Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, Sept. 13, 2012, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairwoman Julia Knisel, David Pabich, Dan Ricciarelli, Amy Hamilton, Bart Hoskins
Members Absent: Michael Blier, Gavin McAuliffe
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:00PM
Meeting Minutes—July 26, 2012
A motion to approve the minutes is made by Pabich, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously.
Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-543—MassDOT Highway Division, 10 Park Plaza, Room 7360, Boston, MA. The purpose of hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a new park on the northern portion of Bridge Street and the remaining portion of the former Beverly-Salem Bridge within buffer zone to a wetland resource area.
Speaking is Meredith De Carbonnel of Jacobs Engineering. She describes the history of the project. The new bridge is under a Chapter 91 license which required mitigation in both towns via parkland improvement. They are trying to develop the area in a manner consistent to the City’s goals, one of which was to have a fishing pier. The existing pier will be used for this purpose. One section of the bridge was left after removal, and the pier is still structurally sound. They will pull of the deck and replace it as they go, so no work will be done in the waterway. The rest of the site will contain seating areas with trees and benches, and a small parking area at one end.
As of now it is a fenced-off, abandoned site. They will use filter fabric at the top of the bank to protect the resource area during construction. There is an existing catch basin with its outfall on the original roadway, which will be upgraded with a deep sump catch basin for TSS removal. There will be a small net loss of impermeable pavement due to the addition of green space. The benches will be consistent with those in the rest of the City; they are not currently pictured here but will be in the final drawing. Further plans will be submitted to this Commission prior to construction.
Pabich asks about site drainage. Existing street drainage will be used, but pipes will be replaced and new sumps put in to the same outfall. On the north end, there will be sheet flow, where most of the parkland will be located.
Pabich asks about construction of the paved portion. All bituminous concrete will be removed and resurfaced, but there will be less than what is currently there.
Illustration: Salem Causeway Site Plan
Frank Astone is the engineer on the project. He explains that the Causeway Park is the last element of a larger mitigation project. There will continue to be interaction and input from the City throughout the project.
Chair Knisel opens to the public.
Kevin McCourt, of 5 Spruce St., Danvers, comments that it looks like a lot of concrete for parking and that he would like to see more green space. Mr. Astone explains that there is less pavement in this new design than is there currently.
John Carr, of 7 River St. Salem, asks if the remnant will be the same length after being refurbished. It will be. He is also concerned that there should be more green space if this is to be a recreation area. Overall he is pleased with the project. He also comments that all have said this is the last piece of the process – it was a 5 step project, but the piece between Flint and Washington Streets still must be finished, unless it has been abandoned. Lynn Duncan replies that Bridge St. between Washington and Flint is still in the works and they will move forward on it eventually, but this part will be quicker.
Councilor at large Tom Furey of 36 Dunlap St. agrees that this is a positive step forward and encourages the commission to support it.
Jane Arlander of 93 Federal St. in Salem agrees that there is very little green space and thinks there should be a walk area and green space, with some parking. She is worried that it will wind up as parking for Bridge St. businesses rather than a park for people. They should take this opportunity to make a green park out over the body of water.
Jan Eschangies of 15 ½ River St. in Salem also echoes the same concern, and would like to see parking be more permeable, and states that they should look at best practices. She knows that many parking lots are now addressing that issue.
Peter Kastrinakis, owner of The Black Lobster restaurant on Bridge St., comments that they have been waiting for this project a long time, and supports the design.
Mr. Carr comments again, with an analogy of an old railroad bridge in Merrimac, where they developed it with green on either side. The ultimate example would be the High Line in NY.
Mr. Astone responds to the comments. Some of this is conditioned in Chapter 91 which specifies a 10’ wide walkway. They can look at expanding the green areas with landscaping. Porous pavement is an interesting idea, however cars can leak oil or gas that gets collected in drainage system, whereas with porous pavement it could leach into subsurface soils.
As for grading, there is a low point is in the middle of the lot. They are not changing the grades so they will use existing outfall. They are constructing berms along the parking area, but not along the wall. Everything should make its way into the drainage system.
Pabich asks about the slope to the south and a crowned roadway that could trap water in the corners. Mr. Astone reiterates that it is angled to drain to the center with no crown.
Richard Luecke, of 2 River St. Salem, asks about lighting plans. There will be lights all along the entire walkway. Knisel points out that this is out of the Commission jurisdiction but Mr. Luecke continues, commenting that National Park Service guidelines for light should be used.
Ricciarelli asks about conduits for the lighting; they will run it in the road.
Michael Buckley of 20 Palmer St. agrees that there should be more green space, and asks about the diagram. The pink area represents pavers in contrast with the concrete. He wonders if they could put up a half shell or wall as a sound barrier or to be used for live music or a free wall for artists. Knisel comments that that needs to be discussed with the Planning Department.
Lawrence Tomilio of Ames St., Salem,.is a commercial fisherman, and asks about the pier at low tide. There is no water available at low tide. That will remain the same, with no fishing at low tide by boat? Mr. Astone confirms that there will be no dredging or boat access.
Pabich asks about the northern end during construction. Is there erosion control? It can be put in, but water should sheetflow back. Responding to the many requests for more green space, he emphasizes that there must be consideration of plantings vs. maintenance, and the associated perpetual cost. Excessive plantings already on the other end of Bridge St. are a maintenance nightmare, so though he advocates green space, he says there should be a balance that will address audience concerns as well as the City’s resources. He also says light fixtures should be addressed. Lights that direct light downward, in order to avoid light pollution, should definitely be used. Otherwise, he approves of the project and scope, with its limited impact.
Kevin McCourt asks if there will be a planning meeting. City Planner Lynn Duncan says that there was already a previous meeting, with no further design meetings planned, but she has heard all comments and will work with MassDOT to ensure all comments are considered.
Andrew Carr of 7 River St. says his preference is for more grass at the park.
Jane Arlander asks if the park will be usable during the winter. She comments on the cinder tracks on Derby wharf and the Common, which are usable all winter. Lynn Duncan will share that comment with the Department of Public Services.
Andrea Norton of MassDOT, comments that the public can write letters to Mass DOT and they will be read. Those interested should send letters to the Boston office.
Kevin McCourt asks if drainage would be necessary if the parking lot was not there. Chair Knisel asks if he understands the existing and proposed conditions. There is parking there now, and they want to make it more organized. There is no extra parking proposed, and this design just allows for more pedestrian space. Now there are old style catch basins with no sumps, and the new ones will have those. Mr. McCourt says grass would reduce need for drainage.
Pabich says they are good for TSS (Total Suspended Solids) but not for oil .What is the plan for outlets? Generally, Mass Highway does not do hoods on catch basins but this is under the jurisdiction of Salem DPW who does use hoods, so they will go by the city standards. Pabich explains how the separators work, but they create maintenance problems. Mr. Astone needs to know what the City standard is on this.
Mr. Kastrinakis speaks again. There are 25 or 26 parking spaces with 1 handicapped space. They will not be metered. Lynn Duncan says there has been no discussion about this at the City level. Mr. Kastrinakis is not in favor of meters, but just curious.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously.
Special Conditions:
Siltation barrier to be extended around the end of the project
Coordinate with DPW to construct catch basins to City standard.
Applicant shall submit a plan showing snow storage areas.
There should be an additional meeting to finalize plans for lighting, additional plantings, and catch basins
A motion to issue the Order of Conditions is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.
Old/New Business
- 81 Highland Avenue (Salem Hospital), DEP #64-539: Review of proposed plantings
Here for the applicantis Scott Patrowicz and Bill Manuell. Pam Lawrence, Mary Jo Gagnon, and Shelley Bisegna are also present.
Visuals: Buffer Mitigation Plan
Bill Manuell of Wetlands & Land Management is the wetlands scientist. Mr. Patrowicz reviews what transpired at the last meeting. The plan was approved and an Order of Conditions issued. He has not recorded it so if they want to update the Conditions they can, referencing the buffer mitigation. An Operation and Maintenance plan for drainage is included on the plan (Utility Plan as shown with notes). Hamilton asks if they have manual specific to the proposed 900 storm scepter. That addresses DEP’s question about TSS (Total Suspended Solids) removal, and they can get that manual. The system will be maintained as per the manual.
Soils were tested for groundwater separation. They had to change the configuration of the infiltrators. Roof runoff will go into the infiltrator directly, and parking lot drainage will enter deep sump catchbasins with hoods, then flow into the storm scepter. It will improve point source discharge, thus improving the wetlands.
Bill Manuell is also examining the buffer area; he did an extensive plant inventory and has a management buffer mitigation plan in place.
He inventoried trees that were existing and that would be impacted, and mitigated for their loss. There were 59 trees to be impacted on the footprint of the building and 9 in a smaller area. Most were pioneer species, which show up first when an area is disturbed then recolonized. He found box elder, quaking aspen and crabapple. The understory was blackberry vines and canes along with bittersweet and multiflora rose, the latter two being invasives. The only tree that was alien was three norway maples. There were also black cherry, red maple and linden. 2/3 of trees were those pioneer species. They will put at least as many trees back. They will re-establish the side slope as a functional buffer zone, not make it into grass. He selected four areas, for which he describes the plantings.
Replacements will be 4-6’ in height, and native trees will be used, mimicking what is there, such as gray birch, quaking aspen, box elder, and red maple. All are vigorous. Larger specimens will require much more care and are slower growing once installed, which is why he prefers smaller size trees from a particular nursery that he works with extensively. There will be 44 trees in one area.
The next area is along Dove Ave., and a third area is where the sewer was rerouted along parking lot, and he will put in 36 trees there. The fourth area is a small one adjacent to the wetland, currently barren of vegetation. There he is putting in blueberry and arrow wood shrubs, since it is more wetland area. He is installing a total of 94 plant specimens in a 4:1 ratio of replacement. A monitoring schedule is included in his report. Someone familiar with the plan should be onsite working with the landscaper during installation. It is also helpful to have someone return a month after installation to assess transplanting. There should be an end of season and one year inspection. Hopefully at the end of 2 years the Commission can sign off on the project. He also specified a conservation and wildlife seed mix for the area before the
trees grow in and shade it out.
The Commission is pleased. Mr. Patrowics asks how to proceed. Devine says that the Order is issued and closed and this is an approval that is recorded in the minutes.
Hamilton again asks about a manual for the details of the storm scepter that is being put in so they know how to maintain it. At the end of all construction projects they get full Operation and Maintenance manuals from each trade, and hand them over to those who will maintain them. This will include for the storm scepter for maintenance and will include numbers to call for maintenance. Knisel says this is a report on a closed item; the Conditions were for the plan to be submitted for review and approval and Devine suggests approval at this time.
A motion to approve is made by Pabich, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.
Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a parking lot at 297 Bridge Street (former Universal Steel property) within a flood plain and buffer zone to a wetland resource area.
Jim Courier of Weston & Sampson, Project Manager and LSP, presents. He came before the Commission in July regarding building demolition. Those plans and specifications have been submitted and are out for bid, to be closed out 9/27 with demolition to begin in October. The EPA will do a site evaluation, and all slabs and PCB impacted soils will be removed. The EPA will then grade and prepare the site for capping as a temporary parking lot during construction of the MBTA parking garage at Salem Depot. He shows a plan for the parking lot with infiltration up front, deep sump catch basins, plantings along the side to mitigate light pollution, and erosion controls to be included.
Pabich asks if there will be digging on the site and if it will have an AUL (Activities and Use Limitation). The remediation program by the EPA will take off top 1’ across the site once structures are removed, then they will dig deeper where PCBs exceed 50ppm to reduce the overall risk. Ultimately there will be a deed restriction. Pabich comments on the lack of topography and drainage structures on the plan as shown. Drainage structures will be out front along Bridge St. so are not on the plan. They will work with the EPA to dig out areas for drainage. Once this area is established, how will it drain? Mike Richard of W& S Engineers says currently it sheetflows north to Bridge St. Grades will not be changed and that sheetflow will be maintained. There are only 2 catch basins by design, and they are there only to catch the
first flush. Overall flow will be unchanged.
Hoskins asks about flow that might go the other way as it is near a spot that floods periodically at high tides. Is there a plan to make sure soils do not get washed offsite during remediation? They are aware of the flooding and there will be silt fence and hay bales in place. If temporary stockpiling is needed, it will be lined and covered with plastic. They have done pre-characterization of soils; material will be trucked offsite continuously so there should be no stockpiles left. Specs are for a future site that will be cleaned up by the EPA.
Hamilton asks about trenches; some areas up front were impacted but it was very minor. They will be excavated by the EPA. Pabich asks about a buffer for lighting but there is no lighting plan. The only plan so far is for vegetation. This is temporary so there will be no lights.
Lynn Duncan comments that they are looking into temporary lighting for safety. The MBTA is researching that, and will look at shielding neighboring properties from the lighting as well. But it would not be disturbing ground to install the lighting.
Chair Knisel opens to the public.
Rolf Franke-Otten of Beckford St. says there is a pool on the south side of Universal Steel. It was created by the first demolition. He has pictures of previous trees. Where will the water from this large puddle go? As part of the EPA remediation, they will address that area. Water comes onto his property when the puddle floods. The presenters say that the EPA will do its own testing and address that pooling area. Mr. Franke-Otten asks how it will affect chemicals in the soil, and if they can contaminate neighboring properties. The area was remediated in the 1990s and additional testing will be done again.
John Carr of 7 River St. says that that area abuts the southwest portion of Universal. They support the concept of the program and he wonders about drainage and lighting. Are the two catch basins adequate? The whole area floods regularly, 3 or 4 times a year. Sometimes it is so bad that a continuous puddle exists from Bridge St. to Commercial St. You can almost see what the North River used to look like. The existing condition is that it is land, so water that falls will infiltrate the land, and now it will be an impervious surface with water directed toward Bridge St, which already is inadequately addressed. The area is 1.2 acres. There is a de facto catch basin between Universal and Federal, but it has been stagnant, with possibly contaminated water, for a long time. Many have complained, especially with the recent cases of EEE and
West Nile. Even though it is next to the site, it is clearly created by runoff from the site.
The entire site serves as a visual and auditory buffer from the commercial area of Bridge St. to the residential portion south of it. They would like to have temporary parking but minimize adverse effects. He hopes because of the grade that the presence of mature trees on the perimeter can be preserved. They can’t plant 6, 8 or 10’ trees to make up for them. He asks about the capping of the site and deed restrictions. Lynn Duncan comments on this issue as it was brought up at a previous meeting. Until the work is done on the site, they won’t know contamination levels or what use limitations could be.
As for future deed restrictions, remediation will reduce PCB’s across the site. Anything greater than 50 parts per million will be removed. Post-excavation samples will be done by the EPA, then they will evaluate use limitations. Usually deed restrictions will not eliminate residential development, but it will not be single family. They will limit gardening. Mr. Carr says the zoning is R2, but certain types of residential could be excluded. Lynn Duncan also comments on other sites, some with AUL’s have no residential allowed, while some allow residential but not gardening. TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) regulations regarding PCB require deed restrictions. They have their own contamination levels. The site will be cleaned, then they will determine risk assessment and what restrictions there will be. This hearing and
these plans are only for temporary parking, and ultimately the City wants to sell the property; cleanup will facilitate that.
Ricciarelli asks if the existing roof drains run overland or are piped to the street. Is this going to be an increase in impervious surface? The roof is in disrepair. Mr. Franke-Otten says water is sheeting off the roof.
They are going to clear and grub (pull out the roots) over the entire site. All trees on site will be removed, but trees along the back side of the property can stay, unless soil there is found to be contaminated, but the area was already cleaned in the past. Lynn Duncan asks about trees. All structures, trees, and roots onsite will be removed.
There is more impervious area with the new plan but there are also stormwater controls and additional grass to mitigate. Runoff should not be increased for the site. Jane Arlander asks about perimeter monitoring of dust during demolition and the rest of project, if applicable. Where will monitors be located? There will be a structure around the building to create negative pressure during demolition for asbestos material containment. During EPA site remediation, they will control dust via wetting of soils, and there will be perimeter dust monitors set up. Typically there are four monitors on the perimeter, sometimes one in the middle. Demolition should be complete by end of November. The EPA will start remediation mid November.
Dick Luecke speaks again, asking about the tree plans and if plantings could be extended. Yes, they could.
Hoskins clarifies about the flooding. Flooding does not have to do only with rain, but also with tides. It is not only a rain/runoff issue.
Mr. Carr comments on flooding. He says parking will still be higher than the roadway, and the low point is Bridge St. Dampers were put on for high tides. Right now it is not a paved area, is permeable, and will be impermeable but the only drainage is on Bridge St. It is not always tidally driven. Stormwater will be decreased off the site. They will put in deep sump catch basins and infiltration basins. Pabich says we are permitting not the state the site is in today, but where the EPA will leave it, and the EPA’s work is exempt from the commission’s review.
Ricciarelli says the increase in impervious area will be mitigated by trenches. Sump basins with infiltration basins will help with TSS (Total Suspended Solids) removal. They don’t know the size of the trees that will be installed yet. Plantings have not yet been designed, so that is why the plan has not changed. They don’t have bid specifications for plantings. Knisel says this Commission can condition a certain size of tree. They could look to Planning Board standards. Jane Arlander says when Leslie Retreat Park was first planted, there was no consideration of whether or not the trees could survive briny water, so many died. Is that a consideration here? That will be noted in the conditions.
Carol Carr of 7 River St. asks about the height of the fences. There is timber rail out front, about 30”, the same as the bumper of a car. That meets Commission requirements for wildlife to move on and off the site. Mr. Carr asks again about the security of the site. The site is currently secure and will be throughout demolition and remediation. Vegetation should do a better job of screening. Also when the property changes hands they will have to come before the Commission again. Arlander comments that a fence was put there in 1994 and should remain in the back. Knisel asks about it. They can talk to the EPA about maintaining the fence. Lynn Duncan reiterates that they will leave it if they can, and will talk to EPA. They can also provide an alternate bid to include a fence, but there may be questions about eligibility under the
grant.
Pabich comments that the EPA may need to remove the fence, as they are working from a clean slate, but concerns can be brought forth.
A motion to close the hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins and passes unanimously, with the following conditions:
- Trees shall be salt tolerant a meet Planning Board standards.
- Deep sump catch basins must meet City of Salem specifications
- Final proposed grades shall be submitted to the conservation commission to show that now flood storage is lose.
- A certificate of compliance for the building demolition must be options before work under this order of conditions can begin.
A motion to issue the Order is made by Pabich, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously. This order is hereby made a part of these minutes.
Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—David Perkins, 30 Winter Island Road, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of new vestibule, patio, gazebo, fence, trellis, and walking paths within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 30 Winter Island Road.
David Pabich recuses himself.
David Perkins, homeowner at above address, presents his plan. He describes the setup and his plans for installation of the above items, which were not completed when the house was built. The extent of the buffer zone is discussed – some items are outside the zone.
The patio will be concrete block capped with bluestone. They are pervious with ¼” spacing between each stone. The material under the gazebo will also be pervious. Chair Knisel asks about the fence, which will extend from the house to the edge of the property, with a trellis and gate into the back of the property.
Riciarelli asks if there is enough detail to consider the project. Devine says that considering it is in the buffer zone, it is at the Commission’s discretion to determine if they have enough information. The gazebo will be 200 square feet. Riciarelli asks about the property line, and if water will be shedding onto an adjacent property. This may be a question about setbacks for the building department. He has not yet contacted the Building Department. He may need a building permit for the gazebo. It will not be draining onto an adjacent property.
Chair Knisel comments that there may not be enough disturbances to warrant erosion controls. The site is flat. The seawall is concrete, higher than grade, intact with no deterioration. There is a walkway; erosion controls should be placed in front of the opening.
There are no audience members thus no public comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously, sans David Pabich.
Conditions:
Ensure use of pervious materials below deck and gazebo
Ensure gazebo is pulled back far enough from other property to comply with zoning
Obtain building permits and submit copies of any required plans to this Commission
Erosion control must be placed at the opening of the seawall during construction
A motion to issue a Negative 3 Order of Conditions is made by Hamilton, seconded by Hoskins, and passes 4-0 with David Pabich recused.
Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—50 Grove Street Real Estate LLC, 7 Rantoul Street, Suite 100B, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed off-leash dog area within riverfront area and flood zone at 50 Grove Street.
Applicant requests to continue to Sept. 27 as he seeks to secure a tenant for the space.
Witch Hill Subdivision House Lots
Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-536—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 1 Nurse Way.
Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-535—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 2 Nurse Way.
Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-534—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 3 Nurse Way.
Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-533—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 4 Nurse Way.
Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-532—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 5 Nurse Way.
Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-537—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 7 Nurse Way.
Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-531—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 8 Nurse Way.
Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-530—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 1 Good Circle.
Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-529—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 2 Good Circle.
Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-528—Kenneth G. Steadman, 67 Village Street, Marblehead, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 3 Good Circle.
Ken Steadman speaks to the Commission. He presents the overall plan. One road is paved with four houses built on it. Phase two is for additional lots further down the street, with wetlands along them. The revised plan (Site development Permit Plan, May 15, 2012) shows more detail than previously presented.
Landscaping of lots is also discussed. Most existing trees are 3-4” in diameter, but there are larger trees in the wetlands. Growth there is secondary, after a past fire. There is a lot of birch. They will delineate lot lines with birches. Other plantings are also described, as is a riprap wall to be installed. 80% of the lots have rock and will need to be blasted; the resulting debris will be used in landscaping.
A soil management plan is also presented. All excavated material will be kept out of the resource area. All material in the buffer will be stockpiled with a siltation barrier surrounding it. Also, any existing material not stabilized by vegetation will have a siltation barrier installed.
Pabich states that he would like to know what will be done on each lot, but Mr. Steadman is not sure yet what he will do. Lots are fairly small, without much area for plantings. Pabich says what they will approve should show intentions for plantings. Mr. Steadman reiterates his proposed general plan of transplanting existing birches on lot lines. Hamilton comments that they should provide services to the wetlands too. Pabich opines that they would be better used on the rear lot lines, nearest the wetlands. He would still like to see something more definitive about where trees will be planted. Mr. Steadman wonders if they can condition locations of the trees.
Pabich states that the Commission originally permitted the road and drainage, not clearing to the lot lines, but it is too late for that. He is not certain about placement of the birches and would like to see an attempt at a mitigating planting plan by a wetlands scientist. He comments that Mr. Steadman has eliminated the buffer zone, which is also valuable to the resource and should have some thought given to it. Ricciarelli says the Commission would like to see plantings along the buffer rather than along property lines. This could be conditioned with Mr. Steadman having a wetlands scientist provide a planting plan to the Commission.
Mr. Steadman asks how people are supposed to have yards, and Pabich comments that the Commission could have guided him so that some of it could have been somewhat natural, but it’s too late now. Mr. Steadman asks if they can condition trees to be planted on each lot with a letter from a wetlands scientist.
Pabich would be happy with such an arrangement. Chair Knisel comments that the Commission does not need to specify a type or number of plants for vegetation, just that there be a letter presented. Review and approval would be required by the Commission prior to planting.
Pabich reminds Mr. Steadman to come before the Commission before clearing the land for future phases of the project.
Construction will begin at the end of September; Mr. Steadman will come back in the spring before replanting.
There are no members of the public, thus no comments.
The Commisson is satisfied with the information presented so far. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously.
Conditions:
Prior to construction a site specific plan, endorsed by a wetlands scientist, must be presented to the Commission for review prior to issuance of Certificate of Compliance and/or Certificate of Occupancy.
A motion to issue an Order of Conditions for all 10 lots is made by Pabich, seconded by Hamilton, and passes 4-0 (Hoskins is not eligible to vote on this issue). This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.
Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability— MassDOT Highway Division, 519 Appleton Street, Arlington MA. The purpose of hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a new sidewalk on the southbound side of Highland Avenue from Thomas Circle to Ravenna Road, crossing the Forest River.
Andrea Norton of MassDOT presents. They have received complaints about the above section of roadway. A request for sidewalks was made by Mayor Driscoll and Representative Tierney. There will be 5 wheelchair crossings in this stretch, at the intersections. The intent is to put the sidewalk, 1,960’ long x 5’ wide through those points. They will excavate down 6”, grade it, pack it, and pour with HMA asphalt and granite edging. Erosion controls will be used. There is an open sidewalk improvement contract and a contractor onsite. It will go in quickly once approvals are obtained.
Erosion controls are on both sides, but the sidewalk itself will only be on one side, the western side where Puleo’s Dairy is. They will not be resetting the guardrail. There is no easement and they are not going near the river since it drops down on each side. It appears that the original roadway development allowed for a sidewalk, but one was never installed. There is already a well-worn trail there.
There are no public comments on this project. Pabich asks about erosion controls; Ms. Norton recommends a pre-site meeting and Devine can specify what he thinks would be most appropriate, and she will follow that preference as conditioned. Pabich thinks logs would be sufficient. The Commission decides to specify siltation logs/silt socks. No pre-construction visit is needed.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by by Ricciarelli, seconded by Blier and passes unanimously.
A motion to issue a negative three determination is made by Hoskins, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.
Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-542—Eric Palm of Den II Realty Trust, 61R Jefferson Avenue, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss, after-the-fact, restoration of filled riverfront area at 185 Jefferson Avenue.
Mr. John Dick of Hancock Associates presents. The site is nicely vegetated, with seed mix planted 6+ weeks ago. It is coming in nicely. Unfortunately Japanese Knotweed and phragmites have had a resurgence. There are large concrete blocks to prevent people from driving onto the property. The Certificate of Compliance is almost done and will be delivered.
There are no members of the public to comment.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded Hoskins, and passes unanimously.
In the Enforcement Order, the Commission asked for 2 years of monitoring, and this will be added to the Conditions. Mr. Dick can come to a subsequent meeting with his request for the Certificate of Compliance with monitoring to extend beyond that.
The Commission decided they wanted 2 monitoring reports, one in spring 2013 and in 2014 by June 20 of each year. This will be inserted into the Order of Conditions.
Ricciarelli motions to issue the Order of Conditions, is seconded by Hamilton, and the motion passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.
Old/New Business (continued)
- DEP #64-441, 28 Goodhue Street: Request for Minor Modification
Daniel J. Padien presents. He represents North River Condominium, LLC, owners of the property in question. An Order of Conditions was issued in 2007 for a building with apartments, retail, a parking lot, etc. along the North River Canal. One requirement was to get a Chapter 91 license because the site is on filled tidelands. It is easier to get this if no parking is on filled tidelands. Thus, the applicant has decided to remove 2050 square feet (about 8 or 9 parking spaces) of pavement from that area, which will now be vegetation. It has just been eliminated, and there will be more pervious surface now. Devine asks if the stormwater system will be the same one, which would have been used for more impervious surface area. That will remain even though there will be more vegetation and less impervious area.
A motion to accept the changes as not significant enough to require an amendment or new NOI is made by Pabich, seconded by Hoskins and passes unanimously.
Gavin McAuliffe has served his term and is not seeking reappointment. Greg St. Louis has been appointed by the Mayor. He will start no sooner than October.
A motion to adjourn is made by Pabich, seconded by Hoskins and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 9:15PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on September 27, 2012
| 
