Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes 6/13/2013
Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting

Date and Time:  Thursday, June 13, 2013, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location:       Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present:        Chair Julia Knisel, Dan Ricciarelli, Gregory St. Louis, Amy Hamilton
Members Absent: David Pabich, Bart Hoskins
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder:       Stacy Kilb

Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:05PM

Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove (former Salem Oil & Grease)—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-547—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 Road.

The applicant requests to continue. A motion to continue to the next meeting is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by St. Louis, and passes unanimously.

Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Osborne Hills Realty Trust, PO Box 780, Lynnfield, MA. The purpose of hearing is to discuss the proposed modification of 2 wetland crossings at Amanda Way and Osborne Hills Drive to install box culverts rather than the bridges approved by a previous order of conditions (DEP #64-418) within the Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing subdivision (57 Marlborough Road).

Illustrations:

Site Development Permit Plan located in Salem, Mass., revised 6/7/2013
Amendment No. 1. Operation and Maintenance Plan, Proposed Stormwater Management Facilities, 6/2013

Here for the applicant is Paul DiBiase, trustee. Previously, replication areas were presented. Mr. DiBiase has engaged Mike Howard, wetland scientist, of Epsilon Associates to look into this, and they have done some testing. Mr. Howard has come up with a solution to the replication. Mr. DiBiase has also added some items to the plan, such as a grate on either end of each culvert for safety.

Culvert crossings have not changed since the last meeting, but the Commission wanted to see more details of the replication areas. Epsilon will monitor the construction of replication areas. Mr. Howard presents the replication area. This project originally underwent the MEPA process several years ago and was permitted. He outlines the setup of the replication site and reasons for putting it where he thinks would be best due to seasonal high water and the fact that there is no vegetation there now. A planting scheme is also included along with construction sequence notes.

6340 square feet are proposed for mitigation. Mr. DiBiasi is proposing a pathway along the western edge as well. Adjustments will be made in the field as necessary, but only under supervision. After two growing seasons, the area should be eligible for a Certificate of Compliance.

Chair Knisel asks about the 6” mesh for the grates, since on the plan it is listed as an 8” mesh. The Commission is fine with that – kids can’t get in. Riprap at the outfall is discussed. 100 lb. stones are listed on the plan.

Ricciarelli asks about the retaining wall; it is 24’ tall. The retaining wall will be between the wall and the path. They think it will work and the planned replication is greater than a 1:1 ratio—4600 square feet are being lost.

St. Louis asks about test pit 3 and Mr. Howard outlines. There may be a bit of tree clearing but not much. Other areas were previously reviewed for replication. The first of the two areas were not ideal in the long term, so they explored other locations and chose this one. They looked for an area that could tie into the existing wetland area, without needing excessive tree clearing or having topography issues.

St. Louis wonders about the ratio of the replication, but is not overly concerned. Mr. Howard comments that they could do a 2:1 ratio, but it may not be worth clearing other habitat.

Chair Knisel opens to the public and Roger Smerage of 5 Amanda Way asks about the similarity of this project to others. Creating a wetland is not an exact science but that is why they have greater than a 1:1 ratio. Mr. Howard outlines his experience and some of his other projects.

Derek Poole of 5 Osborne Hill Dr. is concerned that the City approved a structure, was going to pay for the maintenance of them, but now the homeowner association may have to pay for it instead. Mr. DiBiase comments that the community has a point. If it was a bridge, there would be no provisions for the homeowners association to maintain it. There were many bridges/crossings approved; they do not fall under stormwater management. Here they took a larger structure and made it smaller, crossing a wetland. When the City takes over in many years, it should be responsible for maintenance, but until then he will be maintaining the drainage and crossings. The City will probably assume responsibility; he does not see any difference between the bridge and a culvert, though the culverts may have less maintenance. The existing drainage situation spans Osborne Hill Dr. It does not fall under his covenant to maintain since it is a wetland drainage crossing. Clarification can be obtained from the City Engineer on what happens when the City takes over after Mr. DiBiase’s completes the subdivision. Devine says Mr. Knowlton should be consulted to see if the City will maintain it as it would have the bridge. Mr. DiBiase says they can work out an upfront contribution to be held by the City for future maintenance of the culverts, but he cannot give a specific amount at this time. The Commission may want to condition this so that if the City does not take responsibility to maintain it, Mr. DiBiase and the homeowners will be responsible. No special condition is set aside for maintenance of any crossings in the project as originally approved.
Again, Mr. DiBiase does not see a difference between the bridge and culverts.

Clifford Stevens of 16 Amanda Way asks about maintenance while the subdivision is still under construction. Mr. DiBiase would provide services as a developer, which doesn’t have to do with the housing association.

St. Louis asks about a minimum height and closed entry certification, and cleaning by trained persons. Mr. DiBiase says that grates should keep out large debris and outlines how cleaning would occur when necessary. The culvert will dry out in the summer and only run in the spring thaw and during rains. There is not a lot of velocity to bring in debris and no trees are in the immediate area.

Mr. Smerage asks about the grate and blockages there. This is part of the maintenance question as discussed above.

St. Louis asks about the planting plan and Mr. Howard clarifies. It may shift depending on what is available. A seed mix is specified in the notes. Hamilton asks about signage to discourage dumping. It is not proposed but they could easily put them up if the Commission would like to Condition that. Hamilton is thinking along the roadway would be good. Mr. Howard will work with the Agent on that.

Ricciarelli asks about the retaining wall, but it was part of the original submission and has been engineered and went through peer review during the Planning Board review. This is a new Order of conditions that will subsume the original and all amendments. Hamilton notes that the silt fence should be adequately trenched, versus the detail in plans. Ricciarelli asks about a drop at the corner of two streets; it may be just temporary blending.

Devine can review plans with David Knowlton regarding maintenance and inspection of culverts. An operation and maintenance plan for them was submitted.

The Commission would like the current ratio of replication to be maintained. One notes on the plans require communication with the Agent at different points of the project, and he will be part of a discussion of any in-the-field adjustments.

Chair Knisel wants to suggests specifying seasons for inspections to occur, rather than just having them be two times a year. May and November are specified.

A discussion of the phases of the project and what activities belong to which phase ensues, along with questions about certifications regarding this matter. Mr. DiBiase is asking for more flexibility. Originally there was supposed to be a partial certificate of compliance issued for each phase, but this may not be realistic. St. Louis recommends Station Point 16 as a delineation of phases and Mr. DiBiase agrees.

St. Louis also requests to have the agent review the boardwalk materials prior to installation.

Special conditions:

  • Construction of the two culverts along with wetlands replication will be part of Phase 2 of this project, and must be completed before Phase 3 can begin.
  • If the City does not take responsibility for maintenance of the culverts, they will be the responsibility of the homeowners association.
  • Detail for the silt fence will be amended to show properly trenched
Wetland markers will be installed based on consultation between the agent and wetland scientist
  • The Operations and Maintenance plan will be modified to specify May and November inspections after completion, and quarterly during construction and between 3” and 8” of debris as trigger for clearing
  • The Agent will review boardwalk materials
  • A minimum 1:1.5 replication ratio is required for the alteration associated with the culvert construction
Devine asks if the applicant has to wait two growing seasons for a partial certificate of compliance, but St. Louis says it can be an ongoing condition referenced in the certificate.

A motion to issue a new Order of Conditions is made by St. Louis, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.

Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss, after the fact, construction of a stormwater drain bypass at 144, 146, & 148 Marlborough Road within a buffer zone to a wetlands resource area.

City Engineer David Knowlton introduces Bill Ross of New England Civil Engineering, the engineer for the project. A homeowner at 144 Marlborough Rd. called the DPW during heavy rains when the culvert would flood his yard, which would have to be pumped. He describes the process of relieving the blockage, which failed but led to the discovery of a hollow cavern under the garage. They replaced it around the property in an emergency situation. He describes that process.

They discovered that there was no pipe under the garage, and the culvert was not draining, so the owner’s yard and basement were flooding. Mr. Knowlton apologizes for the oversight of not keeping the Commission up to date. Silt fence was installed to protect stream, and work done quickly and the area restored to what it was before. There have been no problems with recent rainstorms. The brick pile appears to be a collar for a pipe but the pipe is no longer there.

Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. Devine says that if the Commission were notified earlier, he would have issued an emergency certificate and the project would have been the same.

A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, and all approve.

A motion to issue an order of conditions is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by St. Louis, and passes unanimously.

Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed improved stormwater treatment facilities on Commercial Street, along the North River across from Leslie’s Retreat Park within a wetlands resource area.

Illustration: City of Salem, Massachusetts, Commercial Street LID Project, 5/2013 (plan set)

Devine says the DEP is not ready to issue file number due to insufficient information, so the hearing can be opened but no Order may be issued yet. CZM provided grant funding for stormwater treatment systems on Commercial St., which drain into the North River. They are exploring systems and working with Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coast Watch. This grant was for the initial study and construction will be under another grant.

Bill Ross of New England Civil Engineering states that in the current setup, floatable debris, dog waste, oil, grease and bacteria discharge directly into the river. They want to improve water quality without too much excavation. There now are five landscaping beds, the opposite of rain gardens in that they do not promote drainage. Within those existing footprints, they will depress them instead of raise them, and replant as rain gardens and change the curbing so that water flow in.

The landscape islands will require removing soil, but in some cases treatment will be installed in existing catch basins. Systems are outlined. Multiple improvements will be made and three types of systems, a standard rain garden, Focal Point, and Fabco, will be compared for effectiveness. Bioskirt is an improved hood in a catch basin, used to catch oil, grease and floatables along with bacteria.

No parking spaces will be removed. All improvements will incorporate high level overflow to prevent road flooding; overflow will go untreated into the drainage. The retaining wall is 10’ from the sea wall, and it will not be affected by infiltration.

The DEP does not yet have the plans, but should issue a file number once they do. Mr. Ross outlines the plans. The situation will not improve during a high tide rain event, and vegetation will be inundated with brackish water, so salt tolerant plants were selected.

Maintenance on storm basins is described. Cost to build all of it has not been estimated, and grant money varies depending on how many applicants apply. Since this is a pilot project for each system, the applicant will be asking each company to donate the equipment for study purposes to stretch the grant funding. The City is required to come up with 25% matching funds, which can be in the form of in kind services.

Regarding keeping road sand out of the beds: Salt is more of an issue, but all systems have forebays where it will accumulate and the City will have to clean and maintain them.

Chair Knisel opens to the public and Bob Garner of BioEngineering Group speaks. He mentions the flooding on Commercial Street due to tides and rain events, and shares some photos of what happens roughly six times per year. Flooding also presents safety hazards due to timber logs that line the street and float down the street during flooding. He would like this addressed. Bill Ross states that the timbers will be removed.

Mr. Knowlton comments that the flooding is a larger issue; Peabody has plans but may not fully implement them, though it would possibly affect Commercial St. Ultimately Salem and Peabody will have to address the issue together. There were tide gates at one time but no longer.

The Commission can’t take any action until the DEP issues a file number, so a motion to continue is made by Hamilton, seconded by Ricciarelli, and all are in favor. Devine notes that Hoskins would recuse himself if he were here, since his wife owns an adjacent veterinary clinic.

They must finish the project design by June 30, so they hope to get a number soon so they can submit the proposals right after the next Conservation Commission meeting.


Old/New Business

  • 12 Woodbury Court, DEP #64-525: Request for certificate of compliance
Illustration:

12 Woodbury Court—Certificate of Compliance Photo Log—DEP #64-525, 6/12/13
As-Built, Certificate of Compliance Plan located in Salem, Mass., 12-14 Woodbury Court, 6/4/13

Devine passes photos of the work done and an as-built plan. This is in a flood zone and commission had asked for changes in grading to offset filling by construction of house; grading was done mostly to plan with some minor changes.

The two small decks that were added do not matter as there is nothing underneath them. St. Louis comments that the flat drainpipe will not work. The fix for this, if it is flat, is not known. Numbers should be double checked. There may be a reason for the lack of incline.

The Commission would like clarification before moving forward. The applicant will speak to Chris Mello.

A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance, contingent upon confirmation from surveyor that drain is not flat, is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by St. Louis, and all are in favor.

Mr. Mello will contact Devine bout that issue.

  • Witch Hill Subdivision Lots, DEP #64-528 to 64-537: Review of planting plans
Devine has full plans done by a wetlands scientist, as requested. The plan does what they asked and Devine wonders if the Commission needs to take a close look or not. This was presented informally before the last meeting, and all that the Commission asked for has been done and presented to Devine. Ricciarelli says that the question is how to prevent clear cutting in the future without orders of conditions, since the developer is now replacing vegetation when the Commission has no way of knowing what was originally there.

Devine states that developers must wait to clear vegetation until an order is obtained for each location to be cleared. Otherwise, a situation like this occurs, where no one knows what vegetation is lost.

The Commission determines that the plan is acceptable and no further review is needed.

  • Meeting minutes—May 9, 2013
A motion to accept the minutes is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by St. Louis, and all are in favor.

  • Mass Association of Conservaton Commisions Dues
The City provides money for supplies for the Commission. MACC dues have increased in cost to $503 for the upcoming Fiscal Year, but the City fund is down to only $306, so Devine would like to pay the difference from the Commission account that is funded through application feeds.

Devine does attend MACC trainings and encourages Commissioners to read the newsletters and take classes. The City does not increase its contribution of funds given for supplies and dues. Devine recommends that the Commission pay the difference of $197, noting that this is the only advocacy organization for Conservation Commissions.

Ricciarelli motions to approve the funding, Hamilton seconds, and all are in favor.

  • Inspections of high pressure pipes under the harbor
SESD (Salem Essex Sewerage District) is informing the Commission of inspections of high pressure pipes under Salem harbor, as they found a leak and will do repairs, keeping Devine informed.

  • Discussion of FEMA’s new preliminary flood maps
New modeling was done based on new data and more rigorous modeling, leading to expansion of the 100-year flood zone in some parts of Salem. Many more homeowners may now have to pay for flood insurance. This also increases the Conservation Commission’s jurisdiction. Homeowners will hear from their mortgage lender if flood insurance is required.

The Planning Board issues a special permit for flood districts based on FEMA maps. The ordinance will have to reference the most recent maps, and individual property owners can challenge it, with some obtaining a letter of map amendment. Chair Knisel comments that Devine should review the maps since the flood zones may be imperfect.

There are no updates on a new Commission member to replace Michael Blier. Devine will continue reaching out, and Chair Knisel suggests that he should look into the Biology deptartment at Salem State University.


A motion to adjourn is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by St. Louis and passes unanimously.

The meeting ends at 8:15 PM

Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission

Approved by the Conservation Commission on July 11, 2013