DRAFT MINUTES
Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, May 8, 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, Bart Hoskins, Tom Campbell, Dan Ricciarelli
Members Absent: Amy Hamilton
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
Cruise Ship Berth at Power Plant Site—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-565—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed modification of an existing marine terminal within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance at 24 Fort Avenue (Salem Harbor Power Station/Salem Wharf).
Document: N. Tay Evans 5/8/2014 letter to Conservation Commission.
After hearing item number four first, the Commission moves to this item. Here for the applicant is Kathy Winn of Salem Department of Planning & Community Development. This is the first of two projects for the City. Kevin Cornacchio is from Footrprint Power and Seth Lattrell and Kevin Buruchian are present from Bourne Consulting Engineering.
Mr. Lattrell outlines the history of the site. The site is a designated port area, one of several in the state, meant to preserve existing port facilities and deep water access. This is a good opportunity for Salem to bring in cruise ships, with only minor modifications of an existing berth.
There is land under ocean, coastal bank (riprap), and coastal beach. All work will be done outshore of the high tide line and will have minimal impact on of those areas. One revetment will be reset, but it will be above high tide line. The walkway proposed is described. Drainage will not be impacted. There are already 4,000 square feet of impervious area, and another 900 square feet will be added. All will drain into the coal pile runoff pond.
Mr. Lattrell describes the existing berth. Fenders are proposed, hanging from dolphins. There will also be a pier deck span between the berth and shoreline, across the resource areas. He describes the setup. They may not be able to complete all work at once, but eventually the City would make sure to have enough space for offloading passengers onto Blaney St. or to nearby buses. The maximum ship size would be 800 feet, accommodating 1500 passengers. Smaller, 500-750 foot ships, with 500-1000 passengers would be more likely. The maximum number of ships would be 12 per year, but it is more likely they will see 4 to 6 per year, strictly on weekends at this point.
Full MEPA review has been completed. Traffic and greenhouse gas analysis have been done, and only modest impacts found, limited to days and periods of unloading.
St. Louis asks about a vehicle travel lane; it is existing and for unloading passengers onto buses. No vehicle travel is proposed on the walkway, which is for summer use only, so no sanding or salting will occur. The coal pond has begun to be drained and coal will be removed. A 6” pipe will be provided at the edge of the Blaney St. site. It is more of a redundancy, since drainage is good. It will not be connected to the pond. Stormwater plans are currently in the works for the area, and this project will take that into account. There was a revision to the NOI but it did not impact the affected areas – more semantic changes. St. Louis opines that the walkway should be pitched outward for stormwater, and Mr. Lattrell says there could be contaminants on the asphalt, despite the fact that there should be no sanding or salting. The
impact of the runoff pond should be negligible.
Ricciarelli asks about the concrete plank vs. timber; the concrete plank is needed since the timber platform cannot accommodate the landing of the cruise ships. Concrete is also faster and easier. Along the perimeter of the pier will be temporary fencing to catch trash, etc. as passengers disembark. There are plenty of trash receptacles along Blaney St. but there will still be containment.
Trees removed for the path will be replaced in kind with similar species, next to the path. Trees to be removed are being discussed with Footprint, but may not be replaced in the exact same location. The trees will be Poplar.
The debris boom is described. The fenders and dock are also described in more detail. All work will be done from the marine side. Material choices are further discussed. Only passengers will be embarking and disembarking; it is not a provisioning port.
Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. Devine has passed around a DMF letter he received; there were no other comments for this project. DMF did comment about work being done below the high tide line during the initial MEPA review, but now has no further comments.
Conditions:
A planting plan for trees will be provided
St. Louis clarifies that there was a change in language on illicit discharge statement – it will be submitted prior to construction. It is not a condition.
Standard conditions refer to stabilizing vegetation; the walkway area is all gravel except for the trees, and gravel will be replaced as such.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by St. Louis, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously.
A motion to issue the order of conditions is made by St. Louis, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously.
Blaney Street Commercial Marina—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-567—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed construction of a commercial marina within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance at 10 Blaney Street (Salem Wharf).
Document: N. Tay Evans 5/8/2014 letter to Conservation Commission.
Seth Lattrell presents again with Kathy Winn and Kevin Buruchian are also present. Mr. Lattrell describes the proposed project. It involves dredging 47,000 square feet of sub-tidal area with some intertidal dredging for the gangway float access. The project was submitted to MEPA and accepted in 2008. During the permitting process, this aspect was postponed due to tidal impacts and possible archaeological significance. It is now being revisited and additional archaeological efforts plus a revised footprint are proposed. The differences are described. There is far less intertidal dredging and it will be within an area of coastal beach. A sheet pile wall is proposed to support the reduction of intertidal dredging. The scope of work is described.
This will be a primarily commercial marina, and the setup is described. Materials such as timber vs. concrete are discussed. Subtidal dredging will be in a shallow area and the depths are outlined. A shellfish survey was originally conducted and none identified in intertidal or proposed dredging areas; eel grass was not found either. Sediment is silt with gravel, and has been approved for offshore disposal.
St. Louis asks about the area of impact and Mr. Lattrell clarifies. He also outlines the DMF concerns and how they have been addressed. DMF had also flagged increased boat use and the necessity for pump-out facilities. There are plans for a portable pump-out facility, but they are not on the plans currently. There will be a permanent pump-out in the long term project.
Work will not occur from Feb. 15-June 30, as recommended by DMF. A dive team may need to excavate test pits to determine archeological significance. Two small chert flakes (Native American artifacts) were identified. They will proceed either way, but additional archaeological review may be needed. That work is described. If findings are significant they may just leave the area alone. But, the representative from the Bureau of Underwater Archaeology might want it to be removed, since this is the only opportunity. That will be determined depending on findings.
The ENF has not been amended for this project as it was for the other. Mitigation costs are not yet certain but will be estimated before the project begins.
There are two existing stormwater outfalls. Layouts are discussed. The applicant is willing to do cleanup of the mudflat as part of mitigation. Lighting around the marina will include new lights, pole-based, and security cameras. The lighting setup is described.
Dredging will be completed whenever there is enough water, regardless of tides. There will be a siltation boom around the entire area. Physical, chemical, and biological testing of the material was completed, so dredged material can go to the disposal site. The contractor must also monitor levels of suspended solids and if necessary, make efforts to reduce the impact.
Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments.
No site visit is necessary. St. Louis would like to see an overall picture of where work is being done, during future plans.
Conditions:
Removal of debris from the mud flat will be by hand where possible
There will be no dredging from Feb. 15 to June 30
Cleaning of the mud flat will be by hand, except for a few large pieces that will be removed at mid tide or higher by attaching them by chain to a buoy. There is no requirement for a management plan for such facilities in the Harbor Plan, though there are requirements for environmental sensitivity and Best Management Practices. The Salem Harbormaster has strong oversight of the area. One goal for this project is to provide a home base for Salem lobstermen.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Campbell, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
A motion to issue an order of condition, with standard and the above special conditions, is made by Campbell, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
Grove Street Improvements—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-566—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed improvements to Grove Street, from Harmony Grove Road and Mason Street to Beaver and Goodhue Streets, within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.
Here for the applicant are Hillary King and Jill McLaughlin of Fay Spofford & Thorndike (FST). In 2012 the City completed a transportation plan for the North River Canal Corridor, highlighting certain streets that require upgrades. Some sites, previously abandoned, are now being redeveloped and will cause an increase in traffic. She reviews these developments and project limits, as well as existing conditions, which are less than ideal. The pavement and sidewalk are in disrepair and there is a large area of pavement currently used for parking. These deficiencies and the lack of sidewalks for pedestrian access will be addressed. The general setups of the proposed changes to the intersection are outlined.
The proposed plan will reduce pavement areas. Sidewalks and stop signs to be added are outlined. Catch basins, erosion controls and landscaping are described. Several views are presented of what the area will look like after work is completed.
The project has been filed as a limited project, with all components fitting into the existing roadway area. Work within and not within the resource area is outlined. This qualifies as a redevelopment project under stormwater standards. Pictures of the riverfront area and FEMA maps are presented. Some fill will be added in the flood zone to correct steep cross slopes and other issues. Grant fund must be used by Sept. 2015 so construction will be complete by then
St. Louis asks about missing information on the plans; more extensive and detailed plans will be submitted prior to construction. The driveways on Goodhue and Beaver St. have existing curb cuts; that is the Flynn Tan development and the applicant is working with them to provide access to their site during construction. Each development project is contributing toward traffic improvements, according to Frank Taormina of the Department of Planning & Community Development. He also describes changes to the lighting. St. Louis comments on the new sidewalks; the applicant does not feel that pedestrians will cut through the landscaping. The setup of the intersection is clarified.
Catch basins and drainage are outlined again. Regarding phasing with nearby projects: this will occur after they have made their ties into existing utilities, if they have not already. Taormina outlines how all work in the street must be done before final paving, otherwise they may have to seek an extension to the grant if one project falls behind.
Relocation of memorial and dedication signs is discussed. No grades will be raised. Test pits and cores will be used to determine what is there, structurally, and they will test for contaminants as well. Taormina outlines abutting properties that are contaminated, and how contamination will be addressed. They will try to stay above grade. The main concern is the deep sump basins. Contamination and options are further discussed.
Pedestrian and bike lanes are also discussed.
Chair Knisel opens to the public and Mark Pattison of 2 Beaver St. speaks. He had suggested that the lighting be moved and discussion with Taormina on planning issues ensues. Chair Knisel suggests following up with Taormina offline, unless Mr. Pattison has questions relating to Conservation Commission issues. He asks about the catch basins and the one in question is discussed.
Teasie Riley-Goggin of 9 Wisteria St. asks about the triangle where vehicles park now. It will be a T intersection, with no parking, and the visual is viewed again. She also asks about the existing railway. It will either be repaved or have rubberized panel crossings since it is active.
The Commission would like “No Dumping” signs on the catch basins. It will be discussed with the Planning Director. St. Louis comments that all pages of the plan, not just the cover, must be stamped by an engineer, and requests that the applicant do that in the future.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously.
St. Louis comments on the plans but is satisfied with them.
Special conditions:
Submit construction documents to Agent prior to construction
A motion to issue an order of conditions, with standard (except for those that do not apply) and special conditions, is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously.
Children’s Island Repair and Improvements—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— YMCA of the North Shore, 245 Cabot Street, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed repair of an existing pool deck and construction of shade structure and appurtenances at Children’s Island in Salem Harbor within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.
This item is taken first, out of order. Scott Patrowicz presents. Also present are Scott Hitchcock of the YMCA andPeter Rosen, who delineated the wetlands. Mr. Patrowicz describes past work, including mapping the island. He describes the pool deck and shade structure in question tonight. Scott Hitchcock describes the uses of Children’s Island and the maintenance needed. They are developing a Master Plan to ensure the Island continues to function. Many items are related to safety, including tonight’s.
There are some trees at the other end of the island, but they generally don’t do well. Mr. Patrowics outlines the scope of the work involved, which is in an area that already includes some other structures. They will use a barge to move materials onto and off the island. The beach in question has been used as a landing, with an existing trail. The footprint of the project will be similar to existing, with only a small 5’ expansion of the pool deck. Erosion at an area of riprap, which is causing damage to the concrete, will also be addressed. Erosion controls will be used.
Chair Knisel asks about the dock currently used for boats, but it cannot handle the large equipment that will be needed, plus it is too high during tides.
The barge setup is described. Some materials may need to be stockpiled. Peter Rosen outlines the structure of the beach, which is gravel and cobble with no sand. There are little to no biological concerns or concerns over movement of sand. There is a lot of debris there as well.
There will be pervious pavers but no slab for the shade area. There is not currently a drip edge planned for the roof. The Commission would like one and it will be added. Concrete will be mixed onsite. There is no foundation wall planned; the decking and landscaping are described. The outer pool deck will consist of a plantable surface including beach grass. Mr. Rosen comments that it is not a dune environment but salt-tolerant dune grasses will grow there. He then describes the embankment setup. The size of stones to be used is discussed, as are materials that will need to be brought in.
Mr. Patrowicz will come before the Commission with future projects. St. Louis suggests having a wash area, and Mr. Patrowicz describes some possibilities. Bedding for the riprap is described. It may need to be re-graded.
Water depths and the possibility of having the barges come in at high tide are discussed. They do plan on this timing. Limits of work are discussed.
Chair Knisel opens to the public and Kevin Cornacchio of 6 Beachmont Rd. asks about the machinery that will be used. It will be a small, rubber-tired backhoe, but Mr. Cornacchio opines that a track machine would give better traction and have less impact on the surface. It will be considered, as will mats. The Commission will be notified of the contractor’s final decision once it is made. Mr. Rosen does not anticipate any impact to the beach either way.
They would like to start work immediately, before the beginning of summer camp on June 20. The pool deck has priority.
There is no DEP file number yet, so the item must be continued or it can be conditioned that upon receipt of a DEP file number, work can commence. Devine cannot issue an order of conditions without a DEP file number, though. It is up to the Commission. The Commission thinks it is fine to act tonight so that Devine can issue the order when the DEP number is issued.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously.
Conditions:
- Limit traversing of equipment on the beach to within one hour of high tide (two hours total).
- The contractor will review machines available and use the one which will have the least impact.
- Restoration of the trail to existing conditions will occur.
- Construction fencing at the limit of vegetation will be used.
- The Agent will be notified of the exact location of concrete mixing.
- A drip edge will be installed around the shade structure.
- Confirmation by the Agent that the correct fee has been received.
Mr. Patrowicz describes water lines and states that there is no electricity and no sewer lines. Mr. Patrowicz describes the level of work and how that fits with the DEP category used. He will make up any difference if the fee category was not correct (there is no fee category that perfectly fits this work). The landscape architect will look at the riprap to be used.
A motion to issue an order of conditions, upon receipt of a DEP file number, with special conditions as noted, is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously.
24 Sunset Road Porch and Landscaping—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Gregory M. St. Louis of 24 Sunset Road, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed porch and landscaping at 24 Sunset Road within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands and Conservation Ordinance.
St. Louis, as the applicant, is recusing himself from the Commission for this item. He describes the project and shows an aerial photo of the house. His property is near the Forest River Conservation Area. There is an 8’ grade change between the floodplain and his house; he explains the location of the area.
Arborvitae, about 20-25’ tall, which have never been pruned, will be removed and replaced. They will be flush cut and replaced with winterberry or other fruit-producing shrubs. He describes the current landscaping scenario. There are some considerations for minor activity in the buffer zones, and he cites the regulations.
There will be four sonotubes depending on the final size of the deck. There will not be much material and it will be stored on a tarp while moved, then re-used on the property.
There are no members of the public present. The deck setup is discussed. The Commission suggests expanding the width of the deck a bit, keeping the posts in place.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Riccirelli, seconded by Cambell, and passes unanimously.
A motion to issue a negative 2 and a negative 6 determination is made by Cambell, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
Old/New Business
- 63.5 Jefferson Avenue—DEP #64-277: Request for Certificate of Compliance
- 63.5 Jefferson Avenue—DEP #64-545: Request for Certificate of Compliance
These two requests are for the same property, for the construction of the building and its later expansion. Devine passes around photos of the work. Devine is satisfied with the work. The Commission had requested a cape cod berm for the parking area; existing drainage basins were cleaned. It is a functional stormwater basin.
A motion to issue both certificates is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously.
- Discussion of educational programming at Forest River Conservation Area
Stacy Kilb of 39 Northend Ave. would like to hire a professional forager to lead a “wild edibles” walk through the Forest River Conservation Area. She is requesting funding from the Commission to do so. She will outline the role of the Conservation Commission and discuss this conservation area before the walk. This is as a follow up to Keystone Cooperator Training, a forest management program she attended in April, that requires a certain number of hours of related volunteer service afterward. She will collaborate with the Friends of Salem Woods on this project. Devine states that engaging the Friends of Salem Woods in Conservation Commission Land will be very beneficial, since they have proven to be very good stewards of Salem Woods.
The amount requested is $150 and the Commission agrees that a minimum of 10 participants must register in advance in order for them to fund this effort. Devine will also promote the event via the City’s email blast and website, and will also get in touch with Salem Sound Coastwatch. Ms. Kilb will also take pictures for the Conservation Commission website.
Devine makes the request for $150 to fund the event.
A motion fund the walk, provided there are a minimum of ten participants, is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously.
- Election of Conservation Commission officers: discussion and vote
St. Louis is running unopposed for Vice Chair. He is nominated by Ricciarelli and all are in favor.
- Meeting minutes—March 27, 2014
St. Louis asks about what was required re a drop and would like the minutes to reflect the order.
A motion to approve the minutes is made by Cambell, seconded by St. Louis, and passes unanimously.
Miscellaneous
Devine mentions maintenance work done on the large Forest River footbridge. It was done well and no permit requirements were triggered, but he does not know who did the work. If anyone learns who did it, the Commission will want to recognize their service.
Devine announces an upcoming design process for improvements to the former Chadwick Lead Mills. Students from the Conway School of Landscape Architecture will be working with Salem and Marblehead to analyze the property and recommend improvements.
CDM is entering into year two to work on its Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment and Action Plan. Year one was weak on Commission interests but they will beef up assessment on resource areas in year two. A draft summary is available and can be shared, but work with Conservation Commission interests have not been emphasized. They will be moving forward since the Commission is paying for part of it. Departments not reached out to initially will be pulled in. They have certain requirements to engage citizens as well.
Ricciarelli asks about changes to the grades for the Gateway Center project. Devine will contact the development team.
Devine states that he fields calls about what minimum amount of work triggers Conservation Commission review. In one case, someone wants to plant a tree and a shrub where several of each already exist. The Commission agrees that minor work like that within a buffer zone does not require the Commission’s review.
Chair Knisel observes that DEP is digging in on performance standards for land subject to coastal storm flowage. Within six months they should have suggestions and it should be complete within two years. Technical details are in the works. They are open to recommendations and Knisel is on the technical committee, so she can accept them.
A motion to adjourn is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously.
The meeting adjourns at 9:00PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk
Salem Conservation Commission
| 
