Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, Sept. 27, 2012, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairwoman Julia Knisel, Dan Ricciarelli, Amy Hamilton, Bart Hoskins, Michael Blier
Members Absent: David Pabich
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:03PM
Meeting Minutes—September 13, 2012
Several small changes are noted. A motion to approve the minutes with corrections is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously.
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 the October 11th meeting. A motion to continue to the October 11th meeting is made by Hoskins, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously.
Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Robert Dunham, RTD Nominee Trust, 63 ½ Jefferson Avenue, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a building addition at 63 ½ Jefferson Avenue within buffer zone to a wetland resource area.
Here for the applicant is Steven Bernstein, professional engineer. He presents a revised drawing
Illustrations: Site Plan S-1 9/24/12
The property at this location is 43,613 square feet; the project consists of an existing building to which an addition will be added. It is currently all paved, and previous work for the original building was done under an Order of Conditions in 1999 and a perforated roof drain along with vegetated soil was installed. Mr. Bernstein also shows a plan for the original building as built.
It borders on Jefferson Ave. There is a common driveway between two properties. Wetlands were flagged in early August. The addition is within the riverfront area. The building will be built on existing pavement. He has provided a supplemental stormwater report. This area is redevelopment with no net increase in impervious area. The stormwater system originally was designed with a vegetated swale and perforated pipe around the building to be distributed there. A catch basin was installed for runoff from the building. The swale has been maintained by the applicant. They are proposing to put in a perforated trench and replace the current catchbasin with one with a hood and deep sump for the addition. The quality of stormwater should be improved as stormwater runoff will be converted to roof runoff.
Ricciarelli asks if the roof drains are internal but they are external. There are French drains with cleanouts to grade. Whatever is not captured by the perforated pipes runs off into the swale.
This will be a slab on grade and the proposed project will strip existing asphalt and drive piles, then put in a post tension slab. There will be no grade changes and the addition will have overhead doors on one side of the building. Mr. Bernstein’s client is in the drywall business. The existing area of the proposed building is a yard with some portable containers, which would be relocated and supplies put inside the building. Photos are passed around.
Mr. Bernstein describes the setup of the fence and the new catch basin. Ricciarelli asks about a berm at the back, but none is proposed. He says they are raising the grade as it appears on the plans, but Mr. Bernstein outlines the direction of flow on the plan and says there is no change in grade. Hamilton asks about an increase in size to the original catch basin noted in the stormwater report. That was in 1999; it was already done and is not being expanded again.
They are converting 4600 square feet from parking lot runoff into roof drainage. Some roof drainage will recharge in the ground. The client is aware that he cannot use rock salt in the wetland. There is a temporary stockpile area outside the inner 100’ riverfront area. A stabilized construction entrance will be built and silt sacks will be used during construction. Hay bales will also be used around the perimeter.
Riciarelli asks about the 6” PVC piping; it is large enough. Chair Knisel asks about a photo with school busses. Mr. Bernstein illustrates where they are parked. It is owned by the applicant but used by the City for bus storage. It is leased for Partners Health Care, who use it for supplemental parking but also let the City park busses there.
Riciarelli asks about the exterior storage – the items will be moved inside. The addition will have a metal roof.
Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Riciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously.
Blier comments that although the project itself will not have much of an impact, parking lots come and go, and can change; they are eliminating parking and putting a more permanent structure there. It will only be 57’ from the wetland, so it should be acknowledged that they are incrementally encroaching on the wetland, and it can become someone else’s problem down the road, for example, if people continue to park near the wetland, there are salting issues. With that said, the map and data are good as far as mitigating the impacts. There are no alternate configurations that would work.
The applicant comments that it is industrial land and indoor storage is always better- building on it is an improvement. Dealing with outdoor storage is difficult, especially as he cannot use salt.
Devine comments about the fence; they have not encroached beyond that; the edge of the property is clearly defined and there is no dumping. The applicant is aware that people encroach so he defined his property. The fence goes through the riverfront area. It is a 12’ fence.
The applicant has proposed standard erosion controls, which will be placed along the edge of the parking lot on the soil, not on asphalt. The elevation where the fence stands is 6” above the pavement in a natural berm. The largest excavation will be the drain around the building. Ricciarelli agrees with Blier’s comment about the activity being pushed toward the wetland. He also comments on the grade. He is worried about sheetflow into the riverfront area in a particular area and wonders if it can be redirected to the catchbasin. It can be. There will be some regarding and asphalt work so it can be worked in. Blier asks about if the contours need to be pushed so far out; this is necessary due to the setup. Hamilton asks about coir logs vs. hay bales vs. straw bales – she prefers something without seeds.
Mr. Bernstein is open to either.
The Commission would like to condition straw wattle or coconut fiber, not hay bales as the latter contain seeds.
A 6” Cape Cod berm (sloped curb) should also be installed against the inside (eastern portion) of the fence along the eastern perimeter of the parking lot.
Blier asks about snow storage; usually it is where the busses are in the other lot; there is one spot they take over for a snow pile. Ricciarelli asks about grades again, but they will be changed only minimally. There is a previous order of conditions for this site that might not have a certificate of compliance. This should be obtained prior to start of construction under the order being issued tonight.
A motion to issue said Conditions is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.
Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Misha and Sheila Eliasziw, 3 Parallel Street, Salem MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a garage within buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 3 Parallel Street.
No one is present for the applicant. Dave Knowlton recommends NOT approving this until the drainage issues are resolved. The City can spend the $10,000 set aside by Steve Lovely for this purpose. The applicant can come before the Commission for the addition, but the City Engineer won’t give it his blessing until the other drainage issues are resolved. Therefore, the applicant requests to continue to the Nov. 8, 2012 meeting.
A motion to continue to November 8, 2012 is made by Hoskins, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously
Old/New Business
None.
A motion to adjourn is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 6:46PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on November 8, 2012
| 
