PEABODY — The battle over illegal tree removal at Salem Country Club (SCC) reached a boiling point at a meeting Wednesday night.
Last January, SCC was issued a notice of violation for illegally removing trees in protected areas. SCC had permission from the Peabody Conservation Commission to remove 2o trees on the course property, but admitted to removing 685 — 233 of which were removed illegally. SCC has since been fined $69,000 and issued an enforcement order requiring it to create and execute a restoration plan.
At a public meeting on Tuesday, SCC submitted what the Conservation Commission called a “narrative.” According to Commission Vice Chairman Michael Rizzo, the narrative falls short of the restoration plan required by the enforcement order.
At the meeting the next day, Rizzo said, “It’s important that we have plans. Engineering plans are going to show the restoration areas and the plants themselves — where they’re going to be, how they are going to be planted, details that go with that. … Unless they are specified and shown, we can’t do our job.”
Rizzo continued, referencing Mike DeRosa — the peer-review consultant on the issue — saying, “In our past meetings, it was necessary that Mike DeRosa have money put into an account to do peer review so he can do his job unimpeded. … Mr. DeRosa had submitted a proposal of what the estimate cost might be to do this work — it was submitted, it was sent to SCC, they pushed back on the amount and asked Mr. DeRosa to revisit the estimate and see if he could kind of refine that. He did so and submitted back a new number that was accepted. We’ve heard more recently that SCC has pushed back on providing the funds to put in an account to cover that cost and that they decided to cut it in half … that’s not acceptable. We want the entire amount put into an account. I don’t want to delay this project.”
SCC’s legal counsel, Barry Fogel, claimed that SCC put $15,000 into an account for the Commission, which was subsequently overrun by $8,400 — “without any notice to Salem Country Club,” said Fogel. He stated that SCC put in the overrun amount and then received another proposal, this one for $28,000, which Fogel said the Commission did without informing SCC of a sufficient basis for the amount. SCC objected, and DeRosa agreed to knock the amount down to $14,000. But SCC deposited only $7,000 — half the city’s proposal.
Fogel said SCC is willing to add funds as the project progresses. But, he said, “the Club is not willing to put unlimited amounts of money indefinitely as this project goes on.” He also argued that the project should advance, as SCC views the information it provided to the city as sufficient to begin purchasing trees.
Fogel then brought up a second point. The enforcement order requires the canopy be restored. SCC and the city disagree on whether re-creation of the full canopy is required.
Rizzo rebutted, requesting SCC provide a more detailed plan showing that the trees planted would restore the canopy cover. “Unless you provide a plan, how can our engineer do his job?”
Fogel said, “We question the premise that the cutting of these particular trees has any adverse effect on the resource areas that are adjacent to the buffer zones. The Club questions the idea that there needs to be an exact replication of canopy. … We just don’t know that we are going to be able to put them in specific locations.”
After the discussion of the canopy restoration, Conservation Commission Agent Lucia DelNegro offered her perspective. With respect to whether or not SCC has submitted a plan as required by the enforcement order, she said, “You submitted a narrative. Not a plan. We must have a plan.” Regarding the DeRosa account, DelNegro said that the original amount of $28,000 was negotiated down to $14,000. She cited an email from Fogel that said SCC was going to pay only half of that amount. DelNegro then said that City Solicitor Don Conn told her that SCC was required to put the full $14,000 in because SCC agreed to it at a public hearing.
DelNegro went on to say that this process involves weeks and weeks of waiting, which is built into the process. “We still have not received a restoration plan, only a narrative, submitted on Jan. 10. You are not in compliance [with the enforcement order].”
“We need to see a plan,” said Rizzo.
Commissioner Bruce Comak rebuked SCC, saying, “We’re not asking for a lot. That is ludicrous that the Club is saying that we’re asking for a lot.”
Fogel said SCC understood that work was done “without prior filing, but the question is: Has there been any adverse effect on the wetlands on this course?”
Commission Chairman Stewart Lazares said, “That’s not the question. The question is: You did work without prior approval. That’s always been the question.” He said that all the Commission is asking SCC to do is restore what they did — and that remains unfinished.
Fogel said SCC believes that the Commission’s actions — requiring full replacement of the canopy under the restoration plan and other remedial action — is “punishment.”
Commission member Arthur Athas compared SCC’s position to a bank robbery in which the robbers “get to keep the money.” He added that there were repercussions for breaking the law.
SCC has filed an appeal of the original enforcement order. By stipulation of the parties, SCC agreed not to serve the complaint because Fogel said the parties were attempting to resolve it without a formal appeal. Fogel said the complaint was amended to address allegations of the Commission’s amended enforcement order. The time to serve the amended complaint has been extended through the end of March.
The tense discussion ended with the decision to continue talk of the enforcement order and plans for restoration in an in-person meeting with the Commission, Mike DeRosa and representatives from SCC present.
