Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairperson David Pabich, Michael Blier, Rebecca Christie, Kevin Cornacchio, Keith Glidden, Amy Hamilton, Carole McCauley
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Carey Duques, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Andrea Bray
Chairperson Pabich calls the meeting to order.
1. Approval of Minutes – April 23, 2009 Meeting
Voting members are Pabich, Cornacchio, Glidden, Hamilton, and McCauley.
Cornacchio: Motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Hamilton. Passes 5-0.
2. Public Hearing – Notice of Intent – Vinnin Associates Realty Trust c/o East Coast Properties, 400 Highland Avenue, Salem, MA 01970.
Pabich reads the legal public hearing notice, which states that the purpose of this hearing is to discuss construction of a handicap parking area proposed within the buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland at 50 Freedom Hollow.
Engineer Scott Patrowicz states that this project is for Vinnin Square Condominium II, and he presents the abutters notices. He states that this complex currently has no handicapped parking. He presents a letter from Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner in support of the project. He states that the steep slope presents problems for this project, so the plan was designed for the cars to get up the hill to the handicapped parking. He suggests that the Commission schedule a site walk.
Cornacchio asks if the retaining walls will be able to take the head pressure of cars and Patrowicz states that they will be strong and assures the Commission that there will be no blow-outs in the future.
Blier asks where the stormwater will be directed, and Patrowicz states that it will flow through the existing parking lot to the lawn.
McCauley asks if a pervious parking area would be possible and Patrowicz states that he is concerned about the cost, and pavers are often laid on asphalt.
Pabich asks about porous pavement and Patrowicz states that he doesn’t like it but he will look into it. Pabich states that they need to give the porous pavement consideration for this area.
Patrowicz states that he would rather put in a little rain garden than porous pavement.
Blier asks about snow removal and Patrowicz points out the areas that will probably be used for the snow.
Blier asks if there will be any driving on the planting areas and Patrowicz states that these areas will be blocked by the guardrail.
Frank Gelineau of 22 Weatherly Drive, Unit 3, asks if the parking lot belongs to Trust II, and Patrowicz states that it does. Gelineau asks why they don’t just expand the other parking lots and Patrowicz states that the current lots have handicapped parking that has steep sloping walkways to the building so they are non-compliant.
Frank Gelineau asks about the impact of water at the other end where he lives, and Patrowicz states that this is a very small area and there will be a small amount of runoff and they might mitigate the runoff with landscaping or rain gardens, and he is confident the he can meet the DEP’s requirements for runoff.
Frank Gelineau states that they currently plow the snow up to the wet area.
The members agree to a site visit at 4:45 pm on May 28.
Christie asks about the requirement for handicapped parking spaces and Patrowicz states that because there are 74 parking spaces they will need 3 handicapped spaces.
Cyndy Anselmo, Property Manager with East Coast Properties, states that they are under a state mandate to install the handicapped spaces because the original developer did not place any handicapped parking there.
Glidden: Motion to continue this public hearing until May 28, with a site visit prior to the hearing, seconded by Christie. Passes 7-0.
3. Continuation of a Public Hearing – Notice of Intent – DEP #64-489 – City of Salem, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA 01970
Pabich reads the legal public hearing notice, which states that the purpose of this hearing is to discuss erosion repairs to an existing embankment at the southern end of Furlong Park, creation of a car top boat launch, and improvements to the park’s features located within a Riverfront Area located at 20 Franklin Street.
Pabich states that Christie and Blier listened to a recording of the previous meeting and signed an affidavit, which qualifies them to vote on this issue.
Dwight Dunk with CDM, Wetland Scientist, states that there was a site visit and there have been changes based on some of the comments that they received. Regarding the traffic/parking issue, He states that the car-top boat launch has been moved toward the middle of the site, and there will not be as much of a grade change so they will only need a few steps to transition to the beach area. Regarding the southerly riprap slope he has specified the material for that slope and the plantings for the shelf. Regarding the fill material, he states that an LSP was not willing to provide an opinion based on a visual inspection.
Pabich states that he is concerned about the fill material that is in that site, especially because this material will be moved and he has reservations about not having it assessed.
Ward 6 City Councilor Paul Prevey states that he is pleased with the new design because it will lessen the impact of the traffic in the area. He adds the City plans to retake the property that is now occupied by the Ferris Junk Yard.
Dunk states that the legal issue for this parcel needs to be resolved through the courts, and depending on this, the owner will need to address the noncompliant use off this piece of land.
Cornacchio expresses concern about the flooding in that area, especially because they intend to raise the ball field.
James Treadwell, AICP, states that the correction of the drainage is included in the project to raise the ball field.
Much discussion ensues regarding the drainage issue.
Blier clarifies that the second row of trees along the western edge will remain in place.
Pabich returns to the issue of the fill material in the site, and states that the developer will be remiss if this issue is ignored. He states that he would like an LSP to assess the material on this site.
Cornacchio agrees stating that something might be exposed when the material is moved.
Blier and Glidden agree and Glidden states that if something is found it might cause the entire project to come to a halt, or even worse, some exposed material might causes a health issue.
Pabich states that he would prefer to get this assessment prior to closing this hearing.
Dunk suggests conditioning the approval on having the assessment completed prior to the start of work.
Pabich states that he is OK with that and if something is found, then they need to return to the Commission.
Blier asks if any of the grant money is assigned to environmental cleanup, and Duques states that none of the money is assigned to this.
Duques states that she could look into obtaining an assessment grant but the clock is ticking.
Glidden states that there is a possibility that there will be a lot of traffic across the mud flat for boat launching, which might impact the resource area.
Kathleen Winn states that this area is used for boat launching about once/month.
Barbara Warren with the Salem Coast Watch states that they intend to place signage next to the boat ramp that clearly expresses tides. She adds that people are already pulling boats across the mud flats. She says that she sees this as a local paddling site.
Jim Treadwell of 36 Phelps Street reads the priorities of the residents and states that the boat ramp is not a high priority for this project. He speaks against the construction of the boat ramp.
Barbara Warren states that they are looking at stabilizing the bank, and once that is completed, there will be no place for anyone to put a boat in without climbing over the rocks. She expresses concern about going with complete bank stabilization without providing any boat access.
Pabich agrees.
Barbara Warren says that they need to only sample the area where they will be digging.
Pabich states that the toe runs along the entire beach.
Bart Hoskins of 22 Larchmont Road, who works for the EPA, cautions the Commission about the sampling and says they need to tread carefully here because they could open a can of worms, and since the park is up gradient to the beach, he would rather see the improvements go on in the upland.
Pabich states that he appreciates his concern but the improvements will be inviting the public to spend time here, and any contamination on the site must be detected and mitigated prior to the encouragement of public use.
Hoskins states that there is currently no restrictions for the people to go right to the beach, and the best possible thing to do would be to continue the riprap along the entire beach area to discourage the public from going onto this beach.
Warren agrees and states that the grant will not support any mitigation.
Hoskins suggests pulling the toe back and placing riprap there.
Treadwell states that he would like an assessment to be performed.
Glidden states that the complete armoring of that area might be a solution.
Dunk states that they will need to secure the boulders at the toe of the slope because the material in that area might move.
Warren states that this is important because there is major erosion occurring there, and people with small children do not go to the water, so stabilizing the bank prohibits the continual erosion of the material.
Pabich states that the City has an obligation to the public to ensure that this area is safe.
McCauley states that the Commission doesn’t have the power to shut down the park, so they should do some testing, and forget the ramp, and reinforce the bank.
Blier states that if they begin the job without testing and find fibrous material in the ground the project will come to a halt and it will be much later in the game and much more costly to remediate.
Much discussion ensues regarding the approach to take on this site.
Duques asks how long the turn around would be for assessment, and Dunk states that it could be expedited and will take about two weeks.
Glidden states that he is not prepared to sign this until he thinks about this a little longer.
Glidden: Motion to continue this pubic hearing until May 28, seconded by Cornacchio. Passes 7-0.
4. Public Hearing – Request for Determination of Applicability – City of Salem, 5 Broad Street, Salem, MA 01970
Pabich reads the legal public hearing notice, which states that the purpose of this hearing is to discuss improvements to the dog park located within a Riverfront Area at Leslie’s Retreat Park at 5 Rear Commercial Street.
Bart Hoskins, President of Salem Play Areas for Canine Exercise, states that when the park first opened there were hundreds of dogs so they began using a “Pooch Pass” program to curtail the use, and they have raised some money with the pass fees. He explains that they would like to make some improvements and presents a plan, an outline of the proposed work broken down into 4 phases, and a diagram of the surface.
Pabich clarifies that this is entirely within the riverfront area.
Hoskins describes the work for phases 1-3. He describes the pine trees that will be installed.
Pabich states that they need to address the installation of vegetation around the drainage area first. He asks if the stormwater sheet flows toward the river.
Hoskins states that he never sees it flow into the river but it might flow across the sidewalk and into the planting bed.
Blier suggests that they prohibit the stockpiling of any excavated material.
Hoskins states that there will be very little digging so they will not need to stockpile material.
Pabich opens to the public.
Barbara Warren speaks in favor of the project.
Glidden: Motion to issue a -2 with the condition that the drainage be addressed first, seconded by Cornacchio. Passes 7-0.
5. Public Hearing – Request for Determination of Applicability – City of Salem, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA 01970
Pabich reads the legal public hearing notice, which states that the purpose of this hearing is to discuss the construction of a v-notch weir to monitor stream flow in the South River.
Pabich continues this public hearing until May 28.
6. Public Hearing – Notice of Intent – City of Salem, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA 01970
Pabich reads the legal public hearing notice, which states that the purpose of this hearing is to discuss installation of a catch basin and associated drainage pipe between 100 and 120 Swampscott Road.
Pabich continues this public hearing until May 28.
Old/New Business
7. Request for Certificate of Compliance, DEP #64-174, 14 Buchanan Road/1 Pierce Road
Duques states that this is a very old existing Order of Conditions that was issued in 1988. She explains that the gardens have not changed in shape or size and the Conditions were specific.
Blier states that the site is gorgeous.
Christie: Motion to issue a full Certificate of Compliance, seconded by Glidden. Passes 7-0.
Duques asks if they should have a perpetual condition for the exclusive use of organic material and the Commission determines that the condition may already be perpetual.
McCauley left the meeting.
8. Request for a Certificate of Compliance, DEP #64-392 – 31, 32, and 35 Cedarcrest Avenue
Duques states that this will be continued.
9. Request for an Extension to an existing Order of Conditions, DEP #64-420 – YMCA, Leggs Hill Road
Duques states that the YMCA is requesting a one-year extension.
Glidden: Motion to approve the extension, seconded by Cornacchio. Passes 6-0.
10. Update on the status of 485 Lafayette Street, the former Chadwick Leadmills Site
Duques states that the report was very detailed.
Ted Tobin states that DEP responded to the Phase 3 since the last meeting, and ordered more clean up of the river. He states that the granite retaining wall was examined and a Geotechnical Engineer determined that since National Lead is now required to cleanup sediments in the Forest River they will be undermining this wall on both sides. They will need to excavate and expose both sides of the wall below the water table. The engineer stated they will need to grout on both sides of the wall.
Glidden clarifies that the City took and easement to maintain the wall but the City is not the caretaker of the wall and the owner has the obligation to do this. He reads excerpts from the report on the assessment of the wall’s integrity.
Tobin explains that the wall is functioning the way that it is meant to function now except for one section. He suggests that the wall be grouted after the remediation is completed.
Pabich states that the Commission must look at this wall as a “snapshot in time”. He adds that the applicant must proceed with tightening up the wall.
Glidden suggests that the engineer come in.
Blier asks if there is an injection technique that could be used to tighten the wall without carving it.
Pabich iterates that the wall should be tightened up.
Duques and Tobin agree to be in contact and follow up on the outstanding issues.
Glidden: Motion to adjourn, seconded by Christie. Passes 6-0.
The meeting is adjourned at 9:10 pm.
| 
