Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Acting Chairwoman Rebecca Christie, Carole McCauley, Julia Knisel, Dan Ricciarelli, Amy Hamilton
Members Absent: Chairman David Pabich, Michael Blier
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Acting Chairwoman Rebecca Christie calls the meeting to order at 6:15PM.
Meeting Minutes—March 10, 2011
A motion to approve the minutes is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Knisel, and passes unanimously. There is one correction on page 5 regarding signing of affidavits.
Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-514—MassDOT, 519 Appleton Street, Arlington, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed drainage line repair on Loring Avenue at the Forest River Crossing. The proposed work includes alteration of a coastal bank and is within a riverfront area and a buffer zone to a salt marsh.
Illustrations submitted:
- Photos of the area
- Maintenance & Repair of Outfall (no date)
- CSI Concrete Systems illustration (no date)
Devine points out to McCauley that we have a quorum to vote regardless of whether or not she signs the affidavit to confirm she has reviewed materials for the hearing she missed, but she would like to vote and so affirms that she is up to date on the issue.
New plans are handed out. Andrea Norton of Mass DOT in Arlington presents again. She had several meetings at her office about the plans. Previously Blier had mentioned block vs. granite block and cement. The construction manual (Mass DOT standards) was consulted and they came up with the current plan. Devine was met with and the City Engineer was contacted but has not replied. This is the routine headwall that has been used for a long time in this type of situation. It is PE approved and Ms. Norton has a letter saying that the City Engineer did approve it. She feels the Commission would approve this over the cement block. Ms. Norton went over the DEP comments with DEP Circuit Rider Pam Merrill.
Devine outlines the actions so far – DEP comments have been addressed; they were in response to the original NOI but many other changes have taken place since. This final iteration with a reduced spillway moved back from the top of the bank is good; the issue was that if it goes on the bank it would not be permitable under the regulations cited by DEP. But with it reduced in size and pulled back from the bank, those performance standards are not triggered.
Another concern was sediment eroding into the river, but Devine went at low tide and the river was clear. So those DEP concerns have been addressed.
Christie asks about one of the photos submitted, what the area will look like when finished, and Ms. Norton explains. She also outlines the process that they will use for repairs. The new sump will be 30” and she passes the measurements and specs to Devine.
Hamilton asks if the existing catch basin will be cleaned out; it will.
Acting Chairwoman Christie opens to the public but there are no comments.
Devine says that a straw wattle would be appropriate erosion control, now that the splash pad has been moved back, it could go between the work area and the bank and define a limit of work. Ms. Norton says that if they would like a condition stating they will be notified 48 hours in advance and be told who the PE is, and that the District Environmental Analyst is onsite during construction, she is willing to accept those conditions.
Devine says that the 48 hour notice is a standard condition; it is up to the Commission if they want the other items. Acting Chairwoman Christie would like more oversight. A resident engineer from maintenance will be there overseeing the contractor but an environmentalist could be onsite too. A resident engineer is supposed to be on every job but she can’t speak for what happened last time. For this reason more oversight may be preferable.
The project will not take very long to do, but they will work when the tide is lowest so work may be spread over 2 days. Ricciarelli was thinking of capping the outlet but Ms. Norton is not familiar with the process; she cannot dictate construction but feels it will be done in a timely manner. The first group who caused the issue was Structures Maintenance and now it will be DOT personnel.
Conditions:
- Erosion control measures between top of bank and splash pad, delimiting area of work.
- Adequate erosion controls for catch basin and bank.
- An analyst must be onsite during construction.
A motion to issue an Order of Conditions with the above special conditions is made by Hamilton, seconded by Knisel, and passes unanimously. The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.
Old/New Business
- DEP #64-496, 295 Derby Street, Hess Harborwalk: Request for Certificate of Compliance
Devine passes around some images of the Harborwalk and landscaping. The delay was due to issues with the benches and elevation. They had to be sure that their elevation was ADA compliant; now it is. The project is satisfactorily complete and Devine recommends issuing the Certificate.
A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance is made by McCauley, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously. The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.
- Leslie’s Retreat Dog Park: Discussion of proposed fence, Bart Hoskins of Salem Play Areas for Canine Exercise (SPACE)
Illustrations:
- Leslie’s Retreat Off-Leash Park, Alternative A, 7-20-05
- Leslie’s Retreat Off-Leash Park, Alternative B, 7-20-05
- Leslie’s Retreat Dog Park Site Plan, 4-29-2009
- Leslie’s Retreat Dog Park [as-built plan], 10-4-10
- Leslie’s Retreat Dog Park Small Dog Park Addition, 10-5-10
Devine comments that there are three approved plans for this dog park and there is a minor addition to the fencing to be added. We must decide if this is allowed on any of the three plans, all of which were previously issued negative Determinations of Applicability.
Ricciarelli asks if they are bisecting an existing enclosure but this is not exactly the case.
Mr. Hoskins directs the Commissioners to look at the first two plans, orienting them with the river facing toward them. Key features are the parking area at one end and a gazebo at the other end. In 2006 these two plans were alternatives, and this was being done by SPACE and would depend on money raised for fencing. Both plans were approved; one was in the footprint of parking and the gazebo; the other would have gone beyond the gazebo. At one point he wanted one area to be cut off and become a small dog space.
Devine says normally the plans would have expired after three years but the State Legislature granted a two-year extension for virtually all permits. When the applicant came back in 2009 the plan had some new features added. So far a pass program has been implemented and the money goes into a City account, so SPACE is in an advisory capacity to the Parks & Rec. Dept. The 2009 plan still includes a small dog area still within the original footprint; also they would like to add a seating area of high-drainage pavers that were donated, and a drainage garden would be added. For this one, the water would go in when it’s raining then out when the tide is up as the area floods due to its proximity to the North River. It would create a buffer from the storm drain for dog waste. In 2009 it was approved as long as the
drainage garden was included in the first phase of work.
Photos of the work are passed around. Mr. Hoskins describes the setup of the pavers, which have thick layers of stone underneath and drain really well. The drainage garden is still fenced in and being worked on with different plants being tried.
There are two new plans. One is the “As Built” plan showing the dog park right now. One section includes a circle of steel edging with 1 ½” stone around trees with some half benches. The last plan is in question tonight. Changes include mainly going beyond the current footprint of the fence. Having a small dog park at the parking end has some issues, since flooding makes the area muddy and swampy. There is no good place to put a gate. They are proposing removal of the fencing that goes diagonally to the back of the gazebo and putting it at that end of the park instead. Usually they are fence posts are sawed off when fencing is changed, but this time they will be taken out, concrete and all, and holes backfilled. A second entry way will go behind the gazebo and straight back, for a slight increase in
the footprint of the last plan, but still within the footprint of one of the alternatives approved in 2006.
Hamilton asks about the vegetation; there are some bushes and shrubs and a tree in the proposed small dog area. No bushes will be removed, though some are missing from the plan. Mr. Hoskins hopes to get more plantings as it can be quite windy there.
Ricciarelli comments that it is chain link, there is no new grading, and dimensions are being moved to be closer to one of the original plans. They would also like additional benches and a seating area for the small dog park, but nothing departing from the original plan. Ricciarelli asks about the shed on the plan, which will not be happening. People bring chairs but they would like to eventually have all benches to keep the area looking neat. The kiosk, pavers, etc. are all part of that “look” and the shed will not be necessary to keep chairs in since those are going away; there will be a 12’ gate in its place.
Work is subject to how many passes are sold in a year and what donations they get. Ricciarelli comments on the fire hydrant which will be outside the park, which is a good thing since otherwise it would be too popular with the dogs.
Devine opines that with two determinations in effect and three plans, today’s change is covered by those. He thinks no further action is required on the part of the Commission for this change. All Commissioners agree. No vote is required.
Mr. Hoskins outlines 2009 issues with construction at the park. He mentions a methane digester system used in Cambridge which may eventually be a possibility for dog waste at this park.
- Greenscapes North Shore: Discussion of membership renewal
Barbara Warren presented last time but the Commission was not ready to vote before knowing what the Commission’s share of the cost would be. Water and Sewer will be covering half; the total cost is $1800; $1500 + $300 for materials, which is still less than last year. Knisel says it is a good value for the publications – newspaper articles, brochures and workshops.
A motion to spend $900 on Greenscapes is made by Knisel, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously with McCauley abstaining since she has worked on this issue.
McCauley motions to adjourn the meeting, is seconded by Hamilton, and the motion passes unanimously.
The meeting ends at 7:03PM.
Respecfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on April 14, 2011.
| 
