Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, January 23, 2014, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chair Julia Knisel, Gregory St. Louis, Amy Hamilton, Tom Campbell, Dan Ricciarelli, David Pabich
Members Absent: Bart Hoskins
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:03 PM.
Castle Hill Park Stream Maintenance—Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed clearing of vegetation along, and removal of obstructions within, the stream located along the east edge of Castle Hill Park (14 Story Road), within a paper road and a city easement through portions of 7 Laurier Road, 6 Champlain Road, 19 Arthur Street, and 26 and 28 Read Street.
This item is first on the agenda, but applicant is not present at opening of the meeting. David Knowlton, City Engineer, arrives at 6:30 and presents out of sequence with the agenda. He describes the project setup. They would like to clear vegetation on the park side of the stream and do the same on the other side with a machine reaching over, so they can maintain the stream. It has been blocked with wood and debris; the DPW would clear the stream on a regular basis but the initial vegetation clearing will be done by a contractor.
Other access points were considered but they would not be able to reach all areas of the stream. Cleared areas will be kept as grass and they will come before the Commission as needed. While they understand that removing vegetation is not desirable, this stream is used for flood control so they need it to be effective. People are not dumping material; rather, material falls or flows in.
Pabich is concerned that the bank will be stripped as it was on Harmony Grove. The equipment used is a bushwhacker, essentially a mower, which will not go into the dirt. Tree stumps will be left and grass will take over and be mown. Larger plants will be removed as needed. There will be no use of herbicides.
The area is so overgrown that using multiple smaller access points is not an option for allowing future stream maintenance. This is a drainage feature constructed by an engineer and an intermittent stream. Thus, it may not be jurisdictional. Even if jurisdictional, it must still be maintained.
Mr. Knowlton describes the easement. St. Louis points out the existence of a 6’ fence meant to keep youths out and Mr. Knowlton says they will stay away from it. All work will be done from the park side.
Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarell, seconded by St. Louis, and passes unanimously.
The issue here was vegetation removal; if not for that, no permit would be needed to remove that debris. Abutters will be notified even though this is an RDA and not an NOI. Work will be done during the winter.
A motion to issue negative 2 and 6 determinations with the conditions below is made by St. Louis, seconded by Pabich and passes unanimously.
Conditions are as follows:
All work will be done from the park side
No excavation of soil
All machinery to be stored offsite
No stockpiling of materials
Remove items from watercourse by hand wherever possible
25 Winter Island Road Rip-Rap Wall—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Douglas & Jean Karam, 25 Winter Island Road, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a rip-rap wall within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance at 25 Winter Island Road.
This item is second on the agenda, but is heard first because proponent for the first item arrives late.
Paul Avery with Oak Consulting Group presents the proposal. He describes the situation and the project scope. In 2008 repairs were made to the existing wall; a neighboring wall was also repaired after both came before the Commission. This construction will be the same as that of the 2008 repair; some grading will also be done. This is along an area of coastal bank, not replenishing beaches, and is in an area of coastal flooding but will have no impact on that as they are not changing the configuration. It will enhance flood capacity.
The applicant has lived at this property for 8 years and has seen some erosion. They are concerned about materials going into the resource areas as the bank is steep, and they describe the setup. Landscape materials such as rosa rugosa and some grasses have seen movement and that part of the yard is now at an angle. During high water events, they do get water coming over the top of the bank. Right now there is a gap between theirs and the neighboring property, which they want to close. The footprint of the wall will be the same as the bank; all work will be done from the landward side. Stones are 2’-3’ in diameter; in 2008 they had to be 250lbs. or greater.
To alleviate runoff, the applicant has maintained their plantings and is concerned about things running into the resource area. They pick up all leaves and clippings and no longer mulch that area. Sediment does not wash out. Other vegetative work on the property has not been evaluated and there are no swales or other structures. They want to stabilize this area and restore the flat nature of the top. They are open to any suggestions.
Chair Knisel is concerned about water running off the property and over the bank; Pabich comments on the elevations and how the situation now exacerbates that issue. The owner wants to fix that. They are not in a velocity zone. Pabich comments that this is a logical extension and isn’t sure why this piece wasn’t included in the 2008 discussion. Pabich describes the previous Order and work done. There have been no issues with the 2008 repair.
Chair Knisel asks about the toe stone being below grade and the applicant describes how the previous work was done. A similar process and sedimentation control will be used; there will be no heavy machinery on the beach. Work will take 3-4 days, possibly up to a week. Work is proposed for the spring. Excavated soils will be stored in an adjacent lot that the applicant owns, not near the beach, and soils will be removed if not reused. It is more likely that they will have to bring material in. The sedimentation barrier is a silt fence, an improvement over that used in the previous project. Hay bales will be used if the silt fence is not toed in, but it should be.
There is no vegetation on the beach to disturb and the vegetation on the bank is described as rosa rugosa (beach rose) and grasses. The setup of the wall is further discussed. A certificate of compliance was issued for the last order (theirs and the neighbor’s).
Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments.
The Commission does not feel a site visit is necessary, and conditions similar to those issued previously should be used this time.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and all are in favor.
A motion to issue the order of conditions is made by Pabich, seconded by Hamilton, and all are in favor
Special conditions:
All machinery used must be kept off the beach
All work must be done landward of the beach
The beach profile should be surveyed after construction
Old/New Business
- Salem State University Central Campus (71 Loring Avenue), DEP #64-554: Request for minor modification
David Pabich recuses himself for this item, and leaves the room. Sean Hale of Epsilon Associates presents. This NOI for utility relocation was filed in September. This is Phase 1; Phase 2 is a student residence hall and the reason for relocation of the utilities. Portions of the project are in the preliminary flood zone according to FEMA, which is why they are here. He shows the approved plans and the minor modification. Sewer, water, electric and telecomm lines need to be moved as per the original plan, but proposed connections for telecomm and electric will not work and new ones are being put forth. All work is still occurring in pavement or grass areas, existing development. The footprint in land subject to coastal flowage went from 6000 to 5000 square feet. All work will be done with the same techniques and protections as
originally apprioved.
Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments.
A motion to approve the minor modification is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, and passes 5-0 with Pabich recused.
Canal Street Flood Mitigation Project
City Engineer David Knowlton is seeking preliminary feedback on design options for the outfall component of the planned Canal Street flood mitigation project. A new drainage system has already been built in Canal St. The next phase is a four million gallon underground storage tank and pump station for flood mitigation. They would like to increase the size of an existing outfall pipe and also make additional drainage improvements to some side streets. Many permits will be required.
Two potential designs are described. They are seeking Commission input and Mr. Knowlton can leave the plans for Commission review. This will provide 100 year flood protection for the area, possibly up to ¼ mile radius. The structure itself will be constructed by the City with potential cost sharing by Salem State, where the flood storage structure and pump station will be located.
The existing outfall is 21” and the proposed is 48”. Chair Knisel states that she prefers the second potential design, which extends farther seaward. Other design options and suggestions are discussed with regards to pulling it back a bit. Pitch and grades are discussed. The storage tank will also eventually fill with silt but overall the water coming in will be clean. Maintenance will consist of replacing stones if moved. Expense must also be taken into account when weighing options.
Devine says that this project also entails a lot of work in flood zone on the 2013 preliminary FEMA maps, though not in current flood zones. The Commission’s position is that the preliminary maps are still the best information available and will continue to use those to determine the extent of the jurisdictional flood zone. This brings much of the inland portions of the project into the Commission’s jurisdiction.
Mr. Knowlton will look for direction from the Commission in a week or two. The MEPA meeting in Boston will be next week and Devine may join them, or will be sent information if not able to attend. Chair Knisel may attend also.
A motion to adjourn is made by Hamilton, seconded by Ricciarelli, and is approved unanimously.
The meeting ends at 7:00PM
Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on March 27, 2014
| 
