Approved Minutes
Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, October 28, 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, Dan Ricciarelli, Michael Blier
Members Absent: Amy Hamilton
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Chairman Pabich calls the meeting to order at 6:06PM.
Meeting Minutes—October 14, 2010 Meeting
Julia Knisel makes a correction: “B” Zone on page 2 should be “V” zone.
A motion to approve the minutes with the above revision is made by Christie and seconded by McCauley; it passes unanimously.
Continuation of Public Hearinghbasins up and relocating discharge as the Commission asked. He also passes out copies of the plan to the Commissioners, who review them.
The Chairman confirms the direction and location of drainage. He also reviews the site visit and the areas which were staked, as well as how the land has been altered in the past 20 years. He asks about curbing, which will be Cape Cod berm all the way around and sloped granite along the road where people enter. There is no fence around the detention basin.
Devine also confirms that the construction debris they saw during the site visit will be cleaned up. He asks what “marsh compatible landscaping” means but Mr. Seaberg is not sure. It may be a type of grass. Mr. Seaberg does have a landscaping plan and this is reviewed. He points out to the Chairman the buffer area and limits of the work areas. Chairman Pabich asks them to leave as much of the buffer zone undisturbed as possible; he wants that conditioned. Blier asks about the retaining wall, which will be 12 or 13 feet high using Versalock and a pervious backfill. A filter fabric will also be used and there will be very limited disturbance. There is a gravel pad but no concrete footing.
The Chairman opines that it is a straightforward project with minimal impact; his concerns have been addressed. He thinks granite curbing had been conditioned on the site in the past. McCauley asks if a certain area is engineered detention; it is. The Chairman says that Cape Cod berm doesn’t last, which is why granite curbing is required; since the berm is an integral part of the stormwater collection system, the system will fail if it gets blown out. A Cape Cod berm is bituminous tar that slopes up.
Ricciarelli opines that the berm won’t last more than one season; Mr. Seaberg says it depends on how it’s made. The Chairman would like to put in a condition that if the Cape Cod berm fails, it should be replaced with vertical granite curbing. He and Mr. Seaberg discuss where the water will go in that case. Knisel asks for clarification if the area in question is the curve at the entrance to the parking lot. The Chairman confirms and explains how it leads toward the forebay.
Mr. Seaberg explains that they want positive drainage on the wall, and there is also a guardrail at the top of the wall to keep cars there.
Christie asks if they were to add on parking spaces to bring the number back up to 108, where they would go; Mr. Seaberg points it out but he would have to come before the Commission again to do it. There are 78 spaces planned now. Christie asks where the machinery will be kept while work is being done. It will be kept wherever the contractor chooses, but probably on the front or side.
The Chairman asks about roof runoff and Mr. Seaberg points it out. The entire site will retain a minimum of ½”. The Chairman is concerned about the curbing. He reiterates that if it gets destroyed it will have to be replaced but it may be easier to just start with granite curbing. The applicant says that conditions could be placed to ensure maintenance. Chairman Pabich agrees. It could also be added to the maintenance plan and referenced in the annual letter they send.
Devine asks the Chairman to identify on the plan the curbing in question.
We need a revised maintenance plan specifying semi-annual inspection and repair of the Cape Cod berm if needed. This will be conditioned to come in a revised operation maintenance plan, to be submitted prior to construction.
The Chairman opens to the public and George Corso of A & J Realty Trust comments about the soil that had been pushed onto his abutting property by the previous owner; the current owner agreed to remove it. Chairman Pabich says that if they are going to remove soil on Mr. Corso’s property that falls into the buffer zone, he himself will need to come before the Commission for that project, even if he’s not the one performing the work.
Patrice Clemen of Salem State University asks what the most controversial issue regarding this property is. Chairman Pabich says that the maintenance issue is that salting and sanding the parking lot means water must be treated before it is released. McCauley points out that they have enough real estate to do onsite treatment with detention basins; that option doesn’t exist in the city. Devine points out that it is not a controversial project but is supported by the City and state through tax incentives.
Blier motions to close the public hearing, is seconded by Ricciarelli and the motion passes 6-0.
Christie motions to Approve and issue the Order of Conditions with the following conditions:
- The Northeast corner will be left undisturbed rather than grass planted. This is the area between the zoning buffer, erosion control, and retaining wall.
- The maintenance and operations plan will be revised to have a semi-annual inspection of the Cape Cod berm, which will be repaired if damaged. If continuing damage occurs the commission reserves the right to require granite curbing. Confirmation of inspection and maintenance will be submitted annually on October 1st.
The motion is seconded by McCauley and passes unanimously.
Continuation of 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.
The applicant is not present but the Chairman chooses not to table the issue. He thinks that an RDA is inadequate for this project, since it involves bringing tons of fill into a riverfront area. Ricciarelli asks if the applicant has changed the grade, but no one knows. Devine says he claims that he did not change the grade before adding the gravel. In some places it’s only 2” deep but it’s 6” deep in other places. Additionally there are parking signs up so he can charge for Halloween, and that may be a zoning issue.
The Chairman wants to issue a positive determination and have the applicant submit an NOI for the work done; Mccauley agrees and Christie asks if he can submit an NOI for work done previously. The Chairman says he would have to.
The Chairman opens to the public.
Jim Treadwell of 36 Felt St. speaks. He noticed in previously submitted aerial photos that the property extends about 189’ from Franklin St. and asks if that is of interest to the Board. He questions whether the applicant is going beyond the property as assessed or if he can go beyond his property into the river. Devine says he would need a plot plan showing the extent of his property; he does have rights beyond it in one area but the Commission would want clarification. McCauley asks who owns the land – the applicant does by deed and the license came with the property. Mr. Treadwell said that the deed includes appurtenant flats. Chairman Pabich is not sure if there is a Ch. 91 license; McCauley says the applicant claimed there was but has not shown
proof.
Blier asks if the fill condition is monolithic across the site. It is. We don’t know what was there before or how much fill is there now. Boats had previously been parked there. McCauley says that if the earth was compacted it would not have been vegetated. Chairman Pabich says that from aerial photos it appears it was completely covered by boats. McCauley said there were also wood skids the applicant slid boats on that had not been removed. Devine says he saw a series of holes of various depths around the site; the applicant claimed they were 2” deep at the last meeting but on the application it says they were 4-6” deep. Knisel asks how he will submit an NOI after the fact if there is no original grade; Pabich says he will have to testify
to how much gravel he brought in; it is a lot of volume even though it’s only 2” thick.
The Chairman says that a positive determination will require that the applicant file an NOI. There will have to be cease and desist order for all work attached to it until the Commission can further examine the issue.
For an RDA the public hearing does not have to be opened or closed.
Ricciarelli motions to issue a positive Determination, is seconded by McCauley, and the motion passes 6-0.
Devine says that a Positive 1 means that the area described is subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and requires filing of NOI. He outlines three possible options. The first is all-encompassing and doesn’t mention documents, just that all work is subject to the Act. The Chairman says the applicant should file an NOI but also should Cease and Desist all work until the NOI is approved, and that the applicant cannot bundle this NOI into the one for the upcoming work he plans to do, which was mentioned at the last meeting. They must be separate.
Christie comments that the last 12’ between the edge of the water and the gravel is extremely dirty with glass, trash, etc strewn about and that the applicant had stated that the entire site used to be like that. She thinks he most likely just dumped the gravel over the refuse.
Continuation of 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.
This hearing has been continued at the request of Richard Brennan, representing the applicant. Devine has some comments from the Division of Marine Fisheries on this issue and passes out the letters to be reviewed at the next meeting.
Old/New Business
- Update on coyote sightings in Forest River Conservation Area
Devine had heard from someone working at Freedom Hollow that coyotes have been sighted in the Forest River Conservation Area. Chairman Pabich asks if they’re sure they’re coyotes as some foxes can look gray and mangy; Devine can’t verify but the individual reporting the sightings is sure it was a coyote. Information from the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife has been obtained and the management company will distribute educational material. Christie asks if there is construction going on at Salem State.
One of the Salem State students in the office says that demolition of the library is currently taking place on North campus. Blier wonders why there is concern; Devine clarifies that the individual wanted to know if he could shoot the coyotes, but there is no hunting on Conservation Commission property, plus there is a buffer between it and residential areas. McCauley wonders if it was seen at freedom hollow or in the woods but Devine is not sure.
- Update on volunteer bridge reconstruction in Forest River Conservation Area
Volunteers are ready to do this work. The Commission approved paying for materials and there is no reason not to go forward. We’ve been lagging due to changes in staff. There could be liability issues and we may need to have volunteers sign a release.
- Discussion of Harmony Grove Cemetery signage (DEP # 64-495)
The condition requiring “no dumping” signs was to be reviewed by the Agent or Chair but the applicant wasn’t sure what they had in mind. Chairman Pabich says simple signs stating “no dumping- riverfront area” would be sufficient. They don’t have to be any particular size, shape or color.
- Notice of upcoming training opportunities
Devine asks that the Commission fund him to go to a one-day stormwater and erosion control workshop at the University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center, at a cost of $50 plus mileage. The Commission approves.
- MAPC priority conservation and development sites regional follow up meeting: December 8, 7:00 p.m., Danvers Town Hall
All are welcome to attend. Mr. Treadwell says he attended original meeting and opines that MAPC is seeking further public input. He asks if the Commission has studied the maps; they have not yet but they can. Devine had issued information to the Commission already. Mr. Treadwell says the base map on the map of priorities shows a certain point as wetland so he wonders what base map Salem’s Conservation Commission uses for wetlands. McCauley says she thinks we get maps from MAPC. Chairman Pabich says they have been updated since the 70’s and may be available in the city’s Engineering Department.
Devine notes that National Grid is presenting its yearly operational plan for public comment.
- Location of next meeting: Room 314 (not in 313) as the Planning Board will be in our usual room.
Treadwell also brings up new business: at the Design Review Board meeting last night the
Gateway Development company presented a new proposal to elevate the ground floor of the Senior Center at 12’ rather than 10.25’. The Conservation Commission had reviewed this site previously – he thinks it was a decision on the part of owner and wonders if the Commission would need to review it again. Blier says the whole site will be raised up. They were making assumptions based the Conservation Commission’s request to get out of the flood zone.
Chairman Pabich says they’re re-grading the site to bring it up 2 feet. Blier outlines what they’re doing but they didn’t present in detail. The grade will change all the way to the main entry. The building is retaining the back side of the site. Ricciarelli says this nullifies any previous Conservation Commission approval. They said they would come before the Commission but not until Mr. Treadwell pointed out that they would need to. Blier says it was clear they didn’t understand ramifications of the change from the Conservation Commission’s point of view until Treadwell brought it up. Blier says they felt they were taking the Commission’s advice with this change. Blier says there was some question about the veracity of the 10.25
number. It is clear they don’t understand what this change will do. The architect was present yesterday but not the attorney for the project.
A motion to adjourn is made by McCauley, seconded by Christie and passes unanimously.
The meeting ends at 7:10PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on November 19, 2010.
| 
