Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Draft Minutes 9/25/2014
DRAFT MINUTES
Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting

Date and Time:  Thursday, Sept. 25, 2014, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location:       Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present:        Acting Chair Gregory St. Louis, Tom Campbell, Bart Hoskins, Bob Pond, Dan Ricciarelli
Members Absent: Chair Juila Knisel, Amy Hamilton
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder:       Stacy Kilb

Acting Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:05PM.

SESD Combined Heat and Power Facility—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—South Essex Sewerage District (SESD), 50 Fort Avenue, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed Combined Heat and Power (CHP) facility at the SESD treatment facility at 50 Fort Avenue within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.

Here for the applicant is Mr. John Darling, Counsel for SESD. Executive Director Alan Taubert is present, as well as Rob Thomas and Tom Touchet of AECOM. Mr. Darling describes the project, which will contain a natural gas generator connected to the heating system of the treatment plant. The pad is elevated to meet build code for construction in the flood zone. Pavement and erosion control measures are described. This is part of an area subject to a Chapter 91 license; the project was approved as a minor modification to the existing license. Construction is set to begin in early 2015 and there will be no direct impacts to any resource areas.

Ricciarelli asks about flood elevations and Mr. Darling clarifies the elevation of the slab. The unit is further described; there is some lubrication oil, but all is contained within the unit. There is no means for any oil drips to leave the unit.

Acting Chair St. Louis asks about the area – the entire area is being raised above the new 100-year flood zone.  The pad is concrete and there will be some pavement. A plan showing grade changes had not been submitted, but is discussed in the NOI. Ricciarelli asks about the displacement of flood storage resulting from the project. Mr. Darling notes that Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage does not require compensatory storage.

Acting Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments.

A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously.

Standard conditions have been reviewed by the applicant. Ricciarelli requests a final copy of the grading plan prior to construction, for the record. They will be sent electronically to the Agent.

A motion to issue the order of conditions, with standard conditions and the special condition requiring submission of a grading plan, is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.


417 Lafayette Street Coastal Structures—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Michael J. and Andrea Cawlina, 417 Lafayette Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed repair of a seawall and construction of a new pier, gangway, and float at 417 Lafayette Street within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.

Presenting for the applicant is Mr. Scott Patrowicz. Wetlands Scientist Bill Manuel and owner Andrea Cawlina are also present. There will be construction of a pier and 75’ of linear seawall will be repaired. Historical use and setup of the property is discussed, as is the setup of the pier with gangway and the reasoning for each. The float is described as well; it will be kept level on stops so that it will be usable during low tides but will also not come into contact with the tidal flats.

Mr. Manuel outlines site’s resource areas. He describes the work to be done and precautions to be taken. They will work with the tides to re-point the wall. Work will be done by hand. There is beach and salt marsh on the property. The pier, ramp and float are all designed in accordance with the DEP guide, though the float will have 30” of inches of clearance from the mudflats, more than the required DEP amount. This project also meets standards set by the Army Corps of Engineers. The float will have no shading impacts and the pier is over the beach area. Beach form and volume will be preserved. They do have a letter from Division of Marine Fisheries which mention shading and the 1:1 height-to-width measurements. The float will remain on the piles in the winter and the ramp will have a hoist to move it out of the way. Nothing will be stored on the marsh.

Devine states that some of the beach may only exist because the marsh grass growing there was degraded by past storage of a float. Mr. Patrowicz hopes that the existing grass will expand into that area. Devine asks about meeting the 1:1 ratio and is concerned about meeting current salt marsh standards. Mr. Manuel discusses potential scenarios. They will do their best to allow sunlight to penetrate; that area was chosen because it was previously disturbed but they are hoping for restoration. Under ideal conditions it could take a couple of seasons.

Acting Chair St. Louis asks about the pier and its position. Elevations are further described. Mr. Patrowicz describes the typical and expected use of the area. The vegetation and size of the beach does change over time. Historically it has been a small beach that has been impacted with floats.

Acting Chair St. Louis asks about typical storage of floats; it would be permitted as part of the dock gangway, but often floats wind up in the wrong place. In this case if it is fixed to posts. Ricciarelli asks why the pier cannot be cantilevered over the seawall with a longer gangway, and Mr. Manuel reiterates that 40’ is the maximum standard gangway length.

Acting Chair St. Louis opines that coastal beach should be coastal marsh. He is looking for more active revegetation of the disturbed area. The applicant discusses this with Mr. Patrowicz and Mr. Manuel. Success rates for replanting are typically low and the Commission debates if it is possible to work to promote growth. Acting Chair St. Louis outlines the preferences of the Commission. The area has been staked and Mr. Patrowicz suggests a site visit.

A site visit is scheduled for Wednesday Oct. 1st. at noon.

A motion to continue to the next meeting is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Pond, and passes unanimously.

Mary Jane Lee Park Splash Pad—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 construction of a splash pad and associated improvements, including remediation of unsuitable soils, at Mary Jane Lee Park (41 Palmer Street) within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.

Documents:

  • MCLA supplemental package regarding permeability, soil volumes, and drainage, undated
  • Letter from Linda Locke to Salem Conservation Commission, 9/21/14
  • Email from Councilor William Legault to Karen Partanen, 9/16/14
  • Greenspace and Splashpad at Mary Jane Lee Park by Claudia Paraschiv, 9/11/14
  • Draft Minutes, Salem Park & Recreation Commission, 8/19/14
  • Letter from Doreen Thomas to Tom Devine, undated
  • Letter from Linda Locke to Tom Devine, 9/10/14
  • Letter from Priscilla Legault to Tom Devine, undated
  • Email from Tim Jenkins to Tom Devine, 9/11/14
  • Various printed photos, 17 pages
  • Talk prepared for the meeting of the Salem Parks and Recreation Commission by Linda Locke, 8/19/14
  • Letter from Doreen Thomas, VeAnn Campbell, and Linda Locke to Mayor Kimberley Driscoll, 9/2/14
  • Letter from Tim Jenkins to Salem Conservation Commission, 9/25/14
  • The Mary Jane Lee (poem), undated
  • Petitions Regarding Placement of Splashpad at Mary Jane Lee Park on asphalt area of park off Prince St., August 2014
Presenting for the applicant is Tom Devine of the City of Salem Department of Planning & Community Development. He describes the project and its location. This is on the outer edge of the recently updated flood zone. The landscape architect collaborated with a civil engineer and LSP to create the plans submitted to the Commission.

The proposed splash pad will be 1600-1800 sf. The existing swing set and evergreen tree will be relocated within the park. These things will be completed with grant funding that must be spent by December 31st. The City plans to implement the full master plan, including additional green space and play surfacing, next year.

Devine states that testing shows the presence of urban fill with elevated levels of lead. Throughout the project up to 866 cubic yards of soil may have to be removed. There will be appropriate control of dust. The existing grades will be maintained as much as is practical. The current plan includes a utility box underground, but the final plan could end up being for an above ground utility box or small shed.

Devine explains the proposed change in pervious area. The existing condition is 52% pervious. Construction of the splash pad and other improvements funded by the grant will reduce the pervious area to 47%. Implementation of the full master plan will increase the pervious area to 58%.

Ricciarelli asked why type of plumbing system is planned. Devine states that it will be a drain-through system, coming from City water and draining into the storm drain.

Acting Chair St. Louis comments that it is in the 100-year flood zone. Although a portion of the park is outside the flood zone, it is still within the 100-foot buffer zone, so the entire site is jurisdictional. Devine says that because this is Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage and not Bordering Land Subject to Flooding, there is no requirement to compensate for lost flood storage. Devine reiterates that the plan proposes to maintain the existing flood storage anyway.

Acting chair St. Louis opens to the public and asks that comments be limited to the project’s impact on the flood zone.

Linda Lock of 1 Pickering Street speaks, noting that Commissioners received a packet from her. It contains comments on the relevant parts of the project. She requests that the packet be entered into the minutes.

She states that her group has produced a plan for an alternate placement of the splash pad. She believes that the plan, which preserves current green space, has not received due attention. St. Louis asks if she has seen the master plan. She says she has, but she does not understand why the existing, well-used layout has to be changed and additional impervious area needs to be added. There is no reason to remove the existing tree. She has collected 259 signatures for a petition to maintain the current green area.

St. Louis asks if she thinks there is an impact on floodplain. Ms. Locke replies affirmatively. In 2006 an abutter was flooded and had to be evacuated. A letter from Doreen Thomas outlines this.

St. Louis asks Devine about how the design was selected. Devine stats that they vetted locations within a steering committee and held multiple public forums. The last public forum was hosted by the Parks & Recreation Commission, which voted to endorse the proposed plan. Devine states that he thinks that the Parks & Recreation Commission has authority over the design, but the Conservation Commission has to ensure that care is taken to limit the impact on the flood zone.

Ricciarelli asks about the alternative splash pad location. Ms. Locke says the idea is to build on an area that is already asphalt. The City’s plan does not make up the loss of pervious area until Phase 2.

St. Louis states that he understands concerns about the tree and asks whether members of the public have concerns regarding other design elements within the Commission’s jurisdiction.

Ms. Locke says that the alternate plan has no change in impervious surface. She is concerned that she was told that it was too late for her group’s input. She was told there would be an additional public meeting at the Point Neighborhood Association. Devine notes that they did have a final public meeting, but instead of holding it at the Point Neighborhood Associate as initially planned, it was at the Parks & Recreation Commission. Devine also notes that the proposed rubber play surfacing is permeable.

St. Louis remarks that the project has two benefits on the resource area: reduction in hazardous material and, in the final master plan, reduction in impervious area. Ms. Locke states that the Parks & Recreation Commission could not vote on the alternate plan because the City never did test drilling in the alternate location.

Tim Jenkins, 18 Broad Street, speaks. He says that he doesn’t think the state’s December 31st deadline makes sense and he is critical of the City’s failure to consider an alternative plan. St. Louis asks if he has seen the master plan. Mr. Jenkins says he has, it was created in the last week. He says everyone wants a splash pad, but they want it in a location that is already impermeable. He is concerned about the loss of green space and the tree. He would like to see the grant deadline extended. The Parks Commission had to take action in order to not lose the funding.

Devine states that the request before the Commission is for approval of the multi-phased construction of the entire master plan. If issued, the Determination of Applicability would be in effect for three years. A member wonders whether they could condition completion of the entire plan within a particular time frame.

Blin Mcdermott of 13 Palmer Street says she is concerned about the lead. Will kids be playing on the lead while waiting for the second phase? She is concerned that Phase 2 won’t happen and not all the lead will be removed. There has to be a timeline and accountability.

Devine states that the LSP advises the City that there is no immanent hazard and lead levels do not trigger MassDEP regulations. However, because this is a public park, the LSP recommends removing lead-impacted soil throughout the project and disposing of it properly. The splash pad will be beneficial, because it covers one of the areas of elevated lead. Devine says that the presence of lead is another reason the City wants to complete the entire project.

Mr. Jenkins reads his September 25, 2014 letter to the Commission.

St. Louis remarks that the proposal does not fill the flood zone and the master plan includes a 10% drop in impervious area. He asks whether the Commission is willing to issue a negative determination to permit the project.

Hoskins states that there is one plan before them and wonders if there is any impact, even if the plan is modified. Ricciarelli says he doesn’t think the proposed work is significant. However, if the plan changed, it would have to come back to the Commission. And additionally, the changes would require other approvals.

Hoskins notes that the master plan calls for a reduction in impervious area. They can issue a negative determination to execute the plan as described.

Devine states that the City only currently has funds to construct phase one, and that the rest of the project depends on obtaining additional funding. The City is very good at obtaining grants for projects like this, but it is not guaranteed. Devine also notes that he has no objection to the Commission approving both plans. However, the City’s preferred plan has been endorsed by the Park & Recreation Commission, so in order to construct the alternate plan, the Park Commission would have to take action again.

Jenkins comments again about desired location of splash pad, especially as only Phase 1 is certain. He argues that the splash pad should be located in within existing impervious space. He would like the Commission to be open to less impactful development.

A member asks whether a site visit is needed. Hoskins states that he has visited the park recently. Ms. Locke states that the parking this summer has been a fluke. The City’s normal policy is to allow parking only in the winter. Parking is not needed there and is actually detrimental. Ms. Locke is concerned about have a splash pad constructed that will only be used in the summer. Devine responds, stating that the design takes into account the unique qualities of the park. It is a heavily used park in a dense neighborhood within a four-season climate. The splash pad is designed to be an attractive terrace outside the summer season. It won’t be fenced in and the nozzles will be imbedded in the concrete.

Ricciarelli motions to close the public hearing, Campbell seconds, and all vote in favor.

St. Louis requests a negative 2 and 6 determination with the recommendation to use pervious asphalt and continue to explore other ways to maximize perviousness. Ricciarelli makes the motion, seconded by Pond, and all vote in favor.

Old/New Business

  • DEP #64-538, Thorndike Street Subdivision: Request for Partial Certificate of Compliance
Documents:

Letter from Scott Patrowicz to Salem Conservation Commission, 9/25/14

This item is taken out of order, after item two. Scott Patrowicz presents. This is for one lot that was built; the other two lots in the order of conditions have not yet been built, but the owners on the completed site would like to close it out. Work is done but there are minor deviations, which he describes. Most of the swale is on the other two lots so drainage has not been altered. They would like to submit the as-built plan at the end of the entire project, once the other two lots are built.

The permeable pavers were on the plan but not mandated by the Commission; pavers were used but they are not the specific permeable ones, but should allow some water to pass through. Grades are flat. The swale is discussed. There are no roof drains on the buildings and no gutters were proposed. Lots 4 and 5 are not nearly complete. It is up to the Commission if they would like to insist on the pervious pavers for the rest of the project. St. Louis would like the applicant to return to the Commission before proceeding with more pavers that differ from what is on the approved plan.  

A motion to issue a partial certificate is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously.


  • Discussion of exempt utility improvements in Grove Street area
Devine describes National Grid work planned in the Grove Street area. The work is exempt from the Wetlands Protection Act, but he wanted to notify the Commission because this is a significant amount of activity.

  • FY15 Community Preservation Plan – Request for Comment/Input
The Community Preservation Committee (CPC) seeks input from Boards and Commissions on its Community Preservation Plan. Hoskins, as the Conservation Commission’s representative on the CPC, summarizes the plan and shares examples of projects already receiving funding. Devine notes that the last opportunity to acquire open space—the former Lead Mills—was funded in its own unique way. But if a similar opportunity arose again, it would be a good candidate for CPA funds.

Ricciarelli suggests that the Commission conduct an assessment of bridges on its land and seek funds to make improvements. He would also like to see additional boat launches in the City.

Devine will send out last year’s comments while the Commission considers comments for this year.

  • Meeting minutes—July 24, 2014
A motion to approve the minutes is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously.

Miscellaneous

Devine describes a tree on Bengal Lane that is dead and leaning toward a condominium building. It is either within or at the very edge of wetlands within Conservation Commission land. The Property Manager for the Condominiums wants to remove it. The Commission determines that it is acceptable to allow its removal, provided that the tree company provides proof of insurance. Devine will issue an Emergency Certificate.

Ricciarelli motions to adjourn, Hoskins seconds, and all are in favor.

The meeting ends at 8:40PM

Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission