Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, March 22, 2012, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chairwoman Julia Knisel, Michael Blier, David Pabich, Gavin McAuliffe
Members Absent: Dan Ricciarelli, Amy Hamilton
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Chairwoman Julia Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:05 PM.
Meeting Minutes—February 23, 2012
There was one typo on the last page. A motion to accept the minutes as corrected is made by Pabich, seconded by Blier, and passes unanimously.
Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability— Salco Realty LLC, 3 Technology Way, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed installation of a utility conduit within Technology Way and at 3 Technology Way (Salem Glass Company) within a buffer zone to a wetlands resource area.
Here for the applicant is James Miller of Salco Realty.
Illustration: DiLullo Associates. Technology Way Comcast Trench Feb. 5 2012, with undated markup
US Biological came before the Commission last month to describe the trench which was dug to bring Comcast service to the area. Salem Glass is piggybacking with US Biological to bring Cable to Technology way. They will use a manhole cover and 4” conduit already in place at their building, but it must be connected to the conduit installed previously.
Mr. Miller illustrates the area on photos. He describes the setup of his driveway and grassy area. Pabich comments that there is a conduit from the manhole to the back of the building; it must just be connected about 8’.
Chair Knisel comments that there was significant discussion at the last meeting, including about this issue, and there were no major reservations about this segment. There will be no disturbance on the other side of the street.
Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments.
The Commission does not wish to place any conditions on the project.
Devine says that this would be a negative 2 determination – the work is subject to Conservation Commission jurisdiction but will not alter the area permanently.
A motion to close is made by McAuliffe, seconded by Blier and passes unanimously.
A motion to issue a negative 2 determination is made by McAuliffe, seconded by Pabich, and passes unanimously.
Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-523— William Wharff, 30 Federal St., Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a parking lot and associated utilities within riverfront area, land subject to coastal storm flowage, and buffer zone to coastal bank at 162 and 150 Federal St.
Here for the applicant is Charlie Wear of Meridian Associates.
Illustration: Site Development Plan, Jan 25, 2012 and color landscape plan
The site is at 162 Federal St. An existing building will be converted to housing. The Church is at 150 Federal and owns the property around it, which it is selling. Mr. Wharff will also buy an adjacent property for parking. The site is currently mostly paved. The North River is directly across the street so this is within riverfront area.
One of the first issues is that the North River is tidal, so it is coastal bank, not just bank, and is land subject to flooding on FEMA maps. Devine comments that it is not clear if it is coastal bank or just bank, but Wear comments that it is subject to tidal action so must be coastal bank. It is a canal wall, which is different than a bank. Chair Knisel says there are issues with wave action if they will be calling it coastal. The river at that point is a canal – but is not technically a canal since walls were built over an old riverbed.
Mr. Wear says they plan to remove the existing pavement, regrade, and reorient the parking lot. Within the riverfront area there are some trees along the edge of the site that they intend to leave. Otherwise it is degraded and paved currently. They will create some more green space around the entrance. There will also be an infiltration basin. In the stormwater report they went through the standards for redevelopment. Doing work in a degraded riverfront area involves getting development away from the river and reducing the amount of impervious surface.
Mr. Wear quotes the regulations and reviews the applicant’s compliance.
- There must be improvement over the existing conditions: There will be an overall reduction of 340 square feet in the amount of pavement and new green areas closest to the river.
- With regards to stormwater management standards, they are in compliance; within a riverfront area, work must not be closer than the current situation or 100 feet, whichever is less. The entrance will be paved but is not closer to the river than the current paved area. Expansion of further paved areas would be away from the river.
- Work may not be greater than the degraded area; the overall amount of pavement is being reduced.
- Restoration on a 1:1 scale in the riverfront area: 340 square feet of additional green space will be formed.
- There are no new conveyances of stormwater off the property. They are proposing an infiltration basin 2 feet above groundwater, and runoff with go into a sediment forebay, then into the infiltration basin, then to an outlet into Bridge St. drainage system.
- With regard to reduction in attenuation for increases in the rate of runoff, hydrology for the site is included in the application. This area could potentially flood in 100 year floods due to tides. But they will recapture rooftop flow together with a reduction of impervious surfaces, and this will lead to reduction in flows for 2, 10, and 100 year events
- The standard of no loss in recharge will be addressed by the infiltration basin. As for the water quality standard, the infiltration basin will also address that one.
- The pollutant load standard is not applicable; neither is standard six.
- Standard 7 addresses redevelopment; the parking lot is not redevelopment, and he is meeting all standards anyway, so it is a moot point.
- They have provided erosion control with a silt sock around the perimeter of the site; additionally the infiltration basin could be used for sediment collection initially during construction.
- Regarding prohibition of illicit discharges: this is just a parking lot for a residence, so there should be none.
DEP commented on the limit of the FEMA flood area, and Mr. Wear illustrates this on the plan. There is no elevation listed, but it coincides with Elevation 10. The DEP also pointed out that the area is 2000 square feet within the flood plain; they are working in but not filling in the flood plain, and actually are removing material and increasing the floodplain.
Only the rooftop of the building will run into the infiltration basin and this will not require pretreatment. The rest of the site will be pretreated. Water will also enter the sediment forebay by running over the sloped, super-elevated driveway. The DEP also recommended installing emergency overflow, which they can do. But the system as currently designed could still get flooded. The purpose of overflow is to prevent erosion, since many basins have earthen berms around them; but this one is just a concave excavation. Provisions for emergency overflow can be made but Mr. Wear does not think it is necessary.
Soil testing onsite did show that there was fill ash and debris – bricks and burned wood, but no hydrocarbons. It was the subject of a past cleanup. The report is on file with the DEP. Regarding Chapter 91 and the DEP’s comments, Mr.Wear does not believe it is subject to Chapter 91. He is not sure where the historic riverfront was. Devine has an approximate Chapter 91 boundary, and it looks like Mr. Wear is within part of the original riverfront which was filled. The applicant will check on Chapter 91 status.
The Commission will do a post-construction inspection. The applicant has pre-inspection logs already.
Pabich does not feel the overflow is necessary. He suggests they make sure it will not discharge into neighboring property if it overflows and everything is not inundated. They should control where the water goes and make sure the grading is high enough to contain it on this property, which may be difficult. Mr. Wear says they will micro-grade along one edge so overflow could go out the back of the sediment forebay.
Blier asks if there will be asphalt curbing – it is proposed. Blier comments that the Commission usually requests granite curbing. There is a break in the curbing at one point to allow water through. Mr. Wear says asphalt holds up well on straight areas; they do specify Cape Cod. They can put in granite even though it is more expensive. Pabich says if it gets damaged the forebay won’t work, so they should at least do granite just on the entrance and around the corner if nothing else. That should keep the rest of it intact.
Chair Knisel opens to the public and Joyce Wallis of 172 Federal St. comments on Chapter 91. We are not clear on whether or not this property is subject to it – that must be checked. They are also checking on where Sylvania used to be. Some of the old Sylvania site is subject to Ch. 91.
A site visit is scheduled for Thurs. April 12 at 5:30PM. Mr. Wear will need to check and see if site is open to public during site visit.
A motion to continue at the April 12 meeting is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliffe, and passes unanimously.
Old/New Business
- 61 and 185 Jefferson Ave.: Discussion of wetlands violation
Devine summarizes that he heard from the building inspector, who saw fill encroaching onto National Grid’s property behind 61 Jefferson, on wetlands. He met with 61 Jefferson owners Eric and Darren Palm, and confirmed that wetlands have been filled. The Palms should have received a letter from the National Grid regarding their encroachment, but it had not yet arrived. Devine talked to the DEP about the best way to go forward, however they recommend the strictest possible measures, such as having a wetland scientist look at the area and come up with plan via enforcement order. Devine wanted to talk to the owners first.
They have been there 15 years and they have had to clean up that land over time; they cannot put up a fence or gate since National Grid and the sewer company have an easement. As a result, people dump there all the time and they clean it up; they have not purposely encroached on wetlands.
National Grid had not noticed this alteration on its wetlands; they did not know anything until Devine told them. They come out only once a month with a machine to access their electrical towers.
Devine points out the extent of the alteration on the map. Property lines are not perfectly accurate. The residents say that the area was like that to begin with. They just spent $3000 on surveillance cameras to stop the dumping. They review the National Grid property line. Blier asks about other material. It is pack, not something people are driving in and dropping off, and one other area is from the owners cleaning up. It is muddy, people dump debris, and the area has been dressed with pack to stabilize it.
There are vehicles parked in the area in question on an aerial photo from 2010. The owners use the area but it has been that far out as long as they have been there. They have cleaned it and put pack on it to keep it clean. (Pack is a stone dust used as a base for asphalt.) Prior to putting pack down, there was only dirt and mud, aside from the debris, with no vegetation, though plants might grow at the perimeter.
Pabich proposes a site visit. It sounds like they are creating a problem even if it is not intentional. If there is uncontrolled access through their property, and it looks like this is actually National Grid property, the Commission must discuss this with National Grid. Although it may be convenient to put vehicles there, it is not good for the wetland. The Conservation Commission has determined that there is fill in the wetland, but that it is most likely on National Grid’s property. The company must control access.
Blier comments that the leading edge of the fill was there when the Palms moved in. The leading edge may have been similar 10 years ago but they are not sure, since they don’t know where property line is. Pabich suggests they pull up Google maps from when the property was purchased until now. Those go back to 1995.
He wonders if the Commission should issue an enforcement order. Devine says they will do the site visit and communicate with National Grid first, otherwise the Commission will not know who to issue order to. Chairwoman Knisel wants the property owners to stake out their property boundary. Property boundaries will be staked tomorrow morning. Commissioners will visit the site individually, rather than together at a set time. They will discuss it at the next meeting but the owners will not be available.
Devine will ask National Grid if they filled in the wetland, for the record. They are looking at it as an encroachment issue and said they would cooperate, if the Commission asks the owners of 61 Jefferson to restore the wetlands on the Grid’s property.
The commission will revisit this matter at the April 26 meeting.
Miscellaneous matters
The Salem Oil and Grease appeal has been decided. This was the reduction of the area included under the Historic Mill exemption.
The building of the site at 23 Parlee St. is now cooperating to resolve the outstanding order of conditions. This is the house that was issued an order and built without addressing any conditions of the order.
Devine met at Swampscott and Robinson Roads with DEP. The situation is challenging, with a lawsuit between property owners, serious drainage issues, and a DEP consent order. The consent order makes this matter the responsibility of DEP and not the commission. The gravel that washed into the roadway remains.
There will be a public meeting for the new MBTA garage on Monday at 6:30PM at the Carlton school.
A motion to adjourn is made by Pabich, seconded by McAuliffe, and passes unanimously.
The meeting ends at 7:05PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Salem Conservation Commission on April 12, 2012.
| 
