Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, May 23, 2013, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chair Julia Knisel, David Pabich, Dan Ricciarelli, Gregory St. Louis, Bart Hoskins
Members Absent: Amy Hamilton
Others Present: Frank Taormina, Harbor Coordinator/Staff Planner
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:15 PM
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.
Applicant requests to continue to the July 13, 2013 meeting. A motion to continue to is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
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).
Document: Email from Greg St. Louis to Tom Devine, 4/24/13
Jim McDowell with Eastern Land Survey presents. He works with Chris Mello. The current plan illustrates the proposed culverts. Both drain up gradient wetland areas. The original proposal was for large arches bridges, which would not involve filling of wetlands. Culverts may be more economical. Mr. McDowell describes them.
There will be wetland alterations of 750 square feet and 1680 square feet in two locations, including areas within the culverts. They are proposing a total replication area of 8,000 square feet over three locations. Two areas will be hydraulically connected. The Planning Board has asked that a pathway be left intact so they are proposing to construct a new one along the stone wall at the existing grade.
St. Louis had noted questions and concerns in a 4/24/13 email to Devine, which was distributed to the Commission and the applicant. In answer to some of St. Louis’ questions:
- Mr. McDowell confirms the replication areas that will be adjacent.
- There is enough watershed area to promote plantings. Mr. DiBiase comments on the wetland plants there. Dimensions of the culverts are clarified. They will be three-sided, open bottom culverts, but they are not claiming the bottom as wetland area.
- Lot 15 is completely in the buffer zone and will continue to be there, requiring an NOI for any activity on the lot.
- The interior culvert bed will remain in its natural state where possible, but may be graded if necessary.
- Riprap is proposed at the outlet and inlet sides so that flow will not go underneath and undermine the wall.
- Erosion control will be straw bales, not hay bales, and this is noted on the plan along with entrenchment depth.
- There is a planting plan but the Commission can condition topsoil depth, which is usually 8-10” so that plants can stay wet. There will also be a three year monitoring plan.
- Pabich asks how drainage areas will be addressed. Some wetlands have pitch but Pabich comments on how much pitch. Pabich asks about natural features that impede water flow, but a replication area will not have those, being a consistent grade where water can drain. Pabich asks about the design and thinks it should be examined by a wetland scientist prior to construction, as this was designed by engineers. The applicant agrees.
- The proposed trail will be above the water level in customary conditions, but in wet times there could be water on it; that is the case with the current trail too.
There is concern that the culverts remain clear. Has maintenance ever been required? Pabich says normally it is, and is written into the homeowners association. This will be a public street, but the applicant could adopt language overlapping with stormwater management facilities and other items that need to be taken care of by the homeowners association.
Pabich says when the bridges were permitted, there were questions about shadows and shading, and he asks about the original footprints. They would have been 20’ wide, with two at each crossing. There would have been a clear 40’ opening at the base. With culverts they are not claiming the interior as resources area. There are no conflicts with utilities in this case, as there would have been with bridges.
Hoskins asks about the current condition of replication area C, which is a low wooded area. There are no substantial trees there, just some invasives. Mr. McDowell outlines the existing and new paths. Replication would consist of a general planting plan, but a wetlands scientist will examine the situation further and make recommendations. Replications will not occur on any areas that are already delineated as wetlands in 2005. Pabich and Chair Knisel are concerned that the situation may have changed since then; Mr. Dibiasi will verify. Some flags are still there. The ORAD has expired but they are under an Order of Conditions – but a new order is being sought now.
Crushing and blasting are being done, and they are ready to continue work on the roadway. Pabich says they are still acting on an Order of Conditions that allows the bridges, and would like to review the area again. Mr. DiBiase does not believe the resource area has changed. There is a lot of open space in general, with 4 ½ acres in addition to what is developed. There is also a series of trails. Two wetlands proposed are overland flow at low points. Other areas will be preserved. Other areas are described. St. Louis considers the replication areas a restoration project.
Chair Knisel opens to the public and John Ray of 8 Amanda Way speaks. He and his neighbors are concerned about water flow and how dynamic the land can be over time. He worries there will be a pond in one area. Will there be sediment issues as with a regular culvert? This is a smooth concrete wall with soil bottom. There will be a program to make sure the culverts are clear of sediments, and they will be inspected twice a year. Things blocking the culvert causing sediment buildup would butt up outside the culvert.
No grates are proposed and Mr. Ray is concerned about children getting into the culverts. The applicant will keep a reasonable opening, but can make a grate with 6” mesh. Each culvert has 5-7 acres total drainage areas, flowing into a 4’ high x 8’ wide culvert, so there is not much water. The issues are more with smaller culverts. The openness ratios provided by the Army Corps of Engineers address those issues.
Mr. Ray comments on the height at the cul-de-sac; there is a drop and the area will be raised; the roads will connect with a 3% grade. Mr. DiBiase outlines the setup. Conditions for the Homeowners Association – typically the construction firm maintains a controlling interest if they have 50% of the lots, so they can add them. Mr. Ray comments that many liked the idea of the bridges better, but the culverts are acceptable as long as the issues of keeping children and sediments out are addressed. Pabich comments that the installed levels and heights should be defined and maintained, so that if it silts up they have design specs on hand for cleaning purposes. A 6” x 6” or 8” x 8” mesh covering the culvert should allow small animals to pass through.
Paulette Langone from Barcelona Ave. speaks. She did not understand what the lawyer’s letters said, but decided to come to the meeting. She wonders how it would affect her neighborhood and street. She worries that her street would become a throughway but all streets in the subdivision connect to Marlborough Rd., as approved by the city. Ms. Langone asks about water flow. The project is engineered for runoff control as part of the subdivision design as reviewed by the City, an outside consultant, and this Commission. Suggestions were incorporated into the design. Water flow will be allowed to occur as it has in the past, unobstructed. Mr. DiBiase comments that such systems are often over-designed, and Mr. McDowell explains that the purpose of the letter was to inform abutters of the meeting.
Mr. Ray asks about the height of another road and wetlands behind a stone wall. There is a bridge there; they are not allowed to fill any more.
Regarding wetlands delineation: re-delineation would not change anything, and it can be seen as defined from the map, but Pabich thinks the Commission should take a look after the wetlands scientist has reviewed the area.
Mr. DiBiase comments that they are ready to begin construction, but Mike Howard of Epsilon, who did the wetland MEPA package, can contribute to the design of the replication area. If input on the replication can be provided before the next meeting, the Commission could do the site visit at the next meeting and give its feedback then. Mr. DiBiase will push for that.
A site visit is tentatively scheduled for 5PM immediately before the June 13th meeting.
A motion to continue the public hearing to June 13, 2013 is made by Pabich, seconded by St. Louis, and passes unanimously.
Old/New Business
- Pickman Park Condominiums, DEP #64-32: Request for certificate of compliance
Mr. Rick Salvo with Engineering Alliance presents. This order was issued in September 26, 1978. The file was researched but the only item found was the Order of Conditions. There were no original design drawings, but the Registry of Deed had subdivision plans. They superimposed the subdivision drawings onto the aerial photographs; overall, there is a match.
The development appears to coincide with what was originally proposed. Since 1985 the condo association took over from the developer, so the site has had 28 years to vegetate. Mr. Salvo outlines the vegetated areas. It is all stable. A walking survey was done; Devine did not join them, but had been onsite before for other issues. Mr. Salvo is hoping this is an administrative matter, given the lack of information.
Chair Knisel asks if specific Orders of Condition were reviewed; they were but had to do with construction of sewer mains and lines. Lots 17-24 never got built; it is just undeveloped land. The condo association may not even realize that they own it. If it was developed in the future, they may have to go back to the Planning Board since permits would have expired.
Mr. Salvo is confident that nothing deviates from the approved plan. This issue came up when the last complaint came through and Devine reviewed the files and found an Order of Conditions, but no Certificate of Compliance. This item slipped through the cracks in 1985 when the developer turned it over to the Association.
Taormina could not find any perpetual conditions and prepared a Certificate just in case the Commission was ready. An as-built was not required by the order. Now, when Orders are nearing their end, the City notifies the applicant of their choices to either extend the Order or file a request to close the project. The City now takes the initiative so that closings for outstanding items from 25 years prior don’t clog the system.
A motion to issue the full Certificate of Compliance is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
- Repair of water main under North River
Repair work is to begin next Tues or Wed., and the City wants an emergency Certificate to drive in sheet piling and excavate, and to dewater that part of the river. They say there was a leak years ago and this is probably in one of the repair couplings. The scope of work is outlined. Public notice is not required for an emergency. They are certain of the location of the leak. Cost will be $111,000. Do they need permission or is this just notification? At a minimum, the Commission or the agent must approve the emergency certificate, or the agent must acknowledge that it is an emergency. Work is happening Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. The chair or agent must sign off on it the emergency certification form.
The Commission decides to have Devine look into the matter on Tuesday, and speak to the City Engineer. The Chair will not be available on Friday to oversee the matter so would prefer the Agent do it.
- Discussion and vote regarding funding for equipment
Devine is requesting a new computer. Cost is $576.27. There is $55K in the Commission’s account, not including the $15,000 toward the climate adaptation study. He has the oldest computer in the office. The Commission doubts that the one requested has enough memory for GIS. The Commission wants Devine to run the computer specs by the City’s IT to make sure it is adequate. Purchases are made by the Office Manager. It should be compatible with the current system. The Commission wants Devine to upgrade, but it should be sufficient for his needs. It would be his computer to do his work for this Commission, with access to GIS.
If necessary, the Commission will approve additional cost.
A motion to approve $500-$700 for a new computer is made by Pabich, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously.
Miscellaneous
Footprint Power just filed a Chapter 91 license for the redevelopment of the Power Plant site and Taormina has the notice. They are filing for a variance and there is a question weather the project is water dependent. Because they are not taking in salt water and there will be no coal ships, it may not be water dependent. They don’t need deep water access and could move the plant elsewhere, so the DEP has some questions. The only uses allowed in a DPA (Designated Port Area) are marine industrial, water dependent use. The coal plant has a Ch. 91 license but the gas plant does not. In the license it says they supply their own water to cool the turbines. They are not drawing water from oceans and returning it warmed. Everything is betterment for the environment, health and safety, so it should be allowed even if they are not water
dependent.
A motion to adjourn is made by St Louis, seconded by Pabich and passes unanimously.
The meeting ends at 7:30PM
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on July 11, 2013
| 
