Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, June 23, 2011, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Dan Ricciarelli, Michael Blier, Carole McCauley, Acting Chair David Pabich
Members Absent: Chairwoman Julia Knisel, Amy Hamilton
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Vice Chair Pabich opens the meeting at 6:16PM.
Information Session regarding proposed improvements to Splaine Park. Representatives from the Federal Street Neighborhood Association, Salem Community Gardens, and Salem Department of Planning and Community Development will discuss a preliminary design concept being developed in preparation for a submittal to the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs PARC Grant Program.
Devine opens up by welcoming the public to the information session and introduces himself, describing the grant they are seeking to fund Splaine Park. It is a competitive grant. The Federal St. Neighborhood Association has been very active on this. Dan Ricciarelli is working on the design; there is also talk of having Salem Community Gardens put some plots there. This is an opportunity for public input.
Stan Schwartz of 143 Federal St., board member of the neighborhood association, speaks. They are interested in bringing Splaine Park back to an active neighborhood park. It is now in disrepair with minimal access and is not inviting. Splaine Park is hidden behind a group of trees below the CVS on Highland Ave., up from Boston St. It is across from ASAP Drains.
The Neighborhood Association would like to open up the park and clean it up. They have had fundraisers and meetings with neighbors, and there is a website, splainepark.org.
Dan Ricciarelli explains his preliminary drawing. Existing facilities include a gazebo, baseball diamond and basketball court. They will be refurbishing the field, providing irrigation, and improving the patio/dining/cooking area by the gazebo. They will also improve access – the entry by CVS is just a slope, and they would like to put in stairs. Still, the CVS parking lot must be crossed through. They may put a walkway in along the fence at Essex St. to make another formal entrance. There is also an entrance of off May St. but it is not very visible. They will also put in a signage panel. The May St. entrance looks like an alley or driveway.
Vice Chair Pabich asks if the owners of CVS plaza are on board, but they have not yet been consulted. Pabich comments that a de facto entrance should be defined or excluded for their insurance purposes. An audience member comments on the previous parking situation which had changed over time. CVS is somewhat amenable to letting people park there. There is also a piece of city-owned property on the other side of the park where there could be parking.
Community Gardens could have 150-200 plots there. A new tot lot and play structure would be installed, as would a walking path around the edge. There is sewer and water so toilets could also be added if they can afford it. There is a memorial, which would be expanded and have seating. They have not yet consulted the neighbors to determine if the current location is ideal for the memorial.
There will be motion-sensor security lighting as well. Vice Chair Pabich asks who are the predominant users right now. Many little leaguers use it; otherwise, off season, it is a cut-across path for residents. An audience member asks if kids would be restricted by age.
McCauley asks about construction; it is not in a resource area and the Commission is not reviewing it, but she is concerned about contaminants and hopes they don’t find any that would prevent them from going forward. An audience member member thinks any contamination would be gone since it has previously been refurbished and soils removed and replaced when a sewer line was replaced. They are investigating prior use; Pabich advises them to look into it. There were large buildings there in 1875; curriers and tanners. Mr. Treadwell comments that the archaeologists may want a look.
He also comments that the nets are on the basketball structures; so they must be in use and maintained. Treadwell comments that lights at Furlong Park were eliminated because the abutters were concerned about it. An audience member comments about a light which is very directed – from behind the light, you don’t even see it. Treadwell asks about the adjacent public land, but the parking area is not owned by the city, it would be an easement. There is also a path leading to Salem Heights. The park is 1.85 acres.
Sometimes dog walkers also use the park so a path would be useful. An audience member comments that the park is not visible at night, even with lights, so she would not feel safe at night.
Is it common for parks to be closed at night? Yes. Vice Chair Pabich comments that the norm is that parks are deserted at night. He doesn’t think there is much demand. An audience member comments that a lot of people walk Leslie’s Retreat and the Common at night, but both are very visible. Mr. Treadwell asks if the Councilor for Ward 4 is aware of this. Another audience member comments that it may be part of another ward as well.
Devine says that he has reached out to the City Council and, since this meeting conflicts with the Council and committee meetings, has let them know that they can contact him if they want more information on this process.
The Planning Board would have approved the CVS site, and Mr. Treadwell wonders if they were aware of the park. The other audience member comments that it used to be a solid fence with no gate, and there used to be parking. The opening was created when there was a sinkhole under the ball diamond.
Vice Chair Pabich wonders about a sewer easement and Ricciarelli describes it. Having a formal entry in the corner benefits everyone, but Salem Five and CVS are supportive of fixing up the park and want to be included in the dialogue about designs. Improvements will help their storefronts as well. However, they will not want people parking in their lots, but people do anyway. The fence is there but it is still accessible.
Mr. Treadwell comments on pedestrian access from Salem Heights to downtown; they are trying to encourage it. One problem, however, are baseballs flying in that direction; they should be directed in a different path. There is also an overgrown area between the ball field and the edge. Visibility is discussed.
There was a portable toilet there but it was destroyed within a month. If left as is, any structure would probably get destroyed.
Vice Chair Pabich asks if they will approach the landowners, they should suggest putting up signs asking people to be respectful and not park in the lot, in “exchange” for letting them enter the park through the lot. Smile Designs also owns a lot across the street by the Laundromat; it is a walk to get there, but they let them use the lot after 5PM. Mr. Treadwell asks about parking on Pope St. Even on little League Game nights, the CVS lot still has plenty of parking.
The grant is for $500,000 and will go in July 15. It is a $2 match for every $1 the City spends, so this park could cost up to $750,000, with $250,000 contributed by the City and $500K by the grant. However, McCauley comments that the grant can’t be accepted without having the money to spend on it. Mr. Treadwell comments that Furlong Park should have been left well enough alone. The Conservation Commission discussed the existing conditions there, and City staff wanted to go forward and leave the testing to later. He hopes they look into things they are already concerned with, such as prior use and what’s there now.
Vice Chair Pabich says that the City should have a policy for parks; any open space will have a history of strong, heavy industrial use and will have contamination. We have a legal obligation to open that “Pandora’s box,” and find out what’s there.
Mr. Treadwell asks how the park was named. John Splaine was a WWII veteran who was involved in many veterans’ affairs. We do not know if he actually lived in that area.
6:45 P.M. (6:55PM – actual start time)
Meeting Minutes—May 12, 2011 and June 9, 2011
There is no quorum for either the May 12 or June 9 minutes, so they will not be voted on. Both sets of minutes are tabled until the next meeting.
Public hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem, MA—93 Washington St., Salem, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed capping of contaminated materials and upgrading of park facilities within a buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands and removal of waste materials from said wetlands at McGrath Park (46 Marlborough Rd).
Illustrations:
McGrath Park Site Plan, 6/9/2011
Wetland Buffer Impact Plan, 6/9/2011
Here to discuss the issue is David Knowlton, City Engineer. They have retained Tighe and Bond to help with construction document preparation. They need to cap the park so it can be used for soccer. There are two fields; contamination was found at the surface of the lower field; none was found at the upper field. There is fill/trash buried beneath the upper field with no adequate buffer, thus the whole site will be capped. There are wetlands in some areas around the park. They are trying to get the fields active soon; they want to reconstruct them and have two growing seasons before play resumes, so there is an aggressive schedule to finish capping by mid-October.
The Order of Conditions issued will be included as an addendum to the construction package that goes out for bid. He would like to shorten the time frame and issue the Order in less than 21 days if possible.
Bradley Mezquita from Tighe and Bond is also present and speaks, outlining some details. Ballfields will be raised by 2’ and paved areas will be raised 6” and paved. Parking areas will also be extended and the existing tennis court will be removed; additional parking will be created and the playground moved near the concession stand. That will be consolidated with storage and concessions so the playground is not isolated. The basketball court will also be oriented. They will go from 65 to 130 designated parking spaces.
Existing drainage comes down to a center swale and some catch basins by the drive. They will keep that similar and will redo drainage by the drive, as pipes are undersized. They will be replaced and new structures put in. There is currently no stormwater treatment so deep sumps with oil/grease hoods and a CBS unit will be added. This is a mechanical unit to take out suspended solids. Underground detention will be added as they are increasing impervious surfaces. It will be a standard closed-pipe system. They have mitigated peak flows up to 50, with a decrease in each level of event.
Other improvements include a new concession stand and restrooms, along with a new sewer line between the two fields, tying into the existing one. There will also be new fencing and a new playground adjacent to the concession stand. They are proposing minimal curbing, similar to what is there now. The two raised islands will have curbing as will the drive with the catch basins, and an area with a sidewalk.
The Wetland Buffer Impact Plan submitted shows the buffer areas, which Mr. Mezquita describes. In the northerly wetland is 2100’ of impacted area; there is lots of debris there that they want to remove without disturbing the resource.
Acting Chair Pabich asks if the cap is a soil cap – it is. There will be a separation layer of fabric, then clean fill over the existing fields. The parking lots will have gravel, then bituminous layer. The Chair asks about the existing water line, which comes down the drive to concession and will be extended. There is irrigation. They will come up two feet on both fields, 6” on the parking lots. On the rear side of one lot, it goes uphill and works out well.
They did look beyond the limits of the soccer field to find the limits of fill; Pabich mentions that there were some leather scraps found in one of the woods areas, but that was 20 yeas ago.
Roger Leger of 64 Marlborough Road lives at an abutting property, and was present when they built the fields. Bulldozers were near a shed, and they pushed glass, leather, etc. onto his property and filled it into his land. He describes where the leather scraps are. Drainage goes under Marlborough Rd. and it has never been cleaned out. He has always had a problem with water coming onto his property, which originally extended onto the drive of the field. The City put drainage on his property without his permission. Larry McIntire of the parks, back then, did not care. Drainage was supposed to go in the opposite direction than it does.
He made an agreement with the City that they squared off his property and would remediate the water problem. 3-4 years ago, they put a tank in his yard, with an offshoot to the drainage to alleviate the water problem. It did work. However, there is a berm surrounding the property, but people park their cars on the berm, which crushed it and drainage is redirected onto his property again. He wants them to test the dirt they pushed into his yard and the drainage situation with the berm addressed.
Acting Chair Pabich comments that parking should be alleviated with the added spaces, but Mr. Leger says they park there anyway, despite signs. Mr. Knowlton comments that the curbing will help. Mr. Leger also says he has cleared vegetation coming through the fence onto his property, and is not happy that the City does not maintain it. He is not against the project. He describes a situation where he confronted a man in a pickup who thought it was a dump and dumped his trash all over the field.
He comments that it is unsafe to put the playground where the plan specifies because of visibility issues. They are building a tot lot for all the soccer people, disregarding people who live in the neighborhood. Acting Chairman Pabich appreciates his concern but mentions that he is off-topic for the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission. He also notes that the purpose is to have the kids close to the parents. Mr. Leger still insists that it will be more visible if the tot lot is by the road, but this is not a Conservation Commission issue. These concerns should be brought up to the City and Dave Knowlton. At this venue, the issues with his property should be discussed as they relate to the wetlands. Mr. Knowlton says they are addressing the issues with his property and the tot lot.
Acting Chair Pabich says that the perimeter will be ringed with a silt fence; they decided on silt fence rather than silt sock as it provides a visual barrier. There will be some grading of existing soils, which will be brought offsite if necessary, but they hope to have very little. The increased impervious area will be handled through additional stormwater management.
McCauley asks if removed vegetation will be replaced in kind. Some will be paved but other areas will be re-vegetated, but they are not proposing a landscape plan around the perimeter. The fence along one side has trees growing into it. There will be bituminous curb, which is what is there now. But there will be very little curb as it is now.
The Chair is concerned about curbing – the design standard is 6” granite curb. It has generally been a plowed lot, but not this past winter. Chairman Pabich asks if they can budget for either concrete or granite curbing. There may be reclaimed granite curbing the City can let them use, as it is a more permanent solution.
The existing drainage structure is not 24”. Mr. Leger asks if the drainage size on his property will be changed; it is now 10” and will be 12”. They will also try to clean the culvert.
They discuss further the culverts and drains. Vice Chair Pabich asks about the City property line and if it is an easement; it is the property line. Blier and Ricciarelli discuss the grading with Mr. Mezquita. Pabich comments that it looks straightforward but wants a site visit since it is a large project.
Blier asks what happens if the work includes the abutting properties. It would be a separate NOI if the City is going to do work on the abutters’ properties. It might be an RDA instead if it’s a small area to be removed and replaced.
Chairman Pabich opens to the public but Mr. Leger has already spoken. A site visit is scheduled for 5:15 p.m. on Thursday, July 14th. Devine comments that it is a public park so any Commissioners can go at their convenience. Any members that cannot make it on the 14th should go on their own when it is convenient for them. Devine expects DEP comments in the interim and he will be sure Tighe and Bond receives them.
Vice Chair Pabich asks if they can draft conditions for the City to work with, even if they are not official. They would not be issued until the July 14th meeting; Mr. Mezquita says it’s OK to wait until the 14th, and they can have quick turnaround provided the Conditions are set then. Devine says once the order is issued, he will turn it around probably within a day and give it to David Knowlton. There is no need to use the 21 days.
A motion to continue to July 14th is made by McCauley, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously.
Continuation of Public Hearing—Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation—DEP #64-516—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).
There is no quorum for this item, so it should be continued to July 14th. A motion to continue is made by McCauley, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
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.
This is the same situation, with no quorum of eligible members. A motion to continue is made by McCauley, seconded by Blier, and all approve.
Old/New Business
- Request to fund sign language services for McGrath Park hearing: discussion and vote
The request has been cancelled. McCauley asks for clarification on the City’s policy on such requests. Obviously we want our meetings to be accessible to all, but we should have a clear idea about who is responsible for paying for these services. Devine will seek clarification.
A motion to adjourn is made by McCauley, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
The meeting ends at 7:39PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on September 8, 2011.
| 
