Salem Conservation Commission
Meeting Minutes
Date and Time: Thursday January 8th, 2015, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Vice Chair Bart Hoskins, Bob Pond, Tom Campbell, Dan Ricciarelli,
Members Absent: Chair Gregory St. Louis and Amy Hamilton
Others Present: Tom Devine, Agent
Recorder: Marsha Finkelstein
Vice Chair Hoskins calls the meeting to order at 6:06pm.
Meeting Agenda
Riverview Place (Salem Suede Redevelopment)—DEP #64-579—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Riverview Place, LLC, 5 Broadmoor Lane, Peabody, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed mixed-use redevelopment of 72 Flint Street, and 67 & 71 Mason Street (former Salem Suede) consisting of 3 buildings and appurtenances within an area subject to the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem’s Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.
Documents:
- Letter Re: Riverview Place, DEP File No: 064-0579, Responses to Comments, from Richard L. Williams to Tom Devine, 1/7/2015.
- Revised Plan: Riverview Place, #72 Flint Street and #67 & #71 Mason Street Salem, MA; Revised 12/12/2014; Sheets 1 to 10.
Memorandum Re: Riverview Place, Rational for Delineating Wetlands as Coastal Resource Areas, from Susan St. Pierre to Richard Williams, 1/3/2015.
Comparative Drainage Analysis, Riverview Place, revised 11/11/2014.
Notification of Wetlands Protection Act Files Number [with DEP comments], 12/11/2014.
Rich Williams and Steven Feinstein present. Williams gave out material to address comments made by DEP and comments sent out from Commission Chair Greg St. Louis.
Williams presented presents the contents from his letter responding to Chair St. Louis and DEP’s comments. In addition, he notes that the Salem Planning Board required an investigation of Mason Street drain pipe to find the outlet. They want a plan for a continuation of that pipe if it goes through the project’s property. They’ve agreed to this request and suggest that this might be included in the Commission’s order as a condition. Ricciarelli asked if that’s the pipe at the end of the property and Williams said yes.
Williams states that he considers the resource areas to be coastal. Campbell asked if the river contains brackish water. Williams responded that it is sometimes brackish, as the water comes upstream from the ocean with the tide from the river upstream.
Devine remarks that he is concerned that if the Commission determines that the flood zone is coastal rather than inland, the DEP might appeal. Williams commented that they could say it was both. Devine replied that he can only indicate one choice on the Order of Conditions. Feinstein commented this might set a precedent for further developments nearby.
Ricciarelli asked Devine if St. Louis reviewed the answers and Devine responded that he hadn’t.
Hoskins commented that it seems to be coastal. He suggested continuing this to ask DEP to consider the question before continuing. Williams commented that DEP will consider it during the ENF process.
Devine commented that if the Commission continues this, it would give St. Louis a chance to review the materials. Hoskins asked about plantings along the walkway and commented that it tends to be difficult to keep things alive during extreme weather. Williams replied that they’ve got a landscape architect who’s considered this issue. Hoskins added that it would be good to have more information on that. Williams and Feingold commented that it’s in the Planning Board’s materials and they’d provide those for review.
Hoskins asked about the valves and Williams replied that they have a tide gate. Hoskins commented that there was an increase and wondered about the degree of storms considered in the drainage calculations. Williams replied that they did calculations for the 2, 10 and 100 storms.
Feinstein added that they are also putting a path on City property and are assuming that this is part of the approval. Williams commented that they provided the Planning Board detail on a pathway connecting their property to Flint Street. William commented that the City is granting a license to do the construction.
Public Comments
Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coastwatch stated that the North River is an impaired water body. She added that she was pleased at the solution for keeping flood water out of the sanitary sewage system and wanted to know how it worked. Williams explained how the flood valves works using a switch. He added that buildings 1 and 2 would have these. Warren suggested that this solution be considered for other projects.
Hoskins asked about the logistics of this and if there an O&M plan would be needed. Williams commented that activating the system would be part of a flood protocol. Warren asked about the bioretention plan and wanted to know more about the ponds. Williams showed her the locations on the plan and described how the water would pond.
Devine asked if all the materials can be provided electronically in order to share with the Chair, who is absent, and Williams replied in that they could be.
Jennifer Firth of 3 Carpenter Street commented that she and other members of the public are interested in receiving electronic copies of the plans.
Warren asked about a slope coming down on the “island” and if they could put in a tree filter. Williams commented that they’re small areas (about 3 feet wide with curbing) and wouldn’t pick up much.
Ricciarelli motioned to continue to the January 22 meeting, Campbell seconds, and all vote in favor.
Old/New Business
- 28 Goodhue Street, DEP #64-441: Request for Certificate of Compliance
Richard Williams presents again. St. Louis had questions about the drainage system at the last meeting. Williams commented that the Vortech Unit is really a bypass pipe. He went on to say that they also added a manhole to the area and that is the reason for the change.
Ricciarelli commented that he was concerned that the pipe was leaning in the wrong direction. Williams replied that it’s not ideal and that it shouldn’t be a problem given that it’s a 12 inch pipe and the flow would go into the manhole. He added that the sump would fill to about an inch to the catch basin and would flow. Riciarelli asked Devine if that was the only issue St. Louis had and Devine replied that it was.
Campbell motions to issue the Certificate of Compliance, Ricciarelli seconds, and all vote in favor.
- 60 Bay View Avenue, DEP #64-571: Request for Certificate of Compliance
Devine commented that contractor came back to the Commission requesting to work from the beach rather than inside the garage and that the Commission approved of this provided that pre- and post- construction beach profiles be submitted. Devine states that the work was done as approved and the beach was not altered.
Campbell motions to issue the Certificate of Compliance, Pond seconds, and all vote in favor.
- Osborne Hills/Strongwater Crossing Subdivision, DEP #64-549: Request for Partial Certificate of Compliance for Phases I and II
Chris Mello of Eastern Landscaping and Builder Paul Dibiase present. Ricciarelli asked about the bridges and DiBiase commented that they replaced them with culverts. Ricciarelli asked about a gate to keep out wildlife and DiBiase commented that they have a temporary one in right now.
Devine commended DiBiase for doing some interesting things in the replicated wetlands. DiBiase commented that the use and abandoned tree trunk and earthen mounts support the bird wildlife as it attracts a lot of birds to the site. DiBiase added that the project was built to compliance and added that over 60 wetland shrubs were planted and that they’ll also have a 2 year monitoring cycle.
Hoskins asked what a partial certificate would provide. Devine replied that it will certify that Phases I & I of the subdivisions roadway and utilities are complete. Because the project is so large, the Commission required a phasing plan that allows subsequent phases to begin only after previous phases are completed.
DiBiase commented that final asphalt needs to be put on the roadway. Devine asked when that needs to be done. DiBiase replied that he’s waiting on the construction to be done before laying asphalt to keep from it deteriorating. DiBiase commented that it’s at the base level right now and they want to finish more of the subdivision first. Ricciarelli commented that this seems like a reasonable request. Devine commented that he reviewed the as-built plans inspected the property. In addition, a clerk of the works for the Planning Board is inspecting the infrastructure as it is constructed.
Hoskins asked about the retention basin and overflow. Mello replied that it’s for storage and goes back into the wetlands. Hoskins asked if they’d consider putting something in front to catch anything and both Mello and DiBiase replied that they’ve planned for it. Devine gave DiBiase an envelope with wetland markers.
Devine commented that they seem to be going ahead with Phase 3 and they need provide the “Individual Phase Pre-construction Conference Document”. Devine added that this document seemed to be missing and both Mello and DiBiase commented that they’d look through the files to get that to him. DiBiase stated that in Phase 4, there’s less focus on the wetlands. Campbell requested a visual for the entire completed project.
Ricciarelli motioned to approve the Partial Certificate of Compliance for Phases 1 and 2, Campbell seconds, and all vote in favor.
- Discussion of frequency of meetings
Devine commented that he investigated the possibility of changing the meeting times. He also commented that the regulations say that hearings must be held within 21 days of any application and that applicants can sign a waiver. However, an applicant’s only recourse if a hearing isn’t held in 21 days is to ask the DEP to act, which is not usually in an applicant’s interest. He commented that his direct had talked to the Mayor about this and she expressed some concern about the impact on the smaller applicants, like small homeowners.
The Commissioners discussed the logistics of making a change and Devine commented that if the Commission wanted to do a monthly meeting schedule, it should be prepared to occasionally hold a special meeting.
Ricciarelli suggested it stay on the agenda. Devine commented that it might be ideal to include St. Louis given that his work schedule is impacted by the Conservation Commission meetings. Hoskins asked Devine about who would need to be notified if the schedule were to change. Devine responded that the schedule itself doesn’t have to be posted except as a courtesy. Every meeting, however, has to be posted per Open Meeting Law.
The Commission decides to table the matter until the next meeting.
- Meeting minutes—December 11, 2014
Ricciarelli motions to approve the minutes, Pond seconds, and all vote in favpor.
- Annual Monitoring Report for Lead Mills Salt Marsh
Devine states that the salt marsh is in both Salem and Marblehead. Salem’s order required replanting if needed only up to two years from planting—so that window as closed. Marblehead’s order has a 5 year window, with one year left. National Lead is not interested in doing any re-planting. This matter is going to be discussed at the Marblehead Conservation Commission meeting next Thursday. Devine’s willing to go to that meeting and do what he can to advocate for the re-planting. Even if Salem cannot force replanting on the Salem portion, if they replant in Marblehead, he doesn’t want to miss a chance to piggyback onto that.
The Commission agrees that Devine should attend the Marblehead Conservation Commission meeting.
Ricciarelli motions to adjourn, Campbell seconds, and all vote in favor.
The meeting ends at 8:08pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Marsha Finkelstein
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Salem Conservation Commission on January 22, 2015.
| 