Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, June 24, 2010, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairman David Pabich, Dan Ricciarelli, Rebecca Christie, Michael Blier, Amy Hamilton
Members Absent: Carole McCauley, Julia Knisel
Others Present: Frank Taormina, Staff Planner/Interim Conservation Agent
Clerk: Stacy Kilb
Chairman Pabich opens the meeting at 6:03PM
- Meeting Minutes June 10, 2010
A motion to approve the minutes is made by Ricciarelli and seconded by Christie; the motion passes 5-0.
2. Continuation of Public Hearingation of the landscaped buffer zone (which abuts the rear of Federal St.), the exact location of the proposed vegetated swale, and the located of the stormwater tie-in to the Bridge St. drain system.
He also addresses questions from the last meeting, including bringing a landscaping plan and the Chairman’s question about a history of flooding at the site. He stated that he left a voice mail for Tom St. Pierre (City Building Commissioner) and David Knowlton (City’s Engineer) regarding the flooding of the site, but they did not get back to him; however in previous conversations they said this portion of Bridge St. does not flood anymore, since Mass Highway reconstructed Bridge Street from Flint St to Boston St.
Discussion about the City of Peabody Flood Mitigation Project ensued.
F. Taormina stated FEMA has issued new Draft FEMA Flood Zone Maps and has asked municipalities to review them and offer comments. He stated that the draft maps still show the property as being in a 100 year flood zone. Mr. Blaisdell is going to submit a letter of map revision to FEMA in light of the reconstruction of Bridge St. F. Taormina Mr. Blaisdell also mentioned that during the 2004 Mother’s Day Storm, he or someone from his firm were at the site and did not observe any flooding on the site.
The Chairman asks if he has reviewed DEP’s Comments. Mr. Blaisdell has not responded yet. The Chairman doesn’t want to go over DEP’s Comments now, as many reiterate what the Commission has already requested of the applicant, plus his firm hasn’t had time to address them yet. Chairman Pabich suggested that they work through DEP’s comments, and also asked about the footprint of the building; in a flood scenario the data indicates that the building is in Zone A. Chairman Pabich then asks what will happen to the water displaced by the building and points out that when looking at DEP comments they will need to modify their plans to accommodate that – they will need to change the grading to allow for storage over a larger portion of their parking
area. The Chairman and Taormina discuss how this could be done.
Mr. Blaisdell discusses elevations at a couple of locations; He stated that when Mass Highway reconstructed the North River Canal the goal was to contain storm water and not let it flood Bridge St. as it historically did. They will further explore these elevations. Taormina points out that the draft FEMA Flood Maps still shows the old flood line and it apparently has not been changed. He stated that this is the time to challenge the flood line as the draft flood maps are still being reviewed. Taormina has a FEMA letter requesting public comments that he can give to Blaisdell.
Chairman Pabich says there used to be structures on this parcel so they just need to address DEP’s comments.
Pabich asks if any other members have questions and Blier points out that they haven’t seen the planting plan.
Harry Gunderson, architect, presents the planting plan with an illustration, pointing out the orientation of the site and reviewing the walk of the site visit from earlier today. He points out the various parking areas and the plantings that will be contained in their islands. There will also be street trees all the way around the site, except for one part where they would hinder visibility. The buffer zone will be heavily planted.
Blier asks for clarification on the island planting strips and Mr. Gunderson illustrates. Blier says he approves of all plant species, but as a design issue the River Birch might find the location too hot. The Design Review Board, on which Blier is also a member, has asked Gunderson to come back and describe the field grass ad evergreens that will be planted. Blier points out that where there’s room there’s a need for screen planting.
Chairman Pabich opens to the public.
Teasie Riley-Goggin has nothing to add this time but will perhaps at the next meeting.
Jim Treadwell speaks as having an interest in the North River Canal. He appreciates the Commission’s desire to decrease runoff and says that the flood insurance rate map (current) would be used and that current maps are being circulated for comments. In the Notice of Intent from 2008, the base map then discusses building at 10.25 and he suggests some of that data may be relevant now.
He talks about the DEP letter – at the Board of Health meeting on June 8th, this project got put on agenda of the next meeting (July 19th) to discuss that letter. When the Design Review Board reviewed this project it left certain details including plantings to City Planner.
He mentions the Salem-Beverly Transportation project; Chapter 91 for that had a condition that the licensee (Mass Highway) would have to recalculate flood elevation with regards to FEMA standards; a subsequent letter indicated that it was done, and the condition satisfied; they didn’t know about a new FEMA map of Mass Highway.
Jason Lederer asked if the planting plan is available to review, and who designed the planting plan. It is on the board for review. He understands that a new FEMA map is being submitted and commented on. He says the Commission and DEP can only use the old flood plain maps and the new maps have not been approved yet. He understands that the upper reaches of the North River Watershed in Peabody has been significantly developed and altered since the production of the old flood maps came out so there will be a difference. Nothing regarding Peabody’s Flood Mitigation project will happen quickly along the North River, so the Commission should not consider what the applicant is stating, instead they should use the best information available to them and hold the applicant
to those standards. Procedurally, since the last meeting nothing was done with regards to the Commission’s request to look at other alternate stormwater systems and LID technology. He would like them to pay more attention to the comments, especially as the North River is a focal point for redevelopment and “ecological healing.” He feels this is an opportunity to improve the area and also help generate revenue.
Attorney Joe Correnti presents. One of neighbors asked about a health and safety plan during construction. There is an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) on the site and they do have an LSP working there; a Health and Safety Plan and a Soil Management Plan prepared by GAZ is submitted to the Commission. He stated that the Applicant will also be going before the Board of Health to address their questions and concerns regarding this matter; many questions will be addressed based on the plan he has just given to the Commission. They will also let the DEP know of this plan.
Attorney Correnti also mentions that the applicant is still in discussions with DEP regarding whether or not they still need a Chapter 91 License for the redevelopment of the site. He stated that they will likely get a determination from DEP at by the next meeting.
The Chairman asked if they have filed for a NPDES permit with EPA as they are disturbing more than one acre of land; one has not been submitted yet but the applicant will submit a copy to the Commission when they do. Chairman Pabich again reiterates his desire for them to use an LID stormwater technology in the non AUL portion of their parking lot to mitigate and attenuate flow on their site instead of directly discharging it into the North River. Applicant agreed they will look into it.
He then calls for a motion to continue the public hearing to July 8th. Christie makes the motion, seconded by Hamilton; it passes unanimously.
3. Public Hearing – Request for Determination of Applicability – Salem High School & Salem Woods Trail
Tabled for the time being as the Salem High School Representative was not yet present.
4. Public Hearing – Request for Determination of Applicability – Brad Smith
Mr. Smith presents. He wants to replace the foundation structure under his landing by forming and filling it with concrete. The Chairman asks for clarification if this was an existing structure that decayed. It was – riprap capped with concrete, which got hit by a boat and fell apart. Mr. Smith wants to anchor it to boulders, form it towards the water, and make it stronger. Chairman Pabich views the sketch and wonders how far the form will come out. Mr. Smith says the furthest distance from the existing edge is 36” but will follow same contour as the existing. Only the new materials will be concrete; he intends to re-use the existing riprap.
Chairman Pabich and Mr. Smith discuss the size and formation of project. Blier asks about the front, which will be laminated plywood supported with 2x4’s tied into the existing land structures. Blier asks how it will tie into the existing boulders. The plan is to vibrate them into the existing Concrete. Chairman Pabich asks about the top of the structure and Mr. Smith illustrates. Ricciarelli asks if it will be sitting on grade; it will be hand excavated so yes it will be. Blier asks what will happen to the moved material and Mr. Smith repeats that it will be replaced exactly as it was. Loose riprap going into the tidal zone is how it was.
Chairman Pabich opines that the impact will be negligible and Smith’s work will be more permanent. He seeks a negative three determination with conditions.
Blier asks about the materials needed to do this project; it requires three yards of concrete that will be brought out in wheelbarrows; they will either go over the neighboring condo’s lawns or make a bridge.
Taormina points out a broken outfall pipe on the condo property; it came loose and eroded and has gotten worse with recent storms. The pipe will damage his docks if further deterioration occurs. Even though it comes out of the condo property it may not be theirs. Mr. Smith says the original city storm drain went out onto the wharf but got moved; they never finished the job. He is concerned because of erosion that could occur behind his seawall with this setup. Taormina will look into it.
Pabich and Taormina discuss the merits of issuing a negative two (which can’t have conditions) vs. a negative three. Taormina points out that according to the drawings the mean low is farther down - the top of the bank is the beginning of the buffer zone. The top of the riprap is the resource.
MR. Smith points out that it is all filled land; he took mean high water off of that.
Pabich seeks a Negative 2 Determination with conditions; Taormina says it’s a temporary impact with all materials to be replaced in kind.
Pabich asks if Smith has a Chapter 91 license; he does and has a copy in his project submission. Chairman Pabich points out he must retain and repair under that.
Pabich seeks a Negative 2 Determination, with all work to be done by hand, and materials to be brought back that fall.
Hamilton motions, is seconded by Christie, and the motion passes unanimously.
5. Old/New Business by the Commission, which is only to be used for passive recreational use. Mr. Theriault must comply with whatever decision the Commission reaches.
Chairman Pabich says he empathizes with Mr. Theriault and appreciates that he looks after the conservation land behind his house, but has effectively annexed Conservation Commission land for his own personally use. Even though the shed was there before he bought it, he can’t claim ownership of that land. He stated that the Commission cannot allow that since other neighbors would also feel entitled. This land is owned by the Commission and the public should not feel they are trespassing on private property even though they are on public land. The Chairman says he appreciates the situation but the shed must be moved onto Theriault’s property; landscaping there is another matter (it appears that there is a lot of landscaping extending out around the shed) but the Commission
will not speak to that. They only want the shed moved back onto his property.
Ricciarelli questions what is Mr. Theriault’s property. The shed is over the line by more than 6’not to mention building code stipulates that structures must also be setback 5’ away from rear and side property lines, not OVER the property line. He points out the encroachment is also a building code violation too.
Blier asks if the shed can be moved. Mr. Theriault says it can but it would be difficult and asks if there are other options, i.e. compensating the Commission for the land etc. Ricciarelli asks why he replaced the shed in same footprint – Mr. Theriault says that’s how it was so he just replaced it there.
Mr. Theriault wonders if this falls under River/Wetland act of 1996. Chairman Pabich reiterates that it is not a wetlands issue but an encroachment onto public property issue. Mr. Theriault says he’s looking for a grandfather clause to keep the shed on the Commission’s property.
Taormina says he will eventually draft a letter on behalf of the Commission and copy the City Legal Department, giving him a time frame to move the shed. If Mr. Theriault wants to challenge the Commissions decision he can send an appeal to the City Legal Dept. But the easiest thing to do is move the shed back onto his property. .
Chairman Pabich stated that the Commission will send a letter with a timeline of three months to remove the shed back onto his property. Mr. Theriault agrees that three months is a reasonable timeframe. F. Taormina will draft the decision letter and mail it via certified mail to Mr. Theriault.
3. Public Hearing – Request for Determination of Applicability – Salem High School
Graeme Marcoux of Salem High School arrives at this point in the meeting, so the Commission proceeds with Agenda Item #3, which was previously tabled.
Mr. Marcoux would like to enhance the established trail behind the Salem High School to Salem Woods. This will be done by building up sections of the trail that are in low, muddy areas.
Chairman Pabich, familiar with the trail, suggests a preference for elevated walkways over drainage work. Frank Taormina has photos of recent improvements to Salem Woods; the High School plans to use the same technique of geo-web material backfilled with stone through significant areas of trail. Mr. Marcoux says it’s a permanently damp area. Chairman Pabich asks if it is plausible to do a wood walkway over site B. It is. The Chairman thinks geo-web is fine where water doesn’t flow but wants raised walkways in other areas so people are up off of the resource.
Mr. Marcoux says there’s one spot with an established, year-round creek that will require a bridge (site C). It has a 3’ width but the crossing would have 8’ span since there is a gradual slope on each side. There are some exposed stones people can cross now but it’s not convenient, safe, or good for the resource.
Chairman Pabich says there’s an established path and wonders if this should be an NOI vs. RDA (Notice of Intent vs. Request for Determination of Applicability). He asks if Salem Woods had an NOI, but they had to file an RDA. They reconstructed 4 bridges which was a much more involved project. Taormina clarifies that the Commission would prefer wood walkways over geoweb material, then asks if there will be signage. There will be a memorial sign for the trail. Taormina asks if they are communicating with the Friends of Salem Woods; somewhat but not much. Taormina suggests that Marcoux contact them to help with their trail improvement project.
Christie asks about the length of the area that needs wooden walkway. Site A is a 25’ a wet area; Chairman Pabich asks if it would make sense to re –route trail around Point A but Marcoux thinks not due to wetlands to the left, and creek to the right; the project could come in further down the power lines but he is unfamiliar with the area and Taormina says not to go under power lines. Chairman Pabich wonders if a second creek crossing would be less detrimental than a boggy area crossing, but it is the easiest point of access.
Marcoux outlines the trail and various paths. Chairman Pabich suggests a log laid perpendicular to the way of travel as a base - say a series of five with a walkway on top so the logs are the only disturbance. Marcoux says he isn’t familiar with the other project but Pabich says this is smaller so won’t be as involved.
Chairman Pabich asks for a motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination with the condition that all work be done by hand and no fill will be placed in creek; the boggy area must have work done only on surface. He then asks if they can do it without using geoweb; they can.
The conditions are laid forth as followed:
- Wood planking in place of geo-web and gravel stone
- No filling of stream
- No machine excavation
A motion to approve the Negative 3 Determination is made by Christie seconded by Hamilton; it passes unanimously.
5. Old/New Business, Continuedv align="left" style="line-height:115%;vertical-align:115%;text-align:left;">2. Minimal pruning is to be done, and removal of the buffer zone is prohibited.
3. Only organic fertilizer will be used for landscaping, no herbicides or pesticides are allowed.
Pabich wonders if they need to re-vote (on the current issue at hand, DEP 64-286), but they just need to re-issue the Certificate. Taormina will note this COC is a re-issuance of the June 24, 1999 COC on the cover letter, for the purpose of recording. Chairman Pabich wants him to put the text of the Conditions in the cover letter so the new owners will see them. Taormina agrees.
5. Old/New Businessf this request is to finish work. It is, as there are still tanks to remove, and more work to be done. They can be required to come in and present. An extension can be filed for one year; it doesn’t need to be for all three.
Taormina says that its best with this owner to make sure that work is done under valid Order of Conditions, rather than an expired one that would need Enforcement and the filing of a new Notice of Intent. He suggests a three year extension as they requested, but require them to come in and explain their progress to date.
Chairman Pabich agrees to issue this but says they should come in to update the Commission on the status of erosion control measures as well. Some areas may need new erosion control, so they should come in and present a revised erosion control plan.
A motion to issue an Extension Permit for the Order of Conditions is made by Christie, seconded by Ricciarelli. It passes 5-0.
5. Old/New Businessreek;font-size:11pt;color:#000000;">ircle | 
