delineation(issued following submittal of Simplified Review ANRAD) has been received from the issuing authority(i.e., Conservation Commission or the Department of Environmental Protection). ❑ 1. The area described on the referenced plan(s)is an area subject to protection under the Act. Removing, filling, dredging, or altering of the area requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 2a. The boundary delineations of the following resource areas described on the referenced plan(s)are confirmed as accurate. Therefore, the resource area boundaries confirmed In this Determination are binding as to all decisions rendered pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act and its regulations regarding such boundaries for as long as this Determination is valid. • ❑ 2b. The boundaries of resource areas listed below are not confirmed by this Determination, regardless of whether such boundaries are contained on the plans attached to this Determination or to the Request for Determination. ❑ 3. The work described on referenced plan(s) and document(s) is within an area subject to protection under the Act and will remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 4. The work described on referenced plan(s)and document(s) is within the Buffer Zone and will alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent or ANRAD Simplified Review(if work is limited to the Buffer Zone). ❑ 5. The area and/or work described on referenced plan(s) and document(s) is subject to review and approval by: - Name of Municipality Pursuant to the following municipal wetland ordinance or bylaw: Name _________. _.Ordinance- ance or Bylaw Citation. wpeform2.tlac•0-161 I.b.of Ap{.Jw U,•ray.10..1vVC rNa2 of f e Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 • B. Determination (cont.) ❑ 6. The following area and/or work, if any, is subject to a municipal ordinance or bylaw but not subject to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: ❑ 7. If a Notice of Intent is filed for the work in the Riverfront Area described on referenced plan(s) and document(s), which includes all or part of the work described in the Request, the applicant must consider the following alternatives. (Refer to the wetland regulations at 10.58(4)c. for more information about the scope of alternatives requirements): ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located. ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located, the subdivided lots, and any adjacent lots formerly or presently owned by the same owner. ❑ Alternatives limited to the original parcel on which the project is located, the subdivided parcels, any adjacent parcels, and any other land which can reasonably be obtained within the municipality. ❑ Alternatives extend to any sites which can reasonably be obtained within the appropriate region of the state. • Negative Determination Note: No further action under the Wetlands Protection Act is required by the applicant. However, if the Department is requested to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability, work may not proceed on this project unless the Department fails to act on such request within 35 days of the date the request is post-marked for certified mail or hand delivered to the Department. Work may then proceed at the owner's risk only upon notice to the Department and to the Conservation Commission. Requirements for requests for Superseding Determinations are listed at the end of this document. ❑ 1. The area described in the Request is not an area subject to protection under the Act or the Buffer Zone. ❑ 2. The work described in the Request is within an area subject to protection under the Act, but will not remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 3. The work described in the Request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined in the regulations, but will not alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, subject to the following conditions (if any). ❑ 4. The work described in the Request is not within an Area subject to protection under the Act (including the Buffer Zone). Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, • unless and until said work alters an Area subject to protection under the Act. vrpelam2.tloc•Oecermvn rr of Apphcah kty•rev.I� Pape 3 of 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 1 — Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands �;' WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability • Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Deettermination LTJ 5. The area described in the Request is subject to protection under the Act. Since the work described therein meets the requirements for the following exemption, as specified in the Act and the regulations, no Notice of Intent is required: Cra /ooa Ca a n Exempt Activity(site pp' ble statuatQrry/regulatory provisio ^Sf .VA SJrOo-Lx_S ❑ 6. The area and/or work described in the Request is not subject to review and approval by: Name of Municipality —_ Pursuant to a municipal wetlands ordinance or bylaw. Name Ordinance or Bylaw Citation C. Authorization This Determination is issued to the applicant and delivered as follows: • ❑ by hand delivery on ®s by certified mail, return receipt requested on Date ------------------ – ---..----- This Determination is valid for three years from the date of issuance(except Determinations for Vegetation Management Plans which are valid for the duration of the Plan). This Determination does not relieve the applicant from complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, bylaws,-or regulations. This Deter ' n m be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. A copy must be sent to the ap opriate DEP R gional Office(see http:1/www mass aov/deo/about/region findvour htm) and the property wner(if differe t from the applicant). Signat F— y v _ • Dafete- ,PafamZ d.•Delerramabao of Appl.Nlay•rev.tars Page 4 of 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 0 Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 • D. Appeals The applicant, owner, any person aggrieved by this Determination, any owner of land abutting the land upon which the proposed work is to be done, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate Department of Environmental Protection Regional Office (see http//www mass aov/deo/about/region findvour him) to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and Fee Transmittal Form (see Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form) as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7)within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Determination. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant if he/she is not the appellant. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination which.is being appealed. To the extent that the Determination is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department of Environmental Protection has no appellate jurisdiction. • • wpaf.m2.doc•Dalenninatian of pppliraCrlity•rev.16N00 Page 5 015 Massachusetts Department of Environmental'Protection - Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form 1 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. Request Information Important: When filling out 1 Person or party making request(if appropriate, name the citizen group's representative): forms on the computer, use Name only the tab — key to move your cursor- Mailing Address — do not use the return key. Ci own — .— State Zip—Cd. - - nd Phone Number Fax Number(if applicable) Project Location r ar. Mailing Address Clty/Town State Zip Code 2. Applicant(as shown on Notice of Intent(Form 3), Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation (Form 4A); or Request for Determination of Applicability (Form 1)): Name • Malting Address — Cltyrrown state Zip code Phone Number Fax Number(U applicable) 3. DEP File Number: B. Instructions 1. When the Departmental action request is for(check one): ❑ Superseding Order of Conditions ($100 for individual single family homes with associated structures; $200 for all other projects) ❑ Superseding Determination of Applicability($100) ❑ Superseding Order of Resource Area Delineation ($100) Send this form and check or money order for the appropriate amount, payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to: Department of Environmental Protection Box 4062 • Boston, MA 02211 wpalorm2., •Request br Department&Aaw Fes Trenmiltal Farm•rav tOBIUC _ Page t o12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands (� Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 • B. Instructions (cont.) 2. On a separate sheet attached to this form, state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination or Order which is being appealed. To the extent that the Determination or Order is based on a municipal bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. 3. Send a copy of this form and a copy of the check or money order with the Request for a Superseding Determination or Order by certified mail or hand delivery to the appropriate DEP Regional Office (see http//www mass oov/deo/abouUreaion/findyour htm). 4. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. • 0 r wpefann2.Eae•ReQ N/a f)egertm al Miro Fae Trwsmitlal Farm•rev.1%104 Page 2 of 2 GLIMassachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. General Information Important: When filling out From: forms on the Salem computer, use Conservation Commission ------_ - ---—-------- ------------ ------- ----- only the tab key to move To: Applicant Property Owner(if different from applicant): your cursor- do not use the Doug Bollen _ City of Salem _ return key. Name - Name 5 Broad St. _ 5 Broad St. n° Mailing Address Mailing Address Salem MA 01970 Salem_ _ MA___ 01970 City/Town State Zip Cade Ciry/Town State Zip Cade am 1. Title and Date(or Revised Date if applicable)of Final Plans and Other Documents:' Pickman Park Plan 1 _ 5/1912_011_ Title Date Pickman Park Plan 2 5/1_9/2011 Title ----- - ------- Date PickmanPark, Project NumberPOL-84211 __ 3/11/20.11 Title Date • 2. Date Request Filed: 5/12/2011 B. Determination Pursuant to the authority of M.G.L. C. 131, §40, the Conservation Commission considered your Request for Determination of Applicability, with its supporting documentation, and made the following Determination. Project Description (if applicable): Replacement of playground structures within riverfront area, buffer zone to coastal beach, and buffer zone to coastal bank. Project Location: 20 Lincoln Rd. Salem Street Address City/Town 31 286 ---- --- ---- la- - - - - - - . .. .... . Assessors Map/Plat Number ParceVLot Number -aoalorml noc•Oeierminah.0 App,cadiit,-,ar.10rC Page 1 015 � Y Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection L71-_ Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability • Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) The following Determination(s) is/are applicable to the proposed site and/or project relative to the Wetlands Protection Act and regulations: Positive Determination Note: No work within the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act may proceed until a final Order of Conditions(issued following submittal of a Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent)or Order of Resource Area Delineation (issued following submittal of Simplified Review ANRAD) has been received from the issuing authority(i.e., Conservation Commission or the Department of Environmental Protection). ❑ 1. The area described on the referenced plan(s) is an area subject to protection under the Act. Removing, filling, dredging, or altering of the area requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 2a.The boundary delineations of the following resource areas described on the referenced plan(s) are confirmed as accurate. Therefore, the resource area boundaries confirmed in this Determination are binding as to all decisions rendered pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act and its regulations regarding such boundaries for as long as this Determination is valid. ❑ 2b. The boundaries of resource areas listed below are not confirmed by this Determination, regardless of whether such boundaries are contained on the plans attached to this Determination or to the Request for Determination. ❑ 3. The work described on referenced plan(s) and document(s) is within an area subject to protection under the Act and will remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 4. The work described on referenced plan(s) and document(s) is within the Buffer Zone and will alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent or ANRAD Simplified Review(if work is limited to the Buffer Zone). ❑ 5. The area and/or work described on referenced plan(s) and document(s) is subject to review and approval by: Name of Municipality Pursuant to the following municipal wetland ordinance or bylaw: Name Ordinance or Bylaw Citation wpaform2. Determination of Amlir Nity•rev. IM104 Page 2 of 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) ❑ 6. The following area and/or work, if any, is subject to a municipal ordinance or bylaw but not subject to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: ❑ T If a Notice of Intent is filed for the work in the Riverfront Area described on referenced plan(s) and document(s), which includes all or part of the work described in the Request, the applicant must consider the following alternatives. (Refer to the wetland regulations at 10.58(4)c. for more information about the scope of alternatives requirements): ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located. ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located, the subdivided lots, and any adjacent lots formerly or presently owned by the same owner. ❑ Alternatives limited to the original parcel on which the project is located, the subdivided parcels, any adjacent parcels, and any other land which can reasonably be obtained within the municipality. ❑ Alternatives extend to any sites which can reasonably be obtained within the appropriate • region of the state. Negative Determination Note: No further action under the Wetlands Protection Act is required by the applicant. However, if the Department is requested to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability, work may not proceed on this project unless the Department fails to act on such request within 35 days of the date the request is post-marked for certified mail or hand delivered to the Department. Work may then proceed at the owner's risk only upon notice to the Department and to the Conservation Commission. Requirements for requests for Superseding Determinations are listed at the end of this document. ❑ 1. The area described in the Request is not an area subject to protection under the Act or the Buffer Zone. 2,2. The work described in the Request is within an area subject to protection under the Act, but will not remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 3. The work described in the Request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined in the regulations, but will not alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, subject to the following conditions (if any). ❑ 4. The work described in the Request is not within an Area subject to protection under the Act (including the Buffer Zone). Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, • unless and until said work alters an Area subject to protection under the Act. I x alorm2.rloc•Deleiminabw of Applin lily•rev.106104 Pnye 3 015 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands �\ WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability . Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) ❑ 5. The area described in the Request is subject to protection under the Act. Since the work described therein meets the requirements for the following exemption, as specified in the Act and the regulations, no Notice of Intent is required: Exempt Activity(site applicable staluatorylregulatory provisions) ❑ 6. The area and/or work described in the Request is not subject to review and approval by: Name of Municipality Pursuant to a municipal wetlands ordinance or bylaw. Name Ordinance or Bylaw Citation C. Authorization This Determination is issued to the applicant and delivered as follows: by hand delivery on ❑ by certified mail, return receipt requested 09 Date Date This Determination is valid for three years from the date of issuance (except Determinations for Vegetation Management Plans which are valid for the duration of the Plan). This Determination does not relieve the applicant from complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, bylaws, or re This Det mination must a signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. A copy must be sent to the app riate DEP egional Office (see http//www.rnass aov/dep/about/region findyour.htm) and the property own (if differ nt from the applicant). Signat s: G Date i- wpafwm2Aoc•Ue�aminalion of Appliradliry•rev.1@filU1 Page 4 of 5 LMassachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 1 WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 D. Appeals The applicant, owner, any person aggrieved by this Determination, any owner of land abutting the land upon which the proposed work is to be done, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate Department of Environmental Protection Regional Office (see http://www.mass.gov/dep/about/region.findyour.htm) to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and Fee Transmittal Form (see Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form) as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7)within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Determination. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant if he/she is not the appellant. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination which is being appealed. To the extent that the Determination is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department of Environmental Protection has no appellate jurisdiction. wpafaMZ. •Detl..Wl.d Applic Iht,•rev.f� rwe 5 of 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection - Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 • A. Request Information Important: When filling out 1. Person or party making request(if appropriate, name the citizen group's representative): forms on the computer, use Name only the tab key to move your cursor- Mailing Address do not use the return key. cityrrown State Zip Code USI Phone Number - - Fax Number(if applicable) -------- Project Location rre Mailing Address Cityrrown Stale Zip Code 2. Applicant(as shown on Notice of Intent(Form 3), Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation (Form 4A); or Request for Determination of Applicability(Form 1)): Name Mailing Address - • cilyrrown State Zip Code Phone Number Fax Number(if applicable) 3. DEP File Number: B. Instructions 1. When the Departmental action request is for(check one): ❑ Superseding Order of Conditions ($100 for individual single family homes with associated structures; $200 for all other projects) ❑ Superseding Determination of Applicability ($100) ❑ Superseding Order of Resource Area Delineation ($100) Send this form and check or money order for the appropriate amount, payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to: Department of Environmental Protection Box 4062 Boston, MA 02211 • wpabrm2.aoc•Request for Departmental A lm Fee rrwn dtal Forrn•rev. 1Page I of 2 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Instructions (cont.) 2. On a separate sheet attached to this form, state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination or Order which is being appealed. To the extent that the Determination or Order is based on a municipal bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. 3. Send a copy of this form and a copy of the check or money order with the Request for a Superseding Determination or Order by certified mail or hand delivery to the appropriate DEP Regional Office(see iittp://www.fnass.gov/dep/abouUregion/findyour.htm). 4. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. w af-'PQ loc•RaooaM V 0epe".1al Adi l Fee Tlarooa,U F..•rnv. 1051Oa Page 2 of 2 sp CI� �° OF SAS -� CONSERVATION COMMISSION CITY Cl City of Salem Conservation Commission 978-619-5685 Will hold a site visit at 60 & 64 Grove St. and 3 Harmony Grove Rd. (former Salem Oil and Grease) on Thursday, Jane 9, 2011 at 5:00 p.m.. The purpose of the site visit is to inspect the project site where MRM Project Management LLC, PO Box 388, Beverly, MA has proposed a delineation of resource areas and exemptions from riverfront area regulations. Julia Knisel Chair Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. Js notice postad on "OfflCiL 9 - ilium Board" }y Hall Salem, mass. of MaH 3 i �20 i � 1 2 zo P r 1 in aCCortdcIr ms ,..';? ,hap. 30 Sec. >3A & 238 of MAI, 3r CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING You are:hereby not0ed that the_Salem Conservation_Commission-will hol&iis-regularly`scheduled meeting-on Thur§'day,June 9,.2011 at 6:00 PM a1 Cit Hall Annex, third floor conference room;,120'Washington Street, Salem,MA: Julia Knisel <, o Chair" MEETINGAGENDA . -. .. >'.r i. Meeting Minutes-May 12,2011 and May 26,2011. : 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Abbreviated Notim of Resource Area Delineation--MRM,, - Project.Management LLC,P.O. Box 388,Beverly,MA. Th,e'ourpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed delineation of resource areas and'exemptions from riverfront are'regulationsfor the property located at 60&64 Grove Stand 3 Harmony Grove Rd.(former Salem Oil and Grease). • 3. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of-Intent—DEP464-509—BarbaraBowman, 8 Dearborn Lane, Salem, MA. The purpose,of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement withriprap within a portion of coastal beach, coastal'bank, and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane. : 4. Public Hearing—Request for-Determination of Applicability—Massachusetts Bay Commuter _ Railroad (MBCR), 89 South'St., 8t4 floor, Boston, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss verification of wetland boundaries in"planning forthe application of herbicides MBCR rights of way,from,the Swampscott line(Thompson's Meadow)to Ocean' "Ave.,and parallel to the North, River from Flint St.to the Beverly line 5. Old/New Business This notice: posted on "Official l ilt Boardu City Hall Sal®rel, I>�e1ss. on v a, • None at 3.5L'PM In tda=1 � a ��aa+p. 3A Ste. 23A & 2391 Of AQ Know your rights under the Open MeetingL—&W MG.L c 39¢23B and C ty.Ordinanc Sectrons 2 2028 - �"� thsougl Page t of i Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting June 6, 2011 Name Mailing Address Phone Email � zrv� J � qui « l a� .iVz��-SS � uw,z�•�,hJl VU/jr! r-ara- 3 � s - -rVl��' Lmv, � 9 - ���9 �tW44 35k Com- ' 2- -+gq'12-lb Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,June 9,2011,6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairwoman Julia Knisel,Amy Hamilton,Dan Ricciarelli, Michael Blier Members Absent: Carole McCauley,David Pabich Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chairwoman Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:18PM. 1. Meeting Minutes—May 12 and May 26,2011 A motion to approve the minutes is made by Ricciarelli and seconded by Hamilton; it passes unanimously. There are not enough members present to vote on May 12 minutes so those will be moved to the next meeting. . z. Continuation of Public Hearing-Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation— MRM Project Management LLC, P.O. Box 388, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed delineation of resource areas and exemptions from riverfront area regulations for the property located at 60 & 64 Grove St. and 3 Harmony Grove Rd. (former Salem Oil and Grease). Here for the applicant is Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering. He shows an"Existing Conditions Plan C-2" dated 4/28/11. Tonight's site walk was abbreviated due to weather but did happen. He outlines again the wetlands that are on site. The canal and bank are well defined and flagged. The absence of wetland vegetation was clear, however, there is a stand of knotweed along the river. The other resource is land subject to coastal storm flowage at a 10.5' level. An NOI at that elevation was also used a few years ago across the street. There were some questions about flood elevation which he addresses. Pabich had asked about a straight-line extrapolation of flood elevations. Mr. Griffin passes out an illustration: "Straight- line Extrapolation of Flood Zone Elevations." This is zone A to Zone A-2 with an elevation of 10 in Salem; Peabody shows an elevation of 10.8, so if the two are connected'(North St. to the Peabody town line) it would be 10.5-10.7 on their property. He is not sure that this is the appropriate method to use. There were also questions on the profile of the North River in Peabody, extrapolated into Salem. Illustration: "Extrapolation of Peabody FEMA study" This is a straight slope to the channel, which has a uniform shape. The 100-year flood elevation 1 would be 6.7' of water at the Peabody line; at their site it would vary from 7.2 to 9.2. The Mother's Day 2006 storm is shown as well and elevations vary from 7.8 to 10 at their site. He feels these estimates are conservative and will work. Ricciarelli asks what the Salem Engineering department thinks, but they have not been consulted. Chairwoman Knisel asks about elevations on the draft FIRM maps, but they have not been determined. No new calculations have been done. Hamilton asks about historical studies of the North River; their data is based on the most recent information they can get. Devine asks how zone A overlaps with the proposed flood zone. FEMA has not developed a flood map for this area; this is determined by the storm of record ortheFEMA flood maps, whichever is higher. Knisel points out that an option is to use the delineation on the map. Discussion of scaling ensues, since it's not on map. Mr. Griffin says they are trying to establish elevations so they must stay above them their work so as not to be in the flood zone. Knisel says he mentioned a project the Commission reviewed in the past with a 10.5' approval. Devine does not have knowledge of it and would need to know what it's based on. Griffin says he figures they saw 10 and 11 elevations, so went with 10.5. Devine says they would default back to Zone A boundaries if elevations cannot be agreed upon. Mr. Griffin thinks it is close. Hamilton wonders about going off a river study if one was generated, as opposed to using maps for insurance purposes. Griffin says nothing in the Wetland Protection Act refers to a project. Chairwoman Knisel says it does reference the 100-year storm event, based on the FIRM or storm records. Flood studies, documentation and origination of information are discussed. Mr. Griffin says that the Mother's Day storm was well below their estimate. Devine points out options; they can • request more information, default to Zone A boundaries on the FEMA map, or accept the 10.5 elevation. Mr. Griffin states that another option is for the Commission to decide on a higher elevation. What they need is an elevation to work with in their redevelopment plans. Mr. Griffin mentions the issue of historic use of the property. He shows some old plans and photos. Maps go back to the turn of the century. Also, there is a photo in the 1960's, shortly after the cannery fire. He lists and passes around several other photos. Historical use of the property has been industrial. Blier asks if there has always been one entry into the property; currently there are more, and the one by Silver St. may not have been the main one. Service trucks would have had to use a bridge and a slope. Blier asks about some large trees from 1965. Chairwoman Knisel asks if Blier is ok with the footprints, but he says it is difficult to tell especially with the heavy vegetation. Mr. Griffin shows the illustration with the footprints again. Blier is questioning the areas between the buildings, as areas exempted riverfront area regulation. Most of the property is in the 200' riverfront area. Devine asks about the north side of river - are they requesting exemption for there? Yes, though there were not any buildings before, nor are there any now. Griffin says in 1965 there was activity on that land—a wastewater infiltration system. Mr. Griffin has requested a canal exemption: Devine talked to Jill Provencal at the DEP, who believes that the north river does not qualify under the Wetlands Protection Act as a canal, since • it is a modified river, and not a canal. Mr. Griffin disagrees, saying that the Cape Cod canal is a modified river, and is referred to in the regulations as an example of a canal. Mr. Griffin is not concerned whether the canal exemption applies—if the historic mill exemption is granted, that 2 will serve his purposes. • Chairwoman Knisel says the historic mill exemption may be applied to all or part of the site. Devine thinks the exemption should apply to whole thing. He was in doubt about the area between the tracks and the river, but is satisfied with the photographic evidence that was just submitted. Chairwoman Knisel opens to the public. Barbara Warren 201 Washington St., of Salem Sound Coastwtach, speaks, and says she can't hear well at Conservation Commission meetings. She mentions that the North River Peabody study was divided into 3 projects and project 3 has not been heard yet, is not permitted, and the Army Corps is working on it. There was contention about the Mother's Day storm; the public said Flint St. and Grove St. did flood, while the study said they did not. She also questions the sewer easement along Harmony Grove Rd. —where does it go on their property? Mr. Griffin believes the sewer continues along the railroad, not on the properties in question. Ms. Warren agrees with the DEP definition of canal—this is not "man made" as it was a mill pond in the 1700's and in the 1800's the legislature granted railroad access, which led to the filling and pollution. This functions as and is a river, has rainbow smelt and other wildlife that must be respected. She would also like explanation of the "historic mill" footprint, as she doesn't understand exemption. Jim Treadwell, of 36 Felt St. says there is no definition of a canal in the regulations, so can the DEP share one? He thinks the canal starts where the historic granite siding occurs, which means • it is manmade; beyond that it meanders as a river. As for floodplain elevations—the Gateway Center used a ls` floor elevation of 10.25 but when planning was finalized they went to 12'. He thinks they came up with something historical or wanted to abide by a more conservative elevation. He also would like clarifications about the historic mill exemption—it says "occupied" but many structures have been eliminated since 1946. Why do we support the demolition of historic complexes which are on the historic register? He wants the DEP to clarify the intent of the law regarding the exemptions with regard destruction of historic buildings. Devine reads the historic mill exemption aloud. Mr. Treadwell comments that the definition says "occupied," not "formerly occupied." Chairwoman Knisel says it says "is or was". They debate back and forth about whether the buildings need to exist and be occupied in a certain time frame. Mr. Griffin says the existence of buildings does not change the status as a historic mill site. Mr. Treadwell asks why they are recognized; no one knows if they are on historic registers. Mr. Griffin says the complexes are exempt because it constrains development and cleanup along rivers. He is not sure why they picked 1946 as a cutoff. In this case industrial uses go back to the 1800's. This will be discussed in detail as the project goes on. Blier asks if the area north of the river meets the exemption, since there were no structures. Ricciarelli opines that the exemption may have been for adaptive use of buildings, but not for reuse of the site in general. No one is sure exactly what the exemption means. • Devine says it applies to this site, according to the language of the exemption. He has spoken with the DEP and the person who reviewed it does believe the exemption applies, as well. 3 Darrow Lebovici of 122 Federal St. speaks. He is trying to understand the purpose of the exemption as well. He asks what would and would not be possible if exemption is granted or not. Chairwoman Knisel states that it has to do with performance standards for riverfront area. Mr. • Lebovici clarifies that if the exemption is granted, there cannot be discussions of any consequences of a certain type. Their job is to prevent damage to the river. If you don't know what they will do, how can you grant this exemption? He asks for a detailed examination by the DEP. Chairwoman Knisel asks Devine if this has been applied to any other cases in Salem. He does not know, but this is one of several layers of resource areas that apply– it is also coastal bank with a 100' buffer, land subject coastal zone flowage, and land under a water body. They will not do anything without coming before the Conservation Commission with a Notice of Intent. Riverfront area is a 200' zone, while coastal bank has a 100'jurisdiction area. Mr. Lebovici clarifies: the only implications of this exemption would apply between the 100' and 200' boundaries? That is the major difference; riverfront area goes down to the mean high water mark, so it would still all be reviewed. Mr. Lebovici wants to know what review they are relinquishing as result in the case of a 100' boundary. Devine is not sure, but is one of many layers of performance standards. He clarifies that it is the Conservation Commission's job to enforce the Wetlands Protection Act—to protect the river through the act. If the applicant is entitled to this exemption based on law, we must give it to them, Mary Whitney, of 356 Essex St. says that the regulations are not clear. She wants to know if the river will be protected or not. There are 2 separate exemptions, and they are mostly discussing the historic mill complex exemption, not the canal definition. Chairwoman Knisel rereads the Mill complex definition. Mr. Griffin says that what happens to • buildings is not in question. What is in question is what happens to the resource. They want to establish the resource so they can tailor designs around it. Ms. Whitney wants to know why they want this exemption–not having it makes it more difficult to redevelop sites. The applicant wants to develop the site and address contamination, which is difficult to do without the exemption. It is not impossible to develop with the riverfront area protection applying, but is more difficult. Ms. Whitney says there are endangered species –eel and smelt use the river for breeding. Mr. Treadwell refers to previous NOI's in the letter submitted by Griffin–do those issues refer to riverfront area? He also mentions the Gulf of Maine Study. There have been filings on this property. Devine says if the law is clear, we don't need to discuss intent or precedent, as we follow the law. Does the Commission think law applies? If not, they need to have that discussion. Mr. Treadwell says we need to find out if other cities have found similar things exempt. There is no discussion of the Peabody flood mitigation project through this area. Devine says it does not bear on the decision tonight, but Treadwell thinks it might because culverts will be installed in the area. Devine says this type of filing is simply asking for delineation and exemptions regardless of development plans. The Peabody P phase is to widen the North River from Peabody down to Bridge St–a 28-30' channel. Proceeding with phase I and 2 will have minor effects.on hydraulic grades at Grove St. Barbara Warren says the mitigation project plan has changed a lot. They have moved away from • widening canal, and may do culverts instead, but it is hard to make a judgment. Also she asks about the area.to the east of the bridge where water flows that way, and if they found wetland 4 plants or hydrology there. They did not, there were mostly invasives; they tested soils and did not find wetland soils,just soils that smell like petroleum. Mr. Lebovici says Devine said to distinguish the canal vs. riverfront exemptions —less clear is the canal. The applicant is requesting whichever exemption will work for this situation—canal or historic mill. If the Conservation Commission declines the historic mill exemption, they will seek the canal exemption, though it is much more complex. Ms. Whitney asks about the owners of the property clearing the riverbank in violation of the Wetlands Protection Act and asks if they had a cease and desist. Mr. Griffin clarifies that the city actually cut knotweed, then his client was accused of doing it. Ms. Whitney, however, is referring to a stand of trees on a slope, which were cleared over the weekend, and the owner got fined. She feels that the site must be highly regulated, with more input than that from just one person at the DEP, who does not have enough information. Blier says that is just background, and it is hard to build a case against exemption because the boundaries seem clear. He feels, reading the law, that it does seem clear. Part of the site or the site in its entirety could be defined as a mill complex. Ms. Whitney and Mr. Treadwell both comment on their perceived lack of certainty. The DEP contact has a general understanding of the situation, but not a detailed history. Mr. Griffin and Mr. Treadwell debate the purpose of the exemptions, whether they are meant io make redevelopment easier vs. destroy historic buildings. • Chairwoman Knisel asks if the Commission would like to review the areas in question or come to an agreement. Some feel that they would like further clarification, so she asks what other information is needed. Mr. Griffin states that the property has been used industrially for 100 years. Mr. Treadwell says that the actual regulation talks about not just exemption, but grandfathering. It meets the definition of historic mill complex, and he is bothered that is it being destroyed. He would agree with Mr. Griffin if it were grandfathered, not exempted, but Blier clarifies that future plans have not been discussed. Mr. Griffins says that they will not be until this issue is finalized. Ms. Warren asks if they looked at old assessor maps to determine footprints. They have used many sources. The 2"d map is a compilation of sources as it was at 1946, not including prior buildings. Ms. Warren asks about the historic mill aspect, which refers to industrial/manufacturing uses in general. "Occupied" does not necessarily mean by humans. Mr.Treadwell says all areas would have been used. Why not call the whole thing a "mill?" Ricciarelli wants a more concrete definition of historic mill complex and reads the regulations again. Chairwoman Knisel confirms that the Commission is comfortable with the plan as flagged, with no modifications to the bank delineation. This is land under a water body, and subject to coastal ` • storm flowage. Pabich had originally raised the latter point and had previously stated that he would be open to other elevations. Chairwoman Knisel requests that they use an elevation of at least 10.6. 5 ___ Mr. Treadwell comments that the elevation at the Gateway Center(to be built) is 11, but that applicant never came before the Conservation Commission on that; Mr. Griffin was not aware of that project, and states that it does not matter to his client what the elevation is; he just wants a number so they can move forward. Whatever is determined tonight will be good for three years. The Gateway developer decided that 12 was the correct elevation to base the buildings upon, and that should also be applied here. Chairwoman Knisel says it is different, as the Commission is not determining elevation for a building,just for land subject to coastal storm flowage. She suggests they go up to 10.6. Ricciarelli thinks it's logical. Blier asks why not take the highest point on the site? That's 10.7. Griffin agrees. Hamilton objects to putting a number on it, saying it is up to applicant to defend why. She thinks it's weak especially with indications of flooding. Chairwoman Knisel says the Commission can continue if it wants to request more information. The flood elevation is 10.8 at the City line, so the applicant can take that. Hamilton says 10.8 is a minimum. Chairwoman Knisel summarizes that this is land subject to coastal storm flowage at elevation 10.8' She would like to resolve the historic mill complex question and avoid the canal question, and points out that all we can work with is the definition given in the regulations, so the question remains as to the application of the exemption to the entire site, or make it based on its maximum footprint. Ricciarelli asks about development opportunities within100' vs. 200' buffers. The 200' zone is a resource area, while the 100' area is only a buffer and would be less restrictive than being defined as riverfront area. All riverfront area regulations would be removed. Devine comments on the possibility of peer review and advising the Commission on riverfront • exemptions. Mr. Griffin says there is development in riverfront areas all the time in Salem, and he does not think this particular site should have those restrictions applied. Mr. Lebovici says it is important to be careful with this ruling because of the precedent it will set on the river, and there are many parcels with development issues who have not requested this. The Commission should eliminate any questions to this end. Questions of applicability/interpretation should be resolved. Ricciarelli wants to see better delineation and wants usable area delineated, not just discrete buildings. Chairwoman Knisel clarifies that, if the issue is continued, the Commission would find using a solid footprint helpful and would also request more expert direction. Blier respects Mr. Treadwell's comments about precedent. The whole site was used for mill- related functions, and he wants to remove "probably" from the equation— "probably" the whole area was used." He would like more data and for the DEP to issue a more formal opinion. Devine does not think we will put further comments in writing. They are "relatively convinced" of this. Ricciarelli asks if they can do site visit off schedule since he missed today's. Ms. Whitney clarifies that 1946 is the cutoff, so it is hard to tell now vs. then. Devine comments they would have the 1946 plan with them for a guidance. . Chairwoman Knisel reminds them that "complex" includes everything—storage, utilities, 6 parking, etc. It would be more difficult to prove that all space was NOT used than to prove it was used. • Mr. Griffin asks if the meeting will have posting issues, or if it is not a public meeting. If only two Commissioners go, it is not an open meeting, so only two will attend. Ricciarelli will be one of them. The Commission schedules a second site visit on Saturday the 18th at 10:30AM. A motion to close the public discussion is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Blier, and passes unanimously. A motion to continue to the next meeting on June 23`d. is made by Hamilton, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. g. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-509—Barbara Bowman, 8 Dearborn Lane, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of coastal beach, coastal bank, and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane. No one is here for the applicant, who requests to continue to the next meeting as he does not have the information and also would not have quorum. Hamilton motions to continue, is seconded by Ricciarelli, and the motion passes unanimously. 4. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Massachusetts Bay • Commuter Railroad (MBCR), 89 South St., 8th floor, Boston, MA.The purpose of the hearing is to discuss verification of wetland boundaries in planning for the application of herbicides on MBCR rights of way,from the Swampscott line(Thompson's Meadow) to Ocean Ave.,and parallel to the North River from Flint St. to the Beverly line. " Here for MBCR is Kyle Fair from TEC Associates. He passes out a color copy of the plans. This work is covered by the Department of Agricultural Resources and a vegetation management plan. He displays an MBCR map showing spray zones. The herbicide application vehicle has booms that stretch 10' onto either side of the tracks; where there are two sets of tracks, herbicide is applied to both sides. Regulations require protection of sensitive areas as well as drinking water protection, however there are no drinking water areas. Rather than delineate all boundaries of sensitive areas, they delineate by zones based on maps and the work that is done to use maps with applicators. Yellow zones are "no spray" zones, wetlands and sensitive areas will be within a 10' buffer of work. Several zones along the North River and bridges have no spraying. Blue zones mark applications done once a year, which require the use of sensitive area material as required by DEP and DAR. The chemical is limited to right-of-way application. There is an "undelineated area" in the middle of town, and no spraying is done there or in the tunnel The sensitive area material lists chemicals used–the same ones are used on the entire right of • way since it is difficult to switch chemicals. There is a permanent marking system, with painted lines on the tracks. He is redoing the RDA's, and he did marking systems this year. The pilot vehicle also alerts the truck to standing water in drainage ditches, since the chemical cannot be 7 applied within 10' of standing or flowing water. He did a full review of the delineation, but it did not change from previously approved delineations. Blier asks about Thompson's Meadow- will it be sprayed on the west but not the east side? They • delineate in the field. The right-of-way with 2 tracks is large, but built to the left side of right of way, tracks are within the 10' buffer but tracks on right are further away, so it may be sprayed as they have a buffer. Jefferson Ave. is under the same condition. There is concern with drift into sensitive areas, but drift is minimal or nonexistent. No application is done in wet or windy conditions. Before the Commission is a question of delineation, not anything else. They are exempt from Wetlands Protection Act because this is done within the approved vegetative management plan. Work is prescribed by the vegetation management plan. Distances are 10' and 100' — work is 10' either side of center— a 20' pattern on a single track, with the pattern sprayed on both tracks when there are two. They are required to keep a 10' buffer from their work to any sensitive area —mean high water, vernal pools, vegetated wetlands, etc. 100' single blue zones are anything identified within 100' of proposed work. Knisel opens to the public, and with none present, there are no comments. A motion to close the public discussion is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, and all agree. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hamilton, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. • Devine clarifies that they are issuing two exemptions from buffer zone and riverfront areas. A motion to confirm the two exemptions and the existing delineation of the resource area is made by Blier, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made part of these minutes. 5. Old/New Business • None The City may be applying for a state PARC grant for Splaine Park, and asking for a letter of support from the Commission. Devine also wants to purchase wetland plant indentification books. Barbara Warren made some recommendations. He is asking for$40, and the Commission has no objections but Blier points out there is an iPhone app. You can hold it up to a plant and it will identify it. Also Devine is requesting $400 to renew the GIS subscription in October. Chairwoman Knisel wonders why it is not part of the city overhead—Devine says the City would just not pay for it. Ricciarelli asks if we are supporting part of the overall system. We are not,just the one on the Conservation Agent's computer. • A motion to approve funds is made by Blier to cover the costs of the books and GIS, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. 8 A motion to adjourn is made b Hamilton seconded B � y e by leer and passes unanimously. • The meeting ends at 8:40 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on September 8, 2011. • 9 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Forl'n 2 — Determination of,• Applicability Massachusetts We Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. General Information Important: When filling out From: forms on the computer, use Salem Conservation Commission - only the tab C - — — key to move Your cursor- To: Applicant Property Owner(if different from applicant): do not use the TEC Associates return key. Name Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority ` 46 Sawyer Street Name - 10 Park-Plaza, Suite 3910 VQ Mailing Address --� - Mailing Address- - _-- `- _-" - South Portland - ME 04106 Boston MA City?own State 02116 IHd"' Zip Code Cityrrown 1. Title and Date (or Revised Date if applicable)of Final Plans and Other Documents: tate zip code MBCR' Town of Salem; Branch: Newburyport Line -- ---- . TRIe ---.._._.._ _ 5/1_2/2011 Date --.----- Title Title _..__._. Date .__..--------- - • 2. Date Request Filed: Pate 5/19/2011 B. Determination Pursuant to the authority of M.G.L. c. 131, §40, the Conservation Commission considered your Request for Determination of Applicability, with its supporting documentation, and made the following Determination. , Project Description (if applicable)'. l Delineation of wetland resource areas along Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad(MBCR) right of way to allow vegetation management activities in accordance with Massachusetts Rights of Way Management Regulations(333 CMR 11.00). Location: MBCR rights of way, from the Swampscott line (Thompson's Meadow) to Ocean Ave., and parallel to the North River from Flint St. to the Beverly line. Project Location: See above • Street Address City/Town Assessors Map/Plat Number Parcel/Lot Number wpalmm2.poc Determination of Applicability-rev.10;&04 - P,ga I o 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection - Bureau of Resource Protection-Wetlands WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 • B. Determination (cont.). The following Determination(s) is/are applicable to the proposed site and/or project relative to the Wetlands Protection Act and regulations: Positive Determination Note: No work within the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act may proceed until a final Order of Conditions (issued following submittal of a Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent)or Order of Resource Area Delineation (issued following submittal of Simplified Review ANRAD)has been received from the issuing authority (i.e., Conservation Commission or the Department of Environmental Protection). ❑ 1. The area described on the referenced plan(s) is an area subject to protection under the Act. Removing, filling, dredging, or altering of the area requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 2a. The boundary delineations of the following resource areas described on the referenced plan(s) are confirmed as accurate. Therefore, the resource area boundaries confirmed in this Determination are binding as to all decisions rendered pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act and its regulations regarding such boundaries for as long as this Determination is valid. ❑ 2b!The boundaries of resource areas listed below are not confirmed by this Determination, regardless of whether such boundaries are-contained on the plans attached to this Determination or to the Request for Determination. ❑ 3. The work described on referenced plan(s) and document(s) is within an area subject to protection under the Act and will remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 4. The work described on referenced plan(s) and document(s) is within the Buffer Zone and will alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent or ANRAD Simplified Review (if work is limited to the Buffer Zone). ❑ 5.'The area and/or work described on referenced plants) and document(s) is subject to review and approval by: - - - .-. - - .. --- - Name of Municipality - Pursuant to the following municipal wetland ordinance or bylaw: - - - - • Name Ordinance or Bylaw Citation w0aipu i,;1101 nelefmin:,Iron of Apphcabllily•,ev IUIGIOJ 2 inti �I Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability FL I Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.LI c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) ❑ 6.The following area and/or work, if any, is subject to a municipal ordinance or bylaw but not subject to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: ❑ 7. If a Notice of Intent is filed for the work in the Riverfront Area described on referenced plan(s) and document(s), which includes all or part of the work described in the Request, the applicant must consider the following alternatives. (Refer to the wetland regulations at 10.58(4)c. for more information about the scope of alternatives requirements): ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located. ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located, the subdivided lots, and any adjacent lots formerly or presently owned by the same owner. ❑ Alternatives limited to the original parcel on which the project is located, the subdivided parcels, any adjacent parcels, and any other land which can reasonably be obtained within the municipality. • ❑ Alternatives extend to any sites which can reasonably be obtained within the appropriate region of the state. Negative Determination Note: No further action under the Wetlands Protection Act is required by the applicant. However, if the Department is requested to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability, work may not proceed on this project unless the Department fails to act on such request within 35 days of the date the request is post-marked for certified mail or hand delivered to the Department. Work may then proceed at the owner's risk only upon notice to the Department and to the Conservation Commission. Requirements for requests for Superseding Determinations are listed at the end of this document. ❑ 1. The area described'in the Request is not an area subject to protection under the Act or the Buffer Zone. ❑ 2. The work described in the Request is within an area subject to protection under the Act, but will not remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 3. The work described in the Request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined in the regulations, but will not alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, subject to the following conditions (if any). ❑ 4. The work described in the Request is not within an Area subject to protection under the Act • (including the Buffer Zone). Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, unless and until said work alters an Area subject to protection under the Act. ' p�ion:f,lac•Deleilninali0n ui AOphc Oihty rev. 10,6,0, Po9e 3 a(5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) 5. The area described in the Request is subject to protection under the Act. Since the work described therein meets the requirements for the following exemption, as specified in the Act and the regulations, no Notice of Innt is required: Llq 401;D Q C l� Exempt Activity(site applica a status ory/regu[acfc'ry provisions) 0'a —,r ❑ 6. The area and/or work described in the Request is not subject to review and approval by: ------ — - ---- -- —----—.. —-- --- — Name of Municipality - --"-- --- Pursuant to a municipal wetlands ordinance or bylaw. Name Ordinance or Bylaw Citation C. Authorization This Determination is issued to the applicant and delivered as follows: • ❑ by hand delivery on by certified mail, return receipt requested on L \ Date ------ ---- -- Date This Determination is valid for three years from the date of issuance (except Determinations for Vegetation Management Plans which are valid for the duration of the Plan). This Determination does not relieve the applicant from complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, bylaws, or regulations. This Determination must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Comm ission/A,copy must be sent to the appropriate DEP Regional Office (see http://www.mass.gov/de /abou i n.fi d our.htr-)and the property owner (if different from the applicant). Si na ures: / c _ Date - -- - v.ParomLUpc Oaieinunaimn of Appl¢abihty•iev. IO16/OJ Page 4 W 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability •I_ Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 D. Appeals The applicant, owner, any person aggrieved by this Determination, any owner of land abutting the land upon which the proposed work is to be done, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate Department of Environmental Protection Regional Office (see http://www.mass.gov/dep/about/region findvour htm) to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and Fee Transmittal Form (see Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form)as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7) within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Determination. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant if he/she is not the appellant. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination which is being appealed. To the extent that the Determination is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department of Environmental Protection has no appellate jurisdiction. • i I wpplUimLJoc Utlei muulion of Ap,fi.bdoy"!ev 10.8104 ' Vaye 5015 - , � t LlMassachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form • Massachusetts Wetlands.Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. Request Information Important: When filling out 1 Person or party making request (if appropriate, name the citizen group's representative): forms on the computer, use Name-- -- -- — -- ----— --- --- --- only the tab key to move ----_---- ---- _ --- _ your cursor- Mailing Address do not use the _ ___ return key. _ - City/Town --- _-- ------ State Zip Code - Phone Number Fax Number(if applicable) rk.'r Project Location --- --- ---------- Mailing Address ------_- ---- . -CivFown ------ State --- ------- Zip Code-----– 2. Applicant (as shown on Notice of Intent (Form 3), Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation (Form 4A); or Request for Determination of Applicability (Form 1)): Name Mailing Address ----------• City/Town ---------- .----------- State---------- Zip Code ---- Phone Number Fax Number(if applicable) 3. DEP File Number. B. Instructions 1. When the Departmental action request is for (check one): ❑ Superseding Order of Conditions ($100 for individual single family homes with associated structures; $200 for all other projects) ❑ Superseding Determination of Applicability ($100) ❑ Superseding Order of Resource Area Delineation ($100) Send this form and check or money order for the appropriate amount, payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to: Department of Environmental Protection • Box 4062 Boston, MA 02211 wpolorn'4.doc•Request for De,,tmentol Acllan Fee fmnsmiuol Fonn•rev. 10,6104 , - Pipe I of 2 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection Wetlands Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form • Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Instructions (cont.) 2. On a separate sheet attached to this form, state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination or Order which is being appealed. To the extent that the Determination or Order is based on a municipal bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. 3. Send a copy of this form and a copy of the check or money order with the Request for a Superseding Determination or Order by certified mail or hand delivery to.the appropriate DEP Regional Office (see http://www mass gov/deo/about/region/findyour htm). 4. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. v.oafoi 1112 Joc•Re Wiest for Depoi trneolal Aclion Fee rraosnnpal Fonn•rev. 1006104 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SALEM r CONSERVATION COMMISSION City of Salem Conservation Commission 978-619-5685 Will hold a site visit at 60 & 64 Grove St. and 3 Harmony Grove Rd. (former Salem Oil and Grease) on Saturday, June 18, 2011 at 10:30 a.m. The purpose of the site visit is to inspect the project site where MRM Project Management LLC, PO Box 388, Beverly, MA has proposed a delineation of resource areas and exemptions from riverfront area regulations. Julia Knisel Chair Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. -<, o _ W N _r 00 Phis notice posted on "Official Bunetin Board city Halt Salem, Mass. on ane_ 15,201' 23A A 939 Of W&L i I 1 a • e. CITY` OF SALEM ^ CON Lw SERV ATION COMMISSION NOTICE 7OFMEETING Zell JUN `�5 ,PZ. 30 You arehereby noted that the Salem_ConservdhonCommrssron will hold its r a sc esu(d' on — Thursday,June 23,20110[6.b0 PM at City Hall Annex:third Jloar conferenc ro W arJ Washington Street Salem,MA. !jultu Er t✓1��, 7 Julia Knisel Chair MEETINGAGENDA "6 00 P.M." t. Information Session reardin P Session-re, g proposed imp ovemenis;to Splaine Park Representatives from the:Federal { Street Neighborhood Association, Salem Community.Gardens and Salem,Department of Planningand Community Development will discus a preliminary designconcept being developed in preparation for a submittal to theMassachiisetts Executive Office bf Energy and Environmental Affairs PARC Grant Program.' 6:45 P.m. " • 2. Meeting Minutes—May 12,2011 and June 99 2011 $. PubGctiearing—Notice ofIntent— City of Salem,MA-93 Washington St. Salem,MA.The purpose of the heaving is to,d scuss'proposed c m of"contaminated materials,and u ?PP g P9>ing of park facilities within a buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands andremoval of waste materials from said wetlands at McGrath Park(46 Marlborough Rd). 4. Continuation of Public Hearing-Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation—DEP#64S1G MRM Project Management LLC,P O.Box 388,Beverly,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed delineation of resource areas and exemptions from riverf ont area regulations for the property located at 60& 64 Grove St.and 3 Harmony Grove ltd.(former Salem Oil and Grease). g. Continuation'of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent--DEP#64-509—Barbara Bowman,g Dearborn lane, Salem Ma The.Purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement_wtli'riprap within a pomon,of coastal beach, coastal bank, and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8.Dearborn Lane. 6. Old/1Vew Business • Request to fund sign language services for McGrath Park heann _ g.discussronandvote,:f —� .. Knowyoui rights under the Open MeetingLaWMG.L. a,39§23B and City Ordinance Sections through 2- 2033 Chis notice. posted on "Official a le4fn R9airt9•. ty Hall Salem; Mass. on ane.. 15 zo 11 t 2 89 r rgstyos l i Chs. . 38 S a 23A d a3"8 rat M�a. Page 1 of i Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission June 23, 2011 Name Mailing Address Phone Email Shm Sz tkwi z 1 3 �70 7 S-' 1137 S,7Lf/f z g +c � m 7 � - � , � d e s c 'L-9 vJ L z. p 1-72 Z /Ll LBo o 0 G 1-F D s2 j7, r Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting • Date and Time: Thursday,June 23, 2011,6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Dan Ricciarelli, Michael Blier, Carole McCauley, Acting Chair David Pabich Members Absent: Chairwoman Julia Knisel,Amy Hamilton Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Vice Chair Pabich opens the meeting at 6:16PM. 1. Information Session regarding proposed improvements to Splaine Park. Representatives from the Federal Street Neighborhood Association, Salem Community Gardens, and Salem Department of Planning and Community Development will discuss a preliminary design concept being developed in preparation for a submittal to the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs PARC Grant Program. Devine opens up by welcoming the public to the information session and introduces himself, describing the grant they are seeking to fund Splaine Park. It is a competitive grant. The Federal St. Neighborhood Association has been very active on this. Dan Ricciarelli is working on the design; there is also talk of having Salem Community Gardens put some plots there.This is an opportunity for public input. • Stan Schwartz of 143 Federal St., board member of the neighborhood association, speaks. They are interested in bringing Splaine Park back to an active neighborhood park. It is now in disrepair with minimal access and is not inviting. Splaine Park is hidden behind a group of trees below the CVS on Highland Ave., up from Boston St. It is across from ASAP Drains. The Neighborhood Association would like to open up the park and clean it up.They have had fundraisers and meetings with neighbors, and there is a website, splainepark.org. Dan Ricciarelli explains his preliminary drawing.Existing facilities include a gazebo, baseball diamond and basketball court.They will be refurbishing the field, providing irrigation, and improving the patio/dining/cooking area by the gazebo. They will also improve access—the entry by CVS is just a slope, and they would like to put in stairs. Still, the CVS parking lot must be crossed through.They may put a walkway in along the fence at Essex St. to make another formal entrance. There is also an entrance of off May St. but it is not very visible.They will also put in a signage panel.The May St. entrance looks like an alley or driveway. Vice Chair Pabich asks if the owners of CVS plaza are on board, but they have not yet been consulted. Pabich comments that a de facto entrance should be defined or excluded for their insurance purposes.An audience member comments on the previous parking situation which had changed over time. CVS is somewhat amenable to letting people park there. There is also a piece of city-owned property on the other side of the park where there could be parking. Community Gardens could have 150-200 plots there. A new tot lot and play structure would be installed, as would a walking path around the edge.There is sewer and water so toilets could also be added if they can afford it.There is a memorial, which would be expanded and have seating. They have not yet consulted the neighbors to determine if the current location is ideal for the memorial. I There will be motion-sensor security lighting as well. Vice Chair Pabich asks who are the predominant users right now. Many little leaguers use it; otherwise, off season, it is a cut-across path for residents. An audience member asks if kids would be restricted by age. McCauley asks about construction; it is not in a resource area and the Commission is not reviewing it, but she is concerned about contaminants and hopes they don't find any that would prevent them from going forward. An audience member member thinks any contamination would be gone since it has previously been refurbished and soils removed and replaced when a sewer line was replaced.They are investigating prior use; Pabich advises them to look into it. There were large buildings there in 1875; curriers and tanners.Mr.Treadwell comments that the archaeologists may want a look. He also comments that the nets are on the basketball structures; so they must be in use and maintained. Treadwell comments that lights at Furlong Park were eliminated because the abutters were concerned about it. An audience member comments about a light which is very directed—from behind the light,you don't even see it.Treadwell asks about the adjacent public land, but the parking area is not owned by the city, it would be an easement.There is also a path leading to Salem Heights.The park is 1.85 acres. Sometimes dog walkers also use the park so a path would be useful. An audience member comments that the park is not visible at night,even with lights, so she would not feel safe at night. Is it common for parks to be closed at night? Yes. Vice Chair Pabich comments that the norm is that parks are deserted at night. He doesn't think there is much demand. An audience member comments that a lot of people walk Leslie's Retreat and the Common at night,but both are very visible.Mr. Treadwell asks if the Councilor for Ward 4 is aware of this. Another audience member comments that it may be part of another ward as well. Devine says that he has reached out to the City Council and, since this meeting conflicts with the Council • and committee meetings, has let them know that they can contact him if they want more information on this process. The Planning Board would have approved the CVS site,and Mr.Treadwell wonders if they were aware of the park.The other audience member comments that it used to be a solid fence with no gate, and there used to be parking. The opening was created when there was a sinkhole under the ball diamond. Vice Chair Pabich wonders about a sewer easement and Ricciarelli describes it. Having a formal entry in the corner benefits everyone,but Salem Five and CVS are supportive of fixing up the park and want to be included in the dialogue about designs. Improvements will help their storefronts as well. However, they will not want people parking in their lots, but people do anyway. The fence is there but it is still accessible. ,Mr. Treadwell comments on pedestrian access from Salem Heights to downtown; they are trying to encourage it. One problem, however, are baseballs flying in that direction; they should be directed in a different path. There is also an overgrown area between the ball field and the edge. Visibility is discussed. There was a portable toilet there but it was destroyed within a month. If left as is, any structure would probably get destroyed. Vice Chair Pabich asks if they will approach the landowners,they should suggest putting up signs asking people to be respectful and not park in the lot, in "exchange"for letting them enter the park through the lot. Smile Designs also owns a lot across the street by the Laundromat; it is a walk to get there, but they let them use the lot after SPM. Mr. Treadwell asks about parking on Pope St. Even on little League Game • nights, the CVS lot still has plenty of parking. The grant is for$500,000 and will go in July 15. It is a$2 match for every $1 the City spends, so this park 2 could cost up to$750,000, with$250,000 contributed by the City and$500K by the grant. However, McCauley comments that the grant can't be accepted without having the money to spend on it. Mr. • Treadwell comments that Furlong Park should have been left well enough alone.The Conservation Commission discussed the existing conditions there, and City staff wanted to go forward and leave the testing to later. He hopes they look into things they are already concerned with, such as prior use and what's there now. Vice Chair Pabich says that the City should have a policy for parks; any open space will have a history of strong, heavy industrial use and will have contamination. We have a legal obligation to open that "Pandora's box,"and find out what's there. Mr.Treadwell asks how the park was named. John Splaine was a WWII veteran who was involved in many veterans' affairs. We do not know if he actually lived in that area. 6:45 P.M.(6:55PM–actual start time) 2. Meeting Minutes—May 12,2011andJune 9,2011 There is no quorum for either the May 12 or June 9 minutes, so they will not be voted on. Both sets of minutes are tabled until the next meeting. g. Public hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem, MA-93 Washington St., Salem, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed capping of contaminated materials and upgrading of park facilities within a buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands and removal of waste materials from said wetlands at McGrath Park(46 Marlborough Rd). Illustrations: McGrath Park Site Plan, 6/9/2011 Wetland Buffer Impact Plan, 6/9/2011 Here to discuss the issue is David Knowlton, City Engineer. They have retained Tighe and Bond to help with construction document preparation.They need to cap the park so it can be used for soccer.There are two fields; contamination was found at the surface of the lower field; none was found at the upper field. There is fill trash buried beneath the upper field with no adequate buffer, thus the whole site will be capped. There are wetlands in some areas around the park. They are trying to get the fields active soon; they want to reconstruct them and have two growing seasons before play resumes, so there is an aggressive schedule to finish capping by mid-October. The Order of Conditions issued will be included as an addendum to the construction package that goes out for bid. He would like to shorten the time frame and issue the Order in less than 21 days if possible. Bradley Mezquita from Tighe and Bond is also present and speaks, outlining some details. Ballfields will be raised by 2' and paved areas will be raised 6" and paved. Parking areas will also be extended and the existing tennis court will be removed; additional parking will be created and the playground moved near the concession stand. That will be consolidated with storage and concessions so the playground is not isolated. The basketball court will also be oriented. They will go from 65 to 130 designated parking spaces. Existing drainage comes down to a center swale and some catch basins by the drive. They will keep that • similar and will redo drainage by the drive, as pipes are undersized. They will be replaced and new " structures put in. There is currently no stormwater treatment so deep sumps with oil/grease hoods and a CBS unit will be added. This is a mechanical unit to take out suspended solids. Underground detention will be added as they are increasing impervious surfaces. It will be a standard closed-pipe system. They 3 have mitigated peak flows up to 50, with a decrease in each level of event. Other improvements include a new concession stand and restrooms, along with a new sewer line between • the two fields, tying into the existing one. There will also be new fencing and a new playground adjacent to the concession stand.They are proposing minimal curbing, similar to what is there now.The two raised islands will have curbing as will the drive with the catch basins, and an area with a sidewalk. The Wetland Buffer Impact Plan submitted shows the buffer areas, which Mr. Mezquita describes. In the northerly wetland is 2100' of impacted area; there is lots of debris there that they want to remove without disturbing the resource. Acting Chair Pabich asks if the cap is a soil cap — it is. There will.be a separation layer of fabric, then clean fill over the existing fields.The parking lots will have gravel, then bituminous layer. The Chair asks about the existing water line, which comes down the drive to concession and will be extended. There is irrigation. They will come up two feet on both fields, 6" on the parking lots. On the rear side of one lot, it goes uphill and works out well. They did look beyond the limits of the soccer field to find the limits of fill; Pabich mentions that there were some leather scraps found in one of the woods areas,but that was 20 yeas ago. Roger Leger of 64 Marlborough Road lives at an abutting property, and was present when they built the fields. Bulldozers were near a shed, and they pushed glass, leather, etc. onto his property and filled it into his land. He describes where the leather scraps are. Drainage goes under Marlborough Rd. and it has never been cleaned out. He has always had a problem with water coming onto his property, which originally extended onto the drive of the field. The City put drainage on his property without his permission. Larry McIntire of the parks, back then, did not care. Drainage was supposed to go in the opposite direction than it does. • He made an agreement with the City that they squared off his property and would remediate the water problem. 3-4 years ago, they put a tank in his yard, with an offshoot to the drainage to alleviate the water problem. It did work. However, there is a berm surrounding the property, but people park their cars on the berm, which crushed it and drainage is redirected onto his property again. He wants them to test the dirt they pushed into his yard and the drainage situation with the berm addressed. Acting Chair Pabich comments that parking should be alleviated with the added spaces, but Mr. Leger says they park there anyway, despite signs. Mr. Knowlton comments that the curbing will help. Mr. Leger also says he has cleared vegetation coming through the fence onto his property, and is not happy that the City does not maintain it. He is not against the project. He describes a situation where he confronted a man in a pickup who thought it was a dump and dumped his trash all over the field. He comments that it is unsafe to put the playground where the plan specifies because of visibility issues. They are building a tot lot for all the soccer people, disregarding people who live in the neighborhood. Acting Chairman Pabich appreciates his concern but mentions that he is off-topic for the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission. He also notes that the purposeis to have the kids close to the parents. Mr. Leger still insists that it will be more visible if the tot lot is by the road, but this is not a Conservation Commission issue. These concerns should be brought up to the City and Dave Knowlton. At this venue, the issues with his property should be discussed as they relate to the wetlands. Mr. Knowlton says they are addressing the issues with his property and the tot lot. Acting Chair Pabich says that the perimeter will be ringed with a silt fence; they decided on silt fence rather than silt sock as it provides a visual barrier.There will be some grading of existing soils, which will be brought offsite if necessary, but they hope to have very little. The increased impervious area will be handled through additional stormwater management. 4 McCauley asks if removed vegetation will be replaced in kind. Some will be paved but other areas will be re-vegetated, but they are not proposing a landscape plan around the perimeter. The fence along one side . has trees growing into it. There will be bituminous curb, which is what is there now. But there will be very little curb as it is now. The Chair is concerned about curbing – the design standard is 6" granite curb. It has generally been a plowed lot,but not this past winter. Chairman Pabich asks if they can budget for either concrete or granite curbing. There may be reclaimed granite curbing the City can let them use, as it is a more permanent solution. The existing drainage structure is not 24". Mr. Leger asks if the drainage size on his property will be changed; it is now 10"and will be 12".They will also try to clean the culvert. They discuss further the culverts and drains. Vice Chair Pabich asks about the City property line and if it is an easement; it is the property line. Blier and Ricciarelli discuss the grading with Mr. Mezquita. Pabich comments that it looks straightforward but wants a site visit since it is a large project. Blier asks what happens if the work includes the abutting properties. It would be a separate NOI if the City is going to do work on the abutters' properties. It might be an RDA instead if it's a small area to be removed and replaced. Chairman Pabich opens to the public but Mr. Leger has already spoken. A site visit is scheduled for 5:15 p.m. on Thursday, July 14'°. Devine comments that it is a public ark so any Commissioners can go at their convenience. Any members that cannot make it on the l4' should go on their own when it is convenient for them. Devine expects DEP comments in the interim and he will be sure Tighe and Bond receives them. • Vice Chair Pabich asks if they can draft conditions for the City to work with, even if they are not official. They would not be issued until the July 10 meeting; Mr.Mezquita says it's OK to wait until the 14'h, and they can have quick turnaround provided the Conditions are set then. Devine says once the order is issued, he will turn it around probably within a day and give it to David Knowlton. There is no need to use the 21 days. A motion to continue to July 14'h is made by McCauley, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously. 4. Continuation of Public Hearing—Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation—DEP#64- 516—MRM Project Management LLC, P.O. Box 388, Beverly, MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed delineation of resource areas and exemptions from riverfront area regulations for the property located at 60 & 64 Grove St. and 3 Harmony Grove Rd. (former Salem Oil and Grease). There is no quorum for this item, so it should be continued to July 14'h. A motion to continue is made by McCauley, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. 5. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64.509—Barbara Bowman, 8 Dearborn Lane, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of coastal beach, coastal bank, and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane. This is the same situation, with no quorum of eligible members. A motion to continue is made by McCauley, seconded by Blier, and all approve. 6. Old/New Business 5 • Request to fund sign language services for McGrath Park hearing:discussion and vote The request has been cancelled. McCauley asks for clarification on the City's policy on such requests. • Obviously we want our meetings to be accessible to all, but we should have a clear idea about who is responsible for paying for these services. Devine will seek clarification. A motion to adjourn is made by McCauley, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 7:39PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on September 8, 2011. • 6 P (,OKOiT CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION 2011 JUN 28 A 10: 39 FILE t; CITY CLEPii, ;ALEFT, IIAS,. City of Salem Conservation Commission 978-619-5685 Will hold a site visit at McGrath Park(46 Marlborough Rd.)on Thursday,July 14,2011 at 5:15 p.m. The purpose of the site visit is to inspect the project site where the City of Salem proposes to cap contaminated materials and upgrade park facilities within a buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands, and to remove waste materials from said wetlands. gi Julia Knisel Chair Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. This notice postgl On "Official Buliefin dopt rd" City Hall Saiern, Mass, on `lun.- zb aa,i at /0 16 i �9A 8 R9B �f ltil. with 30 ,s _ „ s! CITY OF SALEM N 11%AW ` CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICEOFMEETING You are hereby nothat the tified 6 00 plem Conservation Commission will hold itsregularlyscheduled mee TkuisddJul ting on Y, Y I4Mat CityHall Annex, third floor conference room, 120Washington Street, Salem,MA. uTra Kmsel Chair MEETING AGENDA n __J A rA n inutes —May 12,2011,June 9,2011,and:June 23,2011 1. Meeting M - N .. . w. 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation-DEP#64-516— MRM Project Management LLC,P.O.Box 388,Beverly,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed delineation ofresource areas and exemptions.from riverfront area regulations for theproperty located at 60& 64 Grove St.and 3 Harmony Grove Rd.(former Salem Ort and Grease). 11 $. Continuation of Public hearing—Notice oflntent DEP#64-517—City of Salem,MA-93 Washington St., Salem MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed capping of contaminated materials and upgrading of park facilities within a buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands and removal of waste materials from said wetlands at McGrath Park(46 Marlborough Rd). 4. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64509—Barbara Bowman,8 Dearbom Lane Salem MA The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal:of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of coastal beach, coastal bank, and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane. 5. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Marc Tranos, 130 Bay View Ave.,. Salem,MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed construction of an addition to a single family house within buffer zone to coastal bank at 47 Memorial Dr. 6. Old/New Business Know your right under the OpenMeeting LawM.G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. ThIS I,ICO POSQ0d on Salem, M64 1�At H Il�j �P. P � Wt Of Page t of t Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting July 14, 2011 Name Mailing Address Phone Email 2q 4 3S b T'ZQ -- C� Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting July 14, 2011 Name Mailing Address Phone Email f V-VIC i6WC15 Z30 Ltlew A✓c 7yy 017 3 e Aw - 7 -D9�6 f, 0, tea. Iola ass e i I • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,July 14,2011, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairwoman Julia Knisel,Dan Ricciarelli, Carole McCauley, Amy Hamilton. Members Absent: Michael Blier,David Pabich Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chairwoman Knisel opens the meeting at 6:16PM. 1. Meeting Minutes—May 12,2011,June 9,2011,and June 23,2011 There is no quorum to vote on previous minutes so all are tabled until the next meeting. 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation—DEP#64-516— MRM Project Management LLC,P.O. Box 388, Beverly,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed delineation of resource areas and exemptions from riverfront area regulations for the property located at 60 &64 Grove St.and 3 Harmony Grove Rd.(former Salem Oil and Grease). Presenting is Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering.There is a quorum for this issue. • Mr. Griffin states that this is the 3`d meeting to discuss this project and feels there is reasonable agreement on the definition of the bank and land underwater. He outlines their discussion of elevations and flood plains. An elevation of 10.8 was finally assigned.There were still some question about its exemption from riverfront area via manmade canal and historic mill complex exemptions.The latter is more likely to be put into place, especially given the recent site visit. Also at the site walk, a question regarding an area to the South of the River and to the North of the tracks regarding bordering vegetated wetlands plants came up,but it was mostly nonnative vegetation. Their biologist agreed to take a second look and determine if there are wetlands. Copies of that report are provided.Hydric soil was not found. He also presents a soil sample, which has a strong turpentine odor and is not hydric or organic soil as would be characteristic of a wetland. The Chairwoman asks if Michael Blier had raised any further questions at the Saturday site visit, but he did not. Devine states that there are several items the Commission must consider: • Top of coastal bank–no issues • Land under water bodies and waterways–no issues • Flood zone–agreed on an elevation of 10.8 according to elevation at Peabody line • Two proposed exemptions: canal and historic mill complex. Devine asked the Legal Department to take a look and city Solicitor Beth Reynard issued a memo.The historic mill exemption has not previously been applied in Salem; this would be the first time. Devine reads the memo aloud. Chairwoman Knisel states that in the previous discussion, the Commission had decided to focus on the historic • mill complex exemption,and was feeling comfortable with that.Ricciarelli says he does feel comfortable with that, especially after further research he did. 1 Chairwoman Knisel asks if there are further questions,then opens to the public. McCauley asks if anything else. was pending, but it's just these requests and if there is any BVW on site. Ms.Towhey of 122 Federal St. speaks. She is looking for DEP guidance on precedent for use of the mill exemption for this purpose; as there is none in Salem Where has it been applied elsewhere? She is especially concerned if the buildings will be demolished. She wonders what the intent is—preservation or demolition of buildings? The Chairwoman clarifies that we are not discussing future work now, only delineation of the site and exemptions. Ms.Towhey asks if this has been applied to any other sites where buildings could be demolished, as it will be precedent-setting. Ricciarelli says there was a Chicopee project that VHB worked on, so there is precedent. Also, there was precedent in Fitchburg under Natural, Cultural, and Historic resources, stating the same facts. The exemption is for an area that is or WAS occupied by certain types of buildings. Ms.Towey asks them to consider that they need to be specific in selecting what is in the area of exemption and she asks that it not be the whole site; the burden should be on the engineer to show that the entire site had been used in 1946 for those purposes. Jane Arlander of 93 Federal St. is concerned about the 3 Harmony Grove Road area, which was purchased in 1965 and is .82 acres, and is on the river. She has been on 2 site visits and it does have a bridge on it, but there is no evidence of any buildings. The assessor's office employee that she spoke with does not recall any building on the property—there are none and no foundation, and this parcel that fronts the river should NOT be exempt from Riverfront protection.There are also no buildings on previous plans from 1946 but Mr. Griffin says it's incorrect and photos provided have shown a concrete structure there that was used for sewage purposes, sold in 1965 to the railroad.There is a bridge there, and it's flat because it was used for storage for said railroad. It is filled land, • which was probably filled in 1880's when the railroad was constructed,and was used for loading materials. Devine comments, asking if they have a photo showing that building; the photo they have is from 1965 and they need one showing that it was there in 1946. Devine says that the bridge would qualify as a driveway but beyond that it is up to the Commission to decide whether any additional parts of that parcel qualify for the mill exemption. Darrow Lebovici of 121 Federal St.comments on Ms.Rennard's letter, about the line in the definitions that says "includes footprint of area ONLY... etc.," meaning it should be limited to a specific footprint. In Mr. Griffin's narrative on p.6 he says "given the size of the buildings it is apparent that entire site was used for things... incidental to the manufacturing process." He says it is apparent to Griffin but not good enough according to the act and Ms. Rennard.They must show a specific footprint associated with structures and activities. Mr. Griffin's assertions are not enough; footprints must be shown.The DEP's rulings show that the burden is upon the developer to demonstrate that. Mr. Griffin feels they have provided all they can and it would be unreasonable to expect them to provide aerial photos when that technology did not exist in that timeframe. Since it was filled in the late 1800's, nothing happened that would cause these areas to be"conserved."It was all industrial area. Jim Treadwell of 36 Felt St. acknowledges that the Mack Park Neighborhood Association is interested.Many citizens were permitted onsite, and he applauds that effort on the part of Mr. Griffin. He thinks it is important to redevelop this site and incentives such as these exemptions are important and should be used,but he also advocates historic preservation. But, the definition implies that since they are looking for buildings on the historic register, they would seek preservation vs. demolition. Also, the walls of the channel are very significant and he hopes they will be saved. He also looks for generous Chapter 91 features to enhance the project. • He also approves that the precedent setting was noted. Regarding historic preservation, if there is federal funding 2 involved the historic reservation review process will be more detailed.The will need to • p p y determineifitis eligible for the National Register. He also wants the record to show that this Commission did take a position on the exemption for a canal. Barbara Warren insisted it was a river, not a canal,for precedent-setting purposes. Mr.Treadwell also approves of the compromise of 10.8 on the flood elevation. However, the elevation across Grove St. is different than that and he wonders if it can be examined again later. Joan Sweeney of 22 Silver St. has a map from 1851 showing the North River and tanneries,and buildings that are on the other side of Grove St. She describes the previous setups and shows them on the map. There were also several areas the DEP was concerned with.The wall was put in around 1630 orl640 with no horses used. It is all man-made. Chairwoman Knisel asks if she has any information on area across the river,but she doesn't.The River was tidaUestuary, fresh/saltwater brackish and fish would breed there. The river will be widened at Howley St. but there are no plans for Salem. Additionally, the sewer pipe for Peabody is embedded in the river and no one is aware of it.The floodplain area is across the street. Ms.Twohey asks the Commission to consider looking at another map that includes the footprint of buildings that were there earlier and asks that they be specific in delineation. She reiterates that there is no proof that the entire project should be exempt. Mr. Griffin reviews the footprint on the map.The tannery was on the western part of the site.The blue line on his plans would be 200' from mean high water,and that would be the exempted riverfront area.The tannery was adjacent to the railroad tracks for a reason. He has plans of ongoing 1940's building projects, also researched at the Registry of Deeds and using old fire maps. He also describes the Salem Oil and Grease factory, as all activity • was interrelated over the whole site.This site has been under industrial use since the 1800's. McCauley asks him to outline 3 Harmony Grove and he does. Chairwoman Knisel states that the Commission is determining whether or not they want to exclude 3 Harmony Grove from the Mill exemption based on data presented. Mr. Griffin says soil tests found industrial residues there, and it is not soil for riverside habitat.There were no 100 year old trees either,only shrubs and younger trees, suggesting industrial use in the 1940's. McCauley opines that that portion was probably used industrially too.They will also be in front of the Conservation Commission even with the exemption, since much work will be within the 100' buffer zone. McCauley says the only really questionable area is the area on top of North River. Another audience member says the use in 1946 was railroad, not mill.Mr. Griffin argues it was all industrial use. McCauley says the issue may be not having proof but circumstances and presence of hydrocarbons in soil point to industrial use. Jane Arlander speaks again, saying she collects bottles and goes to 18th and 17'h century dumps,and finds different sources of debris a long distance from factories. It is not uncommon to find industrial debris offsite in the woods. One can even find coal there. So we can't assume property was used industrially if waste is on an adjacent site, but Mr.Griffin says soils are consistent with plans he has shown.This is not a dumping ground for materials produced elsewhere. McCauley points out that this is onsite and asks if the activity on north side was the same as on the south. • Mr.Lebovici states that evidence of industrial use is NOT the standard in the act, rather, the standard is that there are interrelated structures in place before 1946 and that persisted after 1946.This does not meet that definition. - McCauley says materials storage,driveways and utilities may not leave a footprint of a structure. 3 Ricciarelli says that everything south of the railroad tracks would be interrelated but cannot speak for North.of • that area except for the driveway, which must be reviewed as part of the Act. Ricciarelli asks about the main feeding the building which would qualify as a utility. It was built in 1990's. Mr. Griffin describes the setup. Infiltration beds were installed in 1940's or 50's indicating sewage disposal then. In the interest of moving along, he suggests a corridor of 20-30 on the Northwest of the bridge was used for storage, loading, unloading of railroad cars. Chairwoman Knisel thinks there is consensus to remove that area from the exemption. McCauely says it is logical that it was used for industrial purposes,though this is not documented. Ms. Arlander speaks again, saying that there was a question from last meeting as to what the difference would be with the exemption in place vs. not. She is worried that the river is coming back and does not want this exemption to lead to others in the future. She wonders about the implications of this exemption and the intent of the law. She understands that some areas might deserve a break from the environmental regulations but wonders why Salem Oil and Grease does. Chairwoman Knisels says we are making a lot of assumptions as to what will be proposed and we don't have those plans. We have few questions—such as what resource areas will we confirm, which of the 2 exemptions will we approve, and if so which modifications will be made? McCauley says this may set a precedent, but excluding that we need to make the best decision we can based on this scenario here and now. Mr. Lebovici says that they should recognize that the law is difficult,and oddly worded, but the result is important, so the Commission should be very stringent in its application now. Common sense tests are appealing but not concrete proof. They should ask for documented proof. Chairwoman Knisel says the majority of the Commission has voiced concern about the northern part of the is property. In question is the shape of the property and the continuous area where related structures once were. Chairwoman Knisel asks if the Commission wants to further refine the footprint of the exemption, and draw more of a line around foundations and areas that would have been used. Ricciarelli says they discussed it before, and utilities and driveways are between buildings,except for the north part. He reminds them that the Wetlands Protection Act is still in place, and this is just one layer. Mr. Griffin states on behalf of his client that he is withdrawing the request for the canal exemption from the riverfront area regulations. He also withdraws the request for the historic mill complex exemption for 3 Harmony Grove Rd. Ms. Arlander comments that the assessor's office has the 3 Harmony Grove area listed at a different square footage than Mr. Griffin's map. Ricciarelli says that the difference is not surprising as surveys can differ. Those are all the requests.The Commission would be issuing an Order of Resource Area Delineation. Devine would add a write-up of findings that give the exemption to 2 parcels only. Devine runs through the list of items in question again: • Delineation of coastal bank-confirmed • Land under water—confirmed • Flood zone elevation -to be 10.8 based on the Salem/Peabody Line • Historic mill exemption—to be granted for 60 and 64 Grove St. but not granted for 3 Harmony Grove Rd., • for which the request was withdrawn • Canal exemption—not granted, withdrawn by the applicant • Absence of bordering vegetated wetlands -confirmed 4 Ricciarelli motions to close the public hearing, Hamilton seconds him, and all are in favor. A motion to issue an Order of Resource Area Delineation is made by Hamilton, seconded by Ricciarelli, and all approve.This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 3. Continuation of Public hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-517—City of Salem,MA-93 Washington St., Salem, MA.The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed capping of contaminated materials and upgrading of park facilities within a buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands and removal of waste materials from said wetlands at McGrath Park (46 Marlborough Rd). David Knowlton, City Engineer speaks. Consultants from Tighe &Bond are present.There are two minor amendments to the plan–public paths and location of the playground.They are moving as quickly as possible with construction to get the soccer fields back.They will finish this fall and get in a growing season this fall and next spring. They want to work an order of conditions into contract documents to put out for bid. David Murphy and Tracey Adamski of Tighe &Bond speak. A walking path was added around the 2 fields and there was the addition of a small playground, and also reduction of parking spaces to accommodate that. Now there are 2 playgrounds, not 1.They also took out 16 parking spaces that were proposed.This leads to a reduction of 2,568 square feet of impervious surfaces. Granite curbing was also added.Paths will be made of stone dust, which is pervious.The reduction in impervious surfaces did not change the overall drainage the plan proposed. They are proposing underground water detention and water quality inlet. • Overall impact would be on 2400 square feet of BVW improvement. Buffer zone impact increased slightly in the southern part; it was 50,850 and is now 51,950 sq feet to account for the additional path.Mr. Knowlton will deliver new design plans. Ricciarelli had no concerns,just the abutters' concerns.The DEP had no comments. Devine says the abutter was at the site visit and did not raise further concerns. Chairwoman Knisel asks for standard conditions–Devine says the DEP form includes standard conditions, plus the City of Salem has its own boilerplate conditions it adds to every order. He suggests looking at what they will do with restoration of BVW, and conditions could be added there if the plan is not adequate.- Hamilton asks if they will have to dig into contaminated soil to do utilities; they will but will make sure it's outside the buffer zone. Soil must be stockpiled outside of the resource area and buffer zone. Devine says they discussed erosion controls last time–a silt fence, and catch basins will have coverings. The silt fence will be trenched in. Hamilton asks who is responsible for maintenance–it is the City. Hamilton discusses the detention basin. Stormwater treatment is discussed. Devine asks if the Commission will want an annual maintenance report.Ms. Adamski says it must be in a condition. McCauley clarifies that the row of trees between fields will be taken out as part of grading. It is not proposed to replace them in kind. McCauley says the tree department has a planting schedule and we could request trees be put in. Mr.Murphy says there is a limit of 2' of depth so contaminated material is not penetrated. They would have to go deeper.This should be based on consultation with the tree warden and be a 1:1 • replacement.There are 5 trees on the existing condition plan.They would have to dig out and relocate waste. Ricciarelli says you would need tree wells around them since raising the grade would be needed if we were to keep originals. They could put in a tree well,raise the grade, and make sure there is no exposure, or could cut 5 trees down and put new one s in, then dig down and remove contaminated soil. McCauley also asks about trees on south side of field. There is a precedent of asking that trees be replaced in kind.The five trees mentioned are outside buffer zone–we can ask for those to be replaced, but we can't require that.Two are in the buffer zone. Mr. Murphy is willing to discuss the issue with the Tree Warden,Mayor and Engineer. The Commission is requiring replacement or relocation of 2 trees in the buffer zone, and is requesting all other removed trees be replaced. Mr. Knowlton will submit new plans with revisions. Excavated soil will be kept out of the buffer zone. An operation and maintenance report is to be submitted annually by Dec. 3l't every year.There will be replacement/relocation of 2 trees to be removed from the buffer zone. The Commission is requesting that the Tree Warden look into replanting more trees. Knisel opens to public but there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seeconded by Hamilton, and all are in favor. A motion to issue an Order of Conditions is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, and all in favor.This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes 4. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-509—Barbara Bowman, 8 Dearborn Lane, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and • replacement with riprap within a portion of coastal beach, coastal bank, and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane. There is no quorum; thus the applicant requested to continue until July 28'"for that reason. He may have to re-file as there may never be a quorum on this issue. A motion to continue is made by McCauley, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. 5. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Marc Tranos, 130 Bay View Ave., Salem, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed construction of an addition to a single family house within buffer zone to coastal bank at 47 Memorial Dr. Marc Tranos would like to remove an existing structure of 110 square feet and put in a 450 square foot structure attached to the property. There is no topographic map. Mr.Tranos describes the work on his map. He will keep the existing setback of 54' and will remove the deck and replace it with a room. The deck is a foundation deck attached to both sides.There is an existing structure but the 2nd floor will be renovated as well. Chairwoman Knisel asks if another resource area might apply–a flood zone. Mr. Tranos is not required to have flood insurance, but it is hard to read the firm map. Devine says our online GIS has a gap in the flood zone data, but there is a VE zone at 13' near the property.The flood zone is beyond the sea wall, so this project site is not within coastal storm flowage. Brad Smith of 45 Memorial Drive, an abutter, did hear that they were coming out with a new flood map, and wonders if it has been issued. There have been delays in the release of new maps but McCauley thinks the draft is •online. McCauley asks about elevation and where water flows off property– it flows back into the lawn and then into the 6 ocean. The sea wall is not level with the grade, but works its way up. Chairwoman Knisel asks where the buffer zone is. It includes most of the property. McCauley comments that the addition of roof space will increase the impervious surfaces on the property, and elevations will indicate where the water will run. Mr.Tranos says they would put on a gutter to avoid that, and do recharge.There is a slight slope from the back step. McCauley asks if this area floods already. It does not, but it is unknown if they are doing a grading plan for the building permit.Ricciarelli would like to see one. A site visit is considered. It will be a difficult to keep a quorum for the next meeting—too many members are absent. Other possibilities are discussed as Mr.Tranos would like to do the project before freezing temperatures hit,but would not be able to come before the Commission again until September,as there will be no further July meetings and the Commission does not meet in August. There is a suggestion to issue a determination with conditions based upon further information that is needed; McCauley comments that Mr.Tranos must demonstrate that the additional impervious surfaces will not impact neighbors.Also, the Commisson would like to see elevation and topography. The setup of the addition is discussed and it is discovered that, as the area under the deck that will be replaced is already paved, there will actually be little addition of impervious surface. The only change would be in direction of flow. There will be no additional parking so no net change in impervious surface. Standard language for erosion control is suggested; Devine comments that the Commission is more interested in • how the work will affect the resource area—the bank—not about how it will impact abutters.He is concerned about washout behind the seawall. This would leave normal erosion control measures.There is an option to issue a negative 3 determination within a buffer zone, with no alteration of the area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act.Erosion controls would be required. Devine asks which specific erosion controls should be in place.The seawall provides a natural barrier but should be covered during construction.Mr. Smith asks about temporary storage of construction material and backfill, which will be hauled out. There will be a silt sock at the limits of specified work. Devine notes that this will have to return to the Commission if any changes are made,considering the plan depends on Zoning Board of Appeal approval. A motion to close the public hearing is made by McCauley, seconded by Ricciarelli,and all are in favor. A motion to issue a negative 3 determination with the above conditions is made by McCauley, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously.This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 6. Old/New Business A motion to close the meeting is made by Hamilton, seconded by McCauley, and all approve. The meeting ends at 8:15 PM. I • Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission 7 'i Approved by the Conservation Commission on September 8, 2011. • 8 �i Oiler of Resource Area Delineation It 64516 Page 1 of .3 • SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION Order of Resource Area Delineation DEP FILE #64-516 60 & 64 Grove Street,3 Harmony Grove Road City of Salem, Massachusetts 'Phis Order is issued under the Massachusetts Wetlands protection Act, M.G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40, Wetlands Protection Act Regulations 310 CMR 10.00, and the City of Salem Wetlands Protection Ordinance, Salem Code Chapter 50. No work is Permitted under this Order. 'Phis Order only approves resource area delineation and grants a fimited exemption from riverfront area regulations for a specific portion of the site. Arty work within jurisdictional resource areas or their buffer zones will require a valid order of conditions from the Sal Conservation Commission. em RESOURCE AREA DELINEATION Land Subiect to Coas al Storm FI FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps indicate the presence of a 100-year flood zone at this location, but do not • define it with an elevation. 'Phis Order sets the boundary of Land Subject to Coastal Storin Flowage at elevation 10.8', based on the site's proximity to the established 11.0' 100-year flood elevation along the North River at the Salem-Peabody line. Coastal Bank This Order approves the delineation of Coastal Bank as proposed in the Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation. Land Under Water Bodin and Wate1wa yN Ilus Order approves the delineation of Land Under Water Bodies and Waterways as proposed in the Abbreviated Notice of Resource Arca Delineation. ordering V=tated Mulands This Order confirms that no Bordering Vegetated Wetlands are present at the site. EXEMPTIONS FROM RIVERFRON'T AREA REGULATIONS Manmade Canals Exemption • At the July 14, 2011 Commission meeting, the applicant withdrew the request for an exemption from the Riverfront area regulations based on the Manmade Canals I�xemption, 310 Clti'lR 10.58(2)(a)1 g 'llierefore, this Order does notgrant the manmade canals exemption frorn the requirements of the Riverfront Arca. Order of Resource Area Deluteottion It 64-516 Page 2 of 3 Historic MillsComplex F M tion • The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act's associated regulations, 310 CMR 10.58 6 state that Nntmithrtanding thePmtinons of 310 CMR 10.58(1)thmugh (S), certain activities oraroar ore )ndfatherrAor eYemf tedfrom requiremenu for the Rverfront area"inc/siding `Activiker on 4ind occupied(y hirtonc mill comple.xer': 310 CMR 10.04 defines historic mW complex: Historic Mt_ I Cotnnfemeans the mill complexes in, but not limited to, Holyoke, Taunton, Fitchburg, Haverhill, Methuen, and Medford in existence prior to 1946 and situated landward of the waterside facade of a retaining wall, building, sluiceway, or other structure existing on August 7, 1996. An historic mill also means any historic mill included on the Massachusetts Register of Historic Places. An historic trill complex includes only the footprint of the area that is or was occupied by interrelated buildings (manufacturing buildings, housing, utilities, parking areas,_and driveways) constructed before and existing after 1946, used for any type of manufacturing or mechanical processing and including associated structures to provide water for pi generate water power, or for water transportation. processing, to The Commission reviewed documentation submitted with the Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation, and inspected the project site on June 9 and June 18, 201 L Documentation included "1946 Historic Mill Complex Plan" by Griffin Engineering Group LLC, dated April u 201 t, and the following sources: • • Atlas of Salem-1906 to 1938, Map 54 • Atlas of Salem-1911,Map 12 • Southern Essex Registry of Deeds, Plan 172 of 1943 • Southern Essex Registry of Deeds, Deed Book 1982, Page 181 (1909) • Southern Essex Registry of Deeds, Plan 110 of 1947 • 1950 Certified Sanborn Map • Bridge&Sludge Beds Plan Prepared by E.H. Porter Construction Company (1947) • Yard Plan & Underground Piping Plan Prepared by Chas T. Main, Inc. (1948) These sources document the footprints of interrelated buildings that were constructed before and existed after 1946 and included the Gleason Leather Company, Salem Oil and Grease, and Salem Gas Company. The Commission finds that these sources indicate the presence of these buildings, including associated utilities, parking areas, and driveways on 60 and 64 Grove Street The Commission confirmed on its site inspections that these buildings and associated areas are situated landward of the waterside fa4ade of retaining walls and channel embankments along the North River. granite block The above documentation also indicates the presence of a bridge and driveway on 3 Harmony Grove Road, constructed before and in existence after 1940. However, no further evidence was provided to establish the presence of an historic mill complex on this parcel, as defined in 310 CMR 10.04. At the July 14, 2011 Conservation Commission meeting, the applicant withdrew the request for the historic trill complex exemption for 3 Harmony Grove Road. Is Therefore, this Order grants the historic mill complex exemption from the requirements of the Rivetfront Area (3'10 CMR 10.58) for 60 and 64 Grove Street, but does not gr nt the exemption for 3 Harmony Grove Order of Itesuurce Ares Delinr.ition 4 64-516 Page 3 of 3 • Road. Any activities at 3 Harmony Grove are required to meet the requirements of the Riv Moreover, the exemption from the requirements of the Riverfront Area for 60 and 64 Grove Streetront in o`way implies exemption from the requirements associated with other resource areas, coastal bank, land subject to coastal storm including but nolimited to flowage, and land under water boob, it and waterways t these, or any other, properties. • • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided byMassDEP ` Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-516 L11 WPA Form Q — Order of Resource Area MassDEP File Number I Delineation - eDEP Transaction Number. Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Salem atyfr wn — — -- - A. General Information Important: Salem When filling out From: forms on the 1.Conservation Commission -- computer, use only the tab key 2 This Issuance is for check one): to move your cursor et not a. ® Order of Resource Area Delineation use the return � - key. b. ❑ Amended Order of Resource Area Delineation d 3. Applicant: Robert a.First Name Hubbard - MRM Project Management LLC b.Last Name Note: - C.Organization - Before P.O. Box 388 completing this d.Mailing Address form consult Beverly your local e.City/Town - _ Conservation � f S 01915 Commission tate q, Property 9.Zip Code regarding any P y Owner(if different from applicant): municipal bylaw or ordinance. - .: • a.First Name - b. Last Name C.Organization - d.Mailing Address - e.City/Town I.State g-Zip Code 5. Project Location: 60, 64 Grove St., 3 Harmony Grove Rd. Salem a.Street Address 01970 16 b.City/Town c Zip Code d.Assessors MaprPlat Number 236, 237, 239 Latitude and Longitude e.ParceULot Number (in degrees, minutes, seconds): f.LaMude m S d m s 6. Dates: 5/12/2011 9 Longitude a.Date ANRAD filed b. Date Public Hearing Closed c. Date of Issuance 7 Title and Date (or Revised Date if applicable)of Final Plans and Other Documents: MRM PROJECT MANAHEMENT, LLC; 60-64 GROVE ST.; 3 HARMONY 4/28/11 GROVE, EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN b, Date MRM PROJECT MANAHEMENT, LLC; 60-64 GROVE ST.; 3 HARMONY 4/28/11 GROVE, 1946 HISTORIC MILL COMPLEX PLAN d. Date • v0aform4b dux,y 1212y09 'APA 48.Ordw of Rcaoumo Arra Dclinemign Paga r or 4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-516 WP /� Form A p MassDEP File Number �LlebEP YY M 1— �iO - Order of Resource Area Transaction Number Delineation Salem Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 City/Town B. Order of Delineation - -- - 1. The Conservation Commission has determined the following (check whichever is applicable): a. ❑ Accurate: The boundaries described on the referenced plan(s) above and in the Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation are accurately drawn for the following resource area(s): 1. ❑ Bordering Vegetated Wetlands 2. ❑ Other resource area(s), specifically: a. b. ❑ Modified: The boundaries described on the plans)referenced above, as modified by the Conservation Commission from the plans contained in the Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation, are accurately drawn from the following resource area(s): 1. ❑ Bordering Vegetated Wetlands ` • 2. ® Other resource area(s), specifically: a. See attached findings C. ❑ Inaccurate: The boundaries described on the referenced plan(s) and in the Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation were found to be inaccurate and cannot be confirmed for the following resource area(s): 1. ❑ Bordering Vegetated Wetlands 2. ❑ Other resource area(s), specifically: 3. ❑ The boundaries were determined to be inaccurate because: • ;Yen 10 0.n�i ot F=n�„�q,�na nm,ntamn.v.vye d w� Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-516 WPA Form 4B — Order of Resource Area MassDEP File Number Delineation eDEP Transaction Number• Salem Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 cityrow C. Findings --- This Order of Resource Area Delineation determines that the boundaries of those resource areas noted above, have been delineated and approved by the Commission and are binding as to all decisions rendered pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act(M.G.L. c.131, § 40) and its regulations (310 CMR 10.00). This Order does not, however, determine the boundaries of any resource area or .Buffer Zone to any resource area not specifically noted above, regardless of whether such boundaries are contained on the plans attached to this Order or to the Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation. This Order must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. The Order must be sent by certified mail (return receipt requested)or hand delivered to the applicant. A copy also must be mailed or hand delivered at the same time to the appropriate DEP Regional Office (see http://www.mass-gov/d(-p/abouUregion/find`/our.hti7n). D. Appeals The applicant, the owner, any person aggrieved by this Order, any owner of land abutting the land subject to this Order, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate DEP Regional Office to issue a Superseding Order of Resource Area Delineation. When requested to issue a Superseding Order of Resource Area Delineation, the Department's review is limited to the objections to the resource area delineation(s) stated in the appeal request. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and a completed Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form, as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7)within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Order. A copy 00the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. Any appellants seeking to appeal the Department's Superseding Order of Resource Area Delineation will be required to demonstrate prior participation in the review of this project. Previous participation in the permit proceeding means the submission of written information to the Conservation Commission prior to the close of the public hearing, requesting a Superseding Order or Determination,or providing written information to the Department prior to issuance of a Superseding Order or Determination. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Order which is being appealed and how the Order does not contribute to the protection of the interests identified in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, (M.G.L. c. 131, § 40) and is inconsistent with the wetlands regulations (310 CMR 10.00). To the extent that the Order is based on a municipal bylaw or ordinance, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department of Environmental Protection has no appellate jurisdiction. • 'APA 4B.Orue,of Resource A,r;,Deonea„on•C�ye),4 164Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands -516 WPA Form Q Order of Resource Area MassDEP File Number I _ _ Delineation eDEP Transaction Number Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Saho n E. Signatures -- -- 1q- /I - Date of Issuance Please indicate the number of members who will sign this form: Y _ _ i Number of Signers M �9na �qse _ ommis Ion Member Si rahiondommission g Conse Member Signa re o ons ry b Co mission Member - C, Signature of Conservation Commission Member Signature onservation Commission Member Signature of Conservation Commission Member Signature of Conservation Commission Member This Order is valid for three years from the date of issuance. If this Order constitutes an Amended Order of Resource Area Delineation, this Order does not extend the issuance date of the original Final Order, which expires on unless extended in writing by the issuing authority. This Order is issued to the applicant and the property owner(if different) as follows: 2. ❑ By hand delivery on 3. ®By certified mail, return receipt requested on a.Date 7- 1q'_ t,i . ... .. ... ..... - a.Date • WPA 49.Owa,of R,,o,,w,F ea Okun,^aeon.P:,ge I o, I�LlMassachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form l Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 • A. Request Information Important: - - When filling out 1 Person or party making request (if appropriate; name the citizen group's representative): forms on the computer. use .. .. ....,. only the tab Name . „_ _ ....,:.... ,..._ key to move your cursor- Mailing Address do not use the return key. ... - . . . .. .. _ wn State Zip Code i0 Phone Number _.... Fax Number(if applicable) Project Location Mailing Address .._ _a .._. .... .... . _. City/Town - - - - State Zip Code 2. Applicant (as shown on Notice of Intent(Form 3), Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation (Form 4A); or Request for Determination of Applicability(Form 1)): Name __ . . .. _.. -.: ..._ .._ . ... . - Mailing Addres -- City/Town . .. . ... .. _. _ _.. .. .._ State Zip Code Phone Number .. .. .._..... .. ,_..... .. Fax Number(if applicable) 3. DEP File Number: B. Instructions 1. When the Departmental action request is for(check one): ❑ Superseding Order of Conditions ❑ Superseding Determination of Applicability ❑ Superseding Order of Resource Area Delineation Send this form and check or money order for$100.00 (single family house projects)or$200(all other projects), payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to: Department of Environmental Protection Box 4062 Boston, MA 02211 RIIWIsl for Oepan!rv!nial Acl.w I ea rimsni0ai Fvm•Page 1 al 11LMassac' usetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Instructions (cont.) — 2. On a separate sheet attached to this forrp, state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination or Order which is being appealed. To the extent that the Determination or Order is based on a municipal bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. 3. Send a copy of this form and a copy of the check or money order with the Request for a Superseding Determination or Order by certified mail or hand delivery to the appropriate DEP Regional Office (see http://www.inass.gov/dep/about/re.gion/`finOyqgr.htm). 4. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. • wC31ain4n.;p� Requc9(0l DeP,,,Wunlgl AtliOn Fee➢�nsnnual Poem•Pnge 1012 CITY OF SALEM 'j CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF CANCELED MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday, July 28, 2011 at 6:00-gm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street has been canceled due to lack of a quorum. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be September 8, 2011. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 §23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. --I N -C C� C r N C� 77 ^Y` w . . w This (10110 posted on g()ffSc;Gl BuPeMn Bo arde CIty�H3A4 Salem, mass. oId i3 b 1'20 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 ♦ TEL:978.745.9595 FAx:978.740.0404 ♦ www.sALEM.COM SP 9r b� e "J4J9•. Y H CI'T'Y OF SALEM . CONSERVATION C ' MJMISSI w.. � ON� No17CEOFMEETDVG. ZOII SCP =1 P �l- 59` 4 h l You are hereby nohfred tharthe Salem Conservahatr COAltnission will hold itsW 41&fy" i hWMW on s• " Throsday,September 8,2011 at 6:0#PMat City Hall Annex`thiriljloor eo'r�erenee rosin 120"washin ori 4 gi Street; w <r Jlulia isel �_.— � {.chair J. MEETIIVGAGENDA . 1 Meeting Minutes—Map 12,2011,Jane 9 2011,Jone 23,2011 'and July-,14,261,1 , 2. Contlnustloa of PabticRearing-!Notice oflntehV=DEP#64-S Barbara Bowman,8 Dearborn Lane, Salem,,MA 'The purpose,of this heating IS to'discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall"and replacement with nprap'wNna a portion of coastal beach, coastal bank, and land subject to coastal Storm flo vap at 8 Dearborn.Lane 3. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability'—City of Salem Department "of Park,.'. Recreation&Community Services,5 Broad Street,Salem,MA.The purpose ofthis hearing is,to discuss the proposed epamting ofthe Winter island Lighthouse within rocky intertidal area at Winter lsland,Parlt 511" Winter Island Road: q. Public Hearing—Regnat for Determination ofApplicabillW—Terryanue St.Pierre,36 March Street Sak;m,:MA.;The purpose of this hearing,is to discuss the proposed replacement of an existing deck' (3.5'x 8')with a larger one(8'x 10')within riverfrouj area at 36 March"Street: . F a 5. OldlNew Business • DEP#64-418 Osborne Hills/Sttongwater Crossing subdivision:Request for Approvalof Minor Change. • DEP#64-502:44-rear Pearl Street/18 Saunders Street:Regnesffor Certificate of Compliance • DEP f{64-507:30 Cohmilms Avenue_Request for Certific`ate'of Compliance. , • DEP#64516:60,64 Grove Street,3 Harmony Grove Road(former Salem Oil&Grease):Update on appeal of ORAD • Weatherly DriveNillaBe at Vinnie Square:Discussion of violation • 488-rear Highland Avenue:Discussion wetlands complaint • Discussron and vote on funding for education and framing • Discussron and vote onfimdmg for matenals for vohmteer repays to the Forest Rry i F,00tbnd a-� - „ "�ntl�`P� .a�....+ +.-6+a�:=w.Jc -w.<...wi- N�',yi`"'..,.i..e"'�L. �, .'...'.' Heyw,. "4s/',✓�' e.!r'�?:�`. .�.i-itP�«'-"�: wr�' u�.���,.�'. * �e.:�32'. .fkkd; ,. Knowyour nghts under the Open Meeting LawM.G.L c,39§23B and City ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. This 1,101100 008116d on •Offirifai i3u*1n, eaar�" �14Y h Salem, Mess. on bcr 1, 2411al 10 in 023A ��B M, � � Ss�a: Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting September 8, 2011 Name Mailing Address Phone Email G {.d�ln L A C7 l cn , �j R-f- 7 9 29n. C-0 M • APPROVED MINUTES Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, September 8, 2011, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairwoman Julia Knisel,Dan Ricciarelli, Carole McCauley,David Pabich Members Absent: Michael Blier,Amy Hamilton Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chairwoman Knisel opens the meeting at 6:09PM. t. Meeting Minutes—May 12,2011,June 9,2011,June 23,2011,and July 14,2011 The City Solicitor has confirmed that members do not have to have been present at a meeting in order to vote on the minutes.. David Pabich motions to approve all of the above minutes, is seconded by Dan Ricciarelli, and the motion passes unanimously. 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-509—Barbara Bowman, 8 Dearborn Lane, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of coastal beach,coastal bank, and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane. No one is present for the applicant; Devine recommended to the Applicant that he re-file as no quorum has been present for a long time. He also recommends that the City waive its portion of the filing fee.The Commission shows no objection. McCauley says she does not object as long as the applicant does not file until he is actually ready. Pabich asks for clarification. They have the survey of the existing wall; would that be enough information to approve in-kind replacement?Pabich says plans would also be required for the wall showing exactly how it will be constructed. DMF discouraged any encroachment onto the beach and DEP said it is explicitly forbidden. Chair Knisel states that the applicant had said he would draw up plans for in-kind replacement. An engineer did submit a plan with modular blocks. This would be the time to define requirements so that if there is a quorum or the applicant re-files, he knows what is expected. They want to see a survey with in-kind footprint of the wall. He must show a plan of what he is going to do. Devine will pass along that information to the applicant. Pabich asks if they can keep going or if the applicant should re-file, but Devine reminds him that four Commissioners must be present to vote: Pabich, Blier, Hamilton and Knisel are eligible. It is the applicant's option to simply wait for a quorum. Today was the deadline to re-file (7PM) for the next meeting, but Devine feels he may be apprehensive about doing that as he would have to pay again. The fee is$500, of which ours is approximately half. A motion to continue to the September 22nd meeting is made by Pabich, seconded by McCauley, and passes unanimously. • 1 g. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—City of Salem Department of • Park, Recreation & Community Services, 5 Broad Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed repainting of the Winter Island Lighthouse within rocky intertidal area at Winter Island Park,50 Winter Island Road. Bill Woolley of the Department of Parks and Recreation presents. In the spring of this year, the Mayor expressed interest in repainting the lighthouse. They have $20,000 in grant money to use for this project. The would be the white tower part only, not the black parapet or repairs to the foundation. The tower is discolored by rust and is unsightly. He believes the request for painting was a matter of cosmetic appearances. He has sent pictures of the lighthouse which were printed for the Commissioners to see. The lighthouse was last painted in 1999 and specifications referred to the Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook, which outlined some environmental concerns, especially with regards to catching scrapings or scraps removed during preparation or blasting. In 1999 low pressure aggregate blasting was done. However that was for the parapet; he was not sure what would be needed this time. They plan to use an appropriate type of paint for lighthouses; he will defer to the experts who paint lighthouses for a living on that. Chair Knisel asks Woolley to describe how they will keep paint chips from entering the water. He does not know. He cannot vouch for what was done in 1999, but they let themselves off the parapet in harnesses, and it was done by someone without a lighthouse-painting background. The company they hire will determine how to prevent scrapings from entering the water. Ricciarelli comments that that should be included in their specifications. It was not included in previous specifications. Ricciarelli asks if there are just layers of paint. Woolley responds that lead paint is not an issue but that he can contact the relevant companies to ask how they would go about catching scrapings. It has not yet been put out to bid; there is no timeline or schedule yet. He will have a timeline once he checks out relevant companies who will determine methods, paint, and conservation measures. ' Pabich says we can issue a determination with conditions. McCauley reads that "the contractor will keep the area free of waste materials"but comments that this is not strong enough language. There is no indication of how this was done in 1999. Knisel asks if they could accomplish it in one tidal cycle, but it is probably not possible as scraping alone will take lots of time. Pabich proposes tarps like petals on a flower that can be rolled up. He comments that the bidder should determine, and come before Conservation Commission, with a proposal for how they will do this. Ricciarelli comments that perhaps they should put a restriction on blasting. Woolley says he can research it and come back next month with options. Chair Knisel outlines the options: continue to next meeting, including then proposed measures, or they could issue a negative determination with conditions. Woolley has no preference but is willing to come back to the next meeting. Chair Knisel says they want to know more details as to 1) how they will remove existing paint and 2) how they will prevent paint chips from entering the water. McCauley says she is curious about these things. Ricciarelli would like to see the lead test results. Woolley says that there is a section on sealing the lead in the handbook. He is not sure if it was removed or just sealed. Chair Knisel would like clarification. A motion to continue to September 22nd is made by McCauley, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. 4. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Terryanne St. Pierre, 36 • 2 • March Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed replacement of an existing deck (3.5' x 8') with a larger one (8' x 10') within riverfront area at 36 March Street. Presenting is George Fallon of 36 March St. He describes the project as extending the second means of egress from the 2nd floor of the apartment, out into the driveway in order to support the deck, which is compromised. Originally he was going to put columns straight down, which would still require a visit to Conservation Commission, but the original owner had this configuration for a reason. There is a sewer line directly beneath where we first wanted to drive our posts. The movers also bring furniture in that way, and both movers have asked that he increase the area on the deck to help them out. Down below it will be extended out to 3' from the property line with 2 holes in the existing bituminous for footings, with the deck to be built above. Pavement is on both sides from his house all the way across. He describes the setting, referring to his photo provided. Devine says this is an expansion of a deck over an already paved area with two posts also in an impervious area. Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. The Commission contemplates a negative determination; it would be a -2: in the riverfront resource area but will not alter the area so does not require an NOI.. A motion to close the public hearing is made Pabich, seconded my McCauley and passes unanimously. A motion to issue a negative two determination is also made by Pabich, seconded by McCauley, and passes • unanimously.This determination is hereby made a part of these minutes. g. Old/New Business • DEP #64-418: Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing subdivision: Request for Approval of Minor Change Commissioners have a plan with proposed changes. Chris Mello from Eastern Land Survey and Paul DiBiasi present. A Stormwater management facility was designed but was on solid ledge. A new area was found, of the same size, at the same elevations, and with the same volume, with an outlet structure in same location, but the actual project will be like a "hot dog" instead of an "apple" shape. There will be less disturbance but both are in buffer zone. Devine notes that there is disagreement within DEP about how to handle requests for minor change, but his opinion now is that he thinks it is OK if a change is truly minor. In those cases it can be approved and the Commission has that flexibility. The original location of the basin was further away from the buffer zone. Illustration: Definitive Subdivision plan. Plan and Profile—Stormwater Facilities Date: May 8, 2006 Revision Plan, August 8, 2011 Spacing is discussed. One area is for passive recreation only. Pabich asks about revegetating disturbed area, which will be seeded, with access for maintenance. In 3-4 years it will be bushy and hidden. Right • now it is trees and shrubs. 3 The approved plan has much less impact on the buffer zone. Pabich asks what vegetation will be • removed. Mr. DiBiasi outlines it — choke cherry, brush and thick vegetation. Pabich comments that because it is in a buffer zone, he would like to make sure it is properly vegetated when they are done. Mr. DiBiasis feels it is not any more heavy-handed than what was proposed; while Pabich feels that a larger footprint, almost entirely within the buffer zone, is now being proposed. He is not sure this counts as a "minor"change as it is almost entirely within the buffer zone. Ricciarelli asks if they could shift it back at all,but they cannot. The subdivision is 135 lots, over 100 acres with several stormwater management facilities spread throughout. Chair Knisel asks about the original erosion control and vegetation provisions. There is a 48-sheet set of plans detailing theses- hay bales, silt fence. Some buffer zone work has been done with some individual Orders of Conditions. They will be making the road loop. They are currently working on phase 2. There were no special conditions beyond revegetating whatever was in the approved plans. Pabich thinks changes are significant enough to require re-filing of this piece, but it is all under one set of plans. The Order is for the road, infrastructure and stormwater systems, with houses in the buffer zone as individual filings as they come. It is a cluster subdivision; most houses and construction were out of the buffer zone. Chair Knisel asks what other details would be needed to re-file. Pabich says he does not object to the proposal, but wants more details as to re-vegetation. He would like to see in-kind replacement. What is coming out that should be replaced. What is the threshold defining a "minor change?"There is no formal distinction. Mr. Mello says they will seed with a wetland mix and let it go. Other areas have already been reclaimed by nature.Pabich would like to see photos of those. • Mr. Mello says they would like to get this in since the stormwater will be going there; right now it goes nowhere, so they want it done this season. Ricciarelli comments that before 70% was out of the buffer and now 60% is in the buffer. If this is a minor adjustment, says Ricciarelli, they can continue working, vs. if they have to re-file they will need to do a site visit and continue the issue to the next meeting. Knisel suggests that Commissioners go out and view the site on their own, as it is accessible. Mr. Di Biasi says he had a crew go in and put in a silt fence when they were determining where the ledge was, so the area is disturbed but protected. But, that disturbance is where they were already planning to build. Chair Knisel asks if Commissioners prefer a formal site visit or to go on their own. A public site visit is not required, so it may be easier for Commissioners to go on their own since not all are available for a formal site visit. Ricciarelli asks about basin elevations and Mello clarifies. The Commission is leaning towards viewing the site to determine if this counts as"minor"or not.They are to go on their own before the next meeting, to make a decision then. If it is determined to NOT be a minor change, they will need to amend the Order. It would be the 2id amendment, which is not unusual considering the size of the project. The Commission would also like clarifications on what is being disturbed and what plantings will be done. They are seeking replication and the applicant will get that information. Devine says this is buffer zone, not • resource area, so replication of what's there is all that's needed. 4 • Ricciarelli asks about the process on an amendment, and it is the same as for filing an NOI. Mello says it will take 6 weeks by the time they file, advertise, etc. Overall it would take 10 weeks but something must be built down there. Pabich would like clarification on the construction reasoning why upstream facilities were built before downstream facilities were built to catch it. Usually they put in a roadway first, then the storm scepter is installed. A majority of the site is rock. Pabich opines that there is a logical solution but the Commission should at least look at it. Mr. DiBiasi suggests he assess what is there and present a formal plan next meeting of plantings. The Commission agrees. Commissioners will visit the site individually in the meantime. • DEP#64-502: 14-rear Pearl Street/18 Saunders Street: Request for Certificate of Compliance Photos are in Commissioner's packets and Devine recommends issuing the Certificate,as it is completed as an as-built submitted.The biggest deviation is that the driveway is gravel rather than paved, but that an improvement, in the sense that it is pervious, and it is outside the riverfront area anyway. A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance is made by McCauley, seconded by Pabich, and passes unanimously. • DEP#64-507: 30 Columbus Avenue: Request for Certificate of Compliance • Devine also recommends issuing the Certificate. Small deviations amount to an improvement. No patio was built so there is less impervious surface.They rebuilt the stairs that go to the marsh in-kind. They can be pulled in and out. A motion to issue the Certificate is made by Pabich, seconded by McCauley, and passes unanimously. • DEP #64-516: 60, 64 Grove Street, 3 Harmony Grove Road (former Salem Oil & Grease): Update on appeal of ORAD The order was appealed by interested residents. We voted in favor to issue the applicant's request of Riverfront exemption for 3 parcels, and we granted it for 2 of those. The appeal is that we did not have enough information to go on and they want DEP review; DEP will take it unless there is an egregious error. Our local wetland ordinance allows challenges through City Council.The appellants consulted with the City Solicitor and decided to withdraw their appeal through City Council. The appeal through only the DEP will shed light on this. Ricciarelli says the question was regarding the historic mill exemption, if they were re-using the footprint exactly or not. The language was very specific, and judgment was made via site visits and documentation. The DEP will do a site visit and will consider it on its own. They could affirm the decision, send back to us or issue a superseding order. This will at least provide clarification on the Historic Mill complex exemption. Residents said we were setting precedent with this. The canal exemption was not granted because the applicant withdrew that request. Legal review was provided. It is now out of the Commission's hands. • • Weatherly DriveNillage at Vinnin Square: Discussion of violation I 5 These are townhouse condominiums which circle almost all the way around wetlands, where they did • some cutting. A resident complained and Devine spoke with the property manager and informed her to come before the Commission if working in that area. This is jurisdictional, and is an opportunity for outreach to let them know they are required to get applicable permits. • 488-rear Highland Avenue: Discussion wetlands complaint Taken out of agenda order: 2"d instead of 6`h. Katerina Panagiotakis of 150 Ocean St. Lynn, presents. She walks that area and is happy that a site visit was made. It is a large area but with different resource areas, and she summarizes what she submitted. There is a stream that has historically flowed to Spring Pond, but now it is cut off on the surface; in heavy rainfall or snowmelt the water table rises and the saturation connects it again.There has been a trail going through, along with another in the front of the property. One footbridge has been removed and the wood piles placed west of the cut. Soil has been dumped over the trail crossing the stream, and it has been trenched on the side. Water does not flow into the side but is redirected. She is not sure who has done this but Devine thinks it is the Boy Scouts who do trail work there.The property is owned by Camp Lyon. This is the Lowe's property, though this part of far from where there proposed redevelopment is. The Lyons have two campsites. She describes the setup. The source of data on the location of the stream is Google Earth in Birds' Eye View and Aerial view. Ricciarelli asks if the misdirection means water is no longer going into Spring Pond; she is not sure. It is still going downhill but is taking more paths to get there and causing more erosion. Chair Knisel asks if she was there before removing footbridge; she was not but Leslie Courtemanche was there and is • available. Devine wants pictures of preexisting conditions with the bridge. She says remnants of the footbridge are off the trail. Devine did a site visit and says it is difficult since what may be there could be an intermittent stream that is dry right now. He cannot see clear signs of water flowing while it is dry, he does not see a channel or vegetation. She says at the cut there is a stone wall over stream but she does not know if it was always there. The stream goes under the rocks as if it is a bank. She has video following the stream uphill. If a cut occurred the water would continue to the ponding area. She will send it to Tom. Devine reiterates that this time of year it is hard to tell if water flows.Ms. Panagiotakis says there are other witnesses available and lists some of them.Pabich asks what the main idea is.There was a stream that had a footbridge, now the bridge is out and area has been filled in with earth?The path is perpendicular to the stream?McCauley asks why they want to do that, but it is unknown. Devine says many trails are carelessly built and maintained. Pabich says it sounds like it just requires a culvert. As result of filling, there is ponding,Pabich asks. Ms. Panagiotakis says there is ponding on the trail since water does not go directly to the pond in one stream. Chair Knisel asks if we can have a courtesy call to the property manager to clarify. McCauley clarifies that there was a stream, it got cut, water infiltrated other locations, someone dug a trench to route it somewhere convenient, but now this resulted in erosion?Yes, water comes down the trail. Chair Knisel asks if debris is still there. There are pieces of wood there.This happened before last May. McCauley asks what Devine was told by people from Camp Lyon. He was told"this trail has been here forever." Chair Knisel asks if there are photos of when footbridge was in place; there are not but there are witnesses. Pabich says to ask who took out the bridge. They denied that there was ever a bridge there and said there • was just debris in the woods. Devine was not able to come to any conclusions as to what was there since it was dry, but that was a couple weeks ago.Pabich suggests he go again, after all this rain. Ms. 6 . Panagiotakis says the water table is higher in the spring so it may be advisable to go then. Pabich asks who the driving force behind improving the trail is. Maybe it is dry mostly except for a few months out of the year, in which case they should have laid a 10"PVC pipe. So far this is a Conservation Commission outreach opportunity as some work may be jurisdictional. Camp Lyon has been informed that they need to be in touch with the Commission when planning trail work. Chair Knisel asks if aside from Lowe's representatives, Devine has talked to Boy Scouts.He has not. Ms. Panagiotakis thinks this happened 3 years ago. Chair Knisel comments that the fact that it may have happened 3 years ago means people may have forgotten it happened. She thinks we should reach out to a Boy Scout leader and ask them to remedy the situation, which must be done with involvement of the property owner. Ms Panagiotakis says they can contact Campfire as well since they are somewhat involved with the trails. This has also been brought to the attention of the DEP, so Devine wants to check in with them again. Knisel says they will do further research and outreach and get back to her. Devine would like to see the video. • Discussion and vote on funding for education and training MACC registration forms are in the commissioner's packets. Devine got his Fundamentals certificate and is ready to move on towards the advanced certificate, and wants authorization to keep doing those courses. There are 5 more days in total towards the certificate. It costs $95 for the day plus mileage. He • also wants to go to the MACC fall conference, and also the Urban Park Advocate summit, a one day Summit. He is asking for (2) $95 days plus mileage. The Summit costs $20 plus mileage. The Southern NE chapter of the APA Annual Conference meets in Providence RI. Half of the programs are environmentally related, so he will go to those. Costs are $175 for registration, discounted $124 for hotel plus travel. He would carpool if possible. The total request for everything is about $700 plus mileage. We have $40K in our account. A motion to grant Devine expenses for education and training, not to exceed $700 plus $150 for travel is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Pabich, and passes unanimously. • Discussion and vote on funding for materials for volunteer repairs to the Forest River Footbridge A volunteer completed maintenance of the smaller Forest River Conservation Area footbridge, but did not complete maintenance of the larger bridge, so other volunteers have come forward to complete this project. Materials would be under$200. Devine is requesting that sum. Ricciarelli motions to provide$200 for repairs to the footbridge. McCauley wants to send a thank-you note to volunteers. She seconds, and all approve. • Update on exempt projects Devine notes that there have been some utility maintenance projects recently that are exempt per the regulations. For these projects, he generally makes sure erosion controls are in place to protect resource • areas. Miscellaneous 7 L McCauley notes that activities on Children's Island should be discussed. • McCauley says she will not be back after her term in December. The new Commissioner will be Gavin McCaulife, but his appointment takes two council meetings to confirm. A motion to adjourn is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 7:58PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on October 13, 2011. • • 8 CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTTCEOFMEETING CITY CLEi; G `;` E1;, IfSS. You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,September 22,2011 at 6:00 PM at City Hall Annex, third,Jloor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. ` Juulili a Knisel Chair MEETINGAGENDA 1. Meeting Minutes-September 8,2011 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-509---Barbara Bowman,8 Dearborn Lane, Salem, MA. Pie purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with dprap within a portion of coastal beach, coastal bank, and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane. 3. Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—City of Salem • Department of Park,Recreation&Community Services,5 Broad Street,Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed repainting of the Winter Island Lighthouse within rocky intertidal area at Winter Island Park,50 Winter Island Road. 4. Old/New Business • DEP#64-418:Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing subdivision:Request for Approval of Minor Change Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L.c.39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. ty W11 " Salem, P��. onll�t�Ft-i wCz? sj . 3; la o 9 V,� oWrda Cs WM �G��.�30 See, Page 1 of i �OND/T� CITY OF SALEM „ CONSERVATION COMMISSION City of Salem Conservation Commission = 978-619-5685 o The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection will hold a site visit at 60 and64 Grove Street and 3 Harmony Grove Road(Former Salem Oil and Grease property)on Tuesday, September 27 at 10:30 a.m. The purpose of the site visit is for the DEP to inspect the property in regard to an appeal of the Salem Conservation Commission's Order of Resource Area Delineation,DEP#64-516. Interested parties should meet in the parking lot off Grove Street. .,c._ Julia Knisel Chair Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. 'hIll 106 00018d an "114`01nl Bulletin board” 23A � 1 t938 of I aK, �/M Mattes 114i"14W�1�♦45i• Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting September 22, 2011 Name Mailing Address Phone Email C(7VJ�Gi(,. A-&(NC R78 MA or47a 74-0gt21 wwoo(( �scc(e.�-cord 18l 3_1� �f_ a 7 6 2- 3- 2-&97 t,; uxmr CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION �tf =157A N: 2F NOTICE OFMEETING CllYraf You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, October 13,2011 at 6:00 PM at City Hall Annex, third floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Julia Knisel Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Meeting Minutes—September 8,2011 and September 22,2011 2. Public Hearing—Request to an Amend Order of Conditions—DEP #64-418—Osborne Hills Realty Trust,P.O.Box 780,Lynnfield,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed relocation of a stormwater detention basin within buffer zone of bordering vegetated wetlands at the Osborne Hills .Subdivision (57 Marlborough Rd). a 3. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Colliam,LLC-344 Pillings Pond Road, Lynnfield, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed maintenance of an existing seawall within coastal bank and riverfront area at 14 Hubon Street. 4. Old/New Business • DEP#64-461: 485 Lafayette Street(former Chadwick Leadmills), request for certificate of compliance • DEP#64-501: 1 Dove Avenue, 24 Old Road(Shaughnessy-Kaplan Hospital), request for certificate of compliance • DEP#64-510: 16 Bay View Circle, request for certificate of compliance • Discussion and vote on funding for supplies for Forest River Bridge volunteer workday Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. :iS notice poit.rw t}r ��• kil ca9,i �+ � ',iv €al! A W24 Art !p �ordalnce �� �Iap. r� 23A & 298 of l�.A.t u Page i of i Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting October 13, 2011 Name Mailing Address Phone Email I Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,October 13, 2011, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairwoman Julia Knisel,Dan Ricciarelli, Carole McCauley,David Pabich,Michael Blier,Gavin McAuliffe Members Absent: Amy Hamilton Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chairwoman Knisel opens the meeting at 6:1 IPM. 1. Meeting Minutes—September 8,2011 Minutes from the Sept. 22 meeting are not yet available. A motion to approve the 9/8 minutes is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. 2. Public Hearing—Request to Amend Order of Conditions—DEP#64-418—Osborne Hills Realty Trust,P.O. Box 780,Lynnfield,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed relocation of a stormwater detention basin within buffer zone of bordering vegetated wetlands at the Osborne Hills Subdivision (57 Marlborough Rd). Here for the applicant is Mr.Chris Mello of Eastern Land Survey.This will be behind lot 19. The facility was already approved,but in reality there,is ledge in several areas.They are proposing to modify the Order of Conditions to move the stormwater facility. It will be half the size in square footage but double the depth for the same volume. Water will exit into the same area.Mr. DiBiase is also present.They have been before the Commission before,and were asked for more details which are being provided today. The Chair asks about updates on replanting. 25 proposed plants are at the bottom of the Revision Plan. Mr. DiBiase outlines the first changed plan, which went further into the buffer zone.This current plan is in an area that is already cleared.There are some substantial trees that can possibly be saved using tree wells. He feels he can do that with all trees in the buffer, though some small brush and a choke cherry will have to be removed.He also believes they can cut back on disturbance by moving the slope up.They can limit work in the buffer zone, and that is his goal. Pabich approves of saving the larger trees and feels this is an improvement.Ricciarelli asks about the outlet structure, which has moved but discharges to the same body.Blier asks about the contours and if they're moving. They are,but not much. The slope is discussed further. Plants will be placed on the slope. McAuliffe asks about tree wells and they are described.Walls around the base of the tree will be built out of rocks and materials found onsite,to protect them.Fill cannot be placed directly around their bases. Pabich says the plan meets his approval Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. The Commission's concerns have been addressed. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously. A motion to amend the Order of Conditions is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes 1 unanimously.This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. g. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Colliam,LLC-344 Pillings Pond Road,Lynnfield,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed maintenance of an existing seawall within coastal bank and riverfront area at 14 Hubon Street. Luke Fabbri is the applicant. He wants to know if he needs an Order of Conditions to repair a seawall. Building renovations that he came before the Commission for last year are mostly complete.The City repaired a piece of seawall adjacent to his property a few years ago; they did have an Order of Conditions. He would like to re-point the wall, and build a block wall to reinforce its integrity. His preferred method would be"shot-crete"–concrete such as gunnite up to 3/d' stone, blown in at 200- 300 lbs/square inch. He describes the process, which is the same as that used to build gunnite pools. For this application there are small stones with mortar in between. When concrete is put up to the crack, it gets fired into the wall and is trowelled down as it rises to the surface. It is more than just re-pointing. Pictures are presented. Anchors will be attached too, pinned to the existing stone wall. 3-4 cubic yards of concrete will be used, depending on how porous it is.The building occupies most of the lot line on the North River, so everything minus a few feet at the end would be sprayed. Ricciarelli asks if this is purging or a one-sided form. The original idea was to dig down and install a footing,and work up. However, this is an air mixture that goes on like frosting, so re-pointing large voids will not be difficult. If will be done from one side since the weight of the concrete pushes it into the wall. The other option of driving sheet piles and using flowable fill was rejected due to the density of the ground. In that case vibrations could damage the building. Mr. Fabbri is working with Xtreme Shotcrete of Winthrop, MA, who specialize in this procedure. • Shotcrete can be finished to resemble stones or bricks,or be trowelled smooth.One day is required to prep to bolt in anchors for the screen, which gets pinned with rebar,then on the following day two hours past high tide he will work his way across.They will use a hose to blow concrete from a truck, which will be parked in the road. It will harden before the next tide. The 50001b concrete is salt compatible.They must walk along the face but the method does not seem very intrusive. After the last hurricanes some erosion occurred; he wants to do this before the winter. They are not enlarging the wall or putting anything in the resource area. He wonders if he needs to file for an Order of Conditions. Ricciarelli asks if they should use the stone sticking out furthest as a guide,but the concrete will be formed to the wall, which will be tapered since the wall is irregular. It will be made smooth. A minimum of 2"of concrete must be put on. Pabich is concerned about housekeeping, making sure any overspray gets removed from the beach.Mr.Fabbri says that much of what came out of the wall he already removed from the beach. He has cleaned a lot of it off and will continue to clean up around the bottom. With one-sided structures Fabbri w n c es Mr abb as concerned about running, but the mixture does not run because of the air,there is no dust as it is wet,and overspray would wind up on the building. Plywood could be used to prevent this.They need�/2 day to prep and then less than one tide cycle to finish. McAuliffe asks if this is weather-permitting and Mr. Fabbri wants to get it done before it is too cold; also it will be set up before the tide comes in. You can walk on it in 15 minutes.For this he will use 3/8"pea stone so it goes in further.This is also the most economical approach as it doesn't include forms or concrete blocks to be made for footing. Sheet piling would cause too much vibration. McAuliffe asks about the process at the other site. It was a restaurant in either Quincy or Winthrop; there is also one in New Bedford. Those also had Orders of Conditions. Mr. Fabbri has not spoken to any other contractors who do this, but this one specializes in this process. Pabich asks if there is a Chapter 91 2 license on Mr. Fabbri's seawall, but it is unknown as the seawall has been around since the 1800's, but the program has also been around for 150 years. Pabich says if you have a seawall to be repaired the wall • is supposed to be licensed in general, whether it is getting bigger or not. He urges Mr. Fabbri to obtain a Chapter 91 license if he does not have one; it's not easy to figure out but can be done.There are some exemptions and he will look into it. McCauley wonders why the City does not maintain a list of who has these licenses, but they do not.Mr. Fabbri states that every piece of oceanfront property should have a Chapter 91 license,but it probably predates keeping of the records.Pabich points out that the license says he needs to maintain the wall. Mr.Fabbri describes the repair of the seawall next door. He discusses a pipe the city put in"to see if anything was moving." Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by McCauley, seconded by Blier,and passes unanimously Pabich states that he would like a condition to ensure housekeeping. Devine notes that there is no box to check on a determination of applicability to condition work in a buffer zone. You can just ask Mr.Fabbri to keep the beach clean, which he has assured the Commission he will do.Although the work is in the resource area, he will not remove, dredge or fill the area.That would be a negative 2. Pabich motions to issue a Negative 2 determination, is seconded by McCauley, and the motion passes unanimously.This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 4. Old/New Business • DEP#64-461: 485 Lafayette Street(former Chadwick Leadmills),request for certificate of • compliance A full certificate should be with the condition that the newly planted salt marsh vegetation lasts the winter.Pabich asks if more than one growing season is typical; the Commission is within its rights to request that. Otherwise the Certificate could refer to the Wetland Monitoring Plan, which goes beyond the Order of Conditions.Barbara Warren of the SSCW was concerned about the salt marsh. The wall is still standing. Salt marsh restoration was completed in May; additional plugs were added in September. Some of the plantings are not surviving.They may have to add more plants again.The Order of Conditions was issued in 2008 as a five year Order; and the state's Permit Extension Act adds two years to that. Chair Knisel asks if we will deny this request.Blier states that they need to see how it holds up through a winter;Pabich says it should be one calendar year, if not two,from the planting, which would be reasonable. If significant die off happens over the winter, the clock would reset. What is the survival rate under ideal conditions?This is unknown. The salt marsh was planted and some die off happened. McAuliffe asks what are the results of granting the certificate or not? If full certification has issues, a Partial Certificate could be granted, which would mean the conditions for restoration and monitoring have not been complied with yet. Devine recommends that it be tabled allow the applicant to come to the next meeting to discuss this. Devine did a site inspection but Commissioners did not do an official site visit.McCauley comments on the project, that they said they would do a good job, but lack of vegetation may not be entirely their fault. 100%compliance may be obtained but it still may not work.Pabich points out that they had removed some of the original salt marsh; contaminants were underneath a well-established salt marsh so 100% compliance is in fact reasonable.McAuliffe asks about cleanup in Salem—mostly it is in Marblehead. Devine recommends tabling it; he had told the applicant if there were issues they could table it and come back.Blier sees this as a fair middle ground; they can come back for partial compliance and the 3 Commission can observe for a year. If they persist in asking for a Full Certificate the Commission can deny it if necessary. The applicant's letter includes a request to waive the requirement that an RAO (Response Action Outcome) be submitted prior to issuance of a certificate of compliance. The applicant is claiming that we should separate remediation from restoration—the former is not our jurisdiction since the health of wetlands does not have to do with contamination. Pabich wonders why they did not raise this issue at first. Devine notes that Mike Howard, the peer reviewer for the project,didn't think the RAO was essential from a wetlands protection aspect. It would not be done for a few months anyway but doesn't matter since we will table this issue and request the applicant's attendance at the next meeting. A motion to table is made my McCauley, seconded by Pabich and passes unanimously. • DEP#64-501: 1 Dove Avenue,24 Old Road(Shaughnessy-Kaplan Hospital),request for certificate of compliance Devine considers the project done as the bypass was completed.There is still water from the city field coming to the compromised pipe, but that was beyond the scope of this project. It should be a priority for the City to take care of the water going to the pipe, but it is a separate issue. A deviation is that they planted Maple instead of Cherry trees.The Commission had asked for five Cherry trees but they were"hard to come by."Cherry trees were taken out so fruit-bearing trees were requested in replacement. Blier comments that the reality of the situation may not matter as much as the principle of the matter.They can be called in to discuss it. We do not know what kind of maples but they are small in size. Pabich opines that if they had asked the Agent to switch, it would have been OK, but he objects to the switch with no notice. McCauley asks if they can condition the Certificate of Compliance; location of trees was consulted upon • and locations flagged, and the applicant was reminded that certain species were required, but when the agent inspected the site,they were not maples. The Commission wants them to plant 5 cherry trees. Ricciarelli asks if they can requires a minor modification, or just plant the cherries. Do we really want the cherries or is the Commission simply offended that they didn't ask?They want the cherries. The Commission doesn't want them to remove the maples, but also doesn't want the trees crowded. Devine should ask where they g o.will No caliper of tree was specified.Devine recommends tabling it Pe Pe E and having them come in. McCauley motions to table this issue and invite the applicant to come to the nest meeting to discuss the matter. She is seconded by McAuliffe and the motion passes unanimously. • DEP#64-510: 16 Bay View Circle,request for certificate of compliance This was an after-the-fact NOI and he recommends issuing the Certificate.They now have a Chapter 91 permit.The Commission was making sure the riprap did not encroach onto the beach; an emergency certificate to do the work was issued.They used the correct process. No further work was needed since the issuance of the after-the-fact NOI,except obtaining the Chapter 91. A motion to issue the Certificate is made by Pabich, seconded by McCauley, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. • Discussion and vote on funding for supplies for Forest River Bridge volunteer workday 4 ' J Devine asks the Commission to pay for some pizzas for the Volunteers for the workday.They would like a donation to Friends of Salem Woods from Bertini's.Devine asks if any of the Commissioners can go. It could be done before lunch if there will be enough volunteers. A motion to approve$50 for pizza, if it is not donated, is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliffe, and passes unanimously. Misc. Ch. 91 Jim Treadwell—The Gateway Center filed an RDA to see if Ch. 91 is applicable. They may have to come back if raising the lot. Soil borings for the Army Corps of Engineers are exempt, at former Salem Oil &Grease. The walk-through was a couple of weeks ago. Adjournment A motion to adjourn is made by McAuliffe, seconded by Pabich, and passes unanimously. The meeting adjourns at 7:30pm. The November meeting will be on 11/17, but may be in a different room since this one is booked. Respectfully Submitted, • Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Salem Conservation Commission on November 17, 2011. 5 A Tro CITY OF SALEM gpN& CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING r You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, October 27, 2011 at 6:00 PM at City Hall Annex, third floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem. MA. _ Julia Knisel Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Meeting Minutes—September 22,2011 2. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-518-- Michael O'Brien, 5 Broadmoor Lane, Peabody, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed removal of slabs and footings and remediation of contaminated materials within riverfront area, land subject to coastal storm flowage and buffer zone to coastal bank at 72 Flint St(Former Salem Suede). g. Old/New Business • DEP #64-478: Citywide Culvert Cleaning Program, request for approval of a minor change • DEP 964-461: 485 Lafayette Street(former Chadwick Leadmills), request for certificate of compliance • DEP #64-501: 1 Dove Avenue, 24 Old Road (Shaughnessy-Kaplan Hospital), request for certificate of compliance • DEP #64-492: 72 Flint Street(former Salem Suede), request for certificate of compliance • Report on Forest River Bridge volunteer workday Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. e. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 throttgh 2- 2033. `Itim notice pnstod can ' ( al n Board" . �'� i"Frl ".'sC?i;y, E/'"� q! Ll 9 l+t11 In �CCutG�•tf+'``i r'f s°u'k< y?. aIM 48�mM 2313 of AAAI, Page 1 of 1 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting October 27, 2011 Name Mailing Address Phone Email �~�' J CAeovj l °��' (��s^�.�t IJtI.-- `d 1)2 �� -02� v �✓ w �� G� Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, October 27,2011, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Dan Ricciarelli, Carole McCauley, Acting Chair David Pabich,Gavin McAuliffe, Members Absent: Chairwoman Julia Knisel,Michael Blier, Amy ' Hamilton, Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Acting Chair Pabich opens the meeting at6:09PM. 1. Meeting Minutes—September 22,2011 A motion to approve the minutes is made by McCauley, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously. 2. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-518-- Michael O'Brien, 5 Broadmoor Lane, Peabody, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed removal of slabs and footings and remediation of contaminated materials within riverfront area, land subject to coastal storm flowage and buffer zone to coastal bank at 72 Flint St(Former Salem Suede). • Devine explains that because the applicant mailed abutter notification with the wrong hearing date, the hearing cannot be opened tonight. Abutters have been re-notified for the November 17 meeting. Ricciarelli asks what this is for; it is for removal of slabs and remediation of contaminated materials. 3. Old/New Business • DEP#64-478: Citywide Culvert Cleaning Program,request for approval of a minor change This is also not being opened tonight and will be tabled,to be heard at the next meeting. David Knowlton, City Engineer, is not ready to present. • DEP#64-461: 485 Lafayette Street(former Chadwick Leadmills),request for certificate of compliance Daniel Garson presents to discuss this site and follow up with their request for a Certificate of Compliance for completion of remediation at resource area restoration.There were some questions at the last hearing and the Commission did not grant the certificate then; he hopes to address those questions tonight and obtain the Certificate. Acting Chair Pabich mentions the issue of the duration of the growing period;to consider restoration complete a year's growing period is needed. Mr. Garson understands that and comments that the original order specifies a five-year monitoring period with annual reports to be issued by Oct. 31 each year to track and report the condition of the plants and other observable conditions. He thinks that the Wetlands . Protection Act makes provision for that; Certificates of Compliance may be issued with conditions carrying forward.They are committed to a monitoring plan; the Order of Conditions specifies a 75% survival threshold in the second year; years 3-5 would require replanting or other restoration measures if needed. Mr. Garson intends to follow through and offers the Act and its protection standards to argue that 1 A they should issue the Certificate. Issues will be resolved as they come up, if there are problems with the growing threshold. Mr. Garson passes out copies of the relevant section of the Wetlands Act. Devine comments about • Condition 53, which references reports, the planting plan and the monitoring plan.A Certificate could refer to that condition and be ongoing. That is the only condition they have not closed out. In the original request for a certificate, other conditions were presented as completed. Acting Chair Pabich asks about conditions referring to monitoring of the seawall. Mr. Garson says Devine walked it with him and it has not moved and has not been damaged; the owner has accepted completion of the work with no impact on the wall. Acting Chair Pabich comments that as long as Condition#53 is referred to, he is satisfied. Devine wonders what would happen if the salt marsh plantings are completely wiped out due to weather. Mr. Garson says he would consult experts to make sure that is the right thing to plant, but either way a solution would be offered since it is their responsibility. He does not think this will happen; there could be damage due to ice that would need to be remediated. But remaining salt marsh should fill in over time. It's a dynamic ecosystem which is not supposed to remain pristine. Early on in the project on the Marblehead side,the owners had originally requested that they design the restoration with armoring to protect the restored area, but all agencies opposed it as the beach is supposed to erode and change. He feels the same applies to the plants and the salt marsh. It will thrive and recede depending on how it is inundated; appropriate types of plants have been installed at the proper levels, but if tidal forces change there could be die off.Those at the correct ecological niche should survive; he would not replant with things that will not be appropriate and will not survive. McCauley comments that enough salt marsh monitoring is going on to provide a good comparison. Mr. Garson comments that they have recorded existing conditions and the October 5 storm did cause some impact to the marsh grass, but more in Marblehead than in Salem.The Commission want to see how the area comes back in the spring and summer. McCauley says they have a"four year guarantee"on 75% of the salt marsh,and that is correct. A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance is made by McCauley, with the condition to refer to Condition 53 and the monitoring mentioned therein; she is seconded by Ricciarelli and the motion passes unanimously.This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Devine asks if the site will have any AUL's (Activity and Use Limitations) on it. The Marblehead part will have one on the bike trail.The western upland, Glover private property, will also have one. Devine asks if future developments can be built despite the AULs. They could,according to the original plan which is now no longer going to be used. • DEP#64-501: 1 Dove Avenue,24 Old Road (Shaughnessy-Kaplan Hospital),request for certificate of compliance Scott Patrowicz is working with a wetland scientist to develop a planting plan to satisfy the Commission. This will be tabled until the next meeting as the applicant is not present or ready. • DEP#64-492: 72 Flint Street(former Salem Suede),request for certificate of compliance Devine says this would have come with the NOI—closing out the order of conditions for the building demolition as they request an order of conditions for site cleanup this must also be tabled until the next meeting. • Report on Forest River Bridge volunteer workday(10/16) 2 The workday was a success;the same planks were put down over new support beams, so there was no • change in appearance. However, it is much more stable to walk on.They boy scouts and their parents helped tremendously. They put in time toward their Eagle Scout badges. Approximately 6 of 10 rotted support beams were completed, so another workday is needed. More wood($100's worth)will be required.Devine is requesting this amount now; so far$160 of the previously approved$200 was spent. The Commission has about$40,000 in its account. A motion to allocate$100 for materials is made by McAuliffe, seconded by McCauley and passes unanimously. Other • A Certificate of Compliance for 16 Bayview was issued last meeting, but not signed, so Devine passes it around for signatures. • Devine states that he does not know when the DEP will issue a decision on the appeal of the Salem Oil and Grease order of resource area delineation.The DEP has requested information,but didn't indicate their timeline. • The next Conservation Commission meeting will be November t7 at the Salem Five Community Room,as no city space is available. • The Lowe's project for Salem is not happening; they are closing some stores and not opening others that were in the works.They may still want to follow through with their permitting, since this makes the property very marketable. Also, appeal of the resource area delineation was settled at one level but went up to the next, and we don't know if Lowe's and its partners will show up to . represent themselves. No date has been determined yet for that hearing. Adjournment A motion to adjourn is made by McCauley, seconded by McAuliffe, and passes unanimously The meeting adjourns at 6:45PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Salem Conservation Commission on November 17, 2011 3 f — GONDITi�q } CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION _i NOTICE OF CANCELED MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 6:00 pm at, City Hall Annex, 3rd floor conference room, f'20 Washington Street has been rescheduled to. November 17, 2011 at the Salem Five Bank Community Room, 210 Essex Street. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 §23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. E'an s i n ate �,!dii; ,. ,. 'r.. u g A� dZ4 = S rr0'2'tlip 23A a ins 04 . ,x. 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, M.ASSACHUSF'ITS 01970 TEL: 078.745.959,5 FAX: 978.740.0404 • W'WW.SALFbI.COM 0�011df,�a CITY OF SALEM i ' CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING ***NEW LOCATION*** You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will meet on Thursday,November 17, 2011 at 6:00 PM at the Salem Five Community Room, 210 Essex Street, Salem-MA 3611a Julia Knisel , Chair MEETINGAGENDA - t. Meeting Minutes—October 10,2011; October 27,2011 v 2. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability-11R Winter Island LLC;30 Federal Street; Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition of a single farmly house within a buffer zone to coastal bank, coastal beach and salt marsh at 11R Winter Island Road. 3. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent-11R Winter Island LLC,30 Federal Street, Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition of an existing single family house and construction of new single family house and appurtenances within a buffer zone to coastal bank, coastal beach and salt marsh at 11R Winter Island Road. 4. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Mark Tremblay,7 Laurier Road, Salem, MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a shed within a buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands at 7 Laurier Road. 5. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-518—Michael O'Brien, 5 Broadmoor Lane, Peabody, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of slabs and footings and remediation of contaminated materials within riverfront area, land subject to coastal storm flowage and buffer zone to coastal bank at 72 Flint St(Former Salem Suede). 6. Old/New Business • DEP#64-478: Citywide Culvert Cleaning Program, request for approval of a minor change • DEP#64-501: 1 Dove Avenue, 24 Old Road(Shaughnessy-Kaplan Hospital), request for certificate of l compliance • DEP#64-492: 72 Flint Street(former Salem Suede), request for certificate of compliance Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law MG.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. ThIll "MIN 00 tt d an "pti�fi0;4a l3t1l�+s4$ti 80erd• �Qfy ��i��t- N9V ID2011 r 1A r q� I� 'uC�dilVhU. tRlJ1 flit .0 ' 234ao 40 Of UAL Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting November 17, 2011 Name Mailing Address Phone Email s c.r. P� ,�.a..•i c 1#4 ar. ScA -ek Sri•E'yCc• �e5loo �s 3 �- L/-© /Z 0 Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting • Date and Time: Thursday,November 17, 2011, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Salem Five Community Room, 210 Essex Street, Salem, MA Members Present: Chairwoman Julia Knisel,Dan Ricciarelli,David Pabich, Gavin McAuliffe, Amy Hamilton Members Absent: Michael Blier, Carole McCauley Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chairwoman Julia Knisel opens the meeting at 6:04PM. . Meeting Minutes—October 10, 2011; October 27,2011. A motion to approve the minutes with a spelling correction is made by David Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability-11R Winter Island LLC, 30 Federal Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition of a single family house within a buffer zone to coastal bank, coastal beach and salt marsh at 11R Winter Island Road. • Presenting is Scott Patrowicz. He describes the location of the project. He would like to demolish the house; nothing more in this particular request. There are two applications in the hopes that the demolition will be approved and they can begin work before winter sets in. They understand if the NOI must be continued in order to have a site visit. They have 120 linear feet of snow fence and straw wattle; the snow fence is used because it is higher and collects windblown debris. The existing footprint is outlined and the proposed house is almost directly on top of it. This illustration is Site Plan I IR Winter Island Road, prepared for 11R Winter Island LLC, 11-1- 11. There is a tree they are trying to protect, which is not on the property. The 50' and 100' buffer zones are outlined and all work will be inside them. The house has a crawl space under a portion of it; the rest does not have a basement but is 1/2 story below ground. The method of demolition will be to remove as much material that can be salvaged as possible, dismantling the house. Afterward,the rest will be removed by machine. Debris will be placed in a dumpster, hauled away when it is filled, and the dumpster will be covered at night. Utility lines will be temporarily capped. The dumpster will be in the public way. There are temporary impacts to the buffer zone. Asphalt shingles will be removed by scraping, onto a tarp, which will be dumped into the dumpster. Shingles should be separated from wood and other materials and disposed of separately. Pabich comments that there is a fair amount of asbestos; 9x9 floor tiles probably contain asbestos. Mr. Patrowicz was not aware of this, but will ensure its proper removal. 1 Pabich asks about the dismantling; it will only be by machine for the final stages. The process is described. Pabich asks about the Board of Health and dust control; that is through the building department. Building codes would dictate that and the dismantlers will have to pull a building • permit. Pabich asks about the condition of the site with the structure gone. There will be a hole in the ground; all concrete and asphalt will have been removed. A tree will be removed, but that is in the next application. There will be barren ground, exposed until rebuilding begins. Hopefully that will happen soon after demolition. It will take about 3 weeks to demolish the house, so they are hoping to dovetail the processes. Pabich is concerned about this being two separate applications; someone could challenge the second one. He would like them to be linked; if the building is denied/delayed, the hole should be filled and covered. Mr. Patrowicz agrees. Pabich opines that the hole should be loamed and seeded if rebuilding will not take place immediately. Devine asks if there should be a specific time period; there should be and Pabich suggests two months. Devine asks about the plan, which, pending approval and no appeals, would mean that work should begin immediately. From tonight's meeting, there should be a site visit, then one continued meeting followed by a 10-day appeal period. After that, work should begin; if not, the site will have to be stabilized. If the application gets denied or appealed, or other factors come into play, that would be the backup plan. A logical timeline would be for a couple of weeks past Dec. 8`h, the next meeting. There are no other meetings in December. January first is the deadline established for determining that work will begin; past that date, it will have to be covered (this is later changed to reflect the date of the first Commission meeting in January. See Below.) McAuliffe asks about flooding; it is in a flood zone but on sand, so • drains quickly. Pabich comments that he does not know if the home has been flooded by storm surge, but the cellar hole did have water in the basement. 9 Winter Island Road gets storm surge; in one case it knocked out the seawall. Mr. Patrowicz wonders if the tree should be in this proposal but Pabich thinks if there are issues he wants to leave it so the tree can stay. Chair Knisel opens to the public. Jane Arlander of 93 Federal St. asks about the age of the house. It is unknown but they have gone before Zoning, the Historical Commission, and other boards. A Waiver of Demolition delay was obtained—since one was requested, it means the house is more than 50 years old. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Pabich, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. Conditions(arrived upon after discussion below): • Proper disposal of tiles containing asbestos per all applicable laws and regulations • Removal of tree is NOT permitted by this determination • If a hole remains with no approved plans to move forward with rebuilding by Jan. 12`h, it must be filled with clean fill, loamed and seeded. Rebuilding MUST begin by then. 2 ,l • Dumpsters shall be placed at least 50' from the top of coastal bank, unless overhead wires inhibit such placement, in which case they shall be no less than 30' from the top of the coastal • bank. Pabich asks about overhead wires; there are some and he is concerned about dumpster placement if they have to go around the tree and the wires. Pabich worries that the wires are too low to allow a roll-off dumpster to be loaded. They may want to take off the front porch and put it there, beyond the power pole. It could be no less than 30' from the top of the coastal bank, suggests Mr. Patrowicz. Devine reminds the Commission that the dumpster will be sealed, but it has to do more with the height at loading. The Condition could read that"in the event that wires prohibit placement of the dumpster, it will be placed no less than 30' from the top of the coastal bank." Ideally it would be outside the 50' buffer zone, but if there are issues, the above applies. A motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination of Applicability with conditions is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent-11R Winter Island LLC,30 Federal Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition of an existing single family house and construction of new single family house and appurtenances within a buffer zone to coastal bank, coastal beach and salt marsh at 11R Winter Island Road. Scott Patrowicz continues presenting. Demolition is part of this application as well; if all goes well with the RDA, they will withdraw the demolition request from this portion. At this point . there will be a clean site–either a hole in the ground or a loamed and seeded site, and a tree. Straw wattle and snow fencing will already be in place, and assuming construction will move forward, those will be inspected. Then the work will begin, including proposed removal of the tree, retention of another tree (not theirs), and the existing pavement within the way will remain and damages resulting from construction will be repaired. The concrete foundation will be installed with frost walls and a single family home constructed, and utilities connected. He reviews the sizes of the new and old houses. There will be a two-car driveway and a patio; impervious surfaces are increasing. The proposed is 1209 square feet for the house; proposed parking will be made of brick pavers on sand and the patio will be the same. That is 770 square feet. The existing is 1720 square feet for a net increase of about 300 square feet of impervious surfaces. It is all flat lawn area, and they would like to resurface the lawn. No work is scheduled within land subject to coastal storm flowage. The reconstruction/repair of the existing seawall is NOT part of this application. There is no further application to reconstruct it at this point. Pabich asks which wall it is; it is the one that is partially on this property and partly on the next. There is confusion with the title which needs to be sorted out first. He reviews the old and new house footprints. Some of the proposed patio area is walkway, some is concrete and asphalt. It will all be disturbed area from the demolition, and they will be working within that footprint. Chair Knisel comments that they are adding 340 square feet of impervious surface and asks about-its mitigation. Mr. Patrowicz comments that it is a flat area; the seaward area will be bricks on sand; the whole site is sand and water percolates down. There is no real runoff on this site due 3 to those conditions. Normally mitigation would be necessary but in this case it won't generate additional runoff. The square footage of the original house is uncertain, but Mr. Patrowicz will find out. Pabich • states that the previous owner had an issue with vehicles being parked in the public right-of-way, and the Conservation Commission had issues with it since some dilapidated vehicles were parked in the buffer zone, a risk to the resource. He opines that they should make it known to future occupants of that home that it is a public way, not a driveway, and the City does not allow the storage of vehicles there. It should be tied into this NOI. It is more an issue of storage than parking. Mr. Patrowicz says that two parking spaces, tandem, will be in front of the new building. As of now a car cannot be parked in front of the current building. Long-term parking in the public way should be restricted, agrees Mr. Patrowicz. There is a proposed finished elevation but it is not on the plans. Mr. Patrowicz is not sure what it is but will find out and get back to the Commission before the next site visit. Pabich comments on the water incident and the drainage, and wants to know how utilities will be laid out in the visit. Site plans should be provided at the site walk. Mr. Patrowicz does not typically submit building plans to the Conservation Commission, but can provide slab elevations. Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. A site visit is scheduled for Dec. 8`h at 4:30PM. A motion to continue to Dec. 8`h is made by Hamilton, seconded by Pabich, and passes unanimously. • Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Mark Tremblay, 7 Laurier Road, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a shed within a buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands at 7 Laurier Road. The applicant is not present so Chair Knisel suggests postponing until his arrival, for now. The item is moved to the end of the agenda. A motion to table is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. The applicant has still not arrived by the end of the meeting, so a motion to continue to the next meeting is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-518—Michael O'Brien, 5 Broadmoor Lane, Peabody, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of slabs and footings and remediation of contaminated materials within riverfront area, land subject to coastal storm flowage and buffer zone to coastal bank at 72 Flint St(Former Salem Suede). Bruce Poole with SP Engineering Inc. presents. They plan to remove the above items in order to gain access to contaminated soils for remediation. He outlines the history of the contamination on the property. The entire area was industry with leather tanners and other activities. The first contaminant was a red bark that would be used to tan and color the leather; it is not toxic and has no chromium. That is found at the lowest area, between 4 and 10 feet below grade; it helps define what period of time what areas were filled, but is not suitable for structures and must be removed. 4 Also most people threw out coal and wood ash around the tanneries; there are several deposits. • The Great Salem Fire of 1914 also decimated the tanneries and all the burned debris was pushed into the filled zone under the current buildings. It is not contaminated but must be sorted to be disposed of. In 1925 it was a chromium, cow hide tannery with a lagoon behind it. That is one of the largest areas (over 1000 cubic yards) of materials to be removed. There are 3-4' of chromium containing solidified sludge and leather scraps. Coal was also run in the burners through 1942-45 and coal ash was disposed of out the front door; it must be removed. Chrome shavings, pieces of leather trimmings, and other materials were buried in the area. Salem Suede bought the property in 1978, and their only contribution was a fuel tank in the corner which eventually leaked, and was removed and cleaned. However, more material has gotten under the footings and must be removed. Investigations and 2009 test pits gave a visual and chemical analysis of the contamination and historical deposition. He describes other levels of contamination in the various areas of soil test pits. Several exceeded the chromium test limits. Lead, arsenic, and cadmium are also present on the site and must be removed. They have a brownfields grant to do more investigations on the property, and would like to break it into phases of more test bores in areas not yet investigated. He shows a basic layout of test bores and wells. That way they will be familiar with what is there,before digging begins. Wesson and Sampson will be the consultant in the monitoring before during and after remediation. The second part is working with that firm to confirm analysis of sidewalls and • bottom before remediation. At the end of 6-9 months they will also do confirmatory borings on backfilled, remediated areas to get a Response Action Outcome, Class 1. Permanent monitoring wells will be established where remediation has occurred. The whole program is done under the MCP for this item. A RAM plan has also been filed. Three different waste streams have been identified that must be treated differently. The worst is the oily soil, #4 oil that does not migrate readily—there are 200 cubic yards of that. There will also be oil in the groundwater when working on this, so the first step is to skim the surface during excavation, then install an oil collection manhole before finishing up. The manhole can be opened every quarter and checked for oil, a process which will continue during the entire site development. Ash areas are also present. Those areas generally stabilize well and can become compacted, and go for recycling at an appropriate site. Sometimes concrete dust must be added,but all those would be moved to a soil stockpile area more than 200' from the North River. They would use, for this phase a concrete pad that is already there, placing material on it and covering it with plastic and a 2' berm around the entire area. Trucks will also be decontaminated before leaving the site. The RAM plan was submitted digitally but the Commissioners do not have printed copies; it is 80 pages long and he can also provide a Health and Safety Plan. Pabich would like to know more about this decontamination facility. • Landfill materials such as the lagoon tend to be highly organic and not easily stabilized, and must go to a specialized landfill. They are not hazardous wastes but the material must be disposed of property. 5 Since concrete must be removed, they will go after the most mobile material first, on the 1000 cubic yards, even if it is cold; in fact the cooler it is, the less odor will be produced. Concrete • would go offsite for crushing, then brought back to cover the excavation since loam is not advisable to prepare for the next step. The development plan has been approved by the Zoning Board. Mitigation measures proposed include the monitoring wells, erosion logs (there now) to be maintained and rebuilt, and 2' berms of clean dirt between excavation and any down-gradient, wetlands/river area. They will also leave a wall and its footings next to the river to prevent contaminants from washing into it. There is no direct route for drainage off the site into the river. Pabich asks if excavations will be filled with crushed concrete and brick—they will be capped with it and filled if needed. McAuliffe asks about the 2' soil berm and Mr. Poole describes it. McAuliffe worries that they will get washed away but Mr. Poole is not worried. He could do a double erosion log and a berm. Mr. Poole will discuss the size of the berm vs. hay bales. Other erosion controls are discussed. Pabich thinks the berm is a good idea— it will wind up being 7' wide at the base if it is 2' high. He thinks the erosion logs should be shored up or replaced. Some of them have been out of place in the past as well. McAuliffe is still worried that it is not enough, given the extreme rain events of the past few years. The standard order of conditions includes inspection of erosion controls. Ricciarelli asks about having a condition that each slab must be approved before removal of next can occur. Right now they are saying all slabs, but it will not be all at once. Removal will be followed by a cleanup, the hole backfilled, and confirmatory sampling will occur. They are asking for permission to clean the entire site. Devine would like the Order of Conditions to make it so they don't have to come back every time, but can deal with further contamination, if found, in the • same way as the ones discussed today. The Commission would be copied on every modification, as a normal condition. Devine asks if full remediation for residential development is included here. It is. McAuliffe asks why there are no test bores on the lower right-hand side of the property, and wants it stipulated that B section, if tested, same precautions must be taken. Pabich thinks it should be required. There will be activity and excavation even for the slab that presumably has clean soil under it. The precautions should occur along the entire river. Pabich asks about the mechanics of Area A and they are discussed. It will be loaded onto a truck and removed, with no storage. But the dump truck must dump it onto a characterization area to be sorted and tested. A day's activities are outlined. One to two weeks are required to move the 1000 yards. Work is done in sections and backfilled, and they can go back in if some side samples are bad, though it is harder if bottom materials are contaminated. Holes will be filled and brought back to within 1.5 feet of grade every day. Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. A site visit is scheduled for Saturday, Dec. 3rd at 9AM. Devine had recommended to the applicant closing out the order of conditions for demolition of buildings with a certificate of compliance, but nothing has been submitted for that yet. Devine also requests a hard copy of the RAM plan, which will be provided. Devine will email it and it is • also at the DEP website. A motion to continue is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. 6 .i Old/New Business • 0 DEP#64-478: Citywide Culvert Cleaning Program, request for approval of a minor change David Knowlton is not ready so this item is removed from the agenda. DEP#64-501: 1 Dove Avenue,24 Old Road (Shaughnessy-Kaplan Hospital),request for certificate of compliance Scott Patrowicz presents again. There was difficulty getting cherry trees so it was assumed that others were adequate, so they substituted without asking the Commission, who then wanted cherry trees. These cherry trees are only dug out of the ground in Spring, in Virginia,so sugar maples were more readily available. A wetland specialist was consulted and wrote a letter about the two types of trees, which are similar. He suggested that the shrub layer was missing--there is ground and tree cover,but no shrubs. So, to mitigate, he suggests planting shrubs. They would like to add eight shrubs to be planted prior to issuance of the Certificate of Compliance. The sewer was removed from the wetlands and the pipe rerouted. Chair Knisel feels that this is a reasonable compromise. No commissioners disagree. Devine comments that the proposal is for any combination of listed species; it will depend on availability. The wetlands expert will make a final determination. Mr. Patrowicz will have a • letter sent when it is done. DEP#64-492: 72 Flint Street(former Salem Suede),request for certificate of compliance A motion to table this item to Dec. 8`h is made by Hamilton, seconded by Pabich, and passes unanimously. Devine reports that he spoke to a group of Salem High School AP students this week. He was invited by teacher Graeme Marcoux to discuss the roles of the Conservation Agent and Conservation Commission in local environmental protection. He made a positive connection with the group and considers it to be successful outreach for the Commission. A motion to adjourn is made by Pabich, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 8:OOPM. y Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb - Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on December 8, 2011 y 7 yr�.hiuNnlrl2?�, L4 CITY OF SALEM • ���Mi98�P. CONSERVATION COMMISSION November 18, 2011 Scott Patrowicz 14 Brown Street Salem, MA 01970 Re: Determination of Applicability-11R Winter Island Road, Salem, MA Dear Mr. Patrowicz: Enclosed, please find the determination of applicability for the above referenced property. Please be advised that work must comply with the attached special conditions as issued by the Conservation Commission. This document is effective for three years from its date of issuance. if you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 978-619-5685. • Sincerely, Tom Devine Conservation Agent/Staff Planner Enclosures CC: DEP Northeast Regional Office I 1 R Winter Island LLC f Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection ` Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40, A. General Information — When filling out From. - - - forms on the Salem computer, use conservation Commission - only the tab c key to move To: Applicant Your cursor- Property Owner(if different from applicant) do not use the 11R Winter Island LLC return key. Name -_,..__..__._._._ - Name � 30 Federal Street__ p - `Ma111ng Atldress ----- -- — Salem Ma1Lng Address ------ MA 01970__ _ Cltyrrown State Zip Code Cltyrrown -- rxun 't ---.-- _. � �— state Zip-Code 1. Title and Date (or Revised Date if applicable)of Final Plans and Other Documents: Site Plan; 11 R Winter Island Road Title -- 11/1/2011 Date ... .Title -----`-- . 2, bate Request Filed: • November 4, 2011 B. Determination Pursuant to the authority of M.G.L. c. 131, § 40, the Conservation Commission considered your Request for Determination of Applicability, with its supporting documentation,and made the following Determination. Project Description (if applicable): Demolition of existing house and removal of debris off-site. All work is outide resource areas. A snow fence shall be installed to minimize wind blown debris. Slaw wattle shall be installed for erosion control and to serve as a limitof work line. Project Location: 11 R Winter Island Road Salem Street Address - - 44 City/Town Assessors Map/Pial Number -- 22 _ Parcel/cot Number - nPafor,rQ doc•Delet rtmal,on of APWicab l ty•rev,10,&N - - Page I o15' � r Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection Wetlands • WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) The following Determination(s)is/are applicable to the proposed site and/or project relative to the Wetlands Protection Act and regulations: Positive Determination Note: No work within the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act may proceed until a final Order of Conditions (issued following submittal of a Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent)or Order of Resource Area Delineation(issued following submittal of Simplified Review ANRAD)has been received from the issuing authority(i.e., Conservation Commission or the Department of Environmental Protection). ❑ I. The area described on the referenced plan(s)is an area subject to protection under the Act. Removing, filling,dredging, or altering of the area requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 2a. The boundary delineations of the following resource areas described on the referenced plan(s)are confirmed as accurate. Therefore, the resource area boundaries confirmed in this Determination are binding as to all decisions rendered pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act and its regulations regarding such boundaries for as long as this Determination is valid. ❑ 2b. The boundaries of resource areas listed below are not confirmed-by this Determination, regardless of whether such boundaries are contained on the plans attached to this Determination or to the Request for Determination. ❑ 3. The work described on referenced plan(s)and document(s) is within an area subject to protection under the Act and will remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 4. The work described on referenced plan(s) and document(s) is within the Buffer Zone and will alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent or ANRAD Simplified Review(if work is limited to the Buffer Zone). ❑ 5. The area and/or work described on referenced plan(s)and document(s)is subject to review and approval by: Name of.Municipality Pursuant to the following municipal wetland ordinance or bylaw: • _ Name -......__. _ Ordinance or Bylaw Citation - w oform2 doe-nerofmnared of Apyec,or,y•rev I0ffir04 Page Pbl 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection Wetlands l ' WPA Form 2 - Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination ❑ 6. The following area and/or work, if any, is subject to a municipal ordinance or bylaw but not subject to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: ❑ T If a Notice of Intent is filed for the work in the Riverfront Area described on referenced plan(s) and document(s), which includes all or part of the work described in the Request, the applicant must consider the following alternatives. (Refer to the wetland regulations at 10.58(4)c. for more information about the scope of alternatives requirements): ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located. ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located, the subdivided lots, and any adjacent lots formerly or presently owned by the same owner. ❑ Alternatives limited to the original parcel on which the project is located, the subdivided parcels, any adjacent parcels, and any other land which can reasonably be obtained within the municipality. ❑ Alternatives extend to any sites which can reasonably be obtained within the appropriate region of the state. • Negative Determination Note: No further action under the Wetlands Protection Act is required by the applicant. However, if the Department is requested to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability, work may not proceed on this project unless the Department fails to act on such request within 35 days of the date the request is post-marked for certified mail or hand delivered to the Department. Work may then proceed at the owner's risk only upon notice to the Department and to the Conservation Commission. Requirements for requests for Superseding Determinations are listed at the end of this document. ❑ 1. The area described in the Request is not an area subject to protection under the Act or the Buffer Zone. ❑ 2. The work described in the Request is within an area subject to protection under the Act, but will not remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent. 3. The work described in the Request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined in the regulations, but will not alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore; said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, subject to the following conditions (if any). ❑ 4. The work described in the Request is not within an Area subject to protection under the Act (including the Buffer Zone). Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, unless and until said work alters an Area subject to protection under the Act. • wgjform ,doc•Delennnaeon of ApdmabOly•rev.1016104 - Paye 3d 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection- Wetlands „ • " WPA Form 2 - Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) - ❑ 5. The area described in the Request is subject to protection under the Act Since the work described therein meets the requirements for the following exemption, as specified in the Act and the regulations, no Notice of Intent is required: - Exem tActivi ty(site applicabe statuato ryIre ulato ryprovlsion-s--) -- — - -- ----------------- ❑ 6. The area and/or work described in the Request is not subject to review and approval by: Pursuant to a municipal wetlands ordinance or bylaw. - ---------- Name-- ----- --...------------ ordinance or Bylaw Cllatlon , C. Authorization • This Determination is issued to the applicant and delivered as follows: �`�/b/y hand delivery on ❑ by certified mail, return receipt requested on Dat6 j.�.� __—.___-_____—.___ _—_ ___— _..__ Date ... This Determination is valid for three years from the date of issuance (except Determinations for Vegetation Management Plans which are valid for the duration of the Plan). This Determination does not relieve the applicant from complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, bylaws, or regulations. This Determination must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission opy must be sent to the appropriate DEP Regional Office(see http://www.masZ6bouUr .fi d our.htm)and the property owner rent from the applicant). Sign tll es: Date_ woalarr@4a neiermnatwn ul Appikab-lay v.1016104 i Pv9e 4 J 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands ' WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 D. Appeals The applicant, owner, any person aggrieved by this Determination, any owner of land abutting the land upon which the proposed work is to be done, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate Department of Environmental Protection Regional Office(see http://www mass gov/den/abouUreaion findvour htm)to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and Fee Transmittal Form (see Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form)as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7)within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Determination. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant if he/she is not the appellant. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination which is being appealed. To the extent that the Determination is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department of Environmental Protection has no appellate jurisdiction. • • w X.1r 2d.c peleimnalion PI APpim.b.Jq, rev, IpifiiOa Page 5 015 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands LI Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. Request Information Important: When filling out 1 Person or party making request(if appropriate, name the citizen group's representative) forms on the computer. use ____....... ------ _. only the tabName --------------- key to move your cursor- Mailing Address -"-"---'--- - do not use the return key. — State Zip Code Phone Number Fax Number(if appllcable)... Project Location Mailing Address Zip Code 2. Applicant(as shown on Notice of Intent(Form 3),Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation (Form 4A); or Request for Determination of Applicability(Form 1)): — —_. —___ Mailing Address__------- CityrTown State. Zip Code Phone Number -- —"-- Fax Number(if applicable)- - _ 3. DEP File Number. B. Instructions 1. When the Departmental action request is for(check one): ❑ Superseding Order of Conditions ($100 for individual single family homes with associated structures; $200 for all other projects) ❑ Superseding Determination of Applicability($100) ❑ Superseding Order of Resource Area Delineation ($100) Send this form and check or money order for the appropriate amount, payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to: Department of Environmental Protection Box 4062 • Boston, MA 02211 wpaform2.Joc•Re0uesl br 0epa1tm Mdl Aowp Fee rransmllal Farm•rev. 1016,04 Nege�-it 2 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 • B. Instructions (cont:) — 2. On a separate sheet attached to this form, state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination or Order which is being appealed. To the extent that the Determination or Order is based on a municipal bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. 3. Send a copy of this form and a copy of the check or money order with the Request for a Superseding Determination or Order by certified mail or hand delivery to the appropriate DEP Regional Office (see http;//www mass oov/dep/about/recion/findyour htm). 4. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. • • wPaform2.doc•Request lar DePanaental Aclion Fee Transmital Form•rev.1016," - . Page 2 012 vt$ 7 CITY OF SALEM ,Mp CONSERVATION COMMISSION November 18, 2011 Determination of Applicability for property located at I I R Winter Island Road, Salem, MA SPECIAL CONDITIONS I. If, following the demolition of the existing house, start of construction of the new house is delayed beyond January 12, 2012, the disturbed area shall be stabilized. The disturbed area shall be restored to the approximate grade of the seaward yard area using clean till, and loamed and seeded. 2. This determination does not permit the removal of the existing spruce tree located seaward of the existing house. 3. The dumpster shall be located in the public way at least 50' from the coastal bank. However, if overhead utility wires obstruct the delivery and removal of the dumpster at this location, it may be placed no closer than 30' from the coastal bank, 4. Any materials containing asbestos shall be disposed of properly, per all applicable laws and regulations. • -CONDIT44 3 0; � � CITY OF SALEM � A R : CONSERVATION COMMISSION City of Salem Conservation Commission 978-619-5685 Will hold a site visit at 72 Flint Street(Former Salem Suede Property)on Saturday,Detember3, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.The purpose of the site visit is to inspect the project site where Michael_C'Brien.5 Broadmoor Lane, Peabody, MA has proposed the removal of slabs and footings and remediation of contaminated materials within riverfront area, land subject to coastal storm flowage,and buffer zone to coastal bank. Julia Knisel Chair Know your rights cinder the Open Meeting Law.M C.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections'2-_ 2028 through 2-2033. • • ,NCONDIT1/� . CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION City of Salem Conservation Commission 978-619-5685 Will hold a site visit at I IR Winter Island Road on Thursday,December 8,2011 at 4:30 p.m.The purpose of the site visit is to inspect the project site where 11R Winter Island LLC, 30 Federal Street, Salem, MA has proposed the demolition of an existing house and construction of a new house and appurtenances within buffer zone to coastal bank, coastal beach, and salt marsh. Julia Knisel Chair Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law MG.L..c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2- .... . 2028 through 2-2033. pp rill tr�.".•+.. ,r 5 3 1 � wa r✓ �'ti '23A A 203 A M.G.L CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 6:00 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3idfloor conference room, 1-20 Washington Street, Salem, MA. J'A `�� Julia Kniselj/' Chair c v MEETING AGENDA t. Meeting Minutes—November 17, 2011 .,j 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice-of Intent—DEP#64-519-11R Winter Island LL&30 Federal Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition of an existing single .•- . family house and construction of newsingle.family-house and appurtenances:withm a buffer zone,to coastal-- , bank;coastal beach and-salt marsh at 11R Winter Island Road. hs,: z.F •a s < .::_._ 3. Public Hearing—Notice�ofIntent—DEP#64-520—NationalGrid, 40 Sylvan Road, Waltham;MA,:-,The !` purpose of this hearing is to discuss.removal ofdebris from coastal beach,salt marsh;coastal dune and tidal:flat.. a - along Collins Cove off Waite and Planters St. r-" .i .'= „ -• 4. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-518—Michael O'Brien,5 Broadmoor Lane, Peabody, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of slabs and footings and remediation of contaminated materials within riverfront area, land subject to coastal storm flowage and buffers } zone to coastal bank at 72 Flint St Former Salem Suede). a" 5. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—United States Coast Guard; 300 Metros; Vt2 Center Boulevard,Warwick, Rl. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss installation of aids to navigation at 3 y offshore ledges in Salem Sound: Brimbles,Hardy Rock and Satan Rock. 6. Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Mark Tremblay, ICE' Laurier Road,Salem, MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of ached within P rP g� P P buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands at 7 Laurier Road. w , y 7. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Mildred Ananayo, 37 Intervale Road Salem, MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed removal of trees within buffer zone to bordering, vegetated wetlands at 37& 39 Intervale Road. C r ' 8. Old/New Business • Discussion of application submittal requirements ; �. 3 � • Discussion of wetlands violations C � • Discussion of proposed 2012 meeting schedule cac -. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M G.L. c. 39,¢'238 and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2 2033. Page r of 1 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting December 8, 2011 Name Mailing Address Phone Email e �. avQder q3 Feder i- 178 7q `1-09l(�7 ZS L *-7D6? 122- Z -31, r.) �tal.� l-{ o.11s �\rac,f. • ��� �Z Y� ��7 s`I S / � 1�OM �CNO.— / 1J. N1M4�GciCa �4+C�ur tr � rr` qeu. • -V'.SI 13�� ( —�Z(`''FU IIS cc.., 2� e o �eT APPROVED MINUTES • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,December 8, 2011, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairwoman Julia Knisel,David Pabich,Gavin McAuliffe,Amy Hamilton,Michael Blier Members Absent: Carole McCauley,Dan Ricciarelli Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chairwoman Julia Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:06PM. Meeting Minutes,—November 17, 2011 A motion to approve the minutes is made by Pabich, seconded by Hamilton, and passes. unanimously. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-519-11R Winter Island LLC, 30 Federal Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition of an existing single family house and construction of new single family house and • appurtenances within a buffer zone to coastal bank, coastal beach and salt marsh at 11R Winter Island Road. Illustration: Site plan 11R Winter Island Road, dated Nov. Is`, 2011 There was a site visit before tonight's meeting, and Devine was there on behalf of the N Commission. Scott Patrowicz presents. He reviews the previous plan and shows a new plan, which includes an illustration of a roofline and covered and uncovered patio. There is also a garage entrance shown. He reviews other elements of the updated site plan. Demolition is permitted under a negative determination of applicability. The house will be a slab on grade, so there are no groundwater concerns. Pabich asks about the first floor footprint and Mr. Patrowicz outlines the existing and new coverage. 1290 square feet is the footprint of the house. Flood elevation is discussed and Mr. Patrowicz wants the finished floor above 10' to avoid problems in case of flooding.Blier asks about elevations and the applicant clarifies. Coverage of the porch and patio is further discussed. Chair.Knisel asks about the spruce in the patio area, which will be removed. Pabich asks if there is a landscaping plan, but there isn't one yet. Mr. Patrowicz says they could submit one 30 days prior to landscaping for review by the agent. Blier comments that historically Mr. Patrowicz has combined all those elements into one drawing, but a different person has made these illustrations. Pabich feels that this is acceptable as it will probably be standard yard landscaping, with the only detriment being the removal of the tree. 1 Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. Pabich asks if they will excavate; they will fill the existing hole with gravel, build a frost wall, • and top it off. They will then landscape the area. Chair Knisel asks if the commission is ready to move forward with approval of demolition and rebuilding contingent upon a landscaping plan. They also need confirmation that the patio will stay the same, even though the roofline may change a bit. Pabich asks Patrowicz to submit any substantial changes to the Commission; the applicant agrees. Because the demolition of the house is already permitted by a negative determination of applicability, Patrowicz withdraws the demolition from this notice of intent. Pabich asks about stockpiling of soils; there will be a temporary pile for construction of the frost wall. Pabich says it should be covered if it will be in the buffer zone. Devine comments that there is a pile of debris on the bank at the end of the public way and suggests that the Commission ask the applicant to remove it as part of the order. There is debris that has washed up from the ocean as well as some asphalt. The DPW has not removed it, and the applicant agrees it should be removed and is willing to have that be a condition. It is on a bank, before the grasses. It would be picked up by hand; no machinery needed and it would only take about an hour. The Commission requests that only surficial materials be removed. Pabich comments on the wall but that is not part of this application. • Conditions: A landscaping plan will be presented prior to landscaping Hand removal of surficial debris at the end of the public way Confirmation of plan dimensions Any soil or debris stockpiled within the buffer zone must be covered Pabich motions to close the public hearing, is seconded by McAuliffe, and all approve. Blier signs an affidavit verifying that he has reviewed materials from a single missed hearing on this item. A file number has been issued but DEP has not issued comments for this project. Devine thinks we don't need to wait for comments on a buffer zone project. A motion to approve is made b Pabich seconded b McAuliffe and asses unanimously. This PP Y > Y P Y decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-520—National Grid, 40 Sylvan Road, Waltham, MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss removal of debris from coastal beach, salt marsh, coastal dune and tidal flat along Collins Cove off Waite.and Planters St. Here for the applicant is Jason Naiden of National Grid. They have a location on the above area, • a former coal gasification facility. Mark Mahoney with Anchor is the sediment and water 2 consultant and LSP. He is also here to answer questions. Jeff Bridge represents Mason& • Associates. There is miscellaneous debris on the beach; over the course of time debris has been deposited by the ocean. It is easily removed and they did it under an emergency certification last year. They feel it should be repeated. It will be the same type of project as the first time. F Jeff Bridge speaks. Nichole Hays is also with Mason & Associates. He speaks about the emergency certification in 2010, so now they are doing an additional filing. The proposed work is similar to that previously approved in area access methodology and extent of alteration. They will be using the same equipment to sift through and remove debris without removing sand. It has also accumulated in the tidal flat, salt marsh and dune areas; in all those areas, debris will be removed by hand. Unavoidable impacts to sandy beach area will be with the use of equipment to rake and remove. About 30 cubic yards of debris will be removed. A long term strategy will mean that this has to be done more than once. They are proposing removal 2x/year for 10 years, but they are assuming 30 cubic yards each time for a total of 600 cubic yards of debris removed over 10 years. A post-topographic survey was done last year. Topography was essentially the same before and after, and that was using the same equipment they plan to use now. Access will also be identical using an existing gravel drive, but crossing a narrow phragmites wetland. Timber mats will be put down to minimize impact. There are 35,000 square feet to the beach, and 420 square feet of • phragmites-dominated wetlands to be temporarily altered for access. Because they are doing long term maintenance they are requesting a long term Order of Conditions for five years. They can monitor and come back in five years, then get an extension of the Order. The work they are proposing is very similar to that which was previously approved; impacts are restricted to temporary alteration, and ultimately this will be an enhancement..The activity complies with the Act and the Ordinance. The project will also protect the health and welfare of the general public. Hamilton asks about disposal—the 30 cubic yards will be disposed offsite. Material will be placed in a dumpster. The whole operation takes 4 days, and then material will go to a New Hampshire waste facility. They have suggested spring and fall work, to be done at low tide. No months were mentioned, only seasons. The debris to be removed includes glass, brick, and unidentified materials. There are samples provided. Some are byproducts from the old gasification plant—coal tar, clinkers, etc. as Mark Mahoney explains. Pabich asks about the primary source of debris. The beach was capped and originally had large stones with voids, and material would wash out. Mr. Mahoney describes changes to the beach over the years. It is constantly changing. Pabich asks if core sand samples have been taken; is that why there is a 10 year plan? Test pits as deep as 10' have been dug, but material is concentrated in upper 3' with the occasional pit as deep as 6' or 7'. Storms turn over layers of sand, then wind blows it back. In • the spring after winter storms, and during hurricanes in fall, is when the debris gets uncovered. 3 Pabich asks about Marine Fisheries comments, but none have been submitted yet. He asks if there is sensitivity to shellfish in given months. There is some evidence of shellfish in the area, but they are not disturbing the mudflat other than hand removal at low tide. • Pabich asks about disposal, which will be brought to a standard landfill in Rochester, NH. They do chemical testing on the material before sending it out. Chair Knisel opens to the public. Jim Grocki of 29 Planters St. wonders if there will be truck traffic. They will use a small Bobcat to get in but there will not be any trucks circulating. There will be two pieces of equipment-1 truck and the dumpster. Mr. Grocki asks about changes to the area.Jason Naiden outlines the type of material to be removed. The removal of this solid material does not affect flooding, other than that the material can get pushed down onto adjoining properties. They want people to be able to be safe on the beach. Knisel comments that there was a site visit in 2010 after the Emergency Order was issued; McAuliffe has kayaked but not been on the beach, but is somewhat familiar with the site. Pabich does not feel a visit is warranted and neither do other Commissioners. Devine notes that he visited the site upon receiving the notice of intent. Chair Knisel requests some Conditions—she wants a profile with grading after each cleaning event(twice a year), not only after 5 years. Also, Devine must be notified if there is a major storm event that requires activity more than twice a year. Mr. Bridge comments that it is more than they usually do after each event, but Mr. Mahoney comments that they could do it. Mr. • Bridge says that a storm could alter the profile, not because of what they did. Chair Knisel wants to see it to isolate the effect of their work on the beach profile—profiles directly before and directly after each cleaning. Pabich comments that the Commission may change over a long term project like this, so annually they should update the Commission to remind them of what has been permitted and any progress. They can use the same letter each year. Chair Knisel comments that they can issue an Order for a maximum of 5 years, and that may be extended. They are proposing restoration of 420 square feet that will be altered by mats. It was a different area that was restored last year. After the final event the 420 square feet will be restored. That plan should be reviewed by Devine. Pabich clarifies that the mats will be removed after each 4 day work period. There is some question as to when that 420 square foot area will be restored—whether at the end of 10 years or not. It will re-vegetate itself every year. An active planting plan of something other than phragmites isn't practical. Why bother restoring? The applicant would like to have flexibility at end of 10 years to determine if damage warrants restoration; if not it can re-vegetate naturally. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliffe, and passes unanimously. There are no.DEP comments yet, so there is a small risk that they could appeal it if an order is issued and the DEP has a serious concern that isn't addressed. The Commission feels that all • possible concerns are addressed. 4 A motion to issue the Order of Conditions is made by Pabich, seconded by Blier, and passes • unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Conditions: • A grading profile will be submitted indicating conditions immediately before and after each event • An annual monitoring report to recap activity must be submitted • The applicant will provide Devine notice if additional cleanings beyond the proposed two yearly ones are warranted • A special 5 year Order of Conditions will be granted and may be extended 4. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-518—Michael O'Brien, 5 Broadmoor Lane, Peabody, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of slabs and footings and remediation of contaminated materials within riverfront area, land subject to coastal storm flowage and buffer zone to coastal bank at 72 Flint St (Former Salem Suede). Bruce Poole with SP Engineering presents. He presents a revised plan and detail sheet to show additional mitigation measures as discussed in the last meeting. The site visit occurred on Saturday. The MPNA would also like to meet with him. • Illustrations: SITE PLAN, SALEM SUEDE, INC.; 72 FLINT STREET, SALEM, MA, revised 12/5/11; DETAIL SHEET, 12/11. The RAM plan as submitted to DEP, and the health and safety plans,have also been submitted. Last meeting they discussed silt fence and hay bales along entire property line. Specific tie-in details are on the detail sheet. Mr. Poole describes an area with a greater slope at site B. Angle iron and studs will attach a double siltation fence, there will also be more hay bales and plywood. Earthen berms will be constructed between excavation areas and downgrade. They will be constructed as the work is done. Primary focus this winter is to take out oily soil with the highest potential for migration. The second area is the lagoon, stabilized from the early 1900's with ash material on top, covered with tar. He discusses the equipment decontamination area. An area of contiguous paths will form a spill remediation zone, and spills will be stored in a frac tank. There is a trailer for hazmat materials, which are not just what is being removed but also if there are vehicular issues or other underground drums, etc. Another trailer will be for chemical storage onsite. He describes the process of oil and sludge and ash cleanup. The spill control area will have a liner on top. He describes the liner and pumps for the cleanup area as well, along with the cleaning process for the trucks –they will use brushes, dry wiping, and pressure wash ONLY with oil and organic material. It will go into a frac tank. The area will after that be swept, cleaned and pressure • washed so they don't have to segregate it after rain events. 5 . Blier asks the process of truck cleaning. Neighbors complained that the soil stockpile slab was too close to them, so it is being moved to Site F to be loaded on trucks which will exit over the right of way, over a 4" wooden berm with tapered edges. Pabich asks about path out of the • decontamination site and Mr. Poole outlines. Truck decontamination will happen when soil is loaded for ultimate disposal, not when the small truck moves material within the site. He outlines the different truck paths. They will be backfilling every day to stabilize material before removal. Pabich asks about the paved area; some is paved. Pabich wants reassurance that trucks will not be on unpaved surfaces between cleaning and going offsite. If that is the case, areas will be backfilled with clean gravel. Pabich asks about sump detail. Material coming off trucks and excavators will go to the frac tank after the sump. The sump will be cleaned by solids being swept off first before a pressure wash. Mud will wash into the sump, which will then be pressure washed. Pumps will take solids and water to the frac tank. There will be an end-of-day decontamination of surfaces. After a large rain event, water will be pumped off to the side if it is clean. Hamilton asks about vague language discussing "can be, may be transported, stabilized materials may be used on site?" Mr. Poole says that some non-hazardous ash cannot be left in place but cannot be taken to Maine for disposal, and stabilized waste may be stored underground, under the parking garage. It cannot exceed S2 criteria, but the parking garage is by the right-of way and can receive it, pending approval —material must be non-leachable and pass a stabilization test. There are three waste streams: oily soil can be recycled, organic material must go to landfill, and the third waste component is ash—some is stable, and will get mixed and compacted for use . under roadways. Knisel opens to the public and Jane Arlander of Federal St. speaks. She comments on how close the soil stockpile is to Mason and Flint St. residents —almost right up to the yards. She is concerned about contaminated materials. The new slab is further away, but she wants to see it moved further east. She thinks other options could be to clean up soils with heavy metals such as ash during winter months while residents have storm windows up and regular windows closed, to avoid dust in homes. Knisel comments that this discussion must be limited to resource area and dust/neighbor issues must be taken offline. Ms. Arlander contacted the Board of Health, who referred her to the DEP, who said that she should go to the Conservation Commission. She wonders who has jurisdiction as it is beyond the 200' mark. Mr. Poole comments that public health is the purview of the DEP. Ms. Arlander wants additional measures, such as those people removing lead paint have to follow—they build scaffolds and use fabrics to contain dust. Could such a system be used here around concrete foundation? The Commission cannot condition that as it is not relative the resource area, but Ms. Arlander can work with Mr. Poole and the MPNA (Mack Park Neighborhood Association) to discuss this. Areas will be covered with plastic, which is normally not covered by another mesh. Ms. Arlander understands using the concrete foundation for storage, but is still concerned about proximity to residents. Devine comments that although some concerns cannot be addressed here, • they do expect the applicant to be sensitive to neighbors; he suggests she call Mr. Poole after the meeting. 6 • A • Pabich asks about the total yardage of stockpiled storage—the maximum would be 1000 yards; Mr. Poole sketches out the pile on the diagram. It will be in 2 windrows, standard at 8' tall; and 20' wide. This will be done in staggered form, oily and landfill in the winter, and they could do ash during rainy weather(small rain events). Piles would be hosed down and covered daily. They can work with the Salem Board of Health on these issues. Devine will explore what their authority is. Darrow Lebovici of 122 Federal St. asks if it can be conditioned that the issuance of approval be statement b the Board of Heath and the MPNA that there is an agreement conditioned upon a sta y g dealing with the issues that go beyond Conservation Commission jurisdiction. Pabich says fugitive dust from the site can get into the resource area, so it may be possible.Mr. Poole says" that Board of Health is part of MCP and supposedly monitors that. Mr. Lebovici clarifies that it is the applicant's obligation to make everyone aware of it; does that mean the Commission could defer issuing its approval until that is done? Pabich says it can be conditioned. But Mr. Poole clarifies that Mr. Lebovici meant that proceeding on the project could be contingent on a Board of Health and MPNA agreement. That does not have to do with the Conservation Commission, but he encourages monthly or bi-weekly inspections, as has happened in the past. Salem was very responsive. Hamilton says there will be both dust and water issues, and there could be gas issues. What kind of dust and gas monitoring are proposed? MR. Poole says material is stabilized, whereas gas is _ • more of an issue with fresh material. That is why they will do it during the winter but Hamilton says there could be warm weather. Lagoon excavation is "disgusting," says Hamilton.There are deodorizers and lime in the plans. Hamilton views the Health and Safety Plan. Pabich comments that it is in Mr. Poole's interest to present something to put the neighbors at ease that the applicant will do everything in its power to make sure there will be no dust control/public health issues. If it is a memorandum of understanding it will be between MPNA, Board of Health and the applicant Mr. Lebovici suggests that the MPNA be contacted and asked if they should be the appropriate participants in this process, as they are not present tonight. A copy of the Heath and Safety plan should be given to them. The RAM and Health and Safety plans were only recently provided,but not to the MPNA. Hamilton comments that everything in the Health and Safety plan seems boilerplate. There was no specific odor or dust monitoring proposed, since it was not required as long as things were covered and wet down, but now they are getting into the actual waste, not just doing demolition. Pabich thinks dust monitoring is a reasonable requirement. Mr. Poole says that the DEP asks for it if necessary, but there are no high levels of lead—no hazardous materials in upper concentration limits,just urban fill type materials. • Chair Knisel asks if a type of dust monitoring should be conditioned. The applicant will use dust track monitors as a minimum, and usually has someone qualified put a Heath and Safety plan together. Is this to protect the resource or should Mr. Poole work with Board of Health? Dust in the resource area is a concern, and this is through the concerns of the • neighbors but has to do with resource areas. Dust monitoring usually involves weight, and Hamilton means particulate monitoring. There is a discussion of dust vs. contamination. Dust control plans are usually drafted by LSP's. Both the RAM and Health and Safety Plan were done by an LSP. Mr. Poole says they can make it a condition to present a dust monitoring plan outlining distances when excavating and moving. Jane Arlander asks if Mr. Poole has chosen their LSP. Poole states that they have one on board. Chair Knisel states that the Commission is not ready to make a decision and would like to continue in order to bring the LSP in for the next meeting, or to have the dust monitoring plan in hand to review, at a minimum. Dust control plans are already there and are available online, and copies of the RAM plan are in the packets. Hamilton would like documentation on where materials will be placed, especially stabilized material that is being left onsite. Mr. Poole doesn't know if they will need to put it there, it is just an alternative option. If they do it will be outside of the 200' zone. Hamilton says to document this, but Mr. Poole says it is in the RAM plan. Hamilton didn't see it. They are not sure if it was included in the NOI; it could be conditioned. Hamilton said tests were not run but Mr. Poole rebuts that tannery waste does not usually fail TCLP toxicity. They would only know after it is out of the ground, in a pile, after characterization. Mr. Poole asks about another meeting for dust monitoring/particulates, but if it • is in the Order of Conditions, he will make sure they have it within a week. He would like to move forward before bad weather moves in. Blier wants to hear this presentation by an LSP before they issue the order. Pabich would also prefer a discussion with the LSP before the Commission. Pabich points out that no soil will be moved without an LSP there anyway. The next meeting is Jan. 12. That means nothing will be done this year. Pabich wonders why this was not brought before the Commission in June. Knisel says it is just the beginning of the winter. Mr. Poole says he was here in November too but had to wait for funding. Knisel says there will be no consensus on the issuance of an Order of Conditions tonight. Devine outlines the Commission's requests: • Dust monitoring plan • LSP must present to the Commission • Develop a framework with the Board of Health to have an MOU showing that it, the applicant and the MPNA are in agreement with respect to addressing the neighbors' concerns ' A motion to continue is made by McAuliffe, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. 8 5.Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—United States Coast Guard, . 300 Metro Center Boulevard, Warwick, RI. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss installation of aids to navigation at 3 offshore ledges in Salem Sound: Brimbles, Hardy Rock and Satan Rock. Kate Schweitzer is here for the applicant. They are charged with repairing and replacing these aids to navigation. They are missing or severely damaged; they mark dangerous rocks. They are currently unmarked and the markers must be replaced. More durable supports for the aids will be installed. This involves drilling a hole in the rock, putting in a new pole and grouting it. It is unknown when they were last replaced but they were damaged or destroyed over the last year from storms. These aids have seen 30' waves. Grout application is injected from the bottom of the hole up, from a barge. They don't specify to the contractor which grout to use, but the grout must meet certain specifications. All work is to be done at low tide. This is a public bid process but Ms. Sweitzer does not expect many bidders as this is very specialized work. Pabich asks about the location of the holes –they may be at or near the same spot; if nearby the original rod will be cut off. The Coast Guard was requested to do this by a local yacht club that alerted them to the issues. They hope to work this summer, depending on budget. She does not know the method of drilling- it will depend on the contractor. There will be a 22" diameter hole. Mr. Robert Leavens of 385 Magnolia Ave, Gloucester, a summer resident of Baker's Island, comments. He has very rarely seen Brimbles above water, and it only barely emerges, so he • comments that they will only be able to drill one or two days a year at extreme low tides, unless they are drilling underwater. Also he is unsure about what the resource area is and who controls it. Is it Commonwealth of Massachusetts bottomlands and does this Commission have jurisdiction? Any land under a water body has Commission jurisdiction. Pabich wonders about the mechanism--drilling into rock--will produce waste. Schweitzer notes that there is no method of collection. It is material that was already there,just in a different state. Elizabeth Ware of 84 Federal St. Newburyport asks if all markers are within Salem Waters; they are. Six aids will be worked on; one is in Marblehead and others in Manchester. Marblehead did not want a filing but they will do an RDA in Manchester. The depth of the hole will be 10' and the marker will be 30' above mean high water. The pole is 45' but can vary to ensure that the base is 30' above mean high water. Mr. Leavens thanks the Coast Guard for undertaking this project; patchwork repair attempts in the past have not lasted. It is agreed that boats crashing would pose much worse environmental problems. Signs are being engineered to withstand 30' waves. Sediment removal and grout application can't really be addressed; Pabich says both should be done carefully and not in excess. Blier wonders about tide levels and the process of drilling in water vs. dry rock. There is no variation in technique and it will depend on the contract. What if they say they can't drill? Will the signs only be mounted on the rock? In that case, Ms. • Schweitzer would not come back before the Commission as it would be a replacement in kind, not drilling. 9 Mr. Levins asks if the drill bit is lubricated. She does not know. Pabich says large drill rigs are normally lubricated with water, and he hopes this is the case, but it cannot be conditioned. A motion to close the public hearing is made by McAuliffe, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. Devine will process the RDA and send it. Schweitzer says the Coast Guard is open to recommendations on how to do the work and can work them into the bid specs. Mr. Leavens notes that it is not clear what the resource area is here. If there is an island—coastal bank, beach, etc.then out to resource area, to 200 or 400 feet would have to do with depth. But there is no shoreline here, so it is all bottomlands, not intertidal, even though it is exposed, since there is no upland to make it intertidal. A motion to issue a negative 2 determination is made by Pabich, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 6. Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Mark Tremblay, 7 Laurier Road, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a shed within buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands at 7 Laurier Road. Presenting is Mark Tremblay. He describes the shed as a wooden structure, 8'x12'. It was on the opposite corner of the property where there is a catch basin. Wetter weather and large storms have overflowed the catch basin; it is functioning but there is a lot of water. All surrounding yards are flooded. Prior to the 60" drainage, there was a swamp or small pond there. When the • drainage line was installed, the pond went away. There has never been that much water in that area. He has concerns about the golf course; the perimeter has some drainage but this is why he wants to remove his shed to the other end of the yard, since it gets inundated. This is an after-the-fact filing; the shed has been installed already. Chair Knisel wants to know how it is not creating a negative impact; Mr. Tremblay says that the garage is much larger and closer to the wetland (20'x30' and 20' away vs. 8x12' and 50' away). He tried to build it as far from the wetlands as possible without being in the middle of the yard. Blier asks how the shed is fixed to the ground. It is on a slab that could be removed if needed. There was no excavation involved; it was just poured with stops. Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. Pabich comments that most of the property is in the buffer zone and all construction should at least be run through the Agent. Mr. Tremblay says that a small shed doesn't require a building permit, so he was assuming he did not need to come before the Commission, and Mr. Pabich says he still at least needs to call Devine. Mr. Tremblay filed the next day once Devine approached him. A motion to close the public hearing is made by McAuliffe, seconded by Pabich and passes unanimously. • 10 d b Blier, and asses made b Pabich seconded , A motion to issue a negative 2 determination ism y Y P unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Mildred Ananayo, 37 Intervale Road, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed removal of trees within buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands at 37 & 39 Intervale Road. Presenting is Mildred Ananayo. Large tree branches have fallen on the property, so they would like to cut the tree down. There are also nearby trees they would like to remove. Devine outlines the situation; the applicant contacted Carey Duques (the previous Conservation Agent) a couple of years ago, thinking the large oak tree was on Conservation Commission land, but a survey plan submitted in 2001 with the RDA for construction of the house indicates it is on Mildred's property. It is still in the buffer zone, so the Commission needs to approval its removal. The applicant wants to discuss removal of 2 trees in Conservation Commission land. The applicant may want to also remove an additional tree that is outside the buffer zone, and the Commission has no jurisdiction on that. Pabich asks if these are the same trees that they wanted to cut to improve satellite dish reception. These are different trees, on the side. Chair Knisel asks about tree trimming vs. full removal; the applicant will do what the Commission wishes; someone told her if you cut large branches, you • will kill the tree. It would cost$1200 just to cut a branch. This request is for safety issues. Also a builder told her oak trees draw termites into a house. Blier points out that trees, particularly big trees, need to be maintained and periodically pruned and balanced to be stable. Dead wood must be removed before large branches become hazardous. He thinks the large oak is impressive, probably over 100 years old, and he would like the applicant to consider the value the tree brings to her home. Taking it down will cost more than pruning it, possibly 3-4 times as much. What will the Commission allow in terms of impact to wetland area? The applicant has not received professional advise. Pabich says that more trees in the buffer zone enhance the resource and are desirable. He believes she should be allowed to remove this tree since it is on the far edge of the buffer zone, but he would prefer an alternative. Blier opines that she should consult an arborist, a tree doctor who can give feedback on what is best for the tree and safety. Knisel asks if the Commission can issue a negative determination with a preference for pruning. It is the homeowner's decision, ultimately, as it is not critical to the resource area. They want her to feel safe, but pruning would be preferred. A Negative'determinatioii can be issued with conditions because it is in the buffer zone. There are two other trees in question but Ms. Ananaya is going to consult an arborist first. Pabich is opposed to cutting anything on Conservation Commission property. She will have to consult the Commission further before cutting anything on Conservation Land. The Commission owns • 39 Intervale Raod. 11 A motion to close the public hearing (there is no public present, so no one comments) is made by McAuliffe, seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously. Conditions: • • Although the large oak tree the applicant's property maybe removed, the Commission strongly recommends obtaining advice from an arborist regarding alternatives to removal. • No tree on the neighboring Conservation Commission property at 39 Intervale Road may be removed. A motion to issue a negative 3 determination is made by Pabich, seconded by Blier, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Old/New Business • Discussion of application submittal requirements Devine notes that a member is concerned that by not having a professional and thorough submittal, the Commission's time can be wasted guiding an applicant through the process. Devine would like guidance from the Commission on whether he should turn applications away if he knows the applicant needs more. If Devine feels the application is incomplete, should he not accept it? Blier thinks they should be complete because the general public is expecting more details. • Devine can provide feedback as a courtesy to applicants in order to not waste their time before the Commission. If the submittal is inadequate, it won't be on the agenda. He does have that authority according to the DEP; if instructions that go with NOI are not followed, it can be held up. Pabich says that any project of significant size, say larger than 1000 square feet, must have topographic lines and an engineer's stamp. There should be no vague language, and it should include plans for soil placement, etc. It should include what they intend to do and discuss specific aspects of the work. Final site conditions should also be outlined. If the Commission does not have the information necessary to make a decision, Devine should turn down the application. Pabich thinks they should require a signed, stamped design plan for NOI's for projects over a certain size, but Devine says it is in the instruction for the NOI. Pabich notes that the NOI instructions say that certain things are necessary if a Commission deems it to be. Devine states that he can give applicant's guidance on what the Commission requires. • Discussion of wetlands violations 77 Valley St. is a single family property with a stream passing behind it. The homeowner called the Health Agent to report a sewage odor. The Health Agent then alerted the Conservation • Commission to the issue. The applicant builds an ice rink each year right along the stream, using stream water. There is also a bridge over the stream and something along the banks. There may 12 also be boulders places in the stream to create a waterfall. Devine reached out to the owner,but • he is unwilling so far to cooperate. Pabich asks about the setup. The owner has done something to the bank and mayor may not have built a waterfall by putting boulders in the stream. The stream runs through his backyard. Devine says he asked him to file with the Commission but he refused. A first written notice via certified mail may be in order. McAuliffe asks if the violations are clear and specific. Does the homeowner understand the Commission's concerns? Devine made them clear on the phone, but it would be clearer in a letter stating that that the Commission has jurisdiction 100' from the banks of an intermittent stream, and he has unpermitted activity within that area. They can't prove that he has activity in the water without looking. Knisel says to draft a letter outlining violations and requesting him to come before the Commission, and if there is no response they will move forward with fines. Devine says it was considered an intermittent stream in a recent filing by a neighbor 2-3 houses down. Since it is not a perennial stream, it has no jurisdictional riverfront area; but it still has jurisdictional land under ; water and banks with a 100' buffer zone. r • Old Creek Salt Marsh At Salem State neighbors on Monroe road are pushing yard waste into the salt marsh. Devine has • talked to Salem State. Devine may do some outreach then Salem State may clean it up as it is their property. It is near the Greenhouse School, down the road from Loring Ave. Devine describes the setting. The University may be willing to install signage. Knisel suggests a different fence could be installed. • Camp Lion Devine has not had any luck getting in touch with the trail builders who constructed what may be a stream cut. The Commission recommends putting a request in writing to the attorney. • Discussion of proposed 2012 meeting schedule Meetings will continue to be held every 2nd and 4d'Thurs. of the month except for August, November, and December. • DEP#64-492,Salem Suede: Discussion of requirements for a certificate of compliance Salem Suede will be asking for a Certificate of Compliance for their demolition, and they want to know if they need to submit an as-built plan. Knisel said they could submit a letter rather than an illustration. • Miscellaneous 13 There is a stormwater conference next week at Raytheon in Tewksbury, which will cost $30 plus travel. Devine has been to one of these before. He would like to go because the City is trying to • expand its stormwater management authority beyond the Commission. There will be representatives from the EPA and DEP to give updates on requirements on implementing the Clean Water Act locally. A motion to approve $30 registration plus travel expenses is made by Blier, seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously. MBTA, represented by TRC (Hamilton, a TRC employee, recuses herself for this discussion), requests to repair a washed out section of concrete seawall by the MBTA parking lot near an outfall pipe. Devine notes that it is legal for someone to repair or maintain a lawfully existing structure, as long as there is no expansion or significant reconstruction, without even filing an RDA. This is based on a Massachusetts Appeals Court case. The Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions has requested that the DEP codify this as it revises its wetlands regulations. The Commission has no objections to this work. A motion to adjourn is made by McAuliffe, seconded by Blier, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 9:08 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission • Approved by the Salem Conservation Commission on January 12, 2012 14 �ONWT� CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 6:00 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3"'floor conference room, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. Julia Knisel �I Y Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Meeting Minutes—December 8,2011 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64518—Michael O'Brien,5 Broadmoor Lane, Peabody, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of slabs and footings and remediation of contaminated materials within riverfront area, land subject to coastal storm flowage and buffer zone to coastal bank at 72 Flint St(Former Salem Suede). g. Old/New Business • DEP#64-492, 72 Flint Street(Demolition of former Salem Suede buildings): Request for certificate of compliance • DEP#64-501, 1 Dove Ave. (Shaughnessy-Kaplan Hospital): Request for certificate of compliance • DEP#64-513,44 Columbus Ave.: Construction update • Update on wetlands violations Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law MG.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. 2 -v r- a s :K„ a H r- i �r" N 3 u CD This n+ofte eosled on "Official 6 etir► Board" City Man �� salem, Mass. on St n�,4, 5001E Page r of i Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting i Date and Time: Thursday,January 12, 2012, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairwoman Julia Knisel,David Pabich, Michael Blier, Amy Hamilton,Dan Ricciarelli Members Absent: Gavin McAuliffe Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chairwoman Julia Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:05 PM. 1. Meeting Minutes—December 8,2011 A motion to approve the minutes is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-518—Michael O'Brien, 5 Broadmoor Lane,Peabody,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of slabs and footings and remediation of contaminated materials within riverfront area, land subject to coastal storm flowage and buffer zone to coastal bank at 72 Flint St(Former Salem Suede). • Devine comments that one of the neighbors wanted to ensure that their 12/8/2011 letter, which was submitted to Devine and to the applicant, was read into the record.Lorene Scanlon, president of Mack Park Condominium Association at 75-77 Mason St., reads the letter stating their concerns aloud. Chairwoman Knisel summarizes the situation so far. In November, removal,cleanup and backfilling were discussed.Erosion control measures and the condition of the existing wall were also discussed.There was a site visit and meeting again in December.The location of stockpiled materials was to be relocated and the Commission requested that Mr. Poole bring a dust monitoring plan to them, and to have an LSP present at this meeting.Devine was also going to follow through with the Board of health regarding dust issues. Larry Ramdin, the Salem Health Agent, speaks about the dust issues.They will be monitoring the entire construction phase, and dust, noise and odors fall under nuisance regulations, which his department enforces. The plan was received this afternoon, though other communication was received Monday regarding moving the stockpile. He is much more satisfied with the new location,but has not yet thoroughly reviewed the document.He will also be in contact with the LSP. He intends to monitor this project closely. Presenting for the applicant is Bruce Poole.The LSP is not yet present as he was caught in traffic.Mr. Poole summarizes the changes made.The Health and Safety Plan (HASP) now contains more specific information on contaminants and their levels.Action levels and a monitoring plan for dust,noise and odor have been added. Groundwater monitoring has also been added.The decontamination steps for the equipment and vehicles leaving the site were also detailed. • He shows the Site Plan dated 12/5/11 to describe the changes.The piles have been moved from the back area only for the oily waste. Landfill and lagoon waste, which have the potential to be odiferous, will be moved behind the Bonfanti building, though there is no slab there.A secure trailer will be onsite for hazardous spill control materials and storage of air monitoring gear in the area.They will not need a 1 generator as they will be connected to the Bonfanti electrical supply.There is also a slab in the decontamination area where all vehicles will be brushed of all solid material with brooms; the material will then be placed into a sludge dumpster, where all daily consumables, common trash, and food will go. If there is grease and/or staining on vehicles that cannot be removed mechanically, a pressure washer will be used and the liquid collected via lined sump, then placed into a frac tank. The stockpiled concrete will be moved next to the Mason realty property. There will be four stations for air monitors.Locations are tentative as of now. One is near the North River to gauge particulates moving toward the resource area. The purpose of the Health and Safety Plan is to protect the workers.They will use a device that measures particulates with a laser beam. Mr. Poole describes the process and setup of the equipment. Illustrations of the dust monitoring equipment are also presented.There will be some background such as pollen. If there are issues with dust, corrective actions such as stopping loading and movement will be taken. Surfaces will be wet down, they will wait for the wind to abate,and some piles,especially ash, may need to be covered hourly. Area A, a sludge lagoon, may contain sulfur-based gasses. Certain levels will require them to put respirators on the employees.There is a threshold of 1 ppm. Twice a day they will attend to each station and test with the meter to detect any readings and take corrective actions such as spreading lime and cement kiln dust to reduce odor.The pile could be moved further if odor problems persist. Spray deodorant misters may also be used.The deodorant/masking agent combines with sulfides to neutralize odor. The only volatile organic they have found is naphthalene.They will monitor all excavations. An action limit of 1ppm is also established for this compound. A manual log recording these numbers will be given to the Board of Health weekly. • If further VOC's are found, they will identify the type and source, then cover and contain the area until it is identified. A decimeter to measure noise will be used next to all equipment. Generally there is a 120 decibel limit for workers at the site; ear protection is recommended for over 85 decibels.The vehicular noise level regulations of 80 decibels are used at property lines.Equipment would be stopped or the rate of work slowed if noise levels exceed the acceptable level. Mats could also be placed on slabs so that the vibrations do not translate to noise as easily. Most slabs are poured floor slabs of 4-6" with little steel. They were not load bearing floors and not much effort will be needed to break them up; however one of them is 12"thick with a lot of steel, and will be more difficult, requiring mats. A building permit request has also been filled out. Devine is being included in the process,as is the Board of Health.Mr.Poole also attended the Mack Park Neighborhood Association (MPNA) meeting this past week and discussed issues with passersby.They are still awaiting the LSP for answers to questions on the RAM Plan. Pabich asks if there are descriptions on how they will handle breaking up the thicker slab at the seawall. Mr.Poole states that if there will be a riverwalk there, in a setback of 25-30', they could just leave it as it is in good shape,and make it into a seating area, similar to the one on the other side. Pabich asks if there are contaminated soils that must be remediated underneath.They can get close, and could go under it up to 6% he is not doing it to avoid decontamination, but rather to avoid losing a good structure. • Pabich asks about what the actual plans are, and if there is a plan if the Planning Board doesn't approve that one.The Planning Board would like a riverwalk so this is being considered. Pabich asks if he would 2 like to continue until the plan of interfacing slab, seawall and river is in place. • Pabich would still like to discuss the process for protecting the resource upon demolition at that spot near the river. It will be broken up at right angles, in large pieces, hauled away, and broken up further. Riprap would be added back in. It is unknown how deep the footing of the wall goes. Pabich comments that it must be excavated and rebuilt. Contamination aside, what is the plan for the structure—fixing the wall, riprap,rebuilding?The current plan is to replace with riprap at the same slope as on each side. Currently there are no plans for what will support the riprap in back of the wall. It would have to be backfilled to grade. It is higher than grade by 3'. Pabich asks again what supports the building on the river side.There is a structure above or penetrating the riprap. Pabich would like to see an engineered plan regarding what is going to happen at that interface. Ricciarelli also comments on the size and structure of the slab. Pabich is concerned the riprap will fail if supporting structures are removed. Mr.Poole says the entire footing does not need to be removed, and could be left once contamination is removed.Treatment systems were broken down to grade level and backfilled in the last Order. Pabich would like to see as a condition a structural analysis of the situation, and a plan for it with several options. Dave Bramley, the LSP,arrives at 6:45PM. He comments that they have added more discussion on constituents' concerns, including monitoring during remediation and groundwater sampling frequency, locations and analysis; in response to questions from DEP. Pabich comments that monitoring will occur morning and afternoon; what will be the routine time for air sampling?Dust sampling is continuous during all operations. Air will be monitored during movement periods. Hamilton asks about use of soils onsite; there is no testing of stabilized material to make sure-it is stabilized.They are not concerned with leaching as the soil at this particular location is not contaminated. • It would be tested to find out which"recipe" works best to reuse it on site; if it cannot be used it will be disposed of. No leaching testing has been conducted so far,but would be conducted in advance of excavation.Hamilton says a protocol for stabilization would have to be in place.A contractor will be selected to do pilot testing. Hamilton is concerned that material be tested before being placed anywhere near the resource. It should be documented as being stabilized or under a cap first. A protocol will be in place before stabilization occurs,Mr. Bramley states.Mr. Poole comments that stabilized soils will only be used outside of the resource area.The parking garage will be large, and is where the soils in question will be used. Some material such as ash will not be stabilized, but the larger detritus will be. Hamilton is concerned that there is no final plan, no soil plan, and no description of placement. She would like more detail to answer those questions.The LSP is not sure as the exact volume of soil is not known. Usually a site is excavated until clean soil is hit. Chair Knisel asks for a drawn up plan showing placement of stabilized materials outside the buffer zone.Pabich typically requests that plans be stamped by an engineer;the Heath and Safety Plan is not. Mr.Bramley says they are usually not stamped as they are electronically registered,but he can sign this if necessary Chair Knisel asks if the plan should be a condition, or submitted before the Commission moves forward. Mr.Poole says it may be that no soil is used on site. There are several disposal options, with onsite stabilization as one possibility. Hamilton does not like that there is no detail as to how it will be handled, in that case. Pabich asks about the bank and excavation near the B2 boring. What is the depth of excavation? It will be 34' before hitting clay/natural materials. Pabich discusses elevations there again and Mr.Poole explains the setup.Pabich would like a work plan and description from a structural engineer describing how they . will handle that impact along the riverfront. He seeks a letter to the Commission along with photographic documentation of pre-work conditions,followed by evidence afterward that the area was not disturbed. That can be provided. The contract on the site specifies that one as the last area that will be excavated, due to its sensitivity. 3 c The area will be hand-shoveled as equipment will not be allowed there. No machines will go past the sludge tanks.Mr. Bramley states that a vacuum truck could also be used if soil is loose enough; Pabich states that the problem is that soil is holding up the structure. Mr. Poole states that work could be done incrementally.Pabich says that the riprap was not designed with proper bedding material and filter fabric; he would like to see that detail and design plan to rebuild if they have to go down further. It could be conditioned in a letter, but there should be a dialogue between the Engineer and the Commission. Chair Knisel says they would have to come before the Commission and submit a plan. Mr. Poole is amenable to that.They will submit an engineering plan for the wall in any case. Chairwoman Knisel recaps the conditions discussed: • Riprap: A structural engineering analysis of current conditions and type of work to be performed is required. If there will be disturbance to structural integrity, an engineered plan for reconstruction must be submitted. A letter must also be submitted evaluating the interface between the large slab in Area G and the wall; this should outline, in their best opinion,how that excavation should move forward for minimal disturbance. • Reuse of materials: The applicant must present documentation of sampling for leachability and the Commission requires a stamped plan showing potential zones where reuse of stabilized material will occur(which must be outside the buffer zone and riverfront area). • Soil stockpiling location and monitoring of activity by the Board of Heath have been satisfied, from a Commission perspective. Pabich says that the stamped plan should include both sets of data, from the Site Plan plus the location of the stabilized materials.The Plan should include potential reuse areas and be stamped by an LSP. • Chair Knisel opens to the public. Bill Penta of 89 Flint St. speaks. He is concerned about protection for the residents, as protection for workers was all that is mentioned. If the box is beeping for three hours, before being discovered, that is a problem for dust monitoring. He asks if boxes can be placed on Flint Street on a telephone pole.They are on a tripod and covered.They are directly next to the property line of residences.Mr.Penta is concerned that they can move them wherever they want.Mr. Poole thinks they would be most sensitive there. If they are stationary, they cannot be repositioned. Mr. Poole states that the units have computer information bases in them. If they failed to be read that day, they must report to the Board of Health.Mr. Penta is still not satisfied, as hazardous materials would be emitted in the meantime. Mr. Poole points out that this is concrete dust, not hazardous materials. Chemicals are in the soil and dust levels will be low. Mr.Poole says they are doing the standard procedure but Mr. Penta wants a guarantee that no one will be harmed. He also asks about entering the site. One egress is the right of way on to Mason St., to 114, and the other is for Aggregate, a left onto Flint St.,Boston St. to Lowell St..The part of Flint St. with railroad tracks will not be used.Mr.Penta is still concerned with the plan. He will speak to residents. Chair Knisel offers to provide Mr. Penta with the Board of Health contact information. Jane Arlander of 93 Federal St. wonders if the truck route being used could be specified in the Order of Conditions. Chair Knisel says she can work that out w/Mr. Poole offline, not here.Ms. Arlander also asks about groundwater testing. It came up in the first NOI and the LSP at that time said it would be done during cleanup. Mr.Poole states that, in the RAM plan, there will be additional monitoring wells installed • and sampling conducted for a baseline condition prior to excavation. Some wells will be destroyed during excavation, and then replaced afterward and periodic groundwater monitoring will occur to assess 4 effectiveness of the remediation. • Peter Phillips of Linden St. asks if a study has been conducted on impact to the South Essex Treatment Plant.The Commission has not received a plan for redevelopment of the site and is not reviewing that at this time. Mr.Phillips should come back when that is before us. Mr.Poole says that the tannery had a pretreatment system in 1985, which used to process 200-300K gallons/day, and processing 50K gallonstday up until closing.Their waste was strong so they needed such a system to release into the sewer.Normally there is no pretreatment for residential discharges. Lorene Scanlon wants to confirm the timeframe of 6-9 months.The Bonfanti building will also be demolished in this timeframe; quotes are being solicited.Meg Twohey, of 122 Federal St., asks about the number and size of trucks onsite on an average day,and when it will peak.This is outside of Conservation Commission jurisdiction.Mr. Poole is allowed to answer briefly; there will be a 10 wheeler and medium excavator onsite.For slab demolition there will be a 2nd excavator and 2nd 10 wheeler. Material will only be moved when all can be taken to Aggregate;then trailer trucks and semis will be used.There will be 3-6 loads per day for one week, once there is a pile. Ms.Twohey also asks about the inspection process; how does this Commission oversee the project and interact with the Board of Health?Devine will communicate with the Board of Health, and he can inspect work as frequently as he desires. Ms.Towey wonders if this be conditioned upon the Commission's ability to inspect the site. Chair Knisel says if limits are exceeded,the Board of Health can contact Devine.That Board is not otherwise a part of conditions. Steve Woolfenden of-85 Flint St. asks if there is a comprehensive list of all known contaminants on site. It is in the HASP and RAM plans,the results of 15 test bores, and 9 test pits; it is available on the DEP website and Mr.Poole can also print or email a copy. • Amber Wolfenden asks when work will start. It will begin two weeks after an Order of Conditions is in hand,after the appeal period is up.This would be at the end of February or beginning of March, lasting 6- 9 months. Pabich only wants to issue the Order of Conditions if the HASP is signed and stamped,with a letter, all being sent to the Commission through Devine prior to any work so they can review and approve it. Hamilton also approves of that. To recap: • There will be a structural analysis of existing riprap and work to be performed in that area. • Testing of material to be reused onsite will occur,and a report will be delivered to the Commission if it will be reused. • Submission of stamped site plan with delineation of areas where soil will be reused(overlaid on the existing site plan) is required. • A letter from a structural engineer regarding Area G will also be submitted.This could be the same letter regarding how excavation will impact the wall, and should include a plan for dealing with any impact. • All of these are pre-construction conditions Devine will draft the above and show Chair Knisel and Pabich for approval. Ricciarelli asks if the Commission can condition stabilization of the site, in the event that the job is not finished on time. What condition will it be left in if not finished?There is boilerplate language in the standard Order of Conditions. Blier comments that there is no notation on the drawing showing what the • intention is,but Pabich says all excavations will be brought to grade on a daily basis, so there will never be any holes left in the ground. There is some question as to what happens in the event that limits in the air monitoring plan are exceeded 5 �i and when the Board of Health should contact Devine. The Commission will be sent the weekly monitoring report or daily notification of corrective action if limits are exceeded. Pabich comments on the bank area again, and wants to see detail on any work done there. A small detail/ . visual plan is acceptable. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously Pabich motions to issue an Order of Conditions with conditions, is seconded by Ricciarelli, and the motion passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 3. Old/New Business • DEP#64-492,72 Flint Street(Demolition of former Salem Suede buildings): Request for certificate of compliance Devine recaps: buildings are down;there was enforcement action, fines were issued and paid in full. Defects in the slabs have been addressed,and he has inspected the site and confirmed that the work complies with all conditions.The site is secure with no holes in the fence. A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance is made by Pabich, seconded by Blier, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. • DEP#64-501, 1 Dove Ave. (Shaughnessy-Kaplan Hospital): Request for certificate of compliance • Devine says that the Commissioners have materials for the sewer bypass project.The outstanding issue was the substitution of maple trees for cherry; they were not satisfied.The applicant had a wetland scientist assess the situation and recommend 8 shrubs; 12 were planted.The scale of shrubs is visible in the photos. Blier comments that shrubs may be more beneficial than maples. A motion to issue is made by Hamilton, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. • DEP#64-513,44 Columbus Ave.: Construction update The house was approved for an addition on the seaward side, including a new foundation under the addition. A couple commissioners were concerned that the work exceeded what was permitted.The applicant did additional work piece by piece, with new walls, windows and roof. Pabich states that these additional elements are not typically the concern of the Commission if there is not disturbance to the ground. Devine agrees and says that nothing has occurred that requires further actions to protect the resource area beyond the protections already in place under the order of conditions. • Update on wetlands violations US Biological: An unpermitted Comcast internet line was installed in the buffer zone along the wetlands between the building site and Swampscott Road.There were no erosion controls in place and they went into a critical area quite nearly into a swampy wetland and left it disturbed. Devine met on site with the contractors and had them stop work and install erosion controls.There will be an after-the-fact notice of • intent assessing the impact. Spencer Contracting did the work. Ricciarelli asks about imposing fines. Devine says although it is a serious violation, they 6 t responded and corrected the situation, addressing all points quickly. Devine issued a letter with a specific deadline for submittal of a notice of intent, so if they fail to meet that requirement, fines • may be imposed. And if they fail to maintain their erosion controls or violate the stop work order for this location, fines should be considered. But since they responded rapidly to all of Devine's requests, fines would not have much purpose. They may have to do some restoration of the resource area and buffer zone, which is a burden and an expense that could have been avoided if they had sought proper permitting for the work. This unpermitted work was outside the area where the building is being constructed. However, Devine is monitoring all construction activities closely and has made it clear that further unpermitted work will have penalties. 77 Valley St.: Devine mail a certified violation letter regarding unpermitted activity around a stream. Salt Marsh at Salem State Central Campus: Letters will be sent to all residents near the area of illegal dumping along Monroe Road. McAuliffe, who is not present, had commented on the Burnham property abutting the North River, parallel to the North St. overpass.There is an informal walkway to the Commuter Rail station there. He had noted the excessive storage of materials there.Two Orders of Conditions had been denied previously and one was successfully appealed by the owner to make some improvements to the site,but the work was never completed. Enforcement action has been attempted years ago but was not successful. d Pabich says this has been an ongoing topic as long as he has been on the Commission and long before. The only thing to do would be put it to the Division of Solid waste—Burnham is landfilling material • there; nonfunctional equipment is being stored. It appears to be ajunkyard, not a staging area. It is embarrassing—this is how the City is greeting visitors—with trash. Zoning enforcement officer might be able to make him move it,or DEP.The issue could also go before the Building Inspector and Board of Health. Robinson Road and Swampscott Road: Gravel had washed out onto other side of the street. Devine looked, and the gravel pile is in the buffer zone and work has been done there but he cannot tell what it was.There is new asphalt and a pile of gravel. He is worried that the Salem DPW did it, but hasn't gotten any definite information yet. Pabich says it's possible and probable that the road washed out and the gravel washed across, and DPW pushed materials that washed out aside. Devine says that the stockpiled gravel indicates gravel is being added to the area.Pabich says they are probably putting it back on the roadway where it washed out, up on Robinson Road.Devine will investigate further Devine is requesting$110 registration fee plus mileage for the March MACC conference. Pabich motions to approve that amount, is seconded by Riciarelli, and all are in favor. Carole McCauley is no longer with the Commission; her service should be recognized with a gift.The consensus seems to be to take up a collection to purchase rain boots, which will then be signed by the Commissioners. A motion to close the meeting is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously. Respectfully submitted, • Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Salem Conservation Commission on January 26, 2012 7 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting January 12, 2012 Name Mailing Address Phone Email �<°SFfQ i 4 7 3� rG�IOt9.COn� 0 q o � • Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting January 12, 2012 Name Mailing Address Phone Email 669 J_f,AABS 1`o�rrn✓C '3 nzccs /kyrS �, as -qy�- s' iuMT r<b 2 a _ ,y� z� I FF Wo6 � 2y�dP1n I5 {=UNi ST S�(�M �"7�� IZ10 ctwool�e cle grx,�� ,(eVC- o6 e5ale IL QW 0 , q�W . orumew` • Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting January-�;2012 Name Mailing Address Phone Email Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting • Date and Time: Thursday,January 26,2012, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairwoman Julia Knisel,Michael Blier, Amy Hamilton,Dan Ricciarelli, Gavin McAuliffe Members Absent: None Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chairwoman Julia Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:07 PM. i. Meeting Minutes—January 12,2012 A motion to approve the minutes is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Pabich, and passes unanimously. 2. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Boston Gas Company d/b/a National Grid, 170 Medford Street, Malden, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed installation of a new gas main within riverfront area and buffer zone to a coastal bank on Hubon Street between Bridge Street and the North River. Here for the applicant is Mike Toohill with Coneco Engineer & Scientists. He describes the setup; they will be in the street in the riparian zone. It is a small 2" plastic pipe for side service off the main in Bridge St. They will do the work in April; Boston Gas Co. will do it themselves in a few days. Plates may be down for a day or two, but trenching will be small. Erosion control measures would include silt sacks around catch basins; there is only one catch basin down at the end. Pabich suggests either that, or a policy of no soils stored onsite at all, especially as erosion control may be difficult. Chip bales can be used on pavement since erosion controls can't be staked. That can be conditioned. A chip bale is a burlap sack with wood chips in it, which conforms to the pavement shape. They can come in tubes or sacks. Bales are lighter than tubes. Pabich comments that one end of the street runs downhill and there is a vertical face of a building entry, seawall, and driveway and a lawn area that may experience ponding. Thus, a policy of no open soils onsite would be preferable to erosion control. A few controls at the end of the street could be used if they would be appropriate too, and these would not cause problems for the property owner at the end of the street. Devine suggests a negative 2 and 3 determination with conditions. Pabich says they should condition erosion controls to be placed as necessary at the end of the street. • Conditions: There should be sufficient erosion controls on hand, to be used as necessary. An environmental engineer could also be conditioned to inspect it. Any soils should also be covered. The trench 1 will be closed each night--only one day's worth will be opened at a time. Any open stockpiles should be offsite, out of the resource area. Chair Knisel opens to the public but there is no one in the audience, and thus, no comments. A • motion to close the public hearing is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliffe, and passes unanimously A motion to issue a Negative Determination (2 and 3) with conditions is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliffe, and passes unanimously. 3. Old/New Business Commissioners received an email about Environmental Notification Form (ENF) for Salem's Urban Renewal Plan update. Devine notes that the plan does not involve any actual construction activity, but the ENF is required by statute. Devine can provide more information if needed. Devine asks if reappointed commissioners have taken their oak. Ricciarelli has but Pabich hasn't yet. A parting gift for former commissioner McCauley is discussed. The Splaine Park grant came through, in no small part due to Dan Ricciarelli's efforts. A motion to adjourn is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliffe, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 6:30PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on February 9, 2012. • 2 yPy CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION January 27, 2012 Michael J. Toohill, PWS, CE Coneco Engineers & Scientists, Inc. 227 Chelmsford Street, Suite C Chelmsford,MA 01824 Re: Determination of Applicability—Hubon Street Gas Main Dear Mr.Toohill: Enclosed, please find the determination of applicability for the above-referenced property. Please be advised that work must comply with the following special conditions as issued by the Conservation Commission. 1. Adequate erosion and sediment controls shall be on hand to install as needed. 2. All stockpiled materials within the riverfront area shall be covered. • 3. Worksite shall be inspected regularly to ensure that sediment does not migrate away from immediate area of excavation. 4. Contact me at least 24 hours prior to start of work. This document is effective for three years from its date of issuance. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 978-619-5685. Sincerely, Tom Devine Conservation Agent/Staff Planner Enclosures CC: DEP Northeast Regional Office David Knowlton, City Engineer Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection . Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 - Determination of Applicability_ Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. General Information Important; When filling out, From: forms on the Salem :. computer use -- . only the tab : ConservationCommission..: � --- - - .key to move To: Applicant,- Property Owner (if different from applicant): your cursor- do not use the Boston Gas Company d/b/a National Grid City of Salem -- return key. Name _ Name - 170 Medford Street 93 Washington Street Mailing Address Malling.Address Malden MA 02148 Salem MA 01970 ren City/Town State -Zip Code City/Town State Zip Code 1. Title and Date (or Revised Dale if applicable)of Final Plans and Other Documents. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY; Hubon Street Gas 12/1.5_/2_011 :. .... Main Salem;Massachusetts; Figure 4: Project Plan oaie -- ----- Title __..._— . . Date Title Date. 2. Date Request Filed: • 1/4/2012, B. Determination Pursuant to the authority of M.G.L. c. 131, § 40, the Conservation Commission considered your Request for Determination of Applicability, with its supporting documentation, and made the following Determination. Project Description (if applicable), Excavation, installation of new gas main, backfilling,-and repaving to preconstruction.grade. Project Location: - Hubon Street between Bridge St. and North River Salem Street Address ' - _ Clty7Town NA NA - - Assessors Map/Plat Number - Parcel/Lot Number wpaform doc-nelermnafon of App6cauldy-rev.10;5/06 - IF CITY OF SALEM ''`�► CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 6.00 PM at the City Hall Annex,3"ifloor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. Julia Knisel Chair MEETINGAGENDA 1. Meeting Minutes—January. 26,2012 'o- 2. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Boston Gas Company d/b/a National Grid, 170 Medford Street, Malden, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed installation of a new gas main within riverfront area and buffer zone to coastal bank, coastal beach, and floodplain at Lafayette Street between Raymond Road and the Marblehead line. 3. Old/New Business • Update on repair of Forest River Park's southeastern seawall • Update on wetlands violations Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. K n ti r m � - m cor 1 )rn K) r-* rn 0 3 3 w Cil N W This ROOM DOOM on `Oltla4 SU1001V8aerd" City Hall Salem, Mass. on Febr„a z Zo e- ai ti:223A A o09 of WGrr�� sJOa Page i of i Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting February 9, 2012 Name Mailing Address Phone Email � p 0371 1• en Son tCuncoSFe� y, 't ' a ot.�, Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting • Date and Time: Thursday,February 9,2012,6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairwoman Julia Knisel, Amy Hamilton,Dan Ricciarelli, Gavin McAuliffe Members Absent: Michael Blier Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kith Chairwoman Julia Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:06 PM. 1. Meeting Minutes—January 26,2012 A motion to accept the minutes is made by Hamilton, seconded by McAuliffe, and passes unanimously. z. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Boston Gas Company d/b/a National Grid, 170 Medford Street, Malden, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed installation of a new gas main within riverfront area and buffer zone to coastal bank, coastal beach, and floodplain at Lafayette Street between Raymond Road and the Marblehead line. Here for the applicant is Mike Toohill with Coneco Engineers and Scientists. Mr. Toohill confirmed with • DEP by phone that their file number is 64-521, since the online listing is down. National Grid is proposing a new gas main from Raymond Road to the Marblehead line under via Lafayette Street. It is near the Forest River. All work will be done in the street. He shows a schematic drawing and detail. It will be an 8" plastic gas main connecting to existing mains at the above locations. There are smaller mains in the street, but this would be a larger interconnect. They will open 20-40' of road at a time; the work zone is 50' long and the trench 4' wide to accommodate the box. They will bring it down the paved roadway until they approach the Forest River, then it will come out of the road toward the coastal bank side and be hung on the downstream, north face of the Bridge across the Forest River, then will go underground again. There are no alternatives to putting it in the riverfront area–there are too many other utilities and it must go in the road. It is all curb and gutter so they will use silt sacks to protect the catch basins. The trench will be closed every night and then paved with binder course until next year for final paving. It must settle for a year. Erosion controls are limited to silt sacks. If needed, there can be hay bales and silt fence, but there are only two areas where there will be ground disturbance outside of the road.The trench will be shallow, only about 3' deep. Clean material such as gravel will be put back in. Material removed will be brought offsite and tested. Pabich asks about the transition where the pipe leaves the ground.They will remove a section of guardrail and the area will be loamed and seeded.They will only dig up what they can work on that day. Plates will be used in the evening for manhole covers, but there are none at this location. David Knowlton, the City Engineer, is also being consulted because a road opening is required. • McAuliffe asks how long the bike path will be inaccessible; a police officer will reroute bikes and cars around wherever the work area is on a given day. The bike path entrance will only be obstructed one day. They hope to begin this project in March and it will take about four weeks to complete it. I V Knisel opens to the public. Fred Harney of 474 Lafayette St. speaks. He asks about a permit for the bridge, which is state property. According to Dave Knowlton, this road is maintained and owned by the • City; Mr. Harney says the bridge is owned by the Commonwealth. He asks for clarification — the new pipe will be hung from the bridge. Pabich comments on the supports of the bridge; from a visual standpoint there is some screening by a concrete wall on either end; he would like to see the pipe screened by it. Mr. Toohill will ask the engineer. Mr. Harney says that there is a water main in the bridge, but it may not be in use. Can they use that utility bay rather than hang it from the bridge? He also says that there is a problem with gas in the area. The smell of gas has been there for 30 years and they've only ever made one repair. Larry Dennison of 12 Sunset Rd. asks about existing service to his neighborhood. It is not affected, but the purpose of this project is to replace a small pipe connecting two larger ones; the existing pipe is too small. Pabich asks if it is low or high pressure; it is high pressure at 60lbs. Hamilton asks about surfaces; what will protect the pipe if a car has an accident?Mr.Toohill will find out if there will be a bollard. The Commission does not feel a site visit is necessary. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Pabich, and passes unanimously. The commission suggests putting the pipe in the roadbed if feasible. It is also preferable to avoid disturbing the bike lane in order to preserve the smooth surface for cyclists. However, these are merely recommendations.The commission proposes the following conditions: • Catch basins must be working properly before start of work. If they need cleaning, either the city or • the applicant may clean them. • Silt sacks shall be installed in the catch basins before starting work. • The applicant must notify the commission if there is to be any in-water work. A motion to issue the Order of Conditions is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. Changes to the project will require coming back to the commission. Illustrations: Lafayette St.Tie-in; National Grid, Coler&Colantonio 10/3l/1 l 3. Old/New Business • Update on repair of Forest River Park's southeastern seawall A meeting was scheduled for Devine to go out there with Parks and Recreation to see the seawall,near the pool, but the meeting did not happen.There are gates around the expanding sinkhole behind the wall. They tried to fill in with gravel, but it went under the wall and onto the beach. It could be repaired without a permit as long as the wall is not expanded or rebuilt. • Update on wetlands violations Salem State University has committed to cleaning up the yard waste in the salt marsh along Monroe Rd. • and installing signs to discourage further dumping Residents received a letter letting them know that dumping yard waste there is illegal. 2 At 77 Valley St., the owner is reluctantly cooperating and removing various items from the stream. He • should come in for a permit to keep his footbridge,but prefers to just remove it. He complained about sewage coming through the stream and Devine is working with DPW to address that. 70A North St. —The City has struggled to address problems at this property in the past. Devine is working with the Building Inspector and Board of Health to determine what can be done.This situation requires more research into zoning and healt7h regulations.McAuliffe checked the stored equipment for leakage; the only material posing an environmental risk was rubber and plastic material piled on the edge of bank and used as a shelter by homeless people.The worst part is the trash issue. If the owner ever wants to sell the property, removal would make it more marketable. Devine will continue working with Inspectional Services and the Board of Health before considering any action.It is preferable to have a coordinated approach if the city wants to address this. Devine has been in touch with people representing Camp Lion, where there was an alleged stream cut. He believes there is now a better understanding that further work requires consultation with the commission. At Robinson and Swampscott Roads there may be some unpermitted activities occurring. There is an ongoing draining problem there. Gravel has washed across the road and a new pile of gravel was deposited across the street from the marsh to compensate what was washed away. Also a driveway was dug up and repaved where it meets the road and it is unclear what this was for. Devine will talk to the DPW or to the property owner, whoever it is that did the work. Pabich says the road regularly washes out, that this is a wetlands violation since roadway material washes into Thompson's Meadow.The road is dressed twice a year.There are no controls in place and gravel continually washes away.Pabich suggests sending a letter notifying the owner that the situation with the gravel is unacceptable. . There is a large, uncovered pile of material resulting from building demolition at 401 Bridge Street,the site of the planned Gateway Center.The contractor proposes stabilizing the material with winter rye in addition to the erosion controls already in place in the catch basins and along the site's perimeter.The exact contents of the pile are uncertain.Pabich comments that it is open soils in a riparian zone and there is a standing order not to leave such materials.We don't know how long it will take them to develop the site and remove the soils. Chair Knisel suggests that Devine ask them to come before the Commission. Pabich wants to hear not from someone in the development group,but from a specialist or engineer with a license. Stabilizing with winter ryegrass is not a solution— it must be removed or covered, or have an engineer assess the situation. It is part of the larger redevelopment project, but they did not expect to demolish the building so soon. Devine will inform the owner that the material must be covered or removed, or a professional must come before the commission to discuss protection of riverfront area. A motion to adjourn is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by McAuliffe, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 6:57 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kith Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on February 23, 2012. is 3 P CITY OF SALEM � Ise 0 CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,February 23, 1012 at 6:00 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3i i floor conference room, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. n� Julia Knisel Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Meeting Minutes—February 9,2012 2. Public Hearing—Abbreviated Notice of Intent—Warren Shore, 4 Beringer Way,Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss, after the fact, installation of a cable line under Technology Way, running from Swampscott Road to approximately 500' west, within buffer zone to a wetlands resource area. g. Old/New Business • DEP#64-508, 4 Technology Way(United States Biological): Construction Update • Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. w .'�. rn rn aT CD m Wm Cr m 3 = N 3 O 11118 IWOR POO" a" *Offtlat Sup Oil 13owde ilk 2/0an,0 -?h Salem. Mass. on tgb. gym, ZeI2 a ! �t a0 sea Page r of t Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meeting February 23, 2012 Name Mailing Address u Phone Email 6'QoVl 5�1u(L' Pu °k7,(vI SV�Gvwi�5PAl1 _(vV-Q'13 S wcrfenc� �`56��.vL • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, February 23, 2012, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairwoman Julia Knisel, Amy Hamilton, Dan Ricciarelli, David Pabich, Michael Blier Members Absent: Gavin McAuliffe Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chairwoman Julia Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:13 PM. 1. Meeting Minutes—February 9,2012 A motion to approve the minutes is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. 2. Public Hearing—Abbreviated Notice of Intent—Warren Shore, 4 Beringer Way, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss, after the fact, installation of a cable line under Technology Way, running from Swampscott Road to approximately 500' west, within buffer zone to a wetlands resource area. • Here for the applicant are Warren Shore and Dan DiLullo, Architect of DiLullo Associates. Illustration: SitePlan–Technology Way Comcast Trench, 2/15/12 Warren Shore is developing a building on Technology Way for United States Biological. All work was approved under NOI DEP File #64-508. The site contractor dug a trench down Technology Way to Swampscott Rd. for the installation of PVC conduit to get service to the new building, without a permit. Devine noticed it and alerted the relevant parties. As soon as this was known, the contractor put hay erosion controls on site. The trench had already been backfilled at that point; now they are letting the Commission know what happened, where it happened, and will clear up any questions. He shows the trench and installation on the larger illustration. The distance through the wetland buffer is 540 linear feet and the trench was IS" wide. There is a total of 905 square feet of disturbance; the trench was cut into the asphalt, soil removed, conduit installed and the trench filled. The side of most of the road is higher than the pavement, preventing runoff into the wetland. One section of road has sloped granite curbing, keeping materials on the road and going down the hill. Hay bales and silt fencing have been installed, and when weather improves they will repave the road and restore the area by the side of the road. The conduit is installed but there is no cable in it yet. Salem Glass has requested, and Warren has agreed, to let Salem Glass, across the Street, to dig a trench across Technology Way and tie into the conduit. It would still only be 940 square feet of disturbance in that case. Technology Way was not in good shape to begin with on one side; he describes its state before work. Bituminous curb was in poor shape. They will make a neat bituminous edge, then on the slope, they will grade it, remove debris, and plant it with vegetation. On the other end they can only restore to what it was, 1 since they can't stop runoff into the pond area. They will remove hay bales and silt fence, and will • revegetate. There are two 30"conduits under the road and a spillway for when the pond overflows. Very little sediment has washed down. There are slopes and granite curbing but Mr. DiLullo is not sure how much would have moved. Chair Knisel asks if there will be further disturbance to run the cable through the existing PVC conduit; there will not as the cable will be fed through. The only additional disturbance would be to allow the trench to cut across so that Salem Glass can access it. Pabich asks if the current condition is better than the pictures that are being passed around. Devine clarifies — erosion controls are now in place and exposed soil is temporarily covered. The stockpiled material in the photos was also removed. Ricciarelli asks about the positioning of the conduit and Mr. DiLullo explains. All catch basins will be cleaned. No granite curbing has been removed; some was buried to begin with but it does not continue to the comer. Pabich asks if the electric service is underground; it is and Mr. DiLullo points it out on the illustration. Installation of the transformer began today. Water and sewer have been run, and final connections made. Pabich asks if the City is an applicant; Devine says that David Knowlton, City Engineer, signed a copy. Conduit location, granite curbing and hay bales were surveyed. Pabich discusses a departure from the City's norm—bituminous vs. granite curbing on the comer,but that is outside the scope of this Commission. He would like to ask them to consider cleaning it up by extending the laid-back granite curbing (sloped), continuing it to the corner in order to prevent erosion. He understands that this is a difficult corner. Pabich discusses the setup and spillway that was removed; it is a patched spillway in the photo and that should be addressed. Mr. DiLullo says it will be addressed in the restoration. Devine clarifies that curbing would end, facilitating drainage going around the comer. There should be catch basins on either corner but it is outside Commission's scope. DiLullo thinks the • curbing originally did extend around the corner but it has since gone away. Catch basins were not required when Technology Way was finished, and that was an oversight. Ricciarelli comments that they wanted to keep the catch basins off the corner. It looks like it was done on purpose, yet they are at a high point. Ricciarelli requests that Dave Knowlton look at it and Pabich makes some suggestions to improve the situation; Mr. DiLullo brainstorms on the plan as well, and Ricciarelli gives some input. Chair Knisel also discusses the setup. Pabich suggests bringing the curbing down to a point, then having a discussion with Dave Knowlton about letting the water come around the comer or not, depending on the situation. Blier asks for clarification on the amount of disturbed area: 905 square feet, 541 feet by 1.67 feet.. Blier and Mr. DiLullo discuss disturbance and repaving. Chair Knisel asks if there are issues other than disturbance and restoration. Mr. DiLullo says that the area of restoration will be greater than the 905 square feet. But, the Commission agrees that it may not matter. This is an abbreviated Notice of Intent, for projects under 1000 square feet in a simpler form. It is up to the Commission if they want to require a full NOI, but it will lead to the same place, according to Devine. Mr. DiLullo says they will certainly fix more than the trench; Blier still argues that it is more than the 900 square feet.Pabich agrees. Chair Knisel asks if they want a plan showing the area to be restored. Mr. DiLullo would be happy to provide a more detailed plan for restoration. Pabich would like that, and for them to discuss with David Knowlton, the disturbance of the spillway and a proper solution to restore the corner. Pabich would like to see that plan as well, once it is formulated. 2 • Chair Knisel comments that there are no members of the public in attendance, thus no public comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Pabich, and passes unanimously. Three main issues are the connection of the granite curbing, discussion with David Knowlton on addressing the spillway, via a letter from him,followed by a plan to be submitted. The plan to be filed will include the extent of granite curbing, plan for spillway, and extent of the restoration. Mr. DlL11110 clarifies that there was no significant plantings there; no shrubs. Devine confirms. Pabich would like to see more details at the corner, including elevations. Ricciarelli comments that catch basin sumps should be cleaned out. There are four that will be cleaned. The only other unresolved issue was if they would allow the tie-in by Salem Glass. It will be substantially 'in the buffer zone, but measures are in`place for erosion control already. That will be submitted in the more detailed plan. Devine asks what if David Knowlton asks for a catch basin. The commission will review whatever Knowlton proposes. A letter or email from him should be submitted; he does not have to appear at the meeting. The condition is to have a plan that follows from Dave Knowlton's recommendation prior to restoration of that corner. There is also a question of whose property is neighboring for the proposed connection, and if they should be on the application. Should it be a separate filing? Mr. DiLullo will find out where the trench is desired; they know but it is not on the map. Mr. Shore outlines the setup. Devine comments that it may turn out to be beyond the buffer zone in a public way. Salem Glass will be responsible from the edge of the street on, and will have to come before the Commission if that area is in the buffer zone, which Mr. DiLullo thinks it is. CONDITIONS • The applicant is required to submit a detailed plan for review and approval by the Conservation Commission. This plan shall show the total disturbed area and include proposed restoration of the disturbed area at the corner of Technology Way and Swampscott Road. • The specific restoration plan for said area shall be based on the recommendation of the City Engineer and requires approval by the Conservation Commission. Upon approval, applicant must implement this restoration plan. • Upon completion of work, applicant is required to clean the four catch basins between the U.S. Biological building and Swampscott Road. A motion to issue the Order of Conditions, with conditions as discussed above, is made by Pabich, seconded by Blier, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 3. Old/New Business DEP file#64-508 Technology Way: Construction update • Dan DiLullo and Warren Shore present. The building is substantially complete, with a move-in date of April I", Site work is substantially complete with water/sewer/electric run to the site. Catch basins are being installed that run into a detention pond. Some minor adjustments to onsite drainage and utilities 3 1 have been made due to the amount of ledge there. An as-built utility and drainage plan will be submitted, noting these changes. Along one side the site plan says "proposed Versa Lok wall' —a large boulder nprap wall is actually installed there. Mr. DiLullo describes the setup of the ledge; a site engineer is working on a way to cap the cut so there will not be drainage onto their site from the one next door. The driveway is not installed yet. Hay bales are in place around the entire site. The retention pond may be receiving some water now; one catch basin has been installed in less than a week. Pabich requests that they make sure they are not discharging turbid water into the wetland off an open site into an unvegetated drainage area. There is no outlet installed in the basin yet. They are trying to clean up one edge to keep dirt from running off, and they will be able to do plantings early due to the mild winter. Devine asks if the Commission will be satisfied with an As-BuiltPlannoting these changes when the project is complete; they agree that this is sufficient and that no further review is needed. Miscellaneous The large pile of materials at the Gateway Center will be covered in the next few days. Devine will find out what the material contains. The Mayor has appointed Bart Hoskins to the Commission, pending City Council approval. Devine received a courtesy notice from an engineer regarding the expansion of Salem State University's O'Keefe center,which is 250' away from wetlands. ' • 23 Parlee St.: This house was issued an order about a year ago and it was completed without any contact with the-agent of the commission, leaving several conditions unresolved. They are in violation of about a dozen conditions. One of the most burdensome condition is a requirement to verify that the stormwater system at the end of the subdivision was functional. He contacted the owner, who sold the house with the open Order of Conditions which was never recorded on the deed.The house does look like what was planned. He noticed the house on February 15,2012 and the Order was issued February 14, 2011. Often the building department sends the agent a routing slip to sign before a building permit or certificate of occupancy is issued, but not every time. There is a legal question about whether this is the responsibility of the new owner or the previous owner who built it. Pabich drove up Intervale Road and saw that there is a house there,which looks new, with a new wall and driveway. He wondered if they approved it. The house is next door to the one with the oak tree whose removal the commission recently considered. Devine confirms that the Commission did approve a house there through a negative determination of applicability. A motion to adjourn is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Blier, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 7:25 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission . Approved by the Salem Conservation Commission on March 22, 2012. 4 �CONUIT,��4 . l A- CITY OF SALEM a, CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF CANCELED MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday, March 8, 2012 at 6:00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street has been canceled due to a lack of agenda items. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be March 22, 2012. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 §23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. r = rn s wr � rac z D - This romft PooW ofo "Offidel 814d" see" city main Rom, was. an 1,4&,4 i, zoi z • aA 16'. 4°i 4rh pft �� 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 ♦ TEL: 978.745.9595 FAX: 978.740.0404 ♦ WWW.S.ALEWCO:M CITY OF SALEM r CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,March 22, 2012 at 6:00 PM at the City Hall Annex,3'd.l[oor conference room, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. Julia Knisel Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Meeting Minutes—February 23,2012 • 2. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Salco Realty LLC,3 Technology Way, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed installation of a utility conduit within Technology Way and at 3 Technology Way(Salem Glass Company)within a buffer zone to a wetlands resource area. g. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-523—William Wharff,30 Federal St.,Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a parking lot and associated utilities within riverfront area,land subject to coastal storm flowage,and buffer zone to coastal bank at 162 and 150 Federal St. C" 4. Old/New Business r s • 61 and 185 Jefferson Ave.: Discussion of wetlands violation M T r Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sectio r 2029%rough 2- 2033. rn D N tr • w 1 OA Q® C M qty y q� m�Mass. ° d- e• Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission Meering March 22, 2012 Name Mailing Address Phone Email e -741- Y-,67 tS Pf MI 3'1Fc�ry 569 lyq-R77 //P��so�i•,q�cq Can Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting • Date and Time: Thursday,March 22, 2012, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairwoman Julia Knisel,Michael Blier,David Pabich, Gavin McAuliffe Members Absent: Dan Ricciarelli, Amy Hamilton Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chairwoman Julia Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:05 PM. i. Meeting Minutes—February 23, 2012 There was one typo on the last page. A motion to accept the minutes as corrected is made by Pabich, seconded by Blier, and passes unanimously. z. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Salco Realty LLC, 3 Technology Way, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed installation of a utility conduit within Technology Way and at 3 Technology.Way (Salem Glass Company) within a buffer zone to a wetlands resource area. • Here for the applicant is James Miller of Salco Realty. Illustration: DiLullo Associates. Technology Way Comcast Trench Feb. 5 2012, with undated markup US Biological came before the Commission last month to describe the trench which was dug to bring Comcast service to the area. Salem Glass is piggybacking with US Biological to bring Cable to Technology way. They will use a manhole cover and 4" conduit already in place at their building, but it must be connected to the conduit installed previously. Mr. Miller illustrates the area on photos. He describes the setup of his driveway and grassy area. Pabich comments that there is a conduit from the manhole to the back of the building; it must just be connected about 8'. Chair Knisel comments that there was significant discussion at the last meeting, including about this issue, and there were no major reservations about this segment. There will be no disturbance on the other side of the street. Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. The Commission does not wish to place any conditions on the project. . Devine says that this would be a negative 2 determination—the work is subject to Conservation Commission jurisdiction but will not alter the area permanently. A motion to close is made by McAuliffe, seconded by Blier and passes unanimously. 1 A motion to issue a negative 2 determination is made by McAuliffe, seconded by Pabich, and passes unanimously. • 3. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-523--William Wharff, 30 Federal St., Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a parking lot and associated utilities within riverfront area, land subject to coastal storm flowage, and buffer zone to coastal bank at 162 and 150 Federal St. Here for the applicant is Charlie Wear of Meridian Associates. Illustration: Site Development Plan,Jan 25, 2012 and color landscape plan The site is at 162 Federal St. An existing building will be converted to housing. The Church is at 150 Federal and owns the property around it, which it is selling. Mr. Wharff will also buy an adjacent property for parking. The site is currently mostly paved. The North River is directly across the street so this is within riverfront area. One of the first issues is that the North River is tidal, so it is coastal bank, not just bank, and is land subject to flooding on FEMA maps. Devine comments that it is not clear if it is coastal bank or just bank, but Wear comments that it is subject to tidal action so must be coastal bank. It is a canal wall, which is different than a bank. Chair Knisel says there are issues with wave action if they will be calling it coastal. The river at that point is a canal–but is not technically a canal since walls were built over an old riverbed. Mr. Wear says they plan to remove the existing pavement, regrade, and reorient the parking lot. • Within the riverfront area there are some trees along the edge of the site that they intend to leave. Otherwise it is degraded and paved currently. They will create some more green space around the entrance. There will also be an infiltration basin. In the stormwater report they went through the standards for redevelopment. Doing work in a degraded riverfront area involves getting development away from the river and reducing the amount of impervious surface. Mr. Wear quotes the regulations and reviews the applicant's compliance. • There must be improvement over the existing conditions: There will be an overall reduction of 340 square feet in the amount of pavement and new green areas closest to the river. • With regards to stormwater management standards, they are in compliance; within a riverfront area, work must not be closer than the current situation or 100 feet, whichever is less. The entrance will be paved but is not closer to the river than the current paved area. Expansion of further paved areas would be away from the river. • Work may not be greater than the degraded area; the overall amount of pavement is being reduced. • Restoration on a 1:1 scale in the riverfront area: 340 square feet of additional green space will be formed. • There are no new conveyances of stormwater off the property. They are proposing an infiltration basin 2 feet above groundwater, and runoff with go into a sediment forebay, then into the infiltration basin, then to an outlet into Bridge St. drainage system. • • With regard to reduction in attenuation for increases in the rate of runoff, hydrology for the site is included in the application. This area could potentially flood in 100 year floods 2 I due to tides. But they will recapture rooftop flow together with a reduction of impervious surfaces, and this will lead to reduction in flows for 2, 10, and 100 year events • • The standard of no loss in recharge will be addressed by the infiltration basin. As for the water quality standard, the infiltration basin will also address that one. • The pollutant load standard is not applicable; neither is standard six. • Standard 7 addresses redevelopment; the parking lot is not redevelopment, and he is meeting all standards anyway, so it is a moot point. • They have provided erosion control with a silt sock around the perimeter of the site; additionally the infiltration basin could be used for sediment collection initially during construction. • Regarding prohibition of illicit discharges: this is just a parking lot for a residence, so there should be none. DEP commented on the limit of the FEMA flood area, and Mr. Wear illustrates this on the plan. There is no elevation listed, but it coincides with Elevation 10. The DEP also pointed out that the area is 2000 square feet within the flood plain; they are working in but not filling in the flood plain, and actually are removing material and increasing the floodplain. Only the rooftop of the building will run into the infiltration basin and this will not require pretreatment. The rest of the site will be pretreated. Water will also enter the sediment forebay by running over the sloped, super-elevated driveway. The DEP also recommended installing emergency overflow, which they can do. But the system as currently designed could still get flooded. The purpose of overflow is to prevent erosion, since many basins have earthen berms around them; but this one is just a concave excavation. Provisions for emergency overflow can • be made but Mr. Wear does not think it is necessary. Soil testing onsite did show that there was fill ash and debris—bricks and burned wood, but no hydrocarbons. It was the subject of a past cleanup. The report is on file with the DEP. Regarding Chapter 91 and the DEP's comments, Mr.Wear does not believe it is subject to Chapter 91. He is not sure where the historic riverfront was. Devine has an approximate Chapter 91 boundary, and it looks like Mr. Wear is within part of the original riverfront which was filled. The applicant will check on Chapter 91 status. The Commission will do a post-construction inspection. The applicant has pre-inspection logs already. Pabich does not feel the overflow is necessary. He suggests they make sure it will not discharge into neighboring property if it overflows and everything is not inundated. They should control where the water goes and make sure the grading is high enough to contain it on this property, which may be difficult. Mr. Wear says they will micro-grade along one edge so overflow could go out the back of the sediment forebay. Blier asks if there will be asphalt curbing—it is proposed. Blier comments that the Commission usually requests granite curbing. There is a break in the curbing at one point to allow water through. Mr. Wear says asphalt holds up well on straight areas; they do specify Cape Cod. They can put in granite even though it is more expensive. Pabich says if it gets damaged the forebay • won't work, so they should at least do granite just on the entrance and around the corner if nothing else. That should keep the rest of it intact. 3 Chair Knisel opens to the public and Joyce Wallis of 172 Federal St. comments on Chapter 91. We are not clear on whether or not this property is subject to it—that must be checked. They are also checking on where Sylvania used to be. Some of the old Sylvania site is subject to Ch. 91. • A site visit is scheduled for Thurs. April 12 at 5.30PM. Mr. Wear will need to check and see if site is open to public during site visit. A motion to continue at the April.12 meeting is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliffe, and passes unanimously. 4. Old/New Business • 61 and 185 Jefferson Ave.: Discussion of wetlands violation Devine summarizes that he heard from the building inspector, who saw fill encroaching onto National Grid's property behind 61 Jefferson, on wetlands. He met with 61 Jefferson owners Eric and Darren Palm, and confirmed that wetlands have been filled. The Palms should have received a letter from the National Grid regarding their encroachment, but it had not yet arrived. Devine talked to the DEP about the best way to go forward, however they recommend the strictest possible measures, such as having a wetland scientist look at the area and come up with plan via enforcement order. Devine wanted to talk to the owners first. They have been there 15 years and they have had to clean up that land over time; they cannot put up a fence or gate since National Grid and the sewer company have an easement. As a result, • people dump there all the time and they clean it up; they have not purposely encroached on wetlands. National Grid had not noticed this alteration on its wetlands; they did not know anything until Devine told them. They come out only once a month with a machine to access their electrical towers. Devine points out the extent of the alteration on the map. Property lines are not perfectly accurate. The residents say that the area was like that to begin with. They just spent$3000 on surveillance cameras to stop the dumping. They review the National Grid property line. Blier asks about other material. It is pack, not something people are driving in and dropping off, and one other area is from the owners cleaning up. It is muddy, people dump debris, and the area has been dressed with pack to stabilize it. There are vehicles parked in the area in question on an aerial photo from 2010. The owners use the area but it has been that far out as long as they have been there. They have cleaned it and put pack on it to keep it clean. (Pack is a stone dust used as a base for asphalt.) Prior to putting pack down, there was only dirt and mud, aside from the debris, with no vegetation, though plants might grow at the perimeter. Pabich proposes a site visit. It sounds like they are creating a problem even if it is not intentional. If there is uncontrolled access through their property, and it looks like this is actually National . Grid property, the Commission must discuss this with National Grid. Although it may be convenient to put vehicles there, it is not good for the wetland. The Conservation Commission 4 has determined that there is fill in the wetland, but that it is most likely on National Grid's property. The company must control access. Blier comments that the leading edge of the fill was there when the Palms moved in. The leading edge may have been similar 10 years ago but they are not sure, since they don't know where property line is. Pabich suggests they pull up Google maps from when the property was purchased until now. Those go back to 1995. He wonders if the Commission should issue an enforcement order. Devine says they will do the site visit and communicate with National Grid first, otherwise the Commission will not know who to issue order to. Chairwoman Knisel wants the property owners to stake out their property boundary. Property boundaries will be staked tomorrow morning. Commissioners will visit the site individually, rather than together at a set time. They will discuss it at the next meeting but the owners will not be available. Devine will ask National Grid if they filled in the wetland, for the record. They are looking at it as an encroachment issue and said they would cooperate, if the Commission asks the owners of 61 Jefferson to restore the wetlands on the Grid's property. The commission will revisit this matter at the April 26 meeting. Miscellaneous matters The Salem Oil and Grease appeal has been decided. This was the reduction of the area included • under the Historic Mill exemption. The building of the site at 23 Parlee St. is now cooperating to resolve the outstanding order of conditions. This is the house that was issued an order and built without addressing any conditions of the order. Devine met at Swampscott and Robinson Roads with DEP. The situation is challenging, with a lawsuit between property owners, serious drainage issues, and a DEP consent order. The consent order makes this matter the responsibility of DEP and not the commission. The gravel that washed into the roadway remains. There will be a public meeting for the new MBTA garage on Monday at 6:30PM at the Carlton school. A motion to adjourn is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliffe, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 7:05PM. Respectfully Submitted, n Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Salem Conservation Commission on April 12, 2012. 5 CITY OF SALEM • CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,April 12,2012 at 6.00 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3rd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. _ a Julia Knisel Chair MEETING AGENDA t. Meeting Minutes—March 22,2012 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-523—William Wharff,30 Federal St., Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a parking lot and associated utilities within riverfront area, land subject to coastal storm flowage, and buffer zone to coastal bank at 162 and 150 Federal St. 3. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-525—Mark DeNisco, 10 Bailey Terrace,Peabody,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a 2-family home and • appurtenances at 12 Woodbury Court within land subject to coastal storm flowage. 4. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-524—Luke Fabbri of Colliam LLC, 14 Hubon St, Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a gangway,float and piles within coastal bank and land under ocean at 14 Hubon St. 5. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-526—N. Tay Evans of Mass Division of Marine Fisheries, 30 Emerson Ave, Gloucester, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed eelgrass restoration in Salem Sound impacting land under ocean. S2 6. Old/New Business ~ m v = 9 • 61 and 185 Jefferson Ave.: Discussion of wetlands violation • DEP#64-512: 23 Parlee Street: Request for certificate of compliance a Ln • DEP#64-468: 1 Parallel Street(lot C): Request for certificate of compliance3 • DEP#64-469: 1 Parallel Street(lot B): Request for certificate of compliance= W • DEP#64-516: 60, 64 Grove Street, 3 Harmony Grove Road(Former Salem W&G e): Update on appeal of order of resource area delineation N Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law MG.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. Is ofto Doom on *Otftw 8soarW city 911 ?h Salem, Mass. tin p2rG o; Zo,z >e, �JA A US t>t!'iw�`- Page 1 of i Please Sign-In iSalem Conservation Commission April 12, 2012 Name Agency Phone Email I t4lx- A 114cP A61-,GK_ tN � ✓ �3� )� Kt�u 11�7Z� ICS GHQ •caw P; _ ze�z c�3c, u n S r�•u.5 17Y Zt4 d31 q7a 771 9065 J�,G�[�HANccxc�.hsso� azs.ccVl ,k Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, April 12, 2012, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairwoman Julia Knisel, Amy Hamilton,David Pabich,Gavin McAuliffe,Dan Ricciarelli Members Absent: Michael Blier Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chairwoman Julia Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:05 PM. 1. Meeting Minutes—March 22,2012 A motion to approve the minutes is made by McAuliffe, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-523—William Wharff, 30 Federal St., Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a parking lot and associated utilities within riverfront area, land subject to coastal storm flowage, and buffer zone to coastal bank at 162 and 150 Federal St. The applicant requests to continue to the April 26'h meeting. A motion to continue is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliffe, and passes unanimously. 3. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-525—Mark DeNisco, 10 Bailey Terrace, Peabody, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a 2-family home and appurtenances at 12 Woodbury Court within land subject to coastal storm flowage. Mark DeNisco describes the project as a 2 family duplex.The property is subject to flooding; there will not be a full basement, and there will be proper drainage and water flow.There was a house on the site in 2002 and he wants to put in a new house exactly as approved; he will not be changing elevations and the footprint on the plan is the same as the one before.The old foundation is from the former house. Mr. DeNisco is a licensed construction supervisor; he intends to build and live in the house. He is the owner and the closing will be tomorrow; the Order of Conditions will be issued to him. There is a right-of-way through 10 Woodbury Court and parking will be in the back; he only has one car in his family, and parking will be for the other unit.He is planning to pour a concrete parking lot but he is open to suggestions. Chair Knisel points out that the Commission wants to make sure water does not divert onto the neighbor's property; she suggests gravel and Mr. DeNisco agrees. Number 10 has a driveway now but it is a right of way and they will have a parking space. On the variance there was parking available for number 10.The layout of the parcel and buffer area are discussed. It is outside the riverfront area but everything under elevation 10 is in the 100 year flood zone. 1 Hamilton asks about changes in grade but there will be none. There will be a concrete foundation, a slab on grade with a few steps into the home; utilities will be above the flood elevation. It will be an Energy Star rated home. Chair Knisel opens to the public and Peter Sofronas of 10 Woodbury Ct. speaks.He wonders about the easement issue; he has a survey that shows that they own the front portion of the driveway, and Mr. DeNisco has a portion of land behind that. Work with the EPA has lead to landscape changes and removal of trees that prevented them from parking there.Now there is sod. If there is an easement, they will not have parking. ' Chair Knisel points out that this is not within the jurisdiction of the Commission, which is only concerned with issues of flooding. Devine suggests they consult the Planning Board and property lines should be discussed offline.Mr. Sofronas says that now that all the trees are out of the back, there is nothing to stop the deluge from coming through, and the area becomes a small pond every time it rains. He worries about where that water will go. There were already flooding issues as it was last year. Pabich asks if his parcel floods; two years ago there was severe flooding; not so much now that the EPA did their work, but 12 Woodbury fills up.The EPA and DEP had done remediation since there was a coal ash issue. Ricciarelli comments that there is not a lot of information on the plan;it is a neighborhood problem,not just at this site. Pabich comments that it is like the bottom of a bowl. Most elevations are at 8 in the center, going up around the perimeters. Elevations are discussed further,along with storm surge and the connection to the North River. If it is connected by drainage and pipes with finite capacity, then a problem will be created, vs. if it is connected to the river there is no issue. The applicant must provide further information. Mr. DeNisco is aware of the flooding problem on the property but has not yet considered putting the home at a higher elevation; the Commission suggests that he put it on stilts.He is not proposing helicals or stilts. If the lowest point is 8.8 and the highest is 10, the house will be at the lowest point and the water that would collect there must go somewhere. If the house is built above it, it will not be an issue. Mr. DeNisco says the house above the street has no steps, but he has no problem elevating the house. A site visit is planned for 5PM on April 26'h, before the next Commission meeting. The application has not yet been submitted to the planning board, and Mr.DeNisco needs a wetlands and flood hazard overlay district special permit. However, if it gets denied in Planning, then the Conservation Commission is wasting its time. Devine can ask Danielle McKnight for a sense of what the Planning Board will expect so there will be no conflict between the expectations of the two Boards. Ricciarelli thinks it will have to be four feet above flood elevation. Chair Knisel says it does not have to be that much for this zone, according to state requirements.There is no requirement for pilings, but if the Commission finds it would exacerbate flooding on neighboring properties,they must remedy that. Pabich asks why he does not want to build at the back of the property; there is an(Activities and Use Limitation)there saying no pools; the front side is clean where the back is environmentally challenged. The DEP only mitigated four feet down. , Karen Butler of 4 Woodbury Court speaks. The house across the street with only a couple of steps has a foundation and full basement.They had to bring in 6 tractor trailer loads of gravel when they dug that basement; there are French drains. During the Mother's Day(2006) storm;they still lost everything in the basement. Everyone from 8 down pumps their basements every time they have a big storm. Chair Knisel says Mr. DeNisco is being responsible by not having a foundation, but Ms. Butler says he can't anyway due to the AUL. However, the applicant says he could in the proposed area. 2 The Commission plans for the 5PM April 26'h site visit. A motion to continue is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliffe,and passes unanimously. Illustration: Plan to accompany NOI by Christopher Mello, March 22, 2012 4. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-524—Luke Fabbri of Colliam LLC, 14 Hubon St, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a gangway,float and piles within coastal bank and land under ocean at 14 Hubon St. The applicant is not present at this time so the order of the Agenda will be modified as needed. Mr. Fabbri arrives later and presents the project.There is a building on a seawall at this location; there will be a 3' x 25' gangway attached to the building down to the tidal flats, with a T-shaped float and four piles. Illustration: Griffin Engineering, layout and setbacks, aerial view from Google Earth to show positioning relative to other floats. A Chapter 91 application has been filed and a 25' setback is required if it can be done,but the property is only 50' across.There are neighboring floats–he made it so everyone could come in and turn around to navigate their boats. Mr.Fabbri outlines the location of all the floats. He asks about the stops; floats are not supposed to touch the tidal flats but stop 2' above them, so he asks if they can put stops on the bottom of the floats or if they have to be piles.Two piles will support the rear end and gangway; as for the ocean end he could use floats.Two rear posts hold it in place; the Engineer and he are not sure if two additional piles are required on the ocean end of the float.Two piles stop the float 2' off the mud, or a stop could be • attached to the bottom of the float.Piles are more expensive than stops.Pabich comments that two'piles on the landward side are fixed, but in theory stops could be moving, so for his own protection it might be a cleaner design to install piles. Mr.Fabbri comments that it is a calm area with very little wave action, and it is not clear which is more appropriate. Tay Evans from Mass.Marine fisheries comments.The area is shellfish habitat for soft-shell clams. Impacts can be reduced by minimizing the footprint.There is a mooring on the other side of the bypass road, in order to put an aluminum skiff in position for launch. Mr.Fabbri wants to put the skiff on the float when not in use,and roll it off, so he has to be able to walk around it.The skiff will take up the top part of the"C'Ms. Evans also says that impacts can be reduced by preventing grounding on the mudflat. The question is the impact of having piles permanently vs. stops that can cause turbidity and scouring underneath.Marine Fisheries says to have float stops on piles to minimize impact. Also another option is to use skids. Instead of legs, have the weight distributed on runner skids that don't sink in.There is no "correct' answer from Marine Fisheries perspective. Mr.Fabbri will not be removing the float seasonally and there are shellfish there. Piles will be small, 12" in diameter, whereas legs would be 4'x 12". Ms. Evans opines that piles would probably be minimized if the float will not be removed seasonally.Pabich thinks that in storm conditions, having the float supported by piles on both ends is a good idea, and also would have more strength for a heavier boat being moored to it. Mr. Fabbri discusses the size and materials of the proposed float. Chair Knisel asks about the condition of the seawall and land behind it. He came in for an RDA to shotcrete the wall previously, and that came out great. It was done in November or December and fortified the wall, also improving its texture. Chair Knisel opens to the public and Lary Tamilio of 557 Cabot St. in Beverly comments. He owns the • property abutting this project at 1 l Ames St.He is a commercial fisherman and has had a dock for many years, and keeps his lobster gear there.He describes the setup of his docks.He has just enough room to 3 v turn around as it is.This proposed project would prevent him from turning around; he has discussed this • with Mr.Fabbri. He wonders if Mr. Fabbri can move his project over.The Commission can address this issue if it involves moving the dock.Mr. Fabbri says he has moved it over as far as he can.Chapter 91 wants a 25' setback. Chair Knisel asks about the draft of Mr. Fabbri's boat, which is only 10",but he wants access to the wafer from a tender. He is set back 50' from the bridge and says he has pulled it back as far as he can; but Pabich says he is only 8.9' from the property line of the abutter in question; Mr. Fabbri can move it over another 6' and angle it differently. There are few other options.Tay Evans of Marine Fisheries asks about a boat lift, but there must still be water underneath it. He tries to go out but it is difficult to climb over the wall.They.won't allow him to put a skiff by the City pier.Devine notes that the issue of space for navigation is not within jurisdiction of the commission. Chair Knisel says that aside from potential boat blockage, there are no commission concerns regarding the proposed design.The Commission wants to help resolve the navigation issue, but it may not be under their purview so chair Knisel suggests moving forward by issuing an Order of Conditions,but notifying that they have to check in with the DEP regarding Chapter 91. You can't get a Chapter 91 without an Order of Conditions so the Commission should discuss it with the relevant parties.They can issue an order with some flexibility for the final location of the dock. Mr. Fabbri is amenable to that. The commission agrees to issue the Order but leave flexibility on location as long as there are the same number of piles and same size in general as specified. He can reduce the area but not go further out. A motion to close public hearing Pabich; seconded by McAuliffe,and passes unanimously. A motion to issue the Order of Conditions is made by McAuliffe, seconded by Hamilton, and passes • unanimously.This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 5. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-526—N. Tay Evans of Mass Division of Marine Fisheries,30 Emerson Ave, Gloucester, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed eelgrass restoration in Salem Sound impacting land under ocean. The applicant is not present at this time so the order of the Agenda will be modified as needed. Tay Evans presents with Wesley Dukes of Marine Fisheries. She leads the seagrass project in addition to Environmental Review.The Division wants to restore seagrass as mitigation to the hubline pipeline impact out of Beverly, which damaged two acres of eelgrass.This happened in 2003 or 2004 and the pipeline installers were required by the DEP to monitor the impact to eelgrass,and to provide mitigation if it did not grow back, which it didn't.Thus, Marine Fisheries is restoring the eelgrass. Ms.Evans would like to plant eelgrass at two locations in Salem, off of Winter Island. Illustration: Map of Salem Sound, 3 transplant sites, (Figure 1) Harvest Site included.The total area in Salem is 3/4 of an acre; DMF is looking to restore an acre in Salem Sound.The other portion will be in Beverly. Layout and methods: Figure 5: Planting Site Layout They will plant in a checkerboard pattern of planted and unplanted squares. There will be 50 shoots per meter squared; the plants over time will seed, spread and vegetate the entire quarter acre.The existing • conditions consist of very sparse eelgrass, though historically an area where it used to grow. With 4 assistance it should grow again.The site closest to Ft.Pickering has a little bit of eelgrass, but just a few square meters.All sites are subtidal, shallow, sandy to gravelly and of different grain sizes.They will plant by 2 methods, with scuba gear for each. Photo: Planting method(diagram) The horizontal rhizome will take 2 shoots of eelgrass with 3-4 nodes of rhizomes, cross them, and anchor with a biodegradable bamboo skewer. Method 2, the"tortilla method", uses tortilla-shaped cutouts of burlap with 10 shoots woven in. PVC collars are sunk into the seafloor, and the burlap"tortilla"burried to anchor the eelgrass shoots.The PVC is then removed after the burlap is buried. Both methods are proven effective. The horizontal rhizome method is much more underwater intensive, while the tortilla method is more intensive above the water on the beach, so it is helpful to have volunteers for that. Hamilton asks how long it will take to fill in after replanting; it will be 3-5 years. The source for the replacement eelgrass is West Beach because it is a healthy bed with a permanent monitoring station, so they are familiar with that stretch. Since the eelgrass is healthy between West Beach and Misery Island there will low impact from harvesting. No equipment will be on the beach other than people.Work will be by boat for one segment,and they will harvest and replant in the same day,depending on the method.They are very familiar with the • horizontal rhizome method,and would harvest in the morning, and plant in the evening.They have only done a few test plots with the tortilla method, which can take 2 days; one day to harvest and weave, then the next day to plant.Eelgrass to be planted could be left-loose in a fish tote or lobster car off the dock overnight if need be. DMF plans to be done with this project by the end of July.They will be monitoring throughout the fall and will continue planting next summer depending on the results, if not totally successful.Test plots throughout Salem Sound have been successful so far. Knisel opens to public but there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton,and passes unanimously. There is some debate as to whether or not this project requires a recorded order of conditions. It may not be able to be recorded at the Registry of Deeds since it is in the middle of the ocean, but they did it for Beverly. It is uncertain in that case which property the project is associated with.Ms. Evans will find out. The Commission also normally requires a pre-construction site meeting,but that can be waived in this case. The only added condition is that Ms.Evans will send a copy of the monitoring report. A motion to issue the Order of Conditions is made by McAuliffe, seconded by Pabich,and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Old/New Business • • 61 and 185 Jefferson Ave.: Discussion of wetlands violation 5 Chair Knisel was surprised at the extent of the material that went into the marsh area; it was not evident in • the photos.John Dick of Hancock Associates has been hired by Mr. Palm and presents. He is experienced with historic encroachment on abutting properties, where the abutter was usually National Grid.There have been different solutions in each case, from preventing more illegal filling to full restoration. Midnight dumpings, no monitoring, a public lot with no one there at night, material being dumped for decades—all are similar situations. There is a lot of added material in the phragmites. Over the course of years, "coarse granular material"—cars, masonry,etc—have been dumped.The plan here is a 1997 plan from SP Engineering entitled"Wetland Map."In that year they did a topographic survey of the area, and found a pipe end that belongs to the City of Salem. Figure B is the"Wetlands Map"from SP Engineering dated 4/27/98. It is not known when the pipe went in but it could be as early as 1951 as flood control, or could have been early 70's during banking and flood plain management. It dumps water into a tributary in the South River. The end of the pipe is under recently deposited pile of leaves; material under the finished grade was already there prior to purchase. It is 1' in depth over 9600 square feet in trespass.The property that Mr. Palm owns is outlined.The property line used to be marked by short telephone poles in ground, but they have now disappeared. Encroachment over the years worked out to whatever was available. Fill was placed on top of fill that was already there; it is simple to remove material recently placed in violation,but it may be impossible to remove all material out there. If they will be digging into historical material, he feels it should be left since phragmites was growing up through it. He has a seed mix that is good for riparian zones and floodplains. It is not a wetland area. It looks like a wetland but the dominants are phragmites, bittersweet, multiflora rose,and honeysuckle.The 1997 plan did not refer to any wetlands, but to riverfront area. 200' is not a buffer but a resource area,so this is not actually in a wetland except where the pipe discharges, perhaps. One can see the depth of fill from stream bed. He is proposing taking out as much material as possible, replacing it with 6"of loam to the extent it can • be restored, rake, seed, put down straw mulch,then withdraw from the site, and put a pile of rocks or chain link fence up to keep out trespassers. National Grid will need to give its permission to do specific work. He is only proposing seed mix, nothing woody, so Nationl Grid can still have access, as this is on their property.They may build a chain link fence, and the likelihood is that there will be a permanent barrier installed by National Grid or by his client. He does not have any contact with National Grid except for a couple of emails. He was referred to someone in their Environmental division. Devine can contact them and apply pressure due to the resource violation on their property. Mr. Dick wants to know what National Grid wants them to do, and he also wants this Commission to consider an Enforcement Order to allow them to do work,but does not want to propose specific work until National Grid gives him the green light. Once he finds out what they want he would like to come back to the Comission and get to work so they can take advantage of this growing season. Devine says the DEP is considering this to be a high priority case and has threatened to take over enforcement and fine the property owners. Mr.Dick would like to avoid fines and penalties.There could be a$10,000 to $15,000 fine if DEP has its way. Chair Knisel says they can issue an Enforcement Order with a timeline to have discussion with National Grid,then they can come back with plan. It would be a friendly Enforcement to do the work without filing a Notice of Intent, but Pabich wants to require an NOI. Devine says that the DEP instructed him not to require an NOI, but Pabich opines that the area is in a riparian zone,thus despite politics it should go through the public notice process. Devine says that this is different from building a house in a jurisdictional area without a permit, but if it needs restoration, that's different.Pabich reiterates that any work in a resource area requires an NOI, so that everyone plays by same rules. . 6 ' R Devine thinks equal treatment is possible with Enforcement Order,and Pabich says it will come through, but they will have to have a plan and the Commission will require an NOI. Devine says it can all be required with or without an NOI. Mr. Dick says if they file an NOI, they will then have 2 -3 weeks before the next hearing, then they must advertise, post it, and notify most of Salem since the activity is on a piece of land that extends very far. He outlines the entire process, which could take up to early June, which is a bad time to do mitigation plantings.He wants to get the work done two weeks after receiving the Commission's go-ahead. Planting of native vegetation is exempt under Wetlands Protection, and removal of bad material can be done under an emergency condition. Although it is a resource area, it is previously altered and is upland, NOT wetland area, having been extensively altered and with lots of phragmites and knotweed. His client can't improve it a whole lot but will correct as much as possible.The main issue is trespassing. He must deal with the actual owner of the property. Ricciarelli says the Commission can continue to the next meeting in two weeks, and in that time could get some direction from the DEP and National Grid. Devine states that that it is best to issue an enforcement order now. DEP's threat to take over and immediately issue a fine remains. Pabich argues that it is not the Commission's problem, and we would not do this for anyone else.However Chairwoman Knisel cedes the point about removal; at the last meeting the Commission had stated that material had to be removed. One option would be to have the owners remove the fill, return to the Commission with a replanting plan, then file an after-the-fact Notice of Intent.The amount of material that must be removed is obvious and measurable. Mr.Dick established 1997 grades by direct survey and will directly examine the substrate to find out what they need to do.He may need to pull out material, but it will probably be mostly vines with a veneer of rubbish.The property changed hands in 1991 from the Rail Road and National Grid to Michaud Bus. Chairwoman Knisel says that the Commission could approve the removal of material and investigation of the depth of historical material, which would allow time for National Grid's input on vegetation and fencing. There would be equipment under the power lines so the Palms must speak to National Grid. Pabich says the enforcement orders must be issued to National Grid. McAuliffe asks how to approve a plan to remove material without a specific plan in place. Chairwoman Knisel says that the Enforcement Order could say they have to bring a plan back before the Commission in two weeks.Pabich says they could use a bucket without teeth to reach and smoothly scrape the surface. Devine says that the Commission will ask for a restoration plan in the Enforcement Order, which would satisfy the DEP for now. They will come back and explain how they will remove material.Pabich current elevations surveyed in order to measure the fill since the 1997 survey. Devine notes that Mr. Dick believes there are no wetlands present,only riverfront area. Pabich says that there may have been wetlands underneath; Devine is not qualified to confirm that and wants it documented.Devine wants something written up to show his contact at DEP in order to confirm the area is not wetlands but only riverfront area. Mr. Dick suggests three transects for this site; the Commission agrees. Most of the vehicles have been removed from the filled area but there us one truck remaining that must be removed.The Palms should also demarcate the end of their property, and make a barrier for vehicles instead of mere spray paint. Mr. Dick says posts and construction fence would at least stop pickups,and would also let people know that violations are being addressed. Mr. Dick will send other materials.There is an outstanding Order of Conditions from 1997 for the building; they only found out that it was recorded a few days ago, so now there is an encumbrance on the • title. A request for a Certificate of Compliance on the original work will be forthcoming. 7 The situation should unfold as follows: • • The Conservation Commission will issue an Enforcement Order to the Palms and to National Grid. • Within one week, the parked truck must be removed,and fencing installed to mark the end of the Palm property and to prevent vehicles from entering with fill material. • By the next Commission meeting(4/26), the applicants should have a vegetation analysis and topographical map of existing conditions, and should also be in touch with National Grid. • Mr. Dick will be cc'd on the Enforcement Order. • The Commission will approve the restoration plan before work commences; the plan should be submitted by the next meeting. Within 30 days of this meeting(4/12),the Commission will have an approved restoration plan. • The applicant may require submittal of an after-the-fact Notice of Intent to allow for planting at the appropriate time. If an after-the-fact NOI is required it should be by a certain date. Pabich wants to wait and see the plan in two weeks,then might want to amend the Enforcement Order to require the NOI. The NOI timeline can be longer since the DEP doesn't care. It could be done within 60 days of implementation of the plan. Chair Knisel asks why they should do an after-the-fact NOI. This is to ensure due public process; since the public should have right to have a say. All commissioners agree A motion to issue the Enforcement Order is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. • DEP#64-512: 23 Parlee Street: Request for certificate of compliance This house was built without any of the pre-construction conditions fulfilled or any notice from the • applicant. Erosion controls were present during construction, but the builder did not fulfill any conditions on that Order of Conditions. The builder sold the property with the outstanding Order still on it, so Devine had them put together an as-built and apply for a certificate of compliance.An Engineer also had to go to the site to fulfill Special Condition 43, which required a registered Engineer to assess the drainage system at the end of the street.The Engineer looked at the stormwater system and said was imperfect, but functioning. Roof water is captured in an underground infiltration system with some going offsite, some into the catch basin, and some going into the forebay. The inspecting engineer was not involved in the construction of the house; the land surveyor confirms that the underground system is there,but that's all we have to go by. Since the surveyor's license is at stake, Devine thinks this is sufficient.When they put up this subdivision, there was a stormwater system previously built. Illustration: As Built Plan,REID Land Surveyors, March 15, 2012 If the system was required to be put in, there should be ties on the foundation to certify that it is there. Pabich wonders what else may not have been done.The house is smaller and there is a deck in the backyard.The infiltration location looks very gravelly and is on higher ground.Pabich concedes that it may in fact be there because there are no downspouts on the corners of the house.Devine says we can ask for verification that the system is there. City of Salem was to take ownership of the stormwater facility, but it may not have been conveyed.The builder was Frank Lanzillo. Chair Knisel asks if they should require additional work to the swale, and Pabich says it is at the corner of • 8 • a buffer zone, and that the owners should ensure it's there. There follows more discussion of the infiltration system. There is a question as to whether the Commission can enforce this on the builder or if they have to work with the current owner. Devine thinks it is the builder's responsibility. McAuliffe thinks we should assist the owner,and Pabich suggests that the Commission inform the builder that they have some concerns. He should attest to the fact that he installed a system. Devine points out that the as- built shows it as being installed,but Pabich still wants a letter since the as-built is merely a copy of the original plan. • DEP#64-468: 1 Parallel Street(lot C): Request for certificate of compliance • DEP#64-469: 1 Parallel Street(lot B): Request for certificate of compliance Chris Mello of Eastern Land Survey has submitted an As-Built Plan and letter for each lot stating compliance and any existing deviations. Work is complete and Devine is all set.Mr. Lovely is also present to answer any questions.There is lawn and plantings are growing. Devine points out that a Certificate of Compliance was issued in Sept. 2010 for Lot A with the understanding that other Certificates would only be issued when Dave Knowlton was satisfied with drainage issues having been addressed. David Knowlton has not issued such a letter yet.He submitted a letter stating that Condition 44 regarding road work has been addressed.But other drainage concerns have not been resolved. A copy of the minutes from when the original Certificate was issued are distributed. Chair Knisel asks when David Knowlton was last consulted;this morning; he had previously given approval for Lot A; they • did not build until 2010 to allow for swales and drainage improvements, which were improved. The City Engineer asked them to abandon the swales, so when they came in for approval on Lot A the swales had been covered over and abandoned in place. Lots B and C did not have requirements for further swales. Pabich recalls discussion of swales running parallel to the railroad tracks. Construction began, but David Knowlton felt they would not be effective.To get the approval for Lot A, he had to approve those swales. The applicant was supposed to work out such concerns with David Knowlton before coming before the Commission again. David Knowlton did not require swales on Lots B and C,but the Commission wanted stormwater addressed on those lots.His current letter required a drainage analysis and a proposed solution.The analysis was done, but a peer review found it to be unsatisfactory.The applicant insists he did not have to put swales on the other two lots and the ones on Lot A were abandoned. Chair Knisel asks if there was a misunderstanding regarding the decision from September 2010. According to the minutes of the meeting, the stormwater from Lots B and C had to be dealt with—not necessarily by using swales. Pabich states that the applicant did not satisfy the conditions by completing Lot A.There are still many outstanding issues in David Knowlton's letter from Sept. 2010. After the meeting in which it was decided that swales would be abandoned, they were graded, loamed and seeded.There was a drainage study and they would do all they could to improve drainage across lots B and C. Drainage was studied over a large area.Mr.Mello mentions possibly filing for an amendment. Riciarelli clarifies: after the Certificate of Compliance was issued for Lot A, Knowlton asked for an analysis, and it did not meet his requirements. He really needs to be involved in this conversation. The scope was further than what Mr. Mello had anticipated, and he felt blindsided.They did take that condition but are now asking for the Commission to take it away. Pabich feels there is still a drainage problem but Mr. Mello feels it is no worse than it has been.All contours and elevations are the same. • Pabich says there is uncontrolled drainage that must come across their site to get to the pond. 9 f � y Mr. Lovely says it is no different from when he got the approval for the three lots.The swale between B and C was accepted, and he tried to add something to help with drainage. An engineer suggested a swale, • and the Commission agreed pending approval of David Knowlton.Now he is being told he has to do something different. Nothing can be done to that site other than raising it up,or reducing the level of Rosie's Pond, which they cannot do. He feels that the project is successful. He wanted to build swales, the Engineer felt they weren't adequate,but now he has to spend more money. Mr.Lovely does not feel it is fair that he has to address water coming down from Parallel St. where there is no drainage. Devine points out that the City Solicitor believes that it is appropriate and legal that the Commission does not issue Certificates of Compliance until David Knowlton is satisfied.Mr. Lovely insists that David Knowlton admitted that nothing could be done on their property,yet he wants further study, and that was not part of the original conditions. He claims that the City Solicitor did not say it was legal to withhold the Certificates. Chair Knisel says they cannot follow through tonight until they consult David Knowlton; there is no way around that.Pabich says the issue is not cut-and-dried.The area is inundated regularly, and everyone's perspective changed between issuing the original plan and seeing the water. The issue must be handled. Mr.Lovely reiterates that the drainage for the entire area is not his responsibility. Chair Knisel asks what the result of the meeting with Mr. Knowlton was, but it was left open. Devine says they could have looked at the drainage analysis and come up with alternatives, but other options were also discussed, such as how much it would cost the City to do this work, and Mr. Lovely could pay the City. Chair Knisel says the Commission will speak to David Knowlton, and Devine will then follow up with Mr. Lovely.The response to the drainage study, in writing, was very clear as to what needed to be done to satisfy the concerns about drainage.Mt.Lovely insists he does not have the funds to correct the larger • drainage issues of the area. Ricciarelli and Hamilton also feel that David Knowlton should be consulted for guidance. Chair Knisel asks if they will respond to him about revising. They do not have the money to do anything.The Commission will not issue the Certificates of Compliance tonight, but will contact Mr. Lovely after their conversation with Mr. Knowlton. Mr.Mello asks about filing an amendment to eliminate the drainage issue,but Pabich thinks they should all be on the same page with Dave Knowlton. Mr. Mello says it was clear in their meeting that he wants further study and work on Parallel St. and Mr. Knowlton refused to sign off on Item 48, so they are at an impasse. Chair Knisel instructs Devine to have Knowlton send a letter for clarity and request that he come to the next Commission meeting—the former is more likely.Devine will distribute the studies that were completed. McAuliffe is not certain this will be a workable solution,but Pabich says there must be a solution and it is a beginning. Mr. Lovely says they have been holding off on paving until this is resolved and hopes to do that soon, next week in fact. • DEP#64-516: 60,64 Grove Street,3 Harmony Grove Road(Former Salem Oil & Grease): Update on appeal of order of resource area delineation The appeal has been appealed, requiring an adjudicatory hearing, and the information is in the Commissioners' packets.They will find out a lot about the historic mill exemption. A motion to adjourn is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliffe, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 8:47PM. • 10 • Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on May 10, 2012 11 � . ` CITY OF SALEM - -M�R CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,April 16, 2012 at 6:00 PM at the City Hall Annex,3i°floor conference room, 110 Washington Street,Salem,MA. Julia Knisel Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Meeting Minutes—April 12,2012 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-523—William Wharff, 30 Federal St., Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a parking lot and associated utilities within riverfront area, land subject to coastal storm flowage, and buffer zone to coastal bank at 162 and 150 Federal St. g. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-525—Mark DeNisco, 10 Bailey Terrace, Peabody, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a 2-family home • and appurtenances at 12 Woodbury Court within land subject to coastal storM flowage. �7 eV 4. Old/New Business rn -0 a � • 61 and 185 Jefferson Ave.: Discussion of wetlands violation >^r • DEP#64-512: 23 Parlee Street: Request for certificate of compliance rrn 0 • DEP#64-468: 1 Parallel Street(lot C): Request for certificate of compliance 3 • DEP#64-469: 1 Parallel Street(lot B): Request for certificate of compliance 33. ta► • Greenscapes North Shore Coalition: Discussion and vote regarding annual fungg renewal • 121 Leach Street: Discussion of possible land donation Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law MG.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. Yft P�>A BAMA on "I X11 B • city setem, leas. an ,. ri/ Id,' ZoiZ an MW39 so Page i of t �oNDl1,j CITY OF SALEM � CONSERVATION COMMISSION O MISSION City of Salem Conservation Commission 978-619-5685 Will hold a site visit at 12 Woodbury Court on Thursday,April 26,2012 at 5:00 p.m.The purpose of the site visit is to inspect the project site where Mark Denisco, 10 Bailey Terrace, Peabody,MA, has proposed to construction of a 2-family home and appurtenances at 12 Woodbury Court within land subject to coastal storm flowage. S''(,a /-nik� Julia Knisel Chair Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2- 2028 through 2-2033. f7 N 04*0 r m m v Cnr Dm CD rn � z 3 cDn W � � I 0 On 00"I" p(No. city Hal Qaf". Mass. Olv n l 11,P11 012- lit N • UA Aa Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission April 26, 2012 Name Agency Phone Email 97�_. »l1/4� ��� orc�L tt/1alc�c�A-ssx, q'7B77t-7�(�S M�9 + SSE '(� E(I ;uj 9 -930-60 « Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting • Date and Time: Thursday, April 26, 2012,6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Acting Chair Gavin McAuliffe,Dan Ricciarelli,Bart Hoskins,Amy Hamilton Members Absent: Chair Julia Knisel,Michael Blier,David Pabicb Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Acting Chair Gavin McAuliffe calls the meeting to order at 6:20 PM. Acting Chair McAuliffe introduces the new commissioner, Bart Hoskins. i. Meeting Minutes—April 12, 2012 Minutes are not completed so will not be voted on at this time. 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-523—William Wharff, 30 Federal St., Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a parking lot and associated utilities within riverfront area, land subject to coastal storm flowage, and buffer zone to coastal bank at 162 and 150 Federal St. • The applicant has requested to continue to the May 24 meeting. A motion to continue is made by Hamilton, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. 3. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-525—Mark DeNisco, 10 Bailey Terrace, Peabody, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a 2-family home and appurtenances at 12 Woodbury Court within land subject to coastal storm flowage. Applicant requests to continue to the May 10 meeting due to the lack of a quorum for this item. A motion to continue is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. 4. Old/New Business • 61 and 185 Jefferson Ave.: Discussion of wetlands violation John Dick of Hancock Associates represents Eric Palm, property owner. National Grid owns the property in question. This is a piece of the old Michaud Bus property; there was activity last in the 1970's as a dispatch site and parking area which has since spread beyond the property line. Mr. Dick does not know when the fill was put in, but almost the whole area has been filled, then excavated. The intent was to control stormwater flooding. The area used to be tidal with a gate • controlling tides at the mouth of the South River. This reduces but does not eliminate tidal shift. The area is not a salt marsh; it probably was not ever a salt marsh but may have been a freshwater estuary. There is no evidence of peat and there is no native soil there. All old lots on that side of Jefferson Ave. were filled in the last 100 years, along the property lines. Parcels were 1 1 sold out of the railroad and used for commercial/industrial purposes, so filling continued. The Palms put a building on it in 1997 under an Order of Conditions, now expired, but a • Certificate of Compliance was never issued. The building is the same as the one proposed, and is 100' from the edge of the building to the back of the fill, though the order states it must be 30' away. Much of the fill is on National Grid property. They are cooperating well, and in general, in the past, have approved of any work done on their property with the exception of heavy excavation and tall plantings. Mr. Dick has not, thus far, had to file an NOI with National Grid, though they would have to sign off on an Order of Conditions. They don't want an encumbrance on their title, plus there will be more scrutiny if they were to sign off on an NOI and it would complicate things. Mr. Dick believes the DEP will object to an after-the-fact NOI, since it would make things drag on. The DEP may step in or appeal the Commission's decision due to timing, so Mr. Dick would rather do the work under an Enforcement Order in the next few weeks, then file the NOI after-the-fact later. Devine clarifies that the commission wants to see the restoration completed under an enforcement order,and an after-the-fact NOI will not get in the way of this. Thus far the Palms have removed all of their hardware off of the encroachment. A field crew has been scheduled to verify grades and Mr. Dick has tried to figure out where the easement came from. One plan by Eastern Land Survey shows an easement on a pipe owned by the City of Salem. Other than that, there is no record of an easement— it is only shown on that one record, which doesn't exactly show it as an easement. The City allowed the installation of a catch and treatment basin tied into that line. He does not know if the City was intentionally running the pipe out that far since that's where the fill was. Since he thinks no wetland has been filled, it • would be interesting to know what the area looked like in 1970 and in 1997. Surveys should be done in the next week, so he hopes to come before the Commission regarding restoration of grade at the May 10th meeting. Mr. Dick reviews some correspondence with National Grid. It will be difficult to choose vegetative material. National Grid wants to see a mitigation plan and stipulates some conditions. Comments were obtained from their engineers and they are waiting on comments from their legal department. He will move forward on an abutter list and filing the Notice of Intent. Devine says that the Commission issued the enforcement order but it did not yet include the request for filing the Notice of Intent. Mr. Dick comments that the work should be done under an Enforcement Order and National Grid may not let him work under the Notice of Intent, but that does not have to be decided right now. Devine outlines some other conditions of the Enforcement Order, but Mr. Dick is not sure that they have been met yet. Devine points out that he should take the deadlines seriously since the DEP is paying attention to this and is still ready to take over enforcement if they feel that the violation is not being resolved quickly enough. Ricciarelli asks who confirms the delineation. Devine will ask the DEP Northeast Circuit Rider to look at it. If she is not satisfied, the Commission could have a third party review. Hamilton is disappointed that Mr. Dick has not visited the site, but he is busy with other enforcement actions. He will go there tonight and report back in the morning. Devine asks him to please reiterate to the Palms that the Commission can only stave off the DEP for so long. • • DEP#64-512: 23 Parlee Street: Request for certificate of compliance 2 The Commission determined that one more piece of information, a letter from the builder stating • that the underground infiltration system was installed, was needed, but it was not received, so this is postponed to the next meeting. • DEP#64-468: 1 Parallel Street (lot C): Request for certificate of compliance • DEP#64-469: 1 Parallel Street(lot B): Request for certificate of compliance Steven Lovely presents. He owns the two remaining lots. He outlines the situation and mentions the swale on Lot A, which did not meet City Engineer approval. Drainage issues onsite were to be addressed. To resolve this issue, money will be placed into escrow to allow these two lots to be in Compliance. Dave Knowlton submitted a letter and Devine shows the Commission the escrow agreement, which is for Steve Lovely to put aside $10,000 to address the drainage issues. If they are not resolved, the City may use the money and move forward on its own. This was worked out with Mr. Lovely, the City Solicitor, and David Knowlton. Mr. Lovely can sign the agreement now. He thinks it will cost less than that amount and will try to satisfy Mr. Knowlton's requirements. Work on the study will be ongoing and will not hinder the conveyance of the two above lots. David Knowlton will be satisfied as long as Mr. Lovely signs the escrow agreement. Devine verifies that all other conditions on the Order were satisfied. Mr. Lovely explains that there was some misunderstanding as to the requirements for Lot A,but they don't want to hold up conveyance on lots B and C. The area is too low for drainage since it would draw water from the pond. • Mr. Lovely signs the escrow agreement; a motion to issue the two Certificates of Compliance is made by Hamilton, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously. These decisions are hereby made a part of these minutes. • Greenscapes North Shore Coalition: Discussion and vote regarding annual funding renewal Barbara Warren, director of Salem Sound Cosastwatch, in coalition with Ipswich River and other towns and nonprofits, runs the Greenscapes program. It has been in effect for five years and she is requesting$900 to renew Salem's membership. She passes around the Greenscapes guide and for this year, more are needed. It will be revised and condensed but will basically have the same message. They are offering 500 per community; it will cost$50 more per hundred beyond that amount. Last year the program printed the `Be a Greenscaper" and others flyers and in the past has also done magnets. In MA the EPA does the stormwater permit for the state; one is in draft form and was supposed to be out this past year, but is not yet. There will be many more requirements on cities and towns. It applies to the entire stormwater system. This is the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) MS4 Permit. It will also require public education and outreach, which Greenscapes has traditionally provided. Greenscapes said they would do that component for the • permit last year. They developed a document outlining what they will do regarding public education and outreach. The City can no longer just check the "we're doing outreach" box; there must be different audiences that are well defined. Four audiences are defined; they will reach out 3 to two per year, skip a year, then do the other two over the course of the five year permit. They will target residents and developers in the 151, P and 5a years, and business and industry in the 2°d and 4'years. Greenscapes must also measure effectiveness. But changing behaviors takes • time. Barbara will discuss this with Devine and David Knowlton. Lawn care will not be emphasized again until year 5 so this is a good year to get the message out again, since the NPDES draft is not out yet. The City is responsible for getting the stormwater message out to developers, however they want. Greenscapes would like to do a brochure and contact them personally, to discuss it with them. They are also discussing imperviousness and onsite infiltration(in year 5) and will also provide a.workshop on low impact development for the Zoning, Planning and Conservation boards. It is an opportunity for the Commission to extend its impact beyond its usual wetlands permitting. Greenscapes is seeking $900 from the Water Department, and$900 from this Commission. The program fee is $1800-- $1500 is for the program fee itself, and$300 for materials. Julie Rose in the Water Department has traditionally paid for half and we have paid for the other half. A motion to fund Greenscapes is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. • 121 Leach Street: Discussion of possible land donation Michael Gibney would like to donate a small parcel of waterfront property to the Commission; his brother wants to stop paying taxes, but wants the land open to the public and to remain • undeveloped. Mr. Gibney says that it was once called"the flats" and is a beach at the end of Leach Street. Mr. Gibneys' brother owns 17,500 feet of beach, which was used by neighbors once but is unusable since it has been filled in. It costs $350 year in taxes. The area is not sellable, and the taxes are a burden. The original owner thought Salem would build a bridge to Marblehead, but that never materialized. It has a little bit of sand but no beach nourishment has occurred in years. Now it is just rocky and there has been some encroachment by various people, and no one swims there because of the shape it's in. Mr. Gibney has authority from his brother work with the city on this. There is a public right of way down to the water. The Commission has to show interest before the legal department will pursue accepting the property. If the Commission is not interested, Devine can help the current owner connect with other organizations that may be able to assist him. The Right of Way is at the end of the street, going all the way down to the water. Devine thinks that this street might be a good candidate for a "please enjoy this public way" sign whether or not the commission accepts the donated land. Mr. Gibney outlines the property and the right-of-way. Barbara Warren has a newspaper article from 1913 where it shows Salem planning to fill the area and make a promenade to Forest River Park, so perhaps that is what the original owner thought would happen. Mr. Gibney says it is a good"place for launching kayaks. The beach used to be nourished every year, but now there is no sand there. The Commission would dike the City to pursue acquisition of this parcel. Devine will ask the • City Solicitor to begin the process and will be in touch with Mr. Gibney. Mr. Gibney has a warranty covenant on the property; it may need to be surveyed again. He also 4 has copies of the deeds and the will; the City Solicitor will want copies. • A motion to adjourn is made by Hamilton, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 7:30PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on May 10, 2012 • 5 gorynii� d 9Q CITY OF SALE -7 M Q= CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, May 10, 2012 at 6:00 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3rd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. .Julia Knisel Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Meeting Minutes—April 12,2012 and April 26,2012 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-525—Mark DeNisco, 10 Bailey Terrace, Peabody, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a 2-family home and appurtenances at 12 Woodbury Court within land subject to coastal storm flowage. g. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Michael E.Pelletier,31 Ravenna Ave. Salem MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed installation of a pool skimmer line within the buffer zone to a wetlands resource area at 31 Ravenna Avenue. 4. Old/New Business • 61 and 185 Jefferson Ave.: Discussion of wetlands violation • DEP#64-512: 23 Parlee Street: Request for certificate of compliance Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. c-n r 3 m y s F on 'CJ11tt a �'r w Slat®R1. MOSS.Al 24 AA N e Palge 1 of i Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission May 10, 2012 Name Agency Phone Email goC,ri "K 87411 -6 0 �, �� r Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting • Date and Time: Thursday,May 10, 2012,6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chairwoman Julia Knisel,Michael Blier,David Pabich, Amy Hamilton,Dan Ricciarelli Members Absent: Bart Hoskins, Gavin McAuliffe Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:07PM. i. Meeting Minutes—April 12,2012 and April 26,2012 A motion to approve April 12th minutes is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. Ricciarelli motions to approve the April 26`h minutes, Hamilton seconds, and the motion passes unanimously. Note that Old/New business item"61 and 185 Jefferson Ave.: Discussion of wetlands violation" • is taken out of order and discussed first. Notes on that item may be found below under"Old/New Business." 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-525—Mark DeNisco, 10 Bailey Terrace, Peabody, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a 2-family home and appurtenances at 12 Woodbury Court within land subject to coastal storm flowage. Mark DeNisco presents. He discusses DEPcomments. The waves would have to go over the Jefferson apartments, cross the roadway, then land on Woodbury Court, which is very unlikely to happen, in order for this to be relevant. Devine reads the DEP comments, which require the applicant to show how placement of fill and foundation will deflect wave energy. They also wanted to know how it will meet the FEMA construction manual requirements for buildings in A zones. In the past they have conditioned that a building comply with the coastal construction manual. Pabich comments that the DEP comment is not just about wave deflection but also about redirecting overwash and floodwaters. Knisels states that the comments fail to consider the location of the site. Devine says the DEP does not look thoroughly at each filing, instead depending on Conservation Commissions to do a more thorough review. Pabich asks if there is any drainage in the immediate vicinity; there is a catch basin there. He • thinks there will be water during a storm surge, which is his main concern. He discusses displacement and elevations. He worries about displacement on to neighboring properties. Devine corresponded with the planner who staffs the planning board regarding whether major 1 i changes from the current plan would be needed to comply with the flood hazard overlay special permit requirements. The planner opined preliminarily that no major changes would be required. Pabich states that there is not enough detail on the plan to understand drainage and topography. • He is assuming everything done will be between elevations 9 and 10 with the first floor elevation at 10.5. Here he sees the applicant displacing 1400 cubic feet of water when the site floods. Water that sits there now would be displaced by the house and would go next door. He thinks the house should be built on pilings. Pabich says another solution would be to lower the grade by the same amount, but that can't be done with an AUL(Activity and Use Limitation) on the site. Chair Knisel asks if he has explored pilings; savings can be achieved on flood insurance with those. Pabich asks where the AUL starts; it is in the far, rear area, so the lot directly behind the house could be lowered. Pabich opines that they could bring enough area down. The Commission discusses various possible setups. The existing right of way is crushed stone. Ricciarelli feels an engineer should examine this issue and Pabich agrees. The two options for this applicant are grading or pilings. Mr. DeNisco would prefer the grading. Pabich urges him to look into flood insurance; if the house is on pilings he can save a lot on insurance. Chairwoman Knisel believes he could recoup the cost of pilings in 10-20 years. Mr. DeNisco agrees to weigh the options. Either way Pabich would like details. The water would have to flow through in any case. Decorative lattice could be placed around the base of an elevated house. Adding pilings is a building code issue; a grading plan is an engineering issue. Mr. DeNisco will talk to his structural engineer and get back to the Commission. He will need an engineer's stamp if lowering the parking area, but not if raising the house. • A motion to continue to the May 24 meeting is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and all are in favor. 3. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Michael E. Pelletier, 31 - Ravenna Ave, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed installation of a pool skimmer line within the buffer zone to a wetlands resource area at 31 Ravenna Avenue. Mr. Pelletier presents. There is a pool which has been there for 40 years; last year it was not opened due to the skimmer line not working. The pool technician determined that the leak in the line was under the concrete deck and it would be expensive to fix. The pool skimmer line is the tube that runs from the collecting basket of the pool, then comes back through the pump to catch floating material. If it leaks, debris cannot be pulled from the skimmer and the pool vacuum cannot be used, so the pool becomes unusable. In this case the concrete deck would have to be jack hammered, so the alternate option is to run a new, polypropylene line around the outside of the paved area instead, burying it in the ground. The trench would be one foot deep and 6" wide, then would be covered over. Work would be completed in one day, but the line would have to be winterized every year. It is a much more economical option and the one the owner would prefer to take. Devine comments that this is in the buffer zone 30' away from wetlands. Pabich outlines the • process. There are established plantings there. The applicant discusses setup and location of a fence. Devine suggests working on a dry day so dirt pulled out does not spill into wetlands. 2 Y The applicant describes the setup of the sewer pipe as well. • There are no members of the public in the audience thus no comments. A motion to close is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. A motion to issue a Negative 2 Determination is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 4. Old/New Business • 61 and 185 Jefferson Ave.: Discussion of wetlands violation This item is taken out of order on the agenda and discussed first. John Dick of Hancock Associates presents. They are working day by day on this project; he was at the site Tuesday and did his transects then. He thought a survey crew would be there today for the topographical map, but they got rained out so will go on Saturday. Document: Project Narrative May 9 2012. All transects are the same; he promised three and there are two. This is a phragmites-dominated upland wasteland; it is riverfront but is not wetlands. They are encroaching on National Grid's land and they are cooperating. He has not yet heard if National Grid will let them plant anything • taller than grass. As of now there are 18' stag horn sumacs in the right of way; occasionally they get mown down. Mr. Dick can not dictate what gets planted by his client since National Grid may decide it is not right. He wants to plant grass and wildflower mix, and will plant with shrubs if he can convince National Grid. The owners will use large concrete barrier blocks to prevent people from dumping further material. There is a sign saying there are cameras onsite. He mentions a seed mix in the narrative— it has more upland components and wetland indicators that will grow well in wasteland areas like this. DEP Title 5 was used as an evaluation form and the results of three test pits are detailed. One was 9", one was 10", and one was 20" deep, though we don't know where exactly the native material is. Mr. Dick opines that it may have been dredged out as peat but it would have been before his time. National Grid asked them to over- excavate by 6" and then bring it up to pre-work levels. This is B zone with negligible flooding so mitigation is not an issue, but they want to keep it in line with other uplands and have a good layer of vegetation. He estimates that a couple of hundred square feet may not be able to be planted; they may not be able to remove the concrete or stone underneath so nothing will grow there. The client has removed all his material from the encroachment and there is a barrier there with some old telephone poles and debris which will be replaced with a continuous row of concrete blocks. Now they need to get the Notice Of Intent filed and proceed with the work as approved by National Grid. • Devine has had contact with National Grid; both he and Mr. Dick were sent their comments, but they have not given them the go-ahead. The first step is to send them an NOI listing them as owner. The first page will go out tomorrow. Devine says they can approve Mr. Dick's plan and do the NOI later. Mr. Dick verified that materials were removed by sending Devine a set of 3 pictures. Devine would like to have his DEP contact review the vegetative analysis and give them the OK. • They also need National Grid's approval. In general we are digging to the 1997 grade and adding 6" of material, to be seeded. The applicant is not trying to restore bordering vegetative wetlands. Phragmites is the only wetland indicator. If Pam Merrill of the DEP confirms the analysis, Devine feels it is straightforward and Natonal Grid will just need to sign off. They will need to call Dig Safe and use equipment to clear out the material that is there. Pabich comments that it is logical to defer to the DEP on riverfront vs. upland analysis and Mr. Dick agrees. Devine will issue the Enforcement Order requiring the restoration plan to be implemented within a reasonable period of time. Mr. Dick says it would take a couple of weeks to do the work; Devine suggests 30 days after Pam's OK at the DEP and National Grid's approval. That will be early in the growing season too. It must be planted by the end of June. Normal monitoring is to report annually; Mr. Dick thinks the DEP wants every 5 years. Pam from DEP won't go down to the site unless DEP takes over enforcement. The Commission would like two years of annual Spring monitoring, in the spring of 2013 and 2014. Devine hopes to move forward in a week. The enforcement order would be in effect once Devine issues it andthen ratified at the next meeting. Restoration would be done under that Order but the Commission wants and after-the-fact NOI, which should be filed within 30 days of National Grid's approval. The applicant should move forward immediately at that point. • DEP#64-512: 23 Parlee Street: Request for certificate of compliance • The Commission was satisfied that the house and work was completed and satisfied the Order of Conditions. Ken Steadman certified that the infiltration system was installed as planned via a letter to the Commission. . A motion to issue the Certificate is made by Pabich, seconded by Blier and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. A motion to adjourn is made by Blier, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 7:OOPM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on May 24, 2012 4 a' ��pNtl/rf;n yrs CITY OF SALEM • ��Apf,fCONSERVATION COMMISSION May 11, 2012 P Frank Lanzillo 50 Centre Street Danvers, MA 01923 Re: Certificate of Compliance DEP #64-512: 23 Parlee Street Dear Mr. Lanzillo: Enclosed, please rind the Certificate of Compliance for the above referenced property. This document must be recorded at the Southern Essex District Registry of Deeds (Shetland Park, 45 Congress St., Suite 4100, Salem). Please till out and return' the Recording Information on page 3 of the certificate, which will indicate to' the Salem Conservation Commission that the document has been recorded. • If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at (978) 619-5685. Sincerely, Tom evine Conservation Agent/Staff Planner Enclosure CC: DEP Northeast Regional Office Pat and Ken Comeau F •> `>a p Y\, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection - Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands DEP File Number: WPA Form 813 — Certificate of Compliance 64_512 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 P,ededeYOEP A. Project Information Important: When filling out 1. This Certificate of Compliance is issued to: forms on the computer,use Frank Lanzillo only the tab key Name , to move your 50 Centre Street ------_ -.— ------ - --- cursor-do not -- - --- --.- use the return Mailing Address • key. Danvers MA 01923 - City/Town State Zip Code n 2. This Certificate of Compliance is issued for work regulated by a final Order of Conditions issued to: Frank Lanzillo Name 2/14/2011 __ 62-512 Dated DEP File Number 3. The project site is located at: 23 Parlee Street Salem Street Address City/Town 14 51 Assessors Map/Plat Number Parcel/Lot Number the final Order of Condition was recorded at the Registry of Deeds for: Kenneth and Patricia Comeau Property Owner(if different) Essex South County ------------- Book Page 85271 Certificate 4. A site inspection was made in the presence of the applicant, or the applicant's agent, on: 414/20 12 Date Date v:mrnm3n me o.v. LJ:!'lAg YMVA Penn HU.Cop�Yd:a of Con.plipnca Papp 1 of 1 • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands DEP File Number ?; WPA Form 8B — Certificate of Compliance 64_512 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by DEP B. Certification Check all that apply: ❑ Complete Certification: It is hereby certified that the work regulated by the above-referenced Order of Conditions has been satisfactorily completed. ❑ Partial Certification: It is hereby certified that only the following portions of work regulated by the above-referenced Order of Conditions have been satisfactorily completed. The project areas or work subject to this partial certification that have been completed and are released from this Order are: ❑ Invalid Order of Conditions: It is hereby certified that the work regulated by the above-referenced Order of Conditions never commenced. The Order of • Conditions has lapsed and is therefore no longer valid. No future work subject to regulation under the Wetlands Protection Act may commence without filing a new Notice of Intent and receiving a new Order of Conditions. ❑ Ongoing Conditions: The following conditions of the Order shall continue: (Include any conditions contained in the Final Order, such as maintenance or - monitoring, that should continue for a longer period). Condition Numbers: C. Authorization Issued by: _ Salem ------ — -- ---- - - --- -- --- —_ ---- - Connsese rvation Commission - Date of Issuance This Certificate must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission and a copy sent to the applicant and appropriate DEP Regional Offic See , http1/www.mas. ^ ep/about/region/flndyour.htm). St �atfie Ute- l (� V a,Ulnntlb'm' "v i`;29eJ9 WPA Fom,86,Coriif,jia of Pv9e 2of 3 - Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection • ` Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands DEP File Number: WPA Form 86 — Certificate of Compliance 64-512 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131 , §40 Provided by DEP D. Recording Confirmation The applicant is responsible for ensuring that this Certificate of Compliance is recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located. Detach on dotted line and submit to the Conservation Commission. To:-- --- - - --- --- Salem -Salem Conservation Commission Please be advised that the Certificate of Compliance for the project at: 23 Parlee Street 64-512 Project Location DEP File Number Has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds of: Southern Essex' • County for: Property Owner -- --------- - ------ ----- and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property on: Dale - Book Page If recorded land, the instrument number which identifies this transaction is: If registered land, the document number which identifies this transaction is: - - •Document Numbebe r Signature of Applicant �'p��r�mOb.tloc•nw.12123,09 NPA Form 813,Cc00x,lle of Compliance•Pe9e 3 0l 3 l a Tl - II 5= CITY OF SALEM � Q70/ CONSERVATION COMMISSION b'tiN6 May 11, 2012 , ^ Michael E. Pellitier 31 Ravenna Ave. Salem, MA 01970 Re: Determination of Applicability-31 Ravenna Ave. Dear Mr. Pellitier: ` Enclosed, please find the Determination of Applicability for the above referenced property. This permits the activity described in your Request for Determination of Applicability to commence after a ten day appeal period. This document is effective for three years from its date of issuance. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 978-619-5685. a • Sincerely, Tom Devine Conservation Agent/Staff Planner Enclosure CC: DEP Northeast Regional Office w' Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 = Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. General Information Important: When filling out From: forms on the Salem computer, use Conservation Commission. only the tab - key to move To: Applicant Property Owner(if different from applicant):' your cursor- do not use the Michael E. Pellitier return key. Name Name 31 Ravenna Ave. i6 Mailing Address - Mailing Address -- Salem MA od City/Town Code State Zip Code City?own State Zip Code 1. Title and Date(or Revised Date if applicable) of Final Plans and Other Documents: Proposed Replacement Skimmer to Filter Line by Anne Pelletier 4/26/2012 Title - - - Date Title - Date Title . . - Date 2. Date Request Filed; • 4/26/2012 B. Determination Pursuant to the authority of M.G.L. c. 131, §40, the Conservation Commission considered your Request for Determination of Applicability, with its supporting documentation, and made the following Determination. Project Description (if applicable): Intallation of a new line for a pool skimmer with 6" by 1' deep trench within approximately 30' from wetland resource area. Project Location: 31 Ravenna Ave. Salem • Street Address Cityfrown. 4 __ 10 _ Assessors Map/Plat Number ParceVLot Number wpalarm2.doc•0etarminmion of Applicability•rev.M&N page l of 5 I it Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands EL -01 ). WPA Form 2 Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) The following Determination(s)is/are applicable to the proposed site and/or project relative to the Wetlands Protection Act and regulations: Positive Determination Note: No work within the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act may proceed until a final Order of Conditions(issued following submittal of a Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent)or Order of Resource Area Delineation(issued following submittal of Simplified Review ANRAD)has been received from the issuing authority(i.e.,Conservation Commission or the Department of Environmental Protection). ❑ 1. The area described on the referenced plan(s)is an area subject to.protection under the Act. Removing,filling,dredging,or altering of the area requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 2a. The boundary delineations of the following resource areas described on the referenced plan(s)are confirmed as accurate.Therefore,the resource area boundaries confirmed in this Determination are binding as to all decisions rendered pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act and its regulations regarding such boundaries for as long as this Determination Is valid. ❑ 2b. The boundaries of resource areas listed below are no confirmed by this Determination, regardless of whether such boundaries are contained on the plans attached to this Determination or to the Request for Determination. , ❑ 3. The work described on referenced plan(s)and document(s) is within an area subject to protection under the Act and will remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 4. The work described on referenced plan(s) and document(s) is within the Buffer Zone and will alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent or ANRAD Simplified Review(if work is limited to the Buffer Zone). ❑ 5.The area and/or work described on referenced plan(s)and document(s) is subject to review and approval by: Name of Municipality- 4 - Pursuant to the following municipal wetland ordinance or bylaw: • Name - Ordinance or Bylaw Citation wpafarm2.eoa-0eierminaiiw of WicaNfity•rev.I m&N Vqe 2 of 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 - Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) ❑ 6. The following area and/or work, if any, is subject to a municipal ordinance or bylaw but not subject to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: r , ❑ 7. If a Notice of Intent is filed for the work in the Riverfront Area described on referenced plan(s) and document(s), which includes all or part of the work described in the Request, the applicant must consider the following alternatives.(Refer to the wetland regulations at 10.58(4)c. for more information about the scope of alternatives requirements): ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located: ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located, the subdivided lots, and any adjacent lots formerly or presently owned by the same owner. ❑ Alternatives limited to the original parcel on which the project is located, the subdivided parcels,any adjacent parcels, and any other land which can.reasonably be obtained within the municipality. ❑ Alternatives extend to any sites which can reasonably be obtained,within the appropriate • region of the state. Negative Determination Note: No further action under the Wetlands Protection Act is required by the applicant. However, if the Department is requested to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability, work may not proceed on this project unless the Department fails to act on such request within 35 days of the date the request is post-marked for certified mail or hand delivered to the Department. Work may then proceed at the owner's risk only upon notice to the Department and to the Conservation Commission. Requirements for requests for Superseding Determinations are listed at the end of this document. ❑ 1.The area described in the Request is not an area subject to protection under the Act or the Buffer Zone. 2.The work described in the Request is within an area subject to protection under the Act, but will not remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 3. The work described in the Request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined in the regulations, but will not alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, subject to the following conditions(if any). ❑ 4. The work described in the Request is not within an Area subject to protection under the Act (including the Buffer Zone). Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, unless and until said work alters an Area subject to protection under the Act. • wpalorm2do,-Deferminaai of Apgifabihry•rev,f d&06 _ Page 3of5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection L71� Bureau of Resource Protection- Wetlands WPA Form 2 - Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L.c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) ❑ 5.The area described in the Request is subject to protection under the Act.'Since the work described therein meets the requirements for the following exemption,'as specified in the Act and the regulations, no Notice of Intent is required: Exempt Activity(site applicable statuatory/regulatory provisions)- 6.The area and/or work described in the Request is not subject to review and approval by: Name of Municipality 1Pursuant to a mu(�nicipal1wetlandsdina/nce or byla{1w. J r, �`"�'`4•�IA.� I�riI�CP/I'R ��� l.evtJC/Vt tl'/G..� C� 0 a Name - Ordinance or Bylaw Citation C. Authorization • This Determination is issued to the applicant and delivered as follows: ❑ by hand delivery on by certified mail, return receipt requested on Date Date f This Determination is valid for three years from the date of issuance(except Determinations for Vegetation Management Plans which are valid for the duration of the Plan). This Determination does not relieve the applicant from complying with all other applicable federal, state,or local statutes, ordinances, bylaws, or regulations. This Determination must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission:A copy must be sent to the appropriate DEP Regional Office(see http://www.mass.aov/ld o/about/reaion.findvour.htm) and the property owner ' ren the applicant). % 1 s. - I ao 6 ---- Date xp fom,Zdoc•neielm"M'md APPiWbily•rev.1 &N Pa9ea d5 t Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection- Wetlands WPA Form 2 - Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40' D. Appeals The applicant,owner, any person aggrieved by this Determination, any owner of land abutting the land upon which the proposed work is to be done, or any ten residents of the city or town In which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the'appropriate Department of Environmental Protection Regional Office (see htto:Nwww.mass.oov/dep/about/reaion.findvour.htm) to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and Fee Transmittal Form (see Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form) as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7)within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Determination. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand deliveryto the Conservation Commission and to the applicant if he/she is not the appellant. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination which is being appealed.To the extent that the Determination is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department of Environmental Protection has no appellate jurisdiction. • • wpalam2.tloc•Delerminalion of Appbiadldy-w 1N&01' - Page 50/5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection ` VI Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands III Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form Lai � Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. Request Information Important: When filling out 1• Person or party making request(if appropriate, name the citizen group's representative): forms on the computer,use Name only the tab key to move your cursor- Mailing Address do not use the •return key. etturrnkey. City/Tom � � .. � `State - Zip Code I� Phone Number - Fax Number(if applicable) _ Project Location Mailing Address Cityrrown - State Tip Code 2. Applicant(as shown on Notice of Intent(Form 3),Abbreviated Notice of.Resource Area Delineation (Form 4A); or Request for Determination of Applicability(Form 1)): Name Mailing Address - City/Town State - Zip Code Phone Number Fax Number(if applicable),;. . 3. DEP File Number: k B. Instructions r . 1. When the Departmental action request is for(check one): ❑ Superseding Order of Conditions($100 for individual single family homes with associated structures; $200 for all other projects) ❑ Superseding Determination of Applicability($100) ❑ Superseding Order of Resource Area Delineation ($100) Send this form and check or money order focthe appropriate amount, payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to: Department of Environmental Protection • Box 4062 Boston, MA 02211 wp1orm2.dm•nc0uest lot Depanmenlat ancon Fee Transmitral Form•rev,ta'&N page i of 2 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection -- Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131; §40 B. Instructions (cont.) 2. On a separate sheet attached to this form, state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination or Order which is being appealed. To the extent that the Determination or Order is based on a municipal bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. 3. Send a copy of this form and a copy of the check or money order with the Request for a Superseding. Determination or Order by certified mail or hand delivery to the appropriate DEP Regional Office(see http://www.mass.gov/dep/about/region/findvour.htm). 4. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. • wpo10rm2.Eoc•Repuem In Depdnmeraal A46.F"Paaamieal Fmm•rev.I(MU - Page 2 d 2 'coiugir .. CITY OF SALEM s �M, ' CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING nil NAY �� P 1: 35 You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly Thursday,May 24, 2012 at 6:00 PM at the City Hall Annex,3'°floor conferAII r , 2 ashington Street, Salem,MA. Julia Knisel Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Meeting Minutes—May 10,2012 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-525—Mark DeNisco, 10 Bailey Terrace, Peabody, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a 2-family home and appurtenances at 12 Woodbury Court within land subject to coastal storm flowage. g. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-523—William Wharff, 30 Federal St., Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a parking lot and associated utilities within riverfront area, land subject to coastal storm flowage, and buffer zone to • coastal bank at 162 and 150 Federal St. 4. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Palmer Cove Yacht Club-74 Leavitt Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a storage shed within land subject to coastal storm flowage and buffer zone to coastal bank at 74 Leavitt Street. g. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Pan Am Railways-1700 Iron Horse Park, Billerica, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss verification of wetlands boundaries to determine sensitive areas in planning for the application of herbicides on the Pan Am right of way parallel roughly to the North River between the Peabody line and Leslie's Retreat Park. 6. Old/New Business , 61 and 185 Jefferson Ave.: Discussion of wetlands violation • Update on City of Salem and Town of Marblehead's efforts to acquire the former Chadwick Lead Mills property for use as parkland Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. pood on 0 ftmod, C>- 939 Zt Page i of i Please Sign-In J* Salem Conservation Commission May 24, 2012 Name Agency Phone Email &C q,k- ME 1971 29ia k77 • Ji Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting • Date and Time: Thursday, May 24, 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, Bart Hoskins, Gavin McAuliffe Members Absent: Michael Blier, Amy Hamiltom Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:05PM. Hoskins is not yet present. i. Meeting Minutes—May 10, 2012 A motion to approve the minutes is made by McAuliffe, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously. 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-525—Mark DeNisco, 10 Bailey Terrace, Peabody, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a 2-family home and appurtenances at 12 Woodbury Court within land subject to coastal storm flowage. • Mr. DeNisco submits a"Plan to Accompany NOI" dated May 16, 2012. The building was made slightly smaller to accommodate the volume of some of the water. It is stamped by a civil engineer, who is confident that the smaller footprint will even out the water displaced. McAuliffe asks if only the lower level has shrunk, but the whole building is smaller. Pabich asks if there is an accompanying letter describing what was done and the purpose, from the engineer, since there is nothing on the plan describing why this was done. A bullet point on the plan would be sufficient;Pabich says it is obvious to him why this was done, but to someone else it might not be. Mr. DeNisco says he will cross that bridge when he comes to it. Chair Knisel says they can condition it and Pabich wants to be sure this is noted in the minutes. Pabich also asks about the contours and elevations of the site. Ricciarelli discusses this also. Chairwoman Knisel asks if Pabich is satisfied with how the catch basin is tied in--he is but ` wonders if the City Engineer would agree. The tie-in should be according to City specifications; the applicant must still go before the Planning board, where the City Engineer will have a chance to comment. Chairwoman Knisel opines that Mr. DeNisco has satisfied the Commission's conditions. There are no public comments. A Motion to close the public hearing is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes 4-0. • A motion to issue the Order of Conditions with a special condition that final approval be given by the city to tie in to the catch basin is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliffe, and passes 4-0 (Bart Hoskins is not present but would not have been eligible to vote on this matter anyway). This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 1 3. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP 464-523—William Wharff, 30 Federal St., Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a parking lot and associated utilities within riverfront area, land subject to coastal storm flowage, and buffer zone to coastal bank at 162 and 150 Federal St. The applicant has requested a continuation of this hearing to June 24th. A motion to continue is made by McAuliffe, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. 4. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Palmer Cove Yacht Club-74 Leavitt Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a storage shed within land subject to coastal stone flowage and buffer zone to coastal bank at 74 Leavitt Street. This item is being taken out of order, after 43 and old/new business; as the applicants for item #5 are not yet present. John Burke represents Palmer Cove Yacht Club at 74 Leavitt St. They want to put down a concrete pad to build a permanent storage area. This would be beside two outbuildings,already there. The applicants discuss the setup on the plan, (unlabeled and undated). Pabich asks if it is a gravel area–the area is gravel and flat packed dirt, and all is level. A couple of years ago they completed a wash pad for boats, which is also depicted on the plan. Pabich asks for clarification on the setup and Mr. Burke explains. • The yard is so well packed you can find old bricks, Rich Momeau of Palmer Cove says. The slab is very thick and will contain rebar. There are no members of the public present, thus no comments. A motion to issue a Negative 2 Determination is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes 4-0 (Hoskins still not present, arrives at 6:28PM). This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 5. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Pan Am Railways-1700 Iron Horse Park, Billerica, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss verification of wetlands boundaries to determine sensitive areas in planning for the application of herbicides on the Pan Am right of way parallel roughly to the North River between the Peabody line and Leslie's Retreat Park. This agenda item was postponed until all other business had been discussed but the applicant is still not present as of 6:28PM. There are no audience members. A motion to continue to June 10' is made by Pabich, seconded McAuliffe, and passes 5-0. 6. Old/New Business • • 61 and 185 Jefferson Ave.: Discussion of wetlands violation This item is taken out of order (just after item 43) since Hoskins is not yet present. Devine was hoping to issue the enforcement order last week but National Grid has not given final approval. 2 He thinks they should just go ahead and issue the Order now. The timeframe would include 30 days to implement the plan, then 30 days to file an after-the-fact Notice of Intent for the purpose • of having a public process. Annual monitoring for the 2013-2014 seasons would be required. The commission issues the enforcement order. This order is hereby made a part of these minutes. • Update on City of Salem and Town of Marblehead's efforts to acquire the former Chadwick Lead Mills property for use as parkland Marblehead is spending $1.5 million to acquire part of this site that is on their side. Salem is responsible to pay $100,000 for their portion. The two municipalities are jointly applying for a $400,000 grant to support the acquisition. Devine state's that if the city acquires the property, it would be in the hands of other the Conservation Commission or Parks and Recreation Commission. The commission indicates willingness to accept the land. Devine may later ask the commission for a support letter. The city is also applying for a grant for improvements to Bertram Field and Devine wonders if the commission would be willing to host an information session for this. The commission has no obj ection. The City Solicitor wants Devine to share the policy on the videotaping of meetings with the Commission. If an audience member wants to record video at a meeting, the commission must allow it, provided it doesn't interfere with the meeting. •. A motion to adjourn is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 6:32PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on July 12, 2012 3 CON�trT N a CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION May 29, 2012 Mark DeNisco 10 Bailey Terrace Peabody, MA 01960 Re: Order of Conditions—DEP #64-525-12 Woodbury Court Dear Mr. DeNisco: Enclosed, please find the Order of Conditions for the above referenced project. Following the 10-business-day appeal period, this document and the attached Special Conditions must be recorded at the Essex County Registry of Deeds (Shetland Park 45 Congress Street, Suite 4100 Salem, Massachusetts). Once recorded, please return a copy of Page 12 of the Order, which will indicate to the Commission that the document has been recorded. As indicated in the Order, prior to any work commencing: • 1. this Order must be recorded, 2. all pre-construction conditions must be satisfactorily addressed 3. a sign shall be displayed showing DEP File #64-525 within public view, and 4. contact me at least 48 hours prior to any activity to schedule a pre-construction meeting to review the Order with your hired contractor. If you have any further questions,please feel free to contact me at 978-619-5685. Sincerely, Tom Devine Conservation Agent/Staff Planner Enclosures CC: DEP Northeast Regional Office Wayne Scott, Trustee Attachment to Order of Conditions # 64-525 Page t of 5 • SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION DEP FILE#64-525 12 Woodbury Court City of Salem, Massachusetts ADDITIONAL FINDINGS Based on the Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife and Certified Vernal Pools Map (October 1, 2008) from Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, it has been determined that this project does not occur near any habitat of state-listed rare wildlife species nor contains any vernal pools. This Order is issued under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, M.G.L.Chapter 131, Section 40 and the City of Salem Wetlands Protection Ordinance, Salem Code Chapter 50. This Order permits the construction of residential structure and appurtenances within land subject to coastal storm Flowage. Prior to the start of construction, applicant must obtain approval from the City to tie into the municipal stormwater system. GENERAL CONDITIONS L This Order of Conditions must be recorded in its entirety(including all 5 pages of Special Conditions) at the Essex County Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, after the expiration of the 10-business-day appeal period and within 30 days of the issuance. A copy of the recording information must be submitted to the Salem Conservation Commission before any work approved in this Order commences. 2. Approval of this application does not constitute compliance with any law or regulation other than M.G.L Chapter 131, Section 40, Wetlands Regulations 310 CMR 10.00 and the City of Salem Wetlands Protection Ordinance, Salem Code Chapter 50. 3. All work shall be performed in accordance with this Order of Conditions and approved site plan(s). No alteration of wetland resource areas or associated buffer zones,other than that approved in this Order, shall occur on this property without prior approval from the Commission. 4. Prior to any work commencing on site, a DEP Sign showing DEP File#64-525 must be installed at the entrance to the site and seen from the public way, but not placed on a living tree. 5. No work approved in this Order may commence until the ten(10)day appeal period has lapsed from the date of the issuance of this Order. 6. With respect to this Order, the Commission designates ttte Conservation Agent as its agent with powers to act on its behalf in administering and enforcing this Order. 7. The Commission or its Agent,officers, or employees shall have the right to enter and inspect the property at . any time for compliance with the conditions of this Order,the Wetlands Protection Act MGL Chapter 131, Section 40,the Wetlands Regulations 310 CMR 10.00, and shall have the right to require any data or documentation that it deems necessary for that evaluation. Attachment to Order of Conditions #6=-525 r Page 2 of 5 8. The term "Applicant'as used in this Order of Conditions shall refer to the owner,any successor in interest or successor in control of the property referenced in the Notice of intent, supporting documents and this Order of Conditions. The Commission shall be notified in writing within 30 days of all transfers of title of any portion of the property that takes place prior to issuance of the Certificate of Compliance. 9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to procure all other applicable federal, state and local permits and approvals associated with this project. These permits may include but are not necessarily limited to the following: (1) Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act(P.L.92-500, 86 stat. 816), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2) Water Quality Certification in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution Control under authority of sec.27(5)of Chapter 21 of the Massachusetts General Laws as codified in 314 CMR 9.00. (3) Sewer Extension Permit from the DEP Division of Water Pollution Control under G. L. Ch. 2 I ss7 and 314 CMR 7.00. Any Board of Health permit for septic system design for any portion of the septic system within 100 feet of wetlands shall be submitted to the Commission prior to construction initiation. (4) Design Requirements for Construction in Floodplains under the State Building Code(780 CMR 744.). . 10. If there are conflicting conditions within this Order,the stricter condition(s)shall rule. 11. All work shall be performed so as to ensure that there will be no sedimentation into wetlands and surface waters during construction or after completion of the project. 12. The Commission or its Agent shall have the discretion to modify the erosion/siltation control methods and boundary during construction if necessary. 1.3. The Commission reserves the right to impose additional conditions on portions of this project or this site to mitigate any actual or potential impacts resulting from the work herein permitted. 14. The work shall conform to the following attached plans and special conditions: Final Approved Plans Plan to Accompany Notice of,Intent Located in Salem, MA prepared for Mark DeNisco (Title) 5/16/2012 (Dated) Clayton Morin (Signed and Stamped by) City of Salem Conservation Commission (On file with) 15. Any proposed changes in the approved plan(s)or any deviation in construction from the approved plants)shall require the applicant to file a Notice of Project Change with the Commission. The Notice shall be accompanied by a written inquiry prior to their implementation in the field,as to whether the Attachment to Order of Conditions # 64-525 f Page 3 of 5 • cliange(s) is substantial enough to require filing a new Notice of Intent or a request to correct or amend this Order of Conditions. A copy of such request shall at the same time be sent to the Department of Environmental Protection. 16. In conjunction with the sale of this property or any portion thereof before a Certificate of Compliance has been issued,the applicant or current landowner shall submit to the Commission a statement signed by the buyer that he/she is aware of an outstanding Order of Conditions on the property and has received a copy of the Order of Conditions. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 17. Prior to the commencement of any activity on this site other than activities listed above,there must be a Pre-Construction Meeting on site between the project supervisor, the contractor responsible for the work, and the Conservation Agent and/or a member of the Conservation Commission to ensure that the requirements of the Order of Conditions are understood. The staked erosion control line shall be adjusted, if necessary,during the pre-construction meeting. Please contact the Conservation Agent at (978)619-5685 at least forty-eight(48) hours prior to construction to arrange for the Pre- Construction Meeting. 18. Prior to the pre-construction meeting and commencement of any activity on this site, sedimentation and erosion control barriers shall be installed as shown on the approval plan(s)and detail drawings. The Commission and/or its Agent shall inspect and approve such installation at the pre-construction • meeting. 19. No clearing of vegetation, including trees,or disturbance of soil shall occur prior to the pre-construction meeting. Minimal disturbance of shrubs and herbaceous plants shall be allowed prior to the pre- construction meeting if absolutely necessary in order to place erosion control stakes where required. 20. There shall be sufficient additional erosion control materials stored under cover on the site to be used for emergency erosion control purposes. EROSION CONTROL 21. Appropriate erosion control devices shall be in place prior to the beginning of any phase of construction, and shall be maintained during construction in any wetland resource area and/or buffer zones. The erosion control measures shown on the approval plan(s)and provisions in the Order will be the minimum standards for this project: the Commission or its Agent may require additional measures. 22. All debris, fill and excavated material shall be stockpiled a location far enough away from the wetland resource areas to prevent sediment from entering wetland resource areas. 23. Erosion and sedimentation control devices shall be, inspected after each storm event and repaired or replaced as necessary. Any accumulated silt adjacent to the barriers shall be removed. 24. The area of construction shall remain in a stable condition at the close of each construction day. 25. Any de-watering of trenches or other excavation required during construction shall be conducted so as to prevent siltation of wetland resource areas. All discharge from de-watering activities shall be filtered through hay bale sediment traps, silt filter bags or other means approved by the Commission or its Administrator. Attachment to Order of Conditions #t 64-525 a€ Page 4 of 5 26. Within thirty (30)days of completion of construction on any given portion of the project,all disturbed areas in the completed portion of the site shall be permanently stabilized with rapidly growing vegetative cover, using sufficient top soil to assure long-term stabilization of disturbed areas. 27. If soils are to be disturbed for longer than two(2)months,a temporary cover of rye or other grass should be established to prevent erosion and sedimentation. If the season is not appropriate for plant growth, exposed surface shall be stabilized by other appropriate erosion control measures, firmly anchored, to prevent soils from being washed by rain or flooding. DURING CONSTRUCTION 28. A copy of this Order of Conditions and the plan(s)approved in this Order shall be available on site at all times when work is in progress. 29. No alteration or activity shall occur beyond the limit of work as defined by the siltation barriers shown on the approved plan(s). 30. All waste products,grubbed stumps,slash;construction materials,etc.shall be deposited at least 100 feet from wetland resource areas and 200 feet from river. 31. Cement trucks shall not be washed out in any wetland resource or buffer zone area,nor into any drainage system. Any deposit of cement or concrete products into a buffer zone or wetland resource area shall be immediately removed. 32. All exposed sub-soils shall be covered by a minimum of three(3) inches of quality screened loam topsoil prior to seeding and final stabilization. 33. Immediately following drainage structure installation all inlets shall be protected by silt fence,haybale barriers and/or silt bags to filter silt from stormwater before it enters the drainage system. 34. There shall be no pumping of water from wetland resource areas. 35. All equipment shall be inspected regularly for leaks. Any leaking hydraulic lines,cylinders or any other components shall be fixed immediately. 36. During construction,all drainage structures shall be inspected regularly and cleaned as necessary. 37. The applicant is herby notified that failure to comply with all requirements herein may result in the issuance of enforcement actions by the Conservation Commission including, but not limited to,civil administrative penalties under M.G.L Chapter 21 A,section 16. AFTER CONSTRUCTION 38. Upon completion of construction and final soil stabilization, the applicant shall submit the following to .the Conservation Commission to request a Certificate of Compliance(COC): (1) A Completed Request for a Certificate of Compliance form (WPA Form 8A or other form if required by the Conservation Commission at the time of request). (2) A letter from a Registered Professional Engineer certifying compliance of the property with this 0 Order of Conditions. (3) An "As-Built"plan signed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer or Land Surveyor showing post-construction conditions within all areas under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. This plan shall include at a minimum: Ps. Attachment to Order of Conditions # 64-525 Page 5 of 5 • (a) All wetland resource area boundaries with associated buffer zones and regulatory setback areas taken from the plan(s)approved in this Order of Conditions; (b) Locations and elevations of all stormwater management conveyances, structures and best management designs, including foundation drains,constructed under this Order within any wetland resource area or buffer zone; (c) Distances from any structures constructed under this Order to wetland resource areas- "structures"include,but are not limited to,all buildings, septic system components, wells, utility lines,fences,retaining walls,and roads/driveways; (d) A line delineating the limit of work-"work"includes any filling,excavating and/or disturbance of soils or vegetation approved under this Order; 39. When issued, the Certificate of Compliance must be recorded at the Essex County Registry of Deeds and a copy of the recording submitted to the Salem Conservation Commission. 40. If the completed work differs from that in the original plans and conditions, the report must specify how the work differs; at which time the applicant shall first request a modification to the Order. Only upon review and approval by the Commission, may the applicant request in writing a Certificate of Compliance as described above. 41. Erosion control devices shall remain in place and properly functioning until all exposed soils have been stabilized with final vegetative cover and the Conservation Commission and/or its Agent has authorized their removal. • ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS 42. Prior to the start of construction, applicant must obtain approval from the City to tie into the municipal storm water system. • — — Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by klassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection Wetlands 64-525 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP File" u L _ Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eb PTransacfion# Salem City/Town A. General Information Please note: Salem this rorni has t From: . ... been modified Conservation Commission with added 2, This issuance is for space le a.®Order of Conditions b. ❑ Amended Order of Conditions . accommodate _ (Check one): the Registry of Deeds 3. To: Applicant Requirements - Mark DeNisco .". Important a. First Name b.Last Name When filling out roans c.Organization on the 10 Bailey Terrace computer. _ _. ,, _y.e. ........ ..... ._ .. .s __ .... ......... .. ..... .„.«-....:. use only the d.Mailing Address tab key to Peabody MA 01960 . . move your e.City/Town I.State g.Zip Lode cursor-do not use the 4. Property Owner (if different from applicant): return key. Wayne Scott, Trustee r� a. First Name b.Last Name c Organization 505 Paradise Road Apt. 121 d Mailing Address __.. - _... .. . ... . .. ... Sale a MA 01970 e .City/Town� f.State ._ y.Zip Code 5..Project Location: .. 12 Woodbury Court Salem - a.Street Address b.City/Town 361 c Assessors Map/Plat Number d Parcel/Lot Number .v Latitude and Longitude, if known: 42d31m38s 70d53n 6s d. Latitude e.Longitude - Paul f v`12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by IsassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-525 ~ WPA Form 5 Order of Conditions a assDEpFiiPu Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 -- - --- eDEP Transaction# Salem City/Town A. General Information (cont.) s: Property recorded at the Registry of Deeds for (attach additional information if more than one parcel): Essex South a County � b.Cert dicate Number(it registered land) - 1821.6 .__ 7 c. Book - - d. Page ...._.. 7. Dates: 4/26/2012 5/24!2012 5/30/2012 — .. a Date Notice of Intent Filed b.Date Public Hearing Closed c.Dale of Issuance a. Final Approved Plans and Other Documents (attach additional plan or document references as needed): Plan to Accompany Notice of Intent Located in Salem, MA Prepared for Mark DeNisco a.Plan Title ...,. ..,. .. . ..-. _ ..._._. Eastern Land Survey Associates Clayton A. Morin _ . Payton _.. b.Pre ared B ,.. .. .,.._. -:_..... P Y � � c.Signed and Stamped_ by 5116/2012 1"=20' d. Final Revision Date - e.Scale I.Atldrtional Plan or Document Title g. Dale B. Findings — -- -- 1. Findings pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: Following the review of the above-referenced Notice of Intent and based on the information provided in this application and presented at the public hearing, this Commission finds that the areas in which work is proposed is significant to the following interests of the Wetlands Protection Act (the Act). Check all that apply: a. ❑ Public Water Supply b. ❑ Land Containing Shellfish r ® Prevention of Pollution d. ❑ Private Water Supply e. ❑ Fisheries I. ® Protection of Wildlife Habitat g.. ❑ Groundwater Supply h. ❑ Storm Damage Prevention i. ❑ Flood Control 2. This Commission hereby finds the project, as proposed, is: (check one of the following boxes) Approved subject to a. ® the following conditions which are necessary in accordance with the performance standards set forth in the wetlands regulations. This Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the Notice of Intent referenced above, the following General Conditions, and any other special conditions attached to this Order. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, these conditions shall control. zpalo:r^.'acc r v.JSn i,2o�r. Page 2012 . Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassoER �. Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands 64-525 - - WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions MassDEPFile# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c 131, §40 To- ---- - eDEP Transaction d - - __—._ Salem _ r_...,�...._ .-:. City/Town B. Findings (cont.) Denied because: b. ❑ the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the performance standards set forth in the wetland regulations, Therefore,work on this project may not go forward unless and until a new Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to protect the interests of the Act, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the performance standards which the proposed work cannot meet is attached to this Order. G. ❑ the information submitted by the applicant is not sufficient to describe the site, the work, or the effect of the work on the interests identified in the Wetlands Protection Act. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides sufficient information and includes measures which are adequate to protect the Act's interests, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the specific information which is lacking and why it is necessary is attached to this Order as per 310 CMR 10.05(6)(c). 3 ❑ Buffer Zone Impacts: Shortest distance between limit of project disturbance and the wetland resource area specified in 310 CMR 10.02(1)(a) a.linear feet Inland Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) Resource Area Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted ' Alteration Alteration Replacement Replacement 4. ❑ Bank I _ e ., ,_..f--- . . .... __ a. linear feet b.Imear eet c.linear feet d,linear feet s ❑ Bordering Vegetated Wetland a.square feet Itsquare feet c square feet^ d.square feet s. ❑ Land Under Waterbodies and a.square feel b.square feet c.square feet d square feet Waterways e.c/y dredged I.Uy dredged 7. ❑ Bordering Land Subject to Flooding a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d square feet Cubic Feet Flood Storage Or cubic test I.cubic feet g.cubic feet h.cubic feet 8. ❑ Isolated Land Subject to Flooding a.square feet b square feet Cubic Feel Flood Storage - c. - - - -_. .-- c.cubic fee[ d.cubic feeie t. e.cubic'feet f cubic feet. q . ❑ Riverfront Area b.total sq.feet Sq It within 100 It J.square feet ;o ro„r f.square feet Sq It between 100- 200 If ao� h.square feet �,,, ;reor_ I square feet nya!onnS duo OSi;t:YC:n - Page9 of 1 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: �, Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-525 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP E,e# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c-131, §40 EP -- � � eDTransaction# — Salem Citylfown B. Findings (cont.) Coastal Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration Alteration Replacement Replacement o. ❑ Designated Port Areas Indicate size under Land Under the Ocean, below I . ❑ Land Under the Ocean a.square feet b.square feet c.c/y dredged d c/y dredged ' Indicate size under Coastal Beaches and/or Coastal Dunes 12 [1 Barrier Beaches below 13. ❑ Coastal Beaches w .. ... cu yd_ .- _Fu_Yd_. a.square feet b square feet c.nourishment d nourishment tg. ❑ Coastal Dunes cu yd cu yd_ a..square feet b.square feet c.nourishment d.nourishment 15. ❑ Coastal Banks - -- -- -- - a.linear feet b.Iin-ear-feet is. ❑ Rocky Intertidal Shores a,square feet b.square feet n. ❑ Salt Marshes a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d square feet M ❑ Land Under Salt Ponds - a.square feet b.square feet C.Gy dredged d c/y dredged - - fs. F-1 Land Containing Shellfish a.square feet'. - b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet zg. ❑ Fish Runs Indicate size under Coastal Banks, Inland Bank, Land Under the Ocean, and/or inland Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways, above r _ a.Gy dredged b c/y dredged 21. ® Land Subject to 4,525 - 4,525 Coastal Storm _ a.square feet b.square feet Flowage • of 12 i --- Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource.Protection- Wetlands 64-525 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP PIe t Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 _. - eDEP Transaction# ...... Salem City/Town - B. Findings (cont.) -- -- -- - - •#22.If the 22 ❑ Restoration/Enhancement project is for -the purpose of restoring or enhancing a a square feet of BVW b.square feet of salt marsh wetland resource area 23. ❑ Stream Crossing(s): in addition to - - the square __-._._... . .. .. _._.-..,.a_..�.,,_.__... footage that a.number of new stream crossings b.number of replacement stream crossings has been C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act entered in _ - Section B.5.c _ 1317.c(Salt The following conditions are only applicable to Approved projects. Marsh)above, 1Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein, and with all related statutes and other please enter regulatory measures,.shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this Order. the additional - 9 Y y amount here. 2. The Order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges; it does not authorize any injury to private property or invasion of private rights. 3. This Order does not relieve the permittee or any other person of the necessity of complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, bylaws, or regulations. 4. The work authorized hereunder shall be completed within three years from the date of this Order unless either of the following apply: a. the work is a maintenance dredging project as provided for in the Act; or b. the time for completion has been extended to a specified date more than three years, but less than five years, from the date of issuance. If this Order is intended to be valid for more than three years, the extension dale and the special circumstances warranting the extended time period are set forth as a special condition in this Order. 5 This Order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or more periods of up to three years each upon application to the issuing authority at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the Order. 6. If this Order constitutes an Amended Order of Conditions, this Amended Order of Conditions does not extend the issuance date of the original Final Order of Conditions and the Order will expire on 5/30/2015 unless extended in writing by the Department. 7. Any fill used in connection with this project shall be clean fill. Any fill shall contain no trash, refuse, rubbish, or debris, including but not limited to lumber, bricks, plaster, wire, lath, paper, cardboard, pipe, tires, ashes, refrigerators, motor vehicles, or parts of any of the foregoing. 8. This Order is not final until all administrative appeal periods from this Order have elapsed, or if such an appeal has been taken, until all proceedings before the Department have been completed. • wpale"15 do, «v-05!=9"010 Pape 5 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassoEP: Bureau of Resource Protection Wetlands 64-525 � WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP File# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eoEP Transactio �- -- Salem _ - City/Town C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) 9. No work shall be undertaken until the Order has become final and then has been recorded ' in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property.In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done. In the case of the registered land, the Final Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is done. The recording information shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission on the form at the end of this Order, which form must be stamped by the Registry of Deeds, prior to the commencement of work. 10. A sign shall be displayed at the site not less then two square feet or more than three square feet in size bearing the words, "Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection" [or, "MassDEP"] "File Number 64-525 " 11. Where the Department of Environmental Protection is requested to issue a Superseding Order, the Conservation Commission shall be a party to all agency proceedings and hearings before MassDEP. 12. Upon completion of the work described herein, the applicant shall submit a Request for Certificate of Compliance(WPA Form 8A) to the Conservation Commission. 13. The work shall conform to the plans and special conditions referenced in this order. 14. Any change to the plans identified in Condition #13 above shall require the applicant to inquire of the Conservation Commission in writing whether the change is significant enough to require the filing of a new Notice of Intent. 15. The Agent or members of the Conservation Commission and the Department of Environmental Protection shall have the right to enter and inspect the area subject to this Order at reasonable hours to evaluate compliance with the conditions stated in this Order, and may require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by the Conservation Commission or Department for that evaluation. 16. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in interest or successor in control of the property subject to this Order and to any contractor or other person performing work conditioned by this Order. 17. Prior to the start of work, and if the project involves work adjacent to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland, the boundary of the wetland in the vicinity of the proposed work area shall be marked by wooden stakes or flagging. Once in place, the wetland boundary markers shay be maintained until a Certificate of Compliance has been issued by the Conservation Commission. • wnalmnu^"nor- rzr OS!92C10 - Page 6.1 12 • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassoEP:, Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-525 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions GssDEPFi# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 f;6 ---- EP Transaction# Salem City/Town C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) 18. All sedimentation barriers shall be maintained in good repair until all disturbed areas have been fully stabilized with vegetation or other means. At no time shall sediments be deposited in a wetland or water body.During construction, the applicant or his/her designee shall inspect the erosion controls on a daily basis and shall remove accumulated sediments as needed. The applicant shall immediately control any erosion problems that occur at the site and shall also immediately notify the Conservation Commission,which reserves the right to require additional erosion and/or damage prevention controls it may deem necessary. Sedimentation barriers shall serve as the limit of work unless another limit of work line has been approved by this Order. NOTICE OF STORMWATER CONTROL AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS 19. The work associated with this Order(the "Project') is (1)❑ is not(2)® subject to the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards. If the work is subject to the Stormwater Standards, then the project is subject to the following conditions: a) All work, including site preparation, land disturbance, construction and redevelopment, shall be implemented in accordance with the construction period pollution prevention and erosion and sedimentation control plan and, if applicable, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit as required by Stormwater Condition 8. Construction period erosion, sedimentation and pollution control measures and best management practices (BMPs) shall remain in place until the site is fully stabilized. b) No stormwater runoff may be discharged to the post-construction stormwater BMPs unless and until a Registered Professional Engineer provides a Certification that: i. all construction period BMPs have been removed or will be removed by a date certain specified in the Certification. For any construction period BMPs intended to be converted to post construction operation for stormwater attenuation, recharge, and/or treatment, the conversion is allowed by the MassDEP Stormwater Handbook BMP specifications and that the BMP has been properly cleaned or prepared for post construction operation, including removal of all construction period sediment trapped in inlet and outlet control structures; ii. as-built final construction BMP plans are included, signed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, certifying the site is fully stabilized; iii. any illicit discharges to the stormwater management system have been removed, as per the requirements of Stormwater Standard 10; iv. all post-construction stormwater BMPs are installed in accordance with the plans (including all planting plans)approved by the issuing authority, and have been inspected to ensure that they are not damaged and that they are in proper working condition; v. any vegetation associated with post-construction BMPs is suitably established to withstand erosion. spaia119.doc- -IV Page 7of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Prodded by MassDEP. • Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-525 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions 14ss[)CP File* Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c 131,:§40 -- - - ebEP Transaction# �- — Salem CityrTown C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) c) The landowner is responsible for BMP maintenance until the issuing authority is notified that another party has legally assumed responsibility for BMP maintenance. Prior to requesting a Certificate of Compliance, or Partial Certificate of Compliance, the responsible party(defined in General Condition 18(e))shall execute and submit to the issuing authority an Operation and Maintenance Compliance Statement ("O&M Statement) for the Stormwater BMPs identifying the party responsible for implementing the stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan ("O&M Plan") and certifying the following: i.) the O&M Plan is complete and will be implemented upon receipt of the Certificate of Compliance, and ii,) the future responsible parties shall be notified in writing of their ongoing legal responsibility to operate and maintain the stormwater management BMPs and implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. d) Post-construction pollution prevention and source control shall be implemented in accordance with the long-term pollution prevention plan section of the approved Stormwater Report and, if applicable; the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Multi-Sector General Permit. e) Unless and until another party accepts responsibility, the landowner, or owner of any . drainage easement, assumes responsibility for maintaining each BMP. To overcome this presumption, the landowner of the property must submit to the issuing authority a legally binding agreement of record, acceptable to the issuing authority, evidencing that another entity has accepted responsibility for maintaining the BMP, and that the proposed responsible party shall be treated as a permittee for purposes of implementing the requirements of Conditions 18(f)through 18(k)with respect to that BMP. Any failure of the proposed responsible party to implement the requirements of Conditions 18(f)through 18(k)with respect to that BMP shall be a violation of the Order of Conditions or Certificate of Compliance. In the case of stormwater BMPs that are serving more than one lot, the legally binding agreement shall also identify the lots that will be serviced by the stormwater 8MPs. A plan and easement deed that grants the responsible party access to perform the required operation and maintenance must be submitted along with the legally binding agreement. f) The responsible party shall operate and maintain all stormwater BMPs in accordance with the design plans, the O&M Plan, and the requirements of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. euoloun5 mx rev.05n52010 - Nge 8 0 12 -� Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-525 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP File# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eoEPTransaction i Salem ._.... - City/Town _ C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) g) The responsible party shall. 1. Maintain an operation and maintenance log for the last three (3) consecutive calendar years of inspections, repairs, maintenance and/or replacement of the stormwater management system or any part thereof, and disposal (for disposal the log shall indicate the type of material and the disposal location); 2. Make the maintenance log available to MassDEP and the Conservation Commission ("Commission")upon request; and 3. Allow members and agents of the MassDEP and the Commission to enter and inspect the site to evaluate and ensure that the responsible party is in compliance with the requirements for each BMP established in the O&M Plan approved by the issuing authority. h) All sediment or other contaminants removed from stormwater BMPs shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. i) Illicit discharges to the stormwater management system as defined in 310 CMR 10.04, are prohibited. • j) The stormwater management system approved in the Order of Conditions shall not be changed without the prior written approval of the issuing authority. k) Areas designated as qualifying pervious areas for the purpose of the Low Impact Site Design Credit (as defined in the MassDEP Stormwater Handbook, Volume 3, Chapter 1, Low Impact Development Site Design Credits)shall not be altered without the prior written approval of the issuing authority. 1) Access for maintenance, repair, and/or replacement of BMPs shall not be withheld. Any fencing constructed around stormwater BMPs shall include access gates and shall be at least six inches above grade to allow for wildlife passage. Special Conditions (if you need more space for additional conditions, please attach a text document): • :vPlr�em5 m<. ,ay.n5n 520 i0 Pa3e 9 01 l' Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands 64-525 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions tdassDEPFile# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G1. c 131, §40 - eDEP Transaction# L_ J Salem `: :. - CitylTown D. Findings Under Municipal Wetlands Bylaw or Ordinance' 1. Is a municipal wetlands bylaw or ordinance applicable? EJ Yes - ❑ No 2. The Salemhereby finds(check one that applies): w_ m _ Conservat.ion Commission a. ❑that the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the standards set forth in a municipal ordinance or bylaw; specifically: 1 Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw - 2.Citation Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to meet these standards, and a final Order of Conditions is issued b. ® that the following additional conditions are necessary to comply with a municipal ordinance or bylaw: Wetlands Protection and Conservation Ordinance c. 50 __.. _ ' ... . . ... 1 Municipal Ordinance or By'llawaw � 2.Citation 1 The Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the following • conditions and with the Notice of Intent referenced above. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, the conditions shall control. The special conditions relating to municipal ordinance or bylaw are as follows (if you need more space for additional conditions, attach a text document): Attached special conditions are issued under the Wetlands Protection Act and are sufficient for compliance.with the local ordinance. :ryn;mm5 uoc• rev.Ji'.'i2l'G - Page 10d 1e • --- Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP Bureau of Resource Protection Wetlands 64-525 MassDEP File# m w. WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction`# L---- Salem ._ City/Town.._ E. Signatures - - Important This Order is valid for three years, unless otherwise specified as a special When filling out forms on the condition pursuant to General Conditions#4,from the date of issuance.. 1.Date of Issuance computer,use Please indicate the number of members who will sign this form. 7`/ , only the tab key This Order must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. 2.7tthe ber of Signers to move your cursor-do not The Order must be mailed by certified mail (return receipt r uested or elivered to use the return the applicant. A copy must be mailed, hand delivered or electf is ly same key. the with the appropriate MassDEP Regional Office. Siyn ` . Aa-A0^ An _ ,ems • ❑ by hand delivery on ® by certified mail, return receipt recut=sted,on Date. Date F. Appeals The applicant, the owner, any person aggrieved by this Order, any owner of land abutting the land subject to this Order, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate MassDEP Regional Office to issue a Superseding Order of Conditions. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and a completed Request of Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form, as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7) within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Order. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. Any appellants seeking to appeal the Department's Superseding Order associated with this appeal will be required to demonstrate prior participation in the review of this project. Previous participation in the permit proceeding means the submission of written information to the Conservation Commission prior to the close of the public hearing, requesting a Superseding Order, or providing written information to the Department prior to issuance of a Superseding Order: The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Order which is being appealed and how the Order does not contribute to the protection of the interests identified in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. c. 131,§ 40), and is inconsistent with the wetlands regulations (310 CMR 10.00). To the extent that the Order is based on a . municipal ordinance or bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. v.-pa5sys avc iev.02,2s23 s0 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: • Bureau of Resource Protection- Wetlands 64-525 WPA Form 5- Order of Conditions MaSSDEPFile" Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEF Trensac onu --- Salem City/Town G. Recording Information Prior to commencement of work, this Order of Conditions must be recorded in the Registry of Deeds or.the Land Court for the district in which the land is located,within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land subject to the Order. In the case of registered land, this Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land subject to the Order of Conditions. The recording information on this page shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission listed below. - Conservation Commission Detach on dotted line, have stamped by the Registry of Deeds and submit to the Conservation Commission. ------------ ------ ------ Ta Conserva vationCtion _ om. mission .. ....:w. - Please be advised that the Order of Conditions for the Project at . Project Location - "' - -- - 1 MassDEP File Number Has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds of: r County - Book Page for: __ Prope_ rty Owner and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property in: Book Page _.. In accordance with the.Order of Conditions issued on: Date _- _. . .. .. .. If recorded land, the instrument number identifying this transaction is: Instrument Number If registered land, the document number identifying this transaction is: Document Number Signature of Applicant ic�pv c -.5':--CIO CITY OF SALEM t CONSERVA`I`I®N COMMISSI®N May 29,2012 John Burke Palmer Cove Yacht Club 74 Leavitt Street Salem,MA 01970 Re: Determination of Applicability—Palmer Cove Yacht Club Dear Mr. Burke: Enclosed, please find the determination of applicability for the above-referenced activity. This document indicates that no further permit is required for this work under the Wetlands Protection Act or Salem's local wetlands protection ordinance. Following the 10-business-day appeal period and provided that this determination is not appealed, you may proceed with the permitted activity. This determination is effective for three years from its date of issuance. [f you have any further questions,please feet free to contact me 978-619-5685. Sincerely, _ Tom Devine Conservation Agent/Staff Planner Enclosures CC: DEP Northeast Regional Office • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection- Wetlands WPA Form 2 Determination of Applicability L Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131; §40 A. General Information' Important: When filling out From: - forms on the Salem computer, use _.._._.., .�,. .,w,.- :._ ..... _. _.: amr �.,. ..,.�,..... .. .:....« ,» .,._.......:�::.... only the tab Conservation Commission key to move To: Applicant Property Owner (if different from applicant): your cursor _ do not use the Palmer Cove Yacht Club - - return key: Name Name 74 Leavitt Street •' rah -Mailing Address - Mailing Address Salem' MA 01970 __ — --- Qty/Town State Zip Code CIty/Town StateZip Code 1. Title and Date(or Revised Date if applicable)of Final Plans and Other Documents: Untitled plan submitted with May 10, 2012 Request for Determination None Title - - Date .. _.c..., ... .. ....... Ltle ,.,.-..._... Date Title ._.. ' - Date 2. Date Request Filed • May,10, 2012 B. Determination Pursuant to the authority of M.G.L. c. 131, § 40, the Conservation Commission considered your Request for Determination of Applicability, with its supporting documentation, and made the following Determination. Project Description (if applicable): Construction of 14' by 20'shed on slab approximately 70 from the coastal bank. Project Location' 74 Leavitt StreetSalem . _. _. Sheet Address City/Town 34' 450 ,... .w. - Assessgrs-Map/Plat Number ParcellLot Number wo9erm:.tlrc•C1e�ermmali0n U(AOPLcatldtly Iry Ivm,Qid P,r 1M5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection l p Bureau of Resource Protection- Wetlands WPA Form 2 Determination of Applicability Ll Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) The following Determination(s)is/are applicable to the proposed site and/or project relative to the Wetlands Protection Act and regulations' Positive Determination Note: No work within the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act may proceed until a final Order of Conditions(issued following submittal of a Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent)or Order of Resource Area Delineation (issued following submittal of Simplified Review ANRAD)has been received from the issuing authority(i.e., Conservation Commission or the Department of Environmental Protection). ❑ 1. The area described on the referenced plants)is an area subject to protection under the Act. Removing, filling, dredging, or altering of the area requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 2a. The boundary delineations of the following resource areas described on the referenced plan(s)are confirmed as accurate. Therefore, the resource area boundaries confirmed in this Determination are binding as to all decisions rendered pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act and its regulations regarding such boundaries for as long as this Determination is valid. ❑ 2b. The boundaries of resource areas listed below are not confirmed by this Determination, regardless of whether such boundaries are contained on the plans attached to this Determination or to the Request for Determination. ❑ 3. The work described on referenced plan(s)and document(s) is within an area subject to protection under the Act and will remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area.Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 4. The work described on referenced plan(s)and document(s) is within the Buffer Zone and will alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent or ANRAD Simplified Review(if work is limited to the Buffer Zane). ❑ 5. The area and/or work described on referenced plan(s) and document(s) is subject to review and approval by: __.. _ _.. _.�_._....... _. : _. .W ,....�.. M.:� Name of Muruapality Pursuant to the following municipal wetland ordinance or bylaw: • Narne Ordinance or Bylaw citation .walom:l�M Uxl2rmma0on of Allrl.t kl•rev 1015104 Paye 2 a15 I� Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Ll I WPA Form 2 - Determination of Applicability a Massachusetts Wetlands Protection.Act M.G.L. c: 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.} ' ❑ 6.The following area and/or work, if any, is subject to a municipal ordinance or bylaw but not subject to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act:' ❑ 7. If a Notice of Intent is filed for the work in the Riverfront Area described on referenced plan(s) and document(s), which includes all or part of the work described in the Request, the applicant must consider the following alternatives. (Refer to the wetland regulations at 10.58(4)c. for more information about the scope of alternatives requirements): ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located_ ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located, the subdivided lots, and any adjacent lots formerly or presently owned by the same owner. ❑`Alternatives limited to the original parcel on which the project is located, the subdivided parcels, any adjacent parcels, and any other land which can reasonably be obtained within the municipality. ❑ Alternatives extend to any sites which can reasonably be obtained within the appropriate • region of the state. Negative Determination Note: No further action under the Wetlands Protection Act is required by the applicant. However, if the Department is requested to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability, work may not proceed on this project unless the Department fails to act on such request within 35 days of the date the request is post-marked for certified mail or hand delivered to the Department. Work may then proceed at the owner's risk only upon notice to the Department and to the Conservation Commission. Requirements for requests for Superseding Determinations are listed at the end of this document. ❑ 1. The area described in the Request is not an area subject to protection under the Act or the Buffer Zone. ❑ 2. The work described in the Request is within an area subject to protection under the Act, but will not remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 3. The work described in the.Request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined in the regulations, but will not alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, subject to the following conditions (if any). ❑ 4. The work described in the Request is not within an Area subject to protection under the Act (including the Buffer Zone). Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, unless and until said work alters an Area subject to protection under the Act. . wpatorn,2 eco•DWemuriaoon of Applczoddy•rev Nr'oICG - Page 3 of 5 P,, A Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 —Determination of Applicability L Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) ❑ 5. The area described in the Request is subject to protection under the Act. Since the work described therein meets the requirements for the following exemption, as specified in the Act and the regulations, no Notice of Intent is required: . : -. Exempt Activity(site applicable statuafo_ ry../regulatory pro.:.visions) ® 6. The area and/or work described in the Request is not subject to review and approval by: X41-- _. Name of Municipality Pursuant to�-a municipal wetlands ordinance or bylaw. A^p�.....,�-6 rySi,ciw$!': C.L, Name _ Ordinance or Bylaw Citation C. Authorization This Determination is issued to• the applicant and delivered as follows: ❑ by hand delivery on by certified mail, return receipt requested on w ... Oate _ - bate This Determination is valid for three years from the date of issuance(except Determinations for Vegetation Management Plans which are valid for the duration of the Plan). This Determination does not relieve the applicant from complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, bylaws, or regulations. This Determination must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. A copy must be sent to the appropriate DEP Regional Office (see ham://www.mass.gov/deD/about/region.findvouchtm)and the property owner (if different from the applicant). na r s: Ca _ Date wpa:o�c2.imc �eienrnnaiion Ur APO,o. ldy-rev.10,6104 Page 4 UI 5 L LiMassachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands ll WPA Form 2 Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 D. Appeals The applicant,owner, any person aggrieved by this Determination, any owner of land abutting the land upon which the proposed work is to be done,or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located,are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate Department of Environmental Protection Reg ional.Office (see hito://www.mass Gov/dep/abou'l/Tcflon.hrioyq�lr Ltrn) to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability.The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and Fee Transmittal Form (see Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form) as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7)within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Determination. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant if he/she is not the appellant. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination which is being appealed. To the extent that the Determination is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department of Environmental Protection has no appellate jurisdiction. • • rUabrri+aor D ., vn,Imn of Apoi-amniy rer.10iEIDa Page 5 of 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. Request Information Important: When filling out 1. Person or party making request(if appropriate, name the citizen group's representative): forms on the _ computer. use only the tab _ .. key to move .. ..._._ - - _ __.. . . _._�-....._.._ �.m.. : your cursor- Mailing Address -__.__ _ _ , _.._w _ _ do not use the return key. C1tylTown Slate Zip Code Phone Number Fax Number(if applicable) - Project Location - Malhny Address ...._.__ .._ .. _ ...........___ _.,. ._..,:'...... City/Town - State Zip Code- 2. Applicant (as shown on Notice of Intent (Form 3), Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation (Form 4A); or Request for Determination of Applicability(Form 1)): __. _..., Name Mailing Address State Zip CityRown _ Code Phone Number Fax Number(if applicpble) �- 3. DEP File Number B. Instructions 1. When the Departmental action request is for(check one): ❑ Superseding Order of Conditions ($100 for individual single family homes with associated structures; $200 for all other projects) ❑ Superseding Determination of Applicability($100) ❑ Superseding Order of Resource Area Delineation ($100) Send this form and check or money order for the appropriate amount, payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to: Department of Environmental Protection Box 4062 . Boston, MA 02211 wnafc,nlB ,), Pape z.12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form • Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Instructions (cont.) 2. On a separate sheet attached to this form, state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination or Order which is being appealed. To the extent that the Determination or Order is based on a municipal bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction; 3. Send a copy of this form and a copy of the check or money order with the Request for a Superseding Determination or Order by certified mail or hand delivery to the appropriate DEP Regional Office(see httpa/www.mass.ao,i/dep/about/region/findyour.htm). 4. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant,if he/she is not the appellant. • r • wCafnrm2an%-Regoec[for Deanmenlal Aclmn Fee T,ansnnial roan rev.10!5l04 - Page 2 e12 PCONW4 CITY OF SALEM NEWCOlVSERVA7'ION COMMISSION May 29, 2012 Eric Palm Den II Realty Trust 61-Rear Jefferson Avenue Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Palm: Please find the attached enforcement order addressing the wetlands violation at 185 Jefferson Avenue in Salem. The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act(M.G.L.ch.13 1§40), its associated regulations(3 10 CMR 10.00), and Salem's Wetland Protection and Conservation Ordinance(ch. 50) state that wetlands may not be altered, dredged,filled, or removed without a valid order of conditions from the local Conservation Commission. Any violation of the act or the ordinance may result in enforcement action including up to a$200 fine per day,per violation. Furthermore, the responsible party may be required to restore any unlawfully altered wetlands. This enforcement order follows the previous enforcement order issued by the Salem • Conservation Commission on April 13, 2012. REQUIRED ACTIONS As noted in the attached order,the following actions are required: I. The resource area must be restored based on the restoration plan presented to the Salem Conservation Commission on April 26, 2012 by John Dick of Hancock Associates. Restoration must be completed no later than June 29,2012. 2. An after-the-fact notice of intent must be filed with the commission no later than June 29, 2012,detailing the post-1997 unauthorized fill and required restoration. Actual restoration work is permitted by this enforcement order and therefore does not require an order of conditions in order to commence. 3. Two(2)monitoring reports must be submitted to the commission, one in the spring of 2013 and one in the spring of 2014. Each report must document vegetation and foreign material present. Reports are to be submitted no later than June 20 of each year. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Tom Devine • Conservation Agent/Staff Planner Enclosure CC: Mass DEP Northeast Regional Office John Dick, Hancock Associates Beth Rennard, City Solicitor Attorney Joseph Correnti Tina Boudreau,National Grid • • 1 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection- Wetlands DEP File Number: • WPA Form 9 --Enforcement Order Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L.c. 131, §40 A. Violation Information Important: When filling out This Enforcement Order is issued by: forms on the Salem computer, use 5-29-2012. only the tab Conservation Commission(Issuing Authority) - Date key to move To: - - - yourcursor- - - do not use the Eric and Darren Palm DEN 11 Realty Trust return key. Name of Violator - yr` h 61 R Jefferson Avenue, Salem, MA VV2L—J1Address 1. Location of Violation: � National Grid Property Owner(if different) _ -- 185 Jefferson Avenue - Street Address Salem, MA 01970 citylTown. Zip Code 24 116 Assessors Map/Plat Number ParceVLot Number - • 2. Extent and Type of Activity(if more space is required, please attach a separate sheet): Approximately 9,700 square feet of fill placed within riverffont area at 185 Jefferson Avenue where it abuts 61 R Jefferson Avenue. B. Findings The Issuing Authority has determined that the activity described above is in a resource area and/or buffer zone and is in violation of the Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L, c. 131, §40) and its Regulations (310 CMR 10.00), because: ® the activity has been/is being conducted in an area subject to protection under c. 131, § 40 or the • buffer zone without approval from the issuing authority(i.e., a valid Order of Conditions or Negative Determination). wpalwmga.dm,rev.7;14104 Page 1 W 4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DE File Numder. Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 9 - Enforcement Order Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Findings (cont.) - — ❑ the activity has beenhs being conducted in an area subject to protection under C. 131 §40 or the buffer zone in violation of an issuing authority approval(i.e., valid Order of Conditions or Negative Determination of Applicability) issued to Name Dated ,. ..... File Number _ Condition number(s) ❑ The Order of Conditions expired on (date): — -- Date ❑ The activity violates provisions of the Certificate of Compliance, ❑ The activity is outside the areas subject to protection under MGL c,131 s.40 and the buffer zone, but has altered an area subject.to MGG c.131 s.40: ❑ Other (specify): C. Order -- -- ---- The issuing authority hereby orders the following (check all that apply): ❑ The properly owner, his agents, permittees, and all others shall immediately cease and desist from any activity affecting the Buffer Zone and/or resource areas. ® Resource area alterations resulting from said activity shall be corrected and the resource areas returned to their original condition. ❑ A restoration plan shall be, filed with the issuing authority on or before Date for the following: Resource area must be restored based on restoration plan presented to the Salem Conservation Commission on April 26, 2012 by John Dick of Hancock Associates. Restoration must be completed no later than June 29, 2012 The restoration shall be completed in accordance with the conditions and timetable established by the' issuing authority. - _- 4:1]GC aeb °1410.: Vase? 4 J Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection - � Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands DEP File Number. • WPA Form 9 — Enforcement Order Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 C. Order (cont.) Z Complete the attached Notice of Intent (NOI). The NOI shall be filed with the Issuing Authority on or before: 6-29-2012 _ _. ......_._ .M _ ,.,... Date .-_....d.... ._. ..__.,_.. ..... for the following: Implementation of the restoration plan is permitted by this enforcement order. However,an after-the- fact-notice of intent must document the post-1997 unauthorized fill;and the restoration of subject area, No further work shall be performed until a public hearing has been held and an Order of Condition11 s has been issued to regulate said work: ® The following action(s)are required (e.g., erosion/sedimentation controls)to prevent further violations of the Act Two (2)monitoring reports must be submitted to the commission, one in the spring of 2013 and one in the spring of 2014. Each report must document vegetation and foreign material present. Reports are to be, submitted no later than June 20 of each year, Failure to comply with this Order may constitute grounds for additional legal action. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 131, Section 40 provides: "Whoever violates any provision of this section (a) shall be punished by a fine of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both, such fine and imprisonment; or(b)shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars for each violation". Each day or portion thereof of continuing violation shall constitute a separate offense. D. Appeals/Signatures An Enforcement Order issued by a Conservation Commission cannot be appealed to the Department of Environmental Protection, but may be filed in Superior Court. Questions regarding this Enforcement Order should be directed to: Tom Devine Name ->,.:.,.. .-.,_.. ..- 978-619-5ne685 _ PhoNumber _... ,. . ....... .,.-. __ .� ,. ...:..... ___.., »..._._.. Monday-Wednesday,8am to 4pm; Thursday 8am to 7pm, Friday 8am to 12 noon Hours/Days Available .. _. .. ... . '._-.�.:..'. Issued by: Salem Conservation Commission Conservation Commission signatures required on following page. wGafWM9a doc-rev,P1464 Paye I of 4 1 Ll Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands - : DEP File Number WPA Form 9 Enforcement Order _... . Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 D Appeals/Signatures (cont.) — ---- In a situation regarding immediate action, an Enforcement Order may be signed by a single member or agent of the Commission and ratified by majority of the members at the xt schedule eting of the Commission. J Signatures / .,,,.1��a . Signature of delivery person or certified mail number - nlorm9a Doc•rev.111111,4 Paye 4 of 4 '�oFimr". CITY OF SALEM `MMmik; ' CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,June 14, 1012 at 6:00 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3rd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA. -3alt'U ewxd Julia Knisel Chair MEETING AGENDA 1. Meeting Minutes—May 24,2012 oa �. r- 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Pan A�Railvs-1700 Iron Horse Park, Billerica, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss verifi n 67wetlands boundaries to determine sensitive areas in planning for the application of herbicion the Pan Am right of way parallel roughly to the North River between the Peabody line a@ LestWs Retreat Park. m � 3. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Dominion Resource Set*[ces,Inc.- 5000 Dominion Blvd.,Glen Allen,VA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed in-kind replacement of existing timber piles within land under the ocean at 24 Fort Ave. (Salem Harbor Power Station). 4. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—MassDOT-Highway Division-519 Appleton Street, Arlington, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of debris from a culvert outlet within the MassDOT drainage easement at 455 Highland Ave. 5. Old/New Business • Discussion and vote regarding funding for GIS software annual maintenance Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. Tj" Deowd on 'OffkW Boars� City HBO $scent. Maros. OR une 71 ZotZ A � sf 911tail+ 3*� . Page t of 1 Please Sign-In A* Salem Conservation Commission June 14, 2012 Name Agency Phone Email K7i cote nn � ,� 45� 912- n Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and time: Thursday, June 14, 2012, 6:00 p.m. Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Acting Chair Bart Hoskins, Dan Ricciarelli, Amy Hamilton, Michael Blier Members absent: Julia Knisel, David Pabich, Gavin McAuliffe Staff: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Stacy Kilb, Recording Clerk Acting Chair Hoskins calls the meeting to order at 6:05PM. 1. Meeting Minutes—May 24,2012 A motion to table the minutes to the June 28 meeting is made by Hamilton, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously. 2. Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Pan Am Railways-1700 Iron Horse Park, Billerica, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss verification of wetlands boundaries to determine sensitive areas in planning for the application of herbicides on the Pan Am right of way parallel roughly to the North River between the Peabody line and Leslie's Retreat Park. • Here for the applicant is Keith Morris, consultant for Pan Am Railways. Every 5 years as part of vegetation management plan, the program must file an RDA with the local Conservation Commission for verification of no spray zones for the right of way. They will use the same markings as before, which he describes. There is a no-spray zone within 10' of marked areas. Blier asks if he represented a similar case on the other side of the bridge in Salem, which he did. The setback of 10' from wetlands, vernal pools etc. was agreed on by the Mass. Dept. of Agricultural Resources (MDAR). The riverfront area does not pertain to this but is built in elsewhere. This is an old plan but has been updated. The YOP (yearly operational plan) is updated every year. This Commission must approve the no spray zones. This request was set to be heard at the last meeting so is not in the current packet. Hoskins asks if it is Japanese Knotweed, but Mr. Morris is not sure. Devine points out the different types of limitations as outlined on the plan, and Mr. Morris explains the types of herbicides and where they may be used.There are only two no spray zones. They will not spray if it is raining hard or too windy. There are also some other minor restrictions. Blier asks if a full plan was submitted to the City a while ago; there is a website with the YOP but Devine reminds the Commission that its job is just to approve the no spray zones. Devine opines that the resource area is very clear, and notes that the commission confirmed in its ORAD for the Salem Oil &Grease property that there is no BV W present, and that is a fair portion of the area in question for this matter. Another large portion of the river is channelized with concrete banks. He describes the setup further. He feels the no spray zones are placed correctly. Acting Chair Hoskins asks if there are alternatives to spraying.Nothing gets done in the no- spray zones since no herbicides may be used. Acting Chair Hoskins states that the Commission must determine if this is an appropriate delineation of the boundaries of the resource area. The transition of wetland to upland is usually abrupt along the North River since the banks are steep. This is not a full delineation, but rather just shows what is relevant to the spraying area. They would mark areas as wetlands if it looked like they were, even if they were not sure. They treat wet areas that were previously dry,if it rains, as wetlands too. Devine points out that there was a similar filing a and a half before for spraying by the MBTA that went 1 f through Thompson's Meadow, where the wetland areas are also very apparent. • There are no members of the public, so no public comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. Devine reads the definition of Determination 2a, which reads that boundary delineations are confirmed as accurate, and that boundaries are binding as to all decisions pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act. A motion to issue a 2A Determination is made by Hamilton, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 3. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Dominion Resource Services, Inc.— 5000 Dominion Blvd., Glen Allen, VA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed in-kind replacement of existing timber piles within land under the ocean at 24 Fort Ave. (Salem Harbor Power Station). Nicole Wilkerson represents Dominion Resource Services, Inc. The existing pier requires maintenance due to storm damage this past winter. Some floating portions have been removed and stored, and one piece is still there, but the piles are leaning and the dock has been shut down, as it is not safe. They have removed what was left of four piles and will be floating a barge and replacing in kind the 12"piles that are 50' long. They will be driven into the sea bed, then . they will reattach the floating dock. They will put a turbidity curtain in the water during work to prevent sediment movement. They have been before this Commission before for this type of work and would use the same means of sediment control. Timber pile pieces removed will be disposed of upland. Included is a Chapter 91 license that shows that portion of the dock, and Ms. Wilkerson also spoke with someone at the DEP and described the work. They do not need to file for a Chapter 91 minor ' , modification as this is an in-kind replacement, maintaining current dock. Piles will be replaced in the exact same location as the old ones. If there is any question, Dominion comes before the Conservation Commission as they are a high profile applicant. They do a yearly inspection of docks as needed and piles seem to need to be replaced every few years due to storm damage. Acting Chair Hoskins clarifies that they are determining whether the Wetlands Protection Act applies and local ordinances apply. Devine took a course and found out about an exemption that comes from case law–maintenance and repair activities are generally exempt from Wetlands Protection Act but the Commission can determine what qualifies as maintenance and repair. In this case,replacing four piles, in Devine's opinion, does not necessarily require an order of conditions. The case mentioned was about the repair of a seawall; even though they had to in scaffolding to do the work and expanded the wall by a few inches, it did not trigger the Wetlands Protection Act' Devine appreciates their decision to use a turbidity curtain. Ms. Wilkerson says the work cannot cause any adverse effects, so they use the curtain. Hoskins is not sure if the turbidity curtain would be • required or under which regulations. There are no members of the public present, so there are no public comments. 2 A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. . The work is being completed in a jurisdictional area, but the activity is not subject to the Wetlands protection act. Devine will note the case law, previously mentioned,in a cover letter. A motion to issue a Negative 2 Determination is made by Hamilton, seconded by Blier, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 4. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—MassDOT - Highway Division-519 Appleton Street, Arlington, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of debris from a culvert outlet within the MassDOT drainage easement at 455 Highland Ave. No one is present for the applicant. A motion to continue to July 12 is made by Blier, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. 5. Old/New Business • Discussion and vote regarding funding for GIS software annual maintenance Devine requests $400 to renew and maintain the license for the GIS software on his computer. • A motion to authorize $400 for this purpose is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. Other updates: Acquisition of the former Chadwick Lead Mills If the City acquires the site, it will most likely be Parks and Recreation Commission rather than Conservation Commission land, given what the City Solicitor's recommended course of action. The site has already been remediated. Plans with the permits expired for private development and the has agreed to sell at a bargain price for the purpose of preserving the property as open space. 121 Leach Street, possible land donation The person who wants to donate the small area at 121 Leech Street set up consultation with an environmental engineer,paid for by an EPA grant, to see if the land is contaminated. The City wants to ensure it isn't taking on excessive liability by accepting a donation of contaminated land. DEP#64-516: 60,64 Grove St., 3 Harmony Grove Road (Salem Oil & Grease): Update on DEP's Superseding Order of Resource Area Delineation (SORAD) After the developer appealed the DEP's superseding order and requested an adjudicatory hearing, the DEP and the developer reached a settlement agreement. It confirms the SORAD', determination that the flood zone is coastal, not inland, and the commission's 10.8 flood elevation. It expanded the area the SORAD determined is subject to the historic mill complex exemption from the riverfront regulations. The settlement also agrees that most areas not subject to the exemption qualify as degraded and do not need to fully meet the riverfront area regulations. The settlement requires final approval by 3 the DEP commissioner. A motion to adjourn is made by Hamilton, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 6:45PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on July 14, 2012 • 4 l r .: CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION June 18, 2012 Nicole Wilkinson Dominion Resource Services, Inc. 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glenn Allen, VA 23060 Re: Determination of Applicability 24 Fort Ave. (Salem Harbor Power Station), Salem, MA Dear Ms. Wilkinson: Enclosed, please find the Determination of Applicability for the above-referenced project. The Commission determined that the work qualifies as maintenance and repair of a lawfully existing structure. The Massachusetts Appeals Court judged in its 1985 decision in • the case of Town of Bourne v. Austin that such activities do not require the filing of a Notice of Intent. Following the 10-business-day appeal period and provided that this Determination is not appealed, you may proceed with your project. This Determination is effective for three years after the date of issuance. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me 978-61.9-5685. Sincerely, Tom Devine Conservation Agent/Staff Planner Enclosure Ce: DEP Northeast Regional Office Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection- Wetlands WPA Form 2 - Determination of ApplicabilityF • 1-` Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. General Information Important: When filling out From: forms on the Salem computer,use only the tab - Conservation Commission key to move To: Applicant Property Owner(if different from applicant): your cursor- _ do not use the Dominion ResourceServices, Inc. return key: Name r-------- -------- .. 5000 Dominion Boulevard -1` ie6 Mailing Address- Mailing Address Glen Allen VA 20360 City/Town State Zip Code Cityl-rown State Zip Code 1 Title and Date (or Revised Date if applicable)of Final Plans and Other Documents. _Fi69re-1_ USGS Maw None - Title — -. —____ _ ._ .. Date _. Figure 2_--Aerial Photo None - .Date - .Title ._...___-_ .. - Date 2. Date Request Filed: • 5/2-5/2-0121- & Determination - Pursuant to the authority of M.G.L.c. 131, § 40, the Conservation Commission considered your Request for Determination of Applicability, with its supporting documentation, and made the following Determination. Project Description (if applicable):' In-kind replacement of 4 timber piles. Project Location: 24 Fort Avenue Salem • Street AddressCit — - -- � ..._ y/Town 41 271 Assessors Map/Plat Number Parcel/Lot Number wpoforo2doc•Detemnation of Applicablliry•rev.1016104 - - - Page 1 of 6 L71Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 1 Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 - Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) The following Determination(s) is/are applicable to the proposed site and/or project relative to the Wetlands Protection Act and regulations' - Positive Determination Note: No work within the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act may proceed until a final Order of Conditions (issued following submittal of a Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent)or Order of Resource Area Delineation (issued following submittal of Simplified Review ANRAD) has been received from the issuing authority(i.e., Conservation Commission or the Department of Environmental Protection). ❑ 1. The area described on the referenced plan(s)is an area subject to protection under the Act. Removing,filling,dredging, or altering of the area requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 2a. The boundary delineations of the following resource areas described on the referenced plan(s)are confirmed as accurate. Therefore, the resource area boundaries confirmed in this Determination are binding as to all decisions rendered pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act and its regulations regarding such boundaries for as long as this Determination is valid. • --- ---------------- ._ _ ❑ 2b. The boundaries of resource areas listed below are not confirmed by this Determination, regardless of whether such boundaries are contained on the plans attached to this Determination or to the Request for Determination. ❑ 3. The work described on referenced plan(s)and document(s) is within an area subject to protection under the Act and will remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 4. The work described on referenced plan(s)and document(s) is within the Buffer Zone and will alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent or ANRAD Simplified Review(if work is limited to the Buffer Zone). ❑ 5. The area and/or work described on referenced plan(s)and document(s) is subject to review and approval by: Name of Municipality Pursuant to the following municipal wetland ordinance or bylaw: • -.__..- - ---... _ . Name Ortlinancea or Bylaw Citation wpafortrl2 dot•Oelermnallon of ADO,Can-lily-rev 1016,04 Page 2 0l 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 - Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131„ §40 B. Determination (cont.) ❑ 6. The following area and/or work, if any; is subject to a municipal ordinance or bylaw but not subject to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act ❑ 7. If a Notice of Intent is filed for the work in the Riverfront Area described on referenced plan(s) and document(s), which includes all or part of the work described in the Request, the applicant must consider the following alternatives. (Refer to the wetland regulations at 10.58(4)c. for more information about the scope of alternatives requirements): ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located. ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located, the subdivided lots, and any adjacent lots formerly or presently owned by the same owner. ❑ Alternatives limited to the original parcel on which the project is located, the subdivided parcels, any adjacent parcels,and any other land which can reasonably be obtained within the municipality. ❑ Alternatives extend to any sites which can reasonably be obtained within the appropriate • region of the state. Negative Determination Note: No further action under the Wetlands Protection Act is required by the applicant. However, if the Department is requested to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability, work may not proceed on this project unless the.Department fails to act on such request within 35 days of the date the request is post-marked for certified mail or handdelivered to the Department. Work may then proceed at the owner's risk only upon notice to the Department and to the Conservation Commission. Requirements for requests for Superseding Determinations are listed at the end of this document. ❑ 1. The area described in the Request is not an area subject to protection under the Act or the Buffer Zone. 2. The work described in the Request is within an area subject to protection under the Act, but will not remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent ❑ 3. The work described in the Request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined in the regulations, but will not alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore: said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, subject to the following conditions (if any). ❑ 4. The work described in the Request is not within an Area subject to protection under the Act (including the Buffer Zone). Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, unless and until said work alters an Area subject to protection under the Act. • wpaloi m2.40c,)Wer,,,.wn of Appk.*&1y-rev.1016104 Page 3cf5 _ Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection Wetlands " WPA Form 2 - Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c, 131, §40 B. Determination (cont:) ❑ 5. The area described in the.Request is subject to protection under the Act: Since the work described therein meets the requirements for the following exemption,.as specified in the Act and the regulations,no Notice of Intent is required: Exempt Activity(site applicable statuatoryhegulatory provisions) 6. The area and/or work described in the Request is not subject to review and approval by: Name of Municipality - Pursuant to a municipal wetlands ordinance or bylaw. _�ncvsha_ _ ... .G� - _ ..:-.-.- Name - Ordinance or Bylaw Citation C. Authorization • This Determination is issued to the applicant and delivered as follows: ❑ by hand delivery on ® by certified mail, return receipt requested on Date Date This Determination is valid for three years from the date of issuance(except Determinations for Vegetation Management Plans which are valid for the duration of the Plan). This Determination does not relieve the applicant from complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, bylaws, or regulations. This Determination must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. A copy must be sent to the appropriate DEP Regional Office(see http://www.mass-gov/dwlaboutire ion.find,our.htm)and the property owner(if different from the applicant). Signatures: X," I • _- �,/Vd� (a Date � wpalorm2.eoc•Deierminalion of Applma0111ty•lev 1016104 Papa 0 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection „- Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 D. Appeals The applicant, owner, any person aggrieved by this Determination, any owner of land abutting the land uponwhich the proposed work is to be done, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located,are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate Department of Environmental Protection Regional Office (see http//www mass gov/deb/about/region findv yr htm) to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and Fee Transmittal Form (see Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form) as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7)within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Determination. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant if he/she is not the appellant. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination which is being appealed. To the extent that the Determination is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department of Environmental Protection has no appellate jurisdiction. • wpalorm .Aoc•Delermnalioo of AFphc bdhty-rea.10/5104 _ Poge5o15 Massachusetts Department of Environmental,Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands • Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. Request Information Important: When filling out 1. Person or party making request(if appropriate, name the citizen group's representative)`. forms on the computer, use ...only the tab Name key to move . -........._. .-_...:_ : Mailing Address _.__._. your cursor- - do not use the - - return key. . City(Town State Zip Code " f°f Phone Number Fax Number(if applicable) Project Location nN� Mailing Address City/Town State Zip Code 2. Applicant (as shown on Notice of Intent (Form 3),Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation (Form 4A); or Request for Determination of Applicability(Form 1)): Name .-. ,,.:..... ... ....::..... Malting Address City/rown Stale Zip Code ... . _ . _-_._..__.. ...... .. - ... .� _...... �. Phone Number _ Fax Number(if applicable) - 3. DEP File Number: B. Instructions 1. When the Departmental action request is for(check one): ❑ Superseding Order of Conditions ($100 for individual single family homes with associated structures; $200 for all other projects) ❑ Superseding Determination of Applicability($100) ❑ Superseding Order of Resource Area Delineation ($100) Send this form and check or money order for the appropriate amount, payable to the COmfnOhwealth of Massachusetts to: Department of Environmental Protection Box 4062 • . Boston, MA 02211 r,paform2 di Repuev lar Depanri Actew Fee Gansmllal Fmm-rev. 10/6/04 - Page 101 2 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Request for Departmental Action Fee .Transmittal Form • Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Instructions (cont.) ; 2. On a separate sheet attached to this form, state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination or Order which is being appealed. To the extent that the Determination or Order is based on amunicipal bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. 3. Send a copy of this form and a copy of the check or money order with the Request for a Superseding Determination or Order by certified mail or hand delivery to the appropriate DEP Regional Office (see http://www.mass._qov/dep/about/region/findyour.htm), 4 A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. • wpalorm .qoo•Request for Dgpartmental Action Fee Tradsmltal Form-rev.10/6/04 Page 2 of 2 ��cocap�r�,�e CITY OF SALEM , g CONSERVATION COMMISSION June 18, 2012 Keith Monis 622 Spring Street Leeds, MA 01053 Re: Determination of Applicability Pam Ain Right of Way, Salem,MA Dear Mr. Monis: Enclosed, please find the Determination of Applicability for the above-referenced project. Following the 10-business-day appeal period and provided that this Determination is not appealed, you may proceed with your project. This Determination is effective for three years after the date of issuance. • If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me 978-619-5685. Sincerely, Tom Devine Conservation Agent/Staff Planner Enclosure Cc: DEP Northeast Regional Office Pan Am Railways, Inc. t • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection -- Bureau of Resource Protection- Wetlands WPA Form 2 -Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. General Information Important:When filling out From: forms on the Salem use only computer, Conservation Commisson key to move To: Applicant your cursor- Property Owner (If different from applicant): - do not use the Pan Am Railways Inc: - - return key:- - Name . Name 1700 Iron Horse Park Maiiing Address ...... -._.: Marling Address North Billerica MA 01862 Clly/Town State Zip Code City/Town State Zip Code 1. Title and Date (or Revised Date if applicable) of Final Plans and Other Documents: Sensitive Area-Marking Key,_Pan-Am Railways, Inc _ No date Date Title __:._... ._...... .. .. .__ ... ,.,,. Date _;. .Title _.__ .... .. - Date 2. Date Request Filed: • 4/4/2012 B. Determination Pursuant to the authority of M.G.L. c 131, §40; the Conservation Commission considered your Request for Determination of Applicability, with its supporting documentation, and made the following Determination. Protect Description (if applicable): Verification of wetland boundaries to determine limited-and no-spray zones for the application of herbicides per approved Yearly Operation Plan. Project Location: Pan Am Right of WaySalem Street Address City/Town 2640 :.Assessors Map/Plat Number - Parcel/Lot Number wpda,.2.0.c-Determnation of Appli.Wit,-,e 10/6104 - page 1 0 5 j Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 - Determination of Applicability, • l Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) The following Determination(s)is/are applicable to the proposed site and/or project relative to the Wetlands Protection Act and regulations: - Positive Determination Note: No work within the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act may proceed until a final Order of Conditions (issued following submittal of a Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent)or Order of Resource Area Delineation (issued following submittal of Simplified Review ANRAD) has been received from the issuing authority(i.e.,Conservation Commission or the Department of Environmental Protection). ❑ 1. The area described on the referenced plan(s)is an area subject to protection under the Act. Removing, filling, dredging, or altering of the area requires the filing of a Notice of Intent, ® 2a.The boundary delineations of the following resource areas described on the referenced plan(s)are confirmed as accurate. Therefore, the resource area boundaries confirmed in this Determination are binding as to all decisions rendered pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act and its regulations regarding such boundaries for as long as this r( Determination is valid. \y, ❑ 2b.The boundaries of resource areas listed below are not confirmed by this Determination, regardless of whether such boundaries are contained on the plans attached to this Determination or to the Request for Determination. ❑ 3. The work described on referenced plan(s)and document(s) is within an area subject to protection under the Act and will remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent, ❑ 4. The work described on referenced plan(s)and document(s) is within the Buffer Zone and will alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent or ANRAD Simplified Review (if work is limited to the Buffer Zone). ❑ 5. The area and/or work described on referenced plan(s)and document(s) is subject to review and approval by: - .._....- Name of Mu- -rnapal—i[y . -_..__.._. _._.....- ._., �....„.�„,. .... Pursuant to the following municipal wetland ordinance or bylaw: Narne Ordinance or Bylaw Citation m alorm doc-oeterm,nationor Applicability•tev.10,6/04 Page 2pr5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection - Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 =Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L.c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.)` ------ ❑ 6. The following area and/or work, if any, Is subject to a municipal ordinance or bylaw but not subject to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act ❑ 7. If a Notice of Intent is filed for the work in the Riverfront Area described on referenced plan(s) and document(s), which includes all or part of the work described in the Request, the applicant must consider the following alternatives. (Refer to the wetland regulations at 10.58(4)c. for more information about the scope of alternatives requirements): ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located. ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located, the subdivided lots, and any adjacent lots formerly or presently owned by the same owner. ❑ Alternatives limited to the original parcel on which the project is located, the subdivided parcels, any adjacent parcels, and any other land which can reasonably be obtained within the municipality. ❑ Alternatives extend to any sites which can reasonably be obtained within the appropriate region of the state. • Negative Determinationr Note: No further action under the Wetlands Protection Act is required by the applicant. However, if the Department is requested to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability, work may,not proceed on this project unless the Department fails to act on such request within 35 days of the date the request is post-marked for certified mail or hand delivered to the Department. Work may then proceed at the owner's risk only upon notice to the Department and to the Conservation Commission. Requirements for requests for Superseding Determinations are listed at the end of this document. ❑ 1. The area described in the Request is not an area subject to protection under the Act or the Buffer Zone. ❑ 2. The work described in the Request is within an area subject to protection under the Act, but will not remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 3.The work described in the Request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined in the regulations, but will not alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, subject to the following conditions (if any). ❑ 4. The work described in the Request is not within an Area subject to protection under the Act (including the Buffer Zone). Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, unless and until said work alters an Area subject to protection under the Act. • wpaform2.doc Uetermnauon e1 AppEcabimy•rev.1M04 page 3 c15 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection ` — Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands • WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability ' Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) ❑ 5. The area described in the Request is subject to protection under the Act Since the work described therein meets the requirements for the following exemption,as specified in the Act and the regulations, no Notice of Intent is required: ... -- Exempt Activity_ -(site-ap--pp-llicacable statua---tory/regulato- -ry--p-rovisions. ) ❑ 6. The area and/or work described in the Request is not subject to review and approval by: Name of Municipality Pursuant to a municipal wetlands ordinance or bylaw: . Name Ordinance or Bylaw Citation C. Authorization • This Determination is issued to the applicant and delivered as follows: ❑ by hand delivery on by certified mail, return receipt requested on Date .......:. �. ._..__._. , This Determination is valid for three years from the date of issuance (except Determinations for Vegetation Management Plans which are valid for the duration of the Plan). This Determination does not relieve the applicant from complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, bylaws, or regulations. This Determination must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. A copy must be sent to the appropriate DEP Regional Office(see http://www.mass. ov/ /about/re ion.fi our.Mrn) and the property owner(if different from the applicant). Signatures: Date xpaform ,doc•Ueiermmafion of AppiicabAity rev.1016104 Fage 4 of 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection -- Bureau of Resource Protection- Wetlands WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability • Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 D. Appeals The applicant, owner,any person aggrieved by this Determination, any owner of land abutting the land upon which the proposed work is to be done, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate Department of Environmental Protection Regional Office(see http://www.mass.gov/dep/about/region findvour him)to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability.The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and Fee Transmittal Form (see Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form)as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7)within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Determination. Atopy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or'hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant if he/she is not the appellant. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination which is being appealed. To the extent that the Determination is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department of Environmental Protection has no appellate jurisdiction. • ,oafo,rt doc•13e,er.n.6.or Appl,.Nhly•rev.10)6/04 Page 5 0l 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c, 131, §40 A. Request Information -- Important: When filling out 1. Person or party making request(if appropriate, name the citizen group's representative): forms on the computer, use . . . - ., only the tab - Name ,.-.... key to move your cursor- Mailing Address do not use the - - - return key. Ci !Town___ ----.._. _ N - State Zip Code Phone Number Fax Number(if applicable) ` Project Location - Mailing Address " - • ^-- _- --- city —..__. _.. _c....... ._._._......_.. .....__ ...: _. /Town - State Zip Code 2. Applicant(as shown on Notice of Intent(Form 3), Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation (Form 4A); or Request for Determination of Applicability(Form 1)): Name Mailing Address City/Town ---._--_.._. _ _ State Zip Code Phone Number _ Fax Number(if appucable) - - 3. DEP File Number. B. Instructions --- -- 1. When the Departmental action request is for(check one): ❑ Superseding Order of Conditions ($100 for individual single family homes with associated structures; $200 for all other projects) ❑ Superseding Determination of Applicability($100) ❑ Superseding Order of Resource Area Delineation ($100) Send this form and check or money order for the appropriate amount, payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusettslo: Department of Environmental Protection Box 4062 • Boston, MA 02211 wpalorm2.00c Reouesi for Depanmemai ACLon Fee Transmittal Form•rev. IOI6I06 Page I pf 2 17LMassachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Instructions (cont.) -- 2. On a separate sheet attached to this form, state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination or Order which is being appealed. To the extent that the Determination.or Order is based on a municipal bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. I Send a copy of this form and a copy of the check or money order with the Request for a Superseding Determination or Order by certified mail or hand delivery to the appropriate DEP Regional Office (see htto://www.mass:qov/dec/about region/findyoiir htm). 4. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. • • w0a(0rm2.eoc•RI,.es,fol Oepann,enlaI ACOen Fee'Ra4s m,to Form•rev.1016104 Page 2 012 F , CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, June 18, 2012 at 6:00 PM at the City Hall Annex, 3rdfloor conference room, 120Washington Street,Salem,MA. Julia Knisel Chair rnx MEETING AGENDA r-4t m 3 6:00 P.M. 3 W Nw 1. Information Session to Discuss Improvements to Bertram Field—The City of SalenMs app"g for a Parkland Acquisitions and Renovations for Communities(PARC)grant from the Commonwealth's Division of Conservation Services for improvements to Bertram Field, located behind Collins Middle School. Proposed improvements include installation of synthetic turf and reconstruction of the running track. 6:45 P.M. 2. Meeting Minutes—May 24,2012 and June 14,2012 • g. Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—MassDOT-Highway Division-519 Appleton Street, Arlington, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of debris from a culvert outlet within the MassDOT drainage easement at 455 Highland Ave. 4. Request for Determination of Applicability-50 Grove Street Real Estate LLC, 7 Rantoul Street, Suite 10013, 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. 5. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-523— William Wharff, 30 Federal Street, Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a parking lot and associated utilities within riverfront area, land subject to coastal storm flowage, and buffer zone to coastal bank at 162 and 150 Federal Street. Applicant requests to continue to the July 26, 2012 meeting 6. Old/New Business Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M G.L. c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2- 2033. s Two p Oft 8 ulffl, Mass. 01 ,�e � f910ALL Page i of 1 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission June 28, 2012 Name Agency Phone Email 0 4,:b BO 9 S /e.n !� Svcce.- ?Tg- yT9 `1zvg- -,sboY4 0-) Accec . Com^ 60'r e s S' l� - y� a a✓ co��a�l: ►til S lwylok;ca SH .( Coact. 97e - 76W-7089 7ZZooy�i ���ta.d Sla/�o�d SftS Lo¢c� 47F-7V rwIs6ad r jp nia a� Icon, e PC 2a ,�tONDIT�� CITY OF SALEM 'fATr CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereGy noklied Thal the Solent 0n.sen alio+t Comnu.uion on Thursdat l Jtdv 12_, 2012 at 6.•00 PMi11 the Citt Hall Annex, 3^1 floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. ilia Knriel e chair n �. r r+t L MEETING AGENDA rC– v,'– r 1. Old/New Business m a rn • DEP#64-479, Bakers Island Light Station: Project Update 3 tdt Cn Cn to 2. Meeting Minutes—May 24, 2012 and June 14, 2012 0 3 Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—MassDOT - Highway Division-519 t\ppleton Street,Arlington, NIA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of debris from a culvert oudct within the MassDOT drainage easement at 455 Highland s .. Avenue. ¢ " 4. Request for Determination of Applicability-50 Grove Street Real Estate LLC,7 Rantoul Street,Suite - 100B, Beverly, NIA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed off-leash dog area within riverfront area and flood zone at 50 Grove Street. 5. Witch Hill Subdivision House Lots Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman,67 Village Street,Marblehead,NLA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 1 Nurse Way. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G.Steadman,67 Village Street,Marblehead,DLV.'L'he 6 n, purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and " appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 2 Nurse Way. i � + Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G.Steadman,67 Village Street,i\Iarbtehead,i\-l�\.The ;,� Purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 3 Nurse Way. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman,67 Village Street,Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and ¢> appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 4 Nurse Way. f Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G.Steadman,67 Village Street,(Marblehead,MSA.*I he purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 5 Nurse Way. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman,67 Village Street, Marblehead,:M2A. Clie Page i O12 ,i purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 7 Nurse Way. Public Hearing—Notice ofIntent—Kenneth G. Steadman,67 Village Street,tl'larblehead,IATA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 8 Nurse Way. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G.Steadman,67 Village Street,Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 1 Good Circle. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman,67 Village Street,Marblehead,\'IA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 2 Good Circle. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G.Steadman,67 Village Street,Marblehead, 1\1A.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 3 Good Circle. 6. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Patrick Deittlis, Pasquanna Developers Inc, 31 Collins Street Terrace, Lvnn, MA. The purpose of this heating is to discuss the proposed construction of 3 single family homes and appurtenances within riverfront area at 18 Thorndike Street. • 7. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—North Shore Medical Center Inc (Salem Hospital),81 Highland Avenue, Salem, ASIA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction a of new central utilities plant within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at Salem Hospital(81 Highland Avenue). 8. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Donald J. Clarke Real Estate&South Harbor Holdings,LLC, P.O. Box 829, Salem, NIA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed demolition of wharf, bulkhead replacement,removal of piles, and seawall repair within riverfront area,coastal bank,land under ocean,and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 24 Congress Street and 281 Derby Street along the South River Basin. 9. Continuation of Public Hearing=Notice of Intent—DEP#64-523—William Wharff,30 federal Street, Salem, NLA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a parking lot and associated utilities within riverfront area, land subject to coastal storm flowage, and buffer zone to coastal bank at 162 and 150 Federal Street. _Applicant reglln tl to continue to the Jrt/)r 26. 2012 nteelin3 10.Old/New Business(continued) • 185 Jefferson Avenue: Update on wetlands violation • 252-rear Bridge Street(AC13T'A Commuter Rail Station): Discussion of request to waive required I?1R • 121 Loring Avenue(Saleor State University): Discussion of proposed maintenance of access road alongOld Creek Salt Marsh Knmv}'om' under the Open.2\4eefiln,Lnv tb1.G.L c. 39 523B marl City Ordinan,e Se,tions 2-2028 through 2-20.33. Pal;c 2 of 2 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission July 12, 2012 Name Address Phone Email qR o �q Ylo /U5 -CI lila 1783 -r7d Yh n wovl P s,uvq 5he.ylh NI VP, 778- 354'-1598 $ I r Ors T,!,vLL_Act% s �8\C�3t-�zs l 1�U@1 t r t+aASZs o mi)t� 9X7cly�ya� Nt� /•1- 3A_ft"r+ a^ sa�Y�^ . MA X19 e Z /,/// ,/14110 'i +:ram LOLUyence k 5wic r c4i �Glolmd 9'18-354-20 ss pLa�fc i P 7 'Pa'hners •CCW) Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission July 12, 2012 Name Address Phone Email E/✓ _Grim e �� ���P fg(WErzY�y�2!3ar,. yy • Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting • i Date and Time: Thursday,July 12,2012, 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 Members Absent: Michael Blier, Gavin McAuliffe,Bart Hoskins Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:07PM i. Old/New Business • DEP#64-479,Bakers Island Light Station: Project Update Devine states that he has a conflict of interest with family connections to the island so he cannot advise the commission; Frank Taormina will play that role and takes Devine's place. Taormina presents to the Commission. The Coast Guard (CG) is beginning work on Baker's • island under the final order issued by the DEP, and has notified those on island of the work it will do work around the jeep shed and engine house. Taormina was here when they filed the RDA, which was denied since the Commission said some work was proposed in the resource area. These were areas for which they needed to file a Notice of Intent, but they had filed a Request for Determination of Applicability instead. The CG negotiated with the DEP offline, and brought to that agency's attention that through sovereign immunity under CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980) vs. the MCP state process, they didn't need to file an NOI from the start. However, at first they did file one; it was approved, appealed, and upheld, so they must adhere to it. As of now, as for any additional work they want to do on the island, they have made it clear they will NOT file another NOI. The DEP agreed with their immunity assessment, so the Commission can't force them to file. The legal counsel for the CG notified Taormina, saying they won't file an NOI, and they will not go through procedural processes but will hold to the substantive requirements of the Wetlands Protection Act in the two areas previously mentioned. Abutters to the light station Robert Leavens and Elizabeth Ware drafted a letter to be presented here and are on hand to bring forth their concerns. That correspondence was received today. Chair Knisel asks if Taormina has heard of a federal agency using this trump card—he has not. The CG said that only through the CERCLA process do they have this ability. The DEP legal counsel agreed and did not want to challenge them on it. Hamilton states that the EPA under CERCLA did not have to file an NOI for cleanup—and it did not have to adhere to Wetlands • protection Act or local bylaws, in another case. Ricciarelli asks if CERCLA is more stringent. We don't know; there are regulations in place but Hamilton is not sure what they are; this was also in another state so it may not be the same. No one here has dealt with any such situation 1 previously. Taormina says it's puzzling because they did file the RDA and NOI, and now they are moving forward and residents/abutters are concerned. This is additional remediation work in other locations. Knisel says the letter from the DEP states that the intent is to have a - preconstruction meeting on the island to discuss adherence to the final Order of Conditions, but • there are several conditions they will not adhere to, such as filing an NOI, having an LSP on site, etc. At a preconstruction meeting, usually they must adhere to Conditions before starting work, until completion. Ricciarelli wonders how complete CERCLA is if there is no requirement for an LSP; that's a federal Act while the LSP is a state requirement. An agreement is being reached with the DEP, which will spell out how they will do this work in lieu of filing an NOI under the Wetlands Protection Act, but no one has seen it yet. The site visit was supposed to be today or tomorrow, but the CG has not prepped for the preconstruction meeting nor set up erosion controls. They will be ready by Tuesday or Wednesday next week. This project is under a superseding final order from the DEP, meaning that agency is supposed to oversee the project; the applicant must notify the DEP for the preconstruction meeting. This Commission could enforce the Order but it is hard for anyone to enforce an offshore project. Nancy White is the DEP contact. Taormina says that the City's legal department will review all materials received and provide recommendations as to how the Conservation Commission should proceed. Hamilton says they are spending federal funds so it is up to them to make sure. They agreed not to start work until the preconstruction meeting is done but preconstruction work has started. The work scope is the environmental cleanup of lead contaminated material. Two feet of such I P P • material will be removed around each structure. Material will be removed onto barges, and then clean fill is going to onto the island. The Conservation Commission had conditioned the proper approach, including protecting the stability of the bank. Robert Leavens and Elizabeth Ware speak. Mr. Leavens says that according to CERCLA this is a non-time critical remedial action; they do have sovereign immunity for work onsite but not for the portion that goes off site. They think they do, and they have they adjudicated the issue in other states. Contaminated soil is leaving the site; if they were burying it within the site, they would have immunity, but since it is going away, CERCLA does not protect them. Mr. Leavens determined this from CERCLA regulations. Other conditions were negotiated with this Conservation Commission, while some were conditions negotiated with the DEP and CG at an adjudicatory hearing subsequently. The CG decided they would not abide to the conditions already agreed to, like an LSP on site. Rachel Marino of the CG said they do not have to have one but agreed they would, originally, as per the Order of Conditions; now she is saying they will NOT have an LSP. When the CG came in with the NOI, they left out the two resource areas in question, saying they would come back with another NOI, when they could have amended it right then and there. They will not be filing an additional NOI. There are substantive vs. procedural aspects of the Wetlands Protection Act. Mr. Leavens does not feel that the CG will be good stewards of the environment in adhering to policies that protect it. The local Conservation Commission can enforce the Order that the DEP approved. DEP can also enforce it. • Regulation 85-4 regarding amended orders says that the only amendments that can be made to 2 Orders must be minor. They cannot increase the scope or impact of the work, but these are two whole new resource areas up for remediation. • Delineation for the new work is inaccurate, with the boundary of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands incorrectly outlined, and all remediation is in B V W but they say that none of it is. They have also characterized an inland pond as some other feature. Knisel says that our action here is limited because we don't have clarity as to our authority, so we will seek legal review to clarify. Ms. Ware comments that when this process started, the intent was a comprehensive cleanup and compliance with the Wetlands Protection Act. Because the CG did not want to provide additional information on the jeep shed and engine house, they agreed to come back, so the residents trusted the process with DEP and the superior court, and have entrusted that the process would work but it has not. The CG does not want to follow the process,just get it done. She is concerned that they agreed to certain things and protections and they don't want to do it. They are conducting cleanup of the site to a state standard, but cleanup is for them to convey the area to the Essex National Heritage Commission who wants to use it as a public park. They do not want to protect the environment or people going to the park. Chadwick Lead Mills was cleaned up to a much higher standard, and that was a facility that produced lead. Yet sites at Baker's Island exceeded lead levels at Chadwick. Pabich comments on the previous proceedings, saying that the CG was cavalier about the permitting process, and the Commission wanted them off the beach since the shed and other area were not in question. Pabich says procedurally it does not matter to him if the Commission or the • DEP handles it,but he does not want it bungled. However, he expected more professionalism from the CG. Mr. Leavens does not think the DEP will oversee project well either. Taormina will forward all correspondence to the Salem Legal Department and have them review it. If we are not challenging the DEP counsel, that is one issue,but if the Commission has a different stance, it's another thing. He hopes to have this for the next meeting before the August break. Mr. Leavens gives Taormina a copy of the DEP's policy for amending Orders and Final Orders. Hamilton asks if they developed any cleanup plan according to the CERCLA process. Mr. Leavens says risk assessment was done using an inappropriate model, which is how they got to 400 mg/kg average for site. They used the wrong uptake model to get a standard that was higher. Originally they wanted 1200 mg/kg but the state told them no, they can't go that high. So the state was involved in setting the remediation standard. All that happened in CERCLA was identifying this as a non-time critical cleanup; he does not think there is anything else of relevance. 2. Meeting Minutes—May 24,2012 and June 14, 2012 Pabich motions to accept the May 24 minutes, is seconded by Ricciarelli, and all are in favor • A motion to accept the June 14 minutes is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Pabich and all are in favor. 3 i 3. Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability— MassDOT - Highway Division-519 Appleton Street, Arlington, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of debris from a culvert outlet within the • MassDOT drainage easement at 455 Highland Avenue. Andrea Norton of MassDOT has filed a Request for Determination of Applicability for routine drainage work. The DOT received complaints from GameStop in the Wal-Mart shopping center. They got flooded out, and eventually got in touch with an engineering company, who said they got flooded in part because an outlet to a culvert on other side of Rt. 107 was blocked. A construction company has been throwing debris into the drainage ditch. Ms. Norton said that the storage company beside our easement also got flooded in addition to Game Stop. The water level inside storage units was 18-24" deep, so Mass DOT is working with the construction company to get items out further down, since large corrugated pipes have been placed there, but for now they want to clean right by the outlet near Route 107. They do have a drainage easement between both properties. Devine has not seen the site but there are photos. Pabich asks for clarification on where the drainage is and Ms. Norton describes the setup. Debris will probably be moved by hand, but right in front of culvert construction vehicles will reach in and pull it out, though they will actually be placed by the side of the road. This is only right at the culvert; they will work out other areas with the construction company and come back. The date of the last flood is unknown. Ms. Norton went out two months ago but she does not know if it happens every time it rains, or every time there's a major rain event. Chair Knisel opines that an NOI does not need to be filed. There is a legal document included • with the correspondence that the Commission has. She asks if the intent is for a longer term plan to be developed, to prevent dumping at this location. They are speaking to the construction people but she will be back since MassDOT wants them to remove the corrugated culvert they rolled in, which is not properly attached. Pabich asks if the culvert itself is sound; the DOT thinks it is but can't put a camera in since it's blocked; they will look to see if more work must be done when it is cleared. Chair Knisel opens to the public and there are no comments. Pabich motions to close the public hearing, Hamilton seconds, and all are in favor. Pabich motions to issue a negative 5 Determination: exemption for maintenance and repair of a lawfully existing structure. Hamilton seconds, and all are in favor. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 4. 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. This applicant has lost the tenant that was to operate the doggie day care and would like to continue to the Sept. 27 meeting, to allow time to seek a new tenant and decide whether or not to move forward. . Pabich motions to continue, Ricciarelli seconds, and all are in favor. 4 5. Witch Hill Subdivision House Lots • Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 1 Nurse Way. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 2 Nurse Way. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 3 Nurse Way. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 4 Nurse Way. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a • single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 5 Nurse Way. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 7 Nurse Way. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 8 Nurse Way. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 1 Good Circle. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 2 Good Circle. • Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a 5 single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 3 Good Circle. Then 10 hearings are opened together. Ken Steadman presents. There is a lot of paperwork; each • lot must have its own Order of Conditions in order to be sold. He had filed for four lots one year ago, and now they have houses on them, which are not under agreement, but they are up, 75% complete. The builder has an option on 6 others but there are 10 lots so he would like to prepare for the builder to move forward. The subdivision roadways, utilities, and drainage was already approved. Mr. Steadman outlines where wetlands are and shows an enlargement of where wetlands and siltation fences are. The title is "Witch Hill Subdivision, May 15, 1012." Devine went up for a preconstruction meeting for other lots but cannot confirm the condition of erosion controls. New siltation fencing will be installed all around the perimeter. There will also be a line of 2'-3' boulders along the edge of each lot in off the wetlands area so that whoever owns the houses cannot encroach on the wetlands. They will not be filling in or majorly altering the topography. All wetlands are in the rear of each lot. Pabich asks about previous Order of Conditions for road work and drainage, and Mr. Steadman outlines the location of said drainage. There is an overarching system that will be installed in the fall. There is a large underground detention area, not yet installed. Pabich says he would like to see the functioning roadway and drainage in place. Houses already put in are tied into an already-completed detention area. They will finish the drainage project before occupancy. Also there should be protection measures on the drainage before working on the lots. Mr. Steadman • had planned to do it at the same time but the Commission would like drainage in place first, since the impervious surface of the pavement will be in place without a plan for where it will go otherwise. Mr. Steadman says he would agree to put the drainage in first. That discussion can happen with Devine. Pabich comments that it would also provide protection from lawsuits should someone downstream get flooded due to the system not being finished. Pabich asks about how the lots are numbered; it is due to registration of the land. He also comments that that for marketing purposes, buyers will want lawns but they may want to leave areas natural if they can. Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. Pabich comments that a site visit is needed to assess the project. Lots are not yet staked out but will be before the site visit. The road is laid out. A site visit is scheduled for Thursday, July 19`h at 6PM. A motion to continue to July 26 is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. 6. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Patrick Deiulis, Pasquanna Developers Inc, 31 Collins Street Terrace, Lynn, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of 3 single family homes and appurtenances within riverfront area at 18 Thorndike Street. Patrick Deiulis presents. There is a "Site plan to accompany a Notice of Intent Application" • (6/20/12) presented. They understood there would be environmental issues with the property, so 6 they were planning on remediation. The applicant did not know how extensive it would be, but they came before this Commission in August 2006 and had to remove 3' across the entire site. • They have a Certificate of Compliance for the completed work, and now have worked with the neighborhood to come up with an acceptable development. The Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals approved 5 individual single family house lots for the site, and 3 are within riverfront area. The bypass road is by the edge of the property, and their work is to restore original grade, put in 5 lots with landscaping, while incorporating aqua brick pavers for driveways, as well as bituminous concrete to help with drainage due to the proximity of abutting properties. This area used to be a construction yard but is now zoned for residential use, hence the full environmental cleanup. Scott Patrowicz, engineer for the applicant, discusses the rest of the plan. The water is under the bypass.road where the bridge begins. He reviews various overhead photos of the site that were submitted with the NOI. A seawall off the property at the end of Hubon St. set the riparian zones. The site at the moment has a lot of debris and trash onsite and they would clean it up first. Mr. Patrowicz outlines elevations and the layout of the development, along with proposed erosion controls. Included would be a silt barrier. Fill will be brought in to make new houses on the same plane as the existing ones. Drainage swales would be created to handle runoff from added fill and houses, so as not to send it into abutting properties. Knisel asks about the seawall, which is limited to one corner at the end of Hubon St. There is no seawall in front of this project,just riprap. One area is disturbed. The end near the water had more PCB's in it. That's possibly where the highway deptaertment set up their crane when building the bridge. Knisel asks about the plan dated June 20`h and asks if the flood zone reflects the recently released July P FEMA maps. They do not. It is however, the same elevation, but • the new FEMA maps are under different datum. Mr. Patrowicz will check into it, though the new zones do not come into effect as this was filed prior, but he does not have a problem with either line - new or old. Right now the area is a bowl but the water drains quickly; the water table from the existing grade was about 7'. Basements would be higher than groundwater; but there is some tidal impact. Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. A site visit is scheduled for 7PM on June 19th. A motion to continue is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously. 7. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—North Shore Medical Center Inc (Salem Hospital), 81 Highland Avenue, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction a of new central utilities plant within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at Salem Hospital (81 Highland Avenue). Pam Lawrence presents. They came before this Commission in May 2010 with a preliminary proposal, and the Commission asked that they only bring forward actual proposals, which they are now doing. They have full funding as well as a determination of need filed with the Department of Public Health, and will start construction as soon as all permits are granted. They need new mechanical and electrical systems to replace the old as the age and location of the existing facility from 1917 renders it obsolete. The system now has 5 high pressure boilers which are up to 50 years old. Also,the campus has grown so now the plant is in a bad location. They will move the plant to the rear of the campus to take advantage of topography there. It will be against the hillside, obscuring the plant from the view of the general public, while fulfilling their 7 responsibility to wetlands and abutters. An informational meeting was held on June 20, and the hospital promised to continue communications. This project will be LEED silver certified. Scott Patrowicz, engineer for the applicant, discusses the illustration and location of old and new • plants. "Aerial photo by HDR June 14, 2012. Drawing 1." They have an opportunity to further improve the wetland and quality with this project. "Site Utility Plan C1.7 June 14, 2012, HDR Engineering" shows the back of the campus. Mr. Patrowicz outlines the setup. For the utility lines, no work is being done in any grass areas; it is all inside of the roadway. "Illustration ClA - Central Utilities Plant, June 14, 2012" shows the layout of the building and the hill. There is an 8' walkway around the plant that will be staked. It will be near doctor's parking (it is called that but is actually patient parking). There will be a StormTech infiltration system to take care of drainage. They will be utilizing a point source discharge, while also using a storm scepter for the parking lot to improve another point source discharge. The parking area and road leading up to the area will be resurfaced but parking will be on more or less the same grade it's currently at. A driveway for service trucks and an oxygen tank farm will also be put in. It is partially on top of a wooded area and parking lot. They will also clean up point source discharge from underneath the cardiac center; as of now the drainage flows straight out, but after completion of the project, it will go into another storm scepter. A 600' silt fence will be installed along with the plant footprint, but first sheet piles must be installed due to a"pinch point" and existing sewer line, to delimit the work area. All construction will thus be upgradient from the wetlands. 17,000 feet of pavement will be resurfaced. A sewer line will also be relocated. • A drainage plan and Operation and Maintenance plan have been submitted by HDR. They match the stormwater regulations. A long term O & M plan will also be developed as the project goes along. There will also be a plantings plan for the sloped buffer area, with native species for native wildlife habitat, to be submitted to the Conservation Commission before planting. Ricciarelli asks about location of the stack. It is located where it is since they studied emissions and did an air modeling study, which said the stack should be far away from building intakes so that OSHA indoor air quality thresholds can be met. There was also concern of neighbors who wanted it less visible. Only 2 or 3 neighbors will be able to see it at all. Pabich asks about the slope, which is sparsely vegetated with no riprap. There are 11,000 feet of buffer being taken out; then he asks about mitigation measures for the wetlands itself. They are not planning plantings but Mr. Patrowicz emphasizes improved water quality. Pabich reminds him that there is more than one aspect to wetland quality; they are pushing right to the edge of the buffer so he would like to see some plantings. Mr. Patrowicz says that the currently disturbed locations can be replanted, and that would help in general. Everyone agrees they will look at the planting plan as it comes up and take that into account. Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. A site visit is scheduled for July 26`h at SPM. A motion to continue to July 26`h is made by Pabich, seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously. 8 8. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Donald J. Clarke Real Estate & South Harbor Holdings, LLC, P.O. Box 829, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed • demolition of wharf, bulkhead replacement, removal of piles, and seawall repair within riverfront area, coastal bank, land under ocean, and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 24 Congress Street and 281 Derby Street along the South River Basin. Susan St. Pierre and Dave Smith present. They must replace facilities, make repairs and demolish an existing wharf to enhance site safety. Work is along the back of the properties and the South River. The area is dilapidated. The pier will not be replaced, but the wall behind it will be. Piles will also be removed but floats will be held in place with timber piles, offset from the new seawall. They will be same diameter as some others in town. A steel sheet pile wall will be constructed using the same technique as with the Harborwalk. Ms. St. Pierre also describes the repair of the granite seawall. Grades will be matched to adjacent sections of said wall. A sheet pile wall will be installed as close as possible to the current timber wall. Dave Smith is available and answers technical questions. He describes the stones in the current wall and how it will be repaired. They will be raising the wall to provide a curb stop and provide additional protection. Pabich asks about Chapter 91; there are historic licenses. Normally maintenance is included under the licenses but you need permission to demolish without reconstruction, so DEP approval is required. Also a minor modification was requested for other aspects but it is not a license. Comments have not yet been received but typically DEP allows, upon replacement of a sheet • wall, an additional foot as is happening here. Pabich asks about public access—there are no accommodations for that. Eventually there will be that requirement for the Harborwalk during redevelopment but it is not required here. There will be a railing so it looks consistent, though. Pabich feels this may be confusing to the public. Ricciarelli asks about wall repair work. It will be tidal work with staging or ladders. All work will occur from land since getting a barge under the low bridge would be very difficult. They can use the area on the land side of the wall. Mr. Smith outlines the work plan: Vine Associates, Proposed Work Plan, 7/2/12 Ricciarelli asks about the end product and Mr. Smith says it will be similar to the West end of the Harborwalk. This is to prevent the collapse of the wharf and bulkhead. Piles will be spaced 8' on center. Specifications are discussed. Some fender piles will be cut at the mud line. Ricciarelli asks why not pull them out; they are deteriorated; it isn't known how far down they go or what they are attached to. They hope to begin work in November and be done before winter, to be completed with site work in the spring if necessary. Commissioners are familiar with the area so no site visit is scheduled. No members of the public are present to comment. Knisel asks if there should be conditions for waterside work or if they can do it all from the landside. Pabich comments that spill kits should be onsite if there will be a work float or hydraulic crane. Also any stockpiles must be covered (boilerplate conditions). • A daily housekeeping regimen of removing debris before high tide should be followed. Mr. Smith says there will also be a debris boom in place as standard procedure. No other conditions are desired. 9 A motion to close is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously Pabich motions to issue the above an Order of Conditions, is seconded by Ricciarelli, and the • motion passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 9. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-523—William Wharff, 30 Federal Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a parking lot and associated utilities within riverfront area, land subject to coastal storm flowage, and buffer zone to coastal bank at 162 and 150 Federal Street. Applicant requests to continue to the July 26, 2012 meeting A motion to continue is made by Pabich to continue to the July 26 meeting, seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously. io.Old/New Business (continued) • 185 Jefferson Avenue: Update on wetlands violation The owners are moving slowly with national grid, as the access agreement was finally signed just this week, so restoration could start as soon as tomorrow. • 252-rear Bridge Street (MBTA Commuter Rail Station): Discussion of request to waive required EIR Mass DOT filed an Expanded Environmental Notification(EENF) form to try and get waiver • from filing the mandatory Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The document covers what DEP wants under the MA Environmental Policy Act. This project will be before the Commission with an NOI seeking an Order of Conditions no matter what, but if the waiver is not granted and they must file an EIR it would delay the project a year or more. Thus, DOT and the City are looking for support for the waiver request. If the Commission comes on board with that, it would be helpful. Pabich asks what substantive aspects of an EIR are NOT covered in the huge document. Knisel notes that they did more alternative analysis than was normally needed. Ricciarelli says it is pretty comprehensive. It is publicly available. Chair Knisel says there would probably not be much discussion anyway given the location of the property and its condition. Devine says stormwater improvements would be up for review by the Commission. Chair Knisel read the Environmental Notification Form as part of her work at MA Coastal Zone Management. There is no PDF yet but the Commission would like one. Knisel says they are not touching the seawall. Pabich wants to request that the chair write a letter supporting the waiver request. Devine will write one and send it to the Chair for review. • 121 Loring Avenue (Salem State University): Discussion of proposed maintenance of access road along Old Creek Salt Marsh The University is continuing to use the temporary construction road as a permanent road to transport athletic equipment, waste from the ball field bathrooms (as a capped brownfield, it cannot have a normal sewage system), and emergency vehicles. They should have proposed a • permanent road in the NOI, but they did not. Now they want to maintain it, but it is within the 10 buffer zone so they should file an RDA so the Commission could condition it as needed to project the salt marsh. The road surface is a beehive grid filled with dirt; grass did not survive • since it is used too heavily. Ricciarelli suggests talking to Dennis Gray. He wonders why they did not plan it'as permanent and put down pavers, especially with no toilet facilities. Devine comments that the bike path is not designed for vehicles but Pabich disagrees. Devine thinks a solution would be to occasionally use the bike path for vehicles, but people are opposed to that. Pabich agrees with the request for a submission of an RDA. • Other Business There is a City Council committee of the whole meeting regarding the Community Preservation Act that conflict with tonight's conservation commission meeting. The Commission has the option of submitting written comments. The commission is familiar with the CPA, which is a small tax surcharge that receives some state matching funds and it dedicated to open space and recreation, affordable housing, and historic preservation. It is a challenge to pass primarily because it is a tax increase and it has failed in Salem before. The commission supports the CPA and requests that Devine draft a letter for the Chair to sign. A motion to adjourn is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Pabich and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 8:56PM. Respectfully Submitted, • Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on July 27, 2012. • I 11 ,�coniuiTr� CITY OF SALEM ,Mme CONSERVATION COMMISSION July 26, 2012 Susan St. Pierre Consulting Services 74 Bay View Ave. Salem, MA 01970 Re: Order of Conditions—DEP #64-540-24 Congress St. & 283 Derby St. Dear Ms. St. Pierre: Enclosed, please find the Order of Conditions for the abov - e reference dro'ect. p J Following the 10-business-day appeal period (as of the postmark or hand delivery of this order), this document and the attached Special Conditions must be recorded at the South Essex County Registry of Deeds (Shetland Park 45 Congress Street, Suite 4100 Salem, Massachusetts). Once recorded, please return a copy of Page 12 of the Order, which will indicate to the Commission that the document has been recorded. As indicated in the Order, prior to any work commencing: • 1. this Order must be recorded, 2. a sign shall be displayed showing DEP File #64-540 within public view, and 3. contact me at least 48 hours prior to any activity to schedule a pre-construction meeting to review the Order with your hired contractor. Please note in the Order any additional conditions that must be complied with before the start of construction. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 978-619-5685. Sincerely, i Tom Devin Conservation Agent/ Staff Planner Enclosures CC: DEP Northeast Regional Office Donald J. Clarke Real Estate/South Harbor Holdings, LLC • ���s, Attachment to Order of Conditions # 64-540 W Page 1 of 4 SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION • DEP FILE #64-540 24 Congress Street, 281 Derby Street City of Salem, Massachusetts ADDITIONAL FINDINGS Based on the Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife and Certified Vernal Pools Map (October I, 2008) from Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, it has been determined that this project does not occur near any habitat of state-listed rare wildlife species nor contains any vernal pools. This Order is issued under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, M.G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40 and the City of Salem Wetlands Protection Ordinance, Salem Code Chapter 50. This order permits the demolition of existing wharf, replacement of existing bulkhead, removal of existing piles,and repair of existing seawall. GENERAL CONDITIONS I. This Order of Conditions must be recorded in its entirety (including all 4 pages of Special Conditions) • at the Essex County Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, after the expiration of the 10-day appeal period and within 30 days of the issuance. A copy of the recording information must be submitted to the Salem Conservation Commission before any work approved in this Order commences. 2. Approval of this application does not constitute compliance with any law or regulation other than M.G.L Chapter 13 I, Section 40, Wetlands Regulations 310 CMR 10.00 and the City of Salem Wetlands Protection Ordinance, Salem Code Chapter 50. 3. All work shall be performed in accordance with this Order of Conditions and approved site plan(s). No alteration of wetland resource areas or associated buffer zones, other than that approved in this Order, shall occur on this property without prior approval from the Commission. 4. Prior to any work commencing on site, a DEP Sign showing DEP File#64-540 must be installed at the entrance to the site and seen from the public way, but not placed on a living tree. 5. No work approved in this Order may commence until the ten-business-day appeal period has lapsed from the date of the issuance of this Order. 6. With respect to this Order, the Commission designates the Conservation Agent as its agent with powers to act on its behalf in administering and enforcing this Order. 7. The Commission or its Agent, officers, or employees shall have the right to enter and inspect the property at any time for compliance with the conditions of this Order, the Wetlands Protection Act MGL Chapter 13 I, Section 40,the Wetlands Regulations 310 CMR 10.00,and shall have the right to require any data or documentation that it deems necessary for that evaluation. t°'u Attachment to Order of Conditions it 64740 Page 2 of 4 S. The term "Applicant" as used in this Order of Conditions shall refer to the owner, any successor in interest or successor in control of the property referenced in the Notice of intent, supporting documents and this Order of Conditions. The Commission shall be notified in writing within 30 days of all transfers of title of any portion of the property that takes place prior to issuance of the Certificate of Compliance. 9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to procure all other applicable federal, state and local permits and approvals associated with this project. These permits may include but are not necessarily limited to the following: (t) Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act(P.L. 92-500, 86 stat. 816), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2) Water Quality Certification in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution Control under authority of sec. 27(5) of Chapter 21 of the Massachusetts General Laws as codified in 314 CMR 9.00. (3) Sewer Extension Permit from the DEP Division of Water Pollution Control under G. L. Ch. 21 A ss7 and 314 CMR 7.00. Any Board of Health permit for septic system design for any portion of the septic system within 100 feet of wetlands shall be submitted to the Commission prior to construction initiation. (4) Design Requirements for Construction in Floodplains under the State Building Code (780 CMR 744.). 10. If there are conflicting conditions within this Order, the stricter condition(s) shall rule. 11. All work shall be performed so as to ensure that there will be no sedimentation into wetlands and surface waters during construction or after completion of the project. 12. The Commission or its Agent shall have the discretion to modify the erosion/siltation control methods and boundary during construction if necessary. 13. The Commission reserves the right to impose additional conditions on portions of this project or this site to mitigate any actual or potential impacts resulting from the work herein permitted. 14. The work shall conform to the following attached plans and special conditions: Final Approved Plans Bulkhead Replacement Project, 24 Congress Street, Salem, MA (sheets 1-6) (Tide) July 2012 (Dated) None (Signed and Stamped by) City of Salem Conservation Commission (On file with) 15. Any proposed changes in the approved plan(s) or any deviation in construction from the approved plan(s) shall require the applicant to file a Notice of Project Change with the Commission. The Notice shall be accompanied by a written inquiry prior to their implementation in the field, as to whether the change(s) is substantial enough to require tiling a new Notice of Intent or a request to correct or amend Attachment to Order of Conditions k 64-540 Page 3 of 4 this Order of Conditions. A copy of such request shall at the same time be sent to the Department of Environmental Protection. 16. In conjunction with the sale of this property or any portion thereof before a Certificate of Compliance has been issued, the applicant or current landowner shall submit to the Commission a statement sibmed by the buyer that he/she is aware of an outstanding Order of Conditions on the property and has received a copy of the Order of Conditions. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 17. Prior to the commencement of any activity on this site other than activities listed above, there must be a Pre-Construction Meeting on site between the project supervisor, the contractor responsible for the work, and the Conservation Agent and/or a member of the Conservation Commission to ensure that the requirements of the Order of Conditions are understood. The staked erosion control line shall be adjusted, if necessary, during the pre-construction meeting. Please contact the Conservation Agent at (978) 619-5685 at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to construction to arrange for the Pre- Construction Meeting. 18. Prior to the pre-construction meeting and commencement of any activity on this site, sedimentation and erosion control barriers shall be installed as shown on the approval plan(s)and detail drawings. The Commission and/or its Agent shall inspect and approve such installation at the pre-construction meeting. 19. No clearing of vegetation, including trees, or disturbance of soil shall occur prior to the pre-construction meeting. Minimal disturbance of shrubs and herbaceous plants shall be allowed prior to the pre- construction meeting if absolutely necessary in order to place erosion control stakes where required. DURING CONSTRUCTION 20. A copy of this Order of Conditions and the plan(s)approved in this Order shall be available on site at all times when work is in progress. 21. No alteration or activity shall occur beyond the limit of work as defined by the siltation barriers shown on the approved plan(s). 22. All waste products, grubbed stumps, slash; construction materials, etc. shall be deposited at least 100 feet from wetland resource areas and 200 feet from river. 23. Cement trucks shall not be washed out in any wetland resource or buffer zone area, nor into any drainage system. Any deposit of cement or concrete products into a buffer zone or wetland resource area shall be immediately removed. 24. There shall be no pumping of water from wetland resource areas. 25. All equipment shall be inspected regularly for Teaks. Any leaking hydraulic lines, cylinders or any other components shall be fixed immediately. 26. During construction, all drainage structures shall be inspected regularly and cleaned as necessary. • Attachment to Order of Conditions N 64-540 Page 4 of 4 • 27. The applicant is herby notified that failure to comply with all requirements herein may result in the issuance of enforcement actions by the Conservation Commission including, but not limited to, civil administrative penalties under M.G.L Chapter 21A, section 16. AFTER CONSTRUCTION 28. Upon completion of construction and final soil stabilization, the applicant shall submit the following to the Conservation Commission to request a Certificate of Compliance (COC): (1) A Completed Request for a Certificate of Compliance form (WPA Form 8A or other form if required by the Conservation Commission at the time of request). (2) A letter from a Registered Professional Engineer certifying compliance of the property with this Order of Conditions. (3) An "As-Built"plan signed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer or Land Surveyor showing post-construction conditions within all areas under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. This plan shall include at a minimum: (a) All wetland resource area boundaries with associated buffer zones and regulatory setback areas taken from the plan(s)approved in this Order of Conditions; (b) Locations and elevations of all stormwater management conveyances, structures and best management designs, including foundation drains, constructed under this Order within any wetland resource area or buffer zone; • (c) Distances from any structures constructed under this Order to wetland resource areas - "stmetures" include,but are not limited to, all buildings,septic system components, wells, utility lines, fences,retaining walls,and roads/driveways; (d) A line delineating the limit of work-"work" includes any tilling,excavating and/or disturbance of soils or vegetation approved under this Order; 29. When issued, the Certificate of Compliance must be recorded at the Essex County Registry of Deeds and a copy of the recording submitted to the Salem Conservation Commission. 30. if the completed work differs from that in the original plans and conditions, the report must specify how the work differs; at which time the applicant shall first request a modification to the Order. Only upon review and approval by the Commission, may the applicant request in writing a Certificate of Compliance as described above. AFTER CONSTRUCTION 31. Prior to the start of construction, a sediment boom shall be placed in the water to prevent sediment from migrating from the work area. 32. Prior to construction, a silt sock or equivalent erosion control device shall be placed along the bank of the river to prevent siltation or other debris from entering the South River. • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands s4-540-, WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MaaaDEP Filek Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction N Salem City/Town A. General Information Please note: Salem this form has 1. From: been modified Conservation Commission with added 2. This issuance is for space to a.❑Order of Conditions b.❑ Amended Order of Conditions accommodate (check one): the Registry of Deeds 3.To: Applicant: • Requirements Donald J. Clarke Real Estate Important: a. First Name b.Last Name When filling South Harbor Holdings LLC out forms c.Organization on the PO Box 829 computer, use only the d. Mailing Address tab key to Salem MA 01970 move your e.Citylrown f.State cursor-do g.Zip Code not use the 4. Property Owner(if different from applicant): return key, VQ a. First Name b. Last Name ao c.Organization renin d. Mailing Address e.Citylrown f.State g.Zip Code 5. Project Location: 24 Congress St./281 Derby St. Salem a. Street Address b.City/Town 34 437, 187 c.Assessors Map/Plat Number d. Parcel/Lot Number Latitude and Longitude, if known: 42d31m09s 70d53m27s • d. Latitude e. Longitude wpaiorm5.doc• rev.05/1912010 Page 1 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: • Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-540 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions i MassDEP File k Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transactionq Salem City[rown A. General Information (cont.) 6. Property recorded at the Registry of Deeds for(attach additional information if more than one parcel): Southern Essex a.County b.Certificate Number(if registered land) 14415, 6378 502, 546 c.Book d.Page 7. Dates: 7/2/2012 7/12/2012 7/26/2012 a.Date Notice of Intent Filed b. Date Public Hearing Closed c.Date of Issuance 6, Final Approved Plans and Other Documents (attach additional plan or document references as needed): See attached a.Plan Title b.Prepared By c.Signed and Stamped by d. Final Revision Date e.Scale I.Additional Plan or Document Title g.Date B. Findings t. Findings pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: Following the review of the above-referenced Notice of Intent and based on the information provided in this application and presented at the public hearing, this Commission finds that the areas in which work is proposed is significant to the following interests of the Wetlands Protection Act (the Act). Check all that apply: a. ® Public Water Supply b. ® Land Containing Shellfish c. ® Prevention of Pollution d. ® Private Water Supply e. ® Fisheries f ® Protection of Wildlife Habitat g. ® Groundwater Supply h. ® Storm Damage Prevention I. ® Flood Control 2. This Commission hereby finds the project,as proposed, is: (check one of the following boxes) Approved subject to: a. ® the following conditions which are necessary in accordance with the performance standards set forth in the wetlands regulations. This Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the Notice of Intent referenced above, the following General Conditions, and any other special conditions attached to this Order. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, these conditions shall control. • wpalorm5.doc• rev.05/19/2010 Page 2 o112 1 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 54-540 • WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEPFile# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction# Salem City/Town B. Findings (cont.) Denied because: b. ❑ the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the performance standards set forth in the wetland regulations. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until,a:new Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are.adequate to protect the interests of the Act, and a final Order of Conditions is issued._A description of the performance standards which the proposed work cannot meet Is attached to this Order. c. ❑ the information submitted by the applicant is not sufficient to describe the site, the work, or the effect of the work on the interests identified in the Wetlands Protection Act. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides sufficient information and includes measures which are adequate to protect the Act's interests, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the specific information which is lacking and why it Is necessary is attached to this Order as per 310 CMR 10.05(6)(c). 3. ❑ Buffer Zone Impacts: Shortest distance between limit of project disturbance and the wetland resource area specified in 310 CMR 10.02(1)(a) a. linearfeet • Inland Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) Resource Area Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration Alteration Replacement Replacement 4. ❑ Bank a. linearfeet b. linearfeet c.linearfeet d. linearfeet 5. ❑ Bordering Vegetated Wetland a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet e. ❑ Land Under Waterbodies and a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet Waterways e.c/y dredged f.c/y dredged 7. ❑ Bordering Land Subject to Flooding a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet Cubic Feet Flood Storage e.cubic feet f.cubic feet g.cubic feet h.cubic feet a. ❑ Isolated Land a: Subject to Flooding square feet b.square feet Cubic Feet Flood Storage c.cubic feet ci.cubic feet e.cubic feet f.cubic feet 9. ❑ Riverfront Area b.total sq.feet Sq ft within 100 ft foof d.square feet square feet Sq ft between 100- 200 ft foor h.square feet , e,,,,,,e faof j,square feet • wpaform&d.• re¢05/19/2010 Page 3 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-540 WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions MassDEP-File# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40eDEPTransaction# Salem Cityrrown B. Findings (cont.) Coastal Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration- Alteration Replacement Replacement to. El Designated Port Areas Indicate-size under Land Under the Ocean, below it. ® Land Under the 10.6 10.6 Ocean a.square feet b.square feet c.Gy dredged d.c/y dredged 12. ❑ Barrier Beaches Indicate size under Coastal Beaches and/or Coastal Dunes below 13. ❑ Coastal Beaches cu yd cu yd a.square feet b.square feet c.nourishment d. nourishment 14. ❑ Coastal Dunes cu yd cu yd a.square feet b.square feet c.nourishment d.nourishment 15. ® Coastal Banks 169 169 a. linear feet b.linear feet • 1e. ❑ Rocky Intertidal Shores a.square feet b.square feet 17. [-1 Salt Marshes a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet 1s. ❑ Land Under Salt Ponds aquare feet.sb.square feet c.c/y dredged d,c/y dredged 19. ❑ Land Containing Shellfish a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet 20. ❑ Fish Runs Indicate size under Coastal Banks, Inland Bank, Land Under the Ocean, and/or inland Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways, above a.c/y dredged b,c/y dredged 21. ® Land Subject to 175 175 Coastal Storm a.square feet b.square feet Flowage vvpaform5.tloc• rev.05A 92010 Page 4 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-540 . WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP File# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction# Salem City/Town B. Findings (cont.) #22.Ifthe 22 ❑ Restoration/Enhancement ': project is for the purpose of restoring or s. uare feet of BVW enhancing a a� q b.square feet of salt marsh . .. wetland resource area29. 0''-Stream Crossing(s):in addition to ' the square footage that a.number of new stream crossings b.number of replacement stream crossings has been C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act entered in Section 8.5.c or eetvi c(salt The following conditions are only applicable to Approved projects. Marsh)above, I. Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein, and with all related statutes and other please enter the additional 9 y re ulator measures, shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this Order. amount here. 2. The Order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges; it does not authorize any injury to private property or invasion of private rights. 3. This Order does not relieve the permittee or any other person of the necessity of complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, bylaws, or regulations. • 4. The work authorized hereunder shall be completed within three years from the date of this Order unless either of the following apply: a. the work is a maintenance dredging project as provided for in the Act; or b. the time for completion has been extended to a specified date more than three years, but less than five years, from the date of issuance. If this Order is intended to be valid for more than three years, the extension date and the special circumstances warranting the extended time period are set forth as a special condition in this Order. 5. This Order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or more periods of up to three years each upon application to the issuing authority at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the Order. 6. If this Order constitutes an Amended Order of Conditions, this Amended Order of Conditions does not extend the issuance date of the original Final Order of Conditions and the Order will expire on 7/26/2015 unless extended in writing by the Department. 7. Any fill used in connection with this project shall be clean fill. Any fill shall contain no trash, refuse, rubbish, or debris, including but not limited to lumber, bricks, plaster, wire, lath, paper, cardboard, pipe, tires, ashes, refrigerators, motor vehicles, or parts of any of the foregoing. 8. This Order is not final until all administrative appeal periods from this Order have elapsed, or if such an appeal has been taken, until all proceedings before the Department have been completed. • wpaform5.doc• rev.05/19/2010 Page 5 of 12 ,r Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-540 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEPFIIe# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEPTransaction# Salem City/Town C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) 9. No work shall be undertaken until the Order has become final and then has been recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done:lrrthe case of the registered land, the Final Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is done. The recording information shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission on the form at the end of this Order, which form must be stamped by the Registry of Deeds, prior to the commencement of work. 10. A sign shall be displayed at the site not less then two square feet or more than three square feet in size bearing the words, "Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection"[or, "MassDEP"] "File Number 64-540 1 " 11. Where the Department of Environmental Protection is requested to issue a Superseding Order, the Conservation Commission shall be a party to all agency proceedings and • hearings before MassDEP. 12. Upon completion of the work described herein, the applicant shall submit a Request for Certificate of Compliance (WPA Form 8A) to the Conservation Commission. 13. The work shall conform to the plans and special conditions referenced in this order. 14. Any change to the plans identified in Condition #13 above shall require the applicant to inquire of the Conservation Commission in writing whether the change is significant enough to require the filing of a new Notice of Intent. 15. The Agent or members of the Conservation Commission and the Department of Environmental Protection shall have the right to enter and inspect the area subject to this Order at reasonable hours to evaluate compliance with the conditions stated in this Order, and may require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by the Conservation Commission or Department for that evaluation. 16. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in interest or successor in control of the property subject to this Order and to any contractor or other person performing work conditioned by this Order. 17. Prior to the start of work, and if the project involves work adjacent to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland, the boundary of the wetland in the vicinity of the proposed work area shall be marked by wooden stakes or flagging. Once in place, the wetland boundary markers shall be maintained until a Certificate of Compliance has been issued by the Conservation Commission. • wpaform5.doc• rev,W19=10 Page 6 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-540 . WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP File k Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction Salem City/rown C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) 18. All sedimentation barriers shall be maintained in good repair until all disturbed areas have been fully stabilized with vegetation or other means. At no time shall sediments be deposited in a wetland or water body. During construction, the applicant or his/her designee shall inspect the erosion controls on a daily basis and shall remove accumulated sediments as needed. The applicant shall immediately control any erosion problems that "occur at the site and shall also immediately notify the Conservation Commission,which reserves the right to require additional erosion and/or damage prevention controls it may deem necessary. Sedimentation barriers shall serve as the limit of work unless another limit of work line has been approved by this Order. NOTICE OF STORMWATER CONTROL AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS 19. The work associated with this Order(the"Project') is(t) ❑ Is not(2)® subject to the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards. If the work is subject to the Stormwater Standards,then the project is subject to the following conditions: a) All work, including site preparation, land disturbance, construction and redevelopment, shall be implemented in accordance with the construction period pollution prevention and • erosion and sedimentation control plan and, if applicable, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit as required by Stormwater Condition 8. Construction period erosion, sedimentation and pollution control measures and best management practices (BMPs) shall remain in place until the site is fully stabilized. b) No stormwater runoff may be discharged to the post-construction stormwater BMPs unless and until a Registered Professional Engineer provides a Certification that: i. all construction period BMPs have been removed or will be removed by a date certain specified in the Certification. For any construction period BMPs intended to be converted to post construction operation for stormwater attenuation, recharge, and/or treatment, the conversion is allowed by the MassDEP Stormwater Handbook BMP specifications and that the BMP has been properly cleaned or prepared for post construction operation, including removal of all construction period sediment trapped in inlet and outlet control structures; ii. as-built final construction BMP plans are included, signed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, certifying the site is fully stabilized; iii. any illicit discharges to the stormwater management system have been removed, as per the requirements of Stormwater Standard 10; iv. all post-construction stormwater BMPs are installed in accordance with the plans (including all planting plans) approved by the issuing authority, and have been inspected to ensure that they are not damaged and that they are in proper working condition; v. any vegetation associated with post-construction BMPs is suitably established to withstand erosion. • wpalormS.doc• rev.OS/19/2010 Page 7 of 12 .. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-540 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP File N Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEPTransaction k Salem Cityrrown C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) c) The landowner is responsible for BMP maintenance until the issuing authority is notified that another party has legally assumed responsibility for BMP maintenance. Prior to requesting a Certificate of Compliance, or Partial Certificate of Compliance, the responsible party(defined in General Condition 18(e)) shall execute and submit to the issuing authority an Operation and Maintenance Compliance Statement ("O&M Statement) for the Stormwater BMPs identifying the party responsible for implementing the stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan ("O&M Plan")and certifying the following: i.) the O&M Plan is complete and will be implemented upon receipt of the Certificate of Compliance, and ii.)the future responsible parties shall be notified in writing of their ongoing legal responsibility to operate and maintain the stormwater management BMPs and implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. d) Post-construction pollution prevention and source control shall be implemented in accordance with the long-term pollution prevention plan section of the approved Stormwater Report and, if applicable,the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Multi-Sector General Permit. e) Unless and until.another party accepts responsibility, the landowner, or owner of any • drainage easement, assumes responsibility for maintaining each BMP. To overcome this presumption, the landowner of the property must submit to the issuing authority a legally binding agreement of record, acceptable to the issuing authority, evidencing that another entity has accepted responsibility for maintaining the BMP, and that the proposed responsible party shall be treated as a permittee for purposes of implementing the requirements of Conditions 18(f)through 18(k)with respect to that BMP. Any failure of the proposed responsible party to implement the requirements of Conditions 18(f) through 18(k)with respect to that BMP shall be a violation of the Order of Conditions or Certificate of Compliance. In the case of stormwater BMPs that are serving more than one lot, the legally binding agreement shall also identify the lots that will be serviced by the stormwater BMPs. A plan and easement deed that grants the responsible party access to perform the required operation and maintenance must be submitted along with the legally binding agreement. f) The responsible party shall operate and maintain all stormwater BMPs in accordance with the design plans, the O&M Plan, and the requirements of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. • "aform5.doc• rev.M19=10 Page 8 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-540 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP File# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction# Salem City/Town C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) g) The responsible party shall: 1. Maintain an operation and maintenance log for the last three(3) consecutive calendar years of inspections, repairs, maintenance and/or replacement of the stormwater management system or any part thereof,and disposal (for disposal the log shall indicate the type of material and the disposal location); r 2. Make the maintenance log available to MassDEP and the Conservation Commission ("Commission") upon request; and 3. Allow members and agents of the MassDEP and the Commission to enter and inspect the site to evaluate and ensure that the responsible party is in compliance with the requirements for each BMP established in the O&M Plan approved by the issuing authority. h) All sediment or other contaminants removed from stormwater BMPs shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. i) Illicit discharges to the stormwater management system as defined in 310 CMR 10.04 are prohibited. j) The stormwater management system approved in the Order of Conditions shall not be changed without the prior written approval of the issuing authority. • k) Areas designated as qualifying pervious areas for the purpose of the Low Impact Site Design Credit(as defined in the MassDEP Stormwater Handbook, Volume 3, Chapter 1, Low Impact Development Site Design Credits) shall not be altered without the prior written approval of the issuing authority. 1) Access for maintenance, repair, and/or replacement of BMPs shall not be withheld. Any fencing constructed around stormwater BMPs shall include access gates and shall be at least six inches above grade to allow for wildlife passage. Special Conditions (if you need more space for additional conditions, please attach a text document): • wpalorm5.doc• rev.05/19/2010 Page 9o112 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-540 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDE Hee# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEPTransaction# Salem CityRown D. Findings Under Municipal Wetlands Bylaw or Ordinance 1. Is a municipal wetlands bylaw or ordinance applicable? ® Yes ❑ No 2. The Salem hereby finds (check one that applies): Conservation Commission a. ❑ that the proposed,work cannot 6e conditioned to meet the standards set forth in a municipal ordinance or bylaw,specifically: 1. Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw 2.Citation Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to meet these standards, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. b. ®that the following additional conditions are necessary to comply with a municipal ordinance or bylaw: Wetlands Protection and Conservation Ordinance ch. 50 1. Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw 2.Citation 3. The Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the following • conditions and with the Notice of Intent referenced above. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, the conditions shall control. The special conditions relating to municipal ordinance or bylaw are as follows (if you need more space for additional conditions, attach a text document): Attached conditions are issued under the Wetlands Protection Act and are sufficient for compliance with the local ordinance • �Paform5.tlac• rev.05/192010 Page 10 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: ` Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-540 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP File# 1 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction# Salem City/Town E. Signatures This Order is valid for three years, unless otherwise specified as a special -?— 0 a condition pursuant to General Conditions#4,from the date of issuance. 1. Date of Issuance Please indicate the number of members who will sign this form. This Order must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commis '� Number of Signers The.Order mu, be mailed by certified mail (return receipt requested or hand deliv ed to the applicant. A copy also must be mailed or hand delivered at the same time to the a propriate partment of Environmental Protection Regional Office,if not filing electronically, an Jhe pro arty owner, if different from applicant. Si at s. ❑ by hand delivery on ® by certified mail,return receipt requested, . �- °D--7—/ Data Date F. Appeals The applicant, the owner, any person aggrieved by this Order, any owner of land abutting the land subject to this Order, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate MassDEP Regional Office to issue a Superseding Order of Conditions. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and a completed Request of Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form, as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7) within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Order. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. Any appellants seeking to appeal the Department's Superseding Order associated with this appeal will be required to demonstrate prior participation in the review of this project. Previous participation in the permit proceeding means the submission of written information to the Conservation Commission prior to the close of the public hearing, requesting a Superseding Order, or providing written information to the Department prior to issuance of a Superseding Order. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Order which is being appealed and how the Order does not contribute to the protection of the interests identified in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. c. 131, §40), and is inconsistent with the wetlands regulations (310 CMR 10.00). To the extent that the Order is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. wpafarm5.doc• rev.05/19/2010 Page 11 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-540 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP File H Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEPTransaction# Salem City/Town G. Recording Information Prior to commencement of work, this Order of Conditions must be recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land subject to the Order. In the case of registered land, this Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land subject to the Order of Conditions. The recording information on this page shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission listed below. Salem Conservation Commission Detach on dotted line, have stamped by the Registry of Deeds and submit to the Conservation Commission. - -----------------------------------------------I----------------------------------------------------------- To: Salem Conservation Commission Please be advised that the Order of Conditions for the Project at: • Project Location MassDEP File Number Has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds of: County Book Page for: Property Owner and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property in: Book Page In accordance with the Order of Conditions issued on: Date If recorded land, the instrument number identifying this transaction is: Instrument Number If registered land, the document number identifying this transaction is: Document Number • Signature of Applicant wpaforre5.doc• rev.05/19/2010 Page 12 of 12 a - - p come�[r A`Yybr Y',f T CITY OF SALEM 'AMg CONSERVATION COMMISSION July 17, 2012 Andrea Norton MassDOT–HighwayDivision 519 Appleton Street Arlington, Massachusetts 02476 Re: Determination of Applicability 455 Highland Avenue—maintenance of drainage structure Dear Ms. Norton: Enclosed, please find the determination of applicability for the above-referenced project. Following the 10-business-day appeal period and provided that this determination is not appealed, you may proceed with your project. All the work approved in this determination • must be completed within three years from the date of issuance. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 978-619-5685. Sincerely. TorrT c'nU e� Conservation Agent/Staff Planner Cc:- DEP Northeast Regional Office r � rMassachusetts Department of Environmental Protection L17 , Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 - Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 • A. General Information Important: When filling out From: forms on the Salem computer, use 'Cons ervaatiotion n-Commission -.__ ---. ..._......._ _..,. .._.._........._ �....._ _...K.._,..,,_.... only the lab key to move To: Applicant Property Owner(if different from applicant): your cursor- - do not use the MassDOT- Highway Division Commonwealth of Massachusets return key. Name Name 519 Appleton Street 10 Park Plaza - fe6 Mailing Address Mailing Address ((�� Arlington - MA 02476 Boston MA 02116 City/Town Stale Zip Code Cityfrown State Zip Code 1. Title and Date (or Revised Date if applicable) of Final Plans and Other Documents: USGS Map with notations None Title . Date Comm. of MA Drainage Maintenance Work Project - _ _ 5/24/2012 Title Date Comm. of MA Plan of Road in the CitY of Salem 8/26/1964 _ — —..__... _ T._ .. Title Date 2. Date Request Filed: • 6/1/2012 B. Determination Pursuant to the authority of M.G.L. c. 131, § 40, the Conservation Commission considered your Request for Determination of Applicability, with its supporting documentation, and made the following Determination. - Project Description (if applicable): Removal of debris from drainage easement per scope of work included in June 1, 2012 Request for Determination of Applicabilit . Project Location: V 455 Highland Avenue M Salem Street Address City/Town • 3128 _._ umber Assessors MaplPlat Number Parcel/Lot Number wpabrm?tlor, n=iermnahpn MAppk0 bday-rev.IM104 Page I or 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands L ` WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) The following Determination(s)is/are applicable to the proposed site and/or project relative to the Wetlands Protection Act and regulations: Positive Determination Note: No work within the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act may proceed until a final Order of Conditions (issued following submittal of a Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent) or Order of Resource Area Delineation (issued following submittal of Simplified Review ANRAD) has been received from the issuing authority(i.e., Conservation Commission or the Department of Environmental Protection). ❑ 1. The area described on the referenced plan(s)is an area subject to protection under the Act. Removing,filling,dredging, or altering of the area requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 2a.The boundary delineations of the following resource areas described on the referenced plan(s)are confirmed as accurate. Therefore, the resource area boundaries confirmed in this Determination are binding as to all decisions rendered pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act and its regulations regarding such boundaries for as long as this Determination is valid. ❑ 2b. The boundaries of resource areas listed below are not confirmed by this Determination, regardless of whether such boundaries are contained on the plans attached to this Determination or to the Request for Determination. ❑ 3. The work described on referenced plan(s) and document(s) is within an area subject to protection under the Act and will remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area.Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 4. The work described on referenced plan(s)and document(s) is within the Buffer Zone and will alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent or ANRAD Simplified Review(if work is limited to the Buffer Zone) ❑ 5. The area and/or work described on referenced plan(s) and document(s) is subject to review and approval by: Name of Municipality Pursuant to the following municipal wetland ordinance or bylaw: • _.. . __ ._..... ... _ .__ _.. _ .. _. . _ Name Ordina-mnce or_Byla_ w__w_Cda6o_n wpalorm Doc•Uetemnoaoon of ApWkc Whty•;ev_1016104 Page 2 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) ❑ 6. The following area and/or work, if any, is subject to a municipal ordinance or bylaw but not subject to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: ❑ 7. If a Notice of Intent is filed for the work in the Riverfront Area described on referenced plan(s) and document(s), which includes all or part of the work described in the Request, the applicant must consider the following alternatives. (Refer to the wetland regulations at 10.58(4)c. for more information about the scope of alternatives requirements): ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located. . ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located, the subdivided lots, and any adjacent lots formerly or presently owned by the same owner. ❑ Alternatives limited to the original parcel on which the project is located, the subdivided parcels, any adjacent parcels, and any other land which can reasonably be obtained within the municipality. ❑ Alternatives extend to any sites which can reasonably be obtained within the appropriate region of the state. • Negative Determination Note: No further action under the Wetlands Protection Act is required by the applicant. However, if the Department is requested to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability, work may not proceed on this project unless the Department fails to act on such request within 35 days of the date the request is post-marked for certified mail or hand delivered to the Department. Work may then proceed at the owner's risk only upon notice to the Department and to the Conservation Commission. Requirements for requests for Superseding Determinations are listed at the end of this document. ❑ 1. The area described in the Request is not an area subject to protection under the Act or the Buffer Zone. ❑ 2. The work described in the Request is within an area subject to protection under the Act, but will not remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 3. The work described in the Request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined in the regulations. but will not alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, subject to the following conditions (if any). ❑ 4. The work described in the Request is not within an Area subject to protection under the Act (including the Buffer Zone). Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, unless and until said work alters an Area subject to protection under the Act. wpabrm2Aoc DelertMnafiw or Appik2bilily-rev_10,5!04 Pare 3a(5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands • .R WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) 5. The area described in the Request is subject to protection under the Act. Since the work described therein meets the requirements for the following exemption, as specified in the Act and the regulations, no Notice of Intent is required: t�t4[� �'iaL✓L�s— vlf Jcl� r'._ _'q--It Exempt Activity(site applicab e statuatorylregulatory provisions t � 1 6. The area and/or work described in the Request is not subject to review and approval by. __sit`•.-�-� _.._.,._. __ ._. _ ._... _ . .____ _ _ __� Name of Municipality Pursuant to a municipal wetlands ordinance or bylaw. Name Ordinance or Bylaw Citation C. Authorization • This Determination is issued to the applicant and delivered as follows: ❑ by hand delivery on by certified mail, return receipt requested on Date D e This Determination is valid for three years from the date of issuance (except Determinations for Vegetation Management Plans which are valid for the duration of the Plan). This Determination does not relieve the applicant from complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, bylaws, or regulations. This Determination must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. A copy must be sent to the appropriateDEP onal Office (see http.//www_mass.gov/dqulabout,,ret iq .filldVcur_hitm)and the property owner(if erent om the applicant). f e , vipaforo 2.00c Determnation of Applicability•rel.1016104 P"405 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability • Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 D. Appeals The applicant, owner, any person aggrieved by this Determination, any owner of land abutting the land upon which the proposed work is to be done, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate Department of Environmental Protection Regional Office (see http:llwww.mass.govldeplabouUregion.fin dyourhtrri) to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and Fee Transmittal Form (see Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form)as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7)within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Determination. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant if he/she is not the appellant. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination which is being appealed. To the extent that the Determination is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department of Environmental Protection has no appellate jurisdiction. • • w,fo,m2.dw of App,.bily- Page 5 5f 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form l : m Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. Request Information Important: When filling out 1.' Person or party making request (if appropriate, name the citizen group's representative): forms on the computer, use Name _.___.-_ __--_ .___.•._ _...__.__..... _�._. ... __'_....._... .�.....v,,,__- only the tab Na keyto move .__-...... ......_.....__ .. ..:. . .._....._... ......... _:.._....,. _......w. your cursor- Mailing Address _ do not use the - __ _ return key. CitylTown State Zip Code r Phone Number Fax Number(if applicable) 0 Project Location Mailing Adtlress _ - CV/Town .__—. — _ .Statee _ :Zip Code•....,... 2. Applicant(as shown on Notice of Intent (Form 3), Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation (Form 4A); or Request for Determination of Applicability(Form 1)): Name • Mailmy Address __ .. .._.._...__. ._ ..... ._..__.... .... . -.... ..... _ _ _. _.. City/Town _ - Statee—_ Zip Code ...._.._ _ - .___ ..._..... .. ._.._.a. .._................_ . �- .--_-_icabl.gin. _.....�;.....�.. Phone Number Fax—Number(if applicable) 3. DEP File Number: B. Instructions 1. When the Departmental action request is for (check one): ❑ Superseding Order of Conditions ($100 for individual single family homes with associated structures, $200 for all other projects) ❑ Superseding Determination of Applicability($100) ❑ Superseding Order of Resource Area Delineation ($100) Send this form and check or money order for the appropriate amount, payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to: Department of Environmental Protection Box 4062 • Boston, MA 02211 wpafornm_ -RtaueSt for Depanmenral An.,Fee Tran,,.iwi Form-rev.10/6104 Paye 1 al 2 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form . Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Instructions (cont.) 2. On a separate sheet attached to this form, state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination or Order which is being appealed. To the extent that the Determination or Order is based on a municipal bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. 3. Send a copy of this form and a copy of the check or money order with the Request for a Superseding Determination or Order by certified mail or hand delivery to the appropriate DEP Regional Office (see http:fi'mvw.i-nass.gov/dep/abouUreqion/findvour.htm). 4. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. • wpgfmm2.Uoc Nepueel for 0e0 0n 11a1 Anion Fel Tran_nullal Form-rev.1016.04 Pa 2 of 2 �BsoaL�4 CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION a NOTICE OF MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will bold its regularly scbeduled meeting on Thursday, July 26,2012 at 6.•00 PMat the City Hall Annex, Yd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Julia Knzse( Chair MEETINGAGENDA M xT _ 1. Old/New Business ^' m O 3 • DEP #64-482—Salem Wharf: Project Update s D N 2. Meeting Minutes July 12, 2012 01 o 3. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Frank and Sandy Lillo, 5 Guild Road, Saugus, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed addition to a single family • house within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 9 Winter Island Road. 4. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem-93 Washington Street,Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition of a building within flood zone and buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 297-305 Bridge Street(former Universal Steel). S. Witch Hill Subdivision House Lots Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman,67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 1 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G.Steadman,67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 2 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman,67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 3 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman,67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 4 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman,67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The pu of hearin i to discuss,} oge c ns ction of a single family house and appurte * wt� 5*AM&Waa .:Gy�Q 10f2 �:'#, t r'g. f9p� � /tel ZO/L a l ivy . "St • , 3 t . "{ I MAI • Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman,67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 7 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G. Steadman,67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 8 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G.Steadman,67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 1 Good Circle. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G.Steadman,67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 2 Good Circle. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Kenneth G.Steadman,67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 3 Good Circle. 6. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Patrick Deiulis,Pasquanna Developers Inc, • 31 Collins Street Terrace, Lynn, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of 3 single family homes and appurtenances within riverfront area at 18 Thorndike Street. 7. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—North Shore Medical Center Inc (Salem Hospital), 81 Highland Avenue, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction a of new central utilities plant within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at Salem Hospital (81 Highland Avenue). 8. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-523—William Wharff,30 Federal Street,Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a parking lot and associated utilities within riverfront area,land subject to coastal storm flowage,and buffer zone to coastal bank at 162 and 150 Federal Street. 9. Old/New Business (continued) • DEP #64-479,Bakers Island Light Station: Project Update • DEP #64-511-8 and 10 Franklin Street: Request for Certificate of Compliance • 185 Jefferson Avenue: Update on wetlands violation Knowyour fights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 39 523B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. • Page 2 of 2 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission July 26, 2012 Name Address Phone Email kte'D UtFCI E a RNCe $T `j73 -1 `to-o3'©1 rickAy-A . IKcr-ke LD vmrizcm.-ct er' ev wse-ohC e. 1111 Shell High 14p `l 8 35�+ -�59 g s �rnP� ar9 a Gam. oP &In X/-jo f 9AIZ T A418l �1. 7 S Y— a 4 ru a h D s.orq noyc��c CSM �cac nass;j-.CC pc:�X-roqzw rC��el vFIL ) �oN , r4�T Page 1 of 2 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission i July 26, 2012 Name Address Phone Email Page 2 of 2 DRAFT MINUTES Salem Conservation Commission • Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,July 26, 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, Gavin McAuliffe, Amy Hamilton Members Absent: Michael Blier,Bart Hoskins Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation,Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:O5PM. i. Old/New Business • DEP #64-482—Salem Wharf: Project Update Ron Bourne with Bourne Consulting represents the City The fust phase of the Work,was completed last year. The next phase is further woc kW„on,marme structuees, and they hope to begin in a month. One segment of the pier and another barge for Salem Ferryill be built. The seawall will also be continued,with the same construction as last year Additionally,=;there will be dredging. AN• The contract is out to bid, and is°for about$1 million worth of dredging, outside of that done by the > . m - •�, first contractor. There will be silration control arround:all work,'in'the form of floating booms. This is an AUL (Activities and Use Limitation) site and it will be monitored. Mr. Bourne hopes to use the stone piles as riptap or move themloffsite The City is requesting funding for the next phase, completion of the upland extension of tlie;-ie x and boardwalk but they do not have confirmation on that yet. That work would be done next yeari if theyy get the funding. Chair Knisel comments that it.sound's straightforward. They will continue with monthly reports to Devine, who notes that the reporting we t,well for the previous phase. There will be some activity in one other portion for an accessible ramp; a slightly different footprint than that shown on the Notice of Intent. Devine comments that Mr. Bourne should check in to assure he meets all conditions for the next construction phase. There are no comments from the public. 2. Meeting Minutes July 12, 2012 A motion to accept the minutes is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarel i, and passes unanimously. 3. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Frank and Sandy Lillo, 5 Guild Road, Saugus, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed addition to a single family house within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 9 Winter Island Road. • Here for the applicant is Ryan McShera of Pitman & Wardley Architects. He describes the setup of the property and seawall. The new project will include removal of the roof and addition of another 1 story. They are not increasing the impervious surface within the buffer zone, and only a small expansion on the right side of the property will be added. Chair Knisel asks about the history of flooding on the property but Mr. McShera is not sure. It is on a natural berm so it is above the • seawall,which is at elevation 10. None of Flood Zone A is on the property itself, but Mr. McShera is not sure whether or not that has changed with the recent changes to the FEMA Flood map. Grading will remain the same. The second floor deck is on columns which come down onto an existing patio. Pabich says the last time a permit was issued to modify a house in this neighborhood, after a certain time the house was just gone. Mr. McShera says that was a cost-benefit analysis issue, and as of now they are intent on keeping the first floor as is. Pabich comments that the Commission was not happy with the prior situation. Chair Knisel comments that since work within the buffer is limited and they are all familiar with the area, perhaps no site visit is needed, but Itieciarelli asks about filling in at the k � back. Mr. McShera says this will not happen. Pabich comment's that he has no issues with moving forward on this tonight. � � Chair Knisel asks if the Commission desires any special conditions, otherwise it will be a negative two or negative three. Pabich discusses staging of construction materials and logistics. Mr. McShera comments that they can stage it outside the buffer zone. L \ m Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments .- A motion to close the public hearing is made,by Ricciarelli and seconded by Hamilton; all are in v n favor. - A3 .� Pw A motion to issue a Negative , eterminaaon, withAlie'condition&at all materials be stockpiled • outside the buffer zone,"and that the applicant wilhxetuxn to'tFie,Commission if other changes are made, is made by Pabich,' abich, seconded by McAuliffe, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.e... 4. PublicHeating Notice of Intent=Ct�tyY of Salem-93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The X.purpose of this hearingnis to`discuss the proposed'demolition of a building within flood zone and buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 297-305 Bridge Street (former Universal Steel) Here fox the City is Jim Currier with Weston&Sampson Engineers. 4�� i AIR Document title: Buil diag Demolifah Plan, 7/16/12 Mr. Currier states that they will demolish the existing building down to the slab, which will remain in place. The work will be put out to bid and they are working on specs. This is the first part of the site redevelopment plan; there is contamination on the property and some interior materials will be removed prior to demolition. Demolition material will be trucked out and the firm is working with the City on access to neighboring properties. If access is not approved, they would have to work from the interior of the property. They are not proposing to do that because of contamination in the soils. It is a TSCA regulated site with PCB's and they do not want to create contaminated dust. McAuliffe asks if there is a list of what will be removed; there is an • inventory — there are empty drums in the building, batteries, and the building is very run down. EFI Global did the pre-demolition hazmat survey. 2 r Hamilton asks about dust control; this is specified in the bid. They will use wetting agents and other environmental controls. Ricciarelli asks about vehicle decontamination and Mr. Currier explains that • they will be working off the site so vehicles will not be contaminated to begin with. At this point they are confident that the abutting property owners will grant access. Devine says that if access is not granted, the Commission can condition that a work plan for any activities atop contaminated soils must be approved by the Commission or the Agent. Pabich asks if it's a wetland or just land subject to flooding. Devine says that because the wetland to the rear of the site is not hydrologically connected to a water body or other wetland, it is an isolated vegetated wetland, which is not protected under the Wetlands Protection Act. Pabich comments that it could be an RDA—remediation of the site will require more scrutiny but this could have been a Request for Determination of Applicability. Devine says that it'is jurisdictional as it is in a flood zone. -lay Chair Knisel opens to the public and Dick Luecke of 2 Rigex"SE,asks about where they intend to work from. It will be the west side of the building; ownei shave given.verbal approval but must sign a legal access agreement. Mr. Luecke comments,that there is a public way there. Mr. Currier reiterates that they would prefer not to work onsite de to the surface contamination. r A motion to close the public hearing is made byPabich, .seconded by`Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. lip A motion to issue an Order of Conditions,' with the following conditions is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliff,and passes unanimously l� o r • • If work must occur atop contammated soils, a work plan shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission of Agent for review and appxo al, This decision is hereby;made a part if,these minutes. g. Witch Hill Subdivision House Lots tKN "�'A Continuation of Public�,,Hearmg—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead'%MA The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed 11 111 construction of a single family:ahouse and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 1 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a`single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 2 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 3 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 '� • Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 4 Nurse Way. 3 Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a • wetland resource area at 5 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 7 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of thisthearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appu 1, construction within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 8 Nurse Way. r,4 ` Continuation of Public Hearin e, of Intent=; Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The pu pose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house'-and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 1 Good Circle° Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice Rof Intent— Kenneth G::"e Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead <4A�'rjhc purpose f;.'this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single fa, VZhouse and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 2 Good Circle-sk Continuation (A`Public Hearing tNoti ce,of Intent ,�_'IkFkenneth G. Steadman, 67 • Village Street; Marbleliead;E MA. Thepurp'osewf this hearing is to discuss proposed construction o'fka single�,family house'arid appurtenances within buffer zone to a E wetland resour a area at 3 Good Circle 21 Ken Stead n presents.A site visit`was lasEThursday�,% 0riq :„ � sy Illustrati, ide Site Development of,.Witch Hill by"Eastern Land Development, 5/15/12. E�x There will ben siltation barriefto:be installed next to the existing erosion controls that were in place when the road was^excavated. There will also be a row of large boulders outlining the wetlands in the backs of the lots,-to, prevent encroachment into the wetlands. There was some feedback from DEP regarding one lot:There ares NOI's but on Lot 234, 2 Nurse Way, the DEP commented that the proposed retaining valla' ears to be less than 10' from the wetland line and should be pulled back. Mr. Steadman mentions that there will be no masonry; just large 3' boulders. It is not a retaining wall, but is more of a barrier. It is not riprap. The DEP comment indicated that they thought it was an actual wall. Pabich asks about the site setup and Mr. Steadman explains. The entire sit is cleared to the back lot lines; Pabich is concerned by this since the Order of Conditions for the original NOI and drainage did not give them license to clear the entire site. They cleared for house lots under the auspices of putting in the street; now the Commission cannot specify which trees to leave since all have been cleared. They approved a roadway and drainage, not clearing for house lots. Technically that makes • this an after-the-fact Notice of Intent. Mr. Steadman thought that as long as earth was not disturbed, it would be all right. Pabich comments that they removed trees, and the Commission should have. had input on which ones should have been left. Mr. Steadman says that there was nothing of 4 significant size as it was cleared with a mower. The area had a large fire years ago, so all the material was young and of small caliper. • Pabich is not happy that the Commission did not have any input on the removal of vegetation, other than to specify replanting. Hamilton also went to the site visit and saw some stockpiles. Mr. Steadman comments that he was trying to keep it inside certain areas, and there are erosion controls in place. However, they were installed three years ago. An erosion control product was sprayed in over rock about a year and a half ago; Mr. Steadman comments that this works better than installing silt fence over rock. Hamilton returns to the subject of stockpiling the soils. Pabich asks if there are photos of the site before its clearing; they may but they are not here. Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. Pabich asks about specific planting v ,� plans for the lots but there are none at this time. He commentsthat the clearing was an honest mistake, but he still has a problem with it since the origipalNOI was for building a roadway and associated drainage structures. Drainage structures are paternally i,-'but not complete. Pabich says that runoff situation has been made worse since there is no,vegetatiotrto control runoff and no drainage for it. He would like to see a detailed planting plan for each lot and foi larger plantings around the .. . perimeter, to maintain the buffer zone. He does"not want to see lawn ,bouldexs, then the resource area directly abutting them. Mx. Steadman comments that most houses dare 25' off the lot line. Pabich points out that Mr. Steadman is still at the discretion of the Commission how work on the lots is done, and he would hke_to see the applicant suggest how he will",, do" the damage, and put in vegetation that will complement the wetland and help him sell the lots Mr. Steadman asks if he can have the planting plan subrrittted,with the building permit, but Pabich would like to address the issue in this Commission • Devine says that the Commission should require something,speafic�.Mr. Steadman reiterates that 90% of the area is xockiand they willthen create\p�laiittng areas.Atthis time they don't know exactly where those will be,but he is happy to,abide by the Commission's'Iwishes. Pabich would,like to see acmlitlan&sciehtist xeview!fhe area and suggest vegetation. Small birches may be addedtto houses alr ady there McAuliffe asks about permitting for the project; it is all permitted,except pt foor'the`lots. ti FKim4 , Pabich asks'tfeMr. Stead n's-co pany will be building the houses, but it is uncertain. They will be doing site wotk,and excavaor the foixndatrons, including backfilling. Ricciaxelli asks about the topography, and.if'previously standing trees were on it; there was nothing of note, but a couple of trees are still out th re e,,that were over 8" in diameter. Pabich is open to the idea of conditioning a planting plan,but Hamilton says that hat there are items on the plan that will not be constructed the way they are portrayed. Shewould like a more specific plan with details reflecting the actual work to be done. Some Commission members were also confused by use of the term "wall" for the boulders. Pabich suggests continuing the hearing to allow the applicant to address the Commission's concerns. Pabich would like to see plans for each lot. Hamilton would also like to see a soil management plan; Mr. Steadman describes a stockpile of topsoil taken from some lots and roadway that will be screened and used on other lots and roadway edges. Hamilton comments that there should be stockpile controls around each pile. Mr. Steadman agrees; also the plan showing a retaining wall must be amended. Pabich asks if the subdivision • continues;it does for a total of 24 house lots. Pabich is still concerned about drainage and the roadway. The rest of the area is planned to be developed and drainage will be finished when the road is complete. Between now and then, where 5 will runoff from the pavement go? Mr. Steadman says drainage will be installed after paving, but Pabich asks about in the time between pavement and occupancy. Until finished asphalt is on there, catch basins will not be accepting runoff. It will go pretty much anywhere, but will pass through the • siltation fence. Discussion of sheet flow ensues but Pabich is more or less satisfied. Pabich asks about open space; it will be deeded over to the City. The Commission would like to see on the plans, placards or markers and language in the deeds explaining the open space. After several years, debris gets dumped over the boulders, so the resource area boundary should be clearly marked so there is no dumping. This should also be marked on the plan, but in any case owners must be educated. The Commission is requesting: • A written soil management plan S;j . • Stockpile controls G s • An amended plan to show an changes, that will` p y reflect=how houses are to be built, and clarifying the composition of the "retaining wall' y�1 N, • Each lot should have plantings shownt, • Lots should be labeled with addresses ''" • Wetland markers should be indicated on thetplan _1 0-9 Mr. Steadman asks if they should submit a plan fora ,"standard lot," the cantthey have some flexibility with exact plantings. Pabich says that is acceptable. Absolute locations that require no blasting can be highlighted NOy ' ^$ k a a. A motion to continue the publich earing to Sept.313 m ma�deby Pabich; seconded by Hamilton, and • passes unanimously. kg 6. Continuation ofPublic Hearing—Nonce of Intent—Patrick Deiulis, Pasquanna Developers Inc, 3ollins Streef",Terrace, Lynn MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction'of 3 sgle f inamily homes and appurtenances within riverfroat area at 18 Thorndike Street. ys Scott Patrowicz presents again. Illustration: Site Plan to accompany a Notice of Intent for three new single family houses.June 20, 2012 Chair Knisel asks about vegetation along the bank, and Mr. Patrowicz has discussed it with the client. They feel that a berm with two breaks for drainage is appropriate. Arborvitae or some other evergreen could be planted on top. A large pile of earth would be shifted over and the erosion control line would stay the same,but transition to a berm. The whole area will be filled 3' to return it to original grade. Mr. Patrowicz can add the berm and plantings to the plan and send it to the Commission. Pabich asks about water quality swales;before they are vegetated,will they be conveying water?They will be. Mr. Patrowicz says that it will be sheet flow channeled into a certain area, but he does not anticipate a lot of water. Pabich comments on the most recent severe rainstorm and Mr. Patrowicz says that the material will be sandy and gravelly so that will help, however they can put hay bales and check bands along the way to divide the flow. One whole area could act as a temporary siltation • basin. This is in the meantime before vegetation grows. Pabich also suggests silt fence or straw wattle. Mr. Patrowicz says check dams of crushed stone would also work. 6 The total acreage for the project is not enough to trigger a NPDES permit, opines Mr. Patrowicz, but he will confirm. The applicant does not know if all foundations will be dug at once or • sequentially. He will get the Commission a construction sequence before beginning. Applicant will obtain: • Definitive information on NPDES with a courtesy copy submitted to the Commission if necessary • A planting plan for the rear of the project site near the coastal bank • An erosion control plan • A construction sequence Pabich discusses drainage further and comments that bringing;it back up to grade creates the possibility of runoff and reiterates that a NPDES permit may,betriggered. Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments A motion to close the public hearing is made b icctareli, secondedrby Hamilton, and passes ' unanimously. I , � A motion to issue the Order of Conditions with above conditi(in�s is made by'McAuliffe, seconded by Pabich and passes unanimously. This decision is here y niade'a part of these minutes. 7. Continuation of Public Hearin or 'e.',of?Intent—North Shore Medical Center Inc • (Salem Hospital), 817Highland Avenue ale m;MA =The puipose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed constiuction a)w new centralutihties plant within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at Salem Hospital(81 HighlandgAvenue) fl !x i Scott Patrowicz presents He,reviews the highlight�stof the project again, including structures and `ip gym,. 6 s47 stoxmwate�r�infiltxatron unpxovem�ents.�;�DEP tsl,"asking for determination of separation to groundwater:vThey will"most likely.use the largex_900 storm scepter units vs. the 450. The applicant will do groundwater tests ori Satui•day'(7/28/2012):'They will design the infiltration system based on depth to'gioundwater. He outlines the various options. Illustrations: ' I NS Medical Centex Central UttYtty; —an June 14,2012. Site Utility Plan June 14;2012 Mr. Patrowicz would like to close the hearing tonight so that work can be done before winter. He will also provide a vegetation management plan after inventorying what is there and seeing what will be removed. He discusses trees which will need to be removed. Possible plantings are discussed. Pabich comments that when they do the vegetation inventory, they should account for the entire footprint of the site. They should also look around the wetland, and take into account the suggestions of a wetlands scientist for the entire area. Pabich also asks about snow removal onsite; a plan was submitted previously. There was a lot of sand around the doctors' parking area basins; is there a housekeeping plan that includes street sweeping? There is, and every spring street sweepers • come through and in the winter, moving forward, snow will be hauled to the Jefferson Ave. lot to melt. 7 i Hamilton says that the storm scepters require long term maintenance and she would like to know who is responsible for that. That will be included in the Operations and Maintenance (O & M) Plan but may require more than annual maintenance. The designer will be tweaking the design so the O • &M plan may change and will be resubmitted. Ricciarelli asks about the oxygen pad; the shape can't be changed. There is a certain configuration that is standard and can't be easily changed. Pabich comments about riprap vs. posts under the slab. That is possible but may be prohibitively expensive. If they can replant rather than do the slab they would rather go that way. Mr. Patrowicz suggests holding that thought and consider the options when a vegetation plan is submitted. Pabich says there was no discussion of a retaining wall, just a post.and structural slab. This is not a retaining wall matter. Pabich agrees that the impact should'=be mapped out and vegetation inventoried. „ ''gyp �3 Vegetation management and the structural slab analysis,are'discussedt;Ricciarelli asks about the skew of the larger building. It is not parallel to the road and they can't pulliback away from the wetlands since it would compromise the road where deliveries come. Two-w#.Idaffic and pedestrians are there. Part of the proposal is to put in a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk. Thee.is a change in grade. Facilities Manager Shelly Bisegna states that they must maintain the loading dock.for deliveries. The Applicant did not want to compromise- the road. Mr Patrowicz points out that[the positioning of the building and the size requirement to accommodate all the'machinery it must contain, means they are off the wetland line butm _ must s Ishoung Also, also there is a 24" sewer line there to work around. $_ Chair Knisel opens to thepublic bhc but there are no comments:„ • V; Pabich is comfortable with moving forward. McAuliffe agrees. A wetlands scientist should assess the situation and they should,submit a planting plan to be approved by the Commission after presenting it to them. Some work will be one near Jeffersonve and Mr. Patrowicz describes it but it will all mow! wice _ be in the road;not m the wetland;and there will be haybales around the catch basins. Condtttons • Prior toAconstruction a wetlands inventory and a planting plan prepared by a wetlands scientist must be presented to and approved by the Commission , • The applicant,must present for approval any changes to the stormwatex treatment system resulting from testing E Mo • A long term Operations and Management plan for storm scepters must be submitted prior to construction A motion to close the public hearing is made by Pabich seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. A motion to issue an Order of Conditions is made by Riciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 8. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-523—William Wharff, 30 • Federal Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a parking lot and associated utilities within riverfront area, land subject to coastal storm 8 flowage,and buffer zone to coastal bank at 162 and 150 Federal Street. • Presenting is Michael Novak of Meridian Associates. They were before the planning board last week and did address their comments, which are on the revised plan (Landsape Plan 162 Federal St.,Jan. 25, 2012). The main points addressed were one area of a clean drainage pattern — a small berm is proposed and existing spot grades added onto the plan. Two catchbasins are across the street. Also there are some pipe changes. An infiltration basin has an inlet and manhole in the driveway,which is now differentiated on plan. There is a break in the curb to collect driveway drainage. The driveway will be graded to direct stormwater to this curb break. Susan St. Pierre has submitted a Chapter 91 license, but they may not need it. One City of Salem Map says it's required so they applied. yam Ricciarelli asks about trench grading and Mr. Novak explains3Neither grading not stormwater design were altered. Chair Knisel asks Pabich on his previous comment;on curbing height. There will be sloped granite rather than bituminous, at least on the corner's'' Ney will show a line for snow removal. Hamilton asks about a proposed infiltratt n'for roof runoff and Mr. Novak explains. It is tied in underground and they did onsite soil+testing to determme"groundwater. Any overflow connects with the main drain line. % Chair Knisel opens to the public. Joyce Wallace of 172,Federal St. comments that,at the Planning Board they asked about ownership of the property. Whaxff will get it in October, so how are things moving forward? Pabich says that the property owner must,be listed on application. A proponent can sign the NOI provided they have"permission„from t`ewner. They are in dialogue, and • 16 agreements are in place legally, but Mr. N uak is not privy to that information personally. That is part of why there were so many continuations I fi Pabich suggests that De'-Vine clarifiy;the process fox the Commission; the presumption is that the applicant is the owner but if that is not the casethe non-owner applicant can be granted an NOI. The applicant, or.owner if'different, and'representati e should be involved. Devine has the signature of applicant/owner and representative. Certain parts5are owned by the Archdiocese and others by someone else. The final intent is for;William Wharff.to own both but as of yet they do not. Devine r' says there is a boilerplate condition:ging if property changes hands, the new owner must sign a document saying they are aware of the”Order of Conditions and will comply. Pabich says we must act on what's there now, and the Commission must have the signature of whoever has control of this parcel. It may be Heath and Education Services. An Aug. 19, 2009 letter is read out;loud. The Archdiocsese of Boston authorized William Wharff to submit to an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. A motion to close the public hearing is made by McAulilffe, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously. A motion to issue the Order of Conditions with granite curbing is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliffe,and all are in favor. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 9. Old/New Business (continued) • DEP #64-479, Bakers Island Light Station: Project Update Devine's conflict of interest prevents him from giving guidance to the commission on this matter. 9 He can only update the commission with information and pass on Frank Taormina's recommendations. Two people disputed the Coast Guard's claim that they are exempt from Wetlands Protection due to CERCLA (Superfund). Taormina sought a legal opinion from Assistant • City Solicitor Robin Stein who agrees with the DEP legal opinion that the Coast Guard is not subject to the Wetlands Protection Act. Taormina went out for the preconstruction meeting with the DEP and is satisfied that all conditions this Commission would ask for, if they could, are in place. The applicant has agreed with the DEP to work to protect resource areas even outside of the usual process. Taormina thinks they are doing that. The Conservation Commission asked for an LSP as required under state law,but CERCLA projects are monitored by the EPA so they will not adhere to that condition. Robert Leavins and Betsy Ware sent an email to convey their concerns to the commission. Ricciarelli comments that, after this is all cleaned up under sovereign immunity, it will be opened as a park to the public, which does not have sovereign immuniryaDoes that mean they (the applicant) can still use the property? It is the same result under CERCLA"as MCP but a different method? Leavens and Ware want it cleaned up to a higher standard"Chair Knisel asks if there is a document that clearly lays out the CERCLA process. Mr. Leaviris and Ms. Ware were investigating and could not find this listed as a CERCLA project, but lIC h 1 Marino provideddocumentation that it was under CERCLA. Pabich says the federal eovernment isoin pro to clean t e ert a certain standard that the will Q t3 to Y offset, but that standard does not ha eo tdo with future u�eof property. Whoever buys it must continue remediation if there is a health-�ndrsafeety issue wi ''tthe public. The Federal government will not tailor the cleanup process for the end use according to,-Pabich. But the applicant is aware of 1 � : the end use—a public park Hamilton outlines the uival processNCleanup is usually based on future • use. Pabich asks if Essex Heritage,could ask'the CG what they'd like to see. The CG should talk to r, ._� Essex Heritage to determine ifw ere will beM further `cleanup obligation. The Commission's question of jurisdiction 'was answered by the DEP"lawyer, and confirmed by the assistant city solicitor. n` • DEP #64 51.1-8 and 1 Franklin Street. Request for Certificate of Compliance r �� . § A This k was an after-the fact NCI so this is mostly an administrative step. Devine confirmed that a spill kit isf, usite as required by�the Commission. A motion to issue the Certificate is made by Pabich, seconde by Ricciarellitiand passesjunanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of r these minutes. • 185 JeffersonAvenue Update on wetlands violation The responsible party kdo e restoration work and submitted a NOI which we will see in September. They must turn in pre and post surveys of elevations. The Commission required restoration to the 1997 grade, before the change in ownership, and it turns out that this grade isn't very deep. This violation became less of a priority for DEP when it was confirmed that this is only riverfront area without any vegetated wetlands. • Funding request for education and training: discussion and vote Devine requests funding to attend the Southern New England chapter of the American Planning Association annual conference in Hartford. Registration, hotel, mileage and tolls total approximately $500. 10 t Additionally, Devine comments that the Planning department has one camera, and he recommends that the Commission purchase a second camera. A motion to grant $250 for purchase of a camera of decent quality is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliffe, and passes unanimously. Miscellaneous business Devine informs the Commission of maintenance and repair work on a dock at 9 Harbor View Terrace.The Commission agrees that this work does not require a permit. A motion to adjourn at 8:42 pm is made by McAuliffe, seconded�,a bHamilton; and all are in favor. } Respectfully Submitted, ] Stacy Kilb Z Clerk Salem Conservation Commission y 140 WIT pK n W k; q { , h P 11 CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION July 30, 2012 Scott Patrowicz Patrowicz Land Development 14 Brown Street Salem, MA 01970 Re: Order of Conditions—DEP #64-539 81 Highland Avenue (Salem Hospital) Dear Mr. Patrowicz: Enclosed, please find the Order of Conditions for the above-referenced project. Following the 10-business-day appeal period, this document and the attached Special Conditions must be recorded at the Southern Essex County Registry of Deeds (Shetland Park, 45 Congress Street, Suite 4100 Salem, MA). Once recorded, please return a copy of Page 12 of the Order, which will indicate to the Commission that the document has • been recorded. As indicated in the Order, prior to any work commencing: 1. this Order must be recorded, 2. a sign shall be displayed showing DEP File #64-539 within public view, and 3. contact me at least 48 hours prior to any activity to schedule a pre-construction meeting to review the Order with your hired contractor. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 978-619-5685. Sincerely, Tom Lqyija Conservation Agent/ Staff Planner Enclosure CC: Shelly Bisegna,North Shore Medical Center DEP Northeast Regional Office I • Attachment to Order of Conditions # 64-539 Page I of 5 • SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION DEP FILE #64-539 81 Highland Avenue (Salem Hospital) City of Salem, Massachusetts ADDITIONAL FINDINGS Based on the Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife and Certified Vernal Pools Map(October I, 2008) from Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, it has been determined that this project does not occur near any habitat of state-listed rare wildlife species nor contains any vernal pools. This Order is issued under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act,M.G.L.Chapter 131,Section 40 and the City of Salem Wetlands Protection and Conservation Ordinance,Salem Code Chapter 50. This order permits the construction of a central utilities plant,utility connections,and other appurtenances(including an oxygen tank farm) per Notice of Intent submitted to the Conservation Commission on July 2, 2012. In accordance with the special conditions below, applicant must present a plantings plan, long term operations and maintenance plan for the stormwater treatment system, and revised plan of the stormwater treatment system (if modified from original plan) at a regularly scheduled Conservation Commission meeting for the commission's • review and approval. GENERAL CONDITIONS I. This Order of Conditions must be recorded in its entirety (including all 5 pages of Special Conditions) at the Essex County Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, after the expiration of the 10-day appeal period and within 30 days of the issuance. A copy of the recording information must be submitted to the Salem Conservation Commission before any work approved in this Order commences. 2. Approval of this application does not constitute compliance with any law or regulation other than M.G.L Chapter 131,Section 40, Wetlands Regulations 310 CMR 10.00 and the City of Salem Wetlands Protection and Conservation Ordinance,Salem Code Chapter 50. 3. All work shall be performed in accordance with this Order of Conditions and approved site plan(s). No alteration of wetland resource areas or associated buffer zones,other than that approved in this Order, shall occur on this property without prior approval from the Commission. 4. Prior to any work commencing on site, a DEP Sign showing DEP File #64-539 must be installed at the entrance to the site and seen from the public way, but not placed on a living tree. 5. No work approved in this Order may commence until the ten(10) business day appeal period has lapsed • from the date of the issuance of this Order. i Attachment to Order of Conditions #64-539 • e �F Page 2 of 5 6. With respect to this Order, the Commission designates the Conservation Agent as its agent with powers to act on its behalf in administering and enforcing this Order. 7. The Commission or its Agent,officers,or employees shall have the right to enter and inspect the property at any time for compliance with the conditions of this Order,the Wetlands Protection Act MGL Chapter 131, Section 40,the Wetlands Regulations 310 CMR 10.00,and shall have the right to require any data or documentation that it deems necessary for that evaluation. 8. The tern"Applicant"as used in this Order of Conditions shall refer to the owner,any successor in interest or successor in control of the property referenced in the Notice of intent, supporting documents and this Order of Conditions. The Commission shall be notified in writing within 30 days of all transfers of title of any portion of the property that takes place prior to issuance of the Certificate of Compliance. 9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to procure all other applicable federal, state and local permits and approvals associated with this project. These permits may include but are not necessarily limited to the following: (l) Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act(P.L.92-500, 86 stat. 816), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2) Water Quality Certification in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution Control under authority of sec. 27(5)of Chapter 21 of the Massachusetts General Laws as codified in 314 CMR 9.00. . (3) Sewer Extension Permit from the DEP Division of Water Pollution Control under G. L. Ch. 21 A ss7 and 314 CMR 7.00. Any Board of Health permit for septic system design for any portion of the septic system within 100 feet of wetlands shall be submitted to the Commission prior to construction initiation. (4) Design Requirements for Construction in Floodplains under the State Building Code(780 CMR 744.). t0. If there are conflicting conditions within this Order, the stricter condition(s)shall rule. 11. All work shall be performed so as to ensure that there will be no sedimentation into wetlands and surface waters during construction or after completion of the project. 12. The Commission or its Agent shall have the discretion to modify the erosion/siltation control methods and boundary during construction if necessary. 13. The Commission reserves the right to impose additional conditions on portions of this project or this site to mitigate any actual or potential impacts resulting from the work herein permitted. 14. The work shall conform to the following attached plans and special conditions: Final Approved Plans NOTICE OF INTENT (sheets 1.1, L4, 1.5, 1.7, 1.11) (Title) 6/14/2012 (Dated) • Todd N. Undzis (Signed and Stamped by) City of Salem Conservation Commission (On file with) - +rvT. "s rt Attachment to Order of Conditions # 64-539 r1 Page e 3 of 5 • a'2yirr*. 15. Any proposed changes in the approved plants)or an deviation in construction from the e approved plan(s)shall require the applicant to file a Notice of Project Change with the Commission. The Notice shall be accompanied by a written inquiry prior to their implementation in the field, as to whether the change(s) is substantial enough to require filing a new Notice of Intent or a request to correct or amend this Order of Conditions. A copy of such request shall at the same time be sent to the Department of Environmental Protection, 16. In conjunction with the sale of this property or any portion thereof before a Certificate of Compliance has been issued,the applicant or current landowner shall submit to the Commission a statement signed by the buyer that he/she is aware of an outstanding Order of Conditions on the property and has received a copy of the Order of Conditions. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 17. Prior to the commencement of any activity on this site other than activities listed above,there must he a Pre-Construction Meeting on site between the project supervisor, the contractor responsible for the work,and the Conservation Agent and/or a member of the Conservation Commission to ensure that the requirements of the Order of Conditions are understood. The staked erosion control line shall be adjusted, if necessary,during the pre-construction meeting. Please contact the Conservation Agent at (978) 619-5685 at least forty-eight(48) hours prior to construction to arrange for the Pre- Construction Meeting. • 18. Prior to the pre-construction meeting and commencement of any activity on this site,sedimentation and erosion control barriers shall be installed as shown on the approval plan(s)and detail drawings. The Commission and/or its Agent shall inspect and approve such installation at the pre-construction meeting. 19. No clearing of vegetation, including trees,or disturbance of soil shall occur prior to the pre-construction meeting. Minimal disturbance of shrubs and herbaceous plants shall be allowed prior to the pre- construction meeting if absolutely necessary in order to place erosion control stakes where required. 20. There shall be sufficient erosion control devices stored under cover on the site to be used for emergency erosion control purposes. EROSION CONTROL 21. Appropriate erosion control devices shall be in place prior to the beginning of any phase of construction, and shall be maintained during construction in any wetland resource area and/or buffer cones. The erosion control measures shown on the approval plants)and provisions in the Order will be the minimum standards for this project; the Commission or its Agent may require additional measures. 22. All debris, fill and excavated material shall be stockpiled a location far enough away from the wetland resource areas to prevent sediment from entering wetland resource areas. 23. Erosion and sedimentation control devices shall be inspected after each storm event and repaired or replaced as necessary. Any accumulated silt adjacent to the barriers shall be removed. • 24. The area of construction shall remain in a stable condition at the close of each construction day. Attachment to Order of Conditions # 64-539 : Page 4 of 5 • 25. Any de-watering of trenches or other excavation required during construction shall be conducted so as to prevent siltation of wetland resource areas. All discharge from de-watering activities shall be filtered through hay bale sediment traps, silt filter bags or other means approved by the Commission or its Administrator. 26. Within thirty(30)days of completion of construction on any given portion of the project, all disturbed areas in the completed portion of the site shall be permanently stabilized with rapidly growing vegetative cover, using sufficient top soil to assure long-term stabilization of disturbed areas. 27. If soils are to be disturbed for longer than two(2) months, a temporary cover of rye or other grass should be established to prevent erosion and sedimentation. If the season is not appropriate for plant growth,exposed surface shall be stabilized by other appropriate erosion control measures,firmly anchored, to prevent soils from being washed by rain or flooding. DURING CONSTRUCTION 28. A copy of this Order of Conditions and the plan(s)approved in this Order shall be available on site at all times when work is in progress. 29. No alteration or activity shall occur beyond the limit of work as defined by the siltation barriers shown on the approved plants). • 30. All waste products,grubbed stumps,slash;construction materials,etc. shall be deposited at least 100 feet from wetland resource areas and 200 feet from river. 31. Cement trucks shall not be washed out in any wetland resource or buffer zone area,nor into any drainage system. Any deposit of cement or concrete products into a buffer zone or wetland resource area shall be immediately removed. 32. All exposed sub-soils shall be covered by a minimum of three(3)inches of quality screened loam topsoil prior to seeding and final stabilization. 33. Immediately following drainage structure installation all inlets shall be protected by silt fence,haybale barriers and/or silt bags to filter silt from stormwater before it enters the drainage system. 34. There shall be no pumping of water from wetland resource areas. 35. All equipment shall be inspected regularly for leaks. Any leaking hydraulic lines,cylinders or any other components shall be fixed immediately. 36. During construction,all drainage structures shall be inspected regularly and cleaned as necessary. 37. The applicant is herby notified that failure to comply with all requirements herein may result in the issuance of enforcement actions by the Conservation Commission including,but not limited to,civil administrative penalties under M.G.I.Chapter 21A,section 16. AFTER CONSTRUCTION 38. Upon completion of construction and final soil stabilization, the applicant shall submit the following to the Conservation Commission to request a Certificate of Compliance(COC): (1) A Completed Request for a Certificate of Compliance form(WPA Form 8A or other form if required by the Conservation Commission at the time of request). �RLu Attachment to Order of Conditions # 64-539 ck - Page5of5 • (2) A letter from a Registered Professional Engineer certifying compliance of the property with this Order of Conditions. (3) An "As-Built"plan signed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer or Land Surveyor showing post-construction conditions within all areas under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. This plan shall include at a minimum: (a) All wetland resource area boundaries with associated buffer zones and regulatory setback areas taken from the plan(s)approved in this Order of Conditions; (b) Locations and elevations of all stormwater management conveyances,structures and best management designs, including foundation drains,constructed under this Order within any wetland resource area or buffer zone; (c) Distances from any structures constructed under this Order to wetland resource areas- "structures" include, but are not limited to,all buildings,septic system components, wells, utility lines,fences,retaining walls,and roads/driveways; (d) A line delineating the limit of work-"work"includes any filling,excavating and/or disturbance of soils or vegetation approved under this Order; 39. When issued, the Certificate of Compliance must be recorded at the Southern Essex County Registry of Deeds and a copy of the recording submitted to the Salem Conservation Commission. 40. If the completed work differs from that in the original plans and conditions, the report must specify how the work differs; at which time the applicant shall first request a modification to the Order. Only upon • review and approval by the Commission, may the applicant request in writing a Certificate of Compliance as described above. 41. Erosion control devices shall remain in place and properly functioning until all exposed soils have been stabilized with final vegetative cover and the Conservation Commission and/or its Agent has authorized their removal. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS 42. Prior to start of construction, applicant shall present the following items, for review and approval, to the Conservation Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting: (A) A detailed plan of proposed plantings within the buffer zone based on an assessment by a qualified wetlands scientist of the project's impact on existing buffer zone vegetation (B) A detailed plan showing any proposed modifications to the stormwater treatment system that deviate from plans submitted with the Notice of Intent (C) A long term operations and maintenance plan for the stormwater treatment system • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: ` Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands 64-539 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP File If Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEPTransact on x Salem City/Tom . A. General Information Please note: . ..Salem this form has 7.From: been modified . Conservation Commission Wm added 2. This issuance is for oe m ama.®Order of Conditions b.❑Amended Order of Conditions • accommodate (Check One): - the Registry of Deeds 3. To: Applicant: Requirements Shelly Bisegna Important: a.First Name b.last Name When fining The North Shore Medical Center, Inc out forms c.Organization on the 81 Highland Ave. computer, d.Mailing Address use only the - tabkeyto Salem MA 01970 move your e.City/Tom cursor-do I.State - g.Zip Code not use the 4. Property Owner(if different from applicant): return key. rd a.First Name b.Last Name c.Organization - d.Mailing Address e.City/Town f.State _ g.Zip Code s. Project Location: 8181 Highland Ave. Salem a.Street Address b.City,Tow 24 1 c.Assessors Map/Plat Number - d.ParceVLot Number • Latitude and Longitude, if known: d m s _ d m s d. Latitude e. Longitude wpeform5.doo• rev.MI912010 - Page 1 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: • Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-539- WPA Form 5 -Order of Conditions Mass DEP File# f1` Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP-Transaction# Salem City/Town ` A. General Information (cont.) s. Property recorded at the Registry of Deeds for(attach additional information if more than one parcel): Southern Essex a.County b.Certificate Number(if registered land) 5672 556 c. Book d.Page 7. Dates: 7/2/2012 7/27/2012 7/30/2012 a.Date Notice of Intent Filed b.Date Public Hearing Closed c.Date of Issuance e. Final Approved Plans and Other Documents(attach additional plan or document references as needed): NOTICE OF INTENT(sheets 1.1 1.4 1 5 1 7 1.11) a.Plan Title HDR Engineering, Inc. Todd N. Undzis b.Prepared By: c.Signed and Stamped by 6/14/2012 Varies d. Final gevision Date - e.Scale -- I.Additional Plan or Document Title g.Date • B. Findings 1. Findings pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands.Protection Act: Following the review of the above-referenced Notice of Intent and based on the information provided in this application and presented at the public hearing, this Commission finds that the areas in which work is proposed is significant to the following interests of the Wetlands Protection Act (the Act). Check all that apply: a. ® Public Water Supply b. ❑ Land Containing Shellfish c. ® Prevention of Pollution d. ® Private Water Supply e. I. ® Protection of pp y ® Fisheries Wildlife Habitat g.. ® Groundwater Supply h. ® Storm Damage Prevention 1. ® Flood Control 2. This Commission hereby finds the project,as proposed, is:(check one of the following boxes) Approved subject to: a. ® the following conditions which are necessary in accordance with the performance standards set forth in the wetlands regulations. This Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the Notice of Intent referenced above, the following General Conditions, and an otherspecial conditions Y P attached to this Order.To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent these conditions shall control wpatorm5.tlo[• rem OVr92010 Page2o1 12 • Massachusetts Department of Environmental protection Provided by MassbEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-539 1 WPA Form 5 - Order:of Conditions MassDEP File A Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 enEP-Tan saalon n Salem City/Town B. Findings (cont.) Denied because: b. ❑ the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the performance standards set forth in the wetland regulations. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a new Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to protect the interests of The Act,and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the performance standards which the proposed work cannot meet is attached to this Order. c. ❑ the information submitted by the applicant is not sufficient to describe the site, the work, or the effect of the work on the interests identified in the Wetlands Protection Act. Therefore,work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides sufficient information and includes measures which are adequate to protect the Act's interests, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the specific information which is lacking and why it is necessary is attached to this Order as per 310 CMR 10.05(6)(c). • 3. ® Buffer Zone Impacts: Shortest distance between limit of project 4+/- disturbance and the wetland resource area specified in 310 CMR 10.02(1)(a) a.linear feet Inland Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) Resource Area Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration Alteration` Replacement Replacement 4. ❑ Bank a.linear feet b.linear feet c.linear feet - -d.-iinearfeet - 5. ❑ Bordering Vegetated Wetland a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet - s. ❑ Land Under Waterbodies and a.square feet - b.square feet c,square feet d.square feet-. Waterways e.Gy dredged f,c4 dredged 7. ❑ Bordering Land Subject to Flooding a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet Cubic Feet Flood Storage a.cubic feet f.cubic feet g.cubic feet h.cubic feet e. ❑ Isolated Land Subject to Flooding a.square feet b.square feet Cubic Feet Flood Storage c,cubic feet d.cubic feet e.cubic feet f.cubic feet s. ❑ Riverfront Area feet b.total sq.feet Sq ft within 100 It �.e feet d.square feet a feet f.square feet Sq ft between 700- • 200 It feet h.square feet fent i,square feet wpafo,m5.dm- rev.O lT2010 Page 3 d 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by fdassDEP • \C� Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-539 WPA Form 5 - Order of ConditionsMassDEPFile" ` Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 . . eDEP Transaction N Salem B. Findings(cont.) Coastal Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration Alteration Replacement Replacement 10. El Designated Port Areas Indicate size under Land Under the Ocean, below it. ❑ Land Under the Ocean- - a.square feet b.square feet c.ofy dredged d.Gy dredged 12. ❑ Barrier Beaches Indicate size under Coastal Beaches and/or Coastal Dunes below ❑ Coastal Beaches cu yd cu yd 13' a.square feet. b.square feet c.nourishment d.nourishment 14: ❑ Coastal Dunes - cu yd cu yd a.square feet b.square feet c.nourishment d.nourishment 15. ❑ Coastal Banks a.linear feetlinear feet - • is. [--] Rocky Intertidal Shores a.square feet b.square feet 17. ❑ Salt Marshes a.square.feet b.square feet c,square feet d.square feet 18. ❑ Land Under Salt Ponds a.square feet b.square feet d..Gy dredged d.cty dredged 1g. ❑ Land Containing Shellfish - a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet 20. ❑ Fish Runs Indicate size under Coastal Banks, Inland Bank, Land Under the Ocean, and/or inland Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways, above a.cty dredged b.c/y dredged 21. ❑ Land Subject to Coastal Storm a.square feet b.square feet Flowage • wpatorn5.doc• rev.g5/1920r0 nege - �of 12 • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP- Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands 64-539 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP Pile# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 -e-DEP Transaction#. Salem City/Town B. Findings (cont) `#22.It the project is for 22. ❑ Restoration/Enhancement the purpose of - - restoring or a.square feet of BVWenhancing a b.square feet of salt marsh wetland - resource area 23. ❑ Stream Crossing(s): -in addition to the square - footage that a.number of new stream crossings b.number of replacement stream crossings has been C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act entered in - Section B.5.c B.17 or c(salt The following conditions are only applicable to Approved projects. t Marsh)above, 1Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein, and with all related statutes and other please enter re - the additional regulatory y measures, shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this Order. amount here. 2. The Order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges; it does not authorize any injury to private property or invasion of private rights. • 3. This Order does not relieve the permittee or any other person of the necessity of complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, bylaws, or regulations. 4. The work authorized hereunder shall be completed within three years from the date of this Order unless either of the following apply: a. the work is a maintenance dredging project as provided for in the Act;or b. the time for completion has been extended to a specified date more than three years, but less than five years, from the date of issuance. If this Order is intended to be valid for more than three years,the extension date and the special circumstances warranting, the extended time period are set forth as a special condition in this Order. 5. This Order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or more periods of up to three years each upon application to the issuing authority at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the Order. 6. If this Order constitutes an Amended Order of Conditions, this Amended Order of Conditions does not extend the issuance date of the original Final Order of Conditions and the Order will expire on 7/30/2015 unless extended in writing by the Department. 7. Any fill used in connection with this project shall be clean fill. Any fill shall contain no trash, refuse,rubbish, or debris, including but not limited to lumber, bricks, plaster, wire, lath, paper, cardboard,pipe, tires, ashes, refrigerators, motor vehicles,or parts of any of the foregoing. 8. This Order is not final until all administrative appeal periods from this Order have elapsed, or if such an appeal has been taken, until all proceedings before the Department have been completed. • w-Oaform5.tloc• rev.05/192010 - Page 5 W 12 _ Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: • Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-539 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP File ( Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 BDEP transaction a Salem City/Tom C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.); 9. No work shall be undertaken until the Order has become final and then has been recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property.in the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done. In the case of the registered land, the Final Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is done. The recording information shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission on the form at the end of this Order, which form must be stamped by the Registry of Deeds, prior to the commencement of work. , 10. A sign shall be displayed at the site not less then two square feet or more than three square feet in size bearing the words, "Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection"for,"MassDEP"] "File Number 64-539 11. Where the Department of Environmental Protection is requested to issue a Superseding •' Order, the Conservation Commission shall be a party to all agency proceedings and hearings before MassDEP. 12. Upon completion of the work described herein, the applicant shall submit a Request for Certificate of Compliance (WPA Form 8A)to the Conservation Commission. 13. The work shall conform to the plans and special conditions referenced in this order. 14. Any change to the plans identified in Condition #13 above shall require the applicant to inquire of the Conservation Commission in writing whether the change is significant enough to require the filing of a new Notice of Intent. 15. The Agent or members of the Conservation Commission and the Department of Environmental Protection shall have the right to enter and inspect the area subject to this Order at reasonable hours to evaluate compliance with the conditions stated in this Order, and may require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by the Conservation Commission or Department for that evaluation. 16. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in interest or successor in control of the property subject to this Order and to any contractor or other person performing work conditioned by this Order. 17. Prior to the start of work, and if the project involves work adjacent to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland, the boundary of the wetland in the vicinity of the proposed work area shall be marked by wooden stakes or flagging. Once in place, the wetland boundary markers.shall be maintained until a Certificate of Compliance has been issued by the Conservation Commission. wpafarm5.do rev.05/1 W010 - Paga 6 of 12 • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-539 WPA Form 5 - Ll Order of Conditions MassDEP File 4 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131; §40 eDEP t ransact onon a Salem city/Town C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) 18. All sedimentation barriers shall be maintained in good repair until all disturbed areas have been fully stabilized with vegetation or other means. At no time shall sediments be deposited in a wetland or water body. During construction, the applicant or his/her designee shall inspect the erosion controls on a daily basis and shall remove accumulated sediments as needed.The applicant shall immediately control any erosion problems that occur at the site and shall also immediately notify the Conservation Commission, which reserves the right to require additional erosion and/or damage prevention controls it may deem necessary. Sedimentation barriers shall serve as the limit of work unless another limit of work line has been approved by this Order. NOTICE OF STORMWATER CONTROL AND MAINTENANCE REOUIREMENTS 19. The work associated with this Order(the"Project')Is(1)®is not(z)j]subject to the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards. If the work is subject to the Stormwater Standards,then the project Is subject to the following conditions: . a) All work, including site preparation, land disturbance, construction and redevelopment, shall be implemented in accordance with the construction period pollution prevention and erosion and sedimentation control plan and, if applicable, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit as required by Stormwater Condition 8. Construction period erosion, sedimentation and pollution control measures and best management practices (BMPs) shall remain in place until the site is fully stabilized. b) No stormwater runoff may be discharged to the post-construction stormwater BMPs unless and until a Registered Professional Engineer provides a Certification that: i. all construction period BMPs have been removed or will be removed by a date certain specified in the Certification. For any construction period BMPs intended to be converted to post construction operation for stormwater attenuation, recharge, and/or treatment, the conversion is allowed by the MassDEP Stormwater Handbook BMP specifications and that the BMP has been properly cleaned or prepared for post construction operation, including removal of all construction period sediment trapped in inlet and outlet control structures; ii, as-built final construction BMP plans are included, signed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer,certifying the site is fully stabilized; N.any illicit discharges to the stormwater management system have been removed, as per the requirements of Stormwater Standard 10; iv. all post-construction stormwater BMPs are installed in accordance with the plans (including all planting plans)approved by the issuing authority, and have been inspected to ensure that they are not damaged and that they are in proper working condition; v.any vegetation associated with post-construction BMPs is suitably established to withstand erosion. - wpaform5.dw- rev.M012010 Page>of 12' Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP • - Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-539 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP Fieq Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 1' eDEP Transaction k Salem Cityrrown C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) c) The landowner is responsible for BMP maintenance until the issuing authority is notified that another party has legally assumed responsibility for BMP maintenance. Prior to requesting a Certificate of Compliance, or Partial Certificate of Compliance, the responsible party(defined in General Condition 18(e)) shall execute and submit to the issuing authority an Operation and Maintenance Compliance Statement("O&M Statement) for the Stormwater BMPs identifying the party responsible for implementing the stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan ("O&M Plan")and certifying the following: i.)the O&M Plan is complete and will be implemented upon receipt of the Certificate of Compliance, and ii.)the future responsible parties shall be notified in writing of their ongoing legal responsibility to operate and maintain the stormwater management BMPs and implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. d) Post-construction pollution prevention and source control shall be implemented in accordance with the long-term pollution prevention plan section of the approved Stormwater Report and, if applicable, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Multi-Sector General Permit. e) Unless and until another party accepts responsibility, the landowner, or owner of any • drainage easement, assumes responsibility for maintaining each BMP. To overcome this presumption, the landowner of the property must submit to the issuing authority a legally binding agreement of record, acceptable to the issuing authority,evidencing that another entity has accepted responsibility for maintaining the BMP, and that the proposed responsible party shall be treated as a permittee for purposes of implementing the requirements of Conditions 18(f)through 18(k)with respect to that BMP. Any failure of the proposed responsible party to implement the requirements of Conditions 18(f)through 18(k) with respect to that BMP shall be a violation of the Order of Conditions or Certificate of Compliance. In the case of stormwater BMPs that are serving more than one lot, the legally binding agreement shall also identify the lots that will be serviced by the stormwater BMPs. A plan and easement deed that grants the responsible party access to perform the required operation and maintenance must be submitted along with the legally binding agreement. f) The responsible party shall operate and maintain all stormwater BMPs in accordance with the design plans, the O&M Plan, and the requirements of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. wPa1oim5.dx• rev.W192010 Page 8 of 12 • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: L7 Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-539 . ,J�- WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP File# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction# Salem cityrrom C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protectlon Act (cont.) g) The responsible party shall: 1. Maintain an operation and maintenance log for the last three(3)consecutive calendar years of inspections, repairs, maintenance and/or replacement of the stormwater management system or any part thereof, and disposal(for disposal the log shall indicate the type of material and the disposal location); 2. Make the maintenance log available to MassDEP and the Conservation Commission("Commission")upon request;and 3. Allow members and agents of the MassDEP and the Commission to enter and inspect the site to evaluate and ensure that the responsible party is in compliance with the requirements for each BMP established in the O&M Plan approved by the issuing authority. h) All sediment or other contaminants removed from stormwater BMPs shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. I) Illicit discharges to the stormwater management system as defined in 310 CMR 10.04 are prohibited. • j) The stormwater management system approved in the Order of Conditions shall not be changed without the prior written approval of the issuing authority. k) Areas designated as qualifying pervious areas for the purpose of the Low Impact Site Design Credit(as defined in the MassDEP Stormwater Handbook, Volume 3, Chapter 1, Low Impact Development Site Design Credits) shall not be altered without the prior written approval of the issuing authority. 1) Access for maintenance, repair,and/or replacement of BMPs shall not be withheld. Any fencing constructed around stormwater BMPs shall include access gates and shall be at least six inches above grade to allow for wildlife passage. Special Conditions(if you need more space for additional conditions, please attach a text document): See attached • waalarm5.tloc• rev.OSn 9r20r0 Page 9 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MasscEP: • Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-539 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassOEP Filen Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eOEP transaction# Salem D. Findings Under Municipal Wetlands Bylaw or ordinance r. Is a municipal wetlands bylaw or ordinance applicable? ® Yes ❑ No 2. The Salem hereby finds (check one that applies): Conservation Commission. : -a. . ❑ that the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the standards set forth in a municipal ordinance or bylaw, specifically: - - 1.Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw 2.Citation Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to meet these standards, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. b.. ®thatthe following additional conditions are necessary to comply with a municipal ordinance or bylaw: Wetlands Protection and Conservation Ordinance ch. 50 1.Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw - - 2.Citation 3..- The Commission_orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the following • conditions and with the Notice of Intent referenced above.To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, the conditions shall control. The special conditions relating to municipal ordinance or bylaw are as follows (if you need more space for additional conditions, attach a text document): Attached special conditions are issued under the Wetlands Protection Act and are sufficient for compliance with the local ordinance • wPalorm0.doc• rev.09192010 _ Page 10 0l 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP Bureau of Resource Protection Wetlands �,. WPA Form 5= Order of Conditions M1AasaDEPFnelt Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDE�plrransachon p TvTown E. Signatures Important: This Order is valid for three years, unless otherwise specified as a special When fining out condition pursuant to General Conditions tt4, from the date of issuance. - i.Dale of Issuance forms on the computer,use Please indicate the number of members who will sign this form. only the tab key This Order must be signed by a majority of the Conservation.Commi` ion. 2.Number of signers to move your cursor-do not The Order must be mailed by certified mail(return receipt r u sted and golivered to use the return the applicant. A copy must be mailed, hand delivered or file Is o ' ally a e same key, time with the appr sDEP Regional Office. Q t s by hand delivery on by certified mail, return receipt requested on Date ; �i Oatt< F. Appeals The applicant, the owner, any person aggrieved by this Order, any owner of land abutting the land subject to this Order, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate MassDEP Regional Office to issue a Superseding Order of Conditions. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department,with the appropriate filing fee and a completed Request of Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form, as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7) within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Order.A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. Any appellants seeking to appeal the Department's Superseding Order associated with this appeal will be required to demonstrate prior participation in the review of this project. Previous participation in the permit proceeding means the submission of written information to the Conservation Commission prior to the close of the public hearing, requesting a Superseding Order, or providing written information to the Department prior to issuance of a Superseding Order. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Order which is being appealed and how the Order does not contribute to the protection of the interests identified in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. c. 131, §40), and is inconsistent with the wetlands regulations(310 CMR 10.00). To the extent that the Order is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. • wPassl9a eoc•,ev.oarzsnaro P.G d . Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: • Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands 64-539 WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions MassDEP-File" Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40e -- Salem Cityrrown G. Recording Information Prior to commencement of work, this Order of Conditions must be recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land subject to the Order. In the case of registered land, this Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land subject to the Order of Conditions. The recording information on this page shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission listed below. .Conservation Commission Detach on dotted line, have stamped by the Registry of Deeds and submit to the Conservation Commission. -- ......... ....... ---- - To: Conservation Commission —. Please be advised that the Order of Conditions for the Project at: Project Location MassDEP File Number Has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds of: County... - ._ _ Book . Page for: - Property Owner and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property in: Book Page In accordance with the Order of Conditions issued on: Date If recorded land, the instrument number identifying this transaction is: Instrument Number - - -"--- If registered land, the document number identifying this transaction is: Document Number - Signature of Applicant • wOafJnnS.tlat• rev.091920ID Page 12 of 12 �c�rimrito , a ; • PAq� 611 Q CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION July 30, 2012 Mayor Kimberley Driscoll 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 Re: Order of Conditions—DEP #64-541 297 Bridge Street (former Universal Steel) Mayor Driscoll: Enclosed, please find the Order of Conditions for the above-referenced project. Following the 10-business-day appeal period, this document and the attached Special Conditions must be recorded at the Southern Essex County Registry of Deeds (Shetland Park, 45 Congress Street, Suite 4100 Salem, MA). Once recorded, please return a copy of Page 12 of the Order, which will indicate to the Commission that the document has been recorded. As indicated in the Order, prior to any work commencing: 1. this Order must be recorded, 2. a sign shall be displayed showing DEP File#64-541 within public view, and 3. contact me at least 48 hours prior to any activity to schedule a pre-construction meeting to review the Order with your hired contractor. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 978-619-5685. Sincerely, Toni Devine Conservation Agent/ Staff Planner Enclosure CC: Weston & Sampson DEP Northeast Regional Office Attachment to Order of Conditions #64-541 Page 1 of 5 SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION DEP FILE #64-541 297 Bridge Street (former Universal Steel) City of Salem, Massachusetts ADDITIONAL FINDINGS Based on the Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife and Certified Vernal Pools Map(October 1, 2008) from Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, it has been determined that this project does not occur near any habitat of state-listed rare wildlife species nor contains any vernal pools. This Order is issued under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, M.G.L. Chapter t31, Section 40 and the City of Salem Wetlands Protection and Conservation Ordinance,Salem Code Chapter 50. The order permits the demolition of an existing building per Notice of Intent submitted to the Conservation Commission on July 17,2012. I. To avoid working atop the site's contaminated materials, the applicant is seeking access to the area labeled"Truck Entrance and Loading Area" at 311 Bridge Street. If the applicant fails to obtain said access and must operate within 297 Bridge Street, a work plan must be submitted to the Conservation Agent prior to start of site activity. • GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. This Order of Conditions must be recorded in its entirety(including these Special Conditions) at the Essex County Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, after the expiration of the 10-day appeal period and within 30 days of the issuance. A copy of the recording information must be submitted to the Salem Conservation Commission before any work approved in this Order commences. 2. Approval of this application does not constitute compliance with any law or regulation other than M.G.L Chapter 131, Section 40, Wetlands Regulations 310 CMR 10.00 and the City of Salem Wetlands Protection and Conservation Ordinance,Salem Code Chapter 50. 3. All work shall be performed in accordance with this Order of Conditions and approved site plan(s). No alteration of wetland resource areas or associated buffer zones, other than that approved in this Order, shall occur on this property without prior approval from the Commission. 4. Prior to any work commencing on site, a DEP Sign showing DEP File#64-541 must be installed at the entrance to the site and seen from the public way, but not placed on a living tree. 5. No work approved in this Order may commence until the ten(10)business day appeal period has lapsed from the date of the issuance of this Order. 6. With respect to this Order, the Commission designates the Conservation Agent as its agent with powers to act on its behalf in administering and enforcing this Order. Attachment to Order of Conditions #64-541 a ,F Page 2 of 5 • 7. The Commission or its Agent,officers,or employees shall have the right to enter and inspect the property at any time for compliance with the conditions of this Order,the Wetlands Protection Act MGL Chapter 131, Section 40,the Wetlands Regulations 310 CMR 10.00,and shall have the right to require any data or documentation that it deems necessary for that evaluation. 8. The term "Applicant"as used in this Order of Conditions shall refer to the owner,any successor in interest or successor in control of the property referenced in the Notice of intent, supporting documents and this Order of Conditions. The Commission shall be notified in writing within 30 days of all transfers of title of any portion of the property that takes place prior to issuance of the Certificate of Compliance. 9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to procure all other applicable federal, state and local permits and approvals associated with this project. These permits may include but are not necessarily limited to the following: (1) Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act(P.L. 92-500, 86 stat. 816),U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2) Water Quality Certification in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution Control under authority of sec. 27(5)of Chapter 21 of the Massachusetts General Laws as codified in 314 CMR 9.00. (3) Sewer Extension Permit from the DEP Division of Water Pollution Control under G. L. Ch. 21A ss7 and 314 CMR 7.00. Any Board of Health permit for septic system design for any portion of the • septic system within 100 feet of wetlands shall be submitted to the Commission prior to construction initiation. (4) Design Requirements for Construction in Floodplains under the State Building Code(780 CMR 744.). 10. If there are conflicting conditions within this Order, the stricter condition(s) shall rule. It. All work shall be performed so as to ensure that there will be no sedimentation into wetlands and surface waters during construction or after completion of the project. 12. The Commission or its Agent shall have the discretion to modify the erosion/siltation control methods and boundary during construction if necessary. 13. The Commission reserves the right to impose additional conditions on portions of this project or this site to mitigate any actual or potential impacts resulting from the work herein permitted. 14. The work shall conform to the following attached plans and special conditions: !%final Approved Plans BUILDING DEMOLITION PLAN (Title) 7/t6/2012 (Dated) Duane C. Himes (Signed and Stamped by) 10 City of Salem Conservation Commission (Oil file with) Attachment to Order of Conditions #64-541 g Page 3 of 5 • 15. Any proposed changes in the approved plan(s)or any deviation in construction from the approved plan(s)shall require the applicant to file a Notice of Project Chance with the Commission. The Notice shall be accompanied by a written inquiry prior to their implementation in the field,as to whether the change(s) is substantial enough to require filing a new Notice of Intent or a request to correct or amend this Order of Conditions. A copy of such request shall at the same time be sent to the Department of Environmental Protection. 16. In conjunction with the sale of this property or any portion thereof before a Certificate of Compliance has been issued, the applicant or current landowner shall submit to the Commission a statement signed by the buyer that he/she is aware of an outstanding Order of Conditions on the property and has received a copy of the Order of Conditions. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 17. Prior to the commencement of any activity on this site other than activities listed above,there must be a Pre-Construction Meeting on site between the project supervisor,the contractor responsible for the work,and the Conservation Agent and/or a member of the Conservation Commission to ensure that the requirements of the Order of Conditions are understood. The staked erosion control line shall be adjusted, if necessary,during the pre-construction meeting. Please contact the Conservation Agent at (978)619-5685 at least forty-eight(48) hours prior to construction to arrange for the Pre- Construction Meeting. 18. Prior to the pre-construction meeting and commencement of any activity on this site,sedimentation and • erosion control barriers shall be installed as shown on the approval plants)and detail drawings. The Commission and/or its Agent shall inspect and approve such installation at the pre-construction meeting. 19. No clearing of vegetation, including trees, or disturbance of soil shall occur prior to the pre-construction meeting. Minimal disturbance of shrubs and herbaceous plants shall be allowed prior to the pre- construction meeting if absolutely necessary in order to place erosion control stakes where required. 20. There shall be sufficient erosion control devices stored under cover on the site to be used for emergency erosion control purposes. EROSION CONTROL 21. Appropriate erosion control devices shall be in place prior to the beginning of any phase of construction, and shall be maintained during construction in any wetland resource area and/or buffer zones. The erosion control measures shown on the approval plan(s)and provisions in the Order will be the minimum standards for this project; the Commission or its Agent may require additional measures. 22. All debris, fill and excavated material shall be stockpiled a location far enough away from the wetland resource areas to prevent sediment from entering wetland resource areas. 23. Erosion and sedimentation control devices shall be inspected after each storm event and repaired or replaced as necessary. Any accumulated silt adjacent to the barriers shall be removed. 24. The area of construction shall remain in a stable condition at the close of each construction day. 40 25. An de-watering of trenches or other excavation . Y ca aeon re g yuired during construction shall be conducted so as to prevent siltation of wetland resource areas. All discharge from de-watering activities shall be filtered Attachment to Ordcr of Conditions # 64-541 A3 Mage 4 of 5 through hay bale sediment traps, silt filter bags or other means approved by the Commission or its Administrator. 26. Within thirty (30)days of completion of construction on any given portion of the project,all disturbed areas in the completed portion of the site shall be permanently stabilized with rapidly growing vegetative cover, using sufficient top soil to assure long-term stabilization of disturbed areas. 27. If soils are to be disturbed for longer than two(2) months,a temporary cover of rye or other grass should be established to prevent erosion and sedimentation. If the season is not appropriate for plant growth,exposed surface shall be stabilized by other appropriate erosion control measures, firmly anchored,to prevent soils from being washed by rain or flooding. DURING CONSTRUCTION 28. A copy of this Order of Conditions and the plan(s)approved in this Order shall be available on site at all times when work is in progress. 29. No alteration or activity shall occur beyond the limit of work as defined by the siltation barriers shown on the approved plan(s). 30. All waste products,grubbed stumps,slash;construction materials,etc.shall be deposited at least 100 feet from wetland resource areas and 200 feet from river. • 31. Cement trucks shall not be washed out in any wetland resource or buffer zone area,nor into any drainage system. Any deposit of cement or concrete products into a buffer zone or wetland resource area shall be immediately removed. 32. All exposed sub-soils shall be covered by a minimum of three(3) inches of quality screened loam topsoil prior to seeding and final stabilization. 33. Immediately following drainage structure installation all inlets shall be protected by silt fence,haybale barriers and/or silt bags to filter silt from stormwater before it enters the drainage system. 34. There shall be no pumping of water from wetland resource areas. 35. All equipment shall be inspected regularly for leaks. Any leaking hydraulic lines,cylinders or any other components shall be fixed immediately. 36. During construction, all drainage structures shalt be inspected regularly and cleaned as necessary. 37. The applicant is herby notified that failure to comply with all requirements herein may result in the issuance of enforcement actions by the Conservation Commission including,but not limited to,civil administrative penalties under M.G.L Chapter 21 A,section 16. AFTER CONSTRUCTION 38. Upon completion of construction and final soil stabilization, the applicant shall submit the following to the Conservation Commission to request a Certificate of Compliance (COC): (1) A Completed Request for a Certificate of Compliance form(WPA Form 8A or other form if • required by the Conservation Commission at the time of request). (2) A letter from a Registered Professional Engineer certifying compliance of the property with this Order of Conditions. �. Attachment to Order of Conditions # 64-541 ls:' Pagc 5 of 5 (3) An "As-Built" plan signed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer or Land Surveyor showing post-construction conditions within all areas under thejurisdiction of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. This plan shall include at a minimum: (a) All wetland resource area boundaries with associated buffer zones and regulatory setback areas taken from the plan(s)approved in this Order of Conditions; (b) Locations and elevations of all stormwater management conveyances, structures and best management designs, including foundation drains,constructed under this Order within any wetland resource area or buffer zone; (c) Distances from any structures constructed under this Order to wetland resource areas- "structures"include, but are not limited to,all buildings,septic system components,wells, utility lines,fences,retaining walls,and roads/driveways; (d) A line delineating the limit of work-"work"includes any filling,excavating and/or disturbance of soils or vegetation approved under this Order; 39. When issued,the Certificate of Compliance must be recorded at the Southern Essex County Registry of Deeds and a copy of the recording submitted to the Salem Conservation Commission. 40. If the completed work differs from that in the original plans and conditions,the report must specify how the work differs; at which time the applicant shall first request a modification to the Order. Only upon review and approval by the Commission, may the applicant request in writing a Certificate of Compliance as described above. 41. Erosion control devices shall remain in place and properly functioning until all exposed soils have been • stabilized with final vegetative cover and the Conservation Commission and/or its Agent has authorized their removal. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS 42. To avoid working atop the site's contaminated materials, the applicant is seeking access to the area labeled"Truck Entrance and Loading Area"at 311 Bridge Street. If the applicant fails to obtain said access and must operate within 297 Bridge Street,a work plan must be submitted to the Conservation Agent prior to start of site activity. • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection- Wetlands 64-541 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP File" Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEPTransaaon k Salem City/Towd A. General Information Please note: Salem this form has 1. From: been modified Conservation Commission - wlth added 2, This issuance is for speco to a.®Order of Conditions b.❑Amended Order of Conditions accommodate (check one): • the Registry of quires s.To: Applicant: Requirements Kimberley Driscoll Important: a.First Name b.Last Name - When filling City of Salem - - - out fors - m Organization - on the 93 Washington Street computer, use only the d.Mailing Address tab key to Salem MA 01970 move your e.Cityfrown - - f.state g.Zip Code cursor-do not use the 4. Property Owner(if different from applicant): return kkeeyl.1l. a.First Name b.Last Name mm _ c.Organization d.Mailing Address e.City/Town f.State g.Zip Code - 5. Project Locations' 297-305 Bridge Street Salem a.Street Address b.Cityfrown 26 _ 635 - c.Assessors Map/Plat Number d.ParceVLot Number • Latitude and Longitude, if known: 42d31m22.9s 70d54m3.15s_____ 1 d.Latitude e.Longitude 1 w0a1orm5.Eoc•rev.OSIM2010 _ - Page 1 0l 12 Massachusetts.Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: • _ Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-541 t WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP File a (11t Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c: 131, §40 eDEP TransadionM Salem City/room A. General Information (cont,) 6. Property recorded at the Registry of Deeds for(attach additional information if more than one parcel): Southern Essex a.County - - b.Certificate Number(if registered land). 12612 69 c.Book d.Page 7. Dates: 7/17/2012 7/26/2012 7/30/2012 a.Date Notice of Intent Filed b.Date Public Hearing Closed c.Date of Issuance a. Final Approved Plans and Other Documents(attach additional plan or document references as needed): BUILDING DEMOLITION PLAN a.Plan Title _ Weston &Sampson Duane C. Himes b.Prepared By c.Signed and Stamped by 7/16/2012 1"=30' d.Final Revision Date e.Scale - - f.Additional Plan or Document Title g.Date • B. Findings t. Findings pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: Following the review of the above-referenced Notice of Intent and based on the information provided in this application and presented at the public hearing,this Commission finds that the areas in which work is proposed is significant to the following interests of the Wetlands Protection Act(the Act). Check all that apply: a. ❑ Public Water Supply b. ❑ Land Containing Shellfish c' ® Prevention of Pollution d. ❑ Private Water Supply e: ❑ Fisheries I. ❑ Protection of Wildlife Habitat g. ❑ Groundwater Supply h. ® Storm Damage Prevention I. ® Flood Control 2. This Commission hereby finds the project,as proposed, is:(check one of the following boxes) Approved subject to: a. ® the following conditions which are necessary in accordance with the performance standards set forth in the wetlands regulations. This Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the Notice of Intent referenced above, the following General Conditions, and any other special conditions attached to this Order. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications,or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, these conditions shall control. • wraform5.ao - rev,05/192010- rave 2 0112 • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassoEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands sa-sal 4 WPA Form 5.- Order of Conditions MassDEP File it Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 - eDEP Transaction p Salem City/Town B. Findings (cont.) Denied because: b. ❑ the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the performance standards set forth in the wetland regulations. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a new Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to protect the interests of the Act,and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the performance standards which the proposed work cannot meet is attached to this Order. C. ❑ the information submitted by the applicant is not sufficient to describe the site, the work, or the effect of the work on the interests identified in the Wetlands Protection Act. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides sufficient information and includes measures which are adequate to protect the Act's interests, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the specific Information which Is lacking and why It is necessary Is attached to this Order as per 310 CMR 10.05(6)(c). 3. ❑ Buffer Zone Impacts: Shortest distance between limit of project • disturbance and the wetland resource area specified in 310 CMR 10.02(1)(a) a.linear feet Inland Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) Resource Area Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration Alteration Replacement Replacement 4. ❑ Bank a.linear feet b.linear feet c.linear feet d.linear feet 5. [1 Bordering Vegetated Wetland a.squarefeet b.square feet c.square fest d.square feet s. ❑ Land Under Waterbodies and a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet Waterways_ e.c/y dredged f.r/y dredged 7. ® Bordering Land 8,500 8,500 Subject to Flooding a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet Cubic Feet Flood Storage e.cubic feet f.cubic feet g.cubic fe__et h.cubic feet a. El Isolated Land Subject to Flooding a.square feat b,square feet Cubic Feet Flood Storage - c.cubic feet d.cubic feet e.cubic feet f:cubic feet s. ❑ Riverfront Area f�roi<.. rcnr b.total sq.feet Sq It within 100 it „e roof d.square feet a fe<f f.square feet. Sq It between 100- 200 it - ,o foot h.square feet ,e roof j.square feet- , wpatorm5.0oc- rev.0.5192010 P090 3 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassoEP: i \r Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-541 WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions Mass[)EP File# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction x Salem cityrrown B. Findings (cont:) Coastal Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only). Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration Alteration Replacement Replacement 10., [I Designated Port Areas Indicate size under Land Under the Ocean, below it. ❑ Land Under the Ocean a.square feet b.square feet c. dredged d.,cry dredged tz. ❑ Barrier Beaches Indicate size under Coastal Beaches and/or Coastal Dunes below 13. ❑ Coastal Beachescu yd cu yd a.square feet - bsqu . are feet c.nourishment d.nourishment cu yd cu yd 14. El Coastal Dunes a.square feet b.square feet c.nourishment d.nourishment 15. ❑ t'.02Stal Banks a.linear feet ` b.linear feet • 16. ❑ Rocky Intertidal Shores a.square feet b.square feet 17.. ❑ Salt Marshes a.square feet b.square feet a square-feet d.square feet 18. ❑ Land Under Salt Ponds a.square feet b.square feet . c.cry dredged d.c/y dredged 19. ❑ Land Containing Shellfish a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet 20. ❑ Fish Runs Indicate size under Coastal Banks, Inland Bank, Land Under the Ocean, and/or inland Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways, above Gy dredged J.c/y dredged 21. ❑ Land Subject to Coastal Storm a.square feet, b.square feet - _ Flowage • w alwm5doc• rev.05/112010 - Page 4 d 12 • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands 64-541 WPA Form 5 - Order of ConditionsiassDEP Fiie# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131 §40 eoEP Transaction if Salem city/Town B. Findings (cont.) #22.If the 22. ❑ Restoration/Enhancement.`: project is for the purpose of - restoring or a.square feet of BVW ti.square feet of salt marsh ' enhancing a - wetland resource area 23. ❑ Stream Crossing(s): in addition to the square footage that a.number of new stream crossings b.number of replacement stream crossings has been C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act - - entered in - Section B.5.c - - or e t17.c(Salt The following conditions are only applicable to Approved projects. Marsh)above; 1Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein, and with all related statutes and other please enter regulatory measures, shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this Order. the additional 9 y y amount here. 2. The Order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges; it does not authorize any injury to private property or invasion of private rights, • 3. This Order does not relieve the permittee or any other person of the necessity of complying with all other applicable federal, state;or local statutes, ordinances, bylaws,or regulations. 4. The work authorized hereunder shall be completed within three years from the date of this Order unless either of the following apply: a. the work is a maintenance dredging project as provided for in the Act; or b. the time for completion has been extended to a specified date more than three years, but less than five years,from the date of issuance. If this Order is intended to be valid for more than three years, the extension date and the special circumstances warranting the extended time period are set forth as a special condition in this Order. 5. This Order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or more periods of up to three years each upon application to the issuing authority at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the Order. 6. If this Order constitutes an Amended Order of Conditions,this Amended Order of Conditions does not extend the issuance date of the original Final Order of Conditions and the Order will expire on 7/30/2015 unless extended in writing by the Department. 7. Any fill used in connection with this project shall be clean fill. Any fill shall contain no trash, refuse, rubbish, or debris, including but not limited to lumber, bricks, plaster,wire, lath, paper, cardboard, pipe, tires, ashes, refrigerators, motor vehicles, or parts of any of the foregoing. 8. This Order is not final until all administrative appeal periods from this Order have elapsed, or if such an appeal has been taken, until all proceedings before the Department have been completed. wpalorMSAd • rev.Wl W010 Page 5 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP • Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-541 WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions MassDEP Fie Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131,§40 eDEP Transaction k Salem cityirown C.General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) 9. No work shall be undertaken until the Order has become final and then has been recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land,the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done. In the case of the registered land, the Final Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is done. The recording information shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission on the form at the end of this Order, which form must be stamped by the Registry of Deeds,prior to the commencement of work. 10. A sign shall be displayed at the site not less then two square feet or more than three square feet in size bearing the words, "Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection" [or, "MassDEP"] "File Number 64-541 11. Where the Department of Environmental Protection is requested to issue a Superseding • Order, the Conservation Commission shall be a party to all agency proceedings and hearings before MassDEP. 12. Upon completion of the work described herein, the applicant shall submit a Request for Certificate of Compliance(WPA Form 8A) to the Conservation Commission. 13. The work shall conform to the plans and special conditions referenced in this order. 14. Any change to the plans identified in Condition #13 above shall require the applicant to inquire of the Conservation Commission in writing whether the change is significant enough to require the filing of a new Notice of Intent. 15. The Agent or members of the Conservation Commission and the Department of Environmental Protection shall have the right to enter and inspect the area subject to this 9 p I s Order at reasonable hours to evaluate compliance with the conditions stated in this Order, and may require the submittal of an data deemed necessary b the n Y ry y e Co servation Commission or Department for that evaluation. 16. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in interest or successor in control of the property subject to this Order and to any contractor or other person performing work conditioned by this Order, 17. Prior to the start of work, and if the project involves work adjacent to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland, the boundary of the wetland in the vicinity of the proposed work area shall be marked by wooden stakes or flagging. Once in place, the wetland boundary markers shall be maintained until a Certificate of Compliance has been issued by the Conservation Commission. • wPabrmS.doc• rev.09192010 Page 6 0l 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP Bureau of Resource Protection Wetlands 64-541 _ WPA Form 5 Order of Conditions MassDEP File u Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 ;DEP Transaction ir Salem _ Cityrrom C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) 18. All sedimentation barriers shall be maintained in good repair until all disturbed areas have been fully stabilized with vegetation or other means. At no time shall sediments be deposited in a wetland or water body. During construction, the applicant or his/her designee shall inspect the erosion controls on a daily basis and shall remove accumulated sediments as needed.The applicant shall immediately control any erosion problems that occur at the site and shall also immediately notify the Conservation Commission, which reserves the right to require additional erosion and/or damage prevention controls it may deem necessary. Sedimentation barriers shall serve as the limit of work unless another limit of work line has been approved by this Order. NOTICE OF STORMWATER CONTROL AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS 19. The work associated with this Order(the"Project')is til® Is not(2)❑subject to the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards. If the work is subject to the Stormwater Standards,then the project is subject to the following conditions: • a) All work, including site preparation, land disturbance, construction and redevelopment, shall be implemented in accordance with the construction period pollution prevention and erosion and sedimentation control plan and, if applicable,the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit as required by Stormwater Condition 8. Construction period erosion, sedimentation and pollution control measures and best management practices (BMPs) shall remain in place until the site is fully stabilized. b) No stormwater runoff may be discharged to the post-construction stormwater BMPs unless and until a Registered Professional Engineer provides a Certification that: i. all construction period BMPs have been removed or will be removed by a date certain specified in the Certification. For any construction period BMPs intended to be converted to post construction operation for stormwater attenuation, recharge, and/or treatment, the conversion is allowed by the MassDEP Stormwater Handbook BMP specifications and that the BMP has been properly cleaned or prepared for post construction operation, including removal of all construction period sediment trapped in inlet and outlet control structures; ii. as-built final construction BMP plans are included, signed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, certifying the site is fully stabilized; W. any illicit discharges to the stormwater management system have been removed, as per the requirements of Stormwater Standard 10; iv. all post-construction stormwater BMPs are installed in accordance with the plans (including all planting plans)approved by the issuing authority,and have been inspected to ensure that they are not damaged and that they are in proper working condition; v. any vegetation associated with post-construction BMPs is suitably established to withstand erosion. wpa(orm5.aoo• rev.09192010 Page 7 d 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by Mass DEP: • Bureau of Resource Protection- Wetlands 64-541 �, WPA Form 5 -Order of Conditions MassDEPFile# C Massachusetts Wetlands Protection ActM.G.L c. 131,§40 eDEP Transaction k Salem C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) c) The landowner is responsible for BMP maintenance until the issuing authority is notified that another party has legally assumed responsibility for BMP maintenance. Prior to requesting a Certificate of Compliance, or Partial Certificate of Compliance, the responsible party(defined in General Condition 18(e)) shall execute and submit to the issuing authority an Operation and Maintenance Compliance Statement("O&M Statement) for the Stormwater BMPs identifying the party responsible for implementing the stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan ("O&M Plan")and certifying the following: i.) the O&M Plan is complete and will be implemented upon receipt of the Certificate of Compliance, and ii.)the future responsible parties shall be notified in writing of their ongoing legal responsibility to operate and maintain the stormwater management BMPs and implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. d) Post-construction pollution prevention and source control shall be implemented in accordance with the long-term pollution prevention plan section of the approved Stormwater Report and, if applicable, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Multi-Sector General Permit. e) Unless and until another party accepts responsibility, the landowner, or owner of any • drainage easement, assumes responsibility for maintaining each BMP. To overcome this presumption,the landowner of the property must submit to the issuing authority a legally binding agreement of record, acceptable to the issuing authority, evidencing that another entity has accepted responsibility for maintaining the BMP, and that the proposed responsible party shall be treated as a permittee for purposes of implementing the requirements of Conditions 18(f)through 18(k)with respect to that BMR Any failure of the proposed responsible party to implement the requirements of Conditions 18(f)through 18(k)with respect to that BMP shall be a violation of the Order of Conditions or Certificate of Compliance. In the case of stormwater BMPs that are serving more than one lot, the legally binding agreement shall also identify the lots that will be serviced by the stormwater BMPs. A plan and easement deed that grants the responsible party access to perform the required operation and maintenance must be submitted along with the legally binding agreement. f) The responsible party shall operate and maintain all stormwater BMPs in accordance with the design plans,the O&M Plan, and the requirements of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. • wPalarm5.ma. rev.wiwoto Page Bea Q Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection- Wetlands 64-541 WPA( Form 5 - Order of Conditions\ - iv lassDEP File k Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction H — Salem Cityrrom C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) g) The responsible party shall: 1. Maintain an operation and maintenance log for the last three (3)consecutive calendar years of inspections, repairs, maintenance and/or replacement of the stormwater management system or any part thereof,and disposal(for disposal the log shall indicate the type of material and the disposal location); 2. Make the maintenance log available to MassDEP and the Conservation Commission("Commission") upon request; and 3. Allow members and agents of the MassDEP and the Commission to enter and inspect the site to evaluate and ensure that the responsible party is in compliance with the requirements for each BMP established in the O&M Plan approved by the issuing authority. h) All sediment or other contaminants removed from stormwater BMPs shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state,and local laws and regulations. I) Illicit discharges to the stormwater management system as defined in 310 CMR 10.04 are prohibited. • j) The stormwater management system approved in the Order of Conditions shall not be changed without the prior written approval of the issuing authority. k) Areas designated as qualifying pervious areas for the purpose of the Low Impact Site Design Credit(as defined in the MassDEP Stormwater Handbook, Volume 3, Chapter 1, Low Impact Development Site Design Credits)shall not be altered without the prior written approval of the issuing authority. I) . Access for maintenance, repair, and/or replacement of BMPs shall not be withheld. Any fencing constructed around stormwater BMPs shall include access gates and shall be at least six inches above grade to allow for wildlife passage. Special Conditions (if you need more space for additional conditions, please attach a text document): See attached • wpalarrti5.doc. reviwigg oto Page 9 o1 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP - Bureau of Resource Protection Wetlands 64-541 WPA Form 5 Order of Conditions MassDEPFile# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 ' eDEP Transaction q Salem - Cityfrown D. Findings Under Municipal Wetlands Bylaw or.Ordinance r. Is a municipal wetlands bylaw or ordinance applicable? ® Yes ❑ No 2. The Salem hereby finds (check one that applies):_ - Conservation Commission- a. ❑that the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the standards set forth in a municipal ordinance or bylaw, specifically: . 1.Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw 2.Citation Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to meet these standards, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. b. ®that the following additional conditions are necessary to comply with a municipal ordinance or bylaw: Wetlands Conservation and Protection Ordinance ch. 50 1.Municipal Ordinance or,Bylaw 2.Citation 3. . The Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the following • conditions and with the Notice of Intent referenced above.To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent,the conditions shall control. The special conditions relating to municipal ordinance or bylaw are as follows (if you need more space for additional conditions, attach a text document): Attached special conditions are issued under the Wetlands Protection act and are sufficient for compliance with the local ordinance wpatorm5.dee, rev.05/1W20t0 - - Gaga 10 of 12 • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassoEP: Bureau of Resource Protection Wetlands 64-541 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEPPile# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 sDEP rransaction u Salem Cityrrown E. Signatures This Order is valid for three years,unless otherwise specified as a special . condition pursuant to General Conditions N4,from the date of issuance. 1.Date of Issuance Please indicate the number of members who will sign this forma This Order must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. - - 2.Number of Signers The Order must be mailed by certified mail(return receipt requested)or hand delivered to the applicant.A copy also must be mailed or hand delivered at the same time to the appropriate Department of Environmental Protection Regional Office,if not filing electronically,and the property owner,if different from applicant. Signatures: • ❑ by hand delivery on ❑ by certified mail, return receipt requested,on Date Date F. Appeals The applicant, the owner,any person aggrieved by this Order, any owner of land abutting the land subject to this Order, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, ' are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate MassDEP Regional Office to issue a Superseding Order of Conditions. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and a completed Request of Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form, as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7) within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Order. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. Any appellants seeking to appeal the Department's Superseding Order associated with this appeal will be required to demonstrate prior participation in the review of this project. Previous participation in the permit proceeding means the submission of written information to the Conservation Commission prior to the close of the public hearing, requesting a Superseding Order,or providing written information to the Department prior to issuance of a Superseding Order. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Order which is being appealed and how the Order does not contribute to the protection of the interests identified in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act(M.G.L. c. 131, §40), and is inconsistent with the wetlands regulations(310 CMR 10.00).To the extent that the Order is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. • wpalorm5.doc• rev.0 IWO10 Page 11 0l 12 Ll-----— Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassoeP Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions MassDEP iie# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP T�anacnon ll " City/Town E. Signatures Imp ortant: This Order isvalid for three years,unless otherwise specified as a special When fining out condition pursuant to General Conditions#4,from the date of Issuance. L at nice forms on the computer,use Please indicate the number of members who will sign this form _ _ - only the tab key This Order must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission 2.Number of Signers to move your cursor-do not The Order must be mailed by certified mail (return receipt r qu sted)or h Iv red to use the return the applicant. A copy must be mailed, hand delivered or fi d lectroni I t ame keytime with the appr sDEP Regional Office. Si r —— t b �( by hand delivery on ❑ by certified mall return receipt • requested,on Date Date - -F. Appeals The applicant, the owner,any person aggrieved by this Order,any owner of land abutting the land subject to this Order, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate MassDEP Regional Office to issue a Superseding Order of Conditions. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department,with the appropriate filing fee and a completed Request of Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form, as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7) within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Order. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. Any appellants seeking to appeal the Department's Superseding Order associated with this appeal will be required to demonstrate prior participation in the review of this project. Previous participation in the permit proceeding means the submission of written information to the Conservation Commission prior to the close of the public hearing, requesting a Superseding Order, or providing written information to the Department prior to issuance of a Superseding Order. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Order which is being appealed and how the Order does not contribute to the protection of the interests identified in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act(M.G.L. c. 431, §40), and is inconsistent with the wetlands regulations(310 CMR 10.00). To the extent that the Order is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. • +NaSs,y,Joc•rev O:R52UI0 vaor p_m 1� Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP. ` Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-541 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassOEP File" Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction a Salem City/Tom G. Recording Information Prior to commencement of work,this Order of Conditions must be recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land subject to the Order. In the case of registered land, this Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land subject to the Order of Conditions.The recording information on this page shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission listed below. Conservation Commission - Detach on dotted line,have stamped by the Registry of Deeds and submit to the Conservation Commission. . - - --- --- ------- ---- ------ — ------------------------ ---- To: Conservation Commission • Please be advised that the Order of Conditions for the Project at: Project Location MassDEP File Number Has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds of: County _ _ Book - -- Page fon Propertyowner and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property in: eook _—_ - Page In accordance with the Order of Conditions issued on: Date If recorded land,the instrument number identifying this transaction is: Instrument Number If registered land,the document number identifying this transaction is: Document • _ Signature of Applicant w0atorm5.tlx•rev.05/192010 - Page 12 of 12 ` m CITY OF SALEM 9 CONSERVATION COMMISSION July 30. 2012 Charles E. Wear Meridian Associates, Inc. 500 Cummings Center, Suite 5950 Beverly, MA 01915 Re: Order of Conditions—DEP#64-523 150 and 162 Federal Street, Salem, MA Dear Mr, Wear: Enclosed, please find the Order of Conditions for the above-referenced project. Following the 10-business-day appeal period, this document and the attached Special Conditions must be recorded at the Southern Essex County Registry of Deeds (Shetland Park, 45 Congress Street, Suite 4100, Salem, MA). Once recorded, please return a copy of Page 12 of the Order, which will indicate to the Commission that the document has been recorded. • As indicated in the Order, prior to any work commencing: 1. this Order must be recorded, 2. a sign shall be displayed showing DEP File#64-523 within public view, and 3. contact me at least 48 hours prior to any activity to schedule a pre-construction meeting to review the Order with your hired contractor. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 978-619-5685. Sincerely, Toni Devine Conservation Agent/ Staff Planner Enclosure CC: DEP Northeast Regional Office William Wharff Health & Education Svcs./Catholic Archdiocese of Boston—St. ,lames Parish • Attachment to Order of Conditions # 64523 { Page I of 5 SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION DEP FILE #64-523 150 and 162 Federal Street City of Salem, Massachusetts ADDITIONAL FINDINGS Based on the Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife and Certified Vernal Pools Map(October I, 2008) from Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, it has been determined that this project does not occur near any habitat of state-listed rare wildlife species nor contains any vernal pools. This Order is issued under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act,M.G.L. Chapter 131,Section 40 and the City of Salem Wetlands Protection and Conservation Ordinance,Salem Code Chapter 50. The order permits the construction of a parking lot and appurtenances per plans approved by the Conservation Commission. In order to better withstand the impact of a snowplow than the proposed bituminous berm, granite curbing shall be installed along both sides of the Bridge Street entrance driveway, from the Bridge Street curb cut to the edges of the parking lot parallel to existing southwestern property line and proposed northeastern property line, excluding marked`BREAK IN CURB". • GENERAL CONDITIONS L This Order of Conditions must be recorded in its entirety (including these Special Conditions)at the Essex County Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located,after the expiration of the 10-day appeal period and within 30 days of the issuance. A copy of the recording information must be submitted to the Salem Conservation Commission before any work approved in this Order commences. 2. Approval of this application does not constitute compliance with any law or regulation other than M.G.L Chapter 131, Section 40, Wetlands Regulations 310 CMR 10.00 and the City of Salem Wetlands Protection and Conservation Ordinance,Salem Code Chapter 50. 3. All work shall be performed in accordance with this Order of Conditions and approved site plan(s). No alteration of wetland resource areas or associated buffer zones, other than that approved in this Order, shall occur on this property without prior approval from the Commission. 4. Prior to any work commencing on site,a DEP Sign showing DEP File#64-523 must be installed at the entrance to the site and seen from the public way, but not placed on a living tree. 5. No work approved in this Order may commence until the ten(10)business day appeal period has lapsed from the date of the issuance of this Order. 6. With respect to this Order, the Commission designates the Conservation Agent as its agent with powers •` to act on its behalf in administering and enforcing this Order. Attachment to Order of Conditions# 64-523 Page 2 of 5 • 7. The Commission or its Agent,officers,or employees shall have the right to enter and inspect the property at any time for compliance with the conditions of this Order,the Wetlands Protection Act MGL Chapter 131, Section 40,the Wetlands Regulations 310 CMR 10.00, and shall have the right to require any data or documentation that it deems necessary for that evaluation. 8. The term"Applicant'as used in this Order of Conditions shall refer to the owner, any successor in interest or successor in control of the property referenced in the Notice of intent, supporting documents and this Order of Conditions. The Commission shall be notified in writing within 30 days of all transfers of title of any portion of the property that takes place prior to issuance of the Certificate of Compliance. 9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to procure all other applicable federal, state and local permits and approvals associated with this project. These permits may include but are not necessarily limited to the following: (1) Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act(P.L. 92-500, 86 stat. 816), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2) Water Quality Certification in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution Control under authority of sec. 27(5)of Chapter 21 of the Massachusetts General Laws as codified in 314 CMR 9.00. (3) Sewer Extension Permit from the DEP Division of Water Pollution Control under G. L. Ch. 21A ss7 and 314 CMR 7.00. Any Board of Health permit for septic system design for any portion of the septic system within 100 feet of wetlands shall be submitted to the Commission prior to • construction initiation. (4) Design Requirements for Construction in Floodplains under the State Building Code(780 CMR 744.). 10. If there are conflicting conditions within this Order, the stricter condition(s)shall rule. IL All work shall be performed so as to ensure that there will be no sedimentation into wetlands and surface waters during construction or after completion of the project. 12. The Commission or its Agent shall have the discretion to modify the erosion/siltation control methods and boundary during construction if necessary. 13. The Commission reserves the right to impose additional conditions on portions of this project or this site to mitigate any actual or potential impacts resulting from the work herein permitted. 14. The work shall conform to the following attached plans and special conditions: Final Approved Plans Site Development Plans for 162 Federal Street(5 sheets) (Title) 7/26/2012 (Dated) Charles E. Wear III (Signed and Stamped by) Cit of Salem Conservation Commission • (Un file with) 15. Any proposed changes in the approved plan(s)or any deviation in construction from the approved plants)shall require the applicant to file a Notice of Project Chance with the Commission. The Notice Attachment to Order(.)FCondirions # 64-523 zte�4p Page 3 of 5 rwwAQ' shall be accompanied by a written inquiry prior to their implementation in the field, as to whether the change(s) is substantial enough to require filing a new Notice of Intent or a request to correct or amend this Order of Conditions. A copy of such request shall at the same time be sent to the Department of Environmental Protection. M. In conjunction with the sale of this property or any portion thereof before a Certificate of Compliance has been issued,the applicant or current landowner shall submit to the Commission a statement signed by the buyer that he/she is aware of an outstanding Order of Conditions on the property and has received a copy of the Order of Conditions. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 17. Prior to the commencement of any activity on this site other than activities listed above,there must he a Pre-Construction Meeting on site between the project supervisor, the contractor responsible for the work,and the Conservation Agent and/or a member of the Conservation Commission to ensure that the requirements of the Order of Conditions are understood. The staked erosion control line shall be adjusted, if necessary,during the pre-construction meeting. Please contact the Conservation Agent at (978)619.5685 at least forty-eight(48) hours prior to construction to arrange for the Pre- Construction Meeting. 18. Prior to the pre-construction meeting and commencement of any activity on this site,sedimentation and erosion control barriers shall be installed as shown on the approval plan(s)and detail drawings. The • Commission and/or its Agent shall inspect and approve such installation at the pre-construction meeting. 19. No clearing of vegetation, including trees,or disturbance of soil shall occur prior to the pre-construction meeting. Minimal disturbance of shrubs and herbaceous plants shall be allowed prior to the pre- construction meeting if absolutely necessary in order to place erosion control stakes where required. 20. There shall be sufficient erosion control devices stored under cover on the site to be used for emergency erosion control purposes. EROSION CONTROL 21. Appropriate erosion control devices shall be in place prior to the beginning of any phase of construction, and shall be maintained during construction in any wetland resource area and/or buffer zones. The erosion control measures shown on the approval plan(s)and provisions in the Order will be the minimum standards for this project; the Commission or its Agent may require additional measures. 22. All debris, fill and excavated material shall be stockpiled a location far enough away from the wetland resource areas to prevent sediment from entering wetland resource areas. 23. Erosion and sedimentation control devices shall be inspected after each storm event and repaired or replaced as necessary. Any accumulated silt adjacent to the barriers shall be removed. 24. The area of construction shall remain in a stable condition at the close of each construction day. 25. Any de-watering of trenches or other excavation required during construction shall be conducted so as • to prevent siltation of wetland resource areas. All discharge from de-watering activities shall be filtered through hay bale sediment traps,silt filter bags or other means approved by the Commission or its Administrator. l e Attachment to Order of Conditions #64523 Page 4 of 5 26. Within thirty(30)days of completion of construction on any given portion of the project,all disturbed areas in the completed portion of the site shall be permanently stabilized with rapidly growing vegetative cover, using sufficient top soil to assure long-term stabilization of disturbed areas. 27. If soils are to be disturbed for longer than two(2) months,a temporary cover of rye or other grass should be established to prevent erosion and sedimentation. If the season is not appropriate for plant growth,exposed surface shall be stabilized by other appropriate erosion control measures,firmly anchored, to prevent soils from being washed by rain or flooding. DURING CONSTRUCTION 28. A copy Of this Order of Conditions and the plan(s)approved in this Order shall be available on site at all times when work is in progress. 29. No alteration or activity shall occur beyond the limit of work as defined by the siltation barriers shown on the approved plan(s). 30. All waste products,grubbed stumps,slash;construction materials,etc.shall be deposited at least 100 feet from wetland resource areas and 200 feet from river. 31. Cement trucks shall not be washed out in any wetland resource or buffer zone area,nor into any drainage system. Any deposit of cement or concrete products into a buffer zone or wetland resource area shall be immediately removed. • 32. All exposed sub-soils shall be covered by a minimum of three(3) inches of quality screened loam topsoil prior to seeding and final stabilization. 33. Immediately following drainage structure installation all inlets shall be protected by silt fence, haybale barriers and/or silt bags to filter silt from stormwater before it enters the drainage system. 34. There shall be no pumping of water from wetland resource areas. 35. All equipment shall be inspected regularly for leaks. Any leaking hydraulic lines,cylinders or any other components shall be fixed immediately. 36. During construction,all drainage structures shall be inspected regularly and cleaned as necessary. 37. The applicant is herby notified that failure to comply with all requirements herein may result in the issuance of enforcement actions by the Conservation Commission including, but not limited to,civil administrative penalties under iM.G.L Chapter 21A,section 16. AFTER CONSTRUCTION 38. Upon completion of construction and final soil stabilization, the applicant shall submit the following to the Conservation Commission to request a Certificate of Compliance(COC): (1) A Completed Request for a Certificate of Compliance form (WPA Form 8A or other form if required by the Conservation Commission at the time of request). (2) A letter from a Registered Professional Engineer certifying compliance of the property with this • Order of Conditions. (3) An "As-Built"plan signed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer or Land Surveyor showing post-construction conditions within all areas under thejurisdiction of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. This plan shall include at a minimum: z4, Attachment to Order of Conditions # 64-523 Page 5 of 5 • (a) All wetland resource area boundaries with associated buffer zones and regulatory setback areas taken from the plan(s)approved in this Order of Conditions; (b) Locations and elevations of all stonnwater management conveyances,structures and best management designs, including foundation drains,constructed under this Order within any wetland resource area or buffer zone; (c) Distances from any structures constructed under this Order to wetland resource areas- "structures"include, but are not limited to,all buildings,septic system components, wells, utility lines,fences,retaining walls,and roads/driveways; (d) A line delineating the limit of work-"work" includes any filling,excavating and/or disturbance of soils or vegetation approved under this Order; 39. When issued,the Certificate of Compliance must be recorded at the Southern Essex County Registry of Deeds and a copy of the recording submitted to the Salem Conservation Commission. 40. If the completed work differs from that in the original plans and conditions, the report must specify how the work differs; at which time the applicant shall first request a modification to the Order. Only upon review and approval by the Commission, may the applicant request in writing a Certificate of Compliance as described above. 41. Erosion control devices shall remain in place and properly functioning until all exposed soils have been stabilized with final vegetative cover and the Conservation Commission and/or its Agent has authorized their removal. • ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS 42. In order to better withstand the impact of a snowplow than the proposed bituminous berm,granite curbing shall be installed along both sides of the Bridge Street entrance driveway, from the Bridge Street curb cut to the edges of the parking lot parallel to the existing southwestern property line and the proposed northeastern property line,excluding marked`BREAK IN CURB". Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-523 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP Fl-le (1t Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEPTransactionA Salem .city/rom A. General Information Please note: Salem this norm has I. From: Conservation Commission been madilled - voth added 2.This Issuance Is fof space to - a.®Order of Conditions b.❑Amended Order of Conditions accommodate (check one): • the Registry or Deeds 3.To: Applicant: Requirements William Wharff Important: a.First Name b.Last Name When filling out forms c.Organization. on the 30 Federal Street computer, _ use only the d.Mailing Address . . - - tab key to Salem MA 01970 move your e.CityfTown f.State - g.Zip Code cursor-do not use the 4, Property Owner(if different from applicant): return key. - - VQ a.First Name b.Last Name Health and Education Services Inc. & Roman Catholic Arch. of Boston-St. James Parish c.Organization m 162 Federal Street(161 Federal St) d.Mailing Address. Salem MA 01970 e.City/Tovin I.State g.Zip Code. - 5. Project Location: 150& 162 Federal Street Salem a.Street Address b.City/Town 26 96 and 2 c..Assessors Map/Plat Number. d.Parcel/Lot Number - Latitude and Longitude, if known: 42d31m13.3s 70d54m24.2s • - d.Latitude e.Longitude wpalor.5aoc• rev.05i192o10 Page 1 0112 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP.17 • Bureau of Resource Protection Wetlands 64-523 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP�Relf Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction p Salem A. Genecity?ow-- n---___ i ral Information (cont.) s. Property recorded at the Registry of Deeds for(attach additional information if more than one parcel): Southern Essex a.County - b.Certificate Number(if registered land) 9057 and 5691 206 and 345 c.Book d. Page 7. Dates: 1/25/2012 7/27/2012 7/30/2012 .a.Date Notice of Intent Filed b.Date Public Hearing Closed c.Date ofo.Date of l�— a. Final Approved Plans and Other Documents (attach additional plan or document references as needed): Site Development Plans for 162 Federal Street a. Plan Title Meridian Associates Charles E.Wear III b.Prepared By - c.Signed and Stamped by 7/26/2012 Varies -d. Final Revision Date e.Scale f:Additional Planor Document Titla • B. Findings g. at--De--___-_-- I. Findings pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: Following the review of the above-referenced Notice of Intent and based on the information provided in this application and presented at the public hearing, this Commission finds that the areas in which work is proposed is significant to the following interests of the Wetlands Protection Act(the Act). Check all that apply: a. ® Public Water Supply b. ® Land Containing Shellfish c. ® Prevention of Pollution d. ® Private Water Supply e: ® Fisheries f. ® Protection of Wildlife Habitat g. ® Groundwater Supply n. ® Storm Damage Prevention I. ® Flood Control 2. This Commission hereby finds the project, as proposed, is:(check one of the following boxes) Approved subject to: a.. ® the following conditions which are necessary in accordance with the performance standards set forth in the wetlands regulations. This Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the Notice of Intent referenced above, the following General Conditions, and any other special conditions attached to this Order. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, these conditions shall control. • wpaf0rm5Uoc• rev.0919/2010 Page 2 d 12 • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-523 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP File if Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction a Salem City/Town B. Findings (cont.) Denied because; b.. ❑ the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet theperformance standards set forth in the wetland regulations. Therefore,work on this project may not go forward unless and until a new Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to protect the interests of the Act, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the performance standards which the proposed work cannot meet is attached to this Order. a ❑ the information submitted by the applicant is not sufficient to describe the site,the work, or the effect of the work on the interests identified in the Wetlands Protection Act. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides sufficient information and includes measures which are adequate to protect the Act's interests, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the specific information which is lacking and why it is necessary is attached to this Order as per 310 CMR 10.05(6)(c). 3. ❑ Buffer Zone Impacts:Shortest distance between limit of project • disturbance and the wetland resource area specified in 310 CMR 10.02(1)(a) a.linear feet Inland Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) Resource Area Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration Alteration Replacement Replacement 4. ❑ Bank a.linea (feet b.linear feet c.linear feet d.linear feet 5. ❑ Bordering Vegetated Wetland a.square feet b,square feet c.square feet d.square feet 6. ❑ Land Under Waterbodies and a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet Waterways _ s.Gy dredged f.Gy dredged z ® Bordering Land 2000 2000 Subject to Flooding a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet Cubic Feet Flood Storage a.cubic feet f.cubic feet g.cubic feet h.cubic feet 8. ❑ Isolated Land Subject to Flooding a.square feet b.square feet Cubic Feet Flood Storage c. , -d.cubic feet s.cubic feet f.cubic feet cubic feet s. ® Riverfront Area 8560 8560 tnt,i�n teat b.total sq.feet Sq It within 100 It 2380 2380 >tees d.square feet e n e root f.square feet Sq It between 100- 6180 6180 IfI 200 It „a ro<t h.square feet ,o rnet 1.square feet • wpeform5.doc•rev.05/192010 n enn , cnu, Pape f of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP. • \\ Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-523 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions' MassDEP File# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131,§40 . eDEP Transaction R Salem . - City/Town Be Findings (cont.) Coastal Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) Proposed " Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration . Alteration Replacement Replacement to. El Designated Port Areas Indicate size under Land Under the Ocean, below It. ❑ Land Under the Ocean - a.square feet b.square feet c.cry dredged d.c/y dredged - 12. .❑ Barrier Beaches Indicate size under Coastal Beaches and/or Coastal Dunes below 13.- ❑ Coastal Beachescu rd cu yd a.square feet b.square feet c.nourishment d.nourishment 14. ❑ Coastal Dunescu yd cu yd a,square feet_ b.square feet - c.nourishment d.nourishment. 15.: ❑ Coastal Banks - a.linea (feet b.linearfeet - • is. ❑ Rocky Intertidal Shores a.square feet b,square feet n. ❑ Salt Marshes a.square feet b.square feet c,square feet d.square feet 19. ❑ Land Under Salt -Ponds 9.square feet b.square feet dredged d.c/y dredged ts. ❑ Land Containing Shellfish a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet 20. ❑ Fish Runs Indicate size under Coastal Banks, Inland Bank, Land Under the Ocean,and/or inland Land Under Wa terbodie s and Waterways, above a.Gy dredged b.cly dredged zt. ❑ Land Subject to Coastal Storm a.squarefeet b.square feet Flowage • wpaform&dac• rev.051gaoio' Page 4 of 12 • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP• \ Bureau of Resource Protection Wetlands 64-523 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP FJe# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 DEP Transaction it Salem City/Town B. Findings (cont.) _ • --------- #22.1f the ._ project is for 22. ElRestoration/Enhancement the purpose of - restoring or enhancing a - a.square feet of BVW b.square feet of salt marsh wetland resource area 23, ❑ .Stream Crossing(s):In addition to the square footage that a.number of new stream crossings - has been in b.number of replacement stream crossings entered iC. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act . Section 8.5.c - e 17 cl(Salt The following conditions are only applicable to Approved projects. please above, 1• Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein;and with all related statutes and other the additional regulatory measures, shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this Order. amount here: 2. The Order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges; it does not . authorize any injury to private property or invasion of private rights. 3. This Order does not relieve the permittee or any other person of the necessity of complying • with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes,ordinances, bylaws, or regulations. 4. The work authorized hereunder shall be completed within three years from the date of this Order unless either of the following apply: a. the work is a maintenance dredging project as provided for in the Act;or b. the time for completion has been extended to a specified date more than three years, but less than five years,from the date of issuance. If this Order is intended to be valid for more than three years,the extension date and the special circumstances warranting the extended time period are set forth as a special condition in this Order. 5. This Order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or more periods of up to three years each upon application to the issuing authority at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the Order. 6. If this Order constitutes an Amended Order of Conditions, this Amended Order of Conditions does not extend the issuance date of the original Final Order of Conditions and the Order will expire on 7/30/2015 unless extended in writing by the Department. 7. Any fill used in connection with this project shall be clean fill.Any fill shall contain no trash, refuse, rubbish, or debris, including but not limited to lumber,bricks, plaster, wire, lath, paper,cardboard, pipe, tires,ashes, refrigerators, motor vehicles, or parts of any of the foregoing. 8. This Order is not final until all administrative appeal periods from this Order have elapsed, or if such an appeal has been taken, until all proceedings before the Department have been completed. f • wpafurm5AW, rev.05r1g 010 - Page 5 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: • Bureau Of Resource Protection Wetlands 64-523 WPA Form 5 Order of Conditions MassDEP Pile 1 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 _ eDEP Transaction k Salem Ciry?own - C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) 9. No work shall be undertaken until the Order has become final and then has been recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry s Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done. In the case of The registered land,the Final Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is done. The recording information shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission on the form at the end of this Order, which form must be stamped by the Registry of Deeds, prior to the commencement of work. 10: A sign shall be displayed at the site not less then two square feet or more than three square feet in size bearing the words, "Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection"[or, "MassDEP"I "File Number 64-423 ' 11. Where the Department of Environmental.Protection is requested to issue a Superseding • Order,the Conservation Commission shall be a party to all agency proceedings and hearings before MassDEP. 12. Upon completion of the work described he the applicant shall submit a Request for Certificate of Compliance(WPA Form 8A)to the Conservation Commission. 13. The work shall conform to the plans and special conditions referenced in this order. 14. Any change to the plans identified in Condition #13 above shall require the applicant to inquire of the Conservation Commission in writing whether the change is significant enough to require the filing of a new Notice of Intent. 15. The Agent or members of the Conservation Commission and the Department of Environmental Protection shall have The right to enter and inspect the area subject to this Order at reasonable hours to evaluate compliance with the conditions stated in this Order, and may require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by the Conservation Commission or Department for that evaluation. 16. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in interest or successor in control of the property subject to this Order and to any contractor or other person performing work conditioned by this Order. 17. Prior to the start of work, and if The project involves work adjacent to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland, the boundary of the wetland in the vicinity of the proposed work area shall be marked by wooden stakes or flagging. Once in place, the wetland boundary markers shall be maintained until a Certificate of Compliance has been issued by the Conservation Commission. • wpalorm5.�ot•rc¢OS/19Y207o- Pap BM12 • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-523 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEPFieu -- Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c, 131, §40 e ---- DEP Transaction q Salem city/Town C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) 18. All sedimentation barriers shall be maintained in good repair until all disturbed areas have been fully stabilized with vegetation or other means. At no time shall sediments be deposited in a wetland or water body. During construction,the applicant or his/her designee shall inspect the erosion controls on a daily basis and shall remove accumulated sediments as needed. The applicant shall immediately control any erosion problems that occur at the site and shall also immediately notify the Conservation Commission, which reserves the right to require additional erosion and/or damage prevention controls it may deem necessary. Sedimentation barriers shall serve as the limit of work unless another limit of work line has been approved by this Order. NOTICE OF STORMWATER CONTROL AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS 19. The work associated with this Order(the"Project")Is ill® Is not(2)j]subject to the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards. If the work is subject to the Stormwater Standards,then the project is subject to the following conditions: • a) All work, including site preparation, land disturbance,construction and redevelopment, shall be implemented in accordance with the construction period pollution prevention and erosion and sedimentation control plan and, if applicable, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit as required by Stormwater Condition 8. Construction period erosion, sedimentation and pollution control measures and best management practices (BMPs)shall remain in place until the site is fully stabilized. b) No stormwater runoff may be discharged to the post-construction stormwater BMPs unless and until a Registered Professional Engineer provides a Certification that: is all construction period BMPs have been removed or will be removed by a date certain specified in the Certification. For any construction period BMPs intended to be converted to post construction operation for stormwater attenuation, recharge, and/or treatment, the conversion is allowed by the MassDEP Stormwater Handbook BMP specifications and that the BMP has been properly cleaned or prepared for post construction operation, including removal of all construction period sediment trapped in inlet and outlet control structures; ii. as-built final construction BMP plans are included, signed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, certifying the site is fully stabilized; iii. any illicit discharges to the stormwater management system have been removed, as per the requirements of Stormwater Standard 10; iv. all post-construction stormwater BMPs are installed in accordance with the plans (including all planting plans)approved by the issuing authority, and have been inspected to ensure that they are not damaged and that they are in proper working condition; v. any vegetation associated with post-construction BMPs is suitably established to withstand erosion. • wpabrm5.tloc•rev,OSr10201tl Page 7d IP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: . • Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-523 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP Rle# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction# i ` Salem Ciry/rawn C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) c) The landowner is responsible for BMP maintenance until the issuing authority is notified that another party has legally assumed responsibility for BMP maintenance. Prior to requesting a Certificate of Compliance,or Partial Certificate of Compliance, the responsible party(defined in General Condition 18(e)) shall execute and submit to the issuing authority an Operation and Maintenance Compliance Statement("O&M Statement) for the Stormwater BMPs identifying the party responsible for implementing the stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan ("O&M Plan")and certifying the following: i.)the O&M Plan is complete and will be implemented upon receipt of the Certificate of Compliance, and ii.) the future responsible parties shall be notified in writing of their ongoing legal responsibility to operate and maintain the stormwater management BMPs and implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. d) Post-construction pollution prevention and source control shall be implemented in accordance with the long-term pollution prevention plan section of the approved Stormwater Report and, if applicable, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Multi-Sector General Permit. e) Unless and until another party accepts responsibility,the landowner, or owner of any • drainage easement, assumes responsibility for maintaining each BMP. To overcome this presumption, the landowner of the property must submit to the issuing authority a legally binding agreement of record, acceptable to the issuing authority,evidencing that another entity has accepted responsibility for maintaining the BMP, and that the proposed responsible party shall be treated as a permittee for purposes of implementing the requirements of Conditions 18(f)through 18(k)with respect to that BMP. Any failure of the proposed responsible party to implement the requirements of Conditions 18(f)through 18(k)with respect to that BMP shall be a violation of the Order of Conditions or Certificate Of Compliance. In the case of stormwater BMPs that are serving more than one lot, the legally binding agreement shall also identify the lots that will be serviced by the stormwater BMPs. A plan and easement deed that grants the responsible party access to perform the required operation and maintenance must be submitted along with the legally binding agreement. f) The responsible party shall operate and maintain all stormwater BMPs in accordance with the design plans, the O&M Plan, and the requirements of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook_ • wPalorm5.tlaC•rev.O5A 9Y1010 Page 80112 f • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-523 WPA Form 5 - Order of ConditionsMassDEP File# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. x 11 `131,§40 eDEP Transaction b. - Salem - - city/Town - C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) g) The responsible party shall: 1. Maintain an operation and maintenance log for the last three(3)consecutive calendar years of inspections, repairs,maintenance and/or replacement of the stormwater management system or any part thereof, and disposal (for disposal the log shall indicate the type of material and the disposal location); 2. Make the maintenance log available to MassDEP and the Conservation Commission("Commission") upon request; and 3. Allow members and agents of the MassDEP and the Commission to enter and inspect the site to evaluate and ensure that the responsible party is in compliance with the requirements for each BMP established in the O&M Plan approved by the issuing authority. h) All sediment or other contaminants removed from stormwater BMPs shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state,and local laws and regulations. I) Illicit discharges to the stormwater management system as defined in 310 CMR 10.04 are prohibited. • I) The stormwater management system approved in the Order of Conditions shall not be changed without the prior written approval of the issuing authority. k) Areas designated as qualifying pervious areas for the purpose of the Low Impact Site Design Credit(as defined in the MassDEP Stormwater Handbook, Volume 3, Chapter 1, Low Impact Development Site Design Credits) shall not be altered without the prior written approval of the issuing authority. 1) Access for maintenance, repair, and/or replacement of BMPs shall not be withheld. Any fencing constructed around stormwater BMPs shall include access gates and shall be at least six inches above grade to allow for wildlife passage. Special Conditions (if you need more space for additional conditions, please attach a text document): See attached _ - wnalorm5.eoc• re¢OS/t9/2010 Paye 9W 12 I Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassoEP: ` Bureau of Resource Protection- Wetlands sa-5z3 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP Foe H Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L.c. 131, §40 - - eDEP Transaction k Salem city/iown D. Findings Under Municipal Wetlands Bylaw or Ordinance I Is a municipal wetlands bylaw or ordinance applicable? ® Yes ❑ No z.. The Salem - - hereby finds (check one that applies): Conservation Commission - - - a: ` ❑that the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the standards set forth in a municipal ordinance or bylaw, specifically: 1.Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw - 2.Citation Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to meet these standards, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. b. ®that the following additional conditions are necessary to comply with a municipal ordinance or bylaw: Wetlands Protection and Conservation Ordinance ch. 50 1.Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw - 2.Citation 3. The Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the following • conditions and with the Notice of Intent referenced above. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications,or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, the conditions shall control. The special conditions relating to municipal ordinance or bylaw are as follows (if you need more space for additional conditions,attach a text document): Attached special conditions are issued under the Wetlands Protection Act and are sufficient for compliance with the local ordinance woalorm5 nm• rev.(Y.y19I2p10 Page 10 of 12 FLIIMassachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Promded by rvtassoEP Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands s4-523 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP File-" Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eoEP T7ansaction11# Salem cityrrown E. Signatures Important: This Order is valid for three ears, unless otherwise specified as a special When filling out Y -7 forms on the condition pursuant to.General Conditions#4,from the date of issuance computer,use Please indicate the number of members who will sign this form. to of I uance only the tab key This Order must be signed by a majority Of the Conservation Comm SigD- 2 Number of Signers to move your - s - usecurthe key - et not The Order must be mailed by certified mail (return receipt quested)or and delivered to me rewrn the applicant. A copy must be mailed, hand delivered or fil d e troni Ily at the same y time with the appropriate MaSSDEP Regional Office. IkA Si to S i ❑ by hand delivery on E�t by certified mail,return receipt • request on 1 Date... ----- 1_ya-- Date F. Appeals The applicant, the owner, any person aggrieved by this Order, any owner of land abutting the land subject to this Order, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate MassDEP Regional Office to issue a Superseding Order of Conditions. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and a completed Request of Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form, as provided in 310 CMR 90.03(7) within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Order. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. Any appellants seeking to appeal the Department's Superseding Order associated with this appeal will be required to demonstrate prior participation in the review of this project.Previous participation in the permit proceeding means the submission of written information to the Conservation Commission prior to the close of the public hearing, requesting a Superseding Order, or providing written information to the Department prior to issuance of a Superseding Order. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Order which is being appealed and how the Order does not contribute to the protection of the interests identified in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act(M.G.L. c. 131, § 40), and is inconsistent with the wetlands regulations (310 CMR 10.00). To the extent that the Order is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. f �Pu5a,9s dOc rev.62252010 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Prodded by MassoEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands ' . WPA Form 5 Order of Conditions 5a-523 MassDEP F�_ Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. C. 131, §40 ;DEP Transaction R Salem G. Recording Information a"�-- -- - --- Prior to commencement of work, this Order of Conditions must be recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land subject to the Order. In The case of registered land,this Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land subject to the Order of Conditions. The recording information on this page shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission listed below. Conservation Commission Detach on dotted line,have stamped by the Registry of Deeds and submit to the Conservation Commission. To: - - Conservation Commission Please be advised that the Order of Conditions for the Project at: • _ Project Location MassDEP File Number - Has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds of: Book Pag--B----_.— for. Property Owner �_ and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property in: Book Page In accordance with the Order of Conditions.issued on: Date If recorded land, the instrument numberidentifying this transaction is: Instrument Number - If registered land,the document number identifying this transaction is: Document Number �— Signature o AAppli— cant--"---------�_.—_ wpalormS.Cpr;• rev.0914201g Page 12 d 12 CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION July 30, 2012 Scott Patrowicz Patrowicz Land Development 14 Brown Street Salem, MA 01970 Re: Order of Conditions—DEP#64-538 18 Thorndike Street Dear Mr. Patrowicz: o Enclosed, please find the Order of Conditions for the above-referenced project. Following the 10-business-day appeal period, this document and the attached Special Conditions must be recorded at the Southern Essex County Registry of Deeds (Shetland Park 45 Congress Street, Suite 4100 Salem, MA). Once recorded,, please return a copy of Page 12 of the Order, which will indicate to the Commission that the document has been recorded. • As indicated in the Order, prior to any work commencing: 1. this Order must be recorded, 2. a sign shall be displayed showing DEP File# 64-538 within public view, and 3. contact me at least 48 hours prior to any activity to schedule a pre-construction meeting to review the Order with your hired contractor. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 978-619-5685. Sincerely, Tom Devine �— Conservation Agent/ Staff Planner Enclosure CC: Patrick Deiulis, Pasquanna Developers, Inc. DEP Northeast Regional Office • Attachment to Order of ConchCions# 64-538 .,� �1 Page 1 of 5 SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION DEP FILE #64-538 18 Thorndike Street City of Salem,Massachusetts ADDITIONAL FINDINGS Based on the Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife and Certified Vernal Pools Map(October 1, 2008) from Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, it has been determined that this project does not occur near any habitat of state-listed rare wildlife species nor contains any vernal pools. This Order is issued under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act,M.G.L.Chapter 131,Section 40 and the City of Salem Wetlands Protection and Conservation Ordinance,Salem Code Chapter 50. This order permits the construction of three single-family homes, per Notice of Intent submitted to the Salem Conservation Commission on June 27, 2012. Applicant is required to submit a plantings plan, construction period erosion control plan, and construction schedule to the Conservation Agent for review and approval prior to the start of constriction. • GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. This Order of Conditions must be recorded in its entirety (including all 5 pages of Special Conditions) at the Essex County Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, after the expiration of the 10-day appeal period and within 30 days of the issuance. A copy of the recording information must be submitted to the Salem Conservation Commission before any work approved in this Order commences. 2. Approval of this application does not constitute compliance with any law or regulation other than M.G.L Chapter 131, Section 40, Wetlands Regulations 310 CMR 10.00 and the City of Salem Wetlands Protection and Conservation Ordinance, Salem Code Chapter 50. 3. All work shall be performed in accordance with this Order of Conditions and approved site plan(s). No alteration of wetland resource areas or associated buffer zones,other than that approved in this Order, shall occur on this property without prior approval from the Commission. 4. Prior to any work commencing on site,a DEP Sign showing DEP File#64-538 must be installed at the entrance to the site and seen from the public way, but not placed on a living tree. 5. No work approved in this Order may commence until the ten(10)business day appeal period has lapsed from the date of the issuance of this Order. 6. With respect to this Order, the Commission designates the Conservation Agent as its agent with powers • to act on its behalf in administering and enforcing this Order. �. Attachment to Order of Conditions # 64-538 z i, Page 2 of 5 • �. 7. The Commission or its Agent,officers,or employees shall have the right to enter and inspect the property at any time for compliance with the conditions of this Order,the Wetlands Protection Act MGL Chapter 131, Section 40,the Wetlands Regulations 310 CMR 10.00,and shall have the right to require any data or documentation that it deems necessary for that evaluation. 8. The term"Applicant'as used in this Order of Conditions shall refer to the owner,any successor in interest or successor in control of the property referenced in the Notice of intent, supporting documents and this Order of Conditions. The Commission shall be notified in writing within 30 days of all transfers of title of any portion of the property that takes place prior to issuance of the Certificate of Compliance. 9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to procure all other applicable federal, state and local permits and approvals associated with this project. These permits may include but are not necessarily limited to the following: (I) Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act(P.L.92-500, 86 stat. 816), U.S.Arany Corps of Engineers. (2) Water Quality Certification in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution Control under authority of sec. 27(5)of Chapter 21 of the Massachusetts General Laws as codified in 31.4 CMR 9.00. (3) Sewer Extension Permit from the DEP Division of Water Pollution Control under G. L.Ch. 21A ss7 and 314 CMR 7.00. Any Board of Health permit for septic system design for any portion of the septic system within 100 feet of wetlands shall be submitted to the Commission prior to • construction initiation. (4) Design Requirements for Construction in Floodplains under the State Building Code (780 CMR 744.). 10. If there are conflicting conditions within this Order, the stricter condition(s)shall rule. if. All work shall be performed so as to ensure that there will be no sedimentation into wetlands and surface waters during construction or after completion of the project. 12. The Commission or its Agent shall have the discretion to modify the erosion/siltation control methods and boundary during construction if necessary. 13. The Commission reserves the right to impose additional conditions on portions of this project or this site to mitigate any actual or potential impacts resulting from the work herein permitted. 14. The work shall conform to the following attached plans and special conditions: Final Approved Plans SITE PLAN TO ACCOMPANY A NOTICE OF INTENT APPLICATION for 3 NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES at#18 Thorndike Street, Salem, Massachusetts (Title) 6/20/2012 (Dated) Scott Patrowicz • (Signed and Stamped by) City of Salem Conservation Commission (On file with) �£_g Attachment to Order of Conditions # 64-538 66, ,f Page 3 of 5 • 15. Any proposed changes in the approved plan(s) or any deviation in construction from the approved plan(s)shall require the applicant to file a Notice of Project Change with the Commission. The Notice shall be accompanied by a written inquiry prior to their implementation in the field, as to whether the change(s) is substantial enough to require filing a new Notice of Intent or a request to correct or amend this Order of Conditions. A copy of such request shall at the same time be sent to the Department of Environmental Protection. 16. In conjunction with the sale of this property or any portion thereof before a Certificate of Compliance has been issued,the applicant or current landowner shall submit to the Commission a statement signed by the buyer that he/she is aware of an outstanding Order of Conditions on the property and has received a copy of the Order of Conditions. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 17. Prior to the commencement of any activity on this site other than activities listed above,there must be a Pre-Construction Meeting on site between the project supervisor, the contractor responsible for the work, and the Conservation Agent and/or a member of the Conservation Commission to ensure that the requirements of the Order of Conditions are understood. The staked erosion control line shall be adjusted, if necessary,during the pre-construction meeting. Please contact the Conservation Agent at (978)619-5685 at least forty-eight(48)hours prior to construction to arrange for the Pre- Construction Meeting. 18. Prior to the pre-construction meeting and commencement of any activity on this site,sedimentation and • erosion control barriers shall be installed as shown on the approval plan(s)and detail drawings. The Commission and/or its Agent shall inspect-and approve such installation at the pre-construction meeting. 19. No clearing of vegetation, including trees,or disturbance of soil shall occur prior to the pre-construction meeting. Minimal disturbance of shrubs and herbaceous plants shall be allowed prior to the pre- construction meeting if absolutely necessary in order to place erosion control stakes where required. 20. There shall be sufficient erosion controls stored under cover on the site to be used for emergency erosion control purposes. EROSION CONTROL 21. Appropriate erosion control devices shall be in place prior to the beginning of any phase of construction, and shall be maintained during construction in any wetland resource area and/or buffer zones. The erosion control measures shown on the approval plan(s)and provisions in the Order will be the minimum standards for this project; the Commission or its Agent may require additional measures. 22. All debris, fill and excavated material shall be stockpiled a location far enough away from the wetland resource areas to prevent sediment from entering wetland resource areas. 23. Erosion and sedimentation control devices shall be inspected after each storm event and repaired or replaced as necessary. Any accumulated silt adjacent to the barriers shall be removed. 24. The area of construction shall remain in a stable condition at the close of each construction day. 25. Any de-watering of trenches or other excavation required during construction shall be conducted so as to prevent siltation of wetland resource areas. All discharge from de-watering activities shall be filtered Attachment to Ordet of Conditions # 64538 • F Page 4 of 5 through hay bale sediment traps,silt filter bags or other means approved by the Commission or its Administrator. 26. Within thirty(30) days of completion of construction on any given portion of the project,all disturbed areas in the completed portion of the site shall be permanently stabilized with rapidly growing vegetative cover, using sufficient top soil to assure long-term stabilization of disturbed areas. 27. If soils are to be disturbed for longer than two(2) months, a temporary cover of rye or other grass should be established to prevent erosion and sedimentation. If the season is not appropriate for plant growth,exposed surface shall be stabilized by other appropriate erosion control measures, firmly anchored, to prevent soils from being washed by rain or flooding. DURING CONSTRUCTION 28. A copy of this Order of Conditions and the plan(s)approved in this Order shall be available on site at all times when work is in progress. 29. No alteration or activity shall occur beyond the limit of work as defined by the siltation barriers shown on the approved plan(s). 30. All waste products,grubbed stumps,slash;construction materials,etc.shall be deposited at least 100 feet from wetland resource areas and 200 feet from river. • 31. Cement trucks shall not be washed out in any wetland resource or buffer zone area,nor into any drainage system. Any deposit of cement or concrete products into a buffer zone or wetland resource area shall be immediately removed. 32. All exposed sub-soils shall be covered by a minimum of three(3)inches of quality screened loam topsoil prior to seeding and final stabilization. 33. Immediately following drainage structure installation all inlets shall be protected by silt fence,haybale barriers and/or silt bags to filter silt from stormwater before it enters the drainage system. 34. There shall be no pumping of water from wetland resource areas. 35. All equipment shall be inspected regularly for leaks. Any leaking hydraulic lines,cylinders or any other components shall be fixed immediately. 36. During construction,all drainage structures shall be inspected regularly and cleaned as necessary. 37. The applicant is herby notified that failure to comply with all requirements herein may result in the issuance of enforcement actions by the Conservation Commission including, but not limited to,civil administrative penalties under M.G.L Chapter 21 A,section M. AFTER CONSTRUCTION 38. Upon completion of construction and final soil stabilization, the applicant shall submit the following to the Conservation Commission to,request a Certificate of Compliance(COC): (I) A Completed Request for a Certificate of Compliance form(WPA Form 8A or other form if required by the Conservation Commission at the time of request). (2) A letter from a Registered Professional Engineer certifying compliance of the property with this Order of Conditions. °= 4 Attachment to Order of Conditions # 64538 tilFf Page S of 5 • (3) An "As-Built"plan signed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer or Land Surveyor showing post-construction conditions within all areas under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. This plan shall include at a minimum: (a) All wetland resource area boundaries with associated buffer zones and regulatory setback areas taken from the plan(s)approved in this Order of Conditions; (b) Locations and elevations of all stormwater management conveyances,structures and best management designs, including foundation drains,constructed under this Order within any wetland resource area or buffer zone; (c) Distances from any structures constructed under this Order to wetland resource areas- "structures"include,bort are not limited to,all buildings,septic system components, wells, utility lines,fences,retaining walls,and roads/driveways; (d) A line delineating the limit of work-"work"includes any filling,excavating and/or disturbance of soils or vegetation approved under this Order; 39. When issued, the Certificate of Compliance must be recorded at the Southern Essex County Registry of Deeds and a copy of the recording submitted to the Salem Conservation Commission. 40. If the completed work differs from that in the original plans and conditions, the report must specify how the work differs; at which time the applicant shall first request a modification to the Order. Only upon review and approval by the Commission, may the applicant request in writing a Certificate of Compliance as described above. 41. Erosion control devices shall remain in place and properly functioning until all exposed soils have been • stabilized with final vegetative cover and the Conservation Commission and/or its Agent has authorized their removal. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS 42. Prior to start of construction, applicant shall submit the following to the Conservation Agent for review and approval (A)detailed planting plan for the western edge of the property (B) construction period erosion control plan (C) construction schedule • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau Of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-538 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP-File" Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eoEp Transaction a Salem CIWTown A. General Information Please note:thSalem beeformhas 1.From: Conservation Commission been modified.with added 2. This issuance is for space to a.®Order of Conditions b.❑ Amended Order of Conditions - - accommodate (check one): the Registry of Deeds a.To: Applicant: Requirements Patrick Deiulis Important: a.First Name -6- Name - ' When filling Pasquanna Developers Inc. out fors c.Organization on the 31 Collins Street Terrace computer, use only the d.Marling Address - tab key to Lynn MA 01902 . move your - e.City/Tom - - I.State g.Zip Code cursor-.do not use the 4. Property Owner(if different from applicant): return �key. -� a.First Name b.Last Name c.Organization d.Mailing Address e.City/Town _ f.State g.Zip Code s. Project Location: 18 Thorndike Street Salem _ a.Street Address ` b.City/Town 37 38 " c.Assessors Map/Plat Number d.ParceVLot Number - • Latitude and Longitude, if known: d m _ s d in s d.Latitude e.Longitude wpaform5.dpe• rev,05rM010 Page 1 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: • \� Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-538 WPA Form 5 Order of ConditionsMassDEPFile" Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP transaction if Salem - City/Town A. General Information (cont.) 6. Property recorded at the Registry of Deeds for(attach additional information if more than one parcel): Southern Essex a.County b.Certificate Number(If registered land) 25416 211 c.Book - d.Page - - 7. Dates: 6/27/2012 7/26/2012 7/30/2012 a.Date Notice of Intent Fled - b.Date Public Hearing Closed c:Date of Issuance s. Final Approved Plans and Other Documents(attach additional plan or document references as needed): Site Plan to Accompany a Notice of Intent Application...#18 Thomdike Street a. Plan Title Scott Patrowicz Scott Patrowicz b. Prepared By - c.Signed and Stamped by - - - 6/20/2012 1„= 10' d.Final Revision Data e.Scale I.Additional Plan or Document Title g.Date • B. Findings t. Findings pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: Following the review of the above-referenced Notice of Intent and based on the information provided in this application and presented at the public hearing, this Commission finds that the areas in which work is proposed is significant to the following interests of the Wetlands Protection Act(the Act). Check all that apply; a.. ® Public Water Supply ' b. ® Land Containing Shellfish o. ® Prevention of Pollution d. ® Private Water Supply e. ® Fisheries I. ® Protection of Wildlife Habitat g. ® Groundwater Supply h. .. ® Storm Damage Prevention l._ ® Flood Control 2 This Commission hereby finds the project, as proposed, is:(check one of the following boxes) Approved subject to: a:.` ® the following conditions which are necessary in accordance with the performance standards set forth in the wetlands regulations.This Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the Notice of Intent referenced above,the following General Conditions, and any other special conditions attached to this Order. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications,or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, these conditions shall control. wpalorm5.d.— rev.OSr 192010 Page 2 of 72 • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassOEP: Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands 64-538 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions Ma55°EPFile" Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eoEP Transaction H Salem B. Findings (cont.) Denied because: o. ❑ the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the performance standards set forth in the wetland regulations.Therefore,work on this project may not go forward unless and until a new Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to protect the interests of the Act, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the performance standards which the proposed work cannot meet is attached to this Order. c. ❑ the information submitted by the applicant is not sufficient to describe the site, the work,or the effect of the work on the interests identified In the Wetlands Protection Act. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides sufficient information and includes measures,which are adequate to protect the Act's interests,and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the specific information which is lacking and why it is necessary is attached to this Order as per 310 CMR 10.05(6)(c). • 3- ❑ Buffer Zone Impacts: Shortest distance between limit of project disturbance and the wetland resource area specified in 310 CMR 10.02(1)(a) a.linear feet Inland Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) Resource Area Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration Alteration Replacement Replacement 4. ❑ Bank a:linear feet b.linear feet c.linear feet d.linear feet 5. ❑ Bordering Vegetated Wetland. a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet 6. ❑ Land Under Waterbodies and a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet - d,square feet Waterways e.Gy dredged f.dy dredged 7. ❑ Bordering Land Subject to Flooding 'a.square feet b.square feetc.square feet d.square feet .Cubic Feet Flood Storage e.cubic feet f.cubic feet g.cubic feet h.cubic feet 8. ❑ Isolated Land Subject to Flooding a.square feet b.square feet - - - Cubic Feet Flood.Storage 'c.cubic feet d.cubic feet e.cubic feet f.cubic feet s: ® Riverfront Area 21,244 21,244 i..mf<. foot b.total sq-feet - Sq ft within 100 ft 7,867 7,867 era., ,e mm - d.square feet a ,oa, f,square feet • Sq It between 100- 13,377 13.977 ^'f 200 ft h.square feet „e foo, j.square feet w afo,m5.doc• rev.05/19/2010 Page 3 of 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP. • Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-538 WPA Form 5 Order of Conditions MassDEP File R Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 ;DEP TransactionN Salem Clyarow B. Findings (cont.) Coastal Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration Alteration Replacement Replacement 10. El Designated Port Areas Indicate size under Land Under the Ocean, below 1i. ❑ Land Under the Ocean a.square feet` b..square feet - c.Uy dredged_ d.cly dredged 12. ❑ Barrier BeachesIndicate size under Coastal Beaches and/or Coastal Dunes below 13. ❑ Coastal Beaches cued ` cu yd . a.square feet b.square feet c.nourishment d.nourishment 14. ❑ Coastal Dunes cu yd cu yd a.square feet b.square feet c.nourishment d.nourishment 15. ❑ Coastal Banks a.linear feet b. linear feet . 16. ❑ Rocky Intertidal :. Shores a.square feet b.square feet 17. ❑ Salt Marshes _ a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet —ie. ❑ Land Under Salt Ponds - a:square feet b.square feet c.-dredged d.c/y dredged 19. ❑ Land Containing . Shellfish - a.square feet b:,square feet c.square feel d.square feet 2o: ❑ Fish Runs Indicate size under Coastal Banks, Inland Bank, Land Under the Ocean,and/or inland Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways, above . - a.Uy dredged, .b'.cly dredged 21. ❑ Land Subject to Coastal Storm a.square feet b.square feet Flowage • wpelorrasdw• rev.05/19/2010 - - Page 6W 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-538 WPA Form 5 Order of Conditions I a sDEP File Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction p Salem city/rown B.Findings (cont.) •922. If the 22 ❑ .Restoration/Enhancement project is for .. the purpose of restoring or square uare feet of BVW enhancing a q b.square feet of sale marsh _ wetland resource area 23. ❑ Stream Crossing(s):. - in addition to the square footage that a.number of new stream crossings b.number of replacement stream crossings has been entered in C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act Section B.5.c (Bvw) S The following conditions are only applicable to Approved projects. 8.17.c((Salt - Marsh)above, 1Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein, and with all related statutes and other please enter Ulator the additional re 9 y measures, shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this Order. amount here. 2. The Order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges; it does not. authorize any injury to private property or invasion of private rights. • 3. This Order does not relieve the permittee or any other person of the necessity of complying with all other applicable federal, state,or local statutes,ordinances, bylaws, or regulations. 4. The work authorized hereunder shall be completed within three years from the date of this Order unless either of the following apply: a. the work is a maintenance dredging project as provided for in the Act; or b. the time for completion has been extended to a specified date more than three years, but less than five years, from the date of issuance. If this Order is intended to be valid for more than three years, the extension date and the special circumstances warranting the extended time period are set forth as a special condition in this Order. 5. This Order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or more periods of up to three years each upon application to the issuing authority at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the Order. 6. If this Order constitutes an Amended Order of Conditions,this Amended Order of Conditions does not extend the issuance date of the original Final Order of Conditions and the Order will expire on 7/30/2ot5 unless extended in writing by the Department. 7. Any fill used in connection with this project shall be clean fill. Any fill shall contain no trash, refuse, rubbish,or debris, including but not limited to lumber, bricks, plaster, wire, lath, paper, cardboard, pipe, tires, ashes, refrigerators, motor vehicles,or parts of any of the foregoing. 8. This Order is not final until all administrative appeal periods from this Order have elapsed, or if such an appeal has been taken,until all proceedings before the Department have been completed. • wpalarmsdo - rev.05119/201G - - Page5d 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: • ` Bureau of Resource Protection- Wetlands 64-538 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEPFfle# l Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction# Salem _ aty/Tovm C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont:) 9. No work shall be undertaken until the Order has become final and then has been recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within' the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done. In the case of the registered land, the Final Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is done. The recording information shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission on the form at the end of this Order,which form must be stamped by the Registry of Deeds, prior to the commencement of work. 10. A sign shall be displayed at the site not less then two square feet or more than three square feet in size bearing the words, "Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection"[or, "MassDEP"j "File Number 64-538 11. Where the Department of Environmental Protection is requested to issue a Superseding • Order, the Conservation Commission shall be a party to all agency proceedings and hearings before MassDEP. 12. Upon completion of the work described herein, the applicant shall submit a Request for Certificate of Compliance(WPA Form 8A)to the Conservation Commission. 13. The work shall conform to the plans and special conditions referenced in this order. 14. Any change to the plans identified in Condition #13 above shall require the applicant to inquire of the Conservation Commission in writing whether the change is significant enough to require the filing of a new Notice of Intent. 15. The Agent or members of the Conservation Commission and the Department of Environmental Protection shall have the right to enter and inspect the area subject to this Order at reasonable hours to evaluate compliance with the conditions stated in this Order, and may require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by the Conservation Commission or Department for that evaluation. 16. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in interest or successor in control of the property subject to this Order and to any contractor or other person performing work conditioned by this Order. 17. Prior to the start of work, and if the project involves work adjacent to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland, the boundary of the wetland in the vicinity of the proposed work area shall be marked by wooden stakes or flagging. Once in place,the wetland boundary markers shall be maintained until a Certificate of Compliance has been issued by the Conservation Commission. wP.ferm5.dM— rev.06/1912010 - Page 6 of 12 • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassoEP. Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-538 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP File# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEPTransaction# Salem C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) 18. All sedimentation barriers shall be maintained in good repair until all disturbed areas have been fully stabilized with vegetation or other means.At no time shall sediments be deposited in a wetland or water body. During construction,the applicant or his/her designee shall inspect the erosion controls on a daily basis and shall remove accumulated - sediments as needed. The applicant shall immediately control any erosion problems that occur at the site and shall also immediately notify the Conservation Commission, which reserves the right to require additional erosion and/or damage prevention controls it may deem necessary.Sedimentation barriers shall serve as the limit of work unless another limit of work line has been approved by this Order. NOTICE OF STORMWATER CONTROL AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS 19. The work associated with this Order(the"Project")is(i)❑ is not(2)®subject to the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards. If the work is subject to the Stormwater Standards,then the project is subject to the following conditions: • a) All work,including site preparation, land disturbance,construction and redevelopment, shall be implemented in accordance with the construction period pollution prevention and erosion and sedimentation control plan and,if applicable,the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit as required by Stormwater Condition 8. Construction period erosion, sedimentation and pollution control measures and best management practices (BMPs) shall remain in place until the site is fully stabilized. b) No stormwater runoff may be discharged to the post-construction stormwater BMPs unless and until a Registered Professional Engineer provides a Certification that: i.all construction period BMPs have been removed or will be removed by a date certain specified in the Certification. For any construction period BMPs intended to be converted to post construction operation for stormwater attenuation, recharge, and/or treatment, the conversion is allowed by the MassDEP Stormwater Handbook BMP specifications and that the BMP has been properly cleaned or prepared for post construction operation, including removal of all construction period sediment trapped in inlet and outlet control structures; ii. as-built final construction BMP plans are included, signed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer; certifying the site is fully stabilized; iii. any illicit discharges to the stormwater management system have been removed, as per the requirements of Stormwater Standard 10; iv. all post-construction stormwater BMPs are installed in accordance with the plans (including all planting plans) approved by the issuing authority, and have been inspected to ensure that they are not damaged and that they are in proper working condition; v. any vegetation associated with post-construction BMPs is suitably established to withstand erosion. wpalorm5.dm, rev.W1L 010 Page 7 W 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: • _ Bureau of Resource Protection- Wetlands 64-538 WPA Form 5 = Order of Conditions.: MassDEP File M (� Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction N Salem Cityrrown C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) c) The landowner is responsible for BMP maintenance until the issuing authority is notified that another party has legally assumed responsibility for BMP maintenance. Prior to requesting a Certificate of Compliance, or Partial Certificate of Compliance, the responsible party(defined in General Condition 18(e))shall execute and submit to the issuing authority an Operation and Maintenance Compliance Statement("O&M Statement) for the Stormwater BMPs identifying the party responsible for implementing the stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan ("O&M Plan")and certifying the following: i.)the O&M Plan is complete and will be implemented upon receipt of the Certificate of Compliance,and ii.)the future responsible parties shall be notified in writing of their ongoing legal responsibility to operate and maintain the stormwater management BMPs and implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. d) Post-construction pollution prevention and source control shall be implemented in accordance with the long-term pollution preventionIan section of the roved P PP Stormwater Report and if applicable,the Stormwater Pollution on Prevention Plan required by, the National Pollution Discharge Elimination .System Multi-Sector General Permit. t e) Unless and until another party accepts responsibility, the landowner, or owner of any • drainage easement, assumes responsibility for maintaining each BMP. To overcome this presumption, the landowner of the property must submit to the issuing authority a legally binding agreement of record,acceptable to the issuing authority, evidencing that another entity has accepted responsibility for maintaining the BMP, and that the proposed responsible party shall be treated as a permittee for purposes of implementing the requirements of Conditions 18(f) through 18(k)with respect to that BMP. Any failure of the proposed responsible party to implement the requirements of Conditions 18(f)through 18(k)with respect to that BMP shall be a violation of the Order of Conditions or Certificate of Compliance. In the case of stormwater BMPs that are serving more than one lot, the legally binding agreement shall also identify the lots that will be serviced by the stormwater BMPs. A plan and easement deed that grants the responsible party access to perform the required operation and maintenance must be submitted along with the legally binding agreement. f) The responsible party shall operate and maintain all stormwater 8MPs in accordance with the design plans, the O&M Plan, and the requirements of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. ePabrm5.oao•rev.05/192010 Page 8 of 12 l Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection- Wetlands 64-538 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions.'. MassDEP Re N Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c..131, §40 ,DEP transaction q Salem City/Town C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) g) The responsible party shall: 1. Maintain an operation and maintenance log for the last three(3)consecutive calendar years of inspections,repairs,maintenance and/or replacement of the stormwater management system or any part thereof,and disposal(for disposal the log shall indicate the type of material and the disposal location); 2. Make the maintenance log available to MassDEP and the Conservation Commission("Commission") upon request; and 3. Allow members and agents of the MassDEP and the Commission to enter and inspect the site to evaluate and ensure that the responsible party is in compliance with the requirements for each BMP established in the O&M Plan approved by the issuing authority: h) All sediment or other contaminants removed from stormwater BMPs shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. i) Illicit discharges to the stormwater management system as defined in 310 CMR 10.04 are prohibited: • j) The stormwater management system approved in the Order of Conditions shall not be changed without the prior written approval of the issuing authority. k) Areas designated as qualifying pervious areas for the purpose of the Low Impact Site Design Credit(as defined in the MassDEP Stormwater Handbook, Volume 3, Chapter t, Low Impact Development Site Design Credits) shall not be altered without the prior written approval of the issuing authority. 1) Access for maintenance, repair, and/or replacement of BMPs shall not be withheld. Any fencing constructed around stormwater BMPs shall include access gates and shall be at least six inches above grade to allow for wildlife passage. Special Conditions (if you need more space for additional conditions, please attach a text document): wpabrms ea• rev.avisrzma _ - Page 9ol 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassoEP: ` Bureau of Resource Protection -.Wetlands 64-538 l - WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassOEP Fle k Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP.Traoaacton n Salem _ City/Town D. Findings Under Municipal Wetlands Bylaw or Ordinance 1 Is a municipal wetlands bylaw or ordinance applicable? ® Yes ❑ No z. The Salem hereby finds(check one that applies):, Conservation Commission - - - - a. ❑that the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the standards set forth in a municipal ordinance or bylaw,specifically: 1.Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw 2.Citation Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to meet these standards, and a final Order of Conditions is issued: b. ®that the following additional conditions are necessary to comply with a municipal ordinance or bylaw: Wetlands Protection and Conservation Ordinance _ ch. 50 - 1.Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw 2.Citation 3. The Commission orders that all work shall be.performed in accordance with the following • conditions and with the Notice of Intent referenced above. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent,the conditions shall control The special conditions relating to municipal ordinance or bylaw are as follows (if you need more space for additional conditions,attach a text document): The attached special conditions are issued under the Wetlands Protection Act and are sufficient for compliance with the local ordinance • %polorra5.tloc• rev.051192010 Page 10 at 12 P Massachusetts Department of Environmental.Protection Provided by MassDEP: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands C-t c' .b WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP Piie# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transact ion# Cilyfrown —_ E. Signatures Important: This Order is valid for three years,unless otherwise specified as a special ,- `sc>-(J.. When filling out condition pursuant to General Conditions#4, from the date of issuance:. 1.Date of Issuance forms on the computer,use Please indicate the number of members who will sign this form to ly mov to e tab key- This Order must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. 2.Number of signers - move your cursor-do not The Order must be mailed by certified mail(return receipt r q ested)or delivered to use the return the applicant.A copy must be mailed, hand delivered or filed lectr Ily t the same key. .. - time with the appropriate MassDEP Regional Office. j 0hand • livery on by certified mail return receipt requested,on Date Date F. Appeals The applicant,the owner, any person aggrieved by this Order,any owner of land abutting the land subject to this Order, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate MassDEP Regional Office to issue a Superseding Order of Conditions. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and a completed Request of Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form, as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7) within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Order.A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant Any appellants seeking to appeal the Department's Superseding Order associated with this appeal will be required to demonstrate prior participation in the review of this project. Previous participation in the permit proceeding means the submission of written information to the Conservation Commission prior to the close of the public hearing, requesting a Superseding Order, or providing written information to the Department prior to issuance of a Superseding Order. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Order which is being appealed and how the Order does not contribute to the protection of the interests identified in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act(M.G.L.c. 131, §40), and is inconsistent with the wetlands regulations(310 CMR 10.00). To the extent that the Order is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations,the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. v,passipsdcc• rev 02052e1e - Page.0 a iJ, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: �^ Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-538 . WPA Form 5 Order of Conditions MassDEP-File# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 - eDEP Transaction N Salem ` .--. City/rown G. Recording Information Prior to commencement of work, this Order of Conditions must be recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land subject to the Order. In the case of registered land, this Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land subject to the Order of Conditions.The recording information on this page shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission listed below. Conservation Commission Detach on dotted line,have stamped by the Registry of Deeds and submit to the Conservation Commission. - ---- ----- -------- ------ -------- -------- --- To: Conservation Commission - Please be advised that the Order of Conditions for the Project at: • Project Location MassDEP file Number Has been recorded(at the Registry of Deeds of: -- County Book Page for: . Property owner and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property in: Book Page _ In accordance with the Order of Conditions issued on: If recorded land, the instrument number identifying this transaction is: Instrument Number -If registered land, the document number identifying this transaction is: Document Number Signature of Applicant wpaform5.dm- re.0919/2010 Page 12 of 12 l x�uru�ir.�,t? CITY OF SALEM Alg CONSERVATION COMMISSION July 27, 2012 Ryan McShera Pitman& Wardley Architects 32 Church Street Salem, MA 01970 Re: Determination of Applicability-9 Winter Island Road, Salem, MA Dear Mr. McShera: Enclosed, please find the Determination of Applicability for the above-referenced property. Following the 10-business-day appeal period (as of July 27, 2012), you may proceed with your project. This Determination is good for three years from its date of issuance. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 978-619- 5685. Sincerely, Tom Devine �— Conservation Agent/ Staff Planner Enclosure CC: DEP Northeast Regional Office Frank & Sandy Lillo • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands - WPA Form 2'— Determination of Applicability ML71( � assachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G .L.L. c. 131, §40 A. General Information Important: When filling out From: forms on the Salem computer,use only the tab Conservation Commission key to move To: Applicant your cursor- Property Owner(if different from applicant): do not use the Frank&Sandy Lillo return key. Name _ . Name �1j 5 Guild Road VQ Mailing Address Mailing Address Saugus MA 01906 CiryJTown State . Zip Code CiryR'own State. .- Zi p Code mvn 1. Title and Date (or Revised Date if applicable) of Final Plans and Other Documents:' EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE PLAN 6/12/2012 Title - ' Date LILLO RESIDENCE - Conservation Commission Plans 6/2/2012 Title - - - _ . Date Title 2. Date Request Filed: • 6/9/2012 B. Determination Pursuant to the authority of M.G.L. c. 131, §40, the Conservation Commission considered your Request for Determination of Applicability, with Its supporting documentation, and made the following Determination. Project Description (if applicable): Nouse addition per above-referenced plans Project Location: 9 Winter Island Road Salem 44 Street Address - Qrylrown • ar Assessors Map/Plat Number. - ParceVLot Number - wPalormz'im Determinallan of APPlicabiliry•rev,INN04 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands • WPA Form 2 - Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) The following Determination(s)is/are applicable to the proposed site and/or project relative to the Wetlands Protection Act and regulations: Positive Determination . Note: No work within the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act may proceed until a final Order of Conditions(issued following submittal of a Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent)or Order of Resource Area Delineation(issued following submittal of Simplified Review ANRAD)has been received. from the issuing authority(i.e.,Conservation Commission or the.Department of Environmental Protection). ❑ .1. The area described on the referenced plan(s)is an area subject to protection under the Act. Removing,filling,dredging,or altering of the area requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 2a.The boundary delineations of the following resource areas described on the referenced plan(s)are confirmed as accurate. Therefore, the resource area boundaries confirmed in this Determination are binding as to all decisions rendered pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act and its regulations regarding such boundaries for as longus this Determination is valid. • ❑ 2b.The boundaries of resource areas listed below are not confirmed by this Determination, regardless of whether such boundaries are contained on the plans attached to this Determination or to the Request for Determination. ❑ 3.The work described on referenced plan(s) and document(s) is within an area subject to protection under the Act and will remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area.Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 4. The work described on referenced plan(s) and document(s) is within the Buffer Zone and will alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent or ANRAD Simplified Review(if work is limited to the Buffer Zone). ❑ 5. The area and/or work described on referenced plan(s)and document(s) is subject to review and approval by: Name of Municipality Pursuant to the following municipal wetland ordinance or bylaw: Name _._ _. I • Ordinance or Bylaw Citation wPelorm20-•Determination d Applicability•rev.JQJ&N Page 2 of 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection \- Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) ---- ❑ 6 The following area and/or work if any, is subject to a municipal ordinance or bylaw but not subject to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act ❑ 7. If a Notice of Intent is filed for the work in the Riverfront Area described on referenced plan(s) and document(s), which includes all or part of the work described in the Request, the applicant must consider the following alternatives. (Refer to the wetland regulations at 10.58(4)c. for more information about the scope of alternatives requirements): ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located. ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located, the subdivided lots, and any adjacent lots formerly or presently owned by the same owner. ❑ Alternatives limited to the original parcel on which the project is located, the subdivided parcels, any adjacent parcels, and any other land which can reasonably be obtained within the municipality. ❑ Alternatives extend to any sites which can reasonably be obtained within the appropriate • region of the state. Negative Determination Note: No further action under the Wetlands Protection Act is required by the applicant. However, if the Department is requested to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability,work may not proceed on this project unless the Department fails to act on such request within 35 days of the date the request is post-marked for certified mail or hand delivered to the Department. Work may then proceed at the owner's risk only upon notice to the Department and to the Conservation Commission. Requirements for requests for Superseding Determinations are listed at the end of this document. ❑ 1. The area described in the Request is not an area subject to protection under the Act or the Buffer Zone. ❑ 2. The work described in the Request is within an area subject to protection under the Act, but will not remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent. ® `3.The work described in the Request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined in the regulations, but will not alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, subject to the following conditions (if any). No materials may be stockpiled overnight within the 100'buffer zone to the resource area ❑ 4. The work described in the Request isnot within an Area subject to protection under the Act (including the Buffer Zone). Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, • unless and until said work alters an Area subject to protection under the Act. wpalorr 8,dac-Delermmalion V Appl¢a0dity-rev.10;6104 - [•a.3c3 aI 3 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection- Wetlands • WPA Form 2 Determination of Applicability i � Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont:) ❑ 5.The area described in the Request is subject to protection under the Act. Since the work described therein meets the requirements for the following exemption, as specified in the Act and the regulations, no Notice of Intent is required: Exempt Activity(site applicablestatuatory/regulatory provisions) 6.The area and/or work described in the Request is not subject to review and approval by: Name of Municipality Pursuant to a municipal wetlands ordinance or bylaw. Name Ordinance or Bylaw Citation C. Authorization This Determination is issued to the applicant and delivered as follows: • ❑ by hand delivery on H by certified mail, return receipt requested on Date � - / /'r/W � ("t- Date Date This Determination is valid for three years from the date of issuance(except Determinations for Vegetation Management Plans which are valid for the duration of the Plan). This Determination does not relieve the applicant from complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, bylaws, or regulations. This Determination must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. A copy must be sent to the appropriate DEP Regional Office(see http:Lwww.mass.gov/dep/about/region.findvour.htm)and the property owner(if different from the applicant). C • Date r _ weaform2doe I eererminaifon of Applicablq rev.10/6/0a Page 4 of 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c.'131, §40 D. Appeals The applicant, owner, any person aggrieved by this Determination, any owner of land abutting the land upon which the proposed work is to be done, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located;are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate Department of Environmental Protection Regional Office(see http://www.mass.gov/dep/about/rbqion.findvour.htm to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and Fee Transmittal Form (see Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form)as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7)within ten business days from the date of Issuance of this Determination. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant if he/she is not the appellant. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination which is being appealed. To the extent that the Determination is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department of Environmental Protection has no appellate jurisdiction. wpaform2.dm-Determinaiion of Appir,ability-rev.I N&06 Page 5 of 5 I I Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection; Wetlands }; Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c.. 131,.§40 - A. Request Information Important: When filling out 1. Person or party making request(if appropriate, name the citizen group's representative): forms on the , computer, use Name only the tab - key to move your cursor• `Mailing Address do not use the -return key.key.. Cltyfrown- - - - State Zip Code. Phone Number Fax Number(if applicable) Project Location Mailing Address ii /room State _. Zip Code 2. Applicant(as shown on Notice of Intent(Form 3), Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation (Form 4A); or Request for Determination of Applicability(Form 1)): Name Mailing Address Clty/Town State Zip Code Phone Number - Fax Number(if applicable) - - 3. DEP File Number: B. Instructions 1. When the Departmental action request is for(check one): ❑ Superseding.Order of Conditions ($100 for individual single family homes with associated structures; $200 for all other projects) ❑ Superseding Determination of Applicability($100) ❑ Superseding Order of Resource Area Delineation ($100) Send this form and check or money order for the appropriate amount,payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to: Department of Environmental Protection Box 4062 Boston, MA 02211 • vmatorm2.doc•Request for Depanmemal A<fioo Fee Transmittal Farm•rev.iw&N - Page 1 of 2 I Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection �: Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L.c. 131, §40 B. Instructions.(cont.) , 2. On a separate sheet attached to this form, state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination or Order which is being appealed. To the extent that the Determination or Order is based on a municipal bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. I Send a copy of this form and a copy of the check or money order with the Request for a Superseding Determination or Order by certified mail or hand delivery to the appropriate DEP Regional Office (see httlx//www.mass aov/deo/about/recion/findvour htm). 4.. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. • • wAaform2.dm•Request to,Uepadmental A,,ioo Fee Transmittal Furm-rev.totuof Page 2 of 2 f CITY OF SALEM � NCONSERVATION COMMISSION July 27, 2012 Luke Fabbri Geological Field Services, Inc. 14 Hubon Street Salem, MA 01970 Re: Certificate of Compliance DEP #64-511—8 & 10 Franklin Street Dear Mr. Fabbri: Enclosed, please find the Certificate of Compliance for the above-referenced property. This Document must be recorded at the Essex County Registry of Deeds. Please till out and return the Recording Information on page 3 of the Certificate of Compliance, which will indicate to the Salem Conservation Commission that the document has been recorded. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 978-619-5685. Sincerely, Tom Devine Conservation Agent/Staff Planner Enclosure CC: Craig Burnham, Fortunate Son Realty Trust DEP Northeast Regional Office • 1. I Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands DEP File Number: WPA Form 8B - Certificate of Compliance Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 64-511 Provided by DEP A. Project Information Important:- When filling out 1. This Certificate of Compliance is issued to: forms on the. computer,use Craip Burnham only the tab key Name to move your 14 Franklin Street cursor-do not use the return - Mailing Address key Salem • This MA 01970 City/Town State: - 21p Code m 2. This Certificate of Compliance is issued for work regulated by a final Order of Conditions issued Fortunate Son Realty Trust 1/27/2012 64-511 Dated DEP File Number 3. The project site is located at: 8& 10 Franklin Street Salem Street Address _ _ City/rown 26--- 405, 406 Assessors Map/Plat Number: Parcel/Lot Number the final Order of Condition was recorded at the Registry of Deeds for: Fortunate Son Realty Trust Property.Owner(tf ddferent) _ Essex 30260 . 528 County _ - Book Page Certificate 4. A site inspection was made in the presence of the applicant, or the applicant's agent, on: 7/25/2012 Date wPafrmftdW•rev./223M WPA Form eB,Cenifioete of ComPltanm Page 1 0 3 f i• Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 8B - Certificate of Compliance ' DEP File Number: Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 64-511Provided by DEP B. Certification Check all that apply: ® Complete Certification: It is hereby certified that the work regulated by the above-referenced Order of Conditions has been satisfactorily completed. ❑ Partial Certif[cation: It hereby certified that only the following portions of work regulated by the above-referenced Order of Conditions have been satisfactorily completed.The project areas or work subject to this partial certification that have been completed and are released from this Order are: ❑ Invalid Order of Conditions:It is hereby certified that the work regulated by the above-referenced Order of Conditions never commenced.The Order of Conditions has lapsed and is therefore no longer valid. No future work subject to regulation under the Wetlands Protection Act may commence without filing a new • Notice of Intent and receiving a new Order of Conditions. ❑ Ongoing Conditions:The following conditions of the Order shall continue: (Include any conditions contained in the Final Order, such as maintenance or monitoring, that should continue for a longer period). Condition Numbers: C. Authorization Issued y Conservation Commission _ ate Issuance This Certificate must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission and a copy sent to the a 'cant and appropriate DEP Regional Office(See htt ://www. ov/de /about/re ion/find our.htm . Signatur wPai,mBb.tloc•rev.tt2.V09 � WPA Form 8B,Certificate of Compliance•Page 2 of 3 I Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands DEP File Number. WPA Form 8B- Certificate of Compliance Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c: 131, §Aprovildd 40 64-511 _. 7 .Pred by DEP D. Recording Confirmation The applicant is responsible for ensuring that this Certificate of Compliance is recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located. Detach on dotted line and submit to the Conservation Commission. To-- - - ------- Conservation Commission Please be advised that the Certificate of Compliance for the project at: Project Location DEP File Number - - Has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds of: - County • for. Property Owner - and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property on: Date - Book . Page If recorded land, the instrument number which identifies this transaction is: If registered land, the document number which identifies this transaction is: Document Number - Signature o AApplicant wPalrmBbAoc•rea.@2J/09 WPA Form Be.Cetlilicaie of Compliance•Page 3 d 3 Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting • Date and Time: Thursday,July 26,2012, 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, Gavin McAuliffe, Amy Hamilton Members Absent: Michael Blier,Bart Hoskins Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:05PM. 1. Old/New Business • DEP #64-482—Salem Wharf: Project Update Ron Bourne with Bourne Consulting represents the City. The first phase of the work was completed last year. The next phase is further work on marine structures, and they hope to begin in a month. One segment of the pier and another barge for Salem Ferry will be built. The seawall will also be continued,with the same construction as last year. Additionally, there will be dredging. The contract is out to bid, and is for about$1 million worth of dredging, outside of that done by the • first contractor. There will be siltation control around all work, in the form of floating booms. This is an AUL (Activities and Use Limitation) site and it will be monitored. Mr. Bourne hopes to use the stone piles as riprap or move them offsite. The City is requesting funding for the next phase, completion of the upland extension of the pier and boardwalk but they do not have confirmation on that yet. That work would be done next year if they get the funding. Chair Knisel comments that it sounds straightforward. They will continue with monthly reports to Devine, who notes that the reporting went well for the previous phase. There will be some activity in one other portion for an accessible ramp, a slightly different footprint than that shown on the Notice of Intent. Devine comments that Mr. Bourne should check in to assure he meets all conditions for the next construction phase. There are no comments from the public. 2. Meeting Minutes July 12, 2012 A motion to accept the minutes is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli,and passes unanimously. 3. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Frank and Sandy Lillo, 5 Guild Road, Saugus, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed addition to a single family house within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 9 Winter Island Road. Here for the applicant is Ryan McShera of Pitman & Wardley Architects. He describes the setup of • the property and seawall. The new project will include removal of the roof and addition of another story. They are not increasing the impervious surface within the buffer zone, and only a small expansion on the right side of the property will be added. Chair Knisel asks about the history of flooding on the property but Mr. McShera is not sure. It is on a natural berm so it is above the 1 seawall,which is at elevation 10. None of Flood Zone A is on the property itself, but Mr. McShera is not sure whether or not that has changed with the recent changes to the FEMA Flood map. Grading will remain the same. The second floor deck is on columns which come down onto an existing patio. • Pabich says the last time a permit was issued to modify a house in this neighborhood, after a certain time the house was just gone. Mr. McShera says that was a cost-benefit analysis issue, and as of now they are intent on keeping the fust floor as is. Pabich comments that the Commission was not happy with the prior situation. Chau Knisel comments that since work within the buffer is limited and they are all familiar with the area, perhaps no site visit is needed, but Ricciarelli asks about filling in at the back. Mr. McShera says this will not happen. Pabich comments that he has no issues with moving forward on this tonight. Chau Knisel asks if the Commission desires any special conditions; otherwise it will be a negative two or negative three. Pabich discusses staging of construction materials and logistics. Mr. McShera comments that they can stage it outside the buffer zone. Chau Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli and seconded by Hamilton; all are in favor. A motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination, with the condition that all materials be stockpiled outside the buffer zone, and that the applicant will return to the Commission if other changes are made, is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliffe, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. • 4. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem-93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition of a building within flood zone and buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 297-305 Bridge Street (former Universal Steel). Here for the City is Jim Currier with Weston & Sampson Engineers. Document title: Building Demolition Plan, 7/16/12 Mr. Currier states that they will demolish the existing building down to the slab,which will remain in place. The work will be put out to bid and they are working on specs. This is the fust part of the site redevelopment plan; there is contamination on the property and some interior materials will be removed prior to demolition. Demolition material will be trucked out and the firm is working with the City on access to neighboring properties. If access is not approved, they would have to work from the interior of the property. They are not proposing to do that because of contamination in the soils. It is a TSCA regulated site with PCB's and they do not want to create contaminated dust. McAuliffe asks if there is a list of what will be removed; there is an inventory – there are empty drums in the building, batteries, and the building is very run down. EFI Global did the pre-demolition hazmat survey. Hamilton asks about dust control; this is specified in the bid. They will use wetting agents and other • environmental controls. Ricciarelli asks about vehicle decontamination and Mr. Currier explains that they will be working off the site so vehicles will not be contaminated to begin with. At this point they are confident that the abutting property owners will grant access. Devine says that if access is 2 not granted, the Commission can condition that a work plan for any activities atop contaminated soils must be approved by the Commission or the Agent. • Pabich asks if it's a wetland or just land subject to flooding. Devine says that because the wetland to the rear of the site is not hydrologically connected to a water body or other wetland, it is an isolated vegetated wetland, which is not protected under the Wetlands Protection Act. Pabich comments that it could be an RDA—remediation of the site will require more scrutiny but this could have been a Request for Determination of Applicability. Devine says that it is jurisdictional as it is in a flood zone. Chair Knisel opens to the public and Dick Luecke of 2 River St. asks about where they intend to work from. It will be the west side of the building; owners have given verbal approval but must sign a legal access agreement. Mr. Luecke comments that there is a public way there. Mr. Currier reiterates that they would prefer not to work onsite due to the surface contamination. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. A motion to issue an Order of Conditions, with the following conditions, is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliff, and passes unanimously: • If work must occur atop contaminated soils, a work plan shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission of Agent for review and approval. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. • 5. Witch Hill Subdivision House Lots Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 1 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 2 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 3 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 4 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 • Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 5 Nurse Way. 3 Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 7 Nurse Way. • Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 8 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 1 Good Circle. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 2 Good Circle. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 3 Good Circle. Ken Steadman presents.A site visit was last Thursday. • Illustration Title: Site Development of Witch Hill by Eastern Land Development, 5/15/12. There will be a siltation barrier to be installed next to the existing erosion controls that were in place when the road was excavated. There will also be a row of large boulders outlining the wetlands in the backs of the lots, to prevent encroachment into the wetlands. There was some feedback from DEP regarding one lot. There are 9 NOI's but on Lot 234, 2 Nurse Way, the DEP commented that the proposed retaining wall appears to be less than 10' from the wetland line and should be pulled back. Mr. Steadman mentions that there will be no masonry; just large 3' boulders. It is not a retaining wall, but is more of a barrier. It is not riprap. The DEP comment indicated that they thought it was an actual wall. Pabich asks about the site setup and Mr. Steadman explains. The entire sit is cleared to the back lot lines; Pabich is concerned by this since the Order of Conditions for the original NOI and drainage did not give them license to clear the entire site. They cleared for house lots under the auspices of putting in the street; now the Commission cannot specify which trees to leave since all have been cleared. They approved a roadway and drainage, not clearing for house lots. Technically that makes this an after-the-fact Notice of Intent. Mr. Steadman thought that as long as earth was not disturbed, it would be all right. Pabich comments that they removed trees, and the Commission should have had input on which ones should have been left. Mr. Steadman says that there was nothing of significant size as it was cleared with a mower. The area had a large fire years ago, so all the material was young and of small caliper. Pabich is not happy that the Commission did not have any input on the removal of vegetation, other • than to specify replanting. Hamilton also went to the site visit and saw some stockpiles. Mr. Steadman comments that he was trying to keep it inside certain areas, and there are erosion controls 4 y in place. However, they were installed three years ago. An erosion control product was sprayed in over rock about a year and a half ago; Mr. Steadman comments that this works better than installing silt fence over rock. Hamilton returns to the subject of stockpiling the soils. Pabich asks if there are • photos of the site before its clearing; they may but they are not here. Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. Pabich asks about specific planting plans for the lots but there are none at this time. He comments that the clearing was an honest mistake, but he still has a problem with it since the original NOI was for building a roadway and associated drainage structures. Drainage structures are partially in, but not complete. Pabich says that runoff situation has been made worse since there is no vegetation to control runoff and no drainage for it. He would like to see a detailed planting plan for each lot and for larger plantings around the perimeter, to maintain the buffer zone. He does not want to see lawn, boulders, then the resource area directly abutting them. Mr. Steadman comments that most houses are 25' off the lot line. Pabich points out that Mr. Steadman is still at the discretion of the Commission regarding how work on the lots is done, and he would like to see the applicant suggest how he will "undo" the damage, and put in vegetation that will complement the wetland and help him sell the lots. Mr. Steadman asks if he can have the planting plan submitted with the building permit, but Pabich would like to address the issue in this Commission. Devine says that the Commission should require something specific. Mr. Steadman reiterates that 90% of the area is rock and they will then create planting areas. At this time they don't know exactly where those will be, but he is happy to abide by the Commission's wishes. Pabich would like to see a wetland scientist review the area and suggest vegetation. Small birches may be added to houses already there. McAuliffe asks about permitting for the project; it is all • permitted except for the lots. Pabich asks if Mr. Steadman's company will be building the houses, but it is uncertain. They will be doing site work and excavation for the foundations, including backfilling. Ricciarelli asks about the topography, and if previously standing trees were on it; there was nothing of note, but a couple of trees are still out there that were over 8" in diameter. Pabich is open to the idea of conditioning a planting plan, but Hamilton says that there are items on the plan that will not be constructed the way they are portrayed. She would like a more specific plan with details reflecting the actual work to be done. Some Commission members were also confused by use of the term "wall" for the boulders. Pabich suggests continuing the hearing to allow the applicant to address the Commission's concerns. Pabich would like to see plans for each lot. Hamilton would also like to see a soil management plan; Mr. Steadman describes a stockpile of topsoil taken from some lots and roadway that will be screened and used on other lots and roadway edges. Hamilton comments that there should be stockpile controls around each pile. Mr. Steadman agrees; also the plan showing a retaining wall must be amended. Pabich asks if the subdivision continues;it does for a total of 24 house lots. Pabich is still concerned about drainage and the roadway. The rest of the area is planned to be developed and drainage will be finished when the road is complete. Between now and then, where will runoff from the pavement go? Mr. Steadman says drainage will be installed after paving, but Pabich asks about in the time between pavement and occupancy. Until finished asphalt is on there, catch basins will not be accepting runoff. It will go pretty much anywhere, but will pass through the • siltation fence. Discussion of sheet flow ensues but Pabich is more or less satisfied. Pabich asks about open space; it will be deeded over to the City. The Commission would like to see on the plans, placards or markers and language in the deeds explaining the open space. After several 5 years, debris gets dumped over the boulders, so the resource area boundary should be clearly marked so there is no dumping. This should also be marked on the plan, but in any case owners must be educated. The Commission is requesting: • • A written soil management plan • Stockpile controls • An amended plan to show any changes, that will reflect how houses are to be built, and clarifying the composition of the "retaining wall" • Each lot should have plantings shown • Lots should be labeled with addresses • Wetland markers should be indicated on the plan Mr. Steadman asks if they should submit a plan for a "standard lot," then can they have some flexibility with exact plantings. Pabich says that is acceptable. Absolute locations that require no blasting can be highlighted. A motion to continue the public hearing to Sept. 13 is made by Pabich, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. 6. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Patrick Deiulis, Pasquanna Developers Inc, 31 Collins Street Terrace, Lynn, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of 3 single family homes and appurtenances within riverfront area at 18 Thorndike Street. Scott Patrowicz presents again. Illustration: Site Plan to accompany a Notice of Intent for three new • single family houses.June 20, 2012. Chair Knisel asks about vegetation along the bank, and Mr. Patrowicz has discussed it with the client. They feel that a berm with two breaks for drainage is appropriate. Arborvitae or some other evergreen could be planted on top. A large pile of earth would be shifted over and the erosion control line would stay the same, but transition to a berm. The whole area will be filled 3' to return it to original grade. Mr. Patrowicz can add the berm and plantings to the plan and send it to the Commission. Pabich asks about water quality swales; before they are vegetated, will they be conveying water?They will be. Mr. Patrowicz says that it will be sheet flow channeled into a certain area, but he does not anticipate a lot of water. Pabich comments on the most recent severe rainstorm and Mr. Patrowicz says that the material will be sandy and gravelly so that will help, however they can put hay bales and check bands along the way to divide the flow. One whole area could act as a temporary siltation basin. This is in the meantime before vegetation grows. Pabich also suggests silt fence or straw wattle. Mr. Patrowicz says check dams of crushed stone would also work. The total acreage for the project is not enough to trigger a NPDES permit, opines Mr. Patrowicz, but he will confirm. The applicant does not know if all foundations will be dug at once or sequentially. He will get the Commission a construction sequence before beginning. Applicant will obtain: • • Defmitive information on NPDES with a courtesy copy submitted to the Commission if necessary • A planting plan for the rear of the project site near the coastal bank 6 • An erosion control plan • A construction sequence • Pabich discusses drainage further and comments that bringing it back up to grade creates the possibility of runoff and reiterates that a NPDES permit may be triggered. Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. A motion to issue the Order of Conditions with above conditions is made by McAuliffe, seconded by Pabich and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 7. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—North Shore Medical Center Inc (Salem Hospital), 81 Highland Avenue, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction a of new central utilities plant within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at Salem Hospital (81 Highland Avenue). Scott Patrowicz presents. He reviews the highlights of the project again, including structures and stormwater infiltration improvements. DEP is asking for determination of separation to groundwater. They will most likely use the larger 900 storm scepter units vs. the 450. The applicant will do groundwater tests on Saturday (7/28/2012). They will design the infiltration system based on depth to groundwater. He outlines the various options. • Illustrations: NS Medical Center Central Utility Plan June 14, 2012. Site Utility Plan June 14,2012. Mr. Patrowicz would like to close the hearing tonight so that work can be done before winter. He will also provide a vegetation management plan after inventorying what is there and seeing what will be removed. He discusses trees which will need to be removed. Possible plantings are discussed. Pabich comments that when they do the vegetation inventory, they should account for the entire footprint of the site. They should also look around the wetland, and take into account the suggestions of a wetlands scientist for the entire area. Pabich also asks about snow removal onsite; a plan was submitted previously. There was a lot of sand around the doctors' parking area basins; is there a housekeeping plan that includes street sweeping? There is, and every spring street sweepers come through and in the winter, moving forward, snow will be hauled to the Jefferson Ave. lot to melt. Hamilton says that the storm scepters require long term maintenance and she would like to know who is responsible for that. That will be included in the Operations and Maintenance (O & M) Plan but may require more than annual maintenance. The designer will be tweaking the design so the O &M plan may change and will be resubmitted. Ricciarelli asks about the oxygen pad; the shape can't be changed. There is a certain configuration • that is standard and can't be easily changed. Pabich comments about riprap vs. posts under the slab. That is possible but may be prohibitively expensive. If they can replant rather than do the slab they would rather go that way. Mr. Patrowicz suggests holding that thought and consider the options when a vegetation plan is submitted. 7 Pabich says there was no discussion of a retaining wall, just a post and structural slab. This is not a retaining wall matter. Pabich agrees that the impact should be mapped out and vegetation inventoried. • Vegetation management and the structural slab analysis are discussed. Ricciarelli asks about the skew of the larger building. It is not parallel to the road and they can't pull it back away from the wetlands since it would compromise the road where deliveries come. Two-way traffic and pedestrians are there. Part of the proposal is to put in a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk. There is a change in grade. Facilities Manager Shelly Bisegna states that they must maintain the loading dock for deliveries. The applicant did not want to compromise the road. Mr. Patrowicz points out that the positioning of the building and the size requirement to accommodate all the machinery it must contain, means they are off the wetland line but must install shoring. Also, also there is a 24" sewer line there to work around. Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. Pabich is comfortable with moving forward. McAuliffe agrees. A wetlands scientist should assess the situation and they should submit a planting plan to be approved by the Commission after presenting it to them. Some work will be done neat Jefferson Ave and Mr. Patrowicz describes it, but it will all be in the road, not in the wetland, and there will be hay bales around the catch basins. Conditions: • Prior to construction a wetlands inventory and a planting plan prepared by a wetlands scientist must be presented to and approved by the Commission • • The applicant must present for approval any changes to the stormwater treatment system resulting from testing • A long term Operations and Management plan for storm scepters must be submitted prior to construction A motion to close the public hearing is made by Pabich seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. A motion to issue an Order of Conditions is made by Riciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 8. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-523—William Wharff, 30 Federal Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a parking lot and associated utilities within riverfront area, land subject to coastal storm flowage, and buffer zone to coastal bank at 162 and 150 Federal Street. Presenting is Michael Novak of Meridian Associates. They were before the planning board last week and did address their comments, which are on the revised plan (Landsape Plan 162 Federal St.,Jan. 25, 2012). The main points addressed were one area of a clear drainage pattern – a small berm is proposed and existing spot grades added onto the plan. Two catchbasins are across the street. Also there are some pipe changes. An infiltration basin has an inlet and manhole in the driveway,which is now differentiated on plan. There is a break in the curb to collect driveway drainage. The driveway will be graded to direct stormwatet to this curb break. • Susan St. Pierre has submitted a Chapter 91 license, but they may not need it. One City of Salem 8 Map says it's required so they applied. Ricciarelli asks about trench grading and Mr. Novak explains. Neither grading nor stormwater design • were altered. Chair Knisel asks Pabich on his previous comment on curbing height. There will be sloped granite rather than bituminous, at least on the corners. They will show a line for snow removal. Hamilton asks about a proposed infiltration for roof runoff and Mr. Novak explains. It is tied in underground and they did onsite soil testing to determine groundwater. Any overflow connects with the main drain line. Chair Knisel opens to the public. Joyce Wallace of 172 Federal St. comments that at the Planning Board they asked about ownership of the property. Wharff will get it in October, so how are things moving forward? Pabich says that the property owner must be listed on application. A proponent can sign the NOI provided they have permission from the owner. They are in dialogue, and agreements are in place legally, but Mr. Novak is not privy to that information personally. That is part of why there were so many continuations. Pabich suggests that Devine clarify the process for the Commission; the presumption is that the applicant is the owner but if that is not the case, the non-owner applicant can be granted an NOI. The applicant, or owner if different, and representative should be involved. Devine has the signature of applicant/owner and representative. Certain parts are owned by the Archdiocese and others by someone else. The final intent is for William Wharff to own both but as of yet they do not. Devine says there is a boilerplate condition saying if property changes hands, the new owner must sign a document saying they are aware of the Order of Conditions and will comply. Pabich says we must act on what's there now, and the Commission must have the signature of whoever has control of this parcel. It may be Heath and Education Services. • An Aug. 19, 2009 letter is read out loud. The Archdiocsese of Boston authorized William Wharff to submit to an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. A motion to close the public hearing is made by McAulilffe, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously. A motion to issue the Order of Conditions with granite curbing is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliffe, and all are in favor. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 9. Old/New Business (continued) • DEP #64-479, Bakers Island Light Station: Project Update Devine's conflict of interest prevents him from giving guidance to the commission on this matter. He can only update the commission with information and pass on Frank Taormina's recommendations. Two people disputed the Coast Guard's claim that they are exempt from Wetlands Protection due to CERCLA (Superfund). Taormina sought a legal opinion from Assistant City Solicitor Robin Stein who agrees with the DEP legal opinion that the Coast Guard is not subject to the Wetlands Protection Act. Taormina went out for the preconstruction meeting with the DEP and is satisfied that all conditions this Commission would ask for, if they could, are in place. The applicant has agreed with the DEP to work to protect resource areas even outside of the usual process. Taormina thinks they are doing that. The Conservation Commission asked for an LSP as • required under state law,but CERCLA projects are monitored by the EPA so they will not adhere to that condition. Robert Leavins and Betsy Ware sent an email to convey their concerns to the commission. 9 Ricciarelli cornments that, after this is all cleaned up under sovereign immunity, it will be opened as a park to the public, which does not have sovereign immunity. Does that mean they (the applicant) can still use the property? It is the same result under CERCLA as MCP but a different method? Leavens and Ware want it cleaned up to a higher standard. Chair Knisel asks if there is a document . that clearly lays out the CERCLA process. Mr. Leavins and Ms. Ware were investigating and could not find this listed as a CERCLA project, but Rachel Marino provided documentation that it was under CERCLA. Pabich says the federal government is going to clean the property to a certain standard that they will offset, but that standard does not have to do with future use of property. Whoever buys it must continue remediation if there is a health and safety issue with the public. The Federal government will not tailor the cleanup process for the end use according to Pabich. But the applicant is aware of the end use—a public park. Hamilton outlines the usual process. Cleanup is usually based on future use. Pabich asks if Essex Heritage could ask the CG what they'd like to see. The CG should talk to Essex Heritage to determine if there will be a further cleanup obligation. The Commission's question of jurisdiction was answered by the DEP lawyer, and confirmed by the assistant city solicitor. • DEP #64-511-8 and 10 Franklin Street: Request for Certificate of Compliance This was an after-the-fact NOI so this is mostly an administrative step. Devine confirmed that a spill kit is onsite as required by the Commission. A motion to issue the Certificate is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. • 185 Jefferson Avenue: Update on wetlands violation • The responsible party has done restoration work and submitted a NOI which we will see in September. They must turn in pre and post surveys of elevations. The Commission required restoration to the 1997 grade, before the change in ownership, and it turns out that this grade isn't very deep. This violation became less of a priority for DEP when it was confirmed that this is only riverfront area without any vegetated wetlands. • Funding request for education and training: discussion and vote Devine requests funding to attend the Southern New England chapter of the American Planning Association annual conference in Hartford. Registration, hotel, mileage and tolls total approximately $500. Additionally, Devine comments that the Planning department has one camera, and he recommends that the Commission purchase a second camera. A motion to grant $250 for purchase of a camera of decent quality is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliffe, and passes unanimously. Miscellaneous business Devine informs the Commission of maintenance and repair work on a dock at 9 Harbor View Terrace. The Commission agrees that this work does not require a permit. • A motion to adjourn at 8:42 pm is made by McAuliffe, seconded by Hamilton, and all are in favor. 10 Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on September 13, 2012 • 11 �bNatT CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, September 13, 2012 at 6.•00 PMat the City Ha//Annex,.Pd!loot conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA. / f Julia Kmsel G) N Chair r m XT MEETING AGENDA ➢m r Cr 7c 1. Meeting Minutes July 26,2012 m D 3 2. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-543—MassDOT Highway Division, i�Park 6za,Room 7360,Boston,M.A.The purpose of hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a oe v parli6n the northern portion of Bridge Street and the remaining portion of the former Beverly-Salem Bridge within buffer zone to a wetland resource area. 3. Old/New Business • 81 Highland Avenue (Salem Hospital),DEP#64-539: Review of proposed plantings 4. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street,Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a parldng lot at 297 Bridge Street (former Universal Steel property)within a flood plain and buffer zone to a wetland resource area. 5. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—David Perldns, 30 Winter Island Road, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of new vestibule, patio, gazebo, fence, trellis,and walking paths within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 30 Winter Island Road. 6. 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. 7. Witch Hill Subdivision House Lots Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-536—Kenneth G. Steadman,67 Village Street,Marblehead,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 1 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-535--Kenneth-G. Steadman, 67. Village Street,Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 2 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-534—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street,Marblehead,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 3 Nurse Way. h_ Continuation of Public Heario e 1045SON" aST'6 mace. 0 VAL Village Street,Marblehead,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a r•1 single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 4 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-532—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street,Marblehead,M.A. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 5 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-537—Kenneth G. Steadman,67 Village Street,Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 7 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-531—Kenneth G. Steadman,67 Village Street,Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 8 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-530--Kenneth G. Steadman,67 Village Street,Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 1 Good Circle. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-529—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street,Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 2 Good Circle. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-528—Kenneth G. Steadman,67 Village Street,Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a y single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 3 Good Circle. 8. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—MassDOT Highway Division, 519 Appleton Street,Arlington MA.The purpose of hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a new sidewalk on the southbound side of Highland Avenue from Thomas Circle to Ravenna Road,crossing the Forest River. 9. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-542—Eric Palm of Den II Realty Trust, 61R Jefferson Avenue,Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss,after-the-fact, restoration of filled riverfront area at 185 Jefferson Avenue. 10.Old/New Business (continued) • DEP #64-441,28 Goodhue Street: Request for Minor Modification . ICnomyour rights under the Open Meeting Lam MG.L c. 39 523B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. o- p s Page 2 of 2 Please Sign-In c* Salem Conservation Commission September 13, 2012 Name Address Phone Email . NAf k / lA kqD 5 &,k(-f,-,k pr Pul �3�7—�3�� �5 GCohcr�� `�G 56e1 t5"a31Ve- 273-354h-5 ,99 561 ,r Iwo, ar Yl v 19 �a 1G,�• 36 0j, Nr'ER _-M uaV'� (1 ,9 71F=1�— d FS-0 - Av i 0 ntTx t,,715 ' C'vM CNw Oj2t�C P'__'0dPITov erlc,�,T �s�,1, s' -L �r'der br-_ s�.�.,. 9�x-s5���3 QS u .e-✓G�ma.wn- Ca " d 1 3 �_4 - c;2014 rnt xa-.9 ,a elf,w v 4 4 --7 1 Z 4Pr_St. 7F '07-326Lf �e14 5C�(nuiww6a-- 14 L/7 T -7Vv J c FVh+jccsG\c h s sac. 7$ -171 58 $ j-Ic-Y-L F M7cD�t�RSScc,}rrs.cw( jZt cvtA�n lac¢. Z:t�cv" St i78--Tw -0381 r,c4�rrS• luec��Vcrfto4. �� ,T u (1 's 3 S4 - y-09/ -- 3 !�; A P ' `f1_5 6r,,061? a T @�r� t car► � i hhreal Car Q`7i �/QA&,er �f 2 7g 5 7F 5 20 3 &_n o(r-"c2 ra..�e cswt �L�dnvl�N far�i¢ l`IET15�� 1�51F"I �1�1- g2`1/ ��D C�DaTc��® U .t�^-t .;i Page 1 of 2 Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting • Date and Time: Thursday,Sept. 13, 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 Members Absent: Michael Blier, Gavin McAuliffe Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:OOPM 1. Meeting Minutes July 26,2012 A motion to approve the minutes is made by Pabich,seconded by Hoskins,and passes unanimously. 2. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-543--MassDOT Highway Division, 10 Park Plaza, Room 7360,Boston,MA.The purpose of hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a new park on the northern portion of Bridge Street and the remaining portion of the former Beverly- Salem Bridge within buffer zone to a wetland resource area. Speaking is Meredith De Carbonnel of Jacobs Engineering. She describes the history of the project.The new • bridge is under a Chapter 91 license which required mitigation in both towns via parkland improvement.They are trying to develop the area in a manner consistent to the City's goals, one of which was to have a fishing pier.The existing pier will be used for this purpose. One section of the bridge was left after removal, and the pier is still structurally sound. They will pull of the deck and replace it as they go, so no work will be done in the waterway.The rest of the site will contain searing areas with trees and benches,and a small parking area at one end. As of now it is a fenced-off,abandoned site.They will use filter fabric at the top of the bank to protect the resource area during construction.There is an existing catch basin with its outfall on the original roadway, which will be upgraded with a deep sump catch basin for TSS removal.There will be a small net loss of impermeable pavement due to the addition of green space.The benches will be consistent with those in the rest of the City; they are not currently pictured here but will be in the final drawing. Further plans will be submitted to this Commission prior to construction. Pabich asks about site drainage. Existing street drainage will be used, but pipes will be replaced and new sumps put in to the same outfall. On the north end, there will be sheet flow,where most of the parkland will be located. Pabich asks about construction of the paved portion.All bituminous concrete will be removed and resurfaced,but there will be less than what is currently there. Illustration: Salem Causeway Site Plan Frank Astone is the engineer on the project. He explains that the Causeway Park is the last element of a larger mitigation project.There will continue to be interaction and input from the City throughout the project. • Chair Knisel opens to the public. Kevin McCourt, of 5 Spruce St.,Danvers,comments that it looks like a lot of concrete for parking and that 1 l he would like to see more green space. Mr.Astone explains that there is less pavement in this new design than is there currently. John Carr,of 7 River St. Salem, asks if the remnant will be the same length after being refurbished. It will be. • He is also concerned that there should be more green space if this is to be a recreation area. Overall he is pleased with the project. He also comments that all have said this is the last piece of the process—it was a 5 step project, but the piece between Flint and Washington Streets still must be finished, unless it has been abandoned.Lynn Duncan replies that Bridge St. between Washington and Flint is still in the works and they will move forward on it eventually,but this part will be quicker. Councilor at large Tom Furey of 36 Dunlap St. agrees that this is a positive step forward and encourages the commission to support it. Jane Arlander of 93 Federal St. in Salem agrees that there is very little green space and thinks there should be a walk area and green space,with some parking. She is worried that it will wind up as parking for Bridge St. businesses rather than a park for people. They should take this opportunity to make a green park out over the body of water. Jan Eschangies of 15 '/z River St.in Salem also echoes the same concern,and would like to see parking be more permeable, and states that they should look at best practices. She knows that many parking lots are now addressing that issue. Peter Kastrinakis,owner of The Black Lobster restaurant on Bridge St.,comments that they have been waiting for this project a long time,and supports the design. Mr. Carr comments again,with an analogy of an old railroad bridge in Merrimac,where they developed it with green on either side. The ultimate example would be the High Line in NY. Mr. Astone responds to the comments. Some of this is conditioned in Chapter 91 which specifies a 10'wide • walkway.They can look at expanding the green areas with landscaping. Porous pavement is an interesting idea,however cars can leak oil or gas that gets collected in drainage system,whereas with porous pavement it could leach into subsurface soils. As for grading, there is a low point is in the middle of the lot. They are not changing the grades so they will use existing outfall.They are constructing berms along the parking area,but not along the wall. Everything should make its way into the drainage system. Pabich asks about the slope to the south and a crowned roadway that could trap water in the corners. Mr. Astone reiterates that it is angled to drain to the center with no crown. Richard Luecke, of 2 River St. Salem,asks about lighting plans. There will be lights all along the entire walkway. Knisel points out that this is out of the Commission jurisdiction but Mr.Luecke continues, commenting that National Park Service guidelines for light should be used. Ricciarelli asks about conduits for the lighting;they will run it in the road. Michael Buckley of 20 Palmer St. agrees that there should be more green space,and asks about the diagram. The pink area represents pavers in contrast with the concrete. He wonders if they could put up a half shell or wall as a sound barrier or to be used for live music or a free wall for artists. Knisel comments that that needs to be discussed with the Planning Department. Lawrence Tomilio of Ames St., Salem,.is a commercial fisherman,and asks about the pier at low tide.There is no water available at low tide.That will remain the same,with no fishing at low tide by boat?Mr. Astone confirms that there will be no dredging or boat access. • Pabich asks about the northern end during construction. Is there erosion control? It can be put in, but water should sheetflow back. Responding to the many requests for more green space,he emphasizes that there 2 must be consideration of plantings vs. maintenance,and the associated perpetual cost. Excessive plantings already on the other end of Bridge St. are a maintenance nightmare, so though he advocates green space, he says there should be a balance that will address audience concerns as well as the City's resources. He also says light fixtures should be addressed.Lights that direct light downward,in order to avoid light pollution,should definitely be used. Otherwise,he approves of the project and scope,with its limited impact. Kevin McCourt asks if there will be a planning meeting. City Planner Lynn Duncan says that there was already a previous meeting,with no further design meetings planned,but she has heard all comments and will work with MassDOT to ensure all comments are considered. Andrew Carr of 7 River St. says his preference is for more grass at the park. Jane Arlander asks if the park will be usable during the winter. She comments on the cinder tracks on Derby wharf and the Common,which are usable all winter.Lynn Duncan will share that comment with the Department of Public Services. Andrea Norton of MassDOT,comments that the public can write letters to Mass DOT and they will be read. Those interested should send letters to the Boston office. Kevin McCourt asks if drainage would be necessary if the parking lot was not there. Chair Knisel asks if he understands the existing and proposed conditions. There is parking there now,and they want to make it more organized.There is no extra parking proposed,and this design just allows for more pedestrian space. Now there are old style catch basins with no sumps,and the new ones will have those. Mr.McCourt says grass would reduce need for drainage. Pabich says they are good for TSS (Total Suspended Solids) but not for oil .What is the plan for outlets? Generally,Mass Highway does not do hoods on catch basins but this is under the jurisdiction of Salem DPW who does use hoods,so they will go by the city standards. Pabich explains how the separators work,but they • create maintenance problems. Mr.Astone needs to know what the City standard is on this. Mr. Kastrinakis speaks again. There are 25 or 26 parking spaces with 1 handicapped space.They will not be metered.Lynn Duncan says there has been no discussion about this at the City level. Mr. Kastrinakis is not in favor of meters,but just curious. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli,seconded by Hoskins,and passes unanimously. Special Conditions: Siltation barrier to be extended around the end of the project Coordinate with DPW to construct catch basins to City standard. Applicant shall submit a plan showing snow storage areas. There should be an additional meeting to finalize plans for lighting,additional plantings,and catch basins A motion to issue the Order of Conditions is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli,and passes unanimously.This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 3. Old/New Business • 81 Highland Avenue (Salem Hospital),DEP #64-539: Review of proposed plantings Here for the applicantis Scott Patrowicz and Bill Manuell. Pam Lawrence,Mary Jo Gagnon, and Shelley Bisegna are also present. • Visuals:Buffer Mitigation Plan Bill Manuell of Wetlands&Land Management is the wetlands scientist. Mr.Patrowicz reviews what 3 transpired at the last meeting. The plan was approved and an Order of Conditions issued. He has not recorded it so if they want to update the Conditions they can,referencing the buffer mitigation. An Operation and Maintenance plan for drainage is included on the plan (Utility Plan as shown with notes). Hamilton asks if they have manual specific to the proposed 900 storm scepter. That addresses DEP's question about TSS • (Total Suspended Solids) removal, and they can get that manual. The system will be maintained as per the manual. Sods were tested for groundwater separation. They had to change the configuration of the infiltrators. Roof runoff will go into the infiltrator directly,and parking lot drainage will enter deep sump catchbasins with hoods,then flow into the storm scepter. It will improve point source discharge, thus improving the wetlands. Bill Manuell is also examining the buffer area;he did an extensive plant inventory and has a management buffer mitigation plan in place. He inventoried trees that were existing and that would be impacted,and mitigated for their loss. There were 59 trees to be impacted on the footprint of the building and 9 in a smaller area. Most were pioneer species, which show up first when an area is disturbed then recolonized. He found box elder,quaking aspen and crabapple. The understory was blackberry vines and canes along with bittersweet and multiflora rose, the latter two being invasives.The only tree that was alien was three norway maples.There were also black cherry,red maple and linden. 2/3 of trees were those pioneer species.They will put at least as many trees back. They will re-establish the side slope as a functional buffer zone,not make it into grass. He selected four areas, for which he describes the plantings. Replacements will be 4-6'in height, and native trees will be used,mimicking what is there, such as gray birch, quaking aspen,box elder, and red maple.All are vigorous.Larger specimens will require much more care and are slower growing once installed,which is why he prefers smaller size trees from a particular nursery that he works with extensively.There will be 44 trees in one area. The next area is along Dove Ave.,and a third area is where the sewer was rerouted along parking lot,and he • will put in 36 trees there.The fourth area is a small one adjacent to the wetland, currently barren of vegetation. There he is putting in blueberry and arrow wood shrubs, since it is more wetland area. He is installing a total of 94 plant specimens in a 4:1 ratio of replacement. A monitoring schedule is included in his report. Someone familiar with the plan should be onsite working with the landscaper during installation. It is also helpful to have someone return a month after installation to assess transplanting. There should be an end of season and one year inspection. Hopefully at the end of 2 years the Commission can sign off on the project. He also specified a conservation and wildlife seed mix for the area before the trees grow in and shade it out. The Commission is pleased. Mr. Patrowics asks how to proceed. Devine says that the Order is issued and closed and this is an approval that is recorded in the minutes. Hamilton again asks about a manual for the details of the storm scepter that is being put in so they know how to maintain it.At the end of all construction projects they get full Operation and Maintenance manuals from each trade,and hand them over to those who will maintain them.This will include for the storm scepter for maintenance and will include numbers to call for maintenance. Knisel says this is a report on a closed item; the Conditions were for the plan to be submitted for review and approval and Devine suggests approval at this time. A motion to approve is made by Pabich,seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 4. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem,93 Washington Street, Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a parking lot at 297 Bridge Street(former • Universal Steel property)within a flood plain and buffer zone to a wetland resource area. 4 J Jim Courier of Weston&Sampson,Project Manager and LSP,presents.He came before the Commission in July regarding building demolition.Those plans and specifications have been submitted and are out for bid, to be closed out 9/27 with demolition to begin in October.The EPA will do a site evaluation,and all slabs and • PCB impacted soils will be removed.The EPA will then grade and prepare the site for capping as a temporary parking lot during construction of the MBTA parking garage at Salem Depot. He shows a plan for the parking lot with infiltration up front,deep sump catch basins, plantings along the side to mitigate light pollution,and erosion controls to be included. Pabich asks if there will be digging on the site and if it will have an AUL(Activities and Use Limitation).The remediation program by the EPA will take off top 1'across the site once structures are removed, then they will dig deeper where PCBs exceed 50ppm to reduce the overall risk. Ultimately there will be a deed restriction.Pabich comments on the lack of topography and drainage structures on the plan as shown. Drainage structures will be out front along Bridge St. so are not on the plan.They will work with the EPA to dig out areas for drainage. Once this area is established,how will it drain?Mike Richard of W& S Engineers says currently it sheetflows north to Bridge St. Grades will not be changed and that sheetflow will be maintained.There are only 2 catch basins by design,and they are there only to catch the first flush. Overall flow will be unchanged. Hoskins asks about flow that might go the other way as it is near a spot that floods periodically at high tides. Is there a plan to make sure soils do not get washed offsite during remediation?They are aware of the flooding and there will be silt fence and hay bales in place. If temporary stockpiling is needed,it will be lined and covered with plastic.They have done pre-characterization of soils;material will be trucked offsite continuously so there should be no stockpiles left. Specs are for a future site that will be cleaned up by the EPA. Hamilton asks about trenches;some areas up front were impacted but it was very minor.They will be excavated by the EPA. Pabich asks about a buffer for lighting but there is no lighting plan.The only plan so far is for vegetation.This is temporary so there will be no lights. • Lynn Duncan comments that they are looking into temporary lighting for safety.The MBTA is researching that, and will look at shielding neighboring properties from the lighting as well. But it would not be disturbing ground to install the lighting. Chair Knisel opens to the public. Rolf Franke-Otten of Beckford St. says there is a pool on the south side of Universal Steel. It was created by the first demolition.He has pictures of previous trees.Where will the water from this large puddle go?As part of the EPA remediation, they will address that area.Water comes onto his property when the puddle floods.The presenters say that the EPA will do its own testing and address that pooling area. Mr. Franke- Otten asks how it will affect chemicals in the soil, and if they can contaminate neighboring properties.The area was remediated in the 1990s and additional testing will be done again. John Carr of 7 River St. says that that area abuts the southwest portion of Universal.They support the concept of the program and he wonders about drainage and lighting.Are the two catch basins adequate?The whole area floods regularly,3 or 4 times a year. Sometimes it is so bad that a continuous puddle exists from Bridge St. to Commercial St.You can almost see what the North River used to look like.The existing condition is that it is land, so water that falls will infiltrate the land,and now it will be an impervious surface with water directed toward Bridge St,which already is inadequately addressed.The area is 1.2 acres.There is a de facto catch basin between Universal and Federal,but it has been stagnant,with possibly contaminated water, for a long time. Many have complained,especially with the recent cases of EEE and West Nfle. Even though it is next to the site,it is clearly created by runoff from the site. The entire site serves as a visual and auditory buffer from the commercial area of Bridge St. to the residential • portion south of it.They would like to have temporary parking but minimize adverse effects.He hopes because of the grade that the presence of mature trees on the perimeter can be preserved. They can't plant 6, 8 or 10' trees to make up for them. He asks about the capping of the site and deed restrictions.Lynn Duncan comments on this issue as it was brought up at a previous meeting. Until the work is done on the site, they 5 won't know contamination levels or what use limitations could be. As for future deed restrictions,remediation will reduce PCB's across the site.Anything greater than 50 parts per million will be removed. Post-excavation samples will be done by the EPA, then they will evaluate use • limitations. Usually deed restrictions will not eliminate residential development,but it will not be single family. They will limit gardening. Mr. Carr says the zoning is R2,but certain types of residential could be excluded. Lynn Duncan also comments on other sites, some with AUL's have no residential allowed,while some allow residential but not gardening. TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) regulations regarding PCB require deed restrictions. They have their own contamination levels.The site will be cleaned,then they will determine risk assessment and what restrictions there will be.This hearing and these plans are only for temporary parking, and ultimately the City wants to sell the property;cleanup will facilitate that. Ricciarelli asks if the existing roof drains run overland or are piped to the street. Is this going to be an increase in impervious surface?The roof is in disrepair.Mr. Franke-Otten says water is sheeting off the roof. They are going to clear and grub (pull out the roots) over the entire site.All trees on site will be removed, but trees along the back side of the property can stay,unless soil there is found to be contaminated, but the area was already cleaned in the past. Lynn Duncan asks about trees. All structures, trees, and roots onsite will be removed. There is more impervious area with the new plan but there are also stormwater controls and additional grass to mitigate.Runoff should not be increased for the site.Jane Arlander asks about perimeter monitoring of dust during demolition and the rest of project,if applicable. Where will monitors be located?There will be a structure around the building to create negative pressure during demolition for asbestos material containment. During EPA site remediation, they will control dust via wetting of soils,and there will be perimeter dust monitors set up.Typically there are four monitors on the perimeter, sometimes one in the middle.Demolition should be complete by end of November.The EPA will start remediation mid November. Dick Luecke speaks again,asking about the tree plans and if plantings could be extended. Yes, they could. • Hoskins clarifies about the flooding. Flooding does not have to do only with rain,but also with tides. It is not only a rain/runoff issue. Mr. Carr comments on flooding. He says parking will still be higher than the roadway,and the low point is Bridge St. Dampers were put on for high tides.Right now it is not a paved area,is permeable,and will be impermeable but the only drainage is on Bridge St. It is not always tidally driven. Stormwater will be decreased off the site. They will put in deep sump catch basins and infiltration basins. Pabich says we are permitting not the state the site is in today,but where the EPA will leave it, and the EPA's work is exempt from the commission's review. Ricciarelli says the increase in impervious area will be mitigated by trenches. Sump basins with infiltration basins will help with TSS (Total Suspended Solids) removal.They don't know the size of the trees that will be installed yet. Plantings have not yet been designed, so that is why the plan has not changed.They don't have bid specifications for plantings. Knisel says this Commission can condition a certain size of tree.They could look to Planning Board standards.Jane Arlander says when Leslie Retreat Park was fust planted, there was no consideration of whether or not the trees could survive briny water, so many died. Is that a consideration here?That will be noted in the conditions. Carol Carr of 7 River St. asks about the height of the fences.There is timber rail out front,about 30", the same as the bumper of a car. That meets Commission requirements for wildlife to move on and off the site. Mr. Carr asks again about the security of the site.The site is currently secure and will be throughout demolition and remediation.Vegetation should do a better job of screening.Also when the property changes hands they will have to come before the Commission again.Arlander comments that a fence was put there in • 1994 and should remain in the back. Knisel asks about it.They can talk to the EPA about maintaining the fence. Lynn Duncan reiterates that they will leave it if they can, and will talk to EPA.They can also provide an alternate bid to include a fence,but there may be questions about eligibility under the grant. 6 Pabich comments that the EPA may need to remove the fence, as they are working from a clean slate,but concerns can be brought forth. • A motion to close the hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins and passes unanimously,with the following conditions: • Trees shall be salt tolerant a meet Planning Board standards. • Deep sump catch basins must meet City of Salem specifications • Final proposed grades shall be submitted to the conservation commission to show that now flood storage is lose. • A certificate of compliance for the building demolition must be options before work under this order of conditions can begin. A motion to issue the Order is made by Pabich,seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously.This order is hereby made a part of these minutes. 5. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—David Perkins,30 Winter Island Road,Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of new vestibule, patio,gazebo,fence, trellis, and walling paths within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 30 Winter Island Road. David Pabich recuses himself. David Perkins,homeowner at above address,presents his plan. He describes the setup and his plans for installation of the above items,which were not completed when the house was built. The extent of the buffer zone is discussed—some items are outside the zone. • The patio will be concrete block capped with bluestone.They are pervious with '/d'spacing between each stone.The material under the gazebo will also be pervious. Chair Knisel asks about the fence,which will extend from the house to the edge of the property,with a trellis and gate into the back of the property. Riciarelli asks if there is enough detail to consider the project.Devine says that considering it is in the buffer zone,it is at the Commission's discretion to determine if they have enough information.The gazebo will be 200 square feet.Riciarelli asks about the property line,and if water will be shedding onto an adjacent property.This may be a question about setbacks for the building department. He has not yet contacted the Building Department. He may need a building permit for the gazebo. It will not be draining onto an adjacent property. Chair Knisel comments that there may not be enough disturbances to warrant erosion controls.The site is flat.The seawall is concrete,higher than grade,intact with no deterioration. There is a walkway;erosion controls should be placed in front of the opening. There are no audience members thus no public comments.A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins,seconded by Ricciarelh and passes unanimously, sans David Pabich. Conditions: Ensure use of pervious materials below deck and gazebo Ensure gazebo is pulled back far enough from other property to comply with zoning Obtain building permits and submit copies of any required plans to this Commission Erosion control must be placed at the opening of the seawall during construction . A motion to issue a Negative 3 Order of Conditions is made by Hamilton, seconded by Hoskins,and passes 4-0 with David Pabich recused. 6. 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. Applicant requests to continue to Sept. 27 as he seeks to secure a tenant for the space. • 7. Witch Hill Subdivision House Lots Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-536—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street,Marblehead,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 1 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-535—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street,Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 2 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-534—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street,Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 3 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-533—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street,Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 4 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-532—Kenneth G. Steadman, • 67 Village Street, Marblehead,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 5 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-537—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street,Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 7 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-531—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street,Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 8 Nurse Way. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-530—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street,Marblehead,M.A. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 1 Good Circle. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-529—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street,Marblehead,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 2 Good Circle. Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-528—Kenneth G. Steadman, • 67 Village Street,Marblehead,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction 8 of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 3 Good Circle. • Ken Steadman speaks to the Commission. He presents the overall plan. One road is paved with four houses built on it. Phase two is for additional lots further down the street,with wetlands along them. The revised plan (Site development Permit Plan,May 15,2012) shows more detail than previously presented. Landscaping of lots is also discussed. Most existing trees are 3-4"in diameter,but there are larger trees in the wetlands. Growth there is secondary,after a past fire.There is a lot of birch. They will delineate lot lines with birches. Other plantings are also described, as is a riprap wall to be installed. 80% of the lots have rock and will need to be blasted; the resulting debris will be used in landscaping. A soil management plan is also presented.All excavated material will be kept out of the resource area.All material in the buffer will be stockpiled with a siltation barrier surrounding it.Also, any existing material not stabilized by vegetation will have a siltation barrier installed. Pabich states that he would like to know what will be done on each lot, but Mr. Steadman is not sure yet what he will do. Lots are fairly small,without much area for plantings. Pabich says what they will approve should show intentions for plantings. Mr. Steadman reiterates his proposed general plan of transplanting existing birches on lot lines. Hamilton comments that they should provide services to the wetlands too. Pabich opines that they would be better used on the rear lot lines,nearest the wetlands. He would still like to see something more definitive about where trees will be planted.Mr. Steadman wonders if they can condition locations of the trees. Pabich states that the Commission originally permitted the road and drainage,not clearing to the lot lines,but it is too late for that. He is not certain about placement of the birches and would like to see an attempt at a mitigating planting plan by a wetlands scientist.He comments that Mr. Steadman has eliminated the buffer zone,which is also valuable to the resource and should have some thought given to it. Ricciarelli says the • Commission would like to see plantings along the buffer rather than along property fines. This could be conditioned with Mr. Steadman having a wetlands scientist provide a planting plan to the Commission. Mr. Steadman asks how people are supposed to have yards,and Pabich comments that the Commission could have guided him so that some of it could have been somewhat natural,but it's too late now.Mr. Steadman asks if they can condition trees to be planted on each lot with a letter from a wetlands scientist. Pabich would be happy with such an arrangement. Chair Knisel comments that the Commission does not need to specify a type or number of plants for vegetation,just that there be a letter presented.Review and approval would be required by the Commission prior to planting. Pabich reminds Mr. Steadman to come before the Commission before clearing the land for future phases of the project. Construction will begin at the end of September•,Mr. Steadman will come back in the spring before replanting. There are no members of the public, thus no comments. The Commisson is satisfied with the information presented so far.A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins,and passes unanimously. Conditions: Prior to construction a site specific plan,endorsed by a wetlands scientist,must be presented to the Commission for review prior to issuance of Certificate of Compliance and/or Certificate of Occupancy. • A motion to issue an Order of Conditions for all 10 lots is made by Pabich,seconded by Hamilton, and passes 4-0 (Hoskins is not eligible to vote on this issue).This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 9 8. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—MassDOT Highway Division, 519 Appleton Street,Arlington MA.The purpose of hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a new sidewalk on the southbound side of Highland Avenue from Thomas Circle to Ravenna Road, crossing the Forest River. Andrea Norton of MassDOT presents.They have received complaints about the above section of roadway. A request for sidewalks was made by Mayor Driscoll and Representative Tierney. There will be 5 wheelchair crossings in this stretch,at the intersections.The intent is to put the sidewalk, 1,960'long x 5'wide through those points.They will excavate down 6",grade it,pack it, and pour with HMA asphalt and granite edging. Erosion controls will be used.There is an open sidewalk improvement contract and a contractor onsite. It will go in quickly once approvals are obtained. Erosion controls are on both sides,but the sidewalk itself will only be on one side, the western side where Puleo's Dairy is.They will not be resetting the guardrail.There is no easement and they are not going near the river since it drops down on each side. It appears that the original roadway development allowed for a sidewalk,but one was never installed.There is already a well-worn trail there. There are no public comments on this project.Pabich asks about erosion controls;Ms. Norton recommends a pre-site meeting and Devine can specify what he thinks would be most appropriate,and she will follow that preference as conditioned.Pabich thinks logs would be sufficient.The Commission decides to specify siltation logs/silt socks.No pre-construction visit is needed. A motion to close the public hearing is made by by Ricciarelh, seconded by Blier and passes unanimously. A motion to issue a negative three determination is made by Hoskins, seconded by Hamilton,and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. • �I 9. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP#64-542—Eric Palm of Den II Realty Trust, 61R Jefferson Avenue,Salem,MA.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss,after-the-fact, restoration of filled riverfront area at 185 Jefferson Avenue. Mr.John Dick of Hancock Associates presents.The site is nicely vegetated,with seed mix planted 6+ weeks ago. It is coming in nicely. Unfortunately Japanese Knotweed and phragmites have had a resurgence. There are large concrete blocks to prevent people from driving onto the property.The Certificate of Compliance is almost done and will be delivered. There are no members of the public to comment. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded Hoskins,and passes unanimously. In the Enforcement Order, the Commission asked for 2 years of monitoring,and this will be added to the Conditions. Mr. Dick can come to a subsequent meeting with his request for the Certificate of Compliance with monitoring to extend beyond that. The Commission decided they wanted 2 monitoring reports,one in spring 2013 and in 2014 by June 20 of each year.This will be inserted into the Order of Conditions. Ricciarelli motions to issue the Order of Conditions,is seconded by Hamilton, and the motion passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 10.Old/New Business (continued) • 10 • DEP#64-441,28 Goodhue Street: Request for Minor Modification Daniel J. Padien presents. He represents North River Condominium,LLC, owners of the property in ~ question. An Order of Conditions was issued in 2007 for a building with apartments,retail,a parking lot, etc. along the North River Canal. One requirement was to get a Chapter 91 license because the site is on filled tidelands. It is easier to get this if no parking is on filled tidelands.Thus, the applicant has decided to remove 2050 square feet(about 8 or 9 parking spaces) of pavement from that area,which will now be vegetation. It has just been eliminated,and there will be more pervious surface now. Devine asks if the stormwater system will be the same one,which would have been used for more impervious surface area. That will remain even though there will be more vegetation and less impervious area. A motion to accept the changes as not significant enough to require an amendment or new NOI is made by Pabich, seconded by Hoskins and passes unanimously. • Miscellaneous Gavin McAuliffe has served his term and is not seeking reappointment. Greg St.Louis has been appointed by the Mayor. He will start no sooner than October. A motion to adjourn is made by Pabich,seconded by Hoskins and passes unanimously.The meeting ends at 9:15PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on September 27,2012 11 �oNDlf CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission nnll hold its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, September 27,2012 at 6.•00 PMat the City Half Annex, Pd Boor conference room, 120 wGashinlrton Street, Salem, MA. Julia Knisel •: Chair MEETINGAGENDA 1. Meeting Minutes—September 13, 2012 2. 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. g. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Robert Dunham, RTD Nominee Trust, 63 '/i Jefferson Avenue, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a building addition at 63 '/2 Jefferson Avenue within buffer zone to a wetland resource area. • 4. 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. 5. Old/New Business Knomyour rigbts under the Open Meeting Lam M.G.L c. 39 523B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 tbrough 2- 2033. O HV r y r" rn am -o D rrn -0 rn on D ,y . GMSEP 19 2012 43A A s L.S3 Page i of r Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission September 27, 2012 Name Address Phone Email _<u c avvPL-L-c /ahoo, _�3c!F, Z-AdoVLL-(_,q i k C v o ur+ ( '� �l'18 7 YYSuSo po�p�y. Qn E',v�2dlry..-A (�•C.+.� ` T • Page 1 of 2 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission September 13, 2012 Name Address Phone Email I� Page 2 of 2 coo . CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION r October 2, 2012 Robert Dunham RTD Nominee Realty Trust 63 '/�Jefferson Avenue Salem, MA 01970 Re: Order of Conditions—DEP #64-545 63 1/z Jefferson Avenue Dear Mr. Dunham: Enclosed, please find the Order of Conditions for the above-referenced project. Following the 10-business-day appeal period, this document and the attached Special Conditions must be recorded at the Southern Essex County Registry of Deeds (Shetland Park, 45 Congress Street, Suite 4100 Salem, MA). Once recorded, please return a copy of Page 12 of the Order, which will indicate to the Commission that the document has been recorded. • As indicated in the Order, prior to any work commencing: 1. this Order must be recorded, 2. a sign shall be displayed showing DEP File # 64-545 within public view, and 3. contact me at least 48 hours prior to any activity to schedule a pre-construction meeting to review the Order with your hired contractor. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 978-619-5685. Sincerely, :7­7�:' Devine� Conservation Agent/Staff Planner Enclosure CC: Steven L. Bernstein, SLB Group, LLC DEP Northeast Regional Office • t Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by blissD=p Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-545 ILI WPA Form 5 Order of Conditions MassoEP File.r Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction - Salem .. -- City/Tow'") A. General Information --- - Please note this form has - 1. From: -Salem.. —_--.- , .1,.-:,._ been modified Conservation Commission „ith added 2. This Issuance is for space to a.®Order of Conditions b r accommodate {check-one): Amended Order of Condi u,ns the Registry Requires 3 To: Applicant. • Requirements Robert Dunham a . Important: a Fvst Name- - " - b. Last Name When filling RTD Nominee Realty Trust out forms ,c. Organization _ on the _computer 63 1/2 Jefferson Avenue _ _ __.. ,. . use one the d. Mailing Address - tab key to SalemMA` 01970 - — _ w_- move your e.Qty/Town ��_�� _..._ - cursor-do . - f..State g, Zip Code not use the a. Property Owner(if different from applicant): return key. r First Name... ,__. ..._ b. Last Name Organization ...... ...,- ... �...:4 ....�.�._ n -....�. J. Mailing A Address e. City/Town f State g Zip,-.,,, . s: Project Location: 63 1/2 Jefferson Avenue Salem Address - __.. , - --, ,... .-.�. a. Street Add bb.Cityl—rown 24 227 & 229 _, c.Assessors Map/Plat Number -.. " - - &, - - d. Parcel/Lot Number Latitude and Longitude, if known: d--. m s d Lam s d. titude e. 'Ong &ofd nn5aoc• ev 05113201e Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by 4i�ssuEP Bureau of Resource Protection- Wetlands 64-54 5 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions Ma55°EP F Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Trans.=cLon.. Salem . - City/Town' A. General Information (cont.) - 6. Property recorded at the Registry of Deeds for(attach additional Information If more it one parcel): Southern Essex a.County ._ ..m...._ . -:_... b.Certificate Number(if registeretl land! 15760 & 23710 55 & 279 -c.Book .._.._ _..."_ .„._ _. d. Page 7. Dates: 9/13/2012 9/27/2012 10/2/2012 ---- e a Date Notice of Intent Filed b.Date Public Hearing Close'd... c. Date of Issuan e. Final Approved Plans and Other Documents (attach additional plan or document references as needed):' Site Plan, S-1, SHEET No. 1 OF 1 - a Plan Title —_...._._.._ .......__....._ .____.__.-.. - - ,. SLB Group LLC _ _ Steven L. Bernstein _ b Prepared By c.Signed and Stamped by- 9/24/2012 111=20' _ .-. .__._-_ d Final Revision Date - _ 63 1/2 Jefferson Avnue Redevelopment Stormwate_r Re ort: 9!25/2012 _o_c_u_ P L Adtlitional Plan or Document Title --"' g. Date • B. Findings t Findings pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. Following the review of the above-referenced Notice of Intent and based on the inforrh, ,o:} . provided in this application and presented at the public hearing, this.Commission finds na; cs the areas in which work is proposed is significant to the following interests of the b1'etl ina Protection Act (the Act). Check all that apply; a. ® Public Water Supply b. ® Land Containing Shellfish ` Z Prevention. of Pollution d. ® Private Water Supply e. ® Fisheries t ® Protection of Wildlife Habitat g. ® Groundwater Supply. h.: ® Storm Damage Prevention i. ® Flood Control 2. This Commission hereby finds the project, as proposed, is: (check one ofthe following boxy;,$) Approved subject to a ® the following conditions which are necessary in accordance with the,performance standards set forth'in the wetlands regulations. This Commission orders that all work s!rml be performed in accordance with the Notice of Intent referenced above, the following General Conditions, and any other special conditions attached to this Order. To the exifant that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, these conditions shall control. • vmaiorm5.a0c- rev.05r 1 9,20'0 - Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-545 • WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions Mass°E° File- u Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 e°EP Tran Salem ----- ;City/Town B. Findings (cont.) — - - — Denied because. b `❑ the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the performance standards set Porti In the wetland regulations,Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless a c until a new Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate ,u protect the interests of the Act, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the performance standards which the proposed work cannot meet is attached to this Order. c. ❑ the information submitted by the applicant is not sufficient to describe the site, the work, or the effect of the work on the interests identified in the Wetlands Protection Act Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides sufficient information and includes measures which are adequate to protect the Act's interests, and'a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the specific information which is lacking and why it is necessary is attached to this Order as per310 CMR 10.05(6)(c). 3 ❑ Buffer Zone Impacts. Shortest distance be limit of protect disturbance and the wetland resource area specified in 310 CMR 10.02(1)(a) a. i.. • Inland Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) Resource Area Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitt ll Alteration Alteration Replacement Replacement a.: ❑ Bank s Bordering n a. linear feet b linear feet c.linear feet d linea- ` ❑ Vegetated.Wetland a square'feof b.square feet c.square feet' -d.s�ua'e 6., ❑ Land Under Waterbodles and a.square feet b square feet" C.square feet d squat<, e, Waterways e.Uy dredged f.ay dredged z ❑ Bordering Land Subject to Flooding _...» feet'-, .`a.s-quare feet - b.squ�are__feet c.square feet d. square •E,,t Cubic Feet Flood Storage e. 8 Isolated Land cubic feet f g cubic feet " .cubic feet h cubic icer ❑, Subject t0 Flooding '.sq ,•,_ .._.u_=a square feet b.square feel Cubic Feet Flood Storage, cc eet - - d cubic feet e.cubic feet f cul:;,C l - 9. ® Riverfront Area 9800 9e00 m 6.-total__sq.f_eet feet Sq It within 100 ft. 5000 5000 fo,; " d.square feet ,�, mor r sc;uau: Sq It between 100- 4800 0800 200 ft . _ _�,..,... • h square feet r.,1.. 1. sG,iarc. , wpa(or 5aoc rev.05,19,2010 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by at,,5,D, • I Bureau of Resource Protection Wetlands 64-545 WPA Form 5 Order of C GsSoEIP 4 I Conditions �I Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 i . . _---- Salem City/Tovvn B. Findings (cont:) Coastal Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration Alteration Replacement Replace'inent o: El Designated Port Areas Indicate size under Land Under the Ocean, below 11. ❑ Land Under the Ocean a.square feet b.square feet a.Gy dredged d c/y dredged 12. ❑ Barrier Beaches Indicate size.under Coastal Beaches and/or Coastal Dune, below 13. ❑ Coastal.Beaches - ._. ._.,_. _..--- - _ cuyd a.square feel b.square feet C.nourishment d nounshim, t 14. ❑ Coastal DunesI. ..._a cu yd a:square feet b square feet c:nourishment d. nouri�hrn,.r.1 15. ❑ Coastal Banks a.linear feet b linear feet • fs. ❑ Rocky Intertidal _. , ._ Shores a.square feet bsquare feet n. ❑ Salt Marshes a._square feet b square feet c.square feet ell squaro e^; ta. ❑ Land Under Salt Ponds - a.square feet b.square feet - - ... ...... ,. - c.dy dredged. d c/y dredged 19. ❑. Land Containing - - Shellfish _ _ Iua a.square feet b,square feet c.sIqguare leer d.sil:,are i 20. . ❑ Fish Runs Indicate size under Coastal Banks, Inland Bank, Land Uncer the Ocean., and/or inland Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways, above a.xc/y dredged b dy dredged - 21. ❑ Land Subject to Coastal Storm - a square feet Flowage b fee( e( • >mafo1m5 dcc 05/1912010 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by rnassr-P Bureauof Resource Protection - Wetlandssa-5a5WPA Form 5 Order of Conditions MassoEP FiteLILIMassachusetts Wetlands.Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131`, §40 eDEP Transac,ic,r : Salem City/Town B Findings (cont.) — — '#22if the project It t for 22. -.❑ Restoration/Enhancement " the purpose of restoring or a square feet of 8VW�rn enhancing a wetland b.square feet of salt marsh - . resource area 23. ❑ Stream Crossing(s). in addition to - - - the square _.°.. ,........_ ... footage that. ` a. number of new stream crossings�m has been b:number of replacement stream crossings. --- - ,. entered in C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts.Wetlands----Protection Act_. Section B 5 c (Bvw)(or S 6.17.c(Salt The following conditions are only applicable to Approved projects. please Marsh) here 1. Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein;and with all related statutes and other the additional regulatory measures, shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this Order. amount here 2 The Order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges; it does not authorize any injury to private property or invasion of private rights 3. This Order does not relieve the permittee or any other person of the necessity of complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, bylaws, or regulations • 4 The work authorized hereunder shall be completed within three years from the date of this Order unless either of the following apply: a the work is a maintenance dredging project as provided for in the Act; or b. the time for completion has been extended.to a specified date more than three yea s but Tess than five years, from the date of issuance. If this Order is intended to he valid for more than three years, the extension date and the special circumstances w3tr I t .i< the extended time period are set forth as a special condition in this Order. 5. This Order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or more periods of up to three years each upon application to the Issuing authority at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the Order: 6 If this Order constitutes an Amended Order of Conditions, this Amended Order of Conditions does not extend the issuance date of the original Final Order of Conditions e:ncl the Order will expire on 10/2/2015 unless extended in writing by the Department. 7. Any fill used in connection with this project shall be clean fill. Any fill shall contain no trash. refuse,rubbish, or debris, including but not limited to lumber, bricks, plaster, wire, lath, paper, cardboard, pipe, tires, ashes, refrigerators, motor vehicles, or parts of any of the foregoing. 8. This Order is not final until all administrative appeal periods from this Order have elapsed; or if such an appeal has been taken, until all proceedings before the Department have been completed. • Gle mS co[ e 05'192CIv' - i Massachusetts Department of Environmental ti Prote Prowaeo ,- Protection � ss, Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 64-545 i' WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions1assDEPFrc.°"° Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 "DEP Transact on • Salem _ City/Town C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act 9. No work shall be undertaken until the Order has become final and then has been recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, w tni the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done. In the case of the registered land, the Final Orcet shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is done. The recording information shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission on the form at the end of this Order, which form must be stamped by the Registry of Deeds, prior to the commencement of work. 10. A sign shall be displayed at the site not less then two square feet or more than three square feet in size bearing the words; "Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection" for, "MassDEP"j "File Number 64-545 " 11. Where the Department of Environmental Protection is requested to issue a Superseding • Order, the Conservation Commission shall be a party to all agency proceedings and hearings before MassDEP. 12. Upon completion of the work described herein, the applicant shall submit a Request for Certificate of Compliance (WPA Form 8A)to the Conservation Commission 13. The work shall conform to the plans and special conditions referenced in this order. 14. Any change to the plans identified in Condition #13 above shall require the applicant to inquire of the Conservation Commission in writing whether the change is significant enough to require the filing of a new Notice of Intent. 15. The Agent.or members of the Conservation Commission and the Department of Environmental Protection shall have the right to enter and inspect the area subject to 11,s Order at reasonable hours to evaluate compliance with the conditions stated in this Owe!, anis may require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by the Conservation Commission or Department for that evaluation, 16. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in interest or successor in contro of the property subject to this Order and to any contractor or other person performing Amor, conditioned by this Order. 17. Prior to the start of work, and if the project involves work adjacent to a Bordering `leget u•ac Wetland, the boundary of the wetland in the vicinity of the proposed work area shall be marked by wooden stakes or flagging. Once in place, the wetland boundary markers shall be maintained until a Certificate of Compliance has been issued by the Conservation Commission. • 'mabim`v Jac rev OS/Iw1010 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by Ll Bureau of Resource Protection- Wetlands 64-545 WPA Form 5 -Order of Conditions tvtassDEPRior; —J Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction:, Salem •City/Town C. General,Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act(cont ) . ` 18. All sedimentation barriers shall be maintained to good repair until all disturbed areas have been fully stabilized with vegetation or other means. At no time shall sediments be deposited in a wetland or water body. During construction, the applicant or his/her designee shall inspect the erosion controls on a daily basis and shall remove accurnu. ed sediments as needed The applicant shall immediately control any erosion problems Irh,it occur at the site and shall also immediately notify the Conservation Commission, which reserves the right to require additional erosion and/or damage prevention controls it may deem necessary. Sedimentation barriers shall serve as the limit of work unless another limit of work line has been approved by this Order`. NOTICE OF STORMWATER CONTROL AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS 19. The work associated with this Order(the "Project") is (1)® is not (z)❑ subject to the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards: If the work is subject to the Stormwater Standards, then the project is subject to the following conditions: a) All work, including site preparation, land disturbance, construction and redevelopment shall be implemented in accordance with the construction period pollution prevention an • erosion and sedimentation control plan and, if applicable, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit as required by StormwaterCondition 8. Construction period erosion, sedimentation and pollution control measures and best management practices (BMPs)shall remain in place until the site is fully stabilized. b) No stormwater runoff may be discharged to the post-construction Stormwater BMPs unless and until a Registered Professional Engineer provides a Certification that i. all construction period BMPs have been removed or will be removed by a date cerfair specified in the Certification. For any construction period BMPs intended to be conve`u to post construction operation for stormwater attenuation; recharge, and!or treatment, i e; conversion is allowed by the MassDEP Stormwater Handbook BMP specifications and the BMP has been properly cleaned or prepared for post construction operation, including removal of all construction period sediment trapped in inlet and outlet control structures ii. as-built final construction BMP plans are included, signed and stamped by a Reg ste ed Professional Engineer, certifying the site is fully stabilized; iii. any illicit discharges to the stormwater management system have been removed, as per the requirements of Stormwater Standard 101 iv. all post-construction stormwater BMPs are installed in accordance with the plans (includingall planting plans) approved by the issuing authority, and have been inspec[c­; t6 ensure that they are not damaged and that they are in proper working condition; v. any vegetation associated with post-construction BMPs is suitably established to withstand erosion. • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by Md iss Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands 54-545 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP Fie �i Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 w ebEP Trans iG: , .. Salem C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts WetlandsProtection Act (cont.) c) The landowner is responsible for BMP maintenance until the issuing authority is notified that another party has legally assumed responsibility for BMP maintenance Prior to requesting a Certificate of Compliance,or Partial Certificate of Compliance, the responsible party(defined in General Condition 18(e)) shall execute and submit to the issuing authority an Operation and Maintenance Compliance Statement ("O&M Statement; for the Stormwater BMPs identifying the party responsible for implementing the storm,vate BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan ("O&M Plan")and certifying the following i.) the O&M Plan is complete and will be implemented upon receipt of the Certificate of Compliance, and ii.) the future responsible parties shall be notified in writing of their ongoing legal responsibility to operate and maintain the stormwater o mwater management BMPs and implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. d) Post-construction pollution prevention and source control shall be implemented in accordance with the long-term pollution prevention plan section of the approved Stormwater Report and, if applicable, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required n the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Multi-Sector General Permit. e) Unless and until another party accepts responsibility, the landowner, or owner cf at y • drainage easement, assumes responsibility for maintaining each BMP. To overcome this presumption, the landowner of the property must submit to the issuing authority a legal.y binding agreement of record, acceptable to the issuing authority, evidencing that anotho entity has accepted responsibility for maintaining the BMP, and that the proposed responsible party shall be treated as;a permittee for purposes of implementing the requirements of Conditions 18(f) through 18(k)with respect to that BMP. Any failure of the proposed responsible party to implement the requirements of Conditions 18(f)through 18(k)with respect to that BMP shall be a violation of the Order of Conditions or Certific,.to of Compliance. In the case of stormwater BMPs that are serving more than one lot, the legally binding agreement shall also identify the Jots that will be serviced by the storniwa!e t BMPs. A plan and easement deed that grants the responsible party access to perforin the required operation and maintenance must be submitted along with the legally binding agreement. f) The responsible party shall operate and maintain all stormwater BMPs in accordance with the design plans, the O&M Plan, and the requirements of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. • ++pafcrmiaoc• rev.ON iS2UIG i i Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by Mbss[. Bureau of Resource Protection Wetlands 64-545 • WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions "^assoeP File Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131; §40 _.... eOEF Transac�u i Salem 'city/Town C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (Corit)M g) The responsible party shall: 1. Maintain an operation and maintenance Jog for the last three (3) consecutive calendar years of inspections,repairs, maintenance and/or replacement of the stormwater management system or any part thereof, and disposal (for disposal ti!(-, log shall indicate the type of material and the disposal location); 2. Make the maintenance log available to MassDEP and the Conservation Commission ("Commission")upon request; and 3. Allow members and agents of the MassDEP and the.Commission to enter and inspect the site to evaluate and ensure that the responsible party is in compliance with the requirements for each BMP established in the O&M Plan approved by Pc issuing authority. h) All sediment or other contaminants removed from stormwater BMPs shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. I) Illicit discharges to the stormwater management system as defined in 310 CMR 10.04 are prohibited. j) The stormwater management system approved in the Order of Conditions shall no b-,; changed without the prior written approval of the issuing authority. • k) Areas designated as qualifying pervious areas for the purpose of the Low Impact Site. Design Credit (as defined in the MassDEP Stormwater Handbook, Volume 3, Chapter 1, Low Impact Development Site Design Credits) shall not be altered without the prior written approval of the issuing authority. 1) Access for maintenance, repair, and/or replacement of BMPs shall not be withheld Any fencing constructed around stormwater BMPs shall include access gates and shall be at least six inches above grade to allow for wildlife passage. Special Conditions (if you need more space for additional conditions, please attach a text document): See attached. • vipalom+5.,1ac rev.05;132010 - Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by NAass:)EP: • Bureau of Resource Protection- Wetlands 64-545 F,le i {~r WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions MassDEP -- r -J Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eoEPTransa :io > Salem City(Town D. Findings Under Municipal Wetlands Bylaw or Ordinance 1. Is a municipal wetlands bylaw or ordinance applicable? ® Yes ❑ No z. The Salem hereby finds (check one that applies) Conserva ton-Commission - a. ❑ that the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the standards set forth in a.-. municipal ordinance or bylaw, specifically' 1 Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw ^. - =y "f"-" 2 Gmtie Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice or Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to meet these standards, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. b. ® that the following additional conditions are necessary to comply with a municipal ordinance or bylaw: Wetlands Protection and Conservation Ordinance c. 50 1 Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw 2 Citation ' 3. The Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the following - - • conditions and with the Notice of Intent referenced above. To the extent that the follow ng conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted vll'fh the Notice of Intent, the conditions shall control. The special conditions relating to municipal ordinance or bylaw are as follows (if you nee(! more space for additional conditions, attach a text document):' The attached special conditions are issued under the Wetlands Protection Act and are sufficient for compliance with the local ordinance. • ' ealormS.Oce rev OSrt9r>p:0 - Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by R, Bureau of Resource Protection`- Wetlands 54-545 . l WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditions MassDEP F e,` Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. C. 131, §40 eDEP-rans;ir - Salem City,Town E. Signatures -- - Important: When fThis Order is valid for three years, unless otherwise specified as a special forms onn the out ` condition pursuant to General Conditions#4 from the date of issuance. t Dzidof h computer,use Please indicate the number of members who will sign.this form. Sc-- only the tab key This Order.must be signed by majority of the Conservation Commission. - 2 Num!7 o to move your cursor-do not The Order must bemailed by certified mail (return receipt requested)or hand.delivem I to key me return the applicant. A copy must be mailed, hand delivered or filed electronically a the same y �, time with the appropriate MassDEP Regional Office. 11 Signatures. C 2 4 ❑ by hand delivery on by certified mail, return receipt requested, on Date _.... l /r /�. • Date J F. Appeals The applicant, the owner,any person aggrieved by this Order, any owner of land abc,t 1c the land subject to this Order, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such la located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate MassDEP Region. d Office to issue a Superseding Order of Conditions. The request must be made by mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and a completed Request of Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form, as provided in 310 CMR 10 03(!, within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Order. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. Any appellants seeking to appeal the Department's Superseding Order associated with this appeal will be required to demonstrate prior participation in the review of this project. PreviUOS participation in the permit proceeding means the submission of written information to fna Conservation Commission prior to the close of the public hearing, requesting a Superseding Order, or providing written information to the Department prior to issuarcr: c1. a Superseding Order. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Order which is bc.vo appealed and how the Order does not contribute to the protection of the interests i 1=,; .i,.ci in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. c. 131, § 40), and is inconsistc;rn. with the wetlands regulations (310 CMR 10.00). To the extent that the Order is based' D'I municipal ordinance or bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act c r regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. • co'. r2v 02!2512U16 0. iMassachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by ids, =, Bureau of Resource Protection- Wetlands 64-545 WPA Form 5 - Order of Conditionsfv ssUCP File" Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 eDEP Transaction ; Salem �City/Town u-9- G; Recording information --- . Prior to commencement of work, this Order.of Conditions must be recorded in the Registry o` Deeds or the Land Court for the district In which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land,the Final Order shall also be noted in ll Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land subject to the Order In ;;:e case of registered stere land,and this Order er shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title o" the owner of the land subject to the Order of Conditions.s. The recording infonnatlon on this Nrge I shall be submitted to the Conservation a on Commission listed below. Salem ...- _ Conservation Commission Detach on dotted line, have stamped by the Registry of Deeds and submit to the Conservation ` Commission: ---- -------- To: Salem , Conservation Commission �- Please be advised that the Order of Conditions for the Project at: • 63 1/2 Jefferson Avenue 64-545 Project Location Mas sOEP 11 File Number Has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds of: County ...........w - -.w., . _ : Book Page - for: Property Owner and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property in: Book... . » ._ .,., _,... ._. ...-_. Page. . . . In accordance with the Order of Conditions issued on: If recorded land, the instrument number identifying this transaction is: _. _.. _.q ,.. . _.. ..w. _.. ,. ,- , _.. ... - Instruin ent Number If registered land, the document number identifying this transaction is: -mber - - - - Signature of Applicant +.pd'O1TS:IOC B'L 05;1A/2010 Attachment to Order of C)nt diions 5 64.;d 5 . .. ha-e t ,of SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION • DEP FILE #64-545 63 rh Jefferson Avenue City of Salem, Massachusetts ADDITIONAL FINDINGS& SPECIAL CONDITIONS Based on the Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife and Certified Vernal Pools Map (October I, 2005) tiom Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, it has been determined that this project does not occur near any habitat of state-listed rare wildli to species nor contains anv vernal pools. This order is issued under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, M.G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40 and the C li% of Salem Wetlands Protection and Conservation Ordinance, Salem Code Chapter 50. This order permits the construction of an addition to an existing building per Notice of h1t'ent submitted to the Salem Conservation Commission on September 13, 2012. GENERAL CONDITIONS • I. This Order of Conditions must be recorded in its entirety (including all 5 pages of Special Conditions) at the Essex County Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located. after the expiration of the 10-day appeal period and within 30 days of the issuance. A copy ol'the recording information most be'submitted to the Salem Conservation Commission before ;wr work approved in this Order commences. 2. Approval of this application does not constitute compliance with any law or regulation other than M.G.L Chapter 131, Section 40, Wetlands Regulations 310 CMR 10.00 and the City of Salem Wetlands Protection and Conservation Ordinance, Salem Code Chapter 50. 3. All work shall be performed in accordance with this Order of Conditions and approved site plan(s). No alteration of wetland resource areas or associated buffet-zones, other than that approved in this Order. shall occur on this property withoutprior approval from the Commission. 4. Prior to any work commencing on site, a DEP Sign showing DEI' File#64-545 most be installed at the entrance to the site and seen from the public way, but not placed on a fiving tree. 5. No work approved in this Order may commence until the ten (10) business day appeal period has lapsed from the date of the issuance of this Order. 6. With respect to this Order, the Commission designates the Conservation Agent as its agent with pon crs to act on its behalf in administering and enforcing this Order. 7. The Commission or its Agent, officers, or emplovees shall have the right to enter and inspect the propert%'at any Time for compliance with the conditions of this Order, the Wetlands Protection Act MGL Chapter (31. Attachment to Order oh C,dlllditlonS 1 64-Sa5 Pt,e , , f- Section 40, the Wetlands Regulations 310 CMR 10.00, and shall have the right to require any data or documentation that it deems necessary for that evaluation. 8. The tenn "Applicant"as used in this Order of Conditions shall refer to the owner, any successor in interest or successor in control of the property referenced in the Notice of intent, supporting documents and this Order of Conditions. The Commission shall be notified in writing within 30 days of all transfers of title of any portion of the property that takes place prior to issuance of the Cel ti ficate of Compliance. 9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to procure.all other applicable federal, state and local permits and approvals associated with this project. These permits may include but are not necessarily limited to the following: (1) Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92-500, 86 stat. 816). U.S. ;Army Corps of Engineers. (2) Water Quality Certification in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution Control under authority of sec. 27(5) of Chapter 21 of the Massachusetts General Laws as codified in 314 CMR 9.00, (3) Sewer Extension Permit from the DEP Division of Water Pollution Control under G. L. Ch. 21 A ss7 and 314 CMR 7.00. Any Board of Health permit for septic system design for any portion of the septic system within 100 feet of wetlands shall be submitted to the Commission prior to construction initiation. (4) Design Requirements for Construction in Floodplains under the State Building Code (780 ('�IvIR 744.). 10. If there are conflicting conditions within this Order, the stricter condition(s) shall rule. 11. All work shall be performed so as to ensure that there will be no sedimentation into wetlands and surface waters during construction or after completion of the project. 12. The Commission or its Agent shall have the discretion to modify the erosion/siltation control methods and boundary during construction if necessary. 13. The Commission reserves the right to impose additional conditions on portions of this project or this site to mitigate any actual or potential impacts resulting from the work herein permitted. 14. The wort:shall conform to the following attached plans and special conditions: Firm!Approver/Plans SITE PLAN S-1, SHEET No. I OF I (Title) 9/24/2012 Steven L. Bernstein (Signed and Stamped by) _ City of Salem Conservation Commission (Da file)vitb) ---- -----__--_.. Attachment to Order of Q)nditions g 64-54; Page 3 i.)f i 63 Yi Jefferson Avenue Redevelopment Stonmvater Report (Title) 9/25/2012 (Dated) ----------------_-.-- Steven L. Bernstein (Signed and Stamped by) — City of Salem Conservation Commission (Oa file with) t5. Any proposed changes in the approved plan(s) or any deviation in construction from the approved plants) shall require the applicant to file a Notice of Protect Chance with the Commission. The Notice shall be accompanied by a written inquiry prior to their implementation in the field, as to whether the, change(s) is substantial enough to require tiling a new Notice of Intent or a request to correct or amend this Order of Conditions. A copy of such request shall at the same time be sent to the Department of Environmental Protection. 16. In conjunction with the sale of this property or any portion thereof before a Certificate of Compliance has been issued, the applicant or current landowner shall submit to the Commission a statement signed by the buyer that he/she is aware of an outstanding Order of Conditions on the property and has received a cop\' of the Order of Conditions. PRIOR TO CONS'rRUCPION • 17. Prior to the commencement of any activity on this site other than activities listed above, there must be a Pre-Construction Meeting on site between the project supervisor, the contactor responsible for the work, and the Conservation Agent and/or a member of the Conservation Commission to ensure that the requirements of the Order of Conditions are understood. The staked erosion control line shall be adjusted, if necessary, during the pre-construction meeting. Please contact the Conservation Ageut at (978) 619-5685 at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to construction to arrange for the Pre- Construction Meeting. 18. Prior to the pre-construction meeting and commencement of any activity on this site, sedimentation and erosion control barriers shall be installed as shown on the approval plan(s)and detail drawines. 'fhe Commission and/or its Agent shall inspect and approve such installation at the pre-construction meeting. t 9. No clearing of vegetation, including trees, or disturbance of soil shall occur prior to the pre-const action meeting. Minimal disturbance of shrubs and herbaceous plants shall be allowed prior to the pre- construction meeting if absolufely necessary in order to place erosion control stakes where required. 20. There shall be sufficient erosion control devices stored under cover on the site to be used for emen-�cncv erosion control purposes. LROSION CON'rRo1, 21. Appropriate erosion control devices shall be in place prior to the beginning of any phase of construction. and shall be maintained during constriction in any wetland resource area and/or buffer zones. The erosion control measures shown on the approval plants)and provisions in the Order will he the minimum standards for this project; the Commission or its Agent may require additional measures. n9 Attachment to Order of Conditions 1 64-545 Paye 4 of 5 22. All debris, fill and excavated material shall be stockpiled a location far enough away (i om the wetland resource areas to prevent sediment from entering wetland resource areas. 23. Erosion and sedimentation control devices shall be inspected after each storm event and repair cd or replaced as necessary. Any accumulated silt adjacent to the barriers shall be removed. 24. The area of construction shall remain in a stable condition at the close of each construction clay. 25. Any de-watering of trenches or other excavation required during construction shall be conducted so as to prevent siltation of wetland resource areas. All discharge from de-watering activities shall be filtered through hay bale sediment traps, silt filter bags or other means approved by the Commission or its Administrator. 26. Within thirty (30) days of completion of construction on any given portion of rhe project, all distut bed areas in the completed portion of the site shall be permanently stabilized with rapidly grmvmm, vegetative cover, using sufficient top soil to assure long-term stabilization of disturbed areas. 27. If soils are to be disturbed for longer than two (2) months, a temporary cover of rve or other grass should be established to prevent erosion and sedimentation. If the season is not appropriate for plant growth, exposed surface shall be stabilized by other appropriate erosion control measures, firmly anchored, to prevent soils from being washed by rain or flooding. DURING CONS]RUCTION 28. A copy of this Order of Conditions and the plants)approved in this Order shall be available on site at all times when work is in progress. 29. No alteration or activity shall occur beyond the limit of work as defined by the siltation barriers shown on the approved plan(s). 30. All waste products, grubbed stumps, slash; construction materials, etc. shall be deposited at least 100 feet from wetland resource areas and 200 feet from river. 31. Cement trucks shall not be washed out in any wetland resource or buffer zone arca, nor into any drainage system. Any deposit of cement or concrete products into a buffer zone or wetland resource area shall be immediately removed. 32. All exposed sub-soils shall be covered by a minimum of three(3) inches of quality screened loam topsoil prior to seeding and final stabilization. 33. Immediately following drainage structure installation all inlets shall be protected by silt tense, haybale barriers and/or silt hags to filter silt from stonmvater before it enters the drainage system. 34. There shall be no pumping of water from wetland resource areas. 35. All equipment shall be inspected regularly for leaks. Any leaking hydraulic lines,cylinders or any other components shall be fixed immediately. 36. During construction,all drainage structures shall be inspected regularly and cleaned as necessary. 37. The applicant is herby notified that failure to comply with all requirements herein may result in the issuance of enforcement actions by the Conservation Commission including, but not limited to,civil adminisuany e penalties under M.G.L Chapter 21 A, section 16. i Attachment to Order of Conditions r 64-545 L , Page ti of i AFTER CONSTRUCTION • 38. Upon completion of construction and final soil stabilization, the applicant shall submit the tollowinu ur the Conservation Commission to request a Certificate of Compliance (COC): (1) A Completed Request for if Certificate of Compliance form (WPA Form SA or other form i required by the Conservation Commission at the time of request). (2) A letter from a Registered Professional Engineer certifying compliance of the property N+,ith this Order of Conditions. (3) An "As-Built' plan signed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer or Land SUrVeV01 showing post-construction conditions within all areas under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. "Phis plan shall include at a minimum; (a) All wetland resource area boundaries with associated buffer zones and reguhatory setback areas taken from the plants) approved in this Order of Conditions; (b) Locations and elevations of all stor mwater management conveyances,suuctures and best management designs, including foundation drains, constructed under this Order within .uvv wetland resource area or buffer zone; (c) Distances from any structures constructed under this Order to wetland resouree areas - "structures" include, but are not limited to, all buildings, septic system components, wells, utility lines, fences, retaining walls, and roads/driveways; (d) A line delineating the limit of work- "work"includes any tilling, excavating and/or disturbance of soils or vegetation approved under this Order; 39. When issued, the Certificate of Compliance must be recorded at the Southern Essex County Registry of Deeds and a copy of the recording submitted to the Salem Conservation Commission. 40. if the completed work differs from that in the original plans and conditions, the report must specify how the work differs; at which time the applicant shall first request modification to the Order. Only upon review and approval by the Commission, may the applicant request in writing a Certificate of Compliance as described above. 41. Erosion control devices shall remain in place and properly functioning until all exposed soils have been stabilized with final vegetative cover and the Conservation Commission and/or its Agent has authorized their removal. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS 42- Prior to start of construction, applicant must obtain a certificate of compliance for DEP 964- 277. 43. Applicant shall utilize only erosion controls that contain no seeds. The Commission recommends coir log or straw wattle. 44. To prevent sheetflow into the riverfront area, applicant shall install a Cape Code herrn aloe, the eastern edge of the paved portion of the site. • CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING You are herby noted that the Salem Conservation Commirrion=I/hold its regularly rclkdnkd mating on Thursday, November 8,2012 at 6.•00 PM at the City Hall Annex,.P'floor conference mom, 1201Pashingron Street, Salem,MA. Julia K,riki Chair MEETINGAGENDA 1. Meeting Minutes—September 27,2012 2. 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 heating is to discuss a proposed off-leash dog area within riverfront area and flood zone at 50 Grove Street g. 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 comtraclion of a garage within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 3 Parallel Street. • 4. Old/New Business • Strongwater Crossing Lot 18,DEP #64457: Discussion of project change • Strongwater Crossing Lot 37, DEP#64456: Discussion of project change • 89 Lafayette Street,DEP #64412: Request for Certificate of Compliance • 81 Highland Avenue (Salem Hospital), DEP#64539: Discussion of proposed tree removal Knowyour ngbtr under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L c. 39 S23B and City Ordinann Seetiont 2-2028 Ibmmgb 2- 2033. ' q N rn a m c � 6 �T �M 1 bat r-* m 3 7%% OdMO DOW 00 , 3 4F city �z w�l S IN 34 Page t of t Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,Sept. 27,2012, 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,Bart Hoskins, Michael Blier Members Absent: David Pabich Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:03PM i. Meeting Minutes—September 13, 2012 Several small changes are noted. A motion to approve the minutes with corrections is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. 2. 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. • Applicant requests to continue to the October IIth meeting. A motion to continue to the October 11` meeting is made by Hoskins, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. 3. Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Robert Dunham,RTD Nominee Trust, 63 �/2 Jefferson Avenue, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a building addition at 631/2 Jefferson Avenue within buffer zone to a wetland resource area. Here for the applicant is Steven Bernstein, professional engineer. He presents a revised drawing Illustrations: Site Plan S-1 9/24/12 The property at this location is 43,613 square feet; the project consists of an existing building to which an addition will be added. It is currently all paved, and previous work for the original building was done under an Order of Conditions in 1999 and a perforated roof drain along with vegetated soil was installed. Mr. Bernstein also shows a plan for the original building as built. It borders on Jefferson Ave. There is a common driveway between two properties. Wetlands were flagged in early August. The addition is within the riverfront area. The building will be built on existing pavement. He has provided a supplemental stormwater report. This area is redevelopment with no net increase in impervious area. The stormwater system originally was designed with a vegetated swale and perforated pipe around the building to be distributed there. •° A catch basin was installed for runoff from the building. The swale has been maintained by the applicant. They are proposing to put in a perforated trench and replace the current catchbasin with one with a hood and deep sump for the addition. The quality of stormwater should be 1 improved as stormwater runoff will be converted to roof runoff. Ricciarelli asks if the roof drains are internal but they are external. There are French drains with cleanouts to grade. Whatever is not captured by the perforated pipes runs off into the swale. This will be a slab on grade and the proposed project will strip existing asphalt and drive piles, then put in a post tension slab. There will be no grade changes and the addition will have overhead doors on one side of the building. Mr. Bernstein's client is in the drywall business. The existing area of the proposed building is a yard with some portable containers, which would be relocated and supplies put inside the building. Photos are passed around. Mr. Bernstein describes the setup of the fence and the new catch basin. Ricciarelli asks about a berm at the back, but none is proposed. He says they are raising the grade as it appears on the plans, but Mr. Bernstein outlines the direction of flow on the plan and says there is no change in grade. Hamilton asks about an increase in size to the original catch basin noted in the stormwater report. That was in 1999; it was already done and is not being expanded again. They are converting 4600 square feet from parking lot runoff into roof drainage. Some roof drainage will recharge in the ground. The client is aware that he cannot use rock salt in the wetland. There is a temporary stockpile area outside the inner 100' riverfront area. A stabilized construction entrance will be built and silt sacks will be used during construction. Hay bales will also be used around the perimeter. Riciarelli asks about the 6" PVC piping; it is large enough. Chair Knisel asks about a photo with school busses. Mr. Bernstein illustrates where they are parked. It is owned by the applicant but • used by the City for bus storage. It is leased for Partners Health Care, who use it for supplemental parking but also let the City park busses there. Riciarelli asks about the exterior storage—the items will be moved inside. The addition will have a metal roof. Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Riciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously. Blier comments that although the project itself will not have much of an impact, parking lots come and go, and can change; they are eliminating parking and putting a more permanent structure there. It will only be 57' from the wetland, so it should be acknowledged that they are incrementally encroaching on the wetland, and it can become someone else's problem down the road, for example, if people continue to park near the wetland, there are salting issues. With that said, the map and data are good as far as mitigating the impacts. There are no alternate configurations that would work. The applicant comments that it is industrial land and indoor storage is always better- building on it is an improvement. Dealing with outdoor storage is difficult, especially as he cannot use salt. Devine comments about the fence; they have not encroached beyond that; the edge of the property is clearly defined and there is no dumping. The applicant is aware that people encroach • so he defined his property. The fence goes through the riverfront area. It is a 12' fence. The applicant has proposed standard erosion controls, which will be placed along the edge of the 2 parking lot on the soil, not on asphalt. The elevation where the fence stands is 6" above the pavement in a natural berm. The largest excavation will be the drain around the building. Ricciarelli agrees with Blier's comment about the activity being pushed toward the wetland. He also comments on the grade. He is worried about sheetflow into the riverfront area in a particular area and wonders if it can be redirected to the catchbasin. It can be. There will be some regarding and asphalt work so it can be worked in. Blier asks about if the contours need to be pushed.so far out; this is necessary due to the setup. Hamilton asks about coir logs vs. hay bales vs. straw bales — she prefers something without seeds. Mr. Bernstein is open to either. The Commission would like to condition straw wattle or coconut fiber, not hay bales as the latter contain seeds. A 6" Cape Cod berm(sloped curb) should also be installed against the inside (eastern portion) of the fence along the eastern perimeter of the parking lot. Blier asks about snow storage; usually it is where the busses are in the other lot; there is one spot they take over for a snow pile. Ricciarelli asks about grades again, but they will be changed only minimally. There is a previous order of conditions for this site that might not have a certificate of compliance. This should be obtained prior to start of construction under the order being issued tonight. A motion to issue said Conditions is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. • 4. 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. No one is present for the applicant. Dave Knowlton recommends NOT approving this until the drainage issues are resolved. The City can spend the $10,000 set aside by Steve Lovely for this purpose. The applicant can come before the Commission for the addition, but the City Engineer won't give it his blessing until the other drainage issues are resolved. Therefore, the applicant requests to continue to the Nov. 8, 2012 meeting. A motion to continue to November 8, 2012 is made by Hoskins, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously 5. Old/New Business None. A motion to adjourn is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 6:46PM. Respectfully Submitted, • Stacy Kilb . Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on November 8, 2012 3 ��nNDi'P�Q - ^r , CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF CANCELED MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 6:00 pm at City Hall Annex, Room 313, 120 Washington Street has been canceled due to a lack of agenda items. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be October 25, 2012. Know your rights under the Open Meeting Law M.G.L. c. 39 §23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 through 2-2033. C") r p m � - r Dmr , r:* M 3 3 N n _ N On 'Diftw 604018"r!" Cj HBO ft%ffl, M0043. on 0(vbei- 4, IZA & M of 120 WnsbnNCTON STR6GP, SALEM, MASSACHUS`rl';01970 • Tei.: 978.745.9395 Fnx: 975.740.0404 • www.sni.is�i.co�f ,scoNmrq� CITY OF SALEM j• Y CONSERVATION COMMISSION 9p�nMIN �� NOTICE OFMEETING You are he>Yhy nolilied that the Salem Cor.remation Contnli.nzon will hold d.i regnlarl scheduled rneeliitg on Thursday, October 25, 2012 at 6.•00 PM al the City Hal/Annex; 3rd floor conference room, 120 Washington Street, Salem, ALL I,a �HCP Jtdiahnueln /^' Chair m 0 . r- MEETINGAGENDA nm m Y4t r -� 1. Meeting Minutes—September 27, 2012 3 1V Y 2. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—City of Salem, P Wasl'dngton Street,Salem,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed installation of a tide gate in a new manhole at Collins Cove Park(31 Collins Street) within buffer zone to a wetland resource area and maintenance of an adjacent drainage outfall to Collins Cove. 3. Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability-50 Grove Street Real Estate LLC,7 Rantoul Street,Suite '100B,Beverly,MA.Thea ose of this hearing is to discuss a P rP g proposed off-leash dog area within riverfront area and flood zone at 50 Grove Street. 4. Old/New Business • Strongwater Crossing Lot 18, DEP #64-457: Request for Certificate of Compliance • Strongwater Crossing Lou 37, DEP #64-456: Request for Certificate of Compliance • 185 1efferson Avenue, DEP 64-542: Request for Certificate of Compliance • Discussion and vote regarding funding for education and training Knorr yonr tzgher ander die Open Meeting Lour M.G.L. e. 39§23B and Citi+ Ordinance Sections 2-2028 lhroagh 2- 2033. Salem M096. r fiG�tA R . • Page 1 of t Please Sign-In —,,7 Salem Conservation Commission October 25, 2012 Name Address Phone Email 0 Page 1 of 2 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission 14 October 25, 2012 Name Address Phone Email Page 2 of 2 P J DRAFT MINUTES Salem Conservation Commission • Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, October 25,2012, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Vice Chair David Pabich, Amy Hamilton,Bart Hoskins, Gregory St. Louis Members Absent: Chair Julia Knisel,Michael Blier,Dan Ricciarelli Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation�Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb e " r� Acting Chair Pabich calls the meeting to order at:6.02PM�' „ i. Meeting Minutes—September 27,2012 A motion to continue approval of the minutes to the'n"ext meeting is made by Hoskins, seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously _,, k - ' �4�. 2. Public Hearing—Request for'•Det mmation ofApplicability—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The,,pmposcwf this-hearing is to discuss the proposed • installation of a tide gate in a new manhole ai"Collins Cove Park (31 Collins Street) within buffer zone to a wetland `resource area�an&mauitenance,of an adjacent drainage outfall to Collins Covet 5 Here for the City is Giovanna Zabaleta,and Rebecca Dupont from the City's consulting firm, New England Civil Engin er ng Ms Dupont�outlmes the project. There is flooding in certain areas. A new manhole is to be,installed; currently thele are no blockages. The area is above the beach with a chain link fence separating the parkfrom the beach. They would like to create more space for the water. The outfall area'lias stone strewn about and it is inundated with sediment. They want to hand clear the area so that,,the.,water can exit. There is no work in the pipe;just clearing around it at the outfall. Pabich asks about cleaning the pipe; it is clear already with no obstructions, and is in good condition since they viewed it with a camera. Pabich asks about the position of some of the catch basins and Ms. Dupont outlines. The fence is also discussed. Pabich asks how long the project will take; Ms. Dupont is not sure how long the contractor will take. She estimates a week. The manhole and tide gate will be installed at the same time. There are catch basins on either side of the outfall, but not in the intersection. Pabich asks about excavation, commenting on the buffer zone and sheetflow. He is concerned about the stockpiling of soils; there will be some excess. Any piles should be covered. • St. Louis asks about children climbing into the culvert; there are no trash racks in Salem at all so the City would have to consider that separately. Pabich says they are required for new construction, which this is not. 1 At Pabich discusses the clearing of the outfall and how far down they will have to go. He asks if there are any connections to one of the lines; there is but there is no way to do maintenance. Pabich states that there was some cross connection sewer line to that drain. Bacteria counts in • Collins Cove have historically been high and this outfall is suspect. Ms. Dupont did not see any laterals. She did a study for the City and Salem Sound Coastwatch, but this outfall was not included in the 50 that were sampled this year. Chair Pabich opens to the public but there are no audience members, so no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hamilton, seconded by St. Louis and passes unanimously. k Devine thinks work on the outfall is exempt under maintenance and repair. The contractor must be informed that there can be no stockpiluigof uncovered soils, but this is not a condition. A motion to issue a negative 2 determination is made by Hamilton,, 'ended by Hoskins and . s h passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a,part of these minutes N 3. Continuation of Public Hearmg '=Request forDetermination of Applicability-50 Grove Street Real Estate LLC, 7� toil, treet, Suite 10013, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed o dog area within riverfront area and flood zone at 50 Grove Street r> The applicant requests-to continue to Nov. 8,14131" ` A motion to continue is made by SUILouis, seconded by Hoskins and passes unanimously. p 4. Old/N6yv"Bus►ness ' • Strongwyater Crossing Lot 18;DEP#64-457: Request for Certificate of Compliance • Strongwater Crossing'Lot 37, DEP#64-456: Request for Certificate of Compliance Paul DiBiase is not'ready to submit all materials to request the certificates. The two agenda items are tabled for the nezt�eeting N�-' • 185 Jefferson Avenue,DEP 64-542: Request for Certificate of Compliance This was a wetlands violation where there was encroachment and fill into riverfront area. The wetland was excavated and restored to a 1997 grade and planted with conservation seed mix. The Commission required an after the fact Notice of Intent after the restoration to ensure that there was a public process. An Order of Conditions was issued so they are requesting their Certificate. The Commission determined that the work had been completed by issuing the Order. The Commission will not ask for invasives remediation but is concerned about further fill and illegal use of National Grid property. The Order of Conditions includes two years of monitoring • through spring 2013 and 2014. Concrete blocks were installed at the property line to keep further encroachment from happening. Silt fencing is still there and they should be required to remove it. 2 A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance with the ongoing condition for annual • monitoring, and pending removal of erosion control, is made by Hoskins, seconded by St. Louis and passes unanimously. The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. • Discussion and vote regarding funding for education and training Devine requests funding for mileage and registration for the MACC fall conference in November. It is $60 for registration and approximately $60 for mileage. A motion to authorize $120 for Devine is made by Hoskins, seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously. , Devine also requests funding for the Nov. 8`s Symposium on,sea level rise and its impact on salt marshes at the Crane Estate in Ipswich. It is free for local officials,but he would like to be reimbursed for mileage in case he cannot carpool A motion to approve the funding is made by Hoskins, seconded by Hamilton and passes ` unanimously. Devine also notifies commissioners that tthe City is pe" orming`maintenance on`the seawall along Collins Cove; this is legal, exempt maintenance and repair;but he has more information if they would like to see it. He passes around the,prolect,plans. This will include seawall and revetment repair with some stones to be reset Pabich`opmes,that the wok seems to be substantially out of the water. Devine thinks the exemption would be the same either,way, since the case law establishing the exemption-for maintenance and repairr,was'iinregardto a specific maintenance project where the court ruled thatjhe exemption even allowed f&i scaffolding in the resource area. Vice Chair Pabich thinks it is`liorderlme,however they are repairing an existing structure. It appears to just be work in a couple of locations hot.' a entire wall. Devine comments that there is little guidance available for applying the exemption; all that exists is a court case that determined it was legal to repair a seawall without coming before the Conservation.Commission. Devine states, at he will continue to bring projects like this to the attention of the commission so that it cari be determined whether a filing is needed. i Devine mentions the gravel present at 11R Winter Island Rd. on the right-of-way at the construction site of a Commission-approved house. People thought it was a private drive until the Commission put up a sign welcoming use of it as a public way. Now the house has been rebuilt. There was dilapidated asphalt, now it is covered with gravel. They did some utility work and now there has been 80' of bituminous removed or covered with crushed stone. There is a parking area for the house off the right of way, but no actual driveway to the house. Previously they had used the right,of way as their driveway. Pabich says this is introducing loose gravel to a buffer zone in the resource area, and the owner has taken it upon himself to do this without approval. The gravel is not acceptable to Engineering. The Commission can request that they restore it to its original condition or ask that it be repaved. Pabich opines it will be plowed into the beach and salt marsh at the end of the season. The City did not approve this. Engineering will require that they restore it and take up the gravel, as will this Commission. The open soil area seaward of the gravel should also be restored. 3 Devine will coordinate with Engineering. Pabich says Devine should send a letter to the homeowner and also discuss it with Engineering to determine how to resolve the issue. He thinks the street opening permit route is the easiest. Engineering might not act until there is a certificate • of occupancy. Devine thinks a letter should come from the commission, but Engineering can also enforce this. St. Louis asks if they could use the stone as a base for pavement, but it is up to current grade and Pabich feels the area should be restored. Devine comments that the Gateway Center pile of soil and debris was covered, but the covering has peeled back and the demolition contractor who is responsible is not cooperating. The parcel is owned by the developer of the Gateway Center and they should be responsible for what is going on there, according to Pabich. Devine should send a letfe to the owner. There are two catch basins onsite protected with filter fabric, and but Devine wonders if the Commission needs to material covered in addition to the catch basin protection. Hamilton states that the protection of the catch basins by itself is not sufficient, since wind`could c rymaterial from the pile into the resource area. They intend to use the material as p rt of the development project rather than remove it. St. Louis asks if there is a NPDES permit, and saysthe requ'eThents were revised in February. Devine explains the setup and says the overall project probably requires a NPDES%permit based on its size. �2 � A motion to adjourn is made by St Loui�s�seconded~by Hoskins`and passes unanimously. The � meeting ends at 6:53 PM �% A MW �, • Respectfully Submitted, dN Stacy Kilb Clerk Sale se yation Commission` F i � V ' • 4 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission November 8, 2012 Name Address Phone Email /�1�Ch¢c.l VJ�wicsr Y�1/SR��t S1�• �lJ'. �la/ M��C�Lv�-C)�.-,(iQ�e,PYe� �QCtI nuraii �(-•i lLJ Ldgk t c 9 16ucdiL2 Corv_co .caA Page 2 of 2 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission November 8, 2012 Name Address Phone Email Page 1 of 2 �r CITY OF SALEM • ' a' CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will hold a special meeting on Thursday,November 15, 2012 at 6.•00 PMat the City Hall Annex, Mrd Moor conference room, 120 WasAhVton Street, Salem,MA. {/- f I( / M1N'C.1 L% Julia Knisel Cbair MEETINGAGENDA 1. Old/New Business • 24 Clark Avenue, DEP #64-259: Request for Certificate of Compliance • 81 Highland Avenue (Salem Hospital), DEP #64-539: Discussion of proposed tree removal Knowyour rigbts under the Open Meeting Inw M.G.L c. 39§23B and City Ordinance Sections 2-2028 througb 2- 2033. rn r- z m't D 3 on Cos. OR 6V b � tui to iwi qZ�t!Z .: "'b+RSA Page i of i DRAFT MINUTES 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, Conse Pati n Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:05P i. Meeting Minutes—September 27,2012 A motion to approve the minutes is made by Ricciarelli,s con le by Hamilton, and ll approve. St. a,,: Louis does not vote as he was appointed o e comtmssio ter the meeting in question. 2. Continuation of Public Hearing quest: ar,,�De�te fin ion of Applicability-50 Grove • Street Real Estate LL( 7 Rantoul eet, SuiiNO , Be-Be eEl , MA. The purpose of this :mar hearing is to discuss-a.pyo os'ed off-leash, og area, riverfront area and flood zone at 50 Grove Street. ev The applicant requests t' cA tinue, to the Dec. P th meeting. A motion to continue is made by Hoskins seep ided by Ha to ,and passes;unanim, I g. Pub� anng- t eEl est fbtgtennrnariott f Applicability—Misha and Sheila Mimi', . 3 Parallel S 'ee Salem. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed constructionof a garage n ''thin b razone to a wetland resource area at 3 Parallel Street. Here for the apph4 is contractor Michael Burgess of MDB Construction. The applicant is Here for the:aFNp1i,; proposing a garage, f6 hich hel" es a brief description. They are seeking a negative determination with some conditions. T eir�pro'erty is on previously disturbed area. The corral fence out back is `'{uvaa u!afl marked as the edge of a we ut he thinks it is 4-5' away from bordering vegetated wetland. There is also a small swale th' re 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 1 14 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 owi '':Cad allow the City or Steve Lovely to go in and make the required improvements and maintain if iture Swale. Knowlton is comfortable �� " with just a signed agreement,rather than a full ease; rne t that would.requixe City Council approval. aMu' tLj Under these conditions, the City Engineer has n0v osition to a garage ist satisfies the commission's requirements. is _ a. wanted 10 Mr. ess describes They have 9' for the widening of the swale,while Mx. Kii 14' moving back part of the project to acgommodate this regtii�. : ent if absolutely necessary. Mr. Burgess questions whether the easement dud b, legal L} Pabich asks about dimensions-and Mr. Bur e oudtn' ,* a aui , tch points out that this lace g� j! g P P is notorious for flooding atd h ,s s that the=bdm ,uriderpstruct n is surrounded by water. • They never should ha` e` cult it iig to first places ssie's'9 e�floods with incoming water v, from the golf course, an�i backs up!` hen the w xe making proposals, the Commission did not have control as it was not'' floodlope. Pabich a if anyone has looked at the new FEMA flood maps This h"tiltoutside th ppe QOyeax flood e. The end of the swale is an inlet. Water comes do �riiEaiv ce S eet rider an arc ay o o Parallel St. then comes across this parcel, which 1s:66w developed Mx. Burgess w dens if, since th home a .ady exist, the garage makes it worse, better or if it will stay the sameks there e no ad;, rse effects since this is not affecting the swale or flooding, and is jnst other structure. Pabich disagrees since garage will displace whatever water would have been on round the in its footprint. It will go somewhere else, not on this property. The reality is tha the 5ttdoes and will flood. Mr. Burgess asks if the drainage that will be repaired was done propexty, nwould be an issue. Pabich says it still would be. Improving the Swale FV will still not solve flooding. Itis 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. 2 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. Burge s ,Y s its 18' away from the Swale. Riciarelli asks if the swale could be moved as it is not on he,ftop � line, and that would give some relief to that 10'buffer zone. Mr. Lovely owns the pro erty next dor which is for sale. He could be forced to put an easement on his property and puttlieale there,imBur ess' opinion. Chair Knisel asks if there is wiggle room with the p sition of the swale. Pab" says he was just raising his objections to the development in general;l} does n C ecessarily wean * o hold it up. AIN Devine notes that an area can be det6iiiiiiied to be land sitb�)e to flooding under the wetlands protection act even if it is outside FEM 41iZhear flood zone. Photos of flooding should lie sufficient evidence to determine that an a floi ds • Pabich says the entire parcelas en within a n od zonc,since he ha hotos of flooding there. He wants to see a soluuotfideally whex water co flow t ougurge s says water cannot pass under a slab —due to figs it wouldhave to be 48".I� cciaxelli su °ests a pier and grade beams. Burgess says there woud issues wrti water Patin underneath freely—it does not pass freely but freezes in New England iuiless t is";, g"dawn He id have a warranty nightmare if water had to pass undeme- 7 he slab v a car ck no I a r wh t;_om expansion. St. Louis a ks about the thre old far g m a flu d plain. Devine says compensatory flood storage is 'e ed to offset apy Toss of�d storage within inland flood areas. Burgess said the land is level and all' uses are on grad with n`o asements. Burgess opines thaGfo'sting the problem onto homeowners isn't fair but Pabich takes exception, saying that if flus projecti app , every other house could want to add a garage,which would add up to a lot of displacem E.*Hamilton thinks it is more than an RDA and Pabich says it could be done if there was compen atoo.ty 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. 3 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 himl Devine says all three properties AWW have Certificates of Compliance which were issued free and clpb7 er the condition that Lovely signed the escrow agreement. Pabich says to move forward, Mr. Burgess should wi dra and br{ri this proposal back with more detail. He says the Commission should revisit the tel nt minutes an ew the drainage swales. Ricciaxelli comments that they should put the wI Ie garage on piers with=screens below grade to keep out rodents. Or make an elevated structur o . osts,with no floor, jus-*rushed stone. Mr. Burgess thinks there would be an issue with molstut ntrol and=such a prole�Cw,� ould require an engineer. He would like to keep costs reasonable for en st of these woil of be an issue if the escrow agreement was taken caAi re ci Mr. Burgess says that as presented, he wan ed a qn, live deteri iin tion with conditions. Chair Knisel opines that they will issue a positive tertmnatl Riccia el�,says they could come back with • more engineering detail;2bte -,��,,.�e�es and reit ates tha'tth o, tion to withdraw or to continue and come back with mor infomahon. The Commission would comp s atory storae or another way to prevent water from migrating. ThConunision ca eseatcla thfootptin nd possible shifting of the swale in the meantnned0ther gara ., opti ns ar also discuss d, sac as building without a foundation so water could 4wrough, like:a:caxpor 't Mx. Burger uests to on ue to th 'ne t meeting.A motion to continue to December 13th is made by Pabi h seconded by Hos s andxpsses unanimously. 4. Old/New Business t: . s,,r • Strongwatei Cros's L'of✓ 8, DEP #64-457: Discussion of project change • Strongwater Cross ng or 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 mote 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. 4 J 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 geogtid 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 Clack Avenue, DEP #64-259: Request for Certificate of Compliance Devine passes around copies of the request and photos. The xegtes is for a partial Certificate of Compliance. EMU- Devine recaps the issue. The commission issued a singlortder of conditions in 1996 for the construction of a roadway extension and 6 houses:4Tl pproved plait eludes the filling of approximately 2000 square feet of wetlands und6r, m e condition that therei better than 1:1 IA replication. The surveyed plan submitted with this west for a cc catc rf compliance sho-s'�that a small area of replication on the lot was not doneandhere gentle slo�aewas approved, a boulder retaining wall was constructed. Devine has not inspected the entire suii` cion, but from this property and the roadway, he was able to identify at leasone additional area e wetlands replication was • required that was not apparently done. In altionalfD e has not;-onfirmed the presence of an infiltration chamber orculvert shown on thea proved pta Attorney Robert Stxasc represents plica avt oulison. s is the only parcel owned by the client,who wishes to`she situ tion is urg�tit,closing is scheduled for next Friday and the owner has beep. to sell fo the ast fhr e ear 's issue came to light u on having title work YP g done prio to the sgle At first 1r S asmc ,41 ht th the Certificate was not recorded. Mr. Reid, the onginurveyos fo th develop ent,was coeted,viewed the site, and did a write up explauung that the work wa-s ever don This outstanding Order of Conditions clouds the title so the propert,,may not be sola out s sort of resolution. y a The applicant has nability to petition on behalf of the adjacent landowners. Mr. Reid stated in a letter dated Nov 1'-' t the profile r on this particular parcel is limited to one small area. At this time it would be difficultto cle the property to match the plan and would be detrimental to existing wetland areas to`do'�ol 'IV ould also be prohibitively expensive. Thus, Mr. Strasmck is requesting that the Commissoi3 grant a partial Certificate of Compliance for this property only. Ricciarel i 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. 5 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. f�3 Mt. Strasnick understands the need for whole neighborhood ta.be looked at but he does not have standing to do that, so he wants the Conservation Cotrum sf �a'issue a partial Certificate of Compliance. It has been done before. Devine asked theDf any?, this falls on the developer. ��pt Mr. Steadman is in violation if properties are sold wtt� t a Certificatq;since the order requires written notification of the order to the buyer, buf Palxch says it would b` ' aconian to have Steadman come back and replicate the wetlands lkt2 ther option would be iss �a partial certificate, then get things replicated. This would burden the n' wner w,i an issue th'af should have been caught by the original selling attorney. Ricciarelli asks if ae on has to hap in specific locations —another owner would have to _e it on. Mr. Ee' "'an may still own so' e property within the subdivisionor adjacent to He could replicate elsewhere as long as it is all hydrat�ltcall connected.The grade drops off behind the house, and that is w�h Eliere g wallis�rthere. M.cci ' says Yoks like Mx. Steadman • meant for it to be missed,Wha wa ermitte s a-tadual's ,e The original order was for 3 years, so it has long smeexpired.Tf;ltilr. Stea � 'lovas here and we could hold him to it, the work would be mitigation utid'e,x- ew Ord r, and wetlAd replication could be completed somewhere else. Ricciarelli as s about Ch lope d if ey alxeaaap net the volume by losing slope. Devine says that for wetl'' ke 'c"a 'on, ai a rather than v 1 is+ levant. e� St. Louth C ents on replicating arvu adient area, but this is not the case. Pabich discusses the setup and intent. Devine de§Cn s the saccording to the illustration. Was any replication done? Devine only kNtffii- t replicate�wedands e missing from some key areas. Pabich asks if there would be any f wetlandle' g done elsewhere. There is not. St. Louis asks about the Partial Certificate—cmrmssion,can ask that the total replication be met before issuing the complete Certificate of Cnimph cThey don't want to burden this seller but don't want to burden the abutters either. Currentde ';pments submit an NOI for each lot to avoid just such issues. According to Mr. Strasmcay 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 6 .y 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 donetha way, but the buyer will need title insurance and it will be difficult to convince the lender tc 5ug with it. Pabich has sympathy but does not want to drop the issue entirely. Devine asks wwharrs the penalty for this situation. Pabich says there could be fines of up to $2 ay for tp st<1 years, and Mr. Strasnick comments that the Commission could go back against- r 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 Co pliance, the Commission'coompromises its ability to pursue a solution on the whole projectt be seers s "arbitrate Q�thers could come forward. Pabich opines that Mr. Strasnick should contact r�S aan,who shayth rove that the work was done. Mr. Strasnick appreciate -skins' co nce tuitl°i regards to this bei`rig arbitrary, but the retaining wall differentiates it frorn,fo T lit . Those may oX may not have the same topography. Ricciarelli asks about the other neighbors; "an'sthe etlands replication simply be shifted? Chair • Knisel thinks no one would agree to that. _ The applicant is not in a osition.to ,speak for t11 other o riep,` ers in the development. The haus; ?v,,v: 'W $ owner of lot 25 appear's have the s e probleu . haat neighbor has the space to replicate wetlands. Ricciarelli likesvine's r e�of talking to the City Solicitor. Mx. Strasnick asks if the Commission would approk""' e painaYCeii at sub) ct to the approval of the City Solicitor over the next week.If this thust be put,�off oath ee mbe eetmg, the damage will have been done as ` his cnt not close " e. Iea> uld like tit 1 1 concerns to be satisfied, and at worst, if the hc o#i xi City S0lr. or does not approve of the o tions, the ould have to return in December. Pabich thin `t I re are legal ra cations 01- hatever the Commission does, so guidance is needed. The underwriters mgsst be sat s language is important. The Commission could write this in such a way as to le ve e door o'e to have the work done before issuing the full Certificate. p, Pabich worries that t e m ss�18M will forego work not done on this lot if we issue a partial Certificate.We want to be 2 ix 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. 7 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 latex. 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 Certifi,c�t ' was not a condition of the order,but an element of the approved plan, so it won't trans`te a condition for annual monitoring would. This is a deviation from the plan. Devine=ieiioLure if any replication was completed. No amendments are on file. There were many e ondid that were not met. St. Louis asks if there was a bond posted for the completiowc/lig work. Devv�e s ates that there wasn't. �' There is no incentive for the developer other thansi es. The incentive wUtil�i have been when he W `:u wanted the Certificates of Occupancy to sell the ,se�es, for which a CertifiCat of Compliance is usually required. But these homes were issued Cex iria e of Oceu ancy with ut. esolving the open Order of Conditions. Devine says this may not be resolved oti :n;ac eptable time lin s for the seller, but Knisel points out that it would not have come up if not f r e4,ei ix Strasn clot, ays that the penalties are real for Mr. Steadman, so he should clear it up an c iii ke it nghbb efore ha,c mes before them for other items. Hoskins notes thae&! G6aninission has o be ca efca"t th this veloper. Knisel wonders if wetlands could be replicateon cipal laid r, 14To soiielains the urgency of his situation, and the Commission is pathetic St. Louis asks ' 4they soul q triitigation as dLfe habitat or plantings to replace the wetland still thexewD&hn6 says they art o creatine sol} tion the does not know if they can legally be done. Ile st consult EhDEP peers and the C,�ity Solicitor to see what can be done. Chair Knisel say we will pursue n£ xceii rit a ainst Mr.'Steadman,but Devine says the Order of Conditions: s with the Ian d the conditions go with the owners of the properties,but some violations s 'belong to Mx St an. The commission is: g to holdspecial meeting as a courtesy, considering the urgency of Mx. 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 8 Y� 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'tnot the planning board. Devine explains that it is part of a project with in the Commission's juxydii icon and it has an open Order. It is a very large tree,probably 150 years old. Chair Knisel as 1 khre is a different route they could take the crane. There is no roadway connection and there-Ar steep slopes. Other possibilities are discussed. The Commission's opinion is that tempora {Ka' ess� d be created without taking the tree down. Chair Knisel says they have to work ax and it. St. Louis onders why they don't access the site through an area that will be disturmanyway. Miscellaneous On another note, Devine wishes to m�farrn�tthe Commission a��violations on 11R OF ter Island Rd. Workers who were building a permitted i 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, i, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission 5 e.,_ -0va. • n. dna 10 J Salem Conservation Commission—Special Meeting Minutes of Meeting • Date and Time: Thursday,November 15, 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,Greg St. Louis Members Absent: Michael Blier Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:10PM 1. Old/New Business • 24 Clark Avenue,DEP#64-259: Request for Certificate of Compliance Devine updates the Commission on his efforts of the previous week. Robert Strasnick, attorney, is present, as is the homeowner, David Moulison. N Devine has researched several solutions and has consulted his peers. Rachael Freed, DEP Wetlands Section Chief, provided guidance. She recommended taking enforcement action against the developer, Ken Steadman, to correct any major deviations from the plan approved for the subdivision. Both the developer and individual home owners can be considered violators, and the Commission can issue an enforcement directive to the developer with milestones that require that work be done. If Mr. Steadman must get onto the property of others, then the Commission could require that they be cooperative or be penalized. The DEP offered to back the Conservation Commission and if Mr. Steadman does not cooperate, they can take over and issue a heavy fine. The DEP starts their process by issuing a fine, whereas the Conservation Commission gives a warning first. Ms. Freed advises against escrow agreements involving the Commission; any of those should be between the buyer and seller without the Commission. The Commission has, in its local ordinance, the authority to have a bond posted when a permit is issued. But we were advised against issuing any Certificate of Compliance until the work is done. Devine spoke to Mr. Steadman on the phone and advised him that the commission is likely to take enforcement action. Devine suggests that the Commission should not issue a partial Certificate. The DEP suggests that if there is urgency to finalize a sale of the property, it could be it could be facilitated with and escrow agreement between buyer and seller. Mr. Strasnick says if it was that simple they would do it, but the bank would have to know what work has to be done. Plus the bank must go through an insurance company who must be willing to insure with the escrow. 0 Mr. Strasnick says the statute that controls these orders says there is a three year statute of limitations on conveyance. But we are not sure if the statute gets renewed upon further conveyance—Mr. Strasnick thinks so, since banks want the title cleared and the Order issued and 1 closed. It makes sense for everyone in the neighborhood to cooperate. Mr. Strasnick says we are where we left off last week. The original wetland scientist was contacted and Mr. Strasnick says she will check in her notes to review the situation. But her files were destroyed from so long ago. • This board has the authority to make sure the proper amount of wetlands are replicated within the development, and Mr. Steadman has other projects being permitted in Salem, so he has land that would be available for replication that he could use. Even though the DEP's recommendation was to issue a full Certificate of Compliance, it did not say this board lacks authority to issue a partial. Mr. Strasnick asks that they consider the Certificate and the situation to be unique and they should hold Mr. Steadman accountable. The homeowner adds that anything on his property was not built up any different from the day of purchase. The commission asks if this is covered by title insurance. Mr. Strasnick says the Order of Conditions was exempted from coverage. There was only one order for the whole development. Mr. Moulison was one of the first purchasers so he could not have insisted on a full certificate as the development was still ongoing. We can't say his attorney should have caught the issue because it was not relevant at the time. Ricciarelli asks about grandfathering, but Pabich says this was a procedural change. The insurance company knew there was an open Order and exempted this issue so the insurance company is indemnified. Mr. Strasnick says the three year statute of limitations is forcing the owner to comply. If he were to stay in perpetuity he could theoretically refuse to have the work done, and leave it as is. Pabich asks that, if by purchasing with an open Order, is the purchaser buying a violation? Now it is that person's violation rather than Mr. Steadman's. Mr. Strasnick says there is a three year window to insist on compliance. Pabich says the violation renews the statute of limitations every day, but that's for the developer, not the owner owner, as Mr. Strasnick is reading it. The person who applies for the Order is subject to the Commission and must apply for the Certificate of Compliance, so violations renew for them, not for current property owners. This would be another reason in favor of issuing a partial Certificate of Compliance, so they can move forward with the rest of this. Hoskins asks if a partial Certificate would absolve the property of meeting the original requirements, or make it so that they can go to the bank with an estimate of what must be done. One possible scenario was to give the bank a finite list to which a cost could be attached. Can the Commission break it up and describe this as an individual parcel for the sake of clarity, as to what has to happen so it is not an open-ended liability for the bank? For example, it would represent 1/6 of all work to be done, or all work on this lot. The area in this property was a relatively small piece. The Commission would still pursue enforcement on the whole thing but the bank would be able to attach meaning to this piece. Pabich opines that if we issue a partial Certificate, other residents will request one too, even if the work was not done. It would set a precedent, and will close out that part of the project so it won't get done. Hoskins asks about the partial Certificate—could it restate original conditions? Devine notes that perpetual conditions can be noted in the certificate, but work required by the original order can't normally be conditioned in the certificate. Pabich asks what if we issue the Certificate but say hay bales must be removed? It is an informal way of doing it, and in such a case, Devine simply does not mail the Certificate until the hay bales are removed. Ricciarelli asks about the buyers, if they had any ideas or would agree to an easement so the work could be done. The buyers would accept an easement, and Mr. Strasnick thinks this is the best idea as they will never get a permit to build against the wetland. But the bank must be satisfied, so the best case scenario is that the Commission vote to say the seller is clear, then they will deal with the developer and force him 2 to resolve the deviations, before any other parcels come up. Alternately they would need to know what would be required on this parcel and; if it were remediated before the rest of the • development, they would get a clean Certificate and get estimates, and the bank would accept that and there would hopefully be enough money to put in escrow so the seller can sell and pay off the mortgage. He asks that they treat the property as unique. Devine notes that it is difficult to separate this property from the common elements of the plan such as the culvert under the road. Devine will meet with Mr. Steadman next week, and he expects that if the Commission takes the enforcement option, Mr. Steadman should be required to survey the site. Pabich says they are looking at replication vs. filled areas, and there was no deviation in filled areas, but there is a wall where there should be a slope. It's not just the area of replication,but the whole edge of the entire development. Without knowing what Mr. Steadman was supposed to vs. what he did do, and a plan showing the deviations, it is hard to work out an agreement about said deviation. Half of each yard could be lost. Pabich sympathizes and Chair Knisel reiterates that they brought the issue before the Commission on their own. St. Louis asks if the Order had been extended as it should have been, would the bank still have a problem? Devine states that the order has not been extended, so it expired years ago. Mr. Strasnick says, as presently constituted, it is a cloud on title. Now the Order is expired, not closed, but is still a cloud on title. Chair Knisel says fines will make Mr. Steadman cooperate. It could cost him$200 per day per violation. Pabich asks about areas that were supposed to be replicated. The scope of replication and work done vs. approved is discussed. Devine says from what he saw there are areas that should have been replicated but were not. N Pabich says Mr. Steadman will come in and explain what he will do to make good with the homeowners in order to fix what he didn't do. Pabich says since this is a small piece we can forgive what happened here in the interest of getting things moving. Ricciarelli wonders if they can replicate elsewhere and not affect someone else's lot. As long as it is hydraulically connected to the wetland it is acceptoble. But if Mr. Steadman can't do it there will be issues. Chair Knisel says if we grant partial Certificate, we don't want to lose square footage of wetland, and by closing it we waive our right. If we can do an easement for wetlands replication carried forward to the buyer, it would satisfy the wetland requirements, but would have to be on the exact site in question. Devine says Mr. Steadman's name is not on any property nearby. All properties were once owned by Mr. Steadman but no longer. The Commission is not sure about lots across the way. Pabich points out the location of fill vs. where replication should have been. The violation continues all along the subdivision if replication was not done. Pabich asks if we are sure if the work was not done,but we don't know if it was not done beyond this one yard. In that event this would be resolved after a survey of the whole site. Now Pabich thinks it would make sense to move forward from this lot and make Mr. Steadman prove that he did what he said. There is no benefit to holding this owner"hostage". Devine opines that the Commission would be issuing a partial Certificate for a property that has more than 1/6 of the wetlands fill on it. How can they hold Ken Steadman to doing more than a 1:1 replication in that case? Ricciarelli says it does not change the volume of replication. Mr. Steadman got permission to fill, but had to replicate. If he did, that would be good, but if not, he still has to replicate. Ricciarelli says they must protect themselves too since they will need an easement in case he can do the work. It • opens options and Mr. Strasnick is open to that. Wetlands must be hydraulically connected, so the work can not be done at another subdivision. Hoskins asks about the easement—it would say the developer would be able to come onto the property to do work to satisfy original Order. The 3 new owners must understand it may impact their yard, according to Ricciarelli. It was explained to their Counsel and they can put it into the deed, according to Mr. Strasnick. If they don't accept it, they will have to wait until the a full certificate is issued, but he thinks the new owners will go • , along with the easement. In this case the Commission does not waive any rights. Pabich says if time was not of the essence, Mr. Steadman should prove that the work was or wasn't done, but that is not the case. Mr. Strasnick says Mr. Steadman did not return his calls and the wetlands scientist who worked on the project originally has no records. Hoskins opines that Mr. Steadman should be here, especially if he can prove he did do the work. Pabich asks about the language for an easement agreement. Mr. Strasnick says it would require access to do what needs to be done in order to satisfy the existing Conditions. It would permit work to be done and the new owners would agree that Mr. Steadman can do the work. The Commission can use the plan they already have to determine the easement. Easement logistics are discussed. The easement would be held by the Commission as part of the Enforcement Order. They would discuss it with Beth Reynard, in order to write up something satisfactory. It would be written into the deed of the new owner. Devine is concerned that by issuing a partial Certificate, we are absolving Mr. Steadman of his replication responsibilities, in favor of square footage, but that has been answered. He is worried about the justification for issuing a Certificate of Compliance that says this lot is in is incompliance, when it's not. Hoskins asks if a sticking point is that we are assigning responsibility to Mr. Steadman but previously it was with him AND individual homeowners. The idea is to issue the partial Certificate, then work to hold Mr. Steadman accountable for the project violations. Devine says we currently issue orders for developments completed lot by lot. Normally there is an Order of Conditions for the roadway and utilities, then separate orders for each house. However, this is not a work in progress and it is difficult to separate this one piece. St. Louis wonders if all mitigation can be associated with the roadway, which does not receive a certificate of compliance. That would separate this lot from Steadman's required work. Devine still has doubts about issuing a Certificate for a deviating lot. It seems dishonest to say the work associated with this lot is completed. Chair Knisel points out that by using an easement, it demonstrates the Commission's intent; also the Commission would not have known about the issue at all if the seller had not brought it up. The wetlands would be no better off. Devine states that enforcement action against Mr. Steadman would mean he has to survey and delineate the whole lot, and come up with a work plan to bring it into compliance. We don't know what that will look like yet, and lacking that information without Mr. Steadman's assessment, an easement may or may not help. Pabich says we do not have a survey that shows us detail, and that less than 300 square feet are in question. The easement gives the seller the benefit of the doubt. The DEP may not like it but it seems logical. We will hold Mr. Steadman accountable and he will either prove it was done or have to complete the work. Ricciarelli asks if it was the same surveyor that did the subdivision— it is. So the Commission can ask about the project and if replication was shifted. He did have • original plans and thought it was substantially completed. 4 Pabich says that Mr. Steadman must replicate what he said he would, and built up more than he was supposed to. Replication would have been spread out, not just on this lot, so the Commission can make it happen. Chair Knisel asks about timing and how aggressive we can be with enforcement. How soon can we fine? We would want a survey, wetlands delineation and a compliance plan by the next meeting, then the Commission could determine a timeline with milestones. Fines by the Commission cannot be punitive, though the DEP might issue a punitive fine if they handle enforcement. They can be a tool to get Mr. Steadman to comply if he is nonresponsive. If he is nonresponsive or uncooperative, would the Commission pursue the matter by going to property owners lot by lot? Hoskins asks if the Commission is giving up any right to treat lots individually. Pabich says we are using Mr. Steadman to get work done but we won't be holding individuals accountable. An easement means the Commission could do the work if Mr. Steadman won't. Ricciarelli feels that if we fine him, he will do the work. The Commission is not in the business of doing this work. The only legal tool we would give up would be to force this owner to do the work, but we would not be giving it up for the others. Pabich thinks we have a mechanism, i.e. "get it to us in 30 days or it will be a$200 per day per violation fine," then we will work out a timeline. The easement will give Mr. Steadman access on this parcel, but he must work it out individually with the other owners. The best case scenario would be that he actually did the work but there is no paper trail. The Commission did not pursue it as the project was completed, so we cannot hold this owner accountable for that mistake. The agent at the time should have followed through, according to Pabich. N An easement is needed to make replication easier. The DEP suggests that all homeowners have bought into the violation and if they do not cooperate we can penalize them. Pabich says that the Commission is not the DEP. St. Louis says that if the contractor was onsite it would be different. Pabich thinks that the DEP should work with individual owners and not this Commission. Devine says it is an option. Hoskins asks about the intent of the easement, and Chair Knisel says it just demonstrates the intent of the agreement, and without it, this lot will be closed out without leverage. Chair Knisel wants Devine to be on board and she wonders what he wants. He says if we do enforcement against Mr. Steadman, a milestone for the next meeting should be a survey, wetlands delineation, and a proposed work plan. There would be some certainty in what work has to be done, which may help the seller with his transaction. However, the timeline right now is that the buyer's financing expires tomorrow. The buyers would have to reapply for financing if something is not done by tomorrow. If they go the route as discussed, they can deliver a good title and the closing can be scheduled for early next week with the existing financing. Hoskins asks how fast easements can be made. It could be done tomorrow morning. Language would be drafted, reviewed and agreed upon; then it would be emailed to the closing attorney, and the bank would check it out. If their bank balks, the seller would be no worse off than he is now. Pabich says that the options are to issue a partial Certificate of Compliance, or hold off until we see an easement. He wonders if it is possible to rescind a Certificate. Devine says that if the Commission issues a partial Certificate for this lot, the Commission is approving the shed and wconcrete slab that are there, but are deviations from the plan. Pabich has his doubts, plus the owner has agreed to either move the shed or take it down. Devine states that the shed and the slab are permittable but unpermitted. Pabich thinks the existence of the slab and shed is minor 5 relative to the entire slope. The two decisions in this case are the request for the Certificate of Compliance, and how to proceed with enforcement. Devine will draft a letter to Mr. Steadman for enforcement purposes, requiring a survey of the subdivision, delineation of wetlands, a description of deviations from the approved plan, no later than a few days before the next meeting (Dec. 13). Replication may have been done in an area that is not apparent. If work is needed to bring the project into compliance, a proposed work plan will be required. St. Louis comments that additional work could be detrimental. Ricciarelli opines that Mr. Steadman should get a flat fine for not doing the work. Pabich would like to give Mr. Steadman the benefit of the doubt and let him show the Commission whether or not the work was done, then deal with fines. The Commission is comfortable with issuing a partial Certificate with an easement. The is issued not when the Commission votes, but when it is postmarked. Devine will hold it until the easement is in place. Devine says the Commission must specify what it requires with an easement. He asks if it must be finalized before the Certificate is issued or if it should be left open. Hoskins thinks it should reference the original requirements as they pertain to this property. However, the original plan may not be the best thing to follow now, and the Commission would like more flexibility. Pabich says that the intent of the original plan should be met, but square footage or removal of the wall need not be specified. Mr. Strasnick says that they are looking for access to the property, though it may not be needed. The buyer should be made aware of the possible scope of the work, and be able to end the easement after it is done, if needed. The easement will be for access and mitigation work on the property footprint as defined by the plan. It will not give access to adjoining parcels. Devine clarifies that we are issuing a partial Certificate with easement, that will allow the work we want to be done. The Commission will have property right vs. a regulatory right, according to Mr. Strasnick. According to Pabich, this arrangement means that the Commission is certifying that work will be done under an easement so that we can do work which is not yet defined. If the easement fails to materialize, the Devine will not release the certificate. However, Mr. Strasnick states that he would not request the Certificate until he has the easement in hand. It is not certain whether or not the easement requires City Council action. It would automatically terminate upon issuance of a full Certificate of Compliance. Devine does not recommend this as a course of action. While it appears to him that replication did not occur as required in key locations in the subdivision, this property is the only part of the subdivision where we have verified through a survey that replication was not done. Devien says he knows of at least one other similar situation that may g be coming before to the commission soon and he is worried about precedent. The Commission feels that if another developer or buyer came before them, it would have no bearing on this situation. Each site is unique. Chair Knisel asks why they should create problem for a resident if it was poor record keeping on the part of the City? Devine says there are many ways this could have slipped through cracks. Some responsibility lies with the current owner, who failed to obtain a clear title when purchasing the property. Ricciarelli says the easement 6 ,l means the violation does not go away, but passes on to the next owner until the work is done. Pabich says as far as precedent—the easement says work could be done, and could work in the • future. It is not ideal but is a workable solution. The owner says if he knew about this situation, he would have fixed it. A motion to issue a partial Certificate of Compliance, to be issued upon receipt of an easement granting the Commission or its designee access to allow work to be done to bring the subdivision into compliance, is made by St. Louis, seconded by Hoskins , and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Devine says that the other matter requiring a vote is enforcement against Mr. Steadman. The above-mentioned items (delineation, etc.) are required before the next meeting. The deadline is set for a week before the next meeting. Pabich says that the Commission is requesting that Mr. Steadman gather information on property that he does not own, but according to St. Louis, surveyors should have the right of access anyway, and property owners should receive a notification letter from the Commission. Devine comments that there is no time pressure now that this individual lot is taken care of, but the Commission wants to move forward with the rest of the matter ASAP. Pabich reiterates that Mr. Steadman should prove the work was done so the Commission can issue a full Certificate. Each day of filled wetlands is a current violation. The week before the next meeting, the Commission wants an as-built survey, which could be in Mr. Steadman's files. Some plans may exist but he may not have done an as-built,but the Commission will give him the benefit of the doubt. If he cannot produce it, he will have to produce it and will have a rigorous timeline. Hamilton thinks the Commission should give him two weeks to reply as to whether or not he has that item, then give him a timeline to complete survey if he does not have it. Devine says he will see him Tuesday; if he says he does not have it then it can trigger a timeline of 30 or 60 days. Pabich says at least 45 days are needed because of the need to ask permission of the property owners. Devine wants to be prepared if Mr. Steadman does not come to the meeting, and will send a letter. He will be before the Commission soon for another property, the Witch Hill subdivision. The agent at the time of the development in question may have been Steve Dibble, and he may have made judgment calls in the field. To reiterate: Devine will see Mr. Steadman this coming Tuesday; if he does not show or cannot produce an as-built survey, Devine will send a letter requesting the original as-built, to be due two weeks from Tuesday, a week before the next meeting (this would be Dec. 6`n). If Mr. Steadman does not produce a survey, he will need a signed proposal from a surveyor, sent to the Commission two weeks after Dec. 6t'. If no as-built is presented, the Commission will give Mr. Steadman 45 days to develop one, including two weeks to produce a contract with a surveyor and wetlands scientist. Also within 45 days, a description of any deviations between the approved and as-built plans must be submitted. Wetlands delineation should be on the as-built. If the original as-built is produced, he does not have to do the delineation. The Planning Board does not have an as-built. Mr. Reed, the surveyor, was not sure if he gave the Commission an as-built. It is not certain if the lawyer asked the surveyor if the replication was supplemented on other lots. Depending on its assessment of the information it is requiring Mr. Steadman to produce, the commission may require a draft plan of work required to bring the project into compliance. 7 A motion to proceed with enforcement action is made by Pabich, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. A motion to adjourn is made by Hamilton, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 7: 50PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on January 10, 2013 • 8 ,n�ONDij'\�O CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION NOTICE OFMEETING i811 DEC -b P 2: 45 You are bereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will bold its regularly scheduled meeting on Th7MY4, December 13, 2012 at 6.•00 AMat the City Hall Annex, 3b floor conference roomjoy$¢ Woghll#b*AkSlfrW SS. Salem, AL1. Julia Knirel Chair MEETINGAGENDA 1. Old/New Business • 81 Highland Avenue (Salem Hospital), DEP #64-539: Discussion of proposed tree removal • Right-of-way off Waite Street,DEP #64-347: Request for Certificate of Compliance 2. Meeting Minutes—October 25 and November 8, 2012 3. Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability-50 Grove Street Real Estate LLC,7 Rantoul Street,Suite 100B,Beverly,M.A.The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed off- leash dog area within riverfront area and flood zone at 50 Grove Street. • 4. 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. 5. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Robert Tyacl, 65 Pond Street,Essex, Mt1. 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. 6. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability Jeff Holloran, Halloran 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. 7. 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 • Strongwater Crossing Lot 18,DEP #64-457: Discussion of project change • Strongwater Crossing Lot 37, DEP #64-456: Discussion of project change • 28 Goodhue Street, DEP #64-441: Discussion of project change • 11R Winter Island Road, DEP #64-519: Update on enforcement action • Clark Avenue Extension, DEP#64-259: Update on enforcement action • Review of 2013 meeting schedule PP����y Knowynur ghtr under the Open Meeting Law RLG.L a 39 5238 and Cary Ori�snF echos a h 2 k4 gas. ORDIOt U, p rn Page t oft r f DRAFT MINUTES Salem Conservation Commission- Special Meeting Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,November 15,2012,6:00 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, Greg St. Louis Members Absent: Michael Blier Others Present: Tom Devine, Conse vat1 n Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb m . Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:1O. ;" i. Old/New Business • 24 Clark Avenue,DEP#64 259:,,Request for a ttficate of Comphanc Devine updates the Commission on hi , f�fo:s o the previ us, eek. Robert Strasnick, attorney, is present, as is the homeowner, David Mbulison • Devine has researched severaAmll<so Utions and'h.,,� c ri5tf fed�hi�S?1 peers. achael Freed, DEP Wetlands Section Chie rovide �idance Sh`ar'e ' mende4t4,tJ ing enforcement action �: :: . against the developer,Ke Steadman to correc auZ mayor deviations from the plan approved for the subdivision. Both the de loper.aid4i dividual:home owners can be considered violators, and the COmmiO Qn c i sue a eztfproeme t dtrectiv t the developer with milestones that require that worla one. Tf Stea7m must on o th&,property of others, then the Commission could require that they lie.coopell or be penatiAd. The DEP offexe to back the C _ servation;. ommission and if Mr. Steadman does not cooperate, they can take o e6 and issue a hea y fine. The DEP starts their process by issuing a fine, whereas the ConservationQn ission gv, s a warning first. Ms. Freed advises against escrow agreements involvmge Comriision; any of those should be between the buyer and seller . without the Commission° he �9mmission has, in its local ordinance, the authority to have a bond posted when a permit`tg;t sued. But we were advised against issuing any Certificate of Compliance until the work is done. Devine spoke to Mr. Steadman on the phone and advised him that the commission is likely to take enforcement action. Devine suggests that the Commission should not issue a partial Certificate. The DEP suggests that if there is urgency to finalize a sale of the property, it could be it could be facilitated with and escrow agreement between buyer and seller. Mr. Strasnick says if it was that simple they would do it, but the bank would have to know what work has to be done. Plus the bank must go • through an insurance company who must be willing to insure with the escrow. Mr. Strasnick says the statute that controls these orders says there is a three year statute of limitations on conveyance. But we are not sure if the statute gets renewed upon further 1 conveyance-Mr. Strasnick thinks so, since banks want the title cleared and the Order issued and closed. It makes sense for everyone in the neighborhood to cooperate. Mr. Strasnick says we are where we left off last week. The original wetland scientist was contacted and Mr. Strasnick says she will check in her notes to review the situation. But her files were destroyed from so long ago. This board has the authority to make sure the proper amount of wetlands are replicated within the development, and Mr. Steadman has other projects being permitted in Salem, so he has land that would be available for replication that he could use. Even though gh the DEP's recommendation was to issue a full Certificate of Compliance, it did not say this board lacks authority to issue a partial. Mr. Strasnick asks that they consider the Certificate and the situation to be unique and they should hold Mr. Steadman accountable. The homeowner adds that anything on his property was not buil any different from the day of purchase. The commission asks if this is covered by title insurance. Mr. Strasnick says the Order of Conditions was exempted from coverage. There was i b�ie order for the whole development. Mr. Moulison was one of the first purchas so lcould not have insisted on a full certificate as the development was still ongoing'-We can't y hi. attorney should have caught the issue because it was not relevant at th"e. . Ricciarelli asks about grandfathering, but I s s this was a procedural change. The insurance company knew there was an open Ord �! exem this issue sow e insurance company is indemnified. Mr. Strasnick_ays the three �r`sfakdte of limitations %s forcing the owner to comply. If he were to staytin rp uity he coI�l tiporetically refuse to have the work done, and leave it as is. Pabich asks tha�f lzy chasing open Order, is the purchaser �F• buying a violation? Now it is that personNviotaitiorrzlrgt!h�ei thy Vf . Steadman's. Mr. Strasnick says there is a three yearwtn w to insismp iapcgbicliasa the violation renews thestatute of limitations evcjay � t that' e developer, 'heowner owner, as Mr. Strasnick is reading c e person o a6r:tb, Order t bject to the Commission and must apply for the Certifi ate of Compliance, so solations renew for them, not for current property owners. This would?be "oeason i f or of issuing a partial Certificate of Compliance t4Fy an in,,, or ar e rest f this. Hoskins s if a partial C Ylificate uId abso ve, e property of meeting the original requirements or make its thea the7 o to the bank with an estimate of what must be done. One possiblenario was to give the Bata finite list to which a cost could be attached. Can the Commission bre' t up and depp'be this ams an individual parcel for the sake of clarity, as to what has to happens ,it is not an'; en-ended liability for the bank? For example, it would re sera /6 of all work to be done, or all work on this lot. The area in this property was a rel a ivv�elF- mall piece. The Commission would still pursue enforcement on the whole thing but the bank would be able to attach meaning to this piece. Pabich opines that if we issue a partial Certificate, other residents will request one too, even if the work was not done. It would set a precedent, and will close out that part of the project so it won't get done. Hoskins asks about the partial Certificate-could it restate original conditions? Devine notes that perpetual conditions can be noted in the certificate, but work required by the original order can't normally be conditioned in the certificate. Pabich asks what if we issue the Certificate but say hay bales must be removed? It is an informal way of doing it, and in such a case, Devine simply does not mail the Certificate until the hay bales are removed. Ricciarelli asks about the buyers, if they had any ideas or would agree to an easement so the work could be done. The buyers would i accept an easement, and Mr. Strasnick thinks this is the best idea as they will never get a permit to build against the wetland. But the bank must be satisfied, so the best case scenario is that the 2 l Commission vote to say the seller is clear, then they will deal with the developer and force him to resolve the deviations, before any other parcels come up. Alternately they would need to know • what would be required on this parcel and; if it were remediated before the rest of the development,they would get a clean Certificate and get estimates, and the bank would accept that and there would hopefully be enough money to put in escrow so the seller can sell and pay off the mortgage. He asks that they treat the property as unique. Devine notes that it is difficult to separate this property from the common elements of the plan such as the culvert under the road. Devine will meet with Mr. Steadman next week, and he expects that if the Commission takes the enforcement option, Mr. Steadman should be required to survey the site. Pabich says they are looking at replication vs. filled areas, and there was no deviation in filled areas, but there is a wall where there should be a slope. It's not just the area of replli8htion, but the whole edge of the entire development. Without knowing what Mr. Steadmanwas trpposed to vs. what he did do, and a plan showing the deviations, it is hard to work out ntt agreement about said deviation. Half of each yard could be lost. Pabich sympathizes and Cha`�ir. sol,teiterates that they brought the issue before the Commission on their own. St Lowg',asks if the10 dbr had been extended as it should have been, would the bank still have a pr6bleth? Devine states at the order has not been extended, so it expired years ago. Mr. Strasniek saysmlk� , as presently const`tut ed, it is a cloud on title. Now the Order is expired, not closed, but i still a cloud on title. i:. Chair Knisel says fines will make Mr:*Steadman coo este. l 'could cost him $20+ per day per violation. Pabich asks about areas that Vvlveer ,,upposed to be replicated. The scope of replication and work done vs. approved is discus Devine says from what hersaw5— hthere are ki6that sh ourldhave beef. eplicated but were not. Pabich says Mr. Steadr4lart wiIl:6ome in and eR�laurvv nt ho.wttll a ' o make good with the homeowners in ordtofix what heidn't do' Pabieli�says sm�efhis is a small piece we can forgive what happened,ter m the in Brest of g tting things moving. Ricciarelli wonders if they can replicate elsewhere ariot affe -s one el a§s lot. As long as it is hydraulically connected to the wetlafiditikas ept mobl ,But-zflvlc " eadm can't do it there will be issues. Chair Kin el says if we gran t�partial ertificate, w" don't want to lose square footage of wetland, and by clos it we waive,ouxsight i e can do an easement for wetlands replication carried forward to the�uyer, it wouldsnisfy thetwetland requirements,but would have to be on the exact site in qu , ion. Devme sV, Mr. Steadman's name is not on any property nearby. All properties were he owned D Mr. Steadman but no longer. The Commission is not sure about lots across the wagl?abie' points out the location of fill vs. where replication should have been. The violation contmue all along the subdivision if replication was not done. Pabich asks if we are sure if the work was not done,but we don't know if it was not done beyond this one yard. In that event this would be resolved after a survey of the whole site. Now Pabich thinks it would make sense to move forward from this lot and make Mr. Steadman prove that he did what he said. There is no benefit to holding this owner"hostage". Devine opines that the Commission would be issuing a partial Certificate for a property that has more than 1/6 of the wetlands fill on it. How can they hold Ken Steadman to doing more than a 1:1 replication in that case? Ricciarelli says it does not change the volume of replication. Mr. Steadman got permission to fill, but had to • replicate. If he did, that would be good, but if not, he still has to replicate. Ricciarelli says they must protect themselves too since they will need an easement in case he can do the work. It opens options and Mr. Strasnick is open to that. Wetlands must be hydraulically connected, so the work can not be done at another subdivision. Hoskins asks about the easement-it would say 3 the developer would be able to come onto the property to do work to satisfy original Order. The new owners must understand it may impact their yard, according to Ricciarelli. It was explained to their Counsel and they can put it into the deed, according to Mr. Strasnick. If they don't accept • it, they will have to wait until the a full certificate is issued, but he thinks the new owners will go along with the easement. In this case the Commission does not waive any rights. Pabich says if time was not of the essence, Mr. Steadman should prove that the work was or wasn't done, but that is not the case. Mr. Strasnick says Mr. Steadman did not return his calls and the wetlands scientist who worked on the project originally has no records. Hoskins opines that Mr. Steadman should be here, especially if he can prove he did do the work. Pabich asks about the language for an easement agreement. Mr�S asnick says it would require access to do what needs to be done in order to satisfy the existin Conditions. It would permit work to be done and the new owners would agree that Mr..Steadman can do the work. The Commission can use the plan they already have to dete r e 42 easement. Easement logistics are discussed. The easement would be held by the�Cotimission as of the Enforcement Order. They would discuss it with Beth Reynard, in order t rite up some4inffig satisfactory. It would be written into the deed of the new owner. M. Devine is concerned that by issuing a partial CertifiF we a€e bsoNgiteadman of his replication responsibilities, in favor orfsquare footage;0-tiliif as been answet I is worried - qu about the justification for issuing a C&I ficate of Complifi t that says this lot is in is incompliance, when it's not. INA Hoskins asks if a sticking paint is that we assigning Sponsibl to Mr. Steadman but previously it was withF& A�NIY individual* eo.W% `T1 eAea i to issue the partial n.Certificate, then wor t" Told MiStil eadman�oun'a>le fort e, reject violations. Devine says we currentl ttss a ordersnfdevelop ins completed lot by lot. Normally there is an Order f,C o drEior s for the"Poadwap �u ihties . en separate orders for each house. k , Howe ve this is notawo k in p dg ess an `rG''is tliffi It to separate this one piece. St. Louisa' ders if all mitigation can' associated with the roadway, which does not receive a certificate o"f�c pliance That,would sep ate this lot from Steadman's required work. Devine still has doubts, ut issuing aNi"Ad-ificate for a deviating lot. It seems dishonest to say the work associated with thilca is completed. Chair Knisel points out that by using an easement, it demonstrates the Coi ssion�s i ent; also the Commission would not have known about the issue at all if the seller fiat l: aught it up. The wetlands would be no better off. Devine states that enforcement action against Mr. Steadman would mean he has to survey and delineate the whole lot, and come up with a work plan to bring it into compliance. We don't know what that will look like yet, and lacking that information without Mr. Steadman's assessment, an easement may or may not help. Pabich says we do not have a survey that shows us detail, and that less than 300 square feet are in question. The easement gives the seller the benefit of the doubt. The DEP may not like it but it seems logical. We will hold Mr. Steadman accountable and he will either prove it was done or • have to complete the work. Ricciarelli asks if it was the same surveyor that did the subdivision- it is. So the Commission can ask about the project and if replication was shifted. He did have original plans and thought it was substantially completed. 4 Pabich says that Mr. Steadman must replicate what he said he would, and built up more than he was supposed to. Replication would have been spread out, not just on this lot, so the Commission can make it happen. Chair Knisel asks about timing and how aggressive we can be with enforcement. How soon can we fine? We would want a survey, wetlands delineation and a compliance plan by the next meeting, then the Commission could determine a timeline with milestones. Fines by the Commission cannot be punitive, though the DEP might issue a punitive fine if they handle enforcement. They can be a tool to get Mr. Steadman to comply if he is nonresponsive. If he is nonresponsive or uncooperative, would the Commission pursue the matter by going to property owners lot by lot? Hoskins asks if the Commission is giving up`*, y right to treat lots individually. Pabich says we are using Mr. Steadman to getorlydone but we won't be holding individuals accountable. An easement means the Commis;ort could do the work if Mr. Steadman won't. Ricciarelli feels that if we fine him,,heYi I d( the work. The Commission is not in the business of doing this work. The only legalo l we w*66tJ"& ive up would be to force this owner to do the work,but we would not be giviit up for the o`Nwil Pabich thinks we have a mechanism, i.e. "get i to. in 30 days or itb�„ $200 per day per violation fine," then we will work out a timelme.Th asemen ill give M�leadman access on this parcel, but he must work it oufindividually with tee owners The bet case scenario would be that he actually did the work bu there is no pa pei I ail. The Commission did not pursue it as the project was completed, sow of liol�this owne countable for that mistake. The agent at the time should have follow edthr ugti ecozding to K h. • An easement is neede <an'c akeS lication a er. T e r) ti esE that all homeowners have R bought into the violatio if�iAM i o not co00 rat we cane lize them. Pabich says that the Commission is not the4St. Lo�`t� says thal�rf the contractor was onsite it would be different. Pabich thinks that the DE shouldwork with individual owners and not this Commission. Devine says`it rs a`ption. Hoski s as s about the intent of asement a' hair Knisel says it just demonstrates the intent of the agreement, andthout it 's lot will be closed out without leverage. Chair Knisel wan s Devine to be`o board nd she wonders what he wants. He says if we do enforcement against Mr. Steadm"_ a milestone for the next meeting should be a survey, wetlands delineation;ar d a propo�d work plan. There would be some certainty in what work has to be done, which ris helntre seller with his transaction. However, the timeline right now is that the buyer's fin ancift e ires tomorrow. The buyers would have to reapply for financing if something is not done by tomorrow. If they go the route as discussed, they can deliver a good title and the closing can be scheduled for early next week with the existing financing. Hoskins asks how fast easements can be made. It could be done tomorrow morning. Language would be drafted, reviewed and agreed upon; then it would be emailed to the closing attorney, and the bank would check it out. If their bank balks, the seller would be no worse off than he is now. Pabich says that the options are to issue a partial Certificate of Compliance, or hold off until we • see an easement. He wonders if it is possible to rescind a Certificate. Devine says that if the Commission issues a partial Certificate for this lot, the Commission is approving the shed and concrete slab that are there, but are deviations from the plan. Pabich has his doubts, plus the owner has agreed to either move the shed or take it down. Devine states that the shed and the 5 4 slab are permittable but unpermitted. Pabich thinks the existence of the slab and shed is minor relative to the entire slope. The two decisions in this case are the request for the Certificate of Compliance, and how to proceed with enforcement. Devine will draft a letter to Mr. Steadman for enforcement purposes, requiring a survey of the subdivision, delineation of wetlands, a description of deviations from the approved plan, no later than a few days before the next meeting (Dec. 13). Replication may have been done in an area that is not apparent. If work is needed to bring the project into compliance, a proposed work plan will be required. St. Louis comments that additional work could be detrimental. Ricciarelli opines that Mr. Steadman should get a flat fine for not doing the work. Pabic A Id like to give Mr. Steadman the benefit of the doubt and let him show the Commission W ether or not the work was done, then deal with fines. The Commission is comfortable with issuing a partiM Certificate ,i an easement. The is issued not when the Commission votes, but when it is osarked. Devin � hold it until the easement is in place. Devine says the Commigi, ify must specwhat if aq ares with an _ easement. He asks if it must be finalized before fhCertificate is issued or i should be left open. Hoskins thinks it should reference t oigirial requiremerttS s they pertain to this property. However, the original plan may not be . e bs t1t'ng to folla, ow, and the Commission would like more flexibility. Pabich says that the ten Millie originally should be met, but square footage or removal of th wall„ eed not be s ecif"` n g � d 1vStrasmCl ys that they are looking for access to the property,F�ghit iYiay not be dedTl%eltue should be made aware of the • y, e , possible scope of thew rk, and be le to endKID-6, ' ment ae�it is done, if needed. The easement will be for cc s and mitigationn the property footprint as defined by the plan It will not gFveaccess o.adjojttmgzp cee clarifies that we are issuing a partial �_� Certrfica o Ytfi ease int that will allow the work w*want to be done. The Commission will have property right vs. at eg. latory zi' t, according to Mr. Strasnick. According to�,�.�ich, this arrangement me s that the Commission is certifying that work will be done under an`e ,m ent so tha��can do work which is not yet defined. If the easement fails to materialize, the Devttye will not,release the certificate. However, Mr:Strasnick states that he JrU would not request the. ificate until he has the easement in hand. It is not certain whether or A, not the easement requires ity;C ncil action. It would automatically terminate upon issuance of a full Certificate of Cotrip uc Devine does not recommend this as a course of action. While it appears to him that replication did not occur as required in key locations in the subdivision, this property is the only part of the subdivision where we have verified through a survey that replication was not done. Devien says he knows of at least one other similar situation that may be coming before to the commission soon and he is worried about precedent. The Commission feels that if another developer or buyer came before them, it would have no bearing on this situation. Each site is unique. Chair Knisel asks why they should create problem • for a resident if it was poor record keeping on the part of the City? Devine says there are many ways this could have slipped through cracks. Some responsibility lies with the current owner, 6 who failed to obtain a clear title when purchasing the property. Ricciarelli says the easement means the violation does not go away, but passes on to the next owner until the work is done. • Pabich says as far as precedent—the easement says work could be done, and could work in the future. It is not ideal but is a workable solution. The owner says if he knew about this situation, he would have fixed it. A motion to issue a partial Certificate of Compliance, to be issued upon receipt of an easement granting the Commission or its designee access to allow work to be done to bring the subdivision into compliance, is made by St. Louis, seconded by Hoskins , and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. Devine says that the other matter requiring a vote is enforcemen'against Mr. Steadman. The n- above-mentioned items (delineation, etc.) are required before 'A. 'A next meeting. The deadline is set for a week before the next meeting. Pabich says that the C-o mission is requesting that Mr. Steadman gather information on property that he doesfni50f.Xi t according to St. Louis, surveyors should have the right of access anyway, aril p perty o ers should receive a Nllie notification letter from the Commission. Devine comments that there is no time pressure nd that this individual lot 1 taken care of, but the Commission wants to move forward with the re hof the ma t r ASAP Pab1 reiterates that Mr. Steadman should prove the work`was done so the btf 3s n can issue afu1D Certificate. Each day of filled wetlands is a Curren ,Pvi Theeekxbefore the next meeting, the R Commission wants an as-built survey, which etsu d be m 1V1 Badman's files. Some plans may exist but he may not have done an as buil f but the`Commiss ar give him the benefit of the • doubt. If he cannot producerrt,he will hake o produce r d wilhhae a rigorous timeline. ' Hamilton thinks the o issiontshquld givetlnm t o weeksto, ply as to whether or not he has that item, then give h �meline td complete°'u vey if he does not have it. Devine says he will see him Tuesday; if he says h doe9or have rt tlieit can trigger a timeline of 30 or 60 days. Pabich says"aF leastV days a ex e dem ep �e o? need to ask permission of the property ., :, owners,De .ine wanlie prepaied if Mr. Steadm does not come to the meeting, and will a" er send a*letter. He will be be�foxe the�C�'b fission sa' n for another property, the Witch Hill subdivisionThe agent at theme oftdevelopment in question may have been Steve Dibble, and he may hab made judgmzn calls ifield. To reiterate: Devin ill see Mr mSteadman this coming Tuesday; if he does not show or cannot produce an as-built s Dev" will send a letter requesting the original as-built, to be due two weeks from Tuesda% we -before the next meeting(this would be Dec. 6`h). If Mr. Steadman does not produce a�survey, he will need a signed proposal from a surveyor, sent to the Commission two weeks after Dec. 6a'. If no as-built is presented, the Commission will give Mr. Steadman 45 days to develop one, including two weeks to produce a contract with a surveyor and wetlands scientist. Also within 45 days, a description of any deviations between the approved and as-built plans must be submitted. Wetlands delineation should be on the as-built. If the original as-built is produced, he does not have to do the delineation. The Planning Board does not have an as-built. Mr. Reed, the • surveyor, was not sure if he gave the Commission an as-built. It is not certain if the lawyer asked the surveyor if the replication was supplemented on other lots. Depending on its assessment of the information it is requiring Mr. Steadman to produce, the 7 commission may require a draft plan of work required to bring the project into compliance. A motion to proceed with enforcement action is made by Pabich, seconded by Hamilton, and • passes unanimously. A motion to adjourn is made by Hamilton, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 7: 50PM. Respectfully Submitted, Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission t 4. E 5 • 8 T t ��CONOfT�,tQ CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION December 24, 2012 David Moulison 24 Clark Avenue Salem, MA 01970 Re: Partial Certificate of Compliance—DEP #64-259—Clark Avenue Extension Dear Mr. Moulison: Enclosed, please find the partial certificate of compliance for the above-referenced property. This document must be recorded at the Essex County Registry of Deeds. Please fill out and return the Recording Information on page 3 of the certificate, which will indicate to the Salem Conservation Commission that the document has been recorded. • This is a partial certificate for the order of conditions that permitted the construction of the Clark Avenue Extension. This certificate applies only to the property located at 24 Clark Avenue, City of Salem Assessor Map 6, Lot 6 and does not certify that work permitted by the order has been completed anywhere outside this property. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 978-619-5685. Sincerely, _ Tom Devine Conservation Agent/Staff Planner Enclosures CC: DEP Northeast Regional Office Kenneth Steadman A� Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection Wetlands DEP File Number WPA Form 8B — Certificate of Compliance 64-259 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L.L c. 131, §40` Provided by DEP A. Project Information Important: When fining out : 1. This Certificate of Compliance is issued to: forms on the computer,rise David Moulison only the tab keyName to move your 24 Clark Avenue cursor-do not Mailing Address - use the return � - key. Salem MA 01970 •. City/Tovm State Zip Code ° 2. This Certificate of Compliance is Issued for work regulated by a final Order of Conditions issued to: Kenneth G. Steadman Name 12/12/1996 - 64-259 - Dated DEP File Number 3. The project site is located at: 24 Clark Avenue Salem Street Address _ City/Tom 6 6 -Assessors Map/Plat Number. Parcel/Lot Number the final Order of Condition was recorded at the Registry of Deeds for: Property Omer(if different) - South Essex County Book Page 323 66678,348 69170, 348 69197 Certificate - 4. A site inspection was made in the presence of the applicant, or the applicant's agent, on: - 11/5/2012 .Date wpaf mai doc•,w 1P/ M9 - WPA Form Be.Cemficate 0 Compliance•Page 1.of 3 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection \ --; Bureau of Resource,Protection:- Wetlands :` DEP File N umber: WPA Form 8B Certificate of Compliance Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by DEP B. Certification Check all that apply: ❑ Complete Certification It is hereby certified that the work regulated by the above-referenced Order of Conditions has been satisfactorily completed. ® Partial Certification: It is hereby certified that only the following portions of work regulated by the above-referenced Order of Conditions have been satisfactorily: completed.The project areas or work subject to this partial certification that have been completed and are released from this Order are: ❑ Invalid Order of Conditions: It is hereby certified that the work regulated by the above-referenced Order of Conditions never commenced. The Order of Conditions has lapsed and is therefore no longer valid.No future work subject to •` regulation under the Wetlands Protection Act may commence without filing anew Notice of Intent and receiving a new Order of Conditions. ❑ Ongoing Conditions: The following conditions of the Order shall continue:- (Include any conditions contained in the Final Order, such as maintenance or monitoring, that should continue fora longer period). Condition Numbers: C. Authorization Issued by: / �i4 --- _ 1�L _Y �— b ddd _ Conservation Commission - Dale f Iss ante This Certificate must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission and a copy sent to the applicant and appropriate DEP Regional Offi (Se hitp://www.mas about/re gionifindvouchtm) Signature w frmad.doc•rev.12/29109 wPA Fortis ea,Certificate of C.m1,arce Page 2 of 3 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection Wetlands DEP Fie Number WPA Form 8B - Certificate of Compliance 64-259 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Providedby DEP D. Recording Confirmation The applicant is responsible for ensuring that this Certificate of Compliance is recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located. Detach on dotted line and submit to the Conservation Commission. Ta — - -------------- --------------------------------------------------- Salem Conservation Commission Please be advised that the Certificate of Compliance for the project at: Protect Location DEP File Number Has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds of: county for. Property Owner and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property on: -. Date Book Page If recorded land,the instrument number which identifies this transaction is If registered land, the document number which identifies this transaction is: Document Number Signature of Applicant _ •,. wpafrmflodoc•rev.42/2309 WPA Form 80 Certificate of compliance•Page 3 of 3: / I �I Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, October 25,2012,6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Vice Chair David Pabich Amy Hamilton Bart Hoskins Gregory St.Louis Members Absent: Chair Julia Knisel, Michael Blier,Dan Rieciarelli Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kith Acting Chair Pabich calls the meeting to order at 6:02PM i. Meeting Minutes—September 27,2012 A motion to continue approval of the minutes to the next meeting is made by Hoskins, seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously. 2. Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed installation of a tide gate in a new manhole at Collins Cove Park (31 Collins Street) within • buffer zone to a wetland resource area and maintenance of an adjacent drainage outfall to Collins Cove. Here for the City is Giovanna Zabaleta and Rebecca Dupont from the City's consulting firm, New England Civil Engineering. Ms. Dupont outlines the project. There is flooding in certain areas. A new manhole is to be installed; currently there are no blockages. The area is above the beach with a chain link fence separating the park from the beach. They would like to create more space for the water. The outfall area has stone strewn about and it is inundated with sediment. They want to hand clear the area so that the water can exit. There is no work in the pipe;just clearing around it at the outfall. Pabich asks about cleaning the pipe; it is clear already with no obstructions, and is in good condition since they viewed it with a camera. Pabich asks about the position of some of the catch basins and Ms. Dupont outlines. The fence is also discussed. Pabich asks how long the project will take; Ms. Dupont is not sure how long the contractor will take. She estimates a week. The manhole and tide gate will be installed at the same time. There are catch basins on either side of the outfall, but not in the intersection. Pabich asks about excavation, commenting on the buffer zone and sheetflow. He is concerned about the stockpiling of soils; there will be some excess. Any piles should be covered. St. Louis asks about children climbing into the culvert; there are no trash racks in Salem at all so • the City would have to consider that separately. Pabich says they are required for new construction, which this is not. Pabich discusses the clearing of the outfall and how far down they will have to go. He asks if 1 there are any connections to one of the lines; there is but there is no way to do maintenance. Pabich states that there was some cross connection sewer line to that drain. Bacteria counts in Collins Cove have historically been high and this outfall is suspect. Ms. Dupont did not see any • laterals. She did a study for the City and Salem Sound Coastwatch, but this outfall was not included in the 50 that were sampled this year. Chair Pabich opens to the public but there are no audience members, so no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hamilton, seconded by St. Louis and passes unanimously. Devine thinks work on the outfall is exempt under maintenance and repair. The contractor must be informed that there can be no stockpiling of uncovered soils, but this is not a condition. A motion to issue a negative 2 determination is made by Hamilton, seconded by Hoskins and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 3. 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 Nov. 8, 2012. • A motion to continue is made by St. Louis, seconded by Hoskins and passes unanimously. 4. Old/New Business . • Strongwater Crossing Lot 18,DEP#64-457: Request for Certificate of Compliance • Strongwater Crossing Lot 37,DEP#64-456: Request for Certificate of Compliance Paul DiBiase is not ready to submit all materials to request the certificates. The two agenda items are tabled for the next meeting. • 185 Jefferson Avenue,DEP 64-542: Request for Certificate of Compliance This was a wetlands violation where there was encroachment and fill into riverfront area. The wetland was excavated and restored to a 1997 grade and planted with conservation seed mix. The Commission required an after the fact Notice of Intent after the restoration to ensure that there was a public process. An Order of Conditions was issued so they are requesting their Certificate. The Commission determined that the work had been completed by issuing the Order. The Commission will not ask for invasives remediation but is concerned about further fill and illegal use of National Grid property. The Order of Conditions includes two years of monitoring through spring 2013 and 2014. Concrete blocks were installed at the property line to keep further • encroachment from happening. Silt fencing is still there and they should be required to remove it. 2 A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance with the ongoing condition for annual monitoring, and pending removal of erosion control, is made by Hoskins, seconded by St. Louis • and passes unanimously. The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. • Discussion and vote regarding funding for education and training Devine requests funding for mileage and registration for the MACC fall conference in November. It is $60 for registration and approximately$60 for mileage. A motion to authorize $120 for Devine is made by Hoskins, seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously. Devine also requests funding for the Nov. 8a' Symposium on sea level rise and its impact on salt marshes at the Crane Estate in Ipswich. It is free for local officials but he would like to be reimbursed for mileage in case he cannot carpool. A motion to approve the funding is made by Hoskins, seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously. Devine also notifies commissioners that the City is performing maintenance on the seawall along Collins Cove; this is legal, exempt maintenance and repair, but he has more information if they would like to see it. He passes around the project plans. This will include seawall and revetment repair with some stones to be reset. Pabich opines that the work seems to be substantially out of the water. Devine thinks the exemption would be the same either way, since the case law • establishing the exemption for maintenance and repair was in regard to a specific maintenance project where the court ruled that the exemption even allowed for scaffolding in the resource area. Vice Chair Pabich thinks it is borderline, however they are repairing an existing structure. It appears to just be work in a couple of locations, not the entire wall. Devine comments that there is little guidance available for applying the exemption; all that exists is a court case that determined it was legal to repair a seawall without coming before the Conservation Commission. Devine states that he will continue to bring projects like this to the attention of the commission so that it can be determined whether a filing is needed. Devine mentions the gravel present at I IR Winter Island Rd. on the right-of-way at the construction site of a Commission-approved house. People thought it was a private drive until the Commission put up a sign welcoming use of it as a public way. Now the house has been rebuilt. There was dilapidated asphalt, now it is covered with gravel. They did some utility work and now there has been 80' of bituminous removed or covered with crushed stone. There is a parking area for the house off the right of way, but no actual driveway to the house. Previously they had used the right of way as their driveway. Pabich says this is introducing loose gravel to a buffer zone in the resource area, and the owner has taken it upon himself to do this without approval. The gravel is not acceptable to Engineering. The Commission can request that they restore it to its original condition or ask that it be repaved. Pabich opines it will be plowed into the beach and salt marsh at the end of the season. The City did not approve this. Engineering • will require that they restore it and take up the gravel, as will this Commission. The open soil area seaward of the gravel should also be restored. Devine will coordinate with Engineering. Pabich says Devine should send a letter to the 3 homeowner and also discuss it with Engineering to determine how to resolve the issue. He thinks the street opening permit route is the easiest. Engineering might not act until there is a certificate of occupancy. Devine thinks a letter should come from the commission, but Engineering can also enforce this. St. Louis asks if they could use the stone as a base for pavement, but it is up to current grade and Pabich feels the area should be restored. Devine comments that the Gateway Center pile of soil and debris was covered, but the covering has peeled back and the demolition contractor who is responsible is not cooperating. The parcel is owned by the developer of the Gateway Center and they should be responsible for what is going on there, according to Pabich. Devine should send a letter to the owner. There are two catch basins onsite protected with filter fabric, and but Devine wonders if the Commission needs to material covered in addition to the catch basin protection. Hamilton states that the protection of the catch basins by itself is not sufficient, since wind could carry material from the pile into the resource area. They intend to use the material as part of the development project rather than remove it. St. Louis asks if there is a NPDES permit, and says the requirements were revised in February. Devine explains the setup and says the overall project probably requires a NPDES permit based on its size. A motion to adjourn is made by St. Louis, seconded by Hoskins and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 6:53 PM. Respectfully Submitted, • Stacy Kilb Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission Approved by the Conservation Commission on December 13, 2012. • 4 'r Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting • Date and Time: Thursday,November S, 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 1. 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. 2. 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. 13`s meeting. A motion to continue is made by Hoskins, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. 3. 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 1 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. 2 J 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 detemvne 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 itp 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. 3 Chair Knisel asks if applicants would change their plans—i.e. a smaller garage or driveway. Burgess l 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. 4. 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 4 J 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 Ricciarelh 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. 1" 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 5 4 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 6 J 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. Ricciatelli 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. 7 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. Chau 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 8 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 15`h 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 9 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. • • 10 Co IN 1 Please Sign-In • Salem Conservation Commission November 15, 2012 Name Address Phone Email Uct,y e w • Page 2 of 2 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission November 15, 2012 Name Address Phone Email Page 1 of 2 CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION December 17, 2012 Tracy Duarte Coneco Engineers, Scientists& Surveyors 4 First Street Bridgewater, MA 02324 Re: Certificate of Compliance DEP #64-347 Dear Ms. Duarte: Enclosed, please find the Certificate of Compliance for the above referenced property. This Document must be recorded at the Essex County Registry of Deeds. Please fill out and return the Recording Information on page 3 of the Certificate of Compliance, which will indicate to the Salem Conservation Commission that the document has been recorded. • If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 978-619-5685. Sincerely, Tom Devine Conservation Agent/Staff Planner Enclosures CC: DEP Northeast Regional Office Massachusetts Electric Company • f Environmental Massachusetts Department Protection o i\ Bureau of Resource Protection.:- Wetlands:. DEP File Number WPA Form 813 Certificate of Compliance 64-347 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 provided by DEP A. Project Information Important When fining our 1. This Certificate of Compliance is issued to: forms on the computer,use New England Power Company _ only the tab key. Name to move your 40 Sylvan Road -cursor-do not use the return Mailing Address . key. Waltham _ MA 02451 • Cityrrown _ State Zip Code 2. This Certificate of Compliance is issued for work regulated by a final Order of Conditions Issued to New England Power Company _ Name 3/13!2012 64-347 _ Dated : DEP File Number' 3. The project site Is located at: Existing right-of-woff Waite Street Salem — – Street Address ( _ Cityfrown 36 234 Assessors Map/Plat Number Parcel/Lot.Number the final Order of Condition was recorded at the Registry of Deeds for: New England Power Company _ . Property Owner(if different) Essex 20474 419 County : .Book Page - Certificate - — --- - 4. A site Inspection was made in the presence of the applicant, or the applicant's agent, on: 12/12/2012 _ . .. _... Date-. wpafrm8b.4oc-rev.1223109 WPA Form 89,Cenificale of Compliance•Page i of 3. v • 1 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands DEP File Number WPA Form 8B Certificate of Compliance 64-347 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by DEP B. Certification Check all that apply: ® Complete Certification: It is hereby certified that the work regulated by the above-referenced.Order of.Conditions has been satisfactorily completed. ❑ Partial Certification: It is hereby certified that only the following portions of work regulated by the above-referenced Order of Conditions have been satisfactorily completed. The project areas or work subject to this partial certification that have been completed and are released from this Order are: ❑;Invalid Order of Conditions: It is hereby certified that the work regulated by the above-referenced Order of Conditionsnever commenced. The Order of • Conditions has lapsed and is therefore no longer valid. No future work subject to regulation under the Wetlands Protection Act may commence without filing a new Notice of Intent and receiving a new Order of Conditions. Ongoing Conditions: The following conditions of the Order shall continue:` (Include any conditions contained in the Final Order,such as maintenance or monitoring,that should continue for a longer period). Condition Numbers: 46, 4 48 C. Authorization Issued by: Conserve it�ommission oat of Issuance This Certificate must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission and a copy sent to the applicant and appropriate DEP Regional Office (See http//www mass gov/dep)about/reaion/find your,him). Siynat4res ' • -4- - - -= - - wpaemEb eoc-fev 1223105 - 'NPA Form 88.Cerl,firale of Compliance Page 2013 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection • '� Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands. DEP File Number: WPA Form 8B — Certificate of Compliance 64-347 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c.,11 31, §40 Provided by DEP D. Recording Confirmation The applicant is responsible for ensuring that this Certificate of Compliance Is recorded In the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located. Detach on dotted line and submit to the Conservation Commission. To: 'Conservation Commission - Please be advised that the Certificate of Compliance for the project at: Protect Location DEP File Number Has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds of. • County ---- - for: Property Ownerm - ----- — — and has been noted In the chain of title of the affected property on: Date - Book - Page: - - If recorded land, the instrument number which identifies this transaction is: If registered land, the document number which identifies this transaction is: Document Number . Signature of Applicant wpafrm9b,dac-rev.12123/09. WPA Forth ea',Certificate of Coa liance•Page 3 of �4 Qy� � 1'LQ�l CITY OF SALEM � 9 CONSERVATION COMMISSION . December 17, 2012 Paul DiBiase Osborne Hills Realty Trust PO Box 780 Salem, MA 01970 Re: Certificates of Compliance for DEP #64-456 (21 Amanda Way) and#64-457 (18 Amanda Way) Dear Mr. DiBiase: Enclosed, please find the certificates of compliance for the above-referenced projects. These documents must be recorded at the Essex County Registry of Deeds. Please • fill out and return the Recording Information on page 3 of each certificate, which will indicate to the Salem Conservation Commission that the documents have been recorded. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 978-619-5685. Sincerely, Tofu Devine Conservation Agent/Staff Planner Enclosures CC: DEP Northeast Regional Office Eastern Land Survey Associates • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands DEP File Number. WPA Form 86 - Certificate of Compliance Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 64-457_ Provided by DEP A. Project Information Important: When filling out 1. This Certificate of Compliance Is issued to: forms on the - - ;computer, use Osborne HillsRealty Trust _ only the tab key - Name ------to move your PO Box 780 cursor-do not use the return Mailing Address — key' Salem __ MA 01970 • Citylrown State Zip Code 2. This Certificate of Compliance is issued for work regulated by a final Order of Conditions issued to: Osborne Hills Realty Trust Name August? 2007 _ 64-457 _ Dated DEP File Number 3. The project site is located at: 18 AmandaWBy_(Lot#18)_ Salem Street Address - .`city/rowo -- 9-' 1 (Portion) Assessors.Map/Plat Number Parcel/Lot Number; the final Order of Condition was recorded at the Registry of Deeds for: Osborne Hills Realty Trust Property Owner(if different) - — Southern Essex. 27225 298 County------- --- ".Book Page:. . Cerfifiwte — __ ---- - — 4. A site inspection was made in the presence of the applicant, or the applicant's agent, on: 10/18/2012 -- — Date— _--- -__— -Pa11m80 tloc rev.IBJ M9 - WPA Foosee Ceriificale of Coopl ance•page 1 d3 • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection` L�-71Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands DEP File Number WPA Form 8B Certificate of Compliance Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 64-457 _ Provided by DEP B. Certification Check all that apply. 1 Complete Certification It is hereby certified that the work regulated by the above-referenced Order of Conditions has been satisfactorily completed. ❑ Partial Certification: It is hereby certified that only the following portions of work regulated by the above-referenced Order of Conditions have been satisfactorily completed.The project areas or work subject to this partial certification that have been completed and are released from this Order are: ❑ Invalid Order of Conditions: It is hereby certified that the work regulated byhe above-referenced Order of Conditions never commenced. The Order of Conditions has lapsed and is therefore no longer valid. No future work subject to • regulation under the Wetlands Protection Act may commence without filing a new Notice of Intent and receiving a new Order of Conditions. ❑ Ongoing Conditions: The following conditions of the Order shall continue: (Include any conditions contained in the Final Order, such as maintenance or monitoring, that should continue for a longer period). Condition Numbers: C. Authorization Issued by: Conservation Commission - Date of Jr ssuafnce This Certificate must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission and a copy sent to the applicant and appropriate DEP Regional Office(See http://www.mass.gov/dep/about/region/findyour.htm). Signatures: wpalrmabAoc-iev.12/2109 WPA Form 9e.Cw ficele of Coml,ance•Page 2 of 3 ' LLIMassachusetts Department of Environmental Protection •'' Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands DEP File Number: — D. WPA Form 8B - Certificate of ComplianceMassachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131 40" 64457 Providedby DEP Recording Confirmation The applicant is responsible for ensuring that this Certificate of Compliance Is recorded In the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in.which the land Is located. Detach on dotted line and submit to the Conservation Commission. -------------------------------------------------------- - r Conservation Commission -- ----- Please be advised that the Certificate of Compliance for the project at: Project Location DEP file Number Has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds of: County -- - - -- --- • for. Property owner -- — -- and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property on: Date -- — Book .Page If recorded land, the instrument number which identifies this transaction is: If registered land, the document number which identifies this transaction is: Document Number - --- - -- --- -------- Signature of Applicant --- --- --—' -- ---'---— • wpahm9b coc-rev. 12/23109 _ WPA Form$a,Gerlificale of Compliance•Page 3 of 3 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection-Wetlands' � DEP File Number. WPA Form 8B - Certificate of Compliance Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act.M.G.L. c. 131, 40 64-156 - - �. Provided by DEP A. Project information Important: When filling out 1. This Certificate of Compliance is issued to: forms on the. computer,use Osborne Hills Realty Trust - only the tab key - Name - - -to move your PO Box 780- cursor-do not use the return - Mailing Address • key, Salem MA 01970 City/rown _ Stale Zip Code A 2.. This Certificate of Compliance is issued for work regulated by a final Order of Conditions Issued to: rerAOsborne Hills Realty Trust , _ .Name —_ -- _— Au�c ust 6,-2007 64-456 - Dated DEP File Number- 3. The project site is located at 21 Amanda WaY Lot#37 Salem _ Street Address. City/Town - 9 _ 1 (portion) _ Assessors Map/Plat Number Parcel/Lot Number the final Order of Condition was recorded at the Registry of Deeds for: Osborne Hills Rem Trust Property Owner(if different) ----- --- ---- Southern Essex 27225 340 County — — - Book Page - ` Certificate 4. A site inspection was made in the presence of the applicant, or the applicant's agent, on: 10/15/2012 - ---- Date wpafrmBb aoc•rev.12,23109 WPA Form 88,certificate of Compliance•page 1.of 3 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection • <—" Bureau of Resource Protection Wetlands '. DEP File Number: - �' WPA Form 8B – Certificate of Compliance sa-ass Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40; Provided byDEP B. Certification Check all that apply: Complete Certification: It is hereby certified that the work regulated by the above-referenced Order of Conditions has been satisfactorily.completed. ❑ Partial Certification: It is hereby certified that only the following portions of work regulated by the above-referenced Order of Conditions have been satisfactorily completed.The project areas or work subject to this partial certification that have been completed and are released from this Order are: ❑ Invalid Order of Conditions: It is hereby certified that the work regulated by the above-referenced Order of Conditions never commenced. The Order of Conditions has lapsed and is therefore no longer valid. No future work subject to • regulation under the Wetlands Protection Act may commence without filing a new Notice of Intent and receiving a new Order of Conditions. ❑ Ongoing Conditions: The following conditions of the Order shall continue: (Include any conditions contained in the Final Order, such as maintenance or monitoring, that should continue for longer period). Condition Numbers: C.'Authorization Issu d by: — Conservation Commission Date f Iss ance This Certificate must be signed by majority of the Conservation.Commission and a copy sent to the applicant and appropriate DEP Regional Office(Se hl!p://www.mass.gov/deo/about/region/findyour.htm). Signatures: YA. - wpak"b doc rev.1229109 - WPA Forth 89,Certiricale of COn Pflance•Page 2 or 3 Massachusetts Department ofEnvironmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection ,- Wetlands DEP File Number: WPA Form 8B — Certificate of Compliance Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, 540.' sa-a56_' _ .. Provided by DEP D. Recording Confirmation The applicant is responsible for ensuring that this Certificate of Compliance is recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land and Court for Y o the district in which c the land is located. Detach on dotted line and submit to the Conservation Commission. -------------------------------------------- Conservation Commission Please be advised that the Certificate of Compliance for the project at: -- Project Location DEP File Number Has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds of:. for: Property Owner. -- and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property on: -beBook :Page .--- - If recorded land, the instrument number which identifies this transaction is: If registered land, the document number which identifies this transaction is: . � Document Number —---_---— — — ---- Signature of wpafrmBb.boc•rev.!2123109 W pA Form as,Cema=e of Compliance-Page 3 of 3 M . a . �,�oxo�r1�1 CITY OF SALEM r CONSERVATION COMMISSION December 17, 2012 Jeffrey Halloran 100 Cabot Street Beverly, MA 01915 Re: Certificates of Compliance for DEP #64-504 (3 Martin Lane), #64-505 (4 Martin Lane), and#64-506 (2 Martin Lane) Determination of Applicability for 6 Martin Lane Dear Mr. f lalloran: Enclosed, please find the certificates of compliance for 2, 3, and 4 Martin Lane. These documents must be recorded at the Essex County Registry of Deeds. Please fill out and return the Recording Information on page 3 of each certificate, which will indicate to the Salem Conservation Commission that the documents have been recorded. Please also find the enclosed determination of applicability for 6 Martin Lane for your File. Because this determination is issued for work that has already been completed, no further action is needed. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 978-619-5685. Sincerely, Tom Devine Conservation Agent/Staff Planner Enclosures CC: DEP Northeast Regional Office Eastern Land Survey Associates • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection I Bureau of Resource Protection-Wetlands WPA Form 2 Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protectlon,Act M.G.L. c': 131, §40 A. General Information -Important: .enerl.filling out From Dorms on the Salem computer,Lise Conservation Convnission- only the tab .»�. _. Fuy to move To: Applicant Property Owner (If different from applicant): do not use the Jeffrey Halloran return key.. Name Name 100 Cabot Street __ _ ....,m_. ... . v-- Mailing Address Mailing Address y Beverly MA 01915 �, , , . .. .. ; ,. _.r... w'x� City/Town State Zip Code Cilylrown State Zip Code 1: Title and Date (or Revised Date if applicable)of Final Plans and Other Documents. As-Built/Certificate of Compliance Plan of Land 1213!2012 T.to Date Date • 2. Dale Request Filed 12/3"2012 B. Determination __.,>. . . ,.. .� ,. . ination Pursuant to the authority of M.G.L. c 131,§40, the Conservation Commission considered your Request for Determination of Applicability, with its supporting documentation, and made the following Determination. Project Description (if applicable): Grading and stabilization of approximately 260 square feet within the outer buffer zone to a wetland resource area. Project Location. 6 Martin Lane Salem • - Street Address City'Tow l 9 30 (partial) Assessors Map/Plat Number Parcel/Lot Number - o ...).^.::.: Dete •rrai"on 01 Asti cao Lry.yea 1016,0: Page. ui 5 - Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands . WPA Form 2 = Determination of. Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) The following Determination(s) is/are applicable to the proposed site and/or project relative to the Wetlands Protection Act and regulations Positive Determination, Note: No work within the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act may proceed until a final Order of Conditions (issued following submittal of a Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent) or Order of Resource Area Delineation (issued following submittal of Simplified Review ANRAD)has been received . from the issuing authority(i.e., Conservation Commission or the Department of Environmental Protection) ❑ 1. The area described on the referenced plans)is an area subject to protection under the Act Removing, filling, dredging, or altering of the area requires the filing of a Notice of Intent ❑ 2a. The boundary delineations of the following resource areas described on the referenced plan(s)are confirmed as accurate. Therefore, the resource area boundaries confirmed in this Determination are binding as to all decisions rendered pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act and its regulations regarding such boundaries for as longus this Determination is valid. • ❑ 2b The boundaries of resource areas listed below are not confirmed by this Determination, regardless of whether such boundariesarecontained on the plans attached to this.Determination or to the Request for Determinations ❑ 3 The work described on referenced plan(s) and document(s) is within an area subject to protection under the Act and will remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore,said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent: ❑ 4. The work described on referenced plan(s)and document(s)is within the Buffer Zone and will alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent or ANRAD Simplified Review (if work is limited to the Buffer Zone). 5. The area and/or work described on referenced plan(s)and document(s) is subject to review and approval by: Name of Municipality - Pursuant to the following municipal wetland ordinance or bylaw Naine Ordinance or Bylaw Citation wpaform2,dpc.Demrmnmion of Apahcadry.rev.1016/04 Page 2 of 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection Wetlands WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection ActM.G,L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) ❑ 6 The following area and/or work if any, is subject to a municipal ordinance or bylaw but not subject to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act ❑ 7 If a Notice of,Intent is filed for the work in the Riverfront Area described on referenced plan(s) and document(s), which includes all or part of the work described in the Request, the applicant must consider the following alternatives.(Refer to the wetland regulations at 10.581 for more information about the scope of alternatives requirements): ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located the subdivided lots, and any adjacent lots formerly or presently owned by the same owner. ❑ Alternatives limited to the original parcel on which the project is located, the subdivided parcels, any adjacent parcels, and any other land which can reasonably be obtained within the municipality ❑ Alternatives extend to any sites which can reasonably be obtained within the appropriate • region of the state Negative Determination Note: No further action under the Wetlands Protection Act is required by the applicant. However, if the Department is requested to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability,work may not proceed on this project unless the Department fails to act on such request within 35 days of the date the request is post-marked for certified mail or hand delivered to the Department. Work may then proceed at the owner's risk only upon notice to the Department and to the Conservation Commission. Requirements for requests for Superseding Determinations are listed at the end of this document. 1. The area described in the Request is not an area subject to protection under the Act or the Buffer Zone 2. The work described in the.Request is within an area subject to protection under the Act, but will not remove, fill,,dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 3. The work described in the Request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined in the regulations, but will not alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, subject to the following conditions (if any) ❑ 4, The work described in the Request is not within an Area subject to protection under the Act (including the Buffer Zone). Therefore,said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, • unless and until said work alters an Area subject to protection under the Act. a yo- M"doc s Oetera r,34on of AppLcabnny-rev 1016104 - - Page 3o15 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection- Wetlands • WPA Form 2 -- Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.)' ❑ 5 The area described In the Request is subject to protection under the Act. Since the work described therein meets the requirements for the following exemption,as specified in the Act and the regulations;no Notice of Intent is required - Exempt Activity(site applicable statuatory/regulatory provisions) ® 6. The area and/or work described in the Request is not subject to review and approval by f Name of Municipality Pursuant to a municipal wetlands ordinance or bylaw. a ..,SFf✓l (�;1 lir ' - NameOrdinance iS Bylaw Cftanon - C. Authorization • This Determination Is Issued to the applicant and delivered as follows: ❑ by hand delivery on by certified mail, return receipt requested on M . u:. ._� ,_,�. -_ Date � Date � / ,,. This Determination Is valid for three years from the date of issuance (except Determinations.for Vegetation Management Plans which are valid for the duration of the Plan). This Determination does not relieve the applicant from complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, bylaws, or regulations. This Deterrnination must be signed'bya majority of the Conservation Commission.A copy must be sent to the appropriate DEP Regional Office (see httpJ www.mass2ov/dep/abouUreq ion.findyour him)and the property owner(if different from the applicant). l Date .•o[ LofannnaLun ut FVOircabnrly.rev.10/'u;04 Page 4 of 5 —? Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection Wetlands WPA Form 2 Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 D. Appeals - -The applicant, owner, any person aggrieved by this Determination, any owner of land abutting the land upon which the proposed work is to be done, or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate Department of Environmental Protection Regional Office (see http://www.mass.gov/dep/about/re_qion.findyourhtm)to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicabildy.,The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and Fee Transmittal Form (see Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form)as provided in 310 CMR 10 03(7)within tem business days from the date of issuance of this Determination. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant if he/sheis not the appellant. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination which is being appealed. To the extent that the Determination is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department of Environmental Protection has no appellate jurisdiction. . `:q.c @ mc Dee .auc„of Appiicablim, rev.1016104 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protectionn Bureau of Resource Protection'--.Wetlands DEP File Number WPA Form 8B - Certificate of Compliance 64-504 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 PmmdedLLby oEFN --- — . — --- A. Project Information Important: When filling out 1 This Certificate of Compliance is issued to funis on the computer,use Jeffrey Halloran. only the tab key Name to move your 100 Cabot Street - - cursor-donot .._-.. use the return Mailing Address • key Beverly MA 01915 StateCity/Town �.... .,.. . .__.:w.. ....,.„._» _ Zip Code. II2. This Certificate of Compliance is issued for work regulated by a final Order of Conditions issued to: ---ri Kenneth Steadman Name 9/23/2010„ e:::_ perp _ _ s4-504 T_r Dated - - � DEP Fite Number........ 3:, The project site is located at 3 Martin Lane Salem _ - Street Address -Cdyrrovm 14 30 (Partial) a ..,. Assessors 11Iap,Pla!N,inn;er `arceVtot Numhe -the final Order of Condition was recorded at the Registry of Deeds for: Kenneth Steadman Property rope_ ..Ow..ner_(if_ - .tli-fferen-q 7-- - Essex South County - Book Page 518045 _ 4 A site Inspection was made in the presence of the applicant, or the applicant's agent on .11/28/2012 ,. m, ... _..�,.. .. Date _. _. .., .. ... .... ..,.., .........._ _ ...-..�. wWi kc.iCc he. :J 3,JB ;FA r.,nu 6e.pert f¢ale of C.mpiiaxe•va9e t of 5 • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection- Wetlands DEP Pile Number WPA Form 8B — Certificate of Compliance 64-504 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c 131, §40 PromJed by DEP B. Certification -- — -- - — Check all that apply: j Complete Certification It Is hereby certified that the work regulated by the: above-referenced Order of Conditions has been satisfactorily completed ❑ Partial Certification: It Is hereby certified that only the following portions of work regulated by the above-referenced Order of Conditions have been satisfactorily completed The project areas or work subject to-this partial certification that have been completed and are released from this Order are: Invalid Order of Conditions: It is hereby certified that the work regulated by the above-referenced Order of Conditions never commenced. The Order of Conditions has lapsed and is therefore no longer valid. No future work subject to • regulation under the Wetlands Protection Act may commence without filing a new Notice of Intent and receiving a new Order of Conditions ❑ Ongoing Conditions:The following conditions of the Order shall continue:. (Include any conditions contained in the Final Order, such as maintenance or monitoring, that should continue for a longer period), Condition Numbers: C. Authorization Issued by: ConsewaTon CDmmission Dat of 14suance This Certificate must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission and a copy sent to the applicant and appropriate DEP Regional Office (See h1Jp_Wwww_ff1 ass_govideo.'about/re ion/fi ndyo urh IT- Signatures: ;; t � wpowift.loc rev:12123N9 : iv Pn F9,88.Lena Piiaie of coca iiance-Page 2 of 3 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands DEP File Number Ll WPA Form 8B — Certificate of Compliance 04 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 1.31, §40 Pmsa ebybeP" D. Recording Confirmation The applicant is responsible for ensuring that this Certificate of Compliance is recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located Detach on dotted line and submit to the Conservation Commission To: _u._ .,..ry . ., _.. �: . _.. .. -Conservation Commission Please be advised that the Certificate of Compliance for the project at Project Location - DEP File Number _ Has been recorded at the Registry.of Deeds of - County for t Property Owner and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property on: Date Book - Page If recorded land, the instrument number which identifies this transaction is: If registered land the document number which identifies this transaction is: ._ _ . . Document N._um.ber .-- — .".,..;_..... .,_..:.... '.. • Signature of Applicant w,mrmei anc-rev.12123109 WPA Form 6e,camfaoale of Compliance-Page 3 of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection'. Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands DEP File Number WPA Form 8B — Certificate of Compliance 64-505 JMassachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provded-by DEP~ A. Project Information Important: When filling out 1 This Certificate of Compliance Is issued to ` forms on the - -' - Jeffre computer,use y„Halloran - only the tab key Name - to move your100CabotStreet - - cursor-do not .._..._ ....... ...___m...: . use the return Mailing Address - • key. Beverly m MA 01915 City/Town ._ _. .. . State Zip Code ,. 2 This Certificate of Compliance Is Issued for work regulated by a final Order of ' „- Conditions Issued to: O=wt Kenneth Steadman Name 9/23/2010 64-505 DEPFIe Number 3. The project site is located at: 4 Martin Lane Salem Street Address. City,Town. 14 30 (Partial) - Assessors MapiPlat Number Parcel,Lot Numner the final Order of Condition was recorded at the Registry of Deeds for: Kenneth Steadman Property Owner(if different) Essex South County Book Page ° 518044 Certificate - _ - 4 A site Inspection was made In the presence of the applicant, or the applicant's agent on: , 11/28/2012 Date... .� ,.»... _..._ m.frm80.ax•iev.1212Y05 - ',VPA Form Be.Cerfocate or Comoance-Page i of 3 .. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands DEP File Number. WPA Form 8B Certificate of'Compliance 64-505 1 , Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G L c. 131, §40 n,o�,aea by DEP" B. Certification Check all that apply Complete Certification. It is hereby certified that the work regulated by the above-referenced Order of Conditions has been satisfactorily completed ❑ Partial Certification: It is hereby certified that only tile following portions of work regulated by the above-referenced Order of Conditions have been satisfactorily completed.The project areas or work subject to this partial certification that have been completed and are released from this Order are: ❑ Invalid Orderof Conditions. It is hereby certified that the work regulated by the above-referenced Order of Conditions never commenced. The Order of Conditions has lapsed and is therefore no longer valid. No future work subject to • regulation under the Wetlands Protection Act may commence without filing a new Notice of Intent and receiving a new Order of Conditions ❑ Ongoing Conditions. The following conditions of the Order shall continue (Include any conditions contained in the Final Order; such as maintenance or monitoring, that should continue for a longer period). Condition Numbers C. Authorization -- Issued by: _. _ Conservation Commission Date f issuance This Certificate must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission and a copy sent to the applicant and appropriate DEP Regional Office (See h[fifwwwmass.covrdeorabou�rcc;iQmfuidyou.f,hhn) Sign A � J wpafrm9b.0oc•lev.12/23109 - NPA Form as Ceuric=of Gompnance Paye 2 m 3 • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands DEP File Nun,bef WPA Form 8B — Certificate of Compliance 64-505 } Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by DEP D. Recording Confirmation The applicant is responsible for ensuring that this Certificate.of Compliance is recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located Detach on dotted line and submit to the Conservation Commission To: n; _ „. _ ........._. Conservation. Com" - Please be advised that the Certificate of Compliance for the protect at Project Location, DEP File Number Has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds of _.._. _.. - County ,...»-. ., ,. ..:K.—...,.., for. . _ _, -Property Owner - and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property on: Date - Book Page If recorded land, the instrument number which identifies this transaction is: If registered land.the document number which identifies this transaction is Documen[slwnber .: -.. ._"".. "•' `"`" --- . ..n._,_.._ .__- ...�.__ ..._ _.... - __ m_..,.�. ....... Signature of Applicant - - wpalm,abOm-rev.12123/09 - - - - WPA FeO,an,CeMlfMe or CompliancePage 3 of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection` Bureau of Resource Protection Wetlands DEP File Number: WPA Form 813 -Certificate of Compliance q4-506 J Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 "Pco`ideabyDE—F A. Project Information Important:. When filling our 1. This Certificate of Compliance Is Issued to: forms on the - computer, use Jeffrey Halloran „a only the tab key Name to move your 100.Cabot:Street cursor do not .. ,..,. a.,. .,. ,,,... ..,�..., ..-. .,� .....,--.-.-»,...- ------ ,se .cse the return Mailing Address • key Beverly.. MA 01915:11 «. ._ CityJown � � .� � State Zip Code r'—ISI 2 This Certificate of Compliance is issued for work regulated by a final Order of .„ ,.. .Conditions issued to: - - 7' Kenneth Steadman _ _ - - - —� Name 9/23/2010 64-506 Dated DEP Fle Number 3. The project site Is located at 2 MartinLane ' Salem �_.. 4 —own....... .,.._ -. Street.Atldress.. ,.. City/Tpwn '. 14 30 (partiall .Assessors Map/Plat Number Parcel/Lot Number the final Order of Condition was recorded at the Registry of Deeds for: Kenneth Steadman Property Owner(if different) Essex South_ County .. - Book Page 518045 4 A site Inspection was made In the presence of the applicant or the applicant's agent on: 11/28/2012 . mpa1 :8G4ec.,a.v.12.2!109 NPA Fonn 813.Cenigcate of Cnmpiiance•Page 1 of 3 . Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of.Resource Protection -Wetlands - VEP FiIC Number WPA Form 8B – Certificate of Compliance Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c 131, 40 64 506 i Provided by DEP B. Certification — - — — Check all that apply Complete Certification' It Is hereby certified that the work regulated by the above-referenced Order of Conditions has been satisfactorily completed: Partial Certification: It Is hereby certified that only the following portions of work regulated by the above-referenced Order of Conditions have been satisfactorily completed.The project areas or work subject to this partial certification that have been completed and are released from this Order are: ❑ Invalid Order of Conditions It Is hereby certified that the work regulated by the above-referenced Order of Conditions never commenced. The Order of Conditions has lapsed and is therefore no longer valid. No future work subject to • regulation under the.Wetlands Protection Act may commence without filing a new Notice of Intent and receiving a new Order of Conditions, ❑ Ongoing Conditions: The following conditions of the Order shall continue: (Include any conditions contained in the Final Order, such as maintenance or monitoring;that should continue for a longer period). Condition Numbers: C. Authorization -- Issued by. Conservation Commission ..;. '� bdge of issuance This Certificate must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission and a copy sent to the applicant and appropriate DEP Regional Office(See ' nitp:,'!iJWW.nIa$$ C�O_Sd PQ/dbDLll!f@GIOnr'find GUC n(rll Signatures: "ahmBOLoc reo.12123/09 _ WPA Farm 88:Ceftificale of ComOliance Page 2 of • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection`-Wetlands DI=P File Number WPA Form 813 - Certificate of Compliance sa-aos Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, 40 __ ,� .� • -. - Provided by DEP D. Recording Confirmation The applicant is responsible for ensuring that this Certificate of Compliance is recorded In the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located. Detach on dotted line and submit to the Conservation Commission. To: -- - - - - - - ...-......W ,. .. _- _„ - Conservallon Commission Please be advised that the Certificate of Compliance for the project at Project Location ._. .. `... ., ..:. _. I DEP Fie Nulnbel Has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds of County• for Property Owner - .. ._ .,,.........:.-.�.._................... and has been noted In the chain of title of the affected property on: Date Book Page If recorded land, the instrument number which identifies this transaction is. If registered landr the document number which identifies this transaction is: Document Number -Signature of Applicant -- ........... ..„„,...,._...,�.,_ 1,Pzl1m8b.aoc•rev.12,29r05 - WPA Form 8B,Cemficae,of Compliance•Page 3 of 3 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission December 13, 2012 Name Address Phone Email } eSd gr - rG ,vow jZ6YT 01014le e,s,o�y .s 14 CL g79- sfzl—;i5_9 i l GI q78 z81.2 cL 975 z65 6(290 rcti Tc� 1 3!� 9W-1� (2, �l �Q cS� i,� r. r r• ,, i. y Page 2 of 2 Please Sign-In Salem Conservation Commission December 13, 2012 Name Address Phone Email Page 1 of 2 i y� 7 -77 CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION December 17, 2012 Misha and Sheila Eliasziw 3 Parallel Street Salem, MA 01970 Re: Determination of Applicability-3 Parallel Street Dear Misha and Sheila: Enclosed, please find the determination of applicability for the above-referenced project. This permit is effective for three years following a 10-business-day appeal period. Please note that this permit is issued with the condition that you must obtain approval by the Conservation Agent prior to start of construction for conveyances that allow floodwater to flow through the structure. • if you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 978-619-5685. Sincerely, Tom Devine Conservation Agent/Staff Planner Enclosure Cc: DEP Northeast Regional Office Mike DeRosa • w I -- I Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands WPA Form 2 Determination of Applicability — _ Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L c. 131, §40 A. General Information Important: When filling out From: forms on the Salem .computerConservation^Commission. ° — — — — — ... only theettab _ key to move To: Applicant your cursor- Property owner(if different from applicant): do not use the "Misha&Sheila Eliasziw return key. Name --- — -- Name -- — " 3 Parallel Street — },, .m Matling Address - — Mailing Address Salem MA 01970 City/ /Townrown State Zip Code Ci ty State Zip Code 1 Title and Date (or Revised Date if applicable) of Final Plans and Other Documents: Proposed_Plot Plan, 3'Parallel Street, Salem, Massachusetts 12/10/2012 Title -- _ Date — Date Title —.---- — Date 2. Date Request Filed: 9/11/2012. B. Determination — — Pursuant to the authority of M.G.L. c. 131, §`40, the Conservation Commission considered your Request for Determination of Applicability, with its supporting documentation, and made the following Determination. Project Description (if applicable): ; Construction ofag rage Per above-listed plan Project Location 3 Parallel Street Salem • Street Address . CItYlTown 23 23... _., m .. 247 Assessors Map/Plat Number "" - - --- -- ParcellLot Number neabrm2 d. Oete•rrvnahon of npPlirybrlity•red I01W04 - Page 1 of 5 r. - w Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands i WPA Form 2 = Determination of Applicability . Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131; §40 B. Determination (cont.) The following Determination(s)is/are applicable to the proposed site and/or project relative to the Wetlands Protection Act and regulations. .Positive Determination Note: No work within the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act may proceed until a final Order of Conditions (issued following submittal of a Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent)or Order of Resource Area Delineation (issued following submittal of Simplified Review ANRAD)has been received from the issuing authority (i.e., Conservation Commissiomor the Department of Environmental Protection). ❑ 1. The area described on the referenced plan(s)is an area subject to protection under the Act. Removing,filling, dredging,or altering of the area requires the filing of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 2a: The boundary delineations of the following resource areas described on the referenced plan(s)are confirmed as accurate.Therefore, the resource area boundaries confirmed in this Datermination are binding as to all decisions rendered pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act and its regulations regarding such boundaries for as long as this Determination is valid. ❑ 2b.The boundaries of resource areas listed below are not confirmed by this Determination, regardless of whether such boundaries are contained on the plans attached to this Determination or to the Request for Determination. ❑ 3. The work described on referenced plan(s)and document(s) is within an area subject to protection under the Act and will remove fill dredge, I g or alter that area Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent: ❑ 4. The work described on referenced plan(s)and document(s) is within the Buffer Zone and will alter an Area subject to protection under the Act:Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent orANRAD Simplified Review(if work is limited to the Buffer Zone). ❑ 5. The area and/or work described on referenced plan(s)and document(s)Is subject to review and approval by: . Name of M �. .­m.-- ,...�...�..... Pursuant to the following municipal wetland ordinance or bylaw: • Name --- — ---- — Ordinance or Bylaw Citation .+yuiorn2�uc Dmeunnaoon or AaOi ratliiy•, v.tUr6,06 ' P. - Pogo 2of5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L.:c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) ❑ 6. The following area and/or work, if any, is subject to a municipal ordinance or bylaw but not subject to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act ❑ 7. If a Notice of Intent is filed for the work in the Riverfront Area described on referenced plan(s) and document(s), which includes all or part of the work described in the Request, the applicant must consider the following alternatives. (Refer to the wetland regulations at 10.58(4)c. for more information about the scope of alternatives requirements): ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located. ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located, th1.e subdivided lots,and any adjacent lots formerly or presently owned by the same owner. ❑ Alternatives limited to the original parcel on which the project is located, the subdivided parcels, any adjacent parcels and any other land which can reasonably be obtained within the municipality. ❑ Alternatives extend to any sites which can reasonably be obtained within the appropriate region of the state Negative.Determination Note: No further action under the Wetlands Protection Act is required by the applicant. However,if the Department is requested to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability, work may not proceed on this project unless the Department fails to act on such request within 35 days of the date the request is post-marked for certified mail or hand delivered to the Department.Work may then proceed at the owner's risk only upon notice to the Department and to the Conservation Commission. Requirements for requests for Superseding Determinations are listed at the end of this document. 1. The area described in the Request is not an area subject to protection under the Act or the Buffer Zone. ❑ 2. The work described in the Request is within an area subject to protection under the Act, but will not remove, fill,dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent. ® 3 The work described in the Request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined in the regulations, but will not alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, subject to the following conditions(if any). ' Prior to start of construction; applicant must obtain approval from the Conservation Agent of a detailed plan ofco- --- ces_allowin�floodwater to fl through the structure._ ❑ 4 The work described in the Request is not within an Area subject to protection under the Act (including the Buffer Zone). Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, • unless and until said work alters an Area subject to protection under the Act wpalorrrr2.Coc Deierm nation of Apph ola,•rev.101&04 - - - - Page 3of5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 - Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L,c. 131,§40 B. Determination (cont.) ❑ 5. The area described in the Request is subject to protection under the Act. Since the work described therein meets the requirements for the following exemption, as specified In the Actand the regulations,no Notice of Intent is required: Exempt Activity(site applicable statuatorykegulatoryprovisions) -- 6 The area and/or work described in the Request is not subject to review and approval by: ` "- - —--- Name of f Municip—ality ----- — — Pursuant to a municipal wetlands ordinan or bylaw.. k c �L vis P � a . _ c_ C _ _ Name Ordinance or Bylaw Gtation C. Authorization` • This Determination is issued to the applicant and delivered as follows: ❑ by hand delivery on by certified mail, return receipt requested on Date — Date This Determination is valid for three years from the date of issuance(except Determinations for Vegetation Management Plans which Lare valid for the duration of the Plan). This Determination does not relieve the applicant from complying with all other applicable federal,state, or local statutes,ordinances; bylaws,or regulations. This Determination must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. A copy must be sent to the appropriate DEP Regional Office(see htt ://www.mass. ov/de bout/re ion.find our.htm)and the property owner(if different from the applicant). na r • � �.i bate.... wpaform .oac•Deleflrrnalioa of APPlicabdily•rev.10/6106 Page 4 of I. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 - Determination of'A Applicability Y Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 D. Appeals The applicant,owner, any person aggrieved by this Determination, any owner of land abutting the land upon which ch the proposed work is to be done oran to y _n residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate Department of Environmental Protection Regional Office (see http://www.mass,gov/ggp/abouUregion.findyour.htm)to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability. The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department,with the appropriate filing fee and Fee Transmittal Form (see Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form)as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7)within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Determination.A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant if he/she is not the appellant. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination which is being appealed. To the extent that the Determination is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department of Environmental Protection has no appellate jurisdiction, • • wpaform2.doc Dalermnation of Applicap I1y•rev.10/6/04 Page 5 of 5 �vNar� F� .� CITY OF SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION December 17, 2012 Jay Goldberg 50 Grove Street Real Estate, LLC 7 Rantoul Street, Suite 10013 Beverly, MA 01915 r Re: Determination of Applicability-50 Grove Street Dear Mr. Goldberg: Enclosed, please find the determination of applicability for the above-referenced project. Following the 10-business-day appeal period and provided that this determination is not appealed, you may proceed with your project. This determination is effective for three years. • If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 978-619-5685. Sincerely, Tom Devine Conservation Agent/Staff Planner Enclosure Cc: DEP Northeast Regional Office Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection- Wetlands WPA Form 2 Determination of Applicability; L Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. General Information Important`. When filling out From: forms on the 'Salem _ Computer,.use `Conservation Commission only the tab key tomove c your cursor- To: Applicant Property Owner(if different from applicant): `do not use the - 50Grove Street Real.Estate LLC return key. - ' - :. -. -,. _ .-.. ..�.;.., ,_...-_ ...�:_...�- -.. .. ...,:. �. _. `�. Y. N . ; ame. :-Name ---- 7 Rantoul Street, Suite 1008 _ 'm Mailing Address Mailing Address Beverly_-. MA 01915 City/ Sta rown te Zip Code City/Town State Zip Coe un 1 Title and Date (or,Revised Date if applicable)of Final Plans and Other Documents: Proceed Natural Play round_Plan L 12/11/2012 Title -- : Date -- :Title Date --- __ Title - Date.. 2. Date Request Filed • 6/13/2012 B. Determination Pursuant to the authority of M.G.L. c. 131, § 40, the Conservation Commission considered your Request for Determination of Applicability, with Its supporting documentation, and made the following Determination. Project Description (if applicable):`` Construction of children's play area per above-referenced plan_ Project Location 50 Grove Street Salem _. ,a_ .. _ ... _ ._ • Street Address �' - Cdy(rown -- - 16- - — - 238 Assessors Map/Plat Number Parcel/Lot Number v,palorm2.doc•Deiem..4c r of Apyl wb ply•rev.1016104 Page L 015 177 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection I Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 2 — Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Determination (cont.) The following Determination(s)is/are applicable to the proposed site and/or project relative to the Wetlands Protection Act and regulations: Positive Determination Note:No work within the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act may proceed until a final Order of Conditions(issued following submittal of a Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice:of Intent)or Order of " Resource Area Delineation (issued following submittal of Simplified ReviewANRAD)has been received from the issuing authority(i.e.,Conservation Commission or Department of Environmental Protection). ❑ 1 .The area described on the referenced plan(s)is an area subject to protection under the Act. Removing, filling,dredging, or altering of the area requires the fling of a Notice of Intent. ❑ 2a. The boundary delineations of the following resource areas described on the referenced plan(s)are confirmed as accurate.Therefore, the resource area boundaries confirmed in this Determination are binding as to all decisions rendered pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act and its regulations regarding such boundaries for long as this Determination is valid. ❑ 2b The boundaries of resource areas listed below are not confirmed by this Determination, regardless of whether such boundaries are contained on the plans attached to this Determination or to the Request for Determination. ❑ 3. The work described on referenced plan(s)and document(s)is within an area subject to protection under the Act and will remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent:' ❑ 4 The work described on referenced plan(s)and document(s) is within the Buffer Zone and will. alter an Area subject to protection under the Act.Therefore, said work requires the filing of a Notice of Intent or ANRAD Simplified Review(if work is limited to the Buffer Zone). ❑ 5. The area and/or work described on referenced plan(s)and document(s) is subject to review and approval by; Name of Municipality — --- - --- - -- -- --- ----- Pursuant to the following municipal Welland ordinance or bylaw: Name' Ordinance or Bylaw Citation wpaform2eoc•oelermnat,wi of APWicahilify•on.IWN - _ Page 2oL5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands t� WPA Form 2 - Determination of,Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. 'c. 131, §40 B Determination (cont.) ❑ 6. The following area and/or work, if any, is subject to a municipal ordinance or bylaw but not subject to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: ❑ 7. If a Notice of Intent is filed for the work in the Riverfront Area described on referenced plan(s) and document(s), which includes all or part of the work described in the Request, the applicant must consider the following alternatives.(Refer to the wetland regulations at 10.58(4)c.for more information about the scope of alternatives requirements) ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located ❑ Alternatives limited to the lot on which the project is located, the subdivided lots, and any adjacent Jots formerly,or presently owned by the same owner. ❑ Alternatives limited to the original parcel on which the project is located, the subdivided parcels, any adjacent parcels, and any other land which can reasonably be obtained within the municipality. ❑ Alternatives extend to any sites which can reasonably be obtained within the appropriate • region of the state. Negative Determination Note: No further action under the Wetlands Protection Act is required by the applicant. However, if the Department is requested to issue a Superseding Determination of Applicability, work may not proceed on this project unless the Department fails to act on such request within 35 days of the date the request is post-marked for certified mail or hand delivered to the Department.Work may then proceed at the owner's risk only upon notice to the Department and to the Conservation Commission. Requirements for requests for Superseding Determinations are listed at the end of this document. 1.The area described in the Request is not an area subject to protection under the Act or the Buffer Zone. ❑ 2. The work described in the Request is within an area subject to protection under the Act, but will not remove, fill, dredge, or alter that area. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent. ® 3. The work described in the Request is within the Buffer Zone, as defined in the regulations, but will not alter an Area subject to protection under the Act. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, subject to the following conditions (if any), —+ Adequate erosion controls shall be installed between any earthwork and the waterway and not be removed until all disturbed areas are stabilized ❑ 4. The work described in the Request is not within an Area subject to protection under the Act (including the Buffer Zone). Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a Notice of Intent, unless and until said work alters an Area subject to protection under the Act. • . wpaioTti ac<'�etermmauon of Appl,CabAly•rev.,1016,W Page 3 of 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection Wetlands • " WPA Form 2 - Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 13.1; §40 B. Determination (cont.)El — — — -- 5 The area described In the Request is subject to protection under the Act Since the work described therein meets the requirements for the following exemption, as specified in the Act and the regulations;no Notice of Intent is required: Exempt Activity(site applicable statuatory/regulatory provisions) 6. The area and/or work described in the Request is not subject to review and approval by Name of Municipality - IPursuant to a municipal wetlands ordinance or bylaw. ......,...� ..�. r. __.,._ - Name ordinance or,Bylaw Qtanon - C. Authorization' — — • This Determination Is issued to the applicant and delivered as follows, ❑ by hand delivery on 8�_by certified mail,return receipt requested on _ Date _ ,; ,. .:. Datta "' �»-..� ...-,,...:�._.e .._... ;.. This Determination is valid for three years from the date of issuance(except Determinatlons:for. Vegetation Management Plans which are valid for the duration of the Plan). This Determination does not relieve the applicant from complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances,. bylaws, or regulations: This Determination must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission.A copy must be sent to the appropriate DEP Regional Office(see http://www.mass.gov/deo/about/regio indyour.htm) and the' property owner(if different from the applicant). n res: Z` l • - - Date wpafo, 2 doc•eeierminaLon of Appi.cab l iy•rev.1019/04 _ paie 4 of 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection ;.- Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands WPA Form 2 Determination of Applicability Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.6: c. 131; §40 D. Appeals The applicant,_owner, any person aggrieved by this Determination, any owner of land abutting the land upon which the proposed work is to p p be done, or any ten residents of the city ortown in which such land is _located,are hereby notified of their righth t to request the appropriate Environmental Protection Regional Office (see ht. ,www.mass govideplabout/reaion.hndvour.htm)to issue a Superseding ng Determinaton of Applicability._The r eques t must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee and Fee Transmittal Form (see Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form)as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7)within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Determination. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant if he/she is not the appellant. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination which is being appealed. To the extent that the Determination is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations,the Department of Environmental Protection has no appellate.jurisdlction'. • • wpaform aoc•Determination of Applicability•rev,1016/Oa - - Page 5 of 5 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form L_ e— Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. Request Information Important: When filling out 1 Person or party making request(if appropriate name the citizen group's representative). forms on the _computer,use . Name only the tab key to move your cursor Mailing Address - -- - _ do not use the _ - return key. City/Town -- —"— — — State Zip Code - Prr hone Number Fax Number(if applicable) ?y1� Project Location Mailing Address City/Town — — — stage Zip Code.. 2.; Applicant(as shown on Notice of Intent(Form 3), Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation (Form 4A); or Request for Determination of Applicability(Form 1))r Mailing Address - -- State Zip Code Phone Number Fax Number(if applicable) 3. DEP File Number: B. Instructions 1. When the Departmental action request is for(check one): ❑ Superseding Order of Conditions ($100 for individual single family homes with associated structures; $200 for all other projects) Superseding Determination of Applicability($100) ❑ Superseding Order of Resource Area Delineation ($100) Send this form and check or money order for the appropriate amount, payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to: Department of Environmental Protection Box 4062 . Boston, MA 02211 upafort�_doc-Re,eM for eepatlmenlal Action Pee Tra rsirri Form•rev 1015100 Paye 1 017 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection LJBureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Instructions (cont.) Z On a separate sheet attached to this form;state clearly and concisely the objections to the Determination or Order which is being appealed. To the extent that the Determination or Order is based on a municipal bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations, the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. 3. °Send a copy of this form and a copy of the check or money order with the Request for a Superseding . Determination or Order by certified mail or hand delivery to the appropriate DEP Regional Office(see http://www.mass.gov/dep/about/re.gion/findvour.htm). 4. A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. • npalgrm2 aoc-Request for Departmental Action Fee Transmtiul Form-rev.10/6104 Page 2 of 2 _ DRAFT MINUTES 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 MR- Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:06PM\, 1. Old/New Business • 81 Highland Avenue(Salem Hospital),DEP#64-539:Discussion of-proposed tree removal " s Scott Patrowicz represents the Hospital Mary Jo{Gagnon and Shelley Bisegna are also present. He outlines the layout of the project on the illumtratiort the Auto Turn Template for Tractor Trailer Combo WB65 (size of trailer) SKC 33 � R !(. They did not want to remove the tree, but the tummg radius of the trucks would not accommodate it. It islSycamore 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 surroundmg'it;as it cont the-ro t They are proposing replacement with another tree in the same location once construction, complete. Bill-Manuel, wetlands specialist, identified and examined the tree, which,is mature but somewhai" essed. There is some canopy dieback and it is covered in,ivy, however it is,,providi g,�alue as it is in the buffer zone and it is connected to wildlife habita Mr. Manuel suggests allowing construction to proceed, then replacing the tree with a 3" caliper Sycamore in roughly then ame location. There is a bowl area on the property where additional wildlife habita[buld be created. The wetlands scientists suggested blueberries or some other wildlife attractant." Mr. Patrowics feels these mrt}gations 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. 1 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 subsfaritially in compliance. The Commission did not specify any monitoring require tints and the replication area is overrun with invasives as expected. Pabich recalls that they'cxpected it would be overrun with ter : 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, ah atwas all he could verify N. Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments,! Pabich motions to issue the Certificate,of Compliance, Ricci' Ili seconds, and all are in favor. This decision is hereby made a part of th se minutes, 2. Continuation of P.ubl Hearing Request for Determtnat►ott'�of Applicability-50 ,v— �— . .,�le -. .�. 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's'.. ;Alp �. Here for the.Applicant its Jay Goldberg This is for cfiildren'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 familics"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. 2 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 thepicture 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 fo[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 thisis,to Legacy Park:Mr. Goldberg does not know,but Pabich says this is the corner parcel'by Grove and HarmonyGrove Rd. The other property, Salem Oil and Grease, is on the other side f the-river. The area has been tested and there is no r ,: , ,. 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 �' ya s �� � ris �� NNRosemaryO'Connor of,ll l MasoriSt. states thatcerned about having a children's play area in a location that has high automobile traffiLMs. Todd states that there will be a crosswalk =fit a through thep king lot and speed bumps to,slow traffic. Chair Knisel recommends that Ms. s� a O'Connor d scuss this matter furtther with the applicant after the hearing. M. Paul Prevey,Ward 6 Councilor,states that the Open Meeting Law cannot allow the Commission to approve a.children's play area,tliat was posted as an off-leash dog area. Pabich suggests that the project is larg ly the same a portion of lawn enclosed by a fence. The use, from a resource protection standpomtJs less impactful. Chair Knisel says she is comfortable moving forward with this,but would like Tom Devine to review Councilor Prevey`s.;,on ern 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. • g. 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 3 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 ::a,K. control. Mr. DeRosa believes this addresses the Comission's"concems and they are requesting a :W Negative 3 determination with the option for conditions to beadded. St. Louis asks if they had to file with the planning board, but nufa 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-,9f: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-rh'volume of the garage. Pabich thinks firm maps are inaccurate, and he understands their frustratiowbut heknows,there WILL be flooding and the garage WILL displace some of that water � X11 ' y • Mr. DeRosa says theyfhaveto.go by regulationNand--accordih g to the Act and the Ordinance, must design to a 100;year flood oda 500 yearaflood, but that.is not in the jurisdiction of this Commission. There is ho elevation for a 500 year flood.Duringa rain event there may be *11 flooding or seasonal flooding,but it may,not be thkthe resource area is flooding. In a 100 year storm there`wrll be-localized floodin"11g eLerjwheresaif they take runoff from an increase in 4 bL '� �.�_� V— xe�e. 4Fr*� impe eable=surfa'ce of 427 sVw, g4are eet, they will have it infiltrate and will catch 90% of the storms Sheetflow and puddles are,probably what.people are seeing. But Pabich sahe is not familiar with it;long term. The edge of the pond in one storm event was But Pab to the west and South of the structure pictured. The entire site was surrounded by floodwater from the pond It-is, t a water to"le issue. The pond elevation is flooding. Pabich comments that flood boundazies.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 inferiv, nother 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 4 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 R eci li, and the motion passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes. 4. Public Hearing—Request for Determination:oUA pplicability-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 ab efacility New E glad"V eterinary 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`moldand deterioration of the roof. The,area in question is an overhang shed roof protecting an outdMoor area ., -0. P • Three trees are fully mature and in deckeOne shows'substantial decay and has lost a major leader. Other trees are on the Highland Ave side 15=18 Y fr6ih-wetland border, and upland. They +%�. are fully mature black cherries a`nd are causing the.inost 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 no a is 1' from wetlands boundary, but there is risk due to hydric`soil: As a mitigation plan he recommends gshrubs rather than trees to avoid repetition of the situation later. He has recommended 18 shrubs%providing habitat and stabilization in place of the 12 treest'to be removed.' > w Trees will be either.cut with a crane orbucket 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. 5 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. T,yackprefers shrubs. There is no slow �.., growing wetland tree; they will all be the same size as the onesJn question eventually. And some lE 7 �.:, n 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 #3x6 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 s 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 c6 As to deal with lots'of emergency orders when trees reach this age. Pabich comments that the speckled alder is accep-ablee.. He would:like to see more specifies as to replanting, but wants to)s see-mostly speckIed alder. SULouis says spice bush and blueberry all • have wetland value. M�rNyacksays the Commission can speak two a specialist, and Pabich thinks this would be best Mr.RTyack should submit a4etterfrom 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 peirod, then Mr.Tyack will get the letter in order. The letter z.+"--... �i'%a', 44.P1 'i qr. should be sutsmrtted by the next meetmg;on Jan10, Also, siting of the replantings should be shown q1 , IN Mr Instead of holding a format site visitA , commissioners will visit individually at their convenience (S prior to the ri nmeeting. °` A motion to continue>to the Janu 10, 2013 meeting is made by Pabich, seconded by St. Louis, and passes unammoU g. 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 6 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. 6. Old/New Business,continued A. • 3 Martin Lane,Witch Hill Subdivision Lot 214;DER464 504: Request for Certificate of Compliance • 4 Martin Lane,Witch Hill Subdivision Lot 212,DEP#64- -Request for Certificate of Compliance • 2 Martin Lane, Witch Hill Subdivision Lot'`211,DEP#64-506:R q'est 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 a`s on he original plan. The resource area is to the'North of Martin Lane 4 �<<� Devine comments that�he m made a s�tei visiI. t and agrees that deviations are minor. Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments agg Pabich comments on the erosion,control at lot 214 in photos; Mr. Mello would like to leave it for another.season. It is a composttube, and ere is still runoff while the lawns continue growing. They will be removed next season. s. % li, 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 7 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 P 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:The} 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 greate than the ongirial'design. t sv h Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments � Orders are being modified for these two,.lots. The Order for th' subdivision mcludes 18 recharge systems for the lots, with separate Ord&s�6f,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 m ss n ones to be relocated. This is in the subdivision filing, t for specific lots:NocesIntentllhe?G€led in groups in the future. • To comply with the Order for the roadway, utihttes hand 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 condi 1 that trees be replaced 3 for 1 if lost. One tree was ,a t =,o D removed; grid three'were,plteands evine asks for anexplanation of compliance with the condition for the retaining wall to b.e gled to prevent scouring. Mr. Mello says that they were concerned the wall would be verticalazid that water would come over and eat at the base. Native stone was used with a slight angle to cutdown on the velocity of the water to prevent erosion. The wall has a slope. "A µ_yep^ # 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 ls`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 8 & 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 urb. It will most likely be attached to sleeves at grade. There is no curb detailed to hold a pipe. The plan as modified is � -=m3 passed around. The Commission cannot find the reason forthat,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 thcommission's concern regarding erosion in the wall'Af,there was no drainage other than walk ay itself, there would be no volume according to PabicThere would be point sources; but this is nonpoint, a gentle slope. q! • Commissioners are in favvor of the modification The agent at the time wrote up detailed findings referencing the reasoning for,thiss requirement;which no longer applies. :y t, A motion to approve this. s a minor change is made by Pabich, seconded by St. Louis, and passes unanimously. Nm • 11R Winter Islan Road ;DEP#64-519 Update on enforcement action 0i Nc Devine updat s the Commission. ThetCbmmission issued an Enforcement letter for five violations in early NovembeThree have been resolved completely. The unidentified white material was removed, erosion o troll in ailed around the remaining disturbed area, and a stockpile of soil iri thebuffer zonewas 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 fSc�t. R 9� 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. 9 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 3/a" 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 wouldahave been restoration; Mr. Warf thinks it may have been National Grid. Pabich coram fits that whoever installed the stones should have come before the Commission to seek approval�foi 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 du u Devine said not to take awa asphalt. P g PP � g P• Y �P to Ricciarelli asks if the utilities are new—they are'and were shown on thesi 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 outwards 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"thai material willbe moved during plowing.gp • �A K It is uncertain who put the stone inRicciarellt asks`„rf the sfbnes-could be paved over or if it w would make a raised surface, but St:Louis say 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 t instalLl es altho gh they must be 5' apart and the road is only 12' wide.,', r". X ; .. Pabich asks about the property line It ssffrom the phone pole past the seawall. Most of this is not on Mr. Warff's property, which is sligtitlymore than 5' off the house. Devine has the Request for Determination of Applicability for=demolit on and the Order of Conditions for construction, which he passes to Pabich. Ricciarelli comments that theCommission 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. 10 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 consultirtg.the City Solicitor to determine their options. FM 04 Devine asks if they want to take back the threat of fines but Knisel suggests extending the xfy�y � deadlines. Mr. Warf will discover who put the stoneuqdown. Ricciarelh thinks it may have been the builder. ai N� The deadline requiring removal of the crushed stone is moved t&the second meeting in January. However, the letter holds William Wharff accountable Devine will consult the City Solicitor as �g, 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 ,. r qi • 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 all-with Mary Rimmerfthe 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 10" Mr. Steadmad 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 11 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. 9 01F„ 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 �W "k— 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,-6r if he needs Wwait for that language. V 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. `. €F„': Mary Rimmer did the replication for Mr -Steadman, but she does not have records that far back. �x She will be present at the next meetinjM-f she can attest that &was done, the Commission can move on. She is currently looking for theielev tan materials. Pabich says they can't close it out without proof that it was done The easement can be xe ecuted before the next meeting, but • would have to be signed by-the�Commission nPabicli questi ns that,but it would mean that the lawyer would have toichange who'executes iv,The pwner says,E.is unbelievable that there is this much delay over the easement; it even has a place for the Mayor to sign. The buyers have Aal already moved into the house and hers acting as landlord. Ricciarelli asks if the as-built can be . presented A5AP Devine wdreview it as- oop as he has it. Pabich asks how to resolve this vi wr �. without another meeting*Mary Rimmer can wrrte,a letter stating that the replication was done as according to plan. Devinewillwant Co consult witl the Chair in the event that that letter and the as-built indicate that the ork was done and the commission is likely to issue a full certificate. If everything lilies up right, the ea ement would be unnecessary and Devine could release the partial certificate!for 24 Clark�A e. Ricciarelli says signing something would be OK, even if they have to come infor an additional gym,eeting. k � • 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 2"d and 4"'Thursdays each month, with an August recess, and one meeting in Nov. and Dec. • Miscellaneous 12 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 t rary storage and office trailers at their Bridge Street Neck facility. Devine thinks they need Wfile 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:altematives. National Grid wants to know if this can be done with merely a.letter to update the c'.6mmission. But Devine and the commission agree that an RDA is necessary r A motion to adjourn is made by St Louis, seconded by Ricciauelli, and passe unanimously. The , meeting ends at 9:22 p.m. x W Respectfully Submitted, �� q §:.. • Stacy Kilb `. "c AO- Clerk, Salem Conseatio ryn Commission it 1N �e. x wk z 4 3y I 13 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. 1. 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. 1 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. 2. 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 2 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. • 3. 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 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 the had to file with the planning board but not for garage or driveway, other Y P g g g Y. 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 4 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. 4. 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 5 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. 10`s. 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. 5. 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. 6 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. 6. 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. 7 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 3`d 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 ls`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. 8 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 9 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 3/a" stone a 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. 10 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 10`s. 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 11 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 S,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 2"d and 4d'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 12 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 13