Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes 07/14/2011
Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting


Date and Time:  Thursday, July 14, 2011, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location:       Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present:        Chairwoman Julia Knisel, Dan Ricciarelli, Carole McCauley, Amy Hamilton
Members Absent: Michael Blier, David Pabich
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder:       Stacy Kilb

Chairwoman Knisel opens the meeting at 6:16PM.

Meeting Minutes—May 12, 2011, June 9, 2011, and June 23, 2011
There is no quorum to vote on previous minutes so all are tabled until the next meeting.
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).

Presenting is Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering. There is a quorum for this issue.

Mr. Griffin states that this is the 3rd meeting to discuss this project and feels there is reasonable agreement on the definition of the bank and land underwater. He outlines their discussion of elevations and flood plains. An elevation of 10.8 was finally assigned. There were still some question about its exemption from riverfront area via manmade canal and historic mill complex exemptions. The latter is more likely to be put into place, especially given the recent site visit. Also at the site walk, a question regarding an area to the South of the River and to the North of the tracks regarding bordering vegetated wetlands plants came up, but it was mostly nonnative vegetation. Their biologist agreed to take a second look and determine if there are wetlands. Copies of that report are provided. Hydric soil was not found.

He also presents a soil sample, which has a strong turpentine odor and is not hydric or organic soil as would be characteristic of a wetland.

The Chairwoman asks if Michael Blier had raised any further questions at the Saturday site visit, but he did not.

Devine states that there are several items the Commission must consider:
  • Top of coastal bank – no issues
  • Land under water bodies and waterways – no issues
  • Flood zone – agreed on an elevation of 10.8 according to elevation at Peabody line
  • Two proposed exemptions: canal and historic mill complex. Devine asked the Legal Department to take a look and city Solicitor Beth Reynard issued a memo. The historic mill exemption has not previously been applied in Salem; this would be the first time. Devine reads the memo aloud.
Chairwoman Knisel states that in the previous discussion, the Commission had decided to focus on the historic mill complex exemption, and was feeling comfortable with that. Ricciarelli says he does feel comfortable with that, especially after further research he did.

Chairwoman Knisel asks if there are further questions, then opens to the public. McCauley asks if anything else was pending, but it’s just these requests and if there is any BVW on site.

Ms. Towhey of 122 Federal St. speaks. She is looking for DEP guidance on precedent for use of the mill exemption for this purpose; as there is none in Salem Where has it been applied elsewhere?  She is especially concerned if the buildings will be demolished. She wonders what the intent is – preservation or demolition of buildings?

The Chairwoman clarifies that we are not discussing future work now, only delineation of the site and exemptions. Ms. Towhey asks if this has been applied to any other sites where buildings could be demolished, as it will be precedent-setting. Ricciarelli says there was a Chicopee project that VHB worked on, so there is precedent. Also, there was precedent in Fitchburg under Natural, Cultural, and Historic resources, stating the same facts.  The exemption is for an area that is or WAS occupied by certain types of buildings.

Ms. Towey asks them to consider that they need to be specific in selecting what is in the area of exemption and she asks that it not be the whole site; the burden should be on the engineer to show that the entire site had been used in 1946 for those purposes.

Jane Arlander of 93 Federal St. is concerned about the 3 Harmony Grove Road area, which was purchased in 1965 and is .82 acres, and is on the river. She has been on 2 site visits and it does have a bridge on it, but there is no evidence of any buildings. The assessor’s office employee that she spoke with does not recall any building on the property – there are none and no foundation, and this parcel that fronts the river should NOT be exempt from Riverfront protection. There are also no buildings on previous plans from 1946 but Mr. Griffin says it’s incorrect and photos provided have shown a concrete structure there that was used for sewage purposes, sold in 1965 to the railroad. There is a bridge there, and it’s flat because it was used for storage for said railroad. It is filled land, which was probably filled in 1880’s when the railroad was constructed, and was used for loading materials.

Devine comments, asking if they have a photo showing that building; the photo they have is from 1965 and they need one showing that it was there in 1946. Devine says that the bridge would qualify as a driveway but beyond that it is up to the Commission to decide whether any additional parts of that parcel qualify for the mill exemption.

Darrow Lebovici of 121 Federal St. comments on Ms. Rennard’s letter, about the line in the definitions that says “includes footprint of area ONLY… etc.,” meaning it should be limited to a specific footprint. In Mr. Griffin’s narrative on p.6 he says “given the size of the buildings it is apparent that entire site was used for things… incidental to the manufacturing process.”  He says it is apparent to Griffin but not good enough according to the act and Ms. Rennard. They must show a specific footprint associated with structures and activities. Mr. Griffin’s assertions are not enough; footprints must be shown. The DEP’s rulings show that the burden is upon the developer to demonstrate that.  

Mr. Griffin feels they have provided all they can and it would be unreasonable to expect them to provide aerial photos when that technology did not exist in that timeframe. Since it was filled in the late 1800’s, nothing happened that would cause these areas to be “conserved.” It was all industrial area.

Jim Treadwell of 36 Felt St. acknowledges that the Mack Park Neighborhood Association is interested. Many citizens were permitted onsite, and he applauds that effort on the part of Mr. Griffin. He thinks it is important to redevelop this site and incentives such as these exemptions are important and should be used, but he also advocates historic preservation. But, the definition implies that since they are looking for buildings on the historic register, they would seek preservation vs. demolition. Also, the walls of the channel are very significant and he hopes they will be saved. He also looks for generous Chapter 91 features to enhance the project.

He also approves that the precedent setting was noted. Regarding historic preservation, if there is federal funding involved, the historic preservation review process will be more detailed. They will need to determine if it is eligible for the National Register.

He also wants the record to show that this Commission did take a position on the exemption for a canal. Barbara Warren insisted it was a river, not a canal, for precedent-setting purposes. Mr. Treadwell also approves of the compromise of 10.8 on the flood elevation. However, the elevation across Grove St. is different than that and he wonders if it can be examined again later.

Joan Sweeney of 22 Silver St. has a map from 1851 showing the North River and tanneries, and buildings that are on the other side of Grove St. She describes the previous setups and shows them on the map.  There were also several areas the DEP was concerned with. The wall was put in around 1630 or1640 with no horses used. It is all man-made. Chairwoman Knisel asks if she has any information on area across the river, but she doesn’t. The River was tidal/estuary, fresh/saltwater brackish and fish would breed there. The river will be widened at Howley St. but there are no plans for Salem. Additionally, the sewer pipe for Peabody is embedded in the river and no one is aware of it. The floodplain area is across the street.

Ms. Twohey asks the Commission to consider looking at another map that includes the footprint of buildings that were there earlier and asks that they be specific in delineation. She reiterates that there is no proof that the entire project should be exempt.  

Mr. Griffin reviews the footprint on the map. The tannery was on the western part of the site. The blue line on his plans would be 200’ from mean high water, and that would be the exempted riverfront area. The tannery was adjacent to the railroad tracks for a reason. He has plans of ongoing 1940’s building projects, also researched at the Registry of Deeds and using old fire maps. He also describes the Salem Oil and Grease factory, as all activity was interrelated over the whole site. This site has been under industrial use since the 1800’s.

McCauley asks him to outline 3 Harmony Grove and he does.

Chairwoman Knisel states that the Commission is determining whether or not they want to exclude 3 Harmony Grove from the Mill exemption based on data presented.  Mr. Griffin says soil tests found industrial residues there, and it is not soil for riverside habitat. There were no 100 year old trees either, only shrubs and younger trees, suggesting industrial use in the 1940’s.

McCauley opines that that portion was probably used industrially too. They will also be in front of the Conservation Commission even with the exemption, since much work will be within the 100’ buffer zone. McCauley says the only really questionable area is the area on top of North River.

Another audience member says the use in 1946 was railroad, not mill. Mr. Griffin argues it was all industrial use. McCauley says the issue may be not having proof but circumstances and presence of hydrocarbons in soil point to industrial use.

Jane Arlander speaks again, saying she collects bottles and goes to 18th and 17th century dumps, and finds different sources of debris a long distance from factories. It is not uncommon to find industrial debris offsite in the woods. One can even find coal there. So we can’t assume property was used industrially if waste is on an adjacent site, but Mr.Griffin says soils are consistent with plans he has shown. This is not a dumping ground for materials produced elsewhere.  

McCauley points out that this is onsite and asks if the activity on north side was the same as on the south.

Mr. Lebovici states that evidence of industrial use is NOT the standard in the act, rather, the standard is that there are interrelated structures in place before 1946 and that persisted after 1946. This does not meet that definition. McCauley says materials storage, driveways and utilities may not leave a footprint of a structure.

Ricciarelli says that everything south of the railroad tracks would be interrelated but cannot speak for North of that area except for the driveway, which must be reviewed as part of the Act.

Ricciarelli asks about the main feeding the building which would qualify as a utility. It was built in 1990’s. Mr. Griffin describes the setup. Infiltration beds were installed in 1940’s  or 50’s indicating sewage disposal then. In the interest of moving along, he suggests a corridor of 20-30 on the Northwest of the bridge was used for storage, loading, unloading of railroad cars. Chairwoman Knisel thinks there is consensus to remove that area from the exemption. McCauely says it is logical that it was used for industrial purposes, though this is not documented.

Ms. Arlander speaks again, saying that there was a question from last meeting as to what the difference would be with the exemption in place vs. not. She is worried that the river is coming back and does not want this exemption to lead to others in the future.  She wonders about the implications of this exemption and the intent of the law. She understands that some areas might deserve a break from the environmental regulations but wonders why Salem Oil and Grease does.

Chairwoman Knisels says we are making a lot of assumptions as to what will be proposed and we don’t have those plans. We have few questions – such as what resource areas will we confirm, which of the 2 exemptions will we approve, and if so which modifications will be made?

McCauley says this may set a precedent, but excluding that we need to make the best decision we can based on this scenario here and now.  Mr. Lebovici says that they should recognize that the law is difficult, and oddly worded, but the result is important, so the Commission should be very stringent in its application now. Common sense tests are appealing but not concrete proof. They should ask for documented proof.  

Chairwoman Knisel says the majority of the Commission has voiced concern about the northern part of the property. In question is the shape of the property and the continuous area where related structures once were.

Chairwoman Knisel asks if the Commission wants to further refine the footprint of the exemption, and draw more of a line around foundations and areas that would have been used. Ricciarelli says they discussed it before, and utilities and driveways are between buildings, except for the north part. He reminds them that the Wetlands Protection Act is still in place, and this is just one layer.

Mr. Griffin states on behalf of his client that he is withdrawing the request for the canal exemption from the riverfront area regulations. He also withdraws the request for the historic mill complex exemption for 3 Harmony Grove Rd.

Ms. Arlander comments that the assessor’s office has the 3 Harmony Grove area listed at a different square footage than Mr. Griffin’s map. Ricciarelli says that the difference is not surprising as surveys can differ.

Those are all the requests. The Commission would be issuing an Order of Resource Area Delineation. Devine would add a write-up of findings that give the exemption to 2 parcels only.

Devine runs through the list of items in question again:

  • Delineation of coastal bank - confirmed
  • Land under water – confirmed
  • Flood zone elevation - to be 10.8 based on the Salem/Peabody Line
  • Historic mill exemption – to be granted for 60 and 64 Grove St. but not granted for 3 Harmony Grove Rd., for which the request was withdrawn
  • Canal exemption – not granted, withdrawn by the applicant
  • Absence of bordering vegetated wetlands - confirmed
Ricciarelli motions to close the public hearing, Hamilton seconds him, and all are in favor.

A motion to issue an Order of Resource Area Delineation is made by Hamilton, seconded by Ricciarelli, and all approve. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.


Continuation of Public hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-517—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).

David Knowlton, City Engineer speaks. Consultants from Tighe & Bond are present. There are two minor amendments to the plan – public paths and location of the playground. They are moving as quickly as possible with construction to get the soccer fields back. They will finish this fall and get in a growing season this fall and next spring. They want to work an order of conditions into contract documents to put out for bid.

David Murphy and Tracey Adamski of Tighe & Bond speak. A walking path was added around the 2 fields and there was the addition of a small playground, and also reduction of parking spaces to accommodate that. Now there are 2 playgrounds, not 1. They also took out 16 parking spaces that were proposed. This leads to a reduction of 2,568 square feet of impervious surfaces. Granite curbing was also added. Paths will be made of stone dust, which is pervious. The reduction in impervious surfaces did not change the overall drainage the plan proposed. They are proposing underground water detention and water quality inlet.

Overall impact would be on 2400 square feet of BVW improvement. Buffer zone impact increased slightly in the southern part; it was 50,850 and is now 51,950 sq feet to account for the additional path. Mr. Knowlton will deliver new design plans.

Ricciarelli had no concerns, just the abutters’ concerns. The DEP had no comments. Devine says the abutter was at the site visit and did not raise further concerns.

Chairwoman Knisel asks for standard conditions – Devine says the DEP form includes standard conditions, plus the City of Salem has its own boilerplate conditions it adds to every order. He suggests looking at what they will do with restoration of BVW, and conditions could be added there if the plan is not adequate.

Hamilton asks if they will have to dig into contaminated soil to do utilities; they will but will make sure it’s outside the buffer zone. Soil must be stockpiled outside of the resource area and buffer zone.

Devine says they discussed erosion controls last time – a silt fence, and catch basins will have coverings. The silt fence will be trenched in.

Hamilton asks who is responsible for maintenance – it is the City. Hamilton discusses the detention basin. Stormwater treatment is discussed.

Devine asks if the Commission will want an annual maintenance report. Ms. Adamski says it must be in a condition. McCauley clarifies that the row of trees between fields will be taken out as part of grading. It is not proposed to replace them in kind. McCauley says the tree department has a planting schedule and we could request trees be put in. Mr. Murphy says there is a limit of 2’ of depth so contaminated material is not penetrated. They would have to go deeper. This should be based on consultation with the tree warden and be a 1:1 replacement. There are 5 trees on the existing condition plan. They would have to dig out and relocate waste. Ricciarelli says you would need tree wells around them since raising the grade would be needed if we were to keep originals. They could put in a tree well, raise the grade, and make sure there is no exposure, or could cut trees down and put new one s in, then dig down and remove contaminated soil.

McCauley also asks about trees on south side of field. There is a precedent of asking that trees be replaced in kind. The five trees mentioned are outside buffer zone – we can ask for those to be replaced, but we can’t require that. Two are in the buffer zone.

Mr. Murphy is willing to discuss the issue with the Tree Warden, Mayor and Engineer. The Commission is requiring replacement or relocation of 2 trees in the buffer zone, and is requesting all other removed trees be replaced.

Mr. Knowlton will submit new plans with revisions. Excavated soil will be kept out of the buffer zone. An operation and maintenance report is to be submitted annually by Dec. 31st every year. There will be replacement/relocation of 2 trees to be removed from the buffer zone. The Commission is requesting that the Tree Warden look into replanting more trees.

Knisel opens to public but there are no comments.

A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seeconded by Hamilton, and all are in favor.

A motion to issue an Order of Conditions is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, and all in favor. This decision is hereby made a 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.

There is no quorum; thus the applicant requested to continue until July 28th for that reason. He may have to re-file as there may never be a quorum on this issue.

A motion to continue is made by McCauley, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously.
Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Marc Tranos, 130 Bay View Ave., Salem, MA. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss proposed construction of an addition to a single family house within buffer zone to coastal bank at 47 Memorial Dr.

Marc Tranos would like to remove an existing structure of 110 square feet and put in a 450 square foot structure attached to the property. There is no topographic map. Mr. Tranos describes the work on his map. He will keep the existing setback of 54’ and will remove the deck and replace it with a room. The deck is a foundation deck attached to both sides. There is an existing structure but the 2nd floor will be renovated as well.

Chairwoman Knisel asks if another resource area might apply – a flood zone. Mr. Tranos is not required to have flood insurance, but it is hard to read the firm map.  Devine says our online GIS has a gap in the flood zone data, but there is a VE zone at 13’ near the property. The flood zone is beyond the sea wall, so this project site is not within coastal storm flowage.

Brad Smith of 45 Memorial Drive, an abutter, did hear that they were coming out with a new flood map, and wonders if it has been issued. There have been delays in the release of new maps but McCauley thinks the draft is online.

McCauley asks about elevation and where water flows off property – it flows back into the lawn and then into the ocean. The sea wall is not level with the grade, but works its way up. Chairwoman Knisel asks where the buffer zone is. It includes most of the property.

McCauley comments that the addition of roof space will increase the impervious surfaces on the property, and elevations will indicate where the water will run. Mr. Tranos says they would put on a gutter to avoid that, and do recharge. There is a slight slope from the back step.

McCauley asks if this area floods already. It does not, but it is unknown if they are doing a grading plan for the building permit. Ricciarelli would like to see one.

A site visit is considered. It will be a difficult to keep a quorum for the next meeting – too many members are absent. Other possibilities are discussed as Mr. Tranos would like to do the project before freezing temperatures hit, but would not be able to come before the Commission again until September, as there will be no further July meetings and the Commission does not meet in August.

There is a suggestion to issue a determination with conditions based upon further information that is needed; McCauley comments that Mr. Tranos must demonstrate that the additional impervious surfaces will not impact neighbors. Also, the Commisson would like to see elevation and topography.

The setup of the addition is discussed and it is discovered that, as the area under the deck that will be replaced is already paved, there will actually be little addition of impervious surface.  The only change would be in direction of flow. There will be no additional parking so no net change in impervious surface.

Standard language for erosion control is suggested; Devine comments that the Commission is more interested in how the work will affect the resource area – the bank – not about how it will impact abutters. He is concerned about washout behind the seawall.

This would leave normal erosion control measures. There is an option to issue a negative 3 determination within a buffer zone, with no alteration of the area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act. Erosion controls would be required.

Devine asks which specific erosion controls should be in place. The seawall provides a natural barrier but should be covered during construction. Mr. Smith asks about temporary storage of construction material and backfill, which will be hauled out.  There will be a silt sock at the limits of specified work. Devine notes that this will have to return to the Commission if any changes are made, considering the plan depends on Zoning Board of Appeal approval.

A motion to close the public hearing is made by McCauley, seconded by Ricciarelli, and all are in favor.

A motion to issue a negative 3 determination with the above conditions is made by McCauley, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

Old/New Business

A motion to close the meeting is made by Hamilton, seconded by McCauley, and all approve.

The meeting ends at 8:15 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission

Approved by the Conservation Commission on September 8, 2011.