APPROVED MINUTES
Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, May 26, 2011, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairman David Pabich, Carole McCauley, Julia Knisel, Amy Hamilton, Dan Ricciarelli, Michael Blier
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Carole McCauley, in Chairman Pabich’s absence, calls the meeting to order at 6:15PM.
Meeting Minutes— May 12, 2011.
Last meeting’s minutes will be reviewed at the next meeting.
Public Hearing—Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation—MRM Project Management LLC, P.O. Box 388, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed delineation of resource areas and exemptions from riverfront area regulations for the property located at 60 & 64 Grove St. and 3 Harmony Grove Rd. (former Salem Oil and Grease).
Illustrations: MRM Project Management Existing Conditions Plan C-2 filed 4/28/11
Presenting for MRM is Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering. They are filing a request to agree on wetlands before finalizing plans for redevelopment. He feels the site walk will be useful and the wetland resources are fairly straightforward. He outlines the three parcels of land at the addresses above. There are 6.8 acres total, divided by the MBTA tracks, and bordered on the right and at the top by Harmony Grove Rd. There is a bridge crossing the North River which is not in good shape, though it is passable by foot. He outlines existing buildings. In 2007 they were before the Commission requesting an Order of Conditions for environmental cleanup, which has been mostly done. More work and investigations must be done, but the work in 2007 stopped imminent threat of release. Access to the property is off of
Grove St.
Wetland resources have to do with the North River Canal and land subject to coastal storm flowage; there are various elevations but they are in an unspecified zone. They have looked at elevations at extreme rain events for reference – during the Mother’s Day storm of 2006 it was 8.5; 10.5 has been suggested as an appropriate number to use, so that is what they did use. Parts of the property are in the 100-year flood zone.
Some of the property is along the bank of the North River; in this case it is clear what the bank is due to rock walls, and elsewhere the bank has been marked with flags. They did not find bordering vegetated wetlands. The buffer zone of 100’ back from the bank is drawn on the illustration.
There is also a 200’ riverfront area; there are some exceptions to the Wetlands Protection act which he believes apply to this property. A site that has been primarily used for industrial purposes prior to 1946 would qualify; this site has been used in that manner since the 1800’s. A mill and tannery were on different parts of the property; the history was described in the paperwork submitted. He also shows a 1946 status plan, drawn according to many historical sources. Existing buildings are highlighted in yellow, and there were support facilities associated with the buildings. He will show the Commission old maps and photos during the site visit.
The North River was a flat, stagnant water body before it was narrowed into a canal (previously used as a sewer). Mr. Griffin discusses the comments made by the DEP, which had questions about flood elevation. They attempted to talk to FEMA but got nowhere; FEMA contracts out flood mapmaking and he feels they will not get any information. Historical storms of record have been lower than the 10.5 he specified; if the commission is not happy with that they can just say it’s an A zone without specifying an elevation.
Knisel asks if he checked FEMA’s delineation; he did, there are also better flood maps being made next year, but all they did was trace old flood maps so he looked at other data, which used an elevation of around 10. Knisel asks about DEP clarification, but none was provided.
Also they wanted to provide the commission with information on uses in 1946. Adjacent areas were used for storage and during the site walk Commissioners will be able to view storage areas.
Devine reviews the points he discussed with the DEP:
There have already been resource delineations approved with a prior order of conditions; both can stand without conflict. The more stringent of the two, in the event that the Commission approves the proposed exemptions, is the existing order of conditions as there are no riverfront area exemptions approved with that. Jill Provencal at DEP asked for more info to back up the 10.5 foot flood elevation, so that will need to be looked at. She questioned if this qualifies as a canal – there is no definition in the Wetlands Protection Act. This is a modified river, not a completely manmade waterway like the examples cited in the regulations. Jill also asked more info to demonstrate that not just the building footprints were present prior to 1946, but also that the space was used for utilities, parking, and
driveways, since those areas would be exempt under the historic mill exemption.
Blier asks about precedent canal cases – Cape Cod, Lowell, and Haverhill are exempt. Cape Cod was not completely manmade either so he’s surprised that Jill from the DEP is objecting.
McCauley asks about the first illustration – 200’ would take up most of the property as resource area. It does not make the project impossible but it will be easier if they do not have to take it into account. This site is exemplary of why the exemptions are in place – it was heavily used for industry.
Blier asks about vegetation. There is some along the canal, but is primarily invasive.
Mark Pattison, of 2 Beaver St., asks about the redevelopment plans. There is no plan in place yet – this is all preliminary.
Chairman Pabich has arrived at this point but McCauley is acting as chair for this issue.
Pabich reiterates the need to walk the site and also thinks the scope of this is beyond what they’ve dealt with in the past; peer review may be sought but that need will be determined after the site visit.
Hamilton asks if FEMA ever did a flood profile of the site; Peabody Phase 1, 2 and 3 studies were reviewed and this site is below that flood elevation.
McCauley opens to the public.
Joan Sweeney, of 22 Silver Street, asks about the Stop & Shop. That site qualified as riverfront, and the Army Corps of Engineers was involved.
Teasie Riley Goggin, of 9 Wisteria St. asks about the elevation coming from Peabody into Salem – they are not sure what is going to happen so she wonders where they got their information. Mr. Griffin’s info comes from reports of the Army Corps of Engineers published by their contractors, which provide elevations for this area.
Jim Treadwell, of 36 Fell St. would like to challenge elevation of floodplain via the FEMA flood map. He gives the Commission a copy of the 1979 map for this property, which states that the elevation is 11, and everything north of the line is in a flood area. He says that this is coincidental with the line shown by FEMA.
Plans and maps are reviewed. Mr. Griffin says flood maps show no specified elevation, but into Peabody it’s elevation 11. He does not think the map presented by Treadwell has anything FEMA doesn’t have. Pabich asks about a straight line extrapolation – wouldn’t it be 10.75’?
Mr. Griffin thinks in this part of Salem flood zones are driven by storm events, but Pabich asks if this is the case at the Peabody line. Griffin doesn’t think so. He cites extreme flood events such as the 2006 flood in which the elevation was 8.5, so that a straight line extrapolation is not possible. Knisel asks if that flood was a 100-year event, but that is unknown.
Treadwell continues, saying they have a letter from the former owner, Mr. Goldberg, written when they were developing the North River Canal Corridor plan. They were hoping to expand boundary of the North River canal corridor since this would permit mixed use. Treadwell believes that in the letter, Mr. Goldberg states that there are environmental problems on this site, and the area at 60 Grove St. is thought to be polluted.
He also mentions the Brownfields Coalition grant, which this owner has shown interest in, and Pabich clarifies that the grant is not for cleanup, only for investigation. It does not commit an owner to cleanup or mean a property is actually contaminated, although there are some AUL’s (Activity and Use Limitations) on this site.
Since 1946 many buildings have been eliminated. Historic preservation and the definition of a mill complex are discussed. If buildings no longer exist, does the exemption still apply? The area would include the footprint that is or was occupied by a building, and the exemption would still apply even after it was demolished.
Mr. Treadwell outlines some regulations regarding NOI’s – Chapter 91 is not applicable. He wants to mention that the trees being removed from the slope was shocking, as the embankment was held in place by vegetation, and that is of interest in the regulations.
Mr. Griffin points out that his quote of the historic mill exemption was incomplete; also regarding the fact that Chapter 91 as not applicable – there is no Ch. 91 input for the ANRAD. If they are working below historic low water levels, this would include Chapter 91, but at this time it is not being requested.
Ms. Sweeney again says there is a railroad map with elevations, and she has a 9’ elevation. Stop and Shop starts near Main St. at elevation 11 and goes down to 9 or 10 further down.
Teasie Riley Goggin was with Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coastwatch during the smelt count, and they took some from this area. She wonders how this work would affect the smelt population. Mr. Griffin says cleanup would benefit them. There is no eel grass.
McCauley asks about a site visit – is the public welcome on this site visit? The public is welcome but may be asked to sign a waiver before entering the property. Site visits are not automatically open to the public, as permission from the owner is required. Mr. Treadwell suggests they could have a representative of the public there rather than everyone attending.
A site visit is set for June 9th, at 5PM. Commissioners will meet at 64 Grove St..
A motion to continue to June 9th is made by Pabich seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
Continuation Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Salem Community Gardens, P.O. Box 82, Salem, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss after-the-fact installation of 95 community garden plots and appurtenances within riverfront area and buffer zones to coastal bank, coastal beach and salt marsh at 20 Lincoln Rd. (Pickman Park).
Chairman Pabich takes over as chair from Carole McCauley. Brett Mentuck presents. She describes the setup of the gardens and the boxes, which are on top of the paved surface of the old tennis court. Pine (untreated) was used for the boxes and the fence posts. Boxes were filled with compost and due to the recent rain, the area needs to be cleaned up and the leftover compost dispersed. The City of Salem pruned some of the trees. Community Gardens is trying to be environmentally responsible.
Ms. Mentuck wonders if the Commission is more concerned about runoff coming from rainwater or from the hose. The source of runoff makes no difference; the Commission is concerned with runoff in general. As it is, runoff will be reduced since the surface now has soil on it rather than pavement.
The plan is to supply only a short hose so gardeners must haul water in buckets or watering cans to their plots, on the theory that they will use less if it is more work. There is also a plan in place to address maintenance down the road; funding is set aside to fix the boxes.
Chairman Pabich is concerned that runoff will go into the marsh. He feels the maintenance plan addresses many of his housekeeping concerns. A sample of the sock is shown; this will be filled with soil and plants. There is a question as to whether it could be filled with hay, but the idea is to have small plants grow through the sock, which helps prevent runoff. The boxes are against the fences so placing it inside the fence along the perimeter would be difficult. There are many invasives growing on the outside of the fence, also making the situation difficult.
Knisel asks if there are rules about gardeners planting seedlings vs. using seeds. There are no rules, but they want to control seeds getting out of the footprint. They have been referencing Mel Bartholomew’s All New Square Foot Garden book. Not everyone uses it, but many gardeners rely on it. Knisel wants to add to the maintenance plan monitoring the perimeter of the garden. Chairman Pabich says they should also have language in the code of conduct referencing the need to control seeds and why.
Ms. Mentuck asks if asparagus can go wild and if cutting it would spread its seeds. Some people put hay and chicken wire over their seeds. No one is planting asparagus. The plants outside the fence are established, and have been there a while. They can put up a sign warning people not to eat it. They can also do volunteer monitoring or can train people to monitor.
Chairman Pabich says it is an activity within the resource area, but is a developed site and beds are temporary in nature, so there is a technical loophole if they want to issue a negative determination. Gardens are not in the resource so much as temporary. McCauley comments on the vegetation left there. Blier comments that 75% of the impervious materials have been “removed,” though not exactly converted to pervious surface, since there is no infiltration, but are still reducing sun exposure to the asphalt, keeping things cooler.
Chairman Pabich asks if the exemption is not just for single family houses; Devine says it is not only for single family homes. Ms. Mentuck asks if there is something they can do in the off season to reduce runoff when gardens are not in use. They can just leave plots there and they will absorb water.
Chairman Pabich says installation of the vegetated sock will help in winter. The beds closest to the fence should be separated to allow water to get out the entire side through the vegetated sock.
McCauley says the sock could be outside of fence, attached to it. Blier says if the sock is on the inside with plants going through it, it might damage the boxes. What happens if grasses grow up through sock. Does it matter if they are native or invasive? They are not sure if they’re native or invasive – it’s marsh grass. Chairman Pabich says it doesn’t matter what it is. McCauley says they should just put sock along bottom side, not along the whole perimeter. They would put it along the river side and park side.
Chairman Pabich wants to point out that this is City land. The obligation is on the City to know what is going on, and they should have instructed the Community Gardens to come before the Conservation Commission.
The Community Gardens asks if they can remove the poison ivy, which is coming into the fenced-in area. McCauley opines that it’s a question for the parks department. Landscape activities are exempt and poison ivy could be removed under that exemption; conversion of impervious surfaces to pervious is another exemption, and both can also be used outside of single family homes.
Pat Burke of the Community Gardens states that he has lived there whole life, and came up with idea for the community garden. Vegetation was coming into park, and had been kept back by kids playing there, but now they go to camps. So the vegetation had grown into tennis court, which became an eyesore, and is now an asset to the city. Middleton prisoners helped clean it out.
McCauley is surprised that parks dept did not alert them to issue of Conservation Commission jurisdiction, but Pabich not. Pabich would have said cut out asphalt under boxes if something would have been different. Ms. Mentuck worried about pollutants coming up.
McCauley and Ricciarelli sign affidavits so they may vote.
Chairman Pabich asks if they would like to exercise the exemption for a negative determination. The Commission wonders if there is a negative determination that encompasses the exemption, since it is not a number 1, 2, or 3. This actually would be a Negative 5, which allows exemptions to be cited
The Commission can make a request that they install the sock. They ask about the filling. The Community Gardens at Pickman Park can use compost in the sock. The Commission is also requesting monitoring of the edge of the gardens and to let gardeners know they are in a sensitive area. Community Gardens will be provided with resource area placards. They will also post this on facebook and by email.
A motion to issue a negative 5 determination is by Blier, with exemptions for the conversion from impervious to vegetated surfaces and for the fencing, seconded by seconded by Hamilton, and all are in favor. This decision is made hereby part of these minutes.
Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-509—Barbara Bowman, 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.
Rich Brennan is not ready with materials, plus there would not have been a quorum due to people missing meetings. He may have to re-file if this goes on. There is a question on the maximum number of continuations, but there is no maximum.
A motion to continue to the June 9 meeting is made by McCauley, seconded by Knisel, and passes unanimously.
Mr. Treadwell says the comments of Marine Fisheries should serve as a basis for conversation, and they should minimize incursion into beach – this has been addressed already, as the footprint will not change. New plans were submitted. There may be another new set of plans before this is over. The public easement is discussed. Pabich says this is not a Conservation Commission issue; he should bring it up with the property owner. Chairman Pabich said it was a drainage easement, not a public access easement, but Treadwell is concerned about this. There is also a question as to whether or not a Chapter 91 license was in place.
Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—City of Salem, 5 Broad St., Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss replacement of playground facilities at 20 Lincoln Rd. (Pickman Park) within riverfront area and buffer zones to coastal beach and coastal bank.
Brett Mentuck presents again. This will be in the same footprint as the existing play ground; the issues are that the resources must be protected during the construction. Chairman Pabich asks how many footings will be needed; they can count the footings on the plans. Ricciarelli comments that it is probably poured.
Chairman Pabich says the site is flat, the old equipment worn out, and work will be done by hand or small machines. Current equipment and its removal are discussed. There will be no barrier around it, they will dig down instead.
The new playground will be slightly offset from the current one; it is a longer, skinnier structure.
Chairman Pabich asks how it will be implemented; they are hoping to have it in before July 4th, and the process will take about 3 days. Inmates from Lawrence will come help out, the City will prep the area first, but when uncertain. The build itself will take 2 days in addition to removal of old equipment and pouring of cement.
Chairman Pabich asks if erosion control is needed. Ricciarelli opines that it is only a 3 day process. Also the inmates work very fast, so it could be less than 3 days. The community can help but this work will be done during the week. They could ask the City to put up a silt fence, but Pabich thinks it may not be necessary.
There are no public comments, and the Commission recommends a negative determination.
A motion to issue a negative two determination is made by McCAuley, seconded by Knisel, and passes unanimously. This decision is made hereby part of these minutes.
Old/New Business
Baker’s Island Pier maintenance, DEP #64-151 – Devine needs Knisel, Hamilton, Blier, and Pabich’s signatures on that document.
Devine wants to attend a trails design workshop and a workshop for applying for recreational trails grants. The Commission asks him about the Forest River footbridge. A volunteer repairs the small footbridge, but the larger of the two still needs work. Volunteers could have a role in further work, and both workshops free. Devine would just need mileage to travel to Leominster and Milton.
McCauley motions to reimburse him, Hamilton seconds, and all are in favor.
Devine updates the Commission on two enforcement issues;
38 Commercial St. between the Salem Suede property and the North River: The owner had the tenant purchase a spill kit and agree confirm regular inspections of hydraulic equipment.
417 Lafayette St.: The Owner has moved a float out of the salt marsh and completely offsite. This is a few houses down from 441 Lafayette St., where another float was removed from the salt marsh.
The City is progressing with the stormwater ordinance, and needs a member of the Conservation Commission to review drafts before bringing it to the Commission. The Document is 7 pages for the ordinance, but the regulations may be longer. Hamilton volunteers to review it.
- Annual election of Conservation Commission officers: discussion and vote
Chairman Pabich states that he is happy to remain as Chair if no one else has interest in it. McCauley nominates Knisel for Chair, and she accepts. The nomination is seconded by Hamilton. All Commissioners vote in favor of Knisel as chair.
McCauley nominates Pabich as Vice Chair, is seconded by Blier, and all vote in favor.
A motion to adjourn is made by Pabich, seconded by Hamilton, and all approve.
The meeting ends at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on June 9, 2011.
| 
