Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, March 28, 2013, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chair Julia Knisel, Gregory St. Louis, Dan Ricciarelli, Bart Hoskins
Members Absent: David Pabich, Amy Hamilton, Michael Blier
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove (former Salem Oil & Grease)—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Michael Hubbard of MRM Project Management, LLC, PO Box 388, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed mixed-use residential and commercial development with associated building demolition, site clean-up, landscaping, vehicle and pedestrian bridges, parking areas, utilities, and stormwater management features within resource areas and buffer zones regulated by the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem’s Wetlands Protection Ordinance at 60 & 64 Grove St. and 1 & 3 Harmony Grove Rd.
Applicant requests to continue to the April 11, 2013 meeting
A motion to continue is made by Hoskins, seconded by St. Louis, and passes unanimously.
Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Gino Ciasullo, 6 Champlain Rd., Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss, after the fact, construction of a garage, retaining wall, fencing, and other structures, as well as proposed removal of fencing, within riverfront area and/or buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 6 Champlain Rd. and 19 Arthur St.
Ben Osgood, Jr. with Pennoni Assoc. is representing Mr. Ciasullo. A Notice of Intent to permit the work done by Mr. Ciasullo’s father is being filed. The original NOI had a 100’ restriction with the belief that the brook was considered a river. Evidence regarding that river has been submitted, using the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) StreamStats program. Calculations were submitted and the Commission had some questions, so a map is presented.
Mr. Osgood shows a map of the area with all streets and an outline of the watershed area for the site. Drainage systems were also viewed on GIS, and Mr. Osgood confirmed some of them. One main question was where the water from Salem Hospital goes.
He discusses a brook along Wilson St. StreamStats assumes it flows down to the property in question, 6 Champlain Rd., but it actually flows into a pipe, onto Salem Hospital property, then out of the watershed. The drainage area shown on the map, .3 square miles, is actually smaller. Nothing from Salem Hospital goes behind the property in question. One square mile of watershed area is required to define a brook as a river. Originally the river definition was loose, but has been tightened up. Now they use the StreamStats method, which if the watershed area is more than 1 square mile, qualifies it as a river, if less, it is not a river, except in a sand and gravel area. This is not sand and gravel.
The applicant would like to, based on the new DEP method, have this classified as not being a river, allowing things to move forward as buffer zone only. There was some unpermitted work done that they would like to remain. Garden fencing would be removed, but other fences around the yard would remain, as they prevent people from entering the wetland. Resource area markers could be posted. Everything else would also remain. He describes a grass area 53 feet from the wetlands. Under normal conditions, that is allowable under the Wetlands Protection Act. He would also like to leave the metal stairs which are 40 feet from the wetlands. They got permission from the abutter to remove fencing on that property.
St. Louis asks about Salem Hospital not draining into this stream; otherwise he is comfortable with the classification. StreamStats is a tool for designers and regulators; USGS calls the stream intermittent and confirms that with StreamStats, which contradicts how it was defined in 1996. It is effectively a re-delineation. Ricciarelli asks if something changed over the years. When they went down, it was flowing quite well but he does not know if it was year round.
Manny Santos of 19 Arthur St., the abutting property, says when there is a lot of snow or rain it flows, but it flows much less in the summer. They have lived there since 1997 and if there are changes to 6 Champlain, it will affect the wildlife, so he would like to see things remain as they are.
Diana Santos also of 19 Arthur St. comments that she has seen deer, rabbits, a wild falcon, coyotes—a lot of wildlife activity—along the stream.
Mr. and Mrs. Belanger of 35 Willson St. comment that they have seen no wildlife. Mr. Belanger comments that the garage was more like a castle and the owner was running a business out of it, yet it is a residential area. Mr. Ciasullo says there is no metal work going on there. Chair Knisel reminds meeting attendees that the focus of the hearing is only protection of the wetland resource areas. Mr. Osgood says that metalwork was the original owner’s hobby.
The standard is that if a body of water flows all year, it qualifies as a river. The area can have water; the ditch is flat so water may not flow. There is lots of pavement in this area, so there will be a flush of water in a rain event, but then it will dry up. Ricciarelli comments that the previous Commission was conservative; notes from the previous meetings were not that detailed. Hoskins clarifies that StreamStats is the current standard. Data that get put in to that program is where the stream is, and it draws a map for you. But, it can get tripped up if the topography isn’t clear, or if culverts have redirected the water.
St. Louis asks about the deed restriction from the original order. There was a condition for the restriction to be placed on the deed and the applicant is requesting that it be lisfted. St. Louis wonders if the restriction should be removed vs. redefined to a 50 foot buffer or some workable restriction that does not impact the property as developed. Ricciarelli comments that it may also affect the abutters. Hoskins opines that it would since they are redefining the whole area. Ricciarelli asks about reducing the buffer. St. Louis says that the original NOI only locks the definition for three years, although there was the deed restriction which was permanent.
Mr. Osgood outlines that they will remove the fencing and allow the area to revegetate, and reiterates that he would like to leave the stairs. The new buyer would like to be able to use the lawn area.
Mr. Ciasullo says that the stairs are built on rock so do not affect the wetlands. Ricciarelli says if it is not a river it can be reclassified.
Ms. Belanger asks about removing the fence and noise. The applicant is requesting that the perimeter fencing remain.
Ricciarelli comments that an official letter outlining tonight’s proceedings would be sufficient. Devine says if the Commission approves it and the buyer’s attorney requests a letter removing the deed restriction, they can do that. Devine thinks a new no disturb zone is not necessary since any work in the area remaining would require Commission review anyway. Chair Knisel comments that if they had reviewed this, originally the chain link fencing would not have been allowed, since that type of fence does not allow wildlife to move in and out. Mr. Osgood comments that removing the fence would be a lot of work; it is a very tough fence and also clearing would be involved. He mentions possibly removing some sections. That was not one of the original issues.
The applicant would soon request a Certificate of Compliance on both the old and new Orders of Conditions. The note on the NOI plan stating that the 8’ chain link fence will be removed could come off of that plan. Devine suggests that this change can simple be referenced in the order rather than on a revised plan, since it is minor.
Judy Coughlin from ReMax advantage, who is representing the buyers of 6 Champlain Rd., asks for clarification: the proposal is to remove the 4 foot fence around the garden. Also discussed were modifications to the 8’ fence to allow wildlife to pass through. Ms. Santos says wildlife passes through regardless and says the fence does not serve as a barrier.
Hoskins motions to close the public hearing, is seconded by Ricciarelli and the motion passes unanimously.
A motion to issue a new Order of Conditions, is made by Hoskins, seconded by St. Louis and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.
A motion to authorize Devine to issue a letter, if requested, or to take other actions to clear the deed of the no disturb zone, with the stipulation that any work in the buffer zone requires Conservation Commission approval, is made by Hoskins, seconded by St. Louis, and passes unanimously.
Old/New Business
- Discussion of proposed seawall repair at 45 Memorial Dr.
Illustration: 45 Memorial Drive Emergency Seawall Repair Photo Log, Photo by Tom Devine on 3/18/13
Kimberly Smith, owner of the property, outlines the situation. She noticed recently that part of the wall had collapsed. Cement blocks are caving in; it is the original wall from the 1940’s. Her husband would like to build the wall up with larger stones to replace the existing riprap and make it sturdier.
She has not looked at the wall from other properties, but it seems OK on one side but is collapsing on another. Ricciarelli wonders where the water that is undermining the wall is coming from, but Mrs. Smith is not sure but opines it may be weather related. The wall will be designed; she is not sure what will be done temporarily but they have put plywood on top of the exposed soil for now to prevent further erosion.
There is no parking area adjacent and she outlines the setup. The neighbors have a shed nearby. The section that collapsed is 4 or 5 feet high. Chair Knisel asks about wave energy during this winter’s storms. There is not a whole lot of wave action but there is ice buildup. Surge went over the wall of the condominiums next door. The seawall around the drain pipe on their side is collapsing. Chair Knisel comments that the wall was not well built to begin with.
Ricciarelli says the applicant should submit a plan for the wall. Ms. Smith outlines their proposal, and says they will have to consider the design. Hoskins wonders if larger stones would help. There would also be backfill but they don’t want to retain the space while rebuilding. St. Louis says they have 25’ of lawn for staging and reconstruction.
The idea is to keep and not lose lawn space with a new seawall. They also do not want to lose the other low wall that remains. Chair Knisel says the applicant may have to replace in kind, in place. The Commission can’t permit something encroaching onto the resource area. St. Louis says they can authorize emergency action for slope stabilization.
Ms. Smith wants to do something short term while scoping out possibilities. Ricciarelli says they should have someone who works with this take a look even for a short term fix, and wonders if a sketch could be submitted.
The Emergency Certification, which has been issued already, authorizes minimal actions to prevent further erosion, with minimal meaning not rebuilding the entire seawall. Some examples would be large sand bags or some drop in sheeting. Chair Knisel says they could just restack what collapsed, temporarily, with no mortar, then return with a proper design.
This should be a Notice of Intent for the rebuilding of a seawall; the owner can skip the Request for Determination of Applicability. Some repairs are exempt, but if they are replacing the entire structure, the Commission needs to see an engineered plan. Temporary repair is already authorized. The Commission can decide if it is exempt repair vs. reconstruction. Expanding the wall seaward is not desirable and would require permitting beyond this Commission. The existing line or footprint of the wall must be maintained. Devine was initially asked to issue an Emergency Certificate to repair the seawall; work beyond temporary stabilization will require an order of conditions.
When the Power Plant was built, this area was walled and backfilled, prior to the Wetlands Protection Act. Ms. Smith is also discussing this with the condominium complex since it eventually would impact both areas of the wall.
Chair Knisel asks about a fabric. Ms. Smith could wrap 6” rock into erosion control fabric made of jute or coir to be like sandbags, only made of rocks, anchored with 2’ staples (which may not work here) so the weight would just hold it in place until permanent solution is found.
- 297 Bridge St. (former Universal Steel)—DEP #64-544: Request for approval of modifications to strormwater drainage system as a minor change.
This is for the temporary parking lot drainage system. The Order of Conditions had a drainage system to Massachusetts stormwater standards. The EPA found high groundwater with an oily sheen, so Weston and Sampson is now proposing drainage that meets the same standards but avoids depth, instead directing water into sediment forebays. It could become permanent, but that would have to come before this Commission for approval if further changes are made.
The infiltration trench is discussed, it does not appear that there is enough drainage to take care of the runoff from the 1.2 acre infiltration area. The sediment forebays were previously grass areas. It is unclear if there was soil testing for those areas. Two separate NOIs for demolition and the construction of the parking lot were filed.
Ricciarelli says this would be a catchbasin and forebay that goes nowhere. This area floods horribly, just with tides, not even with a rain event. The Commission approved something that would not be able to handle flooding, but there is no good solution for the area. The question is ocean water vs. drainage water.
One plan shows catch basins going into the infiltration system. Chair Knisel comments that there are not many options. Devine comments that groundwater is higher than they thought it would be; early testing indicated it was clean but now it seems oily and is getting mixed with contaminated soils as they are excavated. They would have to de-water if they go deeper. Originally they were going to dig out the soil, put in catch basins, but now would have to dig, dewater, and deal with dirty water. They don’t have funds to adapt to this issue. The City is putting this in. and was hoping the EPA would leave some locations with deep clean fill, but there is dirty groundwater, so that is not happening.
St. Louis thinks the infiltration trench is too small, but is already permitted, however he thinks the forebay is probably adequate. Catch basins need to be maintained. The EPA is in touch with Devine on a regular basis with updates on findings.
Ricciarelli thinks the Commission should say this is not a permanent solution. Originally the City said this was a temporary lot, but still had to come before the Conservation Commission. Devine says it may wind up being permanent, if FW Webb buys it as a parking lot. FW Webb has said they are interested in buying and building a contractor’s showroom – but the plans are not final. The City would have to solicit redevelopment proposals and follow procurement law. Any construction would trigger Commission review.
If the forebays fail, sediment would fill and block them, and water would not get treated. Instead it would back up, possibly divided in two directions. The same thing could happen with poorly maintained catch basins. The forebay would match the function of the catch basin. There is a boilerplate condition for every order that all drainage structures must be maintained. Hoskins comments that dewatering would be preferable, but expensive. Chair Knisel says the issue would have to be reviewed again if the space is redeveloped.
A motion to approve the minor modification with conditions for best management practices is made by St. Louis, seconded by Hoskins and all are in favor.
The pile at the Gateway Center site has not been addressed yet. The Commission thinks it is appropriate for Devine to set a deadline for the contractor to resolve the matter.
A motion to adjourn is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 7:21PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on April 25, 2013
| 
