APPROVED MINUTES
Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, September 8, 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, David Pabich
Members Absent: Michael Blier, Amy Hamilton
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Chairwoman Knisel opens the meeting at 6:09PM.
Meeting Minutes—May 12, 2011, June 9, 2011, June 23, 2011, and July 14, 2011
The City Solicitor has confirmed that members do not have to have been present at a meeting in order to vote on the minutes.. David Pabich motions to approve all of the above minutes, is seconded by Dan Ricciarelli, and the motion 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.
No one is present for the applicant; Devine recommended to the Applicant that he re-file as no quorum has been present for a long time. He also recommends that the City waive its portion of the filing fee. The Commission shows no objection. McCauley says she does not object as long as the applicant does not file until he is actually ready. Pabich asks for clarification. They have the survey of the existing wall; would that be enough information to approve in-kind replacement? Pabich says plans would also be required for the wall showing exactly how it will be constructed. DMF discouraged any encroachment onto the beach and DEP said it is explicitly forbidden. Chair Knisel states that the applicant had said he would draw up plans for in-kind replacement. An engineer did submit a plan with modular blocks.
This would be the time to define requirements so that if there is a quorum or the applicant re-files, he knows what is expected. They want to see a survey with in-kind footprint of the wall. He must show a plan of what he is going to do. Devine will pass along that information to the applicant.
Pabich asks if they can keep going or if the applicant should re-file, but Devine reminds him that four Commissioners must be present to vote: Pabich, Blier, Hamilton and Knisel are eligible. It is the applicant’s option to simply wait for a quorum. Today was the deadline to re-file (7PM) for the next meeting, but Devine feels he may be apprehensive about doing that as he would have to pay again.
The fee is $500, of which ours is approximately half.
A motion to continue to the September 22nd meeting is made by Pabich, seconded by McCauley, and passes unanimously.
Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—City of Salem Department of Park, Recreation & Community Services, 5 Broad Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed repainting of the Winter Island Lighthouse within rocky intertidal area at Winter Island Park, 50 Winter Island Road.
Bill Woolley of the Department of Parks and Recreation presents. In the spring of this year, the Mayor expressed interest in repainting the lighthouse. They have $20,000 in grant money to use for this project. The would be the white tower part only, not the black parapet or repairs to the foundation. The tower is discolored by rust and is unsightly. He believes the request for painting was a matter of cosmetic appearances. He has sent pictures of the lighthouse which were printed for the Commissioners to see. The lighthouse was last painted in 1999 and specifications referred to the Historic Lighthouse Preservation Handbook, which outlined some environmental concerns, especially with regards to catching scrapings or scraps removed during preparation or blasting. In 1999 low pressure aggregate blasting was
done. However that was for the parapet; he was not sure what would be needed this time.
They plan to use an appropriate type of paint for lighthouses; he will defer to the experts who paint lighthouses for a living on that. Chair Knisel asks Woolley to describe how they will keep paint chips from entering the water. He does not know. He cannot vouch for what was done in 1999, but they let themselves off the parapet in harnesses, and it was done by someone without a lighthouse-painting background. The company they hire will determine how to prevent scrapings from entering the water. Ricciarelli comments that that should be included in their specifications. It was not included in previous specifications.
Ricciarelli asks if there are just layers of paint. Woolley responds that lead paint is not an issue but that he can contact the relevant companies to ask how they would go about catching scrapings. It has not yet been put out to bid; there is no timeline or schedule yet. He will have a timeline once he checks out relevant companies who will determine methods, paint, and conservation measures.
Pabich says we can issue a determination with conditions. McCauley reads that “the contractor will keep the area free of waste materials” but comments that this is not strong enough language.
There is no indication of how this was done in 1999. Knisel asks if they could accomplish it in one tidal cycle, but it is probably not possible as scraping alone will take lots of time. Pabich proposes tarps like petals on a flower that can be rolled up. He comments that the bidder should determine, and come before Conservation Commission, with a proposal for how they will do this. Ricciarelli comments that perhaps they should put a restriction on blasting.
Woolley says he can research it and come back next month with options.
Chair Knisel outlines the options: continue to next meeting, including then proposed measures, or they could issue a negative determination with conditions. Woolley has no preference but is willing to come back to the next meeting. Chair Knisel says they want to know more details as to 1) how they will remove existing paint and 2) how they will prevent paint chips from entering the water. McCauley says she is curious about these things. Ricciarelli would like to see the lead test results. Woolley says that there is a section on sealing the lead in the handbook. He is not sure if it was removed or just sealed. Chair Knisel would like clarification.
A motion to continue to September 22nd is made by McCauley, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Terryanne St. Pierre, 36 March Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed replacement of an existing deck (3.5’ x 8’) with a larger one (8’ x 10’) within riverfront area at 36 March Street.
Presenting is George Fallon of 36 March St. He describes the project as extending the second means of egress from the 2nd floor of the apartment, out into the driveway in order to support the deck, which is compromised. Originally he was going to put columns straight down, which would still require a visit to Conservation Commission, but the original owner had this configuration for a reason. There is a sewer line directly beneath where we first wanted to drive our posts. The movers also bring furniture in that way, and both movers have asked that he increase the area on the deck to help them out. Down below it will be extended out to 3’ from the property line with 2 holes in the existing bituminous for footings, with the deck to be built above.
Pavement is on both sides from his house all the way across. He describes the setting, referring to his photo provided.
Devine says this is an expansion of a deck over an already paved area with two posts also in an impervious area. Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments.
The Commission contemplates a negative determination; it would be a -2: in the riverfront resource area but will not alter the area so does not require an NOI.
A motion to close the public hearing is made Pabich, seconded my McCauley and passes unanimously. A motion to issue a negative two determination is also made by Pabich, seconded by McCauley, and passes unanimously. This determination is hereby made a part of these minutes.
Old/New Business
- DEP #64-418: Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing subdivision: Request for Approval of Minor Change
Commissioners have a plan with proposed changes. Chris Mello from Eastern Land Survey and Paul DiBiasi present. A Stormwater management facility was designed but was on solid ledge. A new area was found, of the same size, at the same elevations, and with the same volume, with an outlet structure in same location, but the actual project will be like a “hot dog” instead of an “apple” shape. There will be less disturbance but both are in buffer zone.
Devine notes that there is disagreement within DEP about how to handle requests for minor change, but his opinion now is that he thinks it is OK if a change is truly minor. In those cases it can be approved and the Commission has that flexibility.
The original location of the basin was further away from the buffer zone.
Illustration: Definitive Subdivision plan. Plan and Profile – Stormwater Facilities Date: May 8, 2006
Revision Plan, August 8, 2011
Spacing is discussed. One area is for passive recreation only. Pabich asks about revegetating disturbed area, which will be seeded, with access for maintenance. In 3-4 years it will be bushy and hidden. Right now it is trees and shrubs.
The approved plan has much less impact on the buffer zone. Pabich asks what vegetation will be removed. Mr. DiBiasi outlines it – choke cherry, brush and thick vegetation. Pabich comments that because it is in a buffer zone, he would like to make sure it is properly vegetated when they are done. Mr. DiBiasis feels it is not any more heavy-handed than what was proposed; while Pabich feels that a larger footprint, almost entirely within the buffer zone, is now being proposed. He is not sure this counts as a “minor” change as it is almost entirely within the buffer zone. Ricciarelli asks if they could shift it back at all, but they cannot.
The subdivision is 135 lots, over 100 acres with several stormwater management facilities spread throughout.
Chair Knisel asks about the original erosion control and vegetation provisions. There is a 48-sheet set of plans detailing theses- hay bales, silt fence. Some buffer zone work has been done with some individual Orders of Conditions. They will be making the road loop. They are currently working on phase 2. There were no special conditions beyond revegetating whatever was in the approved plans.
Pabich thinks changes are significant enough to require re-filing of this piece, but it is all under one set of plans. The Order is for the road, infrastructure and stormwater systems, with houses in the buffer zone as individual filings as they come. It is a cluster subdivision; most houses and construction were out of the buffer zone.
Chair Knisel asks what other details would be needed to re-file. Pabich says he does not object to the proposal, but wants more details as to re-vegetation. He would like to see in-kind replacement. What is coming out that should be replaced. What is the threshold defining a “minor change?” There is no formal distinction. Mr. Mello says they will seed with a wetland mix and let it go. Other areas have already been reclaimed by nature. Pabich would like to see photos of those.
Mr. Mello says they would like to get this in since the stormwater will be going there; right now it goes nowhere, so they want it done this season. Ricciarelli comments that before 70% was out of the buffer and now 60% is in the buffer.
If this is a minor adjustment, says Ricciarelli, they can continue working, vs. if they have to re-file they will need to do a site visit and continue the issue to the next meeting.
Knisel suggests that Commissioners go out and view the site on their own, as it is accessible.
Mr. Di Biasi says he had a crew go in and put in a silt fence when they were determining where the ledge was, so the area is disturbed but protected. But, that disturbance is where they were already planning to build.
Chair Knisel asks if Commissioners prefer a formal site visit or to go on their own. A public site visit is not required, so it may be easier for Commissioners to go on their own since not all are available for a formal site visit.
Ricciarelli asks about basin elevations and Mello clarifies. The Commission is leaning towards viewing the site to determine if this counts as “minor” or not. They are to go on their own before the next meeting, to make a decision then. If it is determined to NOT be a minor change, they will need to amend the Order. It would be the 2nd amendment, which is not unusual considering the size of the project. The Commission would also like clarifications on what is being disturbed and what plantings will be done. They are seeking replication and the applicant will get that information. Devine says this is buffer zone, not resource area, so replication of what’s there is all that’s needed.
Ricciarelli asks about the process on an amendment, and it is the same as for filing an NOI. Mello says it will take 6 weeks by the time they file, advertise, etc. Overall it would take 10 weeks but something must be built down there.
Pabich would like clarification on the construction reasoning why upstream facilities were built before downstream facilities were built to catch it. Usually they put in a roadway first, then the storm scepter is installed. A majority of the site is rock.
Pabich opines that there is a logical solution but the Commission should at least look at it. Mr. DiBiasi suggests he assess what is there and present a formal plan next meeting of plantings. The Commission agrees. Commissioners will visit the site individually in the meantime.
- DEP #64-502: 14-rear Pearl Street/18 Saunders Street: Request for Certificate of Compliance
Photos are in Commissioner’s packets and Devine recommends issuing the Certificate, as it is completed as an as-built submitted. The biggest deviation is that the driveway is gravel rather than paved, but that an improvement, in the sense that it is pervious, and it is outside the riverfront area anyway.
A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance is made by McCauley, seconded by Pabich, and passes unanimously.
- DEP #64-507: 30 Columbus Avenue: Request for Certificate of Compliance
Devine also recommends issuing the Certificate. Small deviations amount to an improvement. No patio was built so there is less impervious surface. They rebuilt the stairs that go to the marsh in-kind. They can be pulled in and out.
A motion to issue the Certificate is made by Pabich, seconded by McCauley, and passes unanimously.
- DEP #64-516: 60, 64 Grove Street, 3 Harmony Grove Road (former Salem Oil & Grease): Update on appeal of ORAD
The order was appealed by interested residents. We voted in favor to issue the applicant’s request of Riverfront exemption for 3 parcels, and we granted it for 2 of those. The appeal is that we did not have enough information to go on and they want DEP review; DEP will take it unless there is an egregious error. Our local wetland ordinance allows challenges through City Council. The appellants consulted with the City Solicitor and decided to withdraw their appeal through City Council. The appeal through only the DEP will shed light on this. Ricciarelli says the question was regarding the historic mill exemption, if they were re-using the footprint exactly or not. The language was very specific, and judgment was made via site visits and documentation.
The DEP will do a site visit and will consider it on its own. They could affirm the decision, send back to us or issue a superseding order. This will at least provide clarification on the Historic Mill complex exemption. Residents said we were setting precedent with this. The canal exemption was not granted because the applicant withdrew that request. Legal review was provided. It is now out of the Commission’s hands.
- Weatherly Drive/Village at Vinnin Square: Discussion of violation
These are townhouse condominiums which circle almost all the way around wetlands, where they did some cutting. A resident complained and Devine spoke with the property manager and informed her to come before the Commission if working in that area. This is jurisdictional, and is an opportunity for outreach to let them know they are required to get applicable permits.
- 488-rear Highland Avenue: Discussion wetlands complaint
Taken out of agenda order: 2nd instead of 6th. Katerina Panagiotakis of 150 Ocean St. Lynn, presents. She walks that area and is happy that a site visit was made. It is a large area but with different resource areas, and she summarizes what she submitted.
There is a stream that has historically flowed to Spring Pond, but now it is cut off on the surface; in heavy rainfall or snowmelt the water table rises and the saturation connects it again. There has been a trail going through, along with another in the front of the property. One footbridge has been removed and the wood piles placed west of the cut. Soil has been dumped over the trail crossing the stream, and it has been trenched on the side. Water does not flow into the side but is redirected. She is not sure who has done this but Devine thinks it is the Boy Scouts who do trail work there. The property is owned by Camp Lyon. This is the Lowe’s property, though this part of far from where there proposed redevelopment is. The Lyons have two campsites. She describes the setup.
The source of data on the location of the stream is Google Earth in Birds’ Eye View and Aerial view.
Ricciarelli asks if the misdirection means water is no longer going into Spring Pond; she is not sure. It is still going downhill but is taking more paths to get there and causing more erosion. Chair Knisel asks if she was there before removing footbridge; she was not but Leslie Courtemanche was there and is available. Devine wants pictures of preexisting conditions with the bridge. She says remnants of the footbridge are off the trail. Devine did a site visit and says it is difficult since what may be there could be an intermittent stream that is dry right now. He cannot see clear signs of water flowing while it is dry, he does not see a channel or vegetation. She says at the cut there is a stone wall over stream but she does not know if it was always there. The stream goes under the rocks as if it is a bank. She has
video following the stream uphill. If a cut occurred the water would continue to the ponding area. She will send it to Tom.
Devine reiterates that this time of year it is hard to tell if water flows. Ms. Panagiotakis says there are other witnesses available and lists some of them. Pabich asks what the main idea is. There was a stream that had a footbridge, now the bridge is out and area has been filled in with earth? The path is perpendicular to the stream? McCauley asks why they want to do that, but it is unknown. Devine says many trails are carelessly built and maintained. Pabich says it sounds like it just requires a culvert. As result of filling, there is ponding, Pabich asks. Ms. Panagiotakis says there is ponding on the trail since water does not go directly to the pond in one stream.
Chair Knisel asks if we can have a courtesy call to the property manager to clarify. McCauley clarifies that there was a stream, it got cut, water infiltrated other locations, someone dug a trench to route it somewhere convenient, but now this resulted in erosion? Yes, water comes down the trail. Chair Knisel asks if debris is still there. There are pieces of wood there. This happened before last May. McCauley asks what Devine was told by people from Camp Lyon. He was told “this trail has been here forever.” Chair Knisel asks if there are photos of when footbridge was in place; there are not but there are witnesses.
Pabich says to ask who took out the bridge. They denied that there was ever a bridge there and said there was just debris in the woods. Devine was not able to come to any conclusions as to what was there since it was dry, but that was a couple weeks ago. Pabich suggests he go again, after all this rain. Ms. Panagiotakis says the water table is higher in the spring so it may be advisable to go then.
Pabich asks who the driving force behind improving the trail is. Maybe it is dry mostly except for a few months out of the year, in which case they should have laid a 10” PVC pipe. So far this is a Conservation Commission outreach opportunity as some work may be jurisdictional. Camp Lyon has been informed that they need to be in touch with the Commission when planning trail work. Chair Knisel asks if aside from Lowe’s representatives, Devine has talked to Boy Scouts. He has not.
Ms. Panagiotakis thinks this happened 3 years ago. Chair Knisel comments that the fact that it may have happened 3 years ago means people may have forgotten it happened. She thinks we should reach out to a Boy Scout leader and ask them to remedy the situation, which must be done with involvement of the property owner. Ms Panagiotakis says they can contact Campfire as well since they are somewhat involved with the trails.
This has also been brought to the attention of the DEP, so Devine wants to check in with them again.
Knisel says they will do further research and outreach and get back to her. Devine would like to see the video.
- Discussion and vote on funding for education and training
MACC registration forms are in the commissioner’s packets. Devine got his Fundamentals certificate and is ready to move on towards the advanced certificate, and wants authorization to keep doing those courses. There are 5 more days in total towards the certificate. It costs $95 for the day plus mileage. He also wants to go to the MACC fall conference, and also the Urban Park Advocate summit, a one day Summit. He is asking for (2) $95 days plus mileage. The Summit costs $20 plus mileage. The Southern NE chapter of the APA Annual Conference meets in Providence RI. Half of the programs are environmentally related, so he will go to those. Costs are $175 for registration, discounted $124 for hotel plus travel. He would carpool if possible.
The total request for everything is about $700 plus mileage. We have $40K in our account. A motion to grant Devine expenses for education and training, not to exceed $700 plus $150 for travel is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Pabich, and passes unanimously.
- Discussion and vote on funding for materials for volunteer repairs to the Forest River Footbridge
A volunteer completed maintenance of the smaller Forest River Conservation Area footbridge, but did not complete maintenance of the larger bridge, so other volunteers have come forward to complete this project. Materials would be under $200. Devine is requesting that sum.
Ricciarelli motions to provide $200 for repairs to the footbridge. McCauley wants to send a thank-you note to volunteers. She seconds, and all approve.
- Update on exempt projects
Devine notes that there have been some utility maintenance projects recently that are exempt per the regulations. For these projects, he generally makes sure erosion controls are in place to protect resource areas.
Miscellaneous
McCauley notes that activities on Children’s Island should be discussed.
McCauley says she will not be back after her term in December.
The new Commissioner will be Gavin McCaulife, but his appointment takes two council meetings to confirm.
A motion to adjourn is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
The meeting ends at 7:58PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on October 13, 2011.
| 
