Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, April 11, 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, David Pabich, Amy Hamilton
Members Absent: 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—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 Rd.
Illustration: Existing Conditions, 11/3/11
Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering outlines the project. Parcels include 11+ acres; no work is proposed for 5 Harmony Grove Rd. but they do have a Purchase & Sale agreement on it. Two years ago they were before this Commission defining resource areas on the property.
The commission previously issued an Order of Resource Area Delineation (ORAD), and after several appeals, ultimately a Final Order of Resource Area Delineation (FORAD) was issued by the DEP. Mr. Griffin outlines the North River, with its bank as the top of the stone wall in some areas and by topographic indications in other areas. The FORAD does not extend to 1 Harmony Gove, but little work is being done there.
This is Bordering Land subject to flooding, with elevation 10.8 feet. Regarding riverfront area, the final Order says the front part close to Grove St. is exempt from riverfront area as it is a historic mill complex. Another area on 64 and 60 Grove St. is land degraded due to past industrial uses. This affects the types of performance standards that apply. There was insufficient information at time of order of Resource Area delineation to determine if 3 Harmony Grove Rd. was disturbed or not. It is currently undefined but he will describe degraded surfaces there, as well as how his firm will complete riverfront enhancement.
He outlines the proposal to remove the barrel building, rehabilitate the office building, reconstruct parking lots, and do landscaping. They will demolish all buildings on 64 Grove, and put up three apartment buildings, each with parking beneath the building. There will also be outdoor parking areas. Those will be built above flood elevations.
Illustration: Legacy Park Apartments, 60-64 Grove St./3 Harmony Grove, Salem, May 2012
An existing easement across the railroad tracks provides access via Harmony Grove Rd. as the primary entrance. The secondary is Grove St. They are proposing to replace the vehicular bridge across the canal. It will be wider – 38’ vs 29’- to be in accordance with planned flood mitigation project. The North River will not be widened but the bridge is consistent with Corps of Engineers plans. It will also be raised slightly. Due to this there will be more stream flow capacity under the bridge.
A Public access walkway is proposed. This will improve the area and tie into other planned improvements by Peabody and Salem. They are close to the train station and anticipate many people walking or biking there. Significant landscaping is proposed on the Southern side of the project. They will try to save as much existing vegetation as possible and will try to match existing vegetation.
Illustration: Site Plan (no date)
Mr. Griffin reviews stormwater design with storm scepters and infiltration basins. There are several outfall areas that will first be treated by storm scepters. One piece of work will be at 1 Harmony Grove Rd; the City Engineer wants to see the pipe inspected there and upgraded if necessary. At the Planning Board they did not discuss 3 Harmony Grove Rd. An LSP has been engaged to consider 21E issues; Phase 2 and 3 reports were completed.
There are old sludge beds in one area. There is also a settling building. The LSP proposes to dig out the sludge bed and the settling building, and place the material in a disposal cell on the property. There are some other mapped sludge beds but they are not sure they exist; if they do, they will be dug up and removed as well. The cell on the property is west of a parking area, above the groundwater table. 700 cubic yards will be removed, capped with a synthetic barrier, and have groundwater monitoring wells. If upland it will not be subject to groundwater infiltration.
Mr. Griffin outlines Riverfront enhancement and landscaping. He describes the types of trees they are planning to plant. Currently there is invasive vegetation that will be removed completely, in order to remove the sludge, which will be replaced with clean fill.
Illustration: Bridge and Remediation Area (undated)
Illustration: Landscaping Plan 8/11/11
The landscape architect was instructed to use native species, with no invasives, but also to make it look good year round. Some non natives are used to provide color throughout the year, but not invasives.
There is also a pedestrian bridge proposed for access across the river to the bike path from the office building. That will also be above the flood elevation.
Illustration: Proposed Site Cross-Sections 4/23/12
Mr. Griffin outlines the topography and the plans. New to the City of Salem and not available in Planning Board process are backwater calculations to demonstrate that the bridge and other structures will not impact hydraulics of the North River so as not to impede water coming from Peabody. There is no increase in hydraulic grade. Plans were provided. Pan Am railways controls the tracks there and more definition for rail area is provided for. Habitat analysis was also provided. There will be no loss of wildlife habitat functions.
Ricciarelli asks about the garage drainage. Garages have floor drains tied into MDC traps and the sewer line. Pabich asks about compensatory flood storage to make up for filled areas. There will be a lower elevation in the remediation area. Most of the increase is tied in with removal of buildings currently in the flood zone. Grades along the river will be lowered, leading to an increase of 5000+ cubic feet of additional storage.
Ricciarelli asks about the pedestrian bridge; not having one was discussed but Mr. Griffin feels it is an enhancement to bring people in to a quiet walkway area. There is no direct bank alteration as a result of this bridge.
Illustration: Details IV 3/11/13
Overall, there is an increase in pervious surfaces on the site, but he does not have specifics at hand right now. Water is being put into a subsurface structure so they could meet the pre vs. post rate of runoff comparison. Chair Knisel asks about pads for the riverbed.
Illustration: Drainage Details 12/20/11
Mr. Griffin describes the setup of the drainage. Water will hit a riprap pad rather than scouring the stream bottom. This would happen at each outfall. St. Louis asks about the perpendicular flow of the canal vs. outfall. Mr. Griffin will obtain calculations. Outfall speeds are discussed.
St. Louis comments that the North River canal was modeled using peak water surface elevation. Are calculations about flow rate affected by widening channel? This was considered directly at the bridge, the only place this is affected. The Corps of Engineers may consider it; they have been in touch. Phase 3 of the Peabody Flood improvement is moving very slowly and is still at a preliminary stage. Calculations are discussed further; rate of discharge from the site is not increasing.
Document: Salem Conservation Commission Notes (Greg St. Louis) 4/11/13
St. Louis raises questions and comments as noted in the above-referenced document. Mr. Griffin makes notes the questions and concerns and will prepare a response at the next meeting.
Ricciarelli asks about the pedestrian path. It will be asphalt as per the planning board request. Water will sheetflow off. It is slightly above the top of the stone walls on the canal. It tapers down on the landward side. They are not paving right up to the edge of the canal.
Hamilton asks about water infiltration on a contaminated site; the LSP approves. Pabich asks Mr. Griffin to describe groundwater and flow. Building #2 and what may be underneath is discussed. Will there be contaminants in the path of infiltration into the river? Mr. Griffin will consult the LSP.
Pabich wonders about the contents of the sludge. Mr. Griffin will get specifics but thinks they are generally metals. Pabich ask why they plan store materials permanently within riverfront. They are outside of the 100 year flood zone. The bottom of the cell itself will be above groundwater and flood elevation. Hoskins asks about the construction of the cell. Existing stockpiled soil will be removed and relocated onsite, then contaminated materials will be placed and capped with an impermeable cap, with no liner underneath. This will remain grassy once capped with the membrane below; it will not produce runoff quickly. This is counted as pervious surface. He is not sure if there is a toe drain. This is not impervious but also not free draining. Snow storage is proposed on top of the cell and Pabich thinks that is not a good idea, or at
least should be considered in the design.
Several AULs are in place now, but are from the 1990’s and no remediation has occurred since 2005. If additional contamination is found and cannot be accommodated onsite, it will be disposed of at an offsite facility.
Hoskins asks about vegetation at the edge of the cell and snow storage. Elevation and rain water vs. upwelling ground water are discussed.
Chair Knisel asks about measures for mitigation and erosion controls, and Mr. Griffin outlines them. There will be routine monitoring during construction. LSP is involved in 21 E issues, and will supervise, but may not be onsite at all times.
Movement timing of contaminated materials are discussed; it will not happen during a rain event and Mr. Griffin will provide more information. Material is being retained onsite due to disposal cost and there is some discussion of what is to be done with the sludge and the configuration of the cell. The LSP will be consulted on this. Mr. Griffin feels that any leaching from the current sludge bed would have already occurred.
Use of the parking areas for snow storage is discussed; Mr. Griffin will look into it further. There are some questions about monitoring wells but Mr. Griffin will consult the LSP regarding preconstruction sampling requirements.
The old sludge bed is described, treatment of the sludge and type of fill to be used in the former sludge bed are outlined, and there is no concern about a plume. Further specs on proposed fill material will be provided.
Peer reviews are discussed; Woodard and Curran reviewed these plans in the Planning Board phase of the process, and the project has not changed since then. However, the concerns of the Conservation Commission differ from those of the Planning Board. Devine will supply commissioners with that peer review. Devine asks if the Commission wants to decide on a peer review now. The commission wishes to first see the review that was done for the Planning Board before deciding this.
The applicants wanted to finalize plans with the Planning Board before coming to this Commission. The project triggers an ENF submission requirement. The Corps of Engineers also permits work related to removal of walkways across the canal, and wants a lot of information on various aspects of the project. There are also Chapter 91 requirements to be met.
Pabich asks about wells and the decontamination area. If there is a potential plume that gets covered with soil that drains more freely, could this cause more contamination to groundwater or the river? Mr. Griffin will explore that.
Chair Knisel opens to the public. Barbara Warren of Salem Sound CoastWatch asks about getting a PDF of plans so she can review stormwater. Mr. Griffin will supply this to her. She also asks about what LIDs (low impact development) are being used? They are discharging roof water into beds, but no rain gardens are proposed. Ms. Warren says LID can be done in impacted areas. All runoff from the property except for roofs and some catchbains will be treated. Runoff from the roof is considered to be clean. The roof is a flat rubber membrane. Ms. Warren asks if there is a major storm plus high tide, where do cars at lowest elevation go? The floor is above flood elevation, says Griffin, but Ms. Warren and Pabich are still concerned. Sewers are already overloaded during rain events and sewerage backs into homes and streets. Mr. Griffin
describes flood elevations across the site. Ms. Warren asks what the parking drains are connected to. St. Louis comments that garage drains are required to go into the sewer system
The Commission asks why the elevation of building #3 can’t be raised? Griffin states that it must tie grades into Grove St. and accommodate a ramp. Pabich thinks they may want to consider raising building three above 100 year flood elevation. Garages are open air.
Susan Strauss of 29 school St. asks about perforated piping and consideration of solar panels for heat or hot water. The architect has not considered solar but Mr. Griffin will look into it. He describes perforated piping which allows a reduced rate of runoff in a storm event. St. Louis wonders if utilities on the roof may limit options for solar facilities.
Joan Sweeney of 22 Silver St. is concerned that the height of the building affects the view from Beaver St. Chair Knisel clarifies that that is a Planning Board issue.
The commission will schedule a site visit after further review of the project.
A motion to continue is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins and all approve.
Old/New Business
- 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 Orleans Ave. Drainage Easement, DEP #64-487: Request for certificate of compliance
This was a project to repair a pipe in a drainage easement. Photos have been submitted and Devine describes the work. One segment of pipe was relined and another was replaced.
Devine says he may need to talk to the neighbors about yard waste accumulating in the drainage area. But otherwise the project was completed per plans and he recommends issuing the Certificate.
A motion to issue the certificate is made by Pabich, seconded by Hamilton, and all are in favor.
- 6 Champlain Rd. and 19 Arthur St., DEP #64-262: Request for certificate of compliance
- 6 Champlain Rd. and 19 Arthur St., DEP #64-548: Request for certificate of compliance
Devine states that DEP #64-548 permitted most of the unpermitted structures behind 6 Champlain Road after the fact. The only mitigation the commission required is removal of some fencing and installation of wetland markers, and both have been completed.
A motion to issue the certificate for DEP #64-548 is made by Pabich, seconded by St. Louis, and all are in favor. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.
Devine explains that now that everything on the site is permitted, a certificate can now be issued for the 1996 order.
A motion to issue the certificate is made by St. Louis to issue the certificate for DEP #64-262, seconded by Ricciarelli and all are in favor.
Draft Scope for Climate Change Vulnerability assessment
Chair Knisel discusses the scope, which City is reviewing, for the first year of the adaptation project. The scope is very vague re types of analysis. Ms. Warren was concerned with the timing in general not coinciding with the 5th assessment of the IPCC, which will be out in 11 months. Chair Knisel is not so concerned due to the amount of money being spent and the level of detail that will be provided. The Commission could request an update in phase two as well, after the IPCC assessment comes out.
There are no actual milestones or level of effort determined. The type of assessment is very general; low, med, high. They have worked in discussions with the consultant on the types of impacts to be studied. The City should define that then nail down scope to get the analysis they want.
There are only three meetings to do vulnerability, plus a one-on-one with City staff. Chair Knisel and Barbara Warren will push for more effort. What does the Commission want from the study? St. Louis wonders about the Community Preservation Act, or CPA, making recommendations about what to preserve on the coastline. That would be considered adaptation. They will only do three impacts in the first task, to be expanded to five. Impacts could be coastal flooding of residences, overflow from precipitation, etc. We don’t know what they will pick; they don’t say. The Commission can submit a letter of requests. Impacts should be finalized before scope is finalized. One requirement of the Conservation Commission’s contribution of funding could be that they dictate one or two of the impacts to be explored, such as coastal
flooding.
The Commission approved the funding on the condition that the scope would be perfected to its satisfaction. They are developing stressors and impacts during process, but the Commission can say that, for example, sea level rise is a stressor. CDM is resume building so hopefully they want to make this well done.
Chair Knisel explains that increased precipitation would be considered a stressor, while the impact would be changes in storm water. Sea level rise would be a stressor and the impact would be its effect on businesses. There are five impacts that they can explore, for example population and infrastructure.
More information is needed. Ms. Warren is worried that the working group may not be allowed to be involved enough by CDM. Tufts UEP did a climate vulnerability study for SSCW five years ago. Beverly was the target, and a public works person said his biggest concern was drought there. Marblehead reports it is not concerned at all and has already raised everything. There are many issues in Salem.
Chair Knisel will push for definition and report back to the Commission.
- Discussion of proposed seawall repair at 8 Harborview Dr.
This is David Pabich’s property, so he recuses himself from the Commission and presents only as a property owner. His seawall has footing that needs repair and as per Ch. 91 license he is required to do routine maintenance and repair. He wanted to discuss it with the Commission to see if an RDA or NOI is required. He wants to remove concrete, take out rebar, put in new rebar, and pour new concrete in the damaged section.
Devine thinks it is exempt maintenance and repair on a lawfully existing structure. He would have told any other property owner that no further review is needed. But since Pabich is on the Commission, it should be addressed at a public meeting.
Pabich says there is another seawall behind this one; they left an old one in place and built in front of it. The weep holes are PVC pipes. Work will take a day to pour concrete and consists of just tightening it up.
The Commission determines that this project is exempt maintenance and repair, requiring no further review.
- Meeting minutes—February 28, 2013
The Commission notes errors. A motion to approve as modified is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously.
Miscellaneous
The Environmental Impact Report for the power plant redevelopment is available upon request. A PDF is available. This may be before the Commission in June.
Michael Blier has resigned from the Commission since his architectural firm has grown and he could not make many meetings. Devine is interest in names for candidates to fill the vacancy.
11R Winter Island Road, DEP #64-519: The Commission found the bollard as installed to be acceptable. It should have been City Standard, a design that could be removed from hand. Mr. Wharff made one from scratch and Devine is not sure it is removable. Neighbors have to find someone to pull it out with equipment.
There is no padlock either, as Mr. Wharff claimed there was. In addition, he reconstructed a portion of the sea wall without a permit. It is not clear whether it was within the property he owned at the time or not. He can’t say he does not know who repaired the sea wall, as he claimed he did not know who installed the gravel on the public way. He has probably closed on the house by now but Pabich says this can still be his problem. There is some debate on violations and who is accountable – the current owner or the one who did the work? Mr. Wharff had violations while he was the owner.
Devine will send Mr. Wharff a letter and CC the buyers. The town does not maintain this area and will not remove the bollard. It must be removed since it is preventing access of the public to the water. This is not the best area but the bollard does impede access and a neighbor has complained.
Mr. Wharf had said it was removable but Devine hasn’t figured out how. He had specifications for the City standard removable bollard. St. Louis wonders why the complaint was filed. It is the nearest neighbor who wants unimpeded access, and who may do work on dock and need to get machinery in there.
The bollard must be removable by hand, and if not, Mr. Wharf should replace it. St. Louis wonders who maintains key access. The DPW, Devine or anyone in neighborhood can have the key. Ricciarelli will check if it is removable by hand—if not Devine will follow up.
The sea wall was gone from a 5’ segment, and Mr. Wharff rebuilt it. This was seen from a public way and on site visits.
Community Preservation Act (CPA): Hoskins will update the Commission as the CPA Committee begins soliciting projects requesting CPA funding.
The Gateway Center pile was leveled out and seeded.
A motion to adjourn is made by Hoskins, seconded by Pabich, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 9PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on May 9, 2013
| 
