Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, September 23, 2010, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Rebecca Christie, Amy Hamilton, Dan Ricciarelli, Michael Blier
Members Absent: Chairman David Pabich, Carole McCauley, Julia Knisel
Others Present: Frank Taormina, Staff Planner/Interim Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Rebecca Christie, acting Chair, calls the meeting to order at 6:10PM.
- Meeting Minutes—September 9, 2010 Meeting
There is no quorum of member present at the 9/9 meeting so the item is left for the next meeting.
- Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP ~#64-502—Jeff Holloran, 41 Fairmount Street, Salem, MA. ~The purpose ~of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single-family house and associated appurtenances within a Riverfront Area at 14 Rear Pearl Street (Lot C1 Saunders Street).
Documents Presented: Proposed Site Plan 14 R Pearl St. aka LOT C1 Saunders St. in Salem, MA prepared by Thomas Manetta Inc. 8/23/2010
Tom Manetta, of Thomas Manetta, Inc. presents. Mr. Manetta summarizes the site visit and gives an update on the cleanup process. Grand Plan – a Response Action Outcome (RAO) must be submitted to the Commission, and this is the end of the cleanup process; the paperwork is complete and must be submitted; the DEP has a 2-week process on that.
As for the site visit, the basement was staked out, and drainage and grading issues were discussed. Tom Devine and Frank Taormina were at the site visit; Taormina took notes. He identified the footprint of the building and discussed proposed grades and the swale location on the western side of the property, and drainage there and on the right hand side where the driveway is. That side will have fill brought in to match the elevation of the street to that of the first floor of the house, but on the other (back) side the grade will be lower, a bit lower than the abutting property. A swale will run between both properties to carry runoff toward the bike path. Retaining walls at the back were also discussed; current retaining walls of other properties are made of various materials and are owned
by those properties, however the developer plans to cover and build a berm on that side, not disturb the existing walls.
Christie wonders where the water goes if it heads toward the bike path, as she did not attend the site visit. The water will go into the drainage on the bypass. Mr. Manetta says that the site is currently at its worst, and finishing it off with grading and the lawn will slow the water before it hits the street.
Blier asks if there will be terracing; there won’t, it will all be done with grading alone. There won’t be gutters, just a large overhang on the house. It’s a one-level house with a walkout basement.
Ricciarelli points out that a neighbor was concerned about the North side of the house; he wants a swale there. Taormina says that a requirement is that a certification is issued that the house was built to the specifications agreed upon.
Hamilton comments that the grand plan states that 100 additional cubic yards will be removed; Mr. Manetta says that’s an old plan and that yardage has already been removed. Taormina states that the Commission can also make it a requirement that they see the RAO.
Acting Chair Christie opens to the public.
Phyllis Brown, abutter at 14-16 Pearl St., wants to make sure that the swale covers the full length of the abutting line. She is concerned about the North side of the property, where hers abuts. She would also like to request that grading be done conscientiously and that plantings be done along the abutter’s line; preferably something that absorbs a lot of water, such as willow trees.
Acting Chair Christie motions to close the public comments, is seconded by Hamilton, and the motion passes 4-0.
Taormina passes Christie the Orders and discusses them briefly with her. Blier asks about Ms. Brown’s comment on “Frog Land” as the area was previously called. Mr. Manetta says they will be carefully grading, as the area between both properties is flat, so the concern will be keeping water moving. He does not think water-absorbing plants would do well on that lot.
Christie motions to close the hearing, is seconded by Hamilton, and the motion passes 4-0.
Conditions:
The Commission would like a copy of the RAO to make sure that plan has not deviated from the original.
- Continuation Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-503—Robert Lutts, 92 Orne Street, Salem, MA. ~The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed dredging of 100 cubic yards of sediment from the Danvers River off of Cabot Farm Pier at 92 Orne Street.
The applicant is not present, so Ricciarelli motions to table the item, is seconded by Hamilton, and the motion passes 4-0.
The applicant arrives late and presents at 6:55PM. Luke Fabbri speaks. Mr. Fabbri mentions the site visit from Tuesday and states that they had asked him to check on the 401 Water quality certification with the DEP; Certification is not required according to Mr. Chin but a monitoring program is required; however it will be at the Commission’s discretion since the project is so small.
NTU (Nephelometric Turbidity Units) would be measured up and downstream 150’. If a certain amount is seen, digging must be slowed, and if that does not work, silt fences must be installed, but this is a one-hour project so they would be done before they needed to slow down. Taormina opines that monitoring is not necessary; the state does not require any further monitoring, so unless the Commission has another opinion he doesn’t think monitoring is worth it for the hour the work will take place.
Mr. Fabbri says he has only had to slow down the digging in one other case that was tidally influenced. A Chapter 91 permit must be done if an Order of Conditions is issued; an Army Corps permit is not required.
Taormina reiterates the short timeframe that the project is allowed; it will have to be done next year if the Chapter 91 permit is slow, but the Order is good for three years. He will have to prove that he got the license before doing the work. Licenses must be obtained before the Agent is contacted for a pre-construction meeting.
Hamilton asks where dredged materials will be stored; they will be stored in a barge moored at the end of the North River before the railroad bridge. They must go out on the incoming tide to make it through the railroad bridge; the dredger wants to remove material before a week passes, or it will become too compacted. It’s a 600-yard scow.
Christie opens to the public but there are no comments.
Ricciarelli motions to close the public discussion, is seconded by Hamilton and it passes 4-0.
Conditions:
A Chapter 91 permit must be obtained.
Taormina usually encourages applicants to file for the Chapter 91 permit long before the process starts.
Blier motions to close the hearing, is seconded by Ricciarelli, and the motion passes 4-0.
- Continuation Pubic Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-506—Bartlett & Steadman Development Corp, 67 Village St, Marblehead, MA. ~The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and associated appurtenances within a Buffer Zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland ~at 1 Martin Lane (Witch Hill Subdivision, Lot 211).
- Continuation Pubic Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-505—Bartlett & Steadman Development Corp, 67 Village St, Marblehead, MA. ~The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and associated appurtenances within a Buffer Zone to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland ~at 3 Martin Lane (Witch Hill Subdivision, Lot 212).
- Continuation Pubic Hearing—Notice of Intent
Items # 4, 5 and 6 will be considered together.
Ken Steadman, owner of the subdivision, presents. Mr. Steadman reiterates that only lot 214 is within 30’ of the wetlands. The other two lots are within the 100’ buffer but farther from the resource area. Most lots are ledge and there will be blasting; once ledge is removed, there will be topsoil and gravel hauled in that will absorb more runoff than the material there now does. Two of the lots in question are on a hill and one is flat.
Taormina requests that Mr. Steadman label the lots on the plan so that when the Commission closes they can issue conditions for them separately; he does this.
Blier asks if they should be discussed as discrete items, but Taormina says they can be taken together, at least until later, but conditions should be issued individually for each lot.
Lot 2, Martin Lane, is the only one fully within the area in question.
Christie says that Mr. Steadman was going to put additional bounding near the berm; Mr. Steadman says that was temporary, until it is loamed and seeded to prevent erosion. There is an existing erosion control from installation of the road and it is in good shape, but more will be installed.
Blier asks about the house in the wetlands area; only one corner of it is there. He and Mr. Steadman discuss this topic. Taormina mentions the layout of the land; it slopes and drops off, and it is obvious where the wetlands are. Christie points out that the berm, which is still there, is substantial. Ricciarelli asks about the roadway grade and Mr. Steadman describes it.
Taormina points out that they started on Freeman Rd. during the site visit; DEP File No. 64-391 was for the construction of the roadway and utilities; there is a plan regarding improving the additional structures, and the order for that is good until 2011.
Mr. Steadman had clarified that process and gotten approval for that work previously. Taormina says that everything drains toward Freeman, but there is a bottleneck there so there is a connection between this project and upland improvements, which will be made outside the project area.
Christie mentions a playground and asks about its location; there will be a new one at the corner. This was also discussed at another meeting and will be a separate filing.
Blier asks about the location of the driveway and Mr. Steadman explains and also outlines drainage for the driveway.
Christie opens to the public but there are no comments.
Ricciarelli motions to close the public discussion, and is seconded by Hamilton. The motion passes unanimously.
Taormina outlines the lot (#4 Martin Lane, Lot 214) that is closest to the wetland that will need to be conditioned.
Conditions for Lot 214:
- Install additional erosion control measures and leave existing measures.
- Construction equipment will be stored on the opposite side of the lot from the wetlands. All other materials are to be stored outside of that area.
- Wetland markers will be posted (the Commission has a few left but needs to order more – it costs about $80 for 200 of them). Mr. Steadman mentions a previous discussion about placing rocks there as an edge; this would be in addition. Taormina asks how many signs would be appropriate; the commission says four signs would be sufficient.
Hamilton motions to close with the noted conditions, is seconded by Ricciarelli, and the motion passes 4-0.
Conditions for Lot 212, #3 Martin Lane:
Christie asks about the difference in footage from the roadway; it will be 6-8’ higher. Blier asks about the grading; it will go up. Power lines are at 130 and the road is at 120.
Christie asks Mr. Steadman to point out where blasting might take place; it will be mostly on the lower two lots, with only a little bit on the upper third; it will be to make drive-under garages for the homes in question. Taormina points out all of the curbing and drainage between the homes and street. Ricciarelli states that these conditions are for pre-construction, keeping everything in place during the process. Mr. Steadman reiterates that there will be no storage onsite.
Christie asks if there are plans to change the footing or grading of the road; there aren’t.
There are no erosion control measures proposed on this side and wetlands markers don’t make sense, so the only condition thus far is for the equipment to be stored out of the buffer zone.
The other condition is that hay bales and silt socks will be placed around catch basins. These will also apply to the remaining lot.
Hamilton motions to close with the above conditions, Blier seconds, and the motion passes 4-0.
- Pubic Hearing—Notice of Intent—Robert & Anthie Jackson, 447 Boston St, Topsfield, MA. ~The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition of an existing single family house and appurtenances and construction of new single family house, deck, and patio within a Buffer Zone to a Coastal Bank and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage at 30 Columbus Ave.
Illustration: Plan of Land in Salem, Mass. Showing Proposed Lot Development, 30 Columbus Avenue, Prepared For Robert & Anthie Jackson, dated 8/13/10, revised 9/10/10
Greg Hochmut, of the Neve-Morin Group, Inc., presents. There is an existing house, pool, deck and patios on the lot; the current purchaser wants to raze those and construct a new house. There is a seawall that runs along the wetland and the area is subject to coastal storm flowage.
The challenge was to propose a new structure that wouldn’t take up flood storage. Pre- and post- development is a wash; alterations of the new structure render it the same as old with no net increase of flood storage. The closest point of the proposed house to the seawall is 43’; no alteration of the salt marsh is planned. The existing footprint of house is dashed underneath on the plan. The existing is a nonconforming lot; the current house doesn’t meet the front setback and the new house will. All setbacks required by zoning are met.
The existing pool will be removed and not replaced, and a paver patio and deck are being proposed. One cedar tree must be removed, but the rest of the lot is maintained lawn. Blier confirms that the volume of the new footprint is the same, although the configuration is different. Storage will be the same. There are no foundations below the pink shaded portion of the structure. Ricciarelli asks if the pavers are permeable; some water will get through but they are not specifically permeable.
Taormina asks how the pool water “goes away” and Mr. Hochnut says if you just stop adding chemicals it turns to regular water and can be discharged. Taormina asks if there is a sewer manhole for discharge instead of discharging over the seawall or into a storm drain. An audience member confirms that there is one there a couple of houses down. The Commission may condition that.
Ricciarelli asks about driveway square footage, which will be reduced. They are not sure if there will be pea stone or lawn on the side of the house; the applicant wants to leave it open if they can.
Blier asks if they are proposing changes to the access to the water; the steps are staying as is.
Erosion controls are proposed, though not necessary, to serve as a limit of work. Blier asks about taking the building down, and questions the timeframe. It will be quick – take down, remove, and rebuild with no stockpiling of materials. There will be no storage beyond the erosion control measures. Blier asks if it is a full basement; it is. He also asks if the excavated material will be hauled away; it will. The builder said it will take 2 days with trucks lined up.
Ricciarelli confirms that pre-and post- grades will be the same, and Mr. Hochnut says they will be, out of necessity.
A site visit is scheduled for Wednesday, Sept. 29th at 5:30PM. Christie requests a colored map like the one the Mr. Hochnut presented. The seawall is in good shape, as it was redone 2 or 3 years ago, and paid for by all the neighbors. Water has only come over the wall in a headwind twice in 40 years, according to the former owner.
Hamilton motions to continue, is seconded by Ricciarelli, and the motion passes 4-0.
Old/New Business
- Request for Certificate of Complianc—DEP #64-462—92 Orne Street
Taormina outlines the site visit for the dredging at the pier, during which he also examined it. There were some deviations as specified by engineer.
The size of the float at end of gangway should be 25’ x 35’, but it’s 10’ wide by 60’ long- it is longer, extending 30 additional feet into the river, but has less square footage so less impact underneath, but has encroached further out into water. He is not sure if the DEP will care when the applicant goes to close out his Ch. 91.
Also, due to the extra length, the applicant drove 1 steel pile at the end of the float to hold it in place. That is only a couple of square feet of impact but represents another deviation. All other elements were constructed as proposed but the dock is 1 or 2’ higher off water than approved, but this allows more light under the pier.
Railings were not installed but they don’t necessarily have to be, as safety is not the purview of the Commission, which deals with wetlands protection only. However, according to Luke Fabbri, they are working on installing railings anyway.
Taormina opines that those deviations won’t require him to come back. The work must only be “satisfactorily” completed in order to issue a Certificate. There is one ongoing condition, #46 that states that the structure may only be used for residential purposes, though it is built as though it could be used for commercial purposes. The owner has a dredging company so this condition should be kept. If the Commission ever sees commercial activities going on, the owner will be in violation. Ricciarelli questions if these are not bad violations or changes, he and wonders what would be as they seem major to him. Taormina says the Commission was not notified but doesn’t know if Duques, the former Agent, was contacted previously.
Blier motions to issue the Certificate, is seconded by Ricciarelli, and the motion passes 4-0.
- Request for Extension Permit for Order of Condition—DEP #64-469—1 Parallel St (Lot B)
- Request for Extension Permit for Order of Condition—DEP #64-468—1 Parallel St (Lot C)
The above requests are considered together. Mr. Lovely came in to get a certificate for Lot A even though the City Engineer had said to abandon lot A attempts and make up for it with lots B and C, so the applicant needs more time to figure it out. Taormina recommends granting the extension so he can make corrections.
Ricciarelli motions to grant extension, Hamilton seconds, and the motion passes 4-0.
- Request to Withdraw Expired & Invalid Order of Conditions—DEP #64-465—3 Parallel Street
Initially Mr. Lovely filed for a 3 Parallel St. demolition and to build a one new house, then decided to subdivide and build 3 houses on 3 lots. However, the old order was never closed, and it should have been. The applicant never recorded his order of conditions, since he decided to subdivide after a month. Because it was never recorded and it just recently expired, Taormina can’t require him to go through the motions of getting a Certificate, since in effect, nothing ever happened. Taormina said for housekeeping, he explained to Mr. Lovely that the previous project should be withdrawn, so the applicant put together a letter asking to withdraw and Taormina says they don’t even need to vote on this.
Tom Devine, the new Conservation Agent, mentions he will be attending MACC workshops and points out that commission funds will be used to pay for it, as a heads up. Members indicate approval.
Hamilton motions to adjourn and is seconded by Blier; the motion passes 4-0. The meeting adjourns at 7:30PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on October 14, 2010.
| 
