Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, July 9, 2015, 6:30 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chair Gregory St. Louis, Tom Campbell, Bob Pond, Gail Gambarini, Bart Hoskins, Tyler Glode,
Members Absent: Dan Ricciarelli
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:42PM. The first item will be the Gateway Center Amendment, taken out of order.
Canal Street Flood Mitigation—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Purpose of hearing is to discuss proposed infrastructure improvements for the Canal Street Flood Mitigation Project located within Hersey Avenue, Ocean Avenue, Meadow Street, Laurel Street, Forest Avenue, Clifton Avenue, Salem State University O’Keefe Center Parking Lot (225 Canal Street), 105 Canal Street, 125 Canal Street, and Forest River Park within areas subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection and Conservation Ordinance.
This hearing is opened second, taken out of order.
Here for the applicant is David Knowlton, City Engineer, David White of Woodard & Curran and Mark Manganello of LEC. Knowlton states that Phase 2 of flood mitigation is being discussed. The project was begun 2 years ago with new drainage piping in Canal St., which is described. He describes the pump system, storage and discharge setups. There will be some signage for public education describing the changes within Forest River Park. The existing basketball court and Little League field at Forest River Park will also be improved.
David White provides an overview of the project. Mr. White presents the FEMA flood map. The area comprises 80 acres and 50 structures. He also provides an overview of the area in question with regards to the City overall. There are two primary causes of flooding: insufficient sized drainage system and the low lying areas of this watershed. One flood prone area is near the McDonald’s and O’Keefe parking lot at Salem State. Drainage sits below mean high water level. So rainfall during high tide means that water has nowhere to go during rain events. They are thus proposing to take the low lying portions of the watershed and direct them in the other direction towards the O’Keefe parking lot. The drainage line in Canal St. has already been constructed and will lead into a storage facility. Different parts of this
watershed will go to different drainage systems. One new discharge area will be in Forest River Park, to a pond there.
Mr. White outlines the specific components of the project, the upper and lower systems. New drainage lines, storage and discharges are described. The storage area will include a pump station; it will attenuate peak flows.
Glode asks about one of the connections and Mr. White states that facilities will remain separate in those areas. Gambarini asks about the third pump, which is a standby.
Mr. White goes on to outline the current issues and proposed improvements to Forest River Park. Runoff issues will be addressed, and erosion will be reduced; the pond will remain at bank level after these improvements. A boardwalk will be installed to provide access to the Pioneer Village. A bioretention area will also be installed to treat water from the existing parking lot. They also plan to visually open the pond via selective pruning. Benches will be installed for public enjoyment. The ball field will be raised by is 2.5 to 4’ to prevent it from being so wet.
Mark Manganello presents, outlining the resource areas associated with the pond. They needed a high level understanding of current and potential future functioning of the pond as they will be sending water there. A report on the hydrology, water quality and ecological function of the pond was produced. It has poor water quality, low ecological function and is a degraded resource. Wetland disturbances associated with the pond will be temporary in a few areas. Bank disturbances are below allowable thresholds and BVW (bordering vegetated wetlands) will be mitigated with re-created wetlands.
Hoskins asks about the phragmites in the pond. Mr. Manganello thinks the phragmites will be negatively affected by the additional water in the pond. Hoskins wonders if the area in front of the inlet could be made more inhospitable to phragmites. Mr. Manganello describes the catch basin, which should eliminate the opportunity for phragmites to grow.
Stan Humphries, Coastal Geologist with LEC, describes the coastal resource areas that will be affected. Some is Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, and there is also coastal bank and rocky intertidal shore. He describes the only permanent impact, which will be to the Coastal Bank via its removal for the culvert. Elevations are described. They think there are very little, if any, shellfish, in the area in question. There are minimal biological characteristics in the rocky intertidal. A salt marsh nearby will not be impacted, nor will the sandy coastal beach. Mean low water is very distant so no investigation of eel grass was conducted. Rocks in the area are predominantly 1.5 - 2’, so boulder sized, with densely packed sand and gravel between.
Mr. White returns to discuss water quality and elevations of the ball field and changes to the latter. He also describes the antiquation of the current drainage system. There are no onsite water quality systems in any of the existing properties so other than city street sweeping, there is no stormwater treatment. That will be implemented with this project, and he describes the types of treatments, including deep sumps, stormwater treatment devices such as Vortex geared toward TSS removal, and a Stormscepters/CDS device (Controlled Dissipation Device). Runoff will also receive treatment in the grass swale or the bioretention area. At best 10% TSS removal is achieved now; after this project it will be 70%. The City will also increase the frequency of street sweeping to help remove pathogens, also the replacement drainage
will be watertight so exfiltration of the sewers to the drain system will not happen. The sewer line condition at Canal and Clifton is being explored and this project is a focal point in the NPDES program.
Hoskins asks about the grass swale and bioretention basins; Mr. White outlines in more detail. Hoskins asks about chloride levels in the pond and wonders if it is due to the ocean or road salt. He is concerned about plantings in this regard. Mark Manganello says that both were contributing factors and discusses the relevance of this project, which will eliminate or mitigate those sources, so those plantings should not need to be highly salt tolerant. Also water after coastal events will be able to flow back out rather than be trapped.
St. Louis asks about the elevation of the outfall and Mr. White describes. Glode asks about the bioretention area, which is near the parking lot and adjacent to the pond bank. They do not plan to remove any silt that has accumulated in the pond, but the understory surrounding it will be thinned. One of the grates will also be more easily raked so it does not get clogged.
Chair St. Louis comments on elevation and pumping. Mr. White elaborates. Invasives in the pond are not addressed in the plan; it has been discussed internally but they were concerned about the ability to maintain it; hopefully with the water moving more, there will be dieback. St. Louis asks about treatment to prevent children to enter the 30” pipe. There will be grates at the outfalls in question. St. Louis asks about a concrete structure at the east end of the pond. They are not planning to rehab it. He also asks about the bioswale and contributory area, and Mr. White elaborates on the grading and flow. Parts of the parking lot will be resurfaced and one berm reconstructed to direct flow into the bioretention area. St. Louis is concerned about the capacity and velocity of water in the 30” pipe and asks if they will
look into the possibility of the need for a larger pipe; Mr. White will look at the numbers and change it if needed.
St. Louis also comments on changes in material. Mr. White addresses his concerns and describes the reasoning for their use of varying materials. They will try to avoid utility conflicts but there may be some water and sewer conflicts, if not gas. They have worked with National Grid, who has coordinated with the City of Salem to move mains as necessary. Water main or service conflicts are inevitable. St. Louis asks about an alternatives analysis, possibly including piping straight out to low water. Mr. White addresses how they came to their current design and what the other options were. There were 12 different alternatives, some of which were financially infeasible, such as a large pump at the end of the current system (which would also be limited due to space). An Environmental Notification Form was also completed out
to bring the force main to the end of Ocean Ave. rather than Forest River Park, but through coordination with the DEP they came up with other alternatives due to erosion of the coastal beach. Extending the pipe farther out to mean low water, which is very far out, would impact the resource area even more.
Campbell asks about the silt load in the pond and if suspended silt will be discharged into the harbor during rain events. Circulation within the pond will be increased, but incoming velocity will be low so not much sediment will move. The City’s goal is to enhance the aesthetic and overall value of the pond. They don’t want silt coming in to mitigate effects of flood mitigation, but will work with City who will maintain if necessary.
Wetland replication areas of 1500 square feet are proposed and described. St. Louis asks about plunge pool at discharge, which is shallow. It is built to accommodate a 100 year flood event so is actually overdesigned, but they will consider alterations if the Commission wishes.
Chair St. Louis opens to the public and Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coastwatch applauds the project; she was surprised at the choice of Forest River Park, but is pleased by that option. She comments that the pond hosts many rats and bacteria and is looking forward to seeing it cleaned up, to prevent the bacteria from migrating to the beach during their annual swim. She asks about phragmites, Japanese knotweed, poison ivy, and northern maple, and suggests really cleaning up the pond by doing phragmites removal, possibly with a grant to accomplish that. This could also include rehab of the concrete ramp, which is in dangerous condition and is a liability. A park grant or other grant would be possible. SSCW could work with the City. She asks if they have considered making the bioretention area a rain garden, to make it
more interesting and replace vegetation slated for removal. She also asks about TSS removal and Mr. White clarifies.
Ms. Warren also asks about monitoring of the relevant aspects of the project and type of underground storage at the O’Keefe parking lot, but that has not yet been selected. She feels that an Operation and Maintenance Plan for the replicated wetlands, bioretention area, and swale, along with an estimate of the cost of maintenance, should be provided, as the Salem DPW may not have the budget for maintenance.
The depth of pond may be an issue; sediment should be removed before getting to the pond with the new system. Glode says that even small amounts of sediments build up and will need to get taken care of at some point. Hoskins also feels that sediment should be addressed while equipment is there and work is being done. Existing accumulated nutrients could just maintain water in its degraded state. Dave Knowlton says that grants for phragmites removal could also be pursued for dredging and Ms. Warren takes note. She also asks if City has regulations against feeding wildlife; if not there should be one and it should be enforced there. There are also rats there now and the public must be educated.
The Notice of Intent includes a 2 year/75% wetlands replication monitoring. All structures must be maintained in perpetuity and are subject to EPA MS4 requirements, and are outlined in Operation and Maintenance plan as well.
Special conditions:
Clarify that the berm along the edge of pavement in the Forest River parking lot should allow water infiltration to the pond.
Any outfalls or flared ends greater than 12” should have a rack or bars installed to prevent access.
Monitoring of outlet should occur.
The Commission encourages invasives removal but understands that phragmites treatment is difficult. It is an exempt activity but the Commission pre-approves invasives control just in case, so they don’t have to come back.
St. Louis will provide a value engineering letter of items for clarification for implementation in construction, to be sent to Devine and the applicant, but it does not need to happen before the Order is issued.
Erosion control should be down gradient (standard condition). There are no DEP comments and they anticipate with alteration of the seawall they will need a modification to the existing Chapter 91 license. After this meeting they will submit that request, but otherwise the project qualifies for a self verification category 1. A comment letter was received from Mass Fisheries, encouraging monitoring of outfall from an erosion standpoint and asking to see annual monitoring of the outlet. No construction season issues were proposed since all work will be landside with no staging on the beach except for modifying the sea wall.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously.
A motion to issue the Order of Conditions, with the above special and standard conditions, is made by Hoskins, seconded by Glode, and passes unanimously.
Gateway Center Amendment—Public Hearing—Request to Amend Order of Conditions—DEP #64-498— High Rock Bridge Street, LLC, 275 Grove Street, Suite 2-400, Newton, MA. The purpose of hearing is to discuss a proposed amendment to the Order of Conditions permitting the redevelopment at 401 Bridge Street and 44 Boston Street (Gateway Center with Salem Community Life Center), located within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection and Conservation Ordinance. Proposed changes include construction of 2 buildings (total footprint 44,771 sq. ft.) vs. the single previously approved building (total footprint 44,700 sq. ft.) and reconfigured parking, landscaping, drainage, and utilities.
This hearing is opened first, out of order.
Here for the applicant is Attorney Joseph Correnti. He last presented five years ago in 2010, when the project was originally permitted. Peter Ogren, project engineer, will be presenting proposed changes. This project will be coming before all relevant boards, but is before this Commission first. All permits from 2010 are still in place from all other boards.
The original single building would have housed offices, a senior center, and a health club. The proposed amendment consists of two buildings, one of which looks like two on the plans, but it is one building with a passageway on the first floor. The footprint of the buildings is essentially the same. Residential, retail, and a community life center are now proposed. One building will be all residential and the community life center will be separate. There are some reductions in environmental impacts, but the site itself is the same, as is the purpose of the project (redevelopment of the Sylvania site).
A new hydraulic study has been made; the only changes in impact will be to runoff as the area was previously developed. Total imperviousness has been reduced from 190K to 165K square feet. Runoff rate is also reduced by 1.5 cfs. Runoff volume is likewise reduced. Traffic generation will also be reduced, and there will be fewer parking spaces.
The concept of the drainage remains the same, but a few specific changes are outlined. There is a slightly different collection system with the same discharge point; it still meets the standards.
The current Order of Conditions is valid until 2017. The owner was unable to market the office space, hence the change. Mr. Correnti comments on the unsuccessful marketing attempts.
Chair St. Louis comments that he has not had a chance to review the new drainage plans but approves of the changes as outlined above. Gambarini requests clarification regarding 10-year versus 100-year flood scenarios in the drainage analysis and Mr. Ogren describes the analysis. Mr. Ogren outlines the drainage systems and comments about overland flow and surcharge, which will go to the North River Canal, and comments that he has seen the site during major storms and this particular area does not flood, even though Bridge St. does.
Chair St. Louis asks about an emergency spillway but there is none. Elevations and drainage are further discussed.
Chair St. Louis opens to the public with the reminder that the jurisdiction of this Commission is the Wetlands Protection Act only.
Ken Laws of 172 Federal St. comments on how the 100 year flood zone now encompasses the site, and Mr. Ogren comments that the first floor of the building will be raised above the flood line. The base flood elevation is 10’ and the buildings will be at 11’. The parking area will be below that elevation. Mr. Laws is concerned about accessible access for seniors. Mr. Ogren notes that there will be handicapped compliant access and parking spaces.
Jennifer Firth of 3 Carpenter St. claims that Bridge St. does, in fact, flood regularly in that area, and the water does not flow to the North River due to the curbing at the storage units. St. Louis states that the Commission is aware of flooding in the area.
Tisey Riley Goggin of 9 Wisteria St. asks about the permitting process. She says this seems to be for an entirely different project; Mr. Ogren outlines the DEP’s standards for amending an order of conditions. The purpose of the project is the same and other issues would be addressed by other boards. She asks about pile drivings and how deep they need to go to hit bedrock; also she is concerned that water will be dispersed differently. Mr. Ogren explains that a deeper foundation is needed, but it will not hit bedrock, and oultines drainage and how the site will interact with the water table.
Jane Arlander of 93 Federal St. comments that in 2010 that they determined that the site requires a Chapter 91 license; (Richard) Chip Nylen stated that a Chapter 91 approval is required for this project.
Mayor Driscoll expresses her appreciation for the Commissioners’ work and her enthusiasm for the project. Unfortunately the original project could not proceed as planned but she is excited to have a standalone Community Life Center. She feels it will be more beneficial to Salem as a community and hopes for an aggressive timeline of starting construction in March 2016. The current building is in a challenging condition and they would prefer not to invest more in it.
Chair St. Louis would like to look at and AutoCAD of the surcharge to see if flow/capacity can be changed. An August 20 meeting has been proposed. He would like to reconvene then and the Commission agrees. Mr. Correnti suggests that, in the interest in keeping this moving, for MEPA and Chapter 91 filing processes, they need to know whether the Commission is willing to amend the Order. He outlines the reason they should. If this gets pushed to August that will delay other permits. He feels this is not a change in impact but an improvement to the prior Order. Chair St. Louis suggests allowing final approval pending review by the Chair and the Agent. The Commission is comfortable with this. Hoskins asks how it would be conditioned and what the timeline would be. It would be either prior to the building
permit and would require final sign off by the Agent and the Chair saying it’s not necessary or that they approve of any changes. Chair St. Louis wants to see where in a 100 year flood event water would leave the site and to determine if any additional treatment of that flow is needed. The applicant is satisfied with this.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Glode, and passes unanimously.
A motion to amend the order of conditions, with the additional special condition, is made by Campbell, seconded by Glode, and passes unanimously.
Special Condition:
Prior to start of building construction, the Conservation Commission through the Chair and the Agent will determine if any additional drainage and surcharge changes are necessary to control flood water leaving the site.
0 Springside Avenue House—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Peter Noe, 40 Sabino Farm Road, Peabody, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a single family house and appurtenances at 0 Springside Avenue within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.
Applicant Peter Noe presents, describing the project and the wetlands. The site is currently undeveloped and has trees. Chair St. Louis outlines erosion control measures and requests a drip edge along the house, and encourages Mr. Noe to infiltrate where possible.
The deck is still tentative but will most likely be concrete underneath. Spring Path appears to be an easement but is overgrown with nothing there. St. Louis requests a gravel drip edge on the downgradient side of the driveway.
Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. Devine asks about a barrier between the backyard and the wetlands; the applicant is open to a fence. The Commission will provide wetland markers for the fence. Boundary markers are actually noted on the plan. Markers will be at 50’ intervals upon consultation with the Agent. The Applicant is familiar with the standard conditions; if they don’t apply they will not be enforced.
Devine was contacted by the nephew of Ms. Pomakis, abutter on the eastern side, saying his Aunt supports the project.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Gambarini, and passes unanimously.
A motion to issue the Order of Conditions with standard and the special condition of wetland markers is made by Hoskins, seconded by Pond, and passes unanimously.
186-192 Marlborough Road House—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Henrie Realty Trust (Steven Gagnon, Trustee), PO Box 431, Topsfield, MA. Purpose of hearing is to discuss proposed demolition of an existing single family home and construction of a new single family home and appurtenances at 186-192 Marlborough Road within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.
Here for the applicant is Mr. Bill Manuell of Wetlands and Land Management. He describes the demolition and construction. There are three separate homes on the 1.3 acre lot, hence the multiple street numbers. He describes the setup. The existing home is in disrepair. There is a drainage pipe that connects to a manhole in Marlborough Rd.; more than 50% of the lot is wet and it is in the low area of the neighborhood. The pipe will be moved and redirected around the new house. The new pipe inlet will be the same diameter and invert as the existing. The pipe inlet being in the wetlands will lead to a small impact; temporary disturbance would be restored in place. The pipe drains out of the wetland. Grade will be raised slightly and this will be a slab on grade home. A boulder wall will be along the edge of the wetland.
There is lawn behind the house. They will have provisions for dewatering during construction. Mr. Manuell outlines the process of dewatering and grading into a receiving basin once work is complete. Drip trenches are proposed. Chair St. Louis asks about the existing drain line; it is not an easement. Chair St. Louis asks about who the pipe serves and comments on how close it is to the house; he likes to see it at least 10’ away for future access. The location of the current outfall is the low point and the most convenient thing is to keep it.
Eight large Norway maples will be removed that hang over the current structure. Chair St. Louis suggests the incorporation of 11-degree bends to move away from the house rather than putting in another manhole.
Chair St. Louis opens to the public and Henry Bernard of 194 Marlborough Rd. comments that he was told the drainage pipe was just over the fence off his property and is concerned that it will be moved closer to his property. He is also concerned about drainage and the direction of flow. Mr. Manuell elaborates, explaining how water will not move towards Mr. Bernard’s property.
Chair St. Louis is concerned about additional areas of runoff and Mr. Manuell elaborates. The Commission would like to see wetland markers for all projects abutting wetlands. Three should be sufficient. Chair St. Louis highlights residential developments of late that have had a knee wall at the limit of work, but materials have sloughed off. The wall should be constructed to avoid this. There will be a slight grade away from the foundation toward the wetland.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Glode, and passes unanimously.
Special Conditions:
Three wetland markers to be placed at the boundary of the wetland
To the extent practical, placement of the pipe 10’ off the foundation, with appropriate bends
A motion to issue the Order of Conditions, with special conditions as noted, is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously.
Freeman Road Extension and Houses Lots—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— DEP #64-590—David Walch and Scott Green of Athens Street Capital, LLC, 106 Cypress Street, Watertown, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed extension of Freeman Road and construction of 3 single family homes at 20, 22, and 24 Freeman Road within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act MGL c.131§40 and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.
A motion to continue to the Aug. 20, 2015 meeting is made Hoskins, Seconded by Glode, and passes unanimously.
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.
A motion to continue to the Aug. 20th meeting is made by Campbell, seconded by Glode, and passes unanimously.
Old/New Business
- Discussion and vote regarding request for funding for Wild Edibles Walk
Last July Iris Weaver led a “Wild Edibles” walk with 33 attending at Forest River Conservation Area. The Commission wanted at least 10 people to participate, but the 33 that came turned out to be a little too many, with some people having trouble seeing or hearing.
Funding is being requested to do this again. The Commission decides to fund $300 total for two walks so that everyone who wants to participate will be able to.
A motion to approve funding for two walks is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously.
- Discussion and vote regarding request for funding for education and training
Devine would like to attend the Southern New England American Planning Association conference. He is requesting funding of up to $500 for registration, mileage, and the hotel for two days in Hartford, CT.
A motion to approve $500 is made by Glode, seconded by Pond, and passes unanimously.
- Discussion of meeting schedule
Devine is recommending an Aug. 20th meeting, otherwise many items will carry over till September, making it a very long meeting. Hoskins suggests putting applicants with short items at the beginning of the agenda. The Commission agrees.
These are not ready yet so will be reviewed at the next meeting.
Miscellaneous
Devine notes that Carol McCauley, former Commissioner who works at Northeastern University’s Marine Science Center, will be bringing high schoolers to the Forest River Conservation Area on August 6 to do a science project. They will take photos and record audio to put together a virtual tour. The area serves as a living lab and outdoor classroom.
A motion to adjourn is made by Pond, seconded by Hoskins, and all are in favor.
The meeting ends at 9:49PM
Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on August 20, 2015
| 