64-288 - 435 LAFAYETTE STREET - CONSERVATION COMMISSION � y35 �� a�
iw 1 )"'�� ' v�
o�2
�nadlu it 1 c]� �t�� L! it 2p 0�^ ew1 �ra��aa2) b5�8a�
N
—t' a ssl
16 p�� "�� � ' � hj
�\jVo
, I
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection RECEIVED
Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands SEP 2 OD€R0e Number:
WPA Form 813 — Certificate of Compliance 2sa
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 DEPT.OFPLA b DEP
COMMUNITY OE EL M O
A.,Project Information
Important:
When filling out 1. This Certificate of Compliance is issued to:
forms on the John Dick
computer, use Name
only the tab
key to move Hancock Environmental Consultants, 235 Newbury Street
your cursor- Mailing Address -
do not use the Danvers MA 01923
return
nkey. Citylrown State Zip Code
�/(�,� �� 2. This Certificate of Compliance is issued for work regulated by a final Order of Conditions issued to:
�� Kenneth GeIPY
. Name
e0m 7/23/99 64-288
Dated DEP File Number
3. The project site is located at:
435 Lafayette Street Salem
Street Address Cityrrown
32 422
Assessors Map/Plat Number Parcel/Lot Number
the final Order of Condition was recorded at the Registry of Deeds for:
Kenneth Glepy
Property Owner(if different)
Essex, South 15870 66
County Book Page
Certificate
4. A site inspection was made in the presence of the applicant, or the applicant's agent, on:
June 18,2004
Date
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:
wpaform 5b.doc•rev.1M5I00 Page i of 3
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands DEP File Number:
WPA Form 8B — Certificate of Compliance 64-288
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by DEP
B. Certification (cont.)
❑ 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therefore no longer valid.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
Issu d b :
e ion Chief, P Northe aI Date of Issuance
his Certificate must be signed by DEP and a copy sent to the applicant and appropriate DEP Regional
Office (See Appendix A).
Signatures:
Day Month and Year /
before me personally appeared
J
to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and
acknowledged that he/she executed the same as his/her free act and deed.
N/ottaary ub� My commission expires
waaferm 8b.doc•rev.12/15100 Page 2 of 3
LI) Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands DEP File Number.
WPA Form 8B — Certificate of Compliance 64-288
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 Northeast Regional Office
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 of Applicant
wpaform 8b.doc•rev.12115100 Page 3 W 3
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands
WPA Appendix A — DEP Regional Addresses
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40
Mail transmittal fors and DEP payments,payable to:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection
Box 4062
Boston, MA 02211
DEP Western Region Adams Colrain Hampden Monroe Pittsfield Tydngham
436 Dwight Street Agawam Conway Hancock Montague Plainfield Wales
Afford Cumminglon Hatfield Monterey Richmond Were
Suite 402 Amherst Dalton Hawley Montgomery Rowe Warrick
Springfield,MA 01103 AshBeld Deerfield Heath Monson Russell Washington
Phone:413-784-1100 Becket Easthampton Hinsdale Mount Washington Sandisfield Wendell
Belchertown East Longmeadow Holland New Ashford Savoy Westfield
Fax:413-784-1149 Bemardston Egremont Holyoke New Marlborough Sheffield Westhampton
Blandford Erving Huntington New Salem Shelburne West Springfield
Brimfield Florida Lanesborough North Adams Shutesbury West Sto londge
Bucklard Gill Lea NoMampton Scuthairp:on Whately
Chademont Goshen Lenox Northfield South Hadley Wilbraham
Cheshire Granby Levered Orange Southwick Williamsburg
Chaster Granville Leyden Otis Springfield Williamstown
Chesterfield Great Barrington Longmeadow Palmer Stockbridge Windsor
Chicopee Greenfield Ludlow Pelham Sunderland Worthington
Clarksburg Hadley Middlefield Peru Tolland
DEP Central Region Acton Chadton Hopkinton Millbury Rutland Uxbridge
627 Main Street Ashbumham Clinton Hubbardston Millville Shirley Warren
Ashby Douglas Hudson New Braintree Shrewsbury Webster
Worcester,MA 01605 Athol Dudley Holliston Northborough Southborough Wastberough
Phone:508-792-7650 Auburn Dunstable Lanier Northdidge Southbridge West Boylston
Fax:508-792-7621 Ayer East Brookfield Leicester North Broeldeld spencer West Brookfield
Barra Fitchburg Leominster Domain Sterling Westford
TDD:508-767-2788 Bellingham Gardner Littleton Ovdord Slow Westminster
Berlin Gnagon Lunenburg Paxton Sturbridge Wincherdon
Blackstone Groton Marlborough Pepperell Sutton Worcester
Bolton Harvard Maynard Petersham Templeton
Boxborough Hardwick Medway Phillipslon Townsend
Boylston Holden Mendon Princeton Tyngsbarough
Brookfield Hopedale MiBord Royalston Upton
DEP Southeast Region Abington Dartmouth Freetown Matepoisett Provincetown Tisbury
20 Riverside Drive Acvshnet Dennis Gay Head Middleborough Raynham Truro
Atlleboro Dighton Gosneld Nantucket Rehoboth Wareham
Lakeville,MA 02347 Avon Duxbury Halifax NmBedford Rochester We118eet
Phone:508-946-2700 Barnstable Eastham Hanover North ABleborough Rockland West Bridgewater
Fax:508-947-6557 Berkley East Bridgewater Hanson Norton sandwich Westport
Bourne Easton Hanwich Norwell Scituate West Tisbury
TDD:508-946-2795 Brewster Edgartown Kingston Oak Bluffs Seekonk 4Mitmen
Bridgewater Fairhaven Lakeville Orleans Sharon Wrentham
Brockton Fall River Mansfield Pembroke Somerset Yarmouth
Carver Falmouth Marion Plainville Stoughton
Chatham Foxborough Marshfield Plymouth Swansea
Chilmark Franklin Mashpas Plympton Taunton
DEP Northeast Region Amesbury Chelmsford Hingham Merrimac Quincy Wakefield
m Andover Chelsea Holbrook Methuen Randolph Walpole
One Winter Street;5 Flr Arlington Cohasset Hull Middleton Reading Waltham
Boston,MA 02108 Ashland Concord Ipswich Millis Revere Watertown
Bedford Danvers Lawrence Milton Rockport Wayland
Belmont Dedham Lexington Nahant Rowley Wellesley
Beverly Dover Lincoln Natick Salem Wenham
Billerica Dracut Lowell Needham Salisbury West Newbury
Boston Essex Lynn Newbury Saugus Weston
Boxford Everett Lynnfeld Newburyport Sherbom Westwood
Braintree Framingham Malden Newton Somerville Weymouth
Brookline Georgetown Manchester-By-The-Sea Norfolk Stoneham Wilmington
Burlington Gloucester Marblehead North Andover Sudbury Winchester
Cambridge Groveland Maaeld North Reading Swampscott Winthrop
Canton Hamilton Medford Norwood Tewksbury Woburn
Carlisle Haverhill Melrose Peabody Topsfield
wpaform8b.doc•Appendix A-rev.9F/04 Page 1 of 1
HANCOCK
Environmental Consultants
8 December 2003 0 235 Newbury street
Route 1 North
Danvers,MA 01923
Department of Environmental Management (978)777-3050
e Lozzi (978)283-2200
Wayne (978) 83- 200
1 Winter Street - (781)6629659
5
th Floor FAX(978)774-7816
Boston, MA 02211 012 Farnsworth Street
Boston,MA 02210
RE: DEP file 64-288 (617)350-7906
Request for Certificate of Compliance
435 Lafayette Street, Salem
Dear Mr. Lozzi:
On behalf of our client, Paulo Cabral, a Certificate of Compliance is hereby requested for
the site located at 435 Lafayette Street, Salem.
A site visit was conducted to determine compliance. Observed conditions are consistent
and have conformed to the plant entitled: Permit Site Plan in Salem, MA; October 16,
1998 revision April 28, 1999. Work has satisfactorily been completed.
Respectfully,
Hancock Associates
ohn G. Dick P.L.S.
CC. Salem Conservation Commission
Division of Hancock Survey Associates.Inc.
DEP file Number:
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands 64-288
WPA Form 8A — Request for Certificate of Compliance Provided by DEP
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40
A. Project Information
Important:
When filling out 1. This request is being made by:
forms on the Paulo Cabral
computer, use Name
only the tab 244 Broadvia
key to move y
your pursor- Mailing Address
do not use the Somerville Massachusetts 02143
return key. Cityfrown State Zip Code
671-201-1204
Phone Number
2. This request is in reference to work regulated by a final Superceding Order of Conditions issued to:
Kenneth Gelpy
Applicant
7/23/99 64-288
Dated DEP File Number
Upon completion of the work 3. The project site is located at:
authorized in 435 Lafayette Street Salem
an Order of Street Address CdyfTown
Conditions,the 32 422
property owner
must request a Assessors Map/Plat Number Parcel/Lot Number
Certificate of Compliance 4. The final Order of Conditions was recorded at the Registry of Deeds for:
from the issuing Kenneth Gelpy
authority stating Property Owner(If different)
that the work or Essex South District 15870 66
portion the
work hass been County Book Page
satisfactorily
completed. Certificate(N registered land)
5. This request is for certification that(check one):
® the work regulated by the above-referenced Superceding Order of Conditions has been
satisfactorilycompl eted.
❑ the following portions of the work regulated by the above-referenced Order of Conditions have
been satisfactorily completed (use additional paper if necessary).
❑ the above-referenced Order of Conditions has lapsed and is therefore no longer valid, and the
work regulated by it was never started.
MA Foos 8A Page 1 or 2
Rev.02100
DEP File Number:
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands 64-288
WPA Form 8A — Request for Certificate of Compliance Provided by DEP
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40
A. Project Information (cont.)
6. Did the Order of Conditions for this project, or the portion of the project subject to this request, contain
an approval of any plans stamped by a registered professional engineer, architect, landscape
architect, or land surveyor?
❑ Yes If yes, attach a written statement by such a professional certifying substantial
compliance with the plans and describing what deviation, if any, exists from the plans
approved in the Order.
® No
B. Submittal Requirements
Requests for Certificates of Compliance should be directed to the issuing authority that issued the final
Order of Conditions(OOC). If the project received an OOC from the Conservation Commission, submit
this request to that Commission. If the project was issued a Superseding Order of Conditions or was the
subject of an Adjudicatory Hearing Final Decision, submit this request to the appropriate DEP Regional
Office(see Appendix A).
WPA Fam BA Page 2 of 2
Rev,02100
I
i
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS S'ZB^ ti S ) '
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO
clRa lI
METROPOLITAN BOSTON-NORTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE
ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI TRUDY COXE
Governor
Secrewry
I
DAVID B. STRUHS
Commissioner
DEP File # 064-
RE : NOTIFICATION OF WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT FILE NUMBER SALEM
DATE: 9-23-98 (city/town)
The Department of Environmental Protection has received a Notice of Intent filed
in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. c . 131, §40) :
Applicant : KENNETH GELPEY Owner: PHILIP WEBSTER
Address : 130 LOTHROP STREET Address : DEPT. 208/90X 02516
BEVERLY, MA 01915 MIAMI , FL 33102
Project Location: 435 LAFAYETTE STREET LOT 422 .
IF.CHECKED, THE FOLLOWING -ITEM(S) APPLY TO THIS NOTICE OF INTENT:
A. This -project has been .assigned -the following file
Although: 'a;-fi'le # is- being issued, please -note- the following:
ISSUANCE OF A FILE NUMBER INDICATES ONLY COMPLETENESS OF SUBMITTAL, NOT
APPROVAL OF APPLICATION
B . (X) No File # will be assigned to this project until the following missing
information is sent to this office, to meet the minimum submittal requirements
in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Regulations at 310 CMR 10 . 00 :
1 . ( ) 1 copy (s) of a completed Notice of Intent (Form 3 or Form 4 of
Sect . 10 . 99, whichever is applicable) and a copy of the Fee
Transmittal Form, with a copy of the check for the State' s share of
the Notice of Intent filing fee .
2 . ( ) 1 copy (s) of plans, calculations, and other documentation necessary
to completely describe the proposed work and mitigating measures to
protect resource areas .
3 . ( ) 1 copy (s) of an 8%" X 11" section of the USGS map of the area.
4 . ( ) 1 copy (s) of plans showing compliance with Title 5 of the State
Environmental Code, 310 CMR 15 . 00 .
5 . ( ) Proof that-.a .copy of your .Notice of Intent has been mailed or hand
- - -- -delivered to- -the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program. —
_COMMENTS ::.PAGE-:3-3 & 3-4 -IS MISSING. PLANS MUST BE SIGNED & STAMPED BY A
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. PROVIDE WETLANDS FILING FEE CALCULATIONS
.WORKI SHEET. MUST SHOW BOUNDARY OF SALT MARSH ON PLANS . -
(see page 2 for additional information)
205a Lowell St• Wilmington,Massachusetts 01881A FAX (978) 661-7615 • Telephone (978) 661-7600 • TDD k(978)661-7679
C. Other Regulatory Jurisdiction
1 . ( ) Application has been forwarded to Waterways Regulatory Program to
determine if a Chapter 91 License is required.
2 . ( ) Applicant is advised to forward a copy of the Notice of Intent to the
Corps of Engineers for review (call 1-800-362-4367 for information) .
D. 401 Water Quality Certification
The project described in your Notice of Intent requires a 401 Water
Quality Certification from the Department of Environmental Protection and may
require submittal of a 401 application form. See below for further details :
1 . ( ) Based upon the information submitted in and with your Notice of
Intent a separate 401 Water Quality Certification application form is
not required. The Department of Environmental Protection has
reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and finds that there is
reasonable assurance that the project or activity will be conducted
in a manner that will not violate the Massachusetts Surface Water
Quality Standards, provided that :
a) the applicant receives and complies with a Final Order of
Conditions from the local conservation commission or the
Department;
b) the Order of Conditions does not cause the loss of more than
5, 000 sq. ft . of bordering vegetated wetlands and land under
water and/or the dredging of more than 100 cubic yards of land
under water;
c) any loss of vegetated wetlands has been mitigated with a minimum
replication of 1 : 1 ; and
d) the project is not exempt from the M.G.L. c . 131, §40 - the
Wetlands Protection Act ; is not part of a subdivision; does not
cause the loss of any wetlands designated as Outstanding
Resource Waters; and does not cause the loss of any salt marsh.
Therefore, provided that the above conditions are satisfied, the
Final Order of Conditions will serve as the Water Quality
Certification for this project . This does not relieve the applicant
of the duty to comply with any other statutes or regulations .
2 . ( ) Before the activity described in the Notice of Intent can commence,
you must obtain a Water Quality Certification from this Regional
Office . Please complete the enclosed 401 Water Quality Certification
application form and file it with this Regional Office for review.
3 . ( ) Your project involves dredging of greater than 100 cubic yards of
material or requires a permit from the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission for work in "waters of the Commonwealth. " Therefore, your
proposed project is subject to 314 CMR 9 . 00 and requires a Water
Quality Certification. Please complete the enclosed 401 Water
Quality Certification application form and file it with the
Department of Environmental Protection, Waterways Program, One Winter
Street, Boston, MA 02108. Contact the Division of Waterways Program
at 617-292-5655 if you have any questions .
For more information please contact :D. STANDISH
at (617) 932-7600 .
CC : Conservation Commission ( ) U. S . Army Corps of Engineers
( ) Owner ( ) Coastal Zone Management
( ) DEP - Water Pollution Control ( ) Representative :
( ) DEP - Waterways
( ) Other:
2
s VI1� MAv—
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSUM
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
lug DEPARTMENT Or ENV IREN&CNM_ I OTECTION
Metropolitan Boston—Northeast Regional Office
14w? hlt+ 13 N3: 11
ARGEO PALL CELLUCCI SAL.EM BOB I)LTA.N-P
Crnvrnor PL ANN!NG1 DEPT secreury
ikut swvT J U L 23 1999 I Comfit a Iwr
Lieutenant Governor Commissioner
Kenneth Gelpey RE: WETLANDS/SALEM
130 Lothrop Street DEP File#64-288
Beverly,MA 01915 Superseding Order of Conditions(18)
Dear Mr. Gelpey:
The Metropolitan Boston/Northeast Regional Office of the Department of Environmental
Protection, Wetlands Division, has completed its review of the above-referenced file, in preparation
to issuing a Superseding Order of Conditions. The Department is issuing the enclosed Order of
Conditions allowing the project, based upon: 1) information and plans submitted; 2) information
gathered during the on-site inspection conducted April 22, 1999; and 3) reasons the Department has
deemed necessary to protect the statutory interests of the Act.
The parcel is approximately 13296 square feet in size and is located at 435 Lafayette Street
in Salem. The proposed project involves constructing a single family dwelling and driveway on
pilings. The project site is within a velocity zone, which is elevation 14, on the most recent FEMA
Insurance Rate Ma I Flood p, (FIRM).
Based upon review of the project site and information contained in the file to date, the
Department has determined that the site contains the following resource areas, as defined at 310
CMR 10.00: 1) Coastal Beach; 2) Coastal Bank; 3) Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage; and 4)
Salt Marsh. These resource areas are presumed to protect one or more of the statutory interests of
the Act as noted on page one of the attached Superseding Order of Conditions.
You appealed the Order of Conditions issued by the Salem Conservation Commission, which
denied this project on February 16, 1999. The denial was based on a concern that the proposed
project would have an adverse effect on the Coastal Banks' stability due to the removal of
vegetation associated with the construction of the dwelling. This was a concern of the
Department as well and as a result of the April 19, 1999 site visit, the applicant agreed to submit
a planting scheme which will be incorporated into the Order to ensure that the site will remain
stabilized. The planting scheme ensures that areas below the proposed dwelling and driveway
will be replanted but it may not be filled or otherwise prevented from contributing sediment to
areas below. The lot also has an existing stone wall which extends above the V-Zone at an
elevation of 20 feet or higher. The area at the base of the wall extending to the proposed
dwellingconsists of upland vegetation within the V-Zone and also with the Coastal Bank. This
P g
wall runs along the southern boundary of the property site and currently contains an existing
outlet which discharges stormwater from a catch basin located on Lafayette Street. As a result of
This informatioe a a, R.ble in alternate format by calling our ADA Coordinator at(617)573.6875.
205A Lowell St W1n11ngton,MA 01887 .nPtwne(978)661-7600 . Fax(978)661-7615 . TTDA(978)661-7679
GJ Printed on Recycled Paper
DEP FILE 964-288
Page -2-
the stormwater flows, a gully leading to the salt marsh has been created. The applicant has
proposed at the base of the wall, the installation of a grate, a drain manhole and a two foot sump.
Additionally, as a result of the Department's suggestion, the applicant has revised his plans to
install a four foot wide swale, paved with six to twelve inch stone to be placed as shown on the
plan (referenced below). This would divert the stormwater flow to an existing area of large
boulders located outside of the BVW and Salt Marsh and alleviate the erosion caused from the
stormwater.
It is the Department's opinion that based on this information, the proposed activity will not
inhibit the abilities of the resource areas to function to protect the interests of the Act Additionally,
to ensure that the area will be maintained properly, the Department has included within the attached
Superseding Order, specific conditions relating to site maintenance, erosion controls and various
other concerns to provide further protection of the Resource Areas on-site.
It is the Department's position that the enclosed Superseding Order of Conditions approving
the project as proposed serves to protect the statutory interests identified in the Wetlands Protection
Act, M.G.L., Chapter 131, section 40. However, the Department reserves the right, should there be
further proceedings in this case, to raise additional issues and present ftnther evidence as may be
appropriate. Should you or any concerned party dispute these findings, your attention is directed to
the language at the end of the enclosed Order specifying the rights and procedures for appeal.
Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Wayne Low at 978-661-7785.
Very truly yours,
Philip DiPietro
Acting Section Chief
Wetlands and Waterways
PD/WL/wl
cc: Hancock Environmental, 235 Newbury Street, Danvers, MA 01923
Salem Conservation Commission
310 CMR 10. 99
Form 5 DEP File No # 64-288
(To be provided by DEP)
city/Town SALEM
Applicant Kenneth Gelpy
Superseding Order of Conditions
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act
G.L. c.131, §40
From Department of Environmental Protection
To- Kenneth Gelpy (Name of Applicant)
Address 130 Lothr02 Steet, Beverly, MA 01915 (applicant)
To Same (Name of Property Owner)
Address (owner)
This Order is issued and delivered as follows:
n by hand delivery to applicant or representative on (date)
i� by certified mail, return receipt requested on 7/23/99 (date)
This project is located at 435 Lafayette Street, Sales:
The property is recorded at the Registry of Essex, South
Book 6070
Page 439
Certificate (if registered)
The Notice of Intent for this project was filed on August 28 1998 (date)
The public hearing was closed on January 28, 1999 (date)
Findings
The Department of Environmental Protection has reviewed the above-referenced
Notice of intent and plans and has held a public hearing on the project. Based on
the information available to the Department of Environmental Protection at
this time, the Department of Environmental Protection has determined that the
area on which the proposed work is to be done is significant to the following
interests in accordance with the Presumptions of Significance set forth in the
regulations for each Area Subject to Protection Under the Act (check as
appropriate) :
n Public water supply {� Flood control F-1 Land containing shellfish
n Private water supply S� Storm damage prevention F-1 Fisheries
Ground water supply {� Prevention of pollution F1 Protection of wildlife
habitat
Total Filing Fee Submitted $305.00 State Share $140.00
City/Town Share - $165.00 ('� fee in excess of $25)
Total Refund Due. $ City/Town Portion $ State Portion $
(''i total) (�i total)
Effective 11/20/92
5-1
Therefore, the Department of Environmental Protection hereby finds that the
following conditions are necessary, in accordance with the Performance Standards
set forth in the regulations, to protect those interests checked above. The
Department of Environmental Protection orders tha: all work shall be performed
in accordance with said 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.
General Conditions
1. Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein, and with all related
statutes and other regulatory measures, shall be deemed cause to revoke or
modify this Order.
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, by-laws or regulations.
9 . 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 and
both that date and the special circumstances warranting the extended
time period are set forth 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. Any fill used in connection with this project shall be clean fill,
containing 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.
7 . No work shall be undertaken until all administrative appeal periods from
this Order have elapsed or, if such an appeal nas been filed, until all
proceedings before the Department have been completed. -
8. No work shall be undertaken until the Final Order 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 =he 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 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 to be
done. The recording information shall be submitted to the Department of
Environmental Protection on the form at the end of this Order prior to
commencement of the work.
9. A sign shall be displayed at the site not less than two square feet or more
than three square feet in size bearing the words, "Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Protection, File Number 469-298 . "
10. Where the Department of Environmental Protection is requested to make a
determination and to issue a Superseding Order, the Conservation Commission
shall be a party to all 'agency proceedings and hearings before the
Department.
5-2
11. Upon completion of the work described herein, the applicant shall forthwith
request in writing that a Certificate of Compliance be issued stating that
the work has been satisfactorily completed.
12. The work shall conform to the following plans and special conditions:
Plans:
Title: "Permit Site Plan in Salem, MA"
Dated: October 16, 1998 with the latest revision date of April 28, 1999
Scale: 1"=90'
Signed 6 Stamped by: John Gilbert Dick, Registered Land Surveyor for Hancock
Survey Associates, Inc. , 235 Newbury Street Danvers MA 01923
On File With: The Salem Conservation Commission and DEP
See attached special conditions 13 - 26
5-3B
l
DEP File N64-288
Special Conditions
Page -1-
13. No work shall commence on-site until all appeal periods have elapsed and this Superseding
Order of Conditions has been recorded with the registry of deeds and the Department
formally notified via the form located at the end of this Order.
14. Any change(s) made in the plans referenced in condition 12, which will alter an
Area Subject to Protection Under the Wetlands Protection Act, or any change(s) in
activity subject to regulation under M.G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40, shall require
the applicant to inquire of the Department, in writing, as to whether the change(s) is
significant enough to require the filing of a new notice of intent. A copy of said
request shall at the same time be sent to the Conservation Commission.
15. The site as identified in the project plans shall be maintained in a clean and orderly
condition. Refuse, debris and waste materials shall not be placed within any resource area
under any circumstance and shall be disposed of promptly and properly.
16. The Department emphasizes general condition 43, that all other applicable permits, licenses,
etc. must be received at the appropriate times.
17. Cross bracing and knee bracing requirements shall meet the Massachusetts State Building
Code.
18. The applicant shall immediately control any erosion problems that occur on the site and
shall also immediately notify the Department and the Salem Conservation Commission.
The Department reserves the fig
ht ght to require additional erosion and/or damage prevention
controls it may deem necessary.
19. The wetland resource areas (BVW and Salt Marsh), shall not be filled, excavated or
otherwise altered either on a temporary or permanent basis during placement of pilings or
for the construction of the dwelling and/or driveway.
20. Slope stabilization beneath the dwelling or driveway shall consist of the planting of Baltic
Ivry, Hedera helix, a perennial vine,to be planted on one-foot center throughout.
21. Upon completion of the project and prior to, or with any request for a Certificate of
Compliance, an As-Built plan shall be submitted for the Department's approval.
22. Equipment shall be stored in a manner and location which will minimize potential
environmental impacts. Fuel storage and the refueling of vehicles shall be conducted
outside of all resource areas in an upland location.
23. This Order of Conditions supersedes all prior orders under DEP File 964-288.
24. This Order shall apply to all successors/ or assigns in interest or control and any
other parry engaging in activity on the property identified in the Notice of Intent.
II
• DEP File#64-288
Special Conditions
Page -2-
25. Members and agents of the Conservation Commission and the Department shall
have the right to enter and inspect the premises to evaluate compliance with
conditions stated in this Superseding Order. The applicant shall submit any data the
Department deems necessary for that evaluation.
26. A copy of this Superseding Order of Conditions as well as the plans referenced in
condition 12, shall be on site and shall remain there while activities regulated by this
Order are being performed. The copies of said documents shall be accessible to all
contractors and subcontractors. The attached cover letter is hereby and severally
made a part of this order, and shall be recorded at the registry of deeds along with
this order.
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO M.G.L. CHAPTER 30,
SECTIONS 61 TO 62H INCLUSIVE
(M.E.P.A.)
The project as described in the Notice of Intent for DEP File 964-288 is "categorically exempt"
pursuant to the "Implementation of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act" as adopted by the
Secretary of Environmental Affairs. This project is "categorically exempt" as the wetland
thresholds established under 301 CMR 11.26(7)(a) of M.G.L. Ch. 30, sections 60 to 62H inclusive,
have not been exceeded.
This finding is applicable only to activities proposed for the above-referenced file number before
the Department of Environmental Protection, Wetlands Division. It does not relieve the applicant
from complying with additional M.ERA. requirements when applying for permits from other
applicable departments or agencies.
i
Issued by the Department of Environmental Protection
Signature
On this 23th day of July, 1999 before me personally appeared Philip DiPietro,
acting Wetlands Section Chief, DEP to me known to be the person described in and
who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged t_at he/she executed the
sam as his/her free act and deed.
e G
A-Z. �a
otary Publi Ifi,
My commission expires
The applicant, the owner, any person aggrieved by the Superseding Order, any
owner of land abutting the land upon which the proposed Work is to be done, or
any ten persons pursuant to G.L. c.30A §10A, are hereby notified of their right
to request an adjudicatory hearing pursuant to G.L. c.30A, §10, providing the
request is made by certified mail or hand delivery to tt=_ Department, with the
appropriate filing fee and Fee Transmittal Form as provided in 310 CMR 10. 03 (7) ,
within ten days from the date of issuance of this Superseding Order, and is
addressed to: Docket Clerk, Office of General Counsel, Deoartment of
Environmental Protection, One Winter Street, Boston, MA 02108. A copy of the
request shall at .the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the
Conservation Commission, the applicant, and any other party.
A Notice of Claim for an Adjudicatory Hearing shall comely with the Department's
Rules for Adjudicatory Proceedings. 310 CMR 1.01 (6) , and shall contain the
following information:
(a) the DEP Wetlands File Number, name of the applicant and address of the
project.
(b) the complete name, address and telephone number of _ie party filing the
request, and, if represented by counsel, the name and address of the
attorney;
(c) the names and addresses of all other parties, if kncrn;
(d) a clear and concise statement of (1) the facts whic- are grounds for the
proceedings, (2) the objections to this Superseding Order, including
specifically the manner in which it is alleged to b= inconsistent with the
Department's Wetlands Regulations (310 CMR 10.00) and does not contribute to
the protection of the interests identified in the A--, and (3) the relief
sought through the adjudicatory hearing, including specifically the changes ,
desired in the Superseding Order;
(e) a statement that a copy of the request has been sen= to the applicant, the
conservation commission and each other party or representative of such
party, if known.
Failure to submit all necessary information may result :n a dismissal by the
Department of the Notice of Claim for an Adjudicatory Eaaring.
Detach on dotted line and submit to the Department of Environmental Protection
prior to commencement of work.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . .
To Department of Environmental Protection, Issuing Autn3rity. Please be advised
that the Order of Conditions for the project at 435 Lafayette Street in Salem_
File Number #64-288, has been recorded at the Registry of Essex South and has
been noted in the chain of title of the affected proper=y in accordance with
General Condition 8.
19
If recorded land, the instrument number which identifies this transaction is
If registered land, the document number which identifies this transaction is
Signature Applicant
5-4B
Cite of *aYem, '41ag!gaCbU.5ettg
Jublit Vropertp-� rtmQntJ
iguilbing Pepartmentr,
r
G'T ( G
One 6atem oreen
(978) 745-9595 QEx9WOE�,f
Peter Strout PLANNWGI i l
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Buildings
Zoning Enforcement Officer
6 Lf
October 16, 2000
Paul Cabral
244 Broadway
Somerville,Ma. 02145-3034
RE: 435 Lafayette Street
Dear Mr. Cabral:
As per our telephone conversation on October 10, 2000, please be advised that the above
mentioned property has the following violations;
1. Construct fence to protect sidewalk pedestrian from work site needs to be installed.
2. Your work site is in violation of the State of Massachusetts Division of
Environmental Protection — superceding order.
3. Building permits do not transfer; therefore, a new permit must be applied for.
You should also be aware, the City of Salem Planning Department has assigned a clerk of
the works to this job. Everytime the Clerk visits your site, you will be assessed the costs.
Please feel free to contact Donald Cefalo in the Planning Department regarding DEP
issues.
Please contact this office regarding building permit issues.
Sincerely.
Thomas St. Pierre
Local Building Inspector
cc: Joe Walsh
Councillor O'Keefe
DA Cefalo, Planner
Willie Beaulieu
t ,
,� on o0
N Conservation Commission
" Saleni, Massachusetts 01970
F�� tiQ
May 5,2000
Kenneth Gelpey
10 %Hyde Street
Danvers, MA 01970
RE: Request to remove Phragmites at 435 Lafayette Street
Dear Mr. Gelpy:
The City of Salem Conservation Commission has requested that you attend their next meeting,
May 11, 2000 7:00 p.m., to discuss the proposed Phragmites removal at 435 Lafayette Street.
The Commission also requests that you provide more detailed information on the specific
location of the Phragmites to be removed and the methods to be used.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Don Giard, Senior Planner
Mar-24-00 07: 58 665PTG/CEV HAFBO1732 617-478-8151 P. 01
VI a,
FAX MEMORANDUM 312� o0
DATE: 24 Mar 00
TO: Mark George, Chairman
Salem Conservation Commission
One Salem Green
SALEM MA
FAX 978-740-0404
FROM: Joscph A. O'Keefe, Sr.
Councillor Ward Seven
28 Surrey Road
SAT.F.M MA 01970
Home (978) 744-1884
Work (781) 377-4745
FAX (78'1) 377-8151
SUBJECT: Proposed construction
435 Lafayette Street
SAI.F.M MA
I understand from a Salem News article a decision was made regarding the
Salem Conservation Commissions' effort to have an adjudicatory hearing
conducted by the MA DEP on this proposed constriction. I have a duty to
advise the neighbors of this decision. Please send me a communication
explaining this decision T may forward to them.
I salute the Salem Conservation Commission in their efforts to preserve
the environment.
Respectfull rly 6
COMMONWE4RKJ WN�1RQACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT OfffNM
,)RONIVERIQ PROTECTION
MarctpL0,2000" __
FLI=NNiNG ,EP1 C, ,
In the Matter of:
Kenneth Gelpey Docket No. 99-190
File No. 64-288
Salem
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On March 9, 2000, the petitioner, the Salem Conservation Commission, withdrew
its appeal. Accordingly, the claim is DISMISSED as moot. See 310 CMR 1.01(11)(d)1.
The superseding order of conditions issued to Kenneth Gelpey on July 23, 1999 is now
final.
The parties to this proceeding have the right to file a Motion for Reconsideration
of this decision pursuant to 310 CMR 1.01(14)(d). Such a motion must be filed with the
Docket Clerk and served on all parties within seven days of the postmark date of this
decision.
Any party may appeal this decision to the Superior Court pursuant to the
Massachusetts Administrative Procedure Act, G.L. c. 30A, sec. 14(1). The complaint
must be filed in the Court within thirty days of receipt of this decision.
Francis X. Nee
Administrative Law Judge
SERVICE LIST
In The Matter Of: Kenneth Gelpey
Docket No. 99-190 File No. 64-288
Representative Party
George W. Atkins, III, Esq. APPLICANT
Ronan, Segal & Harrington Kenneth Gelpey
Fifty- Nine Federal Street
Salem, MA 01970-3470
John D. Keenan PETITIONER/CONCOM
Assistant City Solicitor Salem Conservation Commission
60 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
Dorothy Montouris, Esq. DEPARTMENT
DEP—Office of General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Protection
One Winter Street, 3`d Floor
Boston, MA 02108
Cc:
Wayne Lozzi DEPARTMENT
DEP—Northeast Regional Office Dept. of Environmental Protection
205-A Lowell Street
Wilmington, MA 01887
Debra Hurlburt
Acting Chairperson -
Salem Conservation Commission
Salem, MA 01970
Date: March 10, 2000
CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS
WILLIAM J.LUNDREGAN Legal Department JOHN D.KEENAN
City Solicitor 93 Washington Street Assistant city Solicitor
81 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts 0t970 80 Washington Street
Tel:978-741-3888 Tel:978-741-4453
Fax:978-741-8110 Fax:978-740-0072
March 7, 2000
Debra Hurlburt, Acting Chairperson
Salem Conservation Commission
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Kenneth Gelpey
DEP Docket No. 99-190
File No. 64-288
Dear Acting Chairperson Hurlburt:
Per our discussion, please find attached Motion to Dismiss this matter. Based on
the evidence presented by Attorney Atkins, I do not believe I can pursue this
matter based on an alleged procedural flaw by DEP. I have an ethical obligation
as a member of the bar not to pursue an appeal without merit. Furthermore, if I
pursue further, I believe that Judge Nee would consider costs against the
Commission. Again, this has nothing to do with the wetlands issues involved in
this matter. This is strictly an issue of procedure.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Do not hesitate to call with any
questions.
Very best regards,
Jo D. Keenan,
As . tant City Solicitor
JDK/kjm
Enc.
CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS
WILLIAM J.LUNDREGAN Legal Department JOHN D.KEENAN
City Solicitor Assistant City Solicitor
81 Washington Street 93 Washington Street 80 Washington Street
Tel:978-741-3888 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Tel:97 Washington
Street
453
Fax:978-741-8110 Fax:978-740-0072
March 2, 2000
The Honorable Francis X. Nee
Administrative Law Judge
Office of Administrative Appeals
Department of Environmental Protection
One Winter Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
RE: Kenneth Gelpey
DEP Docket No. 99-190
File No. 64-288
Dear Judge Nee:
After reviewing Attorney George Atkins Motion and Memorandum and discussing
same with my client, I am filing the enclosed Motion to Withdraw for your
consideration.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very best regards,
11( Lip
Joh D. Keenan,
As tant City Solicitor
JD kjm
Enc.
cc. Salem Conservation Commission
George W. Atkins, Esq.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS
II
In the Matter of ) DEP Docket No. 99-190
Kenneth Gelpey ) File No. 64-288
Salem, Massachusetts
MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPEAL
Now comes the Salem Conservation Commission requesting that its appeal of the
above captioned matter filed on November 29, 1999, be summarily withdrawn.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Assented to,
Salem Conservation Commission Kenneth Gelpey,
By its a orney, By his attorney,
�k#JS't, e A)l Z
Jo D- Keenan, BBO 561573 G rge . Atkins, 0 50
As i n to t City Solicitor Ronan, Segal & Har ngton
2#jEssex Street 59 Federal Street
Sa , MA 01970 Salem, MA 01970
Tel. 978.741.4453 Tel. 978.744.0350
RONAN, SEGAL SA HARRINGTON PY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
FIFTY-NINE FEDERAL STREET
JA SALEM.MASSACHUSETTS 01970-m7
' ' (`�
JACOCOS S.SEGAL T.RONAN(19Y1-19S7) -- 1 ��l—I ��/'-)—J
MAW VIEMONN HARRINGION
(978)IAd-0J50
GEORGE W.ATKINS.III FAX(978)7U-7493
7 3 h�xj 9: 2 FILE No.
`=ALEM
FLAN�.I1'1(:a DEPT.
February 24, 2000
CERTIFIED MAIL
The Honorable Francis X. Nee
Administrative Law Judge
Department of Environmental Protection
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
RE: Kenneth Gelpey
Docket No. 99-190
File No. 64-288
Dear Judge Nee:
Enclosed for filing in the above-captioned matter, please find Motion to
Dismiss With Sanctions and Memorandum of _Law in Support of Kenneth
Gelpey's Motion to Dismiss.
Very truly yours(",,.
ours
George W. Atkins, III
GWA/cf
Enclolet
CC: ` ra Hurlburt (certified mail)
Dorothy Montouris, Esq.
Wayne Lozzi
John D. Keenan
Kenneth Gelpey
• COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
IN THE MATTER OF:
KENNETH GELPEY DOCKET NO. 99-190
FILE NO. 64-288
SALEM
MOTION TO DISMISS WITH SANCTIONS
Now comes Kenneth Gelpey, and moves that the Salem Conservation
Commission's Claim for an adjudicatory appeal be dismissed as untimely and
further moves that sanctions be imposed.
As reasons therefor, Kenneth Gelpey states that the Superceding Order of
Conditions was issued on July 23, 1999. Under 310 CMR 10.05(7)0), to be timely,
the Conservation Commission's claim must have been filed within ten business
days of the date that the Department issued its Superseding Order of Conditions.
The Conservation Commission filed its claim on November 29, 1999 and therefore
its appeal must be dismissed as untimely. Furthermore, sanctions are appropriate
whereas the Conservation Commission knew its appeal was untimely and still
chose to pursue this matter. As a result, Mr. Gelpey has suffered unnecessary
costs and legal expenses pertaining to this appeal.
In support of Kenneth Gelpey's Motion, Kenneth Gelpey relies upon the
exhibits, affidavits and memorandum of law submitted herewith.
Respectfully submitted,
Kenneth Gelpey,
By his attorney,
Date: February, 2000
�eorge W. Atkins, III
BBO#023350
Ronan, Segal & Harrington
59 Federal Street
Salem, MA 01970
(978) 744-0350
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, George W. Atkins, III, hereby certify that a copy of the within Motion to
Dismiss, Memorandum of Law and supporting Exhibits were served by mailing
same, postage prepaid, to: Debra Hurlburt, Salem Conservation Commission, One
Salem Green, Salem, Massachusetts, 01970; Dorothy Montouris, Esq. DEP —
Office of General Counsel, One Winter Street Td Floor, Boston Massachusetts,
02108; Wayne Lozzi DEP — North Regional Office, 205-A Lowell Street,
Wilmington, MA 01187; and John D. Keenan, City Solicitor, 60 Washington Street,
Salem, Massachusetts 01970.
--George W. Atkins, III
Dated: February. 2000
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
IN THE MATTER OF:
KENNETH GELPEY DOCKET NO. 99-190
FILE NO. 64-288
SALEM
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF KENNETH GELPEY'S
MOTION TO DISMISS
Now comes Kenneth Gelpey, and moves that the Salem Conservation
Commission's Claim for an adjudicatory appeal be dismissed as untimely and
sanctions against the Commission be imposed.
FACTS
On or about February 11, 1999, the Salem Conservation Commission denied
Mr. Gelpey's Notice of Intent filed in connection with plans to build a single family
residence at the property located at 435 Lafayette Street, Salem, Massachusetts.
On February 19, 1999, within the applicable appeal period and according to the
appeal procedure provided by 310 CMR 10.05(7), Mr. Gelpey appealed the
Conservation Commission's denial to the Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP). Notice of this appeal was sent to the Conservation
Commission. (Exhibit 1). On July 23, 1999, DEP issued a Superceding Order of
Conditions allowing Mr. Gelpey to proceed with the building of his home on 435
Lafayette Street, Salem, Massachusetts. (A copy of the Superceding Order of
Conditions is attached as Exhibit 2). Notice was sent to all interested parties
including Mr. Gelpey, Hancock Environmental, and the Salem Conservation
Commission, as indicated on the DEP cover letter sent with the Superceding
Order. (see attached Superceding Order of Conditions at Exhibit 2; the Cover
Letter attached as Exhibit 3). Mr. Gelpey and Hancock Environmental received
the Superceding Order of Conditions. (see affidavit of John Dick from Hancock
Environmental, (Exhibit 4), and Affidavit of Kenneth Gelpey, (Exhibit 5).
Accordingly, after the expiration of the ten-day appeal period, Mr. Gelpey
recorded the Superceding Order of Conditions at the Essex County Registry of
Deeds. (Exhibit 6).
Relying on the finality of the Superceding Order, Mr. Gelpey continued
with the project. On September 16, 1999, Mr. Gelpey applied to the Salem
Planning Board for a special Wetlands/Flood Hazard Permit. (Exhibit 7). The said
application contained fifteen copies of the Superceding Order for distribution to
all other agencies and the members of the Planning Board. (Exhibit 7). On or
about September 20, 1999, notice of Mr. Gelpey's application along with a copy
of the Superceding Order was sent to the Salem Conservation Commission. (See
attached affidavit of Denise Sullivan, Senior Planner, marked as Exhibit 8). Also,
an article was published in the Salem Evening News on September 24, 1999,
which describes Mr. Gelpey's application for a special permit before the Planning
Board and specifically discusses the issuance of the Superceding Order in July
which overturned the Conservation Commission's ruling. (Exhibit 9).
2
On November 29, 1999, the Conservation Commission sent DEP a Notice
of Claim and a request for an Adjudicatory Hearing. (A copy of the Conservation
Commission's Notice of Claim is attached hereto as Exhibit 10). The Salem
Conservation Commission states that it did not receive notice of the issuance of
the Superceding Order of Conditions until November 16, 1999. Based on that
date, the Salem Conservation Commission has filed a claim with the DEP for an
adjudicatory hearing challenging the July 23, 1999 issuance of the Superceding
Order of Conditions.
ANALYSIS
I. THE SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION'S NOTICE OF CLAIM IS
UNTIMELY AND MUST BE DISMISSED.
The Salem Conservation Commission's Notice of Claim, filed on
November 29, 1999, must be dismissed as untimely. The Department of
Environmental Protection issued the Superceding Order of Conditions on July 23,
1999. (Exhibit 2). The applicable appeal period expired ten days after the
issuance of the Superceding Order. The Conservation Commission claims that it
did not receive a copy of the Order until November 16, 1999. (Exhibit 10).
Subsequently, it filed its Notice of Claim on November 29, 1999. However,
Massachusetts Regulations specifically provide that the appeal period
commences upon the date of issuance of the Superceding Order and not the
date of receipt. Furthermore, evidence shows that the Conservation Commission
had notice and even a copy of the Superceding Order, well before the claimed
date of November 16, 1999. (Exhibits 8 and 9). Therefore, the Conservation
Commission's Notice of Claim must be dismissed as untimely.
3
A. The Applicable Appeal Period Expired Ten Days After The
Issuance Of The Superceding Order Of Conditions And Therefore,
The Conservation Commission's Notice Of Claim, Filed On
November 29, 1999 Is Untimely.
The Salem Conservation Commission's Notice of Claim is untimely and
must be dismissed. The Department of Environmental Protection issued the
Superceding Order of Conditions on July 23, 1999. (Exhibit 2). In accordance
with the Massachusetts Code of Regulations, the applicable appeal period
expires ten-days after the issuance of the Superceding Order of Conditions. (310
CMR 10.05(7)0)). The Conservation Commission filed its Notice of Claim
challenging the July 23, 1999 issuance of the Superceding Order on November
29, 1999. (Exhibit 10). Therefore, the Conservation Commission's Notice of
Claim is untimely and must be dismissed.
The Regulations must be read according to the plain meaning of the
words used. Chapter 310 section 10.05(7)0) of the Code of Massachusetts
Regulations provides in relevant part: "After issuance by the Department of a
Superseding Order or a Superseding Determination, any person specified in 310
CMR 10.05(7)(a), whether or not previously a participant in the proceedings....
may request an adjudicatory hearing. The request for a hearing must be sent to
the Department by certified mail or hand delivered within ten days after the date
of issuance of the Superseding Order or Superseding Determination....." (310
CMR 10.05(7)0)). Further, section 10.05(1) of said Regulation provides that: "In
the case of a Determination or Order, such period shall commence on the first
day after the date of issuance and shall end at the close of business on the tenth
4
business day thereafter." (310 CMR 10.05(1)). Thus the clear language of the
Regulation states that the appeal period commences after the first day of
issuance of the Superceding Order of Conditions.
The Department of Environmental Protection issued the Superceding
Order of Conditions on July 23, 1999. (Exhibit 2). The date of issuance of the
Superceding Order is not disputed in this case. (see the Commission's Notice of
Intent, Exhibit 10). In accordance with 310 CMR 10.05(7)0) and 310 CMR
10.05(1), the appeal period commences on the date of issuance. The Salem
Conservation Commission did not file its Notice of Claim until November 29,
1999. (Exhibit 10). In accordance with the regulations, the Conservation
Commission's Notice of Claim was not filed within ten days after the Superceding
Order was issued and therefore must be dismissed as untimely.
B. Even If Taken As True, That The Conservation Commission Did
Not Receive A Copy Of The Superceding Order In July Of 1999
This Appeal Must Still Be Dismissed As Untimely Because The
Commission Had Actual And Constructive Notice Of The Order
Well Before Its November 29` Notice Of Claim.
Even if taken as true, that the Salem Conservation Commission did not
receive the copy of the Superceding Order on or about July 23, 1999, its claim
must still be dismissed as untimely because evidence shows that it received
actual and constructive notice of the Superceding Order well before the claimed
November 16th date. (see Exhibits 8 and 9).
On February 19, 1999, within the applicable appeal period and according
to the appeal procedure provided by 310 CMR 10.05(7), Mr. Gelpey appealed
the Conservation Commission's denial to the Department of Environmental
5
fil
0 �
CA -f
, I 1
Protection. Notice of this appeal was sent to the Salem Conservation
Commission. (Exhibit 1). The Code of Massachusetts Regulations provide that
once DEP has received a request to issue a superceding order, it must issue its
decision within seventy days. (310 CMR 10.05(7)(f)) Thus, the Conservation
Commission had notice when it received a copy of Mr. Gelpey's request to DEP
on or about February 19, 1999, that DEP must render its decision on the matter
within seventy days. Further, a Commission representative attended the site visit
conducted by DEP on April 19, 1999 and thus the Commission had further notice
of the request and proceedings for the Superceding Order.
On July 23, 1999, the Department of Environmental Protection issued the
Superceding Order of Conditions. (Exhibit 2). Notice was sent to all interested
parties including Mr. Gelpey, Hancock Environmental, and the Salem
Conservation Commission. (see attached Superceding Order of Conditions at
Exhibit 2; the Cover Letter attached as Exhibit 3). Mr. Gelpey and Hancock
Environmental received the Superceding Order of Conditions. (see affidavit of
John Dick from Hancock Environmental, (Exhibit 4), and Affidavit of Kenneth
Gelpey, (Exhibit 5). The cover letter for the Superceding Order indicates that
DEP mailed a copy of the Superceding Order to the Salem Conservation
Commission. (Exhibit 3). Mr. Gelpey and Hancock Environmental received by
mail, the Superceding Order of Conditions. Under Massachusetts law, when a
letter, properly addressed and with postage prepaid, is put in the course of the
mails, such mailing is prima facie evidence that it reached its proper destination.
Munn v. Baldwin, 6 Mass. 316 (1810); Eveland v. Lawson, 240 Mass. 99, 132
6
N.E. 719 (1921); Fleming v. Doodlesack, 270 Mass. 271, 169 N.E. 795 (1929);
Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 341 Mass. 513, 170 N.E.2d
687 (1960). See also, Hobart-Farrell Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Klayman, 302
Mass. 508, 19 N.E.2d 805 (1939) (The mailing of a properly addressed letter
does not merely create a presumption, but rather constitutes prima facie
evidence of delivery).
In accordance with the Code of Massachusetts Regulations and the
Superceding Order, after the ten-day appeal period has expired, the Order is
deemed a Final Order and must be recorded at the Registry of Deeds. (310 CMR
10.05(7)). Further, once the Order is recorded, work can begin on the proposed
project. (310 CMR 10.05(7)). In accordance with the Superceding Order and
Massachusetts Regulations, Mr. Gelpey recorded the Superceding Order at the
Essex County Registry of Deeds on August 11, 1999. (Exhibit 6). Thereafter, Mr.
Gelpey continued with the project.
On September 16, 1999, Mr. Gelpey applied to the Salem Planning Board
for a special Wetlands/Flood Hazard Permit. (Exhibit 7). The said application
contained fifteen copies of the Superceding Order for distribution to all other
agencies and the members of the Planning Board. (Exhibit 7) On or about
September 20, 1999, notice of Mr. Gelpey's application along with a copy of the
Superceding Order was sent to the Salem Conservation Commission. (See
attached affidavit of Denise Sullivan, Senior Planner, marked as Exhibit 8). Also,
on September 24, 1999, the Salem Evening News published an article which
described Mr. Gelpey's application for a special permit before the Planning Board
7
and specifically discusses the issuance of the Superceding Order in July. (Exhibit
9).
Therefore, even the alleged fact, that the Salem Conservation
Commission did not receive notice of the Superceding Order in July is taken as
true, and the date of issuance as provided by the regulations is not followed, the
Conservation Commission still had constructive notice of DEP's issuance of the
Superceding Order. (Exhibit 6, 7, and 9). Furthermore, on or about September
20, 1999, the Conservation Commission was in fact sent and did in fact receive a
copy of the Superceding Order. (Exhibit 8). However, the Salem Conservation
Commission did not file the Notice of Claim until approximately two months later,
on November 29, 1999. Therefore, even using the date of receipt, the
Commission's Notice of Claim is untimely and must be dismissed.
In conclusion, Mr. Gelpey has complied with every aspect of the statutory
and regulatory procedure regarding a request for a Superceding Order of
Conditions. The DEP, in issuing the Superceding Order on July 23, 1999,
complied with every aspect of Massachusetts regulations. If the Salem
Conservation Commission is allowed to appeal DEP's Orders after the applicable
appeal period has expired, it will unduly prejudice Mr. Gelpey, and further will
cause uncertainty as to the final decisions of the DEP. Therefore, the Salem
Conservation Commission's Notice of Claim must be dismissed as untimely.
II. IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, MR. GELPEY MOVES THIS COURT
TO ORDER SANCTIONS AS AGAINST THE CONSERVATION
COMMISSION IN THE FORM OF AWARDING REASONABLE COSTS
AND ATTORNEY FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE COMMISSION'S
UNTIMELY APPEAL.
8
Mr. Gelpey has been subjected to unnecessary costs and attorney fees in
defending this untimely appeal brought by the Commission. In accordance with
310 CMR 1.01(10) sanctions may be imposed against a party who, among other
reasons, fails to file documents as required, fails to comply with schedules
established in orders or fails to comply with any of the requirements set forth in
310 CMR 1.01. The type of sanction issued is not limited by the regulations-(see
310 CMR 1.01(10)). In the case at hand the Conservation Commission failed to
filed a timely appeal as required by 310 CMR 1.01(3a); 310 CMR 1.01 (6a) and
310 CMR 10.05(7). Further, the Salem Conservation Commission failed to
comply with the Superceding Order of Conditions which provides a limited ten-
day right of appeal. (Exhibit 2). The Conservation Commission knowingly filed the
appeal after the time for filing such document had elapsed. (Exhibit 3, 8). This
has subjected Mr. Gelpey to additional and unnecessary costs and attorney fees
in defending this appeal. In the interests of justice, Mr. Gelpey moves this court
to order sanctions as against the Conservation Commission in the form of
awarding reasonable costs and attorney fees associated with the Commission's
untimely appeal.
CONCLUSION
For the above stated reasons, the Salem Conservation Commission's
Claim for an adjudicatory Hearing must be dismissed as untimely and sanctions
Imposed.
9
Respectfully submitted,
Kenneth Gelpey,
By his attorney,
Date: February 93 2000
or4
ge W. Atkins, III
BBO#023350
Ronan, Segal & Harrington
59 Federal Street
Salem, MA 01970
(978) 744-0350
10
fr .,
r �• 7 l �3,.
e a �
H.ANCOC •
Environmental Consultants a235Newburystrcec
Roux One Nash
Danvers.MA 01923
(978)777-3050
(978)352-7590
(978)283.2200
#7053 (781)662-9659
Fax (978)774-7916
.................
February 19, 1999 Ceosio 5100
(617)350-1906
Department of Environmental Protection
Northeast Regional Offm
205a Lowell Street
Wilmington,MA 01987
RE: Gelpey project DEP File No-64-298 FEB 191
435 Lafayette Street C-
Salem,Mass.
Dear Mr. Standish;
I attach a letter addressed to George Atkins,Mr- Gelpey's attorney,requesting Departmental
Action in the issuance of a Superseding Order of Conditions for the above-referenced project.
This transmittal and the attached supporting documentation is submitted by Hancock
Environmental Consultants in Attorney Atkins' absence, at W. Gelpey's request.
If you have any questions as to form or content,please address them to me at Hancock. I have
provided a copy of this entire package to Attorney Atkins,who may elect to represent Mr. Gelpey
upon his return,but for the immediate future,I will respond on my client's behalf.
Sincerely,
HANCOCK ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
�ohn ck,PL
Wetland Scientist
Enclosures:
Correspondence to George Atkins,Esquire dated February 18, 1999
Cover letter to Department ofEnvironmemal Protection dated February 19, 1999
Transmittal Form dated February 19, 1999
Pen nit Site Plan revised through January 13, 1999
Correspondence$om DEP to Kenneth Gelpey dated January 6, 1999
Correspondence from Army Corps of Engineers to Kenneth Gelpey dated December 17, 1999
Di�isinn of Hancock Survey Associates,Ina
�n
J 3
ON TREMMITTAL FORM _ •.,;�.;,,r�^_
DEPARTMENT of ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DIVisION of WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS
PERSON/PARTY MAKING REQUEST: APPLICANT:
(if appropriate, name the citizen (As shown on Notice of Intent
group's representative) ' or Request for Determination)
MMveaC#G(,XAA#O 7-
Name Jo Etry Dr e _ maox1'k Cow0D1me 50-Me K aw"rrl - G6z.PeY
street Z35 N&WQC*d`+' S7'. street ( 30 1-07 AWO.S7:
City/Town J7AW&)e +' ' City/Town dowLe
State MA Sip Code �19Z3 state 1"4A- zip Code e /
Phone Number (76 t) 49rL Z• 9659
54LE04 6y . Z68
PROJECT LOCATION: T S 1AF4Yh7Ter ST.• DEP FILE NfJMBER
DATE LOCAL OR SUPERSEDING ORDER/DETERNINATION ISSUED 11 F � 1 99 S
Amount of Filing Fee Attached: $ �
IN6TROCTIONS•
WHEN THE DEPARTMENTAL ACTION REQUESTED IS (Cheek one)
x Request for Superseding Order of conditions ($50)
Request for Superseding Determination of Applicability ($50)
1. send this form and a check or money order for $50.00, payable to the
commonwealth of Massachusetts, to the DEP Lock Sox at:
Dept. of Environmental Protection
Box 4062
Boston, MA 02211
2. send a OODy of this form and a gooy of the check or money order with
the Request For Department Action to the appropriate DEP Regional
office:
DEP/Northeast Regional Office
Zoo; C (jr 5
1 WILMIA7Cr'DA s Tw"Vi-11=, ft
e DePftPese .-:'gioaal oLtiea
is cmow-sareet
WHEN THE DEPARTMENTAL ACTION REQUESTED IS As (check one)
Request for Adjudicatory Hearing ($100)
Request to intervene in Adjudicatory Proceeding ($100)
Request for a Variance ($4,000)
1.Send this form and check or money order, payable to the Commonwealth of-
Massachusetts, in the indicated amount to the DEP Lock Box (at the above
address) and
2.Send a cony of this :orm and a copy_ Of the check or money order with the
Request for Departmental Action to:
Docket clerk
Office of General Counsel
1 Winter street
Boston. MA 02108
11/20/92
C4
08/II/99 10i46 ls19t 79
BIB 15870 P6 66
310 CMR 10.99
lose S oar role mia 64-288
7 .. «a ae peerieae by am
City/Town SALEM
applicant Kenneth Gelpy
Superseding Order of Conditions
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Mt
G.L. c.131, 540
From Department of Environmental Protection
To Kenneth Geldv (Name of Applicant)
_ Address 130 Lothroo Steet, Beverly, MA 01915 (applicant)
To Same (Name of Property Owner)
Address (ownerl
.This Order is issued and delivered as follows:
_ n by hand delivery to applicant or representative on (date)
by certified mail, return receipt requested on 7/23/99 (date)
This project is located at 435 Lafayette Street, Salem
The property is recorded at the Registry of Essex, South
Book 6070
Page 439
{ Certificate (if registered)
The Notice of Intent for this project was filed on August 28 1990 (date)
+ The public hearing was closed on January 28, 1999 (date)
findings
The Department of Environmental Protection has reviewed the above-referenced
Notice of Intent and plans and has held a public hearing on the project. Based on
the information available to the Department of Environmental Protection at
this time, the Department of Environmental Protection has determined that the
,
*� area on which the proposed work is to be done is significant to the following
interests in accordance with the Presumptions of Significance set forth in the
regulations for each Area Subject to Protection Under the Act (check as
appropriate):
Public water supply El Flood control Land containing shellfish
Private water supply Storm damage prevention Fisheries
Ground water supply Prevention of pollution - Protection of wildlife
habitat
Total Filing Fee Submitted $305.00 State Share $140.00
City/Town Share $165.00 (4 fee in excess of $25)
Total Refund Due $ City/Town Portion State Portion S
(4 total) (4 total)
ed
DAN(/� S 7�1�{�O�ga3
Effective 11/20/92
5-1
S'
�
310 CMR 10. 99 DEP File No # 64-288
Form 5
(So be provided by DEY)
Cit•;/Town SALEM
Apc_icant Kenneth Geloy
Superseding Order of Conditions
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act
G.L. c . 131 , §40
From Department of Environmental Protection (hare of Applicant)
To Kenneth Gelb (applicant)
Address 130 Lothroo Steet, Beverly, MA 01915 (Name of Property Owner:
To Same (owner)
Address
This Order is issued and delivered as follows: (date)
n by hand delivery to applicant or representative on (date)
by certified mail, return receipt requested on 7/23/99
This project is located at 435 Lafavette Street, Sale:-,
The property is recorded at the Registry of Essex, South
Book 6070
Page 439
Certificate (if registered)
filed on August 28 1998
The Notice of Intent for this project was ( ;
The public hearing was closed on Januar 28, 1999 (dat=_;
Findings
� . has reviewed the above-referenced
The Deoartment of Environmental ?' A ot_c_"on
Notice of Intent and pans and Based c-.
held a public hearing on the project.
has
Depa__,.,e nt of Envirpnme^tat Protection at
rr-
the infor .ation available to the has date-,mined that ne
,
this time, the Decartment of E irony..-ntal Protection
area on w'nich the proposed work is to be done is sig._fica.^.t to the following
Presumptions of Sign_ficance set forth in the
interests in accordance with tn_
s
regulations for each Area Subject to ?rotection Under the Ac_ (check as
appropriate) :
Land containing shel' fJs
np,.ubl:c t_r -, . ^l,; Food contra Fi5neries
Private Nat_-` -�' Sto_-. damn''- orevent:.on Protection of wildiic-
n prevention of pollution
Grc_r:d .;a_�_ _ . . - habitat
Submitted S�
"0 State Share S`0 .00
Total ring = r <2
in excess o_ c�
City/Tcwn Share 3165 .00 ?ortion S. State Portion $
Total Refu.n.d Due _ _ --
/To,;n:
rs- teal) (4 total)
•�A fit`
Wherefore, the Department of Environmental Protection hereby finds that the
following conditions are necessary, in accordance with the Performance Standards
set forth in me regulations, to protect those interests checked above. The
Department of Environmental Protection orders that all work shall be performed
in accordance with said conditions and with the Notice of Intent referenced
above. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the
plans, speci`i_ations or other proposals submitted with the Notice of =ntent, the
conditions s^__:! control .
General Conditions
1. Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein, and with all related
statutes and other regulatory measures, shall be deemed cause to revoke or
modify this Order.
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, by-laws 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 and
'pc-:-: h=- date and t-e special circu r.mstances warratin= the extended
__c._ -=riod are set forth ir. Z..is Order.
5. This Order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or more periods
of up to three years each uco❑ application to the issuing authority at least
30 days p icr to the expiration date of the Order.
6. Any fill used in connection with this project shall be clean fill,
containinc 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.
7. No work stall be undertaken until all administrative appeal periods from
this Order have elapsed or, if such an appeal has baen filed, until all
proceedings before the Department have been completed.
8 . No work shall be undertaken until the Final Order hzz been recorded in
the 3eci=_try 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 ease 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 t'.n.e proposed work is to be done. In the case of registered land,
the Fir.a- Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of
Title of th:e owner of theland upon which the proposed work is to be
done. _ recording i.,_zr-.ation shall be submitted to the Department of
Env'_rcn.-.en-a1 Protection on the form at the end of this Order prior to
com_.en.ca-.=nt of the work.
9. A si-+ s:-.al'_ be disclav_ __ the site not less than iwo scuare feet or more
thanr`:ree square feet in size bearing the words, "`'as_ac:-:usetts Department
of =... _,=.. =_nral Prot_c=_on, File Number 46;-288. "
10. '+'here _.._ --partment of Environmental Protection is requested to make a
determine-ior, and to iss,:= a Superseding Order, the Cznservaticn Commission
shad_ be a party to al'_ a::encv proceedings and hear:nts before the
D=partC.=n.t.
F-7
1,1. Upon completion of the work described herein, the applicant shall forthwith
request in writing that a Certificate of Compliance be issued stating that
the work has been satisfactorily completed.
12. The work shall conform to the following plans and special conditions:
Plans:
Title: "Permit. Site Plan in. Salem, MA"
Dated: October 16, 1999 with the latest revision date of April 23, 1999
Scale: 1"=40 '
Signed S Stamped by: John Gilbert Dick Registered Land Surveyor for Hancock
Survev Associates inc 235 Newbury Street Danvers, MA 01923
On File With: The Salem Conservation Commission and DEP
See attac;,�-- so-ciai. ^ond:tL-^s 13 - 26
DEP He tl64-288
Special Conditions
Page -1-
13. No work shall commence on-site until all appeal periods have elapsed and this Superseding
Order of Conditions has been recorded with the registry of deeds and the Department
formally notified via the form located at the end of this Order.
14. Any change(s) made in the plans referenced in condition 12, which will alter an
Area Subject to Protection Under the Wetlands Protection Act, or any change(s) in
activity subject to regulation under M.G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40, shall require
the applicant to inquire of the Department, in writing, as to whether the change(s) is
significant enough to require the filing of a new notice of intent. A copy of said
request shall at the same time be sent to the Conservation Commission.
15. The site as identified in the project plans shall be maintained in a clean and orderly
condition. Refuse, debris and waste materials shall not be placed within any resource area
under any circumstance and shall be disposed of promptly and properly.
16. The Department emphasizes general condition 93, that all other applicable permits, licenses,
etc. must be receivc� at the appropriate tunes.
17. Cross bracing and knee bracing requirements shall meet the Massachusetts State Building
Code.
18. The applicant shall immediately control any erosion problems that occur on the site and
shall also immediately notify the Department and the Salem Conservation Commission.
The Department reserves the right to require additional erosion and/or damage prevention
controls it may deem necessary.
19. The wetland resource areas (BVW and Salt Marsh), shall not be filled, excavated or
otherwise altered either on a temporary or permanent basis during placement of pilings or
for the construction of the dwelling and/or driveway.
20. Slope stabilization beneath the dwelling or driveway shall consist of the planting of Baltic
I«, Hedera helix, a perennial vine, to be planted on one-foot center throughout.
21. Upon completion of the project and prior to, or with any request for a Certificate of
Compliance, an As-Built plan shall be submitted for the Department's approval.
22. Equipment shall be stored in a manner and location which will minimize potential
environmental impacts. Fuel storage and the refueling of vehicles shall be conducted
outside of all resource area,,; in an upland location.
23. This Order of Conditions supersedes all prior orders under DEP File 964-288.
24. This Order shall apply to all successors/ or assigns in interest or control and any
other party engaging in acti%ity on the property identified in the Notice of Intent.
7at
{1+ .,
._ ._
_ DEP File M64-288
Special Conditions
Page -2-
25. Members and agents of the Conservation Commission and the Department shall
have the right to enter and inspect the premises to evaluate compliance with
conditions stated in this Superseding Order. The applicant shall submit any data the
Department deems necessary for that evaluation.
26. A copy of this Superseding Order of Conditions as well as the plans referenced in
condition 12, shall be on site and shall remain there while activities regulated by this
Order are being performed. The copies of said documents shall be accessible to all
contractors and subcontractors. The attached cover letter is hereby and severally
made a part of this order, and shall be recorded at the registry of deeds along with
this order.
FEN-DINGS PURSUANT TO M.G.L. CHAPTER 30,
SECTIONS 61 TO 62H INCLUSIVE
r (M.E.P.A.)
x; The project as described in the Notice of Intent for DEP File -288 is "categorically exempt
pursuant to the "Implementation of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act" as adopted by the
Secretary of Environmental Affairs. This project is "categorically exempt" as the wetland
thresholds established under 301 CMR 11 26(7)(a) of M.G.L. Ch. 30, sections 60 to 62H inclusive,
have not been exceeded.
This finding is applicable only to activities proposed for the above-referenced file number before
the Department of Environmental Protection, 'Wetlands Division. It does not relieve the applicant
from complying with additional N1.E.P.A. requirements when applying for permits from other
applicable departments or agencies.
- - M
Issued by the Department of Environmental Protection
' Signature � -�� ,✓�JtlL4
On this 23th day of July, 1999 before me personally appeared Philip DiPietro,
acting Wetlands Section Chief, DEP to me known to be the person described in and
who executed the foregoing instrument and ackncwledged that he/she executed the
same as his/her free act and deed.
C � J
otary Public My commission exp res
The applicant, the owner, any person aggrieved by the Superseding Order, any
owner of land abutting the land upon which the proposed work is to be done, or
any ten persons pursuant to G.L. c,. 30A 310A, are hereby notified of their right
to request an adjudicatory hearing pursuant to G.L. c.30A, 310, providing the
request is made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the
appropriate filing fee and Fee Transmittal Form as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7) ,
within ten days from the date of issuance of this Superseding Order, and is
addressed to: Docket Clerk, Office of General Counsel, Department of
Environmental Protection, One Winter Street, Boston, MA 02108. A copy of the
request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the
Conservation Commission, the applicant, and any other party.
A Notice of Claim for an Adjudicatory Hearing shall comply with the Department' s
Rules for Adjudicatory Proceedings. 310 CMR 1.01 (6) , and shall contain the
following information:
(a) the DEED wetlands File Number, name of the applicant and address of the
project.
(b) the complete name, address and telephone number of the party filing the
=i request, and, if represented by counsel, the name and address of the
attorney;
(c) the names and addresses of all other part_as, if known;
'(d) a clear and concise statement of (1) the :acts which are grounds for the
proceedings, (2) the objections to this Superseding Order, including
specifically the manner in which it is alleged to be inconsistent with the
Deeartmen.t's Wetlands Regulations (310 CMR 10.00) and does not contribute to
the protection of the interests identified in the Act, and (3) the relief
sought through the adjudicatory hearing, including specifically the changes
desired in the Superseding Order;
(e) a statement that a copy of the request has been sent to the applicant, the
conservation cemrission and each other party or representative of such
party, if known.
Failure to submit all necessary information may result Ln a dismissal by the
Department of the Notice_ of Claim for an Adjudicatory Hearing.
,f
Detach on dotted line and submit to the Department of Environmental Protection
prior to commencement of work.
To De ,.rt- - t_ _ :ss. ;nc ..uthority. Pleas be advised
that tne the ,;-__ _ . 435 Lafayette Street in Sa'_>_c.
File r rd�c a, th_ Re:71stry of --ssex South and as
been note.: _.. t..a c�.ain of :I-le cf the affected property in accordance wit:
General Condition 8 .
19
If recorcea land, the instrument number which: identifies this transaction is
If registered land, the document number which identifies this transaction is
Signature Applicant
s-4e
M
COMMONWEALTH OFMASSACHUSETFS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS s {
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.
' Metropolitan Boston — Northeast Regional Office
11 U9.
5„1 kgc;EoFAL-LCELLCCCI -
G�„er7e BOB.DL"NE,
Seclrun
JA.\7 Swv r. . L�L'RL'�,L L]C
$.'- I�tutenant Cs+ernor J U L 23 1999 Coennimione:
" Kenneth Gelpey RE: WETLANDS/SALEM
130 Lothrop Street DEP File#64-288 {
Beverly, MA 01915 Superseding Order of Conditions (18)
Dear .lvir. Gelpey:
The Metropolitan Boston/Nortbeast Regional Office of the Department of Environmental
Protection, Wetlands Division, has completed its review of the above-referenced file, in preparation
to issuing a Superseding Order of Conditions. The Department is issuing the enclosed Order of
Conditions allowing the project, based upon: 1) information and plans submitted; 2) information
gathered during the on-site i:.spection conducted April 22, 1999; and 3) reasons the Department has
deemed necessary to protect the statutory interests of the Act. c•
The parcel is approximately 13 296 square feet in size and is located at 435 Lafayette Street
in Salem. The proposed project involves constructing a single family dwelling and driveway on .
pilings. The project site is within a velocity zone, which is elevation 14, on the most recent FEMA
Flood Insurance Rate Map, (FI M).
Based upon review of the project site and information contained in the file to date, the
Department has determined that the site contains the following resource areas, as defined at 310
CMR 10.00: 1) Coastal Beach; 2) Coastal Bank; 3) Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage; and 4)
Salt Marsh. These resource areas are presumed to protect one or more of the statutory interests of
the Act as noted on page one of the attached Superseding Order of Conditions.
You appealed the Order of Conditions issued by the Salem Conservation Commission, which
denied this project on February 16, 1999. The denial was based on a concern that the proposed
project would have an adverse effect on the Coastal Banks' stability due to the removal of
vegetation associated with the construction of the dwelling. This was a concern of the
Department as well and as a result of the April 19, 1999 site visit, the applicant agreed to submit
a planting scheme which will be incorporated into the Order to ensure that the site will remain
stabilized. The planting scheme ensures that areas below the proposed dwelling and driveway
will be replanted but it may not be filled or otherwise prevented from contributing sediment to
areas below. The lot also has an existing stone wall which extends above the V-Zone at an
elevation of 20 feet or higher. The area at the base of the wall extending to the proposed
dwelling consists of upland vegetation within the V-Zone and also with the Coastal Bank. This
wall runs along the southern boundary of the property site and currently contains an existing
outlet which discharges stormwater from a catch basin located on Lafayette Street. As a result of
Thu information is nailable in aMernate formal by calling our ADA Coordinamr at(617)5746371
205A LC_Il$L Wlln, ,910n.MA 01367 , Prone(976)661.7600 , Faa(973)661.7615 , TTDa(976)661.7671
j Pnn;eo on R,<ydrj Paper
DEP FILE 964-288
Page 2-
the stormwater flows, a gully leading to the salt marsh has been created. The applicant has
proposed at the base of the wall, the installation of a grate, a drain manhole and a two foot sump.
Additionally, as a result of the Department's suggestion, the applicant has revised his plans to
install a four foot wide sw•ale, paved with six to twelve inch stone to be placed as shown on the
plan (referenced below). This would divert the stormw•ater flow, to an existing area of large
boulders located outside of the BVW and Salt Marsh and alleviate the erosion caused from the
stormwxater.
It is the Department's opinion that based on this information, the proposed activity will not
inhibit the abilities of the resource areas to function to protect the interests of the Act. Additionally,
to ensure that the area will be maintained properly, the Department has included within the attached
Superseding Order, specific conditions relating to site maintenance, erosion controls and various
other concems to provide further protection of the Resource Areas on-site.
It is the Department's position that the enclosed Superseding Order of Conditions approving
the project as proposed serves to protect the statutory interests identified in the Wetlands Protection
Act, M.G.L., Chapter 131, section 40. However, the Department reserves the right, should there be
further proceedings in this case, to raise additional issues and present further evidence as may be
appropriate. Should you or any concerned party dispute these findings, your attention is directed to
the language at the end of the enclosed Order specifying the rights and procedures for appeal.
Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Wayne Lom at 978-661-7785.
Very truly yours,
Philip DiPietro
Acting Section Chief
Wetlands and Waterways
PD/WL/wl
cc: Hancock Environmental, 235 Newbury Street, Danvers, MA 01923
Salem C<unkrvation Commission
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
IN THE MATTER OF:
KENNETH GELPEY DOCKET NO. 99-190
FILE NO. 64-288
SALEM
AFFIDAVIT
I, John Dick, on oath, depose and state:
1. I am a Wetland Scientist at Hancock Environmental Consultants.
2 . A copy of the Superceding Order of Conditions from the Department of
Environmental Protection regarding the property located at 435 Lafayette
Street, Salem, MA 01970 was mailed to me at my office, Hancock
Environmental, postmarked July 23, 1999 and stamped by my office as
received on July 26, 1999. I have retained the original postmarked envelope,
a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A".
J
Signed under the penalties of perjury this �2 day of February, 2000.
k
rn
00
n
,,
r A
4Fre Commonwealth of Mass"[wetts
Department oof Environmve_nftalProtecdon IN&
g.M5A LoWellStMet J • ~ _�-
144finiyton, Mosadwetts01887 ••! ? sc es.s U.S.POSTAGE
l HANCOCK ENVIRONMENTAL '
235 NEMURY STREET
OANVERS, mA 01923
0 19 2: -lilv_i 01 nrtu��u��u�i n I i�
�. ."
A,
t
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
IN THE MATTER OF:
KENNETH GELPEY DOCKET NO. 99-190
FILE NO. 64-288
SALEM
AFFIDAVIT
I, Kenneth Gelpey, on oath, depose and state:
1. On or about July 23, 1999, 1 received by mail the Superceding Order of
Conditions from the Department of Environmental Protection regarding the
property located at 435 Lafayette Street, Salem Massachusetts.
2. On August 11, 1999, 1 recorded the Superceding Order of Conditions from
the Department of Environmental Protection at the Essex County Registry of
Deeds, Book 15870, Page 66. A copy of the first page of the recorded
document, with the registry of Deeds date of recording, is attached as
Exhibit "A".
Signed under the penalties of perjury this;L I'ay of February, 2000.
k,
e eth elpey
rn
00
n
08/I1i99 IOfMi 1)pt MIT; y
1,310 Cl BK 15870 P6 66
BI 10.99
9naa B m rare 9 64-288
'G 65 (ea be Provides.,osn
-"' aer/rws SALEN
�',`a.' aPpkuec Kenneth Ce1pY
Superseding Order of Conditions
Massachusetts Wetlands Proteafsen Aft
G.L. c.131, S40
Sv�'Fiom Department of Environmental Protection
dg To Kenneth Gel& (Name of Applicant)
�1. 1 ;.Address 130 Lathrop Steet, Beverly, MA 01915 (applicant)
To Same (Been of Property owner)
". Address v (owner)
' - .This Order is issued and delivered as follows:
rS". t'•� by hand delivery to applicant or representative on
(data)
p
4; Fn by certified mail, return receipt requested an 7/23/99 (dace)
This project is located at 435 Lafayette Street, Salem
! "The property is recorded at the Registry of Essex, South
(
j,, Book - 6090,Page
439
yr #- ,* "Certificate (if registered)
' The Notice of Intent for this (date)
� project was filed Auvuat 28 1998
'WbD public p hearing was closed on January 28, 1999
SQ,T)ie
r` (date)
The Department of Environmental Protection has reviewed the above-referenced
:;Notice of Intent and plans and has held a public hearing on the project. Bread on
'S ''the information available to the Department of Environmental Protection at
Y !his time, the Department of Environmental Protection has determined that the
area on which the proposed work is to be done is significant to the following
s`-f interests in accordance with the PresumptionsSignificance of SS Sficance set forth in tAa
regulations for each Area Subject to Protection Under the Act (check as
appropriate):
Public water supply Flood control Lend containing shellfish
Private water supply El Storn damage prevention ® Fi. ri0.
KI
Ground water supply Prevention of pollution -PC7 Protection of wildlife
habitat
�} Total Filing Fee Submitted $305.00 State Share $140.00
City/Town Share $165.00 (M fee in excess of $25)
Eg_ Total Refund Due $ City/Town Portion $ State Portion $
(A total) (M total)
DArtVIRS 7jA,c1)ga3
Effective 11/20/92
5-1
C1 lc�
cc
- 08ry1�99 11 114B lost ?J
BK iS870 P6 66
s 310 CNR 10.99 �y-+s�sa
on,ssi. 9 64-2ee
'G 65
titT/TMR BALM
-qr- AwicanL KeMBCh Ge1DV -
'?• Superseding Order of Conditions
Uassaelmsetts lsstlasds Pretentioim set
" -- - G.L. a.131, S40
?.. From Department of Environmental Protection
' To Kenneth GelEv (Name of Applicant)
Address 130 Lothrop Steer, Beverly, NA 01915 (applicant)
To Same (Name of Property Owner)
.:(.: •:,., Address r (owner)
t .This Order is issued and delivered as follows:
n by hand delivery to applicant or representative on (date)
2i_ ,Vy by certified mail, return receipt requested on 7/23199 (date)
This project is located at 435 Lafayette Street, Salem
"�• %=The property is recorded at the Registry of Essex, South
T...;:book 6070
a
Page 439
a. t, Certificate (if registered)
The Notice of Intent for this project was filed on August 29 1996
^'<'t'tAe public hearing was closed on January 28, 1999 (date)
3 A&1.•,. (date)
+ Hadings
The Department of Environmental Protection has reviewed the above-referenced
;.Notice of Intent and plans and has held a public hearing on the project. Based on
the information available to the _Department of Environmental Protection at
this time, the DePartment of Environmental Protection has determined that the
area an which the proposed work is to be done is significant to the following
interests in accordance with the Presumptions Significance umptions of Si Stieanea set forth in the
regulations for each Area Subject to Protection Under the Act (check as
appropriate):
Public water supply El Flood control El Land containing shellfish
Private water supply Storm damage prevention El Fisheries
-) - Ground water su
pply RI Prevention of pollution -RI Protection of wildlife
habitat
Total Filing Fee Submitted $305.00 State Share $140.00
City/Town Share $165.00 (M fee in excess of 325)
3 Total Refund Due $ City/Town Portion $ State Portion $
(h total) (t, total)
-`{ Effective 1�0 92 ,<
5-1
1'b
f�.
RONAN, SEGAL & HARRINGTON
ATFORNEWSAFLAN
FFry4"FEDmftsMEEr-
JAKM t RONAN(1922•1987) SAIEM.MAZA01USERS 019F6S070
JACOB S.SEGAI
MART RBJONIENARR04-TON tv>ef
c;EoasE w ntarRs Df FAX MID 74"493
FSE NO
OFCOUNSM
HEADIER S.RAMW
September 16, 1999
City of Salem
Planning Board
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
ATTN: Denise Sullivan
RE: 435 Lafayette Street, Salem, MA
Wetlands/Flood Hazard District Special Permit
Dear Ms. Sullivan:
Enclosed are the following documents filed in connection with the above
referenced application for Special Permit:
1. Application (15);
2. Department of Environmental Protection Superseding Order of
Conditions (15);
3. Architect Certification (15);
4. Permit Site Plan (15);
5. Basement Level Plan (15); and
6. Filing fee check in the sum of$75.00.
Please assign this application for Public Hearing at the Planning Board
meeting scheduled for October 7, 1999.
er t my your ,
r
G.
George W. Atkins, III
GWA/kmb
Enclosures
cc: Kenneth Gelpey
CITY OF SALEH. MASSACHUSETTS
APPLICATION
SPECIAL PERMIT
WETLANDS AND FLOOD HAZARD DISTRICTS
Applicant: Kenneth Gelpey
Address: 10i Hyde St. , Danvers, MA 01923 Citv Clerk Sta=
Telephone: (978) 774-6628
Owner: Kenneth Gelpey
;address SAME
Location of Property: 435 Lafayette St. , Salem
7roiect Description: Construction of a single family home within the buffer
zone of-a- salt marsh and land subject to coastal storm
flowage.
I. It has been determined by the Building Inspector that the above property
lies in the followine area(s) :
A. Wetlands District
Wetlands ( ) Buffer Zone ( X )
B. Flood Hazard District
Zone A ( ) Zone A3 ( ) Zone V3 ( X )
II. Information required includes this application and the following additional
information (file one copy of everything with the City Clerk and five
copies with the Planning Board ; all copies must be stamped by the City Clerk) :
A. A site plan at a scale of 1" equals 20' prepared by a registered
land surveyor or registered professional engineer and showing at
least the following:
1. Lot lines within which the development is proposed and the tie-
in to the nearest road intersection;
2. The location, boundaries, and dimensions of each lot in question;
3. Two-foot contours of the existing and proposed land surface;
+. Location of existing and proposed structures, water-courses,
drainage and drainage easements, means of access, utilities,
and sewer disposal facilities including leaching fields, if
any. Proposed elevations should be noted.
5. Boundaries of all districts, areas and zones as noted in
Section I.
-2-
B. In the Wetlands District, a determination by a qualified engineer
of the seasonal high water table, performed during the last two
weeks of March or the first three weeks of April. A minimum of
two percolation tests for each leaching area shall be performed.
See Permit Site Plan submitted herewith.
C. In cases of flood-proofing or pile construction, certification
by a registered professional engineer or architect as to the
elevation of flood-proofing measures and as to compliance with the
applicable sections of the Massachusetts State Building Code
concerned with flood depths, pressures, velocities, impact and
uplift forces, and other factors associated with the base flood.
Where specific methods or techniques have been previously certi-
fied, the Planning Board may waive this requirement.
SeeArchitect Certification submitted herewith.
D. A list of Federal, State, and other local permits required by the
applicant. 1. Conservation Commission Order of Conditions - See DEP.
Superseding Order submitted herewith. 2. Building Permit.
E. Descriptions relative to all conditions applicable in Section III
below.
LII. Conditions (Complete those sections indicated (x) by the Building Inspector)
In the Wetlands and Flood hazard Districts no structure or building,
including pipes and wells, shall be erected, constructed, substantially
improved, enlarged, or otherwise created or moved; no area shall be
paved; no earth or other material shall be stored, dumped, used as
fill, excavated, or transferred; and no sediment shall be caused to
be discharged from or onto a wetland, unless all the following condi-
tions are found to exist as. part of the granting of a Special Permit by
the Planning Board (Use additional pages if necessary) :
A. All Districts:
W L. The proposed use will comply in all respects to the uses and
provisions of the underlving District in which the land is
located. Yes X No
(X) 2. There is adequate convenience and safety of vehicular and pedes-
trian movement within the site, and in relation to adjacent
streets and property, particularly in the event of flooding
of the lot(s) or adjacent lot(s) caused by either overspill
from water bodies or high runoff.
The proposed work will consist of placement of pilings either
driven to bearing soils or set on concrete footings. The limits
of work will be outlined with silt fences and hay bales and all
precautions shall be taken, in accordance with Superseding Order
of Conditions (Attached) .
5
-3-
(X) 3. Utilities, including gas, electrictity, fuel, water, and
sewage disposal, shall be located and constructed so as to
protect against breaking, leaking, shortcircuiting, grounding
or igniting or any other damage due to flooding. (Provide
details)
All utilities will be constructed 4 feet below the existing grade
of Lafayette Street to connect to the existing utilities within
Lafayette Street. All utilities will be constructed above the
100-year coastal velocity zone elevation.
M 4. The cumulative effect of the proposed development or use, when
combined with all other existing and anticipated development
and uses will not obstruct or divert flood flow; substantially
reduce natural flood-water storage capacity in the local
drainage area; destrov valuable habitat for wildlife including
fisheries or shellfisheries; adversely affect groundwater
resources or increase storm water run-off velocity so that
water levels on other land are substantially raised or the
danger from flooding increased.
No alteration of existing storage capacity or wildlife habitat
is proposed.
See attached Superseding Order of Conditions.
B. Wetlands District:
( ) 1. The proposed development or use shall not include the storage
of salt, chemicals, petroleum products or other contaminating
substances or discharge of any polluting liquids-or materials
into streams, brooks or wetlands. (The polluting effects of
substances on the Wetlands are to be gauged by the "Rules and
Regulations for the Establishment of Minimum Water Quality
Standards and for the Protection of the Quality and Value of
Water Resources" of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. )
(Use will not include such storage or discharge.)
-4- _.
( ) 2. The floor level of areas to be occupied by human beings as
Living or work space shall be four (4) feet or more above
the seasonal high water table.
All habitable space is above 100-year flood. (Lowest structural
member above velocity zone elevation 14' N.G.V.D.)
( ) 3. If the basement floor level is below the seasonal high water
table and affords the possibility of human occupancv at some
future date, although not originally intended, adequate
perimeter drainage and foundation shall be installed to with-
stand the effect of pressure and seepage. Furnace and utilities
are to be protected from the effects of leaching. (Provide details)
Applies ( ) Does not Apply ( X )
( ) 4. If the lot is to be served by an on lot septic system, the
leaching area designed for use, as well as a reserved area
for future expansion or total future use, shall be plotted with
dimensions on the site plan, and the leaching areas shall not
be constructed where the seasonal high water table is less
than 4 feet below the bottom of the leaching areas.
Applies ( ) See site plan
Does not apply ( X )
C. Flood Hazard District (all zones) :
( ) 1. The floor of the basement, or if none• the lowest floor of
new construction or substantial improvement of structures for
residential uses shall be at or above the 100 year flood level.
Lowest floor is above elevation 14' N.G.V.D. which is the 100
year flood level/velocity zone.
( ) 2. The floor of the basement, or if none, the lowest floor of
new construction or substantial improvement of structures for non-
residential uses shall be at or above the 100 year flood level
or the structures shall be flood-proofed to that level in
compliance with the applicable requirements of the Massachusetts
State Building Code. Flood-proofing measures shall insure
that the structure is watertight and that structural components
have the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic
loads and the effects of bouvancy.
See C. 1. above.
-5_
D. Flood Hazard District. Coastal High Hazard Area (Zone VD :
( ) I. New structures or substantial improvements shall be located
landward of the reach of Mean High Tide.
Structure is so located.
( ) _'. Yew structures or substantial improvements shall be elevated
on adequately anchored pilings or columns, and securely
anchored to such pilings or columns so that the lowest
portion of the structural members of the lowest floor (ex-
cluding the pilings or columns) is elevated to or above the 100
year flood level. Space below the lowest floor shall be free
of fixed obstruction. (Provide details)
Structure is anchored to pilings. Lowest structural member is
above elevation 14' N.G.V.D. which is the 100-year flood level.
Space below elevation 14' is free of obstruction.
( ) 3. The support of new structures or substantial improvements shall
not be, in whole or in part, by the use of fill. (Provide details)
No fill is proposed.
IV. Procedure
The Planning Board shall, within 7 days after the filing of this
application, transmit one copy of said application, plans and all other
submitted information to the Inspector of Buildings, City Engineer, Board
of Health and Conservation Commission who may, at their discretion,
investigate the application and report in writing their recommendation
to the Planning Board. The Planning Board shall not take final action
on such application until it has received a report thereon from the
Inspector of Buildings, City Engineer, Board of Health and Conservation
Commission or until thirty-Five (35) days have elapsed after dis-
tribution of such application without a submission of a report. The
Planning Board Shall hold a Public Hearing on said application as soon
as possible after receiving the above reports, in accordance with
Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. The Planning Board
shall notify the applicant in writing of its decision on the special
permit. The decision shall document the proposed development or use
and the grounds for granting or refusing the special permit. The
I .V 6 IrA h
Planning Board may, as a condition of approval, require that the appli-
cant give effective notice to prospective purchasers, by signs or
by recording the special permit at the Registry of Deeds, of the wet-
land or flood hazard conditions associated with said premises and the
steps undertaken by the petitioner or his successor in title to
alleviate the effects of same.
aKennetpeySigned
Atkins, III
Title Attorney
Date September 16, 1999
a3
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
IN THE MATTER OF:
KENNETH GELPEY DOCKET NO. 99-190
FILE NO. 64-288
SALEM
AFFIDAVIT
I, Denise Sullivan, on oath, depose and state:
1. 1 am Senior Planner in the Salem Planning Department.
2 . On or about September 20, 1999, 1 distributed to the Salem Conservation
Commission Kenneth Gelpey's application for a special Wetlands/Flood
Hazard Permit, submitted Plans, and the Superceding Order of Conditions.
Signed under the penalties of perjury this L5day of February, 2000.
Denise Stffl an
2 Friday,September 24,1999 The Evening News, Salem,Mass. Salem
r
Usovicz, Donahue spar over debate plan
But N his rrsporrse,abate yt said Peabody Block vote delayed
' By J.K. DINEEN he"cannot agree to debate You in J
News staff a forum you've created for your
YOUR GUIDE TO TODAY's LOCAL NEWS supporter of the lease, y
SALEM—Mayor Stan Usovicz own purposes."He also said he d
Bsverly City workers walk for health.A6 and mayoral challenger John Don- would not participate in a debate SALEM et The City Council strong soup
limited to fices Snto 20,000 square feet of Council would almost certainly,
rrery ccp wins$1 million lawsuit Reporter's Notebook A6 format anahue d substance over theof a pro- not when there arequestions
im- vote on whether to move city o4 and without her the City
Read a story out laud next week posed debate. portant issues Salem s mayor must space at in the renovated not have the eight votes ne--
++1 p7 ` - Donahue had address."The mayor also refused Peabody Block was delayd last to In other lease the space. the on Heated exchanges highlight debate On Monday, he night,as Ward 3 Councllor Joan also tabled the confirmation n of
between Beverly mayoral hopefuls. Nominations wanted for community written Usovicz a letter asking to to the oneonone formal saying With Lovely out with a bad Mayor Stan Usoviez's appoint-
between !: service award.A7 hold a"Lincoln-Douglas"style de- wants"to hewhat the voters Lovely was ill.
bate on the city's finances and think is typo
Grand jury declines to Indict teendeau as the
Lettect takes
on Lym Street At City Council meeting last bacrepat�totrnheY�GeorgeAtkins lock city's treasurer acollector in
_ owner Haim Weissman — order to get more information
on charges of raping giI at party.A4 tragedy it takes only a second to tom property taxes.Under the take
place-
City Couroilhopefuls trade Ideas i one's life upside down 134 ddeba 13 at the high school place
diciat s have agreed to the Salem
and barbs.A4 j salem toappear
Sn committee. Lovely is a fund-.
two candidates would oolll each News-sponsored debate on Oct.20 asked that the matter be held on how the position will e
Local women launch literary'arts i Sheet-corner kids rile police,buss- other without input or questions in myotther debates.�g
journal A4 ! rom an audience or panel.
I ness owners.AlA3 'This format is most conducive "All I was asking for was one de-
Reporter's notebook A4 Salem barber retiring after 53 m a full discussion of the issues," bate on finances and taxes—the palgn.Across the board 1t effects "I'll accept any,debate proposes
Quigley questions proposed po- ! years of haircuts and conversation stated Donahue in his invitation most Important issue in the cam- every single issue;'said Donahue. or anybody elans
lice/tire station AS Al Man stands by p
Beverly an charged with stealing i Man proposes to build loose sus- zz
from collection container.B7 j periled over harbor.A2 -` r 3 "� i
? Usowcz and Donahue spar over Dro s for house over harbor
Danvers
i posed debate.A2
La Clique Salons to hold cut athon I Reporter's Notebook A3 ^'T_ ! _ _
to benefit Hospice.AS Qq "r�+ p } '�•
Find series highlights Tibet A3 i ' ,�+ r -. mmrm.-- By TOM DALTON vegetation.
the
•�
"Reporter's notebook AS !: J.M Winer of Salem remains IoYal ., vt;; -t' At the time,several neighbors
Slate OKs limiting zoNng of las- ! y News staff appeared in opposition,and one
i to his first car.B2 a ; +'�s#1♦r 'ti. t .. c "$�fo want-to build a
Pita'land to 69 acres.AB j FAitod `Extension of Investment iw SALEM—Despite being shot clalzzkd Gelpey, called
Teachers to host community dance i tax creepQ4 ouId help with develop" ++z "' ' gT"' l'r� down earlier this year b a city house on"Stilts,"terizion inaccurate
events at K of C.AS po�('p( and 4dustrlal proper- z� ". 4 _�.y, s* board,a Danvers man still hopes that chars I, Laying inaccurate
i ties.gg�d - `F z `1 to build a house on pilings near and unfair, saying by the house
Hamilton/Wenham t �' tile water. would be supported
i Salem man admks to rapes gets s --g,* r, . , , !:. The Planning Board will hold a pilings and would be above land,
Residents may drop off brush at j prison tens B7 { ;�.:• t r ��'k 8r '
landfill.A10 ! Rape charges tlroppd against U y ,,, hearing Thursday,Oct.7,on a re- not water. $
Reporter's rotebook A30 I quest by Kermeth Gelpey of Dan- The Conservffiin in'
'C '
! Salem man 87 n .t* ,t i,� t x +t y�' f ven for a special permit to build a decision was appealednt of Envlr'on-
Ednorial-it's up to AG to decide > x..,s>n- 3i*r" 3 , > o i. house in wetlands. achusetts Department Issued a
whether Werth"citizens have right f sWamoeCOtt ' ry7V �� -D�x yrh r� - Gelpey,wants to build asingle- mental Protection,
to know what took place with DARE i 1lthdgFaal senior Olympics held. j .+ , j r x y...?s f S family home at 4351ataYette St.on a superseding order ve July That
offices 84 p12 "rHb piece of land that borders the harbor.
order, In effect, overturns the
q Ar>r7�' , r � x _" Both the home and driveway would board's ruling•
Ips W ith' I Lynn lien arraigned in fatal d unken v t� inhibit the ability of the resource
I driving crash 87 ;1 be built on pilings and suspended The proposed activity will not
Reporter's notebook A10 ! e h S, ^ X �-y `
Trl-Town
�j�e - - about 16 feet above the ground
In February,the Conservation areas to function..: the state
x - , w asY•�•• Commission dented Gelpey's agency in its ruling
ManCNester f Neighbors volt tears about new The state also issued several
Local golf tournament to benefit i Wreath dormitory.A31 9 �i - permit request because of the i o-
Community Center.A33 ,• '- 4 n"`� 't' ;i t r„ fv tential damage the construction conditions to guarantee the salt
Reporters notebook Ail would do to the coastal bank and marsh area would be luntected.
Marblehead voter aagrce it's time for,
DPW _ F ••,- - 7
,,17 ., ° i 1
0
r
r?�
�agION
t y
y `�z Conservation Co_ 'on
m �t�
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
�.y.1SS.alNv .
/l November 24, 1999
Docket Clerk
Office of General Council
Department of Environmental Protection
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
RE: Notice of Claim for Adjudicatory Hearing, DEP File# 64-288, 435 Lafayette Street,
Kenneth Gelpey
I am writing to state the Conservation Commission's strong opposition to the proposed
construction at 435 Lafayette Street. The City of Salem Conservation Commission is aggrieved
by the action of the Department in its issuance of a Superseding Order of Conditions and hereby
requests an adjudicatory hearing.
The Salem Conservation Commission denied the project on February 11, 1999. A Superseding
Order was issued on July 23, 1999. The Commission never received a copy of this action until
November 16, 1999. A "reissuance" of the of the Superseding Order was sent via fax from
James Sprague, DEP Northeast Section Chief dated November 15, 1999, received and stamped
in on November 16, 1999 and subsequently via mail which was received on November 18, 1999.
The Commission, with this letter, has filed its request for an adjudicatory hearing within the
required 10 days.
The Commission objects to the issuance of the Superseding Order due the construction of a
driveway, parking area, garage and house into by piles and over a resource area. All vegetation
on this coastal bank is proposed for removal and the resource area will be further impacted by
this proposed project to be located over the resource area with a driveway "bridge"connecting a
parking area and single family house elevated on piles. Specific concerns as stated by the
Commission in its denial are as follows:
The Notice of Intent (NOI)dated August 27, 1998 signed by Mr. Kenneth Gelpey as prepared by
his representative Hancock Environmental Consultants, describe the work as "...construction of
a single family dwelling, utilities and landscaping in buffer zone to salt marsh and over land
subject to coastal storm flowage. Dwelling will be constructed on piles" Land subject to
Coastal Storm Flowage refers to any land that is " subject to any inundation caused by coastal
storms up to and including that caused by the 100 year storm surge of record or storm of record,
whichever is greater."
Further page two of the NOI indicates that the resource area that is indicated to be jurisdictional
is I Ic. Coastal Bank. 310 CMR states that Coastal Bank is"...likely to be significant to...storm
rf'
r
• damage prevention". Further, 310 CMR states that"Where Banks are partially or totally
vegetated,the vegetation serves to maintain the Banks' stability,which in turn protects water
quality be reducing erosion and siltation".
Because this is Coastal Bank and is subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, the Commission asked for
a cross section of the Bank and the Limit of Velocity Zone (v.3) (Elevation 14 feet) on shown on
the FEMA map. Although the work proposed does not include any filling, it does require
removal of vegetation on the Coastal Bank.
The Commission's review of the files and on-site inspection confirmed that the project site
contains Coastal Bank, which is subject to protection under the Act. In accordance with the
Wetlands Protection Act and its regulations, the aforementioned Area is presumed to be
significant to the statutory interests.
At the meeting of the Commission held on Thursday, January 28, 1999, members discussed uses
that were of concern, particularly the integrity of the Coastal Bank and the impact of Coastal
Storm Flowage onto the Bank when the vegetation has been removed.
The Commission voted to DENY the project based on the following additional considerations:
1. The integrity of the Coastal Bank would be compromised with the removal of vegetation for
this project,
2. The integrity of the Coastal bank and a portion of salt marsh/pbragmite zone are presumed
compromised when locating structures (driveway and house) over the resource areas,
3. Pilings, being coastal engineering structures are not permitted in coastal bank as proposed,
4. Coastal Storm Flowage under the structure and into the Bank lends the Commission to
concur that degrading of the slope could occur over time from the vegetation removal, and
5. The Commission determined that the Bank is significant to storm damage prevention and that
adverse effects on the Banks' stability have not been overcome.
A copy of this request has been forwarded to the parties listed below. Thank you for your
consideration of the Commission's view in this matter. I hope that the DEP shares the
Commission's concerns and that the Department will take action to preserve this valuable
resource.
Very truly yours,
Debra Huriburt
Acting Chairperson
CC: James Sprague, DEP Northeast Section Chief
Atty. George Atkins
Salem Conservation Commission
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
In the Matter of: January 24, 2000
Kenneth Gelpey Docket No. 99-190
File No. 64-288
Salem
ORDER
The Salem Conservation Commission filed a claim for an adjudicatory appeal
(claim) challenging a superseding order of conditions that the Department issued to the
applicant, Kenneth Gelpley on July 23, 1999. In its claim filed on November 29, 1999,
the conservation commission says that it first received a copy of the superseding order
of conditions on November 16, 1999 and, thus, filed its claim within ten business days'.
To be timely, the conservation commission's claim must have been filed within ten
business days of the date that the Department issued its superseding order of
conditions. See 310 CMR 10.05(7)0).
To ensure that this case is processed expeditiously, I am issuing the following
orders under 310 CMR 1.01(6)(e).
The applicant is ordered to file and serve on the other parties by February 29,
2000 a motion to dismiss the conservation commission's claim as untimely. The
conservation commission is ordered to file and serve a response on or before March 16,
2000. 1 expect the parties to support their filings with affidavits, postmarked envelopes,
certified mail return receipts (green cards), and other such evidence.
310 CMR 10.05(1) requires that time periods of ten days or less be computed using business days only.
i�
i
2
c�
Additionally, the Department is ordered to provide the other parties with any
evidence in its control that may help to establish the date on which the superseding
order of conditions was issued and a copy sent to the conservation commission.
Fancis X. Nee
Administrative Law Judge
SERVICE LIST
7 In The Matter Of: Kenneth Gelnev
Docket No. 99-190 File No. 64-288
Representative Party
Kenneth Gelpey APPLICANT
10 %: Hyde Street
Danvers, MA 01923
Kenneth Gelpey
130 Lothrop Street
Beverly, MA 01915
Debra Hurlburt PETITIONER/CONCOM
Acting Chairperson Salem Conservation Commission
Salem Conservation Commission
Salem, MA 01970
Dorothy Montouris, Esq. DEPARTMENT
DEP —Office of General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Protection
One Winter Street, 3`d Floor
Boston, MA 02108
cc:
Wayne Lozzi DEPARTMENT
DEP—Northeast Regional Office Dept. of Environmental Protection
205-A Lowell Street
Wilmington, MA 01887
Date: January 24, 2000
COVER
SHEET FAX
To: Deb Hurlburt
Fax#: 9220285
Subject: Gelpy Superseding Order
Date: November 17, 1999
Here is fax from Jim Sprague dated 11/15/99.
FYI - We submitted the maximum of 3 photos to Bob Durand for the Community Preservation
Summit. The three areas were: 1) private properties along Riverview Rd abutting the Forest
River Conservation Area taken from Volunteers Bridge, 2) Lead Mills, and 3) Thompson's
Meadow.
Lets discuss Earth Day the next time we talk.
Thanks. Steve.
From the desk of...
Stephen Dibble
Assistant Planner
City of Salem, Planning Dept.
One Salem Green
Salem,MA.,01970
(978)745 9595 ext. 311
Fax: (978)740 0404
r
,kO
r ,
`J Conservation Commmion
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
' y.I.ss..kO
November 24, 1999
Docket Clerk
Office of General Council
Department of Environmental Protection
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
RE: Notice of Claim for Adjudicatory Hearing, DEP File# 64-288, 435 Lafayette Street,
Kenneth Gelpey
I am writing to state the Conservation Commission's strong opposition to the proposed
construction at 435 Lafayette Street. The City of Salem Conservation Commission is aggrieved
by the action of the Department in its issuance of a Superseding Order of Conditions and hereby
requests an adjudicatory hearing.
The Salem Conservation Commission denied the project on February 11, 1999. A Superseding
Order was issued on July 23, 1999. The Commission never received a copy of this action until
November 16, 1999. A "reissuance" of the of the Superseding Order was sent via fax from
James Sprague, DEP Northeast Section Chief dated November 15, 1999, received and stamped
in on November 16, 1999 and subsequently via mail which was received on November 18, 1999.
The Commission, with this letter, has filed its request for an adjudicatory hearing within the
required 10 days.
The Commission objects to the issuance of the Superseding Order due the construction of a
driveway, parking area, garage and house into by piles and over a resource area. All vegetation
on this coastal bank is proposed for removal and the resource area will be further impacted by
this proposed project to be located over the resource area with a driveway "bridge" connecting a
parking area and single family house elevated on piles. Specific concerns as stated by the
Commission in its denial are as follows:
The Notice of Intent (NOI) dated August 27, 1998 signed by Mr. Kenneth Gelpey as prepared by
his representative Hancock Environmental Consultants, describe the work as "...construction of
a single family dwelling, utilities and landscaping in buffer zone to salt marsh and over land
subject to coastal storm flowage. Dwelling will be constructed on piles." Land subject to
Coastal Storm Flowage refers to any land that is " subject to any inundation caused by coastal
storms up to and including that caused by the 100 year storm surge of record or storm of record,
whichever is greater."
Further page two of the NOI indicates that the resource area that is indicated to be jurisdictional
is I lc. Coastal Bank. 310 CMR states that Coastal Bank is "...likely to be significant to...storm
t
damage prevention". Further, 310 CMR states that"Where Banks are partially or totally
vegetated, the vegetation serves to maintain the Banks' stability, which in turn protects water
quality be reducing erosion and siltation".
Because this is Coastal Bank and is subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, the Commission asked for
a cross section of the Bank and the Limit of Velocity Zone (v.3) (Elevation 14 feet) on shown on
the FEMA map. Although the work proposed does not include any filling, it does require
removal of vegetation on the Coastal Bank.
The Commission's review of the files and on-site inspection confirmed that the project site
contains Coastal Bank, which is subject to protection under the Act. In accordance with the
Wetlands Protection Act and its regulations, the aforementioned Area is presumed to be
significant to the statutory interests.
At the meeting of the Commission held on Thursday, January 28, 1999, members discussed uses
that were of concern, particularly the integrity of the Coastal Bank and the impact of Coastal
Storm Flowage onto the Bank when the vegetation has been removed.
The Commission voted to DENY the project based on the following additional considerations:
1. The integrity of the Coastal Bank would be compromised with the removal of vegetation for
this project,
2. The integrity of the Coastal bank and a portion of salt marsh/phragmite zone are presumed
compromised when locating structures (driveway and house) over the resource areas,
3. Pilings, being coastal engineering structures are not permitted in coastal bank as proposed,
4. Coastal Storm Flowage under the structure and into the Bank lends the Commission to
concur that degrading of the slope could occur over time from the vegetation removal, and
5. The Commission determined that the Bank is significant to storm damage prevention and that
adverse effects on the Banks' stability have not been overcome.
A copy of this request has been forwarded to the parties listed below. Thank you for your
consideration of the Commission's view in this matter. I hope that the DEP shares the
Commission's concerns and that the Department will take action to preserve this valuable
resource.
Very truly yours,
Debra Hurlburt
Acting Chairperson
CC: James Sprague, DEP Northeast Section Chief
Arty. George Atkins
Salem Conservation Commission
COVER
SHEET FAX
To: John Keenan
Fax#: 7400072
Subject: 435 Lafayette St
Date: December 3, 1999
Pages: 3, including this cover sheet.
John:
Here is copy of Gelpy DEP letter of appeal.
I'm on my way out to the North River mud flats at Burnham's barge with Kevin Daly to see how
far I sink!! A site that every environmental agency has offered a hand to correct except DEP.
Two other projects on Marlborough Road have been appealed by ConCom to DEP, and you saw
first hand how DEP operates with the Goldeneye matter.
These are 5 different projects presently before the DEP that they seem not willing to act or have
screwed-up. ConComs and the DEP are supposed to work together. Ha! Thanks for letting me
vent.
From the desk of...
Stephen Dibble
Assistant Planner
City of Salem, Planning Dept.
One Salem Green
Salem, MA.,01970
(978)745 9595 ext.311
Fax:(978)740 0404
11/18l99 THU 17:46 F.a.Y 978 922 0285 CITY OF BEti'ERLY
0002
TO: CONSERVATION COMMISSION MEMBERS
FROM: CONSERVATION MEMBER DEBBIE HURLBURT
RE: GF.LPY ORDER OF CONDmoms
DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 1999
It has been brought to my attention that DEP Section Chief Jim Sprague has
reissued (for the lack of a better word)the Superseding Order of Conditions (SOC)for
the property off Lafayette Street owned by Mr. Gelpey. This development of the
reissuance is due to a recent discussion that I had with Jim at the North Shore
Conservation Commission Network(NSCCN) meeting as well as a discussion that
Stephen had with Jim earlier this week.
During the general question period at the NSCCN meeting of November 5, 1999,
1 had asked Jim about DEP's policy on sending out SOCs; whether they are sent certified
or regular mail. The reason for the question was that 1 wanted to impress upon him that if
they did not send mail out certified, some communities may miss the opportunity to
appeal, therefore,they may want to rethink their trail policy.
i further stated that Stephen never received a copy of the SOC for the Gelpey
project and if he had, then I believe the Commission would have seriously considered,
and more then likely, appealed the SOC.
Since that time, Jim has spoken with Steve and he reissued the SOC on November
15, 1999. By doing this, Jim is giving the Commission the opportunity that it did not
have before and that is appealing this decision. Because I chaired the meeting on this
project, Stephen thought that it would be appropriate for the to make a recommendation
to the Commission. My sentiments have not changed at all. I still think that this is a
coastal bank that should not be jeopardized which I believe that this development would
do. However, I would like the members to deliberate this everting and vote on whether
the Commission should pursue this appeal_
Lastly, I apologize for my absence;however, I have been working with a
committee on updating the sign ordinance for the City of Beverly and we meet on the
third Thursday of the month(my only free Thursday).
CURRAN, COFFEY & MORAN,LLP
C O U N S E L L O R S R CAP \/E5
265 ESSEK STREET•SALEM•MASSACHUSETTS•01970
I'9 � n ll
TELEPHONE(978)745-6085•FAcsltifJLlE(9W 94�3972 tt'.Ft 1'1j' 03
THOMAS H.CURRAN OF COUNSEL
JAMES F.COFFEY SAL'EM
PHILIP D.MORAN PLANNING
G DEP 1.
PATRICIA A.REMER _ JILLIAN K.AYLWARD
CAROLYN A.BANKOWSKI -' NANCY 1.BLUEWEISS
MARK S.SCOTT �f JOHN S.RODMAN
ANDREW L.BARRETT October 25, 1999
JODI L.CONNERS
Mr. Steven Dibb :
Salem Conservation Conunission
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Steven,
Please find encicaed article for your review.
Very-truly your
Philip D. Moran, Esquire
Enclosure
PDM/mt
enue, Vorcoesceq AC66an xYa ordered true toe UNIUI..�', ---
cessor trustee thereof. Mr. Finneran is an judgment on the pleadings be allowed,that
attorney,by mama',a member of the Kel- Zonin judgment shall forthwith enter for the de-
ley ,fmnilY, fully knowledgeable about the fendant and that the decision of the defen-
CCT and the restaurant/bar business of Town Parking Lot - Wetland dant Town of Bourne Conservation Com-
The-K's,Inc.,and a man of high reputation Resource Area mission to allow an order of conditions in
in the community. The trust and its bene- Where the defendant Bourne Conserva- regards to the parcel be upheld."
ficiaries ought to be well served by his tion Commission granted an order of con- Connolly, et al. u. Town of Bourne Con-
stewardship" ditions permitting the town to construct a nervation Commission(Lawyers Weekly No.
The new trustee is ordered to: reform parking lot in a wetland resource area,the 12 207 99) (7 pages) (Gerald F. O'Neill Jr.,
and record a March 30, 1993 mortgage and defendant's action was in accordance with J)(Barnstable Superior Court)Edward W.
o
accompanying promissry note; discharge the applicable law and was neither arbi- Kirk for the plaintiffs; Robert S. Troy and
the assignment of leases and rents from trary nor capricious. Brian J Wall for the defendant(Docket No.
Kelley as trustee to Kelley individually; Accordingly,an appeal filed by two plain- 98-359).
and recover from Kelley any amount in ex- tiffs will be rejected. RM
Less of S189,549 that he has paid himself Discussion COURT�BMC
from the trust_ t DISTRICT
he laintiff ,L.c. 249, §4, this tour
The remaining counts oft p °pursuant to G
beneficiaries' complaint — seeking an ac- has jurisdiction to review,in the nature of APPELLATE DIVISION
(� counting,termination of the trust and ter- certiorari,decisions of a local conservation
_ minxtion of a lease with The K's, Inc. — commission made under a wetlands by-
are ordered dismissed. et al. (Lawyers law'...The standard of review on certiorari insurance
Steele, et al. u. Kelley, _ depends upon the nature of the action
Weekly No. 12-204-99)(44pages)(Van Ges sought to be reviewed. ... In reviewing a PIP Benefits-- Physical
let, J.) (Suffolk Superior Court) (Civil Ac- decision of a local conservation commis- Therapy
t. tion No. 94-3233), sion,.this court must determine whether
.e the commission's decision was based upon Where a physician was an orthopedic
specialist, he could perform physical ther-
'SLEmNi a reasoning relevant to the evidence pre-
G M seated before it, and whether the commis- spy covered as part of"personal injury pro-
le Permanent Contract - Farm sion's conclusions are supported by sub- tection"insurance benefits,despite the fact
AS Where (U plaintiff owners of a farm stantial evidence in the record. ... Where that he was not licensed as a physical ther-
brought suit to terminate the defendant the allowance or denial of an order of con- apist. eat al-
a produce manager's employment and re- ditions is supported by substantial evi- In saying this,we affirm a judgm
Is- move him from the property and(2)thethat dence, however, the plaintiffs are only en- lowing a plaintiff auto accident victim to
lit fendant filed a counterclaim alleging titled to relief upon a finding that the recover the cost of the physicians services
- a he had a permanent employment contract, commission's decision was `arbitrary and from a defendant insurance company.
❑r the, plaintiffs should be granted summary capricious' or that the commission com-
e rt- judgment on the counterclaim, as no mitted a substantial error of law that re- Background
)1c promise of permanent employment can be sulted on manifest injustice to the plain- "iPlaintiff Natalial Loseva was involved
n❑ inferred from negotiations during which tiffs. ... `A decision is not arbitrary and in a motor vehicle accident and sustained
,IIY the plaintiffs requested a long-term com- capricious unless there is no ground which personal injuries.The vehicle operated and
or- mitment. [plaintiff) reasonable persons might deem proper to owned by Loseva was insured by the de-
ethe 'rTithe statements made by then lar support it' ... - fendant [Liberty Mutual Insurance Com-
lit- partners to this case concern ordinary "Under this standard, the court con- an 1 Under Part Two of the insurance
dc- wage intended to encourage a new ,m- eludes that there was substantial evidence policy,Loseva was covered for PIP benefits,
ployce to make a long-term commitment. to support the decision of the commission. Which obligated defendant to.pay plaintiff
cis 'Lifetime contracts are extraordinary in The [relevantl by-law mandates that`[nlo for all reasonable expenses incurred as a
,lh their nature and strong proof is required to habitable dwelling or accessories thereto or result of a motor vehicle accident,for nec-
nul establish their due formation' ... [Defen- roadway/driveway shall be allowed any essary medical,sur'ical, x-ray, and dental
dant Roberti Koch, however, attempts to closer than 50'from the boundary of a Wet- olio limits of$8,000.00.
land Resource area unless permitted under Losevaservice
to the policy
characterize the statements above as a Loseva received medical treatment with
permanent contract 'by a strenuous exad- this by-law.'...Further,`Into person shall ... Ronald Nasif, M.D. of Parkway Orthope-
clse in the self-hypnotizing rhetoric of ad- alter [al wetland resource area [or within dies, an orthopedic specialist of Parkway
vocacy.' ... This case does not approach the 100 feet or such areal except as permitted Orthopedics located in Roslindale,Massa-
factual circumstances present in either by this by-law.'...The by-law's purpose is to chusetts. He recommended physical medi-
n a Boothby 1 u. Texon,414 Mass.468(1993)1 or protect wetland resource areas by regulat- Line treatments for Loseva. All of said
it (:,nig(u. Carr, 167 Mass. 544(1897)l. in activities`likely to have an adverse ef- h sica] medicine treatments were either
the "In both Boothby and Carnig,the plain- fegt upon wetland resource values.' provided entirely by Dr. Nasif or with the
.ice- tiffs, accomplished and successful in their Based on a proposal's estimated adverse ef-he " help of an assistant. Dr. Nasif was always
respective jobs, were brought in to help feet on these wetland resource values, the p
here others in the business. Both plaintiffs gave commission may issue, issue with condi- ■continued on PAGE 20
Cl of up significant alternative opportunities in tions,or deny a permit to conduct the pro-
Icon consideration for the specific promise of
n-Edmonds FOR CIVIL PROCESS IN ESSEX COUNTY
I CONTACT THE
YTIRF. COLLeCTIO,v"
ESSEX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT.
40 OFF reg. $250—S275 DIVISION OF CIVIL PROCESS
36 FEDERAL STATIHE COURT FACILE.... COMPLEX) NEW SATELLITE OFFICEAW RENCE, MA 01841
FOR THE LOOK AND FEEL OF SUCCESS'"' PO Sox 2019, SALEM, MA 01970 381 COMMON ST.,
(978) 750-1900 FAX (978) 741-2585 (978),683-7810 Fax (978) 683-8205
Cucrz!FF FRANK G. COUSINS, J0..
SERVING NORTHERN ESsix COUNTY
, i
Cite this page 28 M.L.W. 216
October 4, 1999 Full Opinions
EWEEK'S OPINIONS Call1-800-933-5594
a trust instrument that permanent employment.By contrast Koch, posed activity i Ue protected areas on
as
plaintiff argues; rather,
proven track record and no experience.IC is activity within a resource area or sur-
y discretion to a trustee who was hired right out of college,had no listed above. ...There is no absolute an
all his activities as a p
trly the very critical as- not reasonable to inter from plaintiffs' al- rthe ounding arecommission
ssio nososed activity under the
to mo beneficiaries,
with
offer arnov novice farmer such as Koch hat they intended on forts of any p most we
the adverse ef-
ears of con- the written contract expresses the desire to "There is no doubt that the proposed
re of himself first, and tract for permanent employment. Rather, arkin lot is entirely within a wetland re-
Y tWeIItY y keep Koch on the farm for a period of one p g
,e and accusatory litiga- year and perhaps longer. The contract, source area protected by the by-law.It was
the trustee and his ac- Y therefore incumbent upon the commission
e calls for a change of however,even taken together with the pri-
hatham's Corner Trust]. or conversaoject
tions,cannot be interpreted as to weigh the adverse effects` of the alu e'
summary judgment for the sought to be protected by the bhe commis-
F.) Kelley has not been a contract for permanent employment.Ac- in terms of the `wetland resource values
ro note on this count" the course of three hearings,
the beneficiaries of the plaintiffs is app P
shown himself to be all p sion had before it no fewer than four ex-
and in kind.The circum- other Matters ports from various environmental protec-
such that the continua- tion agencies opining that the project had
the position of trustee of The plaintiffs'motion for summary judg- no or minimal adverse effect on the by-
the exceptionally broad ment is allowed with respect toall other law
listed wetland resource values. The
effect on each value was discussed by one
therein and his near total counts of the counterclaim alleging:breach
of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; unau- or more experts in the field. In fact,there
distributions therefrom, was evidence presented that the project
ental to the trust. therized p conspiracy;sbnsentryof process;s; intentional would enhance one listed value, namely
the CCT instrument Pro- osition
ion in the office of trustee. infliction of emotional distress; and viola- public recreational uses. The opp
,f Amendment dated Sep- tion of G.L.c.93A. did produce valid arguments'against the
dulInc., et al. u. Koch project;however in light of the substantial
CT waecute ndedrecorad- Awyes Weele kly 12.206.99) (9 pages)CCT was amended'by P- (Law, Y evidence in favor,it was not unreasonable
for the commission to approve of the pro-
ce of Paul M. Murphy, of (Patrick R Brady,C. Tur(forrthekplaintiffs; , t.
;achusetts,Mr.Thomas M. Court) Jeffrey
11 of 56 Pleasant Hill Av- Sanford A. Kowa for the defendant (Civil For the foregoing reasons, it o hereby
ordered that the defendant's motion for
er, Massachusetts,' as sic- Action No. 97-350). judgment on the pleadings be allowed,that
;hereof. Mr. Finneran is an Zonin de-
n e a member of the Kel- -
judgment shall forthwith enter for the
y knowledgeable about the fondant and that the decision of the defenen-
dant Town of Bourne Conservation Com-
restaurant1bar king Lot business of Town Par - Wetlan Area mission to allow an order of conditions in
ad a man of high reputation Resource
,ity.The trust and its bene- Where the defendant Bourne Conserva- regards to the parcel be upheld"
to be well served by his tion Commission granted an order of con- Connolly, et al. u. Town of Bourne Con-
ditions permitting the town to construct a servation Commission(Lawyers Weekly No.
istee is ordered to: reform parking lot in a wetland resource area,the 12.207-99) (7 pages) (Gerald F O'Neill Jr,
arch 30, 1993 mortgage and defendant's action was in accordance with J.)(Barnstable Superinr Ccu4)Edward W.
promissory note; discharge the applicable law and was neither arbi- Kirk for the plaintiffs; Robert S. Troy and
,t of leases and rents from trary nor capricious. Brian J. Wall for the defendant(Docket No.
;tee to Kelley individually; Accordingly,an appeal filed by two plain- 98-359).
)m Kelley any amount in ex- tiffs will be rejected.
99 that he has paid himself Discussion DISTRICT COURTIN
,ing counts of the plaintiff "Pursuant to G.L.c. 249, §4, this court
complaint — seeking an ac- has jurisdiction to review,in the nature of APFE�LATE DIVISION of the trust and ter- __-,,;,,_,,,.; Anrsions of a local conservation
K N
CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS
WILLIAM J.LUNDREGAN Legal Department JOHN D.KEENAN
City Solicitor 93 Washington Street Assistant City Solicitor
81 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 60 Washington Street
Tel:978-741-3888 Tel:978-741-4453
Fax:978-741-8110 Fax:978-740-0072
October 20 , 1999
Mr . Mark George ;
Chairman, Conservation Commission ly r
City of Salem ' M
26 Settlers Way l� ry n
Salem, MA 01970 1;7n M
RE : Gelpey Development at 435 Lafayette Street 0
Dear Mark:
I respectfully draw p y your attention to a Memorandum of Law from
John D. Keenan, Assistant City Solicitor to you dated 12 October
1999 .
Mr. Keenan and I have had an opportunity to discuss the issue of
the Salem Conservation Commission applying the State Wetlands
Protection Act and in some instances, not applying the stricter
City of Salem Ordinance provisions .
As a matter of Law, the Conservation Commission has the
discretion where the State provisions are stricter than the City
Ordinance provisions, to apply either provision. However, where
the City Ordinance provisions are stricter than the
Commonwealth' s provisions , the Conservation Commission has no
authority to apply the State Provisions, but must , in fact,
apply the stricter City Ordinance conditions .
If you should have any questions in the above-entitled matter,
or would like to discuss it with me, please do not hesitate to
contact me .
Very truly yours,
WILLIAM J. LUNDREGAN
cc : Mayor Stanley Usovicz, Jr.
Steve Dibble, Planing Dept .,
John D . Keenan, Asst . Solicitor
i A
11
CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS
WILLIAM J.LUNDREGAN Legal Department JOHN D.KEENAN _
City Solicitor 93 Washington Street Assistant City Solicitor
81 Washington Street Salem Massachusetts 01970 60 Washington Street
,
Tel:978-741-3888 Tel:978-741-4453
Fax:978-741-8110 Fax:978-740-0072
FROM: John Keenan — Asst. Sol.
TO: Steve Dibble — Planning riprperson
Mark George, ConCom C
CC. William Lundregan, City Sol.
RE: Gelpey Development at 435 Lafayette Street
DATE: 12 OCT 99
As you are aware the above captioned project was before the Salem
Conservation Board in January 1999 in which ultimately it voted against (5-0)
granting the order of conditions. Although there is mention in the decision of the
denial being based on the state Wetlands Protection Act and local ordinance,
there is no specificity in the decision showing reliance on the stricter provisions
of the local ordinance. Furthermore, in discussing this matter with a ConCom
member Debra Hurlburt, her opinion would be consistent with the interpretation
that Board's decision on this particular vote rested upon the state act as
compared to the local ordinance. In fact, it would be her opinion that the
ConCom generally has relied on the state act in its review of projects before it.
Subsequently, the DEP issued a superseding order of conditions addressing the
very concerns listed in the local denial — to wit, potential coastal bank damage
and coastal storm flowage issues. If the DEP did not have concurrent jurisdiction
on these issues, they could not have addressed and essentially reversed the local
decision. Thus, in light of my review of the local denial, superseding order and
discussion with Ms. Hurlburt, it would be my opinion that there is no need for
this project to come back again to the ConCom for additional review as the
original decision did not rest upon stricter local provisions.'
I As reviewed in my earlier opinion of August 16, 1999, the case law on point provides
specifically,"When a local conservation commission rests its decision on a wetlands by-law that
provides greater protection than the act, its decision cannot be preempted by a DEP superseding
order." FIC Homes of Blackstone. Inc. v. Conservation Commission of Blackstone, 41 Mass. App.
Ct. 681, 687 reviewdenied424 Mass. 1104 (1996).
� L
Finally, as discussed, I would fully agree in light of this opinion and that rendered
on Salvo this same day, that it will be beneficial going forward for the ConCom to
specifically address — where applicable - reliance on the local stricter provision in
its decisions. This too will send a clear message to applicants that they may
need to appeal the decision to both the DEP (under the state act) and to the City
Council or Superior Court (under the local ordinance).
Hopefully this is helpful to you. Do not hesitate to call with any additional
questions.
HANCOCK
Environmental Consultants
❑235 Newbury Street
Route One North
Danvers, MA 01923
(978)777-3050
(978)352-7590
# 7053 (978)283-2200
(78 1)662-9659
Fax (979)774-7816
April 28, 1999 ❑ 12 Famsworth Strect
Boston,MA 02210
Mr. Wayne Lozzi (6 17)350-7906 ,
DEP/NERO
Wilmington Service Center
205a Lowell Street
Wilmington, MA 01887
RE: Gelpey project DEP File No.64-288
435 Lafayette Street
Salem, Mass.
Dear Sir:
Thank you for your time the morning of April 22, 1999. In the course of the site visit, we
discussed the wetland delineation, slope stabilization, street drainage issues and Coastal Zone
Management review.
The plan has been revised in accordance with our observations regarding intermediate wetland
flags. I have also added all decks as they are now proposed, and provide copies of the
architectural plans, as it is impractical to indicate all structural detail on an engineering-scale
plan. To whatever extent Hancock's plan does not reflect the architect's intent,I offer my
apologies for faulty translation and suggest that the architect's plans be added to the record.
Richard Griffin, the architect, has advised me that the stairs at issue have been removed from the
plans.
Slope stabilization beneath the proposed dwelling may be addressed by planting of Baltic Ivy,
Hedera helix, a perennial, evergreen vine readily available in local nurseries. I doubt that
alternatives such as Vinca or Pachysandra would survive exposure to salt spray, and offer the
observation that several sites in the Salem area which exhibit northeasterly exposures have been
planted in Hedera with relative success. I recommend spacing plants on one-foot centers
throughout the bank from the dripline of the house landward.
Due to the location of the existing street drainage outlet, runoff(and the attendant silt and
pollutant load) is presently directed into an eroding section of the remnant salt marsh on the
Gelpey property. The proposed diversion of street runoff to an existing stone-paved landing was
intended to alleviate this problem, and the plans thus have not been revised. If you feel the threat
of erosion of the landing (which exists in trespass on the Gelpey property) is a consideration,
larger stone could be placed when the swale is built. In light of the relatively small contributory
Division of Hancock Survey Associates,Inc.
area and the proposed drainage structure, I suggest that six(6)to twelve (12) inch crushed stone
would suffice.
This letter will be sent, with the attached, revised site plan to Rebecca Haney of Coastal Zone
Management for analysis and comment. In the event that Ms. Haney wishes to conduct a site
review, I will contact the attendees of the site walk (Steve Dibble, Salem Planning; George
Atkins, Esq.; Richard Griffin, architect;Mr. Gelpey, my client; and you).
This response has been submitted to the Salem Conservation and to the owner of the land by
certified mail or hand delivery on April 28, 1999.
I hope that these observations will be helpful. Please let me know if I can provide further .
information.
Sincerely,
HANCOCK ENVIRO TAL CONSULTANTS
John Dic
Wetland Scientist
2
cx
TF
SuS l SOl-1E 1)i7)�tp �`iS � '7 yhU6�,yJ`
I' UJOU L0 1=12-wAYZ-(O p 1u TO j Ov
V� 1,�tlIcrl Mfg`;
E ttE t PFU� iv" YO u )tJ
C►'LRf'I I Ili G TN- C-
pl q
Address new Ge( r
pa we I m1% Ol9Is
This letter and attached Order of Conditions is to inform you that your proposal
for 435 Lafayette Street has been denied
The Notice of Intent(NOI)dated August 27, 1998 signed by Ur. Kenneth Gelpey as
prepared by his representative Hancock Environmental Consultants, describe the work as
"...construction of a single family dwelling,utilities and landscaping in buffer zone to
salt marsh and over land subject to coastal storm flowage. Dwelling will be constructed
on piles." Land subject to Coastal Storm Flowage refers to any land that is"...subject
to any inundation caused by coastal storms up to and including that caused by the 100-
year storm surge of record or storm of record,whichever is greater." -- G� ,&- A,
Further page two of the NOI indicates that the resource area which is indicated to
be jurisdictional is 11 c. Coastal Bank. 310 CUR states that Coastal Bank is"...likely to
be significant to;-storm damage prevention". Further,310 CUR states that"Where
Banks are partially or totally vegetated,the vegetation serves to maintain the Banks'
stability,which in turn protects water quality by reducing erosion and siltation_"
The Public hearing was opened on E!�_,and continued w Sevua� �,vie 5 o
�7,vx so additional information could obtained as well as a site inspection
being co acted
e additional information that was sought was
regarding whether the proponent had to fik:with the Army Corp of Engineers and/or the
Department of Environmental Protection Waterways. Information was produced
indicating that these Agencies would not require permitting for the work.
q1WI99
JW
Because this is Coastal Bank and is subject to Coastal Storm Flowage,the
Comnission asked for a cross section of the Bank and the Limit of Velocity Zone(0)
(Elevation 14 feet)on shown on the FEMA map. Although the work proposed does not
include any filling,it does require removal of vegetation on the Coastal Bank.
The Commission's review of the files and on-site inspection confirmed that the
project site contains Coastal Bank which is subject to protection under the Act. In
accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act and its regulations,the aforementioned
Area is presumed to be significant to the statutory interests as identified on Page 1 of the
attached Order.
At the meeting of the Commission held on Thursday,January 28, 1999,members
discussed issues that were of concern,particularly the integrity of the Coastal Bank and
the impact of Coastal Storm Flowage onto the Bank when the vegetation has been
removed.
It was discussed by members,and determined that the Commission would vote on
this issue within the allowed 21 days in which to issue an Order at their next meeting of
February 11, 1999.
Based upon the review of the NOI,the site inspection,and considering all the
above mentioned issued the Commission voted to DENY the project based on the
following considerations:
1. The integrity of the Coastal Bank would be compromised with the removal of
vcgetation for this project;Mi
Coastal Storm Flowage under the structure and urto h Bank lends the
Commission to concur that degrading of the slope could occur over time from
the vegetation removal;,almd
The Commission that the Bank is significant to storm ge
6C prevention and that verse effects on the Banks' stability have not been
overcome.
Very truly yours,
a
Cc: nEP '� h
Attorney George Atkin" 7q { 4931 1 r e ��Qe
. ire P(�5vyt�d �w.`p ro vr� ` 4. Ul
loeZ� ^� STrJc�J re� .
0oG J` , i,aFay„f�e y3S
C
z C.onsez-vatYoln 'an
;� Salem. Mascaehusetts 01970
_ , ay'�
NASS�
February 16, 1999
Kenneth Gelpy
I J 0 Lothrop Street
Beverly, MA 01915
Dear: Mr. Gel
PY�
m..
This letter and attached Order of Conditions is to inform you that your proposal
for 43 5 Lafayette Street under the Wetlands Protection Act and the City of Salem
Ordinance Pertaining to General Wetlands has been denied.
The Notice of Intent (NOI) dated August 27, 1998 signed by Mr. Kenneth Gelpey as
prepared by his representative Hancock Environmental Consultants, describe the work as
"...construction of a single family dwelling, utilities and landscaping in buffer zone to
salt marsh and over land subject to coastal storm flowage. Dwelling will be constructed
on piles." Land subject to Coastal Storm Flowage refers to any land that is " subject to
any inundation caused by coastal storms up to and including that caused by the 100 year
storm surge of record or storm of record, whichever is greater."
Further page two of the NO[ indicates that the resource area that is indicated to be
jurisdictional is [ lc. Coastal Bank. 3 10 CNIR states that Coastal Bank is "...likely to be
significant to...storm damage prevention". Further, 3I0 CN[R states that "Where Banks
are partially or totally vegetated, the vegetation serves to maintain the Banks' stability,
which in turn protects water quality be reducing erosion and siltation".
The Public Hearing was opened on September 10, 1998, and continued several
times to January 28, 1999 so additional information could be obtained as well as to
conduct a site inspection. The additional information that was sought was regarding
whether the proponent had to file with the Army Corp of Engineers and/or the
Department of Environmental Protection Waterways. Information was produced
indicating that these agencies would not require permitting for the work.
Because this is Coastal Bank and is subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, the
Commission asked for a cross section of the Bank and the Limit of Velocity Zone (v.;)
(Elevation 14 feet) on shown on the FEMA map. Although the work proposed does not
include any filling, it does require removal of vegetation on the Coastal Bank.
The Commission's review of the files and on-site inspection confirmed that the
project site contains coastal Bank, which is subject to protection under the Act. In
accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act and its regulations,the aforementioned
Area is presumed to be significant to the statutory interests as identified on Page 1 of the
attached Order.
At the meeting of the Commission held on Thursday, January 28, 1999,members
discussed uses that were of concern,particularly the integrity of the Coastal Bank and the
impact of Coastal Storm Flowage onto the Bank when the vegetation has been removed.
It was discussed by members, and determined that the Commission would vote on
this issue within the allowed 21 days in which to issue an Order at they're next meeting <.
of February 11, 1999.
r_t
Based upon the review of the NOI,the site inspection, and considering all the
above mentioned issued the Commission voted to DENY the project based on the
following considerations:
1. The integrity of the Coastal Bank would be compromised with the removal of
vegetation for this project,
2. The integrity of the Coastal bank and a portion of salt mars h/phragm i te zone are
presumed compromised when locating structures (driveway and house) over the
resource areas,
I Pilings, being coastal engineering structures are not permitted in coastal bank as
proposed,
4. Coastal Storm Flowage under the stricture and into the Bank lends the Commission
to concur that degrading of the slope could occur over time from the vegetation
removal, and
5. The Commission determined that the Bank is significant to storm damage prevention
and that adverse effects on the Banks' stability have not been overcome.
Very truly your/s{,/�-/////
Stephen Dibble
Conservation Administrator
CC: DEP
Attorney George Atkins (via fax 744 7493)
concorn/oodLafayette 435
R
w
310 CMR 10. 99 DEP File No.
64-288
(To be provided by DEP)
Form 5
city/Town Cale
Applicant Gelpy
Commonwealth '
of Massachusetts
Order of Conditions
Massachuetts Wetlands Protection Act
G.L. c. 131, §40
From Salem Conservation Commission Issuing Authority
To Kenneth Gelpy .^ramp
(Name of Applicant) (Name of property owner)
Address' 130 Lothrop Street Beverl7iddress
MA
This order is issued and delivered as follows:
❑ by hand delivery to applicant or representative on (date)
® by certified mail, return receipt requested on 2/IA/cla (date).
This project is located at 435 Lafayette Street
The property is recorded at the Registry of Rcsox Gn„th
Book 6070 page 439
Certificate (if registered) N/A
The Notice of Intent for this project was filed on August 28, 1998 (date)
The public hearing was closed on January 28. 1999 (date)
Findings
The Commission has reviewed the above-referenced Notice of Intent and plans and has
held a public hearing on the project. Based on the information available to the Commission at this
time, the Commission has determined that the area on which the proposed work is to be done is
Significant to the following interests in accordance with the Presumptions of significance set forth in the
regulations for each Area Subject to Protection under the Act
(check as appropriate):
❑ Public water supply Flood Control Land containing shellfish
Private water supply Storm damage prevention Fisheries
Ground water supply Prevention of pollution Protection of wildlife Habitat
Total Filing Fee Submitted $305.00 State Share $140.00
(1/2 fee in excess of $25)
City/Town Share $165.00
Total Refund Due $ 0 City/Town Portion S State Portion$
(1/2 total) (112 total)
Effective 11/10/89 5-1
Therefore, the Commission hereby finds that the following conditions
are necessary, in accordance with the Performance Standards set forth in the
regulations, tc protect those interests checked above. The Commission
orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with said 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.
General Conditions
1. Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein, and with all related
statutes and other regulatory measures, shall be deemed cause to revoke
or modify this Order.
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, by-laws 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
and both that date and the special circumstances warranting the
extended time period are set forth 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. Any sill used in connection with this project shall be. clean fill,
containing 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.
7. No work shall be undertaken until all administrative appeal periods from
this Order have elapsed or, if such an appeal has been filed, until all
proceedings before the Department have been completed.
B . No work shall be undertaken until the Final order 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 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 to be done. The recording informatin shall be
submitted to the Commission on the form at the end of this Order
prior to commencement of the work.
9. A sign shall be displayed at the site not less than two square feet or
more than three square feet in size bearing the words,
"Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection,
File Number
10. Where the Department of Environmental Protection is requested to make a
determination and to issue a Superseding Order, the Conservation
Commission shall be a party to all agency proceedings and hearings before
the Department.
5-2
i
2
Issued By Salem Conservation mmission
Si nat Is)___
v
This Order must :3e signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission.
On this -25"+t day. of 19 99 before me
personally appeared the above mentioned to me known to be the
person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged
that he/she a cute t ame as his/her free act and deed.
STEPHEN DIBBLE
Notary MUD
MY COMIT SIOn Expires Nov.�1ma
Notar ub is f- My commission expires
The l"art, the owner, any person agrrieved by this Order, 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 Department of Environmental Protection to issue a Superseding
Order, providing the request is made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the
appropriate'filing fee and Fee Transmittal Form as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7), within ten 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 the applicant.
Detach on dotted lire and submit to the Commission:'. prior to commencement of work.
............................................................................................................
To Issuing Authority
Please be advised that the Order of Conditions for the project at
File Number has been recorded at the Registry of and
has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property in accordance with General Condition 8 on
,19
If recorded land, the instrument number which identifies this transaction is
If registered land, the document number which identifies this transaction is
Signature Applicant
5-4A
11. Upon completion of the work described herein, the applicant Shall
forthwith request in writing that a Certificate of Compliance be issued
stating that the work has been satisfactorily completed.
12 . The work shall conform to the following plans and special conditions:
Plans:
Title Dated Signed and Stamped by: On File with:
Permit site plan 1/22/99 Vaclar V. malacke C'nmm;ec;nn
Special Conditions (Use additional paper if necessary)
Pursuant to 310 CMR 10.05 (6) , and City of Salem Ordinance pertaing to General
wetlands the Salem Conservation Commission voted by a vote of five (5) in favor,
zero (0) opposed, that the Commission issue an order denying an Order of Conditions
(See attached letter, S. Dibble dated -:2/16/99) .
(Leave Space Blank)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5-3A
A `
Conservation Commission
Salrm. Massachusetts 01970
February 16, 1999
Kenneth Gelpy
130 Lothrop Street
Beverly, MA 01915
Dear: Mr. Gelpy:
This letter and attached Order of Conditions is to inform you that your proposal
for 435 Lafayette Street under the Wetlands Protection Act and the City of Salem
Ordinance Pertaining to General Wetlands has been denied.
The Notice of Intent (NOI) dated August 27, 1998 signed by Mr. Kenneth Gelpey as
prepared by his representative Hancock Environmental Consultants, describe the work as
"...construction of a single family dwelling, utilities and landscaping in buffer zone to
salt marsh and over land subject to coastal storm flowage. Dwelling will be constructed
on piles." Land subject to Coastal Storm Flowage refers to any land that is " subject to
any inundation caused by coastal storms up to and including that caused by the 100 year
storm surge of record or storm of record, whichever is greater."
Further page two of the NOI indicates that the resource area that is indicated to be
jurisdictional is I Ic. Coastal Bank. 310 CMR states that Coastal Bank is "...likely to be
significant to...storm damage prevention". Further, 310 CMR states that "Where Banks
are partially or totally vegetated, the vegetation serves to maintain the Banks' stability,
which in turn protects water quality be reducing erosion and siltation".
The Public Hearing was opened on September t0, 1998, and continued several
times to January 28, 1999 so additional information could be obtained as well as to
conduct a site inspection. The additional information that was sought was regarding
whether the proponent had to file with the Army Corp of Engineers and/or the
Department of Environmental Protection Waterways. Information was produced
indicating that these agencies would not require permitting for the work.
Because this is Coastal Bank and is subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, the
Commission asked for a cross section of the Bank and the Limit of Velocity Zone (v.3)
(Elevation 14 feet) on shown on the FEMA map. Although the work proposed does not
include any filling, it does require removal of vegetation on the Coastal Bank.
The Commission's review of the files and on-site inspection confirmed that the
project site contains coastal Bank, which is subject to protection under the Act. In
accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act and its regulations,the aforementioned
Area is presumed to be significant to the statutory interests as identified on Page 1 of the
attached Order.
At the meeting of the Commission held on Thursday, January 23, 1999, members
discussed uses that were of concern, particularly the integrity of the Coastal Bank and the
impact of Coastal Storm Flowage onto the Bank when the vegetation has been removed.
It was discussed by members, and determined that the Commission would vote on
this issue within the allowed 21 days in which to issue an Order at they're next meeting
of February 11, 1999.
Based upon the review of the NOI,the site inspection, and considering all the
above mentioned issued the Commission voted to DENY the project based on the
following considerations:
1. The integrity of the Coastal Bank would be compromised with the removal of
vegetation for this project,
2. The integrity of the Coastal bank and a portion of salt marsh/phragmite zone are
presumed compromised when locating structures (driveway and house) over the
resource areas,
3. Pilinas, being coastal engineering structures are not permitted in coastal bank as
proposed,
4. Coastal Storm Flowage under the structure and into the Bank lends the Commission
to concur that degrading of the slope could occur over time from the vegetation
removal, and
5. The Commission determined that the Bank is significant to storm damage prevention
and that adverse effects on the Banks' stability have not been overcome.
Very truly yours,
Stephen Dibble
Conservation Administrator
CC: DEP
Attorney George Atkins (via fax 744 7493)
conconVoodLaiaycttc 435
310 CMR: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
10.99: continued #7053
DEP File No.
(To be provided by DEP)
Form 3
City/Town Salem
Applicant Gelpey
Commonwealth Department of Defense
ofMassachusets United States of America
Notice of Intent
Under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. c. 131, §40
and
Application for a Department of the Army Permit
Part I:General Information
1. Location: Street Address 435 Lafayette Street
Lot Number 422 on Assessors Map 32
2. Project: Type Residential Description The applicant proposes construction of a single family
family dwelling,utilities and landscaping in buffer zone to salt marsh and over land subject to coastal
storm flowage. Dwelling will be constructed on piles.
3. Registry: County Essex South Current Book 6070 &Page 439
Certificate(if Registered Land) N/A
4. Applicant Kenneth Gelpey Tel. 978-922-1297
Address 130 Lothrop Street,Beverly MA 01915
5. Property Owner Kenneth Gelpey Tel. same
Address same
6. Representative Hancock Environmental Consultants Tel. _(978) 777-3050
Address 235 Newbury Street Danvers,MA 01923
7. a. Have the Conservation Commission and the Department's Regional Office each been sent, by certified mail
or hand deliver,2 copies of completed Notice of Intent,with supporting plans and documents?
Yes R No
b. Has the fee been submitted? Yes AJ NOR
c. Total Filing Fee Submitted $305.00
d. City/Town Share of Filing Fee 5165.00 State Share of Filing Fee $140.00
(sent to City/Town) (1/2 of fee in excess ofIS275I,sent to DEP)
e. Is a brief statement attached indicating how the applicant calculated the fee? Yes No
4/1/94 rr 310CMR-411
310 CMR: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
10.99: continued
#7053
8. Have all obtainable rmits,variances and approvals required by local by-law been obtained?
Yes No
Obtained: Applied For. Not Applied For:
N/A Planning Board Special Permit N/A
9. Is any portion of the site ect to a Wetlands Restriction Order pursuant to G.L. c. 131, §40A or G.L. c. 130,
§ 105? Yes Np
10. List all plans and supporting documents submitted with this Notice of Intent.
Idengwnn
Number/Letter
of Exhibit Title.Date
A Permit Site Plan in Salem,MA prepared for Kenneth Gel a 10-16-98
B-1 FEMA Flood Map 515 dated 8-5-85
B-2 Locus Plan—USGS—Salem Quad
C 1-3 Abutter List,Notification and Affidavit of Service
D 1-2 Filing Fee Calculation Sheet and Statement
E Foundation plan showing placement of columns,retaining walls,etc.
A plan of sections and details
11. Check those resource areas within which work is proposed:
(a) ® Buffer Zone
(b) Inland: Land Subject to Flooding
Bank* ❑ Bordering
❑ Bordering Vegetated Wetland* ❑ Isolated
❑ Land Under Water Body&Waterway*
(c) Coastal:
Land Under the Ocean*
❑ Designated Port Area*
❑ Coastal Beach* ❑ Coastal Dune
❑ Barrier Beach* �1 Coastal Bank
❑ Rocky Intertidal Shore* Lf J� Salt Marsh*
❑ Land Under Salt Pond* ❑ Land Containing Shellfish*
❑ Fish Run*
* Likely to involve U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concurrent Jurisdiction. See General Instructions for
Completing Notice of Intent.
4/1/94
310 CMR-412
310 CMR: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
10.99: continued #7053
12. Is the project within estimated habitat which is indicated on the most recent Estimated Habitat Map of State-
Listed Rare Wetlands Wildlife(if any)published by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program?
Yes ❑ No ® Date printed on the Estimated Habitat Map
No Map Available ❑ (if any) 1997/1998
If yes, have you sent a copy of the Notice of Intent to the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program
via the U.S. Postal Service by certified or priority mail (or otherwise sent it in a manner that guarantees
delivery within two days) no later than the date of the filing of this Notice of Intent with the conservation
commission and the DEP regional office?
Yes ❑ No ❑
If yes, please attach evidence of timely mailing or other delivery to the Natural Heritage and Endangered
Species Program.
Part II:Site Description
Indicate which of the following information has been provided(on a plan, in narrative description or calculations)
to clearly,completely and accurately describe existing site conditions.
Identifvine
Number/I-etter
of Exbibit Natural Features
Soils
A Vegetation
A,B Topography
A,B Open water bodies(including ponds and lakes)
A Flowing water bodies(including streams and rivers)
Public and private surface water and ground water supplies on or within 100 feet of site
Maximum annual ground water elevations with dates and location of test
A Boundaries of resource areas checked under Part 1, item 11 above
Other Title:
Man-made Features
A Structures(such as buildings,piers,towers and headwalls)
Drainage and flood control facilities at the site and immediately off the site, including
A culverts and open channels(with inverts),dams and dikes
Subsurface sewage disposal systems
A Underground utilities
4/1/94 310 CMR-413
310 CMR: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
10.99: continued #7053
A Roadways and parking areas
A Property boundaries,easements and rights-of-way
Other Title:
Part III:Work Description
Indicate which of the following information has been provided(on a plan, in narrative description or calculations)
to clearly, completely and accurately describe work proposed within each of the resource areas checked in Part I,
item 11 above.
Identifvina
Number/Letter
of Exhibit Planview and Cross Section o8
A Structures(such as buildings,piers,towers and headwalls)
Drainage and flood control facilities, including culverts and open channels(with inverts),
dams and dikes
A Subsurface sewage disposal systems and underground utilities
A Filling,dredging and excavating, indicating volume and composition of material
Compensatory storage areas,where required in accordance with Part III, Section 10.57(4)
A of the regulations
Wildlife habitat restoration or replication areas
Other Title:
Point Source Discharee
Description of characteristics of discharge from point source (both closed and open
channel)when point of discharge falls within resource area checked under Part I, item 11
above, as supported by standard engineering calculations, data and plans, including but
not limited to the following:
1. Delineation of the drainage area contributing to the point of discharge;
2. Pre-and post-development peak run-off from the drainage area, at the point of discharge, for at least the 10-
year and 100-year frequency storm;
3. Pre- and post-development rate of infiltration contributing to the resource area checked under Part I, item 11
above;
4. Estimated water quality characteristics of pre-and post-development runoff at the point of discharge.
4/1/94 310 CMR-414
310 CMR: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
10.99: continued #7053
Part IV:Mitigating Measures
I. Clearly, completely and accurately describe, with reference to supporting plans and calculations where
necessary:
(a) All measures and designs proposed to meet the performance standards set forth under each resource area
speed in Part II or Part III of the regulations;or
(b) Why the presumptions set forth under each resource area specified in Part II or Part III of the regulations
do not apply.
Coastal Resource Area Type: Identifying
❑ Inland Number/Utter
Coastal Bank
of Exhibit
The proposed work consists of placement of pilings either driven to bearing soils A
or set on concrete footings. No armoring of the bank is proposed, and no
interference with normal wave generated erosion of the bank will occur. There
is no upland runoff to the coastal bank, owing to the presence of a mortared
stone retaining wall which comprises most of the bank itself and extends two feet
or more above the adjacent upland without interruption across the street
frontage of the subject property. The bank serves as a barrier to storm damage
protection.
Coastal Resource Area Type: Identifying
Wand Number/Letter
Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowa a of Exhibit
The majority of the upland portion of the parcel consists of land subject to storm
flowage,lying above extreme high water and the largely vertical stone masonry
wall which functions as the Coastal Bank An area of unconsolidated till and
historic fill material occurs beneath the proposed dwelling, and will remain in A
place to protect the existing wall as well as to provide a source of sediment.
The proposed pilings will result in the loss of stormwater storage volume.
Although there is no regulatory performance standard for Land Subject to
Coastal Storm Flowage,(as the storage basin is presumed to be unrestricted),the
lost volume may be compensated by excavation of small volumes of the
unconsolidated fill during construction clearing. To this end, stumps will be
removed and the holes backfilled with adjacent material, resulting in minor
incremental changes of existing grade.
4/1/94 310 CMR-415
310 CMR: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
10.99: continued #7053
LlCoastal Resource Area Type: Identifying
❑ Inland Number/LetterSalt Marsh of Exhibit
No disturbance of Salt Marsh is proposed. However, a small area of the site is
occupied by Phragmites communis, occurring between mean high water and
extreme high water in a silt bed resulting from street drainage through the A
retaining wall.
2. Clearly, completely and accurately describe, with reference to supporting plans and calculations where
necessary:
(a) All measures and designs to regulate work within the Buffer Zone so as to ensure that said work does not
alter an area specified in Part I, Section 10.02(I)(a)of these regulations; or
(b) if work in the Buffer Zone will alter such an area, all measures and designs proposed to meet the
performance standards established for the adjacent resource area, specified in Part II or Part III of these
regulations.
Coastal Resource Area Type Bordered Identifying
By 100-Feet Discretionary Zone: Number/Letter
❑ Inland Salt Marsh and Coastal Bank of Exhibit
Silt fence will be placed as indicated on the permit site plan to prevent
construction-related (temporary) siltation of the salt marsh. Disturbed areas of
the unconsolidated Coastal Bank will be loaned and seeded with shade-tolerant A
grasses.
4/1/94 310 CMR-416
310 CMR: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
10.99: continued
Part V: Additional Information for a Department of the Army Permit
L COE Application No.
(to be provided by COE)
2.
(Name of Waterway)
3. Names and addresses of property owners adjoining your property:
see list of abbuters
4. Document other project alternatives (i.e., other locations and/or construction methods,
particularly those that would eliminate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters
or wetlands).
5. 81/1" x 11" drawings in planview and cross-section, showing the resource area and the
proposed activity within the resource area. Drawings must be to scale and should clear
enough for photocopying.
Certification is required from the Division of Water Pollution Control before the Federal Permit can be
issued, Cerrification may be obtained by contacting the Division of Water Pollution Control, 1 Winter
Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02108.
Where the activity will take place within the area under the Massachusetts approved Coastal Zone
Management Program, the applicant certifies that his proposed activity complies with and will be
conducted in a manner that is consistent with the approved program.
Information provided will be used in evaluating the application for a permit and is made a matter of
public record through issuance of a public notice. Disclosure of this information is voluntary, however,
if necessary information is not provided,the application cannot be processed nor can a permit be issued.
ts:
I hereby certify under the pains and penalties of perjury that the foregoing Notice of Intent and
accompanying plans,doc en[s d supporting data are true and complete, to the best of my knowledge.
Au gust 27, !Q9'd
Signattlic f App cant Dater
Signature of Applicant's Representative Date
Form -Exception to ENG Form 4345 approved by HOUSACE 6 May 1982"
NED 100 (Test)
I MAY 82 `This document contains ajoint Departmeat of the Army and stare of Mess Ilusers application
for a permit to obtain permission to perform activities in the United States water. The Office of
Managemeot and Budget(OMB)bas approved thorn qumdow required by the US Army Corps
of Engineers. OMB Number 072-0036 and expiration date of 30 September 1983 applies'. This
naremem will be set in 6 point type.
^z+
p,
r
a.
h
a/I/9a 110 CMR - 417
FloodFEMA Map
Flood 000
At
m /t
4
/ �YY
IP.
<� k
�r
+III
z C
�" 'a �,:.. N 4d#fin r a F•r ""X e�� . • -:
EAF�.�C"r \
Q� F` }� tM i'it 3' •
b` k
Locus
Map
rZ
pal
OWN 411,11
WA
d5
RE
im
PRO
M.a to /�`_�.._�"'� -.mow @• ea�
sw
\eeee,,,pppy SOS, >➢�
BOARD M
.qAr.13M, MA (I j
I)ATE : CERTIFIED ABUTTERS LIST
Slibil:("i, PROPERTY: MAP: 32 1 x;T: 0422 SUFF:
I PMJPI?KTY AiMM:SS: 04.15 LAFAYETT' STRI"PT
A,"FS,L0"11) OWNIE4R Wj•:13STFR PHILIPS
MAP WIT Slll"F' Flk(llll-JRTY ADDRESS ASSESSED OWNER E,AIT,[N(; AMMESS
.. � llp��F�lp WEBSTER PFITL.fps 161 HARVARI AVE 414
Q )4Z" 6 4".5 A'�1: 'l'! I 1OST(j N MA C 2.1 3 4-2 7 '4
000 1 G DANSREA]; FAMILY TRUST I RAYMOND A.Vl'
1 0 2- 4 [)ANSREAT.1 DONAL,n R - JAKME: P '[(S SAI.!!:Vl MA ol 970
011i5 0422 • KOUG fVE JEFFREY J 422 CAI AYI' TI
SAY,EM MA (), 970
420 1,AFAYE! T'll,
0 1 6 h OSBORN HERBERT B OSBORN ELIZABETH B L;A], ,F M MA 01 970
Vi 03 P, il,oTSTE]N REALTY TRUST 6 FOREST AVE
BOHMIFF MARTHA ROTSTrJN SA1,RM MA
12 03e.6 BRENNAN JOHN W 419 LAI'AYE'l 'k
GRAC I A SArFM MA 111970
2 0 3,'� STIRF.Wll BRENNAN JOHN W 4,19 LAFAYETTE ST
BRENNAN GRACIA A SAFEM MA 01970
2 114.17 MOORK Rf(.'.HARD T 417 GAFAYRTTP STH I,1':I'
MOORE BRONISLAWA W SAI,EM MA 0 i c)7 0
.1 9'1 03�s 0417 FAFAYETREALTYTE. 417 REALTY TRUST '18-116 NORTH 5 Ili
SMITH l,i-:(-) KE.NT TR PHOENIX A2. 85018
(-HTP,',F ASSESSOR
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
Under the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act
(to be submitted to the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection and the Conservation Commission
when filing a Notice of Intent)
I, Kenneth Celpey hereby certify under the pains and
(Name of Person Making the Affidavit)
penalties of perjury that on Au gi,sr I L i o9lggave notification to abutters in compliance with
(Date)
the second paragraph of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 131, Section 40, and the DEP
Guide to Abutter Notification dated April 8, 1994, in connection with the following matter:
A Notice of Intent filed under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act by
Kenneth Gelpee; with the Salem Conservation
Name of Applicant)
Commission on A n gii st 9 F l g a R for property located at
(Date)
435 Lafayette Street Salem MA 01970
(Location of Property)
The form of the notification, and a list of the abutters to whom it was given and their
addresses, are attached to this Affidavit of Service.
August 26 1998
N e Date
jmNhWrdwitser
HANCOCK
Survey Associates, Inc.
235 Newbury Street
Danvers,MA 01923
(978)777-3050
Fax (978)774-7816
# 7053 Bolton, MA
(978)779-6767
January 8, 1999 Boston,MA
(617)350-7906
Mark George, Chairman
Salem Conservation Commission
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01070
RE: Gelpey Notice of Intent, 435 Lafayette Street(DEP File No. 64-0288)
Dear Sir;
At the Commission's request, Mr- Gelpey and Hancock have pursued statements from the Arty
Corps of Engineers and DEP Division of Waterways relating to jurisdiction in the above
referenced filing.
The Corps asked that two pilings be relocated upgradient of extreme high water. This
accomplished, a letter was issued indicating that the project requires no independent Corps of
Engineers review_ Copies of that letter have been provided to the Commission by Mr_ Gelpey.
I contacted Raymond Marino, of the Waterways Division, and was in turn called by Jill Provencal,
who informed me that a letter indicating the extent of Waterways jurisdiction would be prepared
shortly. At such time as that document is available, it will be provided to the Commission, if,
indeed, it is not addressed directly to the Commission.
In response to the Notification of file number dated 11-19-98, I prepared a vegetation inventory
just upgradient of the Phragmites bed and have provided copies to Derek Standish, the DEP case
officer. The vegetation is unequivocally upland in nature, consisting for the most part of
opportunistic weed species capable of colonizing disturbed sites. Copies of the Field Data Sheets
are attached.
Sincerely,
HANCOCK ENVIRONMENTAL CONSZJZTANTS
n LS
Wetlan cc: Client/Atty/D. Standish
RECEIVED DEC 2 1 199
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
NEW ENGLAND DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS
896 VIRGINIA ROAD
CONCORD,MASSACHUSETTS 01742-2751
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
Regulatory Branch December 17, 1998
CENAE-C O-R-199803590
Mr. Kenneth Gelpey
130 Lothrop Street
Beverly, Massachusetts 01915
Dear Mr. Gelpey:
We have determined that a Department of the Army permit is not required for your project
that is located at 435 Lafayette Street which includes the construction of a house provided the
recommended changes are made to the pilings as noted on the plan.
This determination is based on the information in your application and on the attached
plans in I sheets, entitled "PERMIT SITE PLAN IN SALEM, MA PREPARED FOR
KENNETH GELPY", and dated, "October 16, 1998, REVISED 17 DEC 98".
Our regulatory jurisdiction encompasses all work in or affecting navigable waters of the
United States under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the discharge of
dredged or fill material into all waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands, as well
as the excavation and grading within those waters, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Since your proposal does not include any of the aforementioned activities, a Department of the
Army permit is not required.
Please note that performing work within our jurisdiction without a Corps of Engineers
permit can result in prosecution by the U.S. Government. Violations of Section 10 can result in
criminal prosecution with fines ranging from$500 to $2,500 per day of violation and/or
imprisonment for up to one year. Violations of Section 404 are punishable by civil fines of up to
$25,000 per day and/or imprisonment for up to one year.
Finally, our Corps permit process does not supersede any other agency's jurisdiction.
Therefore, if other Federal, State, and/or local agencies have jurisdiction over your proposed
activity, you must receive all other applicable permits before you can begin work.
-2-
If you have any questions regarding this letter, contact (Mr.) Laurie H. Suda
at (978) 318-8493, (800) 343-4789 or(800) 362-4367 within Massachusetts.
Sincerely,
G
Karen Kirk Ad s
Chief, Permits &Enforcement Section
Regulatory Branch
Attachments
Copy furnished
Hancock Environmental Consultants, 235 Newbury Street, Danvers, Massachusetts 01923
�+ rLnN 7,7 LY 1971
!s ISALEM HARBOR
Rig
'
STAVE MASAVRY b .o.e
�g
REDUCED BY 64 %
RETAN✓/NG WALL LOT 1
nDAL TL:17S :I.X. 6S SF I
�IQ I`
a2 e A Ta•of*sACTUARaI o 1
2e
jig
1.2
14 2.!. 2.
_ 6� � \O 2.e L, 3.2 770AL RA IS
IF A-? -
SALT MAR57/
�`• "\ rF A-1 .e., WA-41 /}N N!?/► bFIL?'NI
1 . .. .. . YF Awe a] Ak 4.8. J 7W OF SAC TYARW
s.e. !k i oCT AO$14Igq g,Q3'VI `:
NZF \ e.] \ 24._ 3� PHRA[11/)IES'`'�' _AL s., .s} !.o t ZOW
DERBY ]A A, All e. -CVVC RVA:"MC WALL
cttrov �i• f-
\ 97 A-0! + A-#� U`L
�2
P 0 /aJ L:
ti
`• 158 LOT 2 2 s
�A�ErT o"
+y°° �- / —�,z� -, f l a, 0� /2G9/l Crl✓. C ja f3� �'l`-.
h
1 1 _ .•.�I / / Q � 20.E /�/V✓`-C�f1L- �/4� J=I ZCSC�.� F
TQ' OF COASTAL BANK (low OMIT OF WLOa7-Y ZONE (V.J)
ELEV. 14"FEMA (SEE NOTE" f)
CH
nt A • 2 J 3 .p.♦ ico
2ng
LY/ ]U.et . ]U'O 0 _ �.— ��._ ]U.•
'+•• GRANITE BLOCK RETAIN/NC WAL(
REDUCED BY 64 %
.,
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Metropolitan Boston - Northeast Regional Office
ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI
Governor TRUDY COXE
Secretary
J A N 6 1999 DAVID B.STRUHS
Commissioner
Mr. Kenneth Gelpey
c/o Mr. John Dick
Hancock Environmental Consultants
235 Newbury Street
Danvers, MA 01923
RE: Proposed construction of a single-family dwelling at 435 Lafayette Street, Salem Harbor,
Salem.
Dear Mr. Gelpey:
Upon review of the Notice of Intent (64-288), and associated plans for the construction of a
single-family dwelling at 435 Lafayette Street as well as Department records and maps,the
Department has determined that no Chapter 91 license will be required as the work to be
performed is above the mean high water shoreline and appears not to be on an area of previously
filled tidelands.
If you have any questions, please contact Jill Provencal at (978) 661-7778.
incerely, k
es A. Sprague 1 . Provencal
Section Chief / onmental Anal st
Y
Division of Wetlands and Waterways ivision of Wetlands and Waterways
cc: Derek Standish, DEP/DWW
Salem Conservation Commission
This information is available in alternate format by calling our ADA Coordinator at(617)574-6872.
205a Lowell St. Wilmington,MA 01887•Phone (978)661-7600•Fax (978)661-7615 •TDD#(978)661-7679
GJ Pnnted on Recyded Paper
# 7053
DEP Bordering Vegetated Wetland (310 CMR 10.55)Delineation Field Data Form
Applicant_Gelpey_Prepared by. _Hancock Emironmental__Project Location_435 Lafayette St., Salem_DEP File#___064-0288_
Check:all that apply:
* Vegetation alone presumed adequate to delineate BV W boundary:fill out Section 1 only
Vegetation immediately upgradient of Phragnutes bed has been characterized at DEP request(notification of file number 11-19-98)
Section L Vegetation Obsemation Plot Number: __A-10_ Transect Number _5'upgradient_Date of Delineation: _23DE98_
A. Sample Layer and Plant Species B.Percent Cover C. Percent Dominance D. Dominant Plant E. Wetland Indicator
(by common/scientific name) (or basal area) (yes or no) Category*
Herbaceous
Knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum 60 100 yes FACU-
Vine
Wild cucumber Echinocystis lobata 20 33 yes *FAC
Bittersweet Celastrisorbiculate 40 67 yes FACU
Shrub
Multillora rose Rosa multiflora 20 50 yes FACU
Norway Maple Acer platanoides 20 50 yes FACU
Sapling
Norway Maple A. platanoides 20 100 yes FACU
Tree
Elm Ulrnus americans 20 33 yes *FACW-
Norway Maple A.platanoides 40 67 yes FACU
*Use an asterisk to mark indicator plants: plant species listed in the wetlands Protection Act(MGL c. 131, s.40);plants in the genus.Sphagnum,plants listed as FAC,
FAC+,FACW-FACW,FACW+,or OBL, or plants with physiological or morphological adaptations. If any plants are identified as wetland indicator plants due to
physiological or morphological adaptations,describe the adaptation nest to the asterisk
fVegetation conclusion:
Number of dominant wetland indicator plants: 2 Number of non-wetland indicator plants: 6
Is the number of dominant wetland plants equal to or greater than the number of dominant non-wetland plants: ❑ yes {ono
lfvegetanon alone is presumed adequate to delineate the B VNI boundary,submit this form xith the Request for Determination ofApplicability or Notice oftntem. MA DEP, 3/95
HANCOCK
Environmental Consultants
❑235 Newbury Street
Route One North
Danvers,MA 01923
(978)777-3050
(978)352-7590
(978)283-2200
#705 (781)662-9659
Fax (978)774-7816
.................
January 22, 1999 ❑ 12 Farnsworth Street
J;�.' 22 ( Boston,MA 02210
(617)350-7906
Mark George, Chairman Salemr� et : V D(pt.
Salem Conservation Commission
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Gelpey Notice of Intent, 435 Lafayette Street (DEP File No. 64-0288)
Dear Sir;
The attached plans include revisions recommended by the Army Corps of Engineers, a section
through the proposed dwelling, and a proposed drain manhole and stone paved swaie.
The Army Corps input is explained in detail in my transmittal of January 8, 1999.
The section is self=explanatory, and provided in response to the Commission's request. The
drainage improvements have been proposed to alleviate sedimentation and pollutant discharge
from Lafayette Street.
The basin provides a sump and MDC type oil hood, (both apparently absent from the street
basins), and a stone paved Swale directing overflow away from the Phragmites bed. Maintenance
of the proposed basin can be accomplished by clamshell or suction dredging from Lafayette
Street, facilitated by the existing drainage easement over Mr. Gelpey's property. It should be
noted that the proposed modifications to the existing municipal drainage do not alter any
wetlands, and do not constitute anew point source discharge,as no additional runoff is added to
the catchment area.
I trust the attached plans and the data provided with my January 8 transmittal address the
Commission's concerns. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
HANCOCK NVIRO N ONSULTANTS
hn Dick
Wetland Scientist cc: Client/Atty./D. Standish
Division or Hancock Survey Associates,Inc.
= -HANCOCK
Environmental Consultants
❑235 Newbury Street
Route One North
Danvers,MA 01923
(978)777-3050
(978)352-7590
(978)283-2200
# 7053 (781)662-9659
Fax (978)774-7816
February 19, 1999 ❑ 12 iamsworth Street
Boston,MA 02210
(617)350-7906
Department of Environmental Protection
Northeast Regional Office
205aLowell Streetal
R E V
Wilmington, MA 01887
RE: Gelpey project DEP File No.64-288 FEB 19 IMIC'S
435 Lafayette Street Salerno Dept.
Salem,Mass.
Dear Mr. Standish-,
I attach a letter addressed to George Atkins,Mr. Gelpey's attorney, requesting Departmental
Action in the issuance of a Superseding Order of Conditions for the above-referenced project.
This transmittal and the attached supporting documentation is submitted by Hancock
Environmental Consultants in Attorney Atkins'absence, at Mr. Gelpey's request.
If you have any questions as to form or content, please address them to me at Hancock. I have
provided a copy of this entire package to Attorney Atkins, who may elect to represent Mr. Gelpey
upon his return, but for the immediate future, I will respond on my client's behalf.
Sincerely,
HANCOCK ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
John ick, PL 11
Wetland Scientist
Enclosures:
Correspondence to George Atkins, Esquire dated February 18., 1999
Cover letter to Department of Environmental Protection dated February 19, 1999
Transmittal Form dated February 19, 1999
Permit Site Plan revised through January 13, 1999
Correspondence from DEP to Kenneth Gelpey dated January 6, 1999
Correspondence from Army Corps of Engineers to Kenneth Gelpey dated December 17, 1999
Division of Hancock Survey Associates,Inc.
" CA01ISerVatiM, CA)11miSSi*,ECBVED
Salem. Massachusctts� 01970
ASS f� OCT -7 Fri 3= 34
SALEM
PL"�NNING Gt=PT.
Memorandum
To: Walter Power, Planning Board Chair
CC: Conservation Commission
From: Stephen Dibble, Assistant Pl r
Date: 10/07/99
Re: 435 Lafayette Street
As you know,the Notice of Intent filing of Mr. Kenneth Gelpy, for construction of a
single family house at 435 Lafayette Street, was denied by the Salem Conservation
Commission pursuant to both the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's local
wetlands ordinance.
On October 7, 1999, Department of Environmental Protection Section Chief James
Sprague confirmed that if a Notice of Intent is denied under both the state Wetlands
Protection Act and the local ordinance,the applicant, if they choose to appeal, would
be required to appeal the denial to both the DEP for relief from the Wetlands
Protection Act and to Superior Court for relief from the local wetlands ordinance.
Mr. Gelpy appealed to DEP and received a superseding Order of Conditions thereby
meeting the requirements of the state's Wetland Protection Act.
The applicant, having not appealed the local denial decision, is required to
refile with the Salem Conservation Commission pursuant to Section 50 of the
Salem Code of Ordinances,Wetlands Protection and Conservation.
COVER
SHEET FAX
To: Deb Hurlburt
Fax#: 9220285
Subject: Flood info
Date: February 8, 1999
Pages: 10, including this cover sheet.
Deb:
At least two known 100 year storms in past two years:
Oct 1996— 100 year
June 1998—100 year
Here is some good info from DEM,MEMA,NWS on-line. I am looking for more. Please call I have more info!
Thanks, Steve.
From the desk of...
Stephen Dibble
Assistant Planner
City of Salem, Planning Dept.
One Salem Green
Salem,MA.,01970
(978)745 9595 ext. 311
Fax:(978)740 0404
http://tgsv5.nws.noaa.gov/er/nerfc/historical/ hit ://tgsv5.nws.noaa.gov/er/nerfc/historical/
HISTORICAL FLOODS IN THE NORTHEAST
The following pages do.not attempt to document every single flood that has ever occurred in the
northeast United States. However, it does provide a broad overview of most of the record breaking
flooding that has occurred. In addition, it becomes apparent upon reviewing this, that in this part of the
country not all flooding is alike. Flooding can occur at any time of year, and can result from many
different types of meteorological events. In general, a single large rainfall event may be sufficient to
cause minor to moderate flooding. However,the largest floods in the northeast have generally been
caused by two large storms falling in a 7 day period. It should also be remebered that all 6 inch
rainstorms are not equal. A six inch rain in April, accompanied by snowmelt and wet soil conditions will
have a much larger impact on the rivers than a 6 inch rain in August when soil conditions are normally
much dryer and the vegetative cover consumes a large portion of the precipitation. In addition, following
the disastrous floods in the early part of this century, a large number of flood control projects have been
developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers. These have successfully reduced many flood peaks.
However, the entire area obviously cannot be controlled and more floods are sure to come.
November 1996
Record flooding occurred just west of Lake Champlain following a 5-8 inch rainfall
March/Ayril 1987
Heavy rains combined with snowmelt resulted in major flooding throughout New England
June 1982
Up to 16 inches of rainfall resulted in major flooding throughout Connecticut
June 1972
Hurricane Agnes moved up the East Coast. While the most significant damages were along the
Susquehanna River basin, major flooding was also reported along the Genesee River in Western New
York
March 1968
Heavy rain combined with snowmelt caused small river flooding in southeast New England
August 1955
Hurricanes Connie and Diane came a week apart to batter most of New England with the most
significant flooding recorded at many locations.
January 1949
A New Years Day storm resulted in flooding principally in the Hudson Valley
September 1938
Widespread 10 inch rainfall caused by a hurricane resulted in major flooding throughout the Connecticut
River valley
1 of 2 2/11/99 4:40 PM
http://tgsv5.nws.noaa.gov/er/nerfc/historical/ http://tgsv5.nws.noaa.gov/er/nerfc/historical/
March 1936
Heavy Rain and melting snow caused major flooding throughout the Northeast and Middle Atlantic
states
November 1927
A late season tropical system produced record flooding in Vermont.
2 of 2 2/11/99 4:40 PM
02/11/1999 16:40 617-727-9402 COMM MA-ENV MGMT PAGE 02
thunderstorms. The thunderstorms produce heavy, sometimes excessive,
amounts of rain. Throughout the year, the heaviest gales are usually
from the northeast or east and are more common and severe during the
winter. The coastal northeasters produce an abundance of rain and snow.
The average annual temperature is approximately 48 degrees Fahrenheit
('F) . The mean temperatures for January and July are 28.6°F and 69.5"F,
respectively (Reference 4) .
2.3 principal Flood problems
Thellow-lying coastal area salem! ar` a subject to the periodic flooding
an wave attack that accompany storms such ae-aosiheasters and
—bdrricane&. The majority of these storms--cause damageconly-to-low
�-coastal highways, boats,_beaches,Tand.-seawalls. occasionally, a major
storm accompanied by strong onshore winds-and_h t d res-ults_ insurge
- _-. 9 y_�----r--- --_=-
nd wave activity_}that causes extensive property damage and erosion.
Some-of-the more significant storms ih the Salem area include those of
Decemb959 (approxymately 160 and 15-year recurrence
er 1909 and 1
intervals;res � 9 —pectiveiy) and February 1972 and 1978 (approximately 25-
and 80-year recurrence intervals, respectively). These storms damaged
harbors, marinas, commercial developments, and residential developments
in the flood-prone coastal areas.
The area of the city_which has been consistently the most heavily_damaged
is Salem Willows. Also subject to damage are areas within s emal Harbor)
such as Derby Wharf, Palmer's Cove, and Forest River Park.'
_� C
Figure 2 shows flood lama '---' !-
ge rn Salem frcat the February 1978 northeaster
2.4 Flood protection Measures
Protective structures were constructed and are maintained by the city and
Private property owners to satisfy their individual requirements and
financial capabilities. Limited financial resources sometimes result in
less than adequate protection. These structures include such backshore
protection as timber and steel sheetpiles, bulkheads, stone revetments,
concrete seawalls, and pre-cast concrete units (Reference 5). In Salem,
( seawalls afford most of the coastal protection; they are divided
approximately equal between public and private ownership.
3.0 ENGINEERiNG METHODS
For the flooding source studied in detail in the community, standard
hydrologic and hydraulic study methods were used to determine the flood hazard
data required for this study. Flood events of magnitude which are expected_
to be equaled or exceeded once on the average during any 10-, 50-, 100-, or
5
02/11/1999 16:40 617-727-9402 COMM MA-ENV MGMT PAGE 03
The flood levels associated with historic storms were sim
sing a
modified version of the Ff24A storm gorge ulated u
model (References 6 and using
Input to the model consisted Of wind and pressure fields ther
by the synthetic northeaster model or a hurricane wind and pressureefield _
model for each historic storm selected. The study area was modeled usi ng
a square grid of sufficient resolution to accurately represent the
Offshore bathymetry and shoreline configuration. The grid mesh
an area from Cape Cod gay to north of covered
including Boston Harbor. Portsmouth, New Hampshire,
Output from the model included the time history
Of storm-induced surge elevations in the study area. These elevations
were combined with the predicted astronomical tide for the same time
period to produce total Stillwater elevations for the communities in the
study area. The total stillwater elevation was calibrated using historic
tide elevation data at Boston, Massachusetts, and Portsmouth, New
Hampshire. Thus, the historic storm-induced flood levels in Salem could
be simulated for each storm considered in the analysis.
The extent and frequency of recurrence of coastal flooding were
determined by conducting a frequency analysis of annual maximum tidal
heights along the coastline of Salem. Some historic Stillwater heights,
consisting of an astronomical tide and a storm surge contribution, were
determined by the mathematical simulation of historic northeasters and
hurricanes as described above; others, for which associated storm data
were not available, were obtained by a correlation analysis using tide
data from Boston or Portsmouth. The data base at the Boston gage
extended from 1970 discontinuously back to 1848; the shorter record at
Portsmouth was lengthened by a statistical correlation with data at
Boston and Portland. The annual maxima of these reproduced historic
stillwater elevations were fitted with a Pearson Type III distribution.
The goodness of fit was tested with the chi-square test and accepted at
the 95 percent confidence level. A detailed description of the
methodology employed in this analysis can be found in the report entitled
Determination of Coastal storm Tide Levels (Reference 9).
The stillwater elevations for the 10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year floods
have been determined for the Atlantic Ocean and are summarized in Table
1.
TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF STILLWATER ELEVATIONS
�4
ELEVATION (feet)
FLOODING SOURCE AND LOCATION 10-YEAR 50-YEAR 100-YEAR 500-YEAR
ATLANTIC OCEAN .-
Shorelines of Massachusetts
��
�Yr Salrm Aarboz; and ,
Beverly Hafbo`r� 8.5 9.3 9.6 10.4
8
02/11/1999 16:40 617-727-9402 COMM MA-ENV MGMT PAGE 04
The analyses reported in this Study reflect the Stillwater elevations due
to tidal and wind setup effects. The effects of wave action were also
considered in the determination of flood hazard areas. Coastal
structures which are located above Stillwater flood elevations can still
be severely damaged by wave runup, waFe-_induced,erosion, and wave-borne
debris. For example, during the February 1978 northeaster, considerable
damage along the Massachusetts coast was caused by wave activit
though most of the damaged structures yi. even
9 uctures were the high-water level.i�
The extent of wave runup past Stillwater levels de '
wave conditions and local topography. panda greatly on"tfie'
Wave heights and corresponding wave crest elevations were determined
using the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) method
ology
(Reference
The wave runup was determined usingdeveloped
stone
L
the methodology
logy developed by Stone 6
Webs
ter Engineering g ezing corporation for Or Fr74A (Reference 11) .
3.2 Hydraulic Analyses
Hydraulic analyses, considering storm characteristics and the shoreline
and bathymetric characteristics of the flooding source studied, were
carried out to provide estimates of the elevations of floods of the
r selected recurrence intervals along the shoreline.
f
Areas of coastline subject to significant wave attack are referred to as
coastal high hazard zones. The COE has established the 3-foot breaking
wave as the criterion for identifying the limit of coastal high Lazard
zones (References 12 and 13). The 3-foot wave has been determined as the
minimum site wave capable of causing major damage to conventional wood
frame or brick veneer structures.
A wave height analysis was performed to determine wave heights and
corresponding wave crest elevations for the areas inundated by the tidal
flooding. A wave runup analysis was performed to determine the height
and extent of runup beyond the limit of tidal inundation. The results of
these analyses were combined into a wave envelope, which was constructed
by extending the maximum wave runup elevation seaward to its intersection
with the wave crest profile.
The methodology for analyzing wave heights and corresponding wave crest
elevations was developed by the HAS (Reference 10). The HAS methodology
is based on three major concepts.
First, a storm surge on the open coast is accompanied by waves. The
maximum height of these waves is related to the depth of water by the
following equation;
9
02-11-1999 15:17 508 820+1404 MASS. EMERGENCY MGMT. FRAMINGHAM P.02
7�w- d USGS '
science for a changing world
The Flood of Uune 1998-in Massachusetts and Rhode Island
Prepared in cooperation with the Department of Commerce(DOC), Nadonal OceaMQ and Atmospheric
AdminlstratioNOAA), National Weather Ssrvk a(NWS)
More than 10 Inches ol�rainj Rivera and ground-water levels in normal(National Oceanic and
fell on some areas of eastern most of am=maesschusetts and Rhode Atmospheric Administration,
Massachusetis and more than island was gecardly already above National Weather Service,accossed
7Inch"fell on some areas of normal before the storm began on Jame July 30, 1998.at ht Olvivietnwe.
Rhode island during and 12.Them above-nmmal streamflow AM "oee gov�°r�Davindwchan9'
rolorl grolmd-water conditions were caused by Maximum intensity and
intense and
P 900 above-normal precipitation during the maximum daily rainfall totals
rainstorm fromjcWne 11-1 pious month,For example,total occurred on June 13,1998,with lesser
through June 15,498&On precrpttattoo for May at the National amounts on the following days.
some Streams,the magnitude v` e.thar Service(NwS)gage in Boston, Rainfall totals in Massachusetts and
of the floods resulting from Massachusetts was 6.85 inches, Rhode Island ranged from 2 inches on
the rain would be exceeded, 3.60 inches above normal,and total eastern Cape Cod and Nantucket
on average, only once atrory precipitation at Providence,Rhode Island I Island(fig. 1)to more than 10 inches
80 years.Estimated property was 6.05 inches,2.29 inches above of rain in an area approximately 30
damage from the June 1N�
floods,totaled nearly 5 million
dollars(Bryan Clain, rat' n* 711' 70'
Messacbhusetts Emergency
Management A envy,oral
commun., 1998f ' VERMONT NEWWV.IPSWE .
HYDROLOGIC AND
CLIMATIC CONDITIONS4W- 1 -
LEADING TOTHE JUNE
1998 FLOOD __
The most important fact or J
contributing to a flood is usually the aroMaoo-�e a
amount of rainfall.The magnitude of a �p�•rep
flood within a river basin depends on r •
the amount and intensity of the ran, d
duration of a rainstorm,and the 42' _ -
conditions preceding a rainstorm.The ,
"";"d
June 12-15 storm was unusual in its /p �'*
timing and magnitude.Most storms that
produce large precipitation totals and 1 bt
floods in New England occur either /
from the late winter to spring or mid- N.,,,ew a
NNITUCKU
summer to fall.in late winter and I 8 I 11
spring,rain failing on snow or frozen ;
ground causes snowmelt and high e1• - I w Isu�souan -
runoff,The'subsequcat floods are larger EXPLANATION
than precipitation alone would cream.
Flooding in mid-summer to fail usually —4— ttAtt mnu.•IN INCHES-xaorded for nm+n or lvn•12-15,twos
is caused by hurricanes or occasionally
severe summer cyclonic storms that ass rem U.a OWWAO army as,.Abe 04d o sp ate MILER
commonly generate precipitation of rw COMIC Wleatlon.IM. p aveit W so
high intensity and short duration.Thefrom om 'i00 .
June 1998 flood in eastern NWBFQNEra ,Temton,MUNOR N o +o eo KILOMETER•
ts
Massachusetts and Rhode island was
t.Map showing nlnfell axumulatl•na during the June 12-16,ISM storm In
caused by an intense,slow-moving Real•
ftnntel storm southern New England
Us.Geeloaleel Survey USGS Fsot Shoet 11e48
U.S.Department or the Interior
02-11-1999 16:17 508 820+1404 MA55. EMERGENCV MGMT, FRAMINGHAM P•03
Miles south of Boston(towns of THE JUNE 1998 FLOOD A recurrence interval is a measure of
Brockton and Sharon),Massachusetts the average number of years between
(David Valise,National Oceanic erg The USGS operates gaging stations events of a given magnitude.For
AhnosphericAdmimstradmNational (flg,2)on rivers throughout example,a 50-year flood occurs once
Weather San �clam" Massachusetts and Rhode Island when in 50 years,on average,and has a 1-
nti .The water level and flow am monitored
entire state of Rhode Ltlend daring in-50 chance of being exceeded in
this storm was about 6 inches, continuously.Many stations an any given year.Recurrence intervals
whereas western Massachusetts equipped with instrumentation that for peak flows recorded during the
received between 3 and 5 inches of allows the USGS,the NWS,State and June 1998 flood were calculated for
rasa At the U.S.Geological Survey national emergency management gaging stations with more than 10
(USGS)gaging nation on the agencies,and other organizations to years of continuous records,using
Sbawsheen River(station 9 on 68.2 monitor remotely the current water level methods recom
and mended by the U.S.
able 1),8.6 inches of rain were and flow of the rivers.The remote
recorded this storm,with the kBancY Advisory Committee on
most rain(5.8mches)falling on June monitoring of gaging rations during the Water Data(1982).
13,1998.The stoma set a new 24-hour June 1998 storm allowed officials to Recurrence intervals of peak
precipitation word of 5.99 inters at provide flood warnings and manage , flows calculated for the June 1998
the 11WS gage in Boston,nalawing response efforts in order to minimize flood in Massachusetts ranged from
the previous record of 3.35 inches,set damages caused by the flooding.Current 1.5 year on the Hooke River(nation
during June 9-10, 1975(National water level and streamflow,data for 46 on fig.2 and tables 1)to 50 years
Oceanic and Atmospheric many of the USGS gaging atatious are on the Abetjona,Neponset,Wading,
Administration,National Weather available on the Internet at and Tiueemile Rivets(stations 14,18,
Service,accessed July 30. l"S'at hapt'lmeser.arusgs povAmterNm. 24,and 25).Recurrence intervals of
�0wh Data collected at the USGS gaging peak flows in Rhode Island ranged
precipitation for June 12-15 in Boston stations made it possible to calculate the from 1.5 years on the Nipmuc and
was 7.93 inches, recurrence interval of peak flows during Usquepaug Rivers(stations 29 and
this storm relative to previously recorded 37) to 15 years at the pawaxet River
peak flows at the stations(table I). (station 34).
rt�
rsroo ta•W
uT
lot. trwroa
` r a
1
EXPLANATION ;
211A GAO=STXrWN3-SdWsuWd*fUfOS
aetamayb�asll�alden6fia!® � �
11111PM31111e1. See able roe dus
flyun 2.Map showing subset of USGS gaping stations used In Measechu"nat In rhgdo Island(data for each shown In Tables t and 21.
02-11-1999 16:18 508 820+1404 MASS. EMERGENCV MGMT. FRAMINGHAM P.04
Takla 1.Comparison of peak stapes and discharges during the June 12-15,1998 rainstorm with hletOrlael peak stapes and discharges at
selected U.B. 0ealogical Survvy gaging stations In Massachusetts and Rhode Island
(Sm1on numbers shown in figure 2:ftlh,cubic rat per nmd: tat interbred:mil,rquam miles:it,feet above an ability datum]
Provlwra tttaalmum ,MM 12-15,1W8 rainstorm
diwharga
Sla- U808
Son Oman Simon ream Drainage 1 Rwur
i Peak Mettlmom Pack Punk
N eta
Date renew
No. ID No.
m snaps disatargs met dleeharye Interval(m1) ( ere) (11) lOti (fD) h
M' ) (ywra)
I 01094000 North Nadtw River at Pitchbag,MA 53.4 4167 7.78 3410 6A2 1,710 3
2 010945M Nw*Nahua Rlvwm L4waWw MA 110 3/36 20,53 16,300 5.24 20150 3
3 O10960W Squanownnk River nets W.OmtW MA 63.7 4187 8.15 4,220 6.46 1.880 3
4 9IW65W Noshes River at Bat PepywA MA 435 3% 19.10 20,9W 8.13 4.300 3
5 0109700D AUBW River at Maynard.MA 116 W53 9.94 4,270 5.32 1.490 3
6 01097300 Nahoba Brook nee Acton.MA 12.8 In9 3.37 679 6.89 291 4
7 010993W Concord River below River Meadow Brunk m Lowe16 MA 400 In9 9.60 SAIO 7.97 3,070 4
8 011000W Merrimack River below Cement River at Lowell,MA 4635 3136 68,40 173,000 52.74 521BOD 7
9 01100568 Sbawdaea River a Hw sn, Pield weer SedIcK MA L09 10/96 6.05 373 1.69 654 -
10 01100600 Shawsheen River sets Wilmington,MA 3111 10196 10.49 1.850 9.03 1.240 20
I I 011010W Parker Rlmst efrAcK KA 21.3 ION6 7.62 883 4.26 302 5
12 OI IO1SW Ipswich River at South Middkten,MA 44.3 4187 7.88 11010 C67 600 7
13 Of 102MD 1ptwich Rive nor Ipswich.MA 125 4/87 0.43 3,550 7.20 11950 10
14 011023M Abedona River a Winchester.MA 24.1 1179 15.46 11330 15.22 1,070 50
15 01IM5W Chaks River at Doves,MA 183 W35 9.24 3,220 6.84 2,070 5
16 01104200 Cluakn River at Welloley,MA 311 310 6.20 20110 5.53 1.920 10
I 11 01100M Owing River at Waltham,MA 227 2n6 6.34 4,130 5.51 2.230 13
l8 011030W Neponeet River a Norwood,MA 36.7 8/35 14.65 1.490 10.89 1.100 30
19 onits300 Rat Breach Napomat River at Cwtow.MA 27.2 8135 8.19 1.790 5.78 1,030 11
20 011056W Old Swamp River new South Weymcnah.MA 4.5 301 3.92 5" 4.97 234 3
21 01105730 Indian Head River at Haas,MA 301 3168 7.13 L390 5.52 734 3
22 01105870 Jews;River at Kigplon,MA 13.1 3I68 4,50 573 4.40 199 2
23 01108000 limners Rival raw Bd4gw%W,MA 238 YU 14AS 4,980 10.01 2,1W 4
24 0f follow Wrdiag River was,Nomm,MA 43.3 Y69 11.47 IAA 11,47 LZZO 30
25 011o9060 1Tueeotile River at Nowh Dlghma.MA 84.3 319 8.30 2.490 8.89 2.910 50
36 01109070 Bepepwar River near Dlghton,MA 10.6 30 7.51 $67 6•15 589 7
27 011100M QWnclgawund River ItNorth 011111011,MA 25.6 8153 Ms 820 3.23 316 5
28 Ol J105M Blackmon Rives at Nmdtbnidge,MA 139 8/55 16.74 16,9110 1.75 21920 3
29 01111300 Nipmw River mar Harrisville.RI 16.0 ins 8.53 1,840 6.56 448 1.5
30 0111ISW Branch River al4satd"111 91.2 U79 11.90 SA70 757 2.010 3
31 011125W 8tacksmneRiveuWaonwckH,RI 416 8/55 ILeO 30110 9A8 4.720 3
j 32 01114WO Meatwaxk Rives at providence,Rl 23.1 3168 3.46 2390 5.13 11160 4
33 01114300 Woonsisa Cbn River at CenW",Rl 38.3 N68 7.73 1.440 5.54 B42 4
34 01116500 I%WWM River atCaoataw,Rl 200 6/82 14.50 5.440 11.14 3,2W IS
33 011170M Hunt River dar Fast Oraawich.R1 22.9 6182 3.73 I,010 2.36 394 3
36 011173" Chlptna River in Won Riuesten,Rl 9,99 Nee - 250 6.82 113 2
37 011174I0 Usquepwg River ma Usgtalattg,Rl 39.1 W82 0,23 LOW 6,33 347 1.5
36 011174U Deaver Rivaa tsUsquepang,Rl 9.97 6182 3.83 370 2.91 163 4
39 of 1173M Pawouvok Riverat Wood Rhw Junction,RI IM 6W 8.73 Law 5.73 897 4
40 011173M WeadalvermarAnadis,1111 35.2 3/68 8.64 8% W 494 3
41 0111L5W postattack River 0 Wcsady,At 295 6/82 12.86 7,070 7.76 2.650 3
42 0116= Not Bmok am WImkandO4 MA 19.4 9138 9.90 3,000 4.87 367 2
43 0117WW Deerlleld RiverweaWep Dwr6ald.MA SS? 4187 17.71 61,700 4.67 131100 2
44 0117OW Commandant River aMonu/o City.MA 7860 3136 49.21) 236,000 26.09 61,900 1.5
45 011975M H sammic Rimy oar Great Baaingue,tdA - 292 1/49 12A8 121100 7.42 4,140 3
46 013323W Novak Rim nor WOlimmucarn,MA 126 12148 14.83 13,000 BAB 2.930 1.3
02-11-1999 16:19 508 820+1404 MAS5. EMERGENCV MGMT. FRAMINGHAM P105
Table 2.Comparlson of peak stapes and discharges during the October 1096 and June 12.15,199e rainstorms at selected U.S.
Geological Survey gaging alldons In Massachusetts
[Station numbers shown in aaare 2;fish,Cable ha per Mcovd;U92.Wuate mike;O,rest above m arbiury damm)
October 2041.lose rainstorm June 12r151199e ralnat"M
3W USGs Drainage RsOuo-
than Station atatl,llmine arm peak Peak Recurrence peak Peak die- Rom
n0. ID N0. Inds) stage dlschsrga Interval steps charge mncv
internal
. (it) 015) (yaws) (10 (fr3h) (ymn)
6 0109730D NaArobaamakmrAetan,MA 12.1 333 60 30 6.99 291 4
IO 01MOM Shmahmnatva6eaWuedaµoa,9A 36.5 10d9 IA50 70 9.03 1.7A0 20
11 01101000 Patter River at 6yaeld.MA 21.3 7,82 883 150 4.26 302 5
33 01102000 ];%%iris River near Ipswich,MA 123 8.98 3,120 60 7.20 1,930 10
14 011MOO Abelom River aw'mchmfer,MA 24.1 15.78 1,13o 30 15,22 1,070 50
is 011033W Charles Rivera[Doter,MA 183 5.13 1.370 3 6.94 2,070 5
16 O1104= Charier River at Welledey.MA 211 3.16 Ip40 3 5.33 1,920 10
17 011o4sw Chutes Rive a Wakh&a4 MA 227 6.05 2.M 20 5.51 21230 13
Is 01105000 Newant River at Norvwod,MA 34.7 9.45 760 12 M89 I1100 so
24 01IMM Wading River am Natea,MA 43.3 11.45 410 1.5 11.47 1,220 50
COMPARISON WITH THE during the 1996 and 1998 storms,and the For more information,
OCTOBER 7996 FLOOD recurrence interval for the peak flow from
the basin during both storms was 50 years please contact.
The most recent storm that (station 14 on fig.2 and table 2).The District Chief
caused flooding in Massachusetts and upper Charles River Basin did not receive Maesaehusens•Rhode Island
Rhode Island previous to June1998 intense rain during the 1996 rainstorm, 28 Lord Road
omurred during-October ea,but the Boston arm encompassing the Suite 280
This storm and the June 1998 storm lower Charles River Basin,received more Madboroush,MA 01752
were the result of intense frontal than 8 inches of rain.The highest (508)4W5002
systems(with local maximum rainfall Mcurrencc-interval peak flows on the 1747Ameae1,er,vaga.gov
accumulations of about 10 inches). Charles River were recorded only at the Additional earth science information can be
The climatic conditions preceding the most downstream ggage at Waltham found by scoessia8 ate USGS Home Page
storm were similar.but the storms (station 17 on fig.2 and table 2),while on the World Wade Web R
differed in areal distribution and lower rocurrence-interval peak flows htlpJhvww.usgs.gov
intensity.Thed996atonn lasted about were recorded upstream at Dover and
24 hour and affected Wellesley(stations 15 and 16).The area
northeastern M�a hoaetts eastern of most intense rainfall was closer to the
New Hampshire,and southern Main, uppu Charles River Basin duringthe
Tha1998.storm.lasted-about4 days 199E storm than during the 1996storm,
and primarily affected southeastern as indicated by the higher recurrence
Massachusetts and Rhode Wood. intervals for peak flow at the two
The maximum re curronae upstream gaging stations for the 1998
intervals of the peak Howe recorded at storm then for the 1996 storm.
several gages new Boston and in
northeastern Massachusetts during the -by Gene W Parirar,Kemell G.Ries IN,
1996 strum were equal to or tas and Roy S.Socolow
than 30 years,as exemplifiedby --►vf h editorial and graphics help by
Nashoba Brook,Shawsbeen River, l5sate E.7riggggart Mary S.Ashman,
Parker River,Ipswich River,and Deftin A.KorzendoAer,Mark v,Bonko,
Aberjona River(stations 6, 10,11,13, and Luis E.MONY10
and 14 on fig.2 Rod table 2).The
maximum recurrence intervals of the References
peak flows recorded during the 1999
storm were 50 years at several gages U.S.Interagency Advisory Committee on
In eastern Massachtlset4,as U.S.
Date,19OZ Ouidelitw for
exempli5ed by the Aberjona, determining Rood How ftallueney:U.S.
NeponW Wading,and Throemile tkologlcal Survey,Hydrology
Rivets(stations 14, 18,24,and 23 on Subcommittee Bulletin 17H,leap. Pheto.USGS HydrologiR Inspecting e
fig.2 and table 1).About 7 inches of flooded geeing Ration done the Wading
rain fell in the Aberj011a River Basin River near Norton,Massachusetts
02/11/1999 16:40 617-727-9402 COMM MA-ENV MGMT PAGE 01
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIROMENTAL AFFAIRS Y'
DEPARTAIENT OF ENVIROiNAIENTAL MANAGEMENT
IOO CAMBRIDGEST..BOSTON.MA 0220'- PHONE 617-727.3190
FAX 617-727.940-1 www.state.ma.us/dem/
Arse*Paul Cellued
GOVERNOR
Jam
UMAswift
FAX COVER SHEET
UEIfTENANT GOVERNOR
8cib»umW
SIC"TARP
Peter C.Webber
aommmIom
Date:_1 1_ To Fax Number
Number of Pages:
s4e�v-i
i cludinZ covcrshcet
-To.
Compan3r
City: State:
Tronr Extension:
COMMENTS:
Uja sp
a
n
� � Y
02-11-1999 16:16 506 620+1404 MASS. EMERGENCV MGMT. FRAMINGHAM P.01
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMEW
MASSACHUSETTS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
AM90 rAUI CM I UCC
0avetum
L A%M=MAM
aowwmRr
nmut0.Lavc" e
Otl¢ =
MEMA DISASTER RECOVERY
FAX COVER SHEET
DATE: TIME: PAGES (Including thh cars ud3
TO: ST" e_ ®. )3b I c FAX Ne
FROM: PA -r I C) j PHONE#: 506-820.2000
FAX 8: 508•920-1 404
COMMENTS:
400 VY m"W RW • P.O.Banc 1490 • Fnminphml,MA 01701-0917 5WB20.2000 • Fax 508-8Y0.20.90
RONAN, SEGAL & HARRINGTON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
FIFTY-NINE FEDERAL STREET
JAMES T.RONAN(1922-1987) SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970-3470
JACOB S.SEGAL
MARY PIEMONTE HARRINGTON
GEORGE W.ATKINS,III (978)744-0350
BRIAN P.CASSIDY FAX(978)744-7493 G-685
FILE NO.
OF COUNSEL
HEATHER S.RAMSEY
February 8 , 1999
C �J 07
City of Salem
Conservation Commission"
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE: 435 Lafayette Street
Dear Members of the Commission:
At the last hearing on the above matter, the comments on
behalf of the applicant may have produced some unintentional
conflict . In order to assist your consideration of the impact of
the project on the Coastal Bank, I am enclosing clarifying comments
from the project engineer, Hancock Environmental Consultants .
In addition to Hancock' s opinions regarding the Coastal Bank
Performance Standards contained in the Code of Massachusetts
Regulations, please consider the following common experience
observations :
1 . The northeast direction runs diagonally through the
property which indicates the high degree of protection the
property has from wave action in northeast storms (Salem
Harbor' s principal storm wave action exposure) . The location
of the proposed structure is essentially a cove protected by
the projections of the immediately abutting properties and
retaining wall to the north, Jeggle Island and the Forest
River Park land masses to the northeast as well the natural
elevation of the Coastal Bank (8 ' -20 ' ) , and the proposed
elevation of the structure (above 141 ) .
2 . Despite the recent severe northeast storms and even the
recent 100 year events, the abutting residential structure
(estimated elevation 4 ' -8' ) to the immediate north-northeast
has not been damaged in any significant manner, even though
extreme high tides reach the top of the retaining wall along
the property.
3 . Elevation 14 feet where the lowest structural member of
the proposed structure is located is highly unlikely to be
subject to direct wave action, barring a cataclysmic
environmental event .
February 8, 1999
Page Two
4 . It appears that the untreated city storm drainage from
Lafayette Street has damaged the salt marsh and contributed to
the growth of phragmites . The applicant' s proposal to
construct a drainage catchment and swale to treat and redirect
the storm drainage will be an improvement to the salt marsh
resource area.
S . The wooden pilings which will entirely bear the proposed
structure will not harm the Coastal Bank or interfere with its
function to allow the infrequent tidal flow, and the upland
soil and wa=1 ..ill not be used for structural support .
6 . The frequent high tides and wave action occur at Mean High
Water (4 . 8' ) , Extreme High Water (5 . 6 ' ) , and Army Corps of
Engineers calculated la frequency annual high tide (7 . 21 )
which are all well below the 14 foot elevation of the lowest
point of the proposed structure; and below the uplands which
constitute the Coastal Bank. The latter is affected only by
100 year events .
Thank you for your review of these clarifying comments .
ry trul yours
George W. Atkins, III
Attorney for Applicant
GWA/mtc
CC : Abby L. Burns
Kevin Cornacchio
Rebecca Curran
Karen B. Fabiszewski
Debra A. Hurlburt
Paul E . Orr
S{.�,2�s �o�a �� �-'f'.
�` ��� E
i
t
r M �
780 CMR: STATE BOARD OF BUILDING REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE BUILDING CODE
flood elevation, shall conform to 780 CMR shall be provided with shutoff valves or closure i
3107.5.3. devices to prevent backwater flow during
3107.5.2 Anchorage: The structural systems of conditions of flooding.
all buildings or structures shall be designed, 3107.6 High-hazard zones (V Zones): Areas of
connected and anchored to resist flotation, 914 feet tidal influence which have been determined to be
collapse or permanent lateral movement due l subject to wave heights three
structural loads and stresses from flooding equal I °'his in excess of (
to the base flood elevation and shall be designed min) or subject to high-velocity wave run-up or
in accordance with 780 CMR 1615.3 and 1615.4. wave-induced erosion shall be classified as high-
hazard zones. All buildings or structures erected in
3107.5.3 Enclosures below base flood elevation: a high-hazard zone shall be designed and
Enclosed spaces below the base flood elevation constructed in accordance with 780 CMR 3107.6.1
shall not be used for human occupancy with the through 3107.6.4. Plansfor such construction shall
exception of structure means of egress, entrance be prepared by a registered professional engineer
foyers, stairways and incidental storage. Fully or architect to ensure compliance with 780 CAM
enclosed spaces shall be designed to equalize 3107.6
automatically hydrostatic forces on exterior walls Exception:a proposed addition that triggers the
by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. substantial improvement requirements shall be
Designs For meeting this requirement shall either constructed according to the provisions of
be certified by a registered design professional in 780 CMR 3107.6. However, the existing
accordance with 780 CMR 3107.12 or conform to structure is not required to be brought into
the following minimum criterion: a minimum of compliance with 780 CAM 3107.6,provided that
two openings having a total netarea of not less the addition IS NOT an adaltional story(s)which
than one square n) f en mm) for every one relies on the support of the edsting structure
square foot (o.] m) vi enclosed area subject to Should the construction of an additional
flooding shall be provided. The bottom of all story(s) meet the substantial improvement
openings n t i shall o be higher than 12 inches(305
definition,the e)dsting structure shall then meet
mm) above grade immediately adjacent to the all the applicable provisions of 780 CAM 3107.6.
location of the opening. Openings shall not be
equipped with screens, louvers, valves or other Note:Areas shown as V Zones on the most recent
coverings or devices unless such devices permit Flood Insurance Rate Map published by the
the automatic entry and discharge of floodwaters. Federal Emergency Management Agency shall be
3107.5.4 Water-resistant construction: considered in establishing high-hazard zones.
Occupancies in any use group other than Use 3107.6.1 Elevation: All buildings or structures
Group R shall, in lieu of meeting the elevation erected within a high-hazard zone shall be
provisions of 780 CMR 3107.5.1,be erected with elevated so that the lowest portion of all structural
floors usable for h man o u occupancy below the base members supporting the lowest floor, with the
flood elevation provided that the following exception of mat or raft foundations, piling, pile
conditions are met: caps, columns, grade beams and bracing, is
I. All space below the base flood elevation located at or above the base flood elevation.
shall be constructed with walls and floors that 3107.6.2 Enclosures below base flood elevation:
are substantially impermeable to the passage of All spaces below the base flood elevation in a
water.
2. All structural components subject to high-hazard zone shall not be used for human
hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and occupancy and shall be free of obstruction except
stresses during the occurrence of flooding to as permitted herein:
the base flood elevation shall be capable of 1. Mat or raft foundations, piling, pile caps,
resisting such forces, including the effects of bracing, grade beams and columns which
buoyancy. provide structural support for the building.
3. All openings below the base flood 2. Entrances and exits which are necessary for
elevation shall be provided with water-tight
required ingress and means of egress.
3. Incidental storage of portable or mobile
closures and shall have adequate structural items readily moved in the event of a storm.
capacity support all flood loads acting upon 4 Walls and partitions are permitted to
the closure surfaces enclose all or part of the space below the
4. All floor and wall penetrations for elevated floor provided that such walls and
plumbing, mechanical and electrical systems partitions are not pan of the structural support
shall be made water tight to prevent floodwater of the building and are constructed with insect
seepage through spaces between the screening,open wood lattice,or nonsupporting
penetration and wall construction materials. walls designed to break away or collapse
Sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems that have openings below the base flood elevation without causing collapse,displacement or other
434 780 CMR-Sixth Edition 2/7/97 (Effective 2/28/97)
- e
�MIf�1
CITY OF SALEM - MASSACHUSETTS
WILLIAM J.LUNDREGAN Legal Department JOHN D.KEENAN
City Solicitor Assistant City Solicitor
81 Washington Street 93 Washington Street 60 Washington Street
Tel:978-741-3888 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Tel:978-741-4453
Fax:978-741-8110 Fax:978-740-0072
January 26, 1999
Salem Planning Department
Steve Dibble, Conservation Administrator
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
RE: Opinion on Notice to Abutters
Dear Steve:
Issue Presented:
I am writing in response to your written request for a legal opinion pertaining to
notice requirements pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act. Your question
relates to a project at 435 Lafayette Street. Specifically, did the applicant need
to notify individuals who have a right of way in the subject property, to wit, are
they abutters pursuant to the statute and pertinent regulations?
Opinion;
No, the individuals with only a right of way interest in the subject property need
not be notified as abutters under the statute.
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 131, §40 provides in pertinent part:
Any person filing notice of intention with a conservation
commission shall at the same time give written notification
thereof, by delivery in hand or certified mail, return receipt
requested, to all abutters within one-hundred feet of the
property line of the land where the activity is proposed, at
the mailing addresses shown on the most recent applicable
tax list of the assessors, including, but not limited to,
owners ofianddirectiy opposite said proposed activity on
I
F ..
any public or private street or way, and in another
municipality or across a body of water.
Pa tY Y
(emphasis added)
Thus the issue becomes who is an abutter and owner of land. The Code of
Massachusetts Regulations offers the following definitions:
Abutter: means the same as owner of land abutting the
activity
Owner of Land Abutting the Activity: means the owner
of land sharing a common boundary or comer with the site
of the proposed activity in any direction, including land
directly across a street, way, creek, river, stream, brook or
canal.
310 CMR 10.04
Black's Law Dictionary (5`h Edition) further defines:
Owner: The person in whom is vested the ownership, dominion,
or title of property.
Right of Way: A right belonging to a party to pass over land of
another. It is only an easement; grantee requires only right to a
reasonable and usual enjoyment thereof with owner of soil
retaining rights and benefits of ownership consistent with the
easement
Easement: A right of use over the property of another. A right in
the owner of one parcel of land of land, by reason of such
ownership, to use the land of another for a special purpose.
I was not able to locate case law directly on point interpreting this unique
situation; however, those with merely an interest in the subject property,
specifically a use to cross the applicants land, are not owners of abutting land
and thus not required to be notified because of the right of way. Furthermore,
as the are not owners of abutting land the would not show u on the
Y 9 � Y P
assessor's"most recent applicable tax list."
It is my understanding that the potential development does not interfere with the
right of way. If it did, then certainly, they would have the option of addressing
same through appropriate legal action.
In coming to this opinion, I have also reviewed the guide you provided
"Concerning Abutter Notification Under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection
Act." I believe my opinion is consistent therewith.
Hopefully, this answers your question. If I can be of any further assistance, do
not hesitate to contact me.
Very best regards,
Jo D. nan,
As i tant City Solicitor
Jd 'm
CC. William Lundregan, City Solicitor
Correspondences from Hancock Environmental to Salem Conservation Commission
dated January 8 and 22, 1999
Correspondence from Hancock Environmental to George Atkins, Esquire dated February 5, 1999
2
HANCOCK
Environmental Consultants
❑235 Newbury Street
Route One North
Danvers,MA 01923
(978)777-3050
(978)352-7590
(978)283-2200
# 7053 (781)662-9659
Fax (978)774-7816
.................
February 18, 1999 ❑ 12 Farnsworth Street
Boston,MA 02210
(617)350-7906
George Atkins, Esq.
Ronan, Segal&Harrington
59 Federal Street
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Gelpey project DEP File No.64-288
435 Lafayette Street
Salem, Mass.
Dear George,
You have asked me to provide documentation in appeal of the Order of Conditions issued
February 11, 1999 by the Salem Conservation Commission. The following letter constitutes a
request, pursuant to provisions of 310 CMR 10.05 (7), for issuance of a Superseding Order by the
Department of Environmental Protection.
The Order includes one special condition, denying the applicant permission to build the proposed
dwelling, and citing a letter by S. Dibble dated 2/16/99. The following observations are offered
with reference to Mr. Dibble's letter.
1. It is evident that wind and rain erosion will be virtually eliminated from the area of
bank beneath the structure. The bank in question lies entirely above the elevation of
extreme high water, and is thus only susceptible to erosion during storm events. At such
times, the bank may be considered to function both as a source of sediment and as a
vertical buffer to storm waters. The placement of revetments on such a bank is
categorically prohibited for new construction. However, to the extent that the integrity of
the bank is compromised by the proposed removal of trees, the applicant has stated his
intention to leave roots and stumps in place, as well as to plant shade-tolerant ground
cover. Such additional erosion control measures as may be recommended by CZM or the
Department would be implemented by the applicant.
2. The southeast corner of the proposed dwelling extends a short distance above an area
presently occupied by a monoculture of Phragmites growing in a sediment deposit
resulting from street drainage. The characterization of such an altered environment as salt
marsh can only be based on the assumption that salt marsh once extended into that area.
This is a reasonable assumption, but ignores the fact that only Phragmites now occurs in
the area which will He beneath the structure. In the event that salt marsh vegetation were
Division of Hancock Survey Associates.Inc.
restored in the future, it might reasonably be expected to extend no higher than the limit of
annual high water, (approximately elevation 7.2 NGVD), as established by the Army
Corps of Engineers. The lowest structural member of the proposed dwelling will be above
elevation 14, providing a minimum vertical clearance of 6.8 feet, and will extend only two
feet over the line of annual high water.
3. Pilings are not specified as `coastal engineering structures' within the text of the
coastal bank regulations. The reason for this omission is evident. Pilings supporting a
structure above a coastal bank will have no significant effect on the ability of the bank to
supply sediment to coastal beaches, dunes or barrier beaches, nor would the presence of
pilings interfere with the function of the bank as a vertical buffer to storm waters.
4. Coastal storm flowage under the structure may erode the bank as a result of
vegetation removal. The matter has been addressed by the discussion in paragraph L,
above. The applicant has proposed all appropriate measures to control and minimize such
potential erosion, so far as these measures are consistent with the regulatory performance
standards.
5. The determination that the bank is significant to storm damage prevention is
undisputed. The bank consists of a stone masonry wall which extends as a vertical buffer
well above the elevation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency Velocity Zone at
elevation 14 NGVD. The top of this wall, which extends for several hundred feet along
Lafayette Street south of the subject property, is generally at an elevation of 20 or more
feet. A second component of the coastal bank is the vegetated soil which lies against the
face of the wall beneath the proposed dwelling. This soil, (which may or may not be of
natural occurrence), serves both as a vertical buffer and as a source of sediment. Every
reasonable effort has been made by the applicant to address the performance standards for
both functions. To the extent that further measures are proposed by the Department,
those issues will be addressed.
This correspondence, the original Notice of Intent, and various supplemental documentation
constitute the substance of my client's application. I submit the entire record as substantiation
that the proposed activity complies in all respects to the provisions of the Wetland Protection
Regulations (310 CMR 10.00), and particularly with regard to those performance standards set
forth therein for work within Coastal Bank and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (310
CMR 10.30).
It is noted that neither the Order nor the referenced letter cites a deficiency of documentation, and
that Department review is therefore not limited to the record pursuant to the provisions of section
10.05 (6) (g). This consideration is mentioned with respect to possible review by Coastal Zone
Management for consistency with appropriate regulations and policies, which review is hereby
made part of this request.
This request has been submitted to the Salem Conservation and to the owner of the land by
certified mail or hand delivery on February 19, 1999.
2
I hope that these observations will be helpful. Please let me know if I can provide further
information.
Sincerely,
HANCOCK ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
John Dick, PL
Wetland Scientist
Enclosures:
Cover letter to Department of Environmental Protection dated February 19, 1999
Transmittal Form dated February 19, 1999
Permit Site Plan revised through January 13, 1999
Correspondence from DEP to Kenneth Gelpey dated January 6, 1999
Correspondence from Army Corps of Engineers to Kenneth Gelpey dated December 17, 1999
Correspondences from Hancock Environmental to Salem Conservation Commission
dated January 8 and 22, 1999
Correspondence from Hancock Environmental to George Atkins, Esquire dated February 5, 1999
REQUEST FOR DEPARTMENTAL ACTION FEE TRANSMITTAL FORM
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DIVISION OF WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS
PERSON/PARTY MAKING REQUEST: APPLICANT:
(If appropriate, name the citizen (As shown on Notice of Intent
groups representative) __ or Request for Determination)
Name
JO WJ PICK McSr`�7?9t [on13�R.�tlNTSName ��NN�_ �4 t=Z:f�6`I'
Street 1,35 N&t,�'3LA2Y s7-. Street 1 3o L0TH,P-0/o,5T.
city/Town �ANoe•5' city/Town Q� ur'
State H4 zip code 01YZ3 State M14 zip code 01F1 J
Phone Number ('761) 66 Z• U59
�j 54LEM 64 . 288
PROJECT LOCATION: -r.3 .5 LA'FA'YtTrF S7-. DEP FILE NUMBER
DATE LOCAL OR SUPERSEDING ,ORDER/DETERMINATION ISSUED
6
Amount of Filing Fee Attached: $ 50
INSTRUCTIONS•
WHEN THE DEPARTMENTAL ACTION REQUESTED IS (check one)
Request for superseding order of conditions ($50)
Request for Superseding Determination of Applicability ($50)
17 send this form and a check or money order for $50.00, payable to the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to the DEP Lock Box at:
Dept. of Environmental Protection
Box 4062
Boston, MA 02211
2. send a coov of this form and a cony of the check or money order with
the Request For Department Action to the appropriate DEP Regional
office:
DEP/Northeast Regional Office e
19 _____ga way Z05A(0wer(5 �ce4i�le—Fesorta_, -e�e�AS
z�'--
i
WHEN THE DEPARTMENTAL ACTION REQUESTED IS A: (check one)
Request for Adjudicatory Hearing ($100)
Request to Intervene in Adjudicatory Proceeding ($100)
Recuest for a Variance ($4, 000)
1.Send this form and check or money order, payable to the commonwealth or-
Massachusetts, in the indicated amount to the DEP Lock sox (at the above
address) and
2 .se nd a conv of this form and a cocv of the check or -,or.=__- order with z-e
Recuest for Departmental Acticn to:
Doc:¢=__ cle_s..
0-"Ice e_ General Counsel
Winter Street
Boston, Ma 02108
11/20/92
HANCOCK
Environmental Consultants
❑235 Newbury Street
Route One North
Danvers, MA 01923
(978)777-3050
(978)352-7590
(978)283-2200
# 7053 (781)662-9659
Fax (978)774-7816
.................
February 5, 1999 ❑ 12 Farnsworth Street
Boston,MA 02210
(617)350-7906
George Atkins, Esq.
Ronan, Segal & Harrington
59 Federal Street
Salem,MA 01970
Dear George,
You have asked me to address performance standards for Coastal Banks.
The resource"Coastal Bank" is defined in 310 CMR 10.30, as well as in DEP Wetland Protection
Program Policy 92-1. Our delineation on the Gelpey site indicates that the majority of the upland,
and in most cases the vertical face of the wall along Lafayette Street, constitutes Coastal Bank.
The basis for this conclusion is the above referenced policy, which establishes the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Velocity Zone as the limit of coastal storm erosion.
Land above the limit of the Velocity Zone, (which in this instance lies at elevation 14), may or
may not constitute Coastal Bank, as it varies in slope. Application of the policy guidelines to the
Gelpey site requires that virtually the entirety of upland against the wall, being fairly steep in
slope, must be considered Coastal Bank.
This upland consists largely unconsolidated till, stabilized by Ash-leafed and Norway Maples,
Bittersweet and Knotweed. None of these species are particularly long-lived,but all are persistent
weeds, capable of growing in disturbed and polluted environments. The roots, especially of the
maples, will persist and sprout, even beneath the proposed house. In the long term, it is advisable
to plant the slope with shade-tolerant species, such as vining honeysuckles, to prevent erosion by
upland runoff. (Upland runoff is unlikely to be much of a problem, as the house will protect the
slope from rainfall, and the City drain will be modified to control erosion.) However, there is a
second source of erosion,wave action, which occurs during coastal storms and extreme high
tides.
It is clear from 310 CMR 10.30 that only two interests are served by Coastal Bank, and that the
performance standards are very specific to the resource. Insofar as Coastal Banks are primarily
structures, these performance standards are structural in nature.
Division of Hancock Survev Associates.Inc.
One function of a Coastal Bank is to provide sediment to Coastal Beaches, Coastal Dunes or
Barrier Beaches. 310 CMR 10.30 (5) requires that a specific condition be added to any Order
issued for buildings on or within 100 feet of a Coastal Bank. "...no coastal engineering structure,
such as a bulkhead, revetment, or seawall shall be permitted on an eroding bank at any time in the
future to protect the project allowed by this Order..."
The second function of a Coastal Bank is to protect existing structures. The wall supporting
Lafayette Street falls within this category. Its stability must not be compromised. -
These standards may seem contradictory. How can one maintain the integrity of a bank without
building walls? The fact is that the Office of Coastal Zone Management and DEP were faced with
a contradictory set of circumstances. In some instances, natural as well as man-made structures
resist erosion and floodwaters. In others, natural and, unfortunately, man-made structures
contribute to wave-driven erosion. Regulations that ignore this dichotomy ignore reality. Often,
as in this case, both functions are served by components of the same bank. The design presented
addresses the regulatory performance standards, and in my opinion presents no threat to the
Coastal environment.
It would be helpful to distinguish between the various tidal events being discussed.
• Mean High Water(MHW)is the average of high tides observed over a 19 year period, and is
a matter of record maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers and National Oceanographic
and Aeronautic Administration. The elevation of Mean High Water is 4.8 feet.
• Extreme High Water(EHW) or `Spring Tide' is the average of monthly high tides, which fies
at 5.6 feet.
• The one percent (1%) frequency tide is the highest tide of the year. (This one percent tide is
the line added to the plan at the request of the Army Corps of Engineers; its elevation is 7.2
feet.)
• The Velocity Zone, shown on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance
Rate Map, is based on calculations of wave action superimposed upon a tidal 100-year base
flood elevation of 9.6 feet. The elevation so established for the Gelpey property is 14 feet.
All of the elevations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are based on the National Geodetic
Vertical Datum (NGVD), which is the plan datum, established by field survey referenced to a
benchmark shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. NGVD is a fixed datum established with
reference to tidal observations as of 1929. Some confusion has arisen from the fact that tide
tables and published high water elevations are based on observed Mean Low Water at Boston.
The elevation of Mean Low Water is-4.4 NGVD.
The design standard for new construction within a Velocity Zone is that no horizontal structural
member may be built below the defined elevation(14 feet). The proposed building is supported
entirely by piles driven to bearing within and beneath the upland portion of the site. The wall
along Lafayette Street is not part of this structure, nor does the building depend on the presence
of the upland till for its integrity. The ability of the upland to erode in response to wave action
will be unaffected by the pilings, and cannot be prevented by armoring of the bank: House or no
house, wave action and storm flooding will continue unaltered. In neither case may the property
owner interfere with that natural process.
I hope that these observations will be helpful. Please let me know if I can provide further
information.
Sincerely,
HANCO K E CONSULTANTS
0
Wetland Sc
HANCOCK
Environmental Consultants
❑235 Newbury Street
Route One North
Danvers,MA 01923
(978)777-3050
(978)352-7590
(978)283-2200
97053 (781)662-9659
Fax (978)774-7816
January 22, 1999 ❑ 12 Famsworth Street
Boston,MA 02210
(617)350-7906
Mark George, Chairman
Salem Conservation Commission
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Gelpey Notice of Intent; 435 Lafayette Street (DEP File No. 64-0288)
Dear Sir,
The attached plans include revisions recommended by the Army Corps of Engineers, a section
through the proposed dwelling, and a proposed drain manhole and stone paved Swale.
The Army Corps input is explained in detail in my transmittal of January 8, 1999.
The section is self-explanatory, and provided in response to the Commission's request. The
drainage improvements have been proposed to alleviate sedimentation and pollutant discharge
from Lafayette Street.
The basin provides a sump and MDC type oil hood, (both apparently absent from the street
basins), and a stone paved Swale directing overflow away from the Phragmites bed. Maintenance
of the proposed basin can be accomplished by clamshell or suction dredging from Lafayette
Street, facilitated by the existing drainage easement over Mr. Gelpey's property. It should be
noted that the proposed modifications to the existing municipal drainage do not after any
wetiands, and do not constitute a new point source discharge,as no additional runoff is added to
Me catchment area.
I trust the attached plans and the data provided with my January 8 transmittal address the
Co='ssion's concerns. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
RANCOCK N'VIl:,'OXN N ONSULTANTS
l
1
hn Dick
Wetlanri CniPntict rr. (-'liPni%Attu /'il. \tanLlich
D:'•.>:or o. riena�:'z Ssr:e: Assceis._,. L.,.
HANCOCK
Survey Associates, Inc.
235 Newbury Street
Danvers,MA 01923
(978)777-3050
Fax (978)774.7816
# 7b53
Bolton, MA
(978)779-6767
January 8, 1999 Boston,MA
(617)350-7906
Mark George, Chairman
Salem Conservation Commission
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01070
RE: Gelpey Notice of Intent, 435 Lafayette Street (DEP File No. 64-0288)
Dear Sir;
At the Commission's request, Mr. Gelpey and Hancock have pursued statements from the Army
Corps of Engineers and DEP Division of Waterways relating to jurisdiction in the above
referenced filing.
The Corps asked that two pilings be relocated upgradient of extreme high water. This
accomplished, a letter was issued indicating that the project requires no independent Corps of
Engineers review. Copies of that letter have been provided to the Commission by Mr. Gelpey.
1 contacted Raymond Marino, of the Waterways Division, and was in turn called by Jill Provencal,
who informed me that a letter indicating the extent of Waterways jurisdiction would be prepared
shortly. At such time as that document is available, it will be provided to the Commission, if,
indeed, it is not addressed directly to the Commission.
In response to the Notification of file number dated I1-19-98, I prepared a vegetation inventory
just upgradient of the Phragmites bed and have provided copies to Derek Standish, the DEP case
officer. The vegetation is unequivocally upland in nature, consisting for the most part of
opportunistic weed species capable of colonizing disturbed sites. Copies ofthe Field Data Sheets
are attached.
Sincerely,
HANCOCK ElN'V1-RONN011TAL CONSULTANTS
LS
Wtietlan cc: Chent./Atty/D. Standish
# 7053
DEP Bordering Vegetated Wetland (310 CMR 10.55) Delineation Field Data Form
Applicant__Gelpey___Prepared by. __HancockEmdromnental__Project Location_435 Lafayette St., Salem_DEP File#___064-0288_
Check all that apply:
0 Vegetation alone presumed adequate to delineate BVW boundary: rill out Section I only
Vegetation immediately upgradient of Phragmites bed has been characterized at DEP request(notification of file number 11-19-98)
Section L Vegetation Observation Plot Number: ___A-10_ Transect Number: _5'upgradient_Date of Delineation: _23DE98__
A. Sample Layer and Plant Species B.Percent Cover C. Percent Dominance D. Dominant Plant E. Wetland Indicator
(by common/scientific name) (or basal area) (yes or no) Category*
Herbaceous
Knotweed Polygonum curpidatimt 60 100 yes FACU-
Vine
Wild cucumber Echinocystis lobata 20 33+ yes *FAC
Bittersweet Celastnts orbiculata 40 67 yes FACU
Shrub
Multiflora rose Rosa nmlti fora 20 50 yes FACU
Norway Maple Acer platanoides 20 50, yes FACU
Sapling
Norway Maple A. platanoides 20 100 yes FACU
Tree
Elm lJbnu.s americana 20 33 yes *FACW-
Nonvay Maple A.platanoides 40 67 yes FACU
* Use an asterisk to mark indicator plants: plant species listed in the wetlands Protection Act(MOL c. 131, s.40);plants in the genus sphagnum,plants listed as FAC,
FAC+, FACW-FACW, FACW+, or OBL, or plants with physiological or morphological adaptations. If any plants are identified as wet land indicator plants due to
physiological or morphological adaptations, describe the adaptation next to the asterisk
Vegetation conclusion:
Number of dominant wetland indicator plants: 2 Number of non-wetland indicator plants: 6
Is the number of dominant wetland plants equal to or greater than the number of dominant non-wetland plants: ❑ yes silo
1l vegelauo:atrnu:s pre,umed adequate to delineate the 0 i'll' boundary,submirlhisform with the Request(or'Determinanon o1 Applicabilitv or Notwoofintent. MA DEP, 3/95
RECEIVED DEC 2
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
NEW ENGLAND DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS
696 VIRGINIA ROAD
CONCORD,MASSACHUSETTS 01742.2751
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
Regulatory Branch December 17, 1998
CENAE-C O-R-199803590
Mr. Kenneth Gelpey
130 Lothrop Street
Beverly, Massachusetts 01915
Dear Mr. Gelpey:
We have determined that a Department of the Army permit is not required for your project
that is located at 435 Lafayette Street which includes the construction of a house provided the
recommended changes are made to the pilings as noted on the plan.
This determination is based on the information in your application and on the attached
plans in I sheets, entitled "PERMIT SITE PLAN IN SALEM,MA PREPARED FOR
KENNETH GELPY", and dated, "October 16, 1998, REVISED 17 DEC 98".
Our regulatory jurisdiction encompasses all work in or affecting navigable waters of the
United States under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the discharge of
dredged or fill material into all waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands, as well
as the excavation and grading within those waters, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Since your proposal does not include any of the aforementioned activities, a Department of the
Army permit is not required.
Please note that performing work within our jurisdiction without a Corps of Engineers
permit can result in prosecution by the U.S. Government. Violations of Section 10 can result in
criminal prosecution with fines ranging from$500 to $2,500 per day of violation and/or
imprisonment for up to one year. Violations of Section 404 are punishable by civil fines of up to
$25,000 per day and/or imprisonment for up to one year.
Finally, our Corps permit process does not supersede any other agency's jurisdiction.
Therefore, if other Federal, State, and/or local agencies have jurisdiction over your proposed
activity, you must receive all other applicable permits before you can begin work.
-2-
If you have any questions regarding this letter,contact(Mr.) Laurie H. Suda
at (978) 318-8493, (800) 343-4789 or (800) 362-4367 within Massachusetts.
Sincerely,
4AdsKazen Kir
Chief, Permits &Enforcement Section
Regulatory Branch
Attachments
Copy furnished
Hancock Environmental Consultants, 235 Newbury Street, Danvers, Massachusetts 01923
]s ISALEM HARBOR
3 I
,',MEAL WARY �I .e.e I REDUCED BY 64 %
RETAINING WALL
LOT 1
i� nvAt FUTs ,T.x296.t s I
2_ .�
- 9 I 1
\ �gy
° 7A^p•GL7WRSN o I(a
13 A Y
' Lt.
3.e
1.9 jig
ll
. I—
\ / •]:z noAL FLATS
W A-3 \ 4■ A-z
. SALT MARSYf •� ' �.> —_ --2 2.2 I .
�. WA-4 .�.x WA-6 .,.J
v �
Mr A—J 9.J le. f TCw LY s4LAUR9/
e.e. � . s.J _ �D06f. iV.19 I
All, 3° PHRAGWTLS `Y s. 10 - /•\
DERBERB Y --T -- ���]. e -CMC RCIA:/.9NC WALL
o1�
\ J Jo . A-»
p n.. . . 1.5 p
t'0S TiZ�uAG4 �Ol S
r3 _-- _ /,� /" J .ae LOT 2 LGI�'i�$ �� [-/�/r�L2'72
�I . n, / : Cia�sfy C/`-"
h d ^/
--il, 20.5 L_ Ci
T(1P QF COASTAL BANK I xoY I e I' / / sb /y LIMIT OF YELOpTY ZONE (V.J)
j J i �` er.; /' ELEV. W FEMA (SEE NOTE 4) LZC-7.'77G1 ,� CF -7 z J
x0 `-, ar J.,� 2M10
CH
-)
"^ CRAN/TE BL" RETAINING WALL
REDUCED BY 64 %
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Metropolitan Boston - Northeast Regional Office
ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI
Governor
TRUDY COXE
Secretary
J A N 6 1999 DAVID B.STRU}IS
Commissioner
Mr. Kenneth Gelpey
c/o Mr. John Dick
Hancock Environmental Consultants
235 Newbury Street
Danvers, MA 01923
RE: Proposed construction of a single-family dwelling at 435 Lafayette Street, Salem Harbor,
Salem.
Dear Mr. Gelpey:
Upon review of the Notice of Intent(64-288), and associated plans for the construction of a
single-family dwelling at 435 Lafayette Street as well as Department records and maps,the
Department has determined that no Chapter 91 license will be required as the work to be
performed is above the mean high water shoreline and appears not to be on an area of previously
filled tidelands.
If you have any questions, please contact Jill Provencal at (978) 661-7778.
incerely,
tC� �_ f� .`�"
es A. Sprague /J•11y Provencal
Section Chief / n�it nmental o Analyst
Division of Wetlands and Waterways ivision of Wetlands and Waterways
cc: Derek Standish, DEP/DWW
Salem Conservation Commission
This information is available in alternate format by calling our ADA Coordinator at(617)574-6872.
205a Lowell St. Wilmington,MA 01887•Phone (978)661-7600• Fax (978)661-7615 •TDD k(978)661-7679
0 Pant =Reryda Paper
r
02/05/99 16:31 FAX 906
71A!`attD• 1\RPADTedR1.IT nC�.rsrmntnacsrr,r nonvcrr•rn...
103(k contmxd
WHEN A COASTAL BANK IS DETERMINED TO BE SIGNIFTCANf TO STORM DAMAGE
PREVENTION OR FLOW cozfnt I. BECAUSE fr SUPPLIES SEDIMENP TO COASTAI. -
REACHES.COASTAL DUNES OR BARRIER REACHES.3 to CMR 10.300)through(S)SHALL
APPLY.,
(3) NO eeavha8diead,reveemmt senve8lpoao0fdherwadaleogaeaiogtlnooeoedaa8lepanatedon
such a mawt haok amgg that 9rch a wmW mgneacg arvict ere Aa8 be permitted vrlwo regaeed to
Play*t seam d®®eto bml&v commuclulp mW to the edcmda date of310 0&1021 through 1037
or cwcearticaad ptesmax to a Nodes of lama glad prior to the c2xdw date of310 CMR 1021 tbmgb
1037(August 10, 19781 otdadoog mmmtructiam of much bmldW aftetptmt m the di idM date of
310 CNR 10.21 through 1037.provided 6te1 the bHowugrequirmmms at rmt
(a) g wa0e1 e0g�g�ra7ure or a modifie>moa fhaaM ia➢be deaipred and corahueeed son m
ommhe,usug 1»asa Wle tnemaam edwase efibda OR adpm%or waft coastal besebes dug to
drmgn in new Motion,and
()) 16e appbcm d®oaareces Wt oo rae6wd of pmteaiag the bedding odw thm the proposed
cowsi etgi "g struame httnaele.
(c) wAccomplanong I igred co red—crod-mayhepmrrimd, .
(4) Anypmjed on a coasW hack or wkbm 100 fat brtdeard ordw sup of a awast bask,ut a darn s
shtan permitted by 310 CIA 10-VI chat gel have m whcw e9'ea dire to wave Mans en am
movement ofsedi wet 5om the wmtd bwkto coastal beeches or ImtduAgmt to tidal saber
(S) The Order of Ceodtiom and the Cwffe a of Cortpkam for may aew haft wahn 100 fat
kadward ofthe ttp of a comtd beak ptsmaead by the immg and wiy uuda M.GL.a 131,a 40 chat
COMM rue epedfic atmdhaa 110 CM 109o(9L aortru atcd ender M.O.L.4131,a 40,mgA%s dos
no mustelcv6=rbmg sducttim such as a bullbod,m%toncro,or aeewall da be pamited an so erod'mg
bwrrc at my timer m the btme to parted the project&Nwed byths Order ofCordidms.
WHEN A COASTAL BANK IS DETERMRJ6b TO BE SIGMFICANI TO STORM DAMAGE
PREVENTION OR FLOOD CONTROL BECAUSE rr IS A VERTICAL BUPM TO STORM
WATERS,310 CMR 10,30(6)through(g)SHALL APPLY,
. (6) Any project on onch a rasasl hnrk or within 100 feer h ndwmd of the trip of such costal book mat
lave no move=cTas an me sash-'myofthe wasml hank
(7) R Md-6 rewtme s,amwail%groin a odw wasw mgow.hrg aeumuea nay he pembed On
Muria a mom math naaept aahea=0 bmdr is 8is to amrm dmnw protcrem or good coma
b=s=a supplies sedaneot to coaaal bmrh- oomerl drmm ad bar=bmcbm.
(8) Norwiffimwdog the providoro of310 OdR 1030(3)tbmugb(71 no projw may be pambw which
wti hays gay edwse eHed on specified httbaa Sias ofmre vatehate of®verteorwe spca,as xbmbw
byproeedmat Adwd under 310 CMR 10.37.
1031, Rodkv lmcrw d Shows
(1) Preamble. Rocky mmtidal shoes we lk* to be som icat m mom de pwmxvu, (food
caunol patemon of marine fshris and wtldkk bab®t and whom there arc&BfidL protmoo ofleod
cc ® andimb.a
Rody since awjmmmuts am baba n formnoelp a and mwm itaereehma and Waysk pro
to and food br,WW main orgm such as crnhs,bbaters,mod such fah ope=as wiger tmada,
as well as a munher of bariq Most trmitc pbmts and m®els bend in rocky A=whonmems are
nmiquely a&Ptcd to UWAVa thse and G®at survive dwWiem Hahor seals Ww=rocky haatidal
Own such w rock odcroppmge or kobledshaas ofwd Words.as hurl out seas.
6126198 310 CMR-369
02/05i88 18;31 FAX 904
The design standard for new construction within a Velocity Zone is that no horizontal structural
member maybe built below the defined elevation(14 feet). The proposed building is supported
entirely by Diles drim to bearina within and beneatb the upland nnriinn of fhw cite n..Thmil
along Lafayette Street is not part of this structure, nor doers the building depend on the presence
of the upland till for its integrity. The ability of the upland to erode in response to wave action
Will be unBff eted by the pilings, and cannot be prevented by armoring ofthe bank House or no
house,wave action and storm flooding will continue unaltered_ In neither case may the property
owner interfere with that natural process.
I hope that these observations will be he AL Please let me know if I can provide flu Cher
infbrmation
Sincerely,
HANCOCK ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
John Dick,PLS
Wetland Scientist
ems..•,: - yg£�(A t OACf _
NEW ENGLAND TEST BORING CORP.
Tel.'567-7526 TEST BORING REPORT BOSTON, MASSACNUSETTS
` Mr. Phillip S. Webster Date 6/9/81 Job No. 6939—A
0
Location 435 Lafayette Street Salem, Ma. �l0 1— ,
Figures in right hand column indicate number of blows required to drive 2 inch sampling spoon 6 inches, using 140-lb. weight falling 30 inches.
BORING #1 BORING #2 BORING #3
Elev. Elev. Elev.
SAND & SAND,
SAND & TRACE OF LOAM &
LOAM FILL LOAM FILL -- MISC. FILL --
. 3 3
396 STIFF YELLOW MEDIUM DENSE 2
STIFF CLAY & TRACE
YELLOW 12 OF FINE SAND 10 MEDIUM 3
CLAY. 14 & INORGANIC 12 YELLOW SAND 3
SOME SILT 18
FINE
SAND 7a6
& 8 t '
6 DENSE 9
TRACE FINE 10 11
OF YELLOW 13 13
INORGANIC 14 SAND, 17 DENSE
SILT 15 TRACE MEDIUM
18 OF YELLOW-
GRAY
12 061L CLAY SAND
DENSE FINE &
YELLOW SAND 10 INORGANIC 12 12
TRACE OF CLAY 12 SILT 13 14
& INORGANIC 13 15 16
QTTYP
1 5 15 water level-Mcra. 15 water level-t da
water level-t da
I...1. i..ai..�t.a are thus. observed at the completion of each berinH. and do not neceEsarlly represent permanent HI'0uo0
.1 � 0+ f . � . .. _�' . -EjL7>ZLEI•-L'l.OP.PL /, ��.
I
l A
1 � )
J