APPROVED MINUTES
Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairman David Pabich, Rebecca Christie, Carole McCauley, Julia Knisel, Amy Hamilton, Dan Ricciarelli, Michael Blier
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Meeting Minutes—September 9, 2010 Meeting and September 23, 2010 Meeting
Knisel motions to approve, is seconded by Christie to approve the Sept. 9th minutes only, and the motion passes 6-0 (Michael Blier was absent for the meeting on the 9th).
Knisel corrects the minutes on the 23rd - she was absent but is listed as present in the attendance section. Hamilton motions to approve the amended minutes, Ricciarelli seconds, and the motion passes 4-0. Chairman Pabich, Julia Knisel and Carole McCauley were not present at the last meeting, so do not vote.
Continuation of Pubic Hearingtrol measures. There was also an issue of improving the flood volume vs. keeping it the same as the existing construction. Chairman Pabich requests an overview and Mr. Hochmut gives it. This is a single family dwelling with a swimming pool and a shed; his client wants to demolish the old house and build a new one; it is near a resource area of salt marsh and coastal bank. Almost all of the project is within the buffer zone and all of it except for one corner is subject to coastal storm flowage.
Structures occupy 1875’ of area and their proposal is exactly the same; it won’t take up any more flood storage area than that. There is a filter sock proposed between the work area and the seawall even though it’s not really needed – flowage would go uphill and hit a seawall first. It was suggested that he use something at the front, rather than the rear of the property. No materials will be stockpiled – work will happen quickly and material will be hauled offsite as it is generated.
The existing driveway is on the side; it will be removed and the new one will be a front-entrance garage. Some grass will be replaced by stone to leave an area to park a boat, perhaps. Chairman Pabich asks about the timeline; the owner would like to do this ASAP; it has been submitted but is still under review by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Knisel asks if they boundary is at the seawall; it isn’t – it’s beyond the seawall but Mr. Hochmuth isn’t certain of the elevation. Knisel clarifies that she wonders about the A and V zone boundary; Mr. Hochmut reiterates that there is only a small part of the property that isn’t in the flood zone, at elevation 10.
Chairman Pabich voices concern over erosion onsite during construction; he wonders if they will have a separate construction entrance and reiterates his preference for a silt sock on the street side of construction; he does not want water to flow offsite. Mr. Hochmuth agrees to install a silt sock on the street side of the property and a gravel berm at the construction entrance. The Chairman says they can condition it, and then eliminate the silt sock in the back. The Chairman wonders how subject to flowage the parcel is; Knisel again wants to see B and A zones delineated on the illustration. She also wonders which utilities will be in the basement; Mr. Hochmut isn’t sure but thinks there will be a sump pump at least; he feels that putting the house on stilts would be overkill. Creating more
flood storage isn’t required, and he doesn’t want to alter flowage to make it go towards other properties. Knisel says there are options other than a solid foundation.
The Chairman questions if Knisel’s concerns are with abatement with regards to neighbors or other flood claims. She says it’s beyond the Commission’s jurisdiction but thinks it is something the homeowner should consider. Mr. Hochmuth says they are not improving or making the situation worse; water is not being directed towards abutters and the flood plain is associated with the ocean, so relatively speaking it is difficult to make it worse. He doesn’t understand how it would impact the abutters.
Blier asks about the increase in the footprint – there is no increase but the footprint is different and Knisel again worries about the A/V zone delineation. Tom Devine goes to retrieve a flood map. The Chairman says the existing pool is further seaward than the proposed deck, and the patio is further than the pool, but he doesn’t think it’s an issue. Mr. Hochmuth says if the waves are that high the owner will have other things to worry about. The applicant, Chairman and Devine discuss elevations on the map; the line is actually in the marsh. Most of the lot is in A zone.
The Chairman thinks this is a clean-cut case, with a flat site, so it can be moved along. He opens to the public for comments but there are none.
Blier motions to close public hearing, is seconded by Christie, and the motion passes 7-0.
Hamilton motions to close and issue conditions—silt sock on street side, gravel berm on construction entrance to be inspected pre-construction, no storage onsite, no stockpiling of soil or construction debris, and protection of catch basins—Christie seconds, and the motion passes unanimously.
Public Hearingoperty – it is vacant but has been disturbed, with a large ledge cut in one area. Mr. Seaberg says it’s vegetated now and slopes down to the wetlands. A retaining wall is proposed. Contours and elevations are discussed. Chairman Pabich asks about the spillway and outlet structure so Mr. Seaberg points them out amid further discussion. He says the most difficult part is controlling for a two-year storm. The Chairman asks if there are performance standards that have to be met; below 10,000 square feet it can be discharged; there is a deep sump with riprap for the other area. The Planning Board requested less parking and they
complied; no work will be done in the resource, only the buffer zone. Some blasting will be done for this work. The building footprint is at 92 with elevation at 100 so blasting will need to occur in the ledge area only.
The Chairman asks if a certain area is natural or filled. Mr. Seaberg is not sure. Chairman Pabich asks about pollution control given the number of parking spaces; there are controls in place and a maintenance plan is included. Hamilton asks about the water table elevation; the wetlands are at elevation 70, which would approximate the water table. There are ponds with standing water in one area. The Chairman comments that there should be a site visit. Hamilton asks if there should be Low Impact Design (LID) and Mr. Seaberg says that they were trying to make the plan straightforward, so no. The Chairman asks if they are proposing infiltration anywhere; they are in one area and it will hold water, draining it through the bottom of the basin. The Chairman would like to
see LID looked at before the next meeting but again urges a site visit, then opens to the public.
George Corso, A & J Realty, an abutter, is at 53 & 56 Swampscott Rd. They had an issue with the last group who wanted to purchase this site, Atlantic Paving. Previously a large amount of soil had been deposited and pushed onto his property, which had been level. He submitted a letter July 7, 2004, and he wants any current purchaser to correct the topography.
The Chairman points out that that’s outside the scope of the Conservation Commission; Mr. Corso says it has changed the flow of water and he will contact the Planning Board but would like the Commission to take a look. The Chairman again makes it clear that this is outside the scope of the Conservation Commission; the property owner has an obligation to make sure their property is not altered; this Commission can’t force the applicant to do anything, but Chairman Pabich asks Mr. Corso to point out the area anyway.
Mr. Corso also asks if there will be a large amount of formaldehyde stored on the property (his impression is that they will be preserving animals). Warren Shore, President of U.S. Biological, who is also present, says there will not be – they are packaging, not processing, biological specimens. Small vials will be separated into smaller vials, with no animals to preserve. Most of the chemicals will be protein reagents and biological materials. Mr. Corso is concerned that contaminants could get into the water; but gloves and petri dishes would be the only biohazards, and they are autoclaved then disposed of properly.
Chairman Pabich schedules a site visit for 5PM on Oct. 28th, the date of the next meeting, and requests that the corners of the structure are staked out along with relevant points along the basin. Mr. Seaberg cautions that there are European fire ants on part of the property. Christie asks Mr. Shore about the Comprehensive Spill Management plan: does mention hazardous materials because it is generic or because they’re keeping the stated materials onsite? Mr. Seaberg answers that it is boilerplate but outlines good housekeeping practices.
The Chairman asks about the configuration of the drainage and suggests an alternative. Mr. Seaberg explains that he doesn’t want to outlet at the foot of the fore bay. There is no way to get from point A to point B and still have slope. The Chairman and Mr. Seaberg debate this point. They want to catch water, not discharge it. The Chairman worries about the deep sump, which will not work when full, especially if future owners aren’t aware of the situation. He encourages Mr. Seaberg to be creative in this respect.
Christie motions to continue to the next meeting, is seconded by Hamilton, and the motion passes unanimously.
Chairman Pabich clarifies that the site visit is NOT a public hearing; although the public is welcome, they cannot ask questions in that forum, though they can take notes and ask questions at the actual meeting.
Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Fortunate Son Realty Trust, 14 Franklin St., Salem, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the after-the-fact clearing and grading within a riverfront area and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 8 and 10 Franklin St.
Illustrations: Parcels and Ortho Images from City of Salem Online GIS for 8 and 10 Franklin St., and Furlong Park; Assessors Map with locations of cranes marked. No date, submitted by Jim Treadwell.
Craig Burnham presents. Chairman Pabich asks him to update the Commission, telling them what he has done and wants to do. Mr. Burnham says the area was a former boatyard, purchased in May. He removed 30 boats form the site and placed crushed stone down. An NOI is forthcoming for the bulkhead on the river but it isn’t ready yet. He discusses logistics of the work done so far. This is in a riverfront area; the former wooden bulkhead is failing. The lot is completely razed, including the buildings, and there is nothing on the property except for a new fence.
Chairman Pabich asks about depth of the lot, which Mr. Burnham says is 291’ long x 100’wide. The entire work area is in the riverfront. Chairman Pabich was surprised to see 30 piles of crushed stone onsite one day and yet the project hadn’t come before the Commission. This is the sort of thing the applicant must bring to the Commission. The applicant doesn’t see why 2.5” of stone could be considered fill, but the Chairman tells him that, over an acre, it adds up.
Chairman Pabich asks about flood plain elevation. He says that the volume of each pile of gravel could potentially end up in someone else’s basement – even a small change in elevation can cause water to go in others’ basements – since water can’t be on Mr. Burnham’s property since the stone is there now. The applicant fails to see the point as it’s connected to the ocean, but water coming from the river is more of a concern. The Chairman and Mr. Burnham debate this point. Water will flow differently than it would have before; this is the concern. The applicant disagrees.
Chairman Pabich says they have to look at the situation as if nothing has happened and decide where to go from there. He opines that an RDA is not adequate given that the area is a resource, not a buffer zone. It is riparian as well as intertidal (the applicant claims that the work is not in a 200’ riverfront area). This sparks another disagreement between the Chairman and Mr. Burnham. Chairman Pabich thinks this should be an NOI, not an RDA. McCauley asks him (Mr. Burnham) to clarify – did he grade at all or just remove boats and dump gravel? No grading was done. There were some pieces of oak in the ground that stuck up, but with crushed stone between them they are not a problem. However, some concrete buildings were also removed; the concrete slabs are
still there.
Blier suggests a site visit. The Chairman says they can go see it under an RDA. Ricciarelli asks if it will be used for boat storage again; it will be. The zoning of the site, Mr. Burnham claims, is Marine Industrial, but it’s actually the North River Corridor Canal district, according to Mr. Treadwell.
Chairman Pabich opens to the public and Mr. Treadwell of 36 Felt St. presents. He speaks as part of the North River Canal Corridor (NRCC) Master Plan group. The graphics he presented showed an aerial view and highlighted the parcel, along with an assessor’s map with the property and surrounding area, which are zoned for North River Canal Corridor. Mr. Burnham’s crane positions as of yesterday are also outlined (as red dots). He also has pictures and specs of buildings that came down. Use as marine industrial is consistent with the NRCC plan. His second issue is the flood plain; the entire site is within the 100-year floodplain, with an elevation of 10’, and the area is .35 acres.
Land and flats were also granted by a former owner. He wonders if grading and clearing would affect flooding on adjacent parcels. Mr. Treadwell’s third issue is pollution, the Wetlands Act, and has to do with contaminants. Tanners occupied this land in the late 1800’s, and that could cause contamination, so he wonders if any testing has been done and if remediation has occurred, and how this affects future building. Will it still be subject to an NOI in the future? Mr. Devine clarifies that it is an RDA but will lead to an NOI. Mr. Treadwell also asks about Chapter 91, as this is filled wetlands, so it is a potential Ch. 91.
The clause from the Wetlands Act references Ch. 91 and Mr. Treadwell asks for clarification. He reads the clause – the Chairman says it means that you must comply with Chapter 91 requirements; however on Chapter 91 issues the Conservation Commission defers to the state DEP. This parcel has a Ch. 91 license in the deed according to Mr. Burnham, and it runs with the land.
Mr. Treadwell also says there is use of the land beyond the property line for boat storage and there may be some submerged materials. Mr. Pabich points out that use includes the mud flats; since there is a chapter 91, it’s permissible. Also, the neighborhood is interested in eventual development with sidewalks; the sidewalk at this property is narrow, sloped away from the property, bituminous, and not usable. One area has no sidewalk; Mr. Burnham says it is being spruced up. Mr. Treadwell would like to see improvements but understands it may be beyond the purview of the Commission.
Teasie Riley-Goggin speaks about the Chapter 91 license, asking if it goes with the property and is transferable. The boatyard is a zoning issue, but the Ch.91 license conveys with the property.
The Chairman schedules a site visit for Oct 28th at 5:30PM.
Christie motions to continue this item to the next meeting, is seconded by McCauley, and the motion passes unanimously.
Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Barbara Bowman— DEP #64-509, 8 Dearborn Lane, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of a concrete seawall and replacement with riprap within a portion of Coastal Beach, Coastal Bank, and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage at 8 Dearborn Lane.
Mr. Rich Brennan, representing Mrs. Bowman, filed an NOI. Some work was done on the wall previously but the wall is in poor condition and is failing; earth is being lost to erosion each season. Stabilization can only occur with removal of the wall and installation of a filter fabric, then placing a riprap wall in front of it. No erosion is occurring in the areas already held back by such a bank on the rest of the property; he wants to continue it. The difference in height of the bank is from 4’ to 3’ with a 3’ right-of-way between Mrs. Bowman’s and the abutting property, so Mr. Brennan would like to put in granite steps to maintain access to the beach. He will have to go about 4’ out onto the beach to maintain the outline of the existing wall base. This
would maintain a better slope.
The Chairman says it would improve the situation to remove the wall, but don’t extend the riprap out any further beyond the existing toe. He should lay back into the flat area of the yard rather than extending out onto the beach. Mr. Brennan says he would have to dig back the bank, and that’s what the Chairman is suggesting – don’t take up the beach, take up yard instead. The Chairman asks where the toe of the eroded portion was; there is nothing existing but it probably extended out an additional 5-10’. Mr. Brennan believes this is the original banking, not fill. He believes the banking has receded over the years but isn’t sure as there is no evidence of previous retaining walls.
Mr. Brennan says the owner would like to maintain the flat area above the retaining wall as it is the only space in her yard that is usable, not on a slope, which is part of the reason he wants to go out on the beach. The year the seawall was constructed is unknown, but was probably built in the 1960’s. Knisel asks if the riprap will extend beyond the footprint of the existing seawall parallel to the shore; it will and will also go further along the property line; the wall is 32’ long and the exposed bank beside it is 25’ long and 2’ high at one end; the wall is 4’ high. Knisel asks about the neighbor’s property; a float was put in and it is natural, with no riprap or wall as there is no erosion and it’s stable. Knisel says that by extending the
seawall we need to consider scour effects and sediment contributions.
She suggests a site visit and Pabich agrees but also says that the wall should have an engineer’s stamp on it, given the massiveness of the seawall. The Commission requests that it be engineered as the Chairman can’t tell from the drawings where the existing wall is; he asks if they will fill in an entire corner; Mr. Brennan states that they won’t be filling in much of the beach.
Chairman Pabich is concerned about water displacement; water may be pushed to the neighbors in a flood condition and he would rather see it go inward onto the property from the existing condition, not outward onto the beach. The impact to the beach needs to be considered, even if some of the flat yard area must be lost. Blier asks about the exposed footing, which was once underground; erosion would have taken place because of the wall, so an argument could be made that he’s restoring a previous grade with riprap and that the slope of the wall would ensure slowing of the water. Riprap is an improvement over the wall.
Knisel says that the beach/seawall interface hasn’t changed, but the beach has been lowered, so “restoration” wouldn’t occur. The structure should start at the existing toe and go onto the property, not the beach. The footprint on the beach as well as water displacement must be considered. More discussion of logistics occurs and Mr. Brennan explains and illustrates on his pictures and plan drawing.
The Chairman says that Mr. Brennan’s plan could have been improved and discussion avoided if the existing structure and proposed structure had been on it. Chairman Pabich again reiterates that these are structural issues and should be approved by an engineer as a condition.
Chairman Pabich opens to the public and Jim Treadwell speaks again. Some abutters have an easement that gives them access to the beach; thus far there has been no response from them. Mr. Treadwell asks if there is any ecological difference between a wall and riprap; that has been addressed. He also questions the proposed steps. The abutters do not like people going down to the beach, even though it’s permitted, and he’s worried that putting the riprap there will make access impossible. People do walk upriver so if it’s possible to keep work on the property that would be beneficial. He also mentions the “North Shore Babies Hospital Sign” which came down to this property so he thinks this may be fill from the upper slope.
Knisel asks when the house was built; Mr. Brennan doesn’t know but Mr. Burhnam (of the boatyard in Item No.4) says 1983. Chairman Pabich also asks for a plot map so that the Commission can be sure all work is being done on the applicant’s property.
Chairman Pabich schedules a site visit for 5:20PM Swampscott Rd. The other site visits are moved up pending responses from the applicants in question. US Bio is tentatively moved to 4:30PM (the Commission will contact the applicant to confirm that the change is OK); Mr. Burnahm’s boatyard visit is moved to 5:00PM on Franklin St.
Blier motions to continue, McCauley seconds, and the motion passes unanimously.
Old/New Business
- MAPC Strategic Regional Planning Grant Public Meeting
Meeting will be on Monday for public input on priority conservation sites. All Commissioners are welcome to attend. Monday at 7PM on the 18th.
Devine asks if Chairman Pabich wants to be apprised of appeals. He does. The Lowe’s site is being appealed by Belair Ave. Realty trust, which had a 30 day appeal period. This is long after the appeal period but they make a valid point – they are in Lynn but within 100’ of the project and should have been notified, and weren’t. Mr. Devine is not sure what the DEP will think of this late appeal. The Commission’s order may be invalid if all steps weren’t filed since it would be incorrect, based on an incomplete foundation as abutters were not notified, even those in a different city.
Chistie motions to adjourn the meeting, is seconded by Hamilton, and the motion passes unanimously.
The meeting adjourns at 8PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on October 28, 2010.
| 
